Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingWaters7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulDupre1 said:
A small group of Vikings came to the East coast of North America circa 1000 AD. There were only a few of them and they only stayed a short time, but there is abundant archaeological evidence of their stay.
Click to expand...
People leave artifacts. They always do.

So if there was a population of Jewish-Christian immigrants that were here for 1000 years and built a thriving civilization that farmed and kept meticulous written records and made iron and steel and fought armored wars where thousands perished in battle, it is unthinkable that they would not leave behind a treasure-trove of unique and identifiable artifacts.

The fact that no such artifacts have been found speaks volumes.
Hello Paul.
Interesting that you choose this example. Two written accounts of the Vikings settlement existed for many years, but they were discounted because everyone knew that Columbus discovered the New World. These accounts were dismissed as fiction until about 1960.
There are definitely differences of course.
These accounts came to scholars in the 1950’s through naturalistic means and dated back naturally to the 1200’s. They share much more with the Bible than the BOM in this respect.
The other thing that as a BOM believer I would point out is that these accounts took place in a much colder climate than is evidenced in the BOM (the BOM climate is one of the reasons I reject the Great Lakes theory and … and favor the Mesoamerican theory). This is important for two reasons. One the preservation of artifacts is facilitated by the cold. Two there was much less reuse and … of the Newfoundland site.
Here I mention the difficulty of finding New World evidence in a little more detail (see point #2 - but most of it is relevant to this thread):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=377962&postcount=56

Anyway, I am not of the opinion that there is no BOM evidence in the Old World or in the New World. I think Nahom is powerful Old World evidence. I think New World evidence is compelling though far from certain.
Here I posted 1/3 of the Gartner list (one of my favorites is Teotihuacan of 250-600 AD) :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=382203&postcount=100

It was fun to see that you pointed to the Norse settlements. If it was 1960 and I was supporting two Saga’s written 750 years earlier, scholarship would be against me and yet that was your choice. There are many differences here and I do not deny that. I just found it ironic.
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
Hello Paul.
Interesting that you choose this example. Two written accounts of the Vikings settlement existed for many years, but they were discounted because everyone knew that Columbus discovered the New World. These accounts were dismissed as fiction until about 1960.
There are definitely differences of course.
These accounts came to scholars in the 1950’s through naturalistic means and dated back naturally to the 1200’s. They share much more with the Bible than the BOM in this respect.
The other thing that as a BOM believer I would point out is that these accounts took place in a much colder climate than is evidenced in the BOM (the BOM climate is one of the reasons I reject the Great Lakes theory and … and favor the Mesoamerican theory). This is important for two reasons. One the preservation of artifacts is facilitated by the cold. Two there was much less reuse and … of the Newfoundland site.
Here I mention the difficulty of finding New World evidence in a little more detail (see point #2 - but most of it is relevant to this thread):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=377962&postcount=56

Anyway, I am not of the opinion that there is no BOM evidence in the Old World or in the New World. I think Nahom is powerful Old World evidence. I think New World evidence is compelling though far from certain.
Here I posted 1/3 of the Gartner list (one of my favorites is Teotihuacan of 250-600 AD) :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=382203&postcount=100

It was fun to see that you pointed to the Norse settlements. If it was 1960 and I was supporting two Saga’s written 750 years earlier, scholarship would be against me and yet that was your choice. There are many differences here and I do not deny that. I just found it ironic.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
But, as Tolkien states in the prologue to ‘The Lord of the Rings’, it would be fruitless to look for geographical correspondences, as “Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed…” And yet, that’s exactly what Peter Bird attempts with the map here shown. Bird, a professor of Geophysics and Geology at UCLA, has overlapped the map of Middle-earth with one of Europe, which leads to following locations:

• The Shire is in the South-West of England, which further north is also home to the Old Forest (Yorkshire?), the Barrow Downs (north of England), the city of Bree (at or near Newcastle-upon-Tyne) and Amon Sul (Scottish Highlands).
• The Grey Havens are situated in Ireland.
• Eriador corresponds with Brittany.
• Helm’s Deep is near the Franco-German-Swiss border tripoint, close to the city of Basel.
• The mountain chain of Ered Nimrais is the Alps.
• Gondor corresponds with the northern Italian plains, extended towards the unsubmerged Adriatic Sea.
• Mordor is situated in Transylvania, with Mount Doom in Romania (probably), Minas Morgul in Hungary (approximately) and Minas Tirith in Austria (sort of).
• Rohan is in southern Germany, with Edoras at the foot of the Bavarian Alps. Also in Germany, but to the north, near present-day Hamburg, is Isengard. Close by is the forest of Fangorn.
• To the north is Mirkwood, further east are Rhovanion and the wastes of Rhûn, close to the Ural mountains.
• The Sea of Rhûn corresponds to the Black Sea.
• Khand is Turkey
• Haradwaith is the eastern part of North Africa, Umbar corresponds with the Maghreb, the western part of North Africa.
• The Bay of Belfalas is the western part of the Mediterranean.

bigthink.com/strange-maps/121-where-on-earth-was-middle-earth
 
RebeccaJ said:
But, as Tolkien states in the prologue to ‘The Lord of the Rings’, it would be fruitless to look for geographical correspondences, as “Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed…” And yet, that’s exactly what Peter Bird attempts with the map here shown. Bird, a professor of Geophysics and Geology at UCLA, has overlapped the map of Middle-earth with one of Europe, which leads to following locations:

• The Shire is in the South-West of England, which further north is also home to the Old Forest (Yorkshire?), the Barrow Downs (north of England), the city of Bree (at or near Newcastle-upon-Tyne) and Amon Sul (Scottish Highlands).
• The Grey Havens are situated in Ireland.
• Eriador corresponds with Brittany.
• Helm’s Deep is near the Franco-German-Swiss border tripoint, close to the city of Basel.
• The mountain chain of Ered Nimrais is the Alps.
• Gondor corresponds with the northern Italian plains, extended towards the unsubmerged Adriatic Sea.
• Mordor is situated in Transylvania, with Mount Doom in Romania (probably), Minas Morgul in Hungary (approximately) and Minas Tirith in Austria (sort of).
• Rohan is in southern Germany, with Edoras at the foot of the Bavarian Alps. Also in Germany, but to the north, near present-day Hamburg, is Isengard. Close by is the forest of Fangorn.
• To the north is Mirkwood, further east are Rhovanion and the wastes of Rhûn, close to the Ural mountains.
• The Sea of Rhûn corresponds to the Black Sea.
• Khand is Turkey
• Haradwaith is the eastern part of North Africa, Umbar corresponds with the Maghreb, the western part of North Africa.
• The Bay of Belfalas is the western part of the Mediterranean.

bigthink.com/strange-maps/121-where-on-earth-was-middle-earth
Click to expand...
And a Peter Bird rowed across the Pacific, so IF it was 1960, the Lord of the Rings would be true. 🙂
 
it is hysterical to see the words “Book of Mormon” and “archaeological evidence” in the same sentence…

just sayin…
 
TOmNossor said:
Hello Paul.
Interesting that you choose this example. Two written accounts of the Vikings settlement existed for many years, but they were discounted because everyone knew that Columbus discovered the New World. These accounts were dismissed as fiction until about 1960.
There are definitely differences of course.
These accounts came to scholars in the 1950’s through naturalistic means and dated back naturally to the 1200’s. They share much more with the Bible than the BOM in this respect.
The other thing that as a BOM believer I would point out is that these accounts took place in a much colder climate than is evidenced in the BOM (the BOM climate is one of the reasons I reject the Great Lakes theory and … and favor the Mesoamerican theory). This is important for two reasons. One the preservation of artifacts is facilitated by the cold. Two there was much less reuse and … of the Newfoundland site.
Here I mention the difficulty of finding New World evidence in a little more detail (see point #2 - but most of it is relevant to this thread):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=377962&postcount=56

Anyway, I am not of the opinion that there is no BOM evidence in the Old World or in the New World. I think Nahom is powerful Old World evidence. I think New World evidence is compelling though far from certain.
Here I posted 1/3 of the Gartner list (one of my favorites is Teotihuacan of 250-600 AD) :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=382203&postcount=100

It was fun to see that you pointed to the Norse settlements. If it was 1960 and I was supporting two Saga’s written 750 years earlier, scholarship would be against me and yet that was your choice. There are many differences here and I do not deny that. I just found it ironic.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
There is none so blind as he who will not see… 🤷

So you’re expecting a wealth of archaeological evidence for the BoM to turn up any minute now? Good luck with that.
 
PaulDupre1 said:
There is none so blind as he who will not see…
Click to expand...
So you’re expecting a wealth of archaeological evidence for the BoM to turn up any minute now? Good luck with that.
Actually, I think there is a wealth of BOM evidence. It is just not unambiguously BOM evidence. Two things I mentioned here that nobody has commented on are unambiguously pro-BOM. There are many other non-archeological evidences that are unambiguously pro-BOM.

BTW, I am not surprised that few LDS stick around for long times in these forums. I am “blind,” “hysterical,” and … “your just saying.” All with no comments on two pieces of evidence I offered.
Charity, TOm
 
Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was about the source of the American Indians. Anthropology and biology have shown that to not be true. There is evidence against the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith knew enough about the origin of the Book of Mormon that we can safely claim he lied. The entire latter-day-saint movement rests on stories told by Joseph Smith; a proven liar about the Book of Mormon. The Mormon Church now claims the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, so are holding out for proof of the new claim, but that doesn’t change the false claim made by Joseph Smith; the founder.
 
TOmNossor said:
Actually, I think there is a wealth of BOM evidence. It is just not unambiguously BOM evidence. Two things I mentioned here that nobody has commented on are unambiguously pro-BOM. There are many other non-archeological evidences that are unambiguously pro-BOM.

BTW, I am not surprised that few LDS stick around for long times in these forums. I am “blind,” “hysterical,” and … “your just saying.” All with no comments on two pieces of evidence I offered.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Tom,

What is your position on Hill Cumorah, NY?

PnP
 
TOmNossor said:
Actually, I think there is a wealth of BOM evidence. It is just not unambiguously BOM evidence. Two things I mentioned here that nobody has commented on are unambiguously pro-BOM. There are many other non-archeological evidences that are unambiguously pro-BOM.

BTW, I am not surprised that few LDS stick around for long times in these forums. I am “blind,” “hysterical,” and … “your just saying.” All with no comments on two pieces of evidence I offered.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
then what are they?
  1. Show me accepted, archaeological evidence, accepted by non-mormon archaeologists, that prove ANY part of the Book of Mormon on this continent. Show me a city from the b of m. Show me proof where they have found the remains from all those b of m battles. Finally, show me that your “church” is going to put up or shut up and excavate Palmyra.
I wait with great anticipation
 
TOmNossor said:
Hello Paul.
Interesting that you choose this example. Two written accounts of the Vikings settlement existed for many years, but they were discounted because everyone knew that Columbus discovered the New World. These accounts were dismissed as fiction until about 1960.
There are definitely differences of course.
These accounts came to scholars in the 1950’s through naturalistic means and dated back naturally to the 1200’s. They share much more with the Bible than the BOM in this respect.
The other thing that as a BOM believer I would point out is that these accounts took place in a much colder climate than is evidenced in the BOM (the BOM climate is one of the reasons I reject the Great Lakes theory and … and favor the Mesoamerican theory). This is important for two reasons. One the preservation of artifacts is facilitated by the cold. Two there was much less reuse and … of the Newfoundland site.
Here I mention the difficulty of finding New World evidence in a little more detail (see point #2 - but most of it is relevant to this thread):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=377962&postcount=56

Anyway, I am not of the opinion that there is no BOM evidence in the Old World or in the New World. I think Nahom is powerful Old World evidence. I think New World evidence is compelling though far from certain.
Here I posted 1/3 of the Gartner list (one of my favorites is Teotihuacan of 250-600 AD) :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=382203&postcount=100

It was fun to see that you pointed to the Norse settlements. If it was 1960 and I was supporting two Saga’s written 750 years earlier, scholarship would be against me and yet that was your choice. There are many differences here and I do not deny that. I just found it ironic.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that really gives you an idea of what the climate is. And there are Mormons who disagree with you about the climate based on Book of Mormon writings:

bookofmormonlands.com/index-orig-with_new_bk_redo_v-5_017.htm
 
TOmNossor said:
Actually, I think there is a wealth of BOM evidence. It is just not unambiguously BOM evidence. Two things I mentioned here that nobody has commented on are unambiguously pro-BOM. There are many other non-archeological evidences that are unambiguously pro-BOM.

BTW, I am not surprised that few LDS stick around for long times in these forums. I am “blind,” “hysterical,” and … “your just saying.” All with no comments on two pieces of evidence I offered.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Where is the stone box in the hill Cumorah? At a bare minimum, the LDS church should be able to produce the stone box. Or did that get taken up into heaven too?

I just reread through the entire thread and failed to find where anyone said that you are hysterical or blind.

So you favor the Mesoamerican theory because it is warm and thus not conducive to lots of archaeological evidence? There are lots of archaeological discoveries coming from that part of the world during the supposed BOM timeframe. I don’t see how that can support your beliefs at all. You also state that there was little reuse of the Viking settlement sites in Newfoundland so it was more likely to be preserved. What does that have to do with anything? Sites in the Middle East have be reused over and over again for thousands of years and it seems like every time ground is broken in Israel for a new building, new archaeological evidence is found. Humans are very messy creatures and we always leave stuff behind for later generations to find. I guess the Nephites and Lamanites were immaculately clean.
 
TOmNossor said:
Actually, I think there is a wealth of BOM evidence. It is just not unambiguously BOM evidence. Two things I mentioned here that nobody has commented on are unambiguously pro-BOM. There are many other non-archeological evidences that are unambiguously pro-BOM.

BTW, I am not surprised that few LDS stick around for long times in these forums. I am “blind,” “hysterical,” and … “your just saying.” All with no comments on two pieces of evidence I offered.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
I didn’t see any evidence. All I saw was rank speculation and wishful thinking. I don’t take that seriously.

Show me the stone box at Cumorah, then we’ll talk.
 
This whole thread strikes me as a great “appeal to ignorance”. It’s like being challenged to disprove that space aliens made Stonehenge, since you don’t know how the rocks were moved. It’s a ripping yarn, but that’s all it is.
 
Hello all.
Stephen168 - I do not believe Joseph Smith is a reliable source for the location of the BOM or even the origins of the Indians he knew of in New York. Were he the author of the BOM I would expect more of him. I believe at the time of the coming forth of the BOM he was the simpleton that most critics described him as. Over time his God given intelligence and the mantle placed upon him made him far more impressive to those who met him. But the “religious genius” label that has replaced the “simpleton” label IMO is a product of the need to expain what he did without appealing to God’s power.

PnP - I do not believe the Hill Cumorah in NY is the Hill Cumorah in the BOM. Joseph Smith during his life certainly offered no consistent read on this. I do not look to LDS prophets for infallibility in matters of faith and morals, but much less so in matters of geography and anthropology and … This has never been very troubling to me.
The two accepted locations in the Old World (by all LDS) and the points of contact with the BOM as Lehi and his family walked the Frankincense trail are strong enough that if Mesoamerica were to fall to the level of upstate NY in its plausibility as a location for the BOM, I would be a reluctant NY BOM person, but I think the pro-BOM archeological evidence would be much fewer and the problems would be much greater.

TexasKnight - Nahom is accepted by non-Mormon apologist. Teotihuacan of 250-600 AD as a land northward of the main Nephite holdings, being devoid of trees, being near much water, and having buildings made of cement is accepted by non-Mormon apologist (except for the part about being northward of the main Nephite holdings).
I think unambiguous proof of the BOM is as likely as unambiguous proof of Christ’s resurrection (partially because unambiguous proof of the BOM would be proof of Christ’s resurrection).
Also, Sorenson has sent his recent book to Michael Coe (they are friends and respect each other by all accounts). Sorenson and Gartner have long claimed that Coe’s problem with BOM archeology has little to do with his knowledge of Mesoamerican archeology and lots to do with his understanding of the BOM. Coe has also compared the archeological problems with the BOM to archeological problems he sees in the Bible BTW.
It also seems to me that non-Mormon apologist who were convinced there was archeological evidence for the BOM would be strongly enticed to join as the BOM cannot be what it claims and have unambiguous proof. I do know 1 archeologist who joined and know of 2 archeologist who joined, but the most I have seen from them is that they didn’t find anything in archeology that inhibited their membership (the 2 I know of were specifically Mesoamerican archeologist BTW).

JamesCollins - I was unfamiliar with that bit of response. I guess that mitigates slightly the climate concern for upstate NY, but I do not think it tips the scales radically. I am still a BOM as history in Mesoamerica guy. See my response to PnP for a little more.

I have seen most of that on Nahom. NHM is the best you are going to get because of the way vowels were used in ancient writing. The fact that there are 25+ combinations is true for every three letter inscription. The “sematic shift” in vowel sounds accounts for change in pronunciations quite sufficiently in my recollection of these discussions.
**Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History **

I think does a good job of putting Jerusalem, Nahom, and Bountiful in an interweaving journey along the Frankincense trail. Most of this is geology not archeology, but Nahom is archeology. I think the geology easily overcomes the problems offered in your link (which really are just chinks in the certainty of Nahom not large holes IMO).

Iepuras - I think I answered most of your query above. Mesoamerica seems to do a lot more positive for the BOM than NY based on my study. There have been some writings about the stone box in old LDS documents, but I do not recall much about them. I recall broken and toward the bottom of the hill. Certainly the stone box would be quite a cool relic, so perhaps its absence can be a point against it ever existing. The hiding of records in this way and the writing on metal plates were once criticized too, but this has been found now.

Charity, TOm
 
Stephen168 said:
Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was about the source of the American Indians. Anthropology and biology have shown that to not be true. There is evidence against the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith knew enough about the origin of the Book of Mormon that we can safely claim he lied. The entire latter-day-saint movement rests on stories told by Joseph Smith; a proven liar about the Book of Mormon. The Mormon Church now claims the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, so are holding out for proof of the new claim, but that doesn’t change the false claim made by Joseph Smith; the founder.
Click to expand...
TOmNossor said:
Stephen168 - I do not believe Joseph Smith is a reliable source for the location of the BOM or even the origins of the Indians he knew of in New York. Were he the author of the BOM I would expect more of him. I believe at the time of the coming forth of the BOM he was the simpleton that most critics described him as. Over time his God given intelligence and the mantle placed upon him made him far more impressive to those who met him. But the “religious genius” label that has replaced the “simpleton” label IMO is a product of the need to expain what he did without appealing to God’s power.
Click to expand...
I never said Joseph Smith was a reliable source for the location of the BofM or the origin of the Indians. He is a reliable source for the origin, “coming forth,” of the BofM because he brought it forth. That is why when he claims it is a story about the source of the American Indians as a prophet (he heard it from an angel of God) he was believed, along with his other stories. It has nothing to do with various claims of his intelligence, it has to do with his honesty. As a prophet; he lied about the Book of Mormon. It is not what he claimed it to be. Joseph Smith made everything (Mormonism) up.

Pipe Springs National Monument said:
……A central tenet of their religion was that Indians were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel who had come to the Americas in early Biblical days and practiced a form of Christianity. But through their “abomination and loss of belief” they eventually became “loathsome…an idle people, full of mischief.” Mormons believed it was their responsibility to help these “Lamanites”, so that when they were “restored unto the knowledge of…Jesus Christ…many generations shall not pass…save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” Thus the church urged its members to clothe and feed their “Lamanite brethren” and eventually try to convert them.
Click to expand...
 
Concerning Lamanites (the people the BoM) and Native Americans that are their descendants. (According to Joseph Smith); from Mormon scripture:

Oliver Cowdery called to preach to Lamanites: D&C 28:1,8

1 Behold, I say unto thee, Oliver, that it shall be given unto thee that thou shalt be heard by the church in all things whatsoever thou shalt teach them by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given.

8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my dchurch to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.

Peter Whitmer Jr. is to accompany Oliver Cowdery on a mission to the Lamanites; D&C 30:5-6

5 Behold, I say unto you, Peter, that you shall take your journey with your brother Oliver; for the time has come that it is expedient in me that you shall open your mouth to declare my gospel; therefore, fear not, but give heed unto the words and advice of your brother, which he shall give you.

6 And be you afflicted in all his afflictions, ever lifting up your heart unto me in prayer and faith, for his and your deliverance; for I have given unto him power to build up my church among the Lamanites;

**Where were these Lamanites?
**
“Because of the Indian Removal Act passed in May 1830, the new territory for relocating American Indians was to be in present-day Kansas and Oklahoma. Thus, these missionaries to the Lamanites planned to go west from Independence, Missouri, into Indian Territory.” history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-lamanite-mission?lang=eng

**Saints commanded to flee to borders of Lamanites: D&C 54:8
**
7 Wherefore, go to now and flee the land, lest your enemies come upon you; and take your journey, and appoint whom you will to be your leader, and to pay moneys for you.

8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.

Where is this border?

lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/10590/map-independance-kirtland_1144597_prt.pdf
 
Is there even a fragment of Christian art to be found in these so-called New World Christian lands? People who adore God are usually quite passionate about their faith, and often express it in various forms of art. It’s pretty cool that we can actually find (in abundance) their witness to the faith.

Face the facts. Jesus’ church did not fail in the Old World, and certainly was not set up by a personal visit from Jesus to also fail in the New World. The hoop jumping that is necessary to even try to make an argument for Mormonism is exhausting, and hasn’t improved one bit since I made my exit 8 years ago.

Peace to you.

(Hi RebeccaJ!! 👋)
 
What would New World Christianity’s art look like?
If you are interested read here:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2717186/posts

Now, a region devoid of trees, with lots of water, that used cement in its buildings is something archeology can find.
A journey described from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with geography and a few altar inscriptions is part of this.
Things like this existing in a book that came from upstate NY in 1830 are powerful for me. When set beside explanations concerning horses and the absence of a crucifix in a Nephite home they still tilt me towards a belief in a historical BOM.

Also, I do not think Joseph Smith lied. I do not think the witnesses lied. I see little to be gained by Joseph the liar and less to be gained by the witnesses.
If however he did lie, it would seem he would need to have some framework upon which to build his lie. Joseph didn’t well understand the framework of the BOM. This is weak evidence against Joseph as author.
Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top