Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Citation needed
It is my understanding that is there is no citation to back up a comment it is just opinion, and Wikipedia is no place for opinion. jeremp 9/6/2006
Early 2004 discussion
The info on genetics may be more suited to an article such as "Anthropology and the Book of Mormon" although I'm not sure genetics should be relegated to anthropologists as if they really have a suitable background to deal with that subject (contrary to what Tom Murphy may think he knows). B 22:38, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
For that matter the section on Quetzalcoatl may be suited to some other article. Is that section more to do with archeology or some sub-discipline of anthropology? Or maybe this entire article should be re-named something like "Anthropology, Archeology and the Book of Mormon". B 22:42, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the DNA research and the Quetzalcoatl research are technically anthropology in this context. These studies relate to determining history independently of written records, which is archaeology. As I understand physical anthropology, it is the study of how humans have changed through evolution. The BoM DNA studies are not concerned so much with how Native Americans have changed genetically as they are in determining whether DNA shows they have a Hebrew history. And while Quetzalcoatl may be interesting to cultural anthropologists, the real question here is whether there is archeological evidence that quetzalcoatl was historically Jesus Christ. COGDEN 00:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- To state that "physical anthropology is [merely] the study of how humans have changed through evolution", and that the "BoM DNA studies are not concerned so much with how Native Americans have changed genetically" misconstrues the issue. Physical anthropology is much broader than suggested, and "determining whether DNA shows [Native Americans] have a Hebrew history" is an issue informed more by molecular biology than archeology. (Thus, my sarcastic comment about Murphy.) Physical anthropology includes elements of population genetics, a study towards which molecular biology is particularly oriented. My concern is that fields like biological anthropology can be so dependent on other fields that it stretches these programs to adequately handle issues like the BoM-Indian-Hebrew-DNA issue. Presuming the genetics section is more of a biology issue and less so an anthropological issue, it should be obvious enough that it is at most an archeological issue only tangentially. Given that many or most consider that archeology is a subdiscipline of anthropology, I suggested that perhaps the article name should be broadened to "Anthropology, Archeology and the Book of Mormon" if matter such as swords and horses is to be lumped in with genetics. Otherwise, some thought need be given to spinning out articles like [metallurgy and BoM] and [zoology and BoM], etc. Quetzalcoatl legends may not be out of place in this article, but the issue as to whether some of the Quetzalcoatl legends were based in part upon Jesus visit to America goes beyond archeology because both it and anthropology both can be so inter-disciplinary-dependent. B 04:15, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying. I wish there were some word that was an elegant superset of both archeology and anthropology. Maybe the thing to do would be to have this Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article cover things more archaeology than anthropology, and then spin off an Anthropology and the Book of Mormon article to cover things more anthropology than archaeology, and do lots of cross-linking. And if there are things like Quetzalcoatl that don't fit well in one or the other, they can have their own articles, or split the discussion between archaeology and anthropology. COGDEN 02:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Name of Article
Two Things: 1) Excellent work. This page has a future now! 2) Why is it Linguistics and BofM instead of BofM Linguistics? Is is a question of distinction of meaning or of Wiki standards? Hawstom 06:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think that Linguistics and the BofM is potentially a bit broader than BofM Linguistics. It could cover any intersection between language studies and the BofM, including info on what the BofM has to say on the topic of linguistics, which is quite a lot. COGDEN 02:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Expanding to other Articles
Is there place in Wikipedia for Book of Mormon Geography? This isn't an apologetics encyclopedia, so I'm not sure. I was thinking of adding info on Lehi's arabian journey and Mesoamerican studies, but maybe that is going too far. Hawstom 04:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
State of Research
The 1973 Michael Coe quote is absurd in the context of the "state of the research" I don't want to kick a hornet's nest, but I think it ought to either go or be put into a "back then, 30 years ago" context compared to the state today. Sorenson's book and numerous other studies werent' known in 1973. Again, it is simply absurd and beneath Wikipedia. Tom 05:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Focus of Article
A major problem with the article, and I'm not sure how to state this delicately, is that it is stuck in an old "us vs. them" paradigm. I think Book of Mormon Studies has moved beyond that. Again, I am afraid of being indelicate here, but from where I sit, the Book of Mormon believers have shifted their focus to a good old Ezra-Taft-Benson-would-be-proud serious studentship from the old one upmanship game with the skeptics, and in the process have left the old arguments in the dust. The Mormons have got their hands dusty, worn out some shoes and tires, dusted off old tomes and manuals, racked up frequent flyer miles, and come up with some decent insights into the Book of Mormon. And what do you know? At the same time they have left the skeptics in a huge cloud of dust. Is it just me, or is the argument over for anybody who has really been paying attention in the past 20 years?
I am serious about this. Does anybody care that the Bible talks about beasts we can't confirm? Does anybody claim it is a fiction because x, y, or z doesn't fit? And so similarly, once we have all read Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Joseph Allen's Book on the same subject, the Lehi Journey discoveries, and on and on word for word from cover to cover, do we believe nit-picking criticisms are really about an objective attempt to demonstrate the Book of Mormon's historicity, or do we start to increasingly see the criticisms as simple stone-throwing?
I have been very patient with this article. But after spending a couple of hours with it tonight, I am disrespecting myself for pandering to old, rehashed stone-throwing. Isn't it time Book of Mormon Studies grew up?
Now that I have been indelicate, let me put on my NPOV hat again. What I propose is that we strip the article of all vestiges of controversy and proceed with a strictly "Studies" focus. If there are problems in the Book of Mormon (there always are), let us deal with them in a scholarly way, giving the book the benefit of the doubt, rather than pronouncing an "Aha!" Let us not shy from questions such as "Was Ammon really preparing horses for chariots?" But let us not continue to imply that the Book of Mormon is a story without a place, very plausibly a work of fiction. That it clearly is NOT. It is a sacred text of a major religion, and deserves serious study, at least study with a forced serious face. And I think that is the Wiki way. Tom 07:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree that Mormon apologists have left skeptics in the dust, but I agree that the article could use a much more scholarly framework. I don't think that the mention of pre-Columbian horses and other anachronisms is nit-picking, but I don't think this article should be about whether or not there is or isn't archaeological evidence of pre-Columbian horses, etc. Rather, the article should (1) point out all the Book of Mormon's seeming anachronisms, (2) discuss how particular apologists have explained those anachronisms, (3) point out all the seeming positive archaeological consistencies, and (4) discuss how particular skeptics have explained these consistencies. COGDEN 15:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe I am way behind on the state of research among Book of Mormon debunkers. Perhaps there are recent activities from them that could be included in this article to disabuse notions such as mine that recently the apologists have been more more serious about the BofM than have the debunkers.Tom 05:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know that the focus of the article should be as you outline, COGDEN. Is that the best we can expect from an archaeology article? What should we expect and deliver in the article? Is Book of Mormon archaeology only about arguments, strife, and debate, or is there a higher aspect of pure interest that would make a better platform for an article? Tom 05:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a bit of a disconnect between the energy and focus of Mormon apologists and skeptics. But I don't think that this is because the apologists are winning. It's just because the two groups are no longer using the same standards of evaluation. Apologists aren't trying to justify their theories within mainstream archaeology anymore (in the sense of, for example, trying to publish their theories in peer-reviewed archaeology journals, where they would be laughed at), and skeptics don't really lend much credence to the arguments and synchronisms put forth by apologists. I don't think that a unified theory of Book of Mormon archaeology is possible anymore. COGDEN 20:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- "Apologists aren't trying to justify their theories within mainstream archaeology anymore". You mean they used to? Tom 05:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There are some POV problems with this article. It implies to me that mainstream archeology has uncovered evidence that specifically supports the Book of Mormon; I do not believe this is the case. In particular, the word 'plausible' is used repeatedly where it shouldn't. Plausible to whom? Martijn faassen 12:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous POV edits
I think the previous " Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" is obviously a work of a Mormon apologist, so I edited the whole thing. 138.202.33.102|talk July 25, 2004
Regarding 138.202.33.102's latest edits: I don't think it is fair—especially to the wikipedian community who have spent hours/days working on articles that are susceptible to NPOV issues like this article—for an anonymous editor (especially those that are seemingly newbies unfamiliar with wikipedia policy and are not likely to ever return to the article again or engage the other contributors on this article in the talk page) to come along and make significant, substantial or dramatic POV changes that don't add any significant content or usefulness. It is far too difficult and time-consuming to absorb or salvage those sorts of edits into an NPOV style when the editor who caused the problem in the first place should also fix the problem. This is how I characterize 138.202.33.102's recent edits. If 138.202.33.102 returns and engages the wikipedia community on this article, that is different, but for now these kind of thoughtless edits merit reversion without further discussion. I proffer this approach as a stop gap measure for what I see as an inherent problem/tension with wikipedia to make participation in wikipedia easy and anonymous while also making that participation responsible. If you are of a like mind, state a hearty, "Aye!" —B|Talk 23:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Reverts are very painful, but I agree with your careful and delicate assessment. Anonymous editors need to edit as responsibly as the rest of us, and it isn't fair to expect the Wikipedia community to painstakingly salvage the pearls from a POV hack job. We love all editors, but we are not superhuman. Tom 03:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just my opinion
I am here to write to the Anonymous editor of this page, COGDEN, B and other Mormon church supporters.
I am a person who frequently lurk on this encyclopedia to do research on various subjects, including on Mormonism. First of all, I don't think it is ethical for the anonymous guy to copy the whole article from another website and replace the article here. (Hey, anonymous dude, you know what I am meant)
However, at the same time, I felt very uncomfortable about the idea that some Mormons use this free Encyclopedia as a tool of pro-LDS propaganda. In particularly in this article written by cogden, I felt it does not give us the whole picture about the Book of Mormon and Archaeology. In fact, his article is quite misleading. As far as I am concerned, no archaeological evidence support the Book of Mormon.
B, you said it is unfair for that guy (whoever he is) to edit your article. Well, as far as I am concerned, anyone has the right to edit any messages. Moreover, Mormons here are more than happy to edit any articles that does not give their church a good image.
This is a free encyclopedia which many people who will come here to do researchs, which include young students. Please don't take advantage of this encyclopedia to endorse your own religion. You won't be happy if someone use this place to post anti-mormonism articles. 69.105.0.3|talk July 25, 2004
- 69.105.0.3, rather than insult the LDS contributors here with your speculation that we are here to promote pro-LDS propaganda, your comments would be more well received without that sort of bigotry. The current article is a result of work by LDS and non-LDS alike, not just COGDEN...not even primarily by COGDEN...Your opinion that "the article is misleading" is just that: your opinion...an uninformed and wrong opinion too.
- 69.105.0.3, don't put words in my mouth...I didn't say only that it was merely unfair, but the manner in which he did it was unfair. Mormons can edit any articles?! Really?! A free encyclopedia for impressionable youth?! Wow, we never knew that! Any more obvious things you want to mention, sherlock?
- As far as I'm concerned, 69.105.0.3, you apparantly know very little about archeological evidence relating to any scripture, not to mention a poor grasp of science and its philosophical foundations. Just because you have an opninion doesn't mean it's wise to state it especially with the bigoted, stupid remarks you made above. 69.105.0.3 as far as I'm concerned you are just another deluded promoter of bigoted-propaganda against Mormons and you have been brainwashed by your minister/church and your one-sided exposure to bigoted-propaganda against Mormonism rather than actually knowing or making friends with any Mormons and actually learning something about Mormonism from a Mormon point of view. Try expanding your narrow-mind a little bit...it will do wonders for your soul. —B|Talk 03:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
69.105.0.3, is there more about your concern you could share? It is harder than it first appears to understand, value, and apply the Wikipedia non-negotiable principle of Neutral Point of View. A first step is discovering that we are all guests at Wikipedia, here to lend our expertise, but not owning the web servers, nor the articles. We have to learn and follow the rules. You might find the link on NPOV helpful. Tom 03:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"B" Talk
Wow, Btalk, I am very surprised by your emotional and immature respond to me. First of all, you judge me when you know virtually nothing about me. How do you know I know nothing about book of Mormon and archaeology? Can you quote anything I said about this subject anywhere on this Wikipedia? Second, in fact, I always dicuss this subject with my Mormon friends. And I have to tell you that I have not seen such immature respond like you from them.
- It's unfortunate that you don't recognize that it is bigoted and insulting to Mormon wikipedians to come on here and include in your first comment that: "Mormons use this free Encyclopedia as a tool of pro-LDS propaganda"; "no archaeological evidence support the Book of Mormon"; and "don't take advantage of this encyclopedia to endorse your own religion". Nor is it good idea to be condescending by pointing out the obvious to intelligent, educated Mormon-wikipedians with comments like: "anyone has the right to edit any messages"; "Mormons here are more than happy to edit any articles that does not give their church a good image"; "This is a free encyclopedia"; and "You won't be happy if someone use this place to post anti-mormonism articles." My guess is you are a teeny-bopper and you still will just not get it. Maybe when you get older you will. —B|Talk 12:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You said that I am "far as I'm concerned you are just another deluded promoter of bigoted-propaganda against Mormons and you have been brainwashed by your minister/church and your one-sided exposure to bigoted-propaganda against Mormonism". All I can do is to shaking my head when reading this message. You respond violently, emotionally, immaturely, and unprofessionally to a slight critic. I just don't understand how can people like you have peaceful discussion with other people.
