Book Of Mormon Archeology

[Freedom]

To my knowledge the historicity of the bible has not been disavowed by any Christian religions so I don't see the book of mormon being disavowed. The comment of finding evidence of a Christian mezzo American culture leads me to ask, as has been asked before, what should we be looking for? Today if we are looking for a Christian church we are looking for a cross. Of course, the symbol of the cross is completely absent from LDS churches so in a thousand years, when an lds church is uncovered (assuming that the concept of the cross is still synonymous to Christianity) then I don't see an archaeologist thinking to call it a Christian church. My church could be any religion, or for that matter, simply a cultural hall. I doubt the wood benches would survive, but the metal basket ball hoops would. I think it would just look like an enormous gym surrounded by classrooms. It would look, in fact, remarkably like a school. And the arguments would rage as to why the class rooms were so small.

In terms of finding old world artifacts, this would never be the case. My neighbor across the street is from Pakistan. They have been here for 3 years. The only evidence in their house that they are from Pakistan is that they speak a different language and they have a picture of Grandpa wearing a turban. Everything else in their home is remarkably north American looking. Leave them there for 500 years and any evidence that their family originated form Asia would completely disappear. My great great great grandfather comes from Ireland. My house is indistinguishable from a Phillipino house or a Chinese house. Nephi may have brought some middle east art, music and fashion with him but his children would have given it up right from the get go to fit in with their new world friends. There is a family in our ward that moved her in the summer of 2005. Although they speak Spanish in the home, their 5 year old son cannot speek it. He only speaks English. Their teen agers came to a party when they first arrived and brought with them a pile of Mexican pop music. Today they, just two years later, they don't even have the CD's any more.

[cksalmon]

That depends on what you mean by "common."

That the phenomenon is not uncommon.

I'm not sure that it's any more "common" now than it was, say, in the early 1950s or the mid-1930s. Do you have any evidence to suggest that it is?

As mine was not a comparative statement, I'm not really interested in defending the statement (not made by me) that the disavowing of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is more common now than in the early 1950's or the mid-1930's.

It's obvious beyond need for comment that not everybody in a large religious denomination will hold the same opinions, be orthodox, or even be a believer. How many nominal Baptists are actually agnostics? I don't know. Do you? How many who once answered an altar call don't know believe in the deity of Christ? I have no idea, but I would be astonished if there aren't any such folks. So what?

As these questions don't bear on the present discussion, indeed, so what?

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

That the phenomenon is not uncommon.

The meaning of which depends upon the meaning of common, which you choose not to supply.

So your comment carries little or no meaning.

As mine was not a comparative statement, I'm not really interested in defending the statement (not made by me) that the disavowing of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is more common now than in the early 1950's or the mid-1930's.

So, in other words, by saying that such opinions are "common" you were saying only that they're not nonexistent (which nobody would ever have thought to deny) and that you don't know whether they occur more or less frequently than they once did.

As these questions don't bear on the present discussion, indeed, so what?

Then, did your emission have a point? And, if so, did that point have any relevance whatever to the discussion on this thread?

In the same spirit, I observe that Japan is in Asia, and that kangaroos are cute.

[LifeOnaPlate]

and that kangaroos are cute.

I object; they aren't that cute at all. Their pouches are filled with filth.

[Uncle Dale]

I object; they aren't that cute at all. Their pouches are filled with filth.

Ah! but a cuddly little wombat, mate! now THAT's an entirely different story!

UD

.

[cksalmon]

The meaning of which depends upon the meaning of common, which you choose not to supply.

So your comment carries little or no meaning.

So, in other words, by saying that such opinions are "common" you were saying only that they're not nonexistent (which nobody would ever have thought to deny) and that you don't know whether they occur more or less frequently than they once did.

From "X is common" it manifestly does not logically follow that "X is more or less common now than previously." You introduced the comparative, not I. I have no need to defend statements I didn't make.

"X is common" is not synonymous with, nor does it logically follow that the intent was to express that, "X merely exists," so your rephrasing, while perhaps rhetorically useful, is inaccurate. I didn't say what you suggest.

Then, did your emission have a point? And, if so, did that point have any relevance whatever to the discussion on this thread?

I don't think the relevance of my response to Hashbaz's comment is that difficult to ascertain. I responded, in fact, directly to his comments. On the other hand, you inserted a comparative aspect, expecting me to defend it, and then brought in the Baptists. Comparatively, your comments to me have "much less relevance whatever to the discussion on this thread" than do mine to Hashbaz. Does your emission about the Baptists have a point relevant to this thread? You'll note that my comments to Hashbaz applied directly to his post--I even used and critiqued his terminology. You want to talk about agnostic Baptists in a thread about BoM archaeology? Japan and kangaroos are only slightly less irrelevant.

"Common," in my thought process above, contains shades of "generally known" and "ordinary."

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

From "X is common" it manifestly does not logically follow that "X is more or less common now than previously." You introduced the comparative, not I. I have no need to defend statements I didn't make.

Could you perhaps indicate what statement you were trying to make? The point of your initial remark is, to put it mildly, unclear to me.

Surely, when hashbaz indicated that "we" aren't about to surrender our commitment to a historically authentic Book of Mormon, you didn't imagine that he was saying that every person even nominally on the rolls of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints subscribes without question or doubt to the proposition that the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient. And surely you didn't imagine that anybody here imagined that. Or did you?

"X is common" is not synonymous with, nor does it logically follow that the intent was to express that, "X merely exists," so your rephrasing, while perhaps rhetorically useful, is inaccurate. I didn't say what you suggest.

You certainly said that. If X is common, then the proposition that "X exists" is entailed by that fact. However, since you decline to furnish any content for what you mean by "common," it's fairly difficult to understand precisely what your statement means beyond that.

I don't think the relevance of my response to Hashbaz's comment is that difficult to ascertain.

You responded with a truism so obvious, and so unconnected with any commonsense reading of what he said, that, out of the sheer assumption that you would not have posted anything so apparently vacuous, I hastened to believe that there was something more to it than the painfully obvious and, thus, irrelevant. Which is why I guessed (incorrectly, it now appears) that you were trying to advance some sort of thesis that had merited posting.

I responded, in fact, directly to his comments. On the other hand, you inserted a comparative aspect, expecting me to defend it, and then brought in the Baptists. Comparatively, your comments to me have "much less relevance whatever to the discussion on this thread" than do mine to Hashbaz. Does your emission about the Baptists have a point relevant to this thread? You'll note that my comments to Hashbaz applied directly to his post--I even used and critiqued his terminology. You want to talk about agnostic Baptists in a thread about BoM archaeology? Japan and kangaroos are only slightly less irrelevant.

In other words, you had nothing significant to say, and no relevant proposition to advance. But, plainly, you're feeling belligerent about it.

[cksalmon]

Could you perhaps indicate what statement you were trying to make? The point of your initial remark is, to put it mildly, unclear to me.

I'm sorry it's unclear. But, then, I don't know how to phrase what you take to be my very painfully, even vacuously-obvious point any more clearly.

You certainly said that. If X is common, then the proposition that "X exists" is entailed by that fact. However, since you decline to furnish any content for what you mean by "common," it's fairly difficult to understand precisely what your statement means beyond that.

Oh boy. No, I didn't say merely that--which was what you suggested (DCP: "you were saying only that they're not nonexistent"). I didn't say "X merely exists." I said "X is common." That "X exists" is entailed, definitionally, in that statement doesn't mean that that's all I was saying, as you suggested (again, DCP: "you were saying only that they're not nonexistent"). No, I wasn't "only saying that they're not nonexistent."

To be clear, I wasn't "only saying that they're not nonexistent." So, no, I didn't say that they're only not nonexistent.

In other words, you had nothing significant to say, and no relevant proposition to advance. But, plainly, you're feeling belligerent about it.

No, I'm not feeling belligerent in the least, though it may be true that I have nothing significant to say.

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

Whatever.

Have a good weekend.

[Uncle Dale]

My neighbor across the street is from Pakistan. They have been here for 3 years. The only

evidence in their house that they are from Pakistan is that they speak a different language and

they have a picture of Grandpa wearing a turban....

A most excellent point.

Truly insightful, and one which I support 100%.

And, it reminds me of the story of Madoc and his Welsh colonizers of the Mississipi Valley. Landing

at Mobile Bay (or near Vera Cruz in Robert Southey's telling of the epic), these hardy adventurers

from the Old World interact with the local Indians and are absorbed into their culture eventually.

In the early 19th century American version of the story, the Welsh colonists migrate northwestward,

over time, to become the light-skinned Mandan Indians -- having lost all of their Old World knowledge,

technology, history and self-identification. They adopt Indian ways, to the point that only their physical

appearance and small fragments of their language betray their Welsh origins (after a few centuries).

And so, I suppose, it would have been for any "Israelite" colonists in preColumbian America -- they

would have abandoned all of their advanced technology and knowledge within a couple of generations.

Whatever wheat, barley, scriptures, liahonas, steel swords, and the like that might have come over

on their ship(s) would soon be abandoned. They would merge into the native American culture(s) and

cease to exist as a separate people. In time, their genetic contribution to the American gene-pool would

become so diluted as to be totally lost.

All they would retain would be a few cultural fragments of their Old World origins --- nothing, in fact,

that would show up as being unique in the archaeological record.

So ---------> there we have it. If there were any Lehites, they were "lost" shortly after their arrival in

the Americas, leaving absolutely nothing identifiable by which later researchers could ever locate

their remains. Their language, food, clothing, religion and appearance would be totally American Indian.

Finally --- a Mormon observation and conclusion that I can agree with totally.

UD

.

[harnwolf]

I'll let our friendly name-dropper speak for himself --- but we might take the example of David and

the Philistines for our consideration.

Somewhere along the line, David became a very important name in Israelite and Jewish heritage.

But the father back in preserved history we go, the less and less evidence there is for any sort of

King David. There is certainly nothing contemporary with his reign that has survived and which is

clearly identified with him as a person.

His Philistine masters/neighbors/enemies have, however, been brought into the light of modern

knowledge by decades of research in southern Palestine.

Some day, some digger of ancient refuse piles may well stumble upon a Philistine wine-jug seal

that says, "this jug is for David of Judah." Not very likely -- but possible.

UD

I thought that "David's Jug" (or something like it) was possibly already found a few years ago:

http://www.formerthings.com/kingdavid.htm

Just like "Nehemiah's Wall" was just found:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov29/0,4...alemDig,00.html

In both cases, there are those (typically "believers" or archaeologists of "faith") who see a connection between what has been found, and the Bible, and those (typically "unbelievers" or those "of little faith") who have serious doubts or just disagree.

The ongoing debates between believers and unbelievers in the magazine "Biblical Archaeology Review" is similar to the ongoing debate here--and as more is found regarding Central America peoples, just as in the Middle East, very little will probably be definitively resolved--"Uncle" and "Doc" (and the rest of us) will continue to see new finds and information from different perspectives and come to different conclusions. While I enjoy reading the articles and books provided by FARMS and FAIR,etc., and I think they help me understand and discuss items of interest with church members and others, in the end, it will still be a matter of faith--or not.

For some it will always be "time to put the Nephites up on the old-time fantasy shelf along with the elves and unicorns."...and Abraham, and Moses, and Ruth, etc.

As an aside, before I joined the church, I listened to a 2-day lecture in the late '70s by a member of the church--I believe his name was Jack West. His presentation was entitled, I believe, "The Trial of Joseph Smith", where the first day he used quotes from the BofM witnesses, to make his case; on the 2nd day he used "archaeological evidence". I don't remember any particulars. He was not an archaeologist--I believe he was a lawyer by trade. Does anyone know anything about the sources he used? Has the type of info he put out then been discounted as fluff, or lacking any real depth? One item I seem to recall was his so-called "white" Indians (I guess they were remnant"Nephites") who lived, somewhere in South America?

[solomarineris]

I'll tell you what WILL be found -- and that is, ever more information on the evolution of native

American cultures of the pre-Columbian era.

If we today go back and read the 1880s "Deseret News" pronouncements, made by such LDS apostles

as Orson Pratt, even the most dyed-in-the-wool Mormon defender will be forced to admit that the

continent-wide picture of Christian "Nephite" civilization painted in those old articles was wrong.

That is the first unsettling but necessary step that Mormons must take ---- to admit that what our

ancestors had to say about BoM peoples was WRONG.

.... Then, the descendants of today's modern Mormons, can one day admit that even the current

"limited geography" notions were wrong -- way back in 2007.

It will take a while, but the day will come when the Mormons will quietly adopt the Community of Christ

viewpoint --- that there will NEVER be any Nephite archaeology -- because there never were any Nephites.

UD

Uncle Dale,

You are a smart man, well qualified to be a (friendly) Apostate.

The question is what took the Brass so long to acknowledge that they had to take some drastic measures?

I think they know what you are writing is not far off the truth but they are going in to a false direction to assign Apologetic Arm to fix the problem. Apologetics will fix nothing, change nothing because the facts of the history is already written and etched to the stone.

If I was the "Decision Maker" I'd hire, or even call John Dehlin likes to the administration, knowing his loyalty to the Church is very good (even though rationally discussing controversial aspects of church in his podcasts is remarkable).

You said the rest. Church has to chance the focus of BoM being this and that.

[Uncle Dale]

I thought that "David's Jug" (or something like it) was possibly already found a few years ago:

Getting closer, but still no kupi doll on these discoveries.

Certainly there is evidence for a "House of David" at an early date.

The next step would be to find something contemporary that mentions

David himself --- like a graffiti scratched into a Jebusite sewer-system

wall, that read: "sure is stinky down here.... David, future king of Jerusalem"

Maybe -- someday.

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

...what took the Brass so long to acknowledge that they had to take some drastic measures?

...

As a Latter Day Saint myself, I must admit that there are times that a testimony

simply MUST over-rule logical considerations.

That much I understand and support.

But when part of the content of a testimony is problematic, we look first to our

leaders for counsel and solutions.

And then we wait............................................................................................

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Good to see you here, Yme.

I've posed some questions to you on the Smithsonian and AAR/SBL threads. I would be very interested in your responses.

Thanks!

[Kevin Christensen]

Hashbaz, very nice work here. I think we can expect good things to come. Welcome. And Daniel, though that goes without saying.

And Uncle Dale... I do pay close attention to the standard examples cited, and how they are used to establish a paradigm that embodies set of assumptions, a problem field, and standard of solution (as Kuhn would say). It's certainly informative in that respect. Though, when I consider the state of the art in LDS apologetics when I was a kid, compared to what we have now, I'm quite frankly awestruck by the Book of Mormon. For me, historicity is here to stay. It's easy to raise problems, of course, but no critic has come within miles of defining the problem the Book of Mormon represents, let alone solving it. Except via what is essentially magic. (Joseph did it "somehow.")

It's interesting how much mileage people can get out of the unexamined assumption that surely a prophet would know this or that. (On this, see for example, my Sunstone essay "On Wagging the Dog.") It's also interesting to consider the opposite unexamined assumption, to think through what a fraud would surely know. (Coe's comments on the Book of Mormon on PBS website collide direction with unexamined assumptions.)

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Uncle Dale]

Hashbaz, very nice work here. I think we can expect good things to come. Welcome. And Daniel, though that goes without saying.

And Uncle Dale... I do pay close attention to the standard examples cited, and how they are used to establish a paradigm that embodies set of assumptions, a problem field, and standard of solution (as Kuhn would say). It's certainly informative in that respect. Though, when I consider the state of the art in LDS apologetics when I was a kid, compared to what we have now, I'm quite frankly awestruck by the Book of Mormon. For me, historicity is here to stay. It's easy to raise problems, of course, but no critic has come within miles of defining the problem the Book of Mormon represents, let alone solving it. Except via what is essentially magic. (Joseph did it "somehow.")

It's interesting how much mileage people can get out of the unexamined assumption that surely a prophet would know this or that. (On this, see for example, my Sunstone essay "On Wagging the Dog.") It's also interesting to consider the opposite unexamined assumption, to think through what a fraud would surely know. (Coe's comments on the Book of Mormon on PBS website collide direction with unexamined assumptions.)

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

It has never been my purpose to talk people out of believing in the BoM, to whatever extent they

felt was right for them -- so long as theirs was a personal decision, and not something they did simply

in submitting to peer pressure or our Latter Day Saint heritage.

Reorganized Saints can worship, work and play, side-by-side, without all having to hold exactly the

same views on BoM historicity, etc. Such a thing may sound strange and near-impossible to Mormons,

but it is the religious tradition from which I come, and I'm comfortable with all of that.

Somebody once gave me a book entitled, "Book of Mormon Proved by Archaeology." Perhaps I still

have a copy around the house somewhere --- it was the typical sort of thing that RLDS wristers used

to produce -- full of pictures of the Maya and folklore about "white Indians."

Out of 1000 assertions made in such old books (and articles, dating back to 1842 at Nauvoo), I'd say

that I've demonstrated to my own satisfaction, that about 990 were false and the other 10 were highly

suspect. That is my starting point -- Get out your old Dewey Farnsworth books and mark with a yellow

highlighter every sentence in them that even dyed-in-the-wool Mormon proponents no longer support

or assert, and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about.

That is all I hope to accomplish -- to tamp down a few of the "We proved it true, in Yucatan!" sorts of

claims. Mormons themselves deserve that much contra-diction, even if they still hope to one day dig

up Zarahemla.

I say that we have not dug up Zarahemla because it never existed -- my LDS neighbors say we have

not dug it up because it probably lies buried under a supermarket parking lot in Tampico, never to

be uncovered again.

Whatever our differing explanations may be, we can agree that there is no recognized BoM archaeology,

in the same sense that there is Philistine archaeology or Ceylonese archaeology -- and that there is little

reason to think that things will be any different, on that score, a year from now or a century from now.

If we can just get that far, together -- perhaps we can cooperate and support one another on those parts

of "bringing forth and establishing the cause of Zion" which really matter.

At least that is my hope.

Uncle Dale

.

[John Williams]

That is all I hope to accomplish -- to tamp down a few of the "We proved it true, in Yucatan!" sorts of

claims. Mormons themselves deserve that much contra-diction, even if they still hope to one day dig

up Zarahemla.

I say that we have not dug up Zarahemla because it never existed -- my LDS neighbors say we have

not dug it up because it probably lies buried under a supermarket parking lot in Tampico, never to

be uncovered again.

Whatever our differing explanations may be, we can agree that there is no recognized BoM archaeology,

in the same sense that there is Philistine archaeology or Ceylonese archaeology -- and that there is little

reason to think that things will be any different, on that score, a year from now or a century from now.

If we can just get that far, together -- perhaps we can cooperate and support one another on those parts

of "bringing forth and establishing the cause of Zion" which really matter.

At least that is my hope.

Uncle Dale

.

Well said, UD. I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal history of an ancient people. It seems to me fairly obvious. Too many anachronisms, too much KJV textual dependency, too many cultural and social markers of 19th-century America--it doesn't work for me. That said, if someone else wants to believe it, that's fine with me. But let's not overstate the evidence for the book. Crappy apologetics are no better than crappy criticism (I should know, having done too much of both).

As for the cause of Zion, I'm not really sure if you can separate it from the Book of Mormon, or whether it's worth the effort in the first place.

[Uncle Dale]

As for the cause of Zion, I'm not really sure if you can separate it from the Book of Mormon, or

whether it's worth the effort in the first place.

It is an issue that I struggle with. I sometimes receive criticism for being "a loner." Were I a true

Latter Day Saint (the argument goes), I would be more involved in group-work and should be able

to point to the testimony of others that I am maginifying my callings, helping to spread the Gospel

and aiding in building the Kingdom.

That is a powerful argument against my current situation, as an un-affiliated, fundamentalist RLDS.

Like most others, I envision the "cause of Zion" as being a team effort, and one that it highly worthwhile.

But, as the years pass, I'm tempted to listen more and more to opinions such as your own.

The archaeology is a bust --- is the hope for a viable, inclusive covenant community also a bust?

Like all the failed hippie communes, united orders of Enoch and the holy city of Nauvoo itself,

perhaps the latter day gathering is but an impossible dream.

It is a better dream than the Book of Mormon, however -- and can be separated from that volume,

I truly believe.

UD

[John Williams]

The archaeology is a bust --- is the hope for a viable, inclusive covenant community also a bust?

Like all the failed hippie communes, united orders of Enoch and the holy city of Nauvoo itself,

perhaps the latter day gathering is but an impossible dream.

It is a better dream than the Book of Mormon, however -- and can be separated from that volume,

I truly believe.

UD

I struggle with this, too. I sometimes feel a strange pull to go back and try to make a positive difference. But then I always conclude that the project of Zion is too closely tied to negative baggage from the "restoration," and I end up keeping my distance.

The notion of Zion as being a people united with one heart is an appealing one, but Mormonism seems a poor tool for reaching that goal.

[Kevin Christensen]

Out of 1000 assertions made in such old books (and articles, dating back to 1842 at Nauvoo), I'd say

that I've demonstrated to my own satisfaction, that about 990 were false and the other 10 were highly

suspect. That is my starting point -- Get out your old Dewey Farnsworth books and mark with a yellow

highlighter every sentence in them that even dyed-in-the-wool Mormon proponents no longer support

or assert, and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about.

And this is exactly what I am talking about when I say it is useful to pay close attention to the standard examples that people generalize from to define their paradigms, their methods, background assumptions, and standards of solution.

The first two books of LDS apologetics I read were a cartoon version of Jack West's Trial of the Stick of Joseph, and Venis Priddis's book claiming that most of the Amazon river basin was under water.

If I can quote D&C 1 with reference to LDS prophets and apostiles--"inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest," how much more should it apply to West, Priddis, and Dewey Farnsworth?

It seems to me that Nibley, Sorenson, Peterson, Richard L. Anderson, the Astons and Wellington, Welch, Goff, Gardner, Clark, Roper, Tvedtnes, and company exist on an entirely different apologetic plane. I see a real difference in methods, problem fields, and standards of solution. Again D&C 1, "inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed." It's an open-ended, ongoing process. None of the people writing for FARMS have naive views of proof. We have all figured out that anyone can say, "So what?" to anything we come up with. So when people ask to be forced to believe, as though that were a reaonable, rational, request, and not just pride in action, it's easy to mention that Kuhn has shown how and why paradigm choice is conversion experience that cannot be forced.

For my part, I think it interesting to look at assertions made about the Book of Mormon by Alexander Campbell, Obediah Dogberry, Eber D. Howe, George D. Smith, Fawn Brodie, Jerrald and Sandra Tanner, Michael Coe, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe, David Wright, Bill Russell, Simon Southerton, and such, and to note how much of that fails to hold up.

Then there is my own stuff. I'm not just an observer, cheering from the sidelines. I have a dozen essays published via FARMS, one at Dialogue, two at Sunstone. One thing about my own contributions that strikes me is that I've managed to notice some things that completely escaped the observation of the critics. Even Jerrald Tanner, meticulously highlighting every little change in the text he saw, completely overlooked many things I found. And we are supposedly reading the same text. The same seed, planted in different soil, nurtured in different ways, produces vastly different harvests.

From my perspective, the field is far from barren, but abundantly fruitful.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA