What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

[Nathair/|\]

I think this might be some of the most beautiful evidence for the BOM I've seen yet.

[bookofmormontruth]

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

I have no idea what you mean? Mormon culture is everywhere on the planet.

.

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,

I meant what I said earlier. There is direct and circumstantial evidence - please read the difference between the two.

There is no evidence of steel swords and there is direct evidence of breastplates etc..

Hence also why elephants were listed as "circumstantial" and the so called "Lake Michigan Stonehenge" has a story behind the find (click the links on website). It wasn't my "subjective interpretation" of the find even though with side by side comparisons of all the pictures - it is obvious to the archeologists what was carved and it would be hard to dispute what is said in regards to cuvieronius and its time period which matches perfectly with the Book of Mormon.

and I found this to be less than convincing

Of course. Like I said. Nothing will convince the critic.

Jeff Lindsay's website states the following:

http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

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?

Sorry, still not following you at all - please rephrase.

[thews]

I have no idea what you mean? Mormon culture is everywhere on the planet.

You list archeological evidence on your site. I'm not talking about current culture, but evidence of historical culture that you claimed (or so I thought) existed.

I meant what I said earlier. There is direct and circumstantial evidence - please read the difference between the two.

I know the difference, which is why I asked you for your "direct" evidence. I just wanted to know what direct evidence you thought was most convincing.

There is no evidence of steel swords and there is direct evidence of breastplates etc..

Can you link me to the Book of Mormon breastplate evidence?

Hence also why elephants were listed as "circumstantial" and the so called "Lake Michigan Stonehenge" has a story behind the find (click the links on website). It wasn't my "subjective interpretation" of the find even though with side by side comparisons of all the pictures - it is obvious to the archeologists what was carved and it would be hard to dispute what is said in regards to cuvieronius and its time period which matches perfectly with the Book of Mormon.

Of course. Like I said. Nothing will convince the critic.

Sorry, still not following you at all - please rephrase.

When you say nothing will convince the critic, I'm just trying to understand you. You obviously have knowledge having researched it enough to devote a website to it. What is the single-most "direct" piece of evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon based on the evidence?

[bookofmormontruth]

Can you link me to the Book of Mormon breastplate evidence?

Breast-Plates

When you say nothing will convince the critic, I'm just trying to understand you. You obviously have knowledge having researched it enough to devote a website to it. What is the single-most "direct" piece of evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon based on the evidence?

For the critic, absolutely nothing.

[volgadon]

You list archeological evidence on your site. I'm not talking about current culture, but evidence of historical culture that you claimed (or so I thought) existed.

Would a depiction of Leda and the Swan be considered an artefact of Graeco-Roman culture, or would it be Jewish?

Leda was one of the beauties Zeus fancied, so he took the form of a swan and raped her.

[volgadon]

Would a depiction of Leda and the Swan be considered an artefact of Graeco-Roman culture, or would it be Jewish?

Leda was one of the beauties Zeus fancied, so he took the form of a swan and raped her.

Shouldn't be too difficult to answer, Thews.

[Eldwynn]

For the critic, absolutely nothing.

I was thinking about this line today, and found myself wondering what if all science disciplines had this attitude.

What if when Einstein proposed his new theory about physics, people questioned his data and he said "well if you don't already believe me, you will never understand". It's a rather silly scenario- and I think it is silly here.

If your evidence (whether direct or circumstantial) is ONLY convincing to those who "already believe" then how can you call it compelling evidence at all? To me, new evidence on this matter by definition would have to sway the minds of those who don't already believe.

Or do you mean that there IS no evidence that would ever convince a critic of the historical accurateness of the Book of Mormon. I would imagine (since I don't believe the events described in the BOM actually happened) that I am a critic. However, I could theoretically talk about a lot of things that would convince me that the BOM actually describes real cities and places.

