Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[Not quite me]

Still under the jungle growth, as was that Olmec city until just recently discovered? Or maybe torn down and the construction materials carted away to make something else? We were in Nauvoo 10 years ago. Nothing was left of the original Nauvoo Temple and that had been less than 160 earlier.

I thought the cornerstones and part of the foundation were still there.

Edit: Yep, I was right: http://www.nauvootemple.com/g/NauvooTempleWell.jpg

[charity]

Not sticking up out of the ground. Except the one on display. And there wasn't a jungle within thousands of miles. And the area had been continuallyoccupied since the LDS left, and people could point to the space. When I was there, there was an ironwork fence around a grassy, sunken in plot. No stones were visible.

[Ray Agostini]

Still under the jungle growth, as was that Olmec city until just recently discovered?

How is GPS technology going to discover anything, then? Why did Sorenson and others stop digging? According to his book there was no justification to go any farther after preliminary digs, because it was not justified. He seems to say in his book, this is what we have (not much), the rest goes on faith, as far as uncovering evidence enough to impress any archaeologist that something was brewing. All of the "groundwork" has been done, and according to Sorenson, one has to have more evidence in order to proceed any farther, because that's how it works. That evidence never showed up. If they had found one artefact justifying more excavation, they would have gone on.

[Not quite me]

Not sticking up out of the ground. Except the one on display. And there wasn't a jungle within thousands of miles. And the area had been continuallyoccupied since the LDS left, and people could point to the space. When I was there, there was an ironwork fence around a grassy, sunken in plot. No stones were visible.

Ya should have said that in the first place.

[Not quite me]

How is GPS technology going to discover anything, then? Why did Sorenson and others stop digging? According to his book there was no justification to go any farther after preliminary digs, because it was not justified. He seems to say in his book, this is what we have (not much), the rest goes on faith, as far as uncovering evidence enough to impress any archaeologist that something was brewing. All of the "groundwork" has been done, and according to Sorenson, one has to have more evidence in order to proceed any farther, because that's how it works. That evidence never showed up. If they had found one artefact justifying more excavation, they would have gone on.

As beastie said, that's why they've pretty much stopped looking for Lamanites in Mesoamerica and instead focused on finding Mesoamerica in the text. I did a parody of that a while back when I said, "I don't see any evidence of the Three Stooges in Mesoamerica, but I see all kinds of evidence of Mesoamerica in the Three Stooges." Same principle.

[Ray Agostini]

According to John Clarke:

The evidence for [the Book of Mormon's] truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable people may sincerely question its origin; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel.

This is not how archaeology works. If the real evidence lies within the book, then separate it from archeology and history and focus on the spiritual aspects of the BoM. If archaeological evidence does not support it, then drop it. All of the archaeological claims seem at best very strained, and on the back foot. It is simply not sustained by archaeology. Sorenson takes great pains to emphasise the same, separating archaeology from a witness of the Holy Ghost. If archaeological evidence was evident, there would be no need for this. If confirmation comes from the Spirit alone, and not from the ground, then a revision of just what the BoM is will be necessary.

[Not quite me]

According to John Clarke:

This is not how archaeology works. If the real evidence lies within the book, then separate it from archeology and history and focus on the spiritual aspects of the BoM. If archaeological evidence does not support it, then drop it. All of the archaeological claims seem at best very strained, and on the back foot. It is simply not sustained by archeology. Sorenson takes great pains to emphasise the same, separating archaeology from a witness of the Holy Ghost. If archaeological evidence was evident, there would be no need for this. If confirmation comes from the Spirit alone, and not from the ground, then a revision of just what the BoM is will be necessary.

Yep. Maybe charity is right in that archaeology will provide evidence for the Book of Mormon, but that day hasn't arrived. I'm with you: focus on the spiritual value the book has, and forget the speculation.

[charity]

The Three Stooges, Alien circles, etc. arguments that have cropped up here today in an obvious attempt to ridicule honest discussion are a little disgusting. But I suppose we should acknowledge this is going to be what happens. Because of what there is to lose. If any particular site, or no site at all, can be proven to be Nephite or Jaredite or Mulekite, it doesn't matter in the least to faithful LDS. We know, by other means, the authentiticity of the Book of Mormon. So archeological discoveries don't make a difference. Other than being interesting. But to the non-believer, they are highly invested in their point of view. IF any archeological evidence is found, they have to change their whole belief system. They must all be holding their collective breaths, hoping against hope, that nothing shows up. So they will ridicule in order to keep themselves a little comforted.

Throw all the Three Stooges you want at us. We know where it is coming from.

[Not quite me]

The Three Stooges, Alien circles, etc. arguments that have cropped up here today in an obvious attempt to ridicule honest discussion are a little disgusting.

It wasn't meant to ridicule honest discussion but to point out the ease of finding parallels when you really want to. Take two subjects that are seemingly unrelated, and you can find lots of parallels. It's not that hard, and the parallels are pretty meaningless.

But I suppose we should acknowledge this is going to be what happens. Because of what there is to lose. If any particular site, or no site at all, can be proven to be Nephite or Jaredite or Mulekite, it doesn't matter in the least to faithful LDS.

Then why the strained attempts at finding evidence if it doesn't matter?

We know, by other means, the authentiticity of the Book of Mormon.

My point exactly (and Ray's as well). Why not focus on the spiritual and stop trying to find these unimportant parallels?

So archeological discoveries don't make a difference. Other than being interesting. But to the non-believer, they are highly invested in their point of view.

Hardly. If anything, I'm annoyed at bad apologetics. If someone finds a compelling piece of evidence, I would certainly reevaluate my belief system. I would love to be proven wrong about Mormonism.

IF any archeological evidence is found, they have to change their whole belief system. They must all be holding their collective breaths, hoping against hope, that nothing shows up. So they will ridicule in order to keep themselves a little comforted.

To quote Juliann, "oh, please." Heaven knows I lie awake at night hoping that nobody finds any Book of Mormon evidence. And I'm not ridiculing the Book of Mormon, charity.

Throw all the Three Stooges you want at us. We know where it is coming from.

Yes, apparently Satan finds bad apologetics funny, too.

Edit: charity's post brings up something I've wondered a long time: why is it that critics or exmos would or should be more invested in our worldview than believers are? That makes absolutely no sense.

[Ray Agostini]

I don't disagree with Clarke that one can test the truth of the BoM through prayer, or living its principles, but I don't see any believable confirmation that "what is in the book is verified by what is in the ground". Quite the contrary. So is it a fraud? Not if you look at it as a guide to behaviour with revealed insights into living a spiritual life. For me it's unquestionable how the book has raised many people to better behaviour. But if this is conditioned on archaeology or historicity, and not internal conviction of the teachings, it could end in a stalemate, and total abandonment of conviction, and even loss of faith in God. In this case the end result could be worse.

[Catholic Guy]

If any particular site, or no site at all, can be proven to be Nephite or Jaredite or Mulekite, it doesn't matter in the least to faithful LDS. We know, by other means, the authentiticity of the Book of Mormon. So archeological discoveries don't make a difference. Other than being interesting.

And yet in the same breath they will do a 180 degree turn to prove the "Great Apostasy"

Catholic Guy

[charity]

Catholic guy: Huh? I don't understand what you said. Would you please give it another go?

[Dale]

I suppose the Nephite Temple was patterned based on a guess from reading the Bible. Would the Temple look like Solomon's Temple, or look far different? It might look so far different from Solomon's Temple you might not know one was patterned after the one found in the Bible.

No genuine Meso-American history from Book of Mormon times has been found via archeology. They can only reconstruct what happened with a lot of ambiguity due to lack of ancient texts.

[juliann]

You had more hope of such a break-through before the glyphs were cracked.

Riighttt....the discovering has all been done. Is there anyone who thinks that everything there is to know is known...but countermos? I'm pretty satisfied with the break throughs we are seeing right now...I certainly have no reason to deny them or ignore them no matter what they "prove". In fact, I would find that a hideous position to put myself in.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/03-ask.html

Not much is known about the earliest stages of Maya writing, because so little of it has been found. Without more examples, full translation remains unlikely.

And this is where the countermos excel, of course....

Where scenes and characters are unfamiliar, we are left only with the image and our own cultural biases to interpret it.

The point is that it doesn't matter what is discovered...the countermopologists will just say whatever and move on to the next complaint. As ever, I remain fascinated with their compulsion to prove something they claim to not believe in wrong.

[juliann]

Hardly. If anything, I'm annoyed at bad apologetics.

So am I, Not Quite. And the "we know everything there is to know " is about the worst. Good grief.

[Not quite me]

Riighttt....the discovering has all been done. Is there anyone who thinks that everything there is to know is known...but countermos? I'm pretty satisfied with the break throughs we are seeing right now...I certainly have no reason to deny them or ignore them no matter what they "prove". In fact, I would find that a hideous position to put myself in.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/03-ask.html

And this is where the countermos excel, of course....

The point is that it doesn't matter what is discovered...the countermopologists will just say whatever and move on to the next complaint. As ever, I remain fascinated with their compulsion to prove something they claim to not believe in wrong.

Why is this "compulsion" any different than the one to prove something you believe in right?

[Catholic Guy]

Catholic guy: Huh? I don't understand what you said. Would you please give it another go?

You stated that the Faithful LDS are not desperately looking for evidence to support the BoM. That only the non-believers are looking voraciously for evidence against it. My statement is that the Faith LDS with regards to the "Great Apostasy" voraciously look for evidence for it and act in the same manner as the non-believers do about the BoM. Is that clear?

Catholic Guy

[juliann]

And yet in the same breath they will do a 180 degree turn to prove the "Great Apostasy"

Catholic Guy

I don't do that in the same breath. The "Great Apostasy" is badly named. But there is no difficulty whatsoever in showing that there is a black hole in the early history of the church...so much so that a gnostic created a line of authority which was quickly imitated by the other guys. When a claim to authority is based on lineage and that lineage cannot be substantiated you may call it whatever you wish.

[juliann]

Why is this "compulsion" any different than the one to prove something you believe in right?

Gosh...I dunno. Why would you have a compulsion to defend your property when strangers were attempting to destroy it?

[juliann]

How is GPS technology going to discover anything, then?

I think you will find this technology of interest. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/03.html

[Ray Agostini]

I think you will find this technology of interest. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/03.html

I read the link and saw two references to Dr. Payson Sheets, who uses this technology, but I can't help thinking of his email to me that "the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with reality" (Tuesday, 23 January 2007 1:44 AM). It was obvious to me that he's been asked this question many times, and displayed some frustration. I will post the email I wrote Dr. Sheets:

Dear Mr. Sheets,

I have been posting on a Mormon forum and a poster there claims that you believe (or know) of a major volcanic eruption (or eruptions) occurring in Mesoamerica 2,000 years ago, about the time of Christ. The Book of Mormon says there were major eruptions, or a major eruption, which fits the chronology of the Book of Mormon description of major upheaval, including volcanic eruptions large enough to cause three days of darkness, and the darkness was so thick that not even any light could be seen at an arm's distance. It is supposed that this was the result of the volcanic eruption about 33 AD, give or take a few years.

Can you confirm any of this, to your knowledge?

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

Ray A

Here was Dr. Sheets' reply:

The book of mormon has nothing to do with reality. Bye,

Payson

The bold was his emphasis. This is the same Dr. Sheets who uses GPS technology. He could not even take it seriously enough to explain the ramifications of three days' darkness, which would suggest a major eruption in the first 30-40 years AD in Mesoamerica. The closest he comes to this, from my reading of his writing, is around 260 AD-400 AD.

[Catholic Guy]

I don't do that in the same breath.

Let me rephrase it; â??In a different breathâ?, see my above post.

The "Great Apostasy" is badly named.

Agreed!

But there is no difficulty whatsoever in showing that there is a black hole in the early history of the church...so much so that a gnostic created a line of authority which was quickly imitated by the other guys. When a claim to authority is based on lineage and that lineage cannot be substantiated you may call it whatever you wish.

In this breath we will always agree to disagree on this one.

Catholic Guy

[Tarski]

The discovering has been done. There will be no more discoveries in South America that change anything. Surely we have learned that much from the countermos.

I am on post number 4482 and I can't recall a countermo saying anything like that. Of course, I'm sure you would not just say something like that, so there must be many such cases. Could you please give a few references to places where countermos say that there will be no more discoveries in South America?

I always thought that the point was that the certainty of future dicoveries does not provide warrant for unsupported theories with no current evidence.

[Tarski]

The Three Stooges, Alien circles, etc. arguments that have cropped up here today in an obvious attempt to ridicule honest discussion are a little disgusting. But I suppose we should acknowledge this is going to be what happens. Because of what there is to lose. If any particular site, or no site at all, can be proven to be Nephite or Jaredite or Mulekite, it doesn't matter in the least to faithful LDS. We know, by other means, the authentiticity of the Book of Mormon. So archeological discoveries don't make a difference. Other than being interesting. But to the non-believer, they are highly invested in their point of view. IF any archeological evidence is found, they have to change their whole belief system. They must all be holding their collective breaths, hoping against hope, that nothing shows up. So they will ridicule in order to keep themselves a little comforted.

By "we" I suppose you mean Mormons. Then why do Mormons ever change their minds on the historicity issue? Perhaps some realize that evidence matters and they understand that knowledge thought to be obtained by spiritual witness can be flat wrong.

[juliann]

I read the link and saw two references to Dr. Payson Sheets, who uses this technology, but I can't help thinking of his email to me that "the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with reality" (Tuesday, 23 January 2007 1:44 AM). It was obvious to me that he's been asked this question many times, and displayed some frustration.

Do you find that reaction surprising? Wouldnt' he say the same thing about the Bible story? It is irrelevant to the technology and how this mural was found. The problem I am seeing here is the expectation that every new find is supposed to say something about Mormonism. It is the denial of the changes in the received wisdom that is causing the countermopologists to twist themselves into pretzels as they try to explain it all away. It is the eroding timeline that I am watching with some amusement since that used to be a fall back mockery target. I don't know how many times it has to be said that there will be no proof for the BOM. There is little for the Bible and they have been at that for a much longer time in a much easier landscape. I enjoy watching the countermopologists' "nothing more will be found" stance crumbling piece by piece. I also enjoy watching them say it and then deny they say it.