This is what archeologists do.

[_beastie]

The reason I ask is, if we can get the Lehites to the shores of the Old World, building a boat, would that hold any interest?

How come everyone keeps tromping around on the other side of the ocean to the exclusion of looking at some interesting "evidences" in the Old World?

I've explained my lack of interest in Old World connections several times.

During Joseph Smith' time, the Old World in general, and the Biblical era in particular, had a long history of study. There was a lot of knowledge about both topics. This knowledge was obtainable through natural means. Given the fact that it is impossible to qualify exactly what knowledge the author of the Book of Mormon was exposed to, it is thereby impossible to qualify which information in the Book of Mormon could not have been obtained through natural means.

By contrast, there was hardly any reliable information about ancient Mesoamerica during Joseph Smith' time period. There were a lot of ideas about ancient America, and many of those ideas are in the Book of Mormon, but not much reliable information. A little, not much. Therefore, it would be fairly easy to recognize information in the Book of Mormon about ancient Mesoamerica that could only be obtained supernaturally.

There is none, by the way.

[_Trevor]

I read the wiki, too. But did Hilton claim revelation from God? Special interpreters?

What difference does that make? Because someone makes up a phony story about the discovery of an ancient text, we are supposed to take him on his word? I am supposed to be impressed because my neighbor claimed that an elf led him to Atlantis? What exactly inspires confidence in this story? That he was able to dupe the same group of people who bought his treasure expeditions? I really am not impressed.

[_charity]

You specifically said the time frame didn't match. You said:

Maya doesn't seem to match times, being both earlier and later than the Nephite civilization of 600 B.C. to 400 A.D.

You have yet to clarify this statement.

I have twice. Let me simplify.

Mayan civilization started about 1800 B.C. and lasted until abouit 1200 A.D.

Nephites arrrive in New World, sometime after 600 B.C. and are exterminated about 400 A.D.

You don't see the problem there?

Clarify= If an identified group is in the area by 1800 B.C. they can't be the group that arrives in 600 B.C. If an identified group exists until 1200 A.D. they can't be the group that was exterminated in 400 A.D.

THE DATES DON'T MATCH!!!!!!!!

Now, like I said in a subsequent post, that doesn't' mean that the 1,000 year group isn't around during the period of time that the 3,000 year group is. It just means they aren't one and the same.

[_Trevor]

Maybe we have not done enough space travel to rule out the truth of Urantia.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urantia

"Part II consists of 25 papers dedicated to an array of subjects pertaining to "local universes." Part II expands on Part I and presents narratives on the inhabitants of local universes and their work, as it is coordinated with God’s plans in the larger schemes of creation."

[_beastie]

I have twice. Let me simplify.

Mayan civilization started about 1800 B.C. and lasted until abouit 1200 A.D.

Nephites arrrive in New World, sometime after 600 B.C. and are exterminated about 400 A.D.

You don't see the problem there?

Clarify= If an identified group is in the area by 1800 B.C. they can't be the group that arrives in 600 B.C. If an identified group exists until 1200 A.D. they can't be the group that was exterminated in 400 A.D.

THE DATES DON'T MATCH!!!!!!!!

Now, like I said in a subsequent post, that doesn't' mean that the 1,000 year group isn't around during the period of time that the 3,000 year group is. It just means they aren't one and the same.

Yes, I understand you don't truly ascribe to LGT. You think you do, but you don't. When Clark says Nephite artifacts are mislabeled "Maya", he doesn't mean that the entire Maya culture is the equivalent of the Nephite culture. He means that a small polity, here and there, were Nephite and we just don't know it because we can't recognize a "Nephite pot". They were part and parcel of the larger Maya (or other neighboring) culture, completely enmeshed within that culture - with the exception of their religion. (which makes no sense, because the entire Mesoamerican culture was based on religion)

But I do agree that your nonLGT interpretation is more coherent with the actual text of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does clearly describe the extermination of an entire civilization, not simply the cessation of a particular royal bloodline or the destruction of one polity. Unfortunately for you, your interpretation is still inconsistent with LGT.


by the way, how in the world do you figure the Olmecs are a good match?

[_Trevor]

by the way, how in the world do you figure the Olmecs are a good match?

Does it even matter? Most of us who do not accept that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document also understand that those who do have no defensible and coherent overarching vision of the book.

[_Jersey Girl]

JERUSALEM - A wall mentioned in the Bible's Book of Nehemiah and long sought by archaeologists apparently has been found, an Israeli archaeologist says.

The findings suggest that the structure was actually part of the same city wall the Bible says Nehemiah rebuilt, Mazar said. The Book of Nehemiah gives a detailed description of construction of the walls, destroyed earlier by the Babylonians.

"We were amazed," she said, noting that the discovery was made at a time when many scholars argued that the wall did not exist. "This was a great surprise. It was something we didn't plan," Mazar said.

However, another scholar disputed the significance of the discovery.

Does this sound at all familiar.

I'll take familiar sounds for 200$ Alex.

Does the above give you hope that there will be Book of Mormon discoveries in the future?

I don't see a reply to my question from charity anywhere on this thread, though I admittedly only scanned the thread to look for a reply. Was my question too stupid? Well, I'll save myself the trouble of re-stating the question and charity the trouble of forumulating an answer. Here goes...

In the not so distant future, charity, Book of Mormon archaeology will be the VERY LEAST of problems for the Book of Mormon and those who believe it's content as scripture.

Jersey Girl

[_beastie]

Does it even matter? Most of us who do not accept that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document also understand that those who do have no defensible and coherent overarching vision of the book.

It doesn't matter in any meaningful sense of the word "matter". But, to be fair, there are varying degrees of incoherence among believers, and at times I find it interesting to probe whether or not a specific believer has even a modicum of coherence and consistency.

[_Trevor]

It doesn't matter in any meaningful sense of the word "matter". But, to be fair, there are varying degrees of incoherence among believers, and at times I find it interesting to probe whether or not a specific believer has even a modicum of coherence and consistency.

It is my experience with LDS apologetics that it thrives on creating superfluous complexities. If every simple question can be broken into a thousand nitpicking problems, and you bite, then the apologist has kept you from the nagging realities. I would be amazed if a coherent vision could emerge from an enterprise that is designed to manufacture a morass of pointless arguments.

[_beastie]

It is my experience with LDS apologetics that it thrives on creating superfluous complexities. If every simple question can be broken into a thousand nitpicking problems, and you bite, then the apologist has kept you from the nagging realities. I would be amazed if a coherent vision could emerge from an enterprise that is designed to manufacture a morass of pointless arguments.

I must admit, that is a pretty accurate description of LDS apologetics in my experience. Michael Coe has made a similar statement:

Yale's Michael Coe likes to talk about what he calls "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness," the tendency among Mormon theorists like Sorenson to keep the discussion trained on all sorts of extraneous subtopics (like tapirs and nuptial beds) while avoiding what is most obvious: that Joseph Smith probably meant "horse" when he wrote down the word "horse," and that all the archaeology in the world is not likely to change the fact that horses as we know them weren't around until the Spaniards arrived on American shores.

"They're always going after the nitty-gritty things," Coe told me. "Let's look at this specific hill. Let's look at that specific tree. It's exhausting to follow all these mind-numbing leads. It keeps the focus off the fact that it's all in the service of a completely phony history. Where are the languages? Where are the cities? Where are the artifacts? Look here, they'll say. Here's an elephant. Well, that's fine, but elephants were wiped out in the New World around 8,000 B.C. by hunters. There were no elephants!"

http://www.rickross.com/reference/Mormon/mormon33.html