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

[Deborah]

Brant didn't discuss archeology so much as the historicity of the BOM and how it fits with the history. Very interesting.

[rodheadlee]

Not really - there are many churches that use the Book of Mormon, and it doesn't follow that verification of BOM historicity would make any of them "true"

They are all branches from the JS tree.

[rodheadlee]

I'll just quote my illustrious friend Nevo:

 

It doesn't make what I said any less true.

[jkwilliams]

It doesn't make what I said any less true.

 

It doesn't make it true, either.

[jkwilliams]

Brant didn't discuss archeology so much as the historicity of the BOM and how it fits with the history. Very interesting.

 

If you try hard enough, you can make it fit with a lot of different places and times in history.

[Robert F. Smith]

Hah hah. Smith is a yokel isn't he? Wasatch Front denizen with a degree? Kind of like a geologist in Truth or Consequences NM?

or Roswell NM . . . 

[Robert F. Smith]

 

It wasn't meant to be flippant. I chose that analogy for a reason: if you get outside of Mormonism, you find that Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is considered about as legitimate as Bigfoot studies, which is why Philip Jenkins used the same analogy. I understand why that's offensive to you, but I still think it's an appropriate analogy. Jeff Meldrum is good example of how these things are viewed. No one questions his credentials and work in the field of biology. But most people who accept his work in Mormon apologetics reject his Bigfoot research as pseudoscience. In the same way, most of the people who accept his work in Bigfoot studies reject his Mormon apologetic work as pseudoscience.

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

Sound like incommensurables to me, John.  When I saw Jenkins using that analogy, I was very disappointed.  Unfair comparisons -- which would fail as the correct answer to a GRE question.  The discipline of archeology doesn't play favorites.  It doesn't care which side of the fence you are from.  The apriori denigration of ABMS is lurid and sick.  Yes, of course there are people who think of ABMS as just more Sasquatch nonsense.  Being fair and impartial is so important, however, that such analogies should be considered odious by you and any other fair-minded person.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

Sound like incommensurables to me, John.  When I saw Jenkins using that analogy, I was very disappointed.  Unfair comparisons -- which would fail as the correct answer to a GRE question.  The discipline of archeology doesn't play favorites.  It doesn't care which side of the fence you are from.  The apriori denigration of ABMS is lurid and sick.  Yes, of course there are people who think of ABMS as just more Sasquatch nonsense.  Being fair and impartial is so important, however, that such analogies should be considered odious by you and any other fair-minded person.

 

If the analogy is that offensive, I'll withdraw it. As I said, I was trying to get at how ABMS is seen outside of LDS circles and how one's expertise in an academic area of study may not been as relevant to one's activities in other areas. But, I apologize for causing offense.

Edited August 7, 2015 by jkwilliams

[sethpayne]

 The discipline of archeology doesn't play favorites.  It doesn't care which side of the fence you are from.  

 

Hi Robert,

 

But wouldn't you agree that in the case of Book of Mormon archaeology it is *only* LDS scholars who see plausible evidence in the archaeological record?  It's not like John Sorenson was studying Mesoamerican geography and *then* found it supported the Book of Mormon.  He started with the belief that the BoM is historically true and then set out to establish a plausible setting.  So it really does matter what side of the fence you are from.  At least in the case of the BoM, no?

 

And while I agree that the Bigfoot analogy isn't perfect it is at least correct in this respect:  Both BoM and Bigfoot scholars (I'm thinking of that LDS prof in Idaho who studies Bigfoot .... as a real academic discipline much to the frustration of his colleagues) start with the assumption of truth and then go looking for evidence to support that assumption.  This is markedly different from looking for evidence and letting conclusions follow.

 

That doesn't mean that the evidence is wrong or that it doesn't support the conclusion.  Only that the assumptions of the researchers play an important role in how they collect and analyze evidence.

 

Seth

Edited August 7, 2015 by sethpayne

[canard78]

The discipline of archeology doesn't play favorites.  It doesn't care which side of the fence you are from.

 

I've studied enough research to know this is not true. The conclusions reached from any research discipline are absolutely dependent on your fence position.

[jkwilliams]

I've studied enough research to know this is not true. The conclusions reached from any research discipline are absolutely dependent on your fence position.

 

I agree, but as Seth said, apologists "start with the assumption of truth and then go looking for evidence to support that assumption." That's why ABMS isn't considered a legitimate area of academic study.

Edited August 7, 2015 by jkwilliams

[canard78]

Brant didn't discuss archeology so much as the historicity of the BOM and how it fits with the history. Very interesting.

 

I agree that Brant has some very interesting conclusions. But he hasn't produced any independent evidence that Jews migrated to the Americas. There's plenty of convergences which say that the Book of Mormon could have happened. But there's nothing that actually shows that Nephites existed outside of the text of the Book of Mormon.

[Gray]

Would the aquatic ape hypothesis be a better comparison to ancient BOM studies, hopefully without offending anyone who has a sincere belief in the historicity of the BOM? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

 

It doesn't seem to have the connotations of ridicule that we think of when we talk about Bigfoot or alien abductions, but at the same time it hasn't passed the peer review process either. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by Gray

[Calm]

Both BoM and Bigfoot scholars (I'm thinking of that LDS prof in Idaho who studies Bigfoot .... as a real academic discipline much to the frustration of his colleagues) start with the assumption of truth and then go looking for evidence to support that assumption. This is markedly different from looking for evidence and letting conclusions follow.

That doesn't mean that the evidence is wrong or that it doesn't support the conclusion. Only that the assumptions of the researchers play an important role in how they collect and analyze evidence.

Seth

My memory of J Meldrum is he at least started in the "it may be possible" as opposed to the "it is true" position. It has been several years since I read him but my impression of him at the time was he was simply treating the alleged evidence as he would another serious study...which may have been more attention than some of it deserved, but overall I didn't see it as harmful as long as he didn't go lax on standards of evaluation. Edited August 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

And where was that archaeological evidence again...? I'm looking for more than convergences and, ideally, new world evidence.

 

Why be so limiting in the evidence you'll accept? If the archaeology establishes that Bountiful in the Old World exits. Then is\t is unnecessarily restrictive to exclude it as evidence. If Barley has been discovered in the New World. Why do you exclude it as evidence? The Church claims no specific area for the New World events described in the Book of Mormon, other than somewhere in the New World. I think Sorenson and others make a good argument for Mesoamerica, but he and I could be wrong.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Edited August 7, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[bofmmodel]

I agree that Brant has some very interesting conclusions. But he hasn't produced any independent evidence that Jews migrated to the Americas. There's plenty of convergences which say that the Book of Mormon could have happened. But there's nothing that actually shows that Nephites existed outside of the text of the Book of Mormon.

 

I really don't understand why we can't agree with canard on this point.  It doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon isn't true.  It just means that the "evidence" hasn't convinced many/any in the wider profession of archaeology that it's true...yet

[canard78]

Why be so limiting in the evidence you'll accept? If the archaeology establishes that Bountiful in the Old World exits. Then is\t is unnecessarily restrictive to exclude it as evidence. If Barley has been discovered in the New World. Why do you exclude it as evidence? The Church claims no specific area for the New World events described in the Book of Mormon, other than somewhere in the New World. I think Sorenson and others make a good argument for Mesoamerica, but he and I could be wrong.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

First, I do accept the evidences. I'm asking, in this thread, for a specific type of evidence and, if any of it was produced I'd add it to the pool of evidence I already accept and consider reasonable.

I know Jeff personally and respect the countless hours he puts into his website. All of those ancient evidences are convergences. There isn't a single piece of evidence that is independent of the text.

As to your examples, they don't answer the request of this thread. Bountiful is a convergence. But I'm not looking for a convergence in this thread.

The two coastal Arabian locations only show that Lehi & co could have found somewhere like what is described as Bountiful. There's no evidence in those actual locations that Nephites were there, is there.

And yes, there might be a few examples of Barley in the Americas, but that's not evidence that this barley was brought by a group of Jews, is it?

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know what you are looking for then. Will there ever be proof of the Truth Claims of the Book of Mormon? Probably not as long as either of us willl live. However I do think there is more and more evidences are coming forth that give plausibility to its story.

 

Without some type of text there can be no convergences. IE; It was the ancient Greek stories of Troy that had sparked an interest finding it. Until it was it was just fun stories from mythology.

 

Was Helen of Troy the most beautiful of women in the world? It is unlikely we will ever find a sign saying "Helen slept here" in the archaeology digs. Nor are we likely to find a road sign saying "Zarahemla Next Five Exists". So I really don't know what it is you are looking for.

 

I tend to think that New World Barley's are separate species for the Old World types. Close enough for the Lehites to be considered Barley but not the same species.

[Robert F. Smith]

 The discipline of archeology doesn't play favorites.  It doesn't care which side of the fence you are from.  

Hi Robert,

 

But wouldn't you agree that in the case of Book of Mormon archaeology it is *only* LDS scholars who see plausible evidence in the archaeological record?  It's not like John Sorenson was studying Mesoamerican geography and *then* found it supported the Book of Mormon.  He started with the belief that the BoM is historically true and then set out to establish a plausible setting.  So it really does matter what side of the fence you are from.  At least in the case of the BoM, no?

 

And while I agree that the Bigfoot analogy isn't perfect it is at least correct in this respect:  Both BoM and Bigfoot scholars (I'm thinking of that LDS prof in Idaho who studies Bigfoot .... as a real academic discipline much to the frustration of his colleagues) start with the assumption of truth and then go looking for evidence to support that assumption.  This is markedly different from looking for evidence and letting conclusions follow.

 

That doesn't mean that the evidence is wrong or that it doesn't support the conclusion.  Only that the assumptions of the researchers play an important role in how they collect and analyze evidence.

 

Seth

I guess you miss the point, seth.  I did not say that individuals don't stand on one side of the fence or other.  I said that archeology doesn't do so.  The data are primary and cannot be made to fit just any old pattern which is imposed upon it.  Archeology is a discipline and a body of raw data.  It has many workers all over the planet, many of whom are specialists in particular types of archeology.  They work as teams, and have a wide variety of differing apriori points of view.  The training and discipline imposed upon them by their chosen field demands that they heel to the canons and ethics of the discipline.  Colleagues can write harsh reviews for those who do not accept those scientific and technical standards.

 

Interpretations offered in peer reviewed publications must be credible/plausible, and must fit in with constantly updated information.

 

Some very nice, but very mistaken people, who are not archeologists, have written some awful apologetic materials on the Bible and the Book of Mormon over the years.  Some are quite embarrassing, and the uninformed can be taken in.  That is true.  I recommend that one exercise care, but not assume that everything is therefore hooey.  See Martin Raish, "All that Glitters:  Uncovering Fool's Gold in Book of Mormon Archaeology," Sunstone, 6/1 (Jan-Feb 1981):10-15, online at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/025-10-15.pdf .  That is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

It puzzles me that you would refer to "Bigfoot scholars," which is an oxymoron.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree, but as Seth said, apologists "start with the assumption of truth and then go looking for evidence to support that assumption." That's why ABMS isn't considered a legitimate area of academic study.

There is no acceptable reason why ABMS cannot be a legitimate area of academic study, except for prejudice, John.  You may be right to say that it "isn't considered" to be such by people like Jenkins, who come to the matter with strong apriori views, and who expel or disregard even ordinary academic standards -- which would be freely applied to non-controversial issues.  The failings of apologists who fudge the data are frequently the same failings of the critics who deny the obvious.  Either side can be in a rush to judgment, heedless of reasonable interpretations.  Either side can make impossible demands, which no professional archeologist would ever make.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Right?

[sunstoned]

I don't know what you are looking for then. Will there ever be proof of the Truth Claims of the Book of Mormon? Probably not as long as either of us willl live. However I do think there is more and more evidences are coming forth that give plausibility to its story.

 

Without some type of text there can be no convergences. IE; It was the ancient Greek stories of Troy that had sparked an interest finding it. Until it was it was just fun stories from mythology.

 

Was Helen of Troy the most beautiful of women in the world? It is unlikely we will ever find a sign saying "Helen slept here" in the archaeology digs. Nor are we likely to find a road sign saying "Zarahemla Next Five Exists". So I really don't know what it is you are looking for.

 

I tend to think that New World Barley's are separate species for the Old World types. Close enough for the Lehites to be considered Barley but not the same species.

This is a common apologistic strawman. We don't need a zerhemla street sign. What we do need, and what would be expected if the nephites were real is evidence of a large, iron age, horse culture that practiced a old world religion and farmed old world type crops.  If there were any place on this continent where such a culture existed for over a 1000 years and was large enough and had infrastructure to field and support million men armies, then we would know about it.  Evidence would be there. Not just a hint of barley or maybe a horse of  elephant bone somewhere. This culture would have impacted other native american groups.   The spanish brought horses to this continent in the 1500's, a few escaped in mexico and three hundred years later we see the rise of the american plains indians who became a horse culture, fully dependent on horses.  Horses that migrated from mexico.  See how that works?  Cultures do not develop and live in a vacuum.  They impact their surroundings and the surrounding peoples.  

 

Your ancient greek story does not apply to the BoM.  The greek civilization is well known.  There architecture and writings that exist today.  Troy is just one city that was found in part by following the writings of ancient greece.   We have the supposed writings of the nephites, but they have not led us to any of their cities.  In fact, we can't even agree on which hemisphere they were in.

 

 I disagree that there are more evidences coming forth that give plausibility to the BoM.  In fact the contrary is true.  In the last 15 years, the evidence against the BoM as a historical account has multiplied.  If you don't believe me, just look at the progression of apologetics.  Now we are taking about "others" and that the Lehites were not alone.  That they occupied just a small area and not the full continent, that steel swords were really wooden clubs and horses and chariots were really tapirs and sleds.  All of this nonsense came about because science has progressed, in DNA, linguistics and archaeology.  We even backed off of and changed the intro to the BoM because of science.  

[Bob Crockett]

How about you give some references (outside of the mormon bubble) for the helmets and swords that you were touting.  So there is no confusion, I am talking about steel swords and helmets. You know, the kind the rust, like it says in the BoM.  

 

No response to my Haywood source?   Doesn't that meet your challenge?  You just continue to say there is nothing?

Edited August 8, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Some very nice, but very mistaken people, who are not archeologists, have written some awful apologetic materials on the Bible and the Book of Mormon over the years.  Some are quite embarrassing, and the uninformed can be taken in.  That is true.  I recommend that one exercise care, but not assume that everything is therefore hooey.  See Martin Raish, "All that Glitters:  Uncovering Fool's Gold in Book of Mormon Archaeology," Sunstone, 6/1 (Jan-Feb 1981):10-15, online at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/025-10-15.pdf .  That is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Raish quotes from Sorenson's 1976 article, which is one of the worst "hit" pieces ever written against qualified Mormon scholars on the Book of Mormon.  The Sorenson view is as much fools gold as what Raish criticizes.

[jkwilliams]

There is no acceptable reason why ABMS cannot be a legitimate area of academic study, except for prejudice, John.  You may be right to say that it "isn't considered" to be such by people like Jenkins, who come to the matter with strong apriori views, and who expel or disregard even ordinary academic standards -- which would be freely applied to non-controversial issues.  The failings of apologists who fudge the data are frequently the same failings of the critics who deny the obvious.  Either side can be in a rush to judgment, heedless of reasonable interpretations.  Either side can make impossible demands, which no professional archeologist would ever make.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Right?

 

I disagree. The issue with ABMS is not that some people fudge details but that it does not have the same goals and methodology as accepted academic inquiry. 

[morgan.deane]

This is a common apologistic strawman. We don't need a zerhemla street sign. What we do need, and what would be expected if the nephites were real is evidence of a large, iron age, horse culture that practiced a old world religion and farmed old world type crops.  If there were any place on this continent where such a culture existed for over a 1000 years and was large enough and had infrastructure to field and support million men armies, then we would know about it.  Evidence would be there. Not just a hint of barley or maybe a horse of  elephant bone somewhere. This culture would have impacted other native american groups.   The spanish brought horses to this continent in the 1500's, a few escaped in mexico and three hundred years later we see the rise of the american plains indians who became a horse culture, fully dependent on horses.  Horses that migrated from mexico.  See how that works?  Cultures do not develop and live in a vacuum.  They impact their surroundings and the surrounding peoples.  

 

Your ancient greek story does not apply to the BoM.  The greek civilization is well known.  There architecture and writings that exist today.  Troy is just one city that was found in part by following the writings of ancient greece.   We have the supposed writings of the nephites, but they have not led us to any of their cities.  In fact, we can't even agree on which hemisphere they were in.

 

 I disagree that there are more evidences coming forth that give plausibility to the BoM.  In fact the contrary is true.  In the last 15 years, the evidence against the BoM as a historical account has multiplied.  If you don't believe me, just look at the progression of apologetics.  Now we are taking about "others" and that the Lehites were not alone.  That they occupied just a small area and not the full continent, that steel swords were really wooden clubs and horses and chariots were really tapirs and sleds.  All of this nonsense came about because science has progressed, in DNA, linguistics and archaeology.  We even backed off of and changed the intro to the BoM because of science.  

You actually do what many critics do, and you don't really represent the BoM accurately. For example, outside of a few stock mentions of fauna, and some Isaiah scriptures, horses are only mentioned twice in relation to Nephite actions. When Ammon is preparing King Lamoni's chariots (~Alma 18), and when the Nephites are gathering together to withstand a siege (3 Nephi 3-4).  Two occurrences in a thousand years is hardly a "horse culture" similar to the Xiongnu.  So its a rather unreasonable demand to make on the text and archaeology.  

 

This large culture that fielded million man armies is another one.  For much of Nephite history we don't even have records outside of the barest outline. But as late as the book of Alma much of the action revolved around single cities (Nephi and Zarahemla) led by a single person like Alma.  Even after the Nephites expanded and won the great war they quickly lost their territory. In Helaman 1 they lost their capital, and Helaman 4 said that Moronihah could only regain "half" the land. The prophet Nephi had to specifically qualify his words to the lands that the Nephites possessed, implying that there were many they did not possess (~Helaman 7). The book of Helaman is filled with examples of Nephite political fragmentation closer in scope to the rump states of the Roman empire, or the city states of ancient Greece, than the monolithic entity that many critics and even members believe.  

 

 

Moreover, I've done research into the military participation ratios. This is a war and society approach used by military historians to calculate army and population sizes. Basically, the ratio dictates that a  society can only muster about 15% of its population for war.  So its pretty eye opening to me that Moroni listed the Nephite people as being as numerous as the "sands of the sea" (Mormon 1), yet this innumerable people could only muster about 30,000 in their war of survival against the Lamanites (Mormon 2:42). But that number just happens to be about 15% of 200,000, or the final number of people listed at Cumorah (see Mormon 6:7 for example which seems to suggest that women and children were among the soldiers.).  I discuss this in far greater detail in my second book, and you can see some preliminary outlines of it here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2013/05/military-participation-ratio-and-wrong.html   (Can't seem to get the link to work. Click the demographics button on the left to find the post.) 

 

But my point is that your knowledge doesn't seem very accurate. No offense, it seems quite simplistic.  You claim it would be easy to find these million man horse culture armies, when the text really doesn't demand that we look for that.  What Hamblin said is entirely accurate then, you need to have a proper grasp of archaeology, but you also need to have a proper understanding of what you should be looking for and then look to see how those intersect. This was only a cursory summary of many pages of research, but the BoM that I read, supported by a close analysis dozens of verses, and reinforced by an extensive study of history, doesn't support the idea that we should look for "large iron age horse cultures" with million man armies. Instead, I look for Nephites that were sometimes a dominate force of a coalition (Alma 8:11-12; Mormon 2:4) but mostly politically fragmented, rarely used horses, and had armies that numbered in only the few tens of thousands.   Thanks for commenting, I love discussing the Book of Mormon. 

Edited August 8, 2015 by morgan.deane