So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[Bobbieaware]

Continued from http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65601-doubting-mormon/page-2 , which is now closed.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. You clearly understand nothing of what I said on this subject. However, if you want to find the religion with the most advanced degrees, you might want to try Judaism, which is an excellent religion.

This is your false and apriori contention, and you provide no evidence to support it. Perhaps you would like to critique the real world of archeology and historiography with specific examples supporting your view.

In the real world, there is no such animal as "unchallengeable" evidence. Like "conclusive" evidence, it is silly even to speak in such terms. We have had an excellent discussion of such issues on this immediate thread, and you should review it for clarification of where you have gone so wrong in so many ways on this subject.

Also, your comment about sending a list to LDS General Authorities is impertinent and rude. The Brethren have known for generations that converts are obtained almost exclusively through the sincere teachings of missionaries witnessed by the power of the Holy Spirit. They are not about to adopt a list of claims from someone who doesn't know anything about the nature of evidence, whether secular or sacred. Your snide and sarcastic remarks are indicative that you are not conversant with the nature of available evidence, neither its strengths nor its shortcomings.

However, you might want to consider my own pointed opinions on the subject:

“The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” illustrated lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

“Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010), 125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807 .

“The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 .

“'The Land of Jerusalem’: The Place of Jesus Birth,” FARMS Update, May 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 170-172. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=814 .

“New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, February 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 .

If you like those, I can provide more.

Before I move on to commenting on your last post, are you really going to tell me there is hard empirical evidence that comes even remotely close to settling the issue as to whether or not the Book of Mormon is true? I mean the kind of hard physical evidence that obviates the need for one to receive spiritual confirmation the Book of Mormon is authentic? This is preposterous nonsense! If you will go back to that post of mine you first took took exception to, you will see in the very first sentence I was speaking of ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. And in my layman's terminology, in that same post, I used the terms "physical evidence" and "empirical evidence," as being synonymous with the term "archaeological evidence." I was not speaking of linguistic or textual evidences within the Book of Mormon (some of which I have been aware for many years). So except for your reference to Sorenson's unconvincing (for me and many others) work, you presented mostly tentative linguistic and textual "evidences" that MAY bolster some claims made within the pages of the Book of Mormon, but which hardly constitute the kind of convincing archaeological evidences sought for by the Mormon Doubter. And if you will remember, I was speaking to and addressing the concerns of the Mormon Doubter, I was not conversing with you.

So this brings us right back to square one: There is no other way on earth to KNOW the Book of Mormon is true -- as per the promises made in Moroni's Challenge -- other than to receive revelation from the Holy Ghost. The linguistic and textual evidences which you cite may prove to be encouraging tidbits of information for some of us who already believe the Book of Mormon is true, but they will have no effect on a doubter who insists on seeing, handling and testing the ruins of the Nephite civilization, complete with writings on metallic plates that match the characters on the Anthon Transcript, before their sign-seeking souls will even begin to give way to the possibility that the Book of Mormon might be true. Aside from confirmatory revelation from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true, all the things you point to as evidences will have about as much affect on convincing the soul of a doubter that the Book of Mormon is true as will an episode of Ancient Aliens on History Channel 2 convince a man of average intelligence that the ancient inhabitants of Atlantis had fusion-powered space ships.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[why me]

If I am not convinced...why am I automatically wrong not to be convinced?

Actually, how can one be convinced of the bible? True, the writers knew the geography but there is no evidence that the narratives are true and what happened actually happened. We have no collaborative sources and no eye witness acounts from other sources. Such is the nature of religion. It all takes faith. However, it will be great to find evidence. Then, I would become an active member, try to live like a 'saint' and look forward to the celestial kingdom. Instead of how I am living now.

 

At this point, the existence of god will not be proven. However, do we have evidence that may increase our faith? The holy ghost, the 11 witnesses, spirtual manifestations etc?

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................are you really going to tell me there is hard empirical evidence that comes even remotely close to settling the issue as to whether or not the Book of Mormon is true? I mean the kind of hard physical evidence that obviates the need for one to receive spiritual confirmation the Book of Mormon is authentic? This is preposterous nonsense! If you will go back to that post of mine you first took took exception to, you will see in the very first sentence I was speaking of ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. And in my layman's terminology, in that same post, I used the terms "physical evidence" and "empirical evidence," as being synonymous with the term "archaeological evidence." I was not speaking of linguistic or textual evidences within the Book of Mormon (some of which I have been aware for many years).

