Mound Builders

[Anijen]

Sevenbak

Nice try, but were talking strictly about F. Presidency GC talks. If you include the correlated manuals of the Church, then the Institute manual used through 2009 teaches a New York final battle site.

It wasn't even a "nice try" it is factual. I am not trying to win a contest or parade my theological views, I am stating current church thought on this matter. My point again to emphasize it does not matter if it was 1975 or yesterday, it will not change the official view of the church and that is that the final battle location is not stated. There has been a lot of stuff in the seminary manuals that have been in time removed because they were more of traditional thought than doctrine the location of the final battle is one of them. It is doctrine that what our current leaders tell us is what is more important for us now than what the saints heard 25 or 50 or 100 years ago. Now what hasn't changed over time is a key of its importance, like coming to Christ.

My, I wish they'd stop teaching our youth such blasphemies.

Although you threw in the smiley icon I was initially upset at such an accusation. I will have you know I consider teaching the youth of the church an honor and a privileged. I am thrilled to feel that my Heavenly Father has called me to what I feel an important duty and calling and humbled to feel he wants me there at this point in my life. I have only used the course materials and have never strayed I only teach what is inside those. I have borne many testimonies and still do too the truthfulness of the church and to the gospel and its teachings.

Sevenbak, You come out hard almost anti-learning and use subtle remarks of the dangers of intellectualism etc. I will have you know that there are many many many very good men and women who are scholars and they are also bishops, stake presidents, high councilmen, seminary and institute teachers, relief society presidents etc. There have been very few scholars who have gone September six, most are honorable people. Because one holds a PhD and is an expert in their field of study does not mean they are apostate or blasphemers. I feel if they reached that area of knowledge then I would think that Heavenly Father is quite happy with their success in secular and religious education and I would even go so far as to say He expects them to use that knowledge for good.

Hagoth7

CFR Please.

The answer to your CFR is myself. I know because I have asked him.

[livy111us]

CFR Please.

I can attest to this. I have spoken with him several times on this issue, and he claims that you cannot throw out all the Michigan relics because not every one has been tested. But, since every one that has been tested has been fraudulent, it should give you a pretty good idea that they all are.

[cinepro]

I am not trying to win a contest or parade my theological views, I am stating current church thought on this matter. My point again to emphasize it does not matter if it was 1975 or yesterday, it will not change the official view of the church and that is that the final battle location is not stated.

Where has the Church officially said that we don't know the location of the final battle in the Book of Mormon?

[ERayR]

Where has the Church officially said that we don't know the location of the final battle in the Book of Mormon?

We know exactly where the final battle took place. Mormon 6:2. It was in the land of Cumorah by a hill which was called Cumorah. The problem is we don't know where the land of or the hill named Cumorah is at. We have some identified options any one of which or none of which may be the real location.

[hagoth7]

Your response doesn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again.

Is there reason to believe that Meldrum believes the artifacts to be fake?

Yes he knows they are fake...

CFR Please.

I can attest to this. I have spoken with him several times on this issue, and he claims that you cannot throw out all the Michigan relics because not every one has been tested....

So...your testimony is:

Meldrum believes some of the artifacts are legitimate.

That's about what I expected.

Can we all please stop the backbiting now?

[Sevenbak]

It wasn't even a "nice try" it is factual. I am not trying to win a contest or parade my theological views, I am stating current church thought on this matter. My point again to emphasize it does not matter if it was 1975 or yesterday, it will not change the official view of the church and that is that the final battle location is not stated. There has been a lot of stuff in the seminary manuals that have been in time removed because they were more of traditional thought than doctrine the location of the final battle is one of them. It is doctrine that what our current leaders tell us is what is more important for us now than what the saints heard 25 or 50 or 100 years ago. Now what hasn't changed over time is a key of its importance, like coming to Christ.

Although you threw in the smiley icon I was initially upset at such an accusation. I will have you know I consider teaching the youth of the church an honor and a privileged. I am thrilled to feel that my Heavenly Father has called me to what I feel an important duty and calling and humbled to feel he wants me there at this point in my life. I have only used the course materials and have never strayed I only teach what is inside those. I have borne many testimonies and still do too the truthfulness of the church and to the gospel and its teachings.

Sevenbak, You come out hard almost anti-learning and use subtle remarks of the dangers of intellectualism etc. I will have you know that there are many many many very good men and women who are scholars and they are also bishops, stake presidents, high councilmen, seminary and institute teachers, relief society presidents etc. There have been very few scholars who have gone September six, most are honorable people. Because one holds a PhD and is an expert in their field of study does not mean they are apostate or blasphemers. I feel if they reached that area of knowledge then I would think that Heavenly Father is quite happy with their success in secular and religious education and I would even go so far as to say He expects them to use that knowledge for good.

Wow. You are right, this isn't a contest, it's a quest for truth. But we we're talking specifically about First Presidency statements spoken at General Conference. There have been plenty of other statements by GA's, including talks, books, and correlated curriculum, all stating it took place in NY.

Anijen, I'm sure you mean well, but I know plenty of learned men in the Church as well that hold to the view of the prophets as opposed to the modern theory. I too am a Sunday School teacher of youth in my ward, as well as a member of the Stake SS Presidency. I don't use uncorrelated curriculum, the theories of professors or anything else not sanctioned by the Church. I don't even delve into this subject, it's not part of the plan.

For you to tell me I sound like an Anti is kind of funny. You will have to throw some GA's under the bus for saying as much as well. I'm sure you don't mean it that way.

Here's one sample.

"Inappropriate intellectualism sometimes leads one to testify that he knows the gospel is true but believes the Brethren are just a little out of touch."

Yeah, Elder Pace must be an anti too. And to think, he said that in General Conference!

[Bob Crockett]

In the quote below, Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (at the time, President of the Q12, the Church Historian, the last GA to hold that position until Elder Marlin Jensen) points out that those who hold to the Mesoamerican view are weak in the faith. So it isn't like the Mesoamerican view has just crept in amongst the Brethren; they've [and there has been no "they" to the contrary, other than one oblique reference by Elder Oaks] discussed it and disposed of it.

"LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

This was published in what would later become a Priesthood Manual. It is still in publication; the Deseret Book website lists it as "authoritative," and Doctrines of Salvation is one of the most frequently-cited GA treatises in General Conference. So, here we have a Church publication, a priesthood manual nonetheless, disposing of the LGT which was in currency at the time and calling those who adhere to it weak in the faith. I don't necessarily go so far as to call LGT adherents weak in the faith, but Pres. Smith's brief against them is interesting.

Greg Smith and others criticize the fact that Meldrum makes his living from his Book of Mormon theories.

Unfortunately for those of us who believe in the HGT model [or, at least in my case, give it a lot more revelatory and doctrinal credit that the LGT theory, which seems to many to be mincing], we must also deal with defending Rodney Meldrum's motives for making a living as a tour guide. I think this argument of Mr. Smith's is a canard. There are many more LGT adherents feeding at the trough of the trinket salesmen at Lourdes than there are Meldrumites.

Greg Smith and others condemn Meldrum for resorting to the argument that he prayed about his theories and received an affirmative answer. Well, I wouldn't recommend any such argument to anybody in doctrinal discourse, but on the other hand I hear this sort of claim made all the time by members of the church. "I prayed about leaving my husband and so I will." "I prayed about whether Joseph Smith was a false prophet and so he was." And so on; Meldrum makes his case worse by coupling it with money-making activities, which makes him look a little more like Simon Magus, but still one or two wrongs does not thus elevate the Mesoamerican position to Gospel truth.

The facts are, however, that the Eastern and Ohio Valley mounds betray an extensive culture and population. As John Haywood wrote in his 1823 work, "The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee,"[note1] referring to one of many finds he discusses: "Very large burying grounds once lay between the mounds and the river . . . . Vast numbers of bodies have been interred." (128.) He also describes finds of iron swords in these mounds. (306). Stone tablets with writing. (307). On page 308: "Near Wheeling . . . n the interior of this mound human bones were found of uncommonly large size. . . . Here aslo were found mixed with bones two or three plates of brass with characters inscribed upon them resembling letters . . . . " Page 309: "In the mounds near Natchez, on the earthenware there found are characters or letters." Indeed, this work is so significant that Sandra Tanner has cited it as proof that Joseph Smith cobbled the Book of Mormon from the statements of Heywood's book as it came out in 1823 and was likely in circulation in the Palmyra area (although I don't have a cite to Tanner's statement).

As mounds experts today moan, so much of the mounds culture is lost. It went under the plough; it was easy to pillage and to level; there were no museums around to receive the various finds; they were excavated in large part without modern scientific means; only a tiny fraction of the mounds remain today. But, they indicate high population counts.

I also direct your attention to Smithsonian publications: E.G. Squire, Observations on the Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (New York: Bartlett & Welford 1847); E.G. Squire, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley: Comprising the Results of Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations (1848). I possess only the first publication, but Squire documents finds of instruments of copper, silver, "some of which evince great skill of art." (36). He uses the term "vast amount of labor" to describe mound construction. (44). He mentions finds of iron tools, but disputes the provenance of such finds. (45.) But he does remark that the Natives were so skilled in the hardening of copper tools that they approached the utility of iron. (46.)

Wiki has the following observation of Squire's work: "Since many of the features which the authors documented have since been destroyed or diminished by farming and development, their surveys, sketches, and descriptions are still used by modern archaeologists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_builder_(people). I have seen comments like this -- that mound archaeology is gone and lost due to farming repeated many times in modern publications on the topic.

I can assure you that Greg Smith is no expert in this area. Neither is Meldrum. But in terms of having the upper hand in LDS teachings and history, Meldrum has it and Sorenson hasn't.

[note1] Heywood's work has been extensively cited. See, for instance, John Wesley Powell's use of the work in the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (Washington, D.C.: GPO 1900), 204.

[livy111us]

Why were there so many great discoveries in the mounds when no one was around to authenticate the artifacts, but now, there is nothing of the sort found by archaeologists? It seems odd that looters would pillage every single artifact, and missed not even one piece. If anything were found by professionals today, I think it would be great. But it seems that all of the great finds that are touted by heartland theorists were found by amateurs over a hundred years ago. Why hasn't anything been found recently?

[Bob Crockett]

Why hasn't anything been found recently?

Wow. I should leave my retort at that. But I won't.

See George R. Milner, "The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America," (London: Thames & Hudson, 2004). Milner is a professor of anthtropology at Penn State. He notes that population counts are difficult, but he refers to "millions." In large part he is forced to rely upon photographs from the 1900s, as the mounds have since disappeared. This work dates the height of the mound culture to 1000 A.D.

[livy111us]

I am glad you graced me with more than a "wow" for your answer. I asked a perfectly valid question.

Not every mound was destroyed, and am curious why the lack of artifacts they are finding. Does he mention this in his book?

You say in "large part" he is using photographs for his research. Is he using any modern findings for his research? If only something more reliable was found instead of something over a century ago, then I could buy it. Other than that, it seems like a bunch of exaggerated stories.

[Bob Crockett]

I am glad you graced me with more than a "wow" for your answer. I asked a perfectly valid question.

Not every mound was destroyed, and am curious why the lack of artifacts they are finding. Does he mention this in his book?

You say in "large part" he is using photographs for his research. Is he using any modern findings for his research? If only something more reliable was found instead of something over a century ago, then I could buy it. Other than that, it seems like a bunch of exaggerated stories.

I withdraw "large part." Professor Milner's peer-reviewed academic work is typically turgid with descriptions of the scientific technique. He tries to make it palatable to the lay reader with lots of color photographs. That's about all I can do -- point to an academic work.

When you use the phrase "exaggerated stories," I remind you that the works I cite are based upon actual finds and scientific estimates of population counts. The works I cite are either published by the Smithsonian or relied upon by the Smithsonian. Compare the term "exaggerated stories" to the Sorenson conclusions, if you will.

I realize there are strong feelings on this subject and I tend to write in black and white absolutism. It certainly isn't that way. Nothing is absolute in this area. I don't begrudge good members of the Church holding on to their Sorensonian views. But a small part of me tends to agree with President JF Smith that the limited geographical view was invented, in part, to assuage the deep doubts of members who wonder about the lack of wide-spread archaeological support for the book of Mormon. Best to minimize that doubt by confining things to as small an area as possible.

Forget my "wow." Please focus on the message and I apologize for any slight.

[Bob Crockett]

dupe

[Sevenbak]

In the quote below, Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (at the time, President of the Q12, the Church Historian, the last GA to hold that position until Elder Marlin Jensen) points out that those who hold to the Mesoamerican view are weak in the faith. So it isn't like the Mesoamerican view has just crept in amongst the Brethren; they've [and there has been no "they" to the contrary, other than one oblique reference by Elder Oaks] discussed it and disposed of it.

"LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

This was published in what would later become a Priesthood Manual. It is still in publication; the Deseret Book website lists it as "authoritative," and Doctrines of Salvation is one of the most frequently-cited GA treatises in General Conference. So, here we have a Church publication, a priesthood manual nonetheless, disposing of the LGT which was in currency at the time and calling those who adhere to it weak in the faith. I don't necessarily go so far as to call LGT adherents weak in the faith, but Pres. Smith's brief against them is interesting.

Greg Smith and others criticize the fact that Meldrum makes his living from his Book of Mormon theories.

Unfortunately for those of us who believe in the HGT model [or, at least in my case, give it a lot more revelatory and doctrinal credit that the LGT theory, which seems to many to be mincing], we must also deal with defending Rodney Meldrum's motives for making a living as a tour guide. I think this argument of Mr. Smith's is a canard. There are many more LGT adherents feeding at the trough of the trinket salesmen at Lourdes than there are Meldrumites.

Greg Smith and others condemn Meldrum for resorting to the argument that he prayed about his theories and received an affirmative answer. Well, I wouldn't recommend any such argument to anybody in doctrinal discourse, but on the other hand I hear this sort of claim made all the time by members of the church. "I prayed about leaving my husband and so I will." "I prayed about whether Joseph Smith was a false prophet and so he was." And so on; Meldrum makes his case worse by coupling it with money-making activities, which makes him look a little more like Simon Magus, but still one or two wrongs does not thus elevate the Mesoamerican position to Gospel truth.

The facts are, however, that the Eastern and Ohio Valley mounds betray an extensive culture and population. As John Haywood wrote in his 1823 work, "The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee,"[note1] referring to one of many finds he discusses: "Very large burying grounds once lay between the mounds and the river . . . . Vast numbers of bodies have been interred." (128.) He also describes finds of iron swords in these mounds. (306). Stone tablets with writing. (307). On page 308: "Near Wheeling . . . n the interior of this mound human bones were found of uncommonly large size. . . . Here aslo were found mixed with bones two or three plates of brass with characters inscribed upon them resembling letters . . . . " Page 309: "In the mounds near Natchez, on the earthenware there found are characters or letters." Indeed, this work is so significant that Sandra Tanner has cited it as proof that Joseph Smith cobbled the Book of Mormon from the statements of Heywood's book as it came out in 1823 and was likely in circulation in the Palmyra area (although I don't have a cite to Tanner's statement).

As mounds experts today moan, so much of the mounds culture is lost. It went under the plough; it was easy to pillage and to level; there were no museums around to receive the various finds; they were excavated in large part without modern scientific means; only a tiny fraction of the mounds remain today. But, they indicate high population counts.

