Plain English BMG - Book of Mormon cities have

[Cumorah3]

You may be assured that I have nothing to do with it, personally. Frankly, I rather doubt that any moderators make decisions on closing threads with me in mind at all.

Thanks Brant, I removed that sentence.

It's not fair for you to post ANY sour grapes. You come onto our playground and refuse to play by our rules. ALL subsequent posts/content about moderator action will be deleted without warning. Oreos

[Cumorah3]

Well, I think I understand both sides at least a little. 

I think Brant Garnder is probably worried about all the stories, discoveries, etc. ...

Book of Mormon tours.

I tend to agree with you grego that one of Brant Gardner's commendable motivations is that he is likely "worried about all the stories, discoveries, etc. that push the Mormon agenda..." He seems to make that quite clear in his BMG related posts. And yes, we all hope the professionals did valid, reliable, and unbiased testing before official announcements are made.

My quarrel is primarily with some people's apparent desire to censor information rather than get it all out and let the reader decide what to believe. (Other than obvious anti-Mormon stuff that has already been laid to rest.)

I am also concerned about the tendency of some LDS scholars to criticize other LDS scholars with information they think at the time might be valid. But when the scholar criticized rebuts those "evidences" and shows them to be invalid, the criticizing scholar, in my opinion, should either publicly retract his/her criticism, or provide solid new evidences to support that criticism.

It's just not enough, in my opinion, for any expert to rest on past laurels or scholarly initials to make authoritative declarations about anything, and then ignore requests for evidence to support those statements. Experts especially, since we rely on them so much, must be extremely cautious about the things they publicly proclaim, and either should be 100% certain from all known valid sources that they've got the facts right, or else let it be known that there are other experts or scholars who might disagree.

I tend to disagree with you about Book of Mormon tours not being helpful.

I took one of the Joseph Allen tours from Mexico City to Belize. Although I question the validity of some of the locations that were pointed out as possible Book of Mormon sites, I think all of us on the tour drew much closer to the Book of Mormon people if only because for ten days we thought of little except them, talked about little except them, read the Book of Mormon a lot, prayed a lot, and honestly thought we were in the vicinity of places where Nephites might actually have pressed their footprints during their mortal sojourn.

I highly recommend Book of Mormon tours, with the proviso that not much yet about BMG has been credibly proven. (That qualification should please Mr. Gardner. I'm learning...)

[Cumorah3]

You may be assured that I have nothing to do with it, personally. Frankly, I rather doubt that any moderators make decisions on closing threads with me in mind at all.

Thanks Brant, I removed that sentence.

It's not fair for you to post ANY sour grapes. You come onto our playground and refuse to play by our rules. ALL subsequent posts/content about moderator action will be deleted without warning. Oreos

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

One of my favorite (old) movies is "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." There's a scene in that movie where Sundance goes straight and hires on to ride shotgun as the payroll is delivered. Before he gets the job, he is forced to hold his six shooter straight out, aim, and try to hit a tin can. He fails miserably.

Then he does it HIS way, reloads, puts the gun back in the holster, does a lightning fast draw, fires from the hip, and plugs the dancing can with every one of his six rapid fire shots.

I'm not complaining of course, but I sometimes think that I'd do better if I could fire write from the hip the way I'm used to doing things....

BMG is such a vast subject that I really don't know where to go first to keep this discussion interesting and educational for all of us.

If you are interested in participating, please ask questions, make comments, or give me some direction where this thread should go next, thanks.

[cinepro]

My comment is: "Brant, the stones are in the museum. Why don't you go have a look at them yourself and then report your own expert observations back to us instead of just putting them down so quickly without having even seen them? Isn't it possible that they really could be reformed Egyptian like the other scholar thinks them to be?" I really don't understand what the problem is to simply report that there are two stones in a museum in Mexico that a scholar has looked at and thinks the writings may be reformed Egyptian. Should I have waited for a BYU professor to some day discover them and provide "solid substantiation" before even mentioning them in a medium such as the FAIR message board?

Cumorah3, I think perhaps this paragraph above all others provides window into your thought process, and might help to explain the root of your frustration with "scholars" and "archaeologists".

This is how I see it. "Scholarship", "Science", "Archaeologists" and any other label you might give to the trained, methodical, slow, plodding research done by "professionals" all boils down to one thing: a standard.

A scientific or scholarly approach to belief demands that a standard be set. A minimum level of evidence and argument that must be met before a claim is accepted as "true". If someone makes a claim, then it isn't believed until it meets that standard. This doesn't mean the claim is false, or the person is lying. The claim could be true, but until it has been supported with valid evidence and arguments, it isn't accepted as "true".

You have made the claim that Reformed Egyptian characters appear on two stones in a museum. But your claim is not buttressed by any sort of evidence, and so Brant (and others) rationally withhold belief. This doesn't mean there aren't such characters, or that you are lying. If just means that the claim hasn't met the necessary standard for belief.

Brant's observation about some past claims of Book of Mormon evidence illuminates the flip-side of the coin. Some people have an extremely low standard when it comes to claims. They don't withhold belief until the evidence is in. Instead, if the claim sounds pleasing to them, they invest their belief and then hold onto that belief until someone can "prove" it wrong. They never question their laughably low standard for belief in the first place. In the past, this is how some people have approached Book of Mormon "evidences", as illustrated by the "Lehi Rock".

This whole thread seems to be a desperate plea for you to foster a discussion where people don't have a standard for belief. Where we can share evidence-free claims and we will all take them at face value, gasping in amazement at tales of Reformed Egyptian Stones and booing and hissing at the stuffy scholars who skeptically refuse to redefine Ancient American history based on such dubious claims.

Sadly, you will probably have great success with such an approach among many Church members. The last 60 years has seen many a book and fireside conucted on flimsier evidence than you have presented.

[grego]

Interesting post. If only so, if only so... I've shown in many previous threads how flawed that thinking is.

By the way, could you point out the part I missed where Cumorah3 claims that there is reformed Egyptian on the rocks?

[Cumorah3]

Cumorah3, I think perhaps this paragraph above all others provides window into your thought process, and might help to explain the root of your frustration with "scholars" and "archaeologists".

Seeking the truth in our own ways...

Thank-you! Those are excellent observations and written in plain English too. It is obvious that you have great faith in the scientific method of doing things. And that method when faithfully applied according to accepted standards is one of the reasons why we have such wonderful technology in our time. (Many great discoveries of course came instead from the unlearned and unskilled in scientific methods.)

I agree with much of what you say, but please pardon a few additional comments to enlarge the window you claim to have opened into my thought processes.

You say: "The claim could be true, but until it has been supported with valid evidence and arguments, it isn't accepted as "true".

That's why I'm asking Mr. Gardner to do something scientific about the stones in the Mexico museum and report back to us. As it is, it's just his word against that of another scholar. And the other scholar has actually seen the stones and taken the time to do his own preliminary analysis. Why is it that the immediate reaction from a resident expert in BMG is to question the opinion of that other LDS scholar (who is also a known BMG expert) and then just leave it hanging there, expecting I suppose some BYU professor to go there sometime in the very distant future, do his thing, and publish a report for Mr. Gardner to then I suppose study?

What will they think, I wonder, of how they so vigorously fought against those other scholars and explorers who were saying over and over again: "Look, those things may be reformed Egyptian." And sometime later it is proven that those things really were reformed Egyptian?

Is it possible that the Lord is trying to bring to our attention the possibility that the Nephites left a lot of physical evidences behind them, but so many of His called and prepared servants instead of anxiously trying to bring them to light are fighting against the very things they came to this world to help raise from the dust? Should BYU be an instrument of arm of flesh learning and conform to the ways of the world? Or should it instead be more anxiously engaged in being a private church-funded university with a mission that other universities don't have?

There, it's true, I'm showing my frustration! But I have valid reasons for being frustrated with the BMG status quo. And I have very little to say of those learned people at the steering wheel who keep vigorously pounding on the brakes with swelling words of caution, caution, caution, when if they'd take the time to glance out a window they'd quickly see what the unlearned and a few other scholars have known for decades: THE VEHICLE HAS NOT MOVED FOR FIFTY YEARS!

You say: "You have made the claim that Reformed Egyptian characters appear on two stones in a museum. But your claim is not buttressed by any sort of evidence, and so Brant (and others) rationally withhold belief."

Actually it wasn't me who made that claim, it was a scholar, and all he was doing was alerting me, a friend, to yet another promising physical evidence of possible Reformed Egyptian writing that has gone undiscovered by the professionals. I was just the reporter to those who read with interest this FAIR board.

However, please understand that I AM NOT ASKING ANYONE TO BELIEVE! (Remember, my position is to get it all out and let the readers decide what to believe.)

I'm just presenting some interesting things that in my opinion and in the opinion of one of Mr. Gardner's learned LDS colleagues is deserving of scientific study to establish credible proof one way or the other.

You say: "This whole thread seems to be a desperate plea for you to foster a discussion where people don't have a standard for belief."

I understand that it may be difficult for some people who are trained in scientific thought and procedures to engage in a discussion about things unless "evidence" is presented and they can then criticize that "evidence." But this thread is deliberately designed to allow ordinary unlearned people like myself to communicate about things of interest that some of us are probably hoping the scientists will one day test and prove one way or the other.

The only college level science class I ever took was Geology 101, so I may be off about this, but don't scientists create hypotheses to get them closer to something they can really get their teeth into? If so, why couldn't those stones at least be accepted as a valid hypothesis? After all, a BMG scholar thinks they are worthy of scientific study.

You say: "Where we can share evidence-free claims and we will all take them at face value, gasping in amazement at tales of Reformed Egyptian Stones and booing and hissing at the stuffy scholars who skeptically refuse to redefine Ancient American history based on such dubious claims."

That's the stuff of great drama, actually English major stuff, I could really get into that!

But, you fail to understand it seems that for the purposes of this plain English discussion, we who are not scholars are not making CLAIMS, dubious or not, and are certainly not having a scientific discussion.

I personally think your comments are a typical example of how some experts and others think that anyone outside of their own lofty circle is not intelligent enough to assess for themselves the things presented in a discussion such as this one, and therefore must be deluged with constant cautions.

But, having said all of that, it is a FACT, for I have seen things with my own eyes, that there are things known to non-professionals that could very well be samples of Reformed Egyptian writing. And, as Dr. Poulsen pointed out in this thread, even FARMS acknowledges that by publishing the following: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=188

I also believe it to be a FACT, for it is well known, that skeptical scholars (stuffy or not) are still ignoring these things, or at least are not taking the time to properly investigate them, when it is those very things that hold such great promise to further the work the Church is involved in.

So, no, I'm not making a "desperate plea" to the "unsophisticated" to believe anything. Those are your observations, and I really don't think you provided solid evidence to support them...

You conclude: "Sadly, you will probably have great success with such an approach among many Church members."

For me it will be a happy day when the professionals actively and anxiously engage with valid, reliable, and unbiased testing of such things as possible examples of reformed Egyptian writings. Until then, I'll just have to communicate with "many Church members" the way we are accustomed to doing it, in Plain English.

I mean you no disrespect cinepro. I appreciate your message and agree with parts of it. We are all seeking the truth, in our own ways.

[journeyman]

I have always been interested in Arceology, even before I become an LDS. But I have no education on that, so just a unlearned one, who knows nothing, but has opinions.

I have a book written by an LDS either archeolog or an iterrested person on South America.. it is pretty old and now it is stil packed in boxes like all our books... because of we moved.

I have red opinions about the sceenery of MB beeing in North America by the lakes.... but I am not buying that... not yet anyway. I tend to think that they were in Mexico and south.

Does the following provide any answers or useful information for you?

In June 1834, Joseph Smith recounted the discovery of the skeleton of

the now-notorious 'Zelph, the white Lamanite' [sic] in a mound in

Illinois, referring to "the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient

inhabitants of this country - Nephites, Lamanites, etc.,

[Cumorah3]

Does the following provide any answers or useful information for you?

