Book Of Mormon Archaeology

[cryophil]

Can someone please point me to a unified, single source list of archaeological evidence supporting unique BoM claims? (That is, claims about BoM society that aren't common to most other world-wide societies of eras bygone.) I would imagine that such a list is available in clear and well delineated language for all to see.

Thank you.

[bluebell]

Have you look on fairlds.org or at the Maxwell Institute's site (is it still called that?). If i remember right they had some things similar to what you are looking for.

[cryophil]

Bluebell, thanks for your suggestion. I have looked at FAIR/FARMS (MaxInst), and there are scattered thoughts about possible matches/evidence. What I would like, is a unified list that is accessible by a lay audience with links to in-depth information/papers by LDS scholars on the subject. Wishful thinking, perhaps?

[cinepro]

Can someone please point me to a unified, single source list of archaeological evidence supporting unique BoM claims? (That is, claims about BoM society that aren't common to most other world-wide societies of eras bygone.) I would imagine that such a list is available in clear and well delineated language for all to see.

Thank you.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

[cryophil]

http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

Thanks. I just started going through this and noticed that a lot of his geographical placement seems to be in Mesoamerica, near or at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. I've noted that FAIR/FARMS seems to hold to this as well. Given that this region bodes best for matching the current evidence listed in Jeff's site, I would think that excavations (which seem plentiful in the major sites of the BoM era) would have birthed some pretty significant evidence by now. For example, more than a dozen cities were destroyed by various natural disasters that wiped them clear in a single day (3 Ne 8-10), whereby the greater portion of the wicked were removed so that the Nephites could raise a Christian society that was industrious, populous, free of war and slavery, free of poverty and serious contention for nearly two hundred years (4 Ne). These are conditions that seem to me to be unparalleled in sociology and archaeology. I would think the new Christian/Nephite cities raised over the old destroyed ones would have had monumental BoM evidence.

I will continue looking through Jeff's pages and see what else strikes me.

Thanks.

[Anijen]

Can someone please point me to a unified, single source list of archaeological evidence supporting unique BoM claims? (That is, claims about BoM society that aren't common to most other world-wide societies of eras bygone.) I would imagine that such a list is available in clear and well delineated language for all to see.

Thank you.

cryophil you might want to go at it from a different perspective. Brother Brant Gardner suggests to look for Mesoamerica inside the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. He has also written a definitive commentary (seven volumes) to the Book of Mormon and it is also a wonderful source of info. Brother Mark Wright has an awesome fireside he gives on the subject and IMO is one the best experts in both the BofM and Mesoamerica. He is truly a scholar of both the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. Then there is Larry Poulsen who has some great ideas on geography and how it applies better to a Mesoamerican theory see here.

[cryophil]

cryophil you might want to go at it from a different perspective. Brother Brant Gardner suggests to look for Mesoamerica inside the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. He has also written a definitive commentary (seven volumes) to the Book of Mormon and it is also a wonderful source of info. Brother Mark Wright has an awesome fireside he gives on the subject and IMO is one the best experts in both the BofM and Mesoamerica. He is truly a scholar of both the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. Then there is Larry Poulsen who has some great ideas on geography and how it applies better to a Mesoamerican theory see here.

Thanks, Anijen. I'll look at your link and for these sources. One comment:

"Brant Gardner suggests to look for Mesoamerica inside the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica."

Isn't that like saying look for the data/observations (Mesoamerica) in the hypothesis (Book of Mormon)? That seems backwards from how science works. Wouldn't that make for a very biased approach?

[ldsfaqs]

Thanks, Anijen. I'll look at your link and for these sources. One comment:

"Brant Gardner suggests to look for Mesoamerica inside the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica."

Isn't that like saying look for the data/observations (Mesoamerica) in the hypothesis (Book of Mormon)? That seems backwards from how science works. Wouldn't that make for a very biased approach?

Not at all.... Science often "reverse engineers" things in order to discover their links in the concrete sciences record such as history, archeology, etc.

They find an artifact (i.e. the BOM) and then endeavor to find evidence and support for it. Nothing at all biased about it, it's called the scientific method. You take a theory, and then test it. Bad theory's or fake things end up going no where, and good ones and true things go somewhere. Guess which way the BOM etc. goes? It's been going many great evidentiary places. In fact, it has so much good evidence for it, not to mention all the evidences related to the entire Restoration itself, that no objective person can deny it's all true. Unfortunately, only mormons and other objective seekers do enough in a balanced and objective manner to come to see all the great things, while the rest are stuck in their anti-mormon ignorant and bigoted biases that only use a little truth to tell great lies, and ignore the rest. BTW, I'm a former anti-mormon who left the Church, and was originally a convert, thus I know what I'm talking about.

Also, would recommend you start with the book "Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 Evidences" and also get the DVD on it.

While it's not Meso-America, it's only natural to start at the beginning where we have the best so far evidences of what the BOM states.

Edited October 26, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[cryophil]

Not at all.... Science often "reverse engineers" things in order to discover their links in the concrete sciences record such as history, archeology, etc.

They find an artifact (i.e. the BOM) and then endeavor to find evidence and support for it. Nothing at all biased about it, it's called the scientific method. You take a theory, and then test it. Bad theory's or fake things end up going no where, and good ones and true things go somewhere. Guess which way the BOM etc. goes? It's been going many great evidentiary places. In fact, it has so much good evidence for it, not to mention all the evidences related to the entire Restoration itself, that no objective person can deny it's all true. Unfortunately, only mormons and other objective seekers do enough in a balanced and objective manner to come to see all the great things, while the rest are stuck in their anti-mormon ignorant and bigoted biases that only use a little truth to tell great lies, and ignore the rest. BTW, I'm a former anti-mormon who left the Church, and was originally a convert, thus I know what I'm talking about.

