Bom Witnesses: Vogel Responds To Apologists

[rodheadlee]

Please share this abundance of evidence that you claim is in existence.

H.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamanai

[robuchan]

I took a couple hours the other day to read Vogel's article here, as well as some of the apologetic explanations on the subject.

I know you are all waiting for me to weigh in on this...

As a former TBM turned critic ...

This is one of the very few issues I think the apologists have a decent case. This article was compelling, but still leaves me really wondering what happened with the eight witnesses. The three witnesses, to me, clearly reads as a con on Martin Harris. The eight witnesses...I'm just not sure how to comprehend it. I think there's a zero chance that Joseph possessed gold plates which contained the writings of ancient American Christian prophets, but on the flip side I don't think the critics yet have a perfect explanation for the eight witnesses.

I appreciate Dan Vogel's work, and I think his theory is plausible. Two different events, one to view, one to handle, fake plates created. It doesn't "feel" exactly right, and I can't explain why.

With all the talk of spiritual eyes, and feeling the plates under a blanket, though, the pure apologetic view on this is also sketchy. Not as sketchy as other restoration events like First Vision, three witnesses, Christ visit to Kirtland temple section 76, angelic visits to restore the priesthood, etc. But still sketchy.

[mfbukowski]

I've never understood this argument. Many religious traditions display relics that are spiritually relevant to the faith of adherents. Yet, with Mormonism, physical relics, it is claimed, have absolutely no relevance.

I don't believe this is true, not for one minute. In fact, I believe if incontrovertible physical evidence of Nephite civilizations existed, there would be no shortage of putting it on display at every opportunity so that the Church and it's members would have a more sure footing for their faith.

Let's face it, the only reason this argument stands - physical evidence does not lead to spiritual truth - is because there is no physical evidence to present.

H.

You really don't understand that the city of Jerusalem and finding a tomb does not prove that Jesus is the son of God?

[wenglund]

So where's your Nephite artifact? That was the original question you keep avoiding with your question-begging answer.

Your last sentence contains an internal contradiction. Let's see if you can find it (hint: see below).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

But is the BOM a record of real or fictional Nephites?

As I said, this is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it is a record of real Nephites.

...that's the issue you keep avoiding.

Wrong. I have now directly addressed it twice.

If the BOM isn't history, then the witnesses hallucinated, right?

The thought makes reason stare.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The implied argument from Toronto was the BOM is not real history because no Nephite artifacts have been found. His challenge was for you to produce a Nephite artifact to establish BOM historicity.

You are here mind-reading (hallucinating), which is something I am not inclined to do. He asked a straightforward question, and I gave him a straightforward answer.

You gave the BOM as evidence that the Nephites existed. This clearly begs the question.

It may beg the question you hallucinated, but not the question that was actually asked.

Time for you to man up and admit you were being flip for the amusement of your fellow apologists than with constructive dialogue.

I admit that I was toying with you, though not for the self-serving reasons you hallucinated. I did so realizing that constructive dialogue with you was remote because of your hallucinations,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2012 by wenglund

[cdowis]

So where's your Nephite artifact?

Let us suppose that archeologists find a jade necklace. How do they identify whether it is Nephite, Lamanite, or something else. They are excavating a city from the pre-Classic time period. How do they identify it? There are many artifacts in museums, there are many excavated cities, but the problem of identification has not been resolved.

Now, sir, since you asked the question, please tell us how to identify a Nephite artifact or city. Otherwise your question is meaningless. I don't know anyone who has given an unqualified answer.

Edited March 22, 2012 by cdowis

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Just a quick note -- Lamanai is probably not useful as evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. As LDS Mesoamerican scholar Brant Gardner noted over at Mormanity:

The city that has a Book of Mormon sounding name is Lamanai. There is a perfectly good etymology in Maya, so I suspect that it is unrelated.

There is a major issue with tryng to correlate any name of an archaeological site with the Book of Mormon - the current names come from modern times and are typically unrelated to the ancient names. Even names that are known from textual histories are better known by different names. For instance, Utatlan (capital of the Quiche) is the more common name. However, K'umarkaaj is the Quiche name (and is less known).

Until about 15 years ago, none of the original names of Maya sites was known. Now it is accepted that Tikal was anciently Mutal. In some cases, major cities were known as "place of reeds" (such as Tollan). It now appears that this is a designation for a major capital and was translated into multiple languages and applied to different cities - many of whom were a "place of reeds." Hence that might have been a term more akin to "captial" than a place name.

It is a very complicated issue in Mesoamerica. Those who expect that names would have persisted, like Jerusalem, are making erroneous assumptions about the available data for the New World.

Edited March 22, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[wenglund]

I took a couple hours the other day to read Vogel's article here, as well as some of the apologetic explanations on the subject.

I know you are all waiting for me to weigh in on this...

As a former TBM turned critic ...

This is one of the very few issues I think the apologists have a decent case. This article was compelling, but still leaves me really wondering what happened with the eight witnesses. The three witnesses, to me, clearly reads as a con on Martin Harris. The eight witnesses...I'm just not sure how to comprehend it. I think there's a zero chance that Joseph possessed gold plates which contained the writings of ancient American Christian prophets, but on the flip side I don't think the critics yet have a perfect explanation for the eight witnesses.

I appreciate Dan Vogel's work, and I think his theory is plausible. Two different events, one to view, one to handle, fake plates created. It doesn't "feel" exactly right, and I can't explain why.

With all the talk of spiritual eyes, and feeling the plates under a blanket, though, the pure apologetic view on this is also sketchy. Not as sketchy as other restoration events like First Vision, three witnesses, Christ visit to Kirtland temple section 76, angelic visits to restore the priesthood, etc. But still sketchy.

It is sketchy in a secular sense, which to me is intentional. These things were meant to remain matters of faith, and this so that our minds would be directed away from earth/man and towards the heavens. Those whose minds have turned in the opposite direction, defy this intent and thus fail to see and understand and consequently don't believe,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2012 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

As I said, this is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it is a record of real Nephites.

The question ... did Nephites exist, is a question of fact.

If the BOM isn't history, then the witnesses hallucinated, right?

Conspired, lied, duped, hallucinated, words were misinterpreted, any, all or none of the above.

The thought makes reason stare.

Like you, I also find the notion of mass hallucination to be implausible.

But I don't find it more implausible than:

The explanation for the absence of the plates ... an angel took them back to heaven.

or the explanation as to how Smith found the plates ... An angel showed him where they were buried.

or the explanation as to why others were not allowed to see the plates ... God would not allow Smith to show them to anyone else.

or the explanation as to why these witnesses were allowed to see the plates ... they were especially righteous.

I think its more plausible they were all willing participants in a deception. Their participation was made easier, by crafting a statements which when parsed was deceptive, but not overtly false.

You are very good at parsing words when it suits you. Here is what they said. Where do they say the plates were of ancient origin? What is that they say in this statement that is strictly inconsistent with Smith having made the plates himself?

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Jaybear

[Gervin]

Let us suppose that archeologists find a jade necklace. How do they identify whether it is Nephite, Lamanite, or something else. They are excavating a city from the pre-Classic time period. How do they identify it? There are many artifacts in museums, there are many excavated cities, but the problem of identification has not been resolved.

Now, sir, since you asked the question, please tell us how to identify a Nephite artifact or city. Otherwise your question is meaningless. I don't know anyone who has given an unqualified answer.

Why pick on a jade necklace? You can take every single artifact that's ever been dug out of the ground between Tierra del Fuego and the Northwest Territories and claim the same "problem of identification."

But in truth, a jade necklace can be identified as associated with known cultures such as Olmec, or Mayan, or Valley groups; archaeologist know very much about jade mining in mesoamerica, different qualities and colors of jade, the role of jade in the society, and the various ways in which jade was shaped and displayed.

The question that you conveniently skip over to create your "challenge" is: why would anyone expect a jade necklace to be associated with anything but one of the known mesoamerican cultures - cultures that left evidence of their writing, beliefs, city-states, customs, practices, appearance, sustinence, etc. etc??

Your question assumes an answer by someone who believes in Nephites. So, it is yours to answer.

[wenglund]

The question ... did Nephites exist, is a question of fact.

Even if so, the answer isn't a matter of fact.

Conspired, lied, duped, hallucinated, words were misinterpreted, any, all or none of the above.

Like you, I also find the notion of mass hallucination to be implausible.

But I don't find it more implausible than:

The explanation for the absence of the plates ... an angel took them back to heaven.

or the explanation as to how Smith found the plates ... An angel showed him where they were buried.

or the explanation as to why others were not allowed to see the plates ... God would not allow Smith to show them to anyone else.

or the explanation as to why these witnesses were allowed to see the plates ... they were especially righteous.

I think its more plausible they were all willing participants in a deception. Their participation was made easier, by crafting a statements which when parsed was deceptive, but not overtly false.

You are very good at parsing words when it suits you. Here is what they said. Where do they say the plates were of ancient origin? What is that they say in this statement that is strictly inconsistent with Smith having made the plates himself?

I am glad you could share your opinion so that I could give it due consideration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Why pick on a jade necklace? You can take every single artifact that's ever been dug out of the ground between Tierra del Fuego and the Northwest Territories and claim the same "problem of identification."

But in truth, a jade necklace can be identified as associated with known cultures such as Olmec, or Mayan, or Valley groups; archaeologist know very much about jade mining in mesoamerica, different qualities and colors of jade, the role of jade in the society, and the various ways in which jade was shaped and displayed.

The question that you conveniently skip over to create your "challenge" is: why would anyone expect a jade necklace to be associated with anything but one of the known mesoamerican cultures - cultures that left evidence of their writing, beliefs, city-states, customs, practices, appearance, sustinence, etc. etc??

Your question assumes an answer by someone who believes in Nephites. So, it is yours to answer.

Your response seems to assume that only those cultures that are known to produce jade necklaces, produced jade necklaces. This fallaciously doesn't allow for possible future discoveries.

Your response also seems to assume that only those cultures that are known to produce jade necklaces, are the only cultures to consume, own, or wear jade necklaces. This fallaciously doesn't allow for trade between cultures.

Your response also doesn't account for subcultures--such as were the Nephites a subculture of the Mayan culture, as some have suggested.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

I am glad you could share your opinion so that I could give it due consideration.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

It strikes me that most of time, these discussions devolve over manufactured disputes. I think its helpful to find the kernal of the dispute.

That can't happen, when your only response is a flippant remark.

[wenglund]

Do you disagree?

Yes

If so, why?

In my opinion the evidence, as I see it, persuades me to view the authoritative account as credible and the most plausible.

It strikes me that most of time, these discussions devolve over manufactured disputes. I think its helpful to find the kernal of the dispute. That can't happen, when your only response is a flippant remark.

What actually doesn't help is for you to mis-characterize my respectful, honest, and open-minded response as "flippant".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2012 by wenglund

[Gervin]

Your response seems to assume that only those cultures that are known to produce jade necklaces, produced jade necklaces. This fallaciously doesn't allow for possible future discoveries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not true. A future Mesoamerican discovery will, in all likelihood, happen this afternoon or this weekend. People are constantly making new archaeological discoveries.

Your response also seems to assume that only those cultures that are known to produce jade necklaces, are the only cultures to consume, own, or wear jade necklaces. This fallaciously doesn't allow for trade between cultures.

Not true. I make no assumptions regarding trade between cultures. Investigators know much about the Mayan trade of jade with Teotihuacan, Zapotec, and other central and gulf coast Mexico groups. They also traded in the Caribbean islands and in the area to what is now Colombia. They engaged in inter-site commerce of jade. I didn’t mention every aspect of jade but was making a point that much is known about cdowis’s hypothetical jade necklace – despite his assertion that “the problem of identification has not been resolved.”

Your response also doesn't account for subcultures--such as were the Nephites a subculture of the Mayan culture, as some have suggested.

If the Nephites were a subculture of the Mayan then it’s really up to LDS archaeologists, historians, anthropologists, Book of Mormon scholars to point to discovered Mayan ruins, glyphs, artifacts, burial sites, jade necklaces, etc. and show the world the evidence of a Nephite (sub) culture. In all honesty, it appears there are some very smart LDS historians and archaeologists, etc. – but if they can’t make this link then how do you expect the rest of the world to react to a claim of Nephite subculture? By “link” I don’t mean a chart by Dr. Clark or the type of discussion that Mr. Gardner makes; these seem (to me) to be “40,000 feet” observations that are trying to establish links of conjectural plausibility.

I mean A Link: a Mayan glyph referring to some “other” subcultural group with a different belief system, or a temple that appears it was used for a different belief system, or a jade necklace with writing etched on its surface that appears to be more akin to Hebrew or Egyptian. [ notice I did that without mentioning a steel sword, horse bone, or a chariot wheel ]

If the LDS claim is that the Nephites were so subsumed into the Mayan culture that they left no distinct traces then it isn’t unfair for the world to assume Nephites did not exist since the world can find neither Mayan culture in the Book of Mormon nor the presence of a Nephite culture in Mesoamerica.

Out of here for a few days (I keep my itinerary private ) and my spelling fluid

Edited March 22, 2012 by Gervin

[wenglund]

Not true. A future Mesoamerican discovery will, in all likelihood, happen this afternoon or this weekend. People are constantly making new archaeological discoveries.

Not true. I make no assumptions regarding trade between cultures. Investigators know much about the Mayan trade of jade with Teotihuacan, Zapotec, and other central and gulf coast Mexico groups. They also traded in the Caribbean islands and in the area to what is now Colombia. They engaged in inter-site commerce of jade. I didn’t mention every aspect of jade but was making a point that much is known about cdowis’s hypothetical jade necklace – despite his assertion that “the problem of identification has not been resolved.”

I can accept that you believe this. However, I don't see where you allowed for it in your previous statement. Instead, it seemed to assume otherwise.

If the Nephites were a subculture of the Mayan then it’s really up to LDS archaeologists, historians, anthropologists, Book of Mormon scholars to point to discovered Mayan ruins, glyphs, artifacts, burial sites, jade necklaces, etc. and show the world the evidence of a Nephite (sub) culture. In all honesty, it appears there are some very smart LDS historians and archaeologists, etc. – but if they can’t make this link then how do you expect the rest of the world to react to a claim of Nephite subculture? By “link” I don’t mean a chart by Dr. Clark or the type of discussion that Mr. Gardner makes; these seem (to me) to be “40,000 feet” observations that are trying to establish links of conjectural plausibility.

I mean A Link: a Mayan glyph referring to some “other” subcultural group with a different belief system, or a temple that appears it was used for a different belief system, or a jade necklace with writing etched on its surface that appears to be more akin to Hebrew or Egyptian. [ notice I did that without mentioning a steel sword, horse bone, or a chariot wheel ]

If the LDS claim is that the Nephites were so subsumed into the Mayan culture that they left no distinct traces then it isn’t unfair for the world to assume Nephites did not exist since the world can find neither Mayan culture in the Book of Mormon nor the presence of a Nephite culture in Mesoamerica.

Out of here for a few days (I keep my itinerary private ) and my spelling fluid.

Your missing the point. I agree that those wishing to assert the Nephites may have been a subculture of Mayans, need to make their case. What I spoke to, however, is that your statement seemed to ignore the matter of subcultures, and seemed to not allow for them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

Wade: I am glad you could share your opinion so that I could give it due consideration.

What actually doesn't help is for you to mis-characterize my respectful, honest, and open-minded response as "flippant".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I completely misjudged you. It never occurred to me that you would be willing to defend that statement as a "respectful, honest and open-minded response."

Your reality is more fluid and malleable that I had I had imagined.

[wenglund]

Wade: I am glad you could share your opinion so that I could give it due consideration.

I completely misjudged you. It never occurred to me that you would be willing to defend that statement as a "respectful, honest and open-minded response." Your reality is more fluid and malleable that I had I had imagined.

You continue to misjudge me, but that is to be expected when you are hyper-critical, presumptuous, and feign good faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2012 by wenglund

[Dan Vogel]

You state:

Then you state:

So tell us.... Does the irony escape you?

The difference between us Mormons and you anti-mormons is that we see and know many evidences for the Book of Mormon from all aspects of the sciences and intellectual analysis. You, you claim such as the above that there is more evidence than just science, but then you don't really believe it because you only still look for the "Nephite Artifact" for Mormonism to be valid for you, while ignoring the plethora of evidences for the work from other sources.

Some 20 years ago when I returned to the Church there was so much evidence for the Restoration, not only the Book of Mormon, that it fascinated me how any real objective person could deny the Churches truthfulness. I saw so much, that I felt people were really without excuse. Then today the evidences have only tripled since that time. So is the problem that there isn't enough good evidence for the Church? Not at all. The problem is much more simple, and it has to do with the heart and soul of a man/woman. Bottom line. People like you are without excuse.

If you recall, Bukowski rejected historical evidence about the witnesses as mere faith. The discussion here has centered on the lack of a direct connection between the BOM and ancient America. Hence, Toronto's request for a Nephite artifact. The fact that you think the secondary evidence apologists construct is clear and overwhelming is because you don't see that most of it is cherry picking and ignore disconfirming evidence. Their interpretations are hermeneutical loops.

[Dan Vogel]

You are here mind-reading (hallucinating), which is something I am not inclined to do. He asked a straightforward question, and I gave him a straightforward answer.

It may beg the question you hallucinated, but not the question that was actually asked.

I admit that I was toying with you, though not for the self-serving reasons you hallucinated. I did so realizing that constructive dialogue with you was remote because of your hallucinations,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When I speak of the implied argument, it has nothing to do with mind reading but is a logical extension of the question that the rule of charity would have you consider rather than playing games.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please share this abundance of evidence that you claim is in existence.

H.

That would be a complete waste of time.

[wenglund]

When I speak of the implied argument, it has nothing to do with mind reading but is a logical extension of the question that the rule of charity would have you consider rather than playing games.

More hallucinations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDSToronto]

That would be a complete waste of time.

When one states that sharing evidence would be a complete waste of time, I get the feeling that those who claim there is physical evidence to share really don't have anything to share.

Is that the case? Because, if so, there is nothing wrong with saying, "We don't have evidence." But claiming there is evidence and then saying, "but we won't show you because of these reasons..." Well, come on - you have to admit that doesn't sound too convincing.

H.

[LDSToronto]

You really don't understand that the city of Jerusalem and finding a tomb does not prove that Jesus is the son of God?

Yes, I understand that. I also understand that it says that there may have been a character named Jesus who existed 2000 years ago. Now, let's move the semantics, analogies, and metaphors aside and provide the evidence that Nephites existed, independent of the alleged record found in The Book of Mormon.

H.