Mormons and American Archaeology

[Complexity]

Is FLDS considered a Mormon sect?

There are many flavors of woo.

Their classification, while of interest to some, is of far less importance than checking one's navel for lint.

Diligence is all.

 

[QBinBee]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) disowned them.

I'm using "Mormon" in the more general sense, those whose religious traditions incorporate Joseph Smith's "revelations." LDS is by far the largest Mormon church, and usually the group one thinks of when seeing the word "Mormon," but they're not the only one. Have a read if you're really interested.

Hypocritically enough, the LDS church has copyrighted the term "Mormon" so that no other group can legally use it, even though Mormons are known to whine constantly that the Protestants and Catholics don't consider them (the Mormons) as deserving the term "Christian".

 

[Cleon]

Hypocritically enough, the LDS church has copyrighted the term "Mormon" so that no other group can legally use it, even though Mormons are known to whine constantly that the Protestants and Catholics don't consider them (the Mormons) as deserving the term "Christian".

I don't think that's actually true...At least I've never heard about it, and I can't find anything on the web about it. The LDS church has been wishy-washy over the years about using the term "Mormon" to describe them; sometimes they're for it, sometimes they're against it.

This is the first I've heard of them copyrighting the term. (It is, after all, according to them the name of an historian-cum-angel. It's tough to copyright something like that.) The Book of Mormon is technically copyrighted, but AFAIK LDS makes it freely available.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Mormons believe that a small group of Hebrews, led by a guy named Lehi, came to North America and that modern Native Americans are their descendants (specifically, descendants of Lehi's son Laman). Christ supposedly visited them after he did his shtick in Palestine.

The archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence is uniformly against this theory. Genetic analysis universally shows an East Asian origin of North Americans, without any trace of Middle Eastern haplotypes. Archaeological evidence shows no sign of any massive civilizations of Hebrews--or any sign of ancient Hebrew technology, culture, religion, language, nada.

In this case, the lack of any evidence is so incredibly overwhelming, that I think it's acceptable to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Any civilization of the sort described in the Book of Mormon would not only leave its own evidence behind (ruins, artifacts, etc), but also would have a massive impact on other cultures; items traded to them, technology, cultural forms and styles, language that gets adopted and assimilated into other languages, etc.

Two examples: The Book of Mormons explicitly describes the use of steel and wheeled chariots. These are two technologies which do not appear anywhere in the archaeological record (to say nothing of horses, which were unknown to the continent). These are also technologies that we would not just see at the Nephites' and Lamanites' sites, but also at the sites of peoples they traded with. Even if the Nephites and Lamanites didn't trade with anyone, and died out without leaving any cultural descendants, other peoples in the region would have identified such technologies as useful and ripped it off or figured it out themselves. We would expect to see that in the archaeological record. But we don't see any of that, anywhere, at any time--which indicates rather strongly that there's nothing there to find.

It is therefore accurate to say that at this point, we can consider the "Book of Mormon" hypothesis to be scientifically falsified.



The problem here is that unlike the Bible, which can be (and is) taken metaphorically, the historicity of the Book of Mormon is core to the LDS religion. If it's false, the entire belief structure falls apart, as it's dependent on the accuracy of Joseph Smith's "translation" and the veracity of his communications with God.

In the very near future, the Mormon denominations (not just LDS, but Community of Christ and the various smaller sects) are going to have to either make a radical ideological shift, or make an extreme anti-science turn. I find the third alternative, which is that they acknowledge that their religion is the made-up fantasy of a 19th-century cult leader, to be rather unlikely.

If you check the other thread noted above, you will find that all these "discrepancies" have a perfectly "rational" "explanation". This includes printing and transcription errors and low battery in the seer stones. (I made the part up about the low battery power).

YMMV.

 

[QBinBee]

I don't think that's actually true...At least I've never heard about it, and I can't find anything on the web about it. The LDS church has been wishy-washy over the years about using the term "Mormon" to describe them; sometimes they're for it, sometimes they're against it.

This is the first I've heard of them copyrighting the term. (It is, after all, according to them the name of an historian-cum-angel. It's tough to copyright something like that.) The Book of Mormon is technically copyrighted, but AFAIK LDS makes it freely available.

The Intellectual Reserve (the LDS Church's copyright corp.) has the term 'Mormon' as a legal tradmark in some but not all nations.

Wiki: Mormon Trademark

 

[QBinBee]

Right! The same kind of "rational" explanations creationists use.

In fact, the Mormons have their own versions of "Answers in Genesis" by the names of FAIR, FARMS, and an amateur Jeff Lindsay.

 

[Cleon]

The Intellectual Reserve (the LDS Church's copyright corp.) has the term 'Mormon' as a legal tradmark in some but not all nations.

Wiki: Mormon Trademark

Ah, trademark != copyright. Different animal.

In any event, I notice it only says "in some countries," and in the US the application was rejected (for good reason, IMO).

Still, I appreciate the info.

 

[Correa Neto]

I read some of the texts defending their positions. I remain unconvinced. Some attempts to compare Pre Columbian and Middle-East architecture. Guess what? Pyramids. Not to mention the Quetzalcoatl=Jesus myth twisting.

 

[Babylon Sister]

I read some of the texts defending their positions. I remain unconvinced. Some attempts to compare Pre Columbian and Middle-East architecture. Guess what? Pyramids. Not to mention the Quetzalcoatl=Jesus myth twisting.

I'm an archeologist employed by Uncle Sam (hey, it pays the bills and I'm to old to back on the road). At one point in my career I had a high level supervisor, also an archeologist, who was Morman. He stated on more than one occasion that he felt that his purpose in life was to find archeological sites that would prove that "the Book of Morman was true in every respect."

He had traveled to Egypt and Meso America any times looking for evidence, but all we ever saw were some really cool pictures. He also believed that the great mound cities of the Mississippian and Hopewell cultures, and the many effigy mounds in the mid-west were proof of the BoM.

He may have been a good Morman, but he wasn't a very good archeologist.

 

[cbish]

radical[/I] ideological shift,........ .

Didn't this just happen a couple of months ago? A co-worker's son attends Utah St. in Logan. He told us several weeks back it was all over the news that they had a "revelation". This is leading to the change of one word in the book for Mormon so that is says "might" instead of "is" or something along those lines when it describes Native American ancestry.

Martha Beck, who authored Leaving the Saints http://www.leavingthesaints.com/ describes how Mormons deal with contradictory information. She calls it "putting it on the shelf". Apparently if you ask a Mormon about DNA evidence contradicting scripture they respond by saying they "put it on the shelf".

It's amazing how much reality you have to ignore. I also love how a revelation can make all things good again. That crazy God, lying to us all the time. What a prankster!

 

[supercorgi]

Wasn't one of the Mormon's sacred books based on an Egyptian papayrus or tablet? Then after we finally deciphered the Rosetta Stone it was totally proved as bogus? I think they've divorced themselves from that in later days.

 

[Cleon]

Didn't this just happen a couple of months ago? A co-worker's son attends Utah St. in Logan. He told us several weeks back it was all over the news that they had a "revelation". This is leading to the change of one word in the book for Mormon so that is says "might" instead of "is" or something along those lines when it describes Native American ancestry.

Sorta.

The introduction to the Book of Mormon currently says that the Lamanites (the group of Hebrews that fell into sin, and thus became dark-skinned) "are the principle ancestors of the American Indians."

I believe the Church is discussing changing this to "among the ancestors of American Indians" or some such. (They have not yet changed it on their web site.)

It's really only a minor change, and gives them some wiggle room in the face of overwhelming genetic evidence showing a Central-East Asian origin of American Indians.

 

[QBinBee]

Book of Abraham

Wasn't one of the Mormon's sacred books based on an Egyptian papayrus or tablet? Then after we finally deciphered the Rosetta Stone it was totally proved as bogus? I think they've divorced themselves from that in later days.

Ah yes! the "Book of Abraham". (yes THAT Abraham. Father of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity).

Still to this day the LDS church vehemently claims that this is divine scripture.

Unlike the original gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is said to be translated, the original papyri of the Book of Abraham are still around. After the Smithsonian conclusively determined that the papyri *actually* was a copy of the "Book of Breathings", an Egyptian funery text, and doesn't even mention Abraham once, they gave it to the LDS church.

As expected, Mormon apologists make up an array of excuses as to how it can still *possibly* be attributed to Abraham, but of course just like with the Book of Mormon, they offer no positive evidence that in fact indicates Abraham as the author.

 

[I Ratant]

I asked an LDS member one time if there was a hall in the LDS museum, dedicated to pre-Columbian Mormon artifacts found in the Western Hemisphere.. or a side chamber, or even a drawer in a file cabinet with a few cards cataloging any artifacts.
I don't recall the response.

 

[QBinBee]

I asked an LDS member one time if there was a hall in the LDS museum, dedicated to pre-Columbian Mormon artifacts found in the Western Hemisphere.. or a side chamber, or even a drawer in a file cabinet with a few cards cataloging any artifacts.
I don't recall the response.

Because they don't have any. Essentially the Mormon rebuttal to there not being any evidence of a pre-Columbian Jewish sect in the Americas is the same as many theists in general rebuttal to there not being any evidence of a god..... "Oh yeah! Well you can't DISprove it so HA!"

What I find more interesting is how contemporary Latter-day Saints are insisting that these civilizations must be somewhere in Meso-America yet the gold plates upon which the alleged Book of Mormon was inscribed was unearthed by Joseph Smith in New York.

Did Moroni walk some 7000 km. from his native "Zarahemla" to bury the gold plates in upstate NY?

 

[supercorgi]

I'm an archeologist employed by Uncle Sam (hey, it pays the bills and I'm to old to back on the road). At one point in my career I had a high level supervisor, also an archeologist, who was Morman. He stated on more than one occasion that he felt that his purpose in life was to find archeological sites that would prove that "the Book of Morman was true in every respect."

Unfortunately, the same is true of "biblical" archaeologists. They're not analyzing all the data and drawing conclusions from it -- they've already made conclusions and are searching the data for support of their conclusions. They've already concluded that the Bible is a historical document (and therefore, if some of the Bible is true, it must all be true).

 

[Babylon Sister]

Unfortunately, the same is true of "biblical" archaeologists. They're not analyzing all the data and drawing conclusions from it -- they've already made conclusions and are searching the data for support of their conclusions. They've already concluded that the Bible is a historical document (and therefore, if some of the Bible is true, it must all be true).

Oh, I agree completely, but it has been my experience that the Mormans are a bit less strident about it. I haven't had a Morman condemn me to hell because I didn't believe their archeological "proof" of the BoM, but I have had Christians do that when I expressed my feelings that the archeological evidence used as "proof" of the Bible was specious at best.

 

[Cleon]

Unfortunately, the same is true of "biblical" archaeologists. They're not analyzing all the data and drawing conclusions from it -- they've already made conclusions and are searching the data for support of their conclusions. They've already concluded that the Bible is a historical document (and therefore, if some of the Bible is true, it must all be true).

Well, the difference is that Biblical Archaeology actually has a somewhat legitimate side to it. Some Biblical stories do relate to actual people, places, and things--Herod was real, Megiddo was a real place, Pontius Pilate was real (as was established only a few decades ago, by an excavation in Caesaria IIRC). Studying the archaeological record (obviously) doesn't back up the Bible, but it does provide an interesting insight into how myths and legends are formed over the centuries, not to mention learning the history of the formation of cults/religions that have a huge influence over the world today.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has no corresponding reality to it whatsoever. "Mormon Archaeology," to coin a phrase, serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever beyond simply seeking evidence for the Book's accuracy. (There isn't any.)

 

[RobRoy]

Oh, I agree completely, but it has been my experience that the Mormans are a bit less strident about it. I haven't had a Morman condemn me to hell because I didn't believe their archeological "proof" of the BoM, but I have had Christians do that when I expressed my feelings that the archeological evidence used as "proof" of the Bible was specious at best.

Mormons don't have a hell, so you can't be condemned to it. The best you can do is, in the afterlife, when shown the "truth" is to deny it and be cast into "outer darkness". Otherwise, you get assigned to the secondary or tertiary glories. Only believers in this life can go to the ultimate glory.

Steel is possible within the time frame of the Book of Mormon. Not plausible mind you, but possible. Other elements get trickier, but the apologists have dealt with all of them from horses to other anachronisms (cement comes to mind). There is enough ambiguity in archeology to allow for anything within the Book of Mormon. Outside of that, there are great gaping holes: the Joseph Smith Papyrus is one such which solidified me against. Before that, I had to admit to a level of plausibility.

 

[supercorgi]

Well, the difference is that Biblical Archaeology actually has a somewhat legitimate side to it. Some Biblical stories do relate to actual people, places, and things--Herod was real, Megiddo was a real place, Pontius Pilate was real (as was established only a few decades ago, by an excavation in Caesaria IIRC). Studying the archaeological record (obviously) doesn't back up the Bible, but it does provide an interesting insight into how myths and legends are formed over the centuries, not to mention learning the history of the formation of cults/religions that have a huge influence over the world today.

Oh I agree. Much biblical archaeology is very legitimate, after all the Levant is a real place with a complex history. My main point is that I feel that much of biblical archaeology isn't good archeaology. Good archaeology is examining the data, making some hypotheses, gathering more data, seeing if it supports your hypotheses and if it doesn't, revising or rejecting your initial hypotheses. It's really the same procedure used in any hard science.

Many biblical archaeologists start with a premise (the events in the Bible are real) and then sift the data for the parts that support their premise and abandon those that don't. And I think that many biblical archaeologists, including some very legitimate ones (not just the dubious ones), are performing their research in part to confirm their belief in the Bible as an accurate historical text even in some of its more fantastic accounts.

It's sort of the same method Heinrich Schliemann followed. He assumed the Illiad was true, then found and excavated what was likely the city that was the backdrop of Homer's Illiad. However, just because Troy actually existed does not mean that Achilles actually dragged Hector's body around its walls. Similarly, just because some things in the Bible are historical fact, doesn't mean that Jesus and other notable Bible figures were real people.