The Book of Mormon is not a history book

[44Foxtrot]

Ugo Perego has some boast-worthy credentials, and I rather liked his discussion of the DNA/BoM issue. Disregard it if you wish, but it seems as solid and reasonable as can be. Should give pause to any reasonable person who might otherwise claim that DNA somehow disproves the BoM.

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=1&id=796

I have read Perego's take on this issue. Mormon apologists don't get a pass for claiming that "we don't know for sure what Lehi's DNA looked like". While the Book of Mormon describes three migrations from the Middle East (Jaredites, Mulikites and Nephites), there is no mention of any other people (i.e. not from the Middle East) living in the New World.

Given the scientific evidence to date, as compared to what one would expect in the Native American genome if the Book of Mormon were indeed the record it claims to be, the weight of evidence supports my position and that of other scientists I know of who have looked at this problem.

Attempts to change the narrative regarding the Book of Mormon in order to make the DNA evidence appear less damaging don't do much to redistribute the weight of evidence.

[Glenn101]

I have read Perego's take on this issue. Mormon apologists don't get a pass for claiming that "we don't know for sure what Lehi's DNA looked like". While the Book of Mormon describes three migrations from the Middle East (Jaredites, Mulikites and Nephites), there is no mention of any other people (i.e. not from the Middle East) living in the New World.

Given the scientific evidence to date, as compared to what one would expect in the Native American genome if the Book of Mormon were indeed the record it claims to be, the weight of evidence supports my position and that of other scientists I know of who have looked at this problem.

Attempts to change the narrative regarding the Book of Mormon in order to make the DNA evidence appear less damaging don't do much to redistribute the weight of evidence.

Aren't you reducing the argument to simplistic terms? There are several questions that need to be answered? Number one is just what is ancient Jewish DNA? Is it homogenous? What does the DNA of the tribe of Manasseh look like? What does the DNA of Joseph's wife, the Joseph who wound up as second to Pharoah in power and authority. To get anything near a correct answer, those things have to be known. Have you taken them into account?

Glenn

[cdowis]

Also the DNA of Zoram.

The researchers are taking DNA of modern Jews, and pretending that it represents the DNA of at least three different groups in the BOM. Most of the antimormons have already acknowledged the problem of trying to draw any conclusions from this DNA research.

[Brant Gardner]

I have read Perego's take on this issue. Mormon apologists don't get a pass for claiming that "we don't know for sure what Lehi's DNA looked like".

If that is your conclusion, then you did not read that article. I just reviewed it, and that isn't what he suggests at all. If you are going to claim any scientific basis for your claim, you really should deal with his science that suggests otherwise. To reduce it to an argument that isn't his thrust seems to be less that scientific.

While the Book of Mormon describes three migrations from the Middle East (Jaredites, Mulikites and Nephites), there is no mention of any other people (i.e. not from the Middle East) living in the New World.

Given that your stated expertise is not in texts, history, or ethnohistory, are you sure you want to propose a hypothesis that you don't know whether or not you can support? If you really want to propose this, please explain why an ancient text should do what you suggests (and do so in the light of the Popol Vuh, which explicitly does not--other examples are available).

Given the scientific evidence to date, as compared to what one would expect in the Native American genome if the Book of Mormon were indeed the record it claims to be, the weight of evidence supports my position and that of other scientists I know of who have looked at this problem.

Let's just take the middle assumption. According to what which person would expect it to be? Not Perego, and he has the credentials to back him up. If you want other experts in genetics who disagree with you, there are at least three. The problem isn't in the science, but in that bold phrase "what one would expect." You haven't defined how your arrived at the "what one would expect." For example, I know that I am "one" who doesn't expect that. Since that isn't my field, however, you glossed over what Perego said to tell you why he didn't expect it either.

I am sure that you know from your use of the scientific procedure that if an initial hypothesis is flawed, the chances of it yielding correct results is quite slim.

Attempts to change the narrative regarding the Book of Mormon in order to make the DNA evidence appear less damaging don't do much to redistribute the weight of evidence.

No narrative change required. In fact, the appearance of the DNA evidence didn't alter the essence of what had been the description of the Book of Mormon from at least the 1950s. I don't know to what you are referring, but again you appear to be much heavier on assertion that evidence to support those assertions.

[AtticusFinch]

seems like the more it is evident that no BoM lands or people will be found, the more the LDS Church runs away from the book as a history or factual book

[thesometimesaint]

AtticusFinch:

Ain't gonna happen.

[44Foxtrot]

Duplicate Post.

Sorry.

[44Foxtrot]

If that is your conclusion, then you did not read that article. I just reviewed it, and that isn't what he suggests at all. If you are going to claim any scientific basis for your claim, you really should deal with his science that suggests otherwise. To reduce it to an argument that isn't his thrust seems to be less that scientific.

Given that your stated expertise is not in texts, history, or ethnohistory, are you sure you want to propose a hypothesis that you don't know whether or not you can support? If you really want to propose this, please explain why an ancient text should do what you suggests (and do so in the light of the Popol Vuh, which explicitly does not--other examples are available).

Let's just take the middle assumption. According to what which person would expect it to be? Not Perego, and he has the credentials to back him up. If you want other experts in genetics who disagree with you, there are at least three. The problem isn't in the science, but in that bold phrase "what one would expect." You haven't defined how your arrived at the "what one would expect." For example, I know that I am "one" who doesn't expect that. Since that isn't my field, however, you glossed over what Perego said to tell you why he didn't expect it either.

I am sure that you know from your use of the scientific procedure that if an initial hypothesis is flawed, the chances of it yielding correct results is quite slim.

No narrative change required. In fact, the appearance of the DNA evidence didn't alter the essence of what had been the description of the Book of Mormon from at least the 1950s. I don't know to what you are referring, but again you appear to be much heavier on assertion that evidence to support those assertions.

Here is one narrative change. It is right up front in the Book of Mormon.

In my copy of the Book of Mormon (copyright 1981) the introduction states that, " All were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians".

Based on DNA evidence, such is clearly not the case. Would you not agree?

Apparently the Church itself has recognized this and the same passage now indicates that, -- "the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians".

With regard to expected DNA findings, this change in the claims for the Book of Mormon provides a great deal of much needed wiggle room for apologists.

With regard to my comment on the Perogo piece, I would suggest that you read it again.

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch:

Ain't gonna happen.

what ain't?

[Brant Gardner]

Here is one narrative change. It is right up front in the Book of Mormon.

In my copy of the Book of Mormon (copyright 1981) the introduction states that, " All were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians". . . . Apparently the Church itself has recognized this and the same passage now indicates that, -- "the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians".

A phrase in introductory materials that wasn't part of the Book of Mormon at all until the 1981 edition hardly appears to qualify as a narrative change when that introductory material is changed. There is no narrative change in the text.

If you are suggesting that there was once an idea that the Book of Mormon was the explanation for all Amerindians, you would be correct. You would not be correct to assume that that idea was doctrine, was required by the text, or has been current in LDS scholarly circles for over 60 years.

Based on DNA evidence, such is clearly not the case. Would you not agree?

Actually, I don't agree, but for a reason perhaps quite different from what you are suggesting. The nature of reversing the family tree is that you don't go too far back until everyone seems to be related to everyone else in one form or another (I don't have the article at hand that spoke of this, but it isn't LDS apologetics). This occurs even if the ability to trace the genetic lineage has been winnowed from the set of original ancestors.

So, do I agree that not all Amerindians came from the Book of Mormon peoples? Yes, and I have (personally) since early 1970s. Others (who taught me) have understood it from at least the 50's. It had nothing to do with DNA, but rather an examination of the what the text says.

Do I agree that because the traceable lineages came from Asia that they are the only ones that were here? No, and there are a larger number of studies indicating that there have been pockets of different lineages that have not survived (and I am not claiming that they were Israelite - the point is that they have not survived, but did exist based on the fortuitous finding of some remains).

With regard to expected DNA findings, this change in the claims for the Book of Mormon provides a great deal of much needed wiggle room for apologists.

If you are going to use a textual change to correlate with what LDS apologists do, then you should get the history correct. The LDS apologists probably had more to do with the change than the change affects the apologists. As I noted, this has been around for a very long time. The reasons were based in the text, not in genetics.

With regard to my comment on the Perogo piece, I would suggest that you read it again.

I reread what you said, then reread the article. I still see no evidence that you read it.

For example:

Perego:

The notion that some or all American Indians are of Hebrew descent is still popular among Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon tells of three relatively small parties (the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites) that left their native homeland in the Old World at different times and through divine guidance traveled to a new promised land, presumably on the American continent. The Book of Mormon contains only marginal information about the demographic dynamics and the geography of the land occupied by the people it describes. Instead, the volume claims to be primarily an abridgment of thousands of years of mostly spiritual and religious history and not a full account of the people. For example, the text does not give direct information about whether other populations were already established in the land at the time of the migrants' arrival. This lack of information leaves many open questions that have profound implications for the genetic characteristics that we would expect to find in present-day Native American populations. The extent to which these Old World groups expanded and colonized their new habitat, the level of admixture they may have experienced with local indigenous populations (if any were present), and the locations of their settlements would all influence the genetic landscape we would observe in Native Americans today. Furthermore, it is implausible that ancient record keepers would have had a comprehensive knowledge of all the goings-on of the entire vast landmass of the Americas, considering that from northern Canada to Patagonia is about 8,700 miles, a greater distance than that from Portugal to Japan! Despite these many complex factors, since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, Mormons and non-Mormons alike have resorted to speculation in an attempt to fill in the historical and geographical details that are either completely missing or only briefly alluded to in the Book of Mormon text.

That sets up the problem very much as I have described the position of the apologists. Small populations entering a larger population. Not the hemispheric interpretation you seem to insist upon, and not setting up an argument about not knowing Israelite DNA.

As he develops his argument:

With regard to measuring the genetic variation observed among the indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere, molecular anthropologist Michael H. Crawford has stated this problem succinctly and repeatedly in his book The Origins of Native Americans:

The Conquest and its sequelae squeezed the entire Amerindian population through a genetic bottleneck. The reduction of Amerindian gene pools from 1/3 to 1/25 of their previous size implies a considerable loss of genetic variability. . . . It is highly unlikely that survivorship was genetically random. . . . Thus, the present gene-frequency distributions of Amerindian populations may be distorted by a combination of effects stemming from genetic bottlenecks and natural selection. . . . This population reduction has forever altered the genetics of the surviving groups, thus complicating any attempts at reconstructing the pre-Columbian genetic structure of most New World groups.

24

Subsequent research has supported this notion. In an article dealing with ancient DNA from Native American populations that was published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, the authors made the following statement: "Genetic drift has also been a significant force [on Native American genetics], and together with a major population crash after the European contact, has altered haplogroup frequencies and caused the loss of many haplotypes."²⁵

Still nothing that sounds even close to your very brief criticism.

Now, just before he finally gets to the problem if understanding the specific Israelite DNA (which I did finally find), he states:

Another serious limitation is the possibility of making inappropriate assumptions about which mtDNA candidate haplogroups to expect from the small groups described in the Book of Mormon. A survey of modern populations including Middle Easterners and Asians would reveal a certain number of mtDNA lineages that occur at high frequencies and are therefore labeled as region-specific for the modern population, but such a survey would also uncover a number of mtDNA haplogroups that are more rare. Most likely, these less frequent mtDNA lineages are the result of relatively recent migratory events, an occurrence very common throughout history because of international trade routes (such as those that took place along the Silk Road) or military expansions (e.g., the Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, or Mongol empires). These important historical events are responsible for a partial reshuffling of the DNA compositions of geographic regions throughout the world, adding to the genetic diversity of affected locations. Although the majority of lineages in one region could be considered the typical mtDNA expected to be observed in a specific location in modern populations, the reality is that potentially any given mtDNA lineage could also be found at low frequencies in the same geographic area. Any of these low-frequency haplogroups could be candidates for genetic types that may have been more common during any previous time period within the last few thousand years.

So, I will retract my statement that he doesn't make the argument. He does. However, it is after quite a few other arguments that lead up to it, and which you have ignored for the rather facile statement that you don't believe that particular argument.

I see nothing in anything you have written that suggests that you do actually understand the problems of population genetics. I know that you have said you do, and I assume that you have correctly presented your credentials. However, none of your arguments display any sophisticated understanding of the process. Your quick response bears no semblance to the way in which Perego explains the issues.

So far, in this discussion you have made several points. You began with some statements about Maya and Olmec linguistics/literacy. You sounded like you knew what you were talking about (and I do give you points for knowing about the Justeson and Kaufman paper). However, what you sounded like you knew was not actually representative of the data. You overreached the data and came to conclusions that indicate that you don't handle Olmec and Maya hieroglpyic issues or the historical nature of and presence of the epigraphic texts.

You have then moved to suggesting that DNA must mean something for the Book of Mormon. This assertion appears to be based on an incorrect assumption that it is LDS doctrine that all peoples in the New World descended from Book of Mormon peoples. Another miss because you still need to learn more.

Next, you suggest that a phrase that wasn't in any published version of the Book of Mormon until 1981 and which is not part of the canonical text has been changed and this indicates a narrative change to make life easier on the apologists. Wrong yet again.

I have seen enough to agree that you have read a few papers on different subjects, but I haven't seen anything that lets me know that you actually handle any of the fields on which you have opined (including the one for which you claim a Ph.D.). In that field, you show no understanding of the way genetic material moves through living populations, the problems of preservation of the DNA lineages, or even the best arguments of the LDS scientists (and they have articles available in scientific journals where you can check their bona fides). Instead, you pick a single argument Perego made near the end of his article, and dismiss it with only your opinion, based not on the science, but simply assertion.

I find none of that very convincing. I would be happy if you could provide more solid arguments on any of these points.

[Brant Gardner]

AtticusFinch:

This statement really needs to be parsed and the pieces examined:

seems like the more it is evident that no BoM lands or people will be found,

Evident to whom? I'm sure that you believe that statement, but I can't agree with it. I find that there is the same kind of textual evidence in the Book of Mormon that allows to discern a location that was used to find Troy from Homer. I find that there are the same kinds of correlations that Biblical archaeologists use to discover the earliest Hebrew settlements, prior to the construction of the greater cities that leave more traces.

the more the LDS Church runs away from the book as a history or factual book

I have seen zero evidence of this. On the contrary, I have seen some very pointed talks given (and republished) to demonstrate just the opposite.

Neither phrase has any truth to it, based on the research that I have done and my familiarity with LDS Church statements on the Book of Mormon.

[Daniel Peterson]

seems like the more it is evident that no BoM lands or people will be found, the more the LDS Church runs away from the book as a history or factual book

I haven't seen so much as a whisper of a trace of a whiff of a hint of such "running away."

[Balzer]

I haven't seen so much as a whisper of a trace of a whiff of a hint of such "running away."

I don't know, when the guy plainly said that it wasn't a history book that looks like at least a whiff. For what it's worth, I think some folks look upon the Bible as little more than a Jewish history book.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[44Foxtrot]

I find none of that very convincing. I would be happy if you could provide more solid arguments on any of these points.

I'll see what I can do.

However, if you believe that the change in the text of the Book of Mormon regarding the Lamanites from being "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to "among the ancestors of the American Indians", is of no real consequence, then I am not sure what kind of argument you would find convincing.

You claim that this change does not matter because there were no changes to the text of the Book of Mormon itself. I strongly disagree. As we have seen on this thread, some (I would say many) see such changes as clear back peddling on the issue of BOM historicity, largely as a result of the missing DNA markers.

Perhaps there should have been changes in the Book of Mormons text as well. Because there remain passages in the BoM that are entirely inconsistent with what we know about Native Americans and their origin, including their genetics.

BTW, exactly what is it about "more solid arguments" that would make you happy?

[44Foxtrot]

I haven't seen so much as a whisper of a trace of a whiff of a hint of such "running away."

To many hopeful observers, Elder Nelson's comments were substantially more than a trace of a whiff.

Many wonder when the BoM will be openly recognized by the Mormon Church for what it really is.

As a foundational narrative, it hardly more convincing than the one L. Ron Hubbard provided for Scientology.

[ELF1024]

To many hopeful observers, Elder Nelson's comments were substantially more than a trace of a whiff.

Many wonder when the BoM will be openly recognized by the Mormon Church for what it really is.

As a foundational narrative, it hardly more convincing than the one L. Ron Hubbard provided for Scientology.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you so clearly have no clue what you are talking about? Comparing the Book Of Mormon to L. Ron Hubbard? PLEAAAAZE! You need to back that horse down the pretentiousness turnpike...

[Daniel Peterson]

To many hopeful observers, Elder Nelson's comments were substantially more than a trace of a whiff.

I don't have access to the polling data that you're drawing from, but I doubt that your "many" includes a very substantial proportion of the committed membership of the Church.

Many wonder when the BoM will be openly recognized by the Mormon Church for what it really is.

It has been recognized by the Church for what it really is for the past 180 years.

As a foundational narrative, it hardly more convincing than the one L. Ron Hubbard provided for Scientology.

Charity forbids me to write what I think of that vaporous insult.

I don't know, when the guy plainly said that it wasn't a history book that looks like at least a whiff.

I don't think so.

It's rather like what many -- including myself -- say about the four gospels, that they were not intended as biographies. In fact, Joseph Smith was ahead of his time and anticipating more modern scholarly approaches when, in his "inspired" revision of the Bible, he labeled the four gospels as, respectively, "The Testimony of St. Matthew," "The Testimony of St. Mark," "The Testimony of St. Luke," and "The Testimony of St. John." ("These are written," says John, "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.") Joseph Smith certainly wasn't suggesting that the New Testament gospels are ahistorical, and neither am I. Nor was Elder Nelson (aka "the guy") implying that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical.

Still, its principal purpose is "to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever," and its focus is on "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." This is no dispassionate, objective historical treatise.

For what it's worth, I think some folks look upon the Bible as little more than a Jewish history book.

They certainly do. And I can easily imagine how Isaiah and Jeremiah and their fellow prophets would have reacted to that.

[44Foxtrot]

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you so clearly have no clue what you are talking about? Comparing the Book Of Mormon to L. Ron Hubbard? PLEAAAAZE! You need to back that horse down the pretentiousness turnpike...

Let's take a look at a few facts regarding the foundational narratives and a few other common features of the Mormonism and Scientology.

Mormonism:

-Joseph Smith was an acknowledged glass looker who claimed to be an author of a book based on text from gold plates shown him by an angel.

-This resulting foundational document, purporting to be a history of the pre-Columbian Native Americans, cannot be shown to have any basis in fact whatsoever.

-Smith and his colleagues started a religion based on this and other imaginative writings of Joseph Smith and his colleagues.

-The Church that Smith founded still claims these writings to be translations of ancient documents with no evidence that they actually were, and in the face of a great deal of scientific evidence that they were not.

Scientology

-L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction author.

-His foundational narrative for Scientology cannot be shown to have any basis in fact whatsoever.

- L. Ron Hubbard and his colleagues started a religion based on L. Ron Hubbard's imaginative fiction, which he then claimed to be factual.

- The Church that L. Ron Hubbard founded still claims that its foundation document and narrative reflect factual events in the face of a great deal of scientific evidence that they do not.

In addition:

-Both religions demands strict adherence to their doctrines, regardless of how arcane or illogical.

-Payment of money to the Church is required to remain a member in good standing in both religions.

-Both religions warn against the reading of factual material that is not faith promoting in that religion.

- Both Churches encourages members not to associate with those who have left the religion.

- Many individuals who leave these two religion find that re-adjustment to secular society is difficult,

-This has lead to the appearance of counseling services and internet recovery boards to help people who leave both religions to deal with friends and family that remain in the religion and now see those who leave as "apostate" and a threat to the belief system of those who remain in the Church.

- To respond to the problem of deteriorating public perception of their respective religions, both the Mormon Church and the Church of Scientology have recently resorted to media ad campaigns featuring individual Church members in an attempt to improve the Church's image.

Based on your initial response, I can understand that this view of the Mormon Church as compared to Scientology may be a bit disconcerting to you. However if recent public opinion polls are any indication (please see below), it is a view that is held to a greater or lesser extent by a majority of the citizens in the US. And, I would guess, by a vast majority of those Mormons or former Mormons who no longer believe in the Church.

If I am pretentious in making these observations, at least they are based on fact, And it would seem that I am not alone in this view.

_______________________________

According to poll results recently described in LDS Living, five times as many respondants had a strongly unfavorable view of the Church than a strongly favorable view.

http://ldsliving.com...-toward-mormons

For an older Gallup poll, showing that Americans have a net negative view of the Mormon Church, see:

http://www.gallup.co...n-religion.aspx

Other religions that had a net negative perception in recent polling included Scientology and Islam.

This decline in the perception of the Mormon Church is apparently not due (completely) to the general increase in non-belief in the US.

For a similar poll showing a net positive view of the Catholic Church by Americans, in spite of the priest child molestation scandals, see

http://www.gallup.co...-catholics.aspx

[cdowis]

Dan,

Are you going to dignify this post with a response?

I discovered early on that it's not possible to have a reasonable, cogent discussion with him -- it only feeds his hallucinations.

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch:

This statement really needs to be parsed and the pieces examined:

Evident to whom? I'm sure that you believe that statement, but I can't agree with it. I find that there is the same kind of textual evidence in the Book of Mormon that allows to discern a location that was used to find Troy from Homer. I find that there are the same kinds of correlations that Biblical archaeologists use to discover the earliest Hebrew settlements, prior to the construction of the greater cities that leave more traces.

Ok. I'll bite. Can you point to me ANY archeological evidence accepted by the on-LDS Archeological community, that supports the Book of Mormon?

I have seen zero evidence of this. On the contrary, I have seen some very pointed talks given (and republished) to demonstrate just the opposite.

I dunno. Seems to me that when I was LDS back in the 80s, the Book of Mormon WAS looked at as a history book, but now it isn't?

Neither phrase has any truth to it, based on the research that I have done and my familiarity with LDS Church statements on the Book of Mormon.

And you make your statements with no support whatsoever

[44Foxtrot]

Dan,

Are you going to dignify this post with a response?

I discovered early on that it's not possible to have a reasonable, cogent discussion with him -- it only feeds his hallucinations.

cdowis,

Thanks for your concern. However, neither you nor DCP need bother. I do not expect a response.

ELF1024 stated that I was being presumptuous in comparing Mormonism and Scientology. He asked me politely (saying pleaaase) to back the horse down the presumptuousness turnpike.

In response, I merely pointed out the factual basis for the comparison of Mormonism to Scientology. If you have facts to refute any of the claims I made, I would be happy to listen. As I am sure you realize, I am not the first to make such a comparison and I won't be the last. The similarities are clear for anyone to see.

I realize that my post may be difficult for faithful members to respond to because it does not reflect the way that LDS believers view their Church. Unfortunately, it does reflect the way many (and probably most) non-Mormons view the Church. Recent polls show clearly that this is the case.

I personally believe, with many others, that the Church would be better off to openly recognize the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham for what they clearly are.

I grew up in the Church, and will say without hesitation that I had a great childhood. I was taught to value education, and had the benefit of a group of like-minded friends within the LDS community.

However, by the time I was in grad school, I could no longer be comfortable with the constantly changing doctrine, the disregard for human rights and the denial by one generation of what had been taught as gospel by the last. There was also the ever mounting physical evidence that the foundational claims of the Church were fraudulent.

Like many ex-Mormons and "New Order Mormons", I would be much happier to see the Church use its human and financial resources to benefit humankind.

[Kevin Christensen]

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/paraiba.php

The insinuation is clear. There is such a thing as bad archeology. There are such things as fraudulent artifacts. But where is the evidence against the two Mesoamerican cylinder seals that contain characters comparable to those in the Anthon transcript to back up the insinuation?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

Let's take a look at a few facts regarding the foundational narratives and a few other common features of the Mormonism and Scientology.

SNIP

In a survey of a wide range of Jesus scholarship (for quotations see my FAIR essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets), Professor John McDade observes that:

There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood.

[44Foxtrot]

It is a revealing choice, telling as much, or even more, about the one chooses it than it leads to an understanding of Joseph Smith and his legacy? Yes. It does reveal a great deal of the ideology of the wielder.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin,

Are there any factual errors in the subject post?

[cdowis]

Atticus asks:

Can you point to me ANY archeological evidence accepted by the on-LDS Archeological community, that supports the Book of Mormon?

Where have you been? We have cited dozens of such evidence here on this forum.

Now, we cannot be responsible whether archeologists have actually read the Book of Mormon in order to make these connections.

Now can YOU provide us ANY nonLDS archeologist who has conducted an analysis of the BOM text for scientific study. Will provide for us the reference or text of that analysis.

For example, can this individual answer even basic questions, such as the language used by the Nephites. Was it hebrew, reformed egyptian, or something else. When Lehi, et al, landed in America, does the text refer to the presence of others? Just very basic questions that a serious sturdy would answer.

Anyway, to repeat what has been listed in this forum:

NHM, cement city, written records, sophisticated calendar, human sacrifice, hierarchy of kings, towers used in religious rituals, authentic ancient names (Paachi, Pahoran, sheum), transoceanic migrations, to name a few.