Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[Stephen168]

I suspect we have shown all we need to show that Mormonism fails the archaeology test. Most Mormons don’t care if it does. Their spiritual feeling trumps archaeology.

Richard Lyman Bushman basically said that in his testimony.

 

[TOmNossor]

You may not think that Joseph Smith’s incorrect statements regarding BOM geography are relevant, but they are. The LDS church uses the BOM as evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet. As such, Joseph Smith’s claims about all aspects of the BOM are entirely relevant.

I may have said this and it approaches my view closely, but it is actually not precisely my view. Joseph Smith not knowing BOM geography is both positive and negative evidence for the CoJCoLDS.
The simplistic views of what it is to be a prophet FAIL in the first few days of Mormonism. This is not as strong a version of Mormonism as could exist if God prevented any flaws or errors from coming from His prophets. If God so overwhelmed His church’s leaders this way, be they Pope or Prophet, then we would have very little to discuss. The perfection of Joseph Smith and all LDS prophets would be so evident that only a fool would reject the CoJCoLDS. Alternatively the perfection of the Pope would be so evidence that only a fool would reject the Catholic Church. But neither of these occurs.
I think the imperfections of the Pope fit easier in Catholic thought than do the imperfections in the prophet. (queue a quote about the words of the prophet being the same as the words of God). I think there are very HUMAN reasons for this, but imperfect prophets are a greater negative for the CoJCoLDS than are imperfect Popes for Catholicism. That being said, I think imperfections of the prophets fit well into the CoJCoLDS if you really look at the full scope of what LDS leaders have taught about it (and the Biblical example I keep offering).

The fact that the BOM evidences a coherent geography and Joseph Smith couldn’t speak to it very well is also evidence that Joseph Smith didn’t write the BOM. This is in alignment with LDS truth claims. The only non-LDS theories that account for this almost completely vanished about 2 decades ago with the publishing of Spauldings “Manuscript Found.” One of the LDS critics here embraces the resurrection of this theory, but few non-LDS historians do. So, the “manuscript still not found Spaulding theory” fits well with Joseph’s ignorance concerning BOM geography, but other theories are negatively impacted IMO.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I also haven’t seen the volumes of archaeological evidence in this thread. Where is the evidence of a pre-Columbian horse culture? Where are the swords or other evidence of steel making?

I think the absence of horses is the biggest archeological difficulty for the BOM, but as I mentioned in the post you quoted, it is a weighing of positives and “explanations for negatives.”
I personally believe that the problematic BOM horse is best explained (though not emptied of negative impact) by the belief that the term horse in the BOM does not represent a horse. Alternatively it is possible that the horse was present, but only elites used horses. Jarad Diamond would be quite shocked to find a culture that was not transformed by the presence of a small group of horses that theoretically could have reproduced into a large group of horses, but he would surely see the parallels in the lack of fish consumption by the Newfoundland settlements. This would allow for elites to have horses a status symbols rather than something that transforms a culture as horses are want to do.
Swords and metal are smaller problems, but not positives for the BOM either. The sword is sufficiently explained by the Macuahuitl. Steel or metal in general are not totally absent in Mesoamerica.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You state that Catholicism has a greater truth claim than Protestantism, but then you believe Joseph Smith has even greater truth claims. Joseph Smith took one of the underlying assumptions of the Protestant Reformation - that the Catholic Church somewhere along the way went wrong and ceased to be the church Jesus Christ founded - and ran with it. If you don’t believe Protestantism’s truth claims are stronger than Catholicism’s, how can Joseph Smith’s be even stronger?

There is a Catholic cardinal who wrote about how Mormonism was the reasonable result of the Protestant reformation.
I can see his point and yours. I also see within LDS thought a great deal of coping of Protestant thought on apostasy. The facts used by Protestants in Joseph’s day are negative evidence against Catholicism just like horses are negative evidence against the BOM. That being said, the fact that history evidences that Christ picked apostles and apostles picked local leaders IMO is a greater positive for some version of Catholicism than the evidences Protestants site for apostasy. In addition to this, Protestant theology is a theology developed by the very authorities Protestants reject. The development of this theology occurs in parallel to the development of the authority Protestants reject. How could the Catholic leaders be PERFECT in their development of theology and totally wrong in their development of authority? These issues set beside the mess (IMO) that is the development of Catholic authority/theology are why I think Catholicism makes a more compelling case than Protestantism.

As a LDS, I accept the need for an authority chosen by God. It is in this that I see evidence of an apostasy. The word “apostasy” in LDS thought does not mean a complete abandoning of belief BTW. That has been a point of contention in past Catholic discussions. I also place much less value upon the developed theology. Good men tried to interpret the Bible and the teachings of men with real authority (the apostles had authority beyond local cities IMO). The result is often good, but not perfect. And the Bible is also the result of good men preserving the words of men who could write scripture, but it is not inerrant in LDS thought either.

Anyway, my point is that I believe LDS have avoided the bigger pitfalls of Protestantism. It is in these pitfalls that I think Catholicism makes a stronger case than Protestantism, but in the avoidance of these that I think the CoJCoLDS makes a stronger case than Catholicism.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I have read both, from a perspective that was neither Mormon nor Catholic, and I do assure you with all my heart, a thorough comparison of sources from both sides, has the Catholic position twice as strong as the Mormon.

I flatter myself that after devoting considerable effort to the teachings and history of a few religions, Mormonism being one of them, that I have a reasonable understanding of some of them. And I am willing to learn more about them, within reason. So I for one am 100% willing to reconsider specific archaeological evidence, preferably a piece at time. Should there be a separate thread for each piece??

This would entail actual artifacts of some sort, not commonalities among multiple cultures. Commonality among cultures would be enough to accept Ignatius L. Donnelly’s conclusions that Atlantis was the source for pyramids, divine triads and dodecads, all the flood stories around the world, and most everything else of consequence in the ancient world. Also acceptable are accounts or testimonies from multiple sources, the way that Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus, each outside the New Testament, vouch for the roles of Felix and Festus in the New Testament.

I sincerely apologize if I have overlooked or misinterpreted what you presented. I absolutely would be interested in specific archaeological, historical, or textual evidence directly supporting the Book of Mormon. I would be happy to see actual photographs of the gold plates, the Urim and Thummim, pre-Columbian documents or stelae in reformed Egyptian, or whatever artifacts actually are presentable relating directly to Mormonism. The Book of Mormon took place in America. We cannot say the very existence of America is evidence of the Book of Mormon, any more than we can say that the existence of Rome or Israel is evidence of the New Testament, or the existence of Arabia is evidence that the Koran is true. Those are relevant, but in themselves they are not evidence. Evidence is more specific, isn’t it?

I promise not to call your sources anti-Catholic if you won’t call mine anti-Mormon, agreed? I mean, they might be anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon, but we should not be distracted by that, focusing instead on the arguments themselves – the evidence and the accounts. Does that sound reasonable?

I am not sure how concerned I am about the label of sources. I think it is evidence that matters too though.
I have offered three things in addition to the Gartner list (the three things are part of the Gartner list, but I am more familiar with the three things).
I think I have responded to every response I have received concerning these sources before Mar 22, '14, 8:09 pm (the date of the post I am responding too now) that I thought addressed the validity of them as evidence. I said, “This thread is about archeological evidence for the BOM. I have offered VOLUMES of archeological evidence for the BOM, but the loudest response I have received is “Smith lied.”” I have responded to this loudest response a few times too. I have skimmed most of the posts after Mar 22, '14, 8:09 pm and I hope to respond to them especially when they interact with the 3 pieces of evidence I offered.

I might say that I have offered volumes of evidence for the BOM derived from archeology. Volcanic activity is documented via archeology, but I am not sure it would be consider archeology proper. Nahom is a product of archeology proper. Teotihuacan is also a product of archeology proper.
Anyway, I have mentioned the above three things and I think I have responded to the very limited responses I got already. I will be responding to some more response in a bit (from my skimming I think one is something I already responded to in almost the exact form which is understandable, but I am the only LDS posting here and I cannot keep up).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You say you have provided “volumes” of information supporting your position, and all you get back is “smith lied”!?!

I don’t think you’ve read the responses you were given. I think I mentioned this in an earlier thread when you made mention that nobody was paying attention to your supposed proofs.

It works both ways. You can’t expect that whatever you give won’t be disputed. You expect people to read all of your posts, read your references, and just absorb it. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. You need to read and absorb what is presented to you also.

I most certainly chose my words carefully and I did not say what you said I did.
The “loudest” response is “Smith lied.”
The most frequent BY FAR response is a variation of this in that I am called to reject the view of the BOM that has minority adherents and support beginning with Joseph Smith, continuing with a brother of Brigham Young, advocated by a member of the first presidency in 1929 general conference, ….

The minority responses to the actual archeological (derived via archeology) evidence I have offered have also been read by me. And I think I have responded to all of them in this thread also.

So, I do read what is in this thread and I respond as fast as I can. I will not be able to keep up with all of the things here, but I do have the time to read them.

Can you acknowledge that I said, “loudest” and that my “most frequent BY FAR” comment is correct?
Can you find a response to my evidence that I didn’t respond to in some form?

I can only think of one that you might come up with, but I believe I did respond, however, only obliquely. I claimed in a few places that professional archeologist have become LDS and at least two of these were professional Mesoamerican archeologist before their conversion. I have also claimed that no non-Catholic historian see real evidence for Papal Infallibility in history.
To ask for a non-Catholic historian to document a supernatural protection from error possessed by the Catholic Church is to set-up a test that will not be passed.
I can offer Margaret Barker who finds that the BOM fits incredibly well precisely where it should when Lehi departed Jerusalem in 600BC. I do not understand Margaret Barkers theological commitments such that she can claim the BOM is a book sourced from a fellow who left Jerusalem in 600BC and yet she remains a non-LDS, but I suspect she is an anomaly. She will be as rare as the non-Catholic who claims Papal Infallibility is a protection God offers Catholicism.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The Bible, being a collection of books, need not be scrapped in whole upon the removal of one of its contents. If that were the case, Mormons would have no Bible at all, because the Bible you use is the result of the removal of several

books!
I am sorry I didn’t get my point across.
If the Bible is what Catholicism claims it to be, the fact that Jonah was wrong evidences that prophets can be wrong.
The test offered by Catholics here that Joseph Smith fails is not a valid test within a religion that believes Jonah was a prophet and did not have his prophetic mantle removed from him.
BTW, in my skimming of future comments, Jonah is called “disobedient.” Disobedient he was, but whoever made that comment missed the point (which I thought was clear, but again maybe I was wrong).
Jonah was a prophet and he communicated with God. Jonah believed that God would destroy Nineveh and that Jonah was to prophesy this destruction to the people of Nineveh. Jonah ULTIMATELY did what he thought he was told to do and prophesied the destruction of Nineveh. The Bible which Catholics claim is inerrant offers no reason to believe that Jonah was told that the destruction of Nineveh was conditional on Nineveh not repenting and Jonah offered no such conditional statement to Nineveh. Indeed Jonah’s knowledge from his communication with God led Jonah to be certain that there was no such conditional aspect of this prophesy. Well, Nineveh repented, God didn’t destroy Nineveh, and Jonah was pissed off at God. God dealt mercifully with Jonah and Jonah got over his anger with God and as best we can tell continued in his calling as a prophet of God.
To use the reasoning offered here, either God lied to Jonah or Jonah was a false prophet. I reject both of those. As should all Catholics IMO.

Your comment in response to my saying Jonah was wrong, evidences that you may be willing to scrap individual books out of the Bible, but that is not the Catholic view of the Bible. Trying to read you charitably, I doubt that was your point actually. Instead your intention was to say that LDS do not have all the books in the Bible that they should. Is my charitable read of you correct, or should I stick with your words? I think reading with charity is important especially on Internet message boards where we do not have folks to review our words to make sure they convey what was intended.

So, I am well aware of the fact that LDSs use of the Protestant Bible is an adoption of a Protestant version of the Bible rather than the Catholic version of the Bible. I believe this is a pragmatic decision and I reject Biblical inerrancy anyway. So the Bible LDS use is sufficient but not perfect.

I am not sure when I will get to the rest of your post and the 2 pages to which I still have not responded.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Jonah was a prophet and he communicated with God. Jonah believed that God would destroy Nineveh and that Jonah was to prophesy this destruction to the people of Nineveh. Jonah ULTIMATELY did what he thought he was told to do and prophesied the destruction of Nineveh. The Bible which Catholics claim is inerrant offers no reason to believe that Jonah was told that the destruction of Nineveh was conditional on Nineveh not repenting and Jonah offered no such conditional statement to Nineveh. Indeed Jonah’s knowledge from his communication with God led Jonah to be certain that there was no such conditional aspect of this prophesy. Well, Nineveh repented, God didn’t destroy Nineveh, and Jonah was pissed off at God. God dealt mercifully with Jonah and Jonah got over his anger with God and as best we can tell continued in his calling as a prophet of God.

"Tobias 14:14-15:

At the ripe old age of 117 Tobias died, having lived long enough to hear about the destruction of Nineveh and to see King Cyaxares of Media take the people away as captives. Tobias praised God for the way that he had punished the people of Nineveh and Assyria. As long as he lived he gave thanks for what God had done to Nineveh.

To use the reasoning offered here, either God lied to Jonah or Jonah was a false prophet. I reject both of those. As should all Catholics IMO.

Or God did not lie and Jonah was in impatient prophet.

 

[TexanKnight]

am sorry I didn’t get my point across.
If the Bible is what Catholicism claims it to be, the fact that Jonah was wrong evidences that prophets can be wrong.

Again, Jonah was impatient and disobeyed. That is a far cry from womanizing like js, like cheating in a bank scandal like js, trying to wife swap like js, getting caught in adultery like js, breaking the law like js. Making blood oaths like BY, preaching false doctrine like BY, etc.

The test offered by Catholics here that Joseph Smith fails is not a valid test within a religion that believes Jonah was a prophet and did not have his prophetic mantle removed from him.

Wrong, for the reasons stated above. The fact you try to compare all the illegal and immoral conduct of js with a guy who simply disobeys shows how weak you argument is

 

[Tarquin]

The fact that the BOM evidences a coherent geography and Joseph Smith couldn’t speak to it very well is also evidence that Joseph Smith didn’t write the BOM.

The flip side of this, then, is that if someone were to have written a fictional book, his geography would be incoherent? Like Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings,” Ursula K. LeGuin’s “The Dispossessed,” Robert E. Howard’s “Conan the Barbarian,” or in terms of religious-historical subjects, Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” Ballough’s “Oahspe”? How could anyone suggest Tolkien’s and LeGuin’s geographies are incoherent? And if a geography is coherent, why couldn’t the person first acquainted with it, speak to it, as Tolkien, LeGuin, and Howard certainly did? And how does a writer’s failure to “speak to” what he is writing serve as evidence that what he is writing is true?

 

[Tarquin]

am sorry I didn’t get my point across.
If the Bible is what Catholicism claims it to be, the fact that Jonah was wrong evidences that prophets can be wrong.

Again, Jonah was impatient and disobeyed. That is a far cry from womanizing like js, like cheating in a bank scandal like js, trying to wife swap like js, getting caught in adultery like js, breaking the law like js. Making blood oaths like BY, preaching false doctrine like BY, etc.

The test offered by Catholics here that Joseph Smith fails is not a valid test within a religion that believes Jonah was a prophet and did not have his prophetic mantle removed from him.

Wrong, for the reasons stated above. The fact you try to compare all the illegal and immoral conduct of js with a guy who simply disobeys shows how weak you argument is

In terms of archaeological evidence, the culture and traditions of the people in the Bible, their history and literature, include prophets acting on behalf of the God of the Jews and for Israel, and later acting on behalf Jesus and supporting early Christianity. This is true, regardless of whether or not they accomplished what they were called to do. The culture, traditions, history, and literature of pre-Columbian America, including the small area of Mesoamerica by itself, include nothing about Moses, Jews, Israel, Jesus, Christianity, Nephites, Lamanites. Whether Jonah existed, and whether or not he failed or was imperfect, it is absolutely certain that there is no literature of even a fictional Jewish prophet, let alone an actual one, in pre-Columbian American literature.

 

[Tarquin]

I think the absence of horses is the biggest archeological difficulty for the BOM, but as I mentioned in the post you quoted, it is a weighing of positives and “explanations for negatives.”
I personally believe that the problematic BOM horse is best explained (though not emptied of negative impact) by the belief that the term horse in the BOM does not represent a horse.

”Horse” does not mean “horse”!? Does it mean camel, or llama, or mastodon, or two people carrying a litter on which the “rider” is perched? If you are arguing that “horse” does not mean “horse,” you must tell us what it does mean. If “horse” doesn’t mean “horse,” I’m afraid that for anyone who buys into that idea, the Book of Mormon will lose all reliability as a coherent record and trustworthy guide human conduct, and lose any value it might have for the history it describes. If “horse” does not mean “horse,” how can we hope to fathom what is meant by words like “God,” “Christ,” “war,” “love,” or “salvation”!? Shouldn’t we be taking a reasonable approach? Shouldn’t we accept words as they are? When we read “city,” “water,” “warrior,” “sword,” “goat,” “horse,” shouldn’t we understand them as referring to city, water, warrior, sword, goat, and horse? Otherwise, can we understand Jonah 4:1, which reads “But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry,” to mean, “But it pleased Jonah exceedingly, and he was not angry”? Why not, if horse means not-horse.

 

[TexanKnight]

”Horse” does not mean “horse”!? Does it mean camel, or llama, or mastodon, or two people carrying a litter on which the “rider” is perched? If you are arguing that “horse” does not mean “horse,” you must tell us what it does mean. If “horse” doesn’t mean “horse,” I’m afraid that for anyone who buys into that idea, the Book of Mormon will lose all reliability as a coherent record and trustworthy guide human conduct, and lose any value it might have for the history it describes. If “horse” does not mean “horse,” how can we hope to fathom what is meant by words like “God,” “Christ,” “war,” “love,” or “salvation”!? Shouldn’t we be taking a reasonable approach? Shouldn’t we accept words as they are? When we read “city,” “water,” “warrior,” “sword,” “goat,” “horse,” shouldn’t we understand them as referring to city, water, warrior, sword, goat, and horse? Otherwise, can we understand Jonah 4:1, which reads “But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry,” to mean, “But it pleased Jonah exceedingly, and he was not angry”? Why not, if horse means not-horse.

Yes…Tom’s explanation does not hold water. Since js was not translating, but was getting his words by looking into a hat well enough to write the b of m in King James English, you would think whatever power was giving him the translation would have used correct animals and not said one when it meant another.

 

[truthsilence]

Tom,

You’ve brought up the story of Jonah a few times here, which has me wondering what this biblical story has to do with archeological evidences for the BOM! Or why you would have us wondering whether God lied, or Jonah was a false Prophet!

What the story actually teaches us is the depth of love and mercy God has for all people as well as what happens when we want to follow our own desires rather than the will of God.

There is a beautiful truth here that you are apparently missing, because you are so compelled to try and vindicate Joseph Smith. This, to me, is perhaps one of the saddest parts of this whole thread.

“When we ignore and run from God’s will, we eventually find ourselves in the “belly of the whale” — that place of darkness where we cannot see what direction to go in. As soon as Jonah concludes that he should say “yes” to God’s call, he sees the light of day.” ~ Joe Paprocki “Was Jonah literally swallowed by the Whale?”

I pray you will continue to discern the truth of all you have left behind. There is nothing in Mormonism that you cannot find in a charitable social club. No valid Sacraments, and especially, no Eucharist. Whatever bonds keeping you from returning home are just not worth it.

 

[iepuras]

”Horse” does not mean “horse”!? Does it mean camel, or llama, or mastodon, or two people carrying a litter on which the “rider” is perched? If you are arguing that “horse” does not mean “horse,” you must tell us what it does mean. If “horse” doesn’t mean “horse,” I’m afraid that for anyone who buys into that idea, the Book of Mormon will lose all reliability as a coherent record and trustworthy guide human conduct, and lose any value it might have for the history it describes. If “horse” does not mean “horse,” how can we hope to fathom what is meant by words like “God,” “Christ,” “war,” “love,” or “salvation”!? Shouldn’t we be taking a reasonable approach? Shouldn’t we accept words as they are? When we read “city,” “water,” “warrior,” “sword,” “goat,” “horse,” shouldn’t we understand them as referring to city, water, warrior, sword, goat, and horse? Otherwise, can we understand Jonah 4:1, which reads “But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry,” to mean, “But it pleased Jonah exceedingly, and he was not angry”? Why not, if horse means not-horse.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course unless that horse in in the Book of Mormon. Then it looks as awful lot like a tapir.

 

[iepuras]

I may have said this and it approaches my view closely, but it is actually not precisely my view. Joseph Smith not knowing BOM geography is both positive and negative evidence for the CoJCoLDS.
The simplistic views of what it is to be a prophet FAIL in the first few days of Mormonism. This is not as strong a version of Mormonism as could exist if God prevented any flaws or errors from coming from His prophets. If God so overwhelmed His church’s leaders this way, be they Pope or Prophet, then we would have very little to discuss. The perfection of Joseph Smith and all LDS prophets would be so evident that only a fool would reject the CoJCoLDS. Alternatively the perfection of the Pope would be so evidence that only a fool would reject the Catholic Church. But neither of these occurs.
I think the imperfections of the Pope fit easier in Catholic thought than do the imperfections in the prophet. (queue a quote about the words of the prophet being the same as the words of God). I think there are very HUMAN reasons for this, but imperfect prophets are a greater negative for the CoJCoLDS than are imperfect Popes for Catholicism. That being said, I think imperfections of the prophets fit well into the CoJCoLDS if you really look at the full scope of what LDS leaders have taught about it (and the Biblical example I keep offering).

The fact that the BOM evidences a coherent geography and Joseph Smith couldn’t speak to it very well is also evidence that Joseph Smith didn’t write the BOM. This is in alignment with LDS truth claims. The only non-LDS theories that account for this almost completely vanished about 2 decades ago with the publishing of Spauldings “Manuscript Found.” One of the LDS critics here embraces the resurrection of this theory, but few non-LDS historians do. So, the “manuscript still not found Spaulding theory” fits well with Joseph’s ignorance concerning BOM geography, but other theories are negatively impacted IMO.
Charity, TOm

Where did anyone claim that prophets or popes are supposed to be perfect or without sin?

Please show me the precendent in the OT where prophets were commanded by God to steal another man’s wife and claim her as his own or to exchange eternal salvation for marriage to a 14 year old girl.

 

[iepuras]

I think the absence of horses is the biggest archeological difficulty for the BOM, but as I mentioned in the post you quoted, it is a weighing of positives and “explanations for negatives.”
I personally believe that the problematic BOM horse is best explained (though not emptied of negative impact) by the belief that the term horse in the BOM does not represent a horse. Alternatively it is possible that the horse was present, but only elites used horses. Jarad Diamond would be quite shocked to find a culture that was not transformed by the presence of a small group of horses that theoretically could have reproduced into a large group of horses, but he would surely see the parallels in the lack of fish consumption by the Newfoundland settlements. This would allow for elites to have horses a status symbols rather than something that transforms a culture as horses are want to do.
Swords and metal are smaller problems, but not positives for the BOM either. The sword is sufficiently explained by the Macuahuitl. Steel or metal in general are not totally absent in Mesoamerica.
Charity, TOm

So, do you think it is believable that Nephite and Lamanite elites had horses but then all traces of the horse completely disappeared after the great battle at the end of the BOM? So zero horses ever escaped or were stolen? Or if horses did escape or were stolen, God just zapped them out of existence? If they were only for the elites wouldn’t we expect to see artwork showing kings riding on horses or being transported around in chariots? As we saw when Europeans invaded the New World, it didn’t take long for horses to be lost or escape and form herds in the wild. And this couldn’t have happened with Nephite or Lamanite horses?

So what animal do you believe is the BOM “horse” if it is not a real horse? Is it a tapir since you seem to prefer the Central America BOM theories? The llama? The llama was the only known domesticated large animal in the pre-Columbian New World; however, the llama was only found in the Andes, not in Central America.

 

[TexanKnight]

Where did anyone claim that prophets or popes are supposed to be perfect or without sin?

Please show me the precendent in the OT where prophets were commanded by God to steal another man’s wife and claim her as his own or to exchange eternal salvation for marriage to a 14 year old girl.

or where God told prophets in the Bible that it was ok to wife swap

 

[TOmNossor]

Since you brought this up here rather than a separate thread on “Nahom”, I will share my view here. I don’t think that fits the definition of archaeological evidence, but if it could, I would have to point out that you are misrepresenting the facts. I also do not believe the journey involves much detail at all. Please feel free to provide the detail in this or a separate thread on Lehi’s journey.

Of course, we all know where Jerusalem is, and there are many artifacts from centuries of human habitation in and around Jerusalem. There are Canaanite, Egyptian, Jewish (Israelitish), Roman, and other artifacts and chronicles - evidence.

But no one knows where any Nahom or Bountiful is. (The ones named in the Book of Mormon.) There is not the least clue for these two places. In the case of Nahom, there is absolutely no detail at all. The only thing connected with Nahom in the Book of Mormon, if I understand correctly, is the burial of some virtually unknown person. There are no details that help in locating the alleged site. Rome has been described in terms of its Seven Hills, the temples, the Forum, and so on. Nahom, nothing above ground.

What “details” do we know about Bountiful? Virtually none. It lies “south of Desolation” wherever that is. It extends or is between the “east unto the west sea”, wherever and whatever those are. It’s north of Jershon, wherever that is. It was “fortified,” wherever and however, and a “narrow pass” somewhere was “secured” somehow, and there’s some kind of “temple” there, only one, and possibly a number of churches and synagogues sufficient for “a great multitude,” which I must believe is more than a hundred, more than tens of thousands (Helaman 3:8, 26). I am not trying to be facetious or disrespectful. The sad fact is, there is not a single recognizable location in all of this. Those who are interested in geographical support for the Book of Mormon are not looking for “could be” sites, but definite “is” and “are” locations. So far, since 1492, nothing has been found that correlates directly with anything distinctly related to the Book of Mormon.
Tarquin,
First, I have assumed a familiarity with the BOM that is missing in your above response. I will try to clarify. I do not know your history with the BOM. The city Bountiful you mention is in the New World. The city Bountiful I mention is in the Old World. It fits with Jerusalem, Nahom, and Bountiful impressively.
Second, if by archeology you mean solely the existence of a city sign that says “here is Zarahemla,” or “Nephi was here.” such will not occur in the New World. Though if that is really all you want, if the BOM is an ancient history and if the Jaredites are the Olemec people (this is Sorenson’s and my view), then the Jaredite king Kish is contained in the Olemec archeological records. I am MUCH less impressed by this than I am by the things I have been offering, but it is the type of thing I am guessing you are suggesting we should find.

In the Old World there are two places mentioned not named by Lehi’s band. There is reason to believe that these locations are called the same thing they were called 2600 years ago when Lehi walked by. The New World has no such continuity. I have offered that Santa Rosa = Zarahemla. This is an educated guess from John Sorenson. There is nothing in archeology that precludes the ancient name of Santa Rosa being Zarahemla and certainly nothing that preclude this being the name offered it by the authors of the BOM. But, the New World is very different from the Old in that there is almost no continuity of place names.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Since you brought this up here rather than a separate thread on “Nahom”, I will share my view here. I don’t think that fits the definition of archaeological evidence, but if it could, I would have to point out that you are misrepresenting the facts. I also do not believe the journey involves much detail at all. Please feel free to provide the detail in this or a separate thread on Lehi’s journey.

You may know something of archeology that I do not. Why do you claim Nahom is not archeological evidence for the BOM? I am unfamiliar with this claim. Perhaps you are unaware that there are Altars inscribed to identify this place dating to Lehi’s time? Anyway, if there is some technicality the demands Nahom does not fit into the category “archeological evidence for the BOM,” because it is not archeology, I do not know this and will proceed until you correct me. And truth be told, I am unsure how Nahom could be so separated from archeology proper that it does not belong in this thread. The name Alma being a male (this was at one point a criticism of the BOM BTW) evidenced in ancient archeology is IMO still archeological evidence for the BOM, but less powerful than Nahom.
Charity, TOm