Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

You mean positive evidence FAIR provided like this?

http://fr.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

"NB: Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account."

Where they try to defend a horse skull as evidence of the BoM when, in all reality, it was a fraud/hoax?  

You only know phony evidence?  No sincerety at all in your diatribes?  Whenever you want a real discussion, I'm right here.  Of course, anti-Mormons don't want real discussion.

[Ouagadougou]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You only know phony evidence?  No sincerety at all in your diatribes?  Whenever you want a real discussion, I'm right here.  Of course, anti-Mormons don't want real discussion.

It's on the FAIR Mormon website (and the video is still on YouTube); apologists were defending the BoM using a hoax as evidence.  

[James Tunney]

I always go back to the Hamblin v. Jenkins debate last year where Jenkins asked for some tangible evidence for the book of mormon and Hamblin's reply was to argue epistomolgy and hermeneutics, similar to the size of the debate table arguments the north koreans used during the korean war .... because there isn't any evidence ... only highly and extremely debatable comparisons that are like the person who sees jesus in the clouds or in toast.

Where is Mr. Hamblin anyway? Still goodbye to all that?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

It's on the FAIR Mormon website (and the video is still on YouTube); apologists were defending the BoM using a hoax as evidence.  

You still haven't replied to anything that I have said, and you are still deliberately obfuscating.  A little sincerety would go a long way, unless of course you don't have any.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I always go back to the Hamblin v. Jenkins debate last year where Jenkins asked for some tangible evidence for the book of mormon and Hamblin's reply was to argue epistomolgy and hermeneutics, similar to the size of the debate table arguments the north koreans used during the korean war .... because there isn't any evidence ... only highly and extremely debatable comparisons that are like the person who sees jesus in the clouds or in toast.

Where is Mr. Hamblin anyway? Still goodbye to all that?

I have always been ready to have a substantive debate on the issues with you, James.  Why are you so fearful of the real thing?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

You mean positive evidence FAIR provided like this?

http://fr.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

"NB: Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account."

Where they try to defend a horse skull as evidence of the BoM when, in all reality, it was a fraud/hoax?  

So the fact that when it became known to be a hoax, FM identified it as such is somehow a problem?

[Ouagadougou]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So the fact that when it became known to be a hoax, FM identified it as such is somehow a problem?

I think so, because if they defended this position -- and it was a hoax -- what would prevent this from happening again?  

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You still haven't replied to anything that I have said, and you are still deliberately obfuscating.  A little sincerety would go a long way, unless of course you don't have any.

I read a good portion of the article you provided below.  

http://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/7/678.pdf

It said, 

"Finally, both genetic(17) and archaeological(18) evidence suggests that a two-ways trans-Atlantic traffic occurred before Columbus discovered America (Fig. 1); archaeologists in New Mexico have recently found tools used 20,000 years ago in Spanish solutrian culture(18). "

Such trans-Atlantic routes would have occurred way before the the BoM (Lehi departed Jerusalem ~ 600 B.C.E. and Book of Ether before that), especially if the tools/artifacts date back almost 20,000 years before the BoM.  

Interesting article.  

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

I always go back to the Hamblin v. Jenkins debate last year where Jenkins asked for some tangible evidence for the book of mormon and Hamblin's reply was to argue epistomolgy and hermeneutics, similar to the size of the debate table arguments the north koreans used during the korean war .... because there isn't any evidence ... only highly and extremely debatable comparisons that are like the person who sees jesus in the clouds or in toast.

I did enjoy the Jenkins/Hamblin debate and wish there were more dedicated discussions like that. But it left me wondering. What if the question was reversed and Jenkins was asked to produce "one shred of evidence" that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. What would be the strongest argument to falsify the claims of the Book of Mormon text?

I am not talking about falsifying the Mesoamerican model or the Heartland model or any claims made for the Book of Mormon by anybody not involved in its production. I'm asking for one shred of evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. 

[Rajah Manchou]

36 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Such trans-Atlantic routes would have occurred way before the the BoM (Lehi departed Jerusalem ~ 600 B.C.E. and Book of Ether before that), especially if the tools/artifacts date back almost 20,000 years before the BoM.  

