Brant Garner'S Mormon Stories Podcast

[Brant Gardner]

Whatever they are called, the name and the interpretation of the artifacts do not reflect any contact, knowledge of, or association with anything from the Old World.

Agreed. I don't think that we should see such information (similar to the Exodus Israelites adopting Canaanite styles, or later Assyrian or greater ANE architecture). If a people does not happen to create a unique style, does that mean they didn't exist?

As I note in the reply to Craig, it isn't a question of pure artifacts, but of the relationship of a text to those artifacts. You have the nature of the evidence backwards.

[Craig Paxton]

What would a nephite artifact look like?

Exactly my point!!!! We don't know what one would look like. WHY? Because NONE have EVER been found...and until one is found (not holding my breath) there is nothing to support the claim that any ever did exist.

And for Mormon apologetics to assign a Nephite name to a known civilizations known artifacts is disingenuous and disrespectful to the civilization that did create these artifacts

Edited January 6, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

. . . which, to this point, is apparently an uninformed opinion without a basis in any understanding of the nature of culture clash/combination. If you want to believe in archaeological data as science, why do you insist on ignoring it if it doesn't support your opinion? Really? Are you sure? I would suggest that you have an interesting idea about evidence. In this case, we are talking about the relationship of texts to artifacts, which is a slightly different discipline that pure archaeology (and one that is known to have some differences based on the different nature of the two types of data). In the case of the Book of Mormon, we do find (what I believe to be clear) information that the text reflects a Mesoamerican setting and the cultural and historical pressures that we understand to have shaped both the Maya and their interactions with more northern populations. There is evidence, but it isn't the kind you are looking for. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. No, we can trace everything to human production. What we have with the Book of Mormon is a very different issue. We are talking about a text, not archaeology. When you insist on creating that dichotomy you necessarily define the problem incorrectly. We don't know information about biblical archaeology from the archaeology alone, or (in many cases) from the architectural or material culture styles, since they were often borrowed (one of the problems in finding the Exodus Israelites is that they appear to have adopted Canaanite material culture). We have biblical archaeology by comparing it to a text. Leaving the text out of it entirely simply leaves artifacts that might be defined as Palestinian and someone might (uninformedly, of course) argue that they weren't Israelite but simply Canaanite.

Brant I respect you...but by your standard you could assign ANY ancient civilization name...Roman, Egyptian, Sumir, Etruscan to ancient American artifacts and be on just as sound ground...which is just plain crazy talk...NO ONE but a Mormon with NO Nephite artifacts would dare do this

[LeSellers]

We don't know what [a Nephite artifact] would look like. WHY? Because NONE have EVER been found...and until one is found (not holding my breath) there is nothing to support the claim that any ever did exist.

This is a circular argument.

We don't know what one would look like because we haven't found any, but if we do find one (and we may have), we would not recognize it because we don't know what one would look like.

You cannot say "None have ever [please excuse my not shouting] been found." We may very well have found some, but because we don't recognize them, we haven't cataloged them as Nephite artifacts.

Lehi

[Brant Gardner]

Brant I respect you...but by your standard you could assign ANY ancient civilization name...Roman, Egyptian, Sumir, Etruscan to ancient American artifacts and be on just as sound ground...which is just plain crazy talk...NO ONE but a Mormon with NO Nephite artifacts would dare do this

Somehow you are still missing the point. We categorize artifacts according to our modern perceptions of the people who used them, and that often doesn't reflect what they thought about themselves. That is often not an issue, because we are establishing cultural patterns as reflected in material culture.

The issue for the Book of Mormon is different, because we cannot count on an object self-identifying as Nephite (objects do not self-identify as much of anything unless they contain writing, which is why we--finally--know so much about the Maya). When you are comparing a text to material culture, the fact that an object does not self-identify is not the issue. The issue is whether it fits with the historical situation described in the text. When you remove the correspondence between text and artifact from the equation you end up making conclusions that cannot be supported by the data.

[why me]

Exactly my point!!!! We don't know what one would look like. WHY? Because NONE have EVER been found...and until one is found (not holding my breath) there is nothing to support the claim that any ever did exist.

And for Mormon apologetics to assign a Nephite name to a known civilizations known artifacts is disingenuous and disrespectful to the civilization that did create these artifacts

And if one were found and proven, what would you do? Would you know for a surety that god exists? And would you change your life accordingly?

[Freedom]

Exactly my point!!!! We don't know what one would look like. WHY? Because NONE have EVER been found...and until one is found (not holding my breath) there is nothing to support the claim that any ever did exist.

And for Mormon apologetics to assign a Nephite name to a known civilizations known artifacts is disingenuous and disrespectful to the civilization that did create these artifacts

So my owning a Japanese car is disrespectful to the Japanese who created it? You do not claim to know what the objects would look like but you refuse to recognize any found objects as Nephite? Do you not see the problem with your logic?

You do not appear to have a working knowledge of archeology, and in particular, the archeology of mesoamerica. Consequently you bring up arguments that are not founded in logic; not that you are not trying to be logical, but your lack of understanding of ancient texts and archeology is preventing you from having a sound argument. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of ancient texts that have been found with no correlation in the archaeological record. So what the experts do is look at the text and compare it to what they have. The text might say the people wore blue tops. The archaeologist finds blue-stained bowls so they infer that these bowls were used to soak the clothes in blue die.

You want a nephite artifact. Well, the nephites built great cities. We have found great cities. The nephites traveled on foot. We found a culture without the wheel. The nephites were tribal with limited control over their confederate cities. We find a culture of tribal groups with loose allegiances. The evidence continues to grow. You will not find a nephite cup any more than you will find a mormon cup or an atheist cup. These type or artifacts do not exist in the real world unless you are talking about novelty items. You have presented the argument, please provide a reference from a qualified archaeologist or what ever other ologist that would apply that would back up your argument then we can move forward. I have provided some names for starters.

[Ariarates]

Admitting that there was a historical Troy doesn't simultaneously complicate the issue by suggesting that we must believe in angels and miraculous translations. That will always create a dividing point.

I agree. Science is not about the supernatural. The BoM will always be about faith.

Thanks for your answers, Brant.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Exactly my point!!!! We don't know what one would look like. WHY? Because NONE have EVER been found...and until one is found (not holding my breath) there is nothing to support the claim that any ever did exist.

How do you know one has not been found? You have only asserted that one has not been found. And that is the problem. How would we identify a nephite artifact?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is a circular argument.

We don't know what one would look like because we haven't found any, but if we do find one (and we may have), we would not recognize it because we don't know what one would look like.

You cannot say "None have ever [please excuse my not shouting] been found." We may very well have found some, but because we don't recognize them, we haven't cataloged them as Nephite artifacts.

Lehi

Bingo. This is a good point.

[sjdawg]

So my owning a Japanese car is disrespectful to the Japanese who created it?

huh?

[Gervin]

huh?

What do mean, "huh?" Do you want the names of animals or a cure for cancer?

[Tarski]

It has to do with the doctrine of the BOM being the keystone and most correct book of any on earth. If it isn't correct then the keystone crumbles. If a horse isn't a horse what else isn't what it says it is?

The whole book isn't what it says it is in my opinion.

[Gervin]

Agreed. I don't think that we should see such information (similar to the Exodus Israelites adopting Canaanite styles, or later Assyrian or greater ANE architecture). If a people does not happen to create a unique style, does that mean they didn't exist?

As I note in the reply to Craig, it isn't a question of pure artifacts, but of the relationship of a text to those artifacts. You have the nature of the evidence backwards.

"If a people does not happen to create a unique style"

What??

Their whole existence was a unique style. Jews come to the New World with their seeds and they start successfully growing their own unique crops, they practice their own unique religion, they create their own unique temples, and they maintain some kind of hebrew/egyptian/reformed-something language, at least in written form, for generations. They even find animals in the wilderness unique to what we know of mesoamerica. They looked uniquely different, they talked uniquely different, their foundational culture was uniquely different, their religious beliefs, practices, customs, God, festivals, rules, etc. were uniquely different. They reeked of unique, yet you so confidently see them as mayan-lite. And I have the evidence backwards? Giveth me a break.

[Brant Gardner]

"If a people does not happen to create a unique style"

What??

Their whole existence was a unique style.

Please refer to the archaeology of the Holy Land. I can't imagine any archaeologist agreeing with that statement.

they practice their own unique religion,

As an aniconic religion, what would you think would produce the material evidence for this?

they create their own unique temples,

Like the Old World, where they borrowed architectural models from other peoples and were not unique?

and they maintain some kind of hebrew/egyptian/reformed-something language, at least in written form, for generations.

Which we can only say was used for the plate records. There is no indication that it was used for any other purpose. See Church Latin.

Giveth me a break.

Readeth more Old World archaeology.

[ERayR]

The whole book isn't what it says it is in my opinion.

That and $1.95 will get you a bottle of Pepsi.

[volgadon]

Giveth me a break.

Give me better grammar or give me death.

[mikeuu]

Brant another question for you.

Do you only think about the BOM as a functional translation? Does the BOM work for you if you look at the translation in other ways, like god putting the exact words on parchment in front of Joseph's eyes, with no need for for Joseph to interject his own experience and ideas?

[morgan.deane]

"If a people does not happen to create a unique style"

What??

Their whole existence was a unique style. Jews come to the New World with their seeds and they start successfully growing their own unique crops, they practice their own unique religion, they create their own unique temples, and they maintain some kind of hebrew/egyptian/reformed-something language, at least in written form, for generations. They even find animals in the wilderness unique to what we know of mesoamerica. They looked uniquely different, they talked uniquely different, their foundational culture was uniquely different, their religious beliefs, practices, customs, God, festivals, rules, etc. were uniquely different. They reeked of unique, yet you so confidently see them as mayan-lite. And I have the evidence backwards? Giveth me a break.

I can't help but think of Sorenson's article that shows a great number of cultrual features connected with ritual and ideology shared by the ancient near east and mesoamerica. Among other things this suggests Lehi's group wasn't as "unique" as you would like to think.

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf

[Brant Gardner]

Brant another question for you.

Do you only think about the BOM as a functional translation? Does the BOM work for you if you look at the translation in other ways, like god putting the exact words on parchment in front of Joseph's eyes, with no need for for Joseph to interject his own experience and ideas?

My opinion is the result of examining all the evidence I could find that would suggest the type of translation. I found that the majority of the time it was a functional translation. In some cases, principally in names (and perhaps name-titles) that it appears to have been more literal. I found a couple of cases where I could support a conceptual translation. It is just that the vast majority of the time the evidence suggests a functional translation, so that is the best default assumption.

I did find evidence that Joseph saw while translating, but not that he saw words that God put there for him to read.

[Freedom]

"If a people does not happen to create a unique style"

What??

Their whole existence was a unique style. Jews come to the New World with their seeds and they start successfully growing their own unique crops, they practice their own unique religion, they create their own unique temples, and they maintain some kind of hebrew/egyptian/reformed-something language, at least in written form, for generations. They even find animals in the wilderness unique to what we know of mesoamerica. They looked uniquely different, they talked uniquely different, their foundational culture was uniquely different, their religious beliefs, practices, customs, God, festivals, rules, etc. were uniquely different. They reeked of unique, yet you so confidently see them as mayan-lite. And I have the evidence backwards? Giveth me a break.

You seem determined to make the book what it is not. None of these assertions are made in the book. For example, you call them jews coming to the new world. They were not jews. They were from a different tribe. This simple misconception I think is systemic of your line of reasoning. The jews that you are familiar with are, in Nephi's opinion, in a state of apostasy. He makes a point of saying that he did not teach his people the manner of the Jews. He did not even teach his people concerning their manner of prophesying. However, you have made the claim so you need to back it up with references. The problem is, I don't think you have actually read the Book of Mormon. For that matter, I don't think you have even attended a religions service or been to a cultural center of a group other than your own. You will be surprised to find that their buildings look just like yours, their furniture looks just like yours, and their clothes look just like yours. They have all become american-lite to use your vernacular. I am frankly confused why this is a stumbling block to you, particularly when we consider that you have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

Unique is a dangerous word. It means not like anything else. I do not know of many cultural groups that have migrated to North America and remained 'unique'. For that matter, I do not know of many cultural groups anywhere on the planet that are profoundly unique from any other. There are subtle differences, but unique is not a word that should be used. As has been stated over and over again but has apparently missed your attention, cultural groups consistently adopt the practice of the indigenous population. The Catholics do it, the Mormons do it, the Sikhs do it, the atheists do it. You seem completely unwilling to consider this fact of reality. Consequently, you have created a straw-man argument: The nephites maintained a unique society that duplicates the one they left behind in Jerusalem. Jerusalem centric jewish artifacts have not been found in mesoamerica. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is false.

[Freedom]

huh?

am trying to understand why the Nephites could not have used Mayan pots. He argues that saying a Mayan pot was used by Nephites is an insult to the Mayans so I am making the comparison with my Japanese car to show him the flaw in his logic. Perhaps he is stretching by claiming if a Nephite used it, a Nephite must have invented it; therefore I am arguing that all the Mayan artifacts are in fact Nephite artifacts. I am not calling my car Canadian, I am saying I am a Canadian using a Japanese car. The Nephites were likely using Mayan pots because this seems to be what most of the people in this region were using. Even non-Mayans. There is evidence of Olmec styles of art and religious practices in isolated areas of the what became the Mayan heartland, as well as southern Guatemala, even though all the neighboring settlements had very different styles. This indicates that these hamlets had a special trading relationship with the Olmecs that eventually died out as specialty items of equal quality and value could be found by local artisans who use local styles and techniques. This is evidence, according to the archaeologists, that just because you find Olmec pots, this does not mean that you necessarily have an Olmec people.

[Freedom]

What do mean, "huh?" Do you want the names of animals or a cure for cancer?

Do you understand the significance of my comments about animals based on location?

[volgadon]

They were not jews. They were from a different tribe.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but Lehi and co. were Jews in the sense that they came from the kingdom of Judah. Lehi in fact didn't seem to know for a certainty his lineage.

[Freedom]

I agree with most of what you are saying, but Lehi and co. were Jews in the sense that they came from the kingdom of Judah. Lehi in fact didn't seem to know for a certainty his lineage.

He did know he was of Joseph. The point I am making is that the critic is demonstrating such a sweeping lack of knowledge of the text that I am confused why he is putting forth arguments.