So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[jkwilliams]

Yessir!

 

I don't expect you to quote me as a professional source or simply believe in Stubbs' work just because I said so.

 

What I said was that I'm not qualified to do a professional review that others can really count on.  That's true...but it doesn't mean that I haven't invested enough time and effort learning the methodology through study and through interactions with non-Mormon linguists that I can't have an opinion on the subject.  I have looked into it, and I am able to understand what he and other linguists are saying (usually), and I can see the strengths of other proposals that professionals have accepted and I can see the weakness of other proposals that professionals have rejected and I have simply come to the conclusion that Stubbs' work is strong.

 

The reason I brought it up in this thread is because on pages #24 and #25 people talked about Stubbs' work and disregarded it based on quotes from a professional who was speaking in a different context.  His comments about Stubbs' FARMS paper 11 years ago is accurate, but it is not a comment about Stubbs' more recent publications and it is CERTAINLY not a comment about the book that is about to be published.

 

I'm not expecting you to take my non-professional word for it, but I would like to encourage a few other people out there to learn the methodology and start learning what he is saying from the perspective of historical linguistics.

 

It will be interesting to see what Stubbs publishes and where it goes from there. In the meantime, I'll just crawl back under the rock where I came from.

[Robert F. Smith]

sunstoned said:

This is very lightweight stuff Robert.  John Carlson talks about a cold worked mirror.  A mirror and a small compass is not evidence of an iron age civilization.

I realize that you want it to be "lightweight" so badly that you even change the goal posts mid-game:  I said nothing about "an iron age civilization."  That is you changing the goal posts from your false claim that there was no iron.  Moreover, it is not only one magnetite mirror (as you claim), but hundreds of them, in addition to iron fishnet weights, and tons (literally) of drilled iron cubes.  This is in the 2nd millennium B.C., sunstoned.  Long before the arrival of Lehites and Mulekites.

 

sunstoned said:

If sifting through all of Olmec sites produces only these small artifacts then one has to wonder where are all the horses, old word literature, swords, helmets and large scale smelting is hidden.

Archeology does not consist of sifting through all Olmec sites.  It is a very sparse and scientifically random search through a very limited number of squares in a grid from some selected sites -- a minuscule portion of any given site.  Like some other nay-sayers on this board, you imagine that archeology can do more than it does.  The call to perfection is a fallacy.In fact it can be argued that the opposite is true. 

 

As to your attempt at distraction (your laundry list), after your failure with iron, you mention "hidden" "horses, old word literature, swords, helmets and large scale smelting."

1.  smelting was unnecessary anciently. Smiths regularly heated iron ore in an oven with bellows until a soft bloom was made, then began a process of hammering, heating in hot coals, hammering, quenching, etc., until the desired steel implement was obtained.  This was the standard technology available to Nephi in the ancient Near East, which was also later used by the Vikings and by Japanese smiths for Samurai swords.

2.  helmets and swords were readily available in Mesoamerica and used regularly in warfare.  Standard texts tell the story and illustrate them.

3.  old world literature (any literature) was thoroughly destroyed by the priests accompanying the Conquistadores.  Standard texts tell the story.

4.  horses  -- see Steven E. Jones, “Were There Horses in the Americas Before Columbus?” Ancient American, 16 #95 (June 2012):2-3, online at http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/index.php?i=115319&m=&l=&p=2&pre=&ver=swf ; Michael R. Ash, “Horses in the Book of Mormon,” paper based on talk and PowerPoint presentation given by Ash to Book of Mormon Lands Conference, October 20, 2007, online at http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/  ; “Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm ; James Haile, et al., “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska,” PNAS, Dec 17, 2009, online at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22352 .full; we have previously discussed this matter on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62307-carbon-dating-horse-remains/ .

 

 

Interesting that you quote professor Michael Coe.  I also have a quote from him:

 

---- Coe, Michael D. (Summer 1973). "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Stanford, CA: Dialogue Foundation) 

Would that Coe would quote himself more often, as it relates to the BofM question. When he fails to quote himself or refer to his own research, he makes odious mistakes. See http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/ , for an embarrassing failure of Dr. Coe to do so.

[Bob Crockett]

I did spend some time reading the Smithsonian research reports about the European horse finds in the pre-Columbian Yucatan cenote stratum and was  amazed to see the ultimate conclusion was that the anachronisms were unexplainable and thus wrong because they were obviously anachronistic.  This, even though the excavation was done in the scientific manner and there was no evidence of contamination.  (The conclusive report said that the presence of the European horse was evidence of itself of contamination.)  I collected a lot on that and wanted to write a paper, but oh well.  

[ERayR]

I did spend some time reading the Smithsonian research reports about the European horse finds in the pre-Columbian Yucatan cenote stratum and was  amazed to see the ultimate conclusion was that the anachronisms were unexplainable and thus wrong because they were obviously anachronistic.  This, even though the excavation was done in the scientific manner and there was no evidence of contamination.  (The conclusive report said that the presence of the European horse was evidence of itself of contamination.)  I collected a lot on that and wanted to write a paper, but oh well.  

 

If it doesn't fit the consensus reject it.  Seems reasonable.  Oh wait maybe looking for answers might be an alternative.

[sunstoned]

I realize that you want it to be "lightweight" so badly that you even change the goal posts mid-game:  I said nothing about "an iron age civilization."  That is you changing the goal posts from your false claim that there was no iron.  Moreover, it is not only one magnetite mirror (as you claim), but hundreds of them, in addition to iron fishnet weights, and tons (literally) of drilled iron cubes.  This is in the 2nd millennium B.C., sunstoned.  Long before the arrival of Lehites and Mulekites.

 

Archeology does not consist of sifting through all Olmec sites.  It is a very sparse and scientifically random search through a very limited number of squares in a grid from some selected sites -- a minuscule portion of any given site.  Like some other nay-sayers on this board, you imagine that archeology can do more than it does.  The call to perfection is a fallacy.In fact it can be argued that the opposite is true. 

 

As to your attempt at distraction (your laundry list), after your failure with iron, you mention "hidden" "horses, old word literature, swords, helmets and large scale smelting."

1.  smelting was unnecessary anciently. Smiths regularly heated iron ore in an oven with bellows until a soft bloom was made, then began a process of hammering, heating in hot coals, hammering, quenching, etc., until the desired steel implement was obtained.  This was the standard technology available to Nephi in the ancient Near East, which was also later used by the Vikings and by Japanese smiths for Samurai swords.

2.  helmets and swords were readily available in Mesoamerica and used regularly in warfare.  Standard texts tell the story and illustrate them.

3.  old world literature (any literature) was thoroughly destroyed by the priests accompanying the Conquistadores.  Standard texts tell the story.

4.  horses  -- see Steven E. Jones, “Were There Horses in the Americas Before Columbus?” Ancient American, 16 #95 (June 2012):2-3, online at http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/index.php?i=115319&m=&l=&p=2&pre=&ver=swf ; Michael R. Ash, “Horses in the Book of Mormon,” paper based on talk and PowerPoint presentation given by Ash to Book of Mormon Lands Conference, October 20, 2007, online at http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/  ; “Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm ; James Haile, et al., “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska,” PNAS, Dec 17, 2009, online at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22352 .full; we have previously discussed this matter on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62307-carbon-dating-horse-remains/ .

 

 

Would that Coe would quote himself more often, as it relates to the BofM question. When he fails to quote himself or refer to his own research, he makes odious mistakes. See http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/ , for an embarrassing failure of Dr. Coe to do so.

I'm not going to pursue this conversation with you anymore.  This items you have in your numbered list would be much more impressive it they came from scientific, peer reviewed sources, of which fairlds, mormondialogue and Ash are not.

[jkwilliams]

I did spend some time reading the Smithsonian research reports about the European horse finds in the pre-Columbian Yucatan cenote stratum and was  amazed to see the ultimate conclusion was that the anachronisms were unexplainable and thus wrong because they were obviously anachronistic.  This, even though the excavation was done in the scientific manner and there was no evidence of contamination.  (The conclusive report said that the presence of the European horse was evidence of itself of contamination.)  I collected a lot on that and wanted to write a paper, but oh well.  

 

My understanding (though it's been a while) was that the horse finds (teeth, IIRC) were fossilized, where as the other material in the cenote stratum was not, leading archaeologists to believe that someone living at that time had found fossilized horse remains and kept them with their things. Who knows? 

[Bob Crockett]

I will have to dig up what I found, but the rejoinder to your observation is that the fossilized horse parts were of the European domestic horse and not of the American wild horse, and that they were found in pre-Columbian human domestic stratrum.   So, where pre-Columbians came into contact with the domestic European horse is a mystery.

 

I have also pointed out in the past that the diffusionist Gavin Menzies has written that the Nez Perce pony (that the Lewis & Clark expedition depended upon) is pre-Columbian.

 

Also, and my memory for details is fading, one of Barry Fell's acolytes was a student of pre-Columbian artwork.  She published a book of photographs of indiginous art showing ponies and she claimed they were pre-Columbian.   Of course, one will have great difficulty dating art on a cave.  I would have to spend a day at the UCLA library to reconstruct all this.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[jkwilliams]

I will have to dig up what I found, but the rejoinder to your observation is that the fossilized horse parts were of the European domestic horse and not of the American wild horse, and that they were found in pre-Columbian human domestic stratrum.   So, where pre-Columbians came into contact with the domestic European horse is a mystery.

 

I thought the teeth were from a pleistocene American horse. Oh, well, it's been a long time since I looked into it. I've been wrong before, and I'll be there again. 

[Bob Crockett]

I thought the teeth were from a pleistocene American horse. Oh, well, it's been a long time since I looked into it. I've been wrong before, and I'll be there again. 

 No.  Incorrect.  The problem one faces is that the article all the Mormon apologists cite is a summary article, when there are underlying foundational reports as well as expert commentary where the finds were re-examined.  I will try in the next week or so put that up on my website.

[jkwilliams]

 No.  Incorrect.  The problem one faces is that the article all the Mormon apologists cite is a summary article, when there are underlying foundational reports as well as expert commentary where the finds were re-examined.  I will try in the next week or so put that up on my website.

 

Looking forward to reading that. My recollection was based on this:

 

The remains of horses have been reported from cave deposits in the state of Yucatan, Mexico, on two previous occasions.  Mercer (THE HILL CAVES OF YUCATAN, LIPPINCOTT, PHILA., 1896, p. 1972 and map opposite title page) found horse remains in three caves in the Serrania, a low range of limestone hills lying in southwestern Yucatan and trending roughly parallel to the southwest border of that state. The horse material was associated with pot sherds and other artifacts and showed no evidence of fossilization.   Cope (in Mercer op. cit. p. 172, footnote) examined the material and considered it referable to Equus occidentalis on morphological characteristics but noted absence of fossilization.  

 

Hatt records numerous fragments of Equus  ?conservidens from Actun Lara, one of Mercer’s caves, (1953, Cranbrook Inst. Sci., Bull. 33, pp. 71-72  and map 2).  These remains were tentatively referred to Equus tau by R. A. Stirton   (in Hatt, p. 71).   Hibbard regards E. tau as probably synonymous with E. conservidens (1955, Contrib.,   Mus. Paleo. Univ. Mich.,12:61). Although the teeth and bones were in many cases heavily encased in lime, pottery occurred throughout the deposits and two foot bones present in the upper layer of two layers in which horse remains occurred were identified as those of domestic cattle.

 

It is now possible to report horse remains of probably pre-Columbian age from a new locality in Yucatan. This material consists of one complete upper molar and 3 fragmentary lower molars, all preserved in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Cat. No 3937),  The teeth constitute a part of a large collection of vertebrate remains obtained by archaeologists of the Carnegie Institution of Washington during excavation at the Mayan ruins of Mayapan, Yucatan (20,38N,89,28W).  This collection was submitted to the author for identification, and a checklist of the material is in preparation. The horse teeth were collected in cenote Ch’en Mul (Section Q, topographic map of the ruins of Mayapan, Jones, Carnegie Inst. Washington, Dept. Archaeology, Current Rept. 1, 1952) from the bottom stratum in a sequence of unconsolidated earth almost 2 meters in thickness. As in the deposits reported by Mercer and Hatt, pottery occurs throughout the stratigraphic section.  The horse teeth are not specifically identifiable. They are considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization. Such mineralization was observed in no other bone or tooth in the collection although thousands were examined, some of which were found in close proximity to the horse teeth. 

 

It is by no means implied that pre-Columbian horses were known to the Mayans, but it seems likely that horses were present on the Yucatan Peninsula in pre-Mayan time.  The tooth fragments reported here could have been transported in fossil condition as curios by the Mayans, but the more numerous horse remains reported by Hatt and Mercer (if truly pre-Columbian) could scarcely be explained in this manner (Clayton C. Ray, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. Received May 28,1956).

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

No mockery here, just an apt analogy. I don't question Jeff Meldrum's expertise in biology. In fact, I've had several cordial conversations with him in the past and have found him to be reasonable and scholarly, but I do question the validity of his work in Bigfoot studies. The point is pretty simple: Scholar A's expertise in X may or may not be relevant to his research in Y. I've given you the example of John Clark, who is unquestionably a respected scholar in the field of Mesoamerican archaeology, but he was out of his element when he ventured into 19th-century frontier American history.

biology is to big foot as archeology is to the book of mormon?!  I don't consider that an apt analogy.  Just flippant.  That Clark is not a 19th century historian may indeed be relevant after the fact, and all should more closely examine their assumptions.  But Vogel is likewise unable to measure the relevance of the archeological side of things.  Which side prevails?  The one (as we say in philosophy) which "saves the appearances."  With Vogel playing fast and loose with his sources (some of which I provided him long ago), only a closer examination can tell us which is  on point.

 

You've suggested that Stubbs's work finding possible cognates in Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan is top-notch scholarship because Stubbs is a respected linguist and scholar in Uto-Azecan. You've even vouched for the book yourself because you have gone through it. That's all fine and good, but you're not an expert in linguists, so your stamp of approval is no more authoritative than mine would be. If Stubbs were to put his work out there in reputable venues, his methodology and conclusions would be thoroughly vetted and challenged. If after that process, Stubbs's work still stands, then he's made a major contribution to Mesoamerican linguistics that has major ramifications for a number of other fields. In the absence of such rigorous review, it's difficult for me or anyone else to opine on the validity of his work. 

I may not be an expert in linguistics, but I have spent a lot of time with the subject (including that required class at CSULB).  Not out of desire, but out of necessity.  My formal study of ancient Egyptian, Coptic, biblical Hebrew, Greek, and my continual forays into the possible etymologies of Book of Mormon words have required that I deal with all manner of linguistic laws and tendencies, including theoretical ones.  I do not know  enough to judge Stubbs' work on Uto-Aztecan, though his own non-Mormon colleagues praise his work there.  However, I do know enough to pass judgment on his use of Semitic and Egyptian, and I am very impressed with his erudition.

 

It  might be well for you not to pass harsh apriori judgment.  Let's leave that to non-Mormon experts who are actually capable of passing judgment.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not going to pursue this conversation with you anymore.  This items you have in your numbered list would be much more impressive it they came from scientific, peer reviewed sources, of which fairlds, mormondialogue and Ash are not.

As usual, you did not pay close attention:  You failed to the note the citation from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), and you were uninterested in the peer reviewed sources cited in the other papers.

 

You also failed to mention the peer-reviewed article in Intepreter.

[Robert F. Smith]

I was quoting you more generally. You use the term "yokel" quote a lot on this board to describe someone who doesn't know, or isn't qualified to know, what they are talking about. You haveused it for Hans Mattson, Jeremy Runnels and others.

If you go to google and do a site search (site:mormondialogue.org yokel) the majority of the first page of results are you calling people yokels (only one or two exceptions).

If I have somehow qualified in your eyes as not being a yokel then I'm delighted...

Yes, I have used the word "yokel" from time to time in my life, but sparingly, and only when it fits and can be plainly justified.  I was mystified when you took it personally, since I have never said as much about you, not even by implication, canard.  Hey, we've been on this site together so long that we are like old buddies, right?

[Bob Crockett]

Hah hah. Smith is a yokel isn't he? Wasatch Front denizen with a degree? Kind of like a geologist in Truth or Consequences NM?

[sunstoned]

As usual, you did not pay close attention:  You failed to the note the citation from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), and you were uninterested in the peer reviewed sources cited in the other papers.

 

You also failed to mention the peer-reviewed article in Intepreter.

How about you give some references (outside of the mormon bubble) for the helmets and swords that you were touting.  So there is no confusion, I am talking about steel swords and helmets. You know, the kind the rust, like it says in the BoM.  Any horses, what about the horses? A horse culture is very different from what has been found in the Americas.  Million men iron age armies that fought to the last man that left no trace?  These is just a few of the major problems of trying to map the BoM into historical reality.  The issues are legion. Seriously, you know that, and I know that. 

 

I don't begrudge you your beliefs Robert. I was where you were a few years ago, and it is not a bad place. If the church works for you, then go with it.  I have read some your work, and I actually agree with what you say, as long as you don't go out on a limb and try to defend the indefensible.  Accept the BoM as allegorical.  You would lose nothing by this.  All the teachings would still apply.  No worries on the past prophet's testimonies of a historical narrative, of lamanites getting whiter or of two Cumorahs, etc.  Past prophets spoke as men, which has been made clear by the new essays.  The reality is that jettisoning the historical position of the BoM solves a lot of problems.

[Bob Crockett]

How about you give some references (outside of the mormon bubble) for the helmets and swords that you were touting.  So there is no confusion, I am talking about steel swords and helmets. You know, the kind the rust, like it says in the BoM.  Any horses, what about the horses? A horse culture is very different from what has been found in the Americas.  Million men iron age armies that fought to the last man that left no trace?  These is just a few of the major problems of trying to map the BoM into historical reality.  The issues are legion. Seriously, you know that, and I know that. 

 

I don't begrudge you your beliefs Robert. I was where you were a few years ago, and it is not a bad place. If the church works for you, then go with it.  I have read some your work, and I actually agree with what you say, as long as you don't go out on a limb and try to defend the indefensible.  Accept the BoM as allegorical.  You would lose nothing by this.  All the teachings would still apply.  No worries on the past prophet's testimonies of a historical narrative, of lamanites getting whiter or of two Cumorahs, etc.  Past prophets spoke as men, which has been made clear by the new essays.  The reality is that jettisoning the historical position of the BoM solves a lot of problems.

 

John Haywood, The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee (1823) writes about iron implements of war found or detected (rust flakes) in mounds.   He was an amateur archaeologist (when most were), the father of Tennessee history, and a state supreme court justice.  Sandra Tanner points to this book as evidence for the notion that Joseph Smith ripped off local mound history.  it also talks about a stone box found, copper implements of war, breastplates, hilts, etc., as well as the presence of Roman coins in mounds.  It is a frequently-cited work.  I believe my copy, somewhere in my library, was a re-issue in the 1950s.   Like most works of this vintage and genre it is hard to tell if he has first-hand knowledge or is just reporting accounts or rumors.  You wanted "references outside the Mormon bubble."  This is a most significant one.

 

I have also other mounds excavation reports which might lead to similar conclusions.  The problem with mounds accounts is that the tens of thousands of mounds are almost all gone, and their relics were ploughed under or retrieved without using the scientific method, and often deposited in rustic local museums which have long disappeared.  So we have written accounts but cannot examine the finds.

 

And then, of course, there are first hand conquistador diaries describing "swords," shields and helmets in Peru.  Prescott's work has an appendix with some of them.

 

I don't think much of the value of any of these accounts, but these respond to your challenge.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[canard78]

Yes, I have used the word "yokel" from time to time in my life, but sparingly, and only when it fits and can be plainly justified. I was mystified when you took it personally, since I have never said as much about you, not even by implication, canard. Hey, we've been on this site together so long that we are like old buddies, right?

Apologies for jumping to conclusions then.

And yes, we might but heads like a pair of footballers on offence/defence lines... But I'd still happily buy you a drink afterwards.

[jkwilliams]

biology is to big foot as archeology is to the book of mormon?!  I don't consider that an apt analogy.  Just flippant.

It wasn't meant to be flippant. I chose that analogy for a reason: if you get outside of Mormonism, you find that Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is considered about as legitimate as Bigfoot studies, which is why Philip Jenkins used the same analogy. I understand why that's offensive to you, but I still think it's an appropriate analogy. Jeff Meldrum is good example of how these things are viewed. No one questions his credentials and work in the field of biology. But most people who accept his work in Mormon apologetics reject his Bigfoot research as pseudoscience. In the same way, most of the people who accept his work in Bigfoot studies reject his Mormon apologetic work as pseudoscience.

 

That Clark is not a 19th century historian may indeed be relevant after the fact, and all should more closely examine their assumptions.  But Vogel is likewise unable to measure the relevance of the archeological side of things.  Which side prevails?  The one (as we say in philosophy) which "saves the appearances."  With Vogel playing fast and loose with his sources (some of which I provided him long ago), only a closer examination can tell us which is  on point.

If the sources Vogel cites that I quoted are manipulated or manufactured, please show how. If you look at Dale Broadhurst's large collection of transcribed newspapers, magazines, and books from the early 19th century, you see that the Book of Mormon is quite at home in its claims.

 

I may not be an expert in linguistics, but I have spent a lot of time with the subject (including that required class at CSULB).  Not out of desire, but out of necessity.  My formal study of ancient Egyptian, Coptic, biblical Hebrew, Greek, and my continual forays into the possible etymologies of Book of Mormon words have required that I deal with all manner of linguistic laws and tendencies, including theoretical ones.  I do not know  enough to judge Stubbs' work on Uto-Aztecan, though his own non-Mormon colleagues praise his work there.  However, I do know enough to pass judgment on his use of Semitic and Egyptian, and I am very impressed with his erudition.

Well, I certainly don't have near the experience you do, so I will wait for Stubbs's book to appear before passing judgment.

 

It  might be well for you not to pass harsh apriori judgment.  Let's leave that to non-Mormon experts who are actually capable of passing judgment.

I believe I already said that. I don't think my position is nearly as hard as you seem to believe, and I'm sorry if I made it sound as if it was.

Edited August 6, 2015 by jkwilliams

[rodheadlee]

It wasn't meant to be flippant. I chose that analogy for a reason: if you get outside of Mormonism, you find that Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is considered about as legitimate as Bigfoot studies, which is why Philip Jenkins used the same analogy..

Anyone who acknowledges the Book of Mormon is ancient must then acknowledge the legitimacy of the Church. This isn't going to happen by someone who has their whole life studies and livelihood threatened by doing so.

[jkwilliams]

Anyone who acknowledges the Book of Mormon is ancient must then acknowledge the legitimacy of the Church. This isn't going to happen by someone who has their whole life studies and livelihood threatened by doing so.

I'll just quote my illustrious friend Nevo:

This is the classic complaint of proponents of pseudo-scholarship. Mainstream scholars won't give our crazy, fringe notions the time of day. It must be because they're afraid of the consequences of admitting the strength of our case. Yeah, that's it!

[Gray]

Anyone who acknowledges the Book of Mormon is ancient must then acknowledge the legitimacy of the Church. This isn't going to happen by someone who has their whole life studies and livelihood threatened by doing so.

 

Not really - there are many churches that use the Book of Mormon, and it doesn't follow that verification of BOM historicity would make any of them "true"

[thesometimesaint]

Not really - there are many churches that use the Book of Mormon, and it doesn't follow that verification of BOM historicity would make any of them "true"

 

I think it is a mistake to base one's testimony on archaeology. That being said it is always gratifying to see some, albeit incomplete, archaeological evidence for it.

[canard78]

I think it is a mistake to base one's testimony on archaeology. That being said it is always gratifying to see some, albeit incomplete, archaeological evidence for it.

And where was that archaeological evidence again...? I'm looking for more than convergences and, ideally, new world evidence.

[jkwilliams]

And where was that archaeological evidence again...? I'm looking for more than convergences and, ideally, new world evidence.

 

I was wondering the same thing. Bill Hamblin had a couple of months to present some evidence, and yet we still wait.

[Deborah]

And where was that archaeological evidence again...? I'm looking for more than convergences and, ideally, new world evidence.

 

You should listen to Brant Gardner's presentation at the FAIR Conference today.