Brant Garner'S Mormon Stories Podcast

[Brant Gardner]

Brother Gardner, you make an interesting case about the manner in which The Book of Mormon talks about a skin of blackness. You say that the text doesn't support the belief that Lamanites had different pigmentation than the Nephites. What do you make of this passage in Alma 55 in which the Nephites choose a spy to bring wine to the Lamanites?

Alma 55:4-8

Why would the Nephites need to find a descendent of Laman to go among the Lamanites if they all looked the same?

You have found the best evidence that there is no skin color. First, Moroni has to search to find a Lamanite. That suggests that the Lamanite did not easily stand out among all of the Nephites. Second, when the Lamanite goes to create the deception, a small number of Nephites (Moroni only mentions one Lamanite) go with him. If the color of the skin were the determination, then being accompanied by a bunch of white guys would be as obvious as a BYU basketball team.

So, why did Moroni need a native Lamanite if not to deceive by color? Language, of course. Either the language itself or the accent. The Nephites wouldn't be able to pull that off, but they could be silent partners and get away with it.

[Rivers]

You have found the best evidence that there is no skin color. First, Moroni has to search to find a Lamanite. That suggests that the Lamanite did not easily stand out among all of the Nephites. Second, when the Lamanite goes to create the deception, a small number of Nephites (Moroni only mentions one Lamanite) go with him. If the color of the skin were the determination, then being accompanied by a bunch of white guys would be as obvious as a BYU basketball team.

So, why did Moroni need a native Lamanite if not to deceive by color? Language, of course. Either the language itself or the accent. The Nephites wouldn't be able to pull that off, but they could be silent partners and get away with it.

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much. I also just noticed in verse 8 that the Lamanites were scared at the sight of these men until Laman spoke saying that he was a Lamanite. Its amazing what one can learn from carefully reading the text.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Rivers

[volgadon]

So, why did Moroni need a native Lamanite if not to deceive by color? Language, of course. Either the language itself or the accent. The Nephites wouldn't be able to pull that off, but they could be silent partners and get away with it.

Not only language and accent, but mannerisms as well. There are dozens of things that could tip someone off.

[Rivers]

I have another question about this skin of blackness. What exactly is going on in this scripture?

2 Nephi 5:21

And he had caused the ^acursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and ^bdelightsome, that they might not be ^centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a ^dskin of ^eblackness to come upon them.

If the skin of blackness is a state of righteousness, what exactly is taking place that causes the Lamanites to be less enticing. Is it a withdrawal of the spirit? Is it a change in countenance?

[Brant Gardner]

I have another question about this skin of blackness. What exactly is going on in this scripture?

2 Nephi 5:21

If the skin of blackness is a state of righteousness, what exactly is taking place that causes the Lamanites to be less enticing. Is it a withdrawal of the spirit? Is it a change in countenance?

The cursing is the separation from Nephites and particularly as marriage partners. They are now forbidden outsiders. Fair and delightsome is contrasted to skin of darkness as a reversal. There is no need to read skin of blackness any more literally than "they had become like unto a flint." I just last week had occasion to check what I wrote in m commentary about this particular verse. That lays out the entire explanation. Perhaps someone has a copy you can borrow?

Edited January 6, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[Gervin]

John Clark (whose qualifications certainly fit) has suggested that we have already dug up Nephite remains, but we just don't know how to identify them. I would agree with him.

I bet that's a hard scholarly paper to defend down at the University of Texas or in Mexico or other places where Mesoamerican studies are taken seriously: hundreds upon hundreds of years of Old World peoples building cities, battling in great wars, going to temple and preserving the laws of Moses, then proclaiming the gospel of Christ ... and all here right before our eyes ... yet invisible.

All you've done is take the lack of archaeological evidence and reduce it to speculation and wishful thinking. I'm surprised your comfortable riding that horse.

[Ariarates]

Isn't the entire argument concerning the meaning of words and the intricacies of the translation process a matter of circular logic? The existence of a source text on gold plates delivered by an angel is not exactly firmly established, objectively speaking. We don't have the source text, only an English text purporting to be a miraculous translation from an unknown language. Any argument about translation assumes what still remains to be proven.

[Stargazer]

Isn't the entire argument concerning the meaning of words and the intricacies of the translation process a matter of circular logic? The existence of a source text on gold plates delivered by an angel is not exactly firmly established, objectively speaking. We don't have the source text, only an English text purporting to be a miraculous translation from an unknown language. Any argument about translation assumes what still remains to be proven.

There are works of ancient writers that are known only because other contemporary writers wrote about them, some of which may have quoted from the those lost works. So these writings are known only second-hand, and the thought instantly arises, what if the contemporary was making it all up? What if what he quoted was a bad copy of the original, or a translation from the original? How would we know? In these cases we must assume that the citer was citing correctly. In fact, in many many cases we don't have originals anyway. Homer's works are all copies of copies. How accurate are what we have today, compared to what Homer wrote (or had written, since he was blind he obviously had scribes that wrote it all down)? We can only make educated guesses, because the source text is long gone. We are no better off with The Iliad than we are with the Book of Mormon in that respect.

If you give the Book of Mormon the benefit of the doubt, and treat it for the sake of argument as if it were what it purports to be, then you are in the position of being able to determine if it actually qualifies. Thus the value of a historiographical approach.

[Ariarates]

There are works of ancient writers that are known only because other contemporary writers wrote about them, some of which may have quoted from the those lost works. So these writings are known only second-hand, and the thought instantly arises, what if the contemporary was making it all up? What if what he quoted was a bad copy of the original, or a translation from the original? How would we know? In these cases we must assume that the citer was citing correctly.

But there are no such contemporary writers in the case of the BoM, so your argument here doesn't apply.

Moreover, I disagree that "we MUST assume that the citer was citing correctly". You only assume that if you have good reason to. I don't think there are good reasons to do so in the case of the BoM.

In fact, in many many cases we don't have originals anyway. Homer's works are all copies of copies. How accurate are what we have today, compared to what Homer wrote (or had written, since he was blind he obviously had scribes that wrote it all down)? We can only make educated guesses, because the source text is long gone. We are no better off with The Iliad than we are with the Book of Mormon in that respect.

Well, I can live with that assessment.

However, I don't know much about Homer so I don't know how his claims to historical accuracy compare to Joseph Smith's re. the BoM.

If you give the Book of Mormon the benefit of the doubt, and treat it for the sake of argument as if it were what it purports to be, then you are in the position of being able to determine if it actually qualifies. Thus the value of a historiographical approach.

I personally don't think that we are talking about the benefit of the doubt in the case of the BoM. More like a very remote possibility. There has never been any doubt in anybody's non-LDS mind that the BoM is a 19th-century production. The non-LDS position has been very consistent in this fundamental respect ever since the book's publication in 1830. It's the LDS interpretation of the BoM that continues to change.

[Brant Gardner]

I bet that's a hard scholarly paper to defend down at the University of Texas or in Mexico or other places where Mesoamerican studies are taken seriously: hundreds upon hundreds of years of Old World peoples building cities, battling in great wars, going to temple and preserving the laws of Moses, then proclaiming the gospel of Christ ... and all here right before our eyes ... yet invisible.

All you've done is take the lack of archaeological evidence and reduce it to speculation and wishful thinking. I'm surprised your comfortable riding that horse.

It appears that you have completely misunderstood the point. I'll make it a little easier. I'll propose (as a hypothesis only) that two of the cities during Olmec times were inhabited by Jaredites who entered the New World and adopted the material culture that was around them (very much like the temple of Solomon was built on a non-Israelite model for what a temple should be). On what basis would you dispute that statement? Remember, of course, that we don't know what the Olmec would have called themselves and that Olmec is our designation for a cultural trend that assumes a greater continuity that actually existed.

We have lots of artifacts that we label Olmec, but we don't know what they called themselves and cannot identify a writing system for them (early on, the epi-Olmec period is clearer, probably because we are getting more carved texts). Everything we know about them is interpreted from artifacts, but not from texts. Even the name Olmec is the result of a mistaken assumption about their cultural connections.

As more of a thought problem, we find in Central Mexico a miraculous document that discusses a people who call themselves Tzim. The document comes from a time period and a context that seems related to the Olmec (and there are traces that far north). So, we would have been working with "Tzim" archaeology all along and not known it because we called it Olmec.

[Brant Gardner]

Isn't the entire argument concerning the meaning of words and the intricacies of the translation process a matter of circular logic? The existence of a source text on gold plates delivered by an angel is not exactly firmly established, objectively speaking. We don't have the source text, only an English text purporting to be a miraculous translation from an unknown language. Any argument about translation assumes what still remains to be proven.

In fact, I note that very thing in the introduction to my book on the translation process. I had, at one point, assumed that the translation book would be a companion to another volume. I just couldn't get both out at the same time. I understand that discussing the translation method makes sense only if it is a translation, therefore I posit that and continue.

That doesn't mean that there are not arguments for why it is a translation, only that those arguments aren't the focus of the discussions of translation.

[Brant Gardner]

However, I don't know much about Homer so I don't know how his claims to historical accuracy compare to Joseph Smith's re. the BoM.

Wow. I suspect you don't realize the kind of problem you just created for your position with that statement. For centuries it was simply assumed that there was no historical accuracy, until someone decided to take the text seriously. Troy is currently an accepted location. While there are obviously elements of the Iliad that cannot be demonstrated to be historical, the core story has certainly increased in plausible historicity because the textual descriptions were sufficient to locate the lost city and the descriptions of the culture to locate it at a particular time period.

What that ought to tell us is that comparing archaeology and history to a text can tell us about whether core elements of a text reflect history. That is, of course, the precise argument we are suggesting for the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps you should learn more about the historical background of Homer.

[Ariarates]

I understand that discussing the translation method makes sense only if it is a translation, therefore I posit that and continue.

Fair enough. I did the same above. We can agree to disagree.

[Ariarates]

Wow. I suspect you don't realize the kind of problem you just created for your position with that statement.

You suspect right. How did you guess? Was it my admission that I don't know much about Homer?

For centuries it was simply assumed that there was no historical accuracy, until someone decided to take the text seriously.Troy is currently an accepted location. While there are obviously elements of the Iliad that cannot be demonstrated to be historical, the core story has certainly increased in plausible historicity because the textual descriptions were sufficient to locate the lost city and the descriptions of the culture to locate it at a particular time period.

So now that you are assuming historical accuracy, and while accounting for the likelihood that not every element of the BoM can be demonstrated to be historical, how much closer have you come to locating Zarahemla? How much longer do you think it will take? As long as it took to locate Troy? Longer, shorter?

And don't say that it will never be possible to locate any BoM artifact because "we don't know what a BoM artifact would look like" because that totally undermines the argument you have just given.

Perhaps you should learn more about the historical background of Homer.

Well, I translated roughly half of Virgil's "De Aeneis" in school. I have a basic understanding that Crete was real but the cyclops probably weren't. I don't think it's necessary for me to learn Greek to be able to follow you.

[Stargazer]

But there are no such contemporary writers in the case of the BoM, so your argument here doesn't apply.

If the BoM could be shown to be quoting text from an Old World source that Joseph Smith had no access to, then it would apply very much.

Moreover, I disagree that "we MUST assume that the citer was citing correctly". You only assume that if you have good reason to. I don't think there are good reasons to do so in the case of the BoM.

Of course you don't think there are good reasons to do so. You assume from the start that the BoM has no ancient provenance, much in the same way as Schliemann's contemporaries and predecessors assumed from the start that Homer was fiction rather than a novelization (so to speak) of a historical event. You won't give it the time of day, so you're incapable of discovering anything marvelous in it.

I personally don't think that we are talking about the benefit of the doubt in the case of the BoM. More like a very remote possibility. There has never been any doubt in anybody's non-LDS mind that the BoM is a 19th-century production. The non-LDS position has been very consistent in this fundamental respect ever since the book's publication in 1830. It's the LDS interpretation of the BoM that continues to change.

As I said above, assumptions block us from new discovery.

[Freedom]

So now that you are assuming historical accuracy, and while accounting for the likelihood that not every element of the BoM can be demonstrated to be historical, how much closer have you come to locating Zarahemla? How much longer do you think it will take? As long as it took to locate Troy? Longer, shorter?

To me the answer to these questions are obvious. As has been stated several times, a written history of the proposed civilization has not been found. Until we find a written history from 200 bc in a archaeological location such as Santa Rosa or La Venta we will never know the name of the cities that are being discovered. If you read the archaeological research you will discover that all of the archaeological sites have Spanish names because nobody knows what they were called. As was noted, we don't know what we refer to as the Olmecs were called. We don't even know if they were one society or a number of separate kingdoms that simply shared the same art styles as do Canada and the United States, or even Australia for that matter. Some argue that they had a writing system, others disagree. Some writting have been translated from the epi-olmec era but the translation is based, as the translator admits, on gross assumptions drawn from later civilizations.

Not enough is known of the mesoamerican civilizations to draw any conclusive parallels with the Book of Mormon yet. Sadly, much of the evidence that would have been useful was destroyed by the invading Europeans, stolen to be sold on the black market, or paved over by an uninterested government. Vast forests and private ranches make many sites inaccessible, and the nature of the soil has cause everything but the stone carvings to rot away into nothing. There is as lot of research going on and it would be beneficial to the discussion if you spend just a week or two reading some of it. Otherwise we will talk in circles around abstract concepts that are peripheral to the actual discussion. The experts freely admit that we know virtually nothing, and the conclusions that are being drawn are not conclusive. Those arguing that what is known contradict what is found in the Book of Mormon are arguing from ignorance because they clearly have not read the research. This would also explain why such critics tend towards sarcasm rather than genuine discussion. I am not accusing you of this poor behavior, you bring up valid points and actually read and digest the responses. Nevertheless, I would suggest you get a book out by someone like John Clark, Christopher Pool or Richard Diel. I find they explain the issues the best. They mostly write about the Olmecs which has become my area of interest. The other areas that I think best match the book of mormon geography have not been researched adequately so there is not much to read from yet. At least not that I have found but I do not do that much digging if you will excuse the pun.

[Brant Gardner]

So now that you are assuming historical accuracy, and while accounting for the likelihood that not every element of the BoM can be demonstrated to be historical, how much closer have you come to locating Zarahemla? How much longer do you think it will take? As long as it took to locate Troy? Longer, shorter?

The process is similar, but the solidity of the results will not be the same if for no other reason that there are strong pressures against a consensus that didn't exist for Troy. Admitting that there was a historical Troy doesn't simultaneously complicate the issue by suggesting that we must believe in angels and miraculous translations. That will always create a dividing point.

However, the process will continue. It is taking a lot longer because there are relatively few LDS scholars working on the problem, and there are so many issues to work out. Sorenson's proposal is the strongest, but it still gets resistance because of the issue of directions. I believe I have a solution to that which does not require any alteration of directions (only an understanding of a different system that fed the text's descriptions). It was submitted for publication and I have the reviewers notes that I am going over (and with some I agree and others I don't--so we'll see where the paper goes from here).

The ability to place the Book of Mormon in a historical context where geography, archaeological sites (must date to the appropriate time) and the correspondence of textual trends to known trends has increased dramatically since 1950, and I believe significantly since 1985. There is a lot more to be done as scholarly consensus takes time, even inside the LDS community of scholars.

As for non-LDS scholars, as you can imagine, that will take even longer.

[Brant Gardner]

Not enough is known of the mesoamerican civilizations to draw any conclusive parallels with the Book of Mormon yet.

I actually disagree. There is quite a lot that is known which creates enriching parallels with the Book of Mormon. However, if you are emphasizing conclusive, then I have to agree. Of course, I don't know that there will ever be conclusive evidence (archaeology rarely gets that lucky for any historical issue relating to textual evidence).

[Craig Paxton]

At one point Brant is asked to respond to a listeners question which was something like…”Can you name any other civilization, other than the Nephites, that existed in reality yet left not one shred of evidence of their existence?”

Is it ok to quote one’s self? Oh well I'm breaking all kinds of rules...but I wanted to go back to this question again because I believe that it is a good one. After being asked the question Brant kind of chuckles and brushes it off as a stupid question by using an old apologetic trick of reframing the question into another, completely different question than the one that the listener actually asked. Brant said "Can I tell you that someone has disappeared and we don't know anything about them? And tell you exactly who that is that we don't know anything about? Ah...No" (More chuckles)

But THAT was NOT what the listener asked at all...he asked if Brant could name any other civilization, other than the Nephites, that existed in reality, yet left not one shred of evidence of their existence? So the question presupposes that the Nephites...as claimed in the BoM, were real. We know that they left no evidence of their existence...we have no Nephite museums filled with Nephite artifacts...yet we have many filled with artifacts of other real ancient civilization that actually DID leave behind evidence of their existence. So the listener merely wanted to know if Brant could provide any name of any other civilization that also actually existed that didn't leave behind evidence of their existence like the Nephite civilization did. I think from Brants response that that answer would be NO. There is NO other claimed real actual ancient civilization, other than the Nephites, that supposedly existed in real time and space (other than the Nephites) that has existed and left no foot print. Or in other words...every other REAL ancient civilization has left something...even the Vikings first visit to the Americas left a small footprint of their actual visit. So it begs the question...what made the Nephites able to simply disappear?

And NO I don’t believe it is a fair argument to attach the Nephite name to the artifacts of actual known civilizations such as the Mayan….which everyone but Mormons know had nothing to do with the bronze aged, Jewish-Christian, civilization claimed to have existed in the Book of Mormon.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Freedom]

I actually disagree. There is quite a lot that is known which creates enriching parallels with the Book of Mormon. However, if you are emphasizing conclusive, then I have to agree. Of course, I don't know that there will ever be conclusive evidence (archaeology rarely gets that lucky for any historical issue relating to textual evidence).

I think 'parallels' is the wrong word but I think you know what I mean. Just as with what I feel is so-called evidence for the bible, we do not have a smoking gun. Even written records do not prove anything. There are single documents of certain events that corroborate the biblical narrative, however we also have multiple documents of other events that contradict each other. This shows that a single document cannot be relied upon as the final word. This is the problem I have with Josephus for example. He is the only ancient historian to refer to many details in the bible and we do not know if he was any good at his craft. Finding multiple references to a wall is much different than finding a wall that dates to the time it is mentioned. And finding the wall is much different than proving that a certain man stood on it and had sharp pointed sticks thrown at him as he preached the gospel.

Also, when you say there are relatively few LDS scholors working on the problem, it should be said that they are not working in latin america with shovels, but they are working on studying the English translation of the text. With the bible, there are and have been many philanthropists who put millions of dollars into pocking around the holy land to find evidence for the bible. Much of this searching has yielding some promising results, leading to more objective research. I do not think there is any private funding to do the same for the Book of Mormon. For the bible, there are some 2 billion believers to give justification and moral support for the research and consequently many a university willing to allow their christian archaeologists to engage in what is often fringe research. Mormonism does not yet enjoy this social acceptance so the experts, such as John Clark, are not likely to risk such a hobby. Or perhaps I have the wrong understanding of the problem.

[Freedom]

But THAT was NOT what the listener asked at all...he asked if Brant could name any other civilization, other than the Nephites, that existed in reality, yet left not one shred of their existence?

This is like saying 'have you stopped beating your wife". What you mean to ask is, are there other examples of ancient documents that do not have firm archaeology to back them up. An example was given of Troy. Another would be Israel in Egypt. Another would be, until just a few years ago, the great library of Alexandria. Much has been written about this great library, but not until recently has an actual location been discovered. That is why many experts considered the place to be a myth. As for the Book of Mormon, there is ample evidence of their existence. You are mistaken if you are looking for bronze aged jewish-christians. They were not bronze aged jewish-christians. The book mentions cultural trends that have been confirmed in the research. The book mentions a network of cities with relative distances which has been confirmed by the research. The book provides a timeline that has been confirmed by the research. The question has been posed before but I will ask it again: what would a nephite artifact look like? If you cannot answer this question, then how can you say that a Nephite would not have used mayan styled items? I asked if a christian painting of a generic theme would look any different than that of an atheist but I did not receive a response. This is because there would be no difference. You dismiss the arguments for no other reason than to dismiss the argument.

The nephites did not disappear, the only way to confirm their existence is with a written record. There are no written records available at this time.

[Gervin]

It appears that you have completely misunderstood the point. I'll make it a little easier. I'll propose (as a hypothesis only) that two of the cities during Olmec times were inhabited by Jaredites who entered the New World and adopted the material culture that was around them (very much like the temple of Solomon was built on a non-Israelite model for what a temple should be). On what basis would you dispute that statement?

The basis for disputation is the very fact this is a hypothesis with no grounding in discovered fact. I'll propose that the Jaredites migrated to Caral in Peru and were absorbed into the Norte Chico civilization and adopted the material culture around them. On what basis are you going to dispute my hypothesis?

We have lots of artifacts that we label Olmec, but we don't know what they called themselves and cannot identify a writing system for them (early on, the epi-Olmec period is clearer, probably because we are getting more carved texts). Everything we know about them is interpreted from artifacts, but not from texts. Even the name Olmec is the result of a mistaken assumption about their cultural connections.

Whatever they are called, the name and the interpretation of the artifacts do not reflect any contact, knowledge of, or association with anything from the Old World.

As more of a thought problem, we find in Central Mexico a miraculous document that discusses a people who call themselves Tzim. The document comes from a time period and a context that seems related to the Olmec (and there are traces that far north). So, we would have been working with "Tzim" archaeology all along and not known it because we called it Olmec.

I can't find anything about this on the web. Perhaps you have a source?

[Craig Paxton]

You seem to have missed my point. I drive a Japanese car and use american and English dishes, but I am a Canadian. The Nephites did not have special pots that would distinguish them as Nephites any more that a mormon has special dishes that distinguishes them as Mormons or a Canadian has as a Canadian or a ping pong player as a ping pong player. My neighbor is from India and his appliances, dishes and furniture were purchased at the same stores as was mine (although his are much newer). The nephites would have used dishes and construction techniques that were common to the area. In 5,000 thousand years, if you found a house in Blain Washington and a house in Burnaby British Columbia, I doubt that you would be able to tell that they were from different countries.

If you came into my house, you would find blue Tupperware cups. Would you therefore conclude that they must not belong to me because Tupperware is an american produce and I am a Canadian? Of course not. Why do you feel that the nephite artifacts would look any different than the mayan artifacts or the Santa Rosa artifacts? If a mormon and an atheist painted a picture of the queen of england, would you be able to tell which painting belonged to which artists? I fail to see your argument.

While I appreciate your need to assign known Mayan artifacts to the claimed Nephite civilization...I personaly believe it is disingenuous to the Mayan civilization to do so...PLUS there is not one shred of evidence to support your claim that Mayan arifacts where also Nephite artifacts...I guess I could counter your claim by stating that you are wrong..since I believe the Mayan artifact were in fact moon-men artifacts...since there is just as much evidence to support my belief as there is to support your claim that those Mayan arifacts were Nephite....

Edited January 6, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Brant Gardner]

But THAT was NOT what the listener asked at all...he asked if Brant could name any other civilization, other than the Nephites, that existed in reality, yet left not one shred of evidence of their existence?

Of course that was the question, but embedded in the question is the assumption that the Nephites disappeared without a trace. The problem isn't the concept of whether or not they left a trace, but what that trace would have looked like.

And NO I don’t believe it is a fair argument to attach the Nephite name to the artifacts of actual known civilizations such as the Mayan….which everyone but Mormons know had nothing to do with the bronze aged, Jewish-Christian, civilization claimed to have existed in the Book of Mormon.

Really? How is everyone so certain that there no Nephites living in houses like everyone else lived in, and eating from pots that everyone else ate from and eating the foods that everyone else did.

Why are you certain that there must have been something different? Let's have you elaborate on the Jewish-Christian aspect. Knowing that obedient Jews were aniconic and that all of our Christian art is based on iconographies that didn't even come into existence until after 600 B.C., please tell me what it is that would clearly describe a Jewish-Christian population?

This is the same question I have asked at least twice (now three times) in this thread and it continues to be ignored. Please tell me what we should find that we do not. If your entire argument is based on negative evidence, I would love to at least have a concept of what is missing.

[Brant Gardner]

While I appreciate your need to assign known Mayan artifacts to the claimed Nephite civilization...I personaly believe it is disingenuous to the Mayan civilization to do so...

. . . which, to this point, is apparently an uninformed opinion without a basis in any understanding of the nature of culture clash/combination. If you want to believe in archaeological data as science, why do you insist on ignoring it if it doesn't support your opinion?

PLUS there is not one shred of evidence to support your claim that Mayan arifacts where also Nephite artifacts.

Really? Are you sure? I would suggest that you have an interesting idea about evidence. In this case, we are talking about the relationship of texts to artifacts, which is a slightly different discipline that pure archaeology (and one that is known to have some differences based on the different nature of the two types of data). In the case of the Book of Mormon, we do find (what I believe to be clear) information that the text reflects a Mesoamerican setting and the cultural and historical pressures that we understand to have shaped both the Maya and their interactions with more northern populations. There is evidence, but it isn't the kind you are looking for. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

..I guess I could counter your claim by stating that you are wrong..since I believe the Mayan artifact were in fact moon-men artifacts...since there is just as much evidence to support my belief as there is to support your claim that those Mayan arifacts were Nephite.

No, we can trace everything to human production. What we have with the Book of Mormon is a very different issue. We are talking about a text, not archaeology. When you insist on creating that dichotomy you necessarily define the problem incorrectly. We don't know information about biblical archaeology from the archaeology alone, or (in many cases) from the architectural or material culture styles, since they were often borrowed (one of the problems in finding the Exodus Israelites is that they appear to have adopted Canaanite material culture). We have biblical archaeology by comparing it to a text. Leaving the text out of it entirely simply leaves artifacts that might be defined as Palestinian and someone might (uninformedly, of course) argue that they weren't Israelite but simply Canaanite.