There's some interesting stuff in the latest studies on admixture events as well. I believe we'll learn a lot more about the peopling of the New World as more research is done in this area in particular. One example below.

An admixture event happening in Southeast Asia between one group resembling a mix of Afghans and South Americans and another group resembling a mix of Mainland Southeast Asians and Papuan Melanesians. And here's another event in the same area at around the same time showing admixture between a group with some Syrian, Egyptian and Indian Jew, with a little Maya thrown in. The researchers could not come up with any historical events to explain these findings. 

Its too early to say we understand everything about the historical claims of the Book of Mormon.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[James Tunney]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have always been ready to have a substantive debate on the issues with you, James.  Why are you so fearful of the real thing?

I don't know what there is to debate. Also, the point was to have scholars in the field debate each other over the issue. Prof. Jenkins asked for evidence and Prof. Hamblin couldn't come up with anything to show that the nephites or lamanites existed. He had to back away from the akish claims. Is there anything new to add?

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

You have to see the BOM as true if you want to be a temple recommend worthy Mormon.

I think one of the reasons the Book of Mormon is useful (in fact, I think it's more than useful: I think it's indispensable, but that's another topic for another thread on another day) is as evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, the Doctrine and Covenants says that the Saints were under condemnation for having treated the Book of Mormon lightly, and President Benson reiterated that this condemnation was still in effect.  

All of that having been said, your above assertion is debatable because there is nothing relating directly to the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (let alone relating to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon, in particular) in the Temple Recommend questions.  There are questions relating to belief in (having a testimony of) the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and to belief in (having a testimony of) prophetic authority.  It's for each individual to determine whether his particular strain of "belief" in the Book of Mormon (and of belief in any other aspect of the Restored Gospel) entitles him to answer these questions "Yes."  As one of my favorite hymns puts it, O Say, What Is Truth? https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/oh-say-what-is-truth?lang=eng: 

As this thread proves quite well, humans don't see things as the things are (including truth); rather, they see them as the humans are, with all of the vagaries that such human seeing entails. One's perspective depends entirely on where one stands and what else one brings to the table in terms of prior experiences, assumptions, and so on.  And (notwithstanding the fact that he was excoriated for saying so, it's still true) as President (probably then-Elder) Packer pointed out, not all truths are equally useful.  I believe there really were Nephites and Lamanites, that there really was a Lehi, and a Nephi, and a Moroni and so on. But merely believing in their existence isn't where the Book of Mormon's real power comes from (although, as I've mentioned previously elsewhere, personally, I do draw strength from how a real Nephi and a real Moroni bore up under their struggles: see https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/joseph-moroni-me/ and https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/encouragement-from-those-in-the-scriptures/)  Its real power, as its subtitle and title page, respectively, remind us, lies in its role as a second witness for the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.At last August's FAIRMormon Conference, Grant Hardy answered the question whether a belief in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction can be a saving faith quite well:

Quote

When people talk about “inspired fiction,” it’s worth thinking harder about what they might mean. Perhaps that the Book of Mormon is a product of human genius, like other literary or religious works. Or it may be the product of general revelation, in which God or some higher power makes himself known to humans, who then communicate that encounter with the Divine though various scriptures such as Buddhist sutras or the Daodejing or the Bhagavad Gita or the Qur’an. Or there may be special revelation in which God inspired Joseph to create the Book of Mormon in such a way that it exemplifies specific truths of unique importance. In any case, however, we might ask, “Can faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction be a saving faith?” My answer is, “Absolutely!” I believe that if someone, at the judgment bar, were to say to God, “I couldn’t make sense of the Book of Mormon as an ancient American codex, given the available evidence, but I loved that book, I heard your voice in it, and I tried to live by its precepts as best I could,” then God will respond, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

For Brother Hardy's complete address, see here: 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/more-effective-apologetics.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Boanerges]

On 11/14/2016 at 9:19 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

You have to see the BOM as true if you want to be a temple recommend worthy Mormon.

No, you don't.

1. I have never been asked anything about the Book of Mormon in a temple recommend interview. We cannot infer anything into those questions. They are very carefully written as they are by those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators and they ask nothing more than that which they ask. When we delve into reading into the questions far enough eventually we will find that none of us are worthy.

2. In my 35+ years in the church, including missionary and leadership service, I have never really figured out what the heck all those people in fast and testimony meeting mean when the say "I know the church is true" or "I know the Book of Mormon is true." I'm serious about that. Some are no doubt parroting or saying things like that because they think they're supposed to. Is the Bible, with all it's allegories and parables not "true" because it contains things which are not factual/historical? What makes something "true?" Definitions for true include factual, accurate, exact, without variation, actual, real, genuine, authentic, not deceitful, steadfast, legitimate, and honest. Couldn't most of this be said of almost any church? Couldn't this be said of many books, religious or otherwise? Elder Packer said the teachings in the temple are symbolic (see his October 2010 GC address). Does that make the temple not true?

Once again, I will reiterate. I do believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. But I do not believe it to be a historical record of ancient people of the Americas or anywhere else. And I have never been asked in any interview what I believe about it.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Boanerges
Corrected date of Elder Packer's talk

[Brant Gardner]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Brant, I accidentally gave the wrong name to this parable, right chapter though I believe. I meant to indicate the parable where Jesus talks about wolves scattering the sheep and thieves destroying, servants fleeing, the sheep hearing/knowing the voice of the true shepherd, and the true shepherd defending the sheep with his life.

This demonstrates the problem of uncontrolled, or uncontrollable, parallels. The fact that a parallel can be drawn does not make it inherent to the text. In this case, the parallels work only if you ignore the actual context of the story. It sounds good, but there is really nothing similar other than the way the parallels are described.

This is a problem regardless of whether parallels are used for or against the Book of Mormon. It is simply a poor methodology and has to be used only with great caution and controls.

[Benjamin Seeker]

29 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

This demonstrates the problem of uncontrolled, or uncontrollable, parallels. The fact that a parallel can be drawn does not make it inherent to the text. In this case, the parallels work only if you ignore the actual context of the story. It sounds good, but there is really nothing similar other than the way the parallels are described.

This is a problem regardless of whether parallels are used for or against the Book of Mormon. It is simply a poor methodology and has to be used only with great caution and controls.

Nick Fredrick describes context as the least important of the 5 criteria when evaluating intertextualities as it is the most maleable. 

What did you thin about the clarity of the specific examples I gave in the second post?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Brant Gardner]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

We can take archeology, for example -- you said:

"we actually have very good correlations and therefore quite a bit of archaeological evidence."

What real (e.g. steel, swords, coins, bones, and the list goes on), substantiated archeological evidence is there to support the BoM?  

The question tells me that you have understood the Internet version of the arguments, but haven't actually done much research. One of the problems of interpretation is that when you assume that the original Book of Mormon was in English, you have anachronisms  like steel or the assumption of what a sword must be. If it really is a translated ancient document, you have to deal with translation issues, and those are typically ignored because it is simpler to assume a modern provenance and therefore prove a modern provenance. Except it shouldn't work that way.

You should first understand the problem of anachronisms in translation. That they may appear is well attested, and that they often have nothing to with the original is also well attested where the original exists (the KJV Bible provides several examples).

Coins is a misreading of the text, which deals with weight measures, not coins. The word coin in the older header was added by McConkie, but isn't part of the text. That very text, interestingly enough is a fascinating study for the reason that it is included--both because it is the only really descriptive text, and the textual reason that it is there. Still, nothing to do with coins.

Bones. I'm sure someone on the Internet has opined about this--and not listened to the actual evidence. The fact that it gets repeated reinforces my comment that people take the question, but never understand the issues or the evidence. It isn't a failure of archaeology or the text, but of understanding archaeology--particularly within the geography of the text. 

So I will repeat my comment. Repeating Internet tropes does not equate to solid evidence. Most who posit and repeat the tropes haven't done any of the requisite research to understand why the issues raised are non-issues.

So is there archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon? Yes, quite a bit. It is the same kind of evidence that led to Troy, that understands ancient cultures from which there are no texts. There are cities in the right places at the right times. There are major wars and population shifts that happen at the same times and in the same geographical directions as the text. There are linguistic conflicts that fit in time and space with linguistic distributions in the text. There are cultural descriptions that are decidedly non-Western, but fit into the known archaeology and anthropology of the region. So, yes, there is a lot of archaeological support--if you understand what archaeology is and how it relates to texts.

[Benjamin Seeker]

36 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

This demonstrates the problem of uncontrolled, or uncontrollable, parallels. The fact that a parallel can be drawn does not make it inherent to the text. In this case, the parallels work only if you ignore the actual context of the story. It sounds good, but there is really nothing similar other than the way the parallels are described.

This is a problem regardless of whether parallels are used for or against the Book of Mormon. It is simply a poor methodology and has to be used only with great caution and controls.

Here is an overview of how this specific intertextuality fits into the overall theme of Ammon as a type of Christ. 

The events surrounding the scattering of Lamoni’s flocks and Ammo’s defense of them can be seen as narrative allusions to Christ’s teaching about the true shepherd in John 10:1-18. The Lamanites who scatter the flock parallel both the stranger, the wolf, and the thief, and the servants who do not defend the flock parallel the hirelings who flee from the wolf (Alma 17:27, John 10:5, 10, 12-13). Ammon’s defense of the flocks, in which he risks his life, parallels the good shepherd or Christ, who lays down his life for the sheep (Alma 17:33-38, John 10:11, 15). 

The description of the attacking Lamanites contain a group of allusions that support the narrative intertextuality.

Alma 17:35
35 Therefore they did not fear Ammon, for they supposed that one of their men could slay him
according to their pleasure, for they knew not that the Lord had promised Mosiah that he would deliver his sons out of their hands, neither did they know any thing concerning the Lord; therefore they delighted in the destruction of their brethren, and for this cause they stood to scatter the flocks of the king.

John 10:10, 12
10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 

12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

The shared terminology here consists of an inexact three word string, an inexact shared term, and a single parallel concept. Despite the weakness of the shared terminology, the proximity of the elements and their matching sequence help to make the group more convincing. The dissimilarity of the phrase “scattereth the sheep” and the variation “scatter the flocks” also strengthens the group. Searching all combinations of ‘scatter/scattereth the flock/sheep’ lends four exact matches in the Book of Mormon and only one example in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament.  Of the two possibilities, John 10 is the more relevant passage due to the additional parallel concept of slay/kill and the additional narrative parallel between Alma 17 and John 10 of Ammon/Christ defending the flock, which there is no case for in the Old Testament example.

Another aspect of the narrative creates further connections between the two texts. Though at first Lamoni’s servants appear to be the hirelings who do not defend the flock, they are quickly adopted as Ammon’s metaphorical flock. He both leads them and protects them in direct parallel to Christ’s description of the good shepherd (Ammon’s defense of Lamoni’s servants is made explicit in Alma 18:16).  A set of allusions help to support this narrative parallel.

Alma 17:29, 32
29 …that I may win the hearts of these my fellow servants, that I may lead them to believe in my words.
32 And it came to pass that they went in search of the flocks; and they did follow Ammon…

John 10:3
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 
 
The shared terminology here is a pair of inexact two word phrases, and a similar concept. The shared terminology is fairly common. However, when the words “lead” and “follow” are combined there is only one New Testament passage that uses lead and follow together in direct correlation. The Book of Mormon uses the combination in two passages. The other is in the description of the Lamanites following the Nephites towards the land of Zarahemla (Alma 58:19, 24), and clearly, the context is very different. The proximity of the three elements help to establish this allusion to John 10:3, and the context is a closely related in the portrayal of the servants as Ammon’s flock. 

A Book of Mormon allusion outside of the Ammon narrative is worth mentioning here because of its strong similarity to previous examples. Alma 5:41 reads, “Therefore if a man bringeth forth good works, he hearkeneth unto the voice of the good shepherd and he doth follow him.” The concepts of good shepherd, listening to a voice, and the phrase “follow him” all point to a likely biblical allusion to the passages in John 10. The context of Alma 5 is fairly different, but the doctrine being developed here is highly relevant to the portrayal of Ammon as a type of Christ.
 
It could also be noted that the phrase “I am come that they might have life” from John 10:10 is paralleled by Ammon’s general actions. While protecting the flocks of the king he is also protecting the lives of his metaphorical sheep, the king’s servants (Alma 18:16). Ammon’s actions not only save them from the Lamanite attackers but also from Lamoni’s punishment. Lastly, Ammon risks his own life somewhat similar to Christ’s declaration in John 10:15, “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

The question tells me that you have understood the Internet version of the arguments, but haven't actually done much research. One of the problems of interpretation is that when you assume that the original Book of Mormon was in English, you have anachronisms  like steel or the assumption of what a sword must be. If it really is a translated ancient document, you have to deal with translation issues, and those are typically ignored because it is simpler to assume a modern provenance and therefore prove a modern provenance. Except it shouldn't work that way.

You should first understand the problem of anachronisms in translation. That they may appear is well attested, and that they often have nothing to with the original is also well attested where the original exists (the KJV Bible provides several examples).

Coins is a misreading of the text, which deals with weight measures, not coins. The word coin in the older header was added by McConkie, but isn't part of the text. That very text, interestingly enough is a fascinating study for the reason that it is included--both because it is the only really descriptive text, and the textual reason that it is there. Still, nothing to do with coins.

Bones. I'm sure someone on the Internet has opined about this--and not listened to the actual evidence. The fact that it gets repeated reinforces my comment that people take the question, but never understand the issues or the evidence. It isn't a failure of archaeology or the text, but of understanding archaeology--particularly within the geography of the text. 

So I will repeat my comment. Repeating Internet tropes does not equate to solid evidence. Most who posit and repeat the tropes haven't done any of the requisite research to understand why the issues raised are non-issues.

So is there archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon? Yes, quite a bit. It is the same kind of evidence that led to Troy, that understands ancient cultures from which there are no texts. There are cities in the right places at the right times. There are major wars and population shifts that happen at the same times and in the same geographical directions as the text. There are linguistic conflicts that fit in time and space with linguistic distributions in the text. There are cultural descriptions that are decidedly non-Western, but fit into the known archaeology and anthropology of the region. So, yes, there is a lot of archaeological support--if you understand what archaeology is and how it relates to texts.

I don't disagree with what you're saying and nothing frustrates me more than trying to have a real discussion in a room full of parrots as is so often the case in the church.

The highlighted part jumps out at me, not because I disagree but because I think that what is generally taught and understood in the church about the difference in the Bible and the Book of Mormon is the the BoM is directly translated by God. Whether one actually believes that or not, it is what is purported to have happened. Joseph didn't actually translate as much as God translated and told him what to dictate (again, believing the narrative). I think that's the difficulty many, even very smart and educated members have: if these words were given directly by God how can they be "inaccurate" translations? We all know the Bible has been translated many times and none of our modern translations came from the original texts. My question is, how does one address this very ingrained idea of the BoM being "the most correct" book without translation error? (And please understand that I'm not sure that's exactly how it happened or that there could not be translation errors.)

Interpretation is a whole different animal, of course, and I am very open to other interpretations of all scripture - and at least some scripture is meant to have multiple layers of meaning and understanding. I wish they would take out from the scriptures the chapter and other headings simply because they are essentially the interpretations of a few men (mostly one, apparently). We have a version of the BoM without chapters and verses, without footnotes, and without chapter headings. Reading it is a whole different experience.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

The question tells me that you have understood the Internet version of the arguments, but haven't actually done much research. One of the problems of interpretation is that when you assume that the original Book of Mormon was in English, you have anachronisms  like steel or the assumption of what a sword must be. If it really is a translated ancient document, you have to deal with translation issues, and those are typically ignored because it is simpler to assume a modern provenance and therefore prove a modern provenance. Except it shouldn't work that way.

You should first understand the problem of anachronisms in translation. That they may appear is well attested, and that they often have nothing to with the original is also well attested where the original exists (the KJV Bible provides several examples).

Coins is a misreading of the text, which deals with weight measures, not coins. The word coin in the older header was added by McConkie, but isn't part of the text. That very text, interestingly enough is a fascinating study for the reason that it is included--both because it is the only really descriptive text, and the textual reason that it is there. Still, nothing to do with coins.

Bones. I'm sure someone on the Internet has opined about this--and not listened to the actual evidence. The fact that it gets repeated reinforces my comment that people take the question, but never understand the issues or the evidence. It isn't a failure of archaeology or the text, but of understanding archaeology--particularly within the geography of the text. 

So I will repeat my comment. Repeating Internet tropes does not equate to solid evidence. Most who posit and repeat the tropes haven't done any of the requisite research to understand why the issues raised are non-issues.

I think that's one of the frustrations in this question.  I think that it came out back when the previously mentioned Hamblin/Jenkins debate.  Why a request for evidence, or CFR as we put it around here, turns into something obliquely complex makes this difficult. 

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

So is there archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon? Yes, quite a bit. It is the same kind of evidence that led to Troy, that understands ancient cultures from which there are no texts. There are cities in the right places at the right times. There are major wars and population shifts that happen at the same times and in the same geographical directions as the text. There are linguistic conflicts that fit in time and space with linguistic distributions in the text. There are cultural descriptions that are decidedly non-Western, but fit into the known archaeology and anthropology of the region. So, yes, there is a lot of archaeological support--if you understand what archaeology is and how it relates to texts.

 

I think the overarching problem is none of us understand archaeology like the experts.  So we look to experts.  When we do, we see no expert that is not LDS who is out there claiming validity to the types of evidence you mention as it pertains to the BOM.  Some might say, "yes there were cities in the area in that era, but they don't say anything about the BoM".  Or some might say, "Yes there were wars happening, but I don't see how that validates the BOM story".  But as it is, we don't even get that.  We get experts who are non LDS who consider any of this say the opposite.  In response to those like MIchael Coe we get, "well he doesn't understand the BoM". 

Ugh...yes, the world is this confusing.   

[Gray]

15 hours ago, cdowis said:

1. Let me copy the header.  It is in large letters and in BOLD  Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe,

 

Did not say that it supports the BOM narrative =====>> refutes his statement that the DNA shows Asia only as the source.

2. See  Ugo Perego's lecture.  I added the link in the post.  Look closely at his maps for HgQ for a possible source, and listen to what he says about small groups.

Remember, this was the original quote:

Quote

For example, DNA for Native Americans points to a migration from Siberia and other parts of Asia, not Israel.  

That's absolutely right. The Eurasian DNA comes by way of Siberia, not a direct migration to the Americas. You seem to be arguing against a point no one is making

 

 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of those coming to the Americas came via Beringia.  The essay at LDS.org agrees with that, as do all anthropologists.  To conclude from that, as you do, that therefore any Book of Mormon migrations are in question ignores the totality of evidence.  For example, we know archeologically and via the Icelandic Eddas that Vikings lived in the New World for centuries.  Had villages and blacksmith shops operating, just as they did in Greenland.  Yet there is so far no genetic evidence for their presence among Amerind DNA.  How can that be?  I would suggest that skeletal remains at burial sites near those Viking villages will eventually disclose Norse DNA.  We have to do the archeology.

I agree it's certainly possible, and that the evidence has eluded us. I'm just saying the evidence we have to date does not support a direct migration of Semitic peoples to the Americas, and especially not within the BOM timeline. Of course even that wouldn't be enough to establish the existence of Nephites. Personally I think if the Nephites had existed we would have found some archaeological evidence by now - just as we found archaeological evidence of Viking settlements. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Gray

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

The question tells me that you have understood the Internet version of the arguments, but haven't actually done much research. One of the problems of interpretation is that when you assume that the original Book of Mormon was in English, you have anachronisms  like steel or the assumption of what a sword must be. If it really is a translated ancient document, you have to deal with translation issues, and those are typically ignored because it is simpler to assume a modern provenance and therefore prove a modern provenance. Except it shouldn't work that way.

You should first understand the problem of anachronisms in translation. That they may appear is well attested, and that they often have nothing to with the original is also well attested where the original exists (the KJV Bible provides several examples).

Coins is a misreading of the text, which deals with weight measures, not coins. The word coin in the older header was added by McConkie, but isn't part of the text. That very text, interestingly enough is a fascinating study for the reason that it is included--both because it is the only really descriptive text, and the textual reason that it is there. Still, nothing to do with coins.

Bones. I'm sure someone on the Internet has opined about this--and not listened to the actual evidence. The fact that it gets repeated reinforces my comment that people take the question, but never understand the issues or the evidence. It isn't a failure of archaeology or the text, but of understanding archaeology--particularly within the geography of the text. 

So I will repeat my comment. Repeating Internet tropes does not equate to solid evidence. Most who posit and repeat the tropes haven't done any of the requisite research to understand why the issues raised are non-issues.

So is there archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon? Yes, quite a bit. It is the same kind of evidence that led to Troy, that understands ancient cultures from which there are no texts. There are cities in the right places at the right times. There are major wars and population shifts that happen at the same times and in the same geographical directions as the text. There are linguistic conflicts that fit in time and space with linguistic distributions in the text. There are cultural descriptions that are decidedly non-Western, but fit into the known archaeology and anthropology of the region. So, yes, there is a lot of archaeological support--if you understand what archaeology is and how it relates to texts.

Let's look at the definition:

Archeology:

the scientific study of historic orprehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

What artifacts, remains, etc. have been found/excavated to support the BoM narrative?  

Ether Chapter 15 says:

"2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children."

"Sword" is in the text, but even if it meant a different weapon for some reason, nothing has been found to support such battles.  

This is one example of extremely large battles depicted in the BoM.  Some have suggested that the numbers of these battles are incorrect, so if you change 2,000,000 to 20,000, there still isn't a shred of artifacts, remains, etc. to suggest these battles ever took place.  

Look at the Book of Moroni (which took place ~401 A.D.):

"2 For behold, I have had a sore battle with the Lamanites, in which we did not conquer; and Archeantus has fallen by the sword, and also Luram and Emron; yea, and we have lost a great number of our choice men."

"Sword" is used again...maybe a different weapon as you suggest...but nothing has been found.  

They are finding artifacts and remains of other groups of people around the world, but nothing to support the BoM. 

Just of few of many examples below:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/warrior-remains-2000-years-old-found-in-denmark.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2433197/Mystery-2-500-year-old-horse-remains-Bulgaria-suggest-creatures-buried-standing-up.html

So, it's as if the people in the BoM just disappeared without a trace...

Edited November 15, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

This demonstrates the problem of uncontrolled, or uncontrollable, parallels. The fact that a parallel can be drawn does not make it inherent to the text. In this case, the parallels work only if you ignore the actual context of the story. It sounds good, but there is really nothing similar other than the way the parallels are described.

This is a problem regardless of whether parallels are used for or against the Book of Mormon. It is simply a poor methodology and has to be used only with great caution and controls.

I ended up starting another thread for this particular discussion, where I've laid out a large portion of evidence supporting the idea of intertextuality between Alma 17-19 and John 10-11, including the true shepherd parable and the raising of Lazarus: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68344-ammon-as-an-intertextual-type-of-christ/#comment-1209676621

[Rajah Manchou]

50 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So, it's as if the people in the BoM just disappeared without a trace...

This happens. One example are the civilizations that existed on the Malay Peninsula during the same period as the Book of Mormon. Nobody knew they were there until a French historian translated Chinese texts describing hundreds of walled cities with wooden towers and multiple kingdoms. Only a few years ago did they discover that this region was one of the largest iron-producing centers in the world dating back to the 6th century BC...complete with iron smelting furnaces, millions of iron ingots and now proof that some of the highest quality iron swords were manufactured there. Yet, nobody knew it was there. 

Its as if the civilization had disappeared without a trace, until a historical text was found describing it.

Here's a video clip describing just one of many kingdoms that have yet to be discovered. Starting at 1m.
https://youtu.be/6P1eIORS3PY?t=1m

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[James Tunney]

14 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This happens. One example are the civilizations that existed on the Malay Peninsula during the same period as the Book of Mormon. Nobody knew they were there until a French historian translated Chinese texts describing hundreds of walled cities with wooden towers and multiple kingdoms. Only a few years ago did they discover that it was one of the largest iron-producing centers in the world complete with iron smelting furnaces and millions of iron ingots. Nobody knew they were there.

Its as if the civilization had disappeared without a trace, until a historical text was found describing it.

Here's a video clip describing just one of many kingdoms that have yet to be discovered. Starting at 1m.
https://youtu.be/6P1eIORS3PY?t=1m

 

Isn't it problematic for historicity to say the lamamites disappeared? Didn't Moroni say in the title page that it was written to the lamanites? It's hard to write to a people who disappeared.