Brigham Young places Nephites in Central America

[Hashbaz]

I came across this quote on p. 382 of Leonard Arrington's "Brigham Young: American Moses". When Brigham Young was establishing colonies, he expressed his hopes for how far the work would expand. In the last year of his life he said:

"Nor do I expect we shall stop at Arizona, but I look forward to the time when the settlements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will extend right through to the City of Old Mexico, and from thence on through Central America to the land where the Nephites flourished in the Golden era of their history, and this great backbone of the American Continent be filled, north and south, with the cities and temples of the people of God. In this great work I anticipate the children of Nephi, of Laman and Lemuel [native Indians] will take no small part"

I'm surprised I had never heard this quote before, but it very clearly demonstrates that Brother Brigham believed in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon until the end of his life.

[Olavarria]

The Manti Utah Temple was built on a rattlesnake-infested site, known as the Manti Stone Quarry. Once Brigham Young designated the site for a temple, it became known as Temple Hill. The quarry's stone, Manti oolite, is the same cream-colored stone used for the temple exterior.

On the morning of the site dedication, Brigham Young confided to Warren S. Snow that Temple Hill was the spot where Book of Mormon Prophet Moroni dedicated the land for a temple site(source).

Moroni walking up from Mesoamerica across the American South West up to New York makes more sense in light of this statement than Moroni living in the Great Lakes area, walking down to Utah and then walking back to New York, IMHO.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

And he placed people dressd like Quakers on the Moon. Excuse me while a take a spoonful of salt.

[Hashbaz]

And he placed people dressd like Quakers on the Moon. Excuse me while a take a spoonful of salt.

Stay classy, BookofMormonLuvr.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Stay classy, BookofMormonLuvr.

Don't shoot the messenger. There is a bunch of stuff Brigham said that you all don't accept anymore- what makes this any more plausible?

[Hashbaz]

Don't shoot the messenger.

You, the messenger, created a message that was delivered with condescension and sarcasm. In such instances, the messenger deserves to be shot repeatedly [metaphorically, of course. I'm a pacifist.] I'm all for intellectually stimulating discussion, but your comment wasn't worded in a way that would be conducive to that.

[SkepticTheist]

The whole notion that Moroni dedicated temples in Utah and elsewhere is based on folklore reports to begin with.

People are perfectly happy to accept any folklore based information that is supportive of their particular personal beliefs, and reject whatever folklore doesn't agree.

I've got my holy cows in my list of folklore statements that I believe.

I don't know that I believe Moroni needed to live in the Great Lakes area during the time of the destructions, but certainly, Mormon was from the Land Northward.

Wherever Moroni ended up at any point in time does not have any bearing on Cumorah in New York as the place of the Nephite destruction.

there are a number of plausible scenarios about at which point in Moroni's life the temple dedications in Utah took place, and nothing but inferences.

Because Moroni either dedicated these temples before or after the destruction, or during the wanderings.

No significant geographic descriptions are made in the text about what happened during Moroni's wanderings.

He either went to Utah before the Nephite destruction in New York during the time the Nephites were heading for New York from Mesoamerica,

or he went to Utah during his wanderings after a destruction in New York.

Moroni walking up from Mesoamerica across the American South West up to New York makes more sense in light of this statement than Moroni living in the Great Lakes area, walking down to Utah and then walking back to New York, IMHO.

[MichaelM]

Moroni walking up from Mesoamerica across the American South West up to New York makes more sense in light of this statement than Moroni living in the Great Lakes area, walking down to Utah and then walking back to New York, IMHO.

Moroni's walk comes from a map in the church archives. It can be seen at this link:

http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/121/Moroni_More.htm

The problem I have with all of this is the Kinderhook plates on that map. They were found to be a hoax and this was published in the Ensign.

http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b6a8aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

This apologist link also says they were a hoax:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=2&num=1&id=47

"...settled once and for all as a forgery by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

How can this map still be mentioned for a Meso-American setting?

[Daniel Peterson]

I came across this quote on p. 382 of Leonard Arrington's "Brigham Young: American Moses". When Brigham Young was establishing colonies, he expressed his hopes for how far the work would expand. In the last year of his life he said:

I'm surprised I had never heard this quote before, but it very clearly demonstrates that Brother Brigham believed in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon until the end of his life.

Nice!

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You, the messenger, created a message that was delivered with condescension and sarcasm. In such instances, the messenger deserves to be shot repeatedly [metaphorically, of course. I'm a pacifist.] I'm all for intellectually stimulating discussion, but your comment wasn't worded in a way that would be conducive to that.

I noticed that you cut off and avoided the second part of my post..

What makes this statement of Brigham Young any more plausible then the statements by him that are now rejected by LDS?

[rameumptom]

through Central America to the land where the Nephites flourished in the Golden era of their history,

This sounds more to me like South America than Mesoamerica. BY seems to say that you continue going past Central America (which is Mesoamerica) and continuing TO the land where the Nephites flourished.

So, if BY believed in a hemispheric model, he would have seen the Nephites in South America. This would be south of Panama, the narrow neck of land that most see on the map and with a cursory thought think: Ahhhh, there is the narrow neck of land!

Of course, BY speculated and assumed many things. He was not an archaeologist, and even if he were, it was in its infancy here in the Americas in his day. So I personally do not believe BY had any insight on this. He was seeing the Hemispheric model.

[Daniel Peterson]

I noticed that you cut off and avoided the second part of my post..

What makes this statement of Brigham Young any more plausible then the statements by him that are now rejected by LDS?

What's important to me in this statement is not that it's a prophetic declaration that the Nephites lived in Central America, but that Brigham Young, a rather prominent nineteenth-century Mormon leader, held that view.

This helps to demonstrate, contrary to the claims of certain "heartland model" enthusiasts and some critics, that Mesoamerican (or, at least, non-North-American) geographies for the Book of Mormon are not merely heretical aberrations of the past few decades, hatched by scholars who reject Joseph Smith and are seeking to create a new religion in their own image. (Think, in that context, of the absurd "chapel Mormon"/"internet Mormon" dichotomy pushed of late by a handful of apostates.)

I do, however, regard Brigham Young as a prophet, and I believe that the church that he led was and is God's church. Just so you know.

[SkepticTheist]

The problem with the maps is not the Kinderhook plates issue. Everybody prior to something like 1980 thought the kinderhook plates were genuine until the surviving one was tested.

The problem with the maps is that they are yet another folklore item.

The Mesoamericanists interestingly cling to these maps as awesome evidence for Joseph Smith's beliefs, yet they dismiss other folklore accounts.

The Mesoamericanists assert that the maps make the Last Battles and the Nephites destruction happen in Mesoamerica, and that the maps trace moroni's wanderings to New York.

They say that this is evidence of a two Cumorah theory from early on in the Church's history. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Every indication is that the Two Cumorah theory appeared right at the turn of the 20th century.

The diary accounts that are linked to these map actually link Moroni 6:6 to New York where Mormon buried the plates making New York the place of the Nephite destruction.

Mesoamericanists are trying to take the maps out of the context of the diary entries and trying to argue for the "starting place" being at Bountiful in Mesoamerica must mean that the Nephite destruction took place there.

Therefore, in that context, of the diaries, this is yet another thing where someone early in the Church's history was placing the Nephite Destruction in New York.

It says that the route taken by the "Old Nephites" was through Utah and so forth. This actually argues for Moroni dedicating temple spots BEFORE the Nephite Destruction in New York.

Ed Goble

Moroni's walk comes from a map in the church archives. It can be seen at this link:

http://www.byui.edu/...Moroni_More.htm

The problem I have with all of this is the Kinderhook plates on that map. They were found to be a hoax and this was published in the Ensign.

http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRD

This apologist link also says they were a hoax:

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=47

"...settled once and for all as a forgery by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

How can this map still be mentioned for a Meso-American setting?

[SkepticTheist]

So Brother Peterson, are you arguing for the idea that a Mesoamerican Cumorah is supported by the statement from Brigham Young? I don't see any support for that in the statement.

I'm not saying you were asserting that. I just wanted to know whether that is what you are thinking.

Ed Goble

What's important to me in this statement is not that it's a prophetic declaration that the Nephites lived in Central America, but that Brigham Young, a rather prominent nineteenth-century Mormon leader, held that view.

This helps to demonstrate, contrary to the claims of certain "heartland model" enthusiasts and some critics, that Mesoamerican (or, at least, non-North-American) geographies for the Book of Mormon are not merely heretical aberrations of the past few decades, hatched by scholars who reject Joseph Smith and are seeking to create a new religion in their own image. (Think, in that context, of the absurd "chapel Mormon"/"internet Mormon" dichotomy pushed of late by a handful of apostates.)

I do, however, regard Brigham Young as a prophet, and I believe that the church that he led was and is God's church. Just so you know.

[SkepticTheist]

It could reasonably be interpreted either way, but I think that the most reasonable interpretation of the statement is that he was talking about Mesoamerica.

This sounds more to me like South America than Mesoamerica. BY seems to say that you continue going past Central America (which is Mesoamerica) and continuing TO the land where the Nephites flourished.

So, if BY believed in a hemispheric model, he would have seen the Nephites in South America. This would be south of Panama, the narrow neck of land that most see on the map and with a cursory thought think: Ahhhh, there is the narrow neck of land!

Of course, BY speculated and assumed many things. He was not an archaeologist, and even if he were, it was in its infancy here in the Americas in his day. So I personally do not believe BY had any insight on this. He was seeing the Hemispheric model.

[Daniel Peterson]

So Brother Peterson, are you arguing for the idea that a Mesoamerican Cumorah is supported by the statement from Brigham Young? I don't see any support for that in the statement.

I'm not saying you were asserting that. I just wanted to know whether that is what you are thinking.

I wasn't thinking at that level of specificity, no.

[SkepticTheist]

Thank you.

I wasn't thinking at that level of specificity, no.

[SkepticTheist]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fiYhlkklyesJ:www.mormonmiscellaneous.com/notecards/id47.html+city+of+enoch+gulf+of+mexico&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

This shows some of the sources. I know there are more and I will find them, buried in my stuff.

[jadams_4242]

And he placed people dressd like Quakers on the Moon. Excuse me while a take a spoonful of salt.

Speaking of salt do we know which faith u subscribe too that every member and every leader was absolutely as perfect as Christ?

Peter was not perfect, nor was paul, nor john and on and on...and i can say uniquivicably with absolutely no doubt that every person and or leader that has ever worshiped or led your faith was perfect..???

[MichaelM]

The problem with the maps is not the Kinderhook plates issue. Everybody prior to something like 1980 thought the kinderhook plates were genuine until the surviving one was tested.

The problem with the maps is that they are yet another folklore item.

The Mesoamericanists interestingly cling to these maps as awesome evidence for Joseph Smith's beliefs, yet they dismiss other folklore accounts.

The Mesoamericanists assert that the maps make the Last Battles and the Nephites destruction happen in Mesoamerica, and that the maps trace moroni's wanderings to New York.

They say that this is evidence of a two Cumorah theory from early on in the Church's history. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Every indication is that the Two Cumorah theory appeared right at the turn of the 20th century.

The diary accounts that are linked to these map actually link Moroni 6:6 to New York where Mormon buried the plates making New York the place of the Nephite destruction.

Mesoamericanists are trying to take the maps out of the context of the diary entries and trying to argue for the "starting place" being at Bountiful in Mesoamerica must mean that the Nephite destruction took place there.

Therefore, in that context, of the diaries, this is yet another thing where someone early in the Church's history was placing the Nephite Destruction in New York.

It says that the route taken by the "Old Nephites" was through Utah and so forth. This actually argues for Moroni dedicating temple spots BEFORE the Nephite Destruction in New York.

Ed Goble

Now that everyone knows the Kinderhook plates were a hoax, it becomes willfull and intentional deception to use those maps. Debates over folklore pale in comparison to this hoax being ignored in order to deceive others.

[SkepticTheist]

I'm also curious about that. Isn't it the group that considers itself the remnant of the original RLDS?

Speaking of salt do we know which faith u subscribe too that every member and every leader was absolutely as perfect as Christ?

Peter was not perfect, nor was paul, nor john and on and on...and i can say uniquivicably with absolutely no doubt that every person and or leader that has ever worshiped or led your faith was perfect..???

[SkepticTheist]

That's not true at all. Because the issue at hand is that the maps are only useful to establish what certain people believed in the church at a certain point in time.

They have no revelatory status, and they do not have any authority to establish fact or doctrine.

I think that you are blowing it out of proportion because the maps are never used to "deceive" others. Explain how you believe they have been used that way.

I think everyone in the Church that is an apologist is conscious of the Kinderhook plates problem. I think they all know they are not real.

I think apologists have gone out of their way to say that they are not real and that we are not defending them.

I think the church has established that clearly by publishing that in the Ensign in 1980 (i think that was the year).

I don't know of anyone that has tried to establish any facts about anything by using the fact that the Kinderhook plates are mentioned.

Is it because you think the thrust of this thread should be redirected to talk only about the Kinderhook plates problem? That is beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to talk about that, you should start your own thread.

So I don't see how anyone is denying what the facts are about them or trying to use them as something to deceive people.

The only people that are trying to do stuff like that are the Heartlanders that are trying to peddle stuff like the Michigan frauds.

By your logic we should throw away the whole history of the church because the Kinderhook plates are shown in them.

Up until the time Kinderhook plates were shown to be not real, everyone tried to defend them. Now nobody is trying to do anything of the sort.

I don't view it as a misuse of anything or an attempt of deception to use these maps to establish what people's beliefs were with regard to Geography at a certain point in time.

I think that is a very valid use of them. WHAT they actually do establish about geography is an entirely different question.

Now that everyone knows the Kinderhook plates were a hoax, it becomes willfull and intentional deception to use those maps. Debates over folklore pale in comparison to this hoax being ignored in order to deceive others.

[MichaelM]

That's not true at all. Because the issue at hand is that the maps are only useful to establish what certain people believed in the church at a certain point in time.

They have no revelatory status, and they do not have any authority to establish fact or doctrine.

I think that you are blowing it out of proportion because the maps are never used to "deceive" others. Explain how you believe they have been used that way.

I think everyone in the Church that is an apologist is conscious of the Kinderhook plates problem. I think they all know they are not real.

I think apologists have gone out of their way to say that they are not real and that we are not defending them.

I think the church has established that clearly by publishing that in the Ensign in 1980 (i think that was the year).

I don't know of anyone that has tried to establish any facts about anything by using the fact that the Kinderhook plates are mentioned.

Is it because you think the thrust of this thread should be redirected to talk only about the Kinderhook plates problem? That is beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to talk about that, you should start your own thread.

So I don't see how anyone is denying what the facts are about them or trying to use them as something to deceive people.

The only people that are trying to do stuff like that are the Heartlanders that are trying to peddle stuff like the Michigan frauds.

By your logic we should throw away the whole history of the church because the Kinderhook plates are shown in them.

Up until the time Kinderhook plates were shown to be not real, everyone tried to defend them. Now nobody is trying to do anything of the sort.

I don't view it as a misuse of anything or an attempt of deception to use these maps to establish what people's beliefs were with regard to Geography at a certain point in time.

I think that is a very valid use of them. WHAT they actually do establish about geography is an entirely different question.

The maps were mentioned recently here:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19862/How-Moroni-and-the-plates-may-have-made-it-to-Hill-Cumorah?s_cid=newsline

"If the map is genuine and accurately reflects the thinking of early Latter-day Saints and/or Joseph Smith, it supports the theory that Moroni traveled Northward along what became the El Camino, continued traveling north-northwest to Arizona, and then worked his way north through Utah (where we learn that he dedicated the spot for the Manti Temple as well as other temple sites) and eventually found his way to upstate New York."

Obviously the maps are not genuine or accurate because of the Kinderhook. But they were mentioned as if they might be genuine. These maps need to be dropped because continued use is deception.

They were used recently here:

http://www.mygazines.com/issue/678/11

"the map that Joseph Smith drew of Moroni's travel..."

When items associated with a known fraud become props for support of a position, all integrity is lost. I am not trying to derail this thread, what I would like to know is if Brigham Young's thoughts in the quote were influenced by those maps.

[SkepticTheist]

Again, I don't believe that because the maps establish something was believed about geography at a certain point in time, and somebody claimed Joseph Smith was the source of the geographical claim, that that has anything to do with the Kinderhook plates. Is it because you are saying that the maps are claiming that Joseph Smith made some kind of claim with regard to the Kinderhook plates?

These maps are as apocryphal as the White Horse prophecy. They establish nothing as fact. Yet some of the things that the White Horse Prophecy says appears in other documents that are not in question.

Just because geographical things are in question here doesn't mean that Joseph Smith thought any particular thing about the Kinderhook plates. It is likely that he was as deceived as everyone else at the time about them, and that anything that he said or that was written about them was innocent. The same goes for what people believed about Hoffman documents previous to those being found out. Now we know better, and now nobody is trying to use Hoffman documents.

So if the map does represent Joseph Smiths and everyone else's beliefs about the Kinderhook plates, and now we know better, how is that a deception in the modern day? The focus is on the geographical claims that are besides the Kinderhook plate claim. So I don't get how we cannot separate out the two, and how just because the one thing exists in the document disqualifies everything else in the document, and makes them all a deception. And I fail to see how something that was innocently believed at a certain point in time makes something a deception.

The maps were mentioned recently here:

http://www.mormontim...?s_cid=newsline

"If the map is genuine and accurately reflects the thinking of early Latter-day Saints and/or Joseph Smith, it supports the theory that Moroni traveled Northward along what became the El Camino, continued traveling north-northwest to Arizona, and then worked his way north through Utah (where we learn that he dedicated the spot for the Manti Temple as well as other temple sites) and eventually found his way to upstate New York."

Obviously the maps are not genuine or accurate because of the Kinderhook. But they were mentioned as if they might be genuine. These maps need to be dropped because continued use is deception.

They were used recently here:

http://www.mygazines.com/issue/678/11

"the map that Joseph Smith drew of Moroni's travel..."

When items associated with a known fraud become props for support of a position, all integrity is lost. I am not trying to derail this thread, what I would like to know is if Brigham Young's thoughts in the quote were influenced by those maps.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

<br>  Speaking of salt do we know which faith u subscribe too that every member and every leader was absolutely as perfect as Christ?<br>Peter was not perfect, nor was paul, nor john and on and on...and i can say uniquivicably with absolutely no doubt that every person and or leader that has ever worshiped or led your faith was perfect..???<img src="http://www.mormondialogue.org/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""><br>

<br><br>Yes, well, you should, as I have stated various times I am Restorationist RLDS (not to be confused with Community of Christ). To say that I see the leaders of my church as infallible is laughable. We know they are fallible, and thus we have had to throw of the shackles of erring leaders at least twice in our history. Something the LDS faithful would never do no matter how egregious the errors of those who lead them.