Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Avatar4321

Legendary metal library

Recommended Posts

I was just watching Expedition Unknown and they were searching a huge cave in Ecuador in search of a legendary metal library. This library is said to contain knowledge of a lost civilization written on metal plates.

It was a great episode. But I couldn't help noticing 1) lost civilization 2) South America 3) writing on metal plates sounds familiar.

 

https://cuencahighlife.com/massive-tayos-cave-system-said-to-hold-the-metallic-library-of-a-lost-civilization/

Any investigation done into this correlation?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

interesting...but I am disappointed

Legendary Metal Library  does it include Iron Maiden or Dethklok?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

.......................in search of a legendary metal library. ..................

 

1 hour ago, provoman said:

..................................Legendary Metal Library  ...................................

RLDS archeologist Neil Steede has been looking for just such a library his whole life, from the 1970s till now, and I have attended lectures by him in RLDS churches (now Community of Christ) in which he regaled everyone with his mysterious and spiritual tales of his search for that Cave in Cumorah in Mesoamerica.  Kind of an Indiana Jones goes to the Hill Cumorah approach.  See http://www.earlysitesresearchsociety.org/director-neil-steede.html .

Here's Steede at BMAF in 2005:

Quote

Q – Why do they call the hill in New York Cumorah when it was most likely in Tehuantepec? How did Moroni get there, and what sites in North America did Moroni visit?

A – Neil Steede. I think that people in the early Church began naming the hill in New York as Cumorah because plates were found in it, and there was some confusion as to exactly what happened. We know that after the abridgment was finished, Moroni runs northward. I believe that Moroni went either from the hill (Coxca) that I believe is Cumorah or from the Tuxtla area, and he went to the coast, up the coast to New Orleans, Louisiana, went up the Mississippi, then up the Ohio River and its tributaries to within ten miles of Palmyra, New York. That’s the route I think he took.  http://www.bmaf.org/conference/2005/round_table .

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

RLDS archeologist Neil Steede has been looking for just such a library his whole life, from the 1970s till now, and I have attended lectures by him in RLDS churches (now Community of Christ) in which he regaled everyone with his mysterious and spiritual tales of his search for that Cave in Cumorah in Mesoamerica.  Kind of an Indiana Jones goes to the Hill Cumorah approach.  See http://www.earlysitesresearchsociety.org/director-neil-steede.html .

Here's Steede at BMAF in 2005:

 

I’m kind of new to this idea, so was naming the New York hill Cumorah sort of an accident by early members? I would seem weird that Moroni hung around Cumorah for years and years only to end up burying the plates there anyways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m kind of new to this idea, so was naming the New York hill Cumorah sort of an accident by early members? I would seem weird that Moroni hung around Cumorah for years and years only to end up burying the plates there anyways.

That’s what some Scholars claim. Oliver Cowdery wrote otherwise:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

The LDS Scholars who don’t believe Oliver Cowdery claim he was speculating, but they have an invested $$$ interest in promoting the RLDS Fraud called a the Two-Cumorah Mesoamerica Geography theory. They have 501(c)(3)’s promoting it and beg for donations. Tax-free donations. They get on here and argue for it to protect their fraud. It’s hilarious, actually.

It’s over a 100 yrs old, the copyright expired, I assume. So it was plagiarized, expanded upon and spewed out as the truth, which it isn’t.

RLDS report: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074867811;view=2up;seq=2;skin=mobile

RLDS 1919 book: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t39z9z24w;view=2up;seq=34;skin=mobile

RLDS 1924 book: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058377359;view=2up;seq=58;skin=mobile

www.hecti.org - CofC Branch in Buckner, Jackson County, MO - have had annual expeditions to the Hill Cumorah - in Mexico. Latest this year. They identified a mountain with a natural cave called Cerro Rabon, in southern Mexico.

Current 2019 articles from “The Witness” at BOMF.org in Independence, MO usually has articles about it.

https://www.bomf.org/the-witness.html

There’s a lot more stuff if anyone has the desire to find it.

But most members just shrug their shoulders and believe Oliver Cowdery was a chowder-head because some Utah Scholar dudes said so.

Even BYU uses the RLDS theory with their fantasy map. Note how the site has a satellite map of the Arabian Peninsula, then a fantasy map for the Americas which Tolkien would be proud of. I wouldn’t be surprised if the fantasy map were expanded, one could see a couple of hobbits marching on their way from southern Mexico to bury some METAL plates in a volcano in New York.

http://bom.byu.edu/

Edited by Burnside
added METAL to stay on topic

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Calling it the Two-Cumorah theory is inaccurate.  The argument is that there was only one Cumorah and that the early Saints wrongly assumed it was in New York.  I’ve never had a problem with the supposition that Moroni traveled from Central America to New York with the Plates. He was also fleeing for his life.  I imagine he had plenty of time on his hands.  I just don’t see why this theory gets so much flack.

