Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canard78

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

Recommended Posts

Think Work and the Glory Series. Since posting I've read several histories of the Smith family.

Enjoy your novel. I hope those histories you're reading include Rough Stone Rolling. I seem to remember you saying you hadn't read it or couldn't make it through it.

-guerreiro9

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't answer the question.  "It has been well established that the Nephites joined..."   A few theories versus correlated manuals and GA's does not well establishment make.

 

The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas. Building upon this assumption, critics insist that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of other large populations in the Americas and that, therefore, Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups.

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7

Joseph Smith appears to have been open to the idea of migrations other than those described in the Book of Mormon,8 and many Latter-day Saint leaders and scholars over the past century have found the Book of Mormon account to be fully consistent with the presence of other established populations.9 The 2006 update to the introduction of the Book of Mormon reflects this understanding by stating that Book of Mormon peoples were “among the ancestors of the American Indians.”10

 

Nothing is known about the extent of intermarriage and genetic mixing between Book of Mormon peoples or their descendants and other inhabitants of the Americas, though some mixing appears evident, even during the period covered by the book’s text.11 What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America. Finding and clearly identifying their DNA today may be asking more of the science of population genetics than it is capable of providing

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't answer the question.  "It has been well established that the Nephites joined..."   A few theories versus correlated manuals and GA's does not well establishment make.

Yeah, I know you feel you have to win your point, fine, but the fact is the corner has been turned and the paradigm is changing.  No. correlation has not caught up yet, but there have been several GA comments along these lines.  It will take years, but it will happen.

 

Believe what you like- that is your prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post

The more current view is that 40 people or so came over in a boat and lived among a larger culture, probably Mayan in the case of the Nephites, and probably the Olmecs in the case of the Jardites et al.

This view is now pretty widely held. In a case like that, there would be virtually no archeology to be found from the subcultures.

I am certain this is the direction these studies will take from here on. The paradigm is shifting and even the church is recognizing it.

Despite the fact that Joseph, the man who saw this culture in vision, taught things that utterly contradicted this revisionist position? Ho hum. Edited by canard78

Share this post


Link to post

While I don't know for sure, the impression I get when reading the Book of Mormon is that writing on metal plates was a sacred, and uncommon duty entrusted to the ruling lineage.

It's very possible that the only plates that existed were the plates of brass, the small and large plates of Nephi and the plates of Ether.

So the task would not be to find plates like the plates of Nephi, it would be to find the actual plates Nephi engraved. A much more daunting task.

That's more a kin to finding the actual tablets upon which the 10 commandments were written, rather than a copy of a copy of a copy .... of the writing on the tablets.

When the actual 10 commandments are found then you can complain that we don't have the plates of Nephi.

-guerreiro9

There's just no consistency in the defence made on this this thread. It perfectly captures the lack of clarity on the topic.

A few posts back people were arguing that there were dozens of gold and silver inscriptions of law etc that the Spanish melted down and took home. Now you're saying that the practice was so rare that having other gold inscribed documents would be an unrealistic expectation.

It's like you all just throw a bunch of ideas into the air and hope something will stick.

Share this post


Link to post

There you go.

 

That's what I was looking for, thanks!

 

 

The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas. Building upon this assumption, critics insist that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of other large populations in the Americas and that, therefore, Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups.

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Despite the fact that Joseph, the man who saw this culture in vision, taught things that utterly contradicted this revisionist position? Ho hum.

Seriously I don't know why you of all people would say stuff like this.

 

Get over it.  The tide has changed.  Read Cal's quote, look at the link, and read it carefully.  You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

 

Suddenly you go all conservative and call this "revisionist".  PULLLEEZZEE.   I mean maybe someone else would say that but you?

 

I guess you have joined the cinepro fan club,  If there is any interpretation possible that goes against the church, you will take it.

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously I don't know why you of all people would say stuff like this.

Get over it. The tide has changed. Read Cal's quote, look at the link, and read it carefully. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Suddenly you go all conservative and call this "revisionist". PULLLEEZZEE. I mean maybe someone else would say that but you?

I guess you have joined the cinepro fan club, If there is any interpretation possible that goes against the church, you will take it.

This concern is not new. I've always had an issue with the way a secular group of scholars are rewriting the history and geography of the BoM. When the man claimed to be the inspired source of its origin teaches a position that utterly contradicts the ideas of historians there's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

This concern is not new. I've always had an issue with the way a secular group of scholars are rewriting the history and geography of the BoM. When the man claimed to be the inspired source of its origin teaches a position that utterly contradicts the ideas of historians there's a problem.

Although the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is more spiritual than historical, some people have wondered whether the migrations it describes are compatible with scientific studies of ancient America. The discussion has centered on the field of population genetics and developments in DNA science. Some have contended that the migrations mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not occur because the majority of DNA identified to date in modern native peoples most closely resembles that of eastern Asian populations.2

 

And guys who are employed by the church who teach at BYU are hardly "secular scholars", clearly they are giving the church an out for its previous positions which did not accurately depict what was actually said in the BOM.    This is apologetics in action, and I think it is a great step forward.

 

It finally addresses the 800 pound gorilla in the room- and you don 't like that?  The church releases a statement and you ascribe it to "secular scholars"?

 

The above quote clearly states that the BOM is more spiritual than historical.  Huge step right in that phrase.  And then it states that the CONCERN was to reply to "secular scholars" with a statement clarifying one INTERPRETATION possible for the BOM.

 

If anything this is the opposite of your characterization.  It is in fact a church statement supported by church scholars as an answer TO "secular scholars" challenging the historicity of the BOM.

 

This finally answers the question and gives a perfectly reasonable explanation for all the confusion in the past, and answers the whole question of this thread.

 

There IS plenty of evidence for the history of the BOM, but THAT is not important- the key is that there is a perfectly rational reason for there to be little direct archaeological evidence like pottery etc- and the reason is that the main evidence does not exist, because that evidence would be PERCEIVED to be "Mayan" or "Olmec". 

 

The evidence is there but misinterpreted as something else.  The evidence is in effect camouflaged and becomes invisible as "Nephite" evidence and is seen as evidence of the larger culture in which it was produced.

 

If that answer does not work for some, so be it.  That's the way it is.  It is a reasonable explanation AND as I have said again and again, historicity is not the issue in the first place, and this quote confirms that this is the position of the church as well.

 

The importance of the BOM is its historical importance.  I am sure I remember you defending that position.

 

And now you suddenly flip to being a literalistic fundamentalist?  What's going on?  It's like you are just looking for something to argue about.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
When the man claimed to be the inspired source of its origin teaches a position that utterly contradicts the ideas of historians there's a problem.

 

And since when is this new?  What about the Book of Abraham?  What about Joseph not knowing that Jerusalem had walls?

 

The prophet was uneducated.  What came through him, came THROUGH him and largely in spite of his humanity.  He would be the first to admit that.  He was not a scholar- he lived at a time when Egyptian was largely untranslated and virtually nothing was known about archeology - especially of the Americas

 

It's the same problem as the "isolated statements" of a GA off topic.

 

So since when are we concerned about odd statements Joseph meant?  Suddenly that challenges the BOM because Joseph was uniformed about the genetics of Native Americans??

 

Come on! 

 

 

150+ of my favourite LDS quotes on UniversalismDiversity and much, much more

 

Universalism, diversity and literalism?   How does this fit??

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Canard:

 

When the man claimed to be the inspired source of its origin teaches a position that utterly contradicts the ideas of historians there's a problem.

 

Canard's website:

“A prophet is a prophet, only when he [is] acting as such.”
 

“I am subject to like passions as other men, like the prophets of olden times. Notwithstanding my weaknesses, I am under the necessity of bearing the infirmities of others. …”

“I told them [the Saints] I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities … I would likewise bear with their infirmities.
 
Joseph Smith

Share this post


Link to post

And guys who are employed by the church who teach at BYU are hardly "secular scholars", clearly they are giving the church an out for its previous positions which did not accurately depict what was actually said in the BOM. This is apologetics in action, and I think it is a great step forward.

It finally addresses the 800 pound gorilla in the room- and you don 't like that? The church releases a statement and you ascribe it to "secular scholars"?

The above quote clearly states that the BOM is more spiritual than historical. Huge step right in that phrase. And then it states that the CONCERN was to reply to "secular scholars" with a statement clarifying one INTERPRETATION possible for the BOM.

If anything this is the opposite of your characterization. It is in fact a church statement supported by church scholars as an answer TO "secular scholars" challenging the historicity of the BOM.

This finally answers the question and gives a perfectly reasonable explanation for all the confusion in the past, and answers the whole question of this thread.

There IS plenty of evidence for the history of the BOM, but THAT is not important- the key is that there is a perfectly rational reason for there to be little direct archaeological evidence like pottery etc- and the reason is that the main evidence does not exist, because that evidence would be PERCEIVED to be "Mayan" or "Olmec".

The evidence is there but misinterpreted as something else. The evidence is in effect camouflaged and becomes invisible as "Nephite" evidence and is seen as evidence of the larger culture in which it was produced.

If that answer does not work for some, so be it. That's the way it is. It is a reasonable explanation AND as I have said again and again, historicity is not the issue in the first place, and this quote confirms that this is the position of the church as well.

The importance of the BOM is its historical importance. I am sure I remember you defending that position.

And now you suddenly flip to being a literalistic fundamentalist? What's going on? It's like you are just looking for something to argue about.

We're talking at crossed purposes.

Does the text of the BoM have merit that is independent of its origins and historic setting? Absolutely. The Books of Mormon, Moses and Abraham could all be 19thC inventions out of the imagination of Joseph Smith and still have life merit.

That entirely separate conversation is different to a conversation about whether there is archaeological evidence for the actual existence of Nephi et al. Nephi could be as fictional as a talking donkey and yet still teach good principles.

Share this post


Link to post

There's just no consistency in the defence made on this this thread. It perfectly captures the lack of clarity on the topic.

A few posts back people were arguing that there were dozens of gold and silver inscriptions of law etc that the Spanish melted down and took home. Now you're saying that the practice was so rare that having other gold inscribed documents would be an unrealistic expectation.

It's like you all just throw a bunch of ideas into the air and hope something will stick.

In reality the Lamanites probably destroyed all things Nephite, that they could find, at the time of their destruction . Anything found by the Conquistadors would have been Lamanite. Rumors of a lost set of Mayan plates at least shows it was not an anomaly for the Nephites to record important things on golden plates. The actions of the Conquistadors and Missionaries is well documented. It has always been clear to me that the chances on finding something written in MesoAmerica that proves the existence of Nephites would be slim at best due to the book burning and destruction of artifacts. It is a miracle that Moroni's record survived, preserved by God see Mosiah 12:  8 And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will utterly adestroy them from off the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a brecord behind them, and I will preserve them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I may discover the abominations of this people to other nations. And many things did Abinadi prophesy against this people.

Share this post


Link to post

We're talking at crossed purposes.

Does the text of the BoM have merit that is independent of its origins and historic setting? Absolutely. The Books of Mormon, Moses and Abraham could all be 19thC inventions out of the imagination of Joseph Smith and still have life merit.

That entirely separate conversation is different to a conversation about whether there is archaeological evidence for the actual existence of Nephi et al. Nephi could be as fictional as a talking donkey and yet still teach good principles.

 

No. If there were no Nephites then there is no value to the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion.

Share this post


Link to post

No. If there were no Nephites then there is no value to the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion.

It's like Pantomime... Oh yes there is, oh no there isn't.

Share this post


Link to post

It's like Pantomime... Oh yes there is, oh no there isn't.

 

No. It all hinges on if JS was in reality a prophet of God. IE; If JS was making up the First Vision then our faith is vain.

Share this post


Link to post

No. It all hinges on if JS was in reality a prophet of God. IE; If JS was making up the First Vision then our faith is vain.

"Our"? You can't apply your faith perspectives and priorities to what I consider to be of value. I'm a universalist with Mormon cultural associations. What I find of value in Mormonism isn't dependent on something that is unprovable (the first vision) or not yet proven (the Book of Mormon historicity).

Share this post


Link to post

"Our"? You can't apply your faith perspectives and priorities to what I consider to be of value. I'm a universalist with Mormon cultural associations. What I find of value in Mormonism isn't dependent on something that is unprovable (the first vision) or not yet proven (the Book of Mormon historicity).

 

My apologies I thought you were LDS. :sorry:

Share this post


Link to post

I made it through about 10 pages, and I couldn't quite get to the end before this comment burst forth from me.

I do not understand the position of the NHM deniers when such a "hit" is integrated with so much of a journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful. I do not get it.

I find the idea that Dr. Peterson's article was intended to say that NHM was not archeological evidence for the BOM to be both extraordinarily disconnected from his past statements and not even the most likely interpretation of his words where they coming from someone without a history. Dr. Peterson is not saying there is no archeological evidence for the BOM. I think he is saying that folks are not finding the things they think they should, but such is not a surprise.

Also, the Bible is a book that may or may not be come to us via supernatural action. It is a book with an ancient pedigree. It like the Iliad was undisputedly written thousands of years ago. If it corresponds to ancient archeology, this does not mean it is a supernatural book. Dr. Peterson's examples of late found archeology do however show that with all the myriad of advantages, (relative to the BOM) the Bible still struggles in MANY areas to find archeological support.

Now, I have thought about tapirs, steel, DNA, population dynamics, and many other topics.

I have thought about ancient histories/literary practices, tight/loose translation, human/God involvement in translation, and many other explanation.

I have thought about maps at Dartmouth, statements in Josephus, View of the Hebrews, The Late War, and many other sources.

I have thought about confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, being elect/non-elect, and other afflictions or non-afflictions that may exist within my mind.

While I only have one mind and I do not know intimately the inner workings of ANY mind in the world other than mine, it serves me well in most endeavors I pursue (most especially intellectual endeavors without large emotional components). With this mind, I find the Old World journey of Lehi so hard to explain via any fraud methodology that it supports (even demands) some of the responses apologist utilize for horses, steel, and .... The FRAUD theory removes the PROBLEMS of the BOM, but it IMO is so inadequate at explaining the "hits" of the BOM that it becomes a very unlikely theory. The SUPERNATURAL theory IMO can account for MISSES far better than the FRAUD theory can account for "hits." This leaves me for whatever reason (frenzied mind?) solidly in the supernatural source for the BOM camp. In fact, it is SOMETIMES hard for me to see how others do not follow me in such assessments.

Charity, TOm

Edited by TOmNossor

Share this post


Link to post

 

There are several scenarios that "could have been".  Choose which one you want.  I think I will listen to the revelation I have had and just take his word for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you insist on replying in a condescending and insulting tone?  

 

 

 

Well established?  Certainly you can back up your claim with scriptural references and/or statements from Church prophets.

 

Why do you insist on replying in  using a condescending and insulting tone?  

Share this post


Link to post

Canard:

Canard's website:

favourite LDS quotes

Nice touch.

So was Joseph acting as a prophet when the Wentworth letter was sent (source of the AoF), or did he only think he was?

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you insist on replying in a condescending and insulting tone?  

 

 

 

Well established?  Certainly you can back up your claim with scriptural references and/or statements from Church prophets.

Have you read your own posts? History is established by historians, not by church leaders. Read the scholarship. My comments are not in dispute by lds scholarship. 

Share this post


Link to post

We're talking at crossed purposes.

Does the text of the BoM have merit that is independent of its origins and historic setting? Absolutely. The Books of Mormon, Moses and Abraham could all be 19thC inventions out of the imagination of Joseph Smith and still have life merit.

That entirely separate conversation is different to a conversation about whether there is archaeological evidence for the actual existence of Nephi et al. Nephi could be as fictional as a talking donkey and yet still teach good principles.

No. If there were no Nephites then there is no value to the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion.

You are each talking past each other.  That's what "crossed purposes" means.

 

Any good novel may have value as literature and human thought and emotion on particular issues of life.  At the same time, an actual historical document may tell us something about historical reality which we may need to know -- particularly if it has to do with cosmic and final truth.  Both written works have value of a separate, non-competitive kind.  We need to respect that.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post

That entirely separate conversation is different to a conversation about whether there is archaeological evidence for the actual existence of Nephi et al. Nephi could be as fictional as a talking donkey and yet still teach good principles.

But you continue to reject the archaeological evidence because you are looking for the type of proof that does not show up in the archaeological record. If we waited for absolute proof before we moved forward then we would still be living in caves. You are unable to explain why the nephite record fits so well into the messoamerican setting but you are willing to accept all other matters of science that are based on fitting well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...