Horses and Chariots -

[Confidential Informant]

But Mormon

[beastie]

And the deforestation and cement construction of Teotihuacan was more than 400 years after Mormon said.

Brant knows this, and builds his case on Mormon engaging in "presentism" by inserting what HE knows about Teotihuacan onto past commentary - without comment or warning.

On ZLMB, Matt presented a very persuasive case that Brant was misreading the BoM to make this case in the first place. I couldn't find the original thread on which it was discussed, but Matt does provide some information on this thread as well.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...rt=121&stop=132

(I'm the "Seven" Matt is referring to.)

Matt Amos:

Yes, Seven, that is correct. Brant had conflated Hagoth's "depart, never to be heard from again" migrations with the later Nephite migrations to the land northward. In addition to the "particular and very large" records mentioned in Helaman 3:13 (Brant disputes the straightforward reading of this verse), the BoM text reveals an ongoing timber shipping relationship between the main Nephite population and the land northward, as well as a six-year mission by prophet-historian Nephi (and his brother Lehi) to the land northward.

What I find particularly troubling is the way Brant has ignored the BoM text. He is straining to make the text fit the idea that invaders from the north (land of Teotihuac

[beastie]

Of course, Smith should have known ANYTHING about deforestation because that's a fairly recent theory and not one that was popular in his day. That fact alone ought to give you some pause.

Humboldt knew something about deforestation.

1769, Sept. 14 -- Alexander Von Humboldt born in Germany. Explorer and pioneering geographer for whom the Humboldt current is named. Von Humbolt noted in 1819 that the fluctuating levels of a Venezuelan lake were related to deforestation in the surrounding hills.

    By felling the trees that cover the tops and sides of mountains, men in every climate prepaer at once two calamities for future generations: the want of fuel and the scarcity of water... When forests are destroyed ... the beds of rivers, remaining dry during part of the year, are converted into torrents whenever great rain falls on the heights...

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/envhist/3enlightenment.html

Humboldt's writings were referenced in the View of the Hebrews.

I'll be back later.

[cdowis]

QUOTE

Only in Mesoamerica can we find the important factors of writing,

>But not Hebrew

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

But Mormon

[livy111us]

Hi folks,

A quick note

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

BTW, it would be nice if you learned to use the quote function.

QUOTE

Only in Mesoamerica can we find the important factors of writing,

>But not Hebrew

[Marvelous]

And, I'm still waiting for someone to provide a cite to a non-LDS, balanced assessment of Book of Mormon evidences to which one might refer an interested secularist.

Kind regards,

Greg

There isn't one because there is insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. Non-LDS scholars aren't going to do it for your sake. They must have a reasonable expectation of some kind of benefit, such as the confirmation of a new pre-Columbian historical source.

You believe they are unwilling because of the provenance of the record, but I don't believe this accounts fully for their reluctance.

I cited in another post that NDE research is thriving. You suggested that it's because NDEs can accomodate a number of philosophies or belief systems, yet many of these researchers are atheists. They devote their time to studying NDEs because they are intrigued by the evidence thus far gathered.

The BOM isn't taken seriously by non-LDS scholars primarily because, unlike NDEs, there is insufficient evidence supporting it. Perhaps this will one day change. You no doubt hope, and perhaps anticipate, this will happen. Then again, like creationism, the scientific evidence against it may continue to build.

[charity]

NDE research thrives because there are multiple explanations. Some of the explanations are made without any reference to a subsequent "life" or awareness. So a researcher has recourse to an explanation which does not rely on any "religious" theory or structure.

The Book of Mormon can offer no such lattitude to a researcher. ONLY IF the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient document will it be of any use to a scientist exploring based on its claims. So the researcher is out there saying he/she believes in angels and prophets. Outside LDS circles, that is death to a career. They won't do it.

[beastie]

The Book of Mormon can offer no such lattitude to a researcher. ONLY IF the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient document will it be of any use to a scientist exploring based on its claims. So the researcher is out there saying he/she believes in angels and prophets. Outside LDS circles, that is death to a career. They won't do i

Which is why, of course, the Mesoamerican scholarly community has excommunicated John Clark.

[Marvelous]

NDE research thrives because there are multiple explanations. Some of the explanations are made without any reference to a subsequent "life" or awareness. So a researcher has recourse to an explanation which does not rely on any "religious" theory or structure.

