Could you write the likes of Book of Mormon?

[Brant Gardner]

RC:

Did you come up with any substantive evidence towards the cumulative case that the Book of Mormon does not fit into a Mesoamerican context according to the basic rules of ethnohistorical research?

None that people don't already know about. I still can't find cows. I don't know what a chariot was (though I think there are some interesting possibilities). I think the case for horses is open for several reasons. All of these things have been known for years and tossed about as though they were final deadly bullets.

What I find interesting is that they are big, obvious things. In the smaller, non-obvioius places where it is more difficult to create a reasonable picture of a foreign culture, the Book of Mormon fits very well into a Mesoamerican context.

RC:

We must be talking past one another. We are staking our eternal destinies on a choice that we have made with respect to the Prophetic Office of Joseph Smith. I find it inconceivable that we wouldn't be biased- not close-minded, but biased. I'm never on an "academic foundation" in matters of faith. For example, I will always believe that Jesus Christ loves me and gave Himself for me, whatever the evidence shows. Sue me...

I am trying to talk past the chip on your shoulder. While I agree that the ultimate issue is religious, the type of evidence we are speaking of is not. For data that will be analyzed according to scholarly methodologies one ought to treat them as such. Even if (or when) the Book of Mormon is seen to plausibly fit into a Mesoamerican context I sincerely doubt that anyone will believe based on that information.

So rather than sue you I would rather discuss. However, if you are not willing to approach the topic with appropriate scholarly distance then we already know the outcome and there isn't much use in going through the motions. Personally, I have several other things to do.

RC:

Dr. Peterson and other Latter-day Saints whom I respect have said that they believe that Book of Mormon history took place within the context of Meso-American history. I find it extremely interesting (not to say courageous) that you and Professor Clark are willing to take this one step further.

That is the nature of ethnohistoric research. You work with texts and archaeological information and construct history. If you have a document that is of questionable authority, you examine it to see if it meshes with known information. That much should not be surprising.

footnote concerning Thompson: He not only didn't believe Knorozov (who turned out to be right) but he demonized him. Thompson often played the communist card rather than seriously deal with the scholarship. It is way too easy to hide behind labels and accusations rather than deal with actual issues.

Here are some historical parallels for you to chew on:

As I noted, there is a historical drought that is dated to the reconstructed time when the Jaredites report a major drought. The geographical correlation puts the Jaredites in the region of the know drought. While there were some cyclical droughts in the area, major ones came on longer cycles so that the correlation in years is difficult to explain by simple accident (particularly when combined with the rest of the data).

The earliest Nephite phase occurs during the late Preclassic when there is a movement toward larger cities, complex political organizations (including kings) and increasing warfare. In that context the clues about Nephite economic and social interactions fit precisely with the reconstructed methods of moving from the non-king to the king-led society. In other words, the Book of Mormon shows the very social conditions at the specific time they are known for that region of Mesoamerica.

The destruction in 3 Nephi has been examined as the result of a major volcanic event. There are at least three known eruptions around the time of Christ in Mesoamerica ranging from Mexico City area to San Salvador. Those are the ones that are known. The confluence of three near the same time period may suggest that there was a regionalized activity. The data in the text appear to me to require multiple locations and multiple events, since the text reports things from distances that would take time to report.

As also noted for Teotihuacan, there is a known invasion of the Southern Mexico/Guatemala region at the time the Book of Mormon indicates a major shift the nature of warfare. Teotihuacanos introduced a more destructive warfare, which is what is being described by Mormon.

Those are four datable events that have time/location correlations to Mesoamerican history. Under what conditions might one accidentally hit upon the description of four events at the right time and in the right place?

[Scott Gordon]

Brant,

What I find to be amazing are the people (some of whom post on this board) who believe the Book of Mormon is a simplistic book without any evidence of antiquity.

Scott

[t2t2]

What I find to be amazing are the people (some of whom post on this board) who believe the Book of Mormon is a simplistic book without any evidence of antiquity.

I think most of us realize what an incredible work the BoM is. We just don't think that's enough to make it true. Someone brought up Lennon/MsCartney. Not a bad example. Maybe a better one would be Frank Abagnale. If you've seen Catch Me If You Can you know that he's the kid who took on the FBI's best minds....and won for many years. Intelligent doesn't begin to tell the story.

I think Joseph was a sharp mind. And beyond that - one could even call him a creative genius as well. A mix of Lennon and Abagnale perhaps. The world has known these sorts since the dawn of time. Sometimes they write books and form religions around themselves. Other times they rise to lead countries into wars or revolutions and/or great leaps in achievment. Sometimes they sit on stumps and explain life as they see it.

But evidence of antiquity? Depends on what you mean. There are evidences of antiquity in the Lord of the Rings novels. There are swords. There are great battles and struggles. There are forces of good vs. evil. There are horses. If someone were to come across a diary where Tolkein wrote "This is actually an inspired history of Europe" we could certainly find plenty of elements in his novels that would fit Europe. And then most would not. This is how most of us see the BoM. Do the things described within fit Central America as we know it? Some, sure. There were indeed temples. Joseph knew that before he wrote the book. I'm sure kids even then knew the stories of the Spaniards meeting the Axtecs and some examples of what was found.

People see what they want to see. All of us.

[Tetraforce]

So, go get me a literary genius, more than forty years old, try to write a companion volume to the Book of Mormon, at this same time, almost daily for many years give out 'revelations' that internally harmonize one with another at the same time formulate a system of doctrine for a Church, introduce many new principles, resuscitate extinct priesthoods, and formulate a system of Church government which has no superior upon earth.

Only fanatical mind can ignore it. Though he may be accounted for by the reasoning mind, Joseph Smith, was either a Prophet of God or one inexperianced and grossly uneducated young man who did not have access to many books and transformed into a genious who had read thousands of books and became a Bible scholor.

He just had picked up the idea that Bible poetry was in couplets without formal schooling on the matter.

[Brant Gardner]

t2t2:

But evidence of antiquity? Depends on what you mean. There are evidences of antiquity in the Lord of the Rings novels.

Of course there is antiquity in Tolkein. He was a well-trained scholar and drew upon legends to create his world. Nevertheless, there was no real history there. While it is true that mankind has a wonderful imagination and can see lots of things that aren't really there, that process is counteracted in historical studies by methods that shift through the simplistic and come closer to a picture of the past.

It is very true that there have been quite a number of imaginative attempts to see the Book of Mormon as history. The most egregious pay not attention to time or space. That there are poor attempts never precludes the simultaneous presence of more rigorous attempts. In this case, we are dealing with the rigor, not the imagination. If t2t2 elects to dismiss the history that is his/her choice. It counts as his/her imagination because it is certainly not based on rigorous examination.

In other words, t2t2 is guilty of the very thing of which he accuses defenders of the Book of Mormon's historicity. Not impressive.

[A Random Catholic]

Even if (or when) the Book of Mormon is seen to plausibly fit into a Mesoamerican context I sincerely doubt that anyone will believe based on that information.

For better or worse, the contention that it is implausible that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document is a huge element in the cumulative case against the Church. If that were disproved (there's no way to tell), or even reversed (it is plausible that the BoM is ancient), that would be huge, in my opinion. But, I know you're busy. From here on out, I'll leave the theology/ philosophy/ epistemology for others and just engage the Meso-American history. When I have something substantive I'll start a new thread. How does one research what's been published in Meso-American studies these days? Lexis/Nexus? Is this still the standard one-volume treatment of the Maya? Is there a similar one-stop source for the Olmec and Toltec/Teotihuacan civilizations (of which I know very little)?

As I noted, there is a historical drought that is dated to the reconstructed time when the Jaredites report a major drought. The geographical correlation puts the Jaredites in the region of the know drought. While there were some cyclical droughts in the area, major ones came on longer cycles so that the correlation in years is difficult to explain by simple accident (particularly when combined with the rest of the data).

