Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 1

message: Two Things: 1)  Excellent work.  This page has a future now!  2)  Why is it Linguistics and BofM instead of BofM Linguistics?  Is is a question of distinction of meaning or of Wiki standards? Hawstom 06:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Linguistics and the BofM is potentially a bit broader than BofM Linguistics. It could cover any intersection between language studies and the BofM, including info on what the BofM has to say on the topic of linguistics, which is quite a lot. COGDEN 02:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Article

message: Is there place in Wikipedia for Book of Mormon Geography?  This isn't an apologetics encyclopedia, so I'm not sure.  I was thinking of adding info on Lehi's arabian journey and Mesoamerican studies, but maybe that is going too far. Hawstom 04:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding to other Articles

message: The 1973 Michael Coe quote is absurd in the context of the "state of the research"  I don't want to kick a hornet's nest, but I think it ought to either go or be put into a "back then, 30 years ago" context compared to the state today.  Sorenson's book and numerous other studies werent' known in 1973.  Again, it is simply absurd and beneath Wikipedia. Tom 05:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: State of Research

message: A major problem with the article, and I'm not sure how to state this delicately, is that it is stuck in an old "us vs. them" paradigm.  I think Book of Mormon Studies has moved beyond that.  Again, I am afraid of being indelicate here, but from where I sit, the Book of Mormon believers have shifted their focus to a good old Ezra-Taft-Benson-would-be-proud serious studentship from the old one upmanship game with the skeptics, and in the process have left the old arguments in the dust.  The Mormons have got their hands dusty, worn out some shoes and tires, dusted off old tomes and manuals, racked up frequent flyer miles, and come up with some decent insights into the Book of Mormon.  And what do you know?  At the same time they have left the skeptics in a huge cloud of dust.  Is it just me, or is the argument over for anybody who has really been paying attention in the past 20 years?
I am serious about this.  Does anybody care that the Bible talks about beasts we can't confirm?  Does anybody claim it is a fiction because x, y, or z doesn't fit?  And so similarly, once we have all read Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Joseph Allen's Book on the same subject, the Lehi Journey discoveries, and on and on word for word from cover to cover, do we believe nit-picking criticisms are really about an objective attempt to demonstrate the Book of Mormon's historicity, or do we start to increasingly see the criticisms as simple stone-throwing?
I have been very patient with this article.  But after spending a couple of hours with it tonight, I am disrespecting myself for pandering to old, rehashed stone-throwing.  Isn't it time Book of Mormon Studies grew up?
Now that I have been indelicate, let me put on my NPOV hat again.  What I propose is that we strip the article of all vestiges of controversy and proceed with a strictly "Studies" focus.  If there are problems in the Book of Mormon (there always are), let us deal with them in a scholarly way, giving the book the benefit of the doubt, rather than pronouncing an "Aha!"  Let us not shy from questions such as "Was Ammon really preparing horses for chariots?"  But let us not continue to imply that the Book of Mormon is a story without a place, very plausibly a work of fiction.  That it clearly is NOT.  It is a sacred text of a major religion, and deserves serious study, at least study with a forced serious face.  And I think that is the Wiki way. Tom 07:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Mormon apologists have left skeptics in the dust, but I agree that the article could use a much more scholarly framework. I don't think that the mention of pre-Columbian horses and other anachronisms is nit-picking, but I don't think this article should be about whether or not there is or isn't archaeological evidence of pre-Columbian horses, etc. Rather, the article should (1) point out all the Book of Mormon's seeming anachronisms, (2) discuss how particular apologists have explained those anachronisms, (3) point out all the seeming positive archaeological consistencies, and (4) discuss how particular skeptics have explained these consistencies. COGDEN 15:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I am way behind on the state of research among Book of Mormon debunkers.    Perhaps there are recent activities from them that could be included in this article to disabuse notions such as mine that recently the apologists have been more more serious about the BofM than have the debunkers.Tom 05:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know that the focus of the article should be as you outline, COGDEN.     Is that the best we can expect from an archaeology article?  What should we expect and deliver in the article?  Is Book of Mormon archaeology only about arguments, strife, and debate, or is there a higher aspect of pure interest that would make a better platform for an article?  Tom 05:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree that there is a bit of a disconnect between the energy and focus of Mormon apologists and skeptics. But I don't think that this is because the apologists are winning. It's just because the two groups are no longer using the same standards of evaluation. Apologists aren't trying to justify their theories within mainstream archaeology anymore (in the sense of, for example, trying to publish their theories in peer-reviewed archaeology journals, where they would be laughed at), and skeptics don't really lend much credence to the arguments and synchronisms put forth by apologists. I don't think that a unified theory of Book of Mormon archaeology is possible anymore. COGDEN 20:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Apologists aren't trying to justify their theories within mainstream archaeology anymore".  You mean they used to?  Tom 05:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus of Article

message: I am here to write to the Anonymous editor of this page, COGDEN, B and other Mormon church supporters.
I am a person who frequently lurk on this encyclopedia to do research on various subjects, including on Mormonism. First of all, I don't think it is ethical for the anonymous guy to copy the whole article from another website and replace the article here. (Hey, anonymous dude, you know what I am meant)
However, at the same time, I felt very uncomfortable about the idea that some Mormons use this free Encyclopedia as a tool of pro-LDS propaganda. In particularly in this article written by cogden, I felt it does not give us the whole picture about the Book of Mormon and Archaeology. In fact, his article is quite misleading. As far as I am concerned, no archaeological evidence support the Book of Mormon. 
B, you said it is unfair for that guy (whoever he is) to edit your article. Well, as far as I am concerned, anyone has the right to edit any messages. Moreover, Mormons here are more than happy to edit any articles that does not give their church a good image.
This is a free encyclopedia which many people who will come here to do researchs, which include young students. Please don't take advantage of this encyclopedia to endorse your own religion. You won't be happy if someone use this place to post anti-mormonism articles. 69.105.0.3|talk July 25, 2004
:  69.105.0.3, rather than insult the LDS contributors here with your speculation that we are here to promote pro-LDS propaganda, your comments would be more well received without that sort of bigotry.  The current article is a result of work by LDS and non-LDS alike, not just COGDEN...not even primarily by COGDEN...Your opinion that "the article is misleading" is just that: your opinion...an uninformed and wrong opinion too. 
:  69.105.0.3, don't put words in my mouth...I didn't say only that it was merely unfair, but the manner in which he did it was unfair.  Mormons can edit any articles?! Really?! A free encyclopedia for impressionable youth?! Wow, we never knew that! Any more obvious things you want to mention, sherlock?
:  As far as I'm concerned, 69.105.0.3, you apparantly know very little about archeological evidence relating to any scripture, not to mention a poor grasp of science and its philosophical foundations. Just because you have an opninion doesn't mean it's wise to state it especially with the bigoted, stupid remarks you made above. 69.105.0.3 as far as I'm concerned you are just another deluded promoter of bigoted-propaganda against Mormons and you have been brainwashed by your minister/church and your one-sided exposure to bigoted-propaganda against Mormonism rather than actually knowing or making friends with any Mormons and actually learning something about Mormonism from a Mormon point of view. Try expanding your narrow-mind a little bit...it will do wonders for your soul. —B|Talk 03:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just my opinion 

message: This article has way too many extern links within the article proper.  FWIK, extern links within the article proper should only be used as cites and not as regular links (like wikilinks).  Otherwise, they should be in the extern links section.  I was about to fix this myself, but there are way too many for me to tackle.  Perhaps a regular editor on this article might want to tackle it.  Just my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
----
I agree.  While I was curious to read some of the Bible passages, Book of Mormon passages etc., I think it would be best to reference them, chapter and verse within the text, and provide links to the chapter in the External Links section at the bottom.  When you follow most of these links, it takes you to the beginning of the chapter, and you either have to read-through or scroll down to get to the verse(s) cited anyway.  Doing otherwise is not standard Wikipedia format, and it tends to clutter the text.--Jpbrenna 03:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many extern links within article

message: I've edited the following for the following reasons:
*Removed "white skinned," from lead paragraph - the book also describes darker skinned and other ethnicities, not specified. It has nothing to do with the lead paragraph. Perhaps if it is a neccesary edit it could be introduced at a more appropriate location, such as a discussion of White and Dark skinned paintings found in Mexico. 
*I moved around the Smithsonian myth to the cultural section. It is a good point, however, needs to be discuss in a cultural setting, not in an area discussing cattle and horses. Kept link to source document, as it is useful argument. 
*I provided some additional links that show the true complexity of the DNA research, including dicussions of Mitochondial DNA, DNA research and even a discussion of the most recent common ancestor (incidentally, is a wonderful theory in itself. I think we need to show more links that support murphy's theory as well, but unfortunately that is a newer area of research, while the others are much more established. 
*removed link to cult. See discussion on Talk:Cult and at User_talk:Vegasbright. It has no place in this article, is POV and an opinion. 
*Statements about excommunication have been altered (and will likely be removed). This is simple not true and is a misguided comment. (I later removed them - they are inaccurate).
*Removed "while inference to the contrary is plentiful from quazi-intelectual organizations such as The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies." As Farms does very little research compared to other organizations, and unfortunately for the author of this statement, they are well respected in many academic circles. They are niche though, which leaves them open to criticism. In addition, this is an opinion and not NPOV. 
*I'm not sure I understand your comment about it being impossible "to separate belief from science and research in the LDS culture =," Can you please expand this thought in the cultural section? I don't have any problem seperating the two, hwoever, many of my scientific theories are created by my world view, the same as every other researcher. And I freely admit, my world view is largely influenced by my religion. Who's isn't. Vegasbrights obviously is, or he wouldn't make some of the edits to the article. His religious beliefs - even if they are atheism and skepticism for Mormonism - affect how he views the church and similar organizations. It is part of being human. Please clarify - perhaps I'm missing his "objective" point. -Visorstuff 04:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation on recent edits

message: This article has recently lost organization.  The sections purport to be organized along Support and Problems lines.  This kind of organization is useful for the Sam Spade types who come along wanting a good, impartial review of the issues.  But the Metallurgy sub-section, for example, is written in a way that doesn't deliver on the promise of the headings.  I am not sure what to do about this.  Vegasbright, can you help figure this out? It is important that the sections not talk past each other.  For example, if metallury is a problem for the Book of Mormon, we ought not to talk about evidences for it in the support section.  Rather, we should discuss truthfully the problem with possible mitigating apologetic thoughts in the problems section.  Likewise, if Lehi's Arabian Journey is a support for the Book of Mormon, let us discuss it in full in the Support section.  For each issue, we ought to be able to frankly agree whether it is a Supportive ("We found the Liahona!") or a Problematic ("There were no written languages in America!") issue for the Book of Mormon and treat it accordingly. Tom Haws
I am making several edits to the article.  Some are uncontroversial.  Tom Haws 17:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
===New World Steel===
This is a Problem issue.  No apologist claims to have found the Sword of Laban.  Apologists merely seek to show that the problem is resolvable.  I am removing these Old World references from what appears to be a New World analysis. Tom Haws
1 Nephi 4:9
:...was of the most precious steel
::This sword was Laban's in Jerusalem. Tom Haws
1 Nephi 16:8
:...I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel...
::This bow was from Jerusalem.  No replacement was made in the Arabian wilderness. Tom Haws
The remaining reference should probably be expanded to show verse 14 in which Nephi makes swords after the manner of the (steel) sword of Laban.  I don't know if there are any references to steel beyond Nephi himself.  Does the Book of Mormon state or infer that steel was produced or used after the days of Nephi?  Tom Haws 17:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Another problem is one of definition. As one can read from Webster's 1828 dictionary, steel was used for combinations of iron and carbon: 
STEEL, n. [G.]     1. Iron combined with a small portion of carbon; iron refined and hardened, used in making instruments, and particularly useful as the material of edged tools. It is called in chemistry, carburet of iron; but this is more usually the denomination of plumbago.    2. Figuratively, weapons; particularly, offensive weapons, swords, spears and the like. ... 
:The same is true of some of the other objections to specific words JS used in the BoM - the word had a different meaning than what is commonly thought today. Trödel|talk 21:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just any combination of iron and carbon, though:  note the "small portion of carbon".  That is, wrought iron isn't steel (too little carbon), but neither is cast iron (or pig iron) (too much carbon), and neither would have been referred to as such in 1828, either.  But equally, it'd be wrong to think of "steel" as meaning "blast furnaces" and such like.  The industrial revolution represents the, well, industrialisation of steel production, not its inception:  several mediaeval and dark age cultures were able to produce steel in small quantities, that's the basis of pattern-welded swords, damask blades, Japanese swordsmithing, among various others.  Whether that's literally true of the Nephites, and what's the correct level of linguistic and figurative interpretation to put on the text, is something I'm going to have to let you guys hammer (and anvil?) out.  Alai 22:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom's review and edits

message: This is a Problem issue.  No apologist claims to have found the Sword of Laban.  Apologists merely seek to show that the problem is resolvable.  I am removing these Old World references from what appears to be a New World analysis. Tom Haws
1 Nephi 4:9
:...was of the most precious steel
::This sword was Laban's in Jerusalem. Tom Haws
1 Nephi 16:8
:...I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel...
::This bow was from Jerusalem.  No replacement was made in the Arabian wilderness. Tom Haws
The remaining reference should probably be expanded to show verse 14 in which Nephi makes swords after the manner of the (steel) sword of Laban.  I don't know if there are any references to steel beyond Nephi himself.  Does the Book of Mormon state or infer that steel was produced or used after the days of Nephi?  Tom Haws 17:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Another problem is one of definition. As one can read from Webster's 1828 dictionary, steel was used for combinations of iron and carbon: 
STEEL, n. [G.]     1. Iron combined with a small portion of carbon; iron refined and hardened, used in making instruments, and particularly useful as the material of edged tools. It is called in chemistry, carburet of iron; but this is more usually the denomination of plumbago.    2. Figuratively, weapons; particularly, offensive weapons, swords, spears and the like. ... 
:The same is true of some of the other objections to specific words JS used in the BoM - the word had a different meaning than what is commonly thought today. Trödel|talk 21:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just any combination of iron and carbon, though:  note the "small portion of carbon".  That is, wrought iron isn't steel (too little carbon), but neither is cast iron (or pig iron) (too much carbon), and neither would have been referred to as such in 1828, either.  But equally, it'd be wrong to think of "steel" as meaning "blast furnaces" and such like.  The industrial revolution represents the, well, industrialisation of steel production, not its inception:  several mediaeval and dark age cultures were able to produce steel in small quantities, that's the basis of pattern-welded swords, damask blades, Japanese swordsmithing, among various others.  Whether that's literally true of the Nephites, and what's the correct level of linguistic and figurative interpretation to put on the text, is something I'm going to have to let you guys hammer (and anvil?) out.  Alai 22:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New World Steel

message: Pseudoscience has no place in an article about Archaeology.  Referring to it is a poor excuse for not improving the article.  I am removing the reference.  Tom Haws 17:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent edits, Tom. Wow - I missed the steel thought completely. Excellent insight. "After the manner" is an interesting statement, and steel was avail in Jerusalem at the time. I think it is very important as you re-work this article - I'm withholding for a time still - that the editors state what is known, what is not known and what is theorized. For example, putting information about the horses in the apologetic section seems problematic. Just place it in the narritive and let the reader know the dates don't match. That's good enough for me. Same with some other "apologetic" things. State what is known and what is not and let the reader decide. -Visorstuff 18:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience reference

message: Thanks to MrWhipple for organizing the external links.  Sorry for adding to the pain by merging "See also" with "External links".  I'm a bit concerned about deleting 2 of the links.  http://utlm.org/topicalindexa.htm#Book%20of%20Mormon is a Jerald and Sandra Tanner link.  No matter what you may think of these two, they are major contributors to the debate of Mormonism in general and have a few links on the subject of archeology in this URL.  Many people who are aware of the Tanners would expect to see their comments here.  For that reason, I suggest that we leave utlm.org in the list of links.  I have more problems finding the archeology sections in the link http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/keystone.htm, and I don't see a problem with deleting that link, but other people should look at it. Nereocystis 07:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Need to give your second question more thought. However the UTLM needs to stay. The other link should as well. -Visorstuff 20:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Due to recent editing disgreements, I think it's appropriate to point out here that there is an RFC on Gabrielsimon. Allegations include disregard of NPOV and inappropriate reversions. Friday 04:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gabrielsimon 

message: I removed this in my edits and wanted to point out why.  "A pre-Columbian metal smelting site was excavated in Mexico in November of 2000 by an archaeological team from MIT. Evidence of copper smelting was found at the site, including copper pieces and slag. "
Nobody disputes that there was pre-columbian metal smelting; especially bronze.  The disput revolves around smelting Steel, so to say that these people smelted copper is like saying the sky is blue; yes, it's true, no it isn't evidence for any religion.  --Quasipalm 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but Nephit work with copper is specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon (twice as often as work with iron), and evidence for it should be included, as should minmal evidence for iron smelting. Where would you put the statement? -Visorstuff 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Smelting comment

message: The header of this article states
:Mormon apologists and skeptics alike have long attempted to demonstrate through archaeology that The Book of Mormon is on the one hand a work of history or on the other a work of fiction. Most Mormons and Mormon apologists, though not all, view the characters of The Book of Mormon as real people who lived in a real place in the Americas, while skeptics view it as a fraud written to capitalize on the myth of the Mound Builders and on spirituality in the early United States. Apologists have suggested some archaeological theories that support the idea of a historical Book of Mormon narrative. Similarly, skeptics have argued that the Book of Mormon is unsupported by archaeological evidence. The book's historicity is fundamentally a matter of belief for most LDS parties. 
Skeptics view it in different ways.  Mentioning the mound builders is probably too specific, at least for the header.  Calling it a fraud may be going too far.  If Joseph Smith incorrectly believed that god was talking to, but was wrong, then it wouldn't be a fraud, but it wouldn't be true, either. I replaced argued with state, a little less POV, and simplified the paragraph a bit. I prefer to say:
:Mormon apologists and skeptics alike have long attempted to demonstrate through archaeology that The Book of Mormon is on the one hand a work of history or on the other a work of fiction. Most Mormons and Mormon apologists, though not all, view the characters of The Book of Mormon as real people who lived in a real place in the Americas.  Skeptics do not view the Book of Mormon as history. Apologists state that some archaeological theories support the idea of a historical Book of Mormon narrative. Skeptics state that the Book of Mormon is unsupported by archaeological evidence. The book's historicity is fundamentally a matter of belief for most LDS members.
Is this OK for a substitution? Nereocystis 18:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it. Do it. Great job.  -Visorstuff 20:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do skeptics view BofM as a fraud?

message: Visorstuff deleted a sentence denying Old World influence in New World culture. What does establish a link? It's more than just noting pyramids and dietary restrictions. Papua New Guineau has had farming for years. The concept of insufficient evidence should be mentioned, with a specific reference. We should be able to find something, though there is little non-Mormon research in this area.  Nereocystis 22:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of Old World influences in the Olmec and the Maya culture

message: What does this sentence mean:
:The book's historicity is fundamentally a matter of belief for most LDS members.
My interpretation is:
:Most LDS members do not care about scientific evidence for the book historicity.  They accept the historicity as a matter of faith, not science.
Is this equivalent?  If so, do we have a reference for how many Mormons believe in the literal truth of the BofM, and what their basis for belief is?  If not, maybe we should delete the sentence. Nereocystis 22:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty close - belief in the book of mormon is a matter of faith, not scientific proof - same as the Bible, God, etc. AKA - I believe in it because of the manifestations of the Spirit of God through it, not because it can be physically documented/proven. -Visorstuff 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A matter of belief

message: I've been making some systematic changes to change the tone of the article from apologetics to the state of current archaeological research. I was actually disapointed that the article focuses so much on the tit-for-tat of what is controversial, and not what is relatively solid research. Also, the metalurgy section is still in need of some work, which I did on paper on a recent plane trip, but need to add in when I have more time. Silk, copper, coinage, calendar system, hieroglyphics, buildings, cement, buildings, different races, mulek son of zedekiah, are all things that are resolved issues and or proven. Also, if at a recent symposium, one scholar says there is evidence for 54 percent or more of the claims of the Book of Mormon then we should add in those details. -
Visorstuff 05:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From your context, you seem to mean what I'm going to say here, but I'm going to say it before someone else does.  But if you're going to say "there is evidence for 54 percent or more of the claims of the Book of Mormon", then you're going to need more context.  You'll need to include what research has been done by said scholar to support said claims.  Val42 05:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone and addition and other changes

message: Some of what is in the Nahom section seems redundant. Could the last sentence be removed, or the early portion of the section rewritten? I'm new, so I'm a little leary to do more than correct syntactical errors myself.
:I'm in process of making some edits over the next week and Nahom is one that is planned. Excellent feedback -Visorstuff 21:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nahom 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: 165.247.227.23 recently deleted these citations.  I've re-added two of them, and am pasting them all here so that they may be preserved in case they are needed for the article later:
, , , , .  The Jade Knight 09:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 165.247.227.23 

message: I reverted back 6 versions because there was non visible editing <--- ---> contained within. An editor familiar with the topic should perhaps review my revision.Thanks.--Dakota ~  ° 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: I have updated (most of) the citations using embedded HTML links with the cite.php (<ref>) system. I've presumed this to be an uncontroversial move, mainly because the previous method also embedded the details of the referenced sources within the text of the article itself, and the change mostly involves wrapping the ref tags around them. However, if anyone thinks differently, then speak up. There are still quite a few inconsistencies in the reference formatting, and a little more cleanup would seem to be in order.--cjllw | TALK 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: An editor (Enormousdude has several times now inserted a sentence likening the Popol Vuh account and its importance to the Maya with that of the Bible to the Jews. This is an inaccurate and misleading comparison for the following reasons:
*Firstly, The Popol Vuh version we have is specific to the highland ca. 16th C. Quiché Maya, and not other Maya peoples in other regions and historical periods. 
*Secondly, the Popol Vuh is but one of many and varied creation accounts and mythological histories to be found among the Maya, and is based on some particular oral histories which were caused to be written down (post-conquest); its particular versions have survived almost by pure chance, there are many other traditions whose existence is supposed from hints in Maya writing and iconography. Granted, many of the details are frequently repeated in other texts, but there are equally many other aspects to Maya beliefs and mythological history which do not appear in the Popol Vuh account.  
*Thirdly, unlike the Bible (or the Qur'an) it is not a doctrinal text, and does not form the sole (or primary) legitimate basis for their religious beliefs (past or present).
*Fourthly, if you want to be accurate, it ought to be specified as the Hebrew Bible for Jewish significance, rather than the ambiguous 'Bible' (for obvious reasons).
If you think otherwise, then please let's have your reasons/sources, or at least some dialogue before further attempts to re-revise it.--cjllw | TALK 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Popol Vuh]] 

message: I've removed the following recently-inserted section:
:Maya appears to be the only ancient american civilization which developed written number system. Mayan number system appears to be based not on the number 10 but on number 20. This resulted in more compact notation than commonly used today decimal system and allowed Maya to record large numbers with ease. Book of Mormon, however, when mentioning numbers uses decimal system (for example, when refering to number of soldiers in army by tens of thousands or refering to number of battle/war casualties as by millions).
There are a number (no pun intended) of problems:
*Maya were not the only Mesoamerican civilization with written numerals; on the contrary, use of a vigesimal (base20) numeral system is found throughout just about all of precolumbian Mesoamerica, as can be seen in the inscriptions of the Zapotec, Mixtec, Olmec, Mixe-Zoque, and others. Nor did the system originate with the Maya.
*That the Maya could (and did) record very large numbers is not due to their using a base20 system, but because they used a place-notational system, which included the concept of zero (or 'completeness' as they actually thought of it). Thus in the same way we would write 999,999,999,999... or whatever, their system (eg 9.13.10.0.0.18) representing successive higher-order powers of the base could also be extended as far as they pleased with the same economy as the arabic numeral one. The only difference is the base (decimal vs vigesimal).
*That there is a difference in the base between the BoM (decimal) and Mesomamerican inscriptions (vigesimal) is clear; but unless the BoM states somewhere that the Jaredites, Lamanites et al used a decimal system I don't really see the point of the argument- a number is a number whatever base-notation it is transcribed in.
There are many anachronisms and discrepancies between the BoM & the archaeological record which are far more problematic for the account than this one; unless some notable source somewhere has tried to advance an argument along these lines, it seems to be not worth mentioning.--cjllw | TALK 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed number section 

message: I have archived the old talk page and it can be found by following the link above.  With the exception of a few posts, almost every discussion was between 4 months to 2 years old.  If I missed any other current conversations, I apologize, just start the topic off fresh here. Mapache 07:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Archival