By the way, not all people who disagree with Mormon are anti-mormon. I know this hard for you to understand. But try to learn to be broader mind. Just advice to you.
- Another condescending, bigoted remark from you above. I've not suggested you are anti-Mormon; I've only stated that you are a bigot. Projecting your bigotry on me to presume that I wouldn't "understand" that "not all people who disagree with Mormon are anti-Mormon" merely shows how naive, close-minded and bigoted "you" are, not vice versa...just some advice to you. —B|Talk 12:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You said "is there more about your concern you could share? It is harder than it first appears to understand, value, and apply the Wikipedia non-negotiable principle of Neutral Point of View"
That is exactly the question I am going to ask you. From the previous respond you gave to me, I don't see how you apply Wikipedia's non-negotiable prinple? Before you point your fingure to me, you can look at yourself.
By the way, one of my friend who go to LDS church read your post to me, and he told me your message made him sick. User:69.105.0.3
- 69.105.0.3, it's not so likely that your "LDS" "friend" would be "sick" given your bigotry which leads me to conclude that you are also a liar...either that or your "friend" is not to bright. Given that you can't even separate my comments (not to mention identify what my username is) from Hawstom's I am also lead to conclude that you are even less bright than I would have first given you credit for. There's no confusing a bigot with an anti-Mormon, 69.105.0.3. I've not claimed you are anti-Mormon...just merely a bigot. —B|Talk
- Hi, 69.105.0.3. Thanks for your efforts to contribute in a new environment. Actually, I ( Tom ) am the one who made the last comment above. Try to remember that we are all learning, and sometimes say things we later regret. Also know that ill-chosen words at Wikipedia never die; they hang in the air forever. Like life, Wikiness is sometimes painful, but it helps if we try to preserve a patient, forgiving spirit, and apply the principles of the Sermon on the Mount and the attributes of Charity. Please don't clam up or give up. Take some time to go to my user page ([User:Hawstom]) and ask any technical questions you might have about Wikipedia. It makes it easier on other Wikipedians if you sign up for a username, learn how to sign your name, etc. Feel free any time to drop me a note (User talk:Hawstom) "How do you do such and such?". With kindest regards, (signed with four tildes ~~~~)Tom 04:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC). p.s. User:B signs "B|Talk", but his nickname is just B.
- By the way, seeing you here, 69.105.0.3, reminds me of several months back when I made my first clumsy Wikipedia edits and faux pas how User:Angela so gently welcomed me and made me feel like a valued contributor. Her gentle manner of teaching and pointing the way is an example to all Wikipedians. She has since been elected to the Board of Directors. That simple contact early in my Wikiness not only set the ideal for my subsequent contributions, but affected my whole life. As soon as you sign up for a username, I will copy some of her cheerful welcomes to your talk page. With kindest regards, Tom 17:09, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm suprised that anyone who has a familarity of Archeological principles can say with any amount of certainty there are or are not evidences to prove a point. The entire premise behind archeology is to discover evidence to support a hyphothesis and then put forth a theory. That is all it is. A theory. Not a "fact" as most are taught. Having been on as many digs as I have in my life, I have become well aquainted with the theoretical processes put in place by most archaeologists and firmly believe most is simple conjecture, based on our current world view. I won't rant, but would like to understand what the point of the above discussion is. If there is a dispute, lets discuss on the talk page and be specific, not vague and emotional. I have contributed to this page, and have done a lot of primary research in the area, but am open to new ideas - please share here and then let's decide how to incorporate. However, I am sick of people saying there are "no evidences" or "this proves it." For both pro-Mormon and Anti-Mormon alike, that is simply not the case. -Visorstuff 02:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I share the sentiment: "However, I am sick of people saying there are 'no evidences' or 'this proves it.' For both pro-Mormon and Anti-Mormon alike, that is simply not the case." The subject of this article is exactly the type of matter addressed by the "underdetermination of theories" principle in the philosophy of science. There is no conclusive proof one way or another. I should have ignored 69.105.0.3, but his condescension and bigotry were so distasteful to me, I didn't resist. —B|Talk 12:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. if 69.105.0.3 would like to discuss his issues, let him do so. I think significant changes should be made after he/she creates a profile so meaningful discussion can take place. Consider this an invitation. We'd like you have you on board - in a constructive, meaningful way, not the current way. I still think that page editors should read the page history before making edits to controversial pages, but I guess that is impossible to enforce. -Visorstuff 00:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
NPOV - A Constructive Tack
I've shared this opinion in Mormonism and Christianity, and I think it applies here as well. The article contains a lot of "Mormons and Mormon apologists," "skeptics," "many believe," etc. To clarify my standpoint on this (and why I feel so strongly about it) <grin>:
Religion is, and always will be, a top-down organization. While individual members of every religion will have their own deep-seated convictions and beliefs, the only authoritative sources for the official philosophy of a given religion are the leaders. And, in the case of every religion, not just leaders, but the leaders (in the LDS case, the First Presidency).
I believe that we are attempting to build as factually reliable an article as we can. In order to do this, I believe that all contributors must forget that there is a "Mormon perspective" at all, or even a "non-Mormon perspective." Neither is permitted to exist.
- I am troubled by this statement. I don't think this is exactly what the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy has in mind. Have you read it and the tutorial? I think what can't be done is present any POV as the only. Major POVs must be presented in a neutral way. Tom 16:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- This could be naive idealism shining through, but is there a third-party perspective that can simply provide the facts? Whether they are perceived as pro or not, facts are facts, right? Sterlingbates 17:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly. A great challenge. Tom 16:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For this reason I propose a couple of structural changes without going too deeply into specifics:
1. The introduction needs to present a concrete history of Book of Mormon archeology. For example, the opening sentence, which says:
- Mormon apologists and skeptics alike have long attempted to demonstrate through archaeology that The Book of Mormon is on the one hand a work of history or on the other work of fiction."
should, in my opinion, say something more like this:
- The Book of Mormon contains a great deal of information relevant to the study of archeology. Commentaries concerning political, social, judicial, and economic practices are interspersed throughout the text, providing an ample reference for archeologists to pursue their studies.
- The problem is, as I tend to find, that this is actually an apologetic point of view. Write something like this, and the intro will be torn to shreds by critics of Mormonism (I think). If you want to get anywhere, you have to throw everybody a bone. Not to say you can't try, though. Tom 16:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Is it apologetic? The facts are correct, and the implication is that it works in favor of skeptics (providing an ample stick to whack the Mormons) and apologists. I'm certainly open to other ways of saying it, that was just a first attempt. Sterlingbates 17:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. The "View of Mormon apologists" could be rewritten from a more neutral standpoint. Am I going to far to suggest that the words "apologist" and "skeptic" could be removed entirely from this section? Even from the article? Archeology is inherently neutral until one undertakes to contrive an entire social structure from a single discovery.
3. Archeological support should certainly come first in my opinion. The problem is that "archeological problems" are proposals yet awaiting proof. Logically speaking, archeology cannot prove that the Nephites did not have horses, since you cannot prove a negative (who knows what's in the very next shovelful). I propose that "archeological problems" be both rewritten and relabelled to accomodate that understanding.
- Again, this is probably POV and attack-prone. Tom 16:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That's the thing -- archeology is, according to the dictionary, "the systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery." It is not the pursuit of truth, merely the accumulation of facts. I'd be interested to see how the article on archeology and the Bible treats as-yet-undiscovered claims. It might help us out here. Sterlingbates 17:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(Sorry, this is a side-track.) Genetics should also point out that the Book of Mormon does not rule out the presence of other tribes that are contemporary with the Nephites on the continent. One article on the genetics debate quoted a church authority (don't recall which one) who said that similarities with the Inuit and Eskimo tribes is entirely possible for that reason.
- I thought the current article did this in an understated way. Tom 16:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I was pretty tired when I read it, so that could be :-) Sterlingbates 17:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, the floor is open to discuss (or to wipe it with me :-) — Sterlingbates 09:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I would say go ahead and make your proposed changes once you've read these two articles: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. There is certainly no reason not to, and the Wikipedia can only be the better for your efforts. Then you might want to check in every once in a while to help resolve any questions that may arise. And once again, thanks a million for both contributing and doing it in such a thoughtful, careful, respectful way. I hope you see the value of the Wikipedia and continue to contribute in the long term. Tom 16:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ahhhhh. NPOV != unbiased. That's very clarifying. I'll finish the articles then come back later. Sterlingbates 22:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Too many extern links within article
This article has way too many extern links within the article proper. FWIK, extern links within the article proper should only be used as cites and not as regular links (like wikilinks). Otherwise, they should be in the extern links section. I was about to fix this myself, but there are way too many for me to tackle. Perhaps a regular editor on this article might want to tackle it. Just my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. While I was curious to read some of the Bible passages, Book of Mormon passages etc., I think it would be best to reference them, chapter and verse within the text, and provide links to the chapter in the External Links section at the bottom. When you follow most of these links, it takes you to the beginning of the chapter, and you either have to read-through or scroll down to get to the verse(s) cited anyway. Doing otherwise is not standard Wikipedia format, and it tends to clutter the text.--Jpbrenna 03:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
DNA and the BOM
Anyone who does not believe in evolution can ignore this (and a great deal of other facts). Thomas Murphy and his specific contribution to the debate on the book of mormon:
http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp
This link quotes Scott Woodward right off the bat and Scott would disagree with the conclusion of the article. In fact, he has a special disdain for this sort of argument that he bases entirely on science, not on religion.
April 2005 concerns about bias
I find this article to be extremely biased toward a pro-mormon worldview. If the article is true to actual science then the world as we knowit is turned on its head. I suggest a very critical scrubbing of this article to remove all references that infer the existence of real, hard evidence of the historicity of the BOM. Vegasbright@gmail.com
- Let's see what we can do to improve the article with your help, Vegasbright. The very first and most helpful thing each of us must do it read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That is our "absolute and non-negotiable" non-bias policy, and its meaning and implementation is a little surprising and non-intuitive, but beautiful and ingenious. I am sure with that common ground we will be able to make something great of this article. Tom Haws 19:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with Hawstom, I do not read the article the same way you do, Vegasbright. I find no evidence in the article that suggests that there are "real, hard evidence of the historicity of the BOM." On the contrary, I find that the page has become a battleground for Anti-Mormons and Apologists about what is actual part of American history, and I find such phrases such as: "Because it would be nearly impossible under any conditions to prove archaeologically whether the book is historical or fictional, the book's historicity is fundamentally a matter of belief for most interested parties. Both Mormons and skeptics seem to find abundant support for their beliefs." Therefore I guess I do not see it as "Pro-Mormon" as you apparently do. Rather I find documentation. Unfortunately, most of the research has been to "prove," or find evidences rather that to "disprove" the things that you do not "believe" and disagree with.
I completely agree with you Vegasbright that there is no evidence to prove the Book of Mormon through archaeology, but rather, both Anti's, critics and Mormons alike agree that there are some things that point to support and some things that point to support against support for the Book of Mormon. This article, in my opinion does a good job in providing both sides of the arguments, with documentation, however, I'm not sure the article does what it was first designed to do. Remember that nearly as many Non-Mormons as Mormons contributed to the article, and all of the "Mormon" support is documented from both Mormon and non-Mormon research and web sites. As someone who has assisted in archaeological digs on a number of occasions (and grew up with it), I would gladly welcome from you or anyother editor some documented and sustainable objections in the article. Such objections as "no horses" in America and "no elephants (or mamoths) either," are of course unfounded and unsupported (and are provided by Anti-Mormon works rather than real research), as they were here, however, such arguments such as the various types of metalurgy in the Americas or the time the above mentioned animals lived (using carbon and potasium dating methods or rock layer dating - incidentally supports makes the above lived more recently that carbon dating support) would make great arguments, which should probably be discussed in great length, however no one seems to take the time to add it in. Perhaps you will. Please feel free to add in if you have access to the research and studies on the topic. Incidentally, I'm only aware of a handful of critical scholarly research on the topic, so your pool of research, rather than anti-Mormon speculation, is limited - even the Tanners don't really touch much on this topic. You may want to begin with University of Illinios research. The article does need it to do more what it was designed to do, and that is discuss the various arguments, rather than being an apologetic or Anti battleground article. Happy editing and hope you are able to contribute to making this page more well-rounded. -Visorstuff 00:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So there you go, Vegasbright. Two wonderful answers (a short one and a long one) inviting you to read up on the rules and the material, then dive in. Tom Haws 04:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I think the article is pretty well done. It shows balance.
Explanation on recent edits
I've edited the following for the following reasons:
- Removed "white skinned," from lead paragraph - the book also describes darker skinned and other ethnicities, not specified. It has nothing to do with the lead paragraph. Perhaps if it is a neccesary edit it could be introduced at a more appropriate location, such as a discussion of White and Dark skinned paintings found in Mexico.
- I moved around the Smithsonian myth to the cultural section. It is a good point, however, needs to be discuss in a cultural setting, not in an area discussing cattle and horses. Kept link to source document, as it is useful argument.
- I provided some additional links that show the true complexity of the DNA research, including dicussions of Mitochondial DNA, DNA research and even a discussion of the most recent common ancestor (incidentally, is a wonderful theory in itself. I think we need to show more links that support murphy's theory as well, but unfortunately that is a newer area of research, while the others are much more established.
- removed link to cult. See discussion on Talk:Cult and at User_talk:Vegasbright. It has no place in this article, is POV and an opinion.
- Statements about excommunication have been altered (and will likely be removed). This is simple not true and is a misguided comment. (I later removed them - they are inaccurate).
- Removed "while inference to the contrary is plentiful from quazi-intelectual organizations such as The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies." As Farms does very little research compared to other organizations, and unfortunately for the author of this statement, they are well respected in many academic circles. They are niche though, which leaves them open to criticism. In addition, this is an opinion and not NPOV.
- I'm not sure I understand your comment about it being impossible "to separate belief from science and research in the LDS culture =," Can you please expand this thought in the cultural section? I don't have any problem seperating the two, hwoever, many of my scientific theories are created by my world view, the same as every other researcher. And I freely admit, my world view is largely influenced by my religion. Who's isn't. Vegasbrights obviously is, or he wouldn't make some of the edits to the article. His religious beliefs - even if they are atheism and skepticism for Mormonism - affect how he views the church and similar organizations. It is part of being human. Please clarify - perhaps I'm missing his "objective" point. -Visorstuff 04:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mitochondrial DNA research
BeeHonest - see the following studies that disagree with your recent edits:
- Highfield, R., "Europeans Colonised America in 28,000 BC," The Electronic Telegraph, Feb. 19, 2000. (Available online.)
- Morell, V., "Genes May Link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans," Science, 280: 520 (April 24, 1998).
- Monsalve, M.V., "Mitochondrial DNA in Ancient Amerindians," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 103:423-425 (1997).
- Kolman, C.J., Sambuughin, N., and Bermingham, E., "Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of Mongolian Populations and Implications for the Origin of New World Founders," Genetics, Vol. 142: 1321-34 (1996), as cited by McClellan (2003).
- McCulloch, J. Huston, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Did Judean Refugees Escape to Tennessee?" Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1993, pp. 46-53, 82.
- Murphy, T., "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," in American Apocrypha, edited by Dan Vogel and Brent L. Metcalfe, Salt Lake City: Signature Books (2001).
- Forster, P., Hardin, R., Torroni, A., and Bandelt, H.-J., "Origin and Evolution of Native American mtDNA Variation: A Reappraisal," American Journal of Human Genetics, 59: 935-954 (1996).
Mitochondrial DNA research shows that Haplogroup X is found in both Israel and Native Americans. Your edits cannot be supported. -Visorstuff 05:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Visor, there is no haplogroup of MDNA that is common to both amerindians and israelites that supports anything close (were talking out of africa timeframe) to the BOM narrative in any form. Your insistance otherwise is unsupported. --Vegasbright 18:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- The timing may be unsupported by current models under re-write, but the gene traces are supported. Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that haplogroup X is found in both Israel and the New World (Morell, 1998 - see above; Highfield, 2000 - see above ; Brown, M.D. et al., "mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link Between Europe/Western Asia and North America?" American Journal of Human Genetics, 63(6): 1852-1861 (Dec. 1998); Forster, P., Hardin, R., Torroni, A., and Bandelt, H.-J., "Origin and Evolution of Native American mtDNA Variation: A Reappraisal," American Journal of Human Genetics, 59: 935-954 (1996)).
- The issue is the timing. The currently accepted estimated date of entry of haplogroup X in the New World is thousands of years before Lehi left Jerusalem. This dating estimation is based on a the currently accepted mutation rate. The other issue is that the mutation rate is in an interim period of being revised, as it has been shown that is is much slower than actually occurs in modern humans (Howell, N., Kubacka, I., and Mackey, D.A., "How Rapidly Does the Human Mitochondrial Genome Evolve?" American Journal of Human Genetics, 59(3):501-509 (Sept. 1996); Parsons, T.J. et al., "A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region," Nature Genetics, 15:363-367 (April 1997); Pitman, S., "DNA Mutation Rates & Evolution," http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/dnamutationrates.html, Aug. 2003.)
- Then you have issues like the Native Americans trying to "prove" their ancestry by DNA and told it is not reliable as graduate students from France who have been tested find a 14 percent Native American heritage. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7298465/
- The more research there is the more questions there are on both sides, less resolves, until the timing issue is resolved, the current research isn't very valid on timeframes.
- These are the type of issues that would make a good DNA and the Book of Mormon article. Not sure they belong here. -Visorstuff 19:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What exactly, from that impressive-looking list, "disagrees" with what portion of my recent edits? Since most of it seems unrelated, perhaps you will point out the specific (perceived) conflict. As for mtDNA haplogroup X, see this ".pdf map. And the fact that you don't support the edit doesn't mean it can't be supported, thank you. - BeeHonest 05:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back. I should backup a bit to explain in more detail. Statements you made such as "which conflicts with the actual DNA evidence on the ancestry of modern indigenous Americans" seems to be an absolute statement (so is "near-universal"). One of my points in the above is that there is evidence.
The second point is to your statement: "Within academic circles, there is near universal agreement that there is no pattern of migration of mitochondrial DNA corresponding to the migration of peoples claimed by the Book of Mormon." To my knowledge, only one of the above links is done by a mormon researcher, and that is Murphy. The rest are respected scholars and academicians. Therefore your statement that there is near universal disagreement is incorrect, when the above support MDNA strain migrations from the mid-east. But this is truly irrelevant to the page - we should probably delete the genetic section from this page as genetics and archeaology are two seperate fields. Anyway, I'm going to take a break - happy editing....
Welcome back, yourself. I'm quite certain we shouldn't delete the genetic section. My question is what you think conflicts with what I've said: what statements are made in any of those papers/newspaper articles that supports your contention that there is not near universal agreement that there is no pattern of migration of mitochondrial DNA corresponding to the migration of peoples claimed by the Book of Mormon? The issue is not colonization of America by Europeans, or linkage of Eurasians and Native Americans, nor Mongolians, nor mtDNA variations, but the lack of any scientific (DNA) underpinning to the belief that emigrants from Jerusalem were the founders of a people in the New World around 600 BC. - BeeHonest 06:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I do think the section should be deleted and spun into its own page. It makes sense that it will become a much more independant subject in the coming years. Why do you think it should remain in this article about Archeaology? Look at similar pages such as Biblical Archaeology, etc. They do not address genetics. to address your question above, each of the articles above support my contention, that is why they were included. I think the Forster et. al. paper should be a good place to start, let alone the article on tennesse, the Electronic Telegraph article and the biblical archaeology review suport it enough.
- The purpse of this article is not to convice, but to show the current research in the field. I am only aware of a few researchers addresssing this topic at any depth, many of whom I know personally. I actually think the burden of proof is on you to show "universal agreement that there is no pattern of migration" from europe/mid east. Your last sentence above does not do justice as it does not address the issue at hand. This article demonstrates scientific theories or "underpinnings" but does not offer what you belief is "proof" - which is fine, that is not the purpose here. Theory is theory. Neither of us should be here to proselytize our viewpoints (please don't think I'm referring to promotion of religion, which is equally forbidden on wikipedia), but rather discuss what can be considered accurate and factual from a scholarly point of view. This article does this. It acknowledges what is known and what is not. When a new editor comes aboard and makes absolute statements it can appear proselytory.
- As I mentioned in other places, I am going to wikiholiday this page, Ive gotten too emotionally attached to my edits - so I will not respond here for a short time as is custom, but will still be active on my talk page and other areas of wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your wikipedia experience, and as an Wikipedia:Admin, I hope I have not soured your experience here. If so, I am sorry. I do hope you branch out and add to your eight page edits in other areas of your expertise. As always, other users often appreciate to know about the folks they edit with, so they would appreciate information you can add to your user page. -Visorstuff 07:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if you decide to pursue the facts about DNA studies, I'd point you to the Rootsweb.com "GENEALOGY-DNA" mailing list. One archived note of interest wouuld be here: "There are absolutely, categorically no such DNA studies (autosomal, Y chromosome, MtDNA) that indicate even a smidgen of Jewish/Israelite ancestry for Native American tribes." - BeeHonest 19:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If that is a significant point of view, it should be referenced and attributed in an article together with an indication of its prevalence. Tom Haws 21:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. Let's make sure this doesn't end up in "talk.origins" format, with opposite PoVs ending up in point, counterpoint, rebuttal ad infinitum format on the article itself. I'm not in a great position to judge the facts of the article either way, but I'm definitely concerned about the tone (in fact, in both directions). Alai 04:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tone and style
Thanks to Vegasbright for his recent contributions. A small reminder to expand abbreviations and keep the article encyclopedic in tone and style. Tom Haws 16:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Iron Age
Vegasbright, I am lost about the reference to iron age in the first sentence you added. Could you add an appropriate explanatory wikilink or use a different adjective that makes more clear what the introductory sentence is explaining? Thanks for your patience with me. Collaboartive encyclopedia building is a bit of a chore sometimes. Tom Haws 16:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Horses in America???
"Because the animals referenced are thought to have lived between 4,000 and 10,000 years ago, they typically do not fit the requirements of the Book of Mormon narrative, although some historians place the animals here as late as the first century B.C." - never in my life have I known any "historian" to place horses, camelids, or probiscideans in america in the bronze age. never. where does this information come from? -evilguest 1:15, Apr 9, 2005 (EST)
- Thomas Sheridan (non-LDS western historian), in a book about the history of Arizona. Also, Dale Morgan has supported this theory. -Visorstuff 20:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please provide documentation for the claim:
- "Current archeology suggests that a few horses may have survived to later dates in isolated locations, such as Florida, as recent as 2500 years ago."
- No problemo - by the way think most Book of Mormon critics get confused about pre-columbian Horses in the Americas and pre-columbian Horses on the Yucatan pennensula which are two very different issues that church critics don't always distintguish between in their writings. There is very little evidence of horses in the yucatan pennensula (of course many fossils don't preserve well there due to the climate). Now to your question: Pre-columbian horses in north america is a moot argument - some historians believe they lasted all the way through - see some of the references below and you may want to read Denhardt's "Horses of the Americas" and (non-Mormon) and 1421_hypothesis for more on this particular topic and some of the other references (including PBS, etc) at the end of my post.
- Aside from it already being referenced in the paragraph by Sheridan, horses are found in wisconsin as late as 700 AD [1], in the south in BCE [2], 2500 at [3], 2000 BC [4] [5], Jeff Lindsey's site lists 3000 bc and even the 1421_hypothesis here on the wikipedia places it after 1000 AD. Mormon Archeaologist compiles a 3000 date (see John L. Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Comp., SLC, UT (1985), p. 297.) The 2500 edit was a generous date useing a composit average taken of the multiple dates listed in the above and Sheridan.
- Again, please distinguishe between yukatan archaeoloy and north american archeaology, which anti-mormons and church critics don't always do. Thanks for the question. -Visorstuff 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Your non-mormon sources are weak at best and not well, if at all, accepted by the Archeological community. Your Mormon sources, including the well known self proclaimed Apologist Jeff Lindsey are NOT archeologists. How about colaboration from respected a NON-MORMON Archeaologist?
- I'm not sure what your beef is, as this is really a non-arguable point, proven again and again. But I'm not sure of any people more respected than Dale Morgan and Thomas Sheridan when it comes to western history. And if PBS and frontline runs it, it kinda has to be from respected archeaologists - I only linked to two mormon archeaologists and lindsay. The rest are very much "NON-MORMON." For example, Robert Denhardt (university of Oklahoma) is not LDS, and probaly knows more about this than anyone in the world, let alone the volumes of works about horses [10]. I'm unsure of any modern archaeologists who dispute this, other than the smithsonian guy who almost lost his job for some claims. Can you provide sources on who is a repututable archaeologist who disagrees with the idea? Adding in who disagrees with this from an academic point of view will strenthen the article. Feel free to add it in. I'm just unaware of any "respected" academic who are so absolute that horses didn't exist pre-columbian as you seem to think they are. Again, on the yucatan penn., that is a different issue. -Visorstuff 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Visorstuff, I'd caution against citing Menzies' 1421 hypothesis in evidence for any claim- although a popular book, his ideas are highly speculative at best and are roundly rejected by most if not all of the mainstream scientific community; referencing his views does nothing for the credibility of the claim, and IMO it would be better to remove it. You would need to go to his source directly, but be aware that the many criticisms of his research include misreprentation or at least unfounded interpretation of third-party references. As far as Mesoamerica/Yucatán is concerned, AFAIK no accepted scientific evidence for the domestication of horses in the pre-Columbian era exists; I'd be interested to see any such publications if you are aware of any.--cjllw | TALK 01:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the duplicate link, I must've cut and pasted the wrong one. I can provide more offline sources, of course, but not sure that they'd be accepted by the anon editor. I can agree to remove reference to the 1421 theory, I also thought it was interesting, but can see your point.
And sorry if you were confused about my yucatan example - You wrote: "As far as Mesoamerica/Yucatán is concerned, AFAIK no accepted scientific evidence for the domestication of horses in the pre-Columbian era exists;" That is exacly my point. Many who dispute the Mormon confuse the lack of evidence in mesoamerica (because it is a popular BoM geo theory location) with if there is other evidence in other pre-columbian american areas. I wrote above:
- "There is very little evidence of horses in the yucatan pennensula (of course many fossils don't preserve well there due to the climate). Now to your question: Pre-columbian horses in north america is a moot argument..."
