Book of Mormon Evidence

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _Runtu »

Book of Mormon Evidence

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 great Lakes & 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 appear to 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 the Mesoamerican World

Not all evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon concerns material goods. A striking correspondence is a drawing from the Dresden Codex, one of four surviving pre-Columbian Maya books. It shows a sacrificial victim with a tree growing from his heart, a literal portrayal of the metaphor preached in Alma, chapter 32. Other Mesoamerican images depict the tree of life. The Book of Mormon's metaphors make sense in the Mesoamerican world. We are just beginning to study these metaphors, so check the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies for future developments.


I think if anyone wants to see it, the image Clark refers to is found at http://www.famsi.org/research/graz/dres ... s_pg03.jpg. At any rate, Joseph Campbell describes the image as follows: "While rising from the victim's opened belly is the Tree of the Middle Place, which in the Beginning sprang from the body of the sacrificed cosmic goddess... Hers was the primal sacrifice, of which every other is a likeness, and was of world creation; this is of world renewal at the end of the age." Maybe it's just me, but saying that a depiction showing renewal from human sacrifice is a "literal portrayal of the metaphor preached in Alma" is a bit of a stretch.


8. Timekeeping and Prophesying

A correspondence that has always impressed me involves prophecies in 400-year blocks. The Maya were obsessed with time, and they carved precise dates on their stone monuments that began with the count of 400 years, an interval called a baktun. Each baktun was made up of 20 katuns, an extremely important 20-year interval.[35] If you permit me some liberties with the text, Samuel the Lamanite warned the Nephites that one baktun "shall not pass away before . . . they [would] be smitten" (Helaman 13:9). Nephi and Alma uttered the same baktun prophecy, and Moroni recorded its fulfillment. Moroni bids us farewell just after the first katun of this final baktun, or 420 years since the "sign was given of the coming of Christ" (Moroni 10:1).[36] What are the chances of Joseph Smith guessing correctly the vigesimal system of timekeeping and prophesying among the Maya and their neighbors over 50 years before scholars stumbled onto it?


This one is quite thin. Using this logic, the Nephites kept time in blocks of 600 years, since that is the time predicted for the arrival of the Savior. Or maybe that's just a baktun and a half. Yes, I'd say Clark is taking some liberties here.

9. Old World Geography

As is clear from the Cluff expedition, if the geography is not right, one can waste years searching for Zarahemla and never reach it. Book of Mormon geography presents a serious challenge because the only city location known with certitude is Old World Jerusalem, and this does not help us with locations in the promised land. However, geographical correspondences are marvelous for the Old World portion of the narrative. As S. Kent Brown and others have shown, the geography of the Arabian Peninsula described in 1 Nephi is precise down to its place-names. The remarkable geographic fit includes numerous details unknown in Joseph Smith's day.


As I've said, the NHM hit is interesting and the closest thing we have to any external evidence for the Book of Mormon.

10. New World Geography

For the New World, dealing with geography is a two-step exercise. First an internal geography must be deduced from clues in the book, and this deduction must then become the standard for engaging the second step, matching the internal geography with a real-world setting. John Sorenson has done the best work on this matter.[39] The Book of Mormon account is remarkably consistent throughout. Nephite lands included a narrow neck between two seas and lands northward and southward of this neck. The Land Southward could be traversed on foot, with children and animals in tow, in about 30 days, so it could not have been much longer than 300 miles. The 3,000 miles required for the two-hemisphere geography is off by one order of magnitude. Nephite lands were small and did not include all of the Americas or all of their peoples. The principal corollary of a limited geography is that Book of Mormon peoples were not alone on the continent. Therefore, to check for correspondences, one must find the right place and peoples. It is worth noticing that anti-Mormons lament the demise of the traditional continental correlation because it was so easy to ridicule. The limited, scriptural geography is giving them fits.


So he dismisses the hemispheric model, which I would expect. It doesn't make sense, no matter how much the prophets have taught it.

Sorenson argues that Book of Mormon lands and peoples were in Central America and southern Mexico, an area known as Mesoamerica. We notice that the configuration of lands, seas, mountains, and other natural features in Mesoamerica are a tight fit with the internal requirements of the text. It is important to stress that finding any sector in the Americas that fits Book of Mormon specifications requires dealing with hundreds of mutually dependent variables. So rather than counting a credible geography as one correspondence, it actually counts for several hundred. The probability of guessing reams of details all correctly is zero. Joseph Smith did not know about Central America before reading Stephens's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, and he apparently did not know where Book of Mormon lands were, so a Book of Mormon geography correlation becomes compelling evidence that he did not write the book.


I'm sorry, but I don't see this. It's as if he's arguing that since Sorenson found a location that more or less fits geographically, it's evidence for the Book of Mormon. As far as I've seen over the last 20 years or so, the "reams of details" guessed correctly are no more impressive than the claims Clark makes above.

11. Cycles of Civilization in Mesoamerica

I mentioned that the Book of Mormon's claim of civilized peoples was verified in Joseph's lifetime. This claim is actually twofold because the book describes an earlier Jaredite civilization that overlapped a few centuries with Lehite civilization. The dates for the Nephite half of Lehite civilization are clearly bracketed in the account to 587 years before Christ to 386 years after. But those for the earlier civilization remain cloudy, beginning sometime after the Tower of Babel and ending before King Mosiah fled to Zarahemla. Jaredites were probably tilling American soil in the Land Northward at least by 2200 BC, and they may have endured their own wickedness until 400 BC.


Fair enough.

The two-civilizations requirement used to be a problem for the Book of Mormon, but it no longer is now that modern archaeology is catching up. I emphasize that I am interpreting "civilization" in the strict sense as meaning "city life." In checking correlations between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology, I focus on the rise and decline of cities. The earliest known Olmec city was up and running by 1300 BC, and it was preceded by a large community dating back to 1700 BC. Most Olmec cities were abandoned about 400 BC, probably under duress. In eastern Mesoamerica, Olmec civilization was replaced by the lowland Maya, who began building cities in the jungles of Guatemala about 500 to 400 BC. As with Olmec civilization, Maya civilization experienced peaks and troughs of development, with a mini-collapse about AD 200. In short, the correspondences between the Book of Mormon and cycles of Mesoamerican civilization are striking.


However, the "two-civilizations requirement" is not a problem in mound builder lore, as most proponents believed that the mound builders predated the Indian. Even in 1919 such myths continued:

Before the white man, the Indian; before the Indian who the archaeology of any County forms one of its most interesting chapters. Who the ancient dwellers were, what they did,
what lives they led, are all questions of conjecture now. Their history appears only in their silent monuments, as silent at the race, the fact of whose existence they perpetuate.
The relics they left are the only key that we possess of their lives, and these give a history whose antiquity seems almost Adamic. The principal remains left consist of earthworks,
mounds and parapets, filled with the rude implements of the people who built them, and with the bones of these lost portions of humanity. From their proclivities to build these earthworks,
these people are known as "Mound Builders," the only name that now fits their peculiar style of life.


But let's look at the strength of Clark's timeline: The Olmec timeline roughly works, but the Maya does not, as the "mini-collapse" in 200 occurs just before the Mayan classic period (250-900), which does not at all match the Nephite decline and destruction in roughly AD 420.

12. Mesoamerican Demographic History

Reconstructing ancient demography requires detailed information on site sizes, locations, dates, and frequencies. It will take another 50 years of active research to compile enough information to reconstruct Mesoamerica's complete demographic history. The Nephite and Lamanite stories are too complicated to review here; I will just consider the Jaredite period. To begin, the earliest developments of Jaredites and Olmecs are hazy, but from about 1500 BC onward their histories are remarkably parallel. The alternations between city building and population declines, described for the Jaredites, correspond quite well with lowland Olmec developments. Olmec cities were abandoned by 400 BC, and the culture disappeared—just as the Book of Mormon describes for the Jaredites (see Ether 13–15). This is a phenomenal correlation. Much more research in southern Mexico is needed to check the lands that Sorenson identifies as Nephite. The little I know of the region looks promising for future confirmations.


Without examples of what he's talking about, it's hard to say whether the Jaredite rise and fall cycle matches the Olmec.

Before leaving this issue, it is important to make one observation on a global question that troubles some Latter-day Saints. Could millions of people have lived in the area proposed as Book of Mormon lands? Yes, and they did. Mesoamerica is the only area in the Americas that sustained the high population densities mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and for the times specified.


He's right here, and this I believe is the reason the apologists favor Mesoamerica: it's the only place in the Americas that is even remotely plausible as a Book of Mormon setting. And ultimately, providing plausibility seems to be Clark's purpose here. But, as I have shown, it's at least as plausible that Joseph Smith incorporated local mythology into the Book of Mormon. Given two plausible explanations, I leave it to the reader to decide which one makes the most sense.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Book of Mormon Evidence

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Runtu wrote:Book of Mormon Evidence

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.

An excellent synopsis! It seems to me that LDS apologists who try to use scientific/historical methodology to bolster the historicity of the Book of Mormon, only end up making things worse. The more they try to find rational correlations between claims in the Book of Mormon and modern scientific/historical evidence, even though such arguments often contradict traditional teachings by the Brethren (such as the LGT), they only succeed in confusing the members and doing more damage than good.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Post by _silentkid »

Great post, Runtu. Your point by point analysis illustrates the major problem of any apologetic claim...that apologists cherry-pick evidences to support their pre-determined hypotheses and ignore other explanations for those evidences. In John Clark's mind (I'm no mind reader, but based on his assertions), the Book of Mormon is a true, historical document and he only discusses evidences that support that viewpoint. I guess that's his job, but it doesn't make for good research.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

I agree with Rollo and silentkid. It truly staggers the mind to think about how many hours have been wasted trying to locate evidence supporting the Book of Mormon's historicity. I wish the Brethren would just come out and say that it is almost entirely allegorical.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

In John Clark's mind (I'm no mind reader, but based on his assertions), the Book of Mormon is a true, historical document and he only discusses evidences that support that viewpoint. I guess that's his job, but it doesn't make for good research.


This is FARMS' mission. They start with the conclusion (that the Book of Mormon is true and historical) and move backwards. And they wonder why people laugh?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I corresponded with Dr. Clark about this essay of his last year. He gave me permission to share our correspondence. I intended to get back with him on the subject, but he's such a nice man I hesitated to push him further.

Here's my letter to him:

Dr. Clark, (sent 4/09/06)

Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I know you are a very busy person, and well-respected in your field.

I have a few questions pertaining to your May 2004 BYU address, “Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief”. These questions have bothered me since I first read your address a year ago, and someone recently provided your email so I could ask you directly.

First, regarding my own background – I have no training or formal education in archaeology or anthropology, although I do have a master’s degree in education. Although this has nothing to do with my own profession, for the past couple of years I have had an intense interest in ancient Mesoamerica and how it relates to the Book of Mormon. I have read approximately thirty books by various authors on the subject, so my comments here reflect the understandings I have garnered from those texts on my own.

I do hope that I don’t sound like I’m lecturing or scolding you in anyway. That is not my intent. I feel certain you are already well aware of the particular information I to which I shall refer. I have much respect for your knowledge, and your work is cited in almost every book I’ve read about ancient Mesoamerica. This is why I’m confused about some of your BYU statements.

I will first quote the section of your talk that interests me and then add my questions or concerns.

“The book’s description of ancient peoples differs greatly from the notions of rude savages held by nineteenth-century Americans. The book’s claim of city-societies was laughable at the time, but no one is laughing now. As the city example shows, the lower the probability that Joseph Smith could have guessed a future fact, the stronger the likelihood that he received the information from a divine source. Consequently, the most compelling evidence of authenticity is that which verifies unguessable things recorded in the Book of Mormon, the more outlandish, the better. Confirmation of such things would eliminate any residual probability of human authorship and go a long way in demonstrating that Joseph Smith could not have written the book. This is precisely what a century of archaeology has done.”

Once Spain was expulsed from Latin America in the 1820s, the door was opened to investigations and captured the American imagination. Prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon, nineteenth century Americans were already aware of the fact that a massive civilization, with impressive structures, once populated the New World. The notion that the ancient inhabitants of the New World were once divided into two groups, one civilized and advanced, the other barbarous, was quite common at the period. Ethan Smith’s “The View of the Hebrews” is one example of this idea. According to R. Tripp Evans, in his book “Romancing the Maya – Mexican Antiquity in the American Imagination 1820-1915”, page 10:

“Following Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821, the sudden accessibility of its colonial archives and archaeological sites fueled dramatic foreign interest in the nation’s pre-Hispanic past. More publications devoted to Mexican antiquities appeared within the nation’s first two decades of independence, in fact, than had been produced during the past three centuries of Spanish rule. The enthusiasm generated by these publications, however – mostly reprints of formerly unobtainable colonial surveys – often compromised their author’s search for archaeological truth.”

Other books that addressed this topic, prior to the appearance of the Book of Mormon, were:

James Adair’s “The History of American Indians”, 1775



Boudinot, Elias, “A Star in the West; or a Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Ten Tribes of Israel”, 1816

Humboldt, Alexander, “Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain”, 1813

The idea that, in some way, the former inhabitants of the New World were connected to ancient Israel was another popular notion, as seen in Ethan Smith and Boudinot’s work in particular. So your statement about the general knowledge about ancient America at the time of the Book of Mormon seems incorrect.

But what interests me the most was this section of your address:

“The golden plates and other relics ended up in New York in the final instance because the Nephites were exterminated in a cataclysmic battle. The Book of Mormon brims with warfare and nasty people. Until twenty years ago, the book’s claims on this matter were pooh-poohed by the famous scholars. Now that Maya writing is being read, warfare appears to have been a Mesoamerican pastime. 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 ditches, walls, and palisades. Mesoamerican cities dated to Nephite times have been found with all these features. The Book of Mormon mentions bows and arrows, swords, slings, scimitars, clubs, spears, shields, breastplates, helmets, and cotton armor–all items documented from Mesoamerica. 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 could sever heads and limbs and were lethal. The practice of taking detached arms as battle trophies, as in the story of Ammon, is also documented from Mesoamerica.”


Although there was a long period in which Mesaomerican scholars viewed the Maya as a peaceful people, led by calendar-obsessed priests, that is not an accurate reflection of what Joseph Smith's contemporaries thought about ancient Mesoamerica. As I stated earlier, they also believed that there were likely two groups of people, and the less civilized group completely exterminated the more civilized group.

The fortified cities with ditches, walls, and palisades, was described in several publications that predated The Book of Mormon, including the aforementioned The View of the Hebrews, which states:

“Near Newark in Licking county, Ohio, between two branches of the Licking river, at their junction, is one of the most notable remains of the ancient works. There is a fort including forty acres, whose walls are ten feet high. It has eight gateways, each of the width of about fifteen feet. Each gateway is guarded by a fragment of a wall, placed before, and about nine feet within the gate, of the bigness of the walls of the fort, and about four feet longer than the width of the gateway. The walls are as nearly perpendicular as they could be made with earth. Near this fort is another round fort containing twenty-two acres, and connected with the first fort by two parallel walls of earth about the size of the other walls. At the remotest part of this circular fort, and just without a gateway, is an observatory so high as to command a view of the region to some distance. A secret passage was made under this observatory to an ancient watercourse. At some distance from this fort (but connected by a chain of internal works, and parallel walls) is another circular fort of about twenty-six acres, with walls from twenty-five to thirty feet in height, with a ditch just under them. Connected with these forts is another square fort of about twenty acres, whose walls are similar to those of the fort first described. These forts were not only connected with each other (though considerable distance apart) by communications made by parallel walls of five or six rods apart;--but a number of similar communications were made from them by parallel walls, down to the waters of the river. All these works stand on a large plain, the top of which is almost level, but is high land by a regular ascent from near the two branches of the river, to a height of forty or fifty feet above the branches of the river. At four different places at the ends of these internal communications between the forts and down to the river, are watch towers on elevated ground, and surrounded by circular walls. And the points selected for these watch towers, were evidently chosen with great skill, to answer their design. These forts and chains of communications between them, were so situated as nearly to enclose a number of large fields, which it is presumed were cultivated, and which were thus far secured from hostile invaders. From these works are two parallel walls leading off probably to other similar places of fortifications at a distance. They have been traced a mile or two, and are yet clearly visible. The writer says; “I should not be surprised if these parallel walls (thus leading off) are found to extend from one work of defence to another for the space of thirty miles--such walls have been discovered at different places, probably belonging to these works, for ten or twelve miles at least.” He apprehends this was a road between this settlement, and one on the Hockhocking river. And he says; the planning of these works of defence “speaks volumes in favour of the sagacity of their authors.” (page 145)

Other texts of the time period also mentioned fortifications, including Alexander Humboldt’s writings and John Haywood’s 1823 “The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee”.

You cited bows and arrows as being confirmed in Mesoamerica. My impression remains that the standard thought on this chronology of the bow and arrow in Mesoamerica is that it did not reach that area until around 800 AD or thereabouts. Even the atlatl, which some have suggested is what the “sword” was, is dated too late for the Book of Mormon period. The breastplates and headplates, from the description of Lucy Smith, were made of metal. There was no advanced metallurgy in Mesoamerica during the specified Book of Mormon period which would have been able to produce such an item.

This next statement:

“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 nineteenth-century Americans.”

concerns me for two reasons. The book of Helaman describes a conquest war, in which the Lamanites forced the Nephites to exodus their city, and the Lamanites possessed it. This type of conquest warfare was not known in Mesoamerica during that time period. Also, the end of the Book of Mormon wars describe a polity that controlled, at least during warfare, twenty cities that stretched over the Mesoamerican landscape (using John Sorenson’s map). There was no polity that powerful or wide-spread during that period of Mesoamerican history.

I have read John Sorenson’s Ancient Setting, as well as several articles on FARMs website, and have read Brant Gardner’s explanation of these discrepancies, so am aware of the thoughts of some on this matter. I understand that some explanations do exist, but it concerns me that you did not qualify your statements in your BYU address so listeners could seek out and judge the quality of those explanations themselves. Your statements sounded far more conclusive than the actual evidence would indicate.

Thank you for any time you can take to address my concerns. I also wondered if I could share any response you may deem appropriate to share with me with others who may also have some of these concerns. If you do not wish me to do so, I will not.

Sincerely,


And here was his polite and prompt reply:


Thanks for your excellent comments. I am sending a copy
of my response to them to my colleague Fred Nelson to, in effect, put it
on the public record so you can share anything you wish with others.
You have a very good eye and have picked a few spots in the talk
that have caused me to question my own text in its various revisions. A
published version is coming out in a few days in the Journal of Book of
Mormon Studies with some changes, but none to the issues you raise.
Since it is being published as a record of the talk I gave, I have not
fiddled with it much.
Let me start with the last point first, my lack of qualifying
statements. This was simply not the kind of talk where I could qualify
anything, so the statements are clearer and stronger than scientists are
comfortable with. Minimal qualifications for what I said would take
several days of talking. I think I could do it for each point, so I
stand by my list of assertions.
As a consequence of this talk and two later ones, I have begun
to question the opinions on these matters I received from others and
have decided to do the research to evaluate more critically the accuracy
of my own statements. I am just starting some of this. All of your
questions boil down to the issue of looking at what Joseph Smith could
have read in books or heard in gossip by 1829. I am aware of the books
you mention and scores of others. I am collecting them and working
through them. The other point you raise is that some of the correlations
with archaeology don't date to the right time period, as things are
currently reconstructed by archaeologists. I am aware of these gaps and
am currently working on a different project with higher standards of
evidence and precision. All of your points are well-taken, up to a
point. Perhaps one significant difference between what you have done,
and what I did, is that I do not take the statements of my colleagues to
be definitive. This includes my own statements. Archaeologists can only
do the best they can with the facts available. We do research to
discover more facts. I know how archaeological facts are generated and
packaged, and by whom, and it is no prettier a picture than watching the
manufacture of sausage. Such knowledge makes skeptics of us all.
My current project will perhaps be of interest to you because it
has the potential to cut a huge hole in my BYU Forum talk. At the Forum,
I attempted to talk to laymen at their level and to address major
concerns. My basic point is that there is some evidence that supports
Book of Mormon claims, many items which have not been confirmed, and
that neither situation is definitive or ever can be. The evidence will
never be compelling for either side of the argument in rational terms.
The truth of the matter necessarily goes beyond physical evidence, as
evaluated at any given moment of archaeological inquiry, and can only be
had from a secure source -- God's revelation. Last year I talked at the
Library of Congress and tried to make the same point, and I gave a
presentation at FAIR. By this last talk, I had started a project spawned
by the other two to see how good the evidence really was on all the
points I had made thus far. I hate to rely on secondary sources, but I
did for some of the points in my talk because they were so far outside
my range of expertise at the time. Our goal is to evaluate all of the
criticisms and apologies for the Book of Mormon and evaluate them in
terms of the claims of the text and by the lights of the best
archaeological information for the New and Old Worlds. I am working with
a student assistant, and at the moment he has worked through over 100
anti-Mormon sources for the 19th century and has come up with several
thousand criticisms. We have a long way to go. Early in the research, it
became clear that we were not being specific enough or hard enough on
our own position, as represented in the FORUM talk. We intend to hammer
all of my claims without mercy to see if they will hold up to the most
caustic criticism we can muster. The bow and arrow example is a good
case in point. Sure, the book mentions them and Mesoamerican archaeology
has them, but so far not in the same period. So this should not count as
a confirmation at the level of specificity with which we are now
approaching the matter. We will be super-specific and critical in what
we are doing, and evaluate each point on a scale that goes from no
evidence to positive and confirmed evidence in specific details. The bow
and arrow is currently an intermediate category where they are in the
supposed right place but not at the right time.
Getting back to your opening example, in your wonderful critique
of my point of early historic perception, you slide into the same
generic morass you imply that I am in. You mention the opening up of
Mexico for foreign scholars after Independence and the wealth of
information that came back to the US. You also cite the recent book by
R. Tripp Evans. I read this book, and it is not very rigorous or useful.
The earliest report of Mesoamerican archaeology I can find is an 1822
report on Palenque published in London. It doesn't have much in it that
Joseph Smith could have exploited. I'm still trying to chase down a
first edition to check the illustrations because the BYU HBLL Special
Collection's copy appears to incorporate later art. The book mentioned
brackets a period of two decades for the Book of Mormon moment. That is
fine for Evans's purposes but not mine. Something published in 1830 is
simply of no use to me because it is too late to have influenced the
Book of Mormon. Here we get into some swampy territory. There are three
requirements for our task, and we can only check up on one of them. What
was "available" before July 1929 (the date that the Book of Mormon was
in the printer's manuscript)? What was available to Joseph Smith? Of the
things possibly accessible to Joseph Smith, which did he read? As far as
I can tell at the moment, almost nothing was really available, and the
few things that were, he did not read. This is a question that probably
cannot be resolved. I plan on getting around it by assuming, for the
sake of argument, that Joseph Smith got access to everything available
on the planet, and in all languages, read it, and understood it. We know
this is absolutely a false position, but it does establish an ideal
baseline for evaluating other arguments. This stance privileges the
anti-Mormon position and makes the strongest possible case for it. Even
at its best, however, the contrary position has little going for it. One
does not have to read many early sources to see how remarkably different
the Book of Mormon was and is.
At the moment, I am still collecting materials and have not read
all of the sources seriously or systematically. I did come across a
source that will interest you because it was made to order for this
project and your concerns. J. H. McCulloh, jr., 1829, "Researches,
Philosophical and Antiquarian Concerning the Aboriginal History of
America." This man was a true scholar, and he got access to an
incredible amount of sources through copies of manuscripts, etc. This
book represents what the best and brightest could know in 1829. I leave
it to you to contemplate the differences between this and claims in the
Book of Mormon. The earlier materials you mention are critical for
reconstructing the mindset of frontier America, and I will be working
through them too. As a preliminary comment, they do not undercut my
claims made at the Forum. They only look serious if one is using sloppy
categories. All the talk of Hebrews prior to Joseph Smith looks to some
like he tied into to this notion, as Dan Vogel claimed in his early
book. The Book of Mormon, however, makes radically different claims. The
anti-Mormon position will eventually have to adopt a more nuanced stance
to come up with an acceptable argument (it lacks one at the moment): It
has to argue for environmental influence, similarities between
prevailing views of the time and Book of Mormon claims, and significant
differences in these views and claims. This is a high-wire act in
epistemology. It has to see the Book of Mormon as a document written as
a contradiction to the prevailing opinions of the day -- not as a
repetition of those views. Thus the lost 10 tribes stuff in the 1820s
becomes transformed in the BM to descendants of the tribes that were not
lost. Behind the supposed similarity lies its contradiction. This would
be dialectics and not copying the opinions of the day. The notion of
dirty, lazy savages is transformed into civilized pagans, etc. Have some
fun with this and get back to me. Read others' work as carefully as you
read mine and you will have a blast seeing the irony and carelessness in
all the literature, pro and con. I think about 80 percent or more of
what has been claimed on both sides of the argument is bogus, and I am
in the process of burning both camps to see what remains and what the
argument really is about.
As to fortifications, I am aware of this point and the
literature, and I have used this argument many times against facile use
of this correlation. I hesitated to use it in my talk for this reason,
but I decided to include it to be logically consistent. Just because
there is a possible other explanation for this correlation, it does not
detract from the archaeology of Middle America and the timing of
fortifications there. To get a correlation we have to have a clear
message from the book, solid archaeological information, and a
correspondence of a cultural practice, at a particular place, at a
particular time. Getting all five things to line up for any given issue
is phenomenal, so I don't expect any correspondences due to random
chance.
As to your point about the opinions of the peaceful Maya, etc.,
I'm still looking into the attitudes of North Americans concerning
natives pre-1829. I am still comfortable with my statement. I would
appreciate any clear evidence you can supply to the contrary. It will be
sufficient for you to mention the book, edition, and page number rather
than retyping the quotation. I need to sign off now and get back to my
paying work. I would appreciate your opinion on the phenomenon of the
publication of Stephens's "Incidents of Travel ..." If everything was
known and appreciated that you claim, why was this book so
mind-expanding for Americans? I suggest to you that only a few scholars
knew a portion of what you suggest -- and Joseph Smith was not among
them. The Stephens's book really was novel.
Again, I appreciate the careful reading of my talk and look
forward to further comments and helps. There is much more out there than
I was aware of when I made my statements. If my research proves that I
got it wrong, I will publish a critique of my own work. If you have the
time to work through the background material, I suggest you read it in
historic order and respect the July 1829 cutoff date as the last
possible moment for Joseph Smith to have been influenced. The other
thing I would recommend highly, remember that few things that
archaeologists say are set in stone. New syntheses for Mesoamerica come
out every year because of the discovery of new facts. My major claim in
the Library of Congress talk (published in "The Worlds of Joseph Smith")
is that if the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document, the
facts of science will confirm more and more of its details. If it is a
hoax, it should conform more closely to what folks believed in the 1820s
(or some mirror image of it), and the facts of science should get
farther and farther away from it. This later inference comes from the
fact that no one in the 1820s had a clue about Mesoamerica beyond the
claims in a few Spanish documents -- all of which talked about cultures
posterior to those in the Book of Mormon. It was not until the late
1930s that people began considering the possibility of Mesoamerican
societies going back to the time of Christ. The Book of Mormon period
was simply a blank page for the Americas in Joseph Smith's day.
All the best, John Clark, April 10, 2006, BYU
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

beastie,

I just read that over on the other board. He does seem like a nice guy and seemed to back off from some of his assertions.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

Thanks for all that Runtu, Now I want to go get that book.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Gazelam wrote:Thanks for all that Runtu, Now I want to go get that book.


Which book? My response was to a FARMS article (essentially a reprint of a talk Clark gave at BYU), which can be found at http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=376.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

I have a ton of respect for Clark. I have come across few apologists who can honestly look at their research, admit mistakes, rethink conclusions, and be open to honest criticism and new ideas.

~dancer~
Post Reply