Not so easy?

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel:

Mr. Hamblin has announced that he will not tolerate any discussion of the

[Addictio]

Hamblin said:

"Addictio obviously doesn't understand the challenge or what it can or cannot prove. (I note, triumphalistically, that Addictio made no attempt to respond either). I will not repeat the signficance."

Note that Hamblin's first sentence is unsupported by any argument. Not surprising; see below. His second sentence I can only interpret as comedy. Yes, there he is alright, as Goliath, beating on his shield, in triumph, and equally clueless. In his comic strength, Goliath need not repeat himself.

Hamblin goes on:

"As to the material culture of the Nephites: By what criteria does Addictio think we should be able to distinguish a Nephite pot from a Maya pot. Do Mormons eat on different porcelin than Baptists or Agnostics? Would Nephite houses be built of stone or would of a different cut?"

Really, has it come to merely this? It's hard to imagine that Hamblin is really this clueless. But yes, well, there it is. He seems to think that the debate is merely about ancient clay pots and -- if we can descend with him so far into mere frivolity -- whether Twenty First Century Mormons eat on different plates than Twenty First Century Baptists.

Why does Hamblin keep talking about clay pots? Because he knows the technology used to create them leaves no trace. But that's not what the debate is about. It's about, by way of example, why the Nephites reportedly used steel and other metals from the very beginning, and yet their production left no archaeological trace, in mesoamerica.

Ok. How should I draw a close to this painful spectacle? Hamblin is no help; he can only offer this:

" I'll refer [Addictio] to another challenge I made:

Distinguish between a pre-Babylonian Israelite and a Canaanite on the basis of material culture alone. How can you determine if a house or city in modern Israel-Palestine was inhabited by a Canaanite or an Israelite? If you think it is such a simple matter, go ahead, do it. No more posturing about how meaningless it is, just do it."

Turns out, we don't have to take Hamblin's bluster seriously. Obviously, in order to address the historicity of the BoM, we don't have to be able to trace whether a particular city or house in modern Palestine was inhabited anciently by Israelites or Canaanites. Good grief, why would anyone think so?

[Beowulf]

Good grief, Bill.

I was accused of misunderstanding your challenge. That may be. (But I don't think so.) Then the person accuses YOU of misunderstanding your own challenge.

I am flabbergasted. Can a person pose a puzzle that even he himself can't understand the point of?

This is getting too weird.

Beowulf

Your Khazar coin in Sweden reminded me of the beaten metal plate discovered in Denmark with an elephant god on it. How did it ever get there? And what does it mean about Denmark, about India (presumably), and about the connection everywhere in between. Without a text, who can tell?

Are you so much a fool, Addictio? Do you really think that steel swords are going to come popping out of the ground at common intervals? Do you know how rarely they are found even in places where they are KNOWN to have existed? No? Then before launching any more absurd little salvos, I suggest you read Bill Hamblin's piece on warfare and weapons in the BofM, in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

(sigh) I'm going to bed.

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Hamblin:

Vogel admits he has no real evidence for his fundamental thesis that JS is a pious fraud.[

I didn

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

My approach with the 19th century is to examine the rhetorical exchange between the text and its intended audience.

And such an approach is tailor made to answer questions about the 19th century audience and its experience with the text. It is not designed to determine the historicity of the text because it begins with an ahistoric assumption and examines that assumption inside the assumed context. Methods work for different purposes and if your purpose is to show how the LDS community developed their understanding of the Book of Mormon you have a good approach. If your intent is to discuss whether or not the text is historical, you are looking under a street lamp because the light is better there - if you are familiar with the old joke.

My observation is that a one-way interpretation seems to sidestep historicity issues.

Precisely - as I noted above. However, I sense that you weren't speaking of your method here?

It would seem that such a method could be used with any culture with apparent result.

If you are suggesting that any researcher might find what they are looking for - you are correct. That is, of course, a proclivity against which you must guard as well. As for my approach to the text, I am following the same ethnohistorical procedures I would for any text. For instance, there is a text called the Histoire du Mechique which is only known in French from the 1700's (if I remember correctly). Nevertheless, it claims to be a translation of a very early (mid 1500's) Spanish text that had first hand information about the Aztecs. How does one authenticate the text? It does contain information not available elsewhere, so the comparisons have to be made to the historical situation it describes. Comparing it to France in the 1700's is quite unproductive.

In dating a document, one does not simply look for similarities, but also for anachronisms.

Absolutely. Anything that appears to be anachronistic has to be examined carefully. However, one must be careful with the way anachronisms are used in the evaluation of a text because there are two legitimate ways in whcih anachronisms are inserted. The first is that the anachronism exists because of our faulty modern data/perspective. This happens when some feature of history that we suppose to be later is eventually confirmed to exist at an earlier date. This kind of thing happens with some regularity in archaeology - with some facet showing up earlier than expected. The recent discovery of the San Bartolo murals are a good case in point. They push both mural painting and glyphic writing earlier thn expected (and show a sophistication greater than expected at that early point).

The second issue of anachronisms comes from language. The KJV has a few anachronisms in its text. Fortunately we have originals to know that the anachronisms are not natural to the text but artifacts of the creation of the text in English. Nevertheless, they exist and it would be foolish to claim that the Bible was not ancient because it can be documented that it was translated in Jacobean England.

The BofM makes certain predictions about ancient America, and it

[Addictio]

I apologize to Bill Hamblin for the tone of my last post. He deserves better.

I don't have time right now to explore in detail the disconnect between the material culture described in the BoM for the Jaredites and Lehites and what is known about the Olmec and Maya. I'll have to return later and provide more content either on this thread or a new one.

(The problem with metallurgy, by the way, Beowulf, includes the lack of evidence for the mining, smelting and other processes which result in recognizeable traces and remains.)

Anyway, the point I'm making about Hamblin's "challenge" shouldn't be hard to grasp. Either the material-culture disconnect I'm adverting to exists, or it doesn't. If it does, then Hamblin's point about the lack of inscriptions or other evidence for the Nephite religion doesn't address it. Nor do his comments about the difficulty of distinguishing, for example, between Olmec and Jaredite pottery. As I expect Hamblin knows, the debate about the problem of metallurgy among the Jaredites and Lehites either must be argued on the merits, as it has been by Deanne Matheny and John Sorenson, or addressed in some other way, such as arguing, as Brant Gardner does, that BoM-references to metals ought not be taken at face value, because they are, or are likely to be, a result of the JS translation process.

[Bill Hamblin]

Anyway, the point I'm making about Hamblin's "challenge" shouldn't be hard to grasp. Either the material-culture disconnect [metallurgy] I'm adverting to exists, or it doesn't.

First, this is a different discussion. Essentially, if I understand you correctly, you agree with my point on religion and archaeology and the ambiguities of material culture. You therefore want to change to subject to metals and metallurgy. Now metallurgy is a legitimate topic, but it is not this topic. So, let's clarify things here first.

1- Do you agree that it is often (but by no means always) impossible to determine religion by archaeological evidence?

2- Do you agree that it is often very difficult to determine ethnicity, language, political boundaries, etc. by material culture alone? (That is, it is likely impossible to distinguish between a Nephite and non-Nephite solely on the basis of pottery, clothing, houses, buildings, fortifications, etc.)

[Bill Hamblin]

Kolobian

However, if you were to decide against Mr. Vogel's statements on face value, you would not have access to this kind of a reason for disregarding or modifying what he says about himself. My argument above is that he can make a limited kind of claim: one that justifies his mode of inquiry into (if not his particular theory about) the Prophet's history, but does not demand that he defend mind reading more generally.

This is simply special pleading: because we don't have any evidence we have to mind-read. It may be reasonable to presuppose that JS might be lying, as one possible alternative explanatory model. This does not, however, provide a license for mind-reading. What a real historian would say is simply we don't know what Joseph's motives were, what he was feeling, or why he behaved in a particular way. If we assume JS was lying, it doesn't tell us what the truth is, it simply tells us we don't (and can't) know what the truth is. Vogel's entire enterprise is based on the fallacy of the possible proof. There is absolutely no control on such a methodology, which leaves one free to speculate with reckless abandon.

[alienward]

Actually, we would know very little about Rome and its religion solely from archaeology and inscriptions.  At any rate, as I

[Beowulf]

Dan Vogel, thanks for additional clarification of JS letter to Nacny Rigdon and also your quote about D&C 19.

However, I am not convinced by your argument about either of these messages from Joseph Smith.

1. When the letter about polygamy includes the inserted phrase that you have highlighted "no matter what it is", I do not see this as sufficient evidence that JS routinely used deception in all his dealings. It is merely a turn of phrase in his letter, to emphasize the point he is making about polygamy.

2. D&C 19: This argument is curious. I thought your point was that Joseph Smith wrote the BofM as an anti-Universalist tract. (Do you subscribe to that view? Or not?) Then you say that, No he really did like Universalism, after all, and so wrote DC19 to tell us that punishment is not really forever after all. Is this not an argument that he DISAGREED with the BofM? If it is (and it sounded to me like it is) then JS did not write the BofM, after all.

Do you really want to stake out this position?

But I see that this latter point is really just a side-view to your main argument, later in DC19, that God sometimes makes things confusing for us. And therefore this is an allusion to pious fraud. (Is this a good sum-up?)

(I will acquire your book and read it by Christmas time, I promise.)

Beowulf

[Addictio]

Bill Hamblin said in part:

"Essentially, if I understand you correctly, you agree with my point on religion and archaeology and the ambiguities of material culture. You therefore want to change to subject to metals and metallurgy."

Not quite. What I was doing is "spotting you" the argument on the difficulty of identifying religion from certain kinds of archaeological evidence, and pointing out the limited work that the argument, even if successful, can do as far as the BoM is concerned. Btw, I was giving metalurgy as but one example of the disconnect between the BoM text and the material cultures I noted. I think this disconnect is most clear when we compare what is known about the actual material and technical culture of the Olmec with what the BoM reports about the Jaredites. Your argument, even if successful, does not, in my view, alleviate or resolve those problems. Hence, if you believe the argument does the work attributed to it by Beowulf -- i.e., it shows that arguments against the BoM based upon archaeological evidence are all misguided -- then we disagree, since I believe that to be a nonsequitur. (As I said, I'll return later and articulate the scope and severity of that disconnect.)

That said, let me turn to your questions.

"1- Do you agree that it is often (but by no means always) impossible to determine religion by archaeological evidence?"

No. And actually, I don't see the usefulness of this rather vague and general kind of contention, in the context of arguments about BoM historicity. (E.g., how often is often, and what counts as "determining" the religion?) Try focusing instead on something specific and highly relevant, like the Olmec religion. Has it been "determined," in your view? According to Diehl and others it has. (I'm relying principally here on his section on Olmec religion in his 2004 book The Olmecs.) It has been determined at least to the extent of concluding that they weren't monotheists and further, of identifying specific gods in their pantheon. (Incidently, I think Diehl's discussion also illustrates the weakness of arguing by or through purely hypothetical examples, like imaginary, unsuccessful versions of Christianity.) As you know, in the real world, both artifacts and hypotheses (like the Continuity Hypothesis in mesoamerican religion) work together, driven partly by what is discovered about earlier and later peoples. So, is there archaeological evidence for Olmec religion? Yes. Moreover, if Diehl correctly describes that religion, then we have yet another type of disconnect between the Olmec and the monotheistic Jaredites. (Or perhaps you think the BoM is not committed to the view that the Jaredites were monotheists? As I recall, there is no hint of any competing polytheism, or competing gods of any kind, only the secret combinations.)

Now is it possible that the Jaredites, unlike the Olmecs, inhabited the same general area for at least a thousand years and, contrary to the Olmecs, left no physical trace of their religion? I suppose so. But if so, in this they would be different from the very mesoamerican people with whom they are now most frequently identified or compared.

2- Do you agree that it is often very difficult to determine ethnicity, language, political boundaries, etc. by material culture alone? (That is, it is likely impossible to distinguish between a Nephite and non-Nephite solely on the basis of pottery, clothing, houses, buildings, fortifications, etc.)

I don't have time to address this question right now. I'll return and do it later, but it may take a while.

[cinepro]

This is not problematic to those who share DV's naturalistic world view. Even his presupposition that Joseph was lying, would make sense since any claims to naturalistic experiences would have relatively few naturalistic explanations (either the person is lying, mistaken, or delusional)

Wenglund, do you believe that some people who make supernatural or unusual claims may, in fact, be lying, mistaken or delusional? If so, what methodology do you use to discern the authenticity of their claims? Do you use a different methodology for claims that you want to believe, or for supernatural claims that contradict the supernatural claims in which you already believe?

I can't speak for Dan Vogel, but I don't think it's as simple as "not accepting the possibility of the supernatural". It's more like "recognizing that many supernatural claims are a result of someone lying, being mistaken, or being delusional." Therefore, some sort of criteria needs to be established to reduce the possibility of believing one of these false claims.

For example, in judging whether or not to believe in the gold plates, in might be helpful to become familiar with different hoaxes that have involved ancient artifacts. How are these hoaxes perpetuated? How do the purveyors of such hoaxes present themselves? What kinds of claims do they make? What causes people to fall for them? What approach is the most reliable for not falling for one?

Then, compare the situation of the gold plates, and the different reasons people believe in their authenticity.

For me, the claims of Joseph Smith regarding the gold plates are not convincing when compared to the claims of people who have perpetuated inauthentic evidence of supernatural claims. He may have been telling the truth, but I need a reason to believe him other than wanting to believe him. (And I don't consider good feelings that may or may not be from an entity called "The Holy Ghost" a reliable indicator of the authenticity of a claimed historical document.)

[Bill Hamblin]

"1- Do you agree that it is often (but by no means always) impossible to determine religion by archaeological evidence?"

No.

Then you should be able to produce evidence of early Christianity from archaeology alone, no? If you want I'll give you a list of a dozen different religions known from textual traditions which have left no noticable archaeological evidence. I'm sorry, you are simply wrong here. Most religious beliefs and practices cannot be understood from archaeology alone. This is a commonplace among historians of religions. Without texts we are lost.

So, is there archaeological evidence for Olmec religion? Yes. Moreover, if Diehl correctly describes that religion, then we have yet another type of disconnect between the Olmec and the monotheistic Jaredites. (Or perhaps you think the BoM is not committed to the view that the Jaredites were monotheists? As I recall, there is no hint of any competing polytheism, or competing gods of any kind, only the secret combinations.)

Actually, the Jaredite kings and people as a whole are generally described as wicked and are repeatedly condemned by the prophets. The Jaredites are explicitly condemned for their idolatry at Eth 7.23. Hence, the discovery of Olmec idols confirms the BOM, does it not? This sword has to cut both ways, no? You have to admit when the BOM scores a hit, no?

Here is the question you fail to consider. Why would an aniconic monotheistic religion necessarily leave archaeologically identifiable evidence of itself? If you insist that it must, we could start with Israelite monotheism. Show me the archaeological evidence of pre-Babylonian Israelite monotheism; then we'll talk.

Yes, we know a great deal about court religion of the Olmecs. Do you think that, unique among all the peoples in world history, there were not multiple forms of religiousity among the Olmec? Do you think that all the Olmecs worshipped exactly the same gods in exactly the same ways? Again, this would be unique in the annals of world religion. Do you realize there were multiple ethnic groups in ancient Mesoamerica? Do you realize that the Olmec court religion, which produced the iconic images which allow us some glimpse into Olmec religious thought, was probably a minority religion (i.e. court elites) among the population as a whole, and that the common people worshipped different gods in different ways than the elites?

The fact that we can know some things about some aspects of some religions does not mean we can know all things about all aspects of all religions.

[juliann]

The sentence that appears before your quote is crucial:

Perhaps you [Juliann] have good reason for saying this, but you do realize that those who do have training and credentials in NT say the same things that we untrained critics say?[/qhote]

The point is: if she doesn’t like what the critics are saying, we can always get someone with credentials to say it for us. If she was alluding to Ms Barker, then all she succeeding in showing is that the same methods can lead to different conclusions. The fact that she can find a Margaret Barker to support her views is beside the point. There are always going to be fringe scholars that one can draw on for a myriad of views. At some point, you must move beyond a clash of “experts” and deal with arguments and evidence. That Ms Barker’s work helps explain things Mormon is another matter altogether.

You have this really weird habit of launching my name into your conversations with others. I can't even remember the last time I have "alluded to Margaret Barker". What in the world does that have to do with anything? You just keep sticking your foot in it, Dan. Barker marginalized? Hardly. http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

And I have no doubt that you can find a number of credentialed scholars to support calling a belief system "history". We call them conservatives or evangelicals.

[Dr. Shades]

Bill Hamblin writes:

[W]e should not necessarily assume that Nephite religion should be apparent from the types of evidence that survive.

How long has it been since you've read the Book of Mormon? It doesn't describe the Nephites as merely a religious group. It also describes them as a mighty civilization.

I am not going to argue the LGT here.  It has been done to death.  The LGT is clearly superior in interpreting what the text of the BOM says.

Only with regard to square mileage. It doesn't help us at all with the DNA question.

(If Vogel wants another challenge, show me a single passage in the BOM that unequivocally demands a hemispheric geography.)

Helaman 3:8

And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.

Looks like we

[T-Shirt]

For me, the claims of Joseph Smith regarding the gold plates are not convincing when compared to the claims of people who have perpetuated inauthentic evidence of supernatural claims. He may have been telling the truth, but I need a reason to believe him other than wanting to believe him. (And I don't consider good feelings that may or may not be from an entity called "The Holy Ghost" a reliable indicator of the authenticity of a claimed historical document.)

Cinepro,

This statement, as well as others that you make, to me, seem odd in comparison to this statement you made on a previous thread about Paul Dunn:

Posted on: Oct 28 2004, 04:33 PM

I can still remember the first time I heard one of Paul H. Dunn's "stories". It was something about baseball, and he had no sooner started than I got this cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. The good feeling I had from the previous speaker was gone, and I felt sick. My dad leaned over and asked if I was OK, and I told him that I thought Elder Dunn wasn't telling the truth, because the spirit was manifesting it to me.

To this day, the stupor of thought that came over me keeps me from remembering what story it was. But I'll never forget the feeling of darkness, and emptiness. I felt the same feeling a few other times when listening to Elder Dunn.

At first I thought there was something wrong with me, so I was relieved when that reporter broke the story in the early 90's.

I've had the same feeling a few other times with other speakers or teachers, but until I can get confirmation from the news media, I'll keep it to myself. 

Why is it that here, you seem to recognize and trust the promptings of the spirit, but in most other situations you do not. If this experience was a lesson to you as to how the spirit works within us, why do you seem to reject it regarding the Book of Mormon and so many other things?

Just trying to understand.

T-Shirt

[Dunamis]

MOVED BOM CHALLENGE THREAD FOR BLACKSHEEP:

blacksheep Posted: Nov 16 2004, 01:06 PM

Newbie

Group: Members

Posts: 3

Member No.: 1,113

Joined: 16-November 04

Forgive me if I repeat points, I have not many of the posts after original post on this board.

Here is the major problem with the BoM challenge. Most old school Christians believe that God did preserve His church by some form of divine providence, thus we are here today. We take the fact that we are still around as a sign that he wanted this to happen. To even argue the point, Christians must take as a given that the fact that the church is around is not sufficient evidence that it is the true church.

Aside from that the challenge is lacking in another major area. It assumes that what did happen did not (i.e. the church didn't exist when it really did.) To argue this point is mere speculation. The biggest problem is that if it did happen much of the evidence would be wiped out. Who is going to save the remnants of a failed cult? If the church did not exist to preserve church history then there would be little evidence. (This could also be an argument for why there is a lack of Mormon evidence, but in that context it is incredibly weak.)

Wait there is yet another problem with the challenge. What constitutes evidence? Are the writings of the church fathers admissible? How about the bible? Can I use the information that was given to me by the angel Raphael? (bit of humor here, don't fly off the handle) The bigger point in this is: What can and can't I use, and why can/can't I use it? I would think that given the topic we are discussing the writings of the church fathers would be quite relevant. However if what you say happened I would not have those writings, and you could say they are corrupted. Archeological evidence would be nice, but in what context can we interpret it? I might say that an inscription that says "I never said you stole money." as stating that the person just implied you took the cash. However, you might contend that he is stating that you just borrowed the loot. I would of course reply "How dare you assume that the person speaking is a man." Do you see my point? It makes sense to me, but then again I haven't had my medication.

If this all is the case, the only definitive thing I can tell you is that I know nothing.

[Dunamis]

POST MOVED FOR RANDOM CATHOLIC

Bill Hamblin Posted: Oct 28 2004, 08:26 AM

[Brant Gardner]

Dr. Shades:

How long has it been since you've read the Book of Mormon? It doesn't describe the Nephites as merely a religious group. It also describes them as a mighty civilization.

How long has it been since you have read the Bible - or any other ancient history? One of the hallmarks of humanity is our ethnocentrism. Of course we could also suggest that men wrote the histories are were also naturally prone to some exaggeration. Nevertheless, we find in the Bible:

4 And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.

5 He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me:

6 Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.

(Numbers 22:4 - 6)

and

8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:

(Exodus 1:8 - 9)

In both of these cases Israel is described as a mighty people. Their own texts aggrandized them. However, in the history of that area of the world they were not nearly as important or mighty as they made themselves out to be.

Can you explain why you think the Book of Mormon description should be different from anything else real humans wrote?

([citing an earlier post:] If Vogel wants another challenge, show me a single passage in the BOM that unequivocally demands a hemispheric geography.)

Helaman 3:8

And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.

Good. We can now see how texts should be understood. Here we have people who began to "cover the face of the whole earth. How should we understand this? Dr. Shades puts forth the proposition that it should require a hemispheric reading. Consider applying that same logic to the following:

15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.

(Exodus 10:15)

Was the entire hemisphere covered with locusts?

17 But he repented not, neither his fair sons nor daughters; neither the fair sons and daughters of Cohor; neither the fair sons and daughters of Corihor; and in fine, there were none of the fair sons and daughters upon the face of the whole earth/b] who repented of their sins.

(Ether 13:17)

Is it really saying that no one in the entire hemisphere repented?

Why can these events be related to the whole face of the earth and not be hemispheric but the statement in Helaman must be hemispheric?

[sidewinder]

"Of course you couldn't. Thanks for making my point. There are many things archaeology can tell us. But there are many, many more things it cannot."

Yes, I did make your point I agree, by offering a far out theory about egypt, and supporting it by constructing a rediculous challenge. I just don't believe it's a very good point. Let me put it yet another way:

You claim there was a crime. Then you claim all evidence of the crime has been erased. And then you challenge those skeptical of a crime ever taking place, to reconstruct any number of well documented crimes, given that there was never any evidence for those crimes. It's just not pinned-to-the-top-of-the-message-board material.

As aliens could have built the pyrimids, nephits might have built the citidels. What you're basically saying is that skeptics are making unrealistic demands to verify the BOM because for all practical purposes, it's unverifiable. Of course, that cuts both ways, and FARMS should just go home too if this is the case. But actually, the meat of the skeptical challenge to my understanding, hinges on falsification. Ok, we don't have to wait for Zarahemla to be unearthed, perhaps the BOM can be falsified. And that's where the discussion of steel (as I earlier) and Addictio has brought up comes in. Unfortunately, no, if evidence of steel production is found, it does not help verify the claims of the BOM. But the clear lack of steel, could easily deal the blow of falsification. Sure, it sucks to be in that position, it doesn't seem fair. But that's the way it is. Fortunately, I'm not in that position. Nor are any other skeptics to my knowledge.

And that's where theories like Brant's come in. Well, "steel" doesn't mean "steel." And sure that's possible. But it sure does reek of moving in the direction of unfalsifiability. And sure, it just may be that the BOM is not only unverifiable, but unfalsifiable. There is no rule that says things that meet those creteria are false. But then again, if ones theory is not only unverifiable, but unfalsifiable, then life really is going to suck with the skeptics. But it ain't the skeptic's fault.

[Bill Hamblin]

What you're basically saying is that skeptics are making unrealistic demands to verify the BOM because for all practical purposes, it's unverifiable.

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you are talking about. (Actually, the problem you are referring to is probably unfalsifiability, not unverifiability.) What we are saying is that the there are limits to what can be known from archaeology. Do you disagree? We are saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (a phrase anti-Mormons should be forced to repeat in rosary-like fashion twenty times a day). Do you disagree?

You are also ignoring the vast array of positive evidence that supports the text of the BOM. There are at least four data sets that need to be examined for evaluating the question of antiquity of the BOM:

1- Ancient Near East archeology

2- Ancient Near East textual tradition

3- Ancient Mesoamerican archaeology

4- Ancient Mesoamerican ethno-historical tradition (there are almost no Mesoamerican texts available from BOM times, requiring we use anthropological and ethno-historical methods, which can provide broad patterns, but not specific individuals, times, places, etc.)

(There is also the nineteenth century context, of course.)

1- Now from ANE archaeology we have discovered place names (like Nahom) and numerous authentic ANE personal names that match those of the BOM

2- from ANE textual tradition, we have discovered numerous astonishing parallels with BOM, with more coming all the time

3- Mesoamerican archaeology we have had limited success, though not a complete absence of interesting items

4- Mesoamerican ethno-history has also provided numerous rich insights (see work by Sorenson and Gardner, whose book on the internet is a MUST READ for anyone serious about the topic)

So why is it the critics always insist on discussing only Mesoamerican archaeology? Why ignore the other three sets of data for comparative study? Whenever these remarkable successes of the BOM are raised, they are ignored by the critics. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of BOM apologetics, it is impossible to claim that we have failed to engage head-on the major criticisms against the BOM. On the other hand, the anti-Mormons have not only rarely engaged the numerous remarkable successes of BOM studies in the past three decades, they have, for the most part, both failed to even try, and worse, to even acknowledge that such studies exist. The stunning failure of the critics to even acknowledge the existence of positive data supporting the BOM is quite remarkable.

So, it is not a case of the benighted foolish Mormons rejecting all rationality and evidence to mindlessly maintain faith in an obviously fraudulent book. Rather, there is a great deal of positive evidence supporting the authenticity of the BOM. Overall, the argument from complexity is a compelling one.

[Bill Hamblin]

Shades,

Brant got it exactly right, as usual.

[Dr. Shades]

Bill Hamblin writes:

You are also ignoring the vast array of positive evidence that supports the text of the BOM. . . Whenever these remarkable successes of the BOM are raised, they are ignored by the critics. . . [T]here is a great deal of positive evidence supporting the authenticity of the BOM.

Is any of this "positive evidence" acknowledged as such by non-Mormons?

[Brant Gardner]

Sidewinder:

And that's where theories like Brant's come in. Well, "steel" doesn't mean "steel." And sure that's possible. But it sure does reek of moving in the direction of unfalsifiability.

I have no confidence in a statement that obviously pulls a topic out of context and clearly ignores the larger arguments. The statement is doubly ironic since the types of information I am looking at in the text falls much more strongly into that which may be tested than does a word in English that may or may not represent the original word (see steel in the KJV, swaddling clothes and candles as items that do not really represent the underlying words).

The task of an ethnohistorian or historian is to deal with the whole set of available data. Historical data are seldom pretty - they present data both easy and difficult to deal with. That does not diminish the responsibility to deal with the whole set of data. Most theories have some contradictory data and a good theory explains where the contradictory data fit and why they do not invalidate the theory. So sidewinder would have me sacrifice data that are significant on the altar of data that are known to be questionable. Perhaps sidewinder would be able to give us the reason why Nahom isn't Nahom - the tight fit of the description of the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful and the real world is really aa coincidence - why Book of Mormon political structures don't fit the posited republican models but match very well with Mesoamerican models - and many more.

If one is going to posit a solution to the Book of Mormon they are required to deal with the whole set of data. Pulling out one piece of information is the intellectual equivalent of a single McDonald's french fry. It might seem to taste good - but it isn't enough and it isn't a real meal.

[Bill Hamblin]

Is any of this "positive evidence" acknowledged as such by non-Mormons?

Shades' unfailing contribution of sneering from the sidelines is as helpful as ever. (Not to mention the fact that it is the classic ad hominem: if Mormons believe it, it can't be true.)

But to answer the question (which should be obvious): yes, every bit of evidence put forth by LDS is accepted by non-Mormons. In fact, most of it is based on non-Mormon discoveries. For example, the place name at Nahom was discovered by (I think) German archaeologists and published in standard non-Mormon scholarly publications. The evidence is universally accepted.

What is disputed is the interpretation of the implications of this data for LDS studies, and the significance of those implications. But that is the essence of scholarly dispute everywhere.

The very fact that Shades asks such a question indicates he can't distinguish between evidence and interpretation. Which means his opining on such matters is none too relevant.