What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

[Brant Gardner]

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?

Are you asking if there is sufficient proof of any religious truth claim to convince one who is predisposed not to believe religious truth claims, then you have asked a self-answering question. What I do believe is that if a Mesoamerican scholar who was willing to suspend disbelief long enough to examine the evidence available would come to the conclusion the he/she could see why we believe as we do. I don't see anything more probatory than that, any more than there has been for the resurrection of Christ. A non-believer can understand how the believers might believe, even when they do not.

What I'm interested in is using something like the legal notion of a reasonable person.

And yet you build into your definition of a reasonable person that they don't believe in religious manifestations. That doesn't leave too much room for discussion.

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.

That is a little more answerable. It has the same answer as does any question where you posit someone coming up against a possible paradigm change. The very first requirement is that they have to give the new paradigm sufficient opportunity to understand and test it. Without that step, by definition it is rejected because it doesn't fit into to the previously accepted paradigm. If they discover that there is at least the possibility of the validity of the new paradigm, then they have to revise their current position. That typically happens in two ways. One would be acceptance of the new paradigm or the second would be some kind of reintegration of the new information into the older, more accepted pattern. My prediction for most people would be the second.

Now, what about the second? What you are suggesting is either that I don't know enough about Mesoamerica to interpret it correctly. Since what I know comes from the same secular sources that you are wondering whether they would accept my reading, then the question shouldn't be about Mesoamerica. Then the question must be about knowledge of the Book of Mormon and the way to read it against cultural information. In that arena, the question would be whether or not a Mesoamericanist who knows as much about the Book of Mormon as I do would come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, there is currently no empirical data on that. There are Mesoamericanists who fit that description, but they happen to be LDS so I don't think that counts.

Nevertheless, if you are asking if the correlations I am making fit with accepted secular understanding of Mesoamerica and accepted secular method off dealing with texts in cultural context, then the answer is that these are all techniques quite common in ethnohistory and make no correlations that cannot withstand critical examination.

[Brant Gardner]

You realize, I hope, that Joseph Smith in no way proposed a limited geography for the BoM.

Of course. I assume that you understand that he had a rather flexible and typically unscholarly approach to the subject. I also assume that you understand that his opinions did not and do not form a revelatory description of location.

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.

Let me begin with clarifying my underlying contention that if the Book of Mormon is a translated ancient document then it should be read as an ancient document and not a modern history. Having said that, let's return to the problem of the sea south and sea north. Unstated in this discussion (and certainly requiring a thread of its own) is that it is quite difficult to discuss the meaning of the text without a common understanding of the relationship of the translation to the plate text. In this case, however, that isn't required.

The question is what the text means when it gives the particular geography you mention. You are assuming that it must be descriptive of geography. However, in ancient texts, it would rarely be anything that neatly stated for a true geography. What you are seeing is an ideal geography. The four world directions are mentioned and each has its ocean. That is a conceptual geography given for emphasis on the whole world. The analogy is the Nahuatl word for the world, cemanahuac literally "surrounded by water." That might have applied to Tenochtitlan, but the Aztecs clearly new of the world outside their lake. Nevertheless, their conceptual world was surrounded by water. That is not an unusual ancient perception.

So, rather than the problem you see with the verses, to me they read precisely as they ought to read--accurately in an ancient context and awkwardly in a modern.

[Ariarates]

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.

It's not just some random Mormons reading it that way, it's the way the BoM has been presented to the world for the past 181 years by the church and its leaders. But at least we're in agreement that this reading just doesn't fit the facts.

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 smaller the area in which the BoM purportedly took place, the more likely it should be to find hard evidence of BoM people, places and events. There is no such evidence. Not a single scrap.

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.

And in many other parts of the world throughout history (not in the least in Joseph Smith's time and place).

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.

And as seen in many other parts of the world throughout history.

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).

Again, I submit that similar developments can be seen in all times all around the world. Moreover, where does the word Teotihuacano occur in the BoM? Or the word Nephite in the archeological record? They don't, do they? How do you intend to fix that convincingly (i.e. without requiring a leap of faith)?

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).

And there are many more events in the BoM which don't make much human sense in any context. You're cherry-picking. Counting hits and ignoring misses.

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).

Except that no references to the terms Nephite and Lamanite are found in the time and place you would like them to have existed.

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.

Except that nobody outside the LDS community believes that. Nobody. What does that tell you?

[Anijen]

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.

Please provide a link for the "masses of dead" or where I can verify the source. I have the Smithsonian book that published Squier and Davis book Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley reprinted with an introduction by David Meltzer it doesn't mention this. I also have others both on Adena Hopewell Mississippian Valley groups I have about 13 books on these and it would make my job easier if I knew which book. Thanks in advance.

You also wrote this;

For the same reason they built protective berms around their cities and villages. The Hopewell are known for that.

Could you also please be more specific on where I can read about this, which site, which mound etc. Thanks in advance. I know some of the places already but in one it didn't match the time for the Book of Mormon and the other some of the walls seemed more for weather snow drifts as a retaining wall because it was between the living areas and the direction the wind came from with no other walls around it especially if one would consider them for defense.

Lastly I know Meldrum will take snippets of what the experts say and twist them to what he wants them to be for. For an example a retaining wall built as a shelter for the wind and snow becomes in Meldrums eyes a grand defensive fort when that wasn't implied at all. This is one reason all the professional archeologist once they found out how he used their findings wrote a letter to complain. One archeologist demanded everything he said be taken out of his DVD regardless if it was correct or not just because it made him so mad on how it was used.

[Brant Gardner]

It's not just some random Mormons reading it that way, it's the way the BoM has been presented to the world for the past 181 years by the church and its leaders. But at least we're in agreement that this reading just doesn't fit the facts.

Your point about the history is? Are you suggesting that the way the Bible was portrayed for millenia is determinative of its actual history?

The smaller the area in which the BoM purportedly took place, the more likely it should be to find hard evidence of BoM people, places and events. There is no such evidence. Not a single scrap.

Please describe the nature of "hard evidence." Unfortunately, I am aware of only one kind, which is textual. That places us at a distinct disadvantage in the New World because so flocatew texts even exist for Book of Mormon times, and the most ancient of those are not currently translatable (the San Bartolo texts are recognizably predecessors of later Maya script with some symbols similar--but most untranslatable). In the region where the Book of Mormon is best located there is only one text of which I am aware, and that is only a date.

As for other kinds of "hard evidence," the nature of archaeological remains is that they must be interpreted. In the case of religious iconography, we have too little to go on. Again, in the Book of Mormon region it is particularly aniconic (which might be suggestive of an Old Testament understanding, but certainly not determinative). Even with icons, the problem comes in the fact that symbols are so frequently borrowed (and known to be borrowed in the Israelite tradition). All iconography we associate with Israelites or Christians post dates the Lehites, so how would we know what to look for?

However, when we get to the kinds of evidence that is used to correlate texts and archaeological artifacts, it is quite untrue that there is no shred of evidence. Only those unfamiliar with how such evidence is interpreted would make such a suggestion (and unfamiliar with the current evidence, of course).

Again, I submit that similar developments can be seen in all times all around the world. Moreover, where does the word Teotihuacano occur in the BoM?

Pardon me for saying so, but this is a remarkably naive question. There is a very well accepted entrance of Teotihuacanos into Tikal that is attested in text. However, the name isn't there. In fact, the name Teotihuacan is so late that it would be a tipoff to a problem if it were in Tikal at that date. Unless you are wiling to suggest that the scholars are wrong about Teotihuacan because the name isn't there in Tikal, I suggest you revise your hypothesis.

Or the word Nephite in the archeological record?

This presumes that the absence is unusual. Given the fact that the presence of any text at that time period is unusual and that it is even less usual that a foreign city is mentioned, the absence doesn't say much other than we wish we had texts.

They don't, do they? How do you intend to fix that convincingly (i.e. without requiring a leap of faith)?

Please give me the documentation for the text at the accepted site of Troy that says that it is Troy. Are you suggesting that modern archaeologists accept that only on a leap of faith?

And there are many more events in the BoM which don't make much human sense in any context. You're cherry-picking. Counting hits and ignoring misses.

Really? I'd love to know where. I have been through them all, exhaustively. You are welcome to check my response to any that you are looking at and attempt to defend this particular assertion. I deny the accusation. Strongly.

Except that nobody outside the LDS community believes that. Nobody. What does that tell you?

That none of them have gone through the evidence as I have presented it. Most have no interest in doing so. Only one that I know of made any attempt, and reading his responses makes it clear that he responded to scholarship that is over 30 years old.

There have been Mesoamerican scholars who joined the church after they developed their expertise in Mesoamerica and they see no problem and much parallel. What does that tell you?

[Anijen]

On copper ornaments;

"Ether these plates were worn only on extraordinary occasions, or in such a manner that little or no friction was produced by the cords by which they were sustained or fashioned." Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley Squires and Davis Pg.205 This verifies what livey111us has mentioned they were more for ritual and not war.

"The mound builders were acquainted with several of the metals, although they do not seem to have possessed the art of reducing them from the ores."

"the ore of lead and galena, has been discovered in considerable quantities, but none of the metal has been found under such circumstances as to establish conclusively that they were acquainted with the art of smelting it."

"The copper and silver found in the mounds were doubtless obtained in their native state, and afterwards worked without the intervention of fire." [cold hammered]

In none of the articles found is there any evidence of welding, nor do any of them appear to have been cast in moulds. On the contrary, they seem to have been hammered out of rude masses, and gradually and with great labor brought into the required shape."

Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley Squires and Davis Pg. 196

Note also the largest amount of skeletal finds thus far in my studies have been ten in one mound with two added much later in time. Unless ten falls under the category of "mass" I do not think it qualifies.

Anijen

[Brade]

Are you asking if there is sufficient proof of any religious truth claim to convince one who is predisposed not to believe religious truth claims.

No, what I'm really asking is whether the available evidence alone is sufficiently suggestive that the extraordinary claims of the Church are true.

What I do believe is that if a Mesoamerican scholar who was willing to suspend disbelief long enough to examine the evidence available would come to the conclusion the he/she could see why we believe as we do.

Ok, but would this scholar say "Oh, I see that the evidence suggests that your view is correct", or would he say "hmmm, well, you're view is not implausible"?

A non-believer can understand how the believers might believe, even when they do not.

I think thoughtful non-believers can and should make every effort to understand why believers believe, even when they do not. But, what I want to know is what does the available evidence suggest. Does the available evidence suggest that the Book of Mormon is an essentially accurate historical record? Does the available evidence simply leave it an open question whether the Book of Mormon is an essentially accurate historical record? Or, does the available evidence suggest that it is not the case that the Book of Mormon is an essentially accurate historical record?

And yet you build into your definition of a reasonable person that they don't believe in religious manifestations. That doesn't leave too much room for discussion.

Right, I did build that in, and I did so because I'm interested to know how you weight the best available non-spiritual evidence.

[Brant Gardner]

No, what I'm really asking is whether the available evidence alone is sufficiently suggestive that the extraordinary claims of the Church are true.

No. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary, and extra-human confirmation. That is why missionaries ask investigators to pray, not to go to the library. There is nothing wrong with learning, but if religious claims are to change your heart, the mind is not the only thing that needs convincing.

Ok, but would this scholar say "Oh, I see that the evidence suggests that your view is correct", or would he say "hmmm, well, you're view is not implausible"?

the answer is "not implausible," and there is is little chance of any other answer. If you begin with the premise that there is no such thing as angels, there is no chance that you will be convinced that a book was delivered by an angel. The initial worldview precludes acceptance of a fundamental part of the premise.

Now, if there were no religious connection to the Book of Mormon, and the same correlations were to be shown for a text with an uncertain provenance, then that is a different story and they might well believe the analysis.

I think thoughtful non-believers can and should make every effort to understand why believers believe, even when they do not.

Anthropologists also believe in understanding another culture, and many do without ever accepting the belief system of the culture they study. The two are separate, but they require a dissociation from truth claims (see Jan Shipps as a good example of a non-Mormon historian of Mormons).

But, what I want to know is what does the available evidence suggest.

Evidence suggests what the analyst sees in it and explains to someone else. By itself, evidence is relatively mute. All historical arguments are constructions from evidence. In this case, how good are the constructions? That requires the same response as for any other historical reconstruction. The test of time and examination. At the moment, there are no modern Mesoamericanists actively interested in the Mormon apologetic for the Book of Mormon. I can't fault them for that, but their lack of analysis cannot constitute an intelligent rejection of an argument they have not examined.

Does the available evidence suggest that the Book of Mormon is an essentially accurate historical record?

I certainly think so , and have laid out my reasons for believing it. They are based on the same methodologies used with any document in translation describing another culture. They are methods based on my experience with those techniques as applied to Spanish documents describing the Aztecs. They are as good as the geographical and cultural data that allowed archaeologists to accept that there was a Troy and that we now know where it was.

Does the available evidence simply leave it an open question whether the Book of Mormon is an essentially accurate historical record?

If you are asking for incontrovertible proof, then you misunderstand history and archaeology - really anywhere- but particularly in Mesoamerica. All current hypotheses about Mesoamerican history are currently an open question and subject to revision (as witnessed by the recent revolutionary find at San Bartolo and of the earliest Maya kind--way earlier than suspected). If certainty is your measuring stick, you may toss out everything printed about Mesoamerica.

Or, does the available evidence sug[gest that it is not the case that the Book of Mormon is an essentially accurate historical record?

The evidence points to it being a historical record.

Right, I did build that in, and I did so because I'm interested to know how you weight the best available non-spiritual evidence.

I have been talking about the non-spiritual evidence. The data I gave was non-spiritual. What more might you ask for? If you have an idea of what you think sufficient, please lay it out and defend it, particularly based on our current understanding of Mesoamerica.

[SkepticTheist]

Which is why it is critical to limit ourselves to the text and forget anything people in the 19th century said outside the book of Mormon text. We should forget what those guys thought about it and concentrate on the words of the people that actually knew where they lived, because that is where they lived. Those people in the 19th century only had speculation about it as far as we know, and we have no methodology to weed out the speculation from any potential revelation other than to keep ourselves within a scope where we leave out anything those people ever said about it.

(Dismissing Williams' writing as not "canonized" scripture, ergo of no account, is applying a double standard to evidence.)

[SkepticTheist]

The smaller the area in which the BoM purportedly took place, the more likely it should be to find hard evidence of BoM people, places and events. There is no such evidence. Not a single scrap.

There are a number of proposals, Mesoamerica being the best reasonable candidate from an archaeological and geographical point of view for the general "Land of Zarahemla". There is found there all the evidence we need for the time periods in question. It is not an issue of lack of archaeological evidence as you purport. It is merely a problem of identification of that evidence as specifically Nephite or Lamanite. That is all. As big of a problem as that may be, that is a much smaller issue to deal with than what you would lead people to believe with your statement, alleging that there is nothing to be found. One day the gap will be bridged, but for the moment, we have a very plausible candidate on our side, and a growing body of evidence.

[Ariarates]

There are a number of proposals, Mesoamerica being the best reasonable candidate from an archaeological and geographical point of view for the general "Land of Zarahemla". There is found there all the evidence we need for the time periods in question.

So you take the BoM as your starting point and then try to find a candidate that fits. That's the problem of apologetics in a nutshell (at least from a scientific point of view; there is, of course, nothing wrong with such an approach from a faith-based point of view).

It is not an issue of lack of archaeological evidence as you purport. It is merely a problem of identification of that evidence as specifically Nephite or Lamanite. That is all.

If only it were that simple. Quite a lot has been written about the history of the American continent from countless angles and disciplines. Some hard and measurable, some softer and more interpretative, but on the whole a consistent picture exists that incorporates the sum of our current knowledge about the Americas. The BoM in general doesn't fit in that general picture.

As big of a problem as that may be, that is a much smaller issue to deal with than what you would lead people to believe with your statement, alleging that there is nothing to be found. One day the gap will be bridged, but for the moment, we have a very plausible candidate on our side, and a growing body of evidence.

I'm not saying there's nothing to be found, just that nothing has been found yet. If the evidence for the BoM as literal history is mounting, then that's great. It would mean that at some point in time, the scientific community will have to come around to the Mormon point of view. I, for one, won't be holding my breadth.

[Ariarates]

Your point about the history is? Are you suggesting that the way the Bible was portrayed for millenia is determinative of its actual history? (...) Please describe the nature of "hard evidence." Unfortunately, I am aware of only one kind, which is textual.

If the BoM is to be taken as literal history, it would be nice if some evidence of BoM people, places and events actually existed outside the text, in the real world. You are assuming what needs to be proven, i.c. that the text is ancient.

As for other kinds of "hard evidence," the nature of archaeological remains is that they must be interpreted. In the case of religious iconography, we have too little to go on. Again, in the Book of Mormon region it is particularly aniconic (which might be suggestive of an Old Testament understanding, but certainly not determinative). Even with icons, the problem comes in the fact that symbols are so frequently borrowed (and known to be borrowed in the Israelite tradition). All iconography we associate with Israelites or Christians post dates the Lehites, so how would we know what to look for?

Well, you look for horses and swords and temples like Solomon's and evidence of great wars and roads and cities and wheat and chariots etc. I know apologists are annoyed everytime this is pointed out but that really is the big elephant in the room, whether you like it or not.

However, when we get to the kinds of evidence that is used to correlate texts and archaeological artifacts, it is quite untrue that there is no shred of evidence. Only those unfamiliar with how such evidence is interpreted would make such a suggestion (and unfamiliar with the current evidence, of course).

I'll readily admit that I'm not all that familiar with "the current evidence". To make it easy on you, I'll settle for a single peer-reviewed, non-LDS publication (the author can be LDS) that correlates the BoM text to any archeological artifact.

Please give me the documentation for the text at the accepted site of Troy that says that it is Troy. Are you suggesting that modern archaeologists accept that only on a leap of faith?

I think modern archeologists know fairly well which aspects of Troy's history are factual and which are mythological. Granted, the identification of the ruins currently believed to be Troy is not unambiguous but there is a certain consensus among scholars, based on the best and most consistent interpretation of the available evidence. It may not be the final word on Troy, but if you want to change the current consensus, you have to come up with a lot more than a reference to a book (the medium on which the book was originally written not being available) that was translated by supernatural means for which no evidence exists outside the text.

Really? I'd love to know where. I have been through them all, exhaustively. You are welcome to check my response to any that you are looking at and attempt to defend this particular assertion. I deny the accusation. Strongly.

OK, I'll withdraw my statement and rephrase as follows. You refer to "at least two events described in the Book of Mormon (...) which make more sense read against the cultural/political pressures of the Maya region". That's 2 (two) events from a 500+ page book purportedly spanning 1,000+ years (and that's not counting the Jaredites). You're cherry-picking. Counting hits and ignoring misses.

That none of them have gone through the evidence as I have presented it. Most have no interest in doing so. Only one that I know of made any attempt, and reading his responses makes it clear that he responded to scholarship that is over 30 years old.

That's a kindergarten argument. Maybe you should present your evidence the proper way rather than in church-sponsored publications preaching to the choir. Have you published a single paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal connecting the BoM text to real world Mesoamerican artefacts? Or does your bibliography consist of regular scientific papers on the one hand (where you don't mention anything LDS with a single word) and a bunch of LDS publications where you interpret that evidence through the lens of faith?

There have been Mesoamerican scholars who joined the church after they developed their expertise in Mesoamerica and they see no problem and much parallel. What does that tell you?

It tells me that for every one of your Mesoamerican scholars who doesn't see a problem, there are ninety-nine (figuratively speaking) Mesoamerican scholars who do. It tells me that the argument with which I joined this thread (Hamblin's paradigm) still stands.

[Brade]

I certainly think so , and have laid out my reasons for believing it. They are based on the same methodologies used with any document in translation describing another culture. They are methods based on my experience with those techniques as applied to Spanish documents describing the Aztecs. They are as good as the geographical and cultural data that allowed archaeologists to accept that there was a Troy and that we now know where it was.

The evidence points to it being a historical record.

First, thank you for answering my questions. When you say "the evidence points to it being a historical record" what reports of the book to you believe the best available non-spiritual evidence supports as historical? For example, does that available evidence suggest that its report that a middle eastern family sailed to the Americas around 600BC is historical? Does that available evidence suggest that its report that a deity crucified in the middle east appeared in the Americas around 33AD?

If you are asking for incontrovertible proof, then you misunderstand history and archaeology - really anywhere- but particularly in Mesoamerica.

No, I'm certainly not asking for incontrovertible proof.

[Brant Gardner]

If the BoM is to be taken as literal history, it would be nice if some evidence of BoM people, places and events actually existed outside the text, in the real world. You are assuming what needs to be proven, i.c. that the text is ancient.

No, I am not making that assumption. Of course, in any test of a text against history one must make the assumption that it might be historical, else the investigation is over before it begins. However, beginning with that allowance does not make it a foregone conclusion that it is. Rather, it sets the parameters of the search.

The next problem is that you keep asking for "some evidence." When you do so, you seem to define evidence in an idiosyncratic way that excludes the evidence presented. As we will discuss below for Troy, the kind of evidence you appear to be asking for doesn't exist for Troy and rarely exists for any archaeological people. I will return to the problem of texts. Only in the fortunate discovery of texts in an archaeological context that relate to the document in question do you even approach such evidence. Even when that happens, it is not always unambiguous. There is finally a text naming David for the Old Testament. Is it, however, the David. Not proven.

If, however, you really want to assess the kinds of evidence that historians (and particularly ethnohistorians) use, then there is such evidence. That you keep asking for it when it exists is repetitive and can be remedied if you actually wish.

Well, you look for horses and swords and temples like Solomon's and evidence of great wars and roads and cities and wheat and chariots etc. I know apologists are annoyed everytime this is pointed out but that really is the big elephant in the room, whether you like it or not.

Really? That statement tells me that you don't understand much about documents in translation. What happens if I search for candles in Christ's time in Jerusalem/Galilee? I won't find them, yet the KJV had candles all over the place. Ergo, no connection to history. Except that would be incorrect. We know that in the case fo the KJV because we have the original language and we find that the word "candle" is a translation issue.

In the Book of Mormon, we have only the translation, but there is no reason to suppose that there might not be such translation issues in that text as well. If I had to believe exactly what the Spanish had to say about the Aztecs, I would get it wrong. Any use of a text in translation to describe a foreign culture cannot use vocabulary as the arbiter of historicity. It rarely works.

Now, how about things that don't relate to vocabulary? You mention great wars and roads and cities. Check. Those are not subject to variability of vocabulary. The rest of your question is that it has the question backwards. You are projecting an opinion about the text into archaeological evidence. That is a highly imprecise method because it requires the lucky discovery of the item you are searching for. San Bartolo convinces us that there is way more to be found that we are not expecting.

In comparing a text to a context, the more accurate method is to discover whether the context informs the text. Does it mesh with the historical patterns? Does it represent the thought patterns appropriate to the time and place? In those more accurate measures, the Book of Mormon fits. You are looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place and that statement comes from secular scholarship, not religious understanding.

I'll readily admit that I'm not all that familiar with "the current evidence".

I'll readily admit that it is much easier to hold firm opinions on something you know little about.

To make it easy on you, I'll settle for a single peer-reviewed, non-LDS publication (the author can be LDS) that correlates the BoM text to any archeological artifact.

Easy on me? You are suggesting that after I have done the work to understand how ethnohistory is done, and after I have done exhaustive research on the Book of Mormon against a particular culture and time that it is I who must still somehow prove something to you while you continue to ignore any evidence presented? Fascinating. I decline that interesting offer.

As for peer-reviewed, you have some interesting ideas about what is published. That seems to suggest that you don't do any academic publishing. Still, the question off the relationship of text and artifact that you suggest tells me that you really don't know anything about archaeology.

So, you are telling me that you, who don't know the overall field of archaeology, clearly have not studied ethnohistory, admittedly don't know the current literature on the Book of Mormon, and clearly understand little of the academic publishing process, are telling me that I have something to prove to you according to your own definitions? Again, I decline.

I think modern archeologists know fairly well which aspects of Troy's history are factual and which are mythological.

Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues. The issue has nothing to do with what is factual and what is mythological. It has to do with the very acceptance of the location of Troy without any of the kind of evidence you are requiring for the Book of Mormon. Troy was located using logical argumentation. The location was accepted because it fit the descriptions in the text and because the resulting culture fit the descriptions in the text. It was not accepted because they found a large wooden horse.

I suggest you learn a little about how Troy was identified and then re-ask your questions about the Book of Mormon. At the moment, you are suggesting that modern archaeologists cannot be correct in their identification of Troy. They would be surprised at that.

Granted, the identification of the ruins currently believed to be Troy is not unambiguous but there is a certain consensus among scholars, based on the best and most consistent interpretation of the available evidence. It may not be the final word on Troy, but if you want to change the current consensus, you have to come up with a lot more than a reference to a book (the medium on which the book was originally written not being available) that was translated by supernatural means for which no evidence exists outside the text.

You still don't seem to know the history of the excavation. Troy was believed to be entirely mythical. it has been accepted because of the weight of evidence. The evidence comes from Homer compared to archaeology, and none of it fits anything you are asking of the Book of Mormon and everything I am suggesting for it. Precedent is on my side and I would love to see you counter it with any indication you understand the issues.

You have nailed one issue, however. The association of the Book of Mormon with a particular religion is so strong that it colors all perceptions of it and typically prevents objective analysis. In that you are correct.

OK, I'll withdraw my statement and rephrase as follows. You refer to "at least two events described in the Book of Mormon (...) which make more sense read against the cultural/political pressures of the Maya region". That's 2 (two) events from a 500+ page book purportedly spanning 1,000+ years (and that's not counting the Jaredites). You're cherry-picking. Counting hits and ignoring misses.

Please refer to Second Witness: An Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon. It is 6 volumes of nearly verse by verse "cherry picking." I really don't think you can support your assertion with evidence.

That's a kindergarten argument.

That there is no published statement from secular archaeologists that doesn't deal with work that is over 30 years old? Really? Do you know what has happened in the last 30 years in Mesoamerican studies? If anyone were to criticize a discussion of the brain based on thirty year old research, we would know that something was amiss.

Maybe you should present your evidence the proper way rather than in church-sponsored publications preaching to the choir.

The "proper way" is to lay out the argument and evidence. I have done that. That someone hasn't read it doesn't mean I haven't done it the proper way.

If you are suggesting that religious-oriented arguments show up in journals that preclude religious-oriented content, you seem to misunderstand journals.

Have you published a single paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal connecting the BoM text to real world Mesoamerican artefacts?

Wow. So many problems with that sentence. How scientific are archaeological journals? There is science involved, but all archaeology requires interpretation, which is not scienttific in the sense you seem to be using it. Second, you keep insisting that the text be related to artifacts. That is simply the wrong issue.

So, you are asking me if I have done the wrong kind of research in the wrong way and tried to publish in the wrong places? No. Why would I do that?

Or does your bibliography consist of regular scientific papers on the one hand (where you don't mention anything LDS with a single word) and a bunch of LDS publications where you interpret that evidence through the lens of faith?

Count yourself among those who haven't done the research to actually understand the arguments. My bibliography is published. You can check it out. Why are you asking me about a bibliography I have put together when it doesn't seem that you have read any of the requisite materials yourself? Have you no responsibility to be informed?

It tells me that for every one of your Mesoamerican scholars who doesn't see a problem, there are ninety-nine (figuratively speaking) Mesoamerican scholars who do. It tells me that the argument with which I joined this thread (Hamblin's paradigm) still stands.

Well there is a a self-serving definition. It doesn't suggest that at all, because you have no indication that the figurative ninety-nine have examined the same evidence in the same way.

When Schiemann claimed to have found Troy, he was one against perhaps thousands. He was right (sometimes not entirely right, but scholarship always refines its conclusions).

[Brant Gardner]

First, thank you for answering my questions. When you say "the evidence points to it being a historical record" what reports of the book to you believe the best available non-spiritual evidence supports as historical? For example, does that available evidence suggest that its report that a middle eastern family sailed to the Americas around 600BC is historical? Does that available evidence suggest that its report that a deity crucified in the middle east appeared in the Americas around 33AD

The most important issue in discerning whether a text is related to a historical context is to ask appropriate questions. For example, the questions you ask are the wrong ones. Let's take the appearance of Christ in the New World. The text says that this is a record of an incident in one city, believed by only a particular religion and in a particular region--and that those who believed it were destroyed. What are the chances of the survival of that information through 1500 years of culture that didn't experience it and didn't believe in that religion? The fact that it isn't remembered by non-believers doesn't tell you anything except that they didn't remember. It says nothing of the text.

A comparable issue might be to find non-Christian evidence that there was a Jesus Christ. There are a small handful of statements, some better than others, and not particularly conclusive for religious content. That is in a world with a rich textual tradition that is unavailable in the New World.

The better way to test the text is to examine it to see if it fits into the historical patterns of a particular location. if a text indicated that it was written in the US in the 1950s and discussed drills for nuclear explosions, that would be a correlation to history. If it placed those drills in the 1970s, it would not be a correlation. Those are the kinds of evidences that are used to attach the biblical text to history. It is an appropriate method for the Book of Mormon. There are quite a few papers and books proposing this kind of evidence. Which have you read?

[Questing Beast]

Of course. I assume that you understand that he [Joseph Smith] had a rather flexible and typically unscholarly approach to the subject. I also assume that you understand that his opinions did not and do not form a revelatory description of location.

As the BoM is an "unscholarly" book it follows that its author is no different. So the "Occam's Razor" rule is answer to all the inconsistencies with the facts. I expected you to point out that Joseph Smith's opinion on BoM geography is no better than any other uninformed opinion: he only presented the book; that doesn't mean that he understood what it said! And of course, this is one of the biggest cop outs of the apologists. It's the same one used to excuse all the errors in the so-called translation of the BoA too; or any of his translations: he just didn't have the knowledge to be consistent, his translation gift was on and off again, according to the will of God.

This is all fine as far as I am concerned. There will never be a single, obvious, inarguable interpretation of any aspect of religion. "God" always provides reasons to either believe or disbelieve anything. Spelling out a singular TRUTH that must be obeyed without excuses would be evidence that mankind is in the grip of a power playing control freak.

But I only indulge in these kinds of discussions out of perverse habit. Actually, the reason for my disbelief in the dogmatic claims of the Church and its apologists of literalism is not related to physical evidence for or in conflict with the BoM or any other "artifacts" of faith. It is Joseph Smith the man that I have come to disagree with, intensely. And short of a compete "makeover", which seems impossible at this juncture, I cannot see his reputation being restored. And with his "fall from grace", so too falls every "prophet" of antiquity; since it was only the "restoration" which gave me any hope that scripture could be preserved from the morass of religion-making since the dawn of time....

[volgadon]

So you take the BoM as your starting point and then try to find a candidate that fits. That's the problem of apologetics in a nutshell (at least from a scientific point of view; there is, of course, nothing wrong with such an approach from a faith-based point of view).

Really? That is precisely how it is done by archaeologists.

[Brant Gardner]

As the BoM is an "unscholarly" book it follows that its author is no different.

Now there is an opening line that brooks little discussion. I disagree. That seems to be the only possible response.

So the "Occam's Razor" rule is answer to all the inconsistencies with the facts.

That doesn't give me much hope for your understanding of the process of information understanding in the world. It simply is not true (read Kuhn on how scientific revolutions have occurred).

I expected you to point out that Joseph Smith's opinion on BoM geography is no better than any other uninformed opinion: he only presented the book; that doesn't mean that he understood what it said! And of course, this is one of the biggest cop outs of the apologists.

Bluster is the refuge of critics. In this case, Joseph could only know the contents if he were the author. Were he only the translator, he shouldn't know them. Therefore, your initial argument is circular because it requires the acceptance of the unproven initial assumption to accept the conclusion.

It's the same one used to excuse all the errors in the so-called translation of the BoA too; or any of his translations: he just didn't have the knowledge to be consistent, his translation gift was on and off again, according to the will of God.

Stating that you disagree with an argument does not constitute its refutation.

This is all fine as far as I am concerned.

Thank you for your opinion.

There will never be a single, obvious, inarguable interpretation of any aspect of religion. "God" always provides reasons to either believe or disbelieve anything.

Pardon me if I decline to accept your opinion as binding on my research.

Spelling out a singular TRUTH that must be obeyed without excuses would be evidence that mankind is in the grip of a power playing control freak.

Interesting objective ?! language.

But I only indulge in these kinds of discussions out of perverse habit.

Please feel free to decline to indulge them with me. Your condescension does not fit well with your clear misapprehension of the issues.

It is Joseph Smith the man that I have come to disagree with, intensely.

Thank you for your opinion. You must know that it is not shared, and not shared by people who know the literature far better than you do. Still, it is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I don't find it persuasive in the least.

[Ariarates]

That statement tells me that you don't understand much about documents in translation. (... ) In the Book of Mormon, we have only the translation

Again, you assume what needs to be proven, i.e. that the BoM is a translation (and a supernatural one at that) of an ancient document.

In comparing a text to a context, the more accurate method is to discover whether the context informs the text. Does it mesh with the historical patterns? Does it represent the thought patterns appropriate to the time and place? In those more accurate measures, the Book of Mormon fits.

It may fit in some patterns (I have no problem taking your word for that) but does it fit in all (or at least most)? It's one thing to identify a few general patterns that fit the human experience in any culture, but quite another to confirm that all the pieces of the puzzle consistently come together. It is my contention that the latter is not the case.

Easy on me? You are suggesting that after I have done the work to understand how ethnohistory is done, and after I have done exhaustive research on the Book of Mormon against a particular culture and time that it is I who must still somehow prove something to you while you continue to ignore any evidence presented? Fascinating. I decline that interesting offer.

As for peer-reviewed, you have some interesting ideas about what is published. That seems to suggest that you don't do any academic publishing. Still, the question off the relationship of text and artifact that you suggest tells me that you really don't know anything about archaeology.

So, you are telling me that you, who don't know the overall field of archaeology, clearly have not studied ethnohistory, admittedly don't know the current literature on the Book of Mormon, and clearly understand little of the academic publishing process, are telling me that I have something to prove to you according to your own definitions? Again, I decline.

Not so fast there, buddy. You are the one who brought up " the kinds of evidence that is used to correlate texts and archaeological artifacts" in post no. 155, and suggested that "it is quite untrue that there is no shred of evidence." To make your case, however, you suggested that "Only those unfamiliar with how such evidence is interpreted would make such a suggestion (and unfamiliar with the current evidence, of course)". Which is not much of a case, wouldn't you agree?

All I then asked was "a single peer-reviewed, non-LDS publication (the author can be LDS) that correlates the BoM text to any archeological artifact." Providing such a reference presumably would have cost you way less time than beating around the bush in righteous indignation. Unless such a reference not exist, of course.

Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues. The issue has nothing to do with what is factual and what is mythological. It has to do with the very acceptance of the location of Troy without any of the kind of evidence you are requiring for the Book of Mormon. Troy was located using logical argumentation. The location was accepted because it fit the descriptions in the text and because the resulting culture fit the descriptions in the text. It was not accepted because they found a large wooden horse.

The key word in this paragraph, to me, is "accepted". My point in this thread has been all along that the apologists' interpretation of the BoM is not accepted outside the LDS community.

You have nailed one issue, however. The association of the Book of Mormon with a particular religion is so strong that it colors all perceptions of it and typically prevents objective analysis. In that you are correct.

I agree. My point, though, is that the non-LDS world does not associate the BoM with any region because they regard it as a nineteenth century work of religious fiction. It is those who claim that it is literal history who must make their case. The burden of proof is on you and since nobody outside the LDS community is convinced, I say you haven't met it yet.

Please refer to Second Witness: An Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon. It is 6 volumes of nearly verse by verse "cherry picking." I really don't think you can support your assertion with evidence.

Are saying that this work is a 6-volume collection of BoM events "which don't make much human sense" in general but which DO make sense when "read against the cultural/political pressures of the Maya region"? I dare say you are overstating your case.

Count yourself among those who haven't done the research to actually understand the arguments. My bibliography is published. You can check it out. Why are you asking me about a bibliography I have put together when it doesn't seem that you have read any of the requisite materials yourself? Have you no responsibility to be informed?

Unfortunately, my Google search returned a dead link to your academic vitae. That's why I asked you a very simple, straightforward question: "Have you published a single paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal connecting the BoM text to real world Mesoamerican artefacts?" How hard can it be? I'm sure I can handle the answer, even if I hadn't read any of the requisite materials.

[SkepticTheist]

We have found a candidate that fits. Its Mesoamerica.

Its just that you have no faith to defend. all you care about is what hasn't been found yet, not what has been found that hasn't been identified scientifically as either "Lamanite" or "Nephite".

If that were to happen, then the Book wouldn't be a book of faith anyway.

Again, a lot has been found. You are the one that is unwilling to make the leap of faith in your own mind to identify such things. And we are unwilling to deny our faith.

Therefore, for everyone it is either a thing based on faith, or a thing based on lack of faith. If God would have allowed it to be otherwise, then people like you would not have the opportunity to deny things, and people like apologists wouldn't have the opportunity to choose to believe.

You say you won't hold your breath. Ok. Fine. Whatever. Its your hereafter to choose how it will be. But all that matters for Mormons is the state in the hereafter anyway. For unbelievers, if Mormonism is true, they miss out on the blessings they would have had if they had just chosen to believe. For Mormons who believe, if we find out we are wrong when we are dead, then we had nothing to gain anyway, and we are fools. If we cease to exist anyway, then it didn't matter, and this conversation doesn't matter either. It is the unbeliever that actually is at risk of having something to lose in the hereafter. Have you ever read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Black Swan? It is the faithful position where the black swan can't bite you in the hereafter. The faithless position is the one where the black swan can bite you. So the choice is yours. Better a dead fool than a condemned person in eternity. That's quite a risk to take for unwillingness to take a leap of faith.

So you take the BoM as your starting point and then try to find a candidate that fits. That's the problem of apologetics in a nutshell (at least from a scientific point of view; there is, of course, nothing wrong with such an approach from a faith-based point of view).

If only it were that simple. Quite a lot has been written about the history of the American continent from countless angles and disciplines. Some hard and measurable, some softer and more interpretative, but on the whole a consistent picture exists that incorporates the sum of our current knowledge about the Americas. The BoM in general doesn't fit in that general picture.

I'm not saying there's nothing to be found, just that nothing has been found yet. If the evidence for the BoM as literal history is mounting, then that's great. It would mean that at some point in time, the scientific community will have to come around to the Mormon point of view. I, for one, won't be holding my breadth.

[Ariarates]

We have found a candidate that fits. Its Mesoamerica. Its just that you have no faith to defend. all you care about is what hasn't been found yet, not what has been found that hasn't been identified scientifically as either "Lamanite" or "Nephite". Therefore, for everyone it is either a thing based on faith, or a thing based on lack of faith. If God would have allowed it to be otherwise, then people like you would not have the opportunity to deny things, and people like apologists wouldn't have the opportunity to choose to believe.

Sounds like a mind game.

For unbelievers, if Mormonism is true, they miss out on the blessings they would have had if they had just chosen to believe. For Mormons who believe, if we find out we are wrong when we are dead, then we had nothing to gain anyway, and we are fools. If we cease to exist anyway, then it didn't matter, and this conversation doesn't matter either. It is the unbeliever that actually is at risk of having something to lose in the hereafter. Have you ever read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Black Swan? It is the faithful position where the black swan can't bite you in the hereafter. The faithless position is the one where the black swan can bite you. So the choice is yours. Better a dead fool than a condemned person in eternity. That's quite a risk to take for unwillingness to take a leap of faith.

I haven't read Black Swan but I am familiar with Pascal's wager, which is the argument you are presenting. It's an argument from fear, fear of not measuring up in the here and now and being punished in the hereafter. Fear is a bad advisor. Also, it's not a 50-50 proposition. The odds are against you. What if YOU are wrong?

[Questing Beast]

Now there is an opening line that brooks little discussion. I disagree. That seems to be the only possible response.

That doesn't give me much hope for your understanding of the process of information understanding in the world. It simply is not true (read Kuhn on how scientific revolutions have occurred).

Bluster is the refuge of critics. In this case, Joseph could only know the contents if he were the author. Were he only the translator, he shouldn't know them. Therefore, your initial argument is circular because it requires the acceptance of the unproven initial assumption to accept the conclusion.

Stating that you disagree with an argument does not constitute its refutation.

Thank you for your opinion.

Pardon me if I decline to accept your opinion as binding on my research.

Interesting objective ?! language.

Please feel free to decline to indulge them with me. Your condescension does not fit well with your clear misapprehension of the issues.

Thank you for your opinion. You must know that it is not shared, and not shared by people who know the literature far better than you do. Still, it is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I don't find it persuasive in the least.

The common thread in your response is that I don't understand the subject, the methodology, the literature, either at all or nearly as well as you do. Whenever someone responds with the accusation of willful ignorance and dismissal (I am now condescending) I know that I am wasting my time.

Probably all of this is a waste of time if we really think about it. Other than honing your rhetoric, writing and debating skills nothing gets accomplished by these interchanges. I have noticed that authors are writing to themselves first and foremost; the writing discipline requires convincing power, and the author is convincing himself in the creation and presentation of his thesis. In miniature, the same phenomenon occurs "here"....

[Brant Gardner]

Again, you assume what needs to be proven, i.e. that the BoM is a translation (and a supernatural one at that) of an ancient document.

No, I am presuming that a text cannot be adequately tested unless it is tested against and according to its claims. To do otherwise taints the examination with prejudice.

It may fit in some patterns (I have no problem taking your word for that) but does it fit in all (or at least most)? It's one thing to identify a few general patterns that fit the human experience in any culture, but quite another to confirm that all the pieces of the puzzle consistently come together. It is my contention that the latter is not the case.

This would be a good time for you to present any evidence that you could to support your case. As I noted, I have been through the entire text, comparing it to a known real world location. My experience (in print, so you can find it if you care to) is quite the opposite of your assertion. Have you done your analysis in print that I might read it?

Are saying that this work is a 6-volume collection of BoM events "which don't make much human sense" in general but which DO make sense when "read against the cultural/political pressures of the Maya region"? I dare say you are overstating your case.

You dare say it without reading it? No wonder you are so willing to pontificate based on a lack of evidence or supporting theory.

[Brant Gardner]

The common thread in your response is that I don't understand the subject, the methodology, the literature, either at all or nearly as well as you do. Whenever someone responds with the accusation of willful ignorance and dismissal (I am now condescending) I know that I am wasting my time.

Odd. That was my first response to your post. However, for the benefit of others, it is important to point out that you don't understand the subject, the methodology, or the literature. You can even leave of the part about comparing it to what I might know. You don't understand the subject, the methodology, or the literature--of archaeology or ethnohistory. That means that you are really missing how that can be applied to the Book of Mormon.

Probably all of this is a waste of time if we really think about it. Other than honing your rhetoric, writing and debating skills nothing gets accomplished by these interchanges. I have noticed that authors are writing to themselves first and foremost; the writing discipline requires convincing power, and the author is convincing himself in the creation and presentation of his thesis. In miniature, the same phenomenon occurs "here"....

Psychobabble aside, I propose that I have actually been through the entire text examining it against a specific cultural context and time. I propose that such an effort, documented so others can check it, is a more solid foundation for an opinion that simple bluster.

[Nathair/|\]

Ariaretes, QB, et. al;

What do we know about ancient America that directly contradicts the Book of Mormon; ie. what do we know definitely existed or happened that could not have existed or happened if the events in the Book of Mormon happened. Note, I am not asking about things like horses or steel swords or signs saying five miles to Zarahemla where we are merely lacking in evidence.

Yours under the historical oaks,

Nathair /|\