For example, if Native American documents, dated to the same time period, were found that mentioned many of the same cities or places in the BOM, and it was shown that there was no way Joseph Smith could have known about the documents- it would be convincing that the Book of Mormon was depicting real (and not fictional) cities that existed in Mesoamerica.

That is an example of one thing, there are of course more than just one thing, but you said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, so I only need to provide one.

EDIT: It also just occurred to me that maybe you meant to say that there is no evidence yet that will convince the critic, because the evidence is weak. If that's what you meant, then you and I are in total agreement!

[Nathair/|\]

I was thinking about this line today, and found myself wondering what if all science disciplines had this attitude.

What if when Einstein proposed his new theory about physics, people questioned his data and he said "well if you don't already believe me, you will never understand". It's a rather silly scenario- and I think it is silly here.

If your evidence (whether direct or circumstantial) is ONLY convincing to those who "already believe" then how can you call it compelling evidence at all? To me, new evidence on this matter by definition would have to sway the minds of those who don't already believe.

Or do you mean that there IS no evidence that would ever convince a critic of the historical accurateness of the Book of Mormon. I would imagine (since I don't believe the events described in the BOM actually happened) that I am a critic. However, I could theoretically talk about a lot of things that would convince me that the BOM actually describes real cities and places.

For example, if Native American documents, dated to the same time period, were found that mentioned many of the same cities or places in the BOM, and it was shown that there was no way Joseph Smith could have known about the documents- it would be convincing that the Book of Mormon was depicting real (and not fictional) cities that existed in Mesoamerica.

That is an example of one thing, there are of course more than just one thing, but you said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, so I only need to provide one.

EDIT: It also just occurred to me that maybe you meant to say that there is no evidence yet that will convince the critic, because the evidence is weak. If that's what you meant, then you and I are in total agreement!

When you were young did you ever do those dot-to-dot puzzles, where you connect dots to make a picture? Depending on the complexity, you could sometimes figure out the picture just from the dots alone, and, sometimes, you had to start connecting dots, but you could tell what the picture was entirely filled in. As Bran't Gardner points out, that is the state of the evidence in the New World for the Nephites.

In the Old World, the picture is even clearer. In the Kerry Shirts video I posted earlier, he points out how we have a beautiful picture of Lehi's trail including locations for all the major landmarks mentioned in the account. Professor Nibley demonstrated, decades ago, how perfectly the Book of Mormon fits in the old world cultures of origin, how the names are exactly right, for example.

It's well beyond the time when the Book of Mormon could be claimed to be a modern production, with the exception of the translation. The English does bear the marks of the milliu of its translator and first readers.

Yours under the logical oaks,

Nathair /|\

[bookofmormontruth]

I was thinking about this line today, and found myself wondering what if all science disciplines had this attitude.

What if when Einstein proposed his new theory about physics, people questioned his data and he said "well if you don't already believe me, you will never understand". It's a rather silly scenario- and I think it is silly here.

If your evidence (whether direct or circumstantial) is ONLY convincing to those who "already believe" then how can you call it compelling evidence at all? To me, new evidence on this matter by definition would have to sway the minds of those who don't already believe.

Or do you mean that there IS no evidence that would ever convince a critic of the historical accurateness of the Book of Mormon. I would imagine (since I don't believe the events described in the BOM actually happened) that I am a critic. However, I could theoretically talk about a lot of things that would convince me that the BOM actually describes real cities and places.

For example, if Native American documents, dated to the same time period, were found that mentioned many of the same cities or places in the BOM, and it was shown that there was no way Joseph Smith could have known about the documents- it would be convincing that the Book of Mormon was depicting real (and not fictional) cities that existed in Mesoamerica.

That is an example of one thing, there are of course more than just one thing, but you said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, so I only need to provide one.

EDIT: It also just occurred to me that maybe you meant to say that there is no evidence yet that will convince the critic, because the evidence is weak. If that's what you meant, then you and I are in total agreement!

I stand by what I stated.

Spiritual truths cannot be measured by science or our physical senses. This has been proven since Adam. Therefore, no evidence (no matter how profound) or angel will convince the critic.

[bookofmormontruth]

When you were young did you ever do those dot-to-dot puzzles, where you connect dots to make a picture? Depending on the complexity, you could sometimes figure out the picture just from the dots alone, and, sometimes, you had to start connecting dots, but you could tell what the picture was entirely filled in. As Bran't Gardner points out, that is the state of the evidence in the New World for the Nephites.

In the Old World, the picture is even clearer. In the Kerry Shirts video I posted earlier, he points out how we have a beautiful picture of Lehi's trail including locations for all the major landmarks mentioned in the account. Professor Nibley demonstrated, decades ago, how perfectly the Book of Mormon fits in the old world cultures of origin, how the names are exactly right, for example.

It's well beyond the time when the Book of Mormon could be claimed to be a modern production, with the exception of the translation. The English does bear the marks of the milliu of its translator and first readers.

Yours under the logical oaks,

Nathair /|\

Oh that is Brant Gardner! Very impressive presentation!

We are definitely in good hands with apologists like this!

[Eldwynn]

I stand by what I stated.

Spiritual truths cannot be measured by science or our physical senses. This has been proven since Adam. Therefore, no evidence (no matter how profound) or angel will convince the critic.

Well, if you can't point to such thing in a way that I can understand it (physically) then there is no way that I could ever accept your gospel as truth. God may as well be a lobster.

For what its worth, when exactly was the time of Adam?

[thews]

I stand by what I stated.

Spiritual truths cannot be measured by science or our physical senses. This has been proven since Adam. Therefore, no evidence (no matter how profound) or angel will convince the critic.

I disagree. Evidence is based on fact. When you say "no evidence (no matter how profound)" this would include the evidence you present on your site... it's tangible. I don't have to desire to believe, or actually believe that pandas exist... I have never seen one, but based on the evidence they do exist I believe they exist. The objective of your site, as I understand it, is to present evidence that one could use to lead to tangible evidence that may be forthcoming which proves your theory. It's why I asked you about direct archeological tangible evidence that you felt was the most convincing.

[Nathair/|\]

Well, if you can't point to such thing in a way that I can understand it (physically) then there is no way that I could ever accept your gospel as truth. God may as well be a lobster.

For what its worth, when exactly was the time of Adam?

What is your response to the Kerry Shirts and Brant Gardner videos I posted in this thread?

[Eldwynn]

What is your response to the Kerry Shirts and Brant Gardner videos I posted in this thread?

I'm pursuing a degree in neurobiology. I know very little about archeology. I watched the videos, and admittedly had no clue one way or the other.

As I suggested before, their ideas should be fought and won in peer reviewed archeology journals- not on youtube. This would ensure that experts on the subject would pay attention to what they are saying.

My rejection of Mormonism has little to do with archeology, and more to do with biology. I will let those who care about the archeology care about it.

[Hashbaz]

This past weekend I was at the "Maya at the Lago" conference in North Carolina and I sat down and chatted with George Stuart, who was National Geographic's resident Maya archaeologist for the past 40 years or so (recently given Emeritus status). We were discussing the roughly 6000 sites that are now known from the Maya area thanks to advances in satellite imaging, and I asked him what percentage of them had been excavated. He frowned and held up one finger, and then said that the 1% of sites that have been excavated have only been about 5-10% uncovered, and summed it all up with "And that's why we don't know sh*+".

Here's a Google Earth map with the most updated locations of these 6000 or so known sites in the Maya area (keep zooming in, and more and more will appear pretty much anywhere you click on it): http://mayagis.smv.org/mayasites.kmz

Bear in mind that the names of 99.9% of these sites are modern nicknames made up by archaeologists since we haven't a clue what the ancient names were (with the exception of maybe 10 sites). We haven't recovered any texts whatsoever from about 5,975 of these 6,001 sites and the vast majority of them will never be excavated, so the ancient names of most of these sites are not only unknown, but are essentially unknowable. Despite my conviction that Mesoamerica is the right place for the Book of Mormon, I'm not holding my breath for a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign to turn up anytime soon, and anyone who suggests that one should have been found by now is woefully uninformed about what we really know about the ancient Mesoamerican landscape.

[bookofmormontruth]

This past weekend I was at the "Maya at the Lago" conference in North Carolina and I sat down and chatted with George Stuart, who was National Geographic's resident Maya archaeologist for the past 40 years or so (recently given Emeritus status). We were discussing the roughly 6000 sites that are now known from the Maya area thanks to advances in satellite imaging, and I asked him what percentage of them had been excavated. He frowned and held up one finger, and then said that the 1% of sites that have been excavated have only been about 5-10% uncovered, and summed it all up with "And that's why we don't know sh*+".

Here's a Google Earth map with the most updated locations of these 6000 or so known sites in the Maya area (keep zooming in, and more and more will appear pretty much anywhere you click on it): http://mayagis.smv.org/mayasites.kmz

Bear in mind that the names of 99.9% of these sites are modern nicknames made up by archaeologists since we haven't a clue what the ancient names were (with the exception of maybe 10 sites). We haven't recovered any texts whatsoever from about 5,975 of these 6,001 sites and the vast majority of them will never be excavated, so the ancient names of most of these sites are not only unknown, but are essentially unknowable. Despite my conviction that Mesoamerica is the right place for the Book of Mormon, I'm not holding my breath for a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign to turn up anytime soon, and anyone who suggests that one should have been found by now is woefully uninformed about what we really know about the ancient Mesoamerican landscape.

Wow! That is absolutely amazing - thanks for sharing!

The experts in archaeology humbly admit they know nothing because only a small percentage 1% has been excavated and only about 5-10% uncovered. Yet, the naysayers of the world have already concluded that the Book of Mormon is false based on this 1%.

If I was a betting man. I would definitely be betting on the Book of Mormon.

[thews]

The experts in archaeology humbly admit they know nothing because only a small percentage 1% has been excavated and only about 5-10% uncovered. Yet, the naysayers of the world have already concluded that the Book of Mormon is false based on this 1%.

Can you link me some data to back this up?

[USU78]

Can you link me some data to back this up?

Did you not see Hashbaz' post, which bomt summarized?

[thews]

Did you not see Hashbaz' post, which bomt summarized?

Please link it for me so I can understand your point.

[Hashbaz]

Can you link me some data to back this up?

Feel free to contact Dr. Walter Witschey of Longwood University. He's the leading expert in Maya GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and the one who updates Google Earth with all of the new sites. He'll verify the numbers. As far as I know he's not LDS. For that matter, you can pretty much contact any Mesoamerican archaeologist at any university anywhere in the world, and they'll confirm that maybe 1% of sites have been excavated (I've heard others put it closer to 0.5%).

[cdowis]

del

[volgadon]

Please link it for me so I can understand your point.

It was quoted in full by BoMT in the post YOU quoted. BTW is a depiction of Leda and the swan Jewish or Graeco-Roman?

[bookofmormontruth]

It was quoted in full by BoMT in the post YOU quoted. BTW is a depiction of Leda and the swan Jewish or Graeco-Roman?

He would rather play games, it is a lost cause.

[thews]

Feel free to contact Dr. Walter Witschey of Longwood University. He's the leading expert in Maya GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and the one who updates Google Earth with all of the new sites. He'll verify the numbers. As far as I know he's not LDS. For that matter, you can pretty much contact any Mesoamerican archaeologist at any university anywhere in the world, and they'll confirm that maybe 1% of sites have been excavated (I've heard others put it closer to 0.5%).

Thanks for the reference.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My rejection of Mormonism has little to do with archeology, and more to do with biology. I will let those who care about the archeology care about it.

Interesting.