Jump to content

Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We assert facts, including the fact that the Book of Mormon is a confabulation

[edit]

[1] I am at a loss here for how anyone thinks that what is needed here is an attribution of this fact to "mainstream" as though there is any dispute whatsoever about this plain fact. Does anyone have an argument for why we should attribute this fact to "mainstream" people who actually know what they're talking about? jps (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not sufficient evidence, be it scientific, historical, or archeological to make the affirmatice claim that the Book of Mormon is a confabulation. As such, we should not assert its truth or fiction with such sure language. O be wise (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great source

[edit]

[2] Check it out! jps (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence on horses

[edit]

I removed a sentence that used this cite[1] as evidence that some scholars believe horses were present in the Americas pre-European contact. The article states the opposite: "While North American horses were still present as late as 5000-6000 years ago, they had likely died out before Vikings arrived on American shores around the end of 10th century. [...] Together, the findings of the paper show that the relationship between Indigenous communities and the horses brought to the Americas by Europeans began decades before Western scientists previously thought." (My emphasis) 108.31.103.91 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]