DiscussMormonism.com

Did the Brethren hope that it NWAF, working in the area where it was to work, and on the period on which it was to concentrate, would uncover evidence supportive of the Book of Mormon? Yes, I'm sure that they did. (And several of us think that it has.) Did they expect "proof"? I know of nothing to suggest that they did, though I'm reasonably certain that Thomas Ferguson did. (That's a large part of my problem with him.)

This is a quote from Mr Peterson on another thread.

My question - what evidence was uncovered?

jon wrote:Did the Brethren hope that it NWAF, working in the area where it was to work, and on the period on which it was to concentrate, would uncover evidence supportive of the Book of Mormon? Yes, I'm sure that they did. (And several of us think that it has.) Did they expect "proof"? I know of nothing to suggest that they did, though I'm reasonably certain that Thomas Ferguson did. (That's a large part of my problem with him.)

This is a quote from Mr Peterson on another thread.

My question - what evidence was uncovered?

Paintings of white-skinned Mayans riding on tapirs, wielding steel swords and eating wheat bread.

Buffalo wrote:

jon wrote:Did the Brethren hope that it NWAF, working in the area where it was to work, and on the period on which it was to concentrate, would uncover evidence supportive of the Book of Mormon? Yes, I'm sure that they did. (And several of us think that it has.) Did they expect "proof"? I know of nothing to suggest that they did, though I'm reasonably certain that Thomas Ferguson did. (That's a large part of my problem with him.)

This is a quote from Mr Peterson on another thread.

My question - what evidence was uncovered?

Paintings of white-skinned Mayans riding on tapirs, wielding steel swords and eating wheat bread.

He's the Indiana Jones of Mormonism. He probably found proof in a booby trapped temple, and after escaping the rolling boulder, had the evidence stolen from him by an anti-mormon who sicked the natives on him.

jon wrote:Did the Brethren hope that it NWAF, working in the area where it was to work, and on the period on which it was to concentrate, would uncover evidence supportive of the Book of Mormon? Yes, I'm sure that they did. (And several of us think that it has.) Did they expect "proof"? I know of nothing to suggest that they did, though I'm reasonably certain that Thomas Ferguson did. (That's a large part of my problem with him.)

This is a quote from Mr Peterson on another thread.

My question - what evidence was uncovered?

If the brethren did not expect "proof" - that's quite an indictment on their confidence in the text as historical, IMHO. Why the hell wouldn't they have expected "proof" to be uncovered all over the place?

Baker wrote:

jon wrote:Did the Brethren hope that it NWAF, working in the area where it was to work, and on the period on which it was to concentrate, would uncover evidence supportive of the Book of Mormon? Yes, I'm sure that they did. (And several of us think that it has.) Did they expect "proof"? I know of nothing to suggest that they did, though I'm reasonably certain that Thomas Ferguson did. (That's a large part of my problem with him.)

This is a quote from Mr Peterson on another thread.

My question - what evidence was uncovered?

If the brethren did not expect "proof" - that's quite an indictment on their confidence in the text as historical, IMHO. Why the hell wouldn't they have expected "proof" to be uncovered all over the place?

Exactly. If I knew it was true, I would expect to find proof somewhere.

If I remember correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong Dr P, but his argument was that archaeologists uncovered horse bones from a layer of strata where they did not expect to find them. Since they had preconceived notions about horse bones, they either discarded it and/or considered the dig site tainted.

Rather than re-examining whether horses existed during the time frame the strata suggested, the preconceived notions that the horse bone must be out of place was used.

Mormon apologists, however, believe that the horse bone is direct evidence that horses existed outside of the time frame archaeologists believe. It may not be within exact Book of Mormon time frames, but it's pre-Colombian. However, it shows that archaeological beliefs about pre-Colombian horses is incorrect.

Scottie wrote:If I remember correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong Dr P, but his argument was that archaeologists uncovered horse bones from a layer of strata where they did not expect to find them. Since they had preconceived notions about horse bones, they either discarded it and/or considered the dig site tainted.

Rather than re-examining whether horses existed during the time frame the strata suggested, the preconceived notions that the horse bone must be out of place was used.

Mormon apologists, however, believe that the horse bone is direct evidence that horses existed outside of the time frame archaeologists believe. It may not be within exact Book of Mormon time frames, but it's pre-Colombian. However, it shows that archaeological beliefs about pre-Colombian horses is incorrect.

Horses evolved in the Americas, but they died out before Book of Mormon times.

What was the date for that layer of strata?

Buffalo wrote:Horses evolved in the Americas, but they died out before Book of Mormon times.

That's the current theory. Apologists think the current theory should be re-evaluated since they found bones in pre-Colombian strata.

What was the date for that layer of strata?

I don't remember all the specifics.

jon wrote:Did the Brethren hope that it NWAF, working in the area where it was to work, and on the period on which it was to concentrate, would uncover evidence supportive of the Book of Mormon? Yes, I'm sure that they did. (And several of us think that it has.) Did they expect "proof"? I know of nothing to suggest that they did, though I'm reasonably certain that Thomas Ferguson did. (That's a large part of my problem with him.)

This is a quote from Mr Peterson on another thread.

My question - what evidence was uncovered?

Consig probably has quite a few more "hits" up his sleeve (wink to Consig). I have read a couple of his non-message board articles, though, and they are considerably better (much more research). In any case, an old FAIR (it would have been FAIR at the time) thread might be of interest:

The Full Text Of The William Albright Letter: Did Albright Find Egyptian Names in Book of Mormon?.

I should also point out that many critics see a dividing line between old world evidences before Lehi and company sailed to the Americas and mesoamerican evidences.

There are some evidences, such as NHM, Bountiful, Chiasmus, and some linguistic phrases such as river of water. As Ray said, Consig has a long list of "bullseyes". While I haven't seen one that counts as an actual bullseye, any intellectually honest person has to count these in the arena of evidences. I'm also still waiting for Consig to claim that the use of the word "the" in the Book of Mormon is a bullseye! ;)

As of yet, I know of no evidences that have been brought forth from mesoamerica.

I should also point out that the use of the word "proof" is pretty ballsy. There is no proof one way or the other. We have evidences, each with their own weight.