Viable Nephite colonies

[notHagoth7]

Because a society does not get that good at something only doing it occasionally.

Yes. That's usually true.

Really, all you can provide is Atlantis?

No. It's simply a start. Can you acknowledge that it **is** specific testimony for what you had requested, and that it does suggest historical traffic from the Americas to ancient Europe?

I thought you said there is extensive evidence?

Well, there's 244 pages in the link I provided. Plus a number of additional chapters that aren't part of that book or that edition. Plus a considerable amount of discussion in this thread...

You mean everyone is fearing the worse and hoping for the best? But there should be nothing to fear right?

Funny. I simply meant that we lack a baseline.

Europe may be able to provide one.

[Arc]

As you're likely aware, Nephite geography is a much debated issue in this setting (and others). It's nowhere near a settled issue. And you're dealing with an LDS audience that knows full well that the official line is that there is **no** established or revealed geography for the Book of Mormon.

That said, there's nothing to stop you from arguing from a Mesoamerican assumption.

But it's somewhat like attempting to **push** a rope, since, within Mormon circles, it's arguing from a foundation that isn't based on established belief or fact.

As a genealogist, I know that when trying to locate one's heritage, it is methodologically sound to start with known, recent generations, and carefully work one's way backwards. I believe the same is true of Nephite research. It's arguably more sound to work from more recent, known history, and work our way backwards from there. I think it's the most likely approach of triangulating in on the American Nephite homeland(s) with any reasonable degree of plausibility.

Here is where we run into a problem that is endemic in all of LDS apologetics, and throughout Church teachings and beliefs.

I state the none other than the prophet Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church, the most studied and revered individual in all of Mormondom, past or present, claims that Nephite cities are located in Mesoamerica.

Why, then, is this not "gospel"? Why is this issue a matter of contention? Can Mormons pick and choose statements of the prophets are to be believed and not believed? Can they decide for themselves whether a President of the Church is speaking as a prophet or a man?

Yes, according to you and many others, they can. And why is this the case? Because it is the only way that folks can hold onto unfounded belief. If it is clear that there were no Nephites in Mesoamerica, then let

[Bearded Infidel]

No. It's simply a start. Can you acknowledge that it **is** specific testimony for what you had requested, and that it does suggest historical traffic from the Americas to ancient Europe?

Well he was certainly speaking of some land that lied to the west, but he claimed Atlantis sunk?

Well, there's 244 pages in the link I provided. Plus a number of additional chapters that aren't part of that book or that edition. Plus a considerable amount of discussion in this thread...

And this material has evidence that Americans visited Europe before Columbus? I will check it out.

I am interested in what you have to say about Ireland.

[notHagoth7]

Here is where we run into a problem that is endemic in all of LDS apologetics, and throughout Church teachings and beliefs.

I state the none other than the prophet Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church, the most studied and revered individual in all of Mormondom, past or present, claims that Nephite cities are located in Mesoamerica.

You've misdiagnosed the problem.

To illustrate: which Nephite cities? That question is more relevant to the thread than it might seem.

Why, then, is this not "gospel"? Why is this issue a matter of contention? Can Mormons pick and choose statements of the prophets are to be believed and not believed? Can they decide for themselves whether a President of the Church is speaking as a prophet or a man?

Sounds like a great thread. I'd suggest starting one. I'll get back to the matter of contention in a moment.

Yes, according to you and many others, they can. And why is this the case? Because it is the only way that folks can hold onto unfounded belief. If it is clear that there were no Nephites in Mesoamerica, then let

[cdowis]

In any case, all I asked for was simple selection between two alternative hypotheses. If you do not like one, then select the other. If you do not like either, you are welcome to construct your own, so long as it is falsifiable.

You have presented a false dichotomy, as I demonstrated in my post. You assume that they are mututally exclusive, and one precludes the other. No need to "construct another hypothesis", I accept the fact that there are many things that archeologists do not know, and that the BOM does not give the details that you are demanding of it. there are many BOM artifacts in museums. The only issue is identification.

And that comes from a reading of the BOM text. Everything I put in my previous is right there in the text, no need to read between the lines -- the purpose of the BOM, the fact that there were many records and this is only a condensation of the religious history with no intention of getting into the details, the language, etc etc. It's clearly written out, and you missed it all.

And you go on with your flawed logic of "you gotta choose between them".

[notHagoth7]

Well he was certainly speaking of some land that lied to the west, but he claimed Atlantis sunk?

Well, we're talking about a landmass the size of two continents.

And a landmass matching that size is where it's supposed to be.

Whatever event Plato was attempting to describe can be debated, but the point is that his writings attest to cross-Atlantic contact from those two continents. Translation: the Americas.

And this material has evidence that Americans visited Europe before Columbus?

More specifically that Nephites colonized there.

I am interested in what you have to say about Ireland.

I'll summarize here. The Tuatha De Danaan were said to have arrived on the west coast of Ireland.

When they left, some accounts say that they returned to their original homeland, westward, across the Atlantic.

Their name means the "People of God" Danaan.

Because of its meaning, "Tuatha De" is also the term used by the Irish to describe the Israelites.

What Danaan means depends in some measure on which language family the term derives from.

I am of the opinion that Danaan has a correlation to the root of the German term "Tanen-baum" (evergreen-tree.)

I believe the word implies verdant. Abundant. Bountiful.

Whether I'm right on that, however, is independent of a homeland in the west.

Combined, however, the Tuatha De Danaan accounts have the potential of implying the following:

1) People of God

2) From the west

3) From Bountiful

How's that for starters?

[Bearded Infidel]

Well, there's 244 pages in the link I provided. Plus a number of additional chapters that aren't part of that book or that edition. Plus a considerable amount of discussion in this thread...

Ok, I read the chapter you referenced. What I asked for was evidence that Americans visited Europe before Columbus, and you link does not provide it. What it provides is more of what you have provided here, conjectures based on conjectures based on differing ancient tales of certain peoples origins. Here is a question for you: how many people who specialize in these fields buy into this theory or even think it is plausible? I am sure they would love to find a link between native americans and europeans, that would make someones career.

[Bearded Infidel]

Combined, however, the Tuatha De Danaan accounts have the potential of implying the following:

1) People of God

2) From the west

3) From Bountiful

How's that for starters?

But you see, that is all you have to offer. You incesantly insist that whenever someone hails 'from the west', it must mean america. And then you jump to number 3, which is based completely on your own interpretation of a word's origin. You even state:

I am of the opinion that Danaan has a correlation to the root of the German term "Tanen-baum" (evergreen-tree.)

I believe the word implies verdant. Abundant. Bountiful.

And you chose the word Bountiful, with the express purpose of associating it with Nephite origins. There is really nothing scholastic about this exercise.

[notHagoth7]

But you see, that is all you have to offer. You incesantly insist that whenever someone hails 'from the west', it must mean america.

I'm listening. Precisely what else is west of Ireland?

And you chose the word Bountiful, with the express purpose of associating it with Nephite origins.

How many civilizations skilled in warfare, seafaring and metalwork do you know of from the ancient Americas?

It's a very short list.

I can fully appreciate why you guys think the Book of Mormon is nothing but folklore.

People said the same about the Vinland Sagas - until the Ingstads discovered L'Anse Aux Meadows.

People said the same about the Iliad until Schliemann discovered Troy.

I can't blame you. But can you blame the Ingstads and Schliemann for believing?

Is there a grounded reason to rule out my suggestion for the meaning of Danaan? Other than the fact that you don't like the conclusion?

[notHagoth7]

There is really nothing scholastic about this exercise.

Scholastic:

Of or relating to schools; academic.

Adhering rigidly to scholarly methods; pedantic.

Which scholarly methods do you feel are missing here?

Seriously. What approach would you take to examining the origin accounts of European peoples?

I'm certainly open to suggestions.

From the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss:

"The scientific mind does not so much provide the right answers as to ask the right questions."

And as Peter Ellis says, "the result of the search depends on what questions we ask."

My question: Does Europe offer evidence for a Nephite diaspora?

Your likely question: Who in their right mind would believe in Nephites?

It's very clear where I'm coming from. Full disclosure. I make that quite clear in the book.

Do I understand your stance accurately?

[Bearded Infidel]

I'm listening. Precisely what else is west of Ireland?

Lets see, Greenland and Iceland for starters as well as many other islands.

How many civilizations skilled in warfare, seafaring and metalwork do you know of from the ancient Americas?

It's a very short list.

Actually, excluding the BOM, there isn't evidence of any.

I can fully appreciate why you guys think the Book of Mormon is nothing but folklore.

People said the same about the Vinland Sagas - until the Ingstads discovered L'Anse Aux Meadows.

People said the same about the Iliad until Schliemann discovered Troy.

I can't blame you. But can you blame the Ingstads and Schliemann for believing?

That is very different. Troy had the plausibility of existing, in a region that was known to have the technology of the Trojans. What you are presenting is a case based completely upon your filtered reading of the materials, with zero archaeological backing. Ancient Americans did not have the technologies you are asserting they did.

Is there a grounded reason to rule out my suggestion for the meaning of Danaan? Other than the fact that you don't like the conclusion?

All I am saying is that your conclusion is based upon your preconceived desire for the meaning to be what you suggest it is. It is your desire to connect the word to Nephites that is driving you to pick what the word means.

[Bearded Infidel]

Scholastic:

Of or relating to schools; academic.

Adhering rigidly to scholarly methods; pedantic.

Which scholarly methods do you feel are missing here?

You seem to have your mind made up and are going about to prove your preconceived notions. You seem to be asking the questions and drawing the conclusions that support your argument, instead of evaluating the evidence and drawing the most plausible conclusions.

My question: Does Europe offer evidence for a Nephite diaspora?

Your likely question: Who in their right mind would believe in Nephites?

It's very clear where I'm coming from. Full disclosure. I make that quite clear in the book.

Do I understand your stance accurately?

Is anyone here confused about my position? There is no physical evidence that your theory can be true. Want to believe in Nephites? Go ahead, I don't have a problem with that. You are claiming that what you are presenting is evidence that Nephites emigrated to Europe, but you are not providing any such thing. You are only providing your own personally biased conclusions. If you did not believe the BOM was true, I have a hard time believing you would advocate this position.

[notHagoth7]

Ok, I read the chapter you referenced. What I asked for was evidence that Americans visited Europe before Columbus, and you link does not provide it.

OK. Which didn't you like? The evidence presented? Or my interpretations of that evidence?

For example, here are two questions for you. Why would the Gothic origin account contain a description of Atlantic Ocean currents and the Sargasso Sea...when the accepted wisdom is that they came from the Baltic? And where/how would they get that kind of nautical detail?

What it provides is more of what you have provided here, conjectures based on conjectures based on differing ancient tales of certain peoples origins.

I'm listening.

Are you suggesting that the origin accounts have no meaning?

Or that there is no value in attempting to understand them?

Or do you simply take issue with my assessment?

Here is a question for you: how many people who specialize in these fields buy into this theory or even think it is plausible?

I don't know of a specialist that has even heard about some of the things I've written. Let alone commented on them.

Is there a reason I should be concerned about that this early in the game?

How many people agreed with Schliemann? With the Ingstads?

How few (or how many) "yes men" someone stashes in their quiver isn't something I spend much time thinking about. How is it relevant?

Such a tally would neither confirm nor disprove the validity of a hypothesis.

I am sure they would love to find a link between native americans and europeans, that would make someones career.

Oddly enough, from what I've been told, few academics want to be the point of the spear to propose radical restructuring of previous paradigms. Supposedly, due to pressures for conformity, most prefer incremental, low-risk advancements of knowledge - rather than broad leaps that challenge too many textbooks, opinions, and egos in one fell swoop.

[notHagoth7]

Lets see, Greenland and Iceland for starters as well as many other islands.

And you're proposing those lands for the origins of the Tuatha De Danaan?

On what basis?

Are you aware of how their homeland is described?

Actually, excluding the BOM, there isn't evidence of any.

And what does that say about the various origin accounts?

Either they are in the same realm of fantasy that some prefer to place the Nephite account...or...they're different sides of the same coin.

That is very different.

The general principle is quite the same.

Minor details aside.

Troy had the plausibility of existing, in a region that was known to have the technology of the Trojans.

Then, pray tell, why did so many people doubt Troy's existence?

What you are presenting is a case based completely upon your filtered reading of the materials

I can't think of a non-fiction book that doesn't fit that description.

(Presents a case based completely upon filtered reading of materials.)

Can you?

Let's be real - I provide citations - so people can sift through the source materials themselves.

And I encourage them to do so at the end of several chapters.

Are you suggesting a better approach?

with zero archaeological backing.

That's actually not true. A chapter on origin accounts is not going to address archaeology. Why would it?

Archaeology depicts an influx of people into the region I've outlined, in the precise time period I've outlined.

Part of my premise is based on their findings. (I prefer to understate things.)

Ancient Americans did not have the technologies you are asserting they did.

Which technologies?

All I am saying is that your conclusion is based upon your preconceived desire for the meaning to be what you suggest it is.

I could just as easily state that the above statement is based on your preconceived desire for me to be wrong. But where would that get us? Rather than question the integrity of one another's motives, I'd much rather discuss the evidence. Can we do that?

It is your desire to connect the word to Nephites that is driving you to pick what the word means.

Again - ad hominem. Can we avoid that here?

Yet no explanation for how or why my interpretation is wrong? Or at least extending your new and improved interpretation? I'm much more interested in talking about the evidence, and viable interpretations of that evidence, than about personalities. Fair enough?

[notHagoth7]

You seem to have your mind made up and are going about to prove your preconceived notions.

You've stated that repeatedly here. We could make up a bumper sticker if you'd like.

Are you suggesting that you've entered the discussion with absolutely no preconceived notions?

Rather than this downward spiral of ad hominem issues, how about we do something constructive like address the evidence instead?

Or my assessments of the evidence? Or your proposed alternatives?

You seem to be asking the questions and drawing the conclusions that support your argument, instead of evaluating the evidence and drawing the most plausible conclusions.

When the evidence repeatedly points in the same direction, what is the most plausible conclusion?

Please step up. Where's your solution, for example, to the Germanic linguistic problem?

I've extended the invitation to propose a single civilization that matches the linguistic and technological details provided by the Germanic language data, and by the window of time suggested by Shield's origin account. The door is open. I'm listening. Feel free to propose a historically viable alternative or two.

Is anyone here confused about my position? There is no physical evidence that your theory can be true.

The very words we speak are evidence.

I'm waiting for a viable counterproposal - that the linguistic evidence for a seafaring people points to a different, more plausible solution.

Ear to the ground.

You are claiming that what you are presenting is evidence that Nephites emigrated to Europe, but you are not providing any such thing.

You misunderstand.

Let me clarify. I'm not saying that the evidence proves the case.

But I certainly am presenting evidence.

Origin accounts are evidence.

Linguistic data is evidence.

Ocean current and trade winds are evidence.

As are origin accounts which include details of such nautical evidence.

Cultural traits are evidence.

Cicero's letters are evidence.

Julius Caesar's history of the conquest of Gaul is evidence.

etc. etc.

So is there a reason you claim there is no evidence?

There are literally hundreds of citations in the book.

Each one of them is evidence.

What's your basis for claiming otherwise?

You are only providing your own personally biased conclusions.

Untrue.

I am providing evidence.

With my assessment of the evidence.

Are you suggesting there is such a thing as an unbiased conclusion?

Quite a number of my assessments of the evidence aren't intended as conclusions. They're tentative. Because they're intended as beginnings. As a launching pad for further discussion and exploration into the issue.

I find it interesting that some critics are claiming I'm being too dogmatic, while others are saying I'm being too wishy washy.

That's a lot of ad hominem bandwidth.

Are one of you going to step forward and engage with the evidence itself?

If you did not believe the BOM was true, I have a hard time believing you would advocate this position.

So do I.

Would you advocate a position you had no faith in?

Who ethically could?

And if Isaac Newton didn't believe God's creations were orderly and made sense, I have a hard time believing he would have advanced our understanding of the world as much as he did.

You view such belief as a blinder.

I view it as a lens.

This research presents a hypothesis. With considerable evidence.

I invite you to present an alternative that addresses just a small fraction of the evidence.

[Jeff_Ricks]

You misunderstand.

Let me clarify. I'm not saying that the evidence proves the case.

But I certainly am presenting evidence.

...

Quite a number of my assessments of the evidence aren't intended as conclusions. They're tentative. Because they're intended as beginnings. As a launching pad for further discussion and exploration into the issue.

You see, this is why I stated earlier that I would skim this thread until the entire case is presented, so I know where it's going before I decide if I want to commit time to reading further. I was put off by the feeling that I was going to be led through a maze only to find that there's really no cheese at the end of he maze. You're admitting as such--essentially saying 'but I've laid the groundwork for the possibility of cheese showing up someday.' You call what you've presented "evidence." Okay, it's evidence, but it's only circumstantial evidence, being linked together with "tentative" maybes and could-be's that "aren't intended as conclusions." Here's what a Wikipedia page has to say about circumstantial evidence.

"Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact. It is evidence that requires or allows a trier of fact to make a deduction to conclude that a fact exists. This inference made from a trier of facts supports the truth of assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of absence of guilt). By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly

[Arc]

You have presented a false dichotomy, as I demonstrated in my post. You assume that they are mututally exclusive, and one precludes the other. No need to "construct another hypothesis", I accept the fact that there are many things that archeologists do not know, and that the BOM does not give the details that you are demanding of it. there are many BOM artifacts in museums. The only issue is identification.

And that comes from a reading of the BOM text. Everything I put in my previous is right there in the text, no need to read between the lines -- the purpose of the BOM, the fact that there were many records and this is only a condensation of the religious history with no intention of getting into the details, the language, etc etc. It's clearly written out, and you missed it all.

And you go on with your flawed logic of "you gotta choose between them".

Your post brings up, yet again, the problem with Mormon apologetics that I pointed out earlier. As apologists, you are constrained to assume that the LDS scriptures are what the Church claims, in spite of the fact that there is no credible physical supporting evidence and substantial evidence to the contrary.

You claim that I have presented a false dichotomy because you have no other choice, especially if you are not willing to generate a third hypothesis. And I realize that a third (falsifiable) hypothesis that would be acceptable to one in your position would be pretty much impossible to generate.

Either the Nephites and Lamanites lived in ancient Mesoamerica in their millions, as described in the BoM or they did not. Since there is no evidence whatsoever that they did, and there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis, which is that the Olmec, Maya and Toltec lived in this space and time, we can safely conclude that the Nephites and Lamanites did not.

We are not talking about some small religious sect here. We are talking about millions of people at one time according to the Book of Mormon.

Ether 15: 2: He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.

If millions of people that were not Olmec had lived in the same time and space, how can one possibly believe that we would not know about them since we have ample evidence of the Olmec who, in fact, probably never reached a population of two million? There is no false dichotomy here.

The scientific community would not agree that the two hypotheses I presented represent a false dichotomy. To the scientific community the choice is clear, and it has been made, publicly and in writing, multiple times.

And since I agree with Jeff Ricks that there is no cheese in this maze, I will not be following this thread any further.

[Jeff_Ricks]

And since I agree with Jeff Ricks that there is no cheese in this maze, I will not be following this thread any further.

Hey Arc. I have some cheese. If you have some wine, let's have a party!! Oh, wait. Maybe Arc is partying elsewhere now.

[ERayR]

Here is where we run into a problem that is endemic in all of LDS apologetics, and throughout Church teachings and beliefs.

I state the none other than the prophet Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church, the most studied and revered individual in all of Mormondom, past or present, claims that Nephite cities are located in Mesoamerica.

Here lies a problem. Your statement is only true in your own mind. The real problem is that Joseph never made any definative statements on the subject. There are contributed to him several statements speculating where the Nephite civilization was.

Why, then, is this not "gospel"? Why is this issue a matter of contention? Can Mormons pick and choose statements of the prophets are to be believed and not believed? Can they decide for themselves whether a President of the Church is speaking as a prophet or a man?

The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ not the gospel of the geography of the Nephites. The Gospel is about Christ, about faith, about repentence, about baptism, about returning to God's presence, not about geography.

Yes, according to you and many others, they can. And why is this the case? Because it is the only way that folks can hold onto unfounded belief. If it is clear that there were no Nephites in Mesoamerica, then let

[ERayR]

That is very different. Troy had the plausibility of existing, in a region that was known to have the technology of the Trojans. What you are presenting is a case based completely upon your filtered reading of the materials, with zero archaeological backing. Ancient Americans did not have the technologies you are asserting they did.

Not exactly true. Here are a couple. An Iron ore mine in Peru about 2,000 years ago. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080211-nasca-mine.html

Copper mines in Wisconsin. I only skimmed the article but it seems that there is evidence of ancien copper mining in Wisconsin.

http://www.atthecreation.com/wis.anc/%20cu.mines.html

[notHagoth7]

I was put off by the feeling that I was going to be led through a maze only to find that there's really no cheese at the end of he maze. You're admitting as such--essentially saying 'but I've laid the groundwork for the possibility of cheese showing up someday.'

Good morning. How did the writing session go? What genre are you writing? Are you close to completion, or just getting out of the gate?

If memory serves, I explained early in the discussion what the "cheese" would consist of.

That it wouldn't be proof positive, but rather a combined weight of evidence - that it would leave the reader free to weigh it in the scales, and draw their own conclusion. However, if you prefer a different type of cheese altogether (I can think of two that I could recommend), I'm more than happy to point out where/how to find that.

You call what you've presented "evidence." Okay, it's evidence,

Woot! Awesome. Now we're headed somewhere!

Care to slide your chair next to Bearded and let him copy your answer? (Bearded: no offense - I'm funnin' with you).

...but it's only circumstantial evidence

True. And dealing with a historical question, how would you propose we approach it instead?

being linked together with "tentative" maybes and could-be's that "aren't intended as conclusions."

Well, first, let's not overstate my meaning. While it's true that some of them "aren't intended as conclusions," that wasn't a blanket statement. So how about we not pretend that it was? There are some valuable pieces of bedrock here.

For example, I conclude, based on the linguistic evidence, that early in their past, the Germanic people interacted with one or more influential, non-IndoEuropean speaking peoples. I also conclude that the linguistic fingerprint those people(s) left behind in the Germanic language family provides us a reasonable glimpse, a snapshot if you will, of the culture(s) in question.

How's that for two conclusions? Balanced. Reasonable. Based on the evidence.

Also, from the evidence, I also conclude, for example, that the founder of the Skjolding dynasty was perceived by many of the people of northern Europe as very important to their origins and existence as a people, and therefore that his origin accounts provide us a good idea of why they deemed him to be so important.

Reasonable. Based on the weight of the evidence.

Do you see a logical flaw with such an approach?

Don't you agree that those first two issues alone raise an interesting question or three?

Here's where things get tentative.

When I address the question of whether any single people were Nephites, or any single piece of evidence proves the point, I exercise caution and restraint. Here's why. In a setting like this, I ethically HAVE to remain tentative when dealing with how the evidence informs that question. Because no single piece of evidence that I'll present here answers the question with finality. Instead, they all inform the question from multiple directions. But only the reader can determine when there is sufficient evidence in the scales to answer the question with sufficient confidence. I won't be the one to insist where that point must be for each reader. Does that approach make sense? Does it somehow seem unfair or unreasonable?

Here's what a Wikipedia page has to say about circumstantial evidence.

"Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact. It is evidence that requires or allows a trier of fact to make a deduction to conclude that a fact exists."

OK. How does that differ from "a combined weight of evidence - that it would leave the reader free to weigh it in the scales, and draw their own conclusion"?

From your post, it sounds like you're a fan of shows like CIS or NCIS? (We enjoy NCIS).

You're wanting direct evidence? For the question of whether Nephites were in Europe?

Here's the problem with such an expectation: precisely what would you accept as direct evidence to demonstrate affirmatively? Anything?

Answer that question, and that might help the discussion move in an interesting direction or two.

By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly

[notHagoth7]

Not only is it circumstantial evidence, it is weak circumstantial evidence.

Weak or strong is very subjective.

To demonstrate the point, here's a question - is Stout's circumstantial evidence weak or strong?

But here's a better question - what's your basis for your answer to that question?

In what way is a people's origin account weak evidence about their origins?

Linguistic evidence?

The archaeological record?

Precisely what type of evidence would you consider to be anything other than weak?

I'm glad I didn't waste my time letting you lead me around in your maze with your teasers and promises, only to find out that there is no actual cheese at the end of this maze--just an empty plate with a note that says, "Final step: Use your faith to imagine some cheese, here."

I said I wouldn't prove it for you. That such would be your role as a reader, not mine.

Yet you choose not to address a single iota of the evidence.

So be it.

[notHagoth7]

Your post brings up, yet again, the problem with [fill in the blank] that I pointed out earlier....you are constrained to assume that [fill in the blank], in spite of the fact that....

Let's be reasonable here. You're claiming that we're the ones not being open-minded?

Yet you state something emphatically to be a matter of established fact?

Really? Let's see.

there is no credible physical supporting evidence and substantial evidence to the contrary.

Simply untrue.

1) Millions of people accept the Nephite record as credible physical supporting evidence for the historicity of the Nephites.

2) And I've presented literally hundreds of historical accounts and manuscripts - all physical. Specialists and generalists find them to be credible sources. It is evidence. As even Jeff acknowledged.

I'm not insisting that you accept that. Please don't pretend to be approaching this issue objectively. (Or directly).

Either the Nephites and Lamanites lived in ancient Mesoamerica in their millions, as described in the BoM or they did not.

False dichotomy.

And straw man.

Do you ever intend to engage with the evidence directly? If not, march on.

Since there is no evidence whatsoever that they did, and there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis, which is that the Olmec, Maya and Toltec lived in this space and time, we can safely conclude that the Nephites and Lamanites did not. We are not talking about some small religious sect here. We are talking about millions of people at one time according to the Book of Mormon.

Sounds like arguments a few generations back that the Hittites never existed.

Or that Troy never existed.

Or that Vinland never existed.

I'm guessing there's a pattern there...somewhere...

But the inference is too weak for me to fathom what it might be....

And since I agree with Jeff Ricks that there is no cheese in this maze, I will not be following this thread any further.

For the record, the imagery you guys choose to impose upon the discussion (cheese...maze) is fascinating.

[notHagoth7]

Not exactly true. Here are a couple. An Iron ore mine in Peru about 2,000 years ago. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080211-nasca-mine.html

Copper mines in Wisconsin. I only skimmed the article but it seems that there is evidence of ancien copper mining in Wisconsin.

http://www.atthecreation.com/wis.anc/%20cu.mines.html

I appreciate the reinforcements.

So far, they're not willing to engage the evidence.

Perhaps they'll be more receptive some other day.

But if they're not interested in their heritage, so be it.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Weak or strong is very subjective.

To demonstrate the point, here's a question - is Stout's circumstantial evidence weak or strong?

But here's a better question - what's your basis for your answer to that question?

In what way is a people's origin account weak evidence about their origins?

Linguistic evidence?

The archaeological record?

Precisely what type of evidence would you consider to be anything other than weak?

I said I wouldn't prove it for you. That such would be your role as a reader, not mine.

Yet you choose not to address a single iota of the evidence.

So be it.

As I pointed out, I waited to see what the bottom line would be BEFORE I decide whether to invest my time into this subject. As you have stated more than once, (using my cheese metaphor) there is no cheese at the end of the maze, but the maze has possibilities and is interesting. To you it's interesting, to me it's not, so I have no more interest in discussing the subject with you. If in the future your work leads to something more substantial at the end of the maze, then I'm interested.

Jeff