Jump to content

BYU Archaeological Discovery in Chiapas, Mexico


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

Along this same topic.

Kim Goldsmith, a convert to the Church and a respected archealogist among Mesoamerican scholars is the new Field and Lab Director for the New World Archaeology Foundation (BYU) in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.

Her husband, also a convert, is director of research at Teotihuacan, Mexico.

They both joined the church after being found at their home near Teotihuacan by missionaries.

Larry P

Link to comment

And, predictably, the article is followed by scores of comments from hate-filled idiots who apparently have no lives. Feel free to skip their contributions.

Yeah, those Meldrumites really need to get a life.

Link to comment

A hate filled Meldrumite said:

If they are looking for Book of Mormon evidences, they are in the wrong place. The only place we have found dna strains from the middle east (where book of mormon people came from) is the northeast quarter of the US. The LDS church has never said they know where the book of mormon stuff happened, but Joseph Smith often said it happened on "this land", not referring to mexico. Keith Merrill said he spent a ton of money making a film about the book of mormon only to realize he made it in the wrong place. It all happened in the midwest and eastern US. Their structures were made of dirt and timber, not rock pyramids. http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/
Link to comment
The new discovery "shows nice evidence of trade coming in, the jade and green obsidian. It shows this place is well-connected," said Richard Paine, a University of Utah associate professor of anthropology not involved with the Chiapa project. "Given where it is I would say this a lot more confirming what people already thought, rather than fundamentally changing things. It is too early to tell."

It seems rather odd to not have any association with a project yet feel a need to proclaim nothing will change. Who is this guy?

Link to comment

I suspect, since most posters to this article are probably local, they remember the the speech made by Dr. Clark back in 2004 with his claims of archaeology proving the BOM:

http://www.rickross..../mormon163.html

In that speech Dr. Clark testified: "Many artifacts and evidence of the Book of Mormon have been found in geographical and archaeilogical findings".

While it has been six years since he gave this testimony, I wonder if the criticism in the article stems from the fact that, as it seems obvious, none of his professional peers nor the secular academic community seems to beleive his professional assement or has shown any interest in his claim. Hard to say whether he lacks real evidence between the BOM and these archaeological finds (evidence), or if he merely lacks professional peer respect in this particular claim.

I wonder if his evidence has even risen to the level of respect to draw the attention of Church leaders to publically or officialy comment on this area as being a site for the BOM historicity as they had originally done in the past for the NY site of Cumorah?

Link to comment
I suspect, since most posters to this article are probably local, they remember the the speech made by Dr. Clark back in 2004 with his claims of archaeology proving the BOM:

Did any of those posting comments actually refer to Dr. Clark's excellent speech?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

I skimmed only a few of the comments, but I saw nothing to indicate that any of the critics were operating at that level of information or sophistication. Perhaps I missed it.

In that speech Dr. Clark testified [sic]: "Many artifacts and evidence of the Book of Mormon have been found in geographical and archaeilogical findings".

And he explained what he meant by that, too:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

While it has been six years since he gave this testimony [sic], I wonder if the criticism in the article stems from the fact that, as it seems obvious, none of his professional peers nor the secular academic community seems to beleive his professional assement or has shown any interest in his claim. Hard to say whether he lacks real evidence between the BOM and these archaeological finds (evidence), or if he merely lacks professional peer respect in this particular claim.

Indeed. Hard to say.

I wonder if his evidence has even risen to the level of respect to draw the attention of Church leaders to publically or officialy comment on this area as being a site for the BOM historicity as they had originally done in the past for the NY site of Cumorah?

I've seen no official Church declarations of any geographical model for the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment

I wonder if his evidence has even risen to the level of respect to draw the attention of Church leaders to publically or officialy comment on this area as being a site for the BOM historicity as they had originally done in the past for the NY site of Cumorah?

The Church has never "officially" said the Book of Mormon was in NY. Speculated perhaps, but many have also speculated it was in Mesoamerica. Some early church leaders said Palenque was a BofM site, which BTW was also opinion.

Link to comment

I took the liberty of performing a few BoM word searches on their finds; here are the results:

There were no occurrences of the word jade found in the Text of the Book of Mormon.

3 Ne. 14: 6 6 Give not that which is aholy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

4 Ne. 1: 24 24 And now, in this *two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

There were no occurrences of the words iron and pyrite found in the Text of the Book of Mormon (although iron appears frequently by itself).

There were no occurrences of the word amber found in the Text of the Book of Mormon.

There were no occurrences of the word obsidian found in the Text of the Book of Mormon.

From these results, I think we can safely conclude that ziff=jade or amber.

Link to comment
In the heyday of the Olmec, the Chiapa site centered on what would have been a busy plaza. Digging under the plaza in 2008, Bachand's team discovered a cache of stone axes and a corpse, likely a human offering.

Most of the axe heads were sculpted from local materials like quartzite and andesite, but three were made from imported jade and other precious stones, according to the NWAF's report on the dig. An Olmec deity was carved into one and few exhibited signs of any wear.

"They are produced only to be deposited, not to be used for cutting trees. It's just used for offering. This pit held over 100 axes," Bachand said. The axes were a clue that this place was extremely important to the Olmecs.

I know that the Olmecs were significantly before the Anti Nephi Lehies(90-77B.C.) but I can't help but wonder if these offering axes have any correlations or connections to the way the Anti Nephi Lehies burried theirs?

Link to comment

I know that the Olmecs were significantly before the Anti Nephi Lehies(90-77B.C.) but I can't help but wonder if these offering axes have any correlations or connections to the way the Anti Nephi Lehies burried theirs?

The "axe" that they are talking about in this article is ceremonial and refers to a general shape, not a functional tool. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies were burying functional tools. That said, however, I do believe that the concept of burying offerings to God (the gods, for the Olmec) is the logic that lay behind the Anti-Nephi-Lehies action.

Link to comment

The "axe" that they are talking about in this article is ceremonial and refers to a general shape, not a functional tool. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies were burying functional tools. That said, however, I do believe that the concept of burying offerings to God (the gods, for the Olmec) is the logic that lay behind the Anti-Nephi-Lehies action.

Thanks for the clarification, good to know.

Link to comment
Did any of those posting comments actually refer to Dr. Clark's excellent speech?

Don't know for sure as I don't thave the time to read through the hundreds of posts. Just a guess given that both the testimony of Clark in 2004 and the article was published in the Mecca for the Church - a Utah publication. Seems like a localized issue for Utah as far as being newsworthy. Probably a broader issue for the Church as far as a testimony though.

Not sure how one declares it an "excellent speech". But I would rank it up there with the some of the best testimonies I've heard on Sundays.

Link to comment
Don't know for sure as I don't thave the time to read through the hundreds of posts. Just a guess

In other words, your supposition was based on nothing at all.

Not sure how one declares it an "excellent speech".

Particularly since you've provided nothing, thus far, to even suggest that you've read the speech itself, as opposed to a news article about it in a student newspaper.

But I would rank it up there with the some of the best testimonies I've heard on Sundays.

A puerile attempt at an insult.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...