Limited Geography Theories

[cdowis]

Here is the bottom line for me:

Mesoamerica describes what we find in the BOM-- a highly developed civilization with sophisticated calendar, written records, towers used in religious worship, cement city, and various geographic features that match the description in the BOM.

We also find an older and advanced civilization that suddenly appears in the right time and place as we find in the BOM, also in mesoamerica.

We can account for the archeological remains in the heartland with references in the BOM to the land northward.

I have concluded that if the BOM did not take place in mesoamerica, there is no location that meets the BOM text. For all we can tell, then, it happened on the moon.

[SkepticTheist]

Here is the bottom line for me:

The only plausible setting for a land southward for the grand majority of history of the Book of Mormon text is to be found in Mesoamerica.

The interpretations for the Land Northward, including a Cumorah in the Great Lakes region is an open question, and the arguments against the plausibility for a Cumorah there are seriously flawed, and are left methodologically wanting. Since a "Limited Hemispheric" model which has Mesoamerica as the Land southward in conjunction with a Land Northward extending into the Great Lakes region has all the strength of the Mesoamerica dataset as well as the Hopewell/Adena dataset combined, the mere notion that we haven't found anything at Cumorah yet is no more serious a charge than we haven't found steel swords or chariots yet, and you Mesoamericanists really need to find a better argument or acknowledge the plausibility of this based on a reasonable reading of the Book of Mormon taking into account an exceedingly great distance coupled with large bodies of water which satisfy the requirements of the text perfectly. In other words, it is not that this proposition is not plausible. The problem with the lack of acceptance for its plausibility lies in your mind, not in the reasonableness of the proposition.

And again, this isn't about you accepting it as even your preferred model, but rather acknowledgement of its plausibility.

Ed Goble

Here is the bottom line for me:

Mesoamerica describes what we find in the BOM-- a highly developed civilization with sophisticated calendar, written records, towers used in religious worship, cement city, and various geographic features that match the description in the BOM.

We also find an older and advanced civilization that suddenly appears in the right time and place as we find in the BOM, also in mesoamerica.

We can account for the archeological remains in the heartland with references in the BOM to the land northward.

I have concluded that if the BOM did not take place in mesoamerica, there is no location that meets the BOM text. For all we can tell, then, it happened on the moon.

[cdowis]

Here is the bottom line for me:

The only plausible setting for a land southward for the grand majority of history of the Book of Mormon text is to be found in Mesoamerica.

We agree on that point. No problem.

The interpretations for the Land Northward, including a Cumorah in the Great Lakes region is an open question, and the arguments against the plausibility for a Cumorah there are seriously flawed, and are left methodologically wanting. Since a "Limited Hemispheric" model which has Mesoamerica as the Land southward in conjunction with a Land Northward extending into the Great Lakes region has all the strength of the Mesoamerica dataset as well as the Hopewell/Adena dataset combined, the mere notion that we haven't found anything at Cumorah yet is no more serious a charge than we haven't found steel swords or chariots yet,

I don't use that as an argument. I do use the lack of evidence for a sophisticated culture and technology as described in the BOM text more than adequate to dismiss this area.

and you Mesoamericanists really need to find a better argument or acknowledge the plausibility of this based on a reasonable reading of the Book of Mormon

I take note that you have not dealt with my primary argument.

taking into account an exceedingly great distance coupled with large bodies of water which satisfy the requirements of the text perfectly. In other words, it is not that this proposition is not plausible. The problem with the lack of acceptance for its plausibility lies in your mind, not in the reasonableness of the proposition.

I will let the "mesoamericanists" defend themselves and their ideas. Considering the fact that mesoamerica is full of tropical forests, rivers, and mountain wilderness, I find no problem dealing with the "vast distances" that you mention. You are imposing your modern view of vastness, with highways and modern transportation, cloud your thinking here.

A few hundred miles in mesoamerica fits that description quite well. No need for thousands of miles at all.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

You say:

I don't use that as an argument. I do use the lack of evidence for a sophisticated culture and technology as described in the BOM text more than adequate to dismiss this area.

I say:

Your thinking is clouded by the fact that we are talking about Mesoamericans period, who came into an area that was outside their primary urban centers. This is not about technology of that area at all.

You say:

I take note that you have not dealt with my primary argument.

I say:

Read my book Resurrecting Cumorah and you'll see just how much I actually have dealt with your argument to the very core. There is no difference about what you are saying than what other Mesoamericanists have said.

You say:

I will let the "mesoamericanists" defend themselves and their ideas. Considering the fact that mesoamerica is full of tropical forests, rivers, and mountain wilderness, I find no problem dealing with the "vast distances" that you mention. You are imposing your modern view of vastness, with highways and modern transportation, cloud your thinking here.

I say:

My thinking isn't clouded at all. I have had quite a number of years to ponder very carefully every aspect of what I'm saying, including having authored two books on the subject of Book of Mormon geography, so please save your rhetoric about "clouded thinking" for someone else

You say:

A few hundred miles in mesoamerica fits that description quite well. No need for thousands of miles at all.

I say:

That is just the easy way out to dismiss the traditional reading of the text out of hand with regard to Land Northward interpretations, when the traditional reading in this regard fully satisfies every requirement of the text.

[Anijen]

I don't know how many times I've talked about this point, but this isn't about what you think is stronger.

This is about your treatment of a candidate of another theory in a certain manner that is convenient to you because it is not your baby to defend.

This is about the fact that your own baby has its own inherent weaknesses doesn't faze you, because it is that which you have faith in.

In other words, take care with the fact that you are trashing on something of faith of other people in the same manner that others trash on that which you believe in, that if it were revealed that it was Cumorah, on that basis you would change your tune instantly and figure out some way to defend it. But since it isn't your thing of faith, its a convenient tar baby to beat on.

And I don't know how long I've talked about this, that the Book of Mormon itself says that the people came from outside the region, and that the numbers that were required WERE from Mesoamerica. But THAT would just be redundant.

I have NEVER treated a candidate of another theory in any derogatory manner. I have directed every single criticism toward the strengths and weaknesses of the theories alone. I apologize if you or any other has taken this as a personal attack, it was never my intent. I will excuse myself because I do not wish to instigate perceived or not, contention even over something as unimportant as this.

I hope that any I have offended will forgive me.

Anijen

[SkepticTheist]

I apologize.

I have NEVER treated a candidate of another theory in any derogatory manner. I have directed every single criticism toward the strengths and weaknesses of the theories alone. I apologize if you or any other has taken this as a personal attack, it was never my intent. I will excuse myself because I do not wish to instigate perceived or not, contention even over something as unimportant as this.

I hope that any I have offended will forgive me.

Anijen

[rameumptom]

I think we need to differentiate between theory and proof, as well as amount of proof available for a particular theory.

There is little/no proof in any theory for things like steel swords or Cureloms (if we even knew what they are. Buffalo? Llamas? Something entirely different?).

That the evidences for a New York area or Hemispheric Model are very limited (unless you conveniently jump around the entire hemisphere and periods of time looking for "evidences") is rather apparent.

Nephites had writing. Writing was only had in Mesoamerica. If we had a Hemispheric model, we should find writings throughout North America. If the New York area, we should find lots of writings there (and the gold plates do not count).

Huge armies of tens of thousands of dead cannot be found in any time period in North America. They can be found in Mesoamerica for both the periods relating to both Jaredites and Nephites.

Distances described in the BoM are within just a few days, not the months required to travel in a Hemispheric model.

That Nephi had a steel sword does not mean that the capability was wide-spread or even used much beyond his lifetime. It is just as likely that swords were adapted from the materials at hand and with the capabilities of the natives of the land. We do know that the Olmecs had iron works at the San Lorenzo site, but iron was still a rarety that was not used much.

Is the Mesoamerican theor(ies) perfect? Of course not. There are still holes and disagreements on how to understand some things, or whether the way we read the BoM is even accurate (how does one tell if he/she has seen a Cumom?). But since the days of BH Roberts, many of the questions have been answered. We can even see that there is an ancient city called Lamanai in Mesoamerica. That doesn't leave much to the imagination. It is only an issue of whether it is a coincidence or a discovery. And for many skeptics, there will never be enough evidence, even if Nephi himself returns and tells them.

[Questing Beast]

...But since the days of BH Roberts, many of the questions have been answered....

The bottom line issue is the ignoring or disagreement with Joseph Smith himself. When he places the arrival of Lehites on the west coast of S. America, and says the Jaredites arrived north of where the Smiths lived, we have an irreconcilable issue with BoM textual content. So the Limited Geography adherents are reduced to saying something like Joseph Smith was only the translator, and not an expert on history. He only gave his best conclusions to questions about BoM history and geography; and he was wrong to hold his hemispheric model....

[cdowis]

says the Jaredites arrived north of where the Smiths lived,

Can you give us the exact quote, in context. "The Jaredites lived north of my house" would be interesting. Never heard that one.

[poulsenll]

The bottom line issue is the ignoring or disagreement with Joseph Smith himself. When he places the arrival of Lehites on the west coast of S. America, and says the Jaredites arrived north of where the Smiths lived, we have an irreconcilable issue with BoM textual content. So the Limited Geography adherents are reduced to saying something like Joseph Smith was only the translator, and not an expert on history. He only gave his best conclusions to questions about BoM history and geography; and he was wrong to hold his hemispheric model....

Although the Nephites may well have arrived at the west coast of South America, there is nothing in the text to support this conclusion or that if they did indeed arrive there that they settled at the location of first arrival. They may well have arrived at that point, replenished their supplies and then sailed farther north.

It is interesting that you accept the possibility for the Chilean location (because it fits your agenda) as comming from JOseph Smith and reject his statements about the possibility that the Nephites settled in Mesoamerica north of the straits of Darian (isthmus of Panama).

The Jaredites indeed settled north of Ramah/Cumorah but all the textual evidence found in the BofM suggest that Ramah/Cumorah was somewhere in Mesoamerica and not in New York.

Larry P

[cdowis]

It is interesting that you accept the possibility for the Chilean location

The evidence is rather thin that JS said this.

However, it is interesting that an archeologist recently discovered the in 600BCE in this area that the inhabitants made a dramatic change in their burial habits. For 1500 years their graves were located within the towns, and general walkways.

They then began to bury their dead outside their cities, perhaps influenced by an outside culture.

[Robert F. Smith]

Even Rex Lee can be wrong; I've heard him defend John D. Lee.

There is no possible way the authorities of the Church could have come up with the misplaced Cumorah doctrine on their own.

“Among these was Mormon, who in his day kept the chronicles of the nation. From these extensive records he had compiled on plates of gold an abridged record. This he had given to his son, Moroni, who survived the destruction of the Nephite nation at the hands of the Lamanites. Moroni, prior to his death, buried the record in the Hill Cumorah, where Joseph Smith received it some fourteen centuries later” (Gordon B. Hinckley, What of the Mormons? , p.78)

“When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 19:38).

"This angel delivered a message to Joseph Smith, and told him that in the Hill Cumorah there were buried golden plates containing a record of the forefathers of the American Indians” (Discourse of President Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1919, Morning Session, p.21

I hope that you would cut me some slack about my personal failings. One of the core arguments against the LGT has historically been, and remains, that it springs from faithlessness. At least that is how some have seen it as did President Joseph Fielding Smith. I am merely repeating the argument. Sometimes I agree with the argument and sometimes I don't. Today I do. It seems that if the LGT theorists have the upper hand they'd respond with polite dialog and toe-to-toe general authority statements.

It really doesn't matter to me whether the argument is about LGT or LGBT, ad hominem attacks are always out of place. From either side. And I appreciate your much improved tone here. Perhaps one day when you visit Provo, you would be willing to go to lunch with Jack and me. I like to think that brothers in the Gospel can be kind to one another -- even if they disagree on some things.

[Questing Beast]

Can you give us the exact quote, in context. "The Jaredites lived north of my house" would be interesting. Never heard that one.

Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842. Vol.3, No. 16, pp. 818-820. as referenced by that Webpage....

[cinepro]

Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842. Vol.3, No. 16, pp. 818-820. as referenced by that Webpage....

Hereyago...

In regard to the confusion of languages it is said of the above nations, that there were "fifteen heads, or chiefs of families, that were permitted to speak the same language." The Book of Mormon, concerning the same event, says: "And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord; and the Lord had compassion on Jared, therefore he did not confound the language of Jared"-and it further states that Jared's brother's language was not confounded; and they then prayed for their families and friends also, and the Lord heard them in their behalf; and their language was not confounded. These accounts, then, precisely agree, one of which was found in Ontario county, N. Y., and the other in Mexico.

Again, those nations, of families, embodied themselves together and traveled they know not where, but at length arrived in the country of Aztalan, of the lake country of America. The Book of Mormon says, that the brother of Jared cried unto the Lord, that he would give them another land; the Lord heard him, and told him to go to a certain place, "and there I will meet thee and go before thee into a land which is choice above all the land of the earth." This it further speaks is the land of America. The coincidence is so striking that further comment is unnecessary.-ED.

Where is this mythical land of "Aztalan", you might be wondering?

"A" marks the spot:

[rodheadlee]

Mistaken idenity? One A too many?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n

[SkepticTheist]

I'm going to try to be more civil here.

Again, what "should have been" found in a certain area versus what has been found is entirely a construct in the mind of the theorist, and becomes a veil over the mind that keeps people from appropriately considering complexities.

When the proposition of a certain theory is that Mesoamericans fought wars in regions outside Mesoamerica towards the end of the Nephite era has no bearing on the archaeological expectation in a certain area for the "natives" of that area. The flaw in this thinking is apparent if we use Egyptians as an example. Egyptians went into areas far removed from Egypt to fight wars, but that doesn't mean we would expect that a majority would stay there to build pyramids. Nor would I guess that to prove that certain historic battles had taken place in various places of the middle east, would theorists demand for artifacts to be always available.

And again, the Hittites whose heartland was discovered by archaeologists is nothing more than cities buried under mounds and so forth was a formidable force to be reckoned with in the ancient world. So once again, usual expectations are not necessarily based on good thinking. What I would invite Mesoamericanists to do is to come at this from a devil's advocate position and try to defend the NY Cumorah as an exercise in logic and debate, to see what they can come up with, rather than just saying the continual "we don't find this or that and we would expect to find it". I think that what you would come up with would be similar arguments to what I have made.

I would ask that people actually take into consideration Andrew Hedges' arguments on this subject:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/RelEd/article/view/2344/2181

I think we need to differentiate between theory and proof, as well as amount of proof available for a particular theory.

There is little/no proof in any theory for things like steel swords or Cureloms (if we even knew what they are. Buffalo? Llamas? Something entirely different?).

That the evidences for a New York area or Hemispheric Model are very limited (unless you conveniently jump around the entire hemisphere and periods of time looking for "evidences") is rather apparent.

Nephites had writing. Writing was only had in Mesoamerica. If we had a Hemispheric model, we should find writings throughout North America. If the New York area, we should find lots of writings there (and the gold plates do not count).

Huge armies of tens of thousands of dead cannot be found in any time period in North America. They can be found in Mesoamerica for both the periods relating to both Jaredites and Nephites.

Distances described in the BoM are within just a few days, not the months required to travel in a Hemispheric model.

That Nephi had a steel sword does not mean that the capability was wide-spread or even used much beyond his lifetime. It is just as likely that swords were adapted from the materials at hand and with the capabilities of the natives of the land. We do know that the Olmecs had iron works at the San Lorenzo site, but iron was still a rarety that was not used much.

Is the Mesoamerican theor(ies) perfect? Of course not. There are still holes and disagreements on how to understand some things, or whether the way we read the BoM is even accurate (how does one tell if he/she has seen a Cumom?). But since the days of BH Roberts, many of the questions have been answered. We can even see that there is an ancient city called Lamanai in Mesoamerica. That doesn't leave much to the imagination. It is only an issue of whether it is a coincidence or a discovery. And for many skeptics, there will never be enough evidence, even if Nephi himself returns and tells them.

[Anijen]

What I would invite Mesoamericanists to do is to come at this from a devil's advocate position and try to defend the NY Cumorah as an exercise in logic and debate, to see what they can come up with, rather than just saying the continual "we don't find this or that and we would expect to find it".

Out of the spirit of friendship I would like to take you up on this and defend a NY Cumorah. Most know I am a Mesoamericanist but here is what I think are some strong points for a heartland model or a hemispheric setting;

1. Backed by early church leaders, regardless of opinion or not most if not all accepted the idea of a hemispheric model and thought New York as the location of the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites.

2. The Adena and Hopewell traditions were a fascinating people and were roughly the same time period as the Jaredites and Nephites.

3. Many Indian traditions have some similarities with some aspects in the Book of Mormon.

Although this area is problematic as is all other theories including Mesoamerica these are what I consider the top arguments for New York.

[rameumptom]

Since the NY Cumorah is not a thing of faith for you, you contemptuously dismiss it and point out its weaknesses, after the same manner that an anti holds the BOM in contempt for its lack of evidence.

Your own lack of this or that is not detrimental to your case for your own thing that is a thing of faith for you that you are trying to apologetically defend, and neither is the lack of good archaeology for the NY Cumorah region for a battle there.

In other words, your treatment of the NY Cumorah in this manner is a serious methodological problem in your treatment of that which is not your own model, based on the fact that you are dealing with things of faith, that require a different type of thinking than a thing that is secular. In other words, you need to apply the same type of treatment to the weaknesses of a NY Cumorah candidate as you do to a Mesoamerican setting weakness.

Skeptic,

Perhaps you shouldn't be in such discussions if you cannot relax and have a logical discussion. We are not discussing faith issues here, but evidences for various theories. Anijen is bringing up reasons why he believes the LGT in Mesoamerica fits the bill better than a New York theory does. If you choose to believe in a New York theory based upon your faith values, that is all well and good. But it does not fit into a discussion on evidences for a theory.

I agree there is currently no perfect theory. I'm sure Anijen would agree. If there were, then there wouldn't be a discussion/disagreement on the theories. That said, we can look at which theories are best supportive of the text of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith did not know all things. He assumed many things, simply because humans have a tendency to fill in the gaps of knowledge with assumptions based upon their understanding. He had no reason to think the Nephites were limited to a small area. He wasn't an expert in critical thinking nor in critical textual construction. He was a prophet given certain information, and did his best to explain it according to his personal understanding. Worse, he was not getting all of his information first hand, but rather an abridgement made by Mormon and Moroni centuries after many of the events in the BoM. So we're getting information that may have been worked up or changed, based upon the changes in the Nephite customs and understanding.

Angry and emotional heads do not lead to any positive discussion. I suggest everyone calm down and return the discussion to a discussion without ad hominem attacks and anger. As it is, our salvation is not predicated upon where the Nephites were located, but upon the atonement of Christ.

[Anijen]

rameumptom,

Thank you for the kind words. I checked out your website and like it. You and I have very similar positions politically. I appreciate the info on your genealogy as a history buff I always find that fascinating. Your son John served in Alaska, what part? I grew up there and still to this day consider it the place I come from. Side-note the Alcan (Alaskan/Canada highway is the most beautiful drive in the world (driven it six times in my life).

I love the Book of Mormon and I am thankful also our salvation is not tied to which location model we subscribe to. I view the setting for the BofM first by the text and the experts who lived there (Mormon, Alma, Nephi etc), and second by anthropology/archaeology. I am currently studying the Adena and Hopewell traditions. I visited about 13 sites last summer, including Cahokia. I attend an annual business convention in Ohio every summer and I always make time to check out the mounds usually trying to visit ones I have not yet been to. I am currently corresponding with many of the mound experts most notably Brad Lepper and William Iseminger of Cahokia. I am also currently writing a paper/book but do not know if I will ever publish...

Have a good day

Anijen

[Danite3459]

Those interested in this issue will also want to carefully read Roper's response to Hedges as well

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/Volume%2010%20Number%202%2C%202009/plausibility-probability-and-cumorah-question

Roper adds some interesting historical information on the questions of distances and travel-time for armies which I have not seen discussed elsewhere. He also argues based upon the text in Ether 14-15 that the movement from the Jaredite capital near the Nephite land of Desolation (Ether 7:6) to Ramah/Cumorah (Ether 15:11) all took place during the same year. The four years for the Jaredites takes place after they get there. If that interpretation is sound it would mean that they are not taking four years to get from the narrow neck of land to Cumorah, but that it takes less than a year for armies of the size described to move there with all the logistical challenges that this would imply.

I'm going to try to be more civil here.

Again, what "should have been" found in a certain area versus what has been found is entirely a construct in the mind of the theorist, and becomes a veil over the mind that keeps people from appropriately considering complexities.

When the proposition of a certain theory is that Mesoamericans fought wars in regions outside Mesoamerica towards the end of the Nephite era has no bearing on the archaeological expectation in a certain area for the "natives" of that area. The flaw in this thinking is apparent if we use Egyptians as an example. Egyptians went into areas far removed from Egypt to fight wars, but that doesn't mean we would expect that a majority would stay there to build pyramids. Nor would I guess that to prove that certain historic battles had taken place in various places of the middle east, would theorists demand for artifacts to be always available.

And again, the Hittites whose heartland was discovered by archaeologists is nothing more than cities buried under mounds and so forth was a formidable force to be reckoned with in the ancient world. So once again, usual expectations are not necessarily based on good thinking. What I would invite Mesoamericanists to do is to come at this from a devil's advocate position and try to defend the NY Cumorah as an exercise in logic and debate, to see what they can come up with, rather than just saying the continual "we don't find this or that and we would expect to find it". I think that what you would come up with would be similar arguments to what I have made.

I would ask that people actually take into consideration Andrew Hedges' arguments on this subject:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/RelEd/article/view/2344/2181

[SkepticTheist]

Ok. Let me reiterate my point in a calm and collected manner. Dogmatic statements that issues have been settled once and for all by anti-NY-Cumorah theorists are not conducive to a discussion either, and neither are assertions that "evidences" only exist for a certain viewpoint. Anti-NY-Cumorah theorists want to entirely "take down" the plausibility of the new York hill as a strategy to strengthen their position rather than concentrating on creating true plausibility for their own case. Rebuttals to the assertions of anti-NY-Cumorah theorists such as those Hedges and myself have made are usually dismissed and not taken seriously, rather than being given due consideration. The fact that most of the credentialed specialists favor the Mesoamerican theory has much more to do with politics and scholarly prestige of movers and shakers, as well as apologetic ease, than it does actual logic and due consideration of arguments on all sides.

To assert that Book of Mormon archaeology is science is just simply not true. But it is also not true that it is pseudoscience. It is apologetics, because science as it is in its current state, is simply not in favor of Book of Mormon historicity at this time at all, regardless of apologetic assertions. Apologetics can create an environment where faith can exist, but this is not science. So it is dangerous for one camp to assert scientific and evidential support for one apologetic view over another and sit there and treat another apologetic view as lacking because of its lack of evidence for a certain thing when the pot is trying to call the kettle black.

Skeptic,

Perhaps you shouldn't be in such discussions if you cannot relax and have a logical discussion. We are not discussing faith issues here, but evidences for various theories. Anijen is bringing up reasons why he believes the LGT in Mesoamerica fits the bill better than a New York theory does. If you choose to believe in a New York theory based upon your faith values, that is all well and good. But it does not fit into a discussion on evidences for a theory.

I agree there is currently no perfect theory. I'm sure Anijen would agree. If there were, then there wouldn't be a discussion/disagreement on the theories. That said, we can look at which theories are best supportive of the text of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith did not know all things. He assumed many things, simply because humans have a tendency to fill in the gaps of knowledge with assumptions based upon their understanding. He had no reason to think the Nephites were limited to a small area. He wasn't an expert in critical thinking nor in critical textual construction. He was a prophet given certain information, and did his best to explain it according to his personal understanding. Worse, he was not getting all of his information first hand, but rather an abridgement made by Mormon and Moroni centuries after many of the events in the BoM. So we're getting information that may have been worked up or changed, based upon the changes in the Nephite customs and understanding.

Angry and emotional heads do not lead to any positive discussion. I suggest everyone calm down and return the discussion to a discussion without ad hominem attacks and anger. As it is, our salvation is not predicated upon where the Nephites were located, but upon the atonement of Christ.

[Nofear]

The Limited Hemispheric model (i.e Mesoamerica for Land Southward with Cumorah in NY) follows a rational reading of the text, regardless of the fact that the Mesoamerican camp does not want to grant that fact.

While the text might technically allow the Nephite's to move that far northward during a desperate flight for survival, it also is an entirely unnecessary reading textually, spiritually, and archeologically. The only reason I can think of for one to adopt such an unnecessary model is to unnecessarily vindicate the opinions of some early Brethren. To reiterate, it's all unnecessary. On the other hand, a basic limited geography model arose necessarily out of a careful reading of the text. Currently, the mesoamerican geography is the best-fit match of that necessary model. A better fit may yet arise, but so far none have come forth.

[SkepticTheist]

Actually, the Mesoamerican theory is a paradigm based off of:

(1) belief in the Book of Mormon historicity, that the Book of Mormon took place in the real world in America anciently

(2) UNBELIEF that people traversed thousands of miles between certain points

(3) But having to compensate for #2, by having Moroni travel to NY from Mesoamerica after the Nephite destruction, even though the ultimate burial place of the plates ties the BOM story to New York in the end anyway.

So actually, though it is a "believing" construct in the sense of belief in historicity, it is a reactionary theory that was formulated because of unbelief in something subjectively perceived as unlikely. It was just against the idea of a NY Cumorah to begin with, rather than being for something. It is more easily defendable apologetically. So when you say the NY hill is unnecessary, I counter that the only reason the Mesoamerican theory was invented was apologetic ease, and trying to do away with what Sorenson calls the "philosophical underbrush" that he perceives clutters up the issue. It is reductionism rather than due consideration of multiple options.

While the text might technically allow the Nephite's to move that far northward during a desperate flight for survival, it also is an entirely unnecessary reading textually, spiritually, and archeologically. The only reason I can think of for one to adopt such an unnecessary model is to unnecessarily vindicate the opinions of some early Brethren. To reiterate, it's all unnecessary. On the other hand, a basic limited geography model arose necessarily out of a careful reading of the text. Currently, the mesoamerican geography is the best-fit match of that necessary model. A better fit may yet arise, but so far none have come forth.

[ELF1024]

Actually, the Mesoamerican theory is a paradigm based off of:

(1) belief in the Book of Mormon historicity, that the Book of Mormon took place in the real world in America anciently

(2) UNBELIEF that people traversed thousands of miles between certain points

(3) But having to compensate for #2, by having Moroni travel to NY from Mesoamerica after the Nephite destruction, even though the ultimate burial place of the plates ties the BOM story to New York in the end anyway.

As I understand it, the hill in New York is a glacial deposit. It is geologically incapable of supporting caves. However, there is an account of BY and others going into a cave in the hill. I understand that we both can argue that with God all things are possible.

It is not required that Moroni travel to NY State. The Lord could have made plates available to Joseph the same way that he made a cave available for BY and the others. I do not pretend to understand the means.

Could it be that the Lord is hiding the cave in the hill in NY? Sure, I have faith enough to believe that the Lord could fool our scientific instruments and hide a cave in a hill. However, I think it's just as likely that the plates and the cave are located in Mezo-America and the Lord transported the plates, and the men to the correct location by unknown means.

You say this is unbelief; I see it as a lack of need. I see no reason why Moroni would need to travel to NY. I do not see a need to tie the NY glacial deposit to being Cumorah.

The Lord can do what he wants, if he wants to move the plates to NY, he can. If he wanted to move BY to MezoAmerica he could.

None of this is important for Salvation. It is an interesting jigsaw puzzle; but really unimportant in the big picture of the Gospel.

[SkepticTheist]

I am unaware of anything in the Book of Mormon text that implies a cave as a natural formation.

the Hopewell-Adena have numerous examples of burial chambers in mounds.

So it doesn't take much to brainstorm that the compartment in the hill is a man-made structure, and the archaeology provides for precedents for this type of suggestion in the mounds themselves.

This is what I'm talking about when it comes to multiple possibilites. People are thinking too literally about certain interpretations of the text when the text said no such thing.

Have it your way. It's a free country with god given free agency.

As I understand it, the hill in New York is a glacial deposit. It is geologically incapable of supporting caves. However, there is an account of BY and others going into a cave in the hill. I understand that we both can argue that with God all things are possible.

It is not required that Moroni travel to NY State. The Lord could have made plates available to Joseph the same way that he made a cave available for BY and the others. I do not pretend to understand the means.

Could it be that the Lord is hiding the cave in the hill in NY? Sure, I have faith enough to believe that the Lord could fool our scientific instruments and hide a cave in a hill. However, I think it's just as likely that the plates and the cave are located in Mezo-America and the Lord transported the plates, and the men to the correct location by unknown means.

You say this is unbelief; I see it as a lack of need. I see no reason why Moroni would need to travel to NY. I do not see a need to tie the NY glacial deposit to being Cumorah.

The Lord can do what he wants, if he wants to move the plates to NY, he can. If he wanted to move BY to MezoAmerica he could.

None of this is important for Salvation. It is an interesting jigsaw puzzle; but really unimportant in the big picture of the Gospel.