Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingWaters7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TexanKnight said:
Yep. When I served my mission in Honduras 1984-1986, we all went to The Copan Ruins. My mission president was clear that Copan was Book of Mormon ruins. it was not till years later I was told they were not.
Click to expand...
Why, oh why, do people attend the Cumorah pageant in Palmyra, New York???
 
lax16 said:
The BOM does better than the bible in the old world? What does that mean?
Click to expand...
What I mean is laced throughout this thread.
I offered an olive branch on a recent thread that went over poorly.
This is the opposite of that olive branch.
TexanKnight just criticized Jamie Collins for trying to introduce a bit of balance into this conversation on the non-LDS side. Jamie Collins rejects the BOM and anyone REALLY reading this thread should recognize it.
So, with the exceptions of a few posts by JamieCollins (thank you), it doesn’t seem to me that folks really read what I am writing.
It becomes easy for me to believe my position is not near so weak as those here claim it to be, they just don’t listen.

Anyway, there are three place names well identified in the Old World. These place names interrelate with other place names and geographic features in an impressive matrix of evidence for the Old World location of the BOM.

And, since the names in the Old World are constant and known (Jerusalem was Jerusalem in 600BC, but nothing in MesoAmerica has this type of pedigree), there is a BIG difference.

The Bible especially the Old Testament has numerous issues and unknown locations DESPITE the fixed points of things like Jerusalem. Read William Dever if you want to know the archeological status of the Bible. Compared to the Bible, the Old World BOM is well attested by archeology and geography.
Charity, TOm
 
lax16 said:
Why, oh why, do people attend the Cumorah pageant in Palmyra, New York???
Click to expand...
Because that hill where the pageant takes place is where THE Cumorah of the Book of Mormon took place,. js said so…as did other prophets
 
TOmNossor said:
What I mean is laced throughout this thread.
I offered an olive branch on a recent thread that went over poorly.
This is the opposite of that olive branch.
TexanKnight just criticized Jamie Collins for trying to introduce a bit of balance into this conversation on the non-LDS side. Jamie Collins rejects the BOM and anyone REALLY reading this thread should recognize it.
So, with the exceptions of a few posts by JamieCollins (thank you), it doesn’t seem to me that folks really read what I am writing.
It becomes easy for me to believe my position is not near so weak as those here claim it to be, they just don’t listen.

Anyway, there are three place names well identified in the Old World. These place names interrelate with other place names and geographic features in an impressive matrix of evidence for the Old World location of the BOM.

And, since the names in the Old World are constant and known (Jerusalem was Jerusalem in 600BC, but nothing in MesoAmerica has this type of pedigree), there is a BIG difference.

The Bible especially the Old Testament has numerous issues and unknown locations DESPITE the fixed points of things like Jerusalem. Read William Dever if you want to know the archeological status of the Bible. Compared to the Bible, the Old World BOM is well attested by archeology and geography.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
I admire the effort…but I do not buy it. I lived down in Central America. I know, having there for 5 years, that if the b of m cities existed, there would be records and they could find them. The weak arguments you give are not working.
 
lax16 said:
But why don’t they excavate?

There are many excavations going on as we speak finding many artifacts etc that prove people and places in the Old Testament. It is a work in progress.

The LDS church has billions of dollars and should be able to handle this without difficulty. Other than the fact that there is nothing to find…
Click to expand...
Even if they were able to find something there I doubt it would prove very much about the Book of Mormon. It is undeniable that ancient artifacts have been found all over New York State that testify of the presence of an ancient people in that area. They aren’t proof of the Book of Mormon. I’m sure a lot of those artifacts were simply destroyed by the early settlers of New York State in the process of colonizing the area. There were enough artifacts to make them know there was a previous civilization in the area. That’s why the Book of Mormon was believable to some of those people.
 
TOmNossor said:
What I mean is laced throughout this thread.
I offered an olive branch on a recent thread that went over poorly.
This is the opposite of that olive branch.
TexanKnight just criticized Jamie Collins for trying to introduce a bit of balance into this conversation on the non-LDS side. Jamie Collins rejects the BOM and anyone REALLY reading this thread should recognize it.
So, with the exceptions of a few posts by JamieCollins (thank you), it doesn’t seem to me that folks really read what I am writing.
It becomes easy for me to believe my position is not near so weak as those here claim it to be, they just don’t listen.

Anyway, there are three place names well identified in the Old World. These place names interrelate with other place names and geographic features in an impressive matrix of evidence for the Old World location of the BOM.

And, since the names in the Old World are constant and known (Jerusalem was Jerusalem in 600BC, but nothing in MesoAmerica has this type of pedigree), there is a BIG difference.

The Bible especially the Old Testament has numerous issues and unknown locations DESPITE the fixed points of things like Jerusalem. Read William Dever if you want to know the archeological status of the Bible. Compared to the Bible, the Old World BOM is well attested by archeology and geography.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Tom - the archaeological research into the places and people of the Bible continues every day. New places and artifacts are being found.

Is this true with the BoM?

Why did your church for years say that they knew the truth of the location of the BoM if they did not???
 
JamesCollins said:
I don’t think you can complain about not finding places in the Book of Mormon if you can’t figure out where a city as prominent in the Old Testament as Sodom is. The Book of Mormon itself is clear that it is not a detailed history of the people of Lehi. We can’t ask the Mormons to prove more than what they are claiming with regards to the Book of Mormon. Now if you want to get into their claim that Native Americans were descendants of ancient Israelites you would be on firm ground since nothing about Native Americans points to Hebrew ancestry. It is pretty clear by now that Native Americans descended from Siberians and nothing in their mtDNA or culture points to Israel.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reading the junk I right (I would normally use a word that begins with Cr, but that gets bleeped out here).
DNA never stressed my faith much. Before DNA, I had already accepted that the BOM described a group of folks who inserted themselves into an already existing culture. One of the first things I read on DNA was Southerton together with Southerton’s admission,
In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!
Click to expand...
I offered the full quote because it is Southerton’s position that you cannot read the BOM as I had already decided it should be read. Southerton’s DNA evidence has precisely nothing to say about the BOM as I read it. And Southerton a plant geneticist is not better at understanding what the BOM says than I am as an Engineer.
I also discovered recently that a member of the First Presidency spoke about “others” among Indian ancestors in general conference from 1929. This was obviously not in response to DNA criticisms, but was his view long before DNA was an issue.
Anyway, I was really very little bothered by DNA arguments and have become less so over time.
Charity, TOm
 
JamesCollins said:
Even if they were able to find something there I doubt it would prove very much about the Book of Mormon. It is undeniable that ancient artifacts have been found all over New York State that testify of the presence of an ancient people in that area. They aren’t proof of the Book of Mormon. I’m sure a lot of those artifacts were simply destroyed by the early settlers of New York State in the process of colonizing the area. There were enough artifacts to make them know there was a previous civilization in the area. That’s why the Book of Mormon was believable to some of those people.
Click to expand...
Obviously Native Americans lived in the area. However, what they have found are tools used by nomadic people who came to the area for fishing.

There is zero evidence of a sophisticated army with metal and weaponry. Just stone tools.

Many of the artifacts are still there because they are buried very deep under the ground, as they would be after thousands of years.

Hard to believe that knowing “Indians” lived in the area would be proof of the BoM. Everyone was familiar with the Indians.
 
TexanKnight said:
40.png
TOmNossor:
What I mean is laced throughout this thread.
I offered an olive branch on a recent thread that went over poorly.
This is the opposite of that olive branch.
TexanKnight just criticized Jamie Collins for trying to introduce a bit of balance into this conversation on the non-LDS side. Jamie Collins rejects the BOM and anyone REALLY reading this thread should recognize it.
So, with the exceptions of a few posts by JamieCollins (thank you), it doesn’t seem to me that folks really read what I am writing.
It becomes easy for me to believe my position is not near so weak as those here claim it to be, they just don’t listen.

Anyway, there are three place names well identified in the Old World. These place names interrelate with other place names and geographic features in an impressive matrix of evidence for the Old World location of the BOM.

And, since the names in the Old World are constant and known (Jerusalem was Jerusalem in 600BC, but nothing in MesoAmerica has this type of pedigree), there is a BIG difference.

The Bible especially the Old Testament has numerous issues and unknown locations DESPITE the fixed points of things like Jerusalem. Read William Dever if you want to know the archeological status of the Bible. Compared to the Bible, the Old World BOM is well attested by archeology and geography.
I admire the effort…but I do not buy it. I lived down in Central America. I know, having there for 5 years, that if the b of m cities existed, there would be records and they could find them. The weak arguments you give are not working.
TK,
You might “admire the effort,” but I do not think you are reading what I wrote. The above post was about Old World locations in the BOM. Your reply evidenced that you did not read it.
To the New World though:
As I have mentioned a few times, there are professional archeologists who have joined the church after becoming professional archeologists at least two were professional archeologist working in Mesoamerica.
LDS and non-LDS are digging up BOM artifacts in the New World every day, the issue is identifying what is a BOM artifact and what is a non-BOM artifact.
The only answer I have seen here is that there should be a Christian cross on a BOM person’s pot. I do not think that is true of Christian pots today and just because some ancient Christians put crosses on their pots doesn’t mean it was likely to happen in other locations.
Anyway, I will continue my efforts.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
 
JamesCollins said:
Even if they were able to find something there I doubt it would prove very much about the Book of Mormon. It is undeniable that ancient artifacts have been found all over New York State that testify of the presence of an ancient people in that area. They aren’t proof of the Book of Mormon. I’m sure a lot of those artifacts were simply destroyed by the early settlers of New York State in the process of colonizing the area. There were enough artifacts to make them know there was a previous civilization in the area. That’s why the Book of Mormon was believable to some of those people.
Click to expand...
Not just artifacts. An excavation of Cumorah should reveal that it was the site of where a large battle took place with swords, armor, and the like. That’s the claim the church has made, which could be proven if true.
 
TOmNossor said:
TK,
You might “admire the effort,” but I do not think you are reading what I wrote. The above post was about Old World locations in the BOM. Your reply evidenced that you did not read it.
To the New World though:
As I have mentioned a few times, there are professional archeologists who have joined the church after becoming professional archeologists at least two were professional archeologist working in Mesoamerica.
LDS and non-LDS are digging up BOM artifacts in the New World every day, the issue is identifying what is a BOM artifact and what is a non-BOM artifact.
The only answer I have seen here is that there should be a Christian cross on a BOM person’s pot. I do not think that is true of Christian pots today and just because some ancient Christians put crosses on their pots doesn’t mean it was likely to happen in other locations.
Anyway, I will continue my efforts.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
I did read it. I simply stand by my comments. Have you lived in Central America? I have.

I am saying that there is a reason that, despite many efforts, nothing has been found.

So, what you have not found, you claim exists…and what your prophets HAVE found (cumorah) you claim does not exist.

Funny, that
 
TOmNossor said:
Thanks for reading the junk I right (I would normally use a word that begins with Cr, but that gets bleeped out here).
DNA never stressed my faith much. Before DNA, I had already accepted that the BOM described a group of folks who inserted themselves into an already existing culture. One of the first things I read on DNA was Southerton together with Southerton’s admission,

I offered the full quote because it is Southerton’s position that you cannot read the BOM as I had already decided it should be read. Southerton’s DNA evidence has precisely nothing to say about the BOM as I read it. And Southerton a plant geneticist is not better at understanding what the BOM says than I am as an Engineer.
I also discovered recently that a member of the First Presidency spoke about “others” among Indian ancestors in general conference from 1929. This was obviously not in response to DNA criticisms, but was his view long before DNA was an issue.
Anyway, I was really very little bothered by DNA arguments and have become less so over time.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
To say the Book of Mormon is true/proven, we must first define what true is. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is true if we claim it is 19th century American fiction. Joseph Smith claimed the BoM is the source of the American Indians. It is this claim that is a lie. Now the Mormon Church wanted to change its claim about how the BoM is true. They what the BoM to be about just a few American Indians. This is what Simon Southerton was talking about, “In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.”
So when put against the claim of the founder of Mormonism, you are wrong. There is no pro-BoM case. There is zero chance the Book of Mormon is true.
Click to expand...
 
TOmNossor said:
TK,
You might “admire the effort,” but I do not think you are reading what I wrote. The above post was about Old World locations in the BOM. Your reply evidenced that you did not read it.
To the New World though:
As I have mentioned a few times, there are professional archeologists who have joined the church after becoming professional archeologists at least two were professional archeologist working in Mesoamerica.
LDS and non-LDS are digging up BOM artifacts in the New World every day, the issue is identifying what is a BOM artifact and what is a non-BOM artifact.
The only answer I have seen here is that there should be a Christian cross on a BOM person’s pot. I do not think that is true of Christian pots today and just because some ancient Christians put crosses on their pots doesn’t mean it was likely to happen in other locations.
Anyway, I will continue my efforts.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Can you please post some pictures of these apparent BOM artifacts form the New World? Artifacts that I would find compelling and supportive of the BOM include metal swords, horse bones, horse-related tools (horse shoes, saddles, bridles, etc), chariots, artwork that indicates a “horse culture”.
 
TOmNossor said:
it doesn’t seem to me that folks really read what I am writing.
It becomes easy for me to believe my position is not near so weak as those here claim it to be, they just don’t listen.
Click to expand...
I believe that works both ways.

It doesn’t appear that your are “listening” to what others are saying. If you were, you would see that your arguments for the bom hold no water.

You may be reading the posts, but, not considering the information.

Funny how that works wouldn’t you say?
 
lax16 said:
Tom - the archaeological research into the places and people of the Bible continues every day. New places and artifacts are being found.

Is this true with the BoM?

Why did your church for years say that they knew the truth of the location of the BoM if they did not???
Click to expand...
Let’s add this little tidbit of information to the mix also.

"In 1955 Thomas Ferguson, a Latter Day Saint and the founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation, with five years of funding from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), began to dig throughout Mesoamerica for evidence of the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. In a 1961 newsletter Ferguson predicted that although nothing had been found, the Book of Mormon cities would be found within 10 years.[citation needed] In 1972, Christian scholar Hal Hougey wrote to Ferguson questioning the progress given the stated timetable in which the cities would be found.[25] Replying to Hougey as well as secular and non-secular requests, Ferguson wrote in a letter dated June 5, 1972: “Ten years have passed … I had sincerely hoped that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years — and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation.”[26]

During the period of 1959–1961, NWAF colleague Dee Green was editor of the BYU Archaeological Society Newsletter and had an article from it published in the summer of 1969 edition of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, pp 76–78 in which he acknowledged that the NWAF findings did not back up the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. After this article and another six years of fruitless search, Thomas Ferguson published a 29-page paper in 1975 entitled Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers where he concluded, “I’m afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography”.[27] In referring to his own paper, Ferguson wrote a 20 February 1976 letter to Mr & Mrs H.W. Lawrence in which he stated: “The real implication of the paper is that you can’t set the Book-of-Mormon geography down anywhere — because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say — what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.”

Quoted from here

Here we are, nearly 60 years later, and still nothing.
 
I just have to ask,

Wouldn’t the “most correct” book ever written have verifiable locations? peoples? artifacts?
 
twopekinguys said:
I just have to ask,

Wouldn’t the “most correct” book ever written have verifiable locations? peoples? artifacts?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on which version of the “most correct book” you are talking about…the original most correct book? or the corrected version of the most correct book, or the corrected version of the corrected version of the most correct book, or the corrected version of the corrected version of the corrected version of the most correct book? Or the corrected version of the corrected version of the corrected version of the corrected version of the most correct book?

I am just curious
 
TexanKnight said:
I guess it depends on which version of the “most correct book” you are talking about…the original most correct book? or the corrected version of the most correct book, or the corrected version of the corrected version of the most correct book, or the corrected version of the corrected version of the corrected version of the most correct book? Or the corrected version of the corrected version of the corrected version of the corrected version of the most correct book?

I am just curious
Click to expand...
The original most correct book was clearly trinitarian, but Smith gave a ‘revelation’ to the contrary and the most correct book had to be corrected.
 
TOmNossor said:
TK,
You might “admire the effort,” but I do not think you are reading what I wrote. The above post was about Old World locations in the BOM. Your reply evidenced that you did not read it.
To the New World though:
As I have mentioned a few times, there are professional archeologists who have joined the church after becoming professional archeologists at least two were professional archeologist working in Mesoamerica.
LDS and non-LDS are digging up BOM artifacts in the New World every day, the issue is identifying what is a BOM artifact and what is a non-BOM artifact.
The only answer I have seen here is that there should be a Christian cross on a BOM person’s pot. I do not think that is true of Christian pots today and just because some ancient Christians put crosses on their pots doesn’t mean it was likely to happen in other locations.
Click to expand...
the story of Thomas W. Murphy tells us that when a Mormon makes a discovery against the BofM, they will quickly become an exmormon. Michael Coe said that many Mormon Anthropologist are no longer believers. They maybe members but not believers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top