So 2 times now I've been acosted by Eangelicals about Book of Mormon archaeology

[blooit]

Both times they made the same blanket claim that (of course) "there is NO archaeological evidence whatsoever" for the Book of Mormon. Since I have a Master's Degree in Archaeology, I told them that whether or not they accept such evidence, to say it doesn't exist simply isn't true. I also mentioned that I find it funny that they use the same methods when debating Mormons that Atheists use when debating the Bible.

Both times they cited the work of Ron Wyatt as their archaeological evidence for the Bible. Mr. Wyatt may just be the most discredited and laughable "researcher" on the planet. (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm). He claims to have found the ark of the covenant, chariot wheels in the Red Sea, and the under water "bridge" where israelites crossed the sea, among many other outlandish claims. In one case, my evangelical friend said, "I know his work has been debunked, but since I know the Bible it true, it doesn't matter."

The circular reasoning is appalling to me. And they call me closed minded. And they accuse me of being too eager to accept anything that validates my position. Ultimately it just proves to me that John Clark really knows what he is talking about:

"No artifact imaginable, or even a roomful, could ever convince dedicated critics that the Book of Mormon is true. The implied claim that the right relic could prove the book's truth beyond all doubt is too strong and underestimates human cussedness. Moroni could appear tomorrow with the golden plates, the sword of Laban, and the Liahona in hand and this would not satisfy public demands for more proofs." http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

[nicolasconnault]

Both times they made the same blanket claim that (of course) "there is NO archaeological evidence whatsoever" for the Book of Mormon. Since I have a Master's Degree in Archaeology, I told them that whether or not they accept such evidence, to say it doesn't exist simply isn't true. I also mentioned that I find it funny that they use the same methods when debating Mormons that Atheists use when debating the Bible.

Both times they cited the work of Ron Wyatt as their archaeological evidence for the Bible. Mr. Wyatt may just be the most discredited and laughable "researcher" on the planet. (http://www.truthorfi...riot-wheels.htm). He claims to have found the ark of the covenant, chariot wheels in the Red Sea, and the under water "bridge" where israelites crossed the sea, among many other outlandish claims. In one case, my evangelical friend said, "I know his work has been debunked, but since I know the Bible it true, it doesn't matter."

The circular reasoning is appalling to me. And they call me closed minded. And they accuse me of being too eager to accept anything that validates my position. Ultimately it just proves to me that John Clark really knows what he is talking about:

"No artifact imaginable, or even a roomful, could ever convince dedicated critics that the Book of Mormon is true. The implied claim that the right relic could prove the book's truth beyond all doubt is too strong and underestimates human cussedness. Moroni could appear tomorrow with the golden plates, the sword of Laban, and the Liahona in hand and this would not satisfy public demands for more proofs." http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=376

You're right, the problem with considering the possibility that the Book of Mormon may really be the word of God, is that it is tied with considering the possibility that one might have to live its teachings.

[Monster]

Evidence of the Book of Mormon through archeology has been going on for some time now. to those who are critical there is not even the faintest evidence of what the BOM describes. To those who believe they extrapolate pieces here and there to validate their belief. Those who want to see evidence see it, those who don't don't. Personally I think there are other issues that create problems for the BOM more than that absence of rusty swords and breastplates.

[nicolasconnault]

Evidence of the Book of Mormon through archeology has been going on for some time now. to those who are critical there is not even the faintest evidence of what the BOM describes. To those who believe they extrapolate pieces here and there to validate their belief. Those who want to see evidence see it, those who don't don't. Personally I think there are other issues that create problems for the BOM more than that absence of rusty swords and breastplates.

This really bugs me. "Evidence" is not a dichotomy! It's not just absence/presence or credible/incredible. Evidence can be absent (not the case for the book of mormon), weak, strong, very strong, and everything in between. Anyone even mildly acquainted with science should know that nothing can be proven, but evidence can be accumulated for and against a view or hypothesis. It is the entire body of evidence that must be evaluated before a conclusion can be reached about the Book of Mormon, and even that conclusion will be subjective.

To the intellectually lazy, it's too much effort to do what I just described, so they throw the baby out with the bath water!

[blooit]

Evidence of the Book of Mormon through archeology has been going on for some time now. to those who are critical there is not even the faintest evidence of what the BOM describes. To those who believe they extrapolate pieces here and there to validate their belief. Those who want to see evidence see it, those who don't don't. Personally I think there are other issues that create problems for the BOM more than that absence of rusty swords and breastplates.

No offense my friend but I disagree. One of the first things you are taught as an archaeologist, is that because of the nature of our research, there is no "proof" - only correlation. When I attended BYU, I was basically told that if I was going to be one of those "every hole in the ground is a baptismal font" kind of people, I needed to tranfer schools. John Clark was famous for not tolerating lazy research regardless of whether it supported your beliefs or not.

That being said, there are such strong correlations now (established by non-mormon scholars), that anyone with an open mind has to recognize that the BOM must be based on some sort of historical account, whether or not you accept it's divine origins. Simply lining up the histories of the Jaredites and the Olmec demonstrates more correlation than many "accepted/proven" biblical civilizations and locations. But why have an open mind when we have Ron Wyatt.

[frankenstein]

next time you get accosted ask the person if they are seeking signs for the BoM, if they say Yes, direct them to the appropriate statement from Jesus about seeking signs.

the mindlessness of those who attempt to prove there is a God with archeological evidence is astounding, no archeological evidence can prove there is a God.

[CQUIRK]

next time you get accosted ask the person if they are seeking signs for the BoM, if they say Yes, direct them to the appropriate statement from Jesus about seeking signs.

the mindlessness of those who attempt to prove there is a God with archeological evidence is astounding, no archeological evidence can prove there is a God.

What do you expect? The sickness runs deep.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Both times they made the same blanket claim that (of course) "there is NO archaeological evidence whatsoever" for the Book of Mormon. Since I have a Master's Degree in Archaeology, I told them that whether or not they accept such evidence, to say it doesn't exist simply isn't true. I also mentioned that I find it funny that they use the same methods when debating Mormons that Atheists use when debating the Bible.

Both times they cited the work of Ron Wyatt as their archaeological evidence for the Bible. Mr. Wyatt may just be the most discredited and laughable "researcher" on the planet. (http://www.truthorfi...riot-wheels.htm). He claims to have found the ark of the covenant, chariot wheels in the Red Sea, and the under water "bridge" where israelites crossed the sea, among many other outlandish claims. In one case, my evangelical friend said, "I know his work has been debunked, but since I know the Bible it true, it doesn't matter."

The circular reasoning is appalling to me. And they call me closed minded. And they accuse me of being too eager to accept anything that validates my position. Ultimately it just proves to me that John Clark really knows what he is talking about:

"No artifact imaginable, or even a roomful, could ever convince dedicated critics that the Book of Mormon is true. The implied claim that the right relic could prove the book's truth beyond all doubt is too strong and underestimates human cussedness. Moroni could appear tomorrow with the golden plates, the sword of Laban, and the Liahona in hand and this would not satisfy public demands for more proofs." http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=376

I would simply ask them this: Where is their physical evidence outside of the Biblical texts regarding the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Then emphasis why the Resurrection accounts disagree with who came to the tomb first, how many angels were present, and where the angels were located at. When they can't provide evidence, ask them how they know and believe on Jesus Christ?

Then ask them if they expect you to provide proof as to archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, then they have to offer proof to the reality of the Resurrection. There is no physical proof as to the actual event, we just have copius testimonies that actually disagree with one another in a very significant way. Does this mean the resurrection did not happen? No.

Then, I would have on hand descriptions of Volcanic eruptions (Mt. Vesuvius, St. Helen's, Volcano eruption in Alaska in the late 1800's) As they read them aloud, read the 3 Nephi account of the catastrophe that occurred. Ask them, how could Joseph Smith know about such detailed occurances of a Volcanic catastrophe when little was known about Volcano's during his lifetime and how he had limited access to information of such detailed accounts.

Have pictures of Elephants that are found in the architecture designs and ask them how would a people make such artwork in the architecture prior to the Spanish Conquestador's.

Google MesoAmerican Fair Skinned women and notice that there are legends, Archaeology (Cloud People) of Peru who were women and were referred to as Fair Skinned and highly prized by Inca kings. Ask them how could "Fair Skinned" people be referred to in such a context that shows they existed prior to the coming of the Spanish Conquestador's.

Finally, ask them to come back to you with actual scholarly and academic rebuttals against such New World Archaeology evidence and not the typical CARM, MRM, Living Hope Ministries arguments that there could not be any archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Then, sit back and watch what happens when they actually engage critical thinking (if they really do), and what they have been spoon fed is actually the deceptions and lies. Majority of them will not get to this point and do everything they can to reason away the evidence. When they do, simply state, you ask for evidence, I presented you with the evidence and you still will not consider it. Therefore, nothing will convince you.

