Biblical Archaeology and Book of Mormon Archaeology

[Anakin7]

    My fellow LDS Saint Christian Sentinel Sons, Daughters of Thunder Kryptonian Warriors I would ask if you could provide me with some direct links to sites that respond to criticisms of Book of Mormon Archaeology and comparing it to Biblical Archaeology. I know the late LDS William Hamblin did a paper on that [ A link to that would be True Grace Empowered] and anything from FAIR would be of help or any others.  I ask because I am having a discussion with a Pharisee, Sadducee, Scribe, Zelot, Busybody, Prater, Biff Tannon on a LDS facebook page on this topic. Thank you In Advance.  The Atonement, It Is The Central Doctrine, Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood, In His Eternal Debt/Grace, He Died To Make Man Holy, It's Not Just 6 Words To A Song, They Have Eternal Meaning.

[Pyreaux]

Like this?

https://evidencecentral.org/recency

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Anakin7 said:

My fellow LDS Saint Christian Sentinel Sons, Daughters of Thunder Kryptonian Warriors I would ask if you could provide me with some direct links to sites that respond to criticisms of Book of Mormon Archaeology and comparing it to Biblical Archaeology.

This is always like comparing apples and oranges for the following reasons:

• The Bible covers a portion of the world that has been inhabited for centuries, with place names that have been handed down as part of history because of constant inhabitants.
  • The Book of Mormon covers a portion of the world that was unknown to the rest of the world for centuries, and the main civilization that was the central focus of the book was wiped out.  Consequently the location of the events and place names described in the book are undetermined. 

• Biblical [Old World] archaeology has been going on for nearly two millennia
  • New World archaeology is in its infancy by comparison, and is literally just beginning to scratch the surface (but that is changing rapidly with new technology).

• Since the texts of the Bible have been around for centuries and the text discusses place names that are known in history there are serious archaeologists that use the text in some of their archaeological endeavors.
  • The Book of Mormon text, as it has been translated, has been around less than 200 years, and its came to us through either (A) divine means, or (B) made up by Joseph Smith, and therefor serious archaeologists may not take the book seriously.  Consequently it is difficult to establish what might be considered "Book of Mormon archeology"  

So it's really not fair to compare the two based on archaeology.  

[Kevin Christensen]

Here is William Hamblin's essay from Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1

Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss1/11/

In the meantime, we have had LiDAR:

https://www.arisefromthedust.com/new-light-on-mesoamerica-from-lidar/

And this sort of thing:

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/5-additional-compelling-archeological-evidences-of-the-book-of-mormon/

And this overall trend:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_How_does_archaeology_in_the_New_World_fit_with_the_Book_of_Mormon%3F

The Book of Mormon also roots in pre-exilic Jerusalem and Arabia, which means this sort of thing is important as well.  Margaret Barker on how the Book of Mormon fits Jerusalem 600 BCE.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol44/iss4/9/

And this on Lehi's Trail and Nahom:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/node/160

Not to mention, Brian Stubbs on languages:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2016/changes-languages-nephi-now

Just for starters.

It's also important to understand the nature of paradigm debate, in which "all data are theory laden" and that in paradigm debate people get to decide "which problems are more significant to have solved" and "which paradigm is better" where the question of a how person decides which is better can be evaluated in a self-referential fashion, ideologically declaring "Not us!" or comparatively, in a risk taking fashion, using the values of puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics and future promise, as well as the sophic way, demanding secular evidence secularly interpreted, or the mantic, in which personal testimony matters.

For instance, 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol7/iss2/9/

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited April 16, 2023 by Kevin Christensen
missing word

[NRnowlinMA]

In a lengthy correspondence with Dr. Michael Coe, PhD, the Yale University dean of Mesoamerican anthropology and archaeology before his death, the scholar made it abundantly clear that Book of Mormon Mesoamerican archaeology seeking to find evidence of Book of Mormon truth is utterly fiction. In a lengthy essay article that Dr. Coe wrote for "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," he stated that "not one artifact has been discovered in Mesoamerica that validates a Nephite or Lamanite culture in dating between 600 BCE and 425 AD.  Dr. Coe stated to me via email that "if John Sorenson, Dan Peterson, and John Clark, at BYU, were as honest as Thomas S. Furguson was in his 12-year search for evidence of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, the many young minds being sorely distorted by Mormon lies about such things as great herds of horses and elephants in Mesoamerica being found by alleged people called Nephites 600 years BCE, the Book of Mormon would have been properly called fiction in 1830.  When Ferguson returned to the USA from Mesoamerica in 1969, he had confirmed in his mind that the Book of Mormon was just as bogus as the Book of Abraham and wrote letters to various people stating what he believed.  The Book of Mormon was as fictional as Mormon theology was heretical to the teachings of Jesus and the Holy Bible. I have attached "Lesson 21-Man May Become Like God," from the 1984 LDS Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, "Search These Commandments," which states the polytheistic Mormon theology.    

Lesson 21 Complete (2).pdf

[Calm]

Had Michael Coe ever read more than a few verses of the Book of Mormon?

[NRnowlinMA]

The articulate writer and minister, Rev. Ethan Smith, wrote a fictional "A View of the Hebrews," calling it fiction, in 1825, and author Edgar Rice Burroughs created a fictional African civilization in his early 20th Century "Tarzan" books with much better grammar and style than Joseph Smith, Jr.'s Book of Mormon, which Mormon scholar B.H. Roberts, in his "Studies of the Book of Mormon"  wrote could have been easily plagiarized from "A View of the Hebrews" and several other books including the King James Bible.  Smith was a crafty charismatic fraud who was educated just enough to be able to go to libraries in New York and Pennsylvania and plagiarize from the works of smarter men and women. The 1830 edition of the BOM was as different theologically from its later revisions and emendations as day is from night, as was stated by BYU's own Dr. Thomas G. Alexander in his famous 1980 research paper, published in "Sunstone," "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine."  Alexander tried to get his paper published in the LDS church organ, "The Ensign," by the Mormon Church hierarchy refused to publish it.  

The Book of Mormon is as fictional as Lewis Carroll's fantasy, "Through the Looking Glass," concerning the fictional Alice in wonderland. I wonder if Lewis Carroll would have succeeded in creating a religious cult if he had claimed "Alice in Wonderland" to have been his true religious vision? The devil, Satan, is a great publicist, probably the greatest as the father of lies, in getting people to believe lies as the truth.  So far, the devil has succeeded in persuading millions of unwitting Christians, and non-Christians, that Mormonism is Christian and biblically based.   

[webbles]

12 minutes ago, NRnowlinMA said:

The articulate writer and minister, Rev. Ethan Smith, wrote a fictional "A View of the Hebrews," calling it fiction, in 1825, and author Edgar Rice Burroughs created a fictional African civilization in his early 20th Century "Tarzan" books with much better grammar and style than Joseph Smith, Jr.'s Book of Mormon, which Mormon scholar B.H. Roberts, in his "Studies of the Book of Mormon"  wrote could have been easily plagiarized from "A View of the Hebrews" and several other books including the King James Bible.  Smith was a crafty charismatic fraud who was educated just enough to be able to go to libraries in New York and Pennsylvania and plagiarize from the works of smarter men and women. The 1830 edition of the BOM was as different theologically from its later revisions and emendations as day is from night, as was stated by BYU's own Dr. Thomas G. Alexander in his famous 1980 research paper, published in "Sunstone," "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine."  Alexander tried to get his paper published in the LDS church organ, "The Ensign," by the Mormon Church hierarchy refused to publish it.  

The Book of Mormon is as fictional as Lewis Carroll's fantasy, "Through the Looking Glass," concerning the fictional Alice in wonderland. I wonder if Lewis Carroll would have succeeded in creating a religious cult if he had claimed "Alice in Wonderland" to have been his true religious vision? The devil, Satan, is a great publicist, probably the greatest as the father of lies, in getting people to believe lies as the truth.  So far, the devil has succeeded in persuading millions of unwitting Christians, and non-Christians, that Mormonism is Christian and biblically based.   

Are you here to discuss these points or are you just trying to preach to us?

[NRnowlinMA]

In reply to "Calm's" question, Dr. Coe told me in lengthy emails before his death that he had read the entire Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition and its most current revision, before he wrote his article about Mormon archaeology in "Dialogue."  You must know that Dr. Coe was a thorough researcher and wrote "Breaking the Maya Code" which chronicled his Mesoamerican research teams' efforts in translating the Mayan language to English.  Dr. Coe was also an accomplished speed-reader and did his homework on Joseph Smith, Jr. 

Dr. Coe remarked to me that, "there is one sure way for the Mormons to prove their assertions.  Let them excavate their sacred Hill Cumorah, where they swear that the last great battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred.  They have spent millions upon millions of dollars to excavate Mesoamerica and have not found one artifact proving the BOM true, while their proclaimed treasure trove is right beneath their precious Hill Cumorah."  I sent this assertion to Dr. John Clark at BYU and he never replied.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

You must know that Dr. Coe was a thorough researcher

I applaud him for actually reading the book. So many critics neglect that rather basic step.
 

