New evidence that Joseph Smith taught a Mesoamerican setting for the BOM

[SkepticTheist]

OK, that's 4 people who believe the BoM is literal history. I'm sure there are more. Everybody is free to believe what they want, I guess. That doesn't make it real though.

It doesn't make it not real, just because you are a denier of things other people have faith and a testimony in.

[Ariarates]

It doesn't make it not real, just because you are a denier of things other people have faith and a testimony in.

I agree. It's science that proves the BoM not to be literal history, not my saying it. I'm not important, no need to focus on the messenger.

[Bob Crockett]

I know of no "predetermination" or hostility such as you describe at the Maxwell Institute or its predecessors. John Sorenson never ran the organization, and the editors there have long engaged in hard core peer review -- as one should expect from a real academic institution. Sorenson's writings have always been tightly edited by others. He never had carte blanche and had to make his case in the same way as anyone else. His case, as presented for public consumption, was no more speculative than the sort of work which professional archeologists and anthropologists have generally engaged in while attempting to make logical sense of the data from the text, the field, and the lab.

I've never said Sorenson ran the organization and I certainly have known the makeup of the board from its earliest inception, nor did my post imply that. Simply, my point remains unchanged. I do not claim some sort of conspiracy. Rather, I claim an institutional inertia in favor of Sorenson's views. I've checked the prior reviews and it appears where any book conflicts with Sorenson, it is going to be handed harsh treatment. No more, no less.

One additional point to make -- I actually work in the area of archeology and anthropology. I hire these experts for the kind of cases I defend; typically my cases involve huge developments impacting Native American sites. I read the literature and have read a lot of it. I can absolutely assure you that Sorenson's book is speculative where it counts. Yes, he does some interesting things -- the internal Book of Mormon map which I have come to appreciate. Yes, he seems to know an area of Mexico and Central America I don't and has some observations about the area. But the conclusion that he reaches about the locale will not even remotely pass scientific muster, probably because one of his links -- the Book of Mormon -- was never designed to be a field guide to any place.

If you had actually been involved in research at the Maxwell Institute, you would know that.

See, here dear readers is an example of those who dislike Sorenson's conclusions being treated quite harshly. The question implies that I am either lying about my original connection with FARMS or that I know the truth but am intentionally being disingenuous. (In reality, other than publishing two large articles on unrelated topics and other than being a financial contributor, I've never had any connection with FARMS. I served as a research assistant for John Welch, in the year he came to BYU to set up FARMS there, who is also a law professor. I think if you check with him he'll vouch for my orthodoxy but will likely also say that I just don't swallow everything offered me.)

But the point remains about my observation about civility in this area. Mainstream orthodox Saints are going to say, like me, "Of course the Hill Cumorah is the hill of the final Nephite battle. Of course, people who say otherwise are not orthodox." Nonetheless, I've been accused of being a secret apostate by Pahoran merely for sticking to the mainstream orthodox position, and now you've made the observation about me I point out above. This particular topic cries out for civility, because you're going to be treading on the tender hearts of believers, moms, Primary kids and seminary students. (My heart isn't so tender.)

Joseph didn't call it "Cumorah."

Of course he did. D&C 128:20. JS-H 1:42, 50-54. Somehow I don't think it serendipity that he'd name it the same name as did the Nephites. This doesn't appear to the be same thing as giving a Wasatch range peak the honorary name of "Mt. Nebo" or a place in the Ohio the name "Zarahemla." There was absolutely no need to assign any name to Cumorah unless, of course, it was Cumorah. And it was.

However, such a stand is not now and has never been canonical, just as James Talmage's Articles of Faith is in no sense canonical. I have read that book, and others by Talmage, and I love them. However, they are no more canonical than John Sorenson's Ancient American Setting, or Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. They are useful tools, but they represent the opinions of the authors. Whether they are correct in some particular is a matter for your own prayerful or logical consideration.

To equate Sorenson's book with the same as Articles of Faith is to ignore the sanction given the latter by the First Presidency in its publication. I have not relied upon Mormon Doctrine for my points. I'd say Articles of Faith, Jesus the Christ and the D&C Commentary (Reynolds and Sjodahl) are as close to canonical as the scriptures without being voted upon because the works were commissioned and sanctioned by the First Presidency and the copyrights held in a peculiar manner. Certainly, one step below that is the Conference Reports, where the Brethren have repeatedly identified Ramah/Cumorah with NY Cumorah. To assert that Articles of Faith, Jesus the Christ, the D&C Commentary and General Conference address are mere opinions of the authors, like Sorenson, is to say that we can take Mike Quinn on faith just as much as we can a member of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

Are you able to articulate the actual reasons why anyone might adopt a Limited Geography Theory for the Book of Mormon? Or do you assume that it is merely another wild, speculative, off-the-wall notion?

Yes, I have in the past and I will now. Although I do not believe that all who have fallen under the spell of an LGT today are this way, I think the LGT was spawned from the same kind of concern and lack of faith in an on-the-ground link to the Book of Mormon that Elder Roberts displayed in some of his very late writings. Early advocates were troubled by a lack of steel, horses and armaments in New York; this led them to suggest an alternative view based on "wild" and "off-the-wall" speculation. I think those who study this issue know very well that this was the original genesis for the LGT theory. (I, for one, believe that many or most of the Book of Mormon events occurred in MesoAmerica and am persuaded that the "narrow neck of land" is the Panama Isthmus, because Native Americans during the conquest were thoroughly familiar with that geography, but I do not believe all the rest that the LGT entails -- latent and sub rosa disbelief.)

[Anijen]

the "narrow neck of land" is the Panama Isthmus, because Native Americans during the conquest were thoroughly familiar with that geography, but I do not believe all the rest that the LGT entails -- latent and sub rosa disbelief.)

Could you be more specific here? CFR on which Native Americans were thoroughly familiar with the Panama Isthmus? I will retract my CFR if you are speaking of the Native Americans of Central America. However because some trade materials of the Hopewell tradition made it down to the gulf of Mexico, does not even remotely imply the indigenous people of N America were thoroughly familiar with the Panama Isthmus. Please site a source for this so I can see what Native Americans you are speaking of.

[Anijen]

rcrocket stated;

the "narrow neck of land" is the Panama Isthmus

This is quite a bold statement to make from one who believes that the final battle was in NY and still believe the narrow neck of land is the Panama Isthmus? Just curious why do you hold to this position? Is it from quotes of the early church leaders or from the text of the Book of Mormon? Archeology, all of the above?

[Bob Crockett]

Could you be more specific here? CFR on which Native Americans were thoroughly familiar with the Panama Isthmus?

You're challenging me with a CFR without providing me the cite to the Peterson quote you used? Isn't that risky practice? I think you should respond to my request or admit you don't have it before I dialogue with you further. There are too many capable posters on this subject and too many threads.

[Anijen]

You're challenging me with a CFR without providing me the cite to the Peterson quote you used? Isn't that risky practice? I think you should respond to my request or admit you don't have it before I dialogue with you further. There are too many capable posters on this subject and too many threads.

Yes I am challenging you. As I noted earlier that I was searching for the source for the Mark E. Peterson quote.

here is your source you asked for now please respond without all the drama, I assure you I am quite capable.

we all have our free agency. God doesn

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, I have in the past and I will now. Although I do not believe that all who have fallen under the spell of an LGT today are this way, I think the LGT was spawned from the same kind of concern and lack of faith in an on-the-ground link to the Book of Mormon that Elder Roberts displayed in some of his very late writings. Early advocates were troubled by a lack of steel, horses and armaments in New York; this led them to suggest an alternative view based on "wild" and "off-the-wall" speculation. I think those who study this issue know very well that this was the original genesis for the LGT theory. (I, for one, believe that many or most of the Book of Mormon events occurred in MesoAmerica and am persuaded that the "narrow neck of land" is the Panama Isthmus, because Native Americans during the conquest were thoroughly familiar with that geography, but I do not believe all the rest that the LGT entails -- latent and sub rosa disbelief.)

