Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[antishock8]

There must not have been many Mayan, Aztecs and Incans if there is a requirement that all of their cities and artifacts survive...

Who said that?

[USU78]

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.

Why? Do we see a distinction between the debir in a Canaanite temple and an Israelite one? Why not?

[USU78]

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

Our time frame is ca. 600 BCE to ca. 400 CE. List, please, all surviving Maya, Aztec and Inca (?) structures/artifacts that date specifically to that roughly 1,000 year period, giving the year of 'discovery.' {hint: the approximate date the Maya gained any kind of cultural importance was 250 CE, give or take}

[consiglieri]

Wow, this is certainly a lengthy thread! I confess to not having read the thread in its entirety but only the last few pages, so it is entirely possible that someboy has already mentioned the temple of Zerubbabel in this context. According to Ezra, cross-referencing Haggai 2:3, most scholars believe that the temple of Zerubbabel, built in the 6th to 5th century B.C., as a replacement for Solomon's temple, was vastly inferior in size and ornamentation to the original, thus accounting for why those at the dedication ceremony old enough to remember the glory of Solomon's temple wept, while the younger folk cheered. Nevertheless, Zerubbabel's temple appears to have been servicable for performing the ordinances required.

In Sunday school class, I compared Solomon's temple to a Catholic cathedral, while likening Zerubbabel's temple to an LDS ward meeting house.

Does this have a place in the conversation?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[maklelan]

Wow, this is certainly a lengthy thread! I confess to not having read the thread in its entirety but only the last few pages, so it is entirely possible that someboy has already mentioned the temple of Zerubbabel in this context. According to Ezra, cross-referencing Haggai 2:3, most scholars believe that the temple of Zerubbabel, built in the 6th to 5th century B.C., as a replacement for Solomon's temple, was vastly inferior in size and ornamentation to the original, thus accounting for why those at the dedication ceremony old enough to remember the glory of Solomon's temple wept, while the younger folk cheered. Nevertheless, Zerubbabel's temple appears to have been servicable for performing the ordinances required.

In Sunday school class, I compared Solomon's temple to a Catholic cathedral, while likening Zerubbabel's temple to an LDS ward meeting house.

Does this have a place in the conversation?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think so. Keep in mind that the Israelites had several temples, and none of them were quite like Solomon's temple.

[Deborah]

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.

That's what I said! However the critics ignore that completely. I am reminded fo the book "The Source" about how many layers they were digging to find the different civilizations. So how many layers have been dug over the whole continent to find evidence of the Nephites?

[Dan Vogel]

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.

I don't deny that my position is the easier one. They don't call it the "burden of proof" for nothing. However you might nuance your position, it is really the BOM's own claims that are being tested. It has nothing to do with my being satisfied either. I find it odd that you expect no resistence to your arguments and evidence, and am surprised how quickly you resort to subtle ad hominem.

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.

Cute. But nonsense.

[Dan Vogel]

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?

Can you point me to the verses that speak about fuction and it being a woden structure? I'm going by the text, what are you going by?

[William the Conqueror]

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.

If it is a garage apartment with sleeping, bathing, and cooking facilities then it is a dwelling unit in the same manner as the house.

[charity]

Dan Vogel, you are going by your interpretation of the text. There is some question about what the word "manner" might mean. You can say what you think Nephi meant by a word he used, of which we only have a translation.

Another poster has suggested that we go back to the 1828 Webster's dictionary, to more nearly approximate what the meaning might have been, since the meaning of words does change over time.

Notice this defintion for "manner" from that dictionary: "Certain degree or measure. It is in a manner done already. The bread is in a manner common. 1 Sam.21. This use may also be sometimes defined by sort or fashion; as we say, a thing is done after a sort or fashion, that is, not well, fully or perfectly."

Not well, or fully or perfectly as Solomon's temple?

I only suggested wood as a building medium. Certainly we do not have to interpret anything to know that Nephi did not have 150,000 men to send to building a temple, as Solomon did. Can't we then make some leap to say what it took Solomon 150,000 men to accomplish could not have been done by less than 100 by Nephi, if they were the same thing?

[maklelan]

I don't deny that my position is the easier one.

It's only easier because you're only concerned with proving your theory on your own terms, which isn't really difficult for anyone.

Cute. But nonsense.

So the lack of any physical evidence of any kind does not render Solomonic archaeology invalid?

[Dan Vogel]

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?

Of course I know that there are probably many more sites to discover. But that wasn't the point. You had implied that a Jewish/Nephite city or artifact would be indistinguishable from Mayan. Now you argue that they might be distinguishable but undiscovered. What do you think about Sorenson's identifications of Zarahemla with San Lorenzo and Nephi with Kaminaljuyu?

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.

They all belong to the Maya until you can show otherwise, until you can show that the Nephite-others existed.

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).

Yes, but the apostates also lived the law of Moses; they just didn't believe in the coming of Christ.

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.

Maybe, Maybe not.

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.

That's not my problem.

[cdowis]

That's what I said! However the critics ignore that completely. I am reminded fo the book "The Source" about how many layers they were digging to find the different civilizations. So how many layers have been dug over the whole continent to find evidence of the Nephites?

Yeah, but you didn't use cool words like "vestige". You use "dig", I use "excavate".

You gotta go with the lingo.

You might as well get used to it. I have found several of my ideas posted here showing up later in print. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

In fact the printed version is quoted here and my original post is pretty much ignored.

[Dan Vogel]

Why? Do we see a distinction between the debir in a Canaanite temple and an Israelite one? Why not?

You are arguing function, and I'm arguing architecture and overall building design. That's why I referenced Nephi's description. Is there anything in Mesoamerica that looks like someone from Jerusalem built it?

[Deborah]

Yeah, but you didn't use cool words like "vestige". You use "dig", I use "excavate".

You gotta go with the lingo.

Hmmmm! Of course it looks like no one addressed your point number 5 either, even withs such cool lingo!

[Cold Steel]

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

An impressive aspect of this is that critics see even the most minute references as having been derived from either obscure biblical references or equally obscure adumbrations gleaned from questionable sources such as Near Eastern geography books. No smidgen is too small for Joseph's radar. Even NHM was something he could have known about, could have found if he looked in just the right place. This may explain perhaps a few references, but the magnitude is impressive, I think.

NHM, again, looms as a lucky shot, but, as it's been pointed out, it's a place and a time that are right. And it wasn't even known that it was a burial spot until the 1990s.

These mummified remains were

found at the Nahom site in the fairly recent

past. How could Joseph Smith know that

Nahom was a burial site?

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).

Back to the Bible, do we even know what the reference to "steel" was in the original text? Is it a reference to a metal or to strength? Could not the writer be saying that a strong bow is broken in his arms? Nephi having a steel bow (literally) would be preposterous. If it's indeed a reference to strength, then the Book of Mormon would be typically consistent.

My general feeling is that critics have to vastly overrate Joseph Smith in order to underrate the Book of Mormon. Anyone who's traveled to the ruins in Mesoamerica can see many small cement dwellings very much like the type described in the Book of Mormon. I, too, believe it's only a matter of time before these things all come together.

[Dan Vogel]

Dan Vogel, you are going by your interpretation of the text. There is some question about what the word "manner" might mean. You can say what you think Nephi meant by a word he used, of which we only have a translation.

When the text says "save it were not built of so many precious things," does it not imply that all other things were the same?

Another poster has suggested that we go back to the 1828 Webster's dictionary, to more nearly approximate what the meaning might have been, since the meaning of words does change over time.

Notice this defintion for "manner" from that dictionary: "Certain degree or measure. It is in a manner done already. The bread is in a manner common. 1 Sam.21. This use may also be sometimes defined by sort or fashion; as we say, a thing is done after a sort or fashion, that is, not well, fully or perfectly."

Not well, or fully or perfectly as Solomon's temple?

Why do you pick one definition over the others? But given the logic above, the not so many precious things fits your chosen definition at any rate.

I only suggested wood as a building medium. Certainly we do not have to interpret anything to know that Nephi did not have 150,000 men to send to building a temple, as Solomon did. Can't we then make some leap to say what it took Solomon 150,000 men to accomplish could not have been done by less than 100 by Nephi, if they were the same thing?

It's not my fault the text doesn't your notions of realism. I think you can blame Joseph Smith for that.

Note that the text gives only one reason why a temple exactly like Solomon's was not built--the lack of previous things. It does not say

"And I, Nephi, did build a temple after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built as large; for there were no men to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon's; and the workmanship was exceeding fine but small."

[charity]

Dan Vogel, Why choose one defintion over another? Well, that is what we do when we interpret. We try to figure out what something meant, and out of the possibilities, we chose what we see as most likely. You did that with one meaning, I did it with another. That's the way it goes.

I am not glued to my interpretation. It isn't clear exactly what Nephi meant, and we will find out some day. But you certainly should look to see how rigid your own idea is. Do you allow that you could have it wrong?

edited to add: I have no quarrel with Joseph or the Lord over the Book of Mormon. It has more good in it than I will ever be able to live as it is. I am not the critic. I love the Book of Mormon, the historic collection of writings of God's holy prophets. I accept it as it is.

[cksalmon]

Let me just say, Thank Goodness for the board's new "Go To Page [x]" function. The raging debate over "after then manner of" with reference to Solomon's temple is a bit perplexing to me.

With the questioned passage's references to material workmanship, it seems we are dealing with material similitude. I'm not sure I understand some of the LDS apologetic responses raised in this thread to the effect that we can have no idea what on earth the author was really meaning. Maybe we can't know fully. But the text provides a vector of interpretation. It would seem we can follow it out, allowing for our own preconceptions, and still see that he means to suggest that the temple referred to is really like Solomon's, in some sense, not just functionally, not just metaphorically, but materially.

What would it cost the LDS apologist to concede this point? Probably not much, in terms of apologetic ground. Some have argued that the archaeological remains that would vindicate BoM's antiquity either lie yet undiscovered or have been destroyed by the ravages of time. If that is the case, why not understand the text in its less difficult vector-coded trajectory?

But, then, I read texts from a decidedly-Hirschian perspective and, thus, probably just don't understand ancient texts.

Best to all participants.

CKS

[charity]

cksalmon, I can't speak for all apologists. I don't even consider myself qualified to be one, but if you will allow, I will give an answer to the question you asked: "What would it cost the LDS apologist to concede this point?" (That is that Nephi built a temple that looked like Solomon's temple.)

I only bristle at the idea that unless an archeologist finds a temple ruin that is identical to Solomon's temple, it means there were never any Lehites here. And the rigid intransigence that what Nephi meant by "in the manner of" means the architectural design. There is a good case for other interpretations. There is certainly a lack of parallels in what was available to Nephi compared to what was available to Solomon. If the shoe were on the other foot, and they were not protecting turf, I can fairly hear the sneers and jibes of the anti's as they call it to our attention that it took a massive work force to build Solomon's temple. How dare Nephi state that he is doing the same thing with what was not even a drop in the bucket of what Solomon used. What an anachronism, they would say.

Show me a temple ruin that looks like Solomon's temple and I am happy. I don't think you will find the same excitement on the critic side.

[thesometimesaint]

cksalmon:

I am with Charity on this one. I'm not tied to any one interpretation of the BoM just as I'm not tied to any one interpretation of the Bible. As we learn more and more about the ancient Middle East the Bible makes more sense as an ancient document. Obviously the BoM has further to go. But so far it is all good when viewed from an ancient MidEastern culture superimposed on MesoAmerican one.

[Markk]

Hi Julieann,

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.

The text says in verse 10..." And we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses."

When reading in context they followed the Law, all of it, along with the judgements and statutes. The text says as Dan has pointed out , more than once, that it was the same minus the " precious things", itdoes not say anywhere in the text that it would not be built less than Solomons Temple. So as you said ..." I would look to see what was important in the temple to these groups...what had to be there for ritual purposes."

We can, in that they followed the law in "all things", which is allot, the sacrifices, the priesthood and evrythingthat went with it. Levites would have to tend the temple and administer per the Law of Moses, anything less would be totally agaist the law and the text.

The problem here is that the population of the Nephites contradicts the context of the text, which is a internal problem, you have to choose one side or the other and it is a catch 22 either way. I have seen LDS defend both sides. But that aside the context is clear that, they made many steel swords and built a temple like Solomons and followed all the things of the Law of Moses.

Also if we move on to Mosiah, the temple is pretty good size.."

1 And it came to pass that after Mosiah had done as his father had commanded him, and had made a proclamation throughout all the land, that the people agathered themselves together throughout all the land, that they might go up to the btemple to chear the dwords which king Benjamin should speak unto them.

2 And there were a great number, even so many that they did not number them; for they had multiplied exceedingly and waxed great in the land.

3 And they also took of the afirstlings of their flocks, that they might offer bsacrifice and cburnt dofferings eaccording to the law of Moses;

4 And also that they might give thanks to the Lord their God, who had brought them out of the land of Jerusalem, and who had delivered them out of the hands of their enemies, and had aappointed just men to be their bteachers, and also a just man to be their king, who had established peace in the cland of Zarahemla, and who had taught them to dkeep the commandments of God, that they might rejoice and be filled with elove towards God and all men.

5 And it came to pass that when they came up to the temple, they pitched their tents round about, every man according to his afamily, consisting of his wife, and his sons, and his daughters, and their sons, and their daughters, from the eldest down to the youngest, every family being separate one from another.

6 And they pitched their tents round about the temple, every man having his atent with the door thereof towards the temple, that thereby they might remain in their tents and hear the words which king Benjamin should speak unto them;

7 For the multitude being so great that king Benjamin could not teach them all within the walls of the temple, therefore he caused a atower to be erected, that thereby his people might hear the words which he should speak unto them.

8 And it came to pass that he began to speak to his people from the tower; and they could not all hear his words because of the greatness of the multitude; therefore he caused that the words which he spake should be written and sent forth among those that were not under the sound of his voice, that they might also receive his words.

9 And these are the words which he aspake and caused to be written, saying: My brethren, all ye that have assembled yourselves together, you that can hear my words which I shall speak unto you this day; for I have not commanded you to come up hither to btrifle with the words which I shall speak, but that you should chearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your dhearts that ye may understand, and your eminds that the fmysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.

Theres allot there to chew on, but you said above...." If you want the BOM to be an ancient text you would go back to what it might have meant to an ancient. " Well the only way to do that is to read the text of the "ancients who wrote the text and try to interpret it in context, and the context so far tells us that these were Jews, who knew all the Law, made steel weapons and tools, built a mighty Temple, and that there were eventually millions of them in great cities of cement and wood, with goverment, taxation, ships, churchs and syng. etc. And thatthey had massive armies that killed millions of people, people who could read and write, people who were hard workers and skilled craftsman and builders. The context is what it is, one can not change it because of science and lack of archeology. Look at the whole picture in context and you just can't fit it in a little corner of central america.

Take care Julieann

Mark

John 1:12

[Luigi]

These mummified remains were

found at the Nahom site in the fairly recent

past. How could Joseph Smith know that

Nahom was a burial site?

Well, I don't have expertise on this but it seems if there is a city, it has a burial place. I don't know if there is anyway Joseph Smith could have known about the Nehem location, it's unlikely. But to point it out as a burial place seems like a mute point, since if it was place where there were people for any prolonged time people would be buried there. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

[urroner]

The text says in verse 10..." And we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses."

When reading in context they followed the Law, all of it, along with the judgements and statutes. The text says as Dan has pointed out , more than once, that it was the same minus the " precious things", itdoes not say anywhere in the text that it would not be built less than Solomons Temple. So as you said ..." I would look to see what was important in the temple to these groups...what had to be there for ritual purposes."

We can, in that they followed the law in "all things", which is allot, the sacrifices, the priesthood and evrythingthat went with it. Levites would have to tend the temple and administer per the Law of Moses, anything less would be totally agaist the law and the text.

The problem here is that the population of the Nephites contradicts the context of the text, which is a internal problem, you have to choose one side or the other and it is a catch 22 either way. I have seen LDS defend both sides. But that aside the context is clear that, they made many steel swords and built a temple like Solomons and followed all the things of the Law of Moses.

At the time of Josiah, there began a major shift is temple worship in Jerusalem. This also included a modification in the scriptures of that time. What many people, today, believe to be an unchanging set of scriptures from early Israel, was overhauled at the time and the temple worship that existed before this time had been modified greatly by the time of the return from Babylon.

Before the time of Josiah, the Law of Moses didn't play such an important part of the temple or in Israel as it did after this time. Lehi and his family left Jerusalem not to long after the Josiah changes started to take effect and so many of the things that occured in the Second Temple Era that didn't occur in the First Temple Era didn't go with them.

[Markk]

Hi uronner,

Thats not what the text says, it reads...' all things, according to the Law of Moses' Your opinion does not compliment the text.

mark

John 1:12