The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,238 Articles Spanning 204 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCES".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCES
Total Articles:
12
The Book Of Mormon states that there were horses, elephants, steel, tin, wheat, barley, bows, arrows, slings, chariots and more - during the time that the “Nephites” and “Lamaites” lived on the American continents. Modern day archeologists, geologists, paleontologists and scientists have found absolutely no evidence that any Book of Mormon animals or items ever existed. Mormon Apologists continue to place together every little fact they can to prove the Book of Mormon is true. This topic covers the attempts by Mormon Apologists who go to great lengths to obscure, convolute, invent and otherwise distort history to fit their agenda.
|
|
Since perusing different apologetic BoM sites on the internet, and having various conversations with apologists defending the historicity of the BoM, I gradually realized that one Sorenson footnote, in particular, was a popular support for the idea that smelting may have existed prior to the generally accepted appr. 900 AD date. Sorenson’s statement read, from An Ancient Setting for the Book of Mormon, p.284:
The possibility that smelted iron either has been or may yet be found is enhanced by a find at Teotihuacan. A pottery vessel dating to about AD 300, and apparently used for smelting, contained a “metallic-looking” mass. Analyzed chemically, it proved to contain copper and iron. Linee, the same Swedish archaeologist who made that find, accepted a piece of iron found in a tomb at Mitla, Oaxaca, as probably refined.
The two attached footnotes to this paragraph read:
Sigvald Linne, Mexican Highland Cultures, Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Publication 7, ns (Stockholm, 1942), p. 132
Sigvald Linne, Zapotecan Antiquities, Ehthnographical Museum of Sweden, Publication 4, ns (Stockholm, 1938), p. 75
Since becoming interested in Mesoamerican history, I’ve read over a dozen books on the subject, as well as many famsi articles and other websites. While this certainly does not constitute expertise, it does give me a general level of background knowledge concerning basic scholarly claims made about the topic. Consistently, these texts do not support the idea of the early smelting the BoM would require. So I was intrigued by this oft-mentioned reference, particularly given the dates of these articles. Surely, if real evidence of smelting had been discovered in 1938 and 1942, some scholar, somewhere, would have been interested enough to follow up on it. Yet I could find nothing. I became convinced that it was necessary to go to the original source, to read Linne’s statement in context. At least that would give me some additional clues and details to follow up.
However, I had some difficulties locating the articles. I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that they were articles in a scholarly periodical, and proceeded to attempt to find copies online, with no luck. So I began looking for books. I did locate a text on Amazon with a similar name, but the dates of the research – 1934-35 – misled me into concluding it was the wrong research. I did find an original text, for three hundred dollars, obviously out of my budget. So I felt stymied.
So I asked Brant Gardener, who at times participated on another board and with whom I’d had conversations, if he could provide more context for the statement. He informed me had had never read the article, either. Each time I found the reference on the internet, it was the same quotation, over and over, pulled directly from Sorenson. I began to suspect no one had read the original article.
Now, I do not mean to suggest it is necessary to find the original sources for each and every claim made (in BoM apologetics or any other field), but when a particularly unusual or controversial claim is made, or one that appears to outright contradict other statements by scholars in the field, I think it is a good idea to at least try to look at the original source. I certainly have turned to the JoD and HoC many times in doing just that.
This reference was offered again by a poster on another board, recently, and I expressed, again, concern that no one offering the reference had actually read the original article. Someone referred me to Amazon for both texts, and while I couldn’t locate the Zapotecan source, I did go ahead and order the book I originally doubted was the correct source. I am delighted to state that I was wrong in that assumption, and it is, indeed, the correct text. Mine is a recently republished edition, 2003, but no changes have been made to the original, with the exception of a new introduction.
Of course I immediately turned to the page 132, but the only statement I could find that bore any similarity to Sorenson’s claim was this listing for burial site 1.
Metal resembling substance, small, irregular shaped pieces. Analysis has shown them to contain copper and iron, but no zinc, tin or antimony.
I was not convinced this was the actual reference. For one thing, it’s not a pottery vessel. It’s not described as such and is not listed with the pottery vessels. It is smack in the middle of the list of small pieces of minerals, bones, teeth, shell. It was hard for me to see how “small irregular shaped pieces” could be Sorenson’s pottery vessel, “apparently used for smelting”. I decided before drawing any conclusions that I would have to read the entire section on this particular Teotihuacan dig. There is no doubt this is the correct dig, but I thought perhaps the numbering of the pages had changed with republication. So I proceeded to read the entire section, of about 110 pages. Some portions I read twice, to make sure I hadn’t overlooked something the first time.
Now I feel comfortable making this assertion. This statement of Linne’s, on page 132, is, indeed, Sorenson’s source:
Metal resembling substance, small, irregular shaped pieces. Analysis has shown them to contain copper and iron, but no zinc, tin or antimony.
I truly do not understand how Sorenson understood this to be a pottery vessel apparently used for smelting.
One thing should be pointed out for those new to the subject – the controversial point, in regards to BoM apologetics, is not that metals existed in the BoM time periods. Yes, metal existed and the Mesoamericans worked with those metals. But they worked with the natural outgrowths of these metals – they did not have the technology to create the controlled, intense heat needed for smelting. They fashioned items such as mirrors used in religious ceremonies. The linguistic evidence for the existence of METALS is irrelevant. It is the process of smelting that is contested. Hence, the importance of the Linne reference.
What makes it even more unlikely that Sorenson used Linne’s reference correctly is this statement Linne made just a few pages later, p 147.
Of peculiar character are a rounded object, fig.236, and fragments of a circular plate, both from Burial 1. The latter, which has the appearance of rusty iron, may have been a mirror. Analysis has shown both of them to contain a large proportion of sulphur and iron, and they are undoubtedly iron pyrite (FeS2). There can be no doubt that certain pre-Spanish objects described as being of iron are nothing but pyrite. Weathering has made them look rusty.
Note: upon request, I provided more context.
This was a dig of the Tlamimilolpa House Ruin in Teotihuacan. At the beginning of the section, Linne spends some time describing the actual site and how they proceeded. Then he lists the objects excavated therein. 13 graves were discovered below the floors of different rooms, and the object in question was discovered in Burial site 1, the earliest of said graves. He first lists approximately sixteen different types of pottery vessels, bowls, dishes, jars, lids, miniature vessels. He then lists beads and figurine fragments. Next he lists obsidian knives and tools. Then he moves into listing the mineral type objects. This is the area of the list wherein this item occurs. To provide more context, I will list the objects that preceded and followed the items in question. Again, this is page 132, just like his notation lists. It is the only possible connection – anything else would be an even weaker connection.
1 object of pyrite, rounded and highly polished, fig. 236. Analysis reveals a high percentage of iron and sulphur: specific gravity 4.88
1 piece of pyrite, of rectangular shape and with one side slightly convex and polished; 1.3 x 0.9x 0.1 cm. Was no doubt originally set in the eye of a mask of the typeshown in pls. 3-5.
Metallic-resembling substance, small, irregular shaped pieces. Analysis has shown them to contain copper and iron, but no zinc, tin, or antimony.
2 bone implements, short and tapering, though not sharp-pointed. Have possibly been used for flaking off knives from obsidian blocks. Figs. 248, 254.
1 thin, flat bone object with a blunt point and a hole pierced for a suspension cord or the like, fig. 249
He then proceeds to list teeth and shells.
After listing all the objects, he writes some notes and draws some conclusions. Under the heading “Tools and ornaments of obsidian, stone, and mica”, he made the statement I already quoted, but here is the entire paragraph, from p 146.
Of peculiar character are a rounded object, fig. 236, and fragments of a circular plate, both from Burial 1. The latter, which has the appearance of rusty iron, may have been a mirror. Analysis has shown both of them to contain a large proportion of sulphur and iron, and they are undoubtedly iron pyrite. There can be no doubt that certain pre-Spanish objects described as being of iron are nothing but pyrite. Weathering has made them look rusty. The diameter of the flat disc is 6 cm, which roughly corresponds to the average size of the Mexican pyrite mirrors included in Nordenskiold’s study of convex and concave mirrors in America. Unfortunately the surface is so badly weathered that it is impossible to determine the way in which it is ground. Nordenskiold has, however, found that the majority of pre-Spanish mirrors – all of them from Mexico, Ecuador, and the Peruvian coast – are convex and consist of pyrite. In Musee de l’Homme, Paris, there is one which forms part of Charnay’s collection and is stated to have come from Teotihuacan. Nordenskiold further adduces a Mexican picture-writing in which among other things is seen a man using a mirror. The picture-writing in question is said to originate from Cholula. Mirrors were naturally in great demand as an article of trade and even formed part of the barter goods with which the great raft that Bartolome Ruiz in 1526 encountered off the coast of Ecuador was loaded.
The metallic looking substance, itself, was not significant enough to warrant any kind of mention in the comments.
Under the pottery section, this is listed:
6 bowls with flat bottom, curving sides and exceedingly rudimentary feet, fig. 203. They are black, polished, and with a surface of almost metallic luster. One of them is ornamented with incised curved lines, fig. 217
That’s the only other thing I could find that mentions anything about metallic looking, and this is clearly not actual metal. But it is a bowl!!!
Dan Peterson posted and said that he brought this up to a friend last night who asked Dr. Sorenson about it. Dr. Sorenson admitted that the footnote lacked certain clarifications, and he stated something about receiving more information privately from an excavator of the site (apparently not Linne). Dan chalks it up to an oversight.
My problem with this "oversight" is that as recently as 1995, Sorenson repeated the exact same information without bothering to add any clarification.
Buyer, beware, as usual.
| | We have often noted a certain communication gap between popular Christian apologists and Christian scholars whose works may contradict them at certain points. Not surprisingly, scholarly results also apparently do not always filter down in Mormonism.
The Izapa Stela 5 (hereafter IS5) is regarded by some popular Mormon apologists as a convincing proof of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. Here are a few points back and forth from the Internet.
- This site is a "pro" IS5 site that lays out some of the basics.
- This is a picture of IS5.
- Mormonism Research Ministry offers this contrary position.
- Leading Mormon scholarly apologist William J. Hamblin has taken a "wait and see" position in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon:
This is perhaps the best known pre-Columbian monument that has been
associated with the Book of Mormon by Latter-day Saints. In dealing with
this stela it must be emphasized that the interpretation of iconography
is extremely difficult and complex. The same symbols or combinations of
symbols can have radically different meanings in different times, places,
societies, or to different groups within a single society. We will never
know for certain what Izapa Stela 5 meant to its creators. To me the
connection with the Book of Mormon is possible, but tenuous. But even
if Izapa Stela 5 has absolutely nothing to do with the Book of Mormon,
the fact that some Latter-day Saint have misinterpreted it provides no
evidence against the Book of Mormon."
Hamblin adds in a footnote:
The original analysis of Izapa Stela 5 is M. Wells Jakeman, "An Unusual Tree of Life Sculpture from Ancient Central America," Bulletin of the University Archaeological Society 4 (1953): 26-49; and M. Wells Jakeman, The Complex "Tree-of-Life" Carving on Izapa Stela 5: A Reanalysis and Partial Interpretation (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1958). Some of the more important recent Latter-day Saint studies of Izapa Stela 5 since the Tanners' publication (which they have never dealt with) include: Michael T. Griffith, "The Lehi Tree-of-Life Story in the Book of Mormon Still Supported by Izapa Stela 5," Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology 151 (December 1982); 1-13; Ross T. Christensen, "Stela 5, Izapa: A Review of Its Study as the 'Lehi Tree-of Life Stone,' " Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology 156 (March 1984): 1-6; Alan K. Parrish, "Stela 5, Izapa: A Layman's Consideration of the Tree of Life Stone," in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, eds., The Book of Mormon: First Nephi, the Doctrinal Foundation (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988), 125-50; V. Garth Norman, Izapa Stela 5 and the Lehi Tree-of-Life Vision Hypothesis: A Reanalysis (American Fork, UT: Archaeological Research Consultants, 1985), V. Garth Norman, "What Is the Current Status of Research Concerning the "Tree of Life" Carving from Chiapas, Mexico," The Ensign 15 (June 1985): 54-55.
At this site the object of Hamblin's response, the Tanners, have this to say:
For several years, many LDS have made great claims concerning "Stela 5, Izapa" which was found in Chiapas, Mexico, in 1939. In 1941, the Smithsonian Institution and National Geographic Society sent an expedition to study the stone. In a letter to the author of this book, dated May 1, 1963, George Crossette, Chief of Geographic Research at the National Geographic Society, said, "No one associated with our expedition connected this stela in any way with the Book of Mormon." In spite of this, several LDS publications have pictures and comments made by Smithsonian Institute and National Geographic Society which leave the impression that they support the LDS claims.
Mormons like M. Wells Jakeman have published articles in newspapers and periodicals claiming this stone helps prove that the B. of M. is true. LDS usually refer to the stone as "The Lehi Tree of Life Stone," because it supposedly has many similarities to Lehi's vision of the tree of life in I Nephi 8 in the B. of M. Some newspaper articles even claim that the names Lehi, Sariah, and Nephi are on three name glyths on the stone. But, there are no "name glyths" on the stone at all! George Crossette also said in his letter that the stone is almost a duplicate, in every elaborate detail, of the so called "Chapultapec" stone, of unknown provenience, now in the National Museum of Mexico.
Such are the basics. Now let's have a look at some more details. For this report we managed to get a copy of the 1958 monograph by Jakeman offering his view of the IS5.
The central depiction of IS5 is that of what Jakeman called the "Tree of Life" of the Maya and Aztec religion [Jakeman, 1-10]. Around the Tree of Life are a number of figures. Some of these are personifications of Mesoamerican deities. However, six of the figures are clearly human. Jakeman offered these points about the six figures:
- The first figure, an old, bearded man with a hunched back, sits facing the tree and the other five persons. Jakeman supposes this man to be "a man of special religious learning" who is speaking to the others about the Tree of Life, and also a man of priestly authority, for "he appears to be making while he speaks (or to have made just before speaking) a burnt offering upon an altar (the latter depicted as a small portable altar or incense-burner)..." [12]
- The second figure, seated on a cushion or cushion-like stool behind the first, appears old but is beardless and has a horned headdress. Jakeman supposes that this may be an old woman. The figure is holding a large sign on a standard which depicts a "grotesque face in profile" which Jakeman interprets as that of a crocodile. Jakeman reads this face as a glyph giving the first figure's name.
