Jump to content

Archived

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

paulpatter

What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

Recommended Posts

I know this has been discussed and discussed again (and again), but I'm wondering if there is anything new--and encouraging--to report about archaeology evidence for the BoM. About two years ago, one critic posted on this forum a statement claiming there is "absolutely no evidence" that supports the BoM narrative. As I recall (could be wrong), Dr. Peterson said, in effect, that evidence does exist, but I cannot remember what it was (or even if he identified it).

I will appreciate any and all responses.

Share this post


Link to post

Look at Nahom and the Empty Quarter as well as the two scrolls that have a 98% match with characters on the Anthon Transcript.

And then there's literary and cultural evidence too, but you'd better go to someone else for that.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this has been discussed and discussed again (and again), but I'm wondering if there is anything new--and encouraging--to report about archaeology evidence for the BoM. About two years ago, one critic posted on this forum a statement claiming there is "absolutely no evidence" that supports the BoM narrative. As I recall (could be wrong), Dr. Peterson said, in effect, that evidence does exist, but I cannot remember what it was (or even if he identified it).

I will appreciate any and all responses.

It is baffling for someone to make the claim that there is "absolutely no evidence".

The link My link has all the evidence organized by what the Book of Mormon actually says (not what it doesn't say) and is classified as "direct" or "circumstantial". Hope it helps for evidence only strengthens the faithful.

Share this post


Link to post

... as well as the two scrolls that have a 98% match with characters on the Anthon Transcript.

Here's the FARMS report on that avenue of thought:

Jones also compared the Anthon transcript signs to some found on another clay seal excavated at the famous Olmec site of La Venta, Tabasco.9 The characters on the La Venta artifact are much simpler than those on the one from Tlatilco, hence the comparisons are less interesting. Nevertheless Jones determined that he could see parallels between all the La Venta signs and those on the Anthon transcript.

He concluded that most of the Anthon transcript marks can be seen on these two artifacts. Moreover some of the characters on the Tlatilco seal were grouped somewhat like those on the Anthon document. Jones felt that he had discovered through his comparisons support for the thesis that at least the Tlatilco seal offered a firm archaeological example of the type of script represented by the Anthon transcript.

And a cryptographer's perusal yielded these thoughts:

In summary, probably the least controversial inference you can draw from the lettershapes is their post-1650 dating: the embellished

Share this post


Link to post

And a cryptographer's perusal yielded these thoughts:

Doesn't this guy admit he's biased though here?

...Given that I place the Anthon Transcript

Share this post


Link to post

I know this has been discussed and discussed again (and again), but I'm wondering if there is anything new--and encouraging--to report about archaeology evidence for the BoM. About two years ago, one critic posted on this forum a statement claiming there is "absolutely no evidence" that supports the BoM narrative. As I recall (could be wrong), Dr. Peterson said, in effect, that evidence does exist, but I cannot remember what it was (or even if he identified it).

I will appreciate any and all responses.

You might find this interesting:

http://bomevidence.wordpress.com/

And here: http://bomevidence.wordpress.com/intro/reading/

Share this post


Link to post
It is baffling for someone to make the claim that there is "absolutely no evidence".

It is even more baffling that someone would claim that no evidence for is the same as evidence against. Quite unscientific.

Share this post


Link to post

It is even more baffling that someone would claim that no evidence for is the same as evidence against. Quite unscientific.

And who makes that claim?

Share this post


Link to post

I know this has been discussed and discussed again (and again), but I'm wondering if there is anything new--and encouraging--to report about archaeology evidence for the BoM. About two years ago, one critic posted on this forum a statement claiming there is "absolutely no evidence" that supports the BoM narrative. As I recall (could be wrong), Dr. Peterson said, in effect, that evidence does exist, but I cannot remember what it was (or even if he identified it).

I will appreciate any and all responses.

I find the following to be helpful:

John L. Sorenson, "A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East," Sino-Platonic Papers 195 (Dec. 2009).

John E. Clark, "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14:2 (2005).

Margaret Barker, "Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion," BYU Studies - The Worlds of Joseph Smith 44:4 (2005).

Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Share this post


Link to post

I find the following to be helpful:

John L. Sorenson, "A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East," Sino-Platonic Papers 195 (Dec. 2009).

John E. Clark, "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14:2 (2005).

Margaret Barker, "Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion," BYU Studies - The Worlds of Joseph Smith 44:4 (2005).

Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Walker beat me to it. Those are great articles and I really enjoyed Sorenson's article. He also has a book coming out soon called "Mormon's Codex" that should be stellar.

But I expect that the critics will cry "no evidence" until the end of time. The better use of time is to study the matter yourself and from those that don't dissmiss any and every piece of evidence out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post

Sincere thanks to all who have contributed to this post. I very much value and appreciate your helpful responses.

paul

Share this post


Link to post

Sincere thanks to all who have contributed to this post. I very much value and appreciate your helpful responses.

paul

pp: If you don't mind one more response. Cannot find the old thread (and it was a year or more ago) when Herr Professor Doktor Peterson made the assertion I think you're referring to. To the best of my recollection, that assertion was that a 3rd party had evidence and was preparing it for publication that placed troublesome BoM fauna "in the right place at the right time." I think it had to do with horse remains dated in situ to within proposed BoM timeframe. The delay may have to do with re-tests, as well as the vagaries of academic funding and publication priorities. Might have been a Gomphothere, however: It's an interesting beastie whose latest "proven" remains have been found in fairly late (possibly historical?) times, but not quite in the right places. Gompie was an Elephant cousin hunted to extinction by the peace-loving, "walk-softly-on-the-land," "butter-wouldn't-melt" proto-or-fully-formed-Amerinds.

Share this post


Link to post

It is baffling for someone to make the claim that there is "absolutely no evidence".

The link My link has all the evidence organized by what the Book of Mormon actually says (not what it doesn't say) and is classified as "direct" or "circumstantial". Hope it helps for evidence only strengthens the faithful.

That's a great link! Did you put that together? I only saw one evidencery piece pointing to N. America as well. Was that a purposeful choice to only focus on Meso only.

From a Hemispheric kinda guy...

Share this post


Link to post

That's a great link! Did you put that together? I only saw one evidencery piece pointing to N. America as well. Was that a purposeful choice to only focus on Meso only.

From a Hemispheric kinda guy...

Thanks! I wanted the practice in creating a website for a future practice and got a little carried away on the subject. pardon.gif It has been enjoyable nonetheless.

I tried to be as honest with the research as possible and be open to any evidence (not limiting myself to any model).

On a topic, I posted - I was looking for any suggestions or any other evidence that people felt should be on there, unfortunately it looks like everything on the website is from my amateur bias.

If you happen to have anything you would like to add even if it is from N. America - I would love to see it.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks! I wanted the practice in creating a website for a future practice and got a little carried away on the subject. pardon.gif It has been enjoyable nonetheless.

I tried to be as honest with the research as possible and be open to any evidence (not limiting myself to any model).

On a topic, I posted - I was looking for any suggestions or any other evidence that people felt should be on there, unfortunately it looks like everything on the website is from my amateur bias.

If you happen to have anything you would like to add even if it is from N. America - I would love to see it.

Here's a great resource for metal weapons from N. America. Hundreds of examples.

http://copperculture.homestead.com/

Share this post


Link to post

That is a big stash! Who owns it all? Private owners?

It looks like the owner's names are at the top of the page.

There are collections like this all over. Here's another one from Michigan Tech.

1337_l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

It is even more baffling that someone would claim that no evidence for is the same as evidence against. Quite unscientific.

How so?

Without the ability to consider a lack of evidence as evidence against, could one ever rule out any claim?

Share this post


Link to post

Copper tools and weapons do not date to BCE. I have no idea where these extremely early dates come from. Besides, "steel" and "iron" are also unfounded claims in the BoM text, leaving "indestructible evidence" (tailings) behind; when we add the Jaredite "millions" who were also purported miners we have to ask, "Where is the physical evidence of mining"? There is literally NONE whatsoever....

Share this post


Link to post

Claims of "none whatsoever", it happens, often demonstrate the quality of the author's efforts and the effects and direction of their controlling ideologies, rather than the state of the art of Book of Mormon contextualization.

For instance, here is an interesting essay on Olmec mirrors.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701328.pdf

Another, with interesting maps describing trade routes.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/23074/1/0000648.pdf

In an issue of the FARMS Review Daniel Peterson commented on the then recent discovery of "Several tons (tons!) of worked iron ores were very recently found at the Olmec site of San Lorenzo Tenochtitl

Share this post


Link to post

Copper tools and weapons do not date to BCE. I have no idea where these extremely early dates come from. Besides, "steel" and "iron" are also unfounded claims in the BoM text, leaving "indestructible evidence" (tailings) behind; when we add the Jaredite "millions" who were also purported miners we have to ask, "Where is the physical evidence of mining"? There is literally NONE whatsoever....

The only thing that you are correct on is in your "I have no idea" admission.

And it doesn't serve you well by "attributing to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven". It also isn't our problem that you are not interested in honest research that proves that the Book of Mormon already knows what the scientific world is now discovering.

Regardless, no amount of evidence will convince the faithless so my only suggestion is to remain confident in your own beliefs instead of trying to convince yourself that you are correct on a daily basis. You are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post

Doc Petersen's very first point glosses over the D&C ("the Lord") specifically stating that the American Indians are in fact "Lamanites"; no qualifications, at, all.

Horses as "tapirs"? Give me a break! Israelites had been domesticating horses for centuries before Lehi's people emigrated.

"Smelt" or "molten", what's the difference? You can't melt unless you smelt.

That's enough of that.

Evidence for the BoM as literal history is very thin "on the ground", to say the least. Only by going looking for it, and using every possible snippet of empirical evidence to support the details as the BoM gives them (e.g. wheeled toys as evidence that the Lehites actually used wheels on vehicles/chariots), can an apologist put together "archeological evidence" for the BoM. And in my limited experience, the interpretation of said-evidence to support the BoM is never the best, simplest or least contradictory interpretation of it, i.e. it does not ever receive a consensus from non Mormon scholars, but rather flies in the face of accepted scientific interpretation of the evidence....

Share this post


Link to post

Doc Petersen's very first point glosses over the D&C ("the Lord") specifically stating that the American Indians are in fact "Lamanites"; no qualifications, at, all.

Horses as "tapirs"? Give me a break! Israelites had been domesticating horses for centuries before Lehi's people emigrated.

"Smelt" or "molten", what's the difference? You can't melt unless you smelt.

That's enough of that.

Evidence for the BoM as literal history is very thin "on the ground", to say the least. Only by going looking for it, and using every possible snippet of empirical evidence to support the details as the BoM gives them (e.g. wheeled toys as evidence that the Lehites actually used wheels on vehicles/chariots), can an apologist put together "archeological evidence" for the BoM. And in my limited experience, the interpretation of said-evidence to support the BoM is never the best, simplest or least contradictory interpretation of it, i.e. it does not ever receive a consensus from non Mormon scholars, but rather flies in the face of accepted scientific interpretation of the evidence....

And your last paragraph "smelt" rather...interesting. Few non-Mormon scholars even care about the Book of Mormon, let alone have done any research on it. The state of the evidence is not what you assert.

Yours under the redolent oaks,

Nathair /|\

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn't this guy admit he's biased though here?

...meaning that he's already decided, no?

If you look at the scope of his blog, he isn't approaching this with a preconceived notion over the possible origins of the Anthon Caractors. He looks at them as a "puzzle", and tries to use the tools of a cryptologist to "crack the code".

Regardless of all that, my particular interest in the Anthon Transcript is as a cipher historian looking at a single contentious document. Back in 2004, I exchanged a number of emails with Richard Stout, who has researched extensively on this subject to build up his own (very specific) claims. However, what follows below relates to my own opinion of what we can learn about the Transcript purely from its alphabet, and is completely independent of Richard

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.

×
×
  • Create New...