Comments on: Foundations of Book of Mormon Archaeology http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/ Stuff they don't talk about in Sunday School Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:23:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Mormon Heretic http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5266 Mormon Heretic Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:48:58 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5266 I checked out your video, and it seemed pretty similar to what I read in the 60 page PDF. I'll see if I can find any other details, and send you an email. I checked out your video, and it seemed pretty similar to what I read in the 60 page PDF. I’ll see if I can find any other details, and send you an email.

]]> By: David Rosenvall http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5255 David Rosenvall Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:19:37 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5255 We do have a number of updates on our site http://www.achoiceland.com. There is a section there called Geography that has about four articles on different topics. We have plans to add about 8 more, each of which take some time to compile and fully research. I'd love to talk to you about our theory if you would like to discuss it offline, email me. I've found that you are one of the few people who can "keep up" with the discussion without being too biased. I agree that everyone may be "digging" in the wrong place, including us. The premise of the statement is that I don't believe there are any "confirmed" archeological artifacts that can be traced back to the Book of Mormon record. Even after spending 10's of millions of dollars and looking for over 180 years (to some degree). In fact your original posts speaks of Bro. Ferguson’s frustration who spent a lifetime trying to find something. From the Book of Mormon record it appears the geography (or scale) is not very large perhaps 100 x 600 miles. Therefore, until we can substantiate where that may be, any work on archeology will probably be futile. Once a location is believed to be found we believe that some form of archeological artifacts should be present. And if we don't find anything that matches the text of the record I would suggest reviewing the original geographical hypothesis. The next question is what should we expect to find based on the text of the Book of Mormon. The text itself is fairly void of any specific features of buildings that would now be ruins so I’m not sure we would be able to scientifically identify a Nephite building unless it had an inscription on it that we could read. We do have a number of updates on our site http://www.achoiceland.com. There is a section there called Geography that has about four articles on different topics. We have plans to add about 8 more, each of which take some time to compile and fully research. I’d love to talk to you about our theory if you would like to discuss it offline, email me. I’ve found that you are one of the few people who can “keep up” with the discussion without being too biased.

I agree that everyone may be “digging” in the wrong place, including us. The premise of the statement is that I don’t believe there are any “confirmed” archeological artifacts that can be traced back to the Book of Mormon record. Even after spending 10′s of millions of dollars and looking for over 180 years (to some degree). In fact your original posts speaks of Bro. Ferguson’s frustration who spent a lifetime trying to find something.

From the Book of Mormon record it appears the geography (or scale) is not very large perhaps 100 x 600 miles. Therefore, until we can substantiate where that may be, any work on archeology will probably be futile. Once a location is believed to be found we believe that some form of archeological artifacts should be present. And if we don’t find anything that matches the text of the record I would suggest reviewing the original geographical hypothesis.

The next question is what should we expect to find based on the text of the Book of Mormon. The text itself is fairly void of any specific features of buildings that would now be ruins so I’m not sure we would be able to scientifically identify a Nephite building unless it had an inscription on it that we could read.

]]> By: Mormon Heretic http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5251 Mormon Heretic Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:23:00 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5251 David, good to see you back here. I am probably going to do a post on your theory soon. I finally read through the PDF you posted last year. Do you have any updates, or is that the latest version? <i>I think the frustration of the lack of any archaeologic evidence is based on the fact that those doing archeology have forgotten about the geography.</i> I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. All of the theories I have read are VERY focused on the geography, but it is obvious that some people (perhaps all) are digging in the wrong place. David, good to see you back here. I am probably going to do a post on your theory soon. I finally read through the PDF you posted last year. Do you have any updates, or is that the latest version?

I think the frustration of the lack of any archaeologic evidence is based on the fact that those doing archeology have forgotten about the geography.

I’m not sure I agree with this sentiment. All of the theories I have read are VERY focused on the geography, but it is obvious that some people (perhaps all) are digging in the wrong place.

]]> By: David Rosenvall http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5249 David Rosenvall Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:46:47 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5249 Archeology plays a role once we have established a location for the Book of Mormon lands. If we don't have the geography correct how can we verify archaeologic evidences? Even if we find something we believe is built by Nephites or Lamanites what would you use that is recorded in the Book of Mormon that we could correlate to what we have found? In other words, is their any specific feature recorded regarding the shape, size, surroundings, building materials, or anything that we can use as yardstick to measure what we have found through archeology? I think the frustration of the lack of any archaeologic evidence is based on the fact that those doing archeology have forgotten about the geography. If anything is expected to last 2000 it is the geography and environment recorded in the Book of Mormon. Archeology plays a role once we have established a location for the Book of Mormon lands. If we don’t have the geography correct how can we verify archaeologic evidences? Even if we find something we believe is built by Nephites or Lamanites what would you use that is recorded in the Book of Mormon that we could correlate to what we have found? In other words, is their any specific feature recorded regarding the shape, size, surroundings, building materials, or anything that we can use as yardstick to measure what we have found through archeology? I think the frustration of the lack of any archaeologic evidence is based on the fact that those doing archeology have forgotten about the geography. If anything is expected to last 2000 it is the geography and environment recorded in the Book of Mormon.

]]> By: Mormon Heretic » Are Mormon Academics Winning the Debate with Evangelicals? http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5223 Mormon Heretic » Are Mormon Academics Winning the Debate with Evangelicals? Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:30:59 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5223 [...] time to get back to Terryl Givens book, By the Hand of Mormon.  While acknowledging archaeological data isn’t as strong as other aspects of the Book of Mormon, Givens seems to feel Mormon academics [...] [...] time to get back to Terryl Givens book, By the Hand of Mormon.  While acknowledging archaeological data isn’t as strong as other aspects of the Book of Mormon, Givens seems to feel Mormon academics [...]

]]> By: dpc http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5184 dpc Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:47:20 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5184 It's been a long time since I commented on this blog. I think that archeology can be a good tool to corroborate historical records, but that archeology is limited in its ability to confirm historical accuracy. Assuming that the Book of Mormon is a historical record, I think you have to look at it the same way that you would look at other abridged histories written at the same time from around the world. Livy's history of Rome comes to mind. We have the archeology to show that certain events did happen to the Roman Republic, but we also know that there is a dearth of archeological records to corroborate events in Livy's history. Does that mean that they were a product of Livy's imagination? I'm sure that he embellished some of them, but I'm also sure that some events did happen more or less as he described them even without archeological evidence to back it up. There seems to be a lack of solid archeological support for the Book of Mormon, but I think that one can only dismiss the Book of Mormon as complete fiction if there was *no* archeological evidence at all. And that's just simply not the case. If anything, the continued interest in Mesoamerican history and archeology, whether it leads to additional proof of the Book of Mormon, is still pretty useful. As I understand it, there are a lot of historical sites in Mexico and Central America that haven't even really been explored or studied. It’s been a long time since I commented on this blog. I think that archeology can be a good tool to corroborate historical records, but that archeology is limited in its ability to confirm historical accuracy. Assuming that the Book of Mormon is a historical record, I think you have to look at it the same way that you would look at other abridged histories written at the same time from around the world. Livy’s history of Rome comes to mind. We have the archeology to show that certain events did happen to the Roman Republic, but we also know that there is a dearth of archeological records to corroborate events in Livy’s history. Does that mean that they were a product of Livy’s imagination? I’m sure that he embellished some of them, but I’m also sure that some events did happen more or less as he described them even without archeological evidence to back it up.

There seems to be a lack of solid archeological support for the Book of Mormon, but I think that one can only dismiss the Book of Mormon as complete fiction if there was *no* archeological evidence at all. And that’s just simply not the case. If anything, the continued interest in Mesoamerican history and archeology, whether it leads to additional proof of the Book of Mormon, is still pretty useful. As I understand it, there are a lot of historical sites in Mexico and Central America that haven’t even really been explored or studied.

]]> By: FireTag http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5079 FireTag Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:15:58 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5079 At the moment, an awful lot of SCUBA gear. :D The site is under a modern reservoir. At the moment, an awful lot of SCUBA gear. :D The site is under a modern reservoir.

]]> By: Pedro A. Olavarria http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5077 Pedro A. Olavarria Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:03:18 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5077 Take a site like Santa Rosa, which Sorenson believes is Zarahemla, what would it take to prove or disprove such an assertion? Take a site like Santa Rosa, which Sorenson believes is Zarahemla, what would it take to prove or disprove such an assertion?

]]> By: Pedro A. Olavarria http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5076 Pedro A. Olavarria Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:02:07 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5076 Some people ask, "Where can I find the Nephite Exhibit at the Louvre? Where can I see the Lamanite Exhibit at the Smithsonian?" Before people go hunting for "Nephite" or Lamanite" artifacts, DNA and cities, shouldn't we at least define what we are looking for first? Nephite 1)political affiliation, loyal to the Nephi dynasty,kinda like Saudi, as in ibn Saud. Jacob 1:14 2)believer in the religion taught by Nephi and his descendants, kinda like Josephite vs Brighamite. 4 Nephi 1:37 3) a blood descendant of Nephi. 3 Nephi 5:10 Lamanite: 1) Anyone who is not a Nephite. Jacob 1:14. 2)a blood descendant of Laman. Alma 55:4 Some people ask, “Where can I find the Nephite Exhibit at the Louvre? Where can I see the Lamanite Exhibit at the Smithsonian?” Before people go hunting for “Nephite” or Lamanite” artifacts, DNA and cities, shouldn’t we at least define what we are looking for first?

Nephite
1)political affiliation, loyal to the Nephi dynasty,kinda like Saudi, as in ibn Saud. Jacob 1:14
2)believer in the religion taught by Nephi and his descendants, kinda like Josephite vs Brighamite. 4 Nephi 1:37
3) a blood descendant of Nephi. 3 Nephi 5:10
Lamanite:
1) Anyone who is not a Nephite. Jacob 1:14.
2)a blood descendant of Laman. Alma 55:4

]]> By: FireTag http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/01/31/foundations-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/comment-page-1/#comment-5057 FireTag Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:43:24 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=909#comment-5057 My memory is correct. I talked about the necessity to test 19th Century explanations with scientific rigor as well <a href="http://thefirestillburning.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/science-tribes/" rel="nofollow"> here.</a> My memory is correct. I talked about the necessity to test 19th Century explanations with scientific rigor as well here.

]]>