Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[TAK]

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.

Your evading the question.

I am not interested in developing an argument; I am trying to understand your logic.

You wish to treat the BofM as any other ancient text yet its origins are like none other on earth. How do you juxtapose a divine origin with inaccurate information?

[Dan Vogel]

Yes. I am curious what your experience is with both macahuitls and swords that you are so certain of your opinion? Especially when it is contradicted by historical evidence.

I haven't seen a real macahuitl. So, yes, my experience with them is limited to drawings. Are there any in museums or photos you know of on the net?

I should say that the story of Ammon is difficult to believe no matter what kind of sword-- but I also have problems with the story of Sampson.

Again, you should read the chroniclers. Their swords weren't nearly as sharp. Their armor was hot, heavy. Most Spaniards doffed it in preference to the native quilted cotton. What you are saying is that you have fixed ideas based on modern preconceptions. The texts simply disagree with you. I think I'll stick with the accounts of those who were actually there. The descriptions of battles are much different than you appear to imagine them.

Yes, that is something I will have to do. But I did read somewhere that the thin edge of the obsidian shattered against Spanish armor and steel swords. It's too hot for Spanish armor, but not too hot for Jaredite copper breastplates?

I have difficulty putting the BOM with your Mesoamerican context. The text says Nephi had access to metals and made swords like Labans, but you think they were really macahuitls? Or, if they did make steel (or at least metal) swords, by the time of Ammon, they had been replaced by macahuitls, when the text never mentions a change?

[Dan Vogel]

David,

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

Both are obvious exaggerations, but by whom? Is it evidence of Nephite propaganda (for what reason since no one but future generations would see the record), or JS's naivete? Interestingly, it took more critical readers like the Rev. Lamb to point out the unrealistic numbers, apparently JS had no problem with the numbers or hemispheric geography.

[Luigi]

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.

When I read the Bible a horse is horse, a cow is a cow, a sword is a metallic blade, and metal, though it may be translated incorrectly(such as the use of the word 'steel'), is metal. Maybe some Bible scholar will correct me on that-I guess we'll see.

OK. Please tell my why you would assume that the word "cow" would refer to what we think of as a cow.

Jews had cows and therefore had a word for cow. If they called something a 'cow' it was most likely a cow or something that looked like 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.

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.

According to FARMS in "Horse in the Book of Mormon" - "When Mexican peoples first encountered Spanish horses they compared them to deer." Comparing and calling are two vastly different things. As I already stated Marco Polo was calling rhinos unicorns but in doing so he clearly identified a species foreign to him since 'unicorn' was a mythical creature in his culture. Almost every example I've seen that justifies the exact calling of animals things they are not is inconsistent with the BoM example. All the examples I've seen you and others give the text clearly identifies a new creature by varying the name a little, making a comparison with a known animal, calling it a name which is more a category than a species(such as bird in a 'bat' category) or calling it an animal which did not exist in reality(such as unicorn) while the BoM calls everything by its exact name with no equivocation.

I don't know about domestication at all. There isn't enough evidence in the text to indicate domestication.

WHAT?!

"And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses."

"having so great a number, and having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind."

What does it have to say to you to indicate domestication?

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.

Well, there isn't a lot of sheep, your right, mostly mention of flocks. Though the Gadiaton robbers gird themselves with lamb skin. But I guess if it mentions them once or twice its as good as not saying it all.

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 was giving an example of a methodology of determining historicity that one could apply. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of Mayan texts dating to the BoM times(as far as I know)-so that would make it hard to compare in that way-but that would simply be something to look for.

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?

I would be very interested to hear their stories on this one. If John Tvedtness gave me the details I would really like contact them about this and hear more. I have to wonder by what means they assumed Joseph Smith got an ancient text if not divine. But regardless I would like to hear the details.

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.

You should publish your findings and let the rest of us look at it (I'm being honest on this one I think if there is good evidence I say bring it on-I really am interested in truth and the more evidence one way or the other is always helpful(though I should add as concise evidence as possible-we all have time constraints) .

[Dan Vogel]

I jumped in late, so I realize our lines were crossed and you were under a completely different impression than me. I apologize for the mix-up.

No problem.

I have never in my six years of membership in this church done anything at all in an attempt to divert the attention of anyone and I will thank you to refrain from insinuating that I am trying to manipulate the conversation. You also insist in reducing a complex matter down to "nothing."

I will agree that I was probably mistaken to imply that it was an intentional misdirection. Still, I would suggest that you were attracted to NHM because you think it provides a kind of evidence for the BOM that is lacking in Mesoamerica.

It would show that they are there somewhere, though.

I don't deny NHMs apologetic usefulness. If I were a believer, I would probably emphasize it too. But that shouldn't prevent us from understanding acknowledging the lack of direct evidence between the BOM and Mesoamerica. That would be preferable evidence.

It's much stronger than what an awful lot of scholarship is based on these days.

You're right, the text doesn't name a person or group of people, but every other instance of a place name is accompanied with an explanation of who named it or why or both. It does not say that they named it where it does say that in every other instance. What makes more sense?

And the author stated that he was only including religious stuff. It's not minimilistic, it's topical, and other people was not the topic.

I understand the argument of the text's switch to a different phrase. It may be meaningful, but it may not. "was called" could mean someone besides the Lehites called the place NHM, but not necessarily. The preferable evidence would have been something more direct and less ambiguous. But that kind of evidence always seems to allude apologists.

And where is the chart from which a level of impressiveness qualifies something as archaeology? I can show you volumes and volumes of journals written about a shard of pottery with nothing on if you want.

Can these shards be reasonably connected to a culture? Are they using these shards to prove the culture existed against reasonable skepticism? Can you point to a city or shard in Mesoamerica and say it is Jaredite, Nephite, Lamanite, Mulekite? When you simply call everything in Mesoamerica BOM archaeology without evidence, it sounds to me like an ideological colonization of an indigenous people's past.

I'm saying something about established Hebrew practice. Israelites didn't just bury their people wherever they could dig a hole. There's a lot more going on here than you're aware.

Would you mind pointing it out for me?

That's making the huge assumption about what's going on outside the text. There is nothing about the Lehites meeting the Nihmites and burying Ishmael in a cemetery. If it were a big deal, one would expect mention of it. However, if they they were in a wilderness with no one around, what would you expect them to do?

That's how coincidence is changed to correlation, by linking numerous "coincidences" together with each other in a way that cannot be coincidence. So far nothing in all of Arabia is at odds with the whole of 1 Nephi. Nothing at all.

There isn't chance for that. Apologists once thought Potter had the right Bountiful, and it would still be fine if they didn't find a better candidate.

And location in relationship to another location with several very unique and specific qualities, which is amazingly only found in one spot on the entire planet, which just so happens to lie exactly in the spot that it should in relation to the first. The location also serves the exact same purpose and has the same name. You're leaving lots of stuff out in an attempt to make it same like a stretch.

There are many discarded theories that have similar unexplainable phenomena. NHM may never be explained to your satisfaction, but in my view it hardly compensates for the lack of evidence in Mesoamerica as well as the poor geographic fit.

Crazy coincidences seem to pop up every time someone investigates the Book of Mormon. WHat number of coincidences must match up perfectly before you'll stop flippantly dismissing them as the pipe-dreams of lunatics?

I don't think Mormons are lunatics. I know some antis and RFMers get a little hysterical about these things, but I think they are just frustrated.

I've never cited it. I was making sure that you weren't assuming that's what I was referencing, which you were.

You might not have, but your fellow apologists who have been around longer did. Are you saying you wouldn't have? But you didn't respond to my point about using separate pieces of evidence together to make a strong whole. Good apologetic move, but not necessarily the right one.

If Lehi's journey can be proven to be historical, is there a need to establish Mesoamerican archaeology before the Book of Mormon will be considered historical?

That's the shortcut that one cannot take. I might be so inclined if there was direct evidence that the Lehites passed through. The NHM evidence can't carry the weight you want.

Akkad was the biggest and most powerful city in the world for centuries and is mentioned as the capital of Sargon's Babylon, but not one shred of archaeological evidence has ever been produced to show it actually exists. Ask any archaeologist on this planet if they think it exists and they will unequivically say yes, but there's not a single potsherd to prove it. There are hundreds of archaeologists lookoing for it at any given time, and thousands of books have been written on it, but not a fingernail to show it was a real place.

Under the current state of evidence, is it reasonable to doubt the existence of Akkad? Probably not. Is it reasonable to doubt the existence of the Lehites? Yes.

[charity]

But if one says that Akkad probably existed even though there aren't any potsherds, is it reasonable to say that the lack of potsherds proves the Lehites did not exist?

[Dan Vogel]

But if one says that Akkad probably existed even though there aren't any potsherds, is it reasonable to say that the lack of potsherds proves the Lehites did not exist?

The burden is on believers to prove they did. The skeptic is under no obligation to prove they didn't.

[charity]

Then it becomes a matter of framing the question.

If I say, "The Book of Mormon peoples lived in meso-America," then I must provide evidence to prove my claim.

Now, if you say, "The Book of Mormon is not an historic document, but a 19th century production" then the ball is in your court. You must prove your claim. You cannot demand that I provide proof to refute your statement.

[Dale]

I have read a stack of presentations that the Book of Mormon is only 19th century. So they have hit the ball many times. The difficulty is Book of Mormon believers hit the ball back. I happen to be closer to Blake Ostlers view that the Book of Mormon contains 19th century expansion on the part of Joseph Smith. One that he mentioned was Arminianism in his review of How Wide the Divide. But he also mentioned things he believes is ancient qualities in the text.

As a Book of Mormon believer I can live with lack of direct evidence in Mes-American archeology as long as some things in the text are possibly ancient. Some things in Meso-America are not really a conflict for the text. Other things might be depending on ones point of view. Animals in the Book of Mormon look to me atleast some of them like 19th century animals. Though it could be an example of naming ambiguity as they say. But one has to conclude the Book of Mormon is ancient in order to be open to that possibility.

The *** in the Book of Mormon looks like a domesticated ***. (Mosiah 5:14) If I recall right someone objected to the Tapir idea because they are impossible to domesticate because they are cranky. Although I suppose it might be possible that a miracle could have calmed them down for domestication as long as the Nephites remained rightious.

Ambiguities in the Book of Mormon text exist regarding locations that it's hard to pin it down in Meso-America

I see a lot of KJV snippets in the Book of Mormon. Some see the source as clearly the Bible. I confess that it looks like that to me also. Though I suppose God could have inspired use many Book of Mormon snippets to construct the New Testament. So all the New Testament content need not be the original sources for it's ideas. Though the english of the KJV looks like the Book of Mormon was strongly modeled after it is a translation.

Another argument is every theology issue from Joseph Smith's culture turns up in the text.

One has to be open to the idea the Book of Mormon writers were pretty well educated in Pre-Christian, Christian ideas not to think it was Joseph Smiths knowledge. Baptism prior to Christian the idea of baptism was not clear in Judaism. It was similar. The Book of Mormon writers had a clear idea of Jesus coming, and his baptism to develop a clear idea of baptism. Another I think of is some Book of Mormon passages strike me of partial influnces of Anti-universalist salvation views. Simple words like Jesus Christ, and church turns up in the pre-Christian part of the text.

I am not really troubled by the lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon in Meso-America. Historicity of the book with me is a matter of faith with me. I am impressed with some ancient qualities in the text to be open to its possible historicity. I suppose if direct evidence existed against all the books cities, persons names claims I would abandon insistence upon the books historicity.

[charity]

luigi wrote, "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."

John 20: 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[fox_goku]

I see a lot of KJV snippets in the Book of Mormon. Some see the source as clearly the Bible. I confess that it looks like that to me also. Though I suppose God could have inspired use many Book of Mormon snippets to construct the New Testament. So all the New Testament content need not be the original sources for it's ideas. Though the english of the KJV looks like the Book of Mormon was strongly modeled after it is a translation.

Dale, the BofM clearly incorporates KJV. Joseph Smith overtly used KJV Bible language in his "translation." Some apparent anachronisms, such as the application of New Testament quotations to pre-Christian texts, are an artifact of the Bible being Joseph Smith's language.

As for me, I cannot believe in a literal word for word translation. But, I don't think scripture requires me to have such a belief:

God appears to speak to Prophets in their own language: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue" (2 Samuel 23:2).

The Book of Mormon itself says, "[God] speaketh unto men according to their language unto their understanding" (2 Nephi 31 3). D&C 1: 24 says that God speaks "after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

In 1830 the KJV Bible was the primary education of most people in America. Joseph Smith could not have thought that he could fool people of that time by sneaking in a whole bunch of KJV phrases and quotes. In fact, I think the BofM was popular precisely because it read like familiar scripture.

The KJV English was Joseph Smith's language, and I think the BofM is a testament not only of Jesus, but of Joseph Smith's mastery of the Bible.

In my opinion, translation of the BofM required the ability to recognize key ideas from the "plates" and be able to reword them using Bible language. In that sense, I think Joseph Smith may have had some uniquely sensitive skills.

It seems to miss the point, at least to me, for anyone to accuse the BofM of plagiarism, since the BofM uses the KJV in particularly ingenious ways.

Further, I am convinced that the BofM's extensive usage of Isaiah indicates a much deeper understanding of those scriptures than most people of the time could have had. By the way, some accuse Joseph Smith of stealing from Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" for its use of Isaiah. The problem with that accusation is that it cannot be statistically justified.

My ultimate point is that LDS (and non-LDS) scholars need to take the BofM seriously from an internal point of view instead of worrying about imaginary archeologies. The BofM itself is its own best evidence.

[Dale]

I never have been impressed with Views of the Hebrews as Joseph Smith's source. I think the list of similarities between that book, and Book of Mormon are indirect co-incidences. More differences that similarities exist.

With the plagiarism charge it really doesn't impress me. I just think without evidences of antiquity in the text I would see the use of the KJV as proof of it's modern origins.

Joseph Smith is said to have used many sources in the creation of the Book of Mormon text. How phenominal was Joseph Smith's memory? Was he a genius savant of some type? Did he have a gifted photo-graphic memory. Joseph Smith did not have a stack of many books in front of him while translating. He had no pre-existent finished manuscript to dictate to the scribes. The plates are the only thing he was said to have had.

[cdowis]

>Some apparent anachronisms, such as the application of New Testament quotations to pre-Christian texts,

Your assumption is incorrect. The NT authors are constantly quoting OT sources, *including* missing books in the OT. The so-called "NT quotations" are actually quotations by Paul and others from OT sources, as evidenced by their inclusion in the BOM.

You have it backwards.

[cdowis]

Dale writes:

>I have read a stack of presentations that the Book of Mormon is only 19th century.

What utter nonsense.

I have written on several occasions that prove the BOM could only have been written in the ==20th century==. The parallels are quite compelling, and an objective observer should find it absolutely convincing.

A 20th century reader will instantly recognize the war on terrorists in Afghanistan, the Cold War (and the eventual breaking down of the wall between the two superpowers), the Mafia and their blood oaths, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Dale:

"With the plagiarism charge it really doesn't impress me. I just think without evidences of antiquity in the text I would see the use of the KJV as proof of it's modern origins."

The plagiarism charge is rediculus on its face. The BoM itself gives credit to Isaiah. As far as copying the KJV. I find the differences in wording more fascinating than the similarities. The BoM conforms more closely to the ancient DSS(unknown to JS) than to the relatively modern KJV.

[cdowis]

>The burden is on believers to prove they did.

I feel no burden to prove anything to anyone. It is my personal burden to find out whether the BOM is true because I will be held responsible for my decision.

>The skeptic is under no obligation to prove they didn't.

Yep, as long as they understand the consequence.

[Dale]

Did they know to much for the times in which they lived? The pre-Christian Christian theology they knew was better than anything in the Old Testament I know of as far as Christian theology goes. But I can see how critics can think, but I can see how Joseph Smith could have known about such things. Maybe he was a 19nth century author just trying to convince people he was translation. Such a deceptive act would be an act of fraud of course as he claimed to be the books translator.

[ED500]

Hi there!

The discipline of archaeology can speak for itself... it's the interpretation of archaeological evidences that come into question, and therefore, the scales tip toward the weightier response.

~serapha~

somesaint: While I think that a logical argument can be made that MesoAmerica was the locale for the main events of the Book of Mormon. If God were to reveal today that it took place somewhere else. I'll go with God

.

I agree that Archeology speaks for itself. While not EVERY SINGLE physical places/events in the Bible has been found yet there are ENORMOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL FINDINGS that attests to its HISTORICITY.

Bible Archeology

Bible Archeology 2

Bible_Wiki

Biblical Archeology

Unfortunately many of my LDS friends will use the "God change things...." or "How about the Jonah story..." etc and the likes to DISPROBE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE BIBLE which is fatally wrong defense and comparison of BoM and the Bible.

[thesometimesaint]

ED500:

"Unfortunately many of my LDS friends will use the "God change things...." or "How about the Jonah story..." etc and the likes to DISPROBE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE BIBLE which is fatally wrong defense and comparison of BoM and the Bible."

Since when were the LDS out to disprove the Bible. We acccept the Bible as the word of God.

I would never use the term "God change things" as it sets up too many paradoxes. Further to use Jonah and the whale as proof against the Bible is plain silly. Rather we state that Jonah was a Prophet of God who made serious mistakes, but he was still a Prophet opf God.

BTW NO archeology can prove the Truth Claims of the Bible.

[ED500]

ED500:

"Unfortunately many of my LDS friends will use the "God change things...." or "How about the Jonah story..." etc and the likes to DISPROBE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE BIBLE which is fatally wrong defense and comparison of BoM and the Bible."

Since when were the LDS out to disprove the Bible. We acccept the Bible as the word of God.

I would never use the term "God change things" as it sets up too many paradoxes. Further to use Jonah and the whale as proof against the Bible is plain silly. Rather we state that Jonah was a Prophet of God who made serious mistakes, but he was still a Prophet opf God.

BTW NO archeology can prove the Truth Claims of the Bible.

thesomesaint,

Hey man, that's a big contradiction in one response...

Let me give an example:

MURDER:

On January 1, 2001 @ 2:00 am MR. QQQ killed MR. RRR.

Evidence/proofs: MR. QQQ and RRR were roomates. MR. QQQ's and RRR's car were seen park by thier neigbors (who were having a party) between 1 and 3 am. MR. QQQ's blood and RRR were found on the knife. MR. QQQ's fingerprint was also found on the knife.

Mr. QQQ had a fresh laceration on this arm. Mr. QQQ works during the day. MR. QQQ failed the lie detector test. Mr. QQQ's bloody shirt was found inside his car - both his blood and RRR's blood on it.

Mr. QQQ's co-workers testified that he hates his roomate @ 2 months before the muder.

Now, what kind of truth of do you need when you have all the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the murder?

Do you have to know ALL the factors that lead to the murder? Do you have to know the motive to convict the person? Do you even need his statement - at least to make consider him as the suspect.

I'm kinda laugghing as I write this.....But my point is that it did happen as the court find him guilty BASED ON THE EVIDENCE and his shaky false testimony. Do you need some kind of Faith or belief in a God to decide that this probably happen or it did not happen? If you were a friend of Mr. QQQ - would you doubt the courts decision?

[charity]

ED500, the sometime saint can speak for himself, but I can tell you what he said, that you didn't pick up. The TRUTH claims issue is that even if archeology can prove there was a city of Jericho and it was destroyed at about the same time as the account of Joshua marching the troops around the city seven times and blowing their trumpets, it doesn't PROVE that God told him to do it, or that the trumpets made the walls fall down. It just proves that there was a city there at a certain time period.

And conversely, how many people believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ, His birth to a virgin, His atonement, His sacrifice, and yet there is not one shred of physical evidence to prove it?

[Luigi]

ED500, the sometime saint can speak for himself, but I can tell you what he said, that you didn't pick up. The TRUTH claims issue is that even if archeology can prove there was a city of Jericho and it was destroyed at about the same time as the account of Joshua marching the troops around the city seven times and blowing their trumpets, it doesn't PROVE that God told him to do it, or that the trumpets made the walls fall down. It just proves that there was a city there at a certain time period.

And conversely, how many people believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ, His birth to a virgin, His atonement, His sacrifice, and yet there is not one shred of physical evidence to prove it?

But you do have to admit that the example of Jesus is somewhat different. Few people, even among archeologists that do not believe Jesus was divine, deny that Jesus was a historical person that was considered by many to be a Messiah and that was crucified. The BoM requires a whole other leap of faith entirely, since the evidence for its historicity is not endorsed by any reputable non-Mormon scholar of which I am aware.

[charity]

luigi, but as for a TRUTH claim, which ED500 was asking about, even if a person believes that Jesus was a real person in history, it does not mean they will accept Him as the Messiah. As far as accepting the truthfulness of the Gospel or the Messiah, I don't really see the Book of Mormon and the archeology question as being much different. If you can point me to any person who ever was converted to Christianity on the basis of some archeological finding, then maybe you have a little bit of an argument.

[Dale]

I think people are more interested in persuing the Book of Mormon or Bible based on evidence. If they some reliability evidences for it they are more likely to take the scriptures seriously. The difficulty with the Bible unless you accept creationism science you end up mixing evolution & the Bible. Conversion must involve some amount of subjective feeling, or facts won't impresss you.

[maklelan]

I think people are more interested in persuing the Book of Mormon or Bible based on evidence. If they some reliability evidences for it they are more likely to take the scriptures seriously. The difficulty with the Bible unless you accept creationism science you end up mixing evolution & the Bible. Conversion must involve some amount of subjective feeling, or facts won't impresss you.

Well, Don Parry said something very interesting to me. He said if you consider the beginning of Genesis a temple text (which it is) then evolution and all the other stuff doesn't create any problems whatsoever. I didn't press him to elaborate, but after reading different temple texts and better understanding ancient Near Eastern cosmology it makes a lot more sense.