[Monster]

No offense my friend but I disagree. One of the first things you are taught as an archaeologist, is that because of the nature of our research, there is no "proof" - only correlation. When I attended BYU, I was basically told that if I was going to be one of those "every hole in the ground is a baptismal font" kind of people, I needed to tranfer schools. John Clark was famous for not tolerating lazy research regardless of whether it supported your beliefs or not.

That being said, there are such strong correlations now (established by non-mormon scholars), that anyone with an open mind has to recognize that the BOM must be based on some sort of historical account, whether or not you accept it's divine origins. Simply lining up the histories of the Jaredites and the Olmec demonstrates more correlation than many "accepted/proven" biblical civilizations and locations. But why have an open mind when we have Ron Wyatt.

There are just as many scholars that say the evidence is just not there. But I am not debating the evidence for or against the BOM. Personally I do not know. No one does. I am just saying the evidence is construed in a way to make either side use it as evidence for or against. I do not think the authenticity of the BOM will be decided by archeology or correlation. If you believe good if you do not you have just as much evidence or lack of to validate that belief.

[Heartleap]

next time you get accosted ask the person if they are seeking signs for the BoM, if they say Yes, direct them to the appropriate statement from Jesus about seeking signs.

the mindlessness of those who attempt to prove there is a God with archeological evidence is astounding, no archeological evidence can prove there is a God.

All the world is evidence that there is a God. Even the rocks would praise him if the people did not. (Its in the Bible).

Heartleap...

[bluebell]

All the world is evidence that there is a God. Even the rocks would praise him if the people did not. (Its in the Bible).

Heartleap...

It's in the BOM as well.

Alma 30:44

"But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

MMany people though do not see proof of God in the physical world when so many non-supernatural explanations for such things now exist. I think that's what Frankenstein is saying. You can't prove that God exists by presenting physical evidence to people. Only the Spirit can prove that to someone.

[frankenstein]

Heartleap, on 22 January 2011 - 09:53 AM, said: All the world is evidence that there is a God. Even the rocks would praise him if the people did not. (Its in the Bible).

Heartleap...

bluebell: It's in the BOM as well.

Alma 30:44

"But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

MMany people though do not see proof of God in the physical world when so many non-supernatural explanations for such things now exist. I think that's what Frankenstein is saying. You can't prove that God exists by presenting physical evidence to people. Only the Spirit can prove that to someone.

------------------------------

The way I see it, if all things denote there is a God, and that God, is the Father of Jesus Christ, then there would not be different religions, there would be no atheists or agnostics. The tree outside my window, does not denote there is a God, much less who that God is and what that God wants for us.

I am not a fan of either the Alma statement or the Bible statement.

[TAO]

Heartleap and Bluebell, I would like to tell you there is a way to think of the world without a God.

But by doing so you give up on all forms of justice and purpose... it's not a very fulfilling way to live =). It'd be worse than living in many ways.

[krose]

Have pictures of Elephants that are found in the architecture designs and ask them how would a people make such artwork in the architecture prior to the Spanish Conquestador's.

Are you seriously suggesting that a self-professed graduate in archaeology should claim there are pictures of elephants?

[nicolasconnault]

Heartleap and Bluebell, I would like to tell you there is a way to think of the world without a God.

But by doing so you give up on all forms of justice and purpose... it's not a very fulfilling way to live =). It'd be worse than living in many ways.

I used to think that as well, TAO, until a month ago when I had a long chat with my excommunicated, atheist father. He explained to me how he managed to find purpose and justice without believing in God. I don't agree with him of course, but I must admit that atheists manage to find a "fulfilling" way to live without religion or a belief in God. It might not be the most fulfilling way, but if we label all atheists as miserable, I think we make a big mistake.

[TAO]

I used to think that as well, TAO, until a month ago when I had a long chat with my excommunicated, atheist father. He explained to me how he managed to find purpose and justice without believing in God. I don't agree with him of course, but I must admit that atheists manage to find a "fulfilling" way to live without religion or a belief in God. It might not be the most fulfilling way, but if we label all atheists as miserable, I think we make a big mistake.

Oh, no, they do indeed find justice... it's just imperfect justice... human justice. That is justice that turns a blind eye to certain things. To me that is not justice.

Their purpose becomes something much more... bad. In other words, they start living to fufill themselves... which can lead to very bad things. Luckily, most people do not take it too far, but if taken to the extreme, without a belief in God, technically there would be no reason to have moral standards at all, if you could avoid them. In other words... without a God... there is nothing holding you back from doing anything in your power that you wish to do. Again though, this is only visible in extreme cases of the reasoning.

