When Should Non-Believers Take Bom Archaeology Seriously?

[Ariarates]

I still think the assertion is correct, and that the quantity of study is a fraction of that in the Old World studies.

That's two assertions; my beef is with the first. Happy hunting!

[Jeff K.]

You made the absolute statement that Mesoamerican archaeology lacks research volume from which to build a proper base of knowledge

I see now what you are saying. I agree that is a difficult assertion to prove. How do you prove what you don't know or what is undiscovered? There may be on or two groups relatively well documented but it is doubtful that we have a strong understanding of the general tenure of civilizaitons in the Americas. I will think upon this a bit more.

[Ariarates]

I see now what you are saying. I agree that is a difficult assertion to prove. How do you prove what you don't know or what is undiscovered?

Logically, the same holds true for the old world - or anywhere, for that matter.

I will think upon this a bit more.

My only gripe is with apologists downplaying (Meso)american archaeology to create wiggle room for BoM historicity. The only substantive difference, in my opinion, is writing; significant, but not to the extent that a proper knowledge base can't be established for American archaeology, if you ask me.

Edit: with all the caveats regarding Wikipedia (Americocentrism?), it lists 61 archeaological sites for Asia and 83 for the Americas :-)

Edited August 15, 2011 by Ariarates

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 August 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

I see now what you are saying. I agree that is a difficult assertion to prove. How do you prove what you don't know or what is undiscovered?

Logically, the same holds true for the old world - or anywhere, for that matter.

I have to disagree that your logic does not hold up. Consider this:

I have gone through lectures by Dr. Robert Dise, on Ancient Empires before Alexander. We covered Sargon, Dynasties of UR, Babylon, Kassites, Gasca, Hatti, Egyptian kingdoms, the Sea Peoples, Minoan Thalassocracy, Mycenae, Greek Dark Ages, Israel, small but influential kingdoms, Assyria, Neo Babylonian kingdom, Persian rise, Alexander, Carthage... all of this in one series of lectures that follow a contiguous route in the Levant towards the west. I see nothing similar in terms of lectures meet such a knowledgeable sweep of history for the Americas. If you find something along those lines for the American cultures, I will gladly concede the point. But I doubt such a similar series exists with the same depth of understanding and knowledge that we have regarding the Americas. What we know of the American archaeology is of a similar depth of understanding that we have for the Minoan Thalassocracy in my view.

[Samurai2012]

I'm amazed by the amount of discussion devoted in this forum to the issues of "evidences for the BoM" but, when should the non-Mormon layman consider these so-called 'evidences' brought up by believers seriously so as to take them as proper support for LDS belief? I'll offer my two cents.

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? Because it is all too easy to fabricate and manipulate actual history and evidence to serve supra-academic interests. Anyone can claim that Quantum Mechanics provides evidence for God's existence or for pretty much anything else under the sun and it seems rather irresponsible to expect people to learn QM to the core to be able to say that this doesn't really support God's existence reliably. It seems more sensible to me to suspend judgment and take neither "Yay" nor "Nay".

I think the important thing to realize is that there are facts, and then there are interpretations that people can make of facts. Most of the attempts at archaeology I have heard regarding the Book of Mormon are interpretations of what has been found instead of the actual fact. Yes, it is just one interpretation to think that the actual belief among various indigenous peoples such as the Maya and Aztecs in a feathered serpent means Jesus may have visited, but such a diety had his differences from the BoM account too. I personally feel that even now, the end message that you should really only be seeking confirmation through prayer from the Book of Mormon itself is the right way to go, especially, as I just said, most of this is speculation and projection beyond the initial facts.

Please don't take this to be an excuse for ignorance because it isn't. This is intended to be a call for a sensible approach in which neither side jumps to hasty conclusions but let's the professionals form a consensus of what the evidence actually suggests. This is also not only an approach to non-believers but intended also to be a consideration for LDS believers as to when they should present their arguments as credible, overall reliable evidence for the claims made in the BoM. Just as it seems unrealistic to expect from the non-believer to learn most of the claims made by apologists and be able to refute them with enough knowledge for him to be justified in his skepticism, it seems just as unrealistic to use pieces of actual evidence to support a conclusion not supported by mainstream academia on the subject and expect it to be intended as actual credible and reliable evidence for the veracity of the BoM.

I believe I understand exactly what you are trying to say. Again, the so-called "evidences" are subject to be interpreted in a number of different ways just because you have something similar to what was mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and especially even more of it being speculation or a direction projected off past the facts, it shouldn't be taken beyond the proofs.

[Chris Smith]

However, would it be worth considering an entirely naturalistic case for Book of Mormon authenticity?

Yes. (Though if such a case could be successfully made, then I think it would "naturally" have certain supernaturalist implications. )

Edited August 15, 2011 by Chris Smith

[cdowis]

Edit: with all the caveats regarding Wikipedia (Americocentrism?), it lists 61 archeaological sites for Asia and 83 for the Americas :-)

Ahem.

How many sites are in mesoamerica, and have substantial excavations to the preClassic (BOM) period? :<O

Edited August 15, 2011 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

If you don't publish in mainstream scientific publications about BoM archaeology (for whatever reason), BoM archaeology remains faithpromoting speculation. That's just the way it is. Publish or perish.

We clearly do not understand the real world in quite the same way, and your view on the possibility of publication on the Book of Mormon in mainstream archeological journals comes from fantasyland. The hardcore material available, even when published, is read by very few Mormons, and it constitutes serious rather than speculative scholarship. Faith-promoting literature is in another category entirely.

What I do find dishonest, however, is publishing on strictly non-BoM topics and then, toward the faithful, maintain that this legitimate scholarship in any way supports BoM historicity. I'm not saying legitimate LDS archaeologists do this, but I see it around here all the time.

Again, I'm not sure what you have in mind. Perhaps you could cite some examples.

Serious research (whether by Mormons or non-Mormons) can often be used to explicate the Book of Mormon, and there is nothing at all "dishonest" about pointing out such facts to the faithful in more popular publications. Indeed, it is very important that such explication and extrapolation be based on actual facts and interpreted according to accepted norms. Only specialists can usually manage to do that. Why would that annoy you?

. . . there are no archaeological advances in BoM archaeology, just more smoke and mirrors. Your next sentence, however, constitutes an accusation of Coe being prejudiced and closed-minded that I feel free to dismiss since it is offered without substantiation. Heck, even BYU archaeologists don't do BoM archaeology anymore, why should Coe be any different?

I asked the question before, and you failed to answer: Why would Coe spend time keeping informed on a subject which he regards as closed? There is no evidence whatsoever that either you or Coe have kept up with the Book of Mormon archeology question. If I am wrong, please provide some sort of evidence to the contrary. After all, you are not even aware of the current Book of Mormon archeological writings of BYU faculty. Your final comment (bolded by me) above speaks volumes in implying that Coe would not be caught dead publishing on Book of Mormon archeology (a point which agrees with me above, and denies your own claim made above), and falsely claiming that BYU faculty do not do so!! Do you see what you have done here?

A wiser approach might be to accept the real world facts which we all have to deal with, and not blame the victim of such one-sided practices. Is it fair to demand that Mormons fight with one hand tied behind them, and then to deny them an opportunity to fight -- saying falsely that they don't know how to fight anyway?? You want to have your cake and eat it too.

[Brant Gardner]

I think the important thing to realize is that there are facts, and then there are interpretations that people can make of facts. Most of the attempts at archaeology I have heard regarding the Book of Mormon are interpretations of what has been found instead of the actual fact.

Well, here is a statement that I can't leave without a response. There are really very, very few facts in archaeology. Actually, they are called artifacts and that is about where facts leave off and interpretation comes in. Archaeological writing is the process of interpreting the data discovered. Those artifacts do not explain themselves. I have never seen any of them accompanied by a description/instruction manual. Every once in a while archaeologists get lucky. The Maya actually labeled some of their vessels for what they used them for, so we now have a fact that they drank chocolate (which was assumed, but now there is a drinking vessel that was used for it).

So, you are correct that there are interpretations of facts, but your suggestion that there is somehow a difference in what people do with those facts in the context of the Book of Mormon and what they do with them outside of that context simply misunderstands the process. Those facts are interpreted in either case. There are very, very few facts and most of them useless without interpretation (and some still don't have really good explanations, see the Maya "eccentric flints").

[Ariarates]

After all, you are not even aware of the current Book of Mormon archeological writings of BYU faculty.

Allow me to specify this statement: I am somewhat aware of the current BoM archaeological writings; I am not aware, however, of BoM archaeological writings of BYU faculty in academic journals and the like. If I'm wrong, just give me the references.

A wiser approach might be to accept the real world facts which we all have to deal with, and not blame the victim of such one-sided practices. Is it fair to demand that Mormons fight with one hand tied behind them, and then to deny them an opportunity to fight -- saying falsely that they don't know how to fight anyway?? You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Nobody is tying anybody's hands here. You are free to submit your research to any academic journal you want (if you can find somebody who will pay you to do the research in the first place). If it's not accepted, it's not because you are being victimized or persecuted or discriminated against but because the research doesn't comply with the appropriate scientific submission standards. The reason why most journals probably won't even consider accepting a publication on BoM archaeology is that what you refuse to admit is obvious to the rest of the academic world, i.e. that the BoM is not a historical record.

You don't need to be a BoM expert to know that horses and elephants and chariots and steel swords and wheat and cattle etc. in the BoM timeframe go against everything we currently know about the history of the American continent. That's American archaeology 101. You have to solve the obvious errors first before people will look further. That's not denying you an opportunity to fight, that's telling you to stop fighting windmills.

I don't need to have my cake and eat it too. I have given up my cake some time ago. The BoM is not historical. It's the most logical conclusion I can honestly draw based on the current state of affairs in New World archaeology as I understand it.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Ariarates

[LeSellers]

When Should Non-Believers Take BOM Archaeology Seriously?

Sundays, from 9:00am~12:00m

Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, 7:00~9:00pm

Every night for 15 minutes immediately preceeding retiring.

Every morning for 15 mins on arising.

Lehi

Edited August 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ariarates]

Sundays, from 9:00am~12:00m

Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, 7:00~9:00pm

Every night for 15 minutes immediately preceeding retiring.

Every morning for 15 mins on arising.

Lehi

[Robert F. Smith]

Allow me to specify this statement: I am somewhat aware of the current BoM archaeological writings; I am not aware, however, of BoM archaeological writings of BYU faculty in academic journals and the like. If I'm wrong, just give me the references.

Nobody is tying anybody's hands here. You are free to submit your research to any academic journal you want (if you can find somebody who will pay you to do the research in the first place). If it's not accepted, it's not because you are being victimized or persecuted or discriminated against but because the research doesn't comply with the appropriate scientific submission standards. The reason why most journals probably won't even consider accepting a publication on BoM archaeology is that what you refuse to admit is obvious to the rest of the academic world, i.e. that the BoM is not a historical record.

You don't need to be a BoM expert to know that horses and elephants and chariots and steel swords and wheat and cattle etc. in the BoM timeframe go against everything we currently know about the history of the American continent. That's American archaeology 101. You have to solve the obvious errors first before people will look further. That's not denying you an opportunity to fight, that's telling you to stop fighting windmills.

The BoM is not historical. It's the most logical conclusion I can honestly draw based on the current state of affairs in New World archaeology as I understand it.

Here you directly contradict yourself.

On the one hand, you falsely claim that "nobody is tying anyone's hands," and "that you are free to submit your [book of Mormon] research to any academic journal you want," and you criticize Mormon scholars for not doing so and challenge some imaginary person to produce those non-existent articles.

At the same time, you openly admit that "the reason why most journals probably won't even consider accepting a publication on BoM archaeology is that . . . to the rest of the academic world, . . the BoM is not a historical record." Which is what I just finished explaining to you several times already is the reason and basis for the attitude of the editors of academic journals and is the reason why Coe and other non-Momorn scholars are not going to waste valuable time exploring an issue which they consider based on fantasy.

What I cannot understand is why you don't readily admit that you want to unfairly have your cake and eat it too. What is more, were you to actually take American Archaeology 101, you might find that the issues are a whole lot more complex than you imagine. Then you might also be prepared to have a real conversation or dialogue on the hard core issues. Till now you have refused to do that.

[Robert F. Smith]

My only gripe is with apologists downplaying (Meso)american archaeology to create wiggle room for BoM historicity. The only substantive difference, in my opinion, is writing; significant, but not to the extent that a proper knowledge base can't be established for American archaeology, if you ask me.

Edit: with all the caveats regarding Wikipedia (Americocentrism?), it lists 61 archeaological sites for Asia and 83 for the Americas :-)

I notice that you imagine that New and Old World archeology are on par with each other. They are not.

Not only do we have a direct continuity with the Classical Greco-Roman world in the form of deep knowledge of Latin & Greek languages, history, and architecture (in high school we read Julius Caesar's Gallic War, which is over 2000 years old), but the extensive literature and architecture of the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt have been studied in depth for over a century and a half. Vast sums have been spent on excavation and study of these Old World cultures, possibly because our Western civilization is based on the Classical world, and because the Bible is so heavily implicated in all those civilizations.

By comparison, New World archeology is in its infancy, and most of the excavations have actually taken place within the past half-century (the NWAF having done more excavation than any other entity). The depth of understanding of the languages is minimal, most of the literature having been deliberately destroyed by the Conquistadores, and the continuity with modern times is broken in so many ways that a true grasp of the pre-Classic cultures remains just out of reach. Money is not as readily available for the New World efforts as has been true of the Old World. There is just no legitimate comparison.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Ariarates]

Here you directly contradict yourself.

On the one hand, you falsely claim that "nobody is tying anyone's hands," and "that you are free to submit your [book of Mormon] research to any academic journal you want," and you criticize Mormon scholars for not doing so and challenge some imaginary person to produce those non-existent articles.

At the same time, you openly admit that "the reason why most journals probably won't even consider accepting a publication on BoM archaeology is that . . . to the rest of the academic world, . . the BoM is not a historical record." Which is what I just finished explaining to you several times already is the reason and basis for the attitude of the editors of academic journals and is the reason why Coe and other non-Momorn scholars are not going to waste valuable time exploring an issue which they consider based on fantasy.

What I cannot understand is why you don't readily admit that you want to unfairly have your cake and eat it too.

Hi Robert,

I can see why you think this is a contradiction, especially if you leave out the pertinent bits of what I wrote. What I mean is that "BoM archaeology" is not a science, and therefore it does not get published in scientific journals. This is not due to some inherent prejudice against Mormonism or the BoM, but because of a fatal flaw (from the perspective of science) in the concept of BoM archaeology (it not being real archaeology but faith-based speculation on archaeological topics).

So yes, you are free to submit papers on BoM archaeology, but no, they're not going to get published unless they meet the current standards of accepted archaeological research.

What is more, were you to actually take American Archaeology 101, you might find that the issues are a whole lot more complex than you imagine. Then you might also be prepared to have a real conversation or dialogue on the hard core issues. Till now you have refused to do that.

Yes, I agree that I refuse to talk about the more complex intricacies of American archaeology as long as we have a hord of elephants in the room that LDS archaeologists choose to ignore because if they don't, their whole house of cards would come tumbling down.

For example, I was reading one of the very few LDS-related references on John Clark's otherwise impressive vita yesterday, Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief . After the introduction he said: "Critical arguments specialize in listing things mentioned in the Book of Mormon that archaeology has not found. Rather than cry over missing evidence, I consider evidence that has been found". In consequence, the lecture does not address the the most obvious objections against BoM historicity (say, elephants, or wheat, or steel swords) but focuses instead on things that could be seen as supporting some minor details in the BoM narrative.

And even that is highly suspect. Look, for instance, at his discussion on "Metal Records in Stone Boxes":

"The first archaeological claims related to the Book of Mormon concern the purported facts of 22 September 1827: the actuality of metal plates preserved in a stone box. This used to be considered a monstrous tale, but concealing metal records in stone boxes is now a documented Old World practice.[19] Stone offering boxes have also been discovered in Mesoamerica,[20] but so far the golden plates are still at large—as we would expect them to be."

First of all, who considered this "a monstrous tale"? Is this a straw man? If not, why not include a few references (preferrably from the production time of the BoM, say 1823 to 1830)? Second, how does Clark make the jump from "a documented Old World practice" to the BoM? The fact that there were stone boxes both in the Old and New worlds (if true, what's with all the second-hand FARMS references?) means nothing in itself. Stone is a pretty ubiquitous material. This is not an established archaeological method, this is mere "parallellomania". And to top it off, he has to admit that "the golden plates are still at large - as we would expect them to be". And why would we expect them to be? Not because Moroni took them back, but because gold was not used in Mesoamerica during the BoM timeframe. That's the elephant in the room.

You need to get rid of the elephants first. If you bring up elephants in the BoM timeframe in American archaeology 101, you'll flunk, regardless of your knowledge of stone boxes.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Ariarates

[Ariarates]

I notice that you imagine that New and Old World archeology are on par with each other. They are not.

I guess I must be more clear on this. When archaeology emerged as a scientific discipline in the mid-19th century, it didn't merely focus on the Old World but also on the New. New World archaeology is not younger or less developed as a scientific discipline than Old World archaeology. That's what I was trying to say. Of course, in terms of what is available, there are big differences; mainly, like you indicate, because we have a lot of Old World writings and comparatively few pertaining to the New. I already said as much, so I hope this brings us on the same page.

Maybe I'm wrong (it's been known to happen), or the distinction is too far-fetched but my basic objection is against the apologist argument that New World archeaology is in its infancy and therefore all the evidence that would support BoM historicity may still be out there, undiscovered. Maybe it is, but you'd still have to deal with the evidence we do have already, which does not meaningfully support BoM historicity, except on a few minor, unrelated details in the realm of the highly unlikely, but still possible. That's as good as it gets for now.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Ariarates

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi Robert,

I can see why you think this is a contradiction, especially if you leave out the pertinent bits of what I wrote. What I mean is that "BoM archaeology" is not a science, and therefore it does not get published in scientific journals. This is not due to some inherent prejudice against Mormonism or the BoM, but because of a fatal flaw (from the perspective of science) in the concept of BoM archaeology (it not being real archaeology but faith-based speculation on archaeological topics).

So yes, you are free to submit papers on BoM archaeology, but no, they're not going to get published unless they meet the current standards of accepted archaeological research.

Thanks a lot, Ariarates, for the catch-22 and the apriori sequence of decisions (always inimical to real science). Constantly moving the goal posts is not playing according to Hoyle.

Like a jury that goes right out and hangs a defendant before hearing the evidence, you've decided before the fact that Book of Mormon archeology is by its very nature unscientific. That's lynch law, and has nothing to do with science, which depends on the objective analysis of facts. That doesn't mean that all archeologists agree, but only that they at least share some common assumptions about the nature of evidence and attempt to draw reasonable conclusions. Real science does not accept your double standard when it comes to fair consideration of the evidence.

Yes, I agree that I refuse to talk about the more complex intricacies of American archaeology as long as we have a hord of elephants in the room that LDS archaeologists choose to ignore because if they don't, their whole house of cards would come tumbling down.

So we are left with automatic rejection by you of any real dialogue and of any fair consideration of the actual evidence. Where does that leave sincere participants in a "dialogue and discussion board"? I am unaware of support for the claim you make that all "LDS archaeologists choose to ignore" "a horde of elephants in the room." Perhaps you'd like to support that false accusation. For example, have John Sorenson or Brant Gardner ignored anything in their writings on Book of Mormon archeology? CFR

Did you even bother to read the paper cited above written by Jon Daniels at Stanford? I didn't see him ignoring any issues, and he was only writing as a student still wet behind the ears. I thought his piece very fair, even if not sophisticated.

For example, I was reading one of the very few LDS-related references on John Clark's otherwise impressive vita yesterday, Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief . After the introduction he said: "Critical arguments specialize in listing things mentioned in the Book of Mormon that archaeology has not found. Rather than cry over missing evidence, I consider evidence that has been found". In consequence, the lecture does not address the the most obvious objections against BoM historicity (say, elephants, or wheat, or steel swords) but focuses instead on things that could be seen as supporting some minor details in the BoM narrative.

And even that is highly suspect. Look, for instance, at his discussion on "Metal Records in Stone Boxes":

"The first archaeological claims related to the Book of Mormon concern the purported facts of 22 September 1827: the actuality of metal plates preserved in a stone box. This used to be considered a monstrous tale, but concealing metal records in stone boxes is now a documented Old World practice.[19] Stone offering boxes have also been discovered in Mesoamerica,[20] but so far the golden plates are still at large—as we would expect them to be."

First of all, who considered this "a monstrous tale"? Is this a straw man? If not, why not include a few references (preferrably from the production time of the BoM, say 1823 to 1830)? Second, how does Clark make the jump from "a documented Old World practice" to the BoM? The fact that there were stone boxes both in the Old and New worlds (if true, what's with all the second-hand FARMS references?) means nothing in itself. Stone is a pretty ubiquitous material. This is not an established archaeological method, this is mere "parallellomania". And to top it off, he has to admit that "the golden plates are still at large - as we would expect them to be". And why would we expect them to be? Not because Moroni took them back, but because gold was not used in Mesoamerica during the BoM timeframe. That's the elephant in the room.

You need to get rid of the elephants first. If you bring up elephants in the BoM timeframe in American archaeology 101, you'll flunk, regardless of your knowledge of stone boxes.

First off, these "obvious objections" have been dealt with on many occasions, and the example of our not knowing about cultivated barley in the New World until the 1980s ought to be cause for some hesitation on other cultigens which have yet to be discovered. Moreover, in each case we need to cite the specific time-frame in which any such animals, plants, or technology were supposed to be present. Of course if you cannot put your overwhelming prejudices to the side for a moment, it makes no difference what the facts are.

Elephants are indeed mentioned early in Jaredite history (2nd millenniium BC) and never thereafter. Since we do not actually know when elephants finally went extinct in the New World, making an absolute judgment on this matter seems irresponsible. The same applies to other animals (including megafauna) which were not present on the arrival of the Spanish thousands of years later. You are certainly entitled to take the position of Ferguson and to ignore the evidence, but you ought at least to own up to it.

Clark's comments on the gold plates should be taken in the same context which we would have to take the Resurrection of Jesus. Yes, Jesus (and the plates) are not here, but that does not stop us from applying the ordinary canons of historical inquiry to other matters. We do, after all, have the Book of Mormon. Are there claims in the contents which can in fact be verified or falsified? Can we approach such an inquiry in a scientific way, and put aside our prejudices?

On metals, you are correct that we do not know of any gold being "used in Mesoamerica in the BoM timeframe." However, iron was used extensively in Mesoamerica (and South America) from long before the arrival of the Nephites, while gold and copper were later extensively used in Mesoamerica, and the sources of ore were at least available for earlier use. One very interesting theory (formulated by an LDS blacksmith back in the 1950s) has been that the gold plates of the Book of Mormon were composed of an alloy of copper & gold called tumbaga -- an alloy actually used in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, Central America, and exported to the Caribbean.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I guess I must be more clear on this. When archaeology emerged as a scientific discipline in the mid-19th century, it didn't merely focus on the Old World but also on the New. New World archaeology is not younger or less developed as a scientific discipline than Old World archaeology. That's what I was trying to say. Of course, in terms of what is available, there are big differences; mainly, like you indicate, because we have a lot of Old World writings and comparatively few pertaining to the New. I already said as much, so I hope this brings us on the same page.

Maybe I'm wrong (it's been known to happen), or the distinction is too far-fetched but my basic objection is against the apologist argument that New World archeaology is in its infancy and therefore all the evidence that would support BoM historicity may still be out there, undiscovered. Maybe it is, but you'd still have to deal with the evidence we do have already, which does not meaningfully support BoM historicity, except on a few minor, unrelated details in the realm of the highly unlikely, but still possible. That's as good as it gets for now.

Well, yes, archeologists who do work in the Americas are as good as archeologists anywhere else. However I know of no "apologist argument that New World archaeology is in its infancy." That is simply a fact based on a simple look at the amount of money and time which has been expended for the results which have been obtained. This will improve as time goes on, but cannot overcome the very real lack of continuity with the original civilizations as well as the lack of a full-scale literature -- even though inscriptions and pottery painted with symbols do have some historical value. In fact, Coe considers that painted pottery (found in burials) equivalent to the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead.

[Ariarates]

Thanks a lot, Ariarates, for the catch-22 and the apriori sequence of decisions (always inimical to real science). Constantly moving the goal posts is not playing according to Hoyle.

The goalposts that determine what is and is not science have been around for a few centuries by now. I'm not moving anything.

Like a jury that goes right out and hangs a defendant before hearing the evidence, you've decided before the fact that Book of Mormon archeology is by its very nature unscientific.

A decision which isn't difficult to reach. If BoM historicity is your starting point and you are looking for the evidence to confirm this, you are not doing science.

Real science does not accept your double standard when it comes to fair consideration of the evidence.

But practical science does. You can submit your evidence for a flat earth and, in all fairness, it should be considered before being rejected but that's just not going to happen. No use complaining about it and calling it unfair - it's just common sense.

So we are left with automatic rejection by you of any real dialogue and of any fair consideration of the actual evidence. Where does that leave sincere participants in a "dialogue and discussion board"?

Like me, any participant is free to choose which dialogues to engage in and how.

I am unaware of support for the claim you make that all "LDS archaeologists choose to ignore" "a horde of elephants in the room." Perhaps you'd like to support that false accusation.

I already quoted Clark doing just that and explicitly so.

First off, these "obvious objections" have been dealt with on many occasions

In the minds of apologists and other faithful maybe, not to non-LDS people. That's why it keeps getting brought up: because it obviously has not been adequately dealt with.

Elephants are indeed mentioned early in Jaredite history (2nd millenniium BC) and never thereafter. Since we do not actually know when elephants finally went extinct in the New World, making an absolute judgment on this matter seems irresponsible. The same applies to other animals (including megafauna) which were not present on the arrival of the Spanish thousands of years later. You are certainly entitled to take the position of Ferguson and to ignore the evidence, but you ought at least to own up to it.

I don't know what "the position of Ferguson" is but I do know what the position of contemporary archaeology is, i.e. that there were no large, domesticated animals in Mesoamerica in the BoM timeframe. You can keep hoping that they will be discovered someday but I personally won't hold my breath.

Clark's comments on the gold plates should be taken in the same context which we would have to take the Resurrection of Jesus. Yes, Jesus (and the plates) are not here, but that does not stop us from applying the ordinary canons of historical inquiry to other matters. We do, after all, have the Book of Mormon. Are there claims in the contents which can in fact be verified or falsified? Can we approach such an inquiry in a scientific way, and put aside our prejudices?

Yes, we can. It has been done. The verdict is clear to all except a marginal group of believers. It's not prejudice to decline beating a dead horse.

On metals, you falsely claim that "gold was not used in Mesoamerica in the BoM timeframe." In fact, gold, copper, and iron were extensively used in Mesoamerica (and South America) from long before the Nephites arrived.

I did not know that. In fact, I think it's not true.

One very interesting theory (formulated by an LDS blacksmith back in the 1950s) has been that the gold plates of the Book of Mormon were composed of an alloy of copper & gold called tumbaga -- an alloy actually used in Mesoamerica.

It's only interesting if you are determined to believe that when Joseph Smith spoke of gold plates, he actually meant tumbaga plates - in other words, if you are willing to twist words and meanings in a desparate effort to salvage your belief in BoM historicity.

[Ariarates]

However I know of no "apologist argument that New World archaeology is in its infancy."

You do it all the time. The argument goes like this: there may be little evidence for BoM historicity but New World archaeology is still in its infancy so a lot just hasn't been discovered yet

[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.

If it were one thing, that might be an accurate statement. But it has already been demonstrated that Joseph Smith from the backwoods was right about many things that people laughed over, not simply one thing or even very few things. I would also point out the issue of the voyage of Lehi as well.

It would be doubly amazing that someone could get so much right.

[thesometimesaint]

Ariarates:

The reality is that we are in the infant stage of Mesoamerican archaeology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantona_(Mesoamerican_site)

There are many studies and investigations, by multiple entities, it has been established that the ancient city was developed the Olmec or Chichimec culture, but the only safe conclusion reached so far is that a lot of investigation remains, because only 1 percent of the total of this archaeological area was investigated and the remaining 99 per cent is still under the grass, trees, soil and rocks.[8]

Edited August 17, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Robert F. Smith]

I did not know that. In fact, I think it's not true.

You are right. Thanks for the comment. I have edited and corrected my remarks as follows:

On metals, you are correct that we do not know of any gold being "used in Mesoamerica in the BoM timeframe." However, iron was used extensively in Mesoamerica (and South America) from long before the arrival of the Nephites, while gold and copper were later extensively used in Mesoamerica, and the sources of ore were at least available for earlier use by the Nephites. One very interesting theory (formulated by an LDS blacksmith back in the 1950s) has been that the gold plates of the Book of Mormon were composed of an alloy of copper & gold called tumbaga -- an alloy actually used in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, Central America, and exported to the Caribbean.

It's only interesting if you are determined to believe that when Joseph Smith spoke of gold plates, he actually meant tumbaga plates - in other words, if you are willing to twist words and meanings in a desparate effort to salvage your belief in BoM historicity.

In the case of tumbaga, the alloy treated with citric acid on the surface would leave only a gold surface, making the material still strong and pliable, but also easy to engrave at the surface. Gold for all practical purposes.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 17 August 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

However I know of no "apologist argument that New World archaeology is in its infancy."

You do it all the time. The argument goes like this: there may be little evidence for BoM historicity but New World archaeology is still in its infancy so a lot just hasn't been discovered yet

That New World archeology is in its infancy is not an apologetic claim, but is based on the fact of the amount of actual excavation having been done by now and the results of that excavation. I wish it were otherwise, just as I wish that Bishop Diego De Landa and other Spanish had not burned virtually all of the Maya books (codices), but we don't always get our druthers.

You seem to be claiming that imaginary widespread and extensive excavation in the New World is tantamount to what we have from the Old World, which is ridiculous.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[LeSellers]

It's only interesting if you are determined to believe that when Joseph Smith spoke of gold plates, he actually meant tumbaga plates - in other words, if you are willing to twist words and meanings in a desparate effort to salvage your belief in BoM historicity.

Words Joseph and others used were "the appearance of gold", or "golden" plates. It was a convenient shorthand to speak of "gold plates".

It's not at all a "twist" to see that "the appearance of gold" does not mean "gold" or that "golden" refers more frequently to color than to the elemental metal. In fact, gold plates would be singularly ineffective as a very long-term record since they would have deformed to an extent that the words engraven in them would become illegible.

The only plates of "pure gold" were those on which the Book of Ether were written. (Even then, there is no necessity of seeing them as being absolutely pure, i.e unalloyed, gold.) Moroni tells us, not that he lack "gold" to make plates, but that he lacks ore. Gold is usually found in ores with greater silver and copper content than that of the gold. Silver and copper are, interestingly, just the metals used in alloying gold to make tumbaga.

Lehi