DiscussMormonism.com

First, my one positive comment: the video of Mesoamerica and its art was beautiful.

It is very difficult to know where to begin in my critique of this video. This will be just my first entry of several, and it may take me a few days to finish.

My impression is that it was created for believers who have heard just enough to realize that some serious challenges to the Book of Mormon historicity have arisen, but haven’t studied the issues deeply and just want to be reassured that LDS scholars have studied the issues thoroughly, and can assure them that there’s no cause for concern.

I’ll start with the one most flagrant misrepresentation in the video. Yes, there were many misrepresentations, but this one was the most shocking. Under the special features section, one section is called “The Flora and Fauna of the Book of Mormon Lands”. One of their experts, “Wade E. Miller, Geology and Paleontology” was commenting on the animal life in the Book of Mormon. He said: “They would have found horses here, which are for the most part easily domesticated. The earliest horses in the world were here in North America, and it wasn’t until later, geologically speaking, that they got into the Old World.”

This statement is so inaccurate and misleading it can only be described as either a deliberate lie, or made by a person completely ignorant of the history of the horse in the New World. Since this individual is an expert is paleontology, I’m going to assume that he knew, good and well, that no experts, other than the Mormon fringe and a few other Christian fringe, believe that a visitor to the New World in 600 BC “would have found horses here”.

Now, he’s technically correct to state that the there were early horses here in North America, but omitting the fact that these same prehistoric horses went extinct thousands of years prior to 600 BC is such an egregious, misleading omission it’s best called a lie.

In the prologue to this dvd, it is stated that the dvd contains the results of "rigorous academic research." Well, obviously it isn't the result of rigorous editing and fact checking.

More to come.

beastie wrote:"They would have found horses here, which are for the most part easily domesticated.

Yes, I see this as nothing but a bold faced lie. "They" most certainly did NOT find horses here.

The earliest horses in the world were here in North America, and it wasn’t until later, geologically speaking, that they got into the Old World.”

This is a truth taken out of context. It is deliberately misleading. Saying that horses were originally here, but leaving out that they later went extinct.

But, yeah, critics are the ones that lie and misrepresent facts...

I love that argument too. My ex used that on me a lot. "There are lots of REALLY smart men...much smarter than YOU...that have studied all this, and they still believe! I will trust them!!"

How lame with the horses! What about tapirs, Beastie?

I have a copy of this DVD but haven't watched it yet. Gotta get on that.

They didn't even mention tapirs. Funny, hunh?

Also strikingly missing was the explanation for the skewed directions that underly the placement of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Instead, they just claimed that 'northward' and 'southward' meant something other than north and south - even as their own graphics showed the direction as clearly east/west.

But, as I said, this was just the tip of the iceberg.

In the first section, several experts reassure listeners that there is a great fit between the cultural and social elements of Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon. One expert stated:

The Mesoamerican cultural development coincides chronologically with the dates of the events the Book of Mormon describes.

They then show some dates. They list the dates for Pre-Olmec-Olmec as 2200 BC to 200 AD, and lists the same dates for the Jaredites. The problem with this assertion is the “Pre-Olmec” period. This is a period in which the elements of Olmec civilization, including cities, were not yet evident, and the people were foragers and farmers. From Richard Diehl’s book The Olmecs, page 25:

Until recently archaeologists believed that Olmec culture did not emerge as an identifiable entity until 1200 BC, but today they can trace its origins probably to at least 1600-1500 BC. During that century true Olmec remains were ritually deposited at El Manati, a sacred shrine near San Lorenzo in the lower Coatzacoalcos basin. There is good reason to believe that the worshipers came from San Lorenzo, the first large Olmec center and possibly the original hearth of Olmec culture and art. The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue.

So if the Jaredites arrived around 2200 BC, they would have to wait almost a thousand years before building cities, according to the archaeological remains.

The experts went on to assert that:

The rise of the highland and lowland Maya civilization occurred at the same time as the rise of the Nephite and Lamanite civilization.

The dates given for this assertion were “Late Preclassic Maya 500 BC – 400 AD, Nephite 550 BC – 400 AD.”

The problem with this assertion is, once again, an important omission, which is that the Maya civilization did not cease at the end of the preclassic period, but went on to the Classic period, which is viewed as the pinnacle of Maya civilization. And, of course, the Maya were around long before the preclassic period even began. So what, exactly, are these dates supposed to insinuate?

beastie wrote:The experts went on to assert that:

The rise of the highland and lowland Maya civilization occurred at the same time as the rise of the Nephite and Lamanite civilization.

The dates given for this assertion were “Late Preclassic Maya 500 BC – 400 AD, Nephite 550 BC – 400 AD.”

The problem with this assertion is, once again, an important omission, which is that the Maya civilization did not cease at the end of the preclassic period, but went on to the Classic period, which is viewed as the pinnacle of Maya civilization. And, of course, the Maya were around long before the preclassic period even began. So what, exactly, are these dates supposed to insinuate?

Forgive my ignorance here, but the Nephites were the only ones wiped out at this time, correct? Wouldn't the Lamanites have continued their reign well after 400AD?

Just what are these dates supposed to insinuate? This becomes more clear as the video progresses. It becomes particularly apparent during the section on the City of Nephi.

Brant Gardner states:

Within a relatively short period of time the descriptions we’re hearing about the City of Nephi indicates there were a large number of people there which is a remarkable accomplishment in a very short period of time to not only be able to gather large numbers of people together, but to coordinate them, to get them to live in the same area, to get them to have the same basic beliefs, to get them to have the same economic system, to get them to work together rather than working separately. And Nephi’s able to do that, pull them together.

I will note a new speaker with a new quotation box. The video did not always identify the speaker. When I recognized the voice I will identify the speaker myself.

There has to be somebody pushing it, leading it – Nephi was such a leader.

At the same time period as Nephi, the site of Kaminaljuyu is governed by innovative leadership that is managing a complex system of canals, water purification projects, and a massive building project.

We know that there are people that are producing pottery, building structures of dirt, basically filling the whole place with a new culture.

(Sorenson)

And the sudden development is what I would expect of an immigrant party with a high level of skill technologically, but maybe more intellectually and culturally being inserted into a place of building in a new environment a new manifestation of civilization.

The influence of who dominates whom – the small arriving culture and the existing culture is the one with more success. Who has more success in technological matters, and in constructing buildings?

(DCP)

Nephi builds a city. Nephi’s a builder. His people claim him as a king. He has striking leadership abilities. He’s resourceful.

(Sorenson)

Later on, around 200 BC, there is an archaeological manifestation of reduced population. To me, that signals the period when Mosiah took those who followed him and believed him and left that area and went to Zarahemla where they discovered the people of Zarahemla and the Mulekites.

So now the insinuation is clear. Nephi build the city of Kaminaljuyu. Perhaps there were people of lesser “technological, intellectual, or cultural” skill already there, but Nephi built the canals, the projects, he made it into the powerhouse it was. And even they admit that Kaminaljuyu was the “seedbed” of Mesoamerican culture.

There are several serious problems with this picture. One is that Kaminaljuyu was actually a successful city centuries before the arrival of Nephi.

I discuss Kaminaljuyu at length in my essay here:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... .9D_Period

The Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World, page 30:
New centers emerged in the central Guatemala highlands at this period (middle Preclassic), probably because the flat plateaus became more habitable due to diminishing volcanic activity. All these new settlements were well situated for trade. Kaminaljuyu in the Valley of Guatemala, for example, could control nearby obsidian sources, but it was also in an enviable position to command trade between the Caribbean and the Pacific coast through the river routes in the Motagua Valley, and through the highland pass down to the Pacific. Cacao, obsidian, and jade were part of the valuable trade that would expand in the Late Preclassic, making Kaminaljuyu flourish into one of the most important cities of that period. By 700 B.C.E., Kaminaljuyu already had constructed a major irrigation canal, and by 500 B.C.E., it began carving freestanding stone slabs called stelae.

Yes, indeed, Kaminaljuyu had powerful leadership who built canals and other public projects – centuries before Nephi. Just imagine – the most powerful polity in the area suddenly embracing a complete foreigner – foreign in language, appearance, and, most importantly religion – and making him king over their already successful polity!!! Quite a feat!

An additional problem is the frank insinuation that Nephi had superior skills – technological, intellectual, or cultural – than the natives already living in Kaminaljuyu. This is a huge problem because the technologies that made Kaminaljuyu great were the technologies that the natives possessed, and a stranger from the Old World wouldn’t have a clue about – particularly the manufacture of obsidian blades.

There is another larger problem, that I go into at length in the previously linked essay. That is the fact that the cultural evolution of Mesoamerica was driven by the most powerful polities of the day – they determined practices, religious and governmental – that the other polities followed. So we’re supposed to believe that THE most powerful polity of the time period – Kaminaljuyu – was actually a Judeo Christian polity, and yet Judeo Christianity had NO impact on the rest of Mesoamerica????
Yeah, right, and I’ve got a bridge to sell ya.

by the way, the population reduction at Kaminaljuyu was likely caused by a drought that dried up the lakes and canals and left the polity devastated, and no longer a powerful contender.

Forgive my ignorance here, but the Nephites were the only ones wiped out at this time, correct? Wouldn't the Lamanites have continued their reign well after 400AD?

That is correct. So why even claim that the Nephite timeline matches Mesoamerica? Was the population drastically reduced at 400 AD (which would have been the result if the Nephite side of the population were destroyed). The answer is NO.

beastie wrote:

Forgive my ignorance here, but the Nephites were the only ones wiped out at this time, correct? Wouldn't the Lamanites have continued their reign well after 400AD?

That is correct. So why even claim that the Nephite timeline matches Mesoamerica? Was the population drastically reduced at 400 AD (which would have been the result if the Nephite side of the population were destroyed). The answer is NO.

So why do archeologists seperate the two periods into pre-classic and classic? What exactly is the dividing line there?

Is the DVD saying the pre-classic was the combined Nephite/Lamanite society and classic was the Lamanite only society?

So why do archeologists seperate the two periods into pre-classic and classic? What exactly is the dividing line there?

Is the DVD saying the pre-classic was the combined Nephite/Lamanite society and classic was the Lamanite only society?

The boundary between preclassic and classic is becoming less clear over time. Originally, it was thought that the Maya did not develop their most complex polities until the classic period, at which point some of their polities were arguably at the state level. But as time goes on and more is discovered about the complexity of some preclassic polities, it is no longer accurate to state that the LATE preclassic period was really fundamentally that different from the classic period in any way. The earlier preclassic periods - earlier and middle - were definitely less socially complex. By socially complex archaeologists are referring to layers of governmental bureaucracy and control.

The dvd did not talk about the classic Maya period, as far as I remember. I am rewatching it by bits to get citations and if I missed some statement about the classic period, will share it.