When Should Non-Believers Take Bom Archaeology Seriously?

[Jeff K.]

Zakuska, on 08 August 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

Correction. There is alot of evidence. Now wether people accept that is subjective. (eg Nahom)

"Accept it" is too general. Accepted as indicating that what, exactly? Anyone can agree with what appear to be the facts (which, as far as I've seen, don't even indicate the more likely name is Nahom for NHM, IIRC) but the interpretation of them is what is in question most of the time.

You don't get it elguante. What are the odds.... That a path laid out in a book written during the early 1800's reflected the name of a city, that no one knew about, and an environmental haven of water, on a beach no one knew was there. I am sure you would have dismissed Schliemann's Troy too, even after being shown the evidence. "Oh Schliemann was just luckly guesser, would say and then you would add "reread what I posted earlier". If the Book of Mormon had stopped on the tip of the Arabian Peninsula, would have declared the book true?

Edited August 8, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

Zakuska, on 08 August 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

Correction. There is alot of evidence. Now wether people accept that is subjective. (eg Nahom)

"Accept it" is too general. Accepted as indicating that what, exactly? Anyone can agree with what appear to be the facts (which, as far as I've seen, don't even indicate the more likely name is Nahom for NHM, IIRC) but the interpretation of them is what is in question most of the time.

What is a more likely name then? Where did you get your information from?

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Nahom was the inland community where Zoram was buried. I think you mean Bountiful on the Arabian coast.

Edited August 8, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Jeff K.]

I meant both. Both occurred following a generalized line of travel as described in the Book of Mormon. Both are well described. With two such locations that were unknown following the same route, I would again be pressed to ask what the odds are of such correct guessing (versus one or the other, or perhaps one location, but the other (Bountiful) reflected in a distinct area in very different direction. For Bountiful you had to be spot on, there was no place else that such a location could exist.

And it goes to the second part of my question. Had the Book of Mormon stopped there, would that have been sufficient cause to declare it "serious"? or "verified"? or true.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I have no problem with both being under discussion. Plus there are a few more sites on the Arabian Penninsula worth mentioning. Also I belive that Central America has some interesting connections to the BoM, but further evidence needs to come forth.

[Jeff K.]

Absolutely, I agree. But while some may quail over the New World, the Arabian Peninsula offers an enticement with such a strong coincidence.

[altersteve]

There is no archaeological evidence to support any miraculous claim, prophecy or revelation in either the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

This is not true. The parting of the sea by Moses and the ten plagues of Egypt, for example, have been shown to be completely possible.

[elguanteloko]

This is not true. The parting of the sea by Moses and the ten plagues of Egypt, for example, have been shown to be completely possible.

Friend, the only things that are literally impossible are logical contradictions. It is "completely possible" that I'm the resurrected Gandhi or ANYthing you can imagine that is not a contradiction.

Please, just knock this off and address the thread topic.

Edited August 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Nenahnezad]

Friend, the only things that are literally impossible are logical contradictions. It is "completely possible" that I'm the resurrected Gandhi or ANYthing you can imagine that is not a contradiction.

Please, just knock this off and address the thread topic.

Yeah friend. Or elguanteloko will give you the stink eye.

Maybe elguanteloko should first understand the premise of BOM archeology: that Joseph Smith was a liar until he encountered a book, as a gift, about the Maya.

"“What may startle some …. is that most of what Joseph Smith said orimplied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular settingfor Nephite history.

Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilizedculture even existed in the Americas.” http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196

So not only what the Prophet said but what he implied was incorrect, until he read the version of National Geographic in his day.

Next, you'll have LDS Apologists flaming me, declaring that "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as a prophet" and they they know and will bear testimony that the Prophet Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet (of BOM geography) until he read the National Geographic, written by an ambassador appointed by Pres. Martin Van Buren.

Assuming you agree with well poisoning.

“Enthusiastic comments published at Nauvoo showed that the Church's leaders, including Joseph Smith, were immensely stimulated by the new information. Within a fewweeks of the first notice, they announced they had just discovered, by reading Stephens's book, that the Nephites'prime homeland must have been in Central … America.”

http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196 (emphasis on the book added)

This of course is appealing to scholars, who learn everything from books. So why not Joseph Smith?

I spent the past year scouring the MaxwellInstitute site at BYU. And this is the entire premise for the existence of BOM archeology: Joseph Smith learned BoM geography from a travel book. What a joke.

Then LDS Apologists (not all) get bent out of shape when anti-mormons declare Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet.

[altersteve]

Friend, the only things that are literally impossible are logical contradictions. It is "completely possible" that I'm the resurrected Gandhi or ANYthing you can imagine that is not a contradiction.

Please, just knock this off and address the thread topic.

But the parting of the sea has been proven not to be literally impossible. Do some research, see what you can find, and you will discover that if everything was just right, then the Red Sea could very well have been parted.

That was just a simple, "by the way" sort of comment, though. I wasn't trying to get off-topic.

[elguanteloko]

But the parting of the sea has been proven not to be literally impossible. Do some research, see what you can find, and you will discover that if everything was just right, then the Red Sea could very well have been parted.

Once again, a heck lot of propositions are 'possibly true'. If "everything was just right" I could be Napoleon Bonaparte.

That was just a simple, "by the way" sort of comment, though. I wasn't trying to get off-topic.

That's fine, friend. Getting off-topic is only a problem when it happens too often.

Edited August 9, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Gervin]

This is not true. The parting of the sea by Moses and the ten plagues of Egypt, for example, have been shown to be completely possible.

The Bible tells a story about

a. In the city of Jerusalem

b. there's a gate called the Sheep Gate

c. and near that gate is a pool

d. and the pool had porches around it

e. where a blind man was given sight by Jesus

a - d are proven by archaeological evidence. Is it possible that a blind man regained his sight at the Pool of Bethesda? Sure, but it's not proven archaeologically. I've also read about weather and geographic scenarios whereby the Sea of Reeds could be parted. Possible? Perhaps. Archaeologically evidenced? No.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Gervin

[cdowis]

Getting off-topic is only a problem when it happens too often.

You might want to bring such discussions to "Focused Discussion" category to give you more control over the topic, instead of depending on the mods.

[cdowis]

I think non-believers should seriously consider (and Mormons should consider what they bring to the table as proper support for their beliefs) Archaeological and historic evidence for the BoM (and LDS scriptures in general) when mainstream Archaeology and mainstream History agree that the claims made in the BoM are consistent and trustworthy to be taken as accurate history of actual events (as a consensus, of course). Why not before?

I guess it is necessary to repeat myself.

The basic problem is that the BOM is a book delivered by an angel. For a scientist to seriously consider and investigate this book requires that he admit the possibility of angels, and that a farmboy in 1830 NY could have been a prophet and translated a bunch of gold plates with a seer stone.

I think this becomes an insurmountable hurdle, and few if any any have even bothered to become seriously acquainted with the text.

Now if you are bothered by this, please give us the names of such scholars and professional journals willing to publish papers on this topic. Just a basic survey of the BOM itself, where the book provides areas of historical and archeological interest. I could start the list with: towers used for religious rites, a sophisticated calendar, a knowledge of astronomy, extensive trading over both land and by ship, multiple languages (the nephites and lamanites spoke a different language), extensive written records (codices), cement cites, a hierarchy of kings, multiple extensive wars with entire cities destroyed, a special writing system specifically for written records (which was recently discoverd).... certain geological features (the Valley of Lemuel), ancient authentic names such as Pahoran, Paanchi, sheum, Nhm.... Hopefully this will get that list started.

Now, let's at least see such an inventory of items for investigation published in one of your peer-reviewed professional journals, and then we can talk about "taking BOM archeology seriously."

Your turn...... the ball is now in your court.

I have responded to this request many times, and it is really getting tiresome, almost to the point of hypocritical. Let's see what you got to offer us. I am assuming that you will, like the others, do a little tap dance, and that will be the end of the discussion as you disappear into another thread.

Edited August 9, 2011 by cdowis

[Ariarates]

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.

It's entirely possible that the team who discovered the NHM-altar know nothing about the BoM. This kind of thing happens all the time: two or more scholars investigating the same thing without knowing about eachother. However, when they do find out they are researching the same thing, they can contact eachother and compare notes. Have LDS scholars done that? If not, why not? Is it because, as you state, they believe they have a strong case but are afraid of rejection? What does that say about the actual strength of their case?

[Gervin]

I guess it is necessary to repeat myself.

The basic problem is that the BOM is a book delivered by an angel. For a scientist to seriously consider and investigate this book requires that he admit the possibility of angels, and that a farmboy in 1830 NY could have been a prophet and translated a bunch of gold plates with a seer stone.

I think this becomes an insurmountable hurdle, and few if any any have even bothered to become seriously acquainted with the text.

Now if you are bothered by this, please give us the names of such scholars and professional journals willing to publish papers on this topic.

Well, here's a List of Scholars. And I'm sure they know the names, addresses, and submission requirements for all the best journals. My question is, have they ever been turned down for publication because they submitted a paper titled (something like) "A Case for a MesoAmerican Setting of the Book of Mormon." ?? Or, have they ever even submitted such a paper to one of the respected journals in their field? If not, why not (see post #56)?

Edited August 9, 2011 by Gervin

[elguanteloko]

I guess it is necessary to repeat myself.

The basic problem is that the BOM is a book delivered by an angel. For a scientist to seriously consider and investigate this book requires that he admit the possibility of angels, and that a farmboy in 1830 NY could have been a prophet and translated a bunch of gold plates with a seer stone.

I think this becomes an insurmountable hurdle, and few if any any have even bothered to become seriously acquainted with the text.

Do you think that's wrong on their part?

Now if you are bothered by this, please give us the names of such scholars and professional journals willing to publish papers on this topic.

The point of the thread is... why should they? and, are they wrong in not be willing to publish papers on the topic (IF they are)?

because, what do you expect Archaeologists and historians to do? Publish that a document, somewhere (BoM), happened to agree with what has just been found? Do you expect them to conclude that, therefore, the civilizations and culture described in the BoM are real? I'm not Archaeologist or historian... but that does seem like a very unprofessional leap.

Edited August 9, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

elgaunteloco will limit as much as possible what does not agree with him. He makes no attempt at objectivity. Note the following context:

because, what do you expect Archaeologists and historians to do? Publish that a document, somewhere (BoM), happened to agree with what has just been found? Do you expect them to conclude that, therefore, the civilizations and culture described in the BoM are real? I'm not Archaeologist or historian... but that does seem like a very unprofessional leap.

You see, he presumes that the coincidence is not unheard of, but then he fails to realize how difficult it is for such a coincidence to occur. I am not speaking of Nahom alone, that could be chalked up to a Ripleys believe it or not moment, but then to also have the general outline lead to the Land Bountiful, the one spot on the tip of the Arabian Peninsula that has an abundance of water, and a fertile area. A location completely unknown to Joseph Smith. Two seperate locations that follow the path laid out in the Book of Mormon. Perhaps

But the next sentence is a reflection of elguantepocos willingness to warp the search in order to obtain a preset conclusion...

Do you expect them to conclude that, therefore, the civilizations and culture described in the BoM are real? I'm not Archaeologist or historian... but that does seem like a very unprofessional leap

No one expects that. However due consideration should be considered regarding the issue, it is false to presume that someone wants the entire Book of Mormon declared historically accurate. Such a presumed black or white dichotomy is often used in debate, but is it honest use it in the search and critique of truth? Elguante is placing style over substance.

But maybe he should reread?

I do not believe archeology will prove the Book of Mormon anytime soon. The civilizations in the Americas have been fully gutted by human history and the tatters are just barely being gathered now. As pieces are gathered (as they have been) those pieces once derided as impossible, written by a young uneducated Joseph Smith in an American frontier, seem to be confirmed over the years. The lack of acknowledgement on the "coincidences" seems to the the vanguard action of people like elguante who do much to amplify their disdain. It is, after all, not about the search for truth for them, but the protection of their particular dogma. They shall of course continue to retreat as time goes on.

[elguanteloko]

Jeff,

I'm not speaking of declaring the entire BoM historically accurate. Look, if an Archaeologists finds X artifact and the BoM says that artifact X was used, what should the Archaeologist say or do? Should he mention, for some unknown reason, that the scripture of mormons speak of such an artifact (though leaving very open where such an artifact was to be found)?

[ldsfaqs]

How many years was scientific research done on the Bible by "believers" ONLY well before Atheists and other religions started to apply their trade to the Book?

Was all the research done by the believers discounted? Nope, a little maybe, but they were scholars, it was their job to research and explore, and obviously get a couple of things wrong.

This idea, that in order for there to be actual objectivity of anything, that only "outsiders" can give it, is a completely untenable and for that matter a completely unrealistic expectation that has NEVER existed in any research field. It's like saying Ugo A. M. Perego's work on the DNA and Joseph's Sealed Wives cannot be relied upon simply because he's a Mormon.

Unless there is a "specific" reason to not trust someones work because of their personal biases, that he's a nut, that he often falsifies data, etc., then there is no reason not to trust LDS research in the Sciences as related to LDS topics, scriptures, etc. What is funny about this, is that the charge that is used against mormons actually applies to anti-mormons. Their "hate" for mormonism clouds their every judgment towards it, so they misrepresent facts, information, data, outright lie, omit important facts so false conclusions are made either intentionally or because of their blind hate, etc.

If anyone's research as a "group" can't be trusted it's anti-mormons. Just the other day on another forum I showed how anti-mormons misrepresented a statement made by Heber C. Kimball. They tried to make him claim that Joseph only saw an Angel, that Heber was saying this some 40 years after the fact. Well, the anti in question, as well as other anti's out there who've made the same lying claim, completely misrepresent his words. He was actually talking about all the various visitations, the restoration of certain things, how instead of God doing it himself he has others such as Peter, Moroni, etc. do them, and in proper order of the Priesthood. He wasn't even talking about the First Vision at all.

If "liars" exist as a group, then it applies to anti-mormons, as well as another group, that I won't mention since I'll be banned apparently for saying it.

[keith_brian]

Will mainstream archeologists ever take the resurrection of Christ seriously?

Will mainstream archeology ever take the ascent of Thor into Valhalla seriously?

[keith_brian]

I agree, but it never happens. Every critic of the Book of Mormon and of the Church of Jesus Christ uses double standards more than they care to realize. For example, from Mormonism Research Ministry: "After all, to say that 'Nephi's wording makes it clear that Nahom was already called such by the local population' would carry no weight to someone not yet convinced that a person named Nephi ever existed" (Bill McKeever, "NHM – A Place Name from the Book of Mormon?")

One must wonder how McKeever would respond if someone told him, "I'm not convinced that Jesus ever existed, so anything you tell me about Him is meaningless." Oh well, at least McKeever said that he is "not yet convinced that a person named Nephi ever existed." So there's hope for him.

Still, pretty pathetic.

I agree that it is pathetic to try and use one mythology to disprove a different mythology.

[keith_brian]

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.

I agree. And, even if there was a king named David at some point, this wouldn't prove (or disprove) the supernatural claims made with regard to David's dealings with Yahweh.

You're preaching to the choir here.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

I'm not speaking of declaring the entire BoM historically accurate. Look, if an Archaeologists finds X artifact and the BoM says that artifact X was used, what should the Archaeologist say or do? Should he mention, for some unknown reason, that the scripture of mormons speak of such an artifact (though leaving very open where such an artifact was to be found)?

After certain items are found which are not in dispute a certain acknowledgement and perhaps judicious respect regarding the lack of knowledge regarding what may or may not be true. The tone of dismissiveness should disappear.

[Jeff K.]

Ariarates, on 08 August 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

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.

Jeff K., on 08 August 2011 - 09:27 AM, said:

Will mainstream archeologists ever take the resurrection of Christ seriously?

Will mainstream archeology ever take the ascent of Thor into Valhalla seriously?

You missed the point, but allow me to help you.

Christian belief is the greatest motivator of archeology in the past century or so. They are driven by their faith, both to learn and to question. That faith is part of what makes archeology of the "old world" the success it is. Most mainstream archeologists are also devout Christians, even priests or clergy for various Christian sects. Many are also of a repute that is without question. Have they all denied the divinity of Christ or if you will the supernatural aspects of their religion, in order to do their great work?

THe rhetorical resposne? Well with your somewhat predictable flailing around, you in effect agree with me, even though I do not believe you are aware of it. Its one of those times when the consequences of your lack of insight, combined with your rhetorical response, helped bolster my position.

I trust my point is made and you understand more clearly what just happened.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Jeff K.