Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[Markk]

HI Charity,

Markk, first, you may not use any of the Jaredite history to talk about the Nephites. So don't go to Ether when trying to make your points.

So if Ether says that Two million BoM people were killed, I can't use that? What are you taliking about, please explain that reasoning to me, is the BoM incorrect and not reliable in Ether? My point is that the bom tells of many people, if I confuse nephites with Jaridites, forgive me, in the future I will say BoM people, but my point still stands

You should of keep reading in Kings..

So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar.

But, that really has nothing to do with it, it's just a rabbit trail, the problem is a internal BoM problem that is a contradiction and by just saying they meant something else does not change the text. You have to keep in mind Charity, I do not believe that the BoM is a real story or a real book written about real people. The context of the BoM stands, if it is not possible, then that is a internal issue and proof that the BoM is a fictional work of JS.

So, although we read that there were temples, they obvioulsy weren't built like Solomon's because the Nephites used timber, Solomon used stone.

The BoM people used Timber, tents, Cement, and even stone in there buildings

Alma 48:8 Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small aforts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land.

So here we would expect to see walls of stone everywhere in the land and also if you really believe that the Nephies used just wood, whichis contradictary to the BoM, then that kind of wipes out Mesoamerican architecture.

take care, thanks for your time,

Mark

John 1;12

[Stormin' Mormon]

A quick note on Nephi's Solominic temple. If we assume that it was built on the same (copied) architecture used for Solomon's temple, and if we assume that it was built of stone - we still might not find the darn thing. Mesoamericans had an interesting habit of building their sacred buildings on top of already "sacred" sites - usually a previous temple. Any number of early temples are buried under older structures.

Of course, there is also the problem of the ritual "killing" of religious/iconic art. Much of what is found has been deliberately broken or "killed" by drilling holes in it. Presumably this released the spirit of the icon so that it was no longer tied to the location.

So where might a 600 B.C. Solomonic be hiding? Probably underneath a much more recent temple mound - or perhaps scavaged for reusable stones, since it wouldn't have been useful to the people who inherited it after 200 B.C. (if it was still standing at that time).

Of course, we never hear of any building being built after any specific manner after that.

And then there is the fact that the most likely site for the City of Nephi, Kaminaljuyu, has mostly been bulldozed to make way for modern day Guatemala City. If there was a temple patterned after Solomon's (and there was a temple there that had the same dimensions) it's long gone now.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding fortifications in Mesoamerica, dating to the Book of Mormon times, open the following link and scroll down for illustrations and discussion.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...;fn=default.htm

This is a 1984 article by John Sorenson in the Ensign, so no current discussion ought to leave such things unmentioned. We could also refer to Vogel's discussion of much later fortifications in Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon. The Mesoamerican fortifications do demonstrate the consistency of the Book of Mormon with actual sites and techniques, but neither set of sites can prove anything one way or the other.

Regarding cement as a building material, the passages in the Book of Mormon that mention it all point to specific time and location relative to their lands, and that mention is consistent with the first appearance and use of cement in Teotuhican. John Welch has a little essay on this in Reexploring the Book of Mormon.

Regarding the discussion of "liberty" as American, read Richard Bushman's "The Book of Mormon and the American Revolution."

Establishing context is essential for meaningful discussion. Even for so simple a word as "land" or even a simple an expression as "face of the land." Or "synagogue." A lot of work has been done. It seems silly to ignore it all and blast away like an artillery battery using rumor and intuitions rather than map coordinates and careful communication with forward observers.

Kevin Christensen

Pitsburgh, PA

[USU78]

Charity, this scripture:

And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer what so ever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

refers to folks "in the land northward" not down in Nephite country. It isn't Nephites doing the building with the materials mentioned, including cement, but the loosely described "others," the cement builders. That doesn't mean, of course, that the Nephites are precluded from having built with timber (indeed they probably did), it's just that this Helaman scripture can't be used to support the proposition.

This, btw:

Markk, first, you may not use any of the Jaredite history to talk about the Nephites. So don't go to Ether when trying to make your points.

is spot on.

[Markk]

H USU,

refers to folks "in the land northward" not down in Nephite country. It isn't Nephites doing the building with the materials mentioned, including cement, but the loosely described "others," the cement builders. That doesn't mean, of course, that the Nephites are precluded from having built with timber (indeed they probably did), it's just that this Helaman scripture can't be used to support the proposition.

The "folks" in the land Northward are Nephites. I don't see any loose description of thers, they are migrated Nephites.

They built with Timbers here

Alma 50:2 And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be atimbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities.

3 And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.

Sounds like a discription of a early American fort.

Ar anyrate I don'y understand you point, if they didn't build with wood, what did they build with?

Mark

john 1;12

[Kevin Christensen]

Mark:

Sounds like a discription of a early American fort.

You didn't check the link to Sorenson's 1984 Ensign essay depicting Mesoamerican fortifications dating to Book of Mormon times, did you.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Olavarria]

Sounds like a discription of a early American fort.

ya your right. ya know I think the Bible is not older that 400 years old. It was not produced in the ancient mediterranian but in 17 centuary england. I know tons of americans named timothy,john, moses and adam. All English names!! The epistles of paul sound just like what I heard on the 700 club this morning. the Bible is a modern book!!! It was not written by ancient jews.

[USU78]

The "folks" in the land Northward are Nephites. I don't see any loose description of thers, they are migrated Nephites.

No. I'm afraid they probably weren't. Indeed, there are those who posit that the land being described are those surrounding Teotihuacan, whose inhabitants those same folks believe may well be Mormon's Gadiantons. They come to this conclusion because the chapter of Helaman we are referencing comes right in the middle of the discussion of the original Kishkumen/Gadianton group. The theory is that Mormon called the later Teotihuacano group Gadiantons because of similarities he saw between the (to him) historical Kishkumen/Gadianton group and the new enemy that eventually destroyed Nephite polity. You cannot say the Helaman text requires us to believe the "land northward" cement builders were Nephite, in any case, because it says no such thing. Here is Lindsay on the subject.

They built with Timbers here Sounds like a discription of a early American fort.

I don't know where you're getting that from. The cement builders deforested the land for building purposes. Just like the historical Teotihuacanos did.

Ar anyrate I don'y understand you point, if they didn't build with wood, what did they build with?

The text doesn't say what the Nephites built with. Simple as that. I was simply pointing out the problem with using Helaman as a prooftext for the proposition that Nephi I's temple (after the manner of Schlomo's Temple) was made of wood. It may well have been (and probably was), but we have no way of knowing.

[cdowis]

>But, read some of the verses I posted above and you certainly get the fact that the BoM taught that millions existed in the cites and they were very lage cites,

OK. So what?

>which built ships ( there would have to be a large port to get all the trees on these ships to build other cites and villages)

It would be helpful to see your citations.

>and they were "building large cities and villages in all quarters of the land".

OK, so what?

I truly miss the point you are making.

Did you take my suggestion and look at "1491"?

[Dan Vogel]

Markk, first, you may not use any of the Jaredite history to talk about the Nephites. So don't go to Ether when trying to make your points.

Second, thank you for calling attention to this passage in Helaman. "And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer what so ever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings. Helaman 3:9

So, the Nephites used timber to build their buidlings? What did Solomon use? 1 Kings 6:7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.

So, although we read that there were temples, they obvioulsy weren't built like Solomon's because the Nephites used timber, Solomon used stone.

Why do you assume Solomon's temple was constructed of stone only? And why would you assume Nephite temples were wood only? The text is describing the unique situation in the northbecause of the lack of timber. When the timber supply was restored, they built "many cities, both of wood and of cement" (Hel. 3:11).

[Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

Regarding cement as a building material, the passages in the Book of Mormon that mention it all point to specific time and location relative to their lands, and that mention is consistent with the first appearance and use of cement in Teotuhican. John Welch has a little essay on this in Reexploring the Book of Mormon.

I believe you are mistaken. My response to Brant Gardner's essay on the Gadianton robbers included the following:

Second, Gardner also says he chose Teotihuac

[Dan Vogel]

No. I'm afraid they probably weren't. Indeed, there are those who posit that the land being described are those surrounding Teotihuacan, whose inhabitants those same folks believe may well be Mormon's Gadiantons. They come to this conclusion because the chapter of Helaman we are referencing comes right in the middle of the discussion of the original Kishkumen/Gadianton group. The theory is that Mormon called the later Teotihuacano group Gadiantons because of similarities he saw between the (to him) historical Kishkumen/Gadianton group and the new enemy that eventually destroyed Nephite polity. You cannot say the Helaman text requires us to believe the "land northward" cement builders were Nephite, in any case, because it says no such thing. Here is Lindsay on the subject.

Based not only on a poor reading of the text but also on a question-begging interpretation of it. Such interpretation can hardly be used in a discussion where historicity is at issue.

I don't know where you're getting that from. The cement builders deforested the land for building purposes. Just like the historical Teotihuacanos did.

Wrong. Just the opposite.

The text doesn't say what the Nephites built with. Simple as that. I was simply pointing out the problem with using Helaman as a prooftext for the proposition that Nephi I's temple (after the manner of Schlomo's Temple) was made of wood. It may well have been (and probably was), but we have no way of knowing.

It doesn't say it was made like Solomon's temple "save it was made out of wood." I don't count stones as precious things, do you?

[USU78]

No. I'm afraid they probably weren't. Indeed, there are those who posit that the land being described are those surrounding Teotihuacan, whose inhabitants those same folks believe may well be Mormon's Gadiantons. They come to this conclusion because the chapter of Helaman we are referencing comes right in the middle of the discussion of the original Kishkumen/Gadianton group. The theory is that Mormon called the later Teotihuacano group Gadiantons because of similarities he saw between the (to him) historical Kishkumen/Gadianton group and the new enemy that eventually destroyed Nephite polity. You cannot say the Helaman text requires us to believe the "land northward" cement builders were Nephite, in any case, because it says no such thing. Here is Lindsay on the subject.

Based not only on a poor reading of the text but also on a question-begging interpretation of it. Such interpretation can hardly be used in a discussion where historicity is at issue.

And if I and mine disagree that it's a poor reading of a curious part of the text, what of that?

I don't know where you're getting that from. The cement builders deforested the land for building purposes. Just like the historical Teotihuacanos did.

Wrong. Just the opposite.

I think we may be talking about 2 different things here. Otherwise, I cannot account for what you just posted and must ask you to explain.

The text doesn't say what the Nephites built with. Simple as that. I was simply pointing out the problem with using Helaman as a prooftext for the proposition that Nephi I's temple (after the manner of Schlomo's Temple) was made of wood. It may well have been (and probably was), but we have no way of knowing.

It doesn't say it was made like Solomon's temple "save it was made out of wood." I don't count stones as precious things, do you?

No . . . it said Nephi I's temple (long since abandoned by the time we're talking about in Helaman) was built "after the manner of" Solomon's temple. Doesn't say a thing about what temples in Zarahemla were made of or how they were built.

If we're going to read the text carefully and avoid errors of prejudice based upon prior sloppy reading, let's avoid errors of prejudice based upon prior sloppy reading. Conflating Nephi I's temple with the Zarahemla temple is sloppy. There's no reason to believe the emigrant Nephites from Nephi City didn't just take over an existing temple when they (conquered?) Zarahemla and absorbed its people (inventing a fiction about them being long-lost cousins from across the pond?).

[Dan Vogel]

Based not only on a poor reading of the text but also on a question-begging interpretation of it. Such interpretation can hardly be used in a discussion where historicity is at issue.

And if I and mine disagree that it's a poor reading of a curious part of the text, what of that?

Then, we should test the relative merits of these interpretation, being constrained by the text. I see at the end that yours discards the text, and even attempts to correct it based on what you know about Mesoamerica. This is what I mean by question-begging interpretations. Fine, if you just want to talk amongst yourselves. Not so good, if you try to loop that interpretation into somekind of evidence of something.

Wrong. Just the opposite.

I think we may be talking about 2 different things here. Otherwise, I cannot account for what you just posted and must ask you to explain.

See my response to Kevin Christensen where I quote my response to Brant on the Gadiantons.

It doesn't say it was made like Solomon's temple "save it was made out of wood." I don't count stones as precious things, do you?

No . . . it said Nephi I's temple (long since abandoned by the time we're talking about in Helaman) was built "after the manner of" Solomon's temple. Doesn't say a thing about what temples in Zarahemla were made of or how they were built.

True, the text doesn't tell us how the other temples were built. But the text doesn't give you permission to assume they were made of wood either. However, since the information about the first temple was unrealistic, why would you take advantage of the silence to insert something realistic? If wishful thinking did not succeed in the first instance, why should we allow it to now?

If we're going to read the text carefully and avoid errors of prejudice based upon prior sloppy reading, let's avoid errors of prejudice based upon prior sloppy reading. Conflating Nephi I's temple with the Zarahemla temple is sloppy. There's no reason to believe the emigrant Nephites from Nephi City didn't just take over an existing temple when they (conquered?) Zarahemla and absorbed its people (inventing a fiction about them being long-lost cousins from across the pond?).

I get your point, but it doesn't help your case when in one breath you tell me to stick to the text, and in the contradict that principle so flagrantly.

[Confidential Informant]

This list never ceases to amaze me. 21 pages of material on archeology and archeological methodology produced by a bunch of people without a day of archeological experience between them. And just look at the way they treat the one man among them who actually has the background, has been published and actually worked in the dirt of the area in question.

As one of my children's books says:

"Wow. Because that's all they really could say. Wow."

C.I.

[cdowis]

OK, I give up. Who is the one person in this group who has done actual dirt archeology in mesoamerica.

[Confidential Informant]

OK, I give up. Who is the one person in this group who has done actual dirt archeology in mesoamerica.

Brant Gardener.

[USU78]

And if I and mine disagree that it's a poor reading of a curious part of the text, what of that?

Then, we should test the relative merits of these interpretation, being constrained by the text. I see at the end that yours discards the text, and even attempts to correct it based on what you know about Mesoamerica. This is what I mean by question-begging interpretations. Fine, if you just want to talk amongst yourselves. Not so good, if you try to loop that interpretation into somekind of evidence of something.

It's good we seem to agree on at least a general framework, but let's not go overboard on it. "Question-begging interpretations" cuts both ways.

No . . . it said Nephi I's temple (long since abandoned by the time we're talking about in Helaman) was built "after the manner of" Solomon's temple. Doesn't say a thing about what temples in Zarahemla were made of or how they were built.

True, the text doesn't tell us how the other temples were built. But the text doesn't give you permission to assume they were made of wood either.

Where did I say they were made of wood? I said the text doesn't explain what the Nephi I temple . . . or the Zarahemla temple . . . was made of. I imagine there's some wood, some stone, but who can say for certain?

However, since the information about the first temple was unrealistic, why would you take advantage of the silence to insert something realistic?

What exactly is unrealistic about "after the manner of?" There's just not enough information about what that means in the context of the Nephi I temple construction. How can we call a dearth of information unrealistic?

If wishful thinking did not succeed in the first instance, why should we allow it to now?

See the above.

If we're going to read the text carefully and avoid errors of prejudice based upon prior sloppy reading, let's avoid errors of prejudice based upon prior sloppy reading. Conflating Nephi I's temple with the Zarahemla temple is sloppy. There's no reason to believe the emigrant Nephites from Nephi City didn't just take over an existing temple when they (conquered?) Zarahemla and absorbed its people (inventing a fiction about them being long-lost cousins from across the pond?).

I get your point, but it doesn't help your case when in one breath you tell me to stick to the text, and in the contradict that principle so flagrantly.

I didn't insist on sticking only to the text, but rather that, when we're looking at what the text says, let's not be ruled by our passions and try to understand what it's saying on its own terms. Only then can we look at what's on or in the ground at where our guesstimated location for Lehiana and see what we can learn. That, my friend, is what I see the Gardners of the world trying to accomplish. What's so terribly awful about trying ( a ) to understand the text and ( b ) to place the text in a time and place that is at least not inconsistent with the text in order to test whether what we think we understand makes sense in a "real world" setting?

[charity]

markk, you quoted me ("first, you may not use any of the Jaredite history to talk about the Nephites. So don't go to Ether when trying to make your points.") then asked, "So if Ether says that Two million BoM people were killed, I can't use that? What are you taliking about, please explain that reasoning to me, is the BoM incorrect and not reliable in Ether?"

The reason is that the discussion is about Nephite archeology. The Jaredites were a separate and distinct group, with a different cultural background. They were not Hebrews. Their cultures did not overlap, except for the one brief contact mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last suviving Jaredite lives with Nephites for nine months. (Omni 1: 211 And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons.")

[Markk]

Hi Charity,

This topic is about BoM archeology. The Jaridites were in the Millions and that can not be ignored, they used steel swords in fighting off the hundred of thousands of laminites they had prisons, buildings and goverment, and that is what I stated. The BoM states that people were like the sand on the beach. There would be more than ample evidence, and while they might not be hebrew, it is only because of era, they are desendents of Noah and were not confounded at the tower, they were blessed by god and given favor, it is taught they held the priesthood, your messing with LDS theology if you want to go there.

But anyway, from a archeology stand point the interstruture problems remain, meaning there is no trace of a people like this, nor what they were said to leave behind.

take care

Mark

John 1:12

[charity]

markk, at the time we were having our discussion, the topic had morphed into a discussion of Solomon's temple, which was not within the Jaredite culture.

And there are certainly ruins which point to the existence of a large population. Are you sure that those ruins are not Jaredite? From what I have read, archeologists and other pertinent scientists have not been able to determine where the Olmecs came from, who they were exaclty, or what happened to them. And if I understand correctly what is known about them, they were in approximatley the time period we would expect the Jaredites to be.

[thesometimesaint]

Charity:

Here is a very interesting article.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/061212map.html

[charity]

thanks, saint. I had read it when it was linked in another thread. But I confess I didn't do the "puzzle" myself, but read the conclusions presented.

[Gervin]

It appears that there are three schools of thought with regard to Book of Mormon archeological evidence, assuming that the location for the Book of Mormon was Meso America:

Position 1. All archaeological evidences related to the Book of Mormon were either destroyed by the Spanish during their conquest, through modern-day development, or some combination of the two. This assumes, I suppose, that one would be able to recognize a Book of Mormon artifact if one existed. I don't this position has any merit; the Spanish could not systematically destroy evidence for the Book of Mormon culture and leave evidence for other, earlier, cultures and modern development can not single out the Book of Mormon culture over other earlier cultures. The fact that artifacts survive from a wide-spectrum of history is strong testimony that this position is nigh impossible.

Position 2. Book of Mormon cities, material culture, artifacts, art work, writings, etc. have simply not been found and removed from the ground yet. This position, again, assumes that the Book of Mormon culture, examples of gold and silversmithing and steel and iron production, some writing (some word), cities and man-made features would be, if found, recognizable and could be connected to the writings and descriptions in the Book of Mormon. This position may also assume that archaeologists are simply digging in the wrong place of the world. I consider this position to be highly unlikely given the robust activities surrounding Meso American excavations and research. I am amazed at the depth of research into Pre-Classic and Classic as reflected in papers and scholarly publications. This part of the world is generating much information and discussion. The conclusions are dynamic because of the amount of work being done by universities in North and Central America. I find it highly unlikely that if Book of Mormon evidence is discernible that not one shred of evidence - or one credible link - has been excavated or correlated.

Postion 3. Evidences for the Book of Mormon people, culture, cities, events, have been found and excavated - they just haven't yet been identified as such. I would characterize this position as unlikely and rapidly moving to a highly unlikely or impossible status. This position sounds more like a ploy when offered up ("prove that it isn't so") but it doesn't hold much weight unless the LDS investigators are willing to put their assumptions and correlations in front of the very people who have excavated and written about the Meso American culture. Historians and anthropologists are pretty keen to discover connections between cultures, to explore these interactions, and to show cultural progress, cultural diversions, and cultural shifts. I believe this position will continue to be less tenable as more and more is uncovered in Meso America, as more murals are discovered, more cities excavated, more writings uncovered and translated, and as professionals share their findings. I'm not sure of the extent to which the LDS historian or archeologist is going to be a part of this dialogue (If not now, when?).

Just my summation but not nearly as concise as Dan Vogel's "it's all Mayan until shown otherwise" Exactly

[cdowis]

It appears that there are three schools of thought with regard to Book of Mormon archeological evidence, assuming that the location for the Book of Mormon was Meso America:

Position 1. All archaeological evidences related to the Book of Mormon were either destroyed by the Spanish during their conquest, through modern-day development, or some combination of the two.

Please give us just ONE individual who actually advocates this position. The only individuals who even pretend this is some sort of argument are the antimormons. This goes along with another silly antimormon argument, "God destroyed all of the evidence". Don't insult our intelligence.

However it is true that virtually all of the written records have been destroyed from the BOM time period. This is a legitimate argument, based on historical fact.

This assumes, I suppose, that one would be able to recognize a Book of Mormon artifact if one existed. I don't this position has any merit; the Spanish could not systematically destroy evidence for the Book of Mormon culture and leave evidence for other, earlier, cultures and modern development can not single out the Book of Mormon culture over other earlier cultures. The fact that artifacts survive from a wide-spectrum of history is strong testimony that this position is nigh impossible.

Thank you for this phoney argument. It shows the desperation of the antimormons.

Position 2. Book of Mormon cities, material culture, artifacts, art work, writings, etc. have simply not been found and removed from the ground yet. This position, again, assumes that the Book of Mormon culture, examples of gold and silversmithing and steel and iron production, some writing (some word), cities and man-made features would be, if found, recognizable and could be connected to the writings and descriptions in the Book of Mormon. This position may also assume that archaeologists are simply digging in the wrong place of the world. I consider this position to be highly unlikely given the robust activities surrounding Meso American excavations and research.

Please define "robust". Tell us specifically what percent of the KNOWN archeological sites have been excavated to the BOM time period. Give us specific facts instead of baloney arguments.

I am amazed at the depth of research into Pre-Classic and Classic as reflected in papers and scholarly publications. This part of the world is generating much information and discussion. The conclusions are dynamic because of the amount of work being done by universities in North and Central America. I find it highly unlikely that if Book of Mormon evidence is discernible that not one shred of evidence - or one credible link - has been excavated or correlated.

What you think is irrevelant. Give us facts.

Postion 3. Evidences for the Book of Mormon people, culture, cities, events, have been found and excavated - they just haven't yet been identified as such. I would characterize this position as unlikely and rapidly moving to a highly unlikely or impossible status.

We do not care what you *think*. Give us facts, not your antimormon opinions.

This position sounds more like a ploy when offered up ("prove that it isn't so") but it doesn't hold much weight unless the LDS investigators are willing to put their assumptions and correlations in front of the very people who have excavated and written about the Meso American culture. Historians and anthropologists are pretty keen to discover connections between cultures, to explore these interactions, and to show cultural progress, cultural diversions, and cultural shifts.

As I have posted many times, have these individuals actually read the BOM text itself? Are they willing to actually take seriously a book delivered by an angel. Please give us specific individuals who have extensively studied the BOM text. Again, what you think is irrevelent. Give us facts.

I believe this position will continue to be less tenable as more and more is uncovered in Meso America, as more murals are discovered, more cities excavated, more writings uncovered and translated, and as professionals share their findings. I'm not sure of the extent to which the LDS historian or archeologist is going to be a part of this dialogue (If not now, when?).

Just my summation but not nearly as concise as Dan Vogel's "it's all Mayan until shown otherwise"

Please tell us how to differentiate a Nephite/Lamanite artifact from a "Mayan" artifact. A necklace -- tell us how to identify what group produced it.

Give us facts, not opinions from individuals who are antimormons. GIVE US FACTS, PLEASE.