I wonder though just how serious and deep his research was as he still got some basic facts wrong (for example the time period during which the Jaredites existed, the claim they had a compass) and was obviously not aware of some of the research being done (the error made by past readers that the BoM spoke of coins was well publicized in apologetic material, his assumption that Nephite culture mirrored Mayan culture, for example).  I do not fault him for not being familiar with a religion he did not believe in, but I believe he should have taken more care when he chose to make judgments about such. 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Let them excavate their sacred Hill Cumorah, where they swear that the last great battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred. 

This is a fundamental error and shows a lack of awareness of the discussion among LDS scholars about the location of Cumorah and how the hill where Joseph found the plates got its name (the evidence suggests it was not Joseph, but another who assumed it was such).

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is a fundamental error and shows a lack of awareness of the discussion among LDS scholars about the location of Cumorah and how the hill where Joseph found the plates got its name (the evidence suggests it was not Joseph, but another who assumed it was such).

Even if the last battle was around that Cumorah (such as the Heartland theory suggest), after all of the centuries of farming around it, I think it might be hard to find any archeological evidence there anymore.

[Pyreaux]

6 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

In reply to "Calm's" question, Dr. Coe told me in lengthy emails before his death that he had read the entire Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition and its most current revision, before he wrote his article about Mormon archaeology in "Dialogue."  You must know that Dr. Coe was a thorough researcher and wrote "Breaking the Maya Code" which chronicled his Mesoamerican research teams' efforts in translating the Mayan language to English.  Dr. Coe was also an accomplished speed-reader and did his homework on Joseph Smith, Jr. 

Dr. Coe remarked to me that, "there is one sure way for the Mormons to prove their assertions.  Let them excavate their sacred Hill Cumorah, where they swear that the last great battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred.  They have spent millions upon millions of dollars to excavate Mesoamerica and have not found one artifact proving the BOM true, while their proclaimed treasure trove is right beneath their precious Hill Cumorah."  I sent this assertion to Dr. John Clark at BYU and he never replied.  

Apparently, you didn't read it. You don't know anything about it yourself? I've never seen Dr. Micael Coe demonstrate that he read the Book of Mormon. He thinks there are Roman style chariots in the Book of Mormon, there are not. He thinks the Book of Mormon people imported honeybees to the Americas, but they did not. He thinks the Book of Mormon says the Hill Cumorah where Mormon extracted the golden plates from is the same place Moroni buried the plates, but it does not. Therefore, what he believes is a fiction is of his own making. He seems to know nothing about the current state of LDS Apologetics, like in Arabia. He just seems to know an outdated Fawn Brody caricature of what the Book of Mormon says. Only 1% of Mesoamerica has been studied, so to say the is no proof is premature, while there is plenty of 'parallel evidence' for the Book of Mormon. You haven't demonstrated you've read it or know anything about it other than what you've cut and pasted, hoping to look smart. An Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.

P.S. Horses as a species originated in America.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Pyreaux

[NRnowlinMA]

In response to "webbles," question, yes, I am endeavoring to discuss the outlandish assertions of Mormon scripture, the BOM, the Lectures on Faith, the D&C, and the Book of Abraham.  As Dr. Cara Cooney, Chair of the UCLA Dept. of Near-Eastern Studies, said about BYU's Kerry Muhlstein and Dan Petersen, "Muhlstein and any other Mormon apologist who follows his lead are pseudo-educators, not professors of science."  If the Book of Abraham is but a bunch of garbage concocted by Smith, Jr., what is the BOM, but the same? If one important portion of Mormon scripture, the keystone, is but fantasy fiction, doesn't that make the other portions just the same?  If you want to discuss how the BOM contradicts fundamental Mormon theology, such as Moroni 8:18 and Mormon 9:9, or how 2 Nephi 25:23 blatantly contradicts Ephesians 2:1-9 in the Holy Bible, let's do it.  Or, how the 2nd Lecture on Faith, canonized by Smith, Jr. in 1835 in his Kirtland, Ohio school of the prophets, which was the doctrine of the LDS Church for nearly 100 years, contradicted Smith, Jr.'s King Follett Discourse by stating, "God has no beginning and no end." 

Most Mormon apologists don't want to discuss Mormon scripture.  They want to misrepresent Mormon theology, doctrine, and history the way the fulltime Mormon missionaries do in their scripted discussions.  If the LDS fulltime missionaries would begin their discussions in Christians' homes by reading verbatim the contents of the 1984 "Lesson 21-Man May Become Like God," which I have attached to this forum, there would be no discussions given, because the Christians would ask those missionaries to leave their homes and never return. Here is "Lesson 21," again attached.  Jeremy Runnells' CES Letter is also good reading for discussion purposes.  You see, for the last 24 years I have studied Mormon theology, doctrine, and scripture exhaustively and am ready and willing to discuss Mormonism with Russell Nelson or Dahlin Oaks.    

Lesson 21 Complete (2).pdf

[NRnowlinMA]

Calm, please don't get excited and have a heart attack, but it was Smith, Jr. who stated in his history that Moroni, the angel, buried the alleged golden plates on a hill he called Cumorah near Palmyra, New York, near where the final battle BOM occurred.  It was John Sorenson who proposed that the "real" hill Cumorah was in Central America.  Dr. Coe knew these facts very well, and that the Mormon apologetics were mere sophistry. 

Pyreaux, you haven't read Dr. Coe thoroughly.  Read his books before you make assertions about him.  The ancient Maya, Axtecs, Toltecs, and the Incas did not know about the wheel, which your Apostle Legrande Richards said the Nephites and Lamanites used to make chariots, in his "Marvelous Work and a Wonder." The chronology of the Mayans, gleaned through Coe's efforts in the translating of the Maya language, shows that the BOM chronology was pure fiction.  Thomas S. Ferguson also realized this fact to his chagrin. Since there were no Nephites and Lamanites in Mesoamerica, there could not have been any Jaredites, a thousand years earlier.  Dr. Coe and his research have proven that the anachronisms in the BOM, such as fine steel, abundant herd of horses, elephants, barley, and the honeybee were pure fabrications from the creative mind of Smith, Jr.  If you have read B.H. Roberts' "Book of Mormon Studies," which the Mormon Church refused to publish after Roberts spent four years producing it, he agrees with much that Dr. Coe stated about the BOM.  And I defer to Dr. Coe's research in every aspect of Mesoamerican anthropology and archaeology, for I know very little about the sciences.  You, however, are significantly unaware of your own religions' claims. 

Dr. John Clark, by email, admitted to me from BYU in a lengthy email that the fact about the horse not being in Mesoamerica before the European exploration, is a major problem in BOM historicity.  He told me that he was considering not teaching it in his classes as a historical fact.  And I have done NO cutting and pasting in my posts.  Have you ever been to a Hill Cumorah pageant?  It is very enlightening about the basic beliefs of the Mormon Church.  Any fulltime missionary at that pageant will tell the curious non-Mormon that the Hill Cumorah, in Palmyra, was the place where the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred. B.H. Roberts made that statement in his numerous papers published before 1830, and in his sermons delivered in the Mormon tabernacle.  I am waiting to hear your rebuttal.   
    

[Calm]

8 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

reply to "Calm's" question

Btw, feel free to call me Cal so you don’t have to make the effort to put “Calm” in quotes.    It is no more my name than Calm, but most who know me online know me by that.  My real name is Cris, but you might get others going “huh?” if you use that.

Quote

please don't get excited and have a heart attack

Don’t add the drama if you want me to respond.  It instantly bores me.  I am interested in intelligent, more academic and less emotional appeal discussions.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Smith, Jr. who stated in his history that Moroni, the angel, buried the alleged golden plates on a hill he called Cumorah near Palmyra, New York, near where the final battle BOM occurred.

CFR please.  Which means you need to provide a quote where Joseph calls the hill “Cumorah” and not just the place where the plates were buried (which may not be the same thing at all since the Book of Mormon does not say that Moroni wandered around for years*** only to end up back at the hill where the records were kept and buried them in the ground in a stone box for some reason instead of safely depositing them with the other records in the nearby cave, which would be in the original Cumorah according to the text****).

Quote

There is no clear indication that Joseph Smith ever applied the name "Cumorah" to the hill in New York:

At what point in modern times this New York hill was first called Cumorah is difficult to determine. In his account in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith refers to the hill where the plates were buried, but never calls it by any name. In the Doctrine and Covenants the name 'Cumorah' only appears one time, in an 1842 epistle written by Joseph Smith: 'And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah' (DC 128:20). No other uses of 'Cumorah' have been found in any other of Joseph Smith's personal writings. When this name does appear it has been added by later editors or is being quoted from another individual.^[1]

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Hill_Cumorah

***”3 And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/1?lang=eng

****” having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/morm/6?lang=eng&id=6#p6

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, NRnowlinMA said:

If the Book of Abraham is but a bunch of garbage concocted by Smith, Jr., what is the BOM, but the same?  If one important portion of Mormon scripture, the keystone, is but fantasy fiction, doesn't that make the other portions just the same?

Ok, why do you consider the Book of Abraham to be a "bunch of garbage" and why do you think the Book of Mormon is?  Is it just because the theology has changed?  You are all over the place so I'd like to know what you are trying to argue.  Just saying it is a "bunch of garbage" is a testimony similar to me saying it isn't.

