Do Mormons Still Believe The Book of Mormon to Be Actual History?

[RebeccaJ]

Father Bernardino de Sahagún paid attention to the legends of the Mesoamericans and believed they evidenced Christ visiting the New World. I am not at all convinced of this, but the reports of Catholic priests and bishops destroying Mesoamerican texts nowhere evidences any familiarity with the texts (or an ability to read them), just a conviction that they should be taught the Bible by persuasion or force. This destruction seems to have been a major blow to some small number of Mesoamericans. Bishop Landa wrote: “We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.”

Fr. Sahagún spent a lifetime among the Aztec, not the Maya.

Fr. Landa witnessed human sacrifice, which he believed to be of the devil. The Mayan codices that he ordered destroyed, he believed to contain the rituals, practices, and beliefs surrounding human sacrifice. I highly doubt such texts would support Mormonism, in any way. I don’t know why you think they would.

In regards to Mormons and others claiming American indigenous myth and legend are pseudo-Christian. This is just another sample of overlaying preconceived ideas and biases.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Father Bernardino de Sahagún paid attention to the legends of the Mesoamericans and believed they evidenced Christ visiting the New World. I am not at all convinced of this, …

Fr. Sahagún spent a lifetime among the Aztec, not the Maya.

In regards to Mormons and others claiming American indigenous myth and legend are pseudo-Christian. This is just another sample of overlaying preconceived ideas and biases.

I suggested that Fr. Sahagún claimed that Mesoamerican legends supported the idea that Christ visited the Americas. It was more than just him. One of the reasons that many folks pointed to for the rapid conversion of many Mesoamerican people was the presence of an ancient “great white god.” Some pointed to this as a Christ figure and some including Fr. Sahagún utilized this linkage in their explanations both as to why Mesoamericans should embrace Christianity AND as to why Mesoamericans seemed to so readily embrace Christianity.

That being said, I specifically suggested that the Quetzalcoatl = Christ connection was not compelling IMO. So it would seem that you and I agree but we disagree with Fr. Sahagún.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

the reports of Catholic priests and bishops destroying Mesoamerican texts nowhere evidences any familiarity with the texts (or an ability to read them), just a conviction that they should be taught the Bible by persuasion or force. This destruction seems to have been a major blow to some small number of Mesoamericans. Bishop Landa wrote: “We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.”

Fr. Landa witnessed human sacrifice, which he believed to be of the devil. The Mayan codices that he ordered destroyed, he believed to contain the rituals, practices, and beliefs surrounding human sacrifice.

What Father/Bishop Landa reported per my understanding is that he witnessed BLOOD SACRIFICE. As Mesoamericans were taught Christianity, they reverted to their human blood offerings to the statues (this was self-inflicted wounds not humans killing other humans). Here is what Bishop Landa said about it:

After the people had been thus instructed in religion, and the youths benefitted as we have said, they were perverted by their priests and chiefs to return to their idolatry; this they did, making sacrifices not only by incense, but also of human blood. Upon this the friars held an Inquisition, calling upon the Alcalde Mayor for aid; they held trials and celebrated an Auto, putting many on scaffolds, capped, shorn and beaten, and some in the penitential robes for a time. Some of the Indians out of grief, and deluded by the devil, hung themselves; but generally they all showed much repentance and readiness to be good Christians.

The content of the books didn’t lead to their destruction. The content was not read/understood by the Catholics who had the books destroyed. The fact that the books were of value to the “priests and chiefs” who were successful at “perverting” the new Catholics converts lead to the destruction of the books. And Bishop Landa speaks approvingly of the pain this caused his theological foes.

I highly doubt such texts would support Mormonism, in any way. I don’t know why you think they would.

Let me correct this AGAIN.

The BOM could be a historical book and we cannot test it in any ways similar to the way we test the Bible. The place names are unknown and inconsistent, the texts don’t survive, and the languages have far more radical changes than in the Old World.

…

So, I cannot know what was in those books. … So, my point is that New World Archeology is radically hampered in ways that Old World Archeology is not. While we should have records of the Exodus, we do not. But, the absence of texts that support the New World parts of the BOM are a product of no books, no papyri, and no codices that cover that timeframe.

Do you see my point now?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

And let me reiterate, above, I am speaking about the New World part of the BOM (which admittedly is the large majority of the book). There are limited “convergences” that point to the BOM as an authentic document from ancient Mesoamerica, but they are not things like a street sign “Zarahemla 20 kilometers.” That and the bulk of the absence of evidence pointed to by critics SHOULDN’T exist because we do not have toponyms or texts or ….

The Old World part of the BOM fairs as well as any part of the Bible and better than some parts of the Bible for archeological support. What we SHOULD find in the Old World if the BOM is true, we do find in the Old World. AND the complex connections that exist between the BOM and Old World archeology, geography, and toponymy are very compelling. They demand an explanation. I do not believe the explanation offered by critics is near as strong as the believing explanation. Critics claim that perhaps Joseph Smith used one of two maps that included information about this part of Arabia.

Joseph Smith could not have possessed a flash memory stick (because they were not invented). It is possible but almost as unlikely that he possessed or saw one of two maps that existed within the northeastern US that mentioned Nihm/Nehem (because nothing in his history suggests this is even a remote possibility). And if he possessed a map it still couldn’t explain the complex interrelations of geography evidenced in the BOM text and aligning with a 600B.C. trip from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Exactly what place names are you talking about?

Have you received an answer to this question?

 

[Stephen168]

According to Father Bernardino de Sahagún, the Aztecs had a legend that Quetzalcoatl would one day return, and Montezuma mistook Hernán Cortés for Quetzalcoatl.

Mormonism declares Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ, so the Book of Mormon is true.

Tom declares: Bernardino de Sahagún said Jesus Christ had visited the Americas. Well, Father Bernardino de Sahagún did not say it but said stuff that supported the idea. Well actually Father Sahagún did say Quetzalcoatl was a Christ figure. Tom doesn’t believe it, so it was Father Sahagún who is crazy, not the Mormons who invent this story in the first place.

Another example of Book of Mormon science.

 

[dougch]

I never use the word never. Joseph Smith, however, did not.teach where the BofM people lived. He didn’t know! His writings show he first thought they lived in the Midlands of the U.S., he next got interested in the Aztecs’ homeland in the Teotihuacan area of Mexico, his last writing talks about a book which became very popular in the U.S. written by John Lloyd Stephens and illustrated by Frederick Catherwood called “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan.” Joseph’s comments were that it was the most likely model. The best book on the subject is “Joseph Smith and the Geography of the Book of Mormon” by John Lund. No prophet including Joseph and all subsequent have ever made a definitive statement regarding geography…
John Sorenson’s model is well respected by many, but he tilted the compass to accommodate for it.
I never suggested that BoM people never intermarried with the Maya, but being Jews they were very ethnocentric in their practices. You are following the group that say you can trace DNA from current peoples back to their ancestors. This is not the case accurately. It is not uncommon for certain genes to fall out from a group over time. The Nephites were decimated in 450 AD and any tracing of DNA is strictly speculative. It is a long way from an exact science. If we had a DNA sample demo a known person who is known to have lived at the same time and at the same place, it wold be possible to at least make a SWAG.

 

[dougch]

The Mormon Church does NOT say Quetalcoatl is Jesus Christ. There are many folklore legends about 2 possible characters, the mythical one and a living person named Quetzalcoatl who was quite sinful. Many members think they are the same, but The Church and most BofM scholars do not.

 

[Stephen168]

I never use the word never. Joseph Smith, however, did not.teach where the BofM people lived. He didn’t know! His writings show he first thought they lived in the Midlands of the U.S., he next got interested in the Aztecs’ homeland in the Teotihuacan area of Mexico, his last writing talks about a book which became very popular in the U.S. written by John Lloyd Stephens and illustrated by Frederick Catherwood called “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan.” Joseph’s comments were that it was the most likely model.

Joseph Smith taught, as recorded in Mormon scripture, that the BofM people were all the American Indians. When he walked across the midwest, they were there. When we heard stories by John Lloyd Stephens, they were there. This is what Mormons believed until the mid 1980’s when John Sorenson developed his limited geography model. John has said this and so have Mormons presenting John’s ideas. The limited model believed by todays Mormons is new. John’s limited model was in Central America, while others have developed there own limited models in the American midwest.

I never suggested that BoM people never intermarried with the Maya, but being Jews they were very ethnocentric in their practices.

So, if they intermarried, there would be pre-columbian Jewish DNA among the American Indians, but there isn’t. At least among the Mayans and the other 4 groups tested.

You are following the group ….

I am following science, as I said. You have torched your straw man.

 

[Stephen168]

The Mormon Church does NOT say Quetalcoatl is Jesus Christ.

I never said the Mormon Church said.

 

[TOmNossor]

According to Father Bernardino de Sahagún, the Aztecs had a legend that Quetzalcoatl would one day return, and Montezuma mistook Hernán Cortés for Quetzalcoatl.

Mormonism declares Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ, so the Book of Mormon is true.

Tom declares: Bernardino de Sahagún said Jesus Christ had visited the Americas. Well, Father Bernardino de Sahagún did not say it but said stuff that supported the idea. Well actually Father Sahagún did say Quetzalcoatl was a Christ figure. Tom doesn’t believe it, so it was Father Sahagún who is crazy, not the Mormons who invent this story in the first place.

Stephen168,

You are actually mistaken (as @dougch already told you) when you say “Mormonism declares Quetzalcoatl …,” but what I really want to say is that there is a very big difference between how I approach communicating on this board and how you approach communicating on this board.

I have a history on this board where I have called LDS problems, problems. LDS strengths, strengths. Catholic problems, problems. And Catholic strengths, strengths (all in last 6 months). I can admit that with the small minority of LDS voices AND my conviction that the CoJCoLDS is more likely to be God’s church on earth based on history, criticism and evidence than Catholicism; I spend more time responding to anti-Mormon Catholics with various responses; but I was just offering some pro-Catholic understanding to the missionaries assigned to our ward today.

It would seem that you cannot do this. If it is pro-Mormon you are against it. Anti-Mormon you are for it. If it is a Catholic problem, you will not admit it or ignore it. If it is a Catholic strength you will embrace it.

So, a Catholic priest saw parallels between Christ and Quetzalcoatl. Some LDS embraced this first-hand account of the pre-Columbian beliefs as evidence for the BOM and you say “Mormonism declares….” I don’t have a quote from Father Sahagún. I determined while it could SOUND pro-BOM, it was not sufficiently strong to be used as a pro-LDS argument. I do not actually remember the words of Father Sahagún, but he and other have been used by Anglicans and New-agers to point to Christ in the pre-Columbian Americas so it is not just LDS who understood the parallels being drawn (drawn incorrectly IMO, but drawn). I do not point to Quetzalcoatl as pro-BOM evidence and I calmly speak against it when I can. That is what someone who ATTEMPTS to be OBJECTIVE does.

I do not succeed at being OBJECTIVE. I don’t think anyone does. I just think my posting on this board makes it clear that I make an attempt at objectivity. I think your position would be stronger if you were more objective, but as the majority voice you probably do not need to worry about such things.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Nope. I assume he’s talking about the Nahom thing in Oman, but even LDS archeologists are not in agreement on that one, nevermind non-Mormon archeologists. I don’t know what other two places names in the Old World he is talking about.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

So at this point I think it would be good to summarize the arguments presented by the two LDS posters here to see where we stand:

1. Because there is not a lot of preserved writing from Mesoamerican cultures circa BoM times, it could be that maybe there were writings that supported BoM history in the New World, but we’ll never know because, among other factors, the Catholic Conquistadors destroyed it all.
2. Based on three examples of BoM geographical evidence from the Old World (two of which have not been named by the poster as far as I can tell), the BoM has a “higher percentage” of getting Old World archeology correct than the Bible.
3. Europeans reported that a Mesoamerican culture and told a legend of a “white god.” LDS speculate this could be referring to Jesus Christ.

Here are the problems with those arguments as I see it:

Argument # 1 is based totally on speculation. It only the muddies the waters by creating the possibility that there could have been something but because of several factors we will never know. The absence of evidence for something is not evidence for something. Why there is little evidence for BoM things in the New World is not as important as the simple fact that there isn’t good evidence.

Argument # 2 I find even more untenable because the Nahom thing is just a theory by a couple of LDS researchers, not supported by other LDS researchers, and certainly not supported by non-LDS archeologists at all. And I still don’t know what the other two place name claims are. The most preposterous claim of this argument is that the BoM has a “higher percentage” of getting Old World archeology correct than the Bible, based on three examples, two of which are un-named. So even though the Bible has hundreds of examples of places, people, events, and languages archeology has supported, the BoM “percentage” is higher and therefore better when it comes to evidence. I don’t even understand how “percentage” enters into any argument here, when the raw numbers are not even comparable.

Argument # 3 again is based only on could. And it could mean a million other things as well.

Overall, the arguments presented by LDS thus far consists not of evidence, but only speculation and reasons as to why there isn’t much evidence as an explanation that there could have been evidence. It seems to me, that when one compares this approach to the evidence against the BoM as actual history, the evidence against far outweighs the evidence for.

 

[Stephen168]

You have graciously come on earth, you have graciously approached your water, your high place of Mexico, you have come down to your mat, your throne, which I have briefly kept for you, I who used to keep it for you. You have graciously arrived, you have known pain, you have known weariness, now come on earth, take your rest, enter into your palace, rest your limbs; may our lords come on earth. - Father Bernardino de Sahagún quoting a speech given by Montezuma to Cortés.

The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanitish source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior’s life and ministry. - John Taylor, President of the Mormon Church 1882

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

TOmNossor:

Father Bernardino de Sahagún paid attention to the legends of the Mesoamericans and believed they evidenced Christ visiting the New World. I am not at all convinced of this, …

Fr. Sahagún spent a lifetime among the Aztec, not the Maya.

In regards to Mormons and others claiming American indigenous myth and legend are pseudo-Christian. This is just another sample of overlaying preconceived ideas and biases.

I suggested that Fr. Sahagún claimed that Mesoamerican legends supported the idea that Christ visited the Americas. It was more than just him. One of the reasons that many folks pointed to for the rapid conversion of many Mesoamerican people was the presence of an ancient “great white god.” Some pointed to this as a Christ figure and some including Fr. Sahagún utilized this linkage in their explanations both as to why Mesoamericans should embrace Christianity AND as to why Mesoamericans seemed to so readily embrace Christianity.

That being said, I specifically suggested that the Quetzalcoatl = Christ connection was not compelling IMO. So it would seem that you and I agree but we disagree with Fr. Sahagún.

Charity, TOm

Christianizing of peoples is a well documented subject. The local practices and idols were turned towards Jesus Christ. In Europe, Yule logs were turned to symbols of the Birth of Jesus. In the Americas, gods/goddesses were turned to Jesus Christ.

I could say, Mormons have a similar understanding of Jesus, but one that is not Christian, but use the similar understanding to turn Mormons to Jesus Christ. Doesn’t meant I believe what Mormonism teaches. Fr Sahagún did not believe in the pagan gods, goddesses, beliefs and practices of the people in what is now Mexico. He did not believe they had contact with Christian ideas, that had been long forgotten. Again, that is a Mormon overlay, with no basis in fact. Make believe hooha.

Looking forward to the day you can approach subjects honestly, without claiming your dishonest sophistry indicates I’m in agreement with you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

TOmNossor:

the reports of Catholic priests and bishops destroying Mesoamerican texts nowhere evidences any familiarity with the texts (or an ability to read them), just a conviction that they should be taught the Bible by persuasion or force. This destruction seems to have been a major blow to some small number of Mesoamericans. Bishop Landa wrote: “We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.”

Fr. Landa witnessed human sacrifice, which he believed to be of the devil. The Mayan codices that he ordered destroyed, he believed to contain the rituals, practices, and beliefs surrounding human sacrifice.

What Father/Bishop Landa reported per my understanding is that he witnessed BLOOD SACRIFICE. As Mesoamericans were taught Christianity, they reverted to their human blood offerings to the statues (this was self-inflicted wounds not humans killing other humans). Here is what Bishop Landa said about it:

After the people had been thus instructed in religion, and the youths benefitted as we have said, they were perverted by their priests and chiefs to return to their idolatry; this they did, making sacrifices not only by incense, but also of human blood. Upon this the friars held an Inquisition, calling upon the Alcalde Mayor for aid; they held trials and celebrated an Auto, putting many on scaffolds, capped, shorn and beaten, and some in the penitential robes for a time. Some of the Indians out of grief, and deluded by the devil, hung themselves; but generally they all showed much repentance and readiness to be good Christians.

So, I cannot know what was in those books. … So, my point is that New World Archeology is radically hampered in ways that Old World Archeology is not. While we should have records of the Exodus, we do not. But, the absence of texts that support the New World parts of the BOM are a product of no books, no papyri, and no codices that cover that timeframe.

The trials being referenced were about accusations of human sacrifice being performed in Christian churches. Not bloodletting, but crucifixion of people inside of churches, and their deaths.

You don’t know if BoM so-called archaeology is hampered or not. I can as easily state that proving a conspiracy theory is not hampered or bolstered by “evidence”. That is the nature of conspiracy theories.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And let me reiterate, above, I am speaking about the New World part of the BOM (which admittedly is the large majority of the book). There are limited “convergences” that point to the BOM as an authentic document from ancient Mesoamerica, but they are not things like a street sign “Zarahemla 20 kilometers.” That and the bulk of the absence of evidence pointed to by critics SHOULDN’T exist because we do not have toponyms or texts or ….

The Old World part of the BOM fairs as well as any part of the Bible and better than some parts of the Bible for archeological support. What we SHOULD find in the Old World if the BOM is true, we do find in the Old World. AND the complex connections that exist between the BOM and Old World archeology, geography, and toponymy are very compelling. They demand an explanation. I do not believe the explanation offered by critics is near as strong as the believing explanation. Critics claim that perhaps Joseph Smith used one of two maps that included information about this part of Arabia.

Joseph Smith could not have possessed a flash memory stick (because they were not invented). It is possible but almost as unlikely that he possessed or saw one of two maps that existed within the northeastern US that mentioned Nihm/Nehem (because nothing in his history suggests this is even a remote possibility). And if he possessed a map it still couldn’t explain the complex interrelations of geography evidenced in the BOM text and aligning with a 600B.C. trip from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful.

Charity, TOm

Believe what you will, but you are going on correlations. When you wash your car it rains, therefore, washing your causes it to rain.

Vent and went are so close in pronunciation and spelling, they must be the same thing. If we pronounce ‘w’ as it is in German, then oh my heck! Went and vent are exactly the same thing!!! Someone give me a map.

 

[Medawlinno]

While it is sadly true that the Europeans, in burning Mayan ‘books’, destroyed an incalculable amount of knowledge and culture (what they didn’t understand was automatically assumed to be “of the Devil”), one must remember that in most Native American (whether North, Central or South) civilizations have a phenomenally strong oral tradition – this typically goes for any civilization that lacks a writing system and a way to record things with the written word.

The thing is, is that what supposedly occurred in the new World with respect to the BoM, just does not exist in any N/A oral tradition; it’s just not there. One would expect to find something in the oral traditions.

Granted, there’s a huge difference in the time period, but even the Vikings visiting the New World which resulted in the sharing of some cultural beliefs still survives in some of the traditional stories told here in northern New England (as well as the Canadian Maritimes).

My point being that even though evidence of Vikings in the new World dates to around the 1000’s (i.e. not as old as say the peoples of the BoM), the fact they were here still survives in the oral tradition. Not so with the peoples of the BoM – there’s zero evidence in the N/A oral traditions.

Equating N/A deities with Christian deities was, I believe, quite common – typically one sees just the opposite; the main Native deity gets equated with the Christian concept of Satan – it was a rather common way to Christianize the masses. That Quetzalcoatl was equated to Christ is admittedly rather odd.

 

[TOmNossor]

The thing is, is that what supposedly occurred in the new World with respect to the BoM, just does not exist in any N/A oral tradition; it’s just not there. One would expect to find something in the oral traditions.

Granted, there’s a huge difference in the time period, but even the Vikings visiting the New World which resulted in the sharing of some cultural beliefs still survives in some of the traditional stories told here in northern New England (as well as the Canadian Maritimes).

Concerning oral traditions, there are many LDS American Indians who claim that they are LDS because they see connection to their oral tradition. There is a lady in our ward who every 6 months or so speaks about this during fast and testimony meeting. I am not an expert, but I would suggest that the presence or absence of evidence in a record such as “oral tradition” is in a VERY LARGE respect in the eyes of the beholder.

Concerning the Vikings visiting the New World (items in quotes below are from Jared Diamond’s book Collapse:

Let’s pretend it is 1960. We have written accounts of the Vikings’ attempt to settle North America. “The written accounts consist mainly of two sagas describing the initial Vinland voyages of discovery and exploration, transmitted orally for several centuries and finally written down in Iceland during the 1200s. In the absence of independent confirming evidence, scholars tended to dismiss the sagas as fiction and to doubt that the Vikings ever reached the New World.” This is where we stood in 1960.

There was much invested in the minds of scholars that said Columbus was the first to settle the New World. Even though these texts from the 1200’s were suitably ancient and spoke of voyages and settlements that had solid oral tradition (in the Nordic Old World) and occurred sometime about 6 or 7 generations earlier than the first written accounts, scholars still dismissed them as fiction. Columbus was first. Such things continue today outside of the great LDS vs. non-LDS debates only not about the Vikings.

This is because that in 1961 “the debate was finally settled when archaeologists located the Vikings’ New-foundland base camp.” “The saga accounts of Vinland are now recognized to be the oldest written descriptions of North America, although scholars still debate the accuracy of their details. They are contained in two separate manuscripts, termed Greenlanders’ Saga and Erik the Red’s Saga, which are in broad agreement but have many differences of finer points.”

There is still considerable intellectual momentum behind the denials of Old World to New World contact. Non-LDS diffusionist continue to debate with non-LDS non-diffusionist about possible contact between the Old World and New World. If I understand the state of the archeological community, this debate is now a respected disagreement with neither side claiming the other is simply brain washed religious fools.

I would suggest that if ancient texts like the Saga of Eric the Red are largely dismissed by the academic community, purportedly miraculous texts like the BOM will have a much greater problem.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

RebeccaJ:

TOmNossor:

And let me reiterate, above, I am speaking about the New World part of the BOM. There are limited “convergences” that point to the BOM as an authentic document from ancient Mesoamerica, but they are not things like a street sign “Zarahemla 20 kilometers.” That and the bulk of the absence of evidence pointed to by critics SHOULDN’T exist because we do not have toponyms or texts or

The Old World part of the BOM fairs as well as any part of the Bible. What we SHOULD find in the Old World if the BOM is true, we find. AND the complex connections that exist between the BOM and Old World archeology, geography, and toponymy are very compelling. They demand explanation. I do not believe the critic’s explanation is near as strong as the believer’s. Critics claim that perhaps Joseph Smith used one of two maps that included information about this part of Arabia.

Joseph Smith couldn’t possess a flash memory. It’s almost as unlikely that he possessed or saw maps that existed in northeastern US that mentioned Nihm/Nehem (because nothing in his history suggests this is even a remote possibility). And if he possessed a map it still couldn’t explain the complex interrelations of geography evidenced in the BOM text and aligning with a 600B.C. trip from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful.

Believe what you will, but you are going on correlations. When you wash your car it rains, therefore, washing your causes it to rain.

Vent and went are so close in pronunciation and spelling, they must be the same thing. If we pronounce ‘w’ as it is in German, then oh my heck! Went and vent are exactly the same thing!!! Someone give me a map.

Hello Rebecca,

I have been away for a bit, I hope you didn’t miss me too much (who would you call dishonest in an attempt to “poison the well” without me). I am unlikely to post as much as I have for the last couple of months, but I thought I would respond quickly.

I am an engineer. I collect and analyze data. Bald data does not speak to correlation vs. causation, you are correct. Thus I dismiss Quatzequatel = Christ as EVIDENCE for the BOM. The connections are not IMO sufficient to demonstrate that Christ’s visit to the New World CAUSED the connections seen by Catholic, Anglican, New Age, and LDS scholars. If the BOM is true history, I find it VERY LIKELY that some of what we have from this legend is a product of Christ’s visit, but I do not think Christ’s visit is necessary to explain the loose connections.

In the New World, I think the “convergence” of cement, lack of trees, many waters, and land Northward (aligning with Sorensen’s map) is more than just correlation. Brant Gardner and Sorensen have documented many convergences and/or correlations to the point that I find the New World Mesoamerican setting compelling.

The Old World connection I find to be simple and very compelling. Many critics have AGREED hence the search for maps and other sources of this. One of my favorites was the map that was 50 miles or so from Harmony, PA (only this was not the Harmony, PA where Joseph Smith worked on the BOM it was over 320 miles away from Joseph Smith).

Charity, TOm