Jump to content

New York?


inquiringmind

Recommended Posts

If Joseph Smith dug up the plates in New York, does that mean Moroni burried them in New York?

Does that mean the final battle between the Nephites and Lehites took place in New York?

If so, how could the mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon be the right geography?

Wouldn't a final battle in New York necessitate a North American (or hemispheric) geography?

Link to comment

If Joseph Smith dug up the plates in New York, does that mean Moroni burried them in New York?

Does that mean the final battle between the Nephites and Lehites took place in New York?

If so, how could the mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon be the right geography?

Wouldn't a final battle in New York necessitate a North American (or hemispheric) geography?

From scholarship coming from both the Maxwell Institute, it is clear that the Heartlander Geography isn't plausible. Or in other words, anyone that is serious about archaeology knows that the LAND SOUTHWARD HAS TO BE IN MESOAMERICA. I have issues with people lumping the New York Cumorah and the Hopewell Archaeology in the same bucket as the Heartlander theory. Because it is a different proposition altogether to use that stuff as a proposed setting for an extended land northward, something that a reasonable reading of the Book of Mormon provides for, as well as a reasonable understanding of the archaeology of the Hopewell. This proposition for a Cumorah in New York and a Land of Zarahemla in Mesoamerica is NOT a Hemispherical Geography. It is a Limited Geography with an extended geography northward later in the history of either the Jaredites and the Nephites. So it is a modification on a Limited Geography, and is not hemispherical. It is what I call the Two Heartland theory, one heartland in Mesoamerica, and one in the Land Northward later in the history of the BOM.

Ed Goble

Link to comment

According to the BoM and treasure lore, treasures are "slippery" and have the ability to move underground. :P

Now there is a cool suggestion. We can develop a new theory appropriated the wormholes from space to something more terrestrial. We'd need a cool name, because there really are wormholes and they won't work. Still, a superspeed subterranean transmitter would be cool. We could also explain where all of those socks go from the drier! (of course, there had better be more than one of these, or all of the socks would end up in New York, and somebody would have noticed)

;)

Link to comment

Now there is a cool suggestion. We can develop a new theory appropriated the wormholes from space to something more terrestrial. We'd need a cool name, because there really are wormholes and they won't work. Still, a superspeed subterranean transmitter would be cool. We could also explain where all of those socks go from the drier! (of course, there had better be more than one of these, or all of the socks would end up in New York, and somebody would have noticed)

:P

So now, are we making jokes to be light, or are we making fun of serious beliefs and scholarship of other people who have serious suggestions about how to move forward on Cumorah in NY? Should I make cracks about horses being made out to be deer, or steel swords as obsidian bladed implements?

Ed Goble

Link to comment

From scholarship coming from both the Maxwell Institute, it is clear that the Heartlander Geography isn't plausible. Or in other words, anyone that is serious about archaeology knows that the LAND SOUTHWARD HAS TO BE IN MESOAMERICA. I have issues with people lumping the New York Cumorah and the Hopewell Archaeology in the same bucket as the Heartlander theory. Because it is a different proposition altogether to use that stuff as a proposed setting for an extended land northward, something that a reasonable reading of the Book of Mormon provides for, as well as a reasonable understanding of the archaeology of the Hopewell. This proposition for a Cumorah in New York and a Land of Zarahemla in Mesoamerica is NOT a Hemispherical Geography. It is a Limited Geography with an extended geography northward later in the history of either the Jaredites and the Nephites. So it is a modification on a Limited Geography, and is not hemispherical. It is what I call the Two Heartland theory, one heartland in Mesoamerica, and one in the Land Northward later in the history of the BOM.

Ed Goble

Thank you.

I'd like to know more about the two heartland theory, and what others here think of it.

Link to comment

Not neccessarily. Moroni wandered for years.

