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

[strappinglad]

Let's suppose that sometime in the future, extraordinary/very convincing/conclusive evidence was unearthed that led most of the vaunted non Mormon scholars to accept that there were a people called Nephites and that their history was substantially that as outlined in the BoM. Now what? A mass conversion? A collective yawn? What? Would someone like to guess how JD or KK would ,what's the word , internalize the info? The scriptures indicate that " Legion " knew Christ and had to obey Him but no real change occurred . Until one has a testimony confirmed by the Holy Ghost and ACTS on it ,all the evidence in the world does no good. The BoM 's purpose is a second witness for Christ.

It is special in that if it didn't come about by JS or anyone else's imagination , then it behooves people to recognize the divine power behind it.

[canard78]

"unconvincing" is a subjective reaction, not an inherent existential quality.

"scant" is also a subjective valuation.

There are reasons why I find the collective case provided by the hundreds of scholars I have read far more persuasive than the counter-cases and arguments provided by various competing and mutually contradictory schools of skeptics and counter-proposals. And I find it most helpful when I align my reasons with Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

And because I have over forty years of serious reading to consider, and I get to consider what I was given in the decade of awareness before I got serious, and have seen how much has changed and has been learned and published, "abundant" is the term that comes to mind.

John Welch wrote a helpful essay on "The Power of Evidence in Nurturing Faith" in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon.

"The power of evidence is shaped by metaphysical assumptions (such as causation) and cultural conditions (such as the value placed on proof), and it combines wide fields of human experience (including such philosophical concerns as epistemology, the reliability of sensory experience, the adequacy of language, the nature of history, and the psychology of persuasion).

The word evidence derives from the Latin ex videns, meaning anything that comes from seeing and also from seeming. Evidence is literally what meets the eye and, more than that, what seems to be from what we see. Evidence is based on hard facts, but even under the best of circumstances it works less automatically and more subjectively than many people realize. If evidence were not such a complicated matter, many things would be much simpler in our courtrooms, legislative sessions, and corporate board rooms as well as in our lecture halls and Gospel Doctrine classrooms.

Though this complexity may present problems in many cases, it also allows evidence to combine with faith, because in its complexity evidence is both a product of empirical data attractive to the mind amenable to study and the result of personal choices generated by the Spirit in faith. Not only is seeing believing but believing is seeing, as has been often said. Philosophical worldviews that would have it only one of these two ways offer us a model that limps on one leg."

"Persuasive" and "abundant" are also subjective terms. All history, indeed all research, is influenced by our personal subjectivity. You, Brant and Sorenson are no more immune to it than "Hagoth," "Omni" or myself.

1. Any piece of evidence is deeply intertwined with a question. No real evidence exists until an issue is raised which that evidence tends to prove or disprove. By choosing what questions we will ask, we introduce a subjective element into the inquiry—seeking and asking begin in faith. At the same time, our questions in turn determine what will become evidence—faith begins with asking and seeking.

....

2. Just about anything can serve potentially as evidence, depending on what a person wishes to emphasize.

...

3. For this reason, evidence can almost always be found or generated for and against just about any proposition. Only a very impoverished mind cannot find evidence for just about anything he or she wants. Once again, this points out that evidence is not only discovered but also created. That creation is not arbitrarily ex nihilo, but neither is it impersonally predestined.

4. Different kinds of legal evidence evoke different kinds of responses. The law allows physical evidence, written documents, oral testimony, and so on. But at the same time, different people or legal situations may require or prefer to favor one kind of evidence over another. No rules automatically determine how one kind of evidence stacks up against another or what kind of evidence is best.

....

5. Legal evidence is often circumstantial. The more direct the evidence, the more probative it usually is, and in some courts "circumstantial evidence only raises a probability."53 But on the other hand, people may also choose to view circumstantial evidence as desirable and even necessary in certain situations. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding a particular event or statement are usually essential to understanding the matter. To quote Henry David Thoreau, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."54 A dictum from the United States Supreme Court explains the power of circumstantial evidence: "Circumstantial evidence is often as convincing to the mind as direct testimony, and often more so. A number of concurrent facts, like rays of light, all converging to the same center, may throw not only a clear light but a burning conviction; a conviction of truth more infallible than the testimony even of two witnesses directly to a fact."55 Accordingly, the convergence of huge amounts of circumstantial evidence, such as in the astonishingly short time in which the Book of Mormon was translated,56 may be viewed quite favorably, if a person's spiritual disposition inclines one to receive and value such evidence.

6. Another fascinating and crucial question is, How are we to evaluate the cumulative weight of evidence? Some compilations of evidence are strong; other collections are weak. Yet once again, in most settings, no scale for evaluating the cumulative weight of evidence is readily available. No canons of method answer the question, How much evidence do we need in order to draw a certain conclusion? Answering this question is another choice that combines and bridges faith and evidence.

An interesting scale has developed in the law that prescribes specific levels of proof that are required to support certain legal results. The world of evidence is not black and white; there are many shades of gray. Ranging from a high degree of certitude on down, standards of proof on this spectrum include:

Beyond a reasonable doubt, dispositive, practically certain

Clear and convincing evidence, nearly certain

Competent and substantial evidence, well over half

Preponderance of evidence, more than half, more likely than not

Probable, as in probable cause, substantial possibility

Plausible, reasonably suspected

Material, relevant, merely possible.

....

7. Different legal cases call for different configurations of evidence.

...

8. In certain cases, the sum of the evidence may be greater than the total of its individual parts. "Pieces of evidence, each by itself insufficient, may together constitute a significant whole, and justify by their combined effect a conclusion."60 The cumulative effect of evidence is in some ways perplexing, but again reflects the role of the observer's preference in how evidence works. Individual pieces of evidence, each of which standing alone is relatively insignificant and uninteresting, may take on vast importance in a person's mind as they combine to form a consistent pattern or coherent picture.

9. Another interesting effect occurs when a good case is actually weakened by piling on a few weak additional points. A bad argument may be worse in some minds than no argument at all if the weak arguments tend to undermine confidence in the strong points. But who can tell what will work or not work for one person or another? The degree of confidence a person is willing to place in any evidence is another manifestation of faith or personal response.

10. Similarly, advocacy and rhetoric are virtually part of the evidence. The techniques of presenting evidence are often as important as the evidence itself, and the subjective decision to feature certain points in favor of others can be the turning point of a case. Important facts forcefully presented take on added significance; crucial evidence overlooked and underused will not always even be noticed by the judge or jury.

11. Not all evidence ultimately counts. In a court of law, the judge and jury will eventually decide to ignore some of the evidence, especially hearsay, mere opinions, or statistical probabilities. Similarly, in evaluating Book of Mormon evidence, one needs to be meticulous in separating fact from opinion. Likewise, fantastic statistics can be generated by either friends or foes of the book. This does not mean that statistical presentations should be ruled out of Book of Mormon discussions; some wordprinting studies, for example, have achieved noteworthy results.61 But such evidence must not be exaggerated and must be approached with sophistication.

12. Constraints on time and the availability of witnesses or documentary evidence may be completely fortuitous yet also very important. If a witness is unavailable to testify in court, the case may be lost. Documentary evidence known or presumed once to have existed is scarcely helpful. To reach a legal decision, time limitations are imposed on all parties; and in most cases, evidence discovered after a decision has become final is simply ignored.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4

Food for thought.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thank you for the quotes. Very thought provoking.

When I started this journey of "opening Pandora's box," having previously actively avoided it, I promised myself to be as fair to myself and my faith as possible. I majored in history and now have a career in research. I fully understand that the questions you are willing to ask will influence the evidence you'll consider and the conclusions you'll reach. Having watched and loved Fiddler on the roof since childhood, I decided to take my cue from Tevye. "On the other hand..." became my mantra. I know that objectivity is impossible but I promised myself that I would always try to make room for the many "other hands" in Mormon history and doctrinal exploration. When I joined this forum I chose a username that reminded me of my missionary nickname (canard, as in duck... a reference to an eponymous cartoon character). I did so to remind myself of a time if being full of faith, even if it was a simple and unchallenged faith. On other forums I went with a name that references my extended family. One that is non-Mormon but fair minded and well-studied.

On "critical" forums I would defend my faith and represent the argument for belief. On this one I would ask questions to challenge the basis of my faith, knowing that there would be good people like yourself, willing to engage and point out the error or weakness in my challenges.

I was even fortunate enough to spend 12 months of my journey in the same ward as Jeff Lindsay. We worked near each other and would meet regularly for lunch. We'd often get onto the topic of Mormon evidences. I appreciated his willingness to share both his unanswered questions and sincerely held conclusions.

In my attempts to consider the "other hands" I've read books like Mormon's Codex and Lehi in the Desert, just as I've also considered proposals such as the Late War and View of the Hebrews (amongst others). I've considered and accepted evidence on both sides. Along with historical considerations I have also kept space for past and present spiritual questions and answers.

I have still not reached an absolute, final conclusion. I'm not sure I ever will. What I am absolutely certain of is that I have given, and will continue to give, Mormonism and exploration of it, a very fair go. I hope that the contributions I've made or discussions I've had on this forum will show that my journey and views have been sincere. ERayR's passing quip was absolutely wrong. I absolutely am and have been willing to accept evidences in favour. That willingness has led to a few views. They're not really conclusions because it's still being investigated:

Evidence and spiritual experience combine to persuade me that:

1) There is probably a God who interacts with his children and can inspire individuals among them at times to produce guiding ideas and content that some people accept as scripture.

2) Joseph Smith probably did not just simply invent the Book of Mormon from his imagination. If "1" is true, then at least portions of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism generally could have been received by divine influence.

3) If "2" is true it does not prove all of Mormonism true, nor does it prove that prophets since Joseph were equally able to be influenced by the same divine guidance. In fact, I am persuaded to believe that they probably weren't.

4) If "2" is true it also does not prove the historical existence of Nephi et al. I am inclined to that they probably didn't exist.

"Probably" is a word the human brain hates. Our brains love certainty. The brain already consumes 20-25% of our resources (despite representing on 2% of body weight). As a result our minds become super efficient and sometimes even lazy.

Uncertainty comes extra resources. As a result the brain wants to reach as many absolutes as possible. Whether Mormon or non-Mormon, my brain's internal "productivity manager" wants me to reach a final conclusion. I honestly don't know whether I ever will. Reaching at least a "probably" conclusion like the ones above and acting based on those, instead of certainties, is my best option and the route I'm taking. As such, I describe myself, if ever asked, as a "universalist with Mormon cultural origins."

[canard78]

-SNIP-

How does anyone approach Joseph Smith's claims from a position of complete neutrality, which I presume means that the outcome to them means utterly nothing, and calls for no change in any thinking, behavior, committment, sacrifice, or effort. The ones who most closely approximate that description are, I think, mannequins and crash-test dummies.

The whole point of the Book of Mormon is to challenge everyone and everything. It is not a passive object that can be neutrally considered, anymore than newlyweds can consider their gaudily decorated car neutrally. To enter is to become conspicuous and a scandal.

Have you listened to Peter Novick's Sunstone talk? A completely objective and disinterested person, he says, approaching ANY historical question (let alone something as inherently radical as the Book of Mormon) without any preconceptions whatsoever, would have no idea where to even begin to select, arrange, and frame the zillions of bits of relevant information.

-SNIP-

Dehlin in interviewing Coe was looking for what? Publically displaying his objectivity and neutrality? And what was Coe offering? An informed outsider, non-prejudiced perspective? Was the result something a person ought to base their life choices on?

I don't think the story that Joseph Smith tells is amenable to disinterested contemplation. It's not a nothing-at-stake claim that there might once have been a gardner, or not, but that there is an urgent messenger and important commitments and sacrifice, and unpopular and inconvenient choices right here, right now.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Thanks again for the references. I'll always love a Harry Potter parable

I agree that, eventually, objectivity and Mormonism can't coexist.

I was more getting at the idea of taking all the evidence for and against the existence of a population living in Central America that were of Middle-eastern origin (the Lehites) and, if it were possible, present it to a group of people who had not previously considered the question. On the basis of the evidence available, without the Book of Mormon being considered and it's divine origins included as evidence, could you convince this hypothetical audience that Lehites had inhabited the Americas?

I would not need to draw on the Bible or the Mabinogion to convince people that Romans and Celts had existed. Without the Book of Mormon, I'm suggesting there is not sufficient evidence that Lehites existed.

[canard78]

What is most interesting to me is that plausibility is rather low in the spectrum. "Most plausible" or "more plausible than the alternatives" does constitute proof that one's model is better than the other. Note the initial problem with Copernican theory was that it didn't offer a more plausible model of the solar system than Ptolemaic theory. It was only after Copernicus was modified by Kepler and additional data poured in that the Copernican model was accepted. IOW, we now accept the Copernican model because it is "more plausible than the alternatives." Assuming the Book of Mormon is historical, Sorenson's model may well be the "most plausible" of the alternatives, and if so, that is an entirely valid reason to accept it--at least pending further data.

But when it comes to the question of historicity itself, if I'm reading canard78 correctly, he is saying that "plausibility" doesn't cut it. Even if I'm not reading him correctly, what he is saying overlaps well enough with my reasoning that I'm able to strike off on my own here. Establishing a person had "motive, means, and opportunity" may well be a plausible or even a probable case that someone committed a crime. Indeed, that would that person the most likely suspect if none of the other alternatives had "motive, means, and opportunity." But unless you tie that circumstantial evidence into something more substantial--say, fingerprints on the weapon, DNA evidence at the scene, what have you--the fact this person had "motive, means, and opportunity" isn't going to amount to much. That's why Lizzie Borden was exonerated, even though she still remains the prime suspect in the murder of her parents to this day.

Now to take canard78's example, Sorenson's case for placing Zarahemla at Santa Rosa. canard78 seems to be saying Sorenson does make a plausible case for that identification. If not, I certainly wouldn't deny it. What we might say, and what canard78's hypothetical neutral non-Mormon would almost certainly say, is that Sorenson's case doesn't amount to much. Something that will make you go "Hmm" perhaps, but certainly not proof that Zarahemla was Santa Rosa. Now if there was a sign the building that read "The Temple of God at Zarahemla" or the houses contained copies of the Book of Mormon's ur-documents, then Sorenson's "plausible" case moves at least into the realm of "preponderance of the evidence." This is something our hypothetical neutral non-Mormon would almost certainly accept.

You represent my views very fairly and thanks for the further clarity.

I admit that historical Lehites is plausible. If it weren't I wouldn't be involved in this thread. It wouldn't be worth my time. Because I can only reach a conclusion that Lehites/Nephites "probably" didn't exist it also means I concede that their existent is "possible" and that some of the evidences are "plausible."

But when "plausible" is the best evidence available I still reach the conclusion that they probably didn't exist.

If gravel courtyards is really the absolute pinnacle that we'll ever get to, then there's unlikely to be many that are willing to accept an historical argument for Lehites/Nephites.

[canard78]

Yep just what I said, Its not that there are no evidences. It is that there is no evidence that you accept. Others see them, you not so much.

Question: How many would it take to convince you?

Have a read through my last three or four posts and then get back to me. I do accept many of the evidences for the Book of Mormon.

This is a genuine conversation if you're interested in participating.

And it's not just the volume of evidences I'm after, it's the quality. Sorenson has a book full of evidences. Unfortunately each one is of relatively low quality when it comes to establishing the existence of Nephites. The volume is helpful and part of why I accept that historical Nephites are a possibility. It's just, collectively, not very convincing.

Edited July 11, 2015 by canard78

[canard78]

I have always understood the concept of plausibility to be the reasonable position given the inability to prove anything related to the Book of Mormon and history.

-snip-

Why is there an inability to prove? Can you not imagine any evidence at all that would prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that Nephites existed in the Americas?

[canard78]

Let's suppose that sometime in the future, extraordinary/very convincing/conclusive evidence was unearthed that led most of the vaunted non Mormon scholars to accept that there were a people called Nephites and that their history was substantially that as outlined in the BoM. Now what? A mass conversion? A collective yawn? What? Would someone like to guess how JD or KK would ,what's the word , internalize the info? The scriptures indicate that " Legion " knew Christ and had to obey Him but no real change occurred . Until one has a testimony confirmed by the Holy Ghost and ACTS on it ,all the evidence in the world does no good. The BoM 's purpose is a second witness for Christ.

It is special in that if it didn't come about by JS or anyone else's imagination , then it behooves people to recognize the divine power behind it.

Establishing the historical existence of Nephites would likely draw positive attention towards the Book of Mormon. I'm inclined to agree though that it would not prove 21st Century Mormonism to be true.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

It is interesting to me, Kevin, that your citation to Jack Welch's article does not mention the standard Dr. Sorenson used as evidence or proof:   "most plausible" or "more plausible than the alternatives." 

 

What is most interesting to me is that plausibility is rather low in the spectrum. "Most plausible" or "more plausible than the alternatives" does constitute proof that one's model is better than the other. Note the initial problem with Copernican theory was that it didn't offer a more plausible model of the solar system than Ptolemaic theory. It was only after Copernicus was modified by Kepler and additional data poured in that the Copernican model was accepted. IOW, we now accept the Copernican model because it is "more plausible than the alternatives." Assuming the Book of Mormon is historical, Sorenson's model may well be the "most plausible" of the alternatives, and if so, that is an entirely valid reason to accept it--at least pending further data.

 

But when it comes to the question of historicity itself, if I'm reading canard78 correctly, he is saying that "plausibility" doesn't cut it. Even if I'm not reading him correctly, what he is saying overlaps well enough with my reasoning that I'm able to strike off on my own here. Establishing a person had "motive, means, and opportunity" may well be a plausible or even a probable case that someone committed a crime. Indeed, that would that person the most likely suspect if none of the other alternatives had "motive, means, and opportunity." But unless you tie that circumstantial evidence into something more substantial--say, fingerprints on the weapon, DNA evidence at the scene, what have you--the fact this person had "motive, means, and opportunity" isn't going to amount to much. That's why Lizzie Borden was exonerated, even though she still remains the prime suspect in the murder of her parents to this day.

 

Now to take canard78's example, Sorenson's case for placing Zarahemla at Santa Rosa. canard78 seems to be saying Sorenson does make a plausible case for that identification. If not, I certainly wouldn't deny it. What we might say, and what canard78's hypothetical neutral non-Mormon would almost certainly say, is that Sorenson's case doesn't amount to much. Something that will make you go "Hmm" perhaps, but certainly not proof that Zarahemla was Santa Rosa. Now if there was a sign the building that read "The Temple of God at Zarahemla" or the houses contained copies of the Book of Mormon's ur-documents, then Sorenson's "plausible" case moves at least into the realm of "preponderance of the evidence." This is something our hypothetical neutral non-Mormon would almost certainly accept.

 

An excellent summation, tagriffy.

 

Of course, Sorenson has never suggested that his learned surmise about Santa Rosa is proof of anything, but rather that it is part of a very large and complex matrix of geographical, archeological, linguistic, and other types of evidence which can plausibly be explained through recourse to a theoretical structure.  Whether anyone else finds that overall structure plausible is the true issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

I have always understood the concept of plausibility to be the reasonable position given the inability to prove anything related to the Book of Mormon and history.

-snip-

Why is there an inability to prove? Can you not imagine any evidence at all that would prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that Nephites existed in the Americas?

 

Distance in time and circumstance may leave us with the inability to prove a great many things, and one can create a wish-list of the types of evidence which could prove or disprove any sort of contention about history.  Whether, for example, Jesus was actually resurrected and appeared to his disciples after death.  Whether there was in fact an Israelite Exodus under a guy names Moses.  Whether there was a true historical character named Abram/Abraham, about whom we read in the Bible.  Whether there was a Garden of Eden, and whether Adam & Eve lived there.  Whether King Arthur once ruled in Camelot.  What sort of evidence could be used to "prove" any of these questions, pro or con?  What are we to do in the absence of such "proof"?

 

And is "beyond a reasonable doubt" the best standard?  Would the civil jury standard of "preponderance of evidence" be adequate for you?  You realize of course that arrests are made merely on the standard of "probable cause"?  Indeed, a law enforcement officer can detain you for a limited time (without actual arrest) merely on the basis of "articulable suspicion," in the absence of which he may not detain you in any way.  Moreover, the elements which make up any one of these individual levels of evidence may be multifaceted and not subject to simple knee-jerk response.  We must go beyond the Hollywood version of the nature of evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

Let's suppose that sometime in the future, extraordinary/very convincing/conclusive evidence was unearthed that led most of the vaunted non Mormon scholars to accept that there were a people called Nephites and that their history was substantially that as outlined in the BoM. Now what? A mass conversion? A collective yawn? What? Would someone like to guess how JD or KK would ,what's the word , internalize the info? The scriptures indicate that " Legion " knew Christ and had to obey Him but no real change occurred . Until one has a testimony confirmed by the Holy Ghost and ACTS on it ,all the evidence in the world does no good. The BoM 's purpose is a second witness for Christ.

It is special in that if it didn't come about by JS or anyone else's imagination , then it behooves people to recognize the divine power behind it.

A wonderful dilemma, strappinglad, even if you go much too far in setting the parameters.  However, if "most" or merely a "substantial number" of non-Mormon scholars were confronted with anything like "extraordinary/very convincing/conclusive evidence" that there were actually Nephites, I tend to think that most would go into immediate denial and/or sophistry to explain it all away, or to do "a collective yawn."  The accompanying trauma would be too great.  Moreover, realistically this is an absurd proposal.  Most scholars never address the issue, and could never be made to do so.  Most would studiously ignore any such evidence, just as they do now.

[Robert F. Smith]

This is not a question of minority or majority opinion, and you make a major error in supposing that the methods by which we understand the ancient European or Middle Eastern worlds are in any way different from the ways in which we understand ancient America.

 

First, I don't suppose that the methods are different. However it's clear to see that the same methods have produced a far more credible bank of evidence for other civilisations than the Nephites.

My point here was solely and only directed at the secular assumptions, secular methods, and secular results dealing with the ancient secular Middle East, secular Europe, and secular America.  It had nothing to do with Nephites or the lack of them, but rather with your failure to understand the nature of secular inquiry by scholars on any continent.  Without that basic understanding, no progress is possible on the Book of Mormon question.  Since, by your comments, it is clear that you do not accept those scholarly norms and methods, how can we have a meaningful or coherent discussion of the issues?

[Robert F. Smith]

The same applies to understanding the Bible or Book of Mormon, or any other literature..  The same canons of logic and science apply to all.  Whether one is a believer already or not is also irrelevant.  As I have said repeatedly, without any evidence being presented to the contrary, there is no evidence that the LDS Church would ever tout some set of archeological evidence in favor of the Bible or Book of Mormon.  I just don't understand why this sort of suggestion is made over and over.  It just doesn't make any sense.

 

Except they already have. For example, Stella 5 was included in the Seminary curriculum. I mentioned that earlier in the thread, you might have missed it.

I did not miss it, and the primary spokesman for analysis of that Stela was a friend of mine.  There have been a number of other items touted to have been Nephite, but (as I said) never as a serious or coherent "set of archeological evidence in favor of the Bible or Book of Mormon."  Nor would the Church be likely to do so, for obvious reasons.  I do not know why you don't understand that.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have repeatedly cited non-Mormon scholars who speak frankly in favor of the Book of Mormon and who speak of the advantages of Mormon theology, but these are always received in silence.  If those complaining about the false absence of such opinions were well-read and well-informed simply as ordinary people, such claims would not get to first base.  A little sincerity is always welcome.

 

Spoken favourably of the BoM and Mormon theology? Or speak in favour of the Nephites being an actual civilisation in history? If you can point me towards the latter, I'd be interested to read those endorsements in context.

As usual, you make a blanket statement, and, when confronted with countervailing evidence, you suddenly tighten and narrow the conditions.  The goal posts you set were false.  You need to own that instead of moving the goal posts..  When non-Mormon scholars such as Margaret Barker and Willis Barnstone speak favorably of the Book of Mormon, you need to own that as well.

[Robert F. Smith]

ou and some others suggest that the evidence is unconvincing, but always in a non-specific and generic way, so that it is never clear just what is unconvincing.  On those rare occasions when we are given a specific problem in the text, it typically is based on a simple or complex misunderstanding of the text, or of the ancient world.  Most often, the polemicist is simply wrong based on actual information about the ancient world.

 

I have given an example... Sorenson's evidence for Zarahemla amounts to very little. Sorenson claims that "...the most likely site for the city of Zarahemla is at Santa Rosa on the Grijalva River some 40 miles (64 km) downstream from the Guatemalan border..." (Mormon's Codex, Chapter 23).................................................................................

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

If that's the best evidence available for Zarahemla then I can see why NHM gets so much attention.

 

Of course, the argument is meaningless unless a coherent part of a much larger complex or matrix of evidence.  That is, the comments and quotation you provide are valueless by themselves.  Yet you focus on just one item about Zarahemla, and by taking it out of overall context designed to ridicule legitimate evidence.  The same applies to NHM, which is equally useless unless placed in full context.

[Robert F. Smith]

As to peer-reviewed information, it might be helpful to observe that the footnotes in the items I linked to are primarily to non-Mormon, peer reivewed books and articles.  In other words, based on the hard work of non-Mormon scholars without any axe to grind.

 

I have often encountered on this board and elsewhere the completely untenable suggestion that pro- or anti-Book of Mormon articles would ever be acceptable in non-Mormon journals.  Not in the real world . . .  Not for any substantive reason, but simply because of the apriori nature of those kinds of opinions.  Again, sincerity leads to more reasonable conclusions about what is possible.

 

Linking to non-Mormon content isn't what I'm asking for. Nor is a Mormon scholar being published in a non-Mormon journal. What I'm specifically asking for is non-Mormon scholars who support the idea of Nephites living in the Americas.

 

Again you move the goal posts. Your real argument, even if you don't want to admit it, is with the non-Mormon scholars who make the peer-reviewed statements quoted by me and others. If the interpretation of the facts they present is erroneous or forced, by all means say so. Perhaps my (or others') usage and interpretation of the facts are wrong. Are you afraid to point out the errors? I'd be happy to know where I have gone off the beam. Yet all you can do is move the goal posts. I am on record on a host of evidentiary issues in very specific terms. Join battle with me, please, canard. It is not that I like to joust, but only that I think we might both learn something. Even if painfully, perhaps.

[Brant Gardner]

Why is there an inability to prove? Can you not imagine any evidence at all that would prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that Nephites existed in the Americas?

For most of archaeology there is an inability to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It is rare in the Old World where we have continuous identification of sites and a rich textual history. Even with all of that, there are relatively few things that are proven (and most of those come later in history). For example, was there a king David? There are now some written examples on sherds showing that there appears to be a king David. However, was it the same David? Even that is not conclusive proof.

In the New World, we have all of the problems of proof that the Old World does, but compounded by the lack of continued identifications and the lack of contemporary texts. In Egypt we have quite a bit of textual information, but very little of that mentions any group that can be conclusively identified as Hebrew--reasonably identified, but not conclusively. With such a small percentage referring to the outside peoples that we are interested in for Egypt, imagine the same percentage in the New World. It would be a miracle--and then we would only get to reasonably identified, not conclusively identified.

Think of it another way. What conclusive proof do we have that Jesus of Nazareth lived? There is evidence, but not proof.

The problem isn't really a Book of Mormon issue--it is the nature of the kind of evidence available in the New World. It also doesn't matter. Lacking conclusive proof doesn't mean a lack of good evidence. That we have. Conclusive proof is simply a wish upon a star for most archaeology.

[Bob Crockett]

I will add a little. I hired a guide for a trip with my family to the eastern Yucatan. We climbed an obscure temple off the beaten tourist path that had been partially exposed by archeologists. As far as the eye could see in the jungle were these hills about 100 feet high, closely separated. Miles upon miles. The guide told me the jungle was a flat plain and those hundreds of hills were unexcavated structures.

[Hagoth]

 I tend to think that most would go into immediate denial and/or sophistry to explain it all away, or to do "a collective yawn."  The accompanying trauma would be too great.  Moreover, realistically this is an absurd proposal.  Most scholars never address the issue, and could never be made to do so.  Most would studiously ignore any such evidence, just as they do now.

 

 

I would hope that any sound physical evidence would be given the same consideration as artifacts that support the Bible, which are not ignored by non-believers. Things like the Tel Dan stele, Sennecherib's annals and the Memeptah stele.  But considering that the provenance of the Book of Mormon only gets us back to the 19th Century I can see how that would definitely be a barrier for some, considering that it's pretty straightforward to prove the antiquity of the Bible with artifacts like the Dead Sea scrolls and the Ketef Hinnom scrolls.

 

It seems like the best evidence for the Book of Mormon to date is found within it's own pages, so I suppose the most valuable in-the-dirt evidence would be an artifact with writing that refers directly to people and/or events in the Book of Mormon. Double points if it is written in Hebrew, triple for some form of Egyptian/Hebrew hybrid.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would hope that any sound physical evidence would be given the same consideration as artifacts that support the Bible, which are not ignored by non-believers. Things like the Tel Dan stele, Sennecherib's annals and the Memeptah stele.

Hope springs eternal, but the real world seldom delivers what we wish.  Even the Tel Dan Stele is interpreted differently by minimalists than you might expect, and they still don't accept King David as an actual king -- only a chief leading a band of ruffians.  Many non-believers don't even accept the existence of Jesus.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

But considering that the provenance of the Book of Mormon only gets us back to the 19th Century I can see how that would definitely be a barrier for some, considering that it's pretty straightforward to prove the antiquity of the Bible with artifacts like the Dead Sea scrolls and the Ketef Hinnom scrolls.

The Bible does have the advantage of known secular transmission, but the same can be said for Homeric Epic, which does not tell us whether the miraculous events described in such tales actually happened.

 

It seems like the best evidence for the Book of Mormon to date is found within it's own pages, so I suppose the most valuable in-the-dirt evidence would be an artifact with writing that refers directly to people and/or events in the Book of Mormon. Double points if it is written in Hebrew, triple for some form of Egyptian/Hebrew hybrid.

The Book of Mormon was written in Egyptian language and characters.  Good evidence for both Hebrew and Egyptian influence on Amerind languages has been found by non-Mormons and Mormons.  Most archeology takes place in the absence of inscriptions and written records, deals very heavily in organic and inorganic materials, which tell us about lifeways, settlement patterns, and dates, all of which can be compared to oral and written accounts from later periods (ethnology/ethnography)., and with known geography/geology.

 

One must, indeed, understand the internal Book of Mormon story, but it can be directly compared to archeological data.  You appear to consider only a very narrow range of evidence.  Science is multifaceted.   If you were a homicide detective, you wouldn't clear very many cases.

[canard78]

My point here was solely and only directed at the secular assumptions, secular methods, and secular results dealing with the ancient secular Middle East, secular Europe, and secular America.  It had nothing to do with Nephites or the lack of them, but rather with your failure to understand the nature of secular inquiry by scholars on any continent.  Without that basic understanding, no progress is possible on the Book of Mormon question.  Since, by your comments, it is clear that you do not accept those scholarly norms and methods, how can we have a meaningful or coherent discussion of the issues?

I'm struggling to see what your point here is. Are you trying to say that I treat the evidence in the Americas differently to the evidence in the Middle East or Europe. Or are you trying to say that I don't understand evidence at all. I'm kind of scratching my head about what you're trying to say.

What makes you think I don't accept those scholarly norms and methods? I do. I accept the conclusions reached using those scholarly norms and methods when it comes to many of the civilisations in all three continents you mentioned. What makes you think I don't? What I'm saying is that while those scholarly norms and methods have producing convincing evidence for other civilisations, they have not for the Nephites. I don't really understand why you're I don't accept those methods. Where have I said that?

[canard78]

As usual, you make a blanket statement, and, when confronted with countervailing evidence, you suddenly tighten and narrow the conditions.  The goal posts you set were false.  You need to own that instead of moving the goal posts..  When non-Mormon scholars such as Margaret Barker and Willis Barnstone speak favorably of the Book of Mormon, you need to own that as well.

And, as usual, you set-up straw men.

When I make a statement about non-Mormon scholars supporting the Book of Mormon in a thread about the Archaeological Evidence for it, I suppose I make an assumption that it will be understood to be in that context. I haven't moved the goalposts at all given I have always been discussing this in the context of evidence that supports the historical basis for the Book of Mormon and the actual existence of Nephites 100s of years ago.

[canard78]

Of course, the argument is meaningless unless a coherent part of a much larger complex or matrix of evidence.  That is, the comments and quotation you provide are valueless by themselves.  Yet you focus on just one item about Zarahemla, and by taking it out of overall context designed to ridicule legitimate evidence.  The same applies to NHM, which is equally useless unless placed in full context.

You complained that when I and others say that the evidence is unconvincing, we do so in a non-specific way. Now that I've said that certain specific evidence is not convincing are you really now complaining that my evidence was too specific?

[Robert F. Smith]

 

My point here was solely and only directed at the secular assumptions, secular methods, and secular results dealing with the ancient secular Middle East, secular Europe, and secular America.  It had nothing to do with Nephites or the lack of them, but rather with your failure to understand the nature of secular inquiry by scholars on any continent.  Without that basic understanding, no progress is possible on the Book of Mormon question.  Since, by your comments, it is clear that you do not accept those scholarly norms and methods, how can we have a meaningful or coherent discussion of the issues?

I'm struggling to see what your point here is. Are you trying to say that I treat the evidence in the Americas differently to the evidence in the Middle East or Europe. Or are you trying to say that I don't understand evidence at all. I'm kind of scratching my head about what you're trying to say.

What makes you think I don't accept those scholarly norms and methods? I do. I accept the conclusions reached using those scholarly norms and methods when it comes to many of the civilisations in all three continents you mentioned. What makes you think I don't? What I'm saying is that while those scholarly norms and methods have producing convincing evidence for other civilisations, they have not for the Nephites. I don't really understand why you're I don't accept those methods. Where have I said that?

 

Based on what you have said, it is not clear that you accept the same canons of science for research in the Americas that you might accept for the Old World.  These are secular canons of inquiry.  Moreover, I don't think (based on what you have said) that you understand those canons of inquiry -- the rules and procedures.  Also, you don't seem to know what conclusions have been reached (even if only tentatively) by normative anthropology.  Because of that, it seems clear to me that you don't have any idea what a Nephite might even look like -- individually or as part of a larger civilization.

 

If you were to provide some realistic facts about what we should expect, or what is believable, that might help, but I'm just not sure what you are supposing about Nephites (or Jaredites for that matter). 

[canard78]

Again you move the goal posts. Your real argument, even if you don't want to admit it, is with the non-Mormon scholars who make the peer-reviewed statements quoted by me and others. If the interpretation of the facts they present is erroneous or forced, by all means say so. Perhaps my (or others') usage and interpretation of the facts are wrong. Are you afraid to point out the errors? I'd be happy to know where I have gone off the beam. Yet all you can do is move the goal posts. I am on record on a host of evidentiary issues in very specific terms. Join battle with me, please, canard. It is not that I like to joust, but only that I think we might both learn something. Even if painfully, perhaps.

How is my argument with the peer-reviewed scholars you quote? They didn't make statements and reach conclusions in favour of the Book of Mormon. Instead, as you point out, you have taken that and have applied your interpretation to reach a conclusion that supports the Book of Mormon.

But sure, let's do that. Pick your best evidence for the existence of Nephites as an historical civilisation and I'll willingly be as specific as you like about it. Who knows, perhaps I'll even agree with you. As I've said before (repeatedly) to ERayR, I do accept certain evidences. I know there's a PDF you sometimes share with a variety of evidences for the Book of Mormon. Do you want to start with that one and I'll work through from the top.