Ancient Cities Discovered In Mesoamerica

[ksfisher]

 

 

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 thought the church took no official stance on Book of Mormon geography?

 

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

—Fax from the Office of the First Presidency to FARMS, April 12, 1993.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

In your monomania, you failed to note that I was comparing you to Einstein.  Not that either you or JLS are Einsteins, but that new ideas can sometimes have very fertile effects.  I am hoping that you come up with something new.  So far that hasn't been the case, but I keep hoping that your forthcoming Review Essay will fulfill that hope.

 

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

I quoted you in your hour of denigration.  I note that you included a Pied Piper reference below as well.

 

And that factor is?

You repeatedly try to intimidate and inculcate fear into anyone differing from you in opinion, with the threat that they are on some sort of high road to apostasy.  I'm not the only one who has noticed this and called you on it.

 

More jargon. I beg no question.

I listed the non sequiturs you favor, and nearly all of them beg the question.  As in the case of your favorite fear factor.

 

Little more than an arm-wave here.

Perhaps, but luckily the Brethren don't share your odd views on what constitutes official doctrine.  Indeed, this has always been the weakest part of your case.  I recommend substantive argument instead.

 

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.

I always wish that they wouldn't wave those signs so vigorously that I can't read them, so that I am a bit frustrated -- as I am when attempting to make sense of your posts here.

 

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.

Moroni and Joseph will set all of us right some happy day, both on what BofM geography actually entailed, as well as on what are matters of appropriate study.  I'm going to enjoy that fine day, even if I'm wrong.  I expect you to be there with me, Bob.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[MormonFreeThinker]

Bob Crockett,  please answer my question,

 

what is so wrong about the mesoamerican geography? What are the flaws? 

 

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

[Bob Crockett]

 

I thought the church took no official stance on Book of Mormon geography?

 

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

 

—Fax from the Office of the First Presidency to FARMS, April 12, 1993.

 

Elsewhere I have challenged this document as likely having been altered. I would accept this document if the sender or recipient confirmed it.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

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.   

This is very untrue.   My argument continues to be that a MesoAmerican theory is without adequate secular foundation, in terms of enough finite sources, textual material, and the scientific approach to geography and cartography.  There are academic disciplines that try and reconstruct geography from ancient texts, and Dr. Sorenson was not qualified to use that discipline and did not.   Also, I feel that Dr. Sorenson's attempts to bring Joseph Smith into support for his theory are filled with error.  In point of fact, he confused diarists' support for northern Mexico as a haven for polygamists with some sort of endorsement as Mexico as the sole situs for Nephite civilization.  These criticisms should not be implied to say that I am against learning, study or secular studies, or that I think that MesoAmerican theorists are apostates.  My argument is not Rod Meldrum's.

I  

[Bob Crockett]

Bob Crockett,  please answer my question,

 

what is so wrong about the mesoamerican geography? What are the flaws? 

 

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

It isn't that I am critical of a mesoamerican geography.  It is that I am critical of the methodology Dr. Sorenson has used to get there.  it does not pass muster as credibly applying the scientific method.  My pending paper (see the link in my signature) attempts to answer your question.

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

You repeatedly try to intimidate and inculcate fear into anyone differing from you in opinion, with the threat that they are on some sort of high road to apostasy.  I'm not the only one who has noticed this and called you on it.

Well, I am sorry for that.   To each his own.  Thinking that Dr. Sorenson's view is correct is no more harmful than being a John Bircher and trying to preach that stuff in church.

[Bob Crockett]

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"? 

I've answered this question.  You might not like my answer, but it is there.

[JDave]

I've answered this question.  You might not like my answer, but it is there.

There is no answer there or anywhere. You've done nothing but deflect it and basically tell me to answer the question myself. It is a very simple and straightforward question. Why did Ivins say that we "know positively" where Cumorah is? The following are NOT answers to that question.

 

Have you read his address?

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

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

[MormonFreeThinker]

It isn't that I am critical of a mesoamerican geography.  It is that I am critical of the methodology Dr. Sorenson has used to get there.  it does not pass muster as credibly applying the scientific method.  My pending paper (see the link in my signature) attempts to answer your question.

 

How about Brant Gardner? He doesn't agree with Dr. Sorenson on everything. 

How about Dr. Hansen? I know from a reliable source that he believes in the Mesoamerican geography theory.        Dr. Mark Wright certainly believes in the Mesoamerican theory  

Edited September 20, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[bcuzbcuz]

Bob Crockett,  please answer my question,

 

what is so wrong about the mesoamerican geography? What are the flaws? 

 

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

¿It is not about proof? Really? So you mean that if and when proof of Book of Mormon events, such as making an archaeological find of a city or village in MesoAmerica where names from the BoM are clearly indicated, that that event will have no importance?

Or if after massive archaeological investigation, it can be finally proclaimed that no names, places, buildings, bones, graves, weapons, or any such finds, show a clear link to any Bom details, that it will prove nothing?

Then why are people bothering to look for such finds, or why is Sorenson authoring massive books proclaiming theories or suppossitions about MesoAmerican possibilities?

[MormonFreeThinker]

¿It is not about proof? Really? So you mean that if and when proof of Book of Mormon events, such as making an archaeological find of a city or village in MesoAmerica where names from the BoM are clearly indicated, that that event will have no importance?

 

It will, but so far conclusive evidence for the Book of Mormon has not been found, and good LDS scholars are not trying to find irrefutable evidence.

 

 

Then why are people bothering to look for such finds, or why is Sorenson authoring massive books proclaiming theories or suppossitions about MesoAmerican possibilities?

 

Not Brant Gardner, not Dr.  Mark Alan Wright  (Mesoamerica expert), not Dr. Hansen.  In fact, Gardner doesn't expect to find proof, he presented good reasons for that. For example, Brant Gardner said,

 

"We do not find Book of Mormon names in Maya inscriptions for two reasons. First, few inscriptions are contemporary with the Book of Mormon. Second, they come from cities that are not considered by Latter-day Saint scholars to have been Nephite"

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/behind-the-mask-behind-the-curtain-uncovering-the-illusion-a-review-of-the-bible-vs-the-book-of-mormon

 

 

Sorenson theories are only theories, not proof.  If someday an irrefutable evidence is found, it will be very important.  

Edited September 20, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

There is no answer there or anywhere. You've done nothing but deflect it and basically tell me to answer the question myself. It is a very simple and straightforward question. Why did Ivins say that we "know positively" where Cumorah is? The following are NOT answers to that question.

 

I've answered your question in post 47.   Under the influence of the Spirit, the Church was told to purchase the Hill Cumorah, and the reason for it was its ancient and modern historical significance.  That has been emphasized with decades of pageants and church commitment of missionaries during the pageant to explain the HIll's history.  Ivins, right after the purchase, explained why the church did this, and that was because of its historical significance.   The pageant is a Church production.  https://www.lds.org/locations/hill-cumorah-pageant.   Argetsinger, Gerald S. "Palmyra: A Look at 40 Years of Pageant." Ensign 7 (Dec. 1977):70-71.

 

So, the "why" is that the Lord told them to do it for the Hill's ancient significance.   The pageant does much more than recreate Joseph Smith and the plates, but also the battles and the burial of the plates. 

[Bob Crockett]

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?

I have answered your questions.

There's a big difference between general statements from General Authorities stating that secular learning is a good thing, on the one hand, and the multitudinous statements of General Authorities on the other hand which say that the Hill Cumorah (ancient and modern) is in New York and that it is wrong to use secular means to try and reconstruct a Book of Mormon geography. It is a question of a generality versus a specific statement.

It is like citing a general authority, who says we must love one another, for the proposition that fornication is acceptable.

I have answered all your questions and I have posed a few that have gone unanswered.

1. Name one general authority today who endorses the MesoAmerican theory with the two Cumorah business. Point please to a sermon, a book, anything.

2. Point to a church manual which supposes there might be two Hill Cumorahs.

3. Doesn't it seem to you, by reading the Topical Guide references to the Hill Cumorah as well as the footnote references in the D&C and the Book of Mormon that the Church's position is that there is only one Hill Cumorah?

4. Wouldn't you agree that if it is the Church's official position that there is only one Hill Cumorah, that Dr. Sorenson's theory is a "fail?"

5. Would you agree that Dr. Sorenson's "Digging into the Book of Mormon" Ensign article omits mention of two Hill Cumorahs, and that the article as published can easily be used to support a hemispheric argument, just as can be seen in the Times and Seasons, that Book of Mormon evidences may be found in Native American finds scattered throughout the Americas? [i again remind you that in the thread on this board, which has since been deleted, "FIRM Wobbles," an Ensign editor stated that Dr. Sorenson was asked to remove his two Cumorah theory from the article.]

6. Would you agree that there is a good possibility that the Carla Ogden facsimile has been altered? All it does is quote the Encyclopedia.

In conclusion, please do not think that my discussion and challenges mean that I am disparaging anybody, including Dr. Sorenson. I like and admire him and have his various books. I find value in them and think they are important to have. He is a lot more capable a Saint and person that I am or ever will be. I just disagree with him on this theory.

I think that when it comes to non-General Authority opinions about sacred revelations we should prove all things and use wisdom and spirit and research to challenge assertions which seem to be contrary to existing manuals and sermons.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[johnNewingtonn]

Right here in New England I've walked Gungywamp Swamp up the road many times, I've been in the Upton Stone Chamber in Mass. These were known to the colonial native Americans as already ancient places. There are so many pre-glacial rock structures. Who knows what could have been wiped out by the massive ice sheet?  As always any evidence is downplayed, but who built these things? Even the tribes of the times called them ancient.

[ERayR]

I've answered your question in post 47.   Under the influence of the Spirit, the Church was told to purchase the Hill Cumorah, and the reason for it was its ancient and modern historical significance.  That has been emphasized with decades of pageants and church commitment of missionaries during the pageant to explain the HIll's history.  Ivins, right after the purchase, explained why the church did this, and that was because of its historical significance.   The pageant is a Church production.  https://www.lds.org/locations/hill-cumorah-pageant.   Argetsinger, Gerald S. "Palmyra: A Look at 40 Years of Pageant." Ensign 7 (Dec. 1977):70-71.

 

So, the "why" is that the Lord told them to do it for the Hill's ancient significance.   The pageant does much more than recreate Joseph Smith and the plates, but also the battles and the burial of the plates. 

 

Seriously you actually consider a pageant location as evidence for your position?  

[Bob Crockett]

Among many other proofs. Seriously.

[Tacenda]

deleted, wrong thread

Edited September 20, 2014 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Among many other proofs. Seriously.

 

In that case I think I will vote for Manti.

[JDave]

I've answered your question in post 47.   Under the influence of the Spirit, the Church was told to purchase the Hill Cumorah, and the reason for it was its ancient and modern historical significance.  That has been emphasized with decades of pageants and church commitment of missionaries during the pageant to explain the HIll's history.  Ivins, right after the purchase, explained why the church did this, and that was because of its historical significance.   The pageant is a Church production.  https://www.lds.org/locations/hill-cumorah-pageant.   Argetsinger, Gerald S. "Palmyra: A Look at 40 Years of Pageant." Ensign 7 (Dec. 1977):70-71.

 

So, the "why" is that the Lord told them to do it for the Hill's ancient significance.   The pageant does much more than recreate Joseph Smith and the plates, but also the battles and the burial of the plates.

That sounds good and goes along with your general narrative, but it isn't the answer. As you said, the "why" should be found in his own words.

 

You refer to it somewhat in your paper at your blog, but here is some more of the text of President Ivins' conference talk.

 

 

The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical ; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles ; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them.

 

So here we have President Ivins making a rather emphatic declaration regarding the New York Hill Cumorah. And why did he do so? What was the basis for his declaration? His declaration is established by (i.e. based on, dependent upon) specific passages in the Book of Mormon and a secular discussion on the matter done by B.H. Roberts earlier that year. It was not based on revelation -- his own words say it was not. So here one of your pivotal statements, made in General Conference, actually supports studying the text of the Book of Mormon and looking at geographical similarities in order to determine the location of Hill Cumorah.

[Anijen]

Right here in New England I've walked Gungywamp Swamp up the road many times, I've been in the Upton Stone Chamber in Mass. These were known to the colonial native Americans as already ancient places. There are so many pre-glacial rock structures. Who knows what could have been wiped out by the massive ice sheet?  As always any evidence is downplayed, but who built these things? Even the tribes of the times called them ancient.

Emphasis mine.

We really do not need to worry ourselves what was wiped out, since the most current glacial activity on a large scale was the Wisconsin glaciation, and that was well before the Nephites and Lamanites. So, if the Nephites or Lamanites left any remains, artifacts, etc., in U.S. Northeast then technically they should still be there. Identifying any that are connected to a Book of Mormon setting is much more difficult.

 

It is possible to rule out any hypothesized connection by asking some critical questions, namely; (1) is there any evidence for language in that area? (2) Does the location of any found artifacts date to the time of the Book of Mormon? (3) How large was the population of the location (remember to use a date that will correspond to the time of the Book of Mormon)? If you have to fudge  any of these then apply Occam's Razor, IOW if it lacks one of the key elements, then more than likely it isnt related to the Book of Mormon.

[Anijen]

So, the "why" is that the Lord told them to do it for the Hill's ancient significance.   The pageant does much more than recreate Joseph Smith and the plates, but also the battles and the burial of the plates. 

Wow. Stretch things often?

 

My family and I have been to the the City of Joseph Pageant,2002 and 2003, we have been to the Nauvoo Pageant 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. We have been to the British Pageant in 2014. We actually were in the Nauvoo Pageant 2008, 2009, 2014, and in the 2014 British Pageant.

 

Since all the above pageants were in the same location I belive that location is where the Hill Cumorah is, where Hugh Latimer, Anne Askew were burned at the stake. My explanation is because the above pageants say here is where they died (paraphrased)...

[KorbenDallas]

Any theory should be discredited if it can't meet 100% of the necessary geographic references in the BoM. Using that assumption, Mesoamerica doesn't work because the climate is all wrong to take mediterranean seeds and have them grow in a tropical climate. Not to mention all the missing ore cited in the BoM. Great Lakes can't work because snow was never mentioned in the BoM. Anyone who has lived anywhere close to the Great Lakes will have a tough time reconciling that. So, I think you're left with my favorite flavor of the day: the Baja.

 

www.achoiceland.com

 

Incidentally, the first theory put forth by a real geographer.

[Kevin Christensen]

Any theory should be discredited if it can't meet 100% of the necessary geographic references in the BoM. Using that assumption, Mesoamerica doesn't work because the climate is all wrong to take mediterranean seeds and have them grow in a tropical climate. Not to mention all the missing ore cited in the BoM. Great Lakes can't work because snow was never mentioned in the BoM. Anyone who has lived anywhere close to the Great Lakes will have a tough time reconciling that. So, I think you're left with my favorite flavor of the day: the Baja.

 

www.achoiceland.com

 

Incidentally, the first theory put forth by a real geographer.

Thomas Kuhn explains that "no theory solves all of the problems it defines." Kuhn says that if failure to fit 100% of the time is the standard, all theories should be rejected at all times.

Kuhn's observations include:

There are, I think, only two alternatives: either no scientific theory ever confronts a counterinstance, or all such theories confront counterinstances at all times.78

To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.79

If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times.80

Most anomalies are resolved by normal means; most proposals for new theories do prove to be wrong. If all members of a community responded to each anomaly as a source of crisis or embraced each new theory advanced by a colleague, science would cease. If, on the other hand, no one reacted to anomalies or to brand-new theories in high-risk ways, there would be few or no revolutions. In matters like these the resort to shared values rather than shared rules governing individual choice may be the community's way of distributing risk and assuring the long-term success of its enterprise.81

During periods of normal science, the object is to "solve a puzzle for whose very existence the validity of the paradigm must be assumed. Failure to achieve a solution discredits only the scientist and not the theory."82

Since the business of science is to solve puzzles that have not yet been solved and all science and scholarship confront problems that have not yet been solved, a general application of Vogel's attitude that "one negative evidence" suffices would demand the rejection of all science and scholarship.

Sources in my essay in the Review here:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=14

In confronting issues not fitting a favorite paradigm, people can decided that such things represent puzzles, yet to be solved, or counter-instances, discrediting the whole approach. But that is a choice in personal valuation, not a logical inevitability. But there are rhetorical advantages in disguising such valuations.

In practice, paradigm choice comes down to deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved," and overall, "which paradigm is better." It's helpful to pay attention to how people decide which problems are most significant to have solved, and how they decide which paradigm is better. Notice that "better" is a valuation, and valuation requires both a comparison, and a set of standards. How detailed and specific does a person get in comparing their model against alternatives? Do they choose a deliberately vague or notably weak alternative, or do they try their strength against notable strong and detailed alternatives? Is a person concerned with accounting for details? And which details? A select few, or a systematic many?

Or are details dismissed in against the desire to appease orthodoxy and authority figures?

There are always networks of assumptions involved. Are all of those assumptions valid? Are they questionable?

I'm more impressed with Larry Poulson's case for the Sidon as the Grijalva, in comparison to the Baja candidate. I think Poulson's approach is better in a number of ways, including, for instance, a more detailed accounting for the course of the river, and all of the verses that mention the Sidon.

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mormonsites;id=2;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoulsenll.org%2Fbom%2F

Poulson also describes his reasons for his Zarahelma candidate.

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mormonsites;id=2;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoulsenll.org%2Fbom%2F

And he makes his case for interpreting directional information in the Book of Mormon. Not by tilting the map, but by considering cultural conceptions.

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mormonsites;id=2;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoulsenll.org%2Fbom%2F

Brant Gardner makes a similar case:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon

And there is the matter of the kinds of convergences and narrative details that the model provides.

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

And little things like Gardner's Second Witness and Sorenson's little Mormon's Codex. To make a case that "better" than what they have done, I want to see an actual comparison with what they have done. Any case for "better" requires a real comparison, and set of standards for making that comparison. And it is best when those standards are not completely paradigm dependent, assuming the very case they try to argue. Kuhn and Alma 32 provide the same solution. Define testable puzzles, perform experiments, check out the results, the comprehensiveness and coherence, the fruitfulness, and the future promise.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited September 23, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

¿It is not about proof? Really? So you mean that if and when proof of Book of Mormon events, such as making an archaeological find of a city or village in MesoAmerica where names from the BoM are clearly indicated, that that event will have no importance?

Or if after massive archaeological investigation, it can be finally proclaimed that no names, places, buildings, bones, graves, weapons, or any such finds, show a clear link to any Bom details, that it will prove nothing?

Then why are people bothering to look for such finds, ............................................ 

Perhaps you might tell us what "massive archaeological investigation" is being conducted on the Book of Mormon question, or who those "people" are who are "bothering to look for such finds" relating to the Book of Mormon, now or in the past.

 

So far as I know, there are none.

 

Mesoamerican archeologists do now, and have always done straight academic field and lab work, and have reported it in refereed journals and excavation reports.  Anyone is free to use the raw data on such matters to draw conclusions of whatever kind.

 

Many scholars write articles and books based on that data, and their conclusions must stand or fall based on their adherence to academic rigor and peer review.

 

Bob Crockett is way off base in suggesting that such secular endeavors are in any way inappropriate.