Earliest pre columbian writing system found

[Uncle Dale]

What does a Nephite look like?

Well, according to the cover illustration of my paperback "Book of Mormon," they

favored Aztec sandals and Israelite headbands...

Uncle "then again, BCSpace will no doubt tell us this is not an official LDS illustration" Dale

[Moksha]

There were some interesting speculations as to the translation of this ancient stone tablet on this thread:

The Ancient Stone Tablet in question.

[Cumorah3]

It's not going to prove anything of course, and it's not "evidence" of anything, but the Hill Cumorah pageant in Palmyra, NY used to feature actors dressed like Roman soldiers. Lately the costumes have been changed to look more like the following artist depiction of what Mormon and Moroni may have dressed like:

[Dale]

I think the thinking is the Olmec were not Nephites, but possibly Jaradites called by a modern term. But nothing in this newly discovered writing system allows us to connect the Book of Mormon with Meso-America. This writing is as yet, and will probably be for many years untranslated

[rameumptom]

My point is that the counter-mos want to claim everything about Mesoamerica has been discovered and completely rules out the possible existence of BoM civilization.

What an interesting statement. It seems you think "the counter-mos" are all one homogenous group who all believe this ridiculous claim? I don't. I'm not sure I've met anyone who has claimed such a thing.

Can you name one counter-mo who has made such a claim?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Clark's statement that Sethbag didn't buy, it was a faith based assertion made for a particular audience. He personally believes that some of the cities that have been discovered were actually Book of Mormon cities, but they haven't been identified yet. That is, he has a theory that (at least) some of the discovered cities are BoM cities, but he hasn't identified any of them (with, say evidence) yet.

Sethbag is hardly obligated to accept that they will be identified as BoM sites until Clark and others present persuasive evidence to support such claims.

I've met several over the years. One emailed me once and claimed that nothing else could be found from archaeology, because our satellites have found every location, according to his archaeology professor.

I countered his claim by asking if those satellite shots (which can help us find locations), can determine if a site is Olmec, Toltec, Mayan, Aztec, or a combination of them (or none of them). He still wanted to dispute that anything new under the sun could be found.

[NRA]

So, has anyone told Sethbag in clear terms that his premise was totally wrong where he asserted the following:

"I think you're missing a few points, which include A ) this writing system has no apparent connection whatsoever with the ancient writing system Joseph Smith attributed to the inhabitants of ancient America (neither Hebrew nor Reformed Egyptian)..." ??

For the record, the BOM makes no claim that the Jaredites wrote in Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian. In the time frame that corresponds with the rise and fall of the Olmecs, the only American civilization mentioned in the BOM that has a corresponding rise and fall is the Jaredite civilization, and the Jaredite emigration predated Nephite emigration by some 1400 years, so that by the time the Nephites discovered the remants of the Jaredites, the Jaredites were virtually extinct, their culture and people wiped out.

So Sethbag's premise--that the BOM claims that the people contemporaneous with the Olmecs wrote in Hebrew or Egyptian--is false. So when he says that the Olmecs didn't write in Hebrew and didn't write in Egyptian, it really doesn't hurt the BOM at all, just like killing ANY straw man does no harm to one's opponent.

[cacheman]

.... Finding a 2,000- to 4,000-year-old city in New York State would be so novel that it would be reported quickly in all scientific outlets. It has never happened, and it will not happen.

Archaeology and Cumorah Questions, John E. Clark, BYU FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volume 13, Number 1-2, 2004

"Countermo's have been accused of stating that "everything about Mesoamerica has been discovered and completely rules out the possible existence of BoM civilization. ", so I thought it was interesting that this statement came not only from a TBM, but also passed peer review.

cacheman

[structurecop]

.... Finding a 2,000- to 4,000-year-old city in New York State would be so novel that it would be reported quickly in all scientific outlets. It has never happened, and it will not happen.

Archaeology and Cumorah Questions, John E. Clark, BYU FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volume 13, Number 1-2, 2004

"Countermo's have been accused of stating that "everything about Mesoamerica has been discovered and completely rules out the possible existence of BoM civilization. ", so I thought it was interesting that this statement came not only from a TBM, but also passed peer review.

cacheman

Cacheman,

I believe John E. Clark's statements are likewise irresponsible. Everyone has so convinced themselves of a Mesoamerican BoM Geography that they refuse to acknowledge the existence of ancient, advanced civilizations on the northern continent.

[cacheman]

I believe John E. Clark's statements are likewise irresponsible. Everyone has so convinced themselves of a Mesoamerican BoM Geography that they refuse to acknowledge the existence of ancient, advanced civilizations on the northern continent.

I'm in agreement with you here. I also feel that it would be irresponsible to accuse everyone, or even the majority of either side to believing this way. I think that most everyone understands that new evidence can unexpectedly arise at any moment, and that all one can do at present, is base one's beliefs on current available evidence.

cacheman

edited to correct a misspelling

[Ralph Man]

The patterns covering the face of the rectangular block also represent a previously unknown ancient writing system

[Ralph Man]

I repeat...I have yet to see any concensus from Mormons that there is proof for the BOM....you are much more likely to hear that there will never be proof for it.

I do, however, hear Mormons say all the time that there is compelling evidence of the BoM available that should persuade rational disputants of its historical validity. Then I see people like you erect this particular strawman whenever someone wants to talk about those LDS and their beliefs about the strong evidence in favor of the BoM being a collection of ancient documents.

[Cumorah3]

I think that most everyone understands that new evidence can unexpectedly arise at any moment, and that all one can do at present, is base one's beliefs on current available evidence.

Something of the Ancient World

"Something of the ancient world is known, of course, through written texts and the detritus of obscured and forgotten civilizations. What that world was like, however, can only be discovered; it cannot be anticipated, for it is wildly unpredictable and strangely unlike our world. That is why God, who not only knows the past but knows it perfectly, always startles "modern" thinkers, whatever and whenever their cultural milieus, by revealing things about the past that they don't know and therefore reject out of hand because they find them strange, foreign, absurd, antiquated, ridiculous, and generally repulsive to their "modern" mind-sets." H. Curtis Wright in introduction to "The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books" by John A. Tvedtnes, FARMS 2000.

[juliann]

I do, however, hear Mormons say all the time that there is compelling evidence of the BoM available that should persuade rational disputants of its historical validity.

Then you should have no trouble quoting such statements. A response to anti-Mormon insistence that there is nothing that can possibly relate to the BOM is a far cry from insisting there is proof for the BOM.

[structurecop]

Sweet. That means it is still reasonable for me to believe that mesoamerica was really an alien civilzation ruled by Bob Saget after he invented a time machine in 2019 to live his lifelong dream of being a ruler of a mesoamerican society. I mean, if everything hasn't been discovered, that leaves room for it to be logically possible. You can't prove with certainty that it is false. And that's good enough for me.

I would find it difficult to believe that Bob Saget could hold the attention and respect of an alien civilization when he can't keep the attention of the audience during his stand-up routine, but you can believe whatever you want.

[Matt Andrews]

I hate to tell you this...but scholarship can begin with a "faith based" assertion.

I didn't suggest that it couldn't "start" there.

But Clark's statement wasn't claiming he had identified BoM cities. Just that he believed they were there. Sethbag was entirely justified in "not buying" the part of the statement that said ~ 'we have found BoM cities'. I'd bet Clark would agree that neither the evidence nor his statement of belief are such that others should feel compelled to agree in the sense charity suggested.

------------------------------------

Utah Lighthouse Ministries should obviously amend their clearly overreaching statement. Still, as silly as the statement is, it still doesn't go so far as to say "everything has already been found". I'd also add that a quote from ULM is a far cry from providing evidence that all counter-mos believe this, which was the original claim.

[cdowis]

"What I'm saying is the more previously unsearched nooks and crannies we look into and research, that don't show up any evidence of a Nephite civilization,"

Let us assume that we are standing on the ruins of an authentic Nephite city. Please tell us specifically how we would identify it as such.

For example, we discover a Jade bracelet -- how do we identify it as Nephite? The best evidence, of course, is extensive written records, but, unfortunately, they were destroyed.

In summary, please be detailed and specific when you say "any evidence of a Nephite civilization". I think I smell a logical fallacy, but let's give you a chance to respond.

Thanks mucho.

[Ralph Man]

I do, however, hear Mormons say all the time that there is compelling evidence of the BoM available that should persuade rational disputants of its historical validity.

Then you should have no trouble quoting such statements.

I won't have any such trouble, minus the iffy search engines I'm dealing with. After all, I see it all the time. I'd go so far as to say it is the more common view among people found on message boards like this. It's also the view of every single Mormon I know personally. Why, people like DCP and Brant Gardner often argue this. For instance, Brant thinks that fields like archeology should be persuaded by the independently available evidence that the BoM is an ancient document. Ask him. The both believe the available evidence properly interpreted favors an ancient hypothesis. (Witnesses, chaismus, parallels, etc.) Are you not aware of what your fellow apologists think? Will they attempt to maintain a image of solidarity and not correct you on this point? I'm just itching wondering it myself.

Now as I'm typing this I have a few specific quotes I'd like to get first. In particular, DCP wrote a post on this message board a few months ago explicitly stating that he both believes he has "spiritual" reasons to accept the the Book of Mormon - which is what matters - but also is glad that there is a independently persuasive evidential case in its favor. In short, given the available evidence minus things like spirtual witness, he think the rational position is that it is more likely than not the BoM is a series of ancient documents. That's what I'm searching for now. Let's see how long it takes me to find it...

You're still on the word "proof" even though I did not say it. I want to avoid people using the term "proof" to mean "deductive certainty" then crowing about how they don't believe there is proof of the BoM. I don't want to use it at all, given what I wrote above, and would only think it appropraite if "proof" meant "compelling evidence that should persuade rational disputants of its truth."

[Ralph Man]

Let's see how long it takes me to find it...

Argg. I hate searching for these things.

[Brant Gardner]

Ralph Man:

For instance, Brant thinks that fields like archeology should be persuaded by the independently available evidence that the BoM is an ancient document. Ask him. The both believe the available evidence properly interpreted favors an ancient hypothesis. (Witnesses, chaismus, parallels, etc.)

No, Brant does not think that. I may not be an authority on anything, but on that I can claim authoritative knowlege. What Brant has said is that he expects that when an archaeologist sees the complete argument for the Book of Mormon in an Ancient American context, they will agree that it is plausible. I expect nothing more.

As for believing that chiasmus or parallels prove anything, you obviously are way far off the mark of interpreting what I believe.

[Calm]

.... Finding a 2,000- to 4,000-year-old city in New York State would be so novel that it would be reported quickly in all scientific outlets. It has never happened, and it will not happen.

Archaeology and Cumorah Questions, John E. Clark, BYU FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volume 13, Number 1-2, 2004

"Countermo's have been accused of stating that "everything about Mesoamerica has been discovered and completely rules out the possible existence of BoM civilization. ", so I thought it was interesting that this statement came not only from a TBM, but also passed peer review.

cacheman

I'd like to know what he means specifically by "city" (what size of population and government development for example) and what specifics about NY State might prevent the finding before making the same sort of judgment. He is, after all, not saying that nothing new can be discovered, but rather a particular type of discovery won't be happening. He might be perfectly comfortable with a complex of integrated villages or towns, for example.

[Ralph Man]

No, Brant does not think that. I may not be an authority on anything, but on that I can claim authoritative knowlege. What Brant has said is that he expects that when an archaeologist sees the complete argument for the Book of Mormon in an Ancient American context, they will agree that it is plausible. I expect nothing more.

As for believing that chiasmus or parallels prove anything, you obviously are way far off the mark of interpreting what I believe.

That's a more softly stated version of what you've said to me in the past when I point blank asked you if you believe others in your field should agree with you if they've properly interpeted the available evidence in total. If you've had a change of heart that has led to a softer stance, that's fine and dandy, but that doesn't change the fact you've said "yes" to the above question. I guess your expertise on what've said in the past isn't absolute. Maybe I can get Seven of Nine to hunt down some examples, as she used to bring it up all the time as a preface to why she finds it profitable to speak with you. I'm horrible at finding these things unless I remember a specific, unique phrasing.

If only ZLMB had a search engine.

Speaking of softly stated, what does "plausible" mean here? At least it's down to not arguing that the available evidence should rationally compel one to accept the ancient hypothesis as more likely than not.

[Brant Gardner]

Ralph Man:

If you believe I have said anything close to the idea that there are data that would compel belief I would love to see it. I can't imagine saying that since I don't remember ever believing it. I really don't think I have "softened" any of my positions.

I do think that if anyone who handles the data looks at the argument they will admit that there is a case - but I can't see anyone changing their minds on that basis.

[Ralph Man]

Ralph Man:

If you believe I have said anything close to the idea that there are data that would compel belief I would love to see it. I can't imagine saying that since I don't remember ever believing it. I really don't think I have "softened" any of my positions.

I do think that if anyone who handles the data looks at the argument they will admit that there is a case - but I can't see anyone changing their minds on that basis.

It'll take me time to hunt down quotes. Mainly because I've resorted to asking others to hunt them down for me. A little patience please. I believe you have said on more than one occasion that the independently available evidence should be rationally convincing to the general scientific community if they gave it a fair hearing. More than one person, including myself, as prefaced comments to you mentioning this position, and you have not disputed it in the past.

While I wait for that, in the meantime, I'll just post FAIR quotes as they pop up on the subject when I get more free time.

Again, it's not clear what you mean by "admit there is a case." There's a case for virtually anything - no matter how ridiculous it might be. There's a case for the earth being 6000 years old with many qualified scientists attempting to back it. But I'm pretty sure that's not what you have in mind. I think you want to say something about it being distinctly likely, if not more likely than not. But you talk with vague enough language that you allow yourself wiggle room all the way from bare logical possiblity to 49.9999% chance, if I had to put a number to it.

[Calm]

Brant's always focused on methodology--the experts would accept the methodology as valid. I don't ever remember him saying anything else.

[Brant Gardner]

Ralph Man:

We appear to be caught in a difference between what I meant when I made a statement and what you thought I meant. I have been around long enough to know that archaeologists won't be convinced of the Book of Mormon without their own spiritual conversion - regardless of the evidence. The best I can hope for is that no one can fault either the data I present nor the way it is arrayed to make my case.

I agree that people can make, and believe in, very weak cases. People will believe what they will - which is the reason I am certain that the data will never compel belief.

I do believe, however, that there is a case for a Mesoamerican context for the Book of Mormon that accepts the best available data and uses accepted historical and ethnohistorical methods and principles to make that case. I expect that the professionals will not be able to disagree with the data - but that is far from suggesting that the data will compel their belief.