Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[TOmNossor]

Assuming Nahom is archeology…

Altars with the NHM inscription have been found and date to Lehi’s time. Let me briefly repeat from an earlier post that the altars are inscribed with NHM. There is a number of vowels evident in the region showing that the phenomena of phonetic shift. I know of no modern or 1830’s representation of this place as Nahom. But to the folks who suggest Joseph Smith found an ancient map in his numerous trips to the library, he would also need to pick up a book on phonetic shift so he would know to conceal his research by changing vowels. Also 2600 year old archeological inscriptions could be no more precise than NHM. That is all one could hope to find. Now back to my point.

The BOM offers the city of Jerusalem and curiously that city “called Nahom.” Other Old World names are what Lehi and his family called them NOT what they were called. Now, I have used the term “multi-point geography.” What I mean by this is that Lehi walked away from Jerusalem, he described nearly “south-southeast.”. This is precisely correct and also correlates to the ancient “Frankincense Trail.” Starting in the wilderness outside of Jerusalem there is a “valley of Lemuel” and a “river of Laman. Continuing down the Frankincense Trail, you reach Nahom. This is the “south-southeast” journey that brings you to the altars with the inscriptions that date to Lehi’s journey. Making an eastward turn,at Nahom, Lehi travels to Bountiful on the boarder of the sea (this is the Bountiful in the Old World to which I was referring, you referred to the Bountiful in the new world, its relation to Nahom is unknown and not evidence for the BOM in any case). Bountiful has ore, honey, fruit, and ….

Above I have included Jerusalem, a valley, a river, the ancient Frankincense Trail, the direction of travel from Jerusalem/valley/river to Nahom, the turn at Nahom, the arrival at Bountiful on the boarder of the sea, and a handful of characteristics of Bountiful.

It is my position that this multi-point geography supports the BOM quite powerfully. About 10 things converge to indicate where Lehi walked 2600 years ago. This book offer 81 things, but I only highlighted the 10 that most struck me.

But no one knows where any Nahom or Bountiful is. (The ones named in the Book of Mormon.) There is not the least clue for these two places. In the case of Nahom, there is absolutely no detail at all. The only thing connected with Nahom in the Book of Mormon, if I understand correctly, is the burial of some virtually unknown person. There are no details that help in locating the alleged site. Rome has been described in terms of its Seven Hills, the temples, the Forum, and so on. Nahom, nothing above ground.

The 10 points of contact IMO do a lot to define Nahom. The altar discovered in the last few decades is above ground. If you are looking for Ismael’s bones below ground, I agree that will be tough. I doubt a headstone saying “here lies Ismael” will be found either. But Nahom has a lot more going for it than a single word in the BOM.

What “details” do we know about Bountiful? Virtually none. It lies “south of Desolation” wherever that is. It extends or is between the “east unto the west sea”, wherever and whatever those are. It’s north of Jershon, wherever that is. It was “fortified,” wherever and however, and a “narrow pass” somewhere was “secured” somehow, and there’s some kind of “temple” there, only one, and possibly a number of churches and synagogues

sufficient for “a great multitude,” which I must believe is more than a hundred, more than tens of thousands (Helaman 3:8, 26). I am not trying to be facetious or disrespectful. The sad fact is, there is not a single recognizable location in all of this. Those who are interested in geographical support for the Book of Mormon are not looking for “could be” sites, but definite “is” and “are” locations. So far, since 1492, nothing has been found that correlates directly with anything distinctly related to the Book of Mormon.
Again you describe New World bountiful. But Nahom was discovered after 1492 and it is IMO far more precise of a BOM hit than we should expect from a book written in upstate NY from the imagination of a farm boy. The 10 points I offer or the 81 points in the book, are powerful IMO evidence for Lehi’s journey in the Old World.
Charity, TOm

 

[twopekinguys]

I most certainly chose my words carefully and I did not say what you said I did.
The “loudest” response is “Smith lied.”
The most frequent BY FAR response is a variation of this in that I am called to reject the view of the BOM that has minority adherents and support beginning with Joseph Smith, continuing with a brother of Brigham Young, advocated by a member of the first presidency in 1929 general conference, ….

The minority responses to the actual archeological (derived via archeology) evidence I have offered have also been read by me. And I think I have responded to all of them in this thread also.

So, I do read what is in this thread and I respond as fast as I can. I will not be able to keep up with all of the things here, but I do have the time to read them.

Can you acknowledge that I said, “loudest” and that my “most frequent BY FAR” comment is correct?
Can you find a response to my evidence that I didn’t respond to in some form?

I can only think of one that you might come up with, but I believe I did respond, however, only obliquely. I claimed in a few places that professional archeologist have become LDS and at least two of these were professional Mesoamerican archeologist before their conversion. I have also claimed that no non-Catholic historian see real evidence for Papal Infallibility in history.
To ask for a non-Catholic historian to document a supernatural protection from error possessed by the Catholic Church is to set-up a test that will not be passed.
I can offer Margaret Barker who finds that the BOM fits incredibly well precisely where it should when Lehi departed Jerusalem in 600BC. I do not understand Margaret Barkers theological commitments such that she can claim the BOM is a book sourced from a fellow who left Jerusalem in 600BC and yet she remains a non-LDS, but I suspect she is an anomaly. She will be as rare as the non-Catholic who claims Papal Infallibility is a protection God offers Catholicism.
Charity, TOm

See your post #431. You most certainly used the word “volume”.

So, the rest of your post is moot.

I will give you an A for trying though.

 

[TOmNossor]

See your post #431. You most certainly used the word “volume”.

So, the rest of your post is moot.

I will give you an A for trying though.

A brief interlude before I return to responding to the posts.

You said,

You say you have provided “volumes” of information supporting your position, and all you get back is “smith lied”!?!

I responded:

I most certainly chose my words carefully and I did not say what you said I did.
The “loudest” response is “Smith lied.”
The most frequent BY FAR response is a variation of this in that I am called to reject the view of the BOM that has minority adherents and support beginning with Joseph Smith, continuing with a brother of Brigham Young, advocated by a member of the first presidency in 1929 general conference, ….

The “LOUDEST” response is what I said.
You claimed I said the “ONLY” response.
I do not back off from my word “volumes.”
And as I said in the remainder of the post you didn’t read (or didn’t deem worthy of something because it was “moot”), I think I have responded to the minority of counter points offered and to the “Smith lied” chorus too.

Please refer to my post #466
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11831256&postcount=466
The most clear way to read the words I was responding to was that it was no problem to scrap a book of the Bible because we would still have a Bible. That in context was what was said. I am interested in understanding and communicating so I tried to understand what was being said without assuming the person I was responding too was advocating scrapping only SOME of the books in the Bible. When I am unclear I hope for at least that much consideration from you. Please.

In this case, however; I think my post was clear.

You are free to ignore my post because of whatever you think you saw, but I do not think you are reading well the small part you read. And ignoring the rest because of that reading even if your reading was totally a product of my poor word choice would be unproductive.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Getting back to the discussion:

Assuming Nahom is archeology proper: Altars with the NHM inscription have been found and date to Lehi’s time. Let me briefly repeat from an earlier post that the altars are inscribed with NHM. There is a number of vowels evident in the region showing that the phenomena of phonetic shift. I know of no modern or 1830’s representation of this place as Nahom. But to the folks who suggest Joseph Smith found an ancient map in his numerous trips to the library, he would also need to pick up a book on phonetic shift so he would know to conceal his research by changing vowels. Now back to my point.

The BOM offers the city of Jerusalem and curiously that city “called Nahom.” Other Old World names are what Lehi and his family called them NOT what they were called. Now, I have used the term “multi-point geography.” What I mean by this is that Lehi walked away from Jerusalem, he described nearly “south-southeast.”. This is precisely correct and also correlates to the ancient “Frankincense Trail.” Starting in the wilderness outside of Jerusalem there is a “valley of Lemuel” and a “river of Laman. Continuing down the Frankincense Trail, you reach Nahom. This is the “south-southeast” journey that brings you to the altars with the inscriptions that date to Lehi’s journey. Making an eastward turn,at Nahom, Lehi travels to Bountiful on the boarder of the sea (this is the Bountiful in the Old World to which I was referring, you referred to the Bountiful in the new world, its relation to Nahom is unknown and not evidence for the BOM in any case). Bountiful has ore, honey, fruit, and ….

Above I have included Jerusalem, a valley, a river, the ancient Frankincense Trail, the direction of travel from Jerusalem/valley/river to Nahom, the turn at Nahom, the arrival at Bountiful on the boarder of the sea, and a handful of characteristics of Bountiful.

It is my position that this multi-point geography supports the BOM quite powerfully. About 10 things converge to indicate where Lehi walked 2600 years ago. This book offer 81 things, but I only highlighted the 10 that most struck me.

But no one knows where any Nahom or Bountiful is. (The ones named in the Book of Mormon.) There is not the least clue for these two places. In the case of Nahom, there is absolutely no detail at all. The only thing connected with Nahom in the Book of Mormon, if I understand correctly, is the burial of some virtually unknown person. There are no details that help in locating the alleged site. Rome has been described in terms of its Seven Hills, the temples, the Forum, and so on. Nahom, nothing above ground.

The 10 points of contact IMO do a lot to define Nahom. The altar discovered in the last few decades is above ground. If you are looking for Ismael’s bones below ground, I agree that will be tough. I doubt a headstone saying “here lies Ismael” will be found either. But Nahom has a lot more going for it than a single word in the BOM.

What “details” do we know about Bountiful? Virtually none. It lies “south of Desolation” wherever that is. It extends or is between the “east unto the west sea”, wherever and whatever those are. It’s north of Jershon, wherever that is. It was “fortified,” wherever and however, and a “narrow pass” somewhere was “secured” somehow, and there’s some kind of “temple” there, only one, and possibly a number of churches and synagogues

sufficient for “a great multitude,” which I must believe is more than a hundred, more than tens of thousands (Helaman 3:8, 26). I am not trying to be facetious or disrespectful. The sad fact is, there is not a single recognizable location in all of this. Those who are interested in geographical support for the Book of Mormon are not looking for “could be” sites, but definite “is” and “are” locations. So far, since 1492, nothing has been found that correlates directly with anything distinctly related to the Book of Mormon.
Again you describe New World bountiful. But Nahom was discovered after 1492 and it is IMO far more precise of a BOM hit than we should expect from a book written in upstate NY from the imagination of a farm boy. The 10 points I offer or the 81 points in the book, are powerful IMO evidence for Lehi’s journey in the Old World.
Charity, Tom

 

[PaulDupre1]

So Tom is saying that Lehi’s little group passed briefly through the desert in the Old World and left many artifacts that Tom thinks are obviously proof of the BOM.

Then Lehi’s group came to the New World and multiplied so rapidly that within a few generations they filled the whole land (amazing that they weren’t too tired to build that temple like unto Solomon’s temple ). Yet this amazingly large, literate and technologically sophisticated society lived in the Americas for a thousand years and left absolutely nothing behind that could identify them to a dispassionate researcher.

Oh yeah, we buy that.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello Rom,

The problem is, there are constructions and there are authentic parts. I don’t see authentic parts in any of your posts. Only constructions. You have no way to know which of your constructions are authentic (if any), but accept which constructions match to what you want to believe and reject those that don’t. Not a very objective, or scientific approach, to anything, including BoM archaeology.

 

[Tarquin]

I have explained that I do not think the Prophet Jonah passes the test offered by TexanKnight and yet if the Prophet Jonah is not a prophet it would seem we must scrap the Bible. But setting that aside here are my options.

The Bible, being a collection of books, need not be scrapped in whole upon the removal of one of its contents. If that were the case, Mormons would have no Bible at all, because the Bible you use is the result of the removal of several books!

Your comment in response to my saying Jonah was wrong, evidences that you may be willing to scrap individual books out of the Bible, but that is not the Catholic view of the Bible. Trying to read you charitably, I doubt that was your point actually. Instead your intention was to say that LDS do not have all the books in the Bible that they should. Is my charitable read of you correct, or should I stick with your words? I think reading with charity is important especially on Internet message boards where we do not have folks to review our words to make sure they convey what was intended.

I think my actual words would be nearer my intent. Because you had implied that the failure of one book would discredit the entire Bible. My point was that, if that is the case, then the LDS use of the Bible is somehow inconsistent since the LDS have judged individual books of the Bible to have failed - the qualifications to be a part of the Bible - and thus they should consider the Bible discredited. Now that I think of it, that is in effect what the LDS Church does do, respectfully speaking.

Furthermore, the LDS removed yet another book, the Song of Solomon.

Your first thought, that I might be willing to remove some books, is not entirely wrong. If I were putting a Bible together, I think I would add the letters of Ignatius and a few other things. I would not be too grieved if 2 John had lost canonicity, although I would preserve it at least in deuterocanonical status. These are my “working thoughts” and not my final conclusion.

So, I am well aware of the fact that LDSs use of the Protestant Bible is an adoption of a Protestant version of the Bible rather than the Catholic version of the Bible. I believe this is a pragmatic decision and I reject Biblical inerrancy anyway. So the Bible LDS use is sufficient but not perfect.

I, on the contrary, believe the Catholic Bible is the result of “the tradition of the Church” plus reason; whereas the LDS Bible is the adoption of “the tradition of men” via Protestant prejudice (in removing books whose doctrines they wished to exclude) plus bibliolatry. The Protestants acted pragmatically; the LDS did what was convenient.

 

[truthsilence]

Getting back to the discussion:

Assuming Nahom is archeology proper: Altars with the NHM inscription have been found and date to Lehi’s time. Let me briefly repeat from an earlier post that the altars are inscribed with NHM. There is a number of vowels evident in the region showing that the phenomena of phonetic shift. I know of no modern or 1830’s representation of this place as Nahom. But to the folks who suggest Joseph Smith found an ancient map in his numerous trips to the library, he would also need to pick up a book on phonetic shift so he would know to conceal his research by changing vowels. Now back to my point.

The BOM offers the city of Jerusalem and curiously that city “called Nahom.” Other Old World names are what Lehi and his family called them NOT what they were called. Now, I have used the term “multi-point geography.” What I mean by this is that Lehi walked away from Jerusalem, he described nearly “south-southeast.”. This is precisely correct and also correlates to the ancient “Frankincense Trail.” Starting in the wilderness outside of Jerusalem there is a “valley of Lemuel” and a “river of Laman. Continuing down the Frankincense Trail, you reach Nahom. This is the “south-southeast” journey that brings you to the altars with the inscriptions that date to Lehi’s journey. Making an eastward turn,at Nahom, Lehi travels to Bountiful on the boarder of the sea (this is the Bountiful in the Old World to which I was referring, you referred to the Bountiful in the new world, its relation to Nahom is unknown and not evidence for the BOM in any case). Bountiful has ore, honey, fruit, and ….

Above I have included Jerusalem, a valley, a river, the ancient Frankincense Trail, the direction of travel from Jerusalem/valley/river to Nahom, the turn at Nahom, the arrival at Bountiful on the boarder of the sea, and a handful of characteristics of Bountiful.

It is my position that this multi-point geography supports the BOM quite powerfully. About 10 things converge to indicate where Lehi walked 2600 years ago. This book offer 81 things, but I only highlighted the 10 that most struck me.

The 10 points of contact IMO do a lot to define Nahom. The altar discovered in the last few decades is above ground. If you are looking for Ismael’s bones below ground, I agree that will be tough. I doubt a headstone saying “here lies Ismael” will be found either. But Nahom has a lot more going for it than a single word in the BOM.

Again you describe New World bountiful. But Nahom was discovered after 1492 and it is IMO far more precise of a BOM hit than we should expect from a book written in upstate NY from the imagination of a farm boy. The 10 points I offer or the 81 points in the book, are powerful IMO evidence for Lehi’s journey in the Old World.
Charity, Tom

***Why would it need to come “from the imagination of a farm boy”? He had access to the bible, where a number of his BoM names or close variants thereof are easily found. And maps. Is it unreasonable to assume he had access to maps? *

publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1413&index=6
*
If I am aware of this, surely you, with all your research into the matter, must be. ***

 

[iepuras]

The world was pulled out from under my feet. Who is God? What is God? Is there a God? How can there be a God of any kind? Then I took a class in college, I don’t even remember the subject. We read from Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of God. I finally had confidence that there was a God of some kind, even if I hardly understood what his nature was. Later, I got a hold of some Catholic books on “Metaphysics”. For those who aren’t Catholic, metaphysics isn’t about mysticism, it’s about the reality that is “beyond,” “above,” “next to,” or in some other relation to matter, the “physical” world. That gave me a bit more. I appreciate the Catholic approach to religion and Theology, because it is more reasoned, reasonable, and verifiable, in greater proportion than is that of other Christian religions which I have looked into.

I completely understand. I took a handful of philosophy classes in college, including the history of philosophy. I found classical and medieval philosophy to make sense, especially Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. My course on modern philosophy was unbearable because I found it to be increasingly irrational. These classes left me a foundation I could quickly build on when my LDS world fell apart. I was still a monotheist and I realized I made an error in thinking the Mormon Heavenly Father was God. Now I am happily coming home to the Catholic Church.

 

[truthsilence]

****Somewhere in the article I linked, it states that Nahom is spelled different on the maps, but the pronunciation is the same. Ok…

So, assuming there was a map Joseph & Co. were using, and assuming it describes the area as well as you seem to think it does, perhaps he said “Nehem” and they wrote “Nahom”.

Now, this might sound like a stretch, but certainly no more than what you’ve suggested in this thread.

 

[taylorf]

So Tom is saying that Lehi’s little group passed briefly through the desert in the Old World and left many artifacts that Tom thinks are obviously proof of the BOM.

Then Lehi’s group came to the New World and multiplied so rapidly that within a few generations they filled the whole land (amazing that they weren’t too tired to build that temple like unto Solomon’s temple ). Yet this amazingly large, literate and technologically sophisticated society lived in the Americas for a thousand years and left absolutely nothing behind that could identify them to a dispassionate researcher.

Oh yeah, we buy that.

Yeah, this is why I am losing interest in his arguments. He’s obviously selecting parts of the story that help him best rationalize his testimony.

He’s so convinced by Lehi’s journey - a minuscule part of the BoM story, yet seemingly ignores the fact that no evidence exists for a people numbering in the millions covering thousands of years. I see a problem…he doesn’t. I just don’t get it.

 

[Tarquin]

Originally Posted by Tarquin
Since you brought this up here rather than a separate thread on “Nahom”, I will share my view here. I don’t think that fits the definition of archaeological evidence, but if it could, I would have to point out that you are misrepresenting the facts. I also do not believe the journey involves much detail at all. Please feel free to provide the detail in this or a separate thread on Lehi’s journey.

Sorry, Tom, the evidence does not hold. Since Nahom is powerless, Alma is immaterial.

But first let me say, the existence of names is not in itself archaeological evidence. Similar, even identical names found in different ethnic groups is not evidence that those groups are closely related. “Lee” is an obvious example. So is “Alma,” as a matter of fact: Latin, English, Hebrew, Hungarian. Sorry, no Egyptian. Whether it’s used as a boy’s name or a girl’s name, doesn’t matter to me. Many names are used for both boys and girls.

As for Nahom. There are no altars identifying Nahom. That is why it is not archaeological evidence.
You have been corrected.
I am aware of certain material that some have attempted to use as evidence for the existence of a Nahom. I do not know to which of these materials you are referring. If you will tell me, specifically, I will respond, as time permits, directly to that.

 

[truthsilence]

Here is a link to a discussion where the people posting seem to have basically the same perspective I was thinking of in my earlier post.

forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34559

Peace out.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Nahom is a product of archeology proper.

Nahom is not a product of archeology proper, the inscription is NHM, one of the minor prophets is named Nahum, it looks to me like JS did the letter switch thing on biblical names, again. As to it fitting in the journey, that looks like stretching the tale to fit the geography. I just don’t find NHM all that convincing, kind of like chiasmus. But this would look really cool in my back yard between the waterfall and the fire place.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...UXz7Jb-Xc4AtHfy0pqr_z9n0OSKiquGarMI02X31BTy5h

 

[zaffiroborant]

Why would a historian of any stripe find evidence for Papal infallibility in history? Papal infallibility only deals with the faith and morals. If the pope says that the Catholic faith is, Mary was born without original sin where does the historian have a say? If the pope says abortion is a mortal sin, again where does the historian have anything to say about it.*

 

[zaffiroborant]

. I do not understand Margaret Barkers theological commitments such that she can claim the BOM is a book sourced from a fellow who left Jerusalem in 600BC and yet she remains a non-LDS, but I suspect she is an anomaly.

Could you provide a source for this please, thanks.

 

[TexanKnight]

Getting back to the discussion:

Assuming Nahom is archeology proper: Altars with the NHM inscription have been found and date to Lehi’s time. Let me briefly repeat from an earlier post that the altars are inscribed with NHM. There is a number of vowels evident in the region showing that the phenomena of phonetic shift. I know of no modern or 1830’s representation of this place as Nahom. But to the folks who suggest Joseph Smith found an ancient map in his numerous trips to the library, he would also need to pick up a book on phonetic shift so he would know to conceal his research by changing vowels. Now back to my point.

The BOM offers the city of Jerusalem and curiously that city “called Nahom.” Other Old World names are what Lehi and his family called them NOT what they were called. Now, I have used the term “multi-point geography.” What I mean by this is that Lehi walked away from Jerusalem, he described nearly “south-southeast.”. This is precisely correct and also correlates to the ancient “Frankincense Trail.” Starting in the wilderness outside of Jerusalem there is a “valley of Lemuel” and a “river of Laman. Continuing down the Frankincense Trail, you reach Nahom. This is the “south-southeast” journey that brings you to the altars with the inscriptions that date to Lehi’s journey. Making an eastward turn,at Nahom, Lehi travels to Bountiful on the boarder of the sea (this is the Bountiful in the Old World to which I was referring, you referred to the Bountiful in the new world, its relation to Nahom is unknown and not evidence for the BOM in any case). Bountiful has ore, honey, fruit, and ….

Above I have included Jerusalem, a valley, a river, the ancient Frankincense Trail, the direction of travel from Jerusalem/valley/river to Nahom, the turn at Nahom, the arrival at Bountiful on the boarder of the sea, and a handful of characteristics of Bountiful.

It is my position that this multi-point geography supports the BOM quite powerfully. About 10 things converge to indicate where Lehi walked 2600 years ago. This book offer 81 things, but I only highlighted the 10 that most struck me.

The 10 points of contact IMO do a lot to define Nahom. The altar discovered in the last few decades is above ground. If you are looking for Ismael’s bones below ground, I agree that will be tough. I doubt a headstone saying “here lies Ismael” will be found either. But Nahom has a lot more going for it than a single word in the BOM.

Again you describe New World bountiful. But Nahom was discovered after 1492 and it is IMO far more precise of a BOM hit than we should expect from a book written in upstate NY from the imagination of a farm boy. The 10 points I offer or the 81 points in the book, are powerful IMO evidence for Lehi’s journey in the Old World.
Charity, Tom

thank God I do not have to go thru all these mental gymnastics and contortions to find cities in the Bible (that no non-lds archaeologist will support) and then shrug my shoulders and babble when it comes to finding b of m cities in the New World. And then deny strongly what my “prophets” have said about Cumorah.

 

[TOmNossor]

Has the Church officially identified Teotihuacan as a Mormon city, and if so, which one?

Certainly no, and I doubt such will ever happen.

I don’t understand your point here. Please explain. In the meantime, I offer my perspective.

First, the BOM does not describe cement at all! Where do you find any description of cement in the BOM! Second, it is not Mesoamerican cement! It is not even used the same as Mesoamerican cement was used. There is no connection between Mesoamerican cement and the cement of the BOM except that the word is the same, unfortunately adding to the confusion.
I did not mean to communicated by “describes cement” to indicate that the record kept for spiritual not historical purposes offered a description of cement. It would have been more correct to say “mentions cement.”

John Clark’s presentation at the Library of Congress documents numerous criticism of the BOM that have been rendered moot as Mesoamerican archeology moves forward and confirms aspects of the BOM that previously were believed to be anachronisms. His argument is that as science advances the BOM should get worse if it is not real history rather than better, but precisely the opposite has and continues to occur. As recent as 1986 this “no cement” criticism was used by critics of the BOM. While most of these BOM vindications are relatively minor and only in aggregate witness to the BOM, cement is different IMO.

In Helaman 3, we read the description of a group of people who migrate to a land that is
North of earlier lands, has “large bodies of water and many rivers,” is a place where people use cement, a place of few trees, and a place of cultural mixing.

Teotihuacan from 250AD to 600AD (timeframe Mormon reported his experience of the land) is north of the isthmus of Tehuantepec in the Teotihucan Valley. It is a side pocket of the Valley of Mexico where there are a number of rivers and the lakes Xaltocan, Texcoco, Xochimilco and Chalco. The people of Teotihuacan made extensive use of cement. Archeologist believe the deforestation was due to the making of the cement (Mormon would have been familiar with the cement and the deforestation, but it would have occurred before he lived). Teotihuacan also fits the migration and influence patterns described in the BOM.

Once a source of ridicule (like Alma the man), cement use in the BOM occurs in the right time, place, and geography to explain how it ended up being reported by Mormon. Unlike Alma the man, there are a rather specific set of conditions necessary to identify Teotihuacan making it rise above the simple one/two point correspondences like Kish the Olemec king or Alma the male name.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I can’t believe you just said that. What are “the right place and time,” what are the “descriptions of volcanic activity”? Why do you claim that nobody around Joseph Smith had experience with volcanoes? Didn’t one of the reasons that the Smith family moved westwards to Palmyra have something to do with “the year without a summer” that resulted in large part from one of the greatest volcanic eruptions recorded, that of Mt. Tambora? I think it did, and you say no one around Joseph Smith had experience with the results of volcanic eruptions? They had to have! Pretty dag-nab newsworthy. Who that had access to a newspaper would not have read descriptions of this world level disaster?

I already responded to this exact point. It was among the very few responses that were not “Joseph lied” or you cannot believe the BOM occurred in Mesoamerica because Joseph said, so and so said, and prophets cannot make mistakes like this.
You can read what I offered including a link I think or choose to not read it.
Briefly, the cataclysmic activity documented in the BOM is far more detailed than Joseph would have experienced from Tambora or even would have discovered had he read extensively about Tambora. The Tambora volcanic activity was different than the volcanic activity in the BOM, so even if Joseph was an eye-witness to Tambora it is unlikely he would have seen and reported what was reported in the BOM. And in addition to the numerous descriptive terms for the volcanic activity, it occurs in the right place and time for the BOM to be an ancient Mesoamerican book.
Again multi-point correspondences are precisely what I am offering to avoid the criticism of similarities vs. evidence. If the BOM is a historical document, Kish is an Olemec king mentioned in the text of the BOM, but Kish does not stand on its own IMO. Parallelamania is to be avoided. It should be noted that “Kish the king” plus “Alma the male” plus … in aggregate can have some impact, but this is very difficult to define.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“But behold, there are many books and many arecords of every kind - administrative, judicial, horticultural, animal husbandry, sports, war, mathematics, medicine, marine ecology, weather and climate, harvests, travel, astronomy, wheel production, poetry contests, mercantile, shipping, construction, ecclesiastical]” Helaman 3:15

Tarquin,
As I skimmed your above comment, I was quite sure there was nothing like this in Helaman 3:15. And of course the ] are your addition. I would suggest that you might hope that the BOM is falsified if “many records” in reformed Egyptian are not found covering topics such as what you offered.
The reality of Mesoamerican archeology is that ancient Mesoamerican’s had writing of many sorts, but very few surviving texts. The MAIN reason for this is that unlike the Old World, texts do not survive the environment well. A smaller but significant reason you might be familiar with too. If only all the explorers strained to find the knowledge of Christ in the cultures of Mesoamerica like SOME of the explorers claimed to find.
It is my belief that whatever reformed Egyptian is, it was not commonly used in Mesoamerica (but was used) and while I think it likely that at least one text other than the records preserved by Moroni existed, I think it unlikely the number was very high and quite possible that we will never find any.
Charity, TOm