A Place Called Mormon

[Anijen]

handys003 23 December 2009 - 07:25 PM

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.

This is not just a "may have" In the Book Palenque (David Stuart, George Stuart 2008)They pretty much say the aqueducts and efficient waterways is a fact and according to the book they have already identified six toilets (page 24) in the palace.

[handys003]

This is not just a "may have" In the Book Palenque (David Stuart, George Stuart 2008)They pretty much say the aqueducts and efficient waterways is a fact and according to the book they have already identified six toilets (page 24) in the palace.

Thanks everyone for reviving a long thought dead post.

That's what the author said not me. Besides my warped brain was asking the question now what did they use to wipe? Also was it right or left hand. Like in Arabic culture it's impolite to use the left hand as that is used for cleaning. I wonder if the Maya didn't have the same rules.

BTW I would've thought you would use a macaw for an avatar.

[Anijen]

Thanks everyone for reviving a long thought dead post.

That's what the author said not me. Besides my warped brain was asking the question now what did they use to wipe? Also was it right or left hand. Like in Arabic culture it's impolite to use the left hand as that is used for cleaning. I wonder if the Maya didn't have the same rules.

BTW I would've thought you would use a macaw for an avatar.

Good idea I have been trying to figure out a new avatar.

[handys003]

Good idea I have been trying to figure out a new avatar.

OH Noooooooo!

[Hyrum Page]

I don't find that there are many who say that we know. Most that I know of are simply presenting what they consider as evidence. It may be convincing to some and not to others. The only ones it really seems to bother is the anti crowd. To the rest of us it is an interesting pasttime. We are focused on the message of the Book of Mormon and not on its geography. Focusing on the geography is like passing up a diamond for a piece of glass.

Wise words.

[Hyrum Page]

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.

Well, you obviously missed the point.

[Sevenbak]

WE agree here I think they mesh.

Yup

But those ancient visitors (those from the BoM) still knew much more of the geography than Joseph did. I am not sure that those visitors even taught him about the geography, I think they stuck more to spiritual matters. Geography isn't specifically mentioned as ever being discussed by these visitors so it is speculation on our part.

Do you think everything he spoke with to his associates regarding this matter was revelatory? I do not. IMO there is revelation and then there is the afterglow of, wow, what did we just experience? And the many wonderful conversations that followed albeit those conversations all were not revelatory.

. See that's the rub, I do not believe that FARMS, or FAIR contradict any of the revelation by any of the church leaders. I do believe as they (those like Sorenson, Peterson, Brown, and others) have specialized in areas such as anthropology, archeology, languages, history etc. And since vast breakthroughs in those fields of study, such as the translation of Mayan glyphs etc. I believe that these brothers (and sisters) perhaps were called to live in these times perhaps in a small way to strengthen our testimonies of the Book of Mormon through their gifts. They may contradict some early leaders speculation but that is not a sin. Even the leaders past and present have had different theories on geography than their peers.

My brother Sevenbak, God bless you and your family.

I enjoy our banter but never ever mean to insult or condem.

Sincerely Anijen

Thanks Anijen, right back at ya! I think we're a lot closer in our understanding than apart. Here's that part of your response that we really differ on

"Do you think everything he spoke with to his associates regarding this matter was revelatory? I do not. "

I think the answer to that deserves it's own thread, which I will start here in a bit. In a nutshell... no, not everything, but considering how much was revealed to him, and what he did know, I believe that his understanding of the importance of Cumorah and this land and country were both understood by him, and taught to his close associates. Look for a new thread.

[Sevenbak]

Well, you obviously missed the point.

I very much got the point, and made my own.

Thanks anyway.

[beastie]

I very much got the point, and made my own.

Thanks anyway.

It seems to me that your point was to remind me of my "less equal" status as a nonbeliever. Apparently I don't even have the right to comment on zingers meant for other "more equal" folks.

BTW, it was quite a good zinger. You should be proud of it. And I think you have every right to indulge in such a zinger, based on things that have been said on this board about folks who cling to beliefs such as yours.

[Brant Gardner]

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.

The "problem" is that you are conflating different people with different opinions and suggesting differences as a problem for a theoretical approach. Too much apples and oranges.

Since you and I have gone around on the issue of the polities before, you will remember that I am the one who diminishes the influence of Book of Mormon cities on other locations. There are others who see it differently than I do. I also don't posit the most powerful polities in the larger region as part of the Book of Mormon, because they weren't in the place where I see the Book of Mormon taking place.

Your "frequent problem" really doesn't exist, since it appears to require that you contrast my reading of the text with someone else's. Rather than "defenders (plural) of the LGT" you might better have said "defender (singular)." From what I have seen, I don't have a lot of company in printed literature.

[Deborah]

To the rest of us it is an interesting pasttime. We are focused on the message of the Book of Mormon and not on its geography. Focusing on the geography is like passing up a diamond for a piece of glass.

This is such an important point for believers of the BoM. The issue not getting lost in the details but focusing on the greater message. I find it enjoyable to speculate and God certainly gave us our brains to use logic and reason and to interpret evidence at hand to formulate theories. But it isn't a life or death issue as it seems to be with antis.

I think it is so important to remember how little of the actual record we have. We have a third of an abridgement of the record, and that record focuses on the spiritual messages of the ancient prophets and not a historical or geographical record. Basically what we are doing when we speculate is reading between the lines, which may or may not give an accurate picture of the times.

[beastie]

The "problem" is that you are conflating different people with different opinions and suggesting differences as a problem for a theoretical approach. Too much apples and oranges.

Since you and I have gone around on the issue of the polities before, you will remember that I am the one who diminishes the influence of Book of Mormon cities on other locations. There are others who see it differently than I do. I also don't posit the most powerful polities in the larger region as part of the Book of Mormon, because they weren't in the place where I see the Book of Mormon taking place.

Your "frequent problem" really doesn't exist, since it appears to require that you contrast my reading of the text with someone else's. Rather than "defenders (plural) of the LGT" you might better have said "defender (singular)." From what I have seen, I don't have a lot of company in printed literature.

Brant,

In the past you have suggested Kaminaljuyu as a location for the City of Nephi. That suffers from the same problem this Palenque suggestion suffers from. In addition, Sorenson has suggested numerous extremely powerful polities as likely candidates.

But I do realize that you appreciate this problem, while other LGTists do not seem to appreciate its significance. It always appeared to me that one possibly primary reason certain apologists were so certain of Mesoamerica as the location was due to the fact that only Mesoamerica had an advanced level of social complexity at that time period. But if one has to avoid the very polities that expressed that advanced level of social complexity, what advantage does Mesoamerica offer?

[Brant Gardner]

But if one has to avoid the very polities that expressed that advanced level of social complexity, what advantage does Mesoamerica offer?

That is a strange question. The "advantage" of Mesoamerica isn't that there are some pretty ruins around, but that the geography, topography, hydrology, cultural trends, and historical trends (at the appropriate times) all fit with the text. All of those things happen to fit the Grijalva river valley during the bulk of Book of Mormon history. The know archaeology of that region doesn't have any sites comparable to places such as Tikal or the later Palenque.

As for Kaminaljuyu, it is a question of time periods, with only the period from about 550 BC to 200 or so BC being relevant. Kaminaljjuyu wasn't that important that early, and certainly was not comparable to the later polities you have discussed in the past.

[Helmuth]

Are not the words of the text the words of Prophets? I ask you who knew the geography better the prophets that lived there or the Prophets today?

The text can support a hemisherish geography. Ruling it out requires a lot of assumptions and extra-textual information. Just reading the book in a vacuum as it were, it's clear the area could have been very large.

[Nomad]

That is a strange question. The "advantage" of Mesoamerica isn't that there are some pretty ruins around, but that the geography, topography, hydrology, cultural trends, and historical trends (at the appropriate times) all fit with the text. All of those things happen to fit the Grijalva river valley during the bulk of Book of Mormon history. The know archaeology of that region doesn't have any sites comparable to places such as Tikal or the later Palenque.

As for Kaminaljuyu, it is a question of time periods, with only the period from about 550 BC to 200 or so BC being relevant. Kaminaljjuyu wasn't that important that early, and certainly was not comparable to the later polities you have discussed in the past.

As we have both noted in the past, beastie's scope of knowledge concerning Mesoamerica is strictly defined by and narrowly confined to those elements that she perceives provide her with a club with which to beat the Book of Mormon. I don't expect that to change anytime soon; to see the day when her understanding of the broader panorama of ancient Mesoamerica expands beyond her current straitened perspective. At least it is apparent that very little has changed since last I bothered to observe her commenting on these subjects.

One thing is clear to me: beastie is not truly interested in ancient Mesoamerica except as a means by which to assemble a few anti-Mormon talking points. From my perspective, that is a pretty poor motivation, and one that can never result in authentic scholarship.

[Anijen]

The text can support a hemisherish geography. Ruling it out requires a lot of assumptions and extra-textual information. Just reading the book in a vacuum as it were, it's clear the area could have been very large.

