"Not a shred of archeological evidence"

Mordecai · December 19, 2009

How very odd.
I recall Barry Fell publishing on such diffusionist theories. He was not
criticized for being helpful to the Mormons, but rather on problems in
the evidence he presented. Thor Hyerdahl actually tested the possibility
of such journeys and I do not recall him being smeared as a Mormon helper.

But I don't think he was popular for it, and there is no evidence that he didn't lose prestige and social status. In fact, there is no evidence he wasn't criticized other than your word. How do you know he wasn't criticized or at least stigmatized for supporting Mormons? You don't know.

I've heard reputable anthropologists here in Hawaii present convincing
arguments of Polynesian contact with the Peru/Chili coast, and the
cultivation of sweet potatoes in Samoa/Tahiti being an importation from
the mainland. I do not recall those speakers being accused of supporting
Mormonism.

Most don't know that would support Mormonism... and it doesn't very much, so that is irrelevant. The issue for the researchers was with regard to the American mainland and transoceanic visits from the Asian and African continents.

In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of professionals in these
fields are far more interested in making new, factual discoveries, than
they are in knowing what LDS and RLDS think or believe.

They don't care about what we believe. They care about what their friends think of them, and their friends are mostly secularist liberals who abhor anything that even appears to support religion.

cdowis · December 19, 2009

How on earth would it harm the LDS Church, to have a bunch
of experts on biblical Hebrew CONFIRM that chiasmus -- and
CONFIRM that such a literary structure was unknown after
the times of the Old Testament writers?
Take that scholarly commentary and publish it as a tract,
given away with free copies of the Book of Mormon to
potential converts. ABSOLUTE PROOF THE BOOK IS TRUE!
But no -- The Brethren in SLC would forbid any BYU "scholar"
who tried to submit such a paper for world-wide critique.
And why is that?
The General Authorities themselves are unsure of the chiasmus claims.
They do not want them discussed outside of their control, by
experts in biblical Hebrew who might say something unwanted.

Dale, this beyond silly.

Chiasmus is not even on the radar for LDS leaders. They have absolutely no interest proving chiasmus -- it has nothing to do with control, nor BYU scholarship. Now, why don't you address your comments to the person who really cares -- John Welch.

There are some who think it has nothng to offer verifying the BOM. It is interesting, fascinating, but proves absolutely nothing.

Dale, you are riding a horse that barks like a dog.

Uncle Dale · December 19, 2009

...
why don't you address your comments to the person who really cares -- John Welch.
...

At various times I have written to LDS scholars, and received either a cursory

rejection or no response at all. It seems, that in order to get them to talk

to me, I have to physically go to SLC or Provo and show up, knocking on their

office doors.

However, next time you're talking with Dr. Welch, you might tell him I'd be

most happy to receive an e-mail from him.

Or, better yet, he can join in our conversations here and tell us directly

why The Brethren have no interest in supporting his conclusions.

Cheers.

UD

John T · December 19, 2009

I have discerned a mantra becoming more prevalent (or maybe I'm just more aware of it) in Evangelical responses to Mormonism. It usually takes the form of:
"There's not a shred of archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon"
I find this problematic coming from folks who profess belief in the Bible. I would not find it as problematic if it came from a secular scholar. There are "factoids" (to the secular scholar who lacks the faith to believe) too numerous to mention in the bible that are not substantiated by any historical or archeological evidence to my knowledge, and this is not problematic for any of us because we take it on faith. It seems like a double standard to me. Any thoughts? I'm particularly interested in what my Evangelical brothers and sisters out there feel about this? Do you feel it is a fair approach to our theology to use such means to "discredit it" or does it seem as slippery a slope to you as it does to us?
In bringing this up, I'm not seeking to undermine the Bible, I'm just trying to put forward the idea that such a methodology of debunking something is not very fair or effective when you get into matters of faith and belief. Particularly if your own tradition has similar problems in different areas.
Here are a few examples of items in the Bible that to my knowledge we have no physical evidence, or no third party corroborating text at the very least, to support them (but verily there are many):
The existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and a host of other old testament prophets
The existence of Adam and Eve
The existence of the Ark of Noah
The fall of Jericho
The plagues of the Egyptians
The exodus of the Jews
The parting of the Red Sea
The Ark of the Covenant
The Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus
The Crucifixion of Jesus (if you allow Josephus this may not be a problem)
The Rending of the Veil of the Temple
The Resurrection of Jesus
Also more recent discoveries have begun to corroborate some things that were sticking points at earlier times for Biblical scholars (such as the fact that there was no evidence that Solomon had as many horses as the Bible says he had), but those took thousands of years to surface. The Book of Mormon has been around for a comparatively shorter amount of time and describes a culture that had devolved to not only avoid record keeping but to hate and seek the destruction of the record keepers and their records. A culture that ultimately annihilated itself, with no third parties around to carry on the documentation, and with subsequent conquest that caused more destruction of artifacts and records (Conquistadors).

Below are listed some of the proofs found by archeology and in the culture of other nations. God kept records in two different places so that one would prove the other. Here is a PARTIAL list of some of the many corroborating evidences:

1. Creation

2. Original monotheism

3. The Garden of Eden

7. The universal Flood (Genesis 6-9) EVERY civilization has an account of this

8. Mt. Ararat as the site of the landing of Noah

mpschmitt · December 19, 2009

OK, then -- to which conferences or meetings of experts on ancient
America should I go, in order to attend papers given which cite
the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text -- or its cultures
and locations as real possibilities for future exploration>
Which professional journals should I read, wherein the dispersion
of Old World technology, or agriculture, or ceramics and textiles
among known paleoIndian groups is examined and discussed.
Which experts in preColumbian anthropology should I speak with,
in order to gain a contemporary view of Book of Mormon accounts?
In short, when will the golden day arrive, when at last a Mormon
scholar publishes Book of Mormon cultural references in non-LDS,
peer-reviewed professional journals.
I can find Catholics, Protestants and Jewish scholars all publishing
in non-sectarian biblical and ANE journals. And I can find all sorts
of non-LDS scholars publishing in journals devoted to preColumbian
physical and cultural anthropology. But I fail to notice a single
mention of Jaredites, Mulekites, Nephites or Lamanites.
Am I reading the wrong literature?
UD

No, but you're missing one very important thing...

The middle eastern culture had the good fortune over the centuries of having machinery behind the preservation of it's history and culture, both through living descendants and a conquering empire (the Romans) who were exceptional record keepers and extraordinarily tolerant of Jewish culture and belief. Judaism was the only Monotheistic religion that received such treatment in the Roman Empire.

By contrast the Book of Mormon culture faced centuries of internal and external forces seeking to eradicate any trace of it's existence. That may seem like a cop out, but if we are to assume that that culture actually existed, our only source is the Book of Mormon and the history of that region and both point to the fact that there would be little, if anything, that was preserved over those centuries between the heyday of the Nephites and Joseph Smith. The Nephites were annihilated and the surviving Lamanites would have had no interest in preserving any records whatsoever. In fact Mesoamerican archeology points to a trend that the conquering nation would overlay the art and architecture of the conquered party with it's own, and seek to destroy all pointers to the former culture.

It's entirely plausible that this explains the discrepancy you describe.

The greatest evidence we have is anthropological not archeological. There are a number of interesting things in the legends and culture of the mesoamerican people that point to at least a knowledge of Judeo-Christian concepts and occasionally something interesting will come up on that front.

But this all said, the real, true, persuasive witness will never come (for the Bible or the Book of Mormon) from any scientific discipline. If one is looking to obtain faith by that means one will always come up short. Sometimes I wonder if God has withheld the archeological evidence in favor of faith based conversion to keep faith as the preeminent reason why someone would join the Church. It makes for stronger converts who have their focus in the right place. The witness of the Holy Ghost seems to have a far longer lasting impact than any dry discourse by a PhD ever would.

mpschmitt · December 19, 2009

Sorry, but I just disproved your OP thesis

No, you made a list of things you feel are supported by legends in other cultures and the existence of a few archeological sites, (without citing the actual evidence that you feel proves each of these things by the way, but that's okay ). Note the use of the phrase "to my knowledge" which would indicate that there may be some items on my short list of which I'm not aware that have some evidence to support them. Though I find it highly dubious there is credible, peer reviewed solid archeology to support any of the items I mentioned, if you have examples, I'm open to a helping of humble pie there.

We have similar lists that pertain specifically to Book of Mormon culture and history (both in the text of the book and in mesoamerican legend and culture): http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

My original thesis is not that there is no evidence whatsoever that these stories existed. It's obvious that many cultures have creation myths that overlap and would indicate a common source. But we have no archeological evidence that God created the Earth. We believe that, it's not something scientifically demonstrable. Have they found the actual Garden of Eden? No. Have they found the Tower of Babel. No. The fact that these stories exist in other cultures affirms the fact that the descendants of Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc retained aspects of their heritage as they spread over the earth. But it does not prove that the events contained in the legends actually happened. There are legends in mesoamerica of a great white bearded God who sounds an awful lot like Jesus and who did a lot of the things described in the Book of Mormon among those people. If we can accept that as evidence as you seem to suggest, then there is another proof for the veracity of the Book of Mormon account.

There are evidences for both the Bible and the Book of Mormon that have been uncovered. For two reasons the Book of Mormon has a less voluminous list at this point:

1. It has only been known about for a little under 200 years

2. There are far fewer scientists working on it because it's a niche subject

3. There are a vast number of sites yet undiscovered and unexplored

4. The culture of mesoamerica and accounts in the Book of Mormon would indicate that it is unlikely evidences of the Nephite culture would survive until now

But in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, there are still long lists of uncorroborated data. And that is my OP thesis. If we wait for all those issues to be resolved before committing our hearts to Jesus, we are on shaky ground indeed and will never arrive at faith.

And if we seek to debunk the beliefs of another based solely on an absence of corroborating evidence, we are also on shaky ground, for the moment new evidence emerges, we lose all credibility. Time and time again, those who have sought to cast a questioning light on the authenticity of the Bible or the Book of Mormon by citing an absence of corroborating data have found themselves disproven by some new discovery or insight somewhere down the line.

John T · December 19, 2009

No, you made a list of things you feel are supported by legends in other cultures and the existence of a few archeological sites, (without citing the actual evidence that you feel proves each of these things by the way, but that's okay ). Note the use of the phrase "to my knowledge" which would indicate that there may be some items on my short list of which I'm not aware that have some evidence to support them. Though I find it highly dubious there is credible, peer reviewed solid archeology to support any of the items I mentioned, if you have examples, I'm open to a helping of humble pie there.

I truly appreciate your tone here. As we both know, scholarship is not an attempt to rub another's face in humble pie, but rather a dialog to ascertain truth.

We have similar lists that pertain specifically to Book of Mormon culture and history (both in the text of the book and in mesoamerican legend and culture): http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

I am looking at Linsay'd site not, and the first thing that struck my mind is this in his first paragraph " Such evidence is not "proof" but represents indications of plausibility that demand further attention. " This reiterates your statement above, but there are far too many LDS people who accept plausibility as proof. So as long as we remain cognizant that plausibility is a big woord for guess, we are free to examine the degree of plausibility to determine if that plausibility level is far fetched, or it is near the 50% range.

My original thesis is not that there is no evidence whatsoever that these stories existed. It's obvious that many cultures have creation myths that overlap and would indicate a common source. But we have no archeological evidence that God created the Earth. We believe that, it's not something scientifically demonstrable. Have they found the actual Garden of Eden? No. Have they found the Tower of Babel. No. The fact that these stories exist in other cultures affirms the fact that the descendants of Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc retained aspects of their heritage as they spread over the earth. But it does not prove that the events contained in the legends actually happened.

You wrote the following:
The existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and a host of other old testament prophets
The existence of Adam and Eve
The existence of the Ark of Noah
The fall of Jericho
The plagues of the Egyptians
The exodus of the Jews
The parting of the Red Sea
The Ark of the Covenant
The Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus
The Crucifixion of Jesus (if you allow Josephus this may not be a problem)
The Rending of the Veil of the Temple
The Resurrection of Jesus

But that does not withstand scrutiny. here is why. For brevity, I cite a few

That actually calls into question the entire Bible, for Jesus attested to them saying Before Abraham was, I AM
That also calls into question paul who wrote about the imputation of Adam's din in Romans
That, among other things establishes God's righteous indignation at sin
People can see the fallen walls of Jericho today
This calls in question the Passover, the culmnunation of the plagues,and remembered by every jew in the world today
This is a theological issur relating to the Passover.
You already prove independent verification
There are over 500 independent witnesses ciited in the Bible, so this also is fallacious

There are legends in mesoamerica of a great white bearded God who sounds an awful lot like Jesus and who did a lot of the things described in the Book of Mormon among those people. If we can accept that as evidence as you seem to suggest, then there is another proof for the veracity of the Book of Mormon account.

No, this is an anthrophomorphic argument, having no basis in fact. The white-bearded God is a figment of the imagination of an artist

There are evidences for both the Bible and the Book of Mormon that have been uncovered. You just stated a contradiction with you stated earlier, and it is a prime example of what I stated earlier: "there are far too many LDS people who accept plausibility as proof". For two reasons the Book of
Mormon has a less voluminous list at this point:
1. It has only been known about for a little under 200 years
2. There are far fewer scientists working on it because it's a niche subject
3. There are a vast number of sites yet undiscovered and unexplored
4. The culture of mesoamerica and accounts in the Book of Mormon would indicate that it is unlikely evidences of the Nephite culture would survive until now

Again speculation stated as fact. That is because entire cities and their "suburbs" do not magically disappear over night. Even actercenturies, we still can see Myan ruins. But that does not compare with the total absence of anything listed in the BoM, and even Lindsay has pretty pictures and boasts without proof that " these waters are candidates for bountiful"

That is why I find the 200 years argument wanting.

But in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, there are still long lists of uncorroborated data. And that is my OP thesis. If we wait for all those issues to be resolved before committing our hearts to Jesus, we are on shaky ground indeed and will never arrive at faith.
And if we seek to debunk the beliefs of another based solely on an absence of corroborating evidence, we are also on shaky ground, for the moment new evidence emerges, we lose all credibility. Time and time again, those who have sought to cast a questioning light on the authenticity of the Bible or the Book of Mormon by citing an absence of corroborating data have found themselves disproved by some new discovery or insight somewhere down the line.

You must know that your statement on the Bible's archeology is inaccurate. Here is a list of about 60 sites of tels that have been discovered by world-class scholars. You have all sorts of mishies going hither and you in their spare time to find stuff, and in this world of instant text messaging, it is much easier to have world attention to a site, and have it independently peer-reviewed. Please compare

Archaeological research has confirmed the existence of many other cities and places named in the Bible, including:

Acco or "Acre" (Judg. 1:31, ruins are on Mediterranean coast),
Anathoth (1Ki. 2:26, is three miles n.e. of Jerusalem),
Antioch (300 miles north of Jerusalem),
Antipatris (Acts 23:31, now known as "Ras el-Ain"),
Ashdod (1Sam. 5:1, excavated by M.Dothan & D.N.Freedman),
Ashkelon (Josh. 13:3, excavated by J.Garstang),
Asshur (Ezek. 27:23, a capital of Assyria),
Athens (in Greece),
Beersheba (excavated by Condor),
Bethany, Bethel (Gen. 35:1-7, excavated by Albright & Kelso),
Bethesda (Jn. 5:2, excavated by C. Schick),
Bethlehem (excavated by Wm. Harvey),
Bethsaida, Beth Shemesh (Josh. 15:10, excavated by D.MacKenzie & E.Grant),
Beth Zur (Neh. 3:16, excavated by O.R.Sellers & W.F.Albright),
Caesarea (Acts 9:30, excavated by Israel's Department of Antiquity),
Caesarea Philippi (at the foot of Mt. Hermon, Mat. 16:13),
Calah or "Nimrud" on the Tigris River (Gen. 10:11, excavated by H.Layard),
Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee (Mat. 4:13),
Carchemish (Jer. 46:2, excavated by L.Woolley & T.E. Lawrence),
Colossae (excavated by Wm.J.Hamilton),
Corinth (in Greece),
Damascus (in Syria),
Dan (now known as "Tel el-Qadi"),
Dothan (Gen. 37:17, 2Ki. 6:13, excavated by J.P.Free),
Ephesus (Acts 19, excavated by J.T.Wood & D.C.Hogarth),
Ezion Geber (1Ki. 9:26, excavated by F.Frank & N. Glueck),
Gaza (Judg. 1:18),
Gerar (Gen. 20:1, excavated by W.J. Phythian-Adams & F. Petrie),
Gezer (1Ki. 9:16-17, excavated by R.A.S.Macalister & A.Rowe),
Gibeah (1Sam. 11:4, excavated by W.Albright),
Gibeon (Josh. 9:3-27, now known as "Al Jib," excavated by J.B.Pritchard),
Gilgal (Josh. 4:20, excavated by J. Muilenburg),
Hamath (2Ki. 14:25, excavated by Burckhardt & Wright),
Haran (referred to in the Mari tablets),
Hazor (Josh. 11:1, excavated by Y. Yadin & J.A.de Rothchild),
Mt. Hermon (in northern Israel),
Jacob's Well (John 4:12, excavated by Robinson & C.A.Barclay),
Jericho (Josh.6, excavated by C.Warren, E.Sellin, J.Garstang & K.Kenyon),
Jerusalem (a 3000 year-old city),
Jezreel (at the foot of Mt.Gilboa),
Joppa (2Chr. 2:16, on the Mediterranean, 30 miles n.w. of Jerusalem),
Kadesh Barnea (Num. 32:8, about 49 miles s.w. of Beersheba),
Korazin (now called "Kerazeh," is two miles north of Capernaum),
Lachish (Josh. 10:32, is today's "Tel ed-Duweir," excavated by J.L.Starkey),
Laodicea (Rev. 1:4,11, ruins of old city walls still visible, ten miles west of Colossae),
Lydda (Acts 9:38, is today's "Ludd"), Lystra (Acts 14:6, excavated by J.R.S. Sterrett),
Megiddo (2Ki. 9:27, excavated by G.Schumacher, H.Breasted, C.Fisher & P.L.Guy),
Nazareth (boyhood town of Jesus, a city of 10,000 today),
Nineveh (Jonah 1:2, excavated by H.A.Layard),
Philippi (Acts 16:9-12, excavated by French School of Athens),
Rome (book to "Romans"),
Samaria (Acts 1:8, is 42 miles north of Jerusalem, excavated by G.A.Reisner & C.S.Fisher),
Sardis (Rev. 3:1, excavated by H.C.Butler, Haufmann & Detweiler),
Shechem (Gen. 12:6-7, excavated by C.Watzinger & E.Sellin),
Shiloh (Judg. 21:19, excavated by A.Smith),
Sidon (Judg. 1:31, excavated by E.Renan),
Taanach (Judg. 1:27, excavated by E.Sellin),
Thebes (Ezek. 30:14, capital of Upper Egypt, 418 miles south of today's Cairo),
Thessalonica (Acts 17:6, today's Salonica),
Tyre (Ezek.26, 20 miles south of Sidon),
Ur (Gen. 11:31, excavated by J.E.Taylor, H.R.Hall & C.L.Woolley),
Zion (1Ki. 8:1, the lower eastern hill of Jerusalem),

Sorry about the formatting problems.

Also forgot to include the footnote:

Willmington, H. L. (1987). Willmington's book of Bible lists. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

John T · December 19, 2009

No, you made a list of things you feel are supported by legends in other cultures and the existence of a few archeological sites, (without citing the actual evidence that you feel proves each of these things by the way, but that's okay ). Note the use of the phrase "to my knowledge" which would indicate that there may be some items on my short list of which I'm not aware that have some evidence to support them. Though I find it highly dubious there is credible, peer reviewed solid archeology to support any of the items I mentioned, if you have examples, I'm open to a helping of humble pie there.

I truly appreciate your tone here. As we both know, scholarship is not an attempt to rub another's face in humble pie, but rather a dialog to ascertain truth.

We have similar lists that pertain specifically to Book of Mormon culture and history (both in the text of the book and in mesoamerican legend and culture): http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

I am looking at Linsay'd site not, and the first thing that struck my mind is this in his first paragraph " Such evidence is not "proof" but represents indications of plausibility that demand further attention. " This reiterates your statement above, but there are far too many LDS people who accept plausibility as proof. So as long as we remain cognizant that plausibility is a big woord for guess, we are free to examine the degree of plausibility to determine if that plausibility level is far fetched, or it is near the 50% range.

My original thesis is not that there is no evidence whatsoever that these stories existed. It's obvious that many cultures have creation myths that overlap and would indicate a common source. But we have no archeological evidence that God created the Earth. We believe that, it's not something scientifically demonstrable. Have they found the actual Garden of Eden? No. Have they found the Tower of Babel. No. The fact that these stories exist in other cultures affirms the fact that the descendants of Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc retained aspects of their heritage as they spread over the earth. But it does not prove that the events contained in the legends actually happened.

You wrote the following:
The existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and a host of other old testament prophets
The existence of Adam and Eve
The existence of the Ark of Noah
The fall of Jericho
The plagues of the Egyptians
The exodus of the Jews
The parting of the Red Sea
The Ark of the Covenant
The Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus
The Crucifixion of Jesus (if you allow Josephus this may not be a problem)
The Rending of the Veil of the Temple
The Resurrection of Jesus

But that does not withstand scrutiny. here is why. For brevity, I cite a few

That actually calls into question the entire Bible, for Jesus attested to them saying Before Abraham was, I AM
That also calls into question paul who wrote about the imputation of Adam's din in Romans
That, among other things establishes God's righteous indignation at sin
People can see the fallen walls of Jericho today
This calls in question the Passover, the culmnunation of the plagues,and remembered by every jew in the world today
This is a theological issur relating to the Passover.
You already prove independent verification
There are over 500 independent witnesses ciited in the Bible, so this also is fallacious

There are legends in mesoamerica of a great white bearded God who sounds an awful lot like Jesus and who did a lot of the things described in the Book of Mormon among those people. If we can accept that as evidence as you seem to suggest, then there is another proof for the veracity of the Book of Mormon account.

No, this is an anthrophomorphic argument, having no basis in fact. The white-bearded God is a figment of the imagination of an artist

There are evidences for both the Bible and the Book of Mormon that have been uncovered. You just stated a contradiction with you stated earlier, and it is a prime example of what I stated earlier: "there are far too many LDS people who accept plausibility as proof". For two reasons the Book of
Mormon has a less voluminous list at this point:
1. It has only been known about for a little under 200 years
2. There are far fewer scientists working on it because it's a niche subject
3. There are a vast number of sites yet undiscovered and unexplored
4. The culture of mesoamerica and accounts in the Book of Mormon would indicate that it is unlikely evidences of the Nephite culture would survive until now

Again speculation stated as fact. That is because entire cities and their "suburbs" do not magically disappear over night. Even actercenturies, we still can see Myan ruins. But that does not compare with the total absence of anything listed in the BoM, and even Lindsay has pretty pictures and boasts without proof that " these waters are candidates for bountiful"

That is why I find the 200 years argument wanting.

But in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, there are still long lists of uncorroborated data. And that is my OP thesis. If we wait for all those issues to be resolved before committing our hearts to Jesus, we are on shaky ground indeed and will never arrive at faith.
And if we seek to debunk the beliefs of another based solely on an absence of corroborating evidence, we are also on shaky ground, for the moment new evidence emerges, we lose all credibility. Time and time again, those who have sought to cast a questioning light on the authenticity of the Bible or the Book of Mormon by citing an absence of corroborating data have found themselves disproved by some new discovery or insight somewhere down the line.

You must know that your statement on the Bible's archeology is inaccurate. Here is a list of about 60 sites of tels that have been discovered by world-class scholars. You have all sorts of mishies going hither and you in their spare time to find stuff, and in this world of instant text messaging, it is much easier to have world attention to a site, and have it independently peer-reviewed. Please compare

Archaeological research has confirmed the existence of many other cities and places named in the Bible, including:

Acco or "Acre" (Judg. 1:31, ruins are on Mediterranean coast),
Anathoth (1Ki. 2:26, is three miles n.e. of Jerusalem),
Antioch (300 miles north of Jerusalem),
Antipatris (Acts 23:31, now known as "Ras el-Ain"),
Ashdod (1Sam. 5:1, excavated by M.Dothan & D.N.Freedman),
Ashkelon (Josh. 13:3, excavated by J.Garstang),
Asshur (Ezek. 27:23, a capital of Assyria),
Athens (in Greece),
Beersheba (excavated by Condor),
Bethany, Bethel (Gen. 35:1-7, excavated by Albright & Kelso),
Bethesda (Jn. 5:2, excavated by C. Schick),
Bethlehem (excavated by Wm. Harvey),
Bethsaida, Beth Shemesh (Josh. 15:10, excavated by D.MacKenzie & E.Grant),
Beth Zur (Neh. 3:16, excavated by O.R.Sellers & W.F.Albright),
Caesarea (Acts 9:30, excavated by Israel's Department of Antiquity),
Caesarea Philippi (at the foot of Mt. Hermon, Mat. 16:13),
Calah or "Nimrud" on the Tigris River (Gen. 10:11, excavated by H.Layard),
Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee (Mat. 4:13),
Carchemish (Jer. 46:2, excavated by L.Woolley & T.E. Lawrence),
Colossae (excavated by Wm.J.Hamilton),
Corinth (in Greece),
Damascus (in Syria),
Dan (now known as "Tel el-Qadi"),
Dothan (Gen. 37:17, 2Ki. 6:13, excavated by J.P.Free),
Ephesus (Acts 19, excavated by J.T.Wood & D.C.Hogarth),
Ezion Geber (1Ki. 9:26, excavated by F.Frank & N. Glueck),
Gaza (Judg. 1:18),
Gerar (Gen. 20:1, excavated by W.J. Phythian-Adams & F. Petrie),
Gezer (1Ki. 9:16-17, excavated by R.A.S.Macalister & A.Rowe),
Gibeah (1Sam. 11:4, excavated by W.Albright),
Gibeon (Josh. 9:3-27, now known as "Al Jib," excavated by J.B.Pritchard),
Gilgal (Josh. 4:20, excavated by J. Muilenburg),
Hamath (2Ki. 14:25, excavated by Burckhardt & Wright),
Haran (referred to in the Mari tablets),
Hazor (Josh. 11:1, excavated by Y. Yadin & J.A.de Rothchild),
Mt. Hermon (in northern Israel),
Jacob's Well (John 4:12, excavated by Robinson & C.A.Barclay),
Jericho (Josh.6, excavated by C.Warren, E.Sellin, J.Garstang & K.Kenyon),
Jerusalem (a 3000 year-old city),
Jezreel (at the foot of Mt.Gilboa),
Joppa (2Chr. 2:16, on the Mediterranean, 30 miles n.w. of Jerusalem),
Kadesh Barnea (Num. 32:8, about 49 miles s.w. of Beersheba),
Korazin (now called "Kerazeh," is two miles north of Capernaum),
Lachish (Josh. 10:32, is today's "Tel ed-Duweir," excavated by J.L.Starkey),
Laodicea (Rev. 1:4,11, ruins of old city walls still visible, ten miles west of Colossae),
Lydda (Acts 9:38, is today's "Ludd"), Lystra (Acts 14:6, excavated by J.R.S. Sterrett),
Megiddo (2Ki. 9:27, excavated by G.Schumacher, H.Breasted, C.Fisher & P.L.Guy),
Nazareth (boyhood town of Jesus, a city of 10,000 today),
Nineveh (Jonah 1:2, excavated by H.A.Layard),
Philippi (Acts 16:9-12, excavated by French School of Athens),
Rome (book to "Romans"),
Samaria (Acts 1:8, is 42 miles north of Jerusalem, excavated by G.A.Reisner & C.S.Fisher),
Sardis (Rev. 3:1, excavated by H.C.Butler, Haufmann & Detweiler),
Shechem (Gen. 12:6-7, excavated by C.Watzinger & E.Sellin),
Shiloh (Judg. 21:19, excavated by A.Smith),
Sidon (Judg. 1:31, excavated by E.Renan),
Taanach (Judg. 1:27, excavated by E.Sellin),
Thebes (Ezek. 30:14, capital of Upper Egypt, 418 miles south of today's Cairo),
Thessalonica (Acts 17:6, today's Salonica),
Tyre (Ezek.26, 20 miles south of Sidon),
Ur (Gen. 11:31, excavated by J.E.Taylor, H.R.Hall & C.L.Woolley),
Zion (1Ki. 8:1, the lower eastern hill of Jerusalem),

volgadon · December 19, 2009

Nazareth (boyhood town of Jesus, a city of 10,000 today),

Did you know that the only archaeological remains before the Byzantine period are a few pottery shards from the early 'judges' period?

If you know exactly where Canah is, let me know.

volgadon · December 19, 2009

Jezreel (at the foot of Mt.Gilboa),

Not quite true.

Uncle Dale · December 19, 2009

No, but you're missing one very important thing...
The middle eastern culture had the good fortune over the centuries of having machinery behind the preservation of it's history and culture, both through living descendants and a conquering empire (the Romans) who were exceptional record keepers and extraordinarily tolerant of Jewish culture and belief. Judaism was the only Monotheistic religion that received such treatment in the Roman Empire.

I'm not quite sure how you mean me to take that argument -- ??? That sacred sites

were preserved in the Old World, by repeated re-building, over ruins of the past?

That there was more literacy and information preserved in the Old World? That

the cultures of the Old World were inter-connected by such features as Roman roads?

I do not see how that comparison with the New World somehow excuses Mormons from

having to demonstrate that Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites and Lamanites left some

noticeable mark on the American landscape. Mormons claim that the Americas, up

through the time of Noah, were the seat of biblical humanity, and then, within

the life-time of Noah's grandchildren, the Americas were re-populated by Jaredites,

and remained thus populated by many millions until the days of Coriantumr ---

When, without a break in occupation, the Lehites and Mulkeites arrive on the scene,

soon expanding (according to Helaman) to cover the entire landscape, from the

north to the south and from the eastern ocean to the western ocean. Then, after

many centuries of their culture covering all the face of the earth, this

civilization at last dwindles down to almost nothing, save a Lamanite remnant,

evidently indistinguishable from another, foreign people, the Indians.

If Nephite explorers can happen upon extensive Jaredite ruins, complete with

metal implements, massive buildings, etc., merely by wandering in the wilderness

for a few days, then we must believe that the Book of Mormon was consistent in

portraying the Jaredite civilization as vast, extensive, and not overbuilt by

American Indians.

If Joseph Smith could reliably point out a Nephite tower at Adam-ondi-ahmen,

after only a few hours at that site, then Nephite remains are not only present,

but identifiable, even down to the details of Lamanite skin having turned white,

and buried in a common mound, similar to those of the American Indians.

I think you're missing one very important thing -- that if the Book of Mormon is

a fictional composition, meant to explicate a fictional past, then its references

to preColumbian civilizations are equally fictional, and based either upon man's

imagination, or upon the limited knowledge of preColumbian America available

at the time of the book's publication in 1830.

If it is a fiction, then Joseph Smith's identification of Nephite ruins in

Missouri, and a white Lamanite in Illinois are either blunders or falsehoods.

By contrast the Book of Mormon culture faced centuries of internal and external forces seeking
to eradicate any trace of it's existence.

As I said, according to the book, wandering Nephites could happen upon Jaredite ruins,

almost as a matter of course. According to the book, nothing had eradicated the

physical (and literary) remains of that civilization of millions of ancient Americans.

But -- my Mormon friends tell me that Jesus Christ himself practically eradicated all

signs of these civilizations, at the time he descended to Bountiful, and caused entire

cities to be buried under mountains, or sunk into the ocean.

I simply cannot and will not accept such an explanation for the lack of BoM peoples'

physical remains. If Mormon archaeologists are so gullible as to believe (and publish)

that explanation in the world-wide, peer-reviewed scholarly literature, then no wonder

we are not seeing any bibliographic body being built up for Nephites, Jaredites, etc.

More likely to me (far, far, far more likely) -- that the destruction described in the

3rd Nephi Christophany is a literary plot device, whereby fictional evidence for a

fictional civilization can be "eradicated" by an author resorting to fictional means.

That may seem like a cop out, but if we are to assume that that culture actually existed,
our only source is the Book of Mormon and the history of that region and both point to
the fact that there would be little, if anything, that was preserved over those centuries
between the heyday of the Nephites and Joseph Smith.

Speaking as a seventh generation Latter Day Saint, I do not see such explanations as

a "cop out," but rather as our stubborn refusal to enter into the modern world, and

factor into our understandings, all the evidences presented by modern science, discovery

and scholarship. We are not the only ones who resort to anti-intellectual or pseudo-intellectual

arguments in order to try and preserve our past misunderstandings --- but we have among us

people wise enough (and perhaps even inspired enough) to see the problem at hand. It is

not a problem attributable to insufficient knowledge of preColumbian America (as could

be resorted to in the 19th century) -- it is a problem centered in our religious ignorance

and our refusal to apply reason to our faith (or, worse yet, to our mistaken beliefs).

The Nephites were annihilated and the surviving Lamanites would have had no interest in
preserving any records whatsoever. In fact Mesoamerican archeology points to a trend that
the conquering nation would overlay the art and architecture of the conquered party with
it's own, and seek to destroy all pointers to the former culture.

Like I said, Nephites could wander about in the wilderness and by chance happen upon

what sound like undisturbed Jaredite ruins. Those Nephites go so far as to travel great

distances up and down their coastlines by ship, mentioning no American Indian peoples

or over-building upon Jaredite and Nephite occupation sites.

I simply do not buy the explanation that we can dig down into Palenque, or Copan, or

Tikal, and eventually strike upon a "Nephite" layer. Most of these American Indian

sites have been excavated and studied, to the point that we can re-create their history

of occupation, and account for changes and innovations in their physical culture over

many hundreds of years, without having to resort to exotic Israelite colonists.

If Mormons would accept radiocarbon dating (and other, similar scientific means of

dating ancient man-made remains) they could construct a map of American Indian occupation

sites for 600 BCE, 100 CE, 500 CE, etc., which show their distribution. Where upon

such maps is there empty space for Nephite construction and Nephite agriculture?

Where upon such maps is there sufficient buffer-space, so that Nephite occupation

of the land does not overlap with the habitation of the American Indians?

I don't buy it.

It's entirely plausible that this explains the discrepancy you describe.

If that should indeed be "plausible" to non-Mormons, then present that theory before

the experts in preColumbian anthropology for their review and comments ---- not in

a book, but in the periodical non-sectarian, peer-reviewed scholarly journals, where

those acknowledged experts can respond with short papers and reviews of their own.

In other words, take the processes already used WITHIN the Maxwell Institute studies

and reportings, and duplicate them within the much wider world of non-sectarian scholarship.

THEN, after we see the response of our current experts, we can talk "plausibility."

The greatest evidence we have is anthropological not archeological. There are a number of interesting things in the legends and culture of the mesoamerican people that point to at least a knowledge of Judeo-Christian concepts and occasionally something interesting will come up on that front.

And many of those "interesting" things were known and published before 1830. So they

cannot be resorted to as newly-discovered proof of Book of Mormon contents, preserved

externally from the text. Each time Mormons point to such "interesting" things, they

are honor-bound to also provide the pre-1830 bibliography of peoples' knowledge of

those "interesting" things -- even if that knowledge was limited to the scholars.

Instead -- when Mormons grudgingly do admit something seemingly parallel to BoM

accounts WAS known before 1830, they almost always follow that slight admission,

with the alibi -- that the uneducated frontier boy of Palmyra could not possibly

have known any facts published only in obscure sources. That alibi is a red herring,

meant to keep the focus of our attention so narrowly trained upon Joseph, that we

neglect even to recall that his older brother was educated on the Dartmouth campus.

But this all said, the real, true, persuasive witness will never come (for the Bible
or the Book of Mormon) from any scientific discipline. If one is looking to obtain
faith by that means one will always come up short.

Of course.

But we are not talking about "faith" here -- we are talking about "evidence."

Joseph Smith said Mormonism includes all truth. If that is true, then the truth

of preColumbian America's past is part of Mormonism, and Mormonism has the

obligation to make that truth available in ways beyond faith-promotion. If the

Mormons decline this opportunity, then they leave themselves wide open to

hostile criticism from outsiders, trying to hinder the LDS missions' conversions,

or even strengthen the indecision of inactive Mormons who are growing wary of

what they are taught inside of the Church.

If Maxwell Institute stuff is faith-promotion, then it is not meant for people

like myself, and we can refuse to examine and discuss it, when the LDS resort

to those sources, trying to convince outsiders that they are wrong.

Better by far, to admit LDS "scholarship" to be faith-promotion and not meant

for public consumption beyond the limits of Mormon households.

Sometimes I wonder if God has withheld the archeological evidence in favor of faith based conversion
to keep faith as the preeminent reason why someone would join the Church.

If God operates in that way, then angels would not be sent to strike young Alma

dumb for failure to believe --- God would not so impinge upon our free agency

as to confront us with situations in which we were left with no choice but to

surrender to an external force.

I don't think you can have it both ways -- with a God who hides away such mundane

evidence as Joe Smith's Nephite stone box on the hill, but then also descends from

the heavens, destroying entire cities for their wickedness, and as a witness to

the righteous, on a nation-wide scale.

Better to admit that we have been duped with the Book of Mormon narrative, and try

to salvage what we can of the Latter Day Saint religion -- building upon solid

ground, rather than the shifting sands of discerning "evidence" for fiction.

It makes for stronger converts who have their focus in the right place. The witness of the Holy Ghost seems to have a far longer lasting impact than any dry discourse by a PhD ever would.

It denies that Saints such as those I've associated with can set aside the

purported Book of Mormon historicity, with all its Jaredites, Nephites, etc.,

and still retain not only a periodic witness of the Holy Ghost, but also

the continuing presence and guidance of God's Holy Spirit, in both our religious

lives and our temporal activities.

The day will yet come when substantial numbers of Utah Mormons will arrive at the

same God-given conclusions as have Saints of my heritage ---- I only hope they can

do so without losing their restorationist roots (as in Community of Christ) or

their piety (as with the Signature Books and Sunstone Symposium people).

We shall see.

UD

.

volgadon · December 19, 2009

4.People can see the fallen walls of Jericho today

WRONG. People can see fallen walls, not THE fallen walls of Jericho.

mpschmitt · December 20, 2009

I've gotten rather voluminous responses here from Uncle Dale and John T and rather than going on a point by point response to everything, let me just reiterate what my point is in a few summary statements:

1. I never said that there was no archeological evidence for anything in the Bible. Merely that it doesn't make sense to attack the plausibility of something (the Book of Mormon) on grounds that might just as easily be turned on one's own sacred scripture (and there are still a great number of things in the Bible that are unprovable by science - some of which I've listed). Nevertheless, I believe them anyway.

2. There is a vast difference between knowing there is a place that is called the Red Sea or Egypt and knowing that a gentlemen by the name of Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea by the power of God, and walked through on dry ground. No amount of circumstantial evidence can ever prove that, and they didn't have video cameras back then. Nevertheless I believe it. And this despite the fact that archeolgists say there's no evidence for it: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html

3. There is a vast difference between knowing that there was a city of Jericho (and even knowing that the walls fell down) and knowing that a group of God's servants encompassed the city and knocked the walls down by blowing ram's horns. Nevertheless I believe it.

4. There is a vast difference between knowing that a Synagogue existed where Jesus was purported to have preached and actually knowing that Jesus was there and what he said. Nevertheless I believe it.

5. There is a vast difference between knowing that a man named Jesus preached some things in the ancient Roman Empire that got him executed and knowing that he was the only begotten Son of the Living God who offered a vicarious propitiation for our sins. The former is something archeologists and anthropologists may be able to solve. The latter is not. And I absolutely believe the latter with all my heart.

5. All of the science that emerges year after year, whether in favor of the Bible or the Book of Mormon or opposed to either, is just the work of men who are imperfectly striving to put the story together from what they find. I place only so much confidence in that as it deserves. The rest is taken up by faith. It is absolutely a question of faith for me and not facts. If the facts support my faith, then so be it. But if there is an absence of facts I don't take that as a reason to doubt my faith. An absence of corroborating evidence is not disproof. It is a faith based assertion without physical confirmation. Welcome to the essence of religion. Yet anti-Mormon writers wish to paint it as disproof and are then duplicitous in their sidestepping of similar issues in their own religious and scriptural history. You can't have it both ways. If there are facts that appear to run contrary to my held beliefs, well that's something to consider and perhaps I adjust some of my misconceptions. But I always do it prayerfully and in the context of my faith and the witness I have received. I'm not perfect either, but to say there is no physical evidence to support the Book of Mormon therefore it must be a fraud is (a) Simply not true and (b ) disingenuous at best when it comes from Bible believing Christians of other denominations who are still fending off similarly structured attacks on their own traditions.

6. We are asking the question of what is plausible. Is it plausible that such a society as described in the Book of Mormon existed and had the experiences they said they had? I have had spiritual and in some cases evidentiary witnesses that such a question may be answered in the affirmative. I don't find the arguments to the contrary very persuasive or well founded. They all seem centered around the premise "Well we haven't found anything yet, so it can't be true." This seems an exceptionally weak argument, and it is one, as I've pointed out, that has been used a number of times in history to cast aspersions and doubt on the Holy Bible as well, in most cases to the ultimate embarrassment of those making the contrary argument.

7. Several times the argument has been made that no one has found a place called "Zarahemla". Does this surprise anyone? The Culture was annihilated, the language was lost, they didn't make road signs out of metal back then. There is no continuum, no Rosetta stone, nothing to preserve the language, like we have in Middle Eastern archeology. There are still a great number of unanswered questions in mesoamerican archeology. And a great number of sites yet uncovered and unexplored. God protected the records and placed them in hands that would deliver them to the strengthen the faithful and believing, not as a curiosity or side show act. If he sees fit to confirm that detail at some point via secular means, I'm fine with that, but I'm not surprised that proper Nephite names didn't survive the turmoil that region went through.

8. I'm not trying to convince anyone we are right on the basis of physical proof. I don't want to make converts like that because they are exceptionally vulnerable to smooth talking intellectuals. I want converts who are brought to Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost, not because I made a good argument and strung together a tidy list of facts that made their brain cave in.

Uncle Dale · December 20, 2009

..."Well we haven't found anything yet, so it can't be true." This seems an exceptionally weak argument,
and it is one, as I've pointed out, that has been used a number of times in history to cast aspersions
and doubt on the Holy Bible as well
...

Fifty years from now, we'll have another fifty years accumulation

of knowledge about ancient Palestine and adjacent "bible lands."

A hundred years from now, we'll have another hundred years' worth

of discoveries and reassessments to add to our stock of information

relating to things biblical.

A thousand years from now, we'll not have one more iota of material

evidence for Nephites -- not a coin from Zarahemla -- not a grain

of fossil Nephite wheat pollen from 500 BCE -- not a word from the

so-called "sealed pages" -- and still no stone box from Cumorah.

A thousand years from now some people may still argue that parts of

the Bible are fiction (or exaggerated accounts largely set in true

places, with some true artifacts from those places).

A thousand years from now, Mormons will still be saying that any

day now, somebody may discover and properly identify a Nephite

artifact -- evidence that the Book of Mormon is "true."

But it will never happen. Not in a thousand years. Not in a million.

The first principles of the Gospel do not include a word about

Nephites: the first principles of the Gospel never will...

UD

.

mpschmitt · December 20, 2009

But it will never happen. Not in a thousand years. Not in a million.

I got a hundred bucks says you're wrong. You can pay me when we get to the kingdom ;-)

Uncle Dale · December 20, 2009

I got a hundred bucks says you're wrong. You can pay me when we get to the kingdom ;-)

Do you take Kirtland bank-notes?

UD

Tchild2 · December 20, 2009

Do you take Kirtland bank-notes?
UD

Take that bet mpschmitt, Kirtland banknotes are worth a small fortune as collectables.

Uncle Dale · December 20, 2009

Take that bet mpschmitt, Kirtland banknotes are worth a small fortune as collectables.

And his Nephite "evidence" will be just about as authentic as my

pc scanner/printer's reproduction from g-g-g-g-uncle's Ohio wallet.

A parsimonious exchange, no doubt.

UD

volgadon · December 20, 2009

4. There is a vast difference between knowing that a Synagogue existed where Jesus was purported to have preached and actually knowing that Jesus was there and what he said. Nevertheless I believe it.

Said synagogue is a good deal younger than the events surrounding Christ. Its about an hour's walk from my family home.

At any rate, it would be like someone in the future claiming that the church is true because they found the remains of a stake center in some Utah town where one of the prophets stayed at.

volgadon · December 20, 2009

The first principles of the Gospel do not include a word about
Nephites: the first principles of the Gospel never will...

No reason that they should be in the first principlees.

Uncle Dale · December 20, 2009

No reason that they should be in the first principlees.

My ancestors would have disagreed -- saying that true faith must be based upon the

fulness of the gospel, and that the fulness can only be had in the BoM, D&C & JST.

That, without a God-given witness of the truth of these scriptures, the potential

candidate for baptism cannot possibly live by "every word that proceedeth out of

the mouth of God;" nor can he understand gospel dispensations and blessings of

God, without knowing details of the Nephite dispensation. Following that faith,

founded upon the fulness of the gospel, comes repentance, baptism, remission, etc.

Then again, my ancestors were wrong.

UD

volgadon · December 20, 2009

My ancestors would have disagreed -- saying that true faith must be based upon the
fulness of the gospel, and that the fulness can only be had in the BoM, D&C & JST.
That, without a God-given witness of the truth of these scriptures, the potential
candidate for baptism cannot possibly live by "every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God;" nor can he understand gospel dispensations and blessings of
God, without knowing details of the Nephite dispensation. Following that faith,
founded upon the fulness of the gospel, comes repentance, baptism, remission, etc.
Then again, my ancestors were wrong.
UD

It says the first principles, not the only principles. Articles of faith aren't meant to be long. The first principles are those listed, IRREGARDLESS of where they are listed.

volgadon · December 20, 2009

Below are listed some of the proofs found by archeology and in the culture of other nations. God kept records in two different places so that one would prove the other. Here is a PARTIAL list of some of the many corroborating evidences:
1. Creation

Do you mean mesopotamian mythological accounts and depictions, or do you mean actual evidence for the creation as described in Genesis?

2. Original monotheism

What is the corroborating archaeological evidence for this?

3. The Garden of Eden

Archaeological evidence for that? Please tell more. Also, please show me where it is ON A MAP.

7. The universal Flood (Genesis 6-9) EVERY civilization has an account of this

Weak Frazerian evidence.

volgadon · December 20, 2009

8. Mt. Ararat as the site of the landing of Noah

volgadon · December 20, 2009

bricks without straw (Exodus 5:7

Sign In

"Not a shred of archeological evidence"

Recommended Posts

Mordecai

cdowis

Uncle Dale

John T

mpschmitt

mpschmitt

John T

John T

volgadon

volgadon

Uncle Dale

volgadon

mpschmitt

Uncle Dale

mpschmitt

Uncle Dale

Tchild2

Uncle Dale

volgadon

volgadon

Uncle Dale

volgadon

volgadon

volgadon

volgadon

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse