Maya City Of Bountiful

[poulsenll]

- Their religion is fairly well understood, and bears no idealogical connection or ideological roots with Christianity/Mormonism

- The didn't have horse-drawn chariots, as mentioned in the Book of the Mormon.

- They didn't have horses at all, as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

- They didn't have goats, or wild goats, as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

- They didn't have pigs, etc

- They didn't posses steel smelting or ocean-going ship building abilities, etc

- The didn't grow oats, barley, wheat or other old-world grains. They did grow squash, beans, potatoes, chiles and tomatoes, all genuine new-world crops, none of which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

- They didn't poseess a language with Hebraic or Semetic roots.

- They didn't write in a way that resembled those languages, or the Anthon parchment with the nonsense scribbles.

- They did posses a wide array of deep mathematical and astronomical skills, neither or which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, or match-up with the supposedly "inspired" Abrahamic astronomy portrayed in The Book of Abraham.

You are right, the Maya culture is not the Nephite culture. It is in the wrong place and although there is much conjecture about their religion, it is still not well understood. Anthropologists still talk about gods 1, 2 and 3 etc. because they have yet to come to a consensus about what the Mayan religion was all about. What little we do know strongly suggests that it was not Nephite in any way. The BoM says little about the Lamanite religion other than that it was idolatros as demonstrated by what little we know.

Although there are a number of Mormon tour guides who like to regale tourists with tales of the Mayan nephites and the wonderful ruins they left behind, no serious apologist considers the Maya to be Nephite.

Please stop assuming that Mormons believe the Maya culture and beliefs were ever those held by the Nephites.

Larry P

[chonguey]

Although there are a number of Mormon tour guides who like to regale tourists with tales of the Mayan nephites and the wonderful ruins they left behind, no serious apologist considers the Maya to be Nephite.

Funny you should mention that, last time I was in the Yucatan visiting a site I saw a tour group doing a Spanish language tour with the guide wearing a "Tour's Mosiah" polo. I listened in a little and didn't hear anything that he was saying was LDS or Book of Mormon specific, but I think it is safe to assume it was an LDS-themed tour as a local Church member I talked to said that it amounted for a significant amount of the tours that take place at sites. Although he plainly admitted that most of what the LDS guides claim are parallels are often dubious at best.

Please stop assuming that Mormons believe the Maya culture and beliefs were ever those held by the Nephites.

It's not exactly like I am making this stuff up. Although this movie isn't sanctioned by the Church officially, we see that the culture and iconography of ancient Mesoamerica has been co-opted to serialize the Book of Mormon "stories" and ideas in to a historical setting.

http://www.passagetozarahemla.com/

The Testament of One Fold and One Shepherd ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Testament...nd_One_Shepherd ), an official Church production, does the same thing, co-opting Mesomerican cultures and iconography for their own purposes. The assumptions that drive this are clearly circular and the cherry-picked evidences don't justify such a wholesale and deliberate cultural rip-off.

I'm sure many here won't object to this, as if Mormonism has a divine right to co-opt other cultures and histories in to their theology sans proof. This can be said for many cultures and ideologies that Mormonism cannibalizes and tries to synthesize (Judiasm, Christianity, Free Masonry). I'm sure that many will question my motives for such objections. *Shrug* That's their prerogative. Even when I was more of a TBM and an apologist, I thought such things were "wrong" to do in the light of flimsy evidences.

[Hashbaz]

If you'd like some ancient Maya toponyms that might be of interest, may I suggest the following, with the understanding that the /j/ phoneme takes on the /y/ sound in Hebrew:

Josh = Yax (a toponym mentioned in inscriptions at Caracol)

Jashon = Yax Nil (the phonetic glyphs used to spell it are yax-un-il, possibly pronounced Yaxunil)

Jacom = Yokman (Tikal area polity/toponym, with phonetic spelling Yo-ko-ma-n(a), possibly reading Yokoman)

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the Nephites or Lamanites were Maya, but I do believe they lived among them or had interaction with them, as all Mesoamerican cultures did at the time (and toponyms were at times shared across language boundaries and at times translated/modified)

[livy111us]

The Dude,

I've wondered that myself. I tried to look it up in my Quiche for Idiots, or whatever the name of that book is, but couldn't find it. I looked online for translations and came up with nothing. Let me know if you find anything.

[chonguey]

WOW, you've been to 2 ruins!!! You MUST be an expert. I would ignore everything that Brant Gardner says, who actually IS an expert, as well as John Sorenson and the other experts, because you've been there. WOW!!!!

No, over a half dozen actually, and a half dozen more than I presume you have actually taken the effort to visit. And I said I was a mere amateur enthusiast and never made the claim to be anything but a casual student of the subject. My specialized scientific training lies in other disciplines.

If Zarahemla were to be found tomorrow, you'd try to explain that it was a very common name among groups of people and means nothing.

Actually, if you had bothered to read my previous post you will see where I make clear that the discovery of the name Zarahemla would be extremely important and an evidence of the non-trivial variety. Quit misrepresenting my arguments. However, and this is important, this future Zarahmela discovery you hypothesize is just that: one that you hope will be made someday, and not an actual evidence that can be demonstrated today. If it ever happens, it will certainly cause me to reevaluate things.

P.S. This is the last time you get responded to unless you want to stop the sketchy personal attacks. This isn't about me. Your tone is shrill and nearly undeserving of responding to.

[livy111us]

I am curious as to what you mean by "re-evaluate" things if Zarahemla was discovered. If that is what you are looking for, would you come running back? What would you do?

[chonguey]

I am curious as to what you mean by "re-evaluate" things if Zarahemla was discovered. If that is what you are looking for, would you come running back? What would you do?

I think there are still enough problems with LDS theology and history that a Zarahemla discovery in and of itself wouldn't be enough to change my mind on the "Is the Church TRUE?" question, especially if it is of the dubious apologetic type of "discovery" that includes a lot of untested and unfounded assumptions, linguistic tricks and leaps of logic. But the non-existence of the location of Zarahmela is at the bottom of the list of problems with LDS claims. It would be a significant discovery, but hardly the kind of proof that is the vindication of Mormonism. But such a discovery hasn't been made so it is rhetorical to assume how my opinion might change.

And "running back"? My intellectual and philosophical relationship with Mormonism isn't the fickle variety where my opinion gets blown about and I keep sticking my head in the sand simply because believing LDS religious mythology makes me feel safe. Personally, I'm beyond that sort of reliance on fanciful unsupported notions.

[Hashbaz]

They didn't write in a way that resembled those languages, or the Anthon parchment with the nonsense scribbles

Actually some of the characters from the Anthon manuscript are identical to Maya. For example, I see the Maya bar and dot system of numerals used a couple of times (ex: the bar with 4 dots = 9), and there are a few that bear close resemblance to those recorded in Landa's famous "alphabet" (which was key in the decipherment of the glyphs). Incidentally, I think the Anthon manuscript is upside down.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/religi...da-alphabet.gif

[juliann]

Please stop assuming that Mormons believe the Maya culture and beliefs were ever those held by the Nephites.

Has there ever been a thread on any discovery where this is not the first strawman erected? Is there a countermo in existence who does not do this?

More countermospeak: especially if it is of the dubious apologetic type of "discovery" that includes a lot of untested and unfounded assumptions, linguistic tricks and leaps of logic.

That would, of course, include most of what goes on in Mesoamerican studies because so little is known. But I've never seen a double standard that a countermo didn't like.

[livy111us]

There are some side by side comparisons with the Anthon manuscript and the Tlatilco seal and they match up. The seal was found in the right area and dates to the right time.

Also, I found this a while ago, can't remember where, but found it interesting. I am sure there is some hopeful speculation in there, maybe Hashbaz can clear it up for me.

Kib--Name of the sixth month in the Yucatec Maya calendar.

Shule--Name of the sixteenth day of the 260-day calendar in Yucatec.

Akish--Close parallel to the Quiche Maya Kaqix (Caquix) of the Popol Vuh. The name combines kaq

"red" and qix "feather" and means the scarlet macaw parrot. (Tedlock 1985: 237). (The x is pronounced

as sh in English in Mesoamerican words and names.)

Com--Tzotzil Maya for "log stool" or "armadillo"(Laughlin 1975: 104).

Kish--Two meanings for this word are available: (1) "kix" in Yucatec and Chol Maya, meaning "spine,"

"thorn," and maybe "stingray spine" (Stross 1998: e-mail) and (2) "kix" in the Palenque hieroglyphs

"feather" (Kelley 1965, 112, 114, Figures 23,34,49-53). The glyph at Palenque on the Tablet of the

Cross is associated with the calendar name Nine Wind of Quetzalcoatl. Kelley's Figure 34. From

Teotihuacan, Mexico, shows Quetzalcoatl with beard and feathers and emphasizes the serpent fangs. It

could be that both the meanings are relevant, and that the feathers and fangs are both important.

Shiblon--The Shib or Xib part of the name is very common inYucatec Maya--for example,

Chak-Xib-Chak, Ek-Xib-Chak, Sak-Xib-Chak, Kan-Xib-Chak, etc.

Hill Shim--In Yucatec Maya and other Mayan languages â?? for example, an ear of corn or kernels of

corn is ixim (Laughlin 1975: 419) In the Tuxtla Mountains of southern Veracruz, Mexico, one of the

mountains is called Cintepec in the Aztec language. Cintepec means "corn hill." The Aztecs lived late in

Mesoamerican history and were glossing earlier names with the equivalent in their own language. In

Mayan languages, it would be ixim (as mentioned earlier, the x becomes sh in English).

Wilderness of Akish--As noted above, Akish is very similar to the Kiche Maya name Kaqix or Caquix.

This name refers to the macaw parrot. The Tuxtla Mountains of southern Veracruz were glossed, by the

Aztecs as Toztlan, which means the place of the macaw parrots. The Aztec place name glyph also

depicts a macaw parrot for these mountains (Covarrubias 1947: 26, n. 4).

Land of Heth--A land by the east sea mentioned early in the Jaredite account. The indirect hint for the

location of this land centers on the meaning of the letter Heth in Hebrew. The letter Heth relates to the

Big Dipper constellation and the number seven (Moran and Kelley 1969: 49, 81). The Popol Vuh

account of Wukub Kaqix associates him with the Big Dipper, and his name means "seven macaw" Could

this be the land of Heth to the Tuxtla Mountains region of southern Veracruz? Both the Big Dipper

constellation and the macaw parrot are tied to Wukub Kaqix. Perhaps the land of Heth and the

wilderness of Akish are adjacent to each other.

And a little older, and probably a bit more speculative:

â??A planet, a sign in the heavens, was called â??otâ??, or â??othâ??, in the Mayan language, and is

still called so in the Huastica dialect; it is â??othâ?? in Hebrew.

The night, or period, is called â??lailo,â?? in Mexican, while the Hebrew and Arabic is

â??lailaâ??, â??leila.â??

The idea of whiteness, or brightness, is expressed by the word â??zackâ?? all over central

America, and especially in Yucatan; the Hebrew is â??zachâ??

Anything in the nature of food, or sustenance of life, is called in the Mexican language

â??zeeta;â?? in Hebrew and Arabic â??zaidâ??.

A fire, a burning or an oven is called in Peru and the northern parts of South America

â??tunni,â?? â??etunni.â?? in the Chaldaic and Hebrew it is â??attunâ??; in ancient keltic it is â??teinneâ??; and in

ancient Egypt the name for the suns disc, the source of all heat, was â??aten.â??

The word for earth, the lower world, among all the tribes of the Aymara Indians, was

â??urak,â?? â??urakke,â?? which is the same as the Chaldaic, â??urakâ??, â??urakkeâ??.

The hollow of the hand, or the two hands joined together so as to hold water to drink is

â??kabâ?? or â??kabhâ??, in the Maya language; in the Hebrew it is â??kaph.â??

Any great man, or leader of men, a chief, is called all over central America and the west

Indies, â??kaziqueâ??; in the Hebrew it is â??khazekâ??, â??khezekâ??.

A collection of flowers in a bouquet, wreath or garland was called a â??zizaâ?? or â??zissahâ?? in

Hebrew.

A tree is called in the Peruvian and central American dialects â??yaor,â?? which is the same

as the Hebrew â??yaarâ??, a tree.

In Alaska and the Aleutian islands a brother is called â??aak,â?? or â??aakiâ??, in the Hebrew and

Arabic, it is â??aach.â??

To double, to repeat, is expressed in the Yucatan dialect by â??kappal,â?? while in the

Hebrew it is â??kaphalâ??

Poison or terror causing death, is called in central American â??puggalâ??, and this word in

Hebrew has the same meaning.

The tree from which certain tribes of the north American Indians used to get the poison

for their arrows was called by them â??puggalyâ??

Firewood is still called in Venezuela â??kaameryâ??; in Hebrew â??kamarâ??

A ruler or king in Mexican is â??capachâ?? while in Hebrew it is â??gabachâ??

A son is called in Guatemala â??penâ??, in Hebrew â??benâ??

To light, to shine, is exactly the same in Maya and Hebrew: â??nagahâ??

The overflowing of the holy lake in the Maya legend is called â??tchomaâ??; the great flood

in the Hebrew legend is called â??tchom rabbaâ??.

The word â??zuphâ?? in Hebrew means a large river, or the overflowing of a smaller one; in

nearly all of the north American Indian dialects the word for a river is â??ziphâ??, â??zephâ??, or â??sipiâ??,

their greatest river they called â??the fish riverâ??: â??na messi zippiâ??â?? hence the word â??Mississippiâ??.

The old Hebrew verb â??makhakâ?? meant â??to strikeâ?? (piel) â??to kill by strikingâ?? the north

American Indian expression for â??the weapon for killingâ?? is ta-mahakan,â?? from which we get the

word tomahawk.â? (The Great Migration pg. 224-227 Fitzgerald Lee)

English Indian Hebrew or Chaldaic

Jehovah Yohewah Jehovah

Jah Yah Jah

Heavens Hemin Hemim

Man Ishte Ish

Wife Awah Ecoch

Winter Kora Korah

To pray Phale Phalac

Man of God Ishto alle Ishda elloah

Shiloh Shilu Shiloh

Father Abba Abba

Woman Ishto Ishto

name Na Na

Praise to

the First

Cause Halleluwah Hallelujah

Lightning Berok Baraq

Shoulder Sikum/sika Sekem/sikm

Kidney Kali Kilyah/kolyah

Water Meme-t (ocean) Mayim/meem (water)

What "Indian" means is unknown

[consiglieri]

I think there are still enough problems with LDS theology and history that a Zarahemla discovery in and of itself wouldn't be enough to change my mind on the "Is the Church TRUE?" question, especially if it is of the dubious apologetic type of "discovery" that includes a lot of untested and unfounded assumptions, linguistic tricks and leaps of logic.

Thank you for your tacit admission that your problem with Mormonism is theology and history. It appears that whatever problems you have in this regard are coloring your view regarding the evidential value of a city named "Bountiful" in pre-conquest Mayan.

First you argue that "Bountiful" is a place name that is superabundant and that therefore this "hit" means nothing. When evidence of the paucity of place-names "Bountiful" is presented, you try to say that actually supports your argument. Incredible.

As to the interpretation of the Mayan name "Bountiful," I think the important thing here is it was not Nibley doing the translation. In other words, it was a presumably non-LDS scholar doing his best to render the Mayan in English, and what does he come up with? "Bountiful."

For the record, I opened my big National Geographic World Atlas last night to check on place names "Bountiful," and the only "Bountiful" they have listed other than Utah is the Bountiful Islands in northern Australia.

I am aware that I do not know the many languages of the world which could possibly have place names that, when translated, come out as "Bountiful." We can probably rest assured that Joseph Smith didn't, either.

But this is a remarkable find, nevertheless.

And since you are clear that the discovery of a place named "Zarahemla" would not impress you, either, I guess we can put the search on hold.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sargon]

Thoughts from a casual observer:

The OP mentions a Mayan city that when translated means "Bountiful." What confuses me is why this is of any consequence if we adamantly ensure our critics that we do not believe that the Maya are the nephites.

On the other hand, if this one question were anwered, I see this find as evidence for the Book of Mormon. It isn't proof, and it doesn't seem to me anyway as particularly strong evidence, but it is evidence. Our critics sometimes dismiss the NHM find as trivial, because to them it is likely and acceptable that of all the BoM city names at least one coincidence would be found in the right area. But what if two are found? Is it likely that two cities or sites should be found in roughly the correct area that the BoM describes? I thought there was absolutely zero, zip, nada evidence for the BoM. Perhaps it isn't terribly strong evidence, and certainly not proof, but isn't it evidence?

As for chong's argument that "bountiful" is trivial because we should expect to find that sort of environment-describing name given to many places in many parts of the world in many languages, it does seem a valid argument, until one actually searches for it. I searched in English and Portuguese, the two languages that I speak, and could only find Mormon founded cities, and one hunting lodge in Mexico.

Anyway, maybe someone could tell me why this find is significant if the Maya were not the Nephites anyway.

Sargon

[consiglieri]

Thank you for your input, Sargon.

I agree with you that the value of "Bountiful" as evidence for the Book of Mormon is pretty much an individual matter; I may see it as more significant than you, but we agree that it likely does have some significance.

What chaffed me about Chuey's response was his adamant refusal to assign to this discovery any evidentiary value whatsoever.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sargon]

Thank you for your input, Sargon.

I agree with you that the value of "Bountiful" as evidence for the Book of Mormon is pretty much an individual matter; I may see it as more significant than you, but we agree that it likely does have some significance.

What chaffed me about Chuey's response was his adamant refusal to assign to this discovery any evidentiary value whatsoever.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well I am not well-studied in this arena, so if someone were to develop a study of this find and produce a thorough argument I would of course be very willing to be persuaded!!

Sargon

[poulsenll]

Anyway, maybe someone could tell me why this find is significant if the Maya were not the Nephites anyway.

Sargon

Based on current models of BofM geography, the land Bountiful overlapped Mayan culture areas. The Maya culture, from which this story comes, was later than the Nephite culture. However, it is common for cultures that enter a previously occupued area, to gloss local names for geographuc features with words with same meaning in their language.

Larry P

[consiglieri]

Based on current models of BofM geography, the land Bountiful overlapped Mayan culture areas. The Maya culture, from which this story comes, was later than the Nephite culture. However, it is common for cultures that enter a previously occupued area, to gloss local names for geographuc features with words with same meaning in their language.

Larry P

Dear Larry,

Are you able to get a good enough fix on the location of this "Bountiful" to see how it squares with your proposed Book of Mormon geography?

Also, I am interested in knowing what value you assign to this discovery.

Do you feel it interesting that the location of "Bountiful" is given in proximity to a place called "Earthquake"?

And how long have you known about this?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Doctor Steuss]

Kinda intersting here. What would be the nephite word for "earthquake" if it wasnt translated into english?

Maybe ra'ash (see Amos 1:1 for an example -- רעשׁ).

[poulsenll]

Dear Larry,

Are you able to get a good enough fix on the location of this "Bountiful" to see how it squares with your proposed Book of Mormon geography?

Also, I am interested in knowing what value you assign to this discovery.

Do you feel it interesting that the location of "Bountiful" is given in proximity to a place called "Earthquake"?

And how long have you known about this?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The location of this Bountiful would have been near the city of Nephi-Lehi rather than north of the Land of Zarahemla. This does not discount a possible connection with the BofM. The Lehites had a custom of naming areas where they settled with the name Bountiful as noted in their travels in Arabia. This would have been near or in the area occupied by the Nephites who returned to the land of their inheritance in the Land of Nephi-Lehi. It is the same area that Nephi and "those who would go with him" called their new land of Inheritance after they lost the area of Lehi's first inheritance due to the iniquity of the majoity who sided with Laman and Lemuel. As I said previously, new cultures who take over an area previously occupied by an older culture, as did the Quiche(see the Popul Vuh), will gloss the names of local features into their own language.

I would give it a low priority if it were not for the finding of such a low incidence of its use outside the Mormon community. Even so, it would be difficult to assess any large amount of significance because it is not located in the same area as the Land Bountiful as described by Mormon in Alma 22:29

29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called aBountiful.

Earthquakes are so common in this area that I would be surprised to not find at least one place called by that name.

The OP was the first time I became aware of this and as I mentioned above, I immediately discounted it until Chonguey goaded me into doing the search on Google Earth. I still think it is only periphally related to the idea and land of Bountiful as recorded in the BoM.

There are much better connections with precolumbian locality names, Tehuantepec - wilderness of wild beasts-wilderness of Hermounts and Tepantzintla-Corn Hill-Hill Shim.

As more and more similar connections are found, the significance of each one becomes greater as a part of the whole.

Larry P

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

The location of this Bountiful would have been near the city of Nephi-Lehi rather than north of the Land of Zarahemla. This does not discount a possible connection with the BofM. The Lehites had a custom of naming areas where they settled with the name Bountiful as noted in their travels in Arabia. This would have been near or in the area occupied by the Nephites who returned to the land of their inheritance in the Land of Nephi-Lehi. It is the same area that Nephi and "those who would go with him" called their new land of Inheritance after they lost the area of Lehi's first inheritance due to the iniquity of the majoity who sided with Laman and Lemuel. As I said previously, new cultures who take over an area previously occupied by an older culture, as did the Quiche(see the Popul Vuh), will gloss the names of local features into their own language.

I would give it a low priority if it were not for the finding of such a low incidence of its use outside the Mormon community. Even so, it would be difficult to assess any large amount of significance because it is not located in the same area as the Land Bountiful as described by Mormon in Alma 22:29

Earthquakes are so common in this area that I would be surprised to not find at least one place called by that name.

The OP was the first time I became aware of this and as I mentioned above, I immediately discounted it until Chonguey goaded me into doing the search on Google Earth. I still think it is only periphally related to the idea and land of Bountiful as recorded in the BoM.

There are much better connections with precolumbian locality names, Tehuantepec - wilderness of wild beasts-wilderness of Hermounts and Tepantzintla-Corn Hill-Hill Shim.

As more and more similar connections are found, the significance of each one becomes greater as a part of the whole.

Larry P

And more and more connections are found every day down there. The indigenous tribes down there (especially the Lacandon) all refer to a certain white god that lived preached and taught among them, with the promise that he would return.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And more and more connections are found every day down there. The indigenous tribes down there (especially the Lacandon) all refer to a certain white god that lived preached and taught among them, with the promise that he would return.

YEs. I heard of this many times. However I cant seem to find much on him. THere has been some speculation as to other mayan dieties but I was not convinced that it was Jesus. It didnt match up. Maybe some of the scholars here can shead more light on it.

[poulsenll]

YEs. I heard of this many times. However I cant seem to find much on him. THere has been some speculation as to other mayan dieties but I was not convinced that it was Jesus. It didnt match up. Maybe some of the scholars here can shead more light on it.

From what I can find, the Quiche god of creation was depicted as a Fethered serpent. His slin color is not stated in the Popul Vuh. The feathered serpent god is also known as the god of the north and north has the color white. In other words he is god of the north (white) not the white god. It would be easy to confuse his connection with the color white with skin color but I dont think ancient culture were very concerned with skin color. They were, however, concerned with the symbology of colors. As shown in the following compass rose I created to illustrate the mesoamerican concept of directions and compare it to our modern concept of directions, each of the four directions is associated with a color. The symbology of the color was the important thing not the color of the god. In all probability, the Catholic priests used this relationship between white and the creator god to convert the local worship from the "pagan" Gukumatz to the white Christ with the resultant erroneous belief that Gukimatz was a white diety.

Just some of my thoughts on the matter. As many of you are aware, Christ was a Palestinian Jew and may have been darker in skin color that are most mesoamerican natives. The Spanish were extremly predudiced agains the Arabs, (Moors) who conquered Spain and were finally defeated and expelled from Spain at the battle of Granada in 1492. To the Christian Spanish priests, a dark skin signified the Moorish oppression of the Catholic Church in Spain by the Moslems.

Larry P