I have come to realize

[sam]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No, but it does look a lot like some of the Mic Mac characters.

I would have to disagree on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironian_notes

[RevTestament]

24 minutes ago, sam said:

Runestones with old world writing on them have been found east of the rocky mountains by several different people from 19th century Smithsonian researchers to 20th century everyday citizens. Some of the writing have legible paleo Hebrew on them. Other runestones have Egyptian like Hieroglyphs biblical depictions on them. For people trying to pass them off as Indian artifacts that is a really stupid idea.

Your link was specifically regarding the Michigan tablets. All largely made the same way, and suspiciously Christian just on the face of them. And suspiciously always found by the same few dudes. Perhaps some Ogham or other runestones are authentic, but the state of the problem is there is good reason to believe many of them were planted for various reasons such as to get people fired etc.

[sam]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Your link was specifically regarding the Michigan tablets. All largely made the same way, and suspiciously Christian just on the face of them. And suspiciously always found by the same few dudes. Perhaps some Ogham or other runestones are authentic, but the state of the problem is there is good reason to believe many of them were planted for various reasons such as to get people fired etc.

There were 3000 artifacts that were found by the same two dudes. But what you fail to mention is that there are thousands of other artifacts found over the state Michigan held in private collections with the same style characters and depictions found on them.

[Anijen]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't see any skeletons in that link. Skeletons 3000 years old do NOT predate the BoM.... assuming you believe in the Jaredites who we know lived in the same area as the Mulekites. I would like to be pointed to a site or professional journal which gives dates etc for all the woodland sites in Ohio. Or is it just a piecemeal thing? In my reckoning the state of the knowledge is very jumbled. Specifically which mound(s)/sites are you saying predates BoM Nephites/Mulekites?

You can get dates for each site, in fact each mound. But each mound will have different times. The way it worked the Adena, Hopewell would bring their dead to a mound and bury them. Then another family maybe 50-100 years later would do the same. the bigger the mound, you will find the oldest dating on the bottom and the most recent near the top. The one mound I was speaking about was mound 25 in Ohio (not mound 25 at Cahokia). The remains of that mound date at the earliest from 3000 BC to to 5000 and one has it at 10,000 BC I haven't been to that particular mound in about 5 years and they could have new findings...

 

At Cahokia I have seen people talk about the many warriors buried there along with all their weapons etc. Actually IIRC the most skeletons found in a single mound (for a single time period was 11) and the arrows were never used, wrapped in a stylish type of ribbon and all pointing in the same direction. this goes to show more of a ritual than the actual use of the arrows as weapons (it least in this instance). But still they do not date to the Book of Mormon and those that do are not heaps of bones, but maybe 3 skeletal remains, and they are family not warriors, (not much of an army). 

[Anijen]

19 minutes ago, sam said:

I would have to disagree on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironian_notes

Your first links images are highly likely Christian influence, post Columbus, therefore not related to the Book of Mormon. The resemblance to Egyptian is coincidental.

 

[sam]

1 minute ago, Anijen said:

You can get dates for each site, in fact each mound. But each mound will have different times. The way it worked the Adena, Hopewell would bring their dead to a mound and bury them. Then another family maybe 50-100 years later would do the same. the bigger the mound, you will find the oldest dating on the bottom and the most recent near the top. The one mound I was speaking about was mound 25 in Ohio (not mound 25 at Cahokia). The remains of that mound date at the earliest from 3000 BC to to 5000 and one has it at 10,000 BC I haven't been to that particular mound in about 5 years and they could have new findings...

 

At Cahokia I have seen people talk about the many warriors buried there along with all their weapons etc. Actually IIRC the most skeletons found in a single mound (for a single time period was 11) and the arrows were never used, wrapped in a stylish type of ribbon and all pointing in the same direction. this goes to show more of a ritual than the actual use of the arrows as weapons (it least in this instance). But still they do not date to the Book of Mormon and those that do are not heaps of bones, but maybe 3 skeletal remains, and they are family not warriors, (not much of an army). 

Anything Hopewell dates to the Book of Mormon time period. If you want to talk about the Jaredites the Book of Mormon gives no specific time periods.

The Adena are dated to 1000BC to 200BC. I do not see how the Adena timeline conflicts with a none specific time period about the Jaredites given by the Book of Mormon.

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, sam said:

The end of the adena have been dated to 200BC. The Book of Mormon does not give an exact date when the last battle of the Jaredites were but it was most likely between 130BC-323BC.

That falls within the Adena timeline

The Mulekites were in the area of the Jaredites, and met one. Are you saying the Mulekites didn't make the journey until 300 BC? That doesn't comport with Mulek being the son of Zedekiah. That puts the "last" Jaredite to around 590 BC. But personally, I doubt all the Jaredites were killed in war. There are always remnants. Just like there are a remnant of the Nephites as well as the Lamanites. I believe archeology has also moved up the Adena timeline. Find me one truly Adena site from 800 BC, and I will reconsider...

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, sam said:

There were 3000 artifacts that were found by the same two dudes. But what you fail to mention is that there are thousands of other artifacts found over the state Michigan held in private collections with the same style characters and depictions found on them.

CFR please

[sam]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

The Mulekites were in the area of the Jaredites, and met one. Are you saying the Mulekites didn't make the journey until 300 BC? That doesn't comport with Mulek being the son of Zedekiah. That puts the "last" Jaredite to around 590 BC. But personally, I doubt all the Jaredites were killed in war. There are always remnants. Just like there are a remnant of the Nephites as well as the Lamanites. I believe archeology has also moved up the Adena timeline. Find me one truly Adena site from 800 BC, and I will reconsider...

The descendants of Mulek found one Jaredite Coriantumr only after all the Jaredites excluding Coriantumr were killed. The chapter that discusses this is dated between 323BC -130BC.

[Anijen]

2 minutes ago, sam said:

Anything Hopewell dates to the Book of Mormon time period. If you want to talk about the Jaredites the Book of Mormon gives no specific time periods.

The Adena are dated to 1000BC to 200BC. I do not see how the Adena timeline conflicts with a none specific time period about the Jaredites given by the Book of Mormon.

How do you make the connection, by your dates of 1000 BC to 200 BC compared to a 3000-10,000 BC skeletons? The Jaredites and Nephites lived in two different areas. The Hopewell and the Adena lived in the same area, exactly opposite of the Book of Mormon.  No writing, no large population, but maybe, just maybe, a really big maybe they did fake some relics to be found in Michigan under suspicious circumstances. Yep, maybe.

[sam]

17 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Your first links images are highly likely Christian influence, post Columbus, therefore not related to the Book of Mormon. The resemblance to Egyptian is coincidental.

 

For the four mik maq characters to be the same appearance and meaing as Egyptian hieroglyphs and have characters the same as the anton transcript and call it coincidental is ridiculous.  

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, Anijen said:

You can get dates for each site, in fact each mound. But each mound will have different times.

where? only at the mounds themselves? in some journal? piecemeal?

Quote

 The way it worked the Adena, Hopewell would bring their dead to a mound and bury them. Then another family maybe 50-100 years later would do the same. the bigger the mound, you will find the oldest dating on the bottom and the most recent near the top. The one mound I was speaking about was mound 25 in Ohio (not mound 25 at Cahokia). The remains of that mound date at the earliest from 3000 BC to to 5000 and one has it at 10,000 BC I haven't been to that particular mound in about 5 years and they could have new findings...

OK thank you. Yes, I do not dispute the Americas were inhabited pre-Jaredite.

Quote

At Cahokia I have seen people talk about the many warriors buried there along with all their weapons etc. Actually IIRC the most skeletons found in a single mound (for a single time period was 11) and the arrows were never used, wrapped in a stylish type of ribbon and all pointing in the same direction. this goes to show more of a ritual than the actual use of the arrows as weapons (it least in this instance). But still they do not date to the Book of Mormon and those that do are not heaps of bones, but maybe 3 skeletal remains, and they are family not warriors, (not much of an army). 

Well, the link spoke of the Angel Mound site - not Cahokia - but yes I agree it is a little misleading and is post BoM. Does lend to the question of when/where the Mississippian Culture got arrow technology from. In fact if the Americas were inhabited 30,000 BC, where does the American arrow technology come from period? I assume now scientists will admit it was introduced later...but will say by the Thules ....

[sam]

9 minutes ago, Anijen said:

How do you make the connection, by your dates of 1000 BC to 200 BC compared to a 3000-10,000 BC skeletons? The Jaredites and Nephites lived in two different areas. The Hopewell and the Adena lived in the same area, exactly opposite of the Book of Mormon.  No writing, no large population, but maybe, just maybe, a really big maybe they did fake some relics to be found in Michigan under suspicious circumstances. Yep, maybe.

The skeletons you are referring to if they are not within the Adena and Hopewell time period they are not Adena or Hopewell its of no consequence.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, sam said:

I feel like the king has no clothes.

It would appear that you are looking at the wrong king, look to the "King of Kings". 

[sam]

2 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

It would appear that you are looking at the wrong king, look to the "King of Kings". 

huh

[UtahTexan]

23 hours ago, sam said:

I come to realize that there is no civilization in central or south America that apologist and researchers can point to as the Nephites.

I only say this because I would love to do a one on one comparison with the Hopewell Indians found in North America to a civilization found in central or south America but at this point that is not possible.

If anybody knows of a civilization found in central or south America that is considered the Nephites please let me know I honestly want to do a one on one comparison.

And your realization is important to us.....why?

[sam]

12 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

And your realization is important to us.....why?

Because North America offers a better fit.

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, sam said:

Because North America offers a better fit.

Everyone has an opinion......I read the book, "Voices from the Dust" that made a pretty good argument about South America.

Ultimately, it really does not matter.  When Heavenly Father wants us to know, I feel certain Heavenly Father will tell us.

[sam]

2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Everyone has an opinion......I read the book, "Voices from the Dust" that made a pretty good argument about South America.

Ultimately, it really does not matter.  When Heavenly Father wants us to know, I feel certain Heavenly Father will tell us.

At the end of the day your are right but its becoming more and more obvious that Heavenly father is going to tell us that it happened in North America.

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

May I ask why you haven't read the responses to your question that provide the names? I understand that you miss the subtle difference between being part of a culture and being a culture. Imagine you are LDS and living in the United States. I couldn't say that you believed and acted like every other person in the US, but I could say you shared a culture with them. I would think that regardless of your religious community, you would drive a car that non-LDS drive, eat most of the food that non-LDS eat, live in a house that might not be much different from a non-Mormon neighbor.

So I could say that you were LDS and US, but it wouldn't be correct to say all US are LDS.

In case you missed, it, and since you are making a big point of it, I will repeat my position. From the founding of the city of Nephi to Mosiah1, Maya culture. They were forced to leave, whereupon they joined with the people in Zarahemla--which would have been Zoque culture. 

The whole idea that either side can "win" without actually dealing with the evidence seems rather unusual. Wouldn't it be prudent to actually study both positions?

Great points.

Except...

...for the two hundred years following Jesus' visit in which everybody in the land was a believing, baptizing, TBM Christian.  There were no "others."

 17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. (4 Nephi)

They were also living in a totally peaceful, communal society for those two centuries.

For at least 200 years, the Christians weren't "part of a culture".  They were the culture.  And according to The Book of Mormon, they did believe and act like everyone else.

So to the degree that we are able to see what religion and economic system an ancient people practiced, we could at least rule out a group from being in Book of Mormon lands if it is discerned that there were any non-Christians, or poor, or wars in their area during the first two centuries after Jesus' death.

 

 

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, sam said:

At the end of the day your are right but its becoming more and more obvious that Heavenly father is going to tell us that it happened in North America.

Perhaps.  Predicting Heavenly Father is above my pay grade.

[sam]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

"Not quite" isn't proper, your research resembles anything utopia....I've spent 90% my free time (vacations/holidays) in Southwestern USA; 90% Utah Native American sites/Reservations ancient writings (petroglyphs/Pictographs), Four Corners/Texas/New Mexico/ to Everglades... Whatever BoM describes were not cultivated in these civilizations...

Unless you can prove otherwise the tribes east of the Rocky Mountain are a perfect fit. Names of some tribes and chiefs match up not to mention artifacts.

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, sam said:

Unless you can prove otherwise the tribes east of the Rocky Mountain are a perfect fit. Names of some tribes and chiefs match up not to mention artifacts.

I would take AM's opinion with a grain of salt.  Just because he has an opinion does not make it right.  I have been to every state in the contiguous 48.  I am not willing to say it never happened here.  but, Again, it really does not matter.

Edited September 7, 2016 by CountryBoy

[Brant Gardner]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Except...

...for the two hundred years following Jesus' visit in which everybody in the land was a believing, baptizing, TBM Christian.  There were no "others."

I should note that part of accepting the Book of Mormon as history requires that it be treated as history. That means, that if an ancient author wrote it, we should expect the ancient author to write in ways consistent with other authors. Why is that relevant? Well, you mention two hundred years after Christ that we had Christian people. That requires understanding in an ancient context. First, where were they? We might think they were all over--but that would be contrary to ancient ways of seeing the world. Their "whole world" was very small. In the case of this time period and location, it is a pretty thin scene archaeologically--and a lot was happening in other areas.

What about finding Christian artifacts? Again, what could we expect. Every icon we understand as Christian originated in a different hemisphere, cultural context, and time--so would we recognize one? Without knowing beforehand that it was Christian, would we thing a picture of a fish and a loaf of bread was particularly symbolic of anything more than lunch?

Next, as inheritors of a Jewish tradition, which was aniconic, we actually wouldn't expect that many iconic artifacts.

What about no "others?" That requires reading the text for what it means--and what it means as an ancient document. I strongly doubt that even at the time indicated there were no divisions--just that there were no political conflicts.

Finally, the structure of 4 Nephi strongly suggests that it isn't intended to give actual history. It is a symbolic and artificial history--indicated by the way Mormon constructed it and the way he changed his standard operating procedure for that one book.
 

Quote

So to the degree that we are able to see what religion and economic system an ancient people practiced, we could at least rule out a group from being in Book of Mormon lands if it is discerned that there were any non-Christians, or poor, or wars in their area during the first two centuries after Jesus' death.

What we find is a region that is depleted in population, and where the remaining population isn't significantly interacting with other peoples in the area. Those conditions can easily create a less divisive political system because there is much less to divide. As I remember, we don't see much evidence of militarism in that area, so that fits as well.

Again, if we are going to actually read the Book of Mormon as an ancient history, then it has to conform to ancient principles and not modern concepts we impose upon it.

[sam]

22 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

May I ask why you haven't read the responses to your question that provide the names? I understand that you miss the subtle difference between being part of a culture and being a culture. Imagine you are LDS and living in the United States. I couldn't say that you believed and acted like every other person in the US, but I could say you shared a culture with them. I would think that regardless of your religious community, you would drive a car that non-LDS drive, eat most of the food that non-LDS eat, live in a house that might not be much different from a non-Mormon neighbor.

So I could say that you were LDS and US, but it wouldn't be correct to say all US are LDS.

In case you missed, it, and since you are making a big point of it, I will repeat my position. From the founding of the city of Nephi to Mosiah1, Maya culture. They were forced to leave, whereupon they joined with the people in Zarahemla--which would have been Zoque culture. 

The whole idea that either side can "win" without actually dealing with the evidence seems rather unusual. Wouldn't it be prudent to actually study both positions?

Does the Zoque culture have Hebrew beliefs culture and language? North American tribes do have have Hebrew beliefs culture language and practices. Historians and adventures from different countries and centuries have commented and noted these similarities. If the Zoque culture is the Nephites then they should have something to show for it.