Mormon Scholarship And The Book Of Mormon

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I've always found the FAIR presentation which the following videos were taken from to be remarkably interesting. Find the rest on YouTube by searching for 'Brant Gardner'.

Edited March 14, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Tepui]

Why haven't "Mormon mesoamericanists" considered Jacob 5 to the issue? It clearly mentions 4 or 5 branches of the house of Israel being "planted" in the "nethermost parts of the vineyard" with the 'Lehites' (& 'Mulekites') being the last.

It's obvious the Maya were in the Americas long before 600 B.C. So why haven't the Maya been considered another branch mentioned in Jacob 5? 3 Nephi 16:1 backs this up.

F.A.R.M.S. long ago admitted the Nephites were not the Maya:

... it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya ...

So why this continual insistence that it occurred strictly in or within Mesoamerica?

The same site claims the Prophet Joseph Smith learned from John Lloyd Stephen's book about Maya cities, as being the location of the Nephite homeland. Yet later admitting the Nephites were not the Maya, as if Joseph Smith wasn't stating the truth about Stephen's book about the Maya.

The site also claims everything the Prophet said or implied about geography until he encountered Stephen's book, was wrong.

What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas.

This statement above I consider to be the "keystone" of the Mesoamerica Theory. That is...what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography up until approx. 2 years before his death indicated he did not know the "true" location of BoM geography until he encountered a popular book given to him by a Bishop of New York. Then years later, as I noted, these same scholars are claiming the Maya were not the Nephites - again contradicting the claim that Joseph Smith learned from that book the "true" location of BoM geography.

Basically, Joseph Smith is being blamed (knowingly or otherwise) as wrong for statements indicating a location in North America, and being blamed the failure of Mormon mesoamericanists to be able to locate evidence in Mesoamerica.

To summarize, why is Joseph Smith always the whipping boy for Mormon Mesoamericanists - when Jacob 5 talks of other people being sent to the Americas? They possibly being the Olmec/Maya?

[Kevin Christensen]

Actually, the Book of Mormon is the keystone text for the Mesoamericanists. See Sorenson and Poulsen and Gardner and others on that. And given things like the book on The Allegory of the Olive Tree, and Matt Roper's long essay on "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon People and Pre Colombian Populations," which also discusses the "allegory of the Olive Tree," the criticism here does not make sense of the evidence.

Rather than treat Joseph Smith as a whipping boy, it seems obvious to me that the Mormon Mesoamericanists treat him as a translator and prophet. And they have located a great deal of evidence which fits with the overall Book of Mormon picture as well as ongoing trends in discovery. John Clark, for instance.

http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=376

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited March 15, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[KorbenDallas]

OK, I'm new to this discussion forum, but somewhat familiar with most of the theories. My biggest issue with the Mesoamerica theory when I read the BoM is that there is no land south of the original landing of the Nephites. Is there any reasonable explanation for that in the context of Mesoamerica?

[Brant Gardner]

OK, I'm new to this discussion forum, but somewhat familiar with most of the theories. My biggest issue with the Mesoamerica theory when I read the BoM is that there is no land south of the original landing of the Nephites. Is there any reasonable explanation for that in the context of Mesoamerica?

Yes, but my argument for it is awaiting publication/presentation at the next FAIR Conference. I approached the geographic descriptions from the viewpoint of recursive reinforcement. That is, if the text's geography appears to work for Mesoamerica, then we should see signs of Mesoamerica in the text. If we see signs of Mesoamerica in the text, then Mesoamerican concepts of directions might underlie what we see in the text.

What I have found is that while the text, in translation, uses north, south, east, and west which are terms with which we are familiar, the underlying usage pattern reflects a Mesoamerican comprehension of the text. I find that both in the way the terms are used in the text, and then using that hypothesis, discerning the correlation of the geography according to those terms. Having said all of that, Sorenson's model works extremely well (without resorting to rotating directions).

[KorbenDallas]

Yes, but my argument for it is awaiting publication/presentation at the next FAIR Conference. I approached the geographic descriptions from the viewpoint of recursive reinforcement. That is, if the text's geography appears to work for Mesoamerica, then we should see signs of Mesoamerica in the text. If we see signs of Mesoamerica in the text, then Mesoamerican concepts of directions might underlie what we see in the text.

What I have found is that while the text, in translation, uses north, south, east, and west which are terms with which we are familiar, the underlying usage pattern reflects a Mesoamerican comprehension of the text. I find that both in the way the terms are used in the text, and then using that hypothesis, discerning the correlation of the geography according to those terms. Having said all of that, Sorenson's model works extremely well (without resorting to rotating directions).

OK so you're saying that the Mesoamericans had different cardinal directions?

I also read about the Rosenvall's Baja theory, which answered my "lack of land southward" question. What criticisms do proponents of Mesoamerican geography have against the Baja theory?

[Brant Gardner]

OK so you're saying that the Mesoamericans had different cardinal directions?

No. I am saying that the very concept of cardinal directions is culture bound and western. Mesoamericans had only two "directions"-- what we would call east and west, except they were defined differently. Instead of north and south, they had "to the side of the path"--or something that filled that function. They understood orientation and certainly knew where the sun rose and set--but the way they conceived of directional orientation against that one universal is very different from the western cardinal directions.

I also read about the Rosenvall's Baja theory, which answered my "lack of land southward" question. What criticisms do proponents of Mesoamerican geography have against the Baja theory?

Geographically, it has the Sidon wrong. They have it as a river flowing from the east to the west, and the Book of Mormon wants it to be south to north. Culturally, the contrary evidence is much stronger. The Baja is missing the requisite populations/complexities at the right time periods.

[KorbenDallas]

No. I am saying that the very concept of cardinal directions is culture bound and western. Mesoamericans had only two "directions"-- what we would call east and west, except they were defined differently. Instead of north and south, they had "to the side of the path"--or something that filled that function. They understood orientation and certainly knew where the sun rose and set--but the way they conceived of directional orientation against that one universal is very different from the western cardinal directions.

Geographically, it has the Sidon wrong. They have it as a river flowing from the east to the west, and the Book of Mormon wants it to be south to north. Culturally, the contrary evidence is much stronger. The Baja is missing the requisite populations/complexities at the right time periods.

Interesting about the cardinal directions. I guess that makes sense - they were dominated by the most identifiable frame of reference being the sun, whereas we bring magnetism into it due probably in part to our historical ocean navigational requirements.

Personally, the Sidon river flow direction isn't terribly clear to me in the applicable verses. Since one of the Rosenvalls was a professional geographer (I think) I probably won't be too hasty to ignore his stance - they seem to make a strong case for it. The lack of viable southern boundary in the mesoamerican theory is a bigger hole to me at this point.

Culturally, yeah, there doesn't seem to be many ruins in the Baja. Although the ancient roads they have found emanating out from their proposed Zarahemla are pretty impressive. There had to have been a big, organized population at one point to clear that much square footage and make them as straight as they did. Do we place too much emphasis on Mesoamerica simply because we found big stone ruins for the right time period? I mean, the BoM rarely speaks of stone building materials in the first place, I think maybe just for fortification walls at one point.

[cdowis]

I believe that Mesoamerican directions come into play when JS was recorded as saying " (Zelph) was known from the hill Cumorah on East sea to the Rocky mountains." Now, everybody saw this as proof for the hemispheric model, based on our "from sea to shining sea" or east to west direction.

I believe a mesoamerican model of directions is meant-- from the southeast to northwest. The Hill Cumorah in mesoamerica was on the east sea, and drawing a line from the east sea in mesoamerica and going in a northwest (a natural diagonal for the Nephites) diagonal to the Rocky Mountains. East to west is a modern convention, and does not correspond to the Nephite view of directions.

Edited March 16, 2012 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

Do we place too much emphasis on Mesoamerica simply because we found big stone ruins for the right time period? I mean, the BoM rarely speaks of stone building materials in the first place, I think maybe just for fortification walls at one point.

There is much, much, more than just ruins. It is a question of ruins at the right time and in the right places in the right relationship to each other. This includes the relationships between Jaredite, Mulekite and Nephite. There are quite a few more connections once you hypothesize Mesoamerica and therefore use it to interpret Book of Mormon actions. If you haven't read John L. Sorenson's An Ancient Setting for the Book of Mormon, that is the place to begin.

[KorbenDallas]

There is much, much, more than just ruins. It is a question of ruins at the right time and in the right places in the right relationship to each other. This includes the relationships between Jaredite, Mulekite and Nephite. There are quite a few more connections once you hypothesize Mesoamerica and therefore use it to interpret Book of Mormon actions. If you haven't read John L. Sorenson's An Ancient Setting for the Book of Mormon, that is the place to begin.

Sure, but Rosenvall also has pretty good answers to all those relationships. Its been a while since I read Sorenson's book, so maybe I will again since I have discovered this Baja theory. I guess my perspective at this point is, even if there are all those great correlations in Mesoamerica, if it still can't explain an adquate southern boundary (I know I keep harping on this, but it is alluded to over and over again in the BoM), or have adequate climate to explain flourishing plants from Mediterranean source, then doesn't it behoove us to seriously consider other sites, at least as a parallel activity? I think we get very caught up in our Mormon culture that since things look promising in a specific direction, then it must be that God led us in that direction, and that it is absolutely right. I don't think God prevents us from putting too many eggs in our baskets, so maybe we need to self-regulate a little better. And maybe, as a side effect, that will help us look less fanatical to the secular academic community.

[Brant Gardner]

then doesn't it behoove us to seriously consider other sites, at least as a parallel activity?

No theory should be dismissed out of hand, but only because of evidence. You will need to do your own comparisons, but those I have done don't allow the Baja theory any validity.

[KorbenDallas]

No theory should be dismissed out of hand, but only because of evidence. You will need to do your own comparisons, but those I have done don't allow the Baja theory any validity.

Well, I hope someone from the Mesoamerican camp writes a critique of the Baja theory at some point that is defensible, because what you have offered seems to have already been countered. I have found very little reporting of archaelogy done in the Baja, so it seems premature to discard it based on cultural evidence. The ancient roads and large cave paintings seem to be strong evidence that the Baja has not always been as remote and desolate as it is now. They make other claims, but it feels like you won't take this geopgraphy seriously until you see some academic backing (i.e. from the non-geographer academics).

[LeSellers]

I hope someone from the Mesoamerican camp writes a critique of the Baja theory at some point that is defensible, because what you have offered seems to have already been countered.

I've never heard of the Baja Theory (I assume it deserves a capital, just on general principles).

Where can one read it in some detail?

Lehi

[KorbenDallas]

I've never heard of the Baja Theory (I assume it deserves a capital, just on general principles).

Where can one read it in some detail?

Lehi

www.achoiceland.com

[Brant Gardner]

I've never heard of the Baja Theory (I assume it deserves a capital, just on general principles).

Where can one read it in some detail?

Lehi

Their website: http://www.achoiceland.com/home

[LeSellers]

www.achoiceland.com

Their website: http://www.achoiceland.com/home

Thanks, both.

Lehi

[Tepui]

Yes, but my argument for it is awaiting publication/presentation at the next FAIR Conference. I approached the geographic descriptions from the viewpoint of recursive reinforcement. That is, if the text's geography appears to work for Mesoamerica, then we should see signs of Mesoamerica in the text. If we see signs of Mesoamerica in the text, then Mesoamerican concepts of directions might underlie what we see in the text.

What I have found is that while the text, in translation, uses north, south, east, and west which are terms with which we are familiar, the underlying usage pattern reflects a Mesoamerican comprehension of the text. I find that both in the way the terms are used in the text, and then using that hypothesis, discerning the correlation of the geography according to those terms. Having said all of that, Sorenson's model works extremely well (without resorting to rotating directions).

I guess I'm starting this discussion up again, to the irritation of some I'm sure.

But the Book of Mormon clearly is not a mesoamerican text if you take directions into account:

Lehi was given the Liahona; It's clearly called a compass (Alma 37:38); Described as having two spindles, the one "pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness." (1 Nephi 16:10) Nephi wasn't trying to insult your intelligence by writing which way the other spindle pointed -north. How else did Nephi know they "did travel nearly eastward from that time forth." Why didn't Nephi say "east" as the sun rises-sets? He said "nearly eastward" because he could compare the two spindles to each other.

Nephi also took the director with him when he fled to the Land of Nephi (2 Nephi 5:12) and it was handed down from prophet to prophet. Thus to claim that the people of the Book of Mormon didn't know north or south - based on some Mesoamerican cultures - isn't accurate. If you appeal to the Book of Mormon, that is, unless you claim the translation was innacurate.

That's another 'beef' I have with this mesoamerica theory. If the Book of Mormon translation doesn't match up with the theory, is it the fault of the theory? No. It's similar to:

"while the text, in translation, uses north, south, east, and west which are terms with which we are familiar, the underlying usage pattern reflects a Mesoamerican comprehension of the text.

In other words, the Book of Mormon is at fault, not the M/A theory. Joseph Smith was wrong. Not the theory. Church History was wrong. Not the theory.

Kind regards,

Tepui

Edited March 24, 2012 by Tepui

[Brant Gardner]

But the Book of Mormon clearly is not a mesoamerican text if you take directions into account:

Certainly we disagree on this point.

Lehi was given the Liahona; It's clearly called a compass (Alma 37:38);

In the sense that it told them where to go, not in the sense of marking magnetic north. As you note there are two spindles, which are unnecessary if you have something pointing to magnetic north. Of course, the next reason for doubting that magnetic north was involved is that sometimes it didn't work. How would they know?

How else did Nephi know they "did travel nearly eastward from that time forth." Why didn't Nephi say "east" as the sun rises-sets? He said "nearly eastward" because he could compare the two spindles to each other.

Be aware that Nephi never said "nearly eastward," because he didn't speak English. Ever.

We have the text in translation and therefore the question is what the English words are translating.

Nephi also took the director with him when he fled to the Land of Nephi (2 Nephi 5:12) and it was handed down from prophet to prophet.

And never worked in the New World. it was a sacred object, but not a functional one. Its purpose was over.

Thus to claim that the people of the Book of Mormon didn't know north or south - based on some Mesoamerican cultures - isn't accurate.

Your statement is not an accurate synopsis of what I said. What I said is that Mesoamerican cultures didn't have words that refer to what we would term north and south. Instead, they used terms such as "left hand of the sun." Of course they knew where those directions were, they simply didn't use our system of terms to describe them.

If you appeal to the Book of Mormon, that is, unless you claim the translation was innacurate.

That is an interesting question. When is a translation accurate or inaccurate if there is not a 100 percent overlap in the semantic spheres of the source and target in the translation? I have elsewhere discussed my theory of translation and it isn't appropriate here, but in general I see the English as a functional translation of the plate language, one that represents the meaning and comes close to the words, but is not a literal translation or the words or the meanings of the plate text.

That's another 'beef' I have with this mesoamerica theory. If the Book of Mormon translation doesn't match up with the theory, is it the fault of the theory?

That doesn't represent anything I have ever written on the subject.

In other words, the Book of Mormon is at fault, not the M/A theory.

You have misunderstood. Just as we learn more about the Old Testament if we understand the culture which produced it, the culture which produced the Book of Mormon should inform the text. If we believe that the Book of Mormon is authentic, then that production culture was not an English speaking culture, and should not represent western thought.

Joseph Smith was wrong. Not the theory. Church History was wrong. Not the theory.

I strongly deny that this represents anything that I have said. I do believe that Joseph didn't know everything about the text he translated. If he did, then he had to have been the author and I don't believe he was. What theory does is begin to make connections, and if the theory is correct, then using the results of the theory can refine the connection between theory and data. That is precisely the way historical linguistics is done. It is a recursive process and I am proposing nothing different here.

[blackstrap]

I have just read a bunch from the ' achioceland' website. I find much to recommend it,especially the parts about the structures in additional materials. This has nothing to do with the fact that the researchers are from my area.

[Bob Oliverio]

After trying to go through all that has been discussed in this thread, I still keep coming back to a very basic concept or question:

"Is any of our LDS scholarship attempting to establish the historical claims of the BOM getting any interest or acceptance outside of the our own LDS circles of mutual  congratulations"?

The BoM, aside from it's important and spiritual message, is by it's claim a record of a 1,000 year history of significant people, significant origins, and a significant and sophisticated culture dating to before Christ.  It is ancient and actual record, word-for-word, preserved by remarkable means that depicts an ancient historical account of highly developed civilizations for millions and millions of people.  It serves as a road-map to what should be one of the most fascinating historical finds.

So what is all this scholarship lacking?  Will we ever have the scholarship that brings any interest in this history to an academic level or platform that will generate interest and\or support from the professional peers and the academic world outside of FAIR or Sunday firesides?

What is all this scholarship lacking?

Has there ever been the existent of an ancient history record  to which there has been absolutely no professional nor academic interest in before in the secular world?

[cdowis]

Bob,

See post #12

[Bob Oliverio]

Bob,

See post #12

Thanks.  I read that response before I replied.  With no offense to anyone - it just rang hollow.  When we as a Church, and when our own scholars have to go to great lengths to find reasons and rationale why what could be one of the greatest historical finds in the ancient record of the BOM is summarily dismissed, distanced or just ignored by the very academic and peer professional field that would, without hesitation, be the very first who should be and would be showing interest in the very kind of interest they live for professionally and academically - well that says and sends an overwhelmingly  obvious message with respect to any and all "BOM scholarship" to date.  I think we just simply need to ask ourselves - "Do we think the 'Scholarship' will ever rise to the level of legitimate academic standards"?  Or do we just keep publishing works that are, at best, just to feed the membership needs of those who choose to remain isolated from secular academic standards?

[blackstrap]

That's why I don't think we have found " Troy" yet. If and when we do,much will change.

[Bob Oliverio]

And I get this concept that we have had some very smart and dedicated individuals attempt to study and put well thought out pieces of works to show some attempt of this mesoamerican  location for the BOM.  It was news to me after I joined so I can honestly say it never reached a level of academic credibility.  And it never reached a level of Church credibility for that matter.  

So how do all these supposedly great works of scholarship ever get out of the quicksand of just "Church Conversation"