I certainly haven't read it in a vacuum, in fact I have changed my mind on numerous occasions and the more I learn of Mesoamerica the more I can see it in the Book of Mormon. Yes the text can support almost any geography to fit into any model but that is because the text is spiritual and not meant to be a map.

What I have done is follow the likes of Poulson, Sorenson, Gardner, Wright and others and take into account the approximately 500 directionals that the text offers and then match those and find a a setting that will fit into the proper time, topography, polities, written language, quotes from church leaders etc and the one that simply fits the best after my studies is Mesoamerica.

If I were to find out tomorrow that it all happened in the great lakes area or Antarctica I would not lose a wink of sleep because in the end this is only a fun hobby but the important message is the testimony of Christ it offers. First and foremost it to me is a book of scripture and a sacred record of another testament of Christ. The "where" is a superfluous even trivial pursuit albeit one I enjoy.

[beastie]

Last of all, I believe you fail to appreciate how little the the things that "archaeologists claim to know" are even pertinent to the question of whether or not a relatively small society never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present.

As we have both noted in the past, beastie's scope of knowledge concerning Mesoamerica is strictly defined by and narrowly confined to those elements that she perceives provide her with a club with which to beat the Book of Mormon. I don't expect that to change anytime soon; to see the day when her understanding of the broader panorama of ancient Mesoamerica expands beyond her current straitened perspective. At least it is apparent that very little has changed since last I bothered to observe her commenting on these subjects.

One thing is clear to me: beastie is not truly interested in ancient Mesoamerica except as a means by which to assemble a few anti-Mormon talking points. From my perspective, that is a pretty poor motivation, and one that can never result in authentic scholarship.

You are simply incorrect. There is no way that I would have developed the personal library on Mesoamerican topics that I have if my sole interest in the topic was the BoM. It is strange that you would presume to know enough about me to even make such a statement, frankly. I also think it

[beastie]

That is a strange question. The "advantage" of Mesoamerica isn't that there are some pretty ruins around, but that the geography, topography, hydrology, cultural trends, and historical trends (at the appropriate times) all fit with the text. All of those things happen to fit the Grijalva river valley during the bulk of Book of Mormon history. The know archaeology of that region doesn't have any sites comparable to places such as Tikal or the later Palenque.

As for Kaminaljuyu, it is a question of time periods, with only the period from about 550 BC to 200 or so BC being relevant. Kaminaljjuyu wasn't that important that early, and certainly was not comparable to the later polities you have discussed in the past.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on how well these items match ancient Mesoamerica. I recall hearing such things as the river Grivalja flowing northward as if that pinpointed Mesoamerica, and yet the River Genessee in NY also flows northward. I've also read Sorenson's reasonings for some of his assertions, and it's based on very vague statements in the BoM that likely could be interpreted in different ways than he chose.

Kaminaljuyu was already a developed polity by 550 BC. In fact, by 700 BCE it had already construted a major irrigation canal, and by 500 BCE was already carving stelae. The problem is all relative. Was Kaminaljuyu a powerful polity in 550 BC, compared to other polities? Yes. Perhaps it pales on comparison to later polities, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it was comparatively a powerful polity in its specific time period and region.

[Sevenbak]

It seems to me that your point was to remind me of my "less equal" status as a nonbeliever. Apparently I don't even have the right to comment on zingers meant for other "more equal" folks.

BTW, it was quite a good zinger. You should be proud of it. And I think you have every right to indulge in such a zinger, based on things that have been said on this board about folks who cling to beliefs such as yours.

The point was that it doesn't seem that you are in a position as a non believer in either Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon, or the Restored Gospel to make any such claims.

[Sevenbak]

The text can support a hemispherish geography. Ruling it out requires a lot of assumptions and extra-textual information. Just reading the book in a vacuum as it were, it's clear the area could have been very large.

Well said. For some of us, the text supports a Hemispheric geography quite nicely, even though it's primarily a spiritual record.

[beastie]

The point was that it doesn't seem that you are in a position as a non believer in either Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon, or the Restored Gospel to make any such claims.

One does not have to be a believer to recognize a zinger when one sees it, nor does one have to be a believer to figure out how the target group might react to the zinger. But I know how the game is played here. Some posters are more equal than others.

[Helmuth]

I certainly haven't read it in a vacuum, in fact I have changed my mind on numerous occasions and the more I learn of Mesoamerica the more I can see it in the Book of Mormon. Yes the text can support almost any geography to fit into any model but that is because the text is spiritual and not meant to be a map.

I appreciate that and am happy to see someone agree with me. Some supporters of LGT have, at times, overstated their position, claiming one cannot possibly read the text carefully, paying attention to geographical clues, and belive it took place in more than a 200 mile radius area. I disagree, see here: