canard78 Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Did Dan Peterson just tacitly acknowledge that there's no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?Some critics dismiss the Book of Mormon because, they say, no archaeological evidence directly supports it. Archaeological evidence, though, is spotty, and it seldom shows up on cue.Until Conrad Schick found the pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem’s Muslim quarter in the 19th century, for example, only the Gospel of John suggested the pool ever even existed. Some scholars used that fact to argue that John was late and at least partially fictional, written by an author unacquainted with the city.Yet Palestine is far more intensively studied and easier to work in than Mesoamerica, with much better textual resources and a continuous tradition of geographical names.http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628607/Much-left-to-discover-between-archaeology-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.htmlPeterson effectively seems to be saying that the so-called critics are right, there is no archaeological evidence. But it's not because there's none to be found, it's just because we haven't looked in the right place yet.
JLHPROF Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Peterson effectively seems to be saying that the so-called critics are right, there is no archaeological evidence. But it's not because there's none to be found, it's just because we haven't looked in the right place yet. Isn't that the way of archaeology (and most of science). They assume something doesn't exist until they find it .
Calm Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Did Dan Peterson just tacitly acknowledge that there's no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628607/Much-left-to-discover-between-archaeology-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.htmlPeterson effectively seems to be saying that the so-called critics are right, there is no archaeological evidence. But it's not because there's none to be found, it's just because we haven't looked in the right place yet.I would say he is not saying that given this: Real archaeology bears little resemblance to an Indiana Jones movie; overwhelmingly, it’s a matter of painstakingly drawing inferences from such things as pottery fragments and partial building foundations. And authors who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, such as John Clark, Brant Gardner, John Sorenson and Mark Wright, who very much believe the Book of Mormon to have solid footing within Mesoamerican archaeology, have long been engaged in such efforts. I commend their work to anybody who’s interested. 4
Jeanne Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Well...let us not condemn those that wait until they find it.
Popular Post Avatar4321 Posted May 23, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 23, 2015 There is plenty when there should be none. You might not.be convinced by it, but that doesn't mean the evidence is non existent. 5
ERayR Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Well...let us not condemn those that wait until they find it. What would you accept as archeological evidence that would support the Book of Mormon?
Avatar4321 Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 And no Dr. P wasn't admitting there is no evidence. Fairly obvious with his choice of language. I've also never known him to lie 2
Freedom Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 The point he is making is that critics are using a false premise. They argue that we should be able to find a sign that says 'Nephi lived here' or a tower called 'the rameumptom'. This is not what archaeology produces; rather it produces pots and pans, burial sites, and travel routs that indicate a civilization existed. It so happens that the evidence we are finding matches what we should find based on what the book of mormon says. The critics argue that, since the civilizations we are finding suggest they had a pagan religion, that this proves there were no Christians. They fail to see the hypocrisy of this argument when cities like Los Vegas are filled with Christians but 99% of the art and architecture provides no evidence of this. Scholars have been talking about the Library of Alexandria for generations, but the actual archaeological evidence of the complex was only just recently discovered; nevertheless they cannot prove that this find is the library because the front sign that no doubt said 'The Library of Alexandria - late returns will cost you an arm and a leg' was lost long ago. If the book of mormon says that a civilization thrived at a certain time in history, we should find evidence of a thriving civilization at that time. If the book of mormon mentions a writing system, we should find evidence of the same. If the book of mormon mentions complex trading systems, this would have to exist. Since the book of mormon never describes any of its art or architecture other than mentioning walls and bricks, we have no way of linking the art and architecture we are finding to specific passages in the book. Therein lies the problem. 4
Duncan Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 I wonder too about the identification of things, i.e would a non member scholar know enough about the Book of Mormon to be making parallels? 2
Jeanne Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 What would you accept as archeological evidence that would support the Book of Mormon?Some real bones..a definite answer as to where this all occurred. Where is the relics of this civilization...who ARE the Lamanites??? Were their a multitude or just principle ancestors..Zelph white...??? Stuff....! Real things...what did Joseph actually translate as far as the Book of Abraham??
Freedom Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 I wonder too about the identification of things, i.e would a non member scholar know enough about the Book of Mormon to be making parallels?For that matter, would a member scholar who knows a lot about the book of mormon be able to make parallels if the book of mormon does not mention any of the things that are typically found in an archaeological site? The book does not give any explanation of burial rites, eating habits, style of clothing or music, methods of manufacturing, forms of education, or policies on trading. It is so carefully written that any ties to the real world have been meticulously removed. All we have population patters and suggested locations of communities.
Jeanne Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 There is plenty when there should be none. You might not.be convinced by it, but that doesn't mean the evidence is non existent.If I am not convinced...why am I automatically wrong not to be convinced?
Freedom Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Some real bones..a definite answer as to where this all occurred. Where is the relics of this civilization...who ARE the Lamanites??? Were their a multitude or just principle ancestors..Zelph white...??? Stuff....! Real things...what did Joseph actually translate as far as the Book of Abraham??How would we prove where it all occurred if we cannot do the same for the bible despite far more time and people searching? If you are expecting the word 'Zarahemla' to show up on a stone tablet you will be disappointed. What would the relics look like? Can you show me a passage in the Book of Mormon that describes an example of a relic that we might find in a dig? I don't think 'principle' means what you think it means. multitude and principle are not related. One refers to number, the other refers to importance. Zelph was not a book of mormon era character so this is not related to the discussion.
Freedom Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) If I am not convinced...why am I automatically wrong not to be convinced?You don't have to be convinced, but you are arguing based on a false premise. Edited May 23, 2015 by Freedom
oremites Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 It is so carefully written that any ties to the real world have been meticulously removed. Yet more evidence that Joseph Smith was a diabolical genius. 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 If I am not convinced...why am I automatically wrong not to be convinced? Not being convinced is not the same thing as being wrong. IE; We're still trying to figure out exactly what gravity is, but few are convinced that it doesn't exist.For Book of Mormon evidencesSEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
Duncan Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) For that matter, would a member scholar who knows a lot about the book of mormon be able to make parallels if the book of mormon does not mention any of the things that are typically found in an archaeological site? The book does not give any explanation of burial rites, eating habits, style of clothing or music, methods of manufacturing, forms of education, or policies on trading. It is so carefully written that any ties to the real world have been meticulously removed. All we have population patters and suggested locations of communities. in other words Jacob 1:2 "And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi." Edited May 23, 2015 by Duncan 1
Freedom Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 In addition to the false premise that we should be finding artifacts that can be directly linked to the book of Mormon, another misconception is that we should expect God to provide proof in order for his gospel to be true. This standard is never applied to the bible, or course, but it is imposed on the Book of Mormon. If Joseph translated the Book of Abraham, we should be able to point to the original scrolls and have scholars verify the translation is the argument. They fail to see how this would completely defeat the purpose of us relying on faith. For that matter, why doesn't God just go to the White House and set the record strait? Why not have angels march on the Vatican and explain the reality situation? Why stop at a jar made by the brother of Jared, why not provide a video of Jesus curing blind people?
ERayR Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Some real bones..a definite answer as to where this all occurred. Where is the relics of this civilization...who ARE the Lamanites??? Were their a multitude or just principle ancestors..Zelph white...??? Stuff....! Real things...what did Joseph actually translate as far as the Book of Abraham?? There are real bones and real buildings and real geographical evidences in likely spots. Just because there are no city name signs blazoned with Book of Mormon names doesn't mean they are not valid. What Joseph translated is in the Book of Abraham. There is reasonable evidence to assume there was a large scroll that could have contained the BoA. It is also reasonable that Josephs translation could have been revelation. What you are asking is for irrefutable proof. Time has erased the irrefutable.
Avatar4321 Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 If I am not convinced...why am I automatically wrong not to be convinced?Straw man. I didn't say you weren't. I just said it's completely untrue to continue claiming th err was no evidence of you aren't convinced.
Avatar4321 Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Nhm seems like a good book of Mormon city name that exists where it's supposed to when it's supposed to.It may not convince you to believe but it is evidence and will forever make it impossible for someone to say there is no evidence.But the only thing that will convince you is the Holy Spirit.When is the last time you read the Book of Mormon, Jeanne?
Jeanne Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 You don't have to be convinced, but you are arguing based on a false premise. So are you. 1
Bobbieaware Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Did Dan Peterson just tacitly acknowledge that there's no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628607/Much-left-to-discover-between-archaeology-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.htmlPeterson effectively seems to be saying that the so-called critics are right, there is no archaeological evidence. But it's not because there's none to be found, it's just because we haven't looked in the right place yet.Within the context of this thread, I have what I believe is a very important question to ask: If powerful archaeological evidence was discovered that proved the Nephites were a real ancient American people and civilization, what do you think the consequences would be?
ERayR Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 If I am not convinced...why am I automatically wrong not to be convinced? Whether or not you are convinced is irrelevant to whether or not there is evidence. 1
Jeanne Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 Whether or not you are convinced is irrelevant to whether or not there is evidence.But you are convinced and the evidence remains the same.
Recommended Posts