Next time an apologist throws the Bible under the bus...

[Mad Jax]

I can see how the line might have blurred a bit the way I wrote it.

[Hagoth]

Your comparison is truly apples and oranges. At most it reminds us that absence of proof is not proof of absence. I understand you skepticism but this particular example is a good argument why even if you believe in the books historicity as I do you should not be surprised by the present lack of archeological proof

Asa, Thanks so much for your feedback. You make excellent points, and I'm jealous of your travels and experiences. What I was mostly trying to illustrate with this (I think) excellent example, is that the apologetic approach of demeaning Bible historicity in an attempt to bolster the BoM's historicity is basically an intellectual cheap shot. They try to make it sound like the BoM is just as adequately attested by on-the-ground evidence as the Bible. And how do they do that? "We have no evidence for the Book of Mormon, but don't let that bother you because we don't have evidence for a lot of the things in the Bible either!" I'm sorry, but that is both inaccurate and intentionally disingenuous.

Sure, we don't have evidence for a lot of things in the Bible. Why is that? You stated one reason. Sure, there's still a lot in the ground that we haven't uncovered yet - on both sides of the planet, although I will take exception to your comparison of the the public awareness of the two books. Yes, the various writings that ended up in the Bible have been known about for a much longer period of time, but serious, scientific Bible investigation certainly doesn't precede American archaeology by thousands of years. As you point out, it pretty much started in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That's about when American archaeology started too. Before that it was all hobbyists, looters and people trying to confirm their prejudices. Significantly, American archaeology began with Cyrus Thomas who set about to determine the truth about the mound builder myths that were popularized by books like View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, but that's another story. Something that I would say the Bible does share with the BoM is that a lot of the things it talks about probably never happened, so there never will be evidence for them.

But what are some of the things the Bible talks about that have been demonstrated to have really existed? Too many to mention here, but for starters: Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Herod, Augustus, Uzziah, Shalmaneser, Nebuchadnezzar, crucifixion, Golgotha, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Pharaohs, The Sea of Galilee, the Dead Sea, the Jordan River, the Nile, Philistenes, Elamites, Moabites, Hittites, Israelites (Merneptah Stele), the Roman Empire, Hezekiah, Nineveh, Sennachareb, Tikulti-Ninurta I (aka Nimrod), Jericho, Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, Nimrud (aka Calah), chariots, swords, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, donkeys, camels, wheat, barley, figs, grapes, bronze, iron, coinage... and many more.

I would love to see a comparative list of known, verified Book of Mormon people, places and things. John Sorenson and Rod Meldrum style hopeful suggestions don't apply. I would accept a much shorter list, but if the story told in the BoM happened there should be a respectable list. Joseph Smith told us where the "plains of the Nephites" are, he identified the skull of an individual by name, he pointed out a Nephite tower, he said that the sites illustrated in Incidents of Travel in Central America were Nephite cities. Can you imagine how the church leadership would be celebrating, building visitor centers and organizing pageants if they had even ONE strong example? Yet the closest thing we have is three Semitic characters carved on a block of stone on the other side of the planet. It's not that there is a lesser degree of empirical evidence for the BoM, it's that there is pretty much nothing, but massive evidence (in my opinion) to the contrary.

I totally appreciate your belief in the BoM, Asa. I would not discourage anyone from finding value in the BoM and accepting it on faith if it brings value to their life, whether as a literal history or an inspired story. But I do have a problem with the questionable tactics of the new generation of professional apologist who are trying to rewrite the BoM to force-fit it into real world by inserting a lot of assumptions between the lines, while ignoring so much of what it actually says.

I'm sure you can agree with me that, as it stands, there is a vast historicity gap between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

[asa]

Hogarth yes I can agree with your fundamental premise if it is only that we shouldn't "throw the Bible under the bus" in support of the B of M. I also agree with your implication that there is no real verifiable archeological proof of the Book of Mormon in the Western Hemisphere . However the scope of the task is much greater both geographically and in historical complexity that is the case in the Bble. With the Israelites we dealing with hundreds of thousands of people who settled in a limited geographic area and remained ,in one form or another, in the same small area for three and a half millennia. Even at that there is no archeological evidence of Abraham ,Issac or Jacob. There is no archeological evidence of the Exodus or other seminal events referenced in the biblical record.In the case of the B of M we have a much smaller group allegedly existing in an area perhaps a thousand times larger for less than a third of the time. We also know much less about contemporaneous history. We know very little about groups in the Western Hemisphere from 600 BC to 400ad as opposed to the millions of pounds of material we know with precision about groups in the ANE during the same period. I assume you would agree with this statement. I personally think your continued comparison of the plethora of stuff from Israel relating to the Bible to the paucity of stuff from the Western Hemisphere relating to the B of M is rather repetitive. Why don't you just say what you think which I suspect is that there is no archeological PROOF of the B of M. That simple statement is one virtually everyone who is knowledgeable in the area can agree with . Even John Sorensen my instructor many years ago would agree. I will say thank you for the opportunity to reflect upon my pleasant memories from the time spent in the ANE . I am headed to Sudan for a week or two later this year to explore Nubia and Meroe. Want to come?

[Hagoth]

Want to come?

Man, I wish I could, but I'll be doing archaeology in Peru this year.

It's been interesting to watch the development of the idea that the BoM peoples were a small group that would be hard to identify in the vast landscape that was overrun with other people. I think this is a recent invention of apologists that came out of the need to explain why we can't find archaeological evidence or Israelite DNA. I maintain that the modern FARMS/FAIR reinvention of the Book of Mormon bears little resemblance to what the book itself says. It takes a whoooole lotta reading between the lines to turn the Lehites into a small group of people living amid vast nations of other people. Nephi gave a pretty detailed list of the animals they encountered in the Promised Land (all wrong) but entirely failed to mention the all of the people and their cities, agriculture, etc. It just doesn't add up.

Elder Holland gave a pretty good pre-FARMS overview of accepted understanding of the BoM in 1974: “Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes. With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land." This is the story I find when I read the Book of Mormon. It's the story of a nation of white people who built a massive civilization that filled the Americas, only to be brought down by savages who were cursed with dark skin, and who still live among us. That's the story the book actually tells, but we don't like that story anymore. The ancient cities of the Americas, the DNA of the American Indian who are repeatedly called Lamanites by the Lord in the D&C, the archaeofaunal and floral evidence, etc. should at least be in harmony with that story. The only thing more astonishing than the lack of evidential support for such an epic story is the blinding speed at which the goalposts are receding downfield. It's not that just that there is no evidence, it's that the degree of excuse-making is downright embarrassing when you take a big step back and look at if from a distance. We have invented a "little Book of Mormon" because we can't find the big one.

ETA: I really enjoy your comments, Asa. I hope you're not reading any personal animosity in my responses. I enjoy the discussion and I'm just offloading the stuff that's always bouncing around in my head. On certain other boards that I will go unnamed there would have been name calling and accusations of spiritual decrepitude by this point.

[moksha]

The Book of Mormon mentions Jesus being born in Jerusalem and there is indeed a city of Jerusalem. Bullseye!

[Mad Jax]

And it prophesied that the plates would be translated, never forget that one.

[Hagoth]

Here's all I'm saying. We are starting to hear occasional comments from people at intermediate levels of authority and/or scholarly respect nudging us in a certain direction where we shouldn't be too concerned about whether Nephi was a real person or whether Zarahemla is a location that could be placemarked on Google Earth. I predict that we'll be getting more of this stuff and eventually from men of greater authority. I see it going in the direction they are steering our expectations of what "translate" means, or what we should expect from modern prophets and miracles (i.e. pretty much nothing). We have reached the point where it is a sign of weak faith to expect prophesy from a prophet or to expect an apostle to be able to heal someone, after all it is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeketh after a sign, right? Mark my words, the day will come when you are not expected to look for empirical, rational, or even spiritual confirmation of the Moroni's promise variety. Nowadays it's more and more about obedience to authority. You will be expected to believe in the Book of Mormon simply because you are told to. Any other answer, as Elder Oaks has insisted, is the influence of the Boogie Man.

I wouldn't be surprised if the current trend of apologetics starts to get quieter. FARMS has already hung up their hats on BoM/BoA scholarship and the reason given was that they wanted to start being academically respectable. We will be left with the general recognition that testimony is entirely a faith/devotion issue and that the desire to intellectually or empirically demonstrate the veracity of the BoM is a sign of weakness, in pretty much the same way we are expected to accept Thomas Monson as a prophet, seer and revelator just like Isaiah, Moses, or Joseph Smith for that matter, even though he has never done anything to remotely qualify him as such other than have some hands laid on his head and special words spoken by fellow club members.

[Grace2Daisy]

When I first discovered all of the issues with the BOM I quickly transferred that thought process to "are there problems like this in the Bible? " Which I think is a natural thought and why apologists go there.

I always think of the scene in the West Wing where President Bartlet schools regarding the bible and it's teachings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

Are there issues in the bible? Certainly. Are there issues in the BM? Throughout.