This demonstrates yet again that you have no idea what "archeology" is and how it can be used to deal with answers to a whole range of questions about events which may or may not have occurred in the past.  Such questions are dealt with in much the same way by crime scene analysts who photograph, measure, and recover organic and inorganic items from a crime scene -- then taking it back to the lab for close analysis and eventual presentation in a court of law (where rules of evidence are quite strict).  None of that registers with you?  You don't see that the archeological recovery of textual materials might have textual and linguistic application?  You say that you have been aware of some such things for years, but seem completely unaware of the implications.

 

So except for your reference to Sorenson's unconvincing (for me and many others) work,

I'd be interested to know why you and "many" others find Sorenson's work "unconvincing."  What specifically did you find unconvincing?  What do these "many others" find unconvincing?  Or is this the usual throwaway comment based on lack of knowledge about what archeology and anthropology might be?

 

you presented mostly tentative linguistic and textual "evidences" that MAY bolster some claims made within the pages of the Book of Mormon, but which hardly constitute the kind of convincing archaeological evidences sought for by the Mormon Doubter. And if you will remember, I was speaking to and addressing the concerns of the Mormon Doubter,............................

Well, you may be right that the Doubting Mormon would not accept anything that did not fit into his preconceived set of conditions -- conditions which require the kind of direct knowledge which simply does not exist for most of us, except for the biblical Doubting Thomas.  This should bring home to you the  reality which conditions all of our testimonies:  Testimonies are personal and non-transferrable.  The testimony of Saint Thomas is based on actually feeling the wounds of the Savior first-hand, and he can find that utterly convincing.  That is not necessarily going to convince others, however, all of whom may only find solace in a personal testimony mediated by the Holy Spirit.  In conversation with Peter (Simon Bar Jona), the Savior found this to be the best testimony, and you seem to agree wholeheartedly.  Unfortunately, you then go on to demean anything else, even though you have no idea what else there is.

 

So this brings us right back to square one: There is no other way on earth to KNOW the Book of Mormon is true -- as per the promises made in Moroni's Challenge -- other than to receive revelation from the Holy Ghost.

As long as you expand your epistemology here enough to include Alma 32, and other like notions (dealing with Scripture and the Kingdom of God), I see no problem with inspiration and revelation as the most important bases for a testimony

 

The linguistic and textual evidences which you cite may prove to be encouraging tidbits of information for some of us who already believe the Book of Mormon is true, but they will have no effect on a doubter who insists on seeing, handling and testing the ruins of the Nephite civilization, complete with writings on metallic plates that match the characters on the Anthon Transcript, before their sign-seeking souls will even begin to give way to the possibility that the Book of Mormon might be true. Aside from confirmatory revelation from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true, all the things you point to as evidences will have about as much affect on convincing the soul of a doubter that the Book of Mormon is true as will an episode of Ancient Aliens on History Channel 2 convince a man of average intelligence that the ancient inhabitants of Atlantis had fusion-powered space ships.

But, there you go again, denigrating science and logic by comparing it to the escapades of yokels seeking after aliens.  In so doing, you play into the hands of the anti-Mormons who have been making such false comparisons for many years.  Furthermore, you do so knowing virtually nothing about the issues.

 

The late Elder Neal A. Maxwell understood the difference and spoke about it often.  You just don't get it, Bobbie.

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually, how can one be convinced of the bible? True, the writers knew the geography but there is no evidence that the narratives are true and what happened actually happened. We have no collaborative sources and no eye witness acounts from other sources.

Actually, this is not true.  We do have eyewitness, contemporary corroboration of some specific events.  We have clay tablets written in Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform script, for example, which have been recovered in archeological excavations -- tablets which speak of events which have just taken place and which are also part of the biblical record.  Such tablets verify events described in the Bible and even provide specific calendar dates for them.  Contemporary illustrations have even been recovered which depict conquests described in the Bible.  I speak to some of these items and place them in context in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: The Ancient Near East,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 5/2 (1996):98-147.  Online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1391&index=5 .

 

See also my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

 

Such is the nature of religion. It all takes faith. However, it will be great to find evidence. Then, I would become an active member, try to live like a 'saint' and look forward to the celestial kingdom. Instead of how I am living now.

 

At this point, the existence of god will not be proven. However, do we have evidence that may increase our faith? The holy ghost, the 11 witnesses, spirtual manifestations etc?

