The book of mormon hypothesis about a population in Ancient Americas that arrived here from Israel by boats and lived a certain judiac type culture/lifestyle with buildings, crops, metallurgy and other technologies that would be anachronistic is negated many many times by the lack of evidence that should exist if the hypothesis were true. Particularly, DNA anthropology, archaeology of temples, metallurgy of steel, and much more.

Again, these are studies showing the missing or non-existence of evidence to support the BoM hypothesis. And many members backed into a corner resort to the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" claim.

However, is there evidence of actual existing artifacts that directly negate the BoM hypothesis?

I'm having difficulty imagining how this evidence would appear.

Thanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2012 12:57PM by redstapler.

I think the DNA is active evidence. Nearly every, if not every, group of Native Americans has been tested, and it has been proved they are descended from Asia, not the Middle East.

One huge piece of evidence is the mountain of evidence that we have that people have been living in the Americas for tens of thousands of years, yet the BoM tells us the Nephites were alone in the land.

In the case of the BOM there is already a hypothesis, there are already details that can be tested and history that it can be compared to. Since the BOM continues to fail to deliver, the hypothesis can easily stated as not true.

I read something yesterday that really made sense when it comes to this. Here is the link that I put on RFM.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,511388

According to the narrative, there were NO people here. It was kept hid for the exact purpose of Lehi and his family.

If the story is true, then there is no need for that word to be inserted following conclusive DNA evidence.

The second evidence that is present is the Hill Cumorah. On this hill there is conclusive evidence that millions of people did not die on that spot, as recorded in the BoM and spoken of by several prophets as being the very spot.

The bible tells us that there were three hours of darkness following the crucifixion. True or false, the record denies that claim that in the BoM lands the there was three days of solid darkness where even no flame could burn. That would mean instant death to everything including those whom Jesus was to have visited, and thus the record could not have been written.

Therefore the existence of the record as written, is evidence that the record is false.

? Why would 3 days of darkness = death?

What happens in LDS circles is cherry picking data that supports the BoM hypothesis and ignoring the overwhelming data that negates the hypothesis. Then they claim that because there is data that supports both sides, it is a stale mate.

This kind of thinking violates the scientific method in a perverse way, making for pseudo science. If any evidence contradicts the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong. Mormons feel the evidence can lean in either direction. And they’re entitled to that feeling. However, that it is not aligned with the scientific method.

When the data does not fit the BoM hypothesis, instead of reshaping their understanding of the world, what has happened is that members (especially apologists) have reworked the BoM hypothesis to fit with scientific evidence. In order to do that, they have had to negate the version of the hypothesis that was taught by LDS leaders & prophets of the past. That may buoy up a new BoM hypothesis, but does so at weakening another foundational hypothesis (or principle)--that of trusting so-called modern revelation. If you see that the revelations and teachings of prophets in past times can be tossed aside when science yields evidence contrary to those past teachings, then how can and why would you trust the teachings coming at present from the same principle? You cannot trust all three—the BoM hypothesis, evidence from science, and LDS revelations. One of these has to give. Most apologists choose to scapegoat previous statements/teachings about the BoM and reinterpret it.

Unfortunately, they will continue to have to do so on their current interpretations until they refine the BoM to look nothing like the original, and it fits science. As that happens, the BoM will appear more and more like a metaphor and less and less like a religious history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2012 01:20PM by redstapler.

for a wooden submarine to reach the Americas; it would, in fact, have to cross one of these scientifically proven oceans.

No real data supports it. But here are some claims cherry picked by various apologists. Note, some of these contradict the other. So they compete within the LDS circles for hypothesis.


http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

http://www.comevisit.com/lds/bom-evid.htm


http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/

The apologist's job is not to assess the weight of evidence and determine truth: the apologist's job is to defend the claims of the faith in the face of any and all truth.

I'd say the Book of Abraham papyrus is good evidence that Joseph Smith made everything up as he went.
Papyrus=Egyptian book of the dead, therefore, Joseph Smith cannot translate Egyptian, therefore, the Book of Abraham is a fraud.
Book of Mormon claimed to be written in reformed Egyptian. Joseph Smith cannot read Egyptian. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is also a fraud.

Joseph did not use the stone that was used for the BoM. Therefore it only shows that the BoA was not brought about by the power of God.

The use of stones or method of translation is irrelevant to the logic that I'm presenting. Disregard the stories and stones and power of god baloney for a minute.

