Some critics dismiss the Book of Mormon because, they say, no archaeological evidence directly supports it. Archaeological evidence, though, is spotty, and it seldom shows up on cue.
Until Conrad Schick found the pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem’s Muslim quarter in the 19th century, for example, only the Gospel of John suggested the pool ever even existed. Some scholars used that fact to argue that John was late and at least partially fictional, written by an author unacquainted with the city.
Yet Palestine is far more intensively studied and easier to work in than Mesoamerica, with much better textual resources and a continuous tradition of geographical names.
Moreover, that word “directly” is problematic. Archaeology seldom “directly” settles controversial issues. Rocks don’t speak for themselves; decisive, unambiguous inscriptions are rare.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defence of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself....
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
The Lord's Paper should title DCP's column, "The Daily Excuse"...wherein Professor Peterson seeks to muddy the waters of academia to make them as opaque as Mormon truth claims.
It's refreshing to hear from someone who still thinks the Book of Mormon is literally, historically true, and that archaeological evidence for it may still be forthcoming.
These days it seems like most Mormons have accepted that it's never going to happen, and are working on their reasoning for why that would be. A test of faith, for instance.
I wonder if DCP is still waiting for scientists to discover that drinking coffee is as harmful as smoking cigarettes, or if he has accepted that the WoW is just a test of obedience.
Sophocles wrote: I wonder if DCP is still waiting for scientists to discover that drinking coffee is as harmful as smoking cigarettes, or if he has accepted that the WoW is just a test of obedience.
I guess it's like kosher for the Jews, halal for the Muslims, vegetarianism for Buddhists and Vendantists. It's supposed to be rooted in dogma and health concerns but it functions as a marker for identity, a tangible and public distinction to set the tribe apart.
Dr. Peterson's article fails to take into account multiple issues. The scale of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon (recognizing he's already dismissed this with the LGT), the technology the Nephites had which would have spread among the indigenous peoples unless the Americas at the time of the Nephites was some sort of bizarro universe that fails to follow patterns of distribution and trade evidence among the native cultures, and most importantly that Joseph Smith viewed the archeology present in the time and place when he wrote the Book of Mormon as being direct evidence of the Book of Mormon peoples.
"With a wave of my magic wand..."
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Where's the Book of Mormon crop pollen? Core samples from Central America lakes preserve the pollen from plants grown in the region. For the past 30 years there's never been any wheat or barley pollen in the samples dated to the claimed Book of Mormon time line.
I love how the Vikings had just a miniscule presence in the Americas, yet pretty much every settlement we dig up has a bloomery and slag piles. Even if we never found a single American Viking sword, we would know they were smelting, and would know precisely what they were smelting.
We are still waiting to find native American bloomeries that show evidence of steel smelting. But most apologists have given up on waiting for that evidence and have redefined 'sword' to mean some stone weapon and 'rust' to mean something ridiculous. It would be funny but it is just kind of sad the lengths that people will go to in order to avoid coming to a conclusion that is pretty obvious.
fetchface wrote:I love how the Vikings had just a miniscule presence in the Americas, yet pretty much every settlement we dig up has a bloomery and slag piles. Even if we never found a single American Viking sword, we would know they were smelting, and would know precisely what they were smelting.
We are still waiting to find native American bloomeries that show evidence of steel smelting. But most apologists have given up on waiting for that evidence and have redefined 'sword' to mean some stone weapon and 'rust' to mean something ridiculous. It would be funny but it is just kind of sad the lengths that people will go to in order to avoid coming to a conclusion that is pretty obvious.
Maybe someone should add that point to the comments on DCP's article?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
fetchface wrote:I love how the Vikings had just a miniscule presence in the Americas, yet pretty much every settlement we dig up has a bloomery and slag piles. Even if we never found a single American Viking sword, we would know they were smelting, and would know precisely what they were smelting.
We are still waiting to find native American bloomeries that show evidence of steel smelting. But most apologists have given up on waiting for that evidence and have redefined 'sword' to mean some stone weapon and 'rust' to mean something ridiculous. It would be funny but it is just kind of sad the lengths that people will go to in order to avoid coming to a conclusion that is pretty obvious.
FF, thanks for expanding my vocabulary
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
I have a question wrote: "Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defence of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself....
pretty much the greatest thing i have ever read on this board lately. awesome.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
