Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

Split article?

I think this article addresses too many geographical theories. Does anyone think some of the Meso/Great lakes theories should be split off into other articles like the Malay Theory?

There is another article about Proposed Book of Mormon geographical settings that I think is more appropriate for the maps/theories discusses in this article. What do you think? Reds0xfan (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that bringing the Book of Mormon under archaeological scrutiny requires considering its proposed settings. We need to be upfront with people in the present article and show them that among LDS, the setting is not settled (even though it is settled among the broader academic community: i.e. 19th century American Literature scholars etc.). Perhaps the present article will even help some LDS. Getting the setting and location right is fairly important in archaeology. How are LDS to know when they are digging in the right place, if they can’t agree on the general whereabouts? The authentic setting for the Book of Mormon must be consistent with LDS scripture and firsthand verifiable statements by Joseph Smith. Here is where the work should begin. Otherwise, even if an old metal plate is found inscribed with some form of pre-exilic Hebrew which reads “here is the land of Bountiful” this will not conclusively prove (even assuming the plate is legit) that the Book of Mormon’s New World land Bountiful has at last been found. Veytia shows us that ancient American peoples had a propensity for carrying place names to other places. Who knows how many places named “Bountiful” there could have been. Good analysis of the proper historical sources, establishing the proper setting, should be worked out upfront.
As “far fetched” a theory as it is, the Malay Peninsula setting fits the simplistic “hourglass” geography better than Mexico and Central America! Yes, the Malay setting is scripturally untenable, but the fact that so many other things about it can be argued to match (including the presence of elephants during the right time period) should cause LDS who are so determined that Mesoamerica is the right place, to “hmmm”, questioning their geographic conviction. Those who seek often find what they think is support for their darling theory.
You want a setting for the Book of Mormon that is academically settled so the proper archaeological investigation can start in earnest? One exists! American Literature scholars place the Book of Mormon in the mound builder genre of the 19th century. All this focus on Central American stone ruins came later. So Joseph Smith’s own country is the academically accepted setting for the Book of Mormon! Save Mesoamerica for the search for migrating remnants from original Book of Mormon lands. If there is any setting that should be focused on more than any other, it’s the mound builder setting. Otherwise - all views should get a voice in this article.
Thanks for asking!
Kovesh (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more with User:Reds0xfan. One of the biggest problems with this article is its extensive treatment of spurious theories on the geographical setting for the BOM. About half of this article could be merged quite easily into Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting. We could then streamline the content in this article to a few paragraphs and refer to the other article. I will create a merge proposal on this momentarily. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Among “spurious theories”, you should include every Mesoamerican setting, for not one of the Central American settings is acknowledges by the academic community as representative of the genre in which the Book of Mormon is classed. Onondaga (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor Editing Changes

In the "Anachronisms and archaeological findings" section, under "Horses," says that evidence cited by apologist Sorenson is "disputed by mainstream archaeologists." This is, of course, true, as far as I know. But the reference given for the statement is a piece in the FARMS Review of Books criticizing Stan Larson's Quest for the Gold Plates. None of the people writing the review or the book reviewed seem to be archaeologists, mainstream or not. Does someone have a better reference?

Felix Sonderkammer (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While some work has obviously been done on this article since the last time I logged in, many problems linger. I've made some minor editing changes. While numerous enough for me to not want to go through them, the following change is typical of the style.

Original: something like "Mormon scholars claim to have accumulated evidence they believe supports their conclusions to support thier conclusions."

Changed to: something like "Mormon scholars have accumulated evidence to support their conclusions. Others, based on the same evidence, reject these conclusions."

Reason: evidence either supports a conclusion or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.240.136 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit of the section on the Jaredites, left off stating that some LDS believe that the Olmecs were the Jaredites. Some details given for why this conclusion is thought to be unacceptable (even to some LDS) were removed. I have put the informative objections back in the section, adding a reference to an 1842 editorial by Joseph Smith. For the most part I have no problem with the edits.

Kovesh (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Under Limited Geography Model, I pruned the statement suggesting that Orson and Parley Pratt had something to do with suggesting a limited geography. I know for sure they defended hemispheric models. I left behind B. H. Roberts and the reference to Roper’s paper. It seems that no one has been forthcoming for sometime in providing specific reference material backing up a Pratt / Limited Geography connection. I will check through Roper’s paper again to make sure I haven’t missed something. I wonder if the contributor meant to reference another Apostle (e.g. John E. Page). I'm open to the possibility that the Pratts could have paid enough attention to the Book of Mormon, to have at some point considered that the lands were much more localized. They may have had a moment or two of geographic reconsideration! How ever long lived their “wait a minute…” may have been, we know that Orson Pratt's hemispheric model ended up in Book of Mormon footnotes printed in the late 1800s. In any event our readers need a reference. Kovesh (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a few additional historical details to the Limited Geography Model section to make up for the unsubstantiated inferences about the Pratts, which I removed. Kovesh (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oceanic Voyage

In the section titled ″Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting″, It was implied that Lehi’s company sailed “across the Pacific Ocean to the New Word”. The Book of Mormon does not state this. The eastward journey across the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula may easily be seen as a means of avoiding contact with potential adversaries. Their eastward travel clearly applies to Arabia, not their oceanic voyage. The comment about the Pacific Ocean has been removed.

Onondaga (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Animals and Plants

Animals and plants of the old and new world as well of Australia and Polynesia support that there was movement of peoples throughout these areas. The most striking example is that of the llama. The llama is a close relative of the camel and therefore must have evolved in the old world. Why is it found natively only in the Andes? How did it get there? There are many domestic plants that are found from eastern Africa to South America that could only have been carried by people. The passion fruit, Passiflora edulis, originally from South America, is an example, as well as many species of garden vegetables, that moved both directions through the area. Sheep were carried throughout the area in prehistory. The sheep that live wild on the island of Hawaii, and some other locales of Polynesia, are a primative breed that predates modern times. And of course the peoples of Polynesia were very well established long before explorers arrived. My Flatley (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How did the llama and its South American relatives get "there"? Please note that camelids - the broader camel family - first appeared around 45 million years ago in present-day North America. The camalid family diversified but remained confined to the North American continent until only about 2 or 3 million years ago, when climatic conditions and continental arrangements allowed migration of this family into Asia and South America. This, of course, is long before any human beings were in the area. WBardwin (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Non-kosher Cattle:

Jewish authorities regard Llamas as non-kosher animals! Llamas do not have cloven hooves. Their feet are two-toed with toenails (not hooves). An American colony of devout Israelites would very likely recognize similarities between Llamas and Camels and would therefore regard Llamas as unfit to eat and certainly not appropriate to sacrifice to Adonai (the LORD). (Leviticus 11:4) I'm convinced that ancient Israelites would have been more likely to relate Llamas to camels than to horses ("susim"). The “goat” mentioned in the Book of Mormon must be a variety of “clean” animal similar to Old World goats. Likewise “the cow” can only be a variety of bovine acceptable for eating and for sacrifice. (1 Nephi 18:25) In as much as the language of the Book of Mormon parallels the language of the King James Bible, Book of Mormon references to “sheep” or “lamb” may also refer to goat-like creatures. The Hebrew term translated “lamb” in the KJV, actually relates to either a young goat or sheep. In light of the requirements of the Law of Moses, it’s fair to conclude that the LORD would have led Lehi’s party to a land where there literally were sheep, goat-like creatures and bovine animals. (2 Nephi 5:10) Bighorn sheep, mountain goats and bison are of course native to North America. Questions remain as to how such animals could have been domesticated. Many are quick to point out that there is no evidence that ancient Americans ever did so.

Recent Edits:

For sometime several sections have either lacked adequate references or have suffered from topic drift. I am in the process of making contributions to “Archaeological evidence of large populations”, “Existing ancient records of the New World”, “The Lamanites and The Maya”, “The Nephites”. Kovesh (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Have quoted an additional source on the subject of "silk". Kovesh (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Have added a reference to "Hemispheric Geography Model" Kovesh (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently made mention of big horn sheep in the "sheep" section. Onondaga (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with making minor reference improvements and added a requested reference to the “elephants” section. Onondaga (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In the sections on Horses and Elephants I have cited Coon citing Behemoth, A Legend of the Mound-Builders by Cornelius Matthews (1839). Onondaga (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Systems of measuring time (calendars)

I have recently made some edits to the “Systems of measuring time (calendars)” section. The last two paragraphs lacked references in important places. I would have been glad to leave these paragraphs in place if someone had cared enough about them to defend them. My own appraisal of the previous section is that it could have done a better job engaging Book of Mormon details on the Mosaic Law with its temporal requirements. I have supplemented the section somewhat on this topic. The section had a good introduction to ancient American calendars but it lacked effort to relate all this to the Book of Mormon with its explicit and implied references to time keeping. Kovesh (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Linked scriptural citations etc. in the updated section.Onondaga (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"a land of liberty"

In the preamble or introduction, I recently added references and a brief comment to the effect that the geographic setting of the Book of Mormon is not merely regarded by LDS as “geography”, but as a "Promised Land" or covenant "land of liberty", having a particular blessing and curse upon it. Onondaga (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Several references (mostly citations from scripture) were not linked. I have started to link several of these. For instance Enos 1:20 has been changed to Enos 1:20 Onondaga (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the sections on “warfare” and “Military fortifications” there has for some time been a couple of statements that have called for references. I did some pruning! I have left others that call for a reference or clarification, in place. The section on “warfare” began with a quotation from Hugh Nibley but quickly moved to a quote by Sorenson in order to defend a Mesoamerican setting. Pretty fast move I’d say, because Nibley actually compares mound builder fortifications to defensive works described in the Book of Mormon. I have added opposing references. I have also pruned unsupported statements from and contributed references to the “Genetic studies” section. Onondaga (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"How Exaggerated Settings for the Book of Mormon Came to Pass”

In the section “Traditional views of New World population”, I have referenced Coon’s article, "How Exaggerated Settings for the Book of Mormon Came to Pass” Kovesh (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages

I have made some contributions and improvements to the section on “Hebrew and Egyptian languages”, leaving previous references intact. It had been suggested that Mayan is the only form of ancient Native American writing for which there is archaeological evidence. This isn’t quite accurate. I have referenced Olmec and also made mention of the Native American oral tradition behind Micmac hieroglyphs. Onondaga (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I wholly disagree with the deletion of this article recently proposed by 76.76.93.243. As he himself has noted, it is an interesting article, and he has failed to cite a good reason for deletion. Merely to say that the article does not belong in an encyclopedia is not a reason, but a conclusion. To say that it would be better as an article in a specialized journal is likewise not a reason, but a conclusion. Pending a consensus, I will remove the deletion notice from the article. Plazak (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that the article should not be deleted.Kovesh (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for deletion. Topic has plenty of sources and is often addressed in newspapers and other media. WBardwin (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide point of view?

I notice that the article has a Worldwide Point of View tag since April 2008. In a cursory scan of the archived discussion for April 2008, I noticed no discussion on this point, or suggestions as to how the article is faulty in this regard. Any suggestions? Otherwise, I would propose that the tag be removed. Plazak (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the “Worldwide View” tag is no longer an appropriate criticism for this website. The article has come a long way and in my opinion, currently suffers far less from one-sidedness. Kovesh (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal - when I read the "Proposed settings" sections of this article - I just have to chuckle to myself. This was obviously written by a Mormon who believes that archaeological evidence supports, or someday will support the Book of Mormon. In fact, some of it is even fringe for Mormons. The real world wide view on any "proposed setting" of the book of mormon is that there is no setting. I think we should instead move the tag down to that section.--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Your comment would seem to justify a POV tag, but not a Worldwide Point of View tag. Please explain why the existing POV tag does not cover your objections to the existing article. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
True enough Plazak - I misunderstood the Worldwide Point of View concept. After brushing up - I agree that the tag should be removed. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Descartes I disagree with your recent edits! Lets take one issue at a time! First of all you are mistaken about the Book of Mormon not having a setting. It is classed as a work of 19th Century American literature in the "Mound-Builder" genre. Kovesh (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent that the “contributor” Descartes has a zeal for editing this article, but it would be appreciated if he would show some common courtesy and notify others of his edits on the discussion page. It would also be appreciated if he would enter into substantive discussion regarding his proposed edits, rather than going ahead with making cuts backed only by his opinion and prejudice. Onondaga (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't use scare quotes. I am an established editor and have been contributing to this article for the better part of 2 years. I am happy to discuss each of my edits. See new section below. And also - I ask that you guys address my edits one at a time as well - you reverted in mass hours of work, much of which will eventually get put back into the article. And a bunch of completely non-controversial edits. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Horses in American “Mound-Builder” literature

In Cornelius Mathew’s 1839 novel, Behemoth – A tale of the Mound- Builders, the hero Bokulla rides a “wild steed”. (pp. 99-100) Intending to lend credence to the tale, the notes (pg. 191) cite the discovery of a “small iron shoe, like a horse shoe, encrusted with the rust of ages…” among other alleged mound builder artifacts. The point is elephants (mastodons) and horses appear in 19th century works on the “Mound-Builders”. It comes as no surprise to historians who specialize in 19th Century American literature that horses and elephants feature in the Book of Mormon – these are elements of the American "mound-builder" genre! Onondaga (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No - you have proved it appears in ONE novel. And by the way - seriously? You are citing the footnote in a novel from 1839 to support an archaeological conclusion? Not only is this not a scientific source, but it is from 170 years ago! If this is real, then there should be a well known scientific paper on this. I skimmed through Matthew's novel, and also read a bit about his background - no one takes this guy seriously - he is a novelist not an archaeologist! Not to mention the fact that archaeology in the Americas has advanced leaps and bounds beyond where it was in the early 1800s. This is not a matter of bias - this is a matter of making an article about archaeology based on established archaeological findings. This source is utterly spurious, and has no place whatsoever in the article! I am going to remove all of these references once more in the spirit of being bold - I have no doubt in my mind if we put this up for debate, I have wikipedia guidance and the majority of editors on my side. You should brush up on the reliable sources guidance. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point entirely! Matthews is not cited to prove the Book of Mormon archaeologically. He is cited to show how the Book of Mormon’s references to horses and elephants parallel the academically accepted “Mound-Builder” genre of the 19th Century. Some LDS have actually picked up on this! Robert Silverberg has written extensively on the subject. You ought to read his works if you haven’t. Find any scholarly non LDS treatment on the mound builders and see if it doesn’t discuss the Book of Mormon. There’s a good chance it will. Silverberg and others cite Matthews by the way, and the Book of Mormon. Have you noticed that the vast majority of all identifiable animals and plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon are also mentioned in the KJ Bible? Elephants, however, are nowhere specifically mentioned in the KJV. Why then does the Book of Mormon mention elephants (if the Bible doesn’t) and in America of all places? Turns out that ancient elephant remains were recovered in the US even before Joseph Smith, and they were quite a subject of discussion. Hence Matthews long notes. In my judgment there is no good reason for removing the reference. The article makes it clear that the accepted North American horse and Mastodon time line does not match the presumed Jaredite timeline. I have made no effort to remove this information from the section and I have no desire to. Elephant remains and such, were items of popular fascination in America in the 1800s, and found their way into the “Mound-builder “genre (which includes the Book of Mormon). I will continue to defend this point and soak the article with more references if that is what you want. I do not understand why you are so troubled by this. Onondaga (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No - you are missing the point. This article's scope is limited to archaeology and does NOT include parallels between the Book of Mormon and literature. It makes no difference if the Book of Mormon is mentioned in a hundred pieces of fiction from the 18th century. This is an article about ARCHAEOLOGY. If archaeology doesn't support all of this literature (which it doesn't), then why are we even mentioning it? It completely detracts from the main ideas in this article. Don't you see that this reference has nothing to do with the topic at hand? It is not archaeology. You even said it yourself: "Matthews is not cited to prove the Book of Mormon archaeologically." So why include it? --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Descartes, The brief comments about horses and elephants in the “Mound-builder genre”, I think, contribute some interesting background to the archaeological discussion. These 19th Century ideas really are connected to strange finds in the American frontier. Behemoth isn’t just a work of fiction; it is a work which adds quite a commentary on, what was then, the beginning of American “archaeology”. The situation is sort of like bringing up Jules Verne in an article on modern submarines - could be totally appropriate. It has taken a lot of work over the years to sort some of these things out. There is still a lot of mystery to the mound builder subject. The truth is historical details and archaeology, dove-tail quite a bit. Still, I concede to your argument even though I think the sentence about elephants appearing in early “Mound-builder” literature adds an interesting detail. I will remove the sentence, because the paragraph does go on to make the mound builder connection. I’m less inclined to remove the reference in the horse section because this section approves sillier, less historically researched defenses such as the Book of Mormon doesn’t really mean horses when in fact it mentions them. Other, better read, LDS seem to literally accept the Behemoth notes. I will add some comment challenging the Behemoth notes on the basis of modern archaeology. By the way, I think you lightened the reading in the last sections you edited. Onondaga (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting - please discuss objections

Before we get into thorough debate, I am going to revert all of the edits back to my version in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Please hear me out before a hasty objection. First, numerous non controversial clean up edits were reverted quite hastily by Kovesh and Onondaga (no accusation here, you probably didn't realize). Second, as noted at WP:BURDEN, "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I strongly believe that the edits I made were in the spirit of bringing balance to the article in accordance with WP:POV, and while I recognize that a few of them may be controversial, the majority of them had to do with reliability of sources per WP:SOURCES, and eliminating spurious information that does not relate to archaeology. As such, I respectfully challenge Kovesh, Onondaga, and any other editor to provide reliable sources for the statements I removed, and demonstrate how they are relevant to the topic of archaeology, and we can add them back one by one. I will be the first person to support adding the information back if we have some good archaeological sources to support anything I removed. Also, I recognize that I do come to this with a POV, for editors who don't already know me, and if I have crossed the line, just let me know. In this case, I don't think I have acted inappropriately. I am the last person who wants an edit war.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the version selected. I will revert to a more recent version and ask that Descartes specify which topics he wishes to discuss first. Onondaga (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
We are getting dangerously close to the WP:3RR. Did you even look at my rationale that I detailed above? --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Descartes, I’m truly sorry for cutting the last part of the discussion! Thank you for restoring it. Onondaga (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of History discussions

Onondaga - Please do not delete talk page discussion. This contains critical information on the ongoing debate and the evolution of the article. If you delete talk page discussion and points that oppose your own, you do not appear to be acting in good faith. If that happens again, I will get an Administrator involved.--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I guess we are doing this the hard way

All right - I am going back through - and lets take these edits one at a time.

  1. I just made five PURELY CLEANUP EDITS - that are not controversial. Please do not revert these in mass. These mass reverts are really screwing up the article and I don't want to go through and clean this up again.
  2. [1] - I changed "Apologists counter" to "One apologist claims" - since John Sorensen is the only one claiming this, and not an argument given by the apologetic movement.
  3. [2] - I removed a bunch of information that is not relevant to the Iron and Steel anachronism. We are not talking about gold, lead, or other metals - just iron and steel.

Please review these edits and discuss. I will add more tomorrow.--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

These look like really good and concise edits to me. Do you want to wait for others to chime in, or do you want to proceed to the next items? Kovesh (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Your edits seems spot on Descartes. Keep it up. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another edit for discussion:

  1. [3] I removed a paragraph from the summary section. This entire paragraph goes on and on about the dispute around the setting of the Book of Mormon, as well as emphasizing the religious nature of the record - while still recognizing that it is a record of history. The net effect is that both of these topics aren't really relevant to the overall summary of the article. The summary should focus on 1) a brief the background of the BOM 2) a VERY high level of the archaeologically testable claims of the BOM 3) a statement that critics believe archaeological findings disprove it, and 4) a statement that supporters believe that archaeological findings support it. The paragraph I removed does not support any of those 4 main points in the summary. (Please note that the information I removed is covered in the article in detail, so we are not losing information in general - just trimming up the summary.)--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Kovesh (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the wording in the introductory section (several versions ago) provoked addendums. I agree that it is probably better to reduce this part of the article. I’m ok with the way it now reads. I’m glad we are doing this “the hard way”.
Just a couple of suggestions: “…tenuous connection…” might be all we need to say, instead of the wordy “…tenuous hypothetical Lamanite connection…” and I think that “historicity” is a better word to use in the summary instead of “veracity”, because a literary work can be true on various levels without being historical. I’m going to change these, but won’t put up much of a fight if others want to change them back! Onondaga (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The summary lists “breast plates” as not being substantiated by archaeological finds. Mound builder societies did in fact manufacture metal (copper) plates with holes in the corners ostensibly for strapping to the chest. I personally have a picture of one that was on display in a museum. These ancient peoples were copper smiths, let’s not forget this! Artifacts of “armor” like “breast plates” are even a topic of discussion in the 19th century mound builder literature. Check out Josiah Priest and Ethan Smith and better yet the Behemoth notes. Yet another reason to be studied in mound builder archaeology and the genre that the Book of Mormon came out of before presuming to contribute to this article. I am removing the reference to "breast plates" and "ore (mining)" in the article summary.

I’m even dubious about the mention of “iron”. I believe that you will find that some meteoric iron was worked by mound builders though it is not nearly as prevalent as copper among these cultures. I’m going to leave it alone for now, but let’s be careful! Kovesh (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have paid more attention earlier to the long list of supposedly discounted things. One could cite numerous sources but I choose a book with lots of pictures in it available at public libraries – no excuse to lazy people. From Mound Builders & Cliff Dwellers, Lost Civilizations Series, edited by Dale M. Brown, pg. 26, regarding the archaeological finds on what was farmer Hopewell’s property in Ohio:
“…a headdress …made of copper covered wood…23 breastplates…copper breastplates on the chest…a few sheets of hammered gold and copper, and meteoric iron beads.”
Of interest to those who are genuinely interested in the subject, the same page also mentions the discovery of, “thousands of pearl beads…The pearls taken from muscles in nearby tributaries of the Ohio River, were strung into necklaces and sewn into clothing…an estimated 100,000 freshwater pearls”. Calls to mind 4 Nephi 1:24 don’t you think? The same page incidentally cites non-Mormon Robert Silverberg, “a popular writer on the subject” who has been recommended to editors of the present article. The next page (Pg. 27) notes, “Tributaries of Ohio, such as the Miami and the Scioto reaching north near the Great Lakes, were likely routes for copper and silver…”
Now here’s, my gripe: Whoever composed the summary section apparently did not think it worth their time to do a little research into the mound builders. Maybe they thought that because they were challenging the Book of Mormon that no body but Mormons would care. If you are not genuinely interested in this subject to the point of being willing to do basic research, maybe you ought to get out. At least wake up and realize that the ancestors of Native North Americans were not as underdeveloped as the prejudiced summary implies. If somebody won’t edit the other off the cuff drool in the critical summary – I will. Onondaga (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
If you take the time to look up the word “ore” in the Oxford Dictionary, you find that one of its old meanings is “unwrought metal”. This explains the use of the word in connection with “gold” in the Book of Mormon. Ether 10:21 Meteoric iron would also arguably qualify as “ore” under this definition. It has also been suggested that mound builders made use of hematite, magnetite and galena (an ore of lead). See for instance Shaffer’s, Native Americans Before 1492 – The Moundbuilding Centers of the Eastern Woodlands, 1992, pg. 36. It should make sense to modern minds, that if an ancient people became accomplished artificers in copper that they would probably have tried alloying copper. We moderns use the terms “bronze” and “brass”. Take a look at the list of general categories of mound builder artifacts listed in appendix 3 of Trento’s, The Search for Lost America – The Mysteries of the Stone Ruins, pp. 225-243. The discovery of “Artifacts: Bronze, Copper” found at various places in mound builder territories are marked in the tables. “Iron” and “brass” are gone from the long belittling list of things that somebody was so sure those old Indians couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with. I have also removed reference to the “plow” – yes it’s true, ancient Americans actually made tools of metal and stone to plow and till the soil. Do you need me to supply references? There’s a nice picture in Shaffer’s book of a notched hoe blade (plate 24), there are even more impressive references if you go looking for them. Onondaga (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Somebody did not do their homework in regards to “bellows” listed in the summary. I did a Bible search and found the term used in the King James Translation of Jeremiah 6:29. Incidentally, according to the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his son Nephi were contemporaries of the prophet Jeremiah. I have it on good authority (from a knowledgeable source), that the Hebrew word “mafuach” translated “bellows” in the Bible, comes from the verb meaning “to puff”, “inflate”, “blow hard” and essentially means “blower of a forge”. I’m trying to be pun-y and not unkind, when I say that we should definitely blow off the reference to “bellows”. The only reference to “bellows” in the Book of Mormon is in the Old World setting. (1 Nephi 17:11) The divinely guided Nephi had seen a bellows before and apparently learned how to make one out of animal skins. As for any occurrence of “bellows” in the New World Book of Mormon setting, the term isn’t there! We know that the mound builders worked metals. Did they make bellows of animal skins? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised. These were very clever people. “Bellows” goes away!

By the way, Josiah Priest in American Antiquities notes artifacts of Fe, Cu, brass, Au and Ag removed from various mound builder sites. See for instance pp 90-91, 101, 178-179. Of course historians and archaeologists will point out that these finds were itemized in Joseph Smith’s day. Similar finds are mentioned in the Behemoth Notes. Priest and other sources also mention agricultural tools as well as metal weapons. A good rule to follow is that when the Book of Mormon mentions something it probably comes from somewhere and it is worth taking time to look into it.

As a note for those interested: the story part of Behemoth mentions metallurgical “forges” (pp 32, 36)

One more thing: I have a problem with including “steel” in the summary list. The scripture that is cited with this is 1 Nephi 4:9. This is Old World “steel” - same as David’s and Nephi’s “bow of steel”. (Psalm 18:34) This can only be the “steel” mentioned in the Bible. This is not hardened iron but hardened copper. Makes sense when you think about it. “Brass” and “bronze” are not very distinguishable in the Bible. Did the mound builders make hardened copper? Take a look at the sources and just for fun read the Behemoth Notes. Guys this is getting long, but none of this would have been needed if someone had done better research upfront. Kovesh (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Coon and Behemoth

Ok we need to settle this once and for all. Coon's reference to Behemoth is a ridiculous reference. This article should be talking about what archaeological findings support or detract from the historicity of the book of mormon. Behemoth fails the standard we should be having on our sources on so many levels. I am sure I could dig up a hundred novels that allege this that or the other thing (The Davinci Code comes to mind) - but that has absolutely no bearing on the archaeological facts at hand. Every reference to Behemoth should be replaced by findings in an archaeological paper, and if it can't, it is probably because he made it up, and it isn't true - and it should be removed. This article is not about allusions to what might be true, but what has actually been found by archaeologists. I will see if I can get a few wikipedia editors with expertise in archaeology to chime in on this. If these references cannot be supported by better references, I will be removing them systematically from the article. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading Behemoth again - seriously guys - his "support" even says that it is a horseshoe, and no mention of dating. Horse shoes didn't even come into use in Europe until after 500 AD. And here this guy (who is a novelist) is saying there are horse shoes in America when every credentialed archaeologist concludes that horses didn't even exist in America. It is so obvious that this guy just found an old horse shoe that was rusty and assumed it was old enough (never dated by an archaeologist), and added it to his book so he could sell more of his fantastic stories. Utterly ridiculous. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Found this gem by the National Geographic Society: "Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland."--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Below you justify including in the article arguments of those who take literally the language of the Book of Mormon and yet you allow the argument of Mesoamerican setting advocates that “horses” mentioned in the Book of Mormon refer to some other species. There are problems with some of the species translated in the KJV but “horse” is not one of them. I see no good reason to suppose that the Book of Mormon refers to any other species than the “horse”. Behemoth is another work in the same Mound-Builder genre that the Book of Mormon comes from, and it too places horses with mound builders. Ask any other 19th Century literature specialist if he or she thinks the Book of Mormon “horse” is intended to represent a Mesoamerican animal. I think you have erased the wrong LDS argument. So Coon believes that horses survived the last Ice Age down into Book of Mormon times and may even puts some stock in the Behemoth notes. Don’t erase it! Counter it with the current scientific viewpoint just as you and I both have. Descartes, if you are trying to favor the unfounded Mesoamerican setting for some reason – you are off base historically. By the way I think you should take another look at what Coon actually says on his website. He doesn’t actually say he believes the Behemoth notes about the horse shoe. He just points out that works in the genre mention horses based on interpretations of the time. Onondaga (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I kind of like what you wrote earlier in the section about Coon’s investigations into horses in other “Mound-Builder” genre works. He claims to have an MS in Physics, a background in Hebrew and according to his website he consults with a U of U professor on Hebrew matters. By comparison, at least on a few key issues, I would say that some of the apologists (from BYU etc.) that you have dragged into this article ought to be classed as "amatures". Coon at least looks into literary history. I modified your earlier sentence and put Coon back. Onondaga (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't disagree more. Most of the FARMS apologists referenced have Ph.Ds in archaeology, linguistics, Egyptology or the relevant field for which they are being cited - besides having been published in numerous scholarly journals on apologetic topics, or otherwise being very well known. Even these guys pale in comparison to the Baers and Coes of the world who are world renowned scholars in their fields. Coon, on the other hand, has no credentials in the topics for which he is writing, has self published his website, and from the looks of it, probably self published his book too (it is the only book by that publisher). He meets every definition of an amateur. Please review WP:SOURCE and WP:SELFPUBLISH for more information on wikipedia guidelines with respect to such individuals. We are actually being kind to Coon by even leaving his information in the article at all at this point.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Brass

Brass and Bronze are two very different things. You can't remove brass on the argument that in the Bible it is not easily distinguished. I added brass back to the list. You can make that argument that it may not be an anachronism based on word choice or whatever, but there are many people who take the Book of Mormon literally, and believe that Joseph Smith meant what he said when he said what he meant - including myself. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The “brass” mentioned in the KJV was a metal mostly made of copper. Have you noticed that there is no direct mention of “bronze” in the KJV? For all we know, all biblical references to "brass" could be bronze. King David’s “steel bow” (if he ever existed – sort of like talking about King Arthur) was a Bronze Age creation. Funny thing about the bronze found in North America (bronze arrow head or dagger blade etc; Trento, pg. 192). There is no obvious source of tin; so where did the tin come from? You have a bigger problem with this than you do with "brass" made with zinc. You can find zinc in North America. It’s obvious that the Book of Mormon uses KJV terminology. The “brass” issue is not so open and shut as you think. It should either be removed from the summary list or discussed in more detail later on in the article. Which do you prefer? Onondaga (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Disagree 100% - For all we know the references to "horses" could be "Tapirs" - but that doesn't erase the anachronism - its just an argument against it. Besides - how can you argue the KJV english translation from hebrew and greek to the BOM which is "Reformed Egyptian"? I don't see any connection there. I oppose removing brass from the summary unless it can be proven that brass is indeed found in the Americas and accepted by mainstream archaeologists (not novelists or self published amateurs). It really is black and white - you have just convinced yourself of the apologetic POV, so you don't think it is.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Huh? So you don’t think that Book of Mormon was written using the language of the KJV? How did “Red Sea” get in their? Are you trying to argue that the Nephites of the Book of Mormon were not familiar with Hebrew? Aren’t you forgetting something: whole chapter of KJV Isaiah, direct quotes from the KJV OT and then there is Ether 9:33 which suggests that the Nephites knew Hebrew. The point I am making is that it is obvious that English translators used the word “brass” to mean more than alloys of copper and zinc. Alloys of copper qualify as “brass” in the King’s English. Maybe you should get someone to look up the references in a Lexicon.Onondaga (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary gives us an idea of the 19th Century use of the term “brass”:
1. A. Historically: The general name for all alloys of copper with tin or zinc (and occasionally other base metals). To distinguish alloys of copper and tin, the name BRONZE has recently been adopted.
This explains Kovesh’s reference to Josiah Priest (a contemporary of Joseph Smith) writing about “brass” articles found in mounds. This is why it is important to pay attention to the genre! You should be spanked Descartes! You talk about all the time you have recently put in cutting other’s hours of contributions out - that easy! I would advise that if contributors including you, want to do more than just slam Mormons that you spend more time doing basic research. Please by all means invite specialists (if that is what they are). I am removing the prejudiced reference to alloyed copper “brass”. Onondaga (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Really? Spanked? I'm glad that we can keep our discussion civil and mature... but I will concede your point on brass based on the definition you gave. I still wholeheartedly disagree with your linguistic parallel with KJV. You are still looking at this in the paradigm of an apologist - the issue here isn't what Hebrew word was thought of in Nephi's mind, translated to Reformed Egyptian to engrave on the plates, and then translated again to put it into English. The whole point here is that Joseph Smith wrote down a lot of words that don't have any basis in fact. To a skeptic, this explanation is ridiculous and stretches the bounds of logic - and therefore the anachronism is a legitimate one that should be mentioned. Like I said, I will concede your point based solely on the definition of brass. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello! It’s about taking the time to look up the use of the word in the KJV as well as its use in Joseph Smith’s time – again the genre matters! Onondaga (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

More edits

I just made a bunch of edits. Many of them are not controversial - adding images, grammar and sentence structure fixing. Rather than take another hour to list them all out here - I ask that you review them, and raise objections on the ones you disagree with here for discussion. I also ask that you please don't mass revert everything I have done, as it took me several hours. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You put “plow” back in the list. The Book of Mormon uses the word as a verb. Ether 10:25 Do you think that Native Americans did not make tools for turning earth and making furrows? Onondaga (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You should read your reference again - you are not being honest about what it says - it refers to making "tools" for plowing. But to your point, I will not add plow back in, because we are not talking about plows anywhere else in the article. I will do some research tonight on plows to see if they are supported by the archaeological record.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Please be courteous enough to wait for others to review your edits before continuing.Onondaga (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Big difference between mass reverting hundreds of legitimate edits that took me 6 or 7 hours to make without looking through them, and me reverting one or two words. If you disagree with some of my edits, go through them and revert the specific ones you disagree with. At least half of my edits are not controversial. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Will do! Onondaga (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I got to tell you, I’m pretty much ok with the edits so far! I’m trying to be tolerant with all the Central and South American setting non-sense. These settings are really not on the same standing as the literary setting accepted by mainstream authorities. If you really want to make a serious archaeological examination of the Book of Mormon you should start with its accepted literary setting, then see how it stacks up to the facts. If a respected BYU professor gets it into his head that it all took place in Antarctica are we going to give him the same space as somebody like Silverberg who is respected and recognized outside of the conflicted Mormon community? Let’s not marginalize LDS researchers who are turning to mainstream academia regarding the Book of Mormon’s setting. Onondaga (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I did notice that you put back “iron” as “iron tools” – very clever. Makes me smile! But please show us in the Book of Mormon where it specifically says they used their iron to make tools. Where does it say iron tool or tools of iron in the New World setting? Do you mean Jarom 1:8? It doesn’t specifically say that they used their iron to make tools, now does it! Maybe they made ornaments out of iron and tools out of hardened copper. I am removing the “iron tools” until you can show us an iron tool in the N W setting. By the way, did you notice that “steel” is listed after “copper” and “brass” and not immediately following “iron” in Jarom and elsewhere? Details, details! Onondaga (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Please stop patronizing me Onondaga - it really is irritating. Yes, the Jarom reference is where iron is mentioned. And yes, it doesn't say specifically that it is tools - but it does heavily infer such. To that point we are splitting hairs. I will concede leaving iron tools out of the summary - and we will treat it in detail in the steel and iron section below. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Descartes, quit being so presumptuous! Dig into the details! In the Silk section you keep restoring a clumsy sentence that I am trying to edit. Please explain to me this point you are trying to make about “reformed Egyptian”. How do you know that the spoken language of the Nephites wasn’t intended to be something Semitic (like Hebrew) and their written language was logogrammatic (using Egyptian-like symbols to represent whole words)? Again Mormon 9:33. Anyway, this doesn’t matter. The KJV use of “silk” doesn’t necessarily mean fibers from worms. I think Coon may have a point. Onondaga (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree that the word "silk" might not mean fiber from worms in the KJV - but we are talking about the Book of Mormon, not the Bible. In your reword, you are omitting some very important details. The fact is this - Coon is saying that based on the Hebrew to English translation of the KJV, and the ostensible translation from Reformed Egyptian to English in the Book of Mormon, that the word for "silk" IN REFORMED EGYPTIAN (not Hebrew) may be referring to some other type of fabric. He is comparing two completely different languages. Now, I am not saying this is incorrect, but you have to at least give all the details of the leap he is making for the reader. In your reword, you remove much of this logic. I think that Coon has a point about the Bible, but he strains in his logic in applying it to the Book of Mormon, because it was allegedly a completely different language. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I really like the images that have been added. I think that it upgrades the article and makes it more inviting. I am reviewing the edits. I will get back with you guys on the LDS subject of reformed Egyptian. I think that others believe that the original language of the Book of Mormon is English – 19th century and Elizabethan English. I know we all have different points of view but I really think that we have the makings of an acceptable article. Kovesh (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Coon seems to give a couple of reasons for why the English translation of the Book of Mormon features the imperfect but dignified language of the King James Bible: On pages 39-40 of his book, he gives an example suggesting that the terminology of the King James is more familiar to English readers, whereas more scholarly exact translations in many instances fail to communicate anything recognizable. He gives “Red Sea” as an example. He also suggests that translating the Book of Mormon into the familiar language of the English Bible has a definite advantage in allowing the scholar to work backwards to the more perfect Hebrew terminology. (Pages 184-84) The idea is that you simply take the imperfect Gentile terminology and follow it back to the Hebrew (and one would think Greek) texts that the King James Bible was translated from. Hence “steel” is something like bronze and “silk” can be a fine fabric made from flax (at least in one scriptural instance). From an LDS POV it stands to reason that spoken Nephite was a lot like spoken Hebrew. Isaiah is poetry in its original language. It loses a lot in translation. It is hard to imagine all the OT quotes in the B of M having been recited in a non-Semitic tongue by its peoples. But it appears from Mosiah 1:4 that the brass plates (which came from Jerusalem) were written in Egyptian like characters. Why would Semitic speakers dwelling at Jerusalem write with non Semitic characters? Hebrew is a phonetic language. Because vowels are typically left out, written Hebrew is more compressed than say, English; yet according to Mormon 9:33 reformed Egyptian was even more compressed than written Hebrew. Coon seems to indicate that the spoken language of the Nephites was a lot like Hebrew, but on plates they wrote in a highly compressed non-phonetic system like Micmac or Egyptian. In this case there would be no letters to pronounce. Each symbol would represent a whole word or idea (which they would call out in Semitic speech as they read) but there would be no phonetic spelling out of words. I believe there are actual cases in which Aramaic (a Semitic language like Hebrew) is written in Egyptian script. I did kind of the same thing above by spelling out a biblical Hebrew word in English characters instead of Hebrew letters. The difference is English is also phonetic. Bottom line: as a general B of M rule, God had the spoke Semitic, Nephite terms behind the Egyptian shorthand (symbols) translated into equivalent or nearly equivalent King James English which conveniently maps back to terms in the Hebrew text that the Bible was translated from. The NT terminology and 19th Century terminology in the B of M are a little more problematic (even anachronistic) but still follow the general apologetic rule of attempting to communicate, ancient expressions into a familiar modern tongue. For instance the King James OT uses Greek and Latin substitutes like “Egypt”, “synagogue” and “Lucifer” which are really not in the Hebrew text. If I were to be very literal and translate “Mitzrayim” (Egypt) a lot of folks would have no idea what I was talking about! So yes, I think we should consider that “silk” in the B of M could be some fine fabric other than the insect variety.
I'm ok for now with most of the edits that have been hashed out. I have made some adjustments to the "silk" section. There is some question as to whether the "caractors" transcript is the same as the Anthon transcript - it's been called that. Other LDS support the view that the spoken language associated with the more compressed writing on the plates, was Hebrew based. See Reformed Egyptian article. Kovesh (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have made some amendments and contributions to the “Iron and steel” section which I now call “Iron, copper, brass and steel”. I have also made some improvements to the “Genetic studies” section. I have noticed that there are still several LDS scripture references that have not been linked. I recommend providing some kind of link with these citations. I have gone ahead and linked some that were recently added. Onondaga (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Learning about the World

It has been about a year since I have participated in editing this page and am sad to see that it has digressed to opinion slinging. I enjoy Wikipedia because I learn about the world. If you have a source, cite it! If it is your opinion, keep it to yourself. For example, I commonly see phrases "academics don't accept ...." If you don't know about something don't turn this into your personal opinion blog. If someone has worked hard to add concrete information with citations that are valid feel free to organize it but don't delete it! Thanks. --WaltFrost (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Archeology and The Book of Mormon

This article needs great reorganization. Archeology in the Meriam Webster dictionary defines it as the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities. If this article is really about Archeology of content in the Book of Mormon then it should be about the second paragraph and not the first. This should be a review of current information that relates to the content of The Book of Mormon. Careful wording is required for a good article. For example, Jerusalem is a worldwide accepted historical site by all people. This is mentioned in the Book of Mormon as well as other prominent people and places aka the Red Sea. A better article would be a review of current knowledge on places, artifacts, flora, wildlife, etc as it relates to content in The Book of Mormon.--WaltFrost (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good edits! I made a minor spelling correction in the “horse’ section. I think that the references to mainstream scholars placing the Book of Mormon in the 19th century “Mound-builder” genre should not have been deleted. This is what non-LDS specialists have to say about the book's literary setting. I think this needs to be stated briefly up front. I have put the references back. Without an accepted setting, you don't know where to base the archaeological comparison! Onondaga (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Have you watched the Documentary "Journey of Faith" by the Maxwell institute? [4] This is the current thought by FARMS & BYU department of religion on the journey of Lehi's family through Saudi Arabia and their landing and movements in Mesoamerica. MesoAmerica is the current place that coincides archeologically with the Book of Mormon.--WaltFrost (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that in the Times and Seasons editorial, October 1, 1842 Joseph Smith and the writers of the Times & Seasons were realizing back in 1842 that most of the events of the Book of Mormon took place in mesoAmerica not the mound builders to the North. "Since information about the ruined cities in Central America came to light after the publication of the Book of Mormon, it actually strengthens the theories and evidences which place the Book of Mormon in a Mesoamerican setting--Joseph was willing to consider a setting of which he apparently had no previous knowledge. The description of the ancestors of the American Indians as a highly civilized culture capable of building great cities was not a concept which would have been deduced from the contemporary beliefs regarding the Mound Builders."[5] In other words Joseph Smith felt the place was in Central America. Let's keep this article to the perspective of the translator.--WaltFrost (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you have the best intentions. Before making another zealous attempt to turn this article into a FARMS propaganda page, I recommend you reread your Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants carefully!! The Mesoamerican setting has more to do with LDS getting carried away with John Lloyd Stephens’ 1841 bestseller than any respectable adherence to LDS scripture. Here’s a little challenge: As you read Stephens’ two volume work, you find here and there it mentions things like leopards (jaguars), monkeys, palm trees and hewn stone buildings. None of this is surprising, because the volumes are about “Incidents of Travel in Central America”. Where do we find such things explicitly mentioned in the Book of Mormon’s New World setting? Don’t quote Isaiah – show us where such things are mentioned in the New World setting.Onondaga (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Genetics and the Book of Mormon

There is an article dedicated to this so I will put a link to that information. There is not enough room in this article for a comprehensive discussion on genetics as it relates to the Book of Mormon.--WaltFrost (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing the Article

Archeology, like realestate, depends on location, location, location. The location needs to come first followed by other comments because all other discussion depends on it (ie people, plants, animals, metals etc). I am going to move the article around. See what you think.--WaltFrost (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tried to reorganize the article to reflect current views of the Church of Jesus Christ Department of Religion at Brigham Young University and FARMS that the setting of the Book of Mormon is in Mesoamerica. Tried to reorganize the article to focus 1st on Location, then on Cultures, then on plants, animals, metals, etc. I think this order makes more sense than the prior order. The article still needs a lot of cleaning up. Mound builders and other theories should be placed in historical or theories of members, but does not reflect the current views of the church education system and most Mormon scholars. Will work on the article later.--WaltFrost (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent massive edits reflect a mostly one-sided Mormon POV. The original setting for the Book of Mormon is understood to be that of the mound builders. The unsigned Fall 1842 articles are all dubious and possibly the work of more than one individual. The edits are not acceptable. I am reverting the website to a recent version that brings more of these facts out. Kovesh (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree in general. Though there may be some good contributions to the rewrite attempt, it seemed to have set out from the beginning without questioning the implication that apologetic Book of Mormon archaeology is a mainstream academic science, which I think everyone has to acknowledge it isn't. Under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, we are not allowed to give undue prominence to views that are accepted only by a tiny minority within the field. That doesn't mean we can't present them or that they aren't important, it just means that we have to present them in a way that puts them in context and does not imply that the views have mainstream academic acceptance. A few models how to possibly do this properly might be the Flat Earth, Nazi archaeology, searches for Noah's Ark, and ancient astronauts articles, which present their small minority archaeological views mainly in terms of a historical perspective, while clearly and repeatedly acknowledging that they do not represent mainstream science. Something like that might be appropriate here, and it already does that to a fair extent. For example, we could start off with a brief review of what the consensus of modern science says about the New World, then go into the pre-modern 19th century archaeological background to which a number of authors say Smith was likely exposed: i.e., the View of the Hebrews, early mound-building theories, etc. Then discuss what the Book of Mormon says, augmented by Smith's contemporary statements, then discuss the views of later Mormon theologians supporting the "whole continent" model, followed by the LGM, and then maybe some non-literalist Mormon models of the Book of Mormon. COGDEN 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the other contributors have not read the text of the Book of Mormon. The people lived in an area with large architecture, over 100,000s of people with complex trade, government, language, art. They never mention snow. There are only 3 general sites that fit this description. All are in Central America or northern South America. The cradle of Mayan culture is found at Mirador and was most likely known of by the Nephites. It is sad that this article is unduely lengthy and has a lot that does not contribute to the meaningful discussion about the actual archeology of the Book of Mormon. Cheers! Enjoy editing mediocrity.--WaltFrost (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


COGDEN, I really think that a lot of LDS get their ideas about the Book of Mormon’s setting more from popular images and sources like FARMS than from actually studying their scriptures. The present article is more balanced than it ever has been. The opinions of the FARMS clan are generously represented in the present article. They are also challenged as they should be. The understandings of mainstream historians, archaeologists and specialists in 19th century American literature are also present, though there is always somebody trying to remove these details. The discussions show that some of us want to do a good job presenting a legitimate archaeological comparison based on the literary setting accepted by mainstream specialists. There are LDS and non-LDS that support this. I agree that a little additional information from the “Mound-builder” literary genre would help to cement the legitimate and original setting to be tested by archaeology. A lot of people don’t know about the mound builders and America’s 19th century concern with them. They think they just have to read Sorenson or watch a FARMS video and this gives them enough to pounce on this article. I believe that content matters more than even restructuring the article. There a lot of people will cut and rearrange. There are fewer who will take the time to provide acceptable and interesting references. Onondaga (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


WaltFrost, you didn’t realize that you were describing details from “Mound-builder” literature – except for the part about no snow. Where did you get the idea that the Book of Mormon never mentions “snow” – don’t tell me – let me guess – FARMS? You must have forgotten about the description of the vision of the tree of life which Nephi recorded for his posterity after arriving in the New World. Lehi while describing the whiteness of the tree to his family in Arabia never compares it to “driven snow”. It snows in the mountains of northern Israel and in Lebanon, but rarely in Jerusalem. But Nephi, after arriving in the American Promised Land, is commanded to write his previous experiences down for the benefit of his people. 1 Nephi 19 Why would Nephi use a description that his people couldn’t relate to? Not just “white as snow” (like Isaiah says) but the non-biblical “whiteness of the driven snow”. 1 Nephi 11:8 Nephi had experienced something like a blizzard (snow blown into drifts) and he knew that generations of his people would be able to relate to his description. The Book of Mormon also mentions “hail” - not just wimpy precipitation but destructive smiting hail like you get in temperate zones. What about those whirlwinds (plural) that carried people away – sounds a lot like North American twisters to me! That’s a temperate climate with the year consisting of more than two seasons (like the Book of Mormon implies Alma 46:40) not a tropical wet and dry season year round. Jerusalem is in a Mediterranean temperate zone with cold wet winters and “heat of the day” springs and summers that don’t phase with Central or South America. If you follow the latitude of Jerusalem over to the New World (where you intend to keep all of the seasonal ordinances of the Law of Moses) where do you find yourself? You need spring time barley for a Passover wave offering. You need wheat for late spring early summer Feast of Weeks. You need a fall or early winter for Sukkoth. Doesn’t sound like Guatemala to me. And you had better find some sheep and goats. Anything like a camel won’t do – unclean!! Onondaga (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed organization

Here is my proposal for a way to organize this article in a more rational, less cluttered way that allows a better historical appreciation for the subject matter:

  • Background (discussing of what pre-BoM authors had written concerning pre-Columbian migration to the New World, including the early mound builder speculations and other material from View of the Hebrews and other sources that Smith might have known about)
  • Archaeological features in the Book of Mormon (in very summary format, describe the features of the Book of Mormon that seemingly would be testable by archaeology, such as the existence of a "narrow neck of land", swine, horses, etc.--this is just mainly for background as to the discussion that follows, and would not yet include the detailed apologetic explanations that have been developed within the last 50 years; rather, it just paints a broad picture of the world described in the book)
  • Response to Book of Mormon by mainstream archaeologists
  • History
    • Early period (discussing early Mormon attempts by Smith and others to link the burial mounds to the Nephites and Lamanites; the discovery of Zelph; the 1842 discussion of Central America in Times and Seasons based on John Lloyd Stevens' book, etc.)
    • Literalist apologetic archaeology (covering the period when BOM apologists took the Book of Mormon literally at face value, hoping to find actual elephants, horses, steel, etc. in the new world, and to find a smoking gun proving the book to be true)
      • Mormon archaeological excavations (discussing NWAF, Hugh Nibley's work, etc.)
    • Contemporary Mormon archaeology (covering the period when Mormon archaeologists became frustrated with the inability to reconcile BOM literalism with mainstream archaeology, and began seeking more creative apologetic explanations to counter mainstream archaeology)
      • Limited Geography Model (Central America and Great Lakes versions)
      • "Two Cumorahs" theory
      • Proposed explanations for apparent anachronisms
      • Non-historical interpretations of the Book of Mormon

Note that the conclusions of mainstream archaeologists would be emphasized throughout the above discussion. COGDEN 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I rather like your reorganization outline, as long as it does not mean a major rewrite of the existing sections and references that represent the struggles, contributions and refinements of many. If we can start a few new sections and reorder the existing sections, this would be preferable to me. I believe there will be those who will throw fits over the addition of more historical sections. They don’t seem to appreciate the close ties between history, geography and archaeology. I will study your outline in more detail as we wait for others to respond. Thanks! Kovesh (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon/Archive_4&oldid=522668795"