Conference tecrus::mormonism

    
    By PARALLEL, do you mean COINCIDENTAL/CIRCUMSTANTIAL?

    ED

The term PARALLEL has been used by authors discussing both archaeology and
LDS church history to denote two situations that have similar characteristics
but which may or may not be related.  Two examples would be

    Book of Mormon descriptions of the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations and
    archaeological ruins in Central and South America.

    Book of Mormon teachings against secret organizations and anti-Masonic
    feelings in the USA in the early 1800's.

Are parallels the same as evidence?   Are they a substitute for evidence?
Do they have any value at all?  If so, what is it?  If they are different
than evidence, how can we tell them apart?

Allen

I was talking with two non-LDS friends one day, and one of them said, "One
reason I don't believe in the Book of Mormon is because there are no
archaeological evidences for it."  I asked him to explain what he meant, and
as he talked I realized that he was referring to direct evidence of Book of
Mormon civilizations.  For example, a stone glyph talking about Lehi and his
four sons would be evidence in his mind.

In talking with other non-LDS, I've come to realize that they also think of
the word EVIDENCE as being direct evidence that would explicitly describe
Book of Mormon events, place-names, person-names, etc.  They don't consider
the Mayan ruins as evidence of the Book of Mormon, because nothing in the
ruins can be shown to have a direct connection to Book of Mormon events.

The Mayan ruins are evidence that civilizations of some type did exist
in ancient America, but unless specific information exists to connect those
ruins with the Book of Mormon, the ruins aren't DIRECT EVIDENCE or just
EVIDENCE for short.

Do the ruins have any relationship to the Book of Mormon in terms of EVIDENCE?
Yes.  They are PARALLEL EVIDENCE or just PARALLELS for short.  The ruins are
evidence that civilizations existed in the same general locations and same
general time-frame as the Book of Mormon cultures.  The ruins are evidence of
PARALLEL cultures to the Book of Mormon.  

Are PARALLELS of any value.  Definitely.  PARALLELS do not prove anything, but
they increase the plausibility that the parallel events might be true.  Unless
direct evidence is found to connect the ancient Mayan ruins with the Book of
Mormon, we can not (and the Church does not) say that any artifact is Book
of Mormon, but the existence of the ruins increases the probability that the
Book of Mormon might be true.

There is a strong tendency among LDS to try and prove the Book of Mormon true
by using archaeological PARALLELS .  Likewise, there is a strong tendency
among anti-Mormons to try and prove the LDS Church false by using PARALLELS to
LDS Church history.  In both cases, we need to recognize the difference between
direct evidence and parallel evidence and use each accordingly.  Neither
history nor the Book of Mormon can be proven either right or wrong by parallels.

It is also true that neither history nor the Book of Mormon can be proven either
right or wrong by evidence.  I say this for two reasons:  First, We can never
say that all information about an event is known; there is always the
possibility that new information will be discovered that could change our
perspective of things.  Second, historians and scientists do not always agree on
the interpretation of data.  Thus, "hard" conclusions about the data are unwise
and "soft" conclusions are always subject to change.  Thus, I feel that *any*
investigation using historical or physical evidence can not *prove* anything.

Allen

    From what you have described, and what I understand, it would be
    difficult to find any hard evidence to support/disprove the B of M. 
    The reason I say this is because there might be evidence that a people
    did exist on the American continent around the time period discussed in
    the B of M, but there probably is no "hard" evidence which connects
    what is found with what is described in the B of M.  The key word is
    connects.  I guess this is what was earlier referred to as parallels
    with the B of M.
    
    An example of a direct link would be something like a garment found
    that would have the number 26 on it and a reference in the B of M where
    it talks about a garment with the number 26 on it.  The closest thing I
    can think of right now is the stone that experts have uncovered which
    is thought to contain the tree of life.  The B of M mentions a tree of
    life, but it does not say anywhere that the tree of life was carved on
    a stone.  Again we have a parallel here.  Another parallel is the fact
    that metal plates were found which can be thought to be similar to the
    gold plates the B of M was translated from.  
    
    I don't mean to be skeptic, but I don't think we are going to find any
    "hard" evidence.  If we were to have hard evidence of the Book of
    Mormon, then it might be possible that the hard evidence could be  that
    we would still have the plates in our possesion today for examination
    by today's authorities.  IMHO, this defeats the purpose of the B of M. 
    It was given as a testament of Christ and was meant for us to build our
    faith.  If we have "hard" evidence, then we no longer rely on faith,
    but have a sure knowledge.
    
    Perhaps someone could come up with some examples of what would be
    acceptable "hard" evidence of the Book of Mormon.
    
    Scott

IMHO, the tree of life stone isn't hard evidence because the scholars don't
agree on what the stone means.  The LDS scholars that think it is Lehi's tree
of life have an obvious bias that discredits their objectivity.

Ed has made the point in other notes that there are many, many examples of
hard evidence for the Bible, and he believes that if the BoM is true, there
should be many, many examples of hard evidence for that book.  I agree with
him!  Hard evidence does not exist at the present time for the BoM, and to
Ed that implies that the book isn't true.  I differ from him in this regard,
since my acceptance of the BoM is based on faith and personal prayer and not
on scholarly evidence, and I say "Let's wait; the final chapter in scholarly
research of Mesoamerica hasn't been been written yet."

Allen

    However, Allen, if one were to accept only the "hard evidence"
    approach, then where is that hard evidence for something as basic
    substantiating the existence of Jesus Christ. Or the Flood, Parting of the
    Red Sea, Trojan Horse, Ark of the Covenant, etc. Do we write these off
    as myths and quaint yet unsubstantiated legends.
    
    I can understand the need for corroborating evidence to establish the
    authenticity of something beyond a shadow of a doubt, such are the
    Roman ruins as evidence of a  city called Rome. But according to
    Ed's hard evidence definition the evidence must point and only point 
    to the one  thing (event, person, place, etc.) that it supports and 
    MUST not be open to an alternate explanation (an example might be
    Stonehenge).  
    
    What a curious dilemma we have arrived at!  If we demand absolute
    "hard evidence with one and only one interpretation", then how many
    historical events, persons, places, etc. could really be authenticated?
    
    I, still, believe as does Nibley, which is that the Bof M must be
    corroborated by itself.  If it is what it says it is, then it must
    contain the evidence within itself.  I have put many notes in the
    Parallels Note which are quotes from NIbley's research in trying to
    show how the Bof M is its own evidence of authenticity.
     
    
    Where do we go from here?  I agree there is a lot of parallel/indirect
    evidence and a paucity of "hard evidence" (as Ed would like to have it
    shown).
    
    Paul
                                                            

Note 302 has two interesting discussions on evidence, one that pertains to
that note and one that is more general in nature.  I'm moving the general
discussion to this note so it can continue.

================================================================================
Note 302.70               Mound Builders: Of Interest?                  70 of 85
SLSTRN::RONDINA                                      29 lines  16-MAR-1990 15:10
                     -< A simple answer will do for now. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ed,
    
    In 302.21 you made these statements:
    
    The archeological picture of the New World is at odds with the Bof M
    Story.  Over a century of combing the New World for artifacts has
    failed to trun up even one particle of evidence to support the
    BofM. 
    
    From the vast evidence that we have about the early inhabitants of the
    Americas, there is yet to be founda single piece of hard evidence
    supporting the idea that there ever were Nephites, Lamanites,
    Jaredites, or any other Jewish "ites" that migrated to the Americas.
    
    Before I or anyone else starts to reply to this challenging remark,
    what kind of "hard evidence" are you expecting?  It makes no sense to
    me to start this    discussion if ,as you said in a previous note, you
    make these comments to see if anyone is listening.
    
    To the moderators:
    
    No matter what Ed's response is.  I believe other readers would be
    interested.  But should the topic be placed under PARALLELS NOTE.
    Please advise.
    
    Paul
    
    
    

================================================================================
Note 302.75               Mound Builders: Of Interest?                  75 of 85
TOMCAT::PRESTON "For Duty and Humanity!"             67 lines  22-MAR-1990 13:26
                            -< Hard Evidence, etc >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Before I or anyone else starts to reply to this challenging remark,
>    what kind of "hard evidence" are you expecting?  It makes no sense to
>    me to start this    discussion if ,as you said in a previous note, you
>    make these comments to see if anyone is listening.

Well, since I have now succeeded in getting your attention, there is no 
point in making further attempts to that end. Maybe the practice of
making a deliberate overstatment once in a while to "see who's out there"
isn't the best idea (since apparently you can get pounced on mercilessly), 
but let's be careful not to promote obfuscation by projecting that
assumption upon everything I've said on the subject. Anyhow...

The best thing now would be for me to restate my position(s) explicitly 
and carefully, hopefully to eliminate the possiblity of either
misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Sadly, too much of that has
occurred lately and sent this discussion down a very unproductive side
road. 

You rightly quoted me in 302.21:

>    The archaeological picture of the New World is at odds with the B of M
>    story. Over a century of combing the New World for artifacts has
>    failed to turn up even one particle of evidence to support the
>    B of M. 

Since the last sentence will be interepreted as a rash generalization by 
some, and therefore be counterproductive to our discussions, I will ammend 
it to say this:

   The archaeological picture of the New World is at odds with the B of M
   story. Over a century of combing the New World for artifacts has
   failed to turn up any hard evidence to support the B of M. 

My concept of "hard" evidence is any artifact, ecofact, or feature 
that demonstrates incontrovertably that a basis exists for the hypothesis
that the evidence is used to support, and for which a better explanation 
for the evidence does not exist. Since this definition is off-the-cuff,
please don't make an issue of the wording of it. It is subject to 
revision if I feel the need to clarify.

	Hard evidence to support the B of M would be: 

	The location and identification of any of the 38 large
	cities mentioned in the B of M; 

	Metal plates or other engravings or writing in "reformed"
	Egyptian or altered Hebrew writing (which the B of M claims
	was adopted by the B of M peoples in the New World); 

	Any kind of inscription with a distinctly B of M name (such
	as Lehi, Nephi, etc) on it; 

	Evidence of any of the great battles that are mentioned in
	the B of M, such as ancient weapons, shields or armaments,
	(many of which were made of metal according the the B of M)
	or vast burial grounds containing the thousands of dead from
	these battles (Orson Pratt - and apparently the early Mormon
	Church, since Pratt's statements were published in a pamphlet 
	- erroneously believed the Indian mounds were such burial grounds); 

I also find it a little disturbing that the Mormon Church has made a 
historical site of the place where Joseph Smith claims to have found 
golden plates in a stone box, yet the stone box has never been found.
It should have been easy enough to find, since the area is known and 
stone boxes don't deteriorate or move around on their own...

Ed

================================================================================
Note 302.79               Mound Builders: Of Interest?                  79 of 85
CACHE::LEIGH "Jesus Christ: our role model"          22 lines  22-MAR-1990 14:08
                              -< How about this? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re .75

Ed,

I'm wondering if you would clarify your statement about evidence such as
ancient weapons and shields being hard evidence.

>	Evidence of any of the great battles that are mentioned in
>	the B of M, such as ancient weapons, shields or armaments,

In note 240 I've quoted from Sorenson where he discusses three features
from Book of Mormon warfare that have been discovered through archaeology.

   o earthen fortifications
   o cloth armor
   o armies divided into groups of 10,000 men

I'm wondering if you would consider this as hard evidence.  If so, why?
If not, why?  (I'm not looking for an argument but would like to understand
your viewpoint).

Allen

================================================================================
Note 302.80               Mound Builders: Of Interest?                  80 of 85
TOMCAT::PRESTON "For Duty and Humanity!"             62 lines  23-MAR-1990 13:01
                           -< hard evidence cont'd >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .78
    
Allen,
    
In archaeology, the term 'feature' is used to denote a sort of immoveable
artifact, like a giant block of stone, a trench, a mound of earth, etc.
An artifact is considered to be anything that has been modified by human
action, whether a trinket or a piece if charcoal left over from an
ancient fire. The definition of these various terms can sometimes
overlap, and rigorous distinctions between the terms is of little value,
because they all fall into the classification of evidence anyway. (and
then there's ecofacts!) 

Earthen fortifications would be classified as features, while cloth armor
would be artifacts (if you actually have some), while the apportionment of
armies would be neither. It is important to keep in mind is that hard
evidence is "stuff" - something you can see or feel. 

As far as whether or not I would classify the things you mentioned as
hard evidence, I have to repeat that the definition requires that the
evidence must support the hypothesis incontovertibly. That is, that 
another explanation is not as good or better, or ideally, that no other 
explanation is possible.

Therefore, in one sense, a piece of cloth armor would be considered hard 
evidence, but for what hypothesis? It could support several hypotheses
depending upon other factors. A garment of cloth armor could perhaps
indicate the burial site of an Incan or Mayan soldier. (of course the 
context in which a thing is found is extremely important, but we're 
talking types of "things") If there were markings on it to further
distinguish it from other kinds of cloth armor, then more narrow
conclusions could be drawn (certain material, color, or design of the
armor for instance). So the use of cloth armor in ancient Meso America is
not sufficient to qualify as hard evidence for the Book of Mormon unless
the cloth armor can be differentiated from known non-Mormon groups, or
somehow be used to prove that the group thought to be non-Mormon actually
was after all. An authentic piece of cloth armor with the name Lehi in
altered Hebrew or Egyptian writing would be an ideal piece of hard
evidence. Otherwise it is just coincidence that the Book of Mormon
mentions cloth armor and that cloth armor has been found in ancient
America. 

The same holds true for earthen fortifications, like the mounds we have 
discussed. Earthen construction was rather common throughout the ancient 
world, which is partly responsible for the many theories that arose 
during the life of the Mound Builder myth. People imagined there was a 
connection between the mounds of the New World and those of the Old 
World. No connection ever was established. It is not enough that earthen 
mounds (or fortifications) were mentioned in the BoM and also found in 
the New World, they would have to find some definite connection to the 
Book of Mormon peoples, ie, hard evidence for which the best (or only)
explanation is that ancient Israelites were there at the right time, 
built the fortification, and, ideally, could be directly tied in to 
something specific in the BoM.

The apportionment of soldiers in armies (groups of the same size) is just 
coincidence (or a "parallel), and as such is not "hard" evidence.

Does this help?

Ed

re 64.8/302.80

Thanks, for clarifying things Ed.  Your discussion in that reply is interesting!

I agree with you, Ed, that the things mentioned by Sorenson are parallels
not direct evidence.  I asked you about them, because in your earlier reply
you had made a very general statement about what you would accept as hard
evidence, and I felt Sorenson's items fit your description.  I didn't think
you intended your statement to be as general as it was written, so I asked
for the clarification.

Allen

Hi Paul,

You're right; for those who accept only hard evidence, this is a dilemma.
Many scholars poo-poo religion for that reason.  If we accept only hard
evidence, then we do have to cast out Jesus Christ as the Son of God as you
observed.

I don't advocate accepting only hard evidence.  I believe that hard evidence
has its place as well as faith.  If an ancient people really did live here,
there should be hard evidence of them, because people can't live here for
1000 years and leave no traces of their existence; there *has* to be hard
evidence of them.  I believe the evidence will come forth when God is ready
for it to come, but it has to come!   However, if we place our acceptance of
the book upon the existence of hard evidence, we are like the man who built
his house upon the sand.  I believe personal prayer must be the basis for our
acceptance of the book.
    
>    What a curious dilemma we have arrived at!  If we demand absolute
>    "hard evidence with one and only one interpretation", then how many
>    historical events, persons, places, etc. could really be authenticated?
    
An interesting observation, Paul.  Much of history is subjective, unclear
("soft" evidence if you will) data.  

I can understand why critics of the Church "demand" hard evidence for the
Book of Mormon, but I don't understand why they "demand" it now and say the
lack of it proves the book to be false.  It's as if they are implying no
new information about ancient America will be discovered and that the facts are
all in.  It seems obvious to me that the facts about past civilizations won't
be all in until after the Millennium.

Allen

	RE: Note 64.13



>You're right; for those who accept only hard evidence, this is a dilemma.
>Many scholars poo-poo religion for that reason.  If we accept only hard
>evidence, then we do have to cast out Jesus Christ as the Son of God as you
>observed.


	Isn't this always the case?  In the April 1990 Ensign First Presidency
	Message, Elder Monson puts it quite well,

		"However, today, as always, the skeptic's voice 
		 challenges the word of God, and each man must 
		 choose to whom he shall listen."

	Charles

> since my acceptance of the BoM is based on faith and personal prayer and not
> on scholarly evidence.

    I have a hard time understanding this level of faith.  The reason is
    that many religious groups base their religion on faith and personal
    prayer as well.  I am sure that we could find such a group that both
    you and I would agree is 'way off in left field'.   These people
    are probably just as sincere as you are.  What I am asking is how
    can you validate the BOM based only on 'faith' and 'personal prayer'
    when other religious groups use 'faith' and 'personal prayer' to
    validate their religions, and yet these are in conflict with one
    another.  Can we objectively validate the BOM without the need for
    subjective (prayer/faith) analysis? 
    

    Roger

Hi Roger,

You've brought out a good point, and I think your question applies to the Bible
as well as the Book of Mormon.  Can we objectively validate the Bible without
the need for subjective prayer/faith analysis?  I don't think so.  Let me
explain my views.

There is a lot of direct evidence about the history of the Bible, and I think
the historical accuracy of the Bible could be objectively validated.  However,
the real importance of the Bible is in its spiritual content, and I don't
think there is any direct evidence for that.  Thus, I think the spiritual
content of the Bible can only be subjectively validated through faith and
prayer.

The spiritual content of the Bible rests upon the testimonies of close
colleagues of Jesus, men who had a very strong bias in their attitudes
toward him.  I think that if we are truly objective about this, we would
have to discount their testimonies due to their bias.  Similarly, the Old
Testament books were written by people who claimed revelation and visions,
but we have no hard evidence of that.  To make matters worse, if we look at
the Bible objectively, we recognize that the manuscripts have been copied
over and over, and there are differences between manuscripts.  Thus, we have
to admit that editors have had much opportunity to change the text if they
so desired, and the objectivity of those manuscripts is in question.

Similarly, I don't think the spiritual content of the Book of Mormon can
be objectively validated; hence our exhortation for persons to use personal
prayer, since prayer is the corner stone of Christianity.  I agree with you
and Ed that at the present time, the history of the Book of Mormon can not
be objectively validated with *hard* evidence.  However, it should be obvious
to everyone that scholars are continually learning more about the ancient
Americans, and I feel any conclusion about objectivity and the history of the
Book of Mormon is premature.

Allen

> There is a lot of direct evidence about the history of the Bible, and I think
> the historical accuracy of the Bible could be objectively validated.  However,
> the real importance of the Bible is in its spiritual content, and I don't
> think there is any direct evidence for that.  Thus, I think the spiritual
> content of the Bible can only be subjectively validated through faith and
> prayer.

    I believe I would agree here.

> To make matters worse, if we look at
> the Bible objectively, we recognize that the manuscripts have been copied
> over and over, and there are differences between manuscripts.  Thus, we have
> to admit that editors have had much opportunity to change the text if they
> so desired, and the objectivity of those manuscripts is in question.

    A good book on this subject is "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". 
    While I've only read excerpts from this book, I believe it points
    out that the manuscripts are very very similar to one another.


> Similarly, I don't think the spiritual content of the Book of Mormon can
> be objectively validated; hence our exhortation for persons to use personal
> prayer, since prayer is the corner stone of Christianity.  I agree with you
> and Ed that at the present time, the history of the Book of Mormon can not
> be objectively validated with *hard* evidence.  However, it should be obvious
> to everyone that scholars are continually learning more about the ancient
> Americans, and I feel any conclusion about objectivity and the history of the
> Book of Mormon is premature.

    But since the Book of Mormon contains word for word passages from the
    1611 KJV of the Bible, I believe that it is very possible for someone
    to 'feel' that the book is of divine origin.  But I also believe that
    someone could get the same 'feeling' from reading some of the works
    of Milton.   

    Using a 'spiritual' approach alone is not enough.  Since most people
    seem to have trouble hearing from God anyway, it's probably a good
    idea to look at it objectively first.  

    Roger

The discussion between Paul and Roger about finding truth has been moved 
to note 52.

The discussion about our feelings has been moved to note 51.

>    Thanks, Ed, for your definition of "hard" evidence".  See if I have
>    paraphrased it correctly.  To you, hard evidence for the B of M (or for 
>    any other event, place, person in human history or myth) would
>    be something tangible that points to/supports (and only points
>    to/supports) something in the B of M.  This hard evidence would not be
>    acceptable if another/alternate conclusion could be drawn from the
>    evidence.
    
Paul,

I agree with your paraphrase of my definition, which in turn is just my 
best attempt at stating what I believe to be its role in the context of
archaeology. 

Scott,

>    I don't mean to be skeptic, but I don't think we are going to find 
>    any "hard" evidence.  

I think you're right.

>    ...this defeats the purpose of the B of M. 
>    It was given as a testament of Christ and was meant for us to build our
>    faith.  If we have "hard" evidence, then we no longer rely on faith,
>    but have a sure knowledge.

I must disagree. In spiritual or eternal matters, faith is the appropriate 
means of response. In mundane, physical matters, faith is not required. 
For instance, faith is required in order to receive from God (answers to 
prayer, etc), but faith (at least not faith as we are using the term) is
not required to believe that Abraham Lincoln existed and that he was the
16th president of the United States. 

The Bible says that faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen." The past has already been seen, and to me,
having a reliable, supportable record of the past does not conflict with
the exercise of faith. Indeed, it works in concert with faith when faith is 
connected with events in the past, such as an account of the life of Christ.

If we take it as a given that God has dealt with man in the past, and 
that such dealings took place amidst activities and events that were 
recorded which, as human activity, left behind evidence that survives to
this day to corroborate the record, then this can only help us, to know that 
what we are believing in is not in conflict with the objective record of
the past. If we could not trust the portion of the record that dealt with
mundane things (the existence of certain cities or the reign of a
particular king), how much confidence could we have when it came to the
mention of spiritual matters which have eternal consequence? 

I can't see any advantage to be gained for God to somehow erase or
hide physical evidence of the places and events surrounding His
dealings with men (which merely affirms the context in which His
revelation came to us) in order to cause us to rely still more on faith. 

As Allen pointed out, the Biblical record is supported by a great deal of
hard archaeological and documentary (historical) evidence. This in no way
takes away from the role of faith in God, on the contrary, it facilitates
faith by allowing us to have confidence in the mundane record, and with
confidence in the record we can have greater confidence in the correctness 
of the spiritual message also contained in the record. 

Conversely, I must reserve skepticism for any writings that fail to
demonstrate reliability in mundane matters while claiming authority in
spiritual matters. If a book speaks on propositional or allegorical
levels only, then the text is taken on its own merits. If it also includes
plain statements of the past, then we have available to us an objective
element for assessing the level of reliability of the text. I believe 
that the importance of this should not be overlooked, hence my confidence 
in the Bible and my skepticism regarding the Book of Mormon.

Ed

    I find that I might be in some disagreement with both Allen and Ed
    regarding the abundance of "hard" evidence of the Bible.  True, the Bible 
    refers to places and events which can be verified.  To some extent, so 
    does the Book of Mormon.  So does the Koran, from what I understand.  
    But, from the definitions bantered about here "hard" evidence seems to
    have two parts: physical evidence and certain interpretation.  The first 
    part is easy, the second part is where folks run into trouble.
    
    There are some who feel that some portions of the Bible are myth
    in spite of the existance of physical evidence.  For example, some feel 
    that the story of Christ was a myth either in whole or in part.  After all, 
    there are only few references to Christ's work outside of the Bible (such 
    as one paragraph or so from the writings of Josephus).  It was once 
    explained to me that Christ was probably a real character, but that the 
    virgin birth or the resurrection were hoaxes.  There is little if any
    physical evidence of any of the miracles that Christ wrought.  Much of the 
    Christian community is not certain as to whether the account of Job is 
    literal, distortions of real events or mythical.  Thus, I am somewhat
    skeptical about how "hard" evidence is for the Bible.
    
    "Hard" evidence might exist to substantiate the Book of Mormon.  The
    Dead Sea Scrolls might be "hard" evidence.  They certainly are physical
    evidence.  Some translations of them refer to things found in the Book of 
    Mormon or other LDS Scriptures but not the Bible.  The problem has to do 
    with the translation of the scrolls.  The evidence is physical and can be 
    scrutinized.  But, my understanding is that the scientific community is at 
    odds about how to interpret it.
    
    I feel it important to not make the mistake of bonding the existance
    or lack of physical evidence with an assumption that any particular
    mortal interpretation of it is absolutely correct.  With current 
    definitions I think it can be very difficult to come up with "hard" 
    evidence for some scriptural texts because the interpretations of the 
    evidence can vary widely.  
    
    
    Steve

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re .23
>    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Good point, Ann!  Absence of evidence is evidence of absence only when
*all* evidence is in, i.e. everything that can be known about the ancient
Americans is known.


Re .22
>    I find that I might be in some disagreement with both Allen and Ed
>    regarding the abundance of "hard" evidence of the Bible.

Steve, I think you and I are saying the same thing.  In .16 I said the history
of the Bible could be verified with "hard" evidence but the spiritual part
couldn't, which if I understand you correctly is what you're saying.

Allen

>    I can understand the need for corroborating evidence to establish the
>    authenticity of something beyond a shadow of a doubt, such are the
>    Roman ruins as evidence of a  city called Rome. But according to
>    Ed's hard evidence definition the evidence must point and only point 
>    to the one  thing (event, person, place, etc.) that it supports and 
>    MUST not be open to an alternate explanation (an example might be
>    Stonehenge).  
    
Paul,
    
I'm afraid that you have exaggerated an aspect of my definition of hard
evidence (which I hope is not really "my" definition as much as it is an
explanation of the role of hard evidence in reconstruction of the past,
ie. archaeology). I did not say that hard evidence must point to one and
only one conclusion with no alternative explanation, but only that an
equivalent or better explanation should not exist. Putting it another
way, one cannot claim that a thing is hard evidence for a certain
hypothesis if they must ignore a *better* explanation of the evidence to
do so. 

>   What a curious dilemma we have arrived at!  If we demand absolute
>   "hard evidence with one and only one interpretation", then how many
>   historical events, persons, places, etc. could really be authenticated?

Paul, your use of quotes: "hard evidence with one and only one
interpretation", suggests that the source of the statement is someone
other than yourself - probably me. But I did not make that statement, and
it is unfair to imply that I did. I feel that I was careful not to
overstate the necessity of taking the best explanation. Therefore I have
to conclude that this is your own definition of hard evidence, and an
exaggerated and oversimplified one at that. You seem to be appealing to
the inadequacy of this modified definition to suggest that the role of
reliable evidence in verifying our understanding of the past is almost
non-essential. You did a fairly good job of paraphrasing my definition of
hard evidence earlier, but it seems that you have altered it since
then without making it clear that this change was your own. 

>    I, still, believe as does Nibley, which is that the Bof M must be
>    corroborated by itself.  If it is what it says it is, then it must
>    contain the evidence within itself.  I have put many notes in the
>    Parallels Note which are quotes from NIbley's research in trying to
>    show how the Bof M is its own evidence of authenticity.

>    Where do we go from here?  I agree there is a lot of parallel/indirect
>    evidence and a paucity of "hard evidence" (as Ed would like to have it
>    shown).

I believe I made a fairly good and sensible definition of what 'hard' 
evidence is, and what its role in the reconstruction of the past, and I 
stick with it. The fact that no 'thing' or 'stuff' has been found in the 
New World to lend support to the Book of Mormon account (that doesn't
have a better, different explanation) is a glaring shortcoming for anyone
trying to make a case for the reliability of the document. 

I think that it is fallacious to say that a book, which makes so many 
references to human activity and events over so many years of time and 
geographic areas can be proven valid without a single tie-in to the 
physical record of the past, can somehow serve as evidence for itself. It
just doesn't make sense, and borders on circular reasoning. 

Ed
    

� Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

> Good point, Ann!  Absence of evidence is evidence of absence only when
> *all* evidence is in, i.e. everything that can be known about the ancient
> Americans is known.

    Actually it becomes evidence of absence *if* a thorough search fails
    to find the thing looked for. Allen seems to be hoping that, in the
    body of undiscovered evidence, something will be found. Each year that
    goes by without that happening, however, diminishes the likelihood that 
    it ever will be found.
    
    I only differ with Allen in saying that we do not have to wait for it
    ALL to be in before we can say, with a high-if-not-deductively-perfect
    degree of certainty, that it simply is not there to be found.
    
    Ed

>    Actually it becomes evidence of absence *if* a thorough search fails
>    to find the thing looked for. Allen seems to be hoping that, in the
>    body of undiscovered evidence, something will be found. Each year that
>    goes by without that happening, however, diminishes the likelihood that 
>    it ever will be found.
    
    I don't think so.  Thorough searches are often done in scientific fields
    leading to no or incorrect conclusions.  For example, at one time it
    was concluded that Heisenberg's matrices were the best way to solve
    certain physics problems.  The best minds in the world came to this
    conclusion.  Schroedinger blew it all away with his equations.  The
    best minds in the world thought at one time that Newton's laws were
    pretty much all you needed to explain the universe.  The theory of 
    relativity blew that away.  Investigations about the Book of Mormon have 
    gone on for about 160 years and only during the past few years have
    investigation turned up things like chiasma (sp?) as a trait of Hebrew 
    writings and the B of M and traits of different authorship throughout
    the book.  Newton's laws have been around since the early 1700's and the 
    theory of relativity became popular, when, about 1930?  All that goes to 
    show is that over time lots of things can change.  The order of time for 
    investigation can be tens or hundreds of years.  And, how much evidence of 
    the early Christians has only surfaced during the last 200 years?  Allen 
    still has some time to go, in my opinion.
    
    One last bit, if you are pulling grenades out of a barrel, pulling the
    pins and hoping for the best and there is one grenade in the barrel
    that isn't a dud, your chances INCREASE of blowing your hand off with
    each pin you pull.  They don't decrease just because you haven't found
    a live grenade yet.  Take that with a grain of salt.  Or, just because
    you toss an untampered coin and happen to get three heads in a row does
    not necessarily increase your chances of getting heads on the fourth
    toss.  Your chances are still 50/50.
    
    Steve

>    Actually it becomes evidence of absence *if* a thorough search fails
>    to find the thing looked for.

I think, Ed, that we both agree that if the Book of Mormon is true, then at
this very instant (3-Mar-1990 4:57 pm EST) there has to be "hard" evidence
somewhere in North/Central/South America.  So the question is how thorough a
search has been done to date in understanding the origins of the ancient
Americans.  If I understand your perspective, you think the search has been
very thorough, and therefore the likelihood of such "hard" evidence being
found is small.  I believe the search is "just beginning" so to speak, and
that there is a high likelihood that such evidence will be found.  Time will
tell.  Let's get together in 30 years, Ed, and compare notes.

Allen

    A correction to my response in .27.  Where I wrote "the best minds"
    substitute in "some of the best minds". 
    
    Steve

    My humble comments.
    
    I know little about archeology, but I understand some people really 
    _dig_ it.  (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun).
    
    I tend to look at archeology as a sort of "subjective" science. 
    To me archeology is the science of trying to understand the culture of
    a civilization based upon the findings of various artifacts (objects).
    
    What an unearthed artifact is/means is subject to interpretation, and
    is generally based upon previous discovery.  If there was an error in
    the interpretation of something, then it would tend to throw off
    everything else that is based upon that interpretation.
    
    If someone uncovered a dish, it might look like a dish to me.  Someone
    else would say it looks lilke an offering plate, someone else might
    say it resembles a flying saucer and "proves" that the earth was
    visited by intelligent life from other planets (carrying things to 
    extremes to illustrate a point).
    
    To me, the accuracy of the interpretation of the artifacts depends
    on several things:
    
    1) The accuracy of the observations of the historical writers/observers.
           
       Case in point: What the germans are taught in school regarding the
       first two world wars differs from ours (even today).
    
    2) The biases of the archaelogist/person studying something.  If I have
       made up my mind before-hand that something is not true, it is unlikely 
       my observations will be very accurate.  If someone wants to read the
       Book of Mormon and try to take it apart, then IMHO, they are not going
       _really_ find out if the Book of Moromon is true - because they have
       already made up their minds that it is not true.  God isn't going to
       twist your arm and tell you it is true.  You have to read it, ponder
       it, and pray about it.  Then God will tell you if it is true or not.
    
    3) The _continuous_ historical records of the culture studied.  I say
       continuous, because the more continuous the history of a culture is,
       the more accurate a picture we have of that culture.  If a culture
       has died out, it is difficult to accurately interpret what the artifact 
       was really used for (look at Easter Island for example).
    
    4) The culture of the observer.  The more difference in the two cultures,
       the less accurate the observations.  As an american in europe, this
       concept has really come home.  It is not too uncommon to run across
       something that you think performs one function and it really does
       something else.  Most europeans (discreetly suppressing a chuckle)
       will explain what the object really is used for.  Also, there are
       cultural colloquialisms that are locale-dependent.  What is a
       friendly gesture in Bavaria is an insult in northern Germany, etc.
    
    5) Much as we hate to admit it, science doesn't know everything and 
       not everything can be proven.  As mentioned earlier, there has 
       been a conflict between the "learned" and the believers.  To some
       non-believers, the old & new testaments are legends.  We know
       better, because we have read them and asked God if they were true.
       The same applies for the Book of Mormon.  I know it is true, because
       I asked God if it was true and He told me that it is.  If we
       knew what God knew, there wouldn't be any conflict or any need
       for this discussion.  However, we don't know what God knows, and
       we will have to chose what to believe - the doctrines of God given
       to us by prophets - modern and of old by the gift of revelation, 
       or the doctrines of men - take your choice.
    
    Best Regards,
    
    Frank
    
    

    ED,
    
    I regret that you think I have somehow  have changed your original
    definition of hard evidence.  I went back and re-read our notes to each
    other.  I guess I am belaboring this point, because without a clear
    understanding of what you are looking for, I do not think I can present
    my ideas.
    
    A little history:
    
    First you said:
    
    64.5 "over a century of combing the New World for artifacts has
    	failed to turn up one particle of evidence to SUPPORT (my caps, not 
    	yours) the BofM
    
    	"A single piece of hard evidence SUPPORTING (my caps, not
    	yours).... other Jewish "ites" that migrated to the Americas"
    
    Then in 64.6 you changed "one particle" to "any hard evidence to
    	SUPPORT the BofM"
    
    You then defined hard evidence as evidence that
    
    	"demonstrates incontrovertably that a  basis exists for the HYPOTHESIS
    	(my caps, not yours) that the eivdence is used to SUPPORT (my caps)"
    
    When I reponsed with my paraphrasing of your definition which read:
    
    	Hard evidence for the BofM would be something tangible that points
    	to/SUPPORTS something in the BofM and is not acceptable if an
    	alternate conclusion could be drawn
    
    You said I had accuratley paraphrased your definition.
    
    Later in 64.25 you said I had exaggerated an aspect of your definition.
    "I did not say that hard evidence must point to one and only one
    conclusion with no alternate explanation, but that an equivalent or
    better explanation should not exist."
    
    Same note you said: "Hard evidence with one and only one
    interpretation"....I did not make that statement.  I conclude that this
    is your definition, an exaggerated and oversimplified one at that.
    No thing or stuff has been found in the New World to LEND SUPPORT (my
    caps, not yours) to the Bof M (that doesn't have a better, different
    explanation)."
    
    I took care to make sure that I captured all of your statements so that
    I can be absolutely clear of our conversations.  I know how important
    it is to speak and write clearly for discussion purposes.
    
    FIRST:
    
    I do not believe in the "exaggerated and oversimplified" defintion that
    you say is mine.  I thought I had parphrased yours!  Sorry if I put
    words in your mouth.  But, in this matter I am confused about your
    definition, for it seems to have changed somewhere in the notes, but
    perhaps I did not understand.  Could you restate it and answer these
    additional questions?
    
    		.If alternate conclusions can be drawn from any evidence,
    		do we then throw the evidence away because of multiple
    		interpretations?
    
    		.How do we decide which interpretation/conclusion of the
    		evidence is the best/true one?
    
    		
  	
    SECOND:  	I capitalized the words SUPPORT, LEND SUPPORT and
    HYPOTHESIS from your notes because according to your definition there
    needs to be evidence that indeed only has to SUPPORT or LEND SUPPORT  to a
    HYPOTHESIS.  If you accept these words in your definition, then would
    you accept the evidence that does SUPPORT and LEND SUPPORT  to the
    hyptheses in the Bof M?  For instance;
    
    	The BofM refers to the fact that the BofM peoples built an
    	elaborate systems of roads and highways for commerce.  Elaborate
    	systems of roads and highways have been found in Central America
    	that date to the time of the BofM peoples.
    	
    This "supporting" evidence is a rather basic one.  There are other more
    intricate "supporting" evidence, such as Chiasmus. And there is
    certainly a great deal more of such "supporting" evidence which has
    been entered in other notes.
    
    AND NOW THE QUESTION (SORRY TO TAKE SO LONG)
    
    I am confused because in your notes you say you will accept evidence
    that will "support", "lend support" to a "hypothesis".  Yet your notes
    of not "one particle", "a single piece", "any hard evidence" seem to
    tell me you will not consider the many pieces of evidence which
    support or lend to the Bof M story/hypothesis.
    
    Please be assured I ask all of the above only to determine how I can
    dialogue with you and answer your questions.  I feel I am not meeting
    your requests. 
    
    Looking forward to your repsonse.
    
    Paul
    
    evidence for the BofM.

    
    re .30
    
    Very well put, Frank. Too often we draw conclusions based on a mind
    set (whether we'll admit it or not) that we have before even starting
    our research. It's impossible to prove something right, if deep in
    your heart you believe that it is wrong.
    
    Even if not one shread of "hard evidence" is ever unearthed, it
    will not change my testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM, because
    my testimony is not based upon things here on this earth.
    
    The other Frank,
    
    Frank M.

     
    FWIW, the U.S. News and World Report  (April 2, 1990) edition just hit
    the news-stands and it has a couple of articles that apply to this 
    discussion.  The cover article is entitled "Lost Empires of the Americas 
    - New Finds Reveal our Ancient Past".  It contains an unbiased view of the 
    general history of the Americas (Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, etc), mentions 
    archeological finds, and it features an interview with Thor Heyerdahl.
    
    It _unearthed_ some interesting new aspects of the Aztec, Mayan, Incan
    cultures including agriculture (for those who _dig_ it), ritual
    sacrifices, religious motives, civil engineering, etc.
    
    It is an interesting article for both those who have no background in
    archaeology (like myself) and should also be interesting to those who
    are well-versed in archaeology.  
    
    I would highly recommend the article.
    
    Best Regards,
    
    Frank
    
    

    To Frank W.
    
    I plan to pick up a copy of the April US News&World Report you mention. 
    In the meantime, though, does the article mention anything about the
    older civilizations of the Americas, namely the Olmecs and Toltecs?  I
    believer that these cultures are the ones that date to the BofM
    chronology.
    
    Paul
    

    
    In scanning the text, I didn't find any mention of the Toltecs.  
    The only mention of the Olmecs was a little mark on the timeline
    stating "First civilization of Central America, the Olmec appears - 
    1200 B.C.".
    
    The article on Thor Heyerdahl is very interesting.  It seems that Thor
    is digging around Tucume.  
    
    Here is a small quote from his article that I find applicable to our
    discussion.  It says:
    
    ""Common to all accounts of how culture reached Peru," writes Heyerdahl
    in an essay entitled "The Bearded Gods Before columbus,""is the
    admission that the Incas lived more or less as savages until a light-
    skinned, bearded foreigner and his entourage came into their country, 
    taught them the ways of civilization and departed.""
    
                                                          - Thor Heyerdahl
    
    
    The article _does_ mention: the Incas, the Andean empire of Tihuanaco,
    the Moche, Mayas, the Aztecs, eskimos & the land bridge, and the
    Chavin influence.  Most of the article centers around the Incas.
    
    Hope you enjoy reading it.
    
    Frank

>    I am confused because in your notes you say you will accept evidence
>    that will "support", "lend support" to a "hypothesis".  Yet your notes
>    of not "one particle", "a single piece", "any hard evidence" seem to
>    tell me you will not consider the many pieces of evidence which
>    support or lend to the Bof M story/hypothesis.

Perhaps you've forgotten that we've been talking specifically
about "hard" evidence, not every kind of evidence. I defined hard
evidence, and specified what I would accept as hard evidence and what I
would not. My position is that no hard evidence exists for the Book of
Mormon. You (plural) have presented a great deal of what you consider to
be evidence for the Book of Mormon, none of which I believe qualifies as
hard evidence. Your statement above is based on only part of my defintion 
of hard evidence, and therefore is not a correct observation. I think you
failed to follow my distinction between hard, tangible evidence and the
less compelling parallels and coincidences of Book of Mormon evidence. 

I have rejected as unconvincing the parallels and coincidences given as
evidence for the Book of Mormon for two reasons: 1) Lack of TANGIBLE
evidence to place any Book of Mormon peoples in the New World (or
anywhere else for that matter), and 2) There are better and more
reasonable explanations for the parallel evidence given. I regard the
body of evidence so far cited for the Book of Mormon as elaborate 
hypothesizing.

>    perhaps I did not understand.  Could you restate it and answer these
>    additional questions?
>    
>    		.If alternate conclusions can be drawn from any evidence,
>    		do we then throw the evidence away because of multiple
>    		interpretations?
>    
>    		.How do we decide which interpretation/conclusion of the
>    		evidence is the best/true one?
    
I'll try to restate my position on hard evidence again:

First, hard evidence must be tangible. One thing I learned from my
archaeology course is that parallels, or analogies, are quite easy to
come by. Supporting them is harder, and requires evidence, almost
invariably tangible ("hard") evidence. That's what "separates the men
from the boys" (my own statement, take it as you like) in archaeology. 

Secondly, even if you have a piece if tangible evidence, it can hardly be 
considered HARD EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPPORT OF YOUR HYPOTHESIS (emphasized 
to help make the point) if there exists a different, better explanation 
for it. "Better" being defined as more consistent with all other known 
and relevant evidence. A better explanation tends to overrule a weaker 
one.

An example of something that has been put forth as a piece of hard
evidence mentioned earlier, that I do not accept, is the stone carving
referred to as a "Tree of Life." Unless there is a some way to connect it
to the Book of Mormon peoples, then it is much more likely that it is
just another example of the numerous stylistic stone carvings unearthed
in Mesoamerica. The fact that it resembles a tree is just another
parallel. 

To (hopefully) clarify further, I will accept evidence for the Book of Mormon 
as HARD evidence, if:

	1) It is tangible.
	2) The best explanation for it is that it is connected
	   to the Book of Mormon peoples.

I've already given examples of what I would consider hard evidence for 
the Book of Mormon, such as the discovery of "Reformed" Egyptian or
clearly Hebrew writing (also altered), in the New World in a matrix
(context) that puts it squarely within the time frame of the Book of
Mormon. 

	.If alternate conclusions can be drawn from any evidence,
	do we then throw the evidence away because of multiple
	interpretations?

Of course not. The emphasis of my definition of hard evidence 
is that a better, more consistent conclusion is not being ignored
in order to support the hypothesis, *not* that alternative
interpretations must not exist. It is not a requirement that one and 
only one conclusion can be drawn, although if that were the case
then the evidence would be quite compelling. I would say that if
the evidence is isolated (not a good supporting context) and weak 
(easily open to other interpretations) than it cannot serve well 
as "hard" evidence for a given hypothesis.

	.How do we decide which interpretation/conclusion of the
	evidence is the best/true one?

In the biggest sense of "we", we look at all the evidence, see 
what others have to say, keep intellectually honest, then decide. 
In the smaller sense of "we", as in "us", we do the same, but 
defer more analysis to the experts, and listen to each available 
opinion from these experts, and decide which makes most sense to 
us, then temper our conclusions according to the strength of the
support for their arguments.

I hope this has helped.

Ed

>    Actually it becomes evidence of absence *if* a thorough search fails
>    to find the thing looked for. Allen seems to be hoping that, in the
>    body of undiscovered evidence, something will be found. Each year that
>    goes by without that happening, however, diminishes the likelihood that 
>    it ever will be found.
    
>    I don't think so. Thorough searches are often done in scientific fields
>    leading to no or incorrect conclusions.  For example, at one time it
>    was concluded that Heisenberg's matrices were the best way to solve
>    certain physics problems.  The best minds in the world came to this
>    conclusion.  Schroedinger blew it all away with his equations.  

This is an apples and oranges comparison. Again, we have been talking about
tangible things - "stuff" - not mathematical breakthroughs. Your example is
not really relevant to either Ann's point or mine. 

Again, Ann's statement is correct, *unless* a thorough search for the thing 
sought has been done and has turned up nothing. Ann's statment, "absence 
of evidence is not evidence of absence," could be used to make a case for
the existence of unicorns. One could say "just because we haven't found
any does not mean they don't exist" when in fact people have looked
in places where unicorns might be and none have been found. This can be 
validly cited as evidence (though not "hard" evidence) that they do not
exist. Considering the degree of searching for evidence for the Book of
Mormon vs the amount of tangible evidence found, it is not, in my opinion, 
unreasonable to conclude that there's a good chance that it isn't there
at all. 

>   Investigations about the Book of Mormon have gone on for about 160 years
>   and only during the past few years have investigation turned up things
>   like chiasma (sp?) as a trait of Hebrew writings and the B of M and
>   traits of different authorship throughout the book.  

Well, one likely explanation for the "chiasma" trait is that the Book of
Mormon was deliberately written in a style that mimicked the Bible, and
it is not impossible that the chiasmic form was transferred into while
using the Bible as a guide. This is all the more probable if you consider
that there was almost certainly an open copy of the KJV Bible alongside
during the writing process. Either way, any parallel of style between the
Book of Mormon and Hebrew writing does not qualify as tangible evidence. 

>   And, how much evidence of the early Christians has only surfaced during 
>   the last 200 years?  Allen still has some time to go, in my opinion. 

It is worth considering that just about *all* archaeological research
has been done in the last 200 years. Consider also that the 160 year span 
that covers investigation the Book of Mormon falls within the 200 years
you cite as gaving us most of the tangible evidence supporting the Bible.
One has to wonder why so much has been found for the Bible while none has
yet been found for the Book of Mormon. 

>    One last bit, if you are pulling grenades out of a barrel, pulling the
>    pins and hoping for the best and there is one grenade in the barrel
>    that isn't a dud, your chances INCREASE of blowing your hand off with
>    each pin you pull.  They don't decrease just because you haven't found
>    a live grenade yet.  

Ouch, what a graphic example! First of all, you wouldn't catch me playing 
Russian roulette with hand grenades, but your example seems deliberately 
slanted because you are employing a group of things that by nature and 
definition have the quality you are trying not to find. However, if the
barrel is full of grenade-looking things of unknown explosivity (is that
a word?), and you have taken the pins out of all but one and none has
exploded, I'd say that the chance of the last one exploding is pretty
slim (although if it were me, I'd pull ALL the pins out using a long
string from behind a concrete wall!).

>    Or, just because you toss an untampered coin and happen to get three 
>    heads in a row does not necessarily increase your chances of getting 
>    heads on the fourth toss. Your chances are still 50/50.

You are exactly right about that, but you are talking about predicting 
subsequent random events, not the likelihood of finding specific, tangible
items in a finite area after previous searches have been made for them
without success. The likelihood of subsequent success diminishes with each
failed attempt. 
    
Allen,

> I think, Ed, that we both agree that if the Book of Mormon is true, then
> at this very instant (3-Mar-1990 4:57 pm EST) there has to be "hard"
> evidence somewhere in North/Central/South America.  

Yes.

> So the question is
> how thorough a search has been done to date in understanding the origins
> of the ancient Americans.  If I understand your perspective, you think
> the search has been very thorough, and therefore the likelihood of such
> "hard" evidence being found is small.  I believe the search is "just
> beginning" so to speak, and that there is a high likelihood that such
> evidence will be found.  Time will tell.  Let's get together in 30 years,
> Ed, and compare notes. 

Well, I think the search has been "pretty" thorough rather than "very" 
thorough, and has given us a good overview of the ancient past of the New 
World, and that while there still may be plenty left to be found, it is much 
more likely to be "more of the same" rather than "completely new," which
is what it would have to be in order for the Book of Mormon to be validated.

We can get together in 30 years if you like, but of course you know what
I'll expect. And, how would you feel if there still is no hard evidence?

Ed

>We can get together in 30 years if you like, but of course you know what
>I'll expect.

Just a quick clarification on why I chose the number "30" instead of some
other length of time.  I'm 54, and I chose 30 as an upper limit on how long
I'll be around.  That number does not imply that I expect hard evidence to
have surfaced by then; as I've explained, I do believe that hard evidence
that is acceptable to you, Ed (BTW, I pretty much agree with your comments
about the nature and necessity of hard evidence), will eventually surface,
but I have no guess as to when it will happen.

> And, how would you feel if there still is no hard evidence?

I expect that I would feel the same as I do now that the evidence will surface
at some future time when it is God's will for that to happen.

Allen

    
    Supper's on, so I'll make my comments brief (for once).
    
    I strongly suspect that if the Bible were subjected to the same
    criteria (of its truthfulness) that have been discussed in this
    (.*) note, that the Bible would fail rather miserably.  
    
    Events like Christ walking on water, rising from the dead have to be 
    taken on faith.  I don't hear anybody crying for proof about Christ's
    resurrection, yet we know it to be true.
    
    It seems only fair to me that we apply the same standard to the Book
    of Mormon that we apply to the Bible.
    
    Regards,
    
    Frank

>An example of something that has been put forth as a piece of hard
>evidence mentioned earlier, that I do not accept, is the stone carving
>referred to as a "Tree of Life." Unless there is a some way to connect it
>to the Book of Mormon peoples, then it is much more likely that it is
>just another example of the numerous stylistic stone carvings unearthed
>in Mesoamerica. The fact that it resembles a tree is just another
>parallel. 

Whoa!  I thought that your definition of "hard" evidence involved something
tangible and a "best" explanation.  How is it that what seems to me to be 
virtually no explanation is better than the explanation that the "Tree 
of Life" tradition could be held in the Old World as well as in the New and 
that the carvings could reflect that tradition?  The "Tree of Life" has 
undergone a lot of study, perhaps too much to so readily dismiss it.  From 
the carvings I've seen it appears that the artist is doing much more than just 
creating a stylistic rendition.  This indicates to me some confusion as to
what constitutes a "best" explanation.  Do all scientists (including 
archaeologists) concur with your "best" explanation for the "Tree of Life"?  

>This is an apples and oranges comparison. Again, we have been talking about
>tangible things - "stuff" - not mathematical breakthroughs. Your example is
>not really relevant to either Ann's point or mine. 

Is not particle physics based on tangible things?  The work of Heisenberg and 
Schroedinger can be verified in the lab.  It was violently verified at 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It is much more than mathematical breakthrough and is 
definitely not apples and oranges, in my opinion.  My examples are relevant to 
the extent that archaeology is compararable to physics as a science.  

>Well, one likely explanation for the "chiasma" trait is that the Book of
>Mormon was deliberately written in a style that mimicked the Bible, and
>it is not impossible that the chiasmic form was transferred into while
>using the Bible as a guide. This is all the more probable if you consider
that there was almost certainly an open copy of the KJV Bible alongside
>during the writing process. Either way, any parallel of style between the
>Book of Mormon and Hebrew writing does not qualify as tangible evidence. 

This is not, in my opinion, the "best" explanation that I could have chosen.  
Chiasma were found in many more places than those sections where the KJV was 
consulted.  They were complex and the trait was not even noticed in Hebrew 
writings until relatively recently.  A better explanation might be that Joseph 
Smith was extremely clever to have noticed this over a hundred years before 
others.  What criteria may be used in determining what constitutes a "best" 
explanation?  The explanation offered here does not apparently consider how 
very little of the B of M extracts KJV text and how much of it is written with 
writing styles that are consistent within context and vary widely over the 
range of the book.  This adds confusion to what constitutes a "best" 
explanation and who it is that decides.

>It is worth considering that just about *all* archaeological research
>has been done in the last 200 years. Consider also that the 160 year span 
>that covers investigation the Book of Mormon falls within the 200 years
>you cite as gaving us most of the tangible evidence supporting the Bible.
>One has to wonder why so much has been found for the Bible while none has
>yet been found for the Book of Mormon. 

At this point I agree with Allen about how much archaeological evidence
has probably been found.  You seem to feel that there is very little 
archaeological evidence left to be found.  Do archaeologists concur, or is this 
your own personal hypothesis?  As mentioned in a previous note, I'm not 
personally convinced that much of the "hard" evidence found for the Bible is 
all that "hard".  I turn out to be in the majority since most of the world
does not believe in the Bible.  A better explanation of the "hard" evidence
for the Bible might be that the Bible simply is a myth based on real places 
and interacting with real events.  The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, 
does not yet enjoy such verification.  But, there is hardly verification of 
anything in the New World during the time frame of the Book of Mormon.  Allen 
and I apparently agree that as that time period begins to be verified there 
will probably be more evidence to substantiate the B of M.  Even then, the 
same better explanation for the "hard" evidence for the Bible might probably 
be applied to the Book of Mormon, resulting in people still being able to 
pretty much believe as they want.  

>Ouch, what a graphic example! First of all, you wouldn't catch me playing 
>Russian roulette with hand grenades, but your example seems deliberately 
>slanted because you are employing a group of things that by nature and 
>definition have the quality you are trying not to find. However, if the
>barrel is full of grenade-looking things of unknown explosivity (is that
>a word?), and you have taken the pins out of all but one and none has
>exploded, I'd say that the chance of the last one exploding is pretty
>slim (although if it were me, I'd pull ALL the pins out using a long
>string from behind a concrete wall!).

My point was to illustrate a concept that is basic to statistics.  That is, 
if there is one live grenade in the barrel your chances increase in finding it 
the more that you search.  What I described was a simple sample without 
replacement situation.  In my reply it was given that there was a live grenade 
in the barrel.  Odds go UP in this example, no matter how many grenades are 
originally in the barrel and until you've found the live grenade.  I think one 
reason that I picked grenades was so that it would be apparent to the casual 
observer when it was that the odds would have reached 1:1 of having found the 
live grenade.  Granted, one might expect there to be more than one live
hand grenade, but if the number of live ones is relatively small compared to
the total number of grenades totally random picks may miss them for a long 
time.

The situation you described does not, from a statistical point of view, result 
in an odds INCREASE unless you assume you have a large sample of the total 
quantity and that your sampling is random.  The first concern is one that Allen 
addressed by indicating that he thought that there was still a lot of evidence 
out there left to unearth.  With this goes the implication that we've not
yet found a large percentage of the evidence.  

The other assumption is that random sampling has been done.  I know of no way 
to assure that.  In fact, it can almost be guaranteed that the acquisition of 
archaeological evidence in the New World has not been random and that it has 
been heavily influenced by outside factors.  For example, when the New World 
was discovered much of the gold and other precious metals were taken to the 
New World and smelted.  That could be one explanation for why there is little 
as far as metal records of the peoples of the New World.  As peoples were 
conquered much of their carvings, artifacts and monuments were intentionally 
destroyed or altered.  There is record of this type of thing in Hebrew 
writings.  The traditions of the American Indian might also substantiate this.  
What archaeologists get is what is left, whatever they can dig up.  Even that 
is rather limited to what they can find relatively close to the Earth's 
surface.  Earthquakes and other changes can destroy or drive tangible evidence 
to great depths.  There are still miles of caves that are unexplored in the 
New World, for example.  Where I come from (Missouri) there are caves which 
remain uncharted by our society, let alone thoroughly explored.  As a kid I was
somtimes hearing of spelunkers finding arrowheads and such down in the depths
of local caves.  With the sampling being rather skewed, it could thus be 
expected that we've not seen as much physical evidence as we would like.

We do have tangible evidence.  We don't know how much is still out there.
We don't have are explanations that everyone agrees upon as being "best".  
Even if everyone agrees, the history of science is full of examples of the 
status quo being fundamentally in error in spite of long periods of time and 
exhaustive searches.  I've not yet found a good argument for why archaeology 
should be different from other sciences in this respect.


Steve

    Thanks, Ed, for spelling out in very precise terms what you mean by 'hard'
    evidence.  You used the word tangible for that hard evidence.  Thus, I
    expect you would not accept much of the literary support for the Bof M
    as an authentic text as researched by Nibley (and as I entered it into
    Note 156).
    
    What about the evidence of the highway system that I mentioned? Would
    that meet your criterion for tangible evidence?  Then there is the fact
    the Bof M mentions horses, which critics used to criticize the BofM
    because as we all know horses were not native to the Americas, but
    brought by the Spaniards.  That is, until a  cadaver of a horse was
    exhumed from the La Brea Tar Pits in Calif, negating that hypothesis
    about horses in America.  Also, the BofM mentions wheels, which
    scholars thought the early Americans did not use because none had been
    found.  But then a child's toy with wheels was found, which dispelled
    that idea.  So would these three evidences, highways, horses, wheels,
    be tangible enough evidence to corroborate the BofM?
    
    I am afraid you and I occupy different ends of the spectrum as to
    evidence from the Americas.  While you say "it (hard evidence) is much
    more likely to be more of the same than completely new", I would prefer
    to keep an open mind and allow that new discoveries and evidence may
    indeed alter very drastically some of our ideas about the Americas.
    
    I once saw a documentary showing So. American pyramids covered by lush
    jungle still unexplored due to accessibility.
    

Re .39

Hi Frank,

You've brought out an good point--it is important that the same standards
be applied to the Bible as to the Book of Mormon.

I think that comments that have been made in various replies in this
conference about hard evidence for the Book of Mormon are concerned with the
history and geography of the book, not the spiritual aspects.  The Nephites
and Lamanites were real people who built cities, highways, etc.  People who
left trash behind.  People who had names and dates.  People who fought wars
with weapons.  And so on.  It is reasonable to expect that many of these
things, would have remained behind after the Nephites were killed and the
Lamanites degenerated into more primitive-type people, and it is reasonable
to expect that scholars who study the ancient Americans will discover these
things.  I think it is obvious that the scholars won't find direct evidence of
the spiritual aspects of the book, although it is conceivable that they might
find written records that tell of such events.

Similarly, the comments that have been made about hard evidence and the Bible
are concerned with the history and geography of the Bible, not the spiritual
aspects.  The Bible tells of cities, wars, kings, dates, etc., and scholars
are finding direct or hard evidence of these things.  So, as I read the comments
made in these replies, I think the two books are being treated the same.

In fact, Ed's objections on the Book of Mormon (within the context of evidence)
are based on his observation that we LDS seem to want to treat the two books
differently.  He has observed that we LDS seem to want to remove the need
for hard or direct evidence for the Book of Mormon and focus only on spiritual
confirmation through prayer. I don't think that any of us actually have the
attitude that hard evidence for the BoM is not necessary, but I can understand
how we might project that impression to others because we constantly talk
about the need for reading the book and asking God in prayer if it is true.
We tend to minimize the need for hard evidence since it is currently not
available.

I've enjoyed this discussion, and I think that if the non-LDS who are following
this topic will sit back, read all of the replies, and try and see the full
picture of what we're talking about, they will realize that we LDS do understand
the importance of direct or hard evidence for the Book of Mormon, and that we
realize that it is not currently available.  Also, I hope this discussion will
have clarified the difference between direct or hard evidence and parallel
evidence, because I've felt for quite a number of years that many LDS mistakenly
think parallel evidence proves the BoM to be true.

Allen

I was thinking about hard evidence this morning, and I thought I'd share
my thoughts FWTW.

One of the characteristics that Ed brought out about hard evidence is that
it supports a particular conclusion and no better conclusion exists (I'm going
from memory and haven't gone back to check his wording, so this is my 
expression of the concept).  I think this is a very important characteristic
of hard evidence.

Suppose, for example, that a band of Nephites spent the night in a particular
location and that one of them left a knife behind.  We're assuming that those
people were actually Nephites, transplanted Hebrews as it were.  Now, 2000+
years later, scholars find the knife.  Let's assume it was buried in a fire
pit, and that the ashes were dated by the scholar to the Book of Mormon times.
The knife is tangible.  It is real.  It is tangible evidence.

Is the knife "hard" evidence of the Book of Mormon.  Unfortunately not.  The
knife and fire pit are "hard" evidence that someone lived then, had a knife and
build fires, but unfortunately a more plausible explanation (from the
scholarly viewpoint) exists.  That is, from the viewpoint of the scholar, it
is more reasonable to assume that the person who dropped the knife was a
descendent of the people who came here during the ice age that to assume that
the person was a transplanted Hebrew.  This is because there is scientific
evidence that people have been here for 30,000+ years and their existence is
accepted by all scientists (my assumption that "all" accept that).  Evidence
for transplanted Hebrews is scanty and in dispute.

On the other hand, if the knife had Hebrew or Egyptian characters inscribed
on it, then the nature of the evidence would be different.  Even in this
case, the knife would not be hard evidence that the person was a Nephite, but
it would be hard evidence of some link between the old and the new worlds.
The knife itself would give no evidence of what that link was.

Thus, even though the knife was dropped by a Nephite (our assumption in
beginning this discussion), the knife would not give any hard evidence that
the person was a Nephite.

I personally think that much of the evidence that will be uncovered by
scientists will be of this type.  It will be objects that could have been
left by a number of types of people.  Nibley expressed his opinion that hard
evidence for the Book of Mormon would come from the literature of the ancient
people not from their houses, weapons, etc.  I think I agree with him, because
in their literature, they can describe their religion, their attitudes, their
origins, their culture, etc.  I'm looking forward to the scientific research
of the next 30 years to see what it brings forth; you younger ones can look
forward to the research during the next 50 years!

Allen

    To Allen Leigh:
    
    You know I think I would have to agree with you about looking for
    evidence/authenticity of the BofM from the literature of the Hebrews
    rather than to artifacts.  The intricacies of the BofM are so many and so
    consistent with the culture, politics, history, customs, mores, values,
    numbers, symbols, literary structures, etc. of these ancient people
    that for Jospeh Smith to have constructed the book it would have been
    impossible.  I believe that these consistencies (see note 156 for
    examples) are a much more complex form of authentication.
    
    Take Chiasmus for example.  A form of mirror writing that was practiced
    by the ancient Hebrews, yet unknown in JS's day.  Even the King James
    translators did not recognize it and tried to reduce the style.  Yet, BofM
    passages (not those taken from Isaiah) are written in this style.
    
    I believe that this evidence (plus so many others) are not so easily
    written off as coincidence.  There are just too many of these stylistic
    features in the BofM to dismiss it as coincidence.  
    
    Paul
                                   

Another pointer to a note that is discussing Chiasmus in the Book of
Mormon is 137.

Even though Chiasms and other forms of Hebrew writing in the Book of Mormon
are parallel evidence, I think they are important because they bring in the
question, "If Joseph Smith were writing the Book of Mormon as a fictional
account, could he have been smart enough to include them?"  (this should be
discussed in another note).

Allen

    Re: Note 64.36 by ARCHER::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,

    I, too, appreciated your further explanation of HARD evidence.

>To (hopefully) clarify further, I will accept evidence for the Book of Mormon 
>as HARD evidence, if:
>
>	1) It is tangible.
>	2) The best explanation for it is that it is connected
>	   to the Book of Mormon peoples.

    It seems to me that there is a piece of evidence that has been ignored
    in this discussion that I would call hard evidence. It is the evidence
    of the gold plates themselves, and the writings that were on them.

    In addition to the Prophet Joseph Smith, himself,  the gold plates,
    from which the Book of Mormon were translated, were shown by the angel
    Moroni to three witnesses: Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin
    Harris. They also examined the engravings on the plates. They gave
    their written testimony that the voice of God declared to them that
    they had been translated by the gift and power of God. 

    The plates were also shown on a separate occasion to eight additional
    witnesses by Joseph Smith. They 'hefted' the plates, and they examined
    the engravings which had "the appearance of ancient work and curious
    workmanship". They also gave their written testimony of this event.

    See the following notes in this conference for more information on
    these witnesses: 31.1, 31.2, 205.3.

    Some of the engravings were copied onto paper, together with their
    translation, and shown to recognized scholars of the day, Charles Anton
    and Dr. Mitchell, who verified that "the tranlation was correct, more
    so than any he had before seen translated", and that the characters
    were "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic". (See Pearl of Great
    Price: Joseph Smith - History 1:63-65).

    All of these witnesses were made before the Church of Jesus Christ of
    Latter Day Saints was ever founded. Some of the witnesses later left
    the church over disagreements, but they never denied their witness of
    these events. Their testimony has never been impeached. 

    I submit that this is hard evidence, because: 

    1) The testimony of the witnesses is tangible, and they testified that
       the plates were tangible.

    2) The best explanation is that it is connected with the Book of Mormon
       peoples.

    Now, it is true that the plates are not now available to be freely
    examined by any and all. And, it is very easy for some to easily
    discard the sincere testimony of these men as liars or as men who were
    deceived. 

    Even so, their testimony is just as valid as the testimony of those who
    were present when the Red Sea parted, or of those who saw the ark of
    the covenant, or of those who saw our resurrected Lord. In fact, their
    testimony may be even more substantiated, in some ways, since their
    testimony is more contemporary. 

    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

	RE: Note 64.46

	Yes, and I would also like to point out the story of Thomas in
	St. John 20 :

	24. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with
	    them when Jesus came.
	25. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the
	    Lord.  But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands
	    the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the
	    nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
	26. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas
	    with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in
	    the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
	27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my
	    hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side:
	    and be not faithless, but believing.
	28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
	29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou 
	    hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet 
	    have believed.

	Now, Thomas wanted some "hard" evidence of the Lord's resurrection.
	Jesus taught that he should have believed in the established order
	of God in the mouths of two or more witnesses. (Matt 18:16)

	Charles

� An example of something that has been put forth as a piece of hard
� evidence mentioned earlier, that I do not accept, is the stone carving
� referred to as a "Tree of Life." Unless there is a some way to connect it
� to the Book of Mormon peoples, then it is much more likely that it is
� just another example of the numerous stylistic stone carvings unearthed
� in Mesoamerica. The fact that it resembles a tree is just another
� parallel. 

> Whoa! I thought that your definition of "hard" evidence involved something
> tangible and a "best" explanation.  How is it that what seems to me to be 
> virtually no explanation is better than the explanation that the "Tree 
> of Life" tradition could be held in the Old World as well as in the New and 
> that the carvings could reflect that tradition?  The "Tree of Life" has 
> undergone a lot of study, perhaps too much to so readily dismiss it.  From 
> the carvings I've seen it appears that the artist is doing much more than just 
> creating a stylistic rendition.  This indicates to me some confusion as to
> what constitutes a "best" explanation.  Do all scientists (including 
> archaeologists) concur with your "best" explanation for the "Tree of Life"?  

I don't know any more about this Tree of Life example than what I've 
heard here. I believe that someone mentioned that it was at best 
controversial and uncertain. I made a guess based upon knowledge of the
many other things that have been misinterpreted in the past by people who
thought they saw something signifigant in an ancient carving, tried to
make a parallel, and looked for evidence to support it and failed to
prove their case. 

I know that it is a carving in stone of what appears to be a tree and has
been interpreted by some as possibly being "the" Tree of Life as
mentioned in the Book of Mormon. That's all. Now you are putting yourself
in the position of telling me that the "best" explanation for it is that
it *is* somehow connected with the Book of Mormon tradition of the Tree
of Life. Do all scientists (including archaeologists) concur with YOUR
"best" explanation of this? If so, then you have found all that is
necessary for me to retract my statement that there is no hard evidence
for the Book of Mormon. 

I am *not* attempting to give a definitive explanation for this artifact. 
I am *not* pretending to know anything about it other than what I have
heard here. My statement was merely to suggest that, since it is not
demonstrably linked to specific BoM peoples, Hebrews, or even Egyptians,
then it cannot serve as "hard" evidence for the BoM, nothing more. 

> Is not particle physics based on tangible things?  The work of Heisenberg
> and Schroedinger can be verified in the lab.  It was violently verified
> at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It is much more than mathematical breakthrough 
> and is definitely not apples and oranges, in my opinion. MY EXAMPLES ARE 
> RELEVANT TO THE EXTENT THAT ARCHAEOLOGY IS COMPARARABLE TO PHYSICS AS A 
> SCIENCE. (my emphasis, since this is the key statement)

There's the "apples and oranges" distinction that you missed. I am 
talking about tangible, one-of-a-kind "things" found in the ground in 
a specific matrix which can be analyzed and conclusions drawn in the 
process of reconstructing the past. Once it's all been gathered, there's 
no more to be found. That's it. Period. Go to the next place. Like
forensics, the search space is fixed. Particle physics has no such
limitations. You are talking about empirical, repeatable, laboratory
research which builds upon previous knowledge and can be extended at any
moment with the introduction of breakthrough research. Therein lies 
the basis for my "apples and oranges" statement. I believe that in drawing 
your parallel between archaeology and physics you overlooked this distinction. 
 
> Chiasma were found in many more places than those sections where the KJV
> was consulted.  They were complex and the trait was not even noticed in
> Hebrew writings until relatively recently.  A better explanation might be
> that Joseph Smith was extremely clever to have noticed this over a
> hundred years before others.  What criteria may be used in determining
> what constitutes a "best" explanation?  The explanation offered here does
> not apparently consider how very little of the B of M extracts KJV text
> and how much of it is written with writing styles that are consistent
> within context and vary widely over the range of the book.  This adds
> confusion to what constitutes a "best" explanation and who it is that
> decides. 

I was not suggesting that the chiasma noted in the Book of Mormon is 
found only in the passages that were copied from the King James Bible.
I was trying to suggest that it is not inconceivable that, in trying to 
make the Book of Mormon appear more Bible-like, the form of chiasma could 
have been inadvertently transferred merely by looking at an example of 
chiasmic writing and transposing different words into it in the process 
of composing the book. This could easily be done with no awareness of the
writing form. If I wanted to write something that read like Shakespeare,
I might take something he wrote and preserve the form using words of my
own. Thus I still maintain that this could explain the "chiasmus" found
in the Book of Mormon. 

> At this point I agree with Allen about how much archaeological evidence
> has probably been found.  You seem to feel that there is very little
> archaeological evidence left to be found.  Do archaeologists concur, or
> is this your own personal hypothesis? 

Certainly we all agree that there is not as much left to find as there
was 200 years ago, and certainly there is plenty left to find. It's just
that the easy stuff, the big things, the extensive things, have pretty
much all been discovered. No, not everything is known or discovered yet, 
but, as in a jigsaw puzzle, big pieces, corners, and pieces stuck
together go in first and beginto form the picture. Then the progressively
smaller pieces fill in more and more, which is my basis for saying that
most of what remains to be found is likely to be more of the same rather
than completely new stuff. 

Most archaeologists today don't expect major finds on the order of those
of the past, for the reasons I mentioned previously. This is not my
personal opinion. It came about from a question I asked during a lecture
break. If you want an authoritative comment on the subject, contact Dr.
Michael Geselowitz at MIT. He's also connected with the Peabody Museum at
Harvard. He taught my archaeology course and explained this to me. 

> As mentioned in a previous note, I'm not personally convinced that much
> of the "hard" evidence found for the Bible is all that "hard". 

This is a nonsensical statement. If something meets the requirements of hard 
evidence, then it is hard evidence. It either is or isn't, there's no 
middle ground that I'm aware of. I believe you meant to say that there is 
not much, or only little, hard evidence for the Bible. 

I'm still waiting for someone to take Roger's (and my) suggestion to get
a copy of Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowall, Intervarsity
Press, that covers the subject of evidence for the historical reliability
of the Bible. Just be careful when you read it. 

> I turn out to be in the majority since most of the world does not believe 
> in the Bible.  

It seems strange that you would associate yourself with the majority who 
do not believe the Bible to make this point, since presumably you 
believe the Bible and therefore are not part of this group. Besides, does
this majority reject the Bible on the basis of inadequate evidence for 
its reliability? I sincerely doubt it. I'll bet that this same group of 
discerning people accept Shakespeare's works without qualms, yet there 
are more questions regarding the reliabiltiy and authorship of 
Shakespeare's works than for the New Testament.


> But, there is hardly verification of anything in the New World during the
> time frame of the Book of Mormon.  

Really? Perhaps you'd be interested in reading the article that Frank 
Willoughby mentioned. Lots of verification in there.

> Allen and I apparently agree that as that time period begins to be
> verified there will probably be more evidence to substantiate the B of M.

You're right. If it's there it will surface. I've just been wondering why 
it hasn't yet, while all this other stuff already has.


> My point was to illustrate a concept that is basic to statistics.  That
> is, if there is one live grenade in the barrel your chances increase in
> finding it the more that you search.  What I described was a simple
> sample without replacement situation.  In my reply it was given that
> there was a live grenade in the barrel.  Odds go UP in this example, no
> matter how many grenades are originally in the barrel and until you've
> found the live grenade. I think one reason that I picked grenades was so
> that it would be apparent to the casual observer when it was that the
> odds would have reached 1:1 of having found the live grenade.  Granted,

And that's why I said that your example was slanted, because it contains 
a "given" that the thing sought for is in the sample. If the thing MIGHT 
OR MIGHT NOT be in the sample, the odds of finding it go down as the 
remaining "things" are examined, because it remaining "chances" are fewer.

> The other assumption is that random sampling has been done.  I know of no
> way to assure that.  In fact, it can almost be guaranteed that the
> acquisition of archaeological evidence in the New World has not been
> random and that it has been heavily influenced by outside factors.  
> For example, when the New World was discovered much of the gold and other
> precious metals were taken to the New World and smelted.  

I'm not sure it is valid to equate archaeology with plundering. Early
archaeology had its connections with plundering, but that is not so
today. I think the whole idea of random sampling in this context is moot,
because no one could fail to be random in the discovery of ancient
artifacts as they might relate to the Book of Mormon. Since none has been
found, how could a conscious decision have been made to avoid that which
might support Mormonism? If it's there, it is where it is, and is as
likely to be found or overlooked as any other remains of human activity.
There is no way to make a case that Mormon artifacts would be any more
laible to be obscurred than others. 

Also, you forget that concerted efforts of Mormon archaeologists, which 
could be construed as seeking a non-random sample, have failed to find
tangible supporting evidence.

What you are saying, which is still a worthwhile point, is that subsequent 
human activity may alter the evidence before the archaeolgists get hold
of it. This too leaves its own evidence and must be taken into consideration 
as well. 

> We do have tangible evidence.  

Of what? Not the Book of Mormon?

> We don't know how much is still out there.

Right. But we know that it's finite.

> We don't have explanations that everyone agrees upon as being "best".  

That's true, but it sounds like an appeal to obfuscation.

> Even if everyone agrees, the history of science is full of examples of the 
> status quo being fundamentally in error in spite of long periods of time and 
> exhaustive searches. I've not yet found a good argument for why archaeology 
> should be different from other sciences in this respect.

No one's saying that it is.

Ed

    Ed,
    
    Sometimes we LDS forget that non-LDS do not know in depth about some of
    the Pre-Columbia  "parallels/evidence" that lend support to the BOFM.
    From your last note, it looks like you are not familiar with what LDS
    call The Lehi Stone.  I attended a lecture on this stone back in the
    70's and have a handout that was given out, which I can send to you.
    It was written by a Richard O. Cowan.  He says:
    
    "In 1941  archeologists unearthed a stela or stone monument in Izapa,
    Chiapas, in southeastern Mexico.  The monument measures ten feet in
    height, five feet in width, and two feet in thickness. 
    Archaeologists designated it "Stela 5" and first published a
    description of it in 1943.  Dr. M. Wells Jakeman of the BYU Dept of
    Archaelogy was impresssed by the similarities between this stone's
    carvings and the record of Lehi's experience (the first prophet of the
    BOFM) and went on to document what he believes is a strong case for
    showing this to be a Nephite artifact.  
    
    I won't put in the whole article, but suffice it to say that Cowan
    presents Jakeman's interpretations of the stone carvings.  The
    parallels to the first book of the BOFM are remarkable and
    many.  
    
    "In the center of the carving is a large tree around which sit
    six figures.  An old man  is shown in an attitude of workshop and
    behind him is another man holding over the old man's head an emblem of a
    crocodile.  In ancient Pre-Columbian tradition this is a name-glyph for
    the great father who was supposed to have come with his family to
    settle the land after a legendary great flood, and who was considered
    the first ancestor of the ancient Guatemalans.  Furthermore, a large
    jaw is a prominent feature of this name-glyph; the Hebrew place-name
    Lehi is defined as jaw, jawbone, of cheek."
    
    Lehi is the name of the patriarch who left Jerusalem in 600BC and
    eventually settled in the Americas.
    
    So what you have in the Lehi Stone is a carving which has been
    shown by Mormon archaeologists to have remarkable connections to the
    BOFM. I do not know what non-LDS scholars think of this stone.
    
    If no other "better interpretation" exists, then the BYU one stands and
    is "hard evidence" for the BOFM.
    
    You said in a previous note; "If it (hard evidence) is there, it will
    surface.  I've just been wondering why it hasn't yet."  Something to
    ponder is that the BOFM peoples were:
    
    	a)nomadic (in some cases)
    	b)at war a lot
    	c)builders that used wood and dirt for most everything
    
    So in a sense it is understandable that not much hard evidence, like
    Stonehenge, Medieval Cathedrals, etc. has survived time and the
    elements and is available.  Thus, for this reason I personally put more
    stock in other evidence and paralles that are, as NIbley says, found in
    the literary evidence.
    
    Let me know if you want the handout.
    
    Paul
    

Hi Paul,

Thanks for entering a description of Stela 5.  It is a good example to
discuss concerning its being direct/hard evidence or only parallel
evidence.

My personal opinion is that the stone is at best only parallel evidence.  As
you indicated in your description, there are parallels between the stone
and the Book of Mormon, but those same parallels could be said to exist
with ancient people who were not transplanted Hebrews.  In fact the
description you gave about the great father who came with his family after
a legendary great flood would rule out Lehi, because there is no record
of a great flood occurring in that area since 600 B.C.  There is a lot of
archaeological evidence that there were people living in the Guatemala area
prior to 600 B.C., so there is no archaeological reason to attribute Lehi
with being the first ancestor of those people.

Allen

re: .48

>Do all scientists (including archaeologists) concur with YOUR
>"best" explanation of this? 

My point was to illustrate the confusion introduced in determining the "best"
explanation necessary in interpreting "hard" evidence.  Just as you could not 
answer "yes" to my question, I cannot answer "yes" to yours.  It demonstrates
your and my weakness with respect to reliably determining the "best" 
explanation.  This places in question the feasibility of you or I 
establishing "hard" evidence for Scriptural texts (Biblical or otherwise).  
This also makes the assertion that there is no "hard" evidence for Scriptural 
texts moot, since it can now be assumed that you and I are not capable of 
reliably determining what is "hard" and what is not.

As to the other points of discussion, if I may paraphrase what you have said
to me, you tend to interpret what I say in the worst possible light.  That
being the case, I don't plan to rephrase or repeat.  Suffice it to say that
we are in disagreement.


Steve

Re 64.30,

>    I tend to look at archeology as a sort of "subjective" science. 

I disagree. Archaeology is constrained by rules and principles which 
severly limit how much subjectivity can be involved and still keep it 
honest. The intent is to reach as objective a conclusion as possible.
If this were not so, then why are Mormon archaeologists so frustrated in
their attempts to find support for the Book of Mormon? Their subjectivity
could otherwise allow them to draw the conclusions they want, yet they're
limited by the disciplines of the science.

>    To me archeology is the science of trying to understand the culture of
>    a civilization based upon the findings of various artifacts (objects).

A good definition of archaeology is the science of reconstructing the
past from the evidence we have in the present. 
    
>    What an unearthed artifact is/means is subject to interpretation, and
>    is generally based upon previous discovery.  If there was an error in
>    the interpretation of something, then it would tend to throw off
>    everything else that is based upon that interpretation.

Yes, but the more robust the body of evidence, the less likely the chance 
of misinterpretation.

>    To me, the accuracy of the interpretation of the artifacts depends
>    on several things:
    
>    1) The accuracy of the observations of the historical writers/observers.
           
Perhaps another way to state that is their point of view, or the context 
in which they interpret history. Marxism provided us with a way of 
looking at the world which is so thorough that Marxist terminology can 
even be used to refute Marxist ideology, yet it is not wrong to say that 
taking a Marxist view of some things will most definitely color your 
conclusions. But again, we're talking about more mundane things, like how 
old is this thing, where did it come from, how was it made, etc.

>    2) The biases of the archaelogist/person studying something.  If I have
>       made up my mind before-hand that something is not true, it is unlikely 
>       my observations will be very accurate.  

How about if you have made up your mind before hand that something
already is true? Will your observations be any better? 
    
>    3) The _continuous_ historical records of the culture studied.  I say
>       continuous, because the more continuous the history of a culture is,
>       the more accurate a picture we have of that culture.  If a culture
>       has died out, it is difficult to accurately interpret what the artifact 
>       was really used for (look at Easter Island for example).

That's why even though hard evidence exists for the Easter Island 
peoples, comparatively little is known about them.
    
Your observations are valid, but they are not new. They are all
influences known to archaeologists, historians and anthropologists, in
their efforts to reconstruct the past. These influences are, as much
as possible, factored in and therefore qualify their conclusions. 

>       To some non-believers, the old & new testaments are legends. We know
>       better, because we have read them and asked God if they were true.
>       The same applies for the Book of Mormon.  

Does this mean that you believe the Old and New Testaments to be just as 
true as the Book of Mormon?

Ed

Ed,

	Either I am missing something, or one of us isn't paying attention.
	Most of your comments in .52 are just a restatement of what I said
	with few disagreements (which I'll cover as we go along).

	Again, I am a layman with NO background in archaeology.  


>>    I tend to look at archeology as a sort of "subjective" science. 

>I disagree. Archaeology is constrained by rules and principles which 
>severly limit how much subjectivity can be involved and still keep it 
>honest. The intent is to reach as objective a conclusion as possible.
>If this were not so, then why are Mormon archaeologists so frustrated in
>their attempts to find support for the Book of Mormon? Their subjectivity
>could otherwise allow them to draw the conclusions they want, yet they're
>limited by the disciplines of the science.


	I still maintain my opinion that archaeology is a subjective
	science.  It is based on the interpretation of the function 
	& purpose of artifacts.  My examples in my previous note stated
	rather clearly (I thought) what I mean.  

	The frustration of the Mormon archaeologists is probably based on
	their desire to show to the world tangible proof of that which the
	Holy Ghost testified to them.  It definitely is frustrating when you 
	have a testimony of something and you want to share it with someone
	else - but they don't want to hear it.


>>    To me archeology is the science of trying to understand the culture of
>>    a civilization based upon the findings of various artifacts (objects).

>A good definition of archaeology is the science of reconstructing the
>past from the evidence we have in the present. 
    

	I think we agree here (rehash).


>>    What an unearthed artifact is/means is subject to interpretation, and
>>    is generally based upon previous discovery.  If there was an error in
>>    the interpretation of something, then it would tend to throw off
>>    everything else that is based upon that interpretation.

>Yes, but the more robust the body of evidence, the less likely the chance 
>of misinterpretation.


	Not necessarily.  Steve and others mentioned examples in previous
    	notes.


>>    To me, the accuracy of the interpretation of the artifacts depends
>>    on several things:
    
>>    1) The accuracy of the observations of the historical writers/observers.
           
>Perhaps another way to state that is their point of view, or the context 
>in which they interpret history. Marxism provided us with a way of 
>looking at the world which is so thorough that Marxist terminology can 
>even be used to refute Marxist ideology, yet it is not wrong to say that 
>taking a Marxist view of some things will most definitely color your 
>conclusions. But again, we're talking about more mundane things, like how 
>old is this thing, where did it come from, how was it made, etc.


	Again, the examples that I (and others) mention cover this.


>>    2) The biases of the archaelogist/person studying something.  If I have
>>       made up my mind before-hand that something is not true, it is unlikely 
>>       my observations will be very accurate.  

>How about if you have made up your mind before hand that something
>already is true? Will your observations be any better? 
    

	I mentioned this earlier in this (and in the previous note)
	Again, since the BoM is a spiritual book, it should be approached
	thoughtfully & prayerfully.  My testimony of the truthfulness of the
        Book of Mormon is not based on archaeological evidence.  I have asked
	our Heavenly Father, in the name of his son Jesus Christ if the Book
	of Mormon is true.  It has been testified to me (by the Holy Ghost)
	that it is true.  As Allen pointed out, we are probably not going to
	find conclusive (undeniable) proof (direct evidence) verifying the 
	Book of Mormon for a while.  But this doesn't bother me.  I would 
	hope (really) that your testimony of the truthfulness of the Bible
	also isn't based on archaeological proof.  If so, I would venture
	to say that you are out on rather thin ice (since most of the 
	scientific community flat-out rejects the concept of "miracles"). 


>>    3) The _continuous_ historical records of the culture studied.  I say
>>       continuous, because the more continuous the history of a culture is,
>>       the more accurate a picture we have of that culture.  If a culture
>>       has died out, it is difficult to accurately interpret what the artifact 
>>       was really used for (look at Easter Island for example).

>That's why even though hard evidence exists for the Easter Island 
>peoples, comparatively little is known about them.
    

	Another re-statement.


>Your observations are valid, but they are not new. They are all
>influences known to archaeologists, historians and anthropologists, in
>their efforts to reconstruct the past. These influences are, as much
>as possible, factored in and therefore qualify their conclusions. 

	They are new to _me_, because I never have really given archaeology
	very much thought before (again, I have no background in archaeology).
	I thought about the subject carefully, weighed it out & drew my own
    	conclusions.
    
>>       To some non-believers, the old & new testaments are legends. We know
>>       better, because we have read them and asked God if they were true.
>>       The same applies for the Book of Mormon.  


>Does this mean that you believe the Old and New Testaments to be just as 
>true as the Book of Mormon?


	For the sake of brevity (and an attempt to avoid redundancy), 
	I will just say that this subject has been covered rather 
	adequately (in other notes) and by those more eloquent than I.

    
========================== Bottom Line =================================
Archaeological proof that the Book of Mormon is true is nice.  But that is
not what I base my testimony (of the Book of Mormon) on.  Don't take my
word that it is true.  Find out for yourself.  Read it.  Study it.  Ponder
it.  Pray about it.  You will gain a testimony of its truthfulness - 
if you are _really_ sincere in your attempts to find out the truthfulness
of the Book of Mormon.

Happy Reading,

Frank 

    Re .46 (Gold plates as hard evidence)
    
>    Now, it is true that the plates are not now available to be freely
>    examined by any and all. And, it is very easy for some to easily
>    discard the sincere testimony of these men as liars or as men who were
>    deceived. 

That's the reason why the gold plates do not qualify as hard evidence, 
because for something to be used as hard evidence, it must exist and be 
available for examination. A written account from people who claim to 
have seen a thing is not the equivalent of having possession of the 
thing. There isn't even hard evidence for the existence of the gold 
plates, so how could the gold plates serve as hard evidence for the Book 
of Mormon? The only evidence we have that the gold plates even existed is
the testimony of a group of Mormon insiders, most of whom did not even
remain in the church. This is not, in my opinion, particularly weighty
evidence. 

>    Some of the engravings were copied onto paper, together with their
>    translation, and shown to recognized scholars of the day, Charles Anton
>    and Dr. Mitchell, who verified that "the tranlation was correct, more
>    so than any he had before seen translated", and that the characters
>    were "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic". 

Here's my understanding of that event: Joseph Smith gave Martin Harris
(who supported Smith during the translation process) a sheet of paper
purporting to be a copy of one of the gold plates. Apparently
unsatisfied, Harris took the paper to Mitchell and Anthon, linguists at
Columbia in New York city. Mitchell could make nothing of the paper, and
referred him to Anthon, who noted that the paper contained an array of
characters from various alphabets: Greek, Hebrew and Roman letters in
various configurations (some sideways or upside down), "crosses and
flourishes," even characters from the Mexican calendar, but no Egyptian
hieroglypics. 

Even without Anthon's denial, I see serious problems with the Mormon
account for several reasons: 

First, it seems almost ludicrous for a given page of an ancient historical 
record to be composed of a hodegepodge of unrelated ancient writing
forms. That's akin to saying that the U.S. Constitution was composed in
English, Greek, Latin and Japanese. It makes no sense whatever.

Also, it contradicts the Mormon claim that the BoM was written in
"reformed" Egyptian. If this is so, where did these "Egyptian, Chaldaic,
Assyriac, and Arabic" characters come from? "Reformed" Egyptian is
supposedly a language which "no man knows." It was so different, in fact, 
that special items and abilities ("the gift and power of God") were 
required to translate it, yet we are expected to believe that not only 
were Anthon and Mitchell both (according to the Mormon account) able to
translate it unaided, but were able to comment on the correctness of Smith's
translation as well!

I think that the Mormon account of Mitchell and Anthon's endorsement
raises far more problems than it solves. It is inconsistent, contradicts
the Book of Mormon itself, and looks very much like a fabrication. 

Judge for yourself. 

Ed

    Ed,
    
    If I understand you correctly, in order for the BofM to be verified,
    the original plates must exist and be available.
    
    With this train of thought, how would you feel about the Bible for we
    have no original manuscripts for the collection of books called the
    Bible?  Those ancient documents we do have are only copies of earlier
    manuscripts. Does that mean we should  dismiss the Bible?
    
    By the way,  I am still waiting for you to respond to my "hard
    evidence" of Pre Columbian highways, wheels and horses, I entered 
    in a previous note.  Any thoughts on these yet?
    
    Paul
    
    
    

    Re: Note 64.54 by ARCHER::PRESTON

>That's the reason why the gold plates do not qualify as hard evidence, 
>because for something to be used as hard evidence, it must exist and be 
>available for examination. 

    I maintain that they do exist and were available for examination,
    albeit to a small group of men. In this sense, they do fully qualify as
    hard evidence. That you, or anybody else, cannot personally examine
    them does not determine whether or not they exist. Those who wish to so
    argue must be able to show that the testimony of these witnesses was a
    lie. Certainly, in a court of law, such testimony of twelve eye
    witnesses would carry great weight.

>The only evidence we have that the gold plates even existed is
>the testimony of a group of Mormon insiders, most of whom did not even
>remain in the church. 

    Actually, the fact that some of these men did not remain in the church
    strengthens their testimony. In spite of becoming disaffected with the
    church, and, in some cases with Joseph Smith, none of these witnesses,
    those that remained in the church as well as those who did not, ever
    denied their testimony. If their testimony had been a fabrication, then
    this would be highly unlikely.

>Here's my understanding of that event: 

    Your understanding of the event differs dramatically from the account
    given by Martin Harris. I'm not sure where your account came from, but
    it seems implied that it is based on some denial of Dr. Anton.  The
    case can be made that Martin Harris is a biased witness, but a case can
    also be made that Dr. Anton would have good reason to deny what
    happened, in the face of how the general public viewed the claims of
    the Book of Mormon. He possibly feared public and professional
    ridicule.  I guess it is Harris' word against Anton's as to what really
    happened.

>First, it seems almost ludicrous for a given page of an ancient historical 
>record to be composed of a hodegepodge of unrelated ancient writing
>forms. That's akin to saying that the U.S. Constitution was composed in
>English, Greek, Latin and Japanese. It makes no sense whatever.
>
>Also, it contradicts the Mormon claim that the BoM was written in
>"reformed" Egyptian. If this is so, where did these "Egyptian, Chaldaic,
>Assyriac, and Arabic" characters come from? "Reformed" Egyptian is
>supposedly a language which "no man knows." It was so different, in fact, 
>that special items and abilities ("the gift and power of God") were 
>required to translate it, yet we are expected to believe that not only 
>were Anthon and Mitchell both (according to the Mormon account) able to
>translate it unaided, but were able to comment on the correctness of Smith's
>translation as well!

    Reformed Egyptian could mean anything. It could well mean a melding of
    various languages that were familiar to the Nephites, just as English
    has evolved to include many aspects of other languages. Do you think
    Shakespeare would understand our English of today?

    It is also not surprising that the "Gift and Power of God" would be
    necessary to translate a book of scripture to its correct meaning, if
    the language it were written in and idiomatic usage had evolved to be
    different from any other language. That Anton could translate snatches
    of it would not be improbable, either, though a complete and correct
    translation of the whole would be highly doubtful, if it was what it
    claimed to be.

>Judge for yourself. 

    Ok!

    Rich

    Re .55
    
    Paul, I like notes like your last one - I can reply on-line for a
    change. Those lengthy responses take their toll after a while..!
    
>    If I understand you correctly, in order for the BofM to be verified,
>    the original plates must exist and be available.
    
>    With this train of thought, how would you feel about the Bible for we
>    have no original manuscripts for the collection of books called the
>    Bible?  
    
    To correct a bit, I said that for the gold plates to be considered as
    hard evidence for the BoM, they would have to exist and be available.
    They do not exist, therefore they cannot be cited as hard evidence.
    
    Since we have no original manuscripts for the various books of the 
    Bible, then those manuscripts cannot be cited as hard evidence either.
    
    You can dismiss neither the Bible or the Book of Mormon simply because
    we do not possess the original manuscripts, although possession of the
    originals of either would be of immense benefit.
    
>    By the way,  I am still waiting for you to respond to my "hard
>    evidence" of Pre Columbian highways, wheels and horses, I entered 
>    in a previous note.  Any thoughts on these yet?
    
    Thanks for your patience. I have been very busy and have had to be
    selective in my responses. My preference would be to have the time to
    respond to all questions and comments equally, but in reality some
    responses will be late, and some may never come... I'll try to get to
    it if I can...
    
    Ed    
    

    I am glad to hear you say the we cannot dismiss either the Bible or
    the BofM because we do not have the original manuscripts/plates.  It is
    for this reason that I like NIbley's research (Note 156) as he dissected
    the BofM to see if contained evidence consistent with literary,
    cultural, geographical and historical conventions of the time in which
    it was written.  And his research showed how it does conform rather
    vigorously to these conventions.
    
    Being an old literature major, I appreciate these evidences as being
    much more convincing than archeological finds.
    
    thanks for your note.  I am glad we can agree on some points.  
    
    Paul
                                                                      

Frank,

In the past there has sometimes developed a tone of contention (the 
unhealthy kind) partly because we have tended to focus solely on areas of 
disagreement. Since you mentioned that you have had no training or
exposure to archaeology, and I have (a little), I felt that in the
process of addressing the various points you made in your note it might
be helpful to include my thoughts regarding where I think your observations 
are correct as well as where we disagree. Try not to confuse this with
"not paying attention" and "rehashing." If you prefer that I stick with
just what we disagree on, let me know. It will save me a lot of typing
time. 

>	I still maintain my opinion that archaeology is a subjective
>	science.  It is based on the interpretation of the function 
>	& purpose of artifacts.  My examples in my previous note stated
>	rather clearly (I thought) what I mean.  

Yes, you have basis for calling archaeology a "subjective" science, but I 
am trying to point out that the latitude one's subjectivity is allowed 
to operate in is narrower that you might think, due to the constraints of 
the science. Ultimately *every* science operates in the realm of 
subjectivity when conclusions based upon less than perfect evidence must 
be drawn. The hard evidence determines the parameters in which your 
subjectivity operates. Beyond that you are dealing in intellectual 
dishonesty. That being the case, no matter how subjective one may be, 
the available options are limited by the evidence at hand.

>	The frustration of the Mormon archaeologists is probably based on
>	their desire to show to the world tangible proof of that which the
>	Holy Ghost testified to them.  

Yes, as well as a lack of tangible evidence to support their belief that the 
BoM is a reliable history of the New World, which has been the main point 
all along.

>>Yes, but the more robust the body of evidence, the less likely the chance 
>>of misinterpretation.

>	Not necessarily.  Steve and others mentioned examples in previous
>    	notes.

The more pieces of a puzzle you already have in place, the less likely you 
are to misinterpret the picture, Steve's and others' examples do not 
change this. While there is always some room for unexpected things to 
turn up, the liklihood decreases as more of the picture falls into place. 
    
>	I mentioned this earlier in this (and in the previous note)
>	Again, since the BoM is a spiritual book, it should be approached
>	thoughtfully & prayerfully.  

The Book of Mormon so clearly claims to be a historical record that no 
matter what kind of spirituality you wish to invest in it, it cannot be 
exempted from the scrutiny to which every other historical document is 
subject. The best that can be said about it is that the available
evidence fails to support it. The spiritual side is a whole different
matter, and should not be appealed to as a solution to the historical
problems with the book. 

>	I would hope (really) that your testimony of the truthfulness 
>	of the Bible also isn't based on archaeological proof. If so, 
>	I would venture	to say that you are out on rather thin ice 
>	(since most of the scientific community flat-out rejects the 
>	concept of "miracles"). 

First of all we have been talking about tangible, objective, verifiable 
evidence for the reliability of historical documents, not the role of 
"miracles" in determining truth. Miracles is a completely different,
and worthy, subject, but not relevant to our discussion. The scientific 
community may reject "miracles," but they do not reject tangible, objective 
evidence. 

Since the Bible contains many historical mentions, it is encouraging to 
know that there is indeed a body of objective evidence that allows us to 
have confidence in its accuracy and reliability as a document. I did not
start with a "testimony" of the Bible, as Mormons do with the Book of
Mormon. No other Christian I know began that way. I merely accepted the
Bible as true. What I did receive however, was a realization that Jesus
was my savior and that the sacrifice of his life on the cross was to free
me from the power of sin and enable me to have a right relationship with
God through eternity. 

As I became more familiar with the Bible, questions regarding its
reliability as a document came up, whcih lead to a study of the evidence
for the Bible, and for the reasonableness of Christianity in a world 
which demands that evidence, or lack thereof, be accounted for. I have
yet to be disappointed. There is a wealth of objective, tangible evidence
that supports the reliability of both the Old and New Testaments, evidence
for which the Book of Mormon has no counterpart. This evidence is not the
basis for my beliefs, nor of my relationship with God, it merely is a
measure of the intellectual reasonableness of Christianity and the
reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible. 

I have responded to your invitation to seek a testimony of the Book of 
Mormon in note 51. That seemed a more appropriate place for it.

Ed

>>In the past there has sometimes developed a tone of contention (the 
>>unhealthy kind) partly because we have tended to focus solely on areas of 
>>disagreement. Since you mentioned that you have had no training or
>>exposure to archaeology, and I have (a little), I felt that in the
>>process of addressing the various points you made in your note it might
>>be helpful to include my thoughts regarding where I think your observations 
>>are correct as well as where we disagree. Try not to confuse this with
>>"not paying attention" and "rehashing." If you prefer that I stick with
>>just what we disagree on, let me know. It will save me a lot of typing
>>time. 

    You are right Ed.  I made a mistake and jumped to the wrong conclusion.
    Thanks for taking the time to correct me. 
    

>Yes, you have basis for calling archaeology a "subjective" science, but I 
>am trying to point out that the latitude one's subjectivity is allowed 
>to operate in is narrower that you might think, due to the constraints of 
>the science. Ultimately *every* science operates in the realm of 
>subjectivity when conclusions based upon less than perfect evidence must 
>be drawn. The hard evidence determines the parameters in which your 
>subjectivity operates. Beyond that you are dealing in intellectual 
>dishonesty. That being the case, no matter how subjective one may be, 
>the available options are limited by the evidence at hand.

    I agree with all except the last sentence.  Sometimes, not having all
    of the facts can be lead you to the wrong conclusion.  I saw a nice
    commercial on Brittish TV regarding this.  It showed a punker running
    from an alley obviously in a hurry.  In the next seen, you see him
    running into a man and knocking him down.  The viewer's reaction is 
    that the punker was mugging the man.  The scene fades back & you see
    that a above the man was a load of bricks suspended by a crane & the
    bricks were falling.  In the commercial, the punker saved the man's
    life.  Things aren't always what they seem - in spite of the evidence
    to the contrary.  I just meant to say that all of the facts aren't in
    yet on the Book of Mormon.
    
    
>>	The frustration of the Mormon archaeologists is probably based on
>>	their desire to show to the world tangible proof of that which the
>>	Holy Ghost testified to them.  

>Yes, as well as a lack of tangible evidence to support their belief that the 
>BoM is a reliable history of the New World, which has been the main point 
>all along.
    
    
	To me, the main point is that the Book of Mormon is a second
        witness for Christ.  Everything else is just icing on the cake.
    
    
    
>>	I mentioned this earlier in this (and in the previous note)
>>	Again, since the BoM is a spiritual book, it should be approached
>>	thoughtfully & prayerfully.  

>The Book of Mormon so clearly claims to be a historical record that no 
>matter what kind of spirituality you wish to invest in it, it cannot be 
>exempted from the scrutiny to which every other historical document is 
>subject. The best that can be said about it is that the available
>evidence fails to support it. The spiritual side is a whole different
>matter, and should not be appealed to as a solution to the historical
>problems with the book. 

    Again, I don't think all of the facts are in yet.  Since they aren't
    (IMHO), I still think that the best way to resolve the conflict is to 
    ask God through his Son, Jesus Christ if it is true (see James 1:5-6).
    
>>	I would hope (really) that your testimony of the truthfulness 
>>	of the Bible also isn't based on archaeological proof. If so, 
>>	I would venture	to say that you are out on rather thin ice 
>>	(since most of the scientific community flat-out rejects the 
>>	concept of "miracles"). 

>First of all we have been talking about tangible, objective, verifiable 
>evidence for the reliability of historical documents, not the role of 
>"miracles" in determining truth. Miracles is a completely different,
>and worthy, subject, but not relevant to our discussion. The scientific 
>community may reject "miracles," but they do not reject tangible, objective 
>evidence. 

    I think that Steve & Paul pretty well answered this.
    
    
>Since the Bible contains many historical mentions, it is encouraging to 
>know that there is indeed a body of objective evidence that allows us to 
>have confidence in its accuracy and reliability as a document. I did not
>start with a "testimony" of the Bible, as Mormons do with the Book of
>Mormon. No other Christian I know began that way. I merely accepted the
>Bible as true. What I did receive however, was a realization that Jesus
>was my savior and that the sacrifice of his life on the cross was to free
>me from the power of sin and enable me to have a right relationship with
>God through eternity. 
    
    I did not (nor anyone I have talked to about it) has "started with a 
    testimony of the Book of Mormon.  It isn't something that is handed to
    you.  You have to read it, ponder it & pray about.  To me praying about
    it is the real key.
    
    I really enjoyed your last sentence.  We share do have something in
    common - our knowledge that Jesus _is_ our Saviour & what the Atonement 
    means to us personally.  It really is something too special for words.
    
    
>As I became more familiar with the Bible, questions regarding its
>reliability as a document came up, whcih lead to a study of the evidence
>for the Bible, and for the reasonableness of Christianity in a world 
>which demands that evidence, or lack thereof, be accounted for. I have
>yet to be disappointed. There is a wealth of objective, tangible evidence
>that supports the reliability of both the Old and New Testaments, evidence
>for which the Book of Mormon has no counterpart. This evidence is not the
>basis for my beliefs, nor of my relationship with God, it merely is a
>measure of the intellectual reasonableness of Christianity and the
>reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible. 

    Isn't looking for evidence more or less what "looking for signs" is 
    all about?  To me, this qualifies as a test of faith.  I agree that 
    "This evidence is not the basis for my beliefs, nor of my relationship 
    with God".  It also adequately describes my position that the Book of
    Mormon be put to the test by asking God about it in humble prayer.  As
    far as the second half of the sentence goes, prayer will also give me
    a testimony of the truthfulness, reliability, & trustworthiness of the
    Bible.  I don't need rely on others to figure it out for me (although
    I will listen to their advice & then pray about it).
    
>I have responded to your invitation to seek a testimony of the Book of 
>Mormon in note 51. That seemed a more appropriate place for it.

Thanks, Ed
    
    
    Take care,
    
    Frank

    I have read this note with great interest.  Thanks to all who
    contributed.
    
    Just as a point of interest.  Our PBS station in New Hampshire is
    running a series called TESTAMENT which deals with the Old Testament
    and archaeology related to it.  It provides a different perspective
    than here in that the program takes the position that there is no
    "good" evidence that any of the historical references in the first 5
    books of the OT can be verified.  In fact it states directly that they
    just could not happen given the realities of the region and the other
    achaeological records.  It does make the statements that the Bible is
    recording not actual events but symbolic events since the evidence does
    not support the biblical account.  The program also points out that
    even though great effort has been underway to "prove" the Bible from
    archaeology for many 100s of years much has been claimed but little has
    been able to withstand modern reexamination.
    
    The author of the series is obviously still very much convinced that
    the Bible has great truths to teach and is important in its own right,
    but even admits that our understanding of these "truths" may or may not
    be what the original writers wanted to convey due to cultural
    differences.
    
    My take on all this is that both the Bible and Book of Mormon would be
    viewed by the author of this series in the very same catagory; ie. no
    evidence in archaeology to support either, and both must be taken on
    faith, and both provide a record not of actual events but of concepts
    and ideas generated by a "foreign to us" culture.
    
    I appreciated the series in allowing me to reexamine the Bible from a
    different point of view and for the review of archaeological "facts"
    relating to the Bible.  The only warning is that this program is not
    for those who get upset if their notions of the absolute correctness of
    the Bible is challenged.  I have a friend (nonLDS as it turned out) who
    roundly condemned the program.
    

    Thanks for posting that.  And, I'm sorry I haven't seen it yet.  It
    reminded me of some of the things that I mentioned in note 51.73.
    I suspect that in time we'll better understand how and why, for example, 
    the first five books of the OT were written/translated the way that
    they were.  I suspect that, like the B of M, the intent was not to
    form a chronology but to contain those spiritual things needed for man.
    
    Steve

    > In fact it states directly that they
    > just could not happen given the realities of the region and the other
    > achaeological records.  
    
      Could you please post a few of the examples given.  I would imagine
     that the examples are very different from the problems associated with
     the BOM.  Keep in mind that the program is only on the first 5 books.