BoM Geography: The Gloves are Off...

[cdowis]

A Nephite told David the area of Palmyra was called "Cumorah."

Perhaps I missed your post, but can you give us the exact citation. "The land of Palmyra is called Cumorah."

thanks.

[Anijen]

Annoyed

You don't take other facts, verses, or witnesses seriously anyway

How can you say that? Here I am asking you to cite your sources. I take the facts very seriously. It would appear the problem is if anyone disagrees with you that they (not you) must be wrong.

nonetheless, David was aware of the Deseret News article and reviewed it.

CFR, Okay then cite your source that DW was aware and reviewed the article please. Its not that I don't take your word for it I just want to know where you got this information.

Annoyed, why specifically is New York in your opinion the only location of the events in the BoM? What do you think of Joseph saying?

[Paul McNabb]

Wrong.

He landed in Cuba, which is part of North America.

Technically true. But it isn't white enough a part to suit some people...

Certain people are wanting to prove that the Book of Mormon discussion of "inspired Europeans" and "white-owned lands" tells us that Latin America isn't included in the promised land.

[Paul McNabb]

It is naive to believe that the average person reading Nephi 13 associates those prophecies with any country but the United States.

I'm not too concerned with what "the average person reading Nephi 13" thinks. What is important to me is what the text actually says. The literal reading of the text happens to apply to just about every country in the western hemisphere.

It also might be interesting to check to see whether there is a difference of interpretation between the average U.S. Latter-day Saint and the average Mexican Latter-day Saint.

LDS Church writings are replete with such acknowledgements.

Yes. As you said, a quick reading by an American would certainly find it a good match, and we should always try to liken the scriptures to us anyway. I happen to believe that the United States is definitely included in what Nephi was talking about. I just don't believe that other Lamanite nations are necessarily excluded. And I certainly don't believe that even if Nephi was talking about that portion of the Lamanite descendents who lived north of the Rio Grande that such a thing has anything at all to do with where the Book of Mormon took place. After all, virtually ALL Native Americans are descendants of Laman, so no matter where the gentiles landed they would have met Lamanites.

What's more revealing, are the titles countries have. For example, which country has a "Statue of Liberty" and is called the "Land of the Free" or the "Greatest Nation on Earth?" We recognize by our history, our Founding Fathers, our founding documents, federal Proclamations and so forth that America IS the land prophesied of.

I find nothing whatsoever about those titles ("Greatest Nation on Earth"??) to be revealing in the least.

The national motto of Argentina is "En uni

[annoyed]

Perhaps I missed your post, but can you give us the exact citation. "The land of Palmyra is called Cumorah." thanks.

Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 5, p. 55.

How can you say that? Here I am asking you to cite your sources. I take the facts very seriously.

Put this in your signature: "Will change my position when presented with facts." After reading it a thousand times, perhaps you'll convince yourself that its better to believe than to deceive.

CFR, Okay then cite your source that DW was aware and reviewed the article please. Its not that I don't take your word for it I just want to know where you got this information.

Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 5, p. 36.

Annoyed, why specifically is New York in your opinion the only location of the events in the BoM? What do you think of Joseph saying?

Joseph was not a student of the Book of Mormon, he never went to S. America, nor did he ever have a vision of it.

Technically true. But it isn't white enough a part to suit some people...

Certain people are wanting to prove that the Book of Mormon discussion of "inspired Europeans" and "white-owned lands" tells us that Latin America isn't included in the promised land.

Dance.

[annoyed]

I'm not too concerned with what "the average person reading Nephi 13" thinks. What is important to me is what the text actually says. The literal reading of the text happens to apply to just about every country in the western hemisphere.

The denial...well, no offense, there's NO light.

Okay, where's the piece of land you believe ALL prophecy, and ALL geography verses match?

[Nemesis]

The denial...well, no offense, there's NO light.

Okay, where's the piece of land you believe ALL prophecy, and ALL geography verses match?

Tone it down, before you spend another stint in time out.

Nemesis

[Paul McNabb]

First off, we're speaking of Mesoamerican temples,

It doesn't matter. If a giant Egyptian pyramid can be built in a fraction of a generation, then there is no reason to believe that an unspecified Mesoamerican stone temple would take multiple generations.

and second, Noah did not use stone. Move on.

