Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?


paulpatter

Recommended Posts

Odd. That was my first response to your post. However, for the benefit of others, it is important to point out that you don't understand the subject, the methodology, or the literature. You can even leave of the part about comparing it to what I might know. You don't understand the subject, the methodology, or the literature--of archaeology or ethnohistory. That means that you are really missing how that can be applied to the Book of Mormon.

The effort that you have gone through, and still go through, to support a particular paradigm has my respect. Getting "papered" has my admiration. Anyone willing to advance into historical and scientific studies to that degree (no pun intended) is someone to be considered worthy of attention.

I am sure you're intimately aware of the pitfall of pride and eminence that sets in as attention, agreement, accolades and "fan base" manifest as the rewards of your labors. Most scholars who are published to any noticeable degree have egos to match. I don't have a problem with ego. I do have a problem with anyone, no matter how educated, assuming and demonstrating a superior intellect. It is possible to be the god of flyspecks. And no matter how much you know about flyspecks that's all that they are.

I would be deeply interested in your scholarship if the subject was still important to me. But the truth is, I am only interested in the disputation, not whether or not either "side" is eventually proven to be right (and I have already satisfied myself on that question, so far beyond a reasonable doubt). And I suspect my interest in the disputation is also waning as time passes. I am "here" out of a sense of need: I still need to talk some things through; and some things (such as this perennial subject of BoM archeology) still grab my attention (more out of automatic reflex than anything else, I suspect). So I am pulled in, and make a facile observation or two, and get pounded on. We do love to pound on each other!

Psychobabble aside, I propose that I have actually been through the entire text examining it against a specific cultural context and time. I propose that such an effort, documented so others can check it, is a more solid foundation for an opinion that simple bluster.

But my objections are not simple bluster. The lack of written theses on my part may not impress you as evidence of extensive reading and continuous thought on the matter. But I tell you that there is more to arriving at a position (supported beyond a reasonable doubt by facts held and presented in evidence) than being published. And you seem to require a similar physical demonstration from others in order for our views to be held in the same esteem as your own.

The fact is, there is far more than BoM archeology going on with Mormon history. There is the man Joseph Smith. He is fairly easily studied, via his own writings, the writings of those who knew him and the context of early 19th century America. There is no mastery of esoterica required here. Simple, plodding, continuous reading over an extensive period of time, will produce a weight of opinion on the one side or the other. What other method is a "student of the gospel" expected to apply? If it is supposed to work then the resulting paradigm must have been achieved by the very method recommended. I did that: I read from the "best books", prayed, desired to know truth, etc. I still do all that (albeit in a somewhat abated fashion, as books largely fail to convey anything of new value in this area of Church/religious history: I am not particularly interested in trivia/flyspecks, but rather metaphysics).

I hold that Joseph Smith, the author of the BoM and other extensive scriptures, is not a lovable man beneath the surface of his "faith-promoting" history persona. That of course has zilch to do with Meso-American anythings....

Link to comment

Archaeologically speaking, who were they "defensive" against?

Archeologically speaking, we know they were defensive because their walls and berms surround so many of their villages. If they in the most part were not aggressive, why would we know whom they were not aggressive towards? All we know is that they were prepared.

From Capt. Moroni on down, the Nephites built defensive cities, even in times of peace, for the very purpose of having peace.

Here's a good look at all their defensive fortifications. This is just Ohio. The further North and East, the more defenses there seems to be.

Start on about page 23 or so, and continue on. The stone fortifications, dirt walls and ditches around their towns and villages were a way of life. One has even been found to be over 3 and a half miles long.

Masterpieces of the Ohio Mounds Builders; The Hilltop Fortifications

Link to comment

The "Forts" of the Hopewell were thought to be defensive a century ago, but as archaeologists have learned more about the Hopewell, the extremely small population sizes, and lack of evidence for wars (unlike earlier and later cultures where there is plenty of evidence of war), the evidence tells another story. Even in the BOM, Chief Captain Moroni fortified large cities which held tens of thousands of people. But, among the Hopewell, there were no cities that even came close to this size and only amounted to small villages at best. Inside the Hopewell forts there is a lack of evidence of any habitation. In the forts I have studied, the only evidence of habitation is *outside* of these so-called forts, which most likely happened during construction and once they were finished, the people dispersed again to their small villages and hamlets.

"During The Book of Mormon period, the Ohio “Hopewell settlements were small villages or hamlets of a few rectangular homes made of posts with wattle and daub walls and thatched roofs”

These small villages were generally made up of immediate and extended families that would either be sedentary, or be a seasonal camp, always moving to a new location.

While some of these ancient Indians would congregate into a small village, there were many households that were “dispersed over the landscape rather than concentrated within villages.”

“Overall, the Ohio Hopewell appear to be compiled of small groups most likely extended families, who practiced early horticulture and lived in small dispersed communities.”

In the Illinois Valley, which many scholars believe to be the origin of the Hopewell, we find a similar situation. Their “villages could not have held more than a hundred people.” And their living quarters were “rectangular or oval shaped;” and “were built of wooden posts and were probably covered with mats or with sheets of bark, like the wigwams of contact period Indians.”

They also lived in “small, sedentary, one to three-household hamlets, rather than large villages” just as in Ohio and elsewhere." http://www.bmaf.org/node/394

So we know that the Hopewell were a peaceful people, we know that there is no evidence of any major battle whatsoever among them (during BOM times), we know that the Hopewell did not even have cities to defend (as mentioned in the BOM), and we know that the Hopewell did not even come close to the populations mentioned in The Book of Mormon. I just don't see them matching BOM people. At least Nephites mentioned in the BOM.

Link to comment

It is 50-50 between Mormonism and Atheism. No other religion makes any sense, so its either Mormonism or no religion, at least for me.

Sounds like a mind game.

I haven't read Black Swan but I am familiar with Pascal's wager, which is the argument you are presenting. It's an argument from fear, fear of not measuring up in the here and now and being punished in the hereafter. Fear is a bad advisor. Also, it's not a 50-50 proposition. The odds are against you. What if YOU are wrong?

Link to comment

The "Forts" of the Hopewell were thought to be defensive a century ago, but as archaeologists have learned more about the Hopewell, the extremely small population sizes, and lack of evidence for wars (unlike earlier and later cultures where there is plenty of evidence of war), the evidence tells another story. Even in the BOM, Chief Captain Moroni fortified large cities which held tens of thousands of people. But, among the Hopewell, there were no cities that even came close to this size and only amounted to small villages at best. Inside the Hopewell forts there is a lack of evidence of any habitation. In the forts I have studied, the only evidence of habitation is *outside* of these so-called forts, which most likely happened during construction and once they were finished, the people dispersed again to their small villages and hamlets.

"During The Book of Mormon period, the Ohio “Hopewell settlements were small villages or hamlets of a few rectangular homes made of posts with wattle and daub walls and thatched roofs”

These small villages were generally made up of immediate and extended families that would either be sedentary, or be a seasonal camp, always moving to a new location.

While some of these ancient Indians would congregate into a small village, there were many households that were “dispersed over the landscape rather than concentrated within villages.”

“Overall, the Ohio Hopewell appear to be compiled of small groups most likely extended families, who practiced early horticulture and lived in small dispersed communities.”

In the Illinois Valley, which many scholars believe to be the origin of the Hopewell, we find a similar situation. Their “villages could not have held more than a hundred people.” And their living quarters were “rectangular or oval shaped;” and “were built of wooden posts and were probably covered with mats or with sheets of bark, like the wigwams of contact period Indians.”

They also lived in “small, sedentary, one to three-household hamlets, rather than large villages” just as in Ohio and elsewhere." http://www.bmaf.org/node/394

So we know that they were a peaceful people, we know that there is no evidence of any major battle whatsoever, we know that the Hopewell did not even have cities to defend, and we know that the Hopewell did not even come close to the populations mentioned in The Book of Mormon. I just don't see them matching BOM people.

As far as I know, Capt. Moroni never fortified cities in the land northward. But it was a learned practice among the Nephites. To have hundreds of villages from basically the same time period doing the same thing tells me they were from the same people, or at least should not be counted out as such.

Link to comment

Ariaretes, QB, et. al;

What do we know about ancient America that directly contradicts the Book of Mormon; ie. what do we know definitely existed or happened that could not have existed or happened if the events in the Book of Mormon happened. Note, I am not asking about things like horses or steel swords or signs saying five miles to Zarahemla where we are merely lacking in evidence.

Yours under the historical oaks,

Nathair /|\

This is the kind of question I like.

The Olmec are the only possible Jaredites. As the only "narrow neck of land" dividing the land into a "land northward and land southward" is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, it is impossible for the assertion that the Jaredites kept the land southward for a hunting preserve to be true (Ether 10:20,21), since many of the Olmec ruins lie in the so-called land southward. Furthermore, the Olmec and Lehite overlap both chronologically and geographically, without any way to explain how Olmec can be both at the same time, when neither BoM civilization was aware of the other until long after the Jaredite extinction occurred.

