Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

The Plates Of Nephi

Recommended Posts

According to the text of the Book of Mormon we know the Plates of Nephi were not buried in Cumorah.

And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

Let us study this verse and also study what where the Plates of Nephi?

First; We notice that this has occurred after all the people have been gathered into one land. This is where the final battle will be taken place. This will be the land where the last struggle of his people [Mormon] will take place.

Second; We also know from this verse that Mormon was commanded that the records should not fall into the hands of the Lamanites. Everything ever entrusted to Mormon by the hand of the Lord, he calls “the records.” So what does Mormon do? He makes an abridgement out of the records (the Plates of Nephi) and of the rest of the records he hides them in the hill Cumorah. The text uses the word hid and we do not know from the text if they were buried, we assume they were.

Third; We know they were not buried with the other record in Cumorah. We know this from the previous verse mentioned.

Fourth; We know the text does not mention what happened to them.

Fifth; We know that centuries later Moroni appears to Joseph and shows him in vision where the plates are buried.

At no point when Moroni visits Joseph does he refer where Joseph retrieved the Plates of Nephi as Cumorah. Here is what is written concerning the retrieval of the Plates of Nephi;

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants JSH 1:34

… While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it. JSH 1:42

… I left the field, and went to the place where the messenger had told me the plates were deposited; and owing to the distinctness of the vision which I had had concerning it, I knew the place the instant that I arrived there. JSH 1:50

It is interesting to note that Moroni mentions the “inhabitants of this continent” and does not say the ancient inhabitants of this area, country or hill.

From the Book of Mormon itself we read

“AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF MORMON UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI”

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile thatJESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUN.

Again notice that when they were hid up it does not mention Cumorah.

Share this post


Link to post

We can see the Plates of Nephi were very important and from Mormon 6:6 we know these plates were not buried with the rest of the record but given to Moroni. There is no textual evidence whatsoever that they were reburied in that same hill after Moroni fled for his safety.

Hemispheric subscribers would want us to believe while gathering his people from somewhere in Central America and agreeing to fight with the Lamanites in a predetermined location that they all knew of (clear across the continent in New York) and the Lamanites agreed to this. They were then wiped out and after wandering for approximately 36 years and in some instances dedicating temple sites during this time, Moroni went back to that dangerous place in New York and then buried the Plates of Nephi and his additions. Notice too, that if the final battle place was in New York he went back there but hid did not bury them where the other records were buried by Mormon. Why if he goes all the way back to NY why does he not bury them with the other records? Does this long journey really not seem problematic?

Mesoamericanists are criticized heavily for a two Cumorah theory. They are labeled by other members as faithless, apostate and in some cases even anti-Christ. The bottom line is textual evidence supports their views. Yes opinion is put forth, but this is done from both camps. It seems some critics it is acceptable for those who adhere to a hemispheric model to have conjecture and opinion, but for Mesoamericanists it is taboo. Why the double standard?

Share this post


Link to post

There is no archaeological evidence for this vast migration of two armies from Mesoamerica to New York.

There is no archaeological evidence of a massive battle on that hill in New York.

And there is no textual support that claims New York as that same hill as the final battle.

What there is;

There is opinion that this was so, which is;

There is a traditional thought that since Moroni hid them in New York that it must be the same place the battle occurred.

There are statements from past leaders of the church that say this but they also say it is opinion and speculation.

There is no official stand on the geography of the Book of Mormon including where the location of the final battle between the Lamanites and the Nephites.

Share this post


Link to post

According to the text of the Book of Mormon we know the Plates of Nephi were not buried in Cumorah.

Let us study this verse and also study what where the Plates of Nephi?

First; We notice that this has occurred after all the people have been gathered into one land. This is where the final battle will be taken place. This will be the land where the last struggle of his people [Mormon] will take place.

Second; We also know from this verse that Mormon was commanded that the records should not fall into the hands of the Lamanites. Everything ever entrusted to Mormon by the hand of the Lord, he calls “the records.” So what does Mormon do? He makes an abridgement out of the records (the Plates of Nephi) and of the rest of the records he hides them in the hill Cumorah. The text uses the word hid and we do not know from the text if they were buried, we assume they were.

Third; We know they were not buried with the other record in Cumorah. We know this from the previous verse mentioned.

Fourth; We know the text does not mention what happened to them.

Fifth; We know that centuries later Moroni appears to Joseph and shows him in vision where the plates are buried.

At no point when Moroni visits Joseph does he refer where Joseph retrieved the Plates of Nephi as Cumorah. Here is what is written concerning the retrieval of the Plates of Nephi;

It is interesting to note that Moroni mentions the “inhabitants of this continent” and does not say the ancient inhabitants of this area, country or hill.

From the Book of Mormon itself we read

Again notice that when they were hid up it does not mention Cumorah.

"Third; We know they were not buried with the other record in Cumorah. We know this from the previous verse mentioned."

All we know is that two record burials occurred. The location of the second in New York is known. That is all we know. There is insufficient data to conclude where the first records were buried.

"It is interesting to note that Moroni mentions the “inhabitants of this continent” and does not say the ancient inhabitants of this area, country or hill."

You left this part out that is found in Joseph Smith's journal:

"I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham"

Moroni did not say "some inhabitants", he did not say "people in Meso-America", he said "the Indians". Obviously this included the Seneca that Joseph Smith was aware of in New York.

Then there is the little thing about the D&C. It is supposed to be revelation from the Savior. What is the first tribe that missionaries took the Book of Mormon to? The Seneca.

The 1830 Indian Removal Act was intended to locate all Indians in the United States on the west side of the Mississippi river. And in the D&C, the western border of Missouri bordered the "Lamanites". That part of North America was going to contain all of the United States Indians. Jesus even called them "Jews" in the D&C.

Did Jesus mean "inhabitants of this continent" in a vague way? Just pointing out that in using logic to try to determine Cumorah, it weakens the argument when references from an angel and Jesus are ignored.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm of the thought that Moroni wandered after the great battle and buried the plates Joseph found in a different location from that battle and from where the majority of the record might have been kept. For some reason I think of the movie "The Book of Eli." He was charged with preserving this abridgment made by his father and after his people were killed it was likely necessary to flee far away. Furthermore, he had no reason to stay.

For all we know the Indians Joseph referred to as "literal descendants of Abraham" were one of the many groups that went out exploring and never returned to the main body. Perhaps Moroni found them and buried the plates where they resided.

Share this post


Link to post

You left this part out that is found in Joseph Smith's journal:

If you notice I was quoting from the history of the church.
"I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham"
I did not quote this part because it was not any part of what I was quoting from. MichaelM I am using Mormon 6:6 and the History of the Church chapter one. Moroni does not use the word Indians at all in any area that I quoted. You are using " " wrong. When you use quotations you use exactly what they said including spelling errors etc, You can clarify within the quotations but you would use brackets to signify that. If you do so wrongly then you either do not know this or you are intentionally twisting what is quoted.
Moroni did not say "some inhabitants", he did not say "people in Meso-America", he said "the Indians".
CFR, Where? Again please stop misquoting what I wrote.
Obviously this included the Seneca that Joseph Smith was aware of in New York.
This is speculation. No where in the text of the Book of Mormon or the part of the History of the Church from where I quoted from does it mention Indians let alone Seneca.
Then there is the little thing about the D&C. It is supposed to be revelation from the Savior.
You can suppose all you want, I hold it to be revelation.
What is the first tribe that missionaries took the Book of Mormon to? The Seneca.
CFR where I can find this. But even so, this proves what exactly?
The 1830 Indian Removal Act was intended to locate all Indians in the United States on the west side of the Mississippi river. And in the D&C, the western border of Missouri bordered the "Lamanites".
Speculation again. No where from the text of the Book of Mormon does it mention the Mississippi nor the Missouri nor Potomac, nor the Deleware rivers, nor any of the states. This is off topic the OP is on Mormon 6:6 and the plates of Nephi being hid up in Cumorah. Again you think I was quoting from the Doctrine and Covenants I was not. No where in the quotes I used where Indians mentioned. Trying to insert Indians into my statement is twisting what I wrote.
Did Jesus mean "inhabitants of this continent" in a vague way? Just pointing out that in using logic to try to determine Cumorah, it weakens the argument when references from an angel and Jesus are ignored.
Yes, lets use logic. Nothing from the OP have I ignored.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm of the thought that Moroni wandered after the great battle and buried the plates Joseph found in a different location from that battle and from where the majority of the record might have been kept. For some reason I think of the movie "The Book of Eli." He was charged with preserving this abridgment made by his father and after his people were killed it was likely necessary to flee far away. Furthermore, he had no reason to stay.

For all we know the Indians Joseph referred to as "literal descendants of Abraham" were one of the many groups that went out exploring and never returned to the main body. Perhaps Moroni found them and buried the plates where they resided.

This is of course exactly what I believe happened.

Share this post


Link to post

This is of course exactly what I believe happened.

It's only logical. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

If you notice I was quoting from the history of the church.

I did not quote this part because it was not any part of what I was quoting from. MichaelM I am using Mormon 6:6 and the History of the Church chapter one. Moroni does not use the word Indians at all in any area that I quoted. You are using " " wrong. When you use quotations you use exactly what they said including spelling errors etc, You can clarify within the quotations but you would use brackets to signify that. If you do so wrongly then you either do not know this or you are intentionally twisting what is quoted.

CFR, Where? Again please stop misquoting what I wrote.

This is speculation. No where in the text of the Book of Mormon or the part of the History of the Church from where I quoted from does it mention Indians let alone Seneca.

You can suppose all you want, I hold it to be revelation.

CFR where I can find this. But even so, this proves what exactly?

Speculation again. No where from the text of the Book of Mormon does it mention the Mississippi nor the Missouri nor Potomac, nor the Deleware rivers, nor any of the states. This is off topic the OP is on Mormon 6:6 and the plates of Nephi being hid up in Cumorah. Again you think I was quoting from the Doctrine and Covenants I was not. No where in the quotes I used where Indians mentioned. Trying to insert Indians into my statement is twisting what I wrote.

Yes, lets use logic. Nothing from the OP have I ignored.

As I said, it weakens the argument when references from an angel and Jesus are ignored. Am I now limited to discuss only what you have quoted? One should examine sources beyond just one to avoid getting things out of context.

Consider the History of the Church you are quoting from. A more direct source than that publication is found in Joseph Smith's journal. It has been digitized for everyone to see. The words are Joseph Smith's. You can read the part I quoted from at this LDS owned website:

http://beta.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-1835–1836#25

The words of the Savior are found here:

D&C 57

1 HEARKEN, O ye elders of my church, saith the Lord your God..

4 Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile;

The LDS Insitute Manual explains more:

http://institute.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-051-57.asp

If your point is based on only the Book of Mormon and one writing about the History of the Church I'm afraid your case is weak. It would seem that you are denying the words of the Savior and of an Angel.

Share this post


Link to post

You can read the part I quoted from at this LDS owned website:

Can you refer to what specifically you are addressing in this reference as I fail to see how any of that alters what Anijen has said.

Share this post


Link to post

Can you refer to what specifically you are addressing in this reference as I fail to see how any of that alters what Anijen has said.

Anijen said: "It is interesting to note that Moroni mentions the “inhabitants of this continent” and does not say the ancient inhabitants of this area, country or hill."

Look at the bottom of the page at my link to Joseph Smith's journal. Moroni said: "the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham". Read my previous posts for the explanation.

Share this post


Link to post

There is no archaeological evidence for this vast migration of two armies from Mesoamerica to New York.

There is no archaeological evidence of a massive battle on that hill in New York.

And there is no textual support that claims New York as that same hill as the final battle.

So falls the other shoe, really. There is no difference between these statements and those of a faithless critic.

Share this post


Link to post

There is no archaeological evidence for this vast migration of two armies from Mesoamerica to New York.

There is no archaeological evidence of a massive battle on that hill in New York.

Just for clarity...there is no current archaeological evidence available.

Share this post


Link to post

So falls the other shoe, really. There is no difference between these statements and those of a faithless critic.

This is information that John Clark published in an official journal from BYU. I'm sure he would be shocked to know that he is faithless. I'm sure the editors will be surprised as well.

Please find a way to disagree without assuming that anyone with a different opinion that yours lacks faith.

Share this post


Link to post

So falls the other shoe, really. There is no difference between these statements and those of a faithless critic.

From your stance, why are the interests in archeology for the LDS Church directed in MesoAmerica and not in New York?

Share this post


Link to post

This is information that John Clark published in an official journal from BYU. I'm sure he would be shocked to know that he is faithless. I'm sure the editors will be surprised as well.

Please find a way to disagree without assuming that anyone with a different opinion that yours lacks faith.

Again, one of the arguments advanced by the Brethren against the LGT/two Cumorahs theory is faithlessness. I repeat that argument.

The trouble with your "official journal" argument is that it withers in the face of "official" general conference statements and an official priesthood manual still heavily cited in general conferences.

I need to retreat to my real position on this. It isn't to declare LGT adherents a bunch of faithless apostates. Not at all. It is to declare that this branch of Mormon studies a dead letter, a hobby, one with no foundation and a sad Fergursonian waste of time and space.

Then there's your troubling statement again about the "official journal from BYU." Does BYU have academic freedom or not? Is a speculative piece in a BYU journal necessarily an implicit endorsement from the Brethren? Is everything published in a BYU journal the gospel truth and approved by the Brethren? Or, instead, might it be that BYU is accorded a fair amount of freedom to publish statements and opinions on Mormon issues even though speculative? I can't imagine the four pieces I published in BYU Journals were reviewed by any sort of correlation committee.

Share this post


Link to post

From your stance, why are the interests in archeology for the LDS Church directed in MesoAmerica and not in New York?

I'd say that is no endorsement of the LGT theory. If there were such an endorsement we'd hear about it.

BYU is a major institution with an interest in MesoAmerican archaeology. There may be a number of reasons for that, one of which might be that some members incorrectly believe that Nephi's tomb is there. I mean, I don't think Church members are immune from the pressures which led to the discovery of the True Cross and other major relics. Mormon LGT adherents remind me of St. Helena.

Share this post


Link to post

Anijen said: "It is interesting to note that Moroni mentions the “inhabitants of this continent” and does not say the ancient inhabitants of this area, country or hill."

Which supports the idea that this may have been part of a group that migrated earlier in the BOM history and were never heard from again. I don't get what your point is.

Moroni said: "the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham".

Moroni said this? He would have referred to them as Lamanites. Wasn't it Joseph Smith who said this and as I indicated previously and restated above there is no reason to suppose they aren't from a migrated group of the original Nephites.

Share this post


Link to post

There is no difference between these statements and those of a faithless critic.

Wow. A pretty deprecating statement about something that NO ONE knows for sure.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. A pretty deprecating statement about something that NO ONE knows for sure.

Why? They say the same thing. No surprise there.

Share this post


Link to post

Which supports the idea that this may have been part of a group that migrated earlier in the BOM history and were never heard from again. I don't get what your point is.

Moroni said this? He would have referred to them as Lamanites. Wasn't it Joseph Smith who said this and as I indicated previously and restated above there is no reason to suppose they aren't from a migrated group of the original Nephites.

Wow. Just wow. Joseph Smith's own words in his scribe's handwriting, but you know better what Moroni would have said? I remind you this is a direct source from the words of Joseph Smith. He tells us what Moroni said. But you disagree that Moroni said it? Wow. I'm very curious now how it is that you "know" that Moroni would have called the New York Indians Lamanites? And how does that square with Jesus calling the Indians within the United States "Jews"?

On the first point, Deborah said:

"Which supports the idea that this may have been part of a group that migrated earlier in the BOM history and were never heard from again. I don't get what your point is."

No, it does not support the idea even if it does not rule it out. The direct historical sources of evidence include the words of an angel and of Jesus. And all those words say is that the tribes within the United States were literal descendants of Abraham. That is all we have to work with.

You can assume that they came from people who migrated north out of Meso-America, but the evidence does not offer any strength to support that assumption. Likewise, a person could assume that because no mention was made of Meso-America, Moroni's words do not apply south of the border. Again that assumption would not be supported. The evidence only states that the indigenous people in the United States were descended father to son from Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob, on down to the living American Indian tribes that Joseph Smith was aware of.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, one of the arguments advanced by the Brethren against the LGT/two Cumorahs theory is faithlessness. I repeat that argument.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

Another way of explaining the strength of the positive position on the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to point out that we who are its proponents are content with a standoff on this question. Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination. In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum. . . .

I admire those scholars for whom scholarship does not exclude faith and revelation.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Here.

Share this post


Link to post

No, it does not support the idea even if it does not rule it out. The direct historical sources of evidence include the words of an angel and of Jesus. And all those words say is that the tribes within the United States were literal descendants of Abraham. That is all we have to work with.

You can assume that they came from people who migrated north out of Meso-America, but the evidence does not offer any strength to support that assumption.

You are so hung up on your literalism that you aren't seeing the bigger picture. If something is not "ruled out" how can you say that the ideas expressed by others are so wrong? The fact that the few words we have are "all we have to work with" doesn't rule any theory out. Until something is given that doesn't rule anything out and tells the exact story of what took place we can theorize all we want within the framework of the evidence.

You seem to forget that the BOM we have is a very limited account, not even a historical one at that, but primarily focused on the spiritual doing of the people. It skips hundreds of years and talks about peoples leaving the main body and exploring and never being heard from again. The technical explanations of where and when events happened is left entirely to speculation and scholars have studied this for years. You likely are not acquainted with some of the new evidence that is being produced and some very intelligent and convincing work.

If one believes the BOM to be a true account of the ancient inhabitants of this land, as I do and as many of the scholars do, what is the burr under your saddle that you can't accept that they may have some intelligent and logical ideas about where events took place?

Share this post


Link to post

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Here.

It's interesting to me that in countering rcrocket's assumption that LGT proponents are lacking in faith, you provide a quote in which the writer assumes that those coming to different conclusions than him (in terms of the historicity of the BOM) are lacking in honesty. I think that those sentiments, much like rcrocket's, were at best, poorly stated.

cacheman

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...