Book Of Mormon Evidence

[Not quite me]

OK, I am a disbeliever for a moment.

What ties all these sites together? I have already given my theory. In 1820 JS was missing from the census records because he was visiting this region -- found these sites, researched the Egyptian names, etc. He went to enormous lengths to deceive the farmers in NY, in case they checked him out.

Makes more sense than the silly coincidence theory.

But that's not the theory, Charles. No enormous lengths were necessary at all.

[Cold Steel]

What happens if you think like a person who doesn't have that faith? Forget what you think you know about the BoM -- please try it, with all the imaginative will you can muster....

All of the sudden those sites no longer rise above the background of interesting Arabian geography. An oasis, a grove of date palms, an outcropping of rock, a sand dune, a fertile seacoast... there's not a single verified artifact to connect them to each other or to the Book of Mormon. You need the skyhook of faith to make them into a whole that supports your faith.

I find this to be more than a bit condescending. You apparently don't believe we're capable of putting forth a serious argument. Nephi mentions a "place called Nahom" in which they bury the recently deceased Ishmael. It's in the right area, too. After that, they press forward to an encampment in an imposing canyon by a "river of water" by an oais (again, at just the right distance of three days from Jerusalem!) Even if Joseph Smith had known about the existence of NHM, how would he have known how far back it dated? Even more importantly, how did he know it was a burial community when no one knew that before 1996? It was thought to be merely a place where stonecutting took place, but in the mid-90s they began finding entombed bodies dating back to the time of Lehi.

600 BC circa mummy taken from the Nahom burial site

in 1996 by Dr. Abu Ghaleb.

Another 600 BC circa mummy taken from the Nahom burial

site in 1996 by Dr. Abu Ghaleb. The mummy is

wrapped in a leather bag.

A ancient altar with the inscription "Nahom" donated to

a temple in about 600 BC by the citizens of Nahom.

The Wikipedia entry for NHM states: The root NHM has different meanings. The South Arabian root NHM is related to stone cutting. The Hebrew root NHM is found repeatedly in the Bible and relates to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning. Scholars consider this root appropriate when used to refer to a place of burial and the expression of mourning." The stone cutting aspect of the NHM community was well known to scholars; the burial aspect was not.

Dr. John P. Pratt, in writing about Book of Mormon geography in Mesoamerica, notes in a Meridian Magazine article on Book of Mormon geography:

In addition to the archaeological and geographical evidence, [archaeologist] Garth Norman has included in his work some twenty locations where the modern names have roots which can be traced to either Hebrew or Nahuatl words of the same meaning as his proposed Book of Mormon locations.

His list includes examples like "Sidon" being very similar to the Hebrew word for fishery (Tsidon), and that Usumacinta [the river identified by some scholars as Sidon] has been deciphered from a Maya glyph to mean "fish river." He notes that in the area where King Lamoni might have settled in Jershon, there is an ancient Maya city in Belize called "Lamani."

...

His list of correlated names includes the proposal that "Tabasco," the name of the state of Mexico where he believes the land of Bountiful was (see Figure 13 for a map of the states of Mexico).

He proposes that "tabasco" comes from both Hebrew and Nahuatl roots meaning "Bountiful," as was reported in an earlier Meridian Magazine article. If correct, that find seems incredibly important. It is as if the archaeologist traveled to Tabasco looking for the clues that it might have been the Land of Bountiful, and as he entered, the sign on the road said, "Entering Bountiful."

As research continues regarding place names, how many examples will have to be cited before it's considered credible or significant? True, the linguistic correlations are not on a par with the actual place name of NHM; however, circumstantial evidence is, nevertheless, mounting. Book of Mormon geography is finally a science rather than mere speculation and I suspect that as archeology in that part of the world takes off, the correlation will become stronger, not weaker. (The article referenced above also makes an excellent case as to why the Limhi expedition became lost and unable to find Zarahemla.)

[Phobos]

I clicked the Pratt link and read about V. Garth Norman's new map. I also checked and he's a Mormon; not what would be considered an objective point of view. Is there a secular professional that agrees with his claim? Every "source" seems to be from within the church.

[Cold Steel]

You know, I'd love to have someone from the History Channel do something on Book of Mormon geography, but they seem only interested in tracking down the various whack jobs like Nostradamas. Everyone who researches the Book of Mormon does so with an agenda. And I freely admit that; there's just no way to avoid it. I think we're at a point where a documentary could be done. Judging from some of the documentaries I see, however, most are horrendously sloppy with history. (The recent History Channel piece on Boudicca was very good, but left out some crucial facts seemingly for the sole purpose of painting the Romans in a worse light than deserved and Boudicca in a better light.)

