Fair

[ldsfaqs]

Mariner just quotes some anti-mormon publication throwing a bunch of claims at the wall against the Church, and then claims that there is all these peer reviewed scholarly journals of professionals which have invalidated mormonism.

tisk tisk

[Brant Gardner]

Please note that my stated intention in the post was to provide references to peer reviewed scientific papers that refuted falsifiable truth claims in LDS scriptures, as requested by others on this board.

I provided references to peer reviewed scientific papers and/or their authors which:

- refuted the falsifiable claim in the Book of Mormon that wheat and barley existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.

- refuted the falsifiable claim that Semites migrated to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (as determined genetic analysis)

- refuted the falsifiable claim that Reformed Egyptian was an important language in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica

My work is on the Book of Mormon, so I will limit my response to the Book of Mormon. Part of the problem with your discussion is the concept of a falsifiable claim. For example, the presence of wheat and barley, as a falsifiable claim, rests wholly on the presumption that the translation of the text produced an English term that reliably represented the plate text. We know that does not always happen in translations, and there are examples in the King James Bible (such as candles under bushels when there were no candles). Without any discussion of the nature of translation, those terms cannot be falsifiable claims, nor can anything that is based on vocabulary rather than contextual analysis. Secondly, even if the lexical items were accurate, your argument is based on negative evidence, which is notoriously poor as an example of falsification because it merely says that something hasn't been found, not that it didn't exist. In your original list, you had included grapes. As an example of falsifying the falsification, wild grapes have been found in the Mesoamerican diet (not a major factor, but still falsifying your assertion): David L. Lentz, “Plant Resources of the Ancient Maya: The Paleoethnobotanical Evidence,” in Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, edited by Christine D. White (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999), 9.

Your suggestion that the absence of Semitic DNA counters a fact claim of the Book of Mormon does counter a traditional interpretation of the Book of Mormon, but that is very different from saying that the text itself makes that claim. This "truth claim" is neither made by the Book of Mormon, nor an accurate interpretation of the DNA evidence (per very well qualified scholars with directly relevant expertise).

Your falsifiable claim about reformed Egyptian is also a refutation of an interpretation of the text, not of the text.

If you were to suggest that many people have believed things about the Book of Mormon that were not true, we can agree that such a fact has been falsified. Unfortunately, that includes the straw men that you are presenting.

I also simply appealed to common scientific knowledge (and common sense) to refute the falsifiable claims in LDS scripture that:

- there was a global flood at the time of Noah

Except that the text is quoting scripture, which makes that assumption. It isn't a fact claim, it is a reference to literature.

With regard to quoting authors such as Michael Coe, it should be clear from his work that he considers LDS claims regarding Reformed Egyptian or Nephites in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica to be silly and not worth published comment.

You really should read more of Coe and know what he says. While Coe is very good at understanding Mesoamerica, he makes some very simple assumptions about the Book of Mormon and suggests that those assumptions are refuted (actually, much the same as you have). Coe has two objections. One is that certain items are not found (and the ones I remember him mentioning are lexically based, see above). His second issue is with those who suggest that Book of Mormon peoples caused Mesoamerican civilization. In that I believe he is correct in his criticism, but that is of a popular interpretation of the text an not the text itself.

Finally, if I was really "quote mining" in any of these assertions, then you should be able to counter with mined quotes of your own from non-LDS scientists that refute my position.

The only statement that is wholly dependent on science is the issue of DNA. Quote mining isn't necessary, as the articles are published. You are quoting the non-scientific assumptions about what the data mean, they are discussing the science behind what they mean. If you would like to start a thread on the topic we might elaborate. Please understand that you will need to understand the relevance of the reductionist nature of DNA research and what it can and cannot tell us (and proving a negative isn't one of them).

The rest of your issues don't deal with falsifiable claims of the text, but of falsifiable claims about the text. There is a difference, and it is important to understanding any text as it relates to history.

[Mariner]

Altersteve,

Wow. What a response. You are clearly well versed in LDS apologetics and must have spent a lot of time putting it together. Since you have generated three posts containing a lot of material, I will respond first in general and then in detail in one or more additional posts.

It appears that your objections or counterarguments are in three main areas:

1. You feel that I have not read the Book of Mormon with the underlying view or belief that it is true.

2. You feel that I am not aware of the most recent Book of Mormon scholarship.

3. You feel that the papers that I cited are not adequate evidence in support of my claims.

With regard to your first objection, you are correct. Even as a seminary and institute student, I could not suspend disbelief to an extent that would allow me to fully accept what the Church (at that time) was teaching about the historicity of Book of Mormon (and Church history in general). My adaptation was to simply put the disbelief on a shelf and trust that it would all be worked out later. Later never came.

This brings me to your second point regarding Book of Mormon "scholarship". A lot of this "scholarship" (which unless it is published in mainstream scientific journals can really only be considered as apologetics) has had the effect of softening the message and backtracking on some of the claims made about the Book of Mormon.

