Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 2

Alternative BoM Geographies

There's no mention in the article Archaeology and the BoM about non-Meso-American geographies, such as presented by Phyllis Carol Olive [1] and Duane R. Aston [2].

The MesoAmerican viewpoint is certainly the "orthodox" viewpoint at BYU. Any interest in Ohio or upstate New York as the setting for the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon geography fits almost perfectly with geological features of the Great Lakes where the Spaulding Manuscript novel takes place. Nephi's family would have had one heck of an unmentioned walk to make to get there after their initial landing, but the locations of rivers and such matches much better. Mapache 17:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Dr. Sorenson has been a vigorous proponent of the Limited Tehuantepec Theory and has rejected the others. Therefore, I believe that this statement is incorrect: "One book compiled by prominent Mormon scholar John Sorenson has more than 500 pages of plausible location theories placing the Book of Mormon events everywhere from the Finger Lakes region of the Northeast United States to Chile." Unless a citation can be provided, I am proposing changing this sentence to refer to Sorenson's formal description of the Tehuantepec Theory in his 1985 book. Bochica 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See "John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book Provo : FARMS, 1992." (purchased via FARMS and deseret book and even amazon [3])

Just because he compiled a book on the topic, doesn't mean he agrees with all the geographic proposals. the book is a compilation of hundreds of theories - placing the setting for the book of Mormon everywhere from Manti Utah to Eastern Shore Delaware to finger lakes, to chile to a hemispheric view. I have the book in my personal library at home as reference. -Visorstuff 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments removed from article

I removed the following comment from several places in the article:

(Though no Journal or other credible citation is available in this section to support or oppose these ideas.)

This is more appropriate for a discussion on the talk page about what to do. See this edit --Trödel 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Something missing from this quote?

From the article (as of 20061204): "On this point, Michael Coe noted: "[O]ur knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)."[6]"

Should that read "... (*as* though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)."? That is, doesn't there need to be an "as" in there? Perhaps it's just a construction with which I am unfamiliar, but it certainly doesn't roll off the tongue even if that's the case.

"though all that posterity"... posterity needs a classifier such as "our," which makes sense in the context, but then there is an agreement problem, should be "was" rather than "were"... I agree with timbo, seems like a less than perfect transcription, though the facts mentioned (about 4 maya books being all we have) have been corroborated in several sources.gdavies

The quote's a bit odd otherwise, too -- past tense ("knew") with, what is that, future subjunctive? ("were to be based"). Not saying the words aren't his, but I find them awkward enough to wonder if there might be a word or two that just got mistranscribed.

timbo 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a mistranscription: The word "as" was missing. I've fixed this and updated the reference from the 4th edition to the 6th edition of Michael Coe's book The Maya. I also formatted it to match the form of the other quote from Coe that was given earlier in the section. Bochica 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A question about the long quotation in "Lehi's Arabian Journey" setting

There's (what I take to be) a quotation in this section, which reads: "These include, the 'borders near and nearer' the Red Sea, Shazer (where they stopped to hunt), the most fertile parts, the trees from which Nephi made his bow, Nahom, Nephi’s eastwardly trail to Bountiful, and Bountiful.

I suspect (but don't want to compound with my own error what I *think* to be a preceding error) that there should be a closing quotation mark after the last instance of "Bountiful" there. Or was the included quotation mark included in error, and no quotation is intended? I am not expert at what requires citation, but if that *is* a quote (and, I guess, even if it's not), shouldn't there be a cite for it?

timbo 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"... and tourists"?

Re: the cave mentioned in this snippet: "In the same area, there is a cave with ancient Hebrew writing that can be dated to the 6th Century B.C.; some LDS historians and tourists believe this cave could have been ..."

I'm not sure what tourists' belief has to do with anything, at least in their roles as tourists. If they're independently qualified, then whatever it is that makes them qualified should be mentioned, IMO. This sounds a bit like "Plumbers and horticulturalists think the pipes' internal pressure has been poorly regulated." It might be true, but I don't know why I should care about all of the opinions mentioned :)

EDIT: Especially since the last graf of that section says "The site, despite having no confirming empirical evidence, remains a popular destination for LDS tourists." That makes the earlier "tourist" reference even hinkier ...

timbo 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Its poor writing (probably mine). Some historians believe it. Tourists believe historians, and they visit the site - which is significant, as they visit sites believing it as a fact. Hope this helps clarify. The point is that it becomes a popular tourist site due to some historians assessment. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we should move the "tourists" from that sentence and (if necessary) elaborate on the tourists' beliefs later on in the section, as that sentence is (I presume) intended to establish a fact (which tourists in this case aren't qualified to do). The fact that tourists often believe something should be mentioned later (as it is presently).gdavies 04:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A cut and paste error, perhaps?

In the section about "Genetic studies," there's a sentence I'm not quite sure what to make of:

"Current LDS scholars believe that the entire geography covered by the Book of Mormon was quite limited, less than 1000 miles in any direction, called the limited geographical area covered by the Book of Mormon allows plenty of room for other unknown peoples from whom indigenous Americans could also be descended."

Might the following version make sense? I'm no scholar or historian, so I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but what the hey ...

"Current LDS scholars believe that though the entire geography covered by the Book of Mormon was quite limited, less than 1000 miles in any direction, the area described allows plenty of room for other unknown peoples from whom indigenous Americans could also be descended."

timbo 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Horses in North America

Does anybody have any reference documenting the existence of horses in North America beyond the late Pleistocene? Everything I have ever read on the evolution of horses in North America; including the Evolution of the horse article, the Pleistocene fauna section of the Pleistocene article, the Holocene extinction event article, and the New World Pleistocene Extinctions article, states that horses went extinct in the New World at the end of the last ice age along with other Pleistocene megafauna such as the camel, American lion, saber-toothed cat, short faced bear, giant sloth, Giant beaver, and the various mammoths and mastadons.

This abstract [4] from the journal Nature states that, "equid species dominated North American late Pleistocene faunas in terms of abundance, geographical distribution, and species variety, yet none survived into the Holocene epoch."

Modern horses were brought to the new world around the year 1500. If anybody can cite a source suggesting that Pleistocene horses were alive anywhere as recently as 4,000 years ago, please provide that information. A good number of articles will need to be rewritten. - Justin 09:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read sources provided here, and recently removed from the article. No one disagrees that horses went extinct in americas, and "modern" horses were introduced later, but there is a lots of disagreemnt of when they died off. As the section is discussing disputed points of archeaology, the sources discussing differences in timing is appropriate in this article. I am reverting the edits. There are literally hundreds of sites discussing this issue - most of which are not Mormon. -Visorstuff 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I read through the sources that were provided in the previous discussion and found all of them to be quite insufficient. The only disagreement on when exactly horses in America died off is whether they died 9,000 thousand years ago or 12,000, and since it was probably a gradual process, there will not be exact agreement on one single number.

It's going to take much more proof than anything provided so far to make the claim that any horses existed anywhere in America after the Pleistocene. It's going to take direct, verifiable, physical evidence to prove anything other than the generally accepted history of the horse in the New World.

So far, I haven't seen anything convincing in the evidence provided. I'll address every one of the citations from the previous discussion in order:

: I don't know as much as others on this subject, but I do know that differing views should be presented and not just eliminated because one things they are not true. The truth doesn't matter - what matters is the verifiability. I restored the prior language and included a sentence about critics not buying the theory. Needs a cite and a source that makes these claims. Your information below, regardless of its truthfulness and scholarship, is original research. We need to find a verifiable source for this and include their comment. --Trödel 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Differing views should be presented, as long as they meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. If statements are made which clearly contradict the prevailing body of evidence on the history of horses in America, those statements need to clear a very high bar. I'm refering to statements such as "Current archeology suggests that a few horses may have survived to later dates in isolated locations, such as Florida, as recent as 2500 years ago" or a statement like "Because there is evidence that the animals referenced may have become extinct between 4,000 and 10,000 years ago, they fit the requirements of the Book of Mormon narrative", those statements need to be cited.

Also, certain statements made in this section are clearly misleading. "Horses are found in the pre-Columbian Americas" is true, up to about 10,000 years ago. "horses, camels, and mammoths were part of the North American landscape in pre-Columbian America" again, 10,000 years ago is clearly "pre-Columbian" but so is 1000 years ago, and there were no camels or mammoths alive at that point in pre-Columbian history. "there was evidence of horses when English settlers came to North America" is true. The English settlers arrived at Roanoke in 1586, so yes, there were horses in North America at that time because Spanish exporers brought them to the mainland in 1493.

The burden of proof is not on me to establish that horses did not exist in the pre-Columbian Holocene. The burden is on anyone who says otherwise. Until that level of verifiability is met, these misleading and unsubstantiated statements need to be removed. A difference of opinion isn't enough of a basis to justify their inclusion. - Justin 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree this article needs some additional resources, and verifiability is very important. I would like to make a small amendment to your sentence re burden of proof. Proper attribution requires that any statements added to an article must be verified, whether they are the "conventional wisdom" or a "minority theory." So if you want to use the term burden of proof for verfiability, the burden lies with all editors to provide verification for their contributions. --Trödel 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll could cite 10 papers which place the date of extinction at approximately 11,000 years ago. That's the general scientific consensus. But, I can't prove a negative. No evidence of pre-Columbian horses has been found after the end of the late-Pleistocene, but the lack of evidence isn't proof of non-existence. The individuals making the fantastic claim of Holocene horses need to provide the evidence. If they can only come up with anecdotes and speculation, then they need to identify those statements as such, and verify the source. Meanwhile, I can't see how the generally held scientific view of the history of the horse in North America can be deleted from this section in good faith. - Justin 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Justin, the generally-held view is not discounted one bit. What is said is that aside from teh Book of Mormon, there are other sources that say horses lived in the Americas during the same timeframe. Read the section title. This is discussing additional issues with whther or not these items could have been here even if in a limted area during the time. It is not our job to say that only the common scientific theories are correct, but rather that we give all views and let the reader realize from the sources that these are minor (and in some cases, fringe) views. But even in scholarly circles, dates and timing are not always as absolute as you make it. It is a hotly debated topic in the academic community. As a son of an archeaologist who spent my childhood summers dealing with archeaology, this is something that I dealt with constantly. The purpse of the section is not to convince or even say that common theory is wrong, it is that there are others who support this minority view. -Visorstuff 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is anybody who says that horses were alive in the Americas as recent as 4000 years ago, or the year 1421, that would be a discovery as remarkable as the Coelacanth, or the Ginkgo, or the possible rediscovery of the Ivory-billed woodpecker. It's true that some animals that were believed to be extinct turn out to be just the opposite. It's also true that, in scholarly circles, dates and times are not always absolute. There is uncertainty about when, exactly, horses went extinct in North America. But whether it was 11,000 years ago or 9,000, there is no doubt that they were gone shortly after the end of the Ice Age, just like the mammoths were gone and the giant sloths.

Again, if this is a "hotly debated" topic in the academic community, it should be easy to cite someone on the other side of the debate who presents evidence for that argument. If "more than just the Book of Mormon claims this", that should be easy to prove. What have they written? Where is it published? What evidence do they present? Who, exactly, holds this minority view? - Justin 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we brushed to quickly over the fact that a lack of physical/archeological information does not prove that they did not exist in this area during the time before Christ. Jacques Soustelle, an authority on the Olmec, says "It is probable that the Olmecs kept dogs and turkeys, animals domesticated in very early times on the American continent, but the destruction of any sort of bone remains, both human and animal, by the dampness and the acidity of the soil keeps us from being certain of this." See Gwyn Jones, The Norse Atlantic Saga: Being the Norse Voyages of Discovery and Settlement to Iceland, Greenland, America, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 119; see also Erik Wahlgren, The Vikings in America (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 124. No one disputes the fact that these animals existed, but we still haven't found conclusive evidence that they did any considerable amount of time ago. The amount of the species we're talking about here could be as small as hundreds, certainly not enough to expect abundant archaeological proof. Surely this type of "evidence by omission" against the Book of Mormon doesn't deserve any real amount of attention in this setting.gdavies 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(from http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=129&table=transcripts) The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation." (S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267.)

(from same) A parallel example from the Bible is instructive. The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region. Thus there is often a gap between what historical records such as the Book of Mormon claim existed and what the limited archaeological record may yield. In addition, archaeological excavations in Bible lands have been under way for decades longer and on a much larger scale than those in proposed Book of Mormon lands. ( L. Martin. "The Faunal Remains from Tell es Saidiyeh," Levant 20 (1988): 83–84.)gdavies 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1421 Hypothesis

The Wikipedia article on the 1421 Hypothesis that it has "no support among mainstream historians" and that it "has been dismissed by Sinologists and other professional historians". No conclusive evidence is provided to prove that the Chinese visited America in 1421, which means this hypothesis cannot be used to prove that horses existed in America in 1421. Futhermore, if horses did exist in America at that time, it is likely that some pre-Columbian horse remains would have been discovered somewhere by now.

The Horses and the Book of Mormon article

This article [5] summarizes several stories of horses in the pre-columbian New World. It cites a horse skull which was reported in the newsletter of the Louisiana Mound Society to be from the year 700. No reference to the original research is provided, but a few Google searches found reports of a similar horse skull which is most likely the basis of this story. This particular skull was found at the Spencer Lake Mound in Wisconsin in 1935. It was placed there as a prank by pothunters in 1928. The story of that hoax is here [6]

Another example cited by this summary relates a story of "12 mammal bones and a finely made copper spearhead" found in 1918. Some of the bones were "pronounced to be those of a horse and not petrified". There is no indication that the age of these bones have been dated using any modern techniques. Bones from Pleistocene horses would not be petrified.

The Survival of the Pre-Columbian Horse paragraph is a second-hand report of horse bones which were dated to "A.D. years prior to Columbus". This also appeared in the newsletter of the Louisiana Mounds Society (but not in the same issue as the horse skull hoax). Apparently, a guy named Holland Hague had sent documentation of these radiocarbon dates. We can't verify those sources and a Google search on the "Louisiana Mound Society" returns 8 hits [7] many of which are erroneous.

The remainder of this article shows a series of horse "likenesses" which have been found at various sites dating from the Mound Builder period. Horse likenesses are interesting, but are not proof, and there is no other evidence that Mound Builders ever had horses.

Newsgroup posting

The newsgroup posting "Precolumbian Amerindian horse?" [8] recounts "many early European eyewitnesses", but doesn't point to any of these sources specifically. It mentions explorers in the northwest encountering horses, which could certainly have originated in the Spanish southwest. The other dates that are specifically listed are all well past the arrival of the Spanish. It's all speculative and circumstantial. No archaeological or biological evidence is cited.

Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida

This reference is listed in the previous discussion [9], but that link provides no information other than an author and publication information

The Evolution of Horses

This article [10] mentions the hypothesis that some horses survived into historic times, but it immediately goes on to say, "This hypothesis, while intriguing, is not generally accepted because: (1) No horse bones from the late pre-Columbian era have been found to support the idea, and (2) horses are not pictured in any pre-Colombian American Indian "art." Furthermore, when the Spanish arrived with their horses to Mexico in the 16th century, the Aztecs and other educated peoples of that region did not initially understand what horses were."

Maxwell Institute

This page [11] first attempts say that horses may not have been extinct everywhere in the new world, then points to uncertainty about whether horse remains would be preserved from the areas where these hypothetical horses existed in the pre-columbian Holocene, then points to a linguistic phenomenon of naming one animal with the name of another, suggesting that the Book of Mormon's "horse" may have been a tapir. That's pure speculation.

Speculation? They present a linguistically viable hypothesis/explanation that would vindicate the book of Mormon's historicity on this point... This is the type of thing (what you call speculation, I call a hypothesis) that there's really no way of proving or disproving or substantiating as more than speculation, but may very likely be true. Surely the current citings of "evidence by omission" deserve no more attention. FARMS does an excellent job of citing similar examples from the Bible (anachronisms of metallurgy and so forth) that can be reasonably explained as products of semantic translation (brass vs. steel vs. iron etc.). Certainly these hypotheses deserve attention in this article as they have received in others. gdavies 04:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Science Frontiers

This site [12] mentions "Precolumbian horses" within a Catalog of Anomalies. It provides no information beyond that.

PBS site on the 1421 Hypothesis

The page is here [13]. The word "Horse" appears nowhere on that page.

Absoluteastronomy.com

This cited link [14] no longer exists.

Old Stone Mill

The article on this page [15] refers to an archaeological site in Newport called the Norse Tower. The last sentence of the first paragraph states: "The puzzle is that no one knows for sure when, or by whom, the tower was built. Or, for that matter, why." One theory is that it was built by Vikings. Other theories exist placing its construction in the 17th century.

An archaeological dig in 1949 turned up a horse tooth, a fragment of a rusty meat cleaver, and coins, among other artifacts. Carbon-14 tests on the mortar concluded that it was built between 1440 and 1710. The most conclusive evidence arises from artifacts from the Colonial period which were found at the bottom, and below, the footings of the tower. None of the 6,000 to 7,000 artifacts found beneath the footings predate the 17th century.

Robert Denhardt

The previous discussion cited this link [16] and states that Robert Denhardt supports the idea of a pre-columbian post-Pleistocene horses in America. I read through at least a dozen of the top search results under this guy's name and found nothing suggesting he supports this idea. A direct quote and a citation will need to be provided if his expert opinion is going to be put forward as evidence.

• It will take more evidence than anything presented here to lend any credibility to the idea that horses existed in the Americas much beyond 10,000 years ago. Fortunately, that evidence should be easy to find. A single horse bone which dates conclusively within this period would re-write the history of the horse. If nothing like that can be shown to exist, then everything else is anecdotal or pure speculation. - Justin 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this section is not to convince readers that horses existed in the americas, but it is to show that more than just the Book of Mormon claims this. And Why do people keep removing the sheridan reference from teh article? At least he is a respected historian, and who treats this subject as uncertain... -Visorstuff 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hun Horses claim debunked?

Elsewhere I found this: In an article intended to "unhorse" most of the Huns, Rudi Paul Lindner observes that most of the chronicles of Hunnic battles in Europe actually do not have most of the Huns on horseback. The European Huns kept horses, that's certain, but Lindner thinks that the number of Hunnic horses has been greatly exaggerated. Lindner also points out that although until recently there were no known horse bones, there was clear evidence at Hunnic gravesites that some of the deceased had kept horses (Source). More importantly, a Hungarian friend of mine reports that he found literally dozens of reports describing Hunnic horse bone finds in Hungary alone (Source). I am not certain how recent these finds are, since the reports are in Hungarian; it may be that archaeological study of the Huns simply did not pick up steam until very recently. But whatever the case may have been a few decades ago, there apparently is no shortage of evidence for Hunnic horses at present. As a final consideration, it's worth adding that Hunnic rule lasted only a few short centuries, whereas the span under consideration in the Americas is roughly ten thousand years long. I'll chase up some more stuff in a week if anyone wants it. Using Google Scholar and horse bones HunsDoug Weller (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I think this sentence needs some cleaning up "It was a spiritual record of the people while most of the history are recorded to be on other plates."

Even if it was written clearer, it's not necessarily true. I believe what it is referring to is Nephi's explanation of the two sets of plates he created. One is for the spiritual (the small) and one is for the secular (the large plates). These two records were eventually filled with writing and compiled/abridged by Mormon. We learn from the end of Omni 1 (and statements from Mormon) that the record up to that point (1 Nephi - Omni) was a direct record of the Small plates (not abridged, and in first person) and that Mormon attached the small plates at the end of his abridgement "for a wise purpose" (Words of Mormon 1:5-7. The "Words of Mormon" serve as a bridge between the direct translation of the Small plates and the abridgement of the Large plates (more of a secular focus). The "lost manuscript" (the first 116 pages that were translated by Joseph Smith) was a translation of the first section of the Large plates covering roughly the same time as the Small Plates. The reason, according to Joseph Smith, that the Lord had led Nephi to create the Small Plates was for them to the 116 pages (from the large plates) which He knew would be lost. I know I haven't sourced this enough, but my point is that the Book of Mormon in its entirety (as I understand it) is not an exclusively spiritual record, but it is a religiously focused one. The first books (Nephi to Omni) were indeed a spiritual record, but the remainder was an abridgment of the general record of the people from King Benjamin on (see "A brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon" opposite the table of contents in the Book of Mormon).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the first part of the statement isn't necessarily wrong, but "most of the history are recorded to be on other plates," (along with its poor wording) is not a true statement.gdavies

Currently the first paragraph says "The book itself states that the majority of the historical information was to be recorded on "other plates." [2] This view was promoted by the book's stated translator, Joseph Smith, Jr." This is still incorrect, "the book itself" refers to Jacob writing on the "small plates" (these plates) and comparing them to the "large plates (other plates). The Small plates deal with spiritual matters, the large plates deal primarily with historical matters. These plates were BOTH used by Mormon in compiling the book to its present form. Thus when Jacob (in the direct translation of the small plates) refers to "other plates," he is referring to the plates that Mosiah-4th Nephi. The Small Plates, the Large Plates, the Plates of Ether, and writings by Mormon and Moroni were compiled/abridged by Mormon and written on the "Gold Plates," which is where we get the Book of Mormon as it is written today.gdavies 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman

I think that the significance of this discovery is a little bit masked here. Perhaps a note about the Book of Mormon reference it applies to, the fact that it is continuously flowing (a rarity in this area) and that the "nonexistence" of a river fitting this description (until recently) is a major "evidence once thought lacking."gdavies

Book of Mormon vs. Bible Archaeology

The structure of this sentence doesn't seem correct: "Some critics of the Book of Mormon compare Book of Mormon archaeology with Biblical archaeology, noting that the lack of locatable places in the Book of Mormon pales with that of the Bible..." When I read it, it infers that the Bible has a greater lack of locatable places than the Book of Mormon - the opposite of what I believe the sentence was intended to convey. Am I reading this incorrectly?Bochica 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of the original intent. However, i think the general point is that people assume that biblical archaeology is fact and proven, proves the bible, and that every location is confirmed, when in fact, there are just as many (number speaking, definitly not percentage) places "missing" in biblical archeaology as in BoM archaeology, the difference being, there are located locations in the old world for both, just none in the new world. Both are quite young fields and both struggle to prove events to mainstream archaeologists. Feel free to modify. -Visorstuff 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll work on a modification after examining sources, since there is a "citation needed" tag. Thanks. Bochica 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added in a few internal citations today, and will continue to add in more as I have time. -Visorstuff 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New map

I don't know much about the detail, but I did notice a new map for sale (think recently - correct me if I'm wrong) map. It was reviewed by John P. Pratt recently in Meridian Magazine (an online publisher of stories of interest to Latter-day Saints). I have a soft spot for combo Physics&Math BS grads (like me) :) I'm not voucing for its accuracy - but since it is a physicist and it isn't rocket science is likely to be accurate --Trödel 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Chariots in the Middle East

The Wheeled Vehicles section includes this statement: "no chariot fragments have been found in the Middle East dating to Biblical times." I marked it as needing a citation, and a reference to , p. 59 was added. There are a number of references to different works by Sorenson. I would like to check what is specifically being said about chariots, but it's difficult to narrow down the specific Sorenson reference from the list of Sorenson references.

I apologize, I added the reference, but didn't take the time to look at the rest of the references. I was referring to the previous reference to Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Provo, Utah: Research Press (1998)) p. 59. gdavies 04:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As it reads now, that line seems to state that there is no evidence of chariots (wheeled vehicles) in the middle east during Biblical times. Those terms could be interpreted a few different ways. The Chariot article states that the earliest chariots date from ca 2000 BC, and the earliest 4-wheeled horse-drawn cart depictions date from 2600 BC. The map in that article shows the spread of the chariot around the eastern Mediterranean by 1500 BC. Ramesses II fought the largest chariot battle in history against the Hittites at the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC. It involved nearly 5,000 chariots and took place in what is clearly the "Middle East". There are depictions of Ramesses II in a chariot carved on the walls of his tomb. The chariot article also mentions that 4 chariots were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

Basically, I'm wondering what the time period is that this "no chariot fragments have been found in the Middle East dating to Biblica times" statement refers to. Since it appears that chariots have been found in that area going back quite some time. I would like to investigate this Sorenson source more closely. - Justin (Authalic) 06:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. While I didn't add in that source, i'll see if I can dig it up. If I remember correctly, what i've read is taht there are no specimin of chariots surviving until the third or fourth century CE. Wood, wheels, metal hubs and other elements of chariots did not survive into our time. That is a different issue than depictions of chariots (or depictions of flying boats, which don't seem to have survived to our time, but were depicted as well). Da Vinci, Franklin and others drew inventions hundreds of years before they were created and perfected. I think the point is that Biblical archaeology is young and many things are not as certain as many would have you beleive. The dipictions are corraborating evidence, but not confirming (don't get me wrong, I believe they existed at the time, but the physical existence of them are not there - and am taking a bit of devils advocate view on this one). I know that source is not in the Geographies reference of Sorenson. Agree lets dig up the reference. -Visorstuff 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with this statement and this reference. I haven't had a chance to pick up this Sorenson book yet, but the title seems to state that it deals with America, and may be speculative in nature. The statement that no chariot fragments have been found dating from Biblical times certainly contradicts a few other articles on Wikipedia.

The Chariot article lays out a fairly descriptive history of the chariot from the middle-east to Northern Europe, India and China. The Chariot burial article mentions a burial site in the Caspian region where a chariot was found buried with horse bones and other artifacts. The horse bones date to 2026 BC. I already mentioned Ramesses II and the Battle of Kadesh which took place in Syria in 1274 BC and may have involved as many as 5000 chariots. There are contemporay accounts of that battle from both the Egyptian and the Hittite scribes, so the course of that battle is known in detail. Copies of the peace treaty between the two sides exist today in both languages. The Etruscan chariot article shows a chariot which was found intact dating from ca. 530 BC. Chariots were mentioned and depicted by cultures all over the acient world. Chariot racing was an event in the Ancient Olympic Games. The Chariot article mentions that four chariots were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun which had been undisturbed since 1325 BC. The article on Tutankhamun speculates that he may have died from injuries sustained in a chariot accident.

I'll see if I can get copies of some of the references cited in the Chariot article next time I'm up on campus. In the meantime, this article is making a pretty fantastic claim, and certainly needs to be verified soon. - Justin (Authalic) 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

New article outline

I've looked at the structure of this article, and I think that it needs to be reorganized. Each section will say what the Book of Mormon says about the subject (to establish what archaelogical evidence there could be), what evidence supports this view, and what evidence contradicts it. What about this proposed outline?

• Introductory paragraph: Briefly summarize what is in the following sections.
• Overview
  • Mormons believe Book of Mormon is a historical record and there will be archaological evidence to support it.
  • Others disagree.
• Geography:
  • Old world
  • New world
• Genetics: Brief summary because I believe that this subject has its own article
• Farming
  • Animals
  • Crops
• Technology
  • Cities and buildings (including military fortifications)
  • Metals
  • Coinage
  • Weapons
  • Chariots
• Other:
  • Izapa Stela 5
  • Los Lunas Decalogue Stone
  • Quetzalcoatl legends
  • etc
• See also: The stuff that is already in this section.
• References
• External links

Does this about cover what is already in the article? I think that it does lay it out better though. I'm not set on the order of the categories, except that I think that Geography should be first and Other should be last. What do you think? Val42 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the article is in need of some organizational restructuring. I can see that there is quite a bit of redundancy as I scan through the existing article. The article is also already becoming too long. I would suggest breaking the entire geography section out into a separate article and just providing a short summary in this one. The geography article could address the different geographical models. I also believe that a lot more information is going to be added to the geography section in the future, and that it has the potential to get very long. Also, a couple of the items under the "Other" heading look like they ought to be included in a section on "Artifacts". Cities and buildings probably ought to be included under "Artifacts." I see the potential for a lot more information to be added related to artifacts in addition to Stela 5. There are other stelae in addition to Stela 5 that contain information that is relevant to this topic. Perhaps weapons and chariots ought to be included in a section on "Warfare." I would also like to see a section that deals with cultural comparisons between the known cultures of Mesoamerica and those of the Book of Mormon. I don't know if that belongs in an article on "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" or if it requires a separate article... "Anthropology and the Book of Mormon" perhaps? Perhaps such an article exists already in some other form - if so, then please excuse my ignorance (I'm pretty new at this). Bochica 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of comments: I'd place genetics right up front and point people to that article just to get it out of the way before real arch. discussion. I also think the LDS cultural belief should be up in the front as part of the intro.

We need to place in context with biblical archeaology in my opinion - not for apologetics, but because it is much younger and both are so disputed. For example, less than 450 biblical sites or artifacts (according to the new NIV study bible) have archaeological evidence for - and biblical arch has a start in the crusades (one mormon scholar says that just under a hundred such claims have evidence for the book of Mormon, while another says 70 percent of the claims in the book of mormon are substantiated - at the JS LOC symposium). The entire state of archeological section needs to be carefully combed through so that important items are preserved, much of the rest of the article can simply be re-organized.

Need to have Jaredites as their own section. The Pratt-african comment deserves its own place within the section.

Rather than "other," I'd divide into three different categories - "legends and writings" "culture" and "artifacts."

The Smithsonian statement should stay where it is.

As a side note, I actually think a lot of the wording about evidences is pretty neutral, showing support for and evidence against without being too determinate either way. We should initially preserve as much of the wording during restructuring as possible and then edit it down in my opinion. -Visorstuff 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One more note - lets go through every effort to preserve the citations already included - regardless of source during the restructuring. There are currntly 52 "referenced" citations, we should have 52 when done. -Visorstuff 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with that note, the "no chariot fragments have been found in the Middle East dating to Biblical times" statement needs to be verified. The current citation for that claim is Sorenson's book "Images of Ancient America". I have not been able to track down a copy of this reference. Deseret Book and Sam Weller don't carry it. The Marriott Library at the U of U has one copy in its Special Collections, which doesn't circulate and is only available to examine during regular business hours. It looks like a fairly obscure reference and it contradicts several existing Wikipedia articles. There is a large group of unsourced statements in this article. If it's going to be rewritten, many of these claims will need to be verified or removed completely. - Justin (Authalic) 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on biblical archaeology by any means, but from the information I've read it seems that many (if not all) fragments of chariots found in the middle east dating to biblical times were found in burial type settings (chariot burials). If others have been found, I'd like to see a reference. Regardless, I think the point should be made that despite the greater amount of attention given to Biblical archaelogy, no chariot fragments have been found in the middle east (or at least not until recently or under cultural circumstances that did not exist in the Americas, such as chariot burials). Also, since Sorenson's book was published 9 years ago, perhaps contradicting discoveries have been made since then? gdavies 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll make an attempt at consolidating the outline based upon what we have discussed so far. Please forgive the wordiness of the headings - I'm just trying to convey the ideas, not the actual final headings (Bochica 16:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)):

• • Introductory paragraph
  • LDS cultural belief regarding Book of Mormon Archaeology
  • LDS efforts to establish Book of Mormon archaeology
    • Early attempts
    • Modern approach
    • Genetic studies -> Genetics and the Book of Mormon page
    • Apologetics and archaeology
  • State of archaeological research
    • Population Estimates
    • The Use of Existing Archaeological Evidence
    • The Challenge of Determining a Geographic Location
    • Book of Mormon compared to Biblical Archaeology
    • Existing Ancient Records of the New World
    • Joseph Smith's Statements Regarding Book of Mormon Archaeology
  • Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
  • Old world setting
    • Lehi's Arabian journey -> link to Shazer page
    • Lehi's ancient home
    • Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman
    • Nahom -> link to Nahom page
    • Bountiful -> link to Bountiful page
  • New world setting
    • Hemispheric geography model
    • Limited geography model -> link to Limited geography model page
  • Efforts to Correlate Book of Mormon Cultures with New World Cultures
    • The Jaredites and the Olmec
    • The Lamanites and the Maya
    • The Nephites
    • Calendars
    • Farming
    • Warfare
      • Methods
      • Timing of battles to coincide with seasons
      • Military fortifications
  • Efforts to Correlate Ruins and Artifacts
    • Ruins
    • Artifacts
      • Izapa Stela 5
      • La Venta Stela 3
      • Copan Stela B
      • Los Lunas Decalogue Stone
  • Legends
    • Creation
    • Quetzalcoatl
  • Flora and Fauna
    • Animals
      • Horses
      • Elephants
      • Cattle
      • Swine
      • Cureloms and cumoms
    • Plants
      • Grains
      • Other crops
  • Technology
    • Wheeled vehicles
    • Recording records on metal plates
    • Metals
      • Iron and Steel
      • Brass
      • Other possible metals
      • Copper and alloys
    • Swords
    • Systems of exchange
    • Silk
    • Cement
  • Smithsonian Statement
  • References
  • External links

Hopefully I've covered everything. It's certainly not perfect and will no doubt evolve further even as the article is in the process of being re-written. Please modify or tear apart as needed. Bochica 16:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a search of the Book of Mormon for "chariot". From these results, it seems that the chariots were used for tranportation but not in battle. So I think that "Chariots" should be moved to "Technology". But "fortifications" should be added to "warfare". Val42 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I realize these are temporary headings for organization, but I think we need to keep in mind that no wheeled vehicle was ever mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This is something we've implied from our usage of the term chariot, but evidence suggests that chariots were more like a sedan for the wealthy that was carried rather than wheeled (the term chariot never occurs with horse or any other animal) see mormon fortress's treatment. gdavies 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at mormonfortress yet, but I searched the BoM and found that horses and chariots appear together in several verses: Alma 18: 9 "And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots" and verse 12: "And it came to pass that when Ammon had made ready the horses and the chariots for the king and his servants..." Alma 20: 6 "Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots." 3 Ne. 3: 22 "And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots..." Bochica 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey you're absolutely right, my mistake. I do know, however... the word "wheel" doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon, and the part about Alma readying "the horses and the chariots"... (I believe three of the four times it has a pronoun before both horses and chariots, which might suggest they were used separately) I picture a caravan with horses (which I've seen articles on FARMS suggesting they could have been too small to be ridden) used to carry supplies and the chariots being sedans for the rich or powerful carried by the servants. I guess my original point was that the usage in the Book of Mormon doesn't necessarily require the use of wheels or the use of draft animals in pulling chariots. gdavies 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I looked at mormonfortress, and I see that it mentions the verses above. I guess the point is that wheels are never mentioned. Bochica 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to edit the list above to avoid re-duplicating the entire list each time. I've modified the outline with the latest changes from Val42 Bochica 05:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved "LDS Cultural Beliefs" to the beginning of the article. It seems more appropriate there in order to provide proper context for what follows. Bochica 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am adding sub-headings to the article in order to more clearly identify the subjects of the individual paragraphs. This will hopefully help identify redundancy and indicate sub-sections that ought to be combined later. Bochica 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am bolding the headings in the proposed outline to show which sections now exist in some form. Sections that exist are not yet necessarily in the order suggested by the outline. Bochica 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can combine the "Book of Mormon compared to Biblical Archaeology" with "The challenge of determining a New World geographic location." We have a little bit of repetition throughout the article, since both these sections are fairly small (esp. the first one) I think we can combine them under the "BoM compared to BA" heading. Just wanted to run that by you guys before I did it. gdavies 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation requests

I have been adding a number of new citation requests. Just so that you know, and in response to the appropriate concern expressed by Justin (Authalic), I intend to try and fulfill as many citation requests as I can, including the ones that I just added. I just need time. Bochica 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I need more time to look at the outline. However, I agree with Justin (Authalic). I'm more interested in accuracy on items like the chariot than not - especially for this article. That said, we should move it to the talk page so that if the author of it finds the reference he can clarify more easily. -Visorstuff 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncited POV comment

I have reverted to removed the following unsupported POV statement inserted by user 72.24.234.91: "The records left by the Mayans show that the mayan are descendants of the Israelites which is supportive of the Book of Mormon." Bochica 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This statement has reappeared several times and been removed by other editors, so I'm moving it to the talk page. "These documents state that the Mayan are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel http://hope-of-israel.org/copan.htm." I'm not sure how to treat it. It has a link to a web site from "Hope of Israel Ministries." Comments? Bochica 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement was reinserted. I reverted yet again. Bochica 05:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

After a quick scan of the article some of the evidence portrayed seems sound. I've seen similar type evidence on this an other pages from the other POV. Perhaps a general statement that some people believe evidence exists for old world roots of Native Americans would be appropriate... since the evidence is likely not accepted by all scholars. Here's an example

"These, then, were the THREE NATIONS OF THE QUICHES [MAYANS -- the Cauecs, the Greathouses and the Lord Quiches], and they came from where the sun rises, DESCENDANTS OF ISRAEL, of the same language and the same customs....When they arrived at the edge of the [Red] sea, BALAM-QITZE [a native title for one in a religious office] touched it with his staff and at once A PATH OPENED, which then closed up again, for thus the great God wished it to be done, BECAUSE THEY WERE SONS OF ABRAHAM AND JACOB. So it was that those THREE NATIONS passed through, and with them THIRTEEN OTHERS CALLED VULKAMAG....We have written that which by tradition our ancestors told us, who came from the other part of the sea, WHO CAME FROM CIVAN-TULAN, BORDERING BABYLONIA. -- Translated by Delia Goetz. University of Oklahoma Press, 1953. P. 170."

Perhaps if we can find this source and site from it directly... Maybe a rewording of the removed statement including a qualifier ("some believe, "LDS apologists say", etc.) would appropriately merit its inclusion. gdavies 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cities section

This section doesn't seem very readable and I'm having a hard time understanding the point of some of these points. The word "however" (which we are supposed to avoid...) denotes a contrary or opposing viewpoint but then site a supporting fact... I'm going to edit in attempt for clarity, if I'm missing the meaning please restore and discuss here. Thanks! gdavies 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Maya ruin known as Lamanai located in present-day Belize has attracted some attention from LDS proponents, who note the similarity of its name with Lamanite (or the Hebrew language equivalent). However, the origin of this placename is known to Mayanist scholarship, as the name used by the local Maya peoples as transcribed in 16th-century Spanish documents. The name is confirmed by the decipherments of Classical era (ca. 250–900 A.D.) inscriptions at the site, where it appears as lam'an'ain, a Classic Maya expression meaning "(place of) submerged crocodile(s)"". gdavies 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Critical response to attempts to establish a Book of Mormon archaeology

This section seemed a little confusing as written...

"Some critics of the Book of Mormon compare Book of Mormon archaeology with Biblical archaeology, noting that the number of locatable places in the Book of Mormon pales when compared to the number found in the Bible. Apologists respond, however, that the geographical setting for the Bible is already known, and that ancient location names in the proposed Mesoamerican setting have not carried over to the present day."

These two statements (the first by critics, the second by apologists) are not contradictory at all (though it says "critics... note... apologists respond, however) but are both establishing the difficulty of establishing a Book of Mormon archaeology compared to the Bible. Since these words (noting, respond, however) are considered words to avoid and the implications seem to be false, I'd like to eliminate them and rewrite them. The section title doesn't even make sense to me... Although a section like this might be of value, currently it should be under "difficulties in establishing a book of mormon archaeology." I know we're in the process of a complete revamp, but I'd like this section cleaned up nonetheless. gdavies 05:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point...both sides do agree on this point. I have attempted to rewrite the paragraph and heading. We can probably combine this paragraph with another section eventually.Bochica 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reworded the intro, it was difficult to read (because of prior edits I assume) and removed a flagged statement. About this paragraph (critical response to attempts), it's really not necessary and there are 3 or 4 paragraphs that all have the same purpose as this (though it's hard to tell from the current content. I think we should merge this section, "The Problem of Determining a Geographic Location," and "Challenges in establishing a Book of Mormon archaeology." I know we're in the process of a total revamp, but I think all of these paragraphs should be removed and their content merged with the "challenges in establishing a Book of Mormon archaeology" (which is in need of a lot of help right now anyway...). Because this is such a big change... I just wanted to run it by some other editors. Thanks! gdavies 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm simply trying to be very cautious on the revamp so that traceability is preserved and to provide other editors with a chance to examine the incremental changes. This results in redundant sections that ought to be combined, but I've refrained from combining them (even though under normal circumstances I would do so immediately). Bochica 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholars, researchers and apologists

FYI, I'm trying to reduce the usage of the word "apologist" when the words "scholar" or "researcher" may be more appropriate. Although most people editing these pages know exactly what "apologist" means, for the average person coming across this page it conveys a negative meaning. I've seen the word "apologist" used in other pages as a definite POV weapon for this exact reason. Anybody who vigorously defends a position may be called an "apologist," but most scholars and researchers do not fit into this category. Just because a scholar happens to produce research that provides support for the Book of Mormon does not automatically qualify him as an "apologist." The folks at FAIR could rightly be called "apologists" since that is clearly what they themselves claim to be. Bochica 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, also, the term "critic" needs to be replaced as well, as it's a loaded POV word as well (and on the other hand, it's often used as a cover-up for a lack of scholarship). If these statements are included, they need to have credible citations by people in a position to comment (professional researchers in the area, etc.). Unfortunately the most vocal of those involved on the critical side of these debates lack these qualities (take the Tanner's for instance). gdavies 20:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all instances of "critic" and "apologist" and replaced them with "scholar" or "researcher." This applies to LDS and non-LDS in order to create a better balance and achieve NPOV. The only place where I left "apologist" intact is the "Mormon Studies" section, which speaks specifically about apologetics. I'm not sure where that material should fit into the new outline for the article. Perhaps someone will have a suggestion on this. Bochica 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well quite honestly the only real scholarly attention the Book of Mormon and its archaeology are receiving are from those most interested and qualified (LDS scholars). There really isn't a whole lot of non-LDS (serious) scholarship in this area. In that case, the "mormon studies section" could be merged partly with the "LDS efforts to establish..." and/or the "state of archaeological research." Probably a general history of LDS efforts is all that's necessary, the rest of the material should be covered in the "state of archaeological research" irrespective of who is researching, although most of the research has been done by Mormons. gdavies 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are making great progress on this article, it still needs some work, but great job. I actually think that there is more known and provable than is not. We should mention "silk" found in Mexico and issues with chariots as discussed above. -Visorstuff 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Limited Geography Model

Hey Bochica, thanks for your edits here. I agree that this paragraph could still use some work though. A while back I added a (poorly written) sentence trying to reduce POV. As currently written the paragraph claims that the Book of Mormon describing (purportedly) the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the surrounding oceans is a contradiction, which is quite simply not the case. The verse in question is Alma 22:32

And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

It does not say that they traveled east or west, but that they traveled from the East sea to the West sea (the Atlantic to the Pacific). Then it describes the "narrow neck of land" which goes between the land northward and the land southward. This is by no stretch a contradiction; it actually shows that whoever is describing the isthmus understands that the sea is not to the north or to the south, illustrating a wider perspective. The wording they use is consistent throughout the Book of Mormon

Mormon 2:29

And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward.

"which led to the land southward," even though the actual "passage" runs east and west at its narrowest. To me it's sufficiently clear from the descriptions in the Book of Mormon that we're talking about the isthmus and that the descriptions are not contradictory. There are also descriptions in Helaman 3:8, 6:9, 11:20. gdavies 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Another concern is about the width of the isthmus versus time "for a nephite" to travel. I just came across a very interesting article by matthew roper. It talks about this qualification "for a nephite" and the state of the isthmus at that time. He says:

This was the speed "for a Nephite," and presumably a group of people or even a non-Nephite might take longer. Moreover, since Mormon was speaking of a fortified line of defense along which communication would be desirable, the phrase "for a Nephite" may refer to the time it would take for a messenger or courier.

John L. Sorenson has documented examples of native Mexican runners traveling distances of up to 100 miles in a day. We need not assume, however, that the entire journey was by foot. More than half of this distance could have been traveled by water along the Coatzacoalcos River, speeding up the journey considerably. Mesoamerican historian Ross Hassig notes that in travels by sea from Veracruz to Coatzacoalcos, "canoes were employed to go up the Coatzacoalcos River to Antigua Malpaso, where land transport was employed for the remaining 12 leagues to Tehuantepec. This route was also employed in traveling between Mexico City and Tehuantepec, [because] water transportation was easier than overland travel." (see article for the sourcing and addictional material)

A final idea I found very interesting...

While it was a day and a half journey on the defensive line "from the east to the west sea" (Alma 22:32), it was apparently only a day's journey "from the west sea unto the east" (Helaman 3:7). Although other interpretations are possible, these two passages would make sense if part of that journey was by water, since those traveling eastward would be going downstream and could presumably move much faster with the current than would those journeying upstream.

I think that these ideas should definitely be referenced in the article. gdavies 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that you might want to check out is that I have created a separate page Limited Geography Model (Book of Mormon) that links from the LGM section here. There is a lot more detail being added there. I'm actually doing most of my edits regarding the LGM there and I just copied a few things over here for now. You might want to add some things there. Bochica 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetics

The section previously said that no non-mormon scholar has published evidence corroborating the Book of Mormon account. This is a brash statement which is hard/impossible to prove, but here's one example to the contrary...

An old population bearing haplotype 10, a Native American/Siberian/Caucasoid common ancestor, has been placed somewhere in central Eurasia . Haplotypes 1 (Caucasoid), 20 (Siberian and Native American), and 31 (Native American) are derived from this ancestor. The most common European chromosome, haplotype 1, appeared in four Native American samples from paternity tests in North America; thus, they very likely could be due to recent admixture.

From F.R. Santos et al., "The Central Siberian Origin for Native American Y Chromosomes," American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 64, 1999 p. 626, taken from Jeff Lindsay's article. gdavies 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which does nothing to support the Book of Mormon narrative. - Juden 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"An old population bearing haplotype 10... has been placed somewhere in central Eurasia." and later, "This study traces the major Native American Y chromosome haplotype to the immediate ancestor shared with present-day Siberians and to an older common ancestor shared with Caucasoids (Europeans and Indians). This common ancestry of Native Americans and Caucasoids could explain the existence of non-Mongoloid skeletons, such as the Kennewick man."

I.e. although the bulk of Indian origins seem to be Siberian, there is a common ancestor with Eurasia. gdavies 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what evidence would suffice you, of course no geneticist is going to come out and say "you know, from my studies here, the Book of Mormon must be true!" Rather (as with the Santos quote) they'll locate haploids that leave the possibility open. Either way, the statement is uncited as of now, goes against Santo's work and others, and is a weasel phrase ("some say"). I'm fine with having a statement like this here, but it has to be sourced. gdavies 01:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the evidence you are trying to find would be something that indicates "Present day American Indians are the remnant of a group of Israelites who emigrated from Jerusalem to the New World about six hundred years before Christ". Joseph Smith certainly believed that, and spoke in language that clearly implies that he thought that the Indians were primarily of Lamanite descent, and he's pretty well qualified to pass on what the Book of Mormon means. Brigham Young as well, explaining the "curse" on "the aboriginies of our country", notes that they "are of the House of Israel". Nothing in Santos suggests those positions, nor does any reputable geneticist on the basis of genetic evidence, because the genetic evidence does not support it. Selecting and pointing out particular pieces of evidence that don't directly contradict the story is not at all the same as finding evidence that actually supports it as a scientific hypothesis. - Juden 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, your faith in Genetics is refreshing, but unfortunately rather misplaced. Also, your knowledge of what Joseph Smith "certainly believed" is impressive, yet probably mischaracterized. The belief that the Israelites and/or the Jaredites are the "principle" ancestors of Native Americans does not necessarily mean they are the largest group. A lot of Mormons believe they we are of the "house of Israel," which, unfortunately for genetics, is completely impossible to prove or disprove (we don't know what Ephraim's DNA looks like). The ten tribes of Israel were scattered "northward" and we still don't know what happened to them, although we do know that some Europeans share DNA with with people in Eurasia. Although you refuse to understand what Santos is saying, he is making as good a point as can be made for the Book of Mormon's genetic implications (Native american's may share some genes with Eurasians). Perhaps silence on this issue would be best, unless we can find a quote from a geneticist's research indicating that "there is no possibility for groups to be ancestors of Native Americans other than Asians." It doesn't exist, in fact, all of the research indicates that the "vast majority" of their genetic makeup comes from Siberia, not all. gdavies 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thought, why should we not write "Some say that no non-Mormon peer-reviewed expert in genetics has published any genetic data disproving the Book of Mormon narrative." It's equally unsourced, equally POV, equally true, and equally irrelevant. You can't prove or disprove the Book of Mormon narrative with genetics. gdavies 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could do that, but of course it would be a complete misrepresentation of the facts, emphasize a distinctly minority point of view, distort reality and mislead the reader. None of which is really compatible with being an encyclopedia. - Juden 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree, that' exactly what the sentence currently does. LDS scholars' wide acceptance of the LGM predates genetic studies of Native Americans by 25 years (so it couldn't have been "adopted to explain the absence of the expected DNA evidence") and was introduced by Joseph Smith (in reference to Guatemalen ruins). Your addition, "irrelevant to whether Israelites are ancestors of American Indians," is off-topic itself as the sentence merely refers to other groups being part of Native American genetic makeup (besides the majority, which is Siberian). We've been trying to bring this article into better conformance with NPOV by avoiding classifying what researchers' affiliations are (mormon/non-mormon) as it shouldn't really make a difference. Also, the word claim is loaded and should be avoided wherever possible.

The problem with the last sentence is that (besides being unsourced) it's basically asserting a fact that is open to discussion. I see evidence that leaves the possibility open for some Israelite ancestry of Native Americans, you see the same evidence and believe otherwise. Rather than change the sentence to the opposite (which is equally true, though against your POV), I chose to remove it. You're going to need to support your revert with a citation. From Wikipedia's Verifiability guidelines...

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."

Since this is definitely a "challenged" assertion, it needs a reliable source. Once again, the nature of the statement really prohibits this from actually being possible. gdavies 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, there are no non-Mormon geneticists that have suggested that the genetic evidence supports the idea that Israelites were the ancestors of American Indians. So unfortunately, affilliations clearly do make a difference, and it is incumbent upon us to point that out. The point is that "what do population geneticists think" and "what do Book of Mormon apologists think" are two very different and opposite things, and you are suppressing the majority opinion in favor of the minority opinion, and suggesting that there is actual scientific debate when in fact what little debate there is is based on religious dogma. And in the process you mislead the reader. If you are uninterested in fixing this, an NPOV tag warning the reader that the page is biased is essential. - Juden 09:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly Juden, there isn't a scientific debate here because no non-Mormon geneticist has ever studied Native American DNA to test their origins in reference to the Book of Mormon. They just haven't. There are geneticists that suggest there are other populations (.4%) and your willingness to ignore/suppress this information is unnerving. If this is a "majority opinion" that I'm "suppressing," surely you can find me any source from a non-mormon geneticist stating that the Native Americans cannot be descended from any Israelites. If you want to include the material, you need to have it sourced. I can reference Mormon geneticists that thing the possibility is there, and no responsible non-Mormon geneticist is going to comment on this directly referencing the Book of Mormon, because that was not the purpose of their studies. I am certainly interested in including the most correct information possible, but I am also interested in NPOV. Sentences that start out "no one has ever" are basically impossible to cite. I'm merely encouraging critical arguments to be held to the same standards as anything else on Wikipedia. Those who argue against the church seem to think there are non-Mormon geneticists out there who think genetics disproves the Book of Mormon, but I've never seen any. Usually it's overly outspoken critics (such as those at utlm.org) who take genetic studies, mischaracterize, missummarize, and mislead the reader into thinking there's a "majority consensus among geneticists." gdavies 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a scientific debate here because the scientific data does not support the Book of Mormon's tale. There is no reason for a scientist to publish a list of positions that have no scientific validity; it's enough to publish theories actually supported by the facts. The issue at hand is not what's "possible", but rather what is suggested by the actual data. As it stands, the current article falsely suggests that there is scientific discord over this matter, and there is not. - Juden 08:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You speak of "scientific data" - find it and put it in the article. Certainly whether the Book of Mormon's narrative is possible is the focus of this section, right? It's unfortunate that your preconceived notions are leading your actions in reference to this article... I can find a variety of geneticists who find plausibility in an element of Middle Eastern DNA among Indians, find me one source that says it's impossible. You speak of a general consensus out there that just doesn't exist. This reason is not enough to merit a tag in my book... Which specific statement is it that is bothering you? If there's a something you'd like to add from a reliable and scholarly source, please add it and source it. Otherwise this argument is rather pointless. We've sourced statements from an LDS side of the debate (scholarly ones), feel free to source critical arguments from scientists. gdavies 16:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be near impossible to find a DNA connection in Native Americans. Why?, because people can become Jewish, or Nephits, through conversion which would lead to their offspring being called/grouped with the Nephits, this happens many times in the Book of Mormon, even though they were not from the same family. So a small group of people (Lehi's family) converted a lot of people, who were already here and, who were later grouped together despite not having a direct DNA connection. Completely understandable, but the other side is that the Book of Mormon says nothing about large pre-exsiting groups being encountered. SithLord 16 August 2007

The Book of Mormon may or may not allude to other groups of people, but the Doctrine and Coventants says that Nephi preached the gospel with boldness to other peoples, which has fueled support for Nephi's interact with either the Lihyan peoples or those in the promised land (and i believe that reference is in the article).

Incidentally "SithLord," you can sign your posts by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ after your post. It automaticlly time stamps your posts. You may also want to register an account at Wikipedia if you haven't already. -Visorstuff 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetics and the Book of Mormon

Hey Juden, I appreciate your help on this page, could you please point out which portions of this section you find to be POV so we can bring it into conformance with NPOV? Thanks! gdavies 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the POV tag for the time being, since no specific concern has been brought up (and I think we've made a lot of progress here). gdavies 06:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and restore the POV tag, since the specific concern had been brought up, and has not been addressed. I've also reiterated it above. - Juden 08:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which specific concern you have. Feel free to make the changes you feel necessary (with sources) or point out sentences you think are POV. Merely not agreeing with sourced statements isn't enough to merit an NPOV tag... gdavies 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag again, I just read through the article and there are more than sufficient citations for all statements regarding interpretations of genetic evidence as well as the limits of genetics in this area. There is absolutely no reason for this section to have a tag, and no specific sentence or issue has been brought up. Please explain which part of this section is in violation of POV before restoring tag... thanks! gdavies 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason for this section to have a tag, as it misleads by disproprotionately emphasizing Mormon apologetics and de-emphasizing actual science. That's an actual issue. - Juden 06:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're willing to discuss this section... I can see how it might appear that the section "disproportionately" emphasizes the "Mormon" side of the argument, but perhaps this is because that side of the argument has been completely ignored by almost every major anti-Mormon work since DNA became "all the rage." What we're both referring to as the "Mormon" side of the argument seems to be:

• First, the inherent inadequacies of the research methods used in determining (and excluding from) Native American ancestry. Some problems include a lack of source genes, ie, we don't know what Lehi or anyone else's DNA looked like; who are we studying as "native americans," where are they from, were Lehi's descendants survivors of the wars described in the Book of Mormon, diseases by the spaniards, etc. etc. etc.;
• Second, the amount of this alleged "Jewish" (really Manasseh and others to be exact... we don't know anyone but Lehi's ancestry) or Israelite blood that should be/was in Native Americans. Critics have always assumed, against all LDS scholarship regarding the LGM and the Book of Mormon text itself, that the Book of Mormon excludes the possibility of outside cultural contact. This assumption is completely false, and several aspects of the text suggest the contrary. Few genes have been studied, and these have been with contemporary specimens: Modern Jews and Modern native Americans. Both groups have had extensive cultural interaction and therefore huge amounts of DNA "dilution, change," etc.

There is nothing in the section (as I read it) that is sensational, unreasonable, unfactual or misleading. You seem to get this general feeling. There are statements from both sides of the aisle and then a short discussion of the problems and shortfalls of genetic studies in this area. If you can point to a certain sentence, we can work towards making this NPOV. Also, please provide citations to "actual science" and add to the section... However, up to this point it seems like your concern is that it isn't a typical anti-Mormon (sensational and anti-factual) blurb about "why DNA proves the Book of Mormon wrong." gdavies 10:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV template as no specific concerns have been brought up that we can address. Hope I'm not stepping on any toes here... gdavies 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it, as the specific concerns which could have been addressed have in fact not been addressed. Specifically, the section as written disproportionately emphasizes Mormon apologetics over actual scientific knowledge. It has not been rewritten to avoid this, and so it is still fails the NPOV test. It contains other specific absurdities, such as the sentence "Some say that genetic evidence does not support the hypothesis that American Indians are descendants of Israelites, while others disagree". This falsely suggests that the two groups ("supporters" and "others") are [1] approximately equal in number, and [2] on equally sound footing scientifically: that is, it substantially misrepresents the facts. The section is frankly a disgrace--any actual scientific content is a footnote to Mormon apologetics--and readers have the right to be warned that it is not a fair representation of reality. - Juden 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetics and the book of mormon should only be a quick summary of the page it points to. Let's cut down the section completely and point the reader to the page they should be reading on the topic. Genetics ana Archaeology are two entirely seperate fields. -Visorstuff 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetics and Archaeology are very closely related when you dig up bones and then are trying to find out who they are. 14:56 SithLord, 16 August 2007

The challenge of determining a New World geographic location

This section says...

Citing the lack of specific New World geographic locations to search, Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, writes (in a 1973 volume of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought):

"As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group".

I'm not seeing how this quote relates to the "challenge of determining a New World geographic location," rather it's a very out of date qualitative (and probably false) generalization. I don't see any worth in keeping it in the article at all (especially under this heading), if someone else sees some value, feel free to put it back and explain here. Thanks! gdavies 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on cultural comparison

I would suggest moving the entire "Efforts to Correlate Book of Mormon Cultures with New World Cultures" into a separate article and leaving just a very short summary here, since this is not precisely related to BoM archaeology. Bochica 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that... the way I look at it is that finding out which cultures (if any) correlate with that of the Book of Mormon is an important guide in where/what to look for. Archaeology should be directed by where we think there's going to be evidence... etc. In that regard I can see inclusion justified, but I think the section definitely needs to be condensed (some overlap). gdavies 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes and References

Hmmm...we are up to 133 notes/references, many of which contain duplicate information regarding the publications used. Would anyone object if I created separate Notes and Reference sections so that the reference bibilography could be consolidated while leaving just the actual "notes" in a Notes section? For example, I feel like I've typed in a reference for Coe's book "The Maya" at least six or seven times now. I promise that I won't perturb the article too much....scout's honor! ;-) I'll wait for feedback before touching anything. Bochica 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I haven't seen any objections since I posted this a month ago. I'll start slowly trying to clean up citations. Bochica 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas...

I think that it would be appropriate somewhere in the "LDS cultural belief regarding Book of Mormon Archaeology" section to quote portions of 2 Nephi 1, notably verse 5; "... Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord." Another note, the title of the whole section (LDS cultural belief) should perhaps be made more general as it currently contains Cultural as well as academic views, so maybe just "LDS belief regarding Book of Mormon Archaeology." gdavies 08:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I changed this parenthetical sentence; "(though the book concerns itself exclusively with peoples of Old World ancestry)" to "primarily." I don't think that the Book of Mormon gives enough evidence to assume that the Lamanites (or the Nephites, for that manner) were of "exclusive" old world ancestry soon after they arrived in America. Looking at the population growth and other indicators it's fairly reasonable to conclude that they had outside contact early on. One example is Sherem; rather than trying to explain it all myself... here's L. Sorenson's explanation.

"The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some [ten more?] years had passed away," and Jacob was now verging on "old" (cf. Jacob 7:1, 20–26). At that time "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 7:1). Upon first meeting Jacob, he said, "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard . . . that thou goest about much, preaching" (Jacob 7:6). Now, the population of adult males descended from the original group could not have exceeded fifty at that time. This would have been only enough to populate one modest-sized village. Thus Sherem's is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved. Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came . . . among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase."

Sorry for just copying and pasting, but I think that this idea would be useful to cite here and/or elsewhere in the article. gdavies 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the "Cerro Vigia" mentioned as a possible candidate for the Hill Cumorah... I'm not sure if it needs it's own section per se... gdavies 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Please explain how this article is not a "Mormonism-related controversy". This is an article which presents two very different, largely incompatible, versions of the prehistory of North America. One is a scientific view, supported by archaeological evidence and accepted widely by the Archaeological community, while the other version is accepted only by adherents of Mormonism. No other religion or organization supports these claims. It is obviously enough of a controversy to prompt the Smithsonian to issue this statement [17].

How is this "a description of the term not a description of a controversy"? This article is nothing but a description of a controversy. If there is a dispute over what qualifies as a controversy, please consider starting a new RfC so we can get some community consensus on this matter. Otherwise, it seems inappropriate to continue to remove this article from Mormonism-related controversies while the CfD process is still unresolved. - Authalic 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is largely a description of LDS archaeological efforts regarding the Book of Mormon, as opposed to a description of a controversy relating to Mormonism. If the category was rephrased to indicate "controversial" subjects rather than actual controversies it might line up a little more (still not enough IMO), but this isn't really a "controversy" it's a "field of study" (by Mormon scholars). As mentioned on the CfD page, running around tagging anything to do with a religious denomination really isn't in the spirit of NPOV. Putting the Book of Mormon and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon in the same basket as the Mountain Meadows massacre and the Salamander letter doesn't make any sense to me... gdavies 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

These aren't competing theories, or differing interpretations of the evidence, or different disciplines within a broader "field of study". It's a conflict between a branch of science and adherents to a specific religious text. From any objective and neutral POV, it's a religiously based controversy - based specifically in Mormonism. - Authalic 02:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As convenient as it would be to pretend that all of those involved with Book of Mormon archeology are clueless 14 year olds defying everything we know about science and archeology... it'd be kind of naive. The scholars involved are very high caliber and have documented their work satisfactorily. This is most certainly a branch within a field, and the article shows that. This is absolutely not a controversy - as said earlier, the subject is of course controversial (what isn't when we're talking about LDS studies?) but it is not an article about a controversy. The addition of this category is indicative of POV pushing and an attempt at gross misrepresentation. gdavies 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So, it's a controversial subject, but not a controversy? Run that by me again, please. Also, please clarify if this an article about Archaeolgy or is it an article about LDS Studies? Thanks. - Authalic 15:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. This is an article about a subject that may be controversial (from one POV) but it is not an article about a controversy. They are different (though obviously related) terms. For instance, Jesus was "controversial" but that article shouldn't be categorized a "controversy." There are very few wiki articles that are about a controversy, but thousands that are "controversial." Dictionary.com defines "Controversy" as:

1 prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

2 A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views."

As opposed to "Controversial"

1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical: a controversial book.

2. subject to controversy; debatable: a controversial decision.

The two terms aren't interchangeable, you as a person can be controversial without "being a controversy." This is a very poorly defined category, and very subject to POV pushing (as evidenced here).

This is an article about Archaeology with respect to the Book of Mormon. gdavies 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added this article about Archaeology to the Archaeology wikiproject and the Mesoamerica wikiproject, and also added it to some categories which are relevant to its archaeological focus. - Authalic 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I didn't explain my disagreement more clearly early on!! gdavies 01:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. The folks from the Mesoamerican project have already improved the article. Bochica 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is largely a description of LDS archaeological efforts regarding the Book of Mormon, as opposed to a description of a controversy relating to Mormonism. The title indicates that it is about "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon." It is not "as opposed" to any controversy relating to Mormonism, as you would want it to be. If we must make our own category for the controversy about archaeology, I would be happy to get involved. Anon166 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am still largely in agreement with Anon166 on this. I can't see any logical justification for leaving this article out of the "controversy" category. The attempt to claim that there is a distinction between something being "a controversy" and something being "controversial" looks like splitting hairs. This has nothing to do with Mormonism being controversial. This version of the history of the New World would be controversial regardless of who promulgated it. The only argument I might accept is that, since no reputable archaeologist or journal gives the slightest credibility to archaeological claims derived from the BOM, calling it a "controversy" only seems to elevate a conflict between science and religion into what appears to be a legitimate scientific dispute (see Teach the Controversy). In the strict sense, there really is no scientific controversy here, but the category isn't about "scientific controversies" and these claims are clearly controversial in any other sense. I didn't create this category, or put this article in it, but as long as that category exists, attempting to keep this article out of it looks like a whitewash. Rename this article "New World History in the Book of Mormon" and remove all of the countervailing archaeological content and I'll agree that it doesn't belong there. - Authalic 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about LDS efforts in Mesoamerican archeaology (for the most part). It isn't about a "controversy." As much as you would like to throw these two terms in the same basket, it's not the same thing. Throwing the article on "Jesus" into a "controversy" page is totally and completely unacceptable. However, putting the article into a category for "controversial figures" would be much less POV. Do you see what I'm saying with this? This isn't a "controversy," as are some *events* in Mormonism described above. I don't think that much in this article necessarily goes against the prevailing archeaological consensus, but there's the addition of another element - the Book of Mormon - that is the focus. Conclusions are drawn correlating historical and archeaological data to the Book of Mormon in an effort to establish a connection. That's why this article exists, and of course it's going to be separate and unique to other "New World History in Mesoamerica" articles. The article isn't about a controversy, but instead about a field of Mormon studies. gdavies 15:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Horses and chariots

Not sure where to say this... but, I think it's worth adding under "Horses" that although horses are mentioned with chariots, they are never mentioned or implied as being ridden or that they are used for war. Words such as "ride" "saddle" "horseman" do not exist in the BoM but are found in the Bible (and other literature) when the use of horses or horse-type animals is discussed. --Zaqattaq 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Feel free to edit and add it. I think that I can find a citation to support that horses were never said to have been used in war (despite what a few LDS artists have depicted...). Bochica 05:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh, and they probably didn't have red plumes on their helmets either... They make for good paintings though... gdavies 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Book of Mormon is an Unreliable Source

Please read these statements from the Smihtsonian institute. I do not believe Wikipedia should use such a source given it has been repudiated as inaccurate by the Smithsonian Institute. The Smithsonian Institute issued an official statement in 1996 and again in 1998 that it did not consider the Book of Mormon to be an authoritative reference for use in archaeological research, and stated it considered the Book of Mormon to be an unreliable source for scientific and formal linguistic, archealogical, and other studies. [18]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 10:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As such I have tagged the article since the book of mormon fails WP:RS as a reliable source for archealogical study. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What specific information in this article are you objecting to regarding your comment? Val42 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All materials which claim archealogical references to the book of mormon as a reference or as a basis for archealogical research. Any materals which rely on the book of mormon may be subjected to removal from the encyclopdiea as failing WP:RS since the book of mormon has been classified as an unreliable source for scientific study. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon can be used as a source for what is contained in the Book of Mormon. Other sources must be used as a citation for what (if any) research someone may be doing based on the Book of Mormon.

When one adds a tag to a page that there are factual disputes, there should already be an ongoing discussion about the specifics of the factual disputes, or the one adding the tag should create a topic and bring up the specifics of the factual disputes. I also asked you (above) for the specifics, but you gave a nebulous answer. I will give you a third chance to give the specifics of the facts that you consider to be in dispute (since there is no dispute going on). Failing that, I will delete the tag.

So, I ask you again: What are the specific parts of this article that you consider disputed? Val42 21:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Based upon my reading of the standards for reliable sources, it cannot be used as base materials for an article about archealogy and research in this area. Please address the issue raised. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The information about the Smithsonian using the Book of Mormon as a basis for archaeological research was removed quite a while ago. If this information has been added back in, then remove it. I'm glad that we could resolve your issue. Since this is the problem that you have identified, and we have resolved the issue, I'm going to remove the "disputed" tag. Val42 23:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the article. In the introduction, it states that the Smithsonian does not consider the Book of Mormon as a reliable source for archaeological research. This is also stated in a section of the article on this very subject. Therefore, your concerns have been directly addressed and my removal of the "disputed" tag was correct. Val42 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica has no article on Archeaology and the Book of Mormon. It does have a religious article about the book of mormon itself. Additionally, the Smithsonian Institute issued a statement with its findings of the book of mormon that is was not considered a reputable source of materials for the study of archeaology.

The 1996 Smithsonian Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migration beginning from about 25,000 to 35,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with the Old World, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for the occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian [sic] and the Near East.

7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.

Since this article contains predominantly LDS theories and research, please consider renaming the article to Archeaology and the Book of Mormon (Latter Day Saints). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why disambiguate when there is no real need to? There is no apparent confusion from the absence of the disambig. Anyone reading the article will figure out that mostly Latter Day Saints have been involved in Book of Mormon archaeology because it is archaeology based on a Latter Day Saint scripture. Duh.

Also, the comparison with Brittanica is not especially relevant: WP is not a paper encyclopedia. The reason Brittanica does not have an article about this probably has more to do with space and level of interest considerations than anything inherently wrong with the topic itself.

I think you can give the Smithsonian statements a rest. Most editors on this page are aware of them, no doubt.

Finally, why would we move the article to Archeaology and the Book of Mormon (Latter Day Saints) when that article title contains a spelling error? –SESmith 09:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We have two editors calling the Smithsonian Institute an "anti-mormon" group and another editor claiming a formal letter written by the smithsonian is not in fact a statement of their opinion. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what editors say or what your interpretation of what they say is. I said they are likely aware of the Smithsonian statements, and it appears that they are. They are entitled to their opinions and interpretive viewpoints of the statements as much as you are. I understand it's probably one of your hobby horses, and that's fine—but what really matters is what the article says. The article sets out the Smithsonian position very clearly in the opening. Get over trying to change others' viewpoints and focus on the article. Disagreement about the "truth" of the claims described in the article is not a legitimate resaon for a dispute tag. Otherwise probably every article related to every religion would have one. –SESmith 23:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Smithsonian source

I already mentioned this at Reformed Egyptian but the source for one of the Smithsonian related claims is from irr.org which does not appear to be a suitable source. They seem to be an anti-Mormon Christian missionary/apologist website and I don't trust them to represent the views of the Smithsonian accurately. In fact, according to the website, they so believed an anti-Mormon conspiracy theory that they wrote to the Smithsonian in the belief that the institution used the BoM as an archaeological guide. In any event, they are not a proper source for anything other than their own views in my opinion. Thanks, --JGGardiner 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that IRR is hardly an impartial source. Surely if the "Smithsonian statement" is reliable it is available from a less biased source? –SESmith 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this reference from the introduction—it is not NPOV, and to make it NPOV would bog down the introduction. It belongs in the text of the article, not the introduction. The Jade Knight 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the final lines you inserted,

Many of the listed reasons given for the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon relied on scholarship considered controversial or even dubious by some other mainstream historians[150], and this may also have been a contributing factor to the change.

are problematic. The claim that the scholarship is "controversial or even dubious" is made by Jeff Lindsay, who is not a mainstream historian. The scholars he quotes do not appear to make such claims. Personally, I suggest removing the lines, as the point is already made with

Mormon scholars suggest this may have been because the 1996 letter contradicts some aspects of research published by Smithsonian staff members

which more accurately reflects the source. Ratatosk Jones 08:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that the statement itself was controversial. However, many of the points ("listed reasons") made in the statement are indeed controversial to some mainstream historians; not in any way because of their relation to the Book of Mormon, but because some of them are sweeping generalizations that do not stand up to actual historical scrutiny. The statement as stands is correct—though if you feel it is warranted, we could append something along the lines of "for reasons unrelated to the Book of Mormon". The Jade Knight 20:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll add that in along with a clarifying opening. Ratatosk Jones 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When something directly contradicts research by non-Mormon scholars, it's silly to hedge about the fact by saying that it's only controversial "according to Mormon scholars". The Jade Knight 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ratatosk Jones above, that the current statement in the article ("Many of the listed reasons given for the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon relied on scholarship considered controversial or even dubious by some other mainstream historians (for reasons unrelated to the Book of Mormon), and this may also have been a contributing factor to the change.") is problematic, in that it seems to give the misleading impression that some of the points listed in that 1996 Smithsonian statement are in conflict with positions held by orthodox Mesoamerican archaeology. This is not the case, and all of the points in that 1996 statement that put forward a position (2–8 inclusive) can reasonably be shown to represent the mainstream archaeological consensus, as it was then and as it remains, even now. The fact that from time to time non-LDS scholars publish papers and theories that may challenge some aspect of these orthodoxies should not obscure the fact that such challenges are yet to gain sufficient evidential support and widespread acceptance, within mainstream Mesoamerican scholarship. I think calling these points 'controversial' or 'dubious' from the point-of-view of the challenging scholar(s) is putting the cart before the horse. Rather, it is the challenging theories themselves (such as the claimed presence of Old World writing, or maintaining that there's anything more than a superficial and coincidental resemblance between Mesoamerican and Old World/Asian iconography) that are more naturally labelled 'controversial', and for which the burden of proof remains unfulfilled. The passage needs restating.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's one reason I have for being troubled by the statement. Another is the source itself. Jeff Lindsay goes on at length about how the Smithsonian's own researchers have found pre-Clovis (that is, older than 11,000 years) remains at Monte Verde, some that may be as old as 33,000 years. Fine enough, but what does the Smithsonian statement say? Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migration beginning from about 25,000 to 35,000 years ago. Lindsay also cites authors skeptical of the land bridge hypothesis, but note the word probably in the statement above. Furthermore, he claims that Perhaps most troublesome is the broad brush used to describe American peoples. To speak of the "physical type" of the American Indian is to blend two continents of diverse racial traits into a single category. and cites John Sorenson citing G. Albin Matson: the American Indians are not completely Mongoloid. Again, looking at the statement from the Smithsonian: The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Mongoloid in this case means pretty much only "not Caucasian or Negroid". Mongoloid encompasses a great number of diverse racial traits. Also note the word basically. In short, the statement agrees with that Lindsay used to contradict it! My point is the same as before: the source is fine for what Jeff Lindsay claims, but not for what mainstream historians claim. Ratatosk Jones 07:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if a minority of mainstream historians find some of claims dubious or controversial, that does not change the fact that some do (making the current phrasing still correct, if poorly presented). I am not opposed to rephrasing the sentence to better reflect the reality of the situation. It is not, however, a simple Mormon/non-Mormon divide. The Jade Knight 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we have the wrong emphasis, then. A minority of mainstream historians will always find some claims to be dubious or controversial. The only reason it would be notable to put in here is that Jeff Lindsay and John Sorenson speculate that it may be the cause for the changed statement from the Smithsonian. So perhaps it would be better to state:

Some Mormon scholars speculate (ref) that the statement may have been revised because some of the reasons listed are considered controversial or even dubious (for reasons unrelated to the Book of Mormon) by some mainstream historians.

I think that's the best solution. Ratatosk Jones 11:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that sentence would work, though it's slightly verbose. The current reference can simply go at the end of the sentence. The Jade Knight 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this final sentence even necessary? I don't think it is adding much, even if it were to be rephrased to say something like, the 1996 statement presented some points of general archaeological consensus, although minority and dissenting views on these points can be held by non-Mormon and Mormon sources alike. It could probably be removed altogether.--cjllw ʘ TALK 11:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But then you need to find a source stating that it's a "minority" view, otherwise it may be . The Jade Knight 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed—it's very significant that recent scholarship published in respectable peer-reviewed journals contradicts some of the statement. The Jade Knight 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is no original synthesis to remark, theories which run counter to prevailing mainstream consensus are (by definition, really) minority viewpoints. I didn't think from the preceding discussions that anyone disputed that the Smithsonian's points were ones representative of archaeological consensus...? --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I got my degree in History, not in Anthropology, and the New World isn't my area of specialty, but my impression is that the topic of diffusionism, at least in History, is becoming increasingly controversial (particularly regarding the New World). 50 years ago, one could say that the views presented in the Smithsonian paper were more or less mainstream. To do so today without acknowledging the substantial criticism surrounding some of the claims would run the risk of sounding very ignorant, or perhaps of even being interpreted as intentionally trying to mislead. The Jade Knight 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since "The Smithsonian Letter" is the item of controversy, it is relatively recent, and was produced by a branch of the United States federal government, we should be able to get a copy of the actual letter and include the text in this or its own article. Short of the actual letter, we have speculation on something that we should have directly but don't. With the actual letter, readers could come to their own conclusions. — Val42 15:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is brief enough that it could be reproduced in its entirety here, as 'fair use' commentary perhaps. But as its not really key to the big picture in the article, I'm not sure that it's necessary; the ext links to it may be enough.

As for the degree to which the points are (still) mainstream-acceptable or not: in essence the Smithsonian statement boils down to-

1. they don't use the BoM as scientific guide, and see no connection between it and New World Archaeology.
2. Native Americans are most closely related to populations on the Asian continent; an ancestral migration or migrations into the New World via the Beringia region occurred
3. The brief Norse presence is the only example of pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact that has been established and accepted
4. If Old World contacts occurred, they had minimal/no influence on the development of Native American cultures. Old World domesticated plants and animals are not really found
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not in use / were not known in pre-Columbian times
6. Possibly some minor trans-Pacific contact (other than via the northern Beringia route) occurred, but not established; in any case, non-influencial.
7. No relationship between Mesoamerican and Egyptian/Middle Eastern archaeological data, and no mainstream scholar thinks there is any connection
8. No evidence of Old World scripts or languages in pre-Columbian New World
9. They are some copies of the BoM in their libraries

Which of these are no longer mainstream-acceptable (where mainstream means most working scholars in the field would support as fair statement)? "Mainstream" does not mean universally-supported, or that there aren't also contending views in play.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I just meant that as a document produced by an arm of the United States government, it is in the public domain, except for some circumstances. Since this is apparently a letter sent to an individual, this may be an exception.

However, the statement, "The Smithsonian Institute issued an official statement in 1996 and again in 1998 that it did not consider the Book of Mormon to be an authoritative reference for use in archaeological research," is not supported by this letter (which is given as its reference). If there are such official references, we should be able to find such a statement from the Smithsonian. Is there any reason why we should keep this unsupported statement? — Val42 04:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

I read this article from top to bottom and I have to say that given the title, it does not accurately present the controversy surrounding the archeological evidence, or lack thereof, for the substantiation of the book of Mormon. Practically all the information contained herein is presented in such a way (using innuendo and conjecture that isn't supported by the evidence) to imply that the Mormon position is the accurate and true one. In actuality, there is a large body of archeological, genetic and linguistic evidence that does NOT support the Book of Mormon's accounts; and in fact, suggest that it could not be an accurate presentation of Native American history. Presenting the LDS side of the issue is important, but as it stands, that seems to be how the article is framed and the opposing viewpoints are barely touched on (or at least glossed over) despite the large quantities of data to suggest that the LDS viewpoint may not be tenable. Either efforts need to be made to more substantially present the opposing viewpoint in this article or the title of this article needs to be changed along with the introduction to more accurately show that this article is intended to exclusively show the LDS point of view on the subject. --Lendorien 19:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add and cite references to support the position. There are a number of such opposing citations in the article and more will certainly be added in the future - the section on horses, for example, clearly states that current archaeological evidence indicates that horses in the Americas are believed to have been extinct prior to Book of Mormon times. The article should present anything regarding any correlation or non-correlation of existing archaeological evidence with the Book of Mormon. The purpose of the article is neither to "prove" the Book of Mormon or "disprove" the Book of Mormon based upon archaeology, but rather to present and compare what is currently known by both LDS and non-LDS scholars in a non-combative manner. Bochica 04:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lendorien, the article is systematically biased in favor of the Mormon point of view, as is the case with virtually every wikipedia article having to do with Mormonism. Just for example, this sentence appears near the beginning of the article: "Hebrew influence in the Americas seems to be almost certain with the discovery of Hebrew artifacts through out [sic] the Americas dating before pre-Columbian [sic] times, such as tablets with the Ten Commandments." An important point, if true. There is a citation for the sentence after, which I hope was meant to source the sentence I just quoted as well. That citation (#4), however, is a "red" or non-active link to something called "Template" by "William Dankenbring". William Dankenbring is not a scholar or an archaeologist, but a minister with a group called "Triumph Prophetic Ministries". Wikipedia is supposed to be based on the best available published research in a given field. Dankenbring's "scholarship" (entirely internet based so far as I can tell) does not qualify by any reasonable standard. Once again, this sort of bias is systematic to every LDS related page I have seen on wikipedia. Charlie 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't just complain. The purpose of a user-edited encyclopedia is that users edit it. Please update this article to reflect a neutral point of view, with references. It will benefit all of us if you do this. — Val42 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lendorien ... Ive just stumbled across a few mormon-related articles, and they are clearly white-washed by Mormon editors. This Archaeology and M article is clearly a victiim of this bias. So is the Criticism of Mormonism article. Im not really an expert in religion, one way or another, but this kind of systematic bias is very un-Wiki. In the case of Mormon archaeology, 99% of all reputable archaeologists repudiate the book of Mormon's assertions. And 99% of the people that _do_ support the book's assertions are Mormons (including many faculty at Mormon-owned BYU). Noleander (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew influence

This paragraph is highly speculative, not accepted by mainstream archaeologists or anthropologists and contains weasel words:

"Hebrew influence in the Americas seems to be almost certain with the discovery of Hebrew artifacts through out the Americas dating before pre-Columbian times, such as tablets with the Ten Commandments. There are also strikingly similarities between the language and culture of certain native people in the Americas with those of ancient Hebrews. William F. Dankenbring||http://hope-of-israel.org/hebinusa.htm"

I'm not sure that Hope of Israel Ministries (Church of YEHOVAH) is considered an acceptable scholarly source for Wikipedia. If it is, then we still need to reword this paragraph. Bochica 03:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I found another sentence with Hope of Israel as a source.

There are also non-LDS researchers who claim that some of these documents state that the Maya are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.

Quite frankly, calling Hope of Israel "researchers" is stretching the point beyond the absurd and into the insulting. Ratatosk Jones 12:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of their sketchy research, on their home page (http://hope-of-israel.org) what's with the statue with the phallus for a head? I know this is supposed to be the guy from Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the Book of Daniel, but their sense of artistic licence is weirder than Arnold Friberg's Nephites on steroids. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 08:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaaah. I hadn't seen that one. I was mostly leafing through the sheer dementia that is their library of articles. Ratatosk Jones 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my...there's an image that I didn't need in my head! Bochica 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional views of New World population

although Smith and other church leaders taught that other peoples likely lived in the Americas.[4]

Smith 1997, p. 262

I can't find a statement supporting the sentence in the source provided. Have I missed it, or is the page number wrong? Ratatosk Jones 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We should probably move the citation earlier in the paragraph, as it supports earlier statements.

As for supporting statments on the matter, a good overview of statememnts may be found at: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=505.

Also, logic has it that if the statements about the Kinderhook plates by smith are accurate, that at least Phoenicians or Egyptians visited the new world anciently ([The Kinderhook plates] "contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth").

Smith was intersted in Guatemalen archeaology.

See also Times and Seasons, 15 September 1842; Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert; and Orson Pratt, Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records.

In general, there is pleny of evidence to support other peoples - including statements in the book of mormon itself. see for example, 2 Nephi chapter 1, 1 Nephi 12, 1 Nephi 17, Ether 2, and 1 Nephi 13. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted, the source cited does not support the statement that "Smith taught that other peoples likely lived in the Americas". I have therefore removed it. The paragraph in question also sorely misrepresented the history of the hemispheric "interpretation" of the Book of Mormon, as if it had never been the overwhelming majority view of the church. This too I have rectified, actually using the source already cited. - Juden 01:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding POV Tag

I have added a POV tag to this page. It is riddled with paragraphs that give a very brief (though accurate), description of valid scientific research which calls into question the validity of a religious myth "balanced" by detailed and heavily cited refutations by sectarian apologists for that religion. I am no scholar of archaeology, but I have read enough popularizations to realize that this article contains many, many extraordinary claims (about Precolumbian cultures, technology, genealogy, flora, fauna, and other topics) based on a religious scripture, with no extraordinary proofs. A simple application of Occam's Razor would indicate that these stories, as told are very unlikely.

I mean no disrespect to anyone's religous belief, and I do not doubt that the tales told in their holy book may provide believers with spiritual "truth" that is more valuable to them than the truth of science, but Wikipedia should be a place for verifiable information. Russell 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the POV tag .... Ive just stumbled across a few mormon-related articles, and they are clearly white-washed by Mormon editors. This Anthropolgy and M article is clearly a victiim of this bias. So is the Criticism of Mormonism article. Im not really an expert in religion, one way or another, but this kind of systematic bias is very un-Wiki. I understand the desire of faithful (of any religion) to promote their faith, but that should be done by External Links on the LDS article. Users of Wikipedia that come to _this_ article, containing the word "Archaeology" in its name, expect scientific rigor. Compare this with the Evolution article: even tho many fundamentalists strongly disagree with Evolution, the Evolution article is edited by scientists, and the opposing faith-based views (creationism, etc) are contained in external links and other articles. Most book of Mormon archaeology is faith-based, and belongs in the Book of Mormon article, or perhaps Historicity of the Book of Mormon, but not here. Noleander (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Criteria to Remove POV Tag

Regarding the POV tag: My understanding is that a POV tagging should be accompanied by some guidance on how the article could be improved, so the tag can be removed. My requirements for this article are:

• Article must explicitly discuss archaeological views that are contrary to a literal interpretation of the book of Mormon (as article stands now, critical views are often omitted, or hinted at only obliquely).
• The proportion of discussion must roughly mirror that of the wider academic Archaeology community. In other words, if, say, the majority of reputable archaeologists think that there were never any chariots, and the minority think there were, then the text of this article should reflect that, both in propotion of text and in emphasis. (e.g. the majority opinion should be mentioned first, and the minority second). As the article stands now, the proportion is about 95% "archaeology supports BOM" and 5% "arch doesnt support BOM" which - I suspect - is about the opposite from the actual wider archaeological community's viewpoints.
• Some disclosure must be made about possible bias due to funding sources of the archaeologists that are cited. For instance let's say that there are 20 prominent archaeologists that support the "chariots existed in MesoAmerica" theory. If 80% of those are funded by the Mormon church (e.g. on faculty at BYU) then that fact is very significant to the reader of this article, and that fact must be disclosed.
• Citations must be included for the views that are contrary to the BOM. As the article stands now, many detailed citations are given for views consistent with the BOM, but the (rare) contrary-to-BOM views are often uncited (and often stigmatized with "citation needed" tag :-)
• Some mention is needed of the obvious conflict between literaral interpretation of religious texts and the realities of what science tends to uncover. In other words, put the BOM in the wider context of literal vs. metaphorical interpretation of the Old Testament and/or other potentially mythical texts.
• The tone and phrasing of the entire article, as it stands now, is "of course the stories in the BOM are literally true, archaeology is gradually uncovering evidence to prove it". The tone must become more neutral, more scientific. Archaeology is a science. This is an encyclopedia. Noleander (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the things that you want to remove the POV tag will be doable. But because some of the criteria that you have set up will naturally not be satifiable, you will be able to keep your point-of-view that this article is biased. The points that I bring up will be paraphrases of what you have brought up, so anyone questioning them can go look at your original statements above.

Let's start will the basic problem with your criteria for removing the POV tag: "The proportion of discussion must roughly mirro that of the wider academic Archaeology community." Ignoring that "Archaeology" shouldn't be capitalized, finding out what the archaeology community thinks about the Book of Mormon would require a referenceable poll. Assuming that this were a scientific poll, I suspect (as you used the term above) that the supermajority of archaeologists don't know and/or don't care about archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Of those who do, the vast majority are going to be those who support the Book of Mormon. The other problems flow from this. So, again, congratulations on setting up criteria that will insure that the POV tag is never removed from this article. You have done well. — Val42 (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I mis-stated the criterion. What I had in mind was simply this: Pick the 5 or 10 most contentious issues surrounding the Book of Mormon in the archaeological community (chariots, steel, year of arrival, geography, whatever). At the annual conference of pre-columbian archaeologists (Im not sure if there is such a thing, but if my field is any indication, PhDs never miss an opportunity for conventions :-) do an survey of the attendees to get their opinions on the matter.

I dont know why you suggest that most pre-colombian archaeologists are not interested in wheels, steel, and arrival dates ... those seem like fundamental topics, of interest to virtually _all_ archaeologists that work in the Americas.

Is it really necessary to conduct an actual survey for purposes of updating a Wikipedia article? or are there already independent archaeologists (that is, not funded by the Mormon church) who already did such a survey, formally or informally? Certainly this kind of minority/majority opinion situation is very common in science: the field of physics has several competing theories on the origin of the universe. Certainly any wikipedia article on Cosmology would proportionately (NPOV) reflect the various opinions? Why cant this article be held to the same encyclopedic standards? Archaeology is a science. This is an encyclopedia. Noleander (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to conduct a survey. I suggested that someone find a referenceable survey that has already been done about what archaeologists think about the Book of Mormon. Let's start with that. Find that, then we can procede with the rest of your criteria. — Val42 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I dont understand your point. This article discusses topics like pre-columbian steel, chariots, silk, animals, arrival dates, and so on. Certainly non-Mormon archaeologists have studied these topics and have opinions on them? For example, lets say there was a Wikipedia article on the Methuselah, and there was some controversy on, say, whether Methusela really lived to be 900+ (?not too sure of the figure) years old. Let's say there were hundreds of reputable scientists that contended that no human could ever live longer than 200 years. Would those scientists' opinions be relevant to the Methuselah article? Must the scientists study the Old Testament before they can render their opinion? Would their opinion be relevant to deciding if the 900+ year figure were literally true or just metaphorically true? I am not an archaelogist, but I suspect that most pre-columbian archaeologists are already familiar with the key claims of the BOM, and many of them do already have scientific opinions about the validity of the claims. The point of my POV criterion is that I dont see those archaeologists represented in this article. Noleander (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think that you can rewrite the article to meet your qualifications, then do so. — Val42 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help out. I might start with the intro paragraph, which seems a bit weak to me:

The Book of Mormon is considered an inspired sacred text by the denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. Both Latter Day Saint and non-Latter Day Saint scholars have long attempted to use archaeology to support their respective views of the origins of the Book of Mormon.

There are at least three shortcomings here: (1) it doesnt summarize the entire article; (2) it is not clear what the "views" of "non LDS scholars" are; and (3) It ignores the "elephant in the room" .. namely that there is contention as to whether or not certain passages in the Book of Mormon are supported by archaeology or not.

I would propose an opening passage something like:

The BOM contains numerous stories relating the events of certain peoples that lived in the Americas. Historians and Archaeologists have long studied the stories in the BOM and compared them to evidence collected from field work and research. The field of archaeology is especially relevant in assessing the historicity of the BOM stories, because many of the stories involve artifacts (e.g. steel, chariots), dates (e.g. arrival in Americas), and activities (e.g. ???). Sufficient archaeological evidence has the potential to verify or refute many aspects of the BOM. The LDS has supported extensive research efforts in BOM-related archaeology, and LDS-supported archaeologists have found many confirmations of the activities/stories in the BOM. Other archaeologists have come to differing conclusions, and have raised serious concerns about the historicity of some aspects of the BOM.

This is just a bare outline, but I think it is neutral, and goes to the heart of what a typical Wiki visitor would want to learn on this topic. Noleander (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Historians and Archaeologists have long studied the stories in the BOM and compared them to evidence collected from field work and research. This is incorrect - the only historians and archaeologists that have "long studied" the stories in the BoM and compared them to archaeological evidence are LDS. Mainstream archaeologists and anthropologists are usually not aware of the BoM, and, if they are, discount it as fiction and unworthy of any serious attention. The purpose of this article is to compare BoM statements relevant to archaeology against the current state of archaeological research. The purpose is not to prove or disprove claims, but to present all sides. Naturally, all supporting claims and data will come from LDS researchers. Mainstream archaeological views should be indicated as such. Saying "other archaeologists have come to differing conclusions," implies that mainstream archaeologists are in the minority - the opposite of the truth. I would suggest beefing up the mainstream archaeology data throughout the article with appropriate references, and make sure all claims of LDS researchers are correctly attributed to their sources. Bochica (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Intro Paragraph

Okay .. I incorportated your suggestion, and changed "stories" to "accounts" since stories may imply a foregone conclusion that the accounts are fiction. How about:

The BOM contains numerous accounts relating the events of certain peoples that lived in the Americas. LDS Historians and Archaeologists have long studied the stories in the BOM and compared them to evidence collected from field work and research. Mainstream archaeologists and anthropologists that are aware of the BoM discount it as fiction and unworthy of any serious attention. The field of archaeology is especially relevant in assessing the historicity of the BOM accounts, because many of the accounts involve artifacts (e.g. steel, chariots), dates (e.g. arrival in Americas), and activities (e.g. ???). Sufficient archaeological evidence has the potential to verify or refute many aspects of the BOM. The LDS has supported extensive research efforts in BOM-related archaeology, and LDS-supported archaeologists have found many confirmations of the accounts in the BOM. Other archaeologists have come to differing conclusions, and have raised serious concerns about the historicity of some aspects of the BOM.

As for your comment about the LDS viewpoint being in the minority, that is one of the shortcomings with this article: the NPOV policy requires that majority viewpoints be proportionately represented in the article, and they are not. We need to recruit some mainstream archaeologists to assist with this article (unlikely :-), or encourage editors to hunt down citations with a greater variety of viewpoints. Noleander (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I havent seen any replies to this, so I put it into the article. Let me know if there are some changes you think should be made. Noleander (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the comment I made accompanying my edit, I found redundancies in the introductory paragraph. I rewrote it for three purposes: Remove these redundancies, make each paragraph have a clear subject, and make the introduction flow better. To me, my edits seem to accomplish all three purposes without removing any actual information.

However, there is one thing that I noticed while editing: There is a lot of text in the references included in the introduction. I figured that I'd bring this problem up here before I made edits to this text. My understanding of introductory paragraphs is that they do not need references as long as any assertions are summaries of assertions made in the body of the article, and such assertions in the body are properly referenced. If this is so, then the references can be moved down in the article to the appropriate sections. If not, then perhaps we could find a way to shorten them because it makes the introductory paragraph difficult to read while editing. — Val42 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

History of NPOV Issues

Earlier, I posted some steps that could be taken to make this article more neutral, and enable us to remove the POV tag. The POV tag is rather significant, and I wanted to make sure it was warranted, so I did some research and studied other articles with histories of POV tags, and I also reviewed the history of this article. Based on the history of the this article's Talk page, I found the following editors that challenged the neutrality of this article:

• jun 2004 Martijn faassen
• july 2004 138.202.33.102|
• july 2004 69.105.0.3
• Mar 2005 Vegasbright@gmail.com
• Apr 2005 BeeHonest
• Apr 2005 Vegasbright
• May 2005 (?) S. Slater
• July 2005 GabrielSimon
• July 2005 Quasipalm
• Aug 2005 Nereocystis
• Nov 2005 Nereocystis
• Dec 2005 TriNotch
• Dec 2005 Nunh-huh
• Dec 2005 Alienus
• Mar 2006 Nunh-huh
• Mar 2006 TriNotch
• Oct 2006 Anon
• Dec 2006 Authalic
• Jan 2007 Authalic
• Jan 2007 Juden
• Jan-May 2007 Juden (added POV tag)
• June 2007 Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
• July 2007 Lendorian
• Sept 2007 Campbel2 (Charlie)
• Nov 2007 Aminzade (Russel) (add POV tag)

This history, and the associated comments on the Talk history, seem to show:

• The non-neutrality challenges extend back 3-1/2 years.
• The POV tag was applied at least twice (once in early 2007 by Juden, once in Nov 2007 by Aminzade).
• These editors all appeared to make their comments independently, that is, they did not appear to be part of a concerted group
• The non-neutrality issues seem to arise at a farily common rate (not getting more or less frequent).
• The non-neutrality comments seem to have a common thread running through them, namely: that mainstream science/archaeology opinions are under-emphasized, and LDS-based angles are over-emphasized.

My point in enumerating the above is not to discredit this article or the numerous editors that worked hard to create it, instead I am simply trying to confirm whether the current POV tag is warranted. This history does lend support to keeping the current POV tag in place. I think this article is a valuable article, and deserves a bit more polishing to bring up to NPOV status. Noleander (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal To Remove POV Tag

I was looking at other articles that used to have POV tags, and it appears that there are a couple of ways to restore the neutrality of this article:

1) Update individual sections/paragraphs and make each one neutral
2) Add a new "mainstream" section at the beginning that summarizes the mainstream views (and leave existing sections more or less alone).

Either approach looks satisfactory to me. (1) is a bit more work, but more elegant (i.e., easier for wiki visitors to read) . But (1) also hasnt happened in this article despite a few years of POV issues. (2) is very simple (could probably create the new section in a couple days and get consensus shortly thereafter) but would look odd. (2) could have the benefit that it would (assuming that the "mainstream" section is kept intact) put an end to future POV accusations.

Any comments? Noleander (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The goal is not to "remove the POV tag". The goal is to have an accurate, fair article that fulfills Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. That can't happen except by addressing the central problem: that mainstream archaeologic and scientific opinions are under-emphasized, and LDS-faith-based apologetics are over-emphasized throughout the article. And that means that mainstream opinions need to be strengthened throughout the article, not only in a single section. (2) will most assuredly not put an end to the POV problem. - Juden (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Juden. Haven't got much time right now to work on editing this page, but I will add more details from the Smithsonian statement, which I stumbled across when I had a moment --Russell (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Folks, i'll start watching the page more closely, but there is actually a good deal of good and accurate and mainstream views in this article already. You may want to enlist the help of Non-LDS editor User:TriNotch who is an archeaologist and has contributed to this page in the past. 90 percent of this page is as verifiable and supported by mainstream archeaologists as much as views on bibilical archaeology. Having been involved in digs for nearly half of my life, this article, for the most part is not POV, but it does focus on specific Book of Mormon-related archaeological issues, just as the title suggests. -Visorstuff (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't have a lot of time to research this, but I'd like to help a bit. I have stumbled across a lot of critiques of the BOM based on archaeology on the web, but by far most of these seem to be from someone with an axe to grind (usually disilusioned ex-LDS folks).

I did find some interesting data on religoustolerance.org that might lead to some verifiable mainstream archaeological critiques are here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr.htm

...specifically on Thomas Stuart Ferguson, who organized the LDS-Funded New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF) and later " became convinced that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, whose contents bear no relationship to the reality of Native American civilization prior to 385."

Does anyone have a link to the full text of the Smithsonian document (The excerpts in the above page seem to have more more critical info than this article)?

Actually, a quick scan of the religioustolerance.org article (all I have time for before bed...I have to work tomorrow :-) makes me think it's pretty balanced and fair.

--Russell (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Which version of the smithsonian document? the one someone got censured for, and was full of inaccuracies (that church critics typically cite) or the one they use now? Both at one point were referenced in this article... both can be found here -Visorstuff (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for the censuring? If so, it could be noted in the article. That it was full of inaccuracies will need a better source than Jeff Lindsay. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Way Forward For Approach (1) to Neutrality

If approach (1) seems to be the consensus, we can try that (it is a lot more work :-). To help with that effort, let me cite a couple of subsections from the existing article: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#The challenge of determining a New World geographic location is somewhat neutral, because it starts with a rather neutral sentence (although it could be worded more clearly). Constrast with Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#The use and disputation of existing archaeological evidence which is a typical example of a subsection that has a very strong POV-tone.

Perhaps the way forward is to ensure that the opening sentence/paragraph of each subsection is neutral, that is, lays proper emphasis on mainstream Archaeology views, and that minority views are brought up after that first sentence? In many subsections, that would involve simply improving the wording of the existing text. In some subsections, it may be necessary to add a new sentence/paragraph at the beginning. That should satisfy the neutrality requirements, no? Also, that way the casual Wiki-visitor, when scanning the article and stopping at a particular section, gets a neutral picture at each subsection.Noleander (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you don't mind me making this a subsection because it seems to be a subtopic of the above section. I see why you made this (sub)section though: the above discussion got off of the general topic of the route to take to remove the POV tag and got into specifics of how to do it; the above discussion got down in the weeds.

Here is my proposal for how to tackle this problem: We should move the POV tag from the entire article down to each individual section. This way, each section can be tackled one at a time, making it a more manageable task. We will still tangle over specifics, but I hope that we can agree that breaking the task down into smaller tasks is a good approach. — Val42 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that individual-section POV tags is a good way to go, provided that the number of POV sections is small, say 2 or 3. As long as a large number of sections have POV issues, the entire article really needs a POV tag for two reasons: (1) as a highly visible reminder to editors to "look down" in the article and find and fix those POV sections; and (2) an overall statement about the article to Wiki readers (e.g. if there are 20 sections, and 12 have POV issues, then a casual reader should be notified of that at the top of the article). In summary, I would suggest leaving the POV tag at the top, then removing it (and shifting to per-section tags) when we get down to just a handful of POV sections.Noleander 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this article is the same as with a number other articles making extraordinary claims, whether in history or the sciences. The claims are incompatible with the consensus view, and indeed are not remotely taken seriously by mainstream researchers in the field. Accordingly, you will be unlikely to find any serious literature addressing the claims of (in this case) populous, literate, technologically adept ancient civilisations in the Americas. The literature is nevertheless quite incompatible with the claims, but that is a different matter. By contrast, LDS apologetics have created reams of material supporting the historical existence of the Nephites et al (which is a great source as to LDS beliefs, but a lousy source as to historical fact), and various Protestant denominations have produced reams of material opposing the LDS claims (which is equally useful and lousy in equal measure). One route for this article to take would be to set out the two sets of religious claims. That would not make for a useful article. The sensible approach has to be to recognise the LDS view and their supporting arguments, but state that the mainstream historical and archaeological approach does not recognise the existence of these civilisations and cite material which supports the consensus view that there were no horses, metal-working, large populations, Semitic languages etc in the Americas prior to Columbus. The mainstream view should dominate, reflecting the fact that it is, undeniably, the mainstream view. The approach to fringe historical claims should be the same as those making fringe science claims, e.g. [19]. LeContexte (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So be bold and make "The mainstream view ... dominate, reflecting the fact that it is, undeniably, the mainstream view." After all, you know The Truth. Since you have declared that is is "fact" and "undeniably, the mainstream view" you can come up with the references in five minutes. I'll be generous and give you a day. If you can't do it in a day, then it is not such an undeniable fact then, is it? — Val42 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying it is a fact that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate; I am saying that it is a fact that there is no support amongst non-Mormon researchers for the claim that it is. Of course I cannot provide a reference proving this negative, any more than I can show there is no mainstream support for the historicity of the Mu (lost continent), or for David Icke's theory that the world is ruled by shape-shifting lizards. But of course, I don't have to. The onus is, as for all fringe theories, for those who claim there is mainstream support to find it. How many supportive articles in peer reviewed journals of history do you think you can find? I've looked, and found none. LeContexte (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia policies on Fringe theories that you provided on the talk page for Book of Mormon. This policy states, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community." There are references in this article from the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society, so you can provide such references as required by this Wikipedia policy. Would you, in the future, please deign to read the article before you say there are no such references. — Val42 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We are perhaps talking at cross-purposes. The Smithsonian and National Geographic letters are fine sources for the claim, at the start of the article, that the Smithsonian and National Geographic do not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon (and I was of course aware of this given that I have edited the references in question). This does indeed give some indication of the level of acceptance amongst academia. But this is a different statement from the one we are discussing: my statement that there is no historical support outside of Mormon scholarship for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Were this statement incorrect, it would be easy to refute. Per WP:FRINGE, the burden of proof is on those seeking to establish that mainstream support exists. LeContexte (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, the Smithsonian and National Geographic Society are fine for "the level of acceptance amongst academia," but not for showing the status of "the historicity of the Book of Mormon" in academia? Would you please explain this logic? — Val42 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we move towards a more balanced article by editing the first paragraph to include some variation on LeContexte's statement "there is no historical support outside of Mormon scholarship for the historicity of the Book of Mormon." I think I'll let this proposal simmer for a little while then make the change to avoid revert wars.--Russell (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree - I support your proposal. There used to be such a sentence about 3 or 4 sentences down in the intro, but someone removed it. This article is highly POV, and almost FRINGE. In plain english, what the Intro needs to say is: "The BoM is a religious book, not a history book. No mainstream scientists/archaeologists believe that any accounts in the BoM are true. Many members of the LDS church believe that some or all of the accounts are true, and the LDS church funds research efforts to prove the veracity of the BoM. The remainder of this article is a summary of the LDS church's efforts to prove the BoM true. There is little rebuttal information available for opposing scientific views, because mainstream archaeologists dismiss the BoM as a fictional religious work". BTW: the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article has the same POV issues and probably needs a POV tag. Noleander (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay with something like, "No mainstream scientists/archaeologists believe that any accounts in the BoM are true. Many members of the LDS church believe that some or all of the accounts are true," but Wikipedia policy requires citations, even for fringe theories where they are available. As I have said before, there are two already cited in this article.

The statement, "The remainder of this article is a summary of the LDS church's efforts to prove the BoM true," should not be accepted by any honest contributor to this article. This article could be edited such that this statement becomes true, but then it wouldn't be NPOV. We need to make a better summary. I think that the current one is a fair summary of the rest of the article. — Val42 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside for now debate about the rest of the article's accuracy or POV, I'd suggest that we use this synthesis of Noleander's and LeContexte's proposals in the first paragraph. I've edited it to reflect scientists' attitude towards the evidence rather than their "beliefs". Like this:

"The BoM is a religious book, not a history book. Though mainstream scientists and archaeologists have found no evidence supporting the existence of flora, fauna, languages, cultures, technologies or events described in the BoM, many members of the LDS church believe that some or all of the accounts are true, and the LDS church has funded research efforts to prove the veracity of the BoM. "

--Russell (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated repeatedly above, even fringe theories require citations, where available. This proposed rewording doesn't reflect a summary of the statements available from the two sources provided. As for my recommendation, I like the current introductory paragraphs. — Val42 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl and Jesus

"The ancient Mesoamerican legend of Quetzalcoatl, depicted in some versions as "the bearded white god", is interpreted by some Latter-day Saints as a depiction of the actual visit of Jesus to the Americas as related and foretold 600 years before his coming in the Book of Mormon. Other students of ancient Mesoamerica do not accept this claim for several reasons: Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent deity, is depicted in Mesoamerican art dated several centuries before Jesus."

Isn't it at all possible that the story of Jesus was foretold centuries before he appeared, and thats why there are dipictions of Q/Jesus so many years before he came? Or maybe there is some link between the Q/Jesus stories and the objective psyche? And the reason their appearence is so different is because one or the other was distorted by the hands of man?

It's nothing but ad hoc but is there a way to slip that in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

everything is possible, but this will be original research unless you can find a reliable source for it. There are additional serious problems with the idea that Quetzalcoatl and Jesus have any connection, not least that there is zero evidence of any connection between ancient Mesoamerica and the culture, religion and language of the Middle East. LeContexte (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would depictions of a WHITE god be seen as predictions of someone who wasn't even white? 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You can rest assured that the MORMON Jesus is white. Whiteness and virtue are irrevocably linked in Mormon theology; white skin is a reword for virtuousness in the preexistence, while black skin is punishment for falling short before birth. The American Indians were, to the extent that they were darker than the white settlers of America, less virtuous; if they became more virtuous, the Mormons taught, their skin would become whiter. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)