BoM Geography: The Gloves are Off...

[Confidential Informant]

I used the Latin phrase PRIMA FACIE to indicate evidence that is so strong that it is irrefutable in a forensic sense, and that only evidence to the contrary can dislodge it.

Without getting sucked into the rest of the argument, this is not what Prima facie means.

Prima facie (pronounced /?pra?m? ?fe??i?/, from Latin pr?m? faci?) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face", prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which

[John T]

Before engaging in this debate, you would be well served in reading up on it. This is what Brother Gardener was trying to get through to you. If your comments sound intelligent to you, it's because you are grossly ignorant of the facts that are being debated. There are multiple websites and books/articles that deal with the points you've raised and most people here discussing it are conversant in them. In short, you're trying to debate in ignorance, and you were called on it. Instead of taking the criticism and educating yourself, you simply return and reestablish your lack of knowledge.

Here are some sites to start with:

Lawrence Poulsen's Website

John Pratt's Mormon Maps

Jerry Ainsworth's Mormon Sites

Robert Pate's Website

The church has never taken a position on Book of Mormon geography, neither did Joseph Smith ever refer to the hill from which he took the plates as "Cumorah." The geography in the Book of Mormon is clear enough to suggest that there are some viable locations worthy of study and regardless of your ill advised snippets to the contrary, you lack the basic knowledge to debate the issue intelligently.

Do some reading, then come back and leave comments. It will spare you embarrassment in the end and you may learn something.

.

Why are you bringing ip that deutero-Isaiah rabbit trail?

Those who subscribe to that long-debased theory are grossly ignorant of the scholarship that supports the single author of Isaiah. However that is not germane to the topic of this thread, so I shall go no further than to state that your intelligent-sounding arguments are highly over rated.

As to my needing to read, I shall. But in the mean time, I have asked several times for prima facie archeological records from you. You tell me that I don't understand the words ...

NEVER MIND

If this is an attempt at intelligent discussion, then your previous post is pathetically inadequate. At first, my thought was to reply point-by-point, but the more I looked into your post, the more i saw sneaky ad homenum attacks on my knowledge, my intelligence and you characterized my post as essentially being self-embarrassing.

NOTICE TO ALL

The poster may have a good reputation among LDS people due to the volume of papers presented, but he has yet to produce ONE piece of evidence.

Instead, he points to web links. Web links are NOT pieces of evidence. Got it? Any idiot can create a website, and many have. Having a website is not the same as having peer-reviewed, independent evidence of something.

I asked for a CFR for something you stated, THIS IS NUMBER FOUR and you have yet to give me the courtesy of a reply. "Oh I am away from my resources" was your reply. I suppose that there is nothing on that hard drive of your laptop?

In short, I have been mannerly with you, but you have been rude with me. I guess that you deem me unworthy of common etiquette because I am not a LDS, right?

[Cold Steel]

JohnT, what are you talking about?

You seem to be confusing me with someone else and your reply makes no sense as it pertains to what I said. You also seem to be swinging wildly here. Let some time elapse and give it another go, will you?

[David Bokovoy]

Just to follow up in case anyone is interested, the article that Tiberius provides states that the tablet is found at the West Point museum in Virginia. It links, however, to the West Point Military academy museum which is in New York. I've sent an email to the West Point military academy museum, explaining my interest and background in cuneiform, but have yet to hear back from them.

However, the mere fact that I can't find any legitimate sources discussing this tablet and the online links jump back and forth between West Point Virginia and the West Point Military academy makes this whole thing seem really, really sketchy. In addition, as I've looked more closely at the picture of the tablet, I think I can make out at a couple of Ugaritic signs, but at least in the photo, most of them are far too faint to begin to decipher. If it is indeed a Ugaritic tablet, then there's no way that this could be legit, let alone link in anyway with Book of Mormon claims.

For the record, I don't have anything against the poster and I sincerely appreciate his/her desire to link North America with Book of Mormon promises, but I'm going to get to the bottom of this, and it doesn't look good. No offense to anyone, but I'm really opposed to bad apologetic arguments. In addition to the fact that they're often just wrong, and we need to be seekers of truth, bad apologetics can actually lead people away from the Church.

[cdowis]

David,

Please keep us updated. I also have difficulty seeing a connection to the BOM, but it is interesting.

[maklelan]

Why are you bringing ip that deutero-Isaiah rabbit trail?

Those who subscribe to that long-debased theory are grossly ignorant of the scholarship that supports the single author of Isaiah.

Grossly ignorant of the scholarship? I'm a graduate student in Hebrew Bible and the dating of Deutero-Isaiah has a lot to do with my dissertation. I've done quite a bit of research and feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the topic , but if you can fill in gaps in my ignorance, I'd be grateful (and quite surprised). By all means, inform me of the debasing of this theory.

[maklelan]

Just to follow up in case anyone is interested, the article that Tiberius provides states that the tablet is found at the West Point museum in Virginia. It links, however, to the West Point Military academy museum which is in New York. I've sent an email to the West Point military academy museum, explaining my interest and background in cuneiform, but have yet to hear back from them.

However, the mere fact that I can't find any legitimate sources discussing this tablet and the online links jump back and forth between West Point Virginia and the West Point Military academy makes this whole thing seem really, really sketchy. In addition, as I've looked more closely at the picture of the tablet, I think I can make out at a couple of Ugaritic signs, but at least in the photo, most of them are far too faint to begin to decipher. If it is indeed a Ugaritic tablet, then there's no way that this could be legit, let alone link in anyway with Book of Mormon claims.

For the record, I don't have anything against the poster and I sincerely appreciate his/her desire to link North America with Book of Mormon promises, but I'm going to get to the bottom of this, and it doesn't look good. No offense to anyone, but I'm really opposed to bad apologetic arguments. In addition to the fact that they're often just wrong, and we need to be seekers of truth, bad apologetics can actually lead people away from the Church.

David-

This intrigued me as well, and there appears to be some kind of mention of this tablet on page 14 of a 1998 issue of the Epigraphic Society's Occasional Papers. Stubbs has had a paper or two published in this journal, but they specialize in the unorthodox. I don't know if the article goes into any detail or just mentions it, though.

[David Bokovoy]

David-

This intrigued me as well, and there appears to be some kind of mention of this tablet on page 14 of a 1998 issue of the Epigraphic Society's Occasional Papers. Stubbs has had a paper or two published in this journal, but they specialize in the unorthodox. I don't know if the article goes into any detail or just mentions it, though.

Thanks, Mak. I'm going to try and get this: "Letter: Pre?Columbian Contacts With Native American Cultures (2 pp) Vine Deloria 23-p 14 Deloria points out that besides inscriptions which may have been left by Old World explorers before Columbus, there is evidence from Amerindian sources of pre-Columbian contacts" via ILL and let you know. Should get it as a PDF.

Best

[maklelan]

The same thing holds when comparing the Masoretic Texts with the Dead Sea Scrolls in Isaiah 53. There is an insignificant difference in only three letters, and 700 years separate them.

I thought I'd respond to this. I worked on the production of the apparatus for the new Biblia Hebraica Quinta edition of Isaiah. Your assertion is flat wrong. In the Great Isaiah Scroll version of Isaiah 53 there are over a dozen variants. Some of the more significant ones are the following:

- Isa 53:2 has ?????, or "before him," but 1QIsa<a> has ?????, "before us."

- Isa 53:2's "when we shall see him" is actually "when we shall see us" in 1QIsa<a>.

- Isa 53:9 has "he made his grave," but 1QIsa<a> has "they made his grave."

- Isa 53:11 says "He shall see some of the suffering of his soul," but 1QIsa<a> has "From the travail of his soul he shall see light."

- Isa 53:11 says "my servant," but 1QIsa<a> has "his servant."

Other differences have varying degrees of relevance, and other versions of Isaiah 53 from the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsa<b>/<d>, and 4QIsa<d>) have additional variants. Again, your assertion is flat false.

[maklelan]

Thanks, Mak. I'm going to try and get this: "Letter: Pre?Columbian Contacts With Native American Cultures (2 pp) Vine Deloria 23-p 14 Deloria points out that besides inscriptions which may have been left by Old World explorers before Columbus, there is evidence from Amerindian sources of pre-Columbian contacts" via ILL and let you know. Should get it as a PDF.

Best

Thanks. It's a bit odd that something like this hasn't come up on our radar before.

[David Bokovoy]

Those who subscribe to that long-debased theory are grossly ignorant of the scholarship that supports the single author of Isaiah

I reject single authorship, and I may be ignorant of the scholarship which supports the claim, but I know I'm not "grossly" ignorant.

Thanks. It's a bit odd that something like this hasn't come up on our radar before.

Indeed! Snake oil I suspect.

[John T]

I thought I'd respond to this. I worked on the production of the apparatus for the new Biblia Hebraica Quinta edition of Isaiah. Your assertion is flat wrong. In the Great Isaiah Scroll version of Isaiah 53 there are over a dozen variants. Some of the more significant ones are the following:

- Isa 53:2 has ?????, or "before him," but 1QIsa<a> has ?????, "before us."

- Isa 53:2's "when we shall see him" is actually "when we shall see us" in 1QIsa<a>.

- Isa 53:9 has "he made his grave," but 1QIsa<a> has "they made his grave."

- Isa 53:11 says "He shall see some of the suffering of his soul," but 1QIsa<a> has "From the travail of his soul he shall see light."

- Isa 53:11 says "my servant," but 1QIsa<a> has "his servant."

Other differences have varying degrees of relevance, and other versions of Isaiah 53 from the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsa<b>/<d>, and 4QIsa<d>) have additional variants. Again, your assertion is flat false.

I wrote MASORETIC TEXT not the newer, modern BHQ

Before you crow in elementary school level glee, please be so kind as to compare the Qumran texts with the MASORETIC TEXT. Then tell me I am wrong.

But this is a red herring.

Please explain the relevance of the MT and Qumran texts to the fact that no one has been able to demonstrate any peer-reviewed (non Mormon) data to confirm the geography of the BoM, as was alluded to in the OP.

[cdowis]

Please explain the relevance of the MT and Qumran texts to the fact that no one has been able to demonstrate any peer-reviewed (non Mormon) data to confirm the geography of the BoM, as was alluded to in the OP.

I. Most LDS scholars, as demonstrated in this thread, do not subscribe to the BOM geography as described in the OP.

II. But if you want to play a game, let it begin.

Please demonstrate any peer-reviewed (not by antiMormons) published article which specifically and conclusively refutes BOM geography.

This data needs to be gathered by someone who has made an exhaustive study in the BOM text to all geographic references and compared each of those references to the entire North, Central and South American hemisphere. these references need to be unequivocal, with little or no interpretation of their referenced meanings.

This article needs to be published in a professional journal within the past five or less years, to ensure that current information and data is maintained.

You made a demand, I made a counter demand, and now it's your turn. It's a silly game but you seem to enjoy making demands.

[maklelan]

I wrote MASORETIC TEXT not the newer, modern BHQ

BHQ is a diplomatic edition of the Leningrad Codex. It is the Masoretic Text.

Before you crow in elementary school level glee, please be so kind as to compare the Qumran texts with the MASORETIC TEXT. Then tell me I am wrong.

See above, and don't waste your time trying to talk down to me.

But this is a red herring.

Then don't bring it up.

Please explain the relevance of the MT and Qumran texts to the fact that no one has been able to demonstrate any peer-reviewed (non Mormon) data to confirm the geography of the BoM, as was alluded to in the OP.

There is no relevance, and I didn't read the OP. I read your post, though, and it was incorrect.

[John T]

I. Most LDS scholars, as demonstrated in this thread, do not subscribe to the BOM geography as described in the OP.

II. But if you want to play a game, let it begin.

Please demonstrate any peer-reviewed (not by antiMormons) published article which specifically and conclusively refutes BOM geography.

This data needs to be gathered by someone who has made an exhaustive study in the BOM text to all geographic references and compared each of those references to the entire North, Central and South American hemisphere. these references need to be unequivocal, with little or no interpretation of their referenced meanings.

This article needs to be published in a professional journal within the past five or less years, to ensure that current information and data is maintained.

You made a demand, I made a counter demand, and now it's your turn. It's a silly game but you seem to enjoy making demands.

What a leap away from logic you post!

It is impossible to prove or refute a negative, in this case, the absence of a cogent and complete Mormon Geography.

The maps on the pages that coldsteel hyperlinked have no basis in reality except that they are accurate outlines of the Yucatan Peninsula area .

Lawrence Polsen boldly proclaims that the maps are "map of the Book of Mormon as conceived by the author". hardly credible, nor peer reviewed

John Pratt's site is rife with speculation, and scant on scholarship. eight times the word "might" is included in the article, and that is speculation, not scholarship. He concludes hei 2006 article with this, "But the final verdict must await archaeological evidence before one can be certain. In any case, Norman appears to have created the best map to date pinpointing where many events might well have occurred. "

Ainsworth's site offers ZERO concrete evidence for anything, but makes unfounded speculations and accusation of fraud by other scholars as fact without proof. " "Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on... " The site tries to make a connection between the ancient Mayan human-sacrificing religious cult and ancient Hebrew amd present day LDS belief, neither of which have any sort of human sacrifice.

Pate's website is a melange of loosely-linked anecdotes that in one article try to link the mayan Language to Spanish. Unfortunately, he forgets that as purported lost tribes of Israel, they would be in Hebrew, or at least similar to Yiddish, using Hebrew characters in German. He proposes no reason for the absence of such a similar linguistic event in the Americas, and glibly states that a "Highly literate people lost their ability to read" without cause.

In short, EACH of those sites are seriously lacking in veracity and in scholarship, and is a prime reason why there is a necessity of independent (non-Mormon) peer review. Saying that is not being snarky or anti-Mormon, but it is a statement about being pro truth. Honestly, I can not understand why many LDS are adverse for having an independent review, for is something is found verifying the BoM, then they should rejoice.

Back to cdowis

As to the "demand" aspect, it is the LDS position and held by many here, that asserts that the location of Cumorah etc is in Central America (roughly). Since they make that assertion, it is the obligation of the one who makes the positive statement (ie Cumorah is in Central America) to demonstrate absolute truths of their assertion. That is how forensic debate and scholarship works.

So far nothing close to scholarship has surfaced, and that would be of great concern if I were a Mormon.

[maklelan]

What a leap away from logic you post!

It is impossible to prove or refute a negative, in this case, the absence of a cogent and complete Mormon Geography.

Actually the principle is only that it's impossible to prove a negative, not to refute a negative. If someone says there were never any people living on Easter Island and archaeologists find conclusive evidence that people lived on Easter Island, like tools, homes, pottery, texts, art, and food remains, then that negative has been refuted.

The maps on the pages that coldsteel hyperlinked have no basis in reality except that they are accurate outlines of the Yucatan Peninsula area.

And this is just a naked assertion.

Lawrence Polsen boldly proclaims that the maps are "map of the Book of Mormon as conceived by the author". hardly credible, nor peer reviewed

No peer review does not = no credibility. Neither does peer review necessarily = credibility. An argument should be investigated based on the merits of the argument. You clearly have not done that.

John Pratt's site is rife with speculation, and scant on scholarship. eight times the word "might" is included in the article, and that is speculation, not scholarship.

Flat wrong. Scholarship is largely built on finding likelihoods, not only on proven facts. Speculation is also normal in historiography. In addition, Pratt cites a few publications. You cite none. You simply claim his work is not scholarship because it contains the word "might." That is atrocious dilettantism.

He concludes hei 2006 article with this, "But the final verdict must await archaeological evidence before one can be certain. In any case, Norman appears to have created the best map to date pinpointing where many events might well have occurred. "

Numerous mainstream academic articles have concluded in similar manner. Just as an illustration, a 2002 University of California Press book, In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record, contains at least 61 uses of the word "might." Many are in the context you dismiss above as speculative and non-academic.

Ainsworth's site offers ZERO concrete evidence for anything, but makes unfounded speculations and accusation of fraud by other scholars as fact without proof. " "Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on... " The site tries to make a connection between the ancient Mayan human-sacrificing religious cult and ancient Hebrew amd present day LDS belief, neither of which have any sort of human sacrifice.

Again, flat wrong. Israel's history of child sacrifice is well documented. Not only does the Deuteronomic History claim Israelites offered their children for sacrifice, but the book of Judges approvingly shares the tail of one Jephthah (Judg 11:30-40) who offered his daughter as a sacrifice to fulfill an oath to Yahweh. In addition to that, the law to redeem the firstborn male child was not a part of the original law (Exod 22:29), which just says to give to Yahweh the firstborn child in the same manner as the firstborn of the oxen and sheep. That means sacrifice. Later the idea of redemption was added so more children could survive to adulthood. As with the Egyptians and their subsidiary burials, they learned their populations weren't strong enough to withstand so much sacrifice. You can deny this all you want, but the above is by far the scholarly consensus. You seem very concerned about things being academic, so I'm going to keep you honest.

Pate's website is a melange of loosely-linked anecdotes that in one article try to link the mayan Language to Spanish. Unfortunately, he forgets that as purported lost tribes of Israel, they would be in Hebrew, or at least similar to Yiddish, using Hebrew characters in German. He proposes no reason for the absence of such a similar linguistic event in the Americas, and glibly states that a "Highly literate people lost their ability to read" without cause.

See Brian Stubb's multiple publications on links between Uto-Aztecan and the Semitic and Afro-Asiatic languages for academic and peer reviewed scholarship that shows the link you question above. See, particularly, Stubbs,

[cdowis]

What a leap away from logic you post!

It is impossible to prove or refute a negative, in this case, the absence of a cogent and complete Mormon Geography.

Really.

Archeologists made an extensive study of ancient texts and geographic features of a certain city called Troy.

One can do an exhaustive review of all geographic references in the BOM text, and, as with Troy, conduct an extensive search on the American hemisphere for those identifiers. For example, there are several major rivers and seas mentioned in the BOM with specific characteristics. Distances and directions are given. The process of inclusion and exclusion is fairly straight forward, looking at certain uncommon features such as seas, large river systems, elevated locations, all of which are located near large cities with the dating and technology and cultural features described in the BOM.

We then look for evidence of a culture similar to one described in the BOM near those geographic features -- technology, dating of cities, culture, etc. We search for an area with extensive record keeping, towers used in religious rites, a sophisticated calendar, human sacrifice, extensive and brutal wars, shipping, etc etc. Since many of these locations are in tropical forests, some of those cultural features may be hidden or missing to archeological study, but we do the best we can, with what we got.

Again, we looked for the city of Troy where specific geographic features and cities were matched to an ancient text. Apparently the impossible is indeed possible.

snip

Back to cdowis

As to the "demand" aspect, it is the LDS position and held by many here, that asserts that the location of Cumorah etc is in Central America (roughly). Since they make that assertion, it is the obligation of the one who makes the positive statement (ie Cumorah is in Central America) to demonstrate absolute truths of their assertion. That is how forensic debate and scholarship works.

So far nothing close to scholarship has surfaced, and that would be of great concern if I were a Mormon.

You must be worried about a great number of things.

If I were you, a book claiming to come directly from the Creator of all things, I would be very worried that, at the very least, someone has not published a peer-reviewed study of all geographic references from the BOM text, as a foundation for future study of BOM geography. In that study to include culture and technology as found in that text, and possible areas where there is a match.

But who are we kidding. This is a book delivered by an angel, and any archeologist would be commiting professional suicide if they were to do a serious study of a book delivered by an angel, translated by a NY farmboy claiming to be a prophet.

No one would touch such a serious study, my dear fellow. Now, why don't you go out and find such a person willing to conduct such a study, instead of blowing hot air.

Find us that individual, and we will be happy to give them assistance.

[John T]

What a leap away from logic you post!

It is impossible to prove or refute a negative, in this case, the absence of a cogent and complete Mormon Geography.

Really.

Archeologists made an extensive study of ancient texts and geographic features of a certain city called Troy.

One can do an exhaustive review of all geographic references in the BOM text, and, as with Troy, conduct an extensive search on the American hemisphere for those identifiers. For example, there are several major rivers and seas mentioned in the BOM with specific characteristics. Distances and directions are given. The process of inclusion and exclusion is fairly straight forward, looking at certain uncommon features such as seas, large river systems, elevated locations, all of which are located near large cities with the dating and technology and cultural features described in the BOM.

We then look for evidence of a culture similar to one described in the BOM near those geographic features -- technology, dating of cities, culture, etc. We search for an area with extensive record keeping, towers used in religious rites, a sophisticated calendar, human sacrifice, extensive and brutal wars, shipping, etc etc. Since many of these locations are in tropical forests, some of those cultural features may be hidden or missing to archeological study, but we do the best we can, with what we got.

Again, we looked for the city of Troy where specific geographic features and cities were matched to an ancient text. Apparently the impossible is indeed possible.

Are you referring to Troy Michigan, Troy New York, Troy Pennsylvania or Troy on the Troas Peninsula? To the best of my knowlwdge, none of those

places are mentioned in the BoM, so my question to you is to explain the relevance of this red herring to the discussion at hand, the complete absence of an accurate BoM geography.

You mentioned that you look for human sacrifice (in red) among other things. If those sacrificing humans were Jewish, you have to come up with a plausible explanation why those who were given the Ten Commandments, which included Do not Murder and forbade human sacrifice would suddenly jettison off the knowledge of that, and come to a religion that was animistic, and pagan.

As to the phrase "may be hidden or missing" that is speculation, at best; seemingly it is based more on wishful thinking than on actual archeological finds. You can not cite a major dig/site by a major archeologist that actually supports any contention in the BoM, and that indeed is the true bottom line.

<snip>

Back to cdowis

As to the "demand" aspect, it is the LDS position and held by many here, that asserts that the location of Cumorah etc is in Central America (roughly). Since they make that assertion, it is the obligation of the one who makes the positive statement (ie Cumorah is in Central America) to demonstrate absolute truths of their assertion. That is how forensic debate and scholarship works.

So far nothing close to scholarship has surfaced, and that would be of great concern if I were a Mormon.

You must be worried about a great number of things.

If I were you, a book claiming to come directly from the Creator of all things, I would be very worried that, at the very least, someone has not published a peer-reviewed study of all geographic references from the BOM text, as a foundation for future study of BOM geography. In that study to include culture and technology as found in that text, and possible areas where there is a match.

But who are we kidding. This is a book delivered by an angel, and any archeologist would be commiting professional suicide if they were to do a serious study of a book delivered by an angel, translated by a NY farmboy claiming to be a prophet.

No one would touch such a serious study, my dear fellow. Now, why don't you go out and find such a person willing to conduct such a study, instead of blowing hot air.

Find us that individual, and we will be happy to give them assistance.

Actually there would be no "professional suicide" if someone actually found something that suppoprted the BoM, instead there would be a double page spread iin the New York Times and USA Today, LDS big wigs would be on the Today Show, GMA, CARM and Walter Martin and of course Glen Beck etc. We both know this, so there is no sense in trying to say any different sort of thing.

Actually the things stated by an angel are able to be verified by the common man. Look what happened to Mary, Zacharus (father of John) and to the shepherds in the field. All of these surround the birth of Jesus Christ, and your statement, extended to that event makes the conception and birth of Jesus Christ as blowing hot air.

To paraphrase Socrates who said "The unexamined life is not worth living", I say "The unexamined religion is not worth believing". That is why it vitally important to have substantiating proof of these things in exact places and ways that are congruent to the BoM. Otherwise, you get a bunch of huff and puff being passed off as concrete, examinable facts.

cdowis, that why I have nothing to worry about.

[cdowis]

Actually there would be no "professional suicide" if someone actually found something that suppoprted the BoM, instead there would be a double page spread iin the New York Times and USA Today, LDS big wigs would be on the Today Show, GMA, CARM and Walter Martin and of course Glen Beck etc. We both know this, so there is no sense in trying to say any different sort of thing.

If you really believe this, you should have no problem fining someone. I was expressing an opinion on why this may be difficult, but........who could resist such an offer of fame and fortune?? Even negative results will bring honor and fame.

Bring him/her onto the forum, or give us the name of this able and willing archeologist (nonLDS, of course) and we can get started.

cdowis, that why I have nothing to worry about.

I look forward to your response.

[maklelan]

cdowis, that why I have nothing to worry about.

Given the uncritical manner in which you've accepted and promulgated several made up facts only because they are faith affirming for you, I would say you have plenty to worry about. On top of that, you refuse to address that fact (evidenced by your reticence regarding my concerns), showing you're not really at all concerned with examining your faith, but just with nakedly asserting things you think make it stronger than other faiths. I suggest you stop burping up "facts" and either be more objective with your investigation or stay out of these conversations.

[cdowis]

>>not worried

Someone jumped off the Empire State Building. As he fell past the 50th floor, someone heard him yell, "So far, so good."

He wasn't worried.

Our life is full of second chances, so we get used to it. Someday each of us will all face the consequences of our decisions here in mortality.

This life is short and temporary.

[John T]

John T, on 14 December 2009 - 11:58 AM, said:

What a leap away from logic you post!

It is impossible to prove or refute a negative, in this case, the absence of a cogent and complete Mormon Geography.

Actually the principle is only that it's impossible to prove a negative, not to refute a negative. If someone says there were never any people living on Easter Island and archaeologists find conclusive evidence that people lived on Easter Island, like tools, homes, pottery, texts, art, and food remains, then that negative has been refuted.

Lawrence Polsen boldly proclaims that the maps are "map of the Book of Mormon as conceived by the author". hardly credible, nor peer reviewed

No peer review does not = no credibility. Neither does peer review necessarily = credibility. An argument should be investigated based on the merits of the argument. You clearly have not done that

.

Peer review for professionals in any profession. I wonder why you do not want this sort of vigorous scrutiny to your faith, and its claims?

John T, on 14 December 2009 - 11:58 AM, said:

John Pratt's site is rife with speculation, and scant on scholarship. eight times the word "might" is included in the article, and that is speculation, not scholarship.

Flat wrong. Scholarship is largely built on finding likelihoods, not only on proven facts. Speculation is also normal in historiography. In addition, Pratt cites a few publications. You cite none. You simply claim his work is not scholarship because it contains the word "might." That is atrocious dilettantism.

I was asked to look at the resources provided, and I did. Then you fault me for exposing the obvious?? When scholars state something is is not they are presenting guesses, it is because they are presenting facts. The equivocations that I noted eviscerate the entire web site of plausible content.

John T, on 14 December 2009 - 11:58 AM, said:He concludes hei 2006 article with this, "But the final verdict must await archaeological evidence before one can be certain. In any case, Norman appears to have created the best map to date pinpointing where many events might well have occurred. "

Numerous mainstream academic articles have concluded in similar manner. Just as an illustration, a 2002 University of California Press book, In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record, contains at least 61 uses of the word "might." Many are in the context you dismiss above as speculative and non-academic.

There are no statistics of any sort to determine any degree of certainty (t test) or any rigors that are normally applied to scholarly articles. In the brief citations I looked at, the word "might" was applied to the anthropological discussion of customs among the tribes and the rituals of puberty. That is a FAR CRY from stating as does Norman when he concludes "But the final verdict must await archaeological evidence before one can be certain. In any case, Norman appears to have created the best map to date pinpointing where many events might well have occurred" That is archeology being discussed, not anthropology, there the word "might" is highly important when discussing known, pjysical locations, not guessed-at cult practices.

John T, on 14 December 2009 - 11:58 AM, said:

Ainsworth's site offers ZERO concrete evidence for anything, but makes unfounded speculations and accusation of fraud by other scholars as fact without proof. " "Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on... " The site tries to make a connection between the ancient Mayan human-sacrificing religious cult and ancient Hebrew amd present day LDS belief, neither of which have any sort of human sacrifice.

Again, flat wrong. Israel's history of child sacrifice is well documented. Not only does the Deuteronomic History claim Israelites offered their children for sacrifice, but the book of Judges approvingly shares the tail of one Jephthah (Judg 11:30-40) who offered his daughter as a sacrifice to fulfill an oath to Yahweh. In addition to that, the law to redeem the firstborn male child was not a part of the original law (Exod 22:29), which just says to give to Yahweh the firstborn child in the same manner as the firstborn of the oxen and sheep. That means sacrifice. Later the idea of redemption was added so more children could survive to adulthood. As with the Egyptians and their subsidiary burials, they learned their populations weren't strong enough to withstand so much sacrifice. You can deny this all you want, but the above is by far the scholarly consensus. You seem very concerned about things being academic, so I'm going to keep you honest.

You can not cite one incidence of the Israelites making a child sacrifice to the one, true and holy God. You cite an abomination, condemned by the prophets and God, and then try to foist off that as a normative experience.

See Brian Stubb's multiple publications on links between Uto-Aztecan and the Semitic and Afro-Asiatic languages for academic and peer reviewed scholarship that shows the link you question above. See, particularly, Stubbs,

[John T]

Given the uncritical manner in which you've accepted and promulgated several made up facts only because they are faith affirming for you, I would say you have plenty to worry about. On top of that, you refuse to address that fact (evidenced by your reticence regarding my concerns), showing you're not really at all concerned with examining your faith, but just with nakedly asserting things you think make it stronger than other faiths. I suggest you stop burping up "facts" and either be more objective with your investigation or stay out of these conversations.

Sorry, but the "made up facts" (an oxymoron for sure) are on the ones who put forth something, and that is exactly what I have been doing here. You say that this happened here, well please show evidence. The onus is on the ones affirming something.

When you show good quality evidence, as opposed to speculation, as you gave in the web links, then people will believe you. Until that time comes, even a sane degree of skepticism trumps your total lack of evidence in affirming things in the BoM. Essentially you are asking the world, "Please believe me because I am sincere, and I believe it." Therein is the entirety of the case that many have for choosing not to believe speculation, and implausible explanations as to how the stuff purportedly in Palmyra came there from Central America.

BTW my faith is not the topic of the OP, so I choose not to discuss it here, OK?

[Cold Steel]

The maps on the pages that Cold Steel hyperlinked have no basis in reality except that they are accurate outlines of the Yucatan Peninsula area. Lawrence Poulsen boldly proclaims that the maps are "map of the Book of Mormon as conceived by the author." Hardly credible, nor peer reviewed. John Pratt's site is rife with speculation. ... Ainsworth's site offers ZERO concrete evidence for anything, but makes unfounded speculations and accusation of fraud by other scholars as fact without proof. ... Pate's website is a melange of loosely-linked anecdotes.... ... In short, EACH of those sites are seriously lacking in veracity and in scholarship....

These sites weren't intended to offer sweeping new evidence that the Book of Mormon lands have been decisively identified; only that your understanding of the debate was too sorely lacking for adequate engagement. Most of these scholars admit their research is speculatory, but they also tend to push the bounds in places where they should perhaps admit speculation. Even so, many of their arguments are worth considering and are even compelling. The Book of Mormon, if it is fiction, should not fit anywhere, in the Old World or the New. Establishing a geography would be most difficult for the writer of such fiction, especially when making it consistent.

The argument, however, is whether archeology, geography and anthropology completely dismiss the Book of Mormon from fitting anywhere -- and this science cannot do. People who enthusiastically buy into Darwinism and dismiss the existence of God are in much more of a tenuous position than the Book of Mormon geographer, yet many treat Darwinism as though it were set in concrete. Sometimes some of the BOM scholars get as carried away and find it difficult to remain objective. They still should be read in the interest of an open and free exchange. But once people invest so much time and effort in something, they find it difficult to be as open as they should be. And approaching the topic as a disbeliever also puts one at a disadvantage in that they cannot even assess the arguments properly (recall the infamous Smithsonian form letter written to just get people off their backs). You began your arguments on this thread before you'd read Poulson, Ainsworth and the others. Sorenson has a better reputation for objectivity and you should begin reading his work, and Clark's. Even reading Phyllis Olive and Rodney Meldrum is something someone should do if engaging in this debate and I admit I haven't done nearly enough. Take a look in the Pundit's forum here and you'll see the issue debated in some detail.

.

[maklelan]

Peer review for professionals in any profession.

This statement is nonsensical. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I wonder why you do not want this sort of vigorous scrutiny to your faith, and its claims?

1) I never intimated in any way, shape, or form that I did not want peer review for LDS scholarship. Please don't put words in my mouth, and especially in such an infantile manner.

2) Personal websites don't have peer review.

3) Making a nonsensical statement about peer review still does not address the websites' arguments.

I was asked to look at the resources provided, and I did. Then you fault me for exposing the obvious??

I fault you for not engaging anything in the websites. You simply waved your hand and said none of them can be legitimate because they have the word "might" and because you've deemed them non-academic. Don't waste my time with these silly assertions.

When scholars state something is is not they are presenting guesses, it is because they are presenting facts. The equivocations that I noted eviscerate the entire web site of plausible content.

Again, this is flat false, and I provided evidence. You have not engaged it, you've only reasserted your original position. Don't waste my time if you have no intention of even acknowledging evidence. If that's the case let me know so this discussion can be ended.

There are no statistics of any sort to determine any degree of certainty (t test) or any rigors that are normally applied to scholarly articles.

And websites are not articles, nor have you shown anything even remotely approaching "rigors" with your naive evaluation of evidence. Tell me, how many variants exist between 1QIsa<a> and MT again?

You're simply misapplying standards that you don't understand to begin with.

In the brief citations I looked at, the word "might" was applied to the anthropological discussion of customs among the tribes and the rituals of puberty.

Then you didn't read very many of them. Several involved the possibility of evidence and the potential certain streams of inquiry may have for bearing fruit. Irrespective, your statement was very clearly, "eight times the word 'might' is included in the article, and that is speculation, not scholarship." You gave no context, you just asserted the use of "might" precludes scholarship. Do you care to equivocate here and redefine what usage constitutes non-scholarship and what usage does not, or will you just let this one slide by like you did the problem with asserting it's impossible to both prove and refute a negative? Don't skip past my responses any more if you intend to continue this discussion.

That is a FAR CRY from stating as does Norman when he concludes "But the final verdict must await archaeological evidence before one can be certain.

Is that a fact? Page 32: "If our efforts are successful, someday we may really know something of what it was like in the past." Far cry indeed.

In any case, Norman appears to have created the best map to date pinpointing where many events might well have occurred" That is archeology being discussed, not anthropology, there the word "might" is highly important when discussing known, pjysical locations, not guessed-at cult practices.

All of archaeology is guessed-at toponyms and cult practices. I have two friends who dig every summer at Gath in Israel. One of them directs a portion of the dig. Last summer they stumbled across a cache of Philistine cult objects that had been discarded. Do you know how they decided what they were used for? They stood around and said, "Maybe it was for this," and "No, it was probably for that," until they arrived at a consensus.

You're making up standards that don't apply in the real world, and you manifestly don't know the first thing about the professions to which you're ascribing these ridiculous methodologies. You cannot slip such garbage by me, so stop wasting your time.

You can not cite one incidence of the Israelites making a child sacrifice to the one, true and holy God.

Utterly meaningless. This all, of course, depends exclusively on your beliefs about what was considered a "true and holy God." In addition, you totally ignored my evidence and just barked "Nu-uh!" at me. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter directly to Yahweh in a pericope that has the consent of the author of the book of Judges and shows Yahweh directly influencing and blessing Jephthah. The verse I shared in Exodus very clearly commands Israel to sacrifice their children. If that didn't come from your "true and holy God," then where did Exod 22 come from? Don't waste my time by barking "Nu-uh!" and not engaging my evidence.

You cite an abomination, condemned by the prophets and God, and then try to foist off that as a normative experience.

I do no such thing. There was no normative Israelite or Jewish religion. Again, don't put such naive words in my mouth. What I said was that it was approved of by the authors of the Bible and commanded by God himself. You've yet to deal with those facts. Please do so, but stop wasting my time with these amateur methodologies and made up standards.

All reviewed by TBMs, correct? Yeah, that is really unbiased, and really having no personal agenda and really independent.

Roger W. Westcott is not a Mormon. Up to this point you've only responded to your own misrepresentations of my arguments. This is a perfect case of that. You've assumed the review was done by a Latter-day Saint and decided you needn't follow up because you must be right. Neither the journal in which the article was published nor the reviewer nor the book in which the review appears are in any way associated with the Church. It's time to pay attention and stop making up our argument for us. If you can't do that then this discussion is over, and you've lost.

That is EXACTLY where the burden of evidence rests.

And they've satisfied the burden and it remains unanswered. That's what my statement was.

Finally, I call your attention to your ad homs below. If you can not rationally discuss things without going personal, I can put you on ignore, as I did on CARM.

dreadfully naive

That is atrocious dilettantism.

amateur anti-Mormon M.O

Not a one of these things is ad hominem. Each and every one is directed explicitly at your argument, not your person. Learn what an ad hominem is before you appeal to it to escape responsibility for poor scholarship. You have yet to directly engage my comments, and no one has forgotten your ludicrous assertions about BHQ and the Dead Sea Scrolls, even though you're hoping everyone will. Take responsibility for your assertions or stop wasting everyone's time with your presence here.