In about 1880, Patriarch Mcbride spoke at a prayer meeting in the St George Temple. He related an experience he had while living in Nauvoo and listening to Joseph Smith relate how Moroni got to New York. He recalls that Joseph drew a diagram in the sand showing Moroni's travels from Cental America through St George, Manti and eventually to New York. He reports that Joseph said that Moroni dedicated Temple sites at St. George and Manti. This report is found in a journal located in the Church History Library. I personally made copies of the entries related to this incident. Mcbride apparently drew diagrams showing the journey which basically followed the Camino Real to Utah and then followed the trade routes across the US. These diagrams are available in the Church History Library. I am away from home at the moment so cannot give any references but will do so when I return home at the end of the week.

This incident took place in Nauvoo indicating that at this time, Joseph believed that the main events of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica and that Moroni did not travel to NY until after the final battles at Ramah/Cumorah took place. In other words, Ramah/Cumorah was located in Central America and not in New York.

Larry P

Link to comment

In about 1880, Patriarch Mcbride spoke at a prayer meeting in the St George Temple. He related an experience he had while living in Nauvoo and listening to Joseph Smith relate how Moroni got to New York. He recalls that Joseph drew a diagram in the sand showing Moroni's travels from Cental America through St George, Manti and eventually to New York. He reports that Joseph said that Moroni dedicated Temple sites at St. George and Manti. This report is found in a journal located in the Church History Library. I personally made copies of the entries related to this incident. Mcbride apparently drew diagrams showing the journey which basically followed the Camino Real to Utah and then followed the trade routes across the US. These diagrams are available in the Church History Library. I am away from home at the moment so cannot give any references but will do so when I return home at the end of the week.

This incident took place in Nauvoo indicating that at this time, Joseph believed that the main events of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica and that Moroni did not travel to NY until after the final battles at Ramah/Cumorah took place. In other words, Ramah/Cumorah was located in Central America and not in New York.

Larry P

Larry my friend, I love you as a brother, but if it is argument from authority for a New York theorist to use secondary, old quotes like this to establish geography rather than sticking to the text methodologically, I have to put this stuff in the same bin as the rest that Mesoamericanists tear on all the time. It doesn't matter what Joseph Smith or any other prophet ever said. And it is a double standard to tear down the Zelph incident or anything else and then bring up this thing.

Ed Goble

Link to comment

Larry my friend, I love you as a brother, but if it is argument from authority for a New York theorist to use secondary, old quotes like this to establish geography rather than sticking to the text methodologically, I have to put this stuff in the same bin as the rest that Mesoamericanists tear on all the time. It doesn't matter what Joseph Smith or any other prophet ever said. And it is a double standard to tear down the Zelph incident or anything else and then bring up this thing.

Ed Goble

I agree with you that this was Joseph,s opinion. I reported it to ensure that all pertinent information was available to Forum readers and not as an attack on your theory.

I personally believe that the Zelph incident is consistent with any LGT and does not conflict in any way with the text.

Larry P

Link to comment

If Joseph Smith dug up the plates in New York, does that mean Moroni burried them in New York?

Does that mean the final battle between the Nephites and Lehites took place in New York?

If so, how could the mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon be the right geography?

Wouldn't a final battle in New York necessitate a North American (or hemispheric) geography?

Moroni did indeed bury them in New York in the land called by Joseph Smith to be "Cumorah". The question thus becomes- is the land called "Cumorah" from Moroni's time the same place in New York that Joseph later called "Cumorah" in scripture?

People who argue for a meso-american Cumorah would thus have to say that there are two lands called Cumorah- one in Mexico and the other in New York.

Those are the facts. From there, everything else is mere speculation at best. We do not know where exatly the land northward was and where the land southward was and how extensive their travels were. It would thus be not wise to limit them in any way. We do not know over what extent their battles raged as spoken of in the BoM- whether it was in a relatively small area of just several hundred square miles or if it were much larger extending over perhaps thousands of square miles. We do not know exatly how big both the Jaredite and the later Nephite/Lamanite empires extended.

To know for sure requires solid evidence, of the which we do not have. No meso-american, or for that matter- no site on both the North and Soth American continents that I am aware of can be pinned directly to a known land from the BoM text.

Link to comment

Larry my friend, I love you as a brother, but if it is argument from authority for a New York theorist to use secondary, old quotes like this to establish geography rather than sticking to the text methodologically, I have to put this stuff in the same bin as the rest that Mesoamericanists tear on all the time. It doesn't matter what Joseph Smith or any other prophet ever said. And it is a double standard to tear down the Zelph incident or anything else and then bring up this thing.

Ed Goble

"sticking to the text methodologically"?

There is something in the text itself that is rather plain and clear.

1 Ne. 13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

Now, as I understand it, it is a general consensus that this verse is referring to Columbus coming to America.

Now from here (and other sources) we learn that on his fourth voyage Columbus visited the same Mesoamerican location that is currently believed by many as the setting for the Book of Mormon.

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

How is this explained away by the those that reject a Mesoamerican setting?

Link to comment

"sticking to the text methodologically"?

There is something in the text itself that is rather plain and clear.

1 Ne. 13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

Now, as I understand it, it is a general consensus that this verse is referring to Columbus coming to America.

Now from here (and other sources) we learn that on his fourth voyage Columbus visited the same Mesoamerican location that is currently believed by many as the setting for the Book of Mormon.

http://en.wikipedia....topher_Columbus

How is this explained away by the those that reject a Mesoamerican setting?

Ask Rod Meldrum.

As for me you are preaching to the converted. Mesoamerica is my land southward candidate. That has nothing to do with the Cumorah issue.

Ed Goble

Link to comment

This is the McBride map that poulsenll mentioned:

moronistravels1.jpg

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2010/11/18/moronis-purported-rambles/

It is interesting, but since it contains place names that did not exist when Joseph Smith was alive it isn't an accurate map of what Joseph described to McBride.

The diagram was probably drawn some time in the late 19th century when these cities were well known. We are in the process of trying to get more provenance about the maps.

Larry P

Link to comment

It is interesting, but since it contains place names that did not exist when Joseph Smith was alive it isn't an accurate map of what Joseph described to McBride.

That does not matter since this map was not drawn when Joseph talked about it. Joseph drew his in the sand in Nauvoo this was done in 1880 and those place names did exist at that time. Now if Josephs sand drawn map had those names then you would have a valid point.

Link to comment

That does not matter since this map was not drawn when Joseph talked about it. Joseph drew his in the sand in Nauvoo this was done in 1880 and those place names did exist at that time. Now if Josephs sand drawn map had those names then you would have a valid point.

Need I rehearse how hillarious this is that this is now turning into the "Mesoamericanist"-says-Joseph-Smith-believed-this versus Rod-Meldrum-says-Joseph-believed-that....

I question whether the memory of this person accurately relayed to us what Joseph Smith drew on the ground.

Oh thats right, thats what you guys always say about David Whitmer's statements on Moroni appearing to them saying that he was going to Cumorah.....

Oh, that's right, David Whitmer was a WITNESS of the Book of Mormon historicity. But when he's a witness of anything that slightly has an implication for geography............................. Well, that's a different matter.

Ed Goble

Link to comment

All I was saying was that whoever drew the map (I was under the impression that this was McBride, but I could be wrong) added stuff that Joseph didn't talk about, because he couldn't have said that Moroni visited Salt Lake City. It is my opinion that the map may very well preserve information that was given by Joseph Smith about Moroni's travels. If so, I would think that it would be something like, "Moroni went north from Central America through a desert with sand dunes, then on to New York where he buried the plates". It looks like to me that whoever drew the map took the information that McBride got from Joseph and then added locations that he believed Moroni also traveled to: Utah, Adam-ondi-Ahman where the Nephite altar was found, where the Kinderhook plates were found, and some other locations. I will admit that I am mostly speculating here and working with limited information, and would love to be able to see the contents of the journal recording McBride's account.

Link to comment

Need I rehearse how hillarious this is that this is now turning into the "Mesoamericanist"-says-Joseph-Smith-believed-this versus Rod-Meldrum-says-Joseph-believed-that....

I question whether the memory of this person accurately relayed to us what Joseph Smith drew on the ground.

Oh thats right, thats what you guys always say about David Whitmer's statements on Moroni appearing to them saying that he was going to Cumorah.....

Oh, that's right, David Whitmer was a WITNESS of the Book of Mormon historicity. But when he's a witness of anything that slightly has an implication for geography............................. Well, that's a different matter.

Ed Goble

Whoa Nellie. I am just responding to mapmans post. This does not mean I think this or any other third hand account or an account that has been written many years after the fact is not without its difficulties. I find many theories even the one I subscribe to has in some areas I find problematical.

Link to comment

Whoa Nellie. I am just responding to mapmans post. This does not mean I think this or any other third hand account or an account that has been written many years after the fact is not without its difficulties. I find many theories even the one I subscribe to has in some areas I find problematical.

Sorry, my overly zealous self is sticking foot in mouth again. i'll bale again for a little while out of this conversation.

Ed

Link to comment

Ask Rod Meldrum.

Well, I was hoping that someone posting here that rejects the Mesoamerican setting would address this. I didn't mean to express or imply that you were among that group.

That has nothing to do with the Cumorah issue.

Ed Goble

But it does have to do with the OP.

Link to comment

Need I rehearse how hillarious this is that this is now turning into the "Mesoamericanist"-says-Joseph-Smith-believed-this versus Rod-Meldrum-says-Joseph-believed-that....

I question whether the memory of this person accurately relayed to us what Joseph Smith drew on the ground.

Oh thats right, thats what you guys always say about David Whitmer's statements on Moroni appearing to them saying that he was going to Cumorah.....

Oh, that's right, David Whitmer was a WITNESS of the Book of Mormon historicity. But when he's a witness of anything that slightly has an implication for geography............................. Well, that's a different matter.

Ed Goble

We have two camps.

One that assumes and adamantly champions the idea that there can only be one place called Cumorah.

Another that sees no reason why there can not be two or more places with the same name.

One of the concepts that Sorenson championed was the idea that in the Book of Mormon all names for locations are unique. The very text refutes this with locations such as Bountiful and Jerusalem in both the old and the new world. This concept, as explained by Sorenson, is necesary to avoid resolving ambiguities by using the same name twice.

We have no idea what the meaning of the word cumorah is. It could simply be a word for "where records are stored" and therefore is applicable to both Mexico and New York.

Larry P

Link to comment

We have two camps.

One that assumes and adamantly champions the idea that there can only be one place called Cumorah.

Another that sees no reason why there can not be two or more places with the same name.

One of the concepts that Sorenson championed was the idea that in the Book of Mormon all names for locations are unique. The very text refutes this with locations such as Bountiful and Jerusalem in both the old and the new world. This concept, as explained by Sorenson, is necesary to avoid resolving ambiguities by using the same name twice.

We have no idea what the meaning of the word cumorah is. It could simply be a word for "where records are stored" and therefore is applicable to both Mexico and New York.

Larry P

Larry, I have no problem with one or more places having the same name. The core issue to me is where the Nephites were destroyed. Is that or is that the same place as where Moroni buried the plates that we know was in NY? I don't care what you call it.

Ed

Link to comment

Ask Rod Meldrum.

I can't find anything on Meldrum's site or by his supporters (admittedly having looked through all the sites). The only references I can find to Columbus as a placeholder in a timeline (ie. "before Columbus").

Considering how often in the reviews the point is brought up about Columbus never having set forth within the territory of the US, it is rather a glaring omission, imo.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...