Also, would recommend you start with the book "Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 Evidences" and also get the DVD on it.

While it's not Meso-America, it's only natural to start at the beginning where we have the best so far evidences of what the BOM states.

Thanks LDSfaqs. What I read Gardner's alleged quote was just the opposite of what you wrote in brown. You said that you take a hypothesis (the BoM is not an artifact, it's a hypothesis) and examine what data fits (and don't forget to assess the data that does not fit or else you are cherry picking only the data that fits your opinion). What Gardner wrote is that you take the hypothesis and find what about the data fits it. The difference is subtle. If you look for Mesoamerica in the BoM then you will toss away/ignore the parts of the BoM that don't have a match in Mesoamerica. That is definitely cherry picking. And it's bad scholarship.

As for your statement in blue: I believe that if you are objective, you will also see that there are tremendous issues with the BoM and the history. Anyone who does not admit that is biased to me. To claim that only Mormons do it justice is very telling about you.

[Kevin Christensen]

Gardner explained his approach back in 2003. It's far from "cherry picking." Rather, as he explains in his FAIR presentation, it's all about convergences, by which he means mutually interconnected relationships, modeling his approach on that of William Dever for Old World archeology. And he directly and openly confronts the issue of what does not fit. He provided the following for my essay in FR 16:1

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=534

Would I ever reconstruct Mesoamerican society in a way that appeared to represent Christianized Old World peoples? No. I wouldn't. I don't.

The rather interesting discovery made just a few years back was that I, and many other Mesoamericanists, had simply made some incorrect assumptions about the [book of Mormon] text. The attempts of LDS archaeological apologetics was for years focused on finding the Christian or the Hebrew—or who knows what—in Mesoamerican archaeology.

The difference came when I started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Oddly enough, there is a huge difference, and the nature and the quality of the correlations has changed with that single shift in perspective.¹⁰⁴

One might read the Bible and assume that Hebrew culture was reasonably important or powerful at times and that the monotheistic religion kept all others at bay. Of course archaeology tells us otherwise. So does the text, when we know how to correlate the remarks about groves and high places to the surrounding religions. When one realizes that we get so much of the religion of Yahweh in the Old Testament because it is combating other religions, we can understand that the text took place in a context. Knowing the context helps explicate the text.

The same is holding true for the Book of Mormon. It is the context that is interesting. Would I ever suggest that this means I think the Nephites were influential in the great flow of Mesoamerican religion? Heavens no—no more so than the Hebrews [were in the Old World]. Perhaps even less.¹⁰⁵

[Christensen] What evidence do you expect to find (or to be found) regarding the Book of Mormon civilization?

[Gardner] A very fair question. I'll answer by telling you where I started on my current examination and the conclusions I have made. I began with an examination of my assumptions and what can and cannot be done with ethnohistorical data. I base my current work on previous work with Mesoamerican history, trying to sort out the development of religious ideas in later Mesoamerica (quite apart from anything that has to do with Mormons).

Here are my assumptions:

1. The Book of Mormon, if it is an ancient text, should behave like one.
   
2. The writers of the Book of Mormon should have an agenda that is their own, not one modeled after a modern concern.
   
3. The text should demonstrate typical concerns for ancient societies—kin groups, out-group prejudice, etc.
   
4. The text should reflect the major cultural trends and pressures of the time and place in which it took place. Even if it doesn't directly participate in the mainstream of history, it should not be ignorant of it.
   
5. The text should be internally consistent.
   
6. The text should describe some aspects of culture that are unexpected in the modern world but are compatible with its own time. As for the idea that a forgery can and should be falsifiable, I would expect a forger to be accurate according to knowledge available at the time the forgery was created. I would expect, however, that not only would better information call into question the important elements of the story, but that the forgery would completely fall apart upon investigation of the smaller nooks and crannies where a nonspecialist would not even know to pay attention. Really good forgeries tend to be caught in these small details, even when the large details conform to expectations.
   

When I started my examination, I had no expectation of what I would find. Some of the correlation I have found came not from attempting to find some specific thing, but in realizing that the text did not say what I had thought it said—and that it really didn't make any sense until I saw it in the context of Mesoamerican culture.

When people ask me about the most important correlation I have found, I have a hard time narrowing it to just one. The most important correlation isn't a singular finding; rather, it can be seen in the many facets of the discovery that the entire text of the Book of Mormon works better in a Mesoamerican context. Speeches suddenly have a context that makes them relevant instead of just preachy.¹⁰⁶ The pressures leading to wars are understandable. The wars themselves have an explanation for their peculiar features.¹⁰⁷ All of these things happen within a single interpretive framework that puts them in the right place at the right time.¹⁰⁸

A discussion of geography is critical because there is so much geographical description in the Book of Mormon that a failure to locate its settings anywhere in the world would be a serious problem. There are two general locations in the Book of Mormon, the Old World and the New.

The Old World description concerns the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful, and three major geographic markers have been correlated to this part of the narration. The first is the river that continually runs to the sea. A plausible location for the river that fits both the travel distance from Jerusalem and the requirement that it continually flow to the sea has been found.¹⁹⁸

The second geographic marker, Nahom, also fits into the travel parameters of Lehi's group. A location called NHM belongs to the correct time period, and all indications point to its being located in the right place.¹⁹⁹

The third location to be identified is Bountiful. Several characteristics are required of this location, and a plausible site has been identified. In addition, the descriptions of the travel fit. For example, S. Kent Brown sees evidence of night travel in the Book of Mormon text, which is the preferred time to travel in that area.²⁰⁰

The Old World geography places these key geographic markers in the correct locations to match the descriptions of travel given in the text. The geographical descriptions form an interrelated set of conditions that must all be met, and they are. Troy was found with such a set.

A discussion of New World geography, however, must begin with less surety because we don't have the beginning point, such as Jerusalem, to tie the geography to the text. However, the text provides a rather consistent internal map. I defer to John Sorenson here, as his geographic analysis is extensive, and I have never seen it seriously assailed.²⁰¹ The typical disagreement is the location of Cumorah, and that is minor in the total assessment of the geographic correlations.

The Sorenson summary discusses the following points:

1. Consistent determinable distances
   
2. Consistent topographical descriptions
   
3. Correlation to a known geography, including mountains, valleys, and rivers
   
4. Plausible correlation to known topographical relationships ("up" and "down" are consistent with physical directional movement and fit with the topography of the area)
   
5. Plausible archaeological remains for many of the named cities that C-14 tests (and sometimes Maya Long Count) date to Book of Mormon times
   
6. Parallels to the known distribution of cultural groups, particularly linguistic groups (and regions of interaction)
   

Cultural Correlation

Having a plausible location now requires the examination of the text of the Book of Mormon to see whether or not it fits into that cultural area. In this instance a few more operating assumptions need to be specified:

1. Based on known history of the New World and known modes of cultural interaction, it is expected that the Book of Mormon people (who entered with relatively few numbers) would have been absorbed into the material culture that already existed. What is more, they also would have absorbed the local languages as the common spoken language.
   
2. "Nephite" and "Lamanite" are polity designations, not lineage designations (there is ample textual evidence for this as people move from one group to the other).
   
3. While the Nephites attempted to preserve a Mosaic religion, that was not the case for the surrounding cultures. It is in the conflicts with those outside cultures that we have the opportunity for the best information about the nature of the majority culture of the New World.
   

Beginning with that foundation, here is a set of cultural correspondences and explanations that come from the Mesoamerican cultural context in which the Book of Mormon may be plausibly placed:

1. The Lehites entered the area during the middle of the Preclassic period, a time of broad changes in the Maya civilization. City size was increasing and society was growing more complex. The general trend was toward greater social differentiation and the beginnings of kingship in Maya city-states. This trend is mirrored in the conflicts witnessed as early as the book of Jacob. The twin evils against which Jacob preaches—polygamy and acquisition of wealth (when it leads to social differentiation)—have both been identified in this time period in Mesoamerica. (Interestingly, polygamy is directly linked to one of the mechanisms of accumulation of wealth at this time, and the function of wealth is to create social differentiation.)
   
2. The early description of economic matters is enigmatic in the Book of Mormon unless we have the Mesoamerican background. In particular, Jacob speaks against costly apparel (Jacob 2:13). This is a situation that should not exist in a society where everyone makes their own clothing from local materials and dyes. However, it fits into the trade context of Mesoamerica, where clothing was one of the most obvious modes of displaying wealth and social differentiation. Thus this Book of Mormon emphasis on the evils of costly apparel has a direct explanation in the cultural pressures of Mesoamerica at this time.
   
3. In multiple instances, a Nephite describes the Lamanites as lazy and uncivilized. These negative portrayals occur along with descriptions of Lamanite cities that appear more powerful than Nephite cities. This pejorative catalog even gets repeated by Mormon in his abridgment, when it is obviously incorrect. However, the presence of the pejorative characterization is anthropologically accurate for time and place. Rather than attributing it to authorial error, it can be viewed as an accurate replication of typical in-group prejudices that occur in most human populations.
   
4. The Book of Mormon describes a political situation that fits Mesoamerica but is not universal to other areas of the world (though it is not completely unknown). Mesoamerican cities had their own governments, but they were typically grouped into spheres of influence. In particular, we have descriptions of kings ruling over kings among the Lamanites. This is precisely the relationship of Mesoamerican cities as the king-forms were developing. The various fissions and fusions of the Book of Mormon hegemonies accurately reflect the nature of Mesoamerican politics.
   
5. The shift from king to judges in Zarahemla reflects an institutional implementation of a political structure that already existed in those kingships that did continue. Even in the king-led polities, there were kin-group leaders who served as the judges and intermediate rulers. These appear to function as do the judges in Zarahemla and in some later cultures did replace the kings. Thus the process and presence of judges in Zarahemla is a parallel of known culture. To this it should be added that the mechanism described in the Book of Mormon reflects the more Mesoamerican mode of "judges" in that the position was hereditary. In spite of the critics' occasional assertions of a voting democracy in the Book of Mormon, it did not exist.
   
6. The nature of economics in the Book of Mormon fits the Mesoamerican cultural setting. The lack of a monetary system shifted the nature of wealth accumulation. This is apparent in the constant problem in the Book of Mormon of wealth directly leading to social hierarchies—this is because wealth was defined in terms of displayable goods, not monetary accumulation. In addition, the relationships between conquered cities fit the Mesoamerican model of the establishment of tribute payment rather than political domination. When a city is conquered, there is no real effort to acquire territory, but rather to secure the tribute. Thus the Book of Mormon emphasizes the nature of the taxation—which again is the relinquishing of material, not money.
   
