Meso American Model By Richard Hauck Ph.D

[bobhenstra]

March 22, 2014

Mesoamerican Archaeology & the Book of Mormon

by F. Richard Hauck, PhD

This article originally appeared in Meridian Magazine (http://www.meridianmagazine.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

In 1989 or 1990, a year or so after the publication of Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon hit the shelves in Deseret Book, I was in Guatemala City for some needed R&R. I had spent an exhausting week or so of exploration in the mountains to the north of that city and needed to rest. My R&R, or rest & recreation, in those days actually consisted of L&C, laundry & church—quite different from the R&R offered by the Marine Corps so many years earlier.

While in the city I decided to visit Don Forsyth, an LDS archaeologist who was running a research laboratory. He was evaluating ceramics recovered from Ray Matheny’s excavations at El Mirador in northern Guatemala. All three of us had worked together at the Yucatan site of Edzna during the early 1970’s and I thought it would be a good idea just to drop in and say hi—one archaeologist to another. I was headed for an experience that would help define my identity as an archaeologist.
Don was affable enough, he is a friendly guy although somewhat guarded. He showed me some of the ceramics and I thought they were pretty nifty—that sort of thing.


On arrival at Don's lab I found Richard Hansen was also there. Richard Hansen, like Forsyth, Matheny and myself, is a member of the LDS Church. As an archaeologist in the late 1980’s Hansen was a graduate student working with the Mathenys. He is currently directing the excavations at El Mirador and has been featured in a National Geographic feature article. While sitting there talking about archaeology and Mesoamerica and the research that we all three are dedicated to, the topic of my book Deciphering… came up. I doubt that I raised it, but I may have in response to a question like, “Well Ric, what are you doing in Guatemala these days?” Maybe that is how it happened. Anyway, I probably said something like, “I am field testing the theories that I stated in that book. Right now I am returning from the Coban highlands where I have been documenting and exploring a series of fortification trench systems that meet all the geographical criteria in the Book of Mormon for the fortifications at Manti.”

I remember Don Forsyth carefully watching my reaction when Hansen launched this searching question. “Why on earth did you publish that research? You know what that can do to you in the academic world?” Hansen went on to state: “You could have just retained all that data to yourself and gone about doing archaeology with no one the wiser and years later, after you had established an archaeological correlation with all the geographic analyses, you could have come forward then and shown what you had theorized without taking this risk of being ostracized from the archaeological community.”

The answer that I gave Hansen then is the same answer that I would give anyone who should ask that very same question today. I stated “What good is a theory if it isn’t put out there for the world to see and evaluate? Suppose I had done as you stated, hidden my research away until I had proven it to be true and then, when no longer worried about censure, I were to pronounce to the world: Voila!! Look at this—I had it figured out 30 years ago! Were I to do as you suggest, people would have no reason to examine the principles behind this geographical and archaeological research. What credibility would this work have then?”

The purpose of my going into all this detail about a long-ago meeting is not to reminisce about the past. but rather to focus on two words that should go hand in hand together: theory and research. True science is accomplished by thinking and testing—that is how progress occurs. This concept has as its core the precept of “line upon line” or working from one established assessment to the next. And in doing so, the researcher has to be willing to back away from a failed premise and start over again in a different direction when warranted by the evidence.

In 2009 we are working at Tzalcam, a 2,000 to 3,000 year old fortified ceremonial center situated in the Salama basin. We are excavating Tzalcam because, (a) it is a wonderful archaeological challenge, and, (b) because it is a very possibly the ancient city of Nephi.

The geographical model of the Book of Mormon that has led me to Tzalcam, and the Salama basin is a second generation away from the original model that I published in Deciphering…. From 1981 until 2007 I worked under the assumption that Mixco Viejo, in the Motogua River depression, some 43 km. (27 miles) to the southwest of this office, was the viable candidate for the ancient city of Nephi. Mixco Viejo met many of the criteria stated in the Book of Mormon. However, during all those years, my occasional archaeological recons at Mixco Viejo never satisfied two fundamental criteria—the geography of the locality just would not yield on these two points: (a) the identification of ruins marking the impressive and contemporaneous Lamanite settlement of Shemlon to the east of Nephi, and (b) the location of the Nephite satellite settlement of Shilom to the north across the river from Mixco Viejo. My final reconnaissance in 2007 was deliberately planned to either establish those associations or drop the site altogether.

So, in 2007, after spending several days in the bush searching potential locations for evidence of Shemlon and Shilom, I finally gave it up. My companion and I worked our way back to the road, sheathed our machetes, dropped the bag containing our meager collection of pottery sherds in the trunk of the car, and gave it up. Mixco Viejo was crossed off the list.

I reviewed the maps, I reviewed the criteria for Nephi as established by the model published in Deciphering… and selected a second candidate to explore: the Salama valley. During 2007, after several forays into this delightful and highly productive valley, my companions and I were able to establish correlations with 33 out of the 40 criteria relative to the land of Nephi as stated or implied in the Book of Mormon. Viable ruins for Shemlon and Shilom also finally fell into place.

So here I am, trying to do “good archaeology,” archaeology that will be acceptable to all my colleagues, both Mormon and otherwise. I'm trying to assemble a massive and very complicated puzzle that could eventually expand our understanding not only of Mesoamerican archaeology but also of the Book of Mormon peoples.

In the months ahead we will hopefully continue digging at these various locations focused on using “good science” to establish the archaeological fundamentals of each site. But as we dig, measure, map, photograph, and evaluate hour by hour, day by day, I will be watching for all the subtle evidences that will either verify or refute these sites as having been linked to the peoples and settlements of the Book of Mormon.

(Editor's note: Richard Hansen is now a well-known highly regarded dirt archaeologist. I once tried to get him to write a short article for BMAF but was told by his wife that, "he doesn't speak to anyone about archaeology and the Church." Hauck's experience illustrates why many competent LDS archaeologists are rarely heard from in Church circles. Who knows what knowledge they are not sharing that may help solve the Book of Mormon puzzle?)

Be sure to check out the BMAF Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/groups/bmaf.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; now with over 1,000 members

[bobhenstra]

Dealing with Book of Mormon geography and other secondary issues
by Daniel Peterson, for the Deseret News
Published: Thursday, June 16 2011


Many years ago, a very opinionated member of my Southern California ward confided to me that the then-first counselor in the First Presidency was a Communist agent, seeking to lead the president of the church astray.

I was appalled. Not so much at the silly accusation itself, which I never took seriously, but that an active member of the ward in which I'd grown up, whom I knew to be a fervent believer, would permit his political opinions to lead him, on the basis of no real evidence, into speaking evil of a man both of us had sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator.

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom," Joseph Smith taught the Saints in 1839. "It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

To divide the church along political (or ethnic, national, economic, class or gender) lines is the work of the devil, not of God. He is "the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another" (3 Nephi 11:29). He is "the accuser of our brethren" (Revelation 12:9). In fact, the very meaning of the Greek verb "diaballo," from which our English words "diabolical" and "devil" derive, is "to slander" or "to attack."

The Book of Mormon and the New Testament alike warn repeatedly against the danger of factions, and caution us that, when the Saints fall into disunity, they become weak and vulnerable, and the progress of the Kingdom falters.

One of the issues over which I've recently been saddened to see impassioned strife among some members of the church (though not the only one) is Book of Mormon geography. I find it almost unbelievable. Surely this is a secondary issue, at most.

Nothing very important — certainly not our salvation — hangs upon having the precise GPS coordinates of the Jaredite city of Lib. Although an interesting topic for discussion, knowing exactly where the narrative of the Book of Mormon took place is far less momentous than believing that it did, in fact, take place.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll acknowledge that I've given the matter considerable thought and concluded that the Book of Mormon story occurred principally in Mesoamerica. I'm unpersuaded by alternative theories.

