SoyLeche
10-02-2007, 11:27 AM
Well, I finished the book (http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-American-Setting-Book-Mormon/dp/087747608X). It was pretty good. He made some logical leaps that I'm not sure I follow, but a lot of that probably comes from things that he figures Nibley already covered, and since I haven't read much Nibley...
Anyway, he puts together a pretty good argument for the geography he's come up with (for example, the "narrow neck" being the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isthmus_of_Tehuantepec) ). I'm not sure how much that really matters, but it was interesting anyway.
The main thing that I got from the book is a perspective on how the BoM should be interpreted. It is too easy to read the BoM and interpret it within a wester context. There's no reason to believe that it was written from a western perspective though, so this makes no sense. The BoM was written from a Mesoamerican perspective, with some influence from the main author's (Mormon) middle-eastern roots (really, you would expect 1st and 2nd Nephi to be very middle-eastern, while the rest of the book should be more mesoamerican. I'm not good at textual analysis, but that is what I would expect).
I think that Mormons tend to believe that the archeology of Central America will eventually end up supporting the BoM. I agree entirely. I don't believe that it will end up supporting the BoM interpretation that most people adhere to though. The science will move towards the truth, and won't go beyond that. Our understanding of the BoM is most likely going to have to so some moving itself.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.
Anyway, he puts together a pretty good argument for the geography he's come up with (for example, the "narrow neck" being the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isthmus_of_Tehuantepec) ). I'm not sure how much that really matters, but it was interesting anyway.
The main thing that I got from the book is a perspective on how the BoM should be interpreted. It is too easy to read the BoM and interpret it within a wester context. There's no reason to believe that it was written from a western perspective though, so this makes no sense. The BoM was written from a Mesoamerican perspective, with some influence from the main author's (Mormon) middle-eastern roots (really, you would expect 1st and 2nd Nephi to be very middle-eastern, while the rest of the book should be more mesoamerican. I'm not good at textual analysis, but that is what I would expect).
I think that Mormons tend to believe that the archeology of Central America will eventually end up supporting the BoM. I agree entirely. I don't believe that it will end up supporting the BoM interpretation that most people adhere to though. The science will move towards the truth, and won't go beyond that. Our understanding of the BoM is most likely going to have to so some moving itself.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.