Mesoamerican Theory Predictions

[cdowis]

You wrote, "It is now published by a company owned by the Church"

 

The Mormon's Codex is published by the Maxwell Institute. The Maxwell Institute is owned by BYU, and BYU is owned by the church, so what is your point? 

 

Isn't it obvious?  He is "connecting the dots".  

 

 For example, the mall was built by the church, endorsed by Pres. Monson himself who declared "Start shopping."  Therefore, we can conclude that the church endorses everything that is sold there.  

 

 

It doesn't matter if the prophet Joseph Smith believed in the LGT or not, the prophet was a human too with opinions. It doesn't matter because the Church does not have an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.  

 

If Sorenson is right or wrong on that point, it doesn't matter. 

 

Methinks the point is too subtle for some individuals.

 

However, if you study ancient America (the church encourages secular studies), you will realize that Mesoamerica is the only place where the Book of Mormon fits. The Mesoamerica LGT is the only plausible theory. 

 

Among other things, It is the only location that has an ancient city with a BOM name.

Edited August 23, 2014 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

You seemed to have thought about the sin of Book of Mormon geography.

Well, ever since I worked for Jack Welch as a research assistant I've been interested in it, how it has developed, Elder Milton R.Hunter's work, and so forth.  It is a fascinating attempt to secularize what can't be secularized.

 

You wrote, "It is now published by a company owned by the Church"

The Mormon's Codex is published by the Maxwell Institute. The Maxwell Institute is owned by BYU, and BYU is owned by the church, so what is your point?

I think that is an excellent question.

Certainly, church doctrinal statements will be found from the statements of prophets and apostles in General Conference and in their books. One measure of the authoritative nature of DoS, as I have pointed out, is the frequency by which it has been treated as doctrine by the Brethren in General Conference. Compare that to the frequency by which a prophet or apostle has cited or endorsed Codex or Ancient, you'll start to get the picture.

BYU does not pretend to be "the Church." I've bought Metcalfe's books at the BYU Bookstore and I don't see that means that the Church endorses him. BYU is simply a university, and the fact that it prints Codex doesn't mean it has Church endorsement.

Contrast that with DoS - written by an apostle, published by the Church as "authoritative" when he was president of the Church. We shouldn't casually reject DoS merely because the arm of the flesh is beckoning to us.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[JDave]

Atlantean theorists are crackpots.

That isn't a substantive response, and doesn't address anything I said.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Certainly, church doctrinal statements will be found from the statements of prophets and apostles in General Conference and in their books. 

 

Doctrine can be found, but not everything is official doctrine. Official doctrine is declared in the Scriptures and Official church statements. 

 

Contrast that with DoS - written by an apostle, published by the Church as "authoritative" when he was president of the Church. We shouldn't casually reject DoS merely because the arm of the flesh is beckoning to us.

 

It was written by a man, “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” See 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

 

Prophets are not God, they are human too, and we are not required to read the DoS because it is not a church publication. 

Edited August 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

It was written by a man, “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” See 

 

A much overused cliche.  True but much much overused. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

A much overused cliche.  True but much much overused. 

 

most members never use it

[ERayR]

most members never use it

 

Only when the GA's statement disagrees with their personal opinion.  It does come in handy for deflecting pesky opposition.

[morgan.deane]

Only when the GA's statement disagrees with their personal opinion.  It does come in handy for deflecting pesky opposition.

In my discussion of military topics I've often found that a person's attachment and weight they give to a prophets words is largely dependent on their pre selected position. If the prophets support the person's position the quote is held as authoritative and sometimes used as a cudgel with which to beat opponents. If they don't agree with their position, the prophets' words are explained away using various techniques such as the line above. Most of the time the people who argue with me oppose war use the same couple of prophetic quotes as though they are doctrine; but these are often the same people that distance themselves from the prophets in regards to various social issues.   I've discussed this a few times in relation to military history topics on my blog such as this recent post: 

 

http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/peace-pr-statements-and-connor-boyack.html

 

That being said, the statement is correct. I would also add this link that reinforces the idea that single statements are often well thought out opinions, and that binding doctrine is found in the standard works, and statements from the first presidency and quorum of the 12:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2014 by morgan.deane

[MormonFreeThinker]

Only when the GA's statement disagrees with their personal opinion.  It does come in handy for deflecting pesky opposition.

 

GA do have personal opinions, and I do not disagree with all of their personal opinions. 

Personal opinion is not doctrine 

[krampus]

from reading the first few pages, I would like to mention that the book of mormon doesnt actually mention specifically volcanic eruptions. It mentions floods, earthquakes, thunder and lightning, earth toppling, and vapors of blackness. You cant really say that joseph Smith knew about volcanic eruptions in the Americas based on the Book of Mormon.

[krampus]

edit: it doesnt mention floods, just cities falling into the sea. Also, At least one of the ruins in this lake date to 250 a.d., if you want to take wikipedia on faith.

[ERayR]

GA do have personal opinions, and I do not disagree with all of their personal opinions. 

Personal opinion is not doctrine 

 

I did not say you disagreed with all GA's statements and opinions.  I said:  "Only when the GA's statement disagrees with their your personal opinion.  It does come in handy for deflecting pesky opposition" and that it was greatly over used.   Also you have several posts using it in just that way.

[ERayR]

In my discussion of military topics I've often found that a person's attachment and weight they give to a prophets words is largely dependent on their pre selected position. If the prophets support the person's position the quote is held as authoritative and sometimes used as a cudgel with which to beat opponents. If they don't agree with their position, the prophets' words are explained away using various techniques such as the line above. Most of the time the people who argue with me oppose war use the same couple of prophetic quotes as though they are doctrine; but these are often the same people that distance themselves from the prophets in regards to various social issues.   I've discussed this a few times in relation to military history topics on my blog such as this recent post: 

 

http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2014/07/peace-pr-statements-and-connor-boyack.html

 

That being said, the statement is correct. I would also add this link that reinforces the idea that single statements are often well thought out opinions, and that binding doctrine is found in the standard works, and statements from the first presidency and quorum of the 12:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

 

 

My approach, if I disagree with a GA, especially the prophet, is to try and make sure what they are saying.  Quite often it leads to some serious meditation and a better understanding of the topic.  For all too msany it is a quick dismissal and on to the next point.

[cdowis]

from reading the first few pages, I would like to mention that the book of mormon doesnt actually mention specifically volcanic eruptions. It mentions floods, earthquakes, thunder and lightning, earth toppling, and vapors of blackness. You cant really say that joseph Smith knew about volcanic eruptions in the Americas based on the Book of Mormon.

 

Don't have the reference now, but a geologist wrote an article analyzing the text in 3 Nephi.  The description of the events were consistent with volcanic activity.

[Sevenbak]

My approach, if I disagree with a GA, especially the prophet, is to try and make sure what they are saying.  Quite often it leads to some serious meditation and a better understanding of the topic.  For all too msany it is a quick dismissal and on to the next point.

Well said.  I also find this helpful, from P. Benson:  "There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men-between the prophet and the politician or professor."

[MormonFreeThinker]

You cant really say that joseph Smith knew about volcanic eruptions in the Americas based on the Book of Mormon.

 

But LDS scholars made that theory before the data confirmed volcanic eruptions in the 3 Nephi time period .

 

El Chichón

Eruption in 0020 BCE (margin of error ± 50 years) out of 11 eruptions in the last 12,000 years 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341120

 

Tacaná

Eruption in 0070 (margin of error  ± 100 years) out of 13 eruptions in the last 8,000 years. 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341130

 

San Martín

Eruption in 0150 BCE (margin of error ± 300 years) out of 16 eruptions in the last 5,500 years 

http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=341110

Edited August 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

edit: it doesnt mention floods, just cities falling into the sea. Also, At least one of the ruins in this lake date to 250 a.d., if you want to take wikipedia on faith.

 

I do not like the wikipedia. 

The ruins were drowned about 2,000 ago, but no serious study has been published that confirms exactly when that event happened.  I hope one day. 

[ERayR]

I do not like the wikipedia. 

The ruins were drowned about 2,000 ago, but no serious study has been published that confirms exactly when that event happened.  I hope one day. 

 

Really the ruins, wherever they are, what LDS or non-LDS scholars think are irrelevant.

[Robert F. Smith]

Does the Mayan script from 250 BCE have any resemblance to Egyptian or Hebrew script? Does it reference anything that could be connected to the BOM? Has the flooded city been explored and have artifacts been found that tie back to the BOM? The purpose of the mesoamerican model is to predict the location of sites described in the BOM. If the "evidence" can't be tied back to the BOM then there is no predictive power.

Hi Smiley,

I suggest first that you read up on the subject of Mesoamerican correlations with the Book of Mormon.  Several books are available, none of them arguing seriously that the Maya are related to the Nephites.  In fact, Sorenson places the Nephites primarily in the Grijalva River Valley of southern Mexico, which was inhabited by a people unrelated to the Maya.

Second, it is helpful to study the "mother culture" of Mesoamerica, the Olmec -- whose high civilization flourished and declined long before Lehi and Nephi arrived.  The various cultures of Mesoamerica all learned a great deal from the Olmecs (writing, calendar, math, engineering, astronomy, etc.), even though they later forgot about that culture (anthropologists don't even know what the Olmecs called themselves).

Finally, even though the man who deciphered Maya writing was an Egyptologist who saw great similarities between the ideas behind Egyptian and Mayan writing methods, it is clear that they are very different, unrelated languages.

 

False premises generally lead to false conclusions.

[Robert F. Smith]

Don't have the reference now, but a geologist wrote an article analyzing the text in 3 Nephi.  The description of the events were consistent with volcanic activity.

You might be referring to Payson Sheets (geologist & archeologist), "An Ancient Natural Disaster," Expedition, 13 (Fall 1971):24-31, as summarized by Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, 321.

[Kevin Christensen]

A more recent essay giving a geologist's perspective on 3 Nephi is here, Bart Kowallis, "In the Thirty and Fourth Year"

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6500

 

I think is essential reading.

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[cdowis]

Hi Smiley,

I suggest first that you read up on the subject of Mesoamerican correlations with the Book of Mormon.  Several books are available, none of them arguing seriously that the Maya are related to the Nephites.  In fact, Sorenson places the Nephites primarily in the Grijalva River Valley of southern Mexico, which was inhabited by a people unrelated to the Maya.

 

 

I remember someone in the forum  sharing a map of the towns and villages in ancient mesoamerica.  There were almost a hundred of them and many of them were not mayan.  We tend to throw everyone in mesoamerica into the mayan bucket, but that is just laziness.

Edited August 26, 2014 by cdowis