Any new evidence for the historical account of the Book of Mormon?

[beastie]

Maybe if I put my words in really big print you will pay attention.

I only care about the historicity issue, and I care about that because of the frequent misleading statements apologists have made in the past.

[beastie]

Whence the obfuscation?

The question is hardly obfuscation.

If the Lehites were subsumed within the larger culture of the host culture, as time went on, we would see less and less of the culture of origin (mid-east, Judeo-Christian), and more and more of the host culture (mesoamerican).

It's also interesting to ponder: how would the history of ancient Mesoamerica be different if the BoM had not taken place therein?

[kryoung1983]

The question is hardly obfuscation.

If the Lehites were subsumed within the larger culture of the host culture, as time went on, we would see less and less of the culture of origin (mid-east, Judeo-Christian), and more and more of the host culture (mesoamerican).

It's also interesting to ponder: how would the history of ancient Mesoamerica be different if the BoM had not taken place therein?

How do you take the fact that chaim rabban, who was one of the primier scholars on Hebrew, and taught at Hebrew University made the statement at a seminar that the book of mormon was a better example of hebraisms then the entire king james version of the bible. He was also Jewish. How do you account for the linguistic patterns?

[lostindc]

Maybe if I put my words in really big print you will pay attention.

I only care about the historicity issue, and I care about that because of the frequent misleading statements apologists have made in the past.

Dude your a freaking out, I would hate to be in post office the same time you are there...keep going, I think we can get a few converts out of this post. Perhaps we need more people who care less about Mormonism to continue to focus a large portion of their time on Mormonism.

[kryoung1983]

How do you take the fact that chaim rabban, who was one of the primier scholars on Hebrew, and taught at Hebrew University made the statement at a seminar that the book of mormon was a better example of hebraisms then the entire king james version of the bible. He was also Jewish. How do you account for the linguistic patterns?

Also this picture of mesoamerican fortifications from Jeff Lindsy's sight is quite revealing.

http://mayaruins.com/becan/aerial1.html

""The earthworks discovered by Ruppert and Denison in 1934 represent massive fortifications erected during the Early Classic period, possibly in response to political inbalances caused by an intrusion of foreign elements from the central Mexican highlands...The fortifications of Becan represent the earliest clearcut evidence for large-scale military activity in the lowlands."

I will quote from the site since I think the evidence is very compelling.

"In 1970, researchers from Tulane University discovered a huge defensive fortification at Becan in the Yucatan Peninsula. The center of the site is surrounded by a fortification - a ditch - that is nearly 2 kilometers long and roughly 16 meters wide. (Aerial photos of Becan sites are available at http://mayaruins.com/becan/aerial1.html and http://mayaruins.com/becan/aerial2.html.) Dirt had been piled to make a ridge on the inner side of the ditch. This fortification dates to 150 AD to 450 AD, which fits into Book of Mormon times. David Webster of Tulane describes how he thinks the fortification worked: "To throw 'uphill' from the outside is almost impossible. Defenders, possibly screened by a palisade, could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies using spearthrowers and slings." (David L. Webster, Defensive Earthworks at Becan, Campeche, Mexico: Implications for Mayan Warfare , Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute, Publication 41, 1976, p. 108, as cited by John L. Sorensen, Ensign, Sept. 1984, p. 33.

Compare a Book of Mormon account (Alma 49:18-20) from around 70 B.C. with the description of Dr. Webster above:

18 Now behold, the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security by any other way save by the entrance, because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about, save it were by the entrance.

19 And thus were the Nephites prepared to destroy all such as should attempt to climb up to enter the fort by any other way, by casting over stones and arrows at them.

20 Thus they were prepared, yea, a body of their strongest men, with their swords and their slings, to smite down all who should attempt to come into their place of security by the place of entrance; and thus were they prepared to defend themselves against the Lamanites.

Captain Moroni in the Book of Mormon used such fortifications throughout Nephite lands, as explained in Alma 50:1-4 (ca. 72 to 60 B.C.):

1 And now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites; for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

2 And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.

3 And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.

4 And he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets, and he caused places of security to be built upon those towers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them.

5 And they were prepared that they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength, and slay him who should attempt to approach near the walls of the city.

6 Thus Moroni did prepare strongholds against the coming of their enemies, round about every city in all the land.

A related description is in Alma 533-5:

3 And it came to pass that after the Lamanites had finished burying their dead and also the dead of the Nephites, they were marched back into the land Bountiful; and Teancum, by the orders of Moroni, caused that they should commence laboring in digging a ditch round about the land, or the city, Bountiful.

4 And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch; and they cast up dirt out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers; and thus they did cause the Lamanites to labor until they had encircled the city of Bountiful round about with a strong wall of timbers and earth, to an exceeding height.

5 And this city became an exceeding stronghold ever after; and in this city they did guard the prisoners of the Lamanites; yea, even within a wall which they had caused them to build with their own hands. Now Moroni was compelled to cause the Lamanites to labor, because it was easy to guard them while at their labor; and he desired all his forces when he should make an attack upon the Lamanites.

The breakthrough discoveries of Webster and others at Tulane University were soon followed by related findings which fueled a paradigm shift in our understanding of the prevalence of warfare in ancient Mesoamerica. Other findings have confirmed the use of palisaded fortifications (palisade = fence of "pales" or pointed sticks made as a defensive barrier, according to the American Heritage Dictionary), ditches, and earthen walls. John Sorenson summarizes these Mesoamerican findings as of 1984:

More than one hundred fortified sites are now known. Ray Matheny's work at Edzna revealed a large, moated fortress dating to around the time of Christ [1]. Loma Torremote in the Valley of Mexico was a palisaded hilltop settlement by about 400 B.C. [2] Part of the three kilometers of defensive walls at famous Monte Alban dates before 200 B.C. [3] The core of Los Naranjos in western Honduras was entirely surrounded by a big ditch sometime between 1000 and 500 B.C. [4] Besides the actual sites, graphic art, remains of weapons, and warrior figurines have been found for many periods. So have stone walls. (Compare Alma 48: [5] And the public skull-rack (Aztec tzompantli), used at the time of the Conquest by the Aztecs to strike fear into the hearts of potential rebels against their military control, has now been found in Cuicatlan Valley of Oaxaca dating from before the time of Christ. [6]

"Increasingly, it is apparent that war practices in use when the Europeans arrived go back to the very early history of Mesoamerica. Yet as late as ten years ago, most of the published descriptions of early life in the area directly contradicted this view."

(Ensign, Sept. 1984, p. 33.)

References cited by Sorenson:

1. Ray T. Matheny, D. L. Gurr, D. W. Forsyth, F. R. Hauck, Investigations at Edzna, Campeche, Mexico, Vol. 1, Part 1: The Hydraulic System (Brigham Young University, New World Archaeological Foundation, Paper 46, 1983), pp. 169-191.

2. "Current Research," American Antiquity, 45 (1980), p. 622.

3. Richard E. Blanton and S. A. Kowalewski, "Monte Alban and after in the Valley of Oaxaca," in J.A. Sabloff, ed., Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1, Archaeology (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), p. 100.

4. Claude F. Baudez and Pierre Becquelin, Etudes Mesoameriques, Vol. 2, Archaeologie de los Naranjos, (Mexico: Mission Archaeologique et Ethnologique Francaise au Mexique, 1973), pp. 3-4.

5. Angel Palerm, "notas sobras las Construcciones Militares u la Guerra en Mesoamerica," Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, (Mexico), 7 (1956), p. 129; and Webster, op. cit., p. 98.

6. Charles S. Spencer and Else M. Redmond, "Formative and Classic Developments in the Cuicatlan Canada: A Preliminary Report," in Robert D. Drennan, ed., Prehistoric Social, Political, and Economic Development in the Area of the Tehuacan Valley: Some Results of the Palo Blanco Project, University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology Technical Reports, no. 11 (Research Reports in Archaeology, Contribution 6), 1979, p. 211.

Further support comes from other recent discoveries about palisade-like structures. Richard Hauck, who is LDS, describes a finding in a Guatemalan valley near Coban which he tentatively correlates to a Book of Mormon location ("Ancient Fortifications and the Land of Manti," This People, Summer 1994, pp. 46-55). He describes how easy it has been for researchers to overlook the remnants of dirt and timber structures, but discusses the trenches, the soil changes, the growth of aligned trees, and other clues that point to their previous existence. The site he discovered, in addition to extensive arrays of palisades, also had an identifiable long and narrow pass, consistent with Book of Mormon descriptions, lined with palisades for a long distance, apparently presenting the only way into the fortified area. Attacking armies entering the pass would be prey to defenders along the palisades. Although the identification of Hauck's site with the land or city of Manti is debatable, there continues to be strong evidence that the military fortifications described in the Book of Mormon are consistent with the most recent discoveries in Mesoamerica - and inconsistent with long-held "expert" opinion prior to the radical paradigm shift that began in the 1970s.

Joseph Smith had no military experience when the Book of Mormon was published (apart from being threatened by mobs and thugs). Certainly forts of timber were built by armies in the early days of the United States, but I am unaware of anything quite like the trench and palisade systems described in the Book of Mormon that Joseph would have known about and could have borrowed from his own experience to fabricate the Book of Mormon. Indeed, even a cursory reading of the war chapters in the Book of Mormon reveals that the battles there are quite foreign to anything a farm boy in New York would have experienced. The accuracy of realistic detail, problems with logistics, rebellion, prisoners of war, morale, spies, etc., reflect authorship by someone intimately familiar with real ancient battle. Accurately describing ancient fortifications in Mesoamerica is just one tiny part of the military mosaic that reflects ancient authorship of the Book of Mormon. And again, recall that the whole idea of significant warfare in ancient Mesoamerica was dismissed by the experts until about 20 years ago. As always, the more we dig into the Book of Mormon, the stronger it becomes. Time continues to erode rather than fortify the many attacks against it.

[beastie]

I'm on my way out the door, but I want to quickly share this:

The fortified cities with ditches, walls, and palisades, was described

in several publications that predated The Book of Mormon, including the

aforementioned The View of the Hebrews, which states:

"Near Newark in Licking county, Ohio, between two branches of the

Licking river, at their junction, is one of the most notable remains of

the ancient works. There is a fort including forty acres, whose walls

are ten feet high. It has eight gateways, each of the width of about

fifteen feet. Each gateway is guarded by a fragment of a wall, placed

before, and about nine feet within the gate, of the bigness of the walls

of the fort, and about four feet longer than the width of the gateway.

The walls are as nearly perpendicular as they could be made with earth.

Near this fort is another round fort containing twenty-two acres, and

connected with the first fort by two parallel walls of earth about the

size of the other walls. At the remotest part of this circular fort, and

just without a gateway, is an observatory so high as to command a view

of the region to some distance. A secret passage was made under this

observatory to an ancient watercourse. At some distance from this fort

(but connected by a chain of internal works, and parallel walls) is

another circular fort of about twenty-six acres, with walls from

twenty-five to thirty feet in height, with a ditch just under them.

Connected with these forts is another square fort of about twenty acres,

whose walls are similar to those of the fort first described. These

forts were not only connected with each other (though considerable

distance apart) by communications made by parallel walls of five or six

rods apart;--but a number of similar communications were made from them

by parallel walls, down to the waters of the river. All these works

stand on a large plain, the top of which is almost level, but is high

land by a regular ascent from near the two branches of the river, to a

height of forty or fifty feet above the branches of the river. At four

different places at the ends of these internal communications between

the forts and down to the river, are watch towers on elevated ground,

and surrounded by circular walls. And the points selected for these

watch towers, were evidently chosen with great skill, to answer their

design. These forts and chains of communications between them, were so

situated as nearly to enclose a number of large fields, which it is

presumed were cultivated, and which were thus far secured from hostile

invaders. From these works are two parallel walls leading off probably

to other similar places of fortifications at a distance. They have been

traced a mile or two, and are yet clearly visible. The writer says; "I

should not be surprised if these parallel walls (thus leading off) are

found to extend from one work of defence to another for the space of

thirty miles--such walls have been discovered at different places,

probably belonging to these works, for ten or twelve miles at least." He

apprehends this was a road between this settlement, and one on the

Hockhocking river. And he says; the planning of these works of defence

"speaks volumes in favour of the sagacity of their authors." (page 145)

Other texts of the time period also mentioned fortifications, including

Alexander Humboldt's writings and John Haywood's 1823 "The Natural and

Aboriginal History of Tennessee".

[lostindc]

Beastie,

I am glad you are getting out, some fresh air will do you some good and I think you will be happier.

As for evidence I refer you to an old thread on BOM complexity.

LINK

[James Banta]

Thanks Jon, I have no problem with that, these are great scriptures and this is a much more civil approach.

If you think I am ever being uncivil I'm sorry.. I just speck the truth as the Holy Spirit gives it to me.. You can always complain and have me banned.. I understand that truth can sometimes be painful to hear.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

200 years is a fairly long time to be looking, especially if you are trying to pin down only one city, or manuscript etc. How long do you think that they need to find some of this stuff? Especially in light of the Book of Mormon passage Mormon 1:7 which suggests that this was a widespread population with buildings that covered the land and people "as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea."

Morm. 1: 7

7 The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.

That would defeat the purpose. I think that LDS is a false religion, if I tell this to non LDS, I would be singing to the choir.

If there was an area of the Americas that the church says the BofM is talking about that would be helpful.. After all this time there still is no definitive official church statement as where the BofM land were? Is it Panama? Honduras? Or New York blended into the Great Lakes? There is no statement from the Church where the narrow neck of land was.. How are they to tell us where the major cities of the Nephrites were? All they know that it was somewhere in the Western Hemisphere.. And yes in 200 years I would think that a bit more than that could be learned, that is if there is ANY connection between reality and the story of the BofM..

I don't know what others outside the church are feeling about the changed the church has made since MtDNA has all but pronounced the BofM false, I see the church change from the Lehi and his people ARE the ancestors of the American Indian to being the principle ancestors to being among the ancestors. I see the BofM becoming totally spiritualized.. More a teaching parable that a real story... IHS jim

[Anijen]

I'm on my way out the door, but I want to quickly share this:

The fortified cities with ditches, walls, and palisades, was described

in several publications that predated The Book of Mormon, including the

aforementioned The View of the Hebrews, which states:

"Near Newark in Licking county, Ohio, between two branches of the

Licking river, at their junction, is one of the most notable remains of

the ancient works. There is a fort including forty acres, whose walls

are ten feet high. It has eight gateways, each of the width of about

fifteen feet. Each gateway is guarded by a fragment of a wall, placed

before, and about nine feet within the gate, of the bigness of the walls

of the fort, and about four feet longer than the width of the gateway.

The walls are as nearly perpendicular as they could be made with earth.

Near this fort is another round fort containing twenty-two acres, and

connected with the first fort by two parallel walls of earth about the

size of the other walls. At the remotest part of this circular fort, and

just without a gateway, is an observatory so high as to command a view

of the region to some distance. A secret passage was made under this

observatory to an ancient watercourse. At some distance from this fort

(but connected by a chain of internal works, and parallel walls) is

another circular fort of about twenty-six acres, with walls from

twenty-five to thirty feet in height, with a ditch just under them.

Connected with these forts is another square fort of about twenty acres,

whose walls are similar to those of the fort first described. These

forts were not only connected with each other (though considerable

distance apart) by communications made by parallel walls of five or six

rods apart;--but a number of similar communications were made from them

by parallel walls, down to the waters of the river. All these works

stand on a large plain, the top of which is almost level, but is high

land by a regular ascent from near the two branches of the river, to a

height of forty or fifty feet above the branches of the river. At four

different places at the ends of these internal communications between

the forts and down to the river, are watch towers on elevated ground,

and surrounded by circular walls. And the points selected for these

watch towers, were evidently chosen with great skill, to answer their

design. These forts and chains of communications between them, were so

situated as nearly to enclose a number of large fields, which it is

presumed were cultivated, and which were thus far secured from hostile

invaders. From these works are two parallel walls leading off probably

to other similar places of fortifications at a distance. They have been

traced a mile or two, and are yet clearly visible. The writer says; "I

should not be surprised if these parallel walls (thus leading off) are

found to extend from one work of defence to another for the space of

thirty miles--such walls have been discovered at different places,

probably belonging to these works, for ten or twelve miles at least." He

apprehends this was a road between this settlement, and one on the

Hockhocking river. And he says; the planning of these works of defence

"speaks volumes in favour of the sagacity of their authors." (page 145)

Other texts of the time period also mentioned fortifications, including

Alexander Humboldt's writings and John Haywood's 1823 "The Natural and

Aboriginal History of Tennessee".

Beastie just to be clear are you stating that View of the Hebrews was the source for the BoM? Have you read it and the Bom? If you have do you really believe that?

[GDTeacher]

Beastie,

You are so full of crap. The reaches you are making are ridiculous much like you continuing to post on this board. You need to calm down, relax, read a book, watch some tv, get out for a little bit, perhaps take in some cuisine, and realize that it is going to be alright. You are going to be alright. I am sure someone out there likes you...

This is a pretty blatant ad hominen attack. Is this acceptable here? Why would we stoop to this?

[Cold Steel]

If the evidence is really so clear then why isn't the world beating a path to our door?

I think if it were crystal clear, people still would not generally want anything to do with it. Many religious Catholics and protestants would accept the gospel if Jesus appeared and said, "This is it." But if you read the Book of Mormon and the words of the prophets, there will be those during the Millennium who will still hold on to their old religions. In short, there will be other religions, even though Christ will make appearances in both Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem. Joseph Smith and many other prophets not now very well known, will be acknowledged by Christ, but still there will be holdouts. Many, frankly, just don't want to have anything to do with religionâ??any religion. They just want to live their lives without it. And according to Zachariah, the Lord will still call down judgments on those who refuse to hear the gospel and those who refuse to acknowledge that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. The hatred now being sown in the Middle East will bear fruit in those days, and it won't just vanish overnight regardless of what happens.

[Cold Steel]

I don't know what others outside the church are feeling about the changed the church has made since MtDNA has all but pronounced the BofM false....

I think you're living in a bit of a dream world, Jim. Those outside the church are generally disinterested in anything the church finds in its favor. As a convert, I believe the evidence is exceedingly compelling; certainly, every bit as strong as the evidence for Jesus and the church of the New Testament. There are many who bitterly dispute the existence of Christ, and certainly many who reject His claims to the Messiahship. It's just a matter of which evidence one chooses to accept. Evidence abounds, but proof is ever elusive. The DNA issue has been more than adequately addressed, and, frankly, when I hear someone say the evidence against the Book of Mormon is overwhelming, I realize we're just living on different worlds.