I assume that you mean the drought in Ether 9:30? If so, one Latter-day Saint whom I trust (but who is hardly an unimpeachable academic authority) told me that Ether is the most difficult Book of Mormon history to date, and the italicized dates in the footnotes are speculative. True?

The earliest Nephite phase occurs during the late Preclassic when there is a movement toward larger cities, complex political organizations (including kings) and increasing warfare. In that context the clues about Nephite economic and social interactions fit precisely with the reconstructed methods of moving from the non-king to the king-led society. In other words, the Book of Mormon shows the very social conditions at the specific time they are known for that region of Mesoamerica.

As I recall (and I may not remember correctly, or I may have a correct recollection of outdated scholarship) Preclassic warfare didn't look much like the wars or battles in the Book of Mormon with which I am familiar. I'll nose around.

The destruction in 3 Nephi has been examined as the result of a major volcanic event. There are at least three known eruptions around the time of Christ in Mesoamerica ranging from Mexico City area to San Salvador. Those are the ones that are known. The confluence of three near the same time period may suggest that there was a regionalized activity. The data in the text appear to me to require multiple locations and multiple events, since the text reports things from distances that would take time to report.

As I recall (and again, I may be wrong) volcanic activity can be dated very precisely. Again, I'll look into it.

As also noted for Teotihuacan, there is a known invasion of the Southern Mexico/Guatemala region at the time the Book of Mormon indicates a major shift the nature of warfare. Teotihuacanos introduced a more destructive warfare, which is what is being described by Mormon.

Can you (or anybody) help me with a BoM cite for the major shift in the nature of warfare?

[A Random Catholic]

t2t2:

But evidence of antiquity? Depends on what you mean. There are evidences of antiquity in the Lord of the Rings novels.

Of course there is antiquity in Tolkein. He was a well-trained scholar and drew upon legends to create his world. Nevertheless, there was no real history there.

Ancient Hobbit-size human species discovered!!!

[Brant Gardner]

RC:

For better or worse, the contention that it is implausible that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document is a huge element in the cumulative case against the Church. If that were disproved (there's no way to tell), or even reversed (it is plausible that the BoM is ancient), that would be huge, in my opinion.

If plausibility is huge, then welcome to huge. The essential introduction is John L. Sorenson An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. That work tossed the door wide open. What has been happening since is a refinement of the understanding and the discovery of more connection than he presented. Sorenson himself is working on a follow-up work with more data.

I will be interested to see whether or not you recognize how huge this is, as you indicate, or whether you continue to dismiss the text - as I predict.

How does one research what's been published in Meso-American studies these days? Lexis/Nexus?

You're scaring me. If you don't know the answer to that question I dismay of being able to discuss it very seriously.

Is this still the standard one-volume treatment of the Maya? Is there a similar one-stop source for the Olmec and Toltec/Teotihuacan civilizations (of which I know very little)?

As in most fields, the one-stop treatments tend to be behind the curve and have the older information. The best information isn't even published (so I have little access to it either). Other than that, you have to start reading widely.

For the Maya I would suggest Martin and Grube's [iChronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens as well as anything with Linda Schele's name on it (Forest of Kings, Blood of Kings, Maya Cosmos).

Teotihuacan has a wide literature and I don't know of a single source or set of them to send you to.

A good introduction to the Olmec is The Olmec World. Ritual and Rulership. Princeton, NJ: The Art Museum, Princeton University, 1996

one Latter-day Saint whom I trust (but who is hardly an unimpeachable academic authority) told me that Ether is the most difficult Book of Mormon history to date, and the italicized dates in the footnotes are speculative. True?

True. That is why I am using reconstructed dates that I worked out based on real-world data. I took the average reign length from Martin and Grube and assumed a similar average overe time for the Jaredites (even though some reigns are stated to be longer). I calcuated dates backwards from the plausible time of the Zarahemlaite encounter with Coriantumr. Of course that gives us a fairly good margin of error, but the reconstructed dates fit into known Olmec gross history without ny signficant modification. That suggests to me that it is a reasonable reconstruction since the reconstruction was made first and the correlations discovered secondarily.

As I recall (and I may not remember correctly, or I may have a correct recollection of outdated scholarship) Preclassic warfare didn't look much like the wars or battles in the Book of Mormon with which I am familiar.

Remember to compare appropriate time depth. Most people remember the warfare (and numbers) from the end of the Book of Mormon. Those are different and represent a change in the nature of warfare as I indicated earlier in this thread.

Read the earliest accounts in the Book of Mormon and you will find raids rather than all out war. Remember, however, that Becan is already a fortified city in the late preclassic, so even the wars in Alma have known counterparts.

For tactics you could read Ross Hassig's Aztec Warfare. While they are later than Teotihuacan and far removed from the Book of Mormon, some of the tactics are related to the type of available weaponry and it is instructive to compare those tactics/weapons with the descriptions of warfare in the Book of Mormon. There are even two or three strategies that appear in the Book of Mormon that were employed by the Aztecs.

As I recall (and again, I may be wrong) volcanic activity can be dated very precisely. Again, I'll look into it.

All of the dates I have seen for the eruptions give +/- figures of about 100 years. That doesn't seem to be "very precisely."

Can you (or anybody) help me with a BoM cite for the major shift in the nature of warfare?

That is one of the problems when people approach texts. They want a verse that says there is a change in warfare - and one book where they can look up the secular answer. Historical research just doesn't work that way. Authentic texts are not written that way. As I mentioned above, you have to go through Mormon's descriptions of the wars he experiences and compare them to the other wars on the Book of Mormon. Notice the types of things that he complains about and that those features were not present previously. Notice that this final battle is a war of destruction where none before had been.

It isn't a verse. It is reading and understanding the text. Ethnohistory just isn't simple.

[A Random Catholic]

How does one research what's been published in Meso-American studies these days? Lexis/Nexus?

You're scaring me. If you don't know the answer to that question I dismay of being able to discuss it very seriously.

I got my BA 17 years ago. At that time, college students in four-year Liberal Arts programs weren't using computers for research extensively. I took a couple of electives: one in archaeology and one on the Maya, and I participated in two digs as well as travelling independently in the Northern Highlands. I stunned when I was not accepted into the MA program at that well-known academic powerhouse, Northern Illinois University, under the auspices of which Dr Fasch was digging at Copan. I took a job in the business world, intending to apply somewhere else the next year, but you know how that sort of thing goes. That's the extent of my academic engagement of the Maya.

So, I don't know how to go into a university library and research journal articles today. But, I certainly have read the Schele material you recommend (admittedly in the case of Maya Cosmos years ago, and then not as attentively as I would have had I known how important she was). I have a genuine, serious interest in the Ancient Maya that goes well beyond a platform from which to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When I'm wrong, and apparently I am with respect to dating volcanic activity, I have no problem admitting it.

So, I will betake my ignorant self to one of the few Maya chat boards on the 'Net where people who think that they're the reincarnation of Pakal aren't welcome, and where I am an avid reader and occasional participant, and I'll pose my research question. I suspect that the answer will be along the lines of, "Well, if you're in Chicago, go to the Hausenpheffer Library at the U. of I. and ask to access the MayaNet database. You can search for articles chronologically by subject, and there's a good chance they'll have hard copies of the journals you're looking for. Good luck, Supernatural Rabbit Scribe!" And when I have something concrete to say, I'll start a thread.

[t2t2]

If t2t2 elects to dismiss the history that is his/her choice. It counts as his/her imagination because it is certainly not based on rigorous examination.

*shrug* - that's the ol' Mormon standby. If one dismisses the BoM it's because of problems in that person, not because of problems with the BoM.

My comparison to the Lord of the Rings will ring hollow to most of you because it is, admittedly, a very different series of books. It is not purporting to be a literal history. It is meant to entertain.

The problem with this whole exercise is that there IS no other book to compare it to. Like I said - Joseph created an interesting piece of work. And he sold it with all his might. The only thing close would be Homer's tales. And sure - they are full of factual glimpses into the past. But no - I doubt many of us think there was ever a minotaur roming a labyrinth. There could have been a Trojan Horse, though.

The next problem is that even if there were a fictional book written and passed off as history - you don't have the same sets of circumstances to compare it to the BoM. The Bible is a religious book said to be literal...but no church's validity hinges on such being absolute. Meaning - if we all accept that pieces are figurative, it doesn't necessarily harm the Catholic church. If the BoM is proven false, on the other hand, Joseph's legitimacy crumbles. So what we find ourselves faced with is the absolute need within the church to prove this book correct and factual. Over 150 years and millions of members - you have a lot of people trying to protect and prove this work. You have scholors who have dedicated their lives towards finding any little scrap they can call "evidence". You have a university where thousands of students can meet together and compare and challenge each other and present new ideas - all of which moves towards this same goal.

On the other hand...how many people have spent their lives looking for evidence for the View of the Hebrews? Um....1? None? It's like seeing the Virgin Mary in a fence post. I look and I see splinters and maybe one area that might look like an eye to someone. I bet you would all think the same. But to thousands who flock there and fall over in rapture at the site? No, to them, anyone who can't see her face is either *trying* not to see it or simply doesn't have the faith to do so. And if those thousands do see it...does not that make it true? Surely they know better than you or I.

You can talk about chiasmus. You can talk about how certain things could or do, to you, fit as they should. You can see temples and pictures and they can all say exactly what you want them to say. And over 150 years you guys have piled up a pretty decent collection of "evidence" of this sort. "Hey! The way the BoM says they did X is EXACTLY how modern science thinks they did it! How could anyone have know this? Let's see YOU duplicate it." Wel...honestly...I have no interest and frankly, there's not an area of this world I could write about that you guys would believe I knew nothing about. Say I pick Madagascar and write a literal history of it. And say I publish it and people start attacking it for being way off the true story. But then someone else pipes up and says "Well...he did guess that they roast bugs over a fire of dried moss and dung...and that's exactly what they do!!" Am I a prophet? Maybe not off that one. But say I guessed right on several things (and was way off on several others). And say most of it is generic enough to have taken place anywhere. And then give my millions of followers 150 years to dig and twist and find all the places where I *could* have been correct.

If you guys are willing to wait that long...maybe I'll.......nah. You'd think I looked up all I could find about Madagascar and had a scholor help me write it. You'd think I took years before hand thinking about my story and telling people about it and getting their reactions and slowly forming my ideas so that I could write it all at once and look prophetic. You'd think I just made some lucky guesses because, well, you don't believe I'm a prophet. And isn't that just the way it goes?

My point is that if someone (let's say thousands of people who already believe, over 75 years) REALLY wanted to find questionable evidence that the Grimm brothers' tales were actually factual accounts, let me just offer my opinion that they could do as good a job as the Mormons have.

[Brant Gardner]

RC:

I got my BA 17 years ago. At that time, college students in four-year Liberal Arts programs weren't using computers for research extensively. . . . I took a job in the business world, intending to apply somewhere else the next year, but you know how that sort of thing goes.

Better than you can imagine. I took "a year off" before completing my doctorate because we wanted to improve our financial position. That was around 25 years ago. Kindred spirits staring across a backyard fence - who'a thunk?!

[poulsenll]

RC:

I got my BA 17 years ago. At that time, college students in four-year Liberal Arts programs weren't using computers for research extensively. . . . I took a job in the business world, intending to apply somewhere else the next year, but you know how that sort of thing goes.

Better than you can imagine. I took "a year off" before completing my doctorate because we wanted to improve our financial position. That was around 25 years ago. Kindred spirits staring across a backyard fence - who'a thunk?!

Hey guys,

After two years of college, I went on a mission. When I came back, I got married and went to work to support my family. About 10 years later with 5 children, I went back to school, got my BA and then my PhD. Just wanted to say "It is never too late. Go for it both of you."

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

t2t2:

*shrug* - that's the ol' Mormon standby. If one dismisses the BoM it's because of problems in that person, not because of problems with the BoM.

That is as close to substance as you are going to come? Once again you have done what you accuse others of doing. You have charicaturized your discussants and dismissed them - without much consideration and clearly no evidence.

The problem with this whole exercise is that there IS no other book to compare it to.

Then you have no clue about historical research. If you give up before you start and make such dramatic conclusions based on such obviously faulty data, how can we take your comments seriously? Do you really think there is no situation in history where there has been a controversial text that has to be compared to history to find out whether or not it accurately represents that history?

The next problem is that even if there were a fictional book written and passed off as history - you don't have the same sets of circumstances to compare it to the BoM.

More evidence that you are not a historian. This is really not all that surprising. What is different about the Book of Mormon is that people are willing to accept it or dismiss it without dealing with the text as though it were any other document that has to be authenticated. Quite apart from the religious ideas, the concept that it is an ancient text is as testable as it is for any other text - and it presents many of the same problems and issues - none of which are represented in your blithe dismissal.

So what we find ourselves faced with is the absolute need within the church to prove this book correct and factual.

Actually, there is an interest among some but not all that many. I suspect that you will find that the vast majority of members of the church believe in the Book of Mormon and have very little idea of arguments about its historicity. They believe it on faith and don't get very concerned about what you seem to think is a high priority. It isn't.

You have scholors who have dedicated their lives towards finding any little scrap they can call "evidence". You have a university where thousands of students can meet together and compare and challenge each other and present new ideas - all of which moves towards this same goal.

On the other hand...how many people have spent their lives looking for evidence for the View of the Hebrews? Um....1? None?

Let's see. You are wrong about the first part. You are obviously unclear about the nature of the arguments being presented since you say "finding any little scrap they can call 'evidence'." That tells me you don't know the issues.

You comparison to View of the Hebrews also tells me that your analysis is based on what you have heard other people say rather than any real personal research. I am amazed at B. H. Roberts' open-mindedness and inventiveness in coming up with any parallels to View of the Hebrews. Here is what should be an easy task for you. Come up with a parallel that Roberts missed between the two texts, and then defend it as significant rather than coincidental. That is what a scholar would need to do and it is what I would expect to have to do if I found a "scrap of evidence" supporting the Book of Mormon. Please let me know when you have found it. I'd love to see it.

You can see temples and pictures and they can all say exactly what you want them to say.

I have seen some very bad LDS literature that does this. However, it isn't anything I would ask anyone to read, let alone believe. It certainly isn't characteristic of the best work I have seen. Here is another simple task for you. Go through anything by Sorenson and support your statement. According to your assumption, it shouldn't take long. The problem is - I don't think you will find it. I suspect I might find one or two if I searched long enough. However, your characterization is incorrect and further demonstrates that you simply haven't read the literature.

let me just offer my opinion that they could do as good a job as the Mormons have.

The nice thing about boards is that you and everyone else can offer their opinions. The problem with the Internet is that there are thousands of uninformed opinions out there. From the evidence of your posts, yours is one of them. Excuse me if I decline to be swayed by it. I prefer academic method and data.

[noel00]

Brant, you have contributed a lot to the message boards., I have read some of your material on your web page. I obviousley take a different view to you on the BOM. I understand that you attempt to find Mesoamerica in the BOM rather than the BOM in Mesoamerica. Now if there were people there who were descendents of Nephi etc, and we also know about the Mayan living there in the same timespan. Now did these Nephites live among between the Mayan peoples and if there were cities like Nephi and Zarahelam there were be commerce etc , records of contact with others. People eat, trade etc , would not there be some evidence among the Mayans of contact with such a people as the Nephites.? Now Sorensen has a map of all these supposed centres accross the area. Are you aware of any substantive evidence that shows some site was inhabited by peoples who were of Israeli origin?

[emaughan]

How much cultural influence would a small family colony have in an already populated continent? Even Nephi lamented that his people were not learned in the ways of the Jews - who were these people? The Lehites may have been able to have significant political influence over the local inhabitants in the area where the landed, but they would have had, at most, a very small cultural influence.