Desperate Attempt at Rationalizing Non-Nephite Archeology

[Not Buying It]

LDS apologists have a gigantic Book of Mormon archeology problem - there is all kinds of evidence for non-Book of Mormon cultures in North and South American prior to the coming of Columbus, and absolutely zilch for the peoples referenced in the Book of Mormon. The apologist response has been to ignore the lack of archeological evidence for Book of Mormon peoples, but somehow convince us that the Book of Mormon's complete lack of any reference to people (other than Mulekites) living in the Promised Land at the time of Lehi's arrival somehow works with the vast and indisputable evidence for non-Book of Mormon cultures.

This link popped up on my Facebook feed today: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... -of-isaiah. It is pathetically desperate to convince us on the flimsiest of arguments that the Book of Mormon alludes to peoples already populating the Promised Land prior to Lehi's arrival (and completely ignoring 2 Nephi 1:8-9 that specifically says that "it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance" and "they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves").

So we are supposed to believe that even though Nephi never came straight out and said "Oh, yeah, they were plenty of people already in the Promised Land who had their own distinct cultures we had to work around", the fact that he selected certain passages in Isaiah for inclusion in his record suggests that was the case.

I am sorry, but I am always amazed at the lengths apologists go to in ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon simply isn't a record of anything that ever really happened, and their ridiculous attempts to explain that away.

[oliver_denom]

It's easier to grasp when we keep reminding ourselves that this isn't science, it's religion trying on its daddy's lab coat and playing doctor.

When you don't have a specific place (some undefined place somewhere in the western hemisphere) and you've already reached a conclusion before looking at any evidence, then it's pretty easy to just make up stories that can't be falsified. Does the evidence contradict the conclusion? No problem, just move the location somewhere else. Is the new location too far away? No problem, just make up a second Hill Cumorah. No horses in pre-Columbus Americas? No problem, they were probably just tapirs or something. DNA doesn't reflect middle-eastern descent? No problem, the DNA was probably swallowed up by the existing population. The known languages have absolutely zero connection to the old world? Uh...let's say that got swallowed up too, and the Lamanites corrupted their language...you know...the dark and loathsome who couldn't possibly build their own culture independent of white people.

Seriously. It doesn't matter what evidence pops up to contradict the conclusion, some imaginative scenario will be invented. The more intelligent the believer, the more complicated and far fetched the imagination to make it work. These ad hoc stories work because religion works. Religion itself is far fetched, so making up additional hills, additional miracles, angels, whatever...is no big deal. The more we discover about the new world, the bigger and more complicated these explanations will become. Someone somewhere will find a way to shoehorn new evidence into what they already believe.

[Charlotte]

Someone tons smarter and more educated than I told me, "No one thought Troy was real until it was found." And with that, discussion is closed.

[moksha]

... it's religion trying on its daddy's lab coat and playing doctor.

Just as long as it is not slipping on the bard's cloak and playing Hamlet or even worse putting on greasepaint and rubber nose to play Pennywise the Clown.

A good apologetic article might make note that no one has seriously sought to find the Gingerbread House in the Black Forest or the Eye of Sauron atop Trump Tower, so why should anyone seek after the Nephites.

[oliver_denom]

Someone tons smarter and more educated than I told me, "No one thought Troy was real until it was found." And with that, discussion is closed.

At least stories about the Trojan war were legitimately ancient.

[Brent]

Simple answer:

If they can find Neanderthal DNA in you...you'd think they could find Isrealite too.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

[Hagoth]

Wow. Their little video suggests that those who don't read the Book of Mormon carefully might get the mistaken impression that Nephi arrived at an empty continent. Fortunately they set us straight with two powerful pieces of evidence: Nephi speaks of "all those who would go with me" and the word "strangers" appears in the book of... wait for it... Isaiah.

[asa]

Someone tons smarter and more educated than I told me, "No one thought Troy was real until it was found." And with that, discussion is closed.

At least stories about the Trojan war were legitimately ancient.

But you are assuming the very issue in controversy - the age of the narrative . You choose not to believe it is ancient. That choice says a lot about you but nothing about the issue at hand.The fact that the Mayan codices are a relatively recent discovery says nothing about their true age or authenticity nor the society that produced them . If you knew the history of archeology like say Hogarth does you would know that 100 years ago the leading schools dismissed the historicity of the Bible as nothing but tribal myth despite its antiquity. It was not until the 1920s and 30s under guys like WF Albright did professionals begin to consider that the Bible may be genuine history and have value as an archeological tool. Did the fact there was no fossil evidence of Lions in the ANE mean that David didn't kill one? Finally 2900 years after his story a fossilized jaw bone of an Asiatic lion was found in Samaria. Caiaphas was a elusive literary figure unknown outside the Biblical text or according to many purely a mythical figure until his ossuary was found in Jerusalem 25 years ago. There is more in heaven and earth my friend than is dreamed about in your philosophy.