Edited by Rivers
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Rivers said:

Calling it the Two-Cumorah theory is inaccurate.  The argument is that there was only one Cumorah and that the early Saints wrongly assumed it was in New York.  I’ve never had a problem with the supposition that Moroni traveled from Central America to New York with the Plates. He was also fleeing for his life.  I imagine he had plenty of time on his hands.  I just don’t see why this theory gets so much flack.

You mean why doesn't everyone just accept the idea that the one Cumorah is the one in New York state?  What are you, a dreamer?  There must needs be opposition in all things!  Haven't you learned that yet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Gena Steffens, “Maya ritual cave ‘untouched’ for 1,000 years stuns archaeologists,” National Geographic.com, Mar 4, 2019, online at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/03/maya-ritual-balamku-cave-stuns-archaeologists/ ,  
Exploration of Balamku (Cave of the Jaguar God) reveals ancient religious practices—and may hold clues to the rise and fall of the Maya empire.
Near Chichén Itzá

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Gena Steffens, “Maya ritual cave ‘untouched’ for 1,000 years stuns archaeologists,” National Geographic.com, Mar 4, 2019, online at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/03/maya-ritual-balamku-cave-stuns-archaeologists/ ,  
Exploration of Balamku (Cave of the Jaguar God) reveals ancient religious practices—and may hold clues to the rise and fall of the Maya empire.

Interesting they're still finding things like this, although this one was apparently found and then resealed. While it might not tell us much about Book of Mormon issues, it is always interesting to me the nature of caves for the people religiously and how that may affect Cumorah legends.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

" 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." (Mormon 6:6)

Here Mormon specifically states that he hid up all the records in the hill Cumorah EXCEPT "these few plates" he gave to his son Moroni, which I assume (perhaps wrongly) were the gold plates that the Book of Mormon was translated from. References to this scripture specify these plates as those that Joseph Smith recovered from the angel Moroni(D&C 17:1). The scriptures never tell us specifically where Moroni hid the plates that his father gave him. Most people assume it was in the same hill.  Moroni wandered around with those "few plates" for about 35 years before he finished his writings and then hid them in the earth(Ether 4:3, Mormon 8:14). Moroni never specifies the name Cumorah as where he hid them.  In those 35 years he could have wandered up from Central America(or somewhere else) to the area where New York is now. 
There is no doubt that all the records Mormon used to compile his abridged set of plates are hidden in a hill called Cumorah, close to where most of the history took place. But did Moroni hide the plates his father gave him in the same hill 35 years later? Or did he hide them in a different hill thousands of miles away that we now also perhaps wrongly call Cumorah? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

There's no explicit statement unfortunatley. The closest is the Cowdery statement. However it's also the case that there are early traditions that seem closer to what the text itself describes. So you have the early traditions of the gold plates being taken and put into a hill full of records. (See Packer's "Cumorah's Cave" for the sources) If one gives weight to those accounts then clearly it's not the hill in New York. There's also the tradition in early Utah of Moroni dedicating temples or the like. While I think it's fair to cast a skeptical eye to those accounts (which even in the original seem second hand) they do suggest a Moroni wanding quite a long distance presumably with the plates. There's also the somewhat controversial maps that purportedly originate with Joseph but which appear created much later.

Anyway, I think there's at least indirect evidence in addition to the pretty clear textual evidence separating what Moroni did versus what Mormon did. As always I think we have to give precedence to the text itself. In various ways Joseph often displays ignorance of the text. (IMO) Which to me is always the strongest evidence that he didn't write the text.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 Anyway, I think there's at least indirect evidence in addition to the pretty clear textual evidence separating what Moroni did versus what Mormon did. As always I think we have to give precedence to the text itself. In various ways Joseph often displays ignorance of the text. (IMO) Which to me is always the strongest evidence that he didn't write the text.

Would you be willing to list some of the most significant ways you think JS displayed ignorance of the text?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Would you be willing to list some of the most significant ways you think JS displayed ignorance of the text?

It's not an example of ignorance, but I've noticed that in his recorded sermons Joseph Smith seemed much more comfortable quoting from the bible than the Book of Mormon.  It could be that he was just aware that his audience was not familiar with the Book of Mormon though.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, JAHS said:

There is no doubt that all the records Mormon used to compile his abridged set of plates are hidden in a hill called Cumorah, close to where most of the history took place. But did Moroni hide the plates his father gave him in the same hill 35 years later? Or did he hide them in a different hill thousands of miles away that we now also perhaps wrongly call Cumorah? 

Well, this is awkward.

In 1976, Marion G. Romney (second counselor in the First Presidency), perhaps in a fit of patriotic fervor, stood in Conference and proclaimed this to the world:

 

Quote

In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’.

So, that's not too bad.  We can chalk that up to mistaken assumptions and cultural influence on his understanding of Book of Mormon geography.

But then he closes with this:
 

Quote

Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come.

So, what is the value of a "personal witness" borne by a member of the First Presidency in General Conference?  What level of confidence should we have in something that is so witnessed, compared to, say, someone just standing up and making up a bunch of stuff based on what he was told while he was growing up?

