Plea to Meso American Apologist

[sam]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

Yes. That is the problem. Even though quoting the Smithsonian seems to be a credible source, at that early time it was not up to the standards that we see now. There is nothing verified, no preserved artifacts that can be dated to that period--on top of the lack of evidence for that technology among the Hopewell.

I return the the comment I made much earlier. There is zero archaeological evidence for the Heartland hypothesis. No matter what might be done to make the geography look possible, all available information about the Hopewell tell us that they cannot have been Nephites.

1) The Adena are in the wrong place and cannot have been Jaredites. The fact that they were in Hopewell areas at all contradicts what the Book of Mormon says.

2) Archaeology cannot confirm defensive locations in most of the Hopewell sites that are claimed to be forts. In one case, the moat associated with the wall is on the inside, which is hardly defensive. 

3) While archaeology does support some agriculture, there wasn't sufficient agriculture to support very large populations. Therefore, we see smaller populations than would fit any of the Book of Mormon descriptions about 400 years in to their history.

4) There is no evidence for the kind of complex political structures among the Hopewell that the Book of Mormon requires.

5) While they have copper, it was imported from outside of the Hopewellian sphere, and therefore doesn't fit the Book of Mormon description of a land rich in the metal they used.

6) There is no evidence of large settlements, large populations, and particularly of large battles in the area around the NY hill we call Cumorah.

7) There is no evidence of a written language anywhere in North America (actually, only one region in the entire western hemisphere). Suggestions of written scripts are all late forgeries (and there are certainly some famous ones).

So, the only possible connection between the Book of Mormon and the Hopewell is that the basic dating for the beginnings and end of the Hopewell are similar. That coincidence certainly requires that we look at the Hopewell, but when we do--we find zero evidence from archaeology.

1. The Adena are in the wrong place and cannot have been Jaredites. The fact that they were in Hopewell areas at all contradicts what the Book of Mormon says.

That’s assuming if all Adena sites have been located.

1. Archaeology cannot confirm defensive locations in most of the Hopewell sites that are claimed to be forts. In one case, the moat associated with the wall is on the inside, which is hardly defensive.

What matters is that Hopewell built there fortifications in the same manner as the nephite which they do. 

1. While archaeology does support some agriculture, there wasn't sufficient agriculture to support very large populations. Therefore, we see smaller populations than would fit any of the Book of Mormon descriptions about 400 years in to their history.

I would have to disagree. The Hopewell was an advanced society that in my unprofessional opinion could support the numbers listed in the Book of Mormon

 

1. There is no evidence for the kind of complex political structures among the Hopewell that the Book of Mormon requires.

    

I would disagree with that the Book of Mormon gives the impression they mainly built with wood not stone like in meso America. Wood would not hold up against time. The mounds of dirt listed in the Book of Mormon and made by the Hopewell do except when many were leveled by farmers.

1. While they have copper, it was imported from outside of the Hopewellian sphere, and therefore doesn't fit the Book of Mormon description of a land rich in the metal they used.

The Hopewell had silver copper gold and meteoric iron that’s a good fit in my opinion

1. There is no evidence of large settlements, large populations, and particularly of large battles in the area around the NY hill we call Cumorah.

I would disagree with that early settlers found large pile of bones and traditional native American accounts talk of a major wars and a killing off of a Caucasian race of Indian.

1. There is no evidence of a written language anywhere in North America (actually, only one region in the entire western hemisphere). Suggestions of written scripts are all late forgeries (and there are certainly some famous ones).

Mik Maq Indians located above New York stated they once had a written language. Character in the Book of Prayers have characters similar to Egyptian Heiroglyphs.

 

So, the only possible connection between the Book of Mormon and the Hopewell is that the basic dating for the beginnings and end of the Hopewell are similar. That coincidence certainly requires that we look at the Hopewell, but when we do--we find zero evidence from archaeology.

North America comparatively is a much better fit than meso America.

[sam]

When it comes right down to it I could post meso American anthropologist and archeologist who commented on how meso America does not fit the Book of Mormon but to very obvious ones are. The Book of Mormon never mentions jungles and second it never states that they built building out of stone. It mentions mound of earth that were used you do not see that in Meso America.

[sam]

Actually I want to add one more the Book of Mormon mentions migrating land mammals that Jaredites ate carcasses of these animals during famine a perfect fit for Buffalo how does that exist in central America.

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Uh...something can absolutely be "proven false" without any sort of alternate model or theory having been "proven true" (or even suggested).

My general point is that no book of Mormon geography model can be absolutely proven false as Sam suggests.

[sam]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

My general point is that no book of Mormon geography model can be absolutely proven false as Sam suggests.

There are some models that are less likely than other but if you do a one on one comparison for each model. The North American model comes out on top.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, sam said:

When it comes right down to it I could post meso American anthropologist and archeologist who commented on how meso America does not fit the Book of Mormon but to very obvious ones are. The Book of Mormon never mentions jungles and second it never states that they built building out of stone. It mentions mound of earth that were used you do not see that in Meso America.

Thew BOM uses the word "wilderness"  ( an uncultivated, uninhabited, and inhospitable region. )  instead of  jungle.  "Wilderness" is derived from the Old English, while "jungle" originates from teh Hindi language.  It is unlikely that Joseph Smith would have used the latter word in his translation.

no "mounds of earth" in mesoamerica.  Did you even bother to look in google?
Some of the pyramids of Tikal are over 60 meters high (200 feet).A huge set of earthworks has been discovered ringing Tikal with a 6 meter wide trench behind a rampart. Only some 9km of it has been mapped; it may have enclosed an area of some 125 km square. http://www.crystalinks.com/pyramidmesoamerica.html

In Mesoamerica, the Nazca culture are probably best known for their colossal earthworks, https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081009151218AAcYTkR"

The earthworks discovered by Ruppert and Denison in 1934 represent massive fortifications erected during the Early Classic period, possibly in response to political inbalances caused by an intrusion of foreign elements from the central Mexican highlands...The fortifications of Becan represent the earliest clearcut evidence for large-scale military activity in the lowlands."Webster, Defensive Earthworks at Becán, p. 3

Your  assertion of "incredible evidence" is now taking on a new meaning with regards to the mesoamerican model.

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, sam said:

 Joseph Smith Said that Ohio Illinois were Nephite and Lamanite lands. 

Yes, we can agree that Nephites and Lamanites did indeed live in the "land northward".  But that has nothing to do with the narrative in the Book of Mormon.

Edited August 21, 2016 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

3 hours ago, sam said:

1. The Adena are in the wrong place and cannot have been Jaredites. The fact that they were in Hopewell areas at all contradicts what the Book of Mormon says.

That’s assuming if all Adena sites have been located.

No, it doesn't. Many have been, and the Adena cultural sphere closely matches the later Hopewell sphere. That means that we have Adena sites under/near Hopewell--and the Book of Mormon precludes that for the Jaredites. Still no match.

Quote

 

1. Archaeology cannot confirm defensive locations in most of the Hopewell sites that are claimed to be forts. In one case, the moat associated with the wall is on the inside, which is hardly defensive.

What matters is that Hopewell built there fortifications in the same manner as the nephite which they do. 

 

 

You have missed the point. Archaeology says that the DO NOT make them in the same manner. We haven't found many Hopewell fortifications at all, and those that I read about that were agreed upon as defensive appeared to be redoubts for invaders, not the Hopewell. Still no match.

Quote

 

1. While archaeology does support some agriculture, there wasn't sufficient agriculture to support very large populations. Therefore, we see smaller populations than would fit any of the Book of Mormon descriptions about 400 years in to their history.

I would have to disagree. The Hopewell was an advanced society that in my unprofessional opinion could support the numbers listed in the Book of Mormon

 

 

 I can't say anything about what informs your unprofessional opinion. What I can say is that your opinion is counter to all of the evidence collected and analyzed by those who are professionals. Given that you have provided no evidence to contradict the experts, I must continue to side with them. 

Quote

 

1. There is no evidence for the kind of complex political structures among the Hopewell that the Book of Mormon requires.  

I would disagree with that the Book of Mormon gives the impression they mainly built with wood not stone like in meso America. Wood would not hold up against time. The mounds of dirt listed in the Book of Mormon and made by the Hopewell do except when many were leveled by farmers.

 

 

You are have an answer, but not to the issue. Political structures don't require particular building materials, although more complicated materials can indicate a more complex government. There has certainly been a lot of destruction of Hopewell sites by farmers, but there are many that remain, and work has been done on the villages. Even wood leaves the remains in the postholes, so the size of the villages can be determined. They were not large, and there is no indication in those settlements of complex political systems. 

Quote

 

1. \While they have copper, it was imported from outside of the Hopewellian sphere, and therefore doesn't fit the Book of Mormon description of a land rich in the metal they used.

The Hopewell had silver copper gold and meteoric iron that’s a good fit in my opinion

 

 

Again, I can't say much about your opinion. Gold was very rare. They did have copper, but it had to be imported from Michigan. It was a trade item. The Book of Mormon says they had the ore in their own lands. That means that even though they had copper, they didn't have copper ore. So you can take half a point on that--but the other half is a contradiction to the text.

Quote

 

1. There is no evidence of large settlements, large populations, and particularly of large battles in the area around the NY hill we call Cumorah.

I would disagree with that early settlers found large pile of bones and traditional native American accounts talk of a major wars and a killing off of a Caucasian race of Indian.

 

 

There are two points here. The first is archaeology. We have already discussed that there are big issues with the stories told in old histories. Anything before the modern era is suspect. That doesn't mean it is a priori wrong, but it does mean that it has be be verified. Archaeologists are pretty good at determining population sizes. The villages were not that large. While there were a lot of Hopewellians, there wasn't anything that tied the various villages together into larger political systems. They do not have the archaeological footprint. So, if we go with the best data, there were no large populations.

The second point is Indian legends. I happen to have worked a fair amount with some of them, and I can tell you that using that information is complex, and very often influenced if not altered by the recorders. Using Indian legends to support the Book of Mormon is even less accurate archaeology from the 1800's.

1.  

Quote

 

1. There is no evidence of a written language anywhere in North America (actually, only one region in the entire western hemisphere). Suggestions of written scripts are all late forgeries (and there are certainly some famous ones).

Mik Maq Indians located above New York stated they once had a written language. Character in the Book of Prayers have characters similar to Egyptian Heiroglyphs.

 

 

You need to read better sources. The Mikmaq characters were signs that were adapted into a written language by a French Priest, Cretien LeClercq. 

Quote

 

So, the only possible connection between the Book of Mormon and the Hopewell is that the basic dating for the beginnings and end of the Hopewell are similar. That coincidence certainly requires that we look at the Hopewell, but when we do--we find zero evidence from archaeology.

North America comparatively is a much better fit than meso America.

 

You do keep saying that. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything you have presented that substantiates that assertion.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, cdowis said:

"Israelites"

Please be specific -- to which tribes are you referring.  To jog your memory, the mother of Joseph was an Egyptian, so the DNA would perhaps be different from those of the other tribes.

We throw out words like Jew and Israelite as if their DNA were all the same.  Lehi was NOT a Jew, genetically speaking.

"pretty good idea"

And what do you mean by "pretty good"?  Remember we are talking about a very small group

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

We have come to the point in genetic studies that we can say that Palestinians and Druze have nearly an identical percentage of Y-chromosome haplogroup G-M527, which starkly differentiates them from others (Table 1, in Brody & King, “Genetics and the Archaeology of Ancient Israel,” Wayne State University Digital Commons / Human Biology Open Access Pre-Prints, paper 44, Jan 1, 2013, online at http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=humbiol_preprints ).  We can also say that modern Lebanese have the same genetics as their ancient Canaanite ancestors.  Furthermore, those same Lebanese have the same DNA as their Phoenician ancestors (80%), although the once great Phoenician-Punic port of Carthage has now only 20% Phoenician DNA -- see “Quest for the Phoenicians” (National Geographic, 2004), broadcast on May 8, 2005, covering the DNA project of geneticist Dr. Spencer Wells (cf. P. Zalloua, et al.  "Identifying Genetic Traces of Historical Expansions: Phoenician Footprints in the Mediterranean," The American Journal of Human Genetics 83 (2008):633..

The word "Jew" is often used today to refer to all the descendants of ancient Israel, even though that is not a correct mode of reference.  The way it is most precisely used is in reference to anyone currently part of the greater ethno-religious community of surviving Judeans (members of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and their associated Levites and Cohens), to be distinguished from Samaritans and from the "lost" ten northern tribes (many of them captured by Assyria and deported).  However, we know for certain that many refugees from the northern ten tribes swelled the population of Jerusalem circa 722 BC, so the DNA of modern Jews includes many if not most of the original 12 tribes of Israel.

You are in error claiming that Joseph is son of an Egyptian mother, but your point is well taken only because both Manasseh and Ephraim were sons of an Egyptian mother, the wife of Joseph.  Thousands of years of intermarriage among Israelites (despite tribal endogamy) would leave us with little likelihood of confusion about what constitutes ancient Israelite DNA.  Thus, regardless of the smallness of Clan Lehi and friends, their autosomal DNA should be instantly recognizable as Israelite.  Particularly in the New World.

“New study defines the genetic map of the Jewish diasporas,” ScienceDaily, August 6, 2012, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120806151137.htm .

Gil Atzmon, et al., “Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 10 (June 2010), 1016.

“Common genetic threads link thousands of years of Jewish ancestry,” ScienceDaily, June 4, 2011.  Retrieved June 4, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603123707.htm . 

David Reich, et al., “The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews.” PLoS Genetics, 7/4 (21 Apr 2011), 1371-1373, online at http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2011Moorjani_PLOS.pdf . 

“Population genetics reveals shared ancestries: DNA links modern Europeans, Middle Easterners to Sub-Saharan Africans,” ScienceDaily, May 24, 2011 (Harvard Medical School). Retrieved June 4, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com- /releases/2011/05/110524153536.htm .

“Analysis of Ashkenazi Jewish Genomes Reveals Diversity, History,” ScienceDaily, Aug 27, 2010 (Emory University), retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2010/08/100826141331.htm .

Almut Nebel, et al., “The Y-Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 69/5 (Nov 2001), 1095-1112.

Tudor Parfitt and Yulia Egorova, “The Impact of Mediated Genetics Research on the Religious Identity of the Lemba,” SOAS, University of London, online at http://www.soas.ac.uk/nme/hebrew/hebrewresearch/ .

P. Pitkänen, "Ethnicity, Assimilation and the Israelite Settlement," Tyndale Bulletin 55/2 (2004):161-82.

D. Behar, et al., "The Genome-wide Structure of the Jewish People," Nature 466 (2010),238.

 

[tapirrider]

7 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

You need to read better sources. The Mikmaq characters were signs that were adapted into a written language by a French Priest, Cretien LeClercq. 

You do keep saying that. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything you have presented that substantiates that assertion.

Sam, I agree with Brant Gardner here on the subject of the Mikmaq characters as well as with many other things he has tried to explain to you.

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/19/2016 at 1:46 PM, sam said:

I don't care what the church says ...

And right here is one of the keys to the whole thread.  "Thank yuh!  Thank yuh verruh verruh much, ladies and gentlemen!"  

[Brant Gardner]

14 hours ago, sam said:

When it comes right down to it I could post meso American anthropologist and archeologist who commented on how meso America does not fit the Book of Mormon but to very obvious ones are. The Book of Mormon never mentions jungles and second it never states that they built building out of stone. It mentions mound of earth that were used you do not see that in Meso America.

It is always my favorite time when a proponent of a geography stops promoting their geographic correlation on its benefits and begins to say it is good because another one is worse. Interesting tactic.

In this case, while there may be some reasons why there are drawbacks to the Mesoamerican model, you need better ones that these. First, it is true that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention jungles. It isn't true that Sorenson's correlation has the Book of Mormon taking place in jungles. The majority of the Book of Mormon would have taken place in terrain that most of us would feel pretty familiar with.

It is true that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention building of stone. The only dwelling material it mentions is cement (noticeably missing in the North American model), but that is because it is considered unusual. It doesn't mention building of wood any more than stone. However, there was a lot of wood in Mesoamerican homes and in many building structures. The symbol for defeating a city was a temple on fire.

As for mounds of earth, I would like the reference to that. My electronic search didn't find any occurrence of the word "mound." I looked for "heaps," and found heaps of dead. I do remember dirt walls that were topped with fences, but those do exist in Mesoamerica (and with more archaeological backing than Hopewell "forts").

Quote

Actually I want to add one more the Book of Mormon mentions migrating land mammals that Jaredites ate carcasses of these animals during famine a perfect fit for Buffalo how does that exist in central America.

Migrating animals move according to seasons and food sources. Animals that move only because of a famine are moving to a new food source because theirs has become unavailable. Both types move, but the reason is very different. The Book of Mormon has Jaredite animals moving into the land southward. Remember that the Jaredites are supposed to be north of the Nephites. This is where the Adena correlation fails entirely. The Adena were already south. If the animals had moved south, they weren't in Nephite lands either, according to the Heartland theory. Of course, that doesn't matter because we are talking about buffalo--which were west. They were Great Plains animals and were not known to have been in the woodland areas that constitute the Heartland model/Hopewell interaction sphere.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 8/20/2016 at 1:54 PM, sam said:

 

The new madrid fault is an excellent candidate for the earthquakes mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The last earthquake descriptions match those mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

In a report filed in November 2008, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency warned that a serious earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone could result in "the highest economic losses due to a natural disaster in the United States," further predicting "widespread and catastrophic" damage across Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and particularly Tennessee, where a 7.7 magnitude quake or greater would cause damage to tens of thousands of structures affecting water distribution, transportation systems, and other vital infrastructure.^[20] The earthquake is expected to also result in many thousands of fatalities, with more than 4,000 of the fatalities expected in Memphis alone.

The potential for the recurrence of large earthquakes and their impact today on densely populated cities in and around the seismic zone has generated much research devoted to understanding in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. By studying evidence of past quakes and closely monitoring ground motion and current earthquake activity, scientists attempt to understand their causes and recurrence intervals.

The Book of Mormon describes areas of land that sank and lands that lifted and shaking that lasted for long periods of time. It also describes a vapor of darkness to the point that they could not light fires.

Now compare eyewitness accounts of a New Madrid quake that happened in 1811. Quotes come from Joseph Knew website.

“In all the hard shocks mentioned, the earth was horribly torn to pieces – the surface of hundreds of acres, was, from time to time, covered over, in various depths, by the sand which issued from the fissures, which were made in great numbers all over this country, some of which closed up immediately after they had vomited forth their sand and water, which it must be remarked, was the matter generally thrown up. In some places, however, there was a substance somewhat resembling coal, or impure stone coal, thrown up with the sand. It is impossible to say what the depths of the fissures or irregular breaks were; we have reason to believe that some of them are very deep.” – Eliza Bryan

“The surface was sinking and a black liquid was rising up to the belly of my horse, who stood motionless, struck with a panic of terror […] water spouts, hundreds of them throwing water and sand were to be observed on the whole face of the country, the sand forming miniature volcanoes, whilst the water spouted out of the craters; some of the spouts were quite six feet high… In a few minutes, on both sides of the road as far as the eye could see, was vast expanse of sand and water, water and sand. The road spouted water, and wide openings were to be seen across it ahead of me, then under me, and my [vehicle] sank while the water and sand bubbled, and spat and sucked till my axles were covered.” – J Fletcher

“I went ashore, and found the chasm really frightful, as it was not less than four feet in width and besides the bank had sunk at least two feet. I took the candle, examined to determine its length and concluded that it could not be less than eighty yards long.” – John Bradbury (on the Mississippi River)

“The earth was broken in many places and the openings filled with water. The houses much injured – the only brick chimney in the place entirely demolished…” – Daniel Bedinger

“We were visited by a violent shock of an earthquake, accompanied by a very awful noise resembling loud but distant thunder, but more hoarse and vibrating, which was followed in a few minutes by the complete saturation of the atmosphere, with sulphurious vapor, causing total darkness.” – Eliza Bryan

“A dense black cloud of vapor overshadowed the land.” – Godfrey LeSieur

If you had at least read the Kowallis article in BYU Studies, you would have recognized the need to respond directly to this sort of thing:

Quote

However the 3 nephi account cannot be explained solely as a massive earthquake or storm for neither of these natural disasters can account for all the features described.  All of the features of the account can however be explained by a specific type of natural phenomenon occurring only in certain geologic settings an explosive volcanic eruption similar to the eruption in Papua New Guinea and to the eruption on Santorini. I am certainly not the first who has recognized this event for what it is but I1 hope here to more completely outline the events that occurred and demonstrate that all of these events can be explained in the context of a single explosive volcanic eruption. 

Which means all of these details:

Quote

A complete listing of the events recorded in 3 nephi as having
occurred during the destruction includes the following
1 A great storm 8:5
2 A strong and terrible tempest 8:6 12 17 1001414
3 terrible thunder 8:6 12 17
4 shaking of the whole earth 8:6 12 14 17 19 109
5 exceedingly sharp lightning 8:7 12 17
6 burning of cities 8:8 14 24 93 9-91010
7 sinking of cities into the sea 8:9 94 7 10:13
8 earth carried up on cities 8:10 14 25 95 10:13
9 sinking and burial of cities 9:6 8 1013 14
10 changing of whole face of the land 8:12 17
11 whirlwinds whirlwindy Whirlwinds 8:12 16 10: 14

12 breaking up of highways and earth 8:13
13 breaking up of cities destruction of inhabitants 8:14 15
14 breaking and scattering of rocks 8:18 10:9
15 three hour duration of initial events 8:19
16 three day duration of thick darkness 8:19 22 23 10:9 13
17 palpable darkness 8:20
18 no fires or lights 8:21
19 very dry wood 8:21
20 vapors of smoke 10:11
211 falling objects crushing people 10:13 

And this:

Quote

although these phenomena are similar to some of those mentioned in 3 nephi some glaring differences are apparent .I have already mentioned one namely that in the 3 nephi account the shaking lasted for about three hours too long a time period for the shock from a single large earthquake and too short for the period during which aftershocks following a major earthquake usually take place. However it is a very reasonable amount of time for the initial stages of a volcanic eruption we might call this the throat clearing stage of the eruption which occurs as the mounting pressure cleans the volcanos vent of the rock and debris that have plugged it up during this time. Frequent explosions and earthquakes occur once the vent is cleared the volcano may continue to erupt for several hours or days. Without additional significant earthquakes other problems with ascribing the destruction described in 3 nephi to a major tectonic earthquake include (1) the three days of darkness this phenomenon has never been reported in association with a large earthquake (2) the winds and tempests although it may be windy during an earthquake just as it may be windy at any other time no correlation between wind and earthquakes has been demonstrated even though one of the old now abandoned theories of earthquake production was the idea that wind was trapped in the earth and released during an earth quake. whirlwinds. I know of no report of a whirlwind or tornado caused by an earthquake and (4) the inability to light a fire which again has never been reported as an effect of a major earthquake.  Nephi's description of the whole face of the land being changed is also not typical of an earthquake although the devastation can be enormous during an earthquake most landmarks survive and are recognizable.  On the other hand a major volcanic eruption often produces scenes so strange and unnatural that it seems as if the landscape has been remade.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If you had at least read the Kowallis article in BYU Studies, you would have recognized the need to respond directly to this sort of thing:

However the 3 nephi account cannot be explained solely as a massive earthquake or storm for neither of these natural disasters can account for all the features described.  All of the features of the account can however be explained by a specific type of natural phenomenon occurring only in certain geologic settings an explosive volcanic eruption similar to the eruption in Papua New Guinea and to the eruption on Santorini. I am certainly not the first who has recognized this event for what it is but I1 hope here to more completely outline the events that occurred and demonstrate that all of these events can be explained in the context of a single explosive volcanic eruption. 

The problem with explaining the events as the result of a massive volcanic eruption is that there were no volcanic eruptions in the early part of the 1st century AD. Only two events were found in the ice core samples before Vesuvius in 79 AD and both of those were many times smaller than eruptions we've seen in our own lifetimes. And they were in the southern hemisphere, nothing in the tropics or northern hemisphere. But you can see there is a pretty big temperature anomaly around the right time. The third highest over the last 2500 years. So something happened. But since there is no associated cooling in the years that follow it probably was not a volcanic event.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Calm]

"Bruce Warren has discussed evidence for volcanic activity in Mesoamerica around the time of Christ.⁵⁹ Archaeology provides evidence for such volcanic activity in the Valley of Mexico, where the volcano Xitle is believed to have erupted anciently, covering much of the southern portion of the valley.⁶⁰ Cummings, the archaeologist who originally excavated at Cuicuilco, believed that Xitle erupted around 2860 B.C.⁶¹ Based on more recent evidence, scholars now know that this disaster occurred nearly 2,000 years ago.⁶² At that time the site of Copilco was buried under more than thirty feet of lava, as was much of the nearby site of Cuicuilco. Archaeological evidence from the sites indicates that the lava flow was preceded by a heavy rainfall of ash.⁶³ Both of these sites are located on the southwestern end of the Valley of Mexico. About thirty miles northeast is the massive site of Teotihuacan. There a layer of volcanic ash, apparently blown from that eruption, covers structures from the Tzacualli phase (A.D. 1-150). Carbon-14 tests of material directly below the ash layer yielded a date of A.D. 30 ± 80.64

Additional evidence for volcanic activity in Mesoamerica near the time of Christ can be found further south in the Tuxtlas region of southern Veracruz, a region many Latter-day Saint scholars associate with the Book of Mormon "land northward." In the 1940s archaeologists Matthew Stirling and Phillip Drucker found that a heavy layer of ash covered what appeared to be Late Preclassic pottery and other material at the site of Tres Zapotes. Michael Coe notes that while this pottery has "strong continuities with the Middle Preclassic, . . . in general most resemblances lie with other Late Preclassic phases of Mesoamerica, such as Chicanel of the lowland Maya area, Chiapa IV and V at Chiapa de Corzo, and terminal Preclassic manifestations in the Valley of Mexico. Olmec and other Middle Preclassic phenomena are either absent or very weak."⁶⁵ Coe then notes that "the famous Stela C," found directly below the ash layer in question, "if read in the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson correlation, would read 31 B.C., exactly within the period with which we are concerned."⁶⁶ If Coe's argument holds, then this would place the San Martin eruption some time after 31 B.C"

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences2.shtml

[Bob Crockett]

13 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

It is always my favorite time when a proponent of a geography stops promoting their geographic correlation on its benefits and begins to say it is good because another one is worse. Interesting tactic.

 

 

 

 

I think you've hit upon the very most important reason why I object to Dr. Sorenson's books, as this is the very methodology he uses.  "But other scenarios or models are possible.  The one elaborated in this book offers an alternative theory for the development of civilization in Mesoamerica.  Whether it or the normative evolutionary model or some other position is to be accepted depends on a prudent assessment of what is most plausible, not on mere popularity."  Codex, 65-66.

The scientific method does not array possible theories and then pick the "most plausible."  It would be akin to arraying the possible theories of aliens visiting Earth and then picking the one "most plausible" as something to spend one's life defending.  

It is hard to explain briefly the scientific method, and certainly the scientific method is no guarantee of establishing the truth, but it is the minimal basis of theorizing permitted in a peer-reviewed sense.  Whether a particular theory is founded in the scientific method relies on such things as reasonably verifiable and reproducible, accepted or at least not objected to by peers (it doesn't have to be a majority view), and set forth as a reasonable conclusion given the evidence.  Dr. Sorenson repeatedly couches his conclusions as "plausible" or "most plausible," meaning that it is better than alternative theories.  That is not a conclusion based in science.  His method is the very method you denounce. Dr. Sorenson knows how to write peer-reviewed material as he has authored significant texts on diffusionist biology, and he does not couch his conclusions as "most plausible."  In his diffusionist works, he shows the genetic similarities between, say, a chicken in South American and one in China.  Peers can then reproduce his conclusions, even though they are a minority view on the edge of being crackpot.  (Diffusionism has advanced far beyond the crackpot, and Dr. Sorensen has been at the forefront of this success.)

A comparison of an ancient text to real-world conditions is a fairly arcane science, but there are folks who do it.  Dr. Sorenson did not use any of their apparent methodology, although I am not a linguist and not really able to explain how Dr. Sorenson fails in this area.  

Bob Crockett

Edited August 22, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[PeterPear]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And right here is one of the keys to the whole thread.  "Thank yuh!  Thank yuh verruh verruh much, ladies and gentlemen!"  

Yeah. And Dr. Sorenson and his disciples have stated similar.  So what's your point? That it's bad if Sam says this. But it's ok that Dr.  Sorenson says it because he has a group following and books?

 

Quote

 

"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. Even with Stephens’s material in mind, he made no more than a passing attempt to relate the Book of Mormon’s story to the newly-found ruins. And in the long run, the little blip on the Latter-day Saints’ mental screen caused by the explorer’s book faded as the mistaken folk view reasserted its dominance. "

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19

 

 

 

This is why the Mesoamerica Theory is wrong. The Prophet Joseph Smith is dismissed by claiming:

"..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.

Publishing books and articles in an attempt to prove Joseph Smith is synonymous to being a liar - is not a defense for a Geography theory for The Book of Mormon. But Mesoamerica defenders apparently don't care. Do you? Joseph Smith is a mere foot note in the Mesoamerica Geograohy Theory. Once you've dismissed the Prophet Joseph Smith, you can step in claim whatever you want.You can even claim a travel book by John Lloyd Stephens is more important than statements made by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

This same attitude has been carried over to FairMormon with their published "work" by Michael Ash

Quote

 

"The fact that Joseph Smith may have believed in a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography is strong support that he did not write the Nephite text, but rather translated it. When a man becomes a prophet, God does not instantly answer all questions and concerns about all aspects of the gospel (especially peripheral aspects such as geography)."

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ash-Where_Did_the_Book_of_Mormon_Take_Place.pdf

 

 

 

So you see, when it comes to the Geography of the Book of Mormon - the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't know.

• He did not understand
• He was ambigouse in his statements
• Geography was a peripheral matter to the Prophet

This is the basis or "keystone" of the Mesoamerica Geography Theory.

Once you know this - you can quite wasting your time on the Mesoamerica Theory because it ignores the Prophet Joseph Smith. Or you can then find its many faults made by uninspired men.

For an example of the latter.... for decades, F.A.R.M.S. had written articles comparing the Maya to the Nephites. Go to MaxwellInstiture.org and type "Maya" in the search box and it will return pages of articles about the Maya.But Dr. Sorenson stated in his

Quote

 

"

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe

There is too much gratuitous “Mayanization” going on throughout this entire discussion. The text’s “Nephites” were not Maya in all probability; the “Lamanites” may have been in part.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

 

 

So there you have it. The Mesoamerica Theory denies statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith by dismissing him as one who did not understand, one who was ambiguous.

Then after decades of comparing the text to the Maya, Dr.  Sorenson claims the Nephites were not the Maya.

So give LDS Members a break if they believe the Geography occurred in North America. Because Dr. Sorenson himself was the one who didn't understand and was ambiguous.

Not the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by PeterPear

[Brant Gardner]

22 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Publishing books and articles in an attempt to prove Joseph Smith is synonymous to being a liar - is not a defense for a Geography theory for The Book of Mormon. But Mesoamerica defenders apparently don't care.

And we have another entry in the "well, at least my theory isn't as bad as yours" category. Without rehashing all of the reasons that the Heartland hypothesis cannot represent the Book of Mormon, let me deal with this one issue.

First, no, no one, and no position is attempting to prove Joseph Smith a liar. In fact, the Mesoamericanists I know have a very high regard for Joseph. What they actually say is that Joseph, who translated the Book of Mormon, did not write it--and therefore was not intimately aware of its geographical and cultural setting. Evidence for that is that Joseph entertained several ideas during his lifetime.

The idea that Joseph declared only a certain area to be the geography of the Book of Mormon does, however, call into question the integrity of the many men who knew him, served intimately with him, and particularly those who became the Presidents of the Church. Those men apparently never knew that Joseph had been so specific, because they never declared the geography set--and later (and current) leaders of the church have said that there is no official geography. I think we should be very careful about accusing someone of calling Joseph a liar, when to do so necessarily impugns all of the good men around him and who followed him--but didn't, and don't, agree with the Heartland hypothesis.

Do we care? Deeply. I happen to sustain the current leaders just as much as Joseph. When they tell me that there is no revealed Book of Mormon geography, what else should I think but that they might be right?

[PeterPear]

10 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

And we have another entry in the "well, at least my theory isn't as bad as yours" category. Without rehashing all of the reasons that the Heartland hypothesis cannot represent the Book of Mormon, let me deal with this one issue.

First, no, no one, and no position is attempting to prove Joseph Smith a liar. In fact, the Mesoamericanists I know have a very high regard for Joseph. What they actually say is that Joseph, who translated the Book of Mormon, did not write it--and therefore was not intimately aware of its geographical and cultural setting. Evidence for that is that Joseph entertained several ideas during his lifetime.

The idea that Joseph declared only a certain area to be the geography of the Book of Mormon does, however, call into question the integrity of the many men who knew him, served intimately with him, and particularly those who became the Presidents of the Church. Those men apparently never knew that Joseph had been so specific, because they never declared the geography set--and later (and current) leaders of the church have said that there is no official geography. I think we should be very careful about accusing someone of calling Joseph a liar, when to do so necessarily impugns all of the good men around him and who followed him--but didn't, and don't, agree with the Heartland hypothesis.

Do we care? Deeply. I happen to sustain the current leaders just as much as Joseph. When they tell me that there is no revealed Book of Mormon geography, what else should I think but that they might be right?

"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."  - Mesoamerica Theory

Sounds like calling Joseph Smith a liar to me - in a nice Charitable way, of course.

 

Mesoamerica Theory:

Joseph Smith didn't understand what he was saying or implying

Joseph Smith was ambiguous

Therefore the actual geography of The Book of Mormon was in Mesoamerica

 

What a load of phony baloney.

Edited August 22, 2016 by PeterPear

[PeterPear]

Now I'll get banned from this thread for quoting Dr. Sorenson.

It's the typical operating procedure here.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

"Bruce Warren has discussed evidence for volcanic activity in Mesoamerica around the time of Christ.⁵⁹ Archaeology provides evidence for such volcanic activity in the Valley of Mexico, where the volcano Xitle is believed to have erupted anciently, covering much of the southern portion of the valley.⁶⁰ Cummings, the archaeologist who originally excavated at Cuicuilco, believed that Xitle erupted around 2860 B.C.⁶¹ Based on more recent evidence, scholars now know that this disaster occurred nearly 2,000 years ago.⁶² At that time the site of Copilco was buried under more than thirty feet of lava, as was much of the nearby site of Cuicuilco. Archaeological evidence from the sites indicates that the lava flow was preceded by a heavy rainfall of ash.⁶³ Both of these sites are located on the southwestern end of the Valley of Mexico.

The source used is from 1959. New dates have come out since. This is from 2000

"More than 30 radiocarbon dates have been obtained by several workers on charcoal samples from beneath the lava, and several ages for the eruption have been proposed from these dates. Most dated samples were not directly produced by Xitle's eruption but instead are artifacts of human activity that predates the eruption. Thus, these ages (mostly about 2000 bp) are older than the eruption. A new age of 1670±35 years bp (AD 245–315) obtained on charcoal samples collected just beneath the lavas is favored for the Xitle eruption." "The new dates, obtained from material which clearly is contemporaneous with the volcanic activity, suggest that the eruption took place around 1670 years BP, some 300 years later than previously thought."

3 hours ago, Calm said:

About thirty miles northeast is the massive site of Teotihuacan. There a layer of volcanic ash, apparently blown from that eruption, covers structures from the Tzacualli phase (A.D. 1-150). Carbon-14 tests of material directly below the ash layer yielded a date of A.D. 30 ± 80.64

The source is from 1961. There have been new studies published since. This is from 1996.

"The Holocene eruptive history of Popocatépetl volcano is characterized by recurrent voluminous Plinian eruptions every 1000 to 3000 yr, the most recent of which destroyed human settlements. Major eruptions occurred between 3195 and 2830 B.C., 800 and 215 B.C., and A.D. 675 and 1095. The three eruptions followed a similar pattern and started with minor ash fall and ash flows." However, I did find a date 200 BCE ± 300 years. A wide range, and ice core samples would suggest that this eruption did not happen near 30 AD.

I'm not saying that there weren't eruptions in Meso around 30 AD. There very well could have been. But they were small events, not even as powerful as we have experienced within our own lifetimes such as St. Helens and Pinatubo. Nothing that could have produced the destruction we see in 3rd Nephi. There are small eruptions happening right now in Mexico and Indonesia that might show up in the record 2000 years from now, but no one is writing about days of darkness, suffocating vapors, and a complete transformation of the land. Such destruction would be visible to us today, like what we find in the ice cores and on the ground in Italy for Vesuvius in the same century as 3rd Nephi.

I'm just saying we should be open to the possibility that a volcanic eruption is not the main cause. Eruptions of the size required do not show up in the ice cores so its risky to say put all our eggs in that basket as many Meso scholars seem to do. 

[Calm]

Interesting, thanks.

[Rajah Manchou]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Interesting, thanks.

One more thought. As we learn more about Meso we discover that there were other volcanic eruptions during the Book of Mormon period that were more intense than those that might have happened around 30 AD. So why would these not be mentioned?

For example, the new dates for Xitle are between 245 and 315 AD. This would place the event within one generation of Mormon's birth in the same region he would have been as he compiled the Book of Mormon. It would seem unlikely that Mormon would refer to volcanic events in 30 AD as something never before seen in the land if Mormon, or people he knew, had witnessed Xitle dump 30 feet of lava on Copilco and Cuicuilco.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

What a load of phony baloney.

So is repeating without responding. I'll ask more simply. Which prophet made the mistake of ignoring Joseph when they declared that there is no revealed position on geography?

 

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm just saying we should be open to the possibility that a volcanic eruption is not the main cause.

One more thought. As we learn more about Meso we discover that there were other volcanic eruptions during the Book of Mormon period that were more intense than those that might have happened around 30 AD. So why would these not be mentioned?

I think we should consider any possible cause. So far a volcanic eruption is the only thing geologists tell us could meet the criteria. Do you have another possibility?

As for why things are not mentioned, there are always lots of answers--none of which may be correct because when somebody doesn't say something we are inventing reasons why we think they didn't. In this case, my invented guess would be that there is a difference when you are really close to a volcano and when it is a few hundred miles away. Xitle was devastating and clearly altered the face of Central Mexico. However, that was a long way away from the Nephites. They would have felt the after effects in the weather changes, but probably not the impact of being close.

What I don't know, not being a geologist, is how large the explosion would have been to create those conditions compared to the ice core data. I'll try to get some information on that.