Jump to content

Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Descartes1979 (talk | contribs)
Onondaga (talk | contribs)
Line 109: Line 109:
:::Kovesh, you said "What should happen here is that both religious and the secular should come to agree on the appropriate setting (as with the Bible) and scholarly debate should proceed from there. " This statement makes the assumption that there even is a setting that can be agreed upon. Every archaeologist in the world will tell you that the Book of Mormon has no setting at all, because it is fiction. Look at it this way - say there are two authors - one writes a novel about aliens that visited earth in ancient Rome. Another writes a pseudoscientific book about all of the evidences that there were aliens in ancient Rome. There you have a "literary setting" for aliens in ancient Rome. And you have a wingnut claiming it is true. Do we include that information in the article on ancient Rome? No! Because the overwhelming majority of archaeologists agree that the idea of aliens in ancient Rome is total BS, and there is no evidence for it - and there is no serious archaeologist that has researched it and will stand by that theory.If there was, then guess what? That would be included in the ancient Rome article. There is no need for our novelist and pseudoarchaeologist to "agree" with mainstream archaeologists on anything and "go from there". Same exact thing going on here. Remember that by your own admission, there is an awful lot of pseudoarchaeology going on in 19th century literature with respect to ancient America. Its all BS. --[[User:Descartes1979|Descartes1979]] ([[User talk:Descartes1979|talk]]) 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Kovesh, you said "What should happen here is that both religious and the secular should come to agree on the appropriate setting (as with the Bible) and scholarly debate should proceed from there. " This statement makes the assumption that there even is a setting that can be agreed upon. Every archaeologist in the world will tell you that the Book of Mormon has no setting at all, because it is fiction. Look at it this way - say there are two authors - one writes a novel about aliens that visited earth in ancient Rome. Another writes a pseudoscientific book about all of the evidences that there were aliens in ancient Rome. There you have a "literary setting" for aliens in ancient Rome. And you have a wingnut claiming it is true. Do we include that information in the article on ancient Rome? No! Because the overwhelming majority of archaeologists agree that the idea of aliens in ancient Rome is total BS, and there is no evidence for it - and there is no serious archaeologist that has researched it and will stand by that theory.If there was, then guess what? That would be included in the ancient Rome article. There is no need for our novelist and pseudoarchaeologist to "agree" with mainstream archaeologists on anything and "go from there". Same exact thing going on here. Remember that by your own admission, there is an awful lot of pseudoarchaeology going on in 19th century literature with respect to ancient America. Its all BS. --[[User:Descartes1979|Descartes1979]] ([[User talk:Descartes1979|talk]]) 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Ultimately, this Mesoamerican issue is a complete red herring and does not address the point that Coon and Trento are not reliable sources. Instead of trying to find other sources, Kovesh has thrown in this distraction and made accusations that really fail [[WP:AGF]], and Onondaga has supported him. If the two of you want to argue against a Mesoamerican model, y'all should get some [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and then bring them in as a separate issue. If none can be found, that's an indication that y'all's POV does not appear to be the favored view within the pseudoarchaeological circles that see the BoM as history. If that's the case, y'all will just have to deal with it. If [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] can be found supporting y'all's POV, they will be included, but Coon and Trento do not qualify. Any more attempts at distraction should not be justified with responses. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Ultimately, this Mesoamerican issue is a complete red herring and does not address the point that Coon and Trento are not reliable sources. Instead of trying to find other sources, Kovesh has thrown in this distraction and made accusations that really fail [[WP:AGF]], and Onondaga has supported him. If the two of you want to argue against a Mesoamerican model, y'all should get some [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and then bring them in as a separate issue. If none can be found, that's an indication that y'all's POV does not appear to be the favored view within the pseudoarchaeological circles that see the BoM as history. If that's the case, y'all will just have to deal with it. If [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] can be found supporting y'all's POV, they will be included, but Coon and Trento do not qualify. Any more attempts at distraction should not be justified with responses. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Regarding the comment about steel, the B of M clearly uses the language of the King James Bible. Compare Nephi’s Old World “steel” bow with David’s “bow of steel”. (Psalm 18:24) I hope that Ian is not presuming that this is referring to hardened iron – if so, he is mistaken.
Regarding an “unambiguous” Book of Mormon site, LDS scripture clearly places the B of M land Cumorah in the Finger Lakes region – Joseph Smith own country. (LDS D&C 128:20)Non-LDS scholars of Mormon history recognize this. It is only shifty LDS scholars like Sorenson who want to concoct a Cumorah in southern Mexico or Central America. And guys like John Lund who seek to make a buck taking tours there. Mainstream scholars don’t go for this sleight of hand. The B of M places the land of Zarahemla close enough to the land of Cumorah for travelers from the southern land of Nephi to confuse one region for the other.
Regarding the Limited Mesoamerican model, it really isn’t so limited, not like the authentic B of M setting in Joseph Smith’s own environs. The claim that Moroni traveled thousands of miles from Mesoamerica to deposit the plates in western NY doesn’t fit well with passages in the book of Mormon, Ether and Moroni.
Regarding B of M place names – names like “Angola”, “Alma” and “Onidah” are very similar to place names that appear in western NY. You have to be careful with even biblical and traditional place names because these can move with people. Scholars know this! A lot of biblical sites are not as established as you might think. There is still uncertainly in the secular community as to whether David and Solomon even existed. We think we know approximately where Solomon’s temple stood if it ever was. But I agree that there is a general consensus about the setting of the Bible. This doesn’t mean that there is a general consensus about the Bible as history. Many regard it as local fiction. I think I need to show you that there are Non-LDS archaeologists who will admit that the B of M has a literary setting. That setting is in Joseph Smith’s own country among the mound builder artifacts of his environs. This does not mean that they accept the Book of Mormon as history any more than they accept the anachronistic book of Daniel or Job as history. So it will be up to a few of us to show you that there really are credentialed scholars who point out mound builder archaeological finds as supporting the Book of Mormon’s original literary setting. This is not to suggest that they interpret this evidence as proving the work as either divine or historical. But the book does have a geographic setting and that setting is not in Mesoamerica. That by the way is why the book never mentions monkeys, palm trees, hewn stone buildings in jungles and no Leopards (jaguars) in its American setting. I continue to regard Coon and Trento as actually superior sources to the likes of Sorenson who has been accepted in this article. But there are others like Silverberg who is definitely not fringe. I can draw more heavily from these essentially secular sources while I think about whether or not at some point, to start eliminating FARMs stuff altogether. I wouldn’t mind if this article drew completely from mainstream Archaeology, American History and Literature. [[User:Onondaga|Onondaga]] ([[User talk:Onondaga|talk]]) 23:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 30 October 2010


Cement

The recently added section on “cement” was in need of some improvements. (1) The heading size mismatched the other sections. (2) The quote from Helaman 3:7 contained a misprint (“aexpert” instead of “expert”). (3) The link to the Mormon Meridian Magazine article at the end of the sentence claiming “…evidence of cement being used in the ancient Americas…” focuses exclusively on Central America. I have improved the wording of this section and added a reference which argues that “cement” mentioned in the Book of Mormon, fits the “Mound-Builder” setting. Onondaga (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image from the article on wattle and daub structures. Onondaga (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to a thought provoking little article titled “How to Make Nephite Cement”. Onondaga (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RLDS and the Limited Mesoamerican Model

The opening sentence of the Limited Geography Model section seemed somewhat to suggest to readers that LDS were the first to propose a limited Central American setting. The sentence only referenced Sorenson. I have added the reference to RLDS Hills, 1917 publication. Long before any LDS are known to have dared place Cumorah in Mexico or Central America, Hills, who was not doctrinally bound to LDS D&C 128 (including verse 20), proposed a limited Mesoamerican geography. Onondaga (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants

It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to say that the paleontological record indicates that elephants and similar creatures became extinct after a certain date. The only thing that we can say is that there is no confirmed evidence of their existence after an approximate date. In fact, the writer Louis L'Amour, who seemed to have been no particular friend to the Latter-day Saints, included a mammoth as an antagonist in one of his Sackett novels based on Native American legends from the eastern states. We need to watch out for the logical fallacy of thinking that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.193.49 (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree completely. While you may be correct technically that "no confirmed evidence" has been found, the VAST majority of archaeologists and paleontologists agree to this point. The scientific community has spoken on this point. And that is because there is a wealth of data showing these extinctions did in fact happen. As a side note, you could say that "no confirmed evidence exists that aliens deposited mammoths on the North American continent." ...or you could just say it didn't happen. Descartes1979 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep

Once again we find unscientific dogma in the caption of the llama photograph. It is inaccurate and incorrect to say that llamas were the only animals to have been domesticated anciently in the Americas. Yet rather than admit that llamas are the only animals that we KNOW were domesticated anciently, somebody seemed to prefer to promote his own agenda rather than remain as balanced as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.193.49 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no evidence of any other creature, bowing down to Mormon fundamentalism would be an unbalanced insertion of unscientific dogma into the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree whole heartedly with Ian.thomson - there is a lot of evidence that has been reviewed by archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists regarding domestication of animals on the American continent. Descartes1979 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horse, donkey, pig

Archeologists in Carlsbad found horses and a donkey 2005: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_3510b187-f256-5b91-875e-b45c8865f14a.html

Pre-columbian tribal art, pigs: http://www.nassertribalart.com/P/C/PC http://www.howardnowes.com/gallery/detail.cfm?itemnum=9002 90.231.11.211 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mojado postulated that the horses may have been Spanish in origin, perhaps from an ill-fated exploration that never returned and so was lost to history. Perhaps the lost Spanish explorers offered the horses and donkey to the American Indians as a gift, Mojado said."
The other two sites are selling the items as kitsch, not exactly reliable, scholarly, sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources and Pseudoarchaeology

Pursuant to the comments above, we have to be remember to be very specific about places and dates in this article - this comment by anon is a perfect example. Apologists will say that horses did exist in the Americas. And they are right - but they conveniently omit WHEN. Nearly everything on the anachronism list existed at one time or another in the Americas - but the reason they are on the list is because archaeological and historical evidence shows that they could not have existed in during the time frame of the Book of Mormon. Also remember, that archaeology is a confusing topic for most people, and there are a lot of people out there that perpetrate outright fraud, or make fantastic claims about things that are not true and not accepted by the archaeological community at large. I - and many other editors - will likely remove your information if you add something that fits these criteria. Descartes1979 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coon

I am formally objecting to the sourced website by Vincent Coon which clearly fails WP:RS for the following reasons:

  1. He is not an archaeologist. The extent of his training is a Masters degree in Physics.
  2. His theories are at odds with so-called "mainstream Mormon apologetic" thought - much less with mainstream archaeology
  3. He cites at length other sources that I perceive to be Pseudoarchaeology.
  4. His book appears to be self-published
  5. His "research" is not published in independent journals and is not peer reviewed
  6. His website appears to be pretty shameless self promotion

Based on these reasons, I have stripped all Coon references from the article, and replaced them with fact and cn tags where appropriate - and where Coon's conjecture was blatant and explicit, I have removed the content entirely. Descartes1979 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Michael Trento

I am formally objecting to the information by author Salvatore Michael Trento. His books appear to fail WP:RS for the following reasons:

  1. I cannot verify that he is actually an archaeologist - despite claims by some editors of this page. I don't think he is.
  2. His theories are not published in independent journals and are not peer reviewed
  3. His theories fall in line with the pervasive pseudoarchaeology around the theories of ancient Israeli immigration to the New World - which have all been proven false by mainstream archaeology
  4. I can't find anything about the Middletown Archaeological Research Center - and I suspect it is run out of his basement as a method to promote his book
  5. He has appeared on shows and websites related to pseudoscience such as UFO chasers, and magnet therapy. His archaeological book appears to feed into the "mysterious" and "magnetic" properties of some of the archaeological sites that he talks about. This is clearly not archaeology, and appears to be a guy trying to make a buck on the hype and mystery of these sites.

Based on these reasons I have stripped the article of these references. Descartes1979 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hagoth vs. Jared Diamond

Something to think about - I recently read Guns, Germs, and Steel and was struck by the evidence regarding the population of the Pacific islands and how it has been soundly established through archaeological evidence as being island by island starting from South East Asia. This is in stark contrast with the BOM narrative and LDS tradition that holds that Hagoth was the source of that diaspora. I think we should have a section in this article addressing this issue. I will start that sometime in the coming week if no one else gets to it. Descartes1979 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I am a little out of my depth regarding licensing and fair use when it comes to images. I just uploaded the Samuel the Lamanite image that is at the top of the article, and could use some help in determining if my fair use rational for inclusion is sufficient. As a side note, some of Friberg's other paintings are on the wikipedia with similar rational as mine. Descartes1979 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes seems to favor a Mesoamerican setting

I strongly disagree with Descartes edits. In the past he has repeatedly been informed that the Mormon “mainstream setting” for the Book of Mormon does not agree with mainstream academia. The fact that there are LDS archaeologists who accept and promote this fringe view does not lend any authority to their opinions in the eyes of accepted archaeology, American history or literature. Descarte wishes to marginalize for some strange reason, the works of LDS who accept the mainstream literary setting for the Book of Mormon and challenge the so called “mainstream” view among LDS. I am undoing all his hatchet work. Kovesh (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of responses: 1) Why did you revert all of my formatting changes, typos, grammar improvements, image additions, etc.? Were those objectionable too? I marked minor changes that were uncontroversial. Please don't revert days of work at one swipe, you are going to throw us into an edit war. 2) I fully explained my objections above regarding Coon and Trento. If we can determine that those two sources meet WP:RS, then I agree that they should be included - but I am very skeptical. I am not marginalizing for some "strange" reason - I am trying to make this a sound article based on solid research by legitimate archaeologists. Please address my objections in the sections above and lets come to a consensus. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way you revered the changes of 4 other editors (2 anons, User:Ian.thomson, and User:John of Reading) in your mass revert. Please, lets discuss these and be more precise, rather than a mass revert.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note to Kovesh - just rereading what you wrote, and I am a little confused. Did you read my edits? My sole, and very precise reason for removing content was this: Coon and Trento do not meet WP:RS. I am not marginalizing one Book of Mormon setting over the other. If, by the way, you want to know my personal view then I fully admit to my biases. I think all Book of Mormon settings are false. But that is not the point. The point is, we include relevant information from sources that are reliable. My POV and your POV don't matter, and neither does the opinion of a guy with no training in archaeology with a hackneyed website, and self-published joke of a book. Show me a reliable peer reviewed paper in an academic journal that advocates any Book of Mormon setting, and I will be the first to include it in this article.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be reverted to what it was before Descartes, nested his major and minor edits. We should invite others to chime in and review Descartes’ previous contributions and line of reasoning.
Once again Descartes let’s take things one at a time. You should know by now that I for one am not unreasonable. In the mean time I’m reversing the article so we can discuss each argument and proposed contribution. By the way how many LDS, who are not archaeologists, have you referenced in this article? If readers will search far enough back they can read all about your curious positions and contributions. Some of them are rather entertaining. So you believe that having a degree in archaeology makes one’s position on the B of M “mainstream”? Have you actually read Trento? I suggest you visit a library! The thing that makes archaeologist Trento’s views mainstream regarding the setting for the Book of Mormon, is that he agrees with mainstream American literature specialists on the 19th century Mound-Builder genre. Descartes I truly believe that it is the approach you take towards editing this article that makes wars! Onondaga (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Descartes that neither Coon nor Trento have been shown to meet WP:RS. But there are fundamental problems with a strict application of WP:RS to articles critical of religious topics, especially where the topic is an attempted correlation between religious dogma and scientific fact. Mainstream scientists don't get tenure and promotions by writing books critical of fringe religious ideas that are scientifically or historically untenable. However, websites must be carefully weighed. Before Coon and Trento are added, there must be a careful discussion here and a consensus reached on their value and reliability. --Taivo (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Taivo - the interesting thing about this topic, is that there is actually a wealth of information from Mormon archaeologists and scholars - so there is no need to rely on the theories of people trying to make a buck on their books.--Descartes1979 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Onondaga - this is an article about archaeology - not literature. The article already makes one interesting reference to the parallels with the fiction of the time right there in the first couple of sections of the article. Beyond that, the scope of this article should be focused on the archaeology. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legitimate archaeological setting for the B of M is the same as the accepted literary setting. Accepted, that is by mainstream American history, literature and archaeology specialists. The Mesoamerican setting is not authentic. It is a later development that is not recognized by mainstream academia. Those who endorse this setting have chosen to take a fringe position departing from majority secular views. It does not matter how many LDS with degrees support this theory. Their degrees in whatever discipline, do not lend authority to their fringe views. Archaeologists who accept the mainstream setting for the B of M recognize that archaeology supports the literary setting for the B of M without proving the work to be historical or divine. In short, the legitimate archaeological setting for the work is supported by archaeology only to the extent that the work is recognized by mainstream American history and literature experts as a work about the Mound-Builder of North America. All who promote a different setting using alleged artifacts from that setting are fringe. Now why in the world would you have a problem with this position, unless you are really trying to promote a Mesoamerican model to the exclusion of the mainstream view? I admit that the Mesoamerican setting is tied to much LDS book sales and tours! This does not make it good scholarship regardless of the credential of those involved. The article has perhaps been too deferential to fringe views promoted in the LDS community. I am reversing your mass of edits and proposing that we begin by discussing the statements of non LDS archaeologist Salvatore Michael Trento. What is it exactly you have against his statements relative to archaeology and the Book of Mormon? Onondaga (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely missing the point Onondaga. I am not advocating any view - you just think I am because I removed information from one side of the argument. I am just trying to clean up crappy references and make sure this article is grounded in current archaeological thought and research. If there is such a wealth of consensus among non-LDS archaeologists about the BOM, then please, provide a good reference. Like I said before, I will be the first to include something in the article if it meets WP:RS. Also - you are reverting all of my minor edits, including the edits of four other editors in your zeal to revert to what you think this article should be. That strikes me as stubborn edit warring without regard to the betterment of the article. We are getting close to WP:3RR and I will request this article be protected if we continue down this road.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - why haven't you guys taken a look and responded to my issues with Coon and Trento several sections above? That is the issue here - if we want to come to a consensus, I need to know what you think about my objection to those sources. At least one other editor has agreed with my objections. You are only doing mass reverts and not contributing to the discussion of the issue at hand. Please comment on those sections above on Coon and Trento specifically.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy, Silverberg and Trento have been cited. They are more authoritative on the subject of the authentic archaeological / literary setting than Sorenson or any promoting a Mesoamerican setting. You have eliminated Trento and other reference without any real justification. If you do not know or recognize this there is a real problem with you editing this article. The minor edits are entangled with your prejudiced edits. The article should be reverted so that we can proceed as we have before, one edit at a time discussing what you are editing. If what you want to edit is reasonable or defensible you will have no problem with me. My experience with you is that many of your argument fall apart or show a lack of research once we start dealing with details. E.g. why don’t you accept that the Book of Mormon is classed in the 19th century Mound-Builder genre? Onondaga (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to say this before you will believe me? I don't care what the setting is, or the literary genre. You say it is "19th century mound builder" that is fine by me. I have left the Silverberg reference in there and that language. All I am looking for are good references. I gave my objections to Coon and Trento in thorough detail above, and you haven't even addressed the points I raised. And again, for the record, the article still states your "mound building genre literary setting" bit - I didn't remove it. It is still there, with the other references. Seriously dude. I am posting an alert on the admin board for protection of this article if there are any more reverts. By the way - in the last hour or two I have made significant - non-controviersial cleanup that you keep reverting.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll be the one to create the report, in order to ensure it is from an uninvolved party.. But Ono, Desc is right. You need to stop whole-scale reverting to your preferred version. There is no good reason you have given for undoing the minor changes that Desc has made. So, you want to go back to your version? Do it without this revert that un-does uncontroversial work. But even then, make sure that when there is a disagreement, discuss. Do not edit war. If I do see one more revert from you, I will report you. No amount of talking here lets you skirt edit warring, 3rr or not(it's a bright-line rule. You can still slow-edit war and get blocked).— dαlus Contribs 05:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Onondaga, you act as if there is one "true" BOM archeology. There isn't. No mainstream non-LDS archeologist uses the BOM as a source or accepts it as a guide to New World archeology, whether of the limited variety or not. So no work of LDS/BOM archeology is a reliable source in that sense. But looking at it from the Wikipedia perspective, Descartes is right--Wikipedia is not the expression of "truth", it is the expression of the variety of viewpoints that are in existence. The Limited Geography Model, whether mainstream members accept it or not, is a valid and well-referenced point of view among "mainstream" LDS archeologists. I daresay it may even be the majority view among LDS archeologists. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to describe that view here in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one literary setting for the B of M accepted by main stream academia and that setting places the work in the 19th century North American “Mound-Builder” genre. No mainstream American history or literary scholar regards the B of M as set in Mesoamerican. Whether or not you accept the Bible as history it has a literary setting and that setting is not set in Australia. You can look for Elijah’s altar in Australia if you want but don’t make the mistake of supposing that an Australian setting for the Bible is in any way equal to its setting in the Levant. Let’s get others involved with these edits besides those who favor (admitted or not) a Mesoamerican model. Onondaga (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coon deserves to be cited. While accepting the B of M as scripture, he nevertheless accepts the “Mound-builder” setting. All LDS scholars promoting a Mesoamerican setting are fringe. Sorenson’s work should be peer reviewed and criticized by mainstream scholars. His work does not pass. Sorenson is fringe and by your standards should be removed from the article. “LDS mainstream” is not the same as academic mainstream on this subject. I will get back with you on Trento. He is published as a diffusionist with a degree in archaeology. I have read his books. His views on the B of M setting are in line with the accepted mainstream Mound-Builder setting. I do not mind your adding minor edits to the version of the article that includes Coon. If you remove Coon why do you not remove Sorenson? Coon has an advanced degree and disagrees with the Mesoamerican setting for sound reasons. He believes that the setting should be established by attention to the text before anyone starts digging for artifacts. If you want to discuss specifics let’s do that. Onondaga (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ono - you said "Coon deserves to be cited." - this is the whole point. Explain yourself. Why does he deserve to be cited? He is self published, not peer reviewed, prone to pseudoarchaeology - and a few other things that I explained point by point above. I have not seen you address these points. I don't care what Coon is advocating, and we can talk about Sorenson in a minute. Lets talk about Coon with reference to WP:RS - I just don't see how he qualifies as a reliable source. This is the whole point that I can't get you to talk about. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t like the Samuel the Lamanite picture. It implies a Central or South American setting. Show me where in the B of M it says that this character stood upon a hewn stone wall. I will show you specific references to timber walls in the work. No structures made of hewn stone are mentioned in the B of M American setting. rock walls yes, but hewn stone buildings and walls no! The picture is misleading. Onondaga (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the picture in there for that very reason - to show the disconnect between perceptions of the Book of Mormon by LDS, and the reality of archaeology on the ground. Of course the image is misleading. That was the whole point of including it. However - I can see how it could be considered a tad polemic, so I removed it. I hope you accept my olive branch. :) --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Onondaga, you keep citing "mainstream academic setting for BOM". There is no "mainstream academic setting" because, outside of comparative religion departments, mainstream academics completely ignore the BOM. It is neither used nor cited in mainstream New World archeology. So you cannot talk about a "mainstream academic setting for the BOM". The only context in which the BOM exists in science is in LDS science. So the only setting in which the BOM and archeology intersect is "mainstream LDS archeology", primarily focused at BYU. Within that context, the Limited Geography model is not fringe. It may not be majority (although I suspect it is), but it is certainly not fringe. --Taivo (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Descartes is pushing for something, and not just removing improper sources, then bring in some diffs, because I fail to see him pushing for a Mesoamerican view. Archaeology and literature are not the same (I'm not taking literature courses to get a history degree). From a literary perspective, the Nephites and Jaredites had steel. From an archaeological perspective, there were neither Semites nor steel-working anywhere in the Americas. If one wants to make arguments for the literary value of the Book of Mormon, fine, but that really has nothing to do with archaeology. If one wants to interpret the Book of Mormon and the historical Americas to make the former fit in the latter, then where it is set becomes open to interpretation. Even though all attempts to do so are fringe, fringe with a degree better represents theories that have a following. If there were additional sources that indicated that Coon or Trento were notable, then they could be included, but right now, they're on the same standing as some monkey with a geocities website. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a lot of discussion! I think Onondaga’s argument is rather straight forward. If there is an academically accepted literary setting for a work then this setting trumps other fringe settings plain and simple. The approved setting (literary) is where you start to dig (archaeology). Archaeological finds from this geographic setting may or may not prove the work to be historical (e.g. the Bible) but trusting in or promoting a fringe setting is starting off on entirely the wrong step. Can you imagine academia taking you serious if you proposed to look for Camelot (historical or not) in Spain? Mainstream (there’s that word again) academia does not recognize a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon - literary or otherwise. Why does this setting get so much attention? Authorities that Onondaga has cited do not recognize this fringe setting.
Onondaga you are absolutely right about there being no reference to walls of hewn stone in the Book of Mormon New World setting. Timber and earth yes - take Alma 53:4. Of course this is describing mound builder constructions known in Joseph Smith’s own day and country. It looks like someone has removed this misleading though popular depiction! Stuff like this if it isn’t called out for what it is, tends to make this article lean towards popular propaganda. Yet another case in point for why a study of the text is always interwoven with respectable archaeology. Ask biblical archaeology scholars. What should happen here is that both religious and the secular should come to agree on the appropriate setting (as with the Bible) and scholarly debate should proceed from there. But as it is, so many seem to be inclined to promote fringe stuff and keep the subject in unnecessary confusion. Thanks for removing the popular though off the wall depiction of Samuel the Lamanite. I think you are making a mistake about Coon and Trento. It is Sorenson that you should be dismissing as fringe when it comes to the right archaeological setting. Any peer reviewed non LDS mainstream archaeological support for Sorenson? Just asking! Kovesh (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no peer-reviewed non-LDS mainstream archeological support for any archeological claim based on the BOM--whether of the Limited Geography type or not. Kovesh, you continue to ignore the fact that this is not a literary article, so only the archeological aspect of the issue is relevant here. You also fail to understand the fundamental difference between biblical archeology and BOM archeology. In biblical archeology the sites actually exist and can be located on the ground within a small area based on contemporary populations that still use the same names for the sites. The biblical text is often detailed enough that even unknown sites can still be placed within a small area. This is not true of BOM archeology. If we assume that the text is not a fabrication of Joseph Smith's imagination, there is not a single site in the New World where the BOM unambiguously guides us to a location on the ground (or even in a small area) where the BOM name correlates with a local name still in use. Therefore there is no "mainstream" correlation between actual sites and described BOM locales because there are no positively identified sites at all. Within that context, where the whole mainstream community considers "BOM archeology" to be fringe, I find it disingenuous for you to call one popular option "fringe". The Limited Geography Model is just as reasonable as any other because all BOM archeology models are fringe from the viewpoint of mainstream archeology. NPOV requires that all of these models be presented if they have been supported by reliable sources, not just the one that matches your particular POV. --Taivo (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kovesh, you said "What should happen here is that both religious and the secular should come to agree on the appropriate setting (as with the Bible) and scholarly debate should proceed from there. " This statement makes the assumption that there even is a setting that can be agreed upon. Every archaeologist in the world will tell you that the Book of Mormon has no setting at all, because it is fiction. Look at it this way - say there are two authors - one writes a novel about aliens that visited earth in ancient Rome. Another writes a pseudoscientific book about all of the evidences that there were aliens in ancient Rome. There you have a "literary setting" for aliens in ancient Rome. And you have a wingnut claiming it is true. Do we include that information in the article on ancient Rome? No! Because the overwhelming majority of archaeologists agree that the idea of aliens in ancient Rome is total BS, and there is no evidence for it - and there is no serious archaeologist that has researched it and will stand by that theory.If there was, then guess what? That would be included in the ancient Rome article. There is no need for our novelist and pseudoarchaeologist to "agree" with mainstream archaeologists on anything and "go from there". Same exact thing going on here. Remember that by your own admission, there is an awful lot of pseudoarchaeology going on in 19th century literature with respect to ancient America. Its all BS. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, this Mesoamerican issue is a complete red herring and does not address the point that Coon and Trento are not reliable sources. Instead of trying to find other sources, Kovesh has thrown in this distraction and made accusations that really fail WP:AGF, and Onondaga has supported him. If the two of you want to argue against a Mesoamerican model, y'all should get some reliable sources and then bring them in as a separate issue. If none can be found, that's an indication that y'all's POV does not appear to be the favored view within the pseudoarchaeological circles that see the BoM as history. If that's the case, y'all will just have to deal with it. If reliable sources can be found supporting y'all's POV, they will be included, but Coon and Trento do not qualify. Any more attempts at distraction should not be justified with responses. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the comment about steel, the B of M clearly uses the language of the King James Bible. Compare Nephi’s Old World “steel” bow with David’s “bow of steel”. (Psalm 18:24) I hope that Ian is not presuming that this is referring to hardened iron – if so, he is mistaken. Regarding an “unambiguous” Book of Mormon site, LDS scripture clearly places the B of M land Cumorah in the Finger Lakes region – Joseph Smith own country. (LDS D&C 128:20)Non-LDS scholars of Mormon history recognize this. It is only shifty LDS scholars like Sorenson who want to concoct a Cumorah in southern Mexico or Central America. And guys like John Lund who seek to make a buck taking tours there. Mainstream scholars don’t go for this sleight of hand. The B of M places the land of Zarahemla close enough to the land of Cumorah for travelers from the southern land of Nephi to confuse one region for the other. Regarding the Limited Mesoamerican model, it really isn’t so limited, not like the authentic B of M setting in Joseph Smith’s own environs. The claim that Moroni traveled thousands of miles from Mesoamerica to deposit the plates in western NY doesn’t fit well with passages in the book of Mormon, Ether and Moroni. Regarding B of M place names – names like “Angola”, “Alma” and “Onidah” are very similar to place names that appear in western NY. You have to be careful with even biblical and traditional place names because these can move with people. Scholars know this! A lot of biblical sites are not as established as you might think. There is still uncertainly in the secular community as to whether David and Solomon even existed. We think we know approximately where Solomon’s temple stood if it ever was. But I agree that there is a general consensus about the setting of the Bible. This doesn’t mean that there is a general consensus about the Bible as history. Many regard it as local fiction. I think I need to show you that there are Non-LDS archaeologists who will admit that the B of M has a literary setting. That setting is in Joseph Smith’s own country among the mound builder artifacts of his environs. This does not mean that they accept the Book of Mormon as history any more than they accept the anachronistic book of Daniel or Job as history. So it will be up to a few of us to show you that there really are credentialed scholars who point out mound builder archaeological finds as supporting the Book of Mormon’s original literary setting. This is not to suggest that they interpret this evidence as proving the work as either divine or historical. But the book does have a geographic setting and that setting is not in Mesoamerica. That by the way is why the book never mentions monkeys, palm trees, hewn stone buildings in jungles and no Leopards (jaguars) in its American setting. I continue to regard Coon and Trento as actually superior sources to the likes of Sorenson who has been accepted in this article. But there are others like Silverberg who is definitely not fringe. I can draw more heavily from these essentially secular sources while I think about whether or not at some point, to start eliminating FARMs stuff altogether. I wouldn’t mind if this article drew completely from mainstream Archaeology, American History and Literature. Onondaga (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]