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

[ERayR]

 

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.

 

 

From an investigative view it is not necessarily a single piece of evidence or even several bits of evidence but rather the cumulative effect overall. 

[Robert F. Smith]

 

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.

 

If you knew what archeology entails, you wouldn't say that.  None of it.  I am talking strictly about secular canons of inquiry which you do not accept.  Moreover, one has only to read your previous sentences and compare them to your later ones to see that you have in fact moved the goal posts so as to make it increasingly difficult to employ standard secular canons of inquiry.  I recommend broadening your purview in order to accept the full range of evidence from archeology.

 

Reminds me of a film about the life of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.  When he first started out he had the very devil of a time trying to get American law enforcement to accept modern standards of investigation and evidence collection (fingerprints, ballistics, etc., in central databases), just as modern crime scene investigation has to be thoroughly scientific.  Take paleoethnobotany, for example:  It tells us what people grew, gathered, and ate, but has to use isotope analysis, eletronmicroscopy, and the like to do so.  It is crucial to modern, analytic archeology.  The notion that we just dig up a sign in Egyptian charactors and translate it is absurd.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

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.

 

I have several items online which I cited on this thread at post #323.  That would give you an idea of what I consider fair game, but you are not required to buy into any of my interpretations.  After all, I may be wrong at crucial points.

[cinepro]

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.

Hmm...I'm going to have to CFR on that.

I was so curious that I actually tried to find the research on this. It looks like the only person who has made that claim is a Mormon linguist named Brian Stubbs.

Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America?

 

But his "research" was only published by FARMS.  Why is that?  The claim that there was a Hebrew and Egyptian influence on "Amerind" languages isn't an especially religious one, and I would think that solid research on that subject would be of interest to linguists of all stripes (though obviously especially to Mormons).

 

It does look like his hypothesis was discussed in the linguist section of Usenet years ago, and they weren't impressed:

 

Stubbs finds two prefixes and one verb which are phonetically very similar in both Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan, then relaxes the standards and finds nine more "cognates", then relaxes the standards a whole lot more and finds many more "cognates". So freaking what? This process of manufacturing pseudo-cognates could be carried out with any pair of languages or language-families, regardless of relationship. Not content with one bunch, Stubbs serves up another bunch of baloney with alleged Egyptian-UA "cognates", arguing that the sailors from Palestine in 600 BCE were a mixed bunch. Well, why stop there? Why not search for Greek-UA

"cognates", Phrygian-UA "cognates", Thracian-UA "cognates", Etruscan-UA "cognates", etc., etc.? Heck, those Proto-UA Mormon sailors could have filled a veritable Noah's Ark of nationalities!

 

[cinepro]

Additional note: Some of the participants in that discussion appear to be quite knowledgeable about linguistics, including this guy, who says this:

I'm not here to elucidate or defend what Peter said, but I would say that the number of resemblances presented by Stubbs does not rise above the chance level, particularly given the fact that he is drawing from at least two Semitic languages (Hebrew & Arabic, with some Egyptian etc thrown in) and more than 20 UA languages. One could spend a lot of time on individual items, e.g. he tries to match Semitic "flesh" with UA "tail", where the only overlap in meaning is that in a couple of languages each comes to mean "penis", probably a one-way semantic shift in both cases. But more importantly the whole picture just fails to make any believable sociolinguistic scenario. They don't look like loan words (we have body parts, grammatical affixes, etc); the talk about "creolization" is just hand-waving; maybe UA and Afro-Asiatic are distantly related -- but that won't fit with a boatload of Hebrews crossing the Atlantic in Biblical times. The only alternative is to claim that Hebrew becomes PUA. But clearly it isn't, and Stubbs has to wave his hands some more and talk about some mysterious kind of mixing with some unknown "other element".

And if we have Hebrew ca. 2000 years ago (a language we know quite well) becoming (at least part of) PUA, why does it undergo these extensive sound changes (b > kw, r- > t-, etc.) -- changes which are *not* part of the known phonological history of UA, but seem to have happened instantly when they stepped onto American soil? Sorry, Stubbs has obviously done a lot of studying, but to a non-believer it doesn't convince.

Ross Clark

[Brant Gardner]

Additional note: Some of the participants in that discussion appear to be quite knowledgeable about linguistics,

For the record, I am not a fan of Stubb's work.

[hagoth7]

Additional note: Some of the participants in that discussion appear to be quite knowledgeable about linguistics,

For the record, I am not a fan of Stubb's work.

 

Out of curiosity, why is that? (I haven't reviewed any of his work, so I wouldn't know anything about it other than generalities. But I'm interested in your take on things.)

Edited July 12, 2015 by hagoth7

[Brant Gardner]

Out of curiosity, why is that?

I agree with the linguists cinepro has cited. I certainly think that there is evidence for the Book of Mormon, but I try to be very careful about the evidence I am willing to accept.

[Stargazer]

After writing this response, I decided not to post it. And then I decided otherwise. And so on. Finally, having gone to the effort to write it, I will finally post it.

Please, Canard78, I actually thought your post was a good one, and well-thought out. I just can't quite accept the idea that you seem to have such a huge barrier to conviction. Did the Spirit not testify to your soul in a convincingly enough manner?

Anyway, here's the post:

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."

I've probably been a bit of a jerk in this thread. I forget that you're not me. A serious mistake.

Point 1. There is "probably" a God who interacts with his children? Really? God has never spoken to me, but the Spirit has on several occasions. Which I suppose means that God has indeed spoken to me, but through His intermediary. Because of experiences I'm not going to recount in this medium, I have a hard time associating myself with doubt in any meaningful way. But that's where I take the wrong turn -- I'VE had these experiences. YOU haven't. I don't know what you've had.

Point 2. From my earliest days I've tried to write stuff. I aspire to write science fiction novels, and I have a SF series in mind that I hope to get started on within a few years. I have adapted my German mother-in-law's story of being taken into the Soviet Union as a forced laborer after WW2 into a book. I feel driven to write a book on "How to Become a Mormon", a book for non-members who are curious about the Church but are afraid to talk to the missionaries. I have a preliminary outline for this, and I'm about 14,000 words into it so far, but I think its organization may be inadequate and I might have to revamp the outline from scratch. I actually wrote a science fiction novelette when I was around 18, and then dared to submit it to Analog magazine. They didn't accept it. Actually, it was freaking awful. The manuscript is now more lost than the 116 pages, and good riddance.

My point is this: my "career" as a writer convinces me that there is no freaking way Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon. I've read that book several times, and it does not fail to impress me each and every time. Was Joseph some kind of amazing genius savant? That seems to be what it would have taken, and he wasn't such a person. Besides the logical position of "there is no way Smith could have written this," I've had a number of spiritual experiences with the book that lead me firmly into the conviction that this book is true and real. And that the Nephites did indeed exist.

As to Points 3 & 4. I don't understand how you can "conclude" this way. So, God just popped in there for a bit, laid the Book of Mormon, D&C and the PofGP on Joseph Smith, and then just went on an extended vacation to Risa, the Pleasure Planet. In the meantime He got distracted by colliding black holes in the Andromeda Galaxy, and is currently on an picture-taking expedition, observing the results (which we won't see for another 2 million years, given the speed of light). Leaving Thomas S. Monson to muddle along all by himself. Did I mention that I love science fiction?

I don't know if I'd call you a "Universalist with Mormon cultural origins." I'd lean more towards "Mormon Deist". In either case, I don't understand your problem, but if that's the way it is, then so be it.

And I apologize if I've come across like a self-righteous prig.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

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.

Hmm...I'm going to have to CFR on that.

I was so curious that I actually tried to find the research on this. It looks like the only person who has made that claim is a Mormon linguist named Brian Stubbs.

Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America?

 

But his "research" was only published by FARMS.  Why is that?  The claim that there was a Hebrew and Egyptian influence on "Amerind" languages isn't an especially religious one, and I would think that solid research on that subject would be of interest to linguists of all stripes (though obviously especially to Mormons).

 

It does look like his hypothesis was discussed in the linguist section of Usenet years ago, and they weren't impressed:

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

Actually, my friend Brian Stubbs (now a retired teacher of linguistics at College of Eastern Utah) is a latecomer to the debate, and his expertise is in both Semitic and Uto-Aztecan languages.  You can see the preview and summary of his forthcoming book on the subject online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/255065742/Summary-of-Book-EXPLORING-THE-EXPLANATORY-POWER-OF-SEMITIC-AND-EGYPTIAN-IN-UTO-AZTECAN .

 

However, the first serious work along these lines (in the early 1960s) was the formal comparison by non-Mormon scholars of the grammar and vocabulary of a Oaxacan family of languages with Hebrew.  This was done under the supervision of the famed linguistic scholar Morris Swadesh at the INAH in Mexico City.  I extend and summarize the results in my "Sawi-Zaa," 2011 version 2, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA .  Sawi-Zaa is not related to Uto-Aztecan.

 

The late Mary LeCron Foster (UC Berkeley), also non-Mormon, ought to be of some interest, since she delivered formal papers to learned societies on Old World languages in the New World, including ancient Egyptian among the Maya.

See her “Old World Language in the Americas, 1,” paper presented April 20, 1992, at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, San Diego, CA, and her “Old World Language in the Americas, 2,” paper presented Sept 7-10, 1992, at the annual meeting of the Language Origins Society, Selwyn College, Cambridge University,Cambridge, England.  I cannot access copies of those papers.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

I have several items online which I cited on this thread at post #323. That would give you an idea of what I consider fair game, but you are not required to buy into any of my interpretations. After all, I may be wrong at crucial points.

Quick note to mention that I've not ignored this. I'm on international business travel this week so time zones all over the place and time somewhat limited. The Nephites have (or perhaps have not) been around long enough to wait on my largely insignificant view a few days longer.

[Stargazer]

I have several items online which I cited on this thread at post #323. That would give you an idea of what I consider fair game, but you are not required to buy into any of my interpretations. After all, I may be wrong at crucial points.

Quick note to mention that I've not ignored this. I'm on international business travel this week so time zones all over the place and time somewhat limited. The Nephites have (or perhaps have not) been around long enough to wait on my largely insignificant view a few days longer.

But how can you deny us the benefit of your opinions for so long? This is unsconsionable!

Edited July 13, 2015 by Stargazer

[Mars]

Quick note to mention that I've not ignored this. I'm on international business travel this week so time zones all over the place and time somewhat limited. The Nephites have (or perhaps have not) been around long enough to wait on my largely insignificant view a few days longer.

 

repped for dry humor.

[KevinG]

Quick note to mention that I've not ignored this. I'm on international business travel this week so time zones all over the place and time somewhat limited. The Nephites have (or perhaps have not) been around long enough to wait on my largely insignificant view a few days longer.

 

WHAT!?  You have a life?  Who issued you that?  No one on MD&D is allowed to have a life.

[George D]

If you look at the heartland model there is plenty of archeological evidence

[Tacenda]

If you look at the heartland model there is plenty of archeological evidence

Did you happen to watch Rod Meldrum's show on KJZZ called, "Book of Mormon Evidence"? 

 

EDIT:  George D, I assumed you live locally.  How dumb is that?  But maybe you've seen the series somewhere. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

If you look at the heartland model there is plenty of archeological evidence

How about the serious questions asked on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65600-john-sorenson-wrong-golden-plates-right/page-3 (post #42)?

 

Some important questions to ask when considering any Hopewell site as a possible setting for the Book of Mormon:

 

Is any of the evidence submitted controversial, such as do many believe such item is a fake i.e. Bat Creek Stone?

Does the evidence presented date to the time of the Book of Mormon?

Did they have a written language?

Did the population of the Hopewell site in question match what the population a city from the Book of Mormon have?

Did that population number exist in the time of the Book of Mormon? An example of this is the largest Hopewell mound in the U.S. is Cahokia, but remember Cahokia at its highest populated peak [50K] did not meet the number as written about in the Book of Mormon and at that peak was 1150 AD (not during the time of the Book of Mormon).

 

Those are just a few questions perhaps ought to be considered when discussing a possible Hopewell setting for the Book of Mormon.

 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Hoosier]

I would think there would be no question from anyone that the D&C is true. After all, pretty much every place named in there can be identified today and has archaeological evidence for it.

[ERayR]

I would think there would be no question from anyone that the D&C is true. After all, pretty much every place named in there can be identified today and has archaeological evidence for it.

 

It's not the D&C that is being questioned but the personal conclusions reached from the misapplication of what it says that is the problem.

[ksfisher]

It's not the D&C that is being questioned but the personal conclusions reached from the misapplication of what it says that is the problem.

 

I think Hoosier is making an absurd statement to highlight the fact that even if we found "conclusive" evidence for Nephites that it wouldn't necessarily mean that people would believe the message of the Book of Mormon. 

[Gray]

I think Hoosier is making an absurd statement to highlight the fact that even if we found "conclusive" evidence for Nephites that it wouldn't necessarily mean that people would believe the message of the Book of Mormon. 

 

Which do you think is true:

 

• God is hiding evidence because evidence would destroy agency
• People wouldn't believe even if the evidence were conclusive for BOM historicity

 

I often hear both ideas put forth. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Which do you think is true:

 

• God is hiding evidence because evidence would destroy agency
• People wouldn't believe even if the evidence were conclusive for BOM historicity

 

I often hear both ideas put forth. 

Q is the correct answer.

[ksfisher]

Which do you think is true:

 

• God is hiding evidence because evidence would destroy agency
• People wouldn't believe even if the evidence were conclusive for BOM historicity

 

I often hear both ideas put forth. 

 

I don't believe that God is hiding anything.  There is much that is waiting for us to find it.

 

Knowing where Jerusalem is doesn't prove that the spiritual message of the Bible is true.

Edited July 15, 2015 by ksfisher

[Robert F. Smith]

I would think there would be no question from anyone that the D&C is true. After all, pretty much every place named in there can be identified today and has archaeological evidence for it.

Yes, but which version of the D&C??  You might want to take note of the editing process from the initial receipt of the revelations, and their subsequent forms.  The Joseph Smith Papers Project is available to track the changes, including the use of other place-names.  Robert J. Woodford even wrote a two-volume dissertation on the changes: "The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," BYU 1974.

[ksfisher]

 

 

Deleted.

Edited July 15, 2015 by ksfisher