You seem to have struck the correct balance here, good buddy, something which seems to have escaped Bobbieaware.

[Hagoth]

I would just like to comment that if there was any significant archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon I think the church would really get behind it and bombard it with visitor centers or feature it prominently on Temple Square. But there just isn't anything convincing enough for even the church to latch onto. Imagine what a powerful missionary tool something like that would be.

[ERayR]

I would just like to comment that if there was any significant archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon I think the church would really get behind it and bombard it with visitor centers or feature it prominently on Temple Square. But there just isn't anything convincing enough for even the church to latch onto. Imagine what a powerful missionary tool something like that would be.

 

Somewhat like the angel that appeared to Lamen and Lemuel.

Edited July 6, 2015 by ERayR

[Hagoth]

Somewhat like the angel that appeared to Lamen and Lemuel.

 

Well, no actually, not at all.

 

What I'm saying is that that there are people purporting to have sound evidence for the Book of Mormon but even the church doesn't seem to be buying it. Check out the visitor center at Cumorah. Wouldn't it be amazing if there was something like that at a spot that could actually be identified, and universally acknowledged by LDS and non-LDS scholars as a BoM place? Or a Jaredite steel sword in the Visitor Center on Temple Square? Or some Reformed Egyptian carved into a stela?

 

Or is it better to think of the Book of Mormon and Archaeology as non overlapping magisteria?

[ERayR]

Well, no actually, not at all.

 

What I'm saying is that that there are people purporting to have sound evidence for the Book of Mormon but even the church doesn't seem to be buying it. Check out the visitor center at Cumorah. Wouldn't it be amazing if there was something like that at a spot that could actually be identified, and universally acknowledged by LDS and non-LDS scholars as a BoM place? Or a Jaredite steel sword in the Visitor Center on Temple Square? Or some Reformed Egyptian carved into a stela?

 

Or is it better to think of the Book of Mormon and Archaeology as non overlapping magisteria?

 

I am thinking that, like geography, archaeology is irrelevant to the truth claims and message of the Book of Mormon.

[Nevo]

I would just like to comment that if there was any significant archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon I think the church would really get behind it and bombard it with visitor centers or feature it prominently on Temple Square. But there just isn't anything convincing enough for even the church to latch onto. Imagine what a powerful missionary tool something like that would be.

 

I'm old enough to remember the 1970s Book of Mormon (with Moroni on the cover) and the 1980s Book of Mormon institute manual, both of which featured photos of Mesoamerican and South American ruins and artifacts. There was also a film called Ancient America Speaks (1974) that missionaries used to show people. Nowadays pre-Columbian archaeology doesn't figure at all into the Church's missionary outreach.

[Hagoth]

I'm old enough to remember the 1970s Book of Mormon (with Moroni on the cover) and the 1980s Book of Mormon institute manual, both of which featured photos of Mesoamerican and South American ruins and artifacts. There was also a film called Ancient America Speaks (1974) that missionaries used to show people. Nowadays pre-Columbian archaeology doesn't figure at all into the Church's missionary outreach.

 

I bet I showed the film strip of Ancient America Speaks 2000 times on my mission. I had it memorized in English and Spanish. It was very naive in its assumptions that the very existence of ancient remains in the Americas was proof of the Book of Mormon's veracity. There was even a picture of a pit in the ground (a water cistern) that they claimed was a Nephite baptismal font. 

[Brant Gardner]

I bet I showed the film strip of Ancient America Speaks 2000 times on my mission.

I was talking with Bruce Warren and a couple of other men familiar with Mesoamerican archaeology. They said they showed the film even then every once in a while--when they needed a good laugh.

The poor quality of evidence in that film doesn't equate to no good evidence, but I certainly agree that it is better that we not show that video any more (unless for the laughs).

[mfbukowski]

Just wanted to verify, that Joseph Smith memorizing the whole Bible is fiction, I emailed the author. But Joseph knew his Bible.

Yep

I talk to the author of the bible all the time and he tells me the same thing.

 

[mfbukowski]

The canon fodder has more victims.

I don't know who the cannon's fodder is but I know his son is a son of a gun.

[mfbukowski]

I'm old enough to remember the 1970s Book of Mormon (with Moroni on the cover) and the 1980s Book of Mormon institute manual, both of which featured photos of Mesoamerican and South American ruins and artifacts. There was also a film called Ancient America Speaks (1974) that missionaries used to show people. Nowadays pre-Columbian archaeology doesn't figure at all into the Church's missionary outreach.

Except in every painting in every chapel and every temple.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would just like to comment that if there was any significant archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon I think the church would really get behind it and bombard it with visitor centers or feature it prominently on Temple Square.

I know of no evidence which would support this crazy claim, Hagoth.  On the one hand, you would have to be fully conversant with the state of archeological evidence, and then you would have to show that the LDS Church could be expected to immediately react by establishing these imaginary visitor centers and displays on Temple Square.  That is a lot of knowledge, and I do hope that you will clue us in . . . 

 

But there just isn't anything convincing enough for even the church to latch onto. Imagine what a powerful missionary tool something like that would be.

Again, would you care to support your assumption here?  What do you base it on?

 

Moreover, why would you believe that some wet-behind-the-ears missionary would be able to speak authoritatively about archeology and ancient history?  LDS missionaries generally follow the doctrines set out in Preach My Gospel, and then bear their testimonies.  Why would anyone seek to change that successful pattern?

 

Do you actually know anything about ancient history or archeology?  If so, please be so kind as to inform me as to why there is nothing at all archeological or historical out there which is in any sense convincing.  Maybe I desperately need to be clued in . . .

[Hagoth]

I know of no evidence which would support this crazy claim, Hagoth.  On the one hand, you would have to be fully conversant with the state of archeological evidence, and then you would have to show that the LDS Church could be expected to immediately react by establishing these imaginary visitor centers and displays on Temple Square.  That is a lot of knowledge, and I do hope that you will clue us in . . . 

 

Again, would you care to support your assumption here?  What do you base it on?

 

Moreover, why would you believe that some wet-behind-the-ears missionary would be able to speak authoritatively about archeology and ancient history?  LDS missionaries generally follow the doctrines set out in Preach My Gospel, and then bear their testimonies.  Why would anyone seek to change that successful pattern?

 

Do you actually know anything about ancient history or archeology?  If so, please be so kind as to inform me as to why there is nothing at all archeological or historical out there which is in any sense convincing.  Maybe I desperately need to be clued in . . .

 

Wow, I must be a bad communicator. Please excuse me if I look like an idiot, because I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread.

 

What I'm saying is that it's pretty hard to deny the existence of the Roman Empire when you look at something like Trajan's Column, or to deny the existence of the Greek Empire after examining the Parthenon, Egypt/Luxor, Vikings in America/L'ans aux meadows, etc. We don't look at those things and say "this was probably Roman but it might be Viking or Elven."

 

By missionary tool I was speaking to the larger scale message to the world at large, not the 18-year olds knocking on doors. What I'm saying is that the church has nothing they are willing to point at and say, "see, Nephites." Sure there are a lot of people are giving Book of Mormon tours and selling expo tickets but I don't see the church standing behind any of that. The pyramid at Chichen Itza shows up in some Christ in America paintings but not by any specific sanction of the church. 

 

BYU does some excellent archaeology but, as far as I know, the church stopped funding expeditions to look for Book of Mormon evidence after Ferguson's 'disappointing results. I have heard non-Mormon archaeologists praise the BYU work, but they say the one topic that never comes up in BYU archaeology these days is the Book of Mormon.

 

I'm sorry you felt the need to accuse me of being ignorant about history and archaeology. I think I can hold my own fairly well, as long as we're talking about real history and modern archaeology. I'm the one saying I don't see anything conclusive, so I don't think it's on me to prove that. Please direct me to the piece of evidence that the archaeological community, or even the leadership of the church will get behind and say, "that is unquestionably Nephite." 

Edited July 7, 2015 by Hagoth

[Brant Gardner]

What I'm saying is that it's pretty hard to deny the existence of the Roman Empire when you look at something like Trajan's Column, or to deny the existence of the Greek Empire after examining the Parthenon, Egypt/Luxor, Vikings in America/L'ans aux meadows, etc. We don't look at those things and say "this was probably Roman but it might be Viking or Elven."

I have heard comments like this a lot lately. While it is true as far as it goes, it makes some fundamental errors when used to compare to the issues involved in Book of Mormon archaeology. The first is the assumption that the Nephites must have caused a cultural revolution and brought remnants of their higher culture to the New World. That assumption alone is enough to have secular archaeologists dismiss the claims. It is known to be incorrect. However, not influencing culture and being present in the culture are two very different things. Unlike the Viking settlement that was intended to be separate, the Nephites appear (from internal evidence) to have merged with the peoples in the area. That adoption of material culture makes it difficult to know when a pot is Nephite or Mayan--since we know what the Mayan pots look like but would have no idea if there were a substyle for Nephite.

The second problem that makes such comparisons inaccurate is the problem of continuity. We have a modern Jerusalem and Rome so we don't have to wonder to whom those early ruins belonged.

The third is texts. The Old World is text rich from an incredibly early time. For the New World, only one region in the whole hemisphere clearly produced written languages, but texts are extremely rare for Book of Mormon times (handsful, most of which cannot be deciphered). So we don't have the texts to help us make the connections.

Still, that doesn't mean that there isn't evidence. There simply isn't obvious and conclusive evidence. The case has to be built--and there are sufficient data to build a very good case.

BYU does some excellent archaeology but, as far as I know, the church stopped funding expeditions to look for Book of Mormon evidence after Ferguson's 'disappointing results.

Not correct. Technically they did stop funding the New World Archaeological Foundation, but decades after Ferguson.

I have heard non-Mormon archaeologists praise the BYU work, but they say the one topic that never comes up in BYU archaeology these days is the Book of Mormon.

The New World Archaeological Foundation did very good work. It was the church who told the directors not to mention the Book of Mormon. So it isn't that it doesn't come up these days, it is that the Church specifically separated the Book of Mormon from what the NWAF published.

[Hagoth]

Thanks for your comments, Brant. I guess my observation is that as time goes by we seem to expect less and less significant evidence, and the Jaredites/Lehites tend to get stretched thinner and settle more imperceptibly into the background. Take DNA for example. I remember reading long ago a statement by an LDS scholar (man, I wish I could remember who it ways - maybe you're familiar with the quote) about how someday there might even be some sort of blood test that would prove once and for all that Native Americans are Lamanites. Not too much later that test did come along and when it didn't go quite as we would have hoped we had to readjust our expectations.

 

I do think there are some interesting things to consider but for the most part it seems like the type of evidence that is much more convincing to someone who already believes the Book of Mormon. I understand your point about continuity. I wonder what a kind of smoking gun evidence would establish that kind of continuity for a Book of Mormon location.  Do you think something like that could even be found or do you believe the BoM peoples were so completely absorbed into the cultural milieu that there could not even be anything indistinguishable from the original inhabitants, at least from our modern perspective? 

Edited July 7, 2015 by Hagoth

[Brant Gardner]

I wonder what a kind of smoking gun evidence would establish that kind of continuity for a Book of Mormon location.  Do you think something like that could even happen or do you believe the BoM peoples were so completely absorbed into the cultural milieu that they would be completely indistinguishable from the original inhabitants?

I can't think of what a smoking gun might be. Of course, there are the typical ideas of finding something incontrovertibly Near Eastern, but I can't see how that would work. When Lehi's family arrived they expected to continuing contact to the previous location and had a new ecosystem to learn. There is no reason to believe that Lehi's family could make cloth from scratch, especially if they had to change the source of the fibers. It is unlikely that they were potters. So pretty much the entirety of the physical culture needed to survive would be borrowed from the locals and not continued from the Old World. There were some plantings of Old World seeds, but we don't hear a lot of them after the "and it was good" statements that may be more theological than descriptive. The change in ecosystem would dictate differences in available crops.

As for religion, Lehi came from a basically aniconic religion and tradition. Most of the things that we know as the iconography of Judaism or of Christianity postdate the Book of Mormon.

I'd love to have that one thing, but I don't hold out any hope of finding it.

Where I do think there is good hope and evidence is in seeing how the Book of Mormon reflects the greater culture and time in which it was created. That isn't a smoking gun, but the cumulative evidence is getting specific enough that history can now supply answers to questions that we didn't even know to ask about the Book of Mormon--such as why it appears so Christian so early, why the people wanted Nephi to be a king, why Jacob lectured them on costly apparel and multiple wives in the same talk, why Mosiah led his people out of the city of Nephi about 200 B.C. (and not earlier or later) and how they found the people of Zarahemla with a different language and God. Eventually, we can understand why the demise of the Nephites occurred when it did, why Gadianton robbers were among the assailants, and why it wouldn't have happened earlier or later.

None of that is the smoking gun, but taken together, the Book of Mormon fits extremely well into a known historical context at the right times and correctly mirrors cultural shifts through time.

[Calm]

There were some plantings of Old World seeds, but we don't hear a lot of them after the "and it was good" statements

 

IIRC seeds from a different area that were not well adapted might be successful for the first year, but year after year would yield less and less for the next year to be planted.  Any idea if this is correct or am I confusing things with current gardening issues where many flowers, fruits and vegetables that reseed themselves have to be purchased every couple of years because they get smaller and smaller over time.

[Hagoth]

Thanks for your feedback, Brant.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................................

What I'm saying is that it's pretty hard to deny the existence of the Roman Empire when you look at something like Trajan's Column, or to deny the existence of the Greek Empire after examining the Parthenon, Egypt/Luxor, Vikings in America/L'ans aux meadows, etc. We don't look at those things and say "this was probably Roman but it might be Viking or Elven."

Or the Triumphal Arch of Titus, with its Jewish Temple Candelabrum, the Lachish Reliefs in the palace of Sennacherib in Nineveh, the Black Obelisk showing King Jehu of Israel prostrate before Shalmaneser III of Assyria, etc., of course.  But do you understand the significance of any of that sort of contemporary evidence?  Or can you explain why the LDS Church does not have visitor centers and special displays of such artifacts?  According to you they should be falling all over themselves to present such evidences.

 

By missionary tool I was speaking to the larger scale message to the world at large, not the 18-year olds knocking on doors. What I'm saying is that the church has nothing they are willing to point at and say, "see, Nephites." Sure there are a lot of people are giving Book of Mormon tours and selling expo tickets but I don't see the church standing behind any of that. The pyramid at Chichen Itza shows up in some Christ in America paintings but not by any specific sanction of the church.

Yes, and Arnold Friberg applied Viking socialist realism to illustrate the Book of Mormon, and Hollywood has typically represented Jesus as a distinctly non-Jewish European or Nordic superman.  Throughout Medieval and Renaissance times, artists typically represented Jesus and his apostles in contemporary Medieval and Renaissance dress and with a very Western look about them.  The surrounding culture has long had an overwhelming influence.

 

BYU does some excellent archaeology

Perhaps you would care to discuss BYU archeological work.  What have they done and who was in charge?  For example, what sort of archeology did they do in New York State?

 

but, as far as I know, the church stopped funding expeditions to look for Book of Mormon evidence after Ferguson's 'disappointing results.

Completely false.  The LDS Church never funded any expeditions looking for Book of Mormon evidence.  When the Church provided funding to the New World Archeological Foundation, it was always with the written proviso that no effort would be directed at finding Book of Mormon evidence.  What they wisely funded and demanded was straight archeology.  Ferguson, a Bay Area lawyer, was an effective fund-raiser, knew nothing about archeology, and proved his complete ignorance of the subject in his later writings.  I was frankly astonished to read his 1975 ramblings at the time, and suspected dementia.

 

I have heard non-Mormon archaeologists praise the BYU work, but they say the one topic that never comes up in BYU archaeology these days is the Book of Mormon.

Correct.  The BYU NWAF has always been run by professional archeologists, and most excavations were conducted by non-Mormons.  Over many decades, they have produced by far and away the most and the best excavation reports on Mesoamerican archeology.  They are very well respected.  BYU has also been conducting excavations in Egypt for decades, and some BYU professors and students have participated in and run excavations in Syria, Israel, New York State, etc.

 

I'm sorry you felt the need to accuse me of being ignorant about history and archaeology. I think I can hold my own fairly well, as long as we're talking about real history and modern archaeology. I'm the one saying I don't see anything conclusive, so I don't think it's on me to prove that. Please direct me to the piece of evidence that the archaeological community, or even the leadership of the church will get behind and say, "that is unquestionably Nephite."

You are not able to hold your own in discussion of such matters, mostly because you simply do not know the facts.  You were certainly unable to answer my questions, or to defend your untenable claims..  You made a number of bold statements which you could not support, several of them blatantly false.  Indeed, you continue to appeal to "the leadership of the church," none of whom know anything about archeology or anthropology -- nor should they.

[canard78]

Before I move on to commenting on your last post, are you really going to tell me there is hard empirical evidence that comes even remotely close to settling the issue as to whether or not the Book of Mormon is true? I mean the kind of hard physical evidence that obviates the need for one to receive spiritual confirmation the Book of Mormon is authentic? This is preposterous nonsense!

I agree with you that nothing comes close to being conclusive.

