Book of Mormon geography

[_lostindc]

That is easy to deal with. The whole geography of the land was re arranged with the cataclysmic events at the time of the resurrection. Nothing to map it to.


Crisis averted.

agreed, there is no need for anymore than vague descriptions/data in order to create a map.

[_Brant Gardner]

Really? How would one conclude which technologies were not present in a given civilization (or indeed which civilizations were not present in a given time/region), if not through absence?

The question of absence isn't very interesting until there is a reason to question it. In most cases it is a question of the conflict between a text and the dirt archaeology. Until that occurs, absence is absence and there is no more reason to speculate that something hasn't been found than there is to posit that what has been found is the result of aliens.

When a text is involved, we have different questions. Texts and dirt archaeology have an uneasy interface. The texts are more detailed, but sometimes the dirt tells us that the text's precision is not accurate. It turns out that a lot of ancient writers had the same PR talents that modern politicians do, and that they describe the world to fit their vision, not necessarily reality.

So, if a text says that something existed and it isn't in the dirt, it becomes a question of interest. That is when absence in and of itself doesn't yet say anything, just like the unsupported text doesn't tell us anything. It is a question to be settled later.

What can be done with a text is to deal with other issues that would tell us whether to worry about an unsupported item. If nothing in the text matches history, then the absence in the dirt becomes corroboration. If much of the text fits the historical circumstances, then we have to wait to find out how the text and dirt will eventually work out the issue.

[_Shulem]

That is easy to deal with. The whole geography of the land was re arranged with the cataclysmic events at the time of the resurrection. Nothing to map it to.

Crisis averted.

Where is Cumorah?

You could dig around every mountain on this side of mother earth and you'll never find the evidence to prove Book of Mormon wars. Cumorah doesn't exist. It's just a story. Joseph Smith made it up and wrote about it in his book. That is the sort of thing Joseph did best. Make things up!

Paul O

[_Tobin]

You could dig around every mountain on this side of mother earth and you'll never find the evidence to prove Book of Mormon wars.

Better get busy. That's a lot of digging to prove that assertion.

[_Brant Gardner]

But are there not accounts that state explicitly that Joseph saw the English words he dictated as he looked into the hat, and was able to check that they had been correctly transcribed? . . . .

Presumably you have reason to think those accounts are unreliable?

Yes. Skousen has analyzed some these statements against the evidence in the manuscripts. The data contradict the assertions. All of these accounts are late, and (to me) show indications of shared working out of ideas. I actually cover this issue and those statements in the book. But the short answer is that there is good evidence that the correction mechanism did not exist in the way that we impute to the process based on these statements.

[_Shulem]

So, if a text says that something existed and it isn't in the dirt, it becomes a question of interest. That is when absence in and of itself doesn't yet say anything, just like the unsupported text doesn't tell us anything.

For example:

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 as it relates to the hieroglyphic writing are a case in point. The Explanations are the text. The vignette and ancient writing are the dirt.

We see that the unsupported text doesn't tell us anything.

Paul O

[_Buffalo]

Really? How would one conclude which technologies were not present in a given civilization (or indeed which civilizations were not present in a given time/region), if not through absence?

The question of absence isn't very interesting until there is a reason to question it. In most cases it is a question of the conflict between a text and the dirt archaeology. Until that occurs, absence is absence and there is no more reason to speculate that something hasn't been found than there is to posit that what has been found is the result of aliens.

When a text is involved, we have different questions. Texts and dirt archaeology have an uneasy interface. The texts are more detailed, but sometimes the dirt tells us that the text's precision is not accurate. It turns out that a lot of ancient writers had the same PR talents that modern politicians do, and that they describe the world to fit their vision, not necessarily reality.

So, if a text says that something existed and it isn't in the dirt, it becomes a question of interest. That is when absence in and of itself doesn't yet say anything, just like the unsupported text doesn't tell us anything. It is a question to be settled later.

What can be done with a text is to deal with other issues that would tell us whether to worry about an unsupported item. If nothing in the text matches history, then the absence in the dirt becomes corroboration. If much of the text fits the historical circumstances, then we have to wait to find out how the text and dirt will eventually work out the issue.

That seems fair, although it would seem better to replace "nothing" with "the majority of". Obviously you feel that enough of the Book of Mormon text matches history to justify a "wait and see position." Obviously I disagree, as do mainstream archeologists (not that I'm putting myself up there as one of them).

[_Brant Gardner]

It's funny how Book of Mormon anachronisms always comes down to the horse. I think it's instructive to take a broader view as well:

It is a convenient shorthand. I'm sure if you think about it, for most of your list the same argument applies, so it really does function well as a type rather than a specific response.

The presence of Deutero Isaiah on the brass plates

That is certainly a different type of issue. However, it also gets involved in the sets of assumptions that allow for the divisions. I agree that there has been a statistical agreement of scholars on this point, but that doesn't mean that there is still a lack of conversation. It is a worthwhile issue, but certainly not one that automatically disqualifies the text.

[_Shulem]

You could dig around every mountain on this side of mother earth and you'll never find the evidence to prove Book of Mormon wars.

Better get busy. That's a lot of digging to prove that assertion.

I'm not going to do any digging, friend. I said "YOU" could dig.

I think my assertion is just as valid as my assertion that there is no king's name in Facsimile No. 3 and neither is the name Shulem written in the writing. Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham translations and stories are pure fiction and are unsupported by the DIRT.

Paul O

[_Brant Gardner]

So I take it the answer to my question is no?

Actually, when I said yes, you may take it to mean "yes."

The physical method Joseph employed involved a stone in the crown of his hat. That, however, did not create the translation (I don't believe stones have much power in and of themselves, and kinetic energy only when someone throws them). Therefore, I see the translation process occurring separately from the physical process that triggered it.

I hope I haven't confused the issue too much by trying to be clear.