Ancient Hilted Sword Made Of Iron Lined With Steel Found In Oman

[omni]

Anyone who has read LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon extensively can clearly see (or hear) in that podcast that Coe is painfully unfamiliar with it. He may have done a lot reading for his Dialogue article, but that was published in 1973. The watershed decade for Book of Mormon scholarship in a Mesoamerican setting? The 1980s. And, again, the interview with Dehlin betrays no awareness or at least serious engagement of that scholarship from the '80s onward. 

 

Sorry,

 

 

I haven't changed my views about the Book of Mormon since my 1973 article. I have seen no archaeological evidence before or since that date which would convince me that it is anything but a fanciful creation by an unusually gifted individual living in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century. - Michael Coe

 

[omni]

 

So, omni, how much do you know about BofM scholarship?  Enough to make a fair evaluation of someone else's knowledge?

 

I make no claims of being an expert, but what I have seen I find unconvincing.  

[cdowis]

No doubt everyone has their biases, but if the evidence was truly there (and they felt the Holy Ghost testify of the truthfulness) why wouldn't you expect at least some of these experts to overcome their biases and convert?

 

Let's see -->> Word of Wisdom, moral purity, tithing, actually reading a book delivered by an angel.  Going to church........

 

Being convinced and conversion are two very different things.

[Robert F. Smith]

No doubt everyone has their biases, but if the evidence was truly there (and they felt the Holy Ghost testify of the truthfulness) why wouldn't you expect at least some of these experts to overcome their biases and convert?

Sorry omni, but that bespeaks considerable naivete about the degree of ignorant contempt which exists out there among non-Mormon scholars.  Even Mormon anthropologists at various universities often keep a low profile in order not to be thought kookie or unprofessional.  That is particularly true in graduate school and for those who do not have tenure, but also extends to senior scholars who might be seeking funding for excavations or other research.  Only a little over a half-century ago, Jews were similarly prevented from academic advancement, and this has continued until more recently for African-Americans, Homosexuals, and women.

 

Non-Mormon scholars simply do not seriously address LDS Scripture or other claims (a risk to their careers), and often revel in scapegoating Mormons or in preventing them from obtaining doctorates.  Simply getting them to read John L. Sorenson's Mormon's Codex is too much to ask.

[Robert F. Smith]

I make no claims of being an expert, but what I have seen I find unconvincing.  

Yes, but on what basis do you make that statement?  One doesn't have to be an expert to be well-informed, and one does not have to do more than provide some specifics -- for the sake of argument, or to buttress one's claims.  What is so shocking is that Mike Coe didn't even bother to apply his own published knowledge to the question of Book of Mormon historicity.  All the Book of Mormon asks is that it be given a fair trial based on whatever normative scientific principles seem applicable to regular anthropological research.  No one should have a problem with that.

[Robert F. Smith]

They would put their reputation at risk by being a member of the church?  I certainly wouldn't say that, but if it's true then that doesn't bode well for the reputation of BYU's departments of anthropology and Asian and Near Eastern languages.

Anthropology and Asian & Near Eastern Languages at BYU both have excellent reputations among academics at other institutions, but that may be because they attend annual meetings of learned societies and publish real scholarship in various secular venues. Competence in one's specialty counts for a lot, and few of the faculty of those departments spend any time trying to convert their non-Mormon colleagues. Since BYU is a largely undergraduate institution, those seeking advanced degrees must go elsewhere.

 

 

...................  Hundreds of thousands manage to forsake their ideological beliefs every year and convert to the church.  What we don't see in those conversions are respected Egyptologists and American archeologists.  It would be unfair to expect all or even most to convert, but we should expect some, right?

You seem to assume that non-Mormon academics are ready to jump ship and enter into a religion about which they know nearly nothing, and which has a reputation as being hokey (something you yourself seem to believe).

 

Certainly out of curiosity one would expect at least a few to take interest in the claims of a worldwide religion that can be tested within their expertise.  Should we not expect BYU archeologists to at least occasionally talk to their colleagues at secular universities and mention a few of the hits or parallels they see within Mesoamerican/Olmec/Native American cultures and the BoM?  I can't imagine there aren't any of these conversations occurring which are leading to further study by the non-Mormon scholars.

 

Why aren't BYU Egyptologists accompanied by a pair of missionaries at every Egyptological conference?  These should be golden contacts if there ever were any and would be a huge boost to the missionary effort!

You can't be serious. You are either speaking tongue-in-cheek or raving.

 

We have verifiable proof Joseph could translate the then unknown language of ancient Egyptian with the rediscovery of the papyri, yet once again, where are the converts?  Instead, when the experts in these fields analyze the data we get this book by Robert Ritner or statements such as this  from the Smithsonian Institute.  Or these from other experts.

Ritner's "hit piece" (to borrow a phrase from the John Dehlin issue) may be the only thing some have read on the subject, and the Smithsonian Institution statement (which takes many forms over the years) is usually read by Mormon haters without bothering to read John Sorenson's reply. Indeed, most of those citing the Smithsonian statement know nothing about the Smithsonian, nor about the great scholars (like anthrpologist Betty Meggars) who have worked there for many decades. Such ill-wishers cannot be bothered to adequately inform themselves in anthropology or Egyptology before passing judgment.

[Thinking]

The Book of Mormon itself claims steel was rare and highly valuable.

 

"And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance." (2 Nephi 5:15)

[omni]

 

You seem to assume that non-Mormon academics are ready to jump ship and enter into a religion about which they know nearly nothing, and which has a reputation as being hokey (something you yourself seem to believe).

 

 

 

 

As I mentioned before I don't expect most to convert or even be terribly interested in Mormonism's claims because as you stated it has a "reputation as being hokey" (a view that I do not share btw).  I do however assume that at least some of them have a natural curiosity about a major American religion that makes some pretty incredible claims that should be verifiable within their field of expertise.  I do assume that at least some of them, after working with their intelligent and competent colleagues at BYU would ask these colleagues what links they find in their studies of Mesoamerican/Olmec/Native American studies and the BoM.  

 

Long-held ideas and beliefs can be hard to overcome, even for scientists who are expected to put their biases aside and rely solely on the analysis of data and facts.  However, if the evidence exists, then we should expect at a minimal a few non-Mormon scientists to agree with the work of their Mormon colleagues.  As more and more is known about ancient America we should then see American archeologists present (whether knowingly or unknowingly) a history increasingly inline with what we see in the BoM.  Instead we see just the opposite, apologists creating a BoM history increasingly inline with what the science has shown (The Americas populated primarily by a people who crossed the land bridge, two Hill Cumorahs, dark skin not a result of a curse, etc.).

 

You can't be serious. You are either speaking tongue-in-cheek or raving.

 

 

Yes I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, occasionally humor and exaggeration are needed to get a point across.

[thesometimesaint]

"And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance." (2 Nephi 5:15)

 

That just means to work with the materials at hand. Some of the first steels were for meteoric iron. Not a common material.

[Thinking]

That just means to work with the materials at hand. Some of the first steels were for meteoric iron. Not a common material.

 

?

 

I guess the English I learned in school is different than what you learned because great abundance to me means, well, you know...a lot.

[thesometimesaint]

?

 

I guess the English I learned in school is different than what you learned because great abundance to me means, well, you know...a lot.

As a leader of a community it is a legitimate claim to say you taught your people, even without having personally taught it.

 

Precious ores by definition are rare.

[Thinking]

As a leader of a community it is a legitimate claim to say you taught your people, even without having personally taught it.

 

Precious ores by definition are rare.

 

Remember, these people allegedly traveled from across the ocean to this new world. In the old world these ores were rare and therefore precious. In the new world they (the precious ores) are in great abundance. They aren't going to stop calling them precious.

[thesometimesaint]

Remember, these people allegedly traveled from across the ocean to this new world. In the old world these ores were rare and therefore precious. In the new world they (the precious ores) are in great abundance. They aren't going to stop calling them precious.

 

On this planet's surface, it doesn't matter where you go. Iron ore is relatively rare. Also keep in mind that there is no indications of its large scale smelting necessary for its large scale use.

[Thinking]

On this planet's surface, it doesn't matter where you go. Iron ore is relatively rare. Also keep in mind that there is no indications of its large scale smelting necessary for its large scale use.

 

You made the following claim.

The Book of Mormon itself claims steel was rare and highly valuable.

 

The Book of Mormon does not make that claim.

"And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance." (2 Nephi 5:15)

 

Here are the other 4 verses that mention steel.

 

"And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food." (1 Nephi 16:18)

 

"And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel." (1 Nephi 4:9)

 

"Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib." (Ether 7:9)

 

"And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war." (Jarom 1:8 )

Edited June 22, 2014 by Thinking

[thesometimesaint]

You made the following claim.

 

The Book of Mormon does not make that claim.

"And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance." (2 Nephi 5:15)

 

Here are the other 4 verses that mention steel.

 

"And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food." (1 Nephi 16:18)

 

"And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel." (1 Nephi 4:9)

 

"Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib." (Ether 7:9)

 

"And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war." (Jarom 1:8 )

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/steel-in-the-book-of-mormon

[Tiki]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/steel-in-the-book-of-mormon

No offense intended, but William Hamblin did nothing more than pooh-pooh the scriptures to shape-shift them into his Mesoamerica paradigm.

e.g.

"Steel is mentioned only five times in the Book of Mormon." Ok. Thank you. And shoes never are. Thus the Nephites went barefoot. Thank you again Bro. Hamblin. (This is why FairMormon only occasionally mingles with the scriptures. And when it does it uses silly logic like this.)

[thesometimesaint]

No offense intended, but William Hamblin did nothing more than pooh-pooh the scriptures to shape-shift them into his Mesoamerica paradigm.

e.g.

"Steel is mentioned only five times in the Book of Mormon." Ok. Thank you. And shoes never are. Thus the Nephites went barefoot. Thank you again Bro. Hamblin. (This is why FairMormon only occasionally mingles with the scriptures. And when it does it uses silly logic like this.)

 

No offense taken. I've read the arguments and I agree with the Mesoamerican Model presents a better case. Cement cities is mentioned in Book of Mormon. We know of only one place that used cement in the Book of Mormon, and it isn't in what was to become the US of A. But I'm not tied to any particular model other that it happened some place in the America's.

[Robert F. Smith]

You seem to assume that non-Mormon academics are ready to jump ship and enter into a religion about which they know nearly nothing, and which has a reputation as being hokey (something you yourself seem to believe).

As I mentioned before I don't expect most to convert or even be terribly interested in Mormonism's claims because as you stated it has a "reputation as being hokey" (a view that I do not share btw).  I do however assume that at least some of them have a natural curiosity about a major American religion that makes some pretty incredible claims that should be verifiable within their field of expertise.  I do assume that at least some of them, after working with their intelligent and competent colleagues at BYU would ask these colleagues what links they find in their studies of Mesoamerican/Olmec/Native American studies and the BoM.  

A great many things "seem" to be the case to those not immediately acquainted with the real academic community, omni, and I have myself been subject to the wrenching changes which reality requires. Yeh, I was young once and had some rather naive notions about how readily and easily reality could be perceived. Comeuppance comes hard.

So, I do find it odd that you assume that at least a few non-Mormon anthropologists would spend time closely examining Book of Mormon claims -- which I would imagine should include reading Sorenson's Mormon's Codex -- followed by at least some of them agreeing that the chronological sequence of civilizations depicted in the BofM coincided with those of the Olmec and subsequent cultures in Mesoamerica, followed in turn by baptism.

Sounds like a pretty hokey scenario to me. The non-Mormon anthropologists and archeologists I have worked under are quite busy with their own large-scale projects in both field and lab, all of which must be written and published. You make them seem like a mass of bon vivants who have all the time in the world to devote to an area which they regard a priori as not likely to repay their investment of time. Serious scholarship is much more than a weekend spent with the latest best-seller on the NYT list, and requires real investment of time. Often years of time. And for what? Derision from colleagues. Loss of funding for research. Being dropped from graduate school. Being denied tenure.  Really?  More tongue-in-cheek?

 

Long-held ideas and beliefs can be hard to overcome, even for scientists who are expected to put their biases aside and rely solely on the analysis of data and facts.  However, if the evidence exists, then we should expect at a minimal a few non-Mormon scientists to agree with the work of their Mormon colleagues.  As more and more is known about ancient America we should then see American archeologists present (whether knowingly or unknowingly) a history increasingly inline with what we see in the BoM.  Instead we see just the opposite, apologists creating a BoM history increasingly inline with what the science has shown (The Americas populated primarily by a people who crossed the land bridge, two Hill Cumorahs, dark skin not a result of a curse, etc.).

 .......................................................

So, Omni, in light of your views (expressed here) that Mesoamerican history is increasingly out of line with what we find in the BofM, and that the evidence does not exist which can correlate the two traditions, why would you ever imagine any non-Mormon scholar giving so much as the time of day to a Mormon colleague? Seems like you want to have it both ways: You complain that at least some non-Mormon scholars ought to take a look, but simultaneously claim that there is nothing to look at. Moreover, you say that any correlations which the dreaded "apologists" come up with are created out of whole cloth and are not to be found in either the BofM text, nor in anthropological reality.  Sounds like a zero-sum game.

Since you seem to have it backwards, omni, I would suggest that you take some classes in anthropology and archeology at a local university.  Include both extensive field and lab work.  Read some of the well-accepted works on pre-Columbian diffusion by Sorenson & Carl Johannessen (on microbes and plants which could not have been brought through Beringia), and by Stephen Jett, Betty Meggars, et al.  Sorenson is the only Mormon in that short list, and he didn't rig the facts to fit any preconceptions.  Indeed, since the evidence is overwhelming and since it fits into a non-threatening niche, even Mike Coe stated that he accepted the Sorenson & Johannessen conclusions.

 

[Tiki]

No offense taken. I've read the arguments and I agree with the Mesoamerican Model presents a better case. Cement cities is mentioned in Book of Mormon. We know of only one place that used cement in the Book of Mormon, and it isn't in what was to become the US of A. But I'm not tied to any particular model other that it happened some place in the America's.

Does Alma 48:2 hold any credence with anyone here when it comes to identifying the location of steel swords?

It's only in The Book of Mormon, which seems to take a back seat when an apologist publishes that steel is only mentioned five times.

I mean, it's obvious steel must be mentioned in every tenth verse in every other chapter to believe that steel was used continously during the history of the Nephite Nation.

Alma 48:2 talks about a Nephite dissenter leading a bunch of angered Lamanites who used swords to attack Nephites. And the same verse doesn't mention any other "Clans" (I like that word) than Nephites and Lamanites. And given the Mesoamerica LGT model changed over the decades with archeological discoveries, from Nephites were Maya to Nephites and Lamanites lived among the Maya (and among other Mesoamerican "Clans"), would there be a need for me to alter the text of Alma 48:2 similar to altering the text of D&C 20:1 to indicate it's not the birth date of the Savior? (See a previous discussion thread.)

[Robert F. Smith]

On this planet's surface, it doesn't matter where you go. Iron ore is relatively rare. Also keep in mind that there is no indications of its large scale smelting necessary for its large scale use.

 

The Book of Mormon itself claims steel was rare and highly valuable.

The Book of Mormon does not make that claim.

"And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance." (2 Nephi 5:15)

 

Here are the other 4 verses that mention steel.

[1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18, Jarom 8, Ether 7:9]

..........................................................................................

Given the biblical and Book of Mormon penchant for hyperbole (exaggeration for effect), I don't know what "great abundance" means, and neither do you. We can compare claims made about Old World Bountiful, and the absurd claims made on stelae by Pharaoh Merneptah ("Israel is laid waste, his seed is not") and later by the King of Moab ("Israel has perished forever").

What cannot be disputed is that tons of processed iron objects have been found by archeologists at ancient Olmec sites. This would be during the Jaredite period.  Steel-making would be quite unusual at that early date, but not impossible for a people who were already mining and processing hematite, ilmenite, and magnetite.  This civilization was long gone before the Nephites became aware of it.

 

In the Old World, Nephi refers to a steel sword and a steel bow, both of which are within the well-known bounds of technology at the OW time and place. That same Nephi describes teaching the technology to some of his people in the New World, and the last reference to steel is not long thereafter in the book of Jarom. Sounds pretty limited to me, and likely a lost technology among the Nephites thereafter.

[Tiki]

Given the biblical and Book of Mormon penchant for hyperbole (exaggeration for effect), I don't know what "great abundance" means, and neither do you. We can compare claims made about Old World Bountiful, and the absurd claims made on stelae by Pharaoh Merneptah ("Israel is laid waste, his seed is not") and later by the King of Moab ("Israel has perished forever").

What cannot be disputed is that tons of processed iron objects have been found by archeologists at ancient Olmec sites. This would be during the Jaredite period.  Steel-making would be quite unusual at that early date, but not impossible for a people who were already mining and processing hematite, ilmenite, and magnetite.  This civilization was long gone before the Nephites became aware of it.

 

In the Old World, Nephi refers to a steel sword and a steel bow, both of which are within the well-known bounds of technology at the OW time and place. That same Nephi describes teaching the technology to some of his people in the New World, and the last reference to steel is not long thereafter in the book of Jarom. Sounds pretty limited to me, and likely a lost technology among the Nephites thereafter.

Well, of course the Book of Mormon is given to hyperbole, when you demean it by comparing it a Pharoah and the King of Moab.

Is this the purpose of the Mesoamerica LGT model: to criticize The Book of Mormon? One would think that a well-thought out Book of Mormon geography model would agree with the Book of Mormon; not giving in to hyperbole in criticizing the Book of Mormon.

And of course, we all know that you're in agreement with Bro. Hamblin's earlier referenced article of the proof of scarcity of steel in Mesoamerica, because the Book of Mormon only mentions steel five times.

Given that anything mentioned in limitation in the Book of Mormon indicates scarcity in Mesoamerica, have you ever considered that ancient Mesoamerica didn't have rocket ships to the moon, because rocket ships to the moon are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Come on, Brother Smith, what kind of logic are you embracing to convince of us of your point of view? Another collegue of yours John E. Clark, claims the Book of Mormon contains "standard rhetoric"

"There is considerable ambiguity in the statement that the early Nephites "covered" the face of the land. This looks like standard rhetoric." http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1396&index=6&keyword=Standard%20rhetoric

Again, is The Book of Mormon and its text considered sacred in your realm of thinking? Or when it disagrees with a Mesoamerica Model, then it contains "hyperbole" & "standard rhetoric." Personally, I don't understand the fascination some have of criticizing the text.

[Robert F. Smith]

Does Alma 48:2 hold any credence with anyone here when it comes to identifying the location of steel swords?

It's only in The Book of Mormon, which seems to take a back seat when an apologist publishes that steel is only mentioned five times.

I mean, it's obvious steel must be mentioned in every tenth verse in every other chapter to believe that steel was used continously during the history of the Nephite Nation.

Alma 48:2 talks about a Nephite dissenter leading a bunch of angered Lamanites who used swords to attack Nephites. And the same verse doesn't mention any other "Clans" (I like that word) than Nephites and Lamanites. And given the Mesoamerica LGT model changed over the decades with archeological discoveries, from Nephites were Maya to Nephites and Lamanites lived among the Maya (and among other Mesoamerican "Clans"), would there be a need for me to alter the text of Alma 48:2 similar to altering the text of D&C 20:1 to indicate it's not the birth date of the Savior? (See a previous discussion thread.)

There are plenty of references to "swords" (and even scimitars) in the Book of Mormon, any of which could be steel, bronze (which in the KJV is called "steel"), or the obsidian-bladed macuahuitl (which the Conquistadores described as a "sword").  One can assume whatever one is so disposed to, and ignore the actual evidence -- which is pretty thin for all swords being steel.

 

The old limited geography theory (which Sorenson was teaching in the early 1950s), by the way, is drawn first and foremost from a close reading of the BofM text, which has distances within it requiring LGT.  One would no more demand that the land of Israel be a huge expanse covering the entire Near East simply based on by-gosh-and-by-golly reasoning, than to imagine that BofM events had to take place over a far-flung or continental expanse.  Neither suggestion makes a lick of sense.

[Tiki]

There are plenty of references to "swords" (and even scimitars) in the Book of Mormon, any of which could be steel, bronze (which in the KJV is called "steel"), or the obsidian-bladed macuahuitl (which the Conquistadores described as a "sword"). One can assume whatever one is so disposed to, and ignore the actual evidence -- which is pretty thin for all swords being steel.

The old limited geography theory (which Sorenson was teaching in the early 1950s), by the way, is drawn first and foremost from a close reading of the BofM text, which has distances within it requiring LGT. One would no more demand that the land of Israel be a huge expanse covering the entire Near East simply based on by-gosh-and-by-golly reasoning, than to imagine that BofM events had to take place over a far-flung or continental expanse. Neither suggestion makes a lick of sense.

Did you miss the photograph of swords and cimeters posted earlier? They weren't discovered in Central America.

A close reading of the text involves a private interpretation of the scriptures, which we are warned against. And why would a close reading of the text in the 1950s ignore the obvious fact that it took only 8 years for the "Clan" Lehi to cross the Arabian Peninsula, yet claim the Nephite Nation was restricted to a 500 x 200 mile area (Sorenson's words) for 1,000 years until Moroni decided to walk north? And this while Nephites are have claimed to have lived among the Maya in the same restricted area, despite Alma 48:2 mentioning no "Others?"

It's my sincere belief that either the 1950s close reading of the text was done by someone with poor geographical and human nature comprehension skills, or it was done by someone to justify pre-conceived notions. And I can't imagine it being the former.

So if you believe it's ok to ignore the huge expanse of the Arabian Peninsula, compared to tiny Israel, I understand. But you are ignoring it.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Tiki

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................................   

Come on, Brother Smith, what kind of logic are you embracing to convince of us of your point of view? Another collegue of yours John E. Clark, claims the Book of Mormon contains "standard rhetoric"

"There is considerable ambiguity in the statement that the early Nephites "covered" the face of the land. This looks like standard rhetoric." http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1396&index=6&keyword=Standard%20rhetoric

Again, is The Book of Mormon and its text considered sacred in your realm of thinking? Or when it disagrees with a Mesoamerica Model, then it contains "hyperbole" & "standard rhetoric." Personally, I don't understand the fascination some have of criticizing the text.

I have met John Clark a couple of times briefly, but I wouldn't call him a colleague.  What I do like about his extensive, long -term work as an archeologist in Mesoamerica is that he publishes the results in a timely manner, and that he analyzes textual material based on what is known of the region and culture.  He does the same with the Book of Mormon in the article you cite above, and I like the way he interprets Izapa Stele 5 based on well-known Mesoamerican cultural attributes.  Biblical scholars are expected to do the same within their bailiwick.  Sound textual criticism is part of that process.  I should have thought that you would appreciate that, Tiki.

[Tiki]

I have met John Clark a couple of times briefly, but I wouldn't call him a colleague.  What I do like about his extensive, long -term work as an archeologist in Mesoamerica is that he publishes the results in a timely manner, and that he analyzes textual material based on what is known of the region and culture.  He does the same with the Book of Mormon in the article you cite above, and I like the way he interprets Izapa Stele 5 based on well-known Mesoamerican cultural attributes.  Biblical scholars are expected to do the same within their bailiwick.  Sound textual criticism is part of that process.  I should have thought that you would appreciate that, Tiki.

Well, being raised in the Church, I never considered criticizing the text of the scriptures to be one of my defining attributes. I consider them to be a standard - a baseline - if you will, with which we use judge theories or teachings of men that are thrown at us.

But if you consider criticism of the text of the scriptures to fall within your realm of reasoning, then the Geographical location of the Book of Mormon can be most anywhere. Just criticize and explain away any verse(s) that don't fit your paradigm, and up is down, black is white, and good is evil.