Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RLDS and the Limited Mesoamerican Model

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

Elephants

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

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

Sheep

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

No, there is no evidence of any other creature, bowing down to Mormon fundamentalism would be an unbalanced insertion of unscientific dogma into the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree whole heartedly with Ian.thomson - there is a lot of evidence that has been reviewed by archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists regarding domestication of animals on the American continent. Descartes1979 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources and Pseudoarchaeology

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

Coon

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

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

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

Salvatore Michael Trento

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

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

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

Hagoth vs. Jared Diamond

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

Image

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

Descartes seems to favor a Mesoamerican setting

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

Couple of responses: 1) Why did you revert all of my formatting changes, typos, grammar improvements, image additions, etc.? Were those objectionable too? I marked minor changes that were uncontroversial. Please don't revert days of work at one swipe, you are going to throw us into an edit war. 2) I fully explained my objections above regarding Coon and Trento. If we can determine that those two sources meet WP:RS, then I agree that they should be included - but I am very skeptical. I am not marginalizing for some "strange" reason - I am trying to make this a sound article based on solid research by legitimate archaeologists. Please address my objections in the sections above and lets come to a consensus. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way you revered the changes of 4 other editors (2 anons, User:Ian.thomson, and User:John of Reading) in your mass revert. Please, lets discuss these and be more precise, rather than a mass revert.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Another note to Kovesh - just rereading what you wrote, and I am a little confused. Did you read my edits? My sole, and very precise reason for removing content was this: Coon and Trento do not meet WP:RS. I am not marginalizing one Book of Mormon setting over the other. If, by the way, you want to know my personal view then I fully admit to my biases. I think all Book of Mormon settings are false. But that is not the point. The point is, we include relevant information from sources that are reliable. My POV and your POV don't matter, and neither does the opinion of a guy with no training in archaeology with a hackneyed website, and self-published joke of a book. Show me a reliable peer reviewed paper in an academic journal that advocates any Book of Mormon setting, and I will be the first to include it in this article.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be reverted to what it was before Descartes, nested his major and minor edits. We should invite others to chime in and review Descartes’ previous contributions and line of reasoning.

Once again Descartes let’s take things one at a time. You should know by now that I for one am not unreasonable. In the mean time I’m reversing the article so we can discuss each argument and proposed contribution. By the way how many LDS, who are not archaeologists, have you referenced in this article? If readers will search far enough back they can read all about your curious positions and contributions. Some of them are rather entertaining. So you believe that having a degree in archaeology makes one’s position on the B of M “mainstream”? Have you actually read Trento? I suggest you visit a library! The thing that makes archaeologist Trento’s views mainstream regarding the setting for the Book of Mormon, is that he agrees with mainstream American literature specialists on the 19th century Mound-Builder genre. Descartes I truly believe that it is the approach you take towards editing this article that makes wars! Onondaga (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Descartes that neither Coon nor Trento have been shown to meet WP:RS. But there are fundamental problems with a strict application of WP:RS to articles critical of religious topics, especially where the topic is an attempted correlation between religious dogma and scientific fact. Mainstream scientists don't get tenure and promotions by writing books critical of fringe religious ideas that are scientifically or historically untenable. However, websites must be carefully weighed. Before Coon and Trento are added, there must be a careful discussion here and a consensus reached on their value and reliability. --Taivo (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Taivo - the interesting thing about this topic, is that there is actually a wealth of information from Mormon archaeologists and scholars - so there is no need to rely on the theories of people trying to make a buck on their books.--Descartes1979 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Onondaga - this is an article about archaeology - not literature. The article already makes one interesting reference to the parallels with the fiction of the time right there in the first couple of sections of the article. Beyond that, the scope of this article should be focused on the archaeology. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kennedy, Silverberg and Trento have been cited. They are more authoritative on the subject of the authentic archaeological / literary setting than Sorenson or any promoting a Mesoamerican setting. You have eliminated Trento and other reference without any real justification. If you do not know or recognize this there is a real problem with you editing this article. The minor edits are entangled with your prejudiced edits. The article should be reverted so that we can proceed as we have before, one edit at a time discussing what you are editing. If what you want to edit is reasonable or defensible you will have no problem with me. My experience with you is that many of your argument fall apart or show a lack of research once we start dealing with details. E.g. why don’t you accept that the Book of Mormon is classed in the 19th century Mound-Builder genre? Onondaga (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this before you will believe me? I don't care what the setting is, or the literary genre. You say it is "19th century mound builder" that is fine by me. I have left the Silverberg reference in there and that language. All I am looking for are good references. I gave my objections to Coon and Trento in thorough detail above, and you haven't even addressed the points I raised. And again, for the record, the article still states your "mound building genre literary setting" bit - I didn't remove it. It is still there, with the other references. Seriously dude. I am posting an alert on the admin board for protection of this article if there are any more reverts. By the way - in the last hour or two I have made significant - non-controviersial cleanup that you keep reverting.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'll be the one to create the report, in order to ensure it is from an uninvolved party.. But Ono, Desc is right. You need to stop whole-scale reverting to your preferred version. There is no good reason you have given for undoing the minor changes that Desc has made. So, you want to go back to your version? Do it without this revert that un-does uncontroversial work. But even then, make sure that when there is a disagreement, discuss. Do not edit war. If I do see one more revert from you, I will report you. No amount of talking here lets you skirt edit warring, 3rr or not(it's a bright-line rule. You can still slow-edit war and get blocked).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Onondaga, you act as if there is one "true" BOM archeology. There isn't. No mainstream non-LDS archeologist uses the BOM as a source or accepts it as a guide to New World archeology, whether of the limited variety or not. So no work of LDS/BOM archeology is a reliable source in that sense. But looking at it from the Wikipedia perspective, Descartes is right--Wikipedia is not the expression of "truth", it is the expression of the variety of viewpoints that are in existence. The Limited Geography Model, whether mainstream members accept it or not, is a valid and well-referenced point of view among "mainstream" LDS archeologists. I daresay it may even be the majority view among LDS archeologists. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to describe that view here in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I put the picture in there for that very reason - to show the disconnect between perceptions of the Book of Mormon by LDS, and the reality of archaeology on the ground. Of course the image is misleading. That was the whole point of including it. However - I can see how it could be considered a tad polemic, so I removed it. I hope you accept my olive branch. :) --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Onondaga, you keep citing "mainstream academic setting for BOM". There is no "mainstream academic setting" because, outside of comparative religion departments, mainstream academics completely ignore the BOM. It is neither used nor cited in mainstream New World archeology. So you cannot talk about a "mainstream academic setting for the BOM". The only context in which the BOM exists in science is in LDS science. So the only setting in which the BOM and archeology intersect is "mainstream LDS archeology", primarily focused at BYU. Within that context, the Limited Geography model is not fringe. It may not be majority (although I suspect it is), but it is certainly not fringe. --Taivo (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Wow, a lot of discussion! I think Onondaga’s argument is rather straight forward. If there is an academically accepted literary setting for a work then this setting trumps other fringe settings plain and simple. The approved setting (literary) is where you start to dig (archaeology). Archaeological finds from this geographic setting may or may not prove the work to be historical (e.g. the Bible) but trusting in or promoting a fringe setting is starting off on entirely the wrong step. Can you imagine academia taking you serious if you proposed to look for Camelot (historical or not) in Spain? Mainstream (there’s that word again) academia does not recognize a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon - literary or otherwise. Why does this setting get so much attention? Authorities that Onondaga has cited do not recognize this fringe setting.

