New World Archaelogical Foundation

[MormonFreeThinker]

If it is true that Mesoamerican geography can be characterized as lowlands and highlands, how does the Book of Mormon narrative fit?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

So, you found a couple of city ruins in the Yucatan to have some partial defensive walls. It was a rare thing by the Maya to have such and anyone who knows the Mayan culture knows this. I also note that all of your examples of stone walls are in places on the outside of Nephi and on the borders to the east of Zarahemla in a direction away from the encroaching Lamanites on the south as proposed by the mesoamerican theory. I still see you havent provided any stone wall that is on the border of the land between neighboring nations. I find it of interest here that also there is no wall anywhere in mesoamerica high enough that it took ropes and ladders to get down in as spoken of in the BoM. The area around Peru has such numerous sites. In fact, almost every single one of the ruins in Peru has defensive walls and walls of stone around their cities. Also, there is a wall of stones that separates their borders running through Peru from the ocean into the mountains. I also see no instance of fortifictations in the mountains as used by the Gadianton robbers that were impenetrable. You see these all over in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador.

Whether Book of Mormon geography includes or excludes the Maya is a judgment which you seem to be making here.  I use the Maya only because they demonstrate the technology available in Mesoamerica generally.  Moreover, the walls at Becan would certainly have required the cords and ladders of Alma 62 to get over, or didn't you look at the illustrations?  Were early archeology more widely available in Mesoamerica, we might have more examples over a wider area, but Mesoamerican archeology has lagged behind the enormous efforts and funding in the ancient Near East.  And even with that we have only just very recently discovered the first hard evidence of the "Wall of the Ruler" which the ancient Egyptians constructed to keep out and control incursions of nomads from the Sinai Desert.  Heretofore we only knew of the wall from written accounts.  One would have thought such a wall easily found.  It wasn't.

 

As for writing, the only instance of writing being shown within a large culture is indeed the Mayan and its area of influence. But, the writing system used is not in any way Nephite/Lamanite which would of used some type of Hebrew/reformed Egyptian. I would tend to believe the Mayan writing was probably Jaredite in origin. The Jaredite nation was the largest of all the BoM peoples.

Wrong once again.  The Maya are merely one of the cultures in Mesoamerica having writing, and these other cultures appear to have obtained their advanced culture in part from the Olmecs (Jaredites), who had writing.

 

The point is not the type of writing, but that no other cultures had it.  Only the Mesoamericans.  Indeed, the man who first deciphered Maya was a Russian trained to read ancient Egyptian.  Thus, he applied what he knew of reading ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs to the decipherment of Maya glyphs, and was successful.

 

Languages which appear to be related to Hebrew and Egyptian have been found in the Mexican state of Oaxaca (which is not Mayan), and among the Uto-Aztecan peoples.  See http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA , and https://www.scribd.com/doc/255065742/Summary-of-Book-EXPLORING-THE-EXPLANATORY-POWER-OF-SEMITIC-AND-EGYPTIAN-IN-UTO-AZTECAN .

[Rob Osborn]

Whether Book of Mormon geography includes or excludes the Maya is a judgment which you seem to be making here.  I use the Maya only because they demonstrate the technology available in Mesoamerica generally.  Moreover, the walls at Becan would certainly have required the cords and ladders of Alma 62 to get over, or didn't you look at the illustrations?  Were early archeology more widely available in Mesoamerica, we might have more examples over a wider area, but Mesoamerican archeology has lagged behind the enormous efforts and funding in the ancient Near East.  And even with that we have only just very recently discovered the first hard evidence of the "Wall of the Ruler" which the ancient Egyptians constructed to keep out and control incursions of nomads from the Sinai Desert.  Heretofore we only knew of the wall from written accounts.  One would have thought such a wall easily found.  It wasn't.

 

Wrong once again.  The Maya are merely one of the cultures in Mesoamerica having writing, and these other cultures appear to have obtained their advanced culture in part from the Olmecs (Jaredites), who had writing.

 

The point is not the type of writing, but that no other cultures had it.  Only the Mesoamericans.  Indeed, the man who first deciphered Maya was a Russian trained to read ancient Egyptian.  Thus, he applied what he knew of reading ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs to the decipherment of Maya glyphs, and was successful.

 

Languages which appear to be related to Hebrew and Egyptian have been found in the Mexican state of Oaxaca (which is not Mayan), and among the Uto-Aztecan peoples.  See http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA , and https://www.scribd.com/doc/255065742/Summary-of-Book-EXPLORING-THE-EXPLANATORY-POWER-OF-SEMITIC-AND-EGYPTIAN-IN-UTO-AZTECAN .

Language and written language are different things. We are not really sure who indeed did and who did not have written languages in ancient times in the America's. We know that according to the Nephites the Lamanites at some point were bent on destroying the written language employed by the Nephites and in destroying all of their traditions. It thus doesnt surprise me that the majority of the descendent tribes of indians didnt have written languages when the America's were discovered by the Europeans.

I find it of high interest that whereas you admit the BoM lands happened in mesoamerica, you cant really provide the needed proof required by cultures to support the necessary requirements and thus why a limited mesoamerican ideology is deeply flawed and will result in the continued disappointments that mesoamerican theorists have.

There definitely is a tie with the Olmec and the Maya. But to say the Olmec were just the Jaredites only is unsatisfactory. If the Olmec were the Jaredites and the Maya were not Jaredite, then the Maya cannot be Nephite at all. If the Maya and the Olmec were neither associated witht he Nephites/Lamanites, then where exactly is the Nephite and Lamanites in Mesoamerica? I cant find any other civilization in mesoamerica that would have left remains of walled cites and buildings that were different than these other cultures.

[ERayR]

I cant find any other civilization in mesoamerica that would have left remains of walled cites and buildings that were different than these other cultures.

 

How hard have you looked?

[Robert F. Smith]

Language and written language are different things. We are not really sure who indeed did and who did not have written languages in ancient times in the America's.

Of course language and writing are different things.  I thought you knew that, but I don't get your point on that true statement.

Naturally, however, you are not sure who did and did not have writing in the Americas.  You are not an archeologist, and you don't read books on ancient America.  Thus, you have no business speaking for the scholarly community by saying "we."  We know that the Andean civilizations had no writing, and that most tribal peoples in the Americas were far too primitive to have writing of any kind.  Only in Mesoamerica do we find writing among several cultures.

 

...................................................... It thus doesnt surprise me that the majority of the descendent tribes of indians didnt have written languages when the America's were discovered by the Europeans.

Most tribal peoples in the Americas were far too primitive to have writing of any kind.  Most are not descendants of Israelites who (according to you) lost their writing at some ancient time.  Mesoamerican peoples had writing and high civilization long before the arrival of Lehi and Mulek.  And writing continued long after the Nephites were gone.

 

I find it of high interest that whereas you admit the BoM lands happened in mesoamerica, you cant really provide the needed proof required by cultures to support the necessary requirements and thus why a limited mesoamerican ideology is deeply flawed and will result in the continued disappointments that mesoamerican theorists have.

You say this without having read Sorenson's or Gardner's books.  Moreover, you have provided no discussion of any specific flaws the limited geography theory might have.

 

There definitely is a tie with the Olmec and the Maya. But to say the Olmec were just the Jaredites only is unsatisfactory. If the Olmec were the Jaredites and the Maya were not Jaredite, then the Maya cannot be Nephite at all. If the Maya and the Olmec were neither associated witht he Nephites/Lamanites, then where exactly is the Nephite and Lamanites in Mesoamerica? I cant find any other civilization in mesoamerica that would have left remains of walled cites and buildings that were different than these other cultures.

Olmec civilization is flourishing already in the mid-2nd millennium B.C., and its final battles are fought not long after the arrival of the Nephites and Mulekites.  In other words, Olmec civilization is already over when the Mulekites and then Nephites become aware of them.  However, as the "mother culture" of Mesoamerica, the Olmec have already passed on key components of their knowledge and civilization to other, later cultures.  For example, the Maya (who had yet to floresce), the Mixe-Zoque in the Grijalva River valley of Chiapas, the Sawi-Zaa in Oaxaca, and Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico.  By the time these other cultures were up and rolling, they had already forgotten who the Olmec were.  Indeed, today we do not even know what they called themselves.  We know them only through archeology.  "Olmec" is a modern name.

 

Oddly enough, the geographical placement and chronology of the Olmec match those of the Jaredites.  Had you read about them, you would know this.  You would also know that the same sort of archeological and chronological correlations apply to the later Nephite-Mulekite culture.  Naturally you confuse these matters since you do not understand Book of Mormon chronology, and have no idea how that might be comparable to Mesoamerica.  You would have to read a few books and articles to comprehend that.  You can't get knowledge on the cheap, Rob.  It's just like "cheap grace."  It doesn't exist.

[Rob Osborn]

Of course language and writing are different things.  I thought you knew that, but I don't get your point on that true statement.

Naturally, however, you are not sure who did and did not have writing in the Americas.  You are not an archeologist, and you don't read books on ancient America.  Thus, you have no business speaking for the scholarly community by saying "we."  We know that the Andean civilizations had no writing, and that most tribal peoples in the Americas were far too primitive to have writing of any kind.  Only in Mesoamerica do we find writing among several cultures.

 

Most tribal peoples in the Americas were far too primitive to have writing of any kind.  Most are not descendants of Israelites who (according to you) lost their writing at some ancient time.  Mesoamerican peoples had writing and high civilization long before the arrival of Lehi and Mulek.  And writing continued long after the Nephites were gone.

 

You say this without having read Sorenson's or Gardner's books.  Moreover, you have provided no discussion of any specific flaws the limited geography theory might have.

 

Olmec civilization is flourishing already in the mid-2nd millennium B.C., and its final battles are fought not long after the arrival of the Nephites and Mulekites.  In other words, Olmec civilization is already over when the Mulekites and then Nephites become aware of them.  However, as the "mother culture" of Mesoamerica, the Olmec have already passed on key components of their knowledge and civilization to other, later cultures.  For example, the Maya (who had yet to floresce), the Mixe-Zoque in the Grijalva River valley of Chiapas, the Sawi-Zaa in Oaxaca, and Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico.  By the time these other cultures were up and rolling, they had already forgotten who the Olmec were.  Indeed, today we do not even know what they called themselves.  We know them only through archeology.  "Olmec" is a modern name.

 

Oddly enough, the geographical placement and chronology of the Olmec match those of the Jaredites.  Had you read about them, you would know this.  You would also know that the same sort of archeological and chronological correlations apply to the later Nephite-Mulekite culture.  Naturally you confuse these matters since you do not understand Book of Mormon chronology, and have no idea how that might be comparable to Mesoamerica.  You would have to read a few books and articles to comprehend that.  You can't get knowledge on the cheap, Rob.  It's just like "cheap grace."  It doesn't exist.

Specific flaws of the limited meso-american model? The whole paradigm is flawed! This has been hashed out countless times regarding such things as the direction of "north", the "narrow neck", and location of Cumorah. I personally believe though that the greatest weakness of the meso-american theory is the narrow neck. Starting with the Olmec, the BoM states that they never civilized the land southward. But yet, Olmec lands exist on and in the land southward.

The problem with dealing with all of the scholarly types in these matters is their downright cocky attitudes and their superiority complexes because they think they are learned and so much better than anyone else. Problem however is- no ancient Nephite travels a 120 miles in a day and a half. Oh yeah, you guys dont really claim that I forgot- its only to some made up imaginary point

The narrow neck was a unique feature that according to the BoM Nephites was an easily defended area of land and was an actual "neck" that when walked on "led into" the land which was called desolation and the place of ruins of every kind left from the preceding Jaredite civilization. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec is some 120 miles at its narrowest point and takes some kind of imagination to make it fit the text. Then you have the direction from supposed Zarahemla to the narrow neck as being west, not north, with quite a lot of Zarahemla lands actuallu being northeast of the narrow neck.

[Rob Osborn]

How hard have you looked?

Pretty hard.

[ERayR]

Pretty hard.

 

Okay then how tight have you set the correlation of variables in your search.  Do they have to match exactly or is striking similarities sufficient?

[Robert F. Smith]

Specific flaws of the limited meso-american model? The whole paradigm is flawed! This has been hashed out countless times regarding such things as the direction of "north", the "narrow neck", and location of Cumorah. I personally believe though that the greatest weakness of the meso-american theory is the narrow neck. Starting with the Olmec, the BoM states that they never civilized the land southward. But yet, Olmec lands exist on and in the land southward.

I see nothing here that would indicate that you know anything of directions in the ancient world generally, nor in Mesoamerica.  You cite no sources which you may have found convincing, or others which you have found unconvincing, and why.  As usual you provide no discussion.  The Book of Mormon does not discuss Olmecs.  It does discuss Jaredite activities, but it is not clear that you understand that discussion, or can specify where and when they existed.  Since the great Jaredite civilization existed during the thousands of years before the Nephites-Mulekites arrived, and came to an end before the Nephite-Lamanite-Mulekite florescence.  You are apparently very confused and imagine a major geographical and temporal overlap between the Jaredites and the later arrivals.  Such did not exist.  You might try reading the major articles and books on the subject before further silly comments.

 

The problem with dealing with all of the scholarly types in these matters is their downright cocky attitudes and their superiority complexes because they think they are learned and so much better than anyone else. Problem however is- no ancient Nephite travels a 120 miles in a day and a half. Oh yeah, you guys dont really claim that I forgot- its only to some made up imaginary point.

Not only do you not understand the legitimate claims made about the width of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, but you engage in name-calling instead of substantive discussion of that issue.  Your only means of dealing with the disagreement is to set superiority complexes over against inferiority complexes.  Is that really helpful, Rob?  Do you imagine that an ordinary teacher in school will give you a good grade for such silly argumentation?

One might want to instead ask what Cortes found when he came to Mexico.  What did his men find at the Isthmus?

 

The narrow neck was a unique feature that according to the BoM Nephites was an easily defended area of land and was an actual "neck" that when walked on "led into" the land which was called desolation and the place of ruins of every kind left from the preceding Jaredite civilization. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec is some 120 miles at its narrowest point and takes some kind of imagination to make it fit the text. Then you have the direction from supposed Zarahemla to the narrow neck as being west, not north, with quite a lot of Zarahemla lands actuallu being northeast of the narrow neck.

For one thing, rivers and lagoons abound in the low, swampy Vera Cruz (where the great Olmec culture prospered), the rainy season being from June to the middle of December each year.  So the potential for relatively swift river and lagoon travel could be high.  So what did the Conquistadores find when they made soundings up the great Coatzacoalcos River?  They found the river depth at 5 to 6 fathoms as far as 30 leagues upriver (= 166.68 km), i.e., the river was fully navigable for most of the Isthmus. You can read the facts online at  http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/Blom&LaFarge/Tribes&Temples-Chap5.pdf , on pages 68-70.

 

Why is it that you persist in making such ill-informed arguments?  Tote up your recent errors:  It doesn't seem to embarrass you at all that you make so many errors of fact.

[Rob Osborn]

I see nothing here that would indicate that you know anything of directions in the ancient world generally, nor in Mesoamerica.  You cite no sources which you may have found convincing, or others which you have found unconvincing, and why.  As usual you provide no discussion.  The Book of Mormon does not discuss Olmecs.  It does discuss Jaredite activities, but it is not clear that you understand that discussion, or can specify where and when they existed.  Since the great Jaredite civilization existed during the thousands of years before the Nephites-Mulekites arrived, and came to an end before the Nephite-Lamanite-Mulekite florescence.  You are apparently very confused and imagine a major geographical and temporal overlap between the Jaredites and the later arrivals.  Such did not exist.  You might try reading the major articles and books on the subject before further silly comments.

 

Not only do you not understand the legitimate claims made about the width of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, but you engage in name-calling instead of substantive discussion of that issue.  Your only means of dealing with the disagreement is to set superiority complexes over against inferiority complexes.  Is that really helpful, Rob?  Do you imagine that an ordinary teacher in school will give you a good grade for such silly argumentation?

One might want to instead ask what Cortes found when he came to Mexico.  What did his men find at the Isthmus?

 

For one thing, rivers and lagoons abound in the low, swampy Vera Cruz (where the great Olmec culture prospered), the rainy season being from June to the middle of December each year.  So the potential for relatively swift river and lagoon travel could be high.  So what did the Conquistadores find when they made soundings up the great Coatzacoalcos River?  They found the river depth at 5 to 6 fathoms as far as 30 leagues upriver (= 166.68 km), i.e., the river was fully navigable for most of the Isthmus. You can read the facts online at  http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/Blom&LaFarge/Tribes&Temples-Chap5.pdf , on pages 68-70.

 

Why is it that you persist in making such ill-informed arguments?  Tote up your recent errors:  It doesn't seem to embarrass you at all that you make so many errors of fact.

Cant debate arrogance, I guess were done.

[Rob Osborn]

Okay then how tight have you set the correlation of variables in your search.  Do they have to match exactly or is striking similarities sufficient?

Similarities works

[ERayR]

Similarities works

 

In that case I recommend you read John L. Sorenson's "An Ancient American Setting" and/or "Mormon's Codex".

Edited February 23, 2015 by ERayR

[Anijen]

Cant debate arrogance, I guess were done.

 

 

Implying he is arrogant  is first wrong, second when you say you "cant debate arrogance."  It is you who is debating arrogance (that is not there), it is Robert F. Smith who is correctly debating the issues. I would love to know the "why" in the issues that you disagree with, other than an I'm right, you're wrong approach.

 

When debating, the strongest opponants know their stuff. 

 

Contrasted to one who just goes with; hu uh" well then it is clear who is prepared and knowledgable and who isnt.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Anijen

[Rob Osborn]

Implying he is arrogant  is first wrong, second when you say you "cant debate arrogance."  It is you who is debating arrogance (that is not there), it is Robert F. Smith who is correctly debating the issues. I would love to know the "why" in the issues that you disagree with, other than an I'm right, you're wrong approach.

 

When debating, the strongest opponants know their stuff. 

 

Contrasted to one who just goes with; hu uh" well then it is clear who is prepared and knowledgable and who isnt.

I bring up logical valid points and he states over and over how I dont read, dont do proper research, and am basically uninformed. He is too arrogant to debate with. I live in Idaho, To get to Oregon from where I live, (which BTW, is the same exact direction of the narrow neck in relation to Zarahemla in the meso-American model) you do not travel "north" to get there. You travel from east to west. This isnt an issue of being uninformed, its an issue of common sense.

[ERayR]

I bring up logical valid points and he states over and over how I dont read, dont do proper research, and am basically uninformed. He is too arrogant to debate with. I live in Idaho, To get to Oregon from where I live, (which BTW, is the same exact direction of the narrow neck in relation to Zarahemla in the meso-American model) you do not travel "north" to get there. You travel from east to west. This isnt an issue of being uninformed, its an issue of common sense.

 

How long has this definition prevailed.   To get to Seattle WN. what direction do you travel?

[Rob Osborn]

In that case I recommend you read John L. Sorenson's "An Ancient American Setting" and/or "Mormon's Codex".

Sorenson has many basic issues I do not agree with. He assumes too much and has no evidence to back his claims. Its a nice theory, but just that and nothing more.

[ERayR]

Sorenson has many basic issues I do not agree with. He assumes too much and has no evidence to back his claims. Its a nice theory, but just that and nothing more.

 

I thought you said similarities and took you at your word.  If you meant something else you should have said so.  So what do you mean?

[ksfisher]

Sorenson has many basic issues I do not agree with. He assumes too much and has no evidence to back his claims. Its a nice theory, but just that and nothing more.

 

Having read both books I thought they were full of evidence.  Perhaps it just wasn't the evidence you were looking for.

[Rob Osborn]

How long has this definition prevailed.   To get to Seattle WN. what direction do you travel?

We arent speaking of going to Seattle. We are speaking of the narrow neck location in relevence to Zarahemla and Nephi.

[Rob Osborn]

I thought you said similarities and took you at your word.  If you meant something else you should have said so.  So what do you mean?

Similiarities would mean like finding an actual city in proposed location that had a complete stone wall around its city. That would be a start.

[ERayR]

Similiarities would mean like finding an actual city in proposed location that had a complete stone wall around its city. That would be a start.

 

That would be a wee bit more than similar, laddie.  Actually read Sorenson's work so that you will know what is really in it.  He points out a lot of similarities and a few quite close.

[Rob Osborn]

That would be a wee bit more than similar, laddie.  Actually read Sorenson's work so that you will know what is really in it.  He points out a lot of similarities and a few quite close.

I can get the book and read it. I just dont like buying books that I do not agree with. I already know his main arguments and where he makes those basic assumptions i already disagree with. For example- he assumes that the narrow neck must be wide enough that Limhi's expedition group never knew they were on it or would have known they were going the wrong way. The big problem here though is the text makes it clear that they had no idea at all what the geography was like on the way to Zarahemla and thus why they got lost and supposed they had found Zarahemla when in fact they found desolation. They thus also had no idea how far in relation it was away. This is just one of several faulty assumptions Sorenson makes and is unwarranted.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I can get the book and read it. I just dont like buying books that I do not agree with.

 

LOL that explains everything.

 

So, I though you and ERayR were on the same team. 

[ERayR]

I can get the book and read it. I just dont like buying books that I do not agree with. I already know his main arguments and where he makes those basic assumptions i already disagree with. For example- he assumes that the narrow neck must be wide enough that Limhi's expedition group never knew they were on it or would have known they were going the wrong way. The big problem here though is the text makes it clear that they had no idea at all what the geography was like on the way to Zarahemla and thus why they got lost and supposed they had found Zarahemla when in fact they found desolation. They thus also had no idea how far in relation it was away. This is just one of several faulty assumptions Sorenson makes and is unwarranted.

 

Borrow the books from someone you know and find out what you are rejecting.  At the very least they will clear up some of your misconceptions. You really do not knowor understand anything about it.  See if your local library can get a copy from library inter loan.

[ERayR]

LOL that explains everything.

 

So, I though you and ERayR were on the same team. 

 

That is only a minute portion of what you don't know.