Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[thesometimesaint]

Gervin:

I don't know as any knowledgable LDS would say that ALL the evidence was destroyed by the Spanish. But it is beyond dispute that a massive amount of the archaeology was destoyed by the Spanish in their conquest of the New World. Whether the destroyed part conformed to BoM archaeology is an unanswerable question.

The total amount of archaeology dug out of the ground is actually very small, when compared with the amount left to dig. It is rank speculation to say that nothing further of any importance will ever be found.

I tend to think that it is just a matter of correctly identifying the remains. The problem comes in that to identify said remains as Lehite presupposes a belief in the truthfulness of the BoM. Something most archaeologists would be loth to do.

[SleepingWillow]

It appears that there are three schools of thought with regard to Book of Mormon archeological evidence, assuming that the location for the Book of Mormon was Meso America:

Position 1. All archaeological evidences related to the Book of Mormon were either destroyed by the Spanish during their conquest, through modern-day development, or some combination of the two. This assumes, I suppose, that one would be able to recognize a Book of Mormon artifact if one existed. I don't this position has any merit; the Spanish could not systematically destroy evidence for the Book of Mormon culture and leave evidence for other, earlier, cultures and modern development can not single out the Book of Mormon culture over other earlier cultures. The fact that artifacts survive from a wide-spectrum of history is strong testimony that this position is nigh impossible.

Position 2. Book of Mormon cities, material culture, artifacts, art work, writings, etc. have simply not been found and removed from the ground yet. This position, again, assumes that the Book of Mormon culture, examples of gold and silversmithing and steel and iron production, some writing (some word), cities and man-made features would be, if found, recognizable and could be connected to the writings and descriptions in the Book of Mormon. This position may also assume that archaeologists are simply digging in the wrong place of the world. I consider this position to be highly unlikely given the robust activities surrounding Meso American excavations and research. I am amazed at the depth of research into Pre-Classic and Classic as reflected in papers and scholarly publications. This part of the world is generating much information and discussion. The conclusions are dynamic because of the amount of work being done by universities in North and Central America. I find it highly unlikely that if Book of Mormon evidence is discernible that not one shred of evidence - or one credible link - has been excavated or correlated.

Postion 3. Evidences for the Book of Mormon people, culture, cities, events, have been found and excavated - they just haven't yet been identified as such. I would characterize this position as unlikely and rapidly moving to a highly unlikely or impossible status. This position sounds more like a ploy when offered up ("prove that it isn't so") but it doesn't hold much weight unless the LDS investigators are willing to put their assumptions and correlations in front of the very people who have excavated and written about the Meso American culture. Historians and anthropologists are pretty keen to discover connections between cultures, to explore these interactions, and to show cultural progress, cultural diversions, and cultural shifts. I believe this position will continue to be less tenable as more and more is uncovered in Meso America, as more murals are discovered, more cities excavated, more writings uncovered and translated, and as professionals share their findings. I'm not sure of the extent to which the LDS historian or archeologist is going to be a part of this dialogue (If not now, when?).

Just my summation but not nearly as concise as Dan Vogel's "it's all Mayan until shown otherwise" Exactly

Very good post.

[cdowis]

Very good post.

Is this is the best you can do.... I'm not going to waste my time with you. You now have the honor of being the first on my ignore list.

>But it is beyond dispute that a massive amount of the archaeology was destoyed by the Spanish in their conquest of the New World.

The major contribution of the Spanish was the destruction of the records.

[Gervin]

Please give us just ONE individual who actually advocates this position.

I'll guess I'll go with sometimessaint and change the first word uner Position 1 to "massive"

However it is true that virtually all of the written records have been destroyed from the BOM time period. This is a legitimate argument, based on historical fact.

A legitimate argument for what? That we don't have any archeological evidence?

Tell us specifically what percent of the KNOWN archeological sites have been excavated to the BOM time period.

So, you are an advocate of the second position? What percentage of known sites would have to be excavated to the correct strata to reveal Book of Mormon artifacts?

As I have posted many times, have these individuals actually read the BOM text itself? Are they willing to actually take seriously a book delivered by an angel. Please give us specific individuals who have extensively studied the BOM text. Again, what you think is irrevelent. Give us facts.

Since you seem to be oh so very fact-oriented, exactly what are the names of "these individuals" you refer to, above? Why does their particular level of expertise in the Book of Mormon determine the degree to which the LDS historian presents archeological or historical evidence for the book? If you can't make a case for archeological evidence, don't choose to make a case for archeological evidence, or pre-determine that your case for archeological evidence can't be shown because someone else doesn't have a knowledge of the Book of Mormon that meets your satisfaction ... then you simply don't have a case. If your argument is that acceptance of Book of Mormon archeological evidence hinges on an acceptance of the miraculous claims of transmission, then you really don't believe in the history of the book yourself. You simply believe in a miraculous transmission and have taken everything else off the table (i.e., it's an impossibility that there would exist any other records by the Book of Mormon people that have yet to be found, it's an impossibility that there are other records buried in Cumorah that give wonderous details of Mesoamerican life, etc., it's an impossibility that another culture woud have come into contact with Book of Mormon culture and actually

recorded that experience, etc).

Please tell us how to differentiate a Nephite/Lamanite artifact from a "Mayan" artifact. A necklace -- tell us how to identify what group produced it.

see how easy it is to fall into the ploy of position 3? How do you know that Nephites or Lamanites inhabited the land occupied by the Mayan? If you can somehow establish that proposition then it will be the result of identifying material or cultural evidence as described in the Book of Mormon. It might be found in writings, in artwork, in material artifacts related to their ability to work in gold and silver and steel, it might be in the verification of geographical features, it might be a simple inscription - just a word or a letter - on a potsherd that ties to the purported languages or beliefs of the people in the Book of Mormon. If you simply believe that they were wholly and completly subsumed into Mayan culture then the Book of Mormon is really a story of the Mayan people. When you can prove the existence of a culture or a civilization then we can talk about the nuanced differences in crafting necklaces from shells (oddly, the Book of Mormon doesn't mention the significant worth of things like shells and jade that were so important to the Maya).

typed fast sorry for typos. a manhattan calls me

[cdowis]

I'll guess I'll go with sometimessaint and change the first word uner Position 1 to "massive"

Snort. Most of the BOM archeological evidence is buried under centuries of rainforest. Are your "apologists" claiming that the Spanish conducted massive archeological excavations to the BOM time period and "destroyed" the remains. This whole argument is silly, except as it relates to the written records which could have survived. Don't insult my intelligence with such a phoney argument.

A legitimate argument for what? That we don't have any archeological evidence?

So, you are an advocate of the second position? What percentage of known sites would have to be excavated to the correct strata to reveal Book of Mormon artifacts?

All three of these positions are correct, and not mutually exclusive. The FACT is that a very small percent of BOM time period has been excavated in KNOWN sites. Please prove me wrong and give us facts.

Since you seem to be oh so very fact-oriented, exactly what are the names of "these individuals" you refer to, above? Why does their particular level of expertise in the Book of Mormon determine the degree to which the LDS historian presents archeological or historical evidence for the book? If you can't make a case for archeological evidence,

Please tell me my position on archeology and the BOM, and give specific posts. You pretend that I have made arguments which I have not made.

don't choose to make a case for archeological evidence, or pre-determine that your case for archeological evidence can't be shown because someone else doesn't have a knowledge of the Book of Mormon that meets your satisfaction ... then you simply don't have a case. If your argument is

You are making up a phony argument that I have never made. This discussion is quickly coming to an end unless you stop your games.

that acceptance of Book of Mormon archeological evidence hinges on an acceptance of the miraculous claims of transmission, then you really don't believe in the history of the book yourself. You simply believe in a miraculous transmission and have taken everything else off the table (i.e., it's an impossibility that there would exist any other records by the Book of Mormon people that have yet to be found, it's an impossibility that there are other records buried in Cumorah that give wonderous details of Mesoamerican life, etc., it's an impossibility that another culture woud have come into contact with Book of Mormon culture and actually

recorded that experience, etc).

see how easy it is to fall into the ploy of position 3? How do you know that Nephites or Lamanites inhabited the land occupied by the Mayan?

Sigh. Where have you been?

If you can somehow establish that proposition then it will be the result of identifying material or cultural evidence as described in the Book of Mormon. It might be found in writings, in artwork, in material artifacts related to their ability to work in gold and silver and steel, it might be in the verification of geographical features, it might be a simple inscription - just a word or a letter - on a potsherd that ties to the purported languages or beliefs of the people in the Book of Mormon. If you simply believe that they were wholly and completly subsumed into Mayan culture then the Book of Mormon is really a story of the Mayan people. When you can prove the existence of a culture or a civilization then we can talk about the nuanced differences in crafting necklaces from shells (oddly, the Book of Mormon doesn't mention the significant worth of things like shells and jade that were so important to the Maya).

Get back to us when you can give a cogent, intelligent discussion. Your quantity is not sufficient to overcome the lack of quality in your comments. You just rattle on and on with garbage comments. These issue have been addressed many many times, both in this thread and others.

typed fast sorry for typos. a manhattan calls me

[Dale]

I don't know of any texts from Meso-America that have survived to tell a story different than the Book of Mormon. If a text was found tommorrow & later translated you would have a difficult time proving it related to real places. Unless of course you had something outside the text to verify it. Brant Garder in his Bible vs. The Book of Mormon film review I think said only 38 city names had been translated for ancient Meso-American cities. And that was out of thousands of places discovered. And these were outside of proposed Nephite territory anyway. And I guess that was only of place names dating back to A.D. 250 to A.D. 800.

[maklelan]

I don't this position has any merit; the Spanish could not systematically destroy evidence for the Book of Mormon culture and leave evidence for other, earlier, cultures and modern development can not single out the Book of Mormon culture over other earlier cultures. The fact that artifacts survive from a wide-spectrum of history is strong testimony that this position is nigh impossible.

I'm not one to latch on to any one theory, but there is some merit to this theory--not as the sole reason, but as a contributing factor. An interesting fact is that the early Spanish burnt over 100,000 texts in one Mayan location alone. A more interesting fact is that De Landa and others burnt these texts because they contained lies and superstitions from the devil, like baptism and sacraments and the like. These two statements from De Landa show that their destruction of texts was systematic, not general. They could have wiped out all the textual information because they thought it "false Christianity."

"We found a great number of books in these letters, and since they contained nothing but superstitions and falsehood of the devil we burned them all, which they took most grievously, and which gave them great pain."

"The Devil has got here ahead of us and has shown false Christianity."

[Bertram]

thesometimesaint,

I had posted that Meridian link earlier on Dec 12 @ 10:28 P M.

Who is John P Pratt and what are his Credentials?

[Gervin]

Snort. Most of the BOM archeological evidence is buried under centuries of rainforest.

I'm not sure if your statement is more bravado or hope but I know that it isn't based on any analysis of existing archeological evidence and determination of probability. I've worked with archeologists who design probably models based on known locations and geographic markers (primarily) but know of no such work done for Book of Mormon locations.

All three of these positions are correct, and not mutually exclusive.

So your first (pre-edited) reaction to my post was it was garbage and now you tell me that all three positions are correct. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

The FACT is that a very small percent of BOM time period has been excavated in KNOWN sites. Please prove me wrong and give us facts.

Since there are no BOM archeological evidences then you can't rightly say that "most BOM archeological evidence is buried." That is fact.

Sigh. Where have you been?

I'm in the real world. I'd like to welcome you here.

Get back to us when you can give a cogent, intelligent discussion. Your quantity is not sufficient to overcome the lack of quality in your comments. You just rattle on and on with garbage comments. These issue have been addressed many many times, both in this thread and others.

Us? Who do officially represent? I simply wanted to frame what I saw as the 3 positions of the LDS on MesoAmerican archeology and the BOM. I wasn't really looking for validation but thanks for telling me that all three are correct. There certainly are many forums where Meso American issues are being addressed (google MesoAmerica and journal and you get about 300,000 hits).

[charity]

Bertram, you posted the link. Did you not read it? There is a profile of John P. Pratt next to the article giving his degrees. You can get more looking him up on the internet. Okay?

[Bertram]

Thank you for your response, charity!

Yes, I have indeed read the contents of the Link I posted earlier.

As an old "map" man myself, I was hoping to be able to place some credibility on any new information on "Book Of Mormon Lands"!!

To provide Maps as Brother Pratt does, presumably related to factual information, I was just a little perturbed at little reference, in his "CV", of anything Archeological!!!

Maybe I am a little naive, in my thirst for proof, being Spiritually convinced, but just maybe my human "doubting Thomas attitude" just likes to clutch to concrete (cement) tentacles!!

God Bless.

[fox_goku]

One can always claim. "There's gold in them there mountains." How long must one dig before one can be satisfied that, "There's NO gold in them there mountains"?

I guess when it comes to the emotions of religion there is always ONE more place to dig.

But we must face reality: there is no such thing as Book of Mormon archeology. If there was, it would hailed as one of the greatest scientific findings ever.

You can keep digging, but I am reserving my shovel for the garden.

[cdowis]

>How long must one dig before one can be satisfied that, "There's NO gold in them there mountains"?

In case you are unaware, you keep digging in a known excavation site until you reach the last ("bottom") layer of that site. Most known potential excavation sites have not been excavated to the BOM time period.

However, you can prove me wrong. Please give us facts instead of silly, stupic comments.

[Gervin]

cdowis: if all 3 of the positions I suggested are, as you say, correct then you believe that Mormon cities and artifacts have been found ... just not recognized as such. If this is true then what is more digging going to reveal that hasn't already been revealed and how do intend on proving that these new finds are evidence for the BOM? Or, if you wish, why do excavated finds from the correct time periods not reveal BOM evidence?

[thesometimesaint]

Bertram:

John P. Pratt writes a monthly column for Meridian Magazine giving one L.D.S. perspective on current science. He has a Ph.D. in astronomy and specializes in religious chronology and ancient calendars. He has authored several articles in the Ensign and professional journals, on his website at www.johnpratt.com, or in a bound volume which is now available. His lovely wife Ruth has written books on family history. They are the parents of five wonderful children.

John P. Pratt is doing a reveiw of the work done by V. Garth Norman.

V. Garth Norman (M.A., Brigham Young University) serves as director of Archaeological Research Consultants and research director of the Ancient America Foundation.

A sample of one of his reviews. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=cmV2aWV3

[Merry]

Evidences for the Book of Mormon people, culture, cities, events, have been found and excavated - they just haven't yet been identified as such. I would characterize this position as unlikely and rapidly moving to a highly unlikely or impossible status.

This position is incompatible with the conservative interpretation of the BOM.

Maybe I am a little naive, in my thirst for proof, being Spiritually convinced, but just maybe my human "doubting Thomas attitude" just likes to clutch to concrete (cement) tentacles!!

That Doubting Thomas Attitude is called "objectivity" Very healthy

I've worked with archeologists who design probably models based on known locations and geographic markers (primarily) but know of no such work done for Book of Mormon locations.

At least not by those who believe in the LDS claims for the BOM.

Or, if you wish, why do excavated finds from the correct time periods not reveal BOM evidence?

Because the core for the BOM story is in an entirely diferent time period?

The "folks" in the land Northward are Nephites. I don't see any loose description of thers, they are migrated Nephites.

Agreed

as concise as Dan Vogel's "it's all Mayan until shown otherwise" Exactly

Statement stands for itself.

'Nuff said.

[cdowis]

"it's all Mayan until shown otherwise"

This is based on the assumption that there is a uniform group known as the Mayans, just as there is a single uniform group living in Iraq.

Another possibility is that the designation of "Maya" (which is actually a modern term) is composed of several groups, each competing with each other. This possibility can partially be confirmed by the incessent wars among the various city/ states.

Vogel is truly a one dimensional thinker, as evidence by this statement, and his other writings. A book delivered by an angel is simply not within the realm of possibility.

[cdowis]

>cdowis: if all 3 of the positions I suggested are, as you say, correct

They are not mutually exclusive. Each of them has merit.

>then you believe that Mormon cities and artifacts have been found ... just not recognized as such.

I said that even if we were to find a Nephite city, it would be difficult to identify it as such. We would have to compare it to geographic markers in the BOM text itself, rather than artifacts. Artifacts themselves give us little information on the individuals who produced them. We can find commonalities, e.g. was there commerce between cities, etc.

>If this is true then what is more digging going to reveal that hasn't already been revealed and how do intend on proving that these new finds are evidence for the BOM? Or, if you wish, why do excavated finds from the correct time periods not reveal BOM evidence

I simply point out that any supposed BOM artifacts are buried under centuries of rainforest. However, potentially some distinctive BOM artifacts have been mentioned on this forum, such as certain metals, remains of fauna and flora, etc. which are "missing" from the archeological record. Some artifacts have already been found, e.g. cement, but from later time periods.

No one is impressed by the towers used in religious purposes, as mentioned in the BOM text, so any of these other artifacts would simply be dismissed as "Mayan", so it is a fruitless search. A book delivered by an angel simply lies outside the realm of possibility.

[fox_goku]

>How long must one dig before one can be satisfied that, "There's NO gold in them there mountains"?

... Please give us facts instead of silly, stupid comments.

cdowis: Call my comments (or me) stupid all you want, but the FACT is that there is NO Book of Mormon archeology that would be recognizable as such by professional archeologists. You want facts. That is THE fact.

By the way, I am a BofM believer and hold the book as scripture. I find it unfortunate that fellow BofM believers resort to derogation in order to "defend" the BofM. I assure you that the BofM deserves better defense than that.

[Bertram]

thesometimessaint,

Thank you for your further Link on Brother Pratt.....I have added it to my Documents!

I approach things in a very basic manner.....non-dictatorial and, hopefully, open-minded.

Having established possible/probable "map" locations, can anyone provide me with any likely follow-up information on subsequent Excavation/physical exploratory work, within these mapped areas?

In the meantime I am drawn to remarks by certain posters to the effect that, inter alia, little credence can be given to a "book" revealed by an Angel!!!

I just wonder, particularly at this time of Year, if they also believe that little credence should be given to a young Virgin who was also visited by a Heavenly Messenger???

Giving it little credence would certainly change the World as we Christians now know it!!

[Dan Vogel]

"it's all Mayan until shown otherwise"

This is based on the assumption that there is a uniform group known as the Mayans, just as there is a single uniform group living in Iraq.

Another possibility is that the designation of "Maya" (which is actually a modern term) is composed of several groups, each competing with each other. This possibility can partially be confirmed by the incessent wars among the various city/ states.

True, but the Maya that I'm talking about originated in Asia, not Israel.

Vogel is truly a one dimensional thinker, as evidence by this statement, and his other writings. A book delivered by an angel is simply not within the realm of possibility.

How can you deny that the circumstances of the book's origin aren't legitimate cause for caution? We would be fools not to proceed cautiously when presented with such a story.

[thesometimesaint]

Bertram:

The few archaeologists I know of work on shoestring budgets, and tend to go where something to peak the interest has already been found(Indiana Jones) not withstanding).

The area of MesoAmerica wre talking about is still thousands of square miles. But who knows something of interest might showup tomorrow.

[cdowis]

>cdowis: Call my comments (or me) stupid all you want, but the FACT is that there is NO Book of Mormon archeology that would be recognizable as such by professional archeologists. You want facts. That is THE fact.

If you would read my posts, you would realize that I agree completely with you.

>By the way, I am a BofM believer and hold the book as scripture. I find it unfortunate that fellow BofM believers resort to derogation in order to "defend" the BofM. I assure you that the BofM deserves better defense than that.

I do not "defend" the BOM. It is able to defend itself without any help from me, thankyouverymuch.

This is a hobby.

As a BOM believer, if you find my comments offensive, I suggest that you put me on your "ignore list". Otherwise, stop whining, read my comments carefully and take notes.

[cdowis]

"Maya"

>True, but the Maya that I'm talking about originated in Asia, not Israel.

Of course you are only talking about Asia.

"One dimensional"

>How can you deny that the circumstances of the book's origin aren't legitimate cause for caution? We would be fools not to proceed cautiously when presented with such a story.

You have an interesting definition of "caution". In a previous post, DHP was rather detailed in his description of your thinking process so I need not repeat it here.

[Dan Vogel]

"Maya"

>True, but the Maya that I'm talking about originated in Asia, not Israel.

Of course you are only talking about Asia.

Do you have proof of any other Maya?

"One dimensional"

>How can you deny that the circumstances of the book's origin aren't legitimate cause for caution? We would be fools not to proceed cautiously when presented with such a story.

You have an interesting definition of "caution". In a previous post, DHP was rather detailed in his description of your thinking process so I need not repeat it here.

Who is DHP? What post? And what thinking process? Sorry, I don't follow you.

You seem to imply that the only reason for rejecting BOM historicity is that I'm an unbeliever in the supernatural. That's an ad hominem (circumstantial), because if focuses on my personal beliefs, rather than on my arguments. It would be just as wrong for me to say you wouldn't believe BOM historicity if you weren't a believer in the supernatural. This kind of argument usually shows up when the apologist can't produce the evidence being demanded by the critic, which is your obligation and burden in the discussion.