FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Plants in the Book of Mormon
(Redirected from Book of Mormon/Plants/Sheum)
Plants in the Book of Mormon
Question: Is the Book of Mormon's account of olive horticulture in Jacob 5 accurate?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #71: Why Did Zenos Give So Many Details About Raising Good Olives? (Video)
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #70: What Are The Roots Of Zenos's Allegory In The Ancient World? (Video)
The Book of Mormon provides a remarkably accurate portrait of olive horticulture
Does the Book of Mormon's account of olive culture in Jacob 5 match what we know about this subject?
Jacob 5 is a virtuoso performance by Joseph Smith in his role as translator. He presents an intricate, accurate account of olive horticulture, and uses variances from the "proper" technique as a teaching tool. It should be noted that there was (and is) no olive culture done in New England. Furthermore, the original manuscript exists for part of this chapter — Jacob 5:46-48, 57-61, 69-70, and 77. Only one word is altered after dictation: "diged" in "digged about" of verse 47. [1] Thus, Joseph produced this material by dictation, with no revision.
The Book of Mormon provides a remarkably accurate portrait of olive horticulture. [2] There are two points at which the allegory/parable deviates from the known principles of growing olives; in both cases, the allegory's characters draw the reader's attention to these deviations with some amazement. Thus, these 'mistakes' play a dramatic role in demonstrating the allegory/parable's meaning. [3]
Accurate olive culture information
Information from [4] unless otherwise specified.
| Element | Horticulture principle |
| Wild vs. tame olives |
There are many species [at least 35-40] of olive trees, but only one, Olea europaea, is domestic. Domestic olives have larger fruits and a higher oil content, having been bred for these desired characteristics. Wild olives often have thorns, which make handling them less pleasant. |
| Interbreeding wild and tame olive | Olea europaea L. is interfertile with some wild olive species. |
| Wild olive reproduction | The olive is the seed of the tree. One could plant the olive seed, but this has a disadvantage: seeds are produced sexually (through the union of male and female genetic material). Thus, they may not have all of the desired characteristics of a given parent tree, since one cannot always control which other tree fertilizes a given seed. |
| All wild olive trees reproduce only by seeds. | Thus, even trees with desired characteristics will tend to produce offspring that "revert" to wild, since genes get mixed and combined with seed reproduction. |
| Growing new olive trees | Fortunately for olive growers, tame olive trees (i.e. domestics) can reproduce asexually [i.e. without sexual reproduction, or the mixture of genetic material — somewhat like a bacteria which splits in half, making a perfect copy of itself), and this is also faster than growing from seeds. This asexual reproduction involves a tree sending out shoots or runners, which can be trimmed off and simply "planted" into the ground, where they will grow as a genetically identical tree — a clone, in genetic terms, an exact copy of the parent (with all its good characteristics). This may suggest what the gospel is to make the reader — a clone of Christ, as it were, in behavior and character. |
| Using wild olives as "rootstock" | The wild relative of the domestic olive, Olea oleaster can be used as part of the reproduction by "runner" described above. A shoot can be grafted into a non-domestic (“wild”) tree for nutrition, yet will continue to produce olives according to its own genetics. (This is the pattern that is broken when the wild branches begin to produce tame fruit — see below.) This is often done to get the benefits of a certain rootstock (resistance to disease, ability to get by with less water, etc.) with a certain desired kind of domestic branch’s crop characteristic. |
| Olive trees are valuable | They live for hundreds of years. Starting a new olive grove was a major investment anciently, since no production could be hoped for before 40 years. It's no wonder olive trees were a common feature of civilization: one needed a stable, settled society to even think about growing them. [In fact, olives were considered by the Greeks to be a gift from the goddess Athena. This was common thinking in the ancient world — olive oil was good for light, medicinal purposes, cleaning or adorning the body, and for food. Olives were the key lipid (fat) source in early Eurasian agriculture, and a major economic driving force for the Greeks and the Roman empire (among others).] |
| Pruning is important | Fruit size varies with environmental conditions; sometimes excess fruit must be trimmed away so that the remaining fruit will grow larger, increasing the yield of oil. Fruit only grows on two-year-old branches of trees, so older branches must be pruned away as needed so as to concentrate the tree’s "efforts" on the productive branches. [One can't cut too many off at once, as the allegory says, or this won't leave enough leaves for photosynthesis, etc.] |
| Why is the Lord always threatening to burn the vineyard? | Olive trees will usually grow back after being burned, producing suckers from the old roots. This is often more time-effective than trying to start a completely new crop of trees from scratch. |
| Why are branches cut off and then burned? | This destroys any disease or parasite that may have caused the bad fruit, and prevents it from infecting the rest of the vineyard. Olive wood on the ground would also get in the way of the dunging, plowing, etc. needed to take care of the valuable trees.
