Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[TOmNossor]

Bushman said one of the thing he likes about being Mormonism is, “…I admire the empiricism of Mormon belief. By that I mean that it is open to empirical testing, using concrete evidence.” This is not unique to Mormonism. And then he seems to say that isn’t important to Mormons, when he writes, “Mormons are in the anomalous position of saying that a spiritual testimony, not empirical proof, undergirds their faith, while all the while furiously working to dig up evidence in support of the Book of Mormon.”

When he spoke of Evangelicals finding “Jesus’ bones” he says that Evangelicals gave that as an example of empirical evidence. As he said Christians are not looking for “Jesus bones” because they don’t expect them to be there.

He does seem to admire Mormons looking for what should be there, but he never says it is there. My favorite quote is so typically Mormon, “I admire their courage, and furthermore their arguments must be taken seriously.” He suggests there are serious arguments but isn’t able to name any.

So what he likes about Mormonism is not unique to Mormonism, is not important in Mormonism, and fails in its application.
To my knowledge Bushman never suggests that the evidence supporting the BOM is lacking. I believe he may have said at some time that he doesn’t expect PROOF to come out of the dirt or texts or … Elder Maxwell said as much himself if I recall correctly.
My position is not that the BOM is PROVEN, but that the pro-BOM from God case is stronger than any possible other source for the BOM.
That this debate is not important to most LDS is true. Similarities abound in Catholic communities.

My favorite quote is so typically Mormon, “I admire their courage, and furthermore their arguments must be taken seriously.” He suggests there are serious arguments but isn’t able to name any.

Nobody takes seriously the arguments named by me here (I did get a link on Nahom at least). And Bushman is speaking at an ecumenical gathering at a Catholic college as a historian and scholar with almost no training in Mesoamerican Archeology.
I find his words quite appropriate. Of course perhaps that is because I am a LDS.
Charity, TOm

 

[Nicea325]

Geez…if only the world would have ended when js prophesied it would (in the late 1800s), then no one would have never discovered how much he lied and misled everyone and the current leaders would not to keep backtracking and misrepresenting his teachings.

One of the biggest problems with the Book of Mormon is the fact there is no archaeological evidence to support it.It would be helpful if Mormons could, at least, agree to where it all took place. The only place they agreed on was Cumorah, and when lds leaders realized the fraud of that, they backtracked to say that no one really knows where Cumorah is, either

Exactly! How can anyone claim something is factual and yet not provide a single shred of evidence? It is obvious a lie cannot be proven as a living fact!

 

[TexanKnight]

Still not answering, Tom?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sounds like a very interesting conference I wish I could have attended.
Are you sure that was Bushman’s point?
I read his address and I can begin to see how that might have reached you, but I do not think he had that in mind at all.
My past readings of him have suggested to me that he loves the willingness of LDS archeologist to really dig into the evidence and thought it peculiar that Evangelicals speak of finding “Jesus’s bones,” but are never really looking for them.
Aside from this, I do not think Archeology is a big Bushman area of study. I know he is familiar with Sorenson’s work, but I doubt he knows much of Gartner and John Clark and …
Anyway, here is the address I found:
rooneycenter.nd.edu/assets/120501/mormon_loneliness.pdf
Charity, TOm

Thanks for the link. I agree that Bushman concedes there is no historical evidence for Mormonism. He describes how/why Mormons need to mine Christian history in order to build a Mormon history. Which is of course, the approach we see here from LDS members. But it is a backwards approach. A method that seeks to mold Christian history to Mormon belief. You should understand why non-Mormons wouldn’t take this seriously.

 

[Porknpie]

Sounds like a very interesting conference I wish I could have attended.
Are you sure that was Bushman’s point?
I read his address and I can begin to see how that might have reached you, but I do not think he had that in mind at all.
My past readings of him have suggested to me that he loves the willingness of LDS archeologist to really dig into the evidence and thought it peculiar that Evangelicals speak of finding “Jesus’s bones,” but are never really looking for them.
Aside from this, I do not think Archeology is a big Bushman area of study. I know he is familiar with Sorenson’s work, but I doubt he knows much of Gartner and John Clark and …
Anyway, here is the address I found:
rooneycenter.nd.edu/assets/120501/mormon_loneliness.pdf
Charity, TOm

Tom, thanks for the link and it is his speech. My paraphrase was of his comments on the Golden Plates, that he needed help with this and that they were purely imaginary. It seemed to me he was implying that evidence did not exist for them

PnP

 

[Stephen168]

To my knowledge Bushman never suggests that the evidence supporting the BOM is lacking. I believe he may have said at some time that he doesn’t expect PROOF to come out of the dirt or texts or … Elder Maxwell said as much himself if I recall correctly.

When he says that Mormonism can be empirically tested and then fails to list proof while saying proof is not important to Mormons. That equals; there is no proof.

My position is not that the BOM is PROVEN, but that the pro-BOM from God case is stronger than any possible other source for the BOM.

To say the Book of Mormon is true/proven, we must first define what true is. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is true if we claim it is 19th century American fiction. Joseph Smith claimed the BoM is the source of the American Indians. It is this claim that is a lie. Now the Mormon Church wanted to change its claim about how the BoM is true. They what the BoM to be about just a few American Indians. This is what Simon Southerton was talking about, “In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.”
So when put against the claim of the founder of Mormonism, you are wrong. There is no pro-BoM case. There is zero chance the Book of Mormon is true.

That this debate is not important to most LDS is true. Similarities abound in Catholic communities.

More accurately Bushman said empirical proof is not important to Mormons; yet Mormons are digging up the Americas trying to find empirical proof.

Nobody takes seriously the arguments named by me here (I did get a link on Nahom at least).

The evidence against the BoM (as claimed by Joseph Smith) is too strong.

And Bushman is speaking at an ecumenical gathering at a Catholic college as a historian and scholar with almost no training in Mesoamerican Archeology.
I find his words quite appropriate. Of course perhaps that is because I am a LDS.

All my quotes from Bushman were from his “testimony.” I would assume that to be a Mormon audience. He could have given at least one example of serious empirical proof, but I think he knows that is impossible.

 

[TexanKnight]

still waiting, Tom

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;11747732:

Nobody takes seriously the arguments named by me here (I did get a link on Nahom at least). And Bushman is speaking at an ecumenical gathering at a Catholic college as a historian and scholar with almost no training in Mesoamerican Archeology.

The evidence against the BoM (as claimed by Joseph Smith) is too strong.
Ok. Let’s be clear here.
Nahom has nothing to do with a non-Joseph Smith reading of the BOM.
Jerusalem-Nahom-Bountiful occur in precisely the correct location with supporting geography described by the BOM. I linked to a book about 81 points of convergence here. This IMO is powerful evidence against any 18th century production theory AND it conflicts with no leader’s concept of the location of the BOM.

Next, I have read a fair amount of Sorenson and Gartner and Coe. My assessment of the strength of the BOM in Mesoamerica is based upon the fitting of the geography, populations, natural phenomena, and … Your above statement says, you do not need to evaluate the volumes of things included in a link I provided to one of my old posts, Sorenson’s recent book, or this that I have been mentioning in this thread:

There is an identifiable location mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This requires a land northward of the main Nephite holdings, being devoid of trees, being near much water, and having buildings made of cement. That particular set of characteristics points rather directly at the Teotihuacan of 250-600 AD- which matches the time period in which the Book of Mormon points to this set of characteristics.
That is fine.
However, if a book produced in the 1830’s in upstate NY describes Mesoamerica with the points of contact Gartner and Sorenson provide, this is remarkable IMO. I choose to evaluate it and find your dismissal of it unwarranted.

At this point we can agree to disagree. If I can wrap up my “why I can look to Mesoamerica and …” as I want then I will post that. If not, I may or may post a modified version.
Until then, I will continue to be impressed by the way the BOM describes an ancient journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful AND how it describes multiple things in Mesoamerica. I will continue to believe that these are things that are out of place for a book written in NY in 1830. You can continue to discount this with statements about hemispheric geography.

All my quotes from Bushman were from his “testimony.” I would assume that to be a Mormon audience. He could have given at least one example of serious empirical proof, but I think he knows that is impossible.

I do not believe your assumption is warranted. Instead, I expect that Bushman is aware of Mesoamerican archeology and upstate NY arguments. I also expect he has put little time into evaluating them individually or collectively as he is a historian who specializes in 1800 or so America (not 100AD America or Mesoamerica).
BTW, truth be told I have not evaluated the upstate NY arguments extensively as I have always rejected the position that update NY is the only place LDS can look AND I find such strength in Mesoamerica.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, thanks for the link and it is his speech. My paraphrase was of his comments on the Golden Plates, that he needed help with this and that they were purely imaginary. It seemed to me he was implying that evidence did not exist for them

PnP

I think it virtually impossible that Bushman thinks the plates are imaginary in the sense that they never existed. Dan Vogel doesn’t even believe this.
Instead, the plates have a mystical quality in the church today as they are not around and yet appear in the minds, hearts, artwork, … of LDS frequently.
His main focus as I understand currently is on 1800’s farming culture, but I believe he is also producing a book about the gold plates. Based upon my knowledge of Bushman, that book will include volumes of references to the gold plates both as physical objects and as PURELY spiritual (perhaps even imaginary) objects. Bushman will attempt to present what the experiencers of the plates believed they were experiencing (again some experiencers will speak/believe of physical plates and others on non-physical experiences linked to plates purported to be physical). I am quite certain his book will not say definitively that the plates were produced in 400AD by Moroni, and I doubt he will provide his opinion on this in his book either.
Of course my contact with Bushman includes primarily his public works and a single email that has no bearing on this subject, so perhaps you can know his mind better than I can know his mind.
Charity, TOm

 

[twopekinguys]

Let’s not forget Thomas Ferguson, a Mormon archeologist that couldn’t find any geological proof for the bom, and ultimately left the church, if I remember correctly.

“The real implication of the paper is that you can’t set the Book of Mormon geography down anywhere ‑‑ because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt‑archeology. I should say ‑‑ what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.”

Thomas Ferguson, Thomas Ferguson, Mormon founder of LDS‑sponsored New World Archaeological Foundation

 

[TexanKnight]

Still waiting, Tom

 

[Stephen168]

Ok. Let’s be clear here.
Nahom has nothing to do with a non-Joseph Smith reading of the BOM. Jerusalem-Nahom-Bountiful occur in precisely the correct location with supporting geography described by the BOM. I linked to a book about 81 points of convergence here. This IMO is powerful evidence against any 18th century production theory AND it conflicts with no leader’s concept of the location of the BOM.
Next, I have read a fair amount of Sorenson and Gartner and Coe. My assessment of the strength of the BOM in Mesoamerica is based upon the fitting of the geography, populations, natural phenomena, and … Your above statement says, you do not need to evaluate the volumes of things included in a link I provided to one of my old posts, Sorenson’s recent book, or this that I have been mentioning in this thread:

Sorenson and Gardner are Mormon

Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, wrote,
Michael D. Coe:

Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, … The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.

 

[TOmNossor]

Let’s not forget Thomas Ferguson, a Mormon archeologist that couldn’t find any geological proof for the bom, and ultimately left the church, if I remember correctly.

“The real implication of the paper is that you can’t set the Book of Mormon geography down anywhere ‑‑ because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt‑archeology. I should say ‑‑ what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.”

Thomas Ferguson, Thomas Ferguson, Mormon founder of LDS‑sponsored New World Archaeological Foundation
I am not sure it matters to you or anyone, but…
I will acknowledge that Ferguson conducted and coordinated volumes of archeological work for the purpose of proving the BOM to be an ancient document. Some of his professional archeological colleagues remained faithful LDS and suggested that his expectation to have proof of the BOM within 10 years was the bigger problem than what archeology was uncovering. Ferguson was not a trained archeologist. Of course neither am I.

Sorenson and Gardner are Mormon

Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, wrote,
Dr. Coe has great respect for Dr. Sorenson (and Dr. Clark who I have not mentioned). Sorenson claims that Coe is an expert on Mesoamerica, but that his biggest miss is his less thorough understanding of the BOM.
In one area, only tangentially related to the BOM, Sorenson is a diffusionist (together with many but not a majority of non-LDS archeologist) and Coe is not a diffusionist. My understanding is that they do not agree with eachother here either, but they respect the differences. I only mention this because there are many non-Mormon diffusionist (and I think the best point is that Coe has not studied the BOM as extensively has Sorenson).
BTW, Sorenson has send Coe his latest book and I for one look forward to Coe’s thoughts.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Let’s not forget Thomas Ferguson, a Mormon archeologist that couldn’t find any geological proof for the bom, and ultimately left the church, if I remember correctly.

“The real implication of the paper is that you can’t set the Book of Mormon geography down anywhere ‑‑ because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt‑archeology. I should say ‑‑ what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.”

Thomas Ferguson, Thomas Ferguson, Mormon founder of LDS‑sponsored New World Archaeological Foundation

Michael D. Coe:

Thomas Stuart Ferguson, whom I knew, Tom Ferguson was really a wonderful man. He had a long-range vision: that if the church would simply put money into actually digging at these sites, at the right time level and the right place where Zarahemla ought to be, they’re going to find pay dirt; they’re going to find evidence for it; that it’s there. This faith carried him all the way through decade after decade of big excavations in this region by really fine archaeologists working for the New World Archaeological Foundation.
But then a terrible thing happened. The so-called Book of Abraham that Joseph Smith claimed to have derived by reading some Egyptian papyri that were sold to him turned out to be simply just that: Egyptian papyri. They were not the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith said he could actually read this stuff, could read these hieroglyphs, and of course at this point neither he nor anybody else could read those hieroglyphs. So Ferguson lost his faith in one fell swoop. It just fell from him, this whole idea that you’re actually going to find this stuff in the dirt, that pick and shovel are going to come up with Zarahemla. He lost the whole thing.
But the terrible, sad thing was that here he is in Mormon culture with his family, as a churchgoer, and all the social events and good things that are part of a whole Mormon way of life he would lose if he turned his back publicly and openly. And he never did. He went to his grave as a unbeliever but still feeling that the Mormon way of life was the best and not giving it up. So it was a total disjunction between these two things that must have really torn him up.

 

[Stephen168]

Dr. Coe has great respect for Dr. Sorenson (and Dr. Clark who I have not mentioned). Sorenson claims that Coe is an expert on Mesoamerica, but that his biggest miss is his less thorough understanding of the BOM.
In one area, only tangentially related to the BOM, Sorenson is a diffusionist (together with many but not a majority of non-LDS archeologist) and Coe is not a diffusionist. My understanding is that they do not agree with eachother here either, but they respect the differences. I only mention this because there are many non-Mormon diffusionist (and I think the best point is that Coe has not studied the BOM as extensively has Sorenson).

You don’t have to be a diffusionist to know what it is. You don’t have to read the BoM to know what Joseph Smith’s claim is and that his claim is false. Coe,” The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon,** as claimed by Joseph Smith,** is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.”
Michael D. Coe:

To make Book of Mormon archaeology at all kind of believable, my friend John Sorenson has gone this route: He has compared, in a general way, the civilizations of Mexico and Mesoamerica with the civilizations of the western part of the Old World, and he has made a study of how diffusion happens, really very good diffusion studies. He’s tried to build a reasonable picture that these two civilizations weren’t all that different from each other. Well, this is true of all civilizations, actually; there’s nothing new under the sun.
So he has built up what he hopes is a convincing background in which you can put Book of Mormon archaeology, and he’s a very serious, bright guy. But I’m sorry to say that I don’t really buy more than a part of this. I don’t really think you can argue, no matter how bright you are, that what’s said in the Book of Mormon applies to the peoples that we study in Mexico and Central America. That’s one way of doing it – to build up a kind of convincing background, a kind of stage set to this – but there’s no actors. That’s the problem. …

 

[TexanKnight]

I am not sure it matters to you or anyone, but…
I will acknowledge that Ferguson conducted and coordinated volumes of archeological work for the purpose of proving the BOM to be an ancient document. Some of his professional archeological colleagues remained faithful LDS and suggested that his expectation to have proof of the BOM within 10 years was the bigger problem than what archeology was uncovering. Ferguson was not a trained archeologist. Of course neither am I.

Dr. Coe has great respect for Dr. Sorenson (and Dr. Clark who I have not mentioned). Sorenson claims that Coe is an expert on Mesoamerica, but that his biggest miss is his less thorough understanding of the BOM.

In one area, only tangentially related to the BOM, Sorenson is a diffusionist (together with many but not a majority of non-LDS archeologist) and Coe is not a diffusionist. My understanding is that they do not agree with eachother here either, but they respect the differences. I only mention this because there are many non-Mormon diffusionist (and I think the best point is that Coe has not studied the BOM as extensively has Sorenson).
BTW, Sorenson has send Coe his latest book and I for one look forward to Coe’s thoughts.
Charity, TOm

lol…in one sentence you admit you are no Archaeologist, then a few sentences later try to discredit someone who is. How can you possibly find yourself qualified to discredit him?

And please stop dodging my question

 

[RebeccaJ]

In the end, what I see is what a Mormon co-worker once described to me as the need for the LDS Church to own the interpretation of history. In that conversation it was in regards to Nauvoo history, and his recent visit to sites that are owned, ran and thus “interpreted” by the RLDS group of Mormons. He didn’t think their interpretation matched to the Brighamite LDS version, and so the answer, for him, was to gain control of the interpretation so that history would match to belief and belief to history.

Mormons seek to do the same with ALL history that they associate to themselves or hope to associate to themselves. History, to Mormons, is not a matter of fact, associated to a people, culture and events. History is a motherlode of information that is meant to be mined, in order to interpret it to what is believed. It is a pseudo-empircalism, in that, what is falsifiable is ignored, and excused with comments like “history is written by the victors”.

No one, who is employing critical thinking skills, is going to take this attempt to reinterpret history seriously.

 

[RebeccaJ]

lol…in one sentence you admit you are no Archaeologist, then a few sentences later try to discredit someone who is. How can you possibly find yourself qualified to discredit him?

And please stop dodging my question

I’ve noticed the ad hominem fallacy is the most often used rhetorical tool of Mormon apologetics. Seems to align to a law that says, “If you can’t refute with facts, attempt to discredit the author.”

 

[TOmNossor]

lol…in one sentence you admit you are no Archaeologist, then a few sentences later try to discredit someone who is. How can you possibly find yourself qualified to discredit him?

And please stop dodging my question
I have not had personal conversation with Coe who is a first rate archeologist. I am just relating things from Sorenson (or Sorenson’s son I cannot remember).
I am not qualified to question Coe’s archeological knowledge and I didn’t. I passed on Sorenson’s comment that Coe’s archeological knowledge is not the problem rather he is not an expert on the BOM.

I know of no question of yours that I do not believe is quite clearly answered in this thread. I asked that you read my posts and answer your question so that I might evaluate what you have gotten as I am not sure I can be more clear (and I do not want to repeat myself, except when I want to repeat myself, and now I do not want to repeat myself).
Charity, TOm

 

[Miriam1947]

I think it virtually impossible that Bushman thinks the plates are imaginary in the sense that they never existed. Dan Vogel doesn’t even believe this.
Instead, the plates have a mystical quality in the church today as they are not around and yet appear in the minds, hearts, artwork, … of LDS frequently.
His main focus as I understand currently is on 1800’s farming culture, but I believe he is also producing a book about the gold plates. Based upon my knowledge of Bushman, that book will include volumes of references to the gold plates both as physical objects and as PURELY spiritual (perhaps even imaginary) objects. Bushman will attempt to present what the experiencers of the plates believed they were experiencing (again some experiencers will speak/believe of physical plates and others on non-physical experiences linked to plates purported to be physical). I am quite certain his book will not say definitively that the plates were produced in 400AD by Moroni, and I doubt he will provide his opinion on this in his book either.
Of course my contact with Bushman includes primarily his public works and a single email that has no bearing on this subject, so perhaps you can know his mind better than I can know his mind.
Charity, TOm

Why do the gold plates have any value at all since Joseph Smith did not use them for the Book of Mormon but in fact used a seer stone in a hat?