But I'm entirely content to worship and serve in a church with people who may disagree. I know someone who's convinced that the Nephites lived in Malaysia. I don't find this notion even remotely probable, but I'm surely not going to read anybody out of the church for it. If he lives the commandments, prays, does his home teaching and attends the temple, he's at least as good a Latter-day Saint as I am, and likely far better.

"Valuable as is the Book of Mormon both in doctrine and history," wrote George Q. Cannon, a member of the First Presidency, in 1890, "yet it is possible to put this sacred volume to uses for which it was never intended, uses which are detrimental rather than advantageous to the cause of truth, and consequently to the work of the Lord. …

"The Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. …

"The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points."

Debates about Book of Mormon geography are perfectly fine. Many, including me, are interested in the topic. But, the Lord commands, "above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace" (Doctrine and Covenants 88:125). "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27).



Daniel C. Peterson is a native of southern California and received a bachelors degree in Greek and philosophy from BYU. He earned a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from UCLA after several years of study in Jerusalem and Cairo. He is a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic at BYU, the editor of the twice-annual FARMS Review, and the author of several books and numerous articles on Islamic and Latter-day Saint topics. Peterson is also director of outreach for BYU's Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. He spent eight years on the LDS Church's Gospel Doctrine writing committee and is the founder and manager of MormonScholarsTestify.org.

[bobhenstra]

Study: 'Jesus' wife' fragment not a fake

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29422809&nid=10 ... =popular-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bob

[Jarbar]

3 scriptures that disprove this entire Meso American idea.

3 Nephi 20:22
Ether 13:6
D&C 84:1-4

[livy111us]

Those scriptures do no such thing. A twisted, dogmatic interpretation of those does, but not an honest look at them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n687gFW-kg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Zion and the New Jerusalem

The presentation’s first link is unassailable; it is certainly true that the city of New Jerusalem will be built in Jackson County, Missouri.14 The problems crop up beginning with the second link. Note that the second link tries to equate the New Jerusalem with Zion. While this is true in some cases, we must remember that there are many uses of the term “Zion.” Bruce R. McConkie provides a good overview of these uses:15

The Lord’s covenant people (D&C 97:21, Moses 7:18)
Enoch’s city (D&C 38:4; Moses 7:18-69)
Old World Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:6-7; 1 Kings 8:1)
New Jerusalem in Jackson County (D&C 84:1-4)
All of North and South America (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, 362; D&C 133)
The dwelling place of exalted beings (Hebrews 12:22-24)
In the case of Meldrum’s chain links, the Articles of Faith do refer to the city of Zion, which is clarified to be the New Jerusalem, as distinct from the other usages of that word. In Ether (link #4), the term “Zion” does refer to the city of New Jerusalem.

Already, though, the chain is in serious trouble—the New Jerusalem is Zion only in some senses, not all. In not recognizing this, in trying to make “New Jerusalem” and “Zion” synonymous, the LNAM develops serious problems.

Is Missouri the Land of Promise?

Missouri is certainly a land of promise. The prophets and apostles have consistently been clear, however, that Missouri is not the only land of promise, nor the only area to which Book of Mormon promises apply. Meldrum is not keeping company with the apostles and prophets when he asserts that because Zion is in Missouri, and Missouri is a land of promise, then Missouri is the only promised land in the Americas (and, thus, the promised land of the Nephites). Consider a few examples:

Joseph Smith: “speaking of the Land of Zion, It consists of all N[orth] & S[outh] America but that any place where the Saints gather is Zion which every righteous man will build up for a place of safety for his children…The redemption of Zion is the redemption of all N[orth] & S[outh] America.”16

Brigham Young: “And what is Zion? In one sense Zion is the pure in heart. But is there a land that ever will be called Zion? Yes, brethren. What land is it? It is the land that the Lord gave to Jacob, who bequeathed it to his son Joseph and his posterity, and they inhabit it, and that land is North and South America. That is Zion as to land, as to territory, and location. The children of Zion have not yet much in their possession, but their territory is North and South America to begin with.”17

Brigham Young: “You need not teach that this place is Zion, or that Nauvoo or Missouri is Zion; but tell the people that North and South America are the land of Zion…”18

John Taylor: “And it is not enough for us to embrace the gospel and to be gathered here to the land of Zion.” (Pres. Taylor was speaking in Salt Lake City.”19

Wilford Woodruff: “This land, North and South America, is the land of Zion; it is a choice land—the land that was given by promise from old father Jacob to his grandson and his descendants, the land on which the Zion of God should be established in the latter days.”20

Orson Pratt: “And the Lord gave unto them the whole continent, for a land of promise, and he promised, that they, and their children after them, should inherit it, on condition of their obedience to his commandments; but if they were disobedient, they should be cut off from his presence.”21

Orson Pratt: “We are not in possession of our land of promise particularly, only as we obtain it by a renewed promise; but we are inheriting a land that was given to the remnant of Joseph, and God has said that we must be remembered with them in the possession of this land.”22

Ezra Taft Benson: “This is our need today—to plant the standard of liberty among our people throughout the Americas… the struggle for liberty is a continuing one—it is with us in a very real sense today right here on this choice land of the Americas.”23

Bruce R. McConkie: “The Americas are the land of Joseph—the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, the land of the Nephites, the land of the Ephraimites who are gathering in the latter days.”24

Melvin J. Ballard: “…I turn the key, unlock, and open the door for the preaching of the Gospel in all these South American nations…that thy name may be honored and glorified in this part of the land of Zion.”25

A. Theodore Tuttle: “South America—battleground of freedom, land of indolence and complacency, land of maana [sic], land of searching, struggling, striving people, land of latent, surging power, land choice above all other lands. This land is included in the Book of Mormon declaration. It does not refer to North America alone; when the prophets were speaking they included both South America and North America as the land of promise.”26

Ted E. Brewerton: “Three groups left the land of Jerusalem and crossed the oceans…and arrived in the promised land, the Americas.”27

Meldrum’s chain fails to link with any of these authoritative and consistent statements. If a viewer is not aware of these statements by many prophets, apostles, and seventies, the “chain” may appear plausible. When one knows of them, one realizes there is no chain at all—the first link never connects with the second.

What about America?

In today’s world “America” means the great land of hope and liberty, the United States of America. But Meldrum does not recognize that this usage has not always been followedóeven by Americans! Noah Webster’s dictionary from 1828 defined “America” as:

One of the great continents…It extends from the eightieth degree of North, to the fifty-fourth degree of South Latitude; and from the thirty-fifth to the one hundred and fifty-sixth degree of Longitude West from Greenwich, being about nine thousand miles in length. Its breadth at Darien [Panama] is narrowed to about forty-five miles, but at the northern extremity is nearly four thousand miles. From Darien to the North, the continent is called North America, and to the South, it is called South America.28

“America” is, in reality, the entire hemisphere. Even if such usage isn’t common today, it was in earlier times. Further, it seems obvious that the term “land of promise” refers to whatever land the Lord has granted to His people, and upon which they are commanded to gather. A people may have more than one promised land (as the Saints in Utah saw themselves in one promised land, waiting to go back to Missouri, another promised land; the Jews tenaciously cling to their promised landópromised to them through Abraham centuries ago).

The DVD distorts the meaning of the Doctrine and Covenants when it insists that because the Nephites had a land of promise and the Saints in Missouri had a land of promise, that they must be one and the same. This can’t be the case, because those same Saints also received other lands of promise, as taught by the prophets. The DVD might as well insist that because Israel has a promised land in the Middle East, the Nephites couldn’t have another promised land in the Americas.

It is now time to abandon the “chain” metaphor entirelyóonly three links in and it is falling apart.

Ether and the New Jerusalem on “This Land”

The DVD presents Ether’s prophecy of the New Jerusalem being built on “this land” and equates this location with the eastern United States. This is a tautology, or circular reasoning. Here is why.

Meldrum asks viewers to presume that the prophet Ether is standing somewhere near the Great Lakes when he refers to “this land.” Well, of course, if one presumes that is where he was, the result follows. If one presumes that he was standing in Santa Fe when he spoke, then the Southwest could be “this land.” If he was standing in Key West when he spoke… well, you get the point. The leaders of the Church don’t engage in faulty logic, as this premise does. They have considered all the Americas to be the land of promise.

A Choice Land

The DVD presentation uses the term “choice land” in a very unusual way to refer to the United States: a “land where people would choose to live.”29 This definition acts as if there is nowhere else where one might choose to live. But, there are people who choose to live in many different places, such as Brazil, the Philippines, Italy, or Japan. This definition risks offending them all, since it implies that no one would “choose” to live anywhere but the United States. Such a view is hardly compatible with our international Church, whose leaders have repeatedly encouraged members to choose to stay and raise their families in their country of origin—to build up Zion where they are. “Choice,” rather, means “select, precious, very valuable.”30

You have already seen that according to many Church leaders “land” does not mean a small area or a particular nation-state. The leaders cited earlier applied claims about the choice land to all of North and South America. If this is the case, then the LNAM’s claim is useless for establishing a Book of Mormon geography more precisely than the Western Hemisphere.

The United States of America is one of God’s gifts to mankind. It is a land of great value, and its liberties are precious beyond measure. It is the chosen home of millions, and millions more would like to call it home. But that is not the point when we are considering claims about where in the New World the Book of Mormon events took place.

Meldrum’s argument hinges on the claim that the United States is all that is referred by the Book of Mormon phrase “this choice land.” Restricting the label to just the United States, as we have seen, is not acceptable to the prophets and apostles. And it is easy to understand why—because the scriptures don’t teach it. For example, one of the most easily misunderstood passages in the Book of Mormon is the following:

And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. (1 Nephi 13:12, emphasis added)

The same chapter that talks about “this land” describes someone generally interpreted as Christopher Columbus as “discovering” America.31 Many people do not realize it, but when we say that Columbus discovered “America” we do not mean the United States of America. History shows that Columbus never made it even as far north as Mexico; he first made landfall in what is now the Bahamas.32

So, 1 Nephi 13:12 cannot be talking about just the United States, because some of the lands discussed cannot be the United States. Of course the United States is included in these promises, and as the cradle of the Restoration is one of the choice parts of the choice lands. The choice lands, as the prophets and apostles have taught, occupy most or all of the hemisphere—not because people choose to live there (though they do), but because they are precious.

In the same chapter of the Book of Mormon, the Gentiles are described as fighting against “their mother Gentiles.” Members of the Church in the United States properly see the American Revolution as a fulfillment of this prophecy. But that is not the whole story. In the entire western hemisphere, every single nation except what is now Canada had to fight a war for its independence from European monarchsóand even Canada did not achieve complete independence from the British crown until 1969. Thus, the fulfillment of what Nephi saw is applicable across the entire hemisphere, not just in the United States. http://www.fairmormon.org/reviews-of-dn ... -scripture" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[livy111us]

Also, this study just came out a few days ago. It shows that Joseph Smith is the author of the September/October 1842 Times and Seasons which places The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.
http://publications.maxwellinstitute.by ... 0Ruins.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They conclude from years of research using the latest technology on stylometric and word print studies that Joseph Smith wrote many statements like this "Central America, or Guatimala [sic], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.—The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma"

Conclusion of the study
"Our analysis suggests that the editorials on the Central America ruins and the Book of Mormon, published during Joseph Smith's tenure as editor of the Times and Seasons show a strong alignment with his personal writing style and the editorials to which he signed his name. Consequently, the evidence points to Joseph Smith as the author of the Central America editorials. Even if the Central America editorials were a collaborative work, that still does not reduce the authoritative nature of the statements in the articles since Joseph clearly stated that he took full responsibility for what was published in the paper under his editorship. So, whether he penned the words in their entirety or only partially or even not at all, he authorized the publication of the words and thereby made them his own, since he stated about the content of the paper 'I alone stand for it.' Claims that Joseph Smith was unaware of what was written in the Central America editorials, or what he considered their geographical opinions and interpretations to be inconsistent with his revelations, is not sustained by the historical and stylometric evidence."

[bobhenstra]

APRIL 12, 2014

An email got sent to me the other day, I think by mistake, from the Heartland organization. It was glossy and colorful and obviously done by a professional (unlike the amateurish stuff we do). The headline had to do with a point (yes, just one) that had been found on the surface of the New York Hill Cumorah recently and the byline was that the "Hill continues to produce artifacts." This jogged my memory about an article which is on our website entitled Looking for Artifacts at New York's Hill Cumorah http://www.bmaf.org/node/332" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The following account of artifact hunting in the fields surrounding Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York, is from a letter by Langdon Smith of New Haven, Vermont, and addressed to John E. Clark, professor of anthropology at Brigham Young University and director of the BYU New World Archaeological Foundation, based in Chiapas, Mexico. The letter has been slightly edited and is used with the author's permission. Mr. Smith wrote the letter in response to Dr. Clark's article "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions" (JBMS 13/1—2, 2004), which presents evidence that the archaeology of New York does not support the idea that Book of Mormon peoples lived in that region or that New York's Hill Cumorah was the scene of the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites. —Ed.

On my dairy farm in Vermont in the mid-1950s, while harrowing in the spring, I saw a black, pointed object. It was a black chert "knife." Wow! I have always been interested in historical things. So I looked all around, but that was it. Several years ago I found another point. My farm efforts were winding down, so I had more time to look.

Since retiring, I have worked on some state site digs with professionals. By myself I have also found over 378 new Native American sites, obtaining Vermont State site numbers for all of them. I have made out all the required survey forms and sent the relevant information to the state offices.

At this time, I have close to 5,000 arrowheads with all the other tools—bifaces, preforms, knives, scrapers, and so on. Altogether I have 17,000 pieces. Each piece has been traced, with the site number and catalog numbers painted on. Maps are made of each site with X marks locating where each piece was found.

In working with the state, I get to see things that I'm probably not supposed to see—like a New York State site map. Around Syracuse and the areas in eastern New York State there are many sites recorded, as there are around and south of Rochester in western New York. But around the Hill Cumorah area, the closest site numbers are about 60 miles away.

Wherever early American sites are, collectors will find them, plowed fields being the best place to look. Having been to the Hill Cumorah Pageant at other times, I knew that there were plowed fields nearby. Since I had the experience of searching and finding sites, my interest in finding sites of possible Nephite/Lamanite arrowheads was high. There were also stories of how Brother Willard Bean found arrowheads by the basketful around the hill and sold them to tourists. If battles took place at the hill, and a lot of people took part—everything sounds about right—the area should be covered with all kinds of artifacts.

I have made the seven-hour drive twice in the past few years. Both times I traveled to Palmyra during the early planting season—fields just plowed and harrowed, following a good rain to wash the dirt off any artifacts. There are some areas that are not plowed and cannot easily be hunted, including the seating area west of the hill and the car parking area on the west side of the highway. North of the hill there is a gully going west to east with trees growing along it, circling from west of the road past the north end of the hill to the east side. Along the whole east side of the hill is a large plowed field. To the north of the gully with trees is the farm that is owned by the Clark family. They have several plowed fields in the area.

Arriving at Cumorah, I have asked workers on the grounds around the visitors' center and people inside the center about arrowheads. Their comments were: "Oh yes, people find them around here all the time." I would ask, "Have you found any yourself?" "Well, no." "Do you know anyone who has found some?" "No." "Have you seen any actual pieces found by others?" "No."

I have walked to the big meadow east of the hill. I have searched it thoroughly. I was thinking, "There have to be remains here, but where?" No artifacts—not even flint chips of any kind. So I went north to the Clark farm. I stopped and asked the owner's wife if I could walk over the corn field. "What are you looking for?" "Looking for arrowheads—is it okay?" "Well, sure." "You must get pestered a lot by people wanting to go out there looking around." "We've been here over 40 years, and you're the first to come and ask to hunt for arrowheads."

If there are artifacts out there, collectors will find them, and they and their friends will be all over that area. The Clarks' fields yielded the same as the one east of the hill: not one single arrowhead and not one single piece of flint chipping. Crisscrossing all those plowed fields, which are hundreds of acres, I found no evidence of any kind. If a large group of people came to this hill and had a big battle, they would have been making and sharpening more tools—artifacts. If there are no arrowheads, what about all of the broken pieces, the chips, the flakes—leftovers from making and sharpening? Some of these pieces would be smaller than a little fingernail. Where are these pieces? People do not generally pick up this trash.

Before my first trip to Palmyra, I received the name from a friend of a Mr. J. Sheldon Fisher, who lived in the small town of Fishers, about 10 miles southwest of the hill (he passed away in 2002). He owned what is called the Valentown Museum. The museum barn has one floor devoted to early American artifacts; the second floor is full of all types of antiques. He was a great historian of the happenings down through time in that area. He supplied most of the early-1800s furniture used in the area's visitors' centers. There was an article about him in the 3 March 2001 Church News on his finds about an old Brigham Young home (Shaun D. Stahle, "Excavating Brigham Young's mill site"). He worked as a professional archaeologist for the state of New York for over 30 years. So he knew what he was doing.

He said that he had a standing agreement with all of the bulldozer and backhoe people in the county. They would call him when they were about to start jobs in the area. Many times, he said, "I'd beat them to the site—I'd get there before they would." He always watched the soil as they dug it or pushed it around. But he never found any artifacts of any kind. I have spent evenings on both trips to Palmyra talking with him about the area and its history. His comment on my last trip was, "Oh, I hope this doesn't shake your faith." I answered, "No, it doesn't. The Church is still true. The Book of Mormon is true. And those plates came out of that hill. 'The battle'—well, it must have been at some other hill."

* * * * * *

The BMAF Facebook site now has almost 1200 members. The site has only been up for 6 months and enjoys a robust participation from members all over the world. You can see it at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/bmaf.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

* * * * * *

A meeting of the board of directors of BMAF was held Thursday, April 10th. A new president was selected to replace our beloved Stephen Carr who passed away earlier this year. Doug Christensen will fill this position. Plans were begun for our 12th annual Book of Mormon Lands conference. Potential speakers were discussed. Though an exact date was not selected yet, it will be in October, 2014 and will be held at the Sheraton Hotel in Salt Lake City, Utah. Prices will remain the same as in 2013.

* * * * * * *

Articles published to the BMAF website (http://www.bmaf.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) since our last email:


The Role of Cyclical Fatalism Among the Maya http://www.bmaf.org/node/386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kinderhook Plates a hoax http://www.bmaf.org/node/396#overlay-context" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Names and Maya Glyphs http://www.bmaf.org/articles/names_maya ... ay-context" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Book of Mormon and Archaeology http://www.bmaf.org/node/399#overlay-context=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oldest Known Pyramid Tomb in Central America Continues to Fascinate http://www.bmaf.org/node/401#overlay-context=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bob

[andsmith0723]

The Meso American model is a dead end. I've debated this several times and honestly don't feel it's even worth re-debating. I guess because the history of the BOM and the nephite/lamanite influence is dispersed all over North and South America it's easy to make conclusions suited to your paradigm. The difference to me however is the evidence in the BOM its self. I know that it had to have taken place (mostly) in the heartland and America. The spirit has testified of it to me and it is illogical to see it any other way.

[bobhenstra]

The heartland model is a dead end. I've debated this several times and honestly don't feel it's even worth re-debating. I guess because the history of the BOM and the nephite/lamanite influence is dispersed all over North and South America it's easy to make conclusions suited to your paradigm. The difference to me however is the evidence in the BOM its self. I know that it had to have taken place in Southern Mexico and Central America. The spirit has testified of it to me and it is illogical to see it any other way.

Bob

[bobhenstra]

Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum
9:00 AM (8 hours ago)

to bmaf




JUNE, 2014

John Sorenson, at our BMAF conference in 2013, handed to me after the conference was over a list he had quickly written on a piece of scrap paper and requested that we put it on our website. Here it is:


"A Whole Bunch of Reasons Why Book of Mormon Geography Could Not Have Included North America"http://www.bmaf.org/.../bunch_reasons_not_include_north...


1. The “promised land” occupied by the Nephites was characterized for many centuries as an area of “civilization.” As indicated by archaeology and related studies, no place in North America in the period of Book of Mormon history contained any cultures at the level of “civilization.”

2. The population of Book of Mormon lands over much of the period of its history totaled from hundreds of thousands up to millions. The areas of North America touted as occupied by Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites cannot be shown from objective evidence to have been anywhere near that level.

3. Many “cities” and even “great cities” are reported by the Nephite record between 1500 BC and AD 400. Not a single such city has been documented in North America in that period.

4. Intensive agriculture is indicated as the economic means of support, according to the record. Agriculture only on a limited scale was employed by inhabitants of North America before AD 400.

5. Multiple kinds of grains were cultivated by the Nephites as their subsistence mainstay.
In the Book of Mormon period, as far as is known, only limited grain crops of corn/maize were cultivated in North America.

6. “Flocks” and “herds” were raised at times by the Nephites and Jaredites (at least). There is absolutely no evidence for any degree of animal husbandry in ancient North America.

7. Many major public buildings, many of them of a religious nature, are referred to in the scripture as characteristic of their settlements. In the Book of Mormon period there is no evidence of any such structures in North America.

8. Major wars were fought among Book of Mormon peoples for well over 1,000 years; they involved over hundreds of thousands of combatants. In North America in the relevant period there is no evidence of warfare on any significant scale.

9. Swords and “cimeters” (scimitars) are particularly referred to as weapons in the Book of Mormon period. Neither in archaeology or art are any such weapons identified in North American cultures.

10. Armor and shields also were in common use according to the record. Evidence for those features is also entirely lacking in North America before AD 400.

11. Large-scale fortifications (of particular types) are described as being used by Book of Mormon peoples, but those types, nor in fact any such large-scale defensive structures, are not known in North America in Book of Mormon times.

12. Roads and highways were described by the Nephite record as being built near the time of Christ. North American archaeology reveals nothing of the sort.

13. “Towers,” obviously tall, bulky structures of earth or stone, were features in some Book of Mormon cities. Such constructions were absent before AD 400 in North America.

14. People of Book of Mormon areas were frequently literate, in fact several scripts are reported. No North American cultures have been shown to have had any system of writing whatsoever.

15. At least the Nephites are said to have possessed “many” books covering many subjects. No ancient North American books at all are evidenced.

16. The Nephites followed several different calendar systems. In North America even a single calendar is only uncertainly known.

17. According to the Nephite record several kinds of metals were worked in the original settlement areas (land of Nephi and Jaredite areas). No true metallurgy is evidenced in North America during the Book of Mormon era.

18. A substantial number of priests, prophets, and other occupational specialists (including “thousands” of idle people in the land of Zarahemla—Alma 60: 22) are mentioned. No more than a mere handful of (“idle”) people occupying specialist roles are in evidence in any ancient culture in North America.

19. There is no mention nor even hint of cold, snow or ice in the Book of Mormon account of its peoples. In the Great Lakes or Prairie regions winter storms are and were so common that it is unthinkable that they would not be a prominent mentioned feature of the climate.

20. It is obvious from the description of the great catastrophe at the crucifixion of the Savior that volcanism must be involved as a natural cause (of at least the “darkness”). In eastern North America that is out of the question; there are no volcanoes there.

21. The river Sidon is a major drainage feature that runs hundreds of miles from south to north from the highlands of the land of Nephi through the “narrow strip of wilderness” past Manti and Zarahemla to the sea. No river in North America even remotely qualifies.

22. The battle of Alma’s Nephite army on the riverbank (Alma 2) has them wade across the river Sidon to battle a combined Lamanite/Amlicite force. The idea of wading across the Mississippi is obviously absurd.

23. The Lehite party in their ship landed on the shore of the (west) sea in the “land of first inheritance” (Alma 22: 28). Any attempt to make that point anywhere but on the Pacific coast of North America requires fantastic twisting of the obvious meaning of the distances and other geographical language.

23. From the borders of the (immediate) land of Nephi to Zarahemla via the waters of Mormon, land of Helam and valley of Alma, took Alma’s party about 21 days. No plausible rate of travel can make that distance more than 250 miles. No suggested “Nephi” to “Zarahemla” distance in North America comes close to that.

24. The land of Zarahemla is said to be “nearly surrounded by water” (i.e., seas). No North American geography qualifies.

25. The land northward supported a population of millions (Ether 15: 2) in late Jaredite times. Not only is it manifestly absurd that any “land northward” around the Great Lakes, given the climatic conditions there, could have supported even one-hundredth as many people, but also the archaeology of that region shows only a tiny fraction of the history’s stated number ever to have dwelt there, let alone in Jaredite times when no one lived there but a few hunting tribes.

26. Book of Mormon references allow that the “narrow pass” or “narrow passage” between the lands northward and southward was within the narrow neck of land and constitute the sole feasible way for large parties to go northward/southward. No North American geographical arrangement comes close to such an arrangement.

27. The hill Ramah/Cumorah of the Book of Mormon lay north of the narrow pass/neck, yet the hill in New York state is not so situated.

28. King Limhi’s exploring party (sent from the land of Nephi to find Zarahemla) traversed the narrow neck/narrow pass without even realizing it, for they returned having been to the final Jaredite battleground (at hill Ramah) but supposed that they had only found the ruins of Zarahemla. Anywhere in North America this is impossible.

29. The kingdom dominated by the Lamanite king (Alma 22: 27) extended from east sea to the west sea. No North American correlation comes close to fitting with those conditions.

30. The hill Cumorah in New York could not plausibly have been a refuge for the 23 survivors of the final battle who were found atop it on the day after the great battle. Had they so much as sneezed their presence would have been detected by the Lamanites.

31. Had New York’s hill been the site of the final battle, the 230,000 Nephite dead (not to mention a large number of Lamanite dead—up to half a million total corpses) would have left behind

A Whole Bunch of Reasons Why Book of Mormon Geography Could Not Have Included North America |...
http://www.bmaf.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Asi digo yo!

Bob

[bobhenstra]

JULY, 2014


Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum

The Olmec

The average latter-day saint knows somewhat about the Maya, the Aztecs and maybe the Olmec, but by and large knowledge about the Olmec is scant. Which is interesting because the most convincing way to locate the Nephites is to study the Olmec!

The Olmec are thought to be the 'mother culture' of Mesoamerica, because of the great influence that they exercised throughout the region. Bearers of Olmec culture arrived at the Gulf of Mexico shore some eight thousand years BCE, entering like a wedge among the fringe of proto-Maya (mostly hunter-gatherers) peoples who lived along the coast.

The Olmec culture represents a milestone of Mesoamerican history, in that various characteristics that define the region first appeared there. Among them are the state organization, the development of the 260-day ritual calendar and the 365-day secular calendar, the first writing system, and urban planning. The development of this culture started around the 1500 BC, though it continued to consolidate itself up to the 1200 BC. Its principal sites were LaVenta,San Lorenzo, and Tres Zapotes in the core homeland region. However, throughout Mesoamerica numerous sites show evidence of Olmec occupation, some quite far distant from the homeland. Among the best-known expressions of Olmec culture are giant stone heads, sculptured monoliths up to three metres in height and several tons in weight. These feats of Olmec stonecutting are especially impressive when one considers that Mesoamericans lacked iron tools and that the heads are at sites dozens of kilometers from the quarries where their basalt was mined. The function of these monuments is unknown. Some authors propose that they were commemorative monuments for notable players of the ballgame, and others that they were images of the Olmec governing elite, perhaps collected by victors of war.





The Book of Mormon tells the story of three groups of people who were moved by the Lord to the American Continent.

Chronologically, the first group is the Jaredites, whose record is tightly summarized in the tiny book of Ether. But from this little book there is much to glean, spiritually as well as physically. We know they were brought to this continent sometime after the Tower of Babel, estimates rangesAmong the best-known expressions of Olmec culture are giant stone heads, sculptured monoliths up to three metres in height and several tons in weight. These feats of Olmec stonecutting are especially impressive when one considers that Mesoamericans lacked iron tools and that the heads are at sites dozens of kilometers from the quarries where their basalt was mined. The function of these monuments is unknown. Some authors propose that they were commemorative monuments for notable players of the ballgame, and others that they were images of the Olmec governing elite, perhaps collected by victors of war.





The Jaredites arrived sometime after the Tower of Babel, estimated from sometime between 2500 BC and1500 BC. The most likely place on the entire continent where the Jaredites settled was in the Gulf of Mexico, near or amongst the Olmec people. Archaeologists and anthropologists agree that the Olmec experienced a rather sudden explosion of their culture and technology, a phenomenon that would require the invasion or joining of a more advanced culture.

We know the Jaredites were literate, only the Olmec were literate at this time. We know the Olmec had constant civil wars and eventually self-imploded, exactly as described in the Book of Mormon. Most LDS scholars agree that the Olmec either are the Jaredites, or were joined by them or lived amongst them.










These charts prepared by John Clark of BYU show the correlation of the Jaredites and Olmec. Assuming they are the same or at least associated, locating the Nephites become easy due to:

1. Both Jaredites and Nephites fought their last battle on the same hill, (Ether 15:11) called Ramah by the Jaredites and Cumorah by the Nephites. This means they both lived in the same general area. The suggestion that the Nephites travelled from Mesoamerica to have their last battle in upstate New York is awkward if not impossible.

2. Both cultures lived in a warm to semi-tropical climate. Doing battle in Buffalo, New York in winter, dressed in a loincloth would produce a lot of frozen Lamanites.

3. Many similar cultural attributes including names passed from the Jaredites to the Nephites. (Mormon, Moroni, etc.)

4. The Limhi expedition, though lost, stumbled into the Land of Cumorah which had to be within a few days' distance.

(Be sure to check out the BMAF Facebook site where you can post material, ask questions and mingle with other folks who love the Book of Mormon)

[bobhenstra]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152431.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VERY INTERESTING FIND WE ALL KNEW WOULD EVENTUALLY HAPPEN!

Bob

[Kbillallen]

Don't get me wrong, I believe Dr. Sorensen is very smart but that list of 31 items is ridiculous.

Kind of like spending 10000 of words to prove that because other non-nephite civilizations in South America had a written language (even though it is not the one we are looking for- reformed Egyptian) that proves anything.

Most can be easily refuted by non-Mormon sources. Like number twenty two. First read Alma 22:28 to see the misquote ( it doesn't say the west sea). Then do a search on the internet where the actual journey was duplicated to go around the Horn of Africa into currents that go to the gulf of Mexico although Actual trip did not go there. And they could stop for supplies at known ports. Using primitive vessels. See Phoenician Ship Expedition.

So no so un-plausible -- they actually proved it was possible -- then normal shipping routes to the America could be used.

Number 30 is hilarious. 23 people who were being hunted to extermination could not hide. It could never happen. I guess it is also not possible that gold plates could be hidden there.

How about 1 item that proves MesoAmerica could not be the location.
Consider the Law of Moses and the requirements of the Nephites to live it per Leviticus and Exodus (barley, wheat, corn, grapes, oxen, doves, goats, rams, sheep especially lambs, 7 day calendars for the Sabbath day, stone alters using uncut stones, ramps instead of steps to alters) none of which are found in MesoAmerica but are found where Joseph Smith said they lamanites were a few months before he was killed (nod to Amberli Nelson-for awesome ideas on this).

Just goes to show what happens when emotions get involved.

I must admit I am guilty of this too -- often.