7. Descriptions of warfare in the Book of Mormon fit the Mesoamerican model. This includes seasonality of fighting, weaponry, tactics, defensive structures, body armament, and the nature of the conclusion of the warfare.²⁰²
   
8. The descriptions of daily life fit a Mesoamerican context. Amulek's description of his household (Alma 10:11) corresponds nicely with a Mesoamerican home compound. And when Nephi's compound is described (Helaman 7:11), it fits the description of the home of a powerful person living in the city center—including a personal pyramid ("tower"), a walled court, and a location near the highway leading to a main market (multiple markets were known to exist in single cities).
   
9. The description of the events of Benjamin's speech fits not only the cultural climate but explains the anomalous base of a temple built in the plausible city of Zarahemla at the time of the speech.
   
10. Mormon's description of a land north of Nephite lands that is devoid of trees, has buildings of cement, and is in a land of large lakes and many rivers points directly to Teotihuacán, which fits all of those qualifications during the required time period.
    
11. The particular destructions described at the time of Jesus's death fit the description of a highly explosive volcano (and no other phenomenon). Correlations include the length of time of the tremors and the thickness and duration of the darkness. Mesoamerica is along the ring of fire, one of the most volatile volcanic areas in the world, and we know of at least two major volcanic explosions at the time of Christ. Dating volcanic explosions that far back can be difficult, so there might have been more. The fact does exist, however, that the descriptions in the Book of Mormon fit volcanic activity, and volcanic activity is known for that area of the world and for that time.²⁰³
    
12. The incident of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies has a direct and complete explanation in a Mesoamerican context, a cultural explanation that even explains the lightning raid that destroyed Ammonihah (Alma 16:1—3)—otherwise an anomalous event in the Book of Mormon.²⁰⁴
    
13. The location of Zarahemla in the Grijalva River valley not only fits the geography and topography, but it links the major linguistic groups. The Nephites entered a Mayan-speaking area. The Mulekites entered a Mixe-Zoque speaking area. The movement of the Mulekites/Zarahemlaites up the Grijalva valley parallels the known movement of Zoque (a daughter language of Mixe-Zoque) up that valley. This explains why the Nephites and the Zarahemlaites spoke different languages when there was insufficient time for an unintelligible divergence from Hebrew to have occurred. (In only four hundred years some vocabulary would change, but the languages would still have been mutually intelligible.)
    
14. The Book of Mormon places the Jaredite civilization north of Nephite territories and earlier in time. The geography and time-depth match the geographic and time distribution of the Olmec. The Jaredites would have participated in Olmec culture just as the Nephites participated in later culture.
    
15. The rapid increase in militarism noted at the end of the Book of Mormon parallels the known historical rise in militarism in all of Mesoamerica at the same time period.
    

As I have noted before, the important facet of all of these key points is that they all stem from a single explanatory model. Each of them is dependent on a single geographic area and a particular time period.

Against these correspondences, what do we have that might be counterindications? We have the specific descriptive problems of swords, silk, horses, chariots, etc.²⁰⁵ I find it much easier to explain these as labeling problems than to find an alternate explanation for the type of detailed correlation listed above.²⁰⁶

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

.

[cryophil]

Interesting FARMS review, Kevin. I'll take a look through it. One thing stood out right away:

The text should describe some aspects of culture that are unexpected in the modern world but are compatible with its own time. As for the idea that a forgery can and should be falsifiable, I would expect a forger to be accurate according to knowledge available at the time the forgery was created. I would expect, however, that not only would better information call into question the important elements of the story, but that the forgery would completely fall apart upon investigation of the smaller nooks and crannies where a nonspecialist would not even know to pay attention. Really good forgeries tend to be caught in these small details, even when the large details conform to expectations.

I believe critics are saying this is exactly right, and show many many things that are anachronistic. But then, these are explained away by statements (in your FARMS review) like:

It happens that translation by inspiration and interpretation of scripture necessarily involve a higher degree of subjective interpretation than does physics. But can we honestly say that the kinds of adjustments that apologists like Sorenson make have general implications? Yes. The Book of Mormon emphasizes that we can understand the writings of the Jews as they understand them only if we learn their culture (see 2 Nephi 25:1—5). By implication, the same is true of the Mesoamerican context.

Is it possible to tie the meaning of words, particularly translated words, to a single cultural background? Frankly, no.

What I see going on is, stating that a forger can be found by noticing factors that reflect his own period that are not realistic in the period covered by a forgery. And when new information about the past is found that does not fit the forgery, and they are pointed out by critics, the apologists explain them as a cultural issue, not factual issue. It sounds as though one is getting his cake and eating it too.

[HiJolly]

Isn't that like saying look for the data/observations (Mesoamerica) in the hypothesis (Book of Mormon)? That seems backwards from how science works. Wouldn't that make for a very biased approach?

Of course. Faith is quite biased. I don't know of a single person, out of all the people I've talked with or have listed to, who have learned the Book of Mormon is true based on scientific evidence. I have, OTOH, seen a fair number of LDS friends who say the evidence strengthens their testimony, but that's about it.

My knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true certainly didn't come through science.

Anyone else have a different experience? I think that's why faith is #1 in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

HiJolly

[Kevin Christensen]

Interesting FARMS review, Kevin. I'll take a look through it. One thing stood out right away:

SNIP

I believe critics are saying this is exactly right, and show many many things that are anachronistic.

I don't see the critics as getting this right at all. The methodology for testing for authenticity came from the experience of Renaissance scholars dealing with a flood of documents. Nibley quotes Blass as explaining that they must first assume that the document is authentic, and then test it against that assumption. And if they decide that the document is a forgery, they must also explain how it managed to get anything right.

The practice I see is, assume that it is false, and assume that anything that looks wrong at first glance settles the case. Nothing to see here, move along. The recent interviews with Michael Coe do just that. In the case of the Book of Mormon, very often we see people attributing to it claims that it does not make, and then falsifying those claims by means of scholarship that is not proven. (Paraphrasing Hugh Nibley.) The supposed anachronistic "coins" is a good example. The text does not mention coins. Only a modern chapter heading. Critics often attack claims made about the Book of Mormon, rather than claims made by the Book of Mormon. It has been common to see The Book of Mormon as a whole being anachronistically "too Christian before Christ", when it turns out that it actually fits very nicely with reconstructed First temple theology. Matthew Roper refers to "Boomerang Hits" for the Book of Mormon, where new information reverse the significance of specific claims.

But then, these are explained away by statements (in your FARMS review) like:

What I see going on is, stating that a forger can be found by noticing factors that reflect his own period that are not realistic in the period covered by a forgery. And when new information about the past is found that does not fit the forgery, and they are pointed out by critics, the apologists explain them as a cultural issue, not factual issue. It sounds as though one is getting his cake and eating it too.

The assumption here is that "explained away" is a rhetorical trick, something ad hoc done without any justification other than apologetic necessity. Putting a band-aid on a falsification that is a done deal against evidence that clearly, unambiguously, speaks for itself. But all data is "theory-laden." And we are justified in examining the assumptions that go with the claims about steel and horses or DNA, for instance. And we can read the text closely, rather than just assuming we know what it says, what it means in cultural context, and that ongoing research offers no surprises. The point I was making is that the problems of translation across time and culture and judging based on limited information comes as a general problem, raising general issues. Take this translation in Matthew 5:15

Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Does the translator anachronism of "candle" prove that the entire Bible was forged by the King James Translators? Does that translation violate the meaning of the text, or does it do what a translation ought to do, to carry across the sense of the verse?

And the solutions we offer involve reading the text as a translation across cultures. I've given the example that I once attended a professional football game. That may create a clear picture in your mind, given that I work in Pittsburgh, within sight of Three Rivers Stadium, where the Steelers play. If I add the context of time and place, that when I lived in Liverpool, back in 1975, I attended a professional football game, knowledge of the specific culture in this case changes the picture without changing the words. It is still a literal football game, different rules and players and setting, even if not the kind you may have first imagined. Reading in context matters. Part of the context is the purported ancient setting, and part of the text is the need for a translation to be meaningful for readers.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[cryophil]

Kevin Christensen:

The practice I see is, assume that it is false, and assume that anything that looks wrong at first glance settles the case.

Yes, that is how science works. If a hypothesis cannot be falsifiable, it isn't a testable hypothesis. The BoM provides many of those. Critics have dismissed the BoM by those. Apologists have altered the hypothesis by altering the interpretation of the BoM to conform to more recent data. An example of that is the traditional belief the BoM claimed all native Americans were Lamanites. The apologists find text in the passages that imply there were others, and that the geography is limited. The text itself also can be seen to imply the opposite--a continent model, and no extra others. Is this flexibility allowing the BoM to stretch to actual scientific observation? Perhaps. Is this flexibility a glaring weakness showing it to be made up? Perhaps. It is at best controversial. And at worst, a monumental weakness of the opinion the BoM is literal history of authentic people.

HiJolly:

Faith is quite biased. I don't know of a single person, out of all the people I've talked with or have listed to, who have learned the Book of Mormon is true based on scientific evidence. I have, OTOH, seen a fair number of LDS friends who say the evidence strengthens their testimony, but that's about it.

I understand this point and think it is valid for those that use the BoM as a spiritual basis. It means that even if the entire epic is fictional, it still has spiritual merit. For those that take the BoM as literal history, the scientific data is essential. There are many holy books, most of which are myth based stories to help persons increase in moral understanding. The BoM is in this regard better than the Bible. Is it better than the Q'ran, the PÄli Canon, Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka, the Sutras, Tengyur, Dongha, Confucian classics, Rasa'il al-hikmah, Book of the Dead, Amduat, Vedas, Brahmanas, and so on? As mormons, we claim the BoM is the most correct book (spiritually). It sure isn't the most correct historical text. Have many of us really tested the other holy texts as far as their spiritual worth? Most of us haven't and just assume the book we were given by our parents is the best.

[cryophil]

Kevin Christensen:

The assumption here is that "explained away" is a rhetorical trick, something ad hoc done without any justification other than apologetic necessity. Putting a band-aid on a falsification that is a done deal against evidence that clearly, unambiguously, speaks for itself. But all data is "theory-laden." And we are justified in examining the assumptions that go with the claims about steel and horses or DNA, for instance. And we can read the text closely, rather than just assuming we know what it says, what it means in cultural context, and that ongoing research offers no surprises. The point I was making is that the problems of translation across time and culture and judging based on limited information comes as a general problem, raising general issues....

While I do agree with you that translation matters, I don't believe all the issues with the BoM can be excused as cultural dissonance and translation mishaps. For example, more than a dozen cities were destroyed by various natural disasters that wiped them clear in a single day (3 Ne 8-10), whereby the greater portion of the wicked were removed so that the Nephites could raise a Christian society that was industrious, populous, free of war and slavery, free of poverty and serious contention for nearly two hundred years (4 Ne). These are conditions that seem to me to be unparalleled in sociology and archaeology. I would think the new Christian/Nephite cities raised over the old destroyed ones would have had monumental BoM evidence and not very hidden. There would be warehouses full of evidence collected from ruins and excavated sites from such a civilization rising out of the ashes from such quick and horrendous destruction.

This kind of evidence would be plentiful and its absence not explicable by a translation or cultural mismatch.

Think of it this way, Norse sailors landed in a remote spot in Canada--a few dozen vikings visited a remote part of Canada 1000 years ago, just for a summer. hey left no permanent colonies, but they did interact with Native Americans. How do we know that? Because we have labs full of evidence from their visit.

http://www.smithsoni...gy/vikings.html

And we have labs full of evidence to support their summer vacation here. One would likewise expect the destruction of more than a dozen cities in a day, the transcendent events of darkness for three days, and a nearly 200-year Christian, utopian, populous, industrious & peace-loving occupation would at least leave traces on the order or greater than a few dozen norse sailors.

[Brant Gardner]

I don't believe all the issues with the BoM can be excused as cultural dissonance and translation mishaps. For example, more than a dozen cities were destroyed by various natural disasters that wiped them clear in a single day (3 Ne 8-10), whereby the greater portion of the wicked were removed so that the Nephites could raise a Christian society that was industrious, populous, free of war and slavery, free of poverty and serious contention for nearly two hundred years (4 Ne). These are conditions that seem to me to be unparalleled in sociology and archaeology. I would think the new Christian/Nephite cities raised over the old destroyed ones would have had monumental BoM evidence and not very hidden. There would be warehouses full of evidence collected from ruins and excavated sites from such a civilization rising out of the ashes from such quick and horrendous destruction.

Your statement would be quite valid if the Book of Mormon were a modern history. As a document, however, there are two claims it makes that require that we understand a lot more about history and archaeology that we typically bring to the discussion. The first is that the text is said to be the ancient work of an intentional author (Mormon). It also claims to be a translation. Both of those things require that we must make sure that we begin with the appropriate assumptions.

With those two ideas in mind, let me look at your point about the destruction in a single day. While the text appears to say that, what is the reasonable association between the text and the events? Was the author in a position to have first-hand knowledge? If not, what reports told the author of the destruction, and how long after the fact? Is there evidence that any of the dating would be correct? All of these are standard questions that are asked of historical documents, but usually left unasked of the Book of Mormon because it is a religious text and therefore must be correct as stands. Actually, there are indications in the text that what we get in the destructions are the result of an accumulation of various reports coming about a year later, and the account being written later than that. Then we have the possibility/probability that Mormon edited these stories to enhance his main point (a well known practice for ancient historians).

Now we turn to the archaeological evidence. Destroyed cities? We can find a lot of them. Dating of the destruction? That is often much harder. The dating for important volcanic eruptions has shifted in the literature in the last 10 years, so dating is a bit fluid. As for whether or not we would find the "Christian" elements in archaeology, that is a fascinating question. What would New World Christian iconography look like? All of what we know of Christian iconography from the Old World was developed after Lehi's family left Jerusalem, so there shouldn't be any correlation. Much of Old World Christian iconography was borrowed from later pagan art. If that happened in the New World as well, what would that mean?

There just isn't the simple answer to your proposal that it might seem to have on the surface.

[ERayR]

While I do agree with you that translation matters, I don't believe all the issues with the BoM can be excused as cultural dissonance and translation mishaps. For example, more than a dozen cities were destroyed by various natural disasters that wiped them clear in a single day (3 Ne 8-10), whereby the greater portion of the wicked were removed so that the Nephites could raise a Christian society that was industrious, populous, free of war and slavery, free of poverty and serious contention for nearly two hundred years (4 Ne). These are conditions that seem to me to be unparalleled in sociology and archaeology. I would think the new Christian/Nephite cities raised over the old destroyed ones would have had monumental BoM evidence and not very hidden. There would be warehouses full of evidence collected from ruins and excavated sites from such a civilization rising out of the ashes from such quick and horrendous destruction.

This kind of evidence would be plentiful and its absence not explicable by a translation or cultural mismatch.

Think of it this way, Norse sailors landed in a remote spot in Canada--a few dozen vikings visited a remote part of Canada 1000 years ago, just for a summer. hey left no permanent colonies, but they did interact with Native Americans. How do we know that? Because we have labs full of evidence from their visit.

http://www.smithsoni...gy/vikings.html

And we have labs full of evidence to support their summer vacation here. One would likewise expect the destruction of more than a dozen cities in a day, the transcendent events of darkness for three days, and a nearly 200-year Christian, utopian, populous, industrious & peace-loving occupation would at least leave traces on the order or greater than a few dozen norse sailors.

What would this evidence look like? What would you expect to find?

[cryophil]

With those two ideas in mind, let me look at your point about the destruction in a single day. While the text appears to say that, what is the reasonable association between the text and the events? Was the author in a position to have first-hand knowledge? If not, what reports told the author of the destruction, and how long after the fact? Is there evidence that any of the dating would be correct? All of these are standard questions that are asked of historical documents, but usually left unasked of the Book of Mormon because it is a religious text and therefore must be correct as stands. Actually, there are indications in the text that what we get in the destructions are the result of an accumulation of various reports coming about a year later, and the account being written later than that. Then we have the possibility/probability that Mormon edited these stories to enhance his main point (a well known practice for ancient historians).

Now we turn to the archaeological evidence. Destroyed cities? We can find a lot of them. Dating of the destruction? That is often much harder. The dating for important volcanic eruptions has shifted in the literature in the last 10 years, so dating is a bit fluid. As for whether or not we would find the "Christian" elements in archaeology, that is a fascinating question. What would New World Christian iconography look like? All of what we know of Christian iconography from the Old World was developed after Lehi's family left Jerusalem, so there shouldn't be any correlation. Much of Old World Christian iconography was borrowed from later pagan art. If that happened in the New World as well, what would that mean?

There just isn't the simple answer to your proposal that it might seem to have on the surface.

brown & blue: The story of the destruction, visitation and teachings of Jesus to America happens within 2-3 days, per the death and resurrection of Christ. If that doesn't narrow it down, then the whole gospel of the crucifixion and resurrection is being questioned here. I'm baffled by this statement that the dating is confusing, that the author may have gotten it wrong, etc.

blue: dating methods are very accurate and a 1-3 day destruction of > dozen cities of the scale recorded in 3Ne would leave remarkable evidence.

purple: The major cities in Mesoamerica that were built in the period of question (~33-200AD) including the Valley of Mexico's Cuicuilco & Teotihuacán practiced polytheism and warred with neighboring cities until their decline (Cuicuilco I believe in ~150 AD). This places its timeline in the utopian era, but hardly christian like in its personality. Plus, Teotihuacán was rising nearby--85km away--with trading and migration between the two, and definitely practiced human sacrifice. The sacrifice, warring, slavery and other practices of these cities contradict 4 Ne.

[cryophil]

What would this evidence look like? What would you expect to find?

Certainly not warlike, sacrificing, slavery holding cultures. Every major civilization in Mesoamerica of that era had some or all of these elements. The fact that Jesus cleansed the land of the greater part of the wicked, that in 4 Ne they converted all in the lands round about, increased in population and industry while remaining peaceful and Christian would leave hallmarks that would not include war, slavery, etc. So far, this zone of Christian rebuilt cities is no where.

[Kevin Christensen]

Yes, that is how science works. If a hypothesis cannot be falsifiable, it isn't a testable hypothesis. The BoM provides many of those. Critics have dismissed the BoM by those.

What goes unnoticed is that the critics hypotheses about the Book of Mormon are themselves testable. Coe, for instance, makes all sorts of claims about the Book of Mormon relative to archeology, but demonstrates to close readers that he does not know the text well.

Apologists have altered the hypothesis by altering the interpretation of the BoM to conform to more recent data.

Including as data meriting consideration, a much more careful reading of the Book of Mormon.

An example of that is the traditional belief the BoM claimed all native Americans were Lamanites. The apologists find text in the passages that imply there were others, and that the geography is limited. The text itself also can be seen to imply the opposite--a continent model, and no extra others.

At issue is, which reading is better? That should mean more accurate, comprehensive and coherent, sensitive to contexts, fruitful, and promising.

Is this flexibility allowing the BoM to stretch to actual scientific observation? Perhaps.

It is stretching the Book of Mormon to read it more carefully and in context? The assumption is that any change in interpretation goes against the "plain meaning of the text" which supposedly interprets itself, without reader contribution. But texts and readers to not behave that way in actual practice.

Is this flexibility a glaring weakness showing it to be made up? Perhaps. It is at best controversial. And at worst, a monumental weakness of the opinion the BoM is literal history of authentic people.

If the Book of Mormon were the only controversial text, this would be an odd situation.

I understand this point and think it is valid for those that use the BoM as a spiritual basis. It means that even if the entire epic is fictional, it still has spiritual merit. For those that take the BoM as literal history, the scientific data is essential. There are many holy books, most of which are myth based stories to help persons increase in moral understanding. The BoM is in this regard better than the Bible. Is it better than the Q'ran, the PÄli Canon, Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka, the Sutras, Tengyur, Dongha, Confucian classics, Rasa'il al-hikmah, Book of the Dead, Amduat, Vedas, Brahmanas, and so on? As mormons, we claim the BoM is the most correct book (spiritually). It sure isn't the most correct historical text. Have many of us really tested the other holy texts as far as their spiritual worth? Most of us haven't and just assume the book we were given by our parents is the best.

It is those who haven't just accepted what we were told as the last and only word, and who have looked further who provide the most interesting commentaries. Nibley, Sorenson, Gardner, Welch, Peterson, Goff, Tvedtnes, Barker, Givens, Allen Christenson, and many many others.

Regarding evidences of the destructions, it is important to know what to look for and where to look. And you have to comprehend and recognize what is before you. Looking in the wrong place for the wrong things helps no one.

But looking in the right time and place can lead to interesting things. This, for instance.

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=4&id=238

It's when several things interlock in the right time and place that distinguishes this sort of thing from cherry picking.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited October 26, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[cryophil]

Also, I get the impression from many of you that the best explanation for the lack of direct, abundant evidence is that the Nephites/Lamanites were mixed heavily with existing pre-Jaredite populations (presumably via migrations from NE Asia circa 12,000 years ago).

If the Nephites mixed so well that their culture, their art, their biology are hidden to modern archaeology, linguistics, DNA, entomology (body/head lice, gut worms, etc), then it seems we are claiming they were completely absorbed by those cultures.

But to be absorbed so well to be hidden means to me that their religion could not have survived either. But 4 Ne shows clearly the post-destruction of "others" resulted in a Christian-only society which expanded in size and culture like no other society in known history. If that rising out of the ashes of the single-day, wrathful destruction does not yield significant evidence, I don't know that archaeology can claim to be fruitful in any dig.

Where, then, is the problem--with the text or with science?

[cryophil]

It's when several things interlock in the right time and place that distinguishes this sort of thing from cherry picking.

Interestingly, if some of the Nephite cities were in Mexico, some were in Guatemala (I served there), then the geography is more expansive than thought. Yet, if the cities of that time were near Lake Atitlan, then the evidence should be found that correlates to the unusual claims of a 200 year utopian expansion in that area. Instead of interlocking pieces, what I see is disparate particles. I see parsing out a BoM claim to match one element in one place, then a severing of it from the whole. That way it can match singly to an isolated piece of possible evidence, which goes toward supporting the BoM in that isolated case. Then we move to another region for another piece of the puzzle, all the while claiming that the geography is so limited we haven't found it (except in isolated, coincidental pieces). You can't put them all together however. They are disparate in time and place for a very limited geography.

What that shows me is, one can go wherever one needs to for finding isolated matches (coincidence?) and it suffices for the lazy.

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

purple: The major cities in Mesoamerica that were built in the period of question (~33-200AD) including the Valley of Mexico's Cuicuilco & Teotihuacán practiced polytheism and warred with neighboring cities until their decline (Cuicuilco I believe in ~150 AD). This places its timeline in the utopian era, but hardly christian like in its personality. Plus, Teotihuacán was rising nearby--85km away--with trading and migration between the two, and definitely practiced human sacrifice. The sacrifice, warring, slavery and other practices of these cities contradict 4 Ne.

The sort of things happening in Teotihuacan as evidence relative to 4 Nephi depend a great deal on whether Teotihuacan was Nephite territory at the time, don't you think?

Have you looked at Larry Poulson's recent work on Book of Mormon settings in Mesoamerica?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[cryophil]

The sort of things happening in Teotihuacan as evidence relative to 4 Nephi depend a great deal on whether Teotihuacan was Nephite territory at the time, don't you think?

Yes. For that era, there are few cities that developed in a grand way in the Mesoamerica region. The two I named are the prime examples. I would be happy to know others.

Have you looked at Larry Poulson's recent work on Book of Mormon settings in Mesoamerica?

Not yet. It's blocked for some reason at work. I'll have to view it at home.

[Kevin Christensen]

Also, I get the impression from many of you that the best explanation for the lack of direct, abundant evidence is that the Nephites/Lamanites were mixed heavily with existing pre-Jaredite populations (presumably via migrations from NE Asia circa 12,000 years ago).

When the Lehite boat showed up, there were millions of people in the Americas, in the relevant area, mostly dwelling in small villages. That is clear. What impact do expect a handful of families to have on the material culture?

If the Nephites mixed so well that their culture, their art, their biology are hidden to modern archaeology, linguistics, DNA, entomology (body/head lice, gut worms, etc), then it seems we are claiming they were completely absorbed by those cultures.

Have you seen Brian Stubbs' work on linguistics? Have you seen John Sorenson's recent work on biological transmissions?

http://maxwellinstit...=9&num=2&id=228

http://maxwellinstit...14&num=1&id=356

According to John Clark, Nephite archeology is on display in museums. Just not recognized for what it is by those who expect to see looking like something else. What does a Nephite pot look like when the arriving Nephites likely adopt local materials and styles? See Brant's FAIR essay on Material Culture for Book of Mormon peoples.

But to be absorbed so well to be hidden means to me that their religion could not have survived either. But 4 Ne shows clearly the post-destruction of "others" resulted in a Christian-only society which expanded in size and culture like no other society in known history. If that rising out of the ashes of the single-day, wrathful destruction does not yield significant evidence, I don't know that archaeology can claim to be fruitful in any dig.

I disagree with the reading here, and the expectation that 3 and 4 Nephi led to a Nephite-only continent, or even a large region extending as far as Teotihuacan. The events in 3 Nephi 11-28 concern a few thousand people at most at land Bountiful, which is near the Narrow neck and a beach on the sea east. And only a few generations pass before their society begins to break down. It happens that Sorenson has talked about evidence for a relatively classless society in the area for a while at the right time and place, and then social differentiation showing up later.

Where, then, is the problem--with the text or with science?

Both. If you don't take sufficient care in reading the text, how can you even begin to do the science properly? It's the old story of the lost keys, and looking where the light is better, rather than where the keys were lost. For example, on the PBS series, the Mormons, Coe talked about how his version of Joseph Smith imagined the Book of Mormon as taking place in all of North and South America, and being "flabbergasted" at reading the Stephens book on cities in Mesoameria. The scientific problem is that Larry Poulson has demonstrated that the combined descriptions of the Sidon in the Book of Mormon match only one river in the entire Western Hemisphere, the Grijalva. If Joseph Smith was fraudulantly composing the Book of Mormon with a South American setting in mind for the land south, where the Sidon flows, how did he accidentally describe a specific river elsewhere? And much else that converges only in that specific location?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited October 27, 2011 by Kevin Christensen