[Not Buying It]

[quote=oliver_denom post_id=15580 time=<a href="tel:1494865337">1494865337</a> user_id=227]
[quote=Charlotte post_id=15570 time=<a href="tel:1494861392">1494861392</a> user_id=81]
Someone tons smarter and more educated than I told me, "No one thought Troy was real until it was found." And with that, discussion is closed.

At least stories about the Trojan war were legitimately ancient.
[/quote]

But you are assuming the very issue in controversy - the age of the narrative . You choose not to believe it is ancient. That choice says a lot about you but nothing about the issue at hand.The fact that the Mayan codices are a relatively recent discovery says nothing about their true age or authenticity nor the society that produced them . If you knew the history of archeology like say Hogarth does you would know that 100 years ago the leading schools dismissed the historicity of the Bible as nothing but tribal myth despite its antiquity. It was not until the 1920s and 30s under guys like WF Albright did professionals begin to consider that the Bible may be genuine history and have value as an archeological tool. Did the fact there was no fossil evidence of Lions in the ANE mean that David didn't kill one? Finally 2900 years after his story a fossilized jaw bone of an Asiatic lion was found in Samaria. Caiaphas was a elusive literary figure unknown outside the Biblical text or according to many purely a mythical figure until his ossuary was found in Jerusalem 25 years ago. There is more in heaven and earth my friend than is dreamed about in your philosophy.
[/quote]

OK, but...

...the Book of Mormon is a book about wars. Widespread and frequent warfare. Involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers over a period of 1000 years across a large geographical area. With swords. And shields. And scimitars. And horses. And chariots. None of which - NONE - have so much as a trace of been found prior to Columbus. We ought to be tripping over Nephite swords and shields everywhere we walk in North America (or South America, depending on which model you choose to believe). It is nigh unto impossible to think that a level of warfare described in the Book of Mormon could have taken place utilizing the weapons described without leaving a trace.

I am sorry, but that alone damns the book as a complete and utter fabrication.

[Hagoth]

...the Book of Mormon is a book about wars. Widespread and frequent warfare. Involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers over a period of 1000 years across a large geographical area. With swords. And shields. And scimitars. And horses. And chariots. None of which - NONE - have so much as a trace of been found prior to Columbus. We ought to be tripping over Nephite swords and shields everywhere we walk in North America (or South America, depending on which model you choose to believe). It is nigh unto impossible to think that a level of warfare described in the Book of Mormon could have taken place utilizing the weapons described without leaving a trace.

I am sorry, but that alone damns the book as a complete and utter fabrication.

There are answers to all of these problems. Steel is obsidian, swords are macuahuitls, horses are tapirs/deer, chariots are sedan chairs, etc. It really comes down to whether you are sufficiently personally motivated to make that leap. So, in that sense, it's kind of not worth the trouble of debating. LDS apologists can take that leap of faith because they approach the subject with faith-based hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is true so there must be a way to arrange the real-world evidence in a way that will support it. John Sorenson, for example, is very honest about this. That makes perfect sense considering the point of view, but you cannot expect a non-believer or a former believer to do the same because they expect the book to be taken at face value and are less likely to allow for reinterpretations to fit the book to the facts.

Here's another example. Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri? You eliminate many people by the very premise because you first have to be faithfully motivated to accept that there really was a Garden of Eden and an Adam and Eve, things that are beyond the reach of empirical discovery. A lot of people believe in the Garden of Eden but only a small percentage believe it was in Missouri. Why? because they have scripture that says it was and they are motivated by their faith to accept that. Then you start looking for evidence to support your belief. Joseph Smith identified Adam's altar. Continental drift has been scientifically verified and the Bible says the earth was divided in the days of Peleg (although it was probably talking about tribal boundaries). Adam-Ondi-Ahman is identified in the D&C and is a real place that you can visit and feel it's "spirit."

Sufficient evidence in support of the Book of Mormon (or any of these other LDS-specific claims) could sway non-believers to accept that there is something to it, but at the current state of archaeological discovery the acceptance of the BoM is really a matter of faith and it's probably not worth the bother of arguing one way or the other if the goal is to convince someone. We have people in two circles of a Venn diagram with very little overlap. It is in the overlap that you find tapirs and macuahitls. The majority who accept fully on faith are not troubled by horses and swords.

Many of us on NOM are in a very unnatural position of having once believed and then changed our minds. If I had had this discussion with ten-years-ago-me I would be so pissed off at now-me for being what I would have considered stiff-necked and narrow minded.

I really appreciate Asa's point of view if it seems like he's behind enemy lines sometimes. Asa is an outsider too, just on a slightly different vector than many of us.

[Charlotte]

Many of us on NOM are in a very unnatural position of having once believed and then changed our minds. If I had had this discussion with ten-years-ago-me I would be so pissed off at now-me for being what I would have considered stiff-necked and narrow minded.

But I believed because someone I trusted told me there was, is, or would be proof to be found. And that other foundational visions, testimonies and accounts were truthful. I stopped and finally asked, Is Joseph Smith an honest - or even mostly honest - person?

So it comes crumbling down. And building something habitable with the wreckage is darn near impossible when your spouse has zero interest, not just in BOM archeology, but all of it. And when this person is otherwise a wide-ranging reader with a deep thirst for knowledge, it's all the more frustrating.

Sorry for the diversion. Back to steel, swords and horses.

[oliver_denom]

Someone tons smarter and more educated than I told me, "No one thought Troy was real until it was found." And with that, discussion is closed.

At least stories about the Trojan war were legitimately ancient.

But you are assuming the very issue in controversy - the age of the narrative . You choose not to believe it is ancient. That choice says a lot about you but nothing about the issue at hand.The fact that the Mayan codices are a relatively recent discovery says nothing about their true age or authenticity nor the society that produced them . If you knew the history of archeology like say Hogarth does you would know that 100 years ago the leading schools dismissed the historicity of the Bible as nothing but tribal myth despite its antiquity. It was not until the 1920s and 30s under guys like WF Albright did professionals begin to consider that the Bible may be genuine history and have value as an archeological tool. Did the fact there was no fossil evidence of Lions in the ANE mean that David didn't kill one? Finally 2900 years after his story a fossilized jaw bone of an Asiatic lion was found in Samaria. Caiaphas was a elusive literary figure unknown outside the Biblical text or according to many purely a mythical figure until his ossuary was found in Jerusalem 25 years ago. There is more in heaven and earth my friend than is dreamed about in your philosophy.

I make the statement because the preponderance of evidence shows the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work. So I'm not making an assumption, I'm going where the existing evidence points. What would be an assumption then? An assumption would be jumping to a conclusion absent evidence, or in contradiction to evidence. In this case, it's an assumption to say the Book of Mormon is ancient, not that it's a product of the 19th century.

[asa]

For whatever it's worth I personally think we all ( believers and non believers alike) would be better off or at least the discourse would be elevated if everyone acknowledged what both Hogarth and I think which is that there is NO archeological evidence in the Western Hemisphere which proves the traditional narrative of the Book of Mormon. Neither was there any such evidence 150 years ago proving the existence of Troy or the destruction of Jericho or the existence of Pontius Pilate , Caiaphas , or the use of Sariah as an personal feminine name in use in the ANE. Now there is.

[asa]

At least stories about the Trojan war were legitimately ancient.

But you are assuming the very issue in controversy - the age of the narrative . You choose not to believe it is ancient. That choice says a lot about you but nothing about the issue at hand.The fact that the Mayan codices are a relatively recent discovery says nothing about their true age or authenticity nor the society that produced them . If you knew the history of archeology like say Hogarth does you would know that 100 years ago the leading schools dismissed the historicity of the Bible as nothing but tribal myth despite its antiquity. It was not until the 1920s and 30s under guys like WF Albright did professionals begin to consider that the Bible may be genuine history and have value as an archeological tool. Did the fact there was no fossil evidence of Lions in the ANE mean that David didn't kill one? Finally 2900 years after his story a fossilized jaw bone of an Asiatic lion was found in Samaria. Caiaphas was a elusive literary figure unknown outside the Biblical text or according to many purely a mythical figure until his ossuary was found in Jerusalem 25 years ago. There is more in heaven and earth my friend than is dreamed about in your philosophy.

I make the statement because the preponderance of evidence shows the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work. So I'm not making an assumption, I'm going where the existing evidence points. What would be an assumption then? An assumption would be jumping to a conclusion absent evidence, or in contradiction to evidence. In this case, it's an assumption to say the Book of Mormon is ancient, not that it's a product of the 19th century.

[oliver_denom]

For whatever it's worth I personally think we all ( believers and non believers alike) would be better off or at least the discourse would be elevated if everyone acknowledged what both Hogarth and I think which is that there is NO archeological evidence in the Western Hemisphere which proves the traditional narrative of the Book of Mormon. Neither was there any such evidence 150 years ago proving the existence of Troy or the destruction of Jericho or the existence of Pontius Pilate , Caiaphas , or the use of Sariah as an personal feminine name in use in the ANE. Now there is.

I don't think anyone denies that new discoveries are made all the time, and that some are surprising.

It would make things more clear, I think, if you were to say that the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is a belief or a faith claim. A belief, or faith, is something you can have without evidence. What muddies the waters is when you bring up archaeology which is a scientific discipline. With a faith claim, a belief is not founded on evidence, therefore its discovery doesn't make much difference other than affirming what one already thinks. The scientific method doesn't work in the same way. An archaeologist may have a hypothesis, but if new evidence shows it to be incorrect, then that hypothesis is abandoned for another. Faith doesn't work that way. A belief remains persistent.

So, what I meant about Troy is that evidence for the city wasn't known, but the stories themselves were known anciently. The same can be said about the bible. We don't know if all the events occurred as written, but we do know that the bible itself is of ancient origin. Since Smith had access to, and we know copied from the Bible, even some of the Book of Mormon is ancient, but that's not very useful for the question at hand. What we want to know is not whether there's evidence the Bible was used to construct the Book of Mormon, but whether the book itself is an ancient American record. For that, we would want to have a look at what he has to say about the new world, things not in the Bible, and see if that matches up. What we find are things contemporary to Joseph Smith, anachronisms, things attributed to the New World which didn't exist at the time, etc. Even Alexander Campbell recognized the doctrine as containing issues contemporary to the day. This, plus the fact that nothing in the new world mentions the Book of Mormon or its characters, nothing showing up until its publication in the early 19th century, all points to it being a 19th century book. That's where the evidence points.

It's not the lack of evidence that shows it to be a 19th century work, but the product of it. So, you can make a faith claim and that's fine, but the empiricist conclusion is not in doubt. The evidence on both sides of this question are no where near equal, and even if they were, the correct position would be "we don't know" as opposed to making a choice and going all in on one side or the other. However, since the evidence is heavily one sided, we're not burdened with such things.

[Not Buying It]

It's not the lack of evidence that shows it to be a 19th century work, but the product of it. So, you can make a faith claim and that's fine, but the empiricist conclusion is not in doubt. The evidence on both sides of this question are no where near equal, and even if they were, the correct position would be "we don't know" as opposed to making a choice and going all in on one side or the other. However, since the evidence is heavily one sided, we're not burdened with such things.

I would agree - the empiricist conclusion is not in doubt. Well said.

[RubinHighlander]

So...I see the website failed to quote anything from Jeffery's talk from 1976 that provides all the relevant and inspired data you need to inaccurately to describe the evolution of America:

With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8.)

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/a-pr ... d?lang=eng

<sarcasm
Don't you see? From Holland we can know that it was the great flood, then the continents separated, then the Jaradites came, then they were wiped out then the Nephites and Muelekites. Silly TBMs, not listening to the inspired words of their own leaders and making up crap about other people that were already here. Okay, maybe one Jaradite survived the great war; so it was really just a typo that should have said "other" instead of "others". Just like the 'n' missing in fulness.

</sarcasm>

[Corsair]

I have a good friend who picked up John L. Sorenson's magnum ops, "Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book". This is the absolute top scholarly work on the subject. After my friend read through this book it was clear to him that the Book of Mormon was baloney with no basis in real history. For him, the hints of a Mesoamerican culture for the Book of Mormon simply added up to how there is simply nothing there to substantiate the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

It is true that "Mormon's Codex" has bolstered the faith of some other stalwart Mormons I know. And I also know that the city of Troy was thought to be a myth for a long time. But this does not mean that we should therefore hold out empirical hope for the city of Zarahemla being found. Mormons simply have a lot of faith in the evidence that has not quite been discovered yet.

[Hagoth]

For whatever it's worth I personally think we all ( believers and non believers alike) would be better off or at least the discourse would be elevated if everyone acknowledged what both Hogarth and I think which is that there is NO archeological evidence in the Western Hemisphere which proves the traditional narrative of the Book of Mormon. Neither was there any such evidence 150 years ago proving the existence of Troy or the destruction of Jericho or the existence of Pontius Pilate , Caiaphas , or the use of Sariah as an personal feminine name in use in the ANE. Now there is.

It's true that evidence continues to surface in support of many aspects of the Bible. But there has ALWAYS been textual and archaeological evidence for the world described in the Bible, and a continuous historical continuity going back to the time the texts were produced. The difference is that there never has been any textual support for the claims of the Book of Mormon, either before or since its sudden appearance in 1830, just as there has never been any archaeological evidence for it. To assume that such evidence will appear at some point doesn't help the BoM's case. Anyone can make the same claim about any fantastic story they might happen to dream up.

I think the people who insist on putting forth confirmationaly biased "evidence" as proof of the BoM would be better off retreating to a safe distance of claiming that the book is intended to be accepted entirely on faith. When I see peer reviewed papers coming out of BYU I'll start to take them more seriously. Actually, there are some very good peer reviewed papers about the ancient Americas by BYU archaeologists but they never mention anything about the BoM in them or make any attempts to correlate the real world with the BoM universe.

[20/20hind]

The bom is made up history. Its alot like fake news. The blog is a far reaching attempt to keep the made up history alive and well.