This is what archeologists do.

[_Scottie]

But, Charity, don't you see the difference in discovering an exact item...the wall in this case, vs failure to locate an entire culture?

It's not like critics are demanding the sword of Laban be found, or the brass plates, or Shiz's head. We are looking for evidence on a macro level, and it just doesn't exist. This is why it is highly unlikely that we will ever unearth anything resembling Book of Mormon cultures.

[_charity]

But, Charity, don't you see the difference in discovering an exact item...the wall in this case, vs failure to locate an entire culture?

It's not like critics are demanding the sword of Laban be found, or the brass plates, or Shiz's head. We are looking for evidence on a macro level, and it just doesn't exist. This is why it is highly unlikely that we will ever unearth anything resembling Book of Mormon cultures.

I see what you are saying, Scottie. I think Clark may have the answer to that, though. The discoveries have been made, they just have not been properly identified. Maybe what is needed, and may exist, is some exact item which would be a sort of Rosetta stone.

[_Scottie]

But, Charity, don't you see the difference in discovering an exact item...the wall in this case, vs failure to locate an entire culture?

It's not like critics are demanding the sword of Laban be found, or the brass plates, or Shiz's head. We are looking for evidence on a macro level, and it just doesn't exist. This is why it is highly unlikely that we will ever unearth anything resembling Book of Mormon cultures.

I see what you are saying, Scottie. I think Clark may have the answer to that, though. The discoveries have been made, they just have not been properly identified. Maybe what is needed, and may exist, is some exact item which would be a sort of Rosetta stone.

I'm curious as to what they think they have found? Is he talking about locations or items?

[_Mercury]

Still working hard at maintaining your crown as the Queen of Strawmen argument, heh, charity?

This is one of the most blatant strawmen ever devised by MADdites. According to MADdites, critics say "all the discovery has been done", so whenever any new discovery, anywhere, is found, it is trumpeted by MADdites as proof of their rightness.

Honestly, it's like some apologists deliberately don't digest what any critic ever says, in order to better be able to fabricate a complete strawman.

All I have seen here is kneejerk reactions.

Think about it.

How long has archeological research been going on in the Holy Lands? Are they still finding new things? Obviously. Are those new finds disputes? Yes. How long has archeological research been going on in Meso-America? Not nearly as long. Can they be new discoveries? Obviously. Will they be disputed? Probably.

It is not a strawman argument to make a comparison. When the anti-Mormon crowd stops saying "There isn't any evidence of Nephites and we have been doing archeological digs for a hundred years and nothing has shown up" then I will stop posting when archeologists are "surprised" at new evidence.

The critical failure in your logic comes when you compare an ACTUAL ancient record with a fraud perpetuated by a cult.

Continuing wiht this rationale is making you look increasingly retarded.

[_beastie]

I see what you are saying, Scottie. I think Clark may have the answer to that, though. The discoveries have been made, they just have not been properly identified. Maybe what is needed, and may exist, is some exact item which would be a sort of Rosetta stone.

Oh, so now you agree that Nephite artifacts have actually been found and are labeled "Olmec" and "Maya"?

That must mean you are now ready to accept Arthur Demarest's statement, which I shared on this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=147

page 8 of the thread

Some of the writers of the period, such as Augustus le Plongeon and Desire Charnay, were prone to imaginative digressions and drawn to wild speculations on the ancient Maya. Le Plongeon, James Churchward, and many others attributed the origins of achievements of the Maya and other New World civilizations to lost tribes from the Old World or from sunken continents. Unfortunately, such fantastic speculations are very effective in capturing public interest. Just as this epoch of popular antiquarian writings had launched modern scientific archaeology, it also seeded the development of the lunatic fringe of Maya archaeology (who even today besiege archaeologists with letters and emails on extraterrestrial influences, Atlantis, and the lost Semitic tribes!)

To which Charity protested:

He is clearly talking about peoplew who are asking/stating that the Maya are the Nephites or Atlanteans. Sorenson or Clark or Gardner don't say that. They talk aboiut a contemporary culture. So Demarest is not talking about them.

So I shared Clark's statement:

The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no cities have been located, are more subtle. 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 you stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would you know?

Charity ignored this post.

But now she's ready to embrace Clark's assertion! Does that mean she will also accept Demarest's position?? Or how about Michael Coe, who long ago told Mormon archaeologists to quit looking for Nephites because they weren't going to find them?

OH NO!!! This means that the top two mesoamerican archaeologists believe all the discovering has been done!!!!!

[_beastie]

Here's Coe's quote, from his Dialogue article, "Mormons and Archaeology - An Outsider's View"

In conclusion, an outside observer like myself would make these suggestions. Forget the so-far fruitless quest for the Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, and the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful: there is no more chance of finding them than of discovering the bottomless pit described in the Book of Revelations. It has been Hugh Nibley himself, the Mormon philosopher and historian, who has pointed out the futility of such endeavors. Continue the praiseworthy excavations in Mexico, remembering that little or nothing pertaining to the Book of Mormon will ever result from them. And start digging into the archaeological remains of the Saints themselves.

[/quote]

[_charity]

The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no cities have been located, are more subtle. 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 you stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would you know?

Charity ignored this post.

But now she's ready to embrace Clark's assertion! Does that mean she will also accept Demarest's position?? Or how about Michael Coe, who long ago told Mormon archaeologists to quit looking for Nephites because they weren't going to find them? OH NO!!! This means that the top two mesoamerican archaeologists believe all the discovering has been done!!!!!

I didn't ignore your post. I didn't see it.

I think maybe Olmec/Jaredite is a good match. Maya doesn't seem to match times, being both earlier and later than the Nephite civilization of 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. But I am flexible. I calmly await other archeological discoveries. I just probably won't be surprised.

[_beastie]

I'm curious as to what they think they have found? Is he talking about locations or items?

See my above quote of his statement. He believes Nephite artifacts have been found, but are simply called "Maya" and "Olmec". He's not talking about specific locales, although most apologists accept Sorenson's suggestions, as poor as they are.

[_beastie]

I think maybe Olmec/Jaredite is a good match. Maya doesn't seem to match times, being both earlier and later than the Nephite civilization of 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. But I am flexible. I calmly await other archeological discoveries. I just probably won't be surprised.

What?!?!??!?!??!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!!!

Please clarify how the Maya don't match the times.

And you didn't see my post which was smack in the middle of the back and forth we were having on that thread? Perhaps that is part of your problem, selective reading.

[_Coggins7]

Let me get this straight. From now on, if any archeologist - anywhere - discovers anything, that's good news for the Book of Mormon because it proves that all the discovering has not yet been done? So maybe, because archeologists found a bit of wall in Jerusalem, there's still evidence to show for a major American civilization of millions of people?

Yeah, now I see it. You're right. I'll get back to my bishop ASAP and start the repentance process. Now, where did I stash those garments again?

Like King Richard said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "Run awaaaaaaaaaaaaay!"