Evidence #1: Hebrew and Egyptian Wordplays

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think it is hard for such members, for several reasons. One is the information is not really readily available. There are numerous sites where people can go and be challenged with a laundry list of challenges to the veracity of the restored gospel and church. I don't think there is a single site where anyone can go to see all the evidence you are presenting unless it is on BoMCentral already - which I haven't seen. The fact that people get convinced by arguments such as there are more than 4000 changes to the "most correct book" is I think a testament to the need of a coherent reply. I believe the work you are doing to be important.

I hope you are not saying good bye. I hope you continue with new threads such as Evidence #2, etc. Someone needs to compile the evidence or else all the investigator sees is the "pile of evidence" against the Church, and nothing in response. While Fair does relevant work, every improvement we make to the LDS side of the picture is important. For instance my dad became overly influenced by a story about the Spaulding manuscript. I don't think he ever realized the evidence about this story basically being a fraud perpetrated against the Church by Hurlbutt - nor that the real manuscript currently sits in the Oberlin Library for all to see. These types of facts add important context to a story. Now the Spalding manuscript story is little used by Church critics, because I think it shows how unfair Church detractors have been. I am not saying my father resisted reading apologetic material, but it needs to be prepared and readily available. This is how I respond to comments like those made by JK Williams above.

When critics say "I believe JS made up the BoM" investigators need evidence to show the unlikelihood of such a claim. I believe this is where the importance of your work lies. As LDS continue to make valid responses to baseless or highly dubious claims, the future position of the Church can only grow stronger. 

I’d still be a believer if it were just a matter of believing baseless or highly dubious claims from unfair detractors. I’m sorry you feel your father was deceived, but his experience is not mine. 

[Glenn101]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’d still be a believer if it were just a matter of believing baseless or highly dubious claims from unfair detractors. I’m sorry you feel your father was deceived, but his experience is not mine. 

Oh, but you are a believer. A believer that Joseph Smith or some other mortal made up the Book of Mormon. 😋

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

Oh, but you are a believer. A believer that Joseph Smith or some other mortal made up the Book of Mormon. 😋

Glenn

I’d say I’m agnostic about that. 

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not here to tear down anyone's beliefs, but if you want a straight forward answer to your opening question, I will give you mine.  All my life I was taught that the  American Indians, and the natives of Central and South America are descendants of the BoM Lamanites.  One of the first missions Joseph Smith sent anyone on was a mission to these Lamonites.  Yet if this people lived for 1000 years using Reformed Egyptian and understanding Hebrew, why has no evidence of Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew ever in the past almost 200 years  been found, when evidence of the language of almost every other civilization has been found. 

That's easy. The Spanish destroyed basically all records. We know there were tons of writings when the Spanish arrived. We know they consciously destroyed them and gleefully recorded it. Now there are only a tiny amount left like the Popul Vuh. This is all pretty standard well known history. 

I'd add in that Hebrew probably was a priestly language that only a few knew. (Most likely nearly everyone was illiterate and spoke indigenous languages) As such it was somewhat like Latin functioned in the late Renaissance and early Modern periods. It was lingua franca of the elite educated and completely unknown to the masses. There are hints of this in the text. Mosiah 2:1 suggests that Benjamin has his sons "taught in all the language of his fathers, that they might become men of understanding, and that they might know concerning the prophecies..." That strongly suggests it wasn't their native language and that most people couldn't read these writings. My guess is that there was an educated priestly class that was literate and trained in these cultural texts but few others were. Given that it's hardly surprising we don't find many of the texts. There probably weren't that many to be found and if they were around, the Spanish would have destroyed them (either for the metal or to destroy "pagan" writings)

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Would you see substituting "divine" where many use "supernatural" appropriate?  What about "miraculous"?

I am biased for "divine" myself as that limits discussion to the who (either acted upon by God or with his power) and doesn't get into the "how" which is guesswork at best.

True enough.  A lot seems miraculous, even if it isn't.  I see "divine" as descriptive of celestial beings who are part of our hierarchichal chain of authority.  But they are also family, intimately related to us.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’d still be a believer if it were just a matter of believing baseless or highly dubious claims from unfair detractors. I’m sorry you feel your father was deceived, but his experience is not mine. 

I cannot really speak for my father, but I do remember this as a major point he brought up to me. I may still have the book he read. I was not terribly convinced by it, but then I learned all the background information, and the reality that the real manuscript is sitting at Oberlin College. I now realize the story was cooked up by a malcontent prior member.

I am certainly not saying you were deceived by intentionally misleading information, but the principle is the same. If you had sufficient counterbalancing information, you may not have left the Church. The plain fact is you did not find sufficiently counter balancing information to continue your faith path. Work like what Dahle is doing is important towards this end. Lack of scientific evidence is not proof by any means. A horse bone here, and an elephant fossil there, and the scientific picture would start looking a lot different. Indeed, I believe it already looks a lot different than it did 70 years ago. Someone just needs to see how it all fits together.

Others have "examined the evidence" and left. Some were immersed fully in the Church, and convinced that evidence to support the BoM would surface in Mesoamerica. When  they did not find it, their faith waned, and they left the Church. I suspect your experience was more like this. You simply didn't find sufficient evidence to support Church claims. Perhaps, you were not looking in the right places in the right ways.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I cannot really speak for my father, but I do remember this as a major point he brought up to me. I may still have the book he read. I was not terribly convinced by it, but then I learned all the background information, and the reality that the real manuscript is sitting at Oberlin College. I now realize the story was cooked up by a malcontent prior member.

I am certainly not saying you were deceived by intentionally misleading information, but the principle is the same. If you had sufficient counterbalancing information, you may not have left the Church. The plain fact is you did not find sufficiently counter balancing information to continue your faith path. Work like what Dahle is doing is important towards this end. Lack of scientific evidence is not proof by any means. A horse bone here, and an elephant fossil there, and the scientific picture would start looking a lot different. Indeed, I believe it already looks a lot different than it did 70 years ago. Someone just needs to see how it all fits together.

Others have "examined the evidence" and left. Some were immersed fully in the Church, and convinced that evidence to support the BoM would surface in Mesoamerica. When  they did not find it, their faith waned, and they left the Church. I suspect your experience was more like this. You simply didn't find sufficient evidence to support Church claims. Perhaps, you were not looking in the right places in the right ways.

I know why I left, and it had nothing to do with Book of Mormon evidence. Whether I was looking in the right places or in the right way is between me and God. My brain, my heart, and my conscience and prayer led me to where I am, and I am at peace. I haven’t always done right, but I’m in a good place. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I suppose that this is sort of my point. Those on their way out of the church often have no idea whether or not the scholarly evidences supporting some of its foundational claims are valid or not. Yet, usually after not very much study and at all, they feel very confident that such evidences are tenuous, trivial, or not worth engaging. 

I'd be careful about painting with that broad a brush, although you are giving me a better idea of where you're coming from. 

Research has repeatdly shown that Dahle is correct here.  Scholarly issues are rarely considered in the tendency to apostasy in religion.  It does happen, but is very rare.  Indeed, the claims of falsity are usually put forward after the fact.  Mostly it is just marginal drift out of religion.  Perhaps characteristic of a very secular age.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Research has repeatdly shown that Dahle is correct here.  Scholarly issues are rarely considered in the tendency to apostasy in religion.  It does happen, but is very rare.  Indeed, the claims of falsity are usually put forward after the fact.  Mostly it is just marginal drift out of religion.  Perhaps characteristic of a very secular age.

I have not seen any research into active adult Mormons consciously leaving the church. The research you’ve cited before is more about those who drift away. Not the same thing. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

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

I am not here to tear down anyone's beliefs, but if you want a straight forward answer to your opening question, I will give you mine.  All my life I was taught that the  American Indians, and the natives of Central and South America are descendants of the BoM Lamanites.  One of the first missions Joseph Smith sent anyone on was a mission to these Lamonites.  Yet if this people lived for 1000 years using Reformed Egyptian and understanding Hebrew, why has no evidence of Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew ever in the past almost 200 years  been found, when evidence of the language of almost every other civilization has been found. 

Plenty of evidence of Egyptian and Hebrew in the New World has been forthcoming.  The only question is:  Does it matter?

Stubbs, Brian D., excerpts from book online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/254510927/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-for-purchase-of-the-complete-book-go-to-www-bookofmormoncaractorstranslation-com .

