How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[mfbukowski]

My boo boo i said Cortes and meant Coronado. I never said the Mayans did not exist what i was trying to say was next they will say the Mayans were the Nehi or levites and like i said i believe i may have heard that before. Any way to those who believe by faith no evidence is needed and for those who scoff no evidence is ever enough. I have nothing against Mormons as i grew up around them it’s just i do not believe there BOM.

Don’t worry about it. You have as much understanding of these things as everyone else here, which is none whatsoever. And equal credibility. So you are in good company. Nehi and levites. Good stuff. I definitely prefer orange crush and wranglers.

 

[lhk0pd]

True i’ve never really bothered to get into deep study of the Mormon Beliefs. I just know of my experiences with them in Arizona and had one for a neighbor and we both loved to shoot guns.No prostelizing by either of us so we never let our beliefs interfere with our friendship. I did deal as a rt service man with numerous Mormon businesses but the behavior of some was not the best just like other businesses.I did how ever read the book of Mormon and in fact have one in my library now.Not meaning to be insulting but my impression of the BOM was one of a poor imitation of the Bible and seemed more fictional than real.But that was my impression and i try to never share that thought with any one i feel might be offended. As stated in other comments i spent yrs studying Christian history and most from a non Catholic point of view. But it was after reading the writings of the early Church father’s that i made my decision to become a Catholic.There was no one knocking on my door or stopping me in the street to convince me of it’s truthfulness.But yes it is funny now that i think of it that i called the Nephites and Lamanites Nehi and levites as i guess the old Nehi and moon pie came to mind.

 

[Jerusha]

the Book of Mormon contributed many place-names in US geography. Lamoni, Iowa comes to mind off the top of my head. The results of a comprehensive search could be interesting.
Of course, that would not validate the BOM as sacred scripture, but it does say something about the influence of the BOM on the country.

 

[PaulDupre]

The idea that the Nephites and Lamanites were the various mesoamerican civilizations is not new. My wife’s grandparents went there when they were young to see where the Nephites walked. I don’t know how you could have allegedly been a Mormon and not known that. Look at all the Mormon art with BOM scenes- they all have “Mayan” architecture. Eveything picturing Nephites has pyramids etc. I can’t believe you never saw those when you were supposedly a member.

Again, if the Nephites (literate, technological, Hebrew-speaking) were the Mayans, we would expect to find Hebrew-like writing and records among their ruins. There is none.

 

[mfbukowski]

Again, if the Nephites (literate, technological, Hebrew-speaking) were the Mayans, we would expect to find Hebrew-like writing and records among their ruins. There is none.

I will say it once more. Only a dozen or so came over on the boat. They intermarried with the locals and the Mayans and others were their progenitors and descendents. Even the BOM was not written in Hebrew nor was it written in Hebrew. Maybe one day you will come up with an argument which is actually relevant to the way Mormons see the BOM. I can see why you left the church with your level of understanding. You must have been a convert to Mormonism for only a short while.

 

[PaulDupre]

I will say it once more. Only a dozen or so came over on the boat. They intermarried with the locals and the Mayans and others were their progenitors and descendents. Even the BOM was not written in Hebrew nor was it written in Hebrew. Maybe one day you will come up with an argument which is actually relevant to the way Mormons see the BOM. I can see why you left the church with your level of understanding. You must have been a convert to Mormonism for only a short while.

Joined in 1975, left in 1986. Served a mission in Taiwan Taipei mission 1977-1979 (feel free to check the mission records). Active for eleven years. That was long enough.

That being said…

We know that the BoM reports people keeping Nephite records in Reformed Egyptian over the 1,000 year period from 600 BC to 421 AD. It also says that the Nephites normally used Hebrew, though the Hebrew was changed by them in some way, and that they were still speaking and writing Hebrew in 421 AD:

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

• Mormon 9:32-33 (between AD 400 and AD 421)

Now, if after 1,000 years in the Americas, the Nephites still spoke and wrote in Hebrew (even a “altered” dialect of Hebrew) until AD 421 as Mormon reports, and even if there were only a few of them still writing in reformed Egyptian to keep the plates after 1,000 years and no one else learned or used this language or Hebrew ever again, it would have left artifacts of Egyptian and Hebrew language within the culture (that remarkably well-preserved culture) over that 1,000 years. There are none, and you cannot explain why. Any archaeologist will tell you that the scenario you propose is implausible at best.

Now, tell me again how little I know about Mormonism. I love that part.

