Book Of Mormon Archaeology

[Kevin Christensen]

Yes. For that era, there are few cities that developed in a grand way in the Mesoamerica region. The two I named are the prime examples. I would be happy to know others. Not yet. It's blocked for some reason at work. I'll have to view it at home.

Brant talks about the relationship between Teotihuacan and the Book of Mormon populations here:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Gadianton_Robbers_in_Mormons_Theological_History.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[cryophil]

When the Lehite boat showed up, there were millions of people in the Americas, in the relevant area, mostly dwelling in small villages. That is clear. What impact do expect a handful of families to have on the material culture?

SNP

It is clear, from science. But definitely not clear from the BoM. It's beside the point however, since even a small group should leave evidence (hence the Norse sailor discussion) and DNA. Dilution of DNA is not as big of a factor as FAIR would have us believe, not for many cases. For example, a 2006 study reports DNA-based research linking DNA retrieved from a single 10,000-year-old tooth off an Alaskan island, with existing, specific coastal tribes in Tierra del Fuego, Ecuador, Mexico, and California. Unique DNA markers found in the fossilized tooth were found only in these limited and specific coastal tribes, and were not comparable to markers found in any other indigenous peoples in the Americas. (Ref: “Genetic analysis of early Holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas”, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 132(4), 605-621 (2007).)

I realize that we don't have Lehi's or Sarah's DNA, but we do know Mulek was Jewish royalty and that DNA is well understood, both in mtDNA and in Y-DNA. Yet, none match in native Americans, living or the remains tested so far.

I disagree with the reading here, and the expectation that 3 and 4 Nephi led to a Nephite-only continent, or even a large region extending as far as Teotihuacan. The events in 3 Nephi 11-28 concern a few thousand people at most at land Bountiful, which is near the Narrow neck and a beach on the sea east. And only a few generations pass before their society begins to break down. It happens that Sorenson has talked about evidence for a relatively classless society in the area for a while at the right time and place, and then social differentiation showing up later.

SNP

A few thousand people in the middle of a very abruptly destroyed region (even if or especially if limited--a lot of destruction in a small region!?) that rose out of the ashes to form utopia would stand out against the other cultures like a huge sore thumb. A few dozen norse sailors sure did, so I have the fullest expectation that this should too.

We are going round and round here. I have my questions these days. I am not sure they can be answered. It may be that I will have to accept the BoM as fictional moral teachings. That's a lot easier than to accept science is just wrong, and FAIR's interpretations are more scholarly.

[Brant Gardner]

cyophil:

I am curious. So far you have adamantly stated positions on what the Book of Mormon means for which there is very good contrary evidence. You have suggested that your understanding of issues of DNA are better than several who have PhDs in the subject. You are quite sure you know what hasn't been found concerning the Book of Mormon peoples, but I see no indication that you can define what it is so that you would know it when you see it.

I'm not sure how we can help you with your questions if you have already made up your mind before asking them. I haven't seen any issue you have brought up that doesn't have an excellent answer. I also haven't seen any indication that you would like to hear that answer. So I am curious. Are you asking questions to find an answer or to show us what you think you have found as an answer? If you are interested in learning, there are lots of things we can talk about. If you are not interested in learning, there is no reason for the talking.

[volgadon]

I realize that we don't have Lehi's or Sarah's DNA, but we do know Mulek was Jewish royalty and that DNA is well understood, both in mtDNA and in Y-DNA. Yet, none match in native Americans, living or the remains tested so far.

Do we have Davidic DNA?

[cryophil]

cyophil:

I am curious. So far you have adamantly stated positions on what the Book of Mormon means for which there is very good contrary evidence. You have suggested that your understanding of issues of DNA are better than several who have PhDs in the subject. You are quite sure you know what hasn't been found concerning the Book of Mormon peoples, but I see no indication that you can define what it is so that you would know it when you see it.

I'm not sure how we can help you with your questions if you have already made up your mind before asking them. I haven't seen any issue you have brought up that doesn't have an excellent answer. I also haven't seen any indication that you would like to hear that answer. So I am curious. Are you asking questions to find an answer or to show us what you think you have found as an answer? If you are interested in learning, there are lots of things we can talk about. If you are not interested in learning, there is no reason for the talking.