Smith, Robert F., “*Sawi-Zaa,” 2016 version 3, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA (this summarizes and extends the work of non-Mormon scholars under the supervision of Prof Morris Swadesh).

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Your basic premise for the research you offer screams a problem in actual evidence of the claims of Joseph Smith.  Do you see how someone who is questioning the story of the restored gospel would look at this litany of research more like the magic 8 ball where every answer that comes up is somehow insightful and prophetic?

Like I stated, I am not here to question anyone's beliefs, but I am just giving insight to the question you ask.  You may be unsatisfied with this evaluation of what you obviously have put a lot of thought and belief in, but I don't think you will find the answer to your question simply defending the conclusions you individually have come to.  Hope that is helpful.

One wonders what sort of research design would be appropriate under any circumstances.  Does it matter?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have not seen any research into active adult Mormons consciously leaving the church. The research you’ve cited before is more about those who drift away. Not the same thing. 

The research results are as I have stated:  "Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences. Among the minority of former fervent followers, factors associated with disaffiliation include family break-up, intellectual apostasy, and the 'push' of unmet needs or exclusionary practices."  H.M. Bahr and S. L. Albrecht. “Strangers once more: Patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989):180-200. 

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know why I left, and it had nothing to do with Book of Mormon evidence. Whether I was looking in the right places or in the right way is between me and God. My brain, my heart, and my conscience and prayer led me to where I am, and I am at peace. I haven’t always done right, but I’m in a good place. 

I meant no offense, but when a lack of evidence is the primary reason for loss of testimony, a presentation of new evidence or existing evidence in a new way has the potential of restoring faith I think. I do not presume to speak personally for you though.

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Plenty of evidence of Egyptian and Hebrew in the New World has been forthcoming.  The only question is:  Does it matter?

Stubbs, Brian D., excerpts from book online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/254510927/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-for-purchase-of-the-complete-book-go-to-www-bookofmormoncaractorstranslation-com .

Smith, Robert F., “*Sawi-Zaa,” 2016 version 3, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA (this summarizes and extends the work of non-Mormon scholars under the supervision of Prof Morris Swadesh).

One wonders what sort of research design would be appropriate under any circumstances.  Does it matter?

I looked at your references.  This is similar to what has already been presented.  "Perhaps" there is a relationship because these groups of letters are similar to these groups of letters over here.  What I am talking about is real Hebrew carved in stone somewhere or written down some where.  Real Egyptian found on temple walls.  I am not discounting your research or belief.  But for the average person, that is not Hebrew or Egyptian.  It is guessing at similar letter groupings.  Do you see the difference?

And perhaps more importantly, I am only answering the question in the OP.  I am not evaluating the evidence you feel you have found.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's easy. The Spanish destroyed basically all records. We know there were tons of writings when the Spanish arrived. We know they consciously destroyed them and gleefully recorded it. Now there are only a tiny amount left like the Popul Vuh. This is all pretty standard well known history. 

I'd add in that Hebrew probably was a priestly language that only a few knew. (Most likely nearly everyone was illiterate and spoke indigenous languages) As such it was somewhat like Latin functioned in the late Renaissance and early Modern periods. It was lingua franca of the elite educated and completely unknown to the masses. There are hints of this in the text. Mosiah 2:1 suggests that Benjamin has his sons "taught in all the language of his fathers, that they might become men of understanding, and that they might know concerning the prophecies..." That strongly suggests it wasn't their native language and that most people couldn't read these writings. My guess is that there was an educated priestly class that was literate and trained in these cultural texts but few others were. Given that it's hardly surprising we don't find many of the texts. There probably weren't that many to be found and if they were around, the Spanish would have destroyed them (either for the metal or to destroy "pagan" writings)

Your answer is an answer that works for you.  We are talking about people who probably have other issues with the church.  That lack of evidence, and your guess doesn't work for them.  There are many places where Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian could have been carved into temple walls or other places.  It is difficult to understand how the Spanish could destroy virtually all of the writings for an entire civilization.  Hence, an explanation is needed for yourself in order for the lack of evidence to work.  The lack of evidence for someone struggling with church teachings.  It explains the answer to the question in the OP.

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is difficult to understand how the Spanish could destroy virtually all of the writings for an entire civilization.

Except that is pretty well established historically. People can doubt it but that's a bit of history for which there is overwhelming evidence.

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I meant no offense, but when a lack of evidence is the primary reason for loss of testimony, a presentation of new evidence or existing evidence in a new way has the potential of restoring faith I think. I do not presume to speak personally for you though.

No offense taken. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I looked at your references.  This is similar to what has already been presented.  "Perhaps" there is a relationship because these groups of letters are similar to these groups of letters over here.  What I am talking about is real Hebrew carved in stone somewhere or written down some where.  Real Egyptian found on temple walls.  I am not discounting your research or belief.  But for the average person, that is not Hebrew or Egyptian.  It is guessing at similar letter groupings.  Do you see the difference?

And perhaps more importantly, I am only answering the question in the OP.  I am not evaluating the evidence you feel you have found.

I did not initiate this research.  It was begun by non-Mormon linguistics expert Morris Swadesh and carried out by his grad students in Mexico.  Other non-Mormon experts have done similar work.  I provided a good bibliography.  Does it matter?  Of course not.  Why?  Because perception is everything:  Facts have no meaning in a post-fact world.  Archeological reality has no place in a post-modernist world.

Why, for example, would Egyptian or Hebrew be carved on temple walls?  Only a small literate elite passed on the knowledge of the language of the Brass Plates and produced the Book of Mormon.  There is no suggestion of carving anything on temple walls -- not even on the Jerusalem temples.  However, the guy who did decipher Mayan hieroglyphic carvings was an Egyptologist from Russia.  Out of ignorance, J. Eric S. Thompson denounced that guy, even though he was correct in his decipherment.

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Except that is pretty well established historically. People can doubt it but that's a bit of history for which there is overwhelming evidence.

True, but they didn't destroy oral history or the archaeological record. That means understanding Pre-Columbian history is that much more difficult, but it's not impossible. 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

True, but they didn't destroy oral history or the archaeological record. That means understanding Pre-Columbian history is that much more difficult, but it's not impossible. 

Most Mayan writing which survives is on stone artifacts which were hidden away in the jungles from the Spanish. The Catholic Church was probably one of the most efficient destroyers of "unacceptable" writings in history. There is virtually nothing left of the writings of Arius or other Arian writings. Same with Nestorian writings. Same with the Assyrian Christian writings found by the Catholics in India. Any religious writings deemed heretical, ie non-catholic, were subject to complete and utter destruction. Islam too, is responsible for much similar destruction of religious writings and tradition in the middle East and Africa. Many peoples there aren't even aware of their prior Christian heritage. On the other hand LDS are not supposed to be scared of truths... 

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Most Mayan writing which survives is on stone artifacts which were hidden away in the jungles from the Spanish. The Catholic Church was probably one of the most efficient destroyers of "unacceptable" writings in history. There is virtually nothing left of the writings of Arius or other Arian writings. Same with Nestorian writings. Same with the Assyrian Christian writings found by the Catholics in India. Any religious writings deemed heretical, ie non-catholic, were subject to complete and utter destruction. Islam too, is responsible for much similar destruction of religious writings and tradition in the middle East and Africa. Many peoples there aren't even aware of their prior Christian heritage. On the other hand LDS are not supposed to be scared of truths... 

Yep, the Catholic Church and the Spanish conquistadores did their best to destroy indigenous culture to make it easier to enslave and exploit the population. 

[CA Steve]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Except that is pretty well established historically. People can doubt it but that's a bit of history for which there is overwhelming evidence.

I don't understand the reasoning about the conquistadors destroying evidence that might of been important to establishing the Book of Mormon. I have heard this claim before and knowing practically nothing about mesoamerican  archaeology I still have to ask how is it possible that we know that the conquistadors destroyed anything at all about Nephite/Lamanite civilizations? There was a 1000 year gap in between when the Spaniards arrived and when Book of Mormon people stopped recording their history. Given how quickly the jungle overtakes lost civilizations, chances are that any traces of those civilizations were already hidden by the jungle. And given that the indigenous populations the Spaniards encountered were a 1000 years removed from Book of Mormon Christianity, it is hard to imagine that those populations would not have long ago destroyed any remnants of a religion they no longer believed. Why mention what the conquistadors did from 1500 onward?

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I don't understand the reasoning about the conquistadors destroying evidence that might of been important to establishing the Book of Mormon. I have heard this claim before and knowing practically nothing about mesoamerican  archaeology I still have to ask how is it possible that we know that the conquistadors destroyed anything at all about Nephite/Lamanite civilizations?

We know the Spanish destroyed everything they could find. They didn't destroy everything which is why we have the Popul Vuh and a couple of other documents. But they destroyed an amazing amount of material. Very little material survived. So even if there were any materials that could be dated to Nephite times, it is highly probably the Spanish destroyed them.

45 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Given how quickly the jungle overtakes lost civilizations, chances are that any traces of those civilizations were already hidden by the jungle. And given that the indigenous populations the Spaniards encountered were a 1000 years removed from Book of Mormon Christianity, it is hard to imagine that those populations would not have long ago destroyed any remnants of a religion they no longer believed. Why mention what the conquistadors did from 1500 onward?

I'm not saying we know the Spanish did it. I'm just saying that if anything survived the Spanish most likely would have destroyed it. There are lost cities continually being found but not much by way of records in these cities.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

True, but they didn't destroy oral history or the archaeological record. That means understanding Pre-Columbian history is that much more difficult, but it's not impossible. 

But the nature of what survived tends to be large scale civilization but as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) local variations aren't really known well if at all.

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We know the Spanish destroyed everything they could find. They didn't destroy everything which is why we have the Popul Vuh and a couple of other documents. But they destroyed an amazing amount of material. Very little material survived. So even if there were any materials that could be dated to Nephite times, it is highly probably the Spanish destroyed them.

I looked at your link and I still think it is misleading to even state anything about the destruction of  the conquistadors. If what we know about the remaining codices is any evidence of what was destroyed, it had nothing to do with Book of Mormon populations,  nor do they date back far enough to be relevant to the time periods of the Book of Mormon. Is there any evidence of anything else that was destroyed which could possibly be linked to even the correct time periods? If not, mentioning the destruction by the Spaniards seems pointless, unless of course we are just trying to reassure ourselves that we aren't going to find anything anyways.

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But the nature of what survived tends to be large scale civilization but as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) local variations aren't really known well if at all.

That is true. I guess the question is how much local variation was there? It seems to me that the more remains of earlier cities and towns are discovered, the more they fall in line with much of what we know from the major civilizations. Of course, most proponents of a Mesoamerican setting do so because they need a locale that has the large cities and developed civilizations spoken of in the text of the Book of Mormon. Take, for instance, the proposal that Kaminaljuyu is the City of Nephi. Is it a good fit in terms of when it arose and how its material culture developed? Not so much, but it's the one city that would have been around at the time of Nephi. 

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That is true. I guess the question is how much local variation was there? It seems to me that the more remains of earlier cities and towns are discovered, the more they fall in line with much of what we know from the major civilizations. Of course, most proponents of a Mesoamerican setting do so because they need a locale that has the large cities and developed civilizations spoken of in the text of the Book of Mormon. Take, for instance, the proposal that Kaminaljuyu is the City of Nephi. Is it a good fit in terms of when it arose and how its material culture developed? Not so much, but it's the one city that would have been around at the time of Nephi. 

I think the analogy would be our country with a pocket of orthodox Jews in Brooklyn. With the equivalent of the surviving records we have for the Mayan how on earth could we tell? Even most of what characterizes these orthodox Jews is largely the material culture of the majority. 

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I looked at your link and I still think it is misleading to even state anything about the destruction of  the conquistadors. If what we know about the remaining codices is any evidence of what was destroyed, it had nothing to do with Book of Mormon populations,  nor do they date back far enough to be relevant to the time periods of the Book of Mormon. Is there any evidence of anything else that was destroyed which could possibly be linked to even the correct time periods? If not, mentioning the destruction by the Spaniards seems pointless, unless of course we are just trying to reassure ourselves that we aren't going to find anything anyways.

Again, I'm not saying we know Book of Mormon documents were destroyed. The skeptic would say there never was a Nephite culture whose records could be destroyed.

I'm saying that if any had survived to these late Aztec times then they most likely would have been destroyed. So you're asking for what is unknowable since we don't know the contents of what the Spanish (not just the conquistadors) destroyed. Since of course they were destroyed. We just know they destroyed thousands upon thousands of documents with only a handful surviving.

So this is purely an argument for why we shouldn't expect to find documents even if there was a real Nephite nation.