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

[canard78]

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Can archaeology tell us, with reasonable confidence, whether Romans inhabited Britain for the first four centuries AD?

Bobbie is right when he says that there's no conclusive evidence for Nephites.

I completely agree that archaeology isn't ever an exact science but there are plenty of examples from world history of civilisations that can be studied and understood. Vikings, Romans,

Aztecs, Celts... Etc etc. Nephites and Lamanites though? Not yet. That doesn't mean not ever, but currently there's nothing outside of Mormon canon and spiritual experience that would support a credible confidence in the two civilisations ever being a reality.

[canard78]

Somewhat like the angel that appeared to Lamen and Lemuel.

The seminary home study course for the Book of Mormon included an extensive lesson about the Lehi Stone (Stella 5). For most of the 90s and much of the 00s this was celebrated as a "bulls eye" by the church.

That it has now been debunked and quietly removed from the curriculum doesn't alter the fact that when the church thought they has something worth celebrating they didn't hesitate to do so.

[canard78]

Yep

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

ROFL!!!!!

[canard78]

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 . . .

So if they found the cave full of plates that Moroni used to condense the final Boom of Mormon plates you think the church would hide them in granite mountain and not say a word about it?

The fact that Stella 5 was in the seminary curriculum (as one example among many others) suggests you're wrong.

[rodheadlee]

The seminary home study course for the Book of Mormon included an extensive lesson about the Lehi Stone (Stella 5). For most of the 90s and much of the 00s this was celebrated as a "bulls eye" by the church.

That it has now been debunked and quietly removed from the curriculum doesn't alter the fact that when the church thought they has something worth celebrating they didn't hesitate to do so.

How has it been debunked? It appears to me nobody knows what it really represents, according to the wiki article:

 

 Mesoamerican researchers identify the central image as a Mesoamerican world tree, connecting the sky above and the water or underworld below.^[8]

Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller further propose that the stela records a creation myth, with barely formed humans emerging from a hole drilled into the tree's left side. The associated seated figures are completing these humans in various ways.^[9] Julia Guernsey Kappelman, on the other hand, suggests the seated figures are Izapa elites conducting ritual activities in a "quasi-historical scene", which is framed by, and placed in the context of, the "symbolic landscape of creation".^[10]

Alternative Interpretations[edit]

Based on parallels with traditions originating in the Old World, a few researchers have linked the stone to theories of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Mormon theorist M. Wells Jakeman proposed that the image was a representation of a tree of life vision found in the Book of Mormon.^[11] Jakeman's theory was popular for a time among Mormons, but found little support from Mormon apologists.^[12] Julia Guernsey finds that Jakeman's research "belies an obvious religious agenda that ignored Izapa Stela 5's heritage".^[13]

The carving was also proposed by pre-Columbian contact theorist Ivan van Sertima as supporting an African origin of the Olmecs.^[14]

 

There is a lot of proposing and scoffing but no firm facts.

[Kevin Christensen]

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

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.

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.

And a huge part of the problem involves the unconcious use of inappropriate paradigms to define expectations. It should not be a particularly subtle distinction that the Romans came with several legions as an invasion and occupying force, and remined in place and in constant contact with Rome for 3 centuries. Why should that example provide a model set of expectations for Lehi's group arriving in a single boat?

It's very important, before complaining that you don't see what you expect, to carefully figure out what you should expect.

"Paradigms differ in more than substance, for they are directed not only to nature but also back upon the science that produced them. They are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time." Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 103.

The use of a Roman Briton comparison is a good example of how inappropriate expectations operate to define a set of methods, problem field, and standards of solution..

On the other hand, John Clark and Brant and Mark Wright, for example, operate under different models, different expectations, and seem to be far less cynical about the state of evidence.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited July 7, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[canard78]

And a huge part of the problem involves the unconcious use of inappropriate paradigms to define expectations. It should not be a particularly subtle distinction that the Romans came with several legions as an invasion and occupying force, and remined in place and in constant contact with Rome for 300 centuries. Why should that example provide a model set of expectations for Lehi's group arriving in a single boat?

It's very important, before complaining that you don't see what you expect, to carefully figure out what you should expect.

"Paradigms differ in more than substance, for they are directed not only to nature but also back upon the science that produced them. They are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time." Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 103.

The use of a Roman Briton comparison is a good example of how inappropriate expectations operate to define a set of methods, problem field, and standards of solution..

On the other hand, John Clark and Brant and Mark Wright, for example, operate under different models, different expectations, and seem to be far less cynical about the state of evidence.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

You're quite right to lower your expectations Kevin because as long as you believe the BoM to be true, independent of the ever-present paucity of evidence for it, the more you'll need your expectations to lower to match it.

Show me a culture in the Americas that kept the law of Moses for several hundred years, or one that preached of Christ. Show me some evidence of a culture that lived in peace and harmony for a couple of century. How about one that wrote on golden tablets in (reformed Egyptian). The only way of having a confidence in the BoM is to lower expectations to the extent that the minutest of evidence will suffice.

In Sorenson's work he pins a flag in his location for Zarahemla based on a divided courtyard. Is that really the extent of the evidence he can offer for this great city that stood for centuries, inhabited by Nephites and all their cultural trappings?

If the requirement for believing BoM evidence is to push your expectations so low that we're operating on a par with the UFO hunters and Big Foot believers, then I'm not "in."

[Hagoth]

 

 

You are not able to hold your own in discussion of such matters, mostly because you simply do not know the facts. 

 

Yes, I am obviously a moron. Thank you for repeatedly pointing that out. So let's defer instead to the scientific community.  Please give me a list of evidences that the archaeological community find persuasive in regards to the Book of Mormon and some statements by non-LDS archaeologists about how accurately the Book of Mormon describes pre-Columbian America. These are people who obviously are more capable of holding a discussion on the matter than I am and should have plenty to say about it if they see anything persuasive there. 

[Kevin Christensen]

You're quite right to lower your expectations Kevin because as long as you believe the BoM to be true, independent of the ever-present paucity of evidence for it, the more you'll need your expectations to lower to match it.

Show me a culture in the Americas that kept the law of Moses for several hundred years, or one that preached of Christ. Show me some evidence of a culture that lived in peace and harmony for a couple of century. How about one that wrote on golden tablets in (reformed Egyptian). The only way of having a confidence in the BoM is to lower expectations to the extent that the minutest of evidence will suffice.

In Sorenson's work he pins a flag in his location for Zarahemla based on a divided courtyard. Is that really the extent of the evidence he can offer for this great city that stood for centuries, inhabited by Nephites and all their cultural trappings?

If the requirement for believing BoM evidence is to push your expectations so low that we're operating on a par with the UFO hunters and Big Foot believers, then I'm not "in."

It's not a matter of lower, but appropriate. Did Lehi come with several legions, and masses of trained architects, engineers, and bureaucrats, capable of imposing a distinctive Old World cultural imprint within a contrasting New World style? And if not, if he represents one small boat containing a group of people who had not been attending Middle Eastern Engineering schools during their 8 year sojourn in the wilderness, and who would quite reasonably adopt the working practices of the people in the villiages and hamlets that existed where they landed, why not employ Brant's approach of "looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon?"

I've read Sorenson's criteria for his Zarahemla identification. It's not just the gravel under the plaza, but a set of interlocking requirements. It's the river and the proximity to the right kinds of cultures at the right time and place, the location in a boundary between two known language groups, and much more. The gravel under the plaza is just part of it. So too, is the relative location for the river, the use of cement at the right time to the north, and the volcanic eruptions at the right time.

Show me a culture in the Americas from the right time period and location that left written documents that explain which laws they kept so we can compare. If we don't have any written documents from the time, we can ask, what have we got to work with?

What kind of pottery shards or paving stones, burial practices, tell me whether the person who used it kept the law of Moses? What kind of plaza tells me the content of the King's coronation discourse?

Mark Wright has this, for instance:

The most well-documented coronation in the Book of Mormon takes place at the temple in Zarahemla, when King Benjamin gathers his people together to declare that his son Mosiah was to be “a king and a ruler over” them (Mosiah 2:30). Benjamin ritually presents Mosiah with the royal paraphernalia: the plates of brass, the plates of Nephi, the sword of Laban, and the Liahona (Mosiah 1:16). The presentation of royal regalia was likewise an important aspect of accession among the Maya. On [Page 85]the murals of San Bartolo, Guatemala (ca. 100 bc)14 we see an enthronement ceremony wherein the ruler sits upon a wooden tower or scaffold to receive the emblems of rulership.15 The coronation and presentation of a new king to his subjects would have been an occasion of much pomp and circumstance. Maya temples form part of the site core, and were designed with public spectacle in mind.16 They were typically the tallest building in the central precinct and always faced a large plaza that would accommodate thousands of people. The architectural layout of temple complexes effectively maximized acoustics, enabling speakers atop a temple to be seen and heard clearly throughout the plaza.17 Nephites temples may have had similar acoustic properties (cf. Mosiah 1:18; 2:1, 5-6; 7:17).

Does the material from the Old World have no implications for the historicity of the New World accounts? Does Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem count, or not?

What happens if instead of complaining about a lack of the sorts of coercive evidence that might be helpful for clubbing skeptics into submission, tithe paying, home teaching, and covenant keeping, we considered the range and quantify of evidence that we can use to invite belief, improve our readings, and that supports what Alma 32 calls "cause to believe"?

When I read The Great Angel, back in 1999, I did not have a particularly high set of expectations. But I did have the curiousity to look, and the ability to recognize the significance of what I was reading. And I was willing to let my own paradigm change.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited July 7, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Brant Gardner]

How has it [izapa Stela 5 as representing Lehi's dream] been debunked?

Thoroughly, in my opinion. While it certainly represents a version of a tree of life, both the Old and New Worlds had so many of them that being a tree of life, in and of itself, is hardly evidence of a connection to Lehi's dream. Jakeman's interpretation of the figures on the stone have a couple of problems. First, they were based on a less accurate drawing than is now available--with the new ones providing information contradicting his interpretation.

Second, comparisons of the scenes with other stelae from the same location clearly indicates a specialized reading of some of the figures that does not fit with similar depictions on the other stelae.

Third, Jakeman did his work at a much earlier time in the development of Mesoamerican studies and made some assumptions about Aztec conventions being applicable to earlier non-Aztec art.

So, Izapa stela 5 is a tree of life, but has no iconographic connection to Lehi's dream. John Clark published to that effect in the Journal for Book of Mormon Studies.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Brant Gardner

[Stargazer]

You are not able to hold your own in discussion of such matters, mostly because you simply do not know the facts.

I've not been participating in this discussion because I, too, am a moron when it comes to discussions of archaeology, but Robert, as an observer of the conversation I have to say that the tone of your responses to Hagoth is decidedly nasty and high-nosed. You are most certainly correct, and Hagoth isn't quite up to your weight and size in the subject matter at hand, but do you suppose that you could dial back the growly-bearness a couple of notches? You sound like you woke up with a crick in your neck or something.

I will say that I have gotten some good information out of what you have written, and wish to read more, but drop the threat level a tad, please? Hagoth isn't your enemy.

[Tacenda]

Robert said in post #347:  "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."

 

c/p from an article that may or may not have temple content, so I can't link, but is taken from the book " The Messiah in Ancient America, 1987  I thought it pertinent to the above quote by Robert.  

 

"Thomas Ferguson worked hard to get the Mormon Church interested in helping with the organization he envisioned. In a letter to Mormon President David O. McKay, dated Dec. 14, 1951, Ferguson wrote: "If the anticipated evidences confirming the Book of Mormon are found, world-wide notice will be given to the restored gospel through the Book of Mormon. The artifacts will speak eloquently from the dust." (The Messiah in Ancient America, p. 257) Although church leaders claimed that they were interested in archaeological studies with regard to the Book of Mormon, they declined to provide any financial help. On Jan. 12, 1952, Ferguson wrote again and promised the First Presidency that he would "take an active part in the Foundation to the end that the Church receives the full benefit of any discovered evidences relating to the Book of Mormon. I anticipate that many important artifacts will be discovered confirming the Book of Mormon." (Ibid., p. 259) Joseph Anderson, secretary to the First Presidency, responded that "The Brethren feel that it may be that no discovery will be made which shall establish the historical value of the Book of Mormon. They incline to feel that the faith now required to accept the book is a very considerable factor in the faith of the Restored Gospel, belief in which is the result of faith therein." On April 9, 1953, Ferguson wrote a letter in which he again urged the Brethren to financially support the organization:

    On pages 263-66 of the same book we find the following:

    "The source of our income and support for the work can be kept strictly confidential if it is desired.... the Church cannot afford to let all of the priceless artifacts of Book of Mormon people fall into other hands. We can make wonderful use of them in missionary work and in letting all the world know of the Book of Mormon." (Ibid., p. 263)

    "...Ferguson's persistence and persuasiveness paid off... Ferguson appealed to his good friend J. Willard Marriott for assistance. The following day Ferguson had an appointment with President McKay which Marriott had arranged.... President David O. McKay listened to Tom Ferguson's proposal and asked the specific amount he was requesting. Ferguson replied, 'Only about the amount that it would take to build a chapel.'

    "President McKay gave him a penetrating glance. 'We build $50,000 chapels and $250,000 chapels. Which did you have in mind? Tom Ferguson promptly replied, 'A $250,000 chapel.' That was the amount granted, sufficient to underwrite five years' work in a generous way (1955-1959).... It was during this period that Ferguson spent approximately half of his working time away from law, devoting this time to administering the affairs of the NWAF, giving speeches, studying and writing about the archaeology and history of ancient America and their relationship to the Book of Mormon."

    It was agreed that the New World Archaeology Foundation would not "discuss direct connections with the Book of Mormon, but rather to allow the work to stand exclusively on its scholarly merits." (Ibid, p. 276) The church provided financial support for this organization far many years. It was eventually "attached to and administered through BYU."

    In a paper entitled, "Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 1915-83," Fred W. Nelson wrote the following:

    "Thomas Ferguson has either directly or indirectly influenced thousands of people's thinking on archaeology.... He has had a great influence on professional archaeology through the Department of Archaeology at Brigham Young University, the Gates Collection, and the New World Archaeological Foundation.... Ferguson's legacy in the founding of the Archaeology Department at Brigham Young University, the obtaining of the Gates Collection, and as founder of the New World Archaeology Foundation stands as shining example to us all." (As cited in

The Messiah in Ancient America

, pp. 282-83)

    From all that we can learn, Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a dedicated believer in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the time he founded the New World Archaeology Foundation. He really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In a letter dated April 23, 1952, Mr. Ferguson said the "the archeological data now available is entirely inadequate" for testing the Book of Mormon. He predicted, however, that the "next ten years of excavations in Mexico and Guatemala should enable us to make the archeological tests." For a number of years he was very excited about the progress of the work and seemed certain that the Book of Mormon would be vindicated soon. In his book, One Fold And One Shepherd, p. 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."

 

 

 

[Hagoth]

I've not been participating in this discussion because I, too, am a moron when it comes to discussions of archaeology, but Robert, as an observer of the conversation I have to say that the tone of your responses to Hagoth is decidedly nasty and high-nosed. You are most certainly correct, and Hagoth isn't quite up to your weight and size in the subject matter at hand, but do you suppose that you could dial back the growly-bearness a couple of notches? You sound like you woke up with a crick in your neck or something.

I will say that I have gotten some good information out of what you have written, and wish to read more, but drop the threat level a tad, please? Hagoth isn't your enemy.

 

Thanks Stargazer. I certainly hope I'm not quite as mentally challenged as Robert thinks I am.  But I do realize my limits, which is why I just quit my job to return to school full time to pursue advanced degrees in Archaeology. Maybe in a few years, when I am more enlightened, I will be in complete agreement with everything Robert says.

[Hagoth]

 In a letter to Mormon President David O. McKay, dated Dec. 14, 1951, Ferguson wrote: "If the anticipated evidences confirming the Book of Mormon are found, world-wide notice will be given to the restored gospel through the Book of Mormon. The artifacts will speak eloquently from the dust." (The Messiah in Ancient America, p. 257) 

 

And I completely agree with him. Let them speak eloquently to the world.

[hagoth7]

I'm not sure what you're basing this off of, but I completely disagree. Let me be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a need for sprititual evidence, just that other forms of evidence can be just as valid. For example I'm more logically based and therefore I rely on rational, logic-based evidences for many of my decisions in life. I know many other people who are more emotionally based and spiritual experiences are the best form of evidence for them. God created us each so differently for a reason, it seems to me he would provide evidences that would best reach each one of us individually rather than a one-size-fits-all-approach.

Hi omni,

 

There is a point to what you are saying. The D&C says (twice) that as not all have faith, we are to seek diligently to teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith...

 

As I recall, Robert Smith made a similar post recently in another thread about the positive role of intellectual effort in righteous endeavors...i.e. that we are to love and serve God all our heart, might, mind, and strength. That element of things resonates with those of us who are more analytical in nature, but doesn't negate or downplay the importance of the Spirit.

[omni]

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.

 

Hi Brant,

 

This begs the, er, I mean raises  the larger question, Why is there no explicit mention of the native populations in the BoM?  While I suppose it's possible (albeit, IMO very improbable) that Lehi and co. were quickly absorbed by the larger existing population with nary a mention in the text, I find it unbelievable that God would fail to mention such an important piece of information.

 

Think of what a few extra verses of clarifying scripture could have accomplished, yet God apparently preferred his people believe the false notion that the Americas were inhabited solely by the those groups described in the BoM.  I've heard others describe it (and other similar apparent contradictions with science/logic) as a test of faith, but I can't accept a perfectly loving and just God performing such actions when our eternal salvation is at stake.  What does God or any of us gain when an otherwise good, strong LDS man or woman loses their faith not out of choice or rebellion, but because they failed an illogical test of faith?

[Hagoth]

Hi Brant,

 

This begs the, er, I mean raises  the larger question, Why is there no explicit mention of the native populations in the BoM?  s

 

This is something that seems like a big problem to me too. I have read a lot of the apologetics: the BoM isn't intended to be a history, they are probably mentioned on the large plates, they're found between the lines if you read carefully (Sharem, Lamanitish, etc.) but can we agree that it does seem like a glaring omission?  On their arrival they commented on cattle, oxen, asses, horses, sheep, swine... but seemed unconcerned with the millions of people and their buildings. I'm not saying it's a show-stopper by any means, just something that deserves consideration.

[hagoth7]

  My apologies for chiming in on a thread 15 pages (and several weeks) late. I had no idea this thread had been rambling on this long. (I didn't have access to the site for several weeks.) I'll now be quiet for awhile and catch up on what has been said over the last dozen pages or so.

[Stargazer]

One possible reason for no explicit mention of others in and around the places where the Nephites dwelled is that the only people with whom they were in serious conflict with was their own brethren, the Lamanites.  For example, so far as I know there is little or no mention of the civilizations of the south Arabian peninsula in the Bible, when those civilizations were definitely around, and since their languages were similar to Hebrew, surely there was some trade with them (not via Lehi's trading company, however, which seemed to specialize in trade with Egypt).  But because they didn't figure in conflicts, there was no point to mentioning them, although they were surely known.

 

Just one moron's thought, and worth every penny, probably.

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Brant,

 

This begs the, er, I mean raises  the larger question, Why is there no explicit mention of the native populations in the BoM?  While I suppose it's possible (albeit, IMO very improbable) that Lehi and co. were quickly absorbed by the larger existing population with nary a mention in the text, I find it unbelievable that God would fail to mention such an important piece of information.

 

Think of what a few extra verses of clarifying scripture could have accomplished, yet God apparently preferred his people believe the false notion that the Americas were inhabited solely by the those groups described in the BoM.  I've heard others describe it (and other similar apparent contradictions with science/logic) as a test of faith, but I can't accept a perfectly loving and just God performing such actions when our eternal salvation is at stake.  What does God or any of us gain when an otherwise good, strong LDS man or woman loses their faith not out of choice or rebellion, but because they failed an illogical test of faith?

One could try reading more carefully, with an eye to seeing what is there, rather than assuming that "There is nothing to see here folks." I tried that back in 1994, for "Paradigms Crossed" in RBBM 7/2 and found that just being open to the notion changed what I saw when I read. And I think Matt Roper's later "Nephi's Neighbors" improves the case (also in The FARMS Review). And Brant's FAIR presentations on "The Social History of the Early Nephites" and his work on the identification of the Gadiantons are also very helpful.

A few years back Mark Wright reported on later Mesoamerican groups left records that largely ignored the presence of groups that we know were there.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[omni]

One possible reason for no explicit mention of others in and around the places where the Nephites dwelled is that the only people with whom they were in serious conflict with was their own brethren, the Lamanites. For example, so far as I know there is little or no mention of the civilizations of the south Arabian peninsula in the Bible, when those civilizations were definitely around, and since their languages were similar to Hebrew, surely there was some trade with them (not via Lehi's trading company, however, which seemed to specialize in trade with Egypt). But because they didn't figure in conflicts, there was no point to mentioning them, although they were surely known.

Just one moron's thought, and worth every penny, probably.

That could be an explanation for why Nephi didn't mention them, but the more important question is why God didn't mention them. If Moroni and JS were inspired by God to include only what is in our current BoM then there must have been a good reason why God wanted it left out.

[omni]

One could try reading more carefully, with an eye to seeing what is there, rather than assuming that "There is nothing to see here folks." I tried that back in 1994, for "Paradigms Crossed" in RBBM 7/2 and found that just being open to the notion changed what I saw when I read. And I think Matt Roper's later "Nephi's Neighbors" improves the case (also in The FARMS Review). And Brant's FAIR presentations on "The Social History of the Early Nephites" and his work on the identification of the Gadiantons are also very helpful.

A few years back Mark Wright reported on later Mesoamerican groups left records that largely ignored the presence of groups that we know were there.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

What was the benefit of the implied references that apparently generations of faithless LDS missed? If God was the ulimate decision maker in what made it into the final version of the BoM, then surely there was a method to his madness.

[ERayR]

That could be an explanation for why Nephi didn't mention them, but the more important question is why God didn't mention them. If Moroni and JS were inspired by God to include only what is in our current BoM then there must have been a good reason why God wanted it left out.

 

Irrelevant to the message and purpose of the BoM.

[ERayR]

What was the benefit of the implied references that apparently generations of faithless LDS missed? If God was the ulimate decision maker in what made it into the final version of the BoM, then surely there was a method to his madness.

 

Irrelevant and not faith inspiring.

[Brant Gardner]

Why is there no explicit mention of the native populations in the BoM?

It often seems that the most common criticisms of the Book of Mormon is that it isn't the text that we wish had been written. If we are to give it any credit at all for being an ancient text, then it needs to answer to its own declared ancient context and not to the one that we think a modern text should have done.

In the case of mentioning others in the land, we tend to forget two very important things. First, the original translation of the book of Lehi was lost, so we don't know exactly what it said. However, we do know that Mormon was the editor of it, and Mormon had his own agenda. By the time Mormon wrote, meeting new people was not only old news, it was thousand year old news. We have no idea if he would have thought it worth mentioning. His purposes typically weren't historical (read 4 Nephi if you have any doubt).

Next, we have Nephi--or rather we don't. We have the second book that Nephi wrote, not the first (and the one that Mormon abridged). Nephi explicitly says that the book we have is secondary to the first one he wrote, and that he wrote more and more of history in the other text. Based on Nephi's declared logic, if he had written about meeting people, it belonged in the book we don't have. The purpose of the one we do have was religious, and by the time he wrote it (after at least 20 years in the New World), his reasons were not to give a newspaper account of events, but rather to deal with the ministry--a ministry that according to what he did write, was internal, not external.

So. Of course we wish Nephi had told us more. However, suggesting that the absence of mention is somehow a problem with the book is not true. It is an issue with the way we think about the book, but not about the way the book says it was written and the purposes for which it was written.