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

[neohillbilly]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, but it ties in with stories I heard years ago. I served a mission in Hawaii and one native there who was very much into both the church and Hawaiian culture and history once gave a talk at a private meeting with the elders at the mission home, at the invitation of the mission president. One part of that (I really wish I had a recording of that talk) was that the ships of Hagoth in Alma wound up sailing to Hawaii and that in fact they were buried in the hills behind the Hawaii Temple. Another part of the talk was that the "believers" came to be a small group that were persecuted and driven from island to island until they wound up on the south tip of the Big Island, Hawaii, where they wound up building seven canoes and set off. The ocean currents took them to what we now know as New Zealand, where corresponding oral traditions tell of the Maori arriving in seven canoes. 

[neohillbilly]

Whoops, embarrassing newbie mistake. I clicked on the wrong thread. 

[canard78]

BOM historicity is a religious belief, not a scientific one. It is far too important to leave to the vagaries of science. How would it be if your eternal salvation depended on some Discovery in science that might be disproven tomorrow?

Interesting question, we're told to study it out and then pray, right? Maybe this is me just doing the studying it out bit.

Besides... I don't believe my eternal salvation depends on any conclusion of historicity or even divinity of the BoM.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting question, we're told to study it out and then pray, right? Maybe this is me just doing the studying it out bit.

Besides... I don't believe my eternal salvation depends on any conclusion of historicity or even divinity of the BoM.

So you are flapping your gums for fun? Go play a video game!

[mfbukowski]

Interesting question, we're told to study it out and then pray, right? Maybe this is me just doing the studying it out bit.

Besides... I don't believe my eternal salvation depends on any conclusion of historicity or even divinity of the BoM.

So you are flapping your gums for fun? Go play a video game!

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

It's supportive by offering parallels and convergences.

What I said, or did you miss the point?

 

But parallels and convergences are really all that the Book of Mormon has by way of evidence.

False.  You ignore the full range of evidence, and diminish the value of any evidence found in archeology generally, by creating straw men.

 

Elephantine has been established through direct, concrete evidence that is independent and peer reviewed.

Absolutely, which is why I call it to your attention.  You only address concrete and peer-reviewed evidence when it can be stretched to condemn the Book of Mormon.  A fair-minded scholar would never do that.

 

Elephantine illustrates what Book of Mormon evidence could look like. Both you, Brand and others have said that people have excessively high expectations. You tell us that it's unreasonable to expect actual artifacts to be found (or found any time soon) that independently verify that Nephites (or Jews) lived in in the Americas. Elephantine contradicts that argument. While I fully accept that the environmental conditions in the americas are more challenging, it's still a location that is being investigated. Elephantine shows what evidence of a Jewish temple outside looks like. Elephantine also shows what evidence of Jewish settlements looks like, local miscegenation looks like, etc etc. Until a location in the Americas is excavated and independently produces evidences for a Jewish settlement, a Jewish temple and Jewish cultural mingling then all your left with is an 19th Century scripture and a series of convergences. Convergences alone are not convincing.

The whole point, which you apparently fear to admit, is that such examples (unknown to Joseph) later turn up in archeology and show the same type of settlement with many of the same characteristics.  It is always coincidence with you, no matter how many odd parallels there might be.  Just coincidences.  On a civil jury you would doubtless ignore the standard of "preponderance of evidence."

 

 

.....................................................................When the Lehites arrived in the Americas they brought with them a set of old world influences and cultural attitudes/language/names/behaviours. Some of them were carried in their minds, others on the Brass Plates. In addition to that, the Mulekite party might also have brought some of the same.

 

When looking into the Book of Mormon for possible links with the old world, the only credible source of those influences are the Lehites and (possibly) the Mulekites. There's no other source for the influences. So while it's acceptable to assume that if the Nephites existed that they would have names and customs that were influenced by the old world, you have to limit it to any influences that survived and then spread from the first landing party.

 

Where else or how else would a Nephite name have come from 500 years later. So while it's reasonable to cite the "Pa" names as evidence, I was pointing out that the source of that tradition of "Pa" names has to come through the Lehite landing party (or possibly the Mulekite one).

You left out the Jaredites, and any other peoples in the region.

The Bronze Plates of Laban were written in Egyptian and certainly included the Egyptian definite article pa-, usage of which also appears in Isaiah transliterated into Hebrew.  You just don't get why the great W. F. Albright was impressed?  Don't know who he is, do you?  You mention the Bronze Plates and then promptly ignore them.

 

In other cultures and languages there are often multiple contacts. English names and language, for example has an amazingly diverse source book. Latin, Greek, Germanic, Celtic, Saxon... etc etc... but the difference is that England had multiple contacts with those cultures and influences over the course of several 1000 years. The only source of influence on names in the Book of Mormon came on the boat with Lehi.

 

It's not that multiple ethnicity is a problem. I understand why you're saying it's possible. It's expected. I'm just pointing out (as I do above) that the source of that multiple-ethnicity can only be traced through the Lehite influences. The example you cite in support of your argument, Ugarit, had multiple contacts over 100s of years from the influences and multiple ethnic backgrounds. It was a port city and so would have had daily arrivals of multiple sources and influences. The people of the americas in the Book of Mormon are completely different. They did not have multiple contacts and influences. There is just one in around 600BC. And yet several hundred years later they are still using names that go back to a land that none of them had ever seen. Despite the many local influences, you still consider it reasonable to find lots of old world influences.

You leave out the Jaredites and any other peoples of the region again, and you ignore the Bronze Plates again.  Just at Teotihuacan alone, there are multiple ethnicities in that huge city, living in particular neighborhoods.  You can't pretend these things away, Canard.

 

Here it is in their own words:

Now you can brush it off with a laugh and say it's just funny old Nephites making stuff up. But that's pretty clear to me. And you've still not answered the question. If the Nephite system of reckoning bore no resemblance whatsoever to the Jewish/Egyptian system, would you be using the above verse to defend why it did not have one?

You quote the Book of Mormon, but fail to quote me, and then follow on with a straw-man version of what I said.  That's dirty pool, Canard.  I was very measured in my interpretation, and you are not.  If you do not accept biblical scholarship, just own up to it.

 

That verse seems pretty clear to me. The Nephites say quite clearly that they did not use the same measure system as the old world and that they had altered it several times, over several generations. So your parallel is likely no more than the many other Book of Mormon parallels: it's a coincidence.

 

Coincidences are much more likely when you have a huge pool of data to draw from. The old world is a huge pool which is why the old world convergences evidences for the Book of Mormon is so unconvincing.

As a crime scene investigator, you would be a total failure.  You always opt for more than is present and condemn those who try to work with the available evidence.  For you, "coincidence" is a mantra without meaning.  When everything is a coincidence, then nothing can have value.  Scholarship does not proceed on that basis.

 

You're right that the location sets restrictions and limitations. I get that. I'm not saying there's some cover-up happening. I'm sure that any archaeologist worth his or her salt would be delighted to be the first one to announce to the world that they had excavated the remains of a Jewish settlement in the Americas. When the Viking settlement was discovered there was no attempt to suppress the find.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone is being deceptive whatsoever. I agree that the Americas are relatively unexcavated. They are not, however, entirely unexcavated. 

 

Your mention of a crime scene reminded me of an illustrated cartoon book that my parents owned. It was a book about the Book of Mormon being on trial (I think the actual book had a mouth, arms, legs... anyone remember that one?).

Yes, a yokel who knew nothing of archeology or of crime scene investigation (there were no real CSIs in his day) did write such a book.  His case was of no value, and he later apostatized.  False premises, false conclusions.

 

So if Mesoamerica were the "crime scene" and evidence was called for to explain the origins of the people who lived there between 600BC and 400AD, would you be able to offer any evidence that Jewish/old world people were among those origins and influences?

The evidence has already been assembled that Jaredites, Nephites, and Mulekites were in Mesoamerica, based on the text of the Book of Mormon and the related archeology.  It does not "prove" the Book of Mormon, but is strongly indicative in the measured way which I argued in my paper on the subject.  Not in the straw man version which you portray.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Gray]

BOM historicity is a religious belief, not a scientific one. It is far too important to leave to the vagaries of science. How would it be if your eternal salvation depended on some Discovery in science that might be disproven tomorrow?

 

That's precisely why BOM historicity should be completely divorced from religious belief. Historicity is the concern of historians, and subject to historical inquiry and verification. Spirituality is not. 

Edited July 28, 2015 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

That's precisely why BOM historicity should be completely divorced from religious belief. Historicity is the concern of historians, and subject to historical inquiry and verification. Spirituality is not. 

 

Absolutely correct. It's when we conflate historicity with faith that we get into trouble. I'll just quote historian Philip Jenkins, as it seems appropriate:

 

I don’t know if I have to make this point yet again, but can I stress once more that what I am criticizing here is “Ancient Book of Mormon apologists,” rather than Mormon advocates or apologists as such. I say nothing whatever about LDS church beliefs, practices, or theology, partly because I simply don’t know enough to comment usefully, and what I do know about ordinary LDS believers tends to be favorable and sympathetic. I see their everyday faith with deep respect, and acknowledge their zeal to spread Christ’s teaching as they understand it.

You might regard this as a silly and hyper-sensitive comment, but I have more than once refused to go see the musical of Book of Mormon, on the grounds that (as I understand it) it mocks or trivializes religious practice. I am not condemning anything sight unseen. I don’t object to the musical being made, nor to anyone else going to see it, and I have no objection to people making religious satire of any kind, against any religion whatever. I’m told that much of the musical is an insider joke, and is even sympathetic. All fair enough. In terms of my own religious freedom, though, I don’t want to patronize that activity personally. I don’t want that mockery inflicted on my faith, nor do I wish it on others.

I am on completely different territory when I see one particular form of activism, namely the “Ancient Book of Mormon” folks who make literal historical claims that are simply unsupportable. I am attacking their history and their pseudo-scholarship, not their religion. Could I make that more clear?

[Robert F. Smith]

Absolutely correct. It's when we conflate historicity with faith that we get into trouble. I'll just quote historian Philip Jenkins, as it seems appropriate:

 

 

...................................................................the “Ancient Book of Mormon” folks who make literal historical claims that are simply unsupportable. I am attacking their history and their pseudo-scholarship, not their religion. ...................................................

Laudable and perhaps interesting, but only if it is substantive and supportable.  I'd like to see a review of some ABM work which is an example of "pseudo-scholarship."  Are there, on the other hand, examples of real scholarship which you could call to our attention?  For example, in biblical studies?  Or any related field.  How does Philip Jenkins stack up as a real historian?  Are there any guidelines?  Or is the question merely one of which apriori ideology is being served?

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

Laudable and perhaps interesting, but only if it is substantive and supportable.  I'd like to see a review of some ABM work which is an example of "pseudo-scholarship."  Are there, on the other hand, examples of real scholarship which you could call to our attention?  For example, in biblical studies?  Or any related field.  How does Philip Jenkins stack up as a real historian?  Are there any guidelines?  Or is the question merely one of which apriori ideology is being served?

Dr. Jenkins has a nice little series going on his blog about the difference between scholarship and pseudoscience. It starts here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/i-want-to-believe/

I'd say the Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University and Co-Director for Baylor's Program on Historical Studies of Religion in the Institute for Studies of Religion is a real historian. YMMV. In his blog posts, he's done a nice job of explaining what scholarship looks like and how it works.

Edited July 29, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Bob Crockett]

Almost all that passes for LDS Mormon Mesoamericanism is not scholarship and should not be confused with the spiritual and historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  I have long been on record to say that Dr. Sorenson's attempt to blend speculation, a false paradigm of "more plausible than any alternative," and more speculation on speculation will simply cause the Saints to confuse spiritual truth with the speculation of an anthropologist.

[Robert F. Smith]

Dr. Jenkins has a nice little series going on his blog about the difference between scholarship and pseudoscience. It starts here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/i-want-to-believe/

I'd say the Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University and Co-Director for Baylor's Program on Historical Studies of Religion in the Institute for Studies of Religion is a real historian. YMMV. In his blog posts, he's done a nice job of explaining what scholarship looks like and how it works.

Yes, I have been following that discussion for a couple of weeks, but would like to see Jenkins demonstrate a more evenhanded approach -- even as I disagree with some of Bill Hamblin's comments.  If you had been following the full discussion, you would have seen me in the comments here and there.

 

So, I say again: "Laudable and perhaps interesting, but only if it is substantive and supportable.  I'd like to see a review of some ABM work which is an example of "pseudo-scholarship."  Are there, on the other hand, examples of real scholarship which you could call to our attention?  For example, in biblical studies?  Or any related field.  How does Philip Jenkins stack up as a real historian?  Are there any guidelines?  Or is the question merely one of which apriori ideology is being served?"

[ERayR]

Almost all that passes for LDS Mormon Mesoamericanism is not scholarship and should not be confused with the spiritual and historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  I have long been on record to say that Dr. Sorenson's attempt to blend speculation, a false paradigm of "more plausible than any alternative," and more speculation on speculation will simply cause the Saints to confuse spiritual truth with the speculation of an anthropologist.

 

You don't have much faith in the Saints do you?  But then seeing what Meldrum has done by questioning the faith of those who disagree with him one does have to wonder once in a while.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't have faith in attempts at false scholarship.  Merely because I think that Dr. Sorenson's failure to adhere to the standards of his profession does not mean that I lack faith in the Saints.

[jkwilliams]

Yes, I have been following that discussion for a couple of weeks, but would like to see Jenkins demonstrate a more evenhanded approach -- even as I disagree with some of Bill Hamblin's comments.  If you had been following the full discussion, you would have seen me in the comments here and there.

 

So, I say again: "Laudable and perhaps interesting, but only if it is substantive and supportable.  I'd like to see a review of some ABM work which is an example of "pseudo-scholarship."  Are there, on the other hand, examples of real scholarship which you could call to our attention?  For example, in biblical studies?  Or any related field.  How does Philip Jenkins stack up as a real historian?  Are there any guidelines?  Or is the question merely one of which apriori ideology is being served?"

 

He did give some good examples of pseudoscholarship in his blog series. The first entry, which I linked to above, was a discussion of pseudoscholarship applied to Bible studies. I think his interaction with Hamblin is a good example of pseudoscholarship applied to Book of Mormon studies. Also, as I mentioned, he provided specific guidelines for historical evidence, which I found quite helpful. I suppose you might argue, as Hamblin has, that accepting evidentiary standards is an ideological choice, and history is a subjective, non-empirical enterprise, but I wouldn't agree.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, I have been following that discussion for a couple of weeks, but would like to see Jenkins demonstrate a more evenhanded approach -- even as I disagree with some of Bill Hamblin's comments.  If you had been following the full discussion, you would have seen me in the comments here and there.

 

So, I say again: "Laudable and perhaps interesting, but only if it is substantive and supportable.  I'd like to see a review of some ABM work which is an example of "pseudo-scholarship."  Are there, on the other hand, examples of real scholarship which you could call to our attention?  For example, in biblical studies?  Or any related field.  How does Philip Jenkins stack up as a real historian?  Are there any guidelines?  Or is the question merely one of which apriori ideology is being served?"

He did give some good examples of pseudoscholarship in his blog series. The first entry, which I linked to above, was a discussion of pseudoscholarship applied to Bible studies. I think his interaction with Hamblin is a good example of pseudoscholarship applied to Book of Mormon studies. Also, as I mentioned, he provided specific guidelines for historical evidence, which I found quite helpful. I suppose you might argue, as Hamblin has, that accepting evidentiary standards is an ideological choice, and history is a subjective, non-empirical enterprise, but I wouldn't agree.

Actually Bill and I do not agree on evidentiary standards, and I was not particularly impressed with Jenkins, but I asked you for some examples of pseudo-scholarship first.  I frequently write on biblical and BofM issues and I cite my sources.  Perhaps you can find some pseudo-scholarship there.  I'd be much obliged to have such failures pointed out to me so that i could remove or improve upon them.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

Actually Bill and I do not agree on evidentiary standards, and I was not particularly impressed with Jenkins, but I asked you for some examples of pseudo-scholarship first.  I frequently write on biblical and BofM issues and I cite my sources.  Perhaps you can find some pseudo-scholarship there.  I'd be much obliged to have such failures pointed out to me so that i could remove or improve upon them.

 

Just so I'm clear, you want me to find evidence of pseudo-scholarship in your work? I've never heard of you before, and I haven't read anything you've written. 

 

If you're asking for general examples, here's a good one:

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121792/those-mythological-men-and-their-sacred-supersonic-flying-temples

[Robert F. Smith]

Just so I'm clear, you want me to find evidence of pseudo-scholarship in your work? I've never heard of you before, and I haven't read anything you've written. 

 

If you're asking for general examples, here's a good one:

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121792/those-mythological-men-and-their-sacred-supersonic-flying-temples

I'm not sure that fairytales or forgeries are fit examples of pseudo-scholarship.  Especially since we are discussing the debate between Jenkins and Hamblin. 

 

Leonardo designed flying machines which never got off the ground, but no one would accuse him of pseudo-scholarship.  And the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi spoke of the very real siddhis evident during Transcendental Meditation, but only his immediate followers attempted to take him seriously.  I very much enjoyed tales of Arabian magic carpets as a young lad, but don't consider them part of pseudo-scholarship.

 

Surely you can find something more germane.

[PeterPear]

You don't have much faith in the Saints do you?  But then seeing what Meldrum has done by questioning the faith of those who disagree with him one does have to wonder once in a while.

The Mesoamerica Theory questions the faith of early Saints.

 

Quote:

What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas. Even with Stephens's material in mind, he made no more than a passing attempt to relate the Book of Mormon's story to the newly-found ruins. And in the long run, the little blip on the Latter-day Saints' mental screen caused by the explorer's book faded as the mistaken folk view reasserted its dominance.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19

 

Here in one paragraph, the Prophet Joseph Smith is claimed to not have understood or was ambiguous about his statements regarding BoM geography. Then it's claimed that despite Joseph Smith having learned of Stephen's book, the book was ignored and the "mistaken folk view" of the early members of the Chruch "reasserted its dominance."

 

Quite the statement in support of a Mesoamerica  Theory: Joseph Smith was mistaken. Early members were mistaken.

 

Apparently, to be mistaken places one in good company.

[canard78]

What I said, or did you miss the point?

 

False.  You ignore the full range of evidence, and diminish the value of any evidence found in archeology generally, by creating straw men.

We're talking archaeology, right? So the full range of archaeological evidence amounts to what? Convergences and parallels. We agree on that I think. The difference is the value each of us place on convergences.

Absolutely, which is why I call it to your attention.  You only address concrete and peer-reviewed evidence when it can be stretched to condemn the Book of Mormon.  A fair-minded scholar would never do that.

Where have I addressed concrete, peer-reviewed evidence that condemns the Book of Mormon?

The whole point, which you apparently fear to admit, is that such examples (unknown to Joseph) later turn up in archeology and show the same type of settlement with many of the same characteristics.  It is always coincidence with you, no matter how many odd parallels there might be.  Just coincidences.  On a civil jury you would doubtless ignore the standard of "preponderance of evidence."

 

Not at all. I readily admit that the BoM has plenty of parallels with other finds. What I'm saying is that there are no evidences in the New World that it was ever visited or populated by people from the Old World. Elephantine might be a nice one to add to your list of convergences... go ahead, you've got plenty more in that bucket. What I'm saying is that I can look at Elephantine and agree that Jews once lived and worshiped there. When I look at Mesoamerica I see no such evidence. Do you at least agree that this is the case? There is no evidence, outside the Book of Mormon, that a Hebrew ever stepped foot on the Americas. There is no evidence of anyone ever living the law of Moses, there is no evidence of anyone ever writing in Egyptian etc etc. You can point plenty of convergences at the Book of Mormon but you can't point at any evidence that the Americas were inhabited by Jews.

The Bronze Plates of Laban were written in Egyptian and certainly included the Egyptian definite article pa-, usage of which also appears in Isaiah transliterated into Hebrew.  You just don't get why the great W. F. Albright was impressed?  Don't know who he is, do you?  You mention the Bronze Plates and then promptly ignore them.

But what exactly has "the great W.F. Albright" given you? He's confirmed that "Pa-" is an Egyptian definitive article. Has he (or you) also found this prefix in Mesoamerica? Or just a few names in a 19th Century dictation?

You left out the Jaredites, and any other peoples in the region...

You leave out the Jaredites and any other peoples of the region again, and you ignore the Bronze Plates again.  Just at Teotihuacan alone, there are multiple ethnicities in that huge city, living in particular neighborhoods.  You can't pretend these things away, Canard.

You miss (or ignore) my point. You're ascribing old world origins to the names in the Book of Mormon. I'm acknowledging that this is possible but am reminding you that the source for that influence can only be traced through Lehites and possibly mulekites.

How could "Jaredites and any other peoples in the region" be the source of Egyptian or Hebrew naming traditions? I don't see why you mention people who, if influencing naming, would have influenced them in an entirely different way to Egyptian origins.

You quote the Book of Mormon, but fail to quote me, and then follow on with a straw-man version of what I said.  That's dirty pool, Canard.  I was very measured in my interpretation, and you are not.  If you do not accept biblical scholarship, just own up to it.

You just won't answer the question will you. Is it worth me asking it again? If the measure system was completely different to the old world, would you use that verse to defend its differences?

As a crime scene investigator, you would be a total failure.  You always opt for more than is present and condemn those who try to work with the available evidence.  For you, "coincidence" is a mantra without meaning.  When everything is a coincidence, then nothing can have value.  Scholarship does not proceed on that basis.

Feel free to question my approach. As it happens my full-time job is in research. I'm comfortable with the principle of evaluating evidences for what they are worth. Convergences have some worth. But when that's all you've got, you've not got much.

Yes, a yokel who knew nothing of archeology or of crime scene investigation (there were no real CSIs in his day) did write such a book.  His case was of no value, and he later apostatized.  False premises, false conclusions.

 

The evidence has already been assembled that Jaredites, Nephites, and Mulekites were in Mesoamerica, based on the text of the Book of Mormon and the related archeology.  It does not "prove" the Book of Mormon, but is strongly indicative in the measured way which I argued in my paper on the subject.  Not in the straw man version which you portray.

And are the papers you linked earlier in the thread what you'd consider the best of it? I've read Sorenson. I've read your papers. Is that the best you've got. If it is, the conclusion in the name of this thread remains.

By the way... you keep making straw man accusations without actually specifically pointing them out.

[Bob Crockett]

Quite the statement in support of a Mesoamerica  Theory: Joseph Smith was mistaken. Early members were mistaken.

Yeah this is a big problem with Dr. Sorenson's books. In Codex notwithstanding this position you cite he then cites a number of Joseph Smith sources in support of the Mesoamerican theory which are plainly ridiculous and third-party hearsay. For instance, he cites late 19th century recollections of an elderly man who recalls a sermon made by Joseph Smith to the Nauvoo legion about the favored sacred status of Mexico, but Dr. Sorenson doesn't realize that (1) any such sermon would likely have been reported, and it wasn't and (2) the elderly man was using Mexico's sacred status as a means to defend plural marriage in the Mexican states rather than support a Mesoamerican theory.

Why would one go to length to say that Joseph Smith's views about the location of the Book of Mormon events was uninformed and then grasp at third-party statements about Joseph Smith to possibly bolster a MesoAmerican view?

Edited August 1, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[bofmmodel]

Wow, I finally caught up.  I read most everything that looked like substance in the current 28 pages of this topic and I must say that the conversation seems typical of how debates about Book of Mormon "evidences" tend to progress.  I'm going to add my 2-cents and hopefully present a perspective that helps rather than hurts the conversation.  Some of you know that I propose my own model for the lands of the Book of Mormon, but I'm not trying to hijack this thread to talk about it.  Instead I want to share some thoughts about my perspective of the overall concept of Book of Mormon evidence and historicity.

 

To me, one of the most important questions in this debate is what canard and others have asked, which is why God would give us the Book of Mormon but without seeming to make a significant effort to prove that its stories are accurate and reliable from a scientific perspective.  The general response that has been given to this question often takes the form of "If God proved it was true, nobody could have faith"...or something to that effect.  That's hooey, but I want to present a balanced argument so I'll start with a story that seems to support that position:

 

One day during my mission we were tracting a neighborhood in Brandon Mississippi.  As we approached one of the last few houses on a street, we saw an older man standing at the entrance to his garage smoking a cigarette.  As we walked up to him it became clear why he chose that spot.  He was peering over the fence into the neighboring yard looking at some women who were sunbathing there.  When he saw us coming he quickly shewed us away so we moved on to the next house and soon finished knocking on the doors on his street.

 

As we started to drive away he rushed down his driveway and wanted us to roll down the car window.  We did and he immediately started telling us how we "were going about it ALL WRONG!!!".  He started telling us how he had read "Storm Testament" and was completely convinced that Brigham Young was a prophet.  He started talking about all the miraculous things Brigham Young had done and told us that we needed to "stop trying to talk people into believing the Book of Mormon garbage" and focus on Brigham Young's miracles if we want to have success bringing people into the church.

 

A little bewildered, I stated the obvious.  I looked at him and said "You believe all those things about Brigham Young, but YOU haven't joined the church".  He was stunned by the remark and stuttered a little while he tried to come up with something to say, but finally just exclaimed "But I'm an old man!" and he stormed off.

 

Whether you think the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired or whether you think it's just a fairy tell or something in-between, I hope we can agree that there's a big difference between the idea of being "convinced" and the idea of being "converted".  This can be said of of people whose "convincing" came from spiritual experiences or of people whose "convincing" came from left-brained scientific evaluation.  Simply being "convinced" does not cause us to take action.

 

...On the other hand...

 

There are PLENTY of examples in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures where impressive public displays of God's power didn't destroy people's faith.  In fact, there are plenty of examples where spiritual conversion only came after being powerfully (and in many cases, publicly) "convinced".  A few examples:

 

• Egyptian plagues
• Parting of the Red Sea
• Fire from heaven consuming Elijah's offering and frying the opposing priests
• The conversion of Saul/Paul
• The appearance of an angel to Alma and the sons of Mosiah
• The darkness and fiery demonstration given to hundreds of Lamanites in the book of Helaman
• And let's not forget the fact that there were plenty of Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites who lived faithful lives in the years following Christ's visit to the Nephites.  They all lived in a time where their faith was not dependent on secular scientific opposition.

I think it's fair for people like Canard to ask why God was willing to give others such strong, publicly-acceptable "proof's" but leaves us with nothing but debatable parallels and correlations for such an important book.  I mean seriously, would it really ruin people's ability to have "faith" if the evidence for the Book of Mormon was based less on parallels and correlations and more on scientifically-acceptable, peer-reviewable evidence?

 

Such evidence wouldn't force anyone to convert any more than the the "Storm Testament" could force the old man to convert.

 

...so...if I don't think God is trying to protect our "faith" by leaving modern scholars in the dark about the Book of Mormon, is there an alternative explanation?

 

I think there is.

 

Let's remember that one of the first things that God told Joseph Smith to do was to have copies of Book of Mormon passages along with his translation of them taken to a professional anthropologist, Charles Anthon.  One thing should be clear to those of us who believe Joseph Smith's account of Martin Harris' interaction with Anthon:  God had a hand in it and knew how that interaction would turn out, and despite Anthon's ultimate rejection, the Book of Mormon is still being successfully spread...without the help of modern scholars.

 

I will assume that those of us who believe that version of the Anthon experience also recognize it as a fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11.  This means that the Lord has already told us why he isn't using scholarly publications to convince people that the Book of Mormon is true.  The answer is in Isaiah 29:

 

"Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:  Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." (Isaiah 29:14)

 

With the opposite of help from the "wise men" and "prudent men" of our time, the Lord has still established the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon in the hearts of millions of people.  One thing is clear:  God doesn't need archaeologists in order to "convert" people who are open to spiritual conversion.  Ironically, the Book of Mormon itself teaches this difference between "convincing" and "converting" very well and it does it over and over.

 

Some examples:

• Laman and Lemuel were "convinced" over and over that Nephi was performing God's work, but they were never converted.
• The Nephites/Mulekites seem to have been fairly universally "convinced" that Samuel's prophecies had been fulfilled and that they proved the truth of his other words, but that didn't stop them from establishing secret combinations.
• The Nephites/Mulekites/Lamanites seem to have been fairly universally "convinced" that their ultimate deliverance from the Gadianton Robbers was proof of God and of his power of deliverance, but that "convincing" experience didn't lead to universal "conversion".  They fell back into spiritual problems in VERY short order.

My opinion is that God is making an important point right now.  He is showing us just what he said he was going to show us:  that he is able to do his own work...the work of conversion...without needing help from modern archaeologists.  I think Nephi's explanation of Isaiah 29 is pretty clear about this:

 

"The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work..." (2 Nephi 27:20)

 

In the following verse he talks about giving us the sealed portion of the plates in the future in his "own due time": 

 

"Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work."

 

Unfortunately for those of us (and I include myself in this) who are anxious to find "convincing" evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity, we might very well be included among the "wise" and "prudent" men whose wisdom shall perish.  I mean seriously, look at the ridiculousness of a lot of what we call "Book of Mormon scholarship".  How much "conversion" has been accomplished through our diligent efforts to "convince" people that the Book of Mormon is true through purported evidences, parallels, and coincidences?

 

Those of us engaged in trying to find the lands of the Book of Mormon should also recognize that God hasn't seemed particularly interested in such efforts since the "Anthon Incident".

 

Why don't I just give up on my own efforts at identifying the lands and cultures of the Book of Mormon then?  Maybe I should, but I honestly do enjoy the search and the Lord has encouraged us seek knowledge both by learning and by faith.  I don't see a problem with studying the subject as long as I try to be intellectually honest about both the strengths and weaknesses of any supposed evidences and parallels and coincidences that I find.

 

Well, I hope my 2-cents here doesn't sound too rambling.  The long and short of what I'm trying to say is:

 

• Questions like Canard is asking are perfectly valid.
• We should not feel inadequate if we don't have academic answers to important academic questions.  The people asking those questions may think that we're nuts when we can't answer them adequately, but that's OK.  If we have a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon then we can also believe that God will address our wise and prudent men in his own way and in his own time.
• We should not make mountains out of mole-hills.  This can be done very inadvertently because of our own inherent biases.  For example, calling NHM "proof" is bad.  Calling NHM "evidence" is a real stretch.  Calling NHM a "supporting coincidence" is intellectually defensible.

[Kevin Christensen]

What I'm saying is that there are no evidences in the New World that it was ever visited or populated by people from the Old World.

That's overstating the case. See Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages.

For example, http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf

Examination of an extensive literature has revealed conclusive evidence that nearly one hundred species

of plants, a majority of them cultivars, were present in both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres prior to

Columbus’ first voyage to the Americas. The evidence comes from archaeology, historical and linguistic

sources, ancient art, and conventional botanical studies. Additionally, 21 species of micro-predators and

six other species of fauna were shared by the Old and New Worlds. The evidence further suggests the

desirability of additional study of up to 70 other organisms as probably or possibly bi-hemispheric in preColumbian

times. This distribution could not have been due merely to natural transfer mechanisms, nor

can it be explained by early human migrations to the New World via the Bering Strait route. Well over

half the plant transfers consisted of flora of American origin that spread to Eurasia or Oceania, some at

surprisingly early dates.

The only plausible explanation for these findings is that a considerable number of transoceanic

voyages in both directions across both major oceans were completed between the 7th millennium BC and

the European age of discovery. Our growing knowledge of early maritime technology and its

accomplishments gives us confidence that vessels and nautical skills capable of these long-distance

travels were developed by the times indicated. These voyages put a new complexion on the extensive Old

World/New World cultural parallels that have long been controversial.

It's not just about the parallels. It's this sort of thing from Sorenson that got Coe to admit pre-Columbian contacts.

And Bob C.'s complaint about Sorenson somewhere citing some recollections would be much more significant if that were indeed the foundation upon which he builds his case, rather than a bit of secondary and expendable frosting. Sorenson does share his homework in Ancient American Setting, the Sourcebook, and Mormon's Map. He obviously thinks that Alma, Mormon, and Moroni are significant sources Book of Mormon settings and that any case anyone makes ought to comprehensively account for what they say.

But paradigm debate is always about the examples from which a person decides to generalize about a position. Generalizing from exceptions is always a bit risky.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[jkwilliams]

I'm not sure that fairytales or forgeries are fit examples of pseudo-scholarship.  Especially since we are discussing the debate between Jenkins and Hamblin. 

 

Leonardo designed flying machines which never got off the ground, but no one would accuse him of pseudo-scholarship.  And the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi spoke of the very real siddhis evident during Transcendental Meditation, but only his immediate followers attempted to take him seriously.  I very much enjoyed tales of Arabian magic carpets as a young lad, but don't consider them part of pseudo-scholarship.

 

Surely you can find something more germane.

I'm guessing you didn't read the article.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

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

..................I honestly do enjoy the search and the Lord has encouraged us seek knowledge both by learning and by faith.  I don't see a problem with studying the subject as long as I try to be intellectually honest about both the strengths and weaknesses of any supposed evidences and parallels and coincidences that I find.

 

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

 

• Questions like Canard is asking are perfectly valid.
• We should not feel inadequate if we don't have academic answers to important academic questions.  The people asking those questions may think that we're nuts when we can't answer them adequately, but that's OK.  If we have a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon then we can also believe that God will address our wise and prudent men in his own way and in his own time.
• We should not make mountains out of mole-hills.  This can be done very inadvertently because of our own inherent biases.  For example, calling NHM "proof" is bad.  Calling NHM "evidence" is a real stretch.  Calling NHM a "supporting coincidence" is intellectually defensible.

You have provided a nice summary of the pros and cons of even bothering to search for answers to such questions. So, while it is true that our salvation does not in any way depend upon our BofM Geography theories (or lack of them), and while it is true that conversion nearly always comes via the Holy Spirit, such concrete, worldly questions do come up and are very interesting and time consuming -- even for Bob Crockett, who doubts the value of any of it, and suggests that it may even be harmful.  I do get that.

 

I am just not sure that those who have not actually done archeology (both field and lab work) have any real sense of the nature of "evidence" and how it is to be used.  The same applies to courtroom rules of evidence and what it might mean in specific cases.