The same can be said about iron works as discussed elsewehre on this page. Very little took place in meso-america if any. But evidence for it exists elsewhere in pre-columbian americas. Horses same thing. None in meso america (see sorensen's work above), but evidence in north america abounds. -Visorstuff 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Slater comment
This article is so POV Mormon as to be virtually useless regarding archaeology as it is understood to be a science. While it is useful to know what current LDS explanations of archaeology are the start of this should clearly point out that not a single artifact or site supporting the claim that there was for 2000 years a complex society with cities, animals and crops which left no trace whatsoever. S-Slater
Lehi's Arabian Journey
"To date, the consensus of neutral archeologists & linguists outside Mormon society is that such proof-texting and ad hoc correlative evidences are too non-specific, too non-unique, specious, and non-probative. Unlike the qualified successes in Biblical archeology showing strong evidence for some portions of that text's narrative, no modern scholar outside Mormonism views the historicity of the Book of Mormon's narrative as having any substantial probative evidence."
Please forgive me, but I doubt the accuracy of this statement. Can we get a reference for this idea of "consensus"? Or simply set me straight. Thanks. Tom Haws 15:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Tom's review and edits
This article has recently lost organization. The sections purport to be organized along Support and Problems lines. This kind of organization is useful for the Sam Spade types who come along wanting a good, impartial review of the issues. But the Metallurgy sub-section, for example, is written in a way that doesn't deliver on the promise of the headings. I am not sure what to do about this. Vegasbright, can you help figure this out? It is important that the sections not talk past each other. For example, if metallury is a problem for the Book of Mormon, we ought not to talk about evidences for it in the support section. Rather, we should discuss truthfully the problem with possible mitigating apologetic thoughts in the problems section. Likewise, if Lehi's Arabian Journey is a support for the Book of Mormon, let us discuss it in full in the Support section. For each issue, we ought to be able to frankly agree whether it is a Supportive ("We found the Liahona!") or a Problematic ("There were no written languages in America!") issue for the Book of Mormon and treat it accordingly. Tom Haws
I am making several edits to the article. Some are uncontroversial. Tom Haws 17:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
New World Steel
This is a Problem issue. No apologist claims to have found the Sword of Laban. Apologists merely seek to show that the problem is resolvable. I am removing these Old World references from what appears to be a New World analysis. Tom Haws
1 Nephi 4:9
- ...was of the most precious steel
- This sword was Laban's in Jerusalem. Tom Haws
1 Nephi 16:8
- ...I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel...
- This bow was from Jerusalem. No replacement was made in the Arabian wilderness. Tom Haws
The remaining reference should probably be expanded to show verse 14 in which Nephi makes swords after the manner of the (steel) sword of Laban. I don't know if there are any references to steel beyond Nephi himself. Does the Book of Mormon state or infer that steel was produced or used after the days of Nephi? Tom Haws 17:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Another problem is one of definition. As one can read from Webster's 1828 dictionary, steel was used for combinations of iron and carbon:
STEEL, n. [G.] 1. Iron combined with a small portion of carbon; iron refined and hardened, used in making instruments, and particularly useful as the material of edged tools. It is called in chemistry, carburet of iron; but this is more usually the denomination of plumbago. 2. Figuratively, weapons; particularly, offensive weapons, swords, spears and the like. ... [11]
- The same is true of some of the other objections to specific words JS used in the BoM - the word had a different meaning than what is commonly thought today. Trödel|talk 21:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Not just any combination of iron and carbon, though: note the "small portion of carbon". That is, wrought iron isn't steel (too little carbon), but neither is cast iron (or pig iron) (too much carbon), and neither would have been referred to as such in 1828, either. But equally, it'd be wrong to think of "steel" as meaning "blast furnaces" and such like. The industrial revolution represents the, well, industrialisation of steel production, not its inception: several mediaeval and dark age cultures were able to produce steel in small quantities, that's the basis of pattern-welded swords, damask blades, Japanese swordsmithing, among various others. Whether that's literally true of the Nephites, and what's the correct level of linguistic and figurative interpretation to put on the text, is something I'm going to have to let you guys hammer (and anvil?) out. Alai 22:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Lehi's Arabian journey
It would be nice to have more specific skeptical information in this section. Lacking that, I am removing the vague statement that is currently there. Tom Haws 17:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Iron age
Lacking an explanation for the meaning of Iron age or a link to an appropriate wikipedia article, I am removing the iron age description as non-desriptive. Tom Haws
Pseudoscience reference
Pseudoscience has no place in an article about Archaeology. Referring to it is a poor excuse for not improving the article. I am removing the reference. Tom Haws 17:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent edits, Tom. Wow - I missed the steel thought completely. Excellent insight. "After the manner" is an interesting statement, and steel was avail in Jerusalem at the time. I think it is very important as you re-work this article - I'm withholding for a time still - that the editors state what is known, what is not known and what is theorized. For example, putting information about the horses in the apologetic section seems problematic. Just place it in the narritive and let the reader know the dates don't match. That's good enough for me. Same with some other "apologetic" things. State what is known and what is not and let the reader decide. -Visorstuff 18:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
It is pretty easy to know which subjects are favorites of the critics and which are favorites of the apologists. It is more clear to me after today how this can work. Tom Haws 22:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Critics: Horses, Steel, Population Growth, Mutual Jaredite Annihilation, Linguistic modernisms, anything that doesn't fit.
- Apologists: Lehi's journey, Mesoamerica (Olmecs, Mayas, writing), Fortification mounds, Tabasco=Bountiful Oaxaca=Desolation linguistically, any harmonious discoveries since JS.
missing locality
heres a thought, just a thought , but considering the timeline that the book of mormon speaks of, why is it then that none of the native american , (ir incan area peoples) legdends speak of a place such as the lands described in said book? surely they would have been noticed, but as far as i have researched native american mythology and oral history ( extensively, might i add, i quite enjoy that topic) i find no mention oif any lands even remotely resembling the described localities in the book of mormon. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)
- I'd refer you to a number of works by John Sorenson and John E. Clark and John Gee that discuss cultural remenants and references to Book of Mormon peoples by other cultures. -Visorstuff 30 June 2005 20:07 (UTC)
looked around, read what you said i should read, and none of it has anything in it, as far as i can tell that points to geographic locations that correspond wioth anything that's arond. furthermore, i have done more research into native ledgends, and nothing there either for anone contacting any people matching the lehi-its (for lack of a better term). this bodes not well for that beleif systems claims o being fact. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
- Out of curiousity (and to help point you in a direction,) what did you read? -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
Steel revisited
Was re-reading a bunch on what was taught about steel/iron in the book of mormon. Steel or iron is mentioned a few times in the book of mormon and none were corrected by smith. Once in Ether, the rest by the Nephites. It definitely says they made IRON in the Book of Mormon Americas:
- 2 Ne. 5: 15: And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
- Jarom 1: 8: And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.
- Mosiah 11: 3: And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.
- Mosiah 11: 8: And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;
- Ether 10: 23: And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work.
Now refernces as far as steel (which is much easier to explain away than iron):
- 1 Ne. 4: 9: And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.
- 1 Ne. 16: 18: And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.
- 2 Ne. 5: 15: And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
- Jarom 1: 8: And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.
- Ether 7: 9: Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.
Re-looking at the rest of the 1828 definition of steel:
- "4. Extreme hardness; as heads or hearts of steel...vt... 1. To overlay, point or edge with steel; as, to steel the point of a sword; to steel a razor; to steel an ax. 2. To make hard or extremely hard...to make insensible or obdurate..."
So, it is quite concievable that "steel" meant a weapon with a hard surface, etc.
Iron is more probematic. From the same dictionary:
IRON, n. i'urn, or i'rn. [L. ferrum, for herrum. The radical elements of this word are not easily ascertained.]
1. A metal, the hardest, most common and most useful of all the metals; of a livid whitish color inclined to gray, internally composed, to appearance, of small facets, and susceptible of a fine polish...3. Figuratively, strength; power; as a rod of iron. Dan.2. 4. Irons, plu. fetters; chains; manacles; handcuffs....
Not sure what this all means for the article, but some additions to think about. What is the Nephite definition of "iron," and is the same as ours? Will be interesting as research in this area moves forward to see the evidences on both sides. -Visorstuff 20:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Limhi relates the following to Ammon: (Mosiah 8:8-11)
- 8 And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel.
- 9 And for a testimony that the things that they had said are true they have brought twenty-four plates which are filled with engravings, and they are of pure gold.
- 10 And behold, also, they have brought breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound.
- 11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; and there is no one in the land that is able to interpret the language or the engravings that are on the plates. Therefore I said unto thee: Canst thou translate?
Some logical musings:
- There was enough time between these things being exposed for the flesh to be eaten and only bones remain; buildings to collapse; hilts to be destroyed (or rendered useless); blades of steel to canker;
- There was not enough time for the brass and copper breastplates to lose their integrity.
I'm not to familiar with how the elements degrade. I know that the Status of Liberty was made of copper and that lasted for almost 100 years before needing to be reworked. I know that steel does canker with rust but that takes more than a few years to happen. I know that it would take some time for the flesh to be eaten away leaving only bones. I imagine it would only take a few years for houses constructed out of wood and plant materials to collapse.
Does this prove that the steel was iron-based? What other material like steel or iron would "canker with rust" in that time frame? Jgardner 8 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
Every metal rusts. We, unfortunately don't know all of the factors - the climate changes, the percent of acidity or humidity in the air, or even the atmospheric makeup of the timeframe - all of which could have changed and would have affected this topic. Looking at the definition of steel above - it is quite possible tht the swords were overlayed with metal (which has been found in guatamala) and the overlay had rusted - whatever the metal is. So problematic. It is interestign that iron was taxed - as it is not considered a precious metal - which leads me to guess a few things about the civilization - 1 - iron was not in abundance, or it would not be taxed - so it was not a common substance - 2 - it may have been some sort of alloy - 3 - it could be iron as we think it today - 4 - who knows. It may be apparent that it was a weak iron it very well could have rusted like silverware does in jsut a few months.
Next - the statement "cankered with rust" denotes it is a common phrase - not a actuality of words (although i do believe it is an actuality). What I mean is the phrase "cankered with rust" is a colloquialism much like "and it came to pass" was in the nephite language - it could have been one word denoting decay, but based on degredation. I hope that makes sense - but how it is written denotes that. While I don't believe this interpretation, it needs to have a voice. We won't know for a long time on this claim. New World archeaology is too young to be definitive. -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
See earlier in this section for the scriptural references. But in the Book of Mormon, all of the references to steel are in Ether, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi and Jarom. These are early in the history of what is recorded in the book. I'm thinking that the forging of steel was something that the Jaredites and Nephi knew, but was soon forgotten in the generations that followed. That is why it isn't mentioned later on and why there are no steel swords left for archeologist. Val42 02:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Others have surmised similarly - and also, that the Nephites held the creation of steel and Iron as a time-of-war trade secret from other peoples. Although steel is not, iron is mentioned in other places - such as mosiah, and no technology is really mentioned after 3 Nephi - as Mormon did not discuss contemporary (to him) landscape and technology (another texual "evidence or authenticity" point that some scholars point to. Hard to know for sure, but it is an interesting point. -Visorstuff 16:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Iron should not be a problem. The Iron Age in the Near East predates the Nephites of the Book of Mormon, and early use is found in ancient times in Egypt. The problem is steel -- but notice that steel is considered very precious. More than Gold. So it is not common. I have not logged in but I believe my account is CASteinman.
External links
Thanks to MrWhipple for organizing the external links. Sorry for adding to the pain by merging "See also" with "External links". I'm a bit concerned about deleting 2 of the links. http://utlm.org/topicalindexa.htm#Book%20of%20Mormon is a Jerald and Sandra Tanner link. No matter what you may think of these two, they are major contributors to the debate of Mormonism in general and have a few links on the subject of archeology in this URL. Many people who are aware of the Tanners would expect to see their comments here. For that reason, I suggest that we leave utlm.org in the list of links. I have more problems finding the archeology sections in the link http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/keystone.htm, and I don't see a problem with deleting that link, but other people should look at it. Nereocystis 07:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
After further thinking, I have a question. What is pro, con, and neutral when it comes to this topic. I added a reference Coe and called it neutral because it seems like a fair account. However, it does have doubts about using the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps pro, con, and neutral are too loaded of terms to be used here. Nereocystis 08:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Need to give your second question more thought. However the UTLM needs to stay. The other link should as well. -Visorstuff 20:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I pulled the Tanners' and Kerry Shirts' links because they were general table of contents links to articles on many Book of Mormon topics. Is there some way to link to one or two articles within those pages that deal with archeology and the BofM?
