Ancient Cities Discovered In Mesoamerica

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not popularity, it is called consensus, consensus because of the evidence.

 

You should do the research yourself, if you are not going to do the research, you should accept the consensus.  

I don't accept consensus on anything, I look to see if it makes sense.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I don't accept consensus on anything, I look to see if it makes sense.

 

LOL a lot facts do not make sense, but they are true. Have you studied quantum mechanics? 

 

"We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences" - Elder Uchtdorf

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

 

If you are not going to accept the consensus, you must have good evidence that you obtained in your own research. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL a lot facts do not make sense, but they are true. Have you studied quantum mechanics? 

 

"We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences" - Elder Uchtdorf

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

 

If you are not going to accept the consensus, you must have good evidence that you obtained in your own research. 

Things need to make sense, even quantum mechanics make sense under the right understandings.

 

You are saying that I should accept consensus for the sake of it being consensus. That is a really terrible reason for accepting something. If something has merit to it you should be able to explain why it has merit. Simply trotting out "Its the consensus" is actually really closed minded because you are unwilling or to lazy to look at the facts and determine for your self what it means.

 

Your screen name seems quite ironic given this recent discussion.

 

 

The consensus of people would agree that you should not just argue that the consensus is in you should just trust it.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[MormonFreeThinker]

Things need to make sense, even quantum mechanics make sense under the right understandings.

 

Yes, things make sense under the right understandings, but you have to understand it. Do you understand quantum mechanics? If you do not understand something, it won't make sense to you. 

 

Just because something doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean it is false. Why are you ignoring what Elder Uchtdorf said? 

"We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true"

 

You are saying that I should accept consensus for the sake of it being consensus. That is a really terrible reason for accepting something. If something has merit to it you should be able to explain why it has merit. 

 

Again, if you do not understand something, and if you are not going to do your own research, you should accept the consensus. Do you do scientific research? 

 

So if 100 cardiologists tell you that you need heart surgery, would you believe them? You should trust the experts, especially if you are not an expert yourself. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Again, if you do not understand something, and if you are not going to do your own research, you should accept the consensus. Do you do scientific research? 

 

So if 100 cardiologists tell you that you need heart surgery, would you believe them? You should trust the experts, especially if you are not an expert yourself. 

No, You don't. Ill give you one example. Last year the experts predicted that it would be an above average hurricane season. I doubt they would release such with out a consensus of some sort. I really didn't care to dig into the research on why they thought it would be above average. If I went by what you are advocating it should have been above average because that is what the consensus said. But it wasn't. Why not?

 

Consensus is not some guarantee. I don't argue for things I believe unless I have look at evidence or data and form conclusions. That is stupid to argue for things ignorantly, almost as stupid as using a "it's the consensus" as a reason to believe something.

 

You can have the last word. This is a waste of time.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Consensus is not some guarantee.

 

True, but the Consensus has been right many times. 

 

I really didn't care to dig into the research on why they thought it would be above average. 

 

See that explains everything  I can give you 1000 times more examples of when their predictions have been right. Funny that you point to the few times the consensus has been wrong, but ignore the many times the consensus has been correct. 

 

I don't argue for things I believe unless I have look at evidence or data and form conclusions. 

 

The problem is that you may not understand the evidence, and you may not be aware of the context. 

Have you studied the evidence of quantum mechanics? Do you have millions dollar tools to study the climate, the universe, atoms, DNA? 

 

Again, if 100 cardiologists tell you that you need heart surgery, even if you felt okay, would you believe them? Do not avoid my questions.  

Edited September 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

All LDS archaeologists (that believe the Book of Mormon is ancient)  believe in a Mesoamerican limited geography, only businessmen  (Meldrum) and politicians (Glen Beck)  believe that Book of Mormon Cumorah is the New York hill.

 

Mark Wright, Richard Hansen, Brant Gardner(PhD candidate for Mesoamerican ethnohistory) believe in the Mesoamerican geography. 

 Any reference you can give me to RIchard Hansen's belief in the MesoAmerican theory?

 

So far I am only aware of two PhD LDS archeologists who have published on the MesoAmerican LGT, and that is Wright and Clark.

[Gervin]

 

I don't know what planet you have been on, Gervin, while all this has been going on, but for us here on planet Earth, there is a plethora of data generated by generations of non-Mormon scholars which Mormon scholars have crunched and used very effectively to show that such connections are many and varied.  Have you ever even read any article or book on the subject?  On what basis do you make your absolute and uninformed statements?

 

"nothing putting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica has been found and never will be"

"their lack of pursuit of such evidences"

 

Here is a reading list which can get you started:

 

 

Mesoamerican scholars are flattered, I'm sure, when others build upon their work.  Adding layers of Hebraic culture (that kept all of the laws of Moses) and New World Christianity origins, however, really raises the bar of what can be considered connections that are "many and varied."  Valid connections would, I think, engage scholars of a variety of disciplines both in and out of the Church.  

[MormonFreeThinker]

 Any reference you can give me to RIchard Hansen's belief in the MesoAmerican theory?

 

So far I am only aware of two PhD LDS archeologists who have published on the MesoAmerican LGT, and that is Wright and Clark.

 

Someone from http://mayaarchaeology.org/ told me (in a E-Mail message) that Hansen believes that a group of ancient Hebrews lived in Mesoamerica, that same person also told me that Dr. Coe doesn't believe that. 

 

Hansen probably does not have a strong position, and he has probably not published anything about Book of Mormon geography, but Hansen is clearly a believing LDS, I do not think Hansen believes in the one cumorah theory. 

Edited September 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Ahab]

I'm with you in all you have said in this thread, Bob Crockett. Keep keepin the faith you have been given by God.

And for those who don't understand what Brigham meant about it being our privilege to understand what prophet/historians wrote about, we can all understand through personal revelation from God.

[Robert F. Smith]

So IOW, give us one person that is an archaeologist that thinks it happened some where else.

 

I generally am not a fan of arguing a position due to popularity.

 

X % believe Y is not really compelling and might even be labeled a logical fallacy.

What generated this comparison based on professional and academic status was a set of false assumptions about it by Bob Crockett.  Since some people actually use logical fallacies as the basis for the drawing of conclusions, some of us think it helpful that the premises at least be somewhat correct.  And it can't hurt if the rush to judgment is accompanied by some additional, accurate reading.  Might even alter the verdict a bit.  With emphasis on the "bit."

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't accept consensus on anything, I look to see if it makes sense.

Good.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mesoamerican scholars are flattered, I'm sure, when others build upon their work.  Adding layers of Hebraic culture (that kept all of the laws of Moses) and New World Christianity origins, however, really raises the bar of what can be considered connections that are "many and varied."  Valid connections would, I think, engage scholars of a variety of disciplines both in and out of the Church.  

Now you are hemming and hawwing, when you need to get down to brass tacks.

 

Actual data which Mesoamericanists agree upon is used directly by the authors I mentioned to show direct parallels.  That should be virtually impossible if the Book of Mormon is fiction.  The standard measures are via archeological stratigraphy, settlement patterns, and chronology, not on by-gosh-and-by-golly stuff you seem to be stuck on.  The dates are established by scientific techniques, independent of any scholars coming along later to data mine the excavation reports.

In other cases, the iconography, linguistics, and ethnography are used to disclose the meaning attached by the non-Mormon scholars to one phenomenon or another.

These and many other features of Mesoamerican scholarship are compared in systematic ways with the content of the Book of Mormon.  If the Book of Mormon is fiction, the systems compared should not match.

 

However, you made the false claim that no such work has ever been done, and that nothing has ever been found.  I'd be interested to know whether you have even bothered to read anything substantive on the subject.  Thus far it seems clear that you haven't.

[Robert F. Smith]

 Any reference you can give me to RIchard Hansen's belief in the MesoAmerican theory?

 

So far I am only aware of two PhD LDS archeologists who have published on the MesoAmerican LGT, and that is Wright and Clark.

You might want to consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Hansen , on Hansen's background and current status.  It would be  no advantage to him to make any public declarations of belief pro or con at this point.  Funding sources might suddenly dry up and his position made untenable at several institutions.  Perhaps at the end of his career he could tell us his real opinions.

He was excavating El Mirador under Ray Matheny, and later took over the project.

 

The other matter is that a good many senior dirt archeologists have only Masters degrees, and thus are automatically delisted by you.  What gives?

[MormonFreeThinker]

 Any reference you can give me to RIchard Hansen's belief in the MesoAmerican theory?

 

So far I am only aware of two PhD LDS archeologists who have published on the MesoAmerican LGT, and that is Wright and Clark.

 

Any archaeologists that believe in the one cumorah theory? 

 

Someone from http://mayaarchaeology.org/ told me (in a E-Mail message) that Hansen believes that a group of ancient Hebrews lived in Mesoamerica, that same person also told me that Dr. Coe doesn't believe that. 

 

Hansen probably does not have a strong position, and he has probably not published anything about Book of Mormon geography, but Hansen is clearly a believing LDS, I do not think Hansen believes in the one cumorah theory. 

 

I hope that when Hansen retires he publishes a lot f stuff about the Book of Mormon. 

[Bob Crockett]

Any archaeologists that believe in the one cumorah theory? 

 

Someone from http://mayaarchaeology.org/ told me (in a E-Mail message) that Hansen believes that a group of ancient Hebrews lived in Mesoamerica, that same person also told me that Dr. Coe doesn't believe that. 

 

Hansen probably does not have a strong position, and he has probably not published anything about Book of Mormon geography, but Hansen is clearly a believing LDS, I do not think Hansen believes in the one cumorah theory. 

 

I hope that when Hansen retires he publishes a lot f stuff about the Book of Mormon. 

As I have said, the location of the Hill Cumorah in New York is a revealed fact, not a secular fact, at least according to Joseph Smith and other members of the First Presidency.  [Again, I don't care one way or the other.]

 

Your evidence is not even remotely supportive for Dr. Hansen.  Why would I trust the remote hearsay recounted by an anonymous person?  I'd be surprised if your assertion were true..  

Edited September 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

You might want to consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Hansen , on Hansen's background and current status.  It would be  no advantage to him to make any public declarations of belief pro or con at this point.  Funding sources might suddenly dry up and his position made untenable at several institutions.  Perhaps at the end of his career he could tell us his real opinions.

He was excavating El Mirador under Ray Matheny, and later took over the project.

 

The other matter is that a good many senior dirt archeologists have only Masters degrees, and thus are automatically delisted by you.  What gives?

Not true.  I'm interested in an exhaustive list of LDS archaeologists who have published in the area of an LGT.  I have no clue how to go about doing that, but maybe soembody here'd know.  I might be able to get that from a few hours at HBLee.

[MormonFreeThinker]

As I have said, the location of the Hill Cumorah in New York is a revealed fact, not a secular fact, at least according to Joseph Smith and other members of the First Presidency.  [Again, I don't care one way or the other.]

 

Your evidence is not even remotely supportive for Dr. Hansen.  Why would I trust the remote hearsay recounted by an anonymous person?  I'd be surprised if your assertion were true..  

 

Please do not trust me, do your own research, you can ask Dr. Hansen. 

You can contact http://mayaarchaeology.org/ Ask them if there are archaeologists that believe it is possible that an ancient group of Hebrews lived in Mesoamerica. I just hope that an honest person replies. 

 

The opinions of General Authorities do not help your case, read the new gospel topics essays. Read Church history. 

Edited September 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

 read the new gospel topics essays. Read Church history. 

I'll start to do that right away.

[bcuzbcuz]

Now you are hemming and hawwing, when you need to get down to brass tacks.

 

Actual data which Mesoamericanists agree upon is used directly by the authors I mentioned to show direct parallels.  That should be virtually impossible if the Book of Mormon is fiction.  The standard measures are via archeological stratigraphy, settlement patterns, and chronology, not on by-gosh-and-by-golly stuff you seem to be stuck on.  The dates are established by scientific techniques, independent of any scholars coming along later to data mine the excavation reports.

In other cases, the iconography, linguistics, and ethnography are used to disclose the meaning attached by the non-Mormon scholars to one phenomenon or another.

These and many other features of Mesoamerican scholarship are compared in systematic ways with the content of the Book of Mormon.  If the Book of Mormon is fiction, the systems compared should not match.

 

However, you made the false claim that no such work has ever been done, and that nothing has ever been found.  I'd be interested to know whether you have even bothered to read anything substantive on the subject.  Thus far it seems clear that you haven't.

Joseph and his book put Nephites and Lamanites between 600 BC and 400 AD. Anything that falls within these parameters must, therefore, be correct. According to Mormon theology.

Convieniant, but a thousand year gap allows for considerable error. DDon´t you think?

[Robert F. Smith]

Now you are hemming and hawwing, when you need to get down to brass tacks.

 

Actual data which Mesoamericanists agree upon is used directly by the authors I mentioned to show direct parallels.  That should be virtually impossible if the Book of Mormon is fiction.  The standard measures are via archeological stratigraphy, settlement patterns, and chronology, not on by-gosh-and-by-golly stuff you seem to be stuck on.  The dates are established by scientific techniques, independent of any scholars coming along later to data mine the excavation reports.

In other cases, the iconography, linguistics, and ethnography are used to disclose the meaning attached by the non-Mormon scholars to one phenomenon or another.

These and many other features of Mesoamerican scholarship are compared in systematic ways with the content of the Book of Mormon.  If the Book of Mormon is fiction, the systems compared should not match.

 

However, you made the false claim that no such work has ever been done, and that nothing has ever been found.  I'd be interested to know whether you have even bothered to read anything substantive on the subject.  Thus far it seems clear that you haven't.

Joseph and his book put Nephites and Lamanites between 600 BC and 400 AD. Anything that falls within these parameters must, therefore, be correct. According to Mormon theology.

Convieniant, but a thousand year gap allows for considerable error. DDon´t you think?

I don't follow your point here about "a thousand year gap."  What sort of "error" are you talking about?  Maybe you'd like to give me an example.

 

You might try rereading my reply to Gervin.  I did not say that we should play tiddly-winks with history or chronology, which may be the problem with your approach.

 

Try reading Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, and then get back to me on the actual problems you discern with his systematic correlations.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I'll start to do that right away.

You're so droll, Bob.   

[Gervin]

Since some people actually use logical fallacies as the basis for the drawing of conclusions, some of us think it helpful that the premises at least be somewhat correct.  

 

"LDS scholars who draw connections with specific geographies and cultures presume the Book of Mormon to be historically correct."

 

Is this a correct premise?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Good.

 

It is important to accept the a scientific consensus if you are not involved in a scientific research. 

It is not good to believe something just because it makes sense to you, or reject something just because it doesn't make any sense to you. 

 

Looking at anti-science websites, data out of context, not all the facts, misleading information, is not a good method to obtain truth. That is why Mola does not believe in the science of Evolution and Global Warming. 

 

It is true that there are no authorities in science, but there are no authorities only when you are doing the scientific research yourself. 

 

That is why Meldrum believes in the One Cumorah theory, he doesn't accept many facts that are against this models. 

Edited September 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[theplains]

"LDS scholars who draw connections with specific geographies and cultures presume the Book of Mormon to be historically correct."

 

Is this a correct premise?

 

This was the premise of the LDS Church in the time of Joseph Fielding Smith. I'll attach

an image of page 141, chapter 11, of The Progress of Man.  Apparently, the Lamanites

had great civilizations in Mexico and Peru.

 

Regards,

Jim