Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[thesometimesaint]

antishock8:

I chose a few at random. I don't see anyhting that would make them different than say a Roman ruin or, post-exilic Babylonian ruin.

What I am looking for is some "Jewish" ruin that is distinguishable from a non-Jewish ruin.

[Dan Vogel]

antishock8, your proof is not proof, of course. That is the catch. Your statement is incorrect because it is incomplete. Your statement should be, "All the ruins discovered so far have been non-Jewish Amerindian." Then with the qualification, you are correct, but you have also not proven the Book of Mormon is not true.

Curious. What in your mind would prove it unhistorical? (Note that for me unhistorical and untrue are not the same.)

Same deal as if I, as a defense attorney, paraded 1,000 people onto the witness stand saying, "I did not see John Jones committ the crime." Then the prosecution puts one person on the stand who says, "I saw John Jones committ the crime" and all my thousand weren't worth a thing. That's what you just did. "This ruin is not Lehite, that ruin is not Lehite. . ." When that one comes up with "Zarahemla" carved in a door post, you are toast.

Curious. Until the day when we become toast, what should we consider you?

[Dan Vogel]

I don't know where the Book of Mormon text say's the Nephites left old world style ruins.

I think a temple like Solomon's is close enough. But I don't think you have any evidence to give the Lehite's credit for what those from Asia accomplished long before they showed up.

I am not sure anything has been discovered. I know of no history outside the Book of Mormon that exists to contradict it. No ancient map exists to contradict it. If a propose place could not be Zarahemla then show me the real name.

The burden is on you to prove that it is Zarahemla.

[charity]

antishock8, if you could stop being snide and adolescent the discussion could be on a higher level. As you have no doubt ascertained, most of the serious scholars here accept that the locations of the Book of Mormon are meso-American locations. I assume you understand that this area is much different in climate than Palestine.

You suggested desert locations in the US for the Book of Mormon? I don' think you will find anyone who would suggest that Zarahemla was near present day Phoenix. Evidently, you have no familiarity with the Book of Mormon. Would you like to try to show any internal evidence for a desert location in the New World?

Markk, you speak of "in the manner of." Please tell me what is meant by that phrase as used by the Book of Mormon prophets? Did it refer to external architecture? Internal functional design? Materials? Methods of construction?

Hey, when you give the same recipe to 10 women for a dish to bring to the ward dinner, you can't even see a resemblance in what they come up with!

[thesometimesaint]

Dan Vogel:

"I think a temple like Solomon's is close enough."

Would that be functions, or size, of various ornamentations, etc? What exactly would a Temple "Like" Solomons be?

[charity]

Dan Vogel asked me: "Curious. Until the day when we become toast, what should we consider you?"

I don't care what you consider me. You can consider me a crack pot, a loser, whatever. The history of the world is that the crack pot comes up with the workable invention (see Wright brothers), the loser does make the last second touchdown and wins the game (think BYU-Utah 2006 or even better the Miracle Bowl where BYU scored 21 points in 2 1/2 minutes.) The dogs bark, but the wagons roll on through. And as the ads for the new Rocky movie are saing, "It isn't over til it's over." So consider me what you want.

[Dan Vogel]

Take note, for example, of Dan Vogel's response to my recent post on so-called NT citations in the BOM. Having no intelligent response, he simply uses mockery, a "rotfl" as his official response. It is just too funny for words, angels, golden plates, etc etc. It simply cannot be taken seriously.

Sorry, but your post can't be taken seriously because it begs the question. You have dismissed all literary anachronisms because the BOM's quoting them proves they existed in lost pre-NT documents? I repeat

In another post, Dan says "The default position is that the bom is a 19th century production." He is actually saying is that the default position is that there are no angels, no golden plates. And he is simply incapable of moving from that position. Any other position is impossible to contemplate.

The burden is always on those who assert historicity. If they can't make their case, then the default position is 19th century origin. What's so hard about that? Despite what you think, I can think of various kinds of evidence that would cause me to reevaluate my position. That evidence hasn't been produced. I think it is ludicrous to imply that the rest of the non-Mormon world are either indifferent or stubborn about BOM historicity. I think most informed apologists know that their evidence might be good enough to impress other Mormons, even convince some doubters to stay in the church, but that it isn't especially strong enough to impress non-Mormon scholars. Mayby someday it might be, but it ain't now!

[thesometimesaint]

Dan Vogel:

"The burden is always on those who assert historicity."

Why is is not just as incumbant of those who claim ahistoricity to slight verifiable evidence of such?

I think that most people would assume that the Bible is an ancient document(whether they believe the Truth Claims or not). Yet all they have is new reprint of an old translation. That may or may not conform to the original writtings.

[Dan Vogel]

One does have internal textual evidences for the Book of Mormon. Books like Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited details those evidences. The believers is limited to trying to show parallel evidence. Hugh Nibley, and others have noticed a lot of semitic qualities in the text. Direct evidence has been harder because Meso-American archeology has not produced much for believers to work with.

That's been my point all along. It's not impossible to make an indirect case, but it's certainly more difficult and less impressive.

The case against the Book of Mormon is not based on direct evidence against the books claim's. It is instead trying to demonstrate the book conflicts with what limited stuff we do know. The critics case is based on parralel evidence also. Until they have direct evidence against the text I don't need direct evidence to prove the text. So no direct major evidence that would settle the matter for or against the text.

Direct evidence of non-existence? I'm not sure what that would look like? That's the problem with starting from a position of belief: it's not easy to move from it. Combining the plasticity of texts with the creation of ad hoc solutions, this tap dance could go on forever irregardless of the BOM's true status.

[Dan Vogel]

Dan Vogel:

"The burden is always on those who assert historicity."

Why is is not just as incumbant of those who claim ahistoricity to slight verifiable evidence of such?

I think that most people would assume that the Bible is an ancient document(whether they believe the Truth Claims or not). Yet all they have is new reprint of an old translation. That may or may not conform to the original writtings.

I'm not sure I understand the question. The Bible is an ancient document, yes, but that hasn't stopped some scholars from questioning the historical accuracy of some of its claims.

[Dan Vogel]

Dan Vogel asked me: "Curious. Until the day when we become toast, what should we consider you?"

I don't care what you consider me. You can consider me a crack pot, a loser, whatever. The history of the world is that the crack pot comes up with the workable invention (see Wright brothers), the loser does make the last second touchdown and wins the game (think BYU-Utah 2006 or even better the Miracle Bowl where BYU scored 21 points in 2 1/2 minutes.) The dogs bark, but the wagons roll on through. And as the ads for the new Rocky movie are saing, "It isn't over til it's over." So consider me what you want.

Be careful not to fall off your soapbox. The question was actually rhetorical in the hope that you might see that how utterly silly your threats are in a discussion that's supposed to be serious.

[Dan Vogel]

Dan Vogel:

"I think a temple like Solomon's is close enough."

Would that be functions, or size, of various ornamentations, etc? What exactly would a Temple "Like" Solomons be?

In what way do you imagine Mayan temples are like Solomons?

[Deborah]

The burden is always on those who assert historicity. If they can't make their case, then the default position is 19th century origin.... I think most informed apologists know that their evidence might be good enough to impress other Mormons, even convince some doubters to stay in the church, but that it isn't especially strong enough to impress non-Mormon scholars. Mayby someday it might be, but it ain't now!

Belief in the Book of Mormon is not based on its historicity and never has been except for the few intellectuals who would rather depend on the arm of man rather than the power of God. There is no question it would be exciting to find a whole city that conforms with BOM descriptions, but even if it were found who is to say that what was found would be interpreted by the world to be what we claim it to be.

The church has never based belief on the BOM to be found in the archeology. Scholars and apologists have persued this for their own interest, but even those who do still find their belief based on something other than the "evidence" left by man.

I find in my reading of the BOM that it is impossible to associate it with a mere 19th century creation of a young, uneducated even if very intelligent farmer's son. I can easily picture the civilization described existing. Given that the whole Nephite civilization was wiped out I don't know why it would be expected that we would find a evidence of their existence. I would think that the cities themselves would have been razed and then built upon or left for the jungle to cover again.

The whole discussion of the BOM archeology is one of interest but of no value to the majority of saints who believe in it because of the spirit of testimony and not the learning of men.

[Dale]

I think direct evidence would be a map dating to Book of Mormon times, or something similar that either confirms, or totally discredits proposed Book of Mormon locations. Dr. Sorenson in his books has drawn up as good as a proposed Book of Mormon locations as best he can. But I kind of think it like the connect a dot puzzles I used to do as a kid in a vague way. If you had a vague written description of the dots I connected, but no puzzle how would you know what the picture looked like? You could look for similar picture picture puzzles, and try to match them up. Meso-America has been a close match for Book of Mormon believing Dr. Sorenson so that's what he tries to match the text's vague internal map up with.

I see Bible reliability evidence lists that are worse than Book of Mormon reliability lists. In my experience believers in scriptural reliability tend to be more mpressed with evidence others are not. I admit I take the belief in some scriptural reliability, but am not a strict scriptural literalist.

[antishock8]

antishock8:

I chose a few at random. I don't see anyhting that would make them different than say a Roman ruin or, post-exilic Babylonian ruin.

What I am looking for is some "Jewish" ruin that is distinguishable from a non-Jewish ruin.

Well, I provided the link to show you what Jewish ruins look like. I think there is enough information there to ascertain what Jewish ruins look like vice Mayan/Olmec/Aztec/North American Amerind ruins. In addition, there are distinct artifacts found at these Jewish ruins that confirm a Jewish heritage. I believe so far no Jewish artifacts from ancient America have been found. I would expect a land populated with millions of Jews along with their synagogues and other typically Jewish structures to have left structures behind with that ethnic imprint. No doubt if we can find a few Mesoamerican temples, a few synagogues wouldn't be hard to dinstinguish that fall in line with the Orthodox tradition? The bottom line for me is that the dearth of archaeological evidence only reinforces the need for a spiritual witness to the BofM. That's the only kind of legitimate witness this particular text has... the rest is purely hypothetical conjecture that puts at ease the restless mind.

[juliann]

This, of course, begs the question...can an anti be satisfied with any amount of evidence? There is an assumption that s/he can here...yet these questions remain unanswered.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=11803&st=0

Suppose we have a pristine archaeological site in Mesoamerica. What evidence would we need to find to demonstrate that this site is Zarahemla? How would you go about establishing a test for such a question.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=5540&st=0

For those that think it should be easy to find conclusive proof of the BOM through archaeological evidence, I offer the following challenge.

All that survives in Mesoamerica from pre-400 AD is archaeological artifacts, and some Maya royal inscriptions and reliefs. Assume, for the sake of Argument, that Diocletian's persecutions of Christianity were successful, Constantine never converted, and Christianity disappeared around 300 AD. Using solely archaeological artifacts and imperial Roman inscriptions, reconstruct the history of Christianity. What, precisely, could we prove about Christianity using solely archaeological artifacts and Roman royal inscriptions? To give you a little help, you can turn to Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, 2nd ed.(Mercer UP, 2003), which includes all major archaeological data.

These questions need to be answered before "proof" is demanded.

[antishock8]

This, of course, begs the question...can an anti be satisfied with any amount of evidence? There is an assumption that s/he can here...yet these questions remain unanswered.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=11803&st=0

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=5540&st=0

These questions need to be answered before "proof" is demanded.

No. Not really. That's a red herring. Your example has nothing to do with archaeological evidence proving the existence of millions of Jews who lived here in the Americas. Proving that a religion existed is vastly different than proving that real people with real architecture existed. Oranges and apples, ma'am.

[juliann]

For anyone who has forgotten the topic:

How do we know Book of Mormon believing scholars arn't reading the Book of Mormon content back upon Meso-American archeology? Atleast works like An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon try & harmonize the text with archeology. Other works of critics of Book of Mormon historicity try & build up conflict between the text & archeology. Who has the correct approach to the Book of Mormon and archeology?

The questions need to be answered. Anti's effort to dodge them illustrates how important they are.

[Dan Vogel]

Belief in the Book of Mormon is not based on its historicity and never has been except for the few intellectuals who would rather depend on the arm of man rather than the power of God. There is no question it would be exciting to find a whole city that conforms with BOM descriptions, but even if it were found who is to say that what was found would be interpreted by the world to be what we claim it to be.

I would say that faith in the BOM shouldn't depend on archaeological evidence. I see the two as completely separate. If BOM historicity is given up and people want to believe in its inspiration and witness for Jesus, that's fine with me.

Theoretically, very strong evidence for BOM historicity could be discovered, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen. So, we're stuck with what we got. That's fine. But we should all admit that we're working with a very low level of evidence. Contextualizing a book that hasn't been established as authentic is extremely problematic.

The church has never based belief on the BOM to be found in the archeology. Scholars and apologists have persued this for their own interest, but even those who do still find their belief based on something other than the "evidence" left by man.

Yes and no. Like other book-religions, Mormonism has place a lot of weight on history, specifically the reality of certain historical events. JS was careful to provide as much evidence of his calling as he dared, which made his claims stand out in the age of reason and deism. In another way, however, no one gets a testimony of the BOM's historicity. The truth of the BOM (according to the book itself) is its message. So, JS combined both kinds of evidence, which is a key to his success.

I find in my reading of the BOM that it is impossible to associate it with a mere 19th century creation of a young, uneducated even if very intelligent farmer's son. I can easily picture the civilization described existing. Given that the whole Nephite civilization was wiped out I don't know why it would be expected that we would find a evidence of their existence. I would think that the cities themselves would have been razed and then built upon or left for the jungle to cover again.

In my view, JS couldn't have hoped to be sucessful if he couldn't present a believable and credible story. He he was unsucessful in that endeavor, we wouldn't be here discussing him now.

You give a reason for not finding evidence, which assumes that there is evidence to be found. Either way, a long of direct evidence, or even compelling evidence for Lehite presence in Mesoamerica, is a problem.

The whole discussion of the BOM archeology is one of interest but of no value to the majority of saints who believe in it because of the spirit of testimony and not the learning of men.

Yes, I'm quite aware of LDS apathy when it comes to anything historical, actually. In my experience (limited no doubt), LDSs are more socially attatched to their faith than anything else. But things like that are of little concern to me.

[Cold Steel]

Why does cement mean cement but steel mean something else?

Good question. The answer is because there's more than one meaning to "steel."

No one really believes Nephi had a "steel" bow, as referenced in the Book of Mormon. The word "steel" also means "strong." More precisely, "to make hard, strong, or obdurate; strengthen."

[thesometimesaint]

Dan Vogel:

I don't think the Mayan and the BoM peoples were the same. Though they possibly could have had some contact with each other.

[Markk]

Hi Charity,

Markk, you speak of "in the manner of." Please tell me what is meant by that phrase as used by the Book of Mormon prophets? Did it refer to external architecture? Internal functional design? Materials? Methods of construction?

Hey, when you give the same recipe to 10 women for a dish to bring to the ward dinner, you can't even see a resemblance in what they come up with!

Like all words, it depends on the context of the sentence, verse, story paragraph or what ever...

Example

Ether 10: 7, 23-27, 33

7 Wherefore he did obtain all his fine work, yea, even his fine agold he did cause to be refined in prison; and all manner of fine bworkmanship he did cause to be wrought in prison. And it came to pass that he did afflict the people with his whoredoms and abominations.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

23 And they did awork in all manner of bore, and they did make gold, and silver, and ciron, and dbrass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did ework all manner of fine work.

24 And they did have asilks, and fine-twined blinen; and they did work all manner of ccloth, that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness.

25 And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plow and to sow, to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash.

26 And they did make all manner of tools with which they did work their beasts.

27 And they did make all manner of aweapons of war. And they did work all manner of work of exceedingly curious workmanship.

This context wourldrefer to " all different types", I doubt any one would refute that.

33 And in the days of Com there began to be robbers in the land; and they adopted the old plans, and administered oaths after the manner of the ancients, and sought again to destroy the kingdom.

Here "manner" would refer to "style" of or "method" might be a good word, either way, the context dictates keeping to the old way that the people before them did, in other words they copied after the way of the ancients taking to the same criminal methods of those before.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordainedâ??being acalled and bprepared from the cfoundation of the world according to the dforeknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to echoose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great ffaith, are gcalled with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

This is easy to understand in that it goes on to explain that "manner" means, which is "system, rules, or order", they were ordained.

4 And it came to pass that many of the Lamanites did come down into the land of Zarahemla, and did declare unto the people of the Nephites the manner of their aconversion, and did exhort them to faith and repentance.

'Manner" means here, "the method of" or "what happend and how".

14 And I, Nephi, did take the asword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many bswords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their chatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

Here "manner refers to "like labans swords was", labans sword was a pattern for many more that were to be made for the people.

15 And I did teach my people to abuild buildings, and to bwork in all manner of wood, and of diron, and of copper, and of ebrass, and of steel, and of fgold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Again "manner" would mean "different types of" materials, means and methods.

16 And I, Nephi, did abuild a btemple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of cSolomon save it were not built of so many dprecious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomonâ??s etemple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of fSolomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Here "manner" is very specific in that he explains the "type of" or "means and method of" the construction, and makes it clear that it was, the construction, like the temple of Solomon.

Charity, context is everything and literial meanings of words must never desroy the context of the text especially if it is a translation with out any knowlage of the original language, in the BoM 's case context is all you really have to go by if you want to be honest with the text.

Take Care

mark

john 1:12

[charity]

Dan vogel wrote, " The question was actually rhetorical in the hope that you might see that how utterly silly your threats are in a discussion that's supposed to be serious."

Threat? An expression of confidence in the eventual outcome providing proof of the Book of Mormon's historicity. Sorry. I should have used more serious words. Just as you probablyi shouldn't use the word "ain't" in a serious discussion. Instead of saying "toast" I should have said something more on the order of "when your position is shown to be completely without merit."

Do you perceive that as threat to your belief system?

[juliann]

Here "manner" is very specific in that he explains the "type of" or "means and method of" the construction, and makes it clear that it was, the construction, like the temple of Solomon.

Charity, context is everything and literial meanings of words must never desroy the context of the text especially if it is a translation with out any knowlage of the original language, in the BoM 's case context is all you really have to go by if you want to be honest with the text.

The "context" you are using (which is your way trying to make everyone accept your definitions) is of your own making so you might want to tone down the condescending atttitude. For example, I could say that I constructed the garage in the same manner as the house. That doesn't make a garage a house.

[Dan Vogel]

Good question. The answer is because there's more than one meaning to "steel."

No one really believes Nephi had a "steel" bow, as referenced in the Book of Mormon. The word "steel" also means "strong." More precisely, "to make hard, strong, or obdurate; strengthen."

I would rather think JS made the assumption about steel from the Bible.

During a hunting excursion with his brothers, Nephi broke his bow, â??which was made of fine steelâ? (16:18). This event seems inspired by Davidâ??s psalm in 2 Samuel 22:35, which poetically states: â??[God] teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken in mine arms.â? Joseph Smith was probably unaware that â??steelâ? had yet to be invented and that the King James translators should have more properly rendered it: â??so that my arms can bend a bow of bronzeâ? (RSV).