Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[TexanKnight]

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.

Anyone truly open to TRUTH will leave the LDS Church

 

[JamesCollins]

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.
Charity, TOm

I’ve read the Ivins quote and don’t really think it addresses Southerton’s criticisms well. The reality is the Book of Mormon does not mention any other groups of people besides the Jaredites, the Lehites and the Mulekites. The Jaredites according to the Book of Mormon were all destroyed except for one person. The Lehites and Mulekites were both Israelite groups. There is no talk of another group mixing with any of the Book of Mormon groups. This is definitely true early on in the Book of Mormon as the Lehites were said to have multiplied among themselves rapidly. I would expect to see some markers of Israelite mtDNA if there were any actually here in the Americas. A case can be made for tribes in the northeastern United States, but only if you reject the belief that humans were in the Americas several thousands of years before the traditional Mormon belief about the creation of Adam and Eve. Of course Meldrum and others who posit a northeastern U.S. location for the Lehites all reject the belief that humans inhabited the Americas over 6,000 years ago. I would have to say that Meldrum and others in his camp are actually more true to traditional Mormonism than you and other Meso-American theorists seem to be. Meldrum believes in the Mormonism I was taught when I joined the LDS Church in the early 70s. The Mormon scientific community has had to reject traditional Mormonism because the science doesn’t support it, and in its place have invented theories which essentially eradicate any trace of the community the Book of Mormon describes. We are now left with Siberian descended Lamanites. That is a rejection of the teachings of the Book of Mormon in my view. It is no wonder that many who were once “true believers” have abandoned the faith – the BYU scientists have clearly demonstrated that our beliefs were wrong.

 

[TexanKnight]

Even LDS leaders, despite weak apologetics, acknowledge that DNA facts hurt the LDS claims. So, once again, as we so often see, changers are made to back away from earlier claims.

Let us look, for example, at the 1981 Preface to the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

Look at the highlighted section here. PRINCIPAL ancestors…

Then, DNA findings come out. So, as the LDS Church alsways does when its claims are disproved, subtle changes are made…

look at the 2006 Preface to the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

So, we go from PRINCIPAL to “AMONG”

remind anyone of the changes in the Book of Mormon from “white” to “pure” when it was realized that, despite js’ claims, Blacks were not becoming white?

 

[TOmNossor]

I’ve read the Ivins quote and don’t really think it addresses Southerton’s criticisms well. The reality is the Book of Mormon does not mention any other groups of people besides the Jaredites, the Lehites and the Mulekites. The Jaredites according to the Book of Mormon were all destroyed except for one person. The Lehites and Mulekites were both Israelite groups. … that humans were in the Americas several thousands of years before the traditional Mormon belief about the creation of Adam and Eve. … would have to say that Meldrum and others in his camp are actually more true to traditional Mormonism than you … I joined the LDS Church in the early 70s. … many who were once “true believers” have abandoned the faith – the BYU scientists have clearly demonstrated that our beliefs were wrong.

As a Catholic I was never a “young earth” creationist. My mother’s liberal mindset gave me great freedom to question and ponder. Still there were things I believed/thought as a Catholic that I would not today (see the limbo thread).
One of the olive branches I have regularly offered here is that I left Catholicism ignorant of just what I had. This is absolutely true, and I do not know if I could have departed had I really internalized that the Eucharist was Christ, the church was started by Christ in a way that Protestants can’t claim, and … There were real differences that my “Catholic Community” (that is what we called ourselves as we started from a middles school gym and eventually moved into a new church we raised money to build) didn’t emphasize.
So, my former Catholicism is an interesting mix. There were seeds of ideas that I could not embrace today as a Catholic (limbo is Catholicism was surely there, and as I explored Catholicism there were perhaps many seeds that I will now imply were not there, but they came from somewhere). And yet there was this liberality that meant I was not losing anything much when I left a Catholic Church in Idaho (because the priest said we should not throw just $1 in the collection, and I was too selfish to be unoffended by this) to visit Protestant churches and even get to know returned Mormon Missionaries (who drove like idiots just like me, but didn’t drink and treat woman like **** - again like me actually).

I became a LDS with little more than awe for what had been created via the initial efforts of a New York farm boy (brilliant or simpleton as I now know he was called). I had very little “spiritual witness.” As a new LDS (less than 3 years), an engineer (just out of the Navy), and just getting access to the Internet, I explored my new faith. This was 1996. Dr. Shades (we are friendly BTW) would call me an Internet Mormon (I do not completely buy his dichotomy, but if it is true I was/am and always have been an Internet Mormon).
Other’s in the BOM: it was 1998 when Brant Gardner introduced me to such a thing. There is a 1992 article from Sorenson. This was/is just part of my Mormonism. I remember in about 2000 traveling with the Bishop to a small branch in northern NM. The branch president spoke and I was quite concerned. I told the Bishop, “He is talking about the Hemispheric geography model, we should correct him.” The Bishop kindly told me that we didn’t need to make a big deal about it. At the time I learned I was smarter than everyone else (a real pride problem, born of insecurity as most pride problems are, with which I still deal) and maybe it wasn’t too important which model of BOM geography we as members of the church embrace.

There are things that I really struggle to believe are a significant part of my church. The beleaguered woman ruled by her husband. The oppressed Indian taught he is scum and must become “white and delightsome.” (and I am referring to a person posting on the Internet, not some document from the 1950’s). Then there are things that are quite foreign to my experience that people like you say, “BYU scientists have clearly demonstrated our beliefs were wrong.”

I do not know where I would be had I imbibed of 1970’s Mormonism. I do not know where I would be had I imbibed of pre-Vatican II Catholicism rather than the liberal anything goes with which I grew up (and still how can Catholicism be true if LIMBO is not).

I look at the JWs and see my former JW, former Catholic, brilliant friend. He explained how the JWs end of the world thoughts didn’t occur and how he began to investigate. I look at my Ultra-Trad Catholic friends (other than the one who was a former Protestant minister) who don’t believe Vatican II was a council and one who doesn’t believe the Pope is the Pope. I look at you and John Dehlin and …

I am sad when disillusionment becomes hyper-skepticism. I like to say however may we become disillusioned because who would want to be illusioned. I do not believe that:

Anyone truly open to TRUTH will leave the LDS Church

Any more than I believe "anyone truly open to TRUTH will leave Catholicism, but I see great parallels that I only occasionally draw here.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Anyone truly open to TRUTH will leave the LDS Church

I have always assumed the people raised as Mormon leave as athiests. So if they enjoy the fellowship of Mormonism, I can see why a non-believer would stay. It would be no worse than being a member of the local Garden Club.

 

[TexanKnight]

As a Catholic I was never a “young earth” creationist. My mother’s liberal mindset gave me great freedom to question and ponder. Still there were things I believed/thought as a Catholic that I would not today (see the limbo thread).
One of the olive branches I have regularly offered here is that I left Catholicism ignorant of just what I had. This is absolutely true, and I do not know if I could have departed had I really internalized that the Eucharist was Christ, the church was started by Christ in a way that Protestants can’t claim, and … There were real differences that my “Catholic Community” (that is what we called ourselves as we started from a middles school gym and eventually moved into a new church we raised money to build) didn’t emphasize.
So, my former Catholicism is an interesting mix. There were seeds of ideas that I could not embrace today as a Catholic (limbo is Catholicism was surely there, and as I explored Catholicism there were perhaps many seeds that I will now imply were not there, but they came from somewhere). And yet there was this liberality that meant I was not losing anything much when I left a Catholic Church in Idaho (because the priest said we should not throw just $1 in the collection, and I was too selfish to be unoffended by this) to visit Protestant churches and even get to know returned Mormon Missionaries (who drove like idiots just like me, but didn’t drink and treat woman like **** - again like me actually).

I became a LDS with little more than awe for what had been created via the initial efforts of a New York farm boy (brilliant or simpleton as I now know he was called). I had very little “spiritual witness.” As a new LDS (less than 3 years), an engineer (just out of the Navy), and just getting access to the Internet, I explored my new faith. This was 1996. Dr. Shades (we are friendly BTW) would call me an Internet Mormon (I do not completely buy his dichotomy, but if it is true I was/am and always have been an Internet Mormon).
Other’s in the BOM: it was 1998 when Brant Gardner introduced me to such a thing. There is a 1992 article from Sorenson. This was/is just part of my Mormonism. I remember in about 2000 traveling with the Bishop to a small branch in northern NM. The branch president spoke and I was quite concerned. I told the Bishop, “He is talking about the Hemispheric geography model, we should correct him.” The Bishop kindly told me that we didn’t need to make a big deal about it. At the time I learned I was smarter than everyone else (a real pride problem, born of insecurity as most pride problems are, with which I still deal) and maybe it wasn’t too important which model of BOM geography we as members of the church embrace.

There are things that I really struggle to believe are a significant part of my church. The beleaguered woman ruled by her husband. The oppressed Indian taught he is scum and must become “white and delightsome.” (and I am referring to a person posting on the Internet, not some document from the 1950’s). Then there are things that are quite foreign to my experience that people like you say, “BYU scientists have clearly demonstrated our beliefs were wrong.”

I do not know where I would be had I imbibed of 1970’s Mormonism. I do not know where I would be had I imbibed of pre-Vatican II Catholicism rather than the liberal anything goes with which I grew up (and still how can Catholicism be true if LIMBO is not).

I look at the JWs and see my former JW, former Catholic, brilliant friend. He explained how the JWs end of the world thoughts didn’t occur and how he began to investigate. I look at my Ultra-Trad Catholic friends (other than the one who was a former Protestant minister) who don’t believe Vatican II was a council and one who doesn’t believe the Pope is the Pope. I look at you and John Dehlin and …

I am sad when disillusionment becomes hyper-skepticism. I like to say however may we become disillusioned because who would want to be illusioned. I do not believe that:

Any more than I believe "anyone truly open to TRUTH will leave Catholicism, but I see great parallels that I only occasionally draw here.
Charity, TOm

The difference is, we do have alleged prophets with multiple versions of a vision, each vastly different. We do have to change our Book each time new discoveries render the old book obsolete. We do not have an alleged prophet asking his followers to wife swap. We do not have alleged prophets who teach false doctrine, like Adam is our God. We do not have alleged prophets who violate the US Contitution then go jail as lamb with a gun and shoot blindly at people.

So, no…we are not similar…and your idea of truth is a moving target

 

[iepuras]

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.

As you all know, there are a variety of reasons why non-believers stay in the LDS church. Family considerations are probably the biggest. Another is employment. If any Mormon anthropologist happens to work at BYU, leaving the church may not be an option until new employment is found.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not know where I would be had I imbibed of 1970’s Mormonism.

It was the 1970’s when I got to know Mormonism. Science was telling us that the American Indians came from Asia. So when my Mormon friends told me the story of the Book of Mormon, the American Indians are Jewish people that was my vaccine against ever having any serious interest in Mormonism.
I thought joining Mormonism was like taking up smoking. Science had made their case about both of them and no amount of “faith/testimony/burning in the bosom” was going to change the facts.

how can Catholicism be true if LIMBO is not

I thought more about the historical fact that Christ started the Catholic Church and did not start the Mormon Church.

The Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

 

[JamesCollins]

(and still how can Catholicism be true if LIMBO is not)

That’s the reason you wanted to leave Catholicism?

Of course Augustine taught that babies were in hell. Some theologians such as Thomas Aquinas softened Augustine’s thoughts and came up with Limbo.

There were theologians after Aquinas that were speculating that unbaptized infants could be saved. This article mentions several of them:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

If adults could effectively be baptised through a desire for the sacrament when prevented from actually receiving it, some speculated that perhaps sacramentally unbaptised infants too might be saved by some waterless equivalent of ordinary baptism when prevented. Thomas Cajetan, a major 16th-century theologian, suggested that infants dying in the womb before birth, and so before ordinary sacramental baptism could be administered, might be saved through their mother’s wish for their baptism. Thus, there was no clear consensus that the Council of Florence had excluded salvation of infants by such extra-sacramental equivalents of baptism.
Through the 18th and 19th centuries, individual theologians (Bianchi in 1768, H. Klee in 1835, Caron in 1855, H. Schell in 1893) continued to formulate theories of how children who died unbaptised might still be saved. By 1952 a theologian such as Ludwig Ott could, in a widely used and well-regarded manual, openly teach the possibility that children who die unbaptised might be saved for heaven—though he still represented their going to limbo as the commonly taught opinion. In its 1980 instruction on children’s baptism the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that “with regard to children who die without having received baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as indeed she does in the funeral rite established for them,” leaving all theories as to their fate, including Limbo, as viable options. And in 1984, when Joseph Ratzinger, then Cardinal Prefect of that Congregation, stated that he rejected the claim that children who die unbaptised cannot attain salvation, he was speaking for many academic theologians of his training and background.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is clear the Americas were a promised land reserved for the seed of Lehi:

2 Nephi 1:5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 **Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. . . . **
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.

It is hard to see where that allows for other people to be mingling with the Nephites and Lamanites. Mormon “scholars” have been forced into the conclusion that others were here because evidence gathered is against the conclusions which would normally be drawn from the Book of Mormon.

 

[zaffiroborant]

As a Catholic I was never a “young earth” creationist. My mother’s liberal mindset gave me great freedom to question and ponder. Still there were things I believed/thought as a Catholic that I would not today (see the limbo thread).
One of the olive branches I have regularly offered here is that I left Catholicism ignorant of just what I had. This is absolutely true, and I do not know if I could have departed had I really internalized that the Eucharist was Christ, the church was started by Christ in a way that Protestants can’t claim, and … There were real differences that my “Catholic Community” (that is what we called ourselves as we started from a middles school gym and eventually moved into a new church we raised money to build) didn’t emphasize.
So, my former Catholicism is an interesting mix. There were seeds of ideas that I could not embrace today as a Catholic (limbo is Catholicism was surely there, and as I explored Catholicism there were perhaps many seeds that I will now imply were not there, but they came from somewhere). And yet there was this liberality that meant I was not losing anything much when I left a Catholic Church in Idaho (because the priest said we should not throw just $1 in the collection, and I was too selfish to be unoffended by this) to visit Protestant churches and even get to know returned Mormon Missionaries (who drove like idiots just like me, but didn’t drink and treat woman like **** - again like me actually).

I became a LDS with little more than awe for what had been created via the initial efforts of a New York farm boy (brilliant or simpleton as I now know he was called). I had very little “spiritual witness.” As a new LDS (less than 3 years), an engineer (just out of the Navy), and just getting access to the Internet, I explored my new faith. This was 1996. Dr. Shades (we are friendly BTW) would call me an Internet Mormon (I do not completely buy his dichotomy, but if it is true I was/am and always have been an Internet Mormon).
Other’s in the BOM: it was 1998 when Brant Gardner introduced me to such a thing. There is a 1992 article from Sorenson. This was/is just part of my Mormonism. I remember in about 2000 traveling with the Bishop to a small branch in northern NM. The branch president spoke and I was quite concerned. I told the Bishop, “He is talking about the Hemispheric geography model, we should correct him.” The Bishop kindly told me that we didn’t need to make a big deal about it. At the time I learned I was smarter than everyone else (a real pride problem, born of insecurity as most pride problems are, with which I still deal) and maybe it wasn’t too important which model of BOM geography we as members of the church embrace.

There are things that I really struggle to believe are a significant part of my church. The beleaguered woman ruled by her husband. The oppressed Indian taught he is scum and must become “white and delightsome.” (and I am referring to a person posting on the Internet, not some document from the 1950’s). Then there are things that are quite foreign to my experience that people like you say, “BYU scientists have clearly demonstrated our beliefs were wrong.”

I do not know where I would be had I imbibed of 1970’s Mormonism. I do not know where I would be had I imbibed of pre-Vatican II Catholicism rather than the liberal anything goes with which I grew up (and still how can Catholicism be true if LIMBO is not).

I look at the JWs and see my former JW, former Catholic, brilliant friend. He explained how the JWs end of the world thoughts didn’t occur and how he began to investigate. I look at my Ultra-Trad Catholic friends (other than the one who was a former Protestant minister) who don’t believe Vatican II was a council and one who doesn’t believe the Pope is the Pope. I look at you and John Dehlin and …

I am sad when disillusionment becomes hyper-skepticism. I like to say however may we become disillusioned because who would want to be illusioned. I do not believe that:

Any more than I believe "anyone truly open to TRUTH will leave Catholicism, but I see great parallels that I only occasionally draw here.
Charity, TOm

Well that’s ironic.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That’s the reason you wanted to leave Catholicism?

Of course Augustine taught that babies were in hell. Some theologians such as Thomas Aquinas softened Augustine’s thoughts and came up with Limbo.

There were theologians after Aquinas that were speculating that unbaptized infants could be saved. This article mentions several of them:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is clear the Americas were a promised land reserved for the seed of Lehi:

I’ve never understood this preoccupation with Limbo nor the idea that it was something other than speculation. The hope that unbaptized infants could count on God’s mercy is a not new thought in the church. My father was born in 1920, attended catholic school from kindergarten through college, he taught us that limbo was a theory put forth by theologians not a formal doctrine of the church. My maternal grandfather born in 1898 who also attended catholic schools his whole life held the same view as my father.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve never understood this preoccupation with Limbo nor the idea that it was something other than speculation. The hope that unbaptized infants could count on God’s mercy is a not new thought in the church. My father was born in 1920, attended catholic school from kindergarten through college, he taught us that limbo was a theory put forth by theologians not a formal doctrine of the church. My maternal grandfather born in 1898 who also attended catholic schools his whole life held the same view as my father.

It is the Mormon church that keeps this belief about Catholics going among its members. It’s canonized in their Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is rooted in 20th century anti-Catholicism that was prevalent in New England at the time.

This raises the problem of pre-Columbus beliefs in the Americas regarding Christian baptism, and an idea of Catholic Limbo existing in the Americas that needed to be defined as “in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity”. There is no evidence of Christian baptism of any kind being practiced in the Americas until the arrival of European Christians, let alone Limbo and a counter idea to Limbo. A counter to Limbo didn’t even exist in Europe until the Reformation, which is centuries too late for the Book of Mormon. Yet there we find, 20th century American Protestant ideas of Limbo in the Book of Mormon.

 

[PaulDupre1]

I’ve never understood this preoccupation with Limbo nor the idea that it was something other than speculation. The hope that unbaptized infants could count on God’s mercy is a not new thought in the church. My father was born in 1920, attended catholic school from kindergarten through college, he taught us that limbo was a theory put forth by theologians not a formal doctrine of the church. My maternal grandfather born in 1898 who also attended catholic schools his whole life held the same view as my father.

My parents never believed in limbo either. My dad born in 1920 (God rest his soul) was a very faithful and knowledgable Catholic. He was a bible- and catechism teacher for many years. He always taught us that limbo was a theory created by theologians in an attempt to intellectually fill in the blanks regarding unbaptized infants. Dad always reminded us that most theologians are not members of the magisterium and that their job is to theorize, not to proclaim. It seems Catholics were better catechized in former generations.

Theologians are often interesting, but never authoritative.

Paul

 

[Strevel]

My impression has always been that there is essentially no archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. Moreover, there are incongruities between asserted events in the Book of Mormon and what archaeology does show.

Here’s a quick source. There are many others. mit.irr.org/book-of-mormon-archaeology-condensed

As a former Mormon I can assure you that there is not a single proof for the BOM. Matter of fact, the LDS Church has gone stone cold on its proofs comments. See, if the people that comprise the present South American Population had any familial relationship there would be DNA connections between the Central Americans and the middle eastern peoples. That DNA connection does not exist. Let me restate that fact, there is no DNA connection between the inhabitants of the Americans and the peoples of the Middle East! There is scientific proof that the BOM story of the travel between the Middle East and the Americas are totally … unfounded! In this so called restoration (which means bringing back what was originally there) you will need to look back to the original Church nd notice that there are no baptisms for the Dead as the Mormons do. I’ll bet that most of you never knew that Mormons baptize live people in the Mormon Temples for Dead people. That is why they do genealogy… to find these names. There were no ancient sealing for Eternal Marriage, …none of the things they pronounce as them being the tool for in this magical Restoration. Even Joseph Smiths accounting s of his alleged vision of God and Christ disagree. He tells one group one thing and another group another story that disagrees with the first accounting and they are supposed to be the same thing! If you are telling a lie, heck, at least be consistant!
The Book of Mormon is as true as Mother Goose. No more and no less. I say this in the name of Santa Clause, Amen.

 

[dallas123]

When I was LDS, I admittedly never really looked into the matter of archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. I was aware of various books and articles written on the matter, and that LDS apologists generally seem to believe that the New World portion of it took place in Mesoamerica, but I haven’t actually looked into these evidences to evaluate them.

So, what are these evidences? Are they strong, compelling evidences that lead one to conclude that the events described in the Book of Mormon really are historical? I know that “Mormon’s Codex” was recently published; 800+ pages on the subject of the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. So, 800+ pages later, what is the conclusion? Are LDS any closer to finding real, historical locations for the Book of Mormon events?

Please keep this thread on the specific subject of archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I’m not interested in discussing whether archaeology is important, whether the Bible has problematic issues related to archaeology, whether having a testimony of the Book is more important, etc. I’d like to discuss the actual merits of archaeology and the Book of Mormon and what LDS apologists and scholars have actually found and concluded, and how that relates to the claims on the Book of Mormon.

 

[Strevel]

People will communicate in the way that best suits their needs. As you and I process the same way.

There are no historical evidence of the BOM. There are NO archaeological proofs for the Book of Mormon. It is garbage. In fact, the archaeological evidence that does exist proves that nothing in the BOM ever happened. No builkdings, no DNA, no nada!

BTW, did I mention that there are no historical or archio proofs?

Don

 

[Tarquin]

So, what are these evidences? Are they strong, compelling evidences that lead one to conclude that the events described in the Book of Mormon really are historical? I know that “Mormon’s Codex” was recently published; 800+ pages on the subject of the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. So, 800+ pages later, what is the conclusion? Are LDS any closer to finding real, historical locations for the Book of Mormon events?

Please keep this thread on the specific subject of archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I’m not interested in discussing whether archaeology is important, whether the Bible has problematic issues related to archaeology, whether having a testimony of the Book is more important, etc. I’d like to discuss the actual merits of archaeology and the Book of Mormon and what LDS apologists and scholars have actually found and concluded, and how that relates to the claims on the Book of Mormon.

You can get a clue by asking each Mormon you meet a question something like this. “What convinced you the Book of Mormon is true?” Keep a tally of the number who were convinced because of archeological evidence, and those who were convinced because they prayed about it and got a good feeling from some spirit entity, and those who were convinced some other way. Mormons should try this exercise, too. The number of Mormons who claim they were convinced of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon by archaeological evidence rather than by praying and getting a feeling about it, should be in some way proportionate to the strength of the evidence.

If everyone who becomes a Mormon was convinced by the archaeological evidence, then the evidence is certainly overwhelming (if not forged or misconstrued; forgeries are eventually detected and misconstructions are eventually reconstructed). If no one is convinced, one would be justified in concluding there is no credible evidence (or if there is, it’s so mystical that no one can understand it anyway).

For the time being, I see no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, including the Nahom farce.

 

[TexanKnight]

You can get a clue by asking each Mormon you meet a question something like this. “What convinced you the Book of Mormon is true?” Keep a tally of the number who were convinced because of archeological evidence, and those who were convinced because they prayed about it and got a good feeling from some spirit entity, and those who were convinced some other way. Mormons should try this exercise, too. The number of Mormons who claim they were convinced of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon by archaeological evidence rather than by praying and getting a feeling about it, should be in some way proportionate to the strength of the evidence.

If everyone who becomes a Mormon was convinced by the archaeological evidence, then the evidence is certainly overwhelming (if not forged or misconstrued; forgeries are eventually detected and misconstructions are eventually reconstructed). If no one is convinced, one would be justified in concluding there is no credible evidence (or if there is, it’s so mystical that no one can understand it anyway).

For the time being, I see no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, including the Nahom farce.

it isn’t that there is no evidence in support of the Book of Mormon…it goes further. There is evidence AGAINST it…

 

[JamesCollins]

I guess if anyone really wants to know what the Mormons have to say about the Book of Mormon and archaeology they should read this essay:

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/archaeological-evidence-and-the-book-of-mormon

One quote from the article:

For the time period in which the Nephites lived, scholars are aware of only a very limited number of inscriptions from the entire ancient New World that can be read with some degree of certainty. Even with these fragments, however, scholars are still uncertain from these inscriptions just how the ancients pronounced the proper names and place names (toponyms). Four of these readable inscriptions merely give dates or a king’s name–a very limited cultural context. Another five inscriptions contain historical information and proper names–the mention of the cities Tikal and Uaxactun (for which the ancient pronunciation remain uncertain) and five kings from these two cities (whom we know by iconographic symbols and whose ancient pronunciation remains uncertain).4

With such sparse epigraphic information, how could we possibly recognize, under current conditions, the location of cities we know as Bountiful and Zarahemla, or if the religious rulers were actually named Nephi or Moroni? The critics like to claim that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, but the truth is that there is scant archaeological data to tell us anything about the names of ancient New World inhabitants or locations–and names are the only means by which we could archaeologically identify whether there were Nephites in ancient America.

 

[Porknpie]

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.

Also, if there were elephants in the Americas 1,000 years ago we would have artwork, stories and remains.

None of the above exist in any of the Americas