If you will go back to that post of mine you first took took exception to, you will see in the very first sentence I was speaking of ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. And in my layman's terminology, in that same post, I used the terms "physical evidence" and "empirical evidence," as being synonymous with the term "archaeological evidence." I was not speaking of linguistic or textual evidences within the Book of Mormon (some of which I have been aware for many years). So except for your reference to Sorenson's unconvincing (for me and many others) work, you presented mostly tentative linguistic and textual "evidences" that MAY bolster some claims made within the pages of the Book of Mormon, but which hardly constitute the kind of convincing archaeological evidences sought for by the Mormon Doubter. And if you will remember, I was speaking to and addressing the concerns of the Mormon Doubter, I was not conversing with you.

No-one with any sense would try to argue that the Romans didn't invade and inhabit England. There is plenty of physical, archaeological evidence for that.

So I agree that physical evidence for Nephites could be possible and I also agree that there currently is nothing close to what we have in UK for the Romans.

So this brings us right back to square one: There is no other way on earth to KNOW the Book of Mormon is true -- as per the promises made in Moroni's Challenge -- other than to receive revelation from the Holy Ghost. The linguistic and textual evidences which you cite may prove to be encouraging tidbits of information for some of us who already believe the Book of Mormon is true, but they will have no effect on a doubter who insists on seeing, handling and testing the ruins of the Nephite civilization, complete with writings on metallic plates that match the characters on the Anthon Transcript, before their sign-seeking souls will even begin to give way to the possibility that the Book of Mormon might be true. Aside from confirmatory revelation from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true, all the things you point to as evidences will have about as much affect on convincing the soul of a doubter that the Book of Mormon is true as will an episode of Ancient Aliens on History Channel 2 convince a man of average intelligence that the ancient inhabitants of Atlantis had fusion-powered space ships.

Again, I agree that there is currently only spiritual evidence that offers a convincing conclusion about the existence of Nephites. If spiritual convictions are set assume then there's absolutely nothing left that is conclusive.

I can absolutely see that for those who already have a spiritual conviction that the physical evidence is encouraging/supportive... But it's not independently so.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................................................

..................................................Take DNA for example. I remember reading long ago a statement by an LDS scholar (man, I wish I could remember who it ways - maybe you're familiar with the quote) about how someday there might even be some sort of blood test that would prove once and for all that Native Americans are Lamanites. Not too much later that test did come along and when it didn't go quite as we would have hoped we had to readjust our expectations.

.................................................................................................

I'm not sure which "scholar" you refer to, nor what his scholarly specialty might have been, but he appears to have assumed that all Amerinds had Lamanite DNA.  Quite an assumption.  Especially since the notion that a DNA test might come along in the future could only have been formulated in an era in which it had already become apparent to Book of Mormon scholars that claims internal to the book made it impossible to consider all Amerinds as Lamanites, i.e., the entire BofM story must have taken place in an area of the New World nearly as small as Palestine.  Non-scholars (such as myself) had the impression theretofore that the BofM took place in the entire Western hemisphere.  We simply hadn't read carefully enough.

 

Thus, any DNA studies must be conducted in far more limited areas, and the focus should be on ancient DNA.  The notion that "it didn't go quite as we would have hoped," is a non sequitur and is based on a false and unscholarly assumption.

[canard78]

I'm not sure which "scholar" you refer to, nor what his scholarly specialty might have been, but he appears to have assumed that all Amerinds had Lamanite DNA. Quite an assumption. Especially since the notion that a DNA test might come along in the future could only have been formulated in an era in which it had already become apparent to Book of Mormon scholars that claims internal to the book made it impossible to consider all Amerinds as Lamanites, i.e., the entire BofM story must have taken place in an area of the New World nearly as small as Palestine. Non-scholars (such as myself) had the impression theretofore that the BofM took place in the entire Western hemisphere. We simply hadn't read carefully enough.

Thus, any DNA studies must be conducted in far more limited areas, and the focus should be on ancient DNA. The notion that "it didn't go quite as we would have hoped," is a non sequitur and is based on a false and unscholarly assumption.

At the very least you'd have to admit that, to date, DNA has provided no evidence at all for the historicity of the BoM.

It certainly hasn't proven it false, but it hasn't been very supportive either.

If, for example, Middle-Eastern DNA were found in ancient Mesoamerican burial sites, would you consider it good news or bad news? Would FAIRmormon or MormonInterpreter pick up on it, or would they treat it the same as the current DNA data?