Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No. Opinions were presented. What you consider evidence has been dealt with. I'm not interested in opinion from an apologist.
If the people you present are accredited scholars, archeologist and anthropologist etc. then I'm all ears, but know, their findings should be reviewed and scrutinized by their colleagues in their field. This would mean that if you present and LDS scholar or Archeologist then we should find agreement from their peers.
For now the LDS have supposed know it alls representing them but it appears their work isn't peer reviewed. To me that's a problem.
"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John E. Clark, Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, No. 2, 2005 p.42 The entire article is titled "Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" published by FARMS 2005."
There is no way you guys should be letting people like this speak for you. FARMS - Peer review and scholarly credentials
I could live with this if the Mormons went on record and asserted that e.g.the Mayans were the BoM people. Then we could test their DNA, examine their artifacts and ruins, record their language, and come to a conclusion as to whether that was the case. My experience (not in this thread, but at this forum) is that the LDS never go on record as saying where they think these events occurred or which people they believe to be Lamanites. Over the last century, it's gone from all Native Americans and all of America to an unknown, unspecifiable, but apparently tiny location. Thus in it becomes an unfalsifiable proposition.