MormonFreeThinker Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) Ancient cities discovered in Mesoamerica, and there are more to have not been discovered yet. "Sprajc said the two cities reached their heyday in the Late and Terminal Classic periods (600-1000 AD)" "His team has not yet excavated the sites."There are dozens of sites that I already have seen on the aerial photographs," he added, noting that additional discoveries depend on further funding"http://news.yahoo.com/two-ancient-mayan-cities-found-mexican-jungle-203117492.html "The name of the second site, Tamchén, means "deep well" in the local dialect, and references the over 30 chultuns—large well-like holes used to collect rainwater—that were found in the city. Tamchén was likely older than Lagunita, with features that indicate it could have been settled as early as 250 A.D"We still have a lot to learn about ancient mesoamerica, a lot to be discovered. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/two-mayan-cities-found-mexican-jungle-180952481/?no-ist We still have a lot to learn about ancient mesoamerica. How is the Great Lakes Theory doing? Any ancient cities that have been discovered lately in the USA? How is the Great Lakes theory plausible? Edited September 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) Ancient cities discovered in Mesoamerica, and there are more to have not been discovered yet. "His team has not yet excavated the sites."There are dozens of sites that I already have seen on the aerial photographs," he added, noting that additional discoveries depend on further funding" How is the Great Lakes Theory doing? Any ancient cities that have been discovered lately in the USA? How is the Great Lakes theory plausible? If they have not been discovered how can you know there are more? If they have been seen in aerial photographs they are discovered just not visited or examined. There are probably hundreds of site that have been located but no funding to visit or excavate and will not be in your or my lifetime. You know that I am not a Great Lakes proponent but the discovery of ruins which we have no idea what is there is no proof for or against the LGT. There are ruins being discovered in the Andes too, should we take these discoveries as proof of an Andes model? Edited August 31, 2014 by ERayR
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Do you have a link? I did not find MFT finds but did find this interesting tidbit. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/22/1100-year-old-mayan-ruins-found-in-north-georgia/
BCSpace Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Troy was a myth...until it was discovered. However, I still prefer a Mesoamerican LGT. There would have to be many new discoveries in the Great Lakes area, or new revelation, for me to consider a Great Lakes LGT to be plausible. 3
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 1, 2014 Author Posted September 1, 2014 Do you have a link? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/two-mayan-cities-found-mexican-jungle-180952481/?no-isthttp://news.yahoo.com/two-ancient-mayan-cities-found-mexican-jungle-203117492.html
Tiki Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/two-mayan-cities-found-mexican-jungle-180952481/?no-isthttp://news.yahoo.com/two-ancient-mayan-cities-found-mexican-jungle-203117492.htmlThank you for this truely oustanding and wonderful information. These two cities clearly fulfill the prophecy made by Mormon:-------Mormon 5:1919 And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles who shall possess the land.-------Please note the wonderful blessings - in 2014 - the Gentiles have received in Mesoamerica as noted in your two links, such as the beautiful jungle property, monkey latrines, spider holes, root infested buildings and Baloo and Bagheera from the Jungle Book. Edited September 1, 2014 by Tiki
katherine the great Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 I did not find MFT finds but did find this interesting tidbit. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/22/1100-year-old-mayan-ruins-found-in-north-georgia/Hmmm. Seems like a pretty thin tie to Maya people, but very cool find nonetheless. It will be interesting to see what they find there in the future!
ERayR Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Hmmm. Seems like a pretty thin tie to Maya people, but very cool find nonetheless. It will be interesting to see what they find there in the future! What was interesting to me was the speculation they were fleeing war.
katherine the great Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/two-mayan-cities-found-mexican-jungle-180952481/?no-isthttp://news.yahoo.com/two-ancient-mayan-cities-found-mexican-jungle-203117492.htmlAwesome. Thanks! Another interesting news story concerning Native Americans (although not connected to any Book of Mormon issues): http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/?no-ist=&no-cache=&page=1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Awesome. Thanks! Another interesting news story concerning Native Americans (although not connected to any Book of Mormon issues): http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/?no-ist=&no-cache=&page=1Thanks katherine. An engrossing article.
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 17, 2014 Author Posted September 17, 2014 http://bmaf.org/articles/hugh_nibley_geography__magleby "“Heartland” theorists such as Rodney Meldrum, Bruce Porter, and Wayne May get so many things wrong that they cannot be taken seriously: • They get the Book of Mormon wrong. They fail to read the entire text as carefully as it deserves to be read, and they fail to distinguish between prophetic generalizations and cultural specifics in the text. Their methodology is classic proof texting. • They judge Joseph Smith incorrectly. They deny the Prophet his freedom to grow and mature in his ideas as new information became available to him. • And they get their science wrong. Genetics, meteorology, geology, anthropology—you name it, and the Heartland group of pseudo scholars shows an amateurish tendency to cherry pick data out of context" 2
ERayR Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 http://bmaf.org/articles/hugh_nibley_geography__magleby "“Heartland” theorists such as Rodney Meldrum, Bruce Porter, and Wayne May get so many things wrong that they cannot be taken seriously: • They get the Book of Mormon wrong. They fail to read the entire text as carefully as it deserves to be read, and they fail to distinguish between prophetic generalizations and cultural specifics in the text. Their methodology is classic proof texting. • They judge Joseph Smith incorrectly. They deny the Prophet his freedom to grow and mature in his ideas as new information became available to him. • And they get their science wrong. Genetics, meteorology, geology, anthropology—you name it, and the Heartland group of pseudo scholars shows an amateurish tendency to cherry pick data out of context" 7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
thesometimesaint Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 If we are not to judge on the basis of evidence how do we determine fact from fallacy? 2
ERayR Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 If we are not to judge on the basis of evidence how do we determine fact from fallacy? I did not say not to judge.
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 17, 2014 Author Posted September 17, 2014 7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Nothing personal, it's strictly science.
The Nehor Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? This is the second-lamest defense argument ever right after claiming the First Amendment protecting your right to say something. Second Worst Argument: "You might be wrong sometimes too!!!!! God says you should not say I am a terrible person for being wrong because you are wrong sometimes too. Therefore you should let anything I say stand unchallenged or you might go to hell. Nice soul you've got there. Would be a shame if it got damaged." Worst Argument: "It is not technically illegal for me to say this." I mean, really? That's all you've got?
ERayR Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 This is the second-lamest defense argument ever right after claiming the First Amendment protecting your right to say something. Second Worst Argument: "You might be wrong sometimes too!!!!! God says you should not say I am a terrible person for being wrong because you are wrong sometimes too. Therefore you should let anything I say stand unchallenged or you might go to hell. Nice soul you've got there. Would be a shame if it got damaged." Worst Argument: "It is not technically illegal for me to say this." I mean, really? That's all you've got? If you care to go back you will see this was in regards to MFT"s assertion that the information presented was of no value because it was from an Evangelical or Adventist source thus intimating that anything from these sources is false. Kind of sounds like you can't trust anything from a Mormon source. No that argument, whichever version you choose, is very close to being at least a runner up for worst argument.
cinepro Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 We still have a lot to learn about ancient mesoamerica. How is the Great Lakes Theory doing? Any ancient cities that have been discovered lately in the USA? How is the Great Lakes theory plausible? Once you start playing that game, you don't get to back out if things don't go your way. You have to play to the very end.
Bob Crockett Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) • They get the Book of Mormon wrong. They fail to read the entire text as carefully as it deserves to be read, and they fail to distinguish between prophetic generalizations and cultural specifics in the text. Their methodology is classic proof texting. The arrogance of the MesoAmerican theorists is astounding. They know their scriptures better than the rest of us? It is a prophetic generalization for the Church to go to all the effort and time to purchase the Hill Cumorah, and then have a general conference focusing upon that purchase, where the First Presidency states "we know positively" that this is the same hill as the ancient Hill Cumorah and Ramah? I'd say -- that's specific. Presumably, spending sacred church funds on the purchase and general conference addresses on the subject would have been a matter of inspired action. What Church manual, general conference address or book by a General Authority supports the limited MesoAmerican model with the Hill Cumorah there? Just one? Edited September 18, 2014 by Bob Crockett 1
The Nehor Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 If you care to go back you will see this was in regards to MFT"s assertion that the information presented was of no value because it was from an Evangelical or Adventist source thus intimating that anything from these sources is false. Kind of sounds like you can't trust anything from a Mormon source. No that argument, whichever version you choose, is very close to being at least a runner up for worst argument. No, I still think throwing Jesus under the bus by twisting his words is worse.
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted September 18, 2014 Popular Post Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) The arrogance of the MesoAmerican theorists is astounding. They know their scriptures better than the rest of us?So where is there a book comparable to Sorenson's Sourcebook, or Mormon's Map, that even attempts to identify all Book of Mormon passages with geographic information, and then develops a relevant standard for evaluating any external correlation? It is a prophetic generalization for the Church to go to all the effort and time to purchase the Hill Cumorah, and then have a general conference focusing upon that purchase, where the First Presidency states "we know positively" that this is the same hill as the ancient Hill Cumorah and Ramah? I'd say -- that's specific. Presumably, spending sacred church funds on the purchase and general conference addresses on the subject would have been a matter of inspired action.Isaiah 55 is a relevant check on our assumption that our thoughts on any topic are the Lord's thoughts. When Zion's Camp set out, were the opinions and goals of that zealous and faithful group correct as to the real purpose of the expedition? The New York hill is a relevant LDS historical site, regardless of how well or poorly it correlates with the textual descriptions of Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. And of course D&C 1 offers the Lord's formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants." Inasmuch as the servants error he says, "It shall be made manifest." He doesn't say that error on their part is "both impossible and unthinkable." What Church manual, general conference address or book by a General Authority supports the limited MesoAmerican model with the Hill Cumorah there? Just one?What church manual, general conference address or book by a General Authority uses the relevant descriptions in the Book of Mormon to show that the New York hill unambiguously, positively, fits the Book of Mormon text? If Mormon and Moroni are prophets, do their words count or not? If there is a conflict between what the Book of Mormon describes and what a traditional LDS claim supposes, what ought to give way? Do we bury the contemporary eye-witness accounts on grounds of the inconvenience of what they provide? I notice that the modern commentators arguing for New York rarely, if ever, turn to that text at all, let alone comprehensively, in making the absolutely positive assertions. Why not? I see an edifice of belief, but the foundation, the Book of Mormon text itself, is missing, Amazing, I think. If the Book of Mormon text is the source of and energy behind the appearance of alternate candidates, what possible resolution to the conflict could come from ignoring what the Book of Mormon provides? If those who offer alternatives to New York that they both claim and demonstrate is based on a close examination of the text whose existence both defines and binds our community, should not any attempt to correct those in error be based on a close reading and formal demonstration of what that text provides? Just saying. Again. It might help, for perspective, to read Thomas Kuhn's chapter on "The Resistance to Revolutions." FWIW Kevin Christensen Pittsburgh, PA Edited September 18, 2014 by Kevin Christensen 5
Bob Crockett Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) So where is there a book comparable to Sorenson's Sourcebook, or Mormon's Map, that even attempts to identify all Book of Mormon passages with geographic information, and then develops a relevant standard for evaluating any external correlation? Kevin: You are one of nicest and most competent fellows on this board, and it pains me to take exception to some of your favored theories, but you (and others) in my view have a major blind spot on this LGT stuff. Book of Mormon geography is a matter of revelation, not secular deduction, as every one of the basis points for the geography are revelatory in nature. Many general authorities have made that observation. It is of no use writing treatises as to how the vision to the Three Witnesses can be explained by secular means. My paper, in my signature, quotes from very competent LDS sources challenging Sorenson's use of Book of Mormon sources as merely piling one piece of speculation upon another. Sorenson, not having used any modern statistical means, has not come close to making an adequate foundation for his opinion. Moreover, he tortures his sources which make an appeal to the prophet Joseph Smith. So I'd say that any book (like Hedegren's, which is fairly detailed and mapped, or Palmer's, same) which attempts what Sorenson has done with passages and map points is as flawed as Sorenson's. What church manual, general conference address or book by a General Authority uses the relevant descriptions in the Book of Mormon to show that the New York hill unambiguously, positively, fits the Book of Mormon text? Ivins, 1928, saying "we know positively" about the location of the Hill Cumorah. Moreover, if you trace the footnoted references to Cumorah in the Topical Guide and the scriptures the implication is rather plain, and there is no other possible reading, that the ancient Hill is the same as the modern hill. My paper cites to other church references relating to the Hill Cumorah. If Mormon and Moroni are prophets, do their words count or not? If there is a conflict between what the Book of Mormon describes and what a traditional LDS claim supposes, what ought to give way? Do we bury the contemporary eye-witness accounts on grounds of the inconvenience of what they provide? Nowhere do Mormon or Moroni say that Book of Mormon events occurred around the Isthmus of Darien or, as Sorenson asserts, they go no further than the southern Mexican states. it is a major stretch to reach that conclusion. And, they are not really "contemporary eye witness accounts." They are accounts communicated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, revealed by him, and he alone should be seen as the expert on Book of Mormon geography. As I have pointed out, the Joseph Smith Papers project adopts as an official church history account Oliver Cowdery's statement on the Hill Cumorah when he was in the First Presidency. It might help, for perspective, to read Thomas Kuhn's chapter on "The Resistance to Revolutions." I am not a Luddite. I believe that Book of Mormon geography has no secular basis for study whatsoever, and to teach such is to turn believers into Thomas Stuart Fergusons. Edited September 18, 2014 by Bob Crockett
cinepro Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) Presumably, spending sacred church funds on the purchase and general conference addresses on the subject would have been a matter of inspired action. Maybe they used non-tithing funds? Edited September 18, 2014 by cinepro
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 What Church manual, general conference address or book by a General Authority supports the limited MesoAmerican model with the Hill Cumorah there? Just one? Not yet, but we know have the new Book of Mormon DNA essay Church leaders want the members to embrace science, all other geographies get the science wrong. "And they get their science wrong. Genetics, meteorology, geology, anthropology—you name it, and the Heartland group of pseudo scholars shows an amateurish tendency to cherry pick data out of context"
Recommended Posts