What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

[bookofmormontruth]

I don't "mess" with anyone.

Everyone is biased. My bias is truth, and determining truth is dependent on physical evidence. Mormonism's history is singularly dependent on physical evidence. Truth must fit all the evidence. Twisting/grasping to make it fit does not impress anyone. Thus far, we have assertions in the text of the BoM that do not have any evidence to support them; specifically in this instance advanced metallurgy and the "heaps of earth" ("mighty", even) required to show said-advanced metallurgy. The resulting weapons and armor have no basis in fact. That is a problem, one among many created by the BoM text.

The Olmec iron, tons of it, referred to by Peterson is bogus as it pertains to evidence for advanced metallurgy, much less as evidence for iron used as tools and weapons. And 'round and 'round we go....

You started with "mining" and "metallurgy" then posted about "smelting" and now demand evidence for "advanced metallurgy". At your rate, I will predict your next posts will be demanding evidence for "highly-advanced mining", "carbothermic advanced smelting" and "Metallurgical Engineering with Thermomechanical Processing". You are right, that is a merry-go-round that I don't want to be on.

The actual text of the Book of Mormon - (not imagination) shows that Nephi didn't have to use 21st century "advanced metallurgy" but simple leathered bellows to smelt ore into tools. I have some great videos that show how this is done in a very simple way - nothing "advanced" about it. My link

In addition, why do you keep correlating "mighty heaps of earth" with "tailings, mounds of them, all over the place"? Your 21st century concept of mining is distorting what the Book of Mormon actually states.

Mormonism's history is singularly dependent on physical evidence.

Says who? Your "bias of truth"?

[Brade]

It is even more baffling that someone would claim that no evidence for is the same as evidence against. Quite unscientific.

Let's be careful here. The claim 'no evidence for P is the same as evidence against P' can be reasonably unpacked in at least two ways.

1. If there's no evidence that P is true, then P is false.

2. If there's no evidence that P is true, then believing that P is true is unreasonable.

BCSpace, do you have some examples of a Mormon critic advancing the claim you referred to in your post? If so, which sense do you believe then intended, and why?

[WalkerW]

Good grief! Here's a man has intellectual humility "by the quart in every vein".

His comment reminds me of those who espouse "open-mindedness" without actually embracing it. I have a forthcoming article in the North Texas Daily on intellectual humility and innovation. You might like it, Dr. Hamblin. Here is the rough draft:

Despite traditional views, creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing") is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible. This was instead a development of the second-century Church Fathers. The God of Genesis brought forth a habitable world out of a formless, watery deep following an incubation period of His Spirit. The Psalms contain scattered references to Yahweh's triumph over the dragon of chaos, thus bringing order to the cosmos. Furthermore, the Hebrew God did not act alone, but instead counseled with His divine assembly, "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26). It was only after these important stages that the new creation was deemed "good."

Similarly, good ideas do not randomly burst on to the stages of our minds. They instead take the form of what science writer Steven Johnson calls the "slow hunch." These hunches meekly inch along, growing and progressing with both time and nourishment. More often than not, collisions with other hunches bring about a grander, more complete idea worthy of the label "good." The modern increase in social connectivity creates a network of ideas that combine and recombine in a flurry of innovation. In a world where no one person possesses even one percent of all available knowledge, the public support should be behind an interconnected, Hayekian model of society. As Johnson says, "Chance favors the connected mind."

Though there are obvious economic and political implications in embracing an innovative culture, I find the most important implication to be ethical in nature. I'm always slightly uncomfortable with the use of the adjective "open-minded." The term has become an irredeemable, self-aggrandizing cliché due to its abuse by persons unfit for its description. Too often, it is exploited by those who tend to think that disagreement is akin to closed-mindedness. Even worse are those who confuse being ignorant or lacking moral commitment with being open.

Humility is a prerequisite to the innovative mind because it makes one teachable. Innovation is about sharing: the sharing of ideas, criticisms, and experience. If our slow hunches are to move forward, we must be less worried about appearing "open-minded" on the surface and more focused on humbling ourselves. William Hamblin, an historian of the Middle East and ancient religions, understands this well: "In the nearly forty years I have spent studying ancient history and religion, one of the most important truths I've discovered is this: I know fewer answers today than I "knew" when I started studying four decades ago...Ontologically, I believe there is absolute truth. But epistemologically, I believe that truth about the human past cannot be absolutely understood by humans…This is not because of the relative nature of truth, but because of the limited nature of the surviving evidence from the past, and the imperfect nature of human reason, knowledge, and understanding. In the tension between intellectual hubris and humility, I think most of us could use a healthy dose of the latter."

If pride comes before the fall, imagine what follows a little intellectual humility.

Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation (Riverhead Books, 2010).

William J. Hamblin, "An Enigmatic Mirror: An Introduction," Patheos (Dec. 26, 2010).

[Nofear]

Everyone is biased. My bias is truth...

Good grief! Here's a man has intellectual humility "by the quart in every vein".

Well, what's the point of having an opinion if you don't think it is true?

[krose]

Brian Stubbs is a brilliant linguist and has not come at it with a preconceived notion to find Hebrew and Egyptian in UA. He has presented his research to many of his non-LDS colleagues, as well as the worlds leaders in Uto-Aztecan, and they have agreed with his research and didn't find any problems with it. I would think that the nucleus of experts in this language who all agree with Stubbs, should be fairly convincing.

Do you have names and quotes on the record from these individuals? That would be interesting.

No offense to Brian, but I would like to see him present his work in a linguistics journal. I don't claim to be an expert myself; all I have to my credit is a half-completed MA in linguistics over 20 years ago (just enough knowledge to be dangerous, perhaps?).

[krose]

And attack on Wescott's credibility through citing Cyrus Gordon's research is simply ad hominem.

Do you think so? Then my sincere apologies to Dr. Wescott. Sadly, however, I understand he began taking lessons from the Spirit World missionaries over ten years ago.

[volgadon]

Lest sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan.

The systematic shift is absolutely crucial in proposing a relationship between two languages. For example, you have the shift between shin and tav, dalet and zayin and yod and waw in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Hebrew shor (bull) is the Aramaic thor. Hebrew zach (pure) is in Aramaic dhach, yihiyeh in Aramaic is yahawah. When I was a little kid, Israel had a single television station, and one of the most popular daily shows was one by Dr. Abshalom Kor, a linguist. These sorts of things were discussed fairly frequently, and I am more than happy to provide further examples of these pattersn if needed.

A few years ago I read an interesting article in Russian urging caution on people who would link Russian and Hebrew, due to a number of semitic words Russian contains. An example is shalash. It means a small, triangular hut such as this. http://blogs.klerk.ru/images/attach_orig/28885.jpg

Shalash is clearly a form of the semitic root sh-l-sh (or th-l-th) which means three. However, there is nothing that would indicate that we are not dealing with an isolated occurence, a loanword. There is nothing else associated with three, or triangles, in Russian, which is necessary for linking it to semitic languages. Moreover, there was plenty of opportunity for loan words to enter Russian from semitic languages. On the other hand, there is plenty linking Russian with Sanskrit, and people are on firmer ground when proposing a connection.

If Armenian can be linked along with English to the Indo-European language tree (with words such as cow=kov and door=tor), then why should we deny a link between semitic languages and Uto-Aztecan, if Stubbs can provide strong evidence of a systematic shift?

[livy111us]

Do you have names and quotes on the record from these individuals? That would be interesting.

No offense to Brian, but I would like to see him present his work in a linguistics journal. I don't claim to be an expert myself; all I have to my credit is a half-completed MA in linguistics over 20 years ago (just enough knowledge to be dangerous, perhaps?).

From his 2006 FAIR conference address he said "However, I have shared that with prominent Semitists and Uto-Aztecanists. I shared it with my peers and those who I have shared it with privately are quite overwhelmed at the number of similarities and the closeness of them." The quote above gives some specific names and in several personal emails/conversations with him, we have discussed this issue with other names as well.

[Tango]

To bring Tango out of the 1950s and into the current discussion of New World Archeology and the Book of Mormon:

Brant Gardner at the 2006 FAIR Conference:

Defenders of the Book: Surveying the New World Evidence

for Book of Mormon Historicity

http://www.fairlds.o...ant-Gardner.pdf

Gardner again, The Case for Historicity: Discerning the Book of Mormon's Production Culture

http://youth.fairlds...istoricity.html

Mark Wright: Deification in the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica

A very enlightening approach, showing how to read the Book of Mormon as through Mesoamerican Culture.

Brian Stubbs, comparing Hebrew and Uto Aztecan, linguistic information that Tom Ferguson, for one, did not consider and did not have the capacity or training to observe.

http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=848

http://maxwellinstit...=5&num=1&id=112

An interesting geographical and linguistic corrolation from Larry Poulson:

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=2&id=655

http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=1&id=807

More Larry Poulson on Book of Mormon locations in the New World:

http://www.mormondia...w-publications/

http://youth.fairlds...Mark-Wright.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Quite laughable, all circumstantial. Again...the BoM makes the claim...not I.

[kolipoki09]

Quite laughable, all circumstantial. Again...the BoM makes the claim...not I.

You mean to say you took the time to read and critically analyze every single one of Kevin's links? Laughable.

I guess you really do live up to your pseudonym.

[Tango]

What would such proof/evidence look like?

It is very sad that some members (glad to see the church pews are more vacant than ever before) of the church will spend thier entire life thinking they have some power to act for God, teach out of a book that is nothing more than a poor mans Lord of the Ring chapter 1, take orders from geriatric men that allow a perception that THEY are God's ONLY mouthpeice. Fortunatly for the world, this religion has been busted. Adieu

[volgadon]

He applied the same rigorous critical method as he did to general conference talks.

[volgadon]

It is very sad that some members (glad to see the church pews are more vacant than ever before) of the church will spend thier entire life thinking they have some power to act for God, teach out of a book that is nothing more than a poor mans Lord of the Ring chapter 1, take orders from geriatric men that allow a perception that THEY are God's ONLY mouthpeice. Fortunatly for the world, this religion has been busted. Adieu

What does that have to do with Nathair's question?

[TAO]

It is very sad that some members (glad to see the church pews are more vacant than ever before) of the church will spend thier entire life thinking they have some power to act for God, teach out of a book that is nothing more than a poor mans Lord of the Ring chapter 1, take orders from geriatric men that allow a perception that THEY are God's ONLY mouthpeice. Fortunatly for the world, this religion has been busted. Adieu

You mean that same approach that the Bible takes? Sure we can relate the Bible to the Lord of the Rings.

However...Fortunately for us all, Lord of the Rings has little to do with the conversation really.

I don't see some members though, really. Actually... right now, I only see one member who has struggled with that . I'm sure there are more around though.

The pews in my ward have been growing well too =). I am glad the church is making progress in bringing the world such a glorious and joyful truth that the gospel is, that I am.

Anyways.... remind me again... what has been busted exactly? Sorry... it just seems to me the only thing that is getting busted right now is your own post. It doesn't effectively deal with other people, which is an important necessity if you plan to effect anybody's mind around here. The way you are doing it just won't prove results, ya' need to change your strategy to something more tolerant, it willl help much better. And people won't treat you badly if you fix your posts up as well.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[bookofmormontruth]

Quite laughable, all circumstantial. Again...the BoM makes the claim...not I.

Circumstantial evidence (indirect evidence) is not "laughable" in the scientific world.

It can accumulate into a collection so that the pieces then become "corroborating evidence".

But it is obvious from your revealing signature quote, that even if you are given "direct evidence" you would automatically reject it. In the least, please explain why you feel it is "circumstantial evidence"?

And to save yourself some major grief, there really is no reason to keep convincing yourself over and over that the Book of Mormon is false. Just stick with your own beliefs and move on for it can be very therapeutic for the soul when your life doesn't revolve around finding "fault" in other people's sacred religions because it "threatens" you for whatever reason. You are welcome.

