Conference tecrus::mormonism

Hi Ed,

I would be very interested in reading your paper.  Can it be posted to
this note?  If not, let us know how you want to distribute it.  Rather than
have people reply to this note with their mailing address, it would be better
for them to MAIL you directly.

Allen

    I'm interested.  All I recall is something about how "mound building"
    might be like pyramid building.  Nothing doctrinal, just speculation.
    
    Steve

    The Book of Mormon does speak about how the people created large mounds
    of earth for military defense purposes. I don't know if these are the
    same mounds that you are referring to or not, but this parallel came
    to mind. 

    Rich

> I would be very interested in reading your paper.  Can it be posted to
> this note?  If not, let us know how you want to distribute it.  
    
    Allen, I can certainly post it here - no need to mail it. I guess I
    wanted to establish a certain degree of interest rather than just
    popping it in unannounced. Also, I must say that Mormons will not
    necessarily be flattered by what is written in the paper, although my
    intention was only to keep to what was relevant to the topic. 
    
    Again, before I began the research, I did not realize the apparent
    connection between Mormonism and my topic, but when I discovered it, I
    could not resist including it in the paper. It was done with the
    blessing of my instructor as well.
    
    Rich - no kidding? I did not know that there is explicit mention of
    earthen mounds in the Book of Mormon. That's interesting. Keep it in
    mind when you read the paper...
    
    I will put in a little intro and maybe a "disclaimer" as a reply, then
    follow with the text of the paper.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed

================================================================================
Note 240.1               Warfare and the Book of Mormon                   1 of 3
CLIMB::LEIGH "Feed My sheep"                         34 lines   3-MAY-1989 20:58
                          -< Earthen fortifications >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Sorenson in his book "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of
Mormon" discussed warfare in the Book of Mormon with that of Mesoamerica.

    When Cortez crossed southern Mexico during his epic journey to Honduras,
    he discovered fortifications around the Laguna de Terminos area very
    similar to those Moroni erected in the first century B.C. (alma 53:1-5)
    in the east coastal lowlands [according to Sorenson's model of Book of
    Mormon geography] only a few score miles from Cortez's route.  The Book
    of Mormon describes a ditch being dug around the protected area; the
    excavated earth was piled inward to form a bank.  Atop it a fence of
    timbers was planted and bound together with vines.  That very arrangement
    is now well documented archaeologically.  The National Geographic
    Society-Tulane University project at Becan in the center of the Yucatan
    peninsula has shown the pattern to be very old.  [David] Webster's
    interpretation of the excavations sees a massive earthen rampart around
    the center somewhere between A.D. 250 and 450, during the period when
    the final Nephite wars with the Lamanites occurred.  The impressive size
    of this defensive construction is shown by Webster's observation that
    from the top of the embankment (not counting the probable timber palisade
    on top) to the bottom of the ditch the distance was nearly 35 feet.  "An
    enemy force caught in the bottom of the ditch would have been at the
    mercy of the defenders, whose most effective weapons under the circumstances
    would have been large rocks."  Moreover, "the extreme width of the defense
    provides additional protection, for heavy missiles can be thrown only with
    great difficulty from the embankment to the outside edge of the ditch in
    most places.  To throw 'uphill' from the outside is almost impossible.
    Defenders, possibly screened by a palisade, could have rained long-distance
    missiles on approaching enemies using spear throwers and slings."(36)
    Compare these statements with Alma 49:22: "But behold...[the attacking
    Lamanites] were swept off the fortification by the stones and arrows which
    were thrown at them."  A full comparison of Mesoamerican tactics, strategy,
    and defensive constructions--little as has been learned about the subject
    thus far--reveals many other instructive parallels with the Book of
    Mormon, most of them unsuspected only a few years ago.  (pp. 261-262)

    Re -1: 
    
    Thanks, Allen that entry helps provides a setting for my paper.
    
    I just realised that I already had a fairly good intro with the base 
    note, so I will not try to repeat too much of it again.

    The following is a term paper done for a course I just completed in 
    archaeology at Harvard University Extension. It is not by any means an 
    exhaustive work of research, but what is contained in it is accurate and 
    correct to the best of my knowledge. References are made where 
    appropriate, and where something may be controversial, I try to present 
    it as such. The paper was done to fulfill a course requirement, not earn 
    a doctorate, so adjust your expectations accordingly. 

    I also should add that this paper was not intended to be "anti-Mormon", 
    it is simply that the relevance of Mormonism to the paper topic was such 
    that I felt it ought to be included. I say this because, unfortunately, 
    (as I said) Mormons will not find it flattering (although I don't
    expect to inspire a mass exodus, either). 

    Simply put, you should see that what was one of the prevailing contro-
    versies of the early nineteenth century seems to have had a profound 
    influence on the contents of the Book of Mormon.

    I'll be happy to respond to any questions or comments (as usual!).

    Thanks,

    Ed

                 MOUND BUILDERS: THE ROLE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 
                IN THE RISE AND FALL OF AN AMERICAN MYTH, 
                   AND THE CONTEXT FOR A NEW RELIGION
	
                           Edmund Preston
	
	
                  ANTH E-1b: Introduction to Archaeology
	
                         Dr. Michael Geselowitz,
                      Harvard University Extension
                             January 8, 1990
	
	
	Early settlers to North America came with the expectation
	that they might encounter ancient remnants of highly
	developed civilizations, such as were discovered earlier 
	in Central and South America. Spanish discoveries of
	great civilizations and fabulous wealth gave rise to the
	anticipation of finding more of the same in the north. They
	were ultimately disappointed, though, to find neither cities
	of gold nor indications of vast and wonderful ancient
	civilizations comparable to the Greek, Roman and Egyptian
	legacies of the Old World. In contrast to the abundant
	ancient ruins in the Old World, the New World, especially in
	the area of the original thirteen colonies, seemed
	particulary barren of evidence of a meaningful past. 
	
	Later, as expansion beyond the original thirteen colonies
	extended settlements westward and southward, and the vast
	array of artificial earthen mounds began coming to light and
	quickly provided ample raw material upon which to build the
	provocative and stirring myths that captured the imagination
	of America for the better part of the nineteenth century.
	When opened, many of were found to contain human and animal
	remains, pottery, tools, weapons, jewelery, etc. Many
	theories were quickly advanced to explain the origin of the
	mounds and their builders. Since the native Americans were
	perceived to be primitive "savages", it was presumed that
	they could not have been the same peoples who constructed
	the mysterious earthen mounds. The myth of the Mound
	Builders is all the more interesting since it arose at the
	same time that archaeology began to distinguish itself from
	mere grave plundering and emerge as a scientific discipline.
	
	It seems that the process of myth formation races far ahead
	of objectivity in providing an explanation for the mystery
	upon which the myth is founded. This is not to say that
	objective findings don't play a role in the process. On the
	contrary, it is the early facts that provide the starting
	point for the myth, separating it from and elevating it
	above pure fantasy, by giving it a tangible basis in the
	real and present world. Depending upon the scale and
	entrenchment of the myth, the addition of new facts may only
	expand the proportions of the myth rather than bring it into
	a more concrete and reasonable context. 
	
	Not only did the discovery of these thousands of ancient,
	artificial earthen mounds provide a sense of temporal
	context that the Americas had prevously lacked, but they
	also quickly became tantalizing candidates for solutions to
	older unanswered questions. Theories about the origin of the
	Mound Builders dovetailed neatly into another much older
	theory, that the American Indians were descendents of the
	"Ten Lost Tribes" of Israel, and spawned any number of
	variations as well. In a short period of time, America went
	from a land bereft of antiquity to the forefront of
	anthropological speculation. "In a stroke, North America was
	joined to the world's past, and no longer traditionfree and
	timeless. More than that: the presence of the mounds opened
	the floodgates of speculation. If the Israelites had built
	mounds in Canaan, why not in Ohio? Learned men came forth to
	suggest that our land had been visited in antiquity by
	Hebrews, Greeks, Vikings, Hindus, Phoenicians - anyone, in
	short, who ever built a mound in the Old World. The silent
	structures along our rivers were credited to many nations;
	and then, of course, it became necessary to determine what
	had become of those ancient immigrants to America. The
	answer was obvious: they had been exterminated at some past
	date by the despicable, treacherous, red-skinned savages who
	even now were causing so much trouble for the Christian
	settlers of the New World. 
	
	"In this way a legend was born, a governing myth that
	dominated the American imagination throughout the nineteenth
	century. The builders of the mounds were transformed into
	the Mound Builders, a lost race of diligent and gifted
	artisans, who had passed across the scene in shadowed
	antiquity. Perhaps they had come from the Old World, perhaps
	from Mexico; perhaps they had gone to Mexico once their work
	here was done. No one knew, but the scope for imaginitive
	investigation was boundless. The myth took root, flourished,
	grew mightily, even spawned a new religion; then scientists
	took over from the mythmakers and hacked away at the
	luxurious growth of fantasy." (1)
	
	Archaeology at that time was still emerging as a science,
	having begun in the late eighteenth century with the work of
	J. J. Winckelmann. (2) Just enough work had been done
	examining the mounds and their contents to add substance and
	credibility to almost any theory regarding their origin.
	Archaeology, or more precisely, archaeology in concert with
	disciplines such as history and anthropology, refrains from
	drawing conclusions based on scant evidence and superficial
	parallels. Not so the myth, which accounts for the nearly
	100 years it took for the question of the Mound Builders to
	finally be settled. 
	
	The earliest mention of Northern mounds is found in the
	writings of Christian missionaries who lived for many years
	among Indian tribes in the vicinity of the Delaware valley.
	One of them, John Heckewelder, who, "unlike most of the men
	of his day refused to regard the Indians as beasts or
	worthless pagans" (3) published in 1819 an extensive work on
	the history and traditions of the Delaware Indians, including 
	a lengthy account concerning the the original inhabitants of
	the area, who the migrating Delawares had displaced after a
	lengthy struggle. Heckewelder himself did not speculate on
	the origin of the builders of the mounds of that area, but
	his work added fuel to a great deal of debate on both sides
	of the controversy. Some felt that Heckwelder's work proved
	that the Cherokees were the builders of the Ohio mounds,
	since their migration traditions appeared consistent with
	Heckwelder's account of the Delawares forcing their 
	adversaries to flee, while others seized upon his description 
	(based on the Indian traditions) of the original inhabitants
	to conclude that the builders of the Ohio Valley mounds were
	not Cherokees or any other known Indian tribe. "And so began
	the vain search for the race of giant Mound Builders in the
	Ohio Valley."(4) 
	
	While the variety of theories seemed nearly endless, they
	generally fell into two camps, the deciding issue being
	whether or not the Indians or their descendents, could have
	built the mounds themselves. The prevailing attitude of
	those who insisted that there must have been a "lost race"
	of Mound Builders was based upon a racism that could not
	reconcile the prevailing image of the Indian with the effort
	and skill required to build on such a grand scale. Some of
	the mounds were immense, containing hundreds of thousands of
	square feet of earth and covering acres of land, some 
	were raised embankments in various geometric shapes,
	as well as effigies of men, beasts, reptiles or birds, and
	still others were considered to be military fortifications. 
	A similar debate had been raging for centuries regarding the 
	cities of the Aztecs and the Incas, whose cities were "in 
	some ways grander and more advanced than those of sixteenth 
	century Europe, a fact that persuaded early theorists that 
	their builders could not possibly have been indigenous to 
	the American continents. No, they must have come from the 
	Old World, settling among the red-skinned savages and 
	erecting their great metropolitan centers." (5)
	
	Those reluctant to fully accept this particular form of
	racism did not find a ready audience: "In such an
	intellectual environment it was difficult for the
	conservatives to make themselves heard, and almost
	impossible for them to find a following. Some deep national
	need was fullfilled by the myth of the Mound Builders, and
	debunkers were unpopular. The dream of a lost prehistoric
	race in the American heartland was profoundly satisfying;
	and if the vanished ones had been giants, or white men, or
	Israelites, or danes or Toltecs, or giant white Jewish
	Toltec Vikings, so much the better. The people of the United
	States were engaged in an undeclared war against the Indians
	who blocked their path to expansion... and as this
	century-long campaign of genocide proceeded, it may have
	been expedient to conjure up a previous race whom the
	Indians had displaced in the same way. Conscience might ache
	a bit over the uprooting of the Indians, but not if it could
	be shown that the Indians... were themselves intruders who
	wantonly shattered the glorious Mound Builder civilization
	of old." (6)
	
	Often little restraint was shown, as one day's theory became 
	the next day's fact at the hands of self-appointed authorities 
	who held forth with abandon. Many, "wrote vociferously about
	the Hebrew migration to America, giving the dates of arrival, 
	the routes taken by specific tribes, and the mounds erected
	by each. The fantasies grew more detailed with each retelling, 
	and their authors, generally rural clergymen, won transient
	but dazzling fame." (7)
	
	In contast, no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson, the
	first to employ systmatic archaeological techniques in
	America, sounded a note of cautioned in a letter to a friend
	"It is too early to form theories on those antiquities
	(mounds), we must wait with patience till more facts are
	collected." Later, after performing excavation work on
	mounds located on his own land, Jefferson was of the opinion
	that those mounds, at least, to be the work of Indians. (8)
	
	During the height of national awareness concerning the Mound
	Builders, numerous fictional works based upon the subject
	appeared, exploiting the public fascination for the topic.
	One such work, Manuscript Found, written in 1809 by Solomon
	Spaulding, stands out above all others, not for its literary
	impact, but rather for its supposed role in the establishment 
	of a new religion, now popularly known as the Mormon Church.
	Although unpublished until 1881, the manuscript none the
	less "circulated with remarkable effect." 
	
	Briefly, the book pretended to be a translation of twenty 
	eight parchment rolls found in an artificial cave topped by 
	flat stones on a mound in Conneaut, Ohio, containing the 
	history of the race who built the mounds. Spaulding was
	an advocate of the theory that the American continent was 
	peopled by a colony of ancient Israelites.
	
	The account of the origin of the Book of Mormon is
	remarkably similar to Spaulding's story, although the Book
	of Mormon was written on golden plates rather than
	parchment, and instead of an artificial cave on a mound in
	Ohio, the plates were discovered in a stone box in a
	hillside in New York. The Book of Mormon also professes to
	be the history of a group of ancient Israelites who
	populated the American continent in ancient times. "Here we
	are on delicate ground, for the Mormons are a large and
	active religious group in Modern america, and their beliefs,
	which have insired such derision among what they term
	'Gentile' scholars, are matters of serious value to them.
	The Mormons hold that the tenets of their creed are divinely
	inspired and deserve the same respect accorded the teachings
	of such prophets as Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Critics of
	the Mormons claim that their scriptures are nothing more
	than a tedious, long winded, inflated plagiarism of Solomon
	Spaulding's clumsy fantasy about the Mound Builders." (9)
	
	It is generally agreed upon by those who hold to the charge
	of plagiarism that a copy of the manuscript for Spaulding's
	book was obtained by a Sidney Rigdon, one of the key figures
	in the emergence of the early Mormon church, and used as a
	basis for composing the Book of Mormon. Mr. Rigdon, prior to
	his association with Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism)
	was known as an evangelist with a background first as a
	Baptist, then later as an associate of Alexander Campbell.
	After nearly ten years with Campbell, he was disfellowshipped 
	for his extravagant doctrinal ideas which, oddly enough,
	later appeared in Mormon teachings. It is felt that Rigdon
	and Smith conspired in the production of the Book of Mormon,
	using Spaulding's manuscript, Rigdon's theology, and numerous 
	exerpts from the King James Bible as sources, with Smith's 
	vivid imagination providing the rest. 
	(10)
	
	The Mormon Church, of course, denies the charge of
	plagiarism, and it should be noted that when Spaulding's
	book was finally printed many years later, it was different
	enough in content from the Book of Mormon to divert the
	charge of plagiarism, but the striking similarities between
	the two works cannot be denied. 
	
	"In any event, the legend of the Mound Builders found its
	apothesis when a major religious creed was founded upon it
	by Joseph Smith and made lasting by his successor, Brigham
	young. The essense of the continuing Mormon beliefs concerning 
	the mounds is that proposed by Orson Pratt, an early apostle
	of the Saints, in a pamphlet of 1851, describing the warfare
	between the Nephites and the Lamanites: 
	
	"The bold and bad Lamanites, originally white, became dark
	and dirty, though still retaining a national existence. They
	became wild, savage, and ferocious, seeking by every means
	to the destruction of the prosperous Nephites, against whom
	they many times arrayed their hosts in battle; but were
	repulsed and driven back to their won territories, generally
	with great loss to both sides. The slain, frequently
	amounting to tens of thousands, were piled together in great
	heaps and overspread with a thin covering of earth, which
	will satisfactorily account for those ancient mounds filled
	with human bones, so numerous at the present day, both in
	North and South America." (11)
	
	It is interesting to note that the modern Mormon Church
	still promotes the idea that American Indians are of Jewish
	descent. According to LeGrand Richards, a contemporary
	Mormon Apostle, "The dark skinned people who occupied the
	land of America from that time on were called, in the Book
	of Mormon, Lamanites, which are the people known generally
	as the American Indians, who are of the house of Israel."
	(12) This claim is also found in the introduction
	to current copies of the Book of Mormon. 
	
	The myth began finally to deflate with the work of a Maj J.
	W. Powell, a vigorous advocate of the gathering
	and preservation of knowledge of the American Indian. In a
	report to the Secretary of the Interior, he appealed for the
	creation of a government agency to support and carry on such
	research. He also "came along at the right time, when the
	nation, after decades of dedicated extermination of the in
	dians, was beginning to have a few twinges of conscience.
	Powell used this as an argument for his proposed agency,
	and Congress responded quickly, establishing the Smithsonian
	Institution's bureau fo Ehtnology, and put Major Powell in 
	charge of it. With the establishment of the
	bureau, Powell was able to hire a staff and establish a
	focused work to carry on research into the anthropopogy of
	North America. In 1880, the Bureau published its first Annual
	Report, which included "papers", mostly reports on work
	which had been under way before the formation of the Bureau.
	Powell presented his own views on the mounds thus: "With
	regard to the mounds so widely scattered between the two
	oceans, it may be said that mound-building tribes were known
	in the early history of discovery of this continent, and
	that the vestiges of art discovered do not excell in any
	respect the arts of the Indian tribes known to history.
	There is, therefore, no reason for us to search for an
	extra-limital origin through lost tribes for the arts
	discovered in the mounds of Norh America." (13)
	
	One year after the establishment of the Bureau, prompted by
	a group of archaeologists, an appropriation of funds was
	earmaked by Congress soley for the study of "mound-builders
	and prehistoric mounds", and Major Powell put a Cyrus
	Thomas, a "pronounced believer in the existence of a race of
	Mound Builders, distinct from the American Indians" in
	charge of the mound research, believing that in the process
	he would come to change his mind on the matter. (14)
	
	Thomas did not rush his conclusions. After years of
	extensive field work, exhaustive cataloging, and thorough
	analysis, he finally published his findings in their 
	entirety in tht Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of 
	Ethnology. He "included everything remotely relevant, with no 
	way of knowing that the irrelevancy of 1880 might become the 
	sought-for clue of 1960." (15) He dealt methodically with 
	all past assumptions, proving that they did not stand up to 
	scrutiny. The exhaustive report, some 730 pages, deals with
	each element of wht Powell considered the "absurdities" of 
	the various lost-race theories, and concluded that indeed 
	the native Americans were the builders of the mounds after 
	all.
	
	When at last the myth was done away with, Major Powell
	said in the 1890-91 Annual Report of the Bureau of
	Ethnology: "It is difficult to exaggerate the prevalence of
	this romantic fallacy, or the force with which the
	hypothetical 'lost races' had taken possession of the
	imaginations of men... It was an alluring conjecture that a
	powerful people, superior to the Indians, once occupied the
	valley of the Ohio and Appalacian ranges, their empire
	stretching from Hudson Bay to the Gulf... a people with a
	confederated government... a highly developed religion, with
	homes and husbandry and advanced textile, fictile, and
	ductile arts, with a language, perhaps with letters, all
	swept away before an invasion of copper-skinned Huns from
	some unknown region of the earth, prior to the landing of
	Columbus." (16) Clearly the birth and death of the myth of
	the Mound Builders provides us with a unique perspective on
	the dynamics of human drive to know, to have an answer,
	since it had time to reach full flourish before the emerging
	science of archaeology was able to put it to rest. 
	
	The story of the myth of the Mound Builders shows us that the
	very same human need for "knowing" that spawned the myth
	also drove the scientific research that killed it. And only
	those for whom the romaticism of the myth was of greater
	value than the truer picture that emerged from the objective
	evidence will regret the process. Indeed, something seemingly 
	exists within humanity that cries out for the grand and
	glorious, and as long as an awareness of this desire is
	noted and accorded its proper place, it need not, and really
	ought not, be slain on the altar of cold, hard facts. 
	
	1.  Silverberg, Robert, Mound Builders of Ancient America, 
			(Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1986, p. 6)
	2.  Ceram, C. W., Gods Graves & Scholars 
			(Vintage Books, New York, 1986, chapter 2)
	3.  Silverberg p. 25 
	4.  Silverberg p. 57 
	5.  Silverberg p. 49
	6.  Silverberg p. 57, 58 
	7.  Silverberg p. 53 
	8.  Silverberg p. 44 
	9.  Silverberg p. 90
	10. Gordon Fraser, Is Mormonism Christian? 
			(Gordon Fraser, Moody Press, 1977 ch 5)
	11. Silverberg p. 96 
	12. LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, 
			(Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, UT, 1976 p. 73)
	13. Silverberg p. 172 
	14. Silverberg p. 173 
	15. Silverberg p. 217 
	16. Silverberg p.  7 

Ed,

I enjoyed reading your paper and appreciate getting it; while a missionary
in West Virginia & Ohio, I saw some of the mounds and have wondered about
them.

I was surprised that you seem to have accepted Gordon Fraser's comments about
the Spalding theory without questioning them.  Charges that the Book of
Mormon came from the Spalding manuscript have little basis.  Persons
interested in discussing the Spalding theory are invited to migrate to note
95.

Allen

Re .6

>    Simply put, you should see that what was one of the prevailing contro-
>    versies of the early nineteenth century seems to have had a profound 
>    influence on the contents of the Book of Mormon.

Ed, I see no basis in your paper for your conclusion that "one of the
prevailing controversies of the early nineteenth century seems to have 
had a profound influence on the contents of the Book of Mormon".  It seems
to me, to draw that conclusion, you would need to have given historical
evidence to show that Joseph Smith was influenced by those controversies.
You seem to be drawing your conclusion from parallels rather than from data
(Mormons often make the same mistake when they claim the archaeological ruins
in Mesoamerica prove the Book of Mormon).  I've discussed in note 64 that
parallels don't prove anything but only indicate probability.  Would you care
to elaborate on this?

Allen

    Ed,
    
    Interesting report, a little too brief and superficial for what I was
    hoping to be a more insightful paper.  I disagree with your statement 
    that the LDS Church is built upon the legend of the Mound Builders.  
    The Church is built upon Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and his message 
    of salvation and eternal life.  The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, is
    another document attesting to his divine mission on the earth.  
    
    
    
    

    Actually, if I understand correctly, the B of M does not necessarily limit 
    the building to one race.  Rather, the book indicates that the races did 
    mix on occasion and were highly integrated at times.  Thus, it can
    probably not be used to support a position that Mormons believe the 
    Nephites were "Mound Builders" and the Lamanites were not.  Thus, I 
    found little disagreement with the statement that the American Indians 
    were probably mound builders.
    
    Steve

Allen, 

> I was surprised that you seem to have accepted Gordon Fraser's comments
> about the Spalding theory without questioning them.  Charges that the
> Book of Mormon came from the Spalding manuscript have little basis. 

Perhaps you should have read more carefully. You may feel that I 
accept the theory without question, but I do not. And neither 
does Fraser. He barely mentions it. I personally think there's 
more to the idea that another book, A View of the Hebrews, could have 
played a greater role than Spauldings book, but I did not have the time
to include that in my research. Fraser makes an interesting case for 
a collaboration between Smith, Rigdon, Martin Harris, Parley Pratt, and 
one other (whose name escapes me at the moment - I don't have the book in 
front of me), and does not subscribe to any particular previous theory.

What I said was:

	It is generally agreed upon by THOSE WHO HOLD TO THE CHARGE
	OF PLAGIARISM that a copy of the manuscript for Spaulding's
	book was obtained by a Sidney Rigdon...

I also said:

	...and it should be noted that when Spaulding's book was 
	finally printed many years later, IT WAS DIFFERENT ENOUGH 
	IN CONTENT FROM THE BOOK OF MORMON TO DIVERT THE CHARGE 
	OF PLAGIARISM... 

I hope this does not indicate to you that I accept the theory. I'm sorry
you got that impression, but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised when 
Mormons are quick to pidgeon-hole things that seems critical to their
religion. (Oh no, not the SPAULDING theory again!) I *know* the Spaulding
theory is old hat, and I hope that nobody got the idea that thought I was
coming up with some new, devastating revelation. Originally, I thought 
that Spaulding's book was a one-of-a-kind novel, and that to the degree 
it could be demonstrated that the Book of Mormon was not plagiarized 
from Spaulding's book, then charges of un-originality could be shown
to have little merit. Now I find that novels based on the Mound Builder
myth were as common then as UFO books are today, and the Book of Mormon,
rather than being some new and startling revelation, seems all the more
likely to be just a hybridized version of the popular myth, liberally
sprinkled with Bible verses and heavily overlaid with King James English
("And it came to pass","and it came to pass","and it came to pass").
It was fascinating to learn that in the early 1800's one wouldn't have
far to look to find someone who already believed that the Mound Builders
were one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. 

The whole point of the mention of Mormonism in the paper was to point out
the remarkable parallels between the account in the Book of Mormon versus
the myth of the Mound Builders. The mention of Spaulding's book was 1) to
give an example of just one of the many fictitious works that were
sparked by the Mound Builders mystery, and 2) to point out the
controversy surrounding the alleged plagiarism. Incidentally, Silverberg
went into much greater detail regarding Mormonism than I expected,
although he left it to the reader to draw conclusions. He certainly 
could not be considered "anti" Mormon. In fact he seemed to go out of his
way to be as fair as possible, and very much gave Joseph Smith and the
Mormon Church the benefit of the doubt on a great many points. 

> Ed, I see no basis in your paper for your conclusion that "one of the
> prevailing controversies of the early nineteenth century seems to have 
> had a profound influence on the contents of the Book of Mormon".  It seems
> to me, to draw that conclusion, you would need to have given historical
> evidence to show that Joseph Smith was influenced by those controversies.
> You seem to be drawing your conclusion from parallels rather than from data

What do you mean by "historical evidence?". It certainly seems more than 
a coincidence that Mormon accounts of the origin of the American Indian
seem to be a virtual snapshot of the most persistent of the Mound Builder
theories of the early 1800's. It almost seems that it was intended that
way for maximum public receptivity. There's plenty of historical evidence
to demonstrate that the Lost Tribes/Mound Builder theories were extremely
well known at that time. It is almost too much to believe that Joseph
Smith could be completely unaware of them, then came forth with a book
purporting to be the definitive history of ancient America, yet
containing nothing more original than yet another twist of the most
popular Mound Builder theory of the time. What sort of "historical"
evidence would it take before you began to suspect something? 

> I've discussed in note 64 that parallels don't prove anything but only
> indicate probability.  Would you care to elaborate on this? 

Well, if parallels indicate probability, then I'd say there's a pretty 
good probability that the story line in the Book of Mormon draws heavily 
from a now-defunct nineteenth century myth. In fact, the parallels 
between the Mound Builders and the Book of Mormon peoples seem more 
numerous, consistent and striking than any that have been attempted to be 
drawn between the Book of Mormon peoples and the early inhabitants of 
America. If you want to go into greater depth regarding the use and abuse
of archaeological parallels, I'd be happy to join you. 

Paul,

>   Interesting report, a little too brief and superficial for what I was
>   hoping to be a more insightful paper.  I disagree with your statement 
>   that the LDS Church is built upon the legend of the Mound Builders.  

Sorry to disappoint you. Remember, it was just a term paper, not a
thesis. Besides, I had a final project due for a programming class at the
same time, and you know what that's like. I would have loved to go into
more depth, but the Mormonism part was only included as an example of the
influential nature of the myth. It was not the main topic. 

	"In any event, the legend of the Mound Builders found its
	apothesis when a major religious creed was founded upon it
	by Joseph Smith and made lasting by his successor, Brigham
	Young."

That statement was a quote from Silverberg, and not mine. I don't use 
words like "apothesis." (I wish I could, though!)

>   The Church is built upon Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and his message 
>   of salvation and eternal life.  The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, is
>   another document attesting to his divine mission on the earth.  

That may be, but it doesn't say anything about why the Book of Mormon,
while claiming to be holy scripture and history, contains a remarkably 
clear portrayal of the Mound Builders myth of the early 1800's. 

Steve,

>    Actually, if I understand correctly, the B of M does not necessarily limit 
>    the building to one race.  Rather, the book indicates that the races did 
>    mix on occasion and were highly integrated at times.  Thus, it can
>    probably not be used to support a position that Mormons believe the 
>    Nephites were "Mound Builders" and the Lamanites were not.  Thus, I 
>    found little disagreement with the statement that the American Indians 
>    were probably mound builders.
    
The key point is the misconception that the Mound Builders were descendants 
of the "lost tribes" of Israel. It hardly seems to matter which group Mormons 
believe built the mounds.

Ed
    

    Ed, your paper seems to focus on assertions that the mounds could not
    have been built by one of the "lost tribes".  As near as I can tell, 
    that is an unprovable assertion.
    
    
    Steve

Re .7, .12

>Perhaps you should have read more carefully. 

You're right, and I apologize for not doing so.  I was busy with work
that day, and I should have withheld my comments until I had studied your
paper more thoroughly.

My concerns about your paper, Ed, center on what I feel is the drawing of an
unwarranted conclusion from the parallel between the Mound Builders and the
Book of Mormon.

	"In any event, the legend of the Mound Builders found its
	apothesis when a major religious creed was founded upon it
	by Joseph Smith and made lasting by his successor, Brigham
	young. (Silverberg p. 96)

No one denies that a parallel exists between the Mound Builders and the Book
of Mormon (they both are stories of Hebrews coming to this land), but 
Silverberg's conclusion (and your conclusion since you included it in your
paper) that the Mormon Church was founded upon the legend of the Mound
Builders can not be rationally drawn from that parallel.

I think the significance one places on that parallel is greatly influenced
by his preconceived notion about the Book of Mormon.  In your case, you have
already decided that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God but is a
fictional work.  You have to have some way to account for the book, and 
you look to the parallel with the Mound Builders as an explanation.  I agree
with you, Ed, that  from your viewpoint, that explanation is plausible as a
*possible* explanation.  If it did not come via divine means, then it had to
come as a work of fiction, and it is reasonable to expect that Joseph would
have been influenced by the excitement people had about the mounds.

On the other hand, I have already decided the Book of Mormon is the word of
God.  To me, the parallel between it and the Mound Builders is nothing more
that that, an interesting parallel.  I believe, because of my personal fasting
and prayer, that the Book of Mormon came via divine means.  Thus, I believe
that Joseph Smith actually translated by the influence of God metal plates,
rather than inventing a story that was in keeping with the interest the
people then had about the mounds.

I think that if a person did not have a preconceived notion about the Book
of Mormon, he would have to conclude that the parallel we're discussion
is not sufficient for one to conclude anything about the Book of Mormon.
It is true that stories about Hebrews coming to this land were popular during
the early 1800's, but that does not imply that Joseph Smith was influenced by
those stories as he dictated the manuscript.  Joseph claimed right from
the beginning that the Book of Mormon came via divine means, and additional
evidence of some type, such as affidavits from his contemporaries, diary
entries, etc. would be needed to determine with some degree of likelihood
how Joseph produced the book.

        The account of the origin of the Book of Mormon is
        remarkably similar to Spaulding's story,

I think that is a very questionable statement.  Later in your report, you
acknowledged the two documents were different, but you again repeated your
claim of them being similar.

        and it should be noted that when Spaulding's
	book was finally printed many years later, it was different
	enough in content from the Book of Mormon to divert the
	charge of plagiarism, but the striking similarities between
	the two works cannot be denied.

I'm concerned, Ed, that you claimed the two documents were "remarkably" and
"striking"ly similar, implying the one came from the other, but you don't
give any examples or other information to allow your reader to determine if
your claims are accurate.  I understand this was a term paper and that you
were busy, but I'm concerned that you are making claims about a book I
consider sacred without substantiating your claims with appropriate historical
direct evidence.  You introduce the idea that the Book of Mormon was adapted
from the Spalding manuscript, then you discount the idea, but I feel you do
it in such a way that you leave a lingering suspicion with your readers that
the book really did come from the manuscript.


    There's plenty of historical evidence
    to demonstrate that the Lost Tribes/Mound Builder theories were extremely
    well known at that time. It is almost too much to believe that Joseph
    Smith could be completely unaware of them, 

No one is claiming that Joseph Smith had never heard the stories of the
Mound Builders.

                                                then came forth with a book
    purporting to be the definitive history of ancient America,

The Book of Mormon and the Church have never claimed that the BoM is the
"definitive history of ancient America".  We claim that it is a partial
history of a part (probably a small part) of ancient America.

                                                 yet
    containing nothing more original than yet another twist of the most
    popular Mound Builder theory of the time. 

Well, Ed, if you feel the contents of the Book of Mormon are nothing more
than "another twist" of the Mound Builder myths, I suggest that you read
the book more thoroughly.  In its pages you will find many powerful testimonies
of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and the Son of God.  You will find detailed
explanations of his atonement.  You will find many faith promoting stories
of the faith those people had in Christ.  You will find many interesting
parallels between the Nephites and discoveries made by archaeologists, including
mounds used for warfare (as I posted previously to this note).  

                                               What sort of "historical"
    evidence would it take before you began to suspect something? 

Affidavits from Joseph's contemporaries, diary entries, etc. that indicate
(1) he did not translate metal plates but invented the story, and (2) he was
influenced by the Mound Builder myths.  

    In fact, the parallels 
    between the Mound Builders and the Book of Mormon peoples seem more 
    numerous, consistent and striking than any that have been attempted to be 
    drawn between the Book of Mormon peoples and the early inhabitants of 
    America.

We've presented many of the parallels between the Book of Mormon and
archaeology in the following notes.

    155  Metals in Ancient America
    156  Parallels to the Book of Mormon
    235  Animals in the Book of Mormon
    238  Book of Mormon Plants
    239  Transoceanic Migrations
    240  Warfare and the Book of Mormon

I challenge you, Ed, to open a new note on Parallels between the Book of
Mormon and the Mound Builders and present your evidence that "parallels
between the Mound Builders and the Book of Mormon peoples seem more numerous,
consistent and striking than any that have been attempted to be drawn between
the Book of Mormon peoples and the early inhabitants of America."

Re .13

>    Ed, your paper seems to focus on assertions that the mounds could not
>    have been built by one of the "lost tribes".  As near as I can tell, 
>    that is an unprovable assertion.
    
     Prove it.

My understanding of a proof is that it is only valid if its components are
all true.  Not probably true, absolutely true.  Thus, unless limitations 
are stated, a proof is invalid and must be reconstructed if any of its
components are false.  The limitations of an assertion must be expressed 
before it can be used in a proof.

To prove that it is impossible for any of the "lost tribes" to have built
mounds in the New World you have two approaches.  First, you could attempt to
prove that none of them inhabited the New World.  Second, you could attempt
to prove that had they inhabited the New World they would not have built
mounds.  

It has already been demonstrated that the people of the Old World had the
technology to travel from the Red Sea area to the New World by ship.  That's
been discussed elsewhere.  Thus, there is a non-zero probability that one
or more members of a "lost tribe" could have come to the New World.

Is there evidence that any of the "lost tribe" inhabited the New World,
aside from the Book of Mormons and mounds?  I believe that there has been
a lot of such evidence already mentioned in these notes.  Enough to establish
a non-zero probability.

Thus, before one can prove that it is impossible for any of the "lost tribes"
to have inhabited the New World, one must either recognize these non-zero
probabilities or justify discounting them.  I cannot justify discounting
these evidences.  I would maintain that as long as the possibilites remain 
non-zero they they cannot be discounted.

Thus, I conclude that the assertion that none of the "lost tribes" inhabited 
the New World cannot be proven.  

As to the actual practice of constructing the mounds, the "lost tribes" were
probably capable of such, given that they were capable of constructing
pyramids.  Thus, the probability of such construction appears to me to be 
non-zero.

    This pretty much represents my understanding and is therefore as near as 
    I can tell.  
    
Steve

  
    
> To prove that it is impossible for any of the "lost tribes" to have built
> mounds in the New World you have two approaches.  First, you could attempt to
> prove that none of them inhabited the New World.  Second, you could attempt
> to prove that had they inhabited the New World they would not have built
> mounds.  

    Suppose they did build mounds, where are those mounds and how do you
    ascertain that those mounds were built by the "lost tribes" and not
    by American Indians.  


> Is there evidence that any of the "lost tribe" inhabited the New World,
> aside from the Book of Mormons and mounds?  I believe that there has been
> a lot of such evidence already mentioned in these notes.  Enough to establish
> a non-zero probability.

    I must have missed something -- could you please give me a pointer
    to the evidence of large civilizations of Semitic people in the New
    World?


> As to the actual practice of constructing the mounds, the "lost tribes" were
> probably capable of such, given that they were capable of constructing
> pyramids.  Thus, the probability of such construction appears to me to be 
> non-zero.

    Again, where are those mounds?  And how can you prove that they were
    indeed built by the lost tribes and not by the American Indians?
    
    
    Roger_who_is_not_Ed_but_is_often_confused_with_Ed

Steve, 

> To prove that it is impossible for any of the "lost tribes" to have built
> mounds in the New World you have two approaches. First, you could attempt 
> to prove that none of them inhabited the New World. Second, you could
> attempt to prove that had they inhabited the New World they would not
> have built mounds. 

Steve, you have it backwards. The burden of proof is not on me. It is
you who are laboring under the unprovable assertion, if you hold to the
idea that some "lost tribe of Israel" migrated to the New World and built
or did anything - let alone the monumental exploits if the Book of Mormon
peoples. 

Like Roger said, what's _your_ proof?

Ed

    I don't think it needs to be proven that "the lost tribes" built the
    mounds.  The simple fact is that the mounds were built.  In order to be
    built, someone had to build them.  Whether it was the lost tribes or
    one of the 2 tribes that we know about, it doesn't matter.  The Book of
    Mormon describes a group of people that lived on the American
    continents between 600 BC and 400 AD.  Similarly, there were probably
    other peoples who lived here in addition to the people mentioned in the
    Book of Mormon.  IMHO, the mounds are evidences that people did exist
    on this continent and the Book of Mormon talks about a group of people
    that also existed on this continent.  Just because someone was here to
    build the mounds and the Book of Mormon also talks about someone who
    was here, that does not mean the people mentioned are the same.  To
    parallel the bible, the bible contains a history of a group of people
    who lived in and around Jerusalem, there were other groups of people
    who lived around there that are not mentioned in the bible.  Yet, there
    is historical evidence available that was not left by the people
    mentioned in the bible.  Why don't we apply this test to the bible
    also.  ;).
    
    If this discussion is to be a discussion of archaelogical findings in
    the new world, then that's fine, let's talk.  But if it is to "prove"
    or attack the Book of Mormon, then it is a waste of time.  Those who
    believe won't have a change of heart and likewise those who choose not
    to won't either.
    
    scott
    

	R: Note 302.18	TOMCAT::PRESTON 

>Steve, you have it backwards. The burden of proof is not on me. It is
>you who are laboring under the unprovable assertion, if you hold to the
>idea that some "lost tribe of Israel" migrated to the New World and built
>or did anything - let alone the monumental exploits if the Book of Mormon
>peoples. 

	The Book of Mormon people were not from the 10 lost tribes of Israel.
	They were Jews from the state of Judah.  If there are people who have
	trouble with the Book of Mormon being what it is claimed to be, then
	I feel that is their problem.  I do not feel the obligation or burden
	to prove anything about the Book of Mormon to anybody.

	As to who built the mounds - who cares? It has absolutely nothing to
	do with my eternal salvation.

	Charles

Re .19

>   I don't think it needs to be proven that "the lost tribes" built the
>   mounds.  The simple fact is that the mounds were built.  In order to be
>   built, someone had to build them.  Whether it was the lost tribes or
>   one of the 2 tribes that we know about, it doesn't matter. 

I beg to differ. It matters a great deal who built those mounds, because 
if it was one of the groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon, then we need 
to know that, and if it was not, then why does the Book of Mormon say that
the Nephites and/or Lamanites built mounds? Mormon apostle Parley Pratt
claimed that the mounds were mass graves of those slaughtered by the
thousands in the Book of Mormon battles. This has been proven to be
false, although in keeping with the beliefs of his day. 

History is the written account of the past, and archaeology is the
science of reconstructing the past. Archaeology was done an excellent job
of validating the historical content of the Bible, yet the archaeological
picture of the New World is at odds with the Book of Mormon story. Why is
this? Over a century of combing the New World for artifacts has failed to
turn up even one particle of evidence to support the Book of Mormon.
Shouldn't that make you wonder? The Book of Mormon story contains a
remarkably consistent picture of what is now known to be an unsupportable
myth that was popular in Joseph Smith's time. Shouldn't that make you
wonder? 

The bottom line is that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain 
historical statements (so-and-so went here, did this, built that, etc).
If, therefore, it is important to establish the reliability of the text 
(if one is to pin one's life and subsequent eternal destiny upon what it 
says) then, where the text claims to be history, it should be able to be
examined as such according to whatever standards for validating history
we may have. If the history part of scripture is proven unreliable, then 
what confidence can we have in the rest of it?

You somewhat humorously suggested that we apply archaeological "tests"
to the Bible. You are welcome to, but there are others who are way ahead
of you. Their work has demonstrated a remarkable historical reliability
to the Bible. Can the same thing be said about the Book of Mormon? No.

Archaeology is the science of reconstructing the past, and from the vast 
evidence that we have about the early inhabitants of the Americas, there 
is yet to be found a 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.

>    If this discussion is to be a discussion of archaelogical findings in
>    the new world, then that's fine, let's talk.  But if it is to "prove"
>    or attack the Book of Mormon, then it is a waste of time.  Those who
>    believe won't have a change of heart and likewise those who choose not
>    to won't either.

How can you be so sure of that? I think that anyone who believes in or is
investigating the Book of Mormon ought to look into these things. 

Re .20

Hi Charles, I was wondering where you've been lately...

>	The Book of Mormon people were not from the 10 lost tribes of Israel.
>	They were Jews from the state of Judah.  If there are people who have
>	trouble with the Book of Mormon being what it is claimed to be, then
>	I feel that is their problem.  I do not feel the obligation or burden
>	to prove anything about the Book of Mormon to anybody.

Anyhow.. Ok, so the Book of Mormon people were supposed to be *not* "lost 
tribe" people. I never said anything either way, I don't think. It's 
irrelevant anyway. An old theory about the mounds (as everyone knows by 
now) was that they were built by non-Indian people from another part of 
the world (usually Jews from a "lost tribe"). The theory 
was proven false. Had there been any evidence *at all* of Jewish involvement 
in the building of the mounds, this theory would have been to some degree 
vindicated. It was not. Therefore, to the degree that the original theory 
agreed with the Book of Mormon, to that same degree the Book of Mormon 
has suffered a loss of credibility.

>	As to who built the mounds - who cares? It has absolutely nothing to
>	do with my eternal salvation.

Well, in one sense, you're absolutely right. It doesn't matter any more
than who built the Empire State Building. But in another sense, and now
I'm repeating myself, if the book you turn to for guidance in your search
for eternal salvation makes erroneous statements about something as mundane
as history, how much can you trust it when it tells you how to go about
finding eternal life? 

Regards,

Ed

>if the book you turn to for guidance in your search
>for eternal salvation makes erroneous statements about something as mundane
>as history, how much can you trust it when it tells you how to go about
>finding eternal life? 

	Ed,
		Been too busy lately to read notes files, but today I am home
	sick and have some time to look around.  However, I think I will have
	to get around this someway - it takes a long time to read term papers.

		It took a long time to corroborate the Bible to some of its
	"historical" statements - and there are some that haven't been yet.
	Manna from heaven?  Parting of the red sea or the Jordan river?

		The whole problem with your argument is that you are making 
	the basis of your beliefs on "what you can see" from a historical 
	point of view.  I do not believe in the Bible because of its historical
	correctness any more than I do in the Book of Mormon.  To me, using
	historical "evidence" is like the seed cast on the path.

	Charles

Hi Charles, hope you feel better soon. I was out sick the other day and 
didn't log in once!

Don't worry, the term paper is fairly short, and the only controversial 
part has led us to the crux of this discussion: Did the Mound Builder 
myth have any influence in the emergence of Mormonism? It has now evolved 
into a discussion of the greater topic of the role of history and 
archaeology in all this. Anyway...

>	It took a long time to corroborate the Bible to some of its
>   "historical" statements - and there are some that haven't been yet.
>   Manna from heaven?  Parting of the red sea or the Jordan river?

By "historical" statements, I mean those which have the possibility of 
being verified by some sort of hard evidence (are remnants of human 
activity present: dwellings, burial sites, tools, weapons, ceramics, 
etc), or corroboration by an outside source (for instance, is there
mention of certain events or persons in more than one document from more
than one source). 

I'm afraid you are begging the question by implying that what probably 
cannot be historically or archaeologically verified - like manna from 
heaven - must therefore be in question. Yes, corroboration of the Bible 
was done over a long time, but the science of archaeology has been around 
for only about 150 years, so the body of archaeological evidence has come 
to light in that period of time. It would not be erroneous to say that 
archaeologists have had any more time to work on the Biblical accounts 
than on Mormon accounts, since Mormonism emerged right around the time 
that archaeology began to be practiced as a discipline.

>	The whole problem with your argument is that you are making 
>   the basis of your beliefs on "what you can see" from a historical 
>   point of view.  I do not believe in the Bible because of its historical
>   correctness any more than I do in the Book of Mormon.  To me, using
>   historical "evidence" is like the seed cast on the path.

Probably very few people have come to faith in God by first studying the 
Bible as history, but what I see as the dichotomy between the Bible and 
the Book of Mormon is that, as objective historical and archaeological
appears, and paints a more accurate picture of the past, the Bible
becomes more and more validated, while the Book of Mormon becomes more 
and more in question.

Yes, historical "evidence" is a side issue to faith and in some ways 
non-essential, but what do you do when you begin to see that the book you 
put so much trust in seems more and more to be telling you a made-up 
story? That's the way the Book of Mormon looks to me, anyway.

I hope I don't offend you by being so frank.

Regards,

Ed

Re .21

>I beg to differ. It matters a great deal who built those mounds, because 
>if it was one of the groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon, then we need 
>to know that, and if it was not, then why does the Book of Mormon say that
>the Nephites and/or Lamanites built mounds? 

The Book of Mormon says the people built mounds, because they did.  As I posted
in an earlier reply, Ed, archaeologists have discovered that the people in
Mesoamerica did build mounds.  Thus, archaeology has turned up a direct parallel
to the claims of the Book of Mormon, and I feel this parallel increases the
likelihood of the BoM being true.

Please keep in mind that that the Book of Mormon does not claim that the
mounds built by those people are the same mounds that caused the excitement
in America in the 1900's.  Nor does the Church claim that.  I'm getting the
feeling, Ed, from reading your replies that you seem to think that the Book
of Mormon and/or the Church has claimed that the American mounds were Nephite
mounds.  If I'm right about this, Ed, please elaborate on why you think we
claim the two sets of mounds to be the same.  It seems obvious to me that
they are not the same, and I don't understand your concern for this matter.

>Mormon apostle Parley Pratt
>claimed that the mounds were mass graves of those slaughtered by the
>thousands in the Book of Mormon battles. This has been proven to be
>false, although in keeping with the beliefs of his day. 

As you pointed out in your paper, Orson Pratt speculated that the mounds in
America were Nephite mounds, but that was pure speculation on his part; as
you have pointed out, speculation that was popular in his day.  I don't
understand the significance of why you think it is important that Pratt
was wrong in his speculation.  Perhaps you can explain this?

>yet the archaeological
>picture of the New World is at odds with the Book of Mormon story.

Ed, please explain what you meant by this.  I agree that there are no
archaeological hard proofs of the Book of Mormon, but there are some very
definite archaeological parallels to the book.


Re .23

>but what I see as the dichotomy between the Bible and 
>the Book of Mormon is that, as objective historical and archaeological
>appears, and paints a more accurate picture of the past, the Bible
>becomes more and more validated, while the Book of Mormon becomes more 
>and more in question.

As I pointed out in my previous reply, you and I have different attitude
towards the Book of Mormon, and that colors our interpretation of evidence.
To you, Ed, the Book of Mormon becomes more in question due to the advances
of science, while to me it becomes more real and true; I'm referring to the
writings of Stewart that I've posted in previous replies, such as the
evidence that Mesoamerican's did use iron anciently.  The archaeological
parallels to the Book of Mormon are stronger now that they were just a few
years ago, and to me that is exciting.  I eagerly await further advances in
science, because I have faith that the time will come when science
authenticates the Book of Mormon.  You eagerly await the advances in science,
because you  believe they will prove the book false.  Ed, let's get together
in 30 years and compare notes....

Allen

    
re: Roger's note .17

>    Suppose they did build mounds, where are those mounds and how do you
>    ascertain that those mounds were built by the "lost tribes" and not
>    by American Indians.  

I have no idea where those mounds are.  I do not know who built what.  I cannot
prove that the "lost tribes" built any mounds.  But, my proof had nothing to
do with that.  It had to do with my understanding that the assertion that the 
mounds could *not* have been built by one of the "lost tribes" was unprovable.  
I did neither imply that I could prove nor did I attempt to prove that one of 
the "lost tribes" built the mounds.  Also, consider that my beliefs are that
the American Indians are related to the "lost tribes".  

>    I must have missed something -- could you please give me a pointer
>    to the evidence of large civilizations of Semitic people in the New
>    World?

I don't know where clear evidence might be other than the Book of Mormon.  
However, there are notes which have been posted concerning evidence of 
Semitic influence in the New World which you have probably already read and 
can look up.

>    Again, where are those mounds?  And how can you prove that they were
>    indeed built by the lost tribes and not by the American Indians?
    
I have made no claim to being able to prove this.  Only that it cannot be
proven that the "lost tribes" did not build the mounds.  

    
re: Ed's note .18

>Steve, you have it backwards. The burden of proof is not on me. It is
>you who are laboring under the unprovable assertion, if you hold to the
>idea that some "lost tribe of Israel" migrated to the New World and built
>or did anything - let alone the monumental exploits if the Book of Mormon
>peoples. 

Like Roger, you seem to have made the assumption that I am trying to prove that
the "lost tribes" built the mounds.  The burden of proof, if there is to be
a proof of the assertion in your paper, that the "lost tribes" did not build 
the mounds is upon you.  I accept that the assertion that the "lost tribes" even
came to America is unprovable.  However, I do rely upon primary source and that
is the Book of Mormon.  If I accept it as true, then it is one basis for my 
belief or my faith.  It becomes proof only when I have an absolute or perfect 
knowledge of the truth of the Book of Mormon.  I do not currently have that.
I only believe that it is true.

Even here, I cannot prove that the Book of Mormon is true, just as you and
Roger cannot prove that it is false.  My burden is not that of proving an
unprovable assertion, only of showing that it might be true, perhaps only 
enough to entice you to read it.  Once it boils down to whether or not the 
Book of Mormon is true, it is your or my personal responsibility to accept 
or reject it.  


Steve

	Ed,
		As I ponder the differences between the Bible and the Book of
	Mormon in the historical perspective, it comes to mind that the biggest
	difference is that the Jewish history has more longevity than did the
	people of the Book of Mormon.  As much as people in the world have
	tried to exterminate the Jew, they have failed because it is not the
	will of God.  If it were not for people like Josephous, we would be 
	lacking in a lot of important facts in regards to Jewish history for
	that time period.  Who was left to write the Nephite history? The 
	Jaradite history?  They did not have the same promises as the Jew.  
	They would be preserved in this land only if they served God.  When 
	they did not, they degenerated into what was found on this continent 
	as the Indian.  Oh, they have the promises of the Abrahamic covenants,
	but that didn't do them much good, did it?  The Book of Mormon was not
	meant to be a historical document.  It was meant to be a document of
	spiritual enlightenment for those whom God intended to have the 
	opportunity to read said document.  Whereas the Bible gave definite
	references to where in the landscape they were talking about, the
	Book of Mormon is vague for two reasons.  First, it was not meant to
	be a document of that kind of information.  Second, there was no one
	left to propagate that particular type of information.  Both conditions
	are met with the Bible.  The Jew was preserved for as much a reason as
	the Nephites were allowed to be exterminated.  To further the designs
	of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ in the eternal salvation
	of mankind.

	Charles

Re .24               

> The Book of Mormon says the people built mounds, because they did.  As I
> posted in an earlier reply, Ed, archaeologists have discovered that the
> people in Mesoamerica did build mounds.  

I might remind you, Allen, that there never has been a question that mounds
were built in the New World. The question all along has been *who* built
them. Let's try to keep it straight.

> Thus, archaeology has turned up a direct parallel to the claims of the
> Book of Mormon, and I feel this parallel increases the likelihood of the
> BoM being true. 

Okay, so you are claiming that the Book of Mormon peoples were
builders of mounds. The fact that the Book of Mormon peoples are of
Hebrew descent provides another interesting parallel - a parallel to 
the "Mound Builder" myth. The fact that the Book of Mormon says the "good"
Nephites were made extinct by the "bad" Lamanites provides still 
another parallel. I can now use your same reasoning and say that 
I feel this parallel "increases the likelihood" of the BoM being false 
rather than true.

Parallels are easy to find. If I used a couple of Shakespeare's plays as
a basis for a fictitious account of England in the 15th century, then
tried to pass it off as history, I'm sure that a great many "parallels"
could be mustered to support my claim, but it would still be false. You
probably could not "prove" that my story was false, though. Probably the
best you could do is demonstrate that there is no evidence whatsoever to
support my story. Then I could always say, "You just wait, more evidence
will eventually come out to prove me right." That way it could go on
virtually forever... 

The key thing about parallels is not that they can be made (that's easy), 
but what is done with them once they have been made. Parallels are 
meaningless unless they lead to a hypothesis which can be tested. If the 
hypothesis that they suggest cannot be supported, the "parallel" is nothing 
more than a coincidence. This is the point where Book of Mormon "parallels" 
always fail.

> Please keep in mind that that the Book of Mormon does not claim that the
> mounds built by those people are the same mounds that caused the excitement
> in America in the 1900's.  Nor does the Church claim that.  

Oh, I see. This is a new (and artificial) distinction. Different mounds,
different builders. I notice that this distinction was not drawn until it
began to look like the role of a Hebrew race in the building of the
mounds was completely unsupportable. 

> I'm getting the feeling, Ed, from reading your replies that you seem to
> think that the Book of Mormon and/or the Church has claimed that the
> American mounds were Nephite mounds.  If I'm right about this, Ed, please
> elaborate on why you think we claim the two sets of mounds to be the
> same.  It seems obvious to me that they are not the same, and I don't
> understand your concern for this matter. 

Allen, you really do this sort of thing so well! First you create an
artificial (and unclear) distinction between "sets" of mounds, then
disavow any connection between those mounds that might embarrass you and
the Mormon Church. Neat. But then you somehow try to push me into the 
position of having made some charge based upon this distinction (that 
*you* have made, not I), and thus attempt to make me look bad. Don't put
words in my mouth, please. 

If you want to make this distinction (and I think you should) then please
do so. If you are so certain about it, then go out on that limb and *say*
that the American mounds were not built by the Nephites. Then tell us
which ones you think *were* built by the Nephites. Failing that, tell us
which ones *could* have been built by the Nephites, and what evidence you
can cite for believing that it was Nephites and not indigenous Americans.

> As you pointed out in your paper, Orson Pratt speculated that the mounds in
> America were Nephite mounds, but that was pure speculation on his part; as
> you have pointed out, speculation that was popular in his day.  I don't
> understand the significance of why you think it is important that Pratt
> was wrong in his speculation.  Perhaps you can explain this?

You say that Orson Pratt (not Parley, I got my Pratts backwards) was wrong. 
You're right, he was wrong. But Allen, I said nothing about "why I think
it is important that he was wrong." Of course he was wrong! What is
important is that he believed those mounds to be of Book-of-Mormon-people
origin, and this lends further credibility to the idea that the Book of
Mormon was tailor-made to fit in to one of the great controversies of its
day, the Mound Builder myth. 

Allen, I think you're playing a little fast and loose with what you call
my "claims." You seem to want to fault me for things I never quite said, 
and somehow put me on the defensive when I don't need to be. All I have
really claimed is that there is a suspicous resemblance between the Mound
Builders myth of the 1820's and the story line of the Book of Mormon. 
Although the myth has long been debunked, the Mormon account persists. 
It makes one wonder. 

� yet the archaeological
� picture of the New World is at odds with the Book of Mormon story.

> Ed, please explain what you meant by this. I agree that there are no
> archaeological hard proofs of the Book of Mormon, but there are some very
> definite archaeological parallels to the book.

This is big enough for a topic of its own, but, briefly, what I meant was
that if you stand back and look at the archaeological picture of the New
World as it exists today, there is no place in that picture where you
could even begin to fit the Book of Mormon. It just sits off to the side
with nothing more than a handful of isolated and superficial parallels,
which by themselves amount to nothing. And, given that there is only a
finite amount of data out there remaining to be unearthed, each year that
goes by without hard evidence to support the Book of Mormon decreases the
likelihood that any ever will be found. 

> I eagerly await further advances in science, because I have faith that
> the time will come when science authenticates the Book of Mormon.  You
> eagerly await the advances in science, because you  believe they will
> prove the book false.  Ed, let's get together in 30 years and compare
> notes.... 

That's not exactly right, Allen, I'm not "eagerly awaiting" for science
to prove the book false. First, I believe that, for any objective person,
the only conclusion they can reach (and I know I'll get jumped on for
this) is that the book is false. Second, I don't know how one can "prove"
a fictitious account of the ancient past didn't happen, other than to show
how flimsy and unsupportable it is compared to known history, and let
people draw their own conclusions. 

Re .25

> Like Roger, you seem to have made the assumption that I am trying to
> prove that the "lost tribes" built the mounds.  

No, I think you are just trying to sidetrack the issue by this unnecessary 
over-emphasis on "unprovable assertions." My paper said that there was a
prevalent myth in the nineteenth century regarding the origins of earthen
mounds that was later proven false by archaeological studies. The story
line of the Book of Mormon bears a remarkable resemblance to that myth,
and came out at a time when belief in the myth was at its height. What's
"unprovable" about that? 

> My burden is not that of proving an unprovable assertion, only of showing
> that it might be true, perhaps only enough to entice you to read it. 

You'll be glad to know that I have read it, and still read it from time 
to time. I should say - to be completely honest - that I have yet to read
anything in it that is inconsistent with my impression of it so far: that 
it's a contrived and fictitious pseudo-Bible, with too great a resemblance 
to the Mound Builder myth, too many borrowed passages from the King James
Bible, far too many "behold"'s and "it came to pass"'s, and too many
unsupportable historical claims to be taken seriously. 

disclaimer: (In my humble opinion, as always.)

Re .26

Charles,

Thank you for the perspective on the history of the Jews, but I'm not
sure I understand your point in the context of our discussion. 

> The Book of Mormon was not meant to be a historical document.  It was
> meant to be a document of spiritual enlightenment.

All well and good, but the Book of Mormon itself indeed does claim to be a 
historical document when it says it is "a record" or "account" of the
Nephite (and other) people. That's all history is, an account of past
events. 

> Whereas the Bible gave definite references to where in the landscape they
> were talking about, the Book of Mormon is vague...

As I recall, there is mention of specific cities, hills, mountains, a 
"narrow neck of land," etc, including the names of many of these places. 
We even have the name of the hill that Joseph Smith says he found the 
golden plates buried in a stone box. I know that the plates and other 
items from the stone box are all gone - taken away by an angel, I think. 
But has the stone box ever been found?

Regards, 

Ed

    
    
    Hi Ed,
    
>All well and good, but the Book of Mormon itself indeed does claim to be a 
>historical document when it says it is "a record" or "account" of the
>Nephite (and other) people. That's all history is, an account of past
>events. 
    
    You're right.  A history is an account of past events.  However, in the
    Book of Mormon, we read of other plates that contain another history of
    the same people.  I don't remember which is which, but there were
    several sets of plates that were copied and compiled and placed on the
    gold plates that Joseph Smith found.  Of the different sets of plates,
    some were used to record spiritual events and experiences during the
    years they were created.  Another set of plates was used to record the
    history from a different perspective.  The prophets were commanded to
    write certain things on one set of plates while recording other things on
    another set of plates.
    
    As to your reference of the physical layout of the land and how nothing
    in our current world matches what is described in the Book of Mormon, once
    again you're right.  However, in the Book of Mormon it mentions that
    the land changed.  This happened when the Saviour was crucified and was
    ressurected in Jerusalem.  If the land changed, then it is not the same
    as it was.  There are other references to land changing.  In Genesis it
    mentions something about the land being one big mass.  There are
    several instances of earthquakes throughout the old and new testament. 
    What about before and after the flood?  Were the land forms still the
    same? 
    
    Good question about the stone box.  I don't know what happened to it. 
    Yes, the items and the other things in the box were taken by an angel. 
    I remember reading of an incident where someone was riding with Brigham
    Young and they said they went into the side of a mountain and were in a
    room filled with ancient artifacts made with precious metals and other
    stuff.  There was also something about a sword and how it was sheathed
    one time and another time it was not.  Anyone else remember reading
    about this?
    
    scott

        
 Scott,   
    
>   Good question about the stone box.  I don't know what happened to it. 
>   Yes, the items and the other things in the box were taken by an angel. 
>   I remember reading of an incident where someone was riding with Brigham
>   Young and they said they went into the side of a mountain and were in a
>   room filled with ancient artifacts made with precious metals and other
>   stuff.  There was also something about a sword and how it was sheathed
>   one time and another time it was not.  Anyone else remember reading
>   about this?
    

Yes, I have read the accounts of what you mentioned. In the paper, 
"An Interesting Account", by, you guessed it, Orson Pratt, he describes
the stone box and it's dimensions (Orson used the term CEMENT, to describe
the box, or opening itself). His account was taken from Oliver Cowdery,
and Orson added his usual *flavor* to the account. If one is interested in
reading it, it is in "The Papers of Joseph Smith",Vol 1, by Dr. Dean Jessee.
The book contains many early writings by Joseph's comtemporaries describing
the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. BTW the sword was contained in the 
"stone" box, as you mentioned. I've read the account about a wagon with plates
that was stored inside the hill Cumorah. I don't remember the reference,
probably out of JoD. So all you treasure seekers, thar's gold in them thar
hills!
 
One other point 'bout the stone box. In those days the location was well known
by Palmyra residents, and many visited it, (having been informed by a friend
who's researched such matters) From accounts we today know the approximate
location, but probably not the exact.

Kevin

(the one who enjoys trivia of this sort)

>No, I think you are just trying to sidetrack the issue by this unnecessary 
>over-emphasis on "unprovable assertions." My paper said that there was a
>prevalent myth in the nineteenth century regarding the origins of earthen
>mounds that was later proven false by archaeological studies. The story
>line of the Book of Mormon bears a remarkable resemblance to that myth,
>and came out at a time when belief in the myth was at its height. What's
>"unprovable" about that? 

Let's take a look at the exchange.  In your paper you assert that the mounds
could not have been built by one of the "lost tribes".  In note .13 I 
indicated that I thought this to be an unprovable assertion.  In note .15 you 
challenged me to prove it.  In note .16 I offered a proof that represents my 
understanding of why you cannot prove that one of the "lost tribes" could not 
have built mounds.  Later I clarified that I was not trying to prove that
the "lost tribes" built the mounds, only that you could not prove that they
did not.

There is no "sidetracking" here beyond what I understand to be required of a 
formal paper.  That is, if you make an assertion in a formal paper, it is your 
responsibility to provide proof or to indicate that your assertion is unproven.
My opinion is that your paper includes assertions that lack proof with no 
indication that the lack of proof is recognized.  It's one thing to refer to 
an idea with something like "Mr. X stated that this is a myth" (which is 
provable) versus you, as an author, referring to an idea as a myth without 
offering proof.

What's "unprovable"?  If you include the idea that the "lost tribes" built 
mounds as part of the definition of the myth which you discredit, throwing in 
fantasies as also being part of the myth will certainly make the myth invalid.  
But, then it is quite another thing to assume that because the myth is now 
proven invalid it is also invalid to assume that the "lost tribes" could have 
built the mounds.  This is a lot like saying that because milk laced with 
cyanide is bad, milk is also bad.  In this example, it would be unprovable 
that milk is bad.

What I might have expected in response to note .13 that would have made more
sense to me might have been something like, "Yeah, Steve, I can't prove that
the 'lost tribes' didn't build the mounds.  So, what?  It's not a formal
paper and I don't have to come up with any formal proofs.  It's just my
opinion."


Steve

Re .27

Hi Ed,

I don't know how you feel about long replies, but I have a hard time handling
them.  They usually have several points that need attention, and I find it
difficult to write as well as read them.  Because of this, I've decided to
split your reply into several segments and respond to them over the next
several days.  I'm mentioning this, not to imply you are at fault for writing
long replies (I'm one of the worst offenders), but just to let you know that
I will be responding with a series of replies rather than one reply.


>> I'm getting the feeling, Ed, from reading your replies that you seem to
>> think that the Book of Mormon and/or the Church has claimed that the
>> American mounds were Nephite mounds.  If I'm right about this, Ed, please
>> elaborate on why you think we claim the two sets of mounds to be the
>> same.  It seems obvious to me that they are not the same, and I don't
>> understand your concern for this matter. 
>
>Allen, you really do this sort of thing so well! First you create an
>artificial (and unclear) distinction between "sets" of mounds, then
>disavow any connection between those mounds that might embarrass you and
>the Mormon Church. Neat. But then you somehow try to push me into the 
>position of having made some charge based upon this distinction (that 
>*you* have made, not I), and thus attempt to make me look bad. Don't put
>words in my mouth, please. 

Please forgive me, Ed, for not expressing myself better and making my
intentions more clear.  I am not trying to put words in your mouth.  I am
trying to understand what you are saying.  By reflecting back to you my
understanding of what you said, you are able to sense if I understand you
correctly, and if not you can correct that misunderstanding.  Without
understanding, we are only batting words back and forth.

Allen

    I erroneously stated the note number that contained entries extracted
    from Hugh Nibley's research on the B of M .  For those interested in 
    reading some very interesting authentications for the B of M refer to 
    Note 156, Parallels to the Book of Mormon.  
    
     
    
      

Re .27

>> Please keep in mind that that the Book of Mormon does not claim that the
>> mounds built by those people are the same mounds that caused the excitement
>> in America in the 1900's.  Nor does the Church claim that.  
>
>Oh, I see. This is a new (and artificial) distinction. Different mounds,
>different builders. I notice that this distinction was not drawn until it
>began to look like the role of a Hebrew race in the building of the
>mounds was completely unsupportable. 

I'm not sure, Ed, what you mean by a "new (and artificial) distinction."

It has been common knowledge since the Book of Mormon was first published
that a correlation between BoM geography and actual geography could not
be made, because the references in the BoM are vague and relative.  Various
Mormons have speculated from time to time where the Nephites lived, what
the "narrow neck" of land is, etc., but they all admit they are speculating.

One recent example of this is the work of John L. Sorenson (see note 155.1
for a pointer to his book).  He has studied the BoM geography and has
attempted to correlate it with Mesoamerica.  He believes he has a pretty good
fit, but he has been careful to say that he is only creating a model that may
or may not correlate with true geography.

Archaeologists have discovered mounds in Mesoamerica.  They have discovered
mounds in the USA.  Likely, they will discover mounds in other places.
We have no way of correlating any of those mounds with the BoM people, and
anyone who attempts to do so is engaging in speculation.  This is not a new
attitude, but is the attitude that Mormons have always had.  You are
speculating, Ed, when you attempt to correlate the Mound Builders with the
BoM people.  Sorenson is speculating when he attempts to correlate the BoM
people with Mesoamerica.  Others are speculating when they attempt their
correlations.  We'll have to wait while the scientists continue their
investigations into the Indians of North, Central, and South America.  We'll
have to wait for the Lord to reveal more (if He chooses to do so).  Mormons
have always felt that the time will come when BoM geography will be correlated
with actual geography, but that time is not here at present.

Allen

Re .27

>The key thing about parallels is not that they can be made (that's easy), 
>but what is done with them once they have been made. Parallels are 
>meaningless unless they lead to a hypothesis which can be tested. If the 
>hypothesis that they suggest cannot be supported, the "parallel" is nothing 
>more than a coincidence. This is the point where Book of Mormon "parallels" 
>always fail.

You've made an interesting point, Ed.  I do think, however, that parallels
have more value than their leading to a hypothesis.  Let's consider two
events that someone claims are the same event.  Let's call the events A
and B.  If A and B are the same, then parallels *must* exist between them
I'm assuming we look at A and B from different perspectives such that we
see parallels instead of seeing that the two events are really one event.
I'm also assuming that we have enough information about the two events such
that the parallels are visible; there is always the possibility that the
parallels could exist but be invisible to us due to lack of information.
Thus, parallels are necessary if the two events are the same.

Now, lets assume the two events are different.  Parallels could still exist,
depending on the nature of the two events.  Thus, parallels are not sufficient
to prove the events are identical.

This is the viewpoint I (and I assume other LDS) have about parallels:
necessary but not sufficient to prove the Book of Mormon being true.  When
we read of parallels between the Maya and the BoM people, for example, we
say, "good" because those parallels become part of conditions that are
necessary for the BoM to be true.  I (and hopefully other LDS) realize that
those parallels do not prove the BoM to be true.

You have introduced the idea that parallels can lead to a hypothesis which
can be tested.  This is something I haven't considered, Ed, and I'm finding
it an interesting thing to contemplate.  My initial thoughts are that any
hypothesis built on parallels would be flimsy because parallels themselves
provide a very weak basis for predicting truth, as your example about
Shakespeare illustrated.

My understanding of your paper, Ed, is that you have drawn a parallel
between the Book of Mormon describing people building mounds and the
high interest during the 1800's about the mounds in the USA.  I think
there is an implied assumption that the Book of Mormon is a fictional
work, and the parallel leads to a hypothesis that the author of the book
was influenced by that interest.  I speak of an implied assumption about
the origin of the BoM, because without that assumption the parallel means
nothing.  If the BoM is the translation of an ancient record, then the
parallel is a coincidence.  If the book is fictional, then the parallel
does lead to an interesting hypothesis.  Please keep in mind, Ed, that
I am not trying to put words in your mouth, only to explain how I understand
your position.  I think that any claim that the Book of Mormon is based
on the Mound Builders myth is a flimsy claim, because it requires an
assumption that the BoM is fiction.  The more important factor to focus
on is whether the BoM is a translation of an ancient document or whether
it is fictional.  We LDS maintain that that question can only be answered
by sincere fasting and prayer and asking God if the Book of Mormon is true!

Allen

Re .27

>The key thing about parallels is not that they can be made (that's easy), 
>but what is done with them once they have been made. Parallels are 
>meaningless unless they lead to a hypothesis which can be tested. If the 
>hypothesis that they suggest cannot be supported, the "parallel" is nothing 
>more than a coincidence. This is the point where Book of Mormon "parallels" 
>always fail.

Ed, you've made an interesting claim about Book of Mormon "parallels".  If
you can find the time, I think it would benefit all of us if you would start
a new note about BoM parallels that fail.  You could present parallels and
give the hypothesis you draw from each and explain how they have failed.

This would allow us to better understand your viewpoint, and at the same time
give our thoughts whether we think each hypothesis is reasonable or not.

Allen

Re .29        

> Yes, I have read the accounts of what you mentioned. In the paper, 
> "An Interesting Account", by, you guessed it, Orson Pratt, he describes
> the stone box and it's dimensions (Orson used the term CEMENT, to describe
> the box, or opening itself). His account was taken from Oliver Cowdery,
> and Orson added his usual *flavor* to the account. 

Kevin - I gather from this that Orson Pratt may not be highly regarded in 
Mormon circles today. Is this true?

> One other point 'bout the stone box. In those days the location was well known
> by Palmyra residents, and many visited it, (having been informed by a friend
> who's researched such matters) From accounts we today know the approximate
> location, but probably not the exact.

So the location of the box (and hill) is unknown today?

Re .30
    
>    I would recommend that you be careful when you use words like "always,
>    never, every, all, not one shred" etc. in reference to the B of M,
>    especially your attacks on its credibility.  

Hi Paul. Thanks for the recommendation. I have tried to be careful in the
use of those kind of words, but, even in light of your admonition, I
honestly don't feel I need to alter or take back anything (and I would if
I thought I should). I also try regularly to qualify whenever appropriate
by reminding the reader that it is my opinion, although I try to make it 
a well-supported opinion. And I feel that this forum is such that no one
should be held to excruciating exactness in wording, unless it is
necessary to clarify a point. I feel that we (collectively) have 
sometimes gone off on this tangent unnecessarily in the past. 

If I flatly state "the Book of Mormon is a fabrication", then I may 
be requited to prove it. But if I say "after reading the BoM, my
impression is that it is a fabrication" then I have only to give my
reasons and let the reader decide if they make sense or not - or
challenge me if he thinks I am off base. 

>    Have you not read any of the notes I entered in #302 from Nibley's 
>    book, An Approach to the Book of Mormon. 
>    Nibley's book is a compilation of essays and articles he
>    wrote for non-Mormon scholarly journals in which he demonstrates how
>    the B of M fulfills requirements, both historical, cultural, religious,
>    geographical, and literary to verify its authenticity.

Yes, Paul, I read all of them. Frankly, I didn't think they were all that
impressive. They appear to be just more elaborately stated parallels
that don't gain greater substance from the effort. They often seem cleverly 
worded to give the desired impression, and sometimes even border on
dishonesty in the attempt to lead the reader to conclude that the Book of
Mormon's authenticity is a foregone conclusion. 

For instance: One note makes mention of Lehi and his people living in
tents, going into great detail on the importance of tents in Bedouin
life. How that "verifies" the authenticity of the BoM is beyond me. Is it
so remarkable that (assuming Joseph Smith et al concocted the BoM using
the Bible as one of the sources) it should mention the use of tents in
the desert? There is certainly ample reference to them in the Bible. Same
thing with stone altars. If you wanted to write credible fiction about
Old Testament days you would almost have to mention such things as tents,
stone altars, sacrifices, desert (or wilderness) travel, and warfare, to
name a few. One could just as easily conclude that their mention in the
Book of Mormon can be accounted for by their being found already in the
Bible. 

One example of what appears to me as borderline dishonesty is Cheeseman's 
downplaying American archaeology by saying:

"But in the New World, examples of writing on metal plates are only now
beginning to emerge.  Part of the reason is that archaeology in America
has been important only since the turn of the century." 

I don't know his basis for saying that, since a tremendous amount of 
archaeology went on in America well before that. He seems to be hoping 
that the reader will conclude that we have somehow only "scratched the 
surface" and that a few more years will change things considerably.

He goes on to conclude: "Thus we learn of the ancient world that gave us
the Book of Mormon." The "ancient world" gave us the Book of Mormon?
Really?? Talk about an unprovable assertion! 

Also, I see a ready inclination for Mormons to refer to such things as
ruins of ancient temples and point out parallels, yet, when pressed, they
will turn to a Mr. Nibley who will tell us that the Book of Mormon peoples
were nomads and probably left little or nothing behind them (to be found
by us in the future to know that they were here), then go right back to
to the ruins and their "thought-provoking" parallels. I don't think that
is intellectually honest. At least it is willing inconsistency. 

> The B of M does not proclaim itself to be an accurate history (cultural,
> geographical, religious, policital, etc.) of the Nephites.  It is meant
> to witness that Jesus is the Christ. 

Well, like I said to Charles, the Book of Mormon makes historical 
statements, and to the degree that it does, it claims to be history.
    
> I have heard one scholar say that the B of M's only judge is itself,
> that is judge it against itself and that is what I have tried to focus
> people on by entering all the notes I did from Nibley.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't see why the Book of Mormon should be
exempt from examination of its historical claims. If it says that something 
happened somewhere at a certain time, then it should be anyone's right to
look into it. If it were a propositional book only (like the writings of
Aristotle or Marx), then I would agree with the scholar. 
    
>  After all these notes, your position has not been tempered one bit. I
>  am wondering why.

Do you want an honest answer?
    

Re .31

Well Steve, it seems - to me anyway - that we did get off on a sidetrack
needlessly. I don't want to rehash the process again, but I will say that
I felt your intention was only to detour the discussion with this
"unprovable assertion" bit. You whipped up some "non-zero probability" as
though all that is required to keep the question open is to demonstrate
that it is, in the most extremist, literalist sense, somehow possible
for a boat to have made it from the Middle East to the New World 1000
years ago. 

Pardon me for saying so, but this approach is more illogical than the
reasoning that you are attempting to criticize. You seem to think that
all it takes to deflect my arguments and keep the idea of Semitic
presence in the New World alive is to assert that one boat *could have*
made it over to the Americas back then. Well, you'll have to do better
than that, because anyone can come up with all manner of things that
*could* have or *might* have happened in a situation, but it is those who
can support their speculations with a little hard evidence that will be
taken seriously. In the real world you need a little more to hang your
speculations on than "non-zero probabilities." 

I don't see anything wrong with the approach that says that something 
could not have happened BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT IT (just 
an emphasis, no shouting intended...). If you wish to take an extreme 
literalist's viewpoint then try to force me to make room for your own 
unproven assertions, then I'm afraid I will disappoint you.

> In your paper you assert that the mounds could not have been built by 
> one of the "lost tribes".  

The evidence supports that conclusion. Or even more precisely, there is 
no evidence whatever to allow for the idea that they could have played a 
role in the building of the mounds. It just isn't there. If this differs
signifigantly from what I said in my paper, then I apologize for mis-stating 
the point.

> ...if you make an assertion in a formal paper, it is your responsibility
> to provide proof or to indicate that your assertion is unproven. My
> opinion is that your paper includes assertions that lack proof with no
> indication that the lack of proof is recognized.  It's one thing to refer
> to an idea with something like "Mr. X stated that this is a myth" (which
> is provable) versus you, as an author, referring to an idea as a myth
> without offering proof. 

I think I offered enough support for the reader to realize that the
question, from the perpective of professional archaeologists who studied
the mounds, is closed. The myth has now been done away with. We know what
was in the mounds and who built them, and that it was not a group of
outside origin. Mr. Silverberg's book did not leave any question as to
the demise not only of the myth but the basic assumptions behind the myth
as well. If I did not cite enough evidence for you, remember that the
paper was done within the parameters of the assignment, not to meet 
anyone else's expectations. 

Also, if I have made a major flaw in the writing of my paper, as you suggest 
that I have, then I would expect the instructor to point that out and it 
would be reflected in my grade, don't you think? 

> What's "unprovable"?  If you include the idea that the "lost tribes"
> built mounds as part of the definition of the myth which you discredit,
> throwing in fantasies as also being part of the myth will certainly make
> the myth invalid. But, then it is quite another thing to assume that
> because the myth is now proven invalid it is also invalid to assume that
> the "lost tribes" could have built the mounds.  This is a lot like saying
> that because milk laced with cyanide is bad, milk is also bad.  In this
> example, it would be unprovable that milk is bad. 

You have tried to make a distinction between the lost tribes and other
"fantasies" included in the Mound Builders myth, as though they were 
different, even though you have no basis for doing so, and criticize me
as though I were throwing out the gold with the dross because I don't go
out of my way to make some sort of concession for the idea of Semitic
tribes residing in America. 

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The heart of the myth *was* the "lost
tribes". However, as in any myth, there are no restraints on speculation
and fantasizing in the embellishment of the myth. The "lost tribes" were
only one of the groups speculated as being the builders. Some thought
they might have been from India, Egypt or Atlantis, or even that white
explorers arrived on the scene and managed the process. By far, though,
the prevalent opinion was that they were a lost tribe of Israel, whose
fate was another one of the great controversies of the day. If you are
implying that the "milk" is the "lost tribes" and the cyanide is something 
else (but what?) and that somehow the "lost tribes" idea may yet have
some merit, you are mistaken. You can no more disassociate the lost
tribes from the Mound Builder myth than you can remove a yolk from an egg
and still have an egg. 

The signifigant point is that the *whole idea* of an outside group's 
involvement (including some lost tribe of Israel) in the building of the
mounds was disproved. Anyone trying to keep alive the idea that a "lost 
tribe of Israel" made their way to the New World will find no support 
in the studies done on the mounds, because, in order to disprove the 
myth, the Indians and their way of life had to be studied as thoroughly
as the mounds, so one cannot say that conclusions on the origins of the 
mounds cannot address the larger issue of whether or not a "lost tribe" 
ever maintained a presence in America.
 
> What I might have expected in response to note .13 that would have made
> more sense to me might have been something like, "Yeah, Steve, I can't
> prove that the 'lost tribes' didn't build the mounds.  So, what?  It's
> not a formal paper and I don't have to come up with any formal proofs. 
> It's just my opinion." 

It sounds like you want me to say, "I can't support anything I say. I'm
just spouting off and you can disregard any or all of it because it's
just unsubstantiated opinion." Sorry, that would be conceding way too
much. 

Re .32               

>I don't know how you feel about long replies, but I have a hard time handling
>them.  They usually have several points that need attention, and I find it
>difficult to write as well as read them.  

    Well, I feel the same way, but realize that I have sometimes three or
    four people to respond to at a time. I usually try to reply to what's 
    current all at once, otherwise I lose track of things - and I have my
    work to do as well, so replying to notes is several places down on the
    priority scale, but I squeeze it in when I can...
    And I TRY to be brief.. but it seldom works...

>Please forgive me, Ed, for not expressing myself better and making my
>intentions more clear.  I am not trying to put words in your mouth.  I am
>trying to understand what you are saying.  

Well, you came up with this thing about "two sets of mounds" and "why [do] 
you think we claim the two sets of mounds to be the same". That irritated me,
because you altered one of the basic elements of the topic and turned it
around to make it look as though I was willingly disregarding a basic
fact in order to discredit the Mormon church. If I wish to discredit 
[whatever] I will do it without having to resort to that kind of approach.

Ed

    re: .39
    
>Well Steve, it seems - to me anyway - that we did get off on a sidetrack
>needlessly. I don't want to rehash the process again, but I will say that
>I felt your intention was only to detour the discussion with this
>"unprovable assertion" bit. 

My intention was to point out what I consider to be a flaw if your paper
is to be considered a formal paper.  It is not a detour as far as I am
concerned.  When you invited me to "prove it", it seemed to me that at
the time you did not regard it as a detour.

>You whipped up some "non-zero probability" as
>though all that is required to keep the question open is to demonstrate
>that it is, in the most extremist, literalist sense, somehow possible
>for a boat to have made it from the Middle East to the New World 1000
>years ago. 

Before you can assert that something is fact in a formal paper you need to 
rule out all possibilities of it not being true or aknowledge the possibility 
that what you assert might not be true.  You have not done this in your paper.  

We are at much disagreement about what is logical and what is not.  Non-zero
probabilities cannot be discounted without stating assumptions.  You have not 
entirely followed this practice in your paper. 

I have no difficulty accepting evidence supporting your viewpoint.  But,
evidence and proof are not the same thing.  The fact that you do not accept as 
evidence the B of M or other artifacts and discoveries that have been dicussed 
in these notes and elsewhere does not mean that such evidence does not exist.  
It means that you personally refuse to accept such as evidence.

>Also, if I have made a major flaw in the writing of my paper, as you suggest 
>that I have, then I would expect the instructor to point that out and it 
>would be reflected in my grade, don't you think? 

Yes, I would expect your instructor to point this out.  My instructors or
reviewers would or should have.  I feel your instructor may have done a 
disservice to you if he left you with the impression that this is acceptable 
in the final draft of a formal paper.  But, if the assignment was not to 
generate a formal paper, this discussion is moot.

>You have tried to make a distinction between the lost tribes and other
>"fantasies" included in the Mound Builders myth, as though they were 
>different, even though you have no basis for doing so, and criticize me
>as though I were throwing out the gold with the dross because I don't go
>out of my way to make some sort of concession for the idea of Semitic
>tribes residing in America. 

You've got that much right.  Though I disagree about having no basis.
That is your opinion based on evidence which you personally will not accept.
It would have been no concession to present evidence that was contrary to your
personal opinion.  That's just being objective.  Of couse, being objective
is not required if it is not really a formal paper.

You supported much of what you said.  I have no problem with the assertions
that you provided appropriate support for.  But, you presented at least one 
controversial assertion as fact and provided no proof.  More, it appeared to 
me that you made an assertion which cannot be proven and did not aknowledge 
this, which was the point of my original response.

Steve

Re .40

Hi Ed,

>Well, you came up with this thing about "two sets of mounds" and "why [do] 
>you think we claim the two sets of mounds to be the same". That irritated me,
>because you altered one of the basic elements of the topic and turned it
>around to make it look as though I was willingly disregarding a basic
>fact in order to discredit the Mormon church. If I wish to discredit 
>[whatever] I will do it without having to resort to that kind of approach.

I was having a very hard time trying to understand the point of your
replies; as I read your comments, I couldn't understand why you were
discounting the Book of Mormon due to the Mound Builders myth.  To me,
the BoM people and the Mound Builders people were separate, and the
one being a myth had no bearing on the other.  I thought about this a lot
and it dawned on me one day that you seemed to be equating the two peoples.
If that were true then the one being a myth implied the other was also a
myth.

I prefaced my remarks with the phrases "I'm getting the feeling, Ed, from
reading your replies that you seem to think..." and "If I'm right about
this, Ed, ..."  to indicate to you that my comments were feedback on my
understanding of what you were saying.

Again, I'm sorry I didn't express myself more clearly.

Allen

Re .37        

>Kevin - I gather from this that Orson Pratt may not be highly regarded in 
>Mormon circles today. Is this true?

Ed,

It seems to depend on what theology Orson was teaching in those days.
If the doctrine, Orson was espousing in that time, held up to the test of
time, then it is accepted. The converse was true. Orson, in the 1840's
and 50's was a prolific writer, many of the British and Scottish members
who immigrated to this country, fed off a regimen of Orsonite doctrine.
To those people, Bro. Pratt's pronouncements were gospel, after all,
when a living Apostle speaks, you listen. If you look back you might draw 
some parallels to Paul. In my *humble* opinion, much of Orson's writings 
today are discounted by the average member. I can't speak for the leadership
"circles", though. The "test of time" rule, as I call it is interesting.
Many of our leaders this century have alluded to this. What I have been 
doing to put this rule "to the test" has been to find out where the
scriptural basis is (biblically speaking), for Nauvoo period doctrine, ie.,
Temple ceremony basis. My purpose are as follows, to determine if the "test of
time" rule is a valid one, or is it just a popular concept. If a revelation
came forth that revealed something that you couldn't reference directly
to any standard works or find any scriptural grounding for, would it be
valid. I believe that many "opinions" are speculation, ie. Orson's.
However, there are some pronouncements by Orson that are valid; that may
not be *proved* in our lifetime. We need not reject them just because of
our our limited vision. 

Perhaps we could discuss this offline sometime.

>So the location of the box (and hill) is unknown today?

The hill is known, and general area of the box. I don't know what happened
to the "cement" encasement, though.

>In my *humble* opinion, much of Orson's writings 
>today are discounted by the average member. I can't speak for the leadership
>"circles", though.

I would guess, Kevin, that the average member today doesn't really discount
Orson's writings, because he [the average member today] hasn't read them!
I think that almost all members today limit their reading to current authors,
because that is what the LDS bookstores advertise and make available, and
they are the leaders the members today relate to.

I'm old enough to have served my mission during a time when both Orson's
and Parley's writings were still used in missionary work, and I've always
enjoyed them.  I do, as I've mentioned in other notes, take the narrow
view that any writing of a General Authority that discusses concepts that
are not in our canonized scriptures is speculation, but that is a topic
for the other notes.

Allen

>>In my *humble* opinion, much of Orson's writings 
>>today are discounted by the average member. I can't speak for the leadership
>>"circles", though.

>I would guess, Kevin, that the average member today doesn't really discount
>Orson's writings, because he [the average member today] hasn't read them!
>I think that almost all members today limit their reading to current authors,
>because that is what the LDS bookstores advertise and make available, and
>they are the leaders the members today relate to.

Good point Allen! most of my friends in my own fellowshipping circle has
read some of Orson Pratt's writings, but not the general membership. I
might modify the above statement to say "discount some of the early leaders'
writings". By discounting, I mean by not reading, or omitting by design. 
I would note though, that leaders still reference some of this material.
Sadly enough, there seems not to be alot of interest in this older material,
and we are *encouraged* to read present writings. The older writings are out
of print and you need to special order to get some of them. One fine
writing I have in mind is "Key to Theology" by Parley Pratt. It's great
reading and inspired.

Kevin

    re: .42
    
    I have the same impressions as Allen.
    
    Steve

Steve,

I think it would be good to know specifically what it was that spawned 
this side discussion - it was never quite clear to me.

Before we go any further, would you mind exerpting the part(s) of my 
paper to which you are objecting and post it here so we can all know 
for certain exactly what is at issue?

Thanks,

Ed

This note contains the sections of the paper in note 302.7 that are the basis
for my critical observation in note 302.13.  This observation is that the
paper "seems to focus on assertions that the mounds could not have been built 
by one of the 'lost tribes'."  In notes 302.16, 302.25 and 302.31 I mostly 
defended the concept that this is an unprovable assertion.  In note 302.41 I 
went into detail mostly concerning the idea that a formal paper should not
contain unprovable assertions and that such an assertion is contained in the
paper of note 302.13.  I have already presented a case for the assertion being
unprovable and inappropriate for a formal paper.  I have not gone into detail
about which sections of the paper present the assertion that "the mounds
could not have been built by one of the 'lost tribes'", assuming that this
assertion was apparent to the casual observer and personally deeming this 
exercise to be uninteresting to me.  But, here are a few relevant sections 
along with commentary.

As early as the title, the author introduces the lore as "myth", asserting 
that the lore to be discussed is fictitious.

>	mounds and their builders. Since the native Americans were
>	perceived to be primitive "savages", it was presumed that
>	they could not have been the same peoples who constructed
>	the mysterious earthen mounds. 

A portion of the lore is defined to include the concept that the mounds could 
not have been built by native Americans.  As it is described as a "myth" and
therefore declared fictitious, it is implied that they were built by native 
Americans.  This later becomes an assertion.

>	older unanswered questions. Theories about the origin of the
>	Mound Builders dovetailed neatly into another much older
>	theory, that the American Indians were descendents of the
>	"Ten Lost Tribes" of Israel, and spawned any number of
>	variations as well. In a short period of time, America went

Here it is asserted that that the myth became unified with the previously
separate theory that native Americans were descended from the "lost tribes".  
This section is within the definition of the myth, thus it is implied that 
this could not be true.  This implies an assertion that the native American 
could not have "lost tribe" ancestry.  

It is pointed out later that the myth may include theories indicating that 
native Americans were not descendents of the Mound Builders.  The implication
is that the native Americans were descendants of the Mound Builders.  This
is not an assertion that is necessarily in conflict with "lost tribe" ancestry.
It is only in conflict with the portion of the myth describing native Americans
as not being the descendents of the Mound Builders.

>	"In this way a legend was born, a governing myth that
>	dominated the American imagination throughout the nineteenth
>	century. The builders of the mounds were transformed into
>	the Mound Builders, a lost race of diligent and gifted
>	artisans, who had passed across the scene in shadowed
>	antiquity. Perhaps they had come from the Old World, perhaps
>	from Mexico; perhaps they had gone to Mexico once their work
>	here was done. No one knew, but the scope for imaginitive
>	investigation was boundless. The myth took root, flourished,
>	grew mightily, even spawned a new religion; then scientists
>	took over from the mythmakers and hacked away at the
>	luxurious growth of fantasy." (1)

Here is an assertion (with a reference) that the myth includes the concept that 
native Americans were not descendents of the Mound Builders.

>	adversaries to flee, while others seized upon his description 
>	(based on the Indian traditions) of the original inhabitants
>	to conclude that the builders of the Ohio Valley mounds were
>	not Cherokees or any other known Indian tribe. "And so began
>	the vain search for the race of giant Mound Builders in the
>	Ohio Valley."(4) 

Again, an assertion (with a reference) that the myth includes the concept that 
native Americans were not descendents of the Mound Builders.

>	While the variety of theories seemed nearly endless, they
>	generally fell into two camps, the deciding issue being
>	whether or not the Indians or their descendents, could have
>	built the mounds themselves. 

Prior to this, the issue seemed to be whether or not native Americans or
their ancestors could have been the Mound Builders.  Here, the myth discussion
seems to focus on the concept of the native Americans or their ancestors 
being the Mound Builders.  Both of the following references include 
assertions that of the myth that the Mound Builders could have included
"lost tribes".  An assertion of the paper becaomes that the Mound Builders
could not include members of "lost tribes".

>	cities of the Aztecs and the Incas, whose cities were "in 
>	some ways grander and more advanced than those of sixteenth 
>	century Europe, a fact that persuaded early theorists that 
>	their builders could not possibly have been indigenous to 
>	the American continents. No, they must have come from the 
>	Old World, settling among the red-skinned savages and 
>	erecting their great metropolitan centers." (5)

>	Indians had displaced in the same way. Conscience might ache
>	a bit over the uprooting of the Indians, but not if it could
>	be shown that the Indians... were themselves intruders who
>	wantonly shattered the glorious Mound Builder civilization
>	of old." (6)

>	In contast, no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson, the
>	first to employ systmatic archaeological techniques in
>	America, sounded a note of cautioned in a letter to a friend
>	"It is too early to form theories on those antiquities
>	(mounds), we must wait with patience till more facts are
>	collected." Later, after performing excavation work on
>	mounds located on his own land, Jefferson was of the opinion
>	that those mounds, at least, to be the work of Indians. (8)

It is asserted that the native Americans built the mounds.  The implication 
that it was not another race that built the mounds leads to the assertion
that the "lost tribes" or another race did not build the mounds.

>	history of the race who built the mounds. Spaulding was
>	an advocate of the theory that the American continent was 
>	peopled by a colony of ancient Israelites.

>	Spaulding's clumsy fantasy about the Mound Builders." (9)

It is asserted that a portion of the myth included that the native
Americans were descended from "lost tribes" who built the mounds.  This is
in contrast with the two camps previously discussed and seems a minority
opinion of those who adhere to the myth.  This agrees with the "dovetailing" 
of the "lost tribes" theory portion of the myth.  The discussion in this
section seems to place special emphasis on that portion of the myth.

>	It is interesting to note that the modern Mormon Church
>	still promotes the idea that American Indians are of Jewish
>	descent. According to LeGrand Richards, a contemporary
>	Mormon Apostle, "The dark skinned people who occupied the
>	land of America from that time on were called, in the Book
>	of Mormon, Lamanites, which are the people known generally
>	as the American Indians, who are of the house of Israel."
>	(12) This claim is also found in the introduction
>	to current copies of the Book of Mormon. 

It is implied here that the Mormon creed adheres to the defined myth.  However,
no reference is made directly to the Mound Builders, only to the portion 
unified with the myth that asserts that native Americans have "lost tribe"
ancestry.  

>	There is, therefore, no reason for us to search for an
>	extra-limital origin through lost tribes for the arts
>	discovered in the mounds of Norh America." (13)

Here is an assertion that the native Americans built the mounds.

>	each element of wht Powell considered the "absurdities" of 
>	the various lost-race theories, and concluded that indeed 
>	the native Americans were the builders of the mounds after 
>	all.

Another assertion that the native Americans were the Mound Builders.

>	When at last the myth was done away with, Major Powell
>	said in the 1890-91 Annual Report of the Bureau of
>	Ethnology: "It is difficult to exaggerate the prevalence of
>	this romantic fallacy, or the force with which the
>	hypothetical 'lost races' had taken possession of the
>	imaginations of men... It was an alluring conjecture that a

Another assertion that the native Americans were the Mound Builders and
that there could be no other race involved.

In summary, the paper defines the "myth" of the Mound Builders as being 
unified with the theory that the native American descended from the "lost 
tribes".  The paper asserts that this myth is fictitious and that the native
American is the Mound Builder.  With emphasis upon the unification of the
"lost tribes" theory, the paper also asserts that the mounds could not have 
been built by one of the "lost tribes".


Steve

    Just a little side clarification if you don't mind, Steve...
    Could you define for us know what you mean by a "formal" paper, and 
    how you differentiate it from other papers? I just want to make sure 
    I understand your terms.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed
    

    For the purposes of this note, I define one characteristic of a formal 
    paper to be that a proof is presented for any assertion.  I would 
    differentiate that from papers where it is acceptable to make assertions 
    without providing proof.  
    
    As a note of possible interest, when I was in school it was expected that 
    I prove all assertions in the formal papers I turned in.  If I could not 
    prove an assertion I had to either change the assertion or redo the proof. 
    (I've been corrected for not doing this.  I still have to work on it at
    times.)  A formal proof in mathematics follows the same sort of idea.  
    
    A formal mathematical proof tends to include lots of "given"
    statements or assumptions.  They establish the limits of the proof.  For 
    example, a mathematical proof might have a variable approach zero or 
    infinity.  It doesn't come right out and say that the variable is zero or 
    infinity.  If it did, the proof might become invalid because there
    might be situations where it could be proven that the variable could
    not ever become exactly zero or infinity.
    
    The papers some noters were provided that have been discussed in another 
    note having to do with the genetic traits being passed down from the 
    mother referenced formal papers.  One of the points brought out in the 
    materials I read was that a lot of the "givens" were rather broad 
    assumptions that could not be proven to be true.  The papers were still 
    formal papers and it was acceptable for them to present their assertions 
    because they had established the limits of the proofs behind the 
    assertions by stating their assumptions.  It was recognized that these 
    assumptions had weaknesses.  There was a non-zero probability that they 
    could be in error, due to the fact that there was non-zero probability 
    that the assumptions were not all true.
    
    Steve

Steve,

Let me make sure I understand your perspective:

You seem to be saying that I have artificially joined the concept of the
"lost tribes" with the mythical Mound Builders, and that it is erroneous
to conclude that since the Mound Builders were proven mythical then the
mounds could therefore not have been built by one of the "lost tribes"? 

Thanks,

Ed
    

My position is that your paper asserts that the mounds could not have been 
built by one of the "lost tribes", that this is an unprovable assertion and
that your paper did not prove the assertion.  

In the paper, you asserted that the myth is fictitious.  You stated that the 
"lost tribe" theory was unified with the myth of the Mound Builders.  The 
phrase you used was "dovetailed neatly".  You emphasized this link elsewhere 
in the paper.  You asserted that the mounds could not have been built by one 
of the "lost tribes" because that was part of the myth as you defined it.


Steve

    Ok. Thanks, Steve. I'm sure that last reply felt like an exercise in
    redundancy to you after that lengthy explanation of how you arrived at
    your interpretation of my paper.
    
    The reason I asked was to try to circumvent the usual extract/quote/
    reply methodology, which tends to get burdensome and doesn't always
    serve to clarify the original issue. I intend to make a response to
    your remarks, and just wanted an extra level of clarification before 
    I did.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed

    No prob.
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    I'm not completely sure what you mean by "unified." Are you saying 
    that both ideas (lost tribes and Mound Builders) were fully developed, 
    separate and distinct before being "unified" in my paper?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed

    By "unified" I'm extracting meaning from your use of the term
    "dovetail" which, according to TAHD, can mean "to combine or interlock
    into a unified whole".  Your emphasis of the linkage between "lost
    tribe" theory and the "myth" indicated to me that this was the correct
    interpretation of your use of the term.
    
    Steve

> My position is that your paper asserts that the mounds could not have been 
> built by one of the "lost tribes"...

In essence, yes.

> In the paper, you asserted that the myth is fictitious.  

Correct. There were no "Mound Builders," the American Indians alone built the
mounds. 

> You stated that the "lost tribe" theory was unified with the myth of
> the Mound Builders. 

For the purposes of the paper, the words "myth" and "theory" can be used
interchangeably. Both were suppositions put forth to explain something,
the only difference being that the "lost tribes" once existed, whereas
the Mound Builders never did, being purely imaginary. 

I was not completely sure what you meant by the term "unified." It seems 
that you may be assuming that both concepts (Mound Builders and lost 
tribes) were fully developed, separate and distict, and that the two 
were then unified by me in my paper. If that were the case, I would 
indeed have to give grounds for doing such a thing.

Perhaps it was not made clear enough, but the Mound Builder myth and 
the "lost tribes" myth cannot be disassociated. They were not equally 
established, separate concepts arbitrarily joined together in retrospect, 
as you seem to be suggesting. Rather, the idea of the Indians being
descended from the lost tribes was first put forth, if I remember
correctly, by a monk in the late 1600's, and rose to become one of the
great controversial topics of the next two centuries.

It is only natural that speculation about the origin of the mounds would
include the lost tribes too. Yes, the lost tribes = American Indians
controversy was already established before the question of the Mound
Builders came up, because the existence of the numerous earthen mounds
was not well known until later in the 1700's. Once the question of their
origin was raised, it didn't take long for people to try to work them
both into the same picture, that being the ancient past of America. 
There is no way that the emerging myth of the Mound Builders and the 
Indians/lost tribes idea could be kept distinct from one another.

In order to disprove the entire Mound Builder myth, Powell and Thomas had 
to deal with each of the various lost-race theories, including the Lost 
tribes of Israel. If the lost race theories, every one of them, could not 
be disproven, then the Mound Builder myth could not be disproven. I don't 
know how to make it any plainer than that.

I just don't see an unprovable assertion there.

Ed

>the only difference being that the "lost tribes" once existed, whereas
>the Mound Builders never did, being purely imaginary. 

You tend to exclude the concept in "lost tribe" theory that the American 
Indian could have had "lost tribe" ancestry.  This seems to be a significant
and ignored aspect that I and others have continually drawn attention to.

>In order to disprove the entire Mound Builder myth, Powell and Thomas had 
>to deal with each of the various lost-race theories, including the Lost 
>tribes of Israel. If the lost race theories, every one of them, could not 
>be disproven, then the Mound Builder myth could not be disproven. I don't 
>know how to make it any plainer than that.

You did not present this proof by Powell and Thomas, only implied 
here that they must have had proof.  My guess is that Powell and Thomas 
have not proven that the "lost tribes" could not have come to the New World 
and that they could not have built mounds.  I maintain, as before, that this 
is an unprovable assertion.


Steve

> You tend to exclude the concept in "lost tribe" theory that the American 
> Indian could have had "lost tribe" ancestry.  This seems to be a significant
> and ignored aspect that I and others have continually drawn attention to.

On the contrary, I am not ignoring this aspect. It is simply an
unsupportable position and I do not feel that it required mention 
in my paper. There is no evidence to support the idea that Hebrews (lost 
tribes or otherwise) ever settled in the New World, nor that the Indians 
are descended from them, nor, for that matter, that Hebrews or Hebrew 
descendants had any role in the building of the mounds. This is certain
enough that there is no need for me to have mentioned it in my paper. I
did not attempt to unify it with the Mound Builder myth in order to
dismiss it, but to illustrate the prevalent mindset of the 19th century
that influenced the Mound Builder myth. No anthropologist or archaeologist 
today gives credence to the idea that the Indians are of Hebrew descent, 
although many people believed this in Joseph Smith's time.

You seem to think that I am treating the possibility that the 
Indians are of Hebrew descent as undermining counterevidence rather than 
a suppressed premise. A suppressed premise is one that is considered 
either obvious or of common knowledge, and therefore can safely remain 
unexpressed. That the American Indian is not of Hebrew descent is, or at 
least should be considered, a suppressed premise in the context of the 
Mound Builder myth.

>> If the lost race theories, every one of them, could not 
>> be disproven, then the Mound Builder myth could not be disproven. I don't 
>> know how to make it any plainer than that.

> You did not present this proof by Powell and Thomas, only implied 
> here that they must have had proof.  My guess is that Powell and Thomas 
> have not proven that the "lost tribes" could not have come to the New World 
> and that they could not have built mounds.  

Lack of proof is not proof. I don't think that Powell and Thomas needed 
to prove that the "lost tribes" could not have come to the New World in 
order to conclude that they had no role in the building of the mounds.
The evidence for their conclusions was developed after years of meticulous 
field work culminating in a 700+ page report in the Twelfth Annual Report 
of the Bureau of Ethnology. Their conclusions were based upon their evidence, 
not upon their lack of evidence. 

If I understand logic correctly, your objection appears to be a non sequitur
known as an argument from ignorance, ie, one in which the reasoning is
that if one cannot prove that something is not true, then there is reason
to believe that it might be true (or vice versa). It is unreasonable to 
conclude that ancient Hebrews may have come to the New World simply
because they had boats that could float that far and no one cannot prove
that they didn't. 

Ed

>On the contrary, I am not ignoring this aspect. It is simply an
>unsupportable position and I do not feel that it required mention 
>in my paper. There is no evidence to support the idea that Hebrews (lost 
>tribes or otherwise) ever settled in the New World, nor that the Indians 
>are descended from them, nor, for that matter, that Hebrews or Hebrew 
>descendants had any role in the building of the mounds. This is certain
>enough that there is no need for me to have mentioned it in my paper. I
>did not attempt to unify it with the Mound Builder myth in order to
>dismiss it, but to illustrate the prevalent mindset of the 19th century
>that influenced the Mound Builder myth. No anthropologist or archaeologist 
>today gives credence to the idea that the Indians are of Hebrew descent, 
>although many people believed this in Joseph Smith's time.

Ed, this is so chock full of contradiction that it is difficult to deal with.
First, not only did you mention it in your paper, you emphasized it.  Not
only have you ignored any evidence of any "lost tribes" coming to the New
World, you now claim that such evidence does not exist, contrary to much
discussion (with references) cited in these notes.  In the paper you unified 
this with the myth and went on to disprove the myth and this along with
it.  If this was not your intention in the paper then you should have made this
clear.  This had very much to do with my observations concerning your paper.

As for there being no anthropologist or archaeologist that gives credance to 
"lost tribe" theory, I know for a fact that an archaeologist presented a 
speech recently in Cambridge having to do with a book that she wrote 
concerning archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.  Sorry, I don't have 
the details because I didn't go.  As Paul indicated, you should be careful
about such broad statements.  This is partly why I made my observations.  You
have a tendency to ignore non-zero probabilities when it may be inappropriate
to ignore them.  It's okay, if only you will aknowledge the non-zero
probabilities.

If you think that Indians being of Hebrew descent is commonly known to be 
false, then you are mistaken.  Had you chosen to, you could have included 
evidence to support "lost tribe" theory or even mentioned that such evidence 
exists.  You chose instead to treat this controversial theory as false, but 
offered no proof nor implication that there is a non-zero probability of it
being true.

Your mention of Powell and Thomas in your note appeared to me to be an attempt
at showing that assertions made in your paper were proven.  If Powell and 
Thomas did not prove the assertions in your paper, then the burden of proof 
remains upon you as its author, if this is to be counted as a formal paper.  
Your paper is lacking in this proof.  I continue to maintain that in your 
paper you asserted that the "lost tribes" could not have come to the New World 
and that they could not have built mounds, that you offered no proof for this 
assertion and that it is an unprovable assertion.

As to your claim to argument from ignorance, who is arguing from ignorance?
One who ignores all evidence to the contrary or one who argues based on all
evidence available?  I have accepted the evidence you have presented in 
your paper.  You, by choice, do not accept evidence that is in disagreement
with your position but which I also accept.  The beliefs I have concerning
the "lost tribes" go relatively unchallenged by the evidence in your paper.
However, at least one assertion which you made but which is unsubstantiated by
the evidence in your paper conflicts strongly with evidence that I accept and
which you do not.


Steve

re .60

>    Here you go again, Ed.  When you say "no archeologist or anthropologist" 
>    gives credence to the American Indians having been descendants from
>    inhabitants of ancient civilizations, like Hebrews, I assume you are
>    speaking for all archeologists and anthropologists of the world. 

>    Your anti-Mormon biases really do cloud your thinking.

Well, I confess, I did "go" again - on purpose. I knew that statement
would be jumped on like a chicken on a bug, but I said it anyway just to
see who was listening! A single qualification will make it right: "No
*non-Mormon* anthropologist or archaeologist". Of course, that leaves us 
with those who have a bias, and therefore are questionable as to their
credibility. 

re .61

>Ed, this is so chock full of contradiction that it is difficult to deal with.
>First, not only did you mention it in your paper, you emphasized it.  

Steve, I don't believe you are reading me right. In fact, it seems that 
if there is a way to read me wrong, you will somehow find it. The only
thing I can't determine is whether it is just a natural dissonance
between our individual ways of thinking, or if you choose to do it. 

Sure I mentioned the theory/myth of the Indians having "lost tribe"
ancestry in my paper. What I chose not to mention - which I consider a
valid suppressed premise - is the idea that it has any credibility. It
has seemed all along that *that* is what you wanted me to include in the
forming of my conclusions. You said that my instructor probably should
have taken me to task for making an "unsupportable assertion," yet I can
assure you that had I given credence to the idea that the American Indian
was possibly of Hebrew descent, he would have demanded some support and
certainly not have accepted the Book of Mormon as a valid reference! 

> Not only have you ignored any evidence of any "lost tribes" coming to the
> New World, you now claim that such evidence does not exist, contrary to
> much discussion (with references) cited in these notes.  

I said what I thought about that evidence. I don't think it supports the 
hypotheses and (here I go again) I'm pretty certain that the non-Mormon
academic world would agree. Since I think the evidence is tenuous at
best, it would be inconsistent for me to regard it seriously, so I regard
it as non-evidence. 

> In the paper you unified this with the myth and went on to disprove the
> myth and this along with it.  If this was not your intention in the paper
> then you should have made this clear.  This had very much to do with my
> observations concerning your paper. 

I am sorry if you did get the wrong idea. My plan was not to do as you
have interpreted the paper. The suppressed premise (assumed to be
gannerally accepted and therefore not necessary to ennumerate) was that
the "lost tribes" theory has long been disproven if for no other reason
than for lack of evidence and the existence of counterevidence. Given
this, I felt no need to make it clear. I really hope that this one thing
has not been the sole cause of all this (what I consider) to be rather
unnecessary discussion. 

> As for there being no anthropologist or archaeologist that gives credance to 
> "lost tribe" theory, I know for a fact that an archaeologist presented a 
> speech recently in Cambridge having to do with a book that she wrote 
> concerning archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.  Sorry, I 
> don't have the details because I didn't go.  As Paul indicated, you should 
> be careful about such broad statements.  This is partly why I made my
> observations.  

Thanks for not jumping on me quite as quickly as Paul (first come first 
served!). I already explained why I sometimes use deliberately broad 
staements. (Is it a perverse desire for controversy, or just a need to 
know if someone is listening? We may never know..!)

Regarding the archaeologist in Cambridge - do you know who, where, etc? 
Was it at Harvard? I might have liked to go, but maybe I know someone who 
did. BTW, was her book pro or con? (Pro is assumed in this context)

> You have a tendency to ignore non-zero probabilities when it may be 
> inappropriate to ignore them.  It's okay, if only you will
> aknowledge the non-zero probabilities. 

Well, I already said why this particular thing went un-acknowledged. I 
don't accept it as enough of a probability to have mentioned it, and I 
still don't. Not every non-but-nearly-zero probability requires 
acknowledgement.

But now we know where one another is coming from - and that 
should be worth something... (whew!)

> As to your claim to argument from ignorance, who is arguing from ignorance?

I guess I should have been more explicit about my use of the term - my 
fault... The term "argument from ignorance" as used in formal logic 
denotes a fallacy that attempts to prove that something is/is not true
because there is no proof to the contrary. It is not a comment on the
awareness of the arguer. An "argument from ignorance" is not at all the
same thing as arguing from ignorance. I feel that is what you are trying
to do when you say that no one has been able to prove that ancient
Hebrews did not come to the New World, thereby implying that until they
do we must all assume that maybe they did. 

> You, by choice, do not accept evidence that is in disagreement with your
> position but which I also accept.  The beliefs I have concerning the
> "lost tribes" go relatively unchallenged by the evidence in your paper. 

Apparently you and Paul want to portray me as blindly biased
against Mormonism. Since one's convictions on Mormonism must fall on one
side of the fence or the other we are all operating from some "bias", 
and that should go without saying. However it is unfair to try
to magnify my bias by portraying me as one who deliberately rejects
evidence that does not fit my conclusions, as though it were true
counterevidence. Again, I have given my reasons for why I have yet to
accept what is claimed to be archaeological evidence validating the Book
of Mormon, and if those reasons are not sufficient for you, then we can
either discuss them or not, as you wish, but don't use this as an
occasion to exaggerate my bias and thus attempt to weaken my stance. 

Ed 

Paul,

I'm wondering if you would have time to post some info from those non-Mormon
Archaeologists about the linkages between the American Indians and the Hebrews?
That would make an interesting note!!

Allen

    I would be glad to, if time permits.  There is an excellent book, House
    of Israel, by Whitehall, which is unfortunately out of print.  If
    anyone has it, they, too, could put in notes.  Other places in these
    notes present some of the "Parallels and Evidences".  So reading these
    notes is a good place to begin for the reader.  But in the meantime,
    here's something I collected from Cyrus H. Gordon, professof
    Mediterranean Studies at Brandeis, about an inscription found on a
    stone in burial mound found in Tennessee in 1885.
    
    The inscription was found on a stone under one of nine skeletons in the
    mound, but when the instription was photographed and published by the
    Smithsonian Institution in 1894, it was printed upside and down and its
    gsignificance went unnoticed.  The five letters are in the writint
    styles of Cannan.  The fifth letter of the inscription correspond to
    the style of writing found on Hebrew coins of the Roman period.  The
    inscription translates to read "for the land of Judah."  The
    archeological circumstances of discovery rule out any chance of fraud
    or forgery and the inscription attests to to a migration of jews,
    proably to escape the long hand of Rome after the disastrous Jewish
    defeats in 70 and 135 A.D. The stone was found in a burial mound at Bat
    Creek, Tenn in 1885 by Cyrus Thomas who worked for the Smithsonian. 
    Various pieces of evidence point in the direction of migrations from
    the Mediterranean in Roman times.  The cornerstone of the historic
    reconstruction is at presen thte Bat Creek inscription because it was
    found ian an inimpeachable archeological context under the direction of
    professional archeologists working for the prestigious Smithsonain
    Institution.
    
    Gordon, later, also discovered a stone on the coast of Brazil which
    contained Phonecian inscriptions from the 4th Century BC.
    
    Paul
    

>    Wrong again, Ed.  I personally know of one non-Mormon Archeologist, Dr.
>    Josef Ginat of the University of Israel in Tel-Aviv, under whom I took
>    a course on the linkages between American Indians and Hebrews.  Another is
>    Dr. Cyrus Gordon, professor right here at Brandeis Univ. Another is Dr.
>    Joseph D. Mahan of the Columbus Georgia Museum of Arts and Crafts.  And
>    of our course, there is always Thor Heyerdhal. 
    
    You have given us a list of names, but no references to their work 
    to indicate that they support the idea that the American Indian is 
    descended from Hebrews. I would appreciate it if you could do so.
    I read the reference to Cyrus Gordon, but it did not indicate his 
    support for the Hebrew/Indian connection.
    
    Thanks,

    Ed

BTW:  A.D. LePlongeon, Here and there in the Yucatan, New York 1889. 
Remember him? The book was out...

Also, Paul, if you could post what-ever info is given in your books or notes
about the professional background of those people, that would be helpful.
In addition, whether they are LDS or not (your comments imply they aren't).

Allen

    Allen, 
    
    The people Paul most recently mentioned are non-LDS, because he was
    responding to my opinion that non-LDS archaeologists and anthropologists 
    did not accept the theory that the American Indian is descended from
    the Hebrew race.
    
    Ed
    

>    The people Paul most recently mentioned are non-LDS, because he was
>    responding to my opinion that non-LDS archaeologists and anthropologists 
>    did not accept the theory that the American Indian is descended from
>    the Hebrew race.
    
You're right, Ed; thanks for the clarification.  Sorry, Paul, my head wasn't
screwed on very well....

Allen
    

    Wrong again, Ed.  I personally know of one non-Mormon Archeologist, Dr.
    Josef Ginat of the University of Israel in Tel-Aviv, under whom I took
    a course on the linkages between American Indians and Hebrews.  Another is
    Dr. Cyrus Gordon, professor right here at Brandeis Univ. Another is Dr.
    Joseph D. Mahan of the Columbus Georgia Museum of Arts and Crafts.  And
    of our course, there is always Thor Heyerdhal. As for "there not being
    one shred of evidence" supporting the linkage, I guess if you believe
    that statment then I would say that you and I have no further basis for
    a discussion.
    
    When you say you make these broad statements to see if anyone is
    listening and to get a response, I chuckle.
    
    Paul

    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
    
    
    

I think a clarification by Ed of what he means by "hard evidence" would
be appropriate for this note, because this note is discussing whether such
evidence exists for a link between the Mound Builders and Hebrews in
America.  Related to this is note 64 that is discussing from a general
viewpoint the differences between direct evidence and parallel evidence.

A discussion of evidence (whether direct or parallel) that concerns the Mound
Builders would be appropriate for this note.  Comments whether such-and-such
is direct evidence or parallel evidence would also be appropriate for this
note as long as the evidence pertains in some way to the Mound Builders.

A discussion of evidence that does not concern the Mound Builders should go
in another note.  Note 156 concerns parallel evidence for the Book of Mormon.
In addition, there are notes that discuss particular types of parallel
evidence for the Book of Mormon, such as metal plates and animals.  Do
a DIR/KEY=BOOK_OF_MORMON to locate notes that might be considered for evidence
that does not concern the Mound Builders.

Comments concerning the philosophical differences between hard evidence and
parallel evidence should go in note 64.

I think it is important that everyone following this discussion understand
and agree upon the differences between hard and parallel evidence, because if
we don't, a lot of confusion, misunderstanding, and possibly ill feelings will
result.  Please go back and reread note 64.  Listen carefully and try and
understand Ed's clarification about what he means by hard evidence.  Contribute
your own thoughts if you are so inclined.  Then, as this discussion progresses,
if someone claims the presence of evidence or lack thereof, try and determine
if he or she is talking about direct evidence or parallel evidence; you may
be thinking of one kind while the other person is thinking of the other
kind, and you may be arguing "apples" and "oranges".

    To Allen in .71
    
    You advised readers to go back and read Note 64 to find Ed Preston's
    clarification of hard evidence. In Note 64 Ed does not clarify/describe
    what he means.  However, you gave your description of direct and
    parallel evidence.  Did I miss something?  Of did Ed accept your
    definition of the two terms?
    
    Paul
    

Hi Paul,

Sorry I confused you.  I mentioned that it would be appropriate for Ed to
clarify his definition of "hard" data; then I referred to note 64.  I intended
my reference to 64 to be in addition to Ed's clarification, but I didn't
explain it very well.

My experience (with both LDS and non-LDS) is that there is a lot of confusion
in discussions of Book of Mormon evidence, because some are thinking of
direct evidence and some are thinking of parallel evidence, and they don't
realize they are talking "apples & oranges".  I thought it would be useful
to have both Ed's definition and my general definitions to provide a broader
background to those following this discussion.  I didn't intend that note 64
would replace Ed's comments, and I appreciate you're bringing this up so I
could clarify what I was saying.

Allen

    I am working on a response encompassing recent replies, but I am very
    busy for the next few days, so I cannot respond as promptly as I'd
    like.
    
    I will include a clarification of what I mean by hard data as well...
    
    Ed
    

>    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

Paul,

Tell us a little more about the book House of Israel. Why do you consider
it excellent? When was it written? What is Whitehall's background? 

Also, could you please give us the source of the information from Cyrus 
Gordon? I tried to locate anything written by him in the university 
library system but there were no listings (but not everything is in the 
computer system yet).

I have a few comments on the Bat Creek findings, too. I noticed that you 
mentioned Cyrus Thomas as being in charge of that dig, and that it was 
done in 1885. That would put it squarely in the middle of the time that 
Thomas did the research that culminated in the 730 page report embodied
in the 12th annual report to the Bureau of Ethnology published in 1892. 

When Mr. Thomas began his research (around 1880) he was a "pronounced
believer in the existence of a race of Mound Builders, distinct from the
American Indians," and that when he finally wrote his report he had
reached the opposite conclusion. This finding you mentioned would, I
think, certainly have fit his original assumptions, so it follows that
something happened between the time of the discovery and the time of the
report that convinced him otherwise. Either that or he didn't know what
he had. Your note suggests that may have been the case. 

As I understand the archaeological research that went into the mounds,
the finding of an inscription would have been considered very
signifigant, since little in the way of writing was discovered in the
mounds when they were dug up. I have read in another book (topic was
"mysterious" inscriptions in America) that Hebrew inscriptions were found
along a trail through the Allegheny mountains in New York, that were
eventually determined to have most likely been made by itinerant Jewish
stonecutters in the 1700's. If I can locate the book again I can give a
better reference. This shows that it is at least possible that Cyrus
Thomas' findings may have been a similar sort of thing. Of course it is
at least conceiveable that indeed a handful of Jews fleeing Roman
oppression made it to Tennesee, only to die there. 

Ed    

I have located and taken out several books from the Widner library on the 
origin of the American Indian, some of which address the "lost tribes" 
theory (which I maintain is no longer taken seriously) and I will try to 
post exerpts as I have time. I don't want this to become a major topic, 
but sometimes you just can't tell where these things will lead...

These are the books I have:

	The Lost Tribes of Israel or The First of the Red Men
	Charles Even; 1977 reprint of 1861 edition

	The book seems to represent itself as a piece of historical 
	fiction, attempting to make a case for believing that the 
	American Indian is a descendant of the lost tribes if Israel.

	----

	New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America
	Benjamin Smith Barton, M.D.; 1976 reprint of 1798 edition

	This book seems to be a compilation of Dr. Barton's findings
	over years of research on the topic. He was a member of the 
	Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland, member of the American 
	Philosophical Society, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts 
	and Sciences of Boston; and Professor of Materia Medica, Natural 
	History and Botany in the University of Pennsylvania.
	It is written in the old Colonial script (where some of the 
	esses ("s") look like effs ("f")). The book goes into great
	detail and seems to cover more variations of theories than I 
	guessed existed.

	----

	American Genesis
	Jeffrey Goodman Phd., Summit Books, New York, 1981

	Modern overview of the origin of the American Indian. Includes
	mention of the "more or less fanciful theories" of the past.

	----

	Prehistory of America
	Stuart J. Fiedel, Cambridge University Press, 1987

	Same as above. Scholarly overview of origin of the Indian, but 
	without mention of obsolete theories (at least not in the table
	of contents). Chosen because it was the most up to date of the 
	several I looked at.
    
    I located several others, but they were in other buildings and rare
    book collections...	

Ed

Ed,

I thought I would offer a suggestion for your consideration.  The information
you will be posting from the books you mentioned will be quite valuable as
reference material for people who browse through this conference.  My
suggestion is to open a new note for non-LDS scholarly reports on the origins
of the American Indians with a separate reply for each book.  Then in this
note you can refer to that note.  I'm concerned that if you post that
information to this note, it will get buried here and may not be discovered by
people who come along in the future (I've been following this practice with
the studies by Sorenson for the same reason).  However, do what you feel is
best.

Allen

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

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

    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
    
    

This note contained two discussions of evidence; one pertaining to Hebrews
being in America and one more general in nature.  I've moved the general
discussion to note 64 so it can continue.