Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

Suspicious Archeology used to support the Book of Mormon

Recommended Posts

I just finished reading a fascinating book by Kenneth L. Feder the Encyclopedia of Dubious Archeology. I have been in contact with him via email he has been helping me on my personal studies of the Hopewell and Adena traditions. He is also one of the signees discrediting Meldrum

Share this post


Link to post

This is a good list and I agree for the most part, with everything you've said.

Would you say that the research discrediting the Bat Creek Stone is conclusive?

Cyrus Gordon of course, offers a defense of the stone as proof of Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact between the Old and New Worlds, though Frank Moore Cross raises an equally valid points to the contrary.

I would be interested in hearing your take on this.

Share this post


Link to post

I just finished reading a fascinating book by Kenneth L. Feder the Encyclopedia of Dubious Archeology. I have been in contact with him via email he has been helping me on my personal studies of the Hopewell and Adena traditions. He is also one of the signees discrediting Meldrum

Share this post


Link to post

As one who has been "bitten" in the past by this stuff, I can only say that my hope is that more people take this seriously.

One has to wonder though, how LDS theorists that continue to knowingly do this are not held accountable somehow, at least through Church disciplinary action if nothing else, for their continued peddling of such things to unsuspecting members of the Church. The fact that the Bat Creek stone was pushed by Glenn Beck on his show is one big piece of evidence that somebody that was a member of the Church fooled him into thinking it was real.

After having been warned of the nature of this stuff by BYU scholars and FAIR and many others, and the fact that they keep peddling it, in my mind, should be taken seriously by someone in the church hierarchy to point this out to the local leaders of these people about what they are doing.

Why would they continue knowingly peddling archaeological frauds, unless there was something in it for them?

Anybody have any ideas about what kind of action could be taken at this point? It just goes on and on and on without stopping.

I just finished reading a fascinating book by Kenneth L. Feder the Encyclopedia of Dubious Archeology. I have been in contact with him via email he has been helping me on my personal studies of the Hopewell and Adena traditions. He is also one of the signees discrediting Meldrum

Share this post


Link to post

I live not far from the main Hopewell sites. They are amazing.

I'm also very much one who believes that Zarahemla was in Mesoamerica. Even so, I don't think it is out of the question that the Hopewell could have been some kind of Nephite (or Nephite/Ammonite) outpost. As I recall, the Hopewell are believed to have lived in the Ohio River area from about 100 B.C. to 400 A.D., which would be consistent with the emigration periods mentioned in the BoM. Who's to say some of those people mentioned in the last chapters of Helaman didn't make their way up the Mississippi and into the areas where the Hopewell ruins are now found? My studies of the Hopewell suggest that they were very different from other groups that lived in North America at the time (and afterwards). And, IIRC, there is sound archaelogical evidence that there was contact between the Hopewell and Mesoamerica. So, you never know ...

I agree that the Hopewell could have had contact (and likely did) with the Nephites via migration (not trade).However the mounds are completely different from the temples in Mesoamerica (according to Feder and others)in construction and in purpose. In all my readings there have been no evidence that supports Mesoamerican and Hopewell contact during the time of the Book of Mormon. In fact the largest mounds Cahokia (Nephite era and Poverty Point Olmec era) are major areas of trade and did so extensively up and down the Mississippi and down into the gulf (but towards Florida not the Yucatan Basin). Minerals, beads, shells etc was traded but not a single item has been found that connects them to Mesoamerica (jade or obsidian would be the main items). I am not saying you are wrong it is I who could be vastly wrong on the subject I would be very interested in what source you have on that.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a good list and I agree for the most part, with everything you've said.

Would you say that the research discrediting the Bat Creek Stone is conclusive?

Cyrus Gordon of course, offers a defense of the stone as proof of Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact between the Old and New Worlds, though Frank Moore Cross raises an equally valid points to the contrary.

I would be interested in hearing your take on this.

Cyrus Gordon

Share this post


Link to post

Anijen,

I was going to say something about the trade issue, but I think I will just let it go. I have just about had it with that issue. I'm just walking away rather than going to argue on this point again.

I agree that the Hopewell could have had contact (and likely did) with the Nephites via migration (not trade).However the mounds are completely different from the temples in Mesoamerica (according to Feder and others)in construction and in purpose. In all my readings there have been no evidence that supports Mesoamerican and Hopewell contact during the time of the Book of Mormon. In fact the largest mounds Cahokia (Nephite era and Poverty Point Olmec era) are major areas of trade and did so extensively up and down the Mississippi and down into the gulf (but towards Florida not the Yucatan Basin). Minerals, beads, shells etc was traded but not a single item has been found that connects them to Mesoamerica (jade or obsidian would be the main items). I am not saying you are wrong it is I who could be vastly wrong on the subject I would be very interested in what source you have on that.

Share this post


Link to post

When are you going to write a paper on the Hopewell, Anijen? I'd love to see you gather all your research on the Hopewell in one paper.

Share this post


Link to post

When are you going to write a paper on the Hopewell, Anijen? I'd love to see you gather all your research on the Hopewell in one paper.

School, family and church callings (not in that order) take my time up. Perhaps if I put my energies into a paper instead of being on this site I could put one together, but I find the time I spent here in some ways therapeutic and the task of writing a well researched paper too much like my present school work and frankly I need a break from that. Having said that I have a lot on my hard drive and thumb drive that would make a decent paper... So I have not ruled it out and even thought of some topics but that is as far as it has gone.

Share this post


Link to post

Anijen,

I was going to say something about the trade issue, but I think I will just let it go. I have just about had it with that issue. I'm just walking away rather than going to argue on this point again.

I hate controversy and arguing for arguing sake. If you have some research that link trade between the Hopewell or Adena with Mesoamerica I would love to look at it. I do not rule it out and in fact wouldn't mind seeing it. But as yet, I have not read any about it. I also spoke with real experts (I do consider myself well read in the subject but not an expert) Kenneth Feder, Brad Lepper and a few others and they do not see it either. If you wish to start a conversation via email or privet message to avoid such a public forum such as here I would be also open to that.

Anijen

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I've changed my mind. I've decided to challenge this point a bit. Let's talk about the Great Hopewell Road dating to the Book of Mormon time period. How in the world did a MAJOR Mesoamerican sacbe (white road) get in Ohio then, that predates most Mesoamerican sacbes, linking archaeoastronomically some of the biggest and most complex Hopewell complexes? If these complexes "truly had no Mesoamerican connection," then how about this one?

I agree that the Hopewell could have had contact (and likely did) with the Nephites via migration (not trade).However the mounds are completely different from the temples in Mesoamerica (according to Feder and others)in construction and in purpose. In all my readings there have been no evidence that supports Mesoamerican and Hopewell contact during the time of the Book of Mormon. In fact the largest mounds Cahokia (Nephite era and Poverty Point Olmec era) are major areas of trade and did so extensively up and down the Mississippi and down into the gulf (but towards Florida not the Yucatan Basin). Minerals, beads, shells etc was traded but not a single item has been found that connects them to Mesoamerica (jade or obsidian would be the main items). I am not saying you are wrong it is I who could be vastly wrong on the subject I would be very interested in what source you have on that.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has been introduced because many times when a geography setting of the Book of Mormon is posited often by those who introduce their ideas and will support their ideas with archeology. We have seen a lot of this especially in the last twenty or so years. Much of the artifacts and sites are legit and are incredibly supportive however unfortunately we see suspicious relics used likewise.

While I find your post a good overview of the dangers of believing in dubious artifacts (and being skeptical of those who use such artifacts to bolster their theories), unfortunately your post also weakened my faith in the validity of Joseph Smith's gold plates.

I can't help but wonder if we still had the plates whether or not they would simply be another item on your long list...

Or, to put it another way, does your list encompass all new-world artifacts that appear to create an old-world pre-columbian link, or is there another list of valid artifacts that show linguistic remnants of old-world cultures living here anciently?

If it is comprehensive and there are no other artifacts, then I am left in the odd position of being asked to put certainty in the claim that Joseph Smith did indeed have the only such authentic artifacts, and they were taken from this earth before being shown to anyone that would be able to validate their authenticity. But all the other such artifacts are fakes and I shouldn't believe them, but only because they remained on this earth for subsequent inspection and unbelievers have declared them fake.

That's an interesting position to be in.

Share this post


Link to post

When you say they do not see "it", let's precisely identify what it is they do not see.

(1) Is it that they do not see cultural links and borrowings from Mesoamerica to the Great Lakes Region in BOM time periods?

Or (2) Is it that they do not see an extensive trade network between the two areas?

If it is ONLY number two, then I challenge you as to why number one is not enough of a significant point to you to merit consideration about the fact that Nephite influence was felt in the area in Book of Mormon time periods. Is it or is it not true that a significant "culture bringing" influence was felt in the Great Lakes region both from the southwestern US that had extensive trade with Mesoamerica during BOM time periods as well as from Mesoamerica? And if so, why is it that only the "trade network" issue is the qualifier for Nephite influence?

I hate controversy and arguing for arguing sake. If you have some research that link trade between the Hopewell or Adena with Mesoamerica I would love to look at it. I do not rule it out and in fact wouldn't mind seeing it. But as yet, I have not read any about it. I also spoke with real experts (I do consider myself well read in the subject but not an expert) Kenneth Feder, Brad Lepper and a few others and they do not see it either. If you wish to start a conversation via email or privet message to avoid such a public forum such as here I would be also open to that.

Anijen

Share this post


Link to post

When you say they do not see "it", let's precisely identify what it is they do not see.

(1) Is it that they do not see cultural links and borrowings from Mesoamerica to the Great Lakes Region in BOM time periods?

Or (2) Is it that they do not see an extensive trade network between the two areas?

If it is ONLY number two, then I challenge you as to why number one is not enough of a significant point to you to merit consideration about the fact that Nephite influence was felt in the area in Book of Mormon time periods. Is it or is it not true that a significant "culture bringing" influence was felt in the Great Lakes region both from the southwestern US that had extensive trade with Mesoamerica during BOM time periods as well as from Mesoamerica? And if so, why is it that only the "trade network" issue is the qualifier for Nephite influence?

I can not speak for them, from my contact with them it is the evidence that is absent, for example jade and obsidian were traded extensively in Mesoamerica, we have not seen any findings of that at any of the Hopewell/Adena sites. The figurines found in the mounds do not resemble those in Mesoamerica and lastly the pottery in Mesoamerica was more intricate than any in the U.S.

Brad Lepper is a big advocate on the Great Hopewell Road (tGHR). I respect him and know him to be very knowledgeable on the subject probably the foremost in the country concerning tGHR. I know he is impressed with it. How is that road connected to the Mayan or even Aztec other than it is a road?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes! Another anti-Meldrum thread! I have been ever so anxiously awaiting another one of these. rolleyes.gif

beatdeadhorse.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Hopewell had extensive trading in obsidian, their primary source of Obsidian from Yellowstone. Why did they have to get that from Mesoamerica if they had a more local source in NA?

(http://ohsweb.ohiohi...p?g2_itemId=648)

"The major Hopewell culture was to the south where villages were larger, more numerous, and occupied for a longer period. Hopewell culture reached Northeastern Ohio about 2,100 years ago. By this time, people here lived in scattered small villages in the valley

Share this post


Link to post

While I find your post a good overview of the dangers of believing in dubious artifacts (and being skeptical of those who use such artifacts to bolster their theories), unfortunately your post also weakened my faith in the validity of Joseph Smith's gold plates.

I am the opposite. I find the claim of Gold Plates a strength which has been verified by other writings on metal which we know now did exist.
I can't help but wonder if we still had the plates whether or not they would simply be another item on your long list...
If we had the plates I am very confident that they could be eventually translated and validate the BofM. However we do not so it is a mute point.
Or, to put it another way, does your list encompass all new-world artifacts that appear to create an old-world pre-columbian link, or is there another list of valid artifacts that show linguistic remnants of old-world cultures living here anciently?
I am not precisely sure what you mean here. There is a growing awareness of pre-Columbian contact that is gaining in its credibility to name a few; contact between Japan and South America is evidenced through pottery, or another theory on Polynesian contact. It used to be that the only theory was the Bearing Strait land bridge. However these pre-Columbian contacts do not show any connection to a Hebraic Old World connection.
Joseph Smith did indeed have the only such authentic artifacts, and they were taken from this earth before being shown to anyone that would be able to validate their authenticity. But all the other such artifacts are fakes and I shouldn't believe them, but only because they remained on this earth for subsequent inspection and unbelievers have declared them fake.
I happen to believe in them. Besides the testimony of the eleven witnesses validate them very well,(in spite of Mike Reeds or Dan Vogels objections). The requirement of faith is still mandatory.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes! Another anti-Meldrum thread! I have been ever so anxiously awaiting another one of these. rolleyes.gif

beatdeadhorse.gif

I should have not used his name. I do not want this thread to go in that direction. I used him as an LDS example wanting the artifacts to match their belief system. I could have very well used the desires of people such as Erich Von Daniken or even Barry Fell.

Share this post


Link to post

Hopewell had extensive trading in obsidian, their primary source of Obsidian from Yellowstone. Why did they have to get that from Mesoamerica if they had a more local source in NA?

(http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=648)

I agree. My point is that is what the Mayan and Olmec traded in obsidian, jade, rubber, coco beans, jaguar pelts etc has not been found in any Hopewell/Adena sites.
"The major Hopewell culture was to the south where villages were larger, more numerous, and occupied for a longer period. Hopewell culture reached Northeastern Ohio about 2,100 years ago. By this time, people here lived in scattered small villages in the valley

Share this post


Link to post

As to the white fill, I read that a very long time ago and have to dig that up.

Has to be the same material otherwise the color connection is weak you say? Sounds like you are being more of a naysayer than anything on that one.

It sounds like you want more of a preponderance of positive, undeniable evidence rather than things that are suggestive and plausible.

Does this speak to an ideology of denialism rather than an open-minded consideration of things that are bullseyes from the standpoint of very suggestive parallels? I would say so.

At least now the dogmatism that I've been constantly dealing with is starting to show itself in this conversation, demonstrative of how it is constantly an uphill battle for me even when conversing with people of your mindset.

"Jaguars and panthers aren

Share this post


Link to post

I again bring up the purpose of the thread not to disparage anyone. Archeology isn't really about discovering great truths but IMO it is to more accurately reach a precise explanation about the past world around us? During the process of this acquiring of knowledge mistakes have been made, we follow leads that go no where and sometimes we reject ideas that ultimately deserve further consideration. In this process sometimes we want to believe in something more because it aligns with our faith and this is fine but we need to keep a measure of cynicism to keep our gullible side from being taken advantage of. I bring up these fraudulent artifacts in an effort to keep us from being bamboozled.

Share this post


Link to post

As to the white fill, I read that a very long time ago and have to dig that up.

I liked the pun, my theories are also not written in stone (pun intended).
Sounds like you are being more of a naysayer than anything on that one.
To the contrary, I have a reputation it least to those who know me as one who likes to look at both sides and determine which theories I support only after investigating such.
...even when conversing with people of your mindset.
I do not think I appear close minded, and frankly I sense more frustration in your part that I do not accept everything as you do. I simply want to eliminate the use of suspicious findings no matter how much they would strengthen my belief in the Book of Mormon. I adhere to a LGT in Mesoamerica I can and would throw that theory away if it is wrong, I simply find it the strongest out there.

Share this post


Link to post

I am frustrated that you are a denialist of significant Mesoamerican influence on the Great Lakes region, and that you deny the plausibility of a Nephite destruction in the great lakes region. I am frustrated by all Mesoamericanist denialism of that plausiblity. Over time I will erode away that type of thinking until you will acknowledge its plausibility. I don't care if you ever agree with it. I intend to erode your denialism of its plausibility.

What is it that is suspicious about the stuff that I have used in my POST-THIS-LAND-ERA writings?

I don't think you have read my new book to understand my new understanding and methodological thinking.

I liked the pun, my theories are also not written in stone (pun intended).

To the contrary, I have a reputation it least to those who know me as one who likes to look at both sides and determine which theories I support only after investigating such.

I do not think I appear close minded, and frankly I sense more frustration in your part that I do not accept everything as you do. I simply want to eliminate the use of suspicious findings no matter how much they would strengthen my belief in the Book of Mormon. I adhere to a LGT in Mesoamerica I can and would throw that theory away if it is wrong, I simply find it the strongest out there.

Share this post


Link to post

"Jaguars and panthers aren

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×