Ever see a Mormon temple on a pyramid? Indigenous Missipian and Mesoamerican ceremonial and religious buildings were built on pyramids. Mormon "temples" are either Georgian or Wizard Of Oz or Buck Rodgers "Kolobian" style. Maybe they'll just claim that Moroni's "ghost" was just a hologram from a projector from Kolob that crash-landed on Earth...


***************************

https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2023/10/03/legend-of-a-temple-on-the-cerro-de-san-miguel-confirmed/

The INAH confirms legends, which have been passed down from generation to generation, about the existence of a pre-Hispanic temple or teocalli on the Cerro de San Miguel in Atlixco Puebla before the arrival of the Spanish.

To date, no archaeological explorations had been carried out to prove or refute this belief. However, finds during recent archaeological rescue work, carried out by the Ministry of Culture of the Government of Mexico, through the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), confirm the spoken legend.

During works to renew the lighting of the San Miguel Arcángel chapel and improve the walkways and viewpoints of the hill, the aforementioned project of the INAH investigated the church’s atrium, between July and August 2023.

There, a team of workers, coordinated by INAH archaeologists, Miguel Medina Jaen and Carlos Cedillo Ortega, with the collaboration of archaeologist Elvia Cristina Sánchez de la Barquera, undertook a series of surveys, uncovering thick layers of construction fills with earth and stones.

.....

.....

.....

***************************

Admin Note: Please do not copy and paste entire articles due to copyright issues. If readers are interested they can follow the link provided.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2023 01:09PM by Maude.

That's what "they" want you to think...

Did they find the cash register for clothing rental?

Not sure what your point is. Very few of the modern temples are designed to look like native Amerindian architecture in the first place.

>Admin Note: Please do not copy and paste entire articles due to copyright issues. If readers are interested they can follow the link provided.

The average lifetime of these links is under a couple of years. A lot of these articles just vanish.

I have heen trying to find material for the Floodlit database and encountering the same issue, i.e. content from ten or twenty years ago is now unavailable online or hard to find.

> Not sure what your point is.

That is obviously, and sadly, true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2023 06:11AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Not sure what your point is.
>
> That is obviously, and sadly, true.

There was no real point other than petty political point scoring as usual. You are experienced in that area as well. Most Mormon temples are not built to look like Nephite temples. In fact, as anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon properly knows, it gives very little detail on their supposed architecture or temple ceremonies.

On the other issue... people such as yourself favor internet linking, but since we now live in an "eternal present" where links disappear in weeks or months, and articles are revised to suit this week's viewpoint... we probably should be quoting longer sections of articles.

... and making it obvious they are quotations. Not cutting and pasting from somewhere else, and passing it off as our own work, eh LW?

I plagiarize others' work?

Prove it. Find examples of where I have used someone else's text without attribution.

All you need to do is pick a search engine of your choice, type in whatever statement of mine you think is plagiarized--in quotation marks if necessary--and see if you get any hits. You can then post the link to the original source and everyone will see how brilliant you are and what a sad cheat I am.

So stop talking and give us proof that I "cut and pasted" something.

Anything at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2023 06:51AM by Lot's Wife.

A bit difficult since you keep editing your replies and deleting mine. (The comment about post-structuralism for example.) Anything to cheat a debate, eh?

Your longer messages on specialist subjects do not match the written style of your shorter messages. We asked some time ago about online plagiarism detectors, and you suddenly became rather sheepish (shall we say) about the subject. Your messages were a bit more restrained for a short while after that. But since then, we have seen ChatGPT and other AI being tested on the public, and it would be possible to use one of those to rewrite material so that it wouldn't necessarily be traceable to the original source.

I recall that this business started after you accused me of using Google Translate for a language which doesn't even appear on it. I asked you about why some of your pieces on history and science read as if they had been lifted off someone's website.

The church thinks like you. General Conference talks are already showing signs of cybernetic enhancement. It saves a lot of legwork.

Lot's Wife has no moderation nor administration privileges on this site. If you registered, you too would be able to edit your messages. If you want to be a serial anon, you do not have that ability. You really should read the Guidelines at the top of the board.

Lottie can't delete anything. At best, you can wipe out the text in your own message if you are a registered board member using the "edit" function, but you can't delete it. Only admin can delete.

Using links for articles, along with only using short quotes from the articles, is a part of this board's guidelines, regardless of how you feel about it.

> (The comment about
> post-structuralism for example.)

This is the first time you have mentioned "post-structuralism" at all. I did not reply to a topic you never raised.


------------------
> Your longer messages on specialist subjects do not
> match the written style of your shorter messages.
> We asked some time ago about online plagiarism
> detectors, and you suddenly became rather sheepish
> (shall we say) about the subject. Your messages
> were a bit more restrained for a short while after
> that.

What on earth are you talking about? There is a library of my posts on this website. Take any one of them and prove that I copied it from somewhere else.

Why can't you do that?


----------------
> But since then, we have seen ChatGPT and
> other AI being tested on the public, and it would
> be possible to use one of those to rewrite
> material so that it wouldn't necessarily be
> traceable to the original source.

Nonsense. You can take any post of mine from the archive and check it. Those posts go back way past ChatGPT. Take one from five years ago and prove your contention. Show that I "cut and pasted" anyone else's material at any time.


--------------
> I asked
> you about why some of your pieces on history and
> science read as if they had been lifted off
> someone's website.

Prove it.


--------------
> The church thinks like you. General Conference
> talks are already showing signs of cybernetic
> enhancement. It saves a lot of legwork.

Prove it.

Mormon Stool Stopper Wrote:
---------------------------
> ... and making it obvious
> they are quotations.  Not
> cutting and pasting from
> somewhere else, and pass-
> ing it off as our own work,
> eh, LW?

I think you've hit the hammer smack dab down on the nail, Bro. Imodium!  To buttress your case against the infamous tart Gladys Lot, I offer the following in evidence:

I'm sure you know of the so-great-that-words-fail-me Judic West, emeritus Archbishop of Cloughn-on-Crack...  Gladys Lot had the effrontery to mock the great Judic West by creating a fictitious character she named Judy Qwest!  She couldn't have been more effronterous if she'd tried!!

I, along with legions of fans of the humble Judic West, immediately filed suit in the Court of Public Opinion, charging the evil hag with Effronterous Interuptis, but the tart avoided prosecution by claiming non-compost-mentalis-midgetry, long associated with people too simple tie the shoelaces on even the humblest huaraches.

Please forward me whatever petitions you would like signed regarding both her "e" and "up" fronterous behaviorus, and I will gladly sign and do whatever I can to get Judic West to sign.

You are doing the Lord's work, stool stopper!

Mormon Imodium Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> In fact, as anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon properly knows, it gives very little detail on their supposed architecture or temple ceremonies.

Can the BoM be read improperly, perhaps in one's underwear?

I'm at a loss as to how anyone makes it past the first chapter. I found it to be a terrific soporific.

Thank you. It's a serious challenge. Link rot is a constant threat to transparency, as are deletions and other forms of content removal/disappearance.

At floodlit, for each LDS abuse case, we're trying to include full article text or at least long excerpts for every source that we can, plus multiple online archive links.

Please educate yourselves on "Fair Use" laws. It's an easy way for people to sue you or shut your doors.

Everybody Mormon knows any talent in building temples gets traced back to the second set of gold plates soon to be brought to paper, through only the LDS schism and anybody still attending.

Temples, shmemples, transplanted Hebrews in the Americas, Nephites, Lamanites, Moroni...it's all made up B.S.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2023 12:18PM by anybody.

Yes, but made up BS that has lasted for 200 years.

The problem with modern Mormon Doctrine is not that it cannot be believed, but that it should not be believed.

After all, beliefs exist to serve you, not a self-serving religion.