The Book of Mormon can offer no such lattitude to a researcher. ONLY IF the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient document will it be of any use to a scientist exploring based on its claims. So the researcher is out there saying he/she believes in angels and prophets. Outside LDS circles, that is death to a career. They won't do it.

You have made my point for me. There is research conducted to debunk the supernatural explanation for NDEs precisely because there exists abundant evidence in favor of it. Incidentally, many atheistic NDE researchers have been persuaded that the supernatural construct best explains the phenomenon.

There are no non-LDS researchers investigating the BOM because there is insufficient evidence in favor of it to attract their interest. If you build the evidence, they will come.

[charity]

You missed my point. Non-LDS cannot use the Book of Mormon as a springboard to research because of the risk involved. If there is any corroborating evidence that they find, they have to admit the reality of angels, visions, boy prophets, etc. There is no escape route for them.

[Marvelous]

Again, if there was sufficient evidence in support of the BOM, scientists would be enticed to debunk it. That is what has happened with NDE research. However, those who have attempted to do so have failed, thus far. The supernatural explanation for NDEs has proven remarkably robust.

[charity]

marveous, I am going to try this one more time, and then quit banging my head agqainst the brick wall.

NDE's offer many possibilities of explanations. If a scientist were to absolutely demonstrate the reality of NDE's, he/she would not be forced to admit that the Catholic Church was God's authorized church, or that Mary Baker Eddy was right and everyone else wrong, or any other orgqanization or individual was in communication with other wordly visitors.

BUT if a scientist takes on the Book of Mormon, to disprove it, and it turns out that he/she absolutely confirms it, as you are saying is happening with NDE's, he/she absolutely has to say, "Yes, Joseph Smith talked to an angel."

Snicker, snicker. He goes to work for McDonald's.

[Greg Smith]

And, I'm still waiting for someone to provide a cite to a non-LDS, balanced assessment of Book of Mormon evidences to which one might refer an interested secularist.

Kind regards,

Greg

There isn't one because there is insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.

Call the logic police. This is a classical example of circular reasoning: "the reason that secularists haven't produced an evaluation/refutation of Book of Mormon evidences is because there isn't enough evidence to warrant further investigation."

Um...okay....

So, we know there isn't enough evidence, even though no one has bothered to evaulate and critique the evidence which the Mormons claim (into 1000s of pages) has relevance, which they haven't done because we know already that there is no evidence worth considering?

Thanks for at least conceding that there isn't a book that fits the bill.

Non-LDS scholars aren't going to do it for your sake. They must have a reasonable expectation of some kind of benefit, such as the confirmation of a new pre-Columbian historical source.

One would think that the "benefit" of correcting all us poor, benighted, ignorant Mormons gripped by our own stupidity might be motivation enough for someone, somewhere--or, if only to protect others from the nefarious consequences of our false reasoning. (Why do evolutionary biologists bother to refute the rather asinine assumptions of most of 'creation science,' when there is surely no scientific benefit to be gained from talk of how the speed of light is decreasing, for example?)

Plenty of people are willing to write polemics of a rather poor quality on the Book of Mormon, but no one seems to be bothered to do it right.

Curious.

The BOM isn't taken seriously by non-LDS scholars primarily because, unlike NDEs, there is insufficient evidence supporting it. Perhaps this will one day change. You no doubt hope, and perhaps anticipate, this will happen.

Oh, I think there's plenty of evidence now. Your persistant insistance that the failure of the secularists to engage seriously means there's no discussion to be had just isn't persuasive.

I've seen the evidence, and I find it considerable. Sufficient at least for a good discussion--way better than creation science, for example. Maybe I'm dumb or misguided, or blinded by emotion. But, I honestly do think that way, and so do many others. Someone should do us the service of showing us the error of our ways with sound reasoning and no (a)religious polemics.

I don't think a good secular evaluation of that evidenc is yet available. We disagree on the reasons for that lack, but agree that this lack exists at present.

As I've said before, I think that evidence admits of multiple interpretations, and I do not expect that this state of affairs will ever change overwhelmingly one way or the other. I am hardly holding by breath for the clinching scientific 'proof' of the Book of Mormon. Such a clincher would call the Book's fundamental claims into question, ironically, since it claims to be amenable, in the final analysis, only to God's revelation to confirm it's truth and validity.

Then again, like creationism, the scientific evidence against it may continue to build.

I think 'scientific creationism' as typically advocated in the USA is dreadful science, and even more dreadful religion.

But, even the foolish creationists have acres of print and a torrent of words rebutting their ideas from every conceivable angle. Yet, no one can be bothered to do the Book of Mormon because there's "nothing there," which they know because...precognition? Cognitive dissonance? Intuition? A priori assumptions?

Kind regards,

Greg

[beastie]

There are respected Mesoamerican scholars who publicly state their belief in the BoM as an ancient text. John Clark has given his reasons why. And, as I believe Vogel already shared, he has been able to persuade his colleagues to read the book, but since they approach it as an "archaeological text", they are unconvinced.

IOW, his colleagues are doing just what Brant, and Ben, ask skeptics to do on this thread- put aside the angelic origins of the text and evaluate it on its content. They do not accept it on its content. The only ones who do are ones who already believe in the text for spiritual reasons.

John Clark affirmed this fact when he stated, in his May BYU talk, that it is only after you are spiritually convinced of the BoM that you can "see the evidence".*

The scholarly community has NOT exiled Clark or the other scholars who maintain that the BoM is an ancient document. They do not agree with him, but they still respect his work in general.

There is no support for saying that mesoamerican scholars can't take on the BoM because if they actually end up believing it, they'll lose their careers.

There are, and always have been, well respected scientists who have "alternative" viewpoints and beliefs about certain items. Although other scientists usually do not support those alternative viewpoints, as long as the scientist in question continues to produce quality work in his/her primary field, their careers continue to flourish.

Find another excuse.

* from Clark's BYU talk:

Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...

But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work

[beastie]

One would think that the "benefit" of correcting all us poor, benighted, ignorant Mormons gripped by our own stupidity might be motivation enough for someone, somewhere--or, if only to protect others from the nefarious consequences of our false reasoning. (Why do evolutionary biologists bother to refute the rather asinine assumptions of most of 'creation science,' when there is surely no scientific benefit to be gained from talk of how the speed of light is decreasing, for example?)

EVs and creationists in general are a far more significant community in the US than mormons. They have a noticable impact on politics, and on education.

If, and when, mormonism ever attains that level of impact, I guarantee that respected nonLDS scientists will begin debunking mormon claims that they perceive as threatening to the eductional field. If, and when, mormons ever begin to agitate for the BoM to be taught as an 'alternate history' text, you will see a new field bloom, consisting of debunking the BoM.

Up until that point, as Clark stated, LDS aren't harming anyone with their unusual beliefs, and with the exception of those who already have an emotional investment in the situation - ie, nonLDS or fringe LDS - it just is not important enough to take on.

I know that this is difficult for LDS who live in LDS dominated communities to understand. But out in the rest of the US, LDS-specific issues are nonissues, because the LDS community is such a minority.

[beastie]

And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear.

I want to emphasize this point again, because it is so important.

Science doesn't work this way. You don't have to already believe in the truth of an hypothesis in order for the evidence to become clear. In fact, the history of science is littered with the exact opposite - scientists who felt that certain hypotheses were counter-intituitive, and simply could NOT be 'true'. And yet, in the end, these scientists - who sometimes went kicking and screaming - were convinced by the evidence.

I think this fact is one of the biggest problems for BoM defenders. You have to already believe to see the evidence.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

he has been able to persuade his colleagues to read the book, but since they approach it as an "archaeological text", they are unconvinced.

IOW, his colleagues are doing just what Brant, and Ben, ask skeptics to do on this thread- put aside the angelic origins of the text and evaluate it on its content. They do not accept it on its content. The only ones who do are ones who already believe in the text for spiritual reasons.

You have the basic information correct, but overreach the conclusion. The key statement Clark made was the way the archaeologists have approached the Book of Mormon. They read it as the wrong kind of book. Because they read it with a certain perspective, they come to certain conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me that they read "horse" and "chariot" just as Vogel does.

Archaeologists have similar problems reading the Bible as an archaeological text. There are a good number of them rejecting much of the Bible (a few rejecting nearly all) because it doesn't read "correctly." Nevertheless, in a different context there is still history in the text. It is less controversial than the Book of Mormon because it has such a long history of acceptance, but the issue of how one approaches a text vis a vis archaeology is still an issue.

The Book of Mormon certainly doesn't read like an archaeological text. What tradition there is that would support the "how to read" the book is tainted with the pre-scholarly approaches to history and the not-yet-formed soft sciences of archaeology and anthropology.

Saying, as Clark does, that they approach it incorrectly is very different from your conclusion that there is no solid approach.

[beastie]

You have the basic information correct, but overreach the conclusion. The key statement Clark made was the way the archaeologists have approached the Book of Mormon. The read it as the wrong kind of book. Because they read it with a certain perspective, they come to certain conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me that they read "horse" and "chariot" just as Vogel does.

Archaeologists have similar problems reading the Bible as an archaeological text. There are a good number of them rejecting much of the Bible (a few rejecting nearly all) because it doesn't read "correctly." Nevertheless, in a different context there is still history in the text. It is less controversial than the Book of Mormon because it has such a long history of acceptance, but the issue of how one approaches a text vis a vis archaeology is still an issue.

Certainly archaeologists reject certain poritions of the bible as actually having originated in the attributed time period, by the attributed authors. Although I haven't made a specific study of biblical studies, I have read enough to know that, aside from literalists, most scholars in the field view certain portions of the Bible as myth, written at a different time period and by different authors than claimed.

Other portions of the Bible have more foundation, archaeologically, and hence have more acceptance. (None of these statements addess the spiritual claims of the Bible, which is a separate issue.)

Personally, I would view Biblical literalists who insist that all the books of the Bible have a solid historical/archaeological foundation as having the same burdens as BoM "literalists".

The Book of Mormon certainly doesn't read like an archaeological text. What tradition there is that would support the "how to read" the book is tainted with the pre-scholarly approaches to history and the not-yet-formed soft sciences of archaeology and anthropology.

Saying, as Clark does, that they approach it incorrectly is very different from your conclusion that there is no solid approach.

Now, you may not agree with Clark, but his statement clearly said:

And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear.

Clark is not talking about some other scholarly approach. He's talking about getting a testimony.

[Brant Gardner]

I am not disagreeing with the evidence you are presenting, just the conclusions you draw from it (which isn't unusual in our discussions).

The fact that archaeologists read the text incorrectly does not mean that there isn't a way to read the text that fits with history. The fact that having faith in the text predisposes one to be interested in and therefore willing to see the text historically is also correct, but doesn't say that there is no historicity without faith.

Both statements tell us that it is the reader and not necessarily the evidence. There is a difference.

[Greg Smith]

EVs and creationists in general are a far more significant community in the US than mormons.  They have a noticable impact on politics, and on education.

If, and when, mormonism ever attains that level of impact, I guarantee that respected nonLDS scientists will begin debunking mormon claims that they perceive as threatening to the eductional field. 

So, the answer is "Your evidence is wrong, and we could prove it, but we can't be bothered for now? Check back later?"

OK, but that does seem to ring rather hollow.

Prometheus Books (a leading skeptical publisher) tried to "do in" Mormonism with their "Trouble Enough" volume, as I recall. One doesn't hear much of it at all--their reliance on the Hofmann forgeries didn't help.

You'd think this would be a publisher ripe for treatments of just such things as the Mormons, but they're strangely silent. Yet, they'll spend a ton of time debunking psychics, newspaper horoscopes, dowsing for water, homeopathy, etc.

You'd think too that there are plenty of scientists with RELIGIOUS motivations to silence the Mormons, who could write a secular critique. Silence on that front too.

C'est la vie...

Greg

[beastie]

The fact that archaeologists read the text incorrectly does not mean that there isn't a way to read the text that fits with history. The fact that having faith in the text predisposes one to be interested in and therefore willing to see the text historically is also correct, but doesn't say that there is no historicity without faith.

Both statements tell us that it is the reader and not necessarily the evidence. There is a difference.

It does say something about the text. It says the evidence supporting the text is so weak that one has to already believe to recognize it. It's the pre-existing conviction that God told you it's true that makes one predisposed to accept an argument like the horses in the BoM were really undomesticated tapir pets that had nothing to do with a method of transportation. It's the pre-existing conviction that leads you, Brant, to see the Gadianton Robbers/jaguar connection as so powerful while simultaneously rejecting the masonic connection of JS' time period. Do you really imagine, for one minute, that anyone outside that pre-existing belief would find those arguments THAT persuasive? If you were to explain these arguments to Mesoamerican scholars, would your hope be that they are open minded enough to walk away and say, well, maybe he's not a complete nutcase for believing the BoM is an ancient mesoamerican text, because he has constructed these arguments that, under certain conditions, could be feasible, but I, personally, doubt he is correct, or is your hope that they are going to walk away from your discussion thinking, wow, that BoM probably IS an ancient Mesoamerican document, but I ain't touching it cuz I will ruin my career if I believe in angels!???

It's not just a matter of interest, as you and others keep implying, because people like Michael Coe and Clark's colleagues have been interested enough to read the book. If there were the slightest chance that the BoM contained text dating from the Olmec period onward, then the interest in it would be overwhelming, no matter what its origin.

So, the answer is "Your evidence is wrong, and we could prove it, but we can't be bothered for now? Check back later?"

First, don't check back later, because I doubt mormonism will EVER be that powerful of a movement.

Second, the answer is that believers want experts in the field to debunk the BoM. Just look on these sort of threads to see how quickly critical evidence is dismissed because it's coming from non-experts (even when they quote experts, as I often take pains to do) Experts in the field aren't going to be interested enough in debunking it until it proves to be a powerful enough influence to endanger education and the understanding of science, in their views. The fact that Michael Coe was interested enough to comment on it a couple of times is a testament to his respect for his LDS colleagues in the field, IMO, and not a testament to the fact that the acceptance of the BoM is a scientific problem for the community as a whole. As Clark says, it's a harmless little belief, you're not hurting anyone.

And, of course, occasionally experts DO address BoM historicity, as Deanne Matheny did in "Does the Shoe Fit" (and yes, I've read Sorenson's rebuttal and do not believe it adequately addressed the issues she raised) and Michael Coe's extensive comments in the past. But these are experts who had some sort of reason to be interested - Matheny is LDS, and Coe has LDS colleagues. I think just these two essays alone would be sufficient enough to convince most, if not all, people without any emotional investment in the issue, that the BoM is not an ancient Mesoamerican text. Nothing will convince true believers of that, because their belief does not originate in an evaluation of scientific evidence, but rather in a spiritual experience in which they have the confidence to state "God told me so", in so many words. Given the difficulty God has with communicating with human beings in general, even prophets, I have a hard time understanding that level of confidence, myself, but that doesn't change the fact.

If the creationist movement were as small of a group as mormonism is, and if they weren't doing things like attempting to ban the teaching of evolution and present "ID" theory as a viable scientific alternative in our public schools, then I'd doubt you'd see the effort to debunk them that you do. They hardly stir the interest in Europe that they do here in the US, for example.

Your seeming assertion that skeptics avoid debunking mormon claims because the pro LDS evidence is so strong is strange, frankly. Not even the professional apologists make that claim, as far as I understand. They just claim that enough evidence is there that it is not an irrational belief. They hardly claim the evidence is so overwhelming that anyone who bothers with it will walk away unable to refute it.

[beastie]

Only in Mesoamerica can we find the important factors of writing, city building, high cultures, kings over kings, volcanics, the seasonality of warfare, armor and weapons, the influence of Teotihuacan at the time of Mormon and the final Nephite wars, the complete absence of any reference to winter snows, and of oppressive heat at the New Year (remembering the conspicuous influence of severe winters on the Smith

[truth dancer]

Hi Brant...

You have the basic information correct, but overreach the conclusion. The key statement Clark made was the way the archaeologists have approached the Book of Mormon. The read it as the wrong kind of book. Because they read it with a certain perspective, they come to certain conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me that they read "horse" and "chariot" just as Vogel does.

I have a difficult time agreeing with this idea.

If an archaeologist/historian/linguist/anthropologist, read the Bagavad Gita, for example, regardless of 'how' they read it, they would be able to identify approximately when and where it was written. They would not have to believe in the text, nor would they have to believe it was accurate history. There is enough evidence within the text to help them identify its origins. I doubt anyone would assert it was a text from the forth century Ireland.

Another example might be the recent Gospel of Judas... regardless of whether it is true, factual, or historical, most scholars are pretty clear of its origins. Is there any way one could read this text and come to a completely different conclusion?

So, how would you suggest to a Mesoamerican scholar, they read the BoM? What must they do differently to know it is actually a text written in Mesoamerica, two thousand years ago?

~dancer~