Did they uncover iron swords? Where there any Chariots? What about horses? Was any reformed Egyptian or Hebrew found?

Just checking.

This sounds like the kind of ancient defenses that a great captain would try to build if his culture were under attack. The very powers of hell would have been shaken forever if we could consistenly build such spiritual defenses around our homes and communities. I wonder where the pattern for such defenses originated.

Report to sick bay.

We tend to mistakenly think we have more knowledge than people in times past. I'm always intersted in what archeologists find about the high degree of civilization in these earlier communities.

This is proof. I'll bet they will find fonts, and other stuff like that.

Very interesting, but I doubt it has anything to do with the Book of Mormon.

finally, some proof of the book of mormon.

This is interesting. While I don't link it to the Book of Mormon, it tells us that there is still a lot we don't know about past civilizations.

Now hold on...it says "prehistoric". The DNA studies show that the first people in both continents came about 10-12 THOUSAND years ago, across the Bering Sea (or land bridge) from North-East Asia.

Actually I had seen something on this on the History channel, the walled cities in the jungles of Brazil, this was a few months ago. I don't think this is all that new of news. Let's wait and see what there is. I freely admit to being a newly converted skeptic of the BOM and all things Mormon, but I WANT TO BELIEVE IN IT. But honestly, don't jump the gun here, as I said, I am pretty sure this was on the History channel, months ago, and these people were there a very long time ago. Not 600 BC or even 2500 BC like the Jaredites.

If the dating is correct, it would be post-Book of Mormon; ancestors of the Lamanites, who broke into tribes and villages. It is again, and not the first of its kind, circumstantial evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Of course, critics will have to admit that it exists, but will not give it credit into supporting the Book of Mormon; that is there choice though. As for fonts, etc., not saying that they are not there, but as to the dating of the civilization, the church was no longer there and so is not a founded prediction into what will be there. In all, it is interesting. Lastly, critics usually never can come up with constructive or logical arguments; hence, they write puns and statements of little worth.

I agree with Cats. This may have nothing to do with the BOM. Alot of things in the Americas have no connection to Lehi etc. I think it is a good idea to wait until a lot more is known before talking about proof.

Maybe you could direct your opinions on waiting for a lot more to be known on to the so called scientists who INSIST men evolved from apes. They love "talking about proof" for this, even though there is NO PROOF.

There is no more chance of finding any evidence of the peoples described in the BoM than the chance they will find evidence of the peoples described in the Lord of the Rings. They are both works of fiction, one just makes for better reading, the other makes neat promises of an afterlife.

Interesting how everyone jumped to a conclusion for or against the BOM connection. What if mind you I said 'what if' it is just a set of villiages in the Brazialn jungle? No connection to anything. Why do people have to try and find proof for anything based on Faith? Faith in and of itself is simply that Faith. Proof of anything will come in its time. I have no proof that the sun will continue to rise and set during my life time however I have faith it will follow the pattern it has set and contenue to rise and set. I have no proof my husband loves me, but I have faith in the words and actions he has done for many years that he loves me.
Maybe we should just have Faith in the things we find important to ourselves as being true and let others have thier own Faith and truths. I am sure each of you will find something I have written here to disagree with and that is OK. I agree with somethings and disagree with others and that to is OK. God Bless each of you and have a nice day.

I have long since focused my Book of Mormon attention to strengthening my testimony of the Savior and His atonement. So should you and so should the Church. NHM is the absolute extent of physical evidence and it can be interpreted to mean several different names.

No Hebrew, Jewish, Christian or Old Testiment infuence has been found anywhere in these finds. The Mayan and other South-Central American finds reveal a very unique culture and religious belief system that even the most limber apologist cannot fit into anything resembling a Gospel-influenced culture - at least not in a clear, obvious, objective and reasonable way.

The thing so many fail to realize is that IT'S OKAY. When we sit before the Savior he is not going to quiz us on our belief in the peoples and cultures described in the BofM. He is going to ask us how we applied His atonement to our lives and the lives of others. And hopefully we will have used the words in the BofM to better do that.

The spirit is the true converter of faith, not proof.

Many people have stated that searching for proof in the existence of the peoples of the BOM is not important. That FAITH is what really counts. Where does a civilization go that chooses faith over reason? Or feelings over logic? It is shoved back to the dark ages, or eventually ruled by horses.

Saying all inhabitants of this continent and SA came across the western Alaska route in ancient times is like saying all current inhabitants have English ancestry. We now have good evidence that the Norse people came to North America in about 1000AD. I think having one idea that fits all occasions is rather short sighted.

Great apes and humans share mostly the same DNA. Still some have faith there is no linkage between man and apes. One thing that throws them off is now they view evolution. Apes where still viable. Humans broke off some 1.4 million years ago. We have both apes and man.

I've read what expects in DNA say. There's the Kinderhook Plates. We can't leave out the Book of Abraham.

I can't argue or downplay the importance of faith in believing the BOM.

How many changes have their been to the world's most perfect book? I lost count.

re: Ken Goddard | 8:36 a.m. Aug. 29, 2008

>>finally, some proof of the book of mormon.<<

Lets not rush to judgment.

Very interesting. When I lived in Brazil, I found little modern ties to ancient culture, unlike the ties modern Central Americans have. For example, some descendants of the Maya still wear their traditional clothing, with traditional weaving patterns based on the village they live in.
The main cultural heritage I saw was German and African. Of course, I was in the southern part of the country, which had been settled by Germans, not up north in the jungle where these new finds are located.
As for "finally" some proof of the Book of Mormon, you don't really have to look hard if you want to find "proof." But you won't find it in South America. And let's not get into faith--it's a newspaper.

The reason people need evidence suggesting that the Nephite civilization existed is really quite simple. As Mormons we claim to know the Church/BOM, is true. In reality we just have faith like everyone else. That means, we believe it is, we hope it is, but we don't actually KNOW it is. Proving the civilizations of the BOM in a scientific way would fill that gap. I can't say whether right or wrong, but individuals reactions to things like this go a long way to reveal the truth about their faith in spite of what they claim to know.

I've always marveled how the 'learned' said there was no evidence of major or advanced civilizations in the Americas in the 19th century in order to try to refute/condemn the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The 20th and now 21st century archaeological finds continue to prove them wrong. This is not the core of my testimony by any means but I find it interesting how all the dead critics of the 19th century were completely wrong on this point and invariably others.

"I've always marveled how the 'learned' said there was no evidence of major or advanced civilizations in the Americas in the 19th century in order to try to refute/condemn the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith."

Those silly 'learned' are always trying to come up with something, aren't they. In seriosness though I have always marvelled at.....well, thats not quite true either.

Here we go, I am now just marvelling at how so many people, in an effort to make a case for the BOM will paint an entirely inaccurate picture of history. A few things you should be aware of. In the 19th century, the 'learned' as you call them did not refute "advanced ancient civilizations" in the America's. They did not even refute Israelite lineage as an explanation for these peoples. In fact much of the popular religious thinking was that the Native American peoples were ancestors of the lost ten tribes. They just didn't believe Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. They did not believe the Gold plates story, the angelic ministrations, etc. If you must know, prior to these claims Joseph Smith already had a reputation as a fraud.

We do NOT share DNA with apes.

we have genetic markers in common with other animals as one would expect when you have common features.

The more features you share the more genetic similarity there is.

Similarity proves nothing in and of it self.

And so a theory is born to explain how could be similar and related.

And so using genetic extrapolation "Invented" a split to explain everything.

No real substance or evidence just made up theories and stories.

LIke the land bridge.

If the jaredites had mongoloid blood, that would also explain some the asian influence.

obviously up in the northwest you would see more of asian genetic influence ( and so we do in the tribes and to a lesser extent as you spread out from there) as one would expect see some movement from asia where the lands are so close.

IF many truly came from asia 1000O years ago the america should be chock full mongoloid blood from one end to another, but mostly it's-in the northwest and toa lesser degree in the south west north america.

Indications of a smaller more recent movement from asia, not 10000 years worth.

Who is the source-people of-these-towns?

Read the book 1491 which talks about all this stuff and is several years old and quotes a lot of ideas that have been around for decades. It's a factual in-your-face look at information that didn't make it into your ancient american history textbook.

Wheather or not these discoveries were created by B of M people, is irrevalent. What should really trouble some of the critics of the B of M who demand archeological evidence is that they found ANYTHING and are still finding cities and infrastructure of ancient advanced civilizations! Critics have told us these people were ape like immigrants from Asia who walked over 8,000 miles from Mongolia to S. America and were nothing more than berry pickers and hunters who lived in T.P's or caves! Interesting these discoveries are so "advanced" for such a primitive culture! The problem with relying on science is that it is often wrong or at least incomplete most of the time. The Book of Mormon is self evident! It's what's between the covers!

I also read the book 1491 and you are right. It proves that science (what's in text books) is always being changed and revised. The author estimates that at one time, there were more people living in ancient America than the total population of Europe! Interesting indeed!

Check it out and I bet you will find their demise was due to global warming. Wait a minute... Al Gore invented global warming so it couldn't have existed back then...

If you worked in science, you would know the truth means to answer the question from where is the funding coming and what premise do they like to support. The Smithsonian for example will only fund projects that accept the premise of the land bridge migration. But, the Americas will yet be studied and found to be diverse in population sources, with multiple and ongoing interaction between the continents. Oh, and just for a little fun, why are there figures all over the southwest USA that begin showing up in and around 600 BC and cease appearing in the Deserets south and west of Jerusalem after that same time. Surely, just a coincidence of time and place, but not proof of anything!

Fascinating discovery.

"If you worked in science, you would know the truth means to answer the question from where is the funding coming and what premise do they like to support. The Smithsonian for example will only fund projects that accept the premise of the land bridge migration."

Two points here
1) The LDS through BYU/FARMS can and would fund any ancient research wich vindicates BoM history with enough money to make any Smithsonian donation seem like a pittance. According to your logic, that would make any BoM archaelogical findings suspect.

2) Daniel Petersen of FARMS, as well as many others have recently stated that as of date, there is no archaeological evidence of the BoM anywhere in the America's. As mentioned earlier, the NHM (BoM Nahom) find along the Arabian Penninsula is the closest thing there is, but that is far from conclusive. How this affects a persons faith is entirely up to them, but it is exceptional display of ignorance to suggest that the only reason that there isn't widespread acceptance of BoM historicity is because the Smithsonian has some secret agenda to suppress evidence which proves the BoM is an actual history.