Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[Dan Vogel]

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.

So, if the Maya and Nephites were distinct peoples, then one should see a distinction in the archaelogical record and Nephite temples just might be distinguishable from Mayan temples.

[Dan Vogel]

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?

I meant "threat" in the mildest way, and "ain't" poetically (I believe "ain't" has been added to the newest edition of the Oxford Dictionary, IIRC).

[thesometimesaint]

Dan Vogel:

Not necesarily. Either one or both could be designed after some other people all together.

One need look no further than modern day LDS Temples with all their differences in architecture. Still all perform the same function.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

But what if I said I constructed my house in the same manner as your house except I painted mine green, wouldn't you assume all other details were exact?

[Dan Vogel]

Dan Vogel:

Not necesarily. Either one or both could be designed after some other people all together.

One need look no further than modern day LDS Temples with all their differences in architecture. Still all perform the same function.

But there was only one Solomon's temple, which had a specific plan. When the text says save it were not so many precious things, it implies that Nephi's temple was the same plan and construction without the same ornamentation.

[maklelan]

The burden is always on those who assert historicity.

That all boils down to whether or not we're asserting a position or simply defending our position from an assertion. It's easy to say, "Prove A to my satisfaction or it automatically defaulst to my conclusion!" and then never accept any information as satisfactory, but if we're not telling you you have to believe it's true, we're just telling you you're not correct in dismissing it so easily. I think you misrepresent what our and your positions are.

But there was only one Solomon's temple, which had a specific plan.

Is that a fact, Dan? I'm afraid I'll have to see some archaeological evidence that Solomon's temple existed before I accept your assertion of historicity. If you cannot provide any then I'll have to deny you the right to make that statement or even hint that Solomonic archaeology even exists.

[charity]

Dan Vogel said: "it implies that Nephi's temple was the same plan and construction without the same ornamentation."

Let's examine that assumption. "Then King Solomon raised up a labor force out of all Israel - and the labor force was thirty thousand men . . . Solomon selected seventy thousand men to bear burdens, eighty thousand to quarry stone in the mountains, and three thousand six hundred to oversee them. (1 Kings 5:13; 2 Chronicles 2:2).

"And the temple, when it was being built, was built with stone finished at the quarry, so that no hammer or chisel or any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built. (1 Kings 6:7)

I would submit that this certainly puts paid to the idea that the total difference between what Nephi said about "in the manner of" was in ornamentation. It would seem to make sense that with a handful of people, the temple they built was "in the manner of" the function, and that the externals were much different. And that with no large marble quarries, and the huge number of men it took to quarry stone, that the building materials were probably mostly wood. How long do wooden structures survive in humid climates when the building is abandoned?

[Markk]

Hi Julieann,

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.

First I'm not trying to make anybody accept anything, people can choose to believe as they like.

Second, what condescending attitude? I know you don't like me and it shows, and I'm sorry for that, but all I did was carefully point out to Charity the different ways "manner" can be used in context, she asked me too, this is what she said..." 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? â??

Please go back and read my last post and show me how I was being condescending to Charity.

Third, I've been in construction for about thirty years, and I have built concrete buildings, wood framed buildings and even adobe buildings and I can tell you that if I built a garage in the same manner as I built the house it would be the same process, means and method, if the house is wood frame, the in the same manner so the garage would be wood frame, if house was tilt up concrete construction , then the garage would also be tilt up concrete construction, sure its the garage and the other is the house, but both were built in the same manner, so also the temple here was built in the same manner as Solomons.

Construction literally means to construct something, and the BoM says that Nephi "constructed" a Temple just like Solomons, minus some ginger bread.

What does the context mean then Julieann, please tell me what it means, the same material, the same means and methods, or the same designâ?¦i.e. Holy of Holies, inner gates, outer gates...etc? I would say all the latter in context, it says..."and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon." I just do not see any other options according to the context of the text?

Please tell me what it means and why my view is wrong?

Take care Julieann

Mark

John 1:12

[charity]

markk, can you tell me how a handful of men, even if Nephi is speaking at the end of a long life, could have become 150,000 men to build a temple "after the manner of Solomon?"

[Markk]

Hi Charity,

markk, can you tell me how a handful of men, even if Nephi is speaking at the end of a long life, could have become 150,000 men to build a temple "after the manner of Solomon?"

That is another issue, and one often discussed, but because of that problem it doesn't change the context of the text. And It doesnt have to mean exact "manpower" to be built in the same manner, I build allot of things all the time in the same manner useing the same means and methods and materials with differing manpower.

If manner does not mean, means and method, materials, and design, what else does it mean. Remeber Nephi made it very clear that he "constructed" this Temple, and the it is a key word in the verse, you can't seperate construt and manner it is repeated twice, and as Dan pointed out Nephi made it very clear that the only thing different was the gems...etc.

It's important that you tell me what you believe manner means in context here, maybe your right?

Mark

John 1:12

[charity]

markk, Temples are special places, unlike other places in a society. Homes, businesses, schools, etc. do not have the same nature as temples. Temples have been seen to be of such import that the society will expend enormous effort to build them. A good example is the Nauvoo Temple. The hardships that the Saints went through to build it are almost unbelievable. And what is it that characterizes temples? What is done in them. What is Nephi referring to when he speaks of a temple in the manner of Solomon? Is he saying that they aren't building temples like the societies around them? That the temple they built was for the same kinds of activities as Solomon's temple, in the "manner" of Solomon, a temple with an inner court, an outer court, a Holy of Holies. Not buildings of a certain square footage, specific building materials.

This is why we can call both the Salt Lake Temple (253,000 plus square feet) and the Colonia Juarez Temple (6800 sq. ft.) temples. How can they be the same kind of building? Because, even though the rooms are arranged differently, the number of rooms is different, the buildlings don't look alike, they have the same function. The exact same activities are carried out in each building.

[Markk]

Hi Chairity,

I'm not sure what your trying to say here, are you saying because temples are different the word manner is interpreted different for them?

The problem with your theory as I see it is there are two quailifiers that shouldn't be ignored in reading the context. 1st "construct", which refers to actual building methods, and the fact that Nephi said it was the same 'physically', except for the gems.

Is he saying that they aren't building temples like the societies around them?

I certainly do not read that into the text, all most all the times the BoM refers to "manner" it relates to the physical, except for the few few times it speaks of language. Nowhere in the text does the context relate to "activites", it speaks of building method of the Temple it's self.

Why is it problematic if this temple was build after the manner of SolomonsTemple?

Mark

John1:12

[charity]

markk,it is only a problem for those who insist that it is a testimony killer if they don't find a miniature Solomon's temple in the jungle somewhere. Minus the ornamentation, of course. It is no problem for me.

[cdowis]

Dan writes, without batting an eye:

"So, if the Maya and Nephites were distinct peoples, then one should see a distinction in the archaelogical record and Nephite temples just might be distinguishable from Mayan temples."

As you said, this is a serious discussion. Are you pretending that we have excavated all BOM era buildings in mesoamerica. Can you please tell us how much of possible sites have been completely excavated to the BOM time period?

In addition:

1. Please tell us how to distinguish nephite/Lamanite artifacts from mayan. For example, if we find a necklace or bracelet, please tell us how we would know which group produced it. As we have =repeatedly= pointed out to you, the artifacts are impossible to label as belonging to one group or another.

2. In case you were unaware, the BOM tells us that there were not only "true" temples, but also many many false religions among both the Nephites and Lamanites. It specifically tells us, for example, that a tower was used by one apostate group in their religious services (does that sound familiar).

3. It is very likely that what few "true" temples were built during the apostate period of the Nephites, they were destroyed during the last war, or simply disappeared into the rainforest. Again, in case you were unaware, there are many unexcavated sites in mesoamerica from the BOM time period.

4. The written records from the BOM time period, as we have =repeatedly= pointed out to you, are virtually nonexistant. They were lost and destroyed, so the most important evidence for Nephites/Lamanites are nonexistant. The physical artifacts do not allow us to distinguish which groups produced them, and the records, which would give us such information, are nonexistant.

[cdowis]

Mark writes

"QUOTE

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

They were taught to build in the fashion of the OW, the BoM says that, this fashion was passed on"

Please give us that citation in the BOM text itself, rather than using your words.

[Markk]

Hi Charity,

If it's not a problem, why go to extremes to twist the context, it says nothing about internal activites, why not just let it stand as it reads? Plus why does it hav eto be miniture, the text doesn't say that, why can't the BoM text stand on it's own, why must it always be interpreted different than context allows?

read my last question to you, youdidn't question the way I used the word mannor, it made perfect sense in context, why question it in the BoM?

Mark

john 1:12

[charity]

markk, excuse me if I say that I think you are the one twisting the text. You insist you know exactly what is meant by "manner" and I think you are wrong.

And why think Nephi's temple was smaller than Solomon's? Probably because Nephi didn't have 150,000 men to build a temple. And because the population of the Nephites was considerably less than the population under Solomon's reign, meaning they would need a smaller temple.

[cdowis]

It is unlikely that any Nephite temples survived the Lamanite wars or the jungle.

Or, they may still be buried.

[Dale]

Mark-Charity has a solid argument.

-----------------

With Book of Mormon animals how do we know from the context modern animals by that name was meant? The context may be read as being ambiguous.

[antishock8]

It is unlikely that any Nephite temples survived the Lamanite wars or the jungle.

Or, they may still be buried.

That's an interesting statement in light of Mayan, Aztec, Incan and other structures/artifacts surviving warfare and time.

[urroner]

That's an interesting statement in light of Mayan, Aztec, Incan and other structures/artifacts surviving warfare and time.

Are you saying that all Mayan, Aztec, Incan, and other structures/artifacts survived warfare and time?

[juliann]

What does the context mean then Julieann, please tell me what it means, the same material, the same means and methods, or the same designâ?¦i.e. Holy of Holies, inner gates, outer gates...etc? I would say all the latter in context, it says..."and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon." I just do not see any other options according to the context of the text?

That is exactly the problem...you are putting your contemporary thinking onto the text. It doesn't really matter what it means to you. You can do it two ways...if you need the BOM to be a hoax then you go back to what it may have meant to JS. If you want the BOM to be an ancient text you would go back to what it might have meant to an ancient.

At any rate, I think it is flat out obvious that the small group could not construct a building exactly like Solomon! They would not have had the manpower or technical skills. I would look to see what was important in the temple to these groups...what had to be there for ritual purposes. I don't see what else would have to be replicated.

[juliann]

That's an interesting statement in light of Mayan, Aztec, Incan and other structures/artifacts surviving warfare and time.

There must not have been many Mayan, Aztecs and Incans if there is a requirement that all of their cities and artifacts survive....how many cities have they found? And how intact are they if they were not made of stone?

[antishock8]

Are you saying that all Mayan, Aztec, Incan, and other structures/artifacts survived warfare and time?

No. Are you saying no ancient Amerind structures/artifacts survived warfare and time?

[cdowis]

That's an interesting statement in light of Mayan, Aztec, Incan and other structures/artifacts surviving warfare and time.

1. Aztec and Incan ruins are irrevelant.

2. How many (what percent) of the known Mayan sites have been completely excavated to BOM time period?

3. Were you aware that many buildings have been built *over* more ancient buildings?

4. Were you aware that the Spanish deliberately built cathedrals over religious buildings?

5. Considering the nature of the last war of extermination, it would be very likely that the Lamanites destroyed any vestige of Nephite religion, especially temples.