Joseph's visions of the Nephite Civilization...

[Hyrum Page]

That excuse is used by those espousing the indefensible Meso/Malay/Aftrican models.

Well, from what I have seen almost everyone relies on literal readings when it suits them and shifts strategies when it does not. You should know that I have not read your website, so I am not directing my comments at you in particular. As I have said before, I do not advocate a particular geography. I am simply stating what I think is true about the problems and issues concerning the geography question.

I am a student of antiquity. I read ancient literature all the time. I am also a professional academic in the subject (Old World, not New World like Brant). My observations come from this perspective. At the same time, I think that Mormon scholars need to be as consistent as possible in the standard they apply to the evidence. As I observed earlier in the thread, I thought it rather inconsistent to favor editorials in papers over evidence for claims to revelation.

[Hyrum Page]

You think you do. What about Hyrum, who was never there. What say Hyrum?

From my reading of the descriptions of the process, it appears that there really was no translation at all in the sense we ordinarily use the word. Rather, words appeared before or were revealed to Joseph Smith. The descriptions give me the impression that the witnesses meant to convey that Joseph was literally seeing the translation that God gave him, rather than translating the text himself.

One can also interpret it as being much, much more complicated than that.

[BOMG]

Well, from what I have seen almost everyone relies on literal readings when it suits them and shifts strategies when it does not. You should know that I have not read your website, so I am not directing my comments at you in particular. As I have said before, I do not advocate a particular geography. I am simply stating what I think is true about the problems and issues concerning the geography question.

I am a student of antiquity. I read ancient literature all the time. I am also a professional academic in the subject (Old World, not New World like Brant). My observations come from this perspective. At the same time, I think that Mormon scholars need to be as consistent as possible in the standard they apply to the evidence. As I observed earlier in the thread, I thought it rather inconsistent to favor editorials in papers over evidence for claims to revelation.

Your clarification had nothing to do with how the BoM was translated.

From my reading of the descriptions of the process, it appears that there really was no translation at all in the sense we ordinarily use the word. Rather, words appeared before or were revealed to Joseph Smith. The descriptions give me the impression that the witnesses meant to convey that Joseph was literally seeing the translation that God gave him, rather than translating the text himself.

One can also interpret it as being much, much more complicated than that.

Best guess, who translated the English?

[Hyrum Page]

Best guess, who translated the English?

God.

[BOMG]

God.

Was it a "modern" translation?

[Ceeboo]

Your clarification had nothing to do with how the BoM was translated.

Best guess, who translated the English?

Was it you ???

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Hyrum Page]

Was it a "modern" translation?

Yes.

[BOMG]

Yes.

So God translated the BoM into modern day English so the Gentiles receiving it there in Western New York would understand it? Is that right?

[Cold Steel]

People who advocate a more North American geography setting (and Mexico is in North America) can produce everything but maps. As soon as they can produce a credible map, their arguments can be as nebulous as they please. None of the Mesoamerican advocates argue that the promised land is limited to the narrow scope of the area listed in the Book of Mormon. But even though the church clearly and unequivocally states that the geography has not been revealed, Meldrum, Olive and others go right to the quotes of early church leaders. They cite the story of Zelph, but why is not Onandagus not mentioned in the Book of Mormon if he was so well known?

In the Old World, Jews could be found throughout the Roman Empire. Paul and other apostles even journeyed to Rome, Syria, Greece and Egypt. Mormon was from the land north of the primary Book of Mormon lands, which means more likely northern Mexico or even further north. He was very familiar with the land of Desolation and Cumorah, and he knew the mountain well enough to conceal a great number of records. After the great battle there, Moroni fled north and likely traversed the area from the Rocky Mountains through the great plains and finally to New York, dedicating temples as he went.

Those who don't believe in the Mesoamerican models cannot produce any maps of their own, nor have they identified the "narrow neck" or Sidon or the narrow pass. If one supposes that Moroni traveled from New York to the Rocky Mountains and then backtracked to the place he began, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And what of the famous snake infestation, which cut off the narrow neck for generations? What would have kept the Nephites from waiting until the winter and sneaking across whilst the snakes were hibernating? And what type of North American snake could be so deadly as to cut off that part of the land? Water moccasins, rattle snakes? And again, why is there no military history of armies crossing frozen bodies of water, or men perishing from cold? As I type this, the entire Eastern seaboard from New York to Virginia is under a winter storm alert. A few years ago we were buried in ice. Even in our modern world, a number of people died because their power failed. Imagine the Book of Mormon being completely silent on the ravages of winter.

If proponents of the New York Cumorah could present geographical evidence...even a little...one could put them to the test. Instead, Phyllis Olive notes there are about 900 drumlins in the Great Lakes area and makes the absurd statement that "these small cigar shaped hills would have provided a tremendous advantage for both the Nephites and the Jaredites, for they offered great protection and fortification for their battles."

She's kidding, right? Which war college did she attend? Where did she study military strategy? How could hundreds of thousands of soldiers encamp around about this small hill while, during the pageant, the place is swamped with far few numbers!

Although it seems at times that the Mesoamerican proponents are a bit one-sided, I find them willing to look at other arguments and give decent clinical reviews. When reading Meldrum, Olive and others, there always seems to be these barbs laced in their arguments. As someone who's only read the various positions, I don't find that there's a whole lot to go on with the New York Cumorah. All anyone would have to do is just show where a New York Cumorah could be feasible. Although I lean heavily on the Mesoamerican side, it's not an article of faith with me. If it crumbled tomorrow, it wouldn't be the end of the world. But if you've established a following and you send them monthly e-mails talking about how God's really opening this whole thing up, you're locking people into something that could cave in around them.

The Mesoamerican theorists are producing maps, credible populations and cultures and so forth. The Journey of Faith DVD videos are very well done. These models have been very credible and many of them quite compelling and detailed.

This "narrow pass" cuts through the "narrow neck" of land in Mexico and

conforms very well to descriptions in the Book of Mormon, where the Nephite

armies were able to predict the course of refugees and intercept them.

I recommend John E. Clark's article, Archaeology and Cumorah Questions, for those interested in why New York and the Great Lakes area make for a poor setting for the Cumorah battle and for Book of Mormon populations. There just doesn't seem to be any way for the New York Cumorah to be the same hill spoken of by Mormon.

.

[BOMG]

This posting by Cold Steel surmises the inability to learn. Every attack made is a lie:

People who advocate a more North American geography setting (and Mexico is in North America) can produce everything but maps.

There are maps by both Olive (http://bookofmormonlands.com/) and Aston (http://onecumorah.com/).

None of the Mesoamerican advocates argue that the promised land is limited to the narrow scope of the area listed in the Book of Mormon.

Course not. If America is the "Promise Land" they must allow for "Promised Lands" outside of Mesoamerica.

Those who don't believe in the Mesoamerican models cannot produce any maps of their own, nor have they identified the "narrow neck" or Sidon or the narrow pass.

Your kidding who?

why is there no military history of armies crossing frozen bodies of water, or men perishing from cold? As I type this, the entire Eastern seaboard from New York to Virginia is under a winter storm alert. A few years ago we were buried in ice...Imagine the Book of Mormon being completely silent on the ravages of winter.

First off, there was a cold/flu season, secondly hail, and thirdly New York was warmer then. Stick to the geography, something not subjec to change, and worry about the volatiles later.

If proponents of the New York Cumorah could present geographical evidence...even a little...one could put them to the test.

You're seriously picking fights, when you know I have more geography hits than any other model.

Instead, Phyllis Olive notes there are about 900 drumlins in the Great Lakes area and makes the absurd statement that "these small cigar shaped hills would have provided a tremendous advantage for both the Nephites and the Jaredites, for they offered great protection and fortification for their battles."

Now the switch:

How could hundreds of thousands of soldiers encamp around about this small hill while, during the pageant, the place is swamped with far few numbers!

Olive said hills plural, what does ColdSteal do? Reduce it to one.

Although I lean heavily on the Mesoamerican side, it's not an article of faith with me.

Really, who'd a guessed? How about some respect for those who died for THEIR FAITH!

You don't understand the Spiritual Geography at all. I feel sorry for you, and every other mesotheorists who disregard the land prophecies and promises.

The Mesoamerican theorists are producing maps...videos...models have been...

A joke! Show me ONE Internal Map where the four seas are shown. Don't hold your breath.

I recommend John E. Clark's article, Archaeology and Cumorah Questions, for those interested in why New York and the Great Lakes area make for a poor setting for the Cumorah battle and for Book of Mormon populations. There just doesn't seem to be any way for the New York Cumorah to be the same hill spoken of by Mormon.

Clark has been dealt with and like with Sorenson found limited in their understanding. "Cookie cutters" is what they are. Get's boring after 70 models.

[Calm]

If America is the "Promise Land" they must allow for "Promised Lands" outside of Mesoamerica. Strange.

Israel is described as a "promised land". Why would it be strange that there would be more than one?

[Calm]

thirdly New York was warmer then

Evidence please.

[BOMG]

Israel is described as a "promised land". Why would it be strange that there would be more than one?

The Book of Mormon "Promised Land" references are specific. We respect their promises, on their lands. For example, there would be no kings/queens. They would be owned by white Gentiles. The BoM would come forth on it. It would become greater than all other nations. Jesus would be their king of it. God would led people to it. People would flee their captive nations to go to it. Their mother countries would come to battle against them, on the land and the sea. All fulfilled in Western New York, but impossible in Mesoamerica.

Evidence please.

"John Sorenson's comment that the promised land of the Nephites should be placed in the tropics because of one lone statement about heat in the scriptures (see Alma 51:33) seems to have stuck in the minds of many, for it is the most often asked question by those investigating the Cumorah Lands of New York as the proposed setting for the Book of Mormon saga. He said:

[Calm]

. For example, there would be no kings/queens.

Then there's a problem because there were all those English Kings and Queens....

"John Sorenson's comment....but they paint themselves for fear of heat and sunburning.

[BOMG]

Then there's a problem because there were all those English Kings and Queens....

Many countriest fail that test. US of A works.

I was asking for evidence the claim you made that New York was warmer back then.

The reference I gave referred to "heat." Here's another from Olive's site:

"New York Archaeologist, William A. Ritchie explains that the archaic period, (that being the era of the Jaredites), experienced the latter portion of the hypsithermal episode, which is believed to have considerably surpassed the present in average warmth.[2] Moreover, for a thousand years between 2000-1000 B.C., little rainfall came, with the result that the northeast experienced a number of devastating droughts, just as was noted in the account of the Jaredites who lost a great many of their people to the famines which followed."

[Brant Gardner]

Best guess, who translated the English?

I have been working on this for a while and hope to have the evidence published before the Book of Mormon year rolls around again. Based on the accumulated evidence, I think it is pretty clear that Joseph is the source of the English, as dictated. I realized that this opinion is in direct contradiction to Royal Skousen's idea about the source of the English, but then that is why we have to publish the data and analysis.

I agree with Hyrum Page (our co-respondant) that God is involved in the translation process, but not in the production of the English language of the text.

[BOMG]

I have been working on this for a while and hope to have the evidence published before the Book of Mormon year rolls around again. Based on the accumulated evidence, I think it is pretty clear that Joseph is the source of the English, as dictated. I realized that this opinion is in direct contradiction to Royal Skousen's idea about the source of the English, but then that is why we have to publish the data and analysis.

I agree with Hyrum Page (our co-respondant) that God is involved in the translation process, but not in the production of the English language of the text.

Wow, another "I take the facts so far as they work for me" and "I make up the rest to suit me" approach. Sad.

1. What exactly was the use of the Urim and Thummim/Seer Stone(s) in your scenario?

2. How do you reconcile the witnesses accounts of the process?

3. How do you reconcile the process described by scriptures?

4. How do you determine which words were Josephs?

5. How do you justify countering the work of Skousen's research?

[Brant Gardner]

Wow, another "I take the facts so far as they work for me" and "I make up the rest to suit me" approach. Sad.

Considering that I haven't presented my data in this forum (and won't because it requires way too much space), your suggestion about how I see the data and interpret it is amusing. You may consult other things I have published to determine how closely I deal with data.

1. What exactly was the use of the Urim and Thummim/Seer Stone(s) in your scenario?

A means whereby Joseph was able to envision the text and read it to his scribe.

2. How do you reconcile the witnesses accounts of the process?

It depends on what parts of the accounts you are talking about. The witnesses who describe an inerrant method, whereby no word could be mispelled, are demonstrably incorrect. Skousen's evidence from the manuscripts is excellent on this topic.

As for the suggestion that Joseph saw English and read it to his scribe(s), I believe the evidence shows that this is exactly what happened.

3. How do you reconcile the process described by scriptures?

Why do I need to reconcile it? They suggest that Joseph had to work out the translation, (DC 9:7-9). I agree.

4. How do you determine which words were Josephs?

The ones in English (or one in French).

5. How do you justify countering the work of Skousen's research?

Evidence.

[Hyrum Page]

As for the suggestion that Joseph saw English and read it to his scribe(s), I believe the evidence shows that this is exactly what happened.

Well, the implications of this are what is at issue. Where in the process do you see the errors creeping in? Through Joseph Smith? Through the scribes? Both?

If it is true that Joseph saw the English translation in front of him (interesting choice of words on your part, by the way, when you say "visualize"), then it is completely understandable to me that people would say that the translation was God's, not Joseph's. Of course, we can get into phenomenological and other arguments to pick apart the different possibilities, but it is difficult to deny the power of the image of God's translation of the book. Other explanations will naturally be less appealing.

Why do I need to reconcile it? They suggest that Joseph had to work out the translation, (DC 9:7-9). I agree.

Except that D&C 9 was a revelation given to Oliver Cowdery, not Joseph Smith. It is not clear to me that Smith and Cowdery possessed precisely the same gifts, and that the method of translation they used would thus have been the same. I think it requires more evidence to justify conflating the method described in D&C 9 with Joseph's.

[BOMG]

Considering that I haven't presented my data in this forum (and won't because it requires way too much space), your suggestion about how I see the data and interpret it is amusing.

Your approach on the geography is convoluted, I assume it is for the "translation" process as well - unable to take things at face value. Let's find out.

A means whereby Joseph was able to envision the text and read it to his scribe.

As for the suggestion that Joseph saw English and read it to his scribe(s), I believe the evidence shows that this is exactly what happened.

To be clear, you agree that the U&T/Seer Stone was used to see an already translated text. Is that your position?

[rodheadlee]

thus they sailed out the Mediterranean Sea and ventured north following the coast line before heading west. This was a common route for mariners.

CFR, I'm sorry but the most common route for a westerly course is between 25* N and 4* N, where the winds are NE. Your proposed course has them battling westerlies and the Gulf Stream. I'm on a dial up connection right now or I'd post a tradewind map/currentmap.

[BOMG]

Well, the implications of this are what is at issue. Where in the process do you see the errors creeping in? Through Joseph Smith? Through the scribes? Both?

If it is true that Joseph saw the English translation in front of him (interesting choice of words on your part, by the way, when you say "visualize"), then it is completely understandable to me that people would say that the translation was God's, not Joseph's. Of course, we can get into phenomenological and other arguments to pick apart the different possibilities, but it is difficult to deny the power of the image of God's translation of the book. Other explanations will naturally be less appealing.

Except that D&C 9 was a revelation given to Oliver Cowdery, not Joseph Smith. It is not clear to me that Smith and Cowdery possessed precisely the same gifts, and that the method of translation they used would thus have been the same. I think it requires more evidence to justify conflating the method described in D&C 9 with Joseph's.

Here, here. That was an admonition how to ask for the privilege to translate, not an "how to" to translate.

[BOMG]

CFR, I'm sorry but the most common route for a westerly course is between 25* N and 4* N, where the winds are NE. Your proposed course has them battling westerlies and the Gulf Stream. I'm on a dial up connection right now or I'd post a tradewind map/currentmap.

Save your bandwidth.

The route of early American explorers is well known, like Henry Hudson.

[rodheadlee]

That fulfills the prophecy that at the coming of Jesus the earth/rocks would crack "both above and below" and Niagara Falls was part of that result. Prior to that, yes, the St. Lawrence and the Niagara gorge were navigable.

I'm no geologist so I can't really CFR you on this, but according to this website:

http://www.ohiodnr.com/geosurvey/lakeerie/lefact1/tabid/7829/Default.aspx

"About 5,000 years ago, the lake stood about 46 feet lower"

[rodheadlee]

Save your bandwidth.

The route of early American explorers is well known, like Henry Hudson.

So you're saying they went arctic? and coastal hopped Iceland, Greenland and the North American coast and then upriver at the St Lawrence?