When Should Non-Believers Take Bom Archaeology Seriously?

[Zakuska]

What I'm amazed at is how loose the definition of what is considered evidence for the Bible really is.

Take for example King David. A single inscription 300 years after the fact attributed to a King who claims to have destroyed some Hebrew settlements. And a bowl with a variant of the name Goliath.

Pretty flismy if you ask me.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Zakuska

[Gervin]

What I'm amazed at is how loose the definition of what is considered evidence for the Bible really is.

Take for example King David. A single inscription 300 years after the fact attributed to a King who claims to have destroyed some Hebrew settlements. And a bowl with a variant of the name Goliath.

Pretty flism if you ask me.

Well, of course if that were the only two pieces of claimed evidence for the entire Bible then I would call it pretty "flism" too. It's not. If you're not read up on the subject try the BAR link I provided earlier.

[Ariarates]

I would think that would be a respected archaeologist who isn't LDS IMHO.

I personally don't think it matters whether he or she is LDS or not - it's the quality of the work that matters - to be judged by that archaeologist's peers according to accepted scientific procedure. I doubt, however, that there are many respected archaeologists out there who have publications on BoM archaeology on the same resume as their secular publications.

[rameumptom]

There is a fallacy with the OP's thought. If one had to wait for standard archaeologists to accept something for it to be considered, much of archaeology would never get done!

Schliemann would never have discovered Troy by using Homer's writings. Today's archaeologists would still believe that the earliest Americans were from the Clovis period, having never bothered to check out locations in Chile and elsewhere (recently in Texas).

The Mayan language would never have been deciphered, because the earliest major archaeologists insisted it was pure pictographs that could not be translated as a language (it took a Chinese philologist to accomplish it outside the Mayan scholarly realm).

In each case, outsiders had to provide the evidence, and then wait for the archaeologists to "rediscover" the evidence years (sometimes decades or centuries) later. Waiting for them to take an honest look at the Book of Mormon is a silly thought, given the history of how archaeology often tends to work.

[bluebell]

I disagree. I don't believe those archaeologists involved with biblical archaeology really cares if a non-Christian respects their findings or not as long as their respected collegues do.

I'm sure LDS archaeologists don't really care if non-Christians believe in their findings or not but I'm sure they would like their Christian associates to respect their work but there is a disconnect at this point IMO and I question why on a personal basis.

Sorry if i was confusing.

I don't mean that anyone should care who takes them seriously.

I mean that if someone is going to say 'there are no mainstream archaeologists who take the BOM seriously' while at the same time saying 'there are mainstream archaeologists who DO take the bible seriously', they need to make sure that they are defining 'mainstream archaeologists' the same way for both groups or they should be called out on the double standard.

[elguanteloko]

We should wait for mainstream archaeologists to decide that the Book of Mormon is an ancient artifact and begin to produce evidence for it before the faithful begin to attempt to do so? What do you think the chances of that every happening are? What actually might happen is that the faithful (who have an interest in understanding the Book of Mormon in a real world context) do the footwork and provide the framework in which the mainstream archaeologists might see where it fits. Even then, however, I strongly suspect that the best we would hope for is "I can see why you say that" and then they would move on with their current interests.

Still, I see no hope to move anything along if the criteria is that we have to wait for someone who is completely uninterested in the topic to decide to spend a lot of time on it.

Several things to say here.

Please understand that I'm speaking of using BoM evidences in relation to specific goals: that of the believer in defending his overall belief in the veracity of the BoM, and that of the skeptic's justification for remaining a skeptic.

It is important to keep in mind because that does NOT mean I'm saying Mormons should wait for an Archaeology consensus in favor of the BoM to take place AT ALL. I'm saying that they aren't justified in using pieces of Archaeological findings and historical reconstructions as supporting the reliability and veracity (and divine origin) of the BoM, not only in clearing up misunderstandings. I hope you can see what the difference is.

Plus, why should Archaeologists be interested in the BoM claims when the overall evidence doesn't really point to civilizations like those described? It seems to me rather silly to ask for a paradigm change when strong supporting evidence isn't presented. I'm not saying there is no evidence that can be used to support the BoM but that this wouldn't justify a radical change in the way Archaeologists view the 'Ancient New World' and guide their future research on it reliably.

[elguanteloko]

The approach to the Book of Mormon should be as it is, a second testimony of Jesus Christ. Archeology is, at best, a distraction, at worst, it reflects the latest academia du jour. There are many evidences, but like the existence of King David, or more importantly the resurrection of Christ, the evidence is inconclusive. As it should be. The first mistake people make, is the assumption that the Book of Mormon "must" have archeological evidence, there wasn't any when Joseph Smith translated it, there is much more now, but it remains inconclusive. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is based on faith, so its greatest and most used and important evidence is based on "faith".

Archeologists on the other hand..... Faith is not considered evidenciary, their's is speculative in attempting to learn and understand past cultures. Theirs is an analysis of what they find. It is rare that writings lead to the discovery of a civiliation (Troy being the only one I know of). Archeology and the Book of Mormon are two entirely different creatures, and archeologists should not take the Book of Mormon seriously unless they are seeking a second testament of Christ, to strengthen their faith or to learn how to live an even better life.

As a Latter-day Saint, I of course enjoy seeing how some mainstream assumptions regarding the Book of Mormon bite the dust (and do so repeatedly). People with agenda's (both pro and against) invariably end up being disappointed. Perhaps a more eastern approach? Don't play the game, let what comes forth be and allow it come forth on its own terms and in its own time. The seriousness which we may want archeologists to take regarding the Book of Mormon is equivalent to synchophants seeking approval. One thing Latter-day Saints aren't is synchopantic.

I can't believe this... I agree with you wholeheartedly!

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

I think it is safe to say that mainstream scientists will never take the BoM seriously. Science is only concerned with the natural world. The origin of the BoM is all about the supernatural. Non-believers can only begin to take BoM archeology seriously if the supernatural origin of the BoM is denied and a plausible alternative is supplied. My guess is that this is not going to happen anytime soon.

If the BoM is claimed to contain descriptions of real past civilizations, then it seems to me that it should be verifiable through Archaeological evidence. If you don't believe it does claim about past civilizations, then yeah.

[Ariarates]

It is important to keep in mind because that does NOT mean I'm saying Mormons should wait for an Archaeology consensus in favor of the BoM to take place AT ALL. I'm saying that they aren't justified in using pieces of Archaeological findings and historical reconstructions as supporting the reliability and veracity (and divine origin) of the BoM

An interesting point. This is my main concern over the Nahom-hypothesis. Would the team that uncovered the altar interpret it as supporting the BoM? If not, are LDS writers justified in interpreting it that way?

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

I don't believe they should take the BoM seriously as a book of archaeology. At least no more than they take any other ancient book.

There are archaelogical eviences for the BoM, the Bible, ancient Hindu text, Homeric tales, ancient Greek tales, Ancient Roman,etc,. etc., etc.. However evidence of their Truth Claims is sorely lacking. IE; What physical evidence would there be that Apollo was God.

I'm not talking about the God stuff, really, I'm talking about thee material stuff like cities, animals, instruments, names, etc.

[Ariarates]

It is important to keep in mind because that does NOT mean I'm saying Mormons should wait for an Archaeology consensus in favor of the BoM to take place AT ALL. I'm saying that they aren't justified in using pieces of Archaeological findings and historical reconstructions as supporting the reliability and veracity (and divine origin) of the BoM

An interesting point. This is my main concern over the Nahom-hypothesis. Would the team that uncovered the altar interpret it as supporting the BoM? If not, are LDS writers justified in interpreting it that way?

[blueadept]

Sorry if i was confusing.

I don't mean that anyone should care who takes them seriously.

I mean that if someone is going to say 'there are no mainstream archaeologists who take the BOM seriously' while at the same time saying 'there are mainstream archaeologists who DO take the bible seriously', they need to make sure that they are defining 'mainstream archaeologists' the same way for both groups or they should be called out on the double standard.

So noted of what your intent was.

In answering the question of the OP though of when will non-believers take BoM archaelogy seriously can start when peers of LDS archaeolgists start to confirm their findings in the Americas. A find of this nature would reach epic proportions for a non-LDS archaeologists IMO. What?....no takers?

[elguanteloko]

What is a 'mainstream archaeologist'? Who qualifies?

Those that take place in the general consensus.

[Jeff K.]

Several things to say here.

Please understand that I'm speaking of using BoM evidences in relation to specific goals: that of the believer in defending his overall belief in the veracity of the BoM, and that of the skeptic's justification for remaining a skeptic.

It is important to keep in mind because that does NOT mean I'm saying Mormons should wait for an Archaeology consensus in favor of the BoM to take place AT ALL. I'm saying that they aren't justified in using pieces of Archaeological findings and historical reconstructions as supporting the reliability and veracity (and divine origin) of the BoM, not only in clearing up misunderstandings. I hope you can see what the difference is.

Actually they are justified. If someone tells me that there is no cement found in the cities of meso America, and a book written over a century ago indicates cement was used, then there seems to be a discrepency that hasn't yet been resolved. However if later it is found that cement was used, you suddenly have some justification (not complete) for that statement in the puzzle that is pre Columbian. Latter-day Saints in Christs church are justified in pointing out to critics who have had a wonderful century long party laughing at some ofthe claims, that their laughter seems to be based on their own erroneous presumptions.

So no, as more evidence is found, and more of the puzzle is filled in, the laughter should become more muted. It is a process. Though in some cases it is just as loud, but about fewer questions, and slightly more forced.

Plus, why should Archaeologists be interested in the BoM claims when the overall evidence doesn't really point to civilizations like those described? It seems to me rather silly to ask for a paradigm change when strong supporting evidence isn't presented. I'm not saying there is no evidence that can be used to support the BoM but that this wouldn't justify a radical change in the way Archaeologists view the 'Ancient New World' and guide their future research on it reliably.

You don't know that, but the insertion of your own presumption of lack of evidence being evidence is acknowledged. The book of Mormon does not provide a detailed look at the civilizations involved. Rather it looks upon their ethical culture. We see some hints as to how they lived. But not what they wore, how they wove it, what their overall class structue consisted of, the life of a daily laborer, or even the life of a king. The Book of Mormon does not delve into those details. Much is presumed because the book's main focus is the why, not the how. You seem to have a proclivity of mixing the two up.

No one here is suggesting any radical changes in the way archeologists view the pre Columbian continents of America, as you seem to imply. Archeological views change slowly, as more of a puzzle is filled in, the view will change. Radical discoveries such as Troy or the Rosetta Stone are one in a million lucky shots, remove paradigm shifts such as those, and you will see little movement or change in archeological studies. Not because they are correct, but because much of the puzzle remains in the hands of presumption as it is slowly being filled in. Where the Etuscans the famous and feared "Sea Peoples" of the Greek dark ages? Often presumed, but little can be said for sure.

[Jeff K.]

bluebell, on 08 August 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:

What is a 'mainstream archaeologist'? Who qualifies?

Those that take place in the general consensus.

Has mob rule always been an important qualifier for truth?

[LeSellers]

An interesting point. This is my main concern over the Nahom-hypothesis. Would the team that uncovered the altar interpret it as supporting the BoM? If not, are LDS writers justified in interpreting it that way?

If we assume the team had heard of the Book of Mormon and its connection with (modern-day) Yemen, perhaps.

But the odds of that are minimal, I'm sure. Even if they did, many archeologists flee religious associations with all the zeal of the Westboro Baptist Church flying to a military funeral.

But, were they to see that parallels (name, date/time, purpose, etc.), why would they not? It all fits, and fits at least as well as any other archeological discoveries anywhere.

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

Actually they are justified. If someone tells me that there is no cement found in the cities of meso America, and a book written over a century ago indicates cement was used, then there seems to be a discrepency that hasn't yet been resolved. However if later it is found that cement was used, you suddenly have some justification (not complete) for that statement in the puzzle that is pre Columbian. Latter-day Saints in Christs church are justified in pointing out to critics who have had a wonderful century long party laughing at some ofthe claims, that their laughter seems to be based on their own erroneous presumptions.

So no, as more evidence is found, and more of the puzzle is filled in, the laughter should become more muted. It is a process. Though in some cases it is just as loud, but about fewer questions, and slightly more forced.

It would be amazing if the BoM got everything wrong, to be honest.

You don't know that, but the insertion of your own presumption of lack of evidence being evidence is acknowledged. The book of Mormon does not provide a detailed look at the civilizations involved. Rather it looks upon their ethical culture. We see some hints as to how they lived. But not what they wore, how they wove it, what their overall class structue consisted of, the life of a daily laborer, or even the life of a king. The Book of Mormon does not delve into those details. Much is presumed because the book's main focus is the why, not the how. You seem to have a proclivity of mixing the two up.

No one here is suggesting any radical changes in the way archeologists view the pre Columbian continents of America, as you seem to imply. Archeological views change slowly, as more of a puzzle is filled in, the view will change. Radical discoveries such as Troy or the Rosetta Stone are one in a million lucky shots, remove paradigm shifts such as those, and you will see little movement or change in archeological studies. Not because they are correct, but because much of the puzzle remains in the hands of presumption as it is slowly being filled in. Where the Etuscans the famous and feared "Sea Peoples" of the Greek dark ages? Often presumed, but little can be said for sure.

Intellectual culture is a big part of Archaeology, too.

[elguanteloko]

duplicate of the duplicate of the duplicate.

how did that happen?

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

duplicate of the duplicate.

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

duplicate

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Zakuska]

It would be amazing if the BoM got everything wrong, to be honest.

According to many critics... it does.

[elguanteloko]

According to many critics... it does.

That is philosophically impossible, actually... but let's ignore that for now.

[elguanteloko]

BTW, some people here seem to be focusing on what is happening and express their predictions on what is going to happen... I don't care about that that much.

I'm focusing on what SHOULD happen and how supposed evidence for the BoM SHOULD be approached and used by both skeptics and believers.

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 08 August 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:

Actually they are justified. If someone tells me that there is no cement found in the cities of meso America, and a book written over a century ago indicates cement was used, then there seems to be a discrepency that hasn't yet been resolved. However if later it is found that cement was used, you suddenly have some justification (not complete) for that statement in the puzzle that is pre Columbian. Latter-day Saints in Christs church are justified in pointing out to critics who have had a wonderful century long party laughing at some ofthe claims, that their laughter seems to be based on their own erroneous presumptions.

So no, as more evidence is found, and more of the puzzle is filled in, the laughter should become more muted. It is a process. Though in some cases it is just as loud, but about fewer questions, and slightly more forced.

It would be amazing if the BoM got everything wrong, to be honest.

Meaning of course that no credit should ever be given when it gets things right.

Intellectual culture is a big part of Archaeology, too.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

You don't know that, but the insertion of your own presumption of lack of evidence being evidence is acknowledged. The book of Mormon does not provide a detailed look at the civilizations involved. Rather it looks upon their ethical culture. We see some hints as to how they lived. But not what they wore, how they wove it, what their overall class structue consisted of, the life of a daily laborer, or even the life of a king. The Book of Mormon does not delve into those details. Much is presumed because the book's main focus is the why, not the how. You seem to have a proclivity of mixing the two up.

No one here is suggesting any radical changes in the way archeologists view the pre Columbian continents of America, as you seem to imply. Archeological views change slowly, as more of a puzzle is filled in, the view will change. Radical discoveries such as Troy or the Rosetta Stone are one in a million lucky shots, remove paradigm shifts such as those, and you will see little movement or change in archeological studies. Not because they are correct, but because much of the puzzle remains in the hands of presumption as it is slowly being filled in. Where the Etuscans the famous and feared "Sea Peoples" of the Greek dark ages? Often presumed, but little can be said for sure.

Intellectual culture is a big part of Archaeology, too.

Intellectual culture is probably one of the last aspect to be explored since it is built upon the various other aspects of archeology, intellectual culture is probably what the Book of Mormon is most closely based upon. Now if you want to focus purely on intellectual culture, well then you have something like the Book of Mormon. But it doesn't give place, manner of life, or any direct material evidence. It seems you are promoting in that sense the Book of Mormon as being an archeological artifact to be viewed on an intellectually cultural basis. If that is so, I definately agree with you. In the process of archeology, intellectual culture is usually based on the concrete (pun intended) or less abstract areas being explored first, which lead to an understanding for the basis of the intellectual culture. Ie, the Nile flooding on a regular basis but at different levels, the priest king becomes the god king or pharoah, and the intellectual realigion built around the material and environmental and man made understanding. Of course, without the luck of the Rosetta stone, we would still have been lost on specifically what the intellectual culture was trying to do. At least for that time period.