The book of mormon was supposedly translated from Egyptian. The Book of Abraham proves that Joseph Smith did not have the ability to translate from Egyptian to English as he claimed.
The Book of Abraham may not disprove or negate the Book of Mormon itself, but it disproves the ability of its author to translate egyptian. In other words, the book of abraham disproves the claim of the book of mormon's origins.

When presented with an old Greek Psalter for identification, he claimed that those were the characters on the plates, and that the manuscript was a reference.

At another time, when it was pointed out that Mormo was a greek word for bugbear or goblin, he said that there was no Greek on the plates.

Was there Greek on the plates? Did he even know what egyptian looked like in 1823? Consider the Anthon Transcript...nothing on it looks even remotely like hebrew, egyptian or Greek.

pretty much everything that has ever been dug up/discovered in North/Central/South America from the period in question?

None of it supports the BoM in any way, shape, or form.

xyz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pretty much everything that has ever been dug
> up/discovered in North/Central/South America from
> the period in question?
>
> None of it supports the BoM in any way, shape, or
> form.

It doesn't directly negate the present form of the hypothesis which is a limited geography. The hemispherical model has been negated.

Also, the current hypothesis is that the actual Israelite blood was very very limited and the massive populations described by the BoM came from Beringa immigrants who aligned themselves with the Lamanites particularly.

This is contradictory to the traditional BoM Hypothesis taught by Smith and other prophets, which claims that the Lamanites would be preserved, as the DNA is nonexistent. Contradictory to the claim that Nephi's own blood would also be preserved. Contradictory to the story of Adam and Eve being the first humans. Contradictory to the global flood. Contradictory to idea of the promised land only being populated by chosen people (clearly it wasn't before, nor during, nor after the supposed Nephites and Jaredites).

They have to reinterpret the BoM to a very limited, small, hidden geography that is yet to be found. So all the claims that Columbus and pilgrims would be led to promise land and a great nation (the US) would be set up in the promise land, and that the BoM would come from a man named Joseph living in the promise land are all being re-interpreted in strange ways.

Apologists create a hypothesis that cannot be tested and then say prove me wrong.

Which is the same as saying "just because you flew over the North Pole and didn't see Santa's Village doesn't mean it isn't there."

The evidence of real civilizations existing during the period in question that shoots down the hemispheric model also shoots down the very-teeny-tiny-infinitesimally-limited-super-duper-small-secret-hidden-geography-that-is-yet-to-be-found theory.

redstapler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> I'm having difficulty imagining how this evidence
> would appear.
...

The archaeological evidence for the spread of maize cultivation
ought to be of some use here. Maize leaves traces of its use
in the form of discarded cobs, fossilized pollen, etc.

The geographic spread of maize, out of the Valley of Mexico,
should be chartable -- by time periods.

I totally doubt that such periodic maps will show void areas,
where some other food grain so superseded maize cultivation,
as to have become the predominant crop. If the Nephites
grew Old World strains of wheat, rye, barley, etc., then
we should be able to locate the parts of the Americas where
evidence for these crops impinges in some way upon the
distribution of maize agriculture.

BYU professors -- here's your big chance to be first in line
for Romney's pick for Secretary of Agriculture and Zionic Programs.

UD

Actually, that is a very good point. Maize was so ubiquitous, as were certain squash, that the fact the BoM doesn't list them shows it missed.

Instead of absence of evidence, this is absence of hypothesis.

redstapler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, that is a very good point. Maize was so
> ubiquitous, as were certain squash, that the fact
> the BoM doesn't list them shows it missed.
>
> Instead of absence of evidence, this is absence of
> hypothesis.


As I recall, the book mentions "corn" and "wheat." If corn
is maize, then was it a crop brought over by Father Lehi,
by Mulek, or by the brother of Jared?

If maize originated from a wild plant and underwent food
domestication in central Mexico, and then spread outward
from there..... how did it end up on Nephite dinner tables?

If the Nephites grew wheat for centuries, why is there no
fossilized wheat pollen to be found in preColumbian American
archaeological sites -- among other pollen found in ancient
lake bed deposits, or in mountain glacier ice layers?

If the Nephites had this great wheat-based agricultural
system, why did it not spread to the Lamanites, and to
the American native tribes that came over from Asia?

Once again, the Church is not interested in addressing
such questions.

UD

I'd say there is evidence that the Tower of Babel is fictional - that languages did not diverge at that time. The Book of Mormon is directly dependent on the Tower of Babel being historical.

I'd say there is evidence that the ages of Jacob, Enos, Jarom and Omni are unreasonable.

There is evidence that wheat, barley etc where not the primary grains consumed anywhere in the Americas at that time. It was corn, etc.

There is evidence that no narrow neck of land between oceans that is 1 1/2 days journey exists (probably 15 miles at most in jungle conditions - 30 miles if you really stretch it)

Just a guess - but I'm guessing there is evidence that from 33 ad to approximately 250 ad that there was not a single utopian society that only believed in Christ. I suppose one could always use the limited geography argument to refute this.

OT but "A Knights Tale" was a fun film.

It seems to me that the major 'hypothesis' of the BoM is that if you read it and pray about it you will feel it to be true... Well, I read it and prayed about it and both felt and found it to be false. That ought to be good enough an evidence if the reverse (finding it true) would be accepted without question by any Mormon...

This is the same conclusion I came to after studying Freemasonry and discovering the "Legend of Enoch" and the long list of parallels to mormonism and JS's alleged First Vision account:

http://www.mazeministry.com/resources/books/doombook/doomtext/06origins.htm

Did the Roman Empire exist? Yes it did. How do we know? Evidence. People do not even consider that the Roman Empire was fictitious. The Mormons make extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Mormons have no extraordinary evidence. In fact, they have no evidence at all. So the absence of evidence makes it clear that the BoM is false. Add to that the fact that the book has many anachronisms and errors and you have a false book. Claiming that the book was written by ancient propets is absurd -- as absurd as claiming the Roman Empire didn't exist.

I don't believe the Roman Empire existed.

I haven't seen it. I believe Satan just put that evidence there to fool us. In fact the people who claim they saw this evidence probably just made it up. The holy ghost told me it never existed.

I can use TBMs line of reasoning to prove to myself that the Roman Empire never existed. This illustrates why no evidence no matter how compelling is going to change a TBMs mind who isn't willing to reconsider.

The BoM is based on the foundation that the story about the tower of babel is historical. That is, there couldn't be any people there until after god dispersed all humankind from the tower of babel.

Science on the other hand has shown that modern indians are decendants from people that lived in the americas way before 2200 BC. They even lived there before Adam and Eve supposedly did. This totally undercuts the BoM and mormonism as a whole.

Any acknowledgement that people and animals lived and died before 4000 BC is an admission that the BoM is false and that every mormon prophet so far has been wrong about the age of the earth and thus are not divinely inspired.

We can also put the limited geography theory to rest because it's not supported by the BoM itself. On the contrary several very long journeys in complete wilderness are mentioned. That completely rules out mesoamerica as the place where BoM took place. There's no room for all that wilderness in mesoamerica which was quite densely populated at the time.

Similarly, wherever we have found ancient cultures so far (within BoM timeframes) are places where obviously BoM people didn't live. Civilizations and cultures cannot occupy the same space at the same time. And where they try we get armed conflict, conflicts that aren't mentioned in the BoM.

BoM is thus a history of the gaps, and as we fill in how real peope lived in ancient america the area where we can find evidence for BoM shrinks bit by bit, until one day it will probably be so small that BoM itself doesn't support it and thus the book will become completely debunked (if we dig enough that is).

Another kind of evidence are the quotes of Isiah, only the first 39 chapters where actually written by the time Lehi supposedly lived. That Nephi quotes scripture that didn't exist at the time is positive proof that the BoM is made up.

Finally, if you think the evidence for the Spaulding-theory are valid. (And I actually think they might be), this is positive proof that the BoM is made up.

I just remembered one. This one is pretty significant I think:

Joseph Smith wrote down a bunch of characters he supposedly copied from the book of Mormon.

The church still has this - in fact it was used as a cover of Book of Mormon when the 1980 edition came out - I remember my brother having one of these when he was a kid.

These characters have been reviewed by Egyptologists and declared to be bunk.

So there is pretty definite proof that the characters Joseph claimed came from the gold plates are in no way Egyptian. It's not just that the characters are wrong - it's that the whole structure is completely off.

The only time the argument that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has any basis, is when there is no other valid theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence.

In the case of the settling of the Americas, there is an undeniable alternate (to the BoM) reality supported by over 14,000 years of archaeology, as well as DNA,etc. In fact every bit of evidence supports the non-BoM reality. There is no "absence of evidence". There is abundant evidence. Just not for the BoM.