Book Of Mormon Evidence

[Brant Gardner]

A non-LDS archaeologist should be able to see those directions in the text as easily as the next person.

If this is not true, then the observation is useless. However, the absence of any non-Mormon having done the same thing is not the same as saying that they wouldn't come up with the same answers with the same data. The problem with using texts to inform archaeology is that they are very different animals and don't always translate easily from one to the other. That is a problem of all text/archaeology problems, not only those that have religious overtones.

I remember an archaeologist who experimented with using the Codex Xolotl as guide to the archaeology. His report was that there were mixed results.

[urroner]

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.

I guess you haven't heard that DCP and Bill Hamblin are considering doing a film entitled "Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell" where dead arguments keep coming back to life.

[Not quite me]

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........

I say two semi-hits out of a lot of names in the Book of Mormon are not proof he did anything of the sort. Good heavens, what an odd argument.

If Joseph was concerned about his book being authentic in the details, it would probably be authentic in the details. The problem is that the details tend to coincide with the mound builder myths as much, if not more, than they do with the ancient middle east and Mesoamerica.

[Gervin]

selek said: 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.

Then I guess itâ??s fair to assume those Mormon archaeologists and other scholars with fringe-archaeological interests who have compared archaeological evidence and the Book of Mormon are â?¦ insane? They are only sane, in your estimation, if they check their faith at the door and the test-pit, eh?

It is such a weak argument from silence that non-Mormon archaeologists donâ??t consider the Book of Mormon because of the religious claims of the book. And now youâ??ve expanded the field to include the Mormon archaeologist in an attempt, I guess, to make sure that no one has any business equating the Book with archaeology.

If the Mormon archaeologist isnâ??t willing to make archaeological correlations with the Book of Mormon in a professional and peer-reviewed setting, then what compels the non-Mormon archaeologist to take the book seriously? If the Mormon archaeologist is really so inclined to avoid the topic of the Book of Mormon then I think itâ??s fair to say that there really is no such thing as a â??Mormon archaeologistâ?, correct? If there is no such thing as a â??Mormon archaeologistâ? then can we also assume that there is no such thing as Mormon archaeology? (But wait, donâ??t some here claim that the museums are chock-full of Book of Mormon artifacts?)

The fact is, there are plenty of archaeologists and historians and anthropologists and scientists who make use of the material descriptions, geographical references, and cultural activities in the Bible without signing up for a testimony to the bookâ??s religious tenets, miracles, or connection to Godâ??s authorship. There are, also, plenty of Jewish and Christian archaeologists who use the book for guidance. At the end of the day, personal beliefs or un-beliefs may contribute to conclusions but conclusions nonetheless have to stand or fall in a professional setting of peer-reviewed and critiqued criticism. Itâ??s too bad that the Mormon archaeologist must excuse him/herself from the table when the discussion enters the professional arena.

Mormons consistently claim that the provenance of the Book of Mormon via an angel is the stumbling block to acceptance by secular archaeologists. Baloney. The book claims to be an ancient record. As a purported ancient record it proves its worth, to the archaeologist, in the correlations with what is found in the ground, not in the alleged discovery of plates, appearance by angels, or transmission process.

While I agree with The Dude that more data means more purported correlations I also believe that more data will have the effect of further distancing Mormons from real Mesoamerican archaeologists. Archaeological digs, professional papers, and academic dialogue about Mesoamerica is growing at an amazing rate. Despite increased opportunities for the Mormon to engage their ancient record with the real-word studies that are taking place it appears that Mormon body of work related to Mesoamerican archaeology, culture, and history is shrinking (or is so insular that nothing of value is being advanced).

[Brant Gardner]

The problem is that the details tend to coincide with the mound builder myths as much, if not more, than they do with the ancient middle east and Mesoamerica.

That is not correct. They correspond superficially with the mound builder mythology, but do not fit in geographic description, cultural data or time depth. All of those fit much better with the ancient Middle East and Mesoamerica.

[Not quite me]

That is not correct. They correspond superficially with the mound builder mythology, but do not fit in geographic description, cultural data or time depth. All of those fit much better with the ancient Middle East and Mesoamerica.

Again, we simply disagree. Nothing I have read from you or any other apologist has shown a plausible "fit" with Mesoamerica. Maybe I'm just stiffnecked, or something.

[Phobos]

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

Charity, since you have been on the board for a while and have over 9,000 posts, could you clarify something for me?

In the Board Guidelines it says, in part:

Forbidden topics and posts include but are not limited too:

- Politics, Personal Threads, Testimony and Exit story threads in the debate folder.

- Harassing or threatening statements.

- Personal insults, ad hominem, flaming or badgering other posters.

Is the Guideline for non believers only and Mormons are held to a lower standard?

Thanks

[The Dude]

Is the Guideline for non believers only and Mormons are held to a lower standard?

Use the report function next time you feel someone is personally insulting you.

[Cold Steel]

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.

Please believe me when I say I don't get in a huff. I understand what you're saying; however, the NHM evidence (and it is evidence, whether circumstantial or other), when combined with the other aspects of Arabian geography that Joseph Smith got right, should account for something. It doesn't deserve to be casually dismissed, which is something critics routinely do when confronted by something they don't like.

All I've conceded is that NHM is not conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon is a true historical document. I do, however, believe it to be significant circumstantial evidence. The Nephi Project, with only the BoM as a guide, headed south along the incense trail following Nephi's directions. At the end of a 3-day journey for Lehi's party they were coming up on 70 miles with no sign of a canyon or oasis is sight; just desert for as far as the eye could see. But three miles later they turned with the wadi in an eastward direction (having nowhere else to go) when they suddenly came upon the oasis, exactly as described. It had all three varieties of dates, grains and plenty of water. Just beyond they found an imposing canyon with a perrinial river of water flowing through it. It was a match for the campsite Nephi described. The granite walls of the canyon were completely out of place in that region and at night it seemed as though it would engulf them.

Now, had there been no oasis, no canyon, nothing but desert, it would have been rather strong circumstantial evidence against the Book of Mormon, and I believe it non-LDS had been involved it would have subsequently appeared in many critiques against the BoM. Had there been no NHM, though, LDS scholars could have rationalized it away. After all, some places come and go rapidly in that part of the world. But because it exists, it does count as evidence. Not conclusive, surely, but certainly it doesn't deserve to be entirely ignored as if it were nothing.

Many of the Book of Mormon's evidences are marginalized, then ignored. There's no way to prevent it, but NHM remains a startling, significant finding that is a major plus for the Book of Mormon account, especially when combined with the rest of the account's dead-on accuracy.

Valley of Lemuel candidate, virtually three days

journey from Jerusalem by camel. The imposing

granite walls fit Nephi's description vividly.

A perennial "river of water" flows through the

canyon and is the River of Laman candidate.

It once flowed wider and has etched its path

through the canyon towards the Red Sea.

[cdowis]

Use the report function next time you feel someone is personally insulting you.

You can also use the ignore function, which is more immediate. I have found it very useful.

[Cold Steel]

Again, we simply disagree. Nothing I have read from you or any other apologist has shown a plausible "fit" with Mesoamerica. Maybe I'm just stiffnecked, or something.

Do you believe there's enough archeological evidence in Mesoamerica to rule out the Book of Mormon, or do you think not enough has been done to either prove or disprove the Book of Mormon?

[Not quite me]

Do you believe there's enough archeological evidence in Mesoamerica to rule out the Book of Mormon, or do you think not enough has been done to either prove or disprove the Book of Mormon?

I would not say it has been disproven or proven, though the more we know about Mesoamerica, the less likely a setting it becomes for the Book of Mormon.

[Cold Steel]

I would not say it has been disproven or proven, though the more we know about Mesoamerica, the less likely a setting it becomes for the Book of Mormon.

Why would you say that?

[Not quite me]

Why would you say that?

It seems to me that we are increasing our knowledge of Mesoamerican culture, religion, politics, and the time periods we're dealing with. It doesn't match.

But heck, I could be wrong.

[The Dude]

All I've conceded is that NHM is not conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon is a true historical document. I do, however, believe it to be significant circumstantial evidence.

Got it. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

The Nephi Project, with only the BoM as a guide, headed south along the incense trail following Nephi's directions. At the end of a 3-day journey for Lehi's party they were coming up on 70 miles with no sign of a canyon or oasis is sight; just desert for as far as the eye could see. But three miles later they turned with the wadi in an eastward direction (having nowhere else to go) when they suddenly came upon the oasis, exactly as described. It had all three varieties of dates, grains and plenty of water. Just beyond they found an imposing canyon with a perrinial river of water flowing through it. It was a match for the campsite Nephi described. The granite walls of the canyon were completely out of place in that region and at night it seemed as though it would engulf them.

I'm amused that this discussion lures BoM believers into maximizing the correspondence by saying "exactly as described" instead of a more qualified (and scholarly) "very much as described" or "close to the 1Nephi description." It's a habit I've come to count on.

Many of the Book of Mormon's evidences are marginalized, then ignored. There's no way to prevent it, but NHM remains a startling, significant finding that is a major plus for the Book of Mormon account, especially when combined with the rest of the account's dead-on accuracy.

Now it's "dead-on accuracy". Are Nephi's descriptions so specific that one and only one geography can support it? 'Cause if it's a rather vague or brief description, then we should expect many possible geographies to correspond.

NHM is the one that always comes up, and I agree that it is significant and worth discussing. I just tire of overstatements and un-earned rhetoric like "how could Joseph have known?"

[Not quite me]

NHM is the one that always comes up, and I agree that it is significant and worth discussing.

I completely agree. It's certainly where it's supposed to be, relatively speaking.

I just tire of overstatements and un-earned rhetoric like "how could Joseph have known?"

And that was the point of my OP.

[cdowis]

It seems to me that we are increasing our knowledge of Mesoamerican culture, religion, politics, and the time periods we're dealing with. It doesn't match.

An article in the National Geographic related that archeologists originally thought the Maya were a "forest people", little or no warfare. Further research shows that they have brutal wars.

No evidence of cement. Now we have discovered the use of cement.

Small villiages, few inhabitants. Now we know there were very large population centers.

Writing has been discovered earlier than perviously known.

Transatlantic migration was universally rejected. Now there is strong evidence, and receiving increased acceptance.

Is that some of the research you are referring to that contradicts the BOM?

(I really am trying to contain myself.)

[Brant Gardner]

But heck, I could be wrong.

Well, now we agree!

[Not quite me]

Well, now we agree!

Thanks for making me laugh, Brant. I needed one today.

An article in the National Geographic related that archeologists originally thought the Maya were a "forest people", little or no warfare. Further research shows that they have brutal wars.

No evidence of cement. Now we have discovered the use of cement.

Small villiages, few inhabitants. Now we know there were very large population centers.

Writing has been discovered earlier than perviously known.

Is that some of the research you are referring to that contradicts the BOM?

I will try to contain myself.

Well, no, obviously. I've been around a long time (I remember you from a.r.m, for example). It's easy to find little parallels (such as the ones Clark mentions and yours above), but I don't see the fit otherwise.

[cdowis]

Thanks for making me laugh, Brant. I needed one today.

Well, no, obviously. I've been around a long time (I remember you from a.r.m, for example). It's easy to find little parallels (such as the ones Clark mentions and yours above), but I don't see the fit otherwise.

It's all just a coincidence.

Yeah, I cut my teeth on arm. Actually I started with compuserve before the web, when there was only BBS.

[Not quite me]

It's all just a coincidence.

Yeah, I cut my teeth on arm. Actually I started with compuserve before the web, when there was only BBS.

I guess it depends on what you consider "all." As I said, a couple of "maybe" hits for Egyptian names isn't all that significant in my opinion. Your opinion obviously differs.

[Cold Steel]

Got it. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

I'm actually less interested in convincing or being convinced than I am in knowing how you can dismiss it so casually, as if it amounted to nothing. Don't get me wrong, I'm used to this with Mormon critics, but I nevertheless fail to understand it. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that one must be so utterly convinced that the book is not a true historical record that the test for proof would be virtually unattainable. At any rate it's a characteristic I've come to count on.

I'm amused that this discussion lures BoM believers into maximizing the correspondence by saying "exactly as described" instead of a more qualified (and scholarly) "very much as described" or "close to the 1Nephi description." It's a habit I've come to count on.

As you wish. I'll try to be more careful in the future and qualify my statements a little less enthusiastically. The canyon and river were very much as described by Nephi. I've seen the Project's video and was quite impressed by it as well as by Joseph Smith's continuing luck at guessing at things that tend to be very much like the things he described through the fictional character he called Nephi.

Are Nephi's descriptions so specific that one and only one geography can support it? 'Cause if it's a rather vague or brief description, then we should expect many possible geographies to correspond.

No, but they're specific enough that you could hand a Book of Mormon to any resident of the region, or a relative newcomer for that matter, and they'll end up at the same Nahom and the same canyon and river of water, and they'd recognize it from the description.

[Hammer]

Mormon critics CAN'T allow anything to validate the church or anything about the church, it shakes the foundation of their stance. Embarrassing.

[Not quite me]

Mormon critics CAN'T allow anything to validate the church or anything about the church, it shakes the foundation of their stance. Embarrassing.

You haven't been listening much, have you? Several of us have said that the NHM is potentially significant and deserves to be looked at. I'd write more, but it's hard to type when your very foundations are shaking.

[The Dude]

I'm actually less interested in convincing or being convinced than I am in knowing how you can dismiss it so casually, as if it amounted to nothing.

Then you must have been so surprised when I said:

"NHM is the one that always comes up, and I agree that it is significant and worth discussing"

...so surprised that you were rendered speechless and couldn't think of any way to respond to that. And so you didn't.