Book of Mormon geography

[_tapirrider]

I wish I could. Those results are now about 4-5 years old. I don't know why they have not been published. I believe my source, but don't know the story of publication. Still, I don't think they are particularly significant, other than to move on to other questions.

That is too bad. It would be a remarkable scientific announcement, deserving of proper peer review.

[_Tobin]

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.

Thank you for your comments, but I actually carefully selected my examples and chose my words for a particular reason.

1) Horses: I have discussed my position that this is most likely a translation issue...

The problem I have with this is the fact that Joseph Smith didn't translate the Book of Mormon. He had no expertise in the language (nor did any exist). Joseph Smith looked into a stone and was shown the words. That makes the Book of Mormon a word for word translation of the plates and more importantly - a translation provided by God. Certainly God could have described an animal that looked sort of like a horse instead of selecting the word horse.

2) Iron blades. I can certainly see this as a translation issue as well...

This has the same problem as I noted above. And there is a second problem, I purposefully identified the Jaredites instead of the Nephites/Lamanites because their weapons were laying around rusting. Clearly demonstrating they were made of iron.

3) Reformed Egyptian...

Again, I selected my example carefully. I don't believe Mayan is inconsistent at all with the Book of Mormon. After all, the Lamanites would have needed a writing system since only the Nephites had the records. However, the Nephites would not have invented yet another writing system when they already had one. It is important to locate the remains of this writing system on pottery, buildings, or whatever to know that you have found the location of the Nephite civilization.

[_Brant Gardner]

The problem is clearly my failure to be dazzled when someone shoots an arrow, paints a target around wherever it landed, and yells "Bull's eye!"

You managed to respond to everything I wrote without actually saying anything or understanding any of the actual issues. I will respond further if something of substance turns up.

[_Brant Gardner]

The problem I have with this is the fact that Joseph Smith didn't translate the Book of Mormon.

That is one of several hypotheses and favored by Royal Skousen. I disagree and have published my reasons. Until you know those reasons, we will have to agree to disagree.

Certainly God could have described an animal that looked sort of like a horse instead of selecting the word horse.

I do not profess the understanding of God that you have. I can only go on evidence.

2) Iron blades. . .

This has the same problem as I noted above. And there is a second problem, I purposefully identified the Jaredites instead of the Nephites/Lamanites because their weapons were laying around rusting. Clearly demonstrating they were made of iron.

And that they were in the process of rusting away, assuming again precision on translation. It isn't a question of whether or not an iron sword might have rusted, but whether we would consider it necessary that we find a continuation of their use into times from which we might recover remains. The Olmec used a lot of iron ore. At the moment, it is assumed that it was in some non-smelted form. Still, there was a lot of iron in use. We don't really know what they did with it.

3) Reformed Egyptian...

Again, I selected my example carefully. I don't believe Mayan is inconsistent at all with the Book of Mormon. After all, the Lamanites would have needed a writing system since only the Nephites had the records.

We have a fundamental difference in the way we read the text. I can't see post Zarahemla Nephites with a Maya based language, and the glyphs wouldn't be used the same way with a different language (though there is some interesting information from Justeson that suggests that some Maya glyphs might have been borrowed from an epi-Olmec writing system).

I certainly don't agree that the Lamanites wouldn't have had a writing system. You are assuming divine accuracy for a statement that in any other historical record would clearly be hyperbole. I prefer to be more consistent about the text as an ancient document that should be read as though it were.

[_Brant Gardner]

That is too bad. It would be a remarkable scientific announcement, deserving of proper peer review.

The peer review would be in how well the tests were done, not in the article itself. I have no reason to believe that the scientists performing the texts did so erroneously.

Still, I wish they would publish or simply let it be known that it was unpublishable. Either is better than limbo.

I still maintain that it will have very little effect on discussions of Book of Mormon historicity. The best it will do is retire the horse as a clear anachronism, but since that is only a single issue that I think is already relatively minor, neither the apologists or critics will see much change if it is published and accepted.

[_Darth J]

The problem is clearly my failure to be dazzled when someone shoots an arrow, paints a target around wherever it landed, and yells "Bull's eye!"

You managed to respond to everything I wrote without actually saying anything or understanding any of the actual issues. I will respond further if something of substance turns up.

The actual issues are that the Book of Mormon describes things that were not present in the pre-Columbian Americas, yet it purports to be the record of an ancient society that was translated by the power of God. And so Mormon apologists are forced to create hypotheses that do not attempt to explain the evidence, but avoid the evidence.

I understand the issues very well, Brother Gardner. That's why I ended up on this board criticizing the Church instead of remaining on MADB to defend it.

Now if I were disputing the claim that my published theories about a book on which my entire worldview depends consist of nothing but naked assertions, I'd start coming up with evidence to refute that. Or maybe I would refer to a peer-reviewed journal that has found my data and methodology to be valid. But I see that approach isn't for everyone.

[_Stormy Waters]

The problem I have with this is the fact that Joseph Smith didn't translate the Book of Mormon. He had no expertise in the language (nor did any exist). Joseph Smith looked into a stone and was shown the words. That makes the Book of Mormon a word for word translation of the plates and more importantly - a translation provided by God. Certainly God could have described an animal that looked sort of like a horse instead of selecting the word horse.

I agree with Tobin here. If what was desired was to describe something like a horse, it could easily say, 'like unto a horse.' Calling something that is not a horse a horse isn't a 'loose translation,' it's a wrong translation.

[Guest]

The same guy who can translate "Timothy" and "apostle" from Nehpite/Hebrew written in reformed Egyptian via the power of god, can't get horse, chariot and sword right?


Puhlease!

[_Shulem]

I agree with Tobin here. If what was desired was to describe something like a horse, it could easily say, 'like unto a horse.' Calling something that is not a horse a horse isn't a 'loose translation,' it's a wrong translation.

Joseph Smith claimed to be translating by the gift and power of God. And by the power of God means the Holy Ghost was washing over him and that Joseph's mind was caught up into divine thought.

Joseph Smith translated other beasts as cureloms and cumoms but a horse is always a horse, of course. I believe Joseph Smith and reject the apologists. Besides, apologists have no authority in Mormonism. The prophets of Mormonism have stood by horses since the publication of the book and have never at any time said a horse is not a horse.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

FEEL THE POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST!