Jump to content

Archived

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

Thinking

Where Is The Bom Cumorah?

Recommended Posts

I wanted to give Lpoulsen, livey111 and a few others something interesting I have found. While researching the history of Western New York (I am still researching, not yet done). I was thinking about the quotes by posters on this board concerning the massive graves and bones found. How they often use this as a bulls-eye for the Great Lakes model. While thinking of this subject some of my research made me separate this into two categories;

1 Could these descriptions be of the remains of the Hopewell and Adena people?

2 Could these be other people [Lamanites, Nephites]?

Here are some of my findings;

Q1: Yes they possibly could be from Hopwell and or Adena. If this be the case they were more than likely Hopewell, who had changed the burial ways and started using mounds specifically with chambers as a way to bury their people. However there has not been any one mound where there have been massive skeletal remains found. Some sites have used the same mound for example a revered person dies and is buried sometimes in a chamber (Hopewell) sometimes not, then a mound is erected over him/her. Then years later, sometimes hundreds of years others are buried in the same mound at a different level. The mound with the most people found in one mound so far has been ten. There are evidences of burials around the mound and the general area but still over increments of time and not in huge numbers.

Q2: I doubt that any of these were whole groups of Nephites or Lamanites because of the dating is not right. For example the Hopewell and Adena did live during the time of the Jaredites and Nephites, many of these burials according to the stratis level of burial date afterward many are during the apogee of these peoples existence (1050 AD). I am open to the idea that some of these people did migrate North and become part of the Hopewell and other groups as well (such as the Mississippian valley people, Hopi etc). But again the main reason I reject the Hopewell as being the Nephites is because of population. The population of the Hopewell during the required time is not as described in the Book of Mormon.

Okay now for the quotes of many bone yards etc found and quoted about. Many of these quotes come from the pilgrims as they landed at or around Plymouth Rock. As I read some primary documents it is about this time when these quotes about bones start. I had a theory about them that they were the recent bones of previous settlers and Indians. To validate this thought I had to do some more research and here are some of my findings;

"Most scholars maintain that more than 50% of North Americas Indian population-and perhaps as much as 90% percent-died during these devastating years." The Forgotten History of America Cormack Obrien pg. 9
"When Hernando de Soto became the first European conquistador to march through the Southeastern United States, in 1540 he came across indian town sites abandoned two years earlier because the inhabitants had died in epidemics Guns, Germs and Steel." Jared Diamond pg. 211,
later Diamond states it could have been high as 95% of the population.

Here is the quote that finally validated my theory;

“Epidemics would continue to break throughout North America, often without a European in site, the germs sweeping through the country like an ill wind. In the 1590s, measles killed thousands of Iroquois in what is now central New York State. Plague ravaged the inhabitants of Massachusetts in the years just before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock; among the first things reported by the English was a plethora of bone yards on the coast.” The Forgotten History of America Cormack Obrien pg. 24

Share this post


Link to post

deleted

Share this post


Link to post

"most reliable"? I would think the statements of Joseph said in 1830 and statements said in 1840 are both reliable.

Memories can change and fade therefore length of time is important.

It appears to me that Joseph changed his view on geography of the Book of Mormon as he learned more. This to me tells me he did not have a set in stone geographical model nor had revelation on the where it took place.

Did he change his position on where the final battles occurred? No.

Which statement did he make first?

Was there motive behind his later statements? In the Official Church History account the motive was honesty. In later accounts to bolster troops and claim the glorious structures mentioned in Stephens Travels.

From reading your post it seems you put a lot of weight in the verses with "promised land" or "this land" in them. It is only an observation on my part but it seems you ignore quotes from the early church leaders who are contrary to your theory.

You agree that church Canon carries more weight than church leaders, right? And Joseph's statements above other leaders??

Many of these quotes ["promised land" or "this land"] if taken literally, would rule out some of the areas you posit because for one reason they were not part of the US at the time they were uttered.

No, when they were uttered Joseph was in WNY and WNY was under the Constitution, MIssouri was not. This refutes Meldrum and any model outside of Colonial American boundaries.

Another thing is the word "continent" is used in many of these quotes. Joseph was very much aware the difference between the area comprising western New York and the area of a continent, yet he used the word continent.

WNY is on "this continent." It does not mean they covered the whole continent. That statement can be understood by other statements like this:

"Our western tribe of Indians."

His use of "western tribe of Indians" narrows where on this continent and his final battle in Palmyra secures it. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post

Is the city in upstate NY with the welcome to sign with the name of Palmyra on it a lie?

Not the same at all is it? Let's not try and obfuscate church history as it has been laid down by former prophets who stated exactly where Cumorah is.

Share this post


Link to post

Not the same at all is it? Let's not try and obfuscate church history as it has been laid down by former prophets who stated exactly where Cumorah is.

Two points! Actually, a three pointer imo!

All early church members knew exactly where the final battle occurred.

Share this post


Link to post

While researching the history of Western New York (I am still researching, not yet done). I was thinking about the quotes by posters on this board concerning the massive graves and bones found. ..However there has not been any one mound where there have been massive skeletal remains found.

Millions of buffalo lived and died but I have yet to find a single buffalo bone. How can I believe those reports when I can't find millions of buffalo bones? Thank you for admitting you are just beginning to look at WNY which shows your above statement was premature.

I plotted some facts on a google map which may help, particularly click on Cambria where 4k skeletons were uncovered in one spot - of unusual size:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=110875056738123824758.0004901cf9fa5f490bfd4&t=h&z=8

The convenient source is Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of WNY, here's a few quotes:

"The erection of such prodigious works must have been the result of labor far beyond the patience and perseverance of our Indians; and the form and materials are entirely different from those which they are known to make. These earthen walls, it is supposed, will retain their original form much longer than those constructed with brick or stone. They undoubtedly have been greatly diminished by the washing away of the earth, the filling up of the interior, and the accumulation of fresh soil; yet their firmness and solidity indicates them to be the work of some remote age.
Add to this, that the Indians have never practiced the mode of fortifying by entrenchments.
Their villages or castles were protected by palisades, which afford a sufficient defense against Indian weapons." (O. Turner, Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York, 1850, pp. 17-18)

"These numerous works could never have been supplied with provisions without agriculture.
Nor could they have been constructed without the use of iron or copper,
and without perseverance, labor and design which demonstrate considerable progress in the arts of
civilized life."

"These forts were, generally speaking, erected on the most commanding ground. The walls or breastworks were earthen. The ditches were on the exterior of works. On some of the parapets, oak trees were to be seen, which from the number of concentric circles must have been standing 150, 260, and 300 years; and there were evident indications, not only that they had sprung up since the creation of those works, but that they were at least a second growth. The trenches were in some cases deep and wide, and in others shallow and narrow; and the breastworks varied in altitude from three to eight feet. They sometimes had one, and sometimes had two entrances, as was to be inferred from there being no ditch at those places. When the works were protected by a deep ravine or a large stream of water no ditch was to be seen. The areas of these large forts varied from two to six acres; and the form was generally an irregular ellipsis; and in some of them fragments of earthenware and pulverized substances, supposed to have been originally human bones were to be found." (Turner, p. 20)

Share this post


Link to post

BOMG, you might convince me The one and only Cumorah is in WNY or at least that a Cumorah is in WNY but you will never convince me that Zarahemla was in Buffalo NY. I've been to Buffalo recently, as recent as last April. It was snowing, sleeting and the Erie Canal was frozen solid, big chunks of ice floated in the lake, it was flippin' cold. The locals were not happy, they were disgusted. I just don't see any mention of bitter cold in the BOM. Has there been a climate change since the period of time under discussion?

Share this post


Link to post

BOMG, you might convince me The one and only Cumorah is in WNY or at least that a Cumorah is in WNY but you will never convince me that Zarahemla was in Buffalo NY. I've been to Buffalo recently, as recent as last April. It was snowing, sleeting and the Erie Canal was frozen solid, big chunks of ice floated in the lake, it was flippin' cold. The locals were not happy, they were disgusted. I just don't see any mention of bitter cold in the BOM. Has there been a climate change since the period of time under discussion?

That's a good point, fortunate for us, the BoM demands a cold season therefore Mesoamerica is out and WNY is in.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I detected the rank odor of apostasy about five pages back. Anyone who claims that denying the "true geography" is going to lead to being cut off from God has clearly lost it.

You may well be correct. It is official Church policy that if one persists in teaching information as Church doctrine that is not Church doctrine after having been corrected by their bishop or higher authority -- that action can subject the individual to Church discipline for apostasy. On the other hand we don't know what BOMG would do if his bishop came to him and said, "Look, brother, you're out of line here and out of harmony with the Church's official teachings on geography." so the descriptor of apostasy may be premature. That and such heavy handed terms tends to annoy the moderators (rightly so).

I personally would like to see it as an addition to Board Guidelines to make it contrary to board rules for anybody to claim as official Mormon doctrine anything which does not arguably conform to the suggested guidelines of Approaching Mormon Doctrine. Though there are plenty of things which are true which are not official doctrine in almost every case it should be entirely adequate for posters to simply assert their belief in the correctness of their interpretation of Mormonism. It crosses a line for members (and non-members) to assert their interpretations as official Church doctrine.

Well, writing generically that I smelt the odor of apostasy in relation to what BOMG has been trying to teach here in this thread does not IMHO cross the line into calling BOMG an apostate. He has managed to do this himself, however, and has attracted moderator attention thereby.

I am perfectly content with members arguing for their positions on such things as BoM geography; it's when they start labelling others who do not agree with them as apostates that my hairs begin to stand on end. Labelling others over non-doctrinal teachings is itself a form of apostasy -- I believe this was one of the kinds of things that went on in the eastern Mediterranean when John the Beloved wrote Revelation. When private interpretations of the scripture become essentially a casu belli, that is also clear evidence of apostasy. It is why John Calvin roasted those whom he considered apostates. And why the Catholic Church in Spain conducted the Inquisition (and it wasn't restricted to Spain). And when BOMG labels people "apostates of Zion" because they do not agree with his non-doctrinal BoM geography, it looks uncannily similar.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, writing generically that I smelt the odor of apostasy in relation to what BOMG has been trying to teach here in this thread does not IMHO cross the line into calling BOMG an apostate. He has managed to do this himself, however, and has attracted moderator attention thereby... And when BOMG labels people "apostates of Zion" because they do not agree with his non-doctrinal BoM geography, it looks uncannily similar.

There's no need to lead the witness, I respected the Biblical and BoM definition for "Zion" and others tried to negate the subject of BoMG in its entirety by saying it is of no effect, wherein I cited scripture to the contrary and they indulged their wit (if one can call it that) to lay a trap which no moderator could have avoided unless they took an hour to get the context. Old tricks, like your post. If you care to address the subject of Zion as defined by the Bible and BoM then by all means let's discuss its worth. If you wish to address the other subject, by all means open a new topic. Anijen apologized and that's that.

Share this post


Link to post

There's no need to lead the witness, I respected the Biblical and BoM definition for "Zion" and others tried to negate the subject of BoMG in its entirety by saying it is of no effect, wherein I cited scripture to the contrary and they indulged their wit (if one can call it that) to lay a trap which no moderator could have avoided unless they took an hour to get the context. Old tricks, like your post. If you care to address the subject of Zion as defined by the Bible and BoM then by all means let's discuss its worth. If you wish to address the other subject, by all means open a new topic. Anijen apologized and that's that.

So my post was an "old trick", was it? I wish I knew what you are talking about. I'm not trying to trick you. I've made statements about where I think you're going with your slinging around of epithets. I've said I don't care for how you respond to people who disagree with you. Because I do not recognize your interpretations of scripture as binding upon me or anyone else, for that matter. But nevermind about that.

As far as addressing "the subject of Zion as defined by the Bible and BoM" is concerned, I've read sufficient of your posts to be quite aware that you regard your interpretation of scripture to trump anyone else's. Little point in discussion under those conditions. And definitions as defined in scripture? People can't even agree whether the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" includes an exception for genuine self-defense or not, and you think you're going to be able to lay a definition of Zion on us that is self-evident enough that everyone will agree? Best pack a lunch because you'll be at it all day long.

No, this entire discussion is fairly pointless, anyway. Whether the events of the BoM happened around the Great lakes, MesoAmerica, or in downtown Seattle, the fact remains that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the divine authority necessary to dispense saving ordinances. Believe what you want where Zarahemla might have been located. It's no skin off my nose.

Share this post


Link to post

... Believe what you want where Zarahemla might have been located. It's no skin off my nose.

You like disharmony?

Another point that makes the subject of BoMG serious is when investigators investigate the BoM - IT TURNS THEM OFF THERE'S:

a. No official church position.

b. Over 100 different interpretations and counting.

Put Zion and whether it can easily be understood by the Bible and BoM aside and see that the message of the BoM is overshadowed by what a joke the field of its geography is. It's worth fighting for (the message) and yes, someone must make sense of its geography.

Share this post


Link to post

You like disharmony?

Another point that makes the subject of BoMG serious is when investigators investigate the BoM - IT TURNS THEM OFF THERE'S:

a. No official church position.

b. Over 100 different interpretations and counting.

Put Zion and whether it can easily be understood by the Bible and BoM aside and see that the message of the BoM is overshadowed by what a joke the field of its geography is. It's worth fighting for (the message) and yes, someone must make sense of its geography.

What disharmony? The only disharmony I've noticed is the disharmony being generated here in this thread, because of your insistence that you know something that you don't, in fact, know, but have only inferred from some very vague scriptural references, and some not-accepted-by-the-Church-as-doctrine conjectures made by early leaders of the Church.

In fact, I don't know where you live, but no convert in my ward has ever had his or her nose put out of joint because nobody knows for sure where Zarahemla was located.

So, since there's no official position on the location of Book of Mormon events, you think you're going to improve matters by advocating for your point of view? Fine, go talk to President Monson about it. If you can convince him of your (and I guess Meldrum's) theories, and get them accepted as official doctrine, great.

And where is it said that "someone must make sense of its geography"? Somehow I think the Lord might have missed the memo on that one.

You can stop your ark-steadying now.

Share this post


Link to post

What disharmony? The only disharmony I've noticed is the disharmony being generated here in this thread, because of your insistence that you know something that you don't,

It shocks all sensibility I know that I had to reveal the details to you of the first Official Church History identifying a. the Hill Cumorah, b. where all the records were stored and c. where the final battles were - in Palmyra.

no convert in my ward has ever had his or her nose put out of joint because nobody knows for sure where Zarahemla was located.

Are you confused? You come in raining all kinds of accusations of nonsense and yet I never mentioned the word Zarahemla once. Do us a favor, read the thread and get on board or go back to whatever thread you thought you were on. I'm not Meldrum, this thread is not about him or where Zarahemla was.

Share this post


Link to post

It shocks all sensibility I know that I had to reveal the details to you of the first Official Church History identifying a. the Hill Cumorah, b. where all the records were stored and c. where the final battles were - in Palmyra.

???

Are you confused? You come in raining all kinds of accusations of nonsense and yet I never mentioned the word Zarahemla once. Do us a favor, read the thread and get on board or go back to whatever thread you thought you were on. I'm not Meldrum, this thread is not about him or where Zarahemla was.

I'm not confused at all. My "accusations", as you call them, were based entirely in what you wrote, treating Book of Mormon geography as so important that you called someone an apostate for not going along with your theory.

I've read the thread, I'm well on-board with what's being discussed. I don't care if you're Meldrum or not, I mentioned him only because he seems to espouse a similar theory, sorry if that bothers you. I also am using the term "location of Zarahemla" as a shorthand way of describing the topic of where the events of the Book of Mormon took place. As in "Some people think Zarahemla is located in Meso-America and others think it is located in, heck, I don't know, western Ohio?" So don't get wrapped around the axle, OK? I know you didn't bring up the location of Zarahemla. I'm not trying to hang it around your neck like it was an albatross or something. But if the events of the Book of Mormon took place in the Great Lakes area, then the location of Zarahemla is not in MesoAmerica, it's in, say Western New York, by way of tossing out a candidate area of geography.

And if the Hill Cumorah is that drumlin in New York, and if it is identical to the Hill Ramah described in the Book of Mormon, then the events in the BoM took place in the eastern Great Lakes area and Zarahemla is somewhere around there. If not, then it's somewhere a bit north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Share this post


Link to post

???

Why you are confused is apparent to me now, for starters, you appear to have missed the op, which was asked: "Where is the BoM Cumorah?"

My "accusations", as you call them, were based entirely in what you wrote, treating Book of Mormon geography as so important that you called someone an apostate for not going along with your theory.

Rrrrriiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttt, let's review who's lying by adding to what I said instead of using the quote feature:

Well, I have to say that it took you long enough to conclude this. I think I detected the rank odor of apostasy about five pages back. Anyone who claims that denying the "true geography" is going to lead to being cut off from God has clearly lost it.

Instead of apologizing for mischaracterizing my position, you assumed an alias for two days and now show up with the same nonsense. I'll repost my response and ask that you address now what you failed to address then:

1. You've defined what "cut off" means not me.

2. No one has mentioned Zarahemla, or its boundaries.

3. To show that there IS an epidemic of the darkened mind I offer the H38 Virus as evidence.

Yes, I do expect you to follow the H38 Virus link and see if in fact there is an epidemic of a darkened mind.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a good point, fortunate for us, the BoM demands a cold season therefore Mesoamerica is out and WNY is in.

CFR the BOM demands a cold season

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for admitting you are just beginning to look at WNY which shows your above statement was premature.

Hmm when did you read that from me? I am not just beginning to look at Western New York. I have been studying it for quite sometime now.

The rest of your post is drowning me in drivel....

Share this post


Link to post

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Bickering

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff

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...