Mormon Historocity - A Reflection of Irony?

[baker]

Kevin,


Whew! Let me start off with a suggestion: "de-caf postum" (or Jack Daniels, you really need to take the edge off!).

Now let me clarify something I did not know, and that is that you were referring to Columbus et. al. with your 1100 yr. comment. I thought you were referring to something that had to do with the bom history.

Also, "radio-silent" was meant as an expression, that I thought you would be familiar with, which means something to the effect of "we haven't heard from them for a while". It was in reference to the "broken chain of record" issue - ie. a lapse in records from a civilzation. (By the way, after doing a google search I found out you are right, and Columbus did not have any radios back then. Sorry, I really should have known this. Too bad though, think of all the hip-hop music he and his men were missing out on!)

I hope that clears up some of the confusion/rant.

You seem to think that by merely making a claim that the BoM represents true history, that one has the automatic burden of proof. Well, the LDS faith has never even tried to offer "proof" for this.

I'm not following you here. Whether or not it is proof or evidence, I thought there was a whole bevy (call me if you don't know what I mean by bevy ) of information written and produce by FARMS attempting to demonstrate the bom historcity. Didn't you just give me some refrence to Hamblin about his work on the history and archaeology.

How can you now say that the lds faith has never tried to demonstrate that this history (again, not religious story) ever existed?

From day one it has always been something that was accepted by faith. Now you may not like this answer, but it is true.

Perhaps this is a key difference. One does not have to have faith to know the history (not religious story) contained in the bible existed. The archaeological evidence speaks for itself. So are you saying that one must have faith to know the history (not religious story) of the bom existed?

Thats why I presented the following hypothetical about a son:

"Better yet, if your child came home one day and said:

"Dad, I failed my Central American history test because I wrote down that it was originally settled by 5 million Norwegians. Now my teacher said I was wrong but I prayed about and I have faith that I am right. Could you please meet with my teacher and tell her change my grade because I have faith"!


I was trying to demonstrate the differences in what I see as the standards of reason employed in evaluating "history" claims, not religious claims. I don't think any of us would tolerate our children thinking like this.

I already know this to be a very well reasoned argument given the fact that everytime I turn on a documentary on Ancient America, the scholars are constantly asking themselves, "Where did all the people go?" They ask the same thing about the lost city of Atlantis, which many have argued to have been located in modern Brazil.

Kevin, ask yourself this - how did these scholars conclude there were people there to begin with? Then ask yourself, how do I conclude that the peoples in the bom existed. I can assure you the scholars did not conclude based on faith.

As far as a "sophisticated" language being disconnected from societies, have you ever heard of the Rosetta Stone? Before it was discovered, the rest of the world was rendered helpless in trying to decipher Egytian. The language was lost to the world. Likewise, it is a well known fact that during Cortez's invasion, he burned thousands of books written in Mayan, which would have given us clues in deciphering their language. In 1970 scholars were only able to decipher about 5% of Mayan writings, but today, thanks to recent findings, scholars can decipher close to 70%.

Again Kevin, I think you are validating my argument for me here. There was extensive writings to be deciphered enabling the Rosetta stone to have a purpose. Writings existed for Mayan scholars to decipher. What can scholars look and conclude reflect evidence of writings of reformed egyptian? (By the way, will we need a reformed Rosetta Stone to decipher it when it is discovered?)

Anyway, I think that covers most of your post. Do I make sense here?

 

[TOmNossor]

Kevin,


Whew! Let me start off with a suggestion: "de-caf postum" (or Jack Daniels, you really need to take the edge off!).

Now let me clarify something I did not know, and that is that you were referring to Columbus et. al. with your 1100 yr. comment. I thought you were referring to something that had to do with the bom history.

Also, "radio-silent" was meant as an expression, that I thought you would be familiar with, which means something to the effect of "we haven't heard from them for a while". It was in reference to the "broken chain of record" issue - ie. a lapse in records from a civilzation. (By the way, after doing a google search I found out you are right, and Columbus did not have any radios back then. Sorry, I really should have known this. Too bad though, think of all the hip-hop music he and his men were missing out on!)

I hope that clears up some of the confusion/rant.

I'm not following you here. Whether or not it is proof or evidence, I thought there was a whole bevy (call me if you don't know what I mean by bevy ) of information written and produce by FARMS attempting to demonstrate the bom historcity. Didn't you just give me some refrence to Hamblin about his work on the history and archaeology.

How can you now say that the lds faith has never tried to demonstrate that this history (again, not religious story) ever existed?

Perhaps this is a key difference. One does not have to have faith to know the history (not religious story) contained in the bible existed. The archaeological evidence speaks for itself. So are you saying that one must have faith to know the history (not religious story) of the bom existed?

Thats why I presented the following hypothetical about a son:

"Better yet, if your child came home one day and said:

"Dad, I failed my Central American history test because I wrote down that it was originally settled by 5 million Norwegians. Now my teacher said I was wrong but I prayed about and I have faith that I am right. Could you please meet with my teacher and tell her change my grade because I have faith"!


I was trying to demonstrate the differences in what I see as the standards of reason employed in evaluating "history" claims, not religious claims. I don't think any of us would tolerate our children thinking like this.

Kevin, ask yourself this - how did these scholars conclude there were people there to begin with? Then ask yourself, how do I conclude that the peoples in the bom existed. I can assure you the scholars did not conclude based on faith.

Again Kevin, I think you are validating my argument for me here. There was extensive writings to be deciphered enabling the Rosetta stone to have a purpose. Writings existed for Mayan scholars to decipher. What can scholars look and conclude reflect evidence of writings of reformed egyptian? (By the way, will we need a reformed Rosetta Stone to decipher it when it is discovered?)

Anyway, I think that covers most of your post. Do I make sense here?

Baker,



A few things that I think you seem to be missing.

First, was there an extensive civilization in Mesoamerica between 400BC and 400AD?

Yes!



Second, do we have records that would explain what cultures existed during this time?

No!



Second sub-question, in fact do we know much about them at all?

I would say “No!”



A “yes” to the first question and a “no” to the second question is all that is necessary for the BOM to stand strong and proud. The Second sub-question also being essentially “no” is just icing on the cake.



I believe it was either Elder Oaks (or President Hinckley but I am pretty sure it was Elder Oaks) that addressed FARMS and explained that FARMS would not PROVE the BOM. But that it was important to provide evidences.



"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." (Austin Farrer, Light on C. S. Lewis



This was quoted by Oaks in the talk. This pretty much makes it clear that FARMS is not to and will not PROVE the BOM.



The issue is that you will not prove the BOM to be false. Archeology has not done this.

The Church does not believe the BOM due to archeological evidence. The miracles associated with its coming forward, the continual falling down of one ant-argument after another, the old world journey evidences, the Hebrew poetic structures, the Jewish names, the parallels with the DSS, …, but most of all the witness of the Spirit are why we believe.



If all I had was new world archeology, then I wouldn’t believe. But I have all of the above and more.



It is upon you to prove that the BOM could not have taken place anywhere. This of course is virtually impossible, but that is not an issue when we as LDS have so many reasons to believe anyway.



Some would say that a good theory is easily falsifiable, but this is not the venue in which the BOM exists. Was Christ resurrected? Secular sources will never prove or disprove this. The coming for of the BOM is a miracle. Secular sources will never prove or disprove. If you want you may try to prove it is not real, but the onus is on you.



Charity, TOm

 

[baker]

Baker,



A few things that I think you seem to be missing.

First, was there an extensive civilization in Mesoamerica between 400BC and 400AD?

Yes!

Tom, I know this is "what" you believe, my question is and has been, outside of faith, what is your BASIS for this conclusion?

I believe it was either Elder Oaks (or President Hinckley but I am pretty sure it was Elder Oaks) that addressed FARMS and explained that FARMS would not PROVE the BOM. But that it was important to provide evidences.

I don't follow you here. If they KNEW it could not be proven, why was it important to spend time trying to find evidence for something they KNEW they could not prove? This seems so non-sensical to me.

This pretty much makes it clear that FARMS is not to and will not PROVE the BOM.

Well hey, if the Office of the First Prsidency tells FARMS not to prove the bom, and they are in effect funding FARMS, FARMS best not prove the bom! Makes sense to me!

The issue is that you will not prove the BOM to be false. Archeology has not done this.

Archaeology is not a tool to prove a negative. Apologists are used for that!

The Church does not believe the BOM due to archeological evidence. The miracles associated with its coming forward, the continual falling down of one ant-argument after another, the old world journey evidences, the Hebrew poetic structures, the Jewish names, the parallels with the DSS, …, but most of all the witness of the Spirit are why we believe.

If all I had was new world archeology, then I wouldn’t believe. But I have all of the above and more.

Like always, I appreciate your testimony.

It is upon you to prove that the BOM could not have taken place anywhere.

Now why is it my job again? I don't claim that it ever took place. I claim there is no reputable archaeological evidence that exists to support the claim you are making. If there is, show me.

This of course is virtually impossible, but that is not an issue when we as LDS have so many reasons to believe anyway.

Truer words could not have been spoken.

 

[baker]

I will try.

You'll be the judge of how "reputable" they are.

TW

TW,

Any luck yet?

I know, this could be harder than finding archaeological support for the bom.

 

[twhite982]

TW,

Any luck yet?

I know, this could be harder than finding archaeological support for the bom.

I looked a little between posts.

There is an inscription found in Yemin that is linked to "Nahom" (1 Nephi 16:34).
http://www.lehistrail.com/research/index.php?id=973125366

There are of course better sites that verify this, but I haven't looked too hard so this is what I've come up with in my brief search.
The references in the bottom of the page will provide a more in-depth look.



We'll start with this. Let me know how it goes.

TW

 

[dabum2004]

Quote from Role Troll:
==Why do atheists and agnostics accept much of the Bible as being historically true, but reject the historical contentions of the Book of Mormon?

Why do Atheists and agnostics, when they accept it as being historically true, not convert to Christianity?

There is much against the Book of Mormon. I admit that. However, there is much for it. Kevin actually has addressed a few things that I would not have known about, like the discovery of cement roads and such.

The Bible, and I know that you can agree with me on this, is not verified by it's archaeological proof. As it says many times within the Bible (new testament especially!), that the knowledge of the truth of his teachings are based on faith. It is even compared to grain of mustard, in Matthew 17:20.

It is faith that strengthens a knowledge of Christ. Faith in the doctrine of God is how the truth can be known.

==Are the scientists so certain that Mormonism is the true religion that they falsify all of the scientific evidence and their beliefs in order to protect all non-Mormonism? Do they check with the BoM before announcing any historical data, and hide the data if it might corroborate the claims of the BoM?

No. Scientists base their conclusion on what they believe/know to be true. I suppose that there are Mormon scientists out there too

==If scientists are so biased that they will only believe what they want to believe, how do scientific theories change, such as the belief in creationism giving way to evolution? Do you distrust all scientists, or only those who give results that contradict the BoM?

I don't distrust all scientists. I don't distrust any of them. To do so would be wrong. Because of what I have faith to be true, I naturally just assume that the results that seemingly contradict the Book of Mormon would be later proven that they were not applicable to the Book of Mormon in the first place.

Scientists do their best, to try to do their jobs and try to have an unbiased opinion in their findings. I respect them for that.

As for the theories changes, I know that they change. That is why when findings "that disprove" the Book of Mormon are found, I can rest assured, that may still be a possiblity that it may not be complete in study as of yet.

It is because of my faith that it is true, that I believe these things.

 

[dabum2004]

==Tom, I know this is "what" you believe, my question is and has been, outside of faith, what is your BASIS for this conclusion?

His basis is faith. And anyway, I am not sure if that was his question. He asked "was there an extensive civilization that lived in Mesoamerica between 400 B.C. to 400 A.D.?" Personally, I think that people were here upon this continent long before it's "discovery". I don't think that he was referring to the Nephites and Lamanites in this question.


==I don't follow you here. If they KNEW it could not be proven, why was it important to spend time trying to find evidence for something they KNEW they could not prove? This seems so non-sensical to me.

Only the faith that it is true, along with the spirit of the Lord, can bear witness of it's "proof."


==Well hey, if the Office of the First Prsidency tells FARMS not to prove the bom, and they are in effect funding FARMS, FARMS best not prove the bom! Makes sense to me!

Their job is to provide evidences. Again, faith is the catalyst here to "prove" it's truth.


==Archaeology is not a tool to prove a negative. Apologists are used for that!


Archaeology is not a tool to prove a positive either. Like was discussed earlier, what of the flood, or of the Ark of the Covenant, or of the Ten Commandments, or of the Ark of Noah, etc.

Just because traditional "knowledge" and "archaeological findings"(or lack of) point to the idea that they never existed, that does not mean that they never existed. It is the faith that binds us to our beliefs, not "proof" (or lack of it.)


==Like always, I appreciate your testimony.

I appreciate it too.


==Now why is it my job again? I don't claim that it ever took place. I claim there is no reputable archaeological evidence that exists to support the claim you are making. If there is, show me.

I think that what he is trying to relate here, is that you insist on "proof" that the Book of Mormon is true. I think that he is just trying to sort of, "turn the tables," and ask you to "prove" your claim also.

 

[Doc T]

Tell you what Twhite - since we're talking about science here, I'll take you up and read any site you can provide me that is written/prepared by a reputable "non-lds" scholar or organization, qualified in an appropriate field, to comment on the Historocity or Archaeology of the bom.

Doc: The problem here Baker is there are very few Mesoamericanist that are specialist in the Preclassic and late Preclassic time frame that the BofM takes place. Add to that, I can probably safely say that less than 1% of them have read anything from the BofM let alone the whole book so they have no idea what the BofM claims. So what I am saying is that you are asking for evidence for a non-existing entity.

Now before I get beat up, I'm am not inferring that lds scholars are not reputable, but I would conclude they are not objective with respect to this subject.

Doc: Can you name one scholar who does not have biases? One scholar that is totally objective? They all have biases so that is not the issue. The issue is to demonstrate where the LDS scholars are wrong. No one here has been able to do that yet. All you want to do is dismiss them.


~

 

[Doc T]

Bump for Baker

 

[baker]

Doc,

Wasn't trying to ignore you, but have been in three different states over the past two days. I know Kevin was getting a bit anxious.

Doc: The problem here Baker is there are very few Mesoamericanist that are specialist in the Preclassic and late Preclassic time frame that the BofM takes place.

Doc, I agree. However, I would conclude, using some basic logic, that most scholars or history specialists do not study things that never existed. Therefore it is not a "problem", it is a logical "result".

Add to that, I can probably safely say that less than 1% of them have read anything from the BofM let alone the whole book so they have no idea what the BofM claims.

I'm not sure what your basis for this statement is. I'm also not sure it is relevent. A reading or understanding of the claims included in the Bible is not neccessary to study ancient middle east history or archaeology. Its existance is not impacted by the claims of a religious story.

So what I am saying is that you are asking for evidence for a non-existing entity.

I think we're getting close now.

Doc: Can you name one scholar who does not have biases? One scholar that is totally objective? They all have biases so that is not the issue.

True perhaps. It is the recognition and acceptance of the claims within their work by those individuals and organizations respected in the particular field. It is not about what "letters" they have after their name.

The issue is to demonstrate where the LDS scholars are wrong.

Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. The issue is to demonstrate where any of this scholarship has been accepted.

No one here has been able to do that yet. All you want to do is dismiss them.

First of all, it is not "them" that is being dismissed, it is this so-called "scholarship" that is being dismissed. Second, it is not I who dismisses it, it is the entire worldwide academic community, including BYU. Where is this accepted or taught as "history" or "archaeology"?

 

[baker]

I looked a little between posts.

There is an inscription found in Yemin that is linked to "Nahom" (1 Nephi 16:34).
http://www.lehistrail.com/research/index.php?id=973125366

There are of course better sites that verify this, but I haven't looked too hard so this is what I've come up with in my brief search.
The references in the bottom of the page will provide a more in-depth look.



We'll start with this. Let me know how it goes.

TW

Twhite,

I am a bit confused here. How does a rock inscription found in the middle east provide archaeological evidence for a history claim here on this continent?

 

[twhite982]

Twhite,

I am a bit confused here. How does a rock inscription found in the middle east provide archaeological evidence for a history claim here on this continent?

Nahom was the burial place for Ismael when Lehi and Ismael's family were leaving Jerusulem to travel to the Americas.

1 Ne 16:34
34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.

This is evidence that lends credance to the BofM, whether you see it as relevant or not.

TW

 

[baker]

Nahom was the burial place for Ismael when Lehi and Ismael's family were leaving Jerusulem to travel to the Americas.

1 Ne 16:34
34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.

This is evidence that lends credance to the BofM, whether you see it as relevant or not.

TW

But this is my point.

I'm not asking for credence of the religious story contained in the bom. I had asked for sites that gave evidence of the history claim in the bom about the people, places, political systems, economies and migrations that existed here on this continent.

Besides, a rock inscription "NHM" does not prove NAHOM.

 

[twhite982]

But this is my point.

I'm not asking for credence of the religious story contained in the bom. I had asked for sites that gave evidence of the history claim in the bom about the people, places, political systems, economies and migrations that existed here on this continent.

Besides, a rock inscription "NHM" does not prove NAHOM.

Did you read the article?

This is my point in that the BofM claims that Lehi & Ismael left Jerusulem around 600BC. While the purpose of the BofM is spiritual and is not meant as a roadmap to archeology, the events nontheless happened.
The point of this "evidence" is to show that the "story" can be validated and happened as described.

Why don't you consider this event historical?

TW

 

[Kevin Graham]

== Besides, a rock inscription "NHM" does not prove NAHOM.

What would you say if non-LDS scholars believe that it does?

 

[baker]

Did you read the article?

This is my point in that the BofM claims that Lehi & Ismael left Jerusulem around 600BC. While the purpose of the BofM is spiritual and is not meant as a roadmap to archeology, the events nontheless happened.
The point of this "evidence" is to show that the "story" can be validated and happened as described.

Why don't you consider this event historical?

TW

What I am saying is that the history claim of the bom is almost entirely set in north america (somewhere). The rock and inscription was not found on this continent.

I think what you hypothysis is trying to claim is: We found a rock in the middle east. The rock can be linked to a story in the bom. The bom happend in this continent. Therefor we have evidence for the bom's claim of history here on this continent.

Again, your clim of history is therefore dependent on the bom and its religious story, not on any archaeological evindence found here on htis continent. In other words, your are using the bom story to provide evidence of the bom historocity. IMHO, that is not logical.

 

[baker]

== Besides, a rock inscription "NHM" does not prove NAHOM.

What would you say if non-LDS scholars believe that it does?

Kevin,

My statement was without any religious bias.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

I looked a little between posts.

There is an inscription found in Yemin that is linked to "Nahom" (1 Nephi 16:34).
http://www.lehistrail.com/research/index.php?id=973125366

There are of course better sites that verify this, but I haven't looked too hard so this is what I've come up with in my brief search.
The references in the bottom of the page will provide a more in-depth look.



We'll start with this. Let me know how it goes.

TW

TW, I just read that article on the link you posted and it said that information of the alters of Nahom came from LDS writings on this subject that they got from a German archeological team but it doesn't say who these archological team was or even where one can find info on this team and their findings. Do you happen to know this information and could refer it to us? I have read a story very simular to the one on this site, on the Crackedplanet site but don't recal him (Jeff Linsey) giving any information on this either, I will have to go back and read it again to be sure but do you have this information?

Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

TW, I just read that article on the link you posted and it said that information of the alters of Nahom came from LDS writings on this subject that they got from a German archeological team but it doesn't say who these archological team was or even where one can find info on this team and their findings. Do you happen to know this information and could refer it to us? I have read a story very simular to the one on this site, on the Crackedplanet site but don't recal him (Jeff Linsey) giving any information on this either, I will have to go back and read it again to be sure but do you have this information?

Grace

TW, I forgot to mention that I have been doing a web search on "the city of Nahom", the "alter of nahom" and "nahom" and all I have been able to find so far is LDS sites that have pretty much the same story and a few articles about the Egyption god "nahom".

God Bless,
Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

TW, I forgot to mention that I have been doing a web search on "the city of Nahom", the "alter of nahom" and "nahom" and all I have been able to find so far is LDS sites that have pretty much the same story and a few articles about the Egyption god "nahom".

God Bless,
Grace

Sorry, mix up there...actually not an "egyption god nahom" but rather and "ethiopian OT promise of Nahom". sorry, I was writing an email and my post at the same time...need to focus on one thing at a time.

Grace