Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[Tchild2]

>The BoM peoples had a completely different culture and religion. It would be more akin to looking for "Mormon ruins" in a Muslim or Hindu culture.

Folks, here is another antimormon who has never read the Book of Mormon. He spouts off his expertise. Let's take a look.

Tell us about bom religion. What artifacts do you expect to find? A crucifix, a picture of Mary? Were you aware that the BOM says that there were **many religions**, not just Christianity. Indeed, at several times the ****Christians were in the extreme minority****.

We read in the BOM about towers used in religious worship, we read about human sacrifice. Are these "different" from mesoamerican culture?

Please tell us about BOM culture -- did they have writted records, a calendar, etc. Specifically how were they were "completely different"?

Making assertions is easy, but proving them is a real ****.

Especially if you are totally ignorant of the subject.

I have read the book of Mormon over a dozen times and served a mission. You are the one spouting off assumptions.

Cdowis - since all we have is a "translated by the power of God" text and the original plates magically disappeared, all we have to go off is the text and its descriptions. Find artifacts that the text describes; its food, animals, metals, coinage, etc. Start there.

For a society that saw Jesus Christ in his ascended glory and lived for 200 years without warfare, and in rich prosperity, "having all things in common" (3rd Nephi) I would expect something lasting reflecting that gilded age somewhere, someplace. Maybe you don't have such basic expectations?

[Cold Steel]

If we have the Book of Mormon and if we believe it's historically true, it would be foolish not to try and place it using the clues we have. For example, we really do have to consider the lack of snow, ice and bitter winters from the pages of the Book of Mormon. We also have to take into account all the references to travel, seas and so forth.

We have to go with what we know. Heinrich Schliemann had to look somewhere for the city of Troy if, in fact, it was real. The same for Mycenae. He used the clues gleaned from what everyone thought was a fictional book. What else are we expected to do with the Book of Mormon? (After all, the BOM also has been used to follow Lehi's trail down the Arabian Peninsula.)

The question is: where else can we look? More importantly, perhaps, what can we rule out? Although there's only a few references to it, that elusive "narrow neck of land" has proven to be an important pivotal point to locating many Book of Mormon sites. Did Sorenson get it right? Perhaps. But if he didn't, he at least put us in the right neighborhood...probably. Yet I think believers will always be open to a better model if one becomes available.

P.S. — Keep in mind that the Nephites were primarily a wood building culture because it did not condone the slave labor that would have been necessary to build large stone cities and magnificent towering structures. They lived in somewhat small cement dwellings very much like some of the ones discovered in Mesoamerica. Wood tends to decay rapidly if not tended to properly, so it might be easier to find the remnants of the Lamanites than it would be to find those of the Nephites. And as some scholars have suggested, we might stumble over a Nephite city and not even know it.

.

[selek]

>The BoM peoples had a completely different culture and religion. It would be more akin to looking for "Mormon ruins" in a Muslim or Hindu culture.

Folks, here is another antimormon who has never read the Book of Mormon. He spouts off his expertise. Let's take a look.

Tell us about bom religion. What artifacts do you expect to find? A crucifix, a picture of Mary? Were you aware that the BOM says that there were **many religions**, not just Christianity. Indeed, at several times the ****Christians were in the extreme minority****.

We read in the BOM about towers used in religious worship, we read about human sacrifice. Are these "different" from mesoamerican culture?

Please tell us about BOM culture -- did they have writted records, a calendar, etc. Specifically how were they were "completely different"?

Making assertions is easy, but proving them is a real b****.

Especially if you are totally ignorant of the subject.

"Madam, kindly do not cloud the issue with facts...one fact and one fact alone is crystal clear: TChild has determined that the Book of Mormon is false and we must therefore renounce our covenants and begin dismantling the Temples."

Based on the italicized line I stole, can anyone guess what movie I just got done watching?

My joking aside aside, I would also like to see Tchild's proof of his assertion- though I predict either an attempt to change the subject or thundering silence instead.

Ah, he answered while I was posting: slieght of hand and an attempt to change the subject.

[fox_goku]

fox, do you really think that non-LDS scholars can accept any correlation of archeological sites with Book of Mormon events?

The answer is yes, if the correlation is solid.

However, I don't think the BofM makes scientific predictions. It is vague about culture, location, lifestyle, etc.

I don't wish to discourage scholars from taking the BofM seriously, but I don't think readers are obligated to take any scholarly publications seriously that have NOT been through the normal peer review process. It is just too easy to find post-hoc support for preconceived conclusions.

As BofM scholars sift through the evidence, I always worry that they seldom seem to present strong counter-evidence. If they do present counter-evidence, it is presented as a straw man.

The best scholars are always willing to place their favorite hypotheses at risk for falsification, and then let the unbiased evidence dictate the conclusions. Are there BofM scholars that actually do this? If so, I would love to read them. Instead, most BofM studies begin with the conclusion that the book is an ancient document, and then proceed to examine seriously only those lines of evidence that support that preconceived conclusion.

We may have hope the BofM is an ancient document, but hope is NOT a method.

[Tchild2]

"Madam, kindly do not cloud the issue with facts...one fact and one fact alone is crystal clear: TChild has determined that the Book of Mormon is false and we must therefore renounce our covenants and begin dismantling the Temples."

Based on the italicized line I stole, can anyone guess what movie I just got done watching?

My joking aside aside, I would also like to see Tchild's proof of his assertion- though I predict either an attempt to change the subject or thundering silence instead.

Ah, he answered while I was posting: slieght of hand and an attempt to change the subject.

Proof of my assertion? The text of the BoM is my proof for all to plainly read. What is your proof Selek? Just dismantle the temples in Utah so that we can free up a little more land for the growing populace please.

[Jerubaal]

I don't wish to discourage scholars from taking the BofM seriously, but I don't think readers are obligated to take any scholarly publications seriously that have NOT been through the normal peer review process. It is just too easy to find post-hoc support for preconceived conclusions.

I believe you are thinking of perhaps ad hoc, because post hoc doesn't describe the situation at all. And I suggest you go look at the 15 page thread on peer review. Your expectations of what peer-review does and doesn't do are far from reality.

[charity]

antishock8, you wrote: "Taking your approach to any subject no one could ever understand sufficiently or make relevant commentaries on anything outside their particular field of expertise. I find this kind of dismissal arrogant and disrespectful not to just me, but everyone on this board reference the subject matter.

I answer: I am not disrespected because I do not make extragant claims for expertise I do not have. You wouldn't be disrespected if you didn't, either.

You wrote: "Luckily for myself or anyone who cares enough to do some research, the Internet can be a great tool to become familiar with most kinds of information presented. That being said, one doesn't have to be a doctoral candidate to assess information provided and draw conclusions that are grounded in common sense."

Whoopee! The internet! If you think you can obtain a world class education on the internet, that shows a childish and gullible mind. And the person who believe that it is, does not have the intellectual sophistication to "draw conclusions" which will sustain you in a discussion with those who really know the subject.

[antishock8]

antishock8, you wrote: "Taking your approach to any subject no one could ever understand sufficiently or make relevant commentaries on anything outside their particular field of expertise. I find this kind of dismissal arrogant and disrespectful not to just me, but everyone on this board reference the subject matter.

I answer: I am not disrespected because I do not make extragant claims for expertise I do not have. You wouldn't be disrespected if you didn't, either.

You wrote: "Luckily for myself or anyone who cares enough to do some research, the Internet can be a great tool to become familiar with most kinds of information presented. That being said, one doesn't have to be a doctoral candidate to assess information provided and draw conclusions that are grounded in common sense."

Whoopee! The internet! If you think you can obtain a world class education on the internet, that shows a childish and gullible mind. And the person who believe that it is, does not have the intellectual sophistication to "draw conclusions" which will sustain you in a discussion with those who really know the subject.

You can get an excellent education using the Internet as a resource. After all, FARMS and FAIR posts quite a bit of information on the Internet, no? Most universities have excellent resources on the Internet. The Mormon church makes many publications available on the Internet. If you think for a moment you have to limit yourself to traditional hard copy sources in order to get an education you're sorely mistaken, Charity.

That aside, I'm glad to see you don't feel slighted by his insinuation that you're incapable of commenting on archaeology because you're not an expert in that field.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

The "text" of the BoM never mentions Coinage.

From Jeff Lindsay

In case after case, we find laughable "errors" in the Book of Mormon become entirely plausible or even become impressive "bull's eyes" in light of modern scholarship. The issue of "coins" in the Book of Mormon represents such a case. Chapter 11 of Alma in the Book of Mormon has long been attacked by critics for discussing Nephite coins, when there is no evidence that coins were used in the New World before the time of Columbus. But the actual text does not mention coins or imply their use, but speaks of various measures--apparently weights--of gold and silver and their equivalents in grain. (The modern chapter heading for Alma 11 in the 1981 printing of the Book of Mormon refers to Nephite "coinage," but that is an unjustified assumption.)

In a surprising development, it has been shown that the sophisticated system of weights mentioned in Alma 11, a system that was standardized under King Mosiah around 100 B.C., precisely fits an Egyptian system that Nephi and Lehi could have brought with them into the New World. John Welch presents the evidence in "Weighing and measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 37-47 (1999), available online at http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=198&table=jbms.

Welch finds several parallels with ancient systems of weights and measures from the Old World that put the Book of Mormon system squarely in an ancient context:

Ancient kings typically implemented their economic progress by means of official decrees. In this light it is interesting that King Mosiah's statute contains similarities to other ancient law codes antecedent to the Nephite system. For example, similarities appear almost effortlessly in the law code of Eshnunna, which was compiled about 1800 b.c. in a Babylonian city by that name that lay approximately 50 miles northeast of Baghdad in modern Iraq. In fact the similarities are rather striking. First of all, the opening lines in the law code of Eshnunna set out an important equivalency that becomes the basis for commerce: "one kor of barley is equal to one shekel of silver." A similar conversion between silver and barley was also used among the Hittites. Perhaps it is coincidental, but the law of Mosiah begins with a comparable ratio of value stated in similar phraseology: "a senum of silver, which is equal to a senine of gold, . . . and either for a measure of barley" (Alma 11:3, 7).

Welch finds other parallels that should at least raise the eyebrows of those seeking to understand, including the relationship between the fractional system of the Nephite and Old World fractions, with possible relationships to the use of fractions among the Mayans. There are also relationships between some Old World names and Book of Mormon names for units. The parallel I found most intriguing, though, involves the relative values of Nephite measures and those of an ancient Egyptian system:

Although the Egyptian system bears certain similarities to that of the Nephites--both are binary, both have six defined measures, and both feature an additional whole amount which is the sum of lesser parts--the two systems were not absolutely identical. Such an observation agrees, of course, with Mormon's own recognition that his people had "altered their reckoning and their measure" from generation to generation (Alma 11:4). However, the relative gradation of units found in the Egyptian New Kingdom and among Nephites of Alma's day match exactly, as is developed further on table 6 [of Welch's article]. In other words, if one assumes that Nephite gold "limnah" (Alma 11:5-10) is cognate with or related to the ancient Mesopotamian and Hebrew common "light" mina-weight (or maneh) of about 17.6 oz, then all of the Nephite measures can immediately be interpreted as exact multiples of the Egyptian New Kingdom and Late Egyptian period qdt or kite-weight of 0.31 oz (very close to the Old Babylonian 0.3 oz ... "shekel"). Beginning with Nephite "leah" (Alma 11:17) as the smallest known Nephite weight, we can then match every one of the Egyptian grain-measure fractions noted in the preceding paragraph with a Nephite weight, pairing the Nephite "leah" with the Egyptian kite-weight that represents one. The correspondence is systematic and remarkable, and appears to be an alteration from the Hebrew seqel-standard of 50 shekels to a mina. Such an adaptation or reorientation of the Israelite system may already have been in process in Lehi's time, judging from the frequent appearance of hieratic Egyptian numerals on Hebrew shekel weights in the contemporary kingdom of Judah. The Nephite standard thus implies a theoretical 56 leahs (shekels?) to the limnah (mina?).

