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

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Actually, I did.  So much for your interpretive ability.

 

What I was really hoping for were more relevant and germane examples, not the silly stuff you fobbed off on us.

 

I do very much enjoy reading serious articles on Hinduism and Buddhism (and have spend an inordinate amount of time in my life studying them) and am familiar with some very strong non-Mormon scholarship suggesting that Mesoamerica experienced strong pre-Columbian cultural influence from that part of Asia.  Mike Coe even gives that suggestion the respect which he does not give to the BofM claims.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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.

Elephantine doesn't prove that the New World was inhabited by Israelites.  All Elephantine does is show that Israelites did not hesitate to leave Palestine, migrate to other lands, build temples there, intermarry, and continue their form of worship (and other associated characteristics), just as portrayed in the BofM.  That is quite a bit, especially when we add particular cultural and linguistic items at both Elephantine and in the BofM.  Indeed, Elephantine is only one site which has been investigated.  Archeological results of that kind can be applied in the real world, without ever even mentioning the New World.

 

Instead, your sole focus is on the New World, and you make blatantly false statements about even that, indicating your nearly complete lack of familiarity with the basics.  For example, you falsely declare that " there are no evidences in the New World that it was ever visited or populated by people from the Old World."  You always make these broad, false statements, rather than nuancing them.  Everyone in the New World comes from Old World migrations, and the repeated bringing of various organic, living materials from the Old World (and back) has been proven as biological fact by Sorenson & Johannessen.  See http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf .

 

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?

Albright was very impressed that the Egyptian Book of Mormon should contain authentic ancient Egyptian names, and he said so in a signed statement.  This has no bearing on any New World usage, even though that is your monomaniacal focus.

 

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.

Again, as usual, you make a false statement, and follow it up with a straw man.  It is not true that BofM names can "only be traced through Lehites and possibly Mulekites."  Then you falsify the case still further by the straw man claim that the Jaredites could not be the source of Egyptian or Hebrew names.  Of course, I never said such a thing.

 

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?

Again, I never made such a claim.  Instead of quoting what I actually said, you invented a false claim (straw man) and attributed it to me.

The first step in a valid argument is to accurately reflect the position taken by the other member of the debate.  No wonder you are so confused about the nature of evidence.

 

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.

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.

I have been pointing them out, and you have been pointedly ignoring them.  This naturally leads to incoherent results on your part.

 

Sorenson's books and the several papers which I cited were merely exemplars.  I see that you ignored my offer to make more available by saying "Is that the best you've got."  You are a great put-down artist, but I see no indication of real discussion on your part.

[canard78]

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

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

Thanks Kevin. A fair clarification. Perhaps "old world" was too broad a phrase (when I was specifically thinking of middle-east/Jews). The Viking settlement is more evidence of "old world" (or "outside world") contact and travel. Out of interest, which, if any, of those flora/fauna are specifically middle east in nature? Can any of them be put into the Book of Mormon evidence pool? Or are they simply evidences that "others" (other than the Bering Strait contingent) visited the continent.

[canard78]

-snip-

I am just not sure that those who have not actually done archaeology (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.

But this is precisely the challenge that you and your fellows have to deal with. The vast majority of people who will ask questions about Book of Mormon origins have not done field and lab work.

Take me as an example... I'm relatively well read but have never gone on any archaeological digs (like most people). Despite that, I'm still interested in history and have read plenty of books on different eras of history and enjoy visiting historical sites. I'm able to see the evidence presented for many different civilisations and peoples and have a broad understanding of their customs and behaviours. I can visit a Roman National Trust site and accept the evidences they've compiled that there really was a Roman settlement there for a few hundred years. There's enough evidence to convince me, despite the fact that I didn't dig it up myself and didn't spend any time with it in a lab.

The problem you face is that currently the archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon convinces no-one but those who already believe it to be true. No-one but believing Mormons think that Jews lived in Mesoamerica or that the law of Moses was ever practiced there, do they? There are plenty of experienced non-Mormon archaeologists (with both field and lab experience) and I'm not aware of any of them supporting the hypothesis that Mesoamerica ever homed Jews. Why? Because with their very experienced and very qualified view, there's no evidence to support it.

So all you have is evidences that convinces those who already believe it. The evidence doesn't convince a lay-doubter (or "yokel" as you so affectionately name us) and the evidence also doesn't convince non-Mormon scholars who are far more qualified than I am to have an opinion.

[canard78]

Elephantine doesn't prove that the New World was inhabited by Israelites.  All Elephantine does is show that Israelites did not hesitate to leave Palestine, migrate to other lands, build temples there, intermarry, and continue their form of worship (and other associated characteristics), just as portrayed in the BofM.  That is quite a bit, especially when we add particular cultural and linguistic items at both Elephantine and in the BofM.  Indeed, Elephantine is only one site which has been investigated.  Archeological results of that kind can be applied in the real world, without ever even mentioning the New World.

I've already said I accept that Elephantine is a good parallel evidence. As I've said several time. The problem for the Book of Mormon is some say it's unreasonable to expect to find evidence of Jews in the Americas, Elephantine shows us what that evidence could and should look like. It's been found in Elephantine... it has not been found in Mesoamerica.

Instead, your sole focus is on the New World, and you make blatantly false statements about even that, indicating your nearly complete lack of familiarity with the basics.  For example, you falsely declare that " there are no evidences in the New World that it was ever visited or populated by people from the Old World."  You always make these broad, false statements, rather than nuancing them.  Everyone in the New World comes from Old World migrations, and the repeated bringing of various organic, living materials from the Old World (and back) has been proven as biological fact by Sorenson & Johannessen.  See http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf .

As I said to Kevin, "old world" was lazy short hand for the topic of this conversation. If you really thought I meant that the Americas has never been visited by anyone other than the Bering Strait contingent then I'll be careful to spell it out in future.

We're talking here about the Lehites & Mulekites. They are the "old world" contingent I've always been talking about. We have plenty of evidence that "others" visited the Americas (Vikings, Oceania etc). What we don't have is evidence that Lehites did (or even, as far as I know, Jews or any people from the Middle-east).

For you to see it as a victory to point out the obvious (that "others" came to the americas) seems an odd diversionary tactic when it's pretty clear to me that we're not talking about anything other than the Book of Mormon people.

-snip- 

Again, as usual, you make a false statement, and follow it up with a straw man.  It is not true that BofM names can "only be traced through Lehites and possibly Mulekites."  Then you falsify the case still further by the straw man claim that the Jaredites could not be the source of Egyptian or Hebrew names.  Of course, I never said such a thing.

Now you're misrepresenting. Your paper proposes several Hebrew and Egyptian origins for names in the Book of Mormon. What are the possible sources of those names? Lehites and Mulekites. Any other? Of course, if the Lehites mingled with locals (or Jaredite remnants) they could be additional influences on names, but I'm specifically talking about the Hebrew and Egyptian origins you propose in your paper.

 

Again, I never made such a claim.  Instead of quoting what I actually said, you invented a false claim (straw man) and attributed it to me.

The first step in a valid argument is to accurately reflect the position taken by the other member of the debate.  No wonder you are so confused about the nature of evidence.

I didn't say you did make any claim. I asked you a question. My question was: "If the Nephite measure system was not in any way similar to the Hebrew/Egyptian one, would you use that verse to explain that difference."

Or are you saying that you didn't ever claim that the Hebrew/Egyptian measure system bears a resemblance to the Nephite one?

I have been pointing them out, and you have been pointedly ignoring them.  This naturally leads to incoherent results on your part.

 

Sorenson's books and the several papers which I cited were merely exemplars.  I see that you ignored my offer to make more available by saying "Is that the best you've got."  You are a great put-down artist, but I see no indication of real discussion on your part.

If there are better archaeological evidences than you've previously shared, feel free to share them.

[Bob Crockett]

The problem you face is that currently the archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon convinces no-one but those who already believe it to be true. No-one but believing Mormons think that Jews lived in Mesoamerica or that the law of Moses was ever practiced there, do they? There are plenty of experienced non-Mormon archaeologists (with both field and lab experience) and I'm not aware of any of them supporting the hypothesis that Mesoamerica ever homed Jews. Why? Because with their very experienced and very qualified view, there's no evidence to support it.

I think you're wrong. I had a college professor join the Church, in part, over New World proofs. Who really knows what works and doesn't? Certainly you don't, as you rely upon broad sweeping statements than empirical proofs of conversions.

[Nevo]

I think you're wrong. I had a college professor join the Church, in part, over New World proofs. Who really knows what works and doesn't? Certainly you don't, as you rely upon broad sweeping statements than empirical proofs of conversions.

 

What was his/her name? Do you know which "proofs" the professor found convincing? If one is going to appeal to "empirical proofs of conversions," some detail is in order.

[Nevo]

For what it's worth, under the heading "Cautions in Reading Mormon's Codex," Brant Gardner and Mark Alan Wright state the following regarding Sorenson's pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages evidence:

 

Chapter 9: Transoceanic Voyages

This chapter summarizes an important aspect of Sorenson’s academic career. He has long been a champion of transoceanic voyages. In 2009, he and Carl L. Johannessen published a large compendium of evidence of pre-Columbian biological and botanical contact with Old World locations. This chapter pays homage to Sorenson’s long interest and work on the topic. The information should be analyzed on its own merits. The problem with this chapter is not necessarily the issue of transoceanic voyages, but what the chapter is doing in this book. The evidence he discusses has no direct relationship to the Book of Mormon. Put simply, the evidence from the right time is from the wrong place, and that which is from the right place is from the wrong time.

 

See http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/john-l-sorensons-complete-legacy-reviewing-mormons-codex/ (emphasis mine).

[bofmmodel]

...

 

...

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.

...

 

Sorenson's books and the several papers which I cited were merely exemplars.  I see that you ignored my offer to make more available by saying "Is that the best you've got."  You are a great put-down artist, but I see no indication of real discussion on your part.

 

So:

• Canard thinks Robert is making mountains out of mole-hills.
• Robert thinks Canard is making mole-hills out of mountains.

If I'm following the conversation correctly, the "several papers" that are "exemplars" are the list that Kevin Christensen posted, is that right?

 

While I can't write a full review of Journey of Faith or of all of Sorensons writings or of Gardner's and Poulson's FAIR presentations in a blog post, I will take a stab at the SEHA paper to see if it looks more like a mountain or more like a mole-hill:

 

The paper (found here) attempts to show that characters found on two small Central American seals match characters on what is known as the "Anthon Transcript".  Most of these correlated characters are straight lines or individual dots and the paper recognizes that "The use of dots and vertical and horizontal lines does not in itself mean a great deal by way of establishing a connection between these two scripts.  However, the more complex characters do suggest a close relationship between the two." (SEHA paper page 7)

 

In keeping with that statement, I will only address the "more complex characters" in my evaluation of their comparison.  For some of the suggested matches, the paper identifies multiple copies of the same Anthon Transcript characters.  For simplicity, my evaluation will only show one of the suggested Anthon matches for each of the Tlatlico characters.  Please refer to the paper if you think I'm being unfair in my selection of the comparative Anthon characters.  I think you'll find that I have represented the paper's "matches" appropriately.  In the following image, I have color-coded the matches of the "More Complex" characters between the Anthon Transcript and the Tlatilco seal:

 

 

I personally find these suggested matches to be very unimpressive.  This is an example of what I call making a mountain out of a mole-hill.  We can't expect people to seriously consider this "proof" or even "evidence" of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

 

One of the biggest problems with my own geographical model is that evidence for prehistoric writing systems is so scant I don't even try to call it evidence.  If the Book of Mormon did take place in Baja, the one of the only surviving examples of Nephite writing systems that has been found is an inscription that is part of what are known as the San Fernando petroglyphs.  In order to show just how likely it is that the Tlatilco inscription is just a coincidence, I will use the same paper's image of the Anthon Transcript (which is not the best out there but my point is to show methodological problems with the SEHA paper, not to actually claim a match to the San Fernando petroglyphs) and compare it to the San Fernando petroglyphs using standards of matching that seem no worse than the SEHA paper uses:

 

I don't know if you'll agree or not, but the San Fernando petroglyphs seem to be a lot more compelling match to the Anthon Transcript than the Tlatlico seal is.  Does this mean that I can now claim that I have evidence or proof that ancient inhabitants of Baja had one or more written languages and that the language(s) show "evidence" of being Reformed Egyptian?

 

NO!!!!!

 

As much as that conclusion would seem to bolster my model, I have to look at it from a reasonable perspective if I want reasonable people to accept my findings.  Here are some reasonable problems to consider:

• The Anthon Transcript itself is not verified to be the transcript that Martin Harris showed to Charles Anthon, nor can it be verified to be a copy of it.  Without that link, it doesn't matter how strong the "match" appears to be, it doesn't amount to "evidence".
• The characters on the San Fernando Petroglyphs exist in a vacuum.  They are not tied to any known geography or culture, and nobody has yet shown them to be associated to any world languages.  Even if someone felt like the characters matched the Anthon Transcript with any significance, the petroglyphs themselves are not accepted as being a writing system or of representative of any new-world culture.

Based on current information, all the Tlatlico seal or the San Fernando Petroglyph comparisons show us are relatively unremarkable coincidences.  Perhaps further study will teach us more, but until then it's just a mole-hill, not a mountain.  It's not "evidence" of the historicity of the Book of Mormon and we should not present it like it is.

Edited August 2, 2015 by bofmmodel

[canard78]

I think you're wrong. I had a college professor join the Church, in part, over New World proofs. Who really knows what works and doesn't? Certainly you don't, as you rely upon broad sweeping statements than empirical proofs of conversions.

(Emphasis mine)

 

A nice anecdote, but his joining the church, presumably, had at least some spiritual conversion too? I'm guessing the "in part" qualifier was fairly important.

 

I'm not actually asking for non-Mormon scholars who believe the Book of Mormon. Clearly if they believed the Book of Mormon they'd probably not be non-Mormon. (probably...).

 

What I said in the sentence you quoted was that I was interested to know of any non-Mormon scholars who believe that Jews visited, inhabited and are among the ancestors of the Americas.

[canard78]

For what it's worth, under the heading "Cautions in Reading Mormon's Codex," Brant Gardner and Mark Alan Wright state the following regarding Sorenson's pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages evidence:

 

Chapter 9: Transoceanic Voyages

This chapter summarizes an important aspect of Sorenson’s academic career. He has long been a champion of transoceanic voyages. In 2009, he and Carl L. Johannessen published a large compendium of evidence of pre-Columbian biological and botanical contact with Old World locations. This chapter pays homage to Sorenson’s long interest and work on the topic. The information should be analyzed on its own merits. The problem with this chapter is not necessarily the issue of transoceanic voyages, but what the chapter is doing in this book. The evidence he discusses has no direct relationship to the Book of Mormon. Put simply, the evidence from the right time is from the wrong place, and that which is from the right place is from the wrong time.

 

See http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/john-l-sorensons-complete-legacy-reviewing-mormons-codex/ (emphasis mine).

 

Thank you sir. As ever, you give a far more articulate example of the point I'd hoped to make in previous posts. At no point was I intending to claim that no "Old World" contact was ever had with the Americas. I'd hoped it would be clear enough from my posts that I was looking for evidence of Lehites (or Jews etc).

[Robert F. Smith]

So:

• Canard thinks Robert is making mountains out of mole-hills.
• Robert thinks Canard is making mole-hills out of mountains.

If I'm following the conversation correctly, the "several papers" that are "exemplars" are the list that Kevin Christensen posted, is that right?

 

No.  Incorrect.  I referred to a very few papers of my own in post #323 in this thread, which I again quote here:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If you like those, I can provide more.

 

While I can't write a full review of Journey of Faith or of all of Sorensons writings or of Gardner's and Poulson's FAIR presentations in a blog post, I will take a stab at the SEHA paper to see if it looks more like a mountain or more like a mole-hill:

...........................................................................................................................................:

• The Anthon Transcript itself is not verified to be the transcript that Martin Harris showed to Charles Anthon, nor can it be verified to be a copy of it.  Without that link, it doesn't matter how strong the "match" appears to be, it doesn't amount to "evidence".
• The characters on the San Fernando Petroglyphs exist in a vacuum.  They are not tied to any known geography or culture, and nobody has yet shown them to be associated to any world languages.  Even if someone felt like the characters matched the Anthon Transcript with any significance, the petroglyphs themselves are not accepted as being a writing system or of representative of any new-world culture.

Based on current information, all the Tlatlico seal or the San Fernando Petroglyph comparisons show us are relatively unremarkable coincidences.  Perhaps further study will teach us more, but until then it's just a mole-hill, not a mountain.  It's not "evidence" of the historicity of the Book of Mormon and we should not present it like it is.

 

I can go along with you on the Tlatilco Seal, as well as on many another odd item.

 

You are also probably correct on what has long been known as the "Anthon Transcript," which is more likely merely a memento given by Joseph to Oliver Cowdery (one of several such mementoes).  Many scholars now instead term it simply the "Caractors Transcript," with "Caractors" apparently written in Joseph's handwriting.  The thing is that it appears to be in Egyptian hieratic or early demotic -- at least in the judgment of two non-Mormon Egyptologists (W. C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker) who looked at it closely half a century ago.

[Robert F. Smith]

For what it's worth, under the heading "Cautions in Reading Mormon's Codex," Brant Gardner and Mark Alan Wright state the following regarding Sorenson's pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages evidence:

 

Chapter 9: Transoceanic Voyages

This chapter summarizes an important aspect of Sorenson’s academic career. He has long been a champion of transoceanic voyages. In 2009, he and Carl L. Johannessen published a large compendium of evidence of pre-Columbian biological and botanical contact with Old World locations. This chapter pays homage to Sorenson’s long interest and work on the topic. The information should be analyzed on its own merits. The problem with this chapter is not necessarily the issue of transoceanic voyages, but what the chapter is doing in this book. The evidence he discusses has no direct relationship to the Book of Mormon. Put simply, the evidence from the right time is from the wrong place, and that which is from the right place is from the wrong time.

 

See http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/john-l-sorensons-complete-legacy-reviewing-mormons-codex/ (emphasis mine).

Good point, but one can take it too far, since it is proof that human voyages to the New World took place over an enormously long period and brought many biological items which could not have been brought in any other way.  It is only indirect evidence, but bear in mind that hardly anyone even accepted the notion that such voyages ever took place in pre-Columbian times.  Even the Vikings were denied their due until archeological proof was discovered.

 

Even Betty Meggars and Clifford Evans of the Smithsonian had a very hard time getting anyone to accept their excellent evidence that representatives of the ancient Japanese Middle Jomon culture arrived in Valdivia, Chile, about 5,000 years ago, and that was based on pottery evidence.  Now that the Sican Peru DNA is a best match to that of the ancient Japanese Ainu, the debate is becoming more interesting.  See 

https://heritageofjapan.wordpress.com/just-what-was-so-amazing-about-jomon-japan/ways-of-the-jomon-world-2/travel-jomon-style/transoceanic-contact-between-ecuador-east-asia-and-the-migration-of-people-bearing-c3-genes/ , and https://heritageofjapan.wordpress.com/pacing-the-paleolithic-path/did-the-prehistoric-people-of-japan-colonize-the-new-world/in-the-news-dna-tests-show-sican-culture-in-peru-genetically-linked-to-ainu-people-along-with-populations-of-siberia-and-taiwan/ .

[bofmmodel]

I joined this forum conversation after the subject of Brian Stubbs' Uto-Aztecan/Semitic/Egyptian linguistic work had been already been discussed and dismissed, but his work is something that I have spent considerable time and effort looking into so I want to make some comments regarding it.

When I realized that Brian was preparing his research for a professional audience I wanted to know more.  I got in touch with him and was able to get a glimpse of the strength of his research.

The quotes from Ross Clark that were quoted on pages 24 & 25 of this forum topic are irrelevant, not because Ross Clark doesn't sound like a quotable professional, but because he is commenting on tidbits that Brian had done for FARMS which were honestly a puny example of his full research and was not intended to convince linguistic professionals.  Clark was correct to say that in the context of the FARMS article that "the number of resemblances presented by Stubbs does not rise above the chance level".

The FARMS article was not the presentation that he has been preparing for professional linguists, but that doesn't mean Brian Stubbs hasn't been preparing a thorough treatment of the subject for professionals to evaluate.  Early this year he released an article titled "Excerpts from the 400-page book Exploring the Explanatory Power of Egyptian and Semitic in Uto-Aztecan".  It is just what it says it is.  It is a list of excerpts of a 400-page volume that is intended for a professional audience.  Ultimately, we hope that professional linguists will look into his work with a thoughtful eye.  In conjunction with that announcement of his upcoming 400-page book we learn:

"Brian’s UA works preceding this book have been well received by other UA specialists. While the arrival of this Near-East tie with UA has most wishing to ignore it, a brave few have voiced very positive assessments.  Roger William Wescott, first in his Princeton class, PhD in linguistics, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, President of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, author of 500 articles and 40 books, called Brian’s work “a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic languages”. David H. Kelley, Harvard PhD who published in anthropology, linguistics, Uto-Aztecan, and contributed to the decipherment of the Mayan glyphs, said upon receiving an earlier draft: “The thick thing came in the mail and I did not want to tackle it, but dutifully opened it, intending to look at a page or two. However, I started to read and ended up reading the whole thing. It is the most interesting and significant piece of research I have seen in years.” Mary Ritchie Key, and two PhD linguists specializing in UA, all spoke well of it. John S. Robertson, a leading Mayanist and Harvard trained PhD in historical linguistics, also speaks highly of the strength of this case."

The point I'm trying to make is that Ross Clark's comments really don't apply to what Stubbs has started to present with his "excerpts of a 400-page volume" this year.

When I first heard about all this I was very skeptical.  I mean, Stubbs is actually saying that he has put together a convincing case that Uto-Aztecan languages were strongly influenced by two dialects of Hebrew, one of which was bi-lingual with Egyptian.  For people familiar with the linguistic background of Book of Mormon cultures, that's a pretty straightforward parallel to the Mulekites and Nephites.  I had two simple questions:

 

• Is he serious?  I mean, that kind of claim comes pretty close to the evidence people joke about never finding.  It's the linguistic equivalent of an archaeologist finding a "welcome to Zarahemla" sign.
• Is his research convincing enough to back up such a bold statement?

Now that he's published his "excerpts" and mentioned early editions that others have seen, I feel safe saying that I have also seen an early release.  It caused me to delve into comparative linguistics far deeper than I ever expected, but I came out absolutely amazed at both the quantity and quality of his research.

His "excerpts" article says quite accurately that:

"The book is intended for linguists, Semiticists, and Egyptologists, and therefore includes the linguistic rigor demanded by the comparative method"

In other words...it's not likely that people like me will be able to provide a professional review of his material.  That is true in one respect but false in another.  

Since I'm not a linguist and have no working knowledge of Uto-Aztecan, Semitic, or Egyptian languages, I realized that I would need to either lookup each and every English definition that he presents, or I would simply have to trust his definitions.  Realizing that inaccurate word definitions would be easily detected by professionals (or by anyone with access to a language dictionary), I chose the latter.

The proposal is written using a well known, well-defined and well-respected methodology known as "The Comparative Method".  Although like most methodologies, the Comparative Method is not perfect, it is well-accepted as the appropriate way to propose language relationships and has proven to be very successful at two things:

1. Detecting relationships between languages.
2. Detecting problems in false language-relationship proposals.

As I started to look at Stubbs' book, I quickly realized that I had a lot to learn if I was going to really understand what he was saying, so I got to work studying everything I could get my hands on regarding "The Comparative Method of Historical Linguistics".  This included reading several top books on the subject (including a lot of material written by Uto-Aztecanists) and interacting with online groups that are focused on comparative linguistics.

The more I learned the more I saw just how strong his proposal is.  In both quantity and quality it presents a tremendously strong case.

On the other hand, because his proposal is intended for a professional rather than a lay audience, don't be surprised to hear people attacking elements of it and pretending that his proposal should be dismissed out-of-hand.  After all, like he says in his "excerpts" this year, he is proposing more than 1,500 different correspondences ("cognate sets" in comparative method terminology) between Egyptian/Semitic and Uto-Aztecan languages.  With that many correspondences, it is a target-rich environment.

Some of the 1,500 cognate sets are stronger evidence than others, so weaker ones will no-doubt be called out as reasons to doubt the whole proposal, and people unfamiliar with the Comparative Method might think that such weaknesses mean that the proposal is not strong, but that is incorrect.  The methodology itself expects that some cognate sets will be stronger than others and the weaknesses of the weak cognate sets in Stubbs' proposal are more than offset by the convincing strength of the strong cognate sets.

One argument that will show up will be that Stubbs is skewing statistical likelihoods of chance correspondences by drawing on three source old-world languages/dialects.  This is a very fair argument, but it is also an argument that Stubbs address directly and convincingly by showing that his entire proposal is convincingly strong even if you disregard the cognate sets from any two of the three proposed source languages/dialects.

I could go on and on, but this post is already too long-winded.  I just want to make sure that Stubbs' mountain of work that he's starting to make public doesn't get disregarded as a mole-hill simply because of Ross Clark's 11-year-old comment regarding the much-simpler FARMS paper.


 

[jkwilliams]

Actually, I did.  So much for your interpretive ability.

 

What I was really hoping for were more relevant and germane examples, not the silly stuff you fobbed off on us.

 

I do very much enjoy reading serious articles on Hinduism and Buddhism (and have spend an inordinate amount of time in my life studying them) and am familiar with some very strong non-Mormon scholarship suggesting that Mesoamerica experienced strong pre-Columbian cultural influence from that part of Asia.  Mike Coe even gives that suggestion the respect which he does not give to the BofM claims.

I've been out of town and am up against a deadline, but here's a good example of what I would consider Mormon pseudoscholarship. On the surface, it seems like a bunch of "bullseyes," but it depends on ignoring the context within which the Book of Mormon appeared, so it ends up painting the bullseye around the arrow.

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/view/20079/18639

Another good example off the top of my head is The Jesus Mysteries.

 

That said, I'm not sure why you think the stuff I fobbed off on you is sillier than Book of Mormon apologetics. In both cases, you have fantastical claims being bolstered by what passes for scholarship.

Edited August 3, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Danzo]

I've been out of town and am up against a deadline, but here's a good example of what I would consider Mormon pseudoscholarship. On the surface, it seems like a bunch of "bullseyes," but it depends on ignoring the context within which the Book of Mormon appeared, so it ends up painting the bullseye around the arrow.

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/view/20079/18639

Another good example off the top of my head is The Jesus Mysteries.

 

That said, I'm not sure why you think the stuff I fobbed off on you is sillier than Book of Mormon apologetics. In both cases, you have fantastical claims being bolstered by what passes for scholarship.

 

when you get a chance, can you elaborate on why you think the article is pseudo scholarship?

[jkwilliams]

when you get a chance, can you elaborate on why you think the article is pseudo scholarship?

 

Sure. Clark's article (I'm assuming that's what you mean) lists "points of convergence," or things in the Book of Mormon that reflect ancient America but that Joseph Smith couldn't or shouldn't have known about. The problem is that every one of those points is something that was believed in Joseph Smith's time, so what looks like a string of "bullseyes" is pretty much what you would expect of something written in Joseph Smith's day. Here's something I wrote several years ago on the subject.

 

Book of Mormon Evidence

[Bob Crockett]

when you get a chance, can you elaborate on why you think the article is pseudo scholarship?

I personally don't have a problem with articles in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies like this one and don't consider them "pseudoscholarship." John's just abusing that word for his own unbelieving purposes (and quite frankly I can't see why he wastes his time with Mormonism).  The article is in a faith-based journal and is scholarship, much like Talmudic scholarship, meant to bring enlightenment to religious texts.

 

I have individual disagreement with some of these articles, but that doesn't diminish their effort or value.  

 

In Clark's article, he relies as many before him and after him on the claim that Joseph Smith authored the 1 Oct 1842 Times & Seasons articles that pins Zarahemla to the the Darien peninsula, and for some reason that is an important arrow in the quiver of Mesoamericanists.  But, Dr. Sorenson has conceded in an obscure article, but not in Codex, that Joseph Smith never had anything but a hemispheric theory.  John L. Sorenson, "How Could Joseph Smith Write So Accurately about Ancient American Civilization?" in Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah:  Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), at 269 [“[L]ater statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites.”]  And, as to the 1 Oct 1842 article, Larry Poulsen has apparently ably concluded that John Taylor was the author.  Larry Poulson, “Book of Mormon Geography [2008 FAIR Conference],” published at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf, accessed January 4, 2015. 

 

The problem with Clark's scholarship, as with the scholarship of any mortal man, is that he attempts to reconcile the Arm of God with the cursed arm of the flesh, and that is indeed a difficult task.  But I find much more lasting value in articles like Clark's than from posts from our friend John who seeks to tear down one's faith.   I just wouldn't be one to stand in front of a mosque on the Muslim Sabbath to hurl invective.  [i say this tongue in cheek; John knows me, I hope.]

Edited August 3, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[jkwilliams]

I personally don't have a problem with articles in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies like this one and don't consider them "pseudoscholarship." John's just abusing that word for his own unbelieving purposes.

Or it could be that I think it's an example of pseudoscholarship, which I define as work that "is presented as, but is not, the product of rigorous and objective study or research; the act of producing such work." In this case, Clark presents only one side, giving the false impression that these "points of convergence" are amazing hits that speak to things Joseph Smith could not have known.

 

 

 

(and quite frankly I can't see why he wastes his time with Mormonism).

I wonder the same thing about you, Bob.

 

 

The article is in a faith-based journal and is scholarship, much like Talmudic scholarship, meant to bring enlightenment to religious texts.

I read it as one of those "how could Joseph have known" pieces. I can't think of anything anaologous in Talmudic scholarship. Can you?

 

 

I have individual disagreement with some of these articles, but that doesn't diminish their effort or value.  

 

In Clark's article, he relies as many before him and after him that Joseph Smith authored the 1 Oct 1842 Times & Seasons articles that pins Zarahemla to the the Darien peninsula, and for some reason that is an important arrow in the quiver of Mesoamericanists.  But, Dr. Sorenson has conceded in an obscure article, but not in Codex, that Joseph Smith never had anything but a hemispheric theory.  John L. Sorenson, "How Could Joseph Smith Write So Accurately about Ancient American Civilization?" in Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah:  Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), at 269 [“[L]ater statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites.”]  And, as to the 1 Oct 1842 article, Larry Poulsen has apparently ably concluded that John Taylor was the author.  Larry Poulson, “Book of Mormon Geography [2008 FAIR Conference],” published at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf, accessed January 4, 2015. 

I have read that Dr. Clark himself has walked back from endorsing the article and its points of convergence. But, you know, pointing that out is just part of my unbelieving purposes.

Edited August 3, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Bob Crockett]

I wonder the same thing about you, Bob.

 

Well, as I have said once before on that nasty other board, I owe an eternal debt of gratitude to the Church.  A middle-aged bishop with a large family rescued a 29-year-old widowed mother with four children, of which I was the oldest.  He (the bishop, not me) later became an apostle.  For that I will always defend and maintain.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[jkwilliams]

Well, as I have said once before on that nasty other board, I owe an eternal debt of gratitude to the Church.  A bishop rescued a 29-year-old widowed mother with four children, of which I was the oldest.  He later became an apostle.  For that I will always defend and maintain.

You should indeed be grateful for that.

[Bob Crockett]

Good works follow them that believe.

[jkwilliams]

Good works follow them that believe.

I never based my faith on other people's actions. I've seen enough good and bad from believers to know better. It's best to just follow truth and conscience.

[Danzo]

Sure. Clark's article (I'm assuming that's what you mean) lists "points of convergence," or things in the Book of Mormon that reflect ancient America but that Joseph Smith couldn't or shouldn't have known about. The problem is that every one of those points is something that was believed in Joseph Smith's time, so what looks like a string of "bullseyes" is pretty much what you would expect of something written in Joseph Smith's day. Here's something I wrote several years ago on the subject.

 

Book of Mormon Evidence

 

Thanks you for providing details, I am not a meso american scholar and I do not plan on becoming one any time soon, so won't make any comments other than to say that I enjoy reading other people's point of view

[jkwilliams]

Thanks you for providing details, I am not a meso american scholar and I do not plan on becoming one any time soon, so won't make any comments other than to say that I enjoy reading other people's point of view

 

One need not be a Mesoamerican scholar to see where Clark goes wrong. His argument depends on Joseph Smith being unaware of the points of convergence he listed, and that argument doesn't hold up at all.