Could you write the likes of Book of Mormon?

[pseudogratix]

I said there is NO consensus because the BoM is not deemed worthy of an investigation in the first place. Anyone who has looked at both the BoM and studied meso-America can see the obvious problems right off the bat. No need to go deeper.

...

The point is that the absense of a group of scientists crusading against the BoM says nothing for the validity of the book. It's the opposite.

Sigh. Well, so much for the scientific approach to things. Let's just jump to conclusions without any foundation whatsoever. Sigh.

[t2t2]

Sigh. Well, so much for the scientific approach to things. Let's just jump to conclusions without any foundation whatsoever. Sigh.

Sigh. I noticed you sigh a lot. A LOT. You must be very sad all the time.

Are scientists doing us a disservice by not pumping energy into the View Of the Hebews? How do we know that book is fiction unless we have scientists refuting it?

The scientific approach to finding out the truth to the history of that region IS being followed. I've been to Coba, Tulum and Chichen Itza. Coba is especially great to see because it's still mostly unreclaimed from the jungle. Scientists are there following their tried and true methods of discovery. They uncover. They compare. They piece together a puzzle using all the elements found in the area and those in others that shed light on the whole expanse. And at the end of the day, the history they find bares zero resemblence to the one in the BoM. So what part of the scientific method do you think they need to focus on more clearly? Using religious books that have no physical evidence for support?

[hondo]

I just wonder where the ancient americans got the idea to build Temples or pyramids? an ancient religious book? Why would they buil Temples ans such. I guess we might find the answer in a book of some kind.

[t2t2]

I just wonder where the ancient americans got the idea to build Temples or pyramids? an ancient religious book? Why would they buil Temples ans such. I guess we might find the answer in a book of some kind.

Heh...that was a joke, right? Where did the ancient Greeks get the idea to build temples to Athena and Zeus? The Nephites?

Pyramids? 1. The BoM never says they built pyramids. If anything such could be considered evidence against the BoM.

2. Pyramids are found all over the world. They're in Asia. They're in the Americas. They were built by the Celts.

The pyramid design is the most basic design for building a tall building. Most of these civilizations knew nothing about an arch. If you want to go big and tall you have to slowly get smaller as you go up. It's physics. If you watch a group of 3 year olds in a sandbox you'll see pyramids packed into shape....and I doubt many of these know much about Egypt (and fewer still have read the BoM). It's basic design mechanics. I can't believe this would say anything to you guys. Or do you think Nephi and Co. also made stops in Tailand and Scotland on their way over?

[Daniel Peterson]

And at the end of the day, the history they find bares zero resemblence to the one in the BoM.

And you base this extravagant and dubious claim on a visit to Coba, Tulum, and Chichen Itza?

[pseudogratix]

Sigh. I noticed you sigh a lot. A LOT. You must be very sad all the time.

Sigh. More scientifically sound reasoning: t2t2's 1st Law of Cyberspace: "If a person sighs a lot they must be sad all the time." Sigh.

Are scientists doing us a disservice by not pumping energy into the View Of the Hebews? How do we know that book is fiction unless we have scientists refuting it?

Scientists don't do a lot of things. What that does or doesn't mean is far from conclusive of anything. I would imagine that most scientists have families to feed and clothe and so they focus on research that pays the bills.

The scientific approach to finding out the truth to the history of that region IS being followed

[t2t2]

I base it on a whole lot more.

If you are disagreeing, which I assume you are, what is your disagreement based on? I wonder, between the two of us, who would find greater support were we to invite a group of, say 100 experts on the area? You? Me?

[Daniel Peterson]

I base it on a whole lot more. 

If you are disagreeing, which I assume you are, what is your disagreement based on?  I wonder, between the two of us, who would find greater support were we to invite a group of, say 100 experts on the area?  You?  Me?

I wonder how many of your 100 experts would have comparable expertise in both Book of Mormon exegesis and Mesoamerican archaeology. I don't think that I would learn much of value, on this specific topic, from someone who had only a kindergarten knowledge of the Book of Mormon, or, both worse and more likely, knew it only from hearsay.

My disagreement is partially based on the fact that I know several people personally who are deeply learned in ancient Mesoamerican issues -- including two who are among the preeminent figures in current Mesoamerican field archaeology -- who have personally told me that they see increasing congruence between the Book of Mormon and the findings of their discipline. You, by contrast, see absolutely zero contact between the two, but I'm inclined to think that they know much more than you do. And, for what it's worth, I too have visited a few Mesoamerican sites -- including some that are well beyond ordinary tourist routes.

[t2t2]

Sigh. More scientifically sound reasoning: t2t2's 1st Law of Cyberspace: "If a person sighs a lot they must be sad all the time." Sigh.

Websters offers 'weariness', 'relief' or 'grief' as the possible reasons for a sigh. I elected to suppose it would not be relief. I don't suppose it's weariness. If you're tired in general you should sleep. If you're tired of this conversation you have no reason to continue. I was left with "grief" (I said "sad") as the probable reason for all the sighs. Please feel free to correct me if it's one of the other two.

Yet, is has nothing to do with focusing on the Book of Mormon. I doubt that many of them are concerned with what the Book of Mormon says because that won't pay the bills.

Most are there on grants. Rarely does a grant of this nature stipulate what they are allowed to reference as a guide in their studies. They don't ignore the BoM because of bills or monetary concerns. This is a rediculous argument. I would imagine that most in that area of study have spent time researching variuos myths associated with the the people they have elected to look into. They will know about the BoM, at least the most basics. If they find something that gives credence to the BoM they would have zero reason to cover it up. Discoveries make the scientist. Not a few of them would love to get their name in the papers over something controversial.

Sigh. Yet, the scientists aren't making those conclusions. You are. You are viewing what science is doing and forming your opinion on the matter. Fine.

Absolutely. Happy you approve.

Also, scientists are trained in using religious books for scientific purposes, so if they do try to use the Book of Mormon as their guide, they are likely unqualified to do so.

You lost me. Did you mean "are NOT"?

Yet, I doubt the scientists are drawing many conclusions at all.

That's true AND false. There are two different types. There are those doing field work - the results of which end up in journals of varioos sorts . And there are those that publish conclusions. Some do both. The Leakey's did both.

The problem with the BoM is that it doesn't take a scientist saying "The Mayans fought a war between Copan and blah blah in the year 335 AD, etc. which means the BoM is false!" to suggest there is no backing for the BoM. Richard Leakey didn't say "This fossile is 35,000 years old and therefor the Bible's creation account is false.". He merely said "This fossile is 35,000 years old and is considered a key point in human evolution" - which statement can be logically used to deduce the Biblical account of a 6 days creation and 6000 year old Earth is not supported by scientists, for the most part.

We use deduction. All of us. The line that sends power steering fluid to the pump is leaking. I took my car in this morning telling them either the line has a hole or there's a faulty seal somewhere. I got a call 2 hours ago saying that there was indeed a hole and they cut that section out and replaced it with a new line. The man didn't need to tell me "Oh yeah - that means that there was no faulty connection like you thought". I got that.

With the BoM we all look at the same and come to different conclusions. That's why I keep asking - what piece are you looking at that leads you to a different conclusion than I? You know my own views. I've done a lot of research into the idea that there were Nephies or Lamanites living somewhere in that big jungle. I've seen not one scrap of physical evidence to support the idea - there or anywhere else. So why do others disagree? What are they looking at that I am not? Or what thing have I glossed over? I dunno. I keep asking only to have people question my own deduction methods.

[t2t2]

My disagreement is partially based on the fact that I know several people personally who are deeply learned in ancient Mesoamerican issues -- including two who are among the preeminent figures in current Mesoamerican field archaeology -- who have personally told me that they see increasing congruence between the Book of Mormon and the findings of their discipline.

So clue me in. What great physical evidences have they found? There were millions of Nephites. Let's see what they left for us to find.

[A Random Catholic]

My disagreement is partially based on the fact that I know several people personally who are deeply learned in ancient Mesoamerican issues -- including two who are among the preeminent figures in current Mesoamerican field archaeology -- who have personally told me that they see increasing congruence between the Book of Mormon and the findings of their discipline.  You, by contrast, see absolutely zero contact between the two, but I'm inclined to think that they know much more than you do.  And, for what it's worth, I too have visited a few Mesoamerican sites -- including some that are well beyond ordinary tourist routes.

Well, I know one thing for sure- the Book of Mormon picture and the secular Meso-America studies picture should either be dramatically converging or diverging, because pretty exciting things have been happening in that field. I dunno, myself. I read Sorenson and think, "Hmmm... that's interesting." Then I flip through my new Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya and just feel like I'm looking at a whole different world. What would you say is the single best example of one of the many things that we didn't know ten years ago that we do know today that dovetails with the Book of Mormon?

[t2t2]

There's also a touring collection of Aztec art that's supposed to be fascinating!

[Daniel Peterson]

What would you say is the single best example of one of the many things that we didn't know ten years ago that we do know today that dovetails with the Book of Mormon?

I would direct you to Professor John Clark's May 2004 devotional address at BYU. Perhaps somebody here can tell you where to find it on line. Unfortunately, it hasn't yet been published. (I have a hard copy of it, and, of course, was in the audience when he delivered the speech -- which, by the way, he assured me just on Saturday he could easily have extended to three or four times its actual length.)

[John Russell]

t2t2 said:

Most are there on grants. Rarely does a grant of this nature stipulate what they are allowed to reference as a guide in their studies. They don't ignore the BoM because of bills or monetary concerns. This is a rediculous argument. I would imagine that most in that area of study have spent time researching variuos myths associated with the the people they have elected to look into. They will know about the BoM, at least the most basics. If they find something that gives credence to the BoM they would have zero reason to cover it up. Discoveries make the scientist. Not a few of them would love to get their name in the papers over something controversial.

True, many scientists love to get their names in the news and have press conferences (it's gotten a number into trouble over the years). However, there are strong funding constraints on what one can and can't do. The initial grant proposal has a little less than no chance of getting funded by nearly any agency on the planet if it has as its focus the demonstration of religious systems, unless there is already a strong foundation to proceed and the payoff sufficiently great for the funding agency (they like credit, too). Thus, there are reputable scientists working with aspects of biblical history (although they are greatly outnumbered by quacks, which adds a further stigma to such work), where archaeological work is relatively easy, where many locales still exist and can be used to locate additional sites, and where the chance to undercut three of the world's great religious traditions is a terribly tempting plum. In the case of the Book of Mormon, there is not sufficient ground work to justify substantial and sustained funding for archaeological work from major funding sources, and Mesoamerica is a very difficult place to work. To pursue work that steps into the realm of religion is generally anathema to scientists because of the professional risks and the inability to obtain funds. Discoveries make the scientist, but funding makes the discoveries possible.

The other side of the coin is the abundance of marginal scientists focusing on religious issues. The Creation Research Institute is a prime example. Those folks can make a name for themselves among a relatively isolated group of people, but their poor work and extremism also tend to discourage legitimate workers from entering the fray. The sensationalized claims of these groups also discourage legitimate funding sources from straying too far from the conventional funding targets.

[t2t2]

http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1277&tid

I'll give it a listen and report back...

[A Random Catholic]

I found an "unofficial transcript" here. Since the MP3's on the web, I assume I'm not being too shabby in posting that...

[t2t2]

However, there are strong funding constraints on what one can and can't do. The initial grant proposal has a little less than no chance of getting funded by nearly any agency on the planet if it has as its focus the demonstration of religious systems, unless there is already a strong foundation to proceed and the payoff sufficiently great for the funding agency (they like credit, too).

True. My point was that most DO reference myths associated with their areas of study in the off-chance that some may prove tenable. Most working down there will have at least a cursory knowledge of the BoM. If something is found that clearly delineates from the established and accepted history nothing will prevent them from comparing it to the BoM OR, even more relevant, prevent Mormons from making that comparison once something unexplained is published in the major papers

[Bill Hamblin]

Then I flip through my new Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya  and just feel like I'm looking at a whole different world.

You first need to carefully identify the chronological context. I suspect that nearly all the material in the "Courtly Art" book is classic and post-classic.

Your argument would be analogous to saying that you reject the historicity of Tacitus because it doesn't resemble the court art of Justinian.

[Bill Hamblin]

Another place worth examining is Brant Gardner's BOM commentary:

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/commentary.htm

It contains a great deal of interesting material.

[John Russell]

t2t2 said:

True. My point was that most DO reference myths associated with their areas of study in the off-chance that some may prove tenable. Most working down there will have at least a cursory knowledge of the BoM.

I can't agree or disagree, although I suspect very strongly that there is precious little mention of myths currently believed by large groups of people in any proposals. The stigma against current religion in scientific review panels is substantial. Quaint extinct or local primitive mythology is okay, but that is pretty much the limit.

[Daniel Peterson]

I suspect very strongly that there is precious little mention of myths currently believed by large groups of people in any proposals.  The stigma against current religion in scientific review panels is substantial.  Quaint extinct or local primitive mythology is okay, but that is pretty much the limit.

The famous Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner remarked a few years ago on the fascination that many scholars have for ancient and defunct expressions of religious belief, which contrasts so dramatically with the hysteria and contempt that many of them feel when confronted by living expressions of such belief. And he alluded specifically to the Book of Mormon in that context.

I cited his statement in the Introduction to the very first issue of what is now the FARMS Review:

Yet, by and large, the Book of Mormon has not received the attention that it deserves. For all its potential significance in comparative religions,3 for all the historical influence which it has undeniably exercised, for all the spiritual value attributed to it by millions of believing Latter-day Saints, it has been left relatively unstudied. The eminent Judaic scholar Jacob Neusner put his finger on perhaps one of the reasons for this odd situation in an article published over ten years ago. "Among our colleagues," he remarked, "are some who do not really like religion in its living forms, but find it terribly interesting in its dead ones." To take a prominent example, Neusner continues, the Book of Mormon "is available principally for ridicule, but never for study. Religious experience in the third century is fascinating. Religious experience in the twentieth century is frightening or absurd."4 The Book of Mormon has been, indeed, and as President Benson has been telling us, neglected--and by believers only comparatively less than by nonbelievers.

3. There have always been a few scholars who have recognized the world-historical significance of Mormonism and the Book of Mormon for religious studies. Eduard Meyer, with his famous Ursprung und Geschichte der Mormonen (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1912), English trans. by Heinz F. Rohde and Eugene Seaich (Salt Lake City: University of Utah, n.d.), is perhaps the most illustrious example, but others come to mind. For instance, in an article entitled "Joseph Smith und die Bibel: Die Leistung des mormonischen Propheten in neuer Beleuchtung," which appeared in the Theologische Literaturzeitung 109/2 (Feb. 1984): 81-92, the Finnish scholar Heikki R

[A Random Catholic]

However, there are strong funding constraints on what one can and can't do. The initial grant proposal has a little less than no chance of getting funded by nearly any agency on the planet if it has as its focus the demonstration of religious systems, unless there is already a strong foundation to proceed and the payoff sufficiently great for the funding agency (they like credit, too).

True. My point was that most DO reference myths associated with their areas of study in the off-chance that some may prove tenable. Most working down there will have at least a cursory knowledge of the BoM. If something is found that clearly delineates from the established and accepted history nothing will prevent them from comparing it to the BoM OR, even more relevant, prevent Mormons from making that comparison once something unexplained is published in the major papers

I have to disagree here. My experience is fifteen years out of date, but it did involve doing actual Maya archaeology with several professionals in Belize. The Book of Mormon never came up. If (for example) a carving of those dish-shaped barges were to turn up, I would bet dollars to donuts that a Latter-day Saint would be the first to point out their significance.

[Guest Just Curious]

If (for example) a carving of those dish-shaped barges were to turn up, I would bet dollars to donuts that a Latter-day Saint would be the first to point out their significance.

Oh what the heck...I am gonna play the apologists role here...I DEMAND PROOF OF YOUR STATEMENT..!!!!

[A Random Catholic]

If (for example) a carving of those dish-shaped barges were to turn up, I would bet dollars to donuts that a Latter-day Saint would be the first to point out their significance.

Oh what the heck...I am gonna play the apologists role here...I DEMAND PROOF OF YOUR STATEMENT..!!!!

Stuart, David. 2003. If a Sculpture of a Hollow Disk with a Single Hole in the Top and Bottom and Containing a Figure with a Glowing Stone and an Unidentifiable Device Strangely Reminiscent of a Compass Were to be Uncovered at a Maya Site, I Would Have Absolutely No Clue What That Meant. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press

Coe, Michael D. 2004. Yep, That Would Pretty Much Beat My Pair of Jacks Too, Stuart. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks

Schele, Linda. 2004. I'd Be Stumped As Well, But of Course, I'm Dead. New York, NY: George Braziller, Inc

[Guest Just Curious]

Oh yeah well I don't accept your sources..they're biased...na na na na boo boo!!!