Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 3

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph is rather misleading I think. As a Mormon, I (and everyone Mormon I know) recognizes that the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious record - however, again, I (and every Mormon I know) still considers the book to be a historical record. When I read the opening paragraph it sounds like the LDS church doesn't think the Book of Mormon is a literal historical record - which is just not true.Descartes1979 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that sentence in a few wikipedia articles ("Authorities of the LDS Church emphasize that the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious record."). Im not sure which editor added it, but it is cited. Based on the context of the sentence, it appears to be saying: "Church members view the BoM as a religious and historical document, but if any historical accounts in the book are ever found to be false or inaccurate, that is not important, because the BoM is primarily a religious document, not a historical document". Im sure a student of major religions could find many examples of other faiths striving to prove the scientific/historical accuracy of a religious text, but keeping their options open in case it is proven otherwise :-) The Catholic church and the "sun goes around the earth" debate with Galileo springs to mind :-) Noleander (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be deleted, as the context gives the statement the implication Descartes1979 and Noleander suggest, and this implication is not supported by the cited sources. LeContexte (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should be refactored to convey the message of the referenced talk. — Val42 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a phrase to make the paragraph more balanced. However, the more I think about it, there are a couple of quotes and phrases that are similarly offending. These are the facts as I know them (I can't reference them, but I am sure references are out there) (1)The LDS church - leadership and membership - consider the BOM to be a literal historical record (probably some good quotes by Joseph Smith on this count). (2)LDS Scholars have found what they believe are archaeological evidences of the historicity of the BOM. (3)Virtually all non-Mormon scholars and archaeologists reject the claims, and interpretations of evidence that support the BOM as a literal historical record. (4)Non-LDS scholars and archaeologists claim that there is a lack of evidence, and contradicting evidence that refutes LDS claims. (5)To be fair - the claims and counterclaims are disputed on both sides of the fence. This is what the summary of the article should reflect IMO.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is one thing that I think should be included that we have from the current quotation but you haven't captured above: That the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious text. Perhaps something along the lines of, "<However you want to describe the group> consider the Book of Mormon to be a record of actual civilizations and persons but whose purpose is primarily religious." Note that there are some denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement (such as the Community of Christ) that don't believe that the Book of Mormon is a historical record but is still scriptural. This also needs to be conveyed. — Val42 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In this article I don't think it's relevant whether the purpose of the book is religious or not, if it is also (mainly) considered to be a historical record. In the article on the BoM itself it makes sense. In an article about the archaeology we are considering whether the historicity it claims is backed up by archaeology. To take a parallel case when a Christian says that Genesis chapter 1 "is primarily a religious writing" that usually implies they don't take it as literally, historically true. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: “Virtually all non-Mormon scholars and archaeologists reject the claims…” I recognize that this is tangential, but may I ask where you get this idea? It’s been my experience that most non-“Mormon” scholars and archæologists haven’t even bothered to study the claims, much less offer any opinion on them.TheOtter (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Iron Smelting

The references provided for the Iron section seem pretty spurious to me. Is there not an established scholarly article on the subject? If not, I hardly think we can rely on amateur archaeologists for this information, and we should remove those claims.--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Chariot

I removed the claim that 'chariot' might refer to non-wheeled vehicles, since the only supporting references seems to be an LDS picture book. Since the BoM is claimed to be a divine, and presumably infallible, translation it would seem odd that a word used to mean exclusively non-wheeled transport in the original might be translated to a word used today to refer exclusively to wheeled transport. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Hebrew word for “chariot” applies to both wheeled and non-wheeled vehicles. I am told that the term is so generic as to also be the word for the modern army tank! I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it, though. TheOtter (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Influence of John Lloyd Stephens' Bestseller

Section 2.1 “Early attempts” as of March 16, 2008, mentions Latter-day Saint attempts to find archaeological sites based on analysis of the Book of Mormon text. The significant influence of John Lloyd Stephens published works is not mentioned. I have taken the liberty to add some detail.

Section 2.2 “Modern approach” mentions “fewer distinct landmarks” given in the Book of Mormon (Doctrine and Covenants not included?). Candid, but accurate remarks have been included on the subject of excluding the location of Cumorah (inferred in LDS scripture).

Section 3.3 “The Challenge of determining a New World geographic location” states “LDS scholars have found the most plausible match to be …” which some may see as issuing more from a religious hegemony - not open scholarship. It is suggested that a sentence using the word “promote” may be more accurate and impartial than “…have found…”

Section 3.4 “Book of Mormon compared to Bible archaeology” states that “the geographic setting for the Bible is already known.” Well, yes and no! Do we really know for certain the location of Moses’ Mt. Sinai, of Abram’s Ur? We think we know, based on endemic tradition where Elijah’s Carmel is.

Section 3.6 “Joseph Smith’s statements regarding Book of Mormon geography” is an important section. Greater clarification with more references has been supplied.

Section 4.2.1 “Hemispheric Geography Model” has been historically explained and broadened.

Section 4.2.2 “Limited Geography Model” has been rendered more impartial.

Section 5.1 “The Jaredites and the Olmec”; content has been further supported.

Respectfully,

Oneida NY (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"...out of the ground..."

The section on “the Nephites” (5.3) is a collision of opinions and has up until now lacked supporting references.

Respectfully,

Oneida NY (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I added an Original Research tag to this article - after reading through it, there are tons of problems with referencing and original research. I think the banner should stay up until we can address these issues. I have added cite requests and OR tags throughout the article where I think the issues are. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"...I did send down fire..."

I appreciate the feed back and opportunity to improve the section on the Nephites. I agree that references and attributions are still needed and that the banner should stay up. I am loath, however to remove the interesting material of previous contributors which so far, I am not able to discount. I have left, therefore certain “attribution, citation needed” in place. It is recommended that the call out for citations be used only after carefully investigating the references given in each paragraph. It is my opinion that some material was in fact adequately (though tersely) referenced. I have taken the opportunity to improve this section with more explicit commentary and additional references.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but most of that was original research WP:OR and or synthesis WP:SYN -- I've indicated some of the problems in my summaries. Wikipedia is about reporting research, not doing it.--

Recent edit & edit summaries

The sumnmary of the most recent edit before mine read (mainstream changed to all) when in fact the change was from "the existence of these civilizations is not accepted by mainstream historians or archaeologists." to "the existence of these civilizations is neither accepted nor rejected by all historians or archaeologists." Now to my mind, that is not a change from mainstream to all, but a change from a statement that says mainstream scholars don't accept these situations to one that suggests that perhaps a lot of them do. Which is clearly not the case. So, I've undone it, there is a consensus among mainstream scholars about this. No mainstream scholars accept that these civilizations existed. So, let's leave this alone please, and editors should always take care to as much as possible make sure that their edit summary makes it clear what the changes were. I'm sure I've been at fault in this way before myself, so I'm assuming this was accidental and in good faith.Doug Weller (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Iron

Deleted the stuff sourced from the web. For some better sources, see this Usenet discussion (which can't be used in the article but might help find other sources and gives a better perspective.[1]--Doug Weller (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fire from the sky

Sorenson’s Central America setting has already been cited in this article! The fact that Palmer and Sorenson hypothesize that local volcanism is a prime contributor to the three days of darkness in a limited Mesoamerican setting, is well known by those familiar with the subject of Book of Mormon scenarios. They have been cited in the section titled “The Nephites”. The alternative hypothesis that the three days of darkness was a consequence of a meteor or comet airburst near the Great Lakes has been removed from this section. Remarks referring to the local volcanism hypothesis have been left in place. The point is local volcanism is not the only hypothesis which attempts to account for the “great destruction”. LDS may find it worthwhile to investigate the Tunguska event, and to widen their consideration of possibilities.Kovesh (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So whats your point? Are you upset that that information was removed, or are you saying you removed it? Are you saying that we need to include information about Tunguska? I have no idea what you are saying here.

BTW, you said: "The fact that Palmer and Sorenson hypothesize that local volcanism is a prime contributor to the three days of darkness in a limited Mesoamerican setting, is well known by those familiar with the subject of Book of Mormon scenarios." The purpose of this article is not to discuss Book of Mormon scenarios, but to treat archaeological evidence that supports, or detracts from the claims of the Book of Mormon. To me that means all of this information about three days of darkness should be removed from the article altogether. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess, from Kovesh's other edits, is that he is saying that he thinks that there is another hypothesis (airburst) which should be explored, and he doesn't understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for discussion of various ideas (which he was doing in the stuff I removed). I've suggested he do some reading on Wikipedia's relevant policies--Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As the section on the Nephites now stands, the local volcanism hypothesis is countered by the fact that the Book of Mormon makes no explicit mention of a volcano or volcanism. For now, I think this is sufficient. However, the topic of “the great destruction” and “darkness” may be back. It is one of Palmer’s points (In Search of Cumorah, p. 53.).

The commentary attempting to link Mesoamerican volcanism with the Book of Mormon’s three days of darkness, was started by a contributor who wished to attack the Finger Lakes Cumorah setting given in LDS scripture (D&C 128:20). My point is that “the great destruction” and “darkness” does not necessarily require a setting based in a volcanic zone. “Setting” is what I mean by “scenario”. Perhaps more LDS should consider alternate hypotheses. One or two may be found which are more consistent with the scriptural setting.

It seems to me that the setting has a lot to do with the legitimacy of the archaeological search. I say that the search for Book of Mormon “holy land” (Enos 1:10) should begin with LDS scripture. I see the proper ground rules as including the following: Establish the most likely setting based on LDS scripture (not necessarily Mormon tradition). Don’t let side issues take the setting thousands of miles away (issues like the presumed need for local volcanism or the discovery of impressive stone ruins etc.) Let the historical and archaeological search reveal what it will. I don’t believe that it is justified to search for the foundation of Solomon’s temple among the ample ruins of Egypt even though we fear there is precious little evidence that it ever stood on Jerusalem’s Mount Moriah. Here is where setting (and all the little arguments that impinge on it) counts archaeologically. Regards

Kovesh (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kovesh, please, have you read the Wikipedia pages on Original Research I referred you to? Wikipedia articles aren't a place for essays or arguments (although they should represent the arguments made by reliable sources, of course). New ideas, however, or suggestions for further research, don't belong in Wikipedia. You've got some good ideas, start a blog or post to an appropriate forum, and there are quite a few of them -- or to the Mormon usenet groups (not the moderated one of course).--Doug Weller (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article?

Some of you may have noticed a large amount of editing going on in this article - and there have been a lot of great contributions. However, I would like to make sure we are not straying into tangential and non-notable topics. To this end I ask, what is the scope of this article? When I read the summary paragraphs, it seems to me that we are highlighting the main archaeological evidences that support and detract from the validity of the Book of Mormon. Of course, since the vast majority, and all non-Mormon, archaeologists reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon based on archaeological research, shouldn't the article reflect this? At first glance, outside of the summary paragraphs, there seems to be a whole lot of conjecture, original research, and synthesis that is very sympathetic to FARMS and Mormon scholarship, when in reality that is not an accurate portrayal of current archaeological research in relationship to Book of Mormon claims. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I looked over the article again, I added the {{globalize}} and {{examplefarm}} tags. Lets discuss these banners here. As for the globalize tag - as I mentioned above, I don't think this article accurately portrays the current archaeological opinion of Book of Mormon claims - the summary paragraph, and a few other paragraphs are a good start. However, there seem to be hundreds of examples of archaeological evidences, and conjecture around tangential topics -- which brought me to the examplefarm tag. Please discuss and let me know what you think. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Descartes1979. This article gives way, way too much emphasis to the claims, and makes it sound as if some non-Mormon archaelogists regard the claims in the Book of Mormon as anything more than a joke. Even the use of the word "mainstream" in the first paragraph is too strong. It should be "professional" or "reputable". And the first sentence makes it seem as if reputable archaeologists even feel like the claims in the Book of Mormon need to be refuted - they don't. And to given the erroneous impression that they do gives the claims in the Book of Mormon more credibility than they deserve - kinda like when intelligent design advocates try to draw scientists into a debate. In terms of archaelogists reviewing the Book of Mormon as an archaelogical text, well it's really more like a nuclear physicist watching Spiderman to enjoy some of the outlandish "fusion" science that is presented, or an evolutionary biologist having a chuckle over the latest creationist theory. Sure, millions of dupes actually believe the stuff, but that doesn't mean any real archaelogists thinks of it as anything more than a joke. As such, and with due and respectful apologies to those who have obviously worked very hard on it, this article is about 5,000 words longer than it needs to be.Ndriley97 (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback of edits by User:132.190.12.40

Done simply because it had completely messed up the footnotes.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Olmec East of Tehuantepec

In the section on the Jaredites, I have supplied a reference supporting the claim that Olmec culture spread to territory east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. I have also referred to the “Beyond the heartland” section under Olmec. If any one can come up with a more authoritative citation than Charles C. Mann, 1491 New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, please provide the reference(s).

Regards, Kovesh (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article at the moment says "Olmec civilization spread to both sides of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec" and I am told that the cite to Charles Mann's book does not say this. Could you please explain this discrepancy? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On page 237 of Mann’s Book there is a map showing the proposed extent of Olmec territory. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec (between 94 and 96 W longitude)defines the shortest distance over land between the Gulf of Mexico to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the South. Mann’s map shows Olmec territory penetrating into the region of Tehuantepec and extending a little east and west of it. The map of Olmec territory given in the “Beyond the heartland” section is similar. I would like to learn more about the uncertainty in these proposed boundaries. The transverse Isthmus of Tehuantepec is comparable in width to Florida. In my opinion, ancient peoples of the region would not have considered the Isthmus either “small” or “narrow”. In any event it seems clear that Olmec territory extended right through the region of Tehuantepec.

Regards,

132.190.12.40 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just the this article at one point said both sides and then referenced two areas on the Gulf side only, and the only map I've seen showed areas on the Gulf side and middle but none on the Pacific coast. I'm being a bit pedantic here, but that is the nature of this argument to an extent -- if it wasn't 'both sides', then it doesn't match the BOM claim.Doug Weller (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Jaredites of the Book of Mormon, I can find no reference indicating that their civilization spread into the “land southward”, that is the land south of the narrow neck of land. Apparently the land south of the narrow neck was kept as a game preserve. (Ether 10:19-21) The Book of Mormon describes a narrow pass with water to the west and east of it (Alma 50:34) but this (in my opinion) hardly describes the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. In short, the Book of Mormon has Jaredite civilization concentrated in lands north of the “small” or “narrow neck of land”. Olmec civilization existed within and spread a little beyond the Isthmus of Tehuantepec on the west and on the east.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Statements by Joseph Smith

Additional citations and clarifications from authoritative sources have been made as requested.

A scholarly challenge is proposed to those who wish to argue the legitimate archaeological setting for the Book of Mormon. Clear you minds of preconceived notions. Find a single, unambiguous, firsthand quote from Joseph Smith that places Book of Mormon lands in Central America. Quotes placing Book of Mormon peoples in Central America do not count. The fact that there are Irish in America does not prove that America is Ireland.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Horses Merge

I propose that we merge Horses in the Book of Mormon into this article under the heading Horses. I anticipate that some of you may think this article is too long, and that splitting it out is warranted, but I actually think that the correct way to deal with this is to bring all of the disparate information into this article and condense it - I believe there is far too much spurious research and information cited in this article, and it might need a re-write anyway. Ok that was a little off topic, but anyway:

• Merge--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge-- Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

“the narrow neck of land” or “the narrow strip of wilderness”?

I have made an amendment to the “Limited Geography Model” section. However correct it may be, the following statement may be seen as “original research”:

“Oddly enough, the only Isthmus mentioned in the Times and Seasons “ZARAHEMNLA” article is the Isthmus of Darien. It is possible that the unknown writer(s) in citing Alma 20:32 (pages 280-81 in the Book of Mormon 3rd edition) confused “the narrow strip of wilderness” south of Zarahemla (verse 27), with “the small neck of land” north of Zarahemla (verse 32) and therefore supposed that the Isthmus of Darien could qualify as “the small neck”."

I am on the lookout for more instances of "original research".

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Restructuring

I think we should restructure this article into two big sections: 1) Archaeological Evidence that suggests the BOM is not a literal historical record 2) Archaeological evidence that supports the BOM. The thing is, throughout this article there is a constant struggle between these two opposing points of view. If we can delineate it clearly, I wonder if it will flow a little better. What do you guys think? --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article used to be structured that way. It means that you end up with an "apologetic" section and a "critic" section (usually titled "problems"). You will also end up having to duplicate all sub-section headings twice (e.g. why the critics say there were no swords, and why the apologists say there were). Once separated, you will have a constant battle trying to keep elements of each of the two sections separate as other editors attempt to refute arguments in one section that are addressed in the other. Bochica (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged." from the essay WP:crit I agree with Bochica.Doug Weller (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tags

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.

The above is my usual pasted statement. This is an article that is too big for me to make those decisions, but I see no POV or other disputes in the discussion page. I would propose to you editors that if that is so and you have consensus about the various issues, then you remove the tags. Often they are placed arbitrarily, and some that are dated currently are actually from long ago, and re-dated by bots. It's up to you, but I see no need for the tags, myself.Jjdon (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancient writings support LDS doctrine and teachings

The reference to the story Ancient writings support LDS doctrine and teachings, printed by Deseret News, was removed. The edit summary said "the Mormon Times is not a reliable source for this and the person being interviewed gave no specifics - let's hear from these 'many scholars' first". The Deseret News is a regular newspaper, with the second-highest distribution in Utah. Why is it not considered a reliable source? Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The article itself is in The Mormon Times at [2] which is a Mormon organ offering "

News and information for and about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." It's a reliable source for what Mormon's believe, but for other things it is problematic. In this specific case, what we have is a Brigham Young professor saying "Many scholars are now admitting that the book accepted as scripture by church members is an ancient book, but as one scholar of antiquities told Griggs, he had no problem with the gold plates and Smith's story would be acceptable "if you'd get rid of that angel."" Wikipedia guidelines make it pretty clear that you should name some names, and as he doesn't, we have a problem. We can't verify his claim, and Wikipedia is very much about verifiability. We need to see what these 'many scholars' are actually saying first. This works both ways, I assure you. If I wrote 'many scholars think the BoM is a fraud' you'd have every right to ask me to name some scholars (you can use the {{Fact}} template) or remove it. Ok?Doug Weller (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Deseret News is effectively an LDS mouthpiece, too, notwithstanding its circulation. Does anyone seriously thing the DN would print anything that was inconsistent with, or critical of, Mormon doctrine?Ndriley97 (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Deseret News article does not mention New World Archaeology, but rather says that recently discovered early Christian manuscripts in the Old World support certain LDS teachings. It's off-topic as far as this article is concerned. Plazak (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

P. C. Olive's Northern American Setting

Early on in these discussions, it was pointed out that the Pro-LDS viewpoint was somewhat one-sided in the article - that side being the beloved Mesoamerican setting. Having carefully researched the matter, I concede that the origin of the Mesoamerican setting has more to do with LDS assimilation of John Lloyd Stephens’ 1841 best seller, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan than with the setting established by LDS scripture. The critical remark of Hugh Nibley is still relevant:

“Blinded by the gold of the pharaohs and the mighty ruins of Babylon, Book of Mormon students have declared themselves “not interested” in the drab and commonplace remains of our lowly Indians. But in all the Book of Mormon we look in vain for anything that promises majestic ruins.” (An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Melchizedek Priesthood manual, 1957), appendix section titled “Looking for the Wrong Things”, pp. 440-41)

I have included under “New World setting” a map depicting the research of author P. C. Olive (bookofmormonlands.com).

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Dark Days"

I have included the following reference in the section on “the Nephites”:

“THE DARK DAYS AND EARTHQUAKES IN CANADA”, The Historical Magazine and Notes and Queries Concerning the Antiquities, History and Biography of America, editor John G. Shea, New York, Vol. VIII, 1864, pp. 60-65.

Very interesting reading, I think.

Author Phyllis Carol Olive is perhaps the first expert on Book of Mormon lands to call attention to this article. It is a historical fact that the regions of Canada just to the north of New York have been subject not only to very violent earthquakes but also enigmatic episodes of daytime darkness so profound and extensive that observes, right or wrong, have attributed the phenomena to volcanism. The Historical Magazine of 1864 cites several documented examples and presents the opinions of notable witnesses of the phenomena.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A comment had been added at the end of this reference to the effect that the above citation was at variance with the limited geography setting. The citation is of course at variance with the limited Mesoamerican setting, but there is more than one limited geographic setting for the Book of Mormon! The article makes clear reference to the work of Phyllis Carol Olive’s limited New York setting. The incorrect statement has been removed. Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the current consolidation of the reference.

Thanks! Kovesh (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The comment about most commonly accepted view among LDS is not only not backed up with any current poll it is meaningless. Not long ago the Hemispheric Book of Mormon setting was arguably the most common LDS view. The subject at hand concerns the appropriate archaeological setting for the Book of Mormon and not so much popular opinion. A growing number of LDS are starting to question the validity of the Mesoamerican setting. I have removed the comment.

Kovesh (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats interesting, are you sure about that? - what about this quote from the Limited Geography Model article?

"Based on extensive textual analysis and comparison of the Book of Mormon limited geography model to existing geographical regions, time-lines and cultures, the majority of LDS scholars now agree that the Book of Mormon geography is centered in Mesoamerica around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, in the area of current day Guatemala and the southern Mexico States of Tabasco, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Veracruz, and the surrounding area" (Sorenson, John L (1985), An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies - pg. 35 and 36).

--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, for all I can tell the above statement is nothing more than one sided propaganda reflecting the views of a particular LDS school of thought. A Mesoamerican setting (there is more than one) may be the most commonly accepted setting for now, what ever that means. It probably wasn't the most commonly accepted in the past. Will it be in the future? Please understand that I cannot go on all that you have read. Are you planning to conduct a certified poll? Here is a question to ask a large LDS population: Is the United States in the Promised Land of the Book of Mormon? How will most LDS answer that question? I would really like to know!

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Now now Kovesh, I think you and I would both agree that the rank and file LDS members don't know much about archaeology and the Book of Mormon, so what is the point of asking a large LDS population? The point of this article should focus on the evidence for and against the claims of the Book of Mormon. Past opinion doesn't concern me unless it was made by a prophet such as Joseph Smith. The current opinions held by LDS scholars and the official position of the LDS church itself (if they ever make a statement) should be our concern. That having been said, perhaps you can point to some statement by a scholar in the LDS community that backs up your claims that there is "propoganda" being spread by one particular "school of thought"? That seems like a pretty harsh statement, and I have never seen evidence of this - although I have only been reading papers on the topic for the last 6 mos. or so...--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk to LDS scholar Rod Meldrum about Mesoamerican propaganda. He has a DVD out titled "DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography". Check out www.bookofmormonevidence.org. Rod conducted a symposium in Provo, Utah last Saturday (May 24, 2008) which you may have missed. So there you have an LDS scholar, there are more, look and you will find! Let's invite non LDS specialists to weigh in on the subject and see if they think the word "propaganda" is too harsh. The LDS Church has currently not taken a position on the precise location of all Book of Mormon lands. Are you trying to take a position for them? Your skills with Wikipedia are appreciated but you really need to widen the scope of your study on this subject.

I am underwhelmed by the references you are giving - according to this page, Rod is not an archaeologist, but an amateur researcher - it appears he never even got a college degree (he only "attended" Utah State). LDS scholarship is plagued with people like Rod - amateurs that dilute the real scholarship done by established scholars such as those at FARMS. The real scholars have decried this situation before. We can include opinions of amateurs, but it should be clear that these people are NOT archaeologists, and are amateurs. More weight should be given to the opinions of those that have verifiable archaeological credentials. Also, if I remember correctly, the Church did tacitly (though not officially) agree with the Mesoamerican Limited Geography Model - I will find the reference for that as well. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, I think it is entirely possible for folks to get the idea that the United States coincides with the Promised Land of the Book of Mormon simply from studying LDS scripture. I suspect that you may suspect this also. Now if you want to conduct a bonafide survey of LDS scholars (large cross-section) perhaps the result will support your assessment, maybe it won’t. What would really be interesting would be a study on the rate at which non-Mesoamerican Book of Mormon settings are gaining acceptance in the LDS community. Until then, maybe you shouldn’t assert your impressions too strongly, on Wikipedia, regarding what you think the most accepted setting currently is. Even if you are right now, you may have to change your assessment in the future. As you really dive into this subject you will find that the LDS point of view is not monolithic, and that my friend, has a lot to do with why Church headquarters has so far not specified where Zarahemla is.

About Adena and the Hopewell earth and timber works predating various Mesoamerican and South American stone works. How do you think it best to express this fact? I assume it is you raising questions about this. I want to work with you on this.

Best Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If I have a statement by a FARMS PhD that says one thing, and then I have you and your authors who are not archaeologists saying another thing, why should I believe you? Also, relying on the D&C and the BOM exclusively on such a controversial subject flirts with crossing the line on original research. Based on wikipedia policy, we should rely on what established scholars have to say about the subject.--Descartes1979 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Earth and timber works are concerned, I am just trying to make sure we are not crossing the line on original research. Is Adena an LDS scholar that is making the link between the Hopewell earth and timber works and the Book of Mormon? Or is it you that is making the link by reading about the Hopewell earth and timber works? If it is the former, please provide a direct quote showing the link, if it is the latter, it should not be included in the article as it is a violation of wikipedia policy.--Descartes1979 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean Lepper (Adena is the culture) and I can assure you he is not LDS and would not make the link. --Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops - thanks :) --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, I did not add the reference to Lepper. The Adena and the Hopewell are mound builder cultures. I mentioned these for clarification. Like you, I am undertaking to improve a section which originally had no references at all.

Descartes, there is something you need to come to terms with. “Archaeologists” who advocated a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon do not represent the archaeological profession at large nor do they speak for the LDS Church. Some of their colleague may even regard their work as the worse possible professional abomination. They are in a kind of limbo. The fact that they are academically credentialed lends no real authority to their academically unrecognized pronouncements. Their theories are not given doctrinal weight and force by the LDS Church. They do not have more authority in approving a Book of Mormon setting than a sister or brother from the congregation who read scripture and come to their own studious conclusions. The only power they have comes from people who believe them and support them financially. To what authority exactly do you appeal? Neither the secular community nor the LDS Church will endorse you. Are you prepared to allow non LDS historians to review the evolution of Book of Mormon geography? Are you prepared for them to conclude that Book of Mormon geography was set with the mound builders and years later, in the excitement over Stephens’ bestsellers, the setting was repositioned thousands of miles away? Bring on objective historians.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts Kovesh -

1. With all due respect, I think you need to review wikipedia guidance on WP:verifiability and WP:original research and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Note that "the threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It is quite clear that all things being equal, we should be placing reliance on the research done by those with expertise in the field who have objective opinions. You can postulate that a FARMS archaeologist has "abominable" work, but in reality - who are you or I or anyone else to say their work is wrong? They are the ones who have done the research, and Wikipedia aims to report that research.
2. You also are grossly misinterpreting my aims here. I am not looking for an endorsement by anyone. I only want to report the facts and current scholarly research. I am even willing to include research by non-archaeologists, with the caveat that they should be identified as such.
3. You said - "Their theories are not given doctrinal weight and force by the LDS Church. They do not have more authority in approving a Book of Mormon setting than a sister or brother from the congregation who read scripture and come to their own studious conclusions. The only power they have comes from people who believe them and support them financially." I find this statement rediculous - perhaps you should explain why we are discounting scientific research in favor of rank and file members and their own varied opinions? Where did this talk of power and who trumps who come from? Why can't we just report the facts? And the facts as I see them (feel free to prove me wrong) are that established archaeologists largely believe in the Mesoamerican setting, while individual researchers (non-archaeologists) may or may not. Those are the facts.
4. It appears to me that you are strongly advocating your own POV that the Mesoamerican setting is false. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant - we must report what established scholars think, regardless of whether that disagrees with your view. It is not my duty to "accept" any one view over another - I am a Wikipedian, and as such, I try to remain as objective as I can, and report the research under the verifiability guidelines.
5. You said: "“Archaeologists” who advocated a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon do not represent the archaeological profession at large." (By the way, I love how you put Archaeologists in quotes...) You realize of course that the archaeological profession at large thinks this entire subject is ridiculous, and they think all of the FARMS scholars are advocating a religious dogma by straining to find nit picky pieces of evidence to suppor the BOM. That having been said, I think what you meant to say (correct me if I am wrong) is that LDS Archaeologists that advocate a Mesoamerican setting don't represent the current trends in the pro-LDS archaeological research. If you can come up with a verifiable reference that this is the case, then I will concede the point - and as such, I await your proof.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the views of Mesoamerica Book of Mormon setting advocates, credentialed or not, on Wikipedia. I have said before that they represent an LDS school of thought. What I have problems with is the attempt to buttress their points of views, when as you have admitted, no professional field endorses their views. They therefore do not bring to bear any legitimate authority from their professions on this subject. This needs to be clearly pointed out again and again. If people choose to accept their views because of their credentials, they need to know that the disciplines that granted them those credentials do not support their conclusions relative to Book of Mormon geography. What is more, no member of the LDS Church is under the slightest obligation to accept their conclusions. The lack of secular and ecclesiastical endorsement pretty much levels their authority. The opinions of outfits like FARMS have a place in the historical investigation of the subject. Original historical documents are of interest to me. If I have misinterpreted you aim, I apologize.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The inherent problem with the subject of this article is that LDS archaeologists (who make the connections) would be considered partisan so they won't be taken seriously. Non-LDS archaeologists won't have the context to make the connections and/or wouldn't risk their professional reputations to make any connections. There are the non-archaeologists on both sides that will use what archaeologists have found to support their side of the argument. If because of these questionable credentials (of those above) we can't use any of their published works (not blogs), then this entire article evaporates. — Val42 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from Val, but I am not sure I agree - as I recall there are several non-Mormon archaeologists that have written papers on the subject which were published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Overall, in mind, the perfect article would discuss the Book of Mormon claims that are able to be proved or disproved by archaeological research, then Mormon and non-Mormon archaeologists views should be discussed. A small section would then discuss the trends and movements among non-experts on the subject. I think there are enough papers out there to still treat the subject without making it "go away", but focusing in on what the experts themselves think. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The question of Book of Mormon geography, (appropriate archaeological setting) can be approached as a historical investigation of LDS sources. There are knowledgeable and objective LDS and non LDS historians that can weigh in on this subject.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is a little off topic - but is a historical investigation of LDS sources appropriate for this article? We are talking about archaeology here, and at least in my mind that means, we should look at what the Book of Mormon claims, and compare it with current research by archaeologists - both Mormon and non-Mormon. If our analysis of the geography of the Book of Mormon does not include archaeology, then the content would be better suited in the Historicity of the Book of Mormon article, or the Limited Geography Model (Book of Mormon) or some thing like that... --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Descartes1979 Doug Weller (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As happens sometimes when I make comments, I thought that I was being clear in what I meant, but I have apparently not conveyed what I had meant to convey. I do think that this article is covering appropriate ground. However, the discussion above seemed (to me) to be getting towards the edges of either only accepting the view of those "mainstream" archaeologist that "disprove" the Book of Mormon, or getting rid of all standards. Either extreme is incorrect. I was simply trying to point out one of these edges that (I saw) was being approached. We need to steer a careful course, providing a good overview of the topic while using the best sources that we can find for this topic. — Val42 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - actually, as I go over this entire discussion, I suspect we probably all agree with Val just said, and perhaps this discussion is getting bogged down and long winded (I am as guilty as anyone), when in reality, we can just push forward with what we have been doing all along...--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I have said suggest abandoning discussions of archeological topics. As you know Archaeologists often make appeals to historians or involve their expertise in examining historical accounts. The kind of historical study and weigh in I am talking about needn’t be aimed at determining the historicity or divinity of the Book of Mormon. I am simply advocating the objective examination of LDS scripture and statements by Joseph Smith and others by qualified historians. This effort would aim at determining the general location of Book of Mormon lands according to the best and most authoritative LDS sources. Historians can also shed light on how the perceived setting for the Book of Mormon has evolved. Again this is not an attempt to prove the divinity of the Book of Mormon or to establish it as ancient scripture one way or the other. Whether or not archaeology supports the setting proposed by the best LDS historical sources is up for investigation and discussion. The work of historians is often helpful in establishing the appropriate locations for archaeologists to focus their attention. Sound historical studies can be indispensable to good archaeology. This is an area where we may find some agreement between objective Mormon and non Mormon scholars. Any way, I appreciate your indulgence!

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

WP:EL "Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." links to avoid:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware on a visitor's computer. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. Links to the results pages of search engines, Search aggregators, or RSS feeds. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

It seems pretty clear that there are too many links and that some of them fit into the list above. I'll start, but help would be nice. Quite a bit is spam (LDS Tours) or other religious groups trying to promote their views. Doug Weller (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 70.241.96.186

The section added by 70.241.96.186 was tagged for cleanup by Descartes1979, and rightly so. But the only possible cleanup is to delete the entire mess. No references, no facts, all OR. And for the love of squirrely dieties, using Lost Jewish Tribes in Japan as support for a later migration by Lehites is like using Bigfoot to prove the existance of the Abominable Snowman. Suffice to say, the section should not be re-added until it is properly referenced, which is another way of saying it won't. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dust Storm

Comments were recently inserted in the section on the Nephites, suggesting that a dust storm might have been the cause of the three days of darkness. While this is an interesting hypothesis, 3 Nephi 8:19-20 informs us that the three days of darkness settled “upon all the face of the land” after “…the storm and the tempest…did cease…” 3 Nephi 10:13-14 suggests that smoke was a contributor to the profound darkness. What evidence is there of lingering darkness long after a dust storm has subsided? What author on the subject of a Book of Mormon setting has suggested this hypothesis? I was about to remove the insertion pending better support. I have decided to stick my neck out however, and improve the syntax of the insertion so it flows better with the paragraph. It is my hope that who ever made the contribution will respond to my questions.

Respectfully,

Kovesh (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A better question is how this relates to archaeology at all. If there is no archaeological evidence related to this hypothesis, it does not belong in this article.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Other explanations of the three days of profound darkness show that the archaeological setting does not require local volcanism. There is of course no explicit mention of monkeys, palm trees or volcanoes in the Book of Mormon. A careful analysis and ranking of original historical sources (i.e. LDS scriptures and verifiable statements by Joseph Smith) can save digging in the wrong place don’t you think? I hope this helps.

Kovesh (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anachronisms

When non-LDS think Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, they think immediately of the anachronisms that are listed in the table in this article (also mentioned in the summary paragraph). As such, I think our focus should be on this section, which is far more important to the topic, than speculating what the setting of the Book of Mormon was, since it poses significant archaeological challenges to the Book of Mormon. I built the table out a few weeks ago, and marked a bunch of sections with the expand tag, but no one has been able to complete the table. Please take a look. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think the speculation on the setting of the Book of Mormon can be greatly consolidated as it treats some pretty fringe topics and digs into too much detail - readers are not going to read through all of that stuff.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Descartes,

Apparently the sections on Book of Mormon settings are getting read and that is why additions are being made to them. My friend, you are good at the mechanics of Wikipedia, making tables, adding flags etc. It is understandable that you would see the neglected anachronism tables as important. The subject is of course is important. The subject of setting is archaeologically crucial. If you would like, I can start adding to these tables. I have studied the subject long enough that even though my area of expertise is original historical documents pertaining to Book of Mormon settings, I can cite several authors on various alleged Book of Mormon anachronisms. I have an advanced degree in an exact science. You can be sure that I will not claim things like positive proof of horses in the Americas during Book of Mormon eras. I can also email several authors, lecturers and website creators and invite their contributions, assuming of course you are not stuck on the popular tourist setting. This could be really interesting.

By the way, have you looked into the meaning of the Hebrew word “shesh” translated “silk” in Proverbs 31:22? I noticed that Sorenson’s comments about “silk” are posted. There is so much more to say. Sounds like you are welcoming assistance.

Respectfully Kovesh (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind explaining to me why the setting of the Book of Mormon is crucial, when all non-Mormon archaeologists reject it on the grounds of the anachronisms? What is crucial is that we have information from apologists regarding the anachronisms. This is the real debate that rages regarding archaeology and the Book of Mormon. The various speculated settings are only debated in Mormon circles which is a very small subset of the world of archaeology. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This article needs cleaning up. The language is sloppy and reeks of anti-mormon sentiment rather than a scholarly work. The editors need to reevaluate the quality of this article.

Be curious, not judgmental. --WaltFrost (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) For instance if you do a casual search on the internet there are many sources that site that there were horses in America thousands of years before Columbus put his foot on American soil. Also there are multiple of digs that show that iron is plentiful in Mesoamerica. Art and architecture of Mesoamerica also included copper/ silver / iron that date to Book of Mormon Times.--WaltFrost (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Another casual search on metallurgical technologies in ancient America puts metal working as early as 1500 B.C. Please see the following references. 6. D. Hosler and G. Stresser Pean, "The Huastec Region: A Second Locus for the Production of Bronze Alloys in Ancient Mesoamerica," Science, 257 (1992), pp. 1215-1220.

7. D. Hosler and Andrew MacFarlane, "Copper Sources, Metal Production and Metals Trade in Late Post-Classic Mesoamerica," Science, 273, (1996), pp. 1819-1824.

8. R. Brill and J. Wampler,"Isotope Studies ofAncient Lead," American of Archaeoloe, 71 (1967), p. 63.

9. E. Pemika, Archaeometry, 35 (1993), p. 259.

10. A.F. MacFarlane (Paper presented at the Har,ard Svmposium on Ancient Metallurgy, September 1997).

II G.L. Cummings, S.E. Kessler, and D. Kristic, Economic Geology 74 (1979), p. 1395.

12. D. Hosler, "Six Metal Production Sites in the Tierra Caliente of Guerrero" (unpublished research).

13. H. Ball and D. Brockinton, Mesoamerican Comlmunication Routes and Cultural Contacts, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, 40, pp. 75-106. </ref>

That is great information - why don't you include it in the article for further scrutiny?--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I can see why there is so much doubt about anything archaeological. The ability to actually think escapes the editors of this article.--WaltFrost (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Please see the following references http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5348/is_199905/ai_n21438921</ref> For those who cannot read this sites work of Dorothy Hosler who is an associate professor at the Center for Archaeological Materials, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology along with many other scientists.

I am looking through your references and they only prove you wrong. For example, the work of Dorothy Hosler states very clearly that metallurgy first appeared in AD 700, 300 years after the final events in the Book of Mormon. This is still a glaring anachronism. Also, as far as horses and elephants are concerned, yes they existed, but the archaeological record is near unequivical in showing that they went extinct thousands of years before the Jaredites set foot on America. There have been some finds that show horse remains, but everyone of them is disputed, and mainstream archaeologists don't accept them. Same goes for iron ore - I read one article that convincingly showed that the new iron ore finds, don't actually date to ancient times, but are really crude furnaces from the 17th century French settlers.

I guess what I am saying is, I would need to see some better references than what you have given so far - some quotes would be nice.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote"The first Andean evidence for metallurgy dates to around 1500 B.C. " site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5348/is_199905/ai_n21438921

it is in the middle of the page.--WaltFrost (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

QUOTE"After 1200-1300, West Mexican metalworkers produced Cu-As (Figure 2) and Cu-Sn bronze and Cu-Ag alloys to produce gold and silver colors and to optimize the design of objects previously made in copper.1-4 The properties of the two bronze alloys allowed metalworkers to cast more intricate complex bell designs and fashion larger, more elaborate tweezers; thinner and harder axes; and longer, finer sewing needles.

SITE:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5348/is_199905/ai_n21438921 also in the middle of the page--WaltFrost (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok so we have established metallurgy anciently, thanks for guiding me to the quotes. Now what about the anachronisms specifically? Any quotes on metal swords for example? It looks like one of your quotes doesn't put metal objects in Mexico until after 1200 - that is still an anachronism. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry getting late good catch. I just wanted to establish that iron ore was available in limited quantities. for instance this link: search iron. It is mostly used in small art specifically mirrors in the Formative era. http://books.google.com/books?id=46D0HO89P9sC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=iron+mesoamerica&source=web&ots=zIt0qDjHF8&sig=HFq0hXcPg-DWfHcL0F9xTd0n4Y8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA70,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltFrost (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

With Steel we need to take it into context. The Jaredites made a type of steel but because of the conditions when the steel was discovered by the people of Limhi they were rusted to the hilt. Very rapid rusting in this tropical climate with the type of steel they were making. Nephi describes the FINE steel of Laban and his fine steel bow differing it from the steel that the early Nephites made but there is an absence of steel ever mentioned again except for the sword of Laban. So from this information we can assume 3 things. The Jaredites possessed the knowledge to make steel that rusted in the tropical conditions relatively rapidly. Nephi possessed steel from the middle east that was of high quality. He knew how to make steel that was of lesser quality and because of limited raw materials or loss of knowledge we do not hear about it again in the Book of Mormon narative. My point is that we know that there have been found small amounts of iron ore in mesoamerica. Andean craftwork may have been preserved longer in higher more arid climates hence the earlier dating. If iron ore was to be found it would have to be excavated being preserved from the elements. All you need to make crude steel is iron ore, knowledge and carbon. From what I have read you need nickel to make fine steel which we make today or can be found in meteorite ore. Interesting I think. I'll work on it more and try to give you specific, correct, quotes and links. This will make the editing faster. Thanks.--WaltFrost (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Descartes,

Whether or not the Book of Mormon is accepted as a translation of an ancient text, it has a setting. LDS and non-LDS historians alike can tell us something about how this setting was originally perceived and how it has evolved. Establishing the setting based on the best LDS sources is the most logical approach archaeologically. Do your historical homework, choose the best setting based on the best LDS sources (i.e. LDS scripture and Joseph Smith’s statements), investigate archaeological literature, and collections, and go digging. You may not find anything to support the Book of Mormon, then again, you might. At least you know you have done your research, and have tried not to be merely a propagandist.

Here is an example from Biblical archaeology: Presently there is not a lot of archaeological proof that Solomon’s temple actually stood on Jerusalem’s Mt Moriah (I’m not talking about the temple of Herod under construction in Jesus’ days). Yet this is where the Bible says Solomon’s temple stood. You can choose to concoct an argument that there was another Mt Moriah, down in Egypt, and you may even raise funds to go digging around the ample and impressive ruins of Egypt. You may even find an Egyptian analog to the Ark of the Covenant. You may create such a sensation that tours become a profitable prospect, but I don’t think you are justified in doing so, and objective Bible scholars are not going to give a shekel for you endeavors.

Are you beginning to see why setting is so important to good archaeologists? You want to swat at flies. I want to see good research done. I’m very interested in details. I and others are glad to help you where we can.

Regarding horses: If someone has found convincing evidence that a variety of horse inhabited the Americas during Book of Mormon times, I’m interested!

Best Regards, Kovesh (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point, and I would appreciate it if you didn't patronize me - I am editing here in good faith. All I am saying is that when we talk about Archaeology related to the Book of Mormon, the vast number of readers automatically think about the anachronisms, such as horses - so we need to make sure that section is covered well. I am not against having a bunch of other stuff on the setting etc. But the fullest treatment needs to be given to the anachronisms, and the apologetic perspectives of those anachronisms - that is where the mainstream debates are happening outside of LDS circles. I am not coming at this with an agenda - its just that the section on the anachronisms is woefully incomplete regarding apologetic perspectives, and right now it is rather embarrassing to have an anachronism listed, and then not apologetic response. I know those responses are out there by LDS archaeologists, I just don't know what they are, and I could use help completing that table. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello all! One note in the table where metals are discussed and the statement is made that the pre-columbian people were stuck in the stone age is totally inaccurate. SEE: Quote"The first Andean evidence for metallurgy dates to around 1500 B.C. " site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5348/is_199905/ai_n21438921 it is in the middle of the page.----WaltFrost (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi I've not read this entire debate, nor do i plan to, but i did want to chime in on one thing. I believe that the article should do much more than only treat the anachronisms and apologetic perspectives (maybe that was meant for just for one section), but it needs to discuss everything that is considered. Things from volcanic ice core studies, to iron found in north and south america, to the similar weights and measures used to day in peru, to horses, elephants, and more. nothing should be left out, and it should be completely comprehsenseive. We are not tied by space here like other treatments of the topic. We should treat both pro and con beliefs equally. Descartes, i think that most non-mormons, don't have an opinion about bom archaeology. having been involved in archaeology, i know most people just don't care. Only critics, interested parties adn Mormons care. and within those circles, there is much debate as you know. we need to include it all. I will say on the scholarly front outside of BYU, that there is much more support for it than against it if we line up each claim the book of mormon states. There was a study on this at teh Joseph smith conference in DC a few years ago, and a follow up where each is listed by the same researcher if you want a starting place, that would be a good scholarly start rather than other sources by the untrained on either side of the debate. -Visorstuff (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read several articles by non-Mormon archaeologists - most recently the one by Coe in Dialogue - and he has several points where he mentions the overall feeling amongst Archaeologists in general on the topic. For sure you are correct that there are probably many many times more articles and research by Mormons on this topic, but there is enough from the non-Mormon community to show a good idea what the general consensus is - at least that is my sense - feel free to prove me wrong. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Most non-LDS don't study it. Those who line up each individual claim of the book of mormon that can be tested by archeaology decide there is strong evidence both for and against it. Glad you agree. -Visorstuff (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha, loving y'alls little debate. I did have one point though, concerning the prevalence of research supporting the BoM, and lack of scholarly research debunking it. Most non mormons who enter the field of archaeology don't do it to debunk Mormonism, whereas most Mormons who enter archaeology, well, you see where I'm going.

Incidentally, the iron thing is a dead debate. Its pretty much a fact after the scientic american article about Andean iron mines in operation 1000 BCE. Ive not seen evidence outside of book of Mormon critics who disagreee with iron being avaialble in the new world during those times. Use of it was not widespread due to cost, and lack of preservation is also explained by many non-Mormon archaologists now. anyway, that wasn't my point of chiming in...-Visorstuff (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say dead debate - you refer to existence of iron of course. The topic of metal swords and scimitars is another thing altogether - everything I have read says that metals were only used as ornaments, never as weapons. This agrees with the state of the American peoples when Europeans came along - who found them in essentially in the Stone Age. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Partially. There is evidence of iron as weapons in the americas (but primarily among the mound builders in north america), however, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Iron is only mentioned a half-dozen times in the book of Mormon. First Nephi is the only place where "iron" is mentioned as a weapon - and that is specific to the Sword of Laban. The other iron mentions are as a precious metal (ie a taxed item) or in conjuction with other precious items like gold and silver -- as you would say "ornamental." See the other refereces of iron at Mosiah 11: 3, 8; Ether 10: 23. It is evident based on the book of mormon text that the sword of laban was seen as different than other weapons used by the nephites, one of those differences could have been iron, who knows. As a side note, i didn't treat "steel," which is mentioned in ether as a weapon material. That is a problem. Especially if you define it as an iron alloy, not as an alloy of metal as the term was used in the middle ages. (as a side note, Wikipedia's article on [Jade use in Mesoamerica] states that jade used in the areas discussed in thsi article had a heavy composition of iron). The lack of metal swords, like the steel swords used by the people of jared, or the existence of the sword of laban, should be discussed in this article, i agree. But so should the ornamental use as outlined above and confirmed by research. my whole point is to include both, which i know you'll do, having worked with you in the past. -Visorstuff (talk)00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My friends, I have copied the “anachronisms” table on my USB. I will be reviewing it over the weekend.

Just a thought: So much of the English Book of Mormon parallels the language of the KJV. If you were to translate literally “yam suf” which means “reed sea”, most westerners wouldn’t know what you are talking about. “Red Sea” they relate to. Of course the ancient Israelite did not call the sea of reeds the “Red Sea”. Similarly, we often make presumption about certain scriptural terms like “steel” without looking deeper into the origin of these translated terms. The Hebrew word translated “steel” as in “bow of steel” (Psalm 18:34, KJV) is actually “nechushah”. A Hebrew / Aramaic lexicon will explain that this term refers to a hardened copper alloy (not hardened iron). The ancient Israelites had hardened copper (bronze like) alloys. Bronze is “nechoshet”. “Nechushah” is a similar. Copper alloys will nevertheless oxidize (rust). Rust doesn’t necessarily have to mean iron oxide. We need to be careful about our presumptions.

Kovesh (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So put that information in the article. Just to be clear, you are correct based on the assumption that the Book of Mormon was an authentic historical document. If you are of the mind that Joseph made it up, then these anachronisms suddenly carry much more weight as it is more likely that they really mean what they say, rather than having some deeper unknown meaning. But of course that is the heart of the debate between those that accept the Book of Mormon, and those who don't. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Translating a document from another time and culture is not trivial. Translators of ancient texts are constantly torn between performing literal translation that they know will baffle a large modern audience or fudging the translation a little with substitutions for the sake of conveying some sense of familiarity and meaning. Which is more important, scholarly accuracy or successful communication to a larger audience? I tend to think that the scriptures do a good balancing act on this problem. Often times the greater, deeper, more accurate understanding is left to those who will “search these things diligently”.

Job 20:24 (KJV) reads “He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him though.” Especially with “iron” (Heb: “barzel”) mentioned first, the vast majority of western Bible readers get the impression that “steel” surely must mean hardened iron in the verse. Their salvation may be secure, but they are all wrong about this scriptural detail and need to either look it up on the LDS scriptures resource CD-ROM advanced study guide (under transliterated Hebrew / English and click on dictionary - you don’t have to know Hebrew to use it) or they need to talk to a rabbi.

I really do like you Descartes, and I’m working on the “anachronisms”. Kovesh (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"...there were elephants..."

I recently added to the elephant section. I'm working my way down the list. Regards, Kovesh (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anachronisms and Balance

I have noticed that this section and most of the article is written in a very unbalanced way. This must be a favorite editing place for critics of the Book of Mormon. Archaeologists in general probably have no interest in the Book of Mormon unless they are funded by people interested in the book of mormon or critics. Since this article is here we need to try to present an article that shows all sides in a meaningful way. Be curious, not judgmental. --WaltFrost (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As I read through the article there is incredible redundancy. This article needs to focus on the archaeology not statements (I think that is politics; different section).--WaltFrost (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Archaeologists in general probably have no interest in the Book of Mormon unless they are funded by people interested in the book of mormon or critics." Be careful when you make a statement like that. Have you read Coe's article in Dialogue? I think that is a much better place to get an idea of what Archaeologists "in general" think about the Book of Mormon, and a good overview of the research that has been done on the topic. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the recent and furious editing

Couple of thoughts on the recent editing on the anachronisms table.

1. Column headers - we are getting confused I think on the objective of the columns. Originally it was "Evidence" vs. "Apologist", then it was "Criticism" vs. "Apologist", now it is "Criticism" vs. "Apologist, with rebuttals". The problem we are having is if we keep all criticisms in one column, and all apologetics in the other, then things get confusing - like a rebuttal to an apologist in the criticism column, which precedes the actual apologetic response - the dialog is out of order and confusing to the reader. I see two solutions:
   1. Get rid of the table altogether, and go back to sub headings, one for each anachronism. This will allow more free form editing, that is not constricted by the columns in the table.
   2. Make the first column "Criticism" and the second column "Apologist perspective and debate" to allow for the rebuttals from both sides.

Personally I like the first idea.

1. Lets all be double careful about reading the edit histories if an edit has been reverted - I see several times where the reason for a revert may have been missed by the other party (I am as guilty as the next person). In order to avoid an edit war, lets make sure we fully understand the reason for a revert.
2. Lets all be very specific in our citations. These are specific anachronisms, and the Book of Mormon has specific boundaries in geography and time. Mammoths in Siberia in 2000 B.C. do not prove Elephants lived in America.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the table to a series of sub-headers - revert if you disagree, but as I stated above, I think this will be more condisive to the heavy editing that is occurring, and will allow for more information from both critical and apologetic perspectives. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello All! I find it comical that for instance barley and pigs cannot be found in America yet they can be found in our own backyard(Wikipedia). If you have a hard time with facts that are easily accessible you'll struggle to find things that require any effort. The problem is that critics are looking at the New World with an Old World view and they will miss so many things. Galileo had difficulties trying to prove things that others could not see, but with time the majority was proven totally wrong. The abscence of our knowledge about something, does not mean it does not exist. As archaeological knowledge of the Americas continues to expand so will the veracity of the Book of Mormon come to light.--WaltFrost (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course that is your POV - but if someone has the perspective that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, then it is much more likely that his words meant what they said in an Old World paradigm. Ever consider why Joseph didn't use the word "bison" if that's what he really meant? or the word "Peccary" if that is what he meant there? We could haggle our POV's till we are blue in the face - but for the purposes of Wikipedia, we have to cite the opinions of professional archaeologists and apologists, not our own. Otherwise we are engaging in WP:Original Research --Descartes1979 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Bison are native to America and are in the same subfamily as cows, and that little barley was cultivated by pre-columbians is a fact and not my POV. You asked for people to fill in the gaps with opinions of archaeologists or apologists. I have tried to pull information from Archaeologists mostly. Oh sorry, about the dating and placement of the mammoths. I was merely trying to show that mammoths lived until 2000 BC so it is not totally inconceivable that they could have lived on the American continent until that time. As you correctly stated that in America they have only been dated to 6000BC. The document claims to be the TRANSLATION of Old world views. The people gave names to the animals they encountered. If the reformed egyptian said pig the translator would write pig. Since the writers emphasis was religious they did not take the time to say we ate (for example)

"medium-sized animals, with a strong superficial resemblance to pigs. Like pigs, they have a snout ending in a cartilagenous disc, and eyes that are small relative to their head. Also like pigs, they use only the middle two digits for walking, although, unlike pigs, the other toes may be altogether absent. Their stomach is non-ruminating, although it has three chambers, and is more complex than that of pigs."

I am grateful for your careful attention to detail but in the meantime you're missing the big picture.--WaltFrost (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You said: "If reformed egyptian said pig, the translator would write pig". By that same logic do you think that the reformed egyptian said adieu(Jacob 7:27)? Of course not - it is well established that Joseph Smith used judgement in his translations of reformed egyptian. The big question is why didn't he say "bison" instead of "Cows" for example? Non of us would look at a bison and say "there goes a cow", or a "herd of cattle."--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering what "big picture" you are referring to. Is that the idea that white Nephites herded peccaries and bison, rode horses that didn't exist, dined on wheat that was actually corn or some other grain, and somehow the Lamanites cleaned up all 200,000 swords and breastplates after the battle of Cumorah and give them back to God so they would never be found? Or that the Jaredites raised mastadons, but then somehow travelled in time to deposit all of their remains 6000 years before they ever reached the Americas? And that some unseen power has hidden over two million swords and breastplates from being found at Cumorah by these people? I suppose you think that Zelph walked over 600 miles after being wounded in New York only to die in the midwest - of course his entire civilization lived in Mesoamerica according to the Limited Geography Model, so I guess two warring nations picked up (men, women, and children mind you, according to the BOM), walked thousands of miles, then had a battle - all the time leaving no trace of their existence? Never mind that archaeology conclusively shows that humans arrived in North America 2000-4000 years before Adam and Eve were ejected from Adam-ondi-ahman. No - the truth of the matter is this: Linguistics, Genetics, and Archaeology paint a rather conclusive picture of the history of this continent, and the Book of Mormon is preposterous in its attempt at an accurate history. Sure FARMS will find a piece of evidence here or another there that will dull the blow of reason, but the blow will always be fatal. Of course, all of this is my POV, and you can edit as you will to make sure there is balance to your side of the argument. But you can't tell me that there is some other "big picture" that I am missing here.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious cites and context

I just want to make sure everyone is doubly sure to read the references they cite, and make sure they really are applicable. In the last couple of days I have removed a bunch of text on three occasions in which a cite was given that on the surface gave credence to the idea that Elephants existed in the Americas in the times of the Book of Mormon. Upon reading into the references, all three turned out to be either gross eggerations, or utterly false.

1. "Elephant mound" of the mound builder societies in the Mississippi given as a support that Elephants existed - Upon investigation, it turns out that the mound is widely disputed, and one survey concluded that it was actually a bear, not an elephant.
2. One reference stated that Mammoths existed in America up until 2000 B.C. - Upon investigation the cite was for Siberia, not for America
3. One reference stated that medals were found showing elephants on them - Upon investigation, the author of the paper admitted that they were probably not pre-historic since they had Latin symbols on them, and were probably traded to the Indians by a French explorer.

Lets be careful guys, this article should reflect the solid scholarship that has been done by thousands of archaeologists, not the bending of truths to support the claims of the LDS church. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ironic to me that several people have attacked me as being less than honest about my editing when this sort of garbage is being added to the article. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful reading of those documents. However, your edits continued to be biased towards the critics point of view.--207.224.196.59 (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what edits have been biased - I am trying to be balanced and would appreciate any constructive criticism. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Example #1 Compasses in The Book of Mormon. Descartes1979 I'm very impressed with your attention to detail, but it is lacking when in regards to the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There is no references to the BofM people making compasses. The only directors mentioned the BofM were passed on from king to king and eventually buried with the plates and the sword of Laban. Thanks for the compass history. The Chinese have made great contributions to the world.

--WaltFrost (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Though they are controversial, I believe that references to elephant effigy pipes (mound builder platform style) should definitely be included in the section. You have convinced me that the reference to the elephant bronze medallions should be removed. Images I have seen of the “elephant mound” (American Ethnology Bureau etc.) look much more like an elephant than a bear – hence the local name “elephant mound”. Part of its trunk may have worn away by now, but I’m still hard pressed to see a bear in the earlier survey drawings. It was pointed out in the section that these were controversial. This evidence has not been proven or disproven to be genuine. Except for the reference to the elephant medallions, the additions were fare, and are for the most part referred to by LDS authors. By the way there is more about elephants in the American Anthropologist article than the bronze medallions. The effigy pipes are mentioned there as well. What about the claim that Mastodon remains were exhumed from a mound by a representative (Norris) of the Bureau of American Ethnology? The earliest mound builder cultures of North America date to the Jaredites era? Perhaps this should have been made clearer in the write up. If you are asking for hard proof, of course there is none at the present time, and I believe the write up made this clear. I don’t know who added the Indian elephant anecdote, but there are other Native American tribes with legends of “mastodons” that can be cited. I could include these. You’re doing your job, even though the swaths you cut out are sometimes too large.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to Descartes1979. Example #2 In the BofM the text says the Lord referred to windows and not the Jaredites. Windows were also mentioned in Genesis 6:16.

A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

:--WaltFrost (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Windows are referred in the Old testament 28 times. This was not a new concept to the old or new world. In Isaiah they are made out of agate. It is naive of us to think that their windows were made of silicon dioxide. A morning-glory at my window satisfies me more than the metaphysics of books. --WaltFrost (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Hebrew word translated “window” in Genesis 6:16 is “tsohar”. It means “splendor”, “brightness” - a light source of some sort is implied, not necessarily a pane of glass. It’s not entirely clear what is being referred to in this verse. A “window” a “porthole” a “door way”? The word translated window in Genesis 8:6 is “chalon”. Here’s you window! Covered? Yes, but not necessarily by a glass pane. Just because a thin porthole covering is prone to be dashed in pieces doesn’t mean it is made of glass.

Kovesh (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should re-read the Book of Mormon on this topic - it is obvious that the windows were intended to be a source of light - that is the whole reason why they were mentioned in the first place. An opening with a covering that is not transparent is not a source of light. It must either be a hole with no covering or a transparent pane of some kind - but then a hole with no covering cannot be "dashed to pieces". It is much more reasonable that Joseph Smith had windows in mind, of the sort he was familiar with. It doesn't matter what the Bible says - the Book of Mormon wasn't written in Hebrew. Besides - didn't you just argue that "if the reformed egyptian said window, then it was translated as window"? My points aside - whatever you might believe about this topic, it should still mentioned because critics have long cited this as a glaring anachronism, and it has particular relevance to archaeology since there is no archaeological evidence that these types of windows existed. If you disagree, add it to the apologist perspective, but do not remove it. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again your reading of the Book of Mormon is imprecise. Windows were DISCUSSED (not made) in the Old World as an idea. It was never mentioned as being made. This is not a new idea to the time period of the tower of Babel as it was after the flood.--WaltFrost (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The same issue with the ONLY (physical) compass NOT made by the family of Lehi; found in the OLD world brought to the new world and buried with the plates. You can't find a compass in South America because there never was one to be found according to the writings and translations of Joseph Smith.--WaltFrost (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The same is true for windows, as I said above, you will never find them because they were never made. Stick to the text.--WaltFrost (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Descartes,

Think about it. Even a glass window would not have been a continual source of light – right? Of course the Ether text talks about windows in the context of lighting. You can get light when you open a covered window, but this does not have to mean glass windows. The upper window on Noah’s multi-story ark was covered. It could be opened! Pay attention. A window like Noah’s on a smaller vessel in terribly rough seas is a bad idea. Whatever covered the widow port could be dashed in pieces. We are not talking about small air holes with plugs. Quit reading things into the text that aren’t specifically there. There is nothing in the word “chalon” translated “window” in Genesis, that suggest it was covered with a glass pane, but it was covered! There is nothing to suggest that windows dashed in pieces had to be covered with a glass pane. It seems that the Brother of Jared was able to melt clear rock. Perhaps he could have fused silica (as in sand) to make glass, but then what was to stop him from making really thick glass out of a lot of melted sand? The point is, this is not the first time in scripture that covered windows had been proposed for sea going boats. The Lord thought the covered window idea for these small vessels was a bad one – that’s all we can say. You want to promote an alleged anachronism here, because you see it as significant. I do not agree.

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to reformed Egyptian. Are you confusing me with someone else? I didn’t remove the erroneous section, but I’m glad that it was removed.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear here - I am not making this assertion - that would be WP:OR. This assertion is made by many critics of the church, we can gather the cites if you want - just add the tags {{cn}} or {{fact}} to the assertions that need cites.. However, I tend to agree with them. The fact of the matter is this - we are looking at this from two different perspectives. If you don't think Joseph Smith was a prophet, then "Windows" is a glaring anachronism. If you think that he was a prophet, you will find some explanation as to why it is not. I mention reformed egyptian because you keep quoting the bible and the hebrew word for windows there - the word "Windows" in the BOM was allegedly written in reformed egyptian, not Hebrew - but much more likely it was just written in English as Joseph thought of it. Again, which makes it a glaring anachronism since windows weren't invented for many many years. In the end, as I said before, just add your perspective to the section - I have no problem with that, but don't delete it, this is a frequently cited criticism that needs to be mentioned.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see that we are not communicating. To be an anachronism a person or a thing has to be chronologically out of place. The idea of windows was had since before the tower of Babel. Thus the idea of a window was not anachronistic in 2500BC.

Since God is all knowing anachronisms do not apply to him. So in summary the idea window was not anachronistic in 2500BC and the idea of the compass will never be anachronistic to God. This doesn't even fit the definition of an anachronism and therefore cannot stand. We cannot perpetuate critisms that have no substance.--WaltFrost (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we are not communicating - I don't know why you can't just add these arguments to the article rather than continually reverting my edits. Ever consider that if there is no God, then the word "compass" is absolutely anachronistic? And the "idea" of a window may have been had long ago, but a transparent "window" for lighting that could be "dashed to pieces" was definitely not in existence. Clearly an anachronism. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ahh. I understand you now. If you don't believe in God then this article is a waste of your time. That is the whole basis of the Book of Mormon. Inspite of what you believe the text says that they did not make windows so you can't find them and they didn't make compasses so you can't find them either. The Book of Mormon agrees with you; they don't materially exist in the archaeological record of the New World.--WaltFrost (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"If you don't believe in God then this article is a waste of your time." - This sentence makes my question whether you understand the purpose of this article and the nature of Wikipedia. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

This article is extremely long and needs some trimming or splitting.--WaltFrost (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and as such there is no limit to the amount of information that can be added to a given article. However, I agree, there is an awful lot of fringe stuff written in here that could be consolidated.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cattle, etc.

Previously, seven instances of “cattle” were said to occur in the Book of Mormon. Who ever did the counting included a quote from Isaiah that refers to “lesser cattle” (2 Nephi 17:25) Just for the record, “lesser cattle” are not cows. We are talking about flocks here. A brief clarification about the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “cattle” in the KJV has been added.

This brings up the question of the applicability of Hebrew to Nephite scripture. Moroni explains that the plates were written “in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian…” This does not mean that spoken Nephite was mostly a variant of spoken Egyptian. "...language of the Egyptians" could mosly have to do with written language. Apparently the “characters” used on the plates were even more consolidated than Hebrew (e.g. whole words or concepts represented by single symbols, where as Hebrew leaves out vowels). It is evident from scripture that the Nephites knew and used a form of Hebrew right up until the demise of their civilization, hence Mormon 9:32-33. The Torah (Books of Moses) referenced by the Nephites were of course Semitic, as also the Hebrew prophets cited so often. Numerous names in the Book of Mormon are Hebrew based. It is not at all a stretch to take the familiar KJV terminology of the English Book of Mormon back to original Biblical languages.

You want an anachronism take a look at the use of “alpha and omega” in the Book of Mormon. It probably should be “aleph and tav”, but few westerners relate to this. The New Testament expression they get. There are numerous other linguistic “anachronisms” in the Book of Mormonm - I think for the sake of communication. I’m not about to go into all that! There are serious “anachronisms” in the Book of Daniel for that matter – and yes, I am interested in the Babylonian setting of the Book of Daniel and still think the book should be classed as scripture.

By the way, glass manufacturing goes back atleast to 2000 BC.

Regards, Kovesh (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The academically accepted setting for the Book of Mormon:

Whether or not scholars accept the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, it has a setting. The original setting for the Book of Mormon is accepted by historians who study the 19th century literary genre treating North America’s mysterious mound builders. Historians have arrived at the Book of Mormon’s mound builder setting by purely secular means.

Even if you don’t agree with the academically accepted setting (for what ever reasons), or even if you have arrived at the same setting by study and by faith, the following article is a must read for anyone who wishes to understand the original setting for the Book of Mormon (before all the hubbub about Stephens' stone ruins):

Robert Silverberg, “and the mound-builders vanished from the earth”, American Heritage Magazine, June 1969, Volume 20, Issue 4

look up www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1969/4/1969_4_60.shtml

or just search under author's name and article title

Enjoy, Kovesh (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "acadmenically accepted setting" for the Book of Mormon. Maybe among apologists and FARMS, but every non-Mormon archaeologist, and quite a few Mormon archaeologists (e.g. Tom Ferguson) who have evaluated the evidence objectively have come to the same conclusion. The archaeological evidence does not support the Book of Mormon. It just doesn't exist. You are grossly mischaracterizing what academics, historians, and archaeologists think on this topic. By the way, your link above is broken, so I can't read the article. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

By using the word setting, I am not suggesting the acceptance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I mean the setting of a book that is considered a work of 19th century fiction! I tried to make this clear. Works considered fiction can also have settings! right? Ask a historian who studies 19th century literary genre. In know you will be able to find the article on the web.

Regards, Kovesh (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I read through your article above, and found it very informative. Especially concerning the elephant mound and the effigy pipes:

As Thomas laid his plans, another Bureau of Ethnology staff member, Henry W. Henshaw, fired the opening salvo of the campaign in the bureau’s second annual report, published in 1883. Henshaw took out after Squier and Davis, though paying homage to their “skill and zeal” and to “the ability and fidelity which mark the presentation of their results to the public.” He punctured certain erroneous zoological conclusions that they had drawn from animal-effigy pipes, which to them seemed to indicate Mound Builder commerce with South America and Africa. Then he turned on the famous elephant effigies “found” in Iowa, pronouncing them clumsy fakes. This drew outraged cries from the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences in Iowa, which had sponsored the discovery of the elephant pipes and resented the “intemperate zeal” of the Bureau of Ethnology, which from its “commanding position … in the world of science” had chosen to deliver “an attack of no ordinary severity … upon the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences.”

While Henshaw battled with the lowans over the authenticity of the elephant pipes, Thomas and his assistants roamed the Midwest and Southeast, collecting thousands of artifacts from mounds, including a good many of European manufacture, such as silver bracelets and crosses and specimens of machine-worked copper. All this served to reinforce Powell’s original conviction that

… a few, at least, of the important mounds of the valley of the Mississippi had been constructed and used subsequent to the occupation of the continent by Europeans, and that some, at least, of the mound builders were therefore none other than known Indian tribes.

Note that the pipes are considered "clumsy fakes", and that the mounds included many artifacts of "European manufacture." Also, remember that this survey by the Bureau of Ethnology was the one that concluded that the "Elephant mound" was not a really an elephant, and that it was more likely some other animals such as a bear, if you look at the picture of the mound it could just as easily be an anteater, or some other animal with an elongated nose. The article goes on to explain the modern theories behind the mound builder culture, and they do not agree with the idea that elephants were contemporary with that culture.

In short, great article Kovesh, thanks for the find, but it does your case considerable damage.--Descartes1979 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know. That is why I referenced the article in the elephant anachronism section. I have an earlier U.S. survey drawing of the “elephant mound” and to me it really does look like an elephant. I get a kick out of the ancient aardvark suggestion though, and would consider it a possibility except for the absence of a bushy tail. The mound-builder elephant controversy is one that occurred among professionals. Others firmly defended the legitimacy of the pachyderm platform pipes. If they are a fake, it seems to me they would have to have been the work of someone familiar with mound builder pipe styles. I leave the subject a curious controversy. I don’t know the answer!

Here is my greater focus: Wide eyed LDS enthusiasts have been all too anxious to go trotting off to Central America before doing the right kind of historical research. To say that there is no professionally recognized Book of Mormon archaeology is correct. To say that there is no academically accepted Book of Mormon setting is incorrect. Historians classify the Book of Mormon as a work of 19th century American fiction whose setting fits into the popular “mound-builder” genre of the day.

Have a good weekend!

Oh, by the way, in the Hebrew and Egyptian section are we suggesting that the Maya were just an extension of the earlier Olmec and that is why we credit the Maya with the first written language in the Americas?

Regards, Kovesh (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mastodon Remains in a Wisconsin Mound

Pending more information about the reported mastodon remains removed from a mound by Norris of the Bureau of American Ethnology, I have removed the reference.

Kovesh (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - I think we all need to remember that the existence of large mammals such as mastadons, saber tooth tigers, and horses in the Americas is not disputed - there is ample archaeological evidence of their existence. What is disputed is when. All of these species have been conclusively shown to have gone extinct around 15,000 - 10,0000 B.C., right about the time of the arrival of man on the American continent. (Which by the way has lead at least several archaeologists to postulate that man hunted them to extinction around that time - see Guns, Germs, and Steel).

What does this mean? It means that barring some report of remains that date during the period of 2500 B.C. to 400 A.D., the reference should probably not be included in the article, since it does not address the anachronism mentioned in the Book of Mormon.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.

I have added some commentary to the Iron and Steel section.

Kovesh (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This page has very serious problems with original research. The vast majority of the content appears to be a synthesis of primary sources like the book of Mormon and secondary archaeological sources that do not contain any mentions of the the stories in the book Mormon. This is not acceptable. I realize a great deal of work has gone into compiling this page, but it is very far from being an Encyclopedia article at this point. The core policy to look at when discussing this topic is WP:FRINGE which lays out ground rules for dealing with topics that are only marginally acknowledged by the mainstream field of study. In the next couple of days I will be trying to excise as much of the original research as possible, in the meantime if actual sources discussing both archeology and the book of Mormon can be found it would be it would be very helpful. --Leivick (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I just cut out something that had just been added which was clearly OR. Doug Weller (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research if it involves a synthesis done by someone else and the synthesizer is clearly mentioned.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the references in this article do not mention a particular "synthesizer." Most of the arguements are made by mixing Book of Mormon references with unrelated archaelogical references. --Leivick (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - we need to be better at quoting both critics and apologists or other experts who weigh in and do the synthesizing themselves. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Defense of FARMS review

While the FARMS review may in some instances be less than the best, if they are quoting a legitimate source, and that is where I got it it works. I could be like some people, and lie and reference the book about Aztec Warfare, but I did not look it up there.

Dialogue is not a neutral publication. Metcalfe was able to publish a slanderous and dishonest attack on those who believe in the Book of Mormon in that publication.

In a lot of ways the whole cimiter debate is built around attacks on the idea that a word did not exist, which has no relevance to whether a word could have been translated as such. If we want to talk about totally irrelevant discussion that is it.

I have left in place the totally unsourced argument about the Persian, Turkish and Greek limits of the use of the cimeter. Yet people have the audacity to claim that my source is not good enough on the case of the Spainards having cimeters.

Do not tell me that is irrelevant. The Spaniards prove that cimeters are more wide spread than the previous statement admits.

Anatolia is relevant to the discussion because the Book of Mormon alleges Near Eastern origins for some peoples in ancient America. If we can find the practice of a royal weapon that is unlike the weapon other people use, than it works.

Yet as I have said already, I provide sources for this information. What was unsourced were allegations about there being "dozens" of references to cimiters.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy John - remember that all of the above is your POV. Everyone has a POV here - and on a page about Archaeology, we should respect the prevailing thought of professional archaeologists. A couple of specific responses:

1. I was suggesting on your talk page that there are more balanced places to get information than the FARMS Review. I am not saying that we absolutely must not use it, just that we should avoid it, since The FARMS Review's stated purpose is to argue against published material that is critical of Mormonism. Also note that the information that I removed from your edits was already in the article, there was no need to restate it again, and use a biased source. It is good info, just trying to keep things concise.
2. The discussion about cimiters is absolutely not irrelevant. The word scimiter, and curved metal swords absolutely did not exist in America during the time of the Book of Mormon. Sure there may be an explanation that Mormons can buy regarding the translation of the word, but for many people this is a tenuous explanation.
3. The statements about Turkish and Greek scimitars is unsourced because it is so widely accepted. If you want a source, we could probably find thousands - but it is not disputed.
4. Anatolia is absolutely irrelevant because this article deals with archaeology in AMERICA. The whole point is that regardless of what was going on in other continents, there is no evidence of metal swords and scimitars in AMERICA.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of edits that I have reverted

I just want to spell out very clearly why I am reverting the edits by Johnpacklambert so that we can perhaps come to a consensus:

1. Johns edit: "There is one reference to a metal sword in the Book of Mormon after 500 B.C., and this is a sword brought from the old world. It is true that in 2 Nephi 5:14 Nephi mentions making many swords, but the text does not state that they were made of medal."
   1. This statement absolutely minimizes the scope of the anachronism of metal swords. There are at least three explicit references to metal swords (the sword of Laban, the swords fashioned after it, and the millions that "cankered with rust"). That is at least three - not to mention the hundreds of mentions of the word "sword" itself, which reasonably were all metal swords since they were probably fashioned after the sword of Laban as stated in 2 Nephi. You can't tell me that there is only ONE reference to a metal sword.
2. Johns edit: "Another factor in the sword debate goes to what constitutes a sword. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne have provided an indepth study of references that use the term sword, or at least its Spanish language equivalent in decribing pre-Columbian weapons. Most of these sources were translated to English and given the term sword by people who were not supporters of the Book of Mormon."
   1. This content is already in the article more clearly and with less of a POV tone in the following sentence: "Apologists counter that many references to swords do not speak of the material they were made of, and that they may refer to the Macuahuitl was a sword made of obsidian blades that was used by the Aztecs."
   2. Also remember, that the word "sword" is not being called an anachronism here - what we are dealing with are METAL swords, of which there is absolutely no evidence in the Americas.
3. Johns edit: "However this is a false argument. Joseph Smith did not claim that the Nephites or Lamanites ever called the items in quetion cimiters. He gives this as the best English translation of the word or idea. The general consensus is that the cimiter is a curved weapon. There are many depictions in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican art of warriors using curved weapons. Cimiter is a workable English word for the weapon, quite probably the closest any existing English word in the 1820s would come to describing these weapons."
   1. Two things: 1) The wording here is very POVish. 2) Also the majority of this content already exists in the article. I kept some of it even though I am highly suspect of the "art" that shows scimitars on it - but I haven't had a chance to check the reference yet, so I left it in the article.
4. Johns edit: "However William Hamblin provides a quote that he got from Hassig's book Aztec Warfar that has a Spaniard mentioning "our cimiters" and then comparing a weapon the Aztecs used to the cimiter in length."
   1. This is VERY tenuous. You are saying that one spaniard talked about his cimiter once, then later said an Aztec weapon was about the same length - yet he didn't call it a cimiter? I fail to see how this is relevant.

Please look at my edits closely - I kept a lot of good content, and if you read the article I think the majority of Johns content is already there. Lets just try to stay away from the WP:POV, and stick to the facts. As I have stated before, this article needs to be razor sharp in its focus or it gets bloated with a ton of Original Research very quickly. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cattle

I have contributed a couple of references to the section on cattle. An LDS author cites the discovery detailed by Ritchie in The Archaeology of New York State. I have also include a reference from good old McGavin and Bean (required reading on the subject).

Regards, Kovesh (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

I would like to see a much more precise quote from THe Archaeology of New York State, including a quote, and the date it was published, and how they dated these sheep remains to the early centuries A.D. - I frankly don't believe that this claim is credible, since it appears to fly in the face of all other archeaological research that I have read - but am happy to be proven wrong. Until then, I am tagging it with the {{dubious}}. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding. I was out of town for several days and just got back. Before adding the comment to the cattle section, about the sheep remains, I actually purchased a copy of The Archaeology of New York State and looked up the references cited by Olive. I will get back with more detailed information. I can tell you that Ritchie relies a lot on C14 dating. He lists the sheep remains with other mammal remains unearthed at the N.Y. Kipp Island site. He gives dates for the diggs. Whether the domestic sheep remains are regarded as anomalous by archaeologists is not discussed as far as I was able to find. Ritchie does a good job in simply reporting items recovered and general site dates.

Kovesh (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Charcoal from two phases of the NY Kipp Island excavations were C14 dated to A.D. 310 +/- 100 years and A.D. 630 +/- 100 years respectively.

William A Ritchie (The Archaeology of the State of New York, pp. 242-243) includes the report titled: Vertebrate Remains from the Kipp Island Site by John E. Guilday and Donald P. Tanner (Carnegie Museum). Listed among remains of fauna are: “One upper molar and the humerus of a young domestic sheep…recovered from the topsoil.” I find no further discussion about the sheep remains. The statement “removed from topsoil” in my mind casts some doubt on the antiquity of the remains. I have chosen to remove the reference from the sheep section.

Kovesh (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dighton Rock

I'm sorry, am I missing something? I'm not sure how this relates to the BoM? If it does, can someone expand this? The article about Dighton Rock certainly doesn't explain how it relates to this topic...Friedonc (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m curious,

Where is Dighton Rock mentioned? What section or reference?

Kovesh (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Horses

I've just removed the bit that uses Sándor Bökönyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe, as the same author finds horse fossils in Hungary, part of the 'Hunnish Empire'. Perhaps the excerpt used is misleading when you read it in context. But I'm working from a copy of "The Development and History of Domestic Animals in Hungary: The Neolithic Through the

Middle Ages"by Sándor Bökönyi. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jun., 1971), pp. 640-674 and he provides plenty of evidence for horse fossils in Hungary.

I also have the Clayton E. Ray short note (less than one page) from 1956. No C14 dating, and the partial mineralization does not make them pre-Columbian, so I am removing that. Doug Weller (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The anteater Stichin thinks is an elephant.

See some images of anteaters here [3] and as for the big ears, they seem to be something the toy makers liked (or they couldn't make better ears), see [4]. dougweller (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)