None of the later ruins are of use.

Each of the theories locating the BoM lands has problematic features that have not been reconciled with the known civilizations that left much later ruins. There is no evidence of place names coinciding with BoM names while at the same time maintaining any degree of consistency with the requisite BoM geography.

That's enough from me on this topic....

Link to comment

Please provide a link for the "masses of dead" or where I can verify the source. I have the Smithsonian book that published Squier and Davis book Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley reprinted with an introduction by David Meltzer it doesn't mention this. I also have others both on Adena Hopewell Mississippian Valley groups I have about 13 books on these and it would make my job easier if I knew which book. Thanks in advance.

You also wrote this;

Could you also please be more specific on where I can read about this, which site, which mound etc. Thanks in advance. I know some of the places already but in one it didn't match the time for the Book of Mormon and the other some of the walls seemed more for weather snow drifts as a retaining wall because it was between the living areas and the direction the wind came from with no other walls around it especially if one would consider them for defense.

Lastly I know Meldrum will take snippets of what the experts say and twist them to what he wants them to be for. For an example a retaining wall built as a shelter for the wind and snow becomes in Meldrums eyes a grand defensive fort when that wasn't implied at all. This is one reason all the professional archeologist once they found out how he used their findings wrote a letter to complain. One archeologist demanded everything he said be taken out of his DVD regardless if it was correct or not just because it made him so mad on how it was used.

If you have the book from Squire and Davis, then you'll know that in large part, the thousands of Ohio river valley mounds are full of largely burnt soil and crematory remains of the dead. They burnt their dead, by and large, except for nobles. I agree they were by and large a peaceful people at that time period. There are still large caches of bones in some place, for example... Fort Ancient, but the masses of scattered buried dead don't really start showing up until the Hopewell regions of Western New York and vicinity. No coincidences in my book.

The Smithsonian sponsored expeditions in the 1800 were very important to the understanding of the New York region. I know there are those here that reject their work outright, but I don't.

From Antiquities of New York by E. G. Squire p. 89 1851

"Human bones have been discovered beneath accumulated debris; and in nearly every part of the trench skeletons of adults of both sexes, of children and infants, have been found. They seem to have been thrown together promiscuously. They have also been found in narrow depressions resembling artificial trenches... This county possessed a very heavy aboriginal population, probably greater than any equal extent north of Mexico. Fragments of pottery, pipes, flint arrowheads, stone hatchets, etc., are in great abundance. In many places both within and exterior to the ruins, were found pits for hiding corn and other articles in cache...

An examination of this mound was made by excavation. Great numbers of bones were found; and beneath them, at a greater depth, others were found which have been burned. No conjecture could be formed as the number of bodies deposited here. The skeletons were lying without order, and so much decayed as to crumble to dust at the touch. At one point in the mound a large number, perhaps a thousand, arrow-heads were discovered, collected in a heap. They were made in the usual form, and of yellow or black flint.

The bone pits, which occur in Western New York, are of various sizes, but usually contain a large number of skeletons; in some cases the bones appear to have been deposited with some degree of regularity. One of these pits, discovered and opened up in Niagara County, was estimated to have contained several thousand individuals. Another place I visited were found mounds containing human skeletons of individuals of all ages and both sexes. Not less than four hundred were found in one place. We have the conclusive evidence that these mounds served as tombs, and abound in human bones. It has often been said that some of the mounds are full of bones that have been perforated, as though the living subjects were killed in battle;, and that the skeletons were heaped together in promiscuous confusion, as if buried after a conflict, without order or arrangement. In some cases arrow points are still sticking in the bones."

From Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York by O. Turner

"Previous to the occupancy of this region by the progenitors of the present race of Indians, it was inhabited by a race of men much more populous and more advanced in civilization. Who they were, whence they came, and whither they went, have been themes of speculation by learned antiquarians, who have failed to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. There are vast and ancient ruins at Pompey, Onondaga, Manlius, Camillus, Scipio, several between Seneca and Cayuga Lakes, three near Canandaigue, many along Ridge Road between Rochester and Buffalo, in

fact scattered everywhere, all of which surpass the skill and engineering ability of the Indians. The antiquity is unquestioned, trees, even the last of many growths, all indicate that the fortifications are many hundreds of years old.

A great part of America, long before the coming of Columbus, was inhabited by populous nations who had made great advances in civilization. These numerous works could never have been supplied with provisions without agriculture. Nor could they have been constructed without the use of iron or copper, and without perseverance, labor and design which demonstrate considerable progress in the arts of civilized life...