Onondaga you are absolutely right about there being no reference to walls of hewn stone in the Book of Mormon New World setting. Timber and earth yes - take Alma 53:4. Of course this is describing mound builder constructions known in Joseph Smith’s own day and country. It looks like someone has removed this misleading though popular depiction! Stuff like this if it isn’t called out for what it is, tends to make this article lean towards popular propaganda. Yet another case in point for why a study of the text is always interwoven with respectable archaeology. Ask biblical archaeology scholars. What should happen here is that both religious and the secular should come to agree on the appropriate setting (as with the Bible) and scholarly debate should proceed from there. But as it is, so many seem to be inclined to promote fringe stuff and keep the subject in unnecessary confusion. Thanks for removing the popular though off the wall depiction of Samuel the Lamanite. I think you are making a mistake about Coon and Trento. It is Sorenson that you should be dismissing as fringe when it comes to the right archaeological setting. Any peer reviewed non LDS mainstream archaeological support for Sorenson? Just asking! Kovesh (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no peer-reviewed non-LDS mainstream archeological support for any archeological claim based on the BOM--whether of the Limited Geography type or not. Kovesh, you continue to ignore the fact that this is not a literary article, so only the archeological aspect of the issue is relevant here. You also fail to understand the fundamental difference between biblical archeology and BOM archeology. In biblical archeology the sites actually exist and can be located on the ground within a small area based on contemporary populations that still use the same names for the sites. The biblical text is often detailed enough that even unknown sites can still be placed within a small area. This is not true of BOM archeology. If we assume that the text is not a fabrication of Joseph Smith's imagination, there is not a single site in the New World where the BOM unambiguously guides us to a location on the ground (or even in a small area) where the BOM name correlates with a local name still in use. Therefore there is no "mainstream" correlation between actual sites and described BOM locales because there are no positively identified sites at all. Within that context, where the whole mainstream community considers "BOM archeology" to be fringe, I find it disingenuous for you to call one popular option "fringe". The Limited Geography Model is just as reasonable as any other because all BOM archeology models are fringe from the viewpoint of mainstream archeology. NPOV requires that all of these models be presented if they have been supported by reliable sources, not just the one that matches your particular POV. --Taivo (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kovesh, you said "What should happen here is that both religious and the secular should come to agree on the appropriate setting (as with the Bible) and scholarly debate should proceed from there. " This statement makes the assumption that there even is a setting that can be agreed upon. Every archaeologist in the world will tell you that the Book of Mormon has no setting at all, because it is fiction. Look at it this way - say there are two authors - one writes a novel about aliens that visited earth in ancient Rome. Another writes a pseudoscientific book about all of the evidences that there were aliens in ancient Rome. There you have a "literary setting" for aliens in ancient Rome. And you have a wingnut claiming it is true. Do we include that information in the article on ancient Rome? No! Because the overwhelming majority of archaeologists agree that the idea of aliens in ancient Rome is total BS, and there is no evidence for it - and there is no serious archaeologist that has researched it and will stand by that theory.If there was, then guess what? That would be included in the ancient Rome article. There is no need for our novelist and pseudoarchaeologist to "agree" with mainstream archaeologists on anything and "go from there". Same exact thing going on here. Remember that by your own admission, there is an awful lot of pseudoarchaeology going on in 19th century literature with respect to ancient America. Its all BS. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, this Mesoamerican issue is a complete red herring and does not address the point that Coon and Trento are not reliable sources. Instead of trying to find other sources, Kovesh has thrown in this distraction and made accusations that really fail WP:AGF, and Onondaga has supported him. If the two of you want to argue against a Mesoamerican model, y'all should get some reliable sources and then bring them in as a separate issue. If none can be found, that's an indication that y'all's POV does not appear to be the favored view within the pseudoarchaeological circles that see the BoM as history. If that's the case, y'all will just have to deal with it. If reliable sources can be found supporting y'all's POV, they will be included, but Coon and Trento do not qualify. Any more attempts at distraction should not be justified with responses. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about steel, the B of M clearly uses the language of the King James Bible. Compare Nephi’s Old World “steel” bow with David’s “bow of steel”. (Psalm 18:24) I hope that Ian is not presuming that this is referring to hardened iron – if so, he is mistaken.

Regarding an “unambiguous” Book of Mormon site, LDS scripture clearly places the B of M land Cumorah in the Finger Lakes region – Joseph Smith own country. (LDS D&C 128:20) Non-LDS scholars of Mormon history recognize this. It is only shifty LDS scholars like Sorenson who want to concoct a Cumorah in southern Mexico or Central America. PhDs like John Lund seek to make a buck selling books and taking tours there. Mainstream scholars don’t go for this sleight of hand. The B of M places the land of Zarahemla close enough to the land of Cumorah for travelers from the southern land of Nephi to confuse one region for the other.

Regarding the Limited Mesoamerican model, it really isn’t so limited, not like the authentic B of M setting in Joseph Smith’s own environs. The claim that Moroni traveled thousands of miles from Mesoamerica to deposit the plates in western NY doesn’t fit well with passages in the book of Mormon, Ether and Moroni.

Regarding B of M place names – names like “Angola”, “Alma” and “Onidah” are very similar to place names that appear in western NY. Of course you have to be careful with even biblical and traditional place names because these can move with people. Scholars know this! A lot of biblical sites are not as established as you might think. There is still uncertainly in the secular community as to whether David and Solomon even existed. We think we know approximately where Solomon’s temple stood if it ever was. But I agree that there is a general consensus about the setting of the Bible. This doesn’t mean that there is a general consensus about the Bible as history. Many regard it as local fiction.

I think I need to show you that there are Non-LDS archaeologists who will admit that the B of M has a literary setting. That setting is in Joseph Smith’s own country among the mound builder artifacts of his environs. This does not mean that they accept the Book of Mormon as history any more than they accept the anachronistic book of Daniel or Job as history. So it will be up to a few of us to show you that there really are credentialed scholars who point out mound builder archaeological finds as supporting the Book of Mormon’s original literary setting. This is not to suggest that they interpret this evidence as proving the work as either divine or historical. But the book does have a geographic setting and that setting is not in Mesoamerica. That by the way is why the book never mentions monkeys, palm trees, hewn stone buildings in jungles and no Leopards (jaguars) in its American setting.

I continue to regard Coon and Trento as actually superior sources to the likes of Sorenson who has been accepted in this article. But there are others like Silverberg who is definitely not fringe. I can draw more heavily from these essentially secular sources while I think about whether or not at some point to start eliminating FARMs stuff altogether. I wouldn’t mind if this article drew completely from mainstream Archaeology, American History and Literature. Onondaga (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:CITE. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Ian Thomson. Wikipedia isn't here for WP:OR or to prove a point. --Taivo (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I third that - lets see a legitimate ref. By the way, once I am done cleaning up the formatting of refs, I am going to start double checking all of the reference content and try to get rid of WP:OR and any other sources that don't meet WP:RS - which I suspect there are a few more. For the record, it makes absolutely no sense to eliminate FARM's stuff. They have a whole lot of credentialed scholars and archaeologists who have spoken on this specific topic. --Descartes1979 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait what? Why would this article make any more than a passing reference to American Literature? For the umpteenth time, the scope of this article is ARCHAEOLOGY. We should be only citing archaeologists! --Descartes1979 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about FARMS. If we were talking about X site in a strictly mainstream archeological sense, then FARMS research linking it to BOM would be WP:FRINGE, but since we're specifically talking about approaches by LDS scholars to linking New World archeology to the BOM narrative, then FARMS is probably the primary reliable source. The definition of "reliable source" depends on the topic being discussed. --Taivo (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about an organization that 1) starts with the conclusion and tries to fit the facts to make the conclusion valid. That's not science, that's apologetics. And 2) does NOT do true "peer review." They only allow selected researchers who are sympathetic with their views to "agree" with their conclusions. That's not "peer review," that's "editor review." I say FARMS fails WP:RS in a major way. --Manway (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Manway, if we were talking about New World archeology, then I would agree with you 100%. But this article is about LDS attempts to link New World archeology with the BOM. In that regard, then FARMS is a WP:RS because that's what it does and because it is one of the major LDS venues where that work is done. Within that limited context, then FARMS peer review is appropriate--the apologetic attempt to link the pre-Columbian New World with the BOM. So as far as enumerating the LDS apologetic attempts to link the BOM to New World archeology, then FARMS is a reliable source. If FARMS were being used to describe New World archeology in any other context, then it isn't a reliable source at all. But you have to look at what is being described in order to determine whether a source is reliable in that context or not. --Taivo (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they are still not reliable. Read their stuff. Things such as (paraphrased) "If (event) occurred, them maybe (other event) might have occurred this way." It's not scholarly. It's not peer-review. It's not archaeology. Its apologetics trying to make the real world fit within the context of a book. You said: "...this article is about LDS attempts to link New World archeology with the BOM." I said: "an organization that...starts with the conclusion and tries to fit the facts to make the conclusion valid." Tell me what is different between those two statements? An organization that...starts with the conclusion (the BOM) and tries to fit the facts (New World Archaeology) to make the conclusion (The BOM is true history) valid. Doesn't fly. If you could point to one finding by non-FARMS archaeologists that show BOM history beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not apologetics trying to wrap findings in the pages of the Book of Mormon, maybe there would be an article here. But I see nothing beyond the first paragraph of the article that is germane to an encyclopedic article. Put it in an LDS Wiki. Not here. --Manway (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But Manway, that's exactly what this article is about. It is exactly about "apologetics trying to make the real world fit within the context of a book" and, as such, it is a catalogue of those attempts, of which FARMS is one of the main proponents. Within the context of an apologetic catalogue, then FARMS is a reliable source since it represents research that is peer-reviewed within the apologetic community. If you think that apologetics doesn't belong in Wikipedia, then I happen to agree with you, but you and I do not form a consensus of editors and the consensus wants these articles in Wikipedia. As such, we try to keep these apologetical articles fitting within NPOV. But as a catalogue of apologetical attempts to fit the BOM narrative to the geography and archeology of the New World, then the FARMS sources are reliable sources for the LDS POV. I would strongly object to using FARMS sources in a non-LDS article on New World archeology because they are not reliable sources in that context. But for this context, they are reliable. A reliable source in one context may not be a reliable source in another context. --Taivo (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You know something, Taivo? You're absolutely right. I re-read the article critically right now. Your points are well taken and I agree with you. I think in this case this article needs some kind of conclusion. A conclusion that states that any evidence so far accumulated linking the BOM with the real world are strictly from a religious standpoint and must be taken on faith. It will never be proven that there is any correlation between real world and the literary world. I think what happened was I was blinded by the word "archaeology" in the title and could only see through those eyes. But through the eyes of an apologetic, yes, it makes sense. Now - should we maybe change the name of the article to "Attempts to link the Book of Mormon to archaeology"? My only comment at this point is that the title is misleading. Regards and thanks for the discussion. --Manway (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting comments on Phyllis Carol Olive and WP:RS

Just starting to look into Phyllis Carol Olive - and I just found her biography (http://classic.cedarfort.com/author/Olive.html), which states that has absolutely no training in archaeology whatsoever. In fact, the only qualification that she gives for being able to speak authoritatively about Book of Mormon archaeology is the fact that she has been a sunday school teacher. In the spirit of being open and transparent, I would like to solicit everyone's thoughts on whether her books meet WP:RS. I will not remove her refs yet, but I am very skeptical. She is cited at great length in this article which I think renders WP:UNDUE.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On her personal webpage (http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/) she states: "While I have no credentials which would make my work of value to anyone other than myself..." That should be your answer right there. Failing WP:RS. --Manway (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a reliable source. --Taivo (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Onondaga, I agree that FARMS is fringe but they do, in my opinions put out some decent things from time to time.

As for others who seem to be bent on the Mesoamerican setting, I recommend you read Hampton Sides “This is Not the Place!” He is a renowned American Historian. The present article should primarily be about mainstream archaeology and the Book of Mormon not fringe opinions. The statement of relevant mainstream historians and literary experts has a place because you cannot extricate these subjects from archaeology – ask an archaeologist. The present Wikipedia article also draws on the opinions of FARMS and or BYU affiliated who are non archaeologists as well. They do not deserve more of a pass.

I rather suspect that you grasp what Onondaga and I have been saying about the legitimate literary and therefore archaeological setting for the Book of Mormon. But it is important to you that FARMS and BYU be present in a big way in this article!

Deeply disgruntled after years of searching for proof of the Book of Mormon in Central America, Thomas Fergusson concluded that, “You can’t set the Book of Mormon geography down anywhere, because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology. What is in the ground will never conform to what is in the Book.”

But the Book of Mormon does have a literary setting! Mainstream American History and Literature scholars recognize the work’s authentic setting. (E.g. Robert Silverberg, “and the mound-builders vanished from the earth”, American Heritage Magazine, June 1969, Volume 20, Issue 4) The Book of Mormon is classed in the North American “Mound Builder” literary genre of the 19th century. Its literary setting is in Joseph Smith’s own country, with its aboriginal earth and timber fortifications and artifacts recovered by amateur “diggers” from numerous mounds. There is real archaeological support for the Book of Mormon’s literary setting. Of course, this is not the kind of evidence that Fergusson was looking for. This archaeological evidence is not viewed by the professional mainstream as supporting the book’s historicity – only its literary fit!

The Book of Mormon was published more than a decade before John Lloyd Stephens’ 1841 hit, Incidents of Travel in Central America. In short, the Book of Mormon relates to things discovered and speculated about in Joseph Smith’s own time and environment – his own country. Sensationalized and in many instances, misinterpreted discoveries evince the original setting for the book. This explains why for instance, unlike Stephens’ bestseller, there are no explicit references in the Book of Mormon to monkeys, palm trees and hewn stone buildings in jungles. The original setting for the Book of Mormon is not Central America; it is “Mound Builder” country.

By the way, contrary to rumor, there actually are references to “snow” and cold weather in the Book of Mormon. (1 Nephi 11:8, Mosiah 12:6) The expression “heat of the day” (Alma 51:33) is a biblical expression referring to the hottest part of the day in a temperate climate. (1 Samuel 11:11) There is nothing exclusively tropical about the expression. There are inland “seas” and more than one possible “narrow neck of land”, moraine or Isthmus in the vicinity of western NY. There are northward flowing rivers in western NY and a general increase in elevation as you travel south; just as the Book of Mormon describes. There are also place names like Oneida (Onidah Alma 47:5) in “Mound Builder” country, though these do not prove the Book of Mormon to be an ancient work. There is no firsthand verifiable statement by Joseph Smith espousing an exaggerated two-continent or hemispheric setting for the Book of Mormon. Hemispheric settings were devised and promoted by other brethren of the Church. LDS scripture of course places the location of the Book of Mormon land Cumorah in the Finger Lakes region, not southern Mexico. (D&C 128:20) Kovesh (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No offense Kovesh, but wow - talk about changing the subject. We aren't talking about any of this right now - just the reliability of Phyllis Carol Olive. Your points are duly noted. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis Olive is a published LDS authority on the original setting for the B of M. She bases her Book of Mormon setting conclusions on LDS scripture and historical sources - not faulty Mormon traditions and speculation e.g. the fringe Mesoamerican setting business. She defends from an LDS point of view and in detail the mound builder setting for the Book of Mormon which is precisely the general literary setting for the Book of Mormon that is accepted by mainstream American historians and literature experts (mostly non-LDS). This is precisely what I’m talking about above in what you have judged a change of subject.

No, Olive is not an archaeologist, but if you look up the meaning of archaeology you will find that it is a discipline that is considered both a science and humanity. Archaeology draws heavily from historical research and other disciplines. In fact it can be said that Archaeology studies history!

