Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[juliann]

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.

Mormonism doesn't tend to separate knowlege and spiritual witness. It also allows room for new knowledge and always has. But..when all else fails there is always the fundamentalism attack, eh?

[Not quite me]

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

Well, not this stranger, anyway. From what I've seen, most Mormon apologetics is aimed at believing members of the church, not at defending. Look, for example, at John Clark's piece I discussed; it was given at a devotional and published by FARMS. I doubt very much it was aimed at a hostile audience. I'd bet that most apologetics isn't, either.

This place is a little different. But then it seems odd to invite us to a dialogue and then criticize us for having a compulsion to do just that.

[beastie]

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.

I will correct your distortion one more time, realizing that it will have no affect on you due to the fact that distorting what others say is habitual with you. I also note the irony is that you demand that nonbelievers allow believers to explain for themselves what they believe and say, yet you resist granting that right to others.

I am not saying no new discoveries will be made. I am saying that new discoveries that could validate the BoM are as unlikely as a new discovery validating aliens building the pyramids. This is not ridicule, but the attempt to demonstrate how extraordinarily unlikely it is. When someone says that archaeology proves that aliens did not built the pyramids, they are not saying no new discoveries can be made. They are saying that so much information about who built the pyramids has already been accumulated that the chance of suddenly discovering something that validates the ideas that aliens built them is so infinitesimally small that it is reasonable to say the chance just doesn't exist.

That is the reason that BoM apologists who know enough about Mesoamerica to realize this fact concentrate on finding Mesoamerica in the BoM instead of the reverse. If there were any chance of still finding the BoM in Mesoamerica, they would not be encouraging believers to abandon that particular approach.

[beastie]

This place is a little different. But then it seems odd to invite us to a dialogue and then criticize us for having a compulsion to do just that.

This compulsion to invite people to dialogue and then criticize them for having a compulsion to do so is exactly why I left FAIR the last time. I find that an unappetizing environment that strongly smacks of poisoning the well.

[Brant Gardner]

That is the reason that BoM apologists who know enough about Mesoamerica to realize this fact concentrate on finding Mesoamerica in the BoM instead of the reverse. If there were any chance of still finding the BoM in Mesoamerica, they would not be encouraging believers to abandon that particular approach.

You have a strange way of interpreting things, beastie. Since I have been the strongest proponent of the position you describe, I suggest that I know something about the reasons for discussing it, and they aren't similar to your speculation at all. The problem with finding an artifact that is Book of Mormon-ish is that there is no diagnostic data in the text that tells us what such an artifact might be and how it would differ from anything else in the area. I agree that the previous assumption that there was a full Hebrew culture that was transported from the Old World is incorrect, but that is a far cry from your statement.

[phaedrus ut]

I've always liked Brant's approach to the BOM and archeology. I can't remember a circumstance where he advocated a stretched, implausible, long shot apologetic answer to salvage a pet theory. Since I never expect him to be "blowing smoke" I'll generally take the time to read his responses and analysis.

By the same measure I find myself almost completely dismissing the back and forth postings of a few particular "personalities" on the board. They seem to want to argue every point regardless of the subject matter.

But back to the subject. Brant, do you see any relevance of a find like this to BOM studies?

Phaedrus

[Brant Gardner]

But back to the subject. Brant, do you see any relevance of a find like this to BOM studies?

Phaedrus

No, I don't. It is fascinating because it stretches the bounds of Olmecoid influence farther than was imagined, and tells us that the world was probably smaller then that we think it was. However, it is far north of where the best correlation would place the Jaredite action. I don't see any connection.

[charity]

As a non-archeologist, what I find most fascinating is that there are new discoveries being made. I think there is an idea out there that if there was anything to be found it would have been found already. That there are new sites, new artifacts coming to light should bury that notion.

[Not quite me]

As a non-archeologist, what I find most fascinating is that there are new discoveries being made. I think there is an idea out there that if there was anything to be found it would have been found already. That there are new sites, new artifacts coming to light should bury that notion.

For what it's worth, I think that most of us "critics" would argue that what is known tends to discount the Book of Mormon, but if something comes to light that supports it, we'll certainly reconsider. At least I will.

[Ray Agostini]

I don't know how many times it has to be said that there will be no proof for the BOM.