Everyone has an axe to grind. The fact is, no non-LDS person will research Book of Mormon geography, because, after all, they believe it's a waste of time.

*Sigh*

[Hammer]

I clicked the Pratt link and read about V. Garth Norman's new map. I also checked and he's a Mormon; not what would be considered an objective point of view. Is there a secular professional that agrees with his claim? Every "source" seems to be from within the church.

That is like saying the gossips have the skinny on my true life story. The source can me varified without nullifying a guys research because he is Mormon.

[Phobos]

That is like saying the gossips have the skinny on my true life story. The source can me varified without nullifying a guys research because he is Mormon.

So, the question remains......has anyone other than a Mormon source verified the claims?

I'll be specific, if that help you:

From: http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/medi...68/Welcome.html

DID YOU KNOW THAT BETWEEN 75 PERCENT AND 100 PERCENT OF LATTER-DAY SAINT MESOAMERICAN SCHOLARS AGREE ON OVER 20 MAJOR SITE IDENTIFICATIONS?

LDS scholars agree....how about a non Mormon source?

[Hammer]

So, the question remains......has anyone other than a Mormon source verified the claims?

I'll be specific, if that help you:

From: http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/medi...68/Welcome.html

LDS scholars agree....how about a non Mormon source?

Is there non mormon's doing research that validates the Mormon stance. Yes. I have read dozens of accounts right here and on Fair. Is there some on this subject, I can't tell you. But I would at least start where there is some. I am sure that the perspective is easy enough to over look and find the facts. You have to accept truth no matter where or who it comes from.

I wonder where you started your questioning and if it came from an unbiased source. Could I discount your information about anything Mormon because your source was from anti's? Should I totally discount it and for that reason alone?

[Phobos]

Is there non mormon's doing research that validates the Mormon stance. Yes. I have read dozens of accounts right here and on Fair. Is there some on this subject, I can't tell you. But I would at least start where there is some. I am sure that the perspective is easy enough to over look and find the facts. You have to accept truth no matter where or who it comes from.

I wonder where you started your questioning and if it came from an unbiased source. Could I discount your information about anything Mormon because your source was from anti's? Should I totally discount it and for that reason alone?

I started the question after someone, in this thread, posted a link to the site. I followed it over to the link I posted. I agree with you......truth is where you find it and it alone endures. You have to accept it where you find it.

Could you post a link or two to the non Mormon sources?

[The Dude]

OK, I am a disbeliever for a moment.

What ties all these sites together? I have already given my theory. In 1820 JS was missing from the census records because he was visiting this region -- found these sites, researched the Egyptian names, etc. He went to enormous lengths to deceive the farmers in NY, in case they checked him out.

Makes more sense than the silly coincidence theory.

Nice try.

So about the correlations with the mound builders in the OP... do you have something better than a silly coincidence theory?

[The Dude]

I find this to be more than a bit condescending. You apparently don't believe we're capable of putting forth a serious argument.

There needs to be something more than circumstantial evidence before you can ask:

"Even if Joseph Smith had known about the existence of NHM, how would he have known how far back it dated? Even more importantly, how did he know it was a burial community when no one knew that before 1996?"

C'mon Cold Steel, you already said yourself:

It's likely the Book of Mormon will remain unprovable for some time, and it's entirely likely that's the way it's supposed to be.

So don't get all in a huff. You admitted it's unproven, and as long as it is unproven, the guessing game of "how could JS have known" is a bluff that presumes to elevate the circumstantial evidence beyond it's own merits. This is not a serious argument.

That's mainly what I'm saying.

Book of Mormon geography is finally a science rather than mere speculation and I suspect that as archeology in that part of the world takes off, the correlation will become stronger, not weaker.

No, BoM archaeology is still mere speculation, and as one prominent apologist on this board has said, it may well be a joke in academia.

But I agree with you that as archaeology in some part of the world (it doesn't matter where) takes off, more and more correlations can be and will be found. Statistically this makes perfect sense: as data increases in volume, there are more and more opportunities for correlations.

[Phobos]

I wonder where you started your questioning and if it came from an unbiased source. Could I discount your information about anything Mormon because your source was from anti's? Should I totally discount it and for that reason alone?

Here's what I've found so far and it's all from Mormon sites.

Pratt said here: http://www.ldsmag.com/sci_rel/061212map.html

It was produced after forty years of research by archaeologist V. Garth Norman, who has advanced degrees in both archaeology and ancient scripture, and it looks excellent. It appears that a new day in Book of Mormon geography may be dawning.

So.....I searched for V. Garth Norman and found this:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=238

Which lists his degree as a Master of Arts. Searching university sites they all state archaeology degrees are in the Science category; not Arts.

My question is why is Norman referred to as an archaeologist if he doesn't have the necessary academic credentials? There's nothing wrong with being an amateur and many discoveries have some via amateur sources but every incidence I've read about states their amateur status.

[cdowis]

But that's not the theory, Charles. No enormous lengths were necessary at all.

Really. Please give us his sources for Paanchi and Pahoran. Albright himself indicates that such research would have come at great effort. His knowledge of iron ore, and the other dozen parallels to Bountiful.

But, of course, his local library had these books, right? There was a book on these Egyptian names, and a detailed geological analysis and description of these areas, is that correct.

I am very very interested, as a temporary nonbeliever, in your sources. I find my theory more likely than your "no enourmous lengths" comment, but let's see what you got, as a fellow skeptic.

JS made sure that his book was very authentic in the details, because he knew the farmers in NY had vast knowledge of such things, and any phoney baloney would instantly be detected, such as authentic Egyptian names, the use of "sheum" as a grain, the details of Bountiful describing an actual location along "Lehi's route" on the Arabian peninsula, etc etc. The farmers would instantly be able to tell it was phoney without these details, because of the books in their local library.

JS was desperate to fool these sophisticated gentlemen, and went to enormous lengths to do so.

But, let me give you a chance to give your sources. I say he went to the region to get the details, and you say........

[cdowis]

So, the question remains......has anyone other than a Mormon source verified the claims?

I'll be specific, if that help you:

From: http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/medi...68/Welcome.html

LDS scholars agree....how about a non Mormon source?

Please list the nonLDS scholars who have read and done a detailed study of the book delivered by an angel. We can then respond to your question.

If, for example, I were to ask one of the scholars precise geographical information from the BOM text on the city of Moroni, how would they respond?

Can I assume that you are going to be silent, because you know this is an idiotic question. No nonLDS scholar is going to take seriously a book delivered by an angel, and translated by a farmboy "by the power of God."

[charity]

Phobos said, "LDS scholars agree....how about a non Mormon source?"

Phobos, show me a "non Mormon source" who has the requisite education in the Book of Mormon along with his/her education and experience in archeology.

[cdowis]

Phobos said, "LDS scholars agree....how about a non Mormon source?"

Phobos, show me a "non Mormon source" who has the requisite education in the Book of Mormon along with his/her education and experience in archeology.

I like my answer better. I was going to ask him "Does stupidity run in the family, or is it an individual thing." But I decided that was over the top.

[charity]

yeah, cdowis, it is probably best that you didn't say that.

[Phobos]

I like my answer better. I was going to ask him "Does stupidity run in the family, or is it an individual thing." But I decided that was over the top.

"Idiotic" and "stupidity in family".....write it and then say you aren't saying it. Thanks for the insults.....speaks volumes about your character.

I'm sensing a pattern. If you can't answer respond with a question. If that fails, attack.

[charity]

Phobos, do you really not understand that archeologists who are not LDS will not spend years and years studying the Book of Mormon?

[selek]

"Idiotic" and "stupidity in family".....write it and then say you aren't saying it. Thanks for the insults.....speaks volumes about your character.

I'm sensing a pattern. If you can't answer respond with a question. If that fails, attack.

Okay- play nice, children, or no dessert tonight.

Phobos, what we've got here is a false dilemma:

A non-Mormon archaeologist generally won't bother comparing Meso-american archaeological finds to the Book of Mormon becuase that isn't his goal- he's looking for evidence of civilizations in general- not Nephite or Lamanite civilizations. He's trying to understand what was there, based upon the evidence- not prove the merits of a particular religious text. He will sift the sand looking for artifacts, and try to infer reasonable conclusions about the site and the people who built it based upon his own experience and background.

A Mormon archaeologist working with the same data, sifting the same sand, as his non-LDS colleague can come to precisely the same conclusions- but is automatically suspect because of his religious beliefs. It is a particularly absurd prejudice, in my opinion, to automatically discount ideas because their origins may be religious in nature.

For all the talk of relativism- the idea that all viewpoints are equally valid- religious opinions and beliefs are automatically at a disadvantage- because they don't fit the currently trendy naturalistic and agnostic cliques. It has not always been so.

[cdowis]

Phobos, do you really not understand that archeologists who are not LDS will not spend years and years studying the Book of Mormon?

"Hello, Doctor. I have a book here for you to examine. It was written on golden plates and delivered by an angel to a prophet to translate. This prophet claims to have see God the Father and Jesus in a vision. I hope you don't mind a detailed examination this book."

You are insulting my intelligence that archeologists will seriously examine the BOM. Do you think I am an idiot when you ask us to believe utterwise.

"Gosh, since NONmormon archeologists do not certify the BOM, it must be suspect. Wow, I have such an intelligent and well-thought out argument against the BOM."

Phobos, you are the one insulting us. This does not even reach the intelligence level of the "adieu" argument.

[Phobos]

"Hello, Doctor. I have a book here for you to examine. It was written on golden plates and delivered by an angel to a prophet to translate. This prophet claims to have see God the Father and Jesus in a vision. I hope you don't mind a detailed examination this book."

You are insulting my intelligence that archeologists will seriously examine the BOM. Do you think I am an idiot when you ask us to believe utterwise.

Phobos, you are the one insulting us. This does not even reach the intelligence level of the "adieu" argument.

Wow.....stuck in attack mode?

[selek]

Wow.....stuck in attack mode?

Okay, one more warning. Play nice, children.

Don't make me open this convenient, red-labeled can I'm carrying stashed next to my bat-a-rang, FAIR-issued neuralizer (ah, the good-old days), and my life-sized Jenna Elfman poster.

Seriously- everyone needs to back off a bit on the heat.

Phobos, despite the inherent rhetoric in his statement, CDowis is accurately communicating the dilemma faced by archaeologists.

Given the current prejudice against belief claims, no sane archaeologist (Mormon or not) is going to stake his reputation in a comparison between the archaeological evidence and the Book of Mormon- for the very reasons cited. No matter how sound the conclusions, it would open a torrent of ridicule and scorn that Hoover Dam could not restrain- look at the ridicule heaped upon the discoverer of ancient Troy- until the evidence became well nigh incontrovertible.

This is like the much bally-hooed fiasco with the Smithsonian. Despite the anti-Mormon spin given to their statement, what the Smithsonian said was that they had not compared the archaeological evidence with the Book of Mormon becuase the BOM is a religious, not a scholarly (meaning scientific or historical) text. The same prejudice exists against the Bible and other religious texts.

It's simply apples and oranges. Religious texts are not necessarily diminished or dismissed simply because archaeologists don't use them, anymore than they're diminished because mathematicians don't use them.

[The Dude]

Phobos, do you really not understand that archeologists who are not LDS will not spend years and years studying the Book of Mormon?

Years and years of studying? Get real, Charity. 1Nephi isn't that deep. People on this thread are routinely claiming that 1Nephi gives directions to NHM and other correlative sites in Arabia -- clear enough directions that there can be little doubt (to the believers) that these sites are actual BoM locations. A non-LDS archaeologist should be able to see those directions in the text as easily as the next person.

Be honest. What's really needed is belief, not years and years of study. Once you have belief, the skyhooks and circular arguments can then come into play. To be generous, I'd guess that a lot of LDS archaeologists do not do this, but general LDS members can't help but take their claims in this way because they lack the scholarly training and the tentative perspective of science. Nevertheless, since the OP post in this thread was a response to John Clark's fallacious argument, I'm worried. For if a top archaeologist like Dr. Clark can argue with such nonsense then I should probably not be too generous.

[cdowis]

As Dan Peterson once commented, antimormon arguments are like weeds. Even when we give reasoned answers, they keep popping up all over the place. The antimormons do not refute the answer, they just ignore it.

In this case, I am using a very strong dose of weed killer. I have seen this argument so many times, that stronger measures are required. The adieu argument seems to have died a painful death, and, hopefully, this one will go away as well. It has popped up its ugly head here in this forum several times.

Any hooo, back to the thread.

[The Dude]

In this case, I am using a very strong dose of weed killer.

What is it, aversion therapy?

It just makes us sick of you, dear fellow.

Take one for the team!