Bob I understand you are a guru here and I respect most of what you say, but did you just bear a 'mocking' testimony by throwing andsmith's words back in his face? Not cool dude.

As for where Zarahemla is see D&C125 (maybe)?

Just saying that list needs some work.....

[DPeterson]

Yeah, didn't happen in Meso-America. The Book of Mormon says so. ;)

[bobhenstra]

Don't get me wrong, I believe Dr. Sorensen is very smart but that list of 31 items is ridiculous.

Kind of like spending 10000 of words to prove that because other non-nephite civilizations in South America had a written language (even though it is not the one we are looking for- reformed Egyptian) that proves anything.

Most can be easily refuted by non-Mormon sources. Like number twenty two. First read Alma 22:28 to see the misquote ( it doesn't say the west sea). Then do a search on the internet where the actual journey was duplicated to go around the Horn of Africa into currents that go to the gulf of Mexico although Actual trip did not go there. And they could stop for supplies at known ports. Using primitive vessels. See Phoenician Ship Expedition.

So no so un-plausible -- they actually proved it was possible -- then normal shipping routes to the America could be used.

Number 30 is hilarious. 23 people who were being hunted to extermination could not hide. It could never happen. I guess it is also not possible that gold plates could be hidden there.

How about 1 item that proves MesoAmerica could not be the location.
Consider the Law of Moses and the requirements of the Nephites to live it per Leviticus and Exodus (barley, wheat, corn, grapes, oxen, doves, goats, rams, sheep especially lambs, 7 day calendars for the Sabbath day, stone alters using uncut stones, ramps instead of steps to alters) none of which are found in MesoAmerica but are found where Joseph Smith said they lamanites were a few months before he was killed (nod to Amberli Nelson-for awesome ideas on this).

Just goes to show what happens when emotions get involved.

I must admit I am guilty of this too -- often.

Bob I understand you are a guru here and I respect most of what you say, but did you just bear a 'mocking' testimony by throwing andsmith's words back in his face? Not cool dude.

As for where Zarahemla is see D&C125 (maybe)?

Just saying that list needs some work.....

John's list is dead on. Even you could find only a few your understanding disagrees with. As for sheep, which includes rams BTW, I give you the modern day dispersal (A map)of sheep into Mexico;
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/a ... orn-sheep/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And their ancient dispersal into Mexico
March 24th 2014
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... and-132143" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Genetic analysis of ancient poop found off the coast of Mexico suggests bighorn sheep may be native to Tiburón Island, the largest island in the Gulf of California and Mexico.
Bighorn sheep were not thought to inhabit Tiburón Island prior to their introduction in 1975 but scientists discovered fossilized dung in the mountains of Tiburón Island that challenges that assumption. Scientists compared the pellet-shaped poop to fecal pellets of other large mammals and extracted DNA to sequence and determine the origin.
Carbon dating suggests the poop originated from 1470-1630 years ago. Genetic analysis confirmed that the dung belonged to bighorn sheep, similar to those found in southern Arizona and California, but different from the extant Tiburón population. 

The identification of ancient bighorn sheep on the island that the species was native to Tiburón Island.
"This finding raises a host of fascinating questions", says Wilder, "Are bighorn sheep on Tiburón Island a restoration or a biological invasion? This extended biological baseline confirms that the Tiburón bighorn sheep went extinct before. 

Given the cultural and conservation significance of the unintentionally rewilded population, actions can be taken to avoid the same fate."
The authors suggest that native desert bighorn sheep may have previously colonized this island when lower sea levels connected Tiburón to the mainland, most likely during the Pleistocene. They were likely eliminated within in the last ~1500 years, probably due to inherent dynamics of isolated populations, prolonged drought, or human overkill.

And, as my post above speaks of elephants, elephants were also in Mesoamerica. Now, if you didn't see that, please read more carefully! But just in case you find it disagreeable to search back I have placed it here for you to read:

"Although humans were known to have hunted gomphotheres in Central America and South America, this is the first time a human-gomphothere connection has been made in North America, says archaeologist Vance Holliday, who co-authored a new paper on the findings, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences"

As to the rest of your objections please read here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml#fig" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you wish to challenge science, please do so!

As to Smith's testimony, he shared his with me, I shared mine with him, that's all it was!

Bob

[bobhenstra]

Yeah, didn't happen in Meso-America. The Book of Mormon says so. ;)

I know, I know, it all happened in Albertsons Stadium, I get it, I understand 8-|

[Kbillallen]

Wow posted reply but lost it.

I can refute all the items in the list with science but that has already been done and rejected by you as easy answers from unbiased, non-Mormon sources. I refer to his as a ridiculist because they are too easy to refute.

I will challenge your science but first two items to clear up.
What are you doing up at this hour? Second are you proposing a Mexican civilization as the Nephites? Time frames don't work out.

Also, the law of Moses was fulfilled in around 33AD. Your off by 1000 years and in the wrong place. It had to be 590 BC. Wrong poop in the wrong place. (This could easily degrade quickly, with different words, unless these are fossilized).

As you say, is that the only one you can try? Note I will reread the law of Moses for an elephant reference I seemed to have missed.

Why even talk about irrelevant poop (pun intended).
That is like saying that since we have wine in Antarctica today then the Olmecs could have had wine like The Lord commanded.

As for the your testimony, I understood your point that you have an opposite view, but I have seen a similar reaction by scholars to a testimony and since you used someone else's words rather than your own forgive me if I am skeptical that yours was a sincere testimony versus a snooty reply.

[DPeterson]

Yeah, didn't happen in Meso-America. The Book of Mormon says so. ;)

I know, I know, it all happened in Albertsons Stadium, I get it, I understand 8-|

Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere. All the best things happen in Bronco Stadium (can't say Albertson's).

[bobhenstra]

Wow posted reply but lost it.

I can refute all the items in the list with science but that has already been done and rejected by you as easy answers from unbiased, non-Mormon sources. I refer to his as a ridiculist because they are too easy to refute.

I will challenge your science but first two items to clear up.
What are you doing up at this hour? Second are you proposing a Mexican civilization as the Nephites? Time frames don't work out.

Also, the law of Moses was fulfilled in around 33AD. Your off by 1000 years and in the wrong place. It had to be 590 BC. Wrong poop in the wrong place. (This could easily degrade quickly, with different words, unless these are fossilized).

As you say, is that the only one you can try? Note I will reread the law of Moses for an elephant reference I seemed to have missed.

Why even talk about irrelevant poop (pun intended).
That is like saying that since we have wine in Antarctica today then the Olmecs could have had wine like The Lord commanded.

As for the your testimony, I understood your point that you have an opposite view, but I have seen a similar reaction by scholars to a testimony and since you used someone else's words rather than your own forgive me if I am skeptical that yours was a sincere testimony versus a snooty reply.

What a rambling reply, I refuse to argue with people like you, you make absolutely no sense! All your answers are on the site I gave you, if you refuse to check there and ponder and pray about the answers, then it's all on you! Good luck!

The Book of Mormon world happened in Mesoamerica!

Bob

[Kbillallen]

Let me say this a bit more plain.

Your example of poop was 1000 years off of the correct time frame. Lehi came to promised land in 590 BC. Your example was, at the earliest 400 AD. Simple enough.

It was strange for you even to bring up a instance that was not applicable to the point you were trying to make -- that Mexican Nephites had Sheep in the 590 BC to 33/34AD timeframe.

[bobhenstra]

JULY 24, 2014 Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum



(1) According to Reynolds and Sjodahl, the name "Nephi" means "prophet," one who speaks for God. Elder George Reynolds apparently traced this name to an Egyptian root. (George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol 1, p. 3]

(2) Some believe that it comes from Egypt. If the name is Egyptian, the cultural ties between Egypt and Israel would have made the name a familiar one in the Israel of Lehi.

Wells Jakeman notes that in his tomb, Seti I is depicted as a young man wearing two ears of wheat or barley upon his head, "both 'N(e)pri' and 'N(e)pi' are recorded in hieroglyphics by his head, the latter form immediately under or following the former. "Nepri" or "Nepi" was the name of the Egyptian grain god. "In ancient Egyptian 'r' was a weak consonant, susceptible to change, or else to the complete omission of a recorded sound. . . . The "p" in Egyptian forms was often pronounced with aspirate following (i.e. as 'ph'), . . . indicated by ancient foreign renderings of Egyptian names containing 'p.'" Jakeman then gives some examples of how this rule applies a number of words, including the word we pronounce as "Pharaoh": Egyptian--P[e]raa, Greek--Pharao. Jakeman thus concludes that "the name Nephi (very probably--as pointed out above--pronounced "Nephee," with the ph an aspirate p rather than an f) is Lehi's rendering of the Egyptian name of the personification or god of grain in Egyptian belief. . . . The Egyptian name N(e)pi would not improbably have been pronounced and written by the Israelite Lehi and his people of the Book of Mormon as N(e)phi; and therefore constitutes a completely acceptable etymology for the name of Lehi's son." [Wells Jakeman, Stela 5, Izapa, pp. 40-41]

(3) John Gee proposes that "the name 'Nephi' is an attested Syro-Palestinian Semitic form of an attested Egyptian man's name dating from the Late Period in Egypt," and that because of these findings, "we can make a guess at the pronunciation of the name Nephi. Most European and Latin American Latter-day Saints are already pronouncing the name more or less correctly as nefi (neh/fee) . . . rather than the current 'nee-fie.' Nevertheless, the standard English pronunciation has a venerable history, and even this writer will probably continue to use it." [John Gee, "A Note on the Name of Nephi" inJournal of Book of Mormon Studies, Fall 1992, F.A.R.M.S., p. 191] [See also the commentary on 1 Nephi 18:7.]

Lynn and Hope Hilton write that a name similar to "Nephi" is used twice in the Hebrew text of the Bible. Nephilim, translated as "giants," is found in Genesis 6:4 ("There were giants in the earth in those days") and in Numbers 13:33, referring to the "giant" inhabitants of Canaan seen by the spies sent by Moses. In addition, there are two references in the Apocrypha:

2 Maccabees 1:36. This chapter is the source of the story of the fire of the temple altar in Jerusalem, which fire was carried to Babylon by the priests of Aaron during the captivity of the Jews in 586 B.C. This fire was miraculously restored by the prophet Nehemiah (Neemias) when the king of Persia allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Nehemiah called the miraculous "kindling of the great fire" from heaven and the consuming of the sacrifice "Napthar, which is as much as to say a cleansing; but many men call it Nephi."

1 Esdras 5:21. This is the record of Darius, King of Persia, sending nearly 50,000 Jews from Babylon back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. Two of the 123 families (tribes) listed are "Sons of Nephis" with 156 men and "Sons of Nephisi" [number not specified].

Thus it seems safe to say that when Lehi named his son Nephi, he was using a local Hebrew or Jewish name for his son, and not an Egyptian one, as some have proposed. It seems that the root name Nephi was in common usage among the Jews in Lehi's time. Also, when you look in the Jeddah phone book today, you find no fewer than 27 families with the name of "al-Nafi" (Nephi). [Lynn M. Hilton and Hope A. Hilton, Discovering Lehi, pp. 91-92]

Note* If the great fire of the temple represents the presence of the Lord, and if we associate the name Nephi with the reference in 2 Maccabees 1:36, does the name Nephi represent one who has that presence constantly with him? And does the name Nephi represent the power of the Lord sufficient to establish or reestablish the covenant order found within the temple walls? [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes]

Second Maccabees of the Apocrypha, Chapter 1 verses 33-36 describes the return of the faithful to clean out the Temple to initiate Temple use during the time of the Priest Nehemiah (Neemias in Greek). According to Randolph Linehan, in an 1880's edition of the KingJames Bible published by Cranston & Stowe in Chicago there are some commentary notes on this verse. It is stated that in some versions, Nephi is called Naphtha: pure colorless oil which was very rare and found only in certain seeps in Arabia. Some versions call the substance water (not liquid) and the process nephthar: ritual cleansing, which would be the meaning for the colloquial noun Nephi.

The gist of this is that the sacred fire, which was buried by Jeremiah had turned into a sacred water (liquid) when the exiles returned to Jerusalem in 560 B.C., looking for the temple ark, fire, and instruments. The cleansing of the initial temple sacrifices with the liquid was known colloquially as Nephi, and this took place only 40 years or so after Nephi left "the land of Jerusalem. [As noted in George Potter & Richard Wellington, Discovering The Lehi-Nephi Trail, Unpublished Manuscript (July 2000), pp. 302-303]

Note* The Illustrated Bible Dictionary cites the date for the return of the Jews as 537 B.C.,31 which makes 60 years or more from the time Lehi left Jerusalem. For the benefit of the many readers who do not have access to the Apocrypha, I will give the full text because I think the concepts therein are worthy of attention as they relate to the name Nephi. Special note should be taken that the name Nephi is here associated with temple cleansing. I would prefer to also associate temple cleansing with covenant renewal. When viewed in this historical context, the term Nephi is then associated with the restoration of the covenant process.

Nephi was the major compiler and original author of the small plates of Nephi (see 2 Nephi 5:28-31). Mormon was the major abridger of the large plates of Nephi. Together these two sets of records, for the most part, constitute our present Book of Mormon. (see Words of Mormon 1:1-7)

Now with this in mind, it is interesting that we find Mormon was named after the land where the covenant was restored (3 Nephi 5:12; see also Alma 5:3), and this land had been given its name by the king (Mosiah 18:4). The record states that all Nephite kings took upon themselves the name Nephi "let them be of whatever name they would" (Jacob 1:10-11). The record also states that "it was the custom of the people of Nephi to call their lands . . . after the name of him who first possessed them" (Alma 8:7). Thus one might ask, Do the very names of Nephi and Mormon imply a restoration of the Lord's covenant process?

According to John Gee, the name "Nephi" might reflect connections between Egypt and Israel at his time. Three of the four etymologies proposed for the name Nephi are Egyptian; these are the Egyptian names Nfr "good,"32 Nfw "captain," and Nfy "wind."33 Gee rules out Nfy as a possibility since so far it has not been attested as a name in Egypt at any time period.34 For similar considerations he also rules out the fourth proposed etymology deriving from Akkadian napahu "to be kindled,"35 such as naphu "kindled,"36 niphu "rising,"37 and nappahu "smith,"38 none of which are used as personal names.39This leaves him with two suggestions: Nfr and Nfw.

According to Gee, the advantage that Nfr has over Nfw is that Nfr is actually attested at the right time,40 whereas Nfw is attested but not at the right time.41 As previously noted, neither Nfy nor forms of napahu are attested as names at any time. Thus one may confidently conclude, whether from Nfr orNfw, the name Nephi is an attested Egyptian name. [John Gee, "Four Suggestions on the Origin of the Name Nephi," in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, F.A.R.M.S., 1999, pp. 1-3]

According to Paul Hoskisson, there are six possible consonantal roots for the name Nephi that might conform to common Semitic noun pattern, however none of them seem to appear in Hebrew in any form that can be applied to the name Nephi. Although etymologies from Egyptian cannot be ruled out, a couple of possibilities exist in Ugaritic, a North-West Semitic language. Ugaritic is one of the better candidates because it is very closely related to Hebrew. The root npy, and np' are attested in Ugaritic. Ugaritic npy appears to mean "to expel, to drive away.42 It is not attested in any personal name, but the meaning could be something like "expelled one." This root may also be behind the personal name nfy found on inscriptions in the Arabian peninsula.43

The Ugaritic root np' could also yield Nephi. This root means "to flourish"44 and is probably related to an Arabic root meaning "to flourish." It would not be far afield to posit a meaning for the Name Nephi from this root, such as "increase [of God]." Thus an etymology for the name Nephi can be suggested as meaning "expelled one' or "increase." [Paul Y. Hoskisson, "What's in a Name? Nephi," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 9, Num. 2, 2000, pp. 64-65]

According to John Gee, the name "Nephi" might reflect connections between Egypt and Israel at his time. Three of the four etymologies proposed for the name Nephi are Egyptian; these are the Egyptian names Nfr "good,"32 Nfw "captain," and Nfy "wind."33 Gee rules out Nfy as a possibility since so far it has not been attested as a name in Egypt at any time period.34 For similar considerations he also rules out the fourth proposed etymology deriving from Akkadian napahu "to be kindled,"35 such as naphu "kindled,"36 niphu "rising,"37 and nappahu "smith,"38 none of which are used as personal names.39This leaves him with two suggestions: Nfr and Nfw.

According to Gee, the advantage that Nfr has over Nfw is that Nfr is actually attested at the right time,40 whereas Nfw is attested but not at the right time.41 As previously noted, neither Nfy nor forms of napahu are attested as names at any time. Thus one may confidently conclude, whether from Nfr orNfw, the name Nephi is an attested Egyptian name. [John Gee, "Four Suggestions on the Origin of the Name Nephi," in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, F.A.R.M.S., 1999, pp. 1-3]

According to Paul Hoskisson, there are six possible consonantal roots for the name Nephi that might conform to common Semitic noun pattern, however none of them seem to appear in Hebrew in any form that can be applied to the name Nephi. Although etymologies from Egyptian cannot be ruled out, a couple of possibilities exist in Ugaritic, a North-West Semitic language. Ugaritic is one of the better candidates because it is very closely related to Hebrew. The root npy, and np' are attested in Ugaritic. Ugaritic npy appears to mean "to expel, to drive away.42 It is not attested in any personal name, but the meaning could be something like "expelled one." This root may also be behind the personal name nfy found on inscriptions in the Arabian peninsula.43

The Ugaritic root np' could also yield Nephi. This root means "to flourish"44 and is probably related to an Arabic root meaning "to flourish." It would not be far afield to posit a meaning for the Name Nephi from this root, such as "increase [of God]." Thus an etymology for the name Nephi can be suggested as meaning "expelled one' or "increase." [Paul Y. Hoskisson, "What's in a Name? Nephi," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 9, Num. 2, 2000, pp. 64-65]

[bobhenstra]

Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum
1:16 AM (10 hours ago)

to bmaf


JULY, 2014


NEPHI AS KING
(from Step by Step Through the Book of Mormon by Alan Miner)


To those who have read the Book of Mormon more than once, the title "The First Book of Nephi, His Reign and Ministry" might appear puzzling because the association of Nephi with kingship is not mentioned until the fifth chapter of the Second Book of Nephi (2 Nephi 5:18). Furthermore the title of "The Second Book of Nephi" omits the phrase "His Reign and Ministry." One might ask, What is going on here?
According to a series of articles by Noel Reynolds, although Nephi testifies of Christ, the writings of Nephi can also be read in part as a political tract written to document the legitimacy of Nephi's rule:
Because Nephi's central purpose is to persuade readers to believe in Christ, he takes every opportunity, both between the lines and by direct statement, to mitigate the awkward fact that this teaching was coming from him as a younger brother, who by tradition could not easily claim the right to rule and teach the family (2 Nephi 5:3). Sobered by this formidable task, Nephi carefully employs every literary and rhetorical tool at his disposal to justify his position as the righteous and rightful leader of the group.

In order to set a historical perspective to his claim to leadership, Nephi includes several stories in 1 Nephi which illustrate the fact that God makes covenants with those who humbly seek him (more specifically Lehi & Nephi). And as they are obedient to those covenants in overcoming trials, the Lord chooses them to "reign" ("rule over") and "minister" to ("teach") [see 1 Nephi 2:16-24; 3:29] their brethren. Those who murmur and rebel (specifically Laman and Lemuel) against the chosen leaders of the Lord (Lehi and Nephi) lose the blessings passed down from those who "reign" and "minister" over them. The stories in 1 Nephi are as follows:
1. Nephi supports the prophet of God [Lehi] as he leads them into the wilderness and seeks to know the things of his father. (1 Nephi 1-2)
2. Nephi does the Lord's errand and obtains the word of God [the brass plates]. (1 Nephi 3-5) [see the chiastic analysis of 1 Nephi 3-5].
3. Nephi seeks Ishmael & his daughters that they might "raise up seed" unto the Lord. (1 Nephi 7)
4. Lehi's Tree-of-Life vision portends the future for his seed. Nephi partakes of the fruit; Laman & Lemuel don't. (1 Nephi 8)
5. Nephi seeks further light & knowledge regarding the vision of his father and his wish is granted. (1 Nephi 10-15)
6. Nephi becomes an instrument in the Lord's hands, being directed by Lehi & the Liahona in his search for life sustaining nourishment. (1 Nephi 16)
7. Directed by the Lord, Nephi constructs a vessel that will carry his family to the promised land. (1 Nephi 17) [See the chiastic analysis of 1 Nephi 17]
8. Despite the storms & forces destined to sink them or throw them off course, Nephi remains faithful and leads his family to the promised land. (1 Nephi 18)
9. Nephi teaches his brothers concerning the words of the prophets such as Moses, Isaiah, and Joseph. The reader should note that Nephi has structured his stories and writings so as to pattern his "reign" and "ministry" with the words and actions of those prophets (1 Nephi 19-22)
Thus Nephi's "reign" as well as his "ministry" began well before the time chronicled in Second Nephi when his people "would that [he] should be their king" (2 Nephi 5:18).

As for the reason Nephi wrote two books, Reynolds notes that although the narrative between the first and second books written by Nephi is continuous, Nephi chose to make a large structural break because the internal structure of 1 Nephi emphasizes its separate character as a single literary unit.
1 Nephi is not the travel diary of a youngster. Nor is it possibly a figment of young Joseph Smith's imagination. It is a highly complex and passionate account, purposefully written by a mature man of great culture and vision to defend those things that he believes most worth defending. Nephi's writings were composed at a time when Nephi could see the need to provide his people with an account that would explain, document and justify his ascent to leadership. For Nephi's people, his writings long served both as an extremely sophisticated political tract, as something of a founding constitution for the Nephite people, and as an elaborate and compelling witness of Jesus Christ. [Noel B. Reynolds, "The Political Dimension in Nephi's Small Plates," FARMS, 1987, 1-40; see also Reynolds, "Nephite Kingship Reconsidered," in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World, pp. 151-189; see also Noel B. Reynolds, "Nephi's Outline," BYU Studies 20 (winter 1980): 131-49, which is reprinted in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, 1982: reprint, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1996), 53-74.]

[samizdat]

Yeah, didn't happen in Meso-America. The Book of Mormon says so. ;)

I know, I know, it all happened in Albertsons Stadium, I get it, I understand 8-|

The Book of Mormon doesn't say if it happened in Mesoamerica, or in South America, or in New York, for that matter.

I have mostly been in favor of Mesoamerica but with influences both in North America and in South America.

It either began either in the two Californias or in Chile. I lean towards the latter.

[bobhenstra]

Yeah, didn't happen in Meso-America. The Book of Mormon says so. ;)

I know, I know, it all happened in Albertsons Stadium, I get it, I understand 8-|

The Book of Mormon doesn't say if it happened in Mesoamerica, or in South America, or in New York, for that matter.

I have mostly been in favor of Mesoamerica but with influences both in North America and in South America.

It either began either in the two Californias or in Chile. I lean towards the latter.

Must be, there sure are a lot of ancient writing proofs in California and Chile :)) :)) :)) Let's keep it real Sam, there has to be proof, just buildings, ruins are not proof! Writing, use of cement, examples already listed on this thread are proof!

Bob

[samizdat]

Started, Bob.

It finished in New York.

90 percent of it, in Mesoamerica.

I'm on your side here!