Also, I agree with the pro/con difficulties. Perhaps subsections under External Links for "Supportive of Book of Mormon Authenticity", "Critical of Book of Mormon Authenticity", etc.? --MrWhipple 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The utlm link could be listed as http://utlm.org/topicalindexa.htm#Archeology, which will go straight to the archeology section. Nereocystis 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I reverted both links. Nereocystis 22:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Recent revert
I very much disagree w the recent revert, I was reducing redundancy and unneeded, likely inaccurate POV. I also added a wikilink and a see also section. Please compare [12]. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
your point of view says its inaccurate, and i can respect that, but the claims of redundancey are fictiscious at best. Gabrielsimon 03:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you cite any source which suggests that "skeptics have identified numerous archaeological details that support the idea that the Book of Mormon is an entirely fictional narrative."? Disproving the entirety of the Book of Mormon is absurd, just as disproving God, magic, or ghosts is completely absurd. Certain key claims can have doubt shed on them, esp. if cited. The entirety of any mythology cannot be logically "disproven" however. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
the entire book is based on one man's accounts of a history that can not be prooven, nad is, logically, very unlikly. examples are 1 - there is no such thing as silk on this continent ( thatcanbe found here) 2 - there was no steel 3 - where are the plates 4 - where was this city of thiers ( which can not be located, in spite of great effort) 5 - where is the breastplate? (also can not be found) 6 - why werent images made of these plates or this breatplate? surely they would want some record of holy relics.
need i go on?
i think not, see the point im making is that the entire work can be regarded as fiction dreamed up by some country bumpkin as an ecuse to have more then one bride. Gabrielsimon 03:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- User:Sam Spade is right on with his criticism of "skeptics have identified numerous archaeological details that support the idea that the Book of Mormon is an entirely fictional narrative." This sentence has to be fixed, it's very bad. I'll try some compromise language. Friday 03:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
you needned do such, because its simple truth that people have TRIED to proove the books truth and failed, numerous times, hence its a fact. Gabrielsimon 03:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Gabriel, I'm not understanding you very well. Could someone please restore my see also section? I was planning on adding to it, but won't be restoring it myself until 24hrs has past. It linked to Los Lunas Decalogue Stone. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
if its a new addition, it wont be a revert, merely a modiication, i dontt hink youll get dinged for it. Gabrielsimon 04:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm extremely careful, having been unfairly dinged at least once ;) Besides, excessive reverting creates a bad atmosphere, with peoples feelings hurt and bad "vibes" resulting. Have a look at my recent contributions, I have plenty to keep myself busy with for the next 24 hrs ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Gabriel, you've reverted my compromise language and put back in your same sentence. Do you understand that you're not the only editor involved here? Would you care to explain to the rest of us why you feel your version is better? Friday 04:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
do you bother to read edit summaries at all friday? pay attention! Gabrielsimon 04:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh dear, that doesn't seem to be perfect wikiquette. Could we please focus on the specifics? 2 users have voiced concerns gabriel, would you mind waiting a bit to see if more folks can weigh in? If your right, time will tell, I promise. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
i dont mean to be rude, but this guy friday has been agfgravating me , seemingly on purpose for a while now. the point is of course that since people have acually attempted to proove the history contained within the book and could not do so, saying that they simply said they did seems insufficiant...
Gabrielsimon 04:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that the following is factually incorrect from a lot of perspectives: "skeptics have identified numerous archaeological details that support the idea that the Book of Mormon is an entirely fictional narrative."
- Skeptics have not identified archaeloigical details, rather they have said that there is no current research or evidence to support some details.
- If you look at ALL of the archaeological claims of the book of mormon 54 percent according to the libary of congress joseph smith symposium are verifiable. Not bad for a field of research (namely book of mormon archaeology) that is less than 50 years old (bible archeaology is centuries old, and modern biblical archaeology is nearly 250 years old - and they still can't prove many of the claims in the bible - which has been a driving force into some of the more recent bible translations, including the NIV - they found some claims misleading so corrected some translatiosn to conform with modern scientific support - of course there were other reasons for the translation as well). Critics merely point out the lack (thus far) of evidence, including among other things (and as you referenced) silk - which has been explained by mormon archeaologists and non-lds archeaologists, and metal. Metal is the problematic one of course.
- But to be accurate, I am unaware of any non-LDS-member backed archeaological research to disprove the book of mormon. simply, anti-book of mormon archeaological research is not done, but second-source research may be by those who are non-friendly to the chruch. But they don't do primary research in the field and as such will be five years behind the claims of mormon archaeologists.
- Second, proving a lack of evidence does not equate to "the idea that the Book of Mormon is an entirely fictional narrative," but points to a number of other issues that have to be sorted out. Will evidence be found in such a young field? Is it a bad translation? does it use same words to explain different but similar things? Smith did not use many words outside of his vocabulary, aside from the book of ether and some other similar items. -Visorstuff 14:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Gabrielsimon
Due to recent editing disgreements, I think it's appropriate to point out here that there is an RFC on Gabrielsimon. Allegations include disregard of NPOV and inappropriate reversions. Friday 04:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Removal of Smelting comment
I removed this in my edits and wanted to point out why. "A pre-Columbian metal smelting site was excavated in Mexico in November of 2000 by an archaeological team from MIT. Evidence of copper smelting was found at the site, including copper pieces and slag. "
Nobody disputes that there was pre-columbian metal smelting; especially bronze. The disput revolves around smelting Steel, so to say that these people smelted copper is like saying the sky is blue; yes, it's true, no it isn't evidence for any religion. --Quasipalm 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- True, but Nephit work with copper is specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon (twice as often as work with iron), and evidence for it should be included, as should minmal evidence for iron smelting. Where would you put the statement? -Visorstuff 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Do skeptics view BofM as a fraud?
The header of this article states
- Mormon apologists and skeptics alike have long attempted to demonstrate through archaeology that The Book of Mormon is on the one hand a work of history or on the other a work of fiction. Most Mormons and Mormon apologists, though not all, view the characters of The Book of Mormon as real people who lived in a real place in the Americas, while skeptics view it as a fraud written to capitalize on the myth of the Mound Builders and on spirituality in the early United States. Apologists have suggested some archaeological theories that support the idea of a historical Book of Mormon narrative. Similarly, skeptics have argued that the Book of Mormon is unsupported by archaeological evidence. The book's historicity is fundamentally a matter of belief for most LDS parties.
Skeptics view it in different ways. Mentioning the mound builders is probably too specific, at least for the header. Calling it a fraud may be going too far. If Joseph Smith incorrectly believed that god was talking to, but was wrong, then it wouldn't be a fraud, but it wouldn't be true, either. I replaced argued with state, a little less POV, and simplified the paragraph a bit. I prefer to say:
- Mormon apologists and skeptics alike have long attempted to demonstrate through archaeology that The Book of Mormon is on the one hand a work of history or on the other a work of fiction. Most Mormons and Mormon apologists, though not all, view the characters of The Book of Mormon as real people who lived in a real place in the Americas. Skeptics do not view the Book of Mormon as history. Apologists state that some archaeological theories support the idea of a historical Book of Mormon narrative. Skeptics state that the Book of Mormon is unsupported by archaeological evidence. The book's historicity is fundamentally a matter of belief for most LDS members.
Is this OK for a substitution? Nereocystis 18:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I love it. Do it. Great job. -Visorstuff 20:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Izapa Stela 5
I've seen a replica of the "Izapa Stela 5"[13]. While far from conclusive proof, it does seem to be relevant to this topic. Val42 04:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Evidence of Old World influences in the Olmec and the Maya culture
Visorstuff deleted a sentence denying Old World influence in New World culture. What does establish a link? It's more than just noting pyramids and dietary restrictions. Papua New Guineau has had farming for years. The concept of insufficient evidence should be mentioned, with a specific reference. We should be able to find something, though there is little non-Mormon research in this area. Nereocystis 22:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Exactly my question. What proof is there against or for this statement? Similarities? What is the definition of influences? Obviously, IMHO, if current asiatic migratory theories such as a land bridge across the berring strait , etc (or Book of Mormon theories for that matter) theories hold true then any person in the new world came from the old world and are therefore influenced by it. The statement didn't hold any water and was a POV statement not referenced of even founded. The argument is lame. However, it could be re-written to show a much better argument about israelitish influence - but even that is suspect due to similarities in many of the items I listed in the summary. I do think there is a lack of evidence of many things, but old world/new world influences are too new of a field of study (about twenty five years of semi-serious study in the field) to show any difinitive proof either way. -22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
A matter of belief
What does this sentence mean:
- The book's historicity is fundamentally a matter of belief for most LDS members.
My interpretation is:
- Most LDS members do not care about scientific evidence for the book historicity. They accept the historicity as a matter of faith, not science.
Is this equivalent? If so, do we have a reference for how many Mormons believe in the literal truth of the BofM, and what their basis for belief is? If not, maybe we should delete the sentence. Nereocystis 22:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- That is pretty close - belief in the book of mormon is a matter of faith, not scientific proof - same as the Bible, God, etc. AKA - I believe in it because of the manifestations of the Spirit of God through it, not because it can be physically documented/proven. -Visorstuff 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Tone and addition and other changes
I've been making some systematic changes to change the tone of the article from apologetics to the state of current archaeological research. I was actually disapointed that the article focuses so much on the tit-for-tat of what is controversial, and not what is relatively solid research. Also, the metalurgy section is still in need of some work, which I did on paper on a recent plane trip, but need to add in when I have more time. Silk, copper, coinage, calendar system, hieroglyphics, buildings, cement, buildings, different races, mulek son of zedekiah, are all things that are resolved issues and or proven. Also, if at a recent symposium, one scholar says there is evidence for 54 percent or more of the claims of the Book of Mormon then we should add in those details. - Visorstuff 05:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- From your context, you seem to mean what I'm going to say here, but I'm going to say it before someone else does. But if you're going to say "there is evidence for 54 percent or more of the claims of the Book of Mormon", then you're going to need more context. You'll need to include what research has been done by said scholar to support said claims. Val42 05:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Nahom
Some of what is in the Nahom section seems redundant. Could the last sentence be removed, or the early portion of the section rewritten? I'm new, so I'm a little leary to do more than correct syntactical errors myself.
- I'm in process of making some edits over the next week and Nahom is one that is planned. Excellent feedback -Visorstuff 21:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Iron and Steel smelting
VisorStuff made a recent edit to the iron-works sections where he states that iron and steel smelting did take place in North American indigenous groups. While simple iron smelting may have taken place, the evidence for steel smelting isn't there. The Ohio iron smelting link mentions iron smelting which is presumed to be done after settlement by Europeans. If there is evidence for Native American iron smelting, please add it. Nereocystis 15:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Great question.
- I first need to add in my disclaimer. Please understand that I do not ahdere to current archaeological schools of thought both in Mormonism and in the larger field of study. Having spent much time in the field, I've become quite disenchanted with the field of study of archaeology. I disagree with how archaeological thory is decided upon and what evidences are discounted or left out of peer review journals because they "don't fit into the popular theories." I've been associated with such finds that are discounted. One example is a frozen specimen of man that was excavated in mesoamerica that pre-dates most african species of homosapiens that is discounted even though the same date-testing methods are used, becuase it appears eurasian, rather than negroid (this is from my recollection, as it has been some time since I discussed the specifics of this particular case). It doesn't fit into the popular theories, so the research must have been faulty. I noticed that 15-20 years later, a similar specimen finally made it into a peer review journal, but was very controversial. I have a love-hate relationship with archaeology. I hate that they can go into a excavated home and find a statue and say, "gee, they must have worshiped this god." I think to my self, "I have a very similar statue on my hearth, but it is just a decoration I bought for my wife." I know I've over simplified, but you get my point. The theories are decided by people who live years after the fact, and really are just guessing based on left over evidence and frequency of object in a societial find. That said, I am of the school of thought that Book of Mormon archaeology is not wise, and little-to-nothing will ever be "proven" by archaeology (nothing is "proven" in biblical archaeology either) and that people need to have a trial of faith and a witness from God as to both books truthfulness.
- Shortly said, not only am I dissatisfied with current methods of archeaological research, and I am against the idea of Book of Mormon archeaology providing proof of the Book of Mormon. However, I am also upset at how under-represented the current state of archaeological research is in this article. Mormon archaeologists and others are much farther ahead than most of the Anti-mormon claims (which tend to be five-to-seven years behind in research, as they are not doing primary anti-Mormon archeaological research (whereas Mormons are doing excavations to provide support, etc.).
- Okay, now on to your question. Steel smelting is defined as "To melt or fuse (ores) in order to separate the metallic constituents." Steel is defined as "A generally hard, strong, durable, malleable alloy of iron and carbon, often with other constituents such as manganese, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, copper, tungsten, cobalt, or silicon, depending on the desired alloy properties, and widely used as a structural material."
- So what do we learn? Steel is iron and organic material (carbon - ususally in the form of charcoal) OR metalic material (alloy) combined. Therefore, unless something is pig-iron or wrought iron, it is steel.
- Second, the site I reference does talk about steel and iron smelting in NA. There are dozens of articles at http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/, for example that reference Iron, and steel, smelting. One such is in Virginia found here: http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/virginia.htm. One paper states that:
- Still abundant there is evidence of the use of charcoal fueled furnaces to achieve temperatures and conditions which permit the creation of multicolored iron oxide glazes on rocks. Carbon-14 and thermoluminesence tests of such materials, could reveal when these furnaces were in operation. Then perhaps Spruce Hill, which has already been considered, could be included in the Hopewell Culture National Park of the US Park Service and the site could be recognized as a center of ancient metallurgical industry. There is other evidence, but this suffices for this article.