1 hour ago, NRnowlinMA said:

If you want to discuss how the BOM contradicts fundamental Mormon theology, such as Moroni 8:18 and Mormon 9:9, or how 2 Nephi 25:23 blatantly contradicts Ephesians 2:1-9 in the Holy Bible, let's do it.

2 Nephi 25:23 says:

Quote

23 For we labor diligently to write, to ^apersuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by ^bgrace that we are saved, after all we can ^cdo.

Ephesians 2:1-9 says:

Quote

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

I'm assuming you are complaining about the "after all we can do" part in 2 Nephi 25:23.  Correct?  How exactly does it blatantly contradict Ephesians?  2 Nephi 25:23 states that "it is by grace that we are saved".  Ephesians says the same thing.  None of us can be saved by ourselves.  2 Nephi 25:23 just clarifies that we still need to do stuff.  Christ commanded us to follow the commandments.  We can't just say "we are saved".  We have to act like we are saved.  As James 2:14-17 says:

Quote

¹⁴ What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? ¹⁵ Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. ¹⁶ If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? ¹⁷ In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

We MUST have works.  It isn't what saves us.  But without works, we don't have faith.  Just as Christ said in Matthew 25:31-46, those that just profess His name but don't act like it aren't saved.

By the way, have you read anything about the "New Perspective on Paul" (wiki link for general idea)?  I ask that because it is a fairly recent look at Paul where all his criticism of "works" isn't about general good deeds but specifically about Mosaic law requirements (circumcision, etc) and how those won't save us.

 

Moroni 8:18 says:

Quote

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

How does this contradict "fundamental Mormon theology"?

Mormon 9:9 says:

Quote

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

How does this contradict "fundamental Mormon theology"?

 

1 hour ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Jeremy Runnells' CES Letter is also good reading for discussion purposes

The CES letter has been discussed here before.  If you want to discuss it, I'd recommend pointing to specific items.  Just referring to the entire letter is not very helpful in discussing it.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Dr. John Clark, by email, admitted to me from BYU in a lengthy email that the fact about the horse not being in Mesoamerica before the European exploration, is a major problem in BOM historicity.  He told me that he was considering not teaching it in his classes as a historical fact. 

Given your accuracy in reporting what Joseph wrote, would you provide the quote where Dr. Clark says this please?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, NRnowlinMA said:

Jeremy Runnells' CES Letter is also good reading for discussion purposes.

Feel free to do so…even though it’s been addressed throughly multiple times over the years

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2019/ces-letter-proof-or-propaganda

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Sarah_Allen_CES_Response_Posts

 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, NRnowlinMA said:

If you have read B.H. Roberts' "Book of Mormon Studies," which the Mormon Church refused to publish after Roberts spent four years producing it, he agrees with much that Dr. Coe stated about the BOM. 

Quote

My answer was, however, that it was my intention to go on with the consideration to the last analysis. Accordingly, since the matter was already so far under my hands, I continued my studies, and submit herewith the record of them. I do not say my conclusions, for they are undrawn. In writing out this my report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ‘study of Book of Mormon origins’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it. While searching for the answers to the questions of Mr. Couch submitted through Mr. William E. Riter, I came in contact with the material here used, and concluded that while the subject was fresh in my mind to make it of record for those who should be its students and know on what ground the Book of Mormon may be questioned, as well as that which supports its authenticity and its truth… I am very sure that you will find the material herewith submitted of intense interest, and it may be of very great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon. [Emphasis added] ¹⁴

Roberts was primarily concerned with potential future attacks along these lines, and the Church’s response to them. The crux of the matter is his statement in the letter that he is “taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.” This is what made B.H. Roberts so effective in defending the Church and discomfiting its enemies: proceeding from an unshakable faith, he was able to engage attacks head-on, neither holding back nor avoiding potentially difficult issues. Yet, it is this frankness in acknowledging what could be said by an opponent that prompts critics to proclaim that his faith had been fatally shaken.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

Edited December 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, NRnowlinMA said:

It is very enlightening about the basic beliefs of the Mormon Church. 

Quote

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in theancient Americas. Speculation on the geography of the Bookof Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.

Speaking of the book’s history and geography, President Russell M. Nelson taught: “Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.”3

While the traditional view has equated the modern Hill Cumorah with the ancient one (resulting in such things as the Hill Cumorah Pageant) and it is likely some, perhaps even many church leaders do so, the Church does not officially do so.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng#p3

Edited December 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Came across this interesting article about the end of the pageant and what is to come for the area.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/7/9/23218135/elder-christofferson-devotional-why-hill-cumorah-pageant-ended

Quote

Plans to rehabilitate the Hill Cumorah involve removal of 21 nonhistorical buildings and about 400,000 square feet of asphalt and gravel roads, parking areas and pageant paths. The visitors’ center at the base of the hill and Angel Moroni Monument atop the hill will remain.

The area will be reforested with thousands of native-tree seeds. The Church will also create a network of accessible trails. The angel Moroni statue will be regilded and the landscaping of the plaza surrounding the monument refreshed with native plants. Several new exhibits will be installed in the visitors’ center by 2023, in time for the bicentennial of Joseph Smith’s first visit at Hill Cumorah with the angel Moroni. 

The Hill Cumorah Pageant devotional and broadcast is available in English, Spanish, Portuguese and ASL until July 22 on broadcasts.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. After then, the 2019 Hill Cumorah Pageant will be available in Gospel Media. The Hill Cumorah devotional with Elder Christofferson, however, will no longer be available for viewing.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

The Book of Mormon is as fictional as Lewis Carroll's fantasy, "Through the Looking Glass," concerning the fictional Alice in wonderland. I wonder if Lewis Carroll would have succeeded in creating a religious cult if he had claimed "Alice in Wonderland" to have been his true religious vision?

It seems to me to be unlikely. Why?

There is a statement made in The Matrix (the 1999 movie). Morpheus tells Neo: "You take the blue pill, and the story ends ... You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." Carroll's fiction - even with its fascinating take on language and with its internal discussions of philosophy, is about escapism. In other words, Carroll's book, even with its longevity and our continued cultural fascination with it, isn't all that different from other books of similar nature. The rabbit hole isn't much different from C.S. Lewis's wardrobe. It takes us to a different place so that its stories and ideas can be taken seriously. And, while it is this different place (where we encounter the absurdities that Carroll uses) that makes these ideas possible, it is this different place that also makes it impossible to build a serious religion - it would likely end up being something more akin to Pastafarianism. It might make valid points - but the context creates problems.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, even if it is fictional, connects is deep discussions of theology, language and philosophy with the real world. It doesn't claim to be somewhere else - it claims to be 'right here.' It uses archaic language as a tool to make such claims. It contains dialogues about religious and political ideas that are progressively developed. You put all of this together, and you start to recognize why a religious movement started with such a text where it likely wouldn't have happened with Carroll's. This is, of course, one of the hallmarks of people who don't really want to engage the text. They want to suggest (as you do) that it is all about the author and their ability to convince others.

After my decades of study, I am far more impressed with the text than with those who started the religion.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Kevin Christensen]

17 hours ago, NRnowlinMA said:

The articulate writer and minister, Rev. Ethan Smith, wrote a fictional "A View of the Hebrews," calling it fiction, in 1825, and author Edgar Rice Burroughs created a fictional African civilization in his early 20th Century "Tarzan" books with much better grammar and style than Joseph Smith, Jr.'s Book of Mormon, which Mormon scholar B.H. Roberts, in his "Studies of the Book of Mormon"  wrote could have been easily plagiarized from "A View of the Hebrews" and several other books including the King James Bible.  Smith was a crafty charismatic fraud who was educated just enough to be able to go to libraries in New York and Pennsylvania and plagiarize from the works of smarter men and women. The 1830 edition of the BOM was as different theologically from its later revisions and emendations as day is from night, as was stated by BYU's own Dr. Thomas G. Alexander in his famous 1980 research paper, published in "Sunstone," "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine."  Alexander tried to get his paper published in the LDS church organ, "The Ensign," by the Mormon Church hierarchy refused to publish it.  

The Book of Mormon is as fictional as Lewis Carroll's fantasy, "Through the Looking Glass," concerning the fictional Alice in wonderland. I wonder if Lewis Carroll would have succeeded in creating a religious cult if he had claimed "Alice in Wonderland" to have been his true religious vision? The devil, Satan, is a great publicist, probably the greatest as the father of lies, in getting people to believe lies as the truth.  So far, the devil has succeeded in persuading millions of unwitting Christians, and non-Christians, that Mormonism is Christian and biblically based.   

I, like many others have read Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, which was not a deliberate fiction but presenting a common-place theory of the time, the notion that the indigenous populations of America were descended from the Lost 10 tribes, which, of course, does not accord with the account in the Book of Mormon, which describes three different migrations (Jaredite, Lehite, and Mulekite), and leaves open the possibility of others.  In his 1997 review of the BYU Religious Center reprint of View of the Hebrews, Andrew Hedges observes:

Quote

The tradition in which Ethan Smith was writing was a long and venerable one-as Richard Bushman has reminded us, English scholars were identifying the American aborigines with Jews as early as the sixteenth century.  The idea reached American shores in the mid-I640s when John Eliot, the famous Puritan "Apostle to the Indians"; Daniel Gookin. the Massachusetts Bay Colony's Indian Superintendent; and other Puritan divines found the similarities between the Algonquin culture and ancient Israelite practices so compelling that they modified the then popular view-which held that the Indians were gentile "Tartars" from Asia-to suggest that, at the very least, the Indians were descendants of Hebrews who had made their way to America via a land bridge from Asia and were quite likely descendants of the lost tribes who had come the same route.2

Subsequent generations discussed and promoted the idea until 1775, when James Adair fully developed it in his History of the American Indians.3 Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews was just one of several books and pamphlets written on the topic in both England and America following the publication of Adair's book, all of which echoed the earlier Puritan contention that the Indians were unchurched descendants of the lost tribes who had come to America from Asia via a land bridge or, at most, "by canoes, or other craft" (p. 84) across the Bering Straits.4 A close reading of View of the Hebrews suggests that, while some aspects of this reconstruction could be debated, it is generally so complex as to be quite inflexible, based as it is on a relatively conservative reading of the biblical text and a number of suppositions so interdependent that if one should prove false, the whole model would collapse. Any modifications would have to be relatively small and insignificant, which explains why the basic outlines of the model remained virtually unchanged over the course of two centuries' worth of discussion. For example, churchmen over the centuries could (and did) debate how much of the Mosaic law the Indians as the lost tribes had retained after arriving in America. They could do this because such debates did not alter in the least the basic structure of the paradigm. which posited a pre-Christian migration of Israelites who had some knowledge of Old Testament practices. The churchmen did not, however. at any time debate the possibility that the Indians' ancestors knew of Christ's birth before the event, had engaged in such New Testament practices as baptism in Old Testament times. and had been visited by Christ after his resurrection. This was because the mere suggestion of these things would have done violence to their understanding of the Bible. 

 See Andrew Hedges, "Review of View of the Hebrews (2nd ed., 1996), by Ethan Smith" in  Review of Book on the Book of Mormon 9/1.  https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=msr 

Another important response to the common claims about View of the Hebrews, which none of Joseph Smith's contemporaries made, and of the later B.H. Robert "Study" is John W. Welch's "Answering B.H. Roberts' Questions and 'An Unparallel'". 

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/welch/2019-01-04/john_w._welch_finding_answers_and_an_unparallel_1985.pdf

Regarding Coe and the Book of Mormon, I have also read his periodic comments, from the 1973 Dialogue essay, which is less a close reading of the Book of Mormon, and more a criticism of 1950s LDS apologetics, his later PBS interview, and the Dehlin interview.  He did read Brodie  in the 1940s and apparently read the Book of Mormon once.  But he has not kept up with Book of Mormon scholarship and his grasp of the Book of Mormon is superficial at best.  For instance, I heard John Dehlin and Coe discussing how the lack of any evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads is devastating evidence against the Book of Mormon, both blissfully ignorant of the easily discoverable fact that the Book of Mormon never mentions either one.   What I find most interesting about Coe these days is comes from Bruce and Brian Dale's 2019 approach in Interpreter.

Quote

Dr. Michael Coe is a prominent Mesoamerican scholar and author of a synthesis and review of ancient Mesoamerican Indian cultures entitled The Maya.1 Dr. Coe is also a prominent skeptic of the Book of Mormon. However, there is in his book strong evidence that favors the Book of Mormon, which Dr. Coe has not taken into account. This article analyzes that evidence, using Bayesian statistics. We apply a strongly skeptical prior assumption that the Book of Mormon “has little to do with early Indian cultures,” as Dr. Coe claims. We then compare 131 separate positive correspondences or points of evidence between the Book of Mormon and Dr. Coe’s book. We also analyze negative points of evidence between the Book of Mormon and The Maya, between the Book of Mormon and a 1973 Dialogue article written by Dr. Coe, and between the Book of Mormon and a series of Mormon Stories podcast interviews given by Dr. Coe to Dr. John Dehlin. After using the Bayesian methodology to analyze both positive and negative correspondences, we reach an enormously stronger and very positive conclusion. There is overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon has physical, political, geographical, religious, military, technological, and cultural roots in ancient Mesoamerica. As a control, we have also analyzed two other books dealing with ancient American Indians: View of the Hebrews and Manuscript Found. We compare both books with The Maya using the same statistical methodology and demonstrate that this methodology leads to rational conclusions about whether or not such books describe peoples and places similar to those described in The Maya.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-the-worlds-greatest-guesser/

This essay generated a lot of discussion, the interesting comment being this one:

Quote

I thought this would be an interesting experiment. So I purchased a copy of the first edition of The Maya. The first edition was published by Dr. Coe in 1966, almost 40 years prior to the most recent, or ninth edition. The ninth edition of The Maya was the basis for our recent article comparing it with the Book of Mormon.

I have now read the first edition of The Maya twice. Of the 131 positive correspondences between the Book of Mormon and The Maya (9th edition) that we found in our recent article, 79 of them are also mentioned in the first edition. In other words, there are 52 new/additional correspondences between the Book of Mormon and the ninth edition of The Maya that were not mentioned in the first edition of The Maya.

Some of these new correspondences are really remarkable. Two examples are the possible settlement of the Americas by the maritime route (which Dr. Coe strongly denies in the first edition but accepts as a very reasonable possibility in the ninth edition) and also the fact that walking in straight paths symbolized acceptable behavior among the ancient Maya (as it does in the Book of Mormon).

Of the 79 positive correspondences in the first edition, about 30 of these have added significant new details in the ninth edition that enrich our understanding of the world of ancient Mesoamerica. In every case, these new details line up well with the details in the Book of Mormon. Two examples are the fact that existing native Maya leaders were incorporated into the new power structure after subjugation and that monuments dedicated to prior rulers were systematically destroyed.

I expect that it will take a year or two for me to write, submit, revise and then publish another paper comparing the first edition of The Maya with the Book of Mormon and with the ninth edition. I am sure you are all looking forward to the next publication and the ensuing discussion. 

Just a heads up, however. It took some work to find a copy of the first edition of The Maya. You might start looking for your copy pretty soon.

Oh, wait, silly me.

Very few of the negative commentators have been interested in comparing facts in The Maya with facts from the Book of Mormon. So maybe those folks don’t need a copy of the first edition after all.
Anyway, I am looking forward to more fun in the years ahead.

I even have a tentative title for the next paper. It will be: “Joseph Smith: Still the World’s Greatest Guesser—and Getting Better All the Time” 

I personally heard John Clark's presentation at the 2005 "Joseph Smith Conference at the Library of Congress, on "Archeological Trends and the Book of Mormon" where he observed that the overall tendency regarding complaints about the Book of Mormon and archeological knowledge at any give time was towards resolution.  

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/archaeological-trends-and-the-book-of-mormon-origins/

So for John Clark to note that horse may be an unsolved issue for the Book of Mormon should not be mistaken for his view that the overall trend is towards confirmation.  And as problems, horses are only mentioned on a few occasions, never in any of the 100 wars, and wheels are not mentioned, but only surmised relative to chariots, where the Hebrew for chariot means "riding thing" not necessarily wheeled.  And Mesomericans did in fact, know the principle well enough to make wheeled toys.  I also notice that Clark's prediction that the trend of resolution would continue in the future has been validated by the recent LiDar studies, which Coe, could not refer to in Dialogue article in 1973, or any of his books, and which revolutionized the Mesomerican picture overnight.

 

Coe's view of Joseph Smith as imaginative author deconstructs itself.

Quote

I find Michael Coe’s report of Joseph Smith’s encounter with the Stephen’s book [John Lloyd Stephen’s Incidents of Travels Central America] particularly telling:

"In 1841 — after the Book of Mormon, actually — there was a publication in New York and London of a wonderful two volume work called Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan by John Lloyd Stephens, an American diplomat, and his artist-companion, the British topographical artist Frederick Catherwood, with wonderful illustrations by Catherwood of the Maya ruins. This was the beginning of Maya archaeology, … and we who worked with [Page 76]the Maya civilization consider Stephens and Catherwood the kind of patron saints of the whole thing.

"Well, Joseph Smith read these two volumes, and he was flabbergasted, because what he had dictated about the ancient his mind, these were the ancient cities that he was talking about. They weren’t in South America, as he originally thought; they were in Central America and neighboring Mexico."17

It happens that there are over 500 passages with geographic details for the New World portions of the Book of Mormon, and they have a remarkable internal consistency.18 But they are not at all consistent with any location in South America, and more particularly, there is no way to fit the internal travel accounts required to a New York Cumorah and a Land South that includes South America. Coe doesn’t bother to explain how Joseph managed to describe in detail and at length something so very different than he originally imagined, or more accurately, what Coe imagines Joseph imagined.

I am thinking in particular of Larry Poulson's corrolations.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

 And it happens that Alexander's "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine" has not dated well.   Compare the "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" 

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/development-mormon-understanding-god-early-mormon-modalism-and-other-myths

Also the personal story that Don Bradley tells of his own reconversion is directly relevant to Alexander's claims.  For instance here.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2012/piercing-the-veil-temple-worship-in-the-lost-116-pages

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA