Plea to Meso American Apologist

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, sam said:

The purpose of this post was to show the meso American apologist are doing more harm than good. All these post about the Book of Mormon being fiction could not be more wrong. There are a large number of artifacts, dna evidence, etc supporting the Book of Mormon but its in North America.

Mesoamerica is North America.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually we do have a pretty good idea what the DNA of Israelites fleeing the Middle East would be like

"Israelites"

Please be specific -- to which tribes are you referring.  To jog your memory, the mother of Joseph was an Egyptian, so the DNA would perhaps be different from those of the other tribes.

We throw out words like Jew and Israelite as if their DNA were all the same.  Lehi was NOT a Jew, genetically speaking.

"pretty good idea"

And what do you mean by "pretty good"?  Remember we are talking about a very small group

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram should fit within appropriate genetic relationships -- especially if we find some ancient DNA to test.

Sigh. 

[sam]

15 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Sigh.

Regarding the statement that a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon has been somehow disproved to the point that we should all just shut up and go away and trust our faith to what gets posted on this or that amateur blog, the correlating that one of another North American proposal has been definitively proved, reveals that the Sam does not yet understand how science works.

So claims that his or that has been definitively proven or falsified, demonstrate naivety and should be recognized as such

Paradigms cannot be proven because: 1)  Future discoveries may conflict with present theory and 2) Another theory may explain present evidence equally well. 

Paradigm cannot be falsified because: "a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses.”  Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 99.

All paradigm debates involve deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved," and should consider some non-circular means of deciding "Which paradigm is better?"

Which problems do I think are most significant to have solved for New World Book of Mormon geography?

A comprehensive accounting for the 600 plus statements in the Book of Mormon that describe geography and which must all fit together like the pieces of a puzzle.  Sorenson's Source Book, Mormon's Map, and John Clark's model, and subsequent reviews of many candidate proposals strike me as the best places to start in defining the internal requirements. I see no reason to bother with proposals that do not take this work seriously.

It happens that some readings based on the internal map and references will likely change once a person begins comparing the internal correlation to a specific cultural setting.  This is consistent with Nephi's comment about Jewish culture in 2 Nephi 25. This is because our modern conceptions may be anachronistic, and we can't know whether a particular cultural setting will make a different in our reading until we try it.  A good example of this would be Brant's and Larry Poulson's converging discussions of directions.

 http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/bomdirections.html

I'm also persuaded by Larry Poulson's approach to the Sidon as having many more references to work with than things like narrow neck or Cumorah/Ramah, though those elements need to fit.

I want to see the rise and fall of the right kinds of civilizations at the right times and in the proper relationship with one another.  This happens to be one of John Clark's issues with several candidate geographies.

Volcanic activity at the right time and place for the descriptions in 3 Nephi.  

The use of cement in cities in the right time and place relative to the river, the cultures, and the volcanos.

A narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the sea east to the sea west that divides the Lamanite and Nephite territories and includes the source of not only the Sidon, but also accounts for how Limhi's explorers get lost, and what they see when they travel and return, thinking they had found Zarahemla.

Literacy

Things that I don't see as particularly important in establishing geography.

DNA.  

John Butler, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=6

Random artifacts.  A random blade or shield or ruin or pile of dirt or bone could be just that, random.  Something like this, however, should at least raise eyebrows and generate comment.  

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

Regarding the ever popular horses and steel and such, I don't regard them as nearly as important as the bigger items such as the river, the civilizations, the cement cites, and the volcanos on the simple grounds that the big items ought to be much easier to find.  Comparatively little digging has been done in Mesoamerica, relative to known sites, and I do not suppose that most of the digging has been done in the kinds of locations that a person might want to bury horses or cureloms and cumons.  And horse bone by itself may not tell me much, but the right river should explain a great deal, and, as Larry Poulson shows, it actually does explain a great deal when considered in light of specific stories in the text.  

 http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Nor do I find Zelph of interest because Zelph does not appear in the Book of Mormon, nor do I see the references to Lamanites in the D&C and among early saints of interest or key because by Jacob's time in the Book of Mormon, still first generation, the term stopped referring to lineage and became any political, unfriendlies who are "not us."  And the way I read the Book of Mormon I see mixing with others even before the Nephi and company leave in 2 Nephi 5. Nor do I find the use of "Cumorah" as a name by some LDS compelling because names can go just about anywhere, (we have Bountiful in Arabia, near the Narrow Neck, and just north of Salt Lake City.)  Despite the same name, the settings are easily distinguished by those who pay attention to descriptions.  And it was the description in the text that got people looking for a candidate Cumorah in Mesoamerica.  Plus, I don't look to authority figures or tradition because D&C 1 expressly tells me to expect that errors will be made manifest, and Alma distinguishes between the things he learned from study, from angels, and from his best guess and opinion.

As a check against using the standards and assumptions of one paradigm in rejecting another (that is, they must be wrong because they are not us, not orthodox), I always refer to Kuhn's citation of values of problem definition, experimental results on key issues, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (seeing things that a person would never would see unless they tried out the new paradigm), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

I see the work by Sorenson, Gardner, Wirth, Clark, Wright, and many others are being testable, accurate on the what I see as key issues, far more comprehensive and coherent than their rivals, impressively fruitful, simple, and promising.

That does not prove that the Heartlanders are wrong, but frankly, I'm not staying up late at night worrying that they'll find a good place to ford the Mississippi or remnants of a volcano or two in New York, nor a cement city some distance north of Palmyra.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

To say that FAIR cares about science is laughable. If it cared anything about science it would hire or have at least one pro North American Book of Mormon geography researcher and or volunteer. And it would abandon mental gymnastics to explain the incredible evidence against meso America  and mental gymnastics used as explanations.  All of Sorenson’s credible evidence and listed finds are in North America. Outside of the lds span of researchers Sorensen can’t get one researcher or anthropologist to agree with his conclusions On the other hand all the research done in North America has been done by non lds researches so critics cannot say there is a bias.

In North America there are confirmed artifacts such metal shields, metal headplates, woven cloth, metal jewelry, matching timelines, dna from Israel, etc.

The reported earthquake of the new madrid fault has earthquakes that match the earthquakes mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

 “We were visited by a violent shock of an earthquake, accompanied by a very awful noise resembling loud but distant thunder, but more hoarse and vibrating, which was followed in a few minutes by the complete saturation of the atmosphere, with sulphurious vapor, causing total darkness.” – Eliza Bryan

“A dense black cloud of vapor overshadowed the land.” – Godfrey LeSieur

The Hebrew cultural ties with Native Americans are to extensive to list. But some examples that match geography are. First the D&C 54:8 states border of the Lamanites is Missouri not Meso America. When missionaries were sent to the Lamanites they were sent to Native Americans in Missouri and other states in North America. Joseph Smith based on journal accounts stated the Manti was in Randolph count Missouri. He stated that Ohio and Iowa were Laminate and Nephite lands.  He stated that Zelph was under the prophet Onandagus there is a tribe in New York called Onandaga. In the Book of Mormon there is a hill that disaffected Lamanites went to it was call Onidah. In New York there is a tribe called Oneida. The Ojibwa Indians have chiefs named Keeshkumen in the Book of Mormon there are people and a city called Kishumen. Native American tribes have a tradition that states they killed of a white race of Indians. In North America Native American have a rare but founding Caucasian dna marker that supports this tradition. Some tribes in North America state they sailed to North America. The Hill Cumorah is in New York etc etc. Trying to use the river sidon as a geography point for the geography of the Book of Mormon is a bad idea given there are hundreds of rivers found on the American continents. I would go with what the scriptures and Joseph Smith says not satellite images unless of course the scriptures and statements made Joseph Smith are unreliable.

You need to tone down the derision. Rudeness is not welcome in this forum.

[cdowis]

"Sam"

The problem is to find someone who actually knows what they are talking about.  A scholar with credentials, rather than someone who simply writes articles, makes videos with suspect assertions. 

Your gushing language and fantastic assertions simply make your credibility suspect.  You are ignoring the fact that the LGT does not preclude Nephites and Lamanites inhabiting North America -- the "land northward".

I respect your enthusiasm, but I think it is misdirected.  May I suggest that you take up another hobby -- the piano, family history, chess.

Edited August 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

While not an expert in genetics, I have spoken to them about the haplogroup X issue.  If I am correct the original source of the native american haplogroup X has not been identified, so your "debunking" is rather optimistic.  

My source is Ugo Perego, who is a geneticist. The current work shows that the X haplotype variants in the Middle East and the New World are not directly related. Of course, everything is related somehow, but whatever connection there might be is buried in the very distant past. The idea that there is a connection is the part that has been debunked due to further research.

[cdowis]

 This post has been deleted by the user.

Edited August 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

27 minutes ago, sam said:

To say that FAIR cares about science is laughable. If it cared anything about science it would hire or have at least one pro North American Book of Mormon geography researcher and or volunteer. And it would abandon mental gymnastics to explain the incredible evidence against meso America  and mental gymnastics used as explanations.  All of Sorenson’s credible evidence and listed finds are in North America. Outside of the lds span of researchers Sorensen can’t get one researcher or anthropologist to agree with his conclusions On the other hand all the research done in North America has been done by non lds researches so critics cannot say there is a bias.

FairMormon doesn't hire anyone, so that particular evidence about what they care about is moot. There is a good question about whether they do, should, or could, have a pro-North American Book of Mormon geographer. Since FairMormon is officially geography agnostic, they certainly could. However, it is precisely because they do care about science that one hasn't arisen. There is a level of evidence required to meet requirements of science. It is fascinating to me that I have not seen a single archaeologist with expertise in the appropriate time periods and locations who supports the North American Book of Mormon hypothesis. Conversely, there are several LDS who are trained in archaeology and anthropology who support the Mesoamerican hypothesis.

One could easily ask why those who have the training to deal with the data do not support the North American hypothesis. Why is the evidence only compelling to those who are not completely conversant in the actual evidence? If you are going to assert anything about FairMormon caring about science, and asserting that you do, I would think that you should be able to show where science supports your hypothesis. Unfortunately, it does not. There is zero archaeological evidence that allows for the Book of Mormon text to have occurred among the Hopewell. I am speaking here of evidence accepted by those trained in the field. If you know of anything to contradict that, I would be very interested in seeing it.