For example, my Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Because of LDS "scholarship", this passage has been modified to state that they are among the principal ancestors of the American Indians. The relevant science shows that both statements are blatantly false, yet LDS scholars continue to try to find any scrap of data that can be spun or misinterpreted to provide a small degree of doubt or wiggle room that will allow the faithful to ignore the evidence and continue to believe.

When asked about where the Book of Mormon events might have taken place, or where Zarahemla or the Hill Cumorah might be, LDS apologists simply state that this should not concern Mormons because the location of these key physical elements in the Book of Mormon narrative is not important to one's salvation.

At the end of the day, the scientific narrative regarding ancient Mesoamerica is backed by physical evidence. The Book of Mormon narrative is not.

Until the Book of Mormon version of Mesoamerican history can be shown to be backed by physical evidence that has been peer reviewed and published, we will have to agree to disagree as to the legitimacy of Book of Mormon "scholarship".

With regard to the last point, the overall problem faced by those who do not believe the Book of Mormon (which is the vast majority of people who have even considered it) is proving a negative in general. Believing Mormons simply claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence. And in this technicality they take their refuge.

Science does not work that way. In science one looks at the physical evidence, generates hypotheses to account for and explain the evidence and then tests these hypotheses against further evidence as it becomes available. All of the relevant physical evidence available can be best explained by the hypotheses that constitute scientific narrative for ancient Mesoamerica. The Book of Mormon can explain essentially none of it.

In a follow up post, I will address your CFR requests, and respond to other specifics in your three posts. I will not be commenting on Book of Mormon "scholarship" for the reasons I have mentioned.

I appreciate the time that you put into your response, especially on a weekend.

[Deborah]

One thing so many of the critics tend to do in looking at LDS scripture is taking bits and pieces here and there and trying to nit-pick them. In doing so they can never see the big picture. LDS scholars tend to look at a body of work in the context of the entire gospel. By doing the latter they see something the so-called other experts don't: the continuity of these scriptures not only to each other but to the context of time and place in which many of these revelations and translations were done. In doing so the texts are more than just words but truly remarkable pieces of doctrine and information that fits a whole picture that gives us an understanding that others will never have.

[ldsfaqs]

For example, my Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Because of LDS "scholarship", this passage has been modified to state that they are among the principal ancestors of the American Indians. The relevant science shows that both statements are blatantly false, yet LDS scholars continue to try to find any scrap of data that can be spun or misinterpreted to provide a small degree of doubt or wiggle room that will allow the faithful to ignore the evidence and continue to believe.

1. Why don't you read the book "Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 Evidences" and watch the DVD?

While it's not Meso-America, it is the best work yet on things we know most, and it starts at the beginning.

You can't refute anything there because it has a solid backing.

2. The problem with your above statement is you create a strawman of the Book of Mormon according to your OWN anti-mormon belief system, rather than what the BOM actually is. The BOM's primary description of "Lamanites" is not genetic, but heritage. Meaning, everyone non-Nephite was considered a Lamanite. Lamanite is the BOM's version of the Bible's "Gentile". Thus, when considering either the pre or post statements that you mention as to principle ancestor's, they are both accurate. Lamanites in the BOM are not and never were simply those decended from Lehi and Laman and Lemual. Further, the book has never claimed they were the "only" people on the continent. In fact, it gives plenty of evidence of the opposite. The Church changed the statement so as to help prevent confusion, not that it actually needed to be changed.

Let me make that clear again..... Lamanite was not to mormons simply those genetically decended from Lehi, but was ANYONE in the America's as well as the Islands. Native peoples have a heritage connection to those Lamanites of the BOM. To throw a bigger wrench in your argument, they all likely have a genetic heritage as well. Due to genetic drift, Lehi's DNA WOULD be in nearly all natives of the America's. Of course it's not the dominate DNA, thus doesn't show, but nearly every native of the America's and the Islands would more likely than not be related to Lehi. Genetic drift modeling has proven this.... Thus, either way you cut the mustard, your anti-mormon NON SCIENTIFIC conclusions are false. Actual DNA scientists who also know the Book of Mormon have commented well on this matter. Further, it is not even known what Lehi's DNA even looked like, and even more the so-called Semitic DNA is entirely uncertain. Actual DNA scientists know these issues and many others which entirely debunk "Murphy DNA" the non-DNA anthropologist fool who created this argument.

And before you say it..... I had all these views LONG before Murphy DNA came along. Body typing science had already long been used by anti-mormons to contest against the BOM that natives of the America's were primarily of Asiatic Decent. It's the same exact anti-mormon arguments, only with a new pretty package. The arguments are still false because of a misuse and false assumptions strawmen created from the BOM and LDS leaders words, and from a misuse of the science itself.

Edited November 13, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[HeatherAnn]

This has been interesting - thanks for the info.

Archeologically, there is some evidence that many Native Americans (North, Central & South America) have geneological roots from Asia... & are believed to have crossed the Berring straight. I was reading up on some ancient civilizations in South America who kept records by knotted cords, similar to Ancient Chinese.

We also know that parts of the Book of Mormon are quoted from the Bible - with King James Version errors & all.

YET... that doesn't take away from the SPIRIT of the Book of Mormon.

It's important to distinguish fact from fantasy - so that we may remember that it's not the Book of Mormon, Bible, D&C, book of Abraham etc... that is holy... but rather what it inspires in us. Do you really think Balaam's donkey talked to him? It's symbolic - as is most of life, & especially spiritual teachings. The Book of Mormon & Bible are not intended to be history or scientific books, or even emergency prep/fortune tellers. They are books intended to be spiritual tools to help us develop & grow spiritually.

[altersteve]

Altersteve,

Wow. What a response. You are clearly well versed in LDS apologetics and must have spent a lot of time putting it together. Since you have generated three posts containing a lot of material, I will respond first in general and then in detail in one or more additional posts.

I look forward to your responses.

Sorry, by the way, if my three posts came off sounding a bit harsh. Reading through it now, I can understand if you interpreted it that way. It wasn't intended.

It appears that your objections or counterarguments are in three main areas:

1. You feel that I have not read the Book of Mormon with the underlying view or belief that it is true.

2. You feel that I am not aware of the most recent Book of Mormon scholarship.

3. You feel that the papers that I cited are not adequate evidence in support of my claims.

In response to #1, not exactly. Rather, I suggested that you seem to have only read and interpreted it because of how others have done so (like the traditional understanding that there were "millions" of Nephites and Lamanites, and that they were all Semitic peoples; neither of these things are supported by the actual Book of Mormon text).

#'s 2 and 3 are correct. Your implication that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon taking place in Mesoamerica makes #2 especially clear to me, and it seems to me that you are only citing sources from those whose claims have been invalidated by current research.

With regard to your first objection, you are correct. Even as a seminary and institute student, I could not suspend disbelief to an extent that would allow me to fully accept what the Church (at that time) was teaching about the historicity of Book of Mormon (and Church history in general). My adaptation was to simply put the disbelief on a shelf and trust that it would all be worked out later. Later never came.

Maybe later would have come if you hadn't removed disbelief from the shelf, which you seem to have done.

This brings me to your second point regarding Book of Mormon "scholarship". A lot of this "scholarship" (which unless it is published in mainstream scientific journals can really only be considered as apologetics) has had the effect of softening the message and backtracking on some of the claims made about the Book of Mormon.

Some of these claims made about the Book of Mormon in the past by others do not seem to be supported by the text. Thanks to increased understanding, we are now able to realize that the Book of Mormon doesn't say what people have previously thought regarding history, archaeology, etc. There are no examples "softening the message" here. The message of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus is the Christ, and that remains just as strong as ever.

And true, Book of Mormon scholarship does "backtrack" on some of the claims made about the Book of Mormon, but not the claims made by it.

For example, my Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Because of LDS "scholarship", this passage has been modified to state that they are among the principal ancestors of the American Indians. The relevant science shows that both statements are blatantly false, yet LDS scholars continue to try to find any scrap of data that can be spun or misinterpreted to provide a small degree of doubt or wiggle room that will allow the faithful to ignore the evidence and continue to believe.

This "passage" is found in the Book of Mormon's introduction, which I believe was written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie (though I could be wrong), and which is not considered scripture. Read the actual text of the Book of Mormon. It says that the American Indians are the seed of Lehi -- that they are a "remnant of the house of Israel." This is quite different from saying that they are Lehi's literal, direct descendants. Recall what the Bible says about about the seed of Abraham. This is similar.

When asked about where the Book of Mormon events might have taken place, or where Zarahemla or the Hill Cumorah might be, LDS apologists simply state that this should not concern Mormons because the location of these key physical elements in the Book of Mormon narrative is not important to one's salvation.

Apologists used to say this. Now that our understanding has increased, we now know there's only an extremely small amount of Mesoamerica that has been excavated, so we cannot possibly know if we have found Zarahemla, Cumorah, Desolation, or any other Book of Mormon site. We don't have the original names of any Mesoamerican cities, nor do we know what events took place in those cities, simply because we have no historical records from the time period. So it's possible that we have, in fact, found Zarahemla and other Book of Mormon locations; we just don't know it. This is one of the disadvantages of studying New World archaeology. Old World archaeology is easy to study, because we have historical records that we can consult directly. Mesoamerica and other Central and Southern American places do not give us that.

At the end of the day, the scientific narrative regarding ancient Mesoamerica is backed by physical evidence. The Book of Mormon narrative is not.

As countless scholars have pointed out, you are incorrect. I once again suggest that you read the many books written by these LDS archaeologists, scholars, and historians.

Until the Book of Mormon version of Mesoamerican history can be shown to be backed by physical evidence that has been peer reviewed and published, we will have to agree to disagree as to the legitimacy of Book of Mormon "scholarship".

It has, in fact, been peer reviewed and published. The fact that it has been done so in LDS publications shouldn't make a difference.

With regard to the last point, the overall problem faced by those who do not believe the Book of Mormon (which is the vast majority of people who have even considered it) is proving a negative in general. Believing Mormons simply claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence. And in this technicality they take their refuge.

Science does not work that way. In science one looks at the physical evidence, generates hypotheses to account for and explain the evidence and then tests these hypotheses against further evidence as it becomes available. All of the relevant physical evidence available can be best explained by the hypotheses that constitute scientific narrative for ancient Mesoamerica. The Book of Mormon can explain essentially none of it.

Once again, LDS scholars have shown that the Book of Mormon is supported by the "scientific narrative for ancient Mesoamerica." Until you take the time to read up on Book of Mormon scholarship, then there's really no reason for this discussion to continue, because all we'll do is simply talk past each other.

In a follow up post, I will address your CFR requests, and respond to other specifics in your three posts. I will not be commenting on Book of Mormon "scholarship" for the reasons I have mentioned.

Again, if you don't comment on or consult Book of Mormon scholarship, then this discussion is not going to go anywhere.

I appreciate the time that you put into your response, especially on a weekend.

No problem. I've been sick for a few days, so I don't have much else to do, haha.

Edited November 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

How reliable is FAIR?

I mean if I email a doctrinal question to the apologists there (instead of posting it here), how confident can I be that the answer I get will doctrinally sound (from an LDS pov)?

Like some people have pointed out. Fair is just like any other person who has a vested interest in their religion or theology... It's only as valid as the stock each individual puts into it..

Personally, I think there are some things they have an understanding of, and others they don't.. Such as their theology on 1 Corinthians 11:11 believing that refers to marriage somehow, when it clearly doesn't... that's my .02

[Mariner]

Altersteve,

Below are my responses to your various CFR requests from earlier posts. I understand that in your mind, much (if not all) of this will be unconvincing. Before you object and tell me what LDS scholars have found, remember that until it is published in mainstream peer reviewed scientific journals, Book of Mormon "scholarship" is really only apologetics.

In this regard, you must also understand that mainstream science absolutely rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The scope and strength of that rejection is likely to increase in the near future. This will come about both because of new archeological and genetic evidence and because of the increased attention to the Book of Mormon resulting from the current Presidential election campaign.

CFR that "many of the locations and place names in the Book of Mormon are based on locations and 19th century place names in the Northeastern US."

At least two dozen place names in the Book of Mormon are the same or phonetically very similar to names of places in the eastern Great Lakes region of Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Southern Canada.

Temple content link removed.

While apologists have come up with their usual counterarguments to deal with this unfortunate coincidence, they have not bothered to address the associated question as to why there is not a single place name in the Book of Mormon that is the same or phonetically similar to any place name whatsoever in Mesoamerica.

http://fairmormon.or...m_North_America

And CFR also for your implication that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon taking place in Mesoamerica. Because that is clearly not true, as LDS scholars have long been demonstrating. Anthropologist and archaeologist John L. Sorenson's book An American Setting for the Book of Mormon is something you should take a look at.

Scientific institutions of no less standing than the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic Society has specifically stated in signed published responses to inquiries that there is no evidence from the archeology of the Western Hemisphere that would support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The open letter from the National Geographic Society stated that, "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon". Mesoamerican archeologist Michael Coe of Yale University has also gone on the record with statements to the effect that the Book of Mormon is of no value whatsoever in archeological research in Mesoamerica and that the descriptions of peoples, languages cultures and customs in the Book of Mormon bear no resemblance whatsoever to what has been learned from archeological studies n the region.

Unfortunately for you, barley was known in the New World; see John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, "Barley in Ancient America,"

I don't know why you would say that this is my misfortune. Personally, I would like to see credible evidence for wheat and barley in the region. Unfortunately the physical evidence is simply not there.

CFR that the Book of Mormon's claim about the plants, animals, and technologies that existed in Mesoamerica is "obviously false."

Do we really need to go over this again? Oh, all right. Here is a short list of technologies, animals and plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon that were in fact, not found in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (or anywhere else in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere).

Technology: wheeled chariots, steel, silk, metal swords, the compass, transparent windows

Animals: elephants, horses, sheep, goats, swine

Plants: wheat and barley

CFR that the Nephites had "Semitic DNA." Where does the Book of Mormon say that? Oh, wait, it doesn't.

In my earlier post, I provided you with two of dozens of papers in the areas of archeology and population genetics that show that pre-Columbian native American populations derived from Asia, and predominantly from Eastern Asia.

Information about the origin and migration patterns of early populations in the Western Hemisphere gained from population genetics is supported by the archeology and by the relevant climatology. These migrations occurred by two main overland routes from Asia starting some 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. There is no indication in either the archeological or genetic record that any pre-Columbian transoceanic migration from the Middle East to the New World ever took place. Since the Book of Mormon peoples supposedly came from the area around Jerusalem and spoke Hebrew, I have made the reasonable assumption that they were Semites. Semites or not, populations from this region in this time frame carried specific genetic markers, none of which have been found in the genome of the descendants of pre-Columbian Native Americans.

Wow! Really? I must have missed that part. Where does the Book of Mormon mention any "pre-Columbian Semites" at all, much less "millions" of them?

Since the Jaredites supposedly came from the Middle East they qualify as pre-Columbian Semites as I have defined them.

Ether 15:2 " He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children."

Why should we find it when 1) the Mesoamerican religious and historical records were destroyed by the Spaniards and 2) the Book of Mormon never claims it was used for anything other than recording the religious history (religious and historical record) of the Nephites (i.e., scripture)?

As I stated in an earlier post, more than 10,000 inscriptions of pre-Columbian Olmec and Mayan glyphs have been found including those on codices (the Spaniards did not get all of them) buildings and monuments. These contemporary Mesoamerican glyphs and associated drawings and painted scenes do not reflect the transplanted Hebrew or Christian religion described in the Book of Mormon. The rituals they depict include human sacrifice. Not very Christian. At the some time, no verified inscriptions in Egyptian or Hebrew or "Reformed Egyptian", as depicted in Joseph Smith's "Caractors", have been found. None.

CFR, first of all, that the Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites numbered in the "millions." It doesn't.

You are correct. It was the Jaredites that numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. However, at least one Mormon apologists has put the number of Nephites at over a million based partially on the reported loss of 230,000 in a single battle.

CFR, again. And what evidence would you be expecting to find for a group of 20 or so people in ancient Israel building a ship and sailing to the Americas? I wouldn't expect to find any evidence of such a small event.

The Jaredites also qualify as transoceanic migrating pre-Columbian Semites. Their numbers were directly reported to extend into the millions. If this were the case, one would certainly expect to find traces of this great population in the genome of their descendants.

With regard to genetic traces, as described in one of the papers I cited in an earlier post, the Semitic (Jewish) CHM marker persisted in the genome of an African population whose ancestors had migrated from Yemen 3,000 years before. The size of the original migrating group was estimated at approximately 50 individuals. After 3,000 years, the marker was found in more than one third of the descendants tested.

With regard to archeological traces, don't forget the example of the Viking structures and inscribed rune stones left by a pre-Columbian migration to the New World of a few dozen people who left after a few dozen years.

Do not link to sites with temple content again.

Nemesis

Edited November 14, 2011 by Nemesis
Removed link

[altersteve]

At least two dozen place names in the Book of Mormon are the same or phonetically very similar to names of places in the eastern Great Lakes region of Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Southern Canada.

The fact that they are "phonetically similar" does not mean they were based on these American cities. As FAIR stated in the link you provided below, trying to find parallels between Book of Mormon names and modern names is a pointless exercise. If you believe the Book of Mormon is true, it won't be a problem. If you don't, you will see it as evidence against the book. But it will not sway the other side. In other words, how you view the Book of Mormon is what will affect how you view this, not the other way around, so it's completely worthless to even bring it up.

While apologists have come up with their usual counterarguments to deal with this unfortunate coincidence, they have not bothered to address the associated question as to why there is not a single place name in the Book of Mormon that is the same or phonetically similar to any place name whatsoever in Mesoamerica.

http://fairmormon.or...m_North_America

As I explained previously, the names we have of Mesoamerican cities and other locations are the names that the Spaniards gave them. The original names have been lost.

Scientific institutions of no less standing than the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic Society has specifically stated in signed published responses to inquiries that there is no evidence from the archeology of the Western Hemisphere that would support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The open letter from the National Geographic Society stated that, "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon". Mesoamerican archeologist Michael Coe of Yale University has also gone on the record with statements to the effect that the Book of Mormon is of no value whatsoever in archeological research in Mesoamerica and that the descriptions of peoples, languages cultures and customs in the Book of Mormon bear no resemblance whatsoever to what has been learned from archeological studies n the region.

They haven't read the Book of Mormon, obviously, because other scholars disagree with them. The last I checked, neither the Smithsonian nor the National Geographic Society have the "final word" on Mesoamerican archaeology. I'm pretty sure that's an open subject that has no definite answers at this time, since, like I said, an extremely small part of Mesoamerica has been excavated. I will be writing up my own responses to both the Smithsonian Institutes and the National Geographic Society publications regarding the Book of Mormon, for both show a very small knowledge of the actual text. You can also read apologist Jeff Lindsay's response to the Smithsonian Statement here. He's not an archaeologist or a scholar as far as I'm aware, but his response is worth reading as it demonstrates several flaws in the statement. He also deals extensively with the transoceanic issue in his response.

I don't know why you would say that this is my misfortune. Personally, I would like to see credible evidence for wheat and barley in the region. Unfortunately the physical evidence is simply not there.

Did you even read the sources I gave you?

Do we really need to go over this again? Oh, all right. Here is a short list of technologies, animals and plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon that were in fact, not found in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (or anywhere else in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere).

Technology: wheeled chariots, steel, silk, metal swords, the compass, transparent windows

Animals: elephants, horses, sheep, goats, swine

Plants: wheat and barley

I love how you say that they were "in fact, not found in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (or anywhere else in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere)" as if the issue is settled. It's not.

Chariots: http://en.fairmormon...onisms/Chariots

Steel: http://en.fairmormon...hronisms/Metals

Silk: http://en.fairmormon...hronisms/Plants

Metal swords: http://en.fairmormon.../Warfare/Swords

Compass: http://en.fairmormon...ronisms/Compass

Windows: http://en.fairmormon...ronisms/Windows

Elephants: http://en.fairmormon...imals/Elephants

Horses: http://en.fairmormon.../Animals/Horses

Sheep: "The case of the horse bones, found years ago but ignored by all the archaeologists, tells us that we must constantly scrutinize the adequacy of "current" scientific beliefs. The Eurasian sheep is not supposed to have been in pre-Columbian America either, yet real sheep's wool was found in a burial site at Cholula, Puebla, Mexico, in an archaeological setting that gave no other indication of dating after the Spaniards arrived [Linne, Mexican Highland Cultures, p. 156]. This lone specimen doesn't take us far toward a literal reading of the Book of Mormon term sheep, but perhaps we should keep this door too ajar a little" (John L. Sorenson, An American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 296).

Goats: no idea

Swine: http://en.fairmormon...s/Animals/Swine

Wheat and barley: I've already provided the sources for that.

Jeff Lindsay's response to the Smithsonian Statement above also deals with many of these issues, as do other pages on his website here, here, and here.

In my earlier post, I provided you with two of dozens of papers in the areas of archeology and population genetics that show that pre-Columbian native American populations derived from Asia, and predominantly from Eastern Asia.

I don't disagree. The Book of Mormon never claims otherwise.

Information about the origin and migration patterns of early populations in the Western Hemisphere gained from population genetics is supported by the archeology and by the relevant climatology. These migrations occurred by two main overland routes from Asia starting some 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. There is no indication in either the archeological or genetic record that any pre-Columbian transoceanic migration from the Middle East to the New World ever took place.

http://en.fairmormon...ceanic_Crossing

Since the Book of Mormon peoples supposedly came from the area around Jerusalem and spoke Hebrew, I have made the reasonable assumption that they were Semites. Semites or not, populations from this region in this time frame carried specific genetic markers, none of which have been found in the genome of the descendants of pre-Columbian Native Americans.

Lehi's group consisted of about 20 people. The genetics would not show up in the genome of any of their descendants, especially since they quickly intermingled with the American peoples already living there.

Since the Jaredites supposedly came from the Middle East they qualify as pre-Columbian Semites as I have defined them.

Ether 15:2 " He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children."

CFR that "millions" of people traveled with the brother of Jared to the New World. It never says that. It says that there were "nearly two millions of [Coriantumr's] people" by the time that Ether 15:2 took place. CFR also that the Jaredites came from the New World. From what I understand, most Book of Mormon scholars believe they came from Asia.

As I stated in an earlier post, more than 10,000 inscriptions of pre-Columbian Olmec and Mayan glyphs have been found including those on codices (the Spaniards did not get all of them) buildings and monuments. These contemporary Mesoamerican glyphs and associated drawings and painted scenes do not reflect the transplanted Hebrew or Christian religion described in the Book of Mormon. The rituals they depict include human sacrifice. Not very Christian.

Again, this supports the idea that the Nephites were only a subset of the much larger Mesoamerican culture, and human sacrifice is one of the many things discussed in the Book of Mormon that the Nephite prophets preached against (Alma 34:10, Mormon 4:15).

At the some time, no verified inscriptions in Egyptian or Hebrew or "Reformed Egyptian", as depicted in Joseph Smith's "Caractors", have been found. None.

Again, reformed Egyptian (the "R" is not capitalized) was a Nephite script that they used to write the Book of Mormon. It was not reported to have been used for anything else.

You are correct. It was the Jaredites that numbered in the millions according to the Book of Mormon. However, at least one Mormon apologists has put the number of Nephites at over a million based partially on the reported loss of 230,000 in a single battle.

I don't care what one Mormon apologist says. His interpretation is not supported by the text. And "over a million" and "millions" are two different things. I'm more fine with believing there were "over a million" Nephites (those who were of the Nephite religion), but even if that were the case, the number of Lamanites (which refers to any non-Nephite people) would far exceed that amount.

The Jaredites also qualify as transoceanic migrating pre-Columbian Semites. Their numbers were directly reported to extend into the millions. If this were the case, one would certainly expect to find traces of this great population in the genome of their descendants.

They were not "directly reported to extend into the millions" at the time that they sailed to the New World. The Book of Mormon never says that. And CFR that the Jaredites were Semites. The text doesn't say that. Stop assuming things. As said above, many Book of Mormon scholars believe that the Jaredites came from Asia: http://www.cometozar...dites.html#_1_4

With regard to genetic traces, as described in one of the papers I cited in an earlier post, the Semitic (Jewish) CHM marker persisted in the genome of an African population whose ancestors had migrated from Yemen 3,000 years before. The size of the original migrating group was estimated at approximately 50 individuals. After 3,000 years, the marker was found in more than one third of the descendants tested.

This doesn't mean anything unless you can show us from the Book of Mormon text that Lehi had Semitic DNA.

With regard to archeological traces, don't forget the example of the Viking structures and inscribed rune stones left by a pre-Columbian migration to the New World of a few dozen people who left after a few dozen years.

So?

You're right, not convinced at all.

Edited November 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Mariner]

Do not link to sites with temple content again.

Nemesis

Sorry. It was certainly not intentional. As indicated, the link was simply to a list of place names as requested in the CFR.

I was not aware that there was any temple content at the URL that I provided.

Did you look at the specific link in making the judgement, or just the domain name?

[ERayR]

Sorry. It was certainly not intentional. As indicated, the link was simply to a list of place names as requested in the CFR.

I was not aware that there was any temple content at the URL that I provided.

Did you look at the specific link in making the judgement, or just the domain name?

It would be good if you had a clue before posting.

Do not clutter the thread with throwaway insults if you want to stay in it.

[diglot]

It would be good if you had a clue before posting.

lol, was that really needed?

[KevinG]

lol, was that really needed?

Only you can judge if you need a clue or not. The angel Vanna White will deliver a letter upon request. You may buy a vowel if you need but not all that glitters is a word.

[diglot]

Only you can judge if you need a clue or not. The angel Vanna White will deliver a letter upon request. You may buy a vowel if you need but not all that glitters is a word.

That don't make a lick of sense.

The response made to "Mariner" seemed unnecessary and in bad taste. It seems some people around here overreact to non-Mormons who post anything in disagreement with the LDS Church.

[Nemesis]

Stop derailing the thread. We already took care of it no need to continue.

Nemesis

[Mariner]

CFR please. Can you tell me in what manner the Book of Mormon supports the claims highlighted in bold.

There is no language called "Reformed Egyptian." Moroni states that he wrote in Egyptian characters that had been "reformed" (one would assume over a period of 1000 years) Here's all I can find on the subject.

Mormon 9:32-34

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been ^asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no ^bimperfection in our record.

Thanks,

WW

Nonetheless, Joseph Smith thought his "Reformed Egyptian" important enough that he "copied" a sheet of "Caractors" that he claimed were used to write the Book of Mormon. As I recall, the Classics Professor Professor Anthon, when asked about the Caractors, designated them as fraudulent and warned Martin Harris that he was being duped.

So, although I must agree with the distinction you make, in the end it would seem irrelevant. As described in my response to Altersteve, of the more than 10,000 inscriptions in codices and on buildings, and monuments from per-Columbian Mesoamerica, there is no trace of Joseph Smith's "Reformed Egyptian".

One would think that if the history of an entire people were preserved in this form of writing, on plates of gold no less, that these Caractors would be be important enough to be found somewhere among 10,000 inscriptions made by the same civilization.

Are you claiming that the Nephites spoke Hebrew but wrote in Reformed Egyptian? If so why have no inscriptions in Hebrew in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica?

If Joseph Smith was really being given information about pre-Columbian Mesoamerica by revelation, why are the Olmecs or the Mayans not mentioned?

If the Lord could give Joseph Smith untranslatable names of animals such as Cureloms and cumoms, why not give him the name (in English, or Mayan, or even Spanish) for Mayans or the Olmec? And please do not claim that the Olmec may have actually called themselves Nephites, because we know for sure that this is not the case.

And finally, why does "Reformed Egyptian" look for al the world like a mixture of Tironian notes, Old Gaelic, and Ogham code (which writing systems account for the vast majority, if not all, of the "Caractors") and nothing at all like Mayan or Olmec glyphs (which writing systems account for none of the Caractors)?

Edited November 15, 2011 by Mariner

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nonetheless, Joseph Smith thought his "Reformed Egyptian" important enough that he "copied" a sheet of "Caractors" that he claimed were used to write the Book of Mormon. As I recall, the Classics Professor Professor Anthon, when asked about the Caractors, designated them as fraudulent and warned Martin Harris that he was being duped.

I am not convinced that the claimed "Caractors" are what JS wrote down Harris and presented to Anthon.

And there is no such thing as "Reformed Egyptian". The BoM never claimed as such either.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[altersteve]

Nonetheless, Joseph Smith thought his "Reformed Egyptian" important enough that he "copied" a sheet of "Caractors" that he claimed were used to write the Book of Mormon. As I recall, the Classics Professor Professor Anthon, when asked about the Caractors, designated them as fraudulent and warned Martin Harris that he was being duped.

This is false. Professor Anthon at first thought they were authentic, until Martin Harris told him where they came from. Anton then retracted his statement and told Martin to leave. This is a fact of history that every Latter-day Saint is aware of.

So, although I must agree with the distinction you make, in the end it would seem irrelevant. As described in my response to Altersteve, of the more than 10,000 inscriptions in codices and on buildings, and monuments from per-Columbian Mesoamerica, there is no trace of Joseph Smith's "Reformed Egyptian".

It's called "reformed Egyptian," not "Reformed Egyptian." The "R" is not capitalized. And this is because, as I have explained multiple times now, "reformed Egyptian" was used to write the Book of Mormon, not for anything else.

One would think that if the history of an entire people were preserved in this form of writing, on plates of gold no less, that these Caractors would be be important enough to be found somewhere among 10,000 inscriptions made by the same civilization.

Nope, because it was only used to write the Book of Mormon. They were important enough to not have been used for anything else.

Are you claiming that the Nephites spoke Hebrew but wrote in Reformed Egyptian? If so why have no inscriptions in Hebrew in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica?

They probably spoke the same language every other Mayan spoke. We do, in fact, have several inscriptions that have strong similarities to Hebrew religion and culture.

If Joseph Smith was really being given information about pre-Columbian Mesoamerica by revelation, why are the Olmecs or the Mayans not mentioned?

They were. But we call them "Nephites," "Lamanites," and "Jaredites." Most Book of Mormon scholars believe the Olmecs are Jaredites.

If the Lord could give Joseph Smith untranslatable names of animals such as Cureloms and cumoms, why not give him the name (in English, or Mayan, or even Spanish) for Mayans or the Olmec? And please do not claim that the Olmec may have actually called themselves Nephites, because we know for sure that this is not the case.

Because the names for Mayans and Olmecs are translatable. The names for Mayans and Olmecs are "Nephites," "Lamanites," and "Jaredites." I'm not claiming that they these are what they called themselves.

And finally, why does "Reformed Egyptian" look for al the world like a mixture of Tirnonian notes, Old Gaelic, and Ogham code (which writing systems account for the vast majority, if not all, of the "Caractors") and nothing at all like Mayan or Olmec glyphs (which writing systems account for none of the Caractors)?

Once again, Mariner, it is not called "Reformed Egyptian." The "R" is not capitalized. And they don't look like Mayan or Olmec glyphs because they were not either of those. Many scholars believe them, as I said, to be a "mash-up" of Egyptian and Hebrew.

Edited November 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Mariner]

I am not convinced that the claimed "Caractors" are what JS wrote down Harris and presented to Anthon.

And there is no such thing as "Reformed Egyptian". The BoM never claimed as such either.

Mormon 9:32-34

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

[Mariner]

Altersteve,

Here is something I say very seldom, but if there ever was a time this is it. At this point, your above responses make my case better than I could make it myself.

So, I would invite anyone who wishes to judge the relative strength of your claims to simply re-read your last post above.

That should make you happy.

I know it does me.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Mariner

[altersteve]

Altersteve,

Here is something I say very seldom, but if there ever was a time this is it. At this point, your above responses make my case better than I could make it myself.

So, I would invite anyone who wishes to judge the relative strength of your claims to simply re-read your last post above.

That should make you happy.

I know it does me.

That's cool, but this doesn't really seem like a response. I'm looking forward to your specific responses to my statements on this page and on the last, including my responses to your criticisms of the Book of Abraham. Feel free to start a new thread for that if you wish, since this is getting pretty off-topic. If not, I'll think you have nothing to say and I'll just assume that I've won the upper hand in this discussion.

Edited November 14, 2011 by altersteve

[altersteve]

Mormon 9:32-34

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

Yeah. They used "reformed Egyptian," not "Reformed Egyptian." See the difference?

[Calm]

Most Book of Mormon scholars believe the Olmecs are Jaredites.

You mean Jaredites were Olmecs....much like the Nephites were embedded into the civilization around them, instead of being the civilization, they were a part of it.

[KevinG]

That don't make a lick of sense.

'tis a bad pun that needs explaining. I will repent.

For the record I find your comments insightful.

Regarding the OP - I hesitate to judge a source like FAIR as good or bad. It makes more sense to me to judge each article by how thoroughly it is researched and sourced. On the balance I think they do a good job of apologetics.