Book of Mormon geography

[_MCB]

I am reviewing it now. Been a long time since I was last there. Good beginning for leading people down my merry path which leads to total confusion.

[_Brant Gardner]

I hesitate to jump in with the alligators, but I'll offer my perspective.

I am also saying that Mormon apologists/archeologists that propose these "geographies" are misguided and should focus on three things instead: 1) Horse bone remains. 2) Iron weapon remains. 3) Examples of reformed egyptian, which would be characteristically different from Mayan. Without evidence of these major items, the position that any of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica is completely untenable.

1) Horses: I have discussed my position that this is most likely a translation issue. I understand that this idea isn't well received on this board (and not all that well-received in the BYU Religion department either, I'm sure). I do know that there have been date tests done on anomalous horse remains and the findings place them in post-Book of Mormon but pre-contact time periods. I think that is interesting, but no matter what a horse was in the Book of Mormon, it never does anything like a horse. I confess to being amused that one of the counter-evidences is a chariot, because "a chariot has to be pulled by something." That argument, of course, simply repeats the assumption of literal translation (or authorship, as you wish). The Bible uses the English word chariot for non-wheeled seats as I remember. I really do think it communicates a conveyance, but without the necessity of being pulled--which again is never attested in the text.

2) Iron blades. I can certainly see this as a translation issue as well. However, I also see the possibility that there were some iron blades early that have simply not been found, and which ceased to be used. There is a modern conceit that had there been an iron/steel blade that it would have persisted. That suggests that the obsidian-bladed weapons would have been inferior. I suspect that from the records of the battles with the Spanish, that this would not have been true. We know that the Maya had access to copper blades (which were the Old World standard prior to iron/steel) but elected to use obsidian. Basing any particular logic for historicity on what is not found is dicey at best.

3) Reformed Egyptian: The ability to read Maya glyphs conceals as much information about Mesoamerican writing systems as it elucidates. The reason is twofold. One, we can read it, and two, there is (comparatively for Mesoamerica) a lot to be read. What is concealed is that there were many writing systems, and the later ones can be read. We cannot completely read the earlier Maya forms (see San Bartolo). The translations of the epi-Olmec glyphs is controversial (and there are very few). Perhaps most importantly, until the discovery of the texts at San Bartolo, it was assumed that there was no writing as early as 200 BC. It turns out that there was writing, but we don't have it because it wasn't carved and therefore was perishable. If that one find tells us anything, it is that for Mesoamerican writing systems, the absence of evidence is clearly not evidence of absence. So, not finding a particular writing system that may have been unique to a certain people who (according the the geography I think is most likely) lived in areas poorly excavated, doesn't provide the problem that Tobin suggests.

All of that doesn't say anything positive about Book of Mormon historicity at all, and I am aware of that. The point is, it also doesn't say anything negative in spite of the assumptions that it should.

[_Brant Gardner]

It Is Because MesoAmerica is the Area where most of the LDS Apologists state where the Book of Mormon took Place.

Actually, the reasons probably have to do with whatever research program is behind the collection of the data. As far as anything to do with the Book of Mormon, the X haplotype is a red herring as used in some LDS literature. It is neither directly related to anything identifiable from Old World Israelite populations nor late enough to have had anything to do with the Book of Mormon if it were. Using the X haplotype as an apologetic argument for the Book of Mormon requires bad science and more salesmanship than scholarship.

[_tapirrider]

I do know that there have been date tests done on anomalous horse remains and the findings place them in post-Book of Mormon but pre-contact time periods.

Could you be so kind as to provide links or journal reports for those date tests?

[_Shulem]

Brant,

The Book of Mormon translation issues you mention are a joke. Also, the Facsimile No. 3 translations are a joke. All of Joseph Smith's translations are a joke. He couldn't translate and neither can any other Mormon prophet.

You lose. Quit this silly religion and move on with your life. You've wasted way too much time.

Paul O

[_beastie]

Hi, Brant, good to see you!

1) Horses: I have discussed my position that this is most likely a translation issue. I understand that this idea isn't well received on this board (and not all that well-received in the BYU Religion department either, I'm sure). I do know that there have been date tests done on anomalous horse remains and the findings place them in post-Book of Mormon but pre-contact time periods. I think that is interesting, but no matter what a horse was in the Book of Mormon, it never does anything like a horse. I confess to being amused that one of the counter-evidences is a chariot, because "a chariot has to be pulled by something." That argument, of course, simply repeats the assumption of literal translation (or authorship, as you wish). The Bible uses the English word chariot for non-wheeled seats as I remember. I really do think it communicates a conveyance, but without the necessity of being pulled--which again is never attested in the text.

However, it still has to make sense within context.

2) Iron blades. I can certainly see this as a translation issue as well. However, I also see the possibility that there were some iron blades early that have simply not been found, and which ceased to be used. There is a modern conceit that had there been an iron/steel blade that it would have persisted. That suggests that the obsidian-bladed weapons would have been inferior. I suspect that from the records of the battles with the Spanish, that this would not have been true. We know that the Maya had access to copper blades (which were the Old World standard prior to iron/steel) but elected to use obsidian. Basing any particular logic for historicity on what is not found is dicey at best.

The larger issue is metallurgy in general. Metallurgy is described in some detail, and in a context that precludes translation issues.

3) Reformed Egyptian: The ability to read Maya glyphs conceals as much information about Mesoamerican writing systems as it elucidates. The reason is twofold. One, we can read it, and two, there is (comparatively for Mesoamerica) a lot to be read. What is concealed is that there were many writing systems, and the later ones can be read. We cannot completely read the earlier Maya forms (see San Bartolo). The translations of the epi-Olmec glyphs is controversial (and there are very few). Perhaps most importantly, until the discovery of the texts at San Bartolo, it was assumed that there was no writing as early as 200 BC. It turns out that there was writing, but we don't have it because it wasn't carved and therefore was perishable. If that one find tells us anything, it is that for Mesoamerican writing systems, the absence of evidence is clearly not evidence of absence. So, not finding a particular writing system that may have been unique to a certain people who (according the the geography I think is most likely) lived in areas poorly excavated, doesn't provide the problem that Tobin suggests.

All of that doesn't say anything positive about Book of Mormon historicity at all, and I am aware of that. The point is, it also doesn't say anything negative in spite of the assumptions that it should.

[_Darth J]

The "translation issue" idea (it's not a theory, because it's not falsifiable) has a lot going against it and nothing but apologetic desperation going for it.

The obvious and insurmountable problem is that it's nothing but a naked assertion.

The second is that all of the statements by Joseph Smith's contemporaries show a tight translation: the words appeared on the seer stone and Joseph was just reading. He wasn't really translating at all; the seer stone was.

The third problem is that the LDS Church consistently teaches that the Book of Mormon was written for "our day." If it was written for our day, then the way it is worded should make sense to people in our day, not to the asserted understanding of an ancient Nephite. If God was wise enough to inspire Mormon to insert a redundancy in the plates to make up for the 116 pages that God knew were going to go missing, then God also should have known that many people would be led to unbelief because the Book of Mormon appears to have numerous anachronisms. So it's quite a strange theological situation when the glory of God is intelligence, and his work and his glory is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man, and the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the religion God set up in these latter days to bring about the salvation of the souls of men, but God wouldn't fix these translation issues that cause people to reject the Book of Mormon.

The fourth problem is that real-life, secular translations of a language are not analogous to the way the Book of Mormon is purported to have been translated.

But other than that.......

[_Quasimodo]

3) Reformed Egyptian: The ability to read Maya glyphs conceals as much information about Mesoamerican writing systems as it elucidates. The reason is twofold. One, we can read it, and two, there is (comparatively for Mesoamerica) a lot to be read. What is concealed is that there were many writing systems, and the later ones can be read. We cannot completely read the earlier Maya forms (see San Bartolo). The translations of the epi-Olmec glyphs is controversial (and there are very few). Perhaps most importantly, until the discovery of the texts at San Bartolo, it was assumed that there was no writing as early as 200 BC. It turns out that there was writing, but we don't have it because it wasn't carved and therefore was perishable. If that one find tells us anything, it is that for Mesoamerican writing systems, the absence of evidence is clearly not evidence of absence. So, not finding a particular writing system that may have been unique to a certain people who (according the the geography I think is most likely) lived in areas poorly excavated, doesn't provide the problem that Tobin suggests.

All of that doesn't say anything positive about Book of Mormon historicity at all, and I am aware of that. The point is, it also doesn't say anything negative in spite of the assumptions that it should.

The old adage that 'evidence of absence is not absence of evidence' (though often used by apologists) is one of the weakest arguments that one can make.

There is absolutely no reason to speculate that there would be some connection between any Mayan script (deciphered or not) and the imaginary 'Reformed Egyptian' (for which there is still no evidence).

It's like speculating that the ancient Maya constructed and used microwave ovens and claiming that here is no evidence to disprove it.

It very much does say many things negative about the Book of Mormon. There is NO evidence in either New York or Central America that supports the Book of Mormon. There are only the ramblings of a confessed con-man to promote the supposition that anything other than accepted history could be true.

There is absolutely no reason to believe any Book of Mormon history other than a religious, nonscientific personal desire to do so.

[_Darth J]

There is absolutely no reason to believe any Book of Mormon history other than a religious, nonscientific personal desire to do so.

Nuh-uh! What about all those people who claim to have had a subjective emotional experience and interpreted it the way the LDS Church told them to interpret it?

They are witnesses to its truthfulness!

[_Quasimodo]

There is absolutely no reason to believe any Book of Mormon history other than a religious, nonscientific personal desire to do so.

Nuh-uh! What about all those people who claim to have had a subjective emotional experience and interpreted it the way the LDS Church told them to interpret it?

They are witnesses to its truthfulness!

Oops! I forgot about them. I'll have to go back and reassess.

by the way, I think you may have meant 'truethyness'.