Book of Mormon geography

[_Brant Gardner]

Name 5 New World archeological discoveries that would not be a mere footnote and please state your reason for making those choices

Since you don't appear to trust my opinions, I'm not sure why you are interested. Here are some that already made a difference.

1) the correct dating of Olmec ruins. They were originally thought (and received their name) to be much later. The discovery of their true dates shook the foundations of how Mesoamerican religion and culture developed.
2) the discovery that the Maya (and pretty much everyone else) were fierce warriors frequently in battle altered the then prevalent understanding that the Maya were peaceful sky-gazers and a nation of priests who worshipped time. That concept had underlain all historical explanations at the time and led to the idea that Maya cities were ceremonial centers and not real cities. That has been turned upside down.
3) Maya language was all about time and the glyphs were symbolic, not phonetic. That idea delayed (and for a number of years because of one man) the breaking of the Maya code. That was revolutionary.
4) San Bartolo's murals and texts pushed Maya high civilization back to earlier than 200 BC when it was thought not to have developed until around AD 200-400. In particular, it demonstrated that there was a different Maya script in use, which is sufficiently different that very little can be read. Notions of the development of literacy were dramatically altered.
5) The discovery of El Mirador completely shook the foundations of developmental timeline (probably second only to the dating of the Olmec). No one believed that anything that large and developed should exist in the Preclassic.

All of those things made fundamental shifts in the way we understand Mesoamerican history. Finding some pre-contact horse bones would probably be as interesting as it was to find pre-contact grape seeds. Who knew? Interesting, but it doesn't change anything important.

[_Brant Gardner]

I probably don't agree with his arguments (well, I know I don't in general, but I need to read the thread more carefully to see if there are some things I've not considered carefully), but I do agree with his manner of discussion and willingness to discuss. It's like a nearly exotic level of geniality compared to...well...the usual suspects.

Thank you. That is a much kinder response than I sometimes receive here.

We may never agree (I think you can count the number of people on this board that find my arguments convincing on one. . . wait, I don't think we get to "one" of anything. . .). I appreciate the interaction nevertheless. Thank you again.

[_Brant Gardner]

Horses may be a big deal in the controversy over the Book of Mormon, but they are little more than a footnote in general history.

To certain scientific disciplines they would be very important. I hear these types of stories in the apologetic community from time to time but have always been disappointed, so I am skeptical. If you are not aware of where to find these tests on horse remains it is likely the information you have is not accurate.

I'm sorry, Themis, but this doesn't make any sense after my quoted statement. You are simply asserting that because you think this is important, that therefore certain scientific disciplines would think them important. Do you have any evidence for that? Why would you think so.

Secondly, you tie this to the apologetic community. I'm not sure why that comes in the context of what I have said. You seem to miss entirely that I am not promoting this as any great find or anything that alters the apologetic landscape. Why you think I am using that as an apologetic argument is beyond me. It appears that you are arguing with a caricature of what you think I must be saying. I would really rather defend my actual position.

Finally, why do you assume that I don't know where to find this information? I agree that my information is second hand, but I have talked to someone who read the lab results. I really do know where to find it. Your fall back position that I must be lying is fascinating, but no more true than your other assertions.

The lab work was done. It reports that some of the anomalous finds are horses and C-14 date to pre-contact times (and post-Book of Mormon). I cannot tell you what the lab did to verify those dates. I have no reason to believe that the lab falsified their findings because they had a secret desire to prove the Book of Mormon. I know one of the reasons for the delay in publishing, but not all of them.

Please, everyone, forget I mentioned it. Clearly it is derailing the conversation and everyone seems to forget that it wasn't my point at all. I have no interest in responding to this question again, so please move on.

[_Chap]

We are seeing here the phenomenon that led the Royal Society of London (the first scientific society in the world, founded in 1660) to adopt its official motto:

The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' roughly translates as 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

Basically, in serious scientific discussion, we prefer not to have to take anyone's verbal assurance that something is the case, but demand to have the evidence put before us so we can check it for ourselves. Otherwise, as here, the issue will often end up being whether the person telling us something is telling the truth or lying.

I don't think Brant Gardner is intentionally misleading anyone.

But all the same I think we can say that anyone who wants to claim that pre-conquest horse bones dating from the last millennium or so have been found in the Americas would do better to wait until all the evidence (if there is any) is out in the open and subject to expert critique before making such a claim publicly. Otherwise we are bound to generate more heat than light in any subsequent discussion.

[_SteelHead]

No, Brant is great. Civil and he expresses his ideas well.

I on the other hand am brash and uncouth. Sorry, but it is my nature.

So.... given that we can demonstrably show that Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient writings when the original survives to evaluate the translation:
~The Kinderhook plates
~The Greek Psalter
~The Book of Abraham papyri

Why should I believe the veracity of a "translation" (which wasn't a translation as the plates weren't even present for the vast majority of the Book of Mormon's production) for which there can be no verification, and which contains such bold anachronisms?

[_Chap]

No, Brant is great. Civil and he expresses his ideas well.

I on the other hand am brash and uncouth. Sorry, but it is my nature.

So.... given that we can demonstrably show that Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient writings when the original survives to evaluate the translation:
~The Kinderhook plates
~The Greek Psalter
~The Book of Abraham papyri

Why should I believe the veracity of a "translation" (which wasn't a translation as the plates weren't even present for the vast majority of the Book of Mormon's production) for which there can be no verification, and which contains such bold anachronisms?

Absent some means of verification that does not depend on evidence open to secular-based scholarship or science, since those do seem to offer little or no support in this case, I really cannot see why you should.

It is claimed that such a means of verification exists, the 'Holy Spirit'. But mileage for that seems to vary so greatly that it really does not appear to meet the need at all well.

[_Samantabhadra]

Mr. Gardner, first of all I want to second Blixa's observation that you've done an admirable job expressing yourself clearly, cogently, and politely. On a recent thread some other people were saying that right or wrong you always comport yourself as a true gentelman, and I want to reiterate that this is both noticed and appreciated.

Second, a question. And my apologies if this is addressed by your book, but I am currently working on my own manuscript and participating on this board is already something of a "guilty pleasure," so I hope you'll indulge me, or at least refer me to the specific portion of your book that addresses this issue.

There is a difference between horse, ass, goat and curelom and cummom. I think that there was a difference in the text that led to that particular difference. The curelom and cummom are unknown animals from an unknown time and Mormon's text treated them as unknowns as well. Hence the translation method I suggest handles them differently than the nouns used to label more familiar animals.

Let's accept for argument's sake that curelom and cummom denote real animals that really existed at some (unknown) point in time. Why would the translation employ one methodology for some animals, and another methodology for other animals?

Are you asserting that curelom and cummom are phonetic renditions of Nephite words? If so, granting in turn (for the sake of argument) that there were no horses in pre-Columbian America, and that the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon refers to an animal that is not a horse, why not use the phonetic rendition of the Nephite word?

The difference cannot be that cureloms were "unknown"; if "horse" does not refer to a horse, then the word that is being translated as "horse" is just as unknown as the animal that is being translated (or phonetically rendered?) as curelom.

There are separate though similar issues if you are asserting that "horse" refers to Equus Caballus, however I am curious to hear your response on this point first.

Many thanks!

[Guest]

Name 5 New World archeological discoveries that would not be a mere footnote and please state your reason for making those choices

Since you don't appear to trust my opinions, I'm not sure why you are interested. Here are some that already made a difference.

1) the correct dating of Olmec ruins. They were originally thought (and received their name) to be much later. The discovery of their true dates shook the foundations of how Mesoamerican religion and culture developed.
2) the discovery that the Maya (and pretty much everyone else) were fierce warriors frequently in battle altered the then prevalent understanding that the Maya were peaceful sky-gazers and a nation of priests who worshipped time. That concept had underlain all historical explanations at the time and led to the idea that Maya cities were ceremonial centers and not real cities. That has been turned upside down.
3) Maya language was all about time and the glyphs were symbolic, not phonetic. That idea delayed (and for a number of years because of one man) the breaking of the Maya code. That was revolutionary.
4) San Bartolo's murals and texts pushed Maya high civilization back to earlier than 200 BC when it was thought not to have developed until around AD 200-400. In particular, it demonstrated that there was a different Maya script in use, which is sufficiently different that very little can be read. Notions of the development of literacy were dramatically altered.
5) The discovery of El Mirador completely shook the foundations of developmental timeline (probably second only to the dating of the Olmec). No one believed that anything that large and developed should exist in the Preclassic.

All of those things made fundamental shifts in the way we understand Mesoamerican history. Finding some pre-contact horse bones would probably be as interesting as it was to find pre-contact grape seeds. Who knew? Interesting, but it doesn't change anything important.

Mormon apologetic tactic #1, ignore the question asked and answer the question you wished you were asked.

The question was future. Is something we already know a discovery?

Mormon apologetic tactic #2, put blinders on. A find of a perviously unknown pre-Columbian large mammal during the time period in question would completely shift the New World studies of evolution, migration, extinction, periodization, disease patterns, culture, ecology, iconography, human/animal interactions, genetics, climate, biology, taxonomy, food history. But ignore all that, the only thing worth thinking is about is Book of Mormon translation.

First, let's kill all the paleontologists

[_Jaybear]

Ok, so now you've plugged your writings. Now please provide evidence, quotes from your books, something showing that Joseph translated in some other manner than dictating the word of god as revealed to him on his stone.
Thank you.

Plugging the books wasn't the intent. The intent is to note that it is an argument that is not easily reduced to small posts. That is why it is in a book. I do not intend to repeat the argument here.

Interesting thread. Kudos to Brant.

But I would like to walk back the question. Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith PURPORTED to translate the book in some manner other than dictating words that appeared on his stone, while his face was buried in his hat?

Note that this simple question can be answered yes or no, and it takes into account that fact that we both agree that Smith purported to translate an ancient manuscript. We obviously disagree on whether the book was a translation.

In fairness, by asking the question this way, I am trying to confirm my suspicion that your "evidence" for a loose translation is more in the nature of a conclusion driven by an assumption that the Book of Mormon was in fact a translation of an ancient manuscript. I am sure you can understand that evidence predicated on an assumption that the book was a translation is not persuasive in mixed company.

[_Themis]

I'm sorry, Themis, but this doesn't make any sense after my quoted statement. You are simply asserting that because you think this is important, that therefore certain scientific disciplines would think them important. Do you have any evidence for that? Why would you think so.

I am stating an opinion, but I think it very reasonable.

Secondly, you tie this to the apologetic community. I'm not sure why that comes in the context of what I have said. You seem to miss entirely that I am not promoting this as any great find or anything that alters the apologetic landscape. Why you think I am using that as an apologetic argument is beyond me. It appears that you are arguing with a caricature of what you think I must be saying. I would really rather defend my actual position.

You brought it up.

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

You brought it up for a reason. You brought it up in the context of this discussion of the Book of Mormon. The only reason I can see is apologetic in nature. I realize you are not promoting it, or more accurately only promoting just a little.

Finally, why do you assume that I don't know where to find this information?

took this to mean you didn't know where it was.

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.

I agree that my information is second hand, but I have talked to someone who read the lab results. I really do know where to find it. Your fall back position that I must be lying is fascinating, but no more true than your other assertions.

CFR that I said anything close to you are lying. I never even suggested it. Not sure why some people always assume things like this just because we may have some different views. I remember Dan saying he knew there was at least one witness statement that had the Plates on a tree stump. Memory is fallible, and second hand means it is not likely to be accurate, so I would remain skeptical until one can produce it. Now you seem to be suggesting it can be found, but I assume you don't really want to other them to bring it up, but then we always bring it up for some reason.

The lab work was done. It reports that some of the anomalous finds are horses and C-14 date to pre-contact times (and post-Book of Mormon). I cannot tell you what the lab did to verify those dates. I have no reason to believe that the lab falsified their findings because they had a secret desire to prove the Book of Mormon. I know one of the reasons for the delay in publishing, but not all of them.

I have no reason to believe the lab has any agendas regarding the Book of Mormon, if there was a lab doing this work.

Please, everyone, forget I mentioned it. Clearly it is derailing the conversation and everyone seems to forget that it wasn't my point at all. I have no interest in responding to this question again, so please move on.

I'm fine with letting it go now, but as I said, we bring these things up for a reason.