Limited Geography Theories

[WalkerW]

Edited because it was unnecessary and unhelpful to the situation.

bookofmormontruth,

You are absolutely right. We as members of the Church should not be bickering with each other as we have been. I apologize for being antagonistic toward you. Disagreement is fine, but I allowed it to escalate beyond an appropriate point. My sincere apologies. I should take my own advice and be more careful in my wording. Then, I should take yours and keep my illusion of self-importance in check.

Perhaps you were right: Something was in the air tonight.

Sing it Phil.

I can't help but think, "

"

[rameumptom]

Another problem I see with warfare in the New York area, beyond the fact that it occurred after the Nephites were destroyed, is that the numbers for the battles are still too small. We're comparing battles with a few hundred to a few thousand in number for the New York Cumorah battle, when Mormon tells us that he alone had 120,000 men die in the last battle. That does not include the Lamanite dead, nor women and children.

As for claiming that Nephi built a smaller temple than Solomon did: where is your proof? He did not say he made a small temple. He said he made one just like Solomon's save fewer precious jewels and metals. If you only have 100 people, why build a temple at all? Why not build a tabernacle or better, just keep with altars in the wilderness as Lehi did? A supposition based on nothing is still a supposition based on nothing. It is reading the text in a more difficult way than needs to be. Occam's Razor cuts away from your point.

As for the Mulekites being the Maya, I personally do not think so. Most of the information we have on the Mulekites comes from Omni. In that book, we see that the Mulekites landed above the narrow neck of land. They lost their religion and language, and had a period of intense fighting. To escape this, they fled southward and established the city of Zarahemla. When Mosiah II discovered Zarahemla, he received the genealogy of the man Zarahemla (he obviously was still alive). At this point, Nephite names suddenly include Jaredite names in abundance. It seems clear that the Mulekites arrived in the Americas, were partially absorbed into the edges of Jaredite society for several centuries. They forgot Hebrew and the God of Israel, adopting the Jaredite language and gods. When the Jaredite wars heated up at the end (ca 250BC), the Mulekites fled southward and established a new colony.

As I understand it, this is a common event in ancient Mesoamerica (Brant can correct me if wrong). Whenever an area suffered from great drought, famine or destruction, the people moved to new areas to settle. In settling into new areas, they often ran into other peoples, and one became the ruling party over the other. Still, gods, languages and customs continued among the ruled.

[SkepticTheist]

If you read carefully in Mormon Chapter 6, Mormon specifically states that the people came to the land of Cumorah from someplace else, and gathered their forces there during a four year period. Therefore, New York natives are not what the text is talking about. For the Heartlanders, the text is talking about Hopewell/Adena, who came from another region. For more Hemispherical, or Limited Hemispherical Theory people, the people came from Mesoamerica, Great Lakes region, and even perhaