BoM Geography: The Gloves are Off...

[Tiberius]

Read the Peace Pipe by Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 1807-1882

My link

Then read from where Longfellow heard the Legend. He didn't make it up!

My link

Now tell us what Legend or account from Central or South America matches 3 Nephi 11, the appearance of Jesus Christ, as well as this one.

[cinepro]

So it's not that there is a verse in the Book of Mormon. It's the lack of other verses.

.

Maybe they were just used to it, so it wasn't worth mentioning?

[Paul McNabb]

Read the Peace Pipe by Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 1807-1882

My link

Then read from where Longfellow heard the Legend. He didn't make it up!

My link

Now tell us what Legend or account from Central or South America matches 3 Nephi 11, the appearance of Jesus Christ, as well as this one.

I don't see any real connection between Longfellow's poems and the Book of Mormon. Longfellow writes about a great/divine leader who appears and calls a council of the various tribes/nations; and when representatives of the Indian nations arrive at the conference he tells them to stop fighting and to live in peace.

But maybe I'm missing some of the detailed parallels. I didn't read it as thoroughly as some might have read it. Can you list the ways you think this not only matches the Book of Mormon but might be unique in some ways to typical stories from essentially every multinational culture that believes in a God or gods?

[John T]

Now that the sock puppet is history, let's get back to geography. ( I refused to deal with him, as he was TOO obnoxious)

Metaphorically speaking, my thoughts run like this: "Anyone can loose a sword, but no one can misplace the steel mill from where it came."

What I see in this thread are several crucial things, and they all have a common denominator, that being the fact that there is no prima facie evidence for any of the geographic features mentioned in the BoM, and by extension, that also calls into question the actual BoM itself. I am not throwing bricks here, just making an observation, OK.

In an effort to remedy the discrepancy, the folks at BYU, via FAIR/Maxwell/FARMS promulgated the "second Cumora" hypothesis. On one hand, this had the benefit of providing distance, both literally and physically from focusing on the New York environs, and deflected the difficulties that a deficit of relics, and implausible geographic features that were written about in the BoM such as cities, and the accouterments that civilization provided.

Somewhere, I read that Smith called the land being surrounded by large lakes. DUH! In the Finger lakes region, we have lots of lakes. Twenty or so miles north of Palmyra is one of the Great Lakes, Huron. South of Palmyra, begins the Finger lakes, going west to east. between the homes of Smith and Brigham Young in Port Byron, there are three of the Finger Lakes, abd Port Byron sits atop Skanneatles lake, and was a port on the Erie Canal, as was Palmyra. Where else on the planet would there be so much water in the form of lakes? Therefore, I believe that when Smith wrote his History, he meant that Cumorah was in New York.

But the "Second Cumorah" theory creates more problems than it solves, primary is that casts doubt on everything that Smith wrote, and calls into question his character, and the veracity of the BoM itself, and that question of veracity ultimately extends upwards to the the last several LDS Presidents. That is because without exception, each has stated that Cumorah is in New York.

Now enter the well-intentioned people from BYU. The other side of their argument actually made the documents and the Presidents appear foolish because there was no way to reconcile the differences between the accounts they fabricated, and the accounts mentioned by Smith. Because both accounts can not be simultaneously true, the logical conclusion is that one is true, the other false, or else BOTH accounts are false. Logically, there is no middle ground for that sort of position.

So now you have it. This is why I believe that the issue of the EXACT location of Cumorah is the most important piece in the LDS jigsaw puzzle to solve. Once that is resolved, and relics found, then the LDS church can say, "See, we told you!". Until that issue is resolved, then the masses of Mormons will quibble about its location, and offer apologetics filled with words like "may" or "could or "most likely" and will convince no one of the message you put forth. Critically thinking people will reject it out of hand due to the inconsistencies and quibbling.

BTW Michigan?? Surely you jest!

[Brant Gardner]

Ignoring scripture are we, an inconvenient truth?

1 Nephi 22: 7

7 And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered.

"Face of this land." "A mighty nation." Singular, specific. This refers to the United States of America. This land where Nephi was located. Yet you assume it was both American continents? Why, because it's chauvinistic to presume that Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile are not the one mighty nation among the Gentiles?

So much depends on such little things. Of course "this" land refers to where Nephi was. However, using that reference to tell us where he was is a circular argument.

What you are therefore arguing isn't about "this land" but rather the way scripture was fulfilled by a mighty nation among the gentiles that was upon the face of this land and scattered the remnants of Nephi's people. The Spanish were doing that 200 years before the English got around to it. In the 1500's they were the definition of a mighty nation. The United States didn't qualify as "mighty" for quite a while - perhaps after the Mexican war?

The problem, of course, is that we have both an original author and a translator using the term "this." Which person meant "this" in relation to where they were at the time? If Joseph really did mean it, does that mean that Utah can't be part of the promised land because it wasn't part of the United States in 1830?

[Brant Gardner]

What I see in this thread are several crucial things, and they all have a common denominator, that being the fact that there is no prima facie evidence for any of the geographic features mentioned in the BoM, and by extension, that also calls into question the actual BoM itself.

I would disagree with the first "common demoninator." The problem is certainly that there is nothing that is uncontrovertible, but not that there is not excellent evidence of the same kind as is often used in archaeological/ethnohistorical reconstructions.

In an effort to remedy the discrepancy, the folks at BYU, via FAIR/Maxwell/FARMS promulgated the "second Cumora" hypothesis.

Your suggestion of motive is incorrect. I am familiar with some of the principal proponents of the "second Cumorah" and have heard them discuss this concept for almost 40 years. There has never been any indication that your suggested motive is correct. Rather, the motivation was just what one might want of an analysis of a text. The text was primary and the evidence from the text used to feed the analysis and not tradition feeding the analysis of the text.

On one hand, this had the benefit of providing distance, both literally and physically from focusing on the New York environs, and deflected the difficulties that a deficit of relics, and implausible geographic features that were written about in the BoM such as cities, and the accouterments that civilization provided.

There is certainly a benefit in moving the focus away from a place where the text doesn't allow the events to have taken place and move them to a location that is more appropriate to the text. Again, the motivation is to discover what the text says, not to react to any failure in previous scholarship.

Somewhere, I read that Smith called the land being surrounded by large lakes. DUH! In the Finger lakes region, we have lots of lakes. Twenty or so miles north of Palmyra is one of the Great Lakes, Huron. South of Palmyra, begins the Finger lakes, going west to east. between the homes of Smith and Brigham Young in Port Byron, there are three of the Finger Lakes, abd Port Byron sits atop Skanneatles lake, and was a port on the Erie Canal, as was Palmyra. Where else on the planet would there be so much water in the form of lakes? Therefore, I believe that when Smith wrote his History, he meant that Cumorah was in New York.

Your description of your method suggests strongly that you are hanging your conclusions on thin threads. You are indulging in the kind of analysis that suggested to LDS scholars that they really needed to go to the text rather than what was said about the text.

But the "Second Cumorah" theory creates more problems than it solves, primary is that casts doubt on everything that Smith wrote, and calls into question his character, and the veracity of the BoM itself, and that question of veracity ultimately extends upwards to the the last several LDS Presidents. That is because without exception, each has stated that Cumorah is in New York.

This is interesting because it is an argument based on not only a logical fallacy, but one which you clearly don't believe is fundamentally sound. First, the entire argument is based upon the idea that all pronouncements (and of course, all subjects) from those designated in modern times as prophets are inerrant. That is not official LDS position and never has been. Joseph Smith wearied of the problem of the division between acting as a person and a prophet. He had to deal with it and never ascribed the to position you are taking on his (and other prophet's)behalf.

Secondly, if you actually believed that what prophets said was inerrant, you would believe in the Book of Mormon, and the tenor of the discussion would be different.

The fact of the matter is that the church officially denies that there is a declared geography and that all discussions of geography have been in the human realm, not the prophetic. That declaration tells us that whoever might be the one describing any geography of the Book of Mormon is doing so as a human investigator. That, by definition, contradicts our conclusion that geographic theories create problems for those who have understood a different geography.

Now enter the well-intentioned people from BYU. The other side of their argument actually made the documents and the Presidents appear foolish because there was no way to reconcile the differences between the accounts they fabricated, and the accounts mentioned by Smith.

Bah, humbug. See above.

Because both accounts can not be simultaneously true, the logical conclusion is that one is true, the other false, or else BOTH accounts are false. Logically, there is no middle ground for that sort of position.

Bah, humbug. See above.

So now you have it. This is why I believe that the issue of the EXACT location of Cumorah is the most important piece in the LDS jigsaw puzzle to solve.

I respectfully disagree. Your logic in setting the situation is based on incorrect assumptions and incorrect elaborations of those assumptions. The location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah is just as important as the location of the Book of Mormon Zarahemla. Neither is more important than the other, and neither can be found without a reasonable location for the other. This is a much more complicated puzzled than finding one piece might solve (not to mention that without the other pieces there is no way to know the "shape" of the Cumorah piece).

[cinepro]

It get's worse. They're invading YouTube!

One can't help but walk away from an experience like [visiting Ohio-Indiana-Illinois-Missouri], and as [Rodney Meldrum] took my family to some of these sites, and as you study what the Prophet Joseph said and what he wrote, and what other early Church leaders have said, this is the Book of Mormon country, this is what I believe is the Land of the Nephites

It was very powerful... We know that there were great civilizations in this country.

Also Zelph.

[The promised land] has to be in the United States. There's so many different aspects of the BoM's own testimony about itself, where it happened, that it fits the United States more than any place else.

We don't know exactly where it happened, but we can say it is a good fit in many places in the US of A.

[shrff]

John Clark should refrain from doing reviews. He does little to advance our understanding of the geography when all he does is run models through the Sorenson model.

I guess this guy is banned, so maybe there is not so much of a need for me to make this comment, but accusing Clark of simply running everything through a Sorenson filter reflects a gross misunderstanding of the man's publication record. John Clark is about as objective as anyone I have ever met on this matter. He is totally committed to the data, wherever it might lead. If the data supported a North American context for the Book of Mormon, Clark would also support the idea.

It's a classic sour grapes tactic to accuse others of blindly following preconceived notions when they disagree with you. An effective researcher would respond with data (preferably in print) indicating a contrary position, however, if Olive is a person's idea of a good argument, perhaps that person might not be too familiar with examples of logical, data-based research.

Clark's critiques of the Great Lakes BOM setting have greatly advanced our understanding of BOM geography as they have pointed out how inconsistent the archaeological data in this region are with material culture expectations from the BOM. Your problem is with the data not matching up with the text, not with John Clark.

[cdowis]

Due to copyright laws I won't cite the entire chapter, but here is a taste:

• Chapter 13 is called "The Northern Tribes, The Algonquin Connection (600 B.C. - 900 A.D.)
  OK
  
• It is eleven pages long.
  Hmmm...
  
• She describes the different tribes among the Algonguin family.
  Wow
  
• She spends some amount of time on the Ojibway, who have DNA connections with Israel.
  What is a "DNA connection"? I assume that copyright restrictions will prevent you from giving further details.
  
• She talks about the languages among them, with a picture of Micmac characters next to the characters from the Anthon transcript.
  This is a popular party game -- comparing characters from an obscure language to some characters from the Anton transcript. In this very forum, someone "proved" that the characters were taken from a system of shorthand used at the time of JS.
  
• From the references section are sources by William Warren "History of the Ojibway People" and Dean R. Snow "The Iroquois" among others.

There is much more in the other 22 chapters.

I would hope so.

[Zakuska]

As a side note and not to derail this excellent thread...

I watched an intresting show the other night on Discover Channel about the state of Bibilical Archeology and was absolutely floored at how sparse and contraversial the evidence really is.

For example... The earliest mention of a king Named David we have is from an enemy of Israel who conquered them nearly 300 years after David was suposed to have lived. He indirectly says he conquered the HOUSE of David thats it!

We have a place they think is called "Gath" were Goliath is from. Some pot shured seems to mention a transliterated version of the Name Goliath but it dates to hundreds of years after the fact.

Then theres the fact that the Armor and Weaponry Goliath is said to have used which actually dates to 600 years after David and Goliath and describes a Greek soldier to a T. If we look on Egyptian temple walls at the weaponry Philistines were using at the time, none of the weaponry is used like is described. The archeologists call this a HUGE anachronism!

Not to mention the fact that various manuscripts can't quite agree on the height of Goliath, wether he was 7 or 10 feet tall.

[John T]

Professor Gardner,

Thank you for for your response. I find it a good discussion, but wanting in several accounts.

I would disagree with the first "common demoninator." The problem is certainly that there is nothing that is uncontrovertible, but not that there is not excellent evidence of the same kind as is often used in archaeological/ethnohistorical reconstructions.

Here is a "big word smokescreen" couplled with double negatives and orwellian double speak designed to intimidate the gullible and disguise the utter absence of evidence of any sort, especially the prima facie sort. The big words do not disguise the truth: ZERO prima facie evidence for geography or artifacts. I mean that is relatively simple to hide/lose a sword, but it is quite another to lose the steel mill that produced it, and the mine from which the ore came.

Your suggestion of motive is incorrect. I am familiar with some of the principal proponents of the "second Cumorah" and have heard them discuss this concept for almost 40 years. There has never been any indication that your suggested motive is correct. Rather, the motivation was just what one might want of an analysis of a text. The text was primary and the evidence from the text used to feed the analysis and not tradition feeding the analysis of the text.

OK, I overstated what I presumed. Since you are relating first hand accounts, I yield on the question of motive.

Please answer this, then. Since it is plain that JS tagged Cumorah in then Ontario county, near Palmyra, what is controvertible about that? And since Everything that JS wrote is in English, leaving no text about Reformed Egyptian from which scholars can examine, Why does anyone need to do a textural analysis of plain English? Either Smith said what he meant, or else there is a "secret combination" of his words that are sufficiently enigmatic so that no one is able to ascertain the meanings in clear English unless the person has the "magic decoder ring" and I really think that is not where you want to be going in this discussion.

There is certainly a benefit in moving the focus away from a place where the text doesn't allow the events to have taken place and move them to a location that is more appropriate to the text. Again, the motivation is to discover what the text says, not to react to any failure in previous scholarship.

That does sound admirable, but in fact it makes JS out to be substantially less than what many LDS people want him to be. If an English-speaking reader can not understand what another English speaker wrote in clear English, that does great damage to the entire corpus of the works of JS. I REALLY do not want to go there, for this is a thread on geography, but that is the logical end of your statement above.

Your description of your method suggests strongly that you are hanging your conclusions on thin threads. You are indulging in the kind of analysis that suggested to LDS scholars that they really needed to go to the text rather than what was said about the text

With a wave of your hand, you dismiss ALL of what Smith wrote. That's nice. What are the evidences that exist which suggest that Smith did not mean what he wrote? Otherwise, it seems like a clever concoction to hise the iniconvenient truth that there is ZERO evidence, either geographic or with any artifact that substantiates what Smith wrote in the BoM.

This is interesting because it is an argument based on not only a logical fallacy, but one which you clearly don't believe is fundamentally sound. First, the entire argument is based upon the idea that all pronouncements (and of course, all subjects) from those designated in modern times as prophets are inerrant. RED HERRING That is not official LDS position and never has been. Joseph Smith wearied of the problem of the division between acting as a person and a prophet. He had to deal with it and never ascribed the to position you are taking on his (and other prophet's)behalf.

Secondly, if you actually believed that what prophets said was inerrant, you would believe in the Book of Mormon, and the tenor of the discussion would be different. RED HERRING

The fact of the matter is that the church officially denies that there is a declared geography and that all discussions of geography have been in the human realm, not the prophetic. That declaration tells us that whoever might be the one describing any geography of the Book of Mormon is doing so as a human investigator. That, by definition, contradicts our conclusion that geographic theories create problems for those who have understood a different geography.

Here you put words into my post that i did not write. That is not playing nice. Also the official LDS position on prophecy is a straw man argument, and not germane to the OP which brings up the issue of the LDS geography.

Please CFR the position that the LDS Chrurch "officially denies that there is a declared geography". I find that hard to swallow in the light that several LDS Presidents declared Palmyra as the true site of Cumorah.

The "spiritualizing" what is plainly absent: a cogent geography calling it "in the realm of the prophetic" is balderdash. That is like the people of Pennsylvania forgetting Valley Forge, or Fort Pitt. In other words, you state the preposterous and expect me to accept that as truth?

Bah, humbug. See above.

Bah, humbug. See above.

I ceded the issue of motive above since you have first hand knowledge of the situation. (I hope you spoke accurately to that issue, for if not, it would hinder your testimony.)

I respectfully disagree. Your logic in setting the situation is based on incorrect assumptions and incorrect elaborations of those assumptions. The location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah is just as important as the location of the Book of Mormon Zarahemla. Neither is more important than the other, and neither can be found without a reasonable location for the other. This is a much more complicated puzzled than finding one piece might solve (not to mention that without the other pieces there is no way to know the "shape" of the Cumorah piece).

Essentially you raise the "faith" argument here. It says, "The absence of facts does not phase me because I have faith, so the facts are irrelevant."

The logic demonstrated in your reply leads me to make a snarky remark, but I shall refrain.

[cdowis]

[quote name='John T' date='08 December 2009 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1260331146' post='1208766888']

Professor Gardner,

I am not Professor Gardner, but I will give my thoughts anyway.

Here is a "big word smokescreen" couplled with double negatives and orwellian double speak designed to intimidate the gullible and disguise the utter absence of evidence of any sort, especially the prima facie sort. The big words do not disguise the truth: ZERO prima facie evidence for geography or artifacts. I mean that is relatively simple to hide/lose a sword, but it is quite another to lose the steel mill that produced it, and the mine from which the ore came.

I find your statement wanting on two counts.

We have discussed several examples of evidence for BOM geography. I have on several occasions, for example, posted evidence for BOM people influencing a long-standing tradition in Costa Rica around 600BCE.

Regarding artifacts, it is your burden (since you chose to state there is ZERO evidence) to give us a method for identifying BOM artifacts vs nonBOM artifacts. Give us such a means of identification, for example, of a jade necklace. One would argue there are hundreds of such artifacts lying in museums today which are Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite and Mulekite. It is simply an issue of identifying them.

You made the assertion (ZERO), so let's see what you got.

Since it is plain that JS tagged Cumorah in then Ontario county, near Palmyra, what is controvertible about that?

There is a city in the state of Georgia called Rome. What language do they speak in that city? How old is the city. A few hundred miles away, we also have Athens.

Your logic is so flawed that ..... well, I will forbear from stating the obvious.

And since Everything that JS wrote is in English, leaving no text about Reformed Egyptian from which scholars can examine, Why does anyone need to do a textural analysis of plain English? Either Smith said what he meant, or else there is a "secret combination" of his words that are sufficiently enigmatic so that no one is able to ascertain the meanings in clear English unless the person has the "magic decoder ring" and I really think that is not where you want to be going in this discussion.

I am speaking in plain English. Everyone agrees that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah. Everyone.... you, me, we all agree. We also can look at a map of Georgia and see the cities of Rome and Athens. Do you agree that Rome and Athens are in the state of Georgia? In plain english, please.

Now, show us where JS said in plain ordinary english that the hill in NY called Cumorah is the location of the final battle, the war of extermination.

[Cold Steel]

We tend to discuss this topic in segments and not view it as a whole.

Even Rodney Meldrum admits that the church has taken no position on the Book of Mormon geography. And everyone admits that there is room for discussion. Meldrum's main attack against the Mesoamerican models is that there are more than 100 varying models. What he doesn't mention is that many of them disagree on very small matters.

For Great Lakers, the drumlin in New York isn't in the right place for any kind of Cumorah. We find 1) narrow necks of land, 2) lands with many bodies of water, 3) narrow passes, and more all over North and South America. So to proponents of the Great Lakes or hemispheric models, find a River Sidon. That's where we should perhaps start. Look in Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, and throughout South America. Find a river that would make a good Sidon candidate. Since we know that the Limhi party was lost, next find a good reason. Find the correct populations and ruins, if any. After that, then begin searching for your narrow necks and passes. This is where Mesoamerica begins to shine. Sure there are some problems. One that the Mesoamerican proponents haven't answered is if there are two rivers in the same general area, why is only the Sidon mentioned? Why isn't the other river named? If battles took place throughout the region, how could they have avoided the other river.

One blogger notes: "The Missouri River...flows in all four cardinal directions before reaching the Mississippi River. And east and west features along a river could occur in several locations, but it might not be typical of the alignment along the entire course of the river or even over most of its course." Perhaps, but if anything, this is a great argument against a large geographic model. The writers of the Book of Mormon appear to be describing a river that flows from south to north. The blogger says, "There are schematic maps of the internal geography of the Book Mormon, some with wide circulation, that show the river Sidon flowing northward. This alignment appears to be based on the north-flowing rivers in areas such as Meso-America." Well yes, because that's the way the Book of Mormon makes it appear. Both the Usumacinta and the Grijalva flow in a general south-to-north direction. The Book of Mormon speaks of two significant cultures, one which dwelt to the north of the other. Again, Mesoamerica shines in this regard:

John Pratt, who produced these fine maps, says: "Turning to the map of Mesoamerica, sure enough, we find two rivers both of which are good candidates for the River Sidon, and they both have their headwaters nearly intermingled in a pass that traverses both of the candidates for the Narrow Strip of Wilderness. Today they are called the Grijalva and Usumacinta Rivers." This certainly would explain the confusion and why Limhi's party got their directions crossed. He quotes Garth Norman:

[The Limhi party] started at the highland valley of Huehuetenango (Cumeni...where the headwaters of the Usumacinta/Sidon and the Grijalva meet. They took the wrong river, traveled north down the Grijalva instead of east on the Usumacinta tributary. When they reached the impassable Sumidaro gorge...they continued northwest thru the Chiapas depression, dropped into the lowlands of Tabasco/Bountiful to get back on the Grijalva, but ended up on the Rio Coatzacoalcos which they mistook for the Sidon. There they found the Olmec/Jaredite ruins westward from San Lorenzo thru the southern Veracruz/Cumorah zone that appeared to them to be Zarahemla. The coastal tropical lowlands in Veracruz matches the coastal lowlands of Zarahemla in the Usumacinta Palenque district. There could not have been a better set of circumstances to make the fatal mistake, and there could hardly be a stronger geographic historic witness for the authenticity of Mormon's record in Mesoamerica.

What other part of the country can fit this closely? It's got the geography, it's got the cultures, the populations, and one doesn't require a crowbar to meet the requirements. Of course the greatest killer of all in the Great Lakes theory is that tiny little zit on the landscape where Joseph found the plates. It's not strategic, it's not in the right place, tens of thousands of hardened soldiers (and their families) couldn't camp round about it, the area lacks the vast populations of people and you can't create a cave large enough to contain the other records Mormon buried. Finally, why would Moroni travel for years and end up at the same place he started? These, and the cold weather omissions, are simply insurmountable problems in my view.

Even Meldrum admits there's no hard evidence to place the BOM events in the Great Lakes region. The church has never said where they took place and Joseph Smith, later in his life, seemed to recognize in the etchings of the Mayan ruins a familiarity. He also arguably pointed to the landing point of the Lehites, which alone would negate a Great Lakes geography. Although the final chapter has not been written, the book is more than underway.

Maybe they were just used to it, so it wasn't worth mentioning?

Who knows? A few years ago I was on the phone with a colleague who lives in Jerusalem. I said, "By the way, do you ever get snow out there." She laughed and said, "Yes, as a matter of fact, I'm looking at some right now!" So it does happen.

Cold is the only weather that people who have seasons don't really get used to. Some of the early brethren talk about the bitter cold, the horrible biting wind, the crossing of frozen rivers, feet so numb they could barely move and, in one case, trying to suck on a frozen biscuit. These are the things that tend to be worthy of mention. Hot weather, not so much. Had there been troop movements across frozen rivers, or had one army not been able to see another because of the snow, I think it would be mentioned.

The Romans sure mentioned it when they endured those horrid German winters. And like I said, those guys who went through Valley Forge and Battle of the Bulge (where people suffered from frostbite that affected their health their entire lives) talked about it for the rest of their lives. Some 17,000 people were hospitalized just because of the cold.

Had the Nephites had to endure such hardships without modern clothing, there's an excellent chance they would have mentioned it.

.

[Brant Gardner]

Professor Gardner,

Just a clarification, it isn't "professor." "Mr." or "Brother" are more appropriate.

Here is a "big word smokescreen" couplled with double negatives and orwellian double speak designed to intimidate the gullible and disguise the utter absence of evidence of any sort, especially the prima facie sort.

And this sentence is a fascinating way of discarding a contradictory opinion without engaging it, and then establishing your own opinion by repeating it. Neither is a very satisfying response.

My initial response was to suggest that you seem to be looking for the wrong things, since there are quite a few places where the Book of Mormon converges with known Mesoamerican history. The difference is that the convergences are part of an argument that is created, not the rare finding of a "Nephi slept here" plaque. The types of evidence available are similar to those used in other archaeological reconstructions.

If you intend to move this conversation to specifics rather than generalities, we can do that. In this particular case, it appears from your comments that you are not conversant with the evidence either for or against. I am not sure what to do with someone having such strong opinions on topics about which they are essentially ignorant.

Since it is plain that JS tagged Cumorah in then Ontario county, near Palmyra, what is controvertible about that?

Again, you are making statements about things where you have very little actual expertise. There are several points in early church history where labels were attached to parts of the history at a later point in order to move that history into a more sacred context and geography. The interpreters were labeled Urim and Thummim, even though there is no Book of Mormon reason for it. Nevertheless, once the connection was made, it eventually became the standard mode of reference. A similar process turned all Native Americans into Lamanites, and a NY drummond in the Hill Cumorah. Joseph participated in that communal vocabulary, but the evidence suggests that it was a communal vocabulary and not a revealed one.

With a wave of your hand, you dismiss ALL of what Smith wrote.

How quick you are to assume that you understand. Clearly, you are missing quite a bit of essential information if you are making this statement.

Here you put words into my post that i did not write. That is not playing nice.

I apologize if it appeared that way (though I notice you are quick to respond in kind). Nevertheless, if you don't understand the import of your arguments, you might want to review them. I am surprised that you don't recognize those meanings in what you said.

Also the official LDS position on prophecy is a straw man argument, and not germane to the OP which brings up the issue of the LDS geography.

It isn't a straw man if your position is that Joseph Smith established a firm geography. You really need to understand your own arguments better. As for being germane, I was responding your post, not the OP. If it isn't germane, please avoid it yourself.

Please CFR the position that the LDS Chrurch "officially denies that there is a declared geography". I find that hard to swallow in the light that several LDS Presidents declared Palmyra as the true site of Cumorah.

Again, your lack of basic research is showing. I am on the road and unable access my normal sources. However, you might check on the article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which was quite carefully vetted before printing. I know Matt Roper has collected multiple statements, you can check for his articles in the FARMS Review.

You might actually do your homework before displaying the lack of it.

Essentially you raise the "faith" argument here. It says, "The absence of facts does not phase me because I have faith, so the facts are irrelevant."

Bah, humbug. You really have no understanding of what I might base my arguments on and therefore you invent what you suspect is a plausible background. You are not only incorrect, but massively incorrect. My arguments are built on very careful examination of the text of the Book of Mormon against a very specific geography, time and culture. There are elements of that time and culture that are remarkably parallel to the Book of Mormon story. For example, the Book of Mormon has a people leaving (around 200 BC) the older culture north of Nephite lands and moving up a river valley to establish Zarahemla--where a group of Nephites meet up with them.

Mesoamerican history indicates that about 200 BC there was a Zoquean movement up the Grijalva river valley from the Olmec heartland to the north. There are indications of connections with Maya cultures to the south at that point, even though the area remained predominantly Zoquean.

That might be a coincidence, if it did not fit in with a similar set of incidences that are far more numerous and depend upon time and place--specifics, not generalities.

The logic demonstrated in your reply leads me to make a snarky remark, but I shall refrain.

We are grateful.

[shrff]

For fun I looked up some of the source material on Mi'kmaq "writing". It's clear that this was not an indigenous writing system, but was rather an interesting mnemonic system. The Jesuits who first observed use of the Mi'kmaq characters in the 1650s noted

Their characters were novel, and so particuliers [individual or special] that one could not know or understand the writing of the other; that is to say, that they made use of certain marks according to their own ideas as of a local memory to preserve the points and the articles and the maxims which they had remembered.

Mallery, Garrick

1893 Picture-writing of the American Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 10: 1-822. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. pg. 666

While interesting, this is not a writing system, which must meet the following criteria.

1) at least one set of defined base elements or symbols, individually termed characters and collectively called a script;

2) at least one set of rules and conventions (orthography) understood and shared by a community, which arbitrarily assign meaning to the base elements (graphemes), their ordering and relations to one another;

3) at least one language (generally spoken) whose constructions are represented and able to be recalled by the interpretation of these elements and rules;

4) some physical means of distinctly representing the symbols by application to a permanent or semi-permanent medium, so they may be interpreted (usually visually, but tactile systems have also been devised).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Like Ford and Chevy?

[John T]

Here is a "big word smokescreen" coupled with double negatives and orwellian double speak designed to intimidate the gullible and disguise the utter absence of evidence of any sort, especially the prima facie sort.

Just a clarification, it isn't "professor." "Mr." or "Brother" are more appropriate.

And this sentence is a fascinating way of discarding a contradictory opinion without engaging it, and then establishing your own opinion by repeating it. Neither is a very satisfying response.

My initial response was to suggest that you seem to be looking for the wrong things, since there are quite a few places where the Book of Mormon converges with known Mesoamerican history. The difference is that the convergences are part of an argument that is created, not the rare finding of a "Nephi slept here" plaque. The types of evidence available are similar to those used in other archaeological reconstructions.

If you intend to move this conversation to specifics rather than generalities, we can do that. In this particular case, it appears from your comments that you are not conversant with the evidence either for or against. I am not sure what to do with someone having such strong opinions on topics about which they are essentially ignorant.

Where is the beef? IOW where EXACTLY is that prima facie evidence that you claim you have? What EXACTLY are those "convergences" and how do they provide the incontrovertible evidence of which you spoke of previously? Shall we sing with Peter Paul and Mary, "The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind, the answer is blowin' in the wind?

And indeed my statement is contradictory, for it exposes the utter lack of evidence that you have. Words are easy, but artifacts are much more difficult.

Since it is plain that JS tagged Cumorah in then Ontario county, near Palmyra, what is controvertible about that?

Again, you are making statements about things where you have very little actual expertise. There are several points in early church history where labels were attached to parts of the history at a later point in order to move that history into a more sacred context and geography. The interpreters were labeled Urim and Thummim, even though there is no Book of Mormon reason for it. Nevertheless, once the connection was made, it eventually became the standard mode of reference. A similar process turned all Native Americans into Lamanites, and a NY drummond in the Hill Cumorah. Joseph participated in that communal vocabulary, but the evidence suggests that it was a communal vocabulary and not a revealed one.

In grad school, I overloaded in church history, and there is no instance where "move the map" or "move the name" was applied to any place of significance in the Middle East. Yours is a hopeless speculation without any sort of evidence.

You need to read actually what the Urim and Thummin were before you state nonsense.

As to there being a communal vocabulary among the Indian nations in New York, please supply linguistic evidence, or else this is more hopeless speculation.

How quick you are to assume that you understand. Clearly, you are missing quite a bit of essential information if you are making this statement. This is not a cogent answer to why clearly labeled Palmyra, the site of Cumorah.

51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands 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.

Either he was correct, or else he was wrong in this rather detailed explanation. If he was correct, they your jumping through hoops will not amount to a hill of beans. If he was correct, then there are other issues to discuss. On this there can be no equivocation.

Your description of your method suggests strongly that you are hanging your conclusions on thin threads. You are indulging in the kind of analysis that suggested to LDS scholars that they really needed to go to the text rather than what was said about the text

JT responded With a wave of your hand, you dismiss ALL of what Smith wrote. That's nice. What are the evidences that exist which suggest that Smith did not mean what he wrote? Otherwise, it seems like a clever concoction to hide the inconvenient truth that there is ZERO evidence, either geographic or with any artifact that substantiates what Smith wrote in the BoM.

BG Reply I apologize if it appeared that way (though I notice you are quick to respond in kind). Nevertheless, if you don't understand the import of your arguments, you might want to review them. I am surprised that you don't recognize those meanings in what you said.

Sorry, but I was not trying to "reply in kind". I was trying to expose the fallacy of your argument, for it sets up the premise that he lied or else he was "geographically impaired" as reasons why your friends sought to find a reason for a second Cumorah site. Please tell me how one can "go behind the text" to extrapolate a meaning that is not congruent with what he wrote, and why, in this particular incidence your friends do not do the same thing with the other things that Smith wrote?

My guess is that such an approach would make mincemeat of all the other stuff, and open the door for aliens to write the BoM instead of Smith. (I am using hyperbole to make a point, not to denigrate.)

It isn't a straw man if your position is that Joseph Smith established a firm geography. You really need to understand your own arguments better. As for being germane, I was responding your post, not the OP. If it isn't germane, please avoid it yourself.

Bringing up LSD prophecy to explain LDS geography is indeed is a straw man, for you use that easy target to avoid dealing with the hard target, a cogent response to my inquiry.

Please CFR the position that the LDS Chrurch "officially denies that there is a declared geography". I find that hard to swallow in the light that several LDS Presidents declared Palmyra as the true site of Cumorah.

Again, your lack of basic research is showing. I am on the road and unable access my normal sources. However, you might check on the article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which was quite carefully vetted before printing. I know Matt Roper has collected multiple statements, you can check for his articles in the FARMS Review

.

No No No. You brought up the topic, and I asked for a CFR This is the second time I asked for a CFR. It is not nice to play "hide the ball" when someone asks for a back up of a statement in a nice way.

You might actually do your homework before displaying the lack of it.

I choose to ignore that bait-like response

Since I ran out of block quote allotment, I switched to italics to separate the quotes.

Bah, humbug. [Are you really Mr. Scrooge? ] You really have no understanding of what I might base my arguments on and therefore you invent what you suspect is a plausible background. You are not only incorrect, but massively incorrect. My arguments are built on very careful examination of the text of the Book of Mormon against a very specific geography, time and culture. There are elements of that time and culture that are remarkably parallel to the Book of Mormon story. For example, the Book of Mormon has a people leaving (around 200 BC) the older culture north of Nephite lands and moving up a river valley to establish Zarahemla--where a group of Nephites meet up with them.

Well, please be kind enough to educate dumb me as to what ACTUALLY is the "very specific geography, time and culture" that is beyond my comprehension, and VERIFIED BY INDEPENDENT SOURCES. Please provide the incontrovertible evidence of which you spoke of previously.

Mesoamerican history indicates that about 200 BC there was a Zoquean movement up the Grijalva river valley from the Olmec heartland to the north. There are indications of connections with Maya cultures to the south at that point, even though the area remained predominantly Zoquean.

That might be a coincidence, if it did not fit in with a similar set of incidences that are far more numerous and depend upon time and place--specifics, not generalities.

Yeah, some human-sacrificing natives in now southern Mexico moved about 100 miles north 2200 years ago. What does that have to do with Palmyra? That is really grasping at straws, whenever you try to foist off conjecture as fact Brant.

[Tiberius]

Had the Nephites had to endure such hardships without modern clothing, there's an excellent chance they would have mentioned it.

Nonsensical comment.

Mosiah 10: 5

5 And I did cause that the women should spin, and toil, and work, and work all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind, that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land

[Tiberius]

I don't see any real connection between Longfellow's poems and the Book of Mormon. Longfellow writes about a great/divine leader who appears and calls a council of the various tribes/nations; and when representatives of the Indian nations arrive at the conference he tells them to stop fighting and to live in peace.

But maybe I'm missing some of the detailed parallels. I didn't read it as thoroughly as some might have read it. Can you list the ways you think this not only matches the Book of Mormon but might be unique in some ways to typical stories from essentially every multinational culture that believes in a God or gods?

Yeah. You missed quite a bit:

On the Mountains of the Prairie, Mountain of the Lord - Temple. The Temple in the Land of Bountiful

On the great Red Pipe-stone Quarry, Could be the Black Hills of South Dakota

Gitche Manito, the mighty,

He the Master of Life, descending,

Gitche Manito - also spelled "Manitou" - meaning "Great Spirit"

Smoked the calumet, the Peace-Pipe - Book of Revelations - incense smoke or smoke from the altar represent prayers ascending to God

"From the Vale of Tawasentha,

From the Valley of Wyoming,

From the groves of Tuscaloosa,

From the far-off Rocky Mountains,

From the Northern lakes and rivers

All the tribes beheld the signal" - meaning North American Tribes knew of each other

Came the Delawares and Mohawks,

Came the Choctaws and Camanches,

Came the Shoshonies and Blackfeet,

Came the Pawnees and Omahas,

Came the Mandans and Dacotahs,

Came the Hurons and Ojibways, - 12 Tribes. 3 Nephi 19:5-6 - The gathered people were divided into 12 groups to be taught

The hereditary hatred,

The ancestral thirst of vengeance. - self-explanatory

Over them he stretched his right hand,

To subdue their stubborn natures,

To allay their thirst and fever,

By the shadow of his right hand - Jesus Christ healing the sick and afflicted.

"I will send a Prophet to you, Joseph Smith? and/or Book of Mormon Prophets?

A Deliverer of the nations,

Who shall guide you and shall teach you,

Who shall toil and suffer with you.

If you listen to his counsels,

You will multiply and prosper; - Keep the Commandments, you will prosper in the land.

If his warnings pass unheeded,

You will fade away and perish! If not, cursed will be the land unto you.

Jesus Christ speaking:

3 Nephi 27:32 But behold, it sorroweth me because of the fourth generation from this generation, for they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which dmoth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal. And in that day will I visit them, even in turning their works upon their own heads.

Bathe now in the stream before you,

Wash the war-paint from your faces,

Wash the blood-stains from your fingers,

Bury your war-clubs and your weapons - Repentance, Baptism, "Ammonites buried their weapons of war."

Be baptized, the first thing Jesus declared after appearing.

Break the red stone from this quarry, Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ - breaking of the bread. Red earth representing HIS blood.

Mould and make it into Peace-Pipes,

Take the reeds that grow beside you,

Deck them with your brightest feathers,

Smoke the calumet together, 3 Nephi 19:6 And the twelve did teach the multitude; and behold, they did cause that the multitude should kneel down upon the face of the earth, and should pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.

Of the Master of Life descending;

Dark below them flowed the water,

Soiled and stained with streaks of crimson,

As if blood were mingled with it! - The Atonement of Jesus Christ washes away the stain of sin.

And departed each one homeward,

While the Master of Life, ascending,

Through the opening of cloud-curtains,

Through the doorways of the heaven,

Vanished from before their faces,

In the smoke that rolled around him,

The Pukwana of the Peace-Pipe! - The cloud which enshroud Jesus Christ when he left the people.

3 Nephi 18:38

And it came to pass that when Jesus had touched them all, there came a cloud and overshadowed the multitude that they could not see Jesus.

3 Nephi 19:1

And now it came to pass that when Jesus had ascended into heaven, the multitude did disperse, and every man did take his wife and his children and did return to his own home.

The Peace-Pipe - by Longfellow

Gitche Manitou (Gitchi Manitou, Gitche Manito, etc.) means "Great Spirit" in several Algonquian languages. The term was also utilized to signify God by Christian missionaries, when translating scriptures and prayers, etc. into the Algonquian languages.

Manitou is a common Algonquian term for spirit, mystery, or deity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitche_Manitou

The name of the Canadian province of Manitoba, named for Lake Manitoba in the province, derives from the place name manitou-wapow, "strait of the Manitou" in Cree or Ojibwe, referring to The Narrows at the centre of the lake.[1] Also Manitoulin Island means "spirit island".

Sorry dudes. The Book of Mormon occurred mainly in North America.

[frankenstein]

heres my own geography....

The "waters of Mormon" is the "fountain of Youth" that Ponce De Leone was looking for. Consider that in the 18th Chapter of Mosiah the people could speak openly about their new found religion so perhaps they spoke in code, one code perhaps about baptism and eternal life.

another...

Certain Native American tribes had/have "shirt wearers". The shirt wearers - had distictive clothing - lived in part what could be described as the law of concercration.

[Brant Gardner]

Yeah, some human-sacrificing natives in now southern Mexico moved about 100 miles north 2200 years ago. What does that have to do with Palmyra? That is really grasping at straws, whenever you try to foist off conjecture as fact Brant.

OK, now I understand. You really have no interest in having any kind of actual discussion on this topic. So far, you have demonstrated that you are unaware of the nature of archaeological evidence (and I am speaking of secular archaeology). You suggestion that there is "prima facie" evidence for most accepted historical data is a rather glaring indication of it. You lack of interest in correcting your misperceptions of even secular archaeology tells me that we are not going to get anywhere.

The nature of your response to a very specific example I gave clearly indicates that you prefer a sarcastic put down to any kind of actual conversation. That convinces me that your purpose is to rail on and not engage in a conversation. That being the case, you may rave on without my continued participation or attempts to reign in your poorly informed suggestions.

If I might happen to be wrong, here is what we would need to do to get going:

I would love for you to discuss your opinions of William Dever's acceptance of early Hebrew occupation of Israel in light of those archaeologists who deny it. Begin with his What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? I am particularly interested in how your concept of "prima facie" evidence condemns his conclusions and why you think so.

[notHagoth7]

Gitche Manito - also spelled "Manitou" - meaning "Great Spirit"

Smoked the calumet, the Peace-Pipe - Book of Revelations - incense smoke or smoke from the altar represent prayers ascending to God

All the various tribes "smoking the peace pipe" implies the establishment of peace throughout the land - as attested to in 3 Nephi.

If so, this also has its parallel in the European reign of Shield's descendant Frodo, which was specifically said to be at the time of Christ, whose reign was reknowned for its unprecedented peace throughout the region.

Sorry dudes. The Book of Mormon occurred mainly in North America.

Do you have your evidence for this in one place somewhere? Online perhaps?

[notHagoth7]

heres my own geography....

The "waters of Mormon" is the "fountain of Youth" that Ponce De Leone was looking for. Consider that in the 18th Chapter of Mosiah the people could speak openly about their new found religion so perhaps they spoke in code, one code perhaps about baptism and eternal life.

That's quite good.

Certain Native American tribes had/have "shirt wearers". The shirt wearers - had distinctive clothing - lived in part what could be described as the law of consecration.

I haven't heard of this.

What was distinctive about their clothing?

Which tribes?

[shrff]

I have found this discussion to be exemplary of several conversations I have had with individuals advocating a North American setting for the Book of Mormon, including Rodney Meldrum and his followers. There is a tendency to use the same techniques over and over again. There are a few others, but three of the biggest examples of the phenomenon are:

1) Claiming that Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders identified a North American setting for the Book of Mormon by revelation (example, the Zelph account)

2) Using objects of dubious provenance as evidence for Old World-New World connections (example, the Michigan Relics)

3) Distorting North American archaeological/ethnological data to make it appear consistent with expectations from the text of the BOM (example, the Mi'kmaq "writing system)

Each of these phenomena are problematic in their own ways.

First, while Joseph and other early Church leaders made some statements implying they thought events related to the BOM occurred in North America, they also made other statements indicating they also thought BOM events occurred elsewhere in the Americas. Furthermore, the only explicit statement made by Joseph where he identifies a BOM person in a BOM place is the deposition of the plates by Moroni in the New York drumlin, and it is not at all clear whether this event occurred in mortality or post-mortality.

Second, objects of dubious provenance are extremely difficult to work with. Methodologically, archaeologists, art historians, and historians can never be sure that these objects are not forgeries. Every object in this category that has been subjected to scientific scrutiny has been shown to be a forgery. Out of context Old World objects supposedly recovered from the New World do nothing to strengthen any kind of data-based argument.

Third, like it or not, the archaeological and ethnographic data from North American contexts are a poor fit with the socio-political and material culture expectations derived from the BOM. It is often possible to distort the data enough to convince lay people that the fit is better than it seems, but these arguments never hold up to close scrutiny. Advocating these arguments, which can be so easily disproved, does not help the credibility of the BOM.

I am becoming increasingly interested in why some North American Church members are becoming re-enamored with the North American context. A common theme running through many of these arguments is the United States must be the promised land of Freedom. I suspect that this backlash is related to the Church becoming increasingly less-centered in North America, however, a sociological study is the only way to confirm or deny this speculation.

In the meantime, I applaud those among our number who continue to battle poor arguments presented by people who are unlikely to be convinced that their positions are unsupportable with the available data.

[John T]

OK, now I understand. You really have no interest in having any kind of actual discussion on this topic. So far, you have demonstrated that you are unaware of the nature of archaeological evidence (and I am speaking of secular archaeology). You suggestion that there is "prima facie" evidence for most accepted historical data is a rather glaring indication of it. You lack of interest in correcting your misperceptions of even secular archaeology tells me that we are not going to get anywhere.

The nature of your response to a very specific example I gave clearly indicates that you prefer a sarcastic put down to any kind of actual conversation. That convinces me that your purpose is to rail on and not engage in a conversation. That being the case, you may rave on without my continued participation or attempts to reign in your poorly informed suggestions.

If I might happen to be wrong, here is what we would need to do to get going:

I would love for you to discuss your opinions of William Dever's acceptance of early Hebrew occupation of Israel in light of those archaeologists who deny it. Begin with his What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? I am particularly interested in how your concept of "prima facie" evidence condemns his conclusions and why you think so.

FACT CHECK FIRST

Three different times you replied with a "Bah Humbug" statement I could have called you on on that, I chose not to, I took the high road.

I made THREE CFRs you have not responded to one. Your response was to play more "hide the ball"

You make a statement about an obscure tribe of natives in Southern Mexico making a movement northward in the Yucatan Peninsula, essentially telling me to "make the connection" (a variant of "hide the ball") and somehow make this relevant to the lack of LDS geography. But then you take exception to my pointing out the obvious: they were indeed human sacrificing tribes, and had no sort of religion close to Judiasm, Mormonism nor Christianity.

So let me get this straight, if you can feed me balderdash, that is OK, but if I ask for a CFR or expose the balderdash as nonsense, then you can get upset, and dismissively call my reply "sarcasm" and pretend that it is me who does not rational discussion, then it is OK. Tell me where I am wrong on that analysis.

That being said, I now ask for 2 CFRs. The first I gave, I repeat for the THIRD TIME to demonstrate your a assertion about LDS prophecy 'that the LDS Chrurch "officially denies that there is a declared geography ' and I ask for another CFR to show the relevance of the movement of that obscure tribe to the BoM.

I have also several times asked you to provide prima facie evidence (perhaps four), all you have given me is words and conjecture. What is unreasonable about such a request, Brant? If you are unable to do so, then simply say so. I will not do anything like gloating. That is beneath me.

Whatever you do, you have to know that I am not trying to be your enemy, and that all I am doing is commenting on the stuff you reply to me, and not being negative, nor sarcastic nor being a "troublemaker" in any sort. Is that not attempting to have a reasonable discourse? I think it is reasonable.