Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1 - Archive 2


[edit] 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 Based on the context of the sentence, it appears to be saying: "Church members view the BoM as a religious and historical document, but if any historical accounts in the book are ever found to be false or inaccurate, that is not important, because the BoM is primarily a religious document, not a historical document".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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "...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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "...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.--

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

[edit] “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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)