Ancient Cities Discovered In Mesoamerica

[ERayR]

No, I still think throwing Jesus under the bus by twisting his words is worse.

 

I did not twist anything but then if you want to think so, carry on.

[cursor]

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.  

 

Not again, Bob. Sheesh.

 

I offer ... AGAIN ... Brigham Young said:

"Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so, that you may be as familiar with the spirit and meaning of the written word of God as you are with your daily walk and conversation, or as you are with your workmen or with your households” (DBY, 128).

 

If the words of the prophets are as important as you suggest, Bob, then how is it that you fail to be reasonably influenced by this very significant statement? Are Brother Brigham's words any less valid than other GA quotes that you have offered? How does this declaration say anything else except "dig deep into the historical and cultural details and you will will understand the people of scripture in a way you never imagined possible. It is, I promise, your absolute right."

 

It's through ONLY through solid intelligent study that any of us can enjoy the full meaning of ancient scripture, How else can one "read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?" Anything less than complete, competent, dedicated, and thorough investigation into the background, the [relative and] specific geography (where available), the cultural setting, the significant (and the not so significant) personalities ... It all contributes to the total picture.

 

Nothing the Lord has said ever suggests that we should wear blinders.

 

Dig deep. Understand it all. There are minimal limits for the resourceful, the determined, and the driven.

Edited September 19, 2014 by cursor

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 The arrogance of the MesoAmerican theorists is astounding.  They know their scriptures better than the rest of us?

Paint with a broad brush much? Motes and beams and stuff, too, referring to your last post?

[bcuzbcuz]

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?

If you look up Eric von Euw you´ll find he "found" or re-discovered a few sites in the early 1970´s, originally found in the 1920´s, then drew a number of pictures of what he "found". But he didn´t publish and he didn´t record exact locations of his finds. Does that sound like a serious archaeologist to you?

A large number of Mayan language finds have disappeared from their original positions and have shown up on the,very lucrative, private market.

It would seem some people are not interested in confirming any particular theory of ancient populations, but may have other interests in mind. Yes, No?

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

 

Not again, Bod. Sheesh.

 

I offer ... AGAIN ... Brigham Young said:

"Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so, that you may be as familiar with the spirit and meaning of the written word of God as you are with your daily walk and conversation, or as you are with your workmen or with your households” (DBY, 128).

 

[sNIP]

 

Nothing the Lord has said ever suggests that we should wear blinders.

 

Dig deep. Understand it all. There are minimal limits for the resourceful, the determined, and the driven.

 

Your post seems to offer the best that the LGT theorists can offer; merely state general vague statements about the need to learn and gain more knowledge.  ("To be learned is good, but . . .")  Nothing from the general authorities to support Dr. Sorenson's views. 

[Bob Crockett]

Paint with a broad brush much? Motes and beams and stuff, too, referring to your last post?

No.  I think it is not out of line, or arrogant, to describe an argument as out of line and arrogant.   Think about it -- we've heard several times from cursor, and others, that nobody knows the Book of Mormon better than Dr. Sorenson.  And, we read lots of negative statements about proponents of views contrary to Dr. Sorenson's, in terms of their scriptural knowledge.  Dr. Sorenson wrote a 1976 BYU Studies article saying very negative things about competitors, good men like Dr Cheesman.  

 

Book of Mormon geographic studies lead good people down into rabbit holes where there might be no escape. 

Edited September 18, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

No.  I think it is not out of line, or arrogant, to describe an argument as out of line and arrogant.   Think about it -- we've heard several times from cursor, and others, that nobody knows the Book of Mormon better than Dr. Sorenson.  And, we read lots of negative statements about proponents of views contrary to Dr. Sorenson's, in terms of their scriptural knowledge.  Dr. Sorenson wrote a 1976 BYU Studies article saying very negative things about competitors, good men like Dr Cheesman.  

 

Book of Mormon geographic studies lead good people down into rabbit holes where there might be no escape.

Bob:

A few statements of yours which caught my attention, Sept 18, 2014,

 

“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.” 

-----------------------------------------------------   

“The arrogance of the MesoAmerican theorists is astounding.  They know their scriptures better than the rest of us?”

 

“the best that the LGT theorists can offer; merely state general vague statements about the need to learn and gain more knowledge.  (‘To be learned is good, but . . .’)  Nothing from the general authorities to support Dr. Sorenson's views.” 

 

“Dr. Sorenson wrote a 1976 BYU Studies article saying very negative things about competitors, good men like Dr Cheesman.”

 

------------------------------------------------------------   

“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.”   

 

“Book of Mormon geographic studies lead good people down into rabbit holes where there might be no escape.”

------------------------------------------------------------   

“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.”

 

Sorry, Bob, but reading over your fallacy-driven comments today leaves something to be desired:

--straw man denigration of some of those who have formulated theories

--injection of a major fear factor into mere research into that arena

--question begging, emotive statements on the central issues of discussion

--falsification of the nature of official doctrine and of its associated history

 

You juggle the facts, mingle them with non-fact, and, voila, pull a rabbit out of your special, magic hat, but that is all meaningless without the pièce de résistance:  Only your actual review essay will tell us whether you have any substance to your discussion, whether you have made your case adequately, or whether it is all smoke and mirrors.  So far it is only smoke & mirrors.

 

I hope that you do throw new or improved light on some aspects of the geography question.  After all, Einstein revolutionized thinking in certain aspects of physics with some new ideas, and we could all do with some new and valid arguments to break us out of this vicious cycle of non-communication.

 

[Bob Crockett]

I hope that you do throw new or improved light on some aspects of the geography question.  After all, Einstein revolutionized thinking in certain aspects of physics with some new ideas, and we could all do with some new and valid arguments to break us out of this vicious cycle of non-communication.

Sorry, but Dr. Sorenson is no Einstein (he's very smart, but he's chosen to dedicate a large part of his scholarly pursuit to counting angels on the head of a pin) and Book of Mormon geography is not particle physics.

 

--straw man denigration of some of those who have formulated theories

 

 

You're using jargon to marginalize my argument.  I denigrate nobody.  I challenge marginal theories.

 

--injection of a major fear factor into mere research into that arena

 

 

And that factor is?

 

--question begging, emotive statements on the central issues of discussion

 

 

More jargon. I beg no question.

 

--falsification of the nature of official doctrine and of its associated history

 

Little more than an arm-wave here.

 

You can't get very far with me by using slogans, jargon and arm waves, like the kid on the street dressed in a costume trying to get customers into the local pizza place.

 

The Book of Mormon is important, sacred text which publishes important messages about free will and the blessings of the atonement. Let's teach our children what it says from its text, approved manual texts and the messages of General Authorities, and not from a piper of a marginal tune. As I have said, I don't think one needs to be a specialist in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or MesoAmerican culture in order to understand it.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

The Book of Mormon is important, sacred text which publishes important messages about free will and the blessings of the atonement. Let's teach our children what it says from its text, approved manual texts and the messages of General Authorities, and not from a piper of a marginal tune. As I have said, I don't think one needs to be a specialist in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or MesoAmerican culture in order to understand it.

 

What about curiosity? Curiosity is a good thing.  

Why can't scholars search for models that are plausible? What is wrong with that? The problem is when people cherry pick the data out of context,  that is what Meldrum is doing. 

 

Question

So you believe that it is not possible to find a good model? If not, why? do beieve that God changed the geography?  

Edited September 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[cursor]

Dr. Sorenson wrote a 1976 BYU Studies article saying very negative things about competitors, good men like Dr Cheesman.  

 

And yet you disparage a great man, John L. Sorenson.

Wait ... how exactly was Dr. Cheesman was a "competitor"?!

 

Book of Mormon geographic studies lead good people down into rabbit holes where there might be no escape.

 

Rabbits can always find their way out. Hey, no problem.

 

What might be your "rabbit hole," Bob? No doubt we all have them.

 

You didn't at all address my very serious question of how Brigham Young's statement that study, investigation, mental/spiritual focus (as related to human culture, geography, history, and more ...) can responsibly contribute to a more thorough understanding of scriptural texts. All you "contributed" was, "Your post seems to offer the best that the LGT theorists can offer." Certainly you recognize (or should, at the very least) that it was a quote, and a promise, from Brigham Young. How can you treat it so lightly? Seriously.

 

How is it exactly that his words are worth any less than those of the other General Authorities that your so frequently quote? When there appear to be conflicts in terms, in promises, or in general advice ... what should we do?

 

"The glory of God is intelligence, in other words, light and truth." [D&C 93:36]

 

That REALLY seems to bond with Brigham Young's message. Again, dig deep, understand, appreciate ... and grow, as a significant result.

 

When we study the New and Old Testament ... when we study the D&C ... are we not pointed to charts, graphs, maps, and timelines that enhance our understanding of events? How exactly should our learning of Book of Mormon cultures and events be at all blunted by pinching our nose to preclude flavor, or by closing our eyes to limit our scope, or by restraining our reach so as not to touch/feel/sense ... appreciate?

 

We can choose to live in a stupor, or we can expose our senses to all that is offered ... and be enriched as the result.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't disparage the great man. I am a critic of his theory.

I did address your Brigham Young quote. Merely because we believe that secular knowledge is useful to know does not mean we have to accept non-scientific cartography, geography based upon speculation, foundationless speculation, wild parallelomania, or someone telling us that we don't know the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

What about curiosity? Curiosity is a good thing.

Why can't scholars search for models that are plausible? What is wrong with that? The problem is when people cherry pick the data out of context, that is what Meldrum is doing.

Question

So you believe that it is not possible to find a good model? If not, why? do beieve that God changed the geography?

No, I don't think God changed geography.

I don't give a hoot what Meldrum thinks. Must i?

[cursor]

I did address your Brigham Young quote.

 

Actually, you didn't. Let me restate ... how is it that Brigham Young's statement about digging for the cultural/geographical truth is minimized (or can be minimized at all) by any of the GAs' statements that you quote?

 

Plug your ears.

Hold your nose.

Don't reach out and touch.

Don't study.

Don't consider the real world (nor any of it's history/geography).

Edited September 19, 2014 by cursor

[MormonFreeThinker]

does not mean we have to accept non-scientific cartography, geography based upon speculation, foundationless speculation, wild parallelomania, or someone telling us that we don't know the Book of Mormon.

 

I agree that the Book of Mormon has not been scientifically proven, but I think the Mesoamerican model is a good theory. 

What is so wrong about the Mesoamerican model? Can you please point to the flaws? 

Remember, it is not about proof, it is about finding good possibilities. 

Edited September 19, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[JDave]

Ivins, 1928, saying "we know positively" about the location of the Hill Cumorah.

 Why does Ivins claim that "we know positively" about the location of the Hill Cumorah?

[cursor]

 

From Mormon's Map (starting at page 5):

 

Didn’t church leaders long ago settle the question of Nephite geography?

 

The simple answer to this question is no. Historical documents fail to indicate that church authorities have ever claimed that the lands of the Nephites were located in any particular place.

 

To explain more thoroughly, more than one view of where the Nephites lived was held in the early days of the church. It is possible to conclude that to the first readers of the Book of Mormon it seemed obvious that North America was the land northward and South America was the land southward, with the narrow neck of land at Panama. Because the angel Moroni first showed the plates to Joseph Smith at the hill near Joseph’s home in New York State, church members supposed that the final battle between the Nephite and Lamanite armies occurred there too.6 (Actually, what the account says is that while Mormon buried all the other records of the Nephite people in the hill Cumorah of the final battle, he gave the set of plates on which he had written his abridged history to his son Moroni2 [see Mormon 6:6]. Moroni2 still had those records in his possession thirty-five years later, after wandering “whithersoever I can” [Moroni 1:3] for safety from his enemies [see Mormon 8:4, 14; Moroni 10:1–2]. Moroni2 did not tell us where he finally buried them. Perhaps the primary reason that he lived so long after the final battle was to deliver the plates to New York personally.)

 

In 1842, the church leaders in Nauvoo were presented with a newly published book7 that spurred a new interpretation of Book of Mormon geography. A best-selling volume by explorer John Lloyd Stephens reported his dramatic discovery of great ruins in Central America, and it was reviewed enthusiastically in the Times and Seasons, Nauvoo’s newspaper.8 The author of the review is not known, but John Taylor was managing editor of the paper and Joseph Smith had declared six months before that “I alone stand responsible for it [the paper].”9 The Nephites, the newspaper said, “lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America.” Furthermore, “the city of Zarahemla . . . stood upon this land.” Of course, that would make the land southward, which included Zarahemla, a part of Central America (“several hundred miles of territory from north to south”),10 not South America as had been thought.

 

Can this enthusiastic pronouncement be considered a revelation that defines the geography once and for all? No such claim was made. The active minds among the leaders were simply doing research. “We are not agoing to declare positively,” the article said, “that the ruins of Quirigua [Guatemala] are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion,” that is, they inferred, that the site must be “one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon.”11 Additional comment in the next issue of the paper further reflects the intellectual ferment at work: “We have found another important fact.” Clearly, they did not think that this new interpretation of the geography, or the original one, had settled matters, let alone been a revelation. They were doing what the Lord had instructed Oliver Cowdery to do in 1829: “You must study it out in your mind” (D&C 9: . Apparently, they never reached a conclusion that satisfied everyone, because some of the leaders and most of the Saints, who were not privy to the thinking Stephens’s book stirred among the small group around Joseph, continued to hold the two-continents interpretation.12

 

The fact that the geography question had not been settled authoritatively was confirmed by an 1890 statement from George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency: “The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest [a map]. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.”13 Around 1918 or a little before, church president Joseph F. Smith underlined the point. He "declined to officially approve of [any map], saying that the Lord had not yet revealed it."14 By 1950 nothing had changed; apostle John A. Widtsoe said, "As far as can be learned, the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know. However, certain facts and traditions of varying reliability are used as foundation guides by stoudents of Book of Mormon geography."15

 

No, the geography question has not been answered by church authorities, nor have the opinions worked out by geography hobbyists yet led to agreement. In 1947 it was still possible to hope that "out of the studies of faithful Latter-day Saints may yet come a unity of opinion concerning Book of Mormon geography," as Elder Widtsoe put it.16 But in the half century since, confusion has grown. Few have sought consensus, while many have defensively adhered to individual notions based on selected "facts and traditions of varying reliability.”

 

A different approach seems to be called for if we are to gain a better understanding of Book of Mormon geography and the benefits associated with that.

_____

 

6. See Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Liverpool: R. James, 1850), 22; Orson Pratt, in Journal of Discourses, 14:298. See also Orson Pratt's footnotes in the 1875 edition of the Book of Mormon, particularly 1 Nephi 18:23 n. k.; Omni 1:12 n. g; and Omni 1:13 n. h.

 

7. See John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan (London: John Murray, 1841).

 

8. See "Extract from Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel in Central America,'" Times and Seasons 3 (15 September 1842): 914–15, 921–22.

 

9. "To Subscribers," Times and Seasons 3 (15 March 1842): 710.

 

10. "Zarahemla," Times and Seasons 3 (1 October 1842): 927. Elder John A. Widtsoe observed, "The interesting fact . . . is that the Prophet Joseph Smith at this time was editor . . . and had announced his full editorial responsibility for the paper. This seems to give the . . . article an authority it might not otherwise possess." Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 3:96.

 

11. "Zarahemla," 927.

 

12. For example, Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology: A Voice of Warning (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 15, said that "Lehi and Nephi came out with a colony from Jerusalem . . . and finally landed in safety on the coast of what is now called Chile, in South America." Pratt was absent from Nauvoo in the fall of 1842, and at that same time his brother Orson was also out of touch by virtue of his brief excommunication over the issue of polygamy.

 

13. George Q. Cannon, "Editorial Thoughts: The Book of Mormon Geography," Juvenile Instructor 25/1 (1 January 1890): 18.

 

14. George D. Pyper, "The Book of Mormon Geography," The Instructor 73 (April 1938): 160.

 

15. John A. Widtsoe, "Evidences and Reconciliations: Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?" The Improvement Era 53 (July 1950): 547.

 

You're always welcome to "stand on the shoulders of giants", Bob. I actually like the view. Sigh. Thanks, Dad.

By the way, you can buy a really low priced copy of this publication at Amazon.com for less than ten bucks. What a deal!

Edited September 19, 2014 by cursor

[Bob Crockett]

Actually, you didn't. Let me restate ... how is it that Brigham Young's statement about digging for the cultural/geographical truth is minimized (or can be minimized at all) by any of the GAs' statements that you quote?

 

Plug your ears.

Hold your nose.

Don't reach out and touch.

Don't study.

Don't consider the real world (nor any of it's history/geography).

Right.  Those with whom you disagree don't read or know their scriptures or care to learn.   Really, that's not that at all.   I find Dr. Sorenson's methodology and conclusions lacking in adequate foundation and his appeal to Joseph Smith a really far stretch.  That doesn't mean that I don't like the guy.  It doesn't mean that I think he is ignorant or doesn't read his scriptures, as you and other Sorenson supporters like to describe his critics.  It doesn't mean that I must propose an alternative theory.

 

Didn’t church leaders long ago settle the question of Nephite geography?

 

Yet Dr. Sorenson's published works don't tackle First Presidency (or original presidency) statements say that the old Hill Cumorah is in New York.  That is, indeed, one established pin in the map of Book of Mormon geography, according to church doctrine, and it casts considerable doubt over the Sorenson model.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

 Why does Ivins claim that "we know positively" about the location of the Hill Cumorah?

Have you read his address?   

[JDave]

Have you read his address?   

Yes.  I wanted to hear your explanation/understanding from reading it.

[Bob Crockett]

I think the why has to derived from what he says.

[JDave]

I think the why has to derived from what he says.

Will you please derive an answer from what he says?

[Bob Crockett]

God told the Church to buy the HIll Cumorah because of its ancient and modern historical prominence, and in the general conference following that purchase the First Presidency explained the purchase in this address and others that weekend.

 

Thereafter, for decades, the Church has endorsed and supported the Hill Cumorah pageant which says that the New York Hill is the same as the ancient hill.  The Church, in times past, sent full-time missionaries to the Hill during pageant days to teach that very principle. 

 

And, since then, many General Authorities have said that the modern hill is one and the same as the old one.   Along with Michael Watson's statement from the offices of President Benson. 

 

I don't think it is too difficult to catch the "why".

 

I ask "why" must LGT supporters, whether they be Mesoamericanists or Great Lakes enthusiasts, find it necessary to declare that those who disagree with them haven't read their scriptures and are uninterested in the facts?

 

Why is it necessary for me, as part of my criticism of Dr. Sorenson's work, endorse some alternative geograhic theory and make proofs about it?

 

I must ask "why" there is no hint of any support for Dr. Sorenson's views in Church manuals or in general conference addresses, and "why" the "Digging into the Book of Mormon" piece doesn't mention the lynchpin argument abou the Hill Cumorah?   Lots of whys.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cursor]

Hey Bob ... I sent a series of post from this thread (and you were the major "contributor") to my father for some feedback. His succinct and singular response was, "ho-hum".

 

By the way, you never answered my question:

You didn't at all address my very serious question of how Brigham Young's statement that study, investigation, mental/spiritual focus (as related to human culture, geography, history, and more ...) can responsibly contribute to a more thorough understanding of scriptural texts. All you "contributed" was, "Your post seems to offer the best that the LGT theorists can offer." Certainly you recognize (or should, at the very least) that it was a quote, and a promise, from Brigham Young. How can you treat it so lightly? Seriously.

 

How is it exactly that his words are worth any less than those of the other General Authorities that your so frequently quote? When there appear to be conflicts in terms, in promises, or in general advice ... what should we do?

 

Care to give it a serious shot?

[JDave]

Bob, you said "I think the why has to derived from what he [ivins] says."   I assume you have text of his address. 

 

Will you please use Ivins' own words to explain your understanding of why Ivins said "we know positively"? 

[cursor]

Right.  Those with whom you disagree don't read or know their scriptures or care to learn.   Really, that's not that at all. 

 

Actually, Bob, it's you who insists that nobody has the right to dig in ... the right to investigate ... the right to study ... the right to understand ... the right to determine (based on serious examination). Hey, you're welcome to your opinion about where BofM events might have taken place (even if it's in Never-Never Land). It's the simple fact that you DON'T allow others the same right ... very strongly suggesting (and textually stating) that anyone who does so is on the road to apostasy. What utter nonsense.   

Edited September 19, 2014 by cursor