In the end Jakeman concludes that the old couple are a stereotyped representation often made of the "ancestral couple" (like Adam and Eve) of Mesoamerica, who represent (as they do in other places) another actual, and famous, elderly couple. Now of course a certain question arises at this point -- we have a Tree of Life; we have the Mesoamerican "Adam and Eve"; we also have two divine figures around the tree who might match with cherubim guarding the Tree (cf. Gen. 3:24) and the scene also features a two-headed serpent. Could IS5 be something with its origins in a memory of the actual Edenic scene? Jakeman admits this possibility, but discounts it. He argues [18] that there are too many differences from the Genesis account and its Babylonian parallel: the other four human figures; the Tree in Genesis and Babylon being the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the Tree of Life; and that the serpent in IS5 represents the earth, not temptation and evil.
Without stepping too far afield, and without committing to any particular view on IS5, I would only note here that if Jakeman were a skeptic I would not regard this evidence as sufficient to negate an identification with a dim memory of the actual Genesis events. Comparison of the Genesis Flood account with its Babylonian parallel shows well enough that, within our paradigm, enough changes were made to suspect that IS5 could be a mixed and dimmed representation of the Genesis scene. But by no means does this lead to the necessity of a positive identification; it only means that Jakeman's reasoning is fallacious.
Thus Jakeman opts for an alternative: the couple are the ancient ancestors of people after the Flood -- roughly equal to Noah and his wife -- in Mesoamerica.
- In light of this identification, Jakeman identifies the next four figures, seated on the ground with their backs to the tree. Two he identifies as the two warriors sons of the ancestral couple. A third, who has a "small scraggly beard" and is larger than the others, holds "a long pointed object" and a rectangular object which Jakeman identifies as a stylus (writing implement) and a tablet. The identification of this person Jakeman says is "difficult" but he supposes it may have been a third son. A final figure, whose face has been obliterated, holds "an umbrella or parasol" over the previous figure, and Jakeman supposes it may be a fourth son. Jakeman further notes that the umbrella was a Mesoamerican symbol of rulership, and thus figure #5 is indicated to be a ruler. Other symbols attached to this figure, Jakeman goes on, identify him as a priest or representative of the Mesoamerican Grain God [23].
Thus the human figures; Jakeman then outlines some other points of interest [24ff]:
- A small, humanlike figure between the first two which is "possibly an idol."
- A humanlike figure standing in the air, facing the tree with arms outstretched and wearing a hooded robe, identified as "an anonymous supernatural being."
- A wavy double line between figure #6 above and the edge of the stela, which runs down the right edge of the stela and then turns left at the bottom, passing "close by the roots of the tree." This is taken to be a river of water, watering the tree -- or perhaps something more symbolic.
- A broad line in the right-hand part of the ground panel of the stela.
- A complex of narrow lines, some of which Jakeman identifies as a path.
- A final figure, standing above the hooded one, with a full beard and holding a "small roundish object" interpreted as fruit from the tree.
By now the reader may be asking, "So when does he get to saying this proves the Book of Mormon?" The answer is, in this book at least, Jakeman never does get around to this at all. His own conclusion is simply stated: The carving is a "portrayal of some ancient event (actual or mythological) concerning....[the] Tree of Life symbol of ancient Mesoamerican religion" in which the older folks were explaining some things to the younger. Then Jakeman goes on to list a number of elements in the IS5 carving that he argues match "Old World" features (i.e., in spite of what he says previously, similarities to the Genesis and Babylon stories, all of which are also, as noted, interpretable within a paradigm of reminisces of the original account; Old World-like clothing and headdresses; the use of the umbrella over a ruler; the use of a small altar -- he goes on to admit, though, that most of the elements he cites [but not all] are simple enough to be explained as being hit upon independently [46]). The only hint we get that Jakeman is even making a BoM connection is a claim that the name of the Egyptian Grain God was "Nepi" noted in a footnote to be a match for Nephi. Were it not for this and the Provo imprint you might not even know that this book had any relevance to Mormonism. (But according to Brewer, in the article noted below, Jakeman held this view five years before the publishing date of the monograph, and did not make a treatment of the topic -- presumably meaning, a connection to the BoM -- until seven years after the monograph. A later scholar, V. Garth Norman, did further work on IS5 in the 1970s; more on that soon.)
Subsequent work on IS5 has made a more definitive connection. Popular Mormon apologetic works of late now connect the IS5 depiction with an account in the BoM in 1 Nephi 8, 11 and 12, in which the character Lehi had a vision of the Tree of Life. Here are the relevant portions of those chapters:
And it came to pass after I had prayed unto the Lord I beheld a large and spacious field. And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy. And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen. And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit. And as I cast my eyes round about, that perhaps I might discover my family also, I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit. And I looked to behold from whence it came; and I saw the head thereof a little way off; and at the head thereof I beheld your mother Sariah, and Sam, and Nephi; and they stood as if they knew not whither they should go. And it came to pass that I beckoned unto them; and I also did say unto them with a loud voice that they should come unto me, and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit. And it came to pass that they did come unto me and partake of the fruit also. And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them. And it came to pass that I saw them, but they would not come unto me and partake of the fruit. And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood. And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world. And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood. And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.
And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost. And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree. And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed. And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit. And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost. And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father. But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree. And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building. And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads. And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.
These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away. And Laman and Lemuel partook not of the fruit, said my father. And it came to pass after my father had spoken all the words of his dream or vision, which were many, he said unto us, because of these things which he saw in a vision, he exceedingly feared for Laman and Lemuel; yea, he feared lest they should be cast off from the presence of the Lord. And he did exhort them then with all the feeling of a tender parent, that they would hearken to his words, that perhaps the Lord would be merciful to them, and not cast them off; yea, my father did preach unto them. And after he had preached unto them, and also prophesied unto them of many things, he bade them to keep the commandments of the Lord; and he did cease speaking unto them.
...And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God. And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God! And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove. And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.
The elements highlighted above should be kept in mind. It is these points which popular apologists compare to IS5: the Tree of Life is identified with Lehi's tree, the figures in the IS5 with Lehi and his family; the writing figure with Nephi recording the vision; the river with the river; the hooded figure with a blind person who has lost his way (contrary to Jakeman!), and the rod of iron with a heavy line along the bottom of IS5.
So is there any substance to this analysis, or is it, after the manner of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, merely a stretch of imagination? On this account, the leading Mormon apologists are not agreeing with Jakeman. Two items in the first 1999 edition of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies ("The History of an Idea" by Stewart Brewer; "A New Artistic Rendering of Izapa Stela 5" by John Clark) make these points, first from Brewer:
- Even at the earliest, Jakeman relied on a little creativity to fit IS5 with the vision. "For example, the large field he believed was represented by a small uncarned segment of the background. He argued that it stood conceptually for a large field but could not be shown larger because the scene was so crowded."
- Norman's later work, which involved extensive photography and examination of IS5, referred to "errors in detecting details" which "plagued" Jakeman's interpretation, and decided that much of his work was thereby "rendered invalid." However, he went on to suggest a "road of life" theme for the IS5 that he felt did not invalidate Jakeman's hypothesis, but rather "deepened its meaning."
- A non-Mormon researcher, Suzanne Miles, provided the first significant non-Mormon look at IS5 and described it as a "fantastic visual myth." Her interpretation did not in any way lend support to Jakeman's. Somewhat before Miles another researcher, Clyde Keeler, offered an interpretation which also disagreed wirth Jakeman's. In 1982, a BYU graduate, Gareth Lowe, interpreted IS5 as a creation myth.
- Hugh Nibley, the premier LDS apologist, dismissed Jakeman's interpretation as wishful thinking, offering criticism for his failure to check for parallels in Far Eastern art and in other Mesoamerican art; ignoring or explaining away contrary evidence; "gross errors in elementary matters of linguistic and iconographic evidence", and offering unlikely interpretations over simple ones.
- More recently, however, popular Mormon apologist Michael Griffith and BYU professor of ancient scripture Alan Parrish have come out in support of Jakeman's interpretation.
None of the problems are perhaps surprising, since Jakeman, Brewer notes, had only limited experience in excavation and analysis of materials. This is ironic, for Jakeman responded to Nibley (and to another Mormon critic of his work, John Sorenson) by stating that neither of them were qualified to make such assessments.
Now the highlights of Clark's item, which notes the advances of interpretation of Mesoamerican monuments since Jakeman and Norman:
- IS5, among the stela at Izapa, is "the most complex scene" in the collection, and perhaps in all of North America from before Christ. Clark notes Norman's report that the scene contains "at least 12 human figures, a dozen animals, over 25 botanical and inanimate objects, and 9 stylized deity masks."
- The 12 "roots" of the tree, which one popular Mormon apologist identifies as perhaps representing the 12 tribes of Israel, is actually "the elongated teeth of a crocodile or earth monster," and the tree trunk "doubles as the crocodile's body..." This is the crocodile upon whose back the earth rested, and who in turn floated on the primordial sea.
- Two of the six human figures, including the woman, hold pointed objects. The woman is using her object to "jab a hole in her tongue to extract blood for an offering to the gods..."
- The study of Irene Briggs in the 1950s is cited, in which comparisons were made for thematic and other parallels to Near Eastern themes and art. She found only five general thematic parallels and showed no connection in terms of artistic style.
- For what it is worth, Clark notes that a connection of IS5 does not correlate with BoM history and geography as it is presently understood, and adds that there is no indication in 1 Nephi that Lehi or the others shared the dream of Lehi with anyone else. He adds that the scene in Nephi tells nothing of who was present and whether incense was burned. "...only two elements mentioned in the text, a fruit tree and water, can be recognized on the stone without resorting to guesswork."
- Jakeman and later writers identified the old man character as Lehi based on a glyph next to the character supposed to be a jawbone (matching with the jawbone hefted by Samson when he called his place "Lehi"). However, what is next to the old man is a skull, and it is "noticeably jawless."
- Fish and hummingbirds in the scene, which one popular apologist states are symbols of resurrection and eternal life, are not: the fish at least Clark says "do not make sense" and we need to check other monuments to clarify their meaning.
Clark ultimately concludes that the Jakeman's work is "too speculative and is based on too many weak points of logic to be accepted" and that the IS5 scene probably has something to do with the king as intercessor for his people, offering no specific BoM connection, though he suggests IS5's art may have a link to the Jaredite peoples of the BoM.
In conclusion: Popular Mormon apologists who use IS5 are at best putting the cart before the horse, and at worst contradicting their best scholarship. Not that this is a uniquely Mormon trait: Skeptics have Nebraska Man, for example, and evangelicals had their share of things like Whisenant's 88 Reasons book. But it is clear that IS5 is not an effective weapon in the Mormon apologetic arsenal and needs to be shelved, at least for the time being.
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/stela5.html
| Notice in the first paragraph below FARMS hedges in own defense by the use of cleaver question mark after Joseph Smith. I feel they are deliberately being deceptive here and add the the question mark "as an out."
"Some critics object that the Book of Mormon uses the term "elephant,"not "mammoth" or "mastodon." Since these terms were invented after Joseph Smith?s time, the only term with which the prophet was familiar would have been "elephant.""--FARMS, Other Questions of the Week.
In the paragraph below we learn that at least since about 1739 it was known that Elephant like creatures had existed in America, and since at least 1821 the term mammouth had been used.
"The discovery in 1739 that led to Daubenton's paper is hailed in the annals of scientific history as the birth of American paleontology. In 1821, the great French naturalist Georges Cuvier credited the Indian hunters in Longueuil's army with discovering the first specimens of the "mammouth d'Amérique" to be studied in Europe. (Fossil Legends of the First Americans--Adrienne Mayor
So Joseph Smith putting Elephants in the Book of Mormon was not that far fetched. He probably had heard stories about elephant bones being found--and probably did not know that that the scientists of his day had already correctly identified them as Mammouth remains.
Since the term Mammouth apparently did exist in Joseph Smith's time why did he not use it in the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is really refering Mammouths why was Joseph Smith not inspired to use the correct term. Once again the Book of Mormon in it's misuse of the term Elephant for Mammouths reflects the current events of Joseph Smith's times. Yes the Book of Mormon does reference Mammouths, the ones dug up in Colonial America and at later dates preceding the publishing of theBook of Mormon--the only problem is Joseph Smith thought they were elephants.
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
|
At the Worlds of Joseph Smith Conference held in Washington, D.C. in May 2005, BYU professor John Welch spoke about circumstantial pieces of evidence that he believes substantiates Joseph Smith’s claim as a prophet. Among the list of "evidence" Welch supplied was an inscription on a stone from the country of Yemen, which is located on the Saudi Arabian peninsula. Welch is not the first Mormon apologist to use this stone to legitimize the authenticity of both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The question is, does this stone really have any great significance?
Mormon Church-owned Ensign magazine covered the discovery of the stone in its February 2001 edition. If this is, in fact, a momentous discovery, then many Mormons must have been disappointed in the mere three-paragraph article that barely filled a quarter of a page.
Found tucked away on page 79, the article (titled "Book of Mormon Linked to Site in Yemen") boasted that "a group of Latter-day Saint researchers recently found evidence linking a site in Yemen, on the southwest corner of the Arabian peninsula, to a name associated with Lehi’s journey as recorded in the Book of Mormon." The passage from the Book of Mormon to which this stone is linked comes from 1 Nephi 16:34. It reads, "And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom."
The Ensign article went on to say that "Warren Aston, Lynn Hilton, and Gregory Witt located a stone altar that professional archaeologists dated to at least 700 B.C. This altar contains an inscription confirming ‘Nahom’ as an actual place that existed in the peninsula before the time of Lehi. The Book of Mormon mentions that ‘Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.’" Included in the article was a picture of the stone with a caption that reads, "On this altar is written the word Nahom."
