Limited Geography Theories

[Nofear]

Yet he posts anonymously. Hey, I take a lot of heat for posting in my own name. On that other board, the trailer park, I've had emails sent to my law partners, my stake president and to the California bar complaining about my statements on that board in defense of Church orthodoxy. I've had information about my wife and children posted on that board. But I choose to make my positions known in my own name. When the Brethren urge us to get involved in the Blogosphere, somehow I don't think they meant we'd resort to anonymous names to hurl insults.

I've thought about changing my moniker to a more identifiable reference and will very likely do so one day - in due time. Though at present I fail to see the relevance of my anonymity to the content of my assertions. I suppose such lack of perspective arises from my "lack of faith".

PS: Where did I directly insult you?

[Robert F. Smith]

Using the word "drumlin" is like the Dems repeatedly using the word "gravitas" one weekend several years ago. It was important enough for the Lord to lead Joseph Smith there to recover the plates, as opposed to some other anthill;

Does the "shoe fit" for the MesoAmerican model? Only if you want to play games with speculation.

The word "drumlin" is simply a geological term used for such hills formed by the last ice age. It carries no emotional, political, or ideological content. Joseph Smith himself referred to it as "a hill" "convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York" (JS-H 1:51) -- this in his history written many years later. If it was so transparently the one and only Cumorah, why didn't Joseph himself say so?

You know this, and this has been argued on this Board many times. Why can't we move forward with this discussion without constantly repeating what has already been said before? Claiming that others are playing games with speculation and the like does not advance the discussion one iota.

[Anijen]

This is such a superb quote. These kinds of quotes, and this one in particular, were offered to refute a second Cumorah claim, a point I have made above. Ivins was one of the first ones to rise to this particular argument. In other words, Anijen is using this quote to support a position for which the quote was offered to refute.

I am not. This quote came at a different meeting in which he gave his opinion on the the NY hill being the final battle hill. IOW Elder Peterson is stating even his own opinions on the matter and those of other GAs do not make doctrine. You have a talent to twist statements to fit what you want. You are probably a very excellent lawyer. If we viewed it as you see it, it would be a hypocritical thing for Elder Peterson to make.

Yet he posts anonymously

Why is anonymously such a big issue for you? I do know, that you do not know what you are speaking of.

Hey, I take a lot of heat for posting in my own name. On that other board, the trailer park, I've had emails sent to my law partners, my stake president and to the California bar complaining about my statements on that board in defense of Church orthodoxy.

Sounds like a good reason to post anonymously, an even better one is to protect your family, which incedently is why I post under the pseudonym Anijen. Having said that many posters here know my real uber secret. super hero identity.

Hah! There is no other quote to support Anijen's position; the Mark E Peterson quote he uses was offered to support the NY Cumorah model.

wow you really got me, I still wouldn't celebrate with that "Hah" too much because I think Elder Peterson's quote applies to himself as well.

Heh! [keep laughing] Yet these statements are contained in many general conference addresses! And on the Church's website today!

Quote mining at its finest. Yet there are quotes that say there is no official doctrine also... Hmm.

I have been asked by the mods not to make this argument and so I can't respond except to say I've never really made this particular argument.

Let us juxtapose that with this;

I've never pointed to a poster and said: "You are faithless because you rely upon" a MesoAmerican model. I've said only that President Joseph Fielding Smith has used words to that effect to describe the two Cumorahs issue and I tend to go along with that assessment

It seems very lawerly of you, but to me a rube it looks like a fancy way of saying what you say you are not saying.

Just saying

Anijen

[SkepticTheist]

You are right about the need for kindness and so forth.

It isn't about the advancedness of Mesoamerica. My own work advocates a Mesoamerican Land Southward as the core of the BOM civilization.

You are correct about Joseph Smith's speculations in the times and seasons and so forth.

You are preaching to the choir about everything you are saying.

My arguments center around the extent of the reach of the BOM civilization into the Land Northward, not where their urban centers were.

They are not following the evidence in the sense of what the Book of Mormon text contains. They are following a viewpoint ABOUT the text, because a differing case can be made presenting an alternative viewpoint regarding the extent of the Land Northward from the text itself.

There, that is a response centering on the issues, not the people. Unfortunately, I'm mostly finding myself embroiled about battling about whether it is even valid for me to have a differing opinion from the Mesoamericanists most of the time, though the irony is that I'm a Mesoamericanist with regard to the Land Southward under the neck, and my neck candidate is Tehuantepec....

