A few days ago, Elder Berry began this thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1443532,1443722#msg-1443722

It referenced Daniel Peterson's article at

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865615945/A-note-on-the-limits-of-archaeology.html

Peterson wrote:

"Most human artifacts perish. Most archaeological sites haven’t been excavated. We possess only a fraction of even the evidence that still exists. Biblical historian Edwin Yamauchi has justly remarked that 'the absence of archaeological evidence is not evidence of absence.'"

When I was studying my way out of the church around 1997, I came across a FARMS article titled "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," by William J. Hamblin. Hamblin attempted to excuse the failure to identify any "Book of Mormon locations" by comparing the BOM to the Bible:

"There are several notable examples where precise reconstruction of archaic geographies has proven difficult if not impossible.

"The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified—and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world."

When I read that statement some 18 years ago, I said to myself, "Wait a minute. Hamblin concurs that 55% of Biblical place-names have been identified. But no Mormon scholar can identify A SINGLE "Book of Mormon location." That made me realize that Hamblin's comparison was pointless and silly, and that it actually HURTS the BOM's case for authenticity.

Archaelogists have been exploring and studying ancient Central American civilization since at least the 1840s. Over the last 170 years, they've unearthed and exposed dozens of sites all over Central America. They are the same sites American tourists visit, and to which Mormon entrepreneurs conduct "Book of Mormon lands" tours.

And yet, over all that time, and all those discovered sites, Mormon scholars can't identify a single one that supports the BOM's claims. They occasionally cite "vague parallels" and "interesting possibilities," but they can't provide one iota of evidence that they ancient people who built and inhabited those sites were anyone but the ancestors of the natives who still live there.

If, as Hamblin admits, that 55% of Biblical sites have been identified, then if the BOM story is authentic, a similar percentage of BOM sites should have been identified as well (especially when the alleged civilized "Nephites" lived into the 5th century A.D.).

Contrary to Peterson's assertion that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," the LACK of evidence in the places we should EXPECT to find evidence, after 170 years of futile searching, tells us that no such evidence is forthcoming. And that means that Peterson's words are nothing more than EXCUSES for lack of evidence, and they do nothing more than give rank-and-file Mormons false hope.

As I wrote several years ago:

In his book "By The Hand of Mormon", Mormon apologist Teryl Givens writes of the ancient altars found in Yemen carved with the letters "NHM":

"These altars may thus be said to constitute the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon."

Here's why Givens' statement actually hurts the BOM's case: At that part of the BOM storyline, the Lehites have left Jerusalem and are on their way to the promised land. There are only a few dozen people in the party at most. This carving is in the general area of where the Lehite party supposedly traveled through, and dates from the general time frame. So far, so good. Sounds reasonable.

OK, here's the problem: The BOM storyline goes on to say that the Lehites eventually make it to the promised land (the American continent, of course), and they grow into a mighty nation of hundreds of thousands of people, occupying the land for a thousand years (not to mention the preceding Jaredites, who allegedly arrived circa 2500 B.C. and grew to number in the millions.) The Lehites divide, and war against each other.

The BOM gives very specific details about its characters' culture, religion, politics, flora and fauna, etc. The BOM people speak/write Hebrew and some form of Egyptian. They worship the Old Testament God, follow the law of Moses, and even preach and worship Christ both before and after His ministry.

They train horses and use them to pull chariots as Old World people did. They develop metalworking skills and smelt "swords of finest steel" and other metal tools and weaponry.

They grow into a population as vast "as the sands of the sea" and build great cities which "cover the land with buildings from sea to sea." Early in the 5th century A.D., the wicked Lamanite faction battle and eliminate the entire opposing Nephite nation which numbers more than 300,000.

Now, here's the problem: if the "NHM" carving truly was "BOM evidence"---and if the BOM storyline as I've outlined here were true---then scholars should be able to find A MILLION TIMES MORE ITEMS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE BOM CULTURE SOMEWHERE IN THE AMERICAS THAN THE SINGLE STONE CARVING IN YEMEN.

Numerous artifacts of that Christ-worshipping, horse-training, Hebrew-writing, steel sword-making culture should be scattered all over the region in which LDS apologists claim the BOM took place (Central America.) But of course, there aren't any. None, zip, nada. Apologists cite tantalizing "possible evidence" such as a few horse bones, meteoric iron ornaments, the Bat Creek stone, etc. They propose excuses for lack of evidence such as "Maybe the horses were deer" etc. But they cannot show a single, unambiguous, confirmed item of physical evidence to show that the BOM occurred anywhere in the Americas.

And that's why Teryl Given's admission is so damning to the BOM's case: If, in his view, the "NHM" carving is the *first* item of evidence for the BOM's historicity ever discovered---after 170+ years of looking for some---then it's safe to say that no artifacts will *ever* be found in the Americas, where the evidence should be thousands of times more likely to be found.

The obvious conclusion being that the BOM is not authentic.

See also my critique of Hamblin's article at http://packham.n4m.org/hamblin.htm

Hamblin, in explaining why there is no archaeological evidence for the BoM, actually admits that there is none.

His criticism of critics' methodology applies equally to his own article.

Peterson admits that comparing Biblical place name studies "actually HURTS the BOM's case for authenticity."

If the BoM were authentic, how could any comparison with the Bible undermine it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2014 12:58AM by donbagley.

"Peterson admits that comparing Biblical place name studies 'actually HURTS the BOM's case for authenticity.'"

I think you misread that. I'm the one who wrote that the comparison between the evidence for the Bible vs. the BOM hurts the BOM's case, not Peterson or Hamblin. The very fact that those guys would try to make such an invalid comparison illustrates how desperate and stupid they are.

I did get that wrong. No wonder it seemed egregious. Nevertheless, your statement is valid. Well done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2014 03:37PM by donbagley.

I've heard Mormons claim that God took away all the evidence to "test the faith of the saints".

Silly, right?

Well, worse than silly because apparently God not only took away the confirming evidence, he replaced it with evidence that completely contradicts the BoM. What a prick.

"I've heard Mormons claim that God took away all the evidence to 'test the faith of the saints.'"

Yes, "because God wants us to believe by faith, not by sight."

But in direct contradiction to that, the Mopologists publish reams of scholarly papers and books full of alleged "Book of Mormon evidence" that really isn't evidence at all.

I have never seen flying pigs. So that must be absolute proof that they exist. Isn't that how it goes?

It works the same way with Bigfoots. Bigfoots exist, but they're just so shy and evasive that we haven't found any yet! Read this evidence for yourself!

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1447945,1448803#msg-1448803

Excellent critique.
I should mention a few things:

Archeologists have found *thousands* of settlement/city sites in the Americas, not dozens. Most are smaller than the "big cities," sometimes by a considerable margin. Not a one of them contains any evidence of Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites, or anything relating to any of them. All of them can and have been shown to be Aztec, Olmec, Mayan, etc. -- settlements of archeologically known and established peoples.

The "NHM" inscription is not evidence for the BoM. There were known peoples and settlements in those areas prior to and during supposed "Lehi times," which (filling in the vowels) account for "NHM:"

"The name NHM denotes both a tribal region and a location in the southern part of Arabia (Brown 2001). In 1763 a German surveyor and mapmaker named Carsten Niebuhr produced a map which contained the place name "Nehhm" at a location approximately twenty-five miles northeast of the Yemen capital Sana'a (Aston & Aston 1994, p. 5). In 1792 Robert Heron published a two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s first work titled Niebuhr’s Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East Brown 2001. Niebuhr explained in his book: "I have had no small difficulty in writing down these names; both from the diversity of dialects in the country, and from the indistinct pronunciation of those from whom I was obliged to ask them." Niebuhr circles the boundaries of this area of Nehhm on the map; it covers an area of approximately 2,394 square miles (6,200 km2). There is no evidence, however, that Joseph Smith had access to these materials before the publication of the Book of Mormon. Likewise, there is also no evidence that he or one of his acquaintances did not have access to these sources. (Roper 1997)."

Finally, not only does comparison to "bible archeology" hurt the mormon case, the comparison the mormons make *assumes* that all of the bible is literally true, and thus the "only 55%" statement is intended to show that while entirely true, not all of the bible is confirmed archeologically yet. That's not the case at all. What archeology in "bible" regions shows is that many of the bible stories are shown *false* by archeology. Archeology shows some references to cities in the bible to be anachronisms -- that the cities didn't exist when the stories say they did -- which supports the scholarly consensus that many bible stories are post-Babylonian exile myths rather than "historical." Places claimed in the bible have been shown to be in the wrong places, or to not have existed at all, or to be indicative of early "Hebrew" settlements long before the supposed 40 years of wandering in the desert and "conquest of Canaan."
So the comparison to bible archeology is doubly damning -- because it not only shows we should have SOME BoM evidence in the new world, it ignores the fact that many bible stories have been shown false by archeology...which is exactly what archeology in the new world shows about BoM stories.

"Archeologists have found *thousands* of settlement/city sites in the Americas, not dozens. Most are smaller than the 'big cities,' sometimes by a considerable margin."

I wrote "dozens" because I didn't want to overstate my case. I was primarily referring to the dozens of well-known major sites which have been well-explored and have become major tourist sites. Since the BOM says that the Nephites grew into a population as vast "as the sands of the sea" and build great cities which "cover the land with buildings from sea to sea," then the alleged Nephite sites pretty much have to be those which have been unearthed and explored for more than a century. And if there's no evidence of Nephites in those sites, there simply isn't anywhere else in Central America in which they could have existed without being discovered by now.

"Finally, not only does comparison to 'bible archeology' hurt the Mormon case, the comparison the Mormons make *assumes* that all of the bible is literally true, and thus the 'only 55%' statement is intended to show that while entirely true, not all of the bible is confirmed archeologically yet."

I agree that the Bible is far from being 100% true, but that's a side issue. Hamblin was trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison of archaelogical evidence between the Bible and the BOM, but his analogy is worthless, because the score is Bible 55%, BOM 0%. All things being equal, if the BOM is authentic, then there should be about as much archaelogical evidence for the BOM as there is for the Bible.

"What archeology in "bible" regions shows is that many of the bible stories are shown *false* by archeology. Archeology shows some references to cities in the bible to be anachronisms -- that the cities didn't exist when the stories say they did -- which supports the scholarly consensus that many bible stories are post-Babylonian exile myths rather than "historical."

I realize all that, but the fact that some alleged Bible sites/stories don't jibe with the archaelogical research doesn't detract from the number of sites/stories which are supported by the evidence. For instance, until the last century or so, Egyptian pharoahs such as Ramses and Sheshonq were just names found in the Old Testament, until explorations discovered evidence of their historicity. Another example is the Babylonian city of Ur, which figures prominently in the Old Testament, but its ruins weren't identified until the 1850s.

Of course, none of this "proves" the Bible's miracle stories; it merely shows that the Bible, as opposed to the BOM, is at least to some degree historical. And that makes Daniel Peterson's and William Hamblin's analogies really, really, stupid. And those guys are supposed to be among the smartest scholars in Mormondumb.

"All things being equal, if the BOM is authentic, then there should be about as much archaeological evidence for the BOM as there is for the Bible."

TBM's might argue that, if the BOM is authentic, Jesus really did turn over most of the land, slaughtering millions, prior to his visit. Of course, all things being equal, there should be far MORE evidence for the BOM than there is for the Bible. The largest Babylonian cities in the world at the time of Lehi's supposed departure from Jerusalem had populations much smaller than the later Nephite cities would have had. The Nephite cities, being heavily populated 1,000 years later, should be VERY easy to find...IF they existed outside of Mormon imaginations.

Has there ever been an advanced civilization, in the history of the world, that has lost all of their technology, abandoned their language and started from scratch, etc...? Is it reasonable to believe that the descendants of the Nephites/Lamanites lost all knowledge of metalworking, decided that the wheel was stupid, ate all the work animals across two continents, etc...? It's beyond absurd.

Jesus coming to America is the most obvious evidence of The Book of Mormon being a fraud.

The Book of Mormon blows Jesus up to a god like the Hindu pantheon.

"Killing of Romaharshana
Towards the end of Dvapara yuga thousands of sages assembled on the banks of Naimyasharana to perform a thousand year yajna in an effort to reverse the onset of Kali yuga. They appointed as their leader Romaharshana, one of the main disciple of Vyasadeva, who was also present when Sukadeva Goswami narrated Srimad Bhagavatam to King Parikshit.

When Lord Balarama entered the assembly, understanding Him to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead, all present rose to offer Him respect. However Romaharshana, proud at occupying the position of the leader did not get up. Lord Balarama could understand that even though Romaharshana was a an expert Vedantist, he had not yet realized these teachings. Considering him unqualified to lead the ceremony, Balarama touched him with a blade of grass causing him to die. He then instituted Suta, the son of Romaharshana as the leader of the assembly and continued with His pilgrimage."
- See more at: http://harekrishnacalendar.com/vaishnava-calendar/appearance-day-of-lord-balarama-2014/#sthash.Y89kAesU.dpuf

All things being equal, the "Prince of Peace" apparently murdered hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed entire cities, just to make an entrance.

good stuff, Randy.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Or as Mark Twain might put it, "Faith is believing in what you know ain't true."

Defending the BoM is like arguing for the existence of jackalopes. It doesn't matter if you have anecdotes and a convincing narrative. It doesn't matter how pretty a picture you can paint. A jackalope can't exist because it could never get down a rabbit hole with those antlers.

The BoM has been exposed to be a fabrication. That's the truth. There's nothing to defend. It's over. What people do with the truth is their business. For TBMs, that mean keeping their heads where the sun doesn't shine.

"Defending the BoM is like arguing for the existence of jackalopes."

Aw c'mon now. I seen pikters of jackalopes on postcards! And my little boy sat on one at Wall Drug in South Dakota!

I really need to go to Wall Drug, every time we drive through we are either in a hurry or too exhausted. If there are jackalopes there I just have to stop.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wall+drug+jackalope+south+dakota&client=firefox-a&hs=peU&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LHCHVMfsB4GqgwSGkoCYDg&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=892

With so much evidence, how can skeptics continue to deny it?

After spending a whole day seeing billboards for it we had to stop, there was no option.

...and no other bathrooms for miles around, either. :-)

Admit it---you stopped there to get a free cup of water and a buffalo burger. :-)

Isn't the hardest case to refute that we do have a so-called BoM location with an archaeologic find by Joseph Smith, The Golden Plates.

The Hill Cumorah in upstate New York where an entire people called the Nephites were eliminated from the face of the earth in a Bible-like battle with the Lamanites.

These were represented as a relatively advanced people in the weapons of war. So we have the site. Start digging Mormon archaeologists and find those bones, weapons, fortifications and civilizations that made for the foundation of the Mormon story.

The Book of Mormon is a proven fraud and a work of fiction and any time spent on earth trying to prove it otherwise is wasted life, unless compensated, in the case of Daniel Peterson. Then his wasted life is bought and paid for by money from his benefactors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2014 03:29PM by gentlestrength.

Except that:

a) digging *has* occurred on and around "Cumorah" in upstate New York (mostly before the church bought the land). Nothing was ever found. The mound-hill Cumorah isn't a man-made "mound" like some ancient American Indians made. It's a leftover from a glacial passage.

b) morg apologists are now trying to claim that there might be two "Hill Cumorahs," or just one in MesoAmerica, or anything else that's unsupported made-up nonsense but lets them (in their minds) wiggle their way out of the numerous prophet/first presidency statements that the hill in New York is THE "Cumorah."

How can they win by creating another Hill Cumorah?

Either the plates were put there by the dying in battle Nephite historians Joseph Smith met after their deaths

Or

He lied and there was an unexplained transportation of gold plates from the battle scene to upstate New York.

Either one is absurd, proven fraudulent, and miracles aside--desperate. Mormonism is not what it claims to be, it is a proven fraud. As it continues to shift what it claims to be it only reinforces that it is not what it claims to be and is a proven fraud.

The dots don't line up. The dots created by their founder, Joseph Smith. They can't cut him loose and they can't cut his Book of Mormon loose. They sink with them.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2014 02:59PM by gentlestrength.

Yep, Hill Cumorah has to be in Palmyra otherwise why would the plates be there? Their lies are so easy to turn over.

"How can they win by creating another Hill Cumorah?"

They can't win---but by moving the Hill Cumorah, they are really just moving the goalposts---the goalposts, of course, being the demand for actual physical evidence which supports the BOM story.

They moved the Hill Cumorah to some yet undiscovered secret valley somewhere in Central America. By doing that, they have extended the time and space limitations for producing any evidence to "infinity." For Mopologists, Cumorah will always be "somewhere out there," just as evidence for Bigfoot is somewhere out there for Bigfoot believers, and evidence for UFOs is somewhere out there for UFO believers.

It's kinda like when OJ Simpson was ruled innocent of the murders, he vowed to spend the rest of his life searching for "the real killers." Since no other "real killers" besides himself exist, he will go to his grave having found none. If Mormonism still exists 100 years from now, Mopologists will still be searching for that ever-elusive Hill Cumorah.

They can make up two Cumorahs because, of course, "god can do anything."
Or they say that poor lone Moroni, the only Nephite left, escaped the final battle carrying the plates, trudged thousands of miles to New York, then buried the plates there, calling that hill "Cumorah" after the one back home that was littered with millions of his dead people. Because supposedly "god" would have told him that he had to put them in a hill in New York so Joe Smith could find them and translate them...never mind that Joe Smith didn't "translate" anything, didn't have the plates most of the time, and supposedly got the words from his magic rock in a hat, all of which could have been done without any plates at all.

Yes, the whole thing is absolutely absurd. Given that, making up absurd excuses doesn't bother TBMs.

In the early 2000s we had a fireside where our YM leader essentially preached this to us: http://youtu.be/qMIahM1kWHk

But with many Joseph-Smith-Could-Not-have-known-that's mixed in with it. I was lead to believe at 15 or 16 that all the critics had been saying for years that the BofM claims such and such, but we haven't found any: such as horses, concrete, pathed roads, metal, etc, but in the 150 years since we've since found almost all of them.

Towards the end he threw out some percentages. Apparently the Book of Mormon was more highly corroborated by evidence than the Bible was, according to his percentages.

That fireside tipped the scale for me. The BofM was true and I knew that I'd get a witness of the Spirit. My faith was young, fiery, and incredibly naive. I "knew" the Book of Mormon was an ancient record that could stand on its own side by side with the Bible. I even had a powerful spiritual experience, an outpouring of joy and a burning in the bosom.

Then I served a mission in the Bible Belt. I knew my verses, but I learned quickly that the BofM was nothing like the book the other Christians clung to. Any thunder it had it took from the KJV Bible and everything else were some interesting ideas floating around in early 19th century New England: a culture that avidly read and hypothesized about the KJV Bible.

But still, I clung to my spiritual experience for the longest time even when I began to realize all the other assumptions I'd entered into a testimony with had been based on skewed presentations of evidence and lies. It took me a few more years of cognitive dissonance that induced some heavy mental illness before I cracked and criticized my "witness". I learned it was an artificially induced emotional experience that wasn't that amazing or unexpected to anyone who knew about the religious side of human psychology. Even if it had been from God, it takes many assumptions to interpolate information into the experience or to think that it must have substance or consequence outside the confines of my own mind.

I think the percentages in that fireside were a skewing of the article you just presented to my attention. Thank you. That's one more clue that will help me understand myself and recover.

After all, mainstream Christianity corrupted the Bible, removing many plain and precious truths, right?
Joseph couldn't move on from one bit of text until the scribe got the translation down perfectly, right?
And the BOM is the "most correct" book on earth, right?
So there should be correspondingly fewer problems with it than the Bible, right?
Wrong.