Archaeological facts to support Book of Mormon

[Moksha]

Brendan Fraiser? I thought it starred Billy Mummy from Lost in Space and Bless the Beasts and the Children.

Aren't you are thinking of Babylon 5, with that hot Claudia Christian? The one where the angels are called Vorlons and they are seeking for clues to uncover a large Masonic treasure.

[Bluejay]

Hi, the Ogre.

Thanks for your response.

We don't know where they lived and honestly it does not matter.

For me, the topic is only passingly interesting.

Well, don't ruin my enthusiasm for it.

----

Trusting in genetics (a brand-new science) is dangerous. I think often the interpretive-methodologies are flawed and tend to be propagandistic. I think we ought to wait thirty to fifty or so years while the dust settles down to look for real conclusions.

Allow me to respectfully disagree. I've personally done genetics research (though I've since siwtched over to ecology), and I'm not sure what you're talking about: there's a lot of power in genetics, and interpretation is usually pretty straightforward.

However, since the topic is about archaeological evidence, I won't pursue the genetics argument any further here.

-----

Have you heard of Rodney Meldrum? He did some research and made a video presentation about the Great Lakes model for the BoM (you can read a little about it at bookofmormonevidence.org, although you have to buy the video to actually get any of his actual work). Though he's not a professional researcher, and his presentation is apologetics with a number of errors, he's able to present a fairly good argument from scant archaeological cues.

For instance, Nephite cities were probably not built of stone, but of wood (burning was the method of choice for destroying cities in the BoM; and Moroni's fortifications were made of timbers, which is a peculiar choice if stone or brick is available). Furthermore, a few Zion's Camp journals cited Joseph Smith as referring to the eastern US as the "lands of the Nephites."

Of course, the mysterious origins of the Hopewell civilization also serve as excellent fodder for the apologetics crowd, and the dates of the Hopewell civilization are consistent with Alma's escape from King Noah and the destruction of the Nephites.

I'm not sure how the Jaredites fit in with this model, though, and I don't think anybody has done anything in that direction yet (none that I've seen, anyway).

[Hemidakota]

If we truly care to know, why not ask the source for a confirmation vice speculating on either end.

[ReubenDunn]

Again - if you think the information is in error - demonstrate it, otherwise your carping is meaningless.

In your opinion, which I sadly note is geared more towards the personal insult/put down rather then focus on the issue I was raising, e.g., that if one is going to demonstrate/produce some sort of secular proof as to the validity of the Book of Mormon, using a source that is not qualify checked, nor looked favorabily upon by most if not all scholars, is not going to advance the cause, or perhaps be taken as seriously as it should be.

We are in a cut and paste society, the ease of the internet means that we can stumble upon any web site, this one included, and, upon reading something that sounds rational and creditable, use it without much concern as to the accuracy of the subject matter.

The information may, and I use that term on purpose, may be valid, but given the ease with which you or I could alter an entry on Wikipedia, it casts a rather long shadow upon what is posted already.

As I noted, FAIR/FARMS/ High School Teacher would look at a reliance on a Wikipedia entry with caution, to the point of not allowing such a reference to be included in any report/thesis at all.

Carping?

Nope. Don't like that particular fish.

Suggesting that if one is going to use secular material to advance the case for the validity of the Book of Mormon, then there are far better resourses to use, that are more widely accepted as "fact" than a high school debating team, or, as it appears, in this particular forum.

I'm a Cod/Halabit kind of guy anyway. Never did develop the tase for carp.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Hemidakota.

If we truly care to know, why not ask the source for a confirmation vice speculating on either end.

The struggle isn't in deciding whether or how to ask, but in determining whether or not an answer has come, and what the answer means when it has come.

Where I personally stand at this point, I don't think an answer has come yet. It may have come, and I just missed it, but I have received no indication of that yet.

The best that can be done in the absence of confirmation is to study it ourselves.

[the Ogre]

Well, don't ruin my enthusiasm for it.

Blue:

I don't want to, just don't base your testimony on it. I stay up to date on my reading. I have to, my dad and one of my best friends is nuts about the stuff, but neither base their belief on it. My dad is a hobbyist who used to do Army Counter-intelligence throughout Central America and Northern South America in the 70s and 80s. My friend is an anthro-major at the Y.

It is interesting, but I do not think it is religiously valuable. Just my opinion. Have at it and enjoy yourself.

Aaron the Ogre

[Bluejay]

Hi, the Ogre.

Blue:

I don't want to [ruin your enthusiasm], just don't base your testimony on it...

...It is interesting, but I do not think it is religiously valuable. Just my opinion. Have at it and enjoy yourself.

Agreed.

We know so little about the truth of such things, anyway: it doesn't make sense to base a testimony on a favorite conceptual model.

The whole point in academic study is to get the model to approach reality, which obviously involves shifting the parameters of the model a few times.

[Italics]

I'd repeat and ask what findings but apparently you don't know what "findings" you are talking about.

Dude, why should anyone have to spell it out for you?

There are books written on this subject... if you are so curious wouldn't it be easier for you to go and buy the book rather than to pester everyone and ask for facts?

Read the books, don't ask everyone to type them out for you.

[Dravin]

Dude, why should anyone have to spell it out for you?

Its called the burden of proof. If somebody make a claim it rests upon them to support it.

It's like if I said there was studies done that proved that eating grapes causes breast cancer and then when asked what studies responded with, "You know, the studies that prove that eating grapes causes breast cancer. There is a ton of them out there. Go read some of them."

Edited May 20, 2009 by Dravin

[Snow]

Dude, why should anyone have to spell it out for you?

There are books written on this subject... if you are so curious wouldn't it be easier for you to go and buy the book rather than to pester everyone and ask for facts?

Read the books, don't ask everyone to type them out for you.

What are you fluttering about? Did you even read what is being discussed?

The poster, Jim, asked for substantiation of the "findings." He didn't specify what findings he was even talking about. When asked, he explained these "findings" as books with maps and pictures and artifacts.

Now YOU claim that I should buy "the book" rather than pester everyone. What book do you think I should buy. Do you have a clue? Are you a mind reader and know which book the poster was talking about - even though the poster didn't even know?

Beyond that - who is this "everyone" I am pestering? Have I asked anybody but the poster who wanted substantiation (for something he refused to specify) about it?

Well?

[pam]

Snow I really wish you would quit pestering me. Sheesh!!!

[john doe]

Dude, why should anyone have to spell it out for you?

There are books written on this subject... if you are so curious wouldn't it be easier for you to go and buy the book rather than to pester everyone and ask for facts?

Read the books, don't ask everyone to type them out for you.

Even at BYU-I I think they teach that if someone makes a claim they need to provide references to back it up. It's too easy for people to make wild claims without basis.

[the Ogre]

Even at BYU-I I think they teach that if someone makes a claim they need to provide references to back it up. It's too easy for people to make wild claims without basis.

I've heard this might be true, but I think you need to provide evidence to prove it.

[Snow]

Snow I really wish you would quit pestering me. Sheesh!!!

Okay - listen up. You'll be pestered; AND you'll like it.

Got it?

[livy111us]

Hi, the Ogre.

Thanks for your response.

Well, don't ruin my enthusiasm for it.

----

Allow me to respectfully disagree. I've personally done genetics research (though I've since siwtched over to ecology), and I'm not sure what you're talking about: there's a lot of power in genetics, and interpretation is usually pretty straightforward.

However, since the topic is about archaeological evidence, I won't pursue the genetics argument any further here.

-----

Have you heard of Rodney Meldrum? He did some research and made a video presentation about the Great Lakes model for the BoM (you can read a little about it at bookofmormonevidence.org, although you have to buy the video to actually get any of his actual work). Though he's not a professional researcher, and his presentation is apologetics with a number of errors, he's able to present a fairly good argument from scant archaeological cues.

For instance, Nephite cities were probably not built of stone, but of wood (burning was the method of choice for destroying cities in the BoM; and Moroni's fortifications were made of timbers, which is a peculiar choice if stone or brick is available). Furthermore, a few Zion's Camp journals cited Joseph Smith as referring to the eastern US as the "lands of the Nephites."

Of course, the mysterious origins of the Hopewell civilization also serve as excellent fodder for the apologetics crowd, and the dates of the Hopewell civilization are consistent with Alma's escape from King Noah and the destruction of the Nephites.

I'm not sure how the Jaredites fit in with this model, though, and I don't think anybody has done anything in that direction yet (none that I've seen, anyway).

Before you buy into Meldrums theory, I would recommend FAIR's review of his work. It is very shaky to say the least.

Reviews of DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography

In the Levi Hancock account of Zelph, Joseph Smith places Ohio in the Land of Desolation. Desolation is one of the most Northern geographical areas in The Book of Mormon. That would place about 99% of The Book of Mormon South of that area, which would mean that Meldrums, and most other North American theorists geography is wrong.

Joseph Smith also said that The Book of Mormon happened in Central America (notice that I do not say he totally supported one theory above the other, because he taught both). Meldrum attempts to dismiss the Sept. and Oct.1842 Times and Seasons comments on The Book of Mormon happening in Central America, with Quirigua being Zarahemla, by saying he was in hiding. However, that is only partially true. He still acted as Prophet, husband, leader, and editor during that time period (a simple reading of his journal will tell you that, or I can post it). He also said

The Mexican records agree so well with the word of the book of Ether (found by the people of Limhi, which is contained in the Book of Mormon) in relation to the confounding of languages” Traits of the Mosaic History, Found Among the Aztaeca Nations, Times and Seasons, vol. III no. 16 Pg 819

and wrote a letter to Bishop Bernhisel thanking him for the book "Incidents in travel in the Yucatan", a book entirely about the Mayan:

Nauvoo November 16, 1841

Dear Sir, I received your kind present by the hand of Er Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & developes many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.-

In regard to the land referred to by you I would simply state that I have lands both in and out of the City some of which I hold deeds for and others bonds for deeds when you come which I hope will be as soon as convenient you can make such a selection from among those as shall best meet with your needs & feelings. In gratefull remembrance of your kindness I remain your affectionate Brother in the bonds of the Everlasting Covenant

Joseph SmithTo Dr Bernhisel

Dr Bernhisel care of

Lucian R. Foster

No 13 Oliver St

New York

(Joseph Smith, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984], 501 - 502.)

Among, many, many others. He misuses the X haplotype as evidence for The Book of Mormon, misuses weather/climate, geography, etc.... It is a horrible piece when looked at academically.

[Maya]

I dont know why but I am kind of leaning thowards the Maya! In my opinion how ever there is not enough prof for anything yet, or there are so many for all kinds of different ideas, that it is best to be flexible and not be completely devastated if one happens to be wrong.

Btw. what is the last word on Los Lunas... I saw many "christians" That were wery much for them. I heard Nibley said it probably is fake and a Jew said it has marks that were not used earlier days....

[Italics]

It seemed to me like all you were doing was mocking everyone's opinions and telling them to give some sort of reference for every single statement they made.

This is nothing personal against you, it is something that I've seen on many boards.

Sure, sometimes it just means that a certain person likes proof, but many times it is just their way of biding their time and saving themself the effort of looking those things up themselves.

Not everyone has the luxury of being able to spend so much time on a message board. Hence we don't all have 8,000+ posts.

Well hey, you seem to be Mr.Popular here. so i guess I'd better back off before the rest of your posse arrives at your defense

[Traveler]

I have not posted yet because this particular subject is based more upon opinions than fact. There are some things that need to be understood when discussing science and scriptures including the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

1. Any scientific study I have found that even comes close to disproving the possibility of fundamental principles the Book of Mormon also does the same for the Bible. For example the claim that DNA among Native Americans is too far removed (20,000 to 40,000 years from Hebrew DNA). According to the Bible Abraham was 10 generations from Noah – who according to the Bible is the ancestor of every living human that lived after Noah.

2. The exact geographical location of any Book of Mormon location in the Americas is unknown. I personally favor the Mexico and Guatemala locations because there is no mention (that I have found) in the Book of Mormon of seasons, especially winter, or of growing seasons.

3. There are very good correlations to known locations in the Middle East (if anyone wants scientific proof) that are described in the Book of Mormon. In all cases, young Joseph Smith’s knowledge of such thing in 1830 surpassed the best and brightest critics that criticized the Book of Mormon based on science. For example in 1985 Thomas Key wrote in the Journal of American Scientific Affiliation – “That since Pleistocene times there has been in Arabia no Bountiful land with much fruit and also wild honey”. Thomas apparently did not consider Taqah/Khor Rori. Taqah/Khor Rori is exactly where the Book of Mormon said the Bountiful land was. Since ancient time there has been the gathering of “wild honey” (the only place for gathering wild honey in Arabia) a vast variety of fruit trees, nearby mountains that contain various ores, access to timbers to build a ship and natural deep water from which a ship could be launched. Everything that Joseph describes. If archeological evidence convinces anyone about religious things Taqah/Khor Rori would have converted the world to the Book of Mormon by now. The truth is that no amount of science has ever been able to convince anyone of the truth of any religious principle they do not what to believe. I have about 100 “archeological proofs” of the Book of Mormon found in the Middle Ease that were not known in the Americas when Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. I honestly believe that I can offer more evidence that verifies Lehi leaving Jerusalem than there is concerning Moses leaving Egypt. But critics are critics and like the Pharisees and Scribes of 2000 years ago the Son of G-d himself could speak to declared faithful about the flaws of their religion and they would remain true to their false faith and deny G-d himself.

The Traveler

[pam]

Not everyone has the luxury of being able to spend so much time on a message board. Hence we don't all have 8,000+ posts.

Some of us have been around this site for 10 years or more so have had plenty of time to post numerous posts.

[pam]

I know there are tours given in Guatamela that claim to be Book of Mormon tours.

[Maya]

I like to read Mormon Sites - rising from the dust... by Marcell Dumas about Dr. Ainswotrth who has been doing research for a long time has some very interesting things on that site. Dr. Ainsworth is very clear about it that his way of looking is only a possibility, but I like the way he follows and reads the BoM and he has good argumentations. He is not desperate and can take facts as facts. This site also has a discusition site where you can ask Dr.Poulsen, Dr. Ainsworth and D.A. Johnson direct. Ainswort has had problems with internet connection, but the others should be around.

I also like Poulsens site: Lawrence Poulsen's Book of Mormon Geography

Ainsworth do not like that they say that this was Benjamins tower or this was .... as you cant really KNOW!

[livy111us]

Larry occasionally posts here, and will hopefully add to the conversation

[Faded]

I think much of it comes down to the same thing as an Atheist demanding proof of the existence of God. You can make a compelling scientific case for the existence of God, but you can't prove His existence.

Traditional Christians will continue to promote their various evidences that they feel demonstrate that the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be true, yet nobody has really proven the Book of Mormon to be false. It's really all to do with what it means if the Book of Mormon IS true. I suppose repercussions are unacceptable, in their minds. Those same traditional Christians will face similar criticism targetting the Bible and it's validity, responding that each person must take the matter to God and find out for yourself. Ironic, since that is what we've been telling them to do with the Book of Mormon all along.

I enjoy learning about facts that seem to validate the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It's interesting information. It's just not the basis for having faith in God. If you could prove that everything in the Book of Mormon and Bible really did happen in some fashion or another, do you think it would actually convince a non-believer? Highly unlikely. They can still claim that sleight of hand, naturally occurring phenomon, and/or a good bit of luck all contributed to every miraculous event recorded in the Scriptures.

[Hemidakota]

I dont know why but I am kind of leaning thowards the Maya! In my opinion how ever there is not enough prof for anything yet, or there are so many for all kinds of different ideas, that it is best to be flexible and not be completely devastated if one happens to be wrong.

Btw. what is the last word on Los Lunas... I saw many "christians" That were wery much for them. I heard Nibley said it probably is fake and a Jew said it has marks that were not used earlier days....

Even Joseph Smith agreed on this one...Central America.

[Hemidakota]

I think much of it comes down to the same thing as an Atheist demanding proof of the existence of God. You can make a compelling scientific case for the existence of God, but you can't prove His existence.

And they will never receive one... unless there is sincere change and a desire to know the truth; as with the beginning of the cosmos - never know how it really began.