The old wood is also knotted, twisted, and brittle: it is "good for nothing", one might say, except for burning. |
| Dung is an important fertilizer | 5-10 tons per hectare every 1-2 years is needed in dry climates; half as frequently in wet areas. |
| Why the digging about the trees? | This aerates the soil, and lets minerals like potash and phosphates reach the feeder roots (since upper soil layers often bind these nutrients). Deep plowing is generally called for, and this needs to be done twice a year. |
| Olive trees do not need constant care | These trees have been called the "Cinderella" of agriculture, since one can leave them for a while and come back during the "off season" when there is no other crop work to do. This fits with the allegory, where the Lord and servant will leave for a while, and then come back and see how things are going. |
| Is "loftiness" a bad thing? | Yes. Olives can easily reach 15-20 meters in height. This makes it
This is likely why the Lord of the vineyard "plucks off" [as opposed to "pruning"] the trees — every few years one must cut off all the undesired growth, to keep the trees smaller and more productive/manageable. |
| How are laborers typically paid? | It was typical to provide the hired help with money wages. The offer to share the crop and its profits "should probably be understood as being very generous". [5] |
| Why does the Lord always go "down" to the vineyard? | A few Roman manuals on olive culture (prepared for Roman citizens who were newly made "farmers" on lands which had been seized by the empire — sort of a Latin Olive Farming for Dummies) are extant.
These manuals always recommended that the villa (farmhouse) be placed uphill from the crop areas and animals: and, not surprisingly, upwind from the manure pile! |
Unusual olive culture information
| "Deviation" from Biology | Relevance for Interpretation |
| 1. Grafted branches do not "take on" the genetic and fruit-bearing characteristics of the trunk to which they are grafted, despite the claim in Jacob 5. | This does not happen with "real" olive trees, but Christ and His Gospel can transform one's very nature when a believer becomes "grafted in.” The parable author knows that he's stretching the truth here — the servant (who knows something about olive growing) is amazed, and calls the Lord: "Behold, look here; behold the tree." (verse 16). This is astonishing, and it is meant to be — it is a miracle, just as every transformation of sinner to saint is a miracle that cannot be explained, yet cannot be denied when one "tastes the fruits."
Likewise, tame fruit does not "become wild" in a genetic sense, though it may well take on the "wild" fruit aspects of being smaller, more bitter, and having less oil content because of poor farming, disease, nutritional or environmental problems, etc. |
| 2. Trees grown in poor ground will not, as claimed, do as well as trees in good ground if given the same care and attention. | The servant, once again, clearly knows his olive culture. He asks the Lord just what he's thinking of: "How comest thou hither to plant this tree, or this branch of the tree? For behold, it was the poorest spot in all the land of thy vineyard." (verse 21) The Lord's reply is "Counsel me not" — I know what I'm doing here. He's the Lord of the vineyard, and producing fruit (purified souls) is His business. Mankind's trials, sufferings, disadvantages, and tribulations are key in that process — see Ether 12, 2 Corinthians 12. The believer ought not to seek to "counsel" the Lord on these issues: He knows them already. The believer ought, rather, to trust His skill in the vineyard of souls. |
Question: Is the mention of barley in the Book of Mormon an anachronism?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #87: How Can Barley in the Book of Mormon Feed Faith? (Video)
Evidence of pre-Columbian barley has been found in the New World
It has been claimed that barley was unknown in the ancient New World. One author insists that, "barley never grew in the New World before the white man brought it here!" [Scott, 82.] However, evidence of pre-Columbian barley has been found in the New World.
Sorenson and Smith: "three types of wild barley have long been known to be native to the Americas"
Pre-Columbian New World barley was first reported in the scientific literature in 1983.
