Gervin Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 AS we have posted before, BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but one subject to investigation and intellectual persuit. A leader of the church may express their opinion, as any member of the church.There is no church position, only opinion and speculation, a scientific endeavour.Anyone is free to look at the BOM text, draw conclusions on what it says about culture and artifacts. Towers used for religious rites, cement cities, sophisticated calendar, extensive written records in an unknown language. It's all there for anyone to read, and to look on the ground. This has nothing to do with my question but thanks for trying.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Based on the text of the Book of Mormon, that seems to be what we should expect to find if indeed researchers have the ability to "see" ancient warfare and religious practices. If they don't yet, then of course we wouldn't expect it.Using the ancient Isrealites as our example as laid out by David, it would appear that we shouldn't "expect" to find anything.
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 If I understand his point, Bill seems to be asking the question why we should assume that the Book of Mormon people would be subject to rules that many ancient cultures cannot live up to, including ancient Israel. If I have interpreted his question correctly, I fail to see how anyone could suggest that Bill's was a "stupid question."A big difference is the ephemeral nature of the origin and claims of the Book of Mormon.I'm a huge fan of the Oz books. Suppose I were to theorize (yes, this is a theoretical theory) that the lands of ancient Oz were not in the northern US/ southern Canada area accepted by most modern Oz researchers, but instead the Lands of Oz were actually anciently in the region now known as "Israel". So the ancient ancestors of the Winkies, Gillikins, Munchkins and Quadlings lived among the people we know as the "Ancient Isralites" during Biblical times. The Ozians built their ancient Emerald city near Jerusalem and kept their political distinctions, but for the most part they integrated with the kingdoms of Israel.Some may wonder why we haven't recovered any artifacts of "Oz" from this era, but to them I would simply respond that we have recovered such artifacts, but we have mistaken them for Israelite artifacts. And the names of the Ozians were different back then, so we haven't recognized them.At some point, the lack of evidence transits from a logical implication of the limitations of modern research to a discussion of the very merits of the original claim. Sure, I can make my theory unfalsifiable by dodging any sort of archaeological accountability, but at some point non-believers might wonder "who cares"? It doesn't matter if people believe Ozians co-existed with ancient Israelites because ultimately the Ozians themselves, if they existed, didn't matter outside of the modern "records" that, while I may fervently believe them, make no difference to the archaeological or anthropological world at large. It also might be expected that others would get tired of having to prove the existence of Ozians to me, and instead might throw up their hands in frustration and say "It's your theory, so you provide the evidence." At which point I would explain to them that even though the books make grand claims, none of those specific claims are backed by any sort of objective evidence, and I believe mainly because of faith. So, ultimately, if it turns out the ancient Ozians hadn't existed at all and I am totally wrong, no one except the believers would care. No research would have to be reevaluated. No theories would have to be revised. Books and information about the ancient world wouldn't need to be revised into new editions. The sudden disappearance of my Oz theory wouldn't leave any data needing to be explained.The greatest accomplishment of modern Book of Mormon researchers is that they have explained the Book of Mormon into plausible irrelevance. The Book of Mormon used to explain the entire existence of post-flood pre-columbian civilizations in the New World. Now, it tells a story of a totally subsumed, miniscule culture that quickly integrated into existing cultures to the point of invisibility. I guess that's the price of progress.
semlogo Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 So, using those characters, how did they spell "Jershon"? Or "Zarahemla"?I don't know. But just finding them would be huge.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Let's pretend we have a "Way Back Machine", and lets set it for 1070 CE in what is now Jerusalem. What exactly would identify it as a Jewish city?
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I don't know. But just finding them would be huge.I disagree. NHM, and Bountiful were dismissed with a wave of the hand... this would be too... This is not the NHM you are looking for, move long! This is not the land of honey, game, and ore you are looking for, move along!
PaulBoyerFan Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Let's pretend we have a "Way Back Machine", and lets set it for 1070 CE in what is now Jerusalem. What exactly would identify it as a Jewish city?Was Jerusalem in 1070 CE a "Jewish city"? It had Jewish residents certainly, but was part of the Fatimid Caliphate.
Vance Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Why would one capitalize the first letter in all of the items, with the execption of that one?"Reformed Egyptian" would designate a specific system, whereas "reformed Egyptian" would be a general description. And, gee, perhaps one could see similarities between a script and Hebrew.Sure, and the antis would deny the existence of those similarities. One of those "eye of the beholder" things. You know, the way that people can trace the development of writing systems over time.Yeah right.
semlogo Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I disagree. NHM, and Bountiful were dismissed with a wave of the hand... this would be too... This is not the NHM you are looking for, move long! This is not the land of honey, game, and ore you are looking for, move along!I'm not familiar with those examples. But you don't think finding actual characters from the Book of Mormon would be huge? I think that would probably be the biggest story of the decade for Mormonism. You'd see a ton of articles in FAIR and whatnot and it would be a huge coup for our side. IMHO.The textual analysis of the BOM is interesting enough, but I think a lot of people (myself included) would be thrilled if we could find some hard archeological evidence.
Zakuska Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I don't know. But just finding them would be huge.Well score one for the Great Lakes proponents...!Kishkumen = Kiskiminetas?3 Nephi 910 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominationsProposed BOM lands: http://www.uwec.edu/...place-names.htmModern map of PA: http://www.trails.co...ap-1206968.html Coincidence? Joseph relying on his enviroment to weave his tattered tale?Now if we can find these other burned cities in that Local.
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I'm not familiar with those examples. But you don't think finding actual characters from the Book of Mormon would be huge? I think that would probably be the biggest story of the decade for Mormonism. You'd see a ton of articles in FAIR and whatnot and it would be a huge coup for our side. IMHO.The textual analysis of the BOM is interesting enough, but I think a lot of people (myself included) would be thrilled if we could find some hard archeological evidence.I thought NHM and Bountiful where huge... but that's just me.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 PaulBoyerFan:I dare say probably every city in 1070 CE had some Jews present. But that doesn't make them a Jewish city. Also The Dome of Rock had been there for about 400 year. Definitely NOT one of the hallmarks of a Jewish city I would look for.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Was Jerusalem in 1070 CE a "Jewish city"? It had Jewish residents certainly, but was part of the Fatimid Caliphate.So what would a Nephite city look like? Esp when you consider that there were other people living in the Americas when Lehi landed.It appears you are making the case for us.
stemelbow Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I thought NHM and Bountiful where huge... but that's just me.I would say huge. But you are right...it depends on who you talk to about them. I dont know how many times when speaking with critics about these two in particular, that they dismiss them out of hand. They have become, for me anyway, conversation stoppers. love,stem
semlogo Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I thought NHM and Bountiful where huge... but that's just me.Yes, those are pretty nice and they fit well. Still, something in the Americas would be really exciting.
maupayman Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I disagree. NHM, and Bountiful were dismissed with a wave of the hand... this would be too... This is not the NHM you are looking for, move long! This is not the land of honey, game, and ore you are looking for, move along!I think this misses the point. The reason I don't find these evidences more impressive is due to maps, which Uncle Dale has shown, from the relevant time period that had names similar to Nahom. I still grant them as evidence, but they were not simply dismissed, by people like myself. To answer Bill's question, the best example of evidence, that would strongly support the BoM's claims, would be to find writings by Zenos. I am not aware of any other source this name and allegory could have been taken from. That would be very strong evidence, imo.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 semlogo:Agreed. But that inevitably brings up the provenance of the BoM. Something the secular world is very loath to do. As we have repeatedly seen NO amount of evidence will be seen as evidence. I think Sorenson does a pretty good job of laying out Mesoamerica as the place for the majority of the BoM events. Not even all members of the Church agree with him, and the Church does not currently accept ANY place as the right place.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 SNIPThe greatest accomplishment of modern Book of Mormon researchers is that they have explained the Book of Mormon into plausible irrelevance. The Book of Mormon used to explain the entire existence of post-flood pre-columbian civilizations in the New World. Now, it tells a story of a totally subsumed, miniscule culture that quickly integrated into existing cultures to the point of invisibility. I guess that's the price of progress.I can't reconcile either your Ozian metaphor (which pulls most of the rhetorical weight, nor your conclusion that LDS scholars have progressed [ironic use on your part noted] to the point of rendering Book of Mormon cultures invisible, with this existence of the kind of work I see here:http://www.bmaf.org/node/180According to Lawrence L. Poulsen, retired University of Texas research biochemist,
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I think this misses the point. The reason I don't find these evidences more impressive is due to maps, which Uncle Dale has shown, from the relevant time period that had names similar to Nahom. I still grant them as evidence, but they were not simply dismissed, by people like myself. To answer Bill's question, the best example of evidence, that would strongly support the BoM's claims, would be to find writings by Zenos. I am not aware of any other source this name and allegory could have been taken from. That would be very strong evidence, imo.If anyone could show that Joseph Smith had access to those maps, that would be interesting in disproving it. The idea that there was a oasis on the sea shore of that area of Arabia was at one point in time considered to be utterly fantasy. It is interesting now that the arguement has changed to "oh, well it was on the maps of the time...."
maupayman Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 semlogo:Agreed. But that inevitably brings up the provenance of the BoM. Something the secular world is very loath to do. As we have repeatedly seen NO amount of evidence will be seen as evidence. I think Sorenson does a pretty good job of laying out Mesoamerica as the place for the majority of the BoM events. Not even all members of the Church agree with him, and the Church does not currently accept ANY place as the right place.In this post you note that NO amount of evidence will be seen as evidence. Then, you proceed to note that even believing LDS are not all swayed by the current evidence presented by Sorenson and others. Perhaps, this is why the secular world doesn't find the evidence to be strong. Many LDS don't even think its a strong case.
maupayman Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 If anyone could show that Joseph Smith had access to those maps, that would be interesting in disproving it. The idea that there was a oasis on the sea shore of that area of Arabia was at one point in time considered to be utterly fantasy. It is interesting now that the arguement has changed to "oh, well it was on the maps of the time...."Well, i'm not really concerned with what critics have historically argued. Like I said, NHM is still evidence, though it is weakened by the fact that all they had to do was look at a current map of Arabia, to come up with a plausible route for Lehi and the fam. As was noted earlier, something in the Americas would be much more interesting.
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 In this post you note that NO amount of evidence will be seen as evidence. Then, you proceed to note that even believing LDS are not all swayed by the current evidence presented by Sorenson and others. Perhaps, this is why the secular world doesn't find the evidence to be strong. Many LDS don't even think its a strong case.I am not sure a majority of the membership is concerned about it. I would hazard to guess that less than 25% of the membership have even looked into it, or read a single book, or scholarly article on the subject.How many people in the Christian world look seriously into Bibical Archelogical evidences?
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 maupayman:I agree. I think we are seeking a unanimity where none can exist. I think the best we should hope for is consensus rather than unanimity, but that again goes against how we establish doctrine of the Church, which must be unanimous. It gets to be a real mess when we try to impose religion on science, and/or science on religion.
maupayman Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I am not sure a majority of the membership is concerned about it. I would hazard to guess that less than 25% of the membership have even looked into it, or read a single book, or scholarly article on the subject.How many people in the Christian world look seriously into Bibical Archelogical evidences?Careful, when I have made statements like this in the past, people on this board have been outraged. Maybe it will draw a different reaction, when an LDS poster says the same thing
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Careful, when I have made statements like this in the past, people on this board have been outraged. Maybe it will draw a different reaction, when an LDS poster says the same thing Wouldn't be the first time I've gotten "Friendly Fire".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.