There are 3 thoughts on “A Sympathetic but Flawed Look at Book of Mormon Historicity”.

  1. Yes, it would have been nice if someone would have published something somewhere. The initial knee jerk response by some to this was that it was insulting to Mesoamerican peoples, Michael Coe was especially outspoken which is of course not a scientific response, just a political one. However, near the end of his life Michael Coe himself ndicated in private correspondence that he did see some Asian influence in Mesoamerica (rabbit in the moon, etc). I don’t have any problems with people suggesting some trade influence and parallels but it is not to the level of evidence until there are fairly complex things that are in parallel or some things that are very unique. It is always the jump too far that people make with the BOM in my opinion. Many try to push the narrative that the BOM is the foundation of all civilization in Mesoamerica when realistically it was only of local influence to some groups. Lists of parallels are fine but they are just the first cut of comparing cultural elements. Further detailed research has to be done if possible.

  2. The review would have been much more useful if the reviewer cited the sources used for their arguments. For example, Michal Xu’s work always sounded interesting, as are the supposed refutations. But the rebuttal isn’t cited. The problems with various sources like Ixtlilxochitl and Bancroft sound authoritative, but we are only getting the reviewers position on those sources without the ability to fully assess it. Academics argue about everything, so I assume there are contrary positions on these sources as well, even if they are in the marginalized minority. There are no sources so we don’t have a chance to investigate both sides and assess the reviewer’s evaluation of the author’s use of sources.

    Gardner has shown in numerous works that he knows a great deal and is a leader in the field, but a published review without the sources used for key assessments isn’t very useful.

    • I agree that sources would be good. In the case of Ixtlilxochitl, much is from my personal examination, but corroborated with comments I have seen–but have no way to find. As for Michael Xu’s work, that was on the Aztlan message board years ago. I didn’t keep copies, and should have. I apologize for not having the ability to name the sources, but the information is correct.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged. Individual authors are given the option to disallow commenting or end commenting after a certain period at their discretion.

Close this window

Top of Page

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This