I will oppose any attempt to remove references to Olive from this article. She brings much needed balance to what otherwise is a fringe Mesoamerican setting takeover. Again the Mesoamerican setting is the worst kind of pseudo science –it is pseudo science promoted by well finances interests and institutions. The Mesoamerican setting is not original or authentic. It is not recognized by mainstream historians as a legitimate representation of the authentic literary setting for the Book of Mormon. I recommend looking up articles on how mainstream archaeologists decide on where to dig. You will find that where possible they rely on historians and historical research to guide them to appropriate sites. The Mesoamerican setting fails this test. It is not recognized by the professional mainstream. It doesn’t matter how many LDS with degrees promote this site. Their position is fringe plain and simple. As such they do not qualify for center stage in this article.Kovesh (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have already removed Olive yet kept authors like Pridis in place. I think this shows your true agenda. Many of the edits you are calling "minor" are not minor at all! I'm starting to agree with Onondaga that this article should be primarily about mainstream historical archaeology's view of the Book of Mormon and that the fringe FARMS view which is like an aggressive weed should be greatly minimized. HELP WANTED! Bring on objective mainstream historians and archaeologists!!! Kovesh (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Kovesh, you don't get it. You keep calling for mainstream archeologists to chime in. Apparently you have deceived yourself into thinking that mainstream archeologists are interested in the BOM. Mainstream archeology rejects the BOM "history" of the New World. Sure, call in the mainstream archeologists and they will say that all BOM archeology is fringe. So what is this article about? It is about the range of ideas that LDS scholars have about correlating the BOM narrative with what we actually know about New World archeology. A mainstream archeologist will call all of it "pseudoscience" whether it is strictly Mesoamerican or not. So we're discussing the range of options that LDS scholars use to correlate actual New World archeology with the BOM narrative. The Limited Geography model is one of those options. It is not fringe, but is accepted and used by a fair number of BOM scholars. --Taivo (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, as you probably know there is no academically recognized Book of Mormon archaeology in the sense of evincing the book to be an ancient work! This article is about “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon” not Fringe Book of Mormon archaeology!

To repeat, the article should include a large discussion on how archaeological finds support the accepted literary setting for the Book of Mormon. In other words how mainstream archaeology and American history back up each other! This is not the same as alleging that archaeology proves the Book of Mormon. There are mainstream archaeologists and historians who place the literary setting for the Book of Mormon among the mound builders of North America. This has a lot to do with actual finds and the interpretation of relics as well as literary analysis. Mainstream archaeologists are aware of these artifacts and how they relate to the 19th century Mound Builder genre (which includes the Book of Mormon). Archaeologists interpret these artifacts in a way that supports mainstream historical and literary views. They recognize that these North American artifacts are what instigated the 19th century Mound Builder literary genre in which the Book of Mormon is classed.

This article needs to better address the topic of legitimate archaeology and its affiliation with other mainstream disciplines. The article needs to do a better job at explaining the roll of real archaeology in addressing the legitimate historical and literary classification of the Book of Mormon. Fringe stuff by fringe supporters (papered or otherwise) should have a less significant role in this article. Again, this is not to say that the academic mainstream thinks that the book is historical. It is simply saying that “archaeology” has another role to play in regards to the Book of Mormon, besides the usurped fringe role of pseudo archaeology as promoted by the fringe.

There is real archaeology which goes along with the conclusions of respected authorities like Silverberg. This article needs to talk about the legitimate role of archaeology (not fringe) in support of the majority professional historical and literary views of the Book of Mormon. Surely you don’t think that only mainstream American history scholars and Literature experts recognize the Mound Builder literary setting for the Book of Mormon. Don’t you think that there are mainstream archaeologists who accept the views of scholars like Silverberg and have something to say about how their understanding of mound builder relics fits with the mainstream literary view? The Mesoamerican setting is fringe. Show me a mainstream American history or Literature expert who accepts it! They don’t! Please read Silverberg, Kennedy and Sides! Kovesh (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not even the LDS Church officially endorses the Mesoamerican setting! Kovesh (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How many times do we have to spell this out Kovesh? Cite a reliable source. I am not here to tell you that one setting should be favored over another. I honestly don't care about that. All I care about is that we have legitimates sources. Pyllis Carol Olive is not a reliable source - she fails miserably to meet WP guidelines at WP:RS. Lets see some references from archaeologists. Ball is in your court. This is really a simple issue - blathering on and on about one setting versus another does not speak to the issue. Just cite your freakin' sources dude - that is all we are asking - and all we have been asking for this entire discussion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do! We are in the process of putting things together.

The reliability of a source and the basis of this reliability depends on the context. No source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. In the case of the subject of Book of Mormon geography Phyllis Olive is published not just self published. Kovesh (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you will have no difficulty finding a published, not self-published source. But just because she was published on Topic A doesn't make her personal blog a reliable source on Topic B. But even if Olive has a reliable source talking about X locale for BOM geography doesn't mean that the Mesoamerican locale isn't also a reasonable and accepted locale. This article is not either/or, it is a catalog of the various and sundry attempts by LDS archeologists to locate the events of the BOM on the ground, and the Mesoamerican option is just as valid as the Finger Lakes option or the northern South America option, or whatever. --Taivo (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Olive should be included, not excluded in this article. You have not excluded Venice Priddice and others of equal or inferior report. Olive’s setting near the scriptural Finger Lake location of Cumorah – deserves to be included. If you review my past positions you will find that I have been tolerant to all settings being represented in this article, even though the “Mound Builder” literary setting is the only setting accepted by mainstream academia as the original literary setting for the Book of Mormon. All settings are not equal – but I have been tolerant with all including the Malay Peninsula setting. You force me to take a harder position. Because you want to favor one fringe position above another, I am now tending to the view held by others who argue that this article should give greater weight to the views of mainstream academia. All other views, FARMS and BYU include will be flagged as fringe. Kovesh (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm just getting started on removing bad sources Kovesh - this article is full of them. And seriously - dude - ARE YOU EVEN PAYING ATTENTION? Sorry but this is about the 10th time I have to explain this and you are obviously not getting it. I am not favoring one setting over another. This is all about reliable sources - nothing more. I could care less what the competing settings are. If there is a reliable archaeological paper that says Nephites were living on the North Pole I would include it. No one has yet given us a good reason to include Olive - she is obviously just some random church goer that has a self published book and website with her random theories. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Go back and read my last dozen comments on this page - they all say the same thing. This discussion is bordering on ridiculous.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And by the way - regarding Priddis and others, I am just getting started, this article has been a horrid mess for WAY too long, and has been in dire need of cleanup for over a year. I am going to propose each reference for deletion here on the talk page before I remove it - but I am sure there are more to come. There is just so much original research, synthesis, and out right speculation that it is embarrassing. Look toward the end goal - where everything in the article is an accurate representation of what the field of archaeology has to say about the Book of Mormon. No speculation and wild theories - just really grounded and realistic research. That is the kind of article that people want to read, and that would be really useful for people to cut through all the crap on this topic.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Let’s take him at his word Kovesh! Descartes, I’m in favor of a totally secular article. I intend to help with this. I’ll be going by the university library this afternoon. I think Kovesh and others are in favor of a more academically mainstream article too. I just think that others see Sorenson and his ilk (not really peer reviewed – definitely not mainstream) as no less “fringe” than Priddis and her “published” Limited South American setting, or “Meridian” or “Mormon Times”. Kovesh sees some self published works that agree more with the secular mainstream as less crack pot than junk from FARMS or BYU. I agree actually! FARMS and BYU have their own press and a huge gullible audience. I also don’t think that Kovesh trusts you. You have shifted belief gears in the past – but that’s your right. I think he thinks that you are only posing as a disgruntled “objective” Mormon when you really want to sculpt things in favor of FARMS, like you did at the outset of this article – back when it really was slanted. I’m tending to think that you have seen the light since - on a couple of points. Anyway, I don’t think that FARMS and BYU deserve much slack. It’s worth going to better sources, even if you have to hike across a campus. You realize of course that you will have to help fend off all kinds of wide eyed zealots who are “enlightened” by the latest DVD or book selling at Deseret Book. Onondaga (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically Onondaga, I think you know that FARMS, the BYU, Deseret Book and the LDS Church are more or less separate entities. I get your point, however. Fringe FARMS and BYU affiliates are drawn upon to a great extent as authorities in this article. They do not speak for the accademic community at large, the LDS Church or the diversity of opinions among her members. This article needs to do a better job representing the mainstream secular (not necessarily the same as anti-Mormon) viewpoint. I have tried to show some deference in this article towards all points of view. Kovesh (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FARMS, BYU, Deseret Book, and the LDS church separate entities? Pardon me while I choke on my second cup of coffee. Look at the Wiki entries for them. The all contain one phrase: Owned (or operated) by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So using them as separate entities for research purposes is useless. Hypothetical: What would you think would happen if FARMS came out with a press release stating that "Nothing whatsoever has or will be found corroborating the Book of Mormon. Therefore we must sadly conclude it is false." How many heads do you think would roll at FARMS? And who would do the honors? Yep. The LDS church. FARMS is not an independent body of researchers. Deseret Book wouldn't be caught dead selling a book stating that the BOM is not provable. And BYU? Not even plausible. Sorry, Kovesh. I can't go along with that. --Manway (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The notion that this can be "a totally secular article" is utterly ridiculous!!! This is a religious article first and foremost because it is about the belief system of a single religion and the attempts by apologists to support that belief system through correlating real world archeological information with the descriptions of things and places in their sacred texts. There is no such thing as "secular" BOM archeology or "mainstream" BOM archeology (unless one is only referring to LDS archeologists). Secular archeology rejects the BOM as a fabrication of the fertile imagination of Joseph Smith, not as a text to guide New World archeology in any way, shape or form. Referring to LDS apologists as "unreliable sources" fails to understand the point--that this article is a compendium of apologetical approaches to harmonize actual New World archeology with the BOM text. As such, LDS sources are the most reliable sources. What are you going to catalog here if you ignore LDS authors? Nothing, because unless you are an LDS author you ignore the BOM. Thus, your attempts to remove LDS sources from this article are an ill-disguised attempt to remove this article from Wikipedia completely for lack of reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Manway, FARMS (not officially endorsed by the LDS Church), Deseret Book, and the BYU are notably independent; however, I concede that all of these entities can be influenced by the LDS Church - sort of like teenagers getting a nod of approval or else that disproving glance from a parent. Anyway, I hope you will help us guard this article from religious zealots.

Taivo, regarding making this article more secular: It is certainly possible to draw from mainstream (largely non-LDS) anthropologists (including archaeologists), historians and American literature specialists who have something scholarly and authoritative to say about the Book of Mormon. Such literature in fact exists. Roger Kennedy, Robert Silverberg and Hampton Sides have been recommended above – for starters. More than Mormons read the Book of Mormon and are interested in it. All that we need to do is draw from mainstream Anthropology (which includes archaeology) and American History and Literature authorities who have studied the Book of Mormon and written about it. It is important to understand that all these subjects dovetail and back each other up. Scholars understand this! It has been noted more than once in these discussions that “Book of Mormon Archaeology” does not exist as an academically recognized field of study. That is not what this article should mostly concern. It should primarily be about mainstream archaeology (with its related fields of study) and the Book of Mormon. The fact that no degrees are issued in “B of M Archeology or Geography” is yet another reason why author Phyllis Olive (with her published knowledge of LDS scripture on the unofficial subject of Book of Mormon setting) should be included, if we include for instance Dr. John L. Sorenson. The school that bestowed Dr. Sorenson’s doctorate degree does not recognize his work on the Book of Mormon setting as authoritative within his academic discipline. In other words, just because John has a degree in anthropology does not academically legitimize his B of M setting. In the eyes of the secular mainstream, Sorenson’s academic degree is independent of his fringe (non peer reviewed) work. His work is in a kind of limbo, neither endorsed by the academic mainstream nor officially approved by the LDS Church! Some want to have it both ways! They want their academic degree to pour authority onto their fringe work. It doesn’t work that way – or at least it shouldn’t. Kovesh (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude. Seriously. The idea that FARMS, BYU, and Deseret book are independent of the LDS church is total bullshit. There is no way in outer darkness that any of those organizations could do anything against the wishes of the church.--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK so - following your logic Kovesh - if mainstream archaegologists don't think Dr. Sorenson is a legitimate voice in American archaeology, would you care to take a gander at what they think of Phyllis Carol Olive who has no training whatsoever in archaeology and anthropology - and freely admits that her conclusions are her own? By arguing that we shouldn't include FARMS you only further undermine your own position on even lesser known sources.--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring

I am doing some restructuring - and wanted to air this out here to see if there are any objections. These should be pretty non-controversial. Here is the structure I am pursuing right now - more edits to come soon (I am not using these titles by the way - just a brain dump so you get the idea of the overall structure and ideas for each section):

• Summary
• What mainstream archaegology thinks of the Book of Mormon claims
  • Mainstream thought (org statements)
  • Archaeological anachronisms
• Mormon archaeological research
  • Rank and File Mormon belief
  • Competing theories and settings
    • Hemispheric Model
    • Mesoamerican Limited Geography Model
    • Finger Lakes Limited Geography Model
  • Other general Mormon archaeological correlations (artifacts etc)

--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. The problem with this outline will be getting proper sources for the "mainstream" section since the majority of archeologists don't ever even refer to the BOM let alone mention it in a scholarly work. It's 99% ignored. However, there are secondary sources (which Wikipedia actually values more) in the critical literature that will suffice. --Taivo (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As you said in previous posts I think this situation is unavoidable. Welcome to the world of Mormon studies :).--Descartes1979 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m ok with the general outline. There is more from academically acceptable sources than some may think. Anthropologists and historians have written about this. I’m curious what you think rank and file belief is? The LDS Church has backed off from any official position and the last time the First Presidency endorse a setting for the B of M it was a hemispheric setting (see 1879 edition of the B of M) - removed by later First Presidencies. I don’t mind including non-mainstream stuff as long as we are honest about authority and open the door to all views including for instance Phyllis Olive. Kovesh (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We have included Phyllis Carol Olive's VIEWS. There is a whole section on the Finger Lakes theory. Its Olive HERSELF that is not included because she is not a reliable source (Here is yet one more appeal: Please for the love of god read WP:RS - wait - stop - ask yourself have you read WP:RS? - ok now that you have read WP:RS - stop - ask yourself do you understand WP:RS? OK - now that you understand it, this is me hoping that we don't have to talk about Phyllis Carol Olive ever again - now that you have read WP:RS and understand it you know just as well as I do that she is does not meet WP:RS!). I think that everyone will agree that we should include any point of view that stands up to Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. This is what we have been saying this whole freakin' time.--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that Olive is published by Cedar Fort. I have read the guidelines and believe that in the context of what has been admitted into this article (including by you) that Olive should be cited as an authority on the subject of Book of Mormon setting for which there is no recognized degree. Descartes you are a capable Wikipedia technician. However, from its inception this article has suffered from a lack of understanding and scope and has relied too heavily on information made available by fringe (however popular and credentialed in some circles) sources. I still can’t tell what your motives really are in taking such an interest in this article, but I can tell you that you should have long ago looked more into the likes of Roger Kennedy than John Sorenson. This speaks volumes about your background. I will oppose the slightest hint of a slant in this article. You should consider others have been very patient with you. Yes, you know some stuff put out from FARMS, but what else do you really know about this subject? So far the only thing I have been impressed with is your wiki skills.Kovesh (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Kovesh - you can insinuate and insult me all you like. But you are still completely missing the point. Wikipedia is not about editors taking a POV and then battling it out. That happens sometimes, but that is not what is going on here. I am not taking any stance. You keep saying that I have some agenda, that I have some POV I am trying to slant this article towards - and while I do have my opinions, I have always done nothing more than try to make this article reflect the reality of what is known about this topic. Even the Finger Lakes Theory and your much ballyhooed "literary setting" of the Book of Mormon - they are in the article now. I didn't remove the main thrust of the content - it is all still there. So I don't understand why you continually try to cast me as a blatant POV editor. I am going to say this for seriously the 12th time: If there are legitimate sources, then lets include them! Olive has been assessed and considered not a reliable source. Lets move on - give us some other sources to work with. (Not that it matters because your content is in the article already - so I really fail to understand what the problem is.)--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And by the way there is a "recognized degree" related to the topic - it is nothing more than Ancient American Archaeology and Ancient American Anthropology. You can't tell me that training in those disciplines is irrelevant to this topic, or that it is appropriate to put someone who has studied these disciplines for decades on the same playing field as a random zealous churchgoer that came up with some interesting theories and then wrote a book and a self published website about it. This is precisely why Wikipedia has a policy on reliable sources.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Secular Sources

In an effort to improve this article, I’m contributing professional sources that are not under the wing of religious interest. Onondaga (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome - I look forward to that information. Lets be careful of WP:SYN though. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I need to perfect some details. I'm going to place the new section after the last reference in the earlier version to the mound builder literature. Onondaga (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Onondaga, can you please put edit summaries in your edits? When you continually revert with not edit summary, it makes it look like you are just being belligerant. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt - but it is impossible to divine why you revert when you don't explain in an edit summary. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Descartes, I ‘m simply trying to add and improve a new section. Do you keep removing it? I’m not trying to be belligerent in the least. I’m going to paste it in again and try to save it. I don’t understand why I am running into problems. Here goes again. Onondaga (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a minor or "simple" edit - it is a gargantuan dump of over 30 K - increasing the article size by 30%. How is that kind of information overload good for the reader? But - in an effort to avoid 3RR, I will not revert your next edit wholesale. But I will be going through it with a fine toothed comb to remove any irrelevant information or duplicated information that is already in the article.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Literary Genre

I just realized the perfect place for the discussion of the "literary genre" of the Book of Mormon - and that is in Origin of the Book of Mormon. There is a lot of material advocated by Onondaga and Kovesh about how the Book of Mormon was one book in a series of works of fiction of that era that were part of a cultural fascination of Americans as to the origin of the native Americans. Why not discuss that at Origin of the Book of Mormon? I think it would add a lot of context about the skeptical view that the Book of Mormon is not so remarkable as Mormons believe. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. You will see that the authors I cite tie the subject to archaeology. I realize that it is a lot of information, but in my opinion this article should be based first and foremost on truly secular sources that have something to say about the Book of Mormon. Thanks for putting my article back in. Onondaga (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thought - does it make sense to have a standalone article about this "literary genre"? There seems to be a lot of material here about a whole sub-movement of fiction and literature that was based on pseudo-archaeology and speculation around the mound builders of the Americas. Or maybe that is redundant with a handful of other articles like Pre-Columbian_Africa-Americas_contact_theories#Fringe_theories or Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations. Thinking out loud here.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Descartes, my article tells readers what secular authorities have to say about the Book of Mormon and how archaeology relates to the literary genre that it came out of. Except for the brief references to John Sorenson and Thomas Fergusson, there is nothing fringe about the article. I really believe that an article on archaeology and the Book of Mormon should be based on the secular sources that I have cited. May I please add my article? I see that it has been removed. Perhaps it is the FARMS and BYU stuff that we should think about pruning in an effort to make room for Silverberg and Sides. Onondaga (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying when you say "my article". Are you an author or journalist or something? Please explain. If so, can you give us a reference to your work?--Descartes1979 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Onondaga, if your addition was a work you've published elsewhere, then we cannot take it here, even if you're the original author. If it hasn't been published yet, then it cannot be published elsewhere since it now belongs to the Wikimedia foundation. If, by your "article," you meant your additions to this article, it doesn't simply say what secular authorities have to say about the BoM, it blunts their calling it fiction, and emphasizes that they don't think the Mesoamerican model doesn't work to draw attention away from criticism of the North American model. It doesn't just say how it relates to the literary genre it came from, it takes the secular discussion about what genre of fiction the work fits in and mutes it to make secular scholarship give the BoM some sense of authority to the North American model on literary (instead of archaeological) grounds. I realize that it may not appear this way to you, but I'm not the only non-Mormon to whom it comes across that way. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Chariots

The chariots section is loaded with an emphasis on wheeled chariots when neither wheels nor the mode transport these chariots provided is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Why has no one discussed Inca litters? Too much emphasis is put on the European interpretation of the translation. Joseph Smith had a third grade education, it is logical that he would have translated any Hebrew/Egyptian shorthand symbols that represented ancient vehicles used to transport kings and company as "chariots." I want to see most of the emphasis on wheels and the apologist filler text removed and see at least one picture of a New World "chariot" (Inca litter). Shemseger (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "chariot" in English is a wheeled vehicle. Unless you have a reliable source that tries to equate "chariot" with "litter" then it will not be added. --Taivo (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sir Francis Bacon uses the word "chariot" to describe a litter-wise vehicle in, "The Great Instauration and New Atlantis" (1620). The Cyclopedia of Biblical literature from Harvard University discusses the use of the word chariot used in Leviticus to describe a litter. There are also countless English etymology dictionaries that connect the word "chariot" with "litter."Shemseger (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about 17th century English. You must show that 19th century English ever used "chariot" for a non-wheeled conveyance. English historical usage is immaterial, only early 19th century usage counts when discussing Smith's word choice. --Taivo (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

@Shemseger - There is mention of this idea already in that section. Please re-read the apologist arguments towards the end and follow the references. Also - I don't buy for one second that Joseph Smith was uneducated, and neither do most of his biographers - so that argument doesn't carry any water. Towards the end of his life he was teaching Hebrew and Greek language schools. --Descartes1979 (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Another thought for Shemseger - not only are you proposing a bunch of your own original research, but you are also falling into the trap noted by Coe - from the article: "“Yales Michael Coe likes to talk about what he calls “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness,” the tendency among Mormon theorists like Sorenson to keep the discussion trained on all sorts of extraneous subtopics… while avoiding what is most obvious: that Joseph Smith probably meant “horse” when he wrote down the word “horse,” …”. Note also that there is a pretty strong implicit indication that the chariots were associated with the "horses" they are mentioned with in those very verses. Sure you can sit there and say - "Well it doesn't say that they were actually pulled by the horses..." like every other apologist - but then you look like an idiot because everyone who reads those verses can see that it was never intended to be an Incan litter. For the same reason why no one really believes that Captain Moroni rode a tapir into battle, or that the Nephites herded peccaries ("swine"), brocket deer ("goats"), and bison ("cattle") - none of which were ever domesticated. Nevertheless, these ridiculous arguments by apologists are included in the article for balance and NPOV. They don't need any more emphasis than they have already been given.--Descartes1979 (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is venturing from what I intended to initiate. I was originally trying to propose that there be some mention of the known modes of New World travel; Kings traveling in litters with caravans of Llamas & servants, etc. As in, "the book of Mormon says this, BUT the only vehicle ever know to be used in pre-Columbian history was..." Shemseger (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cement

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

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

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

This article covers cement use. I am not sure if it counts as a reliable source. It seems to be one of few things Smith wrote that is vaguely plausible, if not in the way he intended.--Charles (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The conclusion of that article is that cement houses were not possible. For instance, one point states: "But "houses of cement" would crack and crumble. Cement only has strength as a binder for stone or brick. Cement, by itself, has no structural strength and is useless as a construction material, except as a mortar or grout between masonry, bricks or stones." Apologists will twist words to make something fit. I say if Smith wrote "cement," then he meant "cement." Same with horses, silk, and a man with his head cut off that raised up on his hands and "struggled for breath" before dying. --Manway (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Horse, donkey, pig

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

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

The link above (Archeologists in Calsbad) is not relevant to the time periods under debate for horses being present during book of Mormon times. The article by By: PHILIP K. IRELAND - Staff Writer | Posted: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:00 am explains: "Radiocarbon dating of 340 years, plus or minus 40 years, puts the death of the horse sometime between 1625 and 1705, Mojado said. Therefore, the horses died at least 50 years before San Diego Mission de Alcala, the first of the California missions, was founded in 1769." This shows that the article in the North Country Times taken at face value is misleading to this book of Mormon discussion. --Sethbockholt (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)sethbockholt

"Mojado postulated that the horses may have been Spanish in origin, perhaps from an ill-fated exploration that never returned and so was lost to history. Perhaps the lost Spanish explorers offered the horses and donkey to the American Indians as a gift, Mojado said."

The other two sites are selling the items as kitsch, not exactly reliable, scholarly, sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)