I've said it quite a number of times myself. The reason the subject interests me at all is because many LDS do claim that proof/strong evidence is there. If one receives a witness through the Holy Ghost this is supposed to be sufficient, but in reality, for many (not most) it isn't. The average "chapel Mormon" could care little about proof. But I find there is some "double speak" when one gives a stream of evidences supposedly supporting BoM historicity, then qualifies that with "but we can really only know through the Holy Ghost". The question is: Does evidence, or the lack thereof I should say, bother some testimonies? It certainly bothered Tom Ferguson, who searched for 25 years for hard evidence and concluded there was none. Regardless of Ferguson's lack of qualifications as a professional archaeologist (he was a lawyer), the point I'm making is that for people like him evidence is crucial, and his subsequent loss of faith shows that. He was quite confident he would find something which vindicated his strong belief in the reality of BoM historicity. I do not, however, agree that one must deny a wtiness of the BoM, or believe it to be false, if there is no historicity. I didn't go checking up on archaeology when I first read the BoM, and in 1994 when I first dabbled in the "inspired but not historical" idea, my opinion of the spiritual worth of the BoM did not change. It still has not changed, as I consider it scripture. I also found the Bagavad Gita to be a very inspiring read, and I read that long before I even knew what the BoM was, but IMO it doesn't match the BoM.

[juliann]

I've said it quite a number of times myself. The reason the subject interests me at all is because many LDS do claim that proof/strong evidence is there. If one receives a witness through the Holy Ghost this is supposed to be sufficient, but in reality, for many (not most) it isn't. The average "chapel Mormon" could care little about proof. But I find there is some "double speak" when one gives a stream of evidences supposedly supporting BoM historicity, then qualifies that with "but we can really only know through the Holy Ghost".

Evidence and proof aren't the same thing. I think there is evidence for and against the BOM. I don't think there has to be a division between spiritual and worldly knowledge....the good stuff comes from the same source. I thank the countermopologists for giving us some good evidence, actually. When they pick a target to make fun of more emphasis is put on that and we have seen some of their "ha ha" stuff get shot down with regularity. It just doesn't make any difference to them. I think it does have an effect on beleivers, though...it isn't us saying all the discovering has been done and so it is rather noticeable when simple things like metal plates and cement are suddenly not so humorous.

Again, I find the new discoveries fascinating. I am watching the timelines change (another oopsy ho ho from the countermos). The technology that allowed the scientists to see once deforested areas by colors is amazing. It's pretty sad when so many countermos are invested in not discovering anything that they can only see all of this through their homemade BOM goggles and miss the big picture.

[Not quite me]

Evidence and proof aren't the same thing. I think there is evidence for and against the BOM. I don't think there has to be a division between spiritual and worldly knowledge....the good stuff comes from the same source. I thank the countermopologists for giving us some good evidence, actually. When they pick a target to make fun of more emphasis is put on that and we have seen some of their "ha ha" stuff get shot down with regularity. It just doesn't make any difference to them. I think it does have an effect on beleivers, though...it isn't us saying all the discovering has been done and so it is rather noticeable when simple things like metal plates and cement are suddenly not so humorous.

Again, I find the new discoveries fascinating. I am watching the timelines change (another oopsy ho ho from the countermos). The technology that allowed the scientists to see once deforested areas by colors is amazing. It's pretty sad when so many countermos are invested in not discovering anything that they can only see all of this through their homemade BOM goggles and miss the big picture.

I suspect you're right that some exmos and "countermos" (I like that term) have indeed closed their minds about evidence. I haven't seen anything that has challenged my conclusions about the Book of Mormon, but then neither have you, obviously. I wonder if this looking through homemade BOM goggles is a problem on both sides. I suspect so.

[Zakuska]

Some other humurous oopsies...

"No Perneial Rivers in all of Arabia"

:blush:

[Not quite me]

Some other humurous oopsies...

"No Perneial Rivers in all of Arabia"

:blush:

What's a "perneial" river? ;-)

[The Dude]

The average "chapel Mormon" could care little about proof.

Many don't care because they don't know what's going on. They take it for granted that there's quite a lot of archaeological support (not proof) for the Book of Mormon. They don't know the difference between Olmecs and Mayas, and probably think the Aztecs, Incas, and Anasazi are equally relevant as potential Book of Mormon civilizations.

But I find there is some "double speak" when one gives a stream of evidences supposedly supporting BoM historicity, then qualifies that with "but we can really only know through the Holy Ghost".

Yeah, that always gets me. Or even better, when they say something like "but God would never allow us to find real proof, because that would take away the need for faith." Is the deity some kind of mind-reading conspirator? Does he control the evidence in order to strike just the right balance (for each individual, since we're all different) between scientific and faith-based reasoning?

[Zakuska]

Sorry... my bad spelling. A river that flows continuosly all year round.

It was bantered around by critics that the US geological society had searched for 44 years to find water sources in Suadia Arabia. They state that there where no rivers to be found. And then... wihtin the last 5 years one was found.

http://www.nepiproject.com

Granted... today it is only a stream or brook but anciently it was quite a large river.

I've looked it up on Google Planet to. It's there!

EDIT: To Fix Link

[The Dude]

Sorry... my bad spelling. A river that flows continuosly all year round.

It was bantered around by critics that the US geological society had searched for 44 years to find water sources in Suadia Arabia. They state that there where no rivers to be found. And then... wihtin the last 5 years one was found.

http://www.nepiproject.com

Granted... today it is only a stream or brook but anciently it was quite a large river.

I've looked it up on Google Planet to. It's there!

Do you have a source for that critics saying that? That's a lame criticism, given that rivers can disappear in far less than 2,600 years.

[Ray Agostini]

Many don't care because they don't know what's going on. They take it for granted that there's quite a lot of archaeological support (not proof) for the Book of Mormon. They don't know the difference between Olmecs and Mayas, and probably think the Aztecs, Incas, and Anasazi are equally relevant as potential Book of Mormon civilizations.

This is true, but I think they don't care. Many of them don't even know what FARMS is, and don't think they even feel a need to be apologetic.

[Not quite me]

This is true, but I think they don't care. Many of them don't even know what FARMS is, and don't think they even feel a need to be apologetic.

Yep. I gather from my recent thread that for most people, apologetics are irrelevant.

[Hawkmoon]

Many don't care because they don't know what's going on. They take it for granted that there's quite a lot of archaeological support (not proof) for the Book of Mormon. They don't know the difference between Olmecs and Mayas, and probably think the Aztecs, Incas, and Anasazi are equally relevant as potential Book of Mormon civilizations.

That is a rather broad brush you paint with TD. I also believe it is mostly wrong. The truth is, IMO, that most don't care because they don't hold "what's going on" with equal weight to what they have personally experienced. The reality is most don't really care what mostly secularist archeologist's have to say about something-- especially as it pertains to their religion and how often "what's going on" tends to change. Whether that is a good or bad thing I leave for you to decide but that is the simple reality.

[The Dude]

The reality is most don't really care what mostly secularist archeologist's have to say about something-- especially as it pertains to their religion and how often "what's going on" tends to change. Whether that is a good or bad thing I leave for you to decide but that is the simple reality.

I could be partially wrong. Why don't they care? Is there some level of distrust of secular archaeologists? Or they a dismissal of archaeology as a whole?

[Hawkmoon]

I could be partially wrong. Why don't they care? Is there some level of distrust of secular archaeologists? Or they a dismissal of archaeology as a whole?

Most people don't care about archaeology-- is it surprising that most Mormons wouldn't either? Furthermore, you are talking about a science that is far more open to interpretation and changes than most which does not lead to a great level of confidence or interest. Just for the record-- I am one of those few that actually find this stuff interesting, and I would dare say that most who participate here do as well. Which tends to skew our (everyone on this board) perception on how most would/should view these things.

[Ray Agostini]

I could be partially wrong. Why don't they care? Is there some level of distrust of secular archaeologists? Or they a dismissal of archaeology as a whole?

I'll take a punt at this if you don't mind. They don't care because they believe the witness of the Holy Ghost overrides everything. The archaeologists are either wrong, or have not yet found the evidence. Of course that could be possible, though very unlikely IMO. So there's no need to question, it's a fait accompli, proof of BoM historicity has been established by a witness. I don't see it that way, while not denying the reality of what people feel when reading the BoM. I don't believe historicity is being established at all in those strong feelings, but it's a response to the book's teachings and principles.

[Hawkmoon]

I'll take a punt at this if you don't mind. They don't care because they believe the witness of the Holy Ghost overrides everything. The archaeologists are either wrong, or have not yet found the evidence. Of course that could be possible, though very unlikely IMO. So there's no need to question, it's a fait accompli, proof of BoM historicity has been established by a witness. I don't see it that way, while not denying the reality of what people feel when reading the BoM. I don't believe historicity is being established at all in those strong feelings, but it's a response to the book's teachings and principles.

While I do believe you have a valid point, and that this is true to a point... I think the simple reality is that most people in general do not care about the nuances of things such as this but rather rely on their personal experiences. This is not suprising since we all do it to some degree.

[consiglieri]

What's a "perneial" river? ;-)

Ask your gynecologist, will you? Now you're making me blush.