I asked you whether you were able to articulate the actual reasons why anyone might adopt a Limited Geography Theory for the Book of Mormon, and I can now see that you haven't bothered to read the scholarly literature addressing this issue. Had you done so, your answer would have at least included three crucial elements: (1) dimensions, (2) archeology, and (3) chronology. As to point 1, Sorenson explained on page 8 of his Ancient American Setting, something which is revealed by a close reading of the text of the Book of Mormon:

"How wide and how long were those lands? The hourglass model could, after all, fit either the entire western hemisphere or a relatively small portion of it. It is vital to establish the scale of the territory where the scriptural events were played out.

"The crucial information in the record for determining dimensions is how long it took people to get from one place to another. Consider the distance between the city of Nephi and the city of Zarahemla. Ammon's party of missionaries trying to reach the land of Nephi 'knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness to go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi'; consequently they found the place only after 40 days' journeying (Mosiah 7:4)."

Sorenson goes on in the same vein dealing with distances from pages 8 to 23. How could you have missed such a compelling and major issue?

The same importance applies to archeological and chronological correlations with the text. On the one hand, archeologists know that high, literate culture was developed in only one place in the New World, in Mesoamerica, and it is there also that we find a tight correlation with Book of Mormon chronology in that the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations rise and crash in synchrony with specific high cultures in Mesoamerica. These are the very same robust techniques employed by biblical archeologists and text critics to reconstruct a long gone ancient world. The richness of such work is apparent in a host of sources, including coffee-table style books such as Sorenson's Images of Ancient America.-

I'm not certain why that should translate (for you) into "latent and sub rosa disbelief," nor how someone might fall "under the spell of an LGT." This is, of course, a province for scholars. Most Mormons have no idea that this is even an issue, much less a belief that salvation might be based on it. And that's O.K.

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course he did. D&C 128:20. JS-H 1:42, 50-54. Somehow I don't think it serendipity that he'd name it the same name as did the Nephites. This doesn't appear to the be same thing as giving a Wasatch range peak the honorary name of "Mt. Nebo" or a place in the Ohio the name "Zarahemla." There was absolutely no need to assign any name to Cumorah unless, of course, it was Cumorah. And it was.

You may have ignored the quote which Brant Gardner provided above:

Rex C. Reeve, Jr., and Richard O. Cowan, "The Hill Called Cumorah," in Regional Studies in LDS History: New York and Pennsylvania, edited by Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman, Jr., and Susan Easton Black (Provo, Utah: Department Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 1992), 73-74. At what point in modern times this New York hill was first called Cumorah is difficult to determine. In his account in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith refers to the hill where the plates were buried, but never calls it by any name. In the Doctrine and Covenants the name "Cumorah" only appears one time, in an 1842 epistle written by Joseph Smith: "And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah!" (D&C 128:20 ). No other uses of "Cumorah" have been found in any other of Joseph Smith's personal writings. When this name does appear it has been added by later editors or is being quoted from another individual.

Joseph's September 1842 "Glad tidings from Cumorah!" does not identify the hill near Manchester as the Hill Cumorah, but may as well refer to the hill in which the plates were originally secreted in Mesoamerica, before Moroni possibly went on his nearly 20-year trek around the Gulf Coast, up the Mississippi River Valley, into the Ohio River Valley and on up into the woodlands of the Finger Lakes region of what would later become New York State. Neither Joseph nor Moroni called that New York hill "Cumorah." They had no reason to do so.

Is there precedence for such a trek? Yes, various shipwrecked individuals actually made such a trek back in the days when the entire route was inhabited only by Amerinds of various tribes. Is there any evidence of Mesoamerican tribes going to New York to conduct battle? None. What we do have is more limited, but entirely reasonable. RIchard Forbis (not a Mormon), for example, thinks that

"certain generalized and particular artifact types and features speak strongly for contacts with Mesoamerica, among them being mound-building, lapidary industries, earspools, female figurines, and petal-shaped celts (ungrooved axes). All are earlier in Mesoamerica than Adena, and they persisted there long enough to provide a contemporaneous source of inspiration. Appealing to independent invention to account for these traits in Adena is hardly economical.

"Contacts between the two areas were probably indirect, by sea across the Caribbean and up the rivers draining into the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic Ocean. Early sites indicative of these contacts do indeed exist.

* * * * *

"But no given artifact is demonstrably of Mesoamerican manufacture. Nor are there any close linguistic relationships remaining to suggest that Mesoamerican hordes stormed the Southeast, either then or at any other time. What seems more probable is that small parties of Mesoamerican wanderers or traders circulated among the basically Archaic population." (Forbis in S. Gorenstein, ed.,

North America

[NY: St Martin's, 1975], 81, 83, 85, with map 3.2).

[Robert F. Smith]

I've never said Sorenson ran the organization and I certainly have known the makeup of the board from its earliest inception, nor did my post imply that. Simply, my point remains unchanged. I do not claim some sort of conspiracy. Rather, I claim an institutional inertia in favor of Sorenson's views. I've checked the prior reviews and it appears where any book conflicts with Sorenson, it is going to be handed harsh treatment. No more, no less.

One additional point to make -- I actually work in the area of archeology and anthropology. I hire these experts for the kind of cases I defend; typically my cases involve huge developments impacting Native American sites. I read the literature and have read a lot of it. I can absolutely assure you that Sorenson's book is speculative where it counts. Yes, he does some interesting things -- the internal Book of Mormon map which I have come to appreciate. Yes, he seems to know an area of Mexico and Central America I don't and has some observations about the area. But the conclusion that he reaches about the locale will not even remotely pass scientific muster, probably because one of his links -- the Book of Mormon -- was never designed to be a field guide to any place.

You are quite wrong. Although I cannot speak for the Maxwell Institute, nor for any of the personnel working there, I know them to be entirely fair-minded and dedicated to the standard principles of good academic peer review. Should you decide to present your views in systematic fashion in a book or article, it will be given the same careful treatment that any other piece might be given, from any other source -- including Sorenson himself. I hope that you don't expect Maxwell Institute editors to be namby pamby. if so, you are sadly mistaken. You are also wrong if you suppose that Institute personnel have much time to consider the issues we are discussing. They would be very surprised to hear your claim of "institutional inertia."

I too have worked with salvage archeologists, most of whom have master's degrees in the discipline, and they are very smart. It cannot be easy to litigate in the area of NAGPRA. You can expect many of the same demands and strictures you encounter in court to apply to any study you might have time to author. I look forward to anything you might come up with in the area of Book of Mormon studies.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't deserve such hostility. I'm only advancing the orthodox view. I suspect that if you gave a Sacrament meeting talk and advocated a two Cumorahs theory your bishop would ask you to desist. Just a suspicion. Of course, I don't really know.

[Bob Crockett]

Mark E. Petersen, "Revelation," address to religious educators, 24 August 1954; cited in

[SkepticTheist]

I don't deserve such hostility. I'm only advancing the orthodox view. I suspect that if you gave a Sacrament meeting talk and advocated a two Cumorahs theory your bishop would ask you to desist. Just a suspicion. Of course, I don't really know.

I think if you tried to preach the Hemispherical Geography or Meldrum's in Sacrament meeting that you would get the same response from any Bishop. the Church has disowned the hemispherical theory, and now the official position is no position. There is no "orthodoxy" about it any more than preaching polygamy from the pulpit, because of the fact that it has been disowned and stopped officially. You would certainly get reprimanded for preaching polygamy, even though it was once very "orthodox."

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

You are quite wrong. Although I cannot speak for the Maxwell Institute, nor for any of the personnel working there, I know them to be entirely fair-minded and dedicated to the standard principles of good academic peer review. Should you decide to present your views in systematic fashion in a book or article, it will be given the same careful treatment that any other piece might be given, from any other source -- including Sorenson himself. I hope that you don't expect Maxwell Institute editors to be namby pamby. if so, you are sadly mistaken. You are also wrong if you suppose that Institute personnel have much time to consider the issues we are discussing. They would be very surprised to hear your claim of "institutional inertia."

I too have worked with salvage archeologists, most of whom have master's degrees in the discipline, and they are very smart. It cannot be easy to litigate in the area of NAGPRA. You can expect many of the same demands and strictures you encounter in court to apply to any study you might have time to author. I look forward to anything you might come up with in the area of Book of Mormon studies.

From my own experience Midgley's rabid disgust for anything that doesn't give "deference to the experts" speaks absolutely contrary to what you are saying here. I should know. I have experienced it first hand.

Yet they rolled out the red carpet for a certain individual at the FAIR conference this last year who was not an "expert," because he was upholding the establishment paradigm. Anyone else of any other point of view will not be given that kind of treatment.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

I agree. It's science that proves the BoM not to be literal history, not my saying it. I'm not important, no need to focus on the messenger.

Umm. No. Actually an incomplete archaeological dataset does nothing but prove that an archaeological dataset is incomplete. It doesn't falsify historical claims of anything.

Ed Goble

[Brant Gardner]

So you see, when Elder Peterson condemned elsewhere speculative Book of Mormon geography he was condemning the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory.

It is quite true that Elder Peterson was adamantly against anything that hinted that the New York Cumorah wasn't the Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. I suppose that you are not aware that his opinion was not unanimously shared with by the rest of the twelve? Unfortunately, not all opinions are published and while I have that information on excellent authority, I am not at liberty to disclose the source.

The point, however, is that the firm opinion of any single apostle does not necessarily represent the official position that the entire body will endorse as relevant for the entire Church.

Returning the the issue of Elder Peterson's statement, are you suggesting that he was saying that when any General Authority except himself speculated on Book of Mormon geography, that we should understand it as speculation? Are you suggesting that he was right, and another companion Apostle in the same quorum would necessarily be wrong because they differed?

The information on this particular issue is not as well documented as the discussions about evolution, but the results are the same thing. There were very strong opinions held by individual Apostles--contradictory positions. The result was that the Church has no official position--even though individual Apostles certainly did. I see that precedent as directly relevant.

That is particularly true when the historical development of the idea that the New York drumlin was the actual Cumorah is examined. There was a process occurring in the early days of the Church which worked its own history into a more sacred environment and vocabulary. Joseph was typically not the source of these sacralizing shifts--but they were part of the community response. The historical information suggests strongly that the name Cumorah was one that became attached to the hill, not one that came by revelation (it also appears to be based on the fact of the removal of the plates from the hill and a misreading of the text about the which plates were buried in Cumorah).

A very similar process occurred which shifted the vocabulary of seerstone or interpreters into Urim and Thummim. It is quite common to find references to the Book of Mormon being translated by means of the Urim and Thummim. Although there are numerous references, the text itself never refers to the Urim and Thummim. If I remember, the use of the term replaced seerstone/interpreters somewhere around 1835. That certainly doesn't say that the Book of Mormon wasn't translated nor that an instrument was not used. It is simply not technically correct that it was the Urim and Thummim.

In the parallel case of Cumorah, one must establish that the connection was by revelation rather than assumption. The fact that the term became widely used is a different issue from whether the NY hill is the actual Book of Mormon hill. We can trace the history of the idea, but the NY hill cannot be made to fit the overall descriptions from the Book of Mormon (and Mormon certainly had a better notion of his geography than we do).

[SkepticTheist]

You seem to come to interesting conclusions based on the evidence you see. In this case, you see a particular result and assume the cause is some sort of conspiracy. What it is, based on my personal experience and conversations I have had with others, is that it is the result of careful examination of the evidence. I know of now devotion to Sorenson (and such would be highly inappropriate in any case).

It is simply the result of the examination of evidence. The Maxwell Institute attempts to put forth the best evidence available. At the moment, it points to Mesoamerica. It is increasingly pointing in that direction (a trend that can be traced through at least fifty years of scholarship).

Then we now have the chance to discern where we differ. Clearly it is a question of what we consider to be a church position.

The clearest exposition of which I am aware is from Anthony W. Ivins, during the time when he was the first counselor in the Presidency (and, I would argue, in a position to discuss what the official church taught):

Now, I put this here to clarify what Ivins personally understood. Your conclusion that there were many brethren who believed that the actual Cumorah was in New York is correct. However, the conclusion from those individuals that their opinions represented the church is not as accurate.

From the same man:

I agree that he isn't saying anything about Cumorah, but he does note that he is including "other geographic matters."

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is certainly not official, but it was highly correlated to make sure that it represented the church accurately. Check the article on Book of Mormon geography, which states that the "Church leadership officially an consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography in order to focus attention on the spiritual message of the book." (1:176).

It is absolutely clear that this was a long-held and firmly held position. It is less certain that it is based on any kind of revelation or authoritative information. The evidence for the association of the New York drumlin being declared to be Cumorah is difficult to trace, but it clearly appears to be a designation from someone other than Joseph Smith (which Joseph later clearly adopted, much as he did the term Urim and Thummim to describe what he had always called the interpreters--later including his seerstone under that label).

It is part of our history that the connection between the New York drumlin and the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah was made and firmly established in tradition. It is not, simply because of that, evidence that we are required to believe that they were the same. As President Ivins pointed out, the church was waiting for more information (a statement that was echoed years later in a similar response to the question of evolution).

Sorenson actually told me the reason for that, but it is his story to tell, not mine. I know that he had not backed away from his understanding that they had to be different. The evidence based on distances did (and does) require that the two hills be different.

By the way, for those who might not have followed the nature of the reasoning, the determining evidence is the Hill Ramah, not Cumorah. One might possibly make the argument that the final battles covered a very large territory, ending in New York (Nibley made a similar argument). However, there is no way to place Ramah that far away. Because the text declares Ramah and Cumorah to the be same, and because Ramah cannot be that far away, ergo Cumorah was not either.

Brant, I fundamentally challenge that assertion about Ramah. Ramah most certainly is an exceedingly great distance from the Narrow Neck according to a reasonable reading of the Book of Mormon text. Just because you don't agree with that reading doesn't make it unreasonable.

Ed Goble

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, I fundamentally challenge that assertion about Ramah. Ramah most certainly is an exceedingly great distance from the Narrow Neck according to a reasonable reading of the Book of Mormon text. Just because you don't agree with that reading doesn't make it unreasonable.

That is certainly something that we can check with the text. Of course, there is very little usable distance information in the discussion of the final battles of the Jaredites. The fairly fixed point, however, is Zarahemla. No matter where Ramah is, after the end of the battle we have to get Coriantumr into Zarahemla where he stays for "nine moons" (presumably months). The farther apart Zarahemla and Ramah are, the more difficult it is to find a way to get Coriantumr into Zarahemla.

The next problem is Ether, who writes the record of the end battles, which he saw with his own eyes. He writes and leaves a record that the people of Limhi find when they are trying to find Zarahemla. The farther Zarahemla is from the final battle, the more difficult it is to get Ether's record back to a place where the Limhites can find it. Even if it is only a copy and not a holograph, the process of getting any record to that location is made more difficult with an increased distance between Zarahemla and Cumorah.

Both of those problems are compounded on the social/historical end if they have to travel through lands held by different ethnic groups. One person might have made it back, but two that were not traveling together and had no particular reason to travel a few thousand miles? That is more difficult to understand.

[SkepticTheist]

That is certainly something that we can check with the text. Of course, there is very little usable distance information in the discussion of the final battles of the Jaredites. The fairly fixed point, however, is Zarahemla. No matter where Ramah is, after the end of the battle we have to get Coriantumr into Zarahemla where he stays for "nine moons" (presumably months). The farther apart Zarahemla and Ramah are, the more difficult it is to find a way to get Coriantumr into Zarahemla.

The next problem is Ether, who writes the record of the end battles, which he saw with his own eyes. He writes and leaves a record that the people of Limhi find when they are trying to find Zarahemla. The farther Zarahemla is from the final battle, the more difficult it is to get Ether's record back to a place where the Limhites can find it. Even if it is only a copy and not a holograph, the process of getting any record to that location is made more difficult with an increased distance between Zarahemla and Cumorah.

Both of those problems are compounded on the social/historical end if they have to travel through lands held by different ethnic groups. One person might have made it back, but two that were not traveling together and had no particular reason to travel a few thousand miles? That is more difficult to understand.

Been there done all that Brant. All of these significant concerns I have answered over and over to various people, and they are all in one of my new books that is now published, my new follow up to the This Land volume 1, called Resurrecting Cumorah, that you yourself have known about for a couple of years yourself since you even quoted my statement on it in your article in the FARMS Review. But its not about you agreeing. Its about the fact that these arguments are now available, and that they do not make appeals to secondary stuff that is not binding on anyone such as testimony or historical statements of prophets anymore.

Ed Goble

[Brant Gardner]

All of these significant concerns I have answered over and over to various people, and they are all in one of my new books that is now published, my new follow up to the This Land volume 1, called Resurrecting Cumorah,

Clearly I haven't read it yet. I will have to remedy that.

[cinepro]

Old evidence that Joseph Smith taught an American setting for the BOM...

(also evidence that Joseph Smith taught there weren't "others" here when the Jaredites arrived, or that intermingled with the Lehites...)

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [America]* and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was [also] made known unto me;

.......................

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

The Wentworth Letter, as published in the Ensign.

* The Ensign version of the letter has the bracketed [America], but other versions appear not to. I'm not sure who inserted that there.

[Questing Beast]

Both the traditionalist and LGT "sides" are approaching this from the position of belief that Joseph Smith miraculously translated an ancient record. That is why the facts of the matter get interpreted by anything but a simple theory.

I have this razor that was "given" to me: It's useful for paring away the non essentials, in order to arrive at only the facts pertaining to an explanation about what the BofM is and how it got here. The facts in simple order are these:

1) Everything in the BofM can be shown to originate from early 19th century source material available to Joseph Smith.

2) Joseph Smith's imagination and religious background are shown to be sufficient to create the BofM.

3) His religious motivation attracted the aid of others more skilled at writing, who served him as scribes; freeing him to concentrate solely on composition.

4) He brought forth the BofM as proof of his religious calling.

There is no need for two "Cumorah" hills, because the BofM is not ancient history. There is no more need to corroborate the BofM as history of ancient America, than there is need to do the same for Moses, the plagues of Egypt, the Exodus, wilderness exile and conquest of Canaan - or any number of other biblical assertions that have zero empirical evidence outside scripture itself that any of them occurred.

If all scripture is manmade, it is the definition of "inspired" (or even "revealed") that needs reviewing, not the supposed facts being asserted by the scripture. If even one "fact" of a divinely inspired (or even "revealed") scripture is shown by empirical evidence to be false: then is the whole scripture discredited as "the word of God"?

If Joseph Smith was not lying; if he believed he possessed gifts of prophetic insight; if he truly believed that God was revealing an ancient history to him via his seer stone(s): if he even believed that in some metaphysical way he was in "touch" with Gold Plates that he was compelled to keep hidden: would not these conditions be enough to create a religious book that seemed new and yet "familiar"? Would such a book be scripture?

What is scripture? Joseph Smith said it was spoken and written word inspired by the Holy Spirit. Historical accuracy - if such a thing is even clearly available to us - is not required.

But we are stubbornly empirical creatures: if "it" cannot be sensed by our physical bodies it is not "real" enough to be anything more than a fiction. Thus the apostates in Kirtland were offended at Martin Harris "clarifying" that he had seen the angel and the Plates with his "spiritual eyes". It didn't matter that he still asserted that his physical eyes had also been involved. "Spiritual eyes" are not physical sensory organs: anyone can see literally anything within a metaphysical reference; anyone's claim to such "visions" is as valid as anyone's likewise metaphysical visions/revelations.

The problem of "knowing" is what powers these kinds of debates. And to "know" means that all conflicting assertions must be false. Yet at most, you (collective) will only "know" to your own satisfaction. There will be no proof that brushes aside all other assertions. Because there is no evidence to be found where none exists....

[SkepticTheist]

Denialism seems to be your forte. Sounds like you and Dawkins should go get a beer.

Both the traditionalist and LGT "sides" are approaching this from the position of belief that Joseph Smith miraculously translated an ancient record. That is why the facts of the matter get interpreted by anything but a simple theory.

I have this razor that was "given" to me: It's useful for paring away the non essentials, in order to arrive at only the facts pertaining to an explanation about what the BofM is and how it got here. The facts in simple order are these:

1) Everything in the BofM can be shown to originate from early 19th century source material available to Joseph Smith.

2) Joseph Smith's imagination and religious background are shown to be sufficient to create the BofM.

3) His religious motivation attracted the aid of others more skilled at writing, who served him as scribes; freeing him to concentrate solely on composition.

4) He brought forth the BofM as proof of his religious calling.

There is no need for two "Cumorah" hills, because the BofM is not ancient history. There is no more need to corroborate the BofM as history of ancient America, than there is need to do the same for Moses, the plagues of Egypt, the Exodus, wilderness exile and conquest of Canaan - or any number of other biblical assertions that have zero empirical evidence outside scripture itself that any of them occurred.

If all scripture is manmade, it is the definition of "inspired" (or even "revealed") that needs reviewing, not the supposed facts being asserted by the scripture. If even one "fact" of a divinely inspired (or even "revealed") scripture is shown by empirical evidence to be false: then is the whole scripture discredited as "the word of God"?

If Joseph Smith was not lying; if he believed he possessed gifts of prophetic insight; if he truly believed that God was revealing an ancient history to him via his seer stone(s): if he even believed that in some metaphysical way he was in "touch" with Gold Plates that he was compelled to keep hidden: would not these conditions be enough to create a religious book that seemed new and yet "familiar"? Would such a book be scripture?

What is scripture? Joseph Smith said it was spoken and written word inspired by the Holy Spirit. Historical accuracy - if such a thing is even clearly available to us - is not required.

But we are stubbornly empirical creatures: if "it" cannot be sensed by our physical bodies it is not "real" enough to be anything more than a fiction. Thus the apostates in Kirtland were offended at Martin Harris "clarifying" that he had seen the angel and the Plates with his "spiritual eyes". It didn't matter that he still asserted that his physical eyes had also been involved. "Spiritual eyes" are not physical sensory organs: anyone can see literally anything within a metaphysical reference; anyone's claim to such "visions" is as valid as anyone's likewise metaphysical visions/revelations.

The problem of "knowing" is what powers these kinds of debates. And to "know" means that all conflicting assertions must be false. Yet at most, you (collective) will only "know" to your own satisfaction. There will be no proof that brushes aside all other assertions. Because there is no evidence to be found where none exists....

[Questing Beast]

"Denialism", that's a good one. A made up word by real skeptics to describe what dogmatic religious people do vis-a-vis science and plain facts.

I don't drink....

[SkepticTheist]

If you are implying that I am not a "real Skeptic," I refer you to my handle, "SkepticTheist" and my favorite podcast is "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" and I consider myself a member of the Skeptical movement headed by the rogues from the Skeptics Guide and James Randi and so forth. You don't own the skeptical movement. You don't own the word denialism. You are taking a position on an issue that has to do with belief, for which you have gone out of your way that you have no secular evidence to prove. So don't lecture me on who "real Skeptics" are. I am the last person you want to try to lecture on what a skeptic is. There happen to be Skeptics with religious beliefs. Get off your high horse.

Ed Goble

"Denialism", that's a good one. A made up word by real skeptics to describe what dogmatic religious people do vis-a-vis science and plain facts.

I don't drink....