![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
I think this article addresses too many geographical theories. Does anyone think some of the Meso/Great lakes theories should be split off into other articles like the Malay Theory?
There is another article about Proposed Book of Mormon geographical settings that I think is more appropriate for the maps/theories discusses in this article. What do you think? Reds0xfan ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I could not agree more with User:Reds0xfan. One of the biggest problems with this article is its extensive treatment of spurious theories on the geographical setting for the BOM. About half of this article could be merged quite easily into Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting. We could then streamline the content in this article to a few paragraphs and refer to the other article. I will create a merge proposal on this momentarily. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Among “spurious theories”, you should include every Mesoamerican setting, for not one of the Central American settings is acknowledges by the academic community as representative of the genre in which the Book of Mormon is classed.
Onondaga (
talk)
23:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In the "Anachronisms and archaeological findings" section, under "Horses," says that evidence cited by apologist Sorenson is "disputed by mainstream archaeologists." This is, of course, true, as far as I know. But the reference given for the statement is a piece in the FARMS Review of Books criticizing Stan Larson's Quest for the Gold Plates. None of the people writing the review or the book reviewed seem to be archaeologists, mainstream or not. Does someone have a better reference?
Felix Sonderkammer ( talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
While some work has obviously been done on this article since the last time I logged in, many problems linger. I've made some minor editing changes. While numerous enough for me to not want to go through them, the following change is typical of the style.
Original: something like "Mormon scholars claim to have accumulated evidence they believe supports their conclusions to support thier conclusions."
Changed to: something like "Mormon scholars have accumulated evidence to support their conclusions. Others, based on the same evidence, reject these conclusions."
Reason: evidence either supports a conclusion or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.240.136 ( talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The recent edit of the section on the Jaredites, left off stating that some LDS believe that the Olmecs were the Jaredites. Some details given for why this conclusion is thought to be unacceptable (even to some LDS) were removed. I have put the informative objections back in the section, adding a reference to an 1842 editorial by Joseph Smith. For the most part I have no problem with the edits.
Kovesh ( talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Under Limited Geography Model, I pruned the statement suggesting that Orson and Parley Pratt had something to do with suggesting a limited geography. I know for sure they defended hemispheric models. I left behind B. H. Roberts and the reference to Roper’s paper. It seems that no one has been forthcoming for sometime in providing specific reference material backing up a Pratt / Limited Geography connection. I will check through Roper’s paper again to make sure I haven’t missed something. I wonder if the contributor meant to reference another Apostle (e.g. John E. Page). I'm open to the possibility that the Pratts could have paid enough attention to the Book of Mormon, to have at some point considered that the lands were much more localized. They may have had a moment or two of geographic reconsideration! How ever long lived their “wait a minute…” may have been, we know that Orson Pratt's hemispheric model ended up in Book of Mormon footnotes printed in the late 1800s. In any event our readers need a reference. Kovesh ( talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added a few additional historical details to the Limited Geography Model section to make up for the unsubstantiated inferences about the Pratts, which I removed. Kovesh ( talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In the section titled ″Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting″, It was implied that Lehi’s company sailed “across the Pacific Ocean to the New Word”. The Book of Mormon does not state this. The eastward journey across the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula may easily be seen as a means of avoiding contact with potential adversaries. Their eastward travel clearly applies to Arabia, not their oceanic voyage. The comment about the Pacific Ocean has been removed.
Onondaga ( talk) 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Animals and plants of the old and new world as well of Australia and Polynesia support that there was movement of peoples throughout these areas. The most striking example is that of the llama. The llama is a close relative of the camel and therefore must have evolved in the old world. Why is it found natively only in the Andes? How did it get there? There are many domestic plants that are found from eastern Africa to South America that could only have been carried by people. The passion fruit, Passiflora edulis, originally from South America, is an example, as well as many species of garden vegetables, that moved both directions through the area. Sheep were carried throughout the area in prehistory. The sheep that live wild on the island of Hawaii, and some other locales of Polynesia, are a primative breed that predates modern times. And of course the peoples of Polynesia were very well established long before explorers arrived. My Flatley ( talk) 00:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments on Non-kosher Cattle:
Jewish authorities regard Llamas as non-kosher animals! Llamas do not have cloven hooves. Their feet are two-toed with toenails (not hooves). An American colony of devout Israelites would very likely recognize similarities between Llamas and Camels and would therefore regard Llamas as unfit to eat and certainly not appropriate to sacrifice to Adonai (the LORD). (Leviticus 11:4) I'm convinced that ancient Israelites would have been more likely to relate Llamas to camels than to horses ("susim"). The “goat” mentioned in the Book of Mormon must be a variety of “clean” animal similar to Old World goats. Likewise “the cow” can only be a variety of bovine acceptable for eating and for sacrifice. (1 Nephi 18:25) In as much as the language of the Book of Mormon parallels the language of the King James Bible, Book of Mormon references to “sheep” or “lamb” may also refer to goat-like creatures. The Hebrew term translated “lamb” in the KJV, actually relates to either a young goat or sheep. In light of the requirements of the Law of Moses, it’s fair to conclude that the LORD would have led Lehi’s party to a land where there literally were sheep, goat-like creatures and bovine animals. (2 Nephi 5:10) Bighorn sheep, mountain goats and bison are of course native to North America. Questions remain as to how such animals could have been domesticated. Many are quick to point out that there is no evidence that ancient Americans ever did so.
Recent Edits:
For sometime several sections have either lacked adequate references or have suffered from topic drift. I am in the process of making contributions to “Archaeological evidence of large populations”, “Existing ancient records of the New World”, “The Lamanites and The Maya”, “The Nephites”. Kovesh ( talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Have quoted an additional source on the subject of "silk". Kovesh ( talk) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Have added a reference to "Hemispheric Geography Model" Kovesh ( talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently made mention of big horn sheep in the "sheep" section. Onondaga ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Continuing with making minor reference improvements and added a requested reference to the “elephants” section. Onondaga ( talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In the sections on Horses and Elephants I have cited Coon citing Behemoth, A Legend of the Mound-Builders by Cornelius Matthews (1839). Onondaga ( talk) 05:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have recently made some edits to the “Systems of measuring time (calendars)” section. The last two paragraphs lacked references in important places. I would have been glad to leave these paragraphs in place if someone had cared enough about them to defend them. My own appraisal of the previous section is that it could have done a better job engaging Book of Mormon details on the Mosaic Law with its temporal requirements. I have supplemented the section somewhat on this topic. The section had a good introduction to ancient American calendars but it lacked effort to relate all this to the Book of Mormon with its explicit and implied references to time keeping. Kovesh ( talk) 19:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Linked scriptural citations etc. in the updated section. Onondaga ( talk) 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In the preamble or introduction, I recently added references and a brief comment to the effect that the geographic setting of the Book of Mormon is not merely regarded by LDS as “geography”, but as a "Promised Land" or covenant "land of liberty", having a particular blessing and curse upon it. Onondaga ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Several references (mostly citations from scripture) were not linked. I have started to link several of these. For instance Enos 1:20 has been changed to Enos 1:20 Onondaga ( talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In the sections on “warfare” and “Military fortifications” there has for some time been a couple of statements that have called for references. I did some pruning! I have left others that call for a reference or clarification, in place. The section on “warfare” began with a quotation from Hugh Nibley but quickly moved to a quote by Sorenson in order to defend a Mesoamerican setting. Pretty fast move I’d say, because Nibley actually compares mound builder fortifications to defensive works described in the Book of Mormon. I have added opposing references. I have also pruned unsupported statements from and contributed references to the “Genetic studies” section. Onondaga ( talk) 07:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the section “Traditional views of New World population”, I have referenced Coon’s article, "How Exaggerated Settings for the Book of Mormon Came to Pass” Kovesh ( talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have made some contributions and improvements to the section on “Hebrew and Egyptian languages”, leaving previous references intact. It had been suggested that Mayan is the only form of ancient Native American writing for which there is archaeological evidence. This isn’t quite accurate. I have referenced Olmec and also made mention of the Native American oral tradition behind Micmac hieroglyphs. Onondaga ( talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I wholly disagree with the deletion of this article recently proposed by 76.76.93.243. As he himself has noted, it is an interesting article, and he has failed to cite a good reason for deletion. Merely to say that the article does not belong in an encyclopedia is not a reason, but a conclusion. To say that it would be better as an article in a specialized journal is likewise not a reason, but a conclusion. Pending a consensus, I will remove the deletion notice from the article. Plazak ( talk) 14:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I too agree that the article should not be deleted. Kovesh ( talk) 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the article has a Worldwide Point of View tag since April 2008. In a cursory scan of the archived discussion for April 2008, I noticed no discussion on this point, or suggestions as to how the article is faulty in this regard. Any suggestions? Otherwise, I would propose that the tag be removed. Plazak ( talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the “Worldwide View” tag is no longer an appropriate criticism for this website. The article has come a long way and in my opinion, currently suffers far less from one-sidedness. Kovesh ( talk) 22:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Descartes I disagree with your recent edits! Lets take one issue at a time! First of all you are mistaken about the Book of Mormon not having a setting. It is classed as a work of 19th Century American literature in the "Mound-Builder" genre. Kovesh ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In Cornelius Mathew’s 1839 novel, Behemoth – A tale of the Mound- Builders, the hero Bokulla rides a “wild steed”. (pp. 99-100) Intending to lend credence to the tale, the notes (pg. 191) cite the discovery of a “small iron shoe, like a horse shoe, encrusted with the rust of ages…” among other alleged mound builder artifacts. The point is elephants (mastodons) and horses appear in 19th century works on the “Mound-Builders”. It comes as no surprise to historians who specialize in 19th Century American literature that horses and elephants feature in the Book of Mormon – these are elements of the American "mound-builder" genre! Onondaga ( talk) 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point entirely! Matthews is not cited to prove the Book of Mormon archaeologically. He is cited to show how the Book of Mormon’s references to horses and elephants parallel the academically accepted “Mound-Builder” genre of the 19th Century. Some LDS have actually picked up on this! Robert Silverberg has written extensively on the subject. You ought to read his works if you haven’t. Find any scholarly non LDS treatment on the mound builders and see if it doesn’t discuss the Book of Mormon. There’s a good chance it will. Silverberg and others cite Matthews by the way, and the Book of Mormon. Have you noticed that the vast majority of all identifiable animals and plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon are also mentioned in the KJ Bible? Elephants, however, are nowhere specifically mentioned in the KJV. Why then does the Book of Mormon mention elephants (if the Bible doesn’t) and in America of all places? Turns out that ancient elephant remains were recovered in the US even before Joseph Smith, and they were quite a subject of discussion. Hence Matthews long notes. In my judgment there is no good reason for removing the reference. The article makes it clear that the accepted North American horse and Mastodon time line does not match the presumed Jaredite timeline. I have made no effort to remove this information from the section and I have no desire to. Elephant remains and such, were items of popular fascination in America in the 1800s, and found their way into the “Mound-builder “genre (which includes the Book of Mormon). I will continue to defend this point and soak the article with more references if that is what you want. I do not understand why you are so troubled by this. Onondaga ( talk) 05:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Descartes, The brief comments about horses and elephants in the “Mound-builder genre”, I think, contribute some interesting background to the archaeological discussion. These 19th Century ideas really are connected to strange finds in the American frontier. Behemoth isn’t just a work of fiction; it is a work which adds quite a commentary on, what was then, the beginning of American “archaeology”. The situation is sort of like bringing up Jules Verne in an article on modern submarines - could be totally appropriate. It has taken a lot of work over the years to sort some of these things out. There is still a lot of mystery to the mound builder subject. The truth is historical details and archaeology, dove-tail quite a bit. Still, I concede to your argument even though I think the sentence about elephants appearing in early “Mound-builder” literature adds an interesting detail. I will remove the sentence, because the paragraph does go on to make the mound builder connection. I’m less inclined to remove the reference in the horse section because this section approves sillier, less historically researched defenses such as the Book of Mormon doesn’t really mean horses when in fact it mentions them. Other, better read, LDS seem to literally accept the Behemoth notes. I will add some comment challenging the Behemoth notes on the basis of modern archaeology. By the way, I think you lightened the reading in the last sections you edited. Onondaga ( talk) 02:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Before we get into thorough debate, I am going to revert all of the edits back to my version in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Please hear me out before a hasty objection. First, numerous non controversial clean up edits were reverted quite hastily by Kovesh and Onondaga (no accusation here, you probably didn't realize). Second, as noted at WP:BURDEN, "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I strongly believe that the edits I made were in the spirit of bringing balance to the article in accordance with WP:POV, and while I recognize that a few of them may be controversial, the majority of them had to do with reliability of sources per WP:SOURCES, and eliminating spurious information that does not relate to archaeology. As such, I respectfully challenge Kovesh, Onondaga, and any other editor to provide reliable sources for the statements I removed, and demonstrate how they are relevant to the topic of archaeology, and we can add them back one by one. I will be the first person to support adding the information back if we have some good archaeological sources to support anything I removed. Also, I recognize that I do come to this with a POV, for editors who don't already know me, and if I have crossed the line, just let me know. In this case, I don't think I have acted inappropriately. I am the last person who wants an edit war.-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 04:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Descartes, I’m truly sorry for cutting the last part of the discussion! Thank you for restoring it. Onondaga ( talk) 02:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Onondaga - Please do not delete talk page discussion. This contains critical information on the ongoing debate and the evolution of the article. If you delete talk page discussion and points that oppose your own, you do not appear to be acting in good faith. If that happens again, I will get an Administrator involved.-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
All right - I am going back through - and lets take these edits one at a time.
Please review these edits and discuss. I will add more tomorrow.-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Another edit for discussion:
I agree. Kovesh ( talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The summary lists “breast plates” as not being substantiated by archaeological finds. Mound builder societies did in fact manufacture metal (copper) plates with holes in the corners ostensibly for strapping to the chest. I personally have a picture of one that was on display in a museum. These ancient peoples were copper smiths, let’s not forget this! Artifacts of “armor” like “breast plates” are even a topic of discussion in the 19th century mound builder literature. Check out Josiah Priest and Ethan Smith and better yet the Behemoth notes. Yet another reason to be studied in mound builder archaeology and the genre that the Book of Mormon came out of before presuming to contribute to this article. I am removing the reference to "breast plates" and "ore (mining)" in the article summary.
I’m even dubious about the mention of “iron”. I believe that you will find that some meteoric iron was worked by mound builders though it is not nearly as prevalent as copper among these cultures. I’m going to leave it alone for now, but let’s be careful! Kovesh ( talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody did not do their homework in regards to “bellows” listed in the summary. I did a Bible search and found the term used in the King James Translation of Jeremiah 6:29. Incidentally, according to the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his son Nephi were contemporaries of the prophet Jeremiah. I have it on good authority (from a knowledgeable source), that the Hebrew word “mafuach” translated “bellows” in the Bible, comes from the verb meaning “to puff”, “inflate”, “blow hard” and essentially means “blower of a forge”. I’m trying to be pun-y and not unkind, when I say that we should definitely blow off the reference to “bellows”. The only reference to “bellows” in the Book of Mormon is in the Old World setting. (1 Nephi 17:11) The divinely guided Nephi had seen a bellows before and apparently learned how to make one out of animal skins. As for any occurrence of “bellows” in the New World Book of Mormon setting, the term isn’t there! We know that the mound builders worked metals. Did they make bellows of animal skins? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised. These were very clever people. “Bellows” goes away!
By the way, Josiah Priest in American Antiquities notes artifacts of Fe, Cu, brass, Au and Ag removed from various mound builder sites. See for instance pp 90-91, 101, 178-179. Of course historians and archaeologists will point out that these finds were itemized in Joseph Smith’s day. Similar finds are mentioned in the Behemoth Notes. Priest and other sources also mention agricultural tools as well as metal weapons. A good rule to follow is that when the Book of Mormon mentions something it probably comes from somewhere and it is worth taking time to look into it.
As a note for those interested: the story part of Behemoth mentions metallurgical “forges” (pp 32, 36)
One more thing: I have a problem with including “steel” in the summary list. The scripture that is cited with this is 1 Nephi 4:9. This is Old World “steel” - same as David’s and Nephi’s “bow of steel”. (Psalm 18:34) This can only be the “steel” mentioned in the Bible. This is not hardened iron but hardened copper. Makes sense when you think about it. “ Brass” and “bronze” are not very distinguishable in the Bible. Did the mound builders make hardened copper? Take a look at the sources and just for fun read the Behemoth Notes. Guys this is getting long, but none of this would have been needed if someone had done better research upfront. Kovesh ( talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok we need to settle this once and for all. Coon's reference to Behemoth is a ridiculous reference. This article should be talking about what archaeological findings support or detract from the historicity of the book of mormon. Behemoth fails the standard we should be having on our sources on so many levels. I am sure I could dig up a hundred novels that allege this that or the other thing (The Davinci Code comes to mind) - but that has absolutely no bearing on the archaeological facts at hand. Every reference to Behemoth should be replaced by findings in an archaeological paper, and if it can't, it is probably because he made it up, and it isn't true - and it should be removed. This article is not about allusions to what might be true, but what has actually been found by archaeologists. I will see if I can get a few wikipedia editors with expertise in archaeology to chime in on this. If these references cannot be supported by better references, I will be removing them systematically from the article. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Reading Behemoth again - seriously guys - his "support" even says that it is a horseshoe, and no mention of dating. Horse shoes didn't even come into use in Europe until after 500 AD. And here this guy (who is a novelist) is saying there are horse shoes in America when every credentialed archaeologist concludes that horses didn't even exist in America. It is so obvious that this guy just found an old horse shoe that was rusty and assumed it was old enough (never dated by an archaeologist), and added it to his book so he could sell more of his fantastic stories. Utterly ridiculous. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Brass and Bronze are two very different things. You can't remove brass on the argument that in the Bible it is not easily distinguished. I added brass back to the list. You can make that argument that it may not be an anachronism based on word choice or whatever, but there are many people who take the Book of Mormon literally, and believe that Joseph Smith meant what he said when he said what he meant - including myself. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I just made a bunch of edits. Many of them are not controversial - adding images, grammar and sentence structure fixing. Rather than take another hour to list them all out here - I ask that you review them, and raise objections on the ones you disagree with here for discussion. I also ask that you please don't mass revert everything I have done, as it took me several hours. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It has been about a year since I have participated in editing this page and am sad to see that it has digressed to opinion slinging. I enjoy Wikipedia because I learn about the world. If you have a source, cite it! If it is your opinion, keep it to yourself. For example, I commonly see phrases "academics don't accept ...." If you don't know about something don't turn this into your personal opinion blog. If someone has worked hard to add concrete information with citations that are valid feel free to organize it but don't delete it! Thanks. -- WaltFrost ( talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This article needs great reorganization. Archeology in the Meriam Webster dictionary defines it as the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities. If this article is really about Archeology of content in the Book of Mormon then it should be about the second paragraph and not the first. This should be a review of current information that relates to the content of The Book of Mormon. Careful wording is required for a good article. For example, Jerusalem is a worldwide accepted historical site by all people. This is mentioned in the Book of Mormon as well as other prominent people and places aka the Red Sea. A better article would be a review of current knowledge on places, artifacts, flora, wildlife, etc as it relates to content in The Book of Mormon.-- WaltFrost ( talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an article dedicated to this so I will put a link to that information. There is not enough room in this article for a comprehensive discussion on genetics as it relates to the Book of Mormon.-- WaltFrost ( talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Archeology, like realestate, depends on location, location, location. The location needs to come first followed by other comments because all other discussion depends on it (ie people, plants, animals, metals etc). I am going to move the article around. See what you think.-- WaltFrost ( talk) 02:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Tried to reorganize the article to reflect current views of the Church of Jesus Christ Department of Religion at Brigham Young University and FARMS that the setting of the Book of Mormon is in Mesoamerica. Tried to reorganize the article to focus 1st on Location, then on Cultures, then on plants, animals, metals, etc. I think this order makes more sense than the prior order. The article still needs a lot of cleaning up. Mound builders and other theories should be placed in historical or theories of members, but does not reflect the current views of the church education system and most Mormon scholars. Will work on the article later.-- WaltFrost ( talk) 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
COGDEN, I really think that a lot of LDS get their ideas about the Book of Mormon’s setting more from popular images and sources like FARMS than from actually studying their scriptures. The present article is more balanced than it ever has been. The opinions of the FARMS clan are generously represented in the present article. They are also challenged as they should be. The understandings of mainstream historians, archaeologists and specialists in 19th century American literature are also present, though there is always somebody trying to remove these details. The discussions show that some of us want to do a good job presenting a legitimate archaeological comparison based on the literary setting accepted by mainstream specialists. There are LDS and non-LDS that support this. I agree that a little additional information from the “Mound-builder” literary genre would help to cement the legitimate and original setting to be tested by archaeology. A lot of people don’t know about the mound builders and America’s 19th century concern with them. They think they just have to read Sorenson or watch a FARMS video and this gives them enough to pounce on this article. I believe that content matters more than even restructuring the article. There a lot of people will cut and rearrange. There are fewer who will take the time to provide acceptable and interesting references.
Onondaga (
talk)
03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
WaltFrost, you didn’t realize that you were describing details from “Mound-builder” literature – except for the part about no snow. Where did you get the idea that the Book of Mormon never mentions “snow” – don’t tell me – let me guess – FARMS? You must have forgotten about the description of the vision of the tree of life which Nephi recorded for his posterity after arriving in the New World. Lehi while describing the whiteness of the tree to his family in Arabia never compares it to “driven snow”. It snows in the mountains of northern Israel and in Lebanon, but rarely in Jerusalem. But Nephi, after arriving in the American Promised Land, is commanded to write his previous experiences down for the benefit of his people.
1 Nephi 19 Why would Nephi use a description that his people couldn’t relate to? Not just “white as snow” (like Isaiah says) but the non-biblical “whiteness of the driven snow”.
1 Nephi 11:8 Nephi had experienced something like a blizzard (snow blown into drifts) and he knew that generations of his people would be able to relate to his description. The Book of Mormon also mentions “hail” - not just wimpy precipitation but destructive smiting hail like you get in temperate zones. What about those whirlwinds (plural) that carried people away – sounds a lot like North American twisters to me! That’s a temperate climate with the year consisting of more than two seasons (like the Book of Mormon implies
Alma 46:40) not a tropical wet and dry season year round. Jerusalem is in a Mediterranean temperate zone with cold wet winters and “heat of the day” springs and summers that don’t phase with Central or South America. If you follow the latitude of Jerusalem over to the New World (where you intend to keep all of the seasonal ordinances of the Law of Moses) where do you find yourself? You need spring time barley for a Passover wave offering. You need wheat for late spring early summer Feast of Weeks. You need a fall or early winter for Sukkoth. Doesn’t sound like Guatemala to me. And you had better find some sheep and goats. Anything like a camel won’t do – unclean!!
Onondaga (
talk)
04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is my proposal for a way to organize this article in a more rational, less cluttered way that allows a better historical appreciation for the subject matter:
Note that the conclusions of mainstream archaeologists would be emphasized throughout the above discussion. COGDEN 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
I think this article addresses too many geographical theories. Does anyone think some of the Meso/Great lakes theories should be split off into other articles like the Malay Theory?
There is another article about Proposed Book of Mormon geographical settings that I think is more appropriate for the maps/theories discusses in this article. What do you think? Reds0xfan ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I could not agree more with User:Reds0xfan. One of the biggest problems with this article is its extensive treatment of spurious theories on the geographical setting for the BOM. About half of this article could be merged quite easily into Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting. We could then streamline the content in this article to a few paragraphs and refer to the other article. I will create a merge proposal on this momentarily. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Among “spurious theories”, you should include every Mesoamerican setting, for not one of the Central American settings is acknowledges by the academic community as representative of the genre in which the Book of Mormon is classed.
Onondaga (
talk)
23:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In the "Anachronisms and archaeological findings" section, under "Horses," says that evidence cited by apologist Sorenson is "disputed by mainstream archaeologists." This is, of course, true, as far as I know. But the reference given for the statement is a piece in the FARMS Review of Books criticizing Stan Larson's Quest for the Gold Plates. None of the people writing the review or the book reviewed seem to be archaeologists, mainstream or not. Does someone have a better reference?
Felix Sonderkammer ( talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
While some work has obviously been done on this article since the last time I logged in, many problems linger. I've made some minor editing changes. While numerous enough for me to not want to go through them, the following change is typical of the style.
Original: something like "Mormon scholars claim to have accumulated evidence they believe supports their conclusions to support thier conclusions."
Changed to: something like "Mormon scholars have accumulated evidence to support their conclusions. Others, based on the same evidence, reject these conclusions."
Reason: evidence either supports a conclusion or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.240.136 ( talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The recent edit of the section on the Jaredites, left off stating that some LDS believe that the Olmecs were the Jaredites. Some details given for why this conclusion is thought to be unacceptable (even to some LDS) were removed. I have put the informative objections back in the section, adding a reference to an 1842 editorial by Joseph Smith. For the most part I have no problem with the edits.
Kovesh ( talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Under Limited Geography Model, I pruned the statement suggesting that Orson and Parley Pratt had something to do with suggesting a limited geography. I know for sure they defended hemispheric models. I left behind B. H. Roberts and the reference to Roper’s paper. It seems that no one has been forthcoming for sometime in providing specific reference material backing up a Pratt / Limited Geography connection. I will check through Roper’s paper again to make sure I haven’t missed something. I wonder if the contributor meant to reference another Apostle (e.g. John E. Page). I'm open to the possibility that the Pratts could have paid enough attention to the Book of Mormon, to have at some point considered that the lands were much more localized. They may have had a moment or two of geographic reconsideration! How ever long lived their “wait a minute…” may have been, we know that Orson Pratt's hemispheric model ended up in Book of Mormon footnotes printed in the late 1800s. In any event our readers need a reference. Kovesh ( talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added a few additional historical details to the Limited Geography Model section to make up for the unsubstantiated inferences about the Pratts, which I removed. Kovesh ( talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In the section titled ″Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting″, It was implied that Lehi’s company sailed “across the Pacific Ocean to the New Word”. The Book of Mormon does not state this. The eastward journey across the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula may easily be seen as a means of avoiding contact with potential adversaries. Their eastward travel clearly applies to Arabia, not their oceanic voyage. The comment about the Pacific Ocean has been removed.
Onondaga ( talk) 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Animals and plants of the old and new world as well of Australia and Polynesia support that there was movement of peoples throughout these areas. The most striking example is that of the llama. The llama is a close relative of the camel and therefore must have evolved in the old world. Why is it found natively only in the Andes? How did it get there? There are many domestic plants that are found from eastern Africa to South America that could only have been carried by people. The passion fruit, Passiflora edulis, originally from South America, is an example, as well as many species of garden vegetables, that moved both directions through the area. Sheep were carried throughout the area in prehistory. The sheep that live wild on the island of Hawaii, and some other locales of Polynesia, are a primative breed that predates modern times. And of course the peoples of Polynesia were very well established long before explorers arrived. My Flatley ( talk) 00:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments on Non-kosher Cattle:
Jewish authorities regard Llamas as non-kosher animals! Llamas do not have cloven hooves. Their feet are two-toed with toenails (not hooves). An American colony of devout Israelites would very likely recognize similarities between Llamas and Camels and would therefore regard Llamas as unfit to eat and certainly not appropriate to sacrifice to Adonai (the LORD). (Leviticus 11:4) I'm convinced that ancient Israelites would have been more likely to relate Llamas to camels than to horses ("susim"). The “goat” mentioned in the Book of Mormon must be a variety of “clean” animal similar to Old World goats. Likewise “the cow” can only be a variety of bovine acceptable for eating and for sacrifice. (1 Nephi 18:25) In as much as the language of the Book of Mormon parallels the language of the King James Bible, Book of Mormon references to “sheep” or “lamb” may also refer to goat-like creatures. The Hebrew term translated “lamb” in the KJV, actually relates to either a young goat or sheep. In light of the requirements of the Law of Moses, it’s fair to conclude that the LORD would have led Lehi’s party to a land where there literally were sheep, goat-like creatures and bovine animals. (2 Nephi 5:10) Bighorn sheep, mountain goats and bison are of course native to North America. Questions remain as to how such animals could have been domesticated. Many are quick to point out that there is no evidence that ancient Americans ever did so.
Recent Edits:
For sometime several sections have either lacked adequate references or have suffered from topic drift. I am in the process of making contributions to “Archaeological evidence of large populations”, “Existing ancient records of the New World”, “The Lamanites and The Maya”, “The Nephites”. Kovesh ( talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Have quoted an additional source on the subject of "silk". Kovesh ( talk) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Have added a reference to "Hemispheric Geography Model" Kovesh ( talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently made mention of big horn sheep in the "sheep" section. Onondaga ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Continuing with making minor reference improvements and added a requested reference to the “elephants” section. Onondaga ( talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In the sections on Horses and Elephants I have cited Coon citing Behemoth, A Legend of the Mound-Builders by Cornelius Matthews (1839). Onondaga ( talk) 05:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have recently made some edits to the “Systems of measuring time (calendars)” section. The last two paragraphs lacked references in important places. I would have been glad to leave these paragraphs in place if someone had cared enough about them to defend them. My own appraisal of the previous section is that it could have done a better job engaging Book of Mormon details on the Mosaic Law with its temporal requirements. I have supplemented the section somewhat on this topic. The section had a good introduction to ancient American calendars but it lacked effort to relate all this to the Book of Mormon with its explicit and implied references to time keeping. Kovesh ( talk) 19:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Linked scriptural citations etc. in the updated section. Onondaga ( talk) 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In the preamble or introduction, I recently added references and a brief comment to the effect that the geographic setting of the Book of Mormon is not merely regarded by LDS as “geography”, but as a "Promised Land" or covenant "land of liberty", having a particular blessing and curse upon it. Onondaga ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Several references (mostly citations from scripture) were not linked. I have started to link several of these. For instance Enos 1:20 has been changed to Enos 1:20 Onondaga ( talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In the sections on “warfare” and “Military fortifications” there has for some time been a couple of statements that have called for references. I did some pruning! I have left others that call for a reference or clarification, in place. The section on “warfare” began with a quotation from Hugh Nibley but quickly moved to a quote by Sorenson in order to defend a Mesoamerican setting. Pretty fast move I’d say, because Nibley actually compares mound builder fortifications to defensive works described in the Book of Mormon. I have added opposing references. I have also pruned unsupported statements from and contributed references to the “Genetic studies” section. Onondaga ( talk) 07:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the section “Traditional views of New World population”, I have referenced Coon’s article, "How Exaggerated Settings for the Book of Mormon Came to Pass” Kovesh ( talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have made some contributions and improvements to the section on “Hebrew and Egyptian languages”, leaving previous references intact. It had been suggested that Mayan is the only form of ancient Native American writing for which there is archaeological evidence. This isn’t quite accurate. I have referenced Olmec and also made mention of the Native American oral tradition behind Micmac hieroglyphs. Onondaga ( talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I wholly disagree with the deletion of this article recently proposed by 76.76.93.243. As he himself has noted, it is an interesting article, and he has failed to cite a good reason for deletion. Merely to say that the article does not belong in an encyclopedia is not a reason, but a conclusion. To say that it would be better as an article in a specialized journal is likewise not a reason, but a conclusion. Pending a consensus, I will remove the deletion notice from the article. Plazak ( talk) 14:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I too agree that the article should not be deleted. Kovesh ( talk) 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the article has a Worldwide Point of View tag since April 2008. In a cursory scan of the archived discussion for April 2008, I noticed no discussion on this point, or suggestions as to how the article is faulty in this regard. Any suggestions? Otherwise, I would propose that the tag be removed. Plazak ( talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the “Worldwide View” tag is no longer an appropriate criticism for this website. The article has come a long way and in my opinion, currently suffers far less from one-sidedness. Kovesh ( talk) 22:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Descartes I disagree with your recent edits! Lets take one issue at a time! First of all you are mistaken about the Book of Mormon not having a setting. It is classed as a work of 19th Century American literature in the "Mound-Builder" genre. Kovesh ( talk) 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In Cornelius Mathew’s 1839 novel, Behemoth – A tale of the Mound- Builders, the hero Bokulla rides a “wild steed”. (pp. 99-100) Intending to lend credence to the tale, the notes (pg. 191) cite the discovery of a “small iron shoe, like a horse shoe, encrusted with the rust of ages…” among other alleged mound builder artifacts. The point is elephants (mastodons) and horses appear in 19th century works on the “Mound-Builders”. It comes as no surprise to historians who specialize in 19th Century American literature that horses and elephants feature in the Book of Mormon – these are elements of the American "mound-builder" genre! Onondaga ( talk) 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point entirely! Matthews is not cited to prove the Book of Mormon archaeologically. He is cited to show how the Book of Mormon’s references to horses and elephants parallel the academically accepted “Mound-Builder” genre of the 19th Century. Some LDS have actually picked up on this! Robert Silverberg has written extensively on the subject. You ought to read his works if you haven’t. Find any scholarly non LDS treatment on the mound builders and see if it doesn’t discuss the Book of Mormon. There’s a good chance it will. Silverberg and others cite Matthews by the way, and the Book of Mormon. Have you noticed that the vast majority of all identifiable animals and plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon are also mentioned in the KJ Bible? Elephants, however, are nowhere specifically mentioned in the KJV. Why then does the Book of Mormon mention elephants (if the Bible doesn’t) and in America of all places? Turns out that ancient elephant remains were recovered in the US even before Joseph Smith, and they were quite a subject of discussion. Hence Matthews long notes. In my judgment there is no good reason for removing the reference. The article makes it clear that the accepted North American horse and Mastodon time line does not match the presumed Jaredite timeline. I have made no effort to remove this information from the section and I have no desire to. Elephant remains and such, were items of popular fascination in America in the 1800s, and found their way into the “Mound-builder “genre (which includes the Book of Mormon). I will continue to defend this point and soak the article with more references if that is what you want. I do not understand why you are so troubled by this. Onondaga ( talk) 05:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Descartes, The brief comments about horses and elephants in the “Mound-builder genre”, I think, contribute some interesting background to the archaeological discussion. These 19th Century ideas really are connected to strange finds in the American frontier. Behemoth isn’t just a work of fiction; it is a work which adds quite a commentary on, what was then, the beginning of American “archaeology”. The situation is sort of like bringing up Jules Verne in an article on modern submarines - could be totally appropriate. It has taken a lot of work over the years to sort some of these things out. There is still a lot of mystery to the mound builder subject. The truth is historical details and archaeology, dove-tail quite a bit. Still, I concede to your argument even though I think the sentence about elephants appearing in early “Mound-builder” literature adds an interesting detail. I will remove the sentence, because the paragraph does go on to make the mound builder connection. I’m less inclined to remove the reference in the horse section because this section approves sillier, less historically researched defenses such as the Book of Mormon doesn’t really mean horses when in fact it mentions them. Other, better read, LDS seem to literally accept the Behemoth notes. I will add some comment challenging the Behemoth notes on the basis of modern archaeology. By the way, I think you lightened the reading in the last sections you edited. Onondaga ( talk) 02:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Before we get into thorough debate, I am going to revert all of the edits back to my version in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Please hear me out before a hasty objection. First, numerous non controversial clean up edits were reverted quite hastily by Kovesh and Onondaga (no accusation here, you probably didn't realize). Second, as noted at WP:BURDEN, "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I strongly believe that the edits I made were in the spirit of bringing balance to the article in accordance with WP:POV, and while I recognize that a few of them may be controversial, the majority of them had to do with reliability of sources per WP:SOURCES, and eliminating spurious information that does not relate to archaeology. As such, I respectfully challenge Kovesh, Onondaga, and any other editor to provide reliable sources for the statements I removed, and demonstrate how they are relevant to the topic of archaeology, and we can add them back one by one. I will be the first person to support adding the information back if we have some good archaeological sources to support anything I removed. Also, I recognize that I do come to this with a POV, for editors who don't already know me, and if I have crossed the line, just let me know. In this case, I don't think I have acted inappropriately. I am the last person who wants an edit war.-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 04:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Descartes, I’m truly sorry for cutting the last part of the discussion! Thank you for restoring it. Onondaga ( talk) 02:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Onondaga - Please do not delete talk page discussion. This contains critical information on the ongoing debate and the evolution of the article. If you delete talk page discussion and points that oppose your own, you do not appear to be acting in good faith. If that happens again, I will get an Administrator involved.-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
All right - I am going back through - and lets take these edits one at a time.
Please review these edits and discuss. I will add more tomorrow.-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Another edit for discussion:
I agree. Kovesh ( talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The summary lists “breast plates” as not being substantiated by archaeological finds. Mound builder societies did in fact manufacture metal (copper) plates with holes in the corners ostensibly for strapping to the chest. I personally have a picture of one that was on display in a museum. These ancient peoples were copper smiths, let’s not forget this! Artifacts of “armor” like “breast plates” are even a topic of discussion in the 19th century mound builder literature. Check out Josiah Priest and Ethan Smith and better yet the Behemoth notes. Yet another reason to be studied in mound builder archaeology and the genre that the Book of Mormon came out of before presuming to contribute to this article. I am removing the reference to "breast plates" and "ore (mining)" in the article summary.
I’m even dubious about the mention of “iron”. I believe that you will find that some meteoric iron was worked by mound builders though it is not nearly as prevalent as copper among these cultures. I’m going to leave it alone for now, but let’s be careful! Kovesh ( talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody did not do their homework in regards to “bellows” listed in the summary. I did a Bible search and found the term used in the King James Translation of Jeremiah 6:29. Incidentally, according to the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his son Nephi were contemporaries of the prophet Jeremiah. I have it on good authority (from a knowledgeable source), that the Hebrew word “mafuach” translated “bellows” in the Bible, comes from the verb meaning “to puff”, “inflate”, “blow hard” and essentially means “blower of a forge”. I’m trying to be pun-y and not unkind, when I say that we should definitely blow off the reference to “bellows”. The only reference to “bellows” in the Book of Mormon is in the Old World setting. (1 Nephi 17:11) The divinely guided Nephi had seen a bellows before and apparently learned how to make one out of animal skins. As for any occurrence of “bellows” in the New World Book of Mormon setting, the term isn’t there! We know that the mound builders worked metals. Did they make bellows of animal skins? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised. These were very clever people. “Bellows” goes away!
By the way, Josiah Priest in American Antiquities notes artifacts of Fe, Cu, brass, Au and Ag removed from various mound builder sites. See for instance pp 90-91, 101, 178-179. Of course historians and archaeologists will point out that these finds were itemized in Joseph Smith’s day. Similar finds are mentioned in the Behemoth Notes. Priest and other sources also mention agricultural tools as well as metal weapons. A good rule to follow is that when the Book of Mormon mentions something it probably comes from somewhere and it is worth taking time to look into it.
As a note for those interested: the story part of Behemoth mentions metallurgical “forges” (pp 32, 36)
One more thing: I have a problem with including “steel” in the summary list. The scripture that is cited with this is 1 Nephi 4:9. This is Old World “steel” - same as David’s and Nephi’s “bow of steel”. (Psalm 18:34) This can only be the “steel” mentioned in the Bible. This is not hardened iron but hardened copper. Makes sense when you think about it. “ Brass” and “bronze” are not very distinguishable in the Bible. Did the mound builders make hardened copper? Take a look at the sources and just for fun read the Behemoth Notes. Guys this is getting long, but none of this would have been needed if someone had done better research upfront. Kovesh ( talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok we need to settle this once and for all. Coon's reference to Behemoth is a ridiculous reference. This article should be talking about what archaeological findings support or detract from the historicity of the book of mormon. Behemoth fails the standard we should be having on our sources on so many levels. I am sure I could dig up a hundred novels that allege this that or the other thing (The Davinci Code comes to mind) - but that has absolutely no bearing on the archaeological facts at hand. Every reference to Behemoth should be replaced by findings in an archaeological paper, and if it can't, it is probably because he made it up, and it isn't true - and it should be removed. This article is not about allusions to what might be true, but what has actually been found by archaeologists. I will see if I can get a few wikipedia editors with expertise in archaeology to chime in on this. If these references cannot be supported by better references, I will be removing them systematically from the article. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Reading Behemoth again - seriously guys - his "support" even says that it is a horseshoe, and no mention of dating. Horse shoes didn't even come into use in Europe until after 500 AD. And here this guy (who is a novelist) is saying there are horse shoes in America when every credentialed archaeologist concludes that horses didn't even exist in America. It is so obvious that this guy just found an old horse shoe that was rusty and assumed it was old enough (never dated by an archaeologist), and added it to his book so he could sell more of his fantastic stories. Utterly ridiculous. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Brass and Bronze are two very different things. You can't remove brass on the argument that in the Bible it is not easily distinguished. I added brass back to the list. You can make that argument that it may not be an anachronism based on word choice or whatever, but there are many people who take the Book of Mormon literally, and believe that Joseph Smith meant what he said when he said what he meant - including myself. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I just made a bunch of edits. Many of them are not controversial - adding images, grammar and sentence structure fixing. Rather than take another hour to list them all out here - I ask that you review them, and raise objections on the ones you disagree with here for discussion. I also ask that you please don't mass revert everything I have done, as it took me several hours. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It has been about a year since I have participated in editing this page and am sad to see that it has digressed to opinion slinging. I enjoy Wikipedia because I learn about the world. If you have a source, cite it! If it is your opinion, keep it to yourself. For example, I commonly see phrases "academics don't accept ...." If you don't know about something don't turn this into your personal opinion blog. If someone has worked hard to add concrete information with citations that are valid feel free to organize it but don't delete it! Thanks. -- WaltFrost ( talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This article needs great reorganization. Archeology in the Meriam Webster dictionary defines it as the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities. If this article is really about Archeology of content in the Book of Mormon then it should be about the second paragraph and not the first. This should be a review of current information that relates to the content of The Book of Mormon. Careful wording is required for a good article. For example, Jerusalem is a worldwide accepted historical site by all people. This is mentioned in the Book of Mormon as well as other prominent people and places aka the Red Sea. A better article would be a review of current knowledge on places, artifacts, flora, wildlife, etc as it relates to content in The Book of Mormon.-- WaltFrost ( talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an article dedicated to this so I will put a link to that information. There is not enough room in this article for a comprehensive discussion on genetics as it relates to the Book of Mormon.-- WaltFrost ( talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Archeology, like realestate, depends on location, location, location. The location needs to come first followed by other comments because all other discussion depends on it (ie people, plants, animals, metals etc). I am going to move the article around. See what you think.-- WaltFrost ( talk) 02:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Tried to reorganize the article to reflect current views of the Church of Jesus Christ Department of Religion at Brigham Young University and FARMS that the setting of the Book of Mormon is in Mesoamerica. Tried to reorganize the article to focus 1st on Location, then on Cultures, then on plants, animals, metals, etc. I think this order makes more sense than the prior order. The article still needs a lot of cleaning up. Mound builders and other theories should be placed in historical or theories of members, but does not reflect the current views of the church education system and most Mormon scholars. Will work on the article later.-- WaltFrost ( talk) 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
COGDEN, I really think that a lot of LDS get their ideas about the Book of Mormon’s setting more from popular images and sources like FARMS than from actually studying their scriptures. The present article is more balanced than it ever has been. The opinions of the FARMS clan are generously represented in the present article. They are also challenged as they should be. The understandings of mainstream historians, archaeologists and specialists in 19th century American literature are also present, though there is always somebody trying to remove these details. The discussions show that some of us want to do a good job presenting a legitimate archaeological comparison based on the literary setting accepted by mainstream specialists. There are LDS and non-LDS that support this. I agree that a little additional information from the “Mound-builder” literary genre would help to cement the legitimate and original setting to be tested by archaeology. A lot of people don’t know about the mound builders and America’s 19th century concern with them. They think they just have to read Sorenson or watch a FARMS video and this gives them enough to pounce on this article. I believe that content matters more than even restructuring the article. There a lot of people will cut and rearrange. There are fewer who will take the time to provide acceptable and interesting references.
Onondaga (
talk)
03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
WaltFrost, you didn’t realize that you were describing details from “Mound-builder” literature – except for the part about no snow. Where did you get the idea that the Book of Mormon never mentions “snow” – don’t tell me – let me guess – FARMS? You must have forgotten about the description of the vision of the tree of life which Nephi recorded for his posterity after arriving in the New World. Lehi while describing the whiteness of the tree to his family in Arabia never compares it to “driven snow”. It snows in the mountains of northern Israel and in Lebanon, but rarely in Jerusalem. But Nephi, after arriving in the American Promised Land, is commanded to write his previous experiences down for the benefit of his people.
1 Nephi 19 Why would Nephi use a description that his people couldn’t relate to? Not just “white as snow” (like Isaiah says) but the non-biblical “whiteness of the driven snow”.
1 Nephi 11:8 Nephi had experienced something like a blizzard (snow blown into drifts) and he knew that generations of his people would be able to relate to his description. The Book of Mormon also mentions “hail” - not just wimpy precipitation but destructive smiting hail like you get in temperate zones. What about those whirlwinds (plural) that carried people away – sounds a lot like North American twisters to me! That’s a temperate climate with the year consisting of more than two seasons (like the Book of Mormon implies
Alma 46:40) not a tropical wet and dry season year round. Jerusalem is in a Mediterranean temperate zone with cold wet winters and “heat of the day” springs and summers that don’t phase with Central or South America. If you follow the latitude of Jerusalem over to the New World (where you intend to keep all of the seasonal ordinances of the Law of Moses) where do you find yourself? You need spring time barley for a Passover wave offering. You need wheat for late spring early summer Feast of Weeks. You need a fall or early winter for Sukkoth. Doesn’t sound like Guatemala to me. And you had better find some sheep and goats. Anything like a camel won’t do – unclean!!
Onondaga (
talk)
04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is my proposal for a way to organize this article in a more rational, less cluttered way that allows a better historical appreciation for the subject matter:
Note that the conclusions of mainstream archaeologists would be emphasized throughout the above discussion. COGDEN 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |