Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[serapha]

The BoM quite accurately describes a topograghy and cultures most consistant with MesoAmerica. Where do you propose to put the Lehites?

Hi there...

I have great difficulty getting them out of the Middle East... I don't see that archaeology supports those segments of the bom, therefore, I don't even worry about the claim to being anywhere in America.

~serapha~

[maklelan]

Hi there...

I have great difficulty getting them out of the Middle East... I don't see that archaeology supports those segments of the bom, therefore, I don't even worry about the claim to being anywhere in America.

~serapha~

Ar eyou aware of the discoveries of unique lands and names that correspond perfectly with the lands and names described in the journey of Nephi and his family around Arabia?

[Dan Vogel]

Pretty difficult, huh? So why do you guys keep insisting that you have evidence?

Evidence of literary and historical anachronisms maybe.

You're so prolific at filling in holes in history. Why don't you tell us? I'm sure at some point you'll tell us what we believe anyway.

I'm under no illusion that filling in holes amounts to either evidence or proof.

What of NHM and Bountiful and the Old World evidence? That is legitimate archeological data, and it testifies specifically of Lehi. Archeologically speaking, the Lehites are completely and totally plausible. To insist otherwise is to hold up lack of evidence as more convincing than archeological evidence to the contrary.

Y'know, I presented you with a bunch of evidence in an argument about three months ago and you fell off the planet. You never did respond to my argument. In my experience, you have a proclivity for dismissing or ignoring evidence when you have no way around it.

If I didn't answer, it was likely because it was off topic or it was too involved and would required more time than I had to give. Even now I hesitate to respond to Nihm/Nahom. The altars with NHM on them are legitimate, but they don't testify "specifically of Lehi." There just isn't enough data to make that connection so confidently.

You are right that I can't prove anything, but you can't either.

I'm happy to make this a matter of faith, are you?

In such a stalemate you find an advantage in being able to exclude us from scientific legitimacy.

I find it odd that a faith wants to be scientifically legitimate.

You do it incorrectly, as well. You say that the archaeological evidence needs to be more solid before you will grant us the right to participate in actual archaeology, but what body decides on the legitimacy of the claim? You?

Not me. Your fellow apologists have said there is no such thing as BOM archaeology. Blake Ostler said it in Sunstone Magazine just in the past year. There no city, no artifact that you can point to and say the Nephites were responsible. That's not my fault.

We're pretty exited about the things that we've found, but someone who makes their living off of not believing us is not really in a position to make any judgment on the weight of our archaeological claims, especially when he's not an archaeologist. If you want to think there's no such thing as BoM archaeology that's your prerogative, but you're stepping far outside the scope of your training and authority when you decide for the archaeological community in general how we are to be viewed.

I don't have to do that because the archaeological community has already done it for me. Besides a few believing archaeologists, who in the archaeological community believes that BOM archaeology exists? Even non-believers have to concede the existence of Bible archaeology. Attacking me won't change that.

[maklelan]

Evidence of literary and historical anachronisms maybe.

And all the stuff that is there that shouldn't that continues to stagger the imagination of academia? You play that down as much as possible. One can be easily explained while the other has yet to be explained. You guys are still trying, but nothing seems to satisfy the criteria.

I'm under no illusion that filling in holes amounts to either evidence or proof.

Fair enough.

If I didn't answer, it was likely because it was off topic or it was too involved and would required more time than I had to give. Even now I hesitate to respond to Nihm/Nahom. The altars with NHM on them are legitimate, but they don't testify "specifically of Lehi." There just isn't enough data to make that connection so confidently.

And yet lack of data in other spheres testifies openly of falsehood to you? Granted you are less outspoken about it than others, but your "archaeology" argument rests on the lack of identifiable artifacts.

I'm happy to make this a matter of faith, are you?

Sure am. On an even playing field something has to tip the scales one way or another. I've always been happy accepting the rationality of the conclusions of others just as long as they afford me the same courtesy.

I find it odd that a faith wants to be scientifically legitimate.

It's not my faith that I want you to stop berating, it's our scholarship. Whether or not we show anything to be true or false I appreciate a little professional courtesy. I may question your methods occasionally, but Irespect you as an historian. I only ask that you refrain from taking pot shots at our scholarship.

Not me. Your fellow apologists have said there is no such thing as BOM archaeology. Blake Ostler said it in Sunstone Magazine just in the past year. There no city, no artifact that you can point to and say the Nephites were responsible. That's not my fault.

You'll excuse me for not ceding the inference that Sunstone employs the work of my "fellows."

I don't have to do that because the archaeological community has already done it for me. Besides a few believing archaeologists, who in the archaeological community believes that BOM archaeology exists? Even non-believers have to concede the existence of Bible archaeology. Attacking me won't change that.

Again you equate the belief of the validity of the Book of Mormon claim with the reality of Book of Mormon archaeology. I'll wait for your response on NHM and then we can pick this back up.

[Markk]

Hi,

I see a few problems with "BOM archeology", one, it starts with a preconceived notion, then goes out and tries to find a place where the notion fits. True archeology is much like hermeneutics, the finds should interpret them self. There is so much Mesoamerican archeology out their that speak volumes of who the people were, what and who they worshipped, their inter structure and economies, and they all contradict the BOM. In order to use a method where one starts with a fact, and then goes out and finds antiquity to match the fact, the fact must always complement the fact at all points or at the least most points. LDS archeology always points out a possibility, without discussing what has already been found that would contradicts that possibility in the first place.

Another problem is that LDS archeology demands that certain things can not be known, while other things can be known, as long as they compliment the â??findâ? of the story. A example is it is often said, â??how do you know what a sword would look like that was made by a BOM peopleâ?. or that â??East may really mean North, and North mean west etcâ?¦â? If one uses this logic then how can one pick and choose what is â??allowableâ? to be used in the literal sense as the English allows. I could say how do you know what â?? Narrowâ? means or what â??Christâ? means, or what â??treeâ? means, maybe trees mean rocks. If you are going to eliminate discrepancies by this method, then nothing can stand as fact in the first place.

Then there is the status quo of the originator, JS. He made it very clear what and where these people were, it was obviously accepted and passed on until recent finds proved it basically impossible. or highly improbable. A example is when people suggest that it was OK for JS to change his vision accounts, it is said because he received it and knew in the first place, itâ??s OK, yet this is not accepted in BOM archeology, it is said he didnâ??t know or understand correctly where the Hill was, or who the Lamanites were. This shows the method of eliminating the contradicting evidences, as they come to light, and only use a complimentary possibility when it fits into the preconceived evidence, while all the while ignoring what evidence is already there and established. The current method is nothing more than a complicated Dewy Farnsworth method.

If members would actually seek what is found already and analyze them on the basis and evidences the actual finds demand, then they would see that BOM archeology is just not there. BOM archeology exists only in theory on paper, and on the net, it does not exist in the field.

Mark

John 1:12

[Brant Gardner]

I see a few problems with "BOM archeology", one, it starts with a preconceived notion, then goes out and tries to find a place where the notion fits.

I have a problem with this characterization. First, it happens to be the way that most science is done. It is called a hypothesis, and then the hypothesis is tested. Are you suggesting that you have a problem with the scientific method?

True archeology is much like hermeneutics, the finds should interpret them self.

I can't think of any examples of where this is true for either discipline. If it were true, we wouldn't need either archaeologists or textual scholars. We'd all simply know what we saw. It simply doesn't work that way. All texts and all archaeological data require interpretation - which is why we see different interpretations of the same data.

There is so much Mesoamerican archeology out their that speak volumes of who the people were, what and who they worshipped, their inter structure and economies, and they all contradict the BOM.

This statement is not correct either. We certainly have data that tells us about Mesoamerican peoples, but what it contradicts is the supposition that the Book of Mormon is the genesis of all cultures in the New World which perforce should have been copies of the Old World. I agreee that the this particular premise (though certainly one that has been traditional) is incorrect. However, from a purely anthropological/ethnohistorical perspective, it never could have been correct. That doesn't mean that the text doesn't fit the Mesoamerican context - it means that hypothesis was incorrect. You may understand that the failure of one hypothesis does not require the failure of all hypotheses on a similar topic. That is the reason that hypotheses are tested against the data. Doing so with the Book of Mormon in a way that is more consonant with the way history and culture contacts actually work yields quite favorable results - using the facts of archaeology as found.

Another problem is that LDS archeology demands that certain things can not be known, while other things can be known, as long as they compliment the â??findâ? of the story. A example is it is often said, â??how do you know what a sword would look like that was made by a BOM peopleâ?. or that â??East may really mean North, and North mean west etcâ?¦â?

Shall we start with the most obvious question? What is the effect of translation on the underlying text? Can a translation produce a term in the translated text that relates to the original, but is actually incorrect? Hint, the answer is yes. Another hint - it happens in the King James Version.

Next question, can cross-cultural contacts yield descriptions that are misleading in the reporting language when describing something in the observed foreign culture? Hint - yes. Hint - see the various Spanish discussion of the native swords.

What you are describing as a "problem" exists as a problem in lots of histories and lots of contexts. Are you ready to toss all of history - and suggest that the KJV's anachronisms mean that the Bible should be removed from the list of possible histories?

If one uses this logic then how can one pick and choose what is â??allowableâ? to be used in the literal sense as the English allows.

And there it is. The English is obviously important, since that is what we have. The Book of Mormon fundamentally claims that it was written in a different language. Therefore, arguments about what you think English means are a bit like making theological pronouncements based on an English mistranslation (or poor translation) of the Hebrew or Greek Bible.

Then there is the status quo of the originator, JS. He made it very clear what and where these people were,

Your understanding of Joseph Smith's history isn't doing much better than your pronouncements about science. This is incorrect as well. It is a matter of record that Joseph Smith speculated, and that his opinion shifted with new evidence (such as the publication of Stephens and Catherwood's book). Joseph Smith and everyone else had an opinion and expressed it. They were varied, and continue to vary. They also continued to be changed when applied to the data. That is how ideas change. Since there is no indication that this was ever a matter of revelation, you are suggesting that an early opinion is a required opinion. I can't think of anyone who would agree with you. Most of us don't want to accept that the world is flat (except in the new definition given in the recent popular book of that name).

it was obviously accepted and passed on until recent finds proved it basically impossible. or highly improbable.

Kind of like some of the things people used to believe about the Bible, huh? Are you really ready to suggest that we toss the Bible? I'm not.

If members would actually seek what is found already and analyze them on the basis and evidences the actual finds demand, then they would see that BOM archeology is just not there.

I am a member. I studied Mesoamerica in graduate school and have published on the topic. I have kept up with the field as well as an interested amatuer can. I have actually studied the Aztec and Quiche languages and am at least conversant with the literature produced in those languages. I suspect that I have exactly the background that you have just predicted ought to tell me that there is nothing to the Book of Mormon. Except that I believe that there is and I see rather good evidence that the Book of Mormon was produced in that culture. I offer my experience as a direct contradiction to your hypothesis.

In the way of science, I think that means that your hypothesis must be incorrect.

[cdowis]

Dan cleverly writes:

> But, unlike Mesoamerica, it [the unknown island of the BOM]

has evidence of Hebrew and Egyptian writing

I do not understand what you are talking about. Please show us in the BOM that the venacular was egyptian and hebrew. I do not see that at all. In fact, it says that their language was unknown to any other nation.

While they were familiar with Hebrew and egyptian, it probably was the sacred language of the plates of brass, not their venacular. Similar to the european Jews.

I would expect the island language to be a unique language, unknown to any other location..... perhaps, with a hieroglyphic writing because of its egyptian heritage.

