Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

The BoM says steel swords were forged, why do you dismiss that?

Mark

John 1;12

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

So what did Nehi use.

http://www.beautifuliron.com/mysteel.htm

[Luigi]

luigi, you misunderstand. I did not expect any scholar to accept any one's spiritual witness. What I said was, or tried to say, was that the critic has his/her own belief system on the line. If the critic sees evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, what do they so with the its history of prophets, angels, visions, etc?

But the apologist can present what evidence they find, and still know that if there are unanswered questions, it doesn't really matter. They are confident that all questions will be answered at some future time.

Charity, you misunderstand. I did not expect any spiritual believer to accept any one archeologists witness. What I said was, or tried to say, was that the believer has his/her own belief system on the line. If the believer sees evidence that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, what do they so with the its history of prophets, angels, visions, etc?

But the critic can present what evidence they find, and still know that if there are unanswered questions, it doesn't really matter. They are confident that all questions will be answered at some future time. (edit-sorry Charity this isn't meant to be rude but I think this demonstrates that your argument can very easily be flipped around)

[USU78]

Yes, I'm quite sure. My doubts aren't about sharpness, but about the dexterity with which one could wield it against simultaneous attack of many attackers. I'm also concerned that it doesn't fit the BOM's description of Laman-like swords.

A slashing weapon like a claymore or macahuitl does have its limitations. That's why the Roman cohort with spears and pili tended to do very well against less disciplined "slasher" types. Your mesoamerican with macahuitl, however, had the advantage of his weapon being (probably) far easier to handle (requiring less upper body strength) than your Highland Scot with his claymore.

Don't assume that the presence of the macahuitl precluded other stabbing/poking type weapons from being used, especially during close-in fighting. The obsidian stabbing swords and knives were also used to great effect by the Aztecs during their losing war with Spain.

Yes, I'm quite sure. My doubts aren't about sharpness, but about the dexterity with which one could wield it against simultaneous attack of many attackers. I'm also concerned that it doesn't fit the BOM's description of Laman-like swords.

What description is that? Moreover, why should we assume stasis in choice of personal weapon over the years between Nephi I and Mormon? Or even Alma?

[charity]

cute, luigi, but you don't get it. Simply turning what I said around doesn't make sense.

1. The apologist knows with a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, translated by the power of God through Joseph Smith. A ruin here, an artifact there, a literary device or two, do not have any impact on that spiritual witness. Neither does the lack of any confirming archeological evidence have any impact on that spiritual witness. Our beliefs stay the same, no matter.

2. The critic has a belief just as strong from his/her own logic and belief system that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, etc. But there is no spiritual witness, just man's own logic and reason. So what do they do with something that seems to confirm the Book of Mormon's historicity? They have to dismiss it, discredit it, or ignore it or else they have to change their belief system.

The two positions are not at all similar.

[Markk]

Hi Sometimes,

What is your point? The BoM says that they made steel swords:

Ether 7:9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of asteel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

What do you believe the above verse is saying, if you read on (15:1-2) this would mean hundreds of thousands of steel swords made from molten steel. What the exact process of making these steel swords is I'm not sure, but the BoM is clear they were experts at it and after the manner of the OT craftsmen, so how you get wooden clubs of of texts like these I'm not sure, but in context and according to the pages of the BoM steel was what a whole lot of tools and weapons were made from.

What does the above verse mean to you and why is it important to you that steel swords were not used?

Mark

john 1:12

[Luigi]

cute, luigi, but you don't get it. Simply turning what I said around doesn't make sense.

1. The apologist knows with a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document, translated by the power of God through Joseph Smith. A ruin here, an artifact there, a literary device or two, do not have any impact on that spiritual witness. Neither does the lack of any confirming archeological evidence have any impact on that spiritual witness. Our beliefs stay the same, no matter.

2. The critic has a belief just as strong from his/her own logic and belief system that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, etc. But there is no spiritual witness, just man's own logic and reason. So what do they do with something that seems to confirm the Book of Mormon's historicity? They have to dismiss it, discredit it, or ignore it or else they have to change their belief system.

The two positions are not at all similar.

If you cannot show the validity of spiritual witnesses then I think we have left the realm of being able to help each other in any kind of dialogue. You state that you and others believe your spiritual witness, no matter what. Therefore you have absolutely stated you are unwilling to test anything to the contrary. I, on the other hand, am willing to evaluate new evidence, spiritual or otherwise, and come to new conclusions. The world is full of people unwilling to change their opinion based on something spiritual-Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, etc-I'm pretty sure you cant all be right-so I don't know how you or anyone like you (ie someone who will never budge based on their current spiritual feelings) is ever going to get closer to truth or know that you have it.

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

The point is that there is a vast difference in the processes in steeling a few iron swords. The BoM only mention them in an Old World context. And the much larger scale processes needed produce enough steel swords for whole armies.

[charity]

luigi, this little conversation between us began with your post about the "age old problem" of apologetics. I was saying that the apologists don't have nearly the problem that the critics have. It wasn't about the place of spiritual witnesses in convincing archeologists.

I know how you feel justified in the attitude "I don't know how you or anyone like you (ie someone who will never budge based on their current spiritual feelings) is ever going to get closer to truth or know that you have it."

But you should look at your own attitude about truth. Will you answer honestly: Can you see any possibility that some or any archeological find will present to your mind enough evidence that you will say, "The Book of Mormon really is an ancient document, so it must have been delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel and translated by the power of God?" If your answer is no, than I have to say to you what you said to me:"I don't know how you or anyone like you (ie someone who will never budge based on their reliance on their own logic) is ever going to get closer to truth or know that you have it.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

Kind of off topic here, I believe you should go back and read all the posts to get in the flow

Thank you for the suggestion. The issue, however, is not that I need to â??get in the flow.â? The issue is that you completely missed the pointâ??though I blame myself.

You asked Brant the question: â??Nearly two million people killed by the sword, do you believe if this this battle actually happened it was fought with Macahuitls?â?

Apparently hidden in my post was the important point that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon reflect the ancient historiographic trend to inflate numbers. This issue actually stands at the very heart of the question you raised.

In addition, when I provided a list of historiographic problems featured in the war stories of the Bible, I hoped that you would recognize the impact of the double-edged sword of criticism that you enjoy wielding.

Again, for me, it's much easier to believe that Macahuitls killed a large number of people in ancient America than it is to accept a story in which 1000 Philistines were killed with the mere jawbone of an *** (Judges 15:15).

The point is that as a Bible believer, you really ought to lay down your sword of criticism or your jawbone depending upon which metaphor you prefer.

Hope that helps,

--David

[Markk]

Hi Sometimes,

Markk:

The point is that there is a vast difference in the processes in steeling a few iron swords. The BoM only mention them in an Old World context. And the much larger scale processes needed produce enough steel swords for whole armies.

Did you read the BoM verse I gave you, it says swords were made of molten steel to arm the Jaridite people, and if you read on you would have saw that millions of Jaridites were involved in this. My argument has been all along about the massive interstructure it would have taken, even for wood clubs to arm a army of hundreds of thousands as Ether relays. It's not talking about a few Iron swords, it says arming the people with molten steel swords.

Why are you against the text as given in the BoM?

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi David,

I accept that the Bible teaches that a jawbone was used, I believe that , and it's clearly the context, and a jawbone of a *** could do damage as could a Macahuitls, buthe point is context. If you do not believe it, fine, thats your right, do, and I don't have to insert things into the text to do so. In the BoM case though it says steel swords were used, not Macahuitls, and I'm not sure they even existed in that time frame, but even if they did, it is not what the BoM says, plus given that two million people were killed in comparison to 1000 the logistics are not even in the same planet, yet alone ball park, they basically wiped out todays San Deigo, not even counting the enemy that would have been killed.

You have no proof that the numebrs were inflated. What do you think the numbers were more like in the Jaridites case, half, maybe just one million? also the Biblical accout says 1000 even, maybe you are correct that it was'nt exactly a 1000, maybe it was a plus or minus round number as the bible does at times, but the Bom says nearly two million quailifing it as not a round number but a exact, meaning almost two million.

Mark

John 1:12

[Brant Gardner]

Apologists assume the BoM to be an ancient text based on spiritual epiphanies. From there they base their interpretation of the text on what archeology tells them so as to justify their assumption.

You are not desribing anyone I know. I can tell you what my approach has been. I begin with the assumption that the text is ancient because that gives me something against which it may be tested. From that point on, I treat it like I would treat a text in Nahuatl - or better yet - a text in Spanish that was describing an unfamiliar Aztec culture or custom. I compare the Book of Mormon text to other ancient texts and what is known of ancient peoples and they way they organized society and looked at the world. I don't make assumptions about what is or is not represented by the text unless I can corroborate it with similar traits in other historical texts and peoples.

You might be describing those who have written on the Book of Mormon who have no background in either archaeology or anthropology, but none who do of whom I am aware.

Therefore we see that sword=macahuitls, horse=tapir, steel=iron, etc. etc.

You still seem to misunderstand the problem of cross-cultural naming. It is a very well-known, well-understood, and well-accepted phenomenon. Nothing is claimed for the Book of Mormon in this respect that isn't widely attested in other literature that describes cross-cultural conflicts.

The critic, on the other hand, treats the BoM as being on trial. The text must prove itself.

So far, this isn't essentially any different that what I have described for the apologists. To the extent that you are attempting to describe standard academic procedures, they are certainly not the exclusive domain of the critic - in fact, there are just as many poorly informed critics as there are poorly informed apologists. That doesn't automatically discount those who actually have the background to make the judgements.

Therefore the critic is left to interpret the text in the manner that seems most probable given the meaning of the text in English

Why would you assume this? You are actually suggesting that a scientific procedure would be to make an assumption that the text is something very different than what it claims - and then attempt to prove your assumption? That doesn't sound very scientific to me. That sounds like self-fulfilling prophecy.

and or its alleged Hebrew/Egyptian origins(ie the interpretation must come FIRST) and then he sees if what he finds in the alleged area of the BoM fits.

That works pretty well when the Book of Mormon is in the Old World. I would agree that it ought to be compared to a Hebrew background in the Old World. I would like to know how you justify using that criterion in the New World. Please explain your understanding of the nature of cultural contact and why a limited population in a completely new environment would necessarily replicate a culture dependent upon a cultural/agricultural complex that is no longer available to them.

You are beginning with an improper hypothesis (that the text is modern - rather than testing what it actually purports) and then compounding it with another assumption that is unsupportable in human history. So far, you aren't doing too well.

However, the critic never can or will be able to prove that certain parallels or unlikely intrepretations are not possible (disproving the unprobable is not possible).

Of course you can't prove that farfetched parallels might not have happened, but that is the problem with any kind of parallel. Used without controls, they are nearly useless. That doesn't preclude, however, controlled use of interconnected data that build a case. That is how ethnohistorical reconstructions are made. It is equally impossible to prove the Book of Mormon. However, it is possible to build a case based on academically acceptable techniques that will indicate that the most likely production culture for the text is ancient (spiritual things have a different method of proof).

The apologist, on the other hand, simply needs enough to justify his assumptions of historicity, so as long as he can get an example where one or two people in history compare a macahuitl to a sword or a horse to a deer or mistranslate steel as iron then he can always say it is 'possible'.

Not even close. The apologist has to demonstrate, if he/she wants to say that the word "sword" was translating macahuitl, that such a linguistic transfer is possible and likely. If it is unusual, then the chance that it is an accurate description is diminished. If it happens frequently, then the chance that this occasion follows the normal pattern is higher.

However, even that is insufficient, because if that is the best correlation to a culture, it is too weak to use as a hypothesis. You have to have much stronger evidence that builds the case. Then when you are in the phase of explaining possible exceptions (which these linguistic issues are) then you support the thesis with both reference to normal practice and to the larger body of better data.

In other words, Luigi, I believe that you are incorrect in all of you statements.

[TAK]

Hello Mark,

Thank you for the suggestion. The issue, however, is not that I need to â??get in the flow.â? The issue is that you completely missed the pointâ??though I blame myself.

You asked Brant the question: â??Nearly two million people killed by the sword, do you believe if this this battle actually happened it was fought with Macahuitls?â?

Apparently hidden in my post was the important point that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon reflect the ancient historiographic trend to inflate numbers. This issue actually stands at the very heart of the question you raised.

In addition, when I provided a list of historiographic problems featured in the war stories of the Bible, I hoped that you would recognize the impact of the double-edged sword of criticism that you enjoy wielding.

Again, for me, it's much easier to believe that Macahuitls killed a large number of people in ancient America than it is to accept a story in which 1000 Philistines were killed with the mere jawbone of an *** (Judges 15:15).

Hope that helps,

--David

So you see the BofM as some figurative and some literal?

The problem as I see with your theory of historiographic trending in the Bible and BofM is the origins are vastly different.

If the translation of the BofM was divinely inspired then you are suggesting that God wants the reader to think 2 million when it was only 2 thousand or 2 hundred. Why would that be? And if you are starting down that slippery slope what else (besides body counts and steel ..) is figurative instead of literal?

[Jerubaal]

Another factor that you keep overlooking, Markk, is that the kind of steel we normally think of as such (via the Bessemer process) was not developed until the late 1800's. Prior to then there were rather crude forms of steel, and the 1828 Webster's dictionary allows for steel to mean refined iron or even simply something exceptionally hard, though it does list iron imbues with carbon as one of its definitions.

[Brant Gardner]

So you see the BofM as some figurative and some literal?

The problem as I see with your theory of historiographic trending in the Bible and BofM is the origins are vastly different.

If the translation of the BofM was divinely inspired then you are suggesting that God wants the reader to think 2 million when it was only 2 thousand or 2 hundred. Why would that be? And if you are starting down that slippery slope what else (besides body counts and steel ..) is figurative instead of literal?

Please define how you think the Book of Mormon was translated, and provide supporting evidence. I am really very interested in this topic. Since you are using your conclusion to make a point, I would love to know on what you have based the conclusion.

While you are at it, would you please clarify how you see the distinction between ancient writer and modern translator. The texts David is talking about have that same issue. A faithful translation of the ancient words gives us exaggerations - but I don't know of any translator would would attempt to jump over the text and replace the "right" numbers. I'm not sure why you think the Book of Mormon's process was inherently different.

[Markk]

Hi Jerubaal,

Another factor that you keep overlooking, Markk, is that the kind of steel we normally think of as such (via the Bessemer process) was not developed until the late 1800's. Prior to then there were rather crude forms of steel, and the 1828 Webster's dictionary allows for steel to mean refined iron or even simply something exceptionally hard, though it does list iron imbues with carbon as one of its definitions.

I guess thats kind of a internal problem that the BoM has, and a real reason I believe that many refuse to accept the context, I haven't over looked this, I understand that, and is part of my point.

The Book of Mormon says:

Jarr. 1:8

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,

2 Ne. 5: 15

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to bwork in all cmanner 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

Clearly the BoM knows there is a difference between Steel and Iron, again I didn't say it, the BoM demands it.

Mark

John 1:12

[antishock8]

Hi Jerubaal,

I guess thats kind of a internal problem that the BoM has, and a real reason I believe that many refuse to accept the context, I haven't over looked this, I understand that, and is part of my point.

The Book of Mormon says:

Jarr. 1:8

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,

2 Ne. 5: 15

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to bwork in all cmanner 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

Clearly the BoM knows there is a difference between Steel and Iron, again I didn't say it, the BoM demands it.

Mark

John 1:12

I think you clearly don't understand semantic shift. Nephites used the world steel because they didn't have the word for obsidian. Yep. It's possible...

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

From the BoM itself Nephi in all likelihood knew the difference. What or if any carried over is not stated in the record.

I know the how the sun works. That doesn't mean I carry around a Fusion Reactor in my back pocket

[Luigi]

luigi, this little conversation between us began with your post about the "age old problem" of apologetics. I was saying that the apologists don't have nearly the problem that the critics have. It wasn't about the place of spiritual witnesses in convincing archeologists.

I know how you feel justified in the attitude "I don't know how you or anyone like you (ie someone who will never budge based on their current spiritual feelings) is ever going to get closer to truth or know that you have it."

But you should look at your own attitude about truth. Will you answer honestly: Can you see any possibility that some or any archeological find will present to your mind enough evidence that you will say, "The Book of Mormon really is an ancient document, so it must have been delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel and translated by the power of God?" If your answer is no, than I have to say to you what you said to me:"I don't know how you or anyone like you (ie someone who will never budge based on their reliance on their own logic) is ever going to get closer to truth or know that you have it.

I again, see your point, however, you need to realize I started as a believer. Therefore I started with the assumption that the BoM was true. I only rejected that after evaluating all the evidence and finding, in my view at least, that the BoM was wanting. Would I ever consider that it was true again? Certainly. I would be happy to. If tommorow they dug up plates with Egyptian script on them in Mesoamerica surrounded by horses, ox, and goats with inscriptions that said Zarahemla, Nephi, and the like-I would gladly reconsider my position.

[Markk]

Hi Anti

I think you clearly don't understand semantic shift. Nephites used the world steel because they didn't have the word for obsidian. Yep. It's possible...

How do you know that? So all the swords and tools were made of volcanic stone, and while they did not know the word for this volcanic stone they still made a half million or so weapons out of them? What did they do just grunt and point at the obsidian while making all these swords?

Mark

John 1;12

[Luigi]

You still seem to misunderstand the problem of cross-cultural naming. It is a very well-known, well-understood, and well-accepted phenomenon. Nothing is claimed for the Book of Mormon in this respect that isn't widely attested in other literature that describes cross-cultural conflicts.

I have seen those examples from FAIR and FARMS almost every single one does not match the type of naming that alleged occurs in the BoM. For example the Greeks calling hippopotamus 'river horse' is not simply calling hippopotomus a 'horse', it is still a variant of an original name. Similarly Marco Polo's naming rhinocerus as a 'unicorn' clearly identifies a species of animal foreign to him since 'unicorn' in his homeland was a mythical animal. The closest thing I have seen to the alleged phenonemen is naming bison 'buffalo' which still seems a fairly good match since the Old World term 'buffalo' was more of a classification(ie oxen-like animals), from what I understand, than a name of a fairly narrow species. But even with that a bison and buffalo have much more in common than a horse and tapir-not to mention the other attempted matches I've heard for BoM animals.

That doesn't automatically discount those who actually have the background to make the judgements.

Why would you assume this? You are actually suggesting that a scientific procedure would be to make an assumption that the text is something very different than what it claims - and then attempt to prove your assumption? That doesn't sound very scientific to me. That sounds like self-fulfilling prophecy.

Well, I obviously did not clarify what I was saying. Somemone evaluating the text would only accept it as ancient after thorough evaluation-but to do his evaluation he must start with, okay, given the text says this and that it is alleged from this area and in this language-what would the author mean? If you read my original post I thought that was somewhat implied-but maybe it wasn't. Once you have determined a meaning based on that interpretation one should evaluate what the archeology says about the area and if it matches-super, if not, then you reject it-so following the scientific method.

But most of the interpretation of for the BoM relative to archeology is pretty straightforward. I read a guy from Jerusalem in 600 BC saying that he found cows, oxen, horses, goats, etc. I assume he found those animals or something that looked very close to those animals. Similarly if the book says they were domesticating horses and sheep I look for evidence of domestication of something at least close to a horse or a sheep. If archeology says those kind of animals and domesticatio of those types of animals were in the area, great, if not then its not then that's a point against. One look for the stories that were alleged a huge part of the culture in the BoM and see if they exist among Mayan and Aztec texts-such as the story that Lamanites alleged told all their children about how Nephi and Lehi had led them out of Jerusalem so they could rule over them. etc. These types of analysis don't require a language expert (unless horse, ox, cow, steel, copper, etc. translated literally meant something vastly different or broader in Hebrew/Egyptian than we would think), I would think, but I can certainly see analysis that would require language expertise.

That works pretty well when the Book of Mormon is in the Old World. I would agree that it ought to be compared to a Hebrew background in the Old World. I would like to know how you justify using that criterion in the New World.

I meant Hebrew/Egyptian LANGUAGE origins-

"And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been asufficiently 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. "

As far as I can see the text indicates Hebrew-spoken(though changed) and Egyptian written all the way up to Moroni.

However, it is possible to build a case based on academically acceptable techniques that will indicate that the most likely production culture for the text is ancient (spiritual things have a different method of proof).

Great, you show me one person who has academically accepted the BoM historicity before accepting it 'spiritually' and I think you will start to have a case for 'academically acceptable techniques that will indicate that the most likely production culture for the text is ancient'. I know there are hundreds if not thousands of those that have accepted it spritually but then rejected it academically. My point is that everyone I have ever heard defending the historicity of the BoM has first decided it was true based on a spiritual epiphany. I have never heard of anyone first being presented academic evidence of the BoM(prior to a spiritual manifestation) that has concluded historicity.

[Brant Gardner]

The closest thing I have seen to the alleged phenonemen is naming bison 'buffalo' which still seems a fairly good match since the Old World term 'buffalo' was more of a classification(ie oxen-like animals), from what I understand, than a name of a fairly narrow species. But even with that a bison and buffalo have much more in common than a horse and tapir-not to mention the other attempted matches I've heard for BoM animals.

At least you are correct that it is your limitation and not the actual issue. I can see that you can't imagine it, or that you don't have access to enough data. They are there. The process happens in most language contact where unusual animals or artifacts must be named. You are correct that the taxonomy hinges on something that is conceived as similar - even when we would consider them dissimilar. Saying that you don't understand it is very different than using your lack of understanding as determinative of whether or not it happens.

But most of the interpretation of for the BoM relative to archeology is pretty straightforward.

That is the beginning problem. Why would you assume that? I can read the Bible in English, but assuming that a straightforward reading of the English will give me the proper contextual understanding is naive. I can't see why it should be different for the Book of Mormon. Texts are rarely that simple - and those that are tend to be modern creations where the production culture and the reading culture match.

I read a guy from Jerusalem in 600 BC saying that he found cows, oxen, horses, goats, etc.

OK. Please tell my why you would assume that the word "cow" would refer to what we think of as a cow. When the natives of the New World say a "horse" they usually called it a "deer." Are you saying that no indigenous account can be correct because they saw "deer" and you are sure that there were horses?

You are making final judgements on the basis of an assumption that should have been tested and justified, but you have simply accepted it without question. The scientific method would require you to analyze you assumptions to make sure they are justified. You are using them to prove your conclusions based on them.

I assume he found those animals or something that looked very close to those animals.

As close as deer and horse? As close as rhino and unicorn? If that is close, then you really won't have a problem with horse and tapir.

Similarly if the book says they were domesticating horses and sheep I look for evidence of domestication of something at least close to a horse or a sheep.

I don't know about domestication at all. There isn't enough evidence in the text to indicate domestication. Mesoamericans had several kinds of animals that were kept, including deer. Only the dog was domesticated. The fact that animals are found around men doesn't mean domestication. You are reading that into the text.

As far as sheep go, I just looked through the text electronically and found only one indication of sheep as an animal rather than a metaphor (sheep of his fold kind of thing). That was in Ether - never later. I think you are reading something in to the text again.

I look for the stories that were alleged a huge part of the culture in Mayan and Aztec texts-such as the story that Lamanites alleged told all their children about how Nephi and Lehi had led them out of Jerusalem so they could rule over them.

Let's see. You expect to find remnants of a particular story over 1000 years after it has no relevance to any of the descendant cultures? Why?

I try to find these stories or very close matches to them. etc.

The oral and written literature of Mesoamerica is a bit of a specialty of mine, nevertheless, I can't say that the assumption you are making is justified. I have a hard time moving the Quetzalcoatl story back in time more than about 300 to 400 years - let alone the 1000 you are jumping with your expectations. When you look for the wrong thing and don't find it, what have you proven?

Great, you show me one person who has academically accepted the BoM historicity before accepting it 'spiritually' and I think you will start to have a case for 'academically acceptable techniques that will indicate that the most likely production culture for the text is ancient'.

I don't remember the names - someone else on the list might. John Tvedtness spoke of two of his professors who accepted the Book of Mormon as ancient, but not divine. Does that fulfill your requirement or are you going to redefine it now that it is obsolete?

My point is that everyone I have ever heard defending the historicity of the BoM has first decided it was true based on a spiritual epiphany.

I started LDS, but applied anthropolgy to the text as disinterestedly as possible to test it against a context. At one point I remember being pretty sure that there was nothing that was going to support the Book of Mormon in the real world - that I was always going to accept it on faith alone. Nevertheless, I made the attempt. I was wrong. There is good evidence.

[TAK]

Please define how you think the Book of Mormon was translated, and provide supporting evidence. I am really very interested in this topic. Since you are using your conclusion to make a point, I would love to know on what you have based the conclusion.

The only conclusion I can offer is that God is a God of truth.

But frankly I dont think it was translated. But you do. You can explain it to me how you think it works. I know is that Joseph Smith said it was the most correct of any book on earth. So from your perspective, correct does not mean accurate? Why would God assist in the translation but permit inaccurate information?

[Brant Gardner]

The only conclusion I can offer is that God is a God of truth.

But frankly I dont think it was translated.

Let me get this straight. You don't believe it was translated, yet you use the method of translation as an argument against its translation? That doesn't strike me as a very strong logical foundation for an argument.