Welch, in his typical style, provides extensive references to scholarly literature for his findings.

Various plants and animals in a New World context.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml

[charity]

antishock8, there are, no doubt, sources of accurate information on the internet. There is also a lot of garbage. Many people show a distressing inability to separate the two. Courses in colleges and universites, contact with scholars in the field, are not replaced by stuff written for the standard eight grade reading level. I have yet to see a on-lline source which can replace a hard copy text for efficient study.

FAIR and FARMS do put their publications on line. But I still want my hard copy version in my hand for serious study.

You do not sound as though you have had much experience with rigorous study in advanced subjects. I have known a number of people who were "self-educated." While their efforts are laudable, they do not reach the levels that would otherwise be open to them. You seem to have an active, if untrained, mind. You should really consider some serious study. You could probably do very well with academic training.

[Tchild2]

You do not sound as though you have had much experience with rigorous study in advanced subjects. I have known a number of people who were "self-educated." While their efforts are laudable, they do not reach the levels that would otherwise be open to them. You seem to have an active, if untrained, mind. You should really consider some serious study. You could probably do very well with academic training.

Well Charity, this criteria eliminates every prophet and apostle (concerning LDS archeology) not to mention 100% of the young missionaries out in the field "testifying" of the historicity of the BoM.

Note to self, dismiss all LDS leader's opinions of the historicity of the BoM until they have adequately reached the level of "rigorous" study required by Charity to discuss BoM subjects.

[charity]

tchild2, if you had followed the discussion, which my post addresses, you would have seen that antishock8 was not talking about revelations or spiritual witnesses. He/she was specifically speaking about expertise in archeology. Last time I heard, that was not a requirement for a prophet. Or even a believing member.

Try to stay with the discussion, please. Thanks.

[antishock8]

antishock8, there are, no doubt, sources of accurate information on the internet. There is also a lot of garbage. Many people show a distressing inability to separate the two. Courses in colleges and universites, contact with scholars in the field, are not replaced by stuff written for the standard eight grade reading level. I have yet to see a on-lline source which can replace a hard copy text for efficient study.

FAIR and FARMS do put their publications on line. But I still want my hard copy version in my hand for serious study.

You do not sound as though you have had much experience with rigorous study in advanced subjects. I have known a number of people who were "self-educated." While their efforts are laudable, they do not reach the levels that would otherwise be open to them. You seem to have an active, if untrained, mind. You should really consider some serious study. You could probably do very well with academic training.

Charity,

Would you like me to start assessing you? I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy that. I'm a college graduate (philosophy). Born and raised in the Mormon church. Mission. Temple marriage. I've received a lot of post-graduate schooling. I have a lot of really great books that I've read. Vonnegut. Sartre. Simon de Beauvoir. I'm proficient in Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. Blah blah blah. Yay for me.

I'm well-aware of the current Internet State of Affairs. Thank you for telling me that. Now... unless you would like me to start with the AARP jokes I would suggest that we get back to the business of discussing Mormonism and not me... not you... let's just talk about Mormonism.

[antishock8]

tchild2, if you had followed the discussion, which my post addresses, you would have seen that antishock8 was not talking about revelations or spiritual witnesses. He/she was specifically speaking about expertise in archeology. Last time I heard, that was not a requirement for a prophet. Or even a believing member.

Try to stay with the discussion, please. Thanks.

No. You show a complete inability to stay on topic, and to track a discussion. I was not bringing up the need to be an expert in any given field in order to talk about a subject. It was, in fact, one of the Mormon apologists who suggested that people who aren't experts in archaeology lack the ability to discuss or comprehend the subject to any degree of competency. I disagreed with him, as you should... but perplexingly enough you let him take a pass on that. That's something I find a little odd. Then when I suggested that *gasp* the Internet can be a useful tool to get acquainted with a subject in order to discuss it, you attempted to discredit the Internet as a decent tool for learning.... which I also find a little puzzling coming from an educator (you're a teacher, no?).

[Cold Steel]

I am a believer in the Book of Mormon, but I will NOT believe in any so-called Book of Mormon archeology until that scholarship goes through the same rigors of peer review that any other form of archeology would go through. This means to me that non-LDS scholars ought to be able to recognize the data as being plausibly connected to the descriptions in the Book of Mormon.

Oh, please, I know you're trying to be objective and that's fine, but non-Mormons have not the slightest interest in even entertaining the question. You know how many History Channel documentaries have been done on Lehi and the Frankincense Trail? (Close your eyes. What do you see?) That's right. Not one. How many have been done on Nostradamus? (Want to order just one or the entire collection?)

Integrating the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerican studies would be a waste of time unless scholars had a reason for so doing. There are huge holes in what we don't know about these peoples and their cities. One could stand in an ancient Nephite city and not even realize it.

There is a degree of peer review that goes with this research, but it's not the kind that will impress outsiders. We must be content that, for now, we're on our own.

[charity]

antishock8, I won't evaluate you in discussions unless that becomes an important part of understanding a post in context. You do insist on evaluating LDS scholars, so that seems fair enough.

(Just so you will know, I have read books, too. Let's see, Skinner, Voltaire, Swift, Hugo. Do we get brownie points?)

[Dale]

I have seen non-Mormon scholars try & rebut evidences of Book of Mormon historicity. I may not be a scholar but am satisfied FARMs survives such outside review. But I cannot think of a scholar who should sit on an outside panel to review FARMS scholarship. You can't review a subject if you are not familiar with the evidence. Those who are familiar with the evidence have already tried and failed to win status as undisputed experts on the subject.

[Brant Gardner]

What I can tell you from any Mesoamerican culture is that they do not have a linguistic basis in Hebrew, nor do their writings have any connection to Egyptian and/or Hebrew. Their architecture is strikingly absent of any Judeo/Christian markings. There's nothing that I can see from reading many many articles that link those civilizations to a Judeo/Christian civilization in any form... from mythology to masonry. Nothing.

Here is precisely where gathering Internet information without the academic tools used in its synthesis have hurt your conclusions. Your general evidence is correct, but your conclusions have nothing to do with the issues.

For example, why would you expect that the spoken language had to have a basis in Hebrew? What information have you gathered (or even looked for) about the nature of culture contact and the impact on language preservation?

Next, you say: "Their architecture is strikingly absent of any Judeo/Christian markings." This is really fascinating. Let's take Christian markings on architecture. Since all of them post-date the departure of Book of Mormon peoples from the Old World by over 600 years, what do you think a New World Christian marking should look like? Since the Old World Christian symbols were heavily influenced by the prevailing Greek/Roman iconography which also postdates the Book of Mormon, there shouldn't be any connection at all - and yet you think there should be. Could you explain both the reason that you think you know what they should be, and then tell us what they are? I would love to know what to look for that you are sure is missing.

You want a Jewish/Christian civilizataion. See above for the problem with a Christian civilization. However, for the Jewish we are still back to the problem of culture contact. I assume that since you are declaring facts here that you are familiar with the diagnostice Hebrew pottery that followed the Canaanite conquest? Oh, I'm sorry, there isn't any. The Hebrew influx into Canaan is nearly invisible, and that was a lot more people than the Lehites, so you really need to justify your assumptions.

Let me know what the Internet says.

[Brant Gardner]

While we may not know what Nephite culture looks like, we do know what old world culture looked like circa 600 bc. We know thier language. We know the relied heavily on olives, and grapes. We know they knew how to leaven bread, fermet wine and beer, and sheer wool.

You have the beginnings of some good questions - to which there are some very obvious answers. What happens when you take a culture that was heavily dependent upon olives and grapes and place them in a location where olives and grapes don't grow at all, or not well? What happens if you want to make wheat bread and all you have is corn? What happens if you want to ferment something, but don't have hops, barley, or grapes?

What you are describing, Jaybear, is the reason that following your suggestion cannot be fruitful. You don't expect that you will find a major importation of an entire culture complex when a small group enters an area with a well defined agricultural complex that is completely different.

So - we don't find those things, but it doesn't mean anything at all for the Book of Mormon because the expectation that we should find them is the incorrect premise, not the text.

Note to self, dismiss all LDS leader's opinions of the historicity of the BoM until they have adequately reached the level of "rigorous" study required by Charity to discuss BoM subjects.

Does that mean, Tchild2, that you accept LDS leader's opinions at all other times?

[Brant Gardner]

There is a degree of peer review that goes with this research, but it's not the kind that will impress outsiders.

I wouldn't agree with this statement at all. It is, in important aspects, the very same kind of peer review. For example, if I make a statement about Old World history, someone who handles that field reviews it and makes sure that I am within the facts. When it has to do with the New World, were I to say something that contradicted known information about the Maya or the Olmec, someone with knowledge would correct it and not let it pass.

The issue of peer review is such a red herring it is amusing that it gets tossed around. It is used to suggest that when someone uses Mesoamerican archaeology to support the Book of Mormon that somehow we get away with altering the facts or changing the data so that the secular information gets turned on its head. That is so far from the truth it is funny. Of course, I have seen that happen and have been with LDS scholars who deride such attempts mercilessly. Oh, yes. There is severe peer review and it comes from people with the secular credentials to back up their opinions on the topic.

[maklelan]

What I can tell you from any Mesoamerican culture is that they do not have a linguistic basis in Hebrew, nor do their writings have any connection to Egyptian and/or Hebrew. Their architecture is strikingly absent of any Judeo/Christian markings. There's nothing that I can see from reading many many articles that link those civilizations to a Judeo/Christian civilization in any form... from mythology to masonry. Nothing. So I think it's pretty apparent that you're grasping at straws by linking this particular civilization with Book of Mormon civilizations. Are there any others? Perhaps in South America somewhere that can be readily identified as Book of Mormon in nature?

I suggest you read several articles not found on Wikipedia. First, Professor Key's article "American Indian Languages before Columbus," which shares interesting correlations between Hittite, Sumerian and Uto-Aztecan. She's not Mormon, by the way. Then mosey over to Brian Stubbs' article "Elements of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan: A Summary of the Data." It is a very thorough investigation into the striking similarities that exist between Semitic languages (and Egyptian) and Uto-Aztecan languages. Stubbs numbers the correlations, and they stop at 206. In the conclusion, however, he adds, "Much more could be presented. This summary constitutes less than half the data. There are more than 250 additional Sem roots with apparent reflexes in UA." It is a FARMS paper, but to show those doubters out there that our work is actually very respected, you may also read a reference to his article by non-Mormon Roger Williams Westcott, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University. This gentleman was also past president of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States and a Rhodes scholar. His article, "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America," praises the conclusions of Stubbs. He repeats a bunch of Stubbs' correlations and then concludes: "Lest sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages." This gentleman is far more versed than your Google search, and he happens to disagree with your above statement, as do I.

If you don't feel like admitting you are wrong then I would appreciate your perusal of this evidence and, barring an admission of errancy at that time, an explanation of why your internet gives you a more enlightened perspective. You may take all the time you need.

[Dale]

The only thing I recognize from old christian architecture is crosses & religious paintings. But unless the Nephites painted Jesus, or used crosses one would not expect them to turn up in the ruins. So I doubt myself just because one Christian people did it every Christian people would would.

I do known Meso-America had atleast a similar history in that civilizations rose & fell upon this continent. What happens to paper records when a foreign army occupies the lands? Did the Nazi's enter Jewish area to preserve Jewish religious writings before taking those people to the camps? I am sure what wasn't burnt was buried. I do not how many paper type writings they produced as archeology hasn't revealed it. With the New Testament 5,000 manuscripts exist. With the Book of Mormom from then until it was translated was written upon plates & had no early copyists.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall the Book of Mormon referring to perishable paper, or papyrus type writings, or writing on animal skin. It does refer to durable metal records. So maybe written writings on other materials was far less common. They had the idea of preserving records on metal. Anything perishable unless hid up, or preserved would not survive.

The idea of plate type of record does not suggest they kept vast library's of texts. That seems to me to similarly fit the situation in Meso-America. Whatever perishable records they kept was not a large enough collection to survive to be found.

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

This is just going in circles, maybe we should aproach this from a more objective direction. Give me the most tangible BOM find in Mesoamerica and the most probable BOM Mesoamerican location and lets look at that? Fair?

Also are there any LDS sites, actual digs, that deal with none BOM finds in Mesoamerica, if so are there websites for this?

This way we can look at the methods and compare?

Thanks

mark

John 1:12

[antishock8]

antishock8, I won't evaluate you in discussions unless that becomes an important part of understanding a post in context. You do insist on evaluating LDS scholars, so that seems fair enough.

(Just so you will know, I have read books, too. Let's see, Skinner, Voltaire, Swift, Hugo. Do we get brownie points?)

Great! Good for you.

[antishock8]

I suggest you read several articles not found on Wikipedia. First, Professor Key's article "American Indian Languages before Columbus," which shares interesting correlations between Hittite, Sumerian and Uto-Aztecan. She's not Mormon, by the way. Then mosey over to Brian Stubbs' article "Elements of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan: A Summary of the Data." It is a very thorough investigation into the striking similarities that exist between Semitic languages (and Egyptian) and Uto-Aztecan languages. Stubbs numbers the correlations, and they stop at 206. In the conclusion, however, he adds, "Much more could be presented. This summary constitutes less than half the data. There are more than 250 additional Sem roots with apparent reflexes in UA." It is a FARMS paper, but to show those doubters out there that our work is actually very respected, you may also read a reference to his article by non-Mormon Roger Williams Westcott, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University. This gentleman was also past president of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States and a Rhodes scholar. His article, "Early Eurasian Linguistic Links with North America," praises the conclusions of Stubbs. He repeats a bunch of Stubbs' correlations and then concludes: "Lest sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages." This gentleman is far more versed than your Google search, and he happens to disagree with your above statement, as do I.

If you don't feel like admitting you are wrong then I would appreciate your perusal of this evidence and, barring an admission of errancy at that time, an explanation of why your internet gives you a more enlightened perspective. You may take all the time you need.

I guess I wasted my time reading Cartesian Linguistics then... dang it. I was married to a woman who was a polyglot. She spoke five languages and was very interested in the linguistic origins of not only her languages, but language in general. I know this is going to drive you crazy, but I *gasp* read real books on the subject by real *gasp* scholars. That aside... it's not hard to draw correlations between any number of apparently unrelated languages. Without delving into minutia because it's pointless and detracts from the overall theme of the thread there are groups of languages as you know, which share a common ancestor languages, which then... it's theorized... at one point came from one to three Mother language(s). It is, of course, based in our physiology these commonalities... anyway... the point being is that you can make many links to many languages, but it still doesn't mean that they're connected in any significant way.

So let's go back to common sense, no? If you have a basis in one kind of language, even if other languages have influenced or dominated your native tongue, there will still be indisputable evidence of that first language. As you'll note, the BofM states that the languages were corrupted... not replaced... and thus one would expect much more of a linguistic connection to Hebrew aside from a few glottal stops or vowel combinations. This is a given. You have to make a stretch to make the connections you're suggesting.