You mention that non-LDS archaeologists don't accept the Mesoamerican hypothesis for the Book of Mormon. That is correct. However, that is also correct for the North American hypothesis. If that single fact is telling you there is something wrong with a geographic correlation, I suggest you won't find a single one that will pass your test.

On to the last pont above, which is that the North American research has been don by non-LDS. That is also true. It has been done by a number of amateurs, many of whom are pushing particular theories that have their origins in speculations about the origins of Native Americans--and those were around before the Book of Mormon. So, yes, they are non-LDS. However, they are not trained or degreed. That means that they are willing to accept evidence that does not meet basic standards. I return to my statement, there is zero archaeological evidence for the Hopewell that allows them to be correlated to the Book of Mormon--according to accepted archaeology. 

Quote

In North America there are confirmed artifacts such metal shields, metal headplates, woven cloth, metal jewelry, matching timelines, dna from Israel, etc.

Interesting that you mention timelines. The only one that fits is the general timeline for the Hopewell. The Adena is in question (with a question of whether or not they should be seen as different from, or simply an earlier version of, the Hopewell). The Adena do not geographically fit the Jaredites, even if you accept the geography for the Hopewell.

Yes there are metal headplates. The Book of Mormon never mentions metal headplates. Yes they are metal, but they are not forged metal, which is the problem in the Book of Mormon claims. The DNA from Israel is absolutely incorrect, and the evidence suggesting it is old. No newer studies are ever mentioned because they have shown that there is no connection.

Quote

The reported earthquake of the new madrid fault has earthquakes that match the earthquakes mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

The problem of parallels is that it is easy to find things that seem parallel, but cannot fit the entire picture. I suggest that you read Jerry Grover's Geology of the Book of Mormon. He looks at whether an earthquake could be the cause of the particular phenomenon. I don't remember all of the reasons, but a significant one is that the Book of Mormon tells of rumblings that last for hours. Grover notes that earthquakes are much shorter, in seconds or maybe a minute. An earthquake cannot match all of the characteristics mentioned in 3 Nephi, even if it can meet some of them.

In the case of the Madrid fault, there is the problem of timing--there is no way to know if there was a quake at the appropriate period, and the location of the quake puts it too far from that models other cities to have affected them. So, yes, there are some similarities, but they don't fit when you look at the details.

Quote

The Hebrew cultural ties with Native Americans are to extensive to list.

Yet the actual archaeological and anthropological answer is that there are none at all. You are looking at the difference in the types of evidence being reported. If you will examine most of the sources for the connections, you will find them in the 1800's. It was popular in that time period, but for most of that time period there was no careful archaeology or anthropology. Many of the statements are fanciful (not only related to Hebrews). This was also the period where the interest was so great that there was an interesting industry in creating fake artifacts, many of which are still touted as evidence for Hebrews in the New World. They are all confirmed forgeries.

Quote

But some examples that match geography are. . .

 Matching geography is another case where every model has some features that seem to fit, and others that can be made to fit. We could discuss some of the basic outlines of the Heartland geography, but most effective would be to look at a specific geography. At the moment, the Meldrum/May geography is pretty thin on details. Jonathan Neville has done the best job of attempting to flesh them out. There is one review of Neville, where the reviewer wasn't convinced.

I've looked at the geographies and cannot make them fit the text. Even if you accept Neville's idea that travel was rivers to explain the distance problems, you still  end up with geographic issues that the model cannot resolve. Manti is an interesting example because most geographers find a place for it on the map, but don't look at the geographical requirements. There must be a valley to the east. There isn't much along the Mississippi where you find an east/west valley--particularly in a position where the city of Manti could be a defense against Lamanites from the south (who, if using boats, could just paddle on by to Zarahemla an Manti couldn't do much).

I would encourage you to look at the details rather than simply accept things that sound good. If you think that there is value in using scientific methods for discovering things that scientific methods were designed to do, I suggest that you apply them to the North American hypothesis. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up well under close examination.

[sam]

23 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

FairMormon doesn't hire anyone, so that particular evidence about what they care about is moot. There is a good question about whether they do, should, or could, have a pro-North American Book of Mormon geographer. Since FairMormon is officially geography agnostic, they certainly could. However, it is precisely because they do care about science that one hasn't arisen. There is a level of evidence required to meet requirements of science. It is fascinating to me that I have not seen a single archaeologist with expertise in the appropriate time periods and locations who supports the North American Book of Mormon hypothesis. Conversely, there are several LDS who are trained in archaeology and anthropology who support the Mesoamerican hypothesis.

One could easily ask why those who have the training to deal with the data do not support the North American hypothesis. Why is the evidence only compelling to those who are not completely conversant in the actual evidence? If you are going to assert anything about FairMormon caring about science, and asserting that you do, I would think that you should be able to show where science supports your hypothesis. Unfortunately, it does not. There is zero archaeological evidence that allows for the Book of Mormon text to have occurred among the Hopewell. I am speaking here of evidence accepted by those trained in the field. If you know of anything to contradict that, I would be very interested in seeing it.

You mention that non-LDS archaeologists don't accept the Mesoamerican hypothesis for the Book of Mormon. That is correct. However, that is also correct for the North American hypothesis. If that single fact is telling you there is something wrong with a geographic correlation, I suggest you won't find a single one that will pass your test.

On to the last pont above, which is that the North American research has been don by non-LDS. That is also true. It has been done by a number of amateurs, many of whom are pushing particular theories that have their origins in speculations about the origins of Native Americans--and those were around before the Book of Mormon. So, yes, they are non-LDS. However, they are not trained or degreed. That means that they are willing to accept evidence that does not meet basic standards. I return to my statement, there is zero archaeological evidence for the Hopewell that allows them to be correlated to the Book of Mormon--according to accepted archaeology. 

Interesting that you mention timelines. The only one that fits is the general timeline for the Hopewell. The Adena is in question (with a question of whether or not they should be seen as different from, or simply an earlier version of, the Hopewell). The Adena do not geographically fit the Jaredites, even if you accept the geography for the Hopewell.

Yes there are metal headplates. The Book of Mormon never mentions metal headplates. Yes they are metal, but they are not forged metal, which is the problem in the Book of Mormon claims. The DNA from Israel is absolutely incorrect, and the evidence suggesting it is old. No newer studies are ever mentioned because they have shown that there is no connection.

The problem of parallels is that it is easy to find things that seem parallel, but cannot fit the entire picture. I suggest that you read Jerry Grover's Geology of the Book of Mormon. He looks at whether an earthquake could be the cause of the particular phenomenon. I don't remember all of the reasons, but a significant one is that the Book of Mormon tells of rumblings that last for hours. Grover notes that earthquakes are much shorter, in seconds or maybe a minute. An earthquake cannot match all of the characteristics mentioned in 3 Nephi, even if it can meet some of them.

In the case of the Madrid fault, there is the problem of timing--there is no way to know if there was a quake at the appropriate period, and the location of the quake puts it too far from that models other cities to have affected them. So, yes, there are some similarities, but they don't fit when you look at the details.

Yet the actual archaeological and anthropological answer is that there are none at all. You are looking at the difference in the types of evidence being reported. If you will examine most of the sources for the connections, you will find them in the 1800's. It was popular in that time period, but for most of that time period there was no careful archaeology or anthropology. Many of the statements are fanciful (not only related to Hebrews). This was also the period where the interest was so great that there was an interesting industry in creating fake artifacts, many of which are still touted as evidence for Hebrews in the New World. They are all confirmed forgeries.

 Matching geography is another case where every model has some features that seem to fit, and others that can be made to fit. We could discuss some of the basic outlines of the Heartland geography, but most effective would be to look at a specific geography. At the moment, the Meldrum/May geography is pretty thin on details. Jonathan Neville has done the best job of attempting to flesh them out. There is one review of Neville, where the reviewer wasn't convinced.

I've looked at the geographies and cannot make them fit the text. Even if you accept Neville's idea that travel was rivers to explain the distance problems, you still  end up with geographic issues that the model cannot resolve. Manti is an interesting example because most geographers find a place for it on the map, but don't look at the geographical requirements. There must be a valley to the east. There isn't much along the Mississippi where you find an east/west valley--particularly in a position where the city of Manti could be a defense against Lamanites from the south (who, if using boats, could just paddle on by to Zarahemla an Manti couldn't do much).

I would encourage you to look at the details rather than simply accept things that sound good. If you think that there is value in using scientific methods for discovering things that scientific methods were designed to do, I suggest that you apply them to the North American hypothesis. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up well under close examination.

When it come right down to it and you do a one on one comparison of the scriptures, statements made by Joseph Smith, dna, artifacts, animals, native culture, native languages, hill cumorah and geographical locations there is no comparison. North America is a far superior model that deserves the attention of educated and trained individuals instead of amateurs. An amateur looking in North America can find more evidence in two days then meso American researchers can find in 30 years.

The dating of Hopewell metal weapons head plates and shields etc are dated by non lds researchers is a huge benefit that shows no bias.  And yes the Book of Mormon does mention head-plates alma43:48 mentions head plates.

Your analysis of Manti and the River Sidon is interesting. You seem to assume you have a good and full understanding of Book of Mormon geography. That you understand perfectly the distances mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I would love for you to share the verses you are using to show distances and travel between the land of manti and how they correlate with Randolph county Missouri the area that Jospeh Smith said was manti and the Mississippi river.

[Calm]

You do know who Brant is, right Sam?

[Calm]

I think you mean verse 44:

" 44 And they were inspired by the Zoramites and the Amalekites, who were their chief captains and leaders, and by Zerahemnah, who was their chief captain, or their chief leader and commander; yea, they did fight like dragons, and many of the Nephites were slain by their hands, yea, for they did smite in two many of their head-plates, and they did pierce many of their breastplates, and they did smite off many of their arms; and thus the Lamanites did smite in their fierce anger."

No mention of metal there though.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Calm

[Brant Gardner]

1 minute ago, sam said:

When it come right down to it and you do a one on one comparison of the scriptures, statements made by Joseph Smith, dna, artifacts, animals, native culture, native languages, hill cumorah and geographical locations there is no comparison. North America is a far superior model that deserves the attention of educated and trained individuals instead of amateurs. An amateur looking in North America can find more evidence in two days then meso American researchers can find in 30 years.

The dating of Hopewell metal weapons head plates and shields etc are dated by non lds researchers is a huge benefit that shows no bias.  And yes the Book of Mormon does mention head-plates alma43:48 mentions head plates.

Your analysis of Manti and the River Sidon is interesting. You seem to assume you have a good and full understanding of Book of Mormon geography. That you understand perfectly the distances mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I would love for you to share the verses you are using to show distances and travel between the land of manti and how they correlate with Randolph county Missouri the area that Jospeh Smith said was manti and the Mississippi river.

Sam, you are asking me to recreate long examinations of data that apparently you have not personally reviewed. I suggest that you begin with Sorenson's Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Sourcebook. At the back of that book is a full index of the verses discussing geography. As for distance, the text deals with a day's journey, which means that it must be interpreted to convert time to distance. Most have assumed foot travel, which can yield distances of say 13-25 miles per day. Using any of those walking distance correlations to days, the Heartland model fails immediately. That is the reason that Neville uses river travel, which allows from much greater distances in a day. Of course, that is only mentioned by exception in the text, but it is possible and has to be considered (though the rest of the geography doesn't work.

You said: "An amateur looking in North America can find more evidence in two days then meso American researchers can find in 30 years." That is probably true. The question is whether or not what is found can be substantiated, or is simply the result of finding what you are looking for. That is probably the reason that only amateurs are accepting the North American evidence. I would be interested in hearing about any trained LDS archaeologist or anthropologist who accepts the "evidence" you are suggesting that the amateurs are finding. The ones I know do not. There is a reason for that.

You have returned to the metal weapons and head plates. The first problem is that you have started including weapons along with head plates. I am unaware of any metal weapons dated to the correct period. As for the head plates (they are also breast plates), you will remember that the Book of Mormon usage was military, not decorative. If you have seen those plates, they are clearly decorative and not defensive. They wouldn't hold up to the stone weapons being used at the time. So you can claim a correlation because they are metal and probably worn over the breast, but the artifacts themselves do not allow a correlation to the Book of Mormon function for plates. Once again, if you really look at the evidence, it isn't as good a fit as it first appeared.

Quote

. . . the area that Jospeh Smith said was manti and the Mississippi river.

Sam, it is difficult to accept your analysis if you aren't even correctly repeating the arguments of the model you support. Joseph never said, nor indicated, that the Mississippi River was the Sidon. That didn't even come up as a suggestion until 2002.

[Calm]

Head-plates are mentioned 7 times in the BoM, nowhere does it say they were metal.

[sam]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Head-plates are mentioned 7 times in the BoM, nowhere does it say they were metal.

I doubt that they used animal skins or cloth for head plates when they were able to use metal. If I had a preference to protect my head I would choose metal.

[sam]

27 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Sam, you are asking me to recreate long examinations of data that apparently you have not personally reviewed. I suggest that you begin with Sorenson's Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Sourcebook. At the back of that book is a full index of the verses discussing geography. As for distance, the text deals with a day's journey, which means that it must be interpreted to convert time to distance. Most have assumed foot travel, which can yield distances of say 13-25 miles per day. Using any of those walking distance correlations to days, the Heartland model fails immediately. That is the reason that Neville uses river travel, which allows from much greater distances in a day. Of course, that is only mentioned by exception in the text, but it is possible and has to be considered (though the rest of the geography doesn't work.

You said: "An amateur looking in North America can find more evidence in two days then meso American researchers can find in 30 years." That is probably true. The question is whether or not what is found can be substantiated, or is simply the result of finding what you are looking for. That is probably the reason that only amateurs are accepting the North American evidence. I would be interested in hearing about any trained LDS archaeologist or anthropologist who accepts the "evidence" you are suggesting that the amateurs are finding. The ones I know do not. There is a reason for that.

You have returned to the metal weapons and head plates. The first problem is that you have started including weapons along with head plates. I am unaware of any metal weapons dated to the correct period. As for the head plates (they are also breast plates), you will remember that the Book of Mormon usage was military, not decorative. If you have seen those plates, they are clearly decorative and not defensive. They wouldn't hold up to the stone weapons being used at the time. So you can claim a correlation because they are metal and probably worn over the breast, but the artifacts themselves do not allow a correlation to the Book of Mormon function for plates. Once again, if you really look at the evidence, it isn't as good a fit as it first appeared.

Sam, it is difficult to accept your analysis if you aren't even correctly repeating the arguments of the model you support. Joseph never said, nor indicated, that the Mississippi River was the Sidon. That didn't even come up as a suggestion until 2002.

Your right that Joseph Smith never stated where River Sidon is he just stated where Manti was and were Nephite and Lamanite lands were located. The scriptures state where the border of the Lamanites are located and where the HIll Cumorah is.

The Hopewell had copper knives and spear points. Anything Hopewell falls within the Book of Mormon timeline.

[cdowis]

Quote

The idea that there is a connection is the part that has been debunked due to further research.

Brant Gardner,

Please ignore my last post.  I now realize that I misunderstood what you were saying, and I have deleted the post.

Sorry.

Edited August 20, 2016 by cdowis

[sam]

36 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Sam, you are asking me to recreate long examinations of data that apparently you have not personally reviewed. I suggest that you begin with Sorenson's Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Sourcebook. At the back of that book is a full index of the verses discussing geography. As for distance, the text deals with a day's journey, which means that it must be interpreted to convert time to distance. Most have assumed foot travel, which can yield distances of say 13-25 miles per day. Using any of those walking distance correlations to days, the Heartland model fails immediately. That is the reason that Neville uses river travel, which allows from much greater distances in a day. Of course, that is only mentioned by exception in the text, but it is possible and has to be considered (though the rest of the geography doesn't work.

You said: "An amateur looking in North America can find more evidence in two days then meso American researchers can find in 30 years." That is probably true. The question is whether or not what is found can be substantiated, or is simply the result of finding what you are looking for. That is probably the reason that only amateurs are accepting the North American evidence. I would be interested in hearing about any trained LDS archaeologist or anthropologist who accepts the "evidence" you are suggesting that the amateurs are finding. The ones I know do not. There is a reason for that.

You have returned to the metal weapons and head plates. The first problem is that you have started including weapons along with head plates. I am unaware of any metal weapons dated to the correct period. As for the head plates (they are also breast plates), you will remember that the Book of Mormon usage was military, not decorative. If you have seen those plates, they are clearly decorative and not defensive. They wouldn't hold up to the stone weapons being used at the time. So you can claim a correlation because they are metal and probably worn over the breast, but the artifacts themselves do not allow a correlation to the Book of Mormon function for plates. Once again, if you really look at the evidence, it isn't as good a fit as it first appeared.

Sam, it is difficult to accept your analysis if you aren't even correctly repeating the arguments of the model you support. Joseph never said, nor indicated, that the Mississippi River was the Sidon. That didn't even come up as a suggestion until 2002.

Your argument about decorative breastplates is ridiculous. Whether or not the artifact breastplates pictured were decorative or not the fact that they made breastplates is sufficient evidence. The Hopewell had copper knives and spear points. If you have time to look into your research what is your opinion between the distance between Land of Manti and the River Sidon and what verses do you site I'm very interested in your research.

[Brant Gardner]

Just now, sam said:

Your right that Joseph Smith never stated where River Sidon is he just stated where Manti was and were Nephite and Lamanite lands were located. The scriptures state where the border of the Lamanites are located and where the HIll Cumorah is.

Joseph was pretty open to geography, as were those who followed him. I assume you don't think that those who knew Joseph best were kept in the dark about what he thought--or that they would easily contradict what he told them? His associates had a very different idea of geography than you are suggesting. Are you saying that all early church members had it wrong, and we only figured out what Joseph really meant 170 years later? I would love to see a quotation from Joseph locating Manti.

I would love to see an early quotation from Joseph about where the Book of Mormon's Hill Cumorah was. The extant evidence has Joseph avoiding calling the NY hill Cumorah until much later. I wonder why he wasn't the first? I also assume that you remember Moroni 10:6, which tells us that the plates that Joseph received were not buried in Cumorah? According to the Book of Mormon, if Joseph took the plates from a hill, then it wasn't Cumorah. Of course, we can suggest that Moroni went back to Cumorah to bury them, but the Book of Mormon doesn't say that. According to the Book of Mormon, the NY hill shouldn't be the Book of Mormon Cumorah. I assume you would agree that Mormon and Moroni were pretty clear on where the Hill Cumorah was and what plates were buried in it?

Quote

The Hopewell had copper knives and spear points. Anything Hopewell falls within the Book of Mormon timeline.

The Hopewell fit the Book of Mormon timeline, if they current division between Adena and Hopewell continues. If not, it won't. Of course, that itself is a problem for the North American hypothesis. In Book of Mormon geography, Jaredites are north of Nephite lands and only very late do Nephites move into Jaredite lands. They don't overlap for perhaps 800 years. The Adena preceded the Hopewell in the Hopewell locations. That disqualifies them from being the Jaredites.

I know you believe that there were copper knives and spear points. I have seen the pictures. They are not correctly dated or are forgeries from what I have seen. Please provide evidence from an accepted archaeologist from say the last 50 years who provides Book of Mormon dating and the sites for any copper knife or spear point. The technologies used did not allow for weapons to have edges that wouldn't easily fold. 

Remember, just because someone has said that something was true doesn't mean that it was. There are a lot of sincere people sincerely misrepresenting the actual evidence.

[sam]

45 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Sam, you are asking me to recreate long examinations of data that apparently you have not personally reviewed. I suggest that you begin with Sorenson's Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Sourcebook. At the back of that book is a full index of the verses discussing geography. As for distance, the text deals with a day's journey, which means that it must be interpreted to convert time to distance. Most have assumed foot travel, which can yield distances of say 13-25 miles per day. Using any of those walking distance correlations to days, the Heartland model fails immediately. That is the reason that Neville uses river travel, which allows from much greater distances in a day. Of course, that is only mentioned by exception in the text, but it is possible and has to be considered (though the rest of the geography doesn't work.

You said: "An amateur looking in North America can find more evidence in two days then meso American researchers can find in 30 years." That is probably true. The question is whether or not what is found can be substantiated, or is simply the result of finding what you are looking for. That is probably the reason that only amateurs are accepting the North American evidence. I would be interested in hearing about any trained LDS archaeologist or anthropologist who accepts the "evidence" you are suggesting that the amateurs are finding. The ones I know do not. There is a reason for that.

You have returned to the metal weapons and head plates. The first problem is that you have started including weapons along with head plates. I am unaware of any metal weapons dated to the correct period. As for the head plates (they are also breast plates), you will remember that the Book of Mormon usage was military, not decorative. If you have seen those plates, they are clearly decorative and not defensive. They wouldn't hold up to the stone weapons being used at the time. So you can claim a correlation because they are metal and probably worn over the breast, but the artifacts themselves do not allow a correlation to the Book of Mormon function for plates. Once again, if you really look at the evidence, it isn't as good a fit as it first appeared.

Sam, it is difficult to accept your analysis if you aren't even correctly repeating the arguments of the model you support. Joseph never said, nor indicated, that the Mississippi River was the Sidon. That didn't even come up as a suggestion until 2002.

The work done on the Hopewell was done by professional archeologist and anthropologist. I would call that reliable sources. The early history books about Native American culture have been used by historians to write the history of Native Americans.

[sam]

5 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Joseph was pretty open to geography, as were those who followed him. I assume you don't think that those who knew Joseph best were kept in the dark about what he thought--or that they would easily contradict what he told them? His associates had a very different idea of geography than you are suggesting. Are you saying that all early church members had it wrong, and we only figured out what Joseph really meant 170 years later? I would love to see a quotation from Joseph locating Manti.

I would love to see an early quotation from Joseph about where the Book of Mormon's Hill Cumorah was. The extant evidence has Joseph avoiding calling the NY hill Cumorah until much later. I wonder why he wasn't the first? I also assume that you remember Moroni 10:6, which tells us that the plates that Joseph received were not buried in Cumorah? According to the Book of Mormon, if Joseph took the plates from a hill, then it wasn't Cumorah. Of course, we can suggest that Moroni went back to Cumorah to bury them, but the Book of Mormon doesn't say that. According to the Book of Mormon, the NY hill shouldn't be the Book of Mormon Cumorah. I assume you would agree that Mormon and Moroni were pretty clear on where the Hill Cumorah was and what plates were buried in it?

The Hopewell fit the Book of Mormon timeline, if they current division between Adena and Hopewell continues. If not, it won't. Of course, that itself is a problem for the North American hypothesis. In Book of Mormon geography, Jaredites are north of Nephite lands and only very late do Nephites move into Jaredite lands. They don't overlap for perhaps 800 years. The Adena preceded the Hopewell in the Hopewell locations. That disqualifies them from being the Jaredites.

I know you believe that there were copper knives and spear points. I have seen the pictures. They are not correctly dated or are forgeries from what I have seen. Please provide evidence from an accepted archaeologist from say the last 50 years who provides Book of Mormon dating and the sites for any copper knife or spear point. The technologies used did not allow for weapons to have edges that wouldn't easily fold. 

Remember, just because someone has said that something was true doesn't mean that it was. There are a lot of sincere people sincerely misrepresenting the actual evidence.

Do you think wood clubs with obsidian attached to the wood is a better fit for the mention of rusted iron sword mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

[Rajah Manchou]

20 hours ago, sam said:

South America has Polynesian dna. So some scientist believe Polynesians sailed to South America. To say that they sailed to South America prior to 12000 bc would be absurd.

South America has Australian dna but there is no Australian dna found in Asia or Siberia or the Near East.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/DNA-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/?no-ist

If its absurd to say, then why are so many scientists publishing it? Some propose much earlier dates, perhaps as far back as 50,000 BC. Of course they weren't "sailing" across the ocean so much as they were drifting along the coastal kelp beds.

PS, Australian DNA has not been found in South America. I'm assuming you are referring to the presence of Andamanese (Onge) and Australomelanesian recently found in Brazil. I don't mean to quibble but the Andaman Islands and Australia are very different. Australo means "south" and it is a term used to describe a number of different geographical regions and ethnic groups, including austronesian, australasian, austric, austroasiatic etc. 

So while its true that Australian DNA has not been found in Asia or Siberia or the Near East. Haplogroup B has, and this is mostly a Southeast Asia haplogroup that also happens to be one of the founding haplogroups in the Americas. B2 goes as far as the Hazara and Pashtuns (Bani Israel) of Afghanistan, groups with high levels of X and with a strong tradition of being exiled from Jerusalem in 600 BC. Around the same time there is an outward migration of this group to the east, and we can find evidence of this migration in the groups (B'nei Israel and Lemba) mentioned by Robert Smith above. And I'd also add the Kaifeng Jews in China, the Antemorona in Madagascar and the Cochin Jews of Kerala. How far they went we can only guess. But I'd say its more likely that Mulek joined the Bani Israel exiles in Habor (1 Chronicles 5:26) and then took the maritime silk road east towards the Biblical Ophir, and islands of the sea featured so prominently in the Book of Mormon.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[sam]

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If its absurd to say, then why are so many scientists publishing it? Some propose much earlier dates, perhaps as far back as 50,000 BC. Of course they weren't "sailing" across the ocean so much as they were drifting along the coastal kelp beds.

PS, Australian DNA has not been found in South America. I'm assuming you are referring to the presence of Andamanese (Onge) and Australomelanesian recently found in Brazil. I don't mean to quibble but the Andaman Islands and Australia are very different. Australo means "south" and it is a term used to describe a number of different geographical regions and ethnic groups, including austronesian, australasian, austric, austroasiatic etc. 

So while its true that Australian DNA has not been found in Asia or Siberia or the Near East. Haplogroup B has, and this is mostly a Southeast Asia haplogroup that also happens to be one of the founding haplogroups in the Americas. B2 goes as far as the Hazara in and Pashtuns (Bani Israel) of Afghanistan, groups with high levels of X and with a strong tradition of being exiled from Jerusalem in 600 BC. Around the same time there is an outward migration of this group to the east, how far they went we can only guess. But I'd say its much more likely that Mulek went with other exiled Jews to Habor in Afghanistan and then took the maritime silk road east.

Australian dna is found in South America. How do you think cavemen arrived in Australia?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/?no-ist

[Sevenbak]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Head-plates are mentioned 7 times in the BoM, nowhere does it say they were metal.

Nowhere does it say they weren't either.  Here's a copper headplate uncovered in a Hopewell mound dig.

http://scienceviews.com/photo/library/SIA4199.html

[Rajah Manchou]

48 minutes ago, sam said:

Australian dna is found in South America. How do you think cavemen arrived in Australia?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/?no-ist

Again, it is not "Australian" DNA in South America. It is DNA that resembles the DNA in modern groups presently living in a wide swath of land and sea that stretches from the Andaman Islands in the west and Tonga in the East. But this DNA did not originate in Australia, nor did it necessarily pass to America via Australia. The most probable route went north and the carriers were probably about as close to Australia as a New Yorker is to Kiev. 

The "cavemen" (note the article you linked to gives them the more respectful name of indigenous Australians) arrived by walking. The sea levels were much lower 50 KYA and although a raft may have been needed for short floats, it would have been possible to walk most of the distance between India and Australia. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[sam]

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Again, it is not "Australian" DNA in South America. It is DNA that resembles the DNA in modern groups presently living in a wide swath of land and sea that stretches from the Andaman Islands in the west and Tonga in the East. But this DNA did not originate in Australia, nor did it necessarily pass to America via Australia. The most probable route went north and the carriers were probably about as close to Australia as a New Yorker is to Kiev. 

The "cavemen" in Australia arrived by walking. The sea levels were much lower 50 KYA and although a raft may have been needed for short floats, it would have been possible to walk most of the distance between India and Australia. 

These ideas are far fetched. Same with ideas that man evolved from pond algae and cockroaches.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, sam said:

 

1 hour ago, sam said:

Your right that Joseph Smith never stated where River Sidon is he just stated where Manti was and were Nephite and Lamanite lands were located. The scriptures state where the border of the Lamanites are located and where the HIll Cumorah is.

Regarding evidence that Joseph Smith stated where Manti was, see Roper:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/22/5Roper.pdf

Quote

In contrast to the Tyler journal, another independent contemporary source provides a different
view. Elias Smith, a cousin to Joseph Smith, also kept a journal of the travels and activities of the 1838 Kirtland
Camp. On this same day, he recorded:
We came through Huntsville the county seat of Randolph where we were told before we arrived
there we should be stopped but saw nothing of the kind when we came through the town and heard no
threats whatever, but all appeared friendly. 1½ miles west of Huntsville we crossed the east branch of
Chariton and 1½ miles west of the river we found Ira Ames and some other brethren near the place where
the city of Manti is to be built and encamped for the night on Dark creek 6 miles from Huntsville.10
Elias Smith, significantly, did not equate the land near Huntsville, Missouri, with the ancient location of
Manti but indicated that this was the place where a future settlement named after the ancient one was “to
be built.”

Similar things turn up in looking at the sources for the Zelph story.  http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1398&index=11

And of course, if you want to provide a better explanation of the destructions in 3 Nephi than Mesoamerican volcanos, it's best if you actually look at what you are up against, and do the work to demonstrate that your proposal is better, that is testable, that experiments have provided good results, that it is more comprehensive and coherent in accounting for all the details and fitting together the larger overall picture, that it is fruitful, simple and had more future promise.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/geology-book-mormon

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/thirty-and-fourth-year-geologists-view-great-destruction-3-nephi

And Calm is right that you ought to figure out who you are talking to, and cite specific sources, and know what is behind them.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA