Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

True, that's one way of looking at it. I tend to think it is more significant than that. 

But lets say this golden book is a record of a lost tribe, in exactly the same way the Book of Mormon claims to be a lost record of a lost tribe. What does that mean for us, as Mormons? Anything?

There is a pattern there, as I suggest in additional material I just added to my reply to you.

[Rajah Manchou]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is a pattern there, as I suggest in additional material I just added to my reply to you.

Missed that earlier. Thank you.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In 2007 I gave some lectures in Puerto Rico, where Buddhism is becoming popular. Two Nyingma Lamas had been there to give some teachings. My hosts said,  they told us that Padmasambhava came to Puerto Rico and left some texts in the mountains.

We've discussed it before, but I don't think I've communicated the ideas well.

In short, it appears that Padmasambhava (a legend that likely originates in Burma, formerly known as Kamara) is a sort of Asian Hermes or Pythagorus who resides on a copper colored mountain named Camara. Compare to Hermes who resides in a copper palace on a mountain named Kumr, or Comoro. 

The Jesuits were aware of the Padmasambhava tradition and speculated about similarities with Hermetic tradition. 

https://www.evernote.com/l/AAjo_jklzKlJ6qn5AcpLMCgWK2OLI6IzW5w

I believe Swedenborg also picked up on it in his revelations that the missing texts mentioned by Moses in the Bible (eg. Book of Jasher) would be found cached in the Great Tartary or Tibet. IMO, Swedenborg anticipates the discovery of the treasure text cached in Cumorah as hermetic tradition was filtered back to him through Jesuit accounts of Padmasambhava and the Dalai Lama. Its absolutely nuts to be honest. But it does fit, in ways that can't be easily dismissed.

Somehow Joseph Smith is tapped in to this incredibly rich and exotic tradition. Even down to completing all the detailed steps a treasure finder (terton) must take before a treasure text (terma) can be revealed. I can't explain it.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But lets say this golden book is a record of a lost tribe, in exactly the same way the Book of Mormon claims to be a lost record of a lost tribe. What does that mean for us, as Mormons? Anything?

Well, we do not know who all of those other "lost tribes" are and where they are at that  Jesus was referring to in 3 Ne 17:4 that Robert quoted.

[Lagrange]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Missed that earlier. Thank you.

We've discussed it before, but I don't think I've communicated the ideas well.

In short, it appears that Padmasambhava (a legend that likely originates in southeast Burma, formerly known as Kamara) is a sort of Asian Hermes or Pythagorus who resides on a copper colored mountain named Camara. Compare to Hermes who resides in a copper palace on a mountain named Kumr, or Comoro. 

The Jesuits were aware of this tradition, and I believe Swedenborg also picked up on it in his revelations that the ancient books of Noah and Enoch would be found cached in the Great Tartary or Tibet. IMO, Swedenborg anticipates the discovery of the treasure text cached in Cumorah as hermetic tradition was filtered back to him through Jesuit accounts of Padmasambhava and the Dalai Lama. Its absolutely nuts to be honest. But it does fit, in ways that can't be easily dismissed.

https://www.evernote.com/l/AAjo_jklzKlJ6qn5AcpLMCgWK2OLI6IzW5w

Somehow Joseph Smith is tapped in to this incredibly rich and exotic tradition. I can't explain it.

Just an aside, but I noticed a number of years ago there seemed to be a brotherly love affair between some Tibetan Buddhist faithful and Hopi tribal elders.  If memory serves, Hugh Nibley took some notice of it.  You'll recall that Nibley saw a lot of Egyptian and Greek motifs bleed through in Hopi dance and ritual.  To see a suggestion of a Tibetan cultic link to Egypt's cult is sort of heart-warming to me, myself and I.  In any event nowadays a Tibetan link to Egypt isn't so controversial simply because a Chinese link to Egypt is not so controversial anymore.

Between me and that fence post over there I don't read the history of Buddhism as being another chapter in the history of Apostasy.   Buddhism may instead be  a reversal of an apostate historical process displayed in Vedic works and their derivatives.  The headline story of our faith cannot be seen as one about one or more apostasies, it should rather be seen as an oft-repeated attempt to ultimately seal many cultic lineages under one lineage, that of Adam.  This was attempted especially at Mt. Sinai when Moses attempted to seal the lineages of Ishmael and Israel, among some others. 

If the very fact of Vedic motifs in Buddhism are disturbing I can only say that there is value in not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Who among us would seriously consign to the flames the  entirely of Christian writings simply because they written before the Restoration?

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Well, we do not know who all of those other "lost tribes" are and where they are at that  Jesus was referring to in 3 Ne 17:4 that Robert quoted.

It would seem we do know.

Maybe its more like we aren't interested, or their story about angels and golden books is maybe a bit too weird to be believed.

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually we know a great deal about the cultures of Mesoamerica, beginning with the Olmec, and then the five cultures which depended so heavily on everything the Olmec achieved.  We know the dates of the archeological sequences, and they fit all too well the same sequence-dating in the BofM.  Had there been no high cultures in the New World at all, we would have no correlations.  In other words,  there would be a complete absence of evidence.

The requirement of literacy is certainly a minimal one.  One must have at least that.  However, there is a great deal else to be considered, including strong evidence developed by non-Mormon scholars that there was Hebrew & Egyptian in Middle America.  See the sources I cite in my “*Sawi-Zaa,” 2016 version 3, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA .

What I mean is that archaeology can't tell us about the things that matter most in the Book of Mormon. First and foremost, the Book of Mormon is a dissertation on Christian theology. The author is intimately familiar with the KJB and the theological controversies within Christianity and more or less seeks to provide a comprehensive "solution." Absent a written record, archaeology can tell us practically nothing with which to make a meaningful comparison. We're comparing ideas with artifacts. Secondary Book of Mormon themes such as the principles of war and government and personal behavior can't readily manifest themselves as artifacts either. If we want to compare ideas with ideas we are forced to first interpret the artifacts into ideas. The amount of interpretation involved leaves way too much room for confirmation bias for me to be comfortable with. We can compare Book of Mormon "things" with archaeological artifacts, but of course there are several problems with that approach, as well. How would we even know if we found a Book of Mormon artifact?

It seems to me that the best comparisons we can make are written ideas with written ideas. If a 19th Century model is being proposed, there is a vast written record for comparison. Same thing with a 17th Century model, though the surviving record is not as large. The traditional model can draw on pre-exilic writing from the ANE for comparison, but that record is pretty scant by comparison. But at least it's something. On the other hand, I just don't see how archaeology is equipped to provide the answer we are seeking.

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

What I mean is that archaeology can't tell us about the things that matter most in the Book of Mormon. First and foremost, the Book of Mormon is a dissertation on Christian theology. The author is intimately familiar with the KJB and the theological controversies within Christianity and more or less seeks to provide a comprehensive "solution." 

But those issues are inherent within Christianity itself and not unique solely  to the Christian religion of the 19th century.

The BOM, of example, shows an understanding of Darwinism (Alma 30:17), but was obviously not influenced directly by Darwin.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

What I mean is that archaeology can't tell us about the things that matter most in the Book of Mormon. First and foremost, the Book of Mormon is a dissertation on Christian theology. The author is intimately familiar with the KJB and the theological controversies within Christianity and more or less seeks to provide a comprehensive "solution." Absent a written record, archaeology can tell us practically nothing with which to make a meaningful comparison. We're comparing ideas with artifacts. Secondary Book of Mormon themes such as the principles of war and government and personal behavior can't readily manifest themselves as artifacts either. If we want to compare ideas with ideas we are forced to first interpret the artifacts into ideas. The amount of interpretation involved leaves way too much room for confirmation bias for me to be comfortable with. We can compare Book of Mormon "things" with archaeological artifacts, but of course there are several problems with that approach, as well. How would we even know if we found a Book of Mormon artifact?

This completely misunderstands archeology.  For one thing, archeology does not in fact depend upon written records, and most of archeology is done without them.  During most of their time on planet Earth, humans have not been literate, and we know their lifeways only through artifacts (which not only include stone tools, animal bones, pottery, settlements, C14, and DNA, but also pollen, phytoliths, megaliths, etc.).  A very rich understanding of non-literate cultures has been developed from the isolation of all these factors in systematic strata.  Where we have written records in addition to these artifacts, we are doubly blessed.  That is how biblical archeology is done, and the same applies to the BofM.  I suggest a look at Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (SLC: Kofford, 2015).

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

It seems to me that the best comparisons we can make are written ideas with written ideas. If a 19th Century model is being proposed, there is a vast written record for comparison. Same thing with a 17th Century model, though the surviving record is not as large. The traditional model can draw on pre-exilic writing from the ANE for comparison, but that record is pretty scant by comparison. But at least it's something. On the other hand, I just don't see how archaeology is equipped to provide the answer we are seeking.

Written records are certainly helpful and relevant, but they are not necessarily the "best."  They constitute merely one category, ethnography/ethnohistory, which is Brant Gardner's specialty.  Historians have indeed made comparisons of the BofM with 19th century ideas, but the results have not been as clearcut as the non-historians have so frequently claimed.  Richard Bushman, for example, covered that question in his Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Knopf, 2005), 87-105., and came up with many factors which did not apply:  Bushman said that “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc.  He thinks that the BofM is out-of-synch with contemporary 19th century thought.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This completely misunderstands archeology.  For one thing, archeology does not in fact depend upon written records........  A very rich understanding of non-literate cultures has been developed from the isolation of all these factors in systematic strata.  Where we have written records in addition to these artifacts, we are doubly blessed. 

I assume that your use of "very rich understanding" is rhetorical hyperbole.

Tell us about their religious beliefs, their language, music -- songs, knowledge of medicine (trepanning and what else?) and science, social norms, ceremonies, poetry, political/leadership structure, division of labour..... etc.  THAT is what is meant by "very rich understanding".

"Non-literate" would include societies where their records are not extant.

Edited March 22, 2018 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

I assume that your use of "very rich understanding" is rhetorical hyperbole.

Of course not, although I realize that most people probably bring that sort of assumption to their unscholarly assessments of anything and everything.

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Tell us about their religious beliefs, their language, music -- songs, knowledge of medicine (trepanning and what else?) and science, social norms, ceremonies, poetry, political/leadership structure, division of labour..... etc.  THAT is what is meant by "very rich understanding".

"Non-literate" would include societies where their records are not extant.

I'm glad that you at least understand what "non-literate" means. If you could add to that the fact that most human cultures on this planet have been non-literate, then you might have the beginning of understanding the richness of those cultures.  I provided a short list of the kinds and types of research applied to non-literate societies.  You are free to ignore that and to wrongly imagine that the only sources of value are written sources (you may include oral sources, if you wish).

Perhaps for some, archeology (antropology) is a religion, or a partisan ideological set of views, and is regularly used by biased yokels to defend their narrow views on human history.  Professional anthropologists don't recognize that at all, as it has nothing to do with their discipline.  Sounds like a fantasy to me, cdowis. However, perhaps you have an example for me to chew on.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps for some, archeology (antropology) is a religion, or a partisan ideological set of views, and is regularly used by biased yokels to defend their narrow views on human history.  Professional anthropologists don't recognize that at all, as it has nothing to do with their discipline.  Sounds like a fantasy to me, cdowis. However, perhaps you have an example for me to chew on.

 "A Forest of Kings" by  David Freidel,   who wrote that we know  very  little about the PreClassic Mayans because of the destruction of their records.

Edited March 23, 2018 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

 "A Forest of Kings" by  David Freidel,   who wrote that we know  very  little about the PreClassic Mayans because of the destruction of their records.

An excellent book by Schele & Freidel, and used extensively by me (together with regular archeology) to reconstruct parts of Maya history in my “The Role of Cyclical Fatalism Among the Maya,” 2011, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/74773355/Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya .  When Freidel and Schele wrote, very little excavation of the Pre-Classic had taken place.  Now we have extensive material remains from that era, including lots of inscriptions.  It will help us a great deal when we decipher and read them.  Meantime, as I have repeatedly said, most of humanity never had written records, and we have a wonderful heritage of archeological remains from which to create a rich understanding of ancient peoples.  Having written records is nice, but not necessary.

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This completely misunderstands archeology.  For one thing, archeology does not in fact depend upon written records, and most of archeology is done without them.  During most of their time on planet Earth, humans have not been literate, and we know their lifeways only through artifacts (which not only include stone tools, animal bones, pottery, settlements, C14, and DNA, but also pollen, phytoliths, megaliths, etc.).  A very rich understanding of non-literate cultures has been developed from the isolation of all these factors in systematic strata.  Where we have written records in addition to these artifacts, we are doubly blessed.  That is how biblical archeology is done, and the same applies to the BofM.  I suggest a look at Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (SLC: Kofford, 2015).

Look, I love archaeology. Archaeology is good for what it's good for. But it can't tell us what people thought about faith vs works, for example, or even if the debate existed. There's just so much space between the words of a book and ancient mute objects and remains. The Book of Mormon is primarily a book of ideas with little to realistically correlate to archaeological finds. I'm certainly interested in Book of Mormon archaeology and have followed it for some time. But at the end of the day there's just too much interpretation involved to make it of primary importance when trying to determine the real world origin of the Book of Mormon.

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Written records are certainly helpful and relevant, but they are not necessarily the "best."  They constitute merely one category, ethnography/ethnohistory, which is Brant Gardner's specialty.  Historians have indeed made comparisons of the BofM with 19th century ideas, but the results have not been as clearcut as the non-historians have so frequently claimed.  Richard Bushman, for example, covered that question in his Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Knopf, 2005), 87-105., and came up with many factors which did not apply:  Bushman said that “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc.  He thinks that the BofM is out-of-synch with contemporary 19th century thought.

I agree with Bushman's assessment. But Bushman knows a thousand times more about 19th Century America than any archaeologist could ever know about an ancient non-literate culture. Written language has that power. That's why his type of analysis is to be preferred over an archaeological assessment. The point is that evidence to support the traditional model (or any model) of the Book of Mormon will be much more meaningful to me if it is in the form of written evidence giving insight into religious and cultural ideas. At that point we can at least compare like things. 

[Rajah Manchou]

On 3/19/2018 at 11:57 PM, Bernard Gui said:

In the parable of the olive tree, Zenos says the natural branches of the olive tree were hidden in the “nethermost parts” of the vineyard. Some were placed in poor ground. They flourished for a time, but eventually they too became corrupt. Do you think this could explain your discoveries?

Yes I do. In my opinion the Book of Mormon has already been demonstrated to be an accurate history of the Tribe of Manasseh. But we have become so fixated on digging up horse bones in various plots of ground, and finding wherefore/therefore gaps in the text, that we fail to see what's right in front of us.

While we try to figure out where the Book of Mormon came from, the narrative rolls on. With or without us.

Bnei Menashe = People of Manasseh
Veshavu Banim = Sons will return. 
Veshavu banim lig'vulam. (x6) = And your children shall return to their own border.
Veyesh tikvah (x3) le'acharitech = And there is hope for your future.

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

37 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Look, I love archaeology. Archaeology is good for what it's good for. But it can't tell us what people thought about faith vs works, for example, or even if the debate existed. There's just so much space between the words of a book and ancient mute objects and remains. The Book of Mormon is primarily a book of ideas

I guess you don't understand the distinction between written records and other archeological data.  Where both exist, they complement each other.  Where written records (and ethnography) don't exist, which is nearly all the time, the archeologist must depend upon other evidence.  You seem to think the absence of written records spells the death knell of any possibility of recovering an ancient culture, a very common misconception.  In fact a great deal can be said about any non-literate culture.

37 minutes ago, JarMan said:

with little to realistically correlate to archaeological finds.

Here you contradict yourself.  On the one hand, you claim that written records are absolutely essential, but then claim that the BofM is of no value archeologically.  Why?  You apparently believe that the BofM contains nothing which can be correlated to archeology, which is absurd.  There are hundreds of assertions in the text which can be examined archeologically.  Indeed, it is a goldmine of assertions on everything from absolute chronology, geography, language & linguistics, and measuring systems to literary structure and poetry.  You say that written records are important, but then you pooh-pooh them.

37 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I'm certainly interested in Book of Mormon archaeology and have followed it for some time. But at the end of the day there's just too much interpretation involved to make it of primary importance when trying to determine the real world origin of the Book of Mormon.

I don't know what you have been reading, but everything involves interpretation.  Indeed, there are no facts, only interpretation of facts.  Scholars don't complain about interpretation, because all there is is interpretation.  You need to deal with the real world, JarMan, as I do in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 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 .

37 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I agree with Bushman's assessment. But Bushman knows a thousand times more about 19th Century America than any archaeologist could ever know about an ancient non-literate culture. Written language has that power. That's why his type of analysis is to be preferred over an archaeological assessment. The point is that evidence to support the traditional model (or any model) of the Book of Mormon will be much more meaningful to me if it is in the form of written evidence giving insight into religious and cultural ideas. At that point we can at least compare like things. 

You and Bushman may prefer written sources, and that is understandable, but that is because you are not archeologists.  You are wrong about which form of evidence should be preferred.  Both have their place.  You need to be much more restrained about what is relevant, JarMan.

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/21/2018 at 1:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The main problem with all that is that none of those cultures were literate, did not have the massive populations depicted in the BofM, and did not use building materials described in the BofM -- items found only in Mesoamerica.

Another problem is the absence of words in the BoM that were commonly associated with Plains or North-eastern Native American cultures in the 18th and 19th centuries, such as bison, beaver, eagle, deer, fox, raven, fishing, beads, shells,  feathers, bark, wampum, pottery, baskets, corn, gourd, pemmican, canoe, tomahawk, drum, flute, war dance, club, counting coup, powwow, scout, tobacco, pipe, warrior, squaw, papoose, moccasin, medicine, totem,  tipi, wigwam, lodge, redskin, noble savage, etc. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/20/2018 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith interacted with these folks in any meaningful way and for any appreciable amount of time?  That they shared with him information which he could have used to write the Book of Mormon?

Well, there are quite a number of recollections and statements collected from Joseph’s neighbors and associates by Philastus Hurlbut, Pomeroy Tucker, and Eber Howe. I don’t recall any of those mentioning students at Dartmouth or any that said he hung around Dartmouth.

[Rajah Manchou]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Another problem is the absence of words in the BoM that were commonly associated with Plains or North-eastern Native American cultures in the 18th and 19th centuries, such as bison, beaver, eagle, deer, fox, raven, fishing, beads, shells,  feathers, bark, wampum, pottery, baskets, corn, gourd, pemmican, canoe, tomahawk, drum, flute, war dance, club, counting coup, powwow, scout, tobacco, pipe, warrior, squaw, papoose, moccasin, medicine, totem,  tipi, wigwam, lodge, redskin, noble savage, etc. 

There's also a list of things commonly associated with Mesoamerica that aren't found in the Book of Mormon.

If we're going by literal interpretations of the material culture found in the Book of Mormon, there is only one limited geography that fits.

Silk? That narrows down our scope. Where was silk found during Book of Mormon times?
Elephants. Where can we find domesticated elephants in 2000 BC?
Cimeters. Iron swords. Horses. Chariots.

We cannot place these things in the Americas and remain within the boundaries of scientific data. It just can't be done.

There is only one place in the world that had the material culture found in the Book of Mormon. 

[Rajah Manchou]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, there are quite a number of recollections and statements collected from Joseph’s neighbors and associates by Philastus Hurlbut, Pomeroy Tucker, and Eber Howe. I don’t recall any of those mentioning students at Dartmouth or any that said he hung around Dartmouth.

Joseph was mostly confined to his bed and crutches during the Dartmouth years. I think the idea is that Hiram, who attended Moor's Charity School (the original "Dartmouth"), hung around campus talking with people like Ethan Smith's son, Solomon Spaulding's nephews and a number of other students that became American's first set of missionaries to the natives in America, India and Burma. These were Hiram's classmates at Dartmouth.

Imagine being bed-ridden for years, and talking for hours on end with your brother who was going to school learning all sorts of interesting things. What would you talk about?

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There's also a list of things commonly associated with Mesoamerica that aren't found in the Book of Mormon.

If we're going by literal interpretations of the material culture found in the Book of Mormon, there is only one limited geography that fits.

Silk? That narrows down our scope. Where was silk found during Book of Mormon times?
Elephants. Where can we find domesticated elephants in 2000 BC?
Cimeters. Iron swords. Horses. Chariots.

We cannot place these things in the Americas and remain within the boundaries of scientific data. It just can't be done.

There is only one place in the world that had the material culture found in the Book of Mormon. 

Mesoamerica is not a good fit at all. I respect very much the work of people like Brant Gardner, who have made as a good a case as possible for a Mesoamerican setting. But in the end, it just doesn't match up. Mesoamerica is hypothesized because it is a better fit than other American cultures, in terms of the timeline and material culture. But a better fit is still not a good fit. If it were, we'd see a trend towards convergence between Mesoamerica and Nephite/Lamanite culture, but in fact each discovery seems to reinforce the mismatch.

Years ago at BYU, I took a class in pre-Columbian Latin American history,. On the first day, the professor said, "If you're taking this class because you want to learn about Nephites and Lamanites, you are in the wrong class. We will be talking about the history of the peoples who lived in Central and South America before the Europeans came. There is no archaeological evidence for the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying." I haven't seen anything in the 31 years since then that makes me think he was wrong.

[Kevin Christensen]

I suppose that nothing significant has been learned in 31 years, and things like Olmec iron, the Mayan glyph for "And it came to pass...", the two Mesoamerican cylinder deals with characters corresponding to the Anthon transcript, the San Bartolo murals depicting a coronation on a tower that happens to be contemporary with the purported account in Mosiah, John Clark's studies of overall trends in Mesoamerican studies compared to charges against the Book of Mormon, and the very recent LiDAR based surverys of what is hidden in the jungles that radically changed the picture over night, as well as the linguistic studies on Uto-Aztec and compared to Hebrew, and much else, all fits under that blanket dismissal without so much as making any uncomfortable lumps.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I suppose that nothing significant has been learned in 31 years, and things like Olmec iron, the Mayan glyph for "And it came to pass...", the two Mesoamerican cylinder deals with characters corresponding to the Anthon transcript, the San Bartolo murals depicting a coronation on a tower that happens to be contemporary with the purported account in Mosiah, John Clark's studies of overall trends in Mesoamerican studies compared to charges against the Book of Mormon, and the very recent LiDAR based surverys of what is hidden in the jungles that radically changed the picture over night, as well as the linguistic studies on Uto-Aztec and compared to Hebrew, and much else, all fits under that blanket dismissal without so much as making any uncomfortable lumps.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

As I said, I haven't seen anything that makes me think he was wrong. YMMV. Nice to see you, Kevin. 

[Rajah Manchou]

31 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I suppose that nothing significant has been learned in 31 years, and things like Olmec iron, the Mayan glyph for "And it came to pass...", the two Mesoamerican cylinder deals with characters corresponding to the Anthon transcript, the San Bartolo murals depicting a coronation on a tower that happens to be contemporary with the purported account in Mosiah, John Clark's studies of overall trends in Mesoamerican studies compared to charges against the Book of Mormon, and the very recent LiDAR based surverys of what is hidden in the jungles that radically changed the picture over night, as well as the linguistic studies on Uto-Aztec and compared to Hebrew, and much else, all fits under that blanket dismissal without so much as making any uncomfortable lumps.

The same lists can be made for locations that are in the "wrong place". I've made much longer lists that get the same blanket dismissal. For example, the cylinder seals you keep mentioning as evidence of a Mesoamerican script was analysed and said to "closely resemble various Oriental scripts ranging from Burma and China to the rim of the Mediterranean:

Wouldn't that suggest a link between the Anthon script and Burma?

Edited March 23, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Physics Guy]

On 3/20/2018 at 8:35 PM, smac97 said:

The Joseph-Smith-Gleaned-Extensive-Information-About-the-Middle-East-and-Mesoamerica-by-Hanging-out-with-Hebrew-speaking-Armenians argument is likewise not a strong one.

Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith interacted with these folks in any meaningful way and for any appreciable amount of time?  That they shared with him information which he could have used to write the Book of Mormon?

Isn't this like being impressed by a stage magician who has made an assistant vanish with a swirl of his cape, then finding a trap door on the stage, but saying, "The argument that the assistant jumped through the trap door while the cape was swirling isn't a strong one, because no-one who's talking actually saw the assistant jump down the hole"?

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

An excellent book by Schele & Freidel, and used extensively by me (together with regular archeology) to reconstruct parts of Maya history in my “The Role of Cyclical Fatalism Among the Maya,” 2011, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/74773355/Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya .  When Freidel and Schele wrote, very little excavation of the Pre-Classic had taken place.  Now we have extensive material remains from that era, including lots of inscriptions.  It will help us a great deal when we decipher and read them.  Meantime, as I have repeatedly said, most of humanity never had written records, and we have a wonderful heritage of archeological remains from which to create a rich understanding of ancient peoples.  Having written records is nice, but not necessary.

Is this a quote from the book regarding the preClassic Maya, or is this your professional opinion??  I think you are pretending that Friedel has changed his mind, that he agrees with you, but it is only a rhetorical trick to conflate your opinion  with his.

Inscriptions are written by the rich and powerful, and unlikely to tell us "a great deal" about the real story with critical details -- that "great deal" will come from the written records of ordinary people.

  I am very surprised at your naivety but I give you the last word if you want to persist in your assertions.

Edited March 23, 2018 by cdowis