Meldrum Takes it Up a Notch - Revolutionizes Science Itself

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

When I was growing up (note to self: That means over half a century ago) it was the general opinion that new discoveries made in Central America of buildings, paintings, wall glyphs etc., etc., were confirmation of the Book of Mormon story. Paintings that displayed different skin tones, one lighter, one darker, were merely repeats of what everyone knew to be true, the story of the Nephites and Lamanites. It was considered a mere matter of time before the absolute proof of such things would be nailed down. 

I know there was the Chessman crowd who'd push such things uncritically. Sorenson seemed more cautious although others thought even Sorenson got over his skis a bit at times. I think some of that is still going on, but among the more intellectual crowd I think cautious has been the status quo for quite some time. There have been people like Mark Wright leading tours of mesoamerican sites but again they are far more cautious and bear little resemblance to the heyday of Chessman excesses of the 70's and 80's.

Probably this essay by Dennis Horne reflects the more cautious approach.

Quote

Are there any skilled anthropologists, currently digging in Central America or who have recently returned, that present new finds with a nod to the Book of Mormon? 

Probably the best book at present (IMO) is Brant Gardner's Traditions of the Fathers. He's more cautious and critical than Sorenson. Sorenson's latest book was Mormon's Codex although Gardner criticizes a few claims in it. From what I can tell as a non-expert the main advances of the past 20 years or so have been in changing how we read the Book of Mormon - breaking us away from some of the presuppositions we bring to the text. Brant Gardner did an interesting interview on LDS Perspectives a couple of year ago that's worth listening to.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, cinepro said:

Not to toss a grenade into the discussion, but this is the thing that has always mystified me about Book of Mormon believers in academia.

If you really believe the events in the Book of Mormon happened and that those people existed, then the Book of Mormon is the most incredible and important artifact of the New World in existence by an order of magnitude.  Religious considerations aside, if someone in that field really thinks it's a factual record, then they would be trying to present it in every archaeological journal in the world. 

Not sure why you're mystified. No non-Mormon academic would consider the Book of Mormon worth anything unless it could be tied to sites in a non-question begging way. Right now it can't so as a historical document it's worthless. That doesn't mean it's not historical of course. But all of this seems quite straightforward.