Ed

There was nothing reactionary in the formulation of a theory centering the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Even Joseph Smith himself speculated on that possibility in the Times & Seasons in Nauvoo. What convinced trained anthropologists such as M. Wells Jakeman and John L. Sorenson that Mesoamerica was the center of the Book of Mormon world was that Mesoamerica had the only advanced civilization in the Western Hemisphere -- meaning writing, astronomy, mathematics, sophisticated calendar, massive population, etc. Once that was clear, a careful reading of the Book of Mormon itself required (by the short distances traveled in all such accounts) that the entire Book of Mormon story take place within an area no larger than Palestine, which in turn led early researchers to understand that the hill in New York was a secondary site. No one "invented" that notion. They merely followed the evidence. This was well-established already in the late 1940s or early 1950s, and Sorenson was already giving firesides on the matter in those days.

As for biblical scholars who think they know where most biblical events took place, such theoretical formulations had nothing to do with unbelief, but rather the opposite. Any meaningful discussion on this matter should focus on the issues rather than on personalities. It should be courteous and proper rather than vituperative and unkind.

[Bob Crockett]

As for biblical scholars who think they know where most biblical events took place, such theoretical formulations had nothing to do with unbelief, but rather the opposite. Any meaningful discussion on this matter should focus on the issues rather than on personalities. It should be courteous and proper rather than vituperative and unkind.

Biblical scholars do not try to argue for Goshen in Arabia when there is no anthropological evidence of it on the Nile. The Bible has clear place names and locators that correspond with modern locations. We may not have evidence today of the whereabouts of Goshen but we can tell from the Biblical text that the location is within a certain defined area today.

By contrast, there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that even closely tells us where anything is located except, perhaps, to the reference "narrow neck of land". As to that, Book of Mormon scholars are deeply divided.

No, what has happened here is that some people want to draw the Book of Mormon story to the smallest possible area so that those same persons can assert theories contrary to the text of the Book of Mormon.

[SkepticTheist]

Robert, unfortunately, the word drumlin has become a favorite pejorative, because I continually see it used in that sense all the time. Please don't tell me that it isn't used that way, because I see it from the M-camp consistently.

The word "drumlin" is simply a geological term used for such hills formed by the last ice age. It carries no emotional, political, or ideological content. Joseph Smith himself referred to it as "a hill" "convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York" (JS-H 1:51) -- this in his history written many years later. If it was so transparently the one and only Cumorah, why didn't Joseph himself say so?

You know this, and this has been argued on this Board many times. Why can't we move forward with this discussion without constantly repeating what has already been said before? Claiming that others are playing games with speculation and the like does not advance the discussion one iota.

[Bob Crockett]

I've thought about changing my moniker to a more identifiable reference and will very likely do so one day - in due time. Though at present I fail to see the relevance of my anonymity to the content of my assertions. I suppose such lack of perspective arises from my "lack of faith".

PS: Where did I directly insult you?

Anonymity is really an inappropriate thing for religious defense. Vastly inappropriate. It shows lack of conviction; it shows fear. I don't think it is what the Brethren intend.

[Nofear]

Unfortunately, I'm mostly finding myself embroiled about battling about whether it is even valid for me to have a differing opinion from the Mesoamericanists most of the time, though the irony is that I'm a Mesoamericanist with regard to the Land Southward under the neck, and my neck candidate is Tehuantepec....

I'm not sure that is a fair characterization of the thread. It's not really until post #224 when you complained about a supposed double standard owing to faith in one's position that the discussion so turned. And even then, it wasn't about whether or not you should have that opinion.

[Bob Crockett]

It seems very lawerly of you, but to me a rube it looks like a fancy way of saying what you say you are not saying.

Just saying

Anijen

I wouldn't be making such an argument if it didn't come from the pen of an apostle and later Church president.

Just sayin'.

[thesometimesaint]

rcrocket:

Incorrect. Jerusalem is named in the BoM it exists. The land called Nahom is mentioned in the BoM, a place just recently discovered. Bountiful in the Old World is mentioned in the BoM. There recently has been found two or three very good candidates for it found on the Saudi peninsula.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

[Nofear]

Anonymity is really an inappropriate thing for religious defense. Vastly inappropriate. It shows lack of conviction; it shows fear. I don't think it is what the Brethren intend.

There is certainly merit in being identifiable. Nevertheless, I disagree with your characterization.

I wouldn't be making such an argument if it didn't come from the pen of an apostle and later Church president.

