What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

[WalkerW]

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?

Somewhat.

(1) Are you suggesting the Book of Mormon was not dictated in that amount of time?

(2) Were there revisions that seriously altered the content and/or narrative of the book?

[cdowis]

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?

I agree.

You do not need to accept the 90 days, with no revisions, but that requires an alternative explanation.

Tell us about the dictation process. Did JS read the BOM text from a manuscript? If so, tell us about the infamous hat -- did it have a window, or a table and candle to read by.

If you propose that the BOM was written over a long period of time with revisions, you need to to tell us how the manuscript was used during the dictation. In your answer, you also need to consider the question whether the eleven witnesses were duped by JS, or co-conspirators.

Were they part of the plot, or was JS able to trick them.

[Sevenbak]

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

I don't think there is a single reference to helmets in the BoM, but speaking of metal headplates... Does anyone know where Meldrum acquired these photos from? Supposedly they are from a Hopewell dig.

He doesn't source it, other than his DVD.

He does have this reference, but I don't know if it's from the same collection.

(Right: Head and breast plates made of copper, Ohio Hopewell group, 100 BC-500 A.D. Excavated from the Hopewell mound group, Ross County, Ohio, 1925. These objects are held in the Ohio Historical Society Archaeology Collection.)(4)

This all comes from here.

[Questing Beast]

...

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.

Names are physical. Write them down, pronounce them, and they are physically extant. Show their etymology and more physical evidence is brought in.

I was not discussing names in the BoM. That topic is being engaged in by other members. But since you brought it up, I am not impressed with the names in the BoM. The evidence of them, taken collectively, is that Joseph Smith's imagination (et al. any who contributed to the book) can account for them all. There are anachronistic names, e.g. Isabel. And not a few hail from the "regions round about" the Smith homestead. Repetitious similarities are also evidence of a singular author, not particularly sophisticated in his worldly experience or education.

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......

Has anyone thought to remove core samples from the copious "temple" mounds dotting Meso-America? I posited back when I was a TBM that those later buildings were constructed on ore tailing mounds or "heaps". I would still welcome some exploration of the hypothesis, just to eliminate it as a possibility.

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".

I agree, it is silly to go looking for anything physical in that region, as evidence of a book first brought before the world in 1829. So why has the Church spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past doing exactly that? And why do Mormon archeologists dream of continuing to do exactly that?...

[cdowis]

But since you brought it up, I am not impressed with the names in the BoM. The evidence of them, taken collectively, is that Joseph Smith's imagination (et al. any who contributed to the book) can account for them all. There are anachronistic names, e.g. Isabel. And not a few hail from the "regions round about" the Smith homestead. Repetitious similarities are also evidence of a singular author, not particularly sophisticated in his worldly experience or education.

I mentioned three specific names that give evidence of ancient middle eastern origins. Sheum is surely more than a coincidence. But I understand why you would dismiss them out-of-hand.

I agree, it is silly to go looking for anything physical in that region, as evidence of a book first brought before the world in 1829. So why has the Church spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past doing exactly that?

They recognized the mistake many years ago, and learned a valuable lesson. Ferguson was more an adventurer, than a professional archeologist.

Is this the best you can do? An incident that happened decades ago.

And why do Mormon archeologists dream of continuing to do exactly that?...

I dream of spending money on other things that are much more interesting and productive. But, of course, that was just a rhetorical question.

Anyway, I seriously doubt if any professional LDS archeologist has any interest in doing "BOM archeology", but perhaps you can give us some names.

[bookofmormontruth]

Has anyone thought to remove core samples from the copious "temple" mounds dotting Meso-America? I posited back when I was a TBM that those later buildings were constructed on ore tailing mounds or "heaps". I would still welcome some exploration of the hypothesis, just to eliminate it as a possibility.

Again, I will ask - how do you get "tailings" from "heaps of earth"? That is a very bold assumption that is based on 21st century mining and extraction.

Heaps = A group of things placed or thrown, one on top of the other. What are those things? "Earth" which the Book of Mormon states. And what is earth made out of? Yep, dirt.

So if you are looking for "heaps of dirt" spotted in every square inch throughout the Americas, you are right - probably won't be found. Maybe, I don't know because of the rain and the weather?

[bookofmormontruth]

I don't think there is a single reference to helmets in the BoM, but speaking of metal headplates... Does anyone know where Meldrum acquired these photos from? Supposedly they are from a Hopewell dig.

He doesn't source it, other than his DVD.

He does have this reference, but I don't know if it's from the same collection.

(Right: Head and breast plates made of copper, Ohio Hopewell group, 100 BC-500 A.D. Excavated from the Hopewell mound group, Ross County, Ohio, 1925. These objects are held in the Ohio Historical Society Archaeology Collection.)(4)

This all comes from here.

Yeah, he brought these up in the webinar. He referenced them from a book that I can't remember?

Regardless, the consensus in the scientific community is that they were a "peaceful" people and their weapons or armor were just "ceremonial". The same is also said about the Peruvian armor from the warring people of the Inca. I can't fully grasp it.

And no there is no reference to "helmets" - just head-plates. Good point.

[Ariarates]

Allow me to invoke what I call "Hamblin's paradigm" (see my sig line). Even if we take all of the apologists' evidence at faith value (pun intended), the Book of Mormon as literal history still contradicts virtually everything we know about the history of the Americas. Even if the apologists' clubs and tapirs and sleds and whatnots are accepted as hits, there are far too many, way too many misses for the BoM to be considered literal history.

And if that weren't bad enough, the apologists' hits are not hits at all. At most, they are possibilities, but only if you really really really want them to be. Which is fine, if that's what you want to believe.

Edit: just for reference, this is what a real hit looks like.

[Sevenbak]

Yeah, he brought these up in the webinar. He referenced them from a book that I can't remember?

Regardless, the consensus in the scientific community is that they were a "peaceful" people and their weapons or armor were just "ceremonial". The same is also said about the Peruvian armor from the warring people of the Inca. I can't fully grasp it.

And no there is no reference to "helmets" - just head-plates. Good point.

Ceremonial my tukus!

Here's another head plate, this one containing the side protective cheeck pates as well. This one also from Ohio.

And for the record, I'm not a Meldrum fan. I just happen to believe that the Nephites also lived in N. America, in addition to Meso country.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Even if we take all of the apologists' evidence at faith value (pun intended), the Book of Mormon as literal history still contradicts virtually everything we know about the history of the Americas. E

"Contradicts virtually everything ",

Are you and QB reading from teh same notes? This is as false a statements as I have ever heard on this board. Wishfull thinking at best and dishonest at worst.

[bookofmormontruth]

Ceremonial my tukus!

Here's another head plate, this one containing the side protective cheeck pates as well. This one also from Ohio.

And for the record, I'm not a Meldrum fan. I just happen to believe that the Nephites also lived in N. America, in addition to Meso country.

Nope, they needed to protect the "ears" during the ceremonies.

And for the record, I am not a fan either. And I definitely don't know where the Nephites lived.

[Brade]

I agree.

You do not need to accept the 90 days, with no revisions, but that requires an alternative explanation.

I don't understand why I must undertake the burden of offering an alternate explanation in the case that I don't actively believe Church authorities' report as to the book's coming about. Why is it that for an extraordinary claim disbelievers must produce an alternative explanation? Are disbelievers shirking their epistemic duty by not believing extraordinary claims without a higher measure of evidence than for rather ordinary claims? There are a great many things, the creation of the Book of Mormon being one, for which I just don't have a firm belief one way or another. To say that I don't believe the book was created in 90 days is not to say that I believe it wasn't created in 90 days. I sincerely don't know how long it took or how it came about. I am, however, quite confident that I don't have good enough reason to actively believe that it came about in the way that Church authorities claim. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I simply don't know.

[Ariarates]

Are you and QB reading from teh same notes? This is as false a statements as I have ever heard on this board. Wishfull thinking at best and dishonest at worst.

I don't know what notes QB is reading from, but if it's anything non-LDS, chances are that his notes point to the same conclusion as mine. There's nothing false or dishonest about that. The historical narrative of the American continent as told by science is quite different from the BoM narrative.

[Brant Gardner]

The historical narrative of the American continent as told by science is quite different from the BoM narrative.

That really depends on what assumptions you bring to the Book of Mormon and how you read it. If you read the Book of Mormon as causitive of New World peoples and cultures, then it runs counter of secular understanding. There is a pretty long tradition of Mormons reading it in just that way, so it isn't surprising that secular understanding would be that the Book of Mormon is incorrect based on what many Mormons have said about it.

However, what is said about the text isn't necessarily what the text itself says when examined closely. When read as the record of as the story of a small handful of cities in a relatively small geographic area (which is all the text supports) the correlation to known history of Mesoamerica is really very different. As with any record purporting to be from a particular period, one can examine the Book of Mormon to see if the known history is reflected in the text. Does it make sense in that historical context?

The answer to that question is really quite different from the one you are painting. The cultural geography fits with the overall locations and timings of major populations in the region. The text's description of one cultural/linguistic group moving from Maya territory up the Grijalva river valley where it encounters an established cultural group with ties to the older northern culture (Olmec, by that time split into two linguistic groups, with the Zoque moving down the Grijalva river valley) describes the type of movement that secular understanding posits for the Grijalva river valley at the same time period as the Book of Mormon does.

The movement from town to city and the development of social pressures for kingship and social hierarchies have similar trajectories in the Maya region as in the Book of Mormon. The major social conflict in the Book of Mormon is a reflection of the same political, social, and economic forces as seen in the Maya region in the early preclassic.

The nature and goals of warfare also parallel the development of warfare in that region of Mesoamerica. Beginning with smaller raids, the more formal and larger wars are not for territory, but to establish tribute relationships. This development in warfare logically follows the increase in population and the dating parallels that for the Maya region. Near the end of the Book of Mormon, warfare takes a dramatic turn, with very specific types of changes noted that reflect both the time period and the nature of the Teotihuacano incursion into the Maya lands and then turning to control the trade routes (with Nephites sitting on the trade route).

There are at least two events described in the Book of Mormon (Ammon at the Waters of Sebus and the Anti-Nephi-Lehies/stripling warriors) which don't make much human sense (the actions taken are inexplicable in a contextless recounting) which make more sense read against the cultural/political pressures of the Maya region (where those storgies would take place in the current geographical correlation).

Even the 200 year time of peace correlates to a major depopulation and relocation of emphasis of population that leaves the Nephite area without its traditional enemies (which certainly would explain the peace from the Lamanite point of view).

The Book of Mormon tells less about the Jaredites, and the Olmec left less clear information about themselves, so the correlations are not as clear. However, there are some overall hints at similarities. One that is at least interesting is the possibility of a drought causing the decline of one or more major Olmec cities during the same years that the Book of Mormon writes of a severe drought among the Jaredites.

I really have to disagree with what I see as your rather simplistic statement that the narrative told by science is very different from that in the Book of Mormon. The narrative in the Book of Mormon actually parallels very closely the story secular archaeology is telling of the area.

[Brade]

That really depends on what assumptions you bring to the Book of Mormon and how you read it. If you read the Book of Mormon as causitive of New World peoples and cultures, then it runs counter of secular understanding. There is a pretty long tradition of Mormons reading it in just that way, so it isn't surprising that secular understanding would be that the Book of Mormon is incorrect based on what many Mormons have said about it.

However, what is said about the text isn't necessarily what the text itself says when examined closely. When read as the record of as the story of a small handful of cities in a relatively small geographic area (which is all the text supports) the correlation to known history of Mesoamerica is really very different. As with any record purporting to be from a particular period, one can examine the Book of Mormon to see if the known history is reflected in the text. Does it make sense in that historical context?

The answer to that question is really quite different from the one you are painting. The cultural geography fits with the overall locations and timings of major populations in the region. The text's description of one cultural/linguistic group moving from Maya territory up the Grijalva river valley where it encounters an established cultural group with ties to the older northern culture (Olmec, by that time split into two linguistic groups, with the Zoque moving down the Grijalva river valley) describes the type of movement that secular understanding posits for the Grijalva river valley at the same time period as the Book of Mormon does.

The movement from town to city and the development of social pressures for kingship and social hierarchies have similar trajectories in the Maya region as in the Book of Mormon. The major social conflict in the Book of Mormon is a reflection of the same political, social, and economic forces as seen in the Maya region in the early preclassic.

The nature and goals of warfare also parallel the development of warfare in that region of Mesoamerica. Beginning with smaller raids, the more formal and larger wars are not for territory, but to establish tribute relationships. This development in warfare logically follows the increase in population and the dating parallels that for the Maya region. Near the end of the Book of Mormon, warfare takes a dramatic turn, with very specific types of changes noted that reflect both the time period and the nature of the Teotihuacano incursion into the Maya lands and then turning to control the trade routes (with Nephites sitting on the trade route).

There are at least two events described in the Book of Mormon (Ammon at the Waters of Sebus and the Anti-Nephi-Lehies/stripling warriors) which don't make much human sense (the actions taken are inexplicable in a contextless recounting) which make more sense read against the cultural/political pressures of the Maya region (where those storgies would take place in the current geographical correlation).

Even the 200 year time of peace correlates to a major depopulation and relocation of emphasis of population that leaves the Nephite area without its traditional enemies (which certainly would explain the peace from the Lamanite point of view).

The Book of Mormon tells less about the Jaredites, and the Olmec left less clear information about themselves, so the correlations are not as clear. However, there are some overall hints at similarities. One that is at least interesting is the possibility of a drought causing the decline of one or more major Olmec cities during the same years that the Book of Mormon writes of a severe drought among the Jaredites.

I really have to disagree with what I see as your rather simplistic statement that the narrative told by science is very different from that in the Book of Mormon. The narrative in the Book of Mormon actually parallels very closely the story secular archaeology is telling of the area.

Brant, based on the best available secular research and the best available Book of Mormon research do you believe that, without trust in spiritual experience as a mode of truth-getting on these matters, a reasonable person should conclude that the Book of Mormon is a report of people who existed and events that took place?

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, based on the best available secular research and the best available Book of Mormon research do you believe that, without trust in spiritual experience as a mode of truth-getting on these matters, a reasonable person should conclude that the Book of Mormon is a report of people who existed and events that took place?

Of course that is a difficult question to answer because very few have or can approach the Book of Mormon without an understanding of its declared angelic provenance. That particular fact defines most of the initial assumptions.

So the question is whether or not one who attempts to see the Book of Mormon in an authentic cultural context might be able to see that it describes real places and peoples at a particular time in history. The answer to that is that I do believe that it is quite plausible to come to that conclusion. Taking the very same approaches that one would with any document that exists in translation, the content fits into a particular historical location, and a particular time range, parallelling the important cultural developments and pressures of that time and place. That is what we ask of an ancient text.

In my case, I approach the Book of Mormon with the same set of assumptions that I do Spanish descriptions of the Aztec and Maya. There will be a basis of accurate information colored through technically incorrect translations that were colored by the Spanish worldview, and misunderstanding of what they were describing. The corrective for the Spanish documents is the cumulative information from multiple sources that allow us to see the culture and then discern how the Spanish related it. In a similar way, the context known for Mesoamerican lets us see where the Book of Mormon parallels the cultural context in non-arbitrary ways. Also similarly, we can see where certain vocabulary items depend upon the translator's world rather than the world they were describing.

There is much more and better evidence for the Book of Mormon than most suppose. There is certainly better support than many propose. However, understanding the best information requires an understanding of how archaeologists and ethnohistorians handle texts and construct histories. Too often there are pronouncements about evidence that make no sense if one understands how archaeological evidence works. Suggesting that any Mesoamerican culture has hard evidence makes assumptions that are built on foundations that are often very thin. Until the translation of the Maya script, we had no writing that came from the natives themselves without Spanish influence. There were documents in Nahuatl, but they were recorded in Roman script.

Even for the Maya, where we finally have some texts, those texts are still very limited in their topics and they leave out a tremendous amount of information we would like to know. It really isn't possible to make assumptions on the basis of what history is like in the Old World. The long and rich textual tradition of the Old World is envied but unavailable for the New World. Histories written for the New World are based on much thinner evidence and much thicker sets of assumptions.

[Brade]

Of course that is a difficult question to answer because very few have or can approach the Book of Mormon without an understanding of its declared angelic provenance. That particular fact defines most of the initial assumptions.

So the question is whether or not one who attempts to see the Book of Mormon in an authentic cultural context might be able to see that it describes real places and peoples at a particular time in history. The answer to that is that I do believe that it is quite plausible to come to that conclusion. Taking the very same approaches that one would with any document that exists in translation, the content fits into a particular historical location, and a particular time range, parallelling the important cultural developments and pressures of that time and place. That is what we ask of an ancient text.

In my case, I approach the Book of Mormon with the same set of assumptions that I do Spanish descriptions of the Aztec and Maya. There will be a basis of accurate information colored through technically incorrect translations that were colored by the Spanish worldview, and misunderstanding of what they were describing. The corrective for the Spanish documents is the cumulative information from multiple sources that allow us to see the culture and then discern how the Spanish related it. In a similar way, the context known for Mesoamerican lets us see where the Book of Mormon parallels the cultural context in non-arbitrary ways. Also similarly, we can see where certain vocabulary items depend upon the translator's world rather than the world they were describing.

There is much more and better evidence for the Book of Mormon than most suppose. There is certainly better support than many propose. However, understanding the best information requires an understanding of how archaeologists and ethnohistorians handle texts and construct histories. Too often there are pronouncements about evidence that make no sense if one understands how archaeological evidence works. Suggesting that any Mesoamerican culture has hard evidence makes assumptions that are built on foundations that are often very thin. Until the translation of the Maya script, we had no writing that came from the natives themselves without Spanish influence. There were documents in Nahuatl, but they were recorded in Roman script.

Even for the Maya, where we finally have some texts, those texts are still very limited in their topics and they leave out a tremendous amount of information we would like to know. It really isn't possible to make assumptions on the basis of what history is like in the Old World. The long and rich textual tradition of the Old World is envied but unavailable for the New World. Histories written for the New World are based on much thinner evidence and much thicker sets of assumptions.

So, just do be clear, do you believe that a Mesoamerican scholar who does not trust spiritual experience as a means of truth-getting, but who knows all the same things you do about Mesoamerican history and archeology, and all the same things you do about Book of Mormon scholarship, should, on the basis of that body of evidence alone, conclude, for example, that a deity crucified in the Middle East appeared, after his death, to a group of Mesoamericans?

What I'm interested in is using something like the legal notion of a reasonable person. And then I want to know what you think about how a reasonable person, in that sense, ought to assess the Book of Mormon in the special case where (1) they distrust spiritual experience as a means of truth-getting, but (2) they know all of the same things you do about history, archaeology, and Book of Mormon scholarship.

[livy111us]

Ceremonial my tukus!

Here's another head plate, this one containing the side protective cheeck pates as well. This one also from Ohio.

And for the record, I'm not a Meldrum fan. I just happen to believe that the Nephites also lived in N. America, in addition to Meso country.

Are you implying the Hopewell were a warring people?

[Questing Beast]

...

However, what is said about the text isn't necessarily what the text itself says when examined closely. When read as the record of as the story of a small handful of cities in a relatively small geographic area (which is all the text supports) the correlation to known history of Mesoamerica is really very different. As with any record purporting to be from a particular period, one can examine the Book of Mormon to see if the known history is reflected in the text. Does it make sense in that historical context?

The answer to that question is really quite different from the one you are painting. The cultural geography fits with the overall locations and timings of major populations in the region. The text's description of one cultural/linguistic group moving from Maya territory up the Grijalva river valley where it encounters an established cultural group with ties to the older northern culture (Olmec, by that time split into two linguistic groups, with the Zoque moving down the Grijalva river valley) describes the type of movement that secular understanding posits for the Grijalva river valley at the same time period as the Book of Mormon does.

...

You realize, I hope, that Joseph Smith in no way proposed a limited geography for the BoM. Anything he said (little enough) on the subject clearly showed that the "land southward" was South America generally; the "narrow neck of land" was the Isthmus of Panama and Meso-America generally; and the "land northward" was North America generally. The reference to east and west seas and north and south seas can only be the Western Hemisphere surrounded by oceans. His "land of many waters" can only be the area in which he lived, where the plates were buried and dug up, i.e. the Great Lakes region. Frederick G. Williams quoted the prophet as saying: "The course that Lehi traveled from the city of Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship, they traveled nearly a south, south east direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of North Latitude, then nearly east to the Sea of Arabia then sailed in a south east direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chili (sic.) thirty degrees south Latitude." That's pretty danged specific details! This one statement, of course, destroys any credence for the LGT no matter where it is located. (Dismissing Williams' writing as not "canonized" scripture, ergo of no account, is applying a double standard to evidence.)

Scriptural Cumorah (D&C 128:20) and Joseph Smith's signed article in the Times and Seasons (June 15, 1842. Vol.3, No. 16) stating that the Jaredite landing was in “the lake country of America” is also inconsistent with a LGT. Nothing in the BoM text works out when travel distances are compared to the North American setting.

Another specific geographic difficulty that I have is the mentioning of "sea south to the sea north": "And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east. (Helaman 3:8 ). All wiggling to make Meso-America fit this assertion shows up how impossible the stated geography is.

This page is interesting in summarizing Joseph Smith's understanding of BoM geography

[Sevenbak]

Are you implying the Hopewell were a warring people?

Are you implying that the 2-300 years of relative peace the Nephites had after migrating to the land northward doesn't correspond with most of the archeological digs in the Hopewell homelands? Yes, they were in large part a peaceful people.

The Nephite wars of extermination were in large part fought elsewhere as they gathered and fled northward, away from their homelands.

[livy111us]

Sorry, won't take the bait. So, if the Hopewell were a peaceful people, then why don't you accept the ceremonial use for head plates? The evidence points to this, yet you dismiss it. I am curious, why?

[Sevenbak]

Sorry, won't take the bait. So, if the Hopewell were a peaceful people, then why don't you accept the ceremonial use for head plates? The evidence points to this, yet you dismiss it. I am curious, why?

For the same reason they built protective berms around their cities and villages. The Hopewell are known for that. We are primarily a peaceful people too, yet we have the strongest military on the planet. A prepared people make for a peaceful people. Would archeologists excavating our cities in 2000 years think we were a wayfaring people, because they didn't find our implements of war in our cities?

[livy111us]

I am confused now. So you do think they were a warring people then?

[Sevenbak]

I am confused now. So you do think they were a warring people then?

They were a defensive people. I believe that Joseph wasn't lying about Zelph, or the other mounds he described as war zones. I also believe the Smithsonian expeditions as recorded by OTurner and Squires decribing the fortifications, masses of dead, weapons, etc, in NY as valid.

Off to take my kids to the aquarium. I'll follow up later.

[livy111us]

Archaeologically speaking, who were they "defensive" against?