[Dale]

I saw a scholar in the New Mormon Challenge try & deflect the NHM, and other geographic matching features the text that seem to match the real world. I am still thinking that the case for geographic features have not been deflected. I think until I see this case really rebutted it's atleast a starting point for developing future BOM archeology. It may not be confirmed places mentioned in the BOM, but I am still confident I can trust that support for the text. It still might be beyond the ability of Book of Mormon believers to confirm it, but it's enough for a believers belief.

To me the research is as good as Bible reliability evidence lists my Evangelical friends put in apologetic works. So I classify it as Book of Mormon reliability evidence. It may not be BOM archeology in the technical sense. But it is I think archeological research on the text. If an archeologist found a place that might have been a place mentioned in the Bible I don't think it is wise to auto-matically reject it. It is wise to be cautious with the research gathered but its still good research.

I am not aware of any case for Bible features that is as interesting as the case for the geographic features in 1st Nephi. What interests me is from the text you can chart a travel route, and chart a proposed real travel route in the real world. It has survived to me the test of conflict that a fake travel route would face if going in the wrong directions. So I believe the proposals being made are good proposals.

[antishock8]

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?

I'm unaware of any Book of Mormon archaeology existing as of today.

[thesometimesaint]

antishock8:

Depends on what you are looking at.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

[Jerubaal]

I'm unaware of any Book of Mormon archaeology existing as of today.

Ignorance is no excuse:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

[TAK]

Brant:

I have a problem with this characterization. First, it happens to be the way that most science is done. It is called a hypothesis, and then the hypothesis is tested. Are you suggesting that you have a problem with the scientific method?

How does this work in archeology? When an archeologists starts a dig.. do they say Hmm..? This must be Mayan and then proceed looking only for things they know to be Mayan rejecting those things that do not fit or do they proceed and after five years of digging conclude something is Mayan?

BofM Archeology it appears to me is a bit of a scavenger hunt. You have clues from the text of the BofM and you are running around trying to find a place that fit your clues.

[urroner]

Brant:

How does this work in archeology? When an archeologists starts a dig.. do they say Hmm..? This must be Mayan and then proceed looking only for things they know to be Mayan rejecting those things that do not fit or do they proceed and after five years of digging conclude something is Mayan?

BofM Archeology it appears to me is a bit of a scavenger hunt. You have clues from the text of the BofM and you are running around trying to find a place that fit your clues.

What would Nephite ruins look like?

[antishock8]

Ignorance is no excuse:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

Are you telling me that mesoamerican archaeology is acutally Book of Mormon archaeology?

[charity]

Most likely some is Book of Mormon archeology and some isn't. That would be consistent with the idea that there were Nephites and Lamanites, Mulekites, Jaredites, and OTHERS. If it is the others, then no, it isn't Book of Mormon, even if it is contemporaneous.

[TAK]

What would Nephite ruins look like?

I suspect Nephite ruins would look something like this:

[antishock8]

Most likely some is Book of Mormon archeology and some isn't. That would be consistent with the idea that there were Nephites and Lamanites, Mulekites, Jaredites, and OTHERS. If it is the others, then no, it isn't Book of Mormon, even if it is contemporaneous.

I'm not looking for conjecture. I'm hoping to see/read about some 100% real Book of Mormon archaeology. I'm actually pretty interested in knowing about Lamanite/Mulekite/Nephit/Jaredite archaeology... I'm sure it would be just as fascinating as, say, Persian archaeology which is also thousands of years old.

[urroner]

I'm not looking for conjecture. I'm hoping to see/read about some 100% real Book of Mormon archaeology. I'm actually pretty interested in knowing about Lamanite/Mulekite/Nephit/Jaredite archaeology... I'm sure it would be just as fascinating as, say, Persian archaeology which is also thousands of years old.

So anti, what would Lamanite/Mulekite/Nephit/Jaredite archaeology look like and how would we be able to tell it apart from non-Lamanite/Mulekite/Nephit/Jaredite archaeology?

Personally I don't think you have the foggiest idea, but you just love asking silly questions continually especially after you have been given the best possible answer. I've noticed that in you.

I suspect Nephite ruins would look something like this:

But don't you have to live in Kansas to get there?

Who would want to live in Kansas anyway? Maybe that's why the Nephites can't be found. They were too embarrassed to admit they were from Kansas.

[antishock8]

So anti, what would Lamanite/Mulekite/Nephit/Jaredite archaeology look like and how would we be able to tell it apart from non-Lamanite/Mulekite/Nephit/Jaredite archaeology?

Personally I don't think you have the foggiest idea, but you just love asking silly questions continually especially after you have been given the best possible answer. I've noticed that in you.

But don't you have to live in Kansas to get there?

I have no idea what Book of Mormon archaeology would look like. Are you saying that Mesoamerican archaeology is Book of Mormon archaeology?

[charity]

urroner, you are hilarious, but it isn't a joke.

When you asked "Who would want to live in Kansas anyway? Maybe that's why the Nephites can't be found. They were too embarrassed to admit they were from Kansas."

You had it right, though. One of my granddaughters was born in Topeka, and her mother said, "Poor child. It will always be on her birth certificate that she was born in Kansas!"

[Brant Gardner]

How does this work in archeology? When an archeologists starts a dig.. do they say Hmm..? This must be Mayan and then proceed looking only for things they know to be Mayan rejecting those things that do not fit or do they proceed and after five years of digging conclude something is Mayan?

Sometimes the hypothesis drives the search for sites. The NWAF did this successfully, expecting, and finding, preclassic sites in Southwestern Mexico.

Sometimes the original hypothesis stars with anassumption of either a people or dating which is changed by the data, such as happened with the Olmec.

BofM Archeology it appears to me is a bit of a scavenger hunt. You have clues from the text of the BofM and you are running around trying to find a place that fit your clues.

Then you are not well informed. There are serious and secularly-recognized scholars working on this who are applying the same kinds of rigor attached to any other problem of comparing a text to the archaeological record.

[TAK]

The NWAF did this successfully, expecting, and finding, preclassic sites in Southwestern Mexico.

Then you are not well informed. There are serious and secularly-recognized scholars working on this who are applying the same kinds of rigor attached to any other problem of comparing a text to the archaeological record.

I must not be well informed I did not recall what NWAF was ..

I found this quote .. Is this what you are referring to?

"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John E. Clark, Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF,

Do you agree with that statement? You know that BofM cities that have been found ?

[Brant Gardner]

Do you agree with that statement? You know that BofM cities that have been found ?

I agree with the statement as Dr. Clark made it and understanding his context. The problem isn't in what has been found but rather in the erroneous assumptions of what a Nephite city would look like. Too often we asume (and this includes both LDS an non-LDS) that Nephite cities ought to look like Old World cities and that thei iconography ought to look Christian. Neither of those assumptions have basis in ant history of the type of cltural contact the text requires nor anything in the development of common Jewish or Christian iconography.

Critics may complain that Mesoamerica doesn't look like the Book of Mormon. That is simply the wrong perspective. It is based on modern ungrounded assumptions applied to a context the critic doesn't handle.

Dr. Clark is undoubtedly correct that we have found cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The problem is finding ways to identify them as Nephite rather than some other ethnic description. at this point, there is nothing that tells us what physical remain is diagnostically Nephite rather than just part of the overall culture area.

[antishock8]

I agree with the statement as Dr. Clark made it and understanding his context. The problem isn't in what has been found but rather in the erroneous assumptions of what a Nephite city would look like. Too often we asume (and this includes both LDS an non-LDS) that Nephite cities ought to look like Old World cities and that thei iconography ought to look Christian. Neither of those assumptions have basis in ant history of the type of cltural contact the text requires nor anything in the development of common Jewish or Christian iconography.

Critics may complain that Mesoamerica doesn't look like the Book of Mormon. That is simply the wrong perspective. It is based on modern ungrounded assumptions applied to a context the critic doesn't handle.

Dr. Clark is undoubtedly correct that we have found cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The problem is finding ways to identify them as Nephite rather than some other ethnic description. at this point, there is nothing that tells us what physical remain is diagnostically Nephite rather than just part of the overall culture area.

That's an interesting take given that many ancient cultures that had a wide dissemination of architecture and culture have been identified as such. However, it would seem to me that the cultures found in the Book of Mormon are so peculiar and the language such that the cities and artifacts found thus far would be readily identifiable as such. It seems a little brash to dismiss other cultures entirely that are identifiable as those cultures and re-label them. Aren't there ANY Book of Mormon archaeological sites anywhere that are identifiable as Lamanite/Mulekit/Jardite/Nephite?

[Markk]

Hi Brant

I have a problem with this characterization. First, it happens to be the way that most science is done. It is called a hypothesis, and then the hypothesis is tested. Are you suggesting that you have a problem with the scientific method?

Iâ??m in construction, we specialize in historic restoration, we have over thirty projects on the historical register, I deal with archeologists all the time. I have never dealt with one that comes out with a preconceived notion of what they are going to find. When digging a foundation, for example, they screen and evaluate anything they may find in the soil, the find interprets itâ??s self, if itâ??s a old shovel, thatâ??s what it is, they do not try to make it into something it is not. LDS archeology does not find a artifact and then try to determine what it is, they come in looking specifically for things that will support the BOM and ignore what is already known about existing antiquities. I have e-mailed many Mesoamerican archeologists and actually corresponded with a few on the issue, and they do not go in there looking for a preconceived theory, they let the finds come to them and analyze them for what they are and make determinations on the facts. This is done objectively because they do not have a preconceived agenda. LDS archeology reflects more of a Indiana Jones movie if anything.

I can't think of any examples of where this is true for either discipline. If it were true, we wouldn't need either archaeologists or textual scholars. We'd all simply know what we saw. It simply doesn't work that way. All texts and all archaeological data require interpretation - which is why we see different interpretations of the same data.

You didnâ??t get my point. One of the first rules is hermeneutics let the document interpret itself, there is only one true interpretation and that is what the author intended, while our supreme court justiceâ??s donâ??t always get it right, there is only one true interpretaion of the constitution, and that is what the writers meant. In archeology there is only one thing a artifact can be, and that is â??what it isâ?. One works from the find out to determine what the find is, you donâ??t read a book, find a find, and then tweek either the book to fit the find, or tweek the find to fit the book, the find is always what it is. A book or document may help verify a find, but not at the expense of the rest of the finds or the whole context of the book, it must all be complimentary, or your barking up the wrong tree.

LDS archeology is not complimentary to Mesoamerican finds, its contradictory, it ignores the vast amounts of data that secular archeologists have found and written about and projects a BOM slant.

This statement is not correct either. We certainly have data that tells us about Mesoamerican peoples, but what it contradicts is the supposition that the Book of Mormon is the genesis of all cultures in the New World which perforce should have been copies of the Old World. I agreee that the this particular premise (though certainly one that has been traditional) is incorrect. However, from a purely anthropological/ethnohistorical perspective, it never could have been correct. That doesn't mean that the text doesn't fit the Mesoamerican context - it means that hypothesis was incorrect. You may understand that the failure of one hypothesis does not require the failure of all hypotheses on a similar topic. That is the reason that hypotheses are tested against the data. Doing so with the Book of Mormon in a way that is more consonant with the way history and culture contacts actually work yields quite favorable results - using the facts of archaeology as found.

See above, The BOM and the LDS seers have said that it projects the genesis. I understand you have to change that and add that in the mix, but bottom line is there is not one proof to the story of the Bom, there are so many contradictions that it is just a mess. Iâ??ve asked you this before and I donâ??t believe you have ever answered, â??what is the single most prolific tangible evidence that can be proven as a BOM artifact"?

Where is their a BOM dig that is producing BOM artifacts?

More Later

Mark

John 1:12