That isn't what Mosiah 11 says. The throne (v. 9) appears to have been wood. And the palace mentioned there might also have been wood. But the other buildings mentioned in v. 8 could have been either wood or stone. We are only told that those buildings had wood on the interior.

It turns out that in ancient Mesoamerica they sometimes had earthen or stone "temples" with a wooden palace on top. And in ancient Mesoamerica they often finished and decorated the interior of stone buildings with intricate wood paneling and artifacts.

The problem I was responding to was that you claimed the following about Noah:

How many generations does it take to build a stone temple? Several. What Noah built was structured by WOOD, and took months, not years or several generations. And when it was destroyed, it burned within HOURS.

The problems with this are (1) smaller stone structures can easily be built in a few years; (2) Noah had about 10 years to build stuff between the time he became king and the time Abinadi first appeared--long enough to build stone temples and other stone buildings; (3) Noah may have built using both stone and wood, the text does not preclude that; (4) Mesoamericans also built in wood, including wooden structures on top of stone structures; (5) people have been burning down stone buildings for millenia; (6) you made up the idea that Noah's structures burned down within hours, but that could have been true with either stone or wooden structures.

[John T]

Are you hard of hearing? What did David Whitmer say? He said a Nephite told him that was Cumorah. Proof number two, during the first angel visit that Joseph received, he was told it contained the history of the prior inhabitants of "this land." So you have three supports:

1. Prophecy said it would come forth on BoM lands.
2. The angel told Joseph it was about the prior inhabitants of the land.
3. An angel told David the land was called Cumorah.

Move on.

As to 1:

The land did not become "Mormon lands" until it was bought in the 1920s by LDS Church under the direction of LDS President Grant. There are pictures of it on the web where the hill is bald.

As to 2:

This JS writing what was purportedly stated. There is nothing to verify this, as there is in the Bible, for example the shepherds in the fields.

As to 3:

We all know that there are serious problems with David Wittmer, so let's not bring that chameleon up as a reliable witness.

Now that bit os speculation is destroyed, do you have any more conjecture to offer?

Meanwhile you have to realize that conjecture does not mean fact, nor has anyone solved the dilemma that was started by the creators of the "second Cumorah" theory. That is why the the subject is so fascinating.

[Paul McNabb]

The denial...well, no offense, there's NO light.

Okay, where's the piece of land you believe ALL prophecy, and ALL geography verses match?

I don't know of any prophecy in the Book of Mormon that limits in any way where in the western hemisphere the Book of Mormon events occurred. Because of this, I don't see any relevance of the various prophecies to Book of Mormon geography. However, I'd be happy to entertain some argument from you about why I might be mistaken.

I am not an expert on BoM geography, having only read a dozen books and several dozen papers on the topic, but my understanding is that no one has yet found a piece of land the fits perfectly. Sorenson's model seems to be a close fit, however I'm not tied to that in any way. I'm not passionate about BoM geography. I'm interested and I try to keep up with what is published on the issue of BoM geography, but I haven't studied it intensively.

Most BoM geography theories don't pass the smell test. These kinds fall into two categories: the wacky (e.g., Melekin's African proposal, Olsen's Malasia proposal) and the rank amateur (e.g., Meldrum's eastern U.S proposal, Holley's Great Lake proposal). But there are a number of proposed geographies where the person seems to be trying to work out the geography from the text, and these are the ones I think need to be taken seriously and examined on their own merits.

Do you want to propose one?

[annoyed]

Tone it down, before you spend another stint in time out. Nemesis

Do us a favor, next time you ban someone, leave a note so others know the real reason the poster stopped posting.

It doesn't matter. If a giant Egyptian pyramid can be built in a fraction of a generation, then there is no reason to believe that an unspecified Mesoamerican stone temple would take multiple generations.

It matters, no one is trumping Egypt as BoM lands. State how long if took to build stone structures on the land YOU believe were BoM lands.

That isn't what Mosiah 11 says. The throne (v. 9) appears to have been wood. And the palace mentioned there might also have been wood. But the other buildings mentioned in v. 8 could have been either wood or stone. We are only told that those buildings had wood on the interior.

Speculate till your blue in the face, it does NOT say Noah used stone. Now where's the location of the model you're certain fulfills every propecy and every point of geography?

bla, bla, bla

[Wiki Wonka]

Wrong.

He landed in Cuba, which is part of North America.

Quite right, and I stand corrected. It would have more accurately conveyed my opinion if I said that Columbus never landed in what is now known as the continental United States.

In looking at a map of the voyages of Columbus, however, I did find it interesting to see that he traveled along the coast of Central America on one of his voyages. Of course, Mesoamerica is part of North America as well.

[Anijen]

Annoyed

Put this in your signature: "Will change my position when presented with facts." After reading it a thousand times, perhaps you'll convince yourself that its better to believe than to deceive.

Emphasis mine. Now you are calling me a liar. Where have I deceived? I have offered my opinion and debated yours. You are the one who quoted a third hand account and said it was a first. Look in the mirror buddy. Read your own post and tell me who the deceiver is.

annoyed by Annoyed

Anijen

[Paul McNabb]

It matters, no one is trumping Egypt as BoM lands. State how long if took to build stone structures on the land YOU believe were BoM lands.

It does NOT matter. You stated that stone temples took generations to build. But we know ancient humans could build massive stone temples in a fraction of a generation. You were simply wrong. No matter where the BoM people were, they could have built massive stone pyramids and temples in a fraction of a generation.

I don't know where Book of Mormon stone temples would be found (if they ever existed). Noah was a small-fry sub-king who probably built something much smaller than the major kings were building. But if we are talking about Mayan temples, the temple complex at Tikal was constructed just a few centuries after the close of the Book of Mormon. The six big temples there (each about 200 feet high) took about 2 years each to build. If Noah had built a much smaller temple (say 50 feet high) with a smaller work crew, I could imagine it taking a matter of months or possibly even a few years. Noah had 10 years to build, so maybe he built some 200-feet-high stone temples. So your earlier statement about Noah is just flat out wrong.

Speculate till your blue in the face, it does NOT say Noah used stone.

And it doesn't say he didn't. The point is that the Book of Mormon could very well be describing a civilization that used stone as the primary material for major buildings and thus could be a record of a civilization associated with the Mesoamerican cultures for which we have archaeological evidence.

The wood-stone argument is a silly argument raised by people who are trying to prove that the Book of Mormon didn't take place is Mesoamerica. Their argument is

(1) The BoM buildings are said to have been built of wood, not stone.

(2) The BoM buildings burned, so they couldn't have been stone.

(3) The BoM buildings were built too fast to have been stone buildings.

They add to this the claim that

(4) Mesoamerican buildings were of stone and North American buildings were of wood.

(their conclusion) The NA theory wins.

But each of the their four points is wrong. The BoM doesn't preclude stone buildings. Stone buildings do indeed burn. Stone buildings could easily have been built within the time constraints of the BoM. And Mesoamerican civilizations built using both wood and stone.

Now where's the location of the model you're certain fulfills every propecy and every point of geography?

I don't know of a model that is perfect. And I don't really care. As I said earlier, the Sorenson model seems to fit pretty much everything listed in the actual text of the BoM. Of course that doesn't mean that it is the correct one, just that it is plausible---there could be several places in the western hemisphere that match up with the BoM text. And there is no prophecy that I'm aware of that contradicts the Sorenson model. In fact, I'm not aware of any prophecy that contradicts any BoM geographic model that involves any location in the ancient western hemisphere.

So if you are looking to pick a fight, I'll throw the Sorenson model into the ring and let you have at it.

[annoyed]

Now you are calling me a liar. Anijen

Not quite. You question, prod, and spin conversations, all the while with no intention of moving from your position. Thus, you deceive contributors, when you should say up front "I'll portray myself as a seeker of truth, to string you along, but actually my mind is made up."

It does NOT matter. You stated that stone temples took generations to build. But we know ancient humans could build massive stone temples in a fraction of a generation. You were simply wrong. No matter where the BoM people were, they could have built massive stone pyramids and temples in a fraction of a generation.

I take a generation to mean 30 years, the SL temple took 40, and until you can cite a stone structure on land you assume was BoM lands, you have no proof how long it took.

Noah was a small-fry sub-king who probably built something much smaller than the major kings were building.

I'm glad my mind is not stuck in Mesoamerica, with illusions of grander the Nephites rarely had. Nibley had the correct mindset:

In the Nephites we have a small and mobile population dispersed over a great land area, living in quickly built wooden cities, their most ambitious structures being fortifications of earth and timbers occasionally reinforced with stones. The vast majority of Book of Mormon people, almost all of them in fact, are eligible for the title of "migrating and nomadic" peoples. We have seen that the Lamanites were a slothful predatory lot on the whole, and that even the Nephites were always "wanderers in a strange land."

The Book of Mormon is a history of a related primitive church, and one may well ask what kind of remains the Nephites would leave us from their more virtuous days. A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica.

The wood-stone argument is a silly argument raised by people who are trying to prove that the Book of Mormon didn't take place is Mesoamerica. Their argument is

As silly as trying to prove a tropical climate by one verse?

I don't know of a model that is perfect. And I don't really care. As I said earlier, the Sorenson model seems to fit pretty much everything listed in the actual text of the BoM. Of course that doesn't mean that it is the correct one

For someone with little interest, I find your resistance very disingenuous. You cannot defend what you don't know, so you know something, you're just not willing to committ yourself. I don't blame you, as Sorenson has no faith in his own model - it his best guess.

there is no prophecy that I'm aware of that contradicts the Sorenson model. In fact, I'm not aware of any prophecy that contradicts any BoM geographic model that involves any location in the ancient western hemisphere. So if you are looking to pick a fight, I'll throw the Sorenson model into the ring and let you have at it.

Western New York meets all requirements for locating ancient BoM lands, which, IS important for knowing prophecies, promises, stewardship, blessings and cursings. The spiritual geography (which ALL Meso-theorists deny any relevance) is one layer, the others are:

• Internal Geography
• External Geography

As there are a handful of verses describing the geography, any person without a pre-set agenda should be able to draw, or describe where key areas, seas, and cities are in relation to one another. Unfortunately, geography enthusiasts have claimed lands before learning the internal dynamics first, putting the cart before the horse.

A typical mistake perpetuated by Meso-theorists is the location of the City Bountiful, a key city for identifying other elements of the geography. You can't find one model where it is correctly placed. I'll leave it to you to read for yourself, then come back and cite for us all where it should be located. If this is beyond your interest, perhaps someone else will do us the honor.

[Anijen]

Annoyed

Here are some facts.

1. No where in North America were there was domesticated animals and agriculture to keep up with the large populations reported from the Book of Mormon except in Mesoamerica. All else were hunter gatherers during the time of the Book of Mormon.

2. Nowhere in North America except Mesoamerica had a writing system

3. No where in North America do the timelines of the indigenous people match up exactly with the Book of Mormon except in Mesoamerica (Mayans with the Nephites and Olmecs with the Jaredites).

4. Joseph Feilding Smith said in 1956;

[cdowis]

Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 5, p. 55.

"Land of Palmyra" == Cumorah. Tell us exactly what he said rather than what you think he said.

Did he say that he was coming from the hill, or from "the land of Palmyra"., or is it unclear. I have interpreted it as the Hill of Cumorah. Was he hanging out in the neighborhood in general, visiting the local inn, or was he specifically visiting the site of the hidden plates. Which makes more sense?

PS. Just to clarify further ==>> all of us agree that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah. This is the hill where the plates were hidden. The issue under discussion here is whether it is the location of the last battle.

[Gervin]

PS. Just to clarify further ==>> all of us agree that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah. This is the hill where the plates were hidden. The issue under discussion here is whether it is the location of the last battle.

The Official website for the church, lds.org, affirms that the Hill Cumorah is the location of the last battle. My "link insert" function doesn't seem to work but if you go to the site there is a section called Gospel Library and under it a section called "Photographs of Church History Sites." Click on Hill Cumorah and it shows a photo of the hill and references Mormon 6:6. Mormon 6:7 describes the battle.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/chphotos/2

[cdowis]

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/chphotos/2

It does not say nor even infer that this is the site of the last battle. Did you actually read the scriptural references? they relate to the creation of the sacred history.

Moroni buried a set of gold plates in the Hill Cumorah containing the sacred history of his people (W of M 1:1-11; Morm. 6:6; Moro. 10:1-2).

[Paul McNabb]

I take a generation to mean 30 years, the SL temple took 40, and until you can cite a stone structure on land you assume was BoM lands, you have no proof how long it took.

Now you've slipped into spin mode. We can always find specific buildings that took a long time to build. The SL temple took 40 years, and the Washington National Cathedral took 83 years. But the question is how long it would have taken ancient Nephites to build a stone temple. I've already given you data: the 100+ massive Egyptian pyramids took 5 to 20 years. The massive Mayan temples in the complex at Tikal took 2 years. We can add to that the Parthenon (15 years) and the Pantheon (<15 years), both of which were extraordinarily complex, and the pattern is clear. Ancient massive stone temples did NOT take generations to build. The largest and most complex of the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Mayan temples tended to max out at around a half a generation, with some of them taking about 10% of a generation.

Any geography model that supposes the Nephites built large stone temples and other buildings along the lines of what is found in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Mesoamerican architecture only needs to have the Nephites spending several years doing so. If your model proposes a building style like that of medieval cathedrals, then you will need to allow at least a generation and probably more.

I'm glad my mind is not stuck in Mesoamerica, with illusions of grander the Nephites rarely had.

Me, too, except that I don't claim to know the secret, unwritten thoughts and dreams of the Nephites.

Nibley had the correct mindset:

In the Nephites we have a small and mobile population dispersed over a great land area, living in quickly built wooden cities, their most ambitious structures being fortifications of earth and timbers occasionally reinforced with stones. The vast majority of Book of Mormon people, almost all of them in fact, are eligible for the title of "migrating and nomadic" peoples. We have seen that the Lamanites were a slothful predatory lot on the whole, and that even the Nephites were always "wanderers in a strange land."

The Book of Mormon is a history of a related primitive church, and one may well ask what kind of remains the Nephites would leave us from their more virtuous days. A closer approximation to the Book of Mormon picture of Nephite culture is seen in the earth and palisade structures of the Hopewell and Adena culture areas than in the later stately piles of stone in Mesoamerica.

Well, those are some of Nibley's thoughts on the matter. He could well have been right. Then again, Nibley constantly repeated that his ideas were not fixed and that he could be wrong. He understood that he was putting together a possible interpretation of the text. That is part of the reason why Nibley was a scholar and not a fanatic.

As silly as trying to prove a tropical climate by one verse?

No, much sillier. The argument for proving a non-Mesoamerica model based on wood/stone is one where every element and assumption of the argument is false. The argument for a tropical climate (not proof, mind you) is a matter of having a small data set (not just a single verse) and trying to draw conclusions. All it means is that the argument for a tropical climate is weaker than an argument for, say, a south-to-north-flowing river.

For someone with little interest, I find your resistance very disingenuous.

The only thing I have resisted so far is the silly and fallacious argument that Mesoamerica couldn't have been the setting for the BoM because of the stone/wood building issue. My "resistance" has only been against this one argument. My "little interest" is, as I said, a matter of my not wanting to make BoM geography models a main focus of my reading and studying.

You cannot defend what you don't know, so you know something, you're just not willing to committ yourself. I don't blame you, as Sorenson has no faith in his own model - it his best guess.

What I know is that there is no geography model that I have yet seen that presents an air-tight case that demands acceptance. I also know a bad argument when I see one.

Sorenson's "lack of faith" was nothing more than a proper, scholarly attitude towards an issue of textual interpretation. You will find the same attitude of intellectual humility and openness to alternative models in almost everyone associated with FAIR and the MI---at least I've never met or heard of one who didn't fit that pattern. My experience has been that it is the non-scholar, anti-Mesoamerican modalists who are rabid and inflexible in their view of the BoM geography. Maybe it is just due to the fact that their pet theories haven't been enthusiastically endorsed and they are bitter and a bit paranoid.

Western New York meets all requirements for locating ancient BoM lands, which, IS important for knowing prophecies, promises, stewardship, blessings and cursings.

Great. We're getting somewhere. Does your particular geography have a write-up somewhere? Are you following someone else's geography that has been published or is this something you have developed on your own?

The spiritual geography (which ALL Meso-theorists deny any relevance) is one layer,

I'd be interested in seeing what you think is the "spiritual geography." Again, is this of your own making or is something published somewhere?

the others are:

• Internal Geography
• External Geography

As there are a handful of verses describing the geography, any person without a pre-set agenda should be able to draw, or describe where key areas, seas, and cities are in relation to one another. Unfortunately, geography enthusiasts have claimed lands before learning the internal dynamics first, putting the cart before the horse.

Exactly. That's why models such as Meldrum's reveal their origins in the minds of rank amateurs. These kinds models are defended passionately by people who believe that they are being "objective" and have found a piece of the True Cross while their opponents and detractors are the ones who are blinded. The minute you find someone who is sure their model is correct and/or who has a "testimony" of their model, you can be sure you have found one of these kinds of people who are trapped by their need for certainty.

A typical mistake perpetuated by Meso-theorists is the location of the City Bountiful, a key city for identifying other elements of the geography. You can't find one model where it is correctly placed. I'll leave it to you to read for yourself, then come back and cite for us all where it should be located. If this is beyond your interest, perhaps someone else will do us the honor.

Yes, people make all kinds of mistakes when trying to build a geographic model for the BoM. Since I don't have a model to defend, and since I have no intention of building one or becoming a follower of one, you will not see me giving you any information about the City Bountiful other than what might be published in models that are already on the table.

If you have a theory, put it out and let's look at it.

[Gervin]

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/chphotos/2

It does not say nor even infer that this is the site of the last battle. Did you actually read the scriptural references? they relate to the creation of the sacred history.

The church provides a picture on lds.org of the hill as the place where the plates are buried and cites Chapter 6, verse 6. Are you saying that the plates were not buried in the hill pictured? Verse 7 begins the description of the battle. Are you saying that all the people and events in verse 7 are in a different location and time than thoese that are described through verse 6?

[Paul McNabb]

The church provides a picture on lds.org of the hill as the place where the plates are buried and cites Chapter 6, verse 6. Are you saying that the plates were not buried in the hill pictured? Verse 7 begins the description of the battle. Are you saying that all the people and events in verse 7 are in a different location and time than thoese that are described through verse 6?

The problem is what you are focusing on in Mormon 6:6.

The relevant part is:

therefore I [Mormon] 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 talks about two different sets of records: one set that was buried in Mormon's hill Cumorah and another set that was given to Moroni.

The text under the picture on the Church website says

In A.D. 421, Moroni buried a set of gold plates in the Hill Cumorah containing the sacred history of his people

The "Hill Cumorah" on the web page is talking about hill in the photo, which is named "Hill Cumorah" and which is where the Moroni plates were hidden. The pointer to Mormon 6:6 is pointing us to the reference to the plates that were given to Moroni, not the plates that were hidden by Mormon in his "hill Cumorah" where the battle took place.

At least that is how it could easily be read.

[SlackTime]

The church provides a picture on lds.org of the hill as the place where the plates are buried and cites Chapter 6, verse 6. Are you saying that the plates were not buried in the hill pictured? Verse 7 begins the description of the battle. Are you saying that all the people and events in verse 7 are in a different location and time than thoese that are described through verse 6?

As a matter of fact, he doesn't need to say it, Mormon does.

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.

So, where was he? In the land of Cumorah, which land does not necessarily correlate with the hill Joseph found the plates in. But what did he put there? All the records which had been entrusted to him except the plates! Those plates he gave to his son Moroni.

Note the date in verse 5:

5 And *when three hundred and eighty and four years had passed away, we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah.

Note the date in Moroni 10:1 as Moroni prepares to end and presumably bury the plates:

1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that *more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

420 - 384 = 36 years, maybe more, since Moroni was given the plates. Long enough to travel quite a ways.

- SlackTime

[cdowis]

I agree.

And on another level, church position and doctrine is not determined by a caption on a photograph which gives a general reference to the plates, Mormon, Moroni, and the Hill Cumorah (where the plates were buried, and where the last battle occurred).

[John T]

John T, on 03 December 2009 - 09:24 PM, said: bla, bla, bla

Thank you for your clear and cogent refutation of what I posted!

The scholarship required to make such a detailed retort must have been exhausting.

It is a joke to have fun, not a jab at anyone, OK?