 

[ricko]

I will say it once more. Only a dozen or so came over on the boat. They intermarried with the locals and the Mayans and others were their progenitors and descendents. Even the BOM was not written in Hebrew nor was it written in Hebrew. Maybe one day you will come up with an argument which is actually relevant to the way Mormons see the BOM. I can see why you left the church with your level of understanding. You must have been a convert to Mormonism for only a short while.

You have evidence of that in bold or are you just speculating? Got any birth certificates?

The Mormorn art showing Mayan architecture is not proof my man. Goodness, art, and especially Mormon art is a product of the imagination. Your Mormon art proves nothing, nothing. Now if you had photographic evidence…

 

[PaulDupre]

I will say it once more. Only a dozen or so came over on the boat. They intermarried with the locals and the Mayans and others were their progenitors and descendents.

And I will ask it once more…

Where is the evidence from the text of the BoM that the people of Lehi intermarried with indigenous Americans? The text indicates quite clearly that the Lehites were the only people in the Americas. Your theory is made up out of whole cloth.

Had the Lehites intermarried with pagan peoples, there would have been a host of problems that came up, like when Israelites in the old world married pagans. The bible reports much about the problems that ensued when Israelites married outside the house of Israel (think: Jezebel). If the BoM people really existed and intermarried with local tribes, they certainly would have reported something about it and the obvious social and religious problems it would have caused. They BoM never mentions any such thing.

 

[mfbukowski]

You have evidence of that in bold or are you just speculating? Got any birth certificates?

The Mormorn art showing Mayan architecture is not proof my man. Goodness, art, and especially Mormon art is a product of the imagination. Your Mormon art proves nothing, nothing. Now if you had photographic evidence…

You don’t even understand the argument.

Birth certificates? Holy cow!

 

[ricko]

You don’t even understand the argument.

Birth certificates? Holy cow!

It’s common for Mormons to resort to comments such as above when they are asked to prove their point.

 

[mfbukowski]

It’s common for Mormons to resort to comments such as above when they are asked to prove their point.

What is sad is that you are apparantly serious. First, birth certificates showing that Mayans married Nephites are somehow unavailable. I guess you win.

Further, the point was that Mormons illustrate the fact that they believe that Nephites were akin to Mesoamericans by illustrating the BOM (That stands for Book of Mormon) with pictures showing Nephites mixing with Native Americans in architecture modeled after Mayan architecture. I am aware that these are not photographs. Because we have no photographic evidence, I guess you win. You are truly a clever fellow. Since you won the debate, you can go away now.

 

[ricko]

What is sad is that you are apparantly serious. First, birth certificates showing that Mayans married Nephites are somehow unavailable. I guess you win.

Further, the point was that Mormons illustrate the fact that they believe that Nephites were akin to Mesoamericans by illustrating the BOM (That stands for Book of Mormon) with pictures showing Nephites mixing with Native Americans in architecture modeled after Mayan architecture. I am aware that these are not photographs. Because we have no photographic evidence, I guess you win. You are truly a clever fellow. Since you won the debate, you can go away now.

What is really sad is you ordering people off the thread. You might recall that you and others are guests here and expected to obey the rules of charity. You might also consider that you are representing the Mormon church in all of your posts.

The purpose of my post was that you keep referring to the Mormon art as some kind of proof of your claim which is fruitless as you have pointed out above in a sarcastic manner.

The bottom line is you have not submitted any proof at all as speculation is not proof.

I hope that further posts from you will reflect the values of your church we so often hear about.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Knowing that the modern horse was brought to the America’s in the 16th century, are the events described in the Book of Mormon pre-Columbian or not?

And so now let’s look at the broader perspective. For many years, many criticized the Book of Mormon because no pre-Columbian horse or elephant bones were found. Then they started finding pre-Columbian bones, but they were carbon dated to some thousands of years before BoM times. However, many LDS point out that scientists have found pre-Columbian bones, so it could have happened. They are also finding more and more as the time passes, so they could find some bones tomorrow that date to the correct period or may re-date some of the existing bones. Then you guys say it still contradicts because so far they haven’t found horse bones dated to the right time yet. Am I correct in where you’re coming from?

Then you say that carbon dating counts against the Book of Mormon, but not against everything in the Bible before King David’s time. You say they found a city called Jericho, so it could have happened, although carbon dating is said to directly contradict big time. If we apply the same standards all of you are using, the Bible itself says that after Jericho, they destroyed the city of Ai, then the city of Hazor, and 30 cities. The Bible says Abraham happened first, then Moses, then Joshua’s Conquest, then later King Solomon (that’s not a Mormon chronology, most other Christians and Jews say the Bible gives that chronology; a person in this forum even said in private message to me that the Bible says Joshua did not come before Moses; everyone else agrees too, that it’s not a Mormon chronology). They carbon date the city of Ai to being abandoned 2200 B.C., then Jericho carbon dated to 1500 B.C. (and Ai was still abandoned at that time), Hazor 1250 B.C., and many of the 30 cities did not even exist until the 600’s B.C. Exodus mentions them building Pi-Raamses; which archaeologists say that Pi-Ramesses wasn’t even built until the 1200’s B.C. during the time of Ramasses II (Bible scholars keep on insisting they’re the same), many years after Jericho dating (so what do you say: the Exodus or Joshua’s Conquest first?) The Book of Exodus also mentions the land of Ramasses, which Ramasses I wasn’t even in power until the 1200’s B.C. Genesis says Abraham saw the Philistines, archaeologist say they didn’t exist until the 1100’s B.C., which would mean Abraham couldn’t have lived before Jericho being destroyed (a clash with archaeology and the Bible). Some of the cities in the Book of Joshua weren’t until the 600’s B.C., many years after the Kingdom of Solomon (are you still telling me that Solomon coming after Joshua is only a Mormon chronology?). I listed many others in all those previous posts. Why would someone believe carbon dating conclusively disproves the “elephants” and “horses” in the Book of Mormon, but not everything before King David’s time in the Bible?

Why doesn’t the statement “At least they found a city called Jericho” not also apply to “Well at least they found pre-Columbian horse and elephant bones, when for many years they didn’t and used that against the BoM before they found the bones”? Do you see why Mormons see this as others being a bully, and why they’re not so likely to give up the Book of Mormon but in return believe in the Bible? Why can’t we all get along with each other and live in harmony? LDS are humans also.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

Ok, let’s back up. We have shown how Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church have claimed the Book of Mormon is a history of ALL the aboriginal people of the Americas.

And we already showed how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has said many official statements mentioning the Lehites were not the only ones over here, and we have already shown that the LDS Church has made statements in the early 1900’s that the Lehites were not necessarily the only ones over here, which was long before any of the mitochondrial/Y-Chromosome studies.

Then Ricko showed how the Mormon Church has changed its position on the Book of Mormon being a history of ALL the inhabitants of America. Then
What kind of statement did the Pope make about evolution? What are your sources? Show a couple of quotes from documents written by Popes which show a change in the Christian position on evolution.

Then I showed how the Pope said nothing about Darwin before Darwin wrote his books. You guys said that the Pope also didn’t say anything about other technology beforehand. So I point out that likewise the LDS Church said nothing about genetics before those studies. I pointed out that the Pope should not have special priveledges, while applying the same exact standards against the LDS Church. The Pope also hasn’t said that Evolution by Common Descent is correct; he said it doesn’t contradict. Why didn’t the Pope mention Lucy, homo erectus, and primate fossils before all these fossils were first discovered; then you accuse the LDS Church with genetics? Why do we have documents from Christopher Columbus’ time of the Pope making statements about the Garden of Eden and the Book of Genesis? Why did they tell Galileo that he could teach the Earth Revolving around the Sun as a hypothesis, but not as a fact, and why did they discipline him when Galileo started using the telescope? We hear about Galileo vs. the Catholic Church all the time on the educational channels and in school. Then you say the LDS Church is in trouble for not mentioning anything about genetics until afterward?

Quotes? First, the Roman Catholic Church claims to be the same Church from New Testament times. Luke 3 gives a specific genealogy from Adam and Eve’s time to Jesus Christ’s time, a genealogy that would contradict our most common mother being 140,000 years ago. Genesis 5 & 11 says “This is a written account of Adam’s line…” with exact years and names until Abraham’s time. If that was the Catholic Church because Catholics claim to be the original Church, then that’s a definite change in view. And how is “This is a written account of Adam’s line…” with exact years being less literal than Joseph Smith saying, "The Native Americans are descendants of the Lamanites? That link on genetics you gave me said that the mitochondrial DNA only links to a few of the ancestors who came over. The Native Americans are descendants of those ancestors, but that article says those particular females aren’t the only ancestors. If a group of 30 came over 600 B.C. and mixed with a million Siberians, their Y-Chromosome and mitochondrial DNA would probably not show and everyone could be related to people from back then, or descendants. You say why doesn’t the Book of Mormon mention that? Using the same standards, why doesn’t the Bible mention Lucy, homo erectus, and all those fossil primates that you hold very dear to?

The thread is about the fact there is no peer-reviewed evidence for the Book of Mormon. Which after many many posts, no Mormon has been able to provide any at all.

There is also no peer-reviewed evidence for intelligent design, “God did it”, or that it flows into the Book of Genesis. Mainstream Science says that intelligent design is pseudoscience. The Pope also does not want to accept “naturalistic” evolution.

Why can’t the same standards be applied, when Genesis 5 & 11 sound much more literal than your Pearl of Great Price quote?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

You should do a study on plagiarism in the Book of Mormon. It would make your head expode.

And we’ve already discussed how the same standards would mean Jesus Christ’s events plagiarized the Greek Dionysus, Egyptian Horus, and Persian Mithras. Much of the Hebrew dialects in the books of Moses are claimed by historians not to have existed until 1000-600 B.C.

What else is new?

I went away for a couple of weeks. I decided to come back to check up on everything.

 

[Stephen168]

And so now let’s look at the broader perspective. For many years, many criticized the Book of Mormon because no pre-Columbian horse or elephant bones were found. Then they started finding pre-Columbian bones, but they were carbon dated to some thousands of years before BoM times. However, many LDS point out that scientists have found pre-Columbian bones, so it could have happened. They are also finding more and more as the time passes, so they could find some bones tomorrow that date to the correct period or may re-date some of the existing bones. Then you guys say it still contradicts because so far they haven’t found horse bones dated to the right time yet. Am I correct in where you’re coming from?

Then you say that carbon dating counts against the Book of Mormon, but not against everything in the Bible before King David’s time. You say they found a city called Jericho, so it could have happened, although carbon dating is said to directly contradict big time. If we apply the same standards all of you are using, the Bible itself says that after Jericho, they destroyed the city of Ai, then the city of Hazor, and 30 cities. The Bible says Abraham happened first, then Moses, then Joshua’s Conquest, then later King Solomon (that’s not a Mormon chronology, most other Christians and Jews say the Bible gives that chronology; a person in this forum even said in private message to me that the Bible says Joshua did not come before Moses; everyone else agrees too, that it’s not a Mormon chronology). They carbon date the city of Ai to being abandoned 2200 B.C., then Jericho carbon dated to 1500 B.C. (and Ai was still abandoned at that time), Hazor 1250 B.C., and many of the 30 cities did not even exist until the 600’s B.C. Exodus mentions them building Pi-Raamses; which archaeologists say that Pi-Ramesses wasn’t even built until the 1200’s B.C. during the time of Ramasses II (Bible scholars keep on insisting they’re the same), many years after Jericho dating (so what do you say: the Exodus or Joshua’s Conquest first?) The Book of Exodus also mentions the land of Ramasses, which Ramasses I wasn’t even in power until the 1200’s B.C. Genesis says Abraham saw the Philistines, archaeologist say they didn’t exist until the 1100’s B.C., which would mean Abraham couldn’t have lived before Jericho being destroyed (a clash with archaeology and the Bible). Some of the cities in the Book of Joshua weren’t until the 600’s B.C., many years after the Kingdom of Solomon (are you still telling me that Solomon coming after Joshua is only a Mormon chronology?). I listed many others in all those previous posts. Why would someone believe carbon dating conclusively disproves the “elephants” and “horses” in the Book of Mormon, but not everything before King David’s time in the Bible?

Why doesn’t the statement “At least they found a city called Jericho” not also apply to “Well at least they found pre-Columbian horse and elephant bones, when for many years they didn’t and used that against the BoM before they found the bones”? Do you see why Mormons see this as others being a bully, and why they’re not so likely to give up the Book of Mormon but in return believe in the Bible? Why can’t we all get along with each other and live in harmony? LDS are humans also.

There is no evidence of pre-Columbian horses dated to the time of the Book of Mormon. So the events of the Book of Mormon are fiction or they did not happen when the Mormon Church Claims they did.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No contemporary writings in “reformed Egyptian”, or Hebrew, either.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

There is no evidence of pre-Columbian horses dated to the time of the Book of Mormon. So the events of the Book of Mormon are fiction or they did not happen when the Mormon Church Claims they did.

You’re avoiding the “Big Picture”. If we use the same exact standards, why doesn’t that then completely refute the Bible being the Word of God?

Scientists say they have found pre-Columbian horse bones, just not carbon dated to the correct time. However, they say they still continue to find more bones, so they haven’t found all of them yet, which means that even if all the pre-Columbian horse bones found so far have been dated correctly it does not guarantee that there were no horses during the correct time. They’re still in the process of finding more bones. Using the same standards of carbon dating also shows that none of the events before King David’s time could have happened. The Bible says they first conquered Jericho, then Ai, then Hazor, and 30 cities. Carbon dating says a much different story: Ai abandoned peacefully 2200 B.C., Jericho destroyed 1500 B.C., Hazor by fire 1250 B.C., many of the cities in the Book of Joshua didn’t exist until the 600’s B.C., also showing that some cities/peoples mentioned in Genesis/Exodus didn’t exist until after Jericho with ; using your/secular archaeologists’ carbon dating standards directly refutes the Bible. “At least they found a Jericho although carbon dating directly refutes”? Same standards: “The Book of Mormon mentions some horses and at least they have found pre-Columbian horse bones so it could have happened, even if they haven’t found some that carbon dates to the correct time period.” Carbon dating would then directly refute everything before King David. Let’s be fair here.

Regardless of the truth of the Bible and Book of Mormon, carbon dating allows more possibility that horse bones will be found during the correct time then it allows for scientists to find the Book of Joshua took place.

 

[Stephen168]

You’re avoiding the “Big Picture”.

You’re avoiding providing ANY evidence for the Book of Mormon story

 

[Tmaque]

And so now let’s look at the broader perspective. For many years, many criticized the Book of Mormon because no pre-Columbian horse or elephant bones were found. Then they started finding pre-Columbian bones, but they were carbon dated to some thousands of years before BoM times. However, many LDS point out that scientists have found pre-Columbian bones, so it could have happened. They are also finding more and more as the time passes, so they could find some bones tomorrow that date to the correct period or may re-date some of the existing bones. Then you guys say it still contradicts because so far they haven’t found horse bones dated to the right time yet. Am I correct in where you’re coming from?

Then you say that carbon dating counts against the Book of Mormon, but not against everything in the Bible before King David’s time. You say they found a city called Jericho, so it could have happened, although carbon dating is said to directly contradict big time. If we apply the same standards all of you are using, the Bible itself says that after Jericho, they destroyed the city of Ai, then the city of Hazor, and 30 cities. The Bible says Abraham happened first, then Moses, then Joshua’s Conquest, then later King Solomon (that’s not a Mormon chronology, most other Christians and Jews say the Bible gives that chronology; a person in this forum even said in private message to me that the Bible says Joshua did not come before Moses; everyone else agrees too, that it’s not a Mormon chronology). They carbon date the city of Ai to being abandoned 2200 B.C., then Jericho carbon dated to 1500 B.C. (and Ai was still abandoned at that time), Hazor 1250 B.C., and many of the 30 cities did not even exist until the 600’s B.C. Exodus mentions them building Pi-Raamses; which archaeologists say that Pi-Ramesses wasn’t even built until the 1200’s B.C. during the time of Ramasses II (Bible scholars keep on insisting they’re the same), many years after Jericho dating (so what do you say: the Exodus or Joshua’s Conquest first?) The Book of Exodus also mentions the land of Ramasses, which Ramasses I wasn’t even in power until the 1200’s B.C. Genesis says Abraham saw the Philistines, archaeologist say they didn’t exist until the 1100’s B.C., which would mean Abraham couldn’t have lived before Jericho being destroyed (a clash with archaeology and the Bible). Some of the cities in the Book of Joshua weren’t until the 600’s B.C., many years after the Kingdom of Solomon (are you still telling me that Solomon coming after Joshua is only a Mormon chronology?). I listed many others in all those previous posts. Why would someone believe carbon dating conclusively disproves the “elephants” and “horses” in the Book of Mormon, but not everything before King David’s time in the Bible?

Why doesn’t the statement “At least they found a city called Jericho” not also apply to “Well at least they found pre-Columbian horse and elephant bones, when for many years they didn’t and used that against the BoM before they found the bones”? Do you see why Mormons see this as others being a bully, and why they’re not so likely to give up the Book of Mormon but in return believe in the Bible? Why can’t we all get along with each other and live in harmony? LDS are humans also.

You’re making the Catholic argument here. Much of the Old Testament, especially prior to Moses was oral history. And much of that oral history was allegorical in nature. The OT is NOT historical and we don’t expect it to be accurate in that sense. If LDS claimed the BOM was allegorical they would have a much stronger argument. To claim that it’s historical really shows great ignorance or a strong case of intellectual dishonesty IMHO.

The claim was made and vigorously taught not long ago that ALL Native Americans were in fact, Lamanites. I’m glad to see the LDS Church has moved off of that indefensible position. It would be nice if they would just go all they way and state that the BOM is inspired allegory.