How To Find Nephite Artifacts

[Gervin]

hey, very cool site. thanks much for the link. I think you posted an illustration, as cited on some of the pics further down the site.

[_Frost]

well...it's either all figurative ("my faith is unshakable!"), or you have to use a seerstone and pray really really hard and God will send you an image of the ruins in a dream.

and if neither of these work, chose the nearest large civilization and insist that they were actually the Nephites, because the BOM has to be true, since we (and every religion) have our own "testimony."

[poulsenll]

hey, very cool site. thanks much for the link. I think you posted an illustration, as cited on some of the pics further down the site.

It may have been. I just wanted to show that they dont reconstruct on whims but on the basis of the materials and ruins found at the site.

Larry P

[SolarPowered]

It may have been. I just wanted to show that they dont reconstruct on whims but on the basis of the materials and ruins found at the site.

Larry P

Larry,

I wasn't intending to imply that the reconstructions were done on a whim (which I agree that my post actually did imply). I do recognize that there were attempting to reconstruct what had been there anciently. So my comment that "The tourists want ruins, so they build ruins for them," was perhaps a bit over the top.

Nevertheless, I'll stick with my caveat that the photo I quoted in my post, which was upthread offered up as evidence of ancient cement, is likely of modern construction (or reconstruction, if you will). That is in no way intended to suggest that all such examples are modern, only that at least some of them are modern.

[cdowis]

"look in mesoamerica" isn't really much help; why look in mesoamerica?

There are hundreds if not a thousand posts addressing that issue.

Well, where do I find a BOM city to excavate? If you show me the location then I guarantee I can tell you how to identify the Nephite artifacts.

Read my post. Any city which is in mesoamerica at the time of BOM is potentially a BOM city, with Nephite or Lamanite artifacts. Just give us the test on how to identify them.

I don't have to look because I don't believe in Nephite cities. If I'm going to show you Nephite artifacts then you have to tell me where the Nephites lived with certainty. I'm not going to start digging unless you have some evidence that Nephites aren't fictional.

YOU (the antis) are the ones demanding Nephite artifacts. We are asking you how to identify them from others who may have lived here.

So you agree that your request is stupid and impossible. And that is the point. You don't believe in Nephites and your demand for Nephite artifacts is pure sophistry.

You have been caught in your own trap, when you admit it cannot be done.

[jadams_4242]

But that's exactly the point.

Anti-mormon writings say there are no Nephite artifacts, but cannot tell us exactly what those artifacts might be, should they be found.

Well some artifacts or discoveries if you will, Have been "barley" swords" "cement" and other things

that do verify what the b.o.m said, For a whole lot of years critics have said that these things

were not around mesoamerica, so therefore the b.o.m was contrived. So please can someone tell me

just how in the heck j.s could have known these things himself? {in light of scientific discovery}

[JNclone]

cdowis:

YOU (the antis) are the ones demanding Nephite artifacts. We are asking you how to identify them from others who may have lived here.

So you agree that your request is stupid and impossible. And that is the point. You don't believe in Nephites and your demand for Nephite artifacts is pure sophistry.

You have been caught in your own trap, when you admit it cannot be done.

Um ... all that bold typeface is really scary.

To answer the implied question, I suppose we might hope for some writing on a durable material like stone or metal (preferably in Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew) referring by name to some of the Nephite kings mentioned in the BoM. I mean, as my Chinese example showed, that's how supposedly fictional civilisations can be shown to be real, no?

What is so hard about that?

Edited to add: It is the absence of such artefacts that makes disbelief in Nephites quite reasonable, rather than an absurd 'anti' prejudice, no?

[LifeOnaPlate]

well...it's either all figurative ("my faith is unshakable!"), or you have to use a seerstone and pray really really hard and God will send you an image of the ruins in a dream.

and if neither of these work, chose the nearest large civilization and insist that they were actually the Nephites, because the BOM has to be true, since we (and every religion) have our own "testimony."

Here's a wonderfully mocking post with absolutely no bearing on the conversation other than saying "Mormon's are stupid for what they believe."

Not conducive to a dialogue, at any rate.

[Gervin]

There are hundreds if not a thousand posts addressing that issue.

There may be millions if not billions. Why should I dig in mesoamerica? "there are posts" is not really a reason.

Read my post. Any city which is in mesoamerica at the time of BOM is potentially a BOM city, with Nephite or Lamanite artifacts.

