Sympathy to New York Cumorah Possibility

[LDS Guy 1986]

Well, see, here is a problem. Because I am also a pioneer in the US Heartland Geography model that I retracted. Meldrum based his stuff off my first book. But I wouldn't have believed it at one point in time if there weren't significant Trojan Horse things that led me to bet enough on it that I thought it was correct at the time.

One of those unfortunate trojan horses is the meaning of the word Niagara, meaning "neck of land" or "bisected bottomland" or "point of land cut in two" in the Iroquoian languages. Therefore, this is significant enough of a trojan horse to realize that this is actually a Book of Mormon connection, because in the one word, we have all the significant meanings in the Book of Mormon ascribed to the neck of land, that (1) it is a narrow neck of land, by (2) where the sea DIVIDES the land. Not only do we have the meaning "neck of Land" in the word, but also the fact that it is "bisected" or "cut in two". In other words "where the sea divides the land." The falls and the Niagara river do indeed divide the land, and they come from the "sea" or Lake Erie to go into Lake Ontario. So there the sea divides the land. Pretty significant trojan horse. The problem is, this word was applied to this landmark because it is obviously a TRANSPLANT, because Niagara is actually the original name for TEHUANTEPEC! And the Mesoamericans that brought the name with them saw a neck of land where the "sea" divides the land, and wala! Another neck of land named after the Mesoamerican neck of land.

This is another obvious book of Mormon connection to the Land Northward, once again showing the fact that Mesoamericans inhabited the region. And the poor Great Lakes theorists are left to be the fools to buy into Mesoamerican names applied to Great Lakes landmarks as if they are significant for the Great Lakes region. What this really shows is that ironically some of the Book of Mormon place names are preserved OUTSIDE Mesoamerica where things were named after the original in Mesoamerica. Another similar thing is the word Toron-to, (from which we get the name of the city). This means Abundance or Bountiful. But of course, it is also a Trojan horse, because the original for this name is Tulan or Tullan, from Mesoamerica, the cognate to Toron-to, meaning Bountiful. Another unfortunate Trojan Horse for the Great Lakes theorists. But for the Book of Mormon, both of these place names are bullseyes, proving that Native Americans indeed had places that were named the same names as Book of Mormon place names that pre-date the writing of the Book of Mormon, things that Joseph Smith would not have known about, as it is not likely that he spoke these Indian languages, or had significant access to place-name dictionaries.

Ed

See this is why I need to learn more I haven't heard half this stuff before!

Any links to other sites with info on both sides would be great!

[SkepticTheist]

See this is why I need to learn more I haven't heard half this stuff before!

Any links to other sites with info on both sides would be great!

http://books.google.com/books?id=7TEtPkOxehcC&pg=PA380&lpg=PA380&dq=niagara+neck+of+land+bisected&source=bl&ots=KbbOnYE-1p&sig=R8ItH8u0lgs2H4pKk6XjuCk6aDc&hl=en&ei=JcxlTYPmJYq8sQOFhLCFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=niagara%20neck%20of%20land%20bisected&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=xrYfektNvoQC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=niagara+neck+of+land+bisected&source=bl&ots=4Hv4co2DSI&sig=o-54ok7OVxCqt98dQN4bAnScZv8&hl=en&ei=JcxlTYPmJYq8sQOFhLCFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=niagara%20neck%20of%20land%20bisected&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iZwWzY3I_EoC&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=niagara+neck+of+land+bisected&source=bl&ots=NXkdb2K3W5&sig=hUilqEZ2Z0g9-2l-yOPT1E2D9kE&hl=en&ei=JcxlTYPmJYq8sQOFhLCFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=niagara%20neck%20of%20land%20bisected&f=false

" An Iroquoian word perhaps meaning "a neck" between two bodies of water, "thunder of waters", or "bisected bottom land"" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_New_York)

"Niagara County is named, using an Iroquoian word, Onguiaahra, perhaps meaning "a neck" between two bodies of water, "thunder of waters," or "bisected bottom land". It is the location of Niagara Falls and Fort Niagara, and has many parks and lake shore recreation communities." http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genealogylinks/dmst/NewYork4.html

[Anijen]

Thanks Ed, Just PM the info I will keep quiet until yours and Tylers paper is out. I have had Tyler send me sources before and he has asked me to keep them until his paper was done, just ask he knows he can trust me. I look forward to reading it. I am really excited to know the connection between Poverty Point and the Olmecs.

for mfbukowski and LDSguy;

The problem I see with the land between lake Erie and Lake Ontario as being the narrow neck of land is that the Narrow Neck of land according to the Book of Mormon is South of the location of the final battle. Lake Ontario is North of Palmyra and Lake Erie is West this would place the final battle Southeast of the Narrow Neck of land. I also cannot see a good comparison to the river Sidon of the BofM. I know Meldrum disagrees but I believe the Sidon River needs to flow North being that the headwaters of the Sidon River was located South and in a higher elevation.

However I do recognize that out of the many areas of criteria this area does qualify as a land of many waters but it fails in many of the other conditions (ie two such conditions is a cement city north or deforestation north there has been plenty of trees and never a shortage of them), as yet I am not convinced.

Speaking of a large body of water North of Tehuantepec.

So I thought the Gulf of Mexico was the East Sea, so now you are going to conflate it with Ripliancum?

Its relative. If I am in Veracruz it would be East if I were in Tehuantepec it would be the North

[SkepticTheist]

Thanks Ed, Just PM the info I will keep quiet until yours and Tylers paper is out. I have had Tyler send me sources before and he has asked me to keep them until his paper was done, just ask he knows he can trust me. I look forward to reading it. I am really excited to know the connection between Poverty Point and the Olmecs.

for mfbukowski and LDSguy;

The problem I see with the land between lake Erie and Lake Ontario as being the narrow neck of land is that the Narrow Neck of land according to the Book of Mormon is South of the location of the final battle. Lake Ontario is North of Palmyra and Lake Erie is West this would place the final battle Southeast of the Narrow Neck of land. I also cannot see a good comparison to the river Sidon of the BofM. I know Meldrum disagrees but I believe the Sidon River needs to flow North being that the headwaters of the Sidon River was located South and in a higher elevation.

However I do recognize that out of the many areas of criteria this area does qualify as a land of many waters but it fails in many of the other conditions (ie two such conditions is a cement city north or deforestation north there has been plenty of trees and never a shortage of them), as yet I am not convinced.

Will do.

Ed

[SkepticTheist]

http://books.google....isected&f=false

http://books.google....isected&f=false

http://books.google....isected&f=false

" An Iroquoian word perhaps meaning "a neck" between two bodies of water, "thunder of waters", or "bisected bottom land"" (http://en.wikipedia....ies_in_New_York)

"Niagara County is named, using an Iroquoian word, Onguiaahra, perhaps meaning "a neck" between two bodies of water, "thunder of waters," or "bisected bottom land". It is the location of Niagara Falls and Fort Niagara, and has many parks and lake shore recreation communities." http://freepages.gen...t/NewYork4.html

By the way, to any Mayan or Nauhatl expert out there, it would be nice to know if a cognate to this exists in some Mesoamerican language with the same two basic meanings.

Ed

[Questing Beast]

I know you said that this thread isn't intended for debate on the "two Cumorahs"; but I didn't get an answer to my main objection to NY being the site of the apocalyptic battles of the Jaredites and Nephites. It is very simple: the Limhite explorers knew c. where Zarahemla lay: their grandfathers had come from there. They would NOT have wandered looking for Zarahemla thousands of miles north of it. And in fact, it was only 12 days journey - with flocks and children - from the land of Nephi. There is no way that anyone would miss Zarahemla by such an extreme distance and wind up in upper NY, find the artifacts of the Jaredite extermination, and return with them: miss Zarahemla, AGAIN, and finally arrive back at the land of Nephi (which would be, at most, c. 200 miles south of Zarahemla). It is also equally improbable that a wounded, exhausted and solitary Coriantumr would wander thousands of miles from NY into Central America to get picked up by the Mulekites of Zarahemla....

[SkepticTheist]

Wow. Oh boy. Here we go again. I thought you weren't a proponent of historicity, unless I missed something? So what do you care? Or do you only care to try to trip me up? Do we really need to get into all this junk again and pollute this thread so it turns into another billion post thread?

Ok. Once again. (1) Limhi's people went somewhere into the land Northward, and in no place does it say that they went to New York, only that Ether hid the plates somewhere where they could find them. The whole Great Lakes/Eastern US is a general "land of many waters" extending into the swaps of Louisiana and so forth, so how far do you think they needed to go northward? They only needed to go somewhere into the domain of the Jaredites which extended from Tehuantepec (southern desolation starting at the neck) northwards to Cumorah. It doesn't have to be to Cumorah where they went. Wherever they ended up within that whole range of distance is acceptable. Again, Olmec power extended far into this area, so archaeologically, not a problem. Whatever. The Jaredite extermination started in Mesoamerica at the neck at the southern part of desolation. Limhi's party no doubt saw dead people and bones there by the time they got to the neck area near the area where the Nephites built the city Desolation.

(2) It says the Limhites were diligent and travelled many days. Who cares where they went, only that they went somewhere within the domain of the Olmecs, led serendipitously/providentially to find Ether's plates. The Lord and Moroni lead Joseph Smith to the plates of the BOM. He led Limhi's people to the Olmec/Jaredite plates.

Mesoamericanists are correct to say that the description of a land of many waters is ambigious enough to fit many areas in the land northward from tehuantepec on northward. I am not insisting that the many waters description must be only New York. I only care about the large bodies of water/ripliancum issue being tied to Cumorah. There is nothing to suggest that Limhi's party went to the large bodies of water. And since we have Moroni or Coriantumur wandering, we might as well have Ether wandering southward to place the plates somewhere. Hey, Ether, come join the wanderers party.

(3) Sorenson has stated that with the breadth of the Tehuantepec neck and so forth it is totally possible to miss Zarahemla. Again, who cares where they went within that range of distance.

(4) Mesoamericanists are just fine with Moroni wandering thousands of miles. Coriantumr is just the reverse of that same suggestion. And the account in Ether tells of him taking time to heal to overcome his wounds previous (Ether 13:31; Ether 14:30), so to suggest that he did the same before he went back to Mesoamerica has precedent from those very same scriptures. So it is hypocritical and a double standard for the Mesoamericanists to say Moroni can wander, but not allow for Coriantumr to wander back to Mesoamerica and try to trip up the New York theorists with it. Why in the world would he be exhausted and wounded if he took time to heal before he returned? I see no issues whatsoever with any of this stuff.

Ed Goble

I know you said that this thread isn't intended for debate on the "two Cumorahs"; but I didn't get an answer to my main objection to NY being the site of the apocalyptic battles of the Jaredites and Nephites. It is very simple: the Limhite explorers knew c. where Zarahemla lay: their grandfathers had come from there. They would NOT have wandered looking for Zarahemla thousands of miles north of it. And in fact, it was only 12 days journey - with flocks and children - from the land of Nephi. There is no way that anyone would miss Zarahemla by such an extreme distance and wind up in upper NY, find the artifacts of the Jaredite extermination, and return with them: miss Zarahemla, AGAIN, and finally arrive back at the land of Nephi (which would be, at most, c. 200 miles south of Zarahemla). It is also equally improbable that a wounded, exhausted and solitary Coriantumr would wander thousands of miles from NY into Central America to get picked up by the Mulekites of Zarahemla....

[kolipoki09]

The late George Edward Clark, author of the best-selling book Why I Believe: Fifty-four evidences of the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Bookcraft, (1952) wrote the following with reference to the New York Cumorah:

According to the Book of Mormon the last great battle between the Nephites and Lamanites, culminating in the total destruction of the Nephites, took place at the hill Cumorah which is located in the northern part of the state of New York.

The pre-Columbian peoples of this hemisphere had no firearms of shot and shell, but only the bow and arrow and spear; therefore, if the Book of Mormon is a true and inspired record of those peoples, and a battle of such magnitude had been fought on and around the hill Cumorah, there should be great quantities of arrowheads in that area.

About one hundred years after Joseph Smith obtained the Nephite record from that hill, the Church purchased the hill and the whole farm of which it is a part and placed a Mr. Bean in charge, who farmed the land. Mr. Bean's plow turned up so many wonderful arrowheads that he displayed them by the basketful and sold them to tourists as souvenirs. Arrowheads in such quantity, in so small an area certainly indicate that a battle of unusual proportions had been fought there. The writer also has plowed land in what was once Indian country, in the eastern part of central New Jersey, but never found more than a half-dozen arrow heads in any one year.

There are great bone pits or burial grounds of various sizes in the western part of the state of New York. One of these pits in Niagara County, according to E.G. Squire (Antiquities of New York ), was estimated to contain several thousand skeletons, in some of which arrowheads may still be seen sticking in the bones. The historian, Christopher Morgan,[1] tells us of the remains of a formidable fort with trenches ten feet wide not far from Lake Ontario.

As "time marches on," matters of an evidential nature come to light to point to the Book of Mormon as being what is claimed for it--a Divine Record of early American peoples of Israelitish descent, even as the Bible is a Divine Record of the Children of Israel on the Eastern Hemisphere.

The Book of Mormon cannot be merely a figment of Joseph Smith's mind; it is truly his translation of ancient records, as he claimed, and as the book itself in many ways bears witness.

[1] Christopher Morgan, Documentary History of New York, Vol. 4 p. 4.

-Why I Believe, pgs. 125-126

While I cannot speak for Clark, it appears he favored a hemispheric approach to Book of Mormon geography, as evident in his use of Mesoamerican discoveries such as Quetzalcoatl, Chichen Itza, etc...(see pgs. 113-131), coupled with North and South American archaeology and animals.

I sincerely hope this information is of use to you in some way.

[Edited to include footnote.]

[Questing Beast]

Wow. Oh boy. Here we go again. I thought you weren't a proponent of historicity, unless I missed something? So what do you care? Or do you only care to try to trip me up?

No. I don't want to trip you up. I have always been interested in BofM historicity. Just because I no longer entertain this isn't reason enough to not be interested in other people's interest. I still enjoy the book for its own quirky ways. And like Lord of the Rings, I study it to verify internal consistency for its own sake.

Ok. Once again. (1) Limhi's people went somewhere into the land Northward, and in no place does it say that they went to New York, only that Ether hid the plates somewhere where they could find them. ... Limhi's party no doubt saw dead people and bones there by the time they got to the neck area near the area where the Nephites built the city Desolation.

Granted: many bones everywhere, thus the name "Desolation".

(2) It says the Limhites were diligent and travelled many days.

Forty days? That is the duration of the "many days" that Ammon's explorers traveled, and they were "lost" too, or at least did not know where the land of Nephi was and had to rediscover it.

Who cares where they went, only that they went somewhere within the domain of the Olmecs, led serendipitously/providentially to find Ether's plates. The Lord and Moroni lead Joseph Smith to the plates of the BOM. He led Limhi's people to the Olmec/Jaredite plates.

I don't worry about metaphysics and serendipitous occurrences. I happen to believe in such things. So "finding" the Jaredite plates is never a problem of credulity. But it DOES matter where they went because of the context: their grandfathers had immigrated from Zarahemla. Limhi's people therefore knew approximately how far they had to go to rediscover it.

Mesoamericanists are correct to say that the description of a land of many waters is ambigious enough to fit many areas in the land northward from tehuantepec on northward.

But the one we are concerned with "exceeds all", as pointed out. This remains an issue.

I am not insisting that the many waters description must be only New York. I only care about the large bodies of water/ripliancum issue being tied to Cumorah. There is nothing to suggest that Limhi's party went to the large bodies of water. And since we have Moroni or Coriantumur wandering, we might as well have Ether wandering southward to place the plates somewhere. Hey, Ether, come join the wanderers party.

Ether, sure, he needs to get the Jaredite record down south where the Limhites can discover it. Maybe he and Coriantumr linked up and traveled together, and put the destruction of their people's last battle as far behind them as possible. BUT, anything much beyond c. 200 miles away from the land of Nephi, and the Limhite explorers were going to know that they had overshot the mark. So Ether/Coriantumr are not going to wander south from very far away in the north.

(3) Sorenson has stated that with the breadth of the Tehuantepec neck and so forth it is totally possible to miss Zarahemla. Again, who cares where they went within that range of distance.

Missing Zarahemla isn't really a key point, just an unlikely thing, a difficulty that the book creates itself.

(4) Mesoamericanists are just fine with Moroni wandering thousands of miles. Coriantumr is just the reverse of that same suggestion.

Fine, he can run away from his dead minions (with or without Ether's company). His going south that far is only a quibble, not an impossibility.

But it remains a difficulty, imho, that the book makes it clear that the author is talking about the same place: Ramah, Cumorah, "waters exceeding all", with upper NY in mind; and that is simply impossible, given the Limhite explorers story: and subsequent rapid return of the Limhites and Alma's colony to Zarahemla (in 12 days, even). And then almost immediately afterward, we have the Nephite and Lamanite armies traipsing back and forth across the exact same expanse of hinterland between Zarahemla and the land of Nephi during their wars. There is NO way that Tehuantepec to NY as the campaign area even begins to be believable. So if Cumorah NY is not the battle hill, we have two hills bearing the same name. If Cumorah NY is the battle hill (both Jaredite and Nephite last stand site), then the book's description and association with Ether's account found "there" marks it as an impossibly far away place from a land of Nephi located south of Tehuantepec....

[SkepticTheist]

No. I don't want to trip you up. I have always been interested in BofM historicity. Just because I no longer entertain this isn't reason enough to not be interested in other people's interest. I still enjoy the book for its own quirky ways. And like Lord of the Rings, I study it to verify internal consistency for its own sake.

Granted: many bones everywhere, thus the name "Desolation".

Forty days? That is the duration of the "many days" that Ammon's explorers traveled, and they were "lost" too, or at least did not know where the land of Nephi was and had to rediscover it.

I don't worry about metaphysics and serendipitous occurrences. I happen to believe in such things. So "finding" the Jaredite plates is never a problem of credulity. But it DOES matter where they went because of the context: their grandfathers had immigrated from Zarahemla. Limhi's people therefore knew approximately how far they had to go to rediscover it.

But the one we are concerned with "exceeds all", as pointed out. This remains an issue.

Ether, sure, he needs to get the Jaredite record down south where the Limhites can discover it. Maybe he and Coriantumr linked up and traveled together, and put the destruction of their people's last battle as far behind them as possible. BUT, anything much beyond c. 200 miles away from the land of Nephi, and the Limhite explorers were going to know that they had overshot the mark. So Ether/Coriantumr are not going to wander south from very far away in the north.

Missing Zarahemla isn't really a key point, just an unlikely thing, a difficulty that the book creates itself.

Fine, he can run away from his dead minions (with or without Ether's company). His going south that far is only a quibble, not an impossibility.

But it remains a difficulty, imho, that the book makes it clear that the author is talking about the same place: Ramah, Cumorah, "waters exceeding all", with upper NY in mind; and that is simply impossible, given the Limhite explorers story: and subsequent rapid return of the Limhites and Alma's colony to Zarahemla (in 12 days, even). And then almost immediately afterward, we have the Nephite and Lamanite armies traipsing back and forth across the exact same expanse of hinterland between Zarahemla and the land of Nephi during their wars. There is NO way that Tehuantepec to NY as the campaign area even begins to be believable. So if Cumorah NY is not the battle hill, we have two hills bearing the same name. If Cumorah NY is the battle hill (both Jaredite and Nephite last stand site), then the book's description and association with Ether's account found "there" marks it as an impossibly far away place from a land of Nephi located south of Tehuantepec....

Well, to each his own. I tire of demonstrating a plausible scenario to people that can demonstrate no reason it cannot be so, only to say that it isn't believable. You simply have no good reason to say it isn't believable other than you don't believe it, because it requires more faith than you are willing to give. That is an argument from incredulity fallacy. Besides, I'm not into this to convince those that don't already believe. I have simply given up on that. Because the Mesoamericanist mindset only revolves around an ideology of unbelief anyway. See, that's what is so ironic. Because they believe in something that requires faith to believe, called the Book of Mormon, and then when somebody else has something that requires faith as well, a geographical location, they say it is unbelievable, because they don't want to have THAT much faith. But they find fault in the belief in it because they think it is only weak minded people that would believe such a thing. Isn't that a grand irony, when the weak minded accusation can be made about their faith in the Book of Mormon to begin with. Not that I believe that it is really weak minded, because I'm a believer as well. I'm saying that such an accusation can and is made by those who don't believe.

It isn't that it isn't an implausible scenario. It isn't that the Mesoamericans didn't have a tie to the area. It isn't that Moroni wasn't in the area to bury the plates for some unexplainable reason in the Mesoamericanist view other than he wandered. Yet they have no geographic data to prove that that is where he wandered, as there is no geographic data given for his wanderings, other than to say in Ether 1:1 he was in the land northward. At least, with my scenario, Moroni has a good reason to be in the area, because he is merely returning to where he was. Otherwise, he was just merely wandering. Its just that for populations to flee there in desperate circumstances is utterly unbelievable for Mesoamericanists, and for you. Not that it isn't plausible or rational, because people like me have continually made good, rational arguments for it. It is you people that continually don't WANT to consider the plausibility of the arguments. If it was reversed, and you were apologists for the hill, you would be grasping at whatever you could in desperate attempts to defend it just as you do for anything else that you are an apologist for. Everybody is an apologist for something. Even atheists are apologists for why there should be no God.

At least you on the other hand have no belief to begin with in the Book of Mormon so this is all a game to you. You have no faith to defend. I find it incredibly ironic that you concern yourself with Book of Mormon Geography. Sounds like some hobby that you have left over from your days when you believed in historicity that you still have in your blood.

[Questing Beast]

Essentially true: I do not (any longer) pursue the BofM as being historical. I used to, for decades. I retain an interest in the subject. Joseph Smith's book is intriguingly imaginative, well-grounded and complex. The complexity holds up for the most part. The one case (under discussion here) where it does not hold up is the stated distances traveled, in combination with the geographical features asserted - Zarahemla and the land of Nephi. It is pretty well established that a "narrow neck of land", in proximity with west and east seas, must be somewhere in central America. Jacob's "we are on an isle of the sea" precludes any location in and around the Great Lakes, or any other inland setting. So we have Zarahemla reached by those immigrating from the land of Nephi. Two generations later explorers, "teased" by the mysterious incommunicado of their vanished brethren who had returned to the land of Nephi, go looking for them. It takes them 40 days. Zarahemla is on the borders of "the land northward", near the "narrow neck". The explorers discover from the king, Limhi, that he had previously sent explorers of his own to try and rediscover the land of their origin, Zarahemla; but after traveling "many days" (like Ammon's party) they only chanced upon a battlefield, and a record left by the people lying about as bones on the ground. This is contextual with Cumorah-Ramah; it isn't some alternate battlefield that is intended. It is you who are taking it as a matter of faith and interpretation that NY Cumorah is the final battlefield of the Jaredites and Nephites, just because that is the name that Joseph Smith applied to the hill where he said he dug out the gold plates. So it is Joseph Smith who is the creator of the book AND this geographical problem: without which, there would never have been a "narrow neck of land" too far away to suit the "many days = 40 days" time limit, and especially the TWELVE day time limit for a party of immigrants with their children and flocks to arrive at Zarahemla: so the scholars of the BofM go looking for a LGT where everything will work: and by finding it where it can only be, they distance NY Cumorah impossibly far away, and must perforce "create" a second, a Mesoamerican, Cumorah. And "here" we are ....

[SkepticTheist]

SNIP

The explorers discover from the king, Limhi, that he had previously sent explorers of his own to try and rediscover the land of their origin, Zarahemla; but after traveling "many days" (like Ammon's party) they only chanced upon a battlefield, and a record left by the people lying about as bones on the ground. This is contextual with Cumorah-Ramah; it isn't some alternate battlefield that is intended.

SNIP

That's a huge leap for Limhi's party when only the Land Northward was mentioned. there is no ties to the large bodies of water in the text. No ties to cumorah. Only a mention of many waters in the area. Again, that describes any place from Tehuantepec northward. In no place was the Land of Cumorah mentioned in the text. No, the Nephite and Jaredite wars went all the way from the Narrow Neck and extended up to wherever you choose to place Cumorah.

Again, you have no justification for equating the land of many waters mentioned by Limhi to the land of Cumorah. That description is descriptive of stuff all the way from the Narrow neck northward. You can't pidgeon hole me with something that the text does not say. I will not allow you to try it. I have fought Mesoamericanists on these types of ambiguous points for a very long time. Please don't even try it. I already answered this in my previous post, and here I am, repeating it to you again, as if you didn't even read it. again, just because you don't agree with my reading of the text doesn't make yours the only or even the interpretation of it that people should prefer. So while I acknowledge that it is *possible* that the many waters mentioned with regards to Limhi's text refers to Cumorah, you are far from proving that is indeed so, and the text allows for a great amount of possibilities on this one point. If it were not so, then I would have a real problem. I would have given up on Cumorah long ago. But you are talking to me as if you think I haven't encountered this particular issue on Limhi before, and thought about it and not come to a reasonable understanding long before you brought it up. It isn't you that are the first to argue this type of thing. Sorenson and others argued it long ago, and their books have been in print for a very long time. It is one of their principal arguments against the NY Cumorah, and my book Resurrecting Cumorah deals with it in depth already.

Ed Goble

[poulsenll]

That's a huge leap for Limhi's party when only the Land Northward was mentioned. there is no ties to the large bodies of water in the text. No ties to cumorah. Only a mention of many waters in the area. Again, that describes any place from Tehuantepec northward. In no place was the Land of Cumorah mentioned in the text. No, the Nephite and Jaredite wars went all the way from the Narrow Neck and extended up to wherever you choose to place Cumorah.

Again, you have no justification for equating the land of many waters mentioned by Limhi to the land of Cumorah. That description is descriptive of stuff all the way from the Narrow neck northward. You can't pidgeon hole me with something that the text does not say. I will not allow you to try it. I have fought Mesoamericanists on these types of ambiguous points for a very long time. Please don't even try it. I already answered this in my previous post, and here I am, repeating it to you again, as if you didn't even read it. again, just because you don't agree with my reading of the text doesn't make yours the only or even the interpretation of it that people should prefer. So while I acknowledge that it is *possible* that the many waters mentioned with regards to Limhi's text refers to Cumorah, you are far from proving that is indeed so, and the text allows for a great amount of possibilities on this one point. If it were not so, then I would have a real problem. I would have given up on Cumorah long ago. But you are talking to me as if you think I haven't encountered this particular issue on Limhi before, and thought about it and not come to a reasonable understanding long before you brought it up. It isn't you that are the first to argue this type of thing. Sorenson and others argued it long ago, and their books have been in print for a very long time. It is one of their principal arguments against the NY Cumorah, and my book Resurrecting Cumorah deals with it in depth already.

Ed Goble

Ed

You are right, the many waters described in the Limhite record of their travels was probably at the mouth of the Usamacinta river based on the assumption that the expedition took the wrong river. Ramah/Cumorah was in the Land northward. How far north depends on ones particular assumptions and interpretation of the text.

See:

http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/tworivers.html

Larry P

[Alan]

I am completely satisfied that the Book of Mormon story was played out in the Great Lakes area, and have very little sympthy for the Central or South American alternatives. To me the mesamerica view is just not credible and does not withstand robust scrutiny. In my experence the the Great Lakes view does.

[Brant Gardner]

I am completely satisfied that the Book of Mormon story was played out in the Great Lakes area, and have very little sympthy for the Central or South American alternatives. To me the mesamerica view is just not credible and does not withstand robust scrutiny. In my experence the the Great Lakes view does.

That is interesting because it is completely the opposite of the information I have seen for both models. I am curious how you handle the difficulties of the lack of agriculture-based populations at the appropriate times, and particularly the issue of the city of cement. That has to be fairly far north of Nephite lands and in an area that was devoid of trees. I agree that you can go far enough into Canada to finally run out of trees, but there aren't very many people living there, and nothing that has ever been "cement" buildings--however you want to define "cement." No matter what else I have seen for the Great Lakes area, I haven't seen any way to accommodate that requirement from the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

A friend of mine published a book which FARMS savaged, Paul Hedengren, a BYU Professor. Paul is also a Maxwell Institute author. His work on Great Lakes geography is critiqued by FARMS here. http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=2&id=219

False.

FARMS did not savage or critique Paul Hedengren's book. The review of Hedengren was written by the head of the BYU-NWAF, archeologist John E. Clark, who is not part of FARMS. His review was published in FARMS Review, in which anyone can publish who has something meaningful to say.

[Bob Crockett]

That is interesting because it is completely the opposite of the information I have seen for both models. I am curious how you handle the difficulties of the lack of agriculture-based populations at the appropriate times, and particularly the issue of the city of cement. That has to be fairly far north of Nephite lands and in an area that was devoid of trees. I agree that you can go far enough into Canada to finally run out of trees, but there aren't very many people living there, and nothing that has ever been "cement" buildings--however you want to define "cement." No matter what else I have seen for the Great Lakes area, I haven't seen any way to accommodate that requirement from the Book of Mormon.

For Mesoamericanists, a lot hangs on the appearance of cement four times in three closely-adjacent verses in Helaman. You are correct that cement isn't found in archaeological sites in New York, at least the sites as we know it.

Or was it?

First, a hole of sufficient depth, (how deep I know not,) was dug. At the bottom of this was laid a stone of suitable size, the upper surface being smooth. At each edge was placed a large quantity of cement, and into this cement, at the four edges of this stone, were placed, erect, four others, their bottom edges resting in the cement at the outer edges of the first stone. The four last named, when placed erect, formed a box, the corners, or where the edges of the four came in contact, were also cemented so firmly that the moisture from without was prevented from entering. It is to be observed, also, that the inner surface of the four erect, or side stones was smooth. This box was sufficiently large to admit a breast-plate, such as was used by the ancients to defend the chest, &c. from the arrows and weapons of their enemy. From the bottom of the box, or from the breast-plate, arose three small pillars composed of the same description of cement used on the edges; and upon these three pillars was placed the record of the children of Joseph, and of a people who left the tower far, far before the days of Joseph, or a sketch of each, which had it not ben for this, and the never failing goodness of God, we might have perished in our sins, having been left to bow down before the altars of the Gentiles and to have paid homage to the priests of Baal! I must [196] not forget to say that this box, containing the record was covered with another stone, the bottom surface being flat and the upper, crowning. But those three pillars were not so lengthy as to cause the plates and the crowning stone to come in contact. I have now given you, according to my promise, the manner in which this record was deposited; though when it was first visited by our brother, in 1823, a part of the crowning stone was visible above the surface while the edges were concealed by the soil and grass, from which circumstance you will see, that however deep this box might have been placed by Moroni at first, the time had been sufficient to wear the earth so that it was easily discovered, when once directed, and yet not enough to make a perceivable difference to the passer-by.

(Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps, "Letter VIII," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2 no. 1 (October 1835), 195

[Robert F. Smith]

Essentially true: I do not (any longer) pursue the BofM as being historical. I used to, for decades. I retain an interest in the subject. Joseph Smith's book is intriguingly imaginative, well-grounded and complex. The complexity holds up for the most part. The one case (under discussion here) where it does not hold up is the stated distances traveled, in combination with the geographical features asserted - Zarahemla and the land of Nephi. It is pretty well established that a "narrow neck of land", in proximity with west and east seas, must be somewhere in central America. Jacob's "we are on an isle of the sea" precludes any location in and around the Great Lakes, or any other inland setting. So we have Zarahemla reached by those immigrating from the land of Nephi. Two generations later explorers, "teased" by the mysterious incommunicado of their vanished brethren who had returned to the land of Nephi, go looking for them. It takes them 40 days. Zarahemla is on the borders of "the land northward", near the "narrow neck". The explorers discover from the king, Limhi, that he had previously sent explorers of his own to try and rediscover the land of their origin, Zarahemla; but after traveling "many days" (like Ammon's party) they only chanced upon a battlefield, and a record left by the people lying about as bones on the ground. This is contextual with Cumorah-Ramah; it isn't some alternate battlefield that is intended. It is you who are taking it as a matter of faith and interpretation that NY Cumorah is the final battlefield of the Jaredites and Nephites, just because that is the name that Joseph Smith applied to the hill where he said he dug out the gold plates. So it is Joseph Smith who is the creator of the book AND this geographical problem: without which, there would never have been a "narrow neck of land" too far away to suit the "many days = 40 days" time limit, and especially the TWELVE day time limit for a party of immigrants with their children and flocks to arrive at Zarahemla: so the scholars of the BofM go looking for a LGT where everything will work: and by finding it where it can only be, they distance NY Cumorah impossibly far away, and must perforce "create" a second, a Mesoamerican, Cumorah. And "here" we are ....

Well stated, Beast, except for the part about Joseph Smith supposedly applying the name Cumorah to that hill in NY. He did not do so. Others have created the geographical problem through failure to read the text carefully, and from false assumptions.

[BCSpace]

Hello. I am trying to find serious scholars who have sympathy towards the possibility of a New York Cumorah.

Anyone who is believes in Book of Mormon historicity who has the desire to see some pushback against the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory, and would possibly like to participate in scholarship on this subject, please contact me:

Does even one of those who support a Mesoamerican LGT not accept a New York Cumorah? Is this all just sympathy for the devil?

[livy111us]

For Mesoamericanists, a lot hangs on the appearance of cement four times in three closely-adjacent verses in Helaman. You are correct that cement isn't found in archaeological sites in New York, at least the sites as we know it.

Or was it?

(Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps, "Letter VIII," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2 no. 1 (October 1835), 195

[Robert F. Smith]

Not false. True. I don't say false things, at least intentionally. I realize that there is a difference between FARMS and its contributors, most certainly. But I can also assure you that FARMS ordinarily doesn't publish things which run contrary to its philosophy; and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You'll find the same sort of editorial policy in Evangelical Review, Judaica and plenty of other journals which are academic outlets to religious beliefs. But the fact that every single FARMS Review article dealing with Book of Mormon geography either supports the LGT or is critical of a theory which puts the main events in North American, I'd say that we can detect an editorial philosophy. Being a big fan of FARMS, however, I can't say I've read every one of its articles. If I am mistaken and there are contrary views or views that are critical of the Sorenson heresy, I will retract my comments.

If you in fact "realize that there is a difference between FARMS and its contributors," then why don't you do the proper thing and name the authors. Even if there were an organization called "FARMS," one could not logically anthropomorphize it and discuss "its philosophy." Even when it existed it had no philosophy, and it published a wide array of kinds and types of views of contributors, some of whom were not even LDS. You say that you can "assure" us of something about which you know essentially nothing. Instead, you might go down to the Maxwell Institute sometime and see if you can find FARMS and inform yourself about what the Institute and its subunits in fact do and how they do it. I cannot speak for the Maxwell Institute since I am not part of it, but I do know some of the staff there well and cannot understand why you constantly berate them and their raison d'etre, which is (as I see it) serious, peer reviewed scholarship in defense of the faith and dedicated to the upbuilding of the Kingdom of God on Earth. I should have thought that, like the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell (for whom the Institute is named), you might have a similar purpose. Yet instead you sully your faith and this enterprise by loosely throwing around the blood libels of "heresy" and "apostasy." One thread here has already been shut down due to your inability to "school your feelings," brother.

Instead of creating imaginary bugbears and hobgoblins, you might try to deal with this dialogue in a gentlemanly way -- as befits a member of the BAR, who should have and live by high moral and ethical principles, and as befits any good Mormon elder.

[Danite3459]

Being a big fan of FARMS, however, I can't say I've read every one of its articles. If I am mistaken and there are contrary views or views that are critical of the Sorenson heresy, I will retract my comments.

The "Sorenson heresy"? Oh yes. I remember now. The one that was published in the Ensign

[Bob Crockett]

If you in fact "realize that there is a difference between FARMS and its contributors," then why don't you do the proper thing and name the authors. Even if there were an organization called "FARMS," one could not logically anthropomorphize it and discuss "its philosophy." Even when it existed it had no philosophy, and it published a wide array of kinds and types of views of contributors, some of whom were not even LDS. You say that you can "assure" us of something about which you know essentially nothing. Instead, you might go down to the Maxwell Institute sometime and see if you can find FARMS and inform yourself about what the Institute and its subunits in fact do and how they do it. I cannot speak for the Maxwell Institute since I am not part of it, but I do know some of the staff there well and cannot understand why you constantly berate them and their raison d'etre, which is (as I see it) serious, peer reviewed scholarship in defense of the faith and dedicated to the upbuilding of the Kingdom of God on Earth. I should have thought that, like the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell (for whom the Institute is named), you might have a similar purpose. Yet instead you sully your faith and this enterprise by loosely throwing around the blood libels of "heresy" and "apostasy." One thread here has already been shut down due to your inability to "school your feelings," brother.

Instead of creating imaginary bugbears and hobgoblins, you might try to deal with this dialogue in a gentlemanly way -- as befits a member of the BAR, who should have and live by high moral and ethical principles, and as befits any good Mormon elder.

I don't berate FARMS/MI. I am a financial supporter and a former contributor. I am one of its biggest fans.

On the topic of the Sorenson heresy, I simply disagree with its editorial philosophy as to that. Nothing more than that. And, yes, academic journals -- especially from religious institutions -- have particular philosophies that one can easily detect. Such as in Evangelical Review, it is easy to detect that its editors favor the heresy known as biblical inerrancy. And so it is with FARMS Review and Sorenson's heresy about the two Cumorahs. I also don't think that questioning Sorenson's views is the same thing as being rude to anybody or challenging the Kingdom of God on Earth. Certainly, it shouldn't characterize me as an unethical attorney. Really now.

The "Sorenson heresy"? Oh yes. I remember now. The one that was published in the Ensign

The two Cumorahs theory. The one the Ensign edited out of Sorenson's draft, it seems. I've been on record as saying that I don't take exception to the view that Book of Mormon events could have taken place in Mesoamerica.

Please be courteous with your words. Applying heresy to someone who is a respected member of their religion is inflammatory.

[Bob Crockett]

Or, Moroni was from Mesoamerica and took the knowledge of cement with him when he buried the plates at the NY Cumorah. There is no other evidence of cement in that area, and is an anomaly. I think this would fit the description best out of the three possibilities.

I thought about that. But, the fact remains that cement has been detected above the Pecos River and by a long shot. Whether Moroni brought it or somebody else, who can say? But it has been found in NY and right at the Hill Cumorah in an ancient excavation.

[Robert F. Smith]

The only iron known to come from prehistoric mounds is cold-hammered meteoric iron.

Not quite true, Anijen.

In fact, quite some time ago, a piece of well-crafted hematite (a plumb-bob perhaps) was found among the nested octagons of Poverty Point, Louisiana, which is considered the most impressive archaic site in ancient North America (Michael Coe, Atlas of Ancient America [Facts on File, 1986], 41).