Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[Tarquin]

The theory that horses could have existed in a small numbers as an elite status symbol is one possibility and is not inconsistent with the archeological record.

It is inconsistent with the description of the culture of the people described in the Book of Mormon.

… but we know that horses existed in the Americas and were not alive here when Columbus arrived. … So, large populations of ancient horses in America died, it is not inconceivable that small numbers of horses could have survived/existed during BOM times and went extinct without leaving much of evidence.

It is also possible that the horses were taken up in UFOs. I have no evidence of this however. What evidence do you have that small numbers of Pleistocene or whatever age horses survived into Book of Mormon “times”?

Michael Coe postulated that Joseph Smith (again who Coe finds to be one of the greatest Americans to ever live) naturally included horses in his made up book, but Coe is wrong on two accounts here. First, Coe claims Joseph Smith would be familiar with Indians riding horses, that is not likely to be true as the plains Indians where little known in Joseph time (a few articles about Lewis and Clark were likely available, but Lewis and Clark only became the phenomena we know today much after the BOM). Second, if Joseph was aware of plains Indians and their horses, his BOM horse culture is nothing like that (it is nothing like any known horse culture).

I believe this is called a “straw man” argument. Unless someone here has claimed that Joseph got the idea of horses from plains Indians riding horses. Whether Smith knew that some Indians rode horses or not, he did know that there were horses in America, in his time. Coe can postulate all he wants. If we are going to talk about great Americans, however, we will need specifics, not unsubstantiated assertions.

Alternatively, explorers called animals “horses” that were not and Mesoamericans call horses animals they were familiar with that were quite unrelated to horses. This theory postulates that whatever was translated as “horse” was not a horse.

I know you are going to provide us with some citations for this, I just know it.

Again, horses IMO are negative evidence for the BOM. I do not believe either explanation empties this criticism of its impact.

The Book of Mormon claims the existence of horses in the Americas, North and South, with equipage of some sort, and with chariots, in fact a great number between 600 BC and 400 AD.

 

[iepuras]

Now, Jared Diamond has postulated that horses transform a culture, but he is not 100% correct. No archeologist denies that horses existed in the Americans before Columbus. **The problem is that volumes of evidence suggest that these horses died before BOM times **and thus the mention of horses in the BOM is anachronistic, but these horses did not transform the culture they were a part of in the ways that Diamond postulates horses should.

The theory that horses could have existed in a small numbers as an elite status symbol is one possibility and is not inconsistent with the archeological record. The escape and … you postulate is fine, but we know that horses existed in the Americas and were not alive here when Columbus arrived. This was once viewed as likely a product of climate change, but recent evidence suggest that it was most likely either aided or caused by human hunting. So, large populations of ancient horses in America died, it is not inconceivable that small numbers of horses could have survived/existed during BOM times and went extinct without leaving much of evidence.

Can you please cite an example where a culture was not transformed once the people had domesticated horses?

The volumes of evidence show that Equus ferus (the modern horse), along with other species of horse, went extinct in the Americas around 12,000 BC. The modern horse was domesticated around 3500-4000 BC in Central Asia. There is no evidence the modern horse was ever domesticated in the Americas before it went extinct. The theory that horses could have existed in small numbers as an elite status symbol before going extinct after 400 AD is absolutely inconsistent with the archaeological record because there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever that modern horses existed in the Americas or were ever domesticated prior to their extinction in 12,000 BC. The Clovis culture may very well have had a hand in the extinction of horses in the Americas, but there is no evidence the Clovis culture ever domesticated them. If the horse had been domesticated in the Americas, it probably would not have gone extinct.

Using your logic, I could also say that the theory that domesticated horses in the Americas were all taken up by aliens in UFOs after 400 AD and the aliens then zapped all archaeological evidence of their existence into thin air is not inconsistent with the archaeological record. However, most people would find that theory completely ridiculous.

The thing is that people are artistic, and they are very messy. They leave behind messes for archaeologists to find. It is reasonable to expect that if Nephites and Lamanites existed and were using domesticated horses in any capacity, even if it is just the elites, there would be some sort of art or other artifacts showing the king with a horse. Once the horse was domesticated, it became very valuable. It is highly doubtful that the Nephites and Lamanites would have allowed the horse, once domesticated, to go extinct.

 

[TexanKnight]

Originally Posted by TOmNossor View Post
And, because it is relevant to your particular criticism, I am quite convinced that a more full evaluation of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s character will evidence that they behaved in a way that is clearly far more Christian than how Pope John XII or some other Popes behaved. I am convinced that Joseph Smith was generally a Christian man who repented of his sins and tried to become more Christlike, but I do not believe Catholics are free to offer a test for Christian leadership a number of Catholic Popes would fail.

How can you possibly say that? The final acts of js’ life included asking William Law if he and his wife would be interested in wife swapping, destroying a newspapers’ press machines in violation of the Constitution, trying to cowardly run away, carrying a gun (illegally) in jail, firing blindly into a crowd, and then trying to run away, leaving his friends to face a mob.

As for BY, how can you say that when this is the man who said some of the vilest, racist comments ever uttered by an alleged religious leader, instituted blood oaths, if he did not have a part in MMM, we KNOW he approved of it and went so far as to kick over a memorial to the people slaughtered by the Mormons, encouraged his “Destroying Angels” to kill people, committed adultery, and taught false doctrine.

Do you even truly know LDS history?

 

[TOmNossor]

I think my actual words would be nearer my intent. Because you had implied that the failure of one book would discredit the entire Bible. My point was that, if that is the case, then the LDS use of the Bible is somehow inconsistent since the LDS have judged individual books of the Bible to have failed - the qualifications to be a part of the Bible - and thus they should consider the Bible discredited. Now that I think of it, that is in effect what the LDS Church does do, respectfully speaking.

Furthermore, the LDS removed yet another book, the Song of Solomon.

Your first thought, that I might be willing to remove some books, is not entirely wrong. If I were putting a Bible together, I think I would add the letters of Ignatius and a few other things. I would not be too grieved if 2 John had lost canonicity, although I would preserve it at least in deuterocanonical status. These are my “working thoughts” and not my final conclusion. I, on the contrary, believe the Catholic Bible is the result of “the tradition of the Church” plus reason; whereas the LDS Bible is the adoption of “the tradition of men” via Protestant prejudice (in removing books whose doctrines they wished to exclude) plus bibliolatry. The Protestants acted pragmatically; the LDS did what was convenient.
I make a poor assumption when I assume the posters on this thread who are not me are Catholic. Sorry. Your view is IMO not a Catholic view, but that is fine. Ignatius is not inspired in Catholic thought. The Pastor of Hermas was used similarly to SOME of Ignatius’s letters in the ancient church and to my knowledge it received more discussion concerning canonization than did Ignatius.
My point never was to scrap a book of the Bible, rather my point was to suggest that Jonah’s example teaches us what we should expect from a prophet and IMO does not align with the way those who try to require me to reject a Mesoamerican BOM use word said by a prophet (Jonah’s words were words of the prophet, and wrong –debatably wrong- I do not think Joseph Smith’s words on BOM geography were words of a prophet, only words said by a prophet – please read this distinction charitably so I can say it with a few words rather than hundreds).

When I say pragmatic, I mean that the bible used by the CoJCoLDS is a product of a pragmatic decision to keep a common point of reference with the volumes of Protestants in Joseph’s environment. If the CoJCoLDS is led by a prophet, the Bible is sufficient but not inerrant. I lean in Catholic directions on the formation of the Bible and the removal of books by the reformers. But, it has not been a major point of investigation for me.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

truthsilence:
***Why would it need to come “from the imagination of a farm boy”? He had access to the bible, where a number of his BoM names or close variants thereof are easily found. And maps. Is it unreasonable to assume he had access to maps? ***

publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1413&index=6

***If I am aware of this, surely you, with all your research into the matter, must be. ***
Yes, I am aware of that. You asked if it was “unreasonable to assume he had access to maps?” This is something that I have considered. I derisively refer to this as the basement library of Joseph Smith.
That being said, I am encouraged when the evidence NHM represents is taken seriously enough to acknowledge it must have come from somewhere so maybe it was these old maps.
I think two things are true. These old maps were not widely available. I recall a critic of the church tried to put the map at Dartmouth College before 7 year old Joseph moved. I think he was ultimately wrong about when Dartmouth acquired the map.
In addition to believing it unlikely that Joseph Smith had this source, I also believe that there is not enough detail in this or other maps to create the 10 points of connection I offer. It is not Nahom (with its sematic vowel shift so it doesn’t match the words on the map anyway) alone. It is the fitting of Nahom with all the other geographical information, directional information, and resources in Bountiful (Wadi Sayq) that produces the impact of this (maps are good for Nehem, Jerusalem, and directions – though I do not think any labeled the Frankincense trail complex), but they do not to my knowledge (it has been a while since I researched this) describe Bountiful and its resources nor the valley and river outside of Jerusalem that I reference.
So, in answer to your question, I am aware of various resources that could contribute to the numerous evidences that I think exist for the BOM. I do not think all of the resourced explain all of the evidences even if they were available to Joseph Smith or the author of the BOM. I do not think it likely that all of these resources would be available to any one person (and it is largely because of the Internet that these resources have been identified at all). Finally, I do not think these resources explain things like the spelling of Nahom or many other things that one would expect if these resources were in the hands of the author of the BOM.
Concerning the non-Joseph Smith author of the BOM. This IMO adds a whole set of problems to the ones those trying to explain the BOM already have. Such an author would IMO be hard to conceal. Solemn Spaulding was proffered by multiple folks who claimed familiarity with his word. His work does little to explain some of the above, and surely if Orestes Brownson (or some other 19th century intellectual) had researched sufficiently to produce the SOME/MOST (but not all) of BOM (and then died before the BOM became a topic of discussion) and Joseph Smith copied it, someone would notice just like so many people noticed the passing similarity to Spaulding. We have Manuscript Found from Spaulding. Critics now acknowledge that it is not the source of the BOM, but seems likely to be the source of the recollections of a handful of people who thought it was the source. Within the last decade or so, the “manuscript still not found” Spaulding theories have developed (one adherent on this thread), but such strikes me as a faith filled hope and not much more.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

truthsilence:
Somewhere in the article I linked, it states that Nahom is spelled different on the maps, but the pronunciation is the same. Ok…

So, assuming there was a map Joseph & Co. were using, and assuming it describes the area as well as you seem to think it does, perhaps he said “Nehem” and they wrote “Nahom”.

Now, this might sound like a stretch, but certainly no more than what you’ve suggested in this thread.
I think my above response deals with this generally.
The witness of history is that Joseph paused somehow when proper names were not captures sufficiently. This is an interesting translation artifact that has some pro-BOM apologetic strength, but it witnesses against what you suggest.
And, I have extensively commented on only one thing that I think is very stretchy and witnesses against the BOM. I think Lehi’s journey and the 10 points I outlined (81 points in the book I reference) are incredibly powerful. It is those who try to explain them via natural means that are stretching IMO and not just a little stretch, but a faith filled it cannot be true because God told me stretch.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Book of Mormon claims the existence of horses in the Americas, North and South, with equipage of some sort, and with chariots, in fact a great number between 600 BC and 400 AD.

Speaking of chariots…There were no large domesticated animals to pull a wheeled vehicle, chariot or otherwise, in the Americas. So there was not a parallel development of the axel-wheel combination to the Old World. But of course, Lehi & Co. should have introduced the technology of the axel-wheel to the Americas, if we have stories of their people using chariots. Again, there is no evidence to support this.

 

[TOmNossor]

Yeah, this is why I am losing interest in his arguments. He’s obviously selecting parts of the story that help him best rationalize his testimony.

He’s so convinced by Lehi’s journey - a minuscule part of the BoM story, yet seemingly ignores the fact that no evidence exists for a people numbering in the millions covering thousands of years. I see a problem…he doesn’t. I just don’t get it.
I have explained why finding evidence in the Old World should be easier and is.
That being said I offered two New World evidences and the Gartner list.
I do not believe New World archeology disproves the BOM. I do not believe Coe reads the BOM with a hundredth of the care Sorenson did. That being said there are problems with the BOM that can be focused on exclusively and the produce a case against the BOM. It is my opinion that things like Nahom (and other things) support the weight necessary to accept the plausible (but stretchy) explanations for the problems. These are problems the Mesoamerican Archeology is sufficiently advanced to demonstrate not the problems sometimes celebrated like where is the city sign claiming “this is Zarahemla.” The Old World is the only place to look for a city sign like this and we find the only two the BOM mentions exactly where they should be and in relation to other BOM characteristics exactly as they should be. Your statement “millions covering thousands, …” fails to recognize that the New World did not preserve information like the Old World did. The real problems I have dealt with in this thread and a few others comprise less text than Lehi’s journey. And less text than Lehi’s journey plus the other positive evidences for the BOM too.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Nahom is not a product of archeology proper, the inscription is NHM, one of the minor prophets is named Nahum, it looks to me like JS did the letter switch thing on biblical names, again. As to it fitting in the journey, that looks like stretching the tale to fit the geography. I just don’t find NHM all that convincing, kind of like chiasmus. But this would look really cool in my back yard between the waterfall and the fire place.

First, let me make sure I understand your point.
Nahom is not archeology because NHM (not Nahom) is what is found in the archeological record? Is that you point?
As I have said, NHM is all one could possible find dating to Lehi’s journey as the vowels would be absent. So, if NHM is not a hit then you must dismiss much of Biblical archeology too.
I will have to say that Nahom fitting into the 10 or 81 points offered IMO is quite powerful and I am not sure how you “just don’t find NHM all that convincing.” I know a former atheist critic of the CoJCoLDS who found NHM to be real evidence. When he questioned his Atheism and decided he was a believer he returned to the CoJCoLDS.
Concerning chiasmus, they are definitely not archeology. I think there is something to chiasmus in the BOM, but I have spent less time researching this than other things.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Why would a historian of any stripe find evidence for Papal infallibility in history? Papal infallibility only deals with the faith and morals. If the pope says that the Catholic faith is, Mary was born without original sin where does the historian have a say? If the pope says abortion is a mortal sin, again where does the historian have anything to say about it.

Papal Infallibility and conciliar infallibility claims rise and fall with the witness of history. History was the source of much of the debate at Vatican I. So, non-Catholic historians, do not believe there is evidence in history for Papal Infallibility in the form advocated by the Pope at Vatican I and not in the form ultimately ratified by the council either.
My point of course is that if non-LDS archeologist thought that archeology proved the BOM was an ancient Mesoamerican book their non-LDS status would either be very peculiar OR very temporary. Professional Mesoamerican archeologist have chosen to join the CoJCoLDS. BTW (least I be misunderstood and accused of hiding …), this was not because Mesoamerican archeology proved to them the BOM was true, but it didn’t prove it was false either.
The test I was responding to was to find a non-LDS archeologist who believes the BOM presents real history, but IMO that is a test as likely to be satisfied as a non-Catholic who finds historical evidence the Papacy is protected by error via a supernatural chrism of infallibility.
Charity, TOm

 

[Tarquin]

Your view is IMO not a Catholic view, but that is fine. Ignatius is not inspired in Catholic thought. The Pastor of Hermas was used similarly to SOME of Ignatius’s letters in the ancient church and to my knowledge it received more discussion concerning canonization than did Ignatius.

I was not arguing in favor of the canonization of Ignatius. I was saying that if I compiled a personal “Bible” for myself, I would include Ignatius, just as I would also include the Protoevangelium, “Imitation of Christ,” etc. etc. I was trying to indicate what I find spiritual or helpful or inspiring. I expressed myself poorly and incorrectly in sounding like I was talking about formal, official canonization; I apologize. I’m fine with Hermas, too. I’ve read it to try to understand why it was held in high esteem. I personally do not feel inspired from it, but still I am glad it is in my “New Testament apocrypha” library, for historical as well as ecclesiastical reasons. I also revere (if that is not too strong a word) certain papal encyclicals and think everyone, especially Protestants and Muslims, should read them. I do not consider them “canonical,” but inspirational or at least interesting.

My point never was to scrap a book of the Bible, rather my point was

And my point was not that you suggested removal of books from the Bible. My point was that you were wrong in saying that my remarks about Jonah “evidences that * may be willing to scrap individual books out of the Bible;” and that your view casts doubt on the Mormon church for having done that very thing.

… I do not think Joseph Smith’s words on BOM geography were words of a prophet, only words said by a prophet – please read this distinction charitably so I can say it with a few words rather than hundreds).

I am happy to read that you recognize Joseph Smith’s ignorance of what he claimed to know much about. However, you obviously have not read as much of what he did say, and what others claimed for him, and said on their own authority (JFS, Benson, etc.) about Mormon geography.

When I say pragmatic, I mean that the bible used by the CoJCoLDS is a product of a pragmatic decision to keep a common point of reference with the volumes of Protestants in Joseph’s environment.

I don’t have a problem with pragmatism. I believe the Catholic Church is the most pragmatic Christian denomination there is, outside of the cult world; however, the Catholic Church is led by the Holy Spirit, too, which if I understand correctly “trumps” or to put it better, guides its pragmatism, as a Mind guides the praxis of the body.

If the CoJCoLDS is led by a prophet, the Bible is sufficient but not inerrant.

Mormons want it both ways. Benson claimed “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.” He also said “Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.” That is convenient, to say the very, very least. He also said, “Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.” To translate that, the prophet speaks authoritatively on Book of Mormon geography! He also said, “Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.” And, contrarily, Joseph Fielding Smith said, “My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.”

So which is it, people must wonder. Even Mormons must wonder. Does modern Mormon revelation trump scriptures, or do scriptures set the limit on what modern Mormon revelations can reveal? It does no good to say, “They are in harmony.” Because that is not the point of those “prophets” are claiming. Because what they say is the opposite of harmony. One says Prophets cannot validly teach anything contrary to Scripture. The other says Prophets can teach things regardless of what Scripture says. It is sad that cognitive dissonance prevents Mormons from seeing the most glaring contradictions in their official, allegedly prophetic teachings.

I lean in Catholic directions on the formation of the Bible and the removal of books by the reformers. But, it has not been a major point of investigation for me.

Your lack of concern is lamentable. What is scripture and what is not, what is revealed and what is not, what is divine and what is humanistic, this is necessarily a major and a defining point for me. I want to understand the truth of God, His Will and Providence, and my role in it. I can not understand that, and I cannot comport myself appropriately if I do not know what is expected of me. The removal of books has allowed for major changes - reversals - in doctrinal belief, and has desensitized many to the importance of Bible integrity and doctrinal harmony, both of which are lacking in Mormonism.*

 

[Tarquin]

I think Lehi’s journey and the 10 points I outlined (81 points in the book I reference) are incredibly powerful. It is those who try to explain them via natural means that are stretching IMO and not just a little stretch, but a faith filled it cannot be true because God told me stretch.

It is incredibly powerful because you believed before you looked, and found substantiation for your beliefs. I used to do the same thing. Most people probably act as you do, believing and then finding support. This is natural and there is nothing inherently wrong in it. But once the support is found, the wise person will then evaluate the support itself, to see if it really connects as it is claimed to connect.

There was no Nahom on the Arabian peninsula.
There was, neither in “Mesoamerica” (FAIR) nor all the Americas (all Mormon prophets prior to the DNA studies), any Zarahemla, Mulek, Bountiful, Jacobugath, Anti-Anti, “Amoron,” “Moron” (as in, “I, Moron”), etc. (Certainly Smith had a great sense of humor.)
There is no evidence for it (that I have yet seen).
There was a tribe named “NHM” which the Book of Mormon does not record, which Lehi does not claim he met, and which tribe does not claim was visited by wandering Jews with brass plates, headed for America in order to escape God’s judgment on them. Having escaped, for the preservation of their religion, their religion disappeared; it was not preserved; it was exterminated to the last man. The journey proved vain. God should have known.

 

[Tarquin]

It is not Nahom (with its sematic vowel shift so it doesn’t match the words on the map anyway) alone.

As I said, there was no such vowel shift. If there was, provide some evidence. I am a little familiar with linguistics, language change, and glottochronology. I read research in languages and linguistics. I have studied Hebrew and American Indian languages. I have handy dictionaries of the relevant languages, including Egyptian and Hebrew. Help me understand. Where has this vowel shift been presented?

Concerning the non-Joseph Smith author of the BOM. This IMO adds a whole set of problems to the ones those trying to explain the BOM already have. Such an author would IMO be hard to conceal.

Yes, human authorship proved too hard to conceal. Human authorship is obvious. Either Joseph Smith wrote it, or he plagiarized it when he put his own name as the author.

 

[Tarquin]

As I have said, NHM is all one could possible find dating to Lehi’s journey as the vowels would be absent. So, if NHM is not a hit then you must dismiss much of Biblical archeology too.

This is invalid. No Biblical archaeology need be dismissed, and if it would have to be dismissed, that would not validate the Book of Mormon, but only invalidate the Bible. The Book of Mormon needs its own evidence. You shouldn’t use the Bible as a crutch. The reason NHM is not a hit, is foremost, because it is the name of a tribe, not a place. There is no valid reason outside the similarity (presumably) of three letters to believe the name of the TRIBE is connected with the name of the PLACE named in the Book of Mormon, by a man who admitted swooning and having surrealistic visions.

I will have to say that Nahom fitting into the 10 or 81 points offered IMO is quite powerful and I am not sure how you “just don’t find NHM all that convincing.”

As I intended to imply previously and will state categorically, to make myself clear, there is no power in the arguments about some place named “Nahom” has been found by virtue of a pagan altar erected by someone from a tribe whose name coincidentally shared three letters.

I know a former atheist critic of the CoJCoLDS who found NHM to be real evidence. When he questioned his Atheism and decided he was a believer he returned to the CoJCoLDS.

I can direct you to about twenty atheists, or more, and even more non-atheists, who have studied the Nahom argument in some detail and utterly reject it.

Concerning chiasmus, they are definitely not archeology. I think there is something to chiasmus in the BOM, but I have spent less time researching this than other things.

Have you so soon forgotten what was said in these forums about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. You do not have to know the name of a poetic form in order to mimic it! Don’t you understand this?? When I was in elementary school, I wrote a parody of the 23rd Psalm, mimicking the pattern, mimicking the chiasma. Golly, gee, now that I think about it, maybe that was inspired since when I did it, I had never heard the word “chiasmus” before!

 

[TOmNossor]

Could you provide a source for this please, thanks.

First, concerning what Barkers work does to place the BOM into a context that fits with the idea that Lehi left Jerusalem in 600BC.
publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=1
This is quite long, but it is remarkable. Barker’s non-Mormon reconstruction of First Temple Cult Judaism answers the questions of numerous critics concerning the theology present in the BOM and the reason Lehi’s band as a source fits PERFECTLY there.
Of course, I didn’t claim Barker’s work was used by LDS to show the BOM is precisely what it claims to be, I claimed that Barker, herself, saw precisely what should be their if the BOM is what it claims to be. Here are her words:

These are from her presentation at the Library of Congress.
byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=7141&linkURL=44.4BarkerPreexilic-fb893f65-0851-4eb2-99d1-0e6d85d8a8bb.pdf
joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

This revelation to Joseph Smith was the exact ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.

The extraordinary similarity between a text that is sometimes called the History of the Rechabites and sometimes the Narrative of Zosimus—the extraordinary similarity between this story and the story of Lehi leaving Jerusalem—has already been studied by Mormon scholars. This ancient text, which survives in Greek, Syriac, and Ethioptic, tells the story of some people who left Jerusalem about 600 BCE and they went to live in a “blessed land.” They didn’t drink wine. They were called the sons of Rechab1, which could mean that Rechab was their ancestor, or it could be the Hebrew way of saying that they were temple servants, priests who served the divine throne. In their blessed lands, angels had announced to them the incarnation of the Word of God from the holy virgin who is the mother of God. Nobody can explain this text.

Last year I published a commentary on Isaiah that showed that the original Isaiah of Jerusalem knew the Enoch traditions but was not much concerned with Moses. Instead, Isaiah’s world was the world of Enoch’s angels.Other scholars are now exploring the possibility that Enoch traditions underlie some of the older stories in Genesis. Enoch traditions could have been very important in 600 bce, just as the revelation to Joseph Smith implies (1 Nephi 1:8–11; 8:5; 11:14; Jacob 7:5–7; Omni 1:25; Mosiah 3:2; Mosiah 27:11).

The original temple tradition was that Yahweh the Lord was the son of God Most high, present on earth in the Messiah. This means that the older religion in Israel would have taught about the Messiah, and so, finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, but something obscured by incorrect reading of the scriptures. And this, I suggest, is one aspect of the restoration of the “plain and precious things” which have been taken away.

A nice summary of some of his interaction with Margaret Barker is this from Kevin Christiansen:

When I got in contact ten years ago, I just offered my essays as they came, and assured her that she was free to disagree publically or privately. Her 2005 talk at the Joseph Smith conference (as published in BYU Studies, with some additions), gives as direct a statement as anyone could want. She five times refers to the Book of Mormon as a “revelation to Joseph Smith” and in each instance, read in context, she means exactly that. At one point, I sent her a draft of my Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem essay. After she read that, she decided she needed to read the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price completely. She managed in one day, and reported, “I was amazed at how much I recognized.”

It’s not just literary reasons that impress her, and me, for that matter. It’s the convergence of themes, time, and place, with 600 BCE Jerusalem as the key. Joseph’s revelation and her reconstruction cast light on each other. I think her work is part of the fulfillment of 1 Nephi 13:39-41.

Anyway, Barker’s not an archeologist (though she studies some archeology and VOLUMES of ancient texts). But she is a non-Mormon who sees powerful evidence that the BOM is exactly what it claims it is. She will be an anomaly.
I have known some folks who can powerfully comment on the strength of religions they do not embrace, but they again are not common.
Charity, TOm

 

[Tarquin]

Your statement “millions covering thousands, …” fails to recognize that the New World did not preserve information like the Old World did.

It’s not about “information” per se. It’s about the remains of a civilization that numbered in the millions, who not being immortal died, their bodies decomposed or were cremated and their bones were left behind, who fought large-scale wars, who had numberless houses made specifically out of cement, who had all kinds of things tools, weapons, chariots, harnesses, hammers, tongs, “barley” (but no maize or chocolate, apparently), horses, goats, etc., but which left virtually no trace. Nothing. Not even a church or synagogue or temple, blood-soaked Temples of the Sun notwithstanding.

Not even a genuine linguistic connection between any tribe Mesoamerica, let alone all the Americas and the isles of the sea, as the Mormon prophets claimed the Nephites had populated, and Hebrew, Egyptian, Arabic, or anything. American languages are not even in the same language families as languages in the Old World, Arctic circle languages being the possible exception. (I doubt any would dare argue that the Arctic peoples are the remnant of the Mesoamerica civilization.) Semitic languages from 2000 years ago are still recognizable as Semitic languages today: Old World Semitic languages did not diverge so much as to establish entire new families. There are over 30 language families in the Americas, as different from one another as the Semitic family is from Indo-European and the Sinitic languages.

No books, no gold plates, no silver plates, no stone tablets, not stelae, no monuments, no inscriptions, neither coins nor weights, no tribal histories, no tribal legends, not tribal names, no personal names, no topographic names, no religious terms, no political terms, no military terms, no equine terms (“horse” often being “big dog”; why didn’t they call dog “little horse” since dogs obviously came later than horses in America), nothing relating to Book of Mormon, except by, as you say, a tremendous “stretch,” as to which “true believers” are wont to appeal in the absence of real evidence.

 

[Tarquin]

The “extraordinary similarity” between the The Narrative of Zosimus and the Book of Mormon is neither extraordinary, although the “Narrative of Zosimus” is extraordinary, nor persuasive regarding the Book of Mormon as a genuine history.

From an introduction to the Narrative of Zosimus:
“While the style is inelegant and sometimes obscure, the matter of the book is very interesting, and shows considerable powers of imagination. The land of the Blessed is reached by means of a camel, which comes from the desert, and then by a storm of wind, which carries Zosimus along with it. He is addressed by the river to which he comes, as well as by the wall of cloud which rises above it, and is finally lifted across it by two trees. The origin of the Blessed Ones is noteworthy, as connecting the story with early literature on the Lost Tribes. They are the descendants of Rechab in the days of Jeremiah the prophet, who, for refusing to give up their observances, are cast into prison by the king. From this they are delivered by an angel, and brought to the place they now inhabit ,- a level land covered with flowers, - a view of Paradise which continues all through the Middle Ages. The chapters (x.-xv.) in which the Blessed describe their life and death are of special merit, and form the best part of the whole. In striking contrast to its lofty tone is the appearance of Satan with his 1360 demons, whom Zosimus finally overcomes and drives away.”

Professional Mormon apologist John Welch attempted a defense, but was effectively countered by Brent Hardaway, who claims that authors of both the Narrative of Zosimus and the Book of Mormon had access to the Bible - and John Bunyan!, from which they could get some of their ideas: "The motifs of their respective stories can easily explained as largely as having been developed from there, and may be expected to appear in any writing that attempts to draw on biblical themes. In addition, the most promising proposals for explaining the appearance of these parallels are not just simply hypothetical and unsubstantiated at this point (as Welch himself admits), but are in fact undermined by the available evidence."

I.e., no archaeological evidence. Not even corroborative evidence.

 

[Tarquin]

Anyway, Barker’s not an archeologist (though she studies some archeology and VOLUMES of ancient texts). But she is a non-Mormon who sees powerful evidence that the BOM is exactly what it claims it is. She will be an anomaly.I have known some folks who can powerfully comment on the strength of religions they do not embrace, but they again are not common.

I, too, read VOLUMES. And I, too, am a non-Mormon. My experience is that there are many scholars who comment felicitously and supportive on religions other than their own. In fact, I do so myself.

Barker seems to take a Gnostic mystical approach to the Bible. This is compatible with Mormonism. She does not accept the Bible at face value, neither in the literal sense, nor in the sense of normal and traditional Biblical symbology. For example, apparently, “Her hypothesis is that Elohim refers to the Most High God and that Jehovah (Yahweh) was one of his sons. There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel. After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon.” I did not pursue this further… She seems to see the Bible as a mystical, gnostic, symbolic text for an esoteric theology. Naturally, she would see some correspondences in Mormonism. If I am misrepresenting her position, I hope someone will correct me

 

[zaffiroborant]

Nahom is not archeology because NHM (not Nahom) is what is found in the archeological record? Is that you point?As I have said, NHM is all one could possible find dating to Lehi’s journey as the vowels would be absent. So, if NHM is not a hit then you must dismiss much of Biblical archeology too.I will have to say that Nahom fitting into the 10 or 81 points offered IMO is quite powerful and I am not sure how you “just don’t find NHM all that convincing.” I know a former atheist critic of the CoJCoLDS who found NHM to be real evidence. When he questioned his Atheism and decided he was a believer he returned to the CoJCoLDS. Concerning chiasmus, they are definitely not archeology. I think there is something to chiasmus in the BOM, but I have spent less time researching this than other things.

NHM is NHM not necessarily Nahom, as others have pointed out there are also the biblical names Naham, Nehum and Nahum and JS had a way of lifting from the bible and tweeking biblical names, so no I don’t find it all that convincing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The “extraordinary similarity” between the The Narrative of Zosimus and the Book of Mormon is neither extraordinary, although the “Narrative of Zosimus” is extraordinary, nor persuasive regarding the Book of Mormon as a genuine history.

From an introduction to the Narrative of Zosimus:
“While the style is inelegant and sometimes obscure, the matter of the book is very interesting, and shows considerable powers of imagination. The land of the Blessed is reached by means of a camel, which comes from the desert, and then by a storm of wind, which carries Zosimus along with it. He is addressed by the river to which he comes, as well as by the wall of cloud which rises above it, and is finally lifted across it by two trees. The origin of the Blessed Ones is noteworthy, as connecting the story with early literature on the Lost Tribes. They are the descendants of Rechab in the days of Jeremiah the prophet, who, for refusing to give up their observances, are cast into prison by the king. From this they are delivered by an angel, and brought to the place they now inhabit ,- a level land covered with flowers, - a view of Paradise which continues all through the Middle Ages. The chapters (x.-xv.) in which the Blessed describe their life and death are of special merit, and form the best part of the whole. In striking contrast to its lofty tone is the appearance of Satan with his 1360 demons, whom Zosimus finally overcomes and drives away.”

Professional Mormon apologist John Welch attempted a defense, but was effectively countered by Brent Hardaway, who claims that authors of both the Narrative of Zosimus and the Book of Mormon had access to the Bible - and John Bunyan!, from which they could get some of their ideas: "The motifs of their respective stories can easily explained as largely as having been developed from there, and may be expected to appear in any writing that attempts to draw on biblical themes. In addition, the most promising proposals for explaining the appearance of these parallels are not just simply hypothetical and unsubstantiated at this point (as Welch himself admits), but are in fact undermined by the available evidence."

I.e., no archaeological evidence. Not even corroborative evidence.

That sums up my view of the Book of Mormon. It is an imaginative fan fiction.