So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[cinepro]

So are we to assume that, if the book does not mention another material, that they must have been made of steel? One of the proofs of the authenticity of a book is when the author does not explain what is normal for them. If you were to tell me that you went to New York from LA I would assume that you flew. If would be unusual for someone to drive such a distance. Using steel was not normal for the Nephites, therefore the author points out that the sword of laban was made of steel.

 

I think this is the reason people think the Nephite's swords were made of steel:

 

 

Laban's sword was made of steel:

1 Nephi 4

 

[9] And I beheld [Laban's] sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

 

 

Nephi taught his people how to work with steel and to make steel swords; they obviously had a "steel industry", with the ability to forge:

 

2 Nephi 5

[14] And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

[15] And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

 

Even after 100 years, the Nephites are still making steel. So it wasn't just a temporary thing:

 

Jarom

[8] And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war -- yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

So you have a civilization with a lot of ore and a working steel industry. I think if you're going to argue that this civilization somehow lost this industry and reverted to a pre-iron age technology, you'll need to make a stronger argument. 

[Brian 2.0]

In a few thousand years what evidence will there be of LDS people within 21st century world culture? Exclude electronic evidence and books to account for technological advances, to make it fair. Where is the LDS pottery? Unique LDS building foundations?

I guess we do not exist.

 

I'm not saying I know they didn't exist.  But if we're talking about it simply being a matter of it being "possible" that the Nephite civilization existed, then yes it's possible.  But that's a pretty low bar to set as it's "possible" all sorts of civilizations that someone could make up right now could have existed.  

 

And I'm talking about physical evidences.   Spiritual evidences or usefullness or all sorts of other things that add value to the BOM aside.  

[canard78]

So are we to assume that, if the book does not mention another material, that they must have been made of steel? One of the proofs of the authenticity of a book is when the author does not explain what is normal for them. If you were to tell me that you went to New York from LA I would assume that you flew. If would be unusual for someone to drive such a distance. Using steel was not normal for the Nephites, therefore the author points out that the sword of laban was made of steel. We also need to remember that the Book of Mormon is a translation and the translator would have used words that are familiar to them. We need to look past the individual words and look at the context. For example, the swords of the People of Ani-Nephi-Lehi were stained with blood. This would not happen if the they were made of steel. These are the subtle clues that we need to look for.

Unless of course the "stain with blood" is metaphorical.

It's odd that you tell us to not take it all so literally but then apply a literal definition to the sentence that suits your narrative.

Seems the only way to make any semblence of a case for the BoM... be willing to let the goalposts move as often as needed.

Edit: I see Cinepro has already covered this

Edited May 26, 2015 by canard78

[Thinking]

So are we to assume that, if the book does not mention another material, that they must have been made of steel?

 

No, but the suggestions are numerous that swords were made with other materials that I had to ask the question.

 

One of the proofs of the authenticity of a book is when the author does not explain what is normal for them.

 

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

 

If you were to tell me that you went to New York from LA I would assume that you flew. If would be unusual for someone to drive such a distance.

 

Don't you hate it when you pick the wrong example. I have been to New York once. We drove cross country (Utah to New York and back) so we could see a lot of different things.

 

Using steel was not normal for the Nephites, therefore the author points out that the sword of laban was made of steel.

 

According to the Book of Mormon, iron ore was in great abundance and Nephi taught his people how to work with it.

 

For example, the swords of the People of Ani-Nephi-Lehi were stained with blood. This would not happen if the they were made of steel.

 

Blood doesn't stick to steel?

[mfbukowski]

I'm not saying I know they didn't exist.  But if we're talking about it simply being a matter of it being "possible" that the Nephite civilization existed, then yes it's possible.  But that's a pretty low bar to set as it's "possible" all sorts of civilizations that someone could make up right now could have existed.  

 

And I'm talking about physical evidences.   Spiritual evidences or usefullness or all sorts of other things that add value to the BOM aside.

But then what does evidence matter?

What is the value of the discussion? What difference does it make in my life? Why waste time on whether or not there is evidence?

A ufo site would be much more fun ! Go worry about the Vorlons or something! ?

[mfbukowski]

The title of this thread should be:

So? There Is No Archeological Evidence for The BOM?

[canard78]

The title of this thread should be:

So? There Is No Archeological Evidence for The BOM?

As long as we can agree there's little to no archaeological evidence for the BoM it's all good.

I'm not even starting to discuss the books divinity in this thread.

[rodheadlee]

No, but the suggestions are numerous that swords were made with other materials that I had to ask the question.

 

 

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

 

 

Don't you hate it when you pick the wrong example. I have been to New York once. We drove cross country (Utah to New York and back) so we could see a lot of different things.

 

 

According to the Book of Mormon, iron ore was in great abundance and Nephi taught his people how to work with it.

 

 

Blood doesn't stick to steel?

If you say you want a patio cover like  Jonh's over in PV, it's made out of teak, octagon in shape and wraps around the back corner of his house and has 4x6 beams, 2x2 lattice spaced at 1-1/2" apart and 4x4 post. I tell you teak will cost you 75k but I could build it out of redwood for 20k, vinyl for 25k, aluminum for 45k or doug fir for 15 k. You choose redwood. It will still be like unto John's patio cover or after the manner of no matter what material you choose. 

[canard78]

If you say you want a patio cover like Jonh's over in PV, it's made out of teak, octagon in shape and wraps around the back corner of his house and has 4x6 beams, 2x2 lattice spaced at 1-1/2" apart and 4x4 post. I tell you teak will cost you 75k but I could build it out of redwood for 20k, vinyl for 25k, aluminum for 45k or doug fir for 15 k. You choose redwood. It will still be like unto John's patio cover or after the manner of no matter what material you choose.

But you specified alternative material. The BoM never does. The only material ever specified is steel.

So if I say I have a steel sword and then Bob says he has a sword like mine... What do you imagine it will be made from?

[Brian 2.0]

But then what does evidence matter?

What is the value of the discussion? What difference does it make in my life? Why waste time on whether or not there is evidence?

A ufo site would be much more fun ! Go worry about the Vorlons or something! ?

 

A UFO site would be much more fun, I will grant you that.  But Vorlons aside...

 

Evidence does matter to me... it's the literalist Mormon upbringing in me that is hard to shake I guess... but a "good" and "useful" book isn't just what the book or church, claims to be.  It's reality.  There was a Nephite civilization, there are golden plates, there is a God with two arms and two legs.  Mormonism isn't just a manmade thing grappling with some unknown divine.  Mormonism has pierced the unknown to how (certain) things really are.  And i'm not talking supernatural.  The Mormonism I know, supernatural doesn't exists.  it's all natural.  Spirit is just refined matter!

 

The Mormonism that I was raised with wasn't a completely separate sphere from the sciences, it was just ahead of it because we had the shortcut of revelation telling us how things really were, are, and will be.  Science (including history) has to grappling with our limited understanding and the scientific method.  But that same method, when used correctly and if all evidence was available, would slowly vindicate what God told us all along.  All the tenants of the WOW could be shown scientifically how they benefit the body.  Miracles and creation could be shown "scientifically" with how the elements and priesthood power work.  That information may not be until the millennium or later, but it's all the same.  It's all natural.

 

In the Mormonism I know, everyone is just trying to understand the reality of existence (our earth, our lives, our existence).  The sciences are good ways to try and figure that stuff out as best we can, but we have a shortcut with revelation... and science will someday catch up.

 

But when the sciences keep leading in a different direction, toward a different conclusion... you start to wonder... is science in need of a course correction (see any evolution thread)... or is this "shortcut" not really a reliable path to know how things really are?

[mfbukowski]

As long as we can agree there's little to no archaeological evidence for the BoM it's all good.

I'm not even starting to discuss the books divinity in this thread.

Look, this is driving me nuts.

 

I never said there IS no evidence for the BOM.

 

I guess I need to draw an flowchart for the argument or something.  I guess I am not making myself clear.

 

I think there IS enough historical evidence for the BOM to clearly indicate that "there was something going on here that we do not understand.  CLEARLY there is something happening here.  All the parallels which have been found etc cannot be coincidence.

 

I leave that up to the scholars in this area to debate.

 

MY POINT IS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE BOM TO ACCEPT IT AS THE WORD OF GOD.

 

That does not say if there is or is not evidence, it says that the evidence is not relevant to THAT QUESTION.

I think you understand that from your reply, but as has been mentioned that is also irrelevant to making one a "bad Mormon".

 

So Yes, there IS "evidence".  Many parallels too clear to be coincidence.

 

Yes the religous value of historicity is of prime importance, FOR SOME no historicity then it is all "fiction" and "never happened", for others like me, parables are good enough to make a religion and religious utterances "the word of God"

 

We can debate that til doomsday, it is a question of preference. 

 

I CAN believe rationally in both historicity and no historicity.    Religiously I believe in historicity.

 

Is there value in historical investigation?

 

Absolutely.  I see BOM archeology AND translation studies and the work of scholars as of PRIME importance in "missionary work"

 

You discover a parallel, maybe someone will say "Maybe these Mormons are not so crazy afterall..... " and start investigating the church.  Margaret Barker's work comes immediately to mind.

 

THE POINT IS THAT ALL THESE ARE INDEPENDENT ARGUMENTS.

 

Scholarship points out parallels.  Great.

 

Scholarship does not point out parallels.  So what?

 

My heart points out "truth" in my life- Alma 32 stuff.  Great.  The only thing that matters.

 

The BOM is historical.  Great.

 

The BOM is not historical.  So What?

 

My point is that clearly CLEARLY the truth or falsity of any of these does not imply the truth or falsity of any of the others and the Alma 32 one is the only one that "matters for our salvation".

 

We gotta start worrying about what is important and forget about wasting time on what is not.  That is my whole mantra and why I am here.   Stop debating this stuff and get out there and do something important!!

 

I mean this is a fun video game but most of what is discussed here has no importance really, whatsoever.   But someone has to point that out.

 

The gospel is about FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST and BECOMING LIKE HIM.  All the rest is talk and doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

[mfbukowski]

A UFO site would be much more fun, I will grant you that.  But Vorlons aside...

 

Evidence does matter to me... it's the literalist Mormon upbringing in me that is hard to shake I guess... but a "good" and "useful" book isn't just what the book or church, claims to be.  It's reality.  There was a Nephite civilization, there are golden plates, there is a God with two arms and two legs.  Mormonism isn't just a manmade thing grappling with some unknown divine.  Mormonism has pierced the unknown to how (certain) things really are.  And i'm not talking supernatural.  The Mormonism I know, supernatural doesn't exists.  it's all natural.  Spirit is just refined matter!

 

The Mormonism that I was raised with wasn't a completely separate sphere from the sciences, it was just ahead of it because we had the shortcut of revelation telling us how things really were, are, and will be.  Science (including history) has to grappling with our limited understanding and the scientific method.  But that same method, when used correctly and if all evidence was available, would slowly vindicate what God told us all along.  All the tenants of the WOW could be shown scientifically how they benefit the body.  Miracles and creation could be shown "scientifically" with how the elements and priesthood power work.  That information may not be until the millennium or later, but it's all the same.  It's all natural.

 

In the Mormonism I know, everyone is just trying to understand the reality of existence (our earth, our lives, our existence).  The sciences are good ways to try and figure that stuff out as best we can, but we have a shortcut with revelation... and science will someday catch up.

 

But when the sciences keep leading in a different direction, toward a different conclusion... you start to wonder... is science in need of a course correction (see any evolution thread)... or is this "shortcut" not really a reliable path to know how things really are?

You need to analyze that logically, seriously.

 

None of those propositions are logically incompatible.  If you see incompatibility, it's in your head.

 

You can see it from one perspective or both, or multiple perspectives as long as you see them all as different perspectives and language games.  That is where Wittgenstein comes in.

 

From above, a pyramid is a square.  It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both.

 

Because in your brain as a child, you could only see it one way, doesn't mean you have to always think of it that way.

 

And if others only see one way, that's not my problem.  I can try to show it from another angle, but that's about all.

 

What was that about the horse and water? 

 

That's where Kevin's Perry Scheme comes in!

Edited May 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Brant Gardner]

I'd love to hear more, if you don't mind explaining further.

 

 

Interesting. I was under the impression, based on what I've read, that you were more firmly in the "loose" camp. Is there anything you can refer me to where you set out the reasons and triggers for it switching sometimes to "tight" and, out of interesting, does the BoM ever break those rules and expectations?

The arguments really need the background information. My book The Gift and Power covers the types and when they are used. I think that a functional translation is the default--that is, it is the one that should be assumed unless there is evidence for a different type and a logical explanation for why it occurs. For example, I look at what I think is the reason that names were pretty tightly controlled, yet curelom and cumom are left untranslated.

[rodheadlee]

But you specified alternative material. The BoM never does. The only material ever specified is steel.

So if I say I have a steel sword and then Bob says he has a sword like mine... What do you imagine it will be made from?

How do you know what the Nephites called steel? Or obsidian? or meteoric iron? How do you they even had different names? Redwood, teak, doug fir are all called wood.

[Freedom]

No, but the suggestions are numerous that swords were made with other materials that I had to ask the question.

 

 

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

 

 

Don't you hate it when you pick the wrong example. I have been to New York once. We drove cross country (Utah to New York and back) so we could see a lot of different things.

 

 

According to the Book of Mormon, iron ore was in great abundance and Nephi taught his people how to work with it.

 

 

Blood doesn't stick to steel?

What you seem to be missing is that steel is not mentioned after Nephi. They used ores but no for swords. This reality of history has been well documented where one generation has one technology and the next does not. I guarantee that if you told someone you went went to new york from LA, they would assume you flew. We tend not to mention what is normal. This is one of the tests that reveals how old a book is, it is what is explained and what is not. Your intellect clearly does not include a knowledge of ancient texts. 

[Freedom]

As long as we can agree there's little to no archaeological evidence for the BoM it's all good.

I'm not even starting to discuss the books divinity in this thread.

You keep saying this but you seem to be missing the point that there is no archaeological evidence for the Bible. What evidence are you looking for? Is it your position that, unless we find a steel sword, no evidence will convince you? 

[Gervin]

 Your intellect clearly does not include a knowledge of ancient texts. 

what grade are you in?

[Bob Crockett]

You keep saying this but you seem to be missing the point that there is no archaeological evidence for the Bible. What evidence are you looking for? Is it your position that, unless we find a steel sword, no evidence will convince you? 

 

There is plenty of archaeological evidence for the Bible.  Hundreds of books have been written about it.  Hezekiah's tunnel is one example.

 

There is some archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.  One example:  The National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City has a pre-conquest drawing of two different races, light and dark, clashing in warfare.  The university-provided tour guide I hired gave me a long complicated explanation for it, but it was clear that local academics believe that there were once two races.

 

Also, the Book of Mormon talks about "swords," and that is the very word the Spanish used for Aztec weaponry in their journals.

[Freedom]

 I would like the critics to explain why the following cannot be used as evidence for the Book of Mormon

1)      Bountiful and Nahum

2)      ‘Land of Jerusalem’

3)      Mesoamerican temples

4)      Volcanism in Book of Mormon lands

5)      Wars in the winter

6)      Hebraisms in the book

7)      Writing on metal plates

      Ancient civilizations in the Americas

9)      Book of Mormon history matches Mesoamerican course of history

10)   Accurate description of aggrandizers

11)   Warfare

12)   Cutting off arms

[Freedom]

what grade are you in?

Ad Hominem attacks. Nice. I was turning his insult back at him. 

[Gervin]

 

The BOM is not historical.  So What?

 

 

If the BOM is not historical then it implies that the person or persons responsible for the publication of the book were knowingly deceptive.  The book makes extraordinary claims about our world and, specifically, the actions of people and cultures in the New World.  The book is rife with a myriad of incongruities, inconsistencies, and implausibilities - and I'm not talking about the spiritual claims contained therein.

[Freedom]

There is plenty of archaeological evidence for the Bible.  Hundreds of books have been written about it.  Hezekiah's tunnel is one example.

 

There is some archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.  One example:  The National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City has a pre-conquest drawing of two different races, light and dark, clashing in warfare.  The university-provided tour guide I hired gave me a long complicated explanation for it, but it was clear that local academics believe that there were once two races.

 

Also, the Book of Mormon talks about "swords," and that is the very word the Spanish used for Aztec weaponry in their journals.

The evidence you are talking about are no more evidence for the bible than finding a broom is evidence of Harry Potter. We have no proof that any of the events occurred. All we have is a book that is very old, but that is not news. The age of the book is not in dispute. What is in dispute are the stories. You can way we know King David is mentioned in other books, but that does not mean the King David described in the bible ever existed. There is no evidence for any of the new testament. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the primary texts. The dates do not match up with the historical record, and none of the people mentioned can be confirmed. Despite this, the critics here fully accept it as scripture. 

[Freedom]

If the BOM is not historical then it implies that the person or persons responsible for the publication of the book were knowingly deceptive.  The book makes extraordinary claims about our world and, specifically, the actions of people and cultures in the New World.  The book is rife with a myriad of incongruities, inconsistencies, and implausibilities - and I'm not talking about the spiritual claims contained therein.

This is easy to say but much more difficult to prove. And saying it shows a profound level of hypocrisy on your part because the same can be said of the bible. Unless you consider a talking animal, walking on water, raising the dead, gold boxes that kill plausible. The bible makes the extraordinary claim that the earth is 6,000 years old. I can go on. People have already posted a number of examples that you tend to ignore. 

 

Do you consider it implausible that a civilization could have carried on wars in winter months? Do you consider it implausible that an ancient civilization in the Americas could have had cities, roadways, and complex trade arrangements? Do you consider it implausible that an ancient people would record on metal plates? These are all claims that had been considered ridiculous not that many years ago. Proving them true has done nothing to convince you, all you do is go on to the next peace that has not been discovered yet. 

[Gervin]

This is easy to say but much more difficult to prove. And saying it shows a profound level of hypocrisy on your part because the same can be said of the bible. Unless you consider a talking animal, walking on water, raising the dead, gold boxes that kill plausible. The bible makes the extraordinary claim that the earth is 6,000 years old. I can go on. People have already posted a number of examples that you tend to ignore. 

 

Do you consider it implausible that a civilization could have carried on wars in winter months? Do you consider it implausible that an ancient civilization in the Americas could have had cities, roadways, and complex trade arrangements? Do you consider it implausible that an ancient people would record on metal plates? These are all claims that had been considered ridiculous not that many years ago. Proving them true has done nothing to convince you, all you do is go on to the next peace that has not been discovered yet. 

I made no claims about the Bible so you can stop using it to prop up the BoM.  In truth, there is no consensus among members of the LDS Church as to where the events of the BoM took place; the BoM might be proven to your satisfaction but you can't say the same for the rest of the membership.  

[Freedom]

I made no claims about the Bible so you can stop using it to prop up the BoM.  In truth, there is no consensus among members of the LDS Church as to where the events of the BoM took place; the BoM might be proven to your satisfaction but you can't say the same for the rest of the membership.  

The Book of Mormon, like any ancient book, cannot be proven. This is perhaps your stumbling block. There is no consensus among scholars where Adam lived, where Ur is located, or where Abraham dwelt. So what? The Book of Mormon, like the bible, lacks proof. You demand that the book of mormon has proof, but you do not apply this same standard to the bible. This is hypocrisy. I see that you ignored my post. I am not surprised. You tend to toss around insults and criticisms but consistently ignore the responses that destroy your arguments.