Ah, so you confess repeating the selfsame argument the mods asked you not to make.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, unfortunately, the word drumlin has become a favorite pejorative, because I continually see it used in that sense all the time. Please don't tell me that it isn't used that way, because I see it from the M-camp consistently.

Sorry. I wasn't aware that it had been used in a pejorative manner anywhere.

Do you have an acceptable alternative reference which all parties could used without feeling put out?

[poulsenll]

The word "drumlin" is simply a geological term used for such hills formed by the last ice age. It carries no emotional, political, or ideological content. Joseph Smith himself referred to it as "a hill" "convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York" (JS-H 1:51) -- this in his history written many years later. If it was so transparently the one and only Cumorah, why didn't Joseph himself say so?

You know this, and this has been argued on this Board many times. Why can't we move forward with this discussion without constantly repeating what has already been said before? Claiming that others are playing games with speculation and the like does not advance the discussion one iota.

In this discussion, I have not seen any references to the Hill Shim.

This hill is the original location where Ammaron stored the Nephite records. Mormon 1:2

It was near the Land of Jashon Mormon2:17

While in the Land Jashon, the Nephites succeeded in reclaiming the land of their inheritance. Zarahemla? Mormon 2: 27

After reclaiming their land they made a treaty with the Lamanites dividing their land and giving the Lamanites everything southward of the narrow passage. Mormon 2:28-29

Where was this dividing line? Near Cumorah NY? or someplace in Mesoamerica?

While in the land northward at Desolation, they again fought the Lamanites and cast the bodies of the dead into the sea. Mormon 3:5-8

Where was this sea? Was it near Ramah/Cumorah?

If Shim was located near Ramah/Cumorah, Mormon's moving the records to Ramah/Cumorah to hide them from the Lamanites makes sense.

If the hill Shim was in Mesoamerica, moving them all the way to New York makes little sense. Surely the Lord could have instructed Mormon to hide them in a closer location where they would be safe.

A better understanding of the geographical relationship between the Hill Shim and the Hill Ramah/Cumorah appears to be necessary in order to clarify the location of Ramah/Cumorah.

Do any of the Mesoamerican theories provide logical answers to these questions?

Do limited North American theories answer any of these questions?

Does "Ressurecting Cumorah" discuss these issues?

Larry P

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Anonymity is really an inappropriate thing for religious defense. Vastly inappropriate. It shows lack of conviction; it shows fear. I don't think it is what the Brethren intend.

What a crocket of crap.

[Questing Beast]

I just want to repeat a core point: that Joseph Smith's own statements and signature as editor to various BoM related articles published by the Church, that happened to bring up the geography of the BoM; and the unthinking consensus for generations of general authorities accepting J. Smith's hemispheric model; all make the NY Cumorah the ONLY possible location for the Jaredite and Nephite exterminations. Any LGT that locates to Mesoamerica or anywhere else denies that J. Smith knew what he was talking about and asserts that the "author" of the BoM was no better informed than a reader. Where acceptance of this fact takes you is a whole 'nuther matter....

[SkepticTheist]

Actually, I am referring to conversations spanning a decade and a half, where I have consistently tried to somehow represent the New York Cumorah in a rationalist fashion to the best of my ability culminating in that book that I pointed out. Those conversations over the years have been very spirited, including this one. They have been with people from FARMS over the years, others from FAIR among my own flock that are supposed to be my brothers in arms since I'm also a FAIR member. Some have been people like you, and a certain scholar from the BMAF, some telling me that my ideas are irrational but that I'm rational, or something nutty like that and so forth. These converstions led my thought process to evolve, and my positions to harden and solidify to where they are now. Notwithstanding the fact that you think that I'm disgruntled, which I am, a bad attitude that I'm constantly trying to repent of, I think that I've made tons of progress that you are unaware of, not withstanding that I have a ton of progress yet to make in my attitude problems.

These conversations led to my defection from the Heartlander theory early on (i.e. my original book is the source of Meldrum's theory, Meldrum didn't invent that flavor of Heartland theory-- I did).

No seriously, I'm constantly battling for my ability to assert my reasonableness, so when you attacked my reasonableness, and the reasonableness of my position, it struck a very sensitive nerve. Forgive me.

I have fought very hard to be where I am now, trying to assert the logic and rationality of where I stand, and trying to establish a dialogue without people putting me down and trying to tell me that my thought process has no basis.

Ed

I'm not sure that is a fair characterization of the thread. It's not really until post #224 when you complained about a supposed double standard owing to faith in one's position that the discussion so turned. And even then, it wasn't about whether or not you should have that opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

rcrocket:

"Anonymity is really an inappropriate thing for religious defense. Vastly inappropriate. It shows lack of conviction; it shows fear. I don't think it is what the Brethren intend.".

There are as many reason to decline self identification as there are posters who use it.

[Nofear]

Actually, I am referring to conversations spanning a decade and a half, where I have consistently tried to somehow represent the New York Cumorah in a rationalist fashion to the best of my ability culminating in that book that I pointed out. Those conversations over the years have been very spirited, including this one. They have been with people from FARMS over the years, others from FAIR among my own flock that are supposed to be my brothers in arms since I'm also a FAIR member. Some have been people like you, and a certain scholar from the BMAF, some telling me that my ideas are irrational but that I'm rational, or something nutty like that and so forth. These converstions led my thought process to evolve, and my positions to harden and solidify to where they are now. Notwithstanding the fact that you think that I'm disgruntled, which I am, a bad attitude that I'm constantly trying to repent of, I think that I've made tons of progress that you are unaware of, not withstanding that I have a ton of progress yet to make in my attitude problems.

These conversations led to my defection from the Heartlander theory early on (i.e. my original book is the source of Meldrum's theory, Meldrum didn't invent that flavor of Heartland theory-- I did).

No seriously, I'm constantly battling for my ability to assert my reasonableness, so when you attacked my reasonableness, and the reasonableness of my position, it struck a very sensitive nerve. Forgive me.

I have fought very hard to be where I am now, trying to assert the logic and rationality of where I stand, and trying to establish a dialogue without people putting me down and trying to tell me that my thought process has no basis.

Sounds like you've had quite a journey over these 15 years. I don't envy you it. While I am certainly not a sympathizer with the one-hill Cumorah models, I am glad that the position has voice with the more inner circles of FAIR.

[SkepticTheist]

I doubt I'm counted within the inner circles, and haven't been a part of it for that long. About 3 years. I'm probably more counted on the lunatic fringe.

Sounds like you've had quite a journey over these 15 years. I don't envy you it. While I am certainly not a sympathizer with the one-hill Cumorah models, I am glad that the position has voice with the more inner circles of FAIR.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I just want to repeat a core point: that Joseph Smith's own statements and signature as editor to various BoM related articles published by the Church, that happened to bring up the geography of the BoM; and the unthinking consensus for generations of general authorities accepting J. Smith's hemispheric model; all make the NY Cumorah the ONLY possible location for the Jaredite and Nephite exterminations. Any LGT that locates to Mesoamerica or anywhere else denies that J. Smith knew what he was talking about and asserts that the "author" of the BoM was no better informed than a reader. Where acceptance of this fact takes you is a whole 'nuther matter....

This would work if JS did not also make statements about everything taking place in central america. It would seem there is conflicting reports from JS. So with that one can reasonably conclude that JS really did not know were it took place.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

rcrocket:

"Anonymity is really an inappropriate thing for religious defense. Vastly inappropriate. It shows lack of conviction; it shows fear. I don't think it is what the Brethren intend.".

There are as many reason to decline self identification as there are posters who use it.

Lets see, most people would not know who I am any way. I bet that no one does know me and I would be shocked if I ran across some one here that knew me. Also I have to ask, what does it matter if some one did. What matters is the arguments made. If I was DCP, I can see some wisdom in posting under my real name. I would have some serious credentials. It would make sense. But I have no interest in being maligned by the haters. I have no interest in people really knowing that much about me more than I have shared. Wisdom in all things.

[SkepticTheist]

Yes, Larry, I can provide you with an electronic copy of Resurrecting Cumorah if you want of the second edition.

You will find that I discuss this in-depth from the standpoint of internal geography.

This was once a weak point in my theory but now it is one of the strong points.

ed

In this discussion, I have not seen any references to the Hill Shim.

This hill is the original location where Ammaron stored the Nephite records. Mormon 1:2

It was near the Land of Jashon Mormon2:17

While in the Land Jashon, the Nephites succeeded in reclaiming the land of their inheritance. Zarahemla? Mormon 2: 27

After reclaiming their land they made a treaty with the Lamanites dividing their land and giving the Lamanites everything southward of the narrow passage. Mormon 2:28-29

Where was this dividing line? Near Cumorah NY? or someplace in Mesoamerica?

While in the land northward at Desolation, they again fought the Lamanites and cast the bodies of the dead into the sea. Mormon 3:5-8

Where was this sea? Was it near Ramah/Cumorah?

If Shim was located near Ramah/Cumorah, Mormon's moving the records to Ramah/Cumorah to hide them from the Lamanites makes sense.

If the hill Shim was in Mesoamerica, moving them all the way to New York makes little sense. Surely the Lord could have instructed Mormon to hide them in a closer location where they would be safe.

A better understanding of the geographical relationship between the Hill Shim and the Hill Ramah/Cumorah appears to be necessary in order to clarify the location of Ramah/Cumorah.

Do any of the Mesoamerican theories provide logical answers to these questions?

Do limited North American theories answer any of these questions?

Does "Ressurecting Cumorah" discuss these issues?

Larry P

[Nofear]

This would work if JS did not also make statements about everything taking place in central america. It would seem there is conflicting reports from JS. So with that one can reasonably conclude that JS really did not know were it took place.

Additionally, though it will offend people deeply to their core, it is my belief that though the Gospel hasn't changed, the Church has a better understanding of it than the early Church did. And if this is true, it is much more true about the various issues that are not the Gospel but related to it (e.g. Book of Mormon geography).

[SkepticTheist]

As Roper points out, it is clear that Joseph Smith made a statement about the Land of Desolation in the Hancock Journal. And that part of it extended into the Midwestern US. Roper concludes that this could not be revelation because it is probably dependent on a statement made by W. W. Phelps, also extending desolation into the US.

Regardless of its revelatory status, it at least puts Joseph Smiths opinion in focus with regards to the extent of the Land Northward.

It does nothing for his opinion on Cumorah of the last battles, as that could be anywhere in a vast extent of desolation from the neck of land all the way to wherever its extent is at its most northerly point.

My point is, it makes it at least plausible that Joseph Smith was placing Cumorah in a Great Lakes context.

This would work if JS did not also make statements about everything taking place in central america. It would seem there is conflicting reports from JS. So with that one can reasonably conclude that JS really did not know were it took place.

[Robert F. Smith]

Biblical scholars do not try to argue for Goshen in Arabia when there is no anthropological evidence of it on the Nile. The Bible has clear place names and locators that correspond with modern locations. We may not have evidence today of the whereabouts of Goshen but we can tell from the Biblical text that the location is within a certain defined area today.

By contrast, there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that even closely tells us where anything is located except, perhaps, to the reference "narrow neck of land". As to that, Book of Mormon scholars are deeply divided.

No, what has happened here is that some people want to draw the Book of Mormon story to the smallest possible area so that those same persons can assert theories contrary to the text of the Book of Mormon.

You are quite right to point out the obvious -- it is largely true that biblical scholars have long known which region in which to place even yet unknown sites, although they still have hot disputes as to where to place Hai/Ai, upon which aspects of the Conquest model rest, and that is merely one example. Yet, in other cases, the distances are so great that there is no reconciling the positions, e.g., Abraham's home in Ur of the Chaldees: Was it in southern Mesopotamia, or in north Syria? And on which side of the river? The scholars adopting one view or the other are not out to undermine the biblical text.

Similarly, I don't know of scholars who deliberately "assert theories contrary to the text of the Book of Mormon." Why attribute nasty motives rather than discuss the textual facts? What would you say of a lawyer in court who refused to discuss the facts and instead raised his voice and pounded on the table? When Rex Lee went before the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court he was known for his lawyerly skill. He was always prepared on the law and the facts. He didn't need to pound the table.

You claim to have read J. L. Sorenson's Mesoamerican Setting several times through. Surely you know that he makes very specific suggestions for the locale of the Book of Mormon, e.g., that the Sidon River = the Grijalva, and that Nephite culture centered in the Grijalva River valley (Chiapas), that Lamanite territory was primarily in highland Guatemala, and that Jaredite culture was located primarily in what is known now as Olmec country (the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and nearby areas). He locates Ramah-Cumorah as Cerro el Vigia in the Tuxtlas Mountains. He also identifies specific cities as well as wilderness areas. In the event, archeology supports his extrapolations. These are not settled, proven identifications, but they have the advantage of being part of a testable, reasonable hypothesis. His motives are the same as any of the early biblical scholars who pioneered 19th and 20th century biblical archeology. They were believing scholars who sought to bring biblical times to life, and they did so very effectively. The same is true of Sorenson, whom I have known for over forty years. Why would you think otherwise?