Seriously Brant? You want to get into a PhD contest? Where do you truly believe the majority of anthropological DNA experts line up? On the LDS side? There must be hundreds of new converts, if posters here think the evidence is so one-sided. Why do you believe you know in what area I have my doctorate and that I am unqualified to speak on certain matters?

The answers you seem to be giving contradict often the established teachings of the general authorities, apostles and first presidencies of the LDS church. At least those that spoke on these issues. Currently they have stopped (abruptly) doing so.

I'm asking as a final, last ditch effort to see if there are answers that make sense. I doubt it now. What I've seen are answers which re-interpret the scriptures on opinions, often contrary to the spoken word of GAs. What I've seen are compartmentalized, isolated fits of indirect evidence to obscure parts of the BoM. What I've seen is dissembling on the areas in which a traditional reading of the BoM run completely orthogonal to scientific data. I don't really get the sense that the whole truth is examined by this forum or at FAIR. I get the impression that some truths are not very useful, so goes the cherry picking.

[cryophil]

Do we have Davidic DNA?

Genetic Diversity Among Jews by Batsheva Bonn-Temir and Avinoam Adam, Oxford University Press, 1992, chapter 4 is titled Types of Mitochondrial DNA among Jews.

Studies found that mtDNA variability from Jewish women was smaller than among other population (including Caucasian, Asian, Australian,African). Interestingly, they found that Native Amerindians have lower mtDNA heterogeneity values / variability. A lot of work in Jewish mtDNA focuses on Ashkenazic Jews, which have 14 different mtDNA types.

See also,

http://www.davidicdynasty.org/dna.php

The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event

http://www.familytre...43026_Doron.pdf

MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population

http://www.familytre...004%20mtDNA.pdf )

For paternal matching (think of recent advances in admixture studies) see:

http://www.familytre...x?group=Davidic

Edited October 27, 2011 by cryophil

[Brant Gardner]

Seriously Brant? You want to get into a PhD contest?

Why yes. From your comments, I believe you are not blessed with that particular degree. There are those who know what they are talking about and they disagree with your assessment. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't side with science?

Where do you truly believe the majority of anthropological DNA experts line up?

Now that is a very interesting question because you think you know the answer. However, the answer would be very different from your assumption. If you give any competent geneticist the same question that the LDS scientists have examined (and leave out anything about religion so we don't have to worry about coloration) they would side with the LDS scientists, and for the same reasons that they have stated. They have science behind them.

There must be hundreds of new converts, if posters here think the evidence is so one-sided.

Your sarcasm is showing. It would be better to show your education. You are confusing the scientific issues with the religious ones. I am not at all certain you understand either of the issues. I have seen no evidence of any understanding from your comments.

Why do you believe you know in what area I have my doctorate and that I am unqualified to speak on certain matters?

Actually, I'm hoping that my guess that you don't have one is correct--or at least that it isn't in anything related to any hard science, history, anthropology, or archaeology. So far, I have seen no evidence of any expertise in any of those areas.

The answers you seem to be giving contradict often the established teachings of the general authorities, apostles and first presidencies of the LDS church.

And now you are an authority on theology? Chalk up another field where I sincerely doubt that you have done much reading. Your statement is theologically problematic and historically untenable. Wouldn't you think that you should be consistent? If you wish to insist on actual history and science, wouldn't it be prudent to actually follow some evidence rather than make such broad assertions?

At least those that spoke on these issues. Currently they have stopped (abruptly) doing so.

Your criticism of the brethren is noted. Please note that I do not share it.

I'm asking as a final, last ditch effort to see if there are answers that make sense. I doubt it now.

That is supposed to sound like an actual attempt to learn something? It really doesn't. It doesn't bother you at all that most of the statements you have made are demonstrably incorrect? You have no desire to actually learn something through study?

What I've seen are answers which re-interpret the scriptures on opinions, often contrary to the spoken word of GAs.

In my old High School debate days I would be pointing out that this is an entirely new argument that has not yet been presented. Now I will just note that you have supported that assertion either. Are you suggesting that it is required that Latter-day Saints believe the General Authorities to be inerrant? Are you suggesting that you fully understand the statements you think they have made (I suspect you haven't read Armand Mauss on things like the use of Lamanite in LDS history). Scriptures are always subject to re-interpretation--even Nephi said to apply them to current understanding. However, I haven't talked about reinterpreting, but rather reading them more closely. You are of the opinion that Christ appeared in Bountiful very soon after his resurrection. I understand that you aren't the only one. However, I'm not sure how you deal with Mormon's statement that it was a year later. I think I'll trust Mormon on this one.

What I've seen are compartmentalized, isolated fits of indirect evidence to obscure parts of the BoM.

You have hardly seen anything, and dismissed what you have seen without any actual understanding. You are free to do so, but to suggest that it is the fault of the evidence when you haven't engaged the evidence is a bit thin. Remember, you were the one trying to find sources. I can tell you what the sources are and I have read them. If you don't even know the sources, then I can be quite sure you haven't read them, and therefore your conclusion is based on way too little information.

What I've seen is dissembling on the areas in which a traditional reading of the BoM run completely orthogonal to scientific data.

Let's unpack this statement, shall we? The Book of Mormon claims to be an authentic document from antiquity, translated into English in 1829-30. What we want (and expect) is that basic scientific data should back that up. There is much that does, but it requires using principles of history and archaeology together to do that--exactly what we would want to do with an document claiming ancient provenance.

So, you seem to be suggesting that while there is scientific data, that it contradicts "a traditional reading." That seems to beg the question. It isn't contrary to the text, but only to a way that the text has been read. Therefore, you aren't saying anything about the Book of Mormon, but rather about its readers. Since you have perpetuated some of those readings and use them to attempt to see contradictions, I suggest that you are also having problems with "a traditional reading" rather than the text itself. If you would like to use the elements of science, begin with anthropology and particular ethnohistory. Learn about how people write texts. There are some excellent books and articles enriching the history of the Bible (and providing deeper understandings that "traditional readings").

I don't really get the sense that the whole truth is examined by this forum or at FAIR.

An example, please? Or are you suggesting that the only possible truth is that which agrees with you? Let me suggest something, take a step back and begin with any topic you have raised, and let's actually discuss it. I would be happy to look at the whole truth. At the moment, I am absolutely convinced that on the topics you have raised I have read both sides much more extensively than you have, so I really wouldn't mind the examination. I would suggest, however, that we start backing up what we are talking about with some data. Your assumptions become assertions and that makes actual discourse difficult.

I get the impression that some truths are not very useful, so goes the cherry picking.

You have mentioned this several times, and in spite of the responses, you repeat it again. Please define for us how a historian or ethnohistorian goes about the task of history so as to avoid the cherry picking you suggest. Then we can apply those ideas to some documents where you believe the cherry picking has occurred. That should clarify things, don't you think?

[cryophil]

Brant, most of your response is to pick at me personally ad-hominem style. As for the DNA issues, you make claims while disparaging me, but provide no data, no quotes, no references to back up. You just state authority on the matter, and claim I have none. Yet, I have given references and quotes and shown how there are data to back up specific DNA matching from 10Kya in a single sample to many modern samples. LDS "geneticists" can't find the match anywhere using the entire davidic, cohanim or other jewish DNA databases. Mulek's line, even a small number of descendents, should show--would show in similar manner to a match of one from 10Kya... There are many examples of this kind of work out there. There is abundant data on thousands of samples showing no match to LDS claims. Again, if Lehi is a questionable source, use Mulek's lineage as a model to match.

As for confusing the scientific issues with religious ones, the bottom line is, the BoM makes highly specific claims which can be tested by physical data and are found very lacking. The confusion is when apologists try to convince lay members that their pet hypotheses used to explain the disparity are not mere hypotheses, but better gospel truth than statements by the church founder and subsequent prophets. Using a physical-based hypothesis and dismissing statements by leaders as "speaking as men only" is a confusion of science and religion. Me thinks you project.

The dissembling/partial truth statements I made come from when I see apologists actually making arguments that I believe they know aren't true. For example, when the BoM says horses, apologists say it really means a deer or a tapir or some other animal. That Joseph translated to what he was familiar with--as if Joseph Smith couldn't translate the meaning to deer, bore, or a closer animal than that of a horse. When I see apologists make these kind of arguments, I truly believe they are snickering to themselves. Do they really believe this or are they just making an argument to pacify anxious lay members?

The examples of cherry picking--a simple one--Saying that the geography is in Mesoamerica and then forcing the N/S map to run E/W across the ithmus, and finding isolated matches to cities while ignoring glaring holes such as human sacrifices in most major cities of that area and era when it was supposedly put on hold in 4 Ne.

As for the GAs being inerrant, I suggest that if GAs are the humble, only-human men of calling, and if apologists really have it right, then I have to believe truthful, humble leaders will declare it so. They won't and don't. They generalize and avoid, leaving the apologists to wander alone. You're not supported by them in intellect. Just in money. That smacks of hidden agenda (dissembling) by leaders. The more I see their actions, contrasted by apologists, the less I believe they're anything remotely close to inerrant.

Edited October 27, 2011 by cryophil

[ERayR]

Also, I get the impression from many of you that the best explanation for the lack of direct, abundant evidence is that the Nephites/Lamanites were mixed heavily with existing pre-Jaredite populations (presumably via migrations from NE Asia circa 12,000 years ago).

If the Nephites mixed so well that their culture, their art, their biology are hidden to modern archaeology, linguistics, DNA, entomology (body/head lice, gut worms, etc), then it seems we are claiming they were completely absorbed by those cultures.

But to be absorbed so well to be hidden means to me that their religion could not have survived either. But 4 Ne shows clearly the post-destruction of "others" resulted in a Christian-only society which expanded in size and culture like no other society in known history. If that rising out of the ashes of the single-day, wrathful destruction does not yield significant evidence, I don't know that archaeology can claim to be fruitful in any dig.

Where, then, is the problem--with the text or with science?

You are projecting things to the BOM that are not there.

[volgadon]

Genetic Diversity Among Jews by Batsheva Bonn-Temir and Avinoam Adam, Oxford University Press, 1992, chapter 4 is titled Types of Mitochondrial DNA among Jews.

Studies found that mtDNA variability from Jewish women was smaller than among other population (including Caucasian, Asian, Australian,African). Interestingly, they found that Native Amerindians have lower mtDNA heterogeneity values / variability. A lot of work in Jewish mtDNA focuses on Ashkenazic Jews, which have 14 different mtDNA types.

See also,

http://www.davidicdynasty.org/dna.php

The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event

http://www.familytre...43026_Doron.pdf

MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population

http://www.familytre...004%20mtDNA.pdf )

For paternal matching (think of recent advances in admixture studies) see:

http://www.familytre...x?group=Davidic

Right, to answer my question, we don't have Davidic DNA. Tshuvah tzfuyah merosh

[altersteve]

We are going round and round here. I have my questions these days. I am not sure they can be answered. It may be that I will have to accept the BoM as fictional moral teachings. That's a lot easier than to accept science is just wrong, and FAIR's interpretations are more scholarly.

Science is not wrong. It is never wrong, being an eternal law of God. What is wrong is our understanding of it.

As far as I can tell, there are two options here. You can question and challenge what scientists are saying — scientists who are probably not using the promptings of the Spirit in their research — or you can question what the Holy Ghost has said about the Book of Mormon containing not only a literal history of a remnant of the house of Israel but also the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not simply "fictional moral teachings."

For me, that's an easy decision to make. Because I hope you understand that if the Book of Mormon is simply "fictional moral teachings," then the golden plates never existed, Joseph Smith never saw the Father and the Son, and he was thus one of the biggest frauds the world has ever seen, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the Church of Jesus Christ. There's no middle ground here. Either the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be, or it's a book of "fictional moral teachings" created by a man who was nothing more than a liar.

So which is it?

Edited October 27, 2011 by altersteve

[cryophil]

Right, to answer my question, we don't have Davidic DNA. Tshuvah tzfuyah merosh

For starters, we should find:

J (J1/J2) Y-haplogroup

G Y-haplogroup

R1b (R1b1/b2) haplotype

I believe that these are close enough to Davidic lines, and all Israel bloodines, that Mulekites would carry subtypes of these. A prince's descendants from a founder ~2500ya would show up in bloodlines today, given how sensitive DNA matching is now (hence my example showing the DNA match from 10Kya). We don't need exact DNA, just the right subgroups, which we know.

You can question and challenge what scientists are saying — scientists who are probably not using the promptings of the Spirit in their research — or you can question what the Holy Ghost has said about the Book of Mormon containing not only a literal history of a remnant of the house of Israel but also the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not simply "fictional moral teachings."

For me, that's an easy decision to make. Because I hope you understand that if the Book of Mormon is simply "fictional moral teachings," then the golden plates never existed, Joseph Smith never saw the Father and the Son, and he was thus one of the biggest frauds the world has ever seen, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the Church of Jesus Christ. There's no middle ground here. Either the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be, or it's a book of "fictional moral teachings" created by a man who was nothing more than a liar.

So which is it?

You're right. Scientists are often purely evil beings. In my lab, you should see the *gasp* alcohol distiller we created out of protein gel column separation units. And don't get me started on how and where we use pipettors... In all, I remember the discoverer of planet HD 85512 b is a wicked man--easily a satan worshiper. And the inventor of super-strained lattices? That guy can party! Scientists and all their evil results in the abundant technology around us are hardly inspired. Everything we have in medicine and in biology is evil, as in evilution.

Gordon B. Hinckley said something like this too. I don't doubt that eventually it will be one or the other.

I guess that would bring up my next question, for another thread, about what is the Holy Ghost really...(Assuming my comments already don't get me banned).

[cryophil]

... let me look at your point about the destruction in a single day. While the text appears to say that, what is the reasonable association between the text and the events? Was the author in a position to have first-hand knowledge? If not, what reports told the author of the destruction, and how long after the fact? Is there evidence that any of the dating would be correct?

Did not Mormon compile it from records on metal sheets that had been passed down from generation to generation? We have BoM prophet after prophet explaining that they had received the plates from the previous author. They dated their entries based on how long after Lehi had left, or from the Rule of the Judges, etc. Seems to me to be accurate.

The actual metal sheets, written by people who witnessed the destruction first hand. These had been passed down from the time of the event. Mormon had that record, that was his report. He compiled the story about the single day destruction from a first hand source. Are you saying the first hand source can't be trusted? Are you saying Mormon's compilation is questionable?

The actual individual plates were written on at the time of the event. Those original plates were the source documents that Mormon had. Are we now questioning if they were authentic? You seem to believe that the Book of Mormon was written long after the events but ignore that the first hand sources were supposed to be in the possession of Mormon. Mormon used the original writings. That is what made the metal plates unique in the world. Paper, parchment, wood, etc. may not survive 1,000 years and still be readable. The metal plates provided a medium that would. Are we not to trust the dating of individual metal sheets that were passed down from the time of the actual event? Are we not to trust Mormon's compilation of these original source documents?

Plus my point still stands about the destruction of >12 cities happening at the crucifixion and before the resurrection narrows the window to a few days. We can date that three days to about +/-5 years within the consistency of biblical study. I realize some people don't accept the bible and the story of Jesus as real or accurate, but for these BoM events to be accepted, one must first trust the biblical account to be fairly truthful.

All of these are standard questions that are asked of historical documents, but usually left unasked of the Book of Mormon because it is a religious text and therefore must be correct as stands.

What historical documents in the world today can claim to be written on metal sheets at the time of each event, then each sheet passed down to future generations? What historical writings today can claim to be a 1,000 year collection of first hand source documents, recorded on metal to prevent the ravages of time from destroying the originals? If any collection of historical events were recorded in this way and available for someone to compile from, the "standard questions" would not be asked. The original documents would speak for themselves. Unless the compiler (Mormon in this case) is not to be trusted.

Actually, there are indications in the text that what we get in the destructions are the result of an accumulation of various reports coming about a year later, and the account being written later than that.

If the mass destruction happened in one day (or even over a period of several months), you say the reports from the locations came in about a year after. How much later than that was the account written? 10 years? 50 years? The reports within a year of the event should be accurate even if compiled 50 years after it happened. That's a short blip in archaeology scale.

Even if it was not a single day event, a wide spread destruction happening in various locations within a one year period would jump out of the archaeological recordand bite scientists in the eyes. The window of time is too narrow for it not to be detected with utmost ease. The event in such a short interval would be seen if the original reports were accurate. Even if it happened over a period of one year and not a single day. Or maybe the reports coming in were not to be trusted entirely either? These are serious allegations against original source documents made here by Brant. Me thinks you might be dissing the BoM prophets, Brant.

Then we have the possibility/probability that Mormon edited these stories to enhance his main point (a well known practice for ancient historians).

To enhance? Embellish?

That might be a practice for ancient historians who did not have the originals on hand. But Mormon had the original documents. Unlike other ancient historians who first put into writing the oral histories passed down, Mormon had the actual writings made by the hands of those who witnessed the events. This is significantly different than any other ancient historians. In fact, it is a unique claim that a collection of original sources spanning a 1,000 year period were kept on a material that would not rot or deteriorate over that thousand year interval. Brant, you suggest that it was not a single day event, but that Mormon embellished it to enhance his point. What reputable compiler would do that with the original manuscripts sitting on the table in front of him? Especially one so favored by the Lord. Me thinks you're dissing the prophets again.

Edited October 27, 2011 by cryophil

[altersteve]

For starters, we should find:

J (J1/J2) Y-haplogroup

G Y-haplogroup

R1b (R1b1/b2) haplotype

I believe that these are close enough to Davidic lines, and all Israel bloodines, that Mulekites would carry subtypes of these. A prince's descendants from a founder ~2500ya would show up in bloodlines today, given how sensitive DNA matching is now (hence my example showing the DNA match from 10Kya). We don't need exact DNA, just the right subgroups, which we know.

You're right. Scientists are often purely evil beings. In my lab, you should see the *gasp* alcohol distiller we created out of protein gel column separation units. And don't get me started on how and where we use pipettors... In all, I remember the discoverer of planet HD 85512 b is a wicked man--easily a satan worshiper. And the inventor of super-strained lattices? That guy can party! Scientists and all their evil results in the abundant technology around us are hardly inspired. Everything we have in medicine and in biology is evil, as in evilution.

Gordon B. Hinckley said something like this too. I don't doubt that eventually it will be one or the other.

I guess that would bring up my next question, for another thread, about what is the Holy Ghost really...(Assuming my comments already don't get me banned).

I never once said scientists are evil. I guess saying that they don't use the promptings of the Spirit wasn't the best way to describe what I meant, but I think you know I didn't mean scientists are evil, what with my obvious belief that science is a good thing.

[Brant Gardner]

The dissembling/partial truth statements I made come from when I see apologists actually making arguments that I believe they know aren't true.

Well, that tells me that there isn't much of a reason to discuss. If your assumption is that I am lying, there is no way to have a reasonable conversation.

[altersteve]

You sure like to put words in people's mouths, don't you, cryophil?

[Brant Gardner]

Although I am certain cryophil has no interest in this response, there are some issues that other readers might wonder about, hence the reply.

Did not Mormon compile it from records on metal sheets that had been passed down from generation to generation? We have BoM prophet after prophet explaining that they had received the plates from the previous author. They dated their entries based on how long after Lehi had left, or from the Rule of the Judges, etc. Seems to me to be accurate.

One of the problems that any historian has in approaching the Book of Mormon is parallel to the Bible. It is a religious text and the religious beliefs about it at times transcend the production by human beings. Even when we know that humans were involved, the religious desire it make the text extra-human.

This tendency is seen in cryophil's assumption that it "seems to me to be accurate." That statement applies all kinds of modern assumptions to a text that was written with entirely different assumptions. Let's begin with the idea that Mormon abridged an existing record. He tells us that he is editing them for a purpose, so that shouldn't surprise us at all. Now what of the originals? Were they "accurate." That is always an issue with historical texts. We have both the Egyptian and Hittite descriptions of one of their massive battles. Both declared victory. It was probably a draw. Are they "accurate"? For the time, yes. However, no good historian looks at a source without questioning what is behind the source.

If you are going to attempt to analyze the Book of Mormon again history and science, then we have to actually use those tools to set up the problem correctly, and not simply tilt against the religious use of the text.

The actual individual plates were written on at the time of the event.

Closer to the time of the events, surely. We have no idea when they were written, or what they included (save for the sermons, which Mormon quotes, and some structural evidence that they were eventually annals).

Are we not to trust the dating of individual metal sheets that were passed down from the time of the actual event? Are we not to trust Mormon's compilation of these original source documents?

We can trust that they gave us dates accurately in their calendar. Now, the reason cryophil is wondering about dating is because I am suggesting that Christ appeared in Bountiful a year later. That is in the plates. Mormon indicates that it was the following year. In this case, I am trusting the plates and cryophil is trusting his (I assume masculine from the nature of the comments) opinion of what it should have been.

Even if it was not a single day event, a wide spread destruction happening in various locations within a one year period would jump out of the archaeological recordand bite scientists in the eyes.

Several cities have been excavated showing destruction around this time period, including one sinking into Lake Atitlan. There is evidence that as the result of the San Salvador volcano there was a shift in the living patterns and a move away from where populations had been (particular where the Nephites would have been). That vacuum of people and the resulting shifting in economic alignments provides ample explanation for the decrease in militarism in Nephite areas. The archaeology actually supports the Book of Mormon here. The time period covered by the Nephite "golden years" is one of decreased population pressure in that region--historically decreasing militarism.

[altersteve]

Several cities have been excavated showing destruction around this time period, including one sinking into Lake Atitlan. There is evidence that as the result of the San Salvador volcano there was a shift in the living patterns and a move away from where populations had been (particular where the Nephites would have been). That vacuum of people and the resulting shifting in economic alignments provides ample explanation for the decrease in militarism in Nephite areas. The archaeology actually supports the Book of Mormon here. The time period covered by the Nephite "golden years" is one of decreased population pressure in that region--historically decreasing militarism.

I never knew anything about this evidence; the sinking city is particularly fascinating. I would love to do more research on this. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.

[stevedallas]

This is one of the areas that gives me the most pause.

Archeologists have uncovered and verified ancient civilizations all over the world. Many that predate the Book of Mormon. Why is it so hard to find evidence of the great cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Having said that, has anyone read the Book "Voices from the Dust" by David Calderwood?

http://voices-dust.com/voices-dust.html

Edited October 27, 2011 by stevedallas

[ERayR]

This is one of the areas that gives me the most pause.

Archeologists have uncovered and verified ancient civilizations all over the world. Many that predate the Book of Mormon. Why is it so hard to find evidence of the great cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Having said that, has anyone read the Book "Voices from the Dust" by David Calderwood?

http://voices-dust.c...oices-dust.html

Evidence of those great cities (keep in mind great to Book of Mormon writers might not be so great to us) might already have been found. Just not identified as Nephite.

[Brant Gardner]

Archeologists have uncovered and verified ancient civilizations all over the world. Many that predate the Book of Mormon. Why is it so hard to find evidence of the great cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

Evidence of those great cities (keep in mind great to Book of Mormon writers might not be so great to us) might already have been found. Just not identified as Nephite.

This is the best answer. The problem isn't the discovery of cities. Many have been found and there are way more unexcavated than excavated. The problem is in knowing what we are looking at. We call them Maya or Olmec, but they wouldn't have called themselves those names, and even the way we use those names covers differences between the cities. As with most archaeological evidence, it isn't the data, it is understanding the data.

Having said that, has anyone read the Book "Voices from the Dust" by David Calderwood?

Yes, I have read it. Do you have a particular question? I reviewed it for the Maxwell Institute, if you are interested: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=634

[cdowis]

For example, more than a dozen cities were destroyed by various natural disasters that wiped them clear in a single day (3 Ne 8-10), whereby the greater portion of the wicked were removed so that the Nephites could raise a Christian society that was industrious, populous, free of war and slavery, free of poverty and serious contention for nearly two hundred years (4 Ne). These are conditions that seem to me to be unparalleled in sociology and archaeology. I would think the new Christian/Nephite cities raised over the old destroyed ones would have had monumental BoM evidence.

To continue Brant's comment.

How would you identify a "Christian city"? Religious icons of Mary, crosses with a tortured man, the symbol of a fish?

Christianity is found in the lives of the people, and virtually of the written accounts have been destroyed. Any icons would be unrecognizable in our culture -- it has been suggested that the feathered serpent is such an icon of Christ.

It is through those written records that we would find this evidence, but they are gone.

The primary issue of BOM evidence is the problem of identification. If you find a jade necklace, how do you know that it is Nephite, Lamanite, or something else? BOM are all over the place, in the museums. We just can't identify them.

Even the names of ancient cities are unknown. We know most of them by their modern names. One exception is Lamanai in the Belize. The BOM tells us that cities were named after the name of the founder, and It is interesting to the LDS because this name corresponds to the name of a Lamanite king in the BOM. It means "submerged crocodile", similar in meaning to a crouching tiger.

But, of course, that is only one of many "coincidences" in the BOM.

Finally, there are those who look for Hebrews in mesoamerica, but that is the wrong approach. The Nephites were hundreds of years away from Hebrew culture and did not even speak Hebrew. We need to be looking for Nephites and Lamanite culture, not Hebrew.

Until the problem of identification is resolved, there is no "Book of Mormon archeology".

Edited October 27, 2011 by cdowis

[stevedallas]

To continue Brant's comment.

How would you identify a "Christian city"? Religious icons of Mary, crosses with a tortured man, the symbol of a fish?

Christianity is found in the lives of the people, and virtually of the written accounts have been destroyed. Any icons would be unrecognizable in our culture -- it has been suggested that the feathered serpent is such an icon of Christ.

It is through those written records that we would find this evidence, but they are gone.

The primary issue of BOM evidence is the problem of identification. If you find a jade necklace, how do you know that it is Nephite, Lamanite, or something else? BOM are all over the place, in the museums. We just can't identify them.

Even the names of ancient cities are unknown. We know most of them by their modern names. One exception is Lamanai in the Belize. The BOM tells us that cities were named after the name of the founder, and It is interesting to the LDS because this name corresponds to the name of a Lamanite king in the BOM. It means "submerged crocodile", similar in meaning to a crouching tiger.

But, of course, that is only one of many "coincidences" in the BOM.

Finally, there are those who look for Hebrews in mesoamerica, but that is the wrong approach. The Nephites were hundreds of years away from Hebrew culture and did not even speak Hebrew. We need to be looking for Nephites and Lamanite culture, not Hebrew.

Until the problem of identification is resolved, there is no "Book of Mormon archeology".

then why has it been so easy to identify Biblical archeology? Why does it seem the only problems lie with Book of Mormon Archeology?

[stevedallas]

This is the best answer. The problem isn't the discovery of cities. Many have been found and there are way more unexcavated than excavated. The problem is in knowing what we are looking at. We call them Maya or Olmec, but they wouldn't have called themselves those names, and even the way we use those names covers differences between the cities. As with most archaeological evidence, it isn't the data, it is understanding the data.

Yes, I have read it. Do you have a particular question? I reviewed it for the Maxwell Institute, if you are interested: http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=634

I read your review. Very well written. I had hoped the book would be better. Thank you.

[cdowis]

then why has it been so easy to identify Biblical archeology? Why does it seem the only problems lie with Book of Mormon Archeology?

Well, compare modern Israel and Palestine with mesoamerica.

Do we have the ancient names, do we have ancient records? Basically are we able to identify ancient cities and countries with their modern couterparts? Jerusalem, Babylon, Jerico, etc.

What about the geography and climate differences -- desert vs. tropical jungles. Do you understand what happens to perishable artifacts under the different conditions?

What about the money spent on archeology. We have Israel and the entire christian nations in Europe and America dedicating their collective resources to researching the Bible. Both Bible believers and atheist scholars devote their lives to this research.

They have the guidance of ancient records.

Now compare that to mesoamerican archeology -- tropical jungles, no records, few resources, the BOM is in teh preclassic period. The BOM itself gives scant information on the culture and secular history of its own people, much less the surrounding races.

The nonLDS archeologists have no interest in a book delivered by an angel - they have not even bothered to read it. But atheists feel comfortable exploring the Bible. They can simply ignore the divine element of the Bible, but the BOM gives no such cover -- if it is historical, then God and angels exist.

Why would an atheist want to investigate a book delivered by an angel? Even Michael Coe, the most "knowledgeable" among archeologists, basically admits that he has not bothered to read it, his knowledge coming from an antimormon book.

Edited October 27, 2011 by cdowis