Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica

Bonnie

Super Member

5. Barley in the Americas​



Our final physical evidence is also small—as tiny as a single grain. In fact, it is a grain. In Mosiah 7:22 we read that the Nephites cultivated barley, even utilizing it for monetary purposes: “And behold, we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind,”

Barley comes up in the Book of Mormon four different times (Mosiah 7:22; 9:9; Alma 11:7, 15). Yet prior to A.D. 1492, this grain wasn’t known to have existed, let alone cultivated, in this hemisphere. Thus, more fodder for Book of Mormon criticism and ridicule.

It wasn’t until 1983 that archeologists acknowledged the existence and cultivation of a type of New World barley that dated to as early as 800 B.C.11
Sorry, but no, it isn't the "final evidence." While it is true it there is a species of barley found in the New World--called "little barley"--it did NOT come from the Old World, but is native to the New World, most likely originating in South America.

Hordeum pusillum - Wikipedia

Note the article says that this barley is not closely related to old world barley, hordeum vulgaris spontaneum, which is native to the Fertile Crescent area of the Middle East. IF ancient Israelites had come from there to the New World as per the BoM, then THAT is the type of barley they would have brought with them, which has a much bigger grain, and it would have been here when white men first came to this continent, but it wasn't.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Well, if this isn't excellent "evidence" of hoof-in-mouth disease which appears to be a pandemic amongst our critics, I don't know what is. Some might even say it's "proof". :)

But I'm sure that's the reason you posted the "evidence".

Digging into the Book of Mormon:Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture By John L. Sorenson


Until recently,the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only peaceful societies existed in the climactic Classic era,exemplified by the spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about A.D. 300 to 800. Only after A.D. 1000 was militarism supposed to have played a role in Mesoamerican history.

Increasingly it is apparent that war practices in use when the Europeans arrived go back to the very early history of Mesoamerica. Yet as late as ten years ago,most of the published descriptions of early life in the area directly contradicted this view. [Note this article was published September 1984]
Read my last post, BoJ. People ALL over the world are the same--they have been making war against each other for thousands of years. Some Indian societies were peaceful, some were not. Just because modern people erred about how "peaceful" Mesoamerican Indians were is hardly proof that Mesoamerica is where the BoM lands were located.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
This article talks about the history of the Mayans. It mentions the Book of Mormon, and states that there is no archeological evidence for it.

Great article, Maggie! This part jives with what I said:

When the Spanish arrived in the New World in the sixteenth century they were stunned by the astonishing beauty of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan (now the site of Mexico City). The architectural and engineering achievements were compared to Venice and other great cities of Europe. Later, as the Spanish explored the continent they encountered the long abandoned cities of the ancient Maya, which proved to be even more impressive. The problem for the Europeans was how to explain the high culture of the New World in terms of what was known about their own history. There was an incredible European conceit that the pagan, godless people of the New World could not have possibly built these magnificent cities without some sort of inspiration and guidance from the Old World. Consequently, the first attempts to explain the achievements of the ancient people of the New World were couched in terms of what was known at the time about the rise of civilization in the Old World. Of course, the source available to the scholars of the day, namely the priests of the Catholic church, was the Bible.

So, the Mayans had armor and formidable weapons, battlement, etc.--but were too stupid and unsophisticated to have come up with these things on their own, but had to have come down to them from their ancestors in the Middle East, eh?.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
The fact that they didn't write with vowels doesn't mean they didn't have them. :rolleyes:
Well, DUH! We know that! But it also means we many times must speculate as to which vowels were actually being used in each word--which means anyone can put whatever vowels one wishes to insert between the consonants. So, again, no evidence.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
No such claim as EVER been made, except by our critics who like to pretend such claims were made.
Oh yes it WAS made. Smith's own friends said that is how he got the "translation" of the BoM. I will show you in a minute.

From mrm.org:

In his Comprehensive History of the Church (CHC), LDS historian and Seventy Brigham H. Roberts quotes Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses whose name is found in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its original edition. Harris said that Smith possessed a seer stone, described by Roberts as a “chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum.” Roberts goes on to state that it was by using this stone that “Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates” (CHC 1:129).


The founder of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, claimed an angel named Moroni visited him in September of 1823. This heavenly messenger is reported to have told him about gold plates that contained a record of “former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” The plates were said to contain “the fulness of the everlasting Gospel” as it was “delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants.” In order to translate the language contained on the plates (a language called “Reformed Egyptian”), two stones in silver bows, called the Urim and Thummim, were included with the plates (Joseph Smith History 1:34-35). According to Smith’s testimony, four more years went by before the angel allowed him to retrieve the gold plates.
Joseph Smith said that,
“each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed” (History of the Church 4:537).

The question at hand, then, is whether or not Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon plates is true. If Smith truly was a prophet with the ability to decipher plates of an unknown language which were said to contain the story of Jesus’ appearance in the Americas, then this man should be revered and his translation of this ancient work heralded as God’s word to mankind. On the other hand, if the translation has no basis in fact, but instead is based on fraud, then it should be exposed and the man’s teachings about God and faith should be debunked. This is the difference between the way Mormons and critics of the LDS Church view Mormonism’s first prophet. What is the evidence?
The method in which Joseph Smith “translated” the gold plates has been a source of interest to many people who have studied the origins of the LDS movement. While many paintings and pictures used in Mormon visitor’s centers and books depict a prayerful Smith leaning over the plates, many contemporaries of Smith admit that he used a hat and a seer stone as a means of bringing about this “divine” record.

In his Comprehensive History of the Church (CHC), LDS historian and Seventy Brigham H. Roberts quotes Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses whose name is found in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its original edition. Harris said that Smith possessed a seer stone, described by Roberts as a “chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum.” Roberts goes on to state that it was by using this stone that “Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates” (CHC 1:129).
Martin Harris was one of the scribes Joseph Smith used to record the writing on the plates. This enabled him to give a first-hand account of how Smith performed this translation. Harris noted,
“By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used” (CHC 1:29).

Harris’ description concurs with that of David Whitmer, another one of the three witnesses whose testimony appears at the front of the Book of Mormon. Whitmer details exactly how the stone produced the English interpretation. On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote,

“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”

A Seer Stone and a Hat – "Translating" the Book of Mormon – Mormonism Research Ministry (mrm.org)
 
Last edited:

Mesenja

Active member
Hebrew does not have to add the word part to a verbal substantive like rent as English requires. Thus,broken in Hebrew can refer to a broken thing or a broken part,while new can refer to a new thing. In the verse the student cited,rent would mean rent thing or rent part. Thus,the "error" she saw as evidence of fraud was really a Hebraism that was evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

John Tvedtnes,“The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon,” in John Sorenson and Melvin Thorne,ed.,Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (1991), 78




Faith and Reason 15:The “Rent” Garment, Part 1​

August 7, 2014 by FairMormon Staff

From the book: Of Faith and Reason:80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith

By Michael R. Ash


In Alma 46 we read that Captain Moroni made a “banner of liberty” from his rent coat. In the original edition of the Book of Mormon we read: “And when Moroni had said these words,he went forth among the people,waving the rent of his garment in the air,that all might see the writing which he had wrote upon the rent, and crying with a loud voice…” (italics added).

For clarification and to improve the grammar,the current edition of the Book of Mormon reads: And when Moroni had said these words,he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air,that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part,and crying with a loud voice…” (Alma 46:19).

Critics have laughed at the original version for more than a century. To them,this was one more proof that the unsophisticated Joseph Smith wrote –rather than translated –the Book of Mormon. How can a “rent” be written upon?

In Hebrew,the word qera’ –which is translated as a noun for a “rent part” –derives from the Hebrew qara’ which is the verb form and means “he rent,tore”. This word also translates in a manner that makes “rent” a noun –just as we find in Alma 46.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
4. The Book of Mormon says the people of Zarahemla (commonly called Mulekites) sailed across the sea from the ancient Near East ca. 588 BC and made landfall in the land northward, then settled permanently in a sparsely-populated part of the land southward Alma 22:30-31, Omni 1:15-16. This means they must have sailed past the Olmec capital, La Venta,which was going strong in 588 BC.


The presence of Jewish/Phoenician seafarers in what is today Tabasco, Mexico would have been sensational news to the Olmec and we have good evidence that they memorialized the inter-cultural encounter in stone on La Venta Stela 3 excavated in 1943 by Matthew W. Stirling and Philip Drucker. This sculpture is generally dated ca. 600 - 550 BC and is sometimes euphemistically called the "Uncle Sam Stela."

Drucker said "... the principal figures on this monument represent a meeting of Olmec and non-Olmec personages." Philip Drucker, "On the Nature of Olmec Polity" in The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling, Elizabeth P. Benson,Editor,Washington,D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1981,p. 44. He goes on to say that La Venta Monuments 13 and 19 also depict non-Olmec foreigners arriving at the site.

Tatiana Proskouriakoff called the person on the right "... a bearded man with a conspicuously aquiline nose." She called the figure a "bearded visitor" and a "bearded stranger." She said "... these figures represent two racially distinct groups of people." Tatiana Proskouriakoff, "Olmec and Maya Art: Problems of Their Stylistic Relation" in Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec October 28th and 29th,1967, Elizabeth P. Benson,Editor,Washington,D.C. Dumbarton Oaks,1968, p. 122
Here is a picture of this La Venta Stela 3:

La Venta Stela 3. La Venta, Veracruz, Mexico. 900-400 BCE. Olmec. [681 x 1024] : ArtefactPorn (reddit.com)

TEiTk2Z4wWkNPpe1xfAgA1AB8w7U_uLYKnMKNnibYqI.jpg



You call this evidence? I don't see any aquiline noses and those beards look almost like some sort of headdress worn over the head. The dude at the bottom though, has quite the schnoz--looks as if it got broken.

This is still no evidence for a vast Nephite civilization in the NEW World Mesoamerica area. Again, speculation.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
What are you saying, Magdalena?
Chris Heimerdinger is another Mormon who has no training in archeology or languages, etc. He’s a fictional author. I was just surprised that he was being touted as an authority on anything.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Hebrew does not have to add the word part to a verbal substantive like rent as English requires. Thus,broken in Hebrew can refer to a broken thing or a broken part,while new can refer to a new thing. In the verse the student cited,rent would mean rent thing or rent part. Thus,the "error" she saw as evidence of fraud was really a Hebraism that was evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

John Tvedtnes,“The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon,” in John Sorenson and Melvin Thorne,ed.,Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (1991), 78




Faith and Reason 15:The “Rent” Garment, Part 1​

August 7, 2014 by FairMormon Staff

From the book: Of Faith and Reason:80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith

By Michael R. Ash


In Alma 46 we read that Captain Moroni made a “banner of liberty” from his rent coat. In the original edition of the Book of Mormon we read: “And when Moroni had said these words,he went forth among the people,waving the rent of his garment in the air,that all might see the writing which he had wrote upon the rent, and crying with a loud voice…” (italics added).

For clarification and to improve the grammar,the current edition of the Book of Mormon reads: And when Moroni had said these words,he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air,that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part,and crying with a loud voice…” (Alma 46:19).

Critics have laughed at the original version for more than a century. To them,this was one more proof that the unsophisticated Joseph Smith wrote –rather than translated –the Book of Mormon. How can a “rent” be written upon?

In Hebrew,the word qera’ –which is translated as a noun for a “rent part” –derives from the Hebrew qara’ which is the verb form and means “he rent,tore”. This word also translates in a manner that makes “rent” a noun –just as we find in Alma 46.
<<yawn>> already dealt with this earlier. Repeat-itis, anyone?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Chris Heimerdinger is another Mormon who has no training in archeology or languages, etc. He’s a fictional author. I was just surprised that he was being touted as an authority on anything.
He was? Where? in one of Mesenja's posts? Oh, I see it, on the "metal plates" supposed "evidence". Must be getting desperate...

You know, I was thinking...all of these Mormon archaeologists desperately want to prove the BoM true...so whenever they find ancient artifacts, writings, carvings, etc. in Mesoamerica, they are looking at them through Mormon-colored glasses--they will see these things as they WANT them to be--evidence for the BoM--rather than being unbiased and looking at them objectively.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Oh yes it WAS made. Smith's own friends said that is how he got the "translation" of the BoM. I will show you in a minute.

From mrm.org:



A Seer Stone and a Hat – "Translating" the Book of Mormon – Mormonism Research Ministry (mrm.org)
Part 2:

Robert N. Hullinger, in his book: Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism, cites a personal interview Emma Smith-Bidamon gave to a committee of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1879. He notes on pages 9-10: “Smith’s wife Emma supported Harris’s and Whitmer’s versions of the story in recalling that her husband buried his face in his hat while she was serving as his scribe.”

Dan Vogel also mentions Emma’s 1879 interview on pages 98-99 of his book, The Word of God:

“Smith’s wife, Emma Smith Bidamon, was interviewed late in her life by her son Joseph Smith III about her knowledge of the early [p.99] church. This interview took place in February 1879 in the presence of Lewis C. Bidamon, her husband. At one point Emma stated the following: ‘In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us… .'”

In volume two of “A New Witness for Christ in America,” LDS writer Francis Kirkham notes that Joseph Smith’s brother William also confirmed the use of the hat and seer stone. His account is also similar to the accounts given by Harris and Whitmer although he refers to the seer stone as the “Urim and Thummim.” He stated, “The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God” (2:417). William’s account leads us to wonder why Smith went through the bother of digging up the alleged plates if he didn’t even have to look at them during the “translation.”

Same link as in the last post. Now, Emma Smith, Whitmer, and Harris cannot be considered hostile witnesses, can they?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
4. The Book of Mormon says the people of Zarahemla (commonly called Mulekites) sailed across the sea from the ancient Near East ca. 588 BC and made landfall in the land northward, then settled permanently in a sparsely-populated part of the land southward Alma 22:30-31, Omni 1:15-16. This means they must have sailed past the Olmec capital, La Venta,which was going strong in 588 BC.


The presence of Jewish/Phoenician seafarers in what is today Tabasco, Mexico would have been sensational news to the Olmec and we have good evidence that they memorialized the inter-cultural encounter in stone on La Venta Stela 3 excavated in 1943 by Matthew W. Stirling and Philip Drucker. This sculpture is generally dated ca. 600 - 550 BC and is sometimes euphemistically called the "Uncle Sam Stela."

Drucker said "... the principal figures on this monument represent a meeting of Olmec and non-Olmec personages." Philip Drucker, "On the Nature of Olmec Polity" in The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling, Elizabeth P. Benson,Editor,Washington,D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1981,p. 44. He goes on to say that La Venta Monuments 13 and 19 also depict non-Olmec foreigners arriving at the site.

Tatiana Proskouriakoff called the person on the right "... a bearded man with a conspicuously aquiline nose." She called the figure a "bearded visitor" and a "bearded stranger." She said "... these figures represent two racially distinct groups of people." Tatiana Proskouriakoff, "Olmec and Maya Art: Problems of Their Stylistic Relation" in Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec October 28th and 29th,1967, Elizabeth P. Benson,Editor,Washington,D.C. Dumbarton Oaks,1968, p. 122
Did you notice that these conclusions are their own opinions? Drucker's, Benson's, and Proskouriakoff's? They act as if this stela is absolute proof of the Book of Mormon. When all it is--again--is speculation they have decided were facts.

I have seen some Mayan carvings on our cruises, when we have gone to ruins. Also, pictures of many more in National Geographic over the years. Many Mayans had large, flat, downward sloping noses. Heck, my FIL's best friend from his army days was a man of full blooded Mexican Indian descent--his profile looked just like some pictures I had seen over the years of the Mayans and other ancient Middle American people in National Geographic over the years. Here, I will show one example:

Bas-relief Carving With Of A Mayan King Pakal, Pre-Columbian.. Stock Photo, Picture And Royalty Free Image. Image 157082787. (123rf.com)

157082787-bas-relief-carving-with-of-a-mayan-king-pakal-pre-columbian-maya-civilization-palenque-chiapas-mexic.jpg


This guy has a good-sized schnoz....kinda like my FIL's best friend.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Hey, Batman was a Mayan!!!

camazotz_batman_maya.jpg



pictures of ancient mayans Batman - Bing images

I just put this in for fun, to show how anachronistic coincidences can pop up anywhere and don't prove anything.

Egyptians built pyramids...so did the Mayans and some other Indians in the New World. So did people in ancient Thailand and other places nearby....does that mean they were all related to each other or descendants of each other?
 
Last edited:

Mesenja

Active member
Wikipedia
Cannibalism in pre-Columbian America

There is universal agreement that some Mesoamerican people practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, but there is no scholarly consensus as to its extent.
Moroni 9:7-8

8 And the husbands and fathers of those women and children they have slain;and they feed the women upon the flesh of their husbands,and the children upon the flesh of their fathers;and no water,save a little,do they give unto them.
 
Top