On the south side of the great ridge (the ridge road) in its vicinity, and in all directions through the country, the remains of numerous forts are to be seen; but on the north side, that is the side toward the lake, not a single one has been discovered, although the whole ground has been carefully explored. Considering the distance to be, say seventy miles in length and eight in breadth and that the border of the lakes is the very place that would be selected for a habitation, and consequently for works of defense, on account of the facilities it would afford for subsistence, for safety, and all domestic accommodations, and military purposes, and that on the south shore of Lake Erie these ancient fortresses exist in great numbers. There can be no doubt that these works were erected when this ridge was the southern boundary of Lake Ontario, and consequently, that their origin must be sought in a very remote age.

These forts were, generally speaking,- erected on the most commanding ground. The walls or breastworks were earthen. The ditches were on the exterior of works. On some of the parapets, oak trees were to be seen, which, from the number of concentric circles must have been standing 150, 260, and 300 years; and there were evident indications, not only that they had sprung up since the creation of those works, but that they were at least a second growth. The trenches were in some cases deep and wide, and in others shallow and narrow; and the breastworks varied in altitude from three to eight feet. They sometimes had one, and sometimes had two entrances, as was to be inferred from there being no ditch at those places. When the works were protected by a deep ravine or a large stream of water no ditch was to be seen. The areas of these large forts varied from two to six acres; and the form was generally an irregular ellipsis; and in some of them fragments of earthenware and pulverized substances, supposed to have been originally human bones, were to be found.

These fortifications, thus diffused over the interior of our country, have been generally considered as surpassing the skill, patience, and industry of the Indian race, and various hypotheses have been advanced to prove them of European origin.

We are surrounded by evidence a race preceded the present Indians, farther advanced in civilization and the arts, and far more numerous. Here and there upon the brow of hills, at the head of ravines, are their fortifications, their location selected with Skill and adapted to refuge, subsistence and defense. Uprooted trees of the forest that are the growth of many centuries, expose their moulding remains, the uncovered mounds with masses of their skeletons promiscuously heaped one on top of the other, as if they were gathered and hurriedly entombed dead of well contested battlefields. In our villages, upon our hillsides, the plow and the spade discover their rude implements adapted to war, the chase and domestic use. All these unintelligible witnesses, bringing but unsatisfactory knowledge of races that have preceded us. Although not confined to this region, there is perhaps no portion of the United States where ancient relics are more numerous. Commencing near Oswego River, they extend westwardly over all the western counties of the state. We clear away our forests and speak familiarly of subduing the "Virgin soil," and yet the plow upturns the skulls of those whose history is lost. Then as now the western portion of New York state had attractions and inducements to make it a favorite residence, or this ancient people, assailed from the north and east, made this their refuge in a war of extermination, fortified the commanding eminence's, met the shock of a final issue, were subject to its adverse results. The forest invited the chase, the rivers and lakes, local commerce and fishing, and the fertile soil for agriculture. The evidence that this was one, at least

of their final battlefields, predominate. They are the fortifications, entrenchment's and warlike instruments of an extinct race. That here was war of extermination, we may well conclude, from masses of human skeletons we find indiscriminately thrown together, indicating a common and simultaneous sepulture from which age, infancy, sex and no condition, was exempt."

Link to comment

Have these places been dated? As mentioned, war was common in both cultures before and after the Hopewell (more so after) with large populations. I have no reason to doubt these descriptions because they are corroborate what modern archaeology has found of evidence of large wars, but they seem to fit later populations which post-date The Book of Mormon rather than the populations during the BOM time period (archaeologically speaking). It seems from the description above to be more recent than BOM times:

"These forts were, generally speaking,- erected on the most commanding ground. The walls or breastworks were earthen. The ditches were on the exterior of works. On some of the parapets, oak trees were to be seen, which, from the number of concentric circles must have been standing 150, 260, and 300 years; and there were evident indications, not only that they had sprung up since the creation of those works, but that they were at least a second growth."

Do we know when these actually date to?

Link to comment

Have these places been dated? As mentioned, war was common in both cultures before and after the Hopewell (more so after) with large populations. I have no reason to doubt these descriptions because they are corroborate what modern archaeology has found, but they seem to fit later populations which post-date The Book of Mormon rather than the populations during the BOM time period (archaeologically speaking). It seems from the description above to be more recent than BOM times:

"These forts were, generally speaking,- erected on the most commanding ground. The walls or breastworks were earthen. The ditches were on the exterior of works. On some of the parapets, oak trees were to be seen, which, from the number of concentric circles must have been standing 150, 260, and 300 years; and there were evident indications, not only that they had sprung up since the creation of those works, but that they were at least a second growth."

Do we know when these actually date to?

I don't believe there was a way to date them at the time. But I do know that when a skeleton crumbles to the dust upon tourching it, it's very very very old.

"The skeletons were lying without order, and so much decayed as to crumble to dust at the touch. At one point in the mound a large number, perhaps a thousand, arrow-heads were discovered, collected in a heap. They were made in the usual form, and of yellow or black flint.

The bone pits, which occur in Western New York, are of various sizes, but usually contain a large number of skeletons; in some cases the bones appear to have been deposited with some degree of regularity. One of these pits, discovered and opened up in Niagara County, was estimated to have contained several thousand individuals. Another place I visited were found mounds containing human skeletons of individuals of all ages and both sexes. Not less than four hundred were found in one place. We have the conclusive evidence that these mounds served as tombs, and abound in human bones. It has often been said that some of the mounds are full of bones that have been perforated, as though the living subjects were killed in battle;, and that the skeletons were heaped together in promiscuous confusion, as if buried after a conflict, without order or arrangement. In some cases arrow points are still sticking in the bones."

Link to comment

The Bat Creek Stone (excavated in 1889) was held at the Smithsonian (because they sponsored the dig), I don't know how long or if they have been moved since. The writing was at first thought to be in the Cherokee language (which was not developed until 1819) then someone claimed if read upside down it is Hebrew this was strongly supported by J. Huston McCulloch like you mentioned. Martin and Kwas (2004) has demolished McCulloch's argument entirely. The brass objects found with the stone have the exact percentages of zinc and copper as were made in England at the time of discovery. The radio carbon dating is for the site not the stone, which is now believed to have been planted in the mound by Cyrus Gordons assistant (Emmert is his last name I don't know his first) who was fired then remarkably after being rehired found the stones which resembled Cherokee which just happened to support his boss's view. No such stone or any artifact since has been found anywhere similar to that one in that area. Emmert coincidently had the luck to find the only one. But like I mentioned in a previous post (not in this thread) that the inscription on the stone is identical to a picture found in the General History Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry. It is a writing that exactly matches that of a coin that dates back to the first Jewish revolt (66-73 CE). Emmert owned a copy of this book, case closed.

You have garbled the story somewhat.

Forgery, yes. However, the Bat Creek Inscription is likely a forgery by stone-engraver Luther Blackman, who was postmaster near Bat Creek. John W. Emmert, a Smithsonian employee, claimed to have found the stone -- probably while working for Smithsonian archeologist Cyrus Thomas, who published a photo of the stone inscription in 1894 (he published it upside down). Emmert apparently believed the inscription to be Cherokee, but (as you point out) it is Hebrew.

Cyrus Gordon did not deal with the stone (still at the Smithsonian) until around 1960, long after the death of all the principals. See link .

Link to comment

The Olmec are the only possible Jaredites.

Probably. But I always am hesitant to identify BOM groups with specific groups living in mesoamerica.

As the only "narrow neck of land" dividing the land into a "land northward and land southward" is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, it is impossible for the assertion that the Jaredites kept the land southward for a hunting preserve to be true (Ether 10:20,21), since many of the Olmec ruins lie in the so-called land southward.

1. When did this happen, give us an approximate year that Lib made this law.

2. How long was this area preserved for hunting game. A thousand years, 100, 50, ten years, before the pressure of population in the land northward became so great that people moved into that area. The incursions probably began shortly after the death of Lib == "And the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants."

Finally, making a rule and enforcing that rule are two different things, especially if there is alot of money to be made.

Furthermore, the Olmec and Lehite overlap both chronologically and geographically, without any way to explain how Olmec can be both at the same time, when neither BoM civilization was aware of the other until long after the Jaredite extinction occurred.

You are correct, except I think you are talking about the Mulekites. Long before the Nephites came to Zarahemla, Coriantumr was found by the Mulekites. And, yes, they lived around the same time, and perhaps within several hundred miles of each other, separated by wilderness.

None of the later ruins are of use.

Each of the theories locating the BoM lands has problematic features that have not been reconciled with the known civilizations that left much later ruins. There is no evidence of place names coinciding with BoM names while at the same time maintaining any degree of consistency with the requisite BoM geography.

Since you make yourself so knowledgeable, please share with us some of those ancient place names -- cities, mountains, rivers. The actual ancient names and let us can compare those names with BOM names.

I will get us started: the city of Lamanai in Belize is a known ancient name, inhabited for over 3000 years. Does this name have a parallel in the BOM?

That's enough from me on this topic....

We have only started.

Link to comment

That doesn't give me much hope for your understanding of the process of information understanding in the world. It simply is not true (read Kuhn on how scientific revolutions have occurred).

I would also suggest reading a bit about Ockham's philosophy, which is actually more "faith-based" than, say, that of Thomas Aquinas. Philosopher Edward Feser covers it in The Last Superstition (St. Augustine Press, 2008). A taste of it can be found at his blog.

Link to comment

No "cheap jab" but honest admission of a "shocker" indeed. There is no way to reconcile his polyandry with his preaching. Finally, there is no way to reconcile such a limited theology and cosmology with the observable universe and my 'satiable imagination. To hold fast to ONLY Mormonism as encompassing "all truth" I would have to put science, imagination and all "questing" on hold. "And we have only started"....

Link to comment

The most important issue in discerning whether a text is related to a historical context is to ask appropriate questions. For example, the questions you ask are the wrong ones. Let's take the appearance of Christ in the New World. The text says that this is a record of an incident in one city, believed by only a particular religion and in a particular region--and that those who believed it were destroyed. What are the chances of the survival of that information through 1500 years of culture that didn't experience it and didn't believe in that religion? The fact that it isn't remembered by non-believers doesn't tell you anything except that they didn't remember. It says nothing of the text.

Sorry, I'm sincerely trying to understand your position as it relates to the questions I'm asking, even if, as you say, I'm asking the wrong ones. I'm having a difficult time understanding in what sense you understand that the best available non-spiritual evidence suggests that the Book of Mormon is an historical document. Here are some of the my candidate interpretations of your view that the best available non-spiritual evidence suggests that the Book of Mormon is an historical document:

1. Many stories in the Book of Mormon parallel many lines of non-Book-of-Mormon related scholarship regarding the ancient people of this continent, and this is suggestive that the book's reports of migrations and wars are essentially accurate. Such reports are essentially accurate to the extent that the wars reported did in fact occur, or, the best evidence is suggestive that they did. Furthermore, those wars were between groups of people to whom the English expressions 'Lamanite', 'Nephite', etc, successfully refer. The evidence is suggestive that a man to whom the English expression 'Lehi' successfully refers migrated, with his family, from the Middle East to this continent around 600BC, and so on.

Or,

2. Many stories in the Book of Mormon parallel many lines of non-Book-of-Mormon related scholarship regarding the ancient people of this continent, and this is suggestive that the book's reports of migrations and wars are essentially accurate. Such reports are essentially accurate to the extent that the types of wars and migrations reported did in fact occur.

Link to comment

Ariaretes, QB, et. al;

What do we know about ancient America that directly contradicts the Book of Mormon; ie. what do we know definitely existed or happened that could not have existed or happened if the events in the Book of Mormon happened. Note, I am not asking about things like horses or steel swords or signs saying five miles to Zarahemla where we are merely lacking in evidence.

I started a topic on that a while ago but it seems to have disappeared so I’ll make another brief attempt from memory. I cannot ignore the evidence you ask me to ignore, however, because it is much more than simply a lack of evidence. Please note that I shall not be discussing this list in this topic – been there, done that last year. This is just to quickly answer your question. 1. Big mammals were extinct in the Americas by 11,000 BC. The BoM mentions several of them.

2. It’s very difficult for emigrants from one part of the world to bring seeds and crops to other parts of the world. The climate is rarely suitable. If you assume the Jaredites and Lehites left from a mediterranean climate, the only areas in the world where their seeds would have flourished are South Africa, South-west Australia, California and parts of Chile.

3. Extensive indigenous food production and animal husbandry in the Americas consisted of corn, beans pumpkins and turkeys in the Andes, manioc, potatoes, llamas and guinea pigs in the Amazon and sunflowers and goosefoot in North-East America (not sure that I’m using the correct English terms here, by the way). That doesn’t resemble what (little) the BoM tells us about agriculture.

4. There were no draft animals in the Americas before Columbus.

5. There was virtually no exchange of domesticated species between the areas mentioned in point 3 for two reasons: natural barriers like dense rain forests, swamps, deserts and mountains and incompatible climates.

6. Because of point 5, there was also hardly any exchange of technology or culture. So the wheel was known in Mesoamerica but not used for transportation because there were no draft animals. Only 1,200 miles further down, however, they did have possible draft animals (llamas) but they didn’t have the wheel.

7. Writing was known only in a very limited area; it dates back to 600 BC but has absolutely no relationship with any old world language.

8. Developing metallurgy takes hundreds, if not thousands of years. When Columbus arrived, the natives had just started to make bronze – no iron, let alone steel.

9. The Polynesians, of which the church maintains that they share a heritage with BoM peoples (see e.g. Encyclopedia of Mormonism), actually originate in South East Asia.

These are just a few broad strokes – but not easily brushed aside. Together, they paint a very consistent picture that is greatly at odds with the BoM narrative. You cannot change that picture with a lucky hit here and there.

Link to comment
No wonder you are so willing to pontificate based on a lack of evidence or supporting theory.

OK, we have sufficiently established my ignorance on your particular area of research. I have openly admitted to it. Now can you answer the three simple and straightforward questions I asked?

1. Is there a single peer-reviewed, non-LDS publication (the author can be LDS) that correlates the BoM text to any archeological artifact (see post no. 162)? Please note that this is a standard you yourself set in post no. 155.

2. Have you published a single paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal connecting the BoM text to real world Mesoamerican artefacts? Or does your bibliography consist of regular scientific papers on the one hand (where you don't mention anything LDS with a single word) and a bunch of LDS publications where you interpret that evidence through the lens of faith (also post no. 162)?

3. Are saying that [second Witness] is a 6-volume collection of BoM events "which don't make much human sense" in general but which DO make sense when "read against the cultural/political pressures of the Maya region" (post no. 169)?

If debating me is beneath you, just let me know. We are both wasting our time if you keep beating around the bush and refuse to answer my questions because you think I am too stupid. To quote the Dixie Chicks: let 'er rip...

Link to comment
There is no way to reconcile his polyandry with his preaching.

Only if you assume, without evidence, that his "polyandry" was marital. As it was a misapplication of the sealing concept, and not marital, there is no conflict.

To hold fast to ONLY Mormonism as encompassing "all truth" I would have to put science, imagination and all "questing" on hold.

You overstate, this, as well, since our having "all truth" does not mean that there is not truth from other sources.

What is does mean is that whenever any actual truth is discovered, it will either be incorporated into LDS thinking or it already has been (although we may not have recognized it precisely as it turns out to be).

Lehi

Link to comment
Since you make yourself so knowledgeable, please share with us some of those ancient place names -- cities, mountains, rivers. The actual ancient names and let us can compare those names with BOM names.

I will get us started: the city of Lamanai in Belize is a known ancient name, inhabited for over 3000 years. Does this name have a parallel in the BOM?

Are you suggesting that this city has anything to do with the BoM city of Laman? That's a BoM geography model I'd like to see sometime.

We have Moroni, Comoros. It's a small world, but I haven't heard anyone suggest that emigrating Nephites ever landed there....

Link to comment

Are you suggesting that this city has anything to do with the BoM city of Laman?

Not really. The parallel is with the name of the Lamanite king, Lamoni. Cities are named after the name of the founder, so it is reasonable to relate the two names.

It is also interesting to note that the name Lamanai means "submerged crocodile". The crocodile is submerged near the edge of the river, covered in mud, ready to capture any animal which drinks from the river. I saw a film on PBS where a crocodile attacking a gazelle in this manner.

So the term shows that one is clever, and very ruthless to the unwary -- an apt name for the king of the Lamanites. It makes more sense than the name of a city, nicht wahr.

As I said, we have only started. Are you going to give us those names, or did you discover that modern scholars know almost none the ancient place names. We use modern names for those cities, and geographic features.

While you may be very intelligent, your broad assertions are full of flawed logic and ignorance of the facts. If your bias is "the truth", you have alot of work to do. Truth is a very steep climb, only fit for those willing to expend the effort.

You make assertions without bothering to check the facts. You seem content to remain in the valley of ignorance.

Link to comment

I wrote: "There is no way to reconcile his polyandry with his preaching."

Only if you assume, without evidence, that his "polyandry" was marital. As it was a misapplication of the sealing concept, and not marital, there is no conflict.

"Without evidence?" Really? Todd Compton's "An Overview of Joseph Smith's Wives" at the beginning of his book "In Sacred loneliness" ought to be convincing enough evidence to the contrary. You may find the entire book unconvincing, for whatever reason. But the "discovery" pushed my cognitive dissonance too far. Suffice to say (without further hijacking of this thread) that there is plenty of evidence that some of his polyandry was indeed "marital"; and all it takes is one case to invalidate the man's role as "prophet of God"....

Link to comment

Not really. The parallel is with the name of the Lamanite king, Lamoni. Cities are named after the name of the founder, so it is reasonable to relate the two names.

It is also interesting to note that the name Lamanai means "submerged crocodile". The crocodile is submerged near the edge of the river, covered in mud, ready to capture any animal which drinks from the river. I saw a film on PBS where a crocodile attacking a gazelle in this manner.

So the term shows that one is clever, and very ruthless to the unwary -- an apt name for the king of the Lamanites. It makes more sense than the name of a city, nicht wahr.

As I said, we have only started. Are you going to give us those names, or did you discover that modern scholars know almost none the ancient place names. We use modern names for those cities, and geographic features.

While you may be very intelligent, your broad assertions are full of flawed logic and ignorance of the facts. If your bias is "the truth", you have alot of work to do. Truth is a very steep climb, only fit for those willing to expend the effort.

You make assertions without bothering to check the facts. You seem content to remain in the valley of ignorance.

"Patience is a virtue."

I never said "ancient names". I know that almost nothing is known of the ancient languages of Meso-America, ergo the original names remain unknown. What I was referring to is this attempt to connect BoM names to known languages, and at the same time trying to make Hebrew-Egyptian surface in Pre-Columbian America. Thus my objection that any asserted place names can reasonably be used as evidence of BoM origins. Your facile reference proves the point. "Moroni" and "Alma" are two other cases where a modern name exists but has no connection to the BoM. Similarity of pronunciation indicates nothing beyond coincidence: or direct association to Joseph Smith through his reading and other exposure to local inspiration, etc....

Link to comment

Sorry, I'm sincerely trying to understand your position as it relates to the questions I'm asking,

It is extremely difficult to create a text purporting to be from a different time. It is much more difficult if the culture is radically different from one's own. It is increasingly difficult with the length of the text. Thus any long text should show signs of its production culture, or the culture that supplied the non-stated understandings behind the text.

Seeing this is difficult when the text exists in translation, or comes through a third party, but it isn't outside of what ethnohistorians have to deal with.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, it is long enough and long enough ago and purporting to describe a culture sufficiently different from 1830 upstate NY that if it were really an ancient document, those underlying and unstated data would be discernible.

The process of matching a text to a historical context begins with gross history and events. Wars should happen for the right reasons and at the right times for the culture that engages in them. In this case, Book of Mormon warfare matches the seasonal wars (and specific seasons) for Mesoamerican wars. The goals of warfare are also the same as Mesoamerica, but differ from Western European goals (and methods). Tactics are appropriate to the time and terrain and weaponry are used in the wars correctly (even though no examples of that type of weaponry in large scale wars had occurred in European warfare for a long time).

The nature of political organizations fits a Mesoamerican concept, not a European one. It was held by many that the Book of Mormon reflected political ideas connected to a newly democratic United States. However, close examination of the text shows that to be incorrect. For example, the "voice of the people" is not a vote in the Book of Mormon. It operates in ways not similar to a popular vote, even though it sounds similar. The nature of kingship begins at the same times, and social development in the Book of Mormon reflects the social pressures related to social stratification of the development of the Mesoamerican king cities. When Nephite kingship is disolved, it does not turn democratic, but retains hereditary positions that replace kingship with councils--which actually did happen in some Mesoamerican cities.

The particular points I was referring to were some of the stories in the Book of Mormon that don't appear to make much sense from an 1830 or modern viewpoint, but which make perfect sense when read against the cultural pressues in that part of Mesoamerica at that time. When the text is better explained by reference to ancient cultural concepts than to those of its more modern time of translation/publication, it becomes much more likely that we are seeing a text that ultimately originated in the culture whose assumptions inform and organize the events in the text.

Link to comment

We are both wasting our time if you keep beating around the bush and refuse to answer my questions because you think I am too stupid. To quote the Dixie Chicks: let 'er rip...

I agree that we are wasting time, but for a different reason. I am not beating around any bush. I am trying to define questions that can be answered in any kind of reasonable fashion. I also refuse to answer "when did you stop beating your wife?" Questions that misunderstand the fundamental issues can only lead to more incorrect assumptions unless the issues are better defined.

For example, I didn't refuse to answer your question on peer review, I indicated why it was the wrong question. You are making assumptions about what gets published that are incorrect and therefore you would get the wrong impression from any direct answer to your question. If you think that there are non-LDS journals who would be interested in publishing a positive article on the Book of Mormon, I would really be interested in knowing which ones and why you think so. If there are legitimate editorial policies that prohibit such articles, the lack of such articles in a publication has no meaning for anything except the nature of editorial policy. That cannot be assumed to indicate any validity of the paper.

As for your question about my book, I told you what it contained and you doubted my statement. You still doubt me. I have read it. You haven't. i would think at some point empericism ought to dictate some of your conclusions.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...