Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[rrosskopf]

Still does nothing to support your claims. You use it as a gap to hide in.

I'm not hiding in it at all. You demanded a reference, and I supplied it. I already acknowledged its limitations.

No one, as of yet, has proven that Isrealites couldn't have established a colony in America. DNA doesn't prove it. Meanwhile, Mayans, in their own history, claim to be Isrealites. The great flood and the tower of Babal are part of their history. They use the Egyptian cubit and the Babylonian cubit in their construction. Their pyramids have some similarity to those of Egypt. They had raised highways, cement buildings, kingdoms, thrones, towers and temples - all described in the Book of Mormon. Carved stella are also mentioned it the Book of Mormon, containing the history of kingdoms and wars. The culture of war and human sacrifice are strong themes in the Book of Mormon, and very accurate descriptions of the more wicked of the Maya. They practiced war to obtain prisoners, which they sacrificed to their gods, hoping to delay the end of times. Various tribes were pushed out of one area, only to take up residence elsewhere - as described in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes there were huge influxes of people, when volcanic eruptions made a place unlivable. They also believed in a Most High God, a God that was over every other God.

I'd like to be able to point to one artifact, something that said "Nephi slept here", or "Zerahemla, exit 10 Miles", but I can't. The discovery of Nahom is almost as good as that. The discovery of Book of Mormon names among the Olmecs and Mayans are interesting, but hardly conclusive. The few examples of Nephite script found in Mesoamerica have hardly been examined. Are they genuine? Is there any way to tell? I don't know. They look genuine to me. Mayan words in the Book of Mormon place-names seem to be authentic - Did Joseph Smith know Mayan? If he did it wasn't from his 3 years of school.

 

[rrosskopf]

The fact that you are not convinced of something is utterly meaningless. If you are, in fact, not claiming that Israelite DNA has been found among Native Americans, then you should let your voice drop. You are claiming that "no one can completely rule it out" but that is no different than claiming that this paper may be cited as evidence of aliens abduction and sexual manipulation of Amerind DNA since that can no be completely ruled out either. This is more Pigeon Chess, you don't understand the rules (or the paper), you are engaged in a type two statistical error and on the basis of that error you are declaring victory.

You seem to be under the misconception that I think I can "prove" the Book of Mormon to skeptics. I can't. I can't even prove the earth is round to someone who doesn't want to believe it. All I can do is present the evidence and share my own spiritual witness. Some people will believe me, and some won't. I can't help that.

Nor do I remember declaring victory. Victory would look like you showing human kindness. I'm not expecting anything like that anytime soon.

You need to look up the mitochondrial DNA and gain an appreciation for how it is duplicated and what the presence and absence of various haplotypes demonstrates.

Fair enough. According to Wikipedia, mtDNA and Y-DNA are copied exactly from parent to child; thus out of the hundreds of thousands of ancestors a person may have, we know the exactly half of the DNA of exactly one man and one women of any particular ancestral generation. We do not know who the others were.

What am I missing?

Not a "fact" but a claim by Miller. His claim is, interestingly enough, not made in a peer reviewed journal where he would be expected to provide the bona fides of the lab where the analysis was performed as well as all the calibration details, especially when the analysis is being used to support such an extraordinary claim.

It is a fact that he claimed it. That is the nature of all facts; they are claims of direct observation. Eye witness testimony. Of course it is always better to have multiple witnesses. You could probably email him and get the bona fides of the lab he used, if you asked him nicely. He is a very friendly guy.

A red herring and a patently false claim to boot (see: "Iberian Origins of New World Horse Breeds". Jhered.oxfordjournals.org.doi:10.1093/jhered/esj020 )

I don't have that book. Care to quote from it?

If not dated, what is the point?

The non-fossilized Mexican horse bones were scattered among pottery shards, just like the other two discoveries of the Mexican horse. That would indicate that the bones were not 10,000 years old, when the Mexican horse was thought to have gone extinct, but much more recent. Is it possible that a 10,000 year old horse bone would not be fossilized?

 

[rrosskopf]

Level VII is a ceramic level, and we already know that the animals were at the bottom of Level VII.

Well then, there is a disagreement here; I believe he found horse bones in levels 1 through 7, leading right up to and into Book of Mormon era.

 

[Shad]

I'm not hiding in it at all. You demanded a reference, and I supplied it. I already acknowledged its limitations.

No you supplied a summary. Since you do not know the name of the paper itself you are merely copy/pasting LDS apologistics. Your summary did nothing to support your case.

No one, as of yet, has proven that Isrealites couldn't have established a colony in America. DNA doesn't prove it.

It is your claim thus your burden. There is no evidence for your claim.

Meanwhile, Mayans, in their own history, claim to be Isrealites.

No they didn't

The great flood and the tower of Babal are part of their history.

There was no great flood, we have found zero evidence of Babal

They use the Egyptian cubit and the Babylonian cubit in their construction. Their pyramids have some similarity to those of Egypt.

Pyramids are based on a common shape developed in many cultures. This does not mean Mayan pyramids are based on Egyptian pyramids at all.

They had raised highways, cement buildings, kingdoms, thrones, towers and temples - all described in the Book of Mormon.

Such knowledge was already known before the BoM.

Carved stella are also mentioned it the Book of Mormon, containing the history of kingdoms and wars.

No there isn't

The culture of war and human sacrifice are strong themes in the Book of Mormon, and very accurate descriptions of the more wicked of the Maya.

Knowledge already present prior to the BoM.

They practiced war to obtain prisoners, which they sacrificed to their gods, hoping to delay the end of times. Various tribes were pushed out of one area, only to take up residence elsewhere - as described in the Book of Mormon.

Known before the BoM.

Sometimes there were huge influxes of people, when volcanic eruptions made a place unlivable. They also believed in a Most High God, a God that was over every other God.

No they were polytheistic. There is nothing to say that their supreme God within a polytheist pantheon is the same one you worship.

I'd like to be able to point to one artifact, something that said "Nephi slept here", or "Zerahemla, exit 10 Miles", but I can't.

Thus the point is useless.

The discovery of Nahom is almost as good as that.

Rejected by non-LDS experts.

The discovery of Book of Mormon names among the Olmecs and Mayans are interesting, but hardly conclusive.

Present knowledge prior to the BoM

The few examples of Nephite script found in Mesoamerica have hardly been examined.

Another made up language

Are they genuine? Is there any way to tell? I don't know. They look genuine to me.

Your opinion has no merit/

Mayan words in the Book of Mormon place-names seem to be authentic - Did Joseph Smith know Mayan? If he did it wasn't from his 3 years of school.

Opinion without merit.

All you have done is repeat almost every claim you made which has been refuted and debunked already.

 

[rrosskopf]

I made it clear back in Post #20:

If by "making it clear", you mean referencing all known science, without a single actual reference, then yes you made it clear. But it is all just hubris; you can't expect me to believe you are an expert in all these fields. You aren't old enough. Perhaps you are taking a leap of faith, assuming the Book of Mormon is false, therefore there wouldn't be any evidence of it. Yet there is evidence of it, some of it good evidence. If you will only accept the opinion of atheists, then that shows a bias on your part which cannot be surmounted - no avowed atheist is going to stake their reputation that the Book of Mormon is authentic and that therefore angels (and God) do exist. No one would believe him if he did.

The Smithsonian use to send a form letter to inquiries about the Book of Mormon's archeological value; it was harsh, to say the least. It read much like your own accusations, going down a long list of anachronisms. Their own scientists found fault with the conclusions in the form letter, as well as scientists in the LDS community. So the Smithsonian took out all the non-science and today the letter is much shorter; it no longer offers an opinion on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The point is that there are too many different fields for any one man to know the latest information in all those disparate fields. The man or men who originally composed the form letter were out of their depth.

Okay, so you mentioned archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics... Let's start with linguistics. There is an ongoing study comparing the Uto-Aztecan language family with Hebrew. One scientist said that the Uto-Aztecan language family is closer to Hebrew, than English is to Old English.
How about Sociology? The Book of Mormon reads like a manual in guerrilla warfare. Human sacrifice and canabalism are practiced by the Lamanites. Do sociologists disagree? Was warfare prevalent in Mesoamerica? Did they practice human sacrifice and canabalism?
What about geology? There are at least three separate geological surveys in the form of topos lists in the Book of Mormon. Gold, Silver and copper were abundant. Do the geologists agree?
What about botany? Have any of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon been found? Barley certainly has. Wheat hasn't, but Amarinth is very wheat-like and was a staple crop before the Spanish made it illegal to grow Amarinth.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm not hiding in it at all. You demanded a reference, and I supplied it. I already acknowledged its limitations.

The use of a reference in support of a claim that it does not, in fact, support is considered, at least in science, to be tantamount to an outright lie.

No one, as of yet, has proven that Isrealites couldn't have established a colony in America.

And it never wil be, the old problem of providing a negative. Can you prove that aliens couldn't have have established a colony in America? There is no sign or evidence of either Israelites or Martians, but there is also no absolute proof against either having done so. This is the old issue of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you have made an extraordinary claim but failed to supply even ordinary evidence. Bad show.

DNA doesn't prove it. Meanwhile, Mayans, in their own history, claim to be Isrealites.

False.

The great flood and the tower of Babal are part of their history.

False, especially since neither can be demonstrated and are very dubious.

They use the Egyptian cubit and the Babylonian cubit in their construction.

False, perhaps you are confusing "Mayan" with "Maya," who was the treasurer of Tutankhamun.

Their pyramids have some similarity to those of Egypt.

False, they are as different as two pyramids can be.

They had raised highways, cement buildings, kingdoms, thrones, towers and temples - all described in the Book of Mormon.

They did not have highways, rather footpaths, they also had two hands, two feet and a head ... were these described int he Book of Mormon?

Carved stella are also mentioned it the Book of Mormon, containing the history of kingdoms and wars.

Name a culture with a centralized regime that did not meet that specification.

The culture of war and human sacrifice are strong themes in the Book of Mormon, and very accurate descriptions of the more wicked of the Maya. They practiced war to obtain prisoners, which they sacrificed to their gods, hoping to delay the end of times. Various tribes were pushed out of one area, only to take up residence elsewhere - as described in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes there were huge influxes of people, when volcanic eruptions made a place unlivable.

Texas Sharpshooter, nada mas.

They also believed in a Most High God, a God that was over every other God.

So did lots of folks, the Norse, Greek and Romans all pop into mind.

I'd like to be able to point to one artifact, something that said "Nephi slept here", or "Zerahemla, exit 10 Miles", but I can't.

But that does not seem to keep you from making bizarre and extraordinary claims.

The discovery of Nahom is almost as good as that. The discovery of Book of Mormon names among the Olmecs and Mayans are interesting, but hardly conclusive. The few examples of Nephite script found in Mesoamerica have hardly been examined. Are they genuine? Is there any way to tell? I don't know. They look genuine to me. Mayan words in the Book of Mormon place-names seem to be authentic - Did Joseph Smith know Mayan? If he did it wasn't from his 3 years of school.

This claim is unsupported and unsupportable. Lets's see what Philip Jenkins (Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University) has to say: This is, literally, the only case where anyone still seriously pretends that they have some kind of archaeological support for the Book of Mormon, though they should be embarrassed to do so. “Book of Mormon Archaeology” is no longer an oxymoron!

Of course there is no such link.

Pure coincidence offers a more than adequate explanation for the supposed parallel – which, as I will show, is not even that close. When you actually look at the vaunted clincher evidence about Nahom, and understand how tenuous the alleged connections are, your response should properly be: when you get there, there’s no “there” there.

Just what exactly was found? Smith refers to a place called Nahom. The altar inscriptions, on the other hand, refer to a people or tribe. As a sober account in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies notes, one text commemorates Bi’athar, son of Sawdum, son of Naw’um, the Nihmite. Based on extensive analogies, that last name should refer to a family title, like Benjaminite, with no necessary suggestion that the ancestral family was linked to the burial site. Usually, such tribes did not construct places bearing their names, but that’s not an absolute.

And that’s it? THAT “is the First Verifiable Book of Mormon Site”?

To give the authors credit, they honestly cite the inscription word as Nihmite, without pretending it was “really” Nahom. Yet despite this precise quotation, the story morphs and expands in popular retelling, until it becomes something like “The Book of Mormon describes a place in Arabia called Nahom. And now scientists have discovered inscriptions using the same name at that very place! Whoa!” For Mormons, as for many other religious denominations, the Internet has vastly accelerated that process of folk-tale evolution, fueled by wishful thinking.

John Hamer continues:

Although some apologists have described the odds of this Nahom/Nihm/”NHM” correlation as “astronomical,” it hardly even rises to the level of notable coincidence. The Book of Mormon derives its names from a book that has Semitic sources, i.e., the King James Bible. Many of the names in the Book of Mormon are just plucked directly from the Bible, e.g., “Lehi” (Judges 25:9), Laban (Gen. 24-30), Lemuel (Prov. 31:1-9). Other names, however, use the Bible as their inspiration with alterations, e.g., “Jarom” (“Joram” 2 Sam. 8:10), “Omni” (“Omri” 1 Kings 16:16), “Nehor” (“Nahor” Gen. 11:22). “Nahom” easily fits into the latter category: “Nahum” is actually a book of [the] Old Testament.

So, can we cut trying to make a case out of things that have already been clearly debunked? Like, Bruce Warren's claptrap: ... the name and birth date of a Jaredite king named Kish are found in Maya glyphs on the Temple of the Cross in Palenque.

Mark Wright corrects this: (it) is actually read kokan, not kix. The proposed reading of it as kix dates to the late 1980s, but more recent work has proven that reading to be faulty. There is no king named Kish named in any Mayan text (or any other Mesoamerican text, for that matter).

More and more you seem to be either making it up as you go along or grasping hold of straws that invariably turn out to have been debunked years ago ... please, get current, or at least look it up before you claim it.

 

[rrosskopf]

Your summary did nothing to support your case.

That is basically what I said at the beginning. That's why I was surprised that you demanded to see the study. They acknowledged that there might be Israelite DNA, but their time-period was long before the Book of Mormon era. So unless they got their time period wrong, it really doesn't support or negate the Book of Mormon. The full study use to be published on the Emory University website, but it is no longer there.

It is your claim thus your burden. There is no evidence for your claim.

What, that mtDNA doesn't reveall all 100,000 or so ancestors? Try reading the Wikipedia article. It isn't that hard. mtDNA doesn't change and combine, but is passed down whole through daughters. Y-DNA doesn't change or combine, but passes down whole to sons. There is just one set of each (and many copies of the same set). So it doesn't tell us who the 100,000 ancestors of someone may be, but only who two of those ancestors may be.

Yes, the Mayan history, called The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, explicitly states that they were Israelites, children of Abraham, and that they came across the ocean.

There are many Mesoamerican flood myths of a great flood. Horcasitas, Fernando (1988). "An analysis of the deluge myth in Mesoamerica"

Such knowledge was already known before the BoM.

Er... no it wasn't. It wasn't till 1843 - 13 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon - that Incidents of Travel in the Yucatan was published http://www.amazon.com/Incidents-Travel-Yucatan-Abridged-Stephens/dp/1560986514, and another hundred years before the discovery of cement in Mesoamerica.

Carved stella are certainly mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
"And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God. And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons." Omni 1:20

The culture of war and human sacrifice among the Maya was not known in 1830. I'm not even sure the Maya or Olmec were known in 1830. I believe that Cortez only knew the Aztecs, and didn't publish anything about them in English. They didn't have the internet. Knowledge was a secret from one society to another, as often as not.

 

[Sapiens]

If by "making it clear", you mean referencing all known science, without a single actual reference, then yes you made it clear. But it is all just hubris; you can't expect me to believe you are an expert in all these fields. You aren't old enough. Perhaps you are taking a leap of faith, assuming the Book of Mormon is false, therefore there wouldn't be any evidence of it. Yet there is evidence of it, some of it good evidence. If you will only accept the opinion of atheists, then that shows a bias on your part which cannot be surmounted - no avowed atheist is going to stake their reputation that the Book of Mormon is authentic and that therefore angels (and God) do exist. No one would believe him if he did.

The Smithsonian use to send a form letter to inquiries about the Book of Mormon's archeological value; it was harsh, to say the least. It read much like your own accusations, going down a long list of anachronisms. Their own scientists found fault with the conclusions in the form letter, as well as scientists in the LDS community. So the Smithsonian took out all the non-science and today the letter is much shorter; it no longer offers an opinion on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The point is that there are too many different fields for any one man to know the latest information in all those disparate fields. The man or men who originally composed the form letter were out of their depth.

Harsh, hardly. Barely harsh enough:

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

Okay, so you mentioned archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics... Let's start with linguistics. There is an ongoing study comparing the Uto-Aztecan language family with Hebrew. One scientist said that the Uto-Aztecan language family is closer to Hebrew, than English is to Old English.

One "scientist" out of how many? What is his/her name, affiliation and credentials? We need those items to evaluate your claim since you have a propensity for engaging in irrelevant and/or false appeals to authority.

How about Sociology? The Book of Mormon reads like a manual in guerrilla warfare. Human sacrifice and canabalism are practiced by the Lamanites. Do sociologists disagree? Was warfare prevalent in Mesoamerica? Did they practice human sacrifice and canabalism?

The inhabitants of most "unknown lands" were almost always thought to be cannibals who practiced human sacrifice. Go read the pulp novels.

What about geology? There are at least three separate geological surveys in the form of topos lists in the Book of Mormon. Gold, Silver and copper were abundant. Do the geologists agree?

Wishful thinking, the "findings" are not meaningful except to a Texas Sharpshooter.

What about botany? Have any of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon been found? Barley certainly has. Wheat hasn't, but Amarinth is very wheat-like and was a staple crop before the Spanish made it illegal to grow Amarinth.

The Smithsonian letter put the lie to that statement.

Here is my old post #20, just to refresh:

If you examine the internally consistent and cross fields consistent evidences that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man it is obvious that there is no rational basis. If you similarly examine all the support from all these disciplines for the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America you find them to be few and far between and they are, often as not, modified by phrases such as "could have" and "possibly." In any case, the claims never display robust consistency but rather demand reliance on anecdotes or singular observations that the Mormons attempt to inflate to generalities. For example, when the zoologist say that horses and elephants were extinct in North America the Mormon apologists try to conjure up a world where horses and elephants were widespread citing rare and singular bone finds that may, indeed, represent tiny relic remnant groups of such animals. The Mormons want to pretend that evidence that a tiny surviving herd of horses or mastodons falsifies what is know of the Pleistocene extinction and make likely the claims of the Book of Mormon. It doesn't wash.

Nothing has been presented to alter my view one iota ... in fact most of my thoughts on the subject have been strongly reinforced.

 

[rrosskopf]

The use of a reference in support of a claim that it does not, in fact, support is considered, at least in science, to be tantamount to an outright lie.

Unless of course, you acknowledge its limitations before citing it, as I did.

This is the old issue of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you have made an extraordinary claim but failed to supply even ordinary evidence.

You won't accept the extraordinary evidence. You are demanding the common evidence of pottery shards and rusty swords. If you want the extraordinary evidence, you have to humble yourself and learn to pray. The extraordinary evidence comes from God.

As far as the Egyptian cubit and the Babylonian cubit, one archeologist found evidence of both being used in Mesoamerican architecture.
http://www.ancientamerica.org/?page_id=104

As far as similarities between the Egyptian pyramids and the Mesoamerican pyramids, I don't know what I was thinking. You are right, they are nothing alike, except for being large tower structures that rise about the surrounding countryside... they look different, and served different purposes. You got me on that one.

This claim is unsupported and unsupportable.

Which? I'm pretty sure I can support all three of those claims...

 

[Sapiens]

That is basically what I said at the beginning. That's why I was surprised that you demanded to see the study. They acknowledged that there might be Israelite DNA, but their time-period was long before the Book of Mormon era. So unless they got their time period wrong, it really doesn't support or negate the Book of Mormon. The full study use to be published on the Emory University website, but it is no longer there.

What, that mtDNA doesn't reveall all 100,000 or so ancestors? Try reading the Wikipedia article. It isn't that hard. mtDNA doesn't change and combine, but is passed down whole through daughters. Y-DNA doesn't change or combine, but passes down whole to sons. There is just one set of each (and many copies of the same set). So it doesn't tell us who the 100,000 ancestors of someone may be, but only who two of those ancestors may be.

Changed your tune a bit, eh?

Yes, the Mayan history, called The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, explicitly states that they were Israelites, children of Abraham, and that they came across the ocean.

Explicitly? No! Only if you are cursed with the most fertile of imaginations.
Remember, it was written around 1554. Here's the wiki take on it's contents:

... the Título de Totonicapán describes how the ancestors of the K'iche' travelled from a mythical location referred to as Seven Caves, Seven Canyons to another place called Tulan Suywa in order to receive their gods. From Tulan Suywa the ancestors travelled west across the sea to the highlands of Guatemala. The next generation of K'iche' lords returned east in order to receive permission to rule from Nacxit, a Feathered Serpent God-King.[2] The Título also describes how the K'iche' established a defensive border against the Aztec Triple Alliance, which had expanded to include Soconusco within the Aztec empire.[5]

In the Popol Vuh, the ancestors of the K'iche' were created in Paxil Cayala (at the place of sunrise) and moved to Tulan Suywa, Seven Caves, Seven Canyons. Later in the Popol Vuh the two locations are merged into one. In the Título de Totonicapán, the latter version is used, with Paxil Cayala and Tulan Suywa merged into the mythical place of origin. This place is described as the Earthly Paradise, called Wuqub' Pek Wuqub' Siwan, Siwan Tulan (Seven Caves, Seven Canyons, Canyon Palace).[6] The Título describes how the first ancestors of the "seven nations" were powerful nawals (sorcerers) who travelled across the water from Tulan Siwan.[7] The mention of paradise, a mention of "true Sinai" in the text and the placement of Tulan in the east on the other side of the sea all show the influence of Christian beliefs upon the text.[8] Tulan is identified in the text as a place of darkness.[9]

In the Título de Totonicapán (and also the Popol Vuh) when the first ancestors arrived "from across the sea" they did not eat but rather sustained themselves by inhaling the smell of the tips of their staffs.[10] Nacxit was one of the titles used for Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, a mythical lord. In the Título, two sons of Balam Quitze were sent to Nacxit to ask for peace; Co Caib went to the place of sunrise and C'o Cavib to the place of sunset; the document specifically equates the latter with Mexico.[11] The fact that in the text C'o Cavib went west to Mexico has been interpreted as an attempt by the K'iche' to connect themselves with the politically and culturally powerful Aztec lords of Tenochtitlan. Nacxit gave them the Pisom Q'aq'al, the bundle of glory equated with fire and the sun.[12]

 

[rrosskopf]

Harsh, hardly. Barely harsh enough:

There have been several different statements over the years; here are Sorenson's remarks concerning the 1979 version:
http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publ...on Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon.pdf

 

[Sapiens]

Unless of course, you acknowledge its limitations before citing it, as I did.

It is still disingenuous. Why cite a paper that does not support your claim?

You won't accept the extraordinary evidence. You are demanding the common evidence of pottery shards and rusty swords.

No, finding a precolumbian rusty sword in Mesoamerica would be extraordinary.

If you want the extraordinary evidence, you have to humble yourself and learn to pray. The extraordinary evidence comes from God.

Can't make your case in the "here and now" so you want to move the discussion to fairyland? I think not.

As far as the Egyptian cubit and the Babylonian cubit, one archeologist found evidence of both being used in Mesoamerican architecture.
http://www.ancientamerica.org/?page_id=104

Is it not remarkable how most all your claims are backed up by ONE (fill in the blank: linguist, archaeologist, anthropologist, retc.) who has two completely predictable attributes:

1) is a member of the LDS church; and

2) is affiliated with BYU.

It is truly remarkable that you have failed to detect this pattern and to look for better support for your claims. Or have you looked for better support for your claims and simply failed to find it. I'd guess that at base you think that all of non-LDS science is engaged in an anti-Mormon plot.

As far as similarities between the Egyptian pyramids and the Mesoamerican pyramids, I don't know what I was thinking. You are right, they are nothing alike, except for being large tower structures that rise about the surrounding countryside... they look different, and served different purposes. You got me on that one.

Yes I did, as I have on virtually every other issue in this forum. But then I been there, I've seen the sites, I've hacked my way through 150 kilometers of jungle to get from Palenque to Bonampak (today you can drive it in less than 3 hours, it took us a week on foot), I talked to the experts at the digs ... sure, it's just a hobby for me, but it appears to be little more then "let your fingers do the walking" for you.

Which? I'm pretty sure I can support all three of those claims...

I'm sure you can't ... but you're free to try.

 

[rrosskopf]

Explicitly? No!

Let me quote directly from my own copy:
"These then, were the three nations of the quiches, and they came from where the sun rises, descendants of Israel, of the same language and the same customs. When they rose from Pa-Tulan, Pa-Civan, the first leader was Balam-Qitze, by unanimous vote, and then the great father Nacxit gave them a present called Giron-Gagal. When they arrived at the edge of the sea, Balam-Qitze touched it with his staff and at once a path opened, which then closed up again, for thus the great god wished it to be done, because they were sons of Abraham and Jacob."

the Título de Totonicapán (and also the Popol Vuh) when the first ancestors arrived "from across the sea" they did not eat but rather sustained themselves by inhaling the smell of the tips of their staffs

Actually, they ate roots.
"Once on this other side of the sea, they were obliged to nourish themselves with roots because of the lack of food, but they traveled content."

 

[rrosskopf]

Is it not remarkable how most all your claims are backed up by ONE (fill in the blank: linguist, archaeologist, anthropologist, retc.) who has two completely predictable attributes:

1) is a member of the LDS church; and

2) is affiliated with BYU.

Who else has even looked to see if perchance the Egyptian cubit or the Babylonian cubit were used in Mesoamerica? So either this devout man is a bold faced liar, or he is competent and telling us of his amazing find. I believe the latter.

More over, anyone can go and measure the examples he gives. They aren't hidden in museums.

 

[rrosskopf]

But then I been there, I've seen the sites, I've hacked my way through 150 kilometers of jungle to get from Palenque to Bonampak (today you can drive it in less than 3 hours, it took us a week on foot), I talked to the experts at the digs ... sure, it's just a hobby for me, but it appears to be little more then "let your fingers do the walking" for you.

Ah, well... I envy you. You must know then, that Palenque has the classic Nephite city design, in the matter of defense.

I myself have seen Peru, and seen the sites, gone to the museums, walked Macchu Picchu; but I think I would have liked Mexico. I'm 56 and not in the best of physical shape; yet I still would like to take a trip and see Mexico. I know at least two men who are well versed in Mexican archeology and go there fairly regularly... both are older than I am. Now if I can just talk my wife into it...

 

[Sapiens]

There have been several different statements over the years; here are Sorenson's remarks concerning the 1979 version:
http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/PreliminaryReports/Set 5/Prelim Rep/Sorenson - An Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon.pdf

Please permit me to enter this annotated version (from lds-mormon.com, an unaffiliated site) into evidence:

An Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution
"Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon"
by Dr. John L. Sorenson

For many years the Smithsonian Institution in Washington has received inquiries concerning the Book of Mormon, its role in the Institution's scientific activities, and a number of specific informational questions about ancient American archaeology. At least twenty years ago the Institution began responding to such inquiries with a form letter prepared by its Department of Anthropology. Statements in this letter (the content having changed several times over the years) are used by some opponents of the Mormon Church to support the idea that the Book of Mormon account is contradicted by scientific findings; some Latter-day Saints have been daunted in their faith in the book by these statements. This article critiques the method and content represented in the SI statement in order to put it into perspective.

A fascinating study in folklore could and should be done tracing how the Smithsonian has been put in the middle of this Book of Mormon matter. It is clear that for decades at least LDS missionaries and other proselyters for the church have represented the Institution as having used the Book of Mormon to guide archaeological research it has conducted. I remember being told some version of this story as I was growing up many years ago. The tale is passed from missionary to missionary and Sunday School teacher to student in the classic process of all folklore. A new crop of discoverers of this "hidden truth" comes up every year, and no known means can staunch the process.

The frustration and irritation of Smithsonian officials is understandable as they had to deal with such naive inquiries year after year. The form letter response has been a reasonable way for them to cope with this one among many persistent questions from the public. The content of the letter, however, has its own problems.

It would be quite another folklorist project to determine how the Smithsonian became established in the public mind as the most respected source of scientific assurance. (Mormons are the ones using the Smithsonian through folklore as the respected source to "prove" the Book of Mormon and here Sorenson has turned the tables to make the Smithsonian look like the "bad guy". He continues this irrelevant approach throughout his critique.) Its long existence and the extent of its massive museum facilities in the nation's capital have contributed, of course. In any case, people willingly accept the notion that the SI should be able to provide authoritative word on any problem about the past. (People do not willingly accept any such thing. "Gullible Mormons" are who Sorenson should substitute in this sentence for "people".)

Knowledge has expanded so vastly, however, that no one institution can possibly encompass real expertise on more than a fraction of the huge number of specialties in the world of scholarship and science. Valid information on an issue must envolve a person equipped with current, specific data on that matter. We aren't satisfied with the opinion of an eye surgeon about what makes our feet hurt, nor do we depend on a historian knowledgeable in medieval European events to answer our inquiries about modern China. The Smithsonian as a source of information on Book of Mormon matters suffers on this basis.(This is not necessarily true--especially in light of the questions the Smithsonian is responding to. The questions deal with the history of the American Continent and the Smithsonian has experts on this topic. If the questions sent to the Smithsonian asked what the Mormon Prophet said in the last conference then Sorenson would have a valid point here.) It simply lacks people able to speak with authority on this matter.

What is needed in the case of the Book of Mormon is, obviously, experts in both the scientifically-derived information which, with few exceptions, only professionals control and the scripture itself. The most erudite archeologist who has not also become expert in analysis of the Book of Mormon record is in no position to make a comparison. (One need not become an expert on the Book of Mormon to see that some of its claims are incorrect. One need only know a specific Book of Mormon claim for which we have evidence for or against to adequately comment on that specific claim.)

Conversely, the scriptorian ignorant of appropriate details from the best researchers on the ancient world has nothing significant to say about how scientific findings compare with the claims of the Book of Mormon. Virtually nobody has examined the Book of Mormon as a cultural document. (This may have been true decades ago, but it isn't true today. "Virtually" should be more accurately quantified. Numerous people had examined the Book of Mormon as a cultural document even when Sorenson wrote this.) It has to be viewed from the perspective of what it contains about cities, houses, pottery, artifacts, patterns of custom, and the other sorts of information which the archaeologist and his collaborators usually deal with. Furthermore, the expert on the ancient world must have studied precisely the right time period and location. If the Nephites lived, fought, worshipped, and died in Guatemala, for example, no one whose expertise is on ancient Brazilian peoples has anything worth contributing to the discussion.

Latter-day Saint believers in the Book of Mormon as well as critics of that book and mere interested bystanders commonly suppose that the Book of Mormon represents the events it reports as having taken place throughout the entire western hemisphere. All detailed studies of the book, on the other hand, have reached the conclusion that only a limited area is presented as the scene of Nephite and Jaredite life.(These studies ignore many of the inconsistencies in the text as well as the things Joseph Smith stated. If we are to ignore such statements and verses then we can dishonestly state that there was "only a limited area". The text has the Book of Mormon characters running all over North, South, and Central America. Joseph Smith confirmed this aspect of his story.) It cannot be more than five or six hundred miles in length and considerably less across. All the happenings in the record, including the final destructions of both Nephites and Jaredites, took place there, on the basis of an intricate network of statements on geographical matters in the text itself.

Where was this scene? It is essentially certain that only Mesoamerica could be it. (This presents a huge problem requiring two Hill Cumorahs and the ignoring of some of the Book of Mormon text itself.) That name is given to the culture area which included some (but not all) the high civilizations between central Mexico and northern Central America. The matter is much too complicated to be treated here, but in that area it has been possible to show that the Book of Mormon's statements about customs, the rise of cities, wars, climate, distances, directions, and so on, fit nicely at point after point with the most up-to-date findings about Mesoamerican culture history.(1) (The foremost expert on the Mesoamerican culture history, Michael Coe, has made his conclusions regarding the Book of Mormon well known.)

As to the time period of concern, the scripture makes clear that it is reporting almost exclusively events and characteristics of what the archaeologists call the "pre-Classic" era, prior to around A.D. 300.

Now we see what kind of expert is qualified to comment usefully on the Book of Mormon peoples in relation to scientific findings. We need persons who are highly- and fully-informed about southern and central Mesoamerica in the time prior to the most famous or Classic cultures such as the Maya. We are talking about highly specific data which is controlled by only a handful of scholars. Unfortunately the Smithsonian, as is true of practically any other research institution in the USA or abroad, lacks such people. But even those who do control this data need also to know the Book of Mormon in terms to permit their making a relevant, informed comparison.

Realizing that people have been expecting too much of the Smithsonian scholars, who are certainly highly competent in their own areas of specialization, we can now examine the content of the nine-point "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" to see how it stacks up.

These remarks are with reference to the Summer 1979 version of the "Statement." Earlier versions varied considerably; the general tendency seems to have been for later versions to make fewer and more general statements than earlier ones.

 

[Sapiens]

Of the nine points included in the two-page handout, numbers one and nine are straightforward and clarifying: the Institution has never used the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide; their archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book; and there are copies of the Book of Mormon available in the Institution's library facility should they feel the need to consult them. One would hope that the pointless inquiries from the public on those elementary points of fact could cease completely in the face of these disclosures. The second numbered item mentions "the physical type of the American Indian," which is said to be "basically Mongoloid." This is a standard textbook-type characterization which dodges many significant issues. Certain biological characteristics of the American native populations are generally, if not universally, shared throughout the hemisphere, but there are not many such features. Dr. T. Dale Stewart of the Smithsonian, one of the respected senior physical anthropologists, chooses to emphasize what is shared, as in his book, THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA (London: Wiednfeld and Nicolson, 1973). Other, equally-respected experts see substantial variety among "the American Indian." For example, Dr. Juan Comas, Mexico's most prominent physical anthropologist, answered the question "Are the Amerindians a biologically homogenous group?" with a firm "no."(2) Evidence of blood grouping led Dr. G. A. Matson, one of the most noted workers in that field, to say "the American Indians are not completely Mongoloid."(3) Professor Earnest Hooten of Harvard strongly agreed(4) and thought he saw Near Easterners as a component. Polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski analyzed a large series of skulls excavated at major sites in Mesoamerica and found much variety. He considered there to be three "primary Amerindian stocks" out of Asia to which were added features "introduced by . . . migrants from the Western Mediterranean area." In summation, Wiercinski feels that "ancient Mexico was inhabited by a chain of interrelated populations which cannot be regarded as typical Mongoloids."(5) Now, the Smithsonian people may disagree, but by making a categorical, brief statement on this complex matter, they appear to betray either lack of awareness of current research or intent to "stonewall" the issue by ignoring uncomfortably different views.(Sorenson has done some masterful spin doctoring here. Hugh Nibley would be proud. He takes the accurate statement that they were "basically Mongoloid" and reads into it that they are really saying that they are completely Mongoloid and then he dismisses their "categorical" stonewalling of the issue. The Smithsonian Statement did no stonewalling and stated nothing categorically on the issue--even if Sorenson wishes they did. In addition, subsequent evidence of the mtDNA variety has shown Sorenson to be incorrect.)

Item five lists four materials said not to have been used in the New World before A.D. 1492: "iron," "steel," "glass," and "silk." Those words in the Book of Mormon lead many to suppose that the same substances were used by the Nephites as come to our minds when we encounter these terms today. Any English words in the translated Book of Mormon must, of course, be considered in the same cautionary terms as other terms that translators must use when dealing with an ancient text. For example, some of the Hebrew words translated as the names of certain metals in the Old Testament are problematical. Several original words yield a single English term (such as "bronze"), while a single expression in the early language may get translated variously in the hands of modern writers. Anybody who has done translation realizes the difficulty sometimes in finding exact equivalents. Just what was the referent of "silk," for example, is unclear in the Book of Mormon. It is simple-mindedness to suppose automatically that the Nephites must, like the east Asians, have had silkworms eating mulberry leaves. The early Spaniards in the New World encountered precisely this problem. There was in fact a wild silkworm in Mexico whose spinnings were gathered by the Indians to make a terribly expensive fabric, but also fine hair from the belly of rabbits was woven into a cloth which the Spanish considered the equivalent of silk.(10) Or, take "wine" as a further example. Mesoamericans did have one or more kind of grape, but we do not know that they produced a beverage from that fruit. The conquerors did, however, refer to "wine" and even "vineyards." What they meant was pulque, the alcoholic drink made from juice of a maguey plant, and vineyards were the orderly plantings of that cactus-like plant. (Another drink, made from fermented bananas, was also called "wine" in Spanish, although a closer equivalent would have been "beer."(11) So we must be careful lest our own cultural naivete lead our minds too easily to look for parallels were none should be expected. (If Joseph Smith meant to say "deer" instead of "horse" or "rabbit hair" instead of "silk", he certainly could have. Perhaps the simple-mindedness was a problem Joseph Smith had when he thought he could create a ancient record based on his knowledge of the King James Version of the Bible and the common 19th century theories of where the American Indians came from rather than a problem some critics have with Sorenson's apologetics.)

As a matter of fact, however, iron was reported by the Spaniards to have been used among the Indians of Mexico, and iron artifacts have been found.(12) Few of these specimens have been examined to determine whether they are composed of iron from meteorites, although we are sure some are. The possibility that smelted iron was also used is enhanced by a find a Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico by Sigvald Linne, the famous Swedish archaeologist, of a pottery vessel which had been used for smelting a "metallic-looking" mass which contained iron and copper.(13) The same researcher found a piece of iron in a tomb at Mitla, Oaxaca, which he considered of smelted metal.(14) Moreover, knowledge of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is being pushed back by new finds; where once A.D. 900 was supposed to be the early limit, now specimens extend back to the time of Christ. Besides, linguistic studies have shown that in three major language groupings--Proto-Mayan, Proto-Mixe-Zoquean, and Proto-Mixtecan--words for metals occurred on the time level of 1000-500 B.C., although archaeological specimens in no case come even close to that period. At least for Peru, actual metalworking has been shown at the 1900 B.C. level, however.(15) It is obvious that a great deal is yet to be learned about metals and other substances used in ancient America. (Although Sorenson's "same researcher" above appears to give the Book of Mormon metallurgy a speck of hope, the fact still remains that nothing close to the steel swords described in the Book of Mormon has been found or thought to have been in use by anyone outside the Mormon church.) Categorical statements about what was NOT in use, or when, such as we have in paragraph five in the Smithsonian "Statement," are clearly inappropriate in the present state of knowledge.

On the same basis, paragraph six is ill-considered. It says that if there were any transpacific voyages, they were of little or no effect and would have resulted only from accidental voyages. The fact is that this whole paragraph is constructed solely from speculation. Negative statements of this kind are particularly hard to document at best, of course. Again the Institution's own archaeologists, Dr. Meggers and Dr. Clifford Evans, vigorously disagreed with this they-couldn't-cross-the-ocean assertion. Both scholars have been convinced that transpacific trips were made from thousands of years ago.(16) (I'm not sure if Sorenson is reading the same paragraph six. The statement isn't a negative one. It says that the possibility exists. There is no they-couldn't-cross-the-ocean assertion in the Smithsonian Statement. Sorenson appears to want the Smithsonian to say things more condemning of the Book of Mormon than they did in fact state. What kind of dishonest scholarship is this anyway?)

The seventh item in the "Statement" concerns whether a connection existed between Egypt and Mexico in precolumbian times. It is not apparent why this particular statement is included, since the Book of Mormon itself does not make any particular claim of an Egyptian connection. (This statement is obviously being made in response to the Mormon inquiries. Most have probably come from those familiar with Hugh Nibley who does make numerous claims regarding an Egyptian connection. The Book of Mormon claims to be written in "reformed Egyptian". Has Sorenson forgotten this fact?) I am unaware of a single Egyptologist who has paid significant attention to this sort of comparison; no doubt none of them has found any evidence. As pointed out earlier, a person would have to become expert in BOTH areas, Egypt and Mexico, in order for us to take seriously his/her statement that there was no connection between the two. No such expert exists, to my knowledge. However, my own work pointed out earlier offers scores of detailed parallels between the two areas in question which Schneider and other scholars have found significant.

 

[Sapiens]

Paragraph eight is easier to agree with in general. Finds of "ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts" are nearly all subject to question. Not all have been carefully investigated, and some of the purported investigations and translations of such inscriptions are fanciful. Still, conventional archaeologists or epigraphers, such as the Smithsonian statement apparently relies on, have generally ignored this matter. It is simply not possible at this time to rule out the possibility that some inscriptions found were from the pre-Europen era. But that would not make any particular difference in terms of the Book of Mormon. According to that book, the writing system used by its people was not known to any other group (Mormon 9:34). Obviously it was not "Egyptian" as such, although it was considered conceptually linked with Egyptian writing by its users. (Linda Miller Van Blerkom of the University of Colorado has recently shown that "Maya glyphs were used in the same six ways as those in Egyptian" writing.(17))

In summation, careful reading of the Smithsonian Institution's 1979 "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" persuades me that it was a justified attempt to deal with a public information problem but that the substance it offers is often suspect and unduly narrow. It consistently oversimplifies like a professor speaking down to a curious and somewhat pesky child. The answers reveal no serious knowledge of the actual cultural claims or implications of the Book of Mormon, while the facts concerning ancient America are seriously flawed. (In summary, Sorenson appears to oversimplify and distort the Smithsonian Statement to get Mormons to quickly land back on their faith cushions.)

I suggest first that Mormons and non-Mormons alike leave the Smithsonian folks alone. The myth should be smothered that they are closet Mormons, on the one hand, or highly-informed specialist on archaeology relevant to the Book of Mormon issue, on the other. But inquiries are likely to continue, therefore I suggest that a new handout be prepared which is more carefully phrased. It ought to take account of the fact that the Book of Mormon claims only to report events in a restricted area of the western hemisphere. (This would be an error.) It should also reflect knowledge from contemporary anthropology that is more current, less monolithic, and more tentative than appears in the 1979 "Statement."

Notes
1. John L. Sorenson, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon," ms. Pending publication of this book, hundreds of copies of the manuscript have been distributed to inquirers.

2. "Son los Amerindios un grupo biologicamente homogeneo?," CUADERNOS AMERICANOS 152 (May-June 1967):117-125. Also his ANTROPOLOGIA DE LOS PUEBLOS IBER-AMERICANOS. Barcelona: Editorial Labor, S.A., 1974, pp. 35-42 and 52ff.

3. G. Albin Matson, et al, "Distribution of hereditary blood groups among Indians in South America. IV. In Chile, "AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 27 (1967):188.

4. Harold Gladwin, MEN OUT OF ASIA. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, pp. 63-65.

5. "Inter- and intrapopulational racial differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya," ACTAS, DOCUMENTOS Y MEMORIAS, 36A CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE AMERICANISTAS, LIMA, 1970. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanaos, 1972, pp. 231-248. Also his "Afinidades raciales de algunas poblaciones antiguas de Mexico," ANALES, INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ANTROPOLOGIA E HISTORIA (1972-1973), Mexico, 1975, pp. 123-144.

6. Bernardino de Sahagun, HISTORIA GENERAL DE LAS COSAS DE NUEVA ESPANA. Editorial Nueva Espana, S.A. Mexico. Vol. 1, 13, cited, with additional material in my "Some Mesoamerican traditions of immigration by sea," EL MEXICO ANTIGUO 8 (1955): 425-438.

7. D. J. Chonay and Delia Goetz, translators, TITLE OF THE LORDS OF TOTONICAPAN. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953, p. 170.

8. "Prehistoric transpacific contact and the theory of culture change," AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 79 (March 1977):9-25.

9. George F. Carter, "Domestiacates as artifacts." In Miles Richardson, ed., THE HUMAN MIRROR. MATERIAL AND SPATIAL IMAGES OF MAN. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1974, pp. 201-230.

10. I. W. Johnson, "Basketry and textiles," Handook of Middle American Indians, Robert Wauchope, et al, eds. Vol. 10, Part 1. Austin: University of Texan Press, 1971, p. 312.

11. Felix W. BcBryde, "Cultural and historical geography of southwest Guatemala," SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Publ. No. 4, 1945, p. 36, on banana "wine." On pulque as "wine," for example, Sahagun, HISTORIA GENERAL DE LAS COSAS DE NUEVA ESPANA, Vol. 1. Mexico: Editorial Pedro Robredo, 1938, p. 313. On Mayan balche also as "wine," Alfred M. Tozzer, "Landa's Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan," HARVARD UNIVERSITY, PEABODY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY, PAPERS 18, 1941, p. 92.

12. Rene Rebetez, OBJETOS PREHISPANICOS DE HIERRO Y PIEDRA, Mexico: Libreria Anticuaria, n.d. H. H. Bancroft, THE NATIVE RACES OF THE PACIFIC STATES), Vol. 2. San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft and Co., 1882, pp. 407-8. See also other sources cited in "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" mentioned in note 1.

13. "Mexican highlnad cultures," ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM OF SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM, PUBL. 7, n.s., 1942, p. 132.

14. "Zapotecan antiquities," ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM OF SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM, PUBL. 4, n.s., 1938, p. 75.

15. J. W. Grossman, "An ancient gold worker's tool kit. The earliest metal technology in Peru," ARCHAEOLOGY 25, (October 1972):270-275.

16. Betty J. Meggers, "Cultural development in Latin America: an interpretative overview." In Betty J. Meggers and Clifford Evans, eds., Aboriginal Cultural Development in Latin America: An interpretative Review. SMITHSONIAN MESCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 146 (1963):132, 139, 79-80. And Clifford Evans and Betty J. Meggers, "Transpacific origin of Valdivia phase pottery of coastal Ecuador," ACTAS, E6A CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE AMERICANISTAS, SEVILLA, 1964. Vol. 1. Sevilla, 1966, pp. 63-67.

17. Linda Miller Van Blerkom, "A comparison of Maya and Egyptian hieroglyphs," KATUNOB 11 (August 1979):1-8.

 

[Sapiens]

Who else has even looked to see if perchance the Egyptian cubit or the Babylonian cubit were used in Mesoamerica? So either this devout man is a bold faced liar, or he is competent and telling us of his amazing find. I believe the latter.

More over, anyone can go and measure the examples he gives. They aren't hidden in museums.

The approximate distance from finger end to elbow is hardly unique, I'd be supprised to find a place were something similar was not, at one time, used.

Note that most number systems are based either on 5, 10 or 20 ... why would guess that is? Hint: number systems were not provided by and angel with 12 toes.

But this still fails to address your, "I know of one scientist who ..."

Who ... turns out to be an LDS member, affiliated with BYU and rather poorly know in the field.

 

[rrosskopf]

Nothing has been presented to alter my view one iota ... in fact most of my thoughts on the subject have been strongly reinforced.

Yet you haven't actually presented hardly anything... you can't attack the facts, so you go after the sources, as if all Mormons are engaged in a conspiracy to mislead you.