Any new evidence for the historical account of the Book of Mormon?

[e=mc2]

I would add that simply because JFS said Cumorah was in New York (which is correct, there actually *is* a hill Cumorah there!), does not mean that there is also not one in Mesoamerica. Why ignore the more updated scholarship of Sorenson, Clark, and Gardner? They have materials that demonstrate Cumorah and the BofM geography are in Mesoamerica.

[hagoth7]

Ancient writings that contains portions of the Book of Mormon, similar to what we have for the Biblical record.

Something like P52 The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

In answer to your earlier direct question: Yes, manuscript fragments that parallel passages in the Book of Mormon do exist, which pre-date Joseph Smith by centuries, similar to what you've presented here, and which a number of believers would see as significant.

However, note carefully. The scrap you presented has existed for centuries, and it has likely not converted a single critic of Christianity into a humble follower of Christ.

Similar evidence for the Book of Mormon would likewise not help you, and would likely instead be counted against you for willful unbelief.

So if you're going to ask more, ask it of others. I probably won't return to this thread.

The proof of the pudding (the Book of Mormon), and its purpose, is not in ancient evidence.

It's in a humble, prayerful reading, in the name of Christ. The gate is the gate. There is no shortcut.

[LeSellers]

You are incorrect on #3. Even Monson says this is the place Hill Cumorah in this video. Please do not confuse people looking on this site for correct information. We know where Hill Cumorah is because our Prophet would say otherwise.

I see no reason to believe he would.

Having watched the video three times, I do not see where "Monson" said what you claim he did. Maybe you can point out what he said that you imagine supports your claim.

Lehi

[Bill Hamblin]

So you are saying that you don't have any ancient manuscripts and you don't expect to ever find any?

If I were talking to Billy, which I'm not, I'd say something like the following.

1- Many, many ancient texts survive in a single manuscript copy written centuries after the actual authorship of the text. Should we reject all of these as historical?

2- The chronological distance between the Hebrew Bible and the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible ranges from 300 to 1000 years. Should we therefore dismiss those parts of the Bible for which don't have contemporary original manuscripts?

3- Well attested ancient manuscript evidence does not prove a book is historical. It proves the book is ancient. Many ancient fictional books survive in numerous copies.

4- Many ancient texts survive only in translations, often done centuries after the book was originally written. Should the authenticity of all those books be rejected?

I'm certainly glad I'm not going to waste my time arguing with Billy about these things.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Billy states,

Why do you feel that there are lots of things that help support the history of the Bible, but little (to none) that support the Book of Mormon? (Things like people, places, ancient manuscripts) Do you feel that God may be hiding the evidence?

LifeOnaPlate replies,

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation born of a confident ignorance of important information.

LifeOnaPlate may be right that I may have an "ignorance of important information". I want to give him a chance to help me learn some of this new evidence. (Note I would of ask him in the other thread, but I was warned not to further derail that thread)

1. Any ancient manuscript evidence prior to Joseph Smith

2. Any known cities from the Book of Mormon that correspond to cities in the Americas?

3. Any archeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in New York?

4. Any evidence of the Lamanites or Nephites in archeological finds?

I already linked you to Hamblin's piece in the other thread. That would be a good place to start. Have you read it yet?

[kryoung1983]

In regards to Joseph Fielding Smith I believe he was just stating his opinion since it seems to contradict that of Joseph Smith himself. I am quoting from the Fair Wiki on this thread.

"15 July 1842: Joseph Smith discusses high civilization in the Americas, uses mound-builders and Guatemalan ruins as an example

NOTE: Page 862 of this issue of the Times and Seasons states: "The Times and Seasons, Is edited, printed and published about the first and fifteenth of every month, on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by JOSEPH SMITH"

If men, in their researches into the history of this country, in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, &c.-were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed, and their opinions altered; uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book. They would find their conjectures were more than realized-that a great and a mighty people had inhabited this continent-that the arts sciences and religion, had prevailed to a very great extent, and that there was as great and mighty cities on this continent as on the continent of Asia. Babylon, Ninevah, nor any of the ruins of the Levant could boast of more perfect sculpture, better architectural designs, and more imperishable ruins, than what are found on this continent. Stephens and Catherwood's researches in Central America abundantly testify of this thing. The stupendous ruins, the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the ruins of Guatamala [Guatemala], and other cities, corroborate this statement, and show that a great and mighty people-men of great minds, clear intellect, bright genius, and comprehensive designs inhabited this continent. Their ruins speak of their greatness; the Book of Mormen [Mormon} unfolds their history.-ED.[2]

This statement was signed "ED," which attributes it directly to Joseph Smith.

15 Sept. 1842: Speculation that Palenque is a Nephite city

NOTE: Page 926 of this issue of the Times and Seasons states: "The Times and Seasons, Is edited, printed and published about the first fifteenth of every month, on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by JOSEPH SMITH."

Although Joseph Smith is listed as the editor at this time, opinions vary on whether it may have actually been either John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff who wrote this unsigned article.[3][4] John Taylor later became the editor of Times and Seasons. Regardless of whether is was Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, or John Taylor who wrote this article, its publication occurred prior to the death of Joseph Smith. The subject being discussed is a very popular book by John L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, which Joseph Smith read and enjoyed:

Mr Stephens' great developments of antiquities are made bare to the eyes of all the people by reading the history of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found. Read the destruction of cities at the crucifixion of Christ...Let us turn our subject, however, to the Book of Mormon, where these wonderful ruins of Palenque are among the mighty works of the Nephites:â??and the mystery is solved...Mr. Stephens' great developments of antiquities are made bare to the eyes of all the people by reading the history of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found. Read the destruction of cities at the crucifixion of Christ, pages 459-60. Who could have dreamed that twelve years would have developed such incontrovertible testimony to the Book of Mormon?[5] (emphasis added)

1 Oct. 1842: Zarahemla "stood upon this land" of Central America

NOTE: Page 942 of this issue of the Times and Seasons states: "The Times and Seasons, Is edited, printed and published about the first fifteenth of every month, on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by JOSEPH SMITH."

[W]e have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatimala [Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.-The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma...It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them: and that a large stone with engravings upon it as Mosiah said; and a 'large round stone, with the sides sculptured in hieroglyphics,' as Mr. Stephens has published, is also among the left remembrances of the, (to him,) lost and unknown. We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon...It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts.[6] (emphasis added)

27 August 1843: Orson Pratt believes that the Book of Mormon names Central American cities

Wilford Woodruff wrote of Orson Pratt speaking about the Catherwood and Stephens volume:

[Orson Pratt] spoke in an edifying manner concerning the Book of Mormon its history what it was &c. That it was a History of nearly one half of the globe & the people that inhabited it, that it gave a history of all those cities that have been of late discovered by Catherwood & Stephens, that it named those cities. Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruffâ??s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 2:282; journal entry dated 27 August 1843. ISBN 0941214133.)

1 October 1843: Central American cities provide "circumstantial evidence" of the Book of Mormon

Unsigned editorial in the Times and Seasons (John Taylor was editor):

We have lately perused with great interest, Stephen's works on Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.

Mr. Stephens published about two years ago, a very interesting work entitled 'Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan,' in which he details very many interesting circumstances; discovered the ruins of magnificent cities, and form hieroglyphical representations, sculpture and rich specimens of architecture, proved one important fact, which had been disputed by many of our sages; that America had once been peopled by a highly polished, civilized and scientific race, with whom the present aborigines could not compare.

This work has been read with great interest throughout this continent, and tens of thousands of copies have been sent to, and sold in Europe, where it has been investigated with the greatest scrutiny and interest. It has already passed through twelve editions; it is published in two volumes, 8 vo.

Since the publication of this work, Mr. Stephens has again visited Central America, in company with Mr. Catherwood, and other scientific gentlemen, for the purpose of making further explorations among those already interesting ruins. They took with them the Daguerreotype, and other apparatus, for the purpose of giving views and drawings of those mysterious relics of antiquity. His late travels and discoveries, have also been published in two volumes of the same size, entitled 'Incidents of travel in Central America.'

It is a work of great interest, written with precision and accuracy. The plates are elegantly executed, and its history unfolds the ruins of grandeur, civilization and intelligence. It is published by Harper & Brothers, N. Y.

This is a work that ought to be in the hands of every Latter Day Saint; corroborating, as it does the history of the Book of Mormon. There is no stronger circumstantial evidence of the authenticity of the latter book, can be given, than that contained in Mr. Stephens' works.

Mr. Stephens gives an account of ancient cities he has visited, where once dwelt the powerful, the wise, the scientific, and to use his own words; 'architecture, sculpture and painting, all the arts which embellished life had flourished in this overgrown city; orators, warriors, and statesmen, beauty, ambition, and glory, had lived and passed away, and none knew that such things had been, or could tell of their past existence.' In the last clause, Mr. Catherwood is mistaken. It has fallen to his lot to explore the ruins of this once mighty people, but the 'Book of Mormon' unfolds their history; and published as it was, years before these discoveries were made, and giving as it does, accounts of a people, and of cities that bear a striking resemblance to those mentioned by Mr. Stephens, both in regard to magnificence and location, it affords the most indubitable testimony of the historical truth of that book, which has been treated so lightly by the literati and would be philosophers of the present age.

For the information of our friends who do not possess this work, we may at a convenient time collect and compare many of the important items in this work, and in the Book of Mormon, and publish them. To give some idea of the nature of the last work, we publish the following from the preface:

"In his 'Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan,' the author intimates his intention to make a thorough exploration of the ruins of the latter country. That intention has been carried into effect, and the following pages are the result. They describe, as the author has reason to believe, the most extensive journeying ever made by a stranger in that peninsula, and contain the account of visits to forty four ruined cities or palaces, in which the remains or vestiges of ancient population, were found. The existence of most of these ruins was entirely unknown to the residents of the capital -- but few had ever been visited by white inhabitants -- they were desolate and overgrown with trees. For a brief space, the stillness that reigned about them was broken and they were again left to solitude and silence. Time and the elements are hastening them to utter destruction. In a few generations, great edifices, their facades covered with sculptured ornaments, already croaking and yawning, must fall, and become mere shapeless mounds. It has been the fortune of the author to step between them and the destruction to which they are destined, and it is his hope to snatch from oblivion these perishing, but still gigantic memorials of a mysterious people." (John Taylor[?], "Stephen's[sic] Works on Central America," Times and Seasons 4/22 (1 October 1843)

[smac97]

I am not saying that you did not have "eyewitnesses". My point is that you do not have any ancient physical manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Not so. We have evidence for the Gold Plates.

No Gold Plates

Correct.

and no ancient manuscript evidence.

Not so. We have the eyewitness testimony about the plates. And ancillary archaeological evidence of antiquity exists with the NHM altar.And we haven't even touched the textual evidence.

OK so we have just under 10% of the cities mentioned in the Bible that we can be certain about.

And, as Hamblin pointed out, this <10% of identified sites are "from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world."So if "the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world" can only yield currently identifiable sites <10% of the time, do you think it is reasonable to expect oodles of evidence to come out of Mesoamerica?

How many cities in the Book of Mormon can you be certain about?

For the second time: There are some good informed guesses, but nothing with any measurable degree of certainty.Meanwhile, thank you for proving my previous point:

In fact, quite the opposite is true. There are several notable examples where precise reconstruction of archaic geographies has proven difficult if not impossible.The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified â??and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world.

This is a point that critics never address: They have unreasonable assumptions and expectations about the state of Mesoamerican archaeology and what archaeology can and cannot prove.

Here are you, totally blowing off the point I made, and fitting in with all the rest of the critics.-Smac

So you are saying that you don't have any ancient manuscripts and you don't expect to ever find any?

Ah. Billy is just looking for some "gotcha" soundbites. He's not interested in serious discussion.I'm outta here.-Smac

[Anijen]

Ancient writings that contains portions of the Book of Mormon, similar to what we have for the Biblical record.

Something like P52 The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

But we do and there are. Maybe not what you want to hear.

DSC is an ancient manuscript discovered after JS. In DSC Isaiah is quoted, in BoM Isaiah is quoted, your question has been answered.

[Areabird]

I agree with Billy that the question is not the truthfulness of the philosphies and teachings in the Book of Mormon. I have no doubt that much of the Book of Mormon is inspired--even if it turns out that it is not historical. But it seems that folks tend to do somersaults trying to prove it is historical with no hard evidence.

As Lifer indicated, there should be some hard evidence somwhere. Billy is just asking to be pointed in the right direction.

[Anijen]

I agree with Billy that the question is not the truthfulness of the philosphies and teachings in the Book of Mormon. I have no doubt that much of the Book of Mormon is inspired--even if it turns out that it is not historical. But it seems that folks tend to do somersaults trying to prove it is historical with no hard evidence.

As Lifer indicated, there should be some hard evidence somwhere. Billy is just asking to be pointed in the right direction.

Billy is looking to stir the pot if he had 1000 evidences or even better yet direct proof Billy would go "nuh uh what bout this"...

Besides IMO there is a lot of evidence's out there many anti's just refuse to accept them. I will list a few;

Nahum

Three Witnesses

Chiasmis

and other Hebraisms

Eleven Witnesses

possibility seal of Mulek is found.

[Areabird]

But we do and there are. Maybe not what you want to hear.

DSC is an ancient manuscript discovered after JS. In DSC Isaiah is quoted, in BoM Isaiah is quoted, your question has been answered.

I'm not sure I follow. What does the fragment in the photo have to do with the Book of Mormon or texts that reference the Book of Mormon?

[Anijen]

I'm not sure I follow. What does the fragment in the photo have to do with the Book of Mormon or texts that reference the Book of Mormon?

I was trying to be funny (not succeeding). Billy asked for;

Ancient writings that contains portions of the Book of Mormon, similar to what we have for the Biblical record.

I replied that the Dead Sea Scrolls quotes Isaiah and the Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah so that is exactly what Billy asked for which is an Ancient writing that contains portions of the Book of Mormon [isaiah] , similar to what we have for the Biblical record [Which contains Isaiah].

Edited to add; that the image Billy gave has absolutely nothing to do w/the DSC

[smac97]

I agree with Billy that the question is not the truthfulness of the philosphies and teachings in the Book of Mormon. I have no doubt that much of the Book of Mormon is inspired--even if it turns out that it is not historical.

With respect, I disagree. Whether or not The Book of Mormon is historical is inextricably linked to its antiquity and historicity.

I've explained why here:

But if you are suggesting that the Church will move away from the book's historicity, I think you are mistaken. I suggest you take a look at Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson. I strongly recommend it, as it addresses the point your are making here very clearly. The conclusion I have come to is that the "message" of the Book of Mormon is inextricably linked to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. To reject one is to reject the other. This conclusion is, I think, shared by the contributors of this book. The review published in FARMS Review contains some useful observations and excerpts: (emphases added):

Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures responds to the assertion that Latter-day Saint scripture could be in some sense meaningful even if the events and people mentioned in it were not actually real. The resounding response from those whose essays appear in this collection is that it is crucial for Latter-day Saints to hold to the historicity-historical authenticity-of scripture, while at the same time insisting that scripture is more than mere history. And the clear warning is that blindly following naturalism and the Enlightenment when it comes to thinking about Latter-day Saint scripture will lead to a diminished faith for Latter-day Saints.

...

Perhaps the assertion by these three contributors could be exemplified by Elder Dallin H. Oaks's statement in "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon":

There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. (p.241)

With characteristic insight, Elder Oaks points out what is at stake here - the foundation of faith for Latter-day Saints. "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived" (p.244). The other authors who deal exclusively with the Book of Mormon offer similar perspectives.

...

Having reviewed Joseph's claims and what the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Three and Eight Witnesses say about the book, Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" (p. 137). All of this comes to a question of what one could trust if there is not a historical grounding for this book. Jackson directs his focus on the crux of the matter:

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be "true," in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events? (pp. 137-38)

...

Scripture's historicity is bound up, Hoskisson argues, with historical obligation. For instance, if Jesus was not actually baptized, then no requirement can be laid on us. "If, on the other hand, Christ Himself was baptized, then we cannot escape its necessity and must also be baptized" (p.�113). Similar claims can be made about other events from the many acts of Christ, to the covenant made with Abraham and the sacrifice required of him, to the death and resurrection of Christ. Take away their historicity and you take away the obligation that comes with them. At the same time, such a move takes away that which gives "content in our doctrine, substance to our faith, and reason for our hope" (p. 116).

I am surprised at how easily some Latter-day Saints jettison the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Such people, I think, really haven't thought that position through to its logical conclusion. Some of our critics have sure caught on to the tremendous ramifications of this position. By way of example, I point you to this blog entry, written on an "ex-Mormon" blog, about Van Hale (an LDS radio host who, like you, thinks that rejecting the historicity of the Book of Mormon is okay) (emphases added):

Another of Van Hale's silly opinions:

"There is room for Latter Day Saints to believe that the Book of Mormon is an authentic divinely inspired book of scripture without making a commitment that it is a um

[consiglieri]

I'm not sure I follow. What does the fragment in the photo have to do with the Book of Mormon or texts that reference the Book of Mormon?

I think what Billy is trying to do is show the earliest known fragment of a New Testament writing, which is about the size of a credit card, and is still not an original, and not likely to have even been a direct copy of an original.

Billy is doing this to remind us that we do not have originals of any of the books of the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament, and so Joseph Smith's statement that Mormons believe the Bible to be correct insofar as it is translated correctly is still on solid ground.

That is what you meant, isn't it Billy?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

If I were talking to Billy, which I'm not, I'd say something like the following.

1- Many, many ancient texts survive in a single manuscript copy written centuries after the actual authorship of the text. Should we reject all of these as historical?

2- The chronological distance between the Hebrew Bible and the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible ranges from 300 to 1000 years. Should we therefore dismiss those parts of the Bible for which don't have contemporary original manuscripts?

3- Well attested ancient manuscript evidence does not prove a book is historical. It proves the book is ancient. Many ancient fictional books survive in numerous copies.

4- Many ancient texts survive only in translations, often done centuries after the book was originally written. Should the authenticity of all those books be rejected?

I'm certainly glad I'm not going to waste my time arguing with Billy about these things.

If I were replying to Bill, I might say the following.

I would probably agree with your points. We don't have the originals, rather we have copies of copies of the originals. But for the Book of Mormon we do not have any ancient copies of copies, or fragments of copies. Don't you find that odd?

[Billy]

I think what Billy is trying to do is show the earliest known fragment of a New Testament writing, which is about the size of a credit card, and is still not an original, and not likely to have even been a direct copy of an original.

Billy is doing this to remind us that we do not have originals of any of the books of the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament, and so Joseph Smith's statement that Mormons believe the Bible to be correct insofar as it is translated correctly is still on solid ground.

That is what you meant, isn't it Billy?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You are partly correct. We do not have the original manuscripts, I believe P52 is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, copy fragment that we have for the NT. My point is that if you have a flourishing society that spans from 600BC to 421AD, wouldn't you expect to have some written record during this time period that would corroborate the history or religious events that have taken place in the Book of Mormon?

Do you think that this 1,000 year history was written down prior to an abridgement, OR just passed down orally from generation to generation?

[Anijen]

Hey Billy this is ancient and there are lots of this phrase from the BoM

[Billy]

I'm not sure I follow. What does the fragment in the photo have to do with the Book of Mormon or texts that reference the Book of Mormon?

Nothing.

I asked Sargon about ancient Book of Mormon manuscripts and he (see below) "pretended" in my opinion not to understand what I was asking about, so I asked him again and added a picture so it would be more clear to him.

You haven't yet described what in the world it means to be "ancient manuscript evidence". So, I reserve judgment until you do that.

[Jaybear]

As Midgley has pointed out, critics have some fundamental flaws in their assumptions about The Book of Mormon.

Those flaws are summed up in the state: "There should be some hard evidence somewhere."

-Smac

You have identified a flaw of mine.

It is true, I expect that if Hebrews migrated to the new world circa 600 BC, and established a civilization that lasted 1.000 years, they would have left some discernible footprints.

This is especially true since we know quite a bit about the culture, diet, religious beliefs and practices, languages, diseases and technology of people living in the Mideast prior to the alleged migration.

[lostindc]

Hey Billy this is ancient and there are lots of this phrase from the BoM

That doesnt count, we need some sort of parchment about the size of a credit card, or at least one of the three nephites to show up and post on this message board.

[robuchan]

Billy is looking to stir the pot if he had 1000 evidences or even better yet direct proof Billy would go "nuh uh what bout this"...

Besides IMO there is a lot of evidence's out there many anti's just refuse to accept them. I will list a few;

Nahum

Three Witnesses

Chiasmis

and other Hebraisms

Eleven Witnesses

possibility seal of Mulek is found.

I keep hoping for more. Is this really the best there is?

[robuchan]

Hey Billy this is ancient and there are lots of this phrase from the BoM

Tell me more about this. Is this real or a joke? Sorry if i'm being dense and missed the humor.

[kryoung1983]

Tell me more about this. Is this real or a joke? Sorry if i'm being dense and missed the humor.

It is the 'it came to pass' glyph found at Pelenque. It is also interesting that Joseph Smith named this as a place that was a book of mormon location at one time.

[smac97]

You have identified a flaw of mine.

It is true, I expect that if Hebrews migrated to the new world circa 600 BC, and established a civilization that lasted 1.000 years, they would have left some discernible footprints.

And they very well could have. But we may not yet have the capacity to recognize those footprints for what they are.

This is especially true since we know quite a bit about the culture, diet, religious beliefs and practices, languages, diseases and technology of people living in the Mideast prior to the alleged migration.

Midgley's point is validated yet again.

Brant Gardner has also spoken on this point.

What would ancient Israelitish culture and belief look like when transferred by a tiny group of Israelites to the Americas and then, in all likelihood, integrated into cultures and civilizations that were already in place there? And then what sort of changes would we see as this Israelitish influence operated in total isolation from the Old World for 1,000 years?

-Smac

[Billy]

What would ancient Israelitish culture and belief look like when transferred by a tiny group of Israelites to the Americas and then, in all likelihood, integrated into cultures and civilizations that were already in place there? And then what sort of changes would we see as this Israelitish influence operated in total isolation from the Old World for 1,000 years?

-Smac

Some B of M verses seem to indicate that the land was to be preserved for these people and that these populations will be as numerous as the sands of the sea.

2 Nephi 1

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a apromise, that binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall cprosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall dkeep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

Ether 2

5 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should ago forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been. And it came to pass that the Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a bcloud, and gave cdirections whither they should travel.

6 And it came to pass that they did travel in the wilderness, and did abuild bbarges, in which they did cross many waters, being directed continually by the hand of the Lord.

7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

Note below in Mormon 1:7 the widespread number of people, not just a very small population as some LDS like to state. If there was a very small subset of people that the Book of Mormon was speaking about, then I think that it is more likely that the evidence would be smaller than in the Old World (but not non-existent), however when you see verses that says "whole face of the land had become covered with buildings" and that the people "numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea, it becomes more difficult to believe that you have little if any proof of their existence.

Mormon 1:7 The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.