The City of Abraham, Once More


An actual early daguerreotype of Naram-Sin


Here’s a follow-up regarding that archaeological site in Turkey about which I recently posted:


Here’s the prior post:



"5 Reasons Why Mormons Are Happier"
"The science of sleeping in, and why you probably shouldn't"
Personal Encounters with Elder Packer (Part 3)
  • brotheroflogan

    Do you think that there could ever be an archeological discovery that gives such strong evidence for the BOA or BOM that the world sits up and takes notice and there are mass conversions? I have heard a lot of people with the opinion that God gives us enough evidence to believe but not so much that we can’t doubt. But the Nephites had tons of miracles before the three days of darkness, but they were hardened enough to doubt it all.

    It is perhaps a foolish hope, but I wish I could tell a couple of my friends, “Hey, they just dug up the Brass Plates in a Mayan temple.”

    • Loran

      Many of Joseph’s own colleagues, including some of the original apostles in this dispensation who saw angles, physically handled the plates, and were present for any number of divine manifestations and witnesses to the truth of the Restoration and Joseph’s ministry converted and then de-converted when the kitchen got hot.

      Ron Meldrum went down the same road, as I recall, thinking that, if he could show empirically that much of BofM history took place in North America that there would be mass conversions based upon such evidence as could be produced.

      I don’t think any should make the mistake of thinking that archeological finds, even providing what for us would look like decisive evidence for church truth claims, would make the slightest dent in the modernist secular paradigm. As someone who’s studied political philosophy and history most of my adult life, what one can take from that is that there is not limit to the human ability to ratinalize away and verbally overwhelm any facts or evidence contrary to a reigning vision (as Dr. Sowell would state it).

      • brotheroflogan

        Thanks for the reply Loran. Makes sense. I mean, it DOESN”T make sense, but I’ve seen exactly what you are talking about.

  • Michael Hoggan

    I think a lot of it comes down to “burden of proof” and about what we consider impossible.

    Once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever explanation, however unlikely must be correct. I don’t say this to be trite, but because I think it is a good explanation for human behavior at times.

    Sadly for some people, the existence of God is impossible. Some people believe in God but consider it impossible for Jesus to be his only Begotten. Others accept both these things, but consider modern revelation impossible. Others can accept modern revelation in theory, but consider it impossible for a righteous man living in the 19th century to have plural wives, or say or do other things that they dislike.

    If these “impossibilities” are eliminated then, by default, alternative explanations become correct. I don’t consider these things impossible, so I am more skeptical about alternative explanations.

    Innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? We can’t prove the Church either guilty or innocent. I agree that to do so would thwart the development of our faith. God withholds many things from us due to our weakness. If people decide that the Church is guilty until proven innocent, that’s it.

  • Michael Hoggan

    I personally don’t want mass conversions. I don’t think we could properly handle such rapid growth. I’m also concerned that mass conversions may also lead to mass excommunications. I don’t want that to happen.