Ancient Cities Discovered In Mesoamerica

[Kevin Christensen]

So, Mormon archaeologists (I assume some exist) don't pursue proving the existence of Book of Mormon cities because they would be given no credence by normative scholars, yet these normative scholars have provided enough data to prove the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica is authentic in the eyes of Mormon scholars.

Positivism here does what it always does. Those who insist on riding that dead horse never seem to change position, and it is not at all hard to understand why. Whip it all you want, the horse won't move.

Sorenson explained in 1985 in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon that it's not about proving but understanding in context. The notion of "proof" is always relative to a particular paradigm, and this use is a bit naive to those who understand how such things work. Michael Coe, a non-Mormon archeologist, provided a good example of how such things work in practice, rather than unrealistic theory displayed here, in his interview with John Dehlin. Think about how they considered a lack of evidence for iron arrowheads and brass helmets as direct contradiction of the Book of Mormon, in spite of the fact that the Book of Mormon never mentions such things. Now, if Coe, a now retired but highly regarded archeologist who actually read the Book of Mormon several decades ago, can demonstrate such ignorance of the Book of Mormon, and (as John Sorenson's response at the Interpreter demonstrated), a even lack of familiarity with more recent archeological research on points that actually are relevant, what might we expect from archeologists who are even less well informed than Coe?

It should help to imagine a paradigm as a "group licensed way of seeing." Whether Mormon belief is licensed by a group of ignorant skeptics is actually irrelevant. What matters far more is how well Mormon belief fits with respect to the New World side of things is licensed by the best informed in that context. It is not about absolute and finally "knowing" but of how "cause to believe" is supported in an ongoing process.

Belief in the Book of Mormon is not something a person can be dispassionately objective about. It involves covenants and demands and social loyalties, scandals, commitment, expense, and effort.

If there truly were cultural attributes of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, Mormon archaeologists would be on it like white on rice.

I've read Mormon's Codex, and have read Gardner, Wirth, Clark, Poulson, and several others. They are on to some very cool things, in my opinion. And there is brown rice, which may actually be better for you.

In truth, nothing putting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica has been found and never will be, and Mormon archaeologists are probably the best indicator of this by their lack of pursuit of such evidences.

As Brant explains, it's about seeing convergences, an increasingly complex fit between what we learn from secular approaches, and what we read in the Book of Mormon. That pursuit has been amazingly productive, from my perspective, over the past 30 years. And as Larry Poulson has shown, a close reading of the Book of Mormon passages describing the Sidon, combined with a computer search of a satellite 3D map of the entire Western Hemisphere let to the Mesoamerican Grijalva as the only match. That is a remarkable convergence, I think, more remarkable because of what else converges in that setting.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Gervin]

Do you believe in the Bible? 

I don't know how you define "believe" - but, more importantly, don't see the relevance.

[Calm]

And there is brown rice, which may actually be better for you.

 

And the more natural state without having possibly essential stuff removed...

[MormonFreeThinker]

I don't know how you define "believe" - but, more importantly, don't see the relevance.

 

See the dictionary 

Edited September 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

I looked up "plausible" in the dictionary and it sure doesn't mean "an acceptable explanation despite Church counsel to the contrary."  As long as the Church doesn't contain any geographic conclusions in its manuals or general conference statements, we have to fall back on First Presidency statements counseling against Book of Mormon geographic speculation.  None are plausible.

 

I googled Book of Mormon tours in Mexico and Guatemala, and am astounded at the false industry. 

Edited September 25, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

Therein lies the crux of the problem.   Declare what Joseph Smith is doctrine or not doctrine to sue your tastes.  Problem is, what he said is very significan

 

Why is it very significant? The church does not have an official position, so please explain. 

 

 

 Dr. Sorenson went out on a limb to try and find multiple-level hearsay quotes from the Prophet to support his LGT, 

 

Dr. Sorenson didn't need to quote the opinions of the prophet Joseph Smith, it was unnecessary.

“a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such"

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

 

As for the LGT, read the new DNA essay. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

 

 

Declare what Joseph Smith is doctrine or not doctrine to sue your tastes. 

 

I do not declare doctrine, the church does.

 

So how does the New York Hill fit the description of the Book of Mormon account? 

Edited September 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

You're just anonymous. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

You're just anonymous. 

 

I am just a nobody, but my arguments are strong.

[Bob Crockett]

I am just a nobody, but my arguments are strong.

Your arguments tend to rely upon an artificial construct of what is "plausible" and what should be trusted from Church authorities.

 

If your arguments were sound, we'd see evidence of them in church manuals and conference statements instead of counsel to not get involved with Book of Mormon geography speculation. 

 

Your anonymity doesn't help.

[MormonFreeThinker]

If your arguments were sound, we'd see evidence of them in church manuals and conference statements instead of counsel to not get involved with Book of Mormon geography speculation. 

 

and you continue to misunderstand what I am saying. Church manuals are not going to make a statement because the church does not have an official position. The opinions of the prophets are only opinions, not the position of the church. 

 

The evidence points to Mesoamerica, and the New York hill doesn't fit the description of the Book of Mormon account.  Simple. 

Edited September 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

The evidence points to Mesoamerica, and the New York hill doesn't fit the description of the Book of Mormon account.  Simple. 

 I reread Deanne Matheny's essay on the subject.  When it issued I was a thorough Sorensite acolyte.  Interesting reading; she doesn't agree with you.

[Peppermint Patty]

Bob,

 

I agree with you about the Matheny article. It's a very thorough critique and she does make a very compelling case.

[Kevin Christensen]

And of course, there Sorenson's detailed 1994 response to Matheny's 1993 essay, which he summarizes as follows:

On the first point, the directions, her criticisms are based on the assumption that the Book of Mormon text can be read as "plain" English. She has failed to grasp the significance of my extensive data showing that Mesoamerican and all other ancient direction systems were constructed on different cultural principles than ours or that Nephite direction usage can reasonably be interpreted in light of what we know from antiquity. I find no merit in her critique on this point. I had long ago considered all of the alternatives the author suggests, only to reject them as simple-minded or contrary to the text.

The discussion on metallurgy ignores or rejects important information I have presented about occurrences and use of actual metal specimens in Book of Mormon times as well as of linguistic evidence for very ancient knowledge of metals in Mesoamerica. Again, none of what Matheny says is new, and none of her arguments persuades me that I should revise my position regarding earlier-than-usually-thought metallurgy.

Point 3: Most of the weapons mentioned in the Book of Mormon can be accounted for by reference to types already known from Mesoamerica. In addition, one must recognize the problems induced by translation to English of the military nomenclature in the text, as well as the incompleteness of the archaeological record due to neglect, until very recently, of serious research on the history of Mesoamerican warfare. Taking those into consideration, I am encouraged, not discouraged like Matheny, about the prospects for resolving remaining obscurities about relationships between Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican weaponry.

Tents, the fourth "problem," are in fact extensively documented in Mesoamerican ethnohistory. Direct archaeological demonstration of their earlier presence is probably impossible because of the ephemeral nature of the structures. The criticism of my position and of the Book of Mormon on this point is seriously flawed because of gaps in the writer's data and logic.

Much relevant literature relating to "problem" areas five and six—plants and animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon—eludes Matheny. She has misconceived crucial related issues by following established, dogmatic opinion which refuses to pay attention to evidence for the trans-oceanic transfer of various types of plants. Moreover, she fails to consider my published clues—especially having to do with translation of the terminology for plants and animals—toward resolving what she thinks are problems with the scripture's statements about flora and fauna. Her arguments I either anticipated in my book or find to lack value.

Supposed difficulties between the Book of Mormon text and what is known about Santa Rosa, Chiapas, result from the limited nature of the archaeological work done there or else from Matheny's failure to assess critically the reports published on the work at the site. She compounds the problems with the technical information by misinterpreting the Book of Mormon text.

Finally, Matheny betrays defective understanding of current methods and results of dating early Mesoamerican cultures. Her strictures against my dates for the Jaredites are poorly informed and behind the times.

See

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1429&index=10

And a considerable amount of work and publication has happened in the 21 years since then.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

I think the whole north/south orientation business rather silly and Matheny does a decent job of it.  

 

I'm not an expert in archaeology.  She was a trained and working archaeologist as was her husband.  As far as I can tell, both of them thought Sorenson's findings were speculative.   Both were at BYU.  

 

I'm not aware of a single LDS archaeologist (working, professional, defended a PhD in the subject of MesoAmericanism) who has supported Dr. Sorenson, but I'm willing to be educated as that would be of great assistance in my pending paper.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I'm not aware of a single LDS archaeologist (working, professional, defended a PhD in the subject of MesoAmericanism) who has supported Dr. Sorenson, but I'm willing to be educated as that would be of great assistance in my pending paper.

 

But all LDS archaeologists believe in a Mesoamerican limited geography, only businessmen  (Meldrum) and politicians (Glen Beck)  believe that Book of Mormon Cumorah is the New York hill.

 

Mark Wright, Richard Hansen, Brant Gardner(PhD candidate for Mesoamerican ethnohistory) believe in the Mesoamerican geography. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Robert F. Smith]

So, Mormon archaeologists (I assume some exist) don't pursue proving the existence of Book of Mormon cities because they would be given no credence by normative scholars, yet these normative scholars have provided enough data to prove the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica is authentic in the eyes of Mormon scholars.  If there truly were cultural attributes of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, Mormon archaeologists would be on it like white on rice.  In truth, nothing putting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica has been found and never will be, and Mormon archaeologists are probably the best indicator of this by their lack of pursuit of such evidences. 

I don't know what planet you have been on, Gervin, while all this has been going on, but for us here on planet Earth, there is a plethora of data generated by generations of non-Mormon scholars which Mormon scholars have crunched and used very effectively to show that such connections are many and varied.  Have you ever even read any article or book on the subject?  On what basis do you make your absolute and uninformed statements?

 

"nothing putting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica has been found and never will be"

"their lack of pursuit of such evidences"

 

Here is a reading list which can get you started:

Sorenson, John L., “A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East,” Sino-Platonic Papers, 195 [Dec 2009], online at  http://web.archive.org/web/20110719183522/http://www.sino-platonic.org/ , or at  http://liveweb.archive.org/http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf.

Sorenson, John L., and Carl L. Johannessen, “Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages,” in Victor H. Mair, ed., Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press, 2006), 238-297.

Sorenson, John L., An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret, 1985).

Sorenson, John L., Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Provo: FARMS Research Press, 1998).

Sorenson, John L., Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book (Provo: Maxwell Institute/BYU/SLC: Deseret, 2013).

Gardner, Brant, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (SLC: Greg Kofford Books, 2007).

Wright, Mark Alan, and Brant Gardner, “The Cultural Context of Nephite Apostasy,”Interpreter,  1 (2012):25-55; online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-cultural-context-of-nephite-apostasy/ .

Wright, Mark Alan, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” Journal of the Book of Mormon Studies, 23/2 (2013):4-21; online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/22/2/1Wright_Cultural%20Tapesty.pdf .

Wright, Mark Alan, “Axes Mundi: Ritual Complexes in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon,”Interpreter, 12 (2014):79-96; online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/axes-mundi-ritual-complexes-in-mesoamerica-and-the-book-of-mormon/ .

Smith, Robert F., “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

Edited September 26, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the whole north/south orientation business rather silly and Matheny does a decent job of it.

Deanne (Ray Matheny's wife) stubbed her toe in this matter, and was no doubt quite embarrassed.  You might want to read Sorenson's response, as well as Brant Gardner, "From the East to the West: The Problem of Directions in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 3 (2013):119-153.  In all such disputed interpretations, I recommend following anthropological reality in understanding directionality the way the Conquistadores and the natives actually understood it.

 

I'm not an expert in archaeology.  She was a trained and working archaeologist as was her husband.  As far as I can tell, both of them thought Sorenson's findings were speculative.   Both were at BYU.

The Mathenys and Sorenson's opinions should always be seriously considered and measured by professional standards.  If they falter, then they need to man up.

 

I'm not aware of a single LDS archaeologist (working, professional, defended a PhD in the subject of MesoAmericanism) who has supported Dr. Sorenson, but I'm willing to be educated as that would be of great assistance in my pending paper.

There aren't many LDS archeologists in the world, and some of them specialize in Near Eastern archeology, while one I know spent all his time studying Amerinds in the American Northeast.  However, a  number of professional LDS archeologists have agreed with Sorenson on the limited Mesoamerican geography, even as they sometimes disagree on the details:  Garth Norman, John Clark, and the like.  It might be better to consider the anthropologists like Sorenson (archeology is a subdiscipline of anthro) who see the limited Mesoamerican geography as the most likely; Brant Gardner, Mark Alan Wright, and the like.

 

However, there are also archeologists and anthropologists (likely LDS) who reject the Book of Mormon entirely:  Payson Sheets, who said that "The book of mormon has nothing to do with reality" (emphasis in the original); John A. Price, who has argued that Joseph Jr used local Indian lore in putting together the substratum of the Book of Mormon story, concluding that the Iroquois were the Lamanites, while the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) were the Nephites whom they destroyed – at least as far as young Joseph's creative imagination was concerned.  Opinions are all over the map.  It might be well to examine the various views to see whether any are sound.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Anijen]

I googled Book of Mormon tours in Mexico and Guatemala, and am astounded at the false industry. 

I disagree with this statement on so many levels.

(1) There is false industry almost anywhere.

To be a little more specific;

(2) There is false industry in the touring business as well.

To be a little more specific;

(3) There is also falseness in Book of Mormon tours that subscribe to New York, Great Lakes, Mound Builders as well. I would posit there is more speculation and widespread dissemination of false hoods, stretched and distorted facts, facts that are omitted, in the LDS touring business for heartland models way more than in Mesoamerican models. 

 

To say that false industry exist in Mexico and Guatemala and is a reason to bolster a different theory is such a straw-man of huge proportions.

 

I know a little about both theories. I know a great deal about the Hopewell, Adena, and Clovis culture (tradition is the term that should be used). 

 

The touring industry will always (ALWAYS) market to their strengths and never their weaknesses. I have no problem with either side making a living giving tours of what is their opinions and speculating on the history of the site they are touring. I can tell you by experiencing as a customer of both Mesoamerican and heartland tours the truth is stretched and in many cases outright made up more so in the tours I have taken that agree with a heartland model.

 

My point is the use of false industry included in the touring Mexico and Guatemala for the purpose of strengthening a heartland theory is frankly ridiculously ignorant.

[Bob Crockett]

(1) There is false industry almost anywhere.

To be a little more specific;

(2) There is false industry in the touring business as well.

To be a little more specific;

(3) There is also falseness in Book of Mormon tours that subscribe to New York, Great Lakes, Mound Builders as well. I would posit there is more speculation and widespread dissemination of false hoods, stretched and distorted facts, facts that are omitted, in the LDS touring business for heartland models way more than in Mesoamerican models.

Oh well, I guess that justifies it. I'm headed over to Lourdes right now to buy some trinkets; this post helped me.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Your anonymity doesn't help.

My anonymity is irrelevant. You think it matters some how in this debate?

 

You think because your screen name is Bob Crockett that that some how really matters here? Rofl.

[Bob Crockett]

My anonymity is irrelevant. You think it matters some how in this debate?

 

You think because your screen name is Bob Crockett that that some how really matters here? Rofl.

Yes and yes. Something about courage and cowardice. I think that what that means is that one can discount an anonymous poster's thoughts on the mere basis of anonymity. I usually do. When Jesus told his disciples to go into all the world to preach the gospel, I don't think he had in mind anonymous missionaries. LMAO. Edited September 26, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

I'm not aware of a single LDS archaeologist (working, professional, defended a PhD in the subject of MesoAmericanism) who has supported Dr. Sorenson, but I'm willing to be educated as that would be of great assistance in my pending paper.

 

All LDS archaeologists (that believe the Book of Mormon is ancient)  believe in a Mesoamerican limited geography, only businessmen  (Meldrum) and politicians (Glen Beck)  believe that Book of Mormon Cumorah is the New York hill.

 

Mark Wright, Richard Hansen, Brant Gardner(PhD candidate for Mesoamerican ethnohistory) believe in the Mesoamerican geography. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes and yes. Something about courage and cowardice. I think that what that means is that one can discount an anonymous poster's thoughts on the mere basis of anonymity. I usually do. When Jesus told his disciples to go into all the world to preach the gospel, I don't think he had in mind anonymous missionaries. LMAO.

OK but this is not a missionary board. And did you really mean to Laugh your a$$ off?

 

In the end, what ever I guess I should feel honored that you broke your rule for little ol' me.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All LDS archaeologists (that believe the Book of Mormon is ancient)  believe in a Mesoamerican limited geography, only businessmen  (Meldrum) and politicians (Glen Beck)  believe that Book of Mormon Cumorah is the New York hill.

 

Mark Wright, Richard Hansen, Brant Gardner(PhD candidate for Mesoamerican ethnohistory) believe in the Mesoamerican geography. 

So IOW, give us one person that is an archaeologist that thinks it happened some where else.

 

I generally am not a fan of arguing a position due to popularity.

 

X % believe Y is not really compelling and might even be labeled a logical fallacy.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I generally am not a fan of arguing a position due to popularity.

 

Not popularity, it is called consensus, consensus because of the evidence.

 

You should do the research yourself, if you are not going to do the research, you should accept the consensus.