I also direct your attention to Smithsonian publications: E.G. Squire, Observations on the Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (New York: Bartlett & Welford 1847); E.G. Squire, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley: Comprising the Results of Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations (1848). I possess only the first publication, but Squire documents finds of instruments of copper, silver, "some of which evince great skill of art." (36). He uses the term "vast amount of labor" to describe mound construction. (44). He mentions finds of iron tools, but disputes the provenance of such finds. (45.) But he does remark that the Natives were so skilled in the hardening of copper tools that they approached the utility of iron. (46.)

Wiki has the following observation of Squire's work: "Since many of the features which the authors documented have since been destroyed or diminished by farming and development, their surveys, sketches, and descriptions are still used by modern archaeologists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_builder_(people). I have seen comments like this -- that mound archaeology is gone and lost due to farming repeated many times in modern publications on the topic.

I can assure you that Greg Smith is no expert in this area. Neither is Meldrum. But in terms of having the upper hand in LDS teachings and history, Meldrum has it and Sorenson hasn't.

[note1] Heywood's work has been extensively cited. See, for instance, John Wesley Powell's use of the work in the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (Washington, D.C.: GPO 1900), 204.

Very well put!

I will add Elder Mark E. Peterson's Conference Address to what you posted from President Smith. I would hope no one is calling his approach anti-like either.

I'll let his words speak for themselves. He's pretty harsh on this topic, and though I wouldn't quite say it this strongly, he does, given his last sentence.

"I do not believe that we should accept every theory advanced by men of science as though it were true. These men change their minds much too often for that. I do not believe that we should give credence to the highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America, and the other one in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates. I do not believe we can be good Latter-Day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith."

Mark E. Peterson, The Improvement Era, 123 Annual Conference of the Church, April 4-6, 1953; pp. 83-84.

[Sevenbak]

Why were there so many great discoveries in the mounds when no one was around to authenticate the artifacts, but now, there is nothing of the sort found by archaeologists? It seems odd that looters would pillage every single artifact, and missed not even one piece. If anything were found by professionals today, I think it would be great. But it seems that all of the great finds that are touted by heartland theorists were found by amateurs over a hundred years ago. Why hasn't anything been found recently?

There have been, and official Smithsonian and other official digs have produced massive amounts of artifacts, and tons of copper tools, armor and weapons. They are scattered all over museums.

Further, most mounds today are protected, and it's a serious no no to go digging into them.

Personally, I find the early histories and diaries of the early farmers and explorers fascinating too. They didn't have the restrictions we do now.

The vast amounts of weapons alone attest to it, sword, spear, axe, etc.

Here's some:

http://copperculture.homestead.com/

[Bob Crockett]

There have been, and official Smithsonian and other official digs have produced massive amounts of artifacts, and tons of copper tools, armor and weapons. They are scattered all over museums.

In my travels through the midwest I see many of these small "mound" museums which display 19th-century finds. The problem, however, is that most of these finds came without the scientific method; some farmer leveling a mound, ploughing something up.

Also, the Atlantic discusses documented finds of brass (not copper) technology in the Lake Superior region. Interestingly, the Atlantic quotes from Sorenson's significant work Pre-Columbian Contact With the Americas Across the Oceans. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/01/001stengel2.htm

Patrick Huyghe discusses the extensive pre-Columbian copper works in on the north shore of Lake Superior. He says there are about 5,000 different ancient mines, and says that approximately 500 million to 1 billion pounds of copper ore were removed before Columbus. (Patrick Huyghe, Columbus Was Last, p. 64.)

This, of course, points towards the Joseph Smith model of Nephite civilization.

[cinepro]

We know exactly where the final battle took place. Mormon 6:2. It was in the land of Cumorah by a hill which was called Cumorah. The problem is we don't know where the land of or the hill named Cumorah is at. We have some identified options any one of which or none of which may be the real location.

That's not what I was asking.

Anijen claimed that the "official view" of the Church is that "the final battle location is not stated". In order for something to be an "official view", I'm assuming it has to be published by the Church somewhere, but I can't find it.

All I can find are statements from Church leaders saying the final battle in the Book of Mormon took place near the drumlin in upperstate New York that the Church calls "Cumorah", which seems to be the opposite of what Anijen stated.

[Bob Crockett]

Cinepro raises a good point.

The official view of the Church is that the final battle took place at the foot of what is now Hill Cumorah, NY, which is the same as Ramah. It is "official" because the statement has been repeatedly uttered publicly by church officers -- including in a priesthood manual (still published by the Church and declared "authoritative" by the Church's Deseret Publishing) -- in public formal settings. That makes it official.

Now, the counter to that, of course, is the so-called second Watson letter, which is really a fax cover sheet. But that statement was not by a church officer. It wasn't issued in a public setting. It wasn't meant for public consumption. It wasn't "official."

So, there you have it.

[Kevin Christensen]

Whenever I see these quotes offered against the LGH:

"This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:233 (ed. McConkie).

"I do not believe that we should accept every theory advanced by men of science as though it were true. These men change their minds much too often for that. I do not believe that we should give credence to the highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America, and the other one in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates. I do not believe we can be good Latter-Day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith."

Mark E. Peterson, The Improvement Era, 123 Annual Conference of the Church, April 4-6, 1953; pp. 83-84.

I have to ask, "Where's the beef?" One would expect that a scriptorian would be capable of providing scriptural justification. One would expect that "upwards of hundred years" of diligent Church scholarship on the Book of Mormon, which ought to have been exploring and refining a well-established tradition, would be able to provide a substantial, well-known, highly visible, examination of the key eye-witness texts provided by the authors of the Book or Mormon record for which faith should be ably defended. I would expect that since people like the Washburns and Sidney Sperry were willing to cite chapter and verse for accounts of travel requirements for stories in Ether and Mosiah and Alma and Helaman and Nephi and Mormon, with implications for the dimensions of the territory and the location of the Book of Mormon hill, that concerned authorities like Smith and Peterson would be willing to offer corrective readings on those publicly available scriptural passages.

Yet, other than hand-waving toward an unexamined "traditions" and reverent name dropping of a few who previously passed along said traditions without leaving any evidence of having examined them against the actual Book of Mormon text, and their being aghast that anyone should have the audacity to actually read the Book of Mormon and cite issues that call for acknowledgment, we get nothing. Not only do get nothing from the unquestionably dedicated and able Presidents Smith and Peterson, we get nothing from the hundred plus years of tradition. Merely to mention "tradition" serves as a blanket to cover questions about Limhi's explorers, let alone subsequent researches into the seasonality of warfare, the single New World candidate for the Sidon (Poulson's recent important work), cultural and archeological issues. Merely to mention that some people have been troubled by new suggestions is enough to justify quashing those suggestions without bothering to address the scriptural issues that raised them in the first place. Nevermind that Joseph Smith provided a quite different, less flattering perspective on the tendency of the Saints to "shatter like glass" when they came across anything "contrary to their traditions." Nevermind that Jesus did not flatter those who favored tradition over the word of God. And nevermind those whose faith had been troubled by the failures of the traditional reading (some distance issues being first pointed out by critic Lamb in B.H. Roberts' day, catching the LDS flatfooted). Never mind those who have had their faith renewed by the newer readings. Those classes of saints, are, presumably sufficiently expendable that their concerns need not either be mentioned or addressed.

The first attempt at composing a comprehensive internal map of the Book of Mormon did not appear until 1938, which has implications for hand waving references to "upwards of 100 years." No one did the necessary work with the eye-witness testimony of Book of Mormon prophets. Elders Smith and Peterson did not provide it, nor address the findings of those who did, either. More recent attempts at limited North American geographies are notably selective with evidence and inconsistent with each other and the Book of Mormon, as John Clark has demonstrated in several detailed reviews.

Thomas Kuhn showed that one of the ways that some people defend a paradigm is by appeal to tradition or to the prestige of particular teachers. In religion, as in engineering, as in biology, hierarchy is a strategy of dealing with complexity. But putting a high-level box around something is not the same as opening the box and examining the contents in detail, not the same as looking at what Nephi and Mosiah, and Alma and Helaman and Mormon and Moroni, eyewitnesses and prophets, actually said. There is speculation that does not examine the texts closely, and speculation that at least tries to examine and account for everything in the texts. Which paradigm is better? Sorenson and company have been serving up beef, that in the twenty-five years I have been watching, that beef has gotten thicker, better, and more flavorful every passing year

IMHO

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bob Crockett]

Thomas Kuhn showed that one of the ways that some people defend a paradigm is by appeal to tradition or to the prestige of particular teachers.

That is a secular view, yes. But when you're dealing with prophets and apostles and such things as General Conference, priesthood manuals and Deseret Books publication statements, and you're dealing with many of them, it is an entirely different ballgame than the secular one.

I suppose one could dispose of the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter by dismissing them as "tradition" or "particular teachers."

The LGT/Hemispheric difference isn't like the Adam/God uncertainty, where President Young wasn't all that clear in his statements and his teachings didn't make it into modern manuals we use today. No, we have a former priesthood manual, still in publication today, published by Deseret Books, which squarely takes on the LGT. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, we have a complete dearth of support for the LGT uttered by an "official" in the Church.

I'd say my position is more than "hand waving" at tradition. My posts on this subject make two points. First, the church does have an "official" position on the topic and has taken it. That is buttressed by the statements of prophets and apostles, and which it comes to church teachings and doctrine, we look to prophets and apostles, and not to the intelligentsia of Tullidge or Harrison or Nibley or Sorenson. Second, there is demonstrable evidence to support a model for the Joseph Smith model -- that there was sufficient warfare, battlements and technology in the upper Ohio Valley to support the Book of Mormon story in upper North America.

So, back to the secular argument. If one were a neutral historian, trying to divine what the Church's position is on the matter, or whether it has an official position, I'd say the hemispheric model has the upper hand. In spades.

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

If one were a neutral historian, trying to divine what the Church's position is on the matter, or whether it has an official position, I'd say the hemispheric model has the upper hand. In spades.

Still no beef. 1,000 authorities passing along the notion that "this is what we've always taught" and not one of them closely and comprehensively looking at what the eye-witness accounts by Mormon and company for what they had to say on the topic. If I ask an "authority" what I should think on a topic, and he or she shows no evidence of having done any independent study on that topic, but who merely waves his hand towards what other people said who also show no evidence of having done any independent study but who, in their turn, passed along what they had always been taught, and so on, going back to 1832, what is the actual source of his or her authority? Does 180 years of uncritical thought somehow transmute into authority by virtue of years of repetition by those who sit in high places?

Could I do an authoritative study of the Mountain Meadows Massacre made up entirely of General Conference quotes? Or would it help a wee bit, to consider the contemporary eye-witness accounts? Not just a few, the most famous, say the edited Lee Confessions, or the anonymous Achilles claims, but all eye witness accounts of the known participants?

And does "the Church" = the bureaucracy, or a select few authorities, or the gathering as a whole?

Does Official = infallible? (See D&C 1 on "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest...") Should the "Official" tradition be consistent with the eye witness accounts by Mormon and Moroni and Ether, or not?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bob Crockett]

Could I do an authoritative study of the Mountain Meadows Massacre made up entirely of General Conference quotes? Or would it help a wee bit, to consider the contemporary eye-witness accounts? Not just a few, the most famous, say the edited Lee Confessions, or the anonymous Achilles claims, but all eye witness accounts of the known participants?

Really now, this is an unfair comparison.

My position is what it is. Those who subscribe to the LGT theory are butting heads directly against the Brethren and the official church position. But I do note that the Brethren don't really seem to care all that much about it and have permitted at least the publication of one LGT Ensign article.

[Sevenbak]

1,000 authorities passing along the notion that "this is what we've always taught" and not one of them closely and comprehensively looking at what the eye-witness accounts by Mormon and company for what they had to say on the topic...

I find this to be a very dangerous premise. That one would put up their own knowledge about what the scriptures mean against a 'thousand' authorities that that are called as prophets seers or revelatory is disturbing.

Take McConkie or Talmage for example, who were preeminent scriptural scholars of their time. To pit our own understanding of the text, as if we know more than they do, is not a road I want to go down. The fact that they have the added witness of prophetic interpretation also speaks volumes as to why I will not go down the path you are suggesting.

And since I brought them up by example, we might as well hear what they said on the issue:

James Talmage

"The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York ." (Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, chapter 14)

Bruce McConkie

"Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is located between Palmyra and Manchester in the western part of the State of New York." (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 174-175, Bookcraft 1966)

[Kevin Christensen]

I find this to be a very dangerous premise. That one would put up their own knowledge about what the scriptures mean against a 'thousand' authorities that that are called as prophets seers or revelatory is disturbing.

Take McConkie or Talmage for example, who were preeminent scriptural scholars of their time. To pit our own understanding of the text, as if we know more than they do, is not a road I want to go down.

What did Talmage know about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Did he know more about them than I do? Have the Victorian lives of Jesus upon which he relied for writing Jesus the Christ been supplemented or surpassed in their reconstruction of the times of Jesus by the finding of records unknown in Talmage's day?

The fact that they have the added witness of prophetic interpretation also speaks volumes as to why I will not go down the path you are suggesting.

I wrote an long article on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. Does it contain any fresh insights? Or should I not have dared publish on grounds that someone, somewhere, with authority, would have already told us if it was important, or even notable?

And since I brought them up by example, we might as well hear what they said on the issue:

James Talmage

"The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York ." (Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, chapter 14)

Bruce McConkie

"Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is located between Palmyra and Manchester in the western part of the State of New York." (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 174-175, Bookcraft 1966)

Fine. But where is the beef? Since Talmage and McConkie were both able and dedicated scriptorians, where is their work on this specific question? Where did they work with the relevant Book of Mormon passages? If you want to quote them to respond to the scriptural arguments in something like Palmer's In Search of Cumorah (1981), or to be fair, Sidney Sperry's earlier essay on "Were there Two Cumorahs?", fine. But let's see the actual work. Not just a wet blanket-statement, used to douse the question. Let's see a close reading of the text that explains how the eye-witness accounts left by Mormon and Moroni and Ether and company fit the New York Hill and no other. Let's see the knowledge that demonstrates that the authority actually speaks with authority, and not just office or tradition.

Or, if it happens that neither of them actually provided any work on the topic it, why not admit it?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Anijen]

Wow. I should leave my retort at that. But I won't.

See George R. Milner, "The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America," (London: Thames & Hudson, 2004). Milner is a professor of anthtropology at Penn State. He notes that population counts are difficult, but he refers to "millions." In large part he is forced to rely upon photographs from the 1900s, as the mounds have since disappeared. This work dates the height of the mound culture to 1000 A.D.

1000 AD is not a Book of Mormon time. Show me a citation that has the mound builders in the large populations that the Book of Mormon requires and during the times of the Book of Mormon. The two authoritative books I have on the mound builders both state that they had rather low populations.

[Anijen]

There have been, and official Smithsonian and other official digs have produced massive amounts of artifacts, and tons of copper tools, armor and weapons. They are scattered all over museums.CFR on "massive" please cite the museums and the dating for these massive artifacts. Do they date to the BofM?

Further, most mounds today are protected, and it's a serious no no to go digging into them.

Personally, I find the early histories and diaries of the early farmers and explorers fascinating too. They didn't have the restrictions we do now.CFR please cite a journal and diary other than one quoting Samsons.

The vast amounts of weapons alone attest to it, sword, spear, axe, etc. CFR on the "vast" amount of weapons please also cite the date for these as well.

Here's some:

http://copperculture.homestead.com/