Suspicious Archeology used to support the Book of Mormon

[Anijen]

I am frustrated that you are a denialist of significant Mesoamerican influence on the Great Lakes region, and that you deny the plausibility of a Nephite destruction in the great lakes region. I am frustrated by all Mesoamericanist denialism of that plausiblity. Over time I will erode away that type of thinking until you will acknowledge its plausibility. I don't care if you ever agree with it. I intend to erode your denialism of its plausibility.

What is it that is suspicious about the stuff that I have used in my POST-THIS-LAND-ERA writings?

I don't think you have read my new book to understand my new understanding and methodological thinking.

The Hopewell and Adena is where I will be focusing my education on. I would like to focus more on Mesoamerica like Mark Wright because that is a greater interest to me, however I find it not financially doable at this point of time. I therefore will in the near future be attending the University of South Dakota (mainly because it is close to where I live) where they have a nice anthropology program and I will be focusing on the Hopewell and Adena people. I am not yet an expert in that area but one day maybe... I do read a lot on this and have been in contact with some of the most notable experts of the mound builders. These experts have not come to your conclusion of the Mesoamerican/Hopewell connection. I find your ideas plausible so you can count yourself victorious I just find my current leanings much more probable. Have you read Brant Gardners six volume series? I find them very interesting and Lawrence Poulsens site also a great work. Take care.

Anijen

[Mike Reed]

I am the opposite. I find the claim of Gold Plates a strength which has been verified by other writings on metal which we know now did exist.

Know NOW, eh? As though the notion of ancient metal records wasn't already circulating widely in Joseph's day.

I happen to believe in them. Besides the testimony of the eleven witnesses validate them very well,(in spite of Mike Reeds or Dan Vogels objections). The requirement of faith is still mandatory.

So what do you think of the Voree plates then? Far more than twelve saw Strang's "artifact".

[Anijen]

Know NOW, eh? As though the notion of ancient metal records wasn't already circulating widely in Joseph's day.

Was it circulated widely? You make it sound as if everyone was aware of writings on metal.

Do you dismiss everyone who does not agree with you?

So what do you think of the Voree plates then? Far more than twelve saw Strang's "artifact".

I think that you might have a point if they preceded Joseph and the witnesses account of the plates. However since they post date Joseph's claims by 22 years it hardly equals to circulating widely in Josephs day. Having said that I believe them to be forgeries set in that location at an earlier time so the ground could regrow its cover to appear undisturbed.

[Sevenbak]

In all my readings there have been no evidence that supports Mesoamerican and Hopewell contact during the time of the Book of Mormon.

Hi Anijen. With great trepidation, I'll enter a geography thread again. It was my passion about this issue, among other things, that made me leave MADB for a while, and limit my participation here. I tend to offend more than I mean to. I've done that to you in the past, for which I apologize, and I don't want to repeat that offense again.

But you might be interested in Nibley's article in the Ensign on this issue. Here's a snip.

"Counterparts to the great ritual complexes of Central America once dotted the entire eastern United States, the most notable being the Hopewell culture centering in Ohio and spreading out for hundreds of miles along the entire length of the Mississippi River. These are now believed to be definitely related to corresponding centers in Mesoamerica."

http://lds.org/ensign/1972/09/ancient-temples-what-do-they-signify?lang=eng

Hope you have been well!

Sevenbak

[Mike Reed]

Was it circulated widely?

Yes. It was. Spend more time researching Joseph Smith's 19th century environment and you would know too.

You make it sound as if everyone was aware of writings on metal.

Widely = Everyone? Surely you can be more nuanced than that.

Do you dismiss everyone who does not agree with you?

I've dismissed false assumptions. Yours being one of them.

I think that you might have a point if they preceded Joseph and the witnesses account of the plates. However since they post date Joseph's claims by 22 years it hardly equals to circulating widely in Josephs day.

Nonsense. Whether it postdates or predates doesn't matter to you. What matters is that your faith based assumptions are confirmed.

Having said that I believe them to be forgeries set in that location at an earlier time so the ground could regrow its cover to appear undisturbed.

Of course you do... because you don't consider Strang to be your prophet. Special pleading and all that Jazz.

[SkepticTheist]

As much as I love Hugh Nibley, and as much as I would love to use him as a source, and as much as I agree that his conclusion is correct, it brings me great regret to have to say that he is not a good source for archaeological fact, because he is not an authority on archaeology, much less Hopewell or Mayan archaeology.

Ed Goble

Hi Anijen. With great trepidation, I'll enter a geography thread again. It was my passion about this issue, among other things, that made me leave MADB for a while, and limit my participation here. I tend to offend more than I mean to. I've done that to you in the past, for which I apologize, and I don't want to repeat that offense again.

But you might be interested in Nibley's article in the Ensign on this issue. Here's a snip.

"Counterparts to the great ritual complexes of Central America once dotted the entire eastern United States, the most notable being the Hopewell culture centering in Ohio and spreading out for hundreds of miles along the entire length of the Mississippi River. These are now believed to be definitely related to corresponding centers in Mesoamerica."

http://lds.org/ensig...ignify?lang=eng

Hope you have been well!

Sevenbak

[SkepticTheist]

Yeah, Larry is a good friend, and I'm mostly acquainted with his stuff. I'm well acquainted with Brant and the substance of his arguments, but no, I haven't read through all of Brant's stuff.

The Hopewell and Adena is where I will be focusing my education on. I would like to focus more on Mesoamerica like Mark Wright because that is a greater interest to me, however I find it not financially doable at this point of time. I therefore will in the near future be attending the University of South Dakota (mainly because it is close to where I live) where they have a nice anthropology program and I will be focusing on the Hopewell and Adena people. I am not yet an expert in that area but one day maybe... I do read a lot on this and have been in contact with some of the most notable experts of the mound builders. These experts have not come to your conclusion of the Mesoamerican/Hopewell connection. I find your ideas plausible so you can count yourself victorious I just find my current leanings much more probable. Have you read Brant Gardners six volume series? I find them very interesting and Lawrence Poulsens site also a great work. Take care.

Anijen

[SkepticTheist]

I was going to say something but it ain't worth it.............

Yes. It was. Spend more time researching Joseph Smith's 19th century environment and you would know too.

Widely = Everyone? Surely you can be more nuanced than that.

I've dismissed false assumptions. Yours being one of them.

Nonsense. Whether it postdates or predates doesn't matter to you. What matters is that your faith based assumptions are confirmed.

Of course you do... because you don't consider Strang to be your prophet. Special pleading and all that Jazz.

[Anijen]

Hi Anijen. With great trepidation, I'll enter a geography thread again. It was my passion about this issue, among other things, that made me leave MADB for a while, and limit my participation here. I tend to offend more than I mean to. I've done that to you in the past, for which I apologize, and I don't want to repeat that offense again.

But you might be interested in Nibley's article in the Ensign on this issue. Here's a snip.

"Counterparts to the great ritual complexes of Central America once dotted the entire eastern United States, the most notable being the Hopewell culture centering in Ohio and spreading out for hundreds of miles along the entire length of the Mississippi River. These are now believed to be definitely related to corresponding centers in Mesoamerica."

http://lds.org/ensign/1972/09/ancient-temples-what-do-they-signify?lang=eng

Hope you have been well!

Sevenbak

Hi Sevenbak welcome back brother. In 1972 I wonder what was Nibley basing his thought that they "are now believed to be definitely related." Much has happened in almost forty years and those that are experts (todays experts)in the Hopewell do not see the connection. I want a connection, I would like to see one. I just do not want to use the Bat Creek Stone (or the like)to make that connection. I believe that many Nephites and others did migrate North not in mass but incrementally. I think Hagoth could have started some of that however we are not left with much information on Hagoth and we can only speculate. The current archeology does not support a Mesoamerican/Hopewell connection (it least not that I know of). I am reluctant to use Hagoth as a model for this idea as a past missionary to the islands I had a hope he (Hagoth) went that way I dunno... I guess it really doesn't matter. I love the Book of Mormon and accept it wholeheartedly as scripture. The geographical details do not matter when I put it in its correct perspective. I am doing well and I hope you and your family are doing well too.

[Anijen]

Spend more time researching Joseph Smith's 19th century environment and you would know too.

I have a problem with your condescending attitude so this will be the last of your posts on this thread that I answer. I do not know you and you do not know me. I do not venture to guess the depth of your study habits, but I assure you I am pretty well read on the history of Joseph Smith. There is no need to be snarky with such remarks.

I've dismissed false assumptions. Yours being one of them.

Yes, you have squarely put me in my place by declaring your knowledge of how little I know of the history of Joseph Smith. I am humbled and will definitely think twice before venturing forth with such an uneducated opinion.

What matters is that your faith based assumptions are confirmed.

You are correct they are faith based, of this I am neither embarrassed or ashamed.

because you don't consider Strang to be your prophet.

No I do not, and I never have.

[SkepticTheist]

I'm still not quite "getting it." You say that you are excited by stuff like jaguar influences and so forth, and the plausible connections that I have shown among the Hopewell from Mesoamerica.

Yet in the next breath you say you just don't see it, and that the archaeology is unsupportive. What is it that you want from the archaeology anyway? At what point will you say that it is "supportive"?

I guess I want you to qualify what it is you are saying.

You say that I have convinced you of its plausibility, and in the next breath you say something different.

Its kind of like how I showed you stuff where some archaeologists interpreted Poverty Point as having Olmec influence, and then you say there is no evidence. That kind of depends on what archaeologist you are talking to, where some have differing opinions. So is it that your favored archaeologists don't have this position, or is it that the evidence does not show it from a rational standpoint? Are you waiting for archaeologists that you favor to take a certain position?

I don't see consistency in anything you have said in response to arguments that I have made, and then you turn around and say the archaeology is unsupportive.

Hi Sevenbak welcome back brother. In 1972 I wonder what was Nibley basing his thought that they "are now believed to be definitely related." Much has happened in almost forty years and those that are experts (todays experts)in the Hopewell do not see the connection. I want a connection, I would like to see one. I just do not want to use the Bat Creek Stone (or the like)to make that connection. I believe that many Nephites and others did migrate North not in mass but incrementally. I think Hagoth could have started some of that however we are not left with much information on Hagoth and we can only speculate. The current archeology does not support a Mesoamerican/Hopewell connection (it least not that I know of). I am reluctant to use Hagoth as a model for this idea as a past missionary to the islands I had a hope he (Hagoth) went that way I dunno... I guess it really doesn't matter. I love the Book of Mormon and accept it wholeheartedly as scripture. The geographical details do not matter when I put it in its correct perspective. I am doing well and I hope you and your family are doing well too.

[krose]

If i could add to your list, carvings of elephants?

I am the opposite. I find the claim of Gold Plates a strength which has been verified by other writings on metal which we know now did exist.

I think that's a stretch, unless you can point to long-form documents (book length) engraved on metal plates, either in Central America or Israel from the appropriate time.

That shouldn't be too difficult, since long metal documents were fairly common according to BoM lore (Jaredites, Nephites, Laban).

[SkepticTheist]

Anijen,

I think I got it now, as far as I'm concerned, even if you haven't got around to replying on my previous statement. I have communicated a little bit with a professor that is not an archaeologist, but that has some knowledge on this.

He says that it boils down to a majority view and a minority view.

Put in these terms, this makes a lot more sense.

What you follow is the *majority* view of opinion of archaeologists on this point.

What I want to highlight is the fact that your interpretation following that majority view doesn't minimize the fact that a minority view exists, nor does it minimize the fact that my opinion follows that minority view.

The fact that a minority view among specialists does exist is a significant fact.

So put in these terms, it is more like you are more persuaded by what most of them think, not what all of them think.

Critical thinking, however, should involve a thought process that takes into account the reasoning of both the majority and the minority views.

So when you say that archaeology is not supportive, I qualify that saying that it is more nuanced than that. Majority opinion doesn't side with it. That is what it really means.

Qualified in this manner, I am ok with this statement. I am not ok with the statement that says "archaeology is not supportive" of that minority view. Do you or do you not agree with this?

Thanks.

Ed Goble

Hi Sevenbak welcome back brother. In 1972 I wonder what was Nibley basing his thought that they "are now believed to be definitely related." Much has happened in almost forty years and those that are experts (todays experts)in the Hopewell do not see the connection. I want a connection, I would like to see one. I just do not want to use the Bat Creek Stone (or the like)to make that connection. I believe that many Nephites and others did migrate North not in mass but incrementally. I think Hagoth could have started some of that however we are not left with much information on Hagoth and we can only speculate. The current archeology does not support a Mesoamerican/Hopewell connection (it least not that I know of). I am reluctant to use Hagoth as a model for this idea as a past missionary to the islands I had a hope he (Hagoth) went that way I dunno... I guess it really doesn't matter. I love the Book of Mormon and accept it wholeheartedly as scripture. The geographical details do not matter when I put it in its correct perspective. I am doing well and I hope you and your family are doing well too.

[SkepticTheist]

We can aim a little skepticism at this.

First of all, you call it "lore", seemingly in a condescending manner.

I call it "data" points.

Secondly, if we extrapolate on the data that we have from Israel and the middle east, metal codices and scrolls are known.

it is also known that they *mostly* used other materials such as animal skins or papyrus on which to write.

Now, from the Book of Mormon, Laban and his fathers were keepers of the records, that seems to indicate that the brass plates were a special set of scriptures, some master copy meant to be preserved, not just any old set.

The scriptures indicate that Alma and Amulek carried with them copies of scriptures made of some other material other than metal, because they were thrown in the fire and burned.

King Benjamin had copies of his speech written and distributed. There is no reason to believe that these were distributed on metal.

So-called "folklore" reports of the "cave" in the hill Cumorah have been denigrated by Mesoamericanists, but there is no good reason to doubt them other than the Mesoamericanists don't like them, and explain them away using various means to cast doubt on them. These reports generally describe many sets of plates in the Hill Cumorah.

From all these *data points*, we conclude that:

(1) Generally, they wrote on perishable materials.

(2) On sets of records that they wished to preserve over time, they wrote on plates, just as the BOM describes were the purpose of such things, to be preserved over time.

(3) It was difficult to write on such things, so for general distribution, the copies were not on metal, but other materials.

(4) We have no reasonable expectation that these types of records on plates were common except for among priestly record keepers like Laban's family line and Mormon's line.

(5) It is reasonable that Mesoamerican codices that we have extant are more representative of what was common.

(6) We only have a few examples of Mesoamerican codices left that the Spanish did not destroy.

(7) Did the Spanish melt down any metal Mesoamerican codices for the value of the metal and take it back to Spain? Its a reasonable question, seeing that so many other books were destroyed.

(8 )The book of Mormon itself says that the Lamanites themselves of the era of the Nephite destruction would destroy the records if they were not hidden up. It is reasonable to expect that many records that were not hidden up were destroyed.

We have reasonable expectation therefore that we will be lucky if we ever find any plates in the Americas with writing on them, and if we do, we will be incredibly lucky. So no, that would be very difficult to find such things.

All this is very reasonable, notwithstanding you will say it is not.

If i could add to your list, carvings of elephants?

I think that's a stretch, unless you can point to long-form documents (book length) engraved on metal plates, either in Central America or Israel from the appropriate time.

That shouldn't be too difficult, since long metal documents were fairly common according to BoM lore (Jaredites, Nephites, Laban).

[semlogo]

Yes. It was. Spend more time researching Joseph Smith's 19th century environment and you would know too.

Something more specific than that would be nice.

[Mike Reed]

Something more specific than that would be nice.

I'll be specific in a paper I'm presenting at Sunstone West next week. And assuming that I don't get any offers to have the paper published in print, I will post it on my blog instead.

[Sevenbak]

Hi Sevenbak welcome back brother. In 1972 I wonder what was Nibley basing his thought that they "are now believed to be definitely related." Much has happened in almost forty years and those that are experts (todays experts)in the Hopewell do not see the connection. I want a connection, I would like to see one. I just do not want to use the Bat Creek Stone (or the like)to make that connection. I believe that many Nephites and others did migrate North not in mass but incrementally. I think Hagoth could have started some of that however we are not left with much information on Hagoth and we can only speculate. The current archeology does not support a Mesoamerican/Hopewell connection (it least not that I know of). I am reluctant to use Hagoth as a model for this idea as a past missionary to the islands I had a hope he (Hagoth) went that way I dunno... I guess it really doesn't matter. I love the Book of Mormon and accept it wholeheartedly as scripture. The geographical details do not matter when I put it in its correct perspective. I am doing well and I hope you and your family are doing well too.

Hi Anijen. I don't think 1972 matters when it comes to Nibley's research. The article doesn't specify what the research was, just his conclusion. He's such a good scholar, that without knowing the specifics, there's no way to judge them independently. The artifacts found are much older than that that anyway, and don't change. Just because other research is done, doesn't mean it trumps older or even newer work, just a different viewpoint.

I also think it depends on what you are reading.

Here's a great article on the Jaguar Gorget and the Mesoamerican connection to the Hopewell. There are various interpretations, but most agree in a connection between the societies. This is just on the Gorget issue alone.

http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/archaeology/MASgorgetarticle.shtml

[cinepro]

I am the opposite. I find the claim of Gold Plates a strength which has been verified by other writings on metal which we know now did exist.

Your original post lists 19 different dubious artifacts, many of them showing writing on stones or rocks of some sort. Does the existence of writing on stones or rocks in the old world similarly strengthen your belief in the authenticity of these artifacts?

If we had the plates I am very confident that they could be eventually translated and validate the BofM. However we do not so it is a mute point.

So the artifacts we have are all questionable, but you are "very confident" in the one we don't have. Interesting.

I happen to believe in them. Besides the testimony of the eleven witnesses validate them very well,(in spite of Mike Reeds or Dan Vogels objections). The requirement of faith is still mandatory.

You have listed 19 artifacts in your OP. If, upon recovery, the discoverer had shown the artifacts to 11 friends without an archaeological background and subsequently lost the artifact, would you be similarly firm in your convictions of the object's authenticity?

It really seems like some LDS apply drastically different methods of scrutiny to such things. Then, of course, there are those who judge the artifacts in the OP by the same standard and are convinced they are real. I'm not sure which is worse.

[Duncan]

Your original post lists 19 different dubious artifacts, many of them showing writing on stones or rocks of some sort. Does the existence of writing on stones or rocks in the old world similarly strengthen your belief in the authenticity of these artifacts?

So the artifacts we have are all questionable, but you are "very confident" in the one we don't have. Interesting.

You have listed 19 artifacts in your OP. If, upon recovery, the discoverer had shown the artifacts to 11 friends without an archaeological background and subsequently lost the artifact, would you be similarly firm in your convictions of the object's authenticity?

It really seems like some LDS apply drastically different methods of scrutiny to such things. Then, of course, there are those who judge the artifacts in the OP by the same standard and are convinced they are real. I'm not sure which is worse.

Authenticity of what? The 3 witness testify to the Book's spiritual authenticity whereas the 8 witness bear witness to the authenticity that they saw them. I would humbley suggest that you read the testimony of the Three Witnesses and how they got their spiritual witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon and then compare that to the Eight Witnesses and see what they say-they say nothing about what is on the Gold Plates, they bear witness that they saw them and hefted them. Whether or not the Book of Mormon is a true record of Christ isn't a concern of theirs, they just said that they saw the plates

[Sevenbak]

...compare that to the Eight Witnesses and see what they say-they say nothing about what is on the Gold Plates, they bear witness that they saw them and hefted them...

They say more than that, they say they specifically saw the characters engraved on said plates.

"...as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. ..."

[Mike Reed]

They say more than that, they say they specifically saw the characters engraved on said plates.

"...as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. ..."

And yet... the "leaves" had the thickness and pliability of parchment. Sound a little odd to you?

[Duncan]

And yet... the "leaves" had the thickness and pliability of parchment. Sound a little odd to you?

Where does it say that?

[Mike Reed]

Where does it say that?

[Sevenbak]

And yet... the "leaves" had the thickness and pliability of parchment. Sound a little odd to you?

Not at all. How is that supposed to be a nagative? The opposite is true. It shows that the leaves were really made of a softer more pliable material.

Ever played with Gold leaf? There's no way even thin gold would support engravings. It would have to be alloyed somehow, but would still be pliable by design.

[Mike Reed]

Not at all.

Of course not.

Ever played with Gold leaf?

Yep. And whoever made the "Holiness to the Lord" magic parchment did too.

It would have to be alloyed somehow, but would still be pliable by design.

But pliable like thick paper?