And nah... atheists aren't miserable... I would just be miserable if I was in their position. I must have a purpose to live for other than myself, and I feel a need for perfect justice. So that's why, in my turning point, I searched for God. I didn't believe in that instant - I just hoped I would find him. I wasn't aiming for anything in specific other than finding him, if he existed. But yes, purpose and justice where the only reasons I searched in the first place.

EDIT: Note for those who do not believe in God - this is not meant to be offensive - it's just that my mind borders along extreme levels in most topics, and so I know what philosophies taken to the extremes might result in. Most people don't have this problem, and so it is not all that much of a worry.

[blooit]

Are you seriously suggesting that a self-professed graduate in archaeology should claim there are pictures of elephants?

Horses and elephant like animals were present before columbus, but so far we have not dated either one to as late as book of mormon times. When they disappeared is still unclear.

[caudicus]

It all depends on what you consider to be evidence.

Certainly, no direct evidence has yet been discovered that confirms the validity of the Book of Mormon. Does this prove it to be a work of fiction? Not by itself, no, but the big picture may be a different story.

The Bible is a little more complicated, because there is some direct evidence that supports some aspects of it. Of course, there is other direct evidence that shows some aspects of it to be completely false. The big picture for the Bible, is significantly better, but it is still clear that it was written long after Genesis was supposed to have taken place and projected backwards.

So, while its easy to see where people are coming from in regards to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, if they believe in the Bible, they are maintaining somewhat of a double standard... somewhat.

The truth is, between a TBM and an EV, neither one seems to be giving the critical evidence a fair shake. It's fascinating, really, if you think about the hoops someone must be jumping to believe in the Bible, yet argue about the validity of the Book of Mormon.

And nah... atheists aren't miserable... I would just be miserable if I was in their position. I must have a purpose to live for other than myself, and I feel a need for perfect justice. So that's why, in my turning point, I searched for God. I didn't believe in that instant - I just hoped I would find him. I wasn't aiming for anything in specific other than finding him, if he existed. But yes, purpose and justice where the only reasons I searched in the first place.

This just makes it sounds like you believe because it makes you feel better. This of course, speaks nothing to the historicity of the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Horses and elephant like animals were present before columbus, but so far we have not dated either one to as late as book of mormon times. When they disappeared is still unclear.

Isn't that a little misleading? One only has to follow Google's trail of bread crumbs, to see that the subject is a little more informed than you would like us to believe.

[mapman]

... It all depends on what you consider to be evidence.

Certainly, no direct evidence has yet been discovered that confirms the validity of the Book of Mormon ...

Have you heard of Nahom?

[krose]

Horses and elephant like animals were present before columbus, but so far we have not dated either one to as late as book of mormon times. When they disappeared is still unclear.

I am aware that mammoth and equus roamed the Americas many millennia ago.

But I was specifically referencing his mention of "pictures of elephants."

[blooit]

Isn't that a little misleading? One only has to follow Google's trail of bread crumbs, to see that the subject is a little more informed than you would like us to believe.

Not sure I follow. Please help me understand what part of my statement was misleading.

[krose]

Not sure I follow. Please help me understand what part of my statement was misleading.

Not to speak for caudicus, but I believe it might be how you seem to leave the door fairly wide open for the possibility that horses and/or mammoths might have existed during the BoM time period, rather than disappearing 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Both times they made the same blanket claim that (of course) "there is NO archaeological evidence whatsoever" for the Book of Mormon. Since I have a Master's Degree in Archaeology, I told them that whether or not they accept such evidence, to say it doesn't exist simply isn't true. I also mentioned that I find it funny that they use the same methods when debating Mormons that Atheists use when debating the Bible.

[ElfLord]

Not to speak for caudicus, but I believe it might be how you seem to leave the door fairly wide open for the possibility that horses and/or mammoths might have existed during the BoM time period, rather than disappearing 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.

Surely by now... Its pretty common knowledge that the the 10000 / 12000 mass animal extinctions is a myth.

We have positive evidence using setadna that they lasted alot longer than that.

http://www.pnas.org/...510106.full.pdf

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/amon-lme121509.php

[krose]

Surely by now... Its pretty common knowledge that the the 10000 / 12000 mass animal extinctions is a myth.

We have positive evidence using setadna that they lasted alot longer than that.

http://www.pnas.org/...510106.full.pdf

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/amon-lme121509.php

How does adjusting the extinction timeline to between 7,600 and 10,500 year ago (and in Alaska) help the case for Central America around 2,000 years ago?