Evidence of Christ in America

[Kurt]

I was almost certain I had made a thread about this, but I don't know where it went.

The Batcreek Stone

^^^^ This website depicts ancient stone tablets with Christ on them.

http://www.artbulla.com/zion/Michigandsl.wmv

^^^^ This is a video from that website, and it shows battleaxes, swords, scimitars, bludgeons, and all manner of weapons of war. JUST like the Book of Mormon said. What is more, the video shows hundreds of stone tablets which depict Moses and other Bible stories. The most impressive piece is a collection of brass plates with unknown writing on them.

All of the things depicted in the video were found in Michigan at an ancient indian burial ground.

Fascinating stuff. Enjoy and discuss.

~Kurt

[HiJolly]

I was almost certain I had made a thread about this, but I don't know where it went.

The Batcreek Stone

^^^^ This website depicts ancient stone tablets with Christ on them.

http://www.artbulla.com/zion/Michigandsl.wmv

^^^^ This is a video from that website, and it shows battleaxes, swords, scimitars, bludgeons, and all manner of weapons of war. JUST like the Book of Mormon said. What is more, the video shows hundreds of stone tablets which depict Moses and other Bible stories. The most impressive piece is a collection of brass plates with unknown writing on them.

All of the things depicted in the video were found in Michigan at an ancient indian burial ground.

Fascinating stuff. Enjoy and discuss.

~Kurt

ok. This is really bad stuff. I agree that the Bat Creek stuff is very interesting. BUT.

First-- Art Bulla is a horribly deceived and deceptive ex-Mormon who claims to be the one "Mighty & Strong" just like Brian David Mitchell (the guy who kidnapped & raped & etc. for nine months, Elizabeth Smart (age:14)). He's a Class A nut job and it is best to ignore him just as you would David Icke or BDM.

Second-- the Michigan artifacts were created using modern-era tools. Apostle James E. Talmage, a scientist, went to Michigan & proved these to be fraudulent.

Early in Joseph Smith's life, he believed (like most common folk of the day) that the American Indians (all of them) were descended from the lost tribes of Israel. Later in life (in Nauvoo) he changed his views to the idea that the descendants of Lehi, Nephi, Laman et. al. were down in Mesoamerica.

HiJolly

[NeuroTypical]

Jury's been out on the Batcreek stone since the '70's. For the Decalogue Stone, Hibben's work doesn't hold much water with folks, and folks think they've caught him making stuff up and faking things to support his claims.

Yeah, it's fascinating to discuss and suppose and all. But at the end of the day, when I ask critics of this church if they'd get baptized if we discovered the sword of Laban, Nephi's grave with a Hebrew DNA link, and the city of Zarahemla - half of the critics still say they'd continue to fight against the truth claims of the BoM.

[Kurt]

ok. This is really bad stuff. I agree that the Bat Creek stuff is very interesting. BUT.

First-- Art Bulla is a horribly deceived and deceptive ex-Mormon who claims to be the one "Mighty & Strong" just like Brian David Mitchell (the guy who kidnapped & raped & etc. for nine months, Elizabeth Smart (age:14)). He's a Class A nut job and it is best to ignore him just as you would David Icke or BDM.

Second-- the Michigan artifacts were created using modern-era tools. Apostle James E. Talmage, a scientist, went to Michigan & proved these to be fraudulent.

Early in Joseph Smith's life, he believed (like most common folk of the day) that the American Indians (all of them) were descended from the lost tribes of Israel. Later in life (in Nauvoo) he changed his views to the idea that the descendants of Lehi, Nephi, Laman et. al. were down in Mesoamerica.

HiJolly

Seriously?!?!

I was all excited and stuff....

.... Are you sure though? These things were supposedly in LDS archives.

[HiJolly]

Seriously?!?!

I was all excited and stuff....

.... Are you sure though? These things were supposedly in LDS archives.

Seriously. And I don't doubt that the Church holds a ton of these in storage. You'd be amazed at all the things the Church has purchased, over the years. Even so, that's NOT evidence that they are authentic.

Indeed, doesn't it make sense that if they were for real, the Church would have them on prominent display, declaring them to the world?

HiJolly

[pam]

He states at the beginning of the video that the Church and the Smithsonian declared them fake.

[captmoroniRM]

The best evidence of Christ in the americas is the Book of Mormon, as far as I'm concerned. It's the only one that comes with a guarantee of divine revelation confirming its validity.

[Jamie123]

The best evidence of Christ in the americas is the Book of Mormon, as far as I'm concerned. It's the only one that comes with a guarantee of divine revelation confirming its validity.

Hmmm....if you accept that "divine revelation" (whatever that actually means) trumps any other kind of evidence, why bother looking any further? Are the FARMS scholars just wasting their time?

[captmoroniRM]

No amount of physical evidence discovered by FARMs will prove the Book of Mormon is true or bring people to Christ. It is great to have supportive evidence, but ample historical evidence of the Bible's authenticity has done nothing to bring people closer to Christ. The best it can do is prove the books are old, or written by those we say it was. Furthermore, despite all the evidence they have uncovered, they are no closer to a definitive proof of the Book of Mormon.

By divine revelation, I mean the promise that one can pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon is true, and receive an answer. God will reveal this truth to those who humbly for it with faith. With that answer, one will know for sure that Christ ministered to the people here on the american continent for themselves. Any archeological or historical evidence offered up in support of it, will only add to and strengthen that knowledge, and regardless of any "contrary evidence" conjured up against it, can be written off because the creator of heaven and earth, who knoweth all things was the one that told them.

[livy111us]

A very short article on the Michigan relics can be found here: Book of Mormon/Geography/Michigan artifacts - FAIRMormon

Basically, James E. Talmage declared them to be fraudulent a very long time ago. There are even affidavits from the early 1900's from the forgers step-daughter, claiming that her step-father made them and buried them. Recently, they were re-examined in 1977 and again in 1998 and 1999 and found to be of modern origin. You can read the study "Tools Leave Marks: Material Analysis of the Scotford-Soper-Savage Michigan Relics," BYU Studies 40/3 [2001]; also see Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Mormonism's Encounter with the Michigan Relics."

Usually, those who propose a Great Lakes model for The Book of Mormon, fall back on this as evidence for their theory out of desperation. There are several other forgeries (like those from the Burrows cave) that also need to just "go away", but, they are brought up time and time again.

The Bat Creek stone is interesting, and would like to see more studies done on it. It is highly controversial, and will most likely stay that way.

[Kurt]

Glad I learned those were fake.

Here is something else along the same lines that might be a bit better:

Yucatan Revealed! - Evidences of Christ in America .... Introduction ...

[Kurt]

More cool stuff.

Christ in Ancient America

[IAmTheWork]

@Kurt; Can I ask, in all kindness, whether you're trying to find proof of him there, or prove he was there..? Either is ok of course - none of my business - but I'm just curious. I find it fascinating too, by the way!

[Backroads]

Hmmm....if you accept that "divine revelation" (whatever that actually means) trumps any other kind of evidence, why bother looking any further? Are the FARMS scholars just wasting their time?

There's a fine line between needing evidence to prove divine revelation to be real and just looking for information to support what you already believe to be true.

I see nothing wrong with getting excited over what FARMS and other organizations find. I think it's a little weird to be automatically assume whatever they say is false, though a little dubiousness is fine.

I do have a problem with trying to prove the BoM while not believing in it.

[Elphaba]

Glenn Beck discussed the Batcreek Stone on his program, presenting it as if it were proven to be genuine. He then goes into his obligatory conspiracy theory where the government/scientists/Smithsonian colluded to keep it from us.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

I have an article on my website regarding the Bat Creek Stone: BatCreekStone - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

The Michigan Plates are considered forgeries, including by most LDS scholars. We like to focus on true evidence, but sadly stuff like this continues to make the rounds time and again. My friend, Brant Gardner, has an article at FAIR regarding these plates: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/QArch.pdf

Edited January 3, 2011 by rameumptom

[rameumptom]

I think we need to distinguish between evidence and proof. There is no such thing as proof, when it comes to archaeology. There is evidence. The problem with evidence, is that interpreting it can be a dicey thing. We can sometimes read too much into a thing, if we're not careful.

As for Stele 5 from Izapa, there is mixed feelings in the LDS scholar group. Its original founder, Jakeman, still credits his discovery as valid. And I personally think there are just too many plausible tie-ins to totally discredit it.

[NeuroTypical]

Another thing to think about - plenty of people would still fight against the church even if non-LDS archaeology discovered clear, unambiguous, convincing, conclusive evidence of reformed egyptian, BoM peoples, cities, battlefields, "hebrew Nephite DNA" (if such a thing were possible), or even the three witnesses.

[livy111us]

If you are looking for evidence, the best place to find it would be on the Neal A. Maxwell Institutes website. It is run by BYU, and has thousands of articles that show evidence for The Book of Mormon in Arabia, Mesoamerica, internal evidences, like linguistical, etc... These are written by real scholars and experts in the fields they write about, and the ones that are not, are reviewed for accuracy.

They have produce a couple GREAT DVD's called Journey of Faith that are FULL of *real* evidences. You can see most of those videos here:

YouTube - bookmormon's Channel

The FAIR website also has some evidences, but it is mainly apologetic. You can see what they have at LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage

Their Youtube site has a lot more evidences:

YouTube - fairldsorg's Channel

Here are a few others:

Answers About Mormons and Mormon Belief (LDS FAQ - Latter-day Saints)

                                      - Home

Book of Mormon Research

Outside of a handful of websites (which include the above), I wouldn't put to much faith in what is being said.

[IAmTheWork]

If you are looking for evidence, the best place to find it would be (etc)

I'm going to post some questions in the general section soon, and will have a look at the links you've provided, so thanks for those.

I hope I don't sound like I'm against anything the church disseminates Livy, but the obvious point a non-member might make is that using church sources is asking to be led up the path the church wants you to follow. There are arguments for and against all kinds of evidence, and many unanswered questions which are bones of contention between church members (at least the most vocal ones) and anti-Mormons.

Of course it all comes down to having a testimony given by the spirit. Personally, I have knowledge and evidence of things which the church says wouldn't be available to any but the faithful, but have no cause to dispute anything with others as it's all rather pointless. It does, however, leave me somewhat unconcerned about having to believe in things, as I only know what I know, so don't 'believe' anything unless it's tangible experience.

Not sure where I'm going with this, so better to formulate some questions in another thread. :)

[Jamie123]

I do have a problem with trying to prove the BoM while not believing in it.

I suspect what you're saying is that the way to "find out if it's true" is by asking for divine revelation rather than by searching for evidences. But after that, what's to be gained by looking for confirmation? Were you to succeed, you might find evidences which would persuade other people. (Like an innocent defendent using evidence to persuade a court to acquit him.) But would that not take away from their agency to seek divine revelation of their own? And in any case, unless you're prepared to suspend your belief (and I've often found deeply religious people incapable of doing this, even temporarily) then your investigations are hardly going to be impartial.

[IAmTheWork]

I suspect what you're saying is that the way to "find out if it's true" is by asking for divine revelation rather than by searching for evidences. But after that, what's to be gained by looking for confirmation? Were you to succeed, you might find evidences which would persuade other people. (Like an innocent defendent using evidence to persuade a court to acquit him.) But would that not take away from their agency to seek divine revelation of their own? And in any case, unless you're prepared to suspend your belief (and I've often found deeply religious people incapable of doing this, even temporarily) then your investigations are hardly going to be impartial.

I've just posted elsewhere regarding logical debate (Prove it first! - Page 2 - LDS Social Network Forums), and I think the same thing applies here in many ways.

If someone is convinced that the church in its entirety is true because of the feelings they have upon investigating, then they may, as many members do, ignore any evidence which appears to be contrary. However, neither missionaries nor anyone else can know what the person actually felt, and it may have been fleeting but enough to convince them at the time that what they were being told was true. Later, they may discard such feelings in the light of evidence, or lack of it, for the truth of church claims. DNA evidence being one major bugbear as far as I can see, along with archaeological, too.

I can understand someone saying, "Well, I feel the church is true, and the lack of obvious archaeological does bother me, but it doesn't shake my testimony". No problem. What we have there is someone who has fervent beliefs, or knowledge as they'd call it, built upon testimony of the spirit. But also, a person who isn't brain dead, but considers other matters as still relevant and important. From a non-member's point of view though, and certainly one who's going to look for more earthly 'proof' first, they want evidence that seems impartial and accurate.

I don't worry too much about archaeological evidence of Christ in America, because as far as I know there's none of him in Israel either. But to say that looking for, or having, hard evidence of might "take away from their agency to seek divine revelation of their own" makes no sense to me. It seems completely illogical and erroneous for us to think things have to be extremes of either one thing or the other, don't you think?

[rameumptom]

I'm going to post some questions in the general section soon, and will have a look at the links you've provided, so thanks for those.

I hope I don't sound like I'm against anything the church disseminates Livy, but the obvious point a non-member might make is that using church sources is asking to be led up the path the church wants you to follow. There are arguments for and against all kinds of evidence, and many unanswered questions which are bones of contention between church members (at least the most vocal ones) and anti-Mormons.

Not sure where I'm going with this, so better to formulate some questions in another thread. :)

You will find that the Maxwell Institute and FAIRLDS.org provide quality research. Their material is peer reviewed. Now, you may not agree with all of it, or you may find something a bit of a stretch, but it is much better than most of the anti-Mormon stuff out there. Most of the anti stuff has been answered, but those answers have been ignored. For example, some claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Spaulding Manuscript in writing the BoM. This has been debunked for a long time now, and even the anti-Mormon Sandra Tanner agrees it is not the source for the Book of Mormon. Still, countless websites still try and use this as an "evidence."

So, do a close study of the work at the Maxwell Institute and FAIR, prior to going to the anti-sites.

[IAmTheWork]

You will find that the Maxwell Institute and FAIRLDS.org provide quality research. Their material is peer reviewed.

Sure, I will have a look, though I personally don't hold 'peer reviewed' as meaning too much. It depends entirely upon who the peers are, who funds them, what the agenda (innocent though it may be) behind their work is, and so on.

I doubt I'll get any questions posted in another thread as I intended to, as I have online work to do as well as all this reading(!) and am also not sure I really need to ask some questions. :)

[Jamie123]

I've just posted elsewhere regarding logical debate (Prove it first! - Page 2 - LDS Social Network Forums), and I think the same thing applies here in many ways.

If someone is convinced that the church in its entirety is true because of the feelings they have upon investigating, then they may, as many members do, ignore any evidence which appears to be contrary. However, neither missionaries nor anyone else can know what the person actually felt, and it may have been fleeting but enough to convince them at the time that what they were being told was true. Later, they may discard such feelings in the light of evidence, or lack of it, for the truth of church claims. DNA evidence being one major bugbear as far as I can see, along with archaeological, too.

I can understand someone saying, "Well, I feel the church is true, and the lack of obvious archaeological does bother me, but it doesn't shake my testimony". No problem. What we have there is someone who has fervent beliefs, or knowledge as they'd call it, built upon testimony of the spirit. But also, a person who isn't brain dead, but considers other matters as still relevant and important. From a non-member's point of view though, and certainly one who's going to look for more earthly 'proof' first, they want evidence that seems impartial and accurate.

I don't worry too much about archaeological evidence of Christ in America, because as far as I know there's none of him in Israel either. But to say that looking for, or having, hard evidence of might "take away from their agency to seek divine revelation of their own" makes no sense to me. It seems completely illogical and erroneous for us to think things have to be extremes of either one thing or the other, don't you think?

Yes...I'm afraid I do tend to look at things in black and white, and take people's words more literally than perhaps I should. (To give you some idea, I still believed in Santa Claus when I was 10!) I remember years ago getting very irritated with a fellow student who said something like "Where we came from depends on what you believe. If you're a Christian we came from Adam and Eve. If you're not then we came from the apes!" (????) Complete gibberish of course - but only if you take it literally.

Having said that though, I'm not actually sure I understand the concept of "divine revelation" anyway. (And from what I gather, not all LDS members do either.) But those Mormons who swear by it make it sound so strong and compelling that one wonders quite what physical evidence they would need after receiving it. And if that's an oversimplification, perhaps that means this "revelation" isn't everything it's advertised to be. But like I say, that's just my own naive view.

Just one other point: You may not find any direct physical vestages of Christ in the Middle East, but he is mentioned in so many secular histories of the time that it's hard to believe there wasn't a real man behind the stories. The difference with America is that there are (as far as I know) no secular documents of that period which did not come to us via Joseph Smith.