Jump to content

Would the Lds Church Be Interest in Researching the Masaya Nicaragua Area for Bom Related Antiques


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Just how does one calculate the percentage of what has yet to be discovered?

Probably how much has been found by scanning to how much has been excavated, I am guessing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Just how does one calculate the percentage of what has yet to be discovered?

The list of anachronisms in the model divided by the list of things described in the Book of Mormon = the percentage of things yet to be discovered

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to post
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Swords?  Again, that's been addressed a lot.  

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

From your article:

Quote

For an archaeologist to find swords or other weapons in the Old World (the ancient Near East) is very unusual.

As a matter of fact although hundreds of times as much archaeological digging has been done in the Near East as in Mesoamerica, finds of Near Eastern weapons of any type are rarely made. The obvious reason for that is that the kinds of places archaeologists excavate (e.g., temples, elite houses, public buildings) are not where weapons were kept or left anciently.

As a matter of fact, there was little or no reason to intentionally leave a perfectly good weapon anywhere. It would be passed on to another person/warrior, or if left unintentionally it would be salvaged by the first person to find it.

Yet, swords are found all the time and in museums around the world.  I posted a link to a paper analyzing a Grecian sword. 

Link to post
12 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And that is proof of what?

Proof of nothing. I believe that we will not see any genuine Verified Nephite artifacts in my lifetime.  But there have been interesting discoveries.
We are not even sure we’re looking in the right places. 
The Church has gotten out of the proof business for very good reasons. Mostly because no one really knows where BoM events took place, but more importantly the leaders realize that the members need to walk by faith. 

Link to post
11 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Just how does one calculate the percentage of what has yet to be discovered?

Lidar has made us realize that archeologists are just scratching the surface of what is out there yet to be discovered. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 9/9/2020 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

From here:

I will once again note how our critics tend to not listen to what we have to say.  Nothing above is new, and yet here you are, asking for "evidence for historicity," as if none has ever been produced before.

Cue the No True Scotsman fallacy in 3...2...

Thanks.  I'm not seeing any particular evidence for historicity in there.  for instance, if you are to argue Joseph didn't write the book that hardly provides evidence that it must have been written 1400-2400 years before Joseph Smith.  Indeed, many apologists are on the fad of the book being written a couple centuries before Joseph, thanks to Carmack and Skousen.  I'm certain their are claimed archaeology in some of the other links you offer--like from BoM Central or Fair.  But, alas, I was simply asking for some argument that supported historicity but was not archaeological.  I figured you had some argument for that.  I'm not seeing it, but would be interested.  

On 9/9/2020 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

Jenkins seemed to be doing that.  But I stand corrected as far as you are concerned.

Or "create plausible grounds for" historicity.  I think think "verify" may be a bit strong.

To "verify" means "to make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified."

We cannot "verify" the historicity of the Book of Mormon (and critics can't "verify" their alternative naturalistic explanations for it).  I think what we can do is present an argument for plausibility, while still focusing on the preeminence of Moroni's Promise as the central basis for accepting the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be.

Of course the problem here is simply, many, or at least some, who accept the BoM as scripture, via Moroni's promise, do not think it is anciently written.  Some believers actually think the book is modern.  So, it seems, suggesting it's scripture does not necessarily mean it is history.  Also, as it turns out, there is no reason to accept an internal witness from someone else.  That doesn't supply evidence.  Afterall internal witness is not any sort of verifiable evidence (notice I"m calling evidence verifiable).  

On 9/9/2020 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

Pretty much all of them.

One that provides a coherent, evidence-based explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon.

Okay.

I want to contextualize archaeology in terms of understanding what it presently can and cannot say regarding the origins of the Book of Mormon.

That doesn't mean "shy{ing} away from" it.  I provide five archaeological evidences in the list above.

No you don't.  

On 9/9/2020 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

First, I haven't shied away from archaeology.

Second, you seem to be reverting back to the archaeology-is-the-sole-or-predominant-source-of-evidence-for-the-origins-of-the-Book-of-Mormon way of thinking, despite your previous disclaimer of "archaeology {being} the only discipline capable of confirming or support historicity claims."

Third, "the burden" is not "strained" by acknowledging the limitations of what archaeology can presently tell us about whether there were Nephites.

Fourth, "the burden" is met primarily and predominantly through Moroni's Promise.  Ancillary evidences are helpful, but not dispositive.

I haven't seen that.  Not even close.  So yes, I disagree.

Only if meeting "the burden" is restricted to the current state of Mesoamerican archaeology.  That's what you seem to be saying, while elsewhere denying it.  Weird.

Sigh.

Again, our critics aren't listening to what we have to say.

And again, there is an implication that "unable to meet the burden" is code for "you can't point to specific precolumbian Mesoamerican artifacts 'verifying' the existence of the Nephites, ergo your position has been 'defeat{ed}."

No.  The implication for unable to meet the burden is simply you have failed to meet the burden.  That is precisely why no one outside of those who have an internal, thus subjective and unverifiable, witness have accepted any claimed evidence for historicity--and as it turns out some of those who have an internal witness also believe the book is modern.  

On 9/9/2020 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

I think you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions here.  Big time.

Agreed.

But for those who propose alternative naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Book of Mormon, they do have a burden for defending such claims.  This does not seem to be working well.

I think you are misunderstanding how this works.  If someone claims, for instance, Bigfoot is real.  Then it is that person's burden to prove that claim.  If he says, "well I saw him, so I know he's there".  That does not meet the burden of proving Bigfoot exists.  He simply is making a claim.  it could be he is lying, or mistaken in what he saw.  A skeptic need not accept the claim, reasonably, because it's possible he's lying or mistaken.  The same is true here, the reasonable position is to say either Joseph was mistaken or is lying about the BoM origins.  The unreasonable is to say, "well since I feel like or have an internal witness that the story happened to real people during ancient times, then that shows i'm right.  And you would have to prove that the story is not ancient because you settled on it not being ancient when I failed to meet the burden".  This is like the Bigfoot believer requiring the bigfoot skeptic that its not possible there is no bigfoot at all. The reasonable position is not accepting a far-out claim, if there is no evidence for that claim.  There is no burden to prove something that is completely reasonable.  The book appeared in the 19th Century, there's no verifiable piece of evidence to suggest it existed before.   

In other words, you position is unreasonable in terms of demanding the reasonable person to prove the default reasonable position.   It simply doesn't make sense.  

On 9/9/2020 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

The Church's "burden" is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to invite people to read and study and pray about the Book of Mormon as a testament of Jesus Christ, and to invite them to make covenants with God through baptism and other ordinances.  The mechanism for meeting these "burdens" centers on Moroni's Promise.  Secondary evidences can be helpful, but are far from necessary.

Thanks,

-Smac

The church can assume any burden it wants.  In terms of spiritual primacy, I suppose, it can say it's the bestest ever.  I mean it's an unprovable claim since spiritual is simply an abstract concept.  Sounds like playing in the world of make-believe to me...but hey have at it.  

Link to post
7 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Lidar has made us realize that archeologists are just scratching the surface of what is out there yet to be discovered. 

And what should I conclude from that?  

What is evidence?  Non-evidence?

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And what should I conclude from that?  

That it might be wise to withhold concluding anything for awhile. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
On 9/10/2020 at 2:52 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

The other day I asked why other groups were present in the Americas when the Jaredites and Lehites arrived. This went against the promise made.

I have no recollection of this.

On 9/10/2020 at 2:52 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Your response was that the promises were conditional and the Nephites must have broken the conditions.

CFR.  I don't think I said any such thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
On 9/8/2020 at 2:26 PM, stemelbow said:

Give one item that we can call evidence that the BoM is some form of a true history, locate that item somewhere in Nicaragua and the Church might actually donate part of its vast resources to it.  Until something we call evidence can be found, though, I don't think the Church is going to waste its money on finding nothing.  As someone pointed out earlier the Church learned its lesson on thinking something that can be said to fall in the realm of evidence for the BoM can be found.  

There are only geographic evidences left by the Book of Mormon, which explicitly define the location of the Nephite Heartland, as being in Central America. Unfortunately scholars and speculators have misrepresented those facts, to fit the Geographic regions they have an interest in, leading some members  to anchor their testimony of the BOM on false geographic premise . While the LDS Church has not endorsed any location, many members have adhered to the locations falsely identified, and are unwilling or incapable of accepting the truth. I would nevertheless urge the Church to do a preliminary assessment of the “ Narrow Passage of Land” on the Pacific coast of Nicaragua, to determine if it fit the geographic location for the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites, culminating at Cumorah.

25605104-2B11-41F3-95D7-B53BE6C09108.jpeg

Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 11:41 PM, smac97 said:

Rajah: The other day I asked why other groups were present in the Americas when the Jaredites and Lehites arrived. This went against the promise made.
Smac: I have no recollection of this.
Rajah: Your response was that the promises were conditional and the Nephites must have broken the conditions.
Smac: CFR.  I don't think I said any such thing.

From here: 

Quote

If you read 2 Nephi 1 very carefully, and pay attention to context, the specific blessings and associated covenant curses, it should become very obvious that the notion that the Nephi's would have the land to themselves, secure from "other nations"  (not other "people"-- Villages are not nations) is only non-exclusive (it includes whoever the Lord leads there), and, conditional. 

If you read the conditions in Lehi's blesssing and consider the history, it should become apparent that the conditions were broken from almost the start.

 

Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/18/2020 at 12:04 PM, Jracforr said:

There are only geographic evidences left by the Book of Mormon, which explicitly define the location of the Nephite Heartland, as being in Central America. Unfortunately scholars and speculators have misrepresented those facts, to fit the Geographic regions they have an interest in, leading some members  to anchor their testimony of the BOM on false geographic premise . While the LDS Church has not endorsed any location, many members have adhered to the locations falsely identified, and are unwilling or incapable of accepting the truth. I would nevertheless urge the Church to do a preliminary assessment of the “ Narrow Passage of Land” on the Pacific coast of Nicaragua, to determine if it fit the geographic location for the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites, culminating at Cumorah.

25605104-2B11-41F3-95D7-B53BE6C09108.jpeg

The Town of CATARINA maybe of particular interest

Link to post

If I was a billionaire, I would fund a massive LIDAR study.  Use about 50 blimps and slowly scan every acre of that area over a several year period.  If there are hidden destroyed cities, LIDAR will pick them up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Forget pottery.  We need to find the Hill Cumorah. Then start digging to find all the Nephite records. 

The Town CATARINA is situated near an extinct Volcano which has a Panoramic View of the Narrow Passage of Land leading into the 
Land Desolation / Nicaragua. This narrow passage is the only unobstructed, land access into Nicaragua from Costa Rica / Bountiful, all other access points, necessitate crossing a River or Lake. Catarina is possible the best strategic point to make a final stand in defense of the Nephite place of refuge, while MORMON could easily enjoy a panoramic view of the battlefield from the Volcano/ CUMORAH, at an elevation exceeding 1500 feet. All evidence “seem” to suggest Comorah is in the Vicinity of CATARINA.

Edited by Jracforr
Link to post
On 9/7/2020 at 8:31 PM, Jracforr said:

Funding research wouldn’t necessarily mean you are taking a position on the matter, rather it could be seen as trying to arrive at a position by exploring plausible alternatives, let the end result speak for itself, be it yea or nea.

It would be seen as tainted from the first minute.

Link to post
30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It would be seen as tainted from the first minute.

If you previously stated a particular preference for a certain geographic location, and you are now willing to explore other venues, then some may question your judgement , but the Church has no known geographic  preference that I am aware of. It maybe biased to a commonly held view and that is understandable and acceptable . However the very nature of the Church’s mission is to correct established beliefs that are founded on errors, so why would it be unwilling to seek to correct an error among its own members, if indeed an error exists. Even more so, why worry about being “tainted” because you are questioning  assume misunderstanding, is not the whole LDS Church already “tainted” for offering another “Testimony of Christ”. 
Research by it’s very nature, necessitates trial and experimentation, so there is no need to fear what other may assume because you are seeking truth, if Joseph Smith feared being “ Tainted” he would have hid those ancient plates and kept his mouth shut, but he did not.
 

Link to post
On 10/6/2020 at 2:52 PM, Stargazer said:

It would be seen as tainted from the first minute.

The good stuff needs to be found by a non believing Gentile. 

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...