Suspicious Archeology used to support the Book of Mormon

[Sevenbak]

[Sevenbak]

But pliable like thick paper?

Define thick. I don't recall anyone describing the parchment they were compared to.

Then define the alloy and the combinations and percentage of gold. Good luck with that one.

[Mike Reed]

And what exactly did David mean? Was he speaking of the traditional parchment definition, meaning split calf or lambskin? Or paper products, which were not uniform and varied in thickness in his day. They still vary in our day.

Does it matter? It seems to me that any of these possibilities (whether split calf, lambskin, or paper) would run counter to Emma's description of the pliability.

And Emma didn't see the leaves, she felt them through a cloth while dusting, and heard the rustle of the leaves.

I am aware of that. Your point?

[Sevenbak]

Does it matter? It seems to me that any of these possibilities (whether split calf, lambskin, or paper) would run counter to Emma's description of the pliability.

How so? The two descriptions are in harmony. Paper or skin parchment is still pliable. You know, there's a reason they rolled the scrolls in ancient times.

What are you saying exactly? I'm not understanding your argument against the witnesses.

[Mike Reed]

Define thick. I don't recall anyone describing the parchment they were compared to.

By all means, you define it. How thick can paper be till its pliability is comparable the pliability of metal sheets (whatever the alloy/combination/percentages they may be--take your pick) that are the thickness of "common tin"?

Then define the alloy and the combinations and percentage of gold. Good luck with that one.

You seem to think that I carry the burden of proof. I do not.

[Sevenbak]

By all means, you define it. How thick can paper be till its pliability is comparable the pliability of metal sheets (whatever the alloy/combination/percentages they may be--take your pick) that are the thickness of "common tin"?

You seem to think that I carry the burden of proof. I do not.

The thickness of common tin, not the pliability. How hard would it be to engrave on tin. Mormon wasn't stupid.

The burden of proof doesn't lie with me, as I believe the plates were real and that the witnesses didn't lie. You are questioning their authenticity, however...

[Anijen]

Does the existence of writing on stones or rocks in the old world similarly strengthen your belief in the authenticity of these artifacts?

No. What it does is show me that many people in the New World at that time wanted very much to have some type of connection with the Old World. People took advantage of this. My guess the number one reason was for money my number two reason is to show credence to such a theory. I do not subscribe to Mike Reeds view that knowledge of Old World records such as engravings on metal was well known at the time of Joseph.

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

Not necessarily, the ones I mentioned are questionable. If you would like I can go into further detail on any of these and tell you why. I am confident in the ones we don't have for other reasons, however there is enough evidence that they did exist at one time regardless if you posit they were questionable or not.

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?

If those eleven friends never wavered in their testimony of them, then yes I would be confident of their existence.

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

I am not judging them by the same standard. The eleven witnesses seen the plates . They certainly existed, their unwavering testimony, even in spite of some leaving the church is very good evidence for this. The Book of Mormon exists it is the translation of the plates. You can choose to believe that or not. The artifacts I have mentioned have been studied and the scholarly consensus is they are fakes.

[Mike Reed]

The thickness of common tin, not the pliability.

Yes. I know. Again... How thick does paper need to be until its pliability is comparable to the pliability of metal sheets (whatever engravable metallic substance they are made of, take your pick) that are the thickness of tin?

How hard would it be to engrave on tin. Mormon wasn't stupid.

I have not proposed that Mormon engraved on tin.

[Mike Reed]

I do not subscribe to Mike Reeds view that knowledge of Old World records such as engravings on metal was well known at the time of Joseph.

And how much time have you spent searching early 19th century sources to find out?

[Anijen]

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

I have finished my research into this and yes you are correct. The gorgets do appear in the image of a jaguar or ocelot. I contacted Dennis LaBatt the site manager of Poverty Point and he confirms the panther is (and is still today)indigenous of that area. He says many of these gorgets have bird like heads with panther bodies. However he thinks since they also are in that area he does not think it relates to a trade connection with Mesoamerica. He says that a mesoamerican connection theory was very big early on but has since lost strength, he again emphasizes that their is not a direct link between the Mississippi valley people with the Olmecs or the Mayans. I also contacted ether by email or in person (or both) other specialist such as Brad Lepper, Robert Riordin, William Iseminger some others and they do not see the connection anymore. Thank you for the article.

but most agree in a connection between the societies.

Do you know who these "most" are? Are they around today, for example I know this was a popular idea as late as 1968 but since has been updated. I would like to read their work and even contact them if possible.

Thanks Anijen

[Obiwan]

Hey, the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is Legit....

The only reason people think it is fake is because early idiots "traced" and otherwise tampered with the stone, so later studies couldn't determine if it was real or not. The main reason I think it is real because of the most earliest studies and Indian verbal history on the stone. It clearly wasn't manufactured by some later white guy trying to fake people out.

I don't recall all the others, but, a couple more of them are likely in the same condition. Thus, they "all" aren't false as the above book apparently claims.

It's now well known that the Phoenicians and all kinds of other travelers were in the America's, thus it can't be said that "all" these discovery's are false.

Also, isn't the Bat Creek Stone one that was thought to be accurate, then thought to be false, and then now considered legit?

Anyway, I'm not up on them, save the Los Lunas Stone. It I know is legit.

This site is I think the best overviews of all the details: http://www.mhccorp.com/archaeology/decalogue-introduction.html

[Anijen]

the Los Lunas Stone. It I know is legit.

This site is I think the best overviews of all the details: http://www.mhccorp.com/archaeology/decalogue-introduction.html

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The book I have was published in 2010, it is pretty much up to date. It doesn

[SkepticTheist]

So, Anijen, I thought this thread had died, but I guess its still going. It isn't my intent to contend with you.

I'm trying to explore possibilities here, because when we look at what an "apologist" fundamentally is versus someone that is just a "researcher" is that an apologist starts out with a point of view and searches for evidence to defend it.

Sometimes researchers that don't have a well-defined position on an issue, but who are after the truth as well, feel that they are in a position where the burden of proof does not lie on them, but lies on the shoulders of the apologist for a certain position to provide evidence. I don't always see it that way. Whatever the case, "no" is always an easier and more comfortable position than "yes" as Hugh Nibley once said. In this issue you are not in the role of the apologist with a point of view to defend at stake. I am, so I would hope that you would understand that I have a lot of passion for this particular issue, as much as I do for Cumorah, and I don't want to contend with you, but I do have a passion on this. I know that sometimes I get contentious when I have strong feelings about something. Its a character flaw that I want to overcome.

I too am after finding the others who agree with the idea of the Mesomarican connection theory. Though it may not be as important to you because you don't have the New York Cumorah to defend, I want to find those people myself, because they are the ones that have the opinion that upholds my beliefs, and if there are significant enough of them, perhaps they can provide some pushback against the newfound certainty of this no-Mesoamerican-connection theory.

So, I would ask a favor of you Anijen. I would ask that when/if you actually do contact these guys, that you personally let me know about it please?

You never responded to my previous message about the concept of a majority view versus a minority view. You didn't clarify whether you see it that way or not. Am I to gather that you do not see it that way with this issue, and that you are waiting to have contact with those people before you will acknowledge that there is even a minority view on this controversy? Please clarify.

Thanks.

Ed Goble

I have finished my research into this and yes you are correct. The gorgets do appear in the image of a jaguar or ocelot. I contacted Dennis LaBatt the site manager of Poverty Point and he confirms the panther is (and is still today)indigenous of that area. He says many of these gorgets have bird like heads with panther bodies. However he thinks since they also are in that area he does not think it relates to a trade connection with Mesoamerica. He says that a mesoamerican connection theory was very big early on but has since lost strength, he again emphasizes that their is not a direct link between the Mississippi valley people with the Olmecs or the Mayans. I also contacted ether by email or in person (or both) other specialist such as Brad Lepper, Robert Riordin, William Iseminger some others and they do not see the connection anymore. Thank you for the article.

Do you know who these "most" are? Are they around today, for example I know this was a popular idea as late as 1968 but since has been updated. I would like to read their work and even contact them if possible.

Thanks Anijen

[SkepticTheist]

Obiwan,

This is the principle of avoiding even the appearance of evil.

I have come to realize over the last ten years that this whole thing about fraud artifacts is not something that anyone should even mess with. What can possibly be gained by arguing for trying to authenticate this kind of stuff? It should all be left behind, and we should concentrate on stuff that is already known to be real.

If I were you, I would just let go of this stuff. Take it from somebody who knows intimately about this stuff, about how there really is no hope of authenticating stuff like this. Even if there is a remote possibility that it is real, the archaeological establishment has branded it fake, and usually have very good reason for doing so. Even if you make arguments like this, nobody is going to take it seriously. Let go of it for the sake of concentrating on things that are really known to be real.

Hey, the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is Legit....

The only reason people think it is fake is because early idiots "traced" and otherwise tampered with the stone, so later studies couldn't determine if it was real or not. The main reason I think it is real because of the most earliest studies and Indian verbal history on the stone. It clearly wasn't manufactured by some later white guy trying to fake people out.

I don't recall all the others, but, a couple more of them are likely in the same condition. Thus, they "all" aren't false as the above book apparently claims.

It's now well known that the Phoenicians and all kinds of other travelers were in the America's, thus it can't be said that "all" these discovery's are false.

Also, isn't the Bat Creek Stone one that was thought to be accurate, then thought to be false, and then now considered legit?

Anyway, I'm not up on them, save the Los Lunas Stone. It I know is legit.

This site is I think the best overviews of all the details: http://www.mhccorp.c...troduction.html

[MichaelM]

Hey, the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is Legit....

The only reason people think it is fake is because early idiots "traced" and otherwise tampered with the stone, so later studies couldn't determine if it was real or not. The main reason I think it is real because of the most earliest studies and Indian verbal history on the stone. It clearly wasn't manufactured by some later white guy trying to fake people out.

I don't recall all the others, but, a couple more of them are likely in the same condition. Thus, they "all" aren't false as the above book apparently claims.

It's now well known that the Phoenicians and all kinds of other travelers were in the America's, thus it can't be said that "all" these discovery's are false.

Also, isn't the Bat Creek Stone one that was thought to be accurate, then thought to be false, and then now considered legit?

Anyway, I'm not up on them, save the Los Lunas Stone. It I know is legit.

This site is I think the best overviews of all the details: http://www.mhccorp.com/archaeology/decalogue-introduction.html

Don't know if you are aware that one theory of the Los Lunas Stone being a fraud attributes it to someone in the Mormon Battalion carving it:

http://www.badarchaeology.net/forgotten/los_lunas.php

Also you said: "It's now well known that the Phoenicians and all kinds of other travelers were in the America's". Do you have credible sources for this statement? It seems more widely accepted in mainstream science that diffusionism did not happen.

[Anijen]

Don't know if you are aware that one theory of the Los Lunas Stone being a fraud attributes it to someone in the Mormon Battalion carving it:

http://www.badarchaeology.net/forgotten/los_lunas.php

Also you said: "It's now well known that the Phoenicians and all kinds of other travelers were in the America's". Do you have credible sources for this statement? It seems more widely accepted in mainstream science that diffusionism did not happen.

I have heard this too but I have to disregard it on the basis that the first mention of it (in print) was in 1933 investigated by none other than Frank Hibben who claims he heard about it from another person who discovered it in 1880. So to begin with its origins are suspect. I would imagine if the Mormon Battalion had anything to do with it we would have some record in a pioneer journal, besides how many of the battalion knew paleo-Hebrew with modern punctuation? Modern for 1933 time that is.

[Anijen]

So, I would ask a favor of you Anijen. I would ask that when/if you actually do contact these guys, that you personally let me know about it please?

You bet, I know John Ford was a big proponent of a Mesoamerican connection however he passed away in 1968. I still have all the emails and my notes from visiting the sites last year. If Sevenbak gets me a list of those ("most") I will also contact them and share any findings with you. I just haven't found any as of yet that agree to that connection. I also now have many books on the matter. The three I look at most often are; Indian Mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley by Woodward and McDonald, The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point by Jon L. Gibson and Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley by Squier and Davis

You never responded to my previous message about the concept of a majority view versus a minority view. You didn't clarify whether you see it that way or not. Am I to gather that you do not see it that way with this issue, and that you are waiting to have contact with those people before you will acknowledge that there is even a minority view on this controversy? Please clarify.

Yes I agree. I would imagine there is some/many differences (that is the nature of archeologist). I did wait until I contacted about six of these guys, with all six they do not see a Mesoamerican connection, but I am sure there are some out there. I am sure there are minority views with anthropologist and archeologist over many theories, as far as this one goes I haven't found one yet (not saying they arnt out there). I do emphasisze these ones are considered some of the top experts in the area of the Hopewell and Adena and Mississippi Valley cultures.

"I argued that Poverty Point subsistence was based on hunting and gathering and that Poverty Point developed all by itself without Mesoamerican contact or stimulation" Gibson Pg.27 the Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point."

[SkepticTheist]

So then here is a challenge/suggestion for you.

How about contacting the ones that you contacted again, and specifically asking them this question: Who is it in the field that still maintains the older view, and how to contact them? Furthermore, you know, this doesn't have to be limited to Hopewell/Adena archaeologists. We can be looking for Mesoamerican or Southwestern archaeologists who have an opinion on the point too.

Ed

You bet, I know John Ford was a big proponent of a Mesoamerican connection however he passed away in 1968. I still have all the emails and my notes from visiting the sites last year. If Sevenbak gets me a list of those ("most") I will also contact them and share any findings with you. I just haven't found any as of yet that agree to that connection. I also now have many books on the matter. The three I look at most often are; Indian Mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley by Woodward and McDonald, The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point by Jon L. Gibson and Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley by Squier and Davis

Yes I agree. I would imagine there is some/many differences (that is the nature of archeologist). I did wait until I contacted about six of these guys, with all six they do not see a Mesoamerican connection, but I am sure there are some out there. I am sure there are minority views with anthropologist and archeologist over many theories, as far as this one goes I haven't found one yet (not saying they arnt out there). I do emphasisze these ones are considered some of the top experts in the area of the Hopewell and Adena and Mississippi Valley cultures.

[MichaelM]

I have heard this too but I have to disregard it on the basis that the first mention of it (in print) was in 1933 investigated by none other than Frank Hibben who claims he heard about it from another person who discovered it in 1880. So to begin with its origins are suspect. I would imagine if the Mormon Battalion had anything to do with it we would have some record in a pioneer journal, besides how many of the battalion knew paleo-Hebrew with modern punctuation? Modern for 1933 time that is.

Thanks, your reply makes sense. The Mormon Battalion theory does not add up to me because if someone had done it then for a hoax, it seems those involved would pretend to "find it" in the 19th century. The 1933 fabrication is more reasonable.

[Anijen]

So then here is a challenge/suggestion for you.

How about contacting the ones that you contacted again, and specifically asking them this question: Who is it in the field that still maintains the older view, and how to contact them? Furthermore, you know, this doesn't have to be limited to Hopewell/Adena archaeologists. We can be looking for Mesoamerican or Southwestern archaeologists who have an opinion on the point too.

Ed

Such a simple solution Ed. I sometimes look past the obvious. I will contact a few and see if I get a reply. Thanks for the solution. I will let you know when I hear from any of them.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I just finished reading a fascinating book by Kenneth L. Feder the Encyclopedia of Dubious Archeology. I have been in contact with him via email he has been helping me on my personal studies of the Hopewell and Adena traditions. He is also one of the signees discrediting Meldrum

[Mike Reed]

Anijen: I do not subscribe to Mike Reeds view that knowledge of Old World records such as engravings on metal was well known at the time of Joseph.

Me: And how much time have you spent searching early 19th century sources to find out?

It cracks me up that people (who claim to be well read) would assert such things without bothering to do some basic research and see if their presumption is true. Put your FARMS publications down and spend a few minutes doing your own research. Seriously, a quick 30 minute googlebooks search should reveal how absurd the presumption is. And no... I am not suggesting that you mine through obscure manuscripts that would have only been available to "highly educated specialists" (to borrow Hamblin's words). I am talking about biblical commentaries, newspapers, magazines, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and even ELEMENTARY textbooks.

[Tapir Whisperer]

Hey, the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is Legit....

The only reason people think it is fake is because early idiots "traced" and otherwise tampered with the stone, so later studies couldn't determine if it was real or not. The main reason I think it is real because of the most earliest studies and Indian verbal history on the stone. It clearly wasn't manufactured by some later white guy trying to fake people out.

I don't recall all the others, but, a couple more of them are likely in the same condition. Thus, they "all" aren't false as the above book apparently claims.

It's now well known that the Phoenicians and all kinds of other travelers were in the America's, thus it can't be said that "all" these discovery's are false.

Also, isn't the Bat Creek Stone one that was thought to be accurate, then thought to be false, and then now considered legit?

Anyway, I'm not up on them, save the Los Lunas Stone. It I know is legit.

This site is I think the best overviews of all the details: http://www.mhccorp.c...troduction.html

Actually, some of the harshes criticism of the Los Lunas Stone comes from Hugh Nibley. On page 3, of his book The Prophetic Book of Mormon, Nibley states this about the Los Lunas Stone:

"Much study and care went into the preparation of this "ancient Hebrew inscription" near Los Lunas, New Mexico, yet a cursory glance was enough to reveal the crisp freshness of the newly-cut letters. Numerous other flaws appeared upon closer inspection. To anyone not determined to accept this inscription as genuine, it furnishes an interesting illustration of the pains to which people will go to produce a convincing-looking antique, and the impossibility of doing so without immense and laborious preparation. Yet such a forgery as this would beinfinitely easier to get away with than one of Book of Mormon proportions."

[Mike Reed]

Anijen: 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.

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

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

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

semlogo: Something more specific than that would be nice.

William Hamblin maintains that the notion of ancient metal records was almost certainly unknown to average poor