"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently, on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209

[WalkerW]

I'm pretty impressed that something comparable to The Lord of the Rings was dictated in 2-3 months and left unchanged (content-wise). As Terryl Givens said,

The naked implausibility of gold plates, seer stones, and warrior-angels finds little by way of scientific corroboration, but attributing to a young farmboy the 90-day dictated and unrevised production of a 500-page narrative that incorporates sophisticated literary structures, remarkable Old World parallels, and some 300 references to chronology and 700 to geography with virtually perfect self-consistency is problematic as well. (By the Hand of Mormon, pg. 156).

Daniel Peterson also seems to find the comparison noteworthy (particularly 4:50):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRPPXqBSeM&feature=related

[WalkerW]

I also recently began reading through Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (Oxford University Press, 2010). It will be a while before I finish, given school and all, but Hardy's insights make the 2-3 month dictation all the more impressive.

[Calm]

Adieu

If only.....

[mapman]

One of my pet peeves is when someone compares The Book of Mormon to The Lord of the Rings. As someone who loves both books, and knows something about their creations, it pains me to see them abused with such a horrible comparison. These are a few of the reasons why the comparison sucks:

1. Author -- J.R.R. Tolkien had been practicing writing as a young man in WWI. By the time he wrote LotR, he was quite a bit older and a professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. J.R.R. Tolkien was one of the most influential philologists of his time and very important in Anglo-Saxon studies (especially with Beowulf). In contrast with this, Joseph Smith was about twenty-one when he began to translate the Book of Mormon and was no where near as educated as Tolkien was, and was way less well-read as Tolkien was.
2. Genre -- Tolkien was writing a fantasy and expected no one to think it was real. The Book of Mormon is obviously a religious book not an adventure story.
3. Creation -- Tolkien worked on LotR literally for decades. His first drafts bore little resemblance to the final book and make poor reading. He created tens of drafts, including papers where he would write down ideas he had for what would happen later in the story. He constantly changed the geography while in the process of writing. His early drafts are full of contradictions. The world that the hobbits inhabit is Middle-earth, which he had created decades before beginning to work on LotR when he was hospitalized during WWI. You can see all of this stuff in the History of Middle-earth series which is available to purchase in most major bookstores. In contrast to this, Joseph Smith orally dictated the Book of Mormon in a matter of months. His first draft was in its complete form right at the time of dictation. There was only one draft (and a word for word copy made for security). Joseph didn't spend years before hand planning it out and making sure he had all of the geography straight.

[Skylla]

Tango is banned.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Tango is banned.

Good.

[cdowis]

Questing Beast makes an interesting statement. I was tempted to let it simply go, but I can't resist the temptation to make a couple of observations.

Everyone is biased. My bias is truth, and determining truth is dependent on physical evidence. Mormonism's history is singularly dependent on physical evidence. Truth must fit all the evidence. Twisting/grasping to make it fit does not impress anyone. Thus far, we have assertions in the text of the BoM that do not have any evidence to support them; specifically in this instance advanced metallurgy and the "heaps of earth" ("mighty", even) required to show said-advanced metallurgy.

emphasis mine

OK, it sounds almost reasonable. Your bias is "the truth", specifically "physical evidence". And you mention mounds of earth, or the lack thereof as something you consider to be very very significant.

Well, I guess your bias will reject anything that is non-physical. Names, for example. We have some interesting names in the BOM, such as sheum, Paanchi, and Pahoran which point to the ancient middle east. But your bias for physical things, a demand for mounds of earth, really narrows you perception of "the truth", precludng consideration of this evidence.

OK, I understand your bias which limits our discussion. So let's talk about your missing mounds of earth.

First of all, are you so sure that they are missing? Where precisely in North, Central and South America should we be looking for them? Can you narrow down the search for us, so that we can be sure that they really are missing?

Well, to move the discussion forward, let's say that we are looking in mesoamerica. So let's start looking there for those mounds of earth......

Wait.... we are not talking about the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where the landscape virtually does not change. We are talking about a region

1. active volcanos. You know, mudslides, volcanic ash, lava, etc

2. periods of intensive weather (e.g. remember the hurricane a few years ago in Honduras, where it made major changes to the landscape)

3. rain forest -- where entire cities have been hidden from sight.

Cities buried under the rainforest, undetected for centuries, and you are talking about missing mounds of dirt and rocks??! OVER THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO!

This is truly silly.

I think you bias is something else besides "the truth".

[Questing Beast]

Alas, yet another "champion of truth" who continually misrepresents both Mormonism and the actual physical evidence.

I see what's there. If that comes across as a misrepresentation then I can only say that I've been there too. The apologist mind must filter everything and sort it out. Much ends up on the "back burner". Increasingly, as I studied and reread the BoM the questions ended up on the "back burner" to be attended to (answered) later. I am no longer waiting, because I am now satisfied that the BoM is no historical book beyond its early 19th century creation.

I said: "Mormonism's history is singularly dependent on physical evidence. Truth must fit all the evidence. Twisting/grasping to make it fit does not impress anyone. "

Does the absence of evidence constitute no evidence? Exactly what is being twisted/grasped here? CFR.

Arguing from the position of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is the refuge of the apologist. Scant refuge it is!

Vis-a-vis this topic alone: the TBM must twist/grasp to make archeological evidence apply to BoM times. As there is ZILCH evidence of advanced metallurgy (copious mining, not just meteorite and other small scale iron working), including weapons and tools (not just mirrors and other gimcracks), any pointing out of Meso-American metal working well after c. 400 CE is special pleading. The same gimmick is at work trying to make a macuahuitl into a sword with an iron/steel blade, tang and hilt (which can perish, leaving the blade "cankered with rust").

I fear you're reading too much into the text than is actually there. Are you saying there is no evidence suggestive of Mesoamericans using earthworks in warfare? Are you saying the Mesoamericans had no knowledge or skill in advanced metallurgy?

"Advanced" metallurgy as used by myself in this thread demands widespread mining resulting in "mighty heaps" of earth tailings. It doesn't matter how clever metal artificiers were in making mirrors, toys, small tools of copper, etc. The BoM assertions don't even touch on such items. What is described repeatedly are metal weapons and armor (head plates and breast plates). I've read the apologist explanation how "head plates" can be strapped on wood, bone or other touch material, a la. Aztec pieces of armor; and how "breast plate" can also be a non metallic protection. This continues today; as links posted here have accessed the stuff I read in book form well over 15 years ago. Nothing new has been "discovered", not even any new arguments or theories.

So I am not reading anything into the text that isn't there. But the TBM scholar is the one reading details from the real world into the text to make it fit the real world.

Blocked link. I wonder why? We Mormons must be terrified of the "

."

Isn't there a rule on Mormon Dialogue against posting links to anti-Mormon Webpages/sites? I am guessing that THAT page is on the list. I can accept that, silly though the effort is, imho. It just makes dialogue and debate needlessly difficult....

[Brade]

I'm pretty impressed that something comparable to The Lord of the Rings was dictated in 2-3 months and left unchanged (content-wise). As Terryl Givens said,

The naked implausibility of gold plates, seer stones, and warrior-angels finds little by way of scientific corroboration, but attributing to a young farmboy the 90-day dictated and unrevised production of a 500-page narrative that incorporates sophisticated literary structures, remarkable Old World parallels, and some 300 references to chronology and 700 to geography with virtually perfect self-consistency is problematic as well. (By the Hand of Mormon, pg. 156).

Daniel Peterson also seems to find the comparison noteworthy (particularly 4:50):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRPPXqBSeM&feature=related

Of course, to be really impressed by that don't we need to accept that (1) the book was created in 90 days (as opposed to over a much longer period), and (2) that it was essentially unrevised?

[volgadon]

I've read the apologist explanation how "head plates" can be strapped on wood, bone or other touch material, a la. Aztec pieces of armor; and how "breast plate" can also be a non metallic protection.

The problem is that you are making the assumption that helmets and armour = METAL helmets and armour.