What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

[Bill Hamblin]

We actually do have Khazar artifacts.

Edited to add: In case anyone might misconstrue my post, I am not saying that we have Khazar artifacts but no BoM-related ones. I am merely pointing out that there are Khazar remains and artifacts.

You're right, of course. I didn't express myself well. What I meant was, we cannot identify the Khazars by archaeology alone. Without the texts describing the Khazars, we wouldn't even know to look for them. By archaeology alone we could not demonstrate: A- that particular artifacts should be assigned to the Khazars, or B- that their elites (at least) were Jewish. The exception might be Khazar coins, but even there there are numerous ambiguities and uncertainties.

[BCSpace]

It is even more baffling that someone would claim that no evidence for is the same as evidence against. Quite unscientific.

And who makes that claim?

Every critic who says the BoM cannot be true because there is no evidence for it's being a historical or ancient work.

[Eldwynn]

It is even more baffling that someone would claim that no evidence for is the same as evidence against. Quite unscientific.

Every critic who says the BoM cannot be true because there is no evidence for it's being a historical or ancient work.

This "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" mantra that has hit society of late is what's not scientific. If there is not convincing evidence of something, then the scientific thing to do is hold judgment. However, while you are sitting in the background waiting for more searching to be done, you should not assume the truth of the claim. In logic, the person making the claim (especially the extraordinary claim) is the one that needs to provide the evidence. This has been said by so many philosophers (Bertrand Russel anyone?) and historically great thinkers, that it's kind of sad that it needs to be repeated.

If I tell you there is a tiny teapot circling the earth- it is not up to you to disprove my teapot theory. If you want a further discussion of the fallacy- go here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

I think the biggest problem with the "evidence" for Book of Mormon archeology, is the lack of peer reviewed evidence. Some apologists point to biases in the process, and have discredited the process entirely (even in this very thread).

However, until it is in a peer reviewed journal- I have no idea if your results are accurate. I think two people in this thread criticized someone for discounting their supposed evidence, because they did not have a strong understanding of archeology. That is a case example of the beauty of the peer-review process. A biologist like me, can read a peer reviewed article- examine the method, and depending on the journal, I can be more confident that your conclusions are sound.

So when I start seeing archeological journals publishing more about the Nephites and the Lamanites, I will start to take mormon apologists a bit more seriously. Until then, as someone who is pursuing a graduate degree in neurobiology and not archeology, I can only hopelessly sit on the sidelines, wondering if this evidence is good or not.

Convince fellow archeologists first, and get that evidence out there to be examined!

So if you have a degree in archeology- then get out there and start publishing!? Isn't that what you are paid to do?

[WalkerW]

Brian Garvey, "Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence, and the Atheist's Teapot," Ars Disputandi 10 (2010).

[Eldwynn]

Brian Garvey, "Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence, and the Atheist's Teapot," Ars Disputandi 10 (2010).

Hey what are the chances- I've read that before.

I don't want to derail the thread discussing it- because it's not really relevant. The article is about comparing the existence of god to that of a teapot argument. Even if I assume the article to be correct in reasoning (which I don't), it does not matter- because we were discussing whether the BOM was a work of history or not.

From my memory of the article, he basically alludes that asking whether a teapot orbits the earth is a different kind of question than asking if god exists. However, is deciding whether the BOM represents a translation of a history that was written by Native American peoples (and I mean, we are assuming that the authors of the original plates were even truthful, or made no mistakes...) equivalent to asking if god exists? No- it is closer to asking if there indeed is a teapot orbiting the earth.

In short, the article you posted isn't a refutation of the philosophical burden of proof fallacy- but it's an argument against using it against the existence of god. I hope we can agree that they are different things. Also, I find it likely that the author doesn't think you can prove the existence of god using scientific reasoning: so the article really wasn't relevant on two levels (if you look at what I wrote).

[bookofmormontruth]

This "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" mantra that has hit society of late is what's not scientific. If there is not convincing evidence of something, then the scientific thing to do is hold judgment. However, while you are sitting in the background waiting for more searching to be done, you should not assume the truth of the claim. In logic, the person making the claim (especially the extraordinary claim) is the one that needs to provide the evidence. This has been said by so many philosophers (Bertrand Russel anyone?) and historically great thinkers, that it's kind of sad that it needs to be repeated.

If I tell you there is a tiny teapot circling the earth- it is not up to you to disprove my teapot theory. If you want a further discussion of the fallacy- go here:

http://www.nizkor.or...n-of-proof.html

I think the biggest problem with the "evidence" for Book of Mormon archeology, is the lack of peer reviewed evidence. Some apologists point to biases in the process, and have discredited the process entirely (even in this very thread).

However, until it is in a peer reviewed journal- I have no idea if your results are accurate. I think two people in this thread criticized someone for discounting their supposed evidence, because they did not have a strong understanding of archeology. That is a case example of the beauty of the peer-review process. A biologist like me, can read a peer reviewed article- examine the method, and depending on the journal, I can be more confident that your conclusions are sound.

So when I start seeing archeological journals publishing more about the Nephites and the Lamanites, I will start to take mormon apologists a bit more seriously. Until then, as someone who is pursuing a graduate degree in neurobiology and not archeology, I can only hopelessly sit on the sidelines, wondering if this evidence is good or not.

Convince fellow archeologists first, and get that evidence out there to be examined!

So if you have a degree in archeology- then get out there and start publishing!? Isn't that what you are paid to do?

You admonish to "hold judgment" yet you gave your personal judgement quite extensively on the evidence for the Book of Mormon. How does that work?

[volgadon]

You're right, of course. I didn't express myself well. What I meant was, we cannot identify the Khazars by archaeology alone. Without the texts describing the Khazars, we wouldn't even know to look for them. By archaeology alone we could not demonstrate: A- that particular artifacts should be assigned to the Khazars, or B- that their elites (at least) were Jewish. The exception might be Khazar coins, but even there there are numerous ambiguities and uncertainties.

That is very true. I'm acquainted with Kevin Alan Brooke, foremost Khazar expert, and on my mission when we taught free English one of those attending was an archaeologist and historian of southern Russia (or the northern Caucasus if you prefer). It is a fascinating theme. How does one tell a Khazar artifact apart from an Adhygan one in Ossetia, to name one example. Pure archaeology alone has very little to say on identity.

[WalkerW]

Hey what are the chances- I've read that before.

I don't want to derail the thread discussing it- because it's not really relevant. The article is about comparing the existence of god to that of a teapot argument. Even if I assume the article to be correct in reasoning (which I don't), it does not matter- because we were discussing whether the BOM was a work of history or not.

From my memory of the article, he basically alludes that asking whether a teapot orbits the earth is a different kind of question than asking if god exists. However, is deciding whether the BOM represents a translation of a history that was written by Native American peoples (and I mean, we are assuming that the authors of the original plates were even truthful, or made no mistakes...) equivalent to asking if god exists? No- it is closer to asking if there indeed is a teapot orbiting the earth.

In short, the article you posted isn't a refutation of the philosophical burden of proof fallacy- but it's an argument against using it against the existence of god. I hope we can agree that they are different things. Also, I find it likely that the author doesn't think you can prove the existence of god using scientific reasoning: so the article really wasn't relevant on two levels (if you look at what I wrote).

It wasn't necessarily meant to be a refutation. Sometimes I post links for those who might be interested in various subjects mentioned.

Sorry. I should have clarified before posting with a "Random" disclaimer like I've done elsewhere.

[WalkerW]

I think the biggest problem with the "evidence" for Book of Mormon archeology, is the lack of peer reviewed evidence.

Perhaps, but I think this has been addressed extensively.

Some apologists point to biases in the process, and have discredited the process entirely (even in this very thread).

Really? I don't find any discrediting going on.

The Book of Mormon's existence has a unique mixture of the natural and supernatural that makes a proper approach to it a bit allusive.

However, I hope that the secular interest in the Book of Mormon will begin to change in the near future given some of the recent publications on it. (e.g. Terryl Givens & Grant Hardy through Oxford; Royal Skousen through Yale.)

[Kevin Christensen]

On the "peer review" trope, Daniel Peterson, at length and with relevance:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=2&id=621

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[WalkerW]

On the "peer review" trope, Daniel Peterson, at length and with relevance:

http://maxwellinstit...18&num=2&id=621

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I'd forgotten about this piece. Thanks for bringing it to my attention again.

By the way, Kevin, I'm working on an op-ed piece for my university's paper on the concept of "science" that will discuss its reliance on the philosophical paradigm shifts discussed by Kuhn and others. I'll have to hit you up when it is published.

[Kevin Christensen]

I'd forgotten about this piece. Thanks for bringing it to my attention again.

By the way, Kevin, I'm working on an op-ed piece for my university's paper on the concept of "science" that will discuss its reliance on the philosophical paradigm shifts discussed by Kuhn and others. I'll have to hit you up when it is published.

I'd looked it up recently for a discussion following on my Amazon review of Palmer. Daniel does a superb job there.

I'll be interested in your op-ed piece, certainly. I've started reading Feyerband's Against Method, finally getting around to a recommendation from Barry Bickmore a few years ago.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[cdowis]

Actually, it's a direct quote of what you said when you responded to my statement that "the smaller the area in which the BoM purportedly took place, the more likely it should be to find hard evidence of BoM people, places and events. There is no such evidence. Not a single scrap".

So I said "there is no evidence of BoM people, places and events" and you said "it is quite untrue that there is no shred of evidence". But when I asked for an example of such evidence (in a way that more or less objectively tells me that the evidence is solid), you started sulking how I even dared to ask such a question and how that shows how ignorant I am.

Please take your ad hominem arguments elsewhere. Please address the issues themselves.

I have responded to your request and you have not responded but content yourself on personal attacks. Please respond to the issues or get out of this discussion.

[cdowis]

I think any journal would be interested in publishing a well-researched article about the BoM that has a basis in facts and evidence.

I have responded to this assertion. When do you intend to respond in a responsible manner rather than blowing hot air.

[Gervin]

Artifacts don't do much. Devoid of texts, they tell you about material culture, but nothing about the language of the people who made them, or many of the other cultural data that might tie a particular artifact to a particular people.

I think a professional archaeologist or anthropologist would say “artifacts do a lot – devoid of texts, they tell you about material culture. They can also fill in gaps related to the language of the people who made them or many of the other cultural data that might tie a particular artifact to a particular people.” Sure, there are many examples where artifacts don’t fill in gaps or provide clues, but it’s all a part of putting together the larger picture of a culture or society. “Artifacts don’t do much” sure doesn’t gibe when I look at these Mesoamerican artifacts:

http://www.jqjacobs.net/mesoamerica/artifacts_1.html

The entire reasoning he gives is an argument as to why the correlate to the text.

Without texts, however, they don't tell you who made them.

So, when you ask for a tie between the Book of Mormon and artifacts, you are asking for something that no archaeologist can give you for any culture (without other serendipitous evidence, such as texts or historical ties to a location--again often relying on texts). That is the reason that none of the examples I have given deal with specific artifacts. It simply isn't the way archaeology works.

As for what archaeology can do with a text, it can be compared to see if the reconstructed historical trends (as argued on the basis of the artifacts as a group, rarely from a single artifact) matches the trends in the text. Those are precisely the types of evidences I suggested. So, no I am not answering the specific question you ask because it is a question that should not be asked of any reconstruction based on archaeology in the absence of texts.

(my bold) Assuming the Book of Mormon is true, it is an incredible text describing (elements of) the material culture, religious beliefs, societal practices, and population activities of an established culture over many hundreds of years. Based on this text, there should be some obvious (or at least hard to ignore) connections between artifacts and text. Even from a secular viewpoint. If the connections are not obvious, there should at least be correlations with the Book of Mormon that make some secular archaeologists or anthropologists a bit uncomfortable or uncertain about preconceived notions.

Artifacts from, and knowledge of, Mesoamerica and its past will only continue to grow. It’s a vibrant field full of scholars, dirt-diggers, researchers, and scientists. As the body of knowledge of grows it will be incumbent on LDS archaeologists and anthropologists to weigh-in and participate in the dialogue to make their case that the Book of Mormon merits consideration. Their absence in the face of an expanding field of study will send a very clear message, as well.

So, if you would like to agree on a beginning framework, let's develop one that a secular archaeologist or ethnohistorian could accept and go from there.

Is anyone familiar with the textbooks used at BYU to teach about the historical setting and activities in the Book of Mormon? Just curious.

[Brant Gardner]

I think a professional archaeologist or anthropologist would say “artifacts do a lot – devoid of texts, they tell you about material culture.

Of course. Whose material culture? What language did they speak? What do they call themselves? What kind of religion do they have? Which artifacts are "art" which are "religious art," and what is the difference (if any)?

Instead of what you think a professional archaeologist might say, let's ask one.

While in theory archaeology does recover objective “facts” from the past--for example, a pot, a stone tool, a figuring, the foundations of a building, perhaps the entire plan of a village, or even a written text-- the apprehension of the reality of any of these is always dependent on present, subjective human interpretation. Facts do not speak directly. They may in principle have a concrete existence of their own; but they come to life, empowered to speak to me of the past, only as I am able to incorporate them into my consciousness. This process is obviously an extraordinarily complex matter. William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 2001), 70.

The point Dever makes is the very one that I made (and borrowed from him). The artifacts have to be placed into a context, and that context comes from analysis, not just from the artifact. It is most difficult to do when there are no texts. That is why there are so many artifacts that have no direct relationship to the people who created them. For example, in Mesoamerica we have the Olmec and the Teotihuacanos. In the both cases we know the people only from a name someone else gave them. We can reconstruct a lot about them, but what has been reconstructed is in flux according to what we find. For a while Teotihuacanos were very peaceful. They they were quintessential warriors and conquerors. The interpretation changes with what has been found. The artifacts that generated the earlier consensus are still around, but have had to be recontextualized.

They can also fill in gaps related to the language of the people who made them or many of the other cultural data that might tie a particular artifact to a particular people.

Perhaps, if you know who made them and what language they spoke. There is a linguistic reconstruction of what might have been the language of the Olmec, but that isn't known from any artifact, only from historical linguistics. The Teotihuacanos are even more mysterious, with multiple guesses as to their language.

The problem that was being discussed is how an artifact relates to a text that does not describe that artifact. As for whether there are ways to work with texts in the context of archaeological reconstructions, of course there are (and I have suggested that this is precisely the kind of evidence we have in the Book of Mormon). However, it isn't related to any single artifact.

In Dever's case, he makes an argument that a certain style home in a certain place and time can be tied to the Bible's text. Even that, however, relies upon argument. It isn't anything that the artifacts themselves require--or even suggest.

(my bold) Assuming the Book of Mormon is true, it is an incredible text describing (elements of) the material culture, religious beliefs, societal practices, and population activities of an established culture over many hundreds of years.

I'm with you on the soft stuff. There is very little that I would describe as material culture. We have houses, weapons, a few things like that. Not much. We also have a text in translation, so the always controversial question is what "horse" means. That is a quite different issue.

I agree that there is currently a time discrepancy for metallurgy, but many of the other elements that might be material culture are also susceptible to translation issues (and my discussion of that is due in August).

Based on this text, there should be some obvious (or at least hard to ignore) connections between artifacts and text.

Heavens no. Because archaeology requires a construction built on evidence, there is always reason to wonder about the constructions and to question them. That is now we learn things new. Even without new evidence, secular scholars publish new interpretations. The connections are not as obvious as you are suggesting. Secular archaeology provides enough counter examples to indicate that your assumption is incorrect.

If the connections are not obvious, there should at least be correlations with the Book of Mormon that make some secular archaeologists or anthropologists a bit uncomfortable or uncertain about preconceived notions.

I doubt that they would be uncomfortable. I don't know of any of the correlations that I would accept that would place anyone in that position. I do expect that there would be some who would agree that there is a plausible case, but that they don't believe it.

As the body of knowledge of grows it will be incumbent on LDS archaeologists and anthropologists to weigh-in and participate in the dialogue to make their case that the Book of Mormon merits consideration. Their absence in the face of an expanding field of study will send a very clear message, as well.

Their absence doesn't suggest to me what it seems to suggest to you. To me, it suggests that they are more interested in their lines of analysis than in looking at the Book of Mormon. Even were they to do so, I don't see the evidence of how the Book of Mormon fits into Mesoamerican culture altering the places and ideas they are studying and are interested in. Their lack of interest won't constitute tacit disproof.

However, I agree that knowledge will continue to increase. I agree that it has increased, and interesting to me at least, is that with the greater information about Mesoamerica, the place of the Book of Mormon as a record that took place in that area and time, and which original text came from that location and time, is actually much better than it was before we learned what we know now. If the trend is that greater secular information is improving the picture for the Book or Mormon, I take that as rather encouraging.

[Gervin]

The point Dever makes is the very one that I made (and borrowed from him). The artifacts have to be placed into a context, and that context comes from analysis, not just from the artifact. It is most difficult to do when there are no texts.

The analysis utilizes the artifact, so that’s why I thought it important to not let the statement, “artifacts don’t do much” go unchallenged. Of course context is important – that’s a given.

It is most difficult to do when there are no texts.

And easier to do when there is a text. The Book of Mormon is the most complete and detailed text in the world describing activities, culture, natural events, etc. in Mesoamerica, so this difficulty is assuaged to some degree.

The problem that was being discussed is how an artifact relates to a text that does not describe that artifact. As for whether there are ways to work with texts in the context of archaeological reconstructions, of course there are (and I have suggested that this is precisely the kind of evidence we have in the Book of Mormon). However, it isn't related to any single artifact.

The Book of Mormon describes a material culture that could logically manifest itself in artifacts and Mesoamerican artifacts represent many specific elements of a material culture. The contextual connection could certainly be a single artifact; if one steel sword were found at the right strata, for example.

I'm with you on the soft stuff. There is very little that I would describe as material culture. We have houses, weapons, a few things like that. Not much. We also have a text in translation, so the always controversial question is what "horse" means. That is a quite different issue.

I agree that there is currently a time discrepancy for metallurgy, but many of the other elements that might be material culture are also susceptible to translation issues (and my discussion of that is due in August).

The Book of Mormon has quite a lot to say about material culture, in my view. If Old World culture, religious beliefs and practices, language, and writing systems came to Mesoamerica with the people of the Book, additional material culture should be considered if not assumed outright. If the Book of Mormon is an unreliable text (susceptible) relative to its descriptions, then you are creating a wider gap between the text and artifacts.

(G: Based on this text, there should be some obvious (or at least hard to ignore) connections between artifacts and text.)

Heavens no. Because archaeology requires a construction built on evidence, there is always reason to wonder about the constructions and to question them. That is now we learn things new. Even without new evidence, secular scholars publish new interpretations. The connections are not as obvious as you are suggesting. Secular archaeology provides enough counter examples to indicate that your assumption is incorrect.

Obvious connections do exist. If a book describes fishing activity on a body of water 2000 years ago, and somebody finds a 2000 year old fishing boat in that body of water, then an obvious connection is made. If a book describes a 2000 year old seaport in a general location and archaeology uncovers a seaport in this general location, then a connection is made that is hard to ignore. Secular archaeology provides enough examples to render your blanket-statement as hyperbole. Old World bulla. Coinage. Seige ramps. Etc. - the examples are numerous and shouldn't be ignored.

(G: If the connections are not obvious, there should at least be correlations with the Book of Mormon that make some secular archaeologists or anthropologists a bit uncomfortable or uncertain about preconceived notions.)

I doubt that they would be uncomfortable. I don't know of any of the correlations that I would accept that would place anyone in that position. I do expect that there would be some who would agree that there is a plausible case, but that they don't believe it.

It really comes down to how well you state your case and make your argument: is the methodology sound, do the artifacts and their analysis give any credence to the text, is the text compelling enough to shed light on the artifacts and the context of the analysis? Etc.

(G: As the body of knowledge of grows it will be incumbent on LDS archaeologists and anthropologists to weigh-in and participate in the dialogue to make their case that the Book of Mormon merits consideration. Their absence in the face of an expanding field of study will send a very clear message, as well.)

Their absence doesn't suggest to me what it seems to suggest to you. To me, it suggests that they are more interested in their lines of analysis than in looking at the Book of Mormon. Even were they to do so, I don't see the evidence of how the Book of Mormon fits into Mesoamerican culture altering the places and ideas they are studying and are interested in. Their lack of interest won't constitute tacit disproof.

No, their lack of interest won't constitute tacit disproof – it’ll trend toward plain, clear and unmistakable disproof. If LDS archeologists, anthropologists, historians and the like have little or no interest in researching, exploring, studying, and analyzing how the Book of Mormon people and culture fits into a historic framework then there will be no room for them to cry foul at a secular world that sees no connection between Book and past.

However, I agree that knowledge will continue to increase. I agree that it has increased, and interesting to me at least, is that with the greater information about Mesoamerica, the place of the Book of Mormon as a record that took place in that area and time, and which original text came from that location and time, is actually much better than it was before we learned what we know now. If the trend is that greater secular information is improving the picture for the Book or Mormon, I take that as rather encouraging.

I don’t think the trend is that greater secular information is improving the picture for the Book or Mormon. What, in the past 10 years or so, do you consider to be the most compelling piece of information coming out of Mesoamerican research or studies that tells you that the Book of Mormon is a record that took place in that area and time?

[Brant Gardner]

The Book of Mormon has quite a lot to say about material culture, in my view. If Old World culture, religious beliefs and practices, language, and writing systems came to Mesoamerica with the people of the Book, additional material culture should be considered if not assumed outright. If the Book of Mormon is an unreliable text (susceptible) relative to its descriptions, then you are creating a wider gap between the text and artifacts.

Before even beginning to make such a comparison it is requisite to have some theory of the relationship of the vocabulary of the Book of Mormon to what might have been in the ancient text. The reason that is important is that it only claims to be a translation, and there are known issues when assuming that a vocabulary item in the translation is an accurate representation of the untranslated item or concept. This happens in the Spanish literature about he Aztecs often enough to be instructive.

Therefore, assuming that a steel sword must be steel makes a presumption of vocabulary. I grant that if the original document language were stated to have been English, then it would be a problem. In translation, it is a question (and the word steel is used in the KJV to translate underlying words that were not steel).

When you look at the things that you can trace in the text reliably, because the textual description tells you what is going on (rather than relying on a vocabulary item), then there is a much higher correlation. For example, you mention language and writing systems. Everyone had language, so there is no surprise to find a people with language. If you are suggesting that the Book of Mormon says what language they spoke, I would love to see it. It isn't there. They brought Hebrew with them, but there is no indication in the text that it continued.

How about writing. The fact of writing in the New World is actually pretty distinctive and limited to one region. The writing systems appear to have evolved independently, but certainly there were concepts about writing that were shared (the languages themselves made it hard to cross-adapt the Maya system, for example).

When you look at the kinds of descriptions of culture, cultural trends, political systems, economic systems -- the large categories that depend upon the actual textual descriptions rather than assumptions based on a vocabulary item, then there is a very close parallel between those same items in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon.

Obvious connections do exist. If a book describes fishing activity on a body of water 2000 years ago, and somebody finds a 2000 year old fishing boat in that body of water, then an obvious connection is made. If a book describes a 2000 year old seaport in a general location and archaeology uncovers a seaport in this general location, then a connection is made that is hard to ignore.

Right. This is precisely the type of evidence I am describing. Notice that you are not relying on vocabulary items here, but descriptions. So, when the Book of Mormon indicates that there is pressure to develop kings, even in smaller cities (the early city of Nephi), then that should fit into the trend in the region of the development of kings. When Benjamin tells his people what kind of king he wasn't it makes most sense when it is known that kings around him did have those traits (and the Maya kings do). When the Book of Mormon suggests that a people from the city of Nephi (plausibly in Highland Guatemala) goes north to the Sidon (plausibly the Grijalva) and there meets people in Zarahemla who speak a different language and have a different religion, and who originally came from a region farther to the north, and it happens around 200 B.C., it makes a direct correlation to finding evidence of connections to the Maya lands in a city along the Grijalva where Zoquean speakers (a different language entirely from Maya languages) came from the north around 200 B.C., it seems to be a correlation.

When the end of the Book of Mormon (around A.D. 380-400) speaks of alterations in the nature of warfare and suggests an infusion of a new population that is changing things (they call them Gadiantons), and we have Teotihuacan invading that region in (with a firm date in Tikal at A.D. 379, if I remember correctly), and they bring with them a different style of warfare that becomes evident in the archaeology of the region, it seems we have the very kinds of correlations you mentioned in your suggestion.

[volgadon]

And easier to do when there is a text. The Book of Mormon is the most complete and detailed text in the world describing activities, culture, natural events, etc. in Mesoamerica, so this difficulty is assuaged to some degree.

Yeah, we see how well that has worked for the Bible without outside texts.

[thews]

It is baffling for someone to make the claim that there is "absolutely no evidence".

The link My link has all the evidence organized by what the Book of Mormon actually says (not what it doesn't say) and is classified as "direct" or "circumstantial". Hope it helps for evidence only strengthens the faithful.

I looked at your site and there's a lot of data presented. Of all the data, what do you think is the most direct evidence?

[bookofmormontruth]

I looked at your site and there's a lot of data presented. Of all the data, what do you think is the most direct evidence?

The "most"? I honestly have no idea.

What do you think?

[cdowis]

When you look at the kinds of descriptions of culture, cultural trends, political systems, economic systems -- the large categories that depend upon the actual textual descriptions rather than assumptions based on a vocabulary item, then there is a very close parallel between those same items in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon.

snip

When the end of the Book of Mormon (around A.D. 380-400) speaks of alterations in the nature of warfare and suggests an infusion of a new population that is changing things (they call them Gadiantons), and we have Teotihuacan invading that region in (with a firm date in Tikal at A.D. 379, if I remember correctly), and they bring with them a different style of warfare that becomes evident in the archaeology of the region, it seems we have the very kinds of correlations you mentioned in your suggestion.

I have found another example (published by CARTSS):

For 1500 years villagers in Costa Rica were burying their dead in graves near their homes. Around 500BC they suddenly changed their 1500 year old practice when they put their cemetaries several kilometers away from the village.

This is about the time that Lehi landed and in the same general area.

[thews]

The "most"? I honestly have no idea.

What do you think?

To be honest with you, as a critic I don't know what you're claiming is "direct" (vs. circumstantial) evidence, which is why I asked you what you would pick as the single-most convincing direct evidence. After you tell me I can then research your site on the subject.

[bookofmormontruth]

To be honest with you, as a critic I don't know what you're claiming is "direct" (vs. circumstantial) evidence, which is why I asked you what you would pick as the single-most convincing direct evidence. After you tell me I can then research your site on the subject.

I didn't make it all complicated on the website, very easy to navigate.

Click on one of the main headings like "archaeology" and it will give you the definition of the heading and direct vs circumstantial.

Then under every subheading, I have a few examples of pre-Columbian evidence (direct or circumstantial) which were considered preposterous in the early 19th century scientific and archeological community.

There is no "single-most convincing" direct evidence to the critic. The intent of the website was for those that already believe the Book of Mormon to be true (through a spiritual witness) for the evidence only strengthens the faithful. Elephants being my favorite and most convincing.

The website to the critic - like what has been shown on this thread by true experts, unlike myself - will just give them a big *yawn*.

[thews]

There is no "single-most convincing" direct evidence to the critic. The intent of the website was for those that already believe the Book of Mormon to be true (through a spiritual witness) for the evidence only strengthens the faithful. Elephants being my favorite and most convincing.

Thanks for the answer. What I was looking for is evidence of Mormon culture... the people.

The website to the critic - like what has been shown on this thread by true experts, unlike myself - will just give them a big *yawn*.

When you said...

It is baffling for someone to make the claim that there is "absolutely no evidence".

The link My link has all the evidence organized by what the Book of Mormon actually says (not what it doesn't say) and is classified as "direct" or "circumstantial". Hope it helps for evidence only strengthens the faithful.

I assumed you meant direct evidence... swords, breastplates, that sort of thing. The picture regarding elephants are somewhat subjective in the architecture of the buildings, and I found this to be less than convincing:.

Jeff Lindsay's website states the following:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Contrary to the claims of our critics, there are impressive findings that make it difficult to explain away the Book of Mormon as a nineteenth-century fraud from Joseph Smith. Such evidence is not "proof" but represents indications of plausibility that demand further attention.

I'm not asking you to defend his position, but with your published data and knowledge, is there something that strikes you as the single-most profound when it comes to cultural data?