Finding Zarahemla?

[Pahoran]

Often the critics assume that we should be able to prove things, but they themselves aren't even aware of what kind of proof they're demanding. Eh, just an obvious evidence of bigotry.

What are we doubters supposed to do? I'm very well aware of what I am demanding; It is no different than any other archologist, scientist (which I am not) base criteria of their research.

Where's doubter's bigotry; is asking proof bigotry? I have never seen a physical evidence which will support BoM's veracity. Travelling across US, hiking numerous Native American sites, Chaco Canyon, Horseshoe Canyon, Seminole Canyon, Mesa Verde, Mexico, Canada, Eastern US, I found evidence of countless Cultures, I have not seen a single item in these sites or museums which would help the cause of BoM .

Yes, but what are you actually expecting to see?

Someone once pointed out that we may well have a whole slew of Nephite and Lamanite artifacts in our museums; we just haven't yet identified them as such. What about an artifact is going to jump out and bite you as relating to the Book of Mormon?

I recently pointed out in another thread that if the Book of Mormon is "true" in any meaningful sense, then the assertion that "the just shall live by faith" must ipso facto be true. Which is probably rather hard to do if everything that requires faith has "scientific proof" behind it. The much maligned and thoroughly exonerated Hugh Nibley, although not the least bit opposed to archaeological exploration, nevertheless thought that the sight of men digging in the dirt to find out what to believe was "pathetic." I agree with him.

For some of us it is hard to live in constant cognitive dissonance.

Tsk tsk, you are behind the times. Don't you know that "cognitive dissonance" is passe in anti-Mormon circles? "Confirmation bias" is the psychobabble of the hour.

Regards,

Pahoran

[charity]

Ouch, Pahoran. Psychobabble?

[Pahoran]

Ouch, Pahoran.  Psychobabble? 

Yep.

Not that it isn't a legitimate term, only that anti's use it having only a half-baked notion of what it means.

This is how it works: an anti-Mormon reads a phrase like "cognitive dissonance" in a magazine article while waiting in the doctor's office. He says "oh good, that sounds like something them Mormunz must have." Then he logs onto the Internet and starts bandying it about. The other anti's pick up on it and start bandying it about too; not because they have any training in psychology, but because it sounds, like, really edjumacated, man.

After a while, a few Latter-day Saints or real psychologists get the word out that it is simply a fancy-pants phrase for "surprise," since it basically means "how you feel when you see, hear or read something that clashes with what you know or believe." It sounds a lot less exciting that way; its use as an anti-Mormon buzz-word drops off and something else comes to take its place.

The current fad is "confirmation bias." This is simply a fancy-pants phrase for "prejudice," since it basically means "finding it easier to believe the things you expected than those you didn't." Which means of course that everyone has it. Once its meaning becomes common knowledge, it will likewise drop out of favour, and some new term will come into vogue.

And the anti's who use it will again have only a half-baked notion of what it means. So it will be psychobabble.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel

If the cite were pristine, I would want to find Coraintumr

[Serious]

Ouch, Pahoran.

[Uncle Dale]

Vogel

If the cite were pristine, I would want to find Coraintumr

[Freedom]

We have hundreds of thousands of Asian immigrants in Vancouver and, amazingly, they all speak English. Despite an overt government policy of multiculturalism the second generation abandons their language from childhood. There is no mention anywhere in the book of Mormon of any language. The only time Hebrew is mentioned is in Mormon 9:33 in reference to record keeping: And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

There is no mention that they spoke it, the only reference is to writing and in the reference we are told that they didn

[Bill Hamblin]

Uncle Dale

(6) The discovery of an inscription there which was clearly translatable (transliterable)

as the consonents and vowels which are pronounced "Zarahemla" (though this

name, also, may have been relocated from some other site in the past).

(7) The discovery of an inscription there which was clearly translatable (transliterable)

as the consonents which make up "Zarahemla" (less reliable than #7, of course).

Precisely right.

Any other type of evidence could be non-BOM (i.e. Pre-Columbian horses may eventually be discovered in the New World, yet the BOM may still be fiction), or could be from a BOM city other than Zarahemla. Even a generic inscription in Paleo-Hebrew would not really help, since it could have theoretically been brought by a non-BOM Jewish group. Only a pre-Classic inscription with phonetic components allowing us to reconstruct the ancient pronunciation would allow us to identify a specific site as Zarahemla.

So, Dan V., do you agree?

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale

(6) The discovery of an inscription there which was clearly translatable (transliterable)

as the consonents and vowels which are pronounced "Zarahemla" (though this

name, also, may have been relocated from some other site in the past).

(7) The discovery of an inscription there which was clearly translatable (transliterable)

as the consonents which make up "Zarahemla" (less reliable than #7, of course).

Precisely right.

Any other type of evidence could be non-BOM (i.e. Pre-Columbian horses may eventually be discovered in the New World, yet the BOM may still be fiction), or could be from a BOM city other than Zarahemla. Even a generic inscription in Paleo-Hebrew would not really help, since it could have theoretically been brought by a non-BOM Jewish group. Only a pre-Classic inscription with phonetic components allowing us to reconstruct the ancient pronunciation would allow us to identify a specific site as Zarahemla.

So, Dan V., do you agree?

But, as I said, even this could have come from some other site. Such an

inscription, or pictogram, or glyphic representation, or whatever, might have been

made elsewhere, and brought to the excavated site for any number of reasons.

So, while what I have given in items #6 and #7 would perhaps establish the presence

of the name AT that site, it would not not necessarily identify the name OF the

site. Even if the name were found within the context of a detailed map, with a good

representation of the layout of the excavated site, that alone would not be proof that

the site was not a "copy" colony of the "real" Zarahemla.

But, let us say that ALL of my itemized points were discovered evidence, and then,

to that mass of discovery a REVELATION from the LDS Living Prophet (accompanied

by testimony of the Spirit from all of the GA's of that church) were added, saying that

the excavated site was indeed the BoM "Zarahemla," I think such an announcement

might be enough to convince even the greatest of sceptics that the discovery was "true."

Uncle Dale

[rongo]

Lets run this tape forward in time a few millenia. 

What if future archeologists discovered the long lost ruins of New York City after 2,000 years of being lost to history and knowledge.  Could you reasonably expect that they would find conclusive evidence of a LDS temple, that it would be recognized as a dominant portion of the discovery, and that they would recognize it for what it was?

Maybe not. But they might find the statue of liberty, or the empire state building. The surrounding geography might still fit the description. Maybe sunken ferry boats are discovered, along with remains of ferry docks and shipping ports. The discovered writings may include a lot of "yous guys" and "thems people" type grammatical errors. You may find skeletons executed mafia style, and lots of giant signs with the word "TRUMP" on them. Maybe a giant baseball arena is uncovered, with Yankee logos all over the place. These would all be clues that match up with what you know of New York City.

The interesting thing with the New York City example is that much would certainly be misinterpreted 2,000 years hence. What would/could archaeologists deduce from the Statue of Liberty? A female deity associated with fire and the sun (evidenced by the flaming torch and the rays eminating from her head)?

The true meaning (Liberty) and the cultural background of its being a gift from a transatlantic nation to this one would not be deduced from the excavation.

How many TRUE meanings and backgrounds behind Mesoamerican or other equally foreign cultures' art and memorials have we similarly misinterpreted? How would we know?

Then again, excavations of LDS meetinghouses would present strong evidence that these people's worship centered around a ritual ballcourt (located in the middle of the religious structure), right?

[charity]

Anybody ever read David Macauley's "Motel of the Mysteries?" If you haven't, you have not seen the best send-up of archeologists that I have ever read. It is a fun read, besides. And spot on to what we are talking about.

[Brant Gardner]

rongo:

Then again, excavations of LDS meetinghouses would present strong evidence that these people's worship centered around a ritual ballcourt (located in the middle of the religious structure), right?

And those future archaeologists, were they familiar with Mesoamerican ballcourts, would look for evidence of blood. From what I have seen of some of those basketball games, I bet they would find it!

[Kevin Graham]

== We have hundreds of thousands of Asian immigrants in Vancouver and, amazingly, they all speak English.

Come on, get serious. All of them? It is strange then that in California we have China Town where even third generation immigrants don't speak English. Not to mention the fact that you can get away with knowing only Spanish is several places in the US, including California, Florida and New York.

[solomarineris]

Don't you know that "cognitive dissonance" is passe in anti-Mormon circles?

You might be right on that point Phoran; "confirmation", "obedience", "follow the leaders" attitude is so deeply engrained in some of us, we just simply can't shake the sheepish attitude and wake up and go for it, just to see what's outta there.

Regards.

[YH8]

For some of us it is hard to live in constant cognitive dissonance.

I'm guessing you would experience more cognitive dissonance if you "recognized" any pro-LDS evidence. I'm guessing you don't have much cognitive dissonance about the truth claims of the LDS Church (if you did that would mean that you believe it is true, and get uncomfortable when evidences against it arise, etc.) In other words, your attitude seems to be that there is no evidence for things LDS and even further there can be no evidence for things LDS. When evidences for things LDS come forth (which they do, ya know; however small or large they may be) in order to alleviate your cognitive dissonance (discomfort that your belief/attitude may be wrong in light of reality) you continue to insist that the evidence is fatally flawed, etc.

Am I right? That is . . . your cognitive dissonance is regarding maintaining the LDS Church to be false, rather than maintaining its truth claims.

Come on, now.

[Laban the Younger]

For some of us it is hard to live in constant cognitive dissonance.

I'm guessing you would experience more cognitive dissonance if you "recognized" any pro-LDS evidence. I'm guessing you don't have much cognitive dissonance about the truth claims of the LDS Church (if you did that would mean that you believe it is true, and get uncomfortable when evidences against it arise, etc.) In other words, your attitude seems to be that there is no evidence for things LDS and even further there can be no evidence for things LDS. When evidences for things LDS come forth (which they do, ya know; however small or large they may be) in order to alleviate your cognitive dissonance (discomfort that your belief/attitude may be wrong in light of reality) you continue to insist that the evidence is fatally flawed, etc.

Am I right? That is . . . your cognitive dissonance is regarding maintaining the LDS Church to be false, rather than maintaining its truth claims.

Come on, now.

You are correct, except I doubt never-mormon critics have any cog-dis about mormonism, just as I expect you don't get any cog-dis over supposed evidence supporting the Jehovah's Witness faith. However, I see a lot of cog-dis from exmormons and apostate mormons, but it is never regarding the evidence. They are worried that maybe they are wrong and they are denying the holy ghost, the unpardonable sin. To the apostate, the evidence against the church is overwhelming, but some still fear eternal damnation because of what they were taught from birth. Maybe god hid all the evidence and made the church look false just to test them. So they aren't conflicted over the evidence, they are conflicted because the evidence is not in tune with a lifetime of sunday school lessons. Of course not all have this problem, but some do.

[YH8]

You are correct, except I doubt never-mormon critics have any cog-dis about mormonism, just as I expect you don't get any cog-dis over supposed evidence supporting the Jehovah's Witness faith. However, I see a lot of cog-dis from exmormons and apostate mormons, but it is never regarding the evidence. They are worried that maybe they are wrong and they are denying the holy ghost, the unpardonable sin. To the apostate, the evidence against the church is overwhelming, but some still fear eternal damnation because of what they were taught from birth. Maybe god hid all the evidence and made the church look false just to test them. So they aren't conflicted over the evidence, they are conflicted because the evidence is not in tune with a lifetime of sunday school lessons. Of course not all have this problem, but some do.

I'll bet never-mos who are also critics probably do have some cog-dis over maintaining the falsity of the LDS Church, that is if they are honest with themselves.

I would definitely have some cog-dis if presented with evidence in support of the truth claims of JWs, if it is evidence that I haven't already encountered and addressed to my own satisfaction.

I'm not sure what you are describing as cog-dis for exmos and apostate-mos is actually cog-dis. It sounds like worry and perhaps some obsessiveness. Maybe they aren't as convinced of the falsity as they would otherwise portray. Remember, not many people have absolute knowledge of anything religious/spiritual, rather they operate on faith (yes, even those who don't buy into religion/spirituality are still operating on "faith").

BTW, are you saying that LDS are taught that "god hid all the evidence and made the church look false just to test them?" I don't think this is taught as much as it is one of many possible explanations as to why faith is necessary. Further, it is likey the case that it is an explanation that is extrapolated by the individual rather than systematically taught by the Church.

BTW, everybody experiences cognitive dissonance and it isn't necessarily a bad thing, particularly if we are talking about things that are essentially unknowable, at least in an empirical sense.

[charity]

People, please do not misuse terms. Cognitive dissonance applies in situations where a person must make some kind of determination of what their behavior means in terms of what their beliefs are. For instance, hazing and extreme initiation rituals tend to increase loyalty to the organization because the person thinks, "Why would I have gone through all this pain and humiliation if I did not strongly believe in and value the organiziation?"

One experiment featured the following: People were asked if they would allow a campaign sign to be on their lawns. One group of subjects had a well painted, tidy sign for the candidate placed on their lawns. The other group of subjects had a badly painted, ugly sign place on the lawn. At the end of the experimental period they asked the participants how likely they were to vote for the candidate. The people with the ugly signs were more likely to vote for the candidate, than the people with the nice signs. Reason? The people with the ugly signs were evidently saying to themselves "I wouldn't have put up with such an eyesore if I didn't really favor this candidate." Cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance does not even come close to describing faith-doubt questions.

[William the Conqueror]

And the anti's who use it will again have only a half-baked notion of what it means. So it will be psychobabble.

Regards,

Pahoran

Coming from you isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black?

[William the Conqueror]

Dan either missed my response, or is disinclined to respond himself, so I'll ask it again:

Was that a Mastercard moment for you Bill? I take it that you did not continue to wait with 'bated breath' for his response though.

[Bill Hamblin]

Was that a Mastercard moment for you Bill? I take it that you did not continue to wait with 'bated breath' for his response though.

Let's just say I'm used to having my low expectations of anti-Mormons fulfilled.

[Dan Vogel]

David,

I guess I should have given scriptural references. You seem to not understand what I said. The stone should be in Zarahemla regardless of the question of literacy. See Omni 1:20-22.

And yet based upon literacy trends in the ancient Near East, I would highly doubt that many of the Nephites could actually read and/or write, let alone leave Hebrew/Egyptian records.

How does what happened in the Near East have to do with ancient America and the BofM? This is the fallacy of proof by analogy.

Thank goodness Mesopotamian scribes wrote on clay tablets.

And thank goodness the Maya didn

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

I'm not asking about your expectations. I'm asking an epistemological question. What evidence could be found that would demonstrate that site X is Zarahemla. It is really an easy question, and there is only one correct answer.

You seem to be the only one who knows the rules of this game, so why don't you tell us.

[charity]

Oh, come on, Dan. Bill's is a perfectly reasonable question. Are you going to answer?

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

Uncle Dale

(6) The discovery of an inscription there which was clearly translatable (transliterable)

as the consonents and vowels which are pronounced "Zarahemla" (though this

name, also, may have been relocated from some other site in the past).

(7) The discovery of an inscription there which was clearly translatable (transliterable)

as the consonents which make up "Zarahemla" (less reliable than #7, of course).

Precisely right.

Any other type of evidence could be non-BOM (i.e. Pre-Columbian horses may eventually be discovered in the New World, yet the BOM may still be fiction), or could be from a BOM city other than Zarahemla. Even a generic inscription in Paleo-Hebrew would not really help, since it could have theoretically been brought by a non-BOM Jewish group. Only a pre-Classic inscription with phonetic components allowing us to reconstruct the ancient pronunciation would allow us to identify a specific site as Zarahemla.

So, Dan V., do you agree?

Now I see where you are coming from. That name-game bone got stuck in your throat and you