In June 1834, Joseph Smith recounted the discovery of the skeleton of the now-notorious 'Zelph, the white Lamanite' [sic] ...."

The Zelph Story

The Zelph story again. Here is a quick but accurate response.

The account of the Zelph incident is the unedited version of the story. Although Joseph Smith edited this story, for some odd reason, the unedited version was placed in the Church History books, until 1903, when it was finally removed. This problem is thoroughly explained on page 76 of David Palmer's book, IN SEARCH OF CUMORAH. He even has a photocopy of the document, showing the unedited story, and then with the edits that Joseph Smith made - written so as to edit and correct the account.

The prophet edited out the reference to the Lamanite warrior being at the final battle of Cumorah. The unedited version which you quote states that this was a "man of God," etc, at the final battle. According to Mormon, there was not one righteous Nephite or Lamanite warrior during the time of Mormon. There were certainly no men of God, Nephite or Lamanite at the battle of Cumorah, excluding Mormon and Moroni.

So, the rest of the account is accurate. He was a white Lamanite warrior, he was a man of God, and he was killed in battle. The battle he was killed in, was not the battle of Cumorah - as that is the part the Prophet Joseph edited out.

A good friend of mine tells me that he considers Joseph Fielding Smith to be one of the best informed LDS leaders in LDS history. But he also says that all well read LDS scholars know that he has been wrong on a number of issues. and he was wrong on this one. On this one, my friend says, I can give a personal account, as he and my parents were good friends. On a number of occasions I recall him eating with us in the evening and then he and my parents sitting around the dining room table and having extended gospel discussions.

On one of those occasions I recall this very topic being discussed, and JFS made the same statement to my parents that you mention (i.e. that the BofM lands were not restricted to Mesoamerica). In fact, he said that (I cannot recall if it was the Mississippi, or the Missouri), either one or the other was the River Sidon. My mother then said, Elder Smith, does it bother you that the River Sidon ran from South to North, and that the Mississippi, (or Missouri), river runs from North to South?" His response was, "No it does not bother me."

But I don't even need to challenge JFS's position, my friend tells me. The position of the church is that, "we don't know where the BofM took place, except to say that it was some place on this continent." Clearly JFS's view is not that of the church's. I invite people who are interested, to view the movie that shows the two events of Jesus' life - his life in Jerusalem, and his visit to the Nephites, (The Two Testaments of Christ - or something like that.). Look closely at the Nephite costumes, the city backdrops, the public monuments and writing. They are all Maya.

Your last statement, that of Heber C. Kimball is very revealing, as he clearly states that this event of Joseph and Oliver, was a "vision," not a visitation.

Joseph and Oliver went into the chamber, as a visionary experience, the same way many prophets, (Nephi, Lehi, Isaiah, Moroni, and many others) have visited places in the spirit. Joseph and Oliver did not physically walk into the chamber where Mormon buried all of the plates, having moved them from the hill Shim to the hill Cumorah.

Of course more can be said about the Zelph incident, but I hope this helps all who read this to have a better understanding of why almost all, if not all, BMG scholars today accept the Mesoamerican theory of BMG.

It seems that the Zelph Incident is one of the first things people bring up when they are first exposed to Mesoamerican BMG and haven't yet read extensively on the subject. It's always good, as in apologetics, to inform yourself fully on any issue and to then decide what to personally believe, or to just suspend belief for a while until additional facts come into awareness. (Just my opinion of course.)

[Cumorah3]

I would love to have more work done in archeology in Mesoamerica, but so what if a big city full of Nephite stuff was found...  Sure more people might join the Church, but so what.  An academic testimony ain't going to cut it.

All I can say is let God decide when to bring this things to light in His own time and in His own way.  It might be through members of the Church, but it would probably be better done through non-members.

The idea is that publishing credible physical evidences of Nephites in the Americas would get the ATTENTION of many people worldwide. Some of them would then sincerely read the Book of Mormon, apply Moroni's spiritual test, and gain a spiritual testimony of the book's truthfulness. (No academic testimony is needed, but that academic testimony can be the attention-getter, the motivator, that brings a person to the point of doing the things that need to be done to get a spiritual testimony.)

Here is an excerpt from the message that opened this thread:

Credible discoveries of physical evidences of Nephites in the Americas could potentially have a very significant impact on getting more people worldwide to read the Book of Mormon, and to then apply Moroni's spiritual process to learn of its truthfulness. Even the desperate diatribes from enemies of the LDS Church that will surely result when credible discoveries of physical evidences of Book of Mormon people are first published, will draw attention to that sacred book.

It is known that you first have to get their ATTENTION before people will take the time to investigate new things. The Savior, throughout his mortal ministry did that by working miracles. It is my opinion that BMG is poised to capture the attention of many.

God will decide for Himself of course whatever He wants to decide. But He still works on earth primarily through its people. When humans don't do their part, new knowledge is usually not disclosed from the heavens. Answers to questions usually only come from God after we have done all we can do to understand and get the question right. That's why some people are trying to develop a sincere interest in BMG among the general LDS audience so ancient records are more likely to come forth and new knowledge be gained. Everyone reading this can help by getting the word out about BMG and its great promise.

Heber C. Kimball (Journal of Discourses, 28 September 1856) said:

How does it compare with the vision that Joseph and others had, when they went into a cave in the hill Cumorah, and saw more records than ten men could carry? There were books piled up on tables, book upon book. Those records this people will yet have, if they accept of the Book of Mormon and observe its precepts, and keep the commandments.

And, dare I add: If they want them, pray for them to come forth, and do what they can to help make that more likely to happen in our time...

It is my hope that an excellent teaching/learning experience and an enduring discussion about BMG and related matters will take place in this thread. This is pioneering work for an emerging new LDS study that could have incredibly important consequences in promoting the Book of Mormon throughout the world.

I'm almost certain that the interest is here among the readers of this board, but it takes many voices to keep threads rolling, please add yours, thanks.

What say ye FAIR ones, shall we in plain English seriously discuss this new thing in the land?

[Cumorah3]

All I can say is let God decide when to bring this things to light in His own time and in His own way.

[Cumorah3]

I suppose I have a philosophical problem with tossing statements around that don't have solid substantiation. I have nothing against theories, but they ought to be qualified heavily until the argument can be made.

SETI

A program called "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (SETI) began about 40 years ago and since then has consumed millions of dollars and untold numbers of person hours. It continues today.

Did that program begin because some scientist in some unbiased way found credible evidence of life on other planets? Or did it begin, get government funding, and continue for decades, because human beings have hopes and dreams of discovering that we are not alone in the universe?

After all, there may really be life on other planets...

Along with many others I expect, I have hopes and dreams of discovering that the Nephites left physical evidences of their one thousand year existence in the Americas.

For the benefit of those who are concerned enough to cast doubts and cautions on my hopes and dreams everytime some promising clue appears, I acknowledge that there's still no scientifically proven evidence of Nephites after fifty or more years of traditional professional research (NWAF) at a few digs in Mexico. I admit, there's no scientific "solid substantiation" today that establishes the physical presence of Nephites in the Americas.

I think everyone knows that anyway, but hopefully the above statement fulfills the "qualified heavily" requirement in a general way and will apply to just about everything I write about BMG until some credible discovery is made and published by a credentialed archaeologist, at which time BMG will begin to rise from the dust.

Sigh, I guess we'll just have to keep on doing the same kinds of things that SETI scientists are doing - keep on searching and doing everything we can to follow up on every promising lead. And in our case, keep on hoping to convince some credentialed scientist to take what we've already found seriously enough to validly, reliably, and without bias test it.

After all, there really may have been Nephites in the land...

Any comments?

[Cumorah3]

Awake and Arise from the Dust

As recorded in The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 1:21 and 23, Lehi counsels his two errant sons Laman and Lemuel in language that appears to be prophetic for the next one thousand years of the history of his descendents, and maybe even prophetic for our time.

"...arise from the dust, my sons, and be men, and be determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity."

"Awake my sons; put on the armor of righteousness. Shake off the chains with which ye are bound, and come forth out of obscurity, and arise from the dust."

Do you think that physical evidences of Lehi's descendents during Book of Mormon times would more likely be found if Latter-day Saints were united in the search for such evidences?

Is there really a need anymore for harping skepticism and criticism from experts and professionals; especially when it's other LDS scholars and explorers who are saying such things as: "Look, I think that might be yet another sample of Reformed Egyptian writing?"

What would happen if we as a people were determined in one mind and one heart in looking for ways to help get us closer to understanding not just the Book of Mormon and its Gospel truths, but also the people who lived their lives to bring to us that sacred book?

Would it be more likely that the Nephites would be able to rise from the dust and come forth out of obscurity if we shook off the chains of doubt and skepticism that bind us as a people, and went forth with faith and confidence that with the Lord's and THEIR help, we can find and prove physical evidences of Nephites?

I personally think that some of those evidences are staring us right in the face, unrecognized, or unacknowledged as yet by our trained experts.

I first became acquainted with BMG by reading Dr. Jerry L. Ainsworth's book "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni." There are other books available. Not long after reading that book the second time I began to have vivid dreams of Book of Mormon people.

Take what I am about to say for what it is, just a dream, and just someone else's dream, certainly not an "evidence"; but I even watched the expression on Mormon's older sister's face when she was first told the news that her young brother had been appointed leader of the Nephite armies!

As Latter-day Saints, shouldn't we all be close to the people who brought us the book that has molded our very lives and brought to us saving truths, and temples?

I believe that BMG is the road to such knowledge, the bridge between we who live today, and our brothers and sisters who lived their lives as Nephites and Lamanites between 600 BC and 400 AD.

I do not think that it is a time for skepticism and the casting of doubts and cautions just because something has not yet joined the pool of arm of flesh knowledge. I think that we need as a people to be united, those of us who share this dream. And we need to make it known among the Latter-day Saints who have not yet even heard of BMG.

If you agree with most or some of the things I'm saying, and value this quest to find and prove physical evidences of Nephites, think about what you can uniquely do to move this forward. Post comments, questions, stories, suggestions in this thread; and bring it to the attention of others.

If you have experienced a faith promoting story about BMG and/or Book of Mormon people, share it with us if you feel you can. FAIR could be such a good medium for us to share our hopes and dreams, to learn together, to get to know each other, to plan, and to work towards persuading our learned brothers and sisters to unite with us instead of doing what they are or are not doing right now.

What do you think?

[Cumorah3]

There are a number of scripts in Mesoamerica. Of all of them, only one can be read. For the rest the samples are too small to allow for any hope of translation.

I just realized that it's possible to post images and photos here.

The stone in the photo below has Mayan writing on one side of it, and on the other side is an unidentified writing that could be Reformed Egyptian.

There are other known samples (large ones) of similar writing found on artifacts from Mesoamerica, and even carved in rocks in the USA, some very close to places where prophets have said Moroni dedicated the site of a modern temple.

[Matt Andrews]

Perhaps their lack of interest or action is because as you commented: "artifacts which do not advance current theories or suggest new world - old world interaction and communication are either downplayed or ignored." It would upset the world their discipline has constructed if such strange things were found in the land and proven to be genuine.

Hogwash. Scholars love to find strange things that "upset the world their discipline has constructed". A chance to debunk the prevailing "Clovis-first" theory? Jumped at. A discovery of dwarf humans on an isolated island? Published immediately. If there were evidence of Jewish settlers writing in a "reformed" Egyptian script in Meso-America, any archeaologist would jump at the chance to be the one to publish it and add a very impressive entry to their c.v..

[grego]

According to Mormon, there was not one righteous Nephite or Lamanite warrior during the time of Mormon. There were certainly no men of God, Nephite or Lamanite at the battle of Cumorah, excluding Mormon and Moroni.

I missed this--do you have more info?

Matt Andrews wrote:  Hogwash. Scholars love to find strange things that "upset the world their discipline has constructed"... If there were evidence of Jewish settlers writing in a "reformed" Egyptian script in Meso-America, any archeaologist would jump at the chance to be the one to publish it and add a very impressive entry to their c.v..

Double hogwash.

Add it to their C.V.? For what purpose? No reputable organization would hire them again!

[structurecop]

There are other known samples (large ones) of similar writing found on artifacts from Mesoamerica, and even carved in rocks in the USA, some very close to places where prophets have said Moroni dedicated the site of a modern temple.

Care to point out any of these supposed sites? And are you saying the "large" samples are good enough that linguists are able to identify patterns and styles inside these supposed writing systems? Does any of this have anything to do with "Bat Creek?"

[structurecop]

Matt Andrews wrote:

[Matt Andrews]

grego, I see you skipped over my examples of paradigm-challenging publications in other areas that scholars were more than happy to publish for all their peers to see and critique.

I've provided examples for my assertion. Let's see some examples of archeologists getting blacklisted for publishing evidence that goes against common wisdom.

Or perhaps you have some special pleading for why evidence of reformed egyptian script would be treated differently? (Keeping in mind. of course, that many archaeologists would have no idea that finding it would support some random religion they know nothing about.)

If you can find even a BYU archaeologist who agrees with your ideas that good evidence of egyptian text in pre-classic American culture would be unpublishable, I'd be very, very suprised.

[Cumorah3]

Hogwash.  Scholars love to find strange things...

any archeaologist would jump at the chance to be the one to publish it and add a very impressive entry to their c.v..

This time it's my turn to ask for "evidence".

Where are those archaeologists then? There are a lot of promising things to test...

[Cumorah3]

He said if there were evidence. Which is something cumorah3 doesn't seem to understand there is a serious lack of in Mesoamerica.

Perhaps it is not the lack of "evidence" but the lack of evidence that has been proven authentic by valid, reliable, unbiased scientific testing...

I am aware of quite a few things that in my opinion should be tested rather than just waved off as "fake" without even being examined.

For example, in this thread I mentioned the existence of two large stones in a museum near Chichen Itza. On the stones is writing that an LDS scholar thinks could be Reformed Egyptian. There are other artifacts too that have similar writing.

[structurecop]

Hogwash.

[Cumorah3]

There are other known samples (large ones) of similar writing found on artifacts from Mesoamerica, and even carved in rocks in the USA, some very close to places where prophets have said Moroni dedicated the site of a modern temple.

Care to point out any of these supposed sites? And are you saying the "large" samples are good enough that linguists are able to identify patterns and styles inside these supposed writing systems?

I used the word "large" to contrast Brant Gardner's declaration that there are no known samples of unidentified writings that are large enough to test.

The writing in the photo I posted is surely large enough to test is it not?

[structurecop]

I am aware of quite a few things that in my opinion should be tested rather than just waved off as "fake" without even being examined.

For example, in this thread I mentioned the existence of two large stones in a museum near Chichen Itza. On the stones is writing that an LDS scholar thinks could be Reformed Egyptian. There are other artifacts too that have similar writing.

What qualifies them as "possibly being reformed Egyptian"? What does reformed Egyptian look like? Is it hieratic script with Hebrew word constructs? I'm sorry, the academic world cannot respond to "quite a few" unnamed artifacts. If you want people to take your claims seriously, it would be advantageous to produce some tangible evidence for us to examine, whether lay people or scholars.

[Matt Andrews]

Where are those archaeologists then? There are a lot of promising things to test...

Google "Department of Archaeology" and email as many as you like. If you can manage to write a decent email explaining the evidence, I bet dollars to donuts you'd get a reply of either "Here's why I don't think this evidence means what you think it means" or "Thanks! Those ARE egyptian! This is an amazing discovery!"

Send me a copy of your email first, and I'll help you edit it so as to maximize the chance of a thoughtful response.

[structurecop]

I'll go a step further and offer my Egyptology professor at University of Arizona. Dr. Richard Wilkinson. http://www.amazon.com/Symbol-Magic-in-Egyp...t/dp/0500280703