The December 1983 issue of the popular magazine Science 83 reported the discovery in Phoenix, Arizona, by professional archaeologists of what they supposed to be pre-Columbian domesticated barley. That same month, F.A.R.M.S. carried a preliminary notice of the discovery. This Arizona find is the first direct New World evidence for cultivated pre-Columbian barley in support of the Book of Mormon. Mosiah 9:9 lists barley among several crops that were cultivated by the Nephites in the land of Nephi, and Alma 11:7 singles out barley as the primary grain into which silver and gold were converted in the Nephite system of weights and measures.
That there are copious samples of cultivated barley at pre-Columbian sites in Arizona seemed a first for the Western Hemisphere, but Professor Howard C. Stutz of the BYU Department of Biology tells us that three types of wild barley have long been known to be native to the Americas. The real surprise is that this barley is of a cultivated ("naked") type, although the ethnobotanist for the Arizona project, Dr. Vorsila Bohrer (Eastern New Mexico University, Portales), says that it is not yet clear whether the samples were truly naked (unhulled) or simply naturally degraded in context.[6]
Question: Is flax anachronistic to the time of the Book of Mormon?
Introduction to Criticism
The Book of Mormon contains a mention of the flax plant. The prophet Nephi, speaking about the Devil, wrote that "there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever."[7]
The Book of Mormon also contains several mentions of linen—a known product of flax.[8]
Critics of the Book of Mormon have criticized it for it's mention of flax and linen— claiming that both are anachronistic to its claimed historical time frame.
Response to Criticism
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #551: Why Did Nephi Say the Devil Leads Sinners by a “Flaxen Cord”? (Video)
There are a couple of ways in which one could approach this criticism. This article will outline both.
The Potential for an Actual Presence of Flax and/or Linen in the New World
The Hebrew Bible contains several mentions of flax and linen.[9] We know that "[f]lax was grown in the ancient Near East from very early times. Flax was most extensively grown in Egypt, but it was also cultivated in ancient Israel. The Gezer Calendar (ca. 900 BC), one of the earliest known Hebrew inscriptions, documents a month for 'cutting flax' in the ancient Hebrew agricultural year. Flax was primarily used for making linen, which was then used to make sails, clothing, curtains, wicks for lamps, as well as priestly robes and mummy wrappings. Flax could also be used in making strong ropes or cords[.]"[10]
That is for the Old World. However, for the New World, it is true that we don't have evidence of flax, for instance, in ancient Mesoamerica. The fact that we do not have evidence for flax right now should not be concerning, however. The evidence's absence may mean that we may find it in the future. It is also possible that it did exist and that we won't find evidence for it ever. There is great potential for the acidic soils of Mesoamerica, for instance, to have eliminated (whether in part or in full) all evidence of flax—disintegrating the plant over a long amount of time through normal taphonomic processes.[11]
It should also be noted that we haven't even scratched the surface as far as our archaeological understanding of Mesoamerican ethnohistory is concerned. Mesoamerican linguist and anthropologist Kerry Hull has written:
When my colleague Mark Wright here at BYU talked to [non-Latter-day Saint scholar] George Stuart about this [the number of Mesoamerican archaeological sites excavated], he told Mark it was about 1%. So, a safe estimate would be around 1–2% of Maya sites have been partially excavated, and none has been fully excavated, or even anything close to that. When you figure all the other ancient Mesoamerican cultures into this equation (OImec, Zapotec, etc.) from Book of Mormon time periods, the number goes down to a fraction of one percent.[12]
Potential Loan-Shift Terms for Flax
Another potential position presents itself for Latter-day Saints. Latter-day Saint scholars have proposed a few substances that may be loan-shifts for flax. Those who take this position might emphasize the fact that flax is only mentioned once explicitly in the Book of Mormon and find other substances that may have been substitutes for flax. For instance, scholar John Sorenson has written that "[The Spaniards, upon their arrival in the New World,] encountered and referred to what they considered 'linen' or linen-like cloth made from plants other than flax."[13]
John Sorenson has written the following elsewhere:
Some people have wondered why the Book of Mormon mentions silk and linen (see Alma 1:29), since silkworms and linen as we know them were apparently not known in ancient America. The answer may be that even though the worm that eats mulberry leaves and produces silk in its cocoon seems to have been restricted to the Far East, several ancient American peoples had cloth as fine as and similar to silk.
At the time of the Spanish conquest, natives in Mexico would gather cocoons from a type of wild silkworm and spin the thread into expensive cloth. People in the Yucatan would also spin the silky floss from the pod of the ceiba tree (or silk-cotton tree) into a soft, delicate cloth called kapok. The silky fiber of the wild pineapple plant was also prized in tropical America, yielding a fine, durable cloth. The Aztecs made a silklike fabric using hair from the bellies of rabbits. Some cotton specimens excavated at Teotihuacan, dating to A.D. 400, have been described as even, very fine, and gossamer-thin.
As for linen, the flax plant from which the cloth is made was apparently not known in ancient America. However, several fabrics that look and feel like European linen were woven from native plants. The yucca plant and the leaves of the ixtle (agave plant) both yield fibers that make fine, linen-like cloth. A cloth made by stripping bark from the fig tree, soaking it, and pounding it also has some of the characteristics of linen.[14]
RLDS scholar Neil Simmons has proposed that cannabis sativa may resemble flax enough to be a potential loan-shift for the Book of Mormon.[15]
Theological Concerns
It may be hard for some Latter-day Saints and other critics to accept the potential for loan-shifting in the Book of Mormon. Doesn't God never lie?[16] One should review how Joseph Smith saw the nature of revelation. In Doctrine and Covenants 1:24, the Lord states:
- 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
This scripture teaches us that God, through accommodation, adapts his message to the language and understanding of the agent receiving revelation from him. This means that things like loan-shifts might be possible since God's ultimate purpose in giving us revelation is to make us holy just as he is holy. One of the beautiful messages of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is that God wants us to become like him someday and receive all that he has.[17] Things like loan-shifts might be testament to the fact that God can deify humans in that he exalts their language and understanding by using it as a tool to bless all of the human family. He doesn't have to be limited by fallen mortals. He can work through them in order to bring about greater outcomes such as the salvation of the human family. This is a message that the Book of Mormon itself teaches.[18] Thus God is not lying, he's just using the sincere but mistaken understanding of mortals for greater ends. It testifies to the fact that God is always looking forward to the future salvation of his children and that his love for us is greater than pedantically correcting all of our little mistakes.[19]
Conclusion
There are several interpretive options for these verses. The current state of scholarship on this issue invites careful exploration and inspires confidence that this will not remain a significant problem for the Book of Mormon. Currently, we know so little archaeologically speaking and have poor enough preservative conditions within the relevant geography that we will not (at the very least for now) be able to assess how problematic these anachronisms actually are. Thus, we shouldn’t pass judgement too quickly on the historicity of the Book of Mormon because of these or other supposed anachronisms.
Sorenson: "At the time of the Spanish conquest, natives in Mexico would gather cocoons from a type of wild silkworm and spin the thread into expensive cloth"
Some people have wondered why the Book of Mormon mentions silk and linen (see Alma 1:29), since silkworms and linen as we know them were apparently not known in ancient America. The answer may be that even though the worm that eats mulberry leaves and produces silk in its cocoon seems to have been restricted to the Far East, several ancient American peoples had cloth as fine as and similar to silk.
At the time of the Spanish conquest, natives in Mexico would gather cocoons from a type of wild silkworm and spin the thread into expensive cloth. People in the Yucatan would also spin the silky floss from the pod of the ceiba tree (or silk-cotton tree) into a soft, delicate cloth called kapok. The silky fiber of the wild pineapple plant was also prized in tropical America, yielding a fine, durable cloth. The Aztecs made a silklike fabric using hair from the bellies of rabbits. Some cotton specimens excavated at Teotihuacan, dating to A.D. 400, have been described as even, very fine, and gossamer-thin.
As for linen, the flax plant from which the cloth is made was apparently not known in ancient America. However, several fabrics that look and feel like European linen were woven from native plants. The yucca plant and the leaves of the ixtle (agave plant) both yield fibers that make fine, linen-like cloth. A cloth made by stripping bark from the fig tree, soaking it, and pounding it also has some of the characteristics of linen. [20]
Sorenson: "linen-like cloth made from plants other than flax"
John L. Sorenson:
[The Spaniards] encountered and referred to what they considered "linen" or linen-like cloth made from plants other than flax.[21]
Question: Is the mention of the crop "neas" a Book of Mormon anachronism?
We do not know what crop this is, so this does not count against the Book of Mormon's claims
This crop is mentioned but once (See Mosiah 9:9). We do not know to what it applied, but this does not count against the Book of Mormon's claims.
Question: Are olives anachronistic to the Book of Mormon?
The Criticism
Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that olives are anachronistic to it as a means of weakening the possibility of the Book of Mormon’s historicity and suggesting naturalistic origins for the Book. This article examines the claim.
Olives need only be mentioned in connection to the Old World
Olives are only mentioned in a few locations in the Book of Mormon. Those are:
- 1 Nephi 10: 12, 14 – Lehi compares the house of Israel to an olive tree while still in the Old World.
- 1 Nephi 15: 7, 12, 16 – Nephi affirms the word of his father comparing Israel to an olive tree and scattered Israel as a branch of it that will be grafted in. Olives aren't anachronistic to the ancient world.[22]
- Jacob 5: 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 34, 46 – Jacob quotes from an Old World prophet named Zenos in the allegory of the Tame and Wild Olive Tree. Since this is a prophet from the Old World, it doesn’t make olives anachronistic. If there were olives in the New World, then we may not know about them today since plants like it will likely never be found. If this is just Jacob importing imagery from the Old World, then there’s again no problem.
- Jacob 6:1 – Jacob summarizes his words about olive trees.
Conclusion
Whether olives existed in the New World or not, they do not present any anachronism for the Book of Mormon and thus have no bearing on the question of its historicity. Ironically, the descriptions of olive horticulture provide evidence for the Book of Mormon’s historical authenticity.
Smith: Sheum is "a precise match for Akkadian "she'um", 'barley' (Old Assyrian 'wheat'), the most popular ancient Mesopotamian cereal-name"
[Sheum is] a precise match for Akkadian [she'um], 'barley' (Old Assyrian 'wheat'), the most popular ancient Mesopotamian cereal-name[23]
Roper: "This term, se um, (the s is pronounced sh in semitic languages) was a term by which these ancient Near Eastern peoples referred to barley"
Matthew Roper: [24]
According to Zeniff’s record in the Book of Mormon account, “And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum” (Mosiah 9:9). “Pray tell me what kinds of grain neas and sheum are? Joseph Smith’s translation needs another translation, to render it intelligible.” [25] “We must reluctantly pass on denying the existence of neas and sheum, and put them into the same category as the unidentifiable cureloms and cumoms.” [26] As it turns out sheum is a perfectly good Akkadian (ancient northern Mesopotamian) name for a grain dating to the third millennium B.C. [27] This term, se um, (the s is pronounced sh in semitic languages) was a term by which these ancient Near Eastern peoples referred to barley, although it could also be applied to other kinds of grains. Book of Mormon peoples seem to have applied this Old World name to some New World crop. Could Joseph Smith have derived this name from some nineteenth century book? Impossible. Akkadian could not be read until 1857, twenty-seven years after the Book of Mormon was published and thirteen years after the Prophet was dead. This raises an interesting question. If Joseph Smith was really the author of the Book of Mormon, how did he come up with the word sheum? How did he just happen to choose this particular name and just happen to use it in an agricultural context?
Armitage: "It is suggested by de Ávila Blomberg that wild silk was used in Oaxaca in pre-Columbian times"
The theory that "wild silk" was used anciently in Oaxaca, near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica, "has been greatly debated."
Wild silk was produced by the Gloveria paidii, a moth, and the Eucheira socialis, a butterfly, found in the Oaxaca area (de Ávila Blomberg, 1997). It is suggested by de Ávila Blomberg that wild silk was used in Oaxaca in pre-Columbian times, a theory that has been greatly debated. However, in a 1777 document, an excavation of a pre-Columbian burial site is described as containing wild silk.[28]
Sorenson: Linen and silk textiles in ancient America
John L. Sorenson:[29]
Linen and silk are textiles mentioned in the Book of Mormon (Alma 4:6). Neither fabric as we now know them was found in Mesoamerica at the coming of the Spaniards. The problem might be no more than linguistic. The redoubtable Bernal Diaz, who served with Cortez in the initial wave of conquest, described native Mexican garments made of "henequen which is like linen." [30] The fiber of the maguey plant, from which henequen was manufactured, closely resembles the flax fiber used to make European linen. Several kinds of "silk," too, were reported by the conquerors. One kind was of thread spun from the fine hair on the bellies of rabbits. Padre Motolinia also reported the presence of a wild silkworm, although he thought the Indians did not make use of the cocoons. But other reports indicate that wild silk was spun and woven in certain areas of Mesoamerica. Another type came from the pod of the ceiba tree. [31] We may never discover actual remains of these fabrics, but at least the use of the words in the Book of Mormon now seems to offer no problem.
Sorenson: The grain "Amaranth" in Mexico
John L. Sorenson: [32]
Amaranth, considered an Old World grain, was grown and used in Mexico at the time the Spaniards arrived. Botanist Jonathan Sauer thought its origin to be American, but he noted too that it was widely distributed in the Old World in pre-Columbian times. Its uses in the two hemispheres were strikingly similar also (it was popped and eaten as "popcorn balls" on special feast days); the similarities have suggested to some scholars that amaranth seed was carried across the ocean in ancient times.[33]
<onlyinclude>
Question: Are wine and grapes considered anachronisms for the Book of Mormon?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #88: Are There Mistakes in the Book of Mormon? (Video)
No, they are not.
Some have claimed that wine and grapes should be considered anachronisms for the Book of Mormon. There is quite a bit of evidence in favor of this not being the case.
Sorenson: "the Opata of northern Mexico used a drink made from native grapes"
There were grapes locally, as well as several other plant species which produced alcoholic drinks which the Spanish were quite happy to consider 'wine.' John L. Sorenson:
[The Spaniards] spoke of "vineyards," not planted in grapevines but in maguey plants, from which pulque, which they termed "wine," was manufactured. Half a dozen different types of "wine" made from fruits other than grapes were identified by the Spanish explorers...[another researcher also] reports the Opata of northern Mexico used a drink made from native grapes.[34]
- ↑ Royal Skousen (editor), The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon : typographical facsimile of the extant text [Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Vol. 1] (Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 2001),200–203. ISBN 0934893047.
- ↑ See the exhaustive Multiple Authors, "All," in Stephen D. Ricks & John W. Welch (editors), Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994), 1. ISBN 0875797679. GL direct link
- ↑ Dennis L. Largey (editor), Book of Mormon Reference Companion (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003), 618–621. ISBN 1573452319
- ↑ WM Hess, DJ Fairbanks , JW Welch, JK Driggs, "Botanical Aspects of Olive Culture Relevant to Jacob 5," in Stephen D. Ricks & John W. Welch (editors), Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994),484–562. ISBN 0875797679. GL direct link (unless otherwise indicated).
- ↑ Hess et al., 529.
- ↑ John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smithh, "Barley in Ancient America," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), Chapter 36.
- ↑ 2 Nephi 26:22.
- ↑ For examples, see 1 Nephi 13:7–8 and Helaman 6:13.
- ↑ For examples of mentions of flax, see Exodus 9:31 and Judges 15:14. For examples of mentions of linen, see 1 Kings 10:28 and 2 Chronicles 1:16.
- ↑ BMC Team, "Why Did Nephi Say the Devil Leads Sinners by a “Flaxen Cord”?" <https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-did-nephi-say-the-devil-leads-sinners-by-a-flaxen-cord?fbclid=IwAR2HHLDySMYE0qa3bWidPvx6lGmJde1GksF3uTOrT2ok-YAzu5UMl0-Ps6E> (31 May 2020).
- ↑ See under "1.4. Organic materials" in Kibblewhite et al., "Predicting the preservation of cultural artefacts and buried materials in soil," Science of the Total Environment 529 (October 2015): 250–51.
- ↑ Kerry Hull, personal email to author, 30 March 2017. Cited in Tad R. Callister, A Case for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2019), 56. Hull's claims are confirmed in Victor Hernandez-Jayme, “2013 Maya Meetings Held at UT: New Temples, Fire Glyphs and Legends,” <http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2013/01/22/2013-maya-meetings-held-at-ut-new-temples-fire-glyphs-and-legends> (12 October 2018): “‘Truth is, we don’t know squat,’ said George Stuart, director for the Center for Maya Research and keynote speaker for the 2013 Maya Meetings. ‘There’s about 6,000 known Maya sites and we’ve only researched about 5 percent of them.’” Stuart was one of the leading authorities on the archaeology of the Maya before he passed away June 11, 2014. See also Mark Alan Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 6. LiDar technology has proven the vast amount that we don't know about the Maya civilization. See BMC Team, "4 Ways the New Maya Discoveries May Relate to the Book of Mormon," <https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/4-ways-the-new-maya-discoveries-may-relate-to-the-book-of-mormon> (31 May 2020).
- ↑ John L. Sorenson, "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe! (Review of 'Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography' by Deanne G. Matheny)," FARMS Review of Books 6, no. 1 (1994): 336.
- ↑ John L. Sorenson, "Silk and Linen in the Book of Mormon - Book of Mormon Update," Ensign 22 (April 1992): 62.
- ↑ Neil Simmons, “Marijuana and the Book of Mormon,” Recent Book of Mormon Developments (Independence, MO: Zarahemla Research Foundation, 1984),1:127.
- ↑ Wikipedia, "Attributes of God in Christianity - Veracity," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Veracity> (1 July 2020).
- ↑ Anonymous, "Becoming Like God," <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng> (1 July 2020).
- ↑ Alma 37:6.
- ↑ 1 John 4:8.
- ↑ John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 232. John L. Sorenson, "Silk and Linen in the Book of Mormon - Book of Mormon Update," Ensign (April 1992): 62.
- ↑ John L. Sorenson, "Plants and Animals," in John L. Sorenson, "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe! (Review of "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography" by Deanne G. Matheny)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 297–361. off-site
- ↑ See here for more information.
- ↑ Robert F. Smith, "Some 'Neologisms' from the Mormon Canon," Conference on the Language of the Mormons 1973, Brigham Young University Language Research Center, 66.
- ↑ Matt Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon," FAIR Presentation, 2001.
- ↑ Origen Bacheler, Mormonism Exposed, 14.
- ↑ Latayne Colvett Scott, The Mormon Mirage: A former Mormon tells why she left the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979), 84.
- ↑ Hildegard Lewy, “On Some Old Assyrian Cereal Names,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 76/4 (October-December 1956): 201-204.
- ↑ Careyn Patricia Armitage, "Silk production and its impact on families and communities in Oaxaca, Mexico," Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Iowa State University (2008) off-site References de Ávila Blomberg, A. (1997). Threads of diversity: Oaxacan textiles in context. In K. Klein (Ed.) The unbroken thread: Conserving the textile traditions of Oaxaca (pp.87-151). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
- ↑ John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 232. See also Sorenson, "Silk and Linen in the Book of Mormon," Ensign (April 1992): 62.
- ↑ A.P. Maudslay, trans. and ed. Bernal Diaz del Castillo: The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, 1517-1521 (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy, 1956), 24. (Note: Sorenson p. 232 note 52 corresponds to endnote 52, p. 382).
- ↑ I.W. Johnson, "Basketry and Textiles," HMAI 10, part 1 (1971), 312. Matthew Wallrath in Excavations in the Tehuantepec Region, Mexico, American Philosophical Society Transactions, n.s. 57, part 2 (1967): 12, notes that wild silk was collected and spun in the isthmus area, and that the cloth had very high value. Clavigero also reported that fiber of the ceiba tree's pod was woven by Mexican Indians into fabric "as soft and delicate, and perhaps more so, than silk." C. Cullen, ed., The History of Mexico, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1817), 41. (Note: Sorenson p. 232 note 54 corresponds to endnote 53, p. 382)
- ↑ John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 184-185.
- ↑ Jonathan D. Sauer, "The Grain Amaranths: A Survey of Their History and Classification," Missouri Botanical Garden Annals 37 (1950):561-632. George F. Carter, "Domesticates as Artifacts," in The Human Mirror: Material and Spatial images of Man, ed. Miles Richardson (Baton Rouge: Louisiana Stage University Press, 1974), pp. 212-13. (Sorenson, Chapter 5, endnote 65. Note: This is erroneously indicated in the text as endnote 64).
- ↑ Sorenson, "Zaputo," 335-336.