The God of Gaps

[cdowis]

[ ] This is the same old stuff that has been leveled against the BoM since 1830. Asked and answered many times over.

check. Many of your arguments are outdated by recent scientific discoveries. For example, look at Sorenson's biblography on transmigration. There are many articles in professional journals, and the popular press, including PBS and Discovery channel, regarding the evidence for other migrations.

A wiki article states

Recent discoveries of human coprolites (fossilized feces) found deeply buried in an Oregon cave indicate the presence of humans in North America as much as 1,200 years prior to the Clovis culture.

[ ] When Mormon used words like

[cdowis]

Now it's your turn.

[ ] I don't know anything about this so-called evidence. It's long past the time when you presented us some real proof.

[ ] What do the archeologists have to say about this stuff? Has it been published in peer reviewed professional journals?

[ ] Yeah, I glanced at this. It's all just a lucky coincidence. You flip a coin enough times, and you will eventually get something right. No big deal.

[Ariarates]

Many of your arguments are outdated by recent scientific discoveries. For example, look at Sorenson's biblography on transmigration. There are many articles in professional journals, and the popular press, including PBS and Discovery channel, regarding the evidence for other migrations.

I have already acknowledged that several other migrations have been postulated; the only thing I did was separate the ones for which there is general consensus (the one across the Bering strait and the Norse migration) from the others. While there are indeed

[maupayman]

Well you might go ahead and take this off your list. Such practices were known to exist among ancient Hawaiians, Rapa Nui and Tahitians before European expansion. They also practiced polygamy and incest marriage. Even SSM.

Why would that cause me to take it off the list? I didn't say that nobody has ever practiced polyandry.

[maupayman]

cdowis:

The BOM text makes it clear, for example, that the hill in NY was not the same as the hill mentioned in the BOM. The NY hill just did not fit the text. We follow the text rather than the assumptions.

Where is this made clear in the text?

Another example, the BOM text reveals that "others" lived in the Americas when Lehi arrived, that there was domesticated animals, and we reject the simplistic old assumption that the entire American hemisphere was empty.

Again, where is this in the text?

[Terry Moe]

The problem with that technique is that as science progresses, new discoveries are made, those gaps get smaller and fewer in number. You leave yourself vulnerable to scientific progress.

It is interesting that one of the principle arguments of the antimormons is the use of science, specifically archeology. Among the favorites is steel swords, horses, chariots, etc.

The problem with that argument is that they leave themselves vulnerable to new discoveries in archeology. Many of these "missing things" have been discovered, so these gaps get smaller and fewer in number as archeology advances. One of the antis recently stated that the BOM "contradicts what we know of the history of mesoamerica". I pointed out there is a difference between "contradict" and "unsubstantiated". For example, at first glance the DNA argument contradicted the BOM story, but the claim for BOM time period horses is unsubstantiated.

I then asked him for a list of those specific contradictions, excluding undiscovered steel, horse bones, etc. So far he has been silent.

While I think there will always be a lack of such things as horse bones, I believe that other side of the equation where archeology has moved closer to the BOM text has accelerated over the decades. Acceptance of transmigration has probably been the most exciting in the recent decade. Regarding the BOM, we now have now proposed several probable geographic locations for BOM events.

cdowis, thank you for making this very thorough and intelligent post. I don't agree with it, but I appreciate the fact that you're one who puts careful thought into your beliefs. So with that said, let me respond.

As I see it, the archaeological arguments against the Book of Mormon do not constitute "shrinking gaps" at all. Rather, as archeology advances, the archeological arguments against the Book of Mormon remain exactly the same. Let's look at a couple examples:

Lemuel: The second chapters of the Book of Mormon says that Lehi and his family found a river flowing into the Red Sea from the east. In reality, no such river exists. I have with me an atlas, published this year, with a map of Arabia clearly showing that no river matches the one described in 1 Nephi 2. The Wikipedia article on the geography of Arabia notes "the absence of any permanent rivers or bodies of water". If anyone has actually found the Valley of Lemuel, why is it not shown on modern-day maps and atlases and such.

Bountiful: Same basic problem. You claim that you've found it, but I don't see it on any maps.

Writing on metal plates: As far as I know, no one has ever claimed it's impossible to write on metal plates. What's impossible is the notion of a book written on metal plates, because it would take many lifetimes to complete and would be too heavy to lift. Indeed, if we define a book as having a minimum of 50 pages, there is no such book in recorded history. Hence the early critics were right when they pointed out that Joseph Smith's claim of receiving the Book of Mormon on metal plates is nonsensical.

Reformed Egyptian: Another early criticism was that Joseph Smith claimed the plates used the language of "Reformed Egyptian", which doesn't actually exist. Every schoolchild knows that the ancient Jews wrote in Hebrew, not in any form or variant of Egyptian. Mormon apologists claim to have found a manuscript with Hebrew writing in Egyptian text, and also that there are variants of Egyptian that could be described as "Reformed Egyptian". However, the manuscript in question is a translation of part of Psalm 20 into Egyptian. Translations are reasonable, but there's still no explanation whatever for why the descendents of Jews in America would choose to write in Egyptian when there was no one who read Egyptain to read it.

So, in short, the claims made by Mormon archaeologists don't stand up to scrutiny. Meanwhile, since you said that you asked your friend for a specific list of contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the historical record, so I'll give that a go, though I'm not an expert so I'm probably leaving out a great deal.

Animals: The Book of Mormon mentions donkeys, cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, elephants, and horses. No bones from any of these animals have been found in ancient meso-American sites, nor have any artificats from ancient American civilizations depicted any of these animals. Meanwhile, the animals that were common in the Americas, such as deer, jaguars, turkeys, and dogs are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Lastly, the Book of Mormon mentions flocks and herds of livestock more than 100 times. In reality, no Native American civlizations raised livestock of any sort; they only grew crops.

Plants: The Book of Mormon mentions wheat, barely, figs, and grapes. Just as with animals, the ancient meso-American sites have yielded no evidence of any of these crops. Those civilizations did grow corn, beans, squash, and tomatoes, which are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Likewise the Book of Mormon makes no mention of any of the specialized agricultural techinques used by the peoples of meso-America.

Metals: The Book of Mormon mentions steel, brass, bronze, copper, and iron. Not even a tiny amount of any of these has been found at ancient meso-American sites. As Dr. Raymond Matheny of BYU said:

In refining ores and then bringing these to casting and true metallurgical processes is another bit of technology that leaves a lot of evidence. You can't refine ore without leaving a bloom of some kind, that is, impurities that blossom out and float to the top of the ore. Also blooms off into silicas and indestructible new rock forms. In other words, when you have a ferrous metallurgical industry, you have these evidences of the detritus that is left over. You also have the fuels, you have the furnaces, you have whatever technologies that were performing these tasks, they leave solid evidences. And they are indestructible things

[selek]

As I see it, the archaeological arguments against the Book of Mormon do not constitute "shrinking gaps" at all. Rather, as archeology advances, the archeological arguments against the Book of Mormon remain exactly the same. Let's look at a couple examples:

The key words in your entire litany of predigested proof-texts are "As I see it".

We thank you for your opinion- but it is worth precisely what we paid for it.

Lemuel: The second chapters of the Book of Mormon says that Lehi and his family found a river flowing into the Red Sea from the east. In reality, no such river exists. I have with me an atlas, published this year, with a map of Arabia clearly showing that no river matches the one described in 1 Nephi 2. The Wikipedia article on the geography of Arabia notes "the absence of any permanent rivers or bodies of water". If anyone has actually found the Valley of Lemuel, why is it not shown on modern-day maps and atlases and such.

First and foremost, no scholar worth his salt considers wikipedia to be a reliable source. It's simply too biased and too easy to skew. Wikipedia is inescapably little more a collection of "common knowledge" or "collective wisdom" rather than a scholarly source.

Second, the archaeological evidence is quite clear that the river existed then, but dried up over time- hence it will appear on no modern atlas.

Third, the archaeological evidence is quite clear that the the river existed during the period when Lehi and his family would have followed it, and that they were a number of extant and prosperous trade routes in the same era- including ports and harbors that would have supported shipbuilding.

This is, however, an esoteric point generally known only by serious historians and researchers. It is not common knowledge, and certainly falls well outside the lexicon of the anti-Mormon dilletante and axe-grinder.

Bountiful: Same basic problem. You claim that you've found it, but I don't see it on any maps.

Why would it appear on a modern map? Why would it be recognized as such by people who are perfectly indifferent to Mormonism or Mormon belief?

The presentism with which your assumptions are rife is both a conceit and a logical error.

To give you an example of why you're so wrong-headed on this one, I challenge you to find and post a modern map of New Amsterdam, New Netherlands, in the American Colonies, established in 1614. The city's been there for almost four hundred years- but I challenge you to find a modern map for New Amsterdam, New Netherlands.

If modern cartographers do not recognize New Amsterdam, why would they recognize the Valley of Lemuel or Bountiful?

Writing on metal plates: As far as I know, no one has ever claimed it's impossible to write on metal plates. What's impossible is the notion of a book written on metal plates, because it would take many lifetimes to complete and would be too heavy to lift.

This statement is rife with so many presentisms and false assumptions as to be beyond answering and well into deserving of ridicule.

Metal books- including prayer books- have been found. Their mere existence obviates your wild assumptions and errant conclusions.

Indeed, if we define a book as having a minimum of 50 pages, there is no such book in recorded history.

And yet that definition is both presentist, arbitrary, and wholly irrelevant.

How YOU- or any other axe-grinder- might define a book is irrelevant.

It matters only how the original authors and inscribers would have defined it.

Hence the early critics were right when they pointed out that Joseph Smith's claim of receiving the Book of Mormon on metal plates is nonsensical.

In your opinion. Serious scholars and archaeologists tend to disagree.

Dating: The Book of Mormon gives incorrect dates for several things. It has Lehi fleeing King Zedekiah in 600 B.C., but Zedekiah didn't become King until three years later. It has Jesus Christ being born in 1 A.D., but He was actually born in the year we (incorrectly) call 6 B. C. In both of these issues, it reflects the incorrect information that would have been available to Joseph Smith, while the correct information wasn't made available until later.

Gotta love the presentism, double-standards, and assumption in this one.

The Bible gives contradictory dates for the reigns of various kings (including, IIRC, Zedekiah), but that's okay. If the Book of Mormon does the same, it's a fraud. The double standard is staggering.

As to the birthdate of Jesus, you conveniently ignore the fact that the guesstimates about the actual date and year of Christ's birth have varied wildly over the last two thousand years, and that the 6.B.C. date is nothing more than a "best guess" by current historians and is not, in fact, considered "written in stone".

So as you can see, it's a lot more than just steel and horse bones.

Actually, nearly every item on your laundry list of pre-digested talking points has been addressed, if not refuted outright.

Your "scholarship" on this matter is culled from a variety of anti-Mormon and non-scholarly sources, and is at least fifty years out of date.

I suggest you visit the FAIRWiki, the Maxwell Institute, a/o FAIRLDS.org to bring your arguments up to date instead of clinging to propaganda which originated from the mid-1950's.

As demonstrated, your litany of "evidence" is predicated upon presentist assumptions, logical errors, cultural biases, and outright prejudice by non-scholars.

If you look at South and Central America today, you will discover that nearly all of the populations reside along the coasts. The heart and interior have been mapped from the air- but only a small fraction of the interior has ever been explored.

The vast bulk of South America has never been visited, let alone occupied by man.

Your implicit (presentist) assumption is that everything worthy of discovery has been found and that we now know all there is to know about the societies that occupied Central and South America before the Spaniards arrived.

No credible scientist, let alone meso-american archaeologist supports so arrogant (and ignorant) a notion.

You might want to surrender your self-appointed superiority and begin researching recent developments before you so glibly dismiss the evidences for the Book of Mormon.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

Where is this made clear in the text?

There are several books and articles which give the details, including the seminal book, "In Search of Cumorah" by David Palmer. Look around and you will find alot of info on the "two hill Cumorah" issue.

Again, where is this in the text?

Again, there are alot written on this, including extensive discussions on this forum, but you can start with 1 Ne 18:25 where Lehi, et al, discovered domesticated animals when they arrived.

You can start a thread on this if you are still having problems with these concepts but I suggest that you do your homework first.

[cdowis]

Terry,

This is truly pathetic.

Please do your homework and stop wasting our time with this old outdated antimormon stuff. Your post is precisely what I have been talking about. Tell us, what is the copyright date of the antimormon book that you are taking this from? The antimormons have poisoned your mind with this garbage.

Anyway, you might start your education by looking at Jeff Lindsay's site here,

[cdowis]

Ariarates,

All I did was present the general consensus on a few topics and show how the BoM contradicts this general consensus.

I have no problem with that.

it doesn

[maupayman]

cdowis: Do you not know how to use the quote function?

There are several books and articles which give the details, including the seminal book, "In Search of Cumorah" by David Palmer. Look around and you will find alot of info on the "two hill Cumorah" issue.

I have read these arguments and find them to be weak. Please point out where the book is clear that there are two hills. That was your claim.

Again, there are alot written on this, including extensive discussions on this forum, but you can start with 1 Ne 18:25 where Lehi, et al, discovered domesticated animals when they arrived.

Again, i'm familiar with the arguments. Please point out where the book clearly makes reference to "others" as you claim.

You can start a thread on this if you are still having problems with these concepts but I suggest that you do your homework first.

[Ariarates]

Make up your mind. Do you understand the difference between consensus and "know"? (

[cdowis]

I have already dealt with this issue.

The climate and topology of mesoamerica did not lend itself to the widespread use of horses -- dense tropical forests and mountains. The area is full of rivers which make river travel more feasible.

Outside of the northern Maya lowlands, rivers are common throughout Mesoamerica. A number of the more important ones served as loci of human occupation in the area. The longest river in Mesoamerica is the Usumacinta, which forms in Guatemala at the convergence of the Salinas or Chixoy, and La Pasion River and runs north for 970 km (480 km of which are navigable), eventually draining into the Gulf of Mexico. Other rivers of note include the Rio Grande de Santiago, the Grijalva River, the Motagua River, the Ul

[cdowis]

[Zakuska]

One of the biggest problem with people is the tendency to make things too complicated.

I agree completely. For example... The first time I read the book of Ether, I read it as if it were a chronological journal and I ended up concluding that the Jaredites actually made ships and sailed across 2 seperate bodies of Water. I''ve ran into others who have had the same conclusions over the years. But upon reading it a second, third... nth time I see where my initial perception was completely wrong, and that he outlines the complete journey from start to finish in the promised land and then jumps back and fills in some details.

[Terry Moe]

Terry,

This is truly pathetic.

Please do your homework and stop wasting our time with this old outdated antimormon stuff. Your post is precisely what I have been talking about. Tell us, what is the copyright date of the antimormon book that you are taking this from? The antimormons have poisoned your mind with this garbage.

Well, that question is easy enough to answer. I have never read any anti-Mormon book, ever. The only books concerning Mormonism that I have ever read are The Book of Mormon and Lehi in the Wilderness, the latter being decidely pro-Mormon. Does that answer the question to your satisfaction?

Anyway, you might start your education by looking at Jeff Lindsay's site here,

I have already looked at Jeff Lindsey's site. Most of what I wrote in my first post is in response to Jeff lindsey's site. Jeff Lindsey's site claims that archaeologists have found the Valley of Lemuel and the location of Bountiful, but provides zero evidence to back up this claim. Jeff Lindsey's site claims that there are examples of books written on metal, but is unable to name a single one. Jeff Lindsey's site claims that "Reformed Egyptian" exists, but is unable to name any source that supports this claim. And so forth. So, in short, if I judge by Jeff Lindsey's site, I would have to conclude that there is no actual archaeological evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

Furthermore, Jeff Lindsey's site does not even mention most of the archaeological evidence against the Book of Mormon. For example, it doesn't tackler the issue that there's no evidence for metal mining in the ancient Americas, nor most of the incorrect evidence about animals, plants, fabrics, buildings, etc...

So, in short, you're going to have to do a lot better than refering me to Jeff Lindsey's site.

[Terry Moe]

First and foremost, no scholar worth his salt considers wikipedia to be a reliable source. It's simply too biased and too easy to skew. Wikipedia is inescapably little more a collection of "common knowledge" or "collective wisdom" rather than a scholarly source.

In that I generally agree. Wikipedia is not a good source for thorough, scholary debates. It is however decent for answering basic questions such as whether there are rivers in Arabia.

Second, the archaeological evidence is quite clear that the river existed then, but dried up over time- hence it will appear on no modern atlas.

Third, the archaeological evidence is quite clear that the the river existed during the period when Lehi and his family would have followed it, and that they were a number of extant and prosperous trade routes in the same era- including ports and harbors that would have supported shipbuilding.

Call for reference. Please back this up with a citation to a reliable source.

have been found. Their mere existence obviates your wild assumptions and errant conclusions.

Call for reference. Please provide me some evidence of a book of significant length written on metal. The only one I know is the one described here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2939362.stm

Which, as you can see, is tiny, 6 pages longs, and contains very little writing. No book of significant size written on metal has been found, ever.

The Bible gives contradictory dates for the reigns of various kings (including, IIRC, Zedekiah), but that's okay. If the Book of Mormon does the same, it's a fraud. The double standard is staggering.

What exactly does the Bible have to do with this debate. I haven't mentioned the Bible at all, so why are you trying to change the subject. Could it be that you're deliberately trying to steer away from a discussion of reliablity.

The Bom doesn't give contradictory dates for Zedekian, it gives wrong dates. Why?

As to the birthdate of Jesus, you conveniently ignore the fact that the guesstimates about the actual date and year of Christ's birth have varied wildly over the last two thousand years, and that the 6.B.C. date is nothing more than a "best guess" by current historians and is not, in fact, considered "written in stone".

6 B. C. was a guess, but a good one. We know that it can have been 1 A.D. due to Herod's dates and astronomical evidence.

[Terry Moe]

Actually, nearly every item on your laundry list of pre-digested talking points has been addressed, if not refuted outright.

Oh, really? Why don't you help correct my ignorance by telling me exactly where I would find some serious scholars addressing the fact that the:

-ancient Americas did not have goats, cattles, sheep, pigs, or donkeys

-that meso-American civilizations didn't raise livestock of any kind

-that they didn't grow grapes, wheat, or barley

-that there's no evidence of metal-mining operations in these civilizations

-that no metal weapons or armor have been found from these civilizations

Of course there's a lot more than just that, but I'll read what sources you give me on that for starters.

If you look at South and Central America today, you will discover that nearly all of the populations reside along the coasts. The heart and interior have been mapped from the air- but only a small fraction of the interior has ever been explored.

Now this is flatly untrue. For example, let's look at a map of Guatemala. Click here:

http://www.zonu.com/...lture_Map_2.htm

As you can see, the cities are mainly in the interior, not the coast. There's a sizable area in the north that's thinly inhabited, but most of the country is agricultural. To say that "only a small fraction of the interior has ever been explored" is simply not true. Nor is the result any different for other Central American countries. Look at a map of Honduras and we see the same thing.

http://ip.cals.corne...hondurasmap.htm

So in short there's not much space in Central America that where the ruins of multiple civilizations could be hiding. Archaeologists have opened up a substantial number of sites in the jungle regions, which is why we know so much about Mayan and other meso-American civilizations.

South America hasn't been occupied quite so thoroughly, nevertheless in recent years quite lot of land in the interior has been occupied and put to use for agriculture or industry. For example, you can see a map of Brazil here:

http://geography.gis...restation-maps/

You'd get similar results looking at maps of Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and other South American countries. So in short your argument depends on squeezing the Nephites and Lamanites into ever smaller and smaller unexplored regions, until eventually you'll be telling us that the whole Book of Mormon took place in somebody's back yard.

[selek]

Terry, we've already answered your questions at least a half-dozen times, and referred you to sites that address all of these issues and more.

Once more, just so that I can say you've been given every opportunity:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World#Valley_of_Lemuel

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Compared_to_the_Bible

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Plants

Everyone of these articles has extensive foot notes referring back to the original source materials- which more often than not cite the very "serious" scholars you demand.

That you categorically and dogmatically ignore and reject those answers DOES NOT mean that the questions were not answered.

That you don't LIKE the answers given DOES NOT mean the questions were not answered.

That you failed to do any follow up of the articles provided DOES NOT mean that there is no evidence or citation. You simply refused to explore them.

It is not OUR responsibility to pry your head open like a ripe melon and pour in the knowledge you so assiduously evade.

In short, you've demonstrated repeatedly that you're not here to learn but to pontificate.

Not to discuss, but to demagogue.

The sources and link that have been offered are sufficient to demonstrate evidence (but not proof) to anyone with an open-mind and a willingness to learn.

Your mind is long-since made up, and it is therefore a waste of time trying to educate you.

[cdowis]

I have already looked at Jeff Lindsey's site. Most of what I wrote in my first post is in response to Jeff lindsey's site. Jeff Lindsey's site claims that archaeologists have found the Valley of Lemuel and the location of Bountiful, but provides zero evidence to back up this claim. Jeff Lindsey's site claims that there are examples of books written on metal, but is unable to name a single one. Jeff Lindsey's site claims that "Reformed Egyptian" exists, but is unable to name any source that supports this claim. And so forth. So, in short, if I judge by Jeff Lindsey's site, I would have to conclude that there is no actual archaeological evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

1. He makes no mention of archeologists. Read his article again.

2. He matches up the description and location of these sites with the BOM text. That is his evidence, with photographs and description of these sites. I agree that there are no 2000 year old road signs which say "Valley of Lemuel", or "Bountiful", but the physical description and locations match the BOM.

3. In both cases these are startling discoveries. The Valley of Lemuel, as you YOURSSELF stated, is not on any map, and was used by the antimormons as one of those "missing horse bones" argument. Now this site was discovered and you close your eyes and say there is no evidence.

4. If you are willing to do some research on Bountiful, there are over 12 points of parallels between the site and the description in the BOM, many of which were startling, such as the discovery of iron ore.

I am finished with this discussion since you refuse to do your homework, and reject my suggestion for professional help. You truly need help, you continue with these pathetic arguments, and there is no reason to continue our conversation.

I wish you the best of luck.

[Skylla]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: By request

Thank you,

Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board Staff