First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the inscription does not confirm that Nahom was an actual place or that this particular stone validates 1 Nephi 16:34. The inscription on the stone merely provides three consonants – NHM. This undisputable fact also exposes the misleading caption in the article that the word Nahom was written on the stone altar, which is not true.
In an article found at www.lehistrail.com, Warren Aston notes, "The recent discovery by a German archaeological team of a stone altar in Yemen referring to the tribal name NIHM was announced in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies in 1999.(1) Perfectly preserved under centuries of sand, the altar had been dated by its excavators to about 600-700 BC, thus placing it squarely in the time frame of the Book of Mormon ‘Nahom’ (1 Nephi 16:34) where Ishmael was buried. Unlike most places mentioned in the account of the journey from Jerusalem, Nephi's wording makes it clear that Nahom was already called such by the local population."
Can we assume that Mr. Aston is not letting his presuppositions get the best of him? After all, to say that "Nephi's wording makes it clear that Nahom was already called such by the local population" would carry no weight to someone not yet convinced that a person named Nephi ever existed. Let us not forget that the LDS Church has provided no historical or archaeological evidence that Nephi or any of the unique characters mentioned in the Book of Mormon actually lived.
It is also important to note that NIHM is believed to be a tribal name, not a place name, and that the three consonants can have a variety of spellings when vowels are inserted. Aston notes in the web site article that references to NHM are "usually given as NiHM, NeHeM, NaHaM etc." The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies reports that this can also be spelled "NaHM" (7:1, 1998, p. 7).
In an article titled "The Place That was Called Nahom: New Light from Ancient Yemen," BYU professor S. Kent Brown notes, "Although we cannot determine that at the time there was a place called Nihm or Nehem, it is reasonable to surmise that the tribe gave its name to the region where it dwelt…Was it this name that Nephi rendered Nahom in his record? Very probably." (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 8:1, 1999, p.68). Very probably?
Even more interesting is how the article in the Ensign closes. It reads, "This is the first archaeological find that supports a Book of Mormon place-name other than Jerusalem or the Red Sea…." On what little we know of this inscription can a Mormon be all that hopeful? If there is significant examination by unbiased sources showing that this inscription has no relationship to the Book of Mormon Nahom, then it would mean that there are no archaeological finds supporting a Book of Mormon place-name other than Jerusalem or the Red Sea. After 175+ years the LDS Church would still be batting zero.
| OK how do you test a theory? Say, the theory: "the Book of Mormon is a translation of an actual, historical ancient text."
Well you could try linguistic tests but those fail terribly since it's written in a poor imitation of King James English and even quotes sentences from the New Testament that wouldn't have been available to the decendents of Lehi who left the old world in 590 B.C. We could try to test the actual document to see if it is ancient or a modern forgery but, unfortunately, the plates are unavailable. There is the "Anthon Transcript" which copies some "charactors" from the plates but no one has been able to actually translate this. It looks as much like something made up as it does an actual ancient writing.
So you read what it says and see if it really, truly corresponds to any actual ancient civilization.
Now the Book of Mormon gives a lot of information on what the civilization it describes was like. They were decendents of Hebrews, they used horses and chariots, they wrote in an altered form of Egyptian but had a Hebrew-based language. They had Oxen and donkeys, planted wheat and barley, smelted iron and steel. They practiced a form of Christianity.
Now to test this you can do things two ways. The scientific way or the crackpot way. The scientific way (which was tried in the 50s and 60s by the New World Archaeological Foundation which was started by Thomas Stuart Ferguson with funds authorized the First Presidency) is to say "If it were true what should we find? If it were false what should we find?" Then you go and look and see which "theory" is supported by the evidence.
Half a century of meso-American archaeology and anthropology have shown that the native Americans in antiquity had no horses, didn't plant wheat or barley, didn't use the wheel, didn't smelt metals didn't have oxen or donkeys etc. Their religion was nothing like Christianity and their language and writing system had no relation at all to either Egyptian or Hebrew.
If you take things seriously (as Ferguson did--he ended up concluding that the church was bogus) you say "the theory has been proven false."
However if you are a crackpot then it's not the evidence that drives the theory but it's the theory that drives the evidence. If you are a crackpot and have an overwhelming emotional attachment to your theory you look for anything, anywhere that fits in with the theory you prefer. You trumpet any find anywhere that can remotely be made to fit your theory and you ignore anything that doesn't fit.
Now given that the Book of Mormon is 521 pages long and takes place anywhere over the entire North and South-American continent (unless you are using the Limited Geography Theory to avoid other disconfirming evidence) as well as over a few thousand square miles in the old world you have all kinds of room to find parallels.
Anything anywhere in the American or in ancient Israel, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. that can be made to fit with ANYTHING in the Book of Mormon is considered confirming evidence. Such "parallels" are usually a function of the time and effort spent trying to create/find them rather than a function of any actual connection between the theory and reality. This is the same thing that Velikovsky's followerss do or adherents of Astrology or Biorhythms or UFO contacts or Facilitated Communication or any of a gazillion other discredited pseudo-sciences.
The fact that three consonants on a stone somewhere in Yemen is the same as the consonants in a name in the Book of Mormon is at best, mildly amusing. The fact that Mormon apologists proudly point to this as "the best evidence yet" for the historicity of the Book of Mormon shows how poor their position really is.
If the best thing (by their own admission) that they can find is the kind of coincidental "parallel" that crackpots always point to then their position is a crackpot position.
The question they ask (as do all crackpots when they proudly present their "parallels") is "what is the probability that Joseph Smith could have gotten THIS right?" Or as you state in your post "I can't believe Joseph Smith could be that lucky."
This is the wrong question to ask. Joseph wasn't that lucky. If no stone would have been found with NHM on it would the apologists throw up their hands and say "gee this means the Book of Mormon must be fiction." They dont' do that with horses, or DNA, or wheat, or cultivated barley or oxen or asses or smelted iron and steel or language or religion. Why would they do that with NHM? But no one said "NHM must exist on a rock somewhere" ahead of time. it was after someone found it that someone else noticed that it could be made to fit with a Book of Mormon passage. This is a totally sporadic parallel, the kind that crackpots search for like needles in haystacks.
The real question to ask is this: "Does the evidence as a whole support or disconfirm the theory?" Given the gazillions of things in the Book of Mormon and the gazillions of things in either North or South America or the ancient world wouldn't you expect hoards of apologists-scholars to be able to find something this striking? That this little factoid is presented as "the best evidence yet" shows the poverty of their position.
The "Nahom" evidence and the way it is used along with all the other sporadic parallels that float in a sea of systematic but contradictory evidence is not impressive. Not impressive at all.
| It took me about 15 seconds to look up "fig" in the Book of Mormon index. The *only* mention of it is 3 Nephi 14:16, which is within the resurrected Jesus's "sermon on the mount" to the Nephites. The BOM index citation even cross-references Matthew 7:16, which is the authentic Biblical source for the allegory in the Sermon on the Mount. So the only reference to them in the BOM is plagiarized from the Bible. Smith didn't have to know about fig trees to write that passage; all he needed was a KJV Bible to copy from, which he obviously did.
Also, a 30-second google search turned up
http://www.nafex.org/figs.htm
Which states that:
"The Spanish were the first to bring the fig to the United States (Florida by 1575). The Spanish Franciscan missionaries brought figs into California when they established a mission at San Diego in 1769."
As for this assertion:
"The church claims the so-called book of abraham papyrus they have now has nothing to do with what joseph smith "translated." The 11 pieces now in their custody are completely different from what smith used."
Completely wrong as well. The fact that Smith claimed that the existant papyrus are the source for the BOA text is shown by the facts that:
- Smith himself ordered the three "facsimiles" from the papyrus to be published as illustrations for his BOA, and those facsimiles continue to be published as such by the church to this day.
- In his journal entries, Smith repeatedly cited the facsimiles from the papyrus as being part of the BOA story. Read the quotes at http://groups.google.com/group/alt.re...
- The text of Abraham 1:12 actually refers to Facsimile No. 1 (the lion-couch scene): "that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the beginning of this record." Since Facsimile No. 1 was originally part of the same scroll as the "Sen-sen text" (hieratic writings containing funerary prayers), the words "this record" in the BOA text have to refer to the Sen-sen text. The logical conclusion being that Smith purported that the Sen-sen text was the specific source for his BOA text.
As for the "colored" papyrus, many researchers have debunked that, including Charles Larson:
http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bho...
| “This book (John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatán) amazed the English-speaking world with evidence of an advanced civilization that no one imagined existed—no one, that is, except Latter-day Saints.”
Well no, Americans in general, and people in upstate NY in specific, did imagine an advanced civilization in the Western Hemisphere. It was called the Mound Builders. Some of those mounds were in JS’s neighborhood. The mounds and their supposed builders, a race more advanced than the “savage” Indians, were a hot topic in JS’s time. Odd Clark doesn’t mention them.
“The book's description of ancient peoples differs greatly from the notions of rude savages held by 19th-century Americans.”
But it fits very nicely with 19th-century American notions of Mound Builders. A Ph.D. in anthropology like Clark would know this, wouldn’t he?
“The book's claim of city societies was laughable at the time, but no one is laughing now.”
Wrong again Clark, 19th-century Americans saw the Mounds and attributed them to an advanced culture that the “savage” Indians destroyed.
“Their pyramids (towers), temples, and palaces are all items mentioned in the Book of Mormon but foreign to the gossip along the Erie Canal in Joseph Smith's day.”
Actually, the conical and square Mounds were a hot topic in JS’s day.
“All Book of Mormon peoples had kings who ruled cities and territories. American prejudices against native tribes in Joseph's day had no room for kings or their tyrannies.”
But Americans of JS’s day thought there was a race of people in American in addition to the “native tribes.” They called them Mound Builders and thought they were an advanced civilization because of the size of some of the Mounds and the artifacts being found in and near them.
Anyone with a Ph.D. in anthropology from a major American university would know about the Mound Builders, 19th-century beliefs regarding them and how well those beliefs line up with what JS put in the BofM.
Have you no shame John E. Clark?
| Recently, I read John Clark's "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" (Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2005. P. 38–49) at the suggestion of Daniel Peterson. Clark presents what he sees as 12 points of convergence between Mesoamerican archaeology and Book of Mormon descriptions. As I went through the list, it struck me that many of the parallels were present also in mound builder mythology, and I thought maybe I'd see if there were such alternative parallels for all the points he raises.
1. Metal Records in Stone Boxes
Here's Clark:
"The first archaeological claims related to the Book of Mormon concern the purported facts of 22 September 1827: the actuality of metal plates preserved in a stone box. This used to be considered a monstrous tale, but concealing metal records in stone boxes is now a documented Old World practice. Stone offering boxes have also been discovered in Mesoamerica, but so far the golden plates are still at large—as we would expect them to be."
According to Dan Vogel, the existence of such items was a common belief among the proponents of mound builder mythology:
"Joseph Smith was certainly not the first to claim the discovery of a stone box, metal plates, or an Indian book. It was known that the Indians sometimes buried their dead in stone boxes similar to the one described by Joseph Smith. In 1820, for example, the Archaeologia Americana reported that human bones had been discovered in some mounds "enclosed in rude stone coffins." A similar stone box, described by John Haywood of Tennessee, was made by placing "four stones standing upright, and so placed in relation to each other, as to form a square or box, which enclosed a skeleton." Stone boxes of various sizes and shapes had reportedly been found in Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, New York, and other places.
"According to various accounts, some of the North American mounds also contained metal plates. Plates constructed by the Indians were usually made of hammered copper or silver and were sometimes etched. Plates made of other metals were most likely of European manufacture. In 1775 Indian trader James Adair described two brass plates and five copper plates found with the Tuccabatches Indians of North America. According to Adair, an Indian informant said "he was told by his forefathers that those plates were given to them by the man we call God; that there had been many more of other shapes, . . . some had writing upon them which were buried with particular men." The Reverend Thaddeus Mason Harris stated in 1805 that "plates of copper have been found in some of the mounds, but they appear to be parts of armour." Orsamus Turner reported that in 1809 a New York farmer ploughed up an "Ancient Record, or Tablet." This plate, according to Turner, was made of copper and "had engraved upon one side of it . . . what would appear to have been some record, or as we may well imagine some brief code of laws."45 The Philadelphia Port Folio reported in 1816 that "thin plates of copper rolled up" were discovered in one mound. In 1823 John Haywood described "human bones of large size" and "two or three plates of brass, with characters inscribed resembling letters" found in one West Virginia mound. In 1883 John Rogan of the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of Ethnology excavated a mound near Peoria, Illinois, and discovered ten stone boxes, several containing a single skeleton and "a thin copper plate ornamented with stamped figures." Thus the connection of metal plates with stone boxes may have been a natural one."
2. Ancient Writing
Clark tells us that people in Joseph's day did not believe that ancient Americans could write:
"Another fact obvious that September morning was that ancient peoples of the Americas knew how to write, a ludicrous claim for anyone to make in 1827."
From the Geneva, New York, Gazette, Feb. 17, 1819, we read
"Several ancient pieces of aboriginal writing have lately reached New-York from Mexico. They are such as have been described and figured by many of the authors that have treated of the men who were the rulers of that important region of North America at the time of its invasion by the Spaniards -- being partly imitative, by pictures, and partly significant, by hieroglyphics."
Again, here's Vogel:
"Perhaps such discoveries of metal plates encouraged the persistent legend of a lost Indian book. The legend, as related by Congregational minister Ethan Smith of Poultney, Vermont, held that the Indians once had "a book which they had for a long time preserved. But having lost the knowledge of reading it, they concluded it would be of no further use to them; and they buried it with an Indian chief." The legend further stated that the Indians "once, away in another country, had the old divine speech, the book of God; they shall at some time have it again, and shall then be happy."
"Solomon Spalding (sometimes spelled Spaulding) of Ohio, at one time a Congregational minister, took advantage of the lore of his generation to spin a fanciful romance of ancient America. The romance, written sometime before Spalding's death in 1816 but not published until the late 1800s, pretended to be a translation of an ancient record. In his introduction, Spalding wrote that he found the ancient record in "a small mound of Earth" near the west bank of the Conneaut River in Ohio. On top of the mound was "a flat Stone," which he raised up with a lever. This stone turned out to be a cover to "an artificial cave," about eight feet deep and lined with stones. After descending into the pit, he discovered "an earthan [sic] Box with a cover." Removing its lid, he found that the box contained "twenty eight sheets of parchment . . . written in an eligant [sic] hand with Roman Letters & in the Latin Language . . . [containing] a history of the authors [sic] life & that part of America which extends along the greatLakes & the waters of the Missisippy." Spalding told the story of Roman sailors driven off course by a storm to North America about the time of Constantine. They found the land inhabited by two groups of natives.
"Given the currency of such stories, Joseph Smith's own claim that he found a stone box, metal plates, and an Indian record in the hill near his father's farm certainly would have seemed credible to his money-digging friends as well as to others of his contemporaries."
3. The Arts of War
Clark tells us that Book of Mormon ideas of ancient American warfare show that he got details right that he could not have known by himself:
"The information on warfare in the Book of Mormon is particularly rich and provides ample opportunity to check Joseph Smith's luck in getting the details right. The warfare described in the book differs from what Joseph could have known or imagined. In the book, one reads of fortified cities with trenches, walls, and palisades. Mesoamerican cities dating to Nephite times have been found with all these features."
Again, the mound builder myths mention these very characteristics. Here's a description from 1803 by Rev. Dr. Thaddeus Harris of Massachusetts of such fortifications:
"The situation of these works is on an elevated plain, above the present bank of the Muskingum, on the east side, and about half a mile from its junction with the Ohio. They consist of walls and mounds of earth, in direct lines, and in square and circular forms.
"The largest square fort, by some called the town, contains forty acres, encompassed by a wall of earth, from six to ten feet high, and from twenty-five to thirty-six in breadth at the base. On each side are three openings, at equal distances, resembling twelve gateways. The entrances at the middle, are the largest particularly on the side next to the Muskingum. From this outlet is a covert way, formed of two parallel walls of earth, two hundred and thirty-one feet distant from each other, measuring from center to center. The walls at the most elevated part, on the inside, are twenty-one feet in height, and forty-two in breadth at the base, but on the outside average only five feet in height. This forms a passage of about three hundred and sixty feet in the length, leading by a gradual descent to the low grounds, where at the time of its construction, it probably reached the river. Its walls commence at sixty feet from the ramparts of the fort, and increase in elevation as the way descends towards the river;and the bottom is crowned in the center, in the manner of a well founded turnpike road.
"Within the walls of the fort, at the northwest corner, is an oblong elevated square, one hundred and eighty-eight feet long, one hundred and thirty-two broad, and nine feet high; level on the summit, and nearly perpendicular at the sides. At the center of each the sides, the earth is projected, forming gradual ascents to the top, equally regular, and about six feet in width. Near the south wall is another elevated square, one hundred and fifty feet by one hundred and twenty, and eight feet high, similar to the other, excepting that instead of an ascent to go up on the side next to the wall, there is a hollow way ten feet wide, leading twenty feet towards the center, and then rising with a gradual slope to the top. At the southeast corner, is a third elevated square, one hundred and eight, by fifty-four feet, with ascents at the ends, but not so high nor perfect as the two others. A little to the southwest of the center of the fort is a circular mound, about thirty feet in diameter and five feet high, near which are four small excavations at equal distances, and opposite each other. At the southwest corner of the fort is a semicircular parapet, crowned with a mound, which guards the opening in the wall. Towards the southeast is a smaller fort, containing twenty acres, with a gateway in the center of each side and at each corner. These gateways are defended by circular mounds.
"On the outside of the smaller fort is a mound, in form of a sugar loaf, of a magnitude and height which strikes the beholder with astonishment. Its base is a regular circle, one hundred and fifteen feet in diameter; its perpendicular altitude is thirty feet. It is surrounded by a ditch four feet deep and fifteen feet wide, and defended by a parapet four feet high, though which is a gateway towards the fort, twenty feet in width. There are other walls, mounds, and excavations, less conspicuous and entire.""
Clark states that Joseph's description of weaponry is also unusual:
"The Book of Mormon mentions bows and arrows, swords, slings, scimitars, clubs, spears, shields, breastplates, helmets, and cotton armor—all items documented for Mesoamerica."
Once more, we find similar descriptions in the mound builder myths. From Vogel again:
"Occasionally claims surfaced that intact metal objects had been found in the North American mounds, and mound builders were sometimes credited with objects of obvious European manufacture. The Port Folio reported in 1819 that one Tennessee mound contained "an iron sword, resembling the sabre of the Persians or Seythians." John Haywood claimed that in addition to clay objects "iron and steel utensils and ornaments have also been found." The Ohio mound builders, he wrote, "had swords of iron and steel, and steel bows, . . . tools also of iron and steel, and chisels with which they neatly sculptured stone, and made engravings upon it." In 1820 Atwater reported in the Archaeologia Americana that the mound builders "had some very well manufactured swords and knives of iron, possibly of steel." He also claimed that in Virginia "there was found about half a steel bow, which, when entire, would measure five or six feet." Thaddeus Harris indicated that "plates of copper have been found in some mounds, but they appearto be parts of armour." And Ethan Smith recorded that silver, copper, and iron had been found in the North American mounds."
Clark ignores the mention of steel swords and instead posits the Nephite use of the macahuitl:
"Aztec swords were of wood, sometimes edged with stone knives. There are indications of wooden swords in the Book of Mormon—how else could swords become stained with blood? Wooden swords edged with sharp stones could sever heads and limbs and were lethal."
The presence of wooden swords here is speculative, based, it seems, on the description of blood-stained Nephite swords. Yet such a description appears elsewhere in 19th-century literature, including Dickens' Great Expectations ("blood-stain'd sword in thunder down"), which itself is a quotation from William Collins' 1746 poem, "Ode on the Passions." The same image also appears in 1867's "The Sword of Robert Lee," by Father A.J. Ryan. In essence, Clark seems to infer the presence of wooden swords from the use of a literary device.
"The practice of taking detached arms as battle trophies, as in the story of Ammon, is also documented for Mesoamerica."
This one is interesting, although it's an inexact match. Ammon, it must be observed, did not sever the arms in hopes of using them as battle trophies; rather, the text tells us that he severed the arms as the Lamanite sheep rustlers lifted their arms to smite him. The arms were gathered up by his astonished co-shepherds as evidence that this was some sort of superhuman individual. So, yes, there's a parallel, but it's decidedly weaker than Clark's assertion.
"Another precise correspondence is the practice of fleeing to the summits of pyramids as places of last defense and, consequently, of eventual surrender. Conquered cities were depicted in Mesoamerica by symbols for broken towers or burning pyramids. Mormon records this practice."
This statement puzzles me, as the first two citations for "towers as the last refuge in battle" (Alma 50:4; 51:20) have nothing to do with towers being the last refuge in battle but simply mention that towers were constructed on the fortifications and that after their surrender the dissenters were compelled to raise the title of liberty "upon their towers." The third citation (Moroni 9:7) says that "the Lamanites have many prisoners, which they took from the tower of Sherrizah; and there were men, women, and children." This is closer, but still makes no mention of the tower as a stronghold of last resort.
"Other practices of his day were human sacrifice and cannibalism, vile behaviors well attested for Mesoamerica (see Mormon 4:14; Moroni 9:8, 10)."
Human sacrifice and cannibalism were widely attributed to Native Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries; In James Adair's The History of the American Indians from 1775, we read, "The Spanish writers acknowledge that the Mexicans brought their human sacrifices from the opposite sea; and did not offer up any of their own people: so that this was but the same as our North American Indians still practice, when they devote their captives to death."
"The final battle at Cumorah involved staggering numbers of troops, including Nephite battle units of 10,000. Aztec documents describe armies of over 200,000 warriors divided into major divisions of 8,000 warriors plus 4,000 retainers each. One battle involved 700,000 warriors on one side. The Aztec ciphers appear to be propagandistic exaggeration; I do not know whether this applies to Book of Mormon numbers or not."
I'm not really sure of Clark's point here, but given the numbers of burial mounds discovered, it would not have surprised anyone to suggest that so many people had died in battle.
"In summary, the practices and instruments of war described in the Book of Mormon display multiple and precise correspondences with Mesoamerican practices, and in ways unimaginable to 19th-century Yankees."
As I've shown, the practices and instruments of war described are not only not "unimaginable" but they correspond rather well to what 19th-century Americans would expect.
4. Cities, Temples, Towers, and Palaces
"Mesoamerica is a land of decomposing cities. Their pyramids (towers), temples, and palaces are all items mentioned in the Book of Mormon but foreign to the gossip along the Erie Canal in Joseph Smith's day. Cities show up in all the right places and date to time periods compatible with Book of Mormon chronology."
Yet Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" cites Alexander von Humboldt in discussing the existence of these items that Clark calls "foreign" to Joseph Smith's day:
"So great a number of indigenous inhabitants (he [von Humboldt] adds) undoubtedly proves the antiquity of the cultivation of this country. ... From the 7th to the 13th century, population seems in general to have continually flowed towards the south. From the regions situated south of the Rio Gila, issued forth those warlike nations, who successively inundated the country of Anahuac.--The hieroglyphical tables of the Aztees have transmitted to us the memory of the principal epochs of the great migrations among the Americans." This traveller [von Humboldt] goes on to speak of those Indian migrations from the north, as bearing a resemblance to the inundations of the barbarous hordes of Goths and Vandals from the north of Europe, and overwhelming the Roman empire, in the fifth century. He adds; "The people, however, who traversed Mexico, left behind them traces of cultivation and civilization. The Taultees appeared first in the year 648; the Chichimecks in 1170; the Nahualtees in 1178; the Acolhues and Aztees, in 1196. The Taultees introduced the cultivation of maize and cotton; they built cities, made roads, and constructed those great pyramids, which are yet admired, and of which the faces are very accurately laid out. They knew the use of hieroglyphical paintings; they could found metals, and cut the hardest stones. And they had a solar year more perfect than that of the Greeks and Romans. The form of their government indicated that they were descendants of a people who had experienced great vicissitudes in their social state. But where (he adds) is the source of that cultivation? Where is the country from which the Taultees and Mexicans issued?"
"No wonder these questions should arise in the highly philosophical mind of this arch investigator. Had he known the present theory of their having descended from ancient Israel; it seems as though his difficulties might at once have obtained relief. These accounts appear most strikingly to favour our hypothesis. Here we account for all the degrees of civilization and improvements existing in past ages among the natives of those regions. How perfectly consentaneous are these facts stated, with the scheme presented in the preceding pages, that Israel brought into this new continent a considerable degree of civilization; and the better part of them long laboured to maintain it. But others fell into the hunting and consequent savage state; whose barbarous hordes invaded their more civilized brethren, and eventually annihilated most of them, and all in these northern regions! Their hieroglyphical records, paintings and knowledge of the solar year, (let it be repeated and remembered) agree to nothing that could have descended from the barbarous hordes of the north-east of Europe, and north of Asia; but they well agree with the ancient improvements and state of Israel."
Oddly enough, Jeff Lindsay asserts that the Book of Mormon's not mentioning pyramids argues against any borrowing from Humboldt/Ethan Smith.
5. Cement Houses and Cities
"One of the more unusual and specific claims in the Book of Mormon is that houses and cities of cement were built by 49 BC in the Land Northward, a claim considered ridiculous in 1830. As it turns out, this claim receives remarkable confirmation at Teotihuacan, the largest pre-Columbian city ever built in the Americas. Teotihuacan is still covered with ancient cement that has lasted over 1,500 years."
Again, we see in "View of the Hebrews" another citation to Humboldt noting the similarity of construction of the temples at Teotihuacan to ancient Egyptian methods: "This construction recalls to mind that of one of the Egyptian pyramids of Sackhara, which has six stories, is a mass of pebbles and yellow mortar, covered on the outside with rough stones."
6. Kings and Their Monuments
"All Book of Mormon peoples had kings who ruled cities and territories. American prejudices against native tribes in Joseph's day had no room for kings or their tyrannies."
Again from View of the Hebrews:
"They had an established religion among them in many particulars rational and consistent; as likewise regular orders of priesthood. They had a temple dedicated to the Great Spirit, in which they preserved the eternal fire. Their civil polity partook of the refinement of a people apparently in some degree learned and scientific. They had kings, or chiefs,--a kind of subordinate nobility,--and the usual distinctions created by rank were well understood and preserved among them."
Thus we see that the Lamanite regional kings and sub-kings (think Lamoni and his father) fit right in with the notions of Joseph Smith's day about mound builder political structure.
"The last Jaredite king, Coriantumr, carved his history on a stone about 400 BC, an event in line with Mesoamerican practices at that time. A particular gem in the book is that King Benjamin "labored" with his "own hands" (Mosiah 2:14), an outrageous thing for Joseph Smith to have claimed for a king. It was not until the 1960s that anthropology caught up to the idea of working kings and validated it among world cultures."
The idea of a working king is a novel one, though it doesn't entirely contradict what people knew about Indian chiefs in the early 19th century. The sachem, or regional chiefs, were well-known to people of Joseph Smith's day, and we are told in early literature that they were chosen by their tribes for their wisdom and good sense: One author wrote in 1727, "Each nation is an absolute Republick by its self, govern'd in all Publick Affairs of War and Peace by the Sachems (Chiefs) ... whose Authority and power is gain'd by and consists wholly in the Opinion the rest of the Nation have of their Wisdom and Integrity."
"More specifically, we consider Riplakish, the 10th Jaredite king, an oppressive tyrant who forced slaves to construct buildings and produce fancy goods. Among the items he commissioned about 1200 BC was "an exceedingly beautiful throne" (Ether 10:6). The earliest civilization in Mesoamerica is known for its elaborate stone thrones. How did Joseph Smith get this detail right?"
I'm still trying to figure out how to answer this obvious question: how did Joseph guess that kings sit on thrones?
7. Metaphors and | |
