Michael D. Coe, Mesoamericanist and Book of Mormon skeptic, recently died

[champatsch]

On 10/14/2019 at 10:40 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And as evidence Carmack says: “Gardner has chosen to believe that every instance of apparently obsolete lexis found in the earliest text was current in Smith’s dialect.7 It is important to note that there are more than 30 instances of apparently obsolete, nonbiblical vocabulary found in the earliest text, so it is highly likely, in the absence of comprehensive, specific evidence to the contrary, that at least one of them was not part of his dialect.”

This hardly seems like solid evidence. What does “highly likely” mean. What did Joseph’s spoken dialect look like? How much modern English grammar that is unattested in the 16th century do we see? Crunch the numbers. 

This is surpassed by Skousen, NOL, 2018, which presents 80 possible candidates of archaic lexis in sections 1,3,4,7.  Some of these won't stand up to scrutiny, but many will.  For example, ECCO's search capability improved at the time NOL went to press in 2018, enabling the researcher to now find a few of the archaic candidates in the 1700s.

 

On 10/14/2019 at 10:40 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This whole way of looking at it seems backwards. There are dialects of English that to this day preserve the thee and thou as well as other forms long extinct in modern English. (See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_dialect. Count the forms from earlier English. What does that tell us exactly?) To say it’s incumbent on me or any other person to prove these 30 forms exist in Joseph’s language is ridiculous. If you ask me to, I’d put forward the Book of Mormon as exhibit a in how Joseph Smith spoke since he dictated it. How many EModE forms exist in total? What percentage of all EModE forms are found in the BoM. How many modern forms exist in the BoM? If the text doesn’t look entirely EModE, it seems much more likely that the language is representative of Joseph’s spoken dialect. All around the world people speak with one grammar at home and another when they interact with the world formally. Speak to someone in rural Munich then compare that to the high German that they would use when writing etc. The linked article is hardly convincing. 

Syntactic comparisons are more valuable, generally speaking. Thee and thou persistence is basic stuff.  What's interesting, for example, is noting that the Book of Mormon has close singular ye ~ thou variation, which can be found in the extrabiblical textual record.  I'd say that for authorship determination, syntax is most important, then lexis, then grammar.  Everything else is weaker evidence.

The part in bold is circular and stipulative in relation to the unique case of the Book of Mormon:  Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon so it's his spoken language.

Syntactic studies like personal relative pronoun selection and verb complementation patterns are strong evidence for authorship determination.  One looks at pseudo-biblical texts, the King James Bible, late modern usage, early modern usage, and Joseph's own tendencies, as found in his early writings (letters and his 1832 history).  These comparisons clearly indicate that the Book of Mormon's patterns in these two cases are distinct, that they're not like any of those except for a subset of early modern usage.  There is mutual support for this finding in many different syntactic domains and in the archaic lexis, which doesn't show up in pseudo-biblical texts, and even from a lot of the Book of Mormon's interesting grammar, since there's plenty that isn't known to be Joseph's own grammar: things like the Hebrew-like and after complex subordinate clauses, "things which is", most object they usage, a lot of the multiple negation, etc.

[Meadowchik]

On 10/14/2019 at 5:42 PM, smac97 said:

"Disprovability if one ignores the provenance."  Not sure what that means.  What are you proposing can be "disprov{ed}" about The Book of Mormon (since it seems its provenance is off the table)?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm saying that the angel story assumption is not necessarily needed for scientific dismissal of it the Book of Mormon. 

[CA Steve]

On 10/15/2019 at 2:22 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not, but I was speaking to ready availability.  I used an actual 1828 Phinney Bible every day as I edited the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text from 1984-1987.  I consulted it for every biblical reading, and compared it with the first edition of the 1611 KJV, as well as with the 1979 LDS KJV.  In each case, I checked every detail, including the italics.

The Phinney Bibles are very cool aren't they?  I actually own two of them.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/14/2019 at 5:13 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or that Joseph's language and grammar changed over time as he spent more time with those in the church that he founded. 

Joseph obviously learned better current English as he got older and more experienced, something that he would have done earlier, if he had attended regular school.  At no point in his life, however, do we see any evidence of his use of EModE.

On 10/14/2019 at 5:13 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I must say, I'm not sure what the data of a book of Mormon that is full of a consistent mix of EModE and Modern English does. If it was entirely EModE, that would be evidence of an EModE author. But a mix of the two? Seems most likely that Joseph's local dialect had large traces of EModE in it.

If that were the case, why is it that we find no evidence for such a local dialect?  We don't find it in any contemporary newspapers, and Frances Trollope doesn't find it coming through Palmyra on the Erie Canal and quoting those quaint Americans speaking in their local vernacular.  There is no such dialect anywhere in the region.  Wild speculation isn't the same as evidence.

On 10/14/2019 at 5:13 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even granting the idea of an earlier author that was later edited (creating the interesting mix that we see in the book of Mormon), I'm not sure how that supports the idea of divine origins for the book.

Correct.  It doesn't support divine origins, as I have already explained to you repeatedly.  JarMan takes the same approach.  Why?  Because it is logical and fits the evidence.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph obviously learned better current English as he got older and more experienced, something that he would have done earlier, if he had attended regular school.  At no point in his life, however, do we see any evidence of his use of EModE.

If that were the case, why is it that we find no evidence for such a local dialect?  We don't find it in any contemporary newspapers, and Frances Trollope doesn't find it coming through Palmyra on the Erie Canal and quoting those quaint Americans speaking in their local vernacular.  There is no such dialect anywhere in the region.  Wild speculation isn't the same as evidence.

Correct.  It doesn't support divine origins, as I have already explained to you repeatedly.  JarMan takes the same approach.  Why?  Because it is logical and fits the evidence.

Can you provide a reference that describes the grammars used in various New England rural dialects at the beginning of the 19th century?

[Calm]

This is more focused on speech and may be too late, but I found it interesting.

https://forgottennewengland.com/2012/02/19/if-ancestors-could-talk-the-words-of-nineteenth-century-new-england/

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you provide a reference that describes the grammars used in various New England rural dialects at the beginning of the 19th century?

I don't know of any, and am not a linguistics expert.  Your question should go to someone like Dr Stanford Carmack (champatsch) who actually knows linguistics.  However, in my own search for sources which came out at the time Joseph Smith published the BofM, there are clearly local dialects, I haven't seen a reference work such as you seek..  Mark Twain does employ dialect in some of his books during a slightly later era, and that dialect appears to be authentic.  Linguists from a more recent era have gone into the rural backwaters of America to discover and record local dialects.  If EModE existed somewhere in America or Canada, I would expect the experts to say so.  They have not.  The problem with EModE is that it was not a rural dialect of yokels, but rather (ca 1540) it was the language of the literary elite and well-educated.  Why would the language of the upper crust end up being spoken by country bumpkins in North America?  And, if that was the case, for whatever reason, why don't we have any record of it?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know of any, and am not a linguistics expert.  Your question should go to someone like Dr Stanford Carmack (champatsch) who actually knows linguistics.  However, in my own search for sources which came out at the time Joseph Smith published the BofM, there are clearly local dialects, I haven't seen a reference work such as you seek.. 

Exactly. All we can do is make educated guesses. 

Quote

Mark Twain does employ dialect in some of his books during a slightly later era, and that dialect appears to be authentic.  Linguists from a more recent era have gone into the rural backwaters of America to discover and record local dialects.  If EModE existed somewhere in America or Canada, I would expect the experts to say so.  They have not.  The problem with EModE is that it was not a rural dialect of yokels, but rather (ca 1540) it was the language of the literary elite and well-educated. 

I’m not sure you understand the point. EModE was not standardized. We have many variants recorded in written form. The record is representative of how some people in England wrote but as Carmack admits there are many variants in EModE grammars. 

Quote

Why would the language of the upper crust end up being spoken by country bumpkins in North America? 

This simple misunderstands the point. Language standardization is relatively recent. The language all of us speak has evolved from Old English, Middle English, EModE, into modern English. Where would the modern English spoken in upstate New York come from if not the EModE spoken by their ancestors?

Quote

And, if that was the case, for whatever reason, why don't we have any record of it?

I guess I have two points. As you readily admit we don’t have any record a systematic study of grammars spoken in rural New England. We don’t have record of it, because no one cared to systematically study it and write it down. Like you people in general tend to look down on the “bumpkins” that use non standard grammar. It’s hard to prove a negative, and I don’t doubt that Mr Carmack has tried. So point one: we don’t have a good record of the various grammars used in New England. 
 

My second point is that while I am sure that Mr Carmack is well credentialed, and has certainly put a lot of effort and thought into his work, he is still a solitary source. If independent linguists confirm his findings as the only reasonable interpretation that would go a long way in establishing credibility. Right now, from my perspective, he is a solitary voice with a well thought out theory. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Exactly. All we can do is make educated guesses. 

I’m not sure you understand the point. EModE was not standardized. We have many variants recorded in written form. The record is representative of how some people in England wrote but as Carmack admits there are many variants in EModE grammars. 

This simple misunderstands the point. Language standardization is relatively recent. The language all of us speak has evolved from Old English, Middle English, EModE, into modern English. Where would the modern English spoken in upstate New York come from if not the EModE spoken by their ancestors?

Language is like a stream which changes as it flows through time.  The only way it can be standardized is by descriptions of formal grammarians, and they must work with raw data.  Until the Oxford English Dictionary was assembled in the 20th century most of that raw data did not exist.  Now that thousands of old books have been digitized, linguists can find specific characteristics of grammar and syntax.  You are confusing prescription with description.  EModE was not standardized.  Grammarians merely describe it based on real world phenomena -- which include many different characteristics.  What Carmack did was to provide us with statistical rates of occurrence of those characteristics, which you choose to ignore.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I guess I have two points. As you readily admit we don’t have any record a systematic study of grammars spoken in rural New England. We don’t have record of it, because no one cared to systematically study it and write it down. Like you people in general tend to look down on the “bumpkins” that use non standard grammar. It’s hard to prove a negative, and I don’t doubt that Mr Carmack has tried. So point one: we don’t have a good record of the various grammars used in New England. 

I did not say that there are no systematic studies of dialects in New England, only that I am not aware of any.  And I sent you to Carmack to answer that question.  You ignored that fact.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My second point is that while I am sure that Mr Carmack is well credentialed, and has certainly put a lot of effort and thought into his work, he is still a solitary source. If independent linguists confirm his findings as the only reasonable interpretation that would go a long way in establishing credibility. Right now, from my perspective, he is a solitary voice with a well thought out theory. 

It really doesn't matter whether Carmack has done the spadework before others pitch in to take a closer look.  The fact is he has provided large quantities of very specific data and has cited his sources.  That is how science proceeds, not by imagining all manner of wild scenarios.  He didn't formulate a theory, but merely reported the hard data of his research.  The facts speak for themselves.  What they mean in a larger sense is another matter entirely.  History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.  Thus far, you seem unable to provide a coherent and meaningful interpretation.

[smac97]

On 10/19/2019 at 9:20 AM, Meadowchik said:

Quote

"Disprovability if one ignores the provenance."  Not sure what that means.  What are you proposing can be "disprov{ed}" about The Book of Mormon (since it seems its provenance is off the table)?

I'm saying that the angel story assumption is not necessarily needed for scientific dismissal of it the Book of Mormon. 

So what "assumption" is "necessarily needed for scientific dismissal of it the Book of Mormon"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Language is like a stream which changes as it flows through time.  The only way it can be standardized is by descriptions of formal grammarians, and they must work with raw data.  Until the Oxford English Dictionary was assembled in the 20th century most of that raw data did not exist.  Now that thousands of old books have been digitized, linguists can find specific characteristics of grammar and syntax.  You are confusing prescription with description.  EModE was not standardized.  Grammarians merely describe it based on real world phenomena -- which include many different characteristics.  What Carmack did was to provide us with statistical rates of occurrence of those characteristics, which you choose to ignore.

I haven't ignored anything and don't disagree with anything you have said.

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not say that there are no systematic studies of dialects in New England, only that I am not aware of any.  And I sent you to Carmack to answer that question.  You ignored that fact.

Okay, well I haven't seen Carmack address the issue in any of his articles. It's not my beef alone by the way. Others including Clark Goble and Brant Gardner have raised similar concerns.

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It really doesn't matter whether Carmack has done the spadework before others pitch in to take a closer look.  The fact is he has provided large quantities of very specific data and has cited his sources.  That is how science proceeds, not by imagining all manner of wild scenarios. 

I love how you describe the idea that Joseph's language bled into the creation of the Book of Mormon a "wild scenario." Isn't it the default position that has been accepted by critics and defenders alike since the creation of the book?

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He didn't formulate a theory, but merely reported the hard data of his research.  The facts speak for themselves.  What they mean in a larger sense is another matter entirely.  History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.  Thus far, you seem unable to provide a coherent and meaningful interpretation.

I don't know what background you have in linguistics, but it is one of the softer sciences. I have not said that Carmack has not worked hard or hasn't provided foot notes. What I have said is I don't think we know Joseph's vernacular grammar growing up. I don't think that we know what that grammar would look like if he attempted to use biblical speech. We just don't know. Further, the voice of a single solitary linguist putting forward a theory that makes no sense no matter how you look at it (meaning - why would God use a 16th century intermediary to translate the book of Mormon - how does that make any sense whatsoever!?) is not enough to change my view of the matter. Carmack has put forward a lot of work and data on particular word usage in the BoM, I agree. On his interpretation (the BoM is a 16th century document) of the data, I would like to see other linguists weigh in. I don't believe we have any further useful dialogue so feel free to have the last word if you would like.

[Ahab]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What I have said is I don't think we know Joseph's vernacular grammar growing up. I don't think that we know what that grammar would look like if he attempted to use biblical speech. We just don't know. 

We may not "know" but I think we could at least make an educated guess that what we would get would be pretty much what we wound up with, though.  He is the one who translated the Book of Mormon... you are talking about the Book of Mormon, I take it... so what we have is what he gave us.  With words like "Adieu" as well as what we might refer to as 16th century English.  Heck, he  might even have been the one who used the word "horse" to refer to what he thought those ancient people were taking about when they used whatever word they used in the reformed Egyptian language.

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don't know what background you have in linguistics, but it is one of the softer sciences. I have not said that Carmack has not worked hard or hasn't provided foot notes. What I have said is I don't think we know Joseph's vernacular grammar growing up. I don't think that we know what that grammar would look like if he attempted to use biblical speech. We just don't know. Further, the voice of a single solitary linguist putting forward a theory that makes no sense no matter how you look at it (meaning - why would God use a 16th century intermediary to translate the book of Mormon - how does that make any sense whatsoever!?) is not enough to change my view of the matter. Carmack has put forward a lot of work and data on particular word usage in the BoM, I agree. On his interpretation (the BoM is a 16th century document) of the data, I would like to see other linguists weigh in. I don't believe we have any further useful dialogue so feel free to have the last word if you would like.

Syntactic descriptions of lengthy texts provide a lot of hard, quantifiable data.

English usage made broad shifts in a number of ways through the decades and centuries. One way it shifted from the early modern period to the late modern period was in personal relative pronoun selection. It is clear from Joseph Smith's early writings that he used these relative pronouns in a modern way, preferring who(m) over that over which. His 1829 dictation strongly preferred which over that and who(m). 24 pseudo-biblical texts that I've looked at don't have this profile. They either have modern profiles or biblical–modern profiles. (The King James Bible strongly prefers that over which over who(m).) The Book of Mormon profile is a less-common early modern profile. The text has a lot of less-common early modern usage in it.

Another way English made a macro shift was in verb complementation. Finite verb complementation became less common over time. It is clear that Joseph's own verb complementation pattern was almost entirely infinitival. The Book of Mormon is very heavy in finite complementation, unlike pseudo-biblical texts, and it has nonbiblical complex finite constructions not found in pseudo-biblical texts. Some of these aren't found in the late modern period.

The way the Book of Mormon employs the conjunction save also tends to rule out Joseph as the author.

It is inaccurate to exclude the 17th century and merely say the 16th century. And it is inaccurate to think the mix of early modern and late modern is 50/50. It is closer to 98/2. It would take a lot of work to get a reliable figure. It doesn't really matter for purposes of authorship determination, however, since the original Book of Mormon text has plenty of nonbiblical archaic syntax and lexis that isn't found in pseudo-biblical texts, which is the determining factor.

[champatsch]

I compare Book of Mormon syntax to pseudo-biblical texts and to Joseph Smith's early writings and to the King James Bible and to the greater textual record. I believe in systematic and thorough investigation of textual data. I don't agree with the approach of various prominent Latter-day Saint scholars who lightly investigate Book of Mormon English and make inaccurate pronouncements.

Comparing content-rich phraseology with very simple syntax is weaker evidence for authorship determination, since the production of such phraseology relies on conscious thought to a high degree. For example, "curious workmanship" is a content-rich phrase with very simple syntax. The first attestation in the EEBO Phase 1 database is 1549; its use persisted into the late modern era. The presence of this phrase in the Book of Mormon and two pseudo-biblical texts tells us very little about Book of Mormon authorship.

The meaning of curious in this phrase in the Book of Mormon is probably 'elaborate', although it has probably been thought to mean 'odd' or 'strange' through the years.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I haven't ignored anything and don't disagree with anything you have said.

Okay, well I haven't seen Carmack address the issue in any of his articles. It's not my beef alone by the way. Others including Clark Goble and Brant Gardner have raised similar concerns.

I love how you describe the idea that Joseph's language bled into the creation of the Book of Mormon a "wild scenario." Isn't it the default position that has been accepted by critics and defenders alike since the creation of the book?

Wrong.  The "wild scenario" is your deep-seated belief (with religious fervor) that Joseph must have had an EModE dialect as a youth.  That is not a position taken by any scholars of whom I am aware.  In fact, if that silly assumption were true, there would surely be some evidence for it -- at least in Joseph's early personal writings -- and there is not.  None.  It is irresponsible to posit a theory for which there is not a shred of evidence.

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don't know what background you have in linguistics, but it is one of the softer sciences. I have not said that Carmack has not worked hard or hasn't provided foot notes. What I have said is I don't think we know Joseph's vernacular grammar growing up.

This is clearly your fairy faith.  You believe it so strongly that it just must be true.  A true blue believer in Joseph's early life as a hobbit who spoke EModE.

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don't think that we know what that grammar would look like if he attempted to use biblical speech. We just don't know. Further, the voice of a single solitary linguist putting forward a theory that makes no sense no matter how you look at it (meaning - why would God use a 16th century intermediary to translate the book of Mormon - how does that make any sense whatsoever!?) is not enough to change my view of the matter. Carmack has put forward a lot of work and data on particular word usage in the BoM, I agree. On his interpretation (the BoM is a 16th century document) of the data, I would like to see other linguists weigh in. I don't believe we have any further useful dialogue so feel free to have the last word if you would like.

Since linguistics is a "soft" science (if it is even science at all), we can fantasize any sort of scenario we wish.  Doesn't really matter, right?  Just "word usage."  Nothing about syntax and grammar.  Why even bother to understand it?

[Gervin]

15 hours ago, champatsch said:

Comparing content-rich phraseology with very simple syntax is weaker evidence for authorship determination, since the production of such phraseology relies on conscious thought to a high degree. For example, "curious workmanship" is a content-rich phrase with very simple syntax. The first attestation in the EEBO Phase 1 database is 1549; its use persisted into the late modern era. The presence of this phrase in the Book of Mormon and two pseudo-biblical texts tells us very little about Book of Mormon authorship.

I think a phrase like "curious workmanship" can shed light on authorship, especially when we see it, and other phrases, concentrated in specific books and speeches that pre-date the Book of Mormon.  At a minimum, it further entangles the meaning of "translation" in the context of the Book of Mormon.

[Ryan Dahle]

Deleted

Edited October 22, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Meadowchik]

On 10/21/2019 at 3:17 PM, smac97 said:

So what "assumption" is "necessarily needed for scientific dismissal of it the Book of Mormon"?

Thanks,

-Smac

It doesn't need to be an assumption. But in order to be scrutinized scientifically, there needs to be a testable claim.

Anyways there's an abundance of testable claims made by the Book of Mormon and by others about the Book of Mormon which have given people scientific reason to dismiss it. Michael Coe mentioned several in his initial article in Dialogue way back. Yet he was still generous enough to engage the reader by discussing the ongoing contemporary research. And he continued that pattern in his interviews with Dehlin.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

So what "assumption" is "necessarily needed for scientific dismissal of it the Book of Mormon"?

It doesn't need to be an assumption. But in order to be scrutinized scientifically, there needs to be a testable claim.

Okay.  What "testable claim{s}" exist for The Book of Mormon?

How about this: "Is it possible that a few small groups traveled overseas to, and settled in, the Americas well before Columbus?"

There are all sorts of testable claims that I think could be formulated.  Do you agree?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Anyways there's an abundance of testable claims made by the Book of Mormon and by others about the Book of Mormon which have given people scientific reason to dismiss it.

Really?  Such as?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Michael Coe mentioned several in his initial article in Dialogue way back.

Are you referring to this article?  If who, what claims do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What "testable claim{s}" exist for The Book of Mormon?

How about this: "Is it possible that a few small groups traveled overseas to, and settled in, the Americas well before Columbus?"

 

If you're saying that in order to preserve the plausibility of the The Book of Mormon, any claims in the book need to be semantically reworked or interpreted to fit existing data to make them unfalsifiable, I would agree.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If you're saying that in order to preserve the plausibility of the The Book of Mormon, any claims in the book need to be semantically reworked or interpreted to fit existing data to make them unfalsifiable, I would agree.

No, I am not saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[InCognitus]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Michael Coe mentioned several in his initial article in Dialogue way back.

Are you referring to this article?  If who, what claims do you have in mind?

It's been a while since I read that article, it brings back memories.  I still remember his conclusion on page 48:

"In conclusion, an outside observer like myself would make these suggestions.  Forget the so-far fruitless quest for the Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, and the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful:  there is no more change of finding them than of discovering the ruins of the bottomless pit described in the book of Revelations [sic]".

You would think an editor would have caught that.  I know it's a bit nit picky, and calling it the "book of Revelations" is a common mistake, but it kind of shows the attention to detail (or lack thereof) when it comes to religious texts.  

[Jracforr]

Civilization, like the sun, rises in the East and travels west across the globe, thus the pattern of civilization that once existed in the Western Hemisphere is now seen in Asia, while that which now exist in Europe,  will be repeated here. If we can believe this theory, the Book of Mormon geography which placed Hebrews in this hemisphere,(600BC), should resemble the pattern of European Christian Colonies in Asia.

South America/ Australia

Central America/ SE Asia 

California/India, 

Therefore both pro and anti Mesoamerican supporters of the BOM, are partly right, as seen from Asia. The extent of Lehi, colonization may no be as large, but the pattern could be the same, given that Hagoth, built ships and traveled north, possible to California, as the British did from SouthEast Asia to India. Nephites would have roamed across the entire Hemisphere, eventually to be absorbed into a native population, as is currently happening in Asia.

[Rajah Manchou]

On 10/28/2019 at 3:04 AM, Jracforr said:

Civilization, like the sun, rises in the East and travels west across the globe, thus the pattern of civilization that once existed in the Western Hemisphere is now seen in Asia, while that which now exist in Europe,  will be repeated here. If we can believe this theory, the Book of Mormon geography which placed Hebrews in this hemisphere,(600BC), should resemble the pattern of European Christian Colonies in Asia.

South America/ Australia

Central America/ SE Asia 

California/India, 

Therefore both pro and anti Mesoamerican supporters of the BOM, are partly right, as seen from Asia. The extent of Lehi, colonization may no be as large, but the pattern could be the same, given that Hagoth, built ships and traveled north, possible to California, as the British did from SouthEast Asia to India. Nephites would have roamed across the entire Hemisphere, eventually to be absorbed into a native population, as is currently happening in Asia.

I'm not fully following what you've posted, but Michael Coe had drawn parallels between the Maya and the Khmer of Southeast Asia. He was fascinated with both cultures as seen in the photo in the OP of Michael Coe standing next to an Olmec head in a museum in Vietnam:

Although I don't follow your reasoning, I do agree that we can learn much about the origins of the Lehites by looking at their brothers in the isles of the sea. Lehi and Nephi knew about these groups as early as the 6th century BC and Jacob mentioned them in 2nd Nephi. There's significant evidence of migrations from the Arabian Peninsula across the Indian Ocean and into the Pacific as early as the 6th century BC.

It surprises me that it is not a topic of research in Book of Mormon studies.

I find it interesting that Joseph Smith sent the first foreign-speaking Mormon missionaries deep into the Pacific Ocean, many years before the Western United States, Mesoamerica or South America. Mormon missionaries were speaking Polynesian languages decades before they were speaking Spanish.

[Meadowchik]

On 10/24/2019 at 9:11 PM, smac97 said:

Okay.  What "testable claim{s}" exist for The Book of Mormon?

How about this: "Is it possible that a few small groups traveled overseas to, and settled in, the Americas well before Columbus?"

There are all sorts of testable claims that I think could be formulated.  Do you agree?

Really?  Such as?

Are you referring to this article?  If who, what claims do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, that's the one.

He refers to many issues in the beginning, it being clear that given a professional researcher's understanding of South America, the Book of Mormon representing part of its history is highly implausible:

The commodities used by Book of Mormon peoples presents this implicit testable question: were there indigenous Americans of the population sizes described in the BOM with economies that regularly used wheat, barley, horses, chariots, and metallurgy?

The ability of Joseph Smith to translate ancient writings and languages was also cited by Coe as a testable claim upon which the historicity of the BOM is contingent.

Both of these general issues create as-yet barriers to taking the BOM seriously as a historical document. Independent of that but also damaging to its credibility as ancient are the ready explanations for its origins from within the 1800s cultural milleiu of which Joseph Smith was a part. In addition to that are the sociological conditions of the time that motivate the mythos of the Book of Mormon.

So it's a book that is incongruous to indigenous history, but is congruous as a predictable contemporary product of the time that it was brought forth by Joseph Smith. In other words, it is at the level of problematic historicity claims that make it dismissible at the outset. Yet, for the record, I think Coe understood that despite such obstacles obvious to scientific scrutiny, there is still interest in searching for possible historical connections from within Mormonism.  And he obviously saw inquiry itself as legitimate.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Meadowchik