- In addition, elsewhere on the wiki steel we read:
- Iron smelting at this time was based on the bloomery, a furnace where bellows were used to force air through a pile of iron ore and burning charcoal. The carbon monoxide produced by the charcoal reduced the iron oxides to metallic iron, but the bloomery was not hot enough to melt the iron. Instead, the iron collected in the bottom of the furnace as a spongy mass, or bloom, whose pores were filled with ash and slag. The bloom then had to be reheated to soften the iron and melt the slag, and then repeatedly beaten and folded to force the molten slag out of it. The result of this time-consuming and laborious process was wrought iron, a malleable but fairly soft alloy containing little carbon.
- Wrought iron can be carburized into a mild steel by holding it in a charcoal fire for prolonged periods of time. (side note, this is all it takes to call it steel?) By the beginning of the Iron Age, smiths had discovered that iron that was repeatedly reforged produced a higher quality of metal. Quench-hardening was also known by this time. The oldest quench-hardened steel artifact is a knife found on Cyprus at a site dated to 1100 BC.
- Hope this helps, but I don't know many archaeologists taht would use the 20th century definition of steel as "iron-carbon alloys with up to 1.5 percent carbon by weight; alloys with higher carbon content than this are known as cast iron." Do you think that ancent egptian steel manufacturers said, you know what, let's not use this sword as it has more than 1.5 percnet carbon, it has 2.0 percent, and probably isn't "steel."
- Sorry for the long explanation. I'm definitely not an apologist, and could care less, aside from the fact that the current state of research is not represented fairly. -Visorstuff 16:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Visorstuff on this point. I wrote an earlier version of the Iron section that was more in line with documented archaeological data, and I have rewritten the Iron section once again. I believe that the LDS wants to be taken seriously in terms of archaeology. Using the website source linked in the article is unfortunately somewhat dubious, and I think it should be taken out. Control of excavation and evidence for dating of the materials are both poor, citations of professional sources are mostly lacking, and a broad understanding of the cultural implications of the presence of prehistoric iron working in the East or West is completely absent. I have nevertheless left the website in, because it is the only evidence I have seen anywhere of iron or steel working in North America before the arrival of Europeans. Taking Visorstuff's concerns about treating outsider archaeology fairly, I have tried to treat the evidence as it stands, and not dismiss it outright. By the way, Visorstuff, I am an archaeologist, and I *do* adhere to the distinction between steel and cast iron- there are significant differences in the techniques used to achieve those two states, and they were discovered separately in the Old World. Neither technique was discovered in the New World as far as archaeology has ever seen, and incidentally, neither technique was available to the ancient Egyptians either. I am not interested in criticizing either the LDS or this website; I am only interested in providing better archaeological evidence for any and all statements made. Unless you have more evidence for steel in the New World, I hope you will leave my edits. TriNotch 08:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome aboard the article, TriNotch. Thanks for the respectful disagreement - much better than edit wars. You've made a good edit. I know I've read more on Iron in north america in other places, and I'll see if I can track it down. In the mean time, welcome aboard, and I hope to run more items by you, if you are willing? I'm not a mormon apologist, but don't think this article has been taken seriously by critics. I nearly became a professional archeaologist myself, but have a love-hate with it, due to the peer review process and rejection of new theories (see discussion above). You've done work at Cahokia, Ill.? Ever seen low-altitude aerial photographs of the site? If not, I may be able to track down some originals for you - I know the guy who took them very, very well. :^) Anyway, would love to see if you'd be a sounding board for me on some edits? I do want to make sure this article is improved. And hopefully with your help, we can do it. -Visorstuff 20:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll do what I can. I'm relieved that I came across respectfully. I have worked at Cahokia, mostly digging in Greg Perino's backdirt. Original aerial photography of Cahokia- sounds good to me! Do you have any .jpg copies by any chance? In terms of the site, let me know what I can do to help. I've got this talk page and the Archaeology and the Book Of Mormon page on my watchlist, so I'll know if I need to check something out. I have to point out that Mormon archaeology is certainly not my specialty, but I will try to check any facts that get put up here. TriNotch 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Religioustolerance.org
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Edits by 165.247.227.23
165.247.227.23 recently deleted these citations. I've re-added two of them, and am pasting them all here so that they may be preserved in case they are needed for the article later: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. The Jade Knight 09:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
nonsense
I've removed this to here
Mormon researchers have shown similarities of mitochondrial DNA between Native Americans and Palestinians and Non-Mormon researchers have demonstrated evidence of a "most recent common ancestor" living as recently as less than 1,000 years ago that all modern humans descend from [19][20].
as it's complete nonsense. There is no mitochondrial most recent common ancestor as recent at 1000 years. - Nunh-huh 10:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh is wrong. There can always be a "most recent common ancestor -- even just a few years ago. Silly thing to say. -- CASteinman
- It is silly, and I don't know why you're saying it. Glad I didn't say the statement you disagree with. If you read more carefully, what I said is that mitochondrial lines diverged far more than 1000 years ago. Which is undeniably true. - Nunh-huh 08:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh is wrong. There can always be a "most recent common ancestor -- even just a few years ago. Silly thing to say. -- CASteinman
- You misinterpret the sentence; it is saying two different things. The Jade Knight 10:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why is it saying these things together. THey are unrelated. (and the first os basically untrue) - Nunh-huh 10:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
They are two seperate topics, and as Jade Knight noted, both are referenced. Jade Knight's edits are correct. Thanks. -Visorstuff 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The section as a whole was seriously misleading in a systematic way. Unrelated facts are juxtaposed to make them seem related, insignificant facts are presented in such a way as to make them seem significant, and facts are left out. I've begun to fix it. - Nunh-huh 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think your "fix" is a little too POV. I'm going to go through the article and try to keep it more relevant and neutral—remember that there is no universal conensus on this issue (most people, indeed, are not even interested in it), and that it is unnecessary to say that no non-Mormon scholar believes in the Book of Mormon account. One would presume that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon account, given its controversy, would be Mormon. The Jade Knight 00:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The question is whether the scientific evidence - the DNA sequences - would lead scientists to hypothesize as fact what the Book of Mormon presents as fact. It does not. There is universal consensus on this. Not even Mormons suggest otherwise. - Nunh-huh 00:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think your "fix" is a little too POV. I'm going to go through the article and try to keep it more relevant and neutral—remember that there is no universal conensus on this issue (most people, indeed, are not even interested in it), and that it is unnecessary to say that no non-Mormon scholar believes in the Book of Mormon account. One would presume that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon account, given its controversy, would be Mormon. The Jade Knight 00:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have to support Nunh-huh on this point; the scientific consensus is crystal clear. Alienus 02:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The understanding I have of the issues is that Mormon scholars assert that it is a non-issue and that the DNA studies aren't conclusive of anything because the Book of Mormon, itself, does not make a claim to exclusively (or even necessarily at all) be influencing the DNA of those groups sampled. Oh, and deleting unnecessary material is hardly the same as censoring it. I had made the assumption that the two words "highly critical" could replace an entire sentence (I'm always interested in presenting the same information in less space), but I see that you will not accept this change. Additionally, if you're going to speak in absolutes about Academia, you should at least provide a single citation. The Jade Knight 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- There are no Mormon scientists (not "scholars": this is not scholastics, it is science) who claim that the pattern and distribution of DNA sequences would lead scientists to hypothesize as fact what the Book of Mormon presents as fact, or that the Church of Latter Day Saints have traditionally taught. There is universal consensus on this. The Mormon scholars you allude to are involved in apologetics about how to square these undisputed facts, rather than being actually involved in science. One of their answers, is, as you say, to reinterpret the traditional teachings. This is the reason "cannot" is correct rather than "do not": the net effect of the apologetics is to attempt to render the BoM unfalsifiable and therefore not subject to scientific scrutiny. But that has nothing to do with the science, or data, involved. "Highly critical" specifies no information whatsoever if you leave out "critical of what". References have been added to this article before: they have apparently been removed (for reasons one can only guess). You can see a map of mitochondrial distributions in this pdf file and a Y-chromosomal migration map is provided at this BBC article. Other basic information is available at the Genographic Project; for specifics about how scientific finding relate to Mormon theology you can also search for "Mormon" at the DNA list at roots.web. - Nunh-huh 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I still think "does not" is better wording—there may be many more Mormons who believe that genetic evidence does not contradict the Book of Mormon who believe it can. I appreciate you posting the references here, and I am surprised that they were removed from the article (unless they were accompanying a paragraph that was deleted entirely). I also think that the one sentence concerning non-Mormon scholars is ludicrous, but will not delete it further unless there are more here which share my opinion. The Jade Knight 10:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverts
I reverted back 6 versions because there was non visible editing <--- ---> contained within. An editor familiar with the topic should perhaps review my revision.Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
over-emphasis on Mormon apologetics
The recent revision emphasizes some really very embarassing Mormon apologetics at the expense of actual scientific opinion, so I'm afraid that duty to the reader means that it has to be marked as disputed. There's no non-Mormon advocate of the idea that the presence of mtDNA of haplogroup X in the Americas is explainable by immigration from Israel. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Those that do adopt pro-Mormon viewpoints regularly convert (thus making your comment somewhat ludicrous—obviously, if they come to the conclusion that the Mormons are right, they're likely to join them); reknowned anthropologist Charles W. Nuckolls and Catholic Priest Father Jordan Vajda are two examples of this trend. The Jade Knight 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're free to insult me if you want, but the fact is that the article is currently misrepresenting the state of the science involving this question by presenting junk science as equal in importance to actual scientific studies. - Nunh-huh 04:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I do not see a personal insult in my comment. However, while I certainly agree that the facts of the section are highly disputed (as it covers both sides, and they definitely disagree), I disagree with your own personal interpretation of what comprises "actual scientific studies" and "junk science". If it's a matter of selecting studies which have been peer reviewed vs. those which have not, I would certainly second noting which is which. The Jade Knight 05:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then you're free to insult me without recognizing it. The failure of your personal assessment of the article is that you, like the article, equate "two sides" as if they were supported equally by the scientific community. They are not. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are also free to insult me—it has little to do with anything (other than civility). First of all, I do not purport to be a spokesperson for the "scientific community"—my (barbaric, perhaps) understanding is that academic scientists are rarely perfectly unified over just about anything—this comes from a study of the history of Science; I am more Historian than Scientist.
- There are unquestionably "two sides" to the section, and clearly two sides to the issue—even if "virtually all non-Mormon scientists in American genetic studies" is one side and "most Mormon scientists" is the other. They may not be perfectly balanced or representative, but they are there (and as such the section is, as I stated, under dispute). The Jade Knight 06:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The scientific consensus is so close to universal agreement that to characterize the few (again, nearly universally faith-driven) dissenters as one of two "sides" is a gross distortion. To equate the two positions is grossly misleading. - Nunh-huh 06:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's like saying that representing the LDS viewpoint of Joseph Smith in an article on him (as one of multiple viewpoints) is grossly misleading simply because most of the world rejects him as a Prophet of Christ. If peer-reviewed studies by professional scientists have been done supporting a contrary position, it is unequestionably worth mentioning here. The section already implies that no non-Mormon scientist supports the Mormon position. What more do you want? The Jade Knight 06:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- What do I want? I want scientific evidence to be considered by the rules f science and not by those of debate. These are not viewpoints of equal scientific importance, and presenting them as such is indeed grossly misleading. A closer analogy than the one you suggest is biology vs. "creation science". We don't present them as having equal validity, because they don't have equal validity. One gets its hypotheses from experimentation, the other from a book. The first is science, the second religion. They are not two sides with scientific theories; only one of them is science. - Nunh-huh 06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- So are you telling me that the "rules of science" are "majority rules"? That's what you're implying. Some theories which have widespread acceptance now were considered laughable when they were first discovered. If scientific experiments are being done by professional, peer-reviewed scientists, I cannot see why you, as a sensible and reasoning being with an open mind, would want to keep them out of this article where they would be particularly relevant. Creationism and Evolutionism don't even play into this. The Jade Knight 21:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, I told you no such thing. Theories that arise from observations are scientific: theories that arise from scripture are religious. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- So long as the method is scientific, the theory is scientific. If the method involves "faith" (even faith in an old book) as a requirement to be plausible, then you can argue that it is not scientific. But if the method is completely scientific, so is the theory. The Jade Knight 22:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Making your hypotheses on the basis of scripture is, of course, not a scientific technique. Glad we agree. - Nunh-huh 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it really matters where you got the idea for your hypothesis (so long as it is falsifiable); what matters is the method you use getting to the conclusion—after all, there is no "scientific technique" for forming hypotheses. I'm reminded of the fact that the Scientific Method was more or less invented by a man who (in his own mind, at least) then used it to prove the existence of God. The Jade Knight 22:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Adopting "hypotheses" from scripture is not a scientific technique. So sorry. _ Nunh-huh 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- So what governing scientific body prescribes what is and isn't proper "scientific technique" for choosing a hypothesis? The origin of the hypothesis, so long as the hypothesis is falsifiable, will not affect the accuracy of the experiment if it is conducted using proper scientific method. Your arguments to replace science with dogma don't help to further scientific knowledge. The Jade Knight 00:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dogma is religious, not scientific. I have no desire to replace experiment with dogma, nor is it clear why you would misrepresent me in that way. A "governing scientific body" is your idea, not mine. And yes, the origin of the hypothesis matters. There's a great deal of difference in [1] examining the data and coming up with the best theory which explains it, and [2] looking for data in support of a scriptural theory. The first is science, the second is not. - Nunh-huh 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing about dogma that binds it to religion[21]—indeed, it's a term that frequently applies (and is applied) to pedagogy. Clearly, you take a prescriptive approach to science—the origins of the scientific method itself, as well as a study of the history of science make it clear that your intrepretation of a valid hypothesis is not congruous with scientific reality as exampled from a historical standpoint. This, then, supports the conclusion that your opinion falls under the descriptive title of "dogma", ie "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds". The Jade Knight 02:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your opinion about dogma, or me, really have nothing to do with this article, do they? - Nunh-huh 02:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- They do; the content of this article should be based on other sources (as varied and professional as possible), not your personal opinion (dogma) on what is or is not an acceptable scientific theory. The Jade Knight 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- It would certainly be a good thing if the description of the current state of the genetic evidence were accurately reported, with due emphasis given to the generally scientifically accepted studies rather than having fringe theories culled out and presented as if they were especially important precisely because they can possibly be construed as supportive of Mormon theories. To selectively cull out and emphasize these is a distortion, and it is misleading, and my opinion is that the reason this is happening in this article is an inadequate appreciation of the difference between science and debate. If my opinion is wrong, and it is happening for another reason—say, a religious zeal for one faith's dogma being stronger than the corresponding zeal for truth—it really doesn't matter: what does matter is that it shouldn't be happening. - Nunh-huh 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- They do; the content of this article should be based on other sources (as varied and professional as possible), not your personal opinion (dogma) on what is or is not an acceptable scientific theory. The Jade Knight 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your opinion about dogma, or me, really have nothing to do with this article, do they? - Nunh-huh 02:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing about dogma that binds it to religion[21]—indeed, it's a term that frequently applies (and is applied) to pedagogy. Clearly, you take a prescriptive approach to science—the origins of the scientific method itself, as well as a study of the history of science make it clear that your intrepretation of a valid hypothesis is not congruous with scientific reality as exampled from a historical standpoint. This, then, supports the conclusion that your opinion falls under the descriptive title of "dogma", ie "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds". The Jade Knight 02:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dogma is religious, not scientific. I have no desire to replace experiment with dogma, nor is it clear why you would misrepresent me in that way. A "governing scientific body" is your idea, not mine. And yes, the origin of the hypothesis matters. There's a great deal of difference in [1] examining the data and coming up with the best theory which explains it, and [2] looking for data in support of a scriptural theory. The first is science, the second is not. - Nunh-huh 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- So what governing scientific body prescribes what is and isn't proper "scientific technique" for choosing a hypothesis? The origin of the hypothesis, so long as the hypothesis is falsifiable, will not affect the accuracy of the experiment if it is conducted using proper scientific method. Your arguments to replace science with dogma don't help to further scientific knowledge. The Jade Knight 00:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Adopting "hypotheses" from scripture is not a scientific technique. So sorry. _ Nunh-huh 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it really matters where you got the idea for your hypothesis (so long as it is falsifiable); what matters is the method you use getting to the conclusion—after all, there is no "scientific technique" for forming hypotheses. I'm reminded of the fact that the Scientific Method was more or less invented by a man who (in his own mind, at least) then used it to prove the existence of God. The Jade Knight 22:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Making your hypotheses on the basis of scripture is, of course, not a scientific technique. Glad we agree. - Nunh-huh 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- So long as the method is scientific, the theory is scientific. If the method involves "faith" (even faith in an old book) as a requirement to be plausible, then you can argue that it is not scientific. But if the method is completely scientific, so is the theory. The Jade Knight 22:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, I told you no such thing. Theories that arise from observations are scientific: theories that arise from scripture are religious. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- So are you telling me that the "rules of science" are "majority rules"? That's what you're implying. Some theories which have widespread acceptance now were considered laughable when they were first discovered. If scientific experiments are being done by professional, peer-reviewed scientists, I cannot see why you, as a sensible and reasoning being with an open mind, would want to keep them out of this article where they would be particularly relevant. Creationism and Evolutionism don't even play into this. The Jade Knight 21:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- What do I want? I want scientific evidence to be considered by the rules f science and not by those of debate. These are not viewpoints of equal scientific importance, and presenting them as such is indeed grossly misleading. A closer analogy than the one you suggest is biology vs. "creation science". We don't present them as having equal validity, because they don't have equal validity. One gets its hypotheses from experimentation, the other from a book. The first is science, the second religion. They are not two sides with scientific theories; only one of them is science. - Nunh-huh 06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's like saying that representing the LDS viewpoint of Joseph Smith in an article on him (as one of multiple viewpoints) is grossly misleading simply because most of the world rejects him as a Prophet of Christ. If peer-reviewed studies by professional scientists have been done supporting a contrary position, it is unequestionably worth mentioning here. The section already implies that no non-Mormon scientist supports the Mormon position. What more do you want? The Jade Knight 06:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The scientific consensus is so close to universal agreement that to characterize the few (again, nearly universally faith-driven) dissenters as one of two "sides" is a gross distortion. To equate the two positions is grossly misleading. - Nunh-huh 06:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then you're free to insult me without recognizing it. The failure of your personal assessment of the article is that you, like the article, equate "two sides" as if they were supported equally by the scientific community. They are not. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I do not see a personal insult in my comment. However, while I certainly agree that the facts of the section are highly disputed (as it covers both sides, and they definitely disagree), I disagree with your own personal interpretation of what comprises "actual scientific studies" and "junk science". If it's a matter of selecting studies which have been peer reviewed vs. those which have not, I would certainly second noting which is which. The Jade Knight 05:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're free to insult me if you want, but the fact is that the article is currently misrepresenting the state of the science involving this question by presenting junk science as equal in importance to actual scientific studies. - Nunh-huh 04:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
(I'm starting a new line to avoid text-squash.) I agree that we would like accurate reporting—if you have found that a source has been inaccurately used (in other words, taken out of context, or modified from the original so as to become inaccurate), please mention it here, and take the appropriate action to fix it. However, just because an idea is not popular does not mean it should be censored here—that has never been Wikipedia policy. The article is specifically about Mormonism, so Mormon views must necessarily be presented, particularly if they are to be found in professional, peer-reviewed sources. The fact of the matter is that religious zeal for truth can actually lead to scientific discovery (take Descartes, for example), and if that truth is obtained through proper application of the scientific method, then we have no basis here for censoring it. If you can convincingly prove that a study mentioned here failed to follow the scientific method (your own pesonal dogmas about what "real science" is aside), I would support removing it from the article.
Mormons, of all religious groups, should adhere to the Truth, and not simply let faith override it—take the following:
- "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth."
- —D&C 93:36 (an LDS scripture)
- "It is better to not have so much faith as to have so much as to believe all the lies."
- —Hyrum Smith (Joseph Smith's brother)
On that note, here's to us working together to provide a more accurate and comprehensive article! (Oh, and if you feel you can improve the content of the article while retaining NPOV and citing your sources, by all means, please do so!)The Jade Knight 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Zeal for truth is good. I believe that's more or less what I said. Zeal for dogma, however, is what was in question, and I don't know that much knowledge has arisen from that particular motivation. I disagree with several of your opinions. This article is not about Mormonism, it's about archaeology/anthropology/science and the Book of Mormon. Junk science should not be presented as science just because it accords with Mormon dogma. That is debating, rather than science. In presenting an encyclopedia article, we necessarily leave out things that are of no importance. That's not censorship, it's according things their appropriate amount of attention - that is the essence of NPOV. We don't include the views of creation "scientists" in articles about molecular biology, because they are unimportant and irrelevant. I will get around to making the article more accurate if I can do so in a way that won't lead to pointless battles with those who don't have any particular knowledge of molecular genetics but who nonetheless are inclined to edit the article into conformity with their dogma. You seem to want to leave the impression that the Mormon "side" is supported by peer-review and journals, but somehow I must be overlooking those journal references in the article. The Mormon claims seem mostly to be referenced to web-site essays. - Nunh-huh 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Junk science should not be presented as science just because it accords with Mormon dogma.
- I agree. If it does not follow scientific processes, and is not being presented by professionals, it certainly should not be presented as science. In an article, we leave out things that are irrelevant or undocumented. Not things we happen to disagree with. Omitting something because you happen to think it's wrong is censorship when it is both relevant and documented. And I have not analyzed which sources are peer-reviewed or not—I'm just saying that if something is, and is published by professionals, it should remain. My guess is that most of the sources in the article, Mormon and non-Mormon, have not been peer-reviewed (and how does one go about determining if an article is peer-reviewed or not? I know that at least some of the pro-Mormon sources have been peer-reviewed, but I certainly can't speak for most). The Jade Knight 05:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you do happen to see a reference in the article to the pro-Mormon talking points having appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, please do tell me where it is. I myself can't see any. - Nunh-huh 07:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- You need a "scientific journal" now, too? How many of the references, period, are from peer-reviewed "scientific journals"? The Jade Knight 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's the journals that do peer-review. What other sort of peer-review were you imagining? - Nunh-huh 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently you're unaware that most professional academic journals, "scientific" or not (ie, including History and Linguistics journals), are peer-reviewed. In fact, I've even known of fiction magazines that used peer-review to screen selections. And there are other mediums than journals which are peer-reviewed, as well. The Jade Knight 03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm unaware that fiction magazines perform scientific peer review. Please. We're not discussing acknowledged fiction here. We were discussing science, specifically genetic markers. By the way, one of the latest bits you've added - about the (undisputed) unreliability of ethnogeographic and blood quantum tests being misapplied to determine tribal heritage - has no relation to the Book of Mormon, so it too will have to be cleaned up. - Nunh-huh 04:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't argue about a topic you do not understand; peer review processes for fiction are remarkably similar to those used by academic journals. The primary difference is analysis of facts as a factor. But still, History peer-review processes are virtually identical to scientific ones. My addition about Native American heritage as determined through DNA is quite applicable, as you'll notice if you read the reference. However, if you feel you can improve on it, you're welcome to. The Jade Knight 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- your contemptuous assertion that I don't know about peer-review is out of place, and in error. I've read the reference, and you're also wrong about its applicability. However, I alone cannot clean up the mess that has been made here, so I will have to be content with having marked it as unreliable. - Nunh-huh 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I assumed, after your erronious statement about peer-reviewed journals, that it was something you knew little about. Please accept my apologies if this was not the case. The Jade Knight 05:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It would be a rather illogical leap to conclude that one erroneous statement signifies ignorance, even were an erroneous statement in evidence. I accept your apology—in precisely the spirit in which it was offered. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- What is that supposed to mean? The Jade Knight 08:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It would be a rather illogical leap to conclude that one erroneous statement signifies ignorance, even were an erroneous statement in evidence. I accept your apology—in precisely the spirit in which it was offered. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I assumed, after your erronious statement about peer-reviewed journals, that it was something you knew little about. Please accept my apologies if this was not the case. The Jade Knight 05:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- your contemptuous assertion that I don't know about peer-review is out of place, and in error. I've read the reference, and you're also wrong about its applicability. However, I alone cannot clean up the mess that has been made here, so I will have to be content with having marked it as unreliable. - Nunh-huh 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't argue about a topic you do not understand; peer review processes for fiction are remarkably similar to those used by academic journals. The primary difference is analysis of facts as a factor. But still, History peer-review processes are virtually identical to scientific ones. My addition about Native American heritage as determined through DNA is quite applicable, as you'll notice if you read the reference. However, if you feel you can improve on it, you're welcome to. The Jade Knight 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm unaware that fiction magazines perform scientific peer review. Please. We're not discussing acknowledged fiction here. We were discussing science, specifically genetic markers. By the way, one of the latest bits you've added - about the (undisputed) unreliability of ethnogeographic and blood quantum tests being misapplied to determine tribal heritage - has no relation to the Book of Mormon, so it too will have to be cleaned up. - Nunh-huh 04:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently you're unaware that most professional academic journals, "scientific" or not (ie, including History and Linguistics journals), are peer-reviewed. In fact, I've even known of fiction magazines that used peer-review to screen selections. And there are other mediums than journals which are peer-reviewed, as well. The Jade Knight 03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's the journals that do peer-review. What other sort of peer-review were you imagining? - Nunh-huh 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- You need a "scientific journal" now, too? How many of the references, period, are from peer-reviewed "scientific journals"? The Jade Knight 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you do happen to see a reference in the article to the pro-Mormon talking points having appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, please do tell me where it is. I myself can't see any. - Nunh-huh 07:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Mormon Studies- stone and cement cities with pyramids?
I didn't previously see this passage in the article- This is archaeologically false, and thus weakens the argument of the article as a whole. There are no cities built of stone in Eastern North America (pre-1600 or so), nor are there any "pyramids" excepting pyramidal earth mounds with wooden buildings on top. There is also no cement. The rest of the passage (about misperceptions, stereotypes, and lack of preservation) is an excellent point, so I have left it unchanged. I am, of course, willing to discuss the point with anyone who can present evidence of stone cities in Eastern North America. Otherwise, the article is stronger without this undemonstrated statement. TriNotch 03:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think we need a citation saying there is, or one saying there isn't. I'm going to revert the article and add a "citation needed" tag until we get one one way or the other—otherwise it's simply your word against someone else's. The Jade Knight 03:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
With due respect, I can provide ample citations for this. This is not archaeologically contested material, but a long accepted tenet. This statement should not be in the article- it is both intellectually unsound and does not directly support or oppose the Book of Mormon. It is both false and irrelevant. Here are some useful citations which indicate the lack of stone architecture, pyramids, or cement in prehistoric Eastern North America. I intend to remove the offending statement once again, and I don't plan to put these references into the article. I put them here merely by way of explanation for my actions. Once again, I am willing to discuss the point, particularly if counter evidence is available. TriNotch 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bense, Judith A. Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, New York, 1994. ISBN 0120890607.
- Cheryl Anne Cox; and David H. Dye, eds; Towns and Temples along the Mississippi University of Alabama Press 1990
- Hudson, Charles. The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 1976. ISBN 0870492489.
- Thomas, Cyrus. Report on the mound explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Pp. 3-730. Twelfth annual report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1890-91, by J. W. Powell, Director. XLVIII+742 pp., 42 pls., 344 figs. 1894.
- Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren (eds.). North American Archaeology. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. 2005.
- Fagan, Brian M. Ancient North America, Fourth Edition. Thames and Hudson. 2005.
- http://www.crystalinks.com/pyrnorthamerica.html
- http://www.lostworlds.org/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture
- http://www.lostworlds.org/alabama_indian_sites.html
- http://www.lostworlds.org/georgia_moundbuilders.html
- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07747a.htm (particularly note the section on Native American houses)
- Unforuntately, none of these mention a lack of stone structures, and the one in particular you wanted me to look at includes this text:
- The communal pueblo structure of the Rio Grande region consisted of a number—sometimes hundreds—of square-built rooms of various sizes, of stone or adobe laid in clay mortar, with flat roof, court-yards, and intricate passage ways, suggestive of oriental things.
- However, I will not revert again as I don't presume to know otherwise, and there is no mention, at least, in these, of "stone pyramids". The Jade Knight 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Having looked at the deleted text again, and the passage quoted above, it is clear that there were stone and "cement" (clay mortar) cities. On reconsideratoin, I'm reverting again, but deleting the part about stone pyramids (and this time adding a cited reference). The Jade Knight 08:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've also deleted "Eastern" because the stone & cement cities mentioned in the citation are located near the Rio Grande, which is not what I would call "Eastern" North America. The Jade Knight 08:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with this change. Only the "eastern" part bothered me, really. TriNotch 08:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've readded earthwork pyramids into the text, as they still make the intended point (even if they're not made of stone). Thank you very much for the references—I feel that they have improved the article. The Jade Knight 08:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with this change. Only the "eastern" part bothered me, really. TriNotch 08:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've also deleted "Eastern" because the stone & cement cities mentioned in the citation are located near the Rio Grande, which is not what I would call "Eastern" North America. The Jade Knight 08:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Glad I could help. I have one snippy comment- you said "none of these mention a lack of stone structures," but I imagine you probably didn't read the six books I suggested, did you? ;-) Well, if you did, I'm very impressed. In any case, the present form is much improved. I still think it could be better: for example, I think it should be changed from THIS:
- Having looked at the deleted text again, and the passage quoted above, it is clear that there were stone and "cement" (clay mortar) cities. On reconsideratoin, I'm reverting again, but deleting the part about stone pyramids (and this time adding a cited reference). The Jade Knight 08:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- "...existence of structured stone and "cement" [2] or large earthwork pyramid/mound cities..." to something more like THIS:
- "...existence of stone and mortar cities in Mexico and Peru, structured stone and clay mortar pueblos of the Ancient Pueblo Peoples of the Southwest, or complex centers of flat-topped pyramidal platform mounds of the Mississippian culture in the Eastern United States."
I will not make the change, because we've been editing this back and forth a little too much, but if you like this new version, I encourage you to use it. TriNotch 08:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Be bold! However, make sure you keep the references, and I'd keep it to North America (I think most people are aware of stone structures in South Amera). The Jade Knight 09:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Trinotch - a couple of questions on terminology.
What is your archeaological definition of pavement, cement and stone? Do you use the same terminology used by Scientific American and American Archeaology? They recently used the terms to discuss the indians who first met the plymouth colony - paved roads, stone buildings, etc. Just curious on what school of thought your definitions come from? And do you know if there are a standard set of definitions agreed upon by various bodies? I know some would say that these two are junk publications not academic journals, meant for consumers not scholars - and should not be tasken as serious as others. If there are standards, what language should we use here? Should we standardize on Wikipedia? Academic or consumer-focused? Your help is much appreciated. -Visorstuff 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Clay mortar would certainly count as cement as far as the wikipedia article is concerned. "Clay mortar" might be considered more descriptive, however. The Jade Knight 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Visorstuff, you ask good questions. I've been thinking about your concerns all night, and I do not have answers for you yet. Tentatively, I would like to say that there are standard definitions in use for those words, and that I do not necessarily share the terminology of those two journals, although I do not sneer at them. I looked for the articles you referred to so that I could read them and see if I agree with their usage, and could not find them. Perhaps if you provide citations, I can write a more informed response. One problem with answering your question is that different groups of archaeologists might answer this question slightly differently- for example, most classical archaeologists would define cement in terms of the original chemical process used in the Old World, thus excluding all New World stone mortars ab initio. For myself, I tend towards this argument- that "cement" is an Old World process, and that in the New World, other terms are more appropriate. So, I suppose as to your latter question, I support Standardization of Terminology on Wikipedia, Academically-Focused, at least when discussing technical aspects of a science (as I think we are in this case). I will try to research this a little and I'll let you know what I find out. Oh, just for my interest, what did those articles say about the native peoples at Plymouth using stone buildings and paved roads? Initially, I am inclined to doubt it, but I'd like to be able to evaluate the evidence for myself. TriNotch 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that this was in the January issue of one of those, could have been the Smithsonian - they did something similar in January on the Wampanoag, but I don't think it was that one (could be wrong). I'll double check. (By the way, I haven't forgotten about getting photos of chaco canyon for you, I need to scan in those prints).
When dealing with a 19th-century translation - prior to words such as adobe, etc. being introduced into the American English language, what would be acceptable terminology? If the Book of Mormon states that Indiginous Americans used "cement" and it was published in 1830 as a translation, and the word "adobe" not widely circulated at that time, should we assume that it was old-world cement, or are we okay to correlate this "cement" with adobe or similar material? This is just one example of what I'm suggesting are the issues with using exact terminology - espcially dealing iwth a "translator" who was under the age of 25. Not to add to fuel to your thought process above, but this needs to be decided upon prior to making drastic edits. (byt the way, the ones you made this moring are good). I've probably erred in this article on the side of simplicity and similar concepts rather than exact words (hence our discussion of carbon levels in steel versus iron above). Thoughts? Obviously we need to standardize, but how and on what? Do we state something like (just as an example):
The Book of Mormon discusses buildings and cities made with the use of cement. While the term cement properly describes an old-world process, and therefore cannot be applied to anything in the Americas, it may have been the closest english word chosen and used in this instane to desibe stone and mortar or adobe buildings, or more similar concepts that were used in the Americas.
Your recent clarification doubled the size of the paragraph, and the readers' conclusion is the same, but is still not exact as to the terminology. This is where I have the issue that needs to be decided. Look forward to your thoughts. -Visorstuff 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Taken from the Wikipedia article on cement: "Cement is a material for bonding stone or brick." I, personally, don't differentiate between Old and New Worlds for this usage, but I'll certainly accept consensus here. The Jade Knight 20:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It simply means he accepts your apology. Fool.
Citation style
I have updated (most of) the citations using embedded HTML links with the cite.php (<ref>) system. I've presumed this to be an uncontroversial move, mainly because the previous method also embedded the details of the referenced sources within the text of the article itself, and the change mostly involves wrapping the ref tags around them. However, if anyone thinks differently, then speak up. There are still quite a few inconsistencies in the reference formatting, and a little more cleanup would seem to be in order.--cjllw | TALK 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"State of archaeological research"
Highlighting a couple of concerns with this section, and inviting any comments:
- In the second para (which opens with "...Only a small percentage of archaeological sites in the Americas.."), there are a couple of sentences giving some reasons (such as European indifference) as to why New World sites may be ill-preserved or little-documented. While this may be the case, it's a little unclear how these varieties of neglect are directly relevant to the article.
- That sites have been lost or destroyed is indisputable, but the claim of "literally hundreds" destroyed each year seems unsupportable; probably best not to attempt putting a figure on it.
- American archaeology considered to be "fledgling fields"- maybe in some areas, but as a general statement this would be readily disputed.
- The bit about "..statements such as Coe's have become harder to find" —ie that orthodox archaeology finds no evidential justification for BoM account— seems (as written) to imply some retraction of this position following further (mainly BYU-sponsored) excavations. If this is what is intended, I don't believe it to be accurate. What result from LDS archaeology has given any 'second thoughts' to mainstream archaeologists (if, indeed, there is any reassessment)?
- I'd written something to the effect that the Maya inscriptions (insofar as they are deciphered) do not mention anything like the BoM account of New World history, but this was removed. It seems to me to be an accurate statement, and AFAIK no reading of the Maya script has been used in support of BoM claims. Since the Maya script is the major (decipherable) pre-Columbian script and historical record, what it does/does not have to say would seem to be relevant.
The whole section could probably benefit from some more condensing.--cjllw | TALK 08:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Some responses:
- While informative, it is not necessarily relevant, but I see no reason to exclude it if it's only a short sentence.
- Short of having a reference to back up a number, it might be best to give a general figure ("a significant number", for example).
- It would certainly be good to attach a citation to that claim to avoid weaseling it.
- Seems very vague and unsupported. That statement should probably be removed unless someone has a citation for it.
- It was removed because it's unverified and uncited; I'm pretty sure I read a FARMS article that discussed parallels of Old Testament history and the Lehi exodus with a Mayan text. Unfortunately, I remember neither its title nor author, and am unsure how I'd find them. The Jade Knight 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
An editor (Enormousdude has several times now inserted a sentence likening the Popol Vuh account and its importance to the Maya with that of the Bible to the Jews. This is an inaccurate and misleading comparison for the following reasons:
- Firstly, The Popol Vuh version we have is specific to the highland ca. 16th C. Quiché Maya, and not other Maya peoples in other regions and historical periods.
- Secondly, the Popol Vuh is but one of many and varied creation accounts and mythological histories to be found among the Maya, and is based on some particular oral histories which were caused to be written down (post-conquest); its particular versions have survived almost by pure chance, there are many other traditions whose existence is supposed from hints in Maya writing and iconography. Granted, many of the details are frequently repeated in other texts, but there are equally many other aspects to Maya beliefs and mythological history which do not appear in the Popol Vuh account.
- Thirdly, unlike the Bible (or the Qur'an) it is not a doctrinal text, and does not form the sole (or primary) legitimate basis for their religious beliefs (past or present).
- Fourthly, if you want to be accurate, it ought to be specified as the Hebrew Bible for Jewish significance, rather than the ambiguous 'Bible' (for obvious reasons).
If you think otherwise, then please let's have your reasons/sources, or at least some dialogue before further attempts to re-revise it.--cjllw | TALK 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed number section
I've removed the following recently-inserted section:
- Maya appears to be the only ancient american civilization which developed written number system. Mayan number system appears to be based not on the number 10 but on number 20{{fact}}. This resulted in more compact notation than commonly used today decimal system and allowed Maya to record large numbers with ease. Book of Mormon, however, when mentioning numbers uses decimal system (for example, when refering to number of soldiers in army by tens of thousands or refering to number of battle/war casualties as by millions).
There are a number (no pun intended) of problems:
- Maya were not the only Mesoamerican civilization with written numerals; on the contrary, use of a vigesimal (base20) numeral system is found throughout just about all of precolumbian Mesoamerica, as can be seen in the inscriptions of the Zapotec, Mixtec, Olmec, Mixe-Zoque, and others. Nor did the system originate with the Maya.
- That the Maya could (and did) record very large numbers is not due to their using a base20 system, but because they used a place-notational system, which included the concept of zero (or 'completeness' as they actually thought of it). Thus in the same way we would write 999,999,999,999... or whatever, their system (eg 9.13.10.0.0.18) representing successive higher-order powers of the base could also be extended as far as they pleased with the same economy as the arabic numeral one. The only difference is the base (decimal vs vigesimal).
- That there is a difference in the base between the BoM (decimal) and Mesomamerican inscriptions (vigesimal) is clear; but unless the BoM states somewhere that the Jaredites, Lamanites et al used a decimal system I don't really see the point of the argument- a number is a number whatever base-notation it is transcribed in.
There are many anachronisms and discrepancies between the BoM & the archaeological record which are far more problematic for the account than this one; unless some notable source somewhere has tried to advance an argument along these lines, it seems to be not worth mentioning.--cjllw | TALK 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
About the Archival
I have archived the old talk page and it can be found by following the link above. With the exception of a few posts, almost every discussion was between 4 months to 2 years old. If I missed any other current conversations, I apologize, just start the topic off fresh here. Mapache 07:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)