46 replies to this topic

[handys003]

I came across this interesting article and referenced it to some scriptures:

Mosiah 18:4-5, 8, 12, 14-16
4 And it came to pass that as many as did believe him did go forth to a ^aplace which was called Mormon, having received its name from the king, being in the ^bborders of the land having been infested, by times or at seasons, by wild beasts.   5 Now, there was in Mormon a fountain of pure water, and Alma resorted thither, there being near the water a thicket of small trees, where he did hide himself in the daytime from the searches of the king.
8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are ^adesirous to come into the ^bfold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
  12 And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.
14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were ^aburied in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.  15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury ^ahimself again in the water.  16 And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were ^a<A title="Mosiah 25: 18." href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18/mosiah/18/16a" type=A mark="a">baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the ^bgrace of God.

From the article:

Ancient Mayans Likely Had Fountains and Toilets

The ancient Mayans may have had enough engineering know-how to master running water, creating fountains and even toilets by controlling water pressure, scientists now suggest.




Perhaps the earliest known example of the intentional creation of water pressure was found on the island of Crete in a Minoan palace dating back to roughly 1400 BC. In the New World, the ability to generate water pressure was previously thought to have begun only with the arrival of the Spanish.

Scientists investigated the Mayan center at Palenque in Chiapas, Mexico. At its height, this major site, inhabited from roughly 100 to 800 AD, had some 1,500 structures — residences, palaces, and temples — holding some 6,000 inhabitants under a series of powerful rulers.

The center at Palenque also had what was arguably the most unique and intricate system of water management known anywhere in the Maya lowlands. These involved elaborate subterranean aqueducts to deal with the spring-fed streams that naturally divide the landscape and could otherwise cause flooding or erosion.

"The ancient Maya called this city 'Lakamha' or 'Big Water' because of its nine perennial waterways, 56 springs, and hundreds of meters of cascades," said researcher Kirk French, an archaeologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

Source: http://www.livescien...r-pressure.html

What is interesting that Lakamha or Big Water had many waterways and fountains could this be the waters of Mormon?

Edited by handys003, 23 December 2009 - 06:27 PM.

[volgadon]

I've always read fountain as a spring.
A major argument against it having been a man-made fountain is that those things weren't just left around in the wilderness.

[Zakuska]

handys003, on 23 December 2009 - 06:25 PM, said:

I came across this interesting article and referenced it to some scriptures:

Mosiah 18:4-5, 8, 12, 14-16
4 And it came to pass that as many as did believe him did go forth to a ^aplace which was called Mormon, having received its name from the king, being in the ^bborders of the land having been infested, by times or at seasons, by wild beasts.   5 Now, there was in Mormon a fountain of pure water, and Alma resorted thither, there being near the water a thicket of small trees, where he did hide himself in the daytime from the searches of the king.
8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are ^adesirous to come into the ^bfold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
  12 And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.
14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were ^aburied in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.  15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury ^ahimself again in the water.  16 And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were ^a<A title="Mosiah 25: 18." href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18/mosiah/18/16a" type=A mark="a">baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the ^bgrace of God.

From the article:

Ancient Mayans Likely Had Fountains and Toilets

The ancient Mayans may have had enough engineering know-how to master running water, creating fountains and even toilets by controlling water pressure, scientists now suggest.




Perhaps the earliest known example of the intentional creation of water pressure was found on the island of Crete in a Minoan palace dating back to roughly 1400 BC. In the New World, the ability to generate water pressure was previously thought to have begun only with the arrival of the Spanish.

Scientists investigated the Mayan center at Palenque in Chiapas, Mexico. At its height, this major site, inhabited from roughly 100 to 800 AD, had some 1,500 structures — residences, palaces, and temples — holding some 6,000 inhabitants under a series of powerful rulers.

The center at Palenque also had what was arguably the most unique and intricate system of water management known anywhere in the Maya lowlands. These involved elaborate subterranean aqueducts to deal with the spring-fed streams that naturally divide the landscape and could otherwise cause flooding or erosion.

"The ancient Maya called this city 'Lakamha' or 'Big Water' because of its nine perennial waterways, 56 springs, and hundreds of meters of cascades," said researcher Kirk French, an archaeologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

Source: http://www.livescien...r-pressure.html

What is interesting that Lakamha or Big Water had many waterways and fountains could this be the waters of Mormon?

Maybe that coud be where the Hill Cumorah is... a land of many waters and fountians.

[Maya]

I nbeen in Knossos twice... facinating!
I always said that Mayas are not stupid  

Anyway interesting point...

[handys003]

Maya, on 24 December 2009 - 01:01 AM, said:

I nbeen in Knossos twice... facinating!
I always said that Mayas are not stupid  

Anyway interesting point...

Are you making a pun?

[Maya]

handys003, on 24 December 2009 - 01:12 AM, said:

Are you making a pun?

Who the little me?? ... what is to make a pun?

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

There are many places to consider being the Waters of Mormon...I lean towards Atitlan, Guatemala, but there are equally impressive areas in Miramar, Montebello, and Lagos de Colon (all in Chiapas near the Guatemala border)...Catazaja also looks rather interesting...

[Helmuth]

The waters of Mormon kind of could be almost anywhere going solely on the description in the text. But good find!  Big waters -- many waters, it's just as good a connection as you'll find in many old LDS books that mention parallels with this and that place. We're just putting possibilities out there, that's all we can do at this point.

[beastie]

I don't have the time or inclination for a detailed discussion at this point, but I just can't remain silent again.

This is a frequent problem for LGT in Mesoamerica.  Defenders of LGT in Mesoamerica simultaneously insist that BoM polities had no detectable influence on the cultural evolution of Mesoamerica because they were insignificant and minor polities, and then turn around and posit the most powerful polities in the region as possible candidates for BoM polities.  

Palenque was an incredibly powerful polity.  So were other polities that other LGTists have suggested for BoM polities, like Kaminaljuyu.  If Palenque or Kaminaljuyu were actually Judeo-Christian, then we would see the influence of Judeo-Christianity on the evolution of the entire region.  

The reason LGTists keep choosing the most powerful polities is because of the social complexity described in the BoM.  The social complexity described in the BoM only fits the social complexity of the most powerful polities of Mesoamerica.  IOW – the very polities that had a notable and detectable influence on the entire region.  

Every time LGTists offer one of the most powerful polities in Mesoamerica as a possible candidate for a BoM polity, they unwittingly underline the biggest problem with placing the BoM in Mesoamerica.

I limit my participation on this site, and have remained silent time after time when LGTists repeatedly do this.  They say, so to speak, “hey, look at this Mesoamerican polity.  Maybe this is (fill in the blank with BoM polity).”  But I feel like I have to say this at least one time.  

Defenders of LGT don’t seem to realize that they create an inherent contradiction within the theory each time they choose one of the most powerful polities in the region to be a BoM candidate.  BoM polities have to be minor and completely insignificant in order to sustain the argument that they made ZERO impact on the evolution of Mesoamerican culture.  BoM polities cannot be the most powerful polities in the region – the type of polities with advanced technology, for example.  

You all are eventually going to have to understand the vast majority of the BoM as epic exaggeration and myth in order to maintain one shred of hope that it’s anything other than a nineteenth century creation.  And, as others have postulated, once you accept that point, then you might as well remain consistent with past prophets and stick with the Great Lakes region.  

IOW, to paraphrase:  Senator, I knew Palenque.  Mormon ain't no Palenque.

[Sevenbak]

Beastie, haven't seen you around in a while.

Are the normal anti site hangouts getting boring?


As a believing member of the Church, I can see some merit in some of your arguments against the LGT folks, however, you are off base.  The BoM is indeed epic, and contains several groups, dissenters, tribes, etc, that spread out across ancient America.  Trying to limit it's scope to fit your anti agenda serves no purpose.

And no, to be "consistent with past prophets and stick with the Great Lakes region" is a fantasy on your part.  Yes they taught a New York setting as the final destruction site, but certainly not the whole of it's civilization. I suspect that if you actually read what the past prophets have said, you might learn more than geography.


Cheers.

[beastie]

Sevenbak, on 23 January 2010 - 08:52 AM, said:

Beastie, haven't seen you around in a while.

Are the normal anti site hangouts getting boring?


As a believing member of the Church, I can see some merit in some of your arguments against the LGT folks, however, you are off base.  The BoM is indeed epic, and contains several groups, dissenters, tribes, etc, that spread out across ancient America.  Trying to limit it's scope to fit your anti agenda serves no purpose.

And no, to be "consistent with past prophets and stick with the Great Lakes region" is a fantasy on your part.  Yes they taught a New York setting as the final destruction site, but certainly not the whole of it's civilization. I suspect that if you actually read what the past prophets have said, you might learn more than geography.


Cheers.

I bolded your assertion that is music to the ears of critics.

You adhere to the hemispheric model, eh?  Wow. That's brave.  And ill-informed, as many of your fellow believers would probably inform you.  Or, to quote John Clark, "you're toast".

[Sevenbak]

beastie, on 23 January 2010 - 09:04 AM, said:

I bolded your assertion that is music to the ears of critics.

You adhere to the hemispheric model, eh?  Wow. That's brave.  And ill-informed, as many of your fellow believers would probably inform you.  Or, to quote John Clark, "you're toast".

Brave has nothing to do with it.  I trust the words of the prophets over some modern scholars.  I may be in the minority for this site, but there are many faithful members of the church who don't see the geography as such a hinder as you apparently do.

The testimony of Christ trumps all, and we come here together by faith, not by fear or frustration in trying to figure out specific geography from a mostly spiritual record, as opposed to the historical one which we don't have.

[beastie]

Sevenbak, on 23 January 2010 - 09:53 AM, said:

Brave has nothing to do with it.  I trust the words of the prophets over some modern scholars.  I may be in the minority for this site, but there are many faithful members of the church who don't see the geography as such a hinder as you apparently do.

The testimony of Christ trumps all, and we come here together by faith, not by fear or frustration in trying to figure out specific geography from a mostly spiritual record, as opposed to the historical one which we don't have.

But you have figured out a specific geography, just as much as the LGT have.

[dblagent007]

Sevenbak, on 23 January 2010 - 09:53 AM, said:

Brave has nothing to do with it.  I trust the words of the prophets over some modern scholars.  I may be in the minority for this site, but there are many faithful members of the church who don't see the geography as such a hinder as you apparently do.

The testimony of Christ trumps all, and we come here together by faith, not by fear or frustration in trying to figure out specific geography from a mostly spiritual record, as opposed to the historical one which we don't have.

It's refreshing to hear someone state that they will follow the prophet regardless of the contrary scientific evidence.  I'm sympathetic to that position since I too couldn't perform the mental gymnastics necessary to make the two mesh.

[Sevenbak]

beastie, on 23 January 2010 - 10:00 AM, said:

But you have figured out a specific geography, just as much as the LGT have.

Sure, I see the words of the prophets backed up by the text, it makes sense to me.

Others here read obstacles into it, which I don't see as a problem.  There are definitely different camps within the believing community.

Bottom line, putting the textual clues aside, it's like I said in the other thread... some take the prophets words with a grain of salt.   Others take it with a grain of mustard seed.

[Sevenbak]

dblagent007, on 23 January 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

It's refreshing to hear someone state that they will follow the prophet regardless of the contrary scientific evidence.  I'm sympathetic to that position since I too couldn't perform the mental gymnastics necessary to make the two mesh.

That's an interesting claim to make, seeing how one could say the entire bible and the teachings of the Savior are "contrary to scientific evidence".

For me, the mental gymnastics are trying to find which mortal with limited understanding of the ways of God should I trust more than God?  It's a no brainer, even with my mental gymnastic skewered brain.


Cheers

[beastie]

Sevenbak, on 23 January 2010 - 10:28 AM, said:

Sure, I see the words of the prophets backed up by the text, it makes sense to me.

Others here read obstacles into it, which I don't see as a problem.  There are definitely different camps within the believing community.

Bottom line, putting the textual clues aside, it's like I said in the other thread... some take the prophets words with a grain of salt.   Others take it with a grain of mustard seed.

In behalf of LGTists, may I just say:  Ouch!

[Sevenbak]

beastie, on 23 January 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

In behalf of LGTists, may I just say:  Ouch!

You are hardly in a position to speak for believing members of the Church.

[beastie]

Sevenbak, on 23 January 2010 - 10:37 AM, said:

You are hardly in a position to speak for believing members of the Church.

Maybe not, but do you really believe that your comparison to a grain of salt versus a grain of mustard seed wouldn't bother them?

Come on.  It was a zinger and you know it.

[Sevenbak]

Sure it was, we have fun zinging each other here.

But don't try to take sides from a faithless point of view.  That's completely contrary to the whole foundation of the Gospel, to which we all belong here.

I'm leaving for the afternoon, zing away.