Edited by cinepro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Well, this is awkward.

In 1976, Marion G. Romney (second counselor in the First Presidency), perhaps in a fit of patriotic fervor, stood in Conference and proclaimed this to the world:

 

So, that's not too bad.  We can chalk that up to mistaken assumptions and cultural influence on his understanding of Book of Mormon geography.

But then he closes with this:
 

So, what is the value of a "personal witness" borne by a member of the First Presidency in General Conference?  What level of confidence should we have in something that is so witnessed, compared to, say, someone just standing up and making up a bunch of stuff based on what he was told while he was growing up?

The value is in whether or  not the Holy Ghost would share or has already shared the same testimony.  It should seem reasonable enough to suppose that someone who has received a personal witness from the Holy Ghost frequently throughout his or her life would be better able to recognize a witness from the Holy Ghost than someone else who never has received a witness from the Holy Ghost about something, if there is such a person who never has, but all that matters is whether or not the Holy Ghost would say the same thing, regardless of how often he said it or who he told when giving his witness.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:
Quote

Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come.

So, what is the value of a "personal witness" borne by a member of the First Presidency in General Conference?  What level of confidence should we have in something that is so witnessed, compared to, say, someone just standing up and making up a bunch of stuff based on what he was told while he was growing up?

I think he can testify that those "events" happened, but he may or may not have been right on the exact location of where they happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Well, this is awkward.

In 1976, Marion G. Romney (second counselor in the First Presidency), perhaps in a fit of patriotic fervor, stood in Conference and proclaimed this to the world:

 

So, that's not too bad.  We can chalk that up to mistaken assumptions and cultural influence on his understanding of Book of Mormon geography.

But then he closes with this:
 

So, what is the value of a "personal witness" borne by a member of the First Presidency in General Conference?  What level of confidence should we have in something that is so witnessed, compared to, say, someone just standing up and making up a bunch of stuff based on what he was told while he was growing up?

I guess if your testimony of the gospel is based on geography then you're in trouble.

If you look to apostles and prophets as witnesses of Christ, then this really does nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Would you be willing to list some of the most significant ways you think JS displayed ignorance of the text?

Don't have time to do that research this week. And of course one always has to deal with second hand accounts that might not reflect the nuances of Joseph's actual beliefs. (A good example of that is the Zelph accounts) There's also the issue that some ties to Times and Seasons which, while Joseph was the editor may again not necessarily reflect his personal beliefs. So there's the infamous "this land" question that geography folks like to debate. 

That said, for at least part of his life it appears Joseph held to a quasi-hemispheric model. Regardless of ones geographic theories, a hemispheric model clearly doesn't line up with the distances in the text. There's then the limited use of the Book of Mormon and limited references. One study found 22 uses of the Book of Mormon by Joseph in Nauvoo versus 451 for the Bible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

So, what is the value of a "personal witness" borne by a member of the First Presidency in General Conference?  What level of confidence should we have in something that is so witnessed, compared to, say, someone just standing up and making up a bunch of stuff based on what he was told while he was growing up?

Typically those bearing witness are doing so to the big items that were revealed not every nuance of the presentation. It's rather easy to assume he had revealed to him the destructions of the Jaredites and so forth but not a nuanced revelation on Book of Mormon geography. Thus he followed the then common view of location. I'm not sure unless he explicitly claims geography is revealed that we should take that as his revelation rather than the key things focused on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The Nephites all gathered to the Hill Cumorah. Why ? It had to be a militarily defensible position. The drumlin in NY is not that. Period. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

The Nephites all gathered to the Hill Cumorah. Why ? It had to be a militarily defensible position. The drumlin in NY is not that. Period. 

Give that man a gold star.  It had to be defensible and also have access to thousands of lbs of food and potable water on a daily basis.  In other words, the area needed to be civilized.  New York, for that time, was not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically those bearing witness are doing so to the big items that were revealed not every nuance of the presentation. It's rather easy to assume he had revealed to him the destructions of the Jaredites and so forth but not a nuanced revelation on Book of Mormon geography. Thus he followed the then common view of location. I'm not sure unless he explicitly claims geography is revealed that we should take that as his revelation rather than the key things focused on.

The location of the events isn't a "nuance" of the talk.  It's the point of the entire talk.  It was 1976, and he was talking about how everything in the Book of Mormon is focused on the land that is now the United States of America.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The location of the events isn't a "nuance" of the talk.  It's the point of the entire talk.  It was 1976, and he was talking about how everything in the Book of Mormon is focused on the land that is now the United States of America.

. . . which is why he also referred to Columbus in the same talk; since we all know how Columbus’ voyages and discoveries were focused on the land that is now the United States of America . . . ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, mgy401 said:

. . . which is why he also referred to Columbus in the same talk; since we all know how Columbus’ voyages and discoveries were focused on the land that is now the United States of America . . . ;) 

👍🏽

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...