Why not a city that is 100 miles outside of the historic mesoamerica?

YOU (the antis) are the ones demanding Nephite artifacts. We are asking you how to identify them from others who may have lived here.

I haven't demanded Nephite artifacts. I've demanded some evidence on why I should look in mesoamerica for Nephite artifacts.

So you agree that your request is stupid and impossible. And that is the point. You don't believe in Nephites and your demand for Nephite artifacts is pure sophistry.

I'll show you Nephite artifacts if you'll give me a reason to dig for them. I believe this is the impossible request, but certainly reasonable.

You have been caught in your own trap, when you admit it cannot be done.

I don't feel trapped because I'm not on the hook; I don't believe in Nephite cities, cultures, wars, writings, metalsmithing, tabernacles, chariots, swords, or fortifications. If you believe in these things and you're confident where on earth these things exist, please tell me where and why. Then we can start talking about artifacts.

[poulsenll]

Larry,

Nevertheless, I'll stick with my caveat that the photo I quoted in my post, which was upthread offered up as evidence of ancient cement, is likely of modern construction (or reconstruction, if you will). That is in no way intended to suggest that all such examples are modern, only that at least some of them are modern.

You are absolutely right. One of the problems is distinguishing the original cement from that used in the reconstructions. Often it is hard to tell the difference even when both are present in the same structuree. This is especially true of some of the cement on the floors where tourists have polished it with their feet so that it looks very fresh. Some of this is just above and behind the area shown in the picture. In some other cases it is very obvious which is original and which is modern.

Another problem is those who confuse cement with mortar. I am not even sure if the Bof M use of the word cement actually distinguishes between the two. The structures built with mortar are all in very poor conditions prior to reconstruction. Where cement was used they have not suffered except by deliberate breakage. Cement was mostly used to cover structures or for floors. I am not sure but I dont think they used much cement for structural elements as we do today.

Larry P

[SolarPowered]

Another problem is those who confuse cement with mortar. I am not even sure if the Bof M use of the word cement actually distinguishes between the two. The structures built with mortar are all in very poor conditions prior to reconstruction. Where cement was used they have not suffered except by deliberate breakage. Cement was mostly used to cover structures or for floors. I am not sure but I dont think they used much cement for structural elements as we do today.

Larry P

Larry, I think you may be confusing "cement" with "concrete." As you are probably well aware in the back of your mind, "cement" is essentially a glue that is mixed with water to form a paste that in turn glues together sand and often stone to form concrete, mortar, plaster, and some various other materials.

I'm not clear as to what "cement" meant to Joseph Smith in his day. Modern Portland cement was first patented in 1824, so it's not clear that what Joseph had in mind when he used the word "cement" is at all like what we would currently think of as "cement."

Various other types of cement and concrete have long been known. Palladio describes a type of cement in his books on architecture. And, of course, the Pantheon in Rome was constructed of concrete nearly 2,000 years ago.

It seems to me that "cement" in the BoM could be referring either to concrete, or to a cement-based mortar, or perhaps generically to both. (Which is more or less what you were suggesting.)

[poulsenll]

It seems to me that "cement" in the BoM could be referring either to concrete, or to a cement-based mortar, or perhaps generically to both. (Which is more or less what you were suggesting.)

I agree. We have to be careful. We say cement sidewalk when we should say concrete.

The 1828 Webster defines cement as follows

1. Any glutinous or other substance capable of uniting bodies in close cohesion, as mortar, glue, soder, &c. In building, cement denotes a stronger kind of mortar than that which is ordinarily used.

So Joseph Smith was probably thinking of a stronger bonding material than mortar, but again we cant be sure.

Larry P

[_Frost]

Here's a wonderfully mocking post with absolutely no bearing on the conversation other than saying "Mormon's are stupid for what they believe."

Not conducive to a dialogue, at any rate.

oh, okay. I was being bad.

but I do get tired of people finding the tiniest, ,most remote pieces of evidence for the BOM and jumping up and going "look, it's true!" One shouldn't have to live on scraps of evidence that might naturally occur anywhere in the course of developing civilization (i.e. the chicken bones thread I once read in this lds dialogue section). it should be widely obvious, like the existence of the Hebrews. I can't seem to get it through my head how essentially nothing turns up, and while I'm not good at citing sources there was some LDS archaeologist who even said that, although he hoped his words would someday be proven wrong, there was no such thing as LDS archaeology. but people throw all thier weight on their "testimony", but every religion has a testimony to bear. When men began to call upon the name of the Lord, they created mythologies to seek the divine, and while all but God's chosen people fell short of finding the true Divine, the search is in the hearts of men, so everybody is going to feel a sense of satisfaction in seeking and supposedly "finding" truth. You can't just feel a burning in the bosom and instantly say that the Mormon church has to be true. Perhaps when the rest of the world is saying Joseph Smith made this religion up, they were right. At the time it made sense to cover over the story by explaining the Native Americans were the descendants, but science has proven otherwise, and all apologetic responses are far too weak to explain away the problems Mormonism presents (DNA, archaeology, you name it). One must have an open mind. when I opened my mind, I branched into a semi-agnosticism until I began to explore my Christian roots more and finally realized exactly why I believed what I believed, coming back with a far greater understanding than before. But you have to open your mind up first.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

Um ... all that bold typeface is really scary.

When I am quoting another post I use bold to respond inside the quote box. I could use underline, or italic. When I post outside a quote box, I use normal font.

I apologize if my style of posting frightens you.

To answer the implied question, I suppose we might hope for some writing on a durable material like stone or metal (preferably in Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew) referring by name to some of the Nephite kings mentioned in the BoM.

Were you aware that virtually all records from the BOM time period were destroyed. The precious metals were melted down.

The Lord was able to preserve the BOM plates thru miraculous means. But I guess you are totally ignorant of the history of this area, so it is necessary to educate you that the Catholic priests and the Spanish pretty much destroyed all records.

I mean, as my Chinese example showed, that's how supposedly fictional civilisations can be shown to be real, no?

You need to use the text of the BOM itself, rather than your fantasy. You need to educate yourself on the actual text of the BOM, and the history of this area, no? instead of making up scenarios which exist only in your mind, nicht wahr?

For example, what was the venacular of the BOM people? Was it Hebrew, was it reformed egyptian, or was it some other language. Instead of fantasying what is written in the BOM, why not actually read it, and give specific citations.

What is so hard about that?

Educating someone having such a lack of knowledge goes beyond the ability and desire of this poster. I am not your mother.

Edited to add: It is the absence of such artefacts that makes disbelief in Nephites quite reasonable, rather than an absurd 'anti' prejudice, no?

I am speaking of ignorance. Asking for "records" which have been destroyed demonstrates a deep and profound ignorance of the subject matter and history.

[Duncan]

For starters, I would be happy with finding anything made of steel, or finding evidence of some of the animals that were in the book of Mormon (horse, ox, etc.). It would also be nice if any of the many writings left by the ancients had anything whatsoever to do with the civilizations we read about in the BoM.

Just four hundred years after the supposedly last great battle at Cumorah, a small group of Norse explores landed in Newfoundland. They stayed no longer that a few years, then sailed off. The difference between this small handful of explorers and the massive iron aged civilization that the BoM talks about (you know, the one that spread over the face of all the land) is that these few visitors left undeniable evidence of there existence (Norse buttons, needles, a coin, etc.) and the Nephites left nothing. No horses, no swords, no steel, no smelting of metal of any kind, no old world writing, no silk, and no elephants.

What we do have is a lot of evidence from the real civilizations that lived in the Americas, and they have nothing what so ever to do with anything BoM related. We can now read the glyphs on their builds, and they speak of a people and ideas that have nothing to do with Christian or old world thought.

Have you ever been to Newfoundland? The reason why stuff is still around is because NO ONE has disturbed anything because no one lives there! Its a great place for fishing and that is it! In terms of South American Archaeology I heard that researchers have barely scratched the surface. Its a big place.

[Thinking]

I have seen the ads for the "Book of Mormon" tours to Central & South America, where ancient ruins will be visited. Of course anything that looks like it could hold water must have been a baptismal font, any large structure must have been a Nephite temple, etc.

I like watching the history channel because scholors have been able to learn a lot about these civilizations from what they have left behind. Their histories talk of human sacrifices and gods that are very different from the god described in the BoM.

Of course, the LDS apologist might claim that we are learning about the Lamanites from these ruins. They did, after all, stray from the straight and narrow.

[cdowis]

I like watching the history channel because scholors have been able to learn a lot about these civilizations from what they have left behind. Their histories talk of human sacrifices and gods that are very different from the god described in the BoM.

Of course, the LDS apologist might claim that we are learning about the Lamanites from these ruins. They did, after all, stray from the straight and narrow.

Sigh. Another person who is clueless on the BOM text.

"Of couse" the BOM talks about the practice of human sacrifice, "of course" in many cases the Christians were in the minority, even among the Nephites.

"Of course" you have no idea what the BOM text actually says.

[Thinking]

Sigh. Another person who is clueless on the BOM text.

"Of couse" the BOM talks about the practice of human sacrifice, "of course" in many cases the Christians were in the minority, even among the Nephites.

"Of course" you have no idea what the BOM text actually says.

Sigh. Another TBM who didn't read my entire post.

Of course, the LDS apologist might claim that we are learning about the Lamanites from these ruins. They did, after all, stray from the straight and narrow.

Even when I acknowledge the LDS position on why all these ruins point to non-Christion societies, I get blasted for being clueless.

[JNclone]

(JNclone @ Jun 30 2007, 08:32 PM) *

To answer the implied question, I suppose we might hope for some writing on a durable material like stone or metal (preferably in Reformed Egyptian or Hebrew) referring by name to some of the Nephite kings mentioned in the BoM.

cdowis

Were you aware that virtually all records from the BOM time period were destroyed. The precious metals were melted down.

The Lord was able to preserve the BOM plates thru miraculous means. But I guess you are totally ignorant of the history of this area, so it is necessary to educate you that the Catholic priests and the Spanish pretty much destroyed all records.

Jnclone

I mean, as my Chinese example showed, that's how supposedly fictional civilisations can be shown to be real, no?

cdowis

You need to use the text of the BOM itself, rather than your fantasy. You need to educate yourself on the actual text of the BOM, and the history of this area, no? instead of making up scenarios which exist only in your mind, nicht wahr?

For example, what was the venacular of the BOM people? Was it Hebrew, was it reformed egyptian, or was it some other language. Instead of fantasying what is written in the BOM, why not actually read it, and give specific citations.

Jnclone

What is so hard about that?

cdowis

Educating someone having such a lack of knowledge goes beyond the ability and desire of this poster. I am not your mother.

JNclone

Edited to add: It is the absence of such artefacts that makes disbelief in Nephites quite reasonable, rather than an absurd 'anti' prejudice, no?

cdowis

I am speaking of ignorance. Asking for "records" which have been destroyed demonstrates a deep and profound ignorance of the subject matter and history.

Sorry to have been so long in getting back on this one. Even though you are not my maternal parent (did I ever say you were?) your indignation calls for a polite, restrained and reasonable reply.

Yes I am aware of the fact that very little written material found in indigenous hands was left undestroyed by the first European conquerors in the Americas (what an education this board is, to be sure!). I should also have been very surprised if after the alleged fall of Nephite culture c. 400 AD a similar destruction of perishable records above ground at the time, including those on precious metals, had not taken place.

But even supposing that everything above ground in 400 AD was expunged, are you happy to be seen as claiming that a literate civilisation that had existed for centuries before that, with great cities whose technical and economic level was high enough to support large populations with huge armies, simply left no significant durable inscriptions in the ground that might be discovered today? You may feel comfortable about that, but I think your non-LDS or wavering LDS readers may wonder what your basis is for that assumption. Some might even call it a 'fantasy' but I won't, because it would be a rude way of answering you.

The logic is simple:

There are no known texts excavated in America referring unambiguously to any person or place mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, in the case of those who do not base their judgements on religious conviction, it is reasonable to doubt that the cultures mentioned in the Book of Mormon actually existed.

As for my mention of the possibility of finding inscriptions in some version of Hebrew, or in Reformed Egyptian - both of these are mentioned as a medium of writing by Mormon (Morm. 9:32-34) near the end of the relevant historical period:

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

so why is it not reasonable to expect that some version of Hebrew, or Reformed Egyptian might have been used for inscriptions, even if we cannot say whether or when they functioned as spoken vernaculars? I am not fussy - a few unambiguous Nephite personal or place names in any language will do, though of course the two options above would make things easier. Mormon does, interestingly enough, seem to point to the fact that his language is not known to surrounding peoples; thus we would expect a Nephite inscription to stand out from those of other cultures, assuming that any cultures coexisted with BoM peoples.

I mentioned in my Chinese parallel above that archaeologists in the early 20th C. dismissed the Shang dynasty as a historical fiction until king-lists were found that paralleled information in sources transmitted through the scribal tradition. You should be aware that claims in those sources that a 'Xia' dynasty preceded the Shang are still being treated skeptically by many scholars in the absence of convincing written material from excavations, despite evidence of material cultures of some complexity predating Shang.

Can you reasonably expect less skepticism when the only source of data on your alleged Nephite culture is a book said to have been delivered by divine inspiration?

[cdowis]

Sorry to have been so long in getting back on this one. Even though you are not my maternal parent (did I ever say you were?) your indignation calls for a polite, restrained and reasonable reply.

Your self-cotrol is admirable. I make no such pretext.

Yes I am aware of the fact that very little written material found in indigenous hands was left undestroyed by the first European conquerors in the Americas (what an education this board is, to be sure!). I should also have been very surprised if after the alleged fall of Nephite culture c. 400 AD a similar destruction of perishable records above ground at the time, including those on precious metals, had not taken place.

OK

But even supposing that everything above ground in 400 AD was expunged, are you happy to be seen as claiming that a literate civilisation that had existed for centuries before that, with great cities whose technical and economic level was high enough to support large populations with huge armies, simply left no significant durable inscriptions in the ground that might be discovered today?

We find the remains of such a civilization that you described in mesoamerica. And , yes, we do find inscriptions.

You may feel comfortable about that, but I think your non-LDS or wavering LDS readers may wonder what your basis is for that assumption. Some might even call it a 'fantasy' but I won't, because it would be a rude way of answering you.

You can use any term you wish. Inscriptions are not the same thing as records. They typically record individual events, or the egotistical rantings of some religious or political leader. They do not record the details of religious, political, or social details that we need to match anything found in the BOM text.

Your assertion, to put it pollitely, is absurd.

The logic is simple:

There are no known texts excavated in America referring unambiguously to any person or place mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Actually, we do not know the names of ANY city, individual names, or geographical locations in mesoamerica, with very few exceptions. One such exception, interesting that you completly ignore it, is the city of Lamanai which is obviously a BOM name.

Indeed, we do not even know the actual name of the "Maya" or "Olmecks". These names, and virtually all the names of these ancient cities are MODERN names.

But, not being your mother, I tire of educating someone who refuses to do his own research.

Get back to us when you know what you are talking about. I have no interest in continuing this conversation until you can make some educated comments.

I apologize if this sounds rude, but I am really really tired of antimormons who, having little knowledge of what they are talking about, make stupid comments and demands on the BOM.

Get educated. Get back to us when you can talk with knowledge. If that is "rude", I'm sorry.

[JNclone]

cdowis:

You can use any term you wish. Inscriptions are not the same thing as records. They typically record individual events, or the egotistical rantings of some religious or political leader. They do not record the details of religious, political, or social details that we need to match anything found in the BOM text.

Your assertion, to put it pollitely, is absurd.

I am more generous than you suppose. All I need are a repertoire of unambiguous BoM personal or place names on a few American pot-sherds, and I am convinced. I have said that, but you are too indignant and eager to attack straw men to pay attention.

cdowis:

Actually, we do not know the names of ANY city, individual names, or geographical locations in mesoamerica, with very few exceptions. [...]

Indeed, we do not even know the actual name of the "Maya" or "Olmecks". These names, and virtually all the names of these ancient cities are MODERN names.

Your problem, not mine. And why don't we find any Reformed Egyptian, or anything like Hebrew, ever?

cdowis:

One such exception, interesting that you completly ignore it, is the city of Lamanai which is obviously a BOM name.

Nice of you to try to cite some evidence! Please can you (uncle?) cite me some evidence why we should not follow the etymology that finds Lama'an Ai, "submerged crocodile" in Yucatec Maya? Why is your identification more obvious? I shall even go and look at FAIR, if you like!

[cdowis]

Please can you (uncle?) cite me some evidence why we should not follow the etymology that finds Lama'an Ai, "submerged crocodile" in Yucatec Maya? Why is your identification more obvious?

Are you familiar with "submerged crocodile" habits? It is very dangerous, snatches it prey when it goes to the watering hole to drink. A submerged croc does not simply mean a sleeping crocodile sunbathing and lazily

floating in the river. It is a man-killer when it is submerged.

This is not just an ordinary name, but the name of a very dangerous animal, when it is at its most fearsome, ready to kill. Similar to the name "couching tiger", except a crocodile does not crouch when it makes its kill. It does it while waiting underwater at the river bank.

In Africa, many people have been killed in this manner. In one of the national parks there are plaques where someone was killed.

Now, let's find the equivalent BOM name, "Lamoni".

Who was he -- a king. Where did he live -- in the land of the Lamanites -- perhaps near Belize. A Lamanite implies a leader of a fearsome people, and he certainly needs an appropriate name.

Is it not appropriate for a Lamanite king to have a fearsome name, to place fear into the hearts of his enemies. He had some of his servants executed for perhaps a relatively minor incident.

There is your link. "Submerged Crocodile", king of the Lamanites.

[JNclone]

Are you familiar with "submerged crocodile" habits? It is very dangerous, snatches it prey when it goes to the watering hole to drink. A submerged croc does not simply mean a sleeping crocodile sunbathing and lazily

floating in the river. It is a man-killer when it is submerged.

This is not just an ordinary name, but the name of a very dangerous animal, when it is at its most fearsome, ready to kill. Similar to the name "couching tiger", except a crocodile does not crouch when it makes its kill. It does it while waiting underwater at the river bank.

In Africa, many people have been killed in this manner. In one of the national parks there are plaques where someone was killed.

Now, let's find the equivalent BOM name, "Lamoni".

Who was he -- a king. Where did he live -- in the land of the Lamanites -- perhaps near Belize. A Lamanite implies a leader of a fearsome people, and he certainly needs an appropriate name.

Is it not appropriate for a Lamanite king to have a fearsome name, to place fear into the hearts of his enemies. He had some of his servants executed for perhaps a relatively minor incident.

There is your link. "Submerged Crocodile", king of the Lamanites.

Many thanks for your interesting response. You don't need to labor the point about crocodiles - submerged or not, they are never nice. And I agree that 'crocodile' might at least appear in the posthumous name of a nasty king, even if people might have been reluctant to call him that in his lifetime.

This argument is definitely a strike to you, even though I think we will both agree that it is not the kind of evidence I was calling for - which was something excavated (and obviously from a plausible stratum) showing that people at the right kind of date were talking about the right kind of cities and people to fit in with the BoM. Of course if you want to stick to the equation of Lama'an Ai, "submerged crocodile" in Yucatec Maya to Lamoni in the BoM, then you have other problems to solve, like showing that some other Lamanite names also work in that language. And it would have been even better if the BoM had abused Lomoni as a reptilian monster ...

But I hope you will agree that it is always better to offer an argument than just to tell your opponents they are too ignorant to talk to? There is I believe an LDS scripture to the effect that the glory of God is intelligence. Your latest post is likely to be far more effective in persuading silent bystanders than all the others you have addressed to me. And whichever of us people think is more persuasive, they will have reached their decision on the basis of reason rather than on which of us shouted louder, or sneered more effectively - which in general is good for us all.

[SolarPowered]

Actually, we do not know the names of ANY city, individual names, or geographical locations in mesoamerica, with very few exceptions. [...]

Indeed, we do not even know the actual name of the "Maya" or "Olmecks". These names, and virtually all the names of these ancient cities are MODERN names.

Your problem, not mine.

Actually, it is your problem. You insist that we should have already found BoM names on surviving inscriptions. Yet, no one, youself included, is able to read the names on the those inscriptions. So your premise that we should have read BoM names off these stelae is flawed, because you are unable to tell us what any of the names on them actually are.

[JNclone]

JNclone:

Your problem, not mine.

SolarPowered

Actually, it is your problem. You insist that we should have already found BoM names on surviving inscriptions. Yet, no one, youself included, is able to read the names on the those inscriptions. So your premise that we should have read BoM names off these stelae is flawed, because you are unable to tell us what any of the names on them actually are.

No SolarPowered. The position I am expressing is skepticism about the existence of a Nephite culture on the American mainland. Fairly strong skepticism, yes, but by no means an assertion of certainty that no such culture existed.

I have explained to you how such skepticism can and has been combatted in the past: one way of doing so requires you to find some excavated inscribed objects with readable BoM names on them; and it would certainly be very good if they were in a version of Hebrew or Egyptian script.

The position your argument operates against is the position that claims that it is impossible that any evidence could ever be found supporting the reality of Nephite culture. You can of course then point to an unread stela, and say 'how do you know that it doesn't say "I Nephi being born of goodly parents ...".' My claimed certainty of the impossibility of your proving your case would then technically fail.

But that is not the way I argued at all. Nor do I think any serious critic of the BoM would do that either. We don't need to, since as the ones who claim Nephites are real you are the ones with the burden of proof.