Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[Dan Vogel]

If you are going to parrot Jeff Lindsey at least have the common decency to provide a link for the reader.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme8.shtml

I find the following summary from the article interesting:

Of the various Afro-Asiatic languages represented in Uto-Aztecan vocabulary, the following occur in descending order of frequency:

Canaanite (cited in its Hebrew form)

Aramaic

Arabic

Ethiopic

Akkadian (usually in its Assyrian form)

Ancient Egyptian

I'm no linguist, but finding similar words among these several languages is a long way from demonstrating Hebrew and Egyptian were either spoken or written by the Lehites. And how is it that the Aztec would preserve the language of a small group of colonists whose culture and language didn't have much impact on Mesoamerica? I believe Brant Gardner has vigorously argued that evidence of Hebrew and Egyptian are absent because the Lehites and Jaredites adopted native languages.

[Brant Gardner]

And how is it that the Aztec would preserve the language of a small group of colonists whose culture and language didn't have much impact on Mesoamerica?

Just for the record, I am not convinced by Stubb's evidence, though it is presented much more competently than anyone else who has made similar suggestions. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced for both linguistic and ethnohistorical reasons.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I am unconvinced about the Book of Mormon <grin>.

[Brant Gardner]

Yes, I understand that real peer review is used in some BofM studies. I am just hoping for a lot more. I want to read these studies with confidence. I cannot be an expert in all fields, and therefore I need to rely on the MOST rigorous means of quality control.

I agree with you here. Unfortunately, very well-meaning LDS authors have (and continue) to publish articles and books that wouldn't pass LDS reviewers (and don't, if you read some of the reviews in FARMS Review). As with any discipline, one should know which publications come from places where there has been some rigor in the review of the text.

[Dan Vogel]

Makelan,

A follow up point. You said, and I responded as follows:

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.

To this response, you said:

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

I'm not sure what you are referring here about Sunstone, but Ostler has been a leading apologist for the past twenty-five years. I don't always agree with him, but I do in this circumstance. Here is what he said:

We don't know where the events in the Book of Mormon took place. To be honest about that fact, we ought to cease "Book of Mormon tours." Moreover, there is no such thing as Book of Mormon archaeology unless and until we find something that can be directly linked to the text somewhere. (SUNSTONE, May 2005, 69-70)

As you recall, I came in on this discussion with a similar statement. Now, Nihm is not a Nephite city and there are no Nephite artifacts there. So, while you think it correlates with the text, it doesn't contradict Ostler's statement, nor mine.

[Dan Vogel]

Just for the record, I am not convinced by Stubb's evidence, though it is presented much more competently than anyone else who has made similar suggestions. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced for both linguistic and ethnohistorical reasons.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I am unconvinced about the Book of Mormon <grin>.

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, I'm looking forward to the publication of your work by Kofford Books. It will be easier to study and hopefully speed the discussion.

[Dan Vogel]

>You have the beginnings of some good questions - to which there are some very obvious answers. What happens when you take a culture that was heavily dependent upon olives and grapes and place them in a location where olives and grapes don't grow at all, or not well? etc

Also include differences in geography and climate. Any culture that Lehi brought with him would be buried under a thousand years of rainforest, etc, by his descendants.

This could mean two things: the Lehites are fictional or lost--either way, you have no direct evidence.

[Dan Vogel]

Integrating the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerican studies would be a waste of time unless scholars had a reason for so doing. There are huge holes in what we don't know about these peoples and their cities. One could stand in an ancient Nephite city and not even realize it.

Maybe. But that's a big problem not to be passed on to the critics.

[Hammer]

I suppose it's to assuage your own nagging doubts? It takes a lot of faith to sustain a belief in the supernatural I think... and so apologetics help calm the alarm bells that ring when counterpoints are made to your claims. Regardless, it provides interesting dialogue, no?

Yes it does provide interesting dialoque. I only get a little peeved when I see some here "demanding' answers. It isn't our job. There are devine sources that can't even 'demanded' to anti up. LOL sorry .

I also find it peevish when they reject all answers no matter what.

Attitude is everything. I believe many need to spend hours and hours studying the Psalms. They teach how to praise the Lord, pray, and praise the Lord.

This is the correct attitude to gain knowledge even here. Instead I find so much rejecting of valid truths and bad attitudes it doesn't seem productive.

I like productive dialogue.

[Dale]

Maybe. But that's a big problem not to be passed on to the critics.

Some of us wouldn't the problem could be resolved if archeology was unambiguous about such things. produce an ancient map that tells me a name that will prove it's not a Nephite city & I will be satisfied. It really is a matter of believers to look as that's a matter of faith. Skeptical scholars wouldn't even seriously consider it a potential Nephite city as they don't have that motivation.

The problem is for believing scholars to resolve. But it really is a problem for scholars to prove whose city was it then? What was the name in Book of Mormon reputed times? A skeptic may not have a believers faith, but they do have faith the unknown if known would only demonstrate it's not a Nephite city.

[Dale]

Dale,

I once found John L. Sorenson's work convincing but then studied Mesoamerican history from mainstream scholars, and so I am puzzled that you have studied the issue and still found his work credible. It looked credible to me because if you compare the general patterns on which he focuses - increase in population, more sophisticated society, more fighting, then less population, etc. - there is a broad parallel. But then reading Mayan, Zapotec and Olmec history convinced me that there was no genuine parallel. For example, Sorenson identifies the Nephites with the Mayans and one of their major cities with a major Mayan city, but the Mayan were on the Atlantic side, Sorenson has the Nephites on the Pacific side, and there is no real overlap in terms of culture and historical events - the Mayans were thoroughly pagan. The population sizes are also all off, way off.

As for the Jaredites, Sorenson matches them with the Olmecs, but (1) the population sizes are off by a factor of about a thousand (as in 6,000 to 6 m.), (2) their religion was thoroughly pagan and apparently revolved around a jaguar figure, and (3) the political history was more stable, and didn't match even once the difference in population sizes is excluded.

I concluded that Sorenson's methodology was to cherry-pick those historical facts that fit his theory, and then not even bother letting his readers know that they were only a small portion of the facts, and not very representative.

As for the Mayan glyphs, I know that Mayan generally has been deciphered and at least some of the cities and many of the rulers are named. I'm pretty sure that's not true for all of them.

I would suggest the following in case you haven't already read them:

Ancient Oaxaca, by Blanton, et al (most relevant to the Olmec/Jaredites)

The Cities of Ancient Mexico, by Sabloff

Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, by Coe

The Maya, also by Coe

Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, by Hudson

The World of the Ancient Maya, by Henderson

Regards,

Kirk

Brant later replied to your comments. I miss posts to me sometimes. I try not to reply to technical issues I can't handle myself. I tend to try & compare what critics have said about Dr. Sorensons work with what he said, and decide who I favor. I missed your post to me. I sometimes browse what people have written. I ran across of Coe book almost 19 years now. It may have been one you mentioned, or not. If I recall right it had a section on Quetzocoatl, and it convinced me the figure wasn't a myth about Jesus.

I am re-reading New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. I think it is a good summary of many of the critical issues. I have paused on the 1st three chapters. I want to spend some great deal of time re-pondering critical issues this year. I have Mormon Apocrypha. I bought The New Mormon Challenge from Zondervan which had Evangelical scholars in it. The other critical works I have range from the large Tanner book to smaller Anti-Mormon books. I will keep an eye out for your books.

I see Signature Books stuff as produced by mainstream scholars.

I thought my question I asked was relevant to my study of this book. I am kind of re-pondering FARMS materials as I go. In the past I felt FARMS stuff survived the critics. I am always open to changing my point of view if the critics satisfy me in any particular area.

[maklelan]

It's hard to respond when you didn't tell us how this evidence supports the BOM. How far back to these languages go? ca. 600 B.C.E. or before? IIRC, I believe Brant Gardner has argued that the Lehites and Mulekites adopted indigenous languages.

I'm responding to a very specific statement about the complete lack of evidence that there is any connection whatsoever between Semitic languages and indigenous American languages. I supplied the evidence and now the people are saying that the evidence doesn't matter because their opinion is true. If you'd like to jump into this discussion of linguistic relationships you're more than welcome, but as of yet not a single cogent argument has been given to validate this statement and refute my evidence:

What I can tell you from any Mesoamerican culture is that they do not have a linguistic basis in Hebrew, nor do their writings have any connection to Egyptian and/or Hebrew.

I provided the evidence and they flat out refuse to respond to it.

[maklelan]

I'm not sure what you are referring here about Sunstone, but Ostler has been a leading apologist for the past twenty-five years. I don't always agree with him, but I do in this circumstance.

As you recall, I came in on this discussion with a similar statement. Now, Nihm is not a Nephite city and there are no Nephite artifacts there. So, while you think it correlates with the text, it doesn't contradict Ostler's statement, nor mine.

True, it does not, but he appears to referencing meso-american archeology. Just because a city is not Nephite does not mean it's not "Book of Mormon" archaeolgoy. If NHM is the Nahom of the Book of Mormon then it corroborates everything. We have a site and it identifies itself. It's a perfect match up to this point. There is no element of the site that does not fit with what the Book of Mormon says. Many identifications have been made, published and faithfully adhered to with much less than that. If Nahom was mentioned in Pliny's writings (in the exact same manner as in the Book of Mormon) we'd all agree that it's the spot, without a doubt. Books would not even make it a question, and road signs would point the way to it.

He's obviously taking advantage of an opportunity to express his frustrations in an atmosphere that will be more accepting of them, but I don't agree that archaeology does not exist unless the hoped for artifacts are actually found and identified.

[Hammer]

He's obviously taking advantage of an opportunity to express his frustrations in an atmosphere that will be more accepting of them, but I don't agree that archaeology does not exist unless the hoped for artifacts are actually found and identified.

True. We haven't begun to dig it all up. I can't wait to find the stash of hidden plates.

[Cold Steel]

There is no evidence that the Lehites passed through there. Nor could there be. It's a possible correlation, which may or may not have significance. Even if one assumes BOM historicity, can one be certain that Nihm, and not some other lost and forgotten site, is Nahom? No, one cannot not be sure. When you are sure, then you will have solid evidence for the BOM.

I think you've called it accurately that there's no hard evidence nor can there be, at this point.

Still, there is much about Nihm that should be heartening to Mormons. Not only does it exist where Nahom should exist, it existed there when Lehi traversed the area. Not only that, but Nihm was recently shown to be a burial site. So it's the right name, in the right place, and it has the right characteristics we should expect from Nahom. The same is true of the "river of water" and the canyon. Coincidence? Possibly, but it sure beats going there and finding nothing.

So we admittedly don't have enough to convince the Dan Vogels of the world, but it's possibly enough for believing Latter-day Saints. It's oft said that we don't, and should not expect, the "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign written on a half-buried stone in Reformed Egyptian, but we're not totally bereft of evidence, either.

But that's probably the way things should be. At least for now.

[Dan Vogel]

Some of us wouldn't the problem could be resolved if archeology was unambiguous about such things. produce an ancient map that tells me a name that will prove it's not a Nephite city & I will be satisfied. It really is a matter of believers to look as that's a matter of faith. Skeptical scholars wouldn't even seriously consider it a potential Nephite city as they don't have that motivation.

The problem is for believing scholars to resolve. But it really is a problem for scholars to prove whose city was it then? What was the name in Book of Mormon reputed times? A skeptic may not have a believers faith, but they do have faith the unknown if known would only demonstrate it's not a Nephite city.

For me, the lack of direct evidence for the Nephite makes negative evidence more weighty and apologetic answers less persuasive. I see no reason to postulate another people in Mesoamerica than those from Asia.

[Cold Steel]

For example, if I make a statement about Old World history, someone who handles that field reviews it and makes sure that I am within the facts. When it has to do with the New World, were I to say something that contradicted known information about the Maya or the Olmec, someone with knowledge would correct it and not let it pass.

Yes, in that sense you're correct. But how many non-LDS scholars of Mesoamerican culture take the Book of Mormon seriously enough to give it the attention it really deserves? Witness the infamous Smithsonian statement dismissing the Book of Mormon with with almost open disdain. LDS scholars can stay within the bounds of known facts, but there's apparently nothing in the Book of Mormon that would even intrigue non-LDS scholars to take it as seriously as those of us who are LDS. Our scholars take the BoM seriously enough to use it for conjecture in studying that part of the world, but this wouldn't be true of those who don't believe it to be a historically true document.

The issue of peer review is such a red herring it is amusing that it gets tossed around. It is used to suggest that when someone uses Mesoamerican archaeology to support the Book of Mormon that somehow we get away with altering the facts or changing the data so that the secular information gets turned on its head. That is so far from the truth it is funny.

Well, it hasn't been so long ago that we've had to eat a certain amount of crow. There are still plenty of Book of Mormons floating around with photos of ancient Mayan and Aztec ruins that, while impressive, are from entirely different eras than Book of Mormon history. We had LDS "scholars" who carried their slide collections from stake to stake wowing fireside audiences of LDS members and investigators. These scholars may have been scholars in other areas of church study, but we still feel the sting of their well-intentioned misdirection. This has been turned around in large part by more responsible endeavors, but now we pretty much police ourselves. True, Mesoamerican non-LDS scholars still watch what we write and say, but the Book of Mormon isn't something they pack along in their luggage when they travel to that part of the world. We've still got a long way to go in that regard.

[Tchild2]

Yes, in that sense you're correct. But how many non-LDS scholars of Mesoamerican culture take the Book of Mormon seriously enough to give it the attention it really deserves? Witness the infamous Smithsonian statement dismissing the Book of Mormon with with almost open disdain. LDS scholars can stay within the bounds of known facts, but there's apparently nothing in the Book of Mormon that would even intrigue non-LDS scholars to take it as seriously as those of us who are LDS. Our scholars take the BoM seriously enough to use it for conjecture in studying that part of the world, but this wouldn't be true of those who don't believe it to be a historically true document.

If the original plates were extant and were authenticated for their antiquity, I bet there would be an overflowing of interest. How does a scholar study "translated by God" texts anyway? Words don't mean what they say except when they further the case, but are something else when it hinders. What non LDS scholar wants to delve into that minefield?

[Dan Vogel]

True, it does not, but he appears to referencing meso-american archeology. Just because a city is not Nephite does not mean it's not "Book of Mormon" archaeolgoy.

So, apparently, it's a BOM city because it is within the bounds of Nephite lands and during the right time? That certainly would be the easy way out. At some point, I would think, the BOM should earn this status, don't you think. Under you definition, the term becomes rather meaningless.

If NHM is the Nahom of the Book of Mormon then it corroborates everything. We have a site and it identifies itself. It's a perfect match up to this point. There is no element of the site that does not fit with what the Book of Mormon says. Many identifications have been made, published and faithfully adhered to with much less than that. If Nahom was mentioned in Pliny's writings (in the exact same manner as in the Book of Mormon) we'd all agree that it's the spot, without a doubt. Books would not even make it a question, and road signs would point the way to it.

Nihm would corroborate everything if it were unambiguous. But it's not. It fits (or seems to fit) what the BOM says, because the BOM says nothing. If a Bible city were identified in the same manner, it should have as much respect and uncertainty. However, with the Bible, there is less doubt about the existence of the city and its general location in relation to other landmarks. The BOM doesn't have that advantage.

He's obviously taking advantage of an opportunity to express his frustrations in an atmosphere that will be more accepting of them, but I don't agree that archaeology does not exist unless the hoped for artifacts are actually found and identified.

Then the term has no meaning, as I explained above, and the way you use it has no more substance than the term alien archaeology has for those who believe the Maya founders came from outerspace. Ostler isn't the only believer to make this statement. I think Dee F. Green, assistant professor of anthropology at Weber State College, who studied archaeology at BYU, was first to make a similar statement:

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. ... If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. (Dee F. Green, "Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the Alternatives," DIALOGUE 4 [summer 1969]: 77-78).

Thomas Stuart Ferguson wrote in 1975:

I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography. I, for one, would be happy if Dee were wrong. (quoted in Stan Larson, QUEST FOR THE GOLD PLATES, 26).

[maklelan]

If the original plates were extant and were authenticated for their antiquity, I bet there would be an overflowing of interest. How does a scholar study "translated by God" texts anyway? Words don't mean what they say except when they further the case, but are something else when it hinders. What non LDS scholar wants to delve into that minefield?

As the world of antiquities is currently making abundantly clear, many scholars prefer if artifacts are deemed forgeries, and once they are the case is closed forever. BAR can't even get anyone to take the James Ossuary seriously and they have a bunch of scientists who point to big flaws in the testing of the guys who said it was fake.

[maklelan]

So, apparently, it's a BOM city because it is within the bounds of Nephite lands and during the right time? That certainly would be the easy way out.

You're downplaying the correlation a little too much there. It's within the bounds of trai lthat one person travelled once in all of history and there isn't a piece of it that deviates from the account. It's the right time, the right place, next to the right things, used for the right reason and carrying the right name.

Nihm would corroborate everything if it were unambiguous. But it's not. It fits (or seems to fit) what the BOM says, because the BOM says nothing.

From the text we gather that the place must have had a specific name; it must have utilized that name around 600 BC; it must have been a burial ground; it must have been close to the Frankincense Trail; and it must lie due west of a piece of Arabian coastline that must fulfill specific criteria. It's ridiculously reductionistic to say the Book of Mormon says "nothing." You of all people are perfectly aware that much information can be gleaned from pages of history, and often with a fair degree of certainty. NHM fits every one of those criteria to a T, including lying due west of the only tiny spot on the face of this earth that fulfills every single criterion mentioned by Nephi. It's ludicrous to insist that anyone would doubt this site if it were a biblical place, utterly ludicrous.

Then the term has no meaning, as I explained above, and the way you use it has no more substance than the term alien archaeology has for those who believe the Maya founders came from outerspace. Ostler isn't the only believer to make this statement.

The use of the word in a certain manner by a few people does not confine me to the same interpretation of the word. You may use it how you wish, but just because a Mormon uses it in the same way does not mean I'm beholden to that interpretation.

[Dale]

I saw a good attempt to try & answer the correlations in the New Mormon Challenge. I am not sure it succeeded for me, but I am sure the refutation worked for others. I was surprised by the book because that was the first time I saw Evangelical scholars try & rebut book of Mormon evidences.

[charity]

Why is Dan Vogel quoting a person from 1975?

[TAK]

Why is Dan Vogel quoting a person from 1975?

Maybe because it is no less true today.

[TAK]

I'm responding to a very specific statement about the complete lack of evidence that there is any connection whatsoever between Semitic languages and indigenous American languages. I supplied the evidence and now the people are saying that the evidence doesn't matter because their opinion is true. If you'd like to jump into this discussion of linguistic relationships you're more than welcome, but as of yet not a single cogent argument has been given to validate this statement and refute my evidence:

I provided the evidence and they flat out refuse to respond to it.

Who ever said that there was a "complete lack of evidence that there is any connection whatsoever between Semitic languages and indigenous American languages"? I dont think anybody has suggested that. Its a huge leap of logic to assume that Lehi brought it as though it possibly could not have appeared any other way.

[maklelan]

Who ever said that there was a "complete lack of evidence that there is any connection whatsoever between Semitic languages and indigenous American languages"? I dont think anybody has suggested that. Its a huge leap of logic to assume that Lehi brought it as though it possibly could not have appeared any other way.

It was a direct quote from antishock8, and he has failed to respond to the evidence.