Mormons and American Archaeology

[Zygar]

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.

Doesn't most archeology of historical times follow this sort of paradigm? Admittedly, archeology has evolved, but practice has often been to follow a historical document, and try to support it.

The Bible and BoM are just two examples where the "historical document" was not so much historical.

 

[RobRoy]

Doesn't most archeology of historical times follow this sort of paradigm? Admittedly, archeology has evolved, but practice has often been to follow a historical document, and try to support it.

This is what I thought, although I always thought most archaeologists and anthropologists were using such documents as guides, and then reporting their findings whether to support or negate the finer details.

The BoM is just an examples where the "historical document" was not so much historical.

Fixed it. The historicity of the Bible, in general, is not much in question. By that I mean that in the main, the people, places and culture described are fairly legitimate. The events are up for grabs.

The Book of Mormon has yet to provide any such guidance and is widely disregarded as an ancient historical document. Too bad too, because it makes such a great story and we could all be gods and goddesses!

 

[Zygar]

Fixed it. The historicity of the Bible, in general, is not much in question. By that I mean that in the main, the people, places and culture described are fairly legitimate. The events are up for grabs.

Not really. Hell, King David has never been viably shown to exist. There's very little of the bible which has been independently verified.

 

[RobRoy]

Not really. Hell, King David has never been viably shown to exist. There's very little of the bible which has been independently verified.

Hence the caveat "fairly", rather than all. I'm certainly aware there exist any number of Biblical . . . I suppose claims would be the best word, whose historicity is tricky to prove at best. Certainly, the New Testament suffers the most, but the Old Testament seems to have a great deal of historical value. Not something that I would reject out of hand simply because it is a religious text.

Although my understanding is that there are a number of corroborating pieces of evidence that, if not prove King David existed, at least lend credence toward that conclusion, like: the Tel Dan stele, the Mesha stele and the inscription of Pharaoh Shoshenq I. Certainly not conclusive, but it leans toward the more likely, than the not.

Which is vastly different from the Book of Mormon, which hasn't, as far as I know, had a single piece of corroborating archaeological evidence shown to date.

 

[Correa Neto]

OT post:

Its a pity, I think several relatively modern (as well as not-so modern) analogs to David can be found.

We have a person with totalitarian powers whose acts quite often can not be described as being ethical. His apologists then use propaganda to justify his decisions and improve his image. Not to mention the "God told me" line.

Quite plausible. And very human- flaws included.

 

[MaryCBW]

Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

Those are a good start with many answers. I have more suggestions if you wish to contact
me. Below is what happened in 1953.

ALONG THE ARIZONA-UTAH BORDER (CNN) -- A monument stands in a park in the twin cities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, commemorating the 263 children taken from their families during a predawn polygamy raid in 1953.

 

[Zygar]

Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith

I really need to read this one. I feel somewhat guilty for not having gotten to it.

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I don't agree. It has a lot of unsupported "facts" in it. I see it as anti-Mormon propaganda. I don't have a problem with the message, but I do have a problem with the delivery. At the same time, she was the first author to compile so much of the information about him into a single source. I guess my point is, take it with a grain of salt.

Another book on the subject is Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which is newer and more comprehensive, but written by a member of the mainline LDS church. I'd say that it's a good counterpoint to No Man Knows My History. It's not unbiased, but I think it's less biased in the opposite direction.