[GDTeacher]

I think you're living in a bit of a dream world, Jim. Those outside the church are generally disinterested in anything the church finds in its favor. As a convert, I believe the evidence is exceedingly compelling; certainly, every bit as strong as the evidence for Jesus and the church of the New Testament. There are many who bitterly dispute the existence of Christ, and certainly many who reject His claims to the Messiahship. It's just a matter of which evidence one chooses to accept. Evidence abounds, but proof is ever elusive. The DNA issue has been more than adequately addressed, and, frankly, when I hear someone say the evidence against the Book of Mormon is overwhelming, I realize we're just living on different worlds.

Do you then think that honest archeologists, biologists, and other scholars are disinterested in the truth? Are they only interested if it doesn't link in some way to the church? Doesn't it make sense that honest seekers of the truth would seek truth, wherever it may be?

[Mortal Man]

Here's just one example of the extended political control the Nephites exercised:

The significance of this section is that the city of Zarahemla apparently had enough control over the land of Jershon that they could â??giveâ? the converted Lamanites this land. Again, referring to Mathenyâ??s map and the map of modern Chiapas, Jershon would have been approximately 160 miles away from Zarahemla. Once again, while Mesoamerican scholars may disagree on some points regarding the type of polities that existed in ancient Mesoamerica, it is not even within the realm of discussion to imagine one city having that type of control over another area 160 miles away. No Mesoamerican polity, during that time period, could have extended such control over such a large region, much less the moiety of Santa Rosa. The only feasible imperial candidate for such a feat would be the Aztecs, and, of course, they came on the scene a thousand years too late.

Again, if the polity described in the BoM really did exist in ancient Mesoamerica, and yet left no recognizable footprint, it would be akin to suggesting that it would be reasonable for the Aztecs to have left no recognizable footprint.

One more example of the Nephite's extended control:

Additional verses provide more information about the power Zarahemla exerted. Later in the book of Alma, the Lamanites wage war against the Nephites, and Moroni is at the head of the Nephite army, around BC 67. Note the various Nephite cities mentioned in this campaign, in addition to the aforementioned Jershon, on the coast:

The capital city of Zarahemla exerted a great deal of control over the other polities that extended throughout the entire region demonstrated earlier on the map showing the general region in question. Again, utilizing mapquest along with Mathenyâ??s map, I roughly approximate the area under Nephite control to be 75,000 square miles.

Santa Rosa aside, there is simply no ancient Mesoamerican polity that had this type of power. It rivals that of the Aztec Empire, which stretched over 80,000 square miles. Regardless of whatever disagreements Mesoamerican scholars may have regarding super-states versus peer polities, not a single one suggests that such an empire existed during the Book of Mormon time frame.

Again, suggesting that such a polity existed and left no recognizable footprint is the equivalent of asserting that the Aztecs could have reasonably left no recognizable footprint, or that one day future archaeologists would argue that the United States could have existed and left no recognizable footprint. I choose the US not because its size is equivalent, obviously, but because it is the most powerful polity in the world (more or less). In the Mesoamerican world, if the Nephite polity had existed, it would have been the most powerful polity in that world.

"...at the period when these were constructed, there was a population as numerous as that which once animated the borders of the Nile or of the Euphrates, or of Mexico. Brackenridge calculates that there were 5000 cities at once full of people. I am perfectly satisfied that cities similar to those of ancient Mexico, of several hundred thousand souls, (says the writer) have existed in this country...

But the Egyptian pyramids were seen and well known by ancient Israel... How natural then, that they should carry down to succeeding generations the deep impression of them in their minds. And what other nation on earth would be so likely to form such imitations of them, in a remote outcast region, as they, and especially after all we read of Israel's high places, piles, and monuments, their acquaintance with Gibeon, and Gilgal; their deep impression of the temple on mount Zion; and especially their high and sacred places at Bethel and Dan!"" -- Ethan Smith in VotH quoting and extrapolating from Archaeologia Americana.

[hagoth7]

If I may interject.

Do you then think that honest archeologists, biologists, and other scholars are disinterested in the truth?

Depends on what you mean. Which sectors of truth they're interested in will vary. So interest is on a sliding scale, from passionate to disinterested, depending on its relevance to their core interests.

I, for example, have little interest in sports data - while others can quote batting averages at length.

Is what they can cite true or accurate information? Sure. But is it relevant or interesting to me? Not at all. So I don't spend any time on it.

Also, there are a few pockets of history that I have zero history in researching. Doesn't mean I don't love truth. Simply means I don't see how that area of study is relevant to me.

Are they only interested if it doesn't link in some way to the church?

I think they'd only be interested if it has some correlation to their current core interests.

Doesn't it make sense that honest seekers of the truth would seek truth, wherever it may be?

Seeking it is one thing. Receiving it is another. Just like a spaceship will bounce off the earth's atmosphere if its trajectory is too steep, if truth comes at us on a path that isn't parallel enough to (i) what we already suspect (ii) what we're inclined to believe, or (iii) what we're actively looking for, it'll generally be dismissed through cognitive dissonance or bias. Doesn't mean that someone is dishonest. Just means that due to filtering capacities inherent to human nature, we each generally fail to pick up on things we're not specifically looking for (and/or ready for).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you think I am ever being uncivil I'm sorry.. I just speck the truth as the Holy Spirit gives it to me.. You can always complain and have me banned.. I understand that truth can sometimes be painful to hear.. IHS jim

If what you speak is the HG I want nothing to do with it as most of what you spew has nothing to do with Jesus and His message.

[Areabird]

If I may interject.

Depends on what you mean. Which sectors of truth they're interested in will vary. So interest is on a sliding scale, from passionate to disinterested, depending on its relevance to their core interests.

I, for example, have little interest in sports data - while others can quote batting averages at length.

Is what they can cite true or accurate information? Sure. But is it relevant or interesting to me? Not at all. So I don't spend any time on it.

Also, there are a few pockets of history that I have zero history in researching. Doesn't mean I don't love truth. Simply means I don't see how that area of study is relevant to me.

I think they'd only be interested if it has some correlation to their current core interests.

Seeking it is one thing. Receiving it is another. Just like a spaceship will bounce off the earth's atmosphere if its trajectory is too steep, if truth comes at us on a path that isn't parallel enough to (i) what we already suspect (ii) what we're inclined to believe, or (iii) what we're actively looking for, it'll generally be dismissed through cognitive dissonance or bias. Doesn't mean that someone is dishonest. Just means that due to filtering capacities inherent to human nature, we each generally fail to pick up on things we're not specifically looking for (and/or ready for).

How does your answer address whether or not those scientists are seeking truth? If what they discover is truth, then it is simply truth. You might not have any interest in what they discover, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. If your point is that they wouldn't look at the discoveries in the way that you would, then it really doesn't change the fact that they have discovered truth. You just wouldn't value it. Your opinion of whether the truth backs up Mormonism or not is irrelevant to it being truth.

[beastie]

Beastie just to be clear are you stating that View of the Hebrews was the source for the BoM? Have you read it and the Bom? If you have do you really believe that?

No, that is not what I am stating. I am stating that the idea that ancient American civilizations build fortifications was common during JS' time period.

[beastie]

The fact is that any archaeologist who would be able to provide legitimate evidence that would overturn the entire understanding of ancient Mesoamerica would become a "rock star" within that community. Of course when new ideas take off, they meet resistance from the "old guard", but there are always ambitious people who are willing to take that on - for legitimate pieces of evidence. And, in the face of that legitimate evidence, the old guard will eventually concede. That's how science works.

Certain BoM apologists have carefully inculcuated a deep distrust of mainstream archaeologists which is, IMO, largely unjustified.

[James Banta]

I think you're living in a bit of a dream world, Jim. Those outside the church are generally disinterested in anything the church finds in its favor. As a convert, I believe the evidence is exceedingly compelling; certainly, every bit as strong as the evidence for Jesus and the church of the New Testament. There are many who bitterly dispute the existence of Christ, and certainly many who reject His claims to the Messiahship. It's just a matter of which evidence one chooses to accept. Evidence abounds, but proof is ever elusive. The DNA issue has been more than adequately addressed, and, frankly, when I hear someone say the evidence against the Book of Mormon is overwhelming, I realize we're just living on different worlds.

Ok where is even one Nephite City? Why is it that MtDNA markers are found only on a few Indians peoples mostly in south central areas of the US, and don't appear at all in Mexico and points south.. It's not normally DNA that the markers come in.. When you said it was, I assume you have no idea other than what the church has told you what DNA evidence shows.. These markers come through the mothers Mitochondrial DNA that are passed on to offspring without any mixing with the father's DNA information.. Thus we can show the area of the world the mother's family comes from.. As I have said before there are such markers that are found in the women of Southwestern Asia it represents a very small number of the whole population.. A VAST majority shows MtDNA present in Northeastern Asia.. This gives a high degree of confidence that the peoples of America came here across the Bering Land Bridge as science has always stated.. The Church is rightly backpedaling of the origin of the precolumbin America..

You said Evidence abounds... Please share!!! There is Nothing I have seen in the Americas and nothing Jews would have had a hand in on the Arabian Peninsula.. According to Saudi government documents there are NO full time rivers or even streams that empty into any part of the Red Sea including the Gulf of Accaba.. With such information you think I am in a dream world? You should see it from my view.. IHS jim

[lostindc]

Ok where is even one Nephite City? Why is it that MtDNA markers are found only on a few Indians peoples mostly in south central areas of the US, and don't appear at all in Mexico and points south.. It's not normally DNA that the markers come in.. When you said it was, I assume you have no idea other than what the church has told you what DNA evidence shows.. These markers come through the mothers Mitochondrial DNA that are passed on to offspring without any mixing with the father's DNA information.. Thus we can show the area of the world the mother's family comes from.. As I have said before there are such markers that are found in the women of Southwestern Asia it represents a very small number of the whole population.. A VAST majority shows MtDNA present in Northeastern Asia.. This gives a high degree of confidence that the peoples of America came here across the Bering Land Bridge as science has always stated.. The Church is rightly backpedaling of the origin of the precolumbin America..

You said Evidence abounds... Please share!!! There is Nothing I have seen in the Americas and nothing Jews would have had a hand in on the Arabian Peninsula.. According to Saudi government documents there are NO full time rivers or even streams that empty into any part of the Red Sea including the Gulf of Accaba.. With such information you think I am in a dream world? You should see it from my view.. IHS jim

Jon,

Your vast lack of knowledge regarding genetics is baffling considering what you are attempting to do, I am guessing you have no real understanding when it comes to this subject. I suspect that your sabbath is not going very well and you are looking to take it out on the Mormons, again. I think you need to enter a basic science class and perhaps learn how to dissect a worm before you attempt to break down the complexities of mesoamerican dna.

[Kevin Christensen]

The fact is that any archaeologist who would be able to provide legitimate evidence that would overturn the entire understanding of ancient Mesoamerica would become a "rock star" within that community. Of course when new ideas take off, they meet resistance from the "old guard", but there are always ambitious people who are willing to take that on - for legitimate pieces of evidence. And, in the face of that legitimate evidence, the old guard will eventually concede. That's how science works.

Certain BoM apologists have carefully inculcuated a deep distrust of mainstream archaeologists which is, IMO, largely unjustified.

For a more in-depth, and far more realistic discussion of how change happens in science, see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolitions, or the entertaining James Burke series, "The Day the Universe Changes."

Kuhn for instance, on "the Response to Crisis"

"Let us assume that crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories and ask next how scientists respond to their existence. Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important, can be discovered by noting first what scientists never do when confronted by severe and prolonged anomalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alterntatives, they do not renouce the paradigm that has led them into crisis. That is, they do not treat anomalies as counterinstances, though in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science that is what they are...once it has achieved the status of a paradigm, the scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place. No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature...the act of judgment that leads scientists to reject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparison of that theory with the world. The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other." Kuhn, 77.

It's not just reading the evidence, but what counts as evidence, and how to evaluate that evidence that come into play in paradigm debate. For instance, if someone came along and rejected claims about the Greenhouse effect caused by motor emissions on the grounds that they had carefully surveyed hundreds of neighborhoods, and none of them showed any evidence that their houses were turning green, unless deliberately painted that way, what is at issue is not the evidence or the honesty and thoroughness of those who checked colors, or even their use of the latest satellite technology, and spectral evaluations. The problem is that how a person defines "the Greenhouse effect" has a direct impact on what counts as evidence.

Just so. Much of the issue in Book of Mormon research involves how to read the Book of Mormon. As Ian Barbour observes, "Theory is revisable in light of observation, but observation may sometimes need to be reconsidered in light of theory." (Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 97). And things get more complicated in practice because "A network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses." Barbour, 99.

In the recent PBS series on The Mormons, they used Michael Coe to innoculate viewers against any possible contamination by the notion that the Book of Mormon is at all plausible. Fine, but the problem is that only Coe's reading was presented. An uninformed audience cannot ask "which paradigm is better?" when they have nothing to compare against. However, an informed audience may find Coe's observations very telling, and indeed, in my case, faith promoting. (I've posted on this in the past.) What I want to mention here is that Coe deliberately and without qualification praised the important archeology being done by LDS scholars. (John Clark would be a conspicuous, but not the only example.) The thing is, from my perspective, Coe paints a picture of the Book of Mormon that utterly fails to explain the content. For instance, Coe has Joseph composing the Book of Mormon as a deliberate fraud, imagining a hemispheric geography, and then being "flabbergasted" on encountering John Lloyd Steven's book on Travel in Mesoamerica, and only then imagining as Mesoamerican setting. That specific prediction utterly fails to account for the fact that Larry Poulson proved that the Grijalva in Mesoamerica is the only river in the Western Hemisphere that matches the description in the Book of Mormon. And all of the other 600+ geographical details in the Book of Mormon, and the cultural and historical details wrap neatly around the Sidon.

In all honesty, how does Coe's theory deal with that anomaly? Well, frankly, with no disrespect to Coe, it doesn't bother to notice the problem. His method precludes him from ever discovering the problem on his own.

We can predict that when someone shows James Banta the photographs of a stream in that Potter and Wellington put forward as a candidate for the Valley of Lemuel, that the evidence by itself will not change his paradigm. We shouldn't expect it to. The issue we answer as individuals is "Which paradigm is better? Which problems are more significant to have solved?"

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[James Banta]

Jon,

Your vast lack of knowledge regarding genetics is baffling considering what you are attempting to do, I am guessing you have no real understanding when it comes to this subject. I suspect that your sabbath is not going very well and you are looking to take it out on the Mormons, again. I think you need to enter a basic science class and perhaps learn how to dissect a worm before you attempt to break down the complexities of mesoamerican dna.

First lets get this straight.. The Sabbath was yesterday.. This is the Lord's day... I don't mind nor do I hold it against you that you think I am ignorant.. I make no claim about teaching DNA.. That is not the issue here... MtDNA is a whole different animal.. It has nothing to do with the traits inherited from your patents. Nothing to do with if you have brown eyes or blue. Nothing to do with how tall you are.. All it does is hold a history of your families beginnings and the part of the world they come from.. That science dictates that the Indians of this continent came from the area of Northeast Asia not the Middle East.. I am sorry you refuse to examine the science.. I didn't make it up and you can read about it online.. I did.... IHS jim

[James Banta]

For a more in-depth, and far more realistic discussion of how change happens in science, see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolitions, or the entertaining James Burke series, "The Day the Universe Changes."

Kuhn for instance, on "the Response to Crisis"

"Let us assume that crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories and ask next how scientists respond to their existence. Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important, can be discovered by noting first what scientists never do when confronted by severe and prolonged anomalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alterntatives, they do not renouce the paradigm that has led them into crisis. That is, they do not treat anomalies as counterinstances, though in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science that is what they are...once it has achieved the status of a paradigm, the scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place. No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature...the act of judgment that leads scientists to reject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparison of that theory with the world. The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other." Kuhn, 77.

It's not just reading the evidence, but what counts as evidence, and how to evaluate that evidence that come into play in paradigm debate. For instance, if someone came along and rejected claims about the Greenhouse effect caused by motor emissions on the grounds that they had carefully surveyed hundreds of neighborhoods, and none of them showed any evidence that their houses were turning green, unless deliberately plainted that way, what is at issue is not the evidence or the honesty and thoroughness of those who checked colors, or even their use of the latest satellite technology, and spectral evaluations. The problem is that how a person defines "the Greenhouse effect" has a direct impact on what counts as evidence.

Just so. Much of the issue in Book of Mormon research involves how to read the Book of Mormon. As Ian Barbour observes, "Theory is revisable in light of observation, but observation may sometimes need to be reconsidered in light of theory." (Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 97). And things get more complicated in practice because "A network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses." Barbour, 99.

In the recent PBS series on The Mormons, they used Michael Coe to innoculate viewers against any possible contamination by the notion that the Book of Mormon is at all plausible. Fine, but the problem is that only Coe's reading was presented. An uninformed audience cannot ask "which paradigm is better?" when they have nothing to compare against. However, an informed audience may find Coe's observations very telling, and indeed, in my case, faith promoting. (I've posted on this in the past.) What I want to mention here is that Coe deliberately and without qualification praised the important archeology being done by LDS scholars. (John Clark would be a conspicuous, but not the only example.) The thing is, from my perspective, Coe paints a picture of the Book of Mormon that utterly fails to explain the content. For instance, Coe has Joseph composing the Book of Mormon as a deliberate fraud, imagining a hemispheric geography, and then being "flabbergasted" on encountering John Lloyd Steven's book on Travel in Mesoamerica, and only then imagining as Mesoamerican setting. That specific prediction utterly fails to account for the fact that Larry Poulson proved that the Grijalva in Mesoamerica is the only river in the Western Hemisphere that matches the description in the Book of Mormon. And all of the other 600+ geographical details in the Book of Mormon, and the cultural and historical details wrap neatly around the Sidon.

In all honesty, how does Coe's theory deal with that anomaly? Well, frankly, with no disrespect to Coe, it doesn't bother to notice the problem. His method precludes him from ever discovering the problem on his own.

We can predict that when someone shows James Banta the photographs of a stream in that Potter and Wellington put forward as a candidate for the Valley of Lemuel, that the evidence by itself will not change his paradigm. We shouldn't expect it to. The issue we answer as individuals is "Which paradigm is better? Which problems are more significant to have solved?"

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Yeap I have seen the pictures.. And they made me ask questions of where it was. Was it a year long stream? So I went to the source.. Those who live there and have the responsibility to know of their countries resources.. They acknowledged that in some years, during a wet season there is a stream in that place.. They also told me that it is NOT full time.. That No full time river or stream rum into either sections of the Red Sea... And you show me what a stream flowing? OK the Saudi Government doesn't deny it.. They just told me that the words of Lehi are wrong that it is not a full time river.. They said there IS NO SUCH THING... IHS jim