Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica

[Bonnie]

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.

Cannibalism goes back to antiquity, all over the world:

Human cannibalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[John t]

Why isn’t the Mormon church claiming all this “evidence?”

Because it is not peer-reviewed, and it will be distributed by those who are ignorant of the rigors to have something peer reviewed.

Any serious -level discussion of those so-called "evidences" can only prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are simply grasping at straws once again.

 

[brotherofJared]

As you wish...

William Armitage (1857–1940), Joseph Smith Preaching to the Indians, c. 1870.
“Let the Government of the United States also continue to gather together, and to colonize the tribes and remnants of Israel (the Indians), and also to feed, clothe, succor, and protect them, and endeavor to civilize and unite; and also to bring them to the knowledge of their Israelitish origin, and of the fulness of the gospel which was revealed to, and written by, their forefathers on this land;… He has revealed the origin and the Records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny. —And we know it. He has revealed the fulness of the gospel, with its gifts, blessings, and ordinances. —And we know it. He has commanded us to bear witness of it, first to the Gentiles and then to the remnants of Israel and the Jews. —And we know it. He has commanded us to gather together his Saints on this Continent, and build up holy cities and sanctuaries. —And we know it.” PROCLAMATION of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. New York April 6, 1845. James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 1:, p.252-266

There are several other quotes on this same link.

Please provide one that says "Thus saith the Lord God, native Americans are lamanites".

You do understand that the words I'm looking for are within the quotes, right?

 

[brotherofJared]

LOTS of irrefutable evidence might be proof

You ought to share your view with your other cohorts. They seem to think that evidence is proof.

 

[brotherofJared]

.but what has been put down on here so far is mostly speculation and not proof of any kind, or real evidence, or irrefutable.

Again, I appreciate your opinion, but it isn't even in the ballpark. The evidence is real. It is irrefutable. Your opinion is neither.

 

[brotherofJared]

Joseph Smith told the North American Indians that they were the lamanites.

Are you changing your argument? Did Joseph Smith tell all of them? Can you prove he did?

Everyone knew about the Indians fighting each other.

Yeah. This is the pandemic I'm talking about amongst our critics. Maybe you knew about the Indians fighting each other, but someone forgot to tell the scholars because they seem to think they were peaceful. This notion, according to the evidence, which is "proof", continued until around 1970. Joseph Smith was dead by then... But maybe we need to check the evidence on that.

So it was nothing new for him to put it in his story.

 

[brotherofJared]

Cannibalism goes back to antiquity, all over the world:

Uh huh. Show me anything from the 1800s where cannibalism was thought to exist amongst the Mesoamerican inhabitants during the period covered by the Book of Mormon.

 

[brotherofJared]

That is true.

Well, there we have it folks. Because our critics agree with each other it must be "true".

 

[brotherofJared]

When white settlers came to NA, they encountered tribes that often warred with one another.

But we aren't talking about NA tribes, are we? Where do we see the type of preparation for war amongst the NA tribes described in the Book of Mormon? We don't because they didn't. But we do see it in Mesoamerica about the time period covered by the Book of Mormon.

I would wonder, if a book says that banks of earth were heaped up around a city for fortification, I would think we'd find something like that. Well, guess what? We did.

 

[brotherofJared]

The Mesoamericans seemed to have done so at a much greater degree, but so what? That still does not prove the BoM is true.

No one said it did. That's not the argument here at all. One of you guys said there is no evidence, but there is and we have it and the corpus of evidence continues to grow. And some of you claim that evidence is proof. While it doesn't prove the Book of Mormon is true. It does validate the history described within the Book of Mormon.

But the truth of the Book of Mormon comes through a witness of the Spirit, not by the preponderance of the evidence.

 

[brotherofJared]

That does not answer my question. As usual.

It didn't look like a question that required an answer. I'm not going to address your opinions outside of pointing out the absurdity of them. What the Indians could have done and did do are two different things.

 

[brotherofJared]

No one could wave an actual hole

Well, you right about that. Of course, that idea was the whole point of the argument, not that it matters...

 

[brotherofJared]

Of course not. But putting adieu in the BoM is anachronistic

Based on that argument, putting in the word "God" is also anachronistic.

 

[brotherofJared]

Pure speculation. Smith could have easily made up Mulek.

Yes. But it's speculation based on evidence (or "proof"). It's substantiated whereas your speculation is based solely on your opinion or the opinions of others of your ilk.

 

[brotherofJared]

So, lots of ancient peoples used cement/concrete.

But NA tribes didn't. They lived in TeePees. Maybe some of those ancient people from Greece or Italy came over to Mesoamerica and brought cement with them.

See, the concept of Book of Mormon peoples using cement would be an example of an anachronism (whereas translating a language from one language into another is not). But, them nasty ole archaeologists went and found cement totally ruining that possibility.

 

[brotherofJared]

Pure speculation. Smith could have easily made up Mulek.

Do you think he made up the name, Malkiyahu ben hamelek, too?

 

[brotherofJared]

MORE on NHM:

But of course, we know how worthless mrm and ultm are.

 

[brotherofJared]

Mormanity
Burying Nahom

Both Nahom in the Book of Mormon and Nihm in Southern Arabia match in the following interlocking details:

Both are places with a Semitic name based on the tri-consonantal root nhm.

Both pre-date 600 bce (implied in 1 Nephi 16:34).

Both are places for the burial of the dead (1 Nephi 16:34).

Both are at the southern end of a travel route moving south-southeast (1 Nephi 16:13–14, 33),which subsequently turns toward the east from that point (1 Nephi 17:1).

Both have “bountiful” lands,consistent in 12 particular details,approximately east of its location (1 Nephi 17:4).

While the presence of similar names in the Bible might be able to explain the first of these correlations,it simply cannot account for the all the ways the two places correspond. Daniel C. Peterson once commented,“nhm isn’t just a name. It is a name and a date and a place and a turn in the ancient trail and a specific relationship to another location.”
Suggesting that Joseph Smith simply got the name Nahom from the Bible is an insufficient explanation of the correlation.

Yea, but who cares about interlocking details when we have mrm and ultm? I know our critics don't.

 

[brotherofJared]

wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon.

all, of which, have been educated by the great propagandist machines MRM and UTLM and some of them will even deny that they got any of their information from those sites (but conveniently quote from them anyway.)

 

[brotherofJared]

But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just,frankly,absurd.

I couldn't agree more. Our critics continue to fight with their opinion in spite of the evidence.