BoM Geography: The Gloves are Off...

notHagoth7 · November 29, 2009

So why do any of you suppose that there is a significant absence of physical data regarding the stuff in the BoM?

1) Because most people who care about the spiritual don't care about the physical.

2) Because the non-LDS professionals wouldn't claim that anything they found was Nephite, since they don't believe they existed (even if they had heard about them)

3) And because the LDS professionals wouldn't want their professional careers/credibility to take a hit for similar reasons

4) And because there's not a whole lot in the text to allow someone to identify a specific artifact or city as Nephite

5) Finally, because no one knows where to look

So a combination of few people care, Brigham Young isn't here to say "This is the place", and there's little way (and considerable disincentive) for those with credible skills to identify a specific artifact or city as Nephite.

LeSellers · November 29, 2009

Thank you for your reasoned response, Lehi.

You're more than welcome.

The problem with your explanation is that Pompeii is not mentioned in the Bible; otherwise, it would be an acceptable analogy. We do agree that the ancient city of Tyre (Troy) is "lost" but its demise is exactly in keeping with the prophecy in Ezekiel (ch 38?). With Tyre, anyone can see that it was here, then there.

I did not mean "Tyre", I meant "Troy" (aka, ?????/??????) of Homer's The Illiad fame.

The fact that Troy and Pompeii are not mentioned in the Bible make them better examples, at least in my view, because it shows that whether a site is "religious" or "mundane" makes no difference in whether they might be lost to history.

In any case, would a city, town, or village that is mentioned in the Bible but now unknown to us cause you to lose your "testimony" of the Bible?

Your position is a slight variant of the "There's no archeological evidence of the Book of Mormon", which is bunk. There's at least as much evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon as there was for Pompeii and Troy.

However the whole "second Cumorrah" stuff has me wondering. Since JS was very specific, why should others try to find another site?

I'd sure like to see the statements of Joseph Smith you allude to here, that the Cumorah of Moroni and Ether was the same drumlin where he found the plates. I have never seen anything from his pen that indicates this.

It was Oliver Cowdery who named the hill of Palmyra "Cumorah", not Joseph. Once the name stuck, Joseph used it, but there is no reason to assume that he, Joseph, got them confused and that the upstate New York hillock was the scene of the final epic battles of the Nephite/Lamanites and of the Jaredites.

Does the very fact that others are trying to find other explanations basically cast aspersions against what JS wrote, and ultimately against his person?

Accusations do not constitute proof.

As "Professor" Moody reminded us, there are people who will turn innocent acts into reasons for destroying an honest man's character.

Really that opens up more questions than it purports to solve

I do not see how.

Lehi

Zakuska · November 29, 2009

Another book we may want to add to the Great Lakes proponents list is:

Christ In North America - By Delbert W. Curtis

ISBN-1-883266-24-6

http://www.abebooks.com/products/isbn/9781883266240

I was a very strong proponent on the North American Model until I read the Times and Seasons and some other Journal entries that have come to light. Now I swing widely between Hemespherical, LGT,Central and south American theories.

Anijen · November 30, 2009

His list of books for sale include two books that mention the Michigan relics in their description.
IMO, any theory of geography that even mentions the Michigan Relics is in serious trouble. That is a huge red flag.

I have my own papers I am working on and they briefly cite the Michigan relics as bad scholarship and they being false. Although I doubt I will ever publish them but at last count I am up to over a hundred pages (101 to be exact )

juliann · November 30, 2009

Beyond the introduction, the book goes into great detail arguing for the different aspects of the Great Lakes theory, but most surprisingly (and disturbingly), it is very, very dependent on the Michigan Relics. Not a good sign. (Also, you can read this review by Mesoamericanist Brant Gardner.)

I have been hearing some very disturbing excerpts from Meldrum's new book about the Holocaust being a result of God's judgment and genetics proving three groups, Caucasian, Asian and Negro.

John T · November 30, 2009

Cumorah is the center of the LDS Universe. Everything else flows from that. Therefore notice below how JS clearly states where he found the stuff, and how, later on in Moroni 6:6 how Moroni purportedly hid the documents.

I'd sure like to see the statements of Joseph Smith you allude to here, that the Cumorah of Moroni and Ether was the same drumlin where he found the plates. I have never seen anything from his pen that indicates this.

<blockquote> HJS 1:51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth. 52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them. 53 I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates. Moroni 6: 6 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. (emphasis mine) </blockquote> Therefore, anyone trying to say otherwise than the original words of both JS and "Moroni" do not squarely place Cumorah in Wayne County (originally part of Ontario county) near Palmyra is being disingenuous, or worse.

did not mean "Tyre", I meant "Troy" (aka, ?????/??????) of Homer's The Illiad fame.

Unless one knows Greek, it is better not to use it. (FYI you used the singular masculine form of Illid)

The fact that Troy and Pompeii are not mentioned in the Bible make them better examples, at least in my view, because it shows that whether a site is "religious" or "mundane" makes no difference in whether they might be lost to history. In any case, would a city, town, or village that is mentioned in the Bible but now unknown to us cause you to lose your "testimony" of the Bible?

You assume much here, and most of it ... never mind. Suffice it to say that I am not doing as you seem to believe I am doing; specifically, attempting to destroy your faith. There is a great difference between "one or two villages" and the keystone to your BoM missing. You need to see the argument in terms of proportion, not numbers. You see from my POV, I am wondering if your core documents, specifically those penned by JS are in error, and that the many differing efforts to find in in South America, or in Michigan are defacto admissions of the fact that he did not know what he was talking about. On a proportional scale, that would be like both the Muslims and Christians both loosing the sites of Jerusalem, and Bethlehem.

Your position is a slight variant of the "There's no archeological evidence of the Book of Mormon", which is bunk. There's at least as much evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon as there was for Pompeii and Troy.
 Without sarcasm, I ask when has National Geographic ever published a spread on Bountiful, or Alma, or Zarhemia? But you need to know, (and I hope that you do) archeologists actually can go to cities of tha ancient middle east, that predate the Bible, such as Ur and Babylon, or go to a site ransacked by Alexander in 335 BC such as Tyre, or go to Pompeii and see the aftermath of the eruption in 79 AD of Vesuvius, but I found no data of anything like that existing in the Americas. Strange though that you should mention Troy. Perhaps one of us erred in mentioning it as a substitute for the other. For clarification, Troy is a Greek city, and Tyre is a Lebanon city. Anyway I meant to refer to Tyre, as in in Lebanon, the country. If you look at Google Earth, you can see the causeway from the land to the island off the coast. That is evidence of the three fold prophecy against that once-great city in Ezekiel 26. <blockquote><img src="file:///C:/Users/John/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png"></blockquote> <img src="file:///C:/Users/John/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png">
 It was Oliver Cowdery who named the hill of Palmyra "Cumorah", not Joseph. Once the name stuck, Joseph used it, but there is no reason to assume that he, Joseph, got them confused and that the upstate New York hillock was the scene of the final epic battles of the Nephite/Lamanites and of the Jaredites.
From what I posted above, it appears that Moroni named it, before them both. 
 John T wrote Does the very fact that others are trying to find other explanations basically cast aspersions against what JS wrote, and ultimately against his person?
 
 Accusations do not constitute proof.
True--as far as it goes. 
As "Professor" Moody reminded us, there are people who will turn innocent acts into reasons for destroying an honest man's character.
Unless you want to explore the character of JS, and somehow link it to the confusion of Mormon geography, I do not plan to go there. Doing so would derail the OP, which is rude. What I was getting to in that sentence is that if what JS wrote is true, then why look elsewhere? OTOH, if the things he wrote about geography were in error, then that assumption begs the question of other things likewise being wrong. If one starts to board that train, then no one can determine where the next stop is. IN OTHER WORDS, how many chances at errors does JS get before someone dares to cast aspersions at his character? does that train make sense? 
John T wrote Really that opens up more questions than it purports to solve
 
I do not see how.
I just gave you a few examples above. That is why the issue of Mormon geography is so intriguing because it cuts into the heart of Mormonism very deeply. For example, for anyone to day, "JS blew it here." what is not going to keep a non-LDS person to pointing to another thing saying 'He also blew it here also, don't you agree'?" Basically I refer to the "snowball effect" here. The more you roll it around, the bigger it gets.

LeSellers · November 30, 2009

...

Having a lot of trouble decoding this. Could you clean it up a bit so we can read it?

TX,

Lehi

Zakuska · November 30, 2009

John T,

HJS 1:51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth. 52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them. 53 I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates.

Not once in here Did Joseph Smith call the Hill in NY "Cumorah".

Moroni 6: 6 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. (emphasis mine) </blockquote> Therefore, anyone trying to say otherwise than the original words of both JS and "Moroni" do not squarely place Cumorah in Wayne County (originally part of Ontario county) near Palmyra is being disingenuous, or worse.

So Moroni gets a "few Plates" from his father. All the rest of the plates were hid in the hill of the final battle. Where did Moroni Go with the Plates he got?

You must not be aware of the TWO journal entries in Church Archives which detail and coberate each other and even draw maps of Moroni's Journey from Central America to NY to deposit the plates stopping along the way... even in Utah to dedicate temple sites as he went?

http://www.elektrote...ns/SCAN0003.JPG

http://www.elektrote...ns/SCAN0004.JPG

Some of the information on these maps have also been cooberated by other Church leaders who accompanied these two men and Joseph Smith on Zions camp. Such as Brigham Young saying that Moroni had didcated the Temp Mount in Manti and St. George.

Black Moclips · November 30, 2009

Regarding the Michigan Relics:

from wiki:

Later in 1911 Scotford's stepdaughter signed an affidavit where she stated that she had seen him making the objects. Scotford and Soper never confessed and no more objects were found after they died. Father Savage died believing they were genuine.

Why would two men die without fessing up to their forgery? Why would they take such a falsehood to their grave?

cdowis · November 30, 2009

Since JS was very specific, why should others try to find another site? Does the very fact that others are trying to find other explanations basically cast aspersions against what JS wrote, and ultimately against his person?

Please give us the exact quote where JS said that the hill in NY was the location of the last battle.

Everyone agrees that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah, but is it the site of the great battle? Please give us that citation.

cdowis · November 30, 2009

John T asks the question

So why do any of you suppose that there is a significant absence of physical data regarding the stuff in the BoM?

Why do you think there are not physical remains of the BOM? It is not a question of physical artifacts, I would suggest theat there are hundred of such artifacts, but identification of those artifacts.

Let us suppose that you find a jade necklance. Please tell us how to identify whether it is Lamanite, Nephite, Mayan, or something else. How are you able to identify artifacts?

NOTE: This is among the stupid antimormon arguments.

Sandy Petersen · November 30, 2009

The reason that we cannot point to any of the cities or lands of the Book of Mormon (in the New World, at least) and say, "Here it is." is for the same reason we cannot point to ANY cities or lands of the ancient New World and say what they were named fifteen hundred years ago.

The only reason we know what any of the cities in the Old World were called was because of heaps of ancient manuscripts, and generally a continuity of language. Bill Hamblin pointed out that even with a place as well-studied and as literate and with as many documents as the Mid-East we can point out with confidence only about 40% of the place-names in the Bible.

In the New World, people as important as the Anasazi or Olmec, and cities as mighty as Teotihuacan, must go with "fake" names, because we do not know what they called themselves. (The Anasazi and Olmec were not named "Anasazi" or "Olmec", and only lately have we started to learn about who lived in Teotihuacan.)

So, to answer your question - we don't know directly where the place names happened in the Book of Mormon because

(1) records either didn't exist or were destroyed

(2) there is not a continuity of culture and language from olden days to now and

(3) there has been far less archeological work done in the New World than the Old World. It is safe to say that there has not been 1% as much effort expended on New World diggings, in terms of manpower and monetary investment. Probably Egypt alone has had ten times the effort spent on it as the entire New World.

It's not a fair comparison. How would we know if a particular city was named Zarahemla? We could have found Zarahemla, dug it up, and put its potsherds and relics on display in a museum and never known its real name, just as with EVERY OTHER Ancient American site we've examined.

Zakuska · November 30, 2009

Case in point... With the prominence that the Sinai experience played into Israelite history... Ever wonder why the Bible Dictionary can't seem to Locate Mt. Sinai? Why is there a huge "?" where it says its located?

Will the real Mt. Sinai PLEASE STAND UP!

http://en.wikipedia....cal_Mount_Sinai

If there can be two Mt. Sinai's according to the experts on the Bible... (Jawehists vs Deuteronomists) why not two Cumorahs?

cinepro · November 30, 2009

Please give us the exact quote where JS said that the hill in NY was the location of the last battle.
Everyone agrees that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah, but is it the site of the great battle? Please give us that citation.

Church Historian and Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith did have this to say:

This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon . . . .
It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Ramah. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says,

Zakuska · November 30, 2009

Church Historian and Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith did have this to say:
Ultimately, the Great Lakes theory seems to rest on the conviction that Prophets and Apostles can be wrong, but they can't be that wrong.

Paul did say Sinai was in Arabia. Galatians 4:25

http://www.arkdiscov...sinai_found.htm

cdowis · December 1, 2009

Further, the fact that all of [Joseph Smith's] associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history.

There is a hill in NY called Cumorah. It was the place where Moroni hid the plates. The brethren were not wrong in calling it Cumorah -- that was its name. And it was unnecessary for JS to correct the brethren when they were using the correct name for this hill.

However the issue is whether this Hill Cumorah in NY is the site of the Final Battle. JS made no such statement on this question, and it is possible for a reasonable person such as myself to believe that there was another hill called Cumorah where the war of extermination took place.

Cold Steel · December 1, 2009

I think that New York is one place where the BoMormon last battle couldn't possibly have occurred. Why would Moroni travel around for so long only to come back to the place where he started, especially when he was being hunted by Lamanites? Also, the BoMormon says that the OTHER records were hidden in the hill Cumorah. So the plates Moroni took with him would have had to have been placed in a different hill. The New York Hill Cumorah is not the BoMormon Cumorah.

Ah, but that's the beauty of it. Nephi escapes from the Lamanites and flees for years carrying all the plates with him as he goes. Then he doubles back around and returns (always a good trick when you're running away), and ends up burying the plates in the hill where he started from! And during his travels he dedicates the sites of many latter day temples before he doubles back!

Of course this is what the Great Lakes theory demands. It also demands that one believes there is still a cave in the New York Cumorah just filled with the ancient Nephite records. Well, that makes sense if that were the land of the Nephites. But where, exactly, is the cave? People have been all over the New York drumlin and do you know what's in that hill? Dirt and small rocks. No tunnels, no indication of any structural support being added (and support for a cave in a dirt mountain would need to be extensive). Where did the Nephites put the dirt they dug out of the hill? How did they shore up the walls of the cave and how did they hide the entrance?

It just doesn't compute.

As far as Peru goes, I'm very skeptical of George Potter's work and am anxious to see a map. That's where the real proof of the pudding is. But instead of formulating his theory and trying to build on it, I think Potter's too anxious to add things to his r

handys003 · December 1, 2009

Ah, but that's the beauty of it. Nephi escapes from the Lamanites and flees for years carrying all the plates with him as he goes. Then he doubles back around and returns (always a good trick when you're running away), and ends up burying the plates in the hill where he started from! And during his travels he dedicates the sites of many latter day temples before he doubles back!
Of course this is what the Great Lakes theory demands. It also demands that one believes there is still a cave in the New York Cumorah just filled with the ancient Nephite records. Well, that makes sense if that were the land of the Nephites. But where, exactly, is the cave? People have been all over the New York drumlin and do you know what's in that hill? Dirt and small rocks. No tunnels, no indication of any structural support being added (and support for a cave in a dirt mountain would need to be extensive). Where did the Nephites put the dirt they dug out of the hill? How did they shore up the walls of the cave and how did they hide the entrance?
It just doesn't compute.
As far as Peru goes, I'm very skeptical of George Potter's work and am anxious to see a map. That's where the real proof of the pudding is. But instead of formulating his theory and trying to build on it, I think Potter's too anxious to add things to his r

John T · December 1, 2009

Why are you confronting George Potter here? He has an email on his website and usually answers questions. He gives plausible answers and good evidence for his proofs. Don't attack a man who is not present to defend himself. I suppose he's got it all wrong on Lehi's trail also by your tone. BTW he is currently working on ancient maritime techniques out at sea, so he might not answer your emails right away.

This is as good a place as any to reply, so I choose this out of whim; it is also the last one on the linear view mode.

I apologize for the formatting mess. It looked good when I cobbled it together.

Now, let me explain what I tried to do with the two quotes, and perhaps the order should have been reversed. According to Moroni 6:6 he clearly identifies the purported site of the plate burial as Cumorah. In HJS 1:52ff, Smith clearly IDs the site as being in Palmyra, where he found the "buried treasure" Therefore Palmyra is Cumorah, and no where else on the planet can be Cumorah.

Since all the other places that people seek to ID as Cumorah are outside of New York, there is an underlying assumption that Joseph did not have it correct when he dug up all those plates and recorded the place as Palmyra. That brings up all sorts of problems for both those disbelieving the Palmyra account, and those believing the account.

In dealing with those who disbelieve Palmyra, it is necessary for them explain two equally important things. They need to find a plausible reason why the Smith account is inaccurate from material written by Smith himself prior to his death in 1844 , and find supporting evidence from material written by Smith himself prior to his death in 1844 for their theory. In other words, they have to demonstrate the inaccuracies in the BoM accounts first in order to offer a redacted version. then thy need to offer proof of that redacted version either by writings or by artifacts.

Those are high hurdles, but logically necessary for anyone to postulate a "second Cumorah" theory, and have something more than conjecture as a basis for the theory. Otherwise the theories are as likely as the book, "Chariots of the Gods". That is why Potter is so absurd; rocks do not float.

Believe it or not, the hurdle is even higher for those believing the site in NYS is actually Cumorah. They need to account for the reasons why a late iron age nation with no large scale ship building (ocean going, not coast hugging vessels) and no navigational aids like a compass could make the counter current journey on the Antarctic Sea, navigate to a new land, and land in an area unknown, and forget all the ways of their previous civilization such as writing, and choose to live a nomadic, stone-age life.

Not only would they need to do that, but the hardest support for the voyage theory is that proof from the Major or Minor Prophets in the Bible would need to be established. for example, since the last prophet before John is Malachi (c.400 BC) and each of the prophets warned of calamity from Babylon or Assyria and the capturing of both the Northern and Southern Kingdom separately, there would need to be contextural evidence, as opposed to conjecture why a whole tribe would suddenly be missing (in violation of Scriptural promises) and that somehow they would be reunited.

Attempting to explain all that by using the out-of-context phrase, "I have other sheep" is simply beyond the scope of the context, and it makes Scripture into a jigsaw puzzle to boot.

That is why the subject of Mormon geography is so interesting; it seems to be a catch 22. Either JS got it wrong in this keystone narrative, or if he did get correct, he has much explaining to do on the voluntary "deculturization" of the Jewish people

John Larsen · December 1, 2009

Regarding the Michigan Relics:
from wiki:
Why would two men die without fessing up to their forgery? Why would they take such a falsehood to their grave?

lol

Zakuska · December 1, 2009

This is as good a place as any to reply, so I choose this out of whim; it is also the last one on the linear view mode.
I apologize for the formatting mess. It looked good when I cobbled it together.
Now, let me explain what I tried to do with the two quotes, and perhaps the order should have been reversed. According to Moroni 6:6 he clearly identifies the purported site of the plate burial as Cumorah. In HJS 1:52ff, Smith clearly IDs the site as being in Palmyra, where he found the "buried treasure" Therefore Palmyra is Cumorah, and no where else on the planet can be Cumorah.

Heres the problem... you equvocate what was found in NY with what was buried in cumorah. Mormon buried room fulls of plates in Cumorah at the last battle. He gave his son a "small portion" of plates to continue writing on. The BOM never records that the Plates given to Moroni were ever buried at the site of the last battle. Moroni had 37+ years to get from central america or were ever the last battle was to upstate NY.

Read the verse again John...

6 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.

Moroni's Plates were not buried at Cumorah.

Wiki Wonka · December 1, 2009

Heres the problem... you equvocate what was found in NY with what was buried in cumorah. Mormon buried room fulls of plates in Cumorah at the last battle. He gave his son a "small portion" of plates to continue writing on. The BOM never records that the Plates given to Moroni were ever buried at the site of the last battle. Moroni had 37+ years to get from central america or were ever the last battle was to upstate NY.
Read the verse again John...
6 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.
Moroni's Plates were not buried at Cumorah.

Knowing that the Lamanites would have destroyed any Nephite records that they found, if I were Mormon, I would have advised my son to get as far away as possible from the place where all of the records were hidden.

Kevin Christensen · December 1, 2009

This is as good a place as any to reply, so I choose this out of whim; it is also the last one on the linear view mode.
I apologize for the formatting mess. It looked good when I cobbled it together.
Now, let me explain what I tried to do with the two quotes, and perhaps the order should have been reversed. According to Moroni 6:6 he clearly identifies the purported site of the plate burial as Cumorah. In HJS 1:52ff, Smith clearly IDs the site as being in Palmyra, where he found the "buried treasure" Therefore Palmyra is Cumorah, and no where else on the planet can be Cumorah.
Since all the other places that people seek to ID as Cumorah are outside of New York, there is an underlying assumption that Joseph did not have it correct when he dug up all those plates and recorded the place as Palmyra. That brings up all sorts of problems for both those disbelieving the Palmyra account, and those believing the account.
In dealing with those who disbelieve Palmyra, it is necessary for them explain two equally important things. They need to find a plausible reason why the Smith account is inaccurate from material written by Smith himself prior to his death in 1844 , and find supporting evidence from material written by Smith himself prior to his death in 1844 for their theory. In other words, they have to demonstrate the inaccuracies in the BoM accounts first in order to offer a redacted version. then thy need to offer proof of that redacted version either by writings or by artifacts.
Those are high hurdles, but logically necessary for anyone to postulate a "second Cumorah" theory, and have something more than conjecture as a basis for the theory. Otherwise the theories are as likely as the book, "Chariots of the Gods". That is why Potter is so absurd; rocks do not float.
Believe it or not, the hurdle is even higher for those believing the site in NYS is actually Cumorah. They need to account for the reasons why a late iron age nation with no large scale ship building (ocean going, not coast hugging vessels) and no navigational aids like a compass could make the counter current journey on the Antarctic Sea, navigate to a new land, and land in an area unknown, and forget all the ways of their previous civilization such as writing, and choose to live a nomadic, stone-age life.
Not only would they need to do that, but the hardest support for the voyage theory is that proof from the Major or Minor Prophets in the Bible would need to be established. for example, since the last prophet before John is Malachi (c.400 BC) and each of the prophets warned of calamity from Babylon or Assyria and the capturing of both the Northern and Southern Kingdom separately, there would need to be contextural evidence, as opposed to conjecture why a whole tribe would suddenly be missing (in violation of Scriptural promises) and that somehow they would be reunited.
Attempting to explain all that by using the out-of-context phrase, "I have other sheep" is simply beyond the scope of the context, and it makes Scripture into a jigsaw puzzle to boot.
That is why the subject of Mormon geography is so interesting; it seems to be a catch 22. Either JS got it wrong in this keystone narrative, or if he did get correct, he has much explaining to do on the voluntary "deculturization" of the Jewish people

The actual reason why close readers of the Book of Mormon began looking beyond the New York drumlin is because they realized that Mormon 6:6 describes the plates that eventually became the Book of Mormon being removed from their Cumorah. It does NOT say they were buried there, "removed from" having an unambiguously different meaning to those who read and comprehend. The Book of Mormon nowhere describes where that set of plates where buried. It does however provide many details regarding Cumorah/Ramah, the comprehensive picture of which expressly excludes the New York hill. Hence, those who defend the New York hill as the Book of Mormon Cumorah pointedly ignore all of Mormon's eye-witness descriptions of the hill.

None of them would mistake the Old World Jerusalem for the one that appears later in the Book of Mormon, despite them having the same name. None of them would claim that the Nephi that appears in Helaman must be the same as the one that appears in 1 Nephi despite them having the same name. The reason, of course being that a name isn't everything that defines identity.

For example, the Joseph F. Smith Church News article from the 50s, I notice, completely ignores the specifics of arguments implied in the work of the Washburns, and Sidney Sperry's subsequent essay, "Were there Two Cumorahs?" Sperry describes himself as having been persuaded by the Book of Mormon text, which means he takes Joseph Smith as a translator seriously.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=98

Read Sperry's essay alongside the later essays on San Lorenzo or La Venta as the Jaredite city of Lib, and try to make sense of them. That works easily. Then try to the same with a New York Cumorah. That doesn't work.

JSF's Church News editorial refers to tradition, and Joseph Smith's authority, but provides no specific support for that unquestioned tradition that comes directly from Joseph Smith. He fails to engage Sperry's argument in terms of specific Book of Mormon passages and narratives. It is though a different answer is so unthinkable that he can't even begin to think about it. So Smith's little essay is all unsupported opinion, unexamined appeal to a tradition, and no actual engagement with the stories of Jaredite movements that Sperry discusses. Kuhn's chapter on "Resistance to Revolutions" in Structure of Scientific is helpful here on why certain people do not or cannot move from their paradigms.

In the meantime, the case for a Mesoamerican Cumorah keeps getting stronger as more work is done.

Palmer's 1982 book In Search of Cumorah offered 13 specific characteristics drawn from the Book of Mormon for the Hill Ramah/Cumorah:

1. near eastern seacoast

2. near narrow neck of land

3. on a coastal plain and near other mountains and valleys

4. one day's journey south of a large body of water

5. an area of many rivers and waters

6. presence of fountains

7. water gives military advantage

8. an escape route southward

9. hill large enough to view hundreds of thousands of bodies

10. hill must be a significant landmark

11. hill must be free standing so people can camp around it

12. in temperate climate with no cold or snow

13. in a volcanic zone susceptible to earthquakes[18]

He offered a candidate Mesoamerican Cumorah. But of course, this list could be greatly expanded. Between Sorenson and Clark and others, over 1000 book of Mormon passages with geographic detail have been identified. Larry Poulson found that the Grijalva is the only river in the entire western hemisphere that matches the textual requirements for the Sidon. That unique identification is easy to reconcile with La Venta as a Jaredite site, the narrow neck, the rise and fall of major cultures at the right time. We could add, for instance, Cumorah has to be South of a location notable for the use of cement in city building at a particular time described in Helaman. A Mesoamerican Cumorah works. A New York drumlin? Not at all. The Nephite and Jaredite stories simply do not work with a New York Cumorah.

From my perspective, those who approach the text and the traditions this way don't have a Catch-22 situation at all. We see Joseph as Prophet, and we see flawed interpretive tradition that is understandable in its origins (an easy but unjustified leap to a conclusion based on Mormon's mention of records buried in a hill, and Joseph's story about finding a record buried in a hill). This interpretation is obviously flawed relative to the Book of Mormon text, which no LDS commentator studied closely on this topic until 1938. The NY Hill as Cumorah is unsupported by anything other than interpretations of heresay, and therefore, not at all binding.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

cinepro · December 1, 2009

Heres the problem... you equvocate what was found in NY with what was buried in cumorah. Mormon buried room fulls of plates in Cumorah at the last battle.

I know FARMS has addressed it, but it should be noted that there are claims of a cave in NY Cumorah containing rooms full of records.

Zakuska · December 1, 2009

I know FARMS has addressed it, but it should be noted that there are claims of a cave in NY Cumorah containing rooms full of records.

Yes JS, BY and others visitied it in "Vision".

Sign In

BoM Geography: The Gloves are Off...

Recommended Posts

notHagoth7

LeSellers

Zakuska

Anijen

juliann

John T

LeSellers

Zakuska

Black Moclips

cdowis

cdowis

Sandy Petersen

Zakuska

cinepro

Zakuska

cdowis

Cold Steel

handys003

John T

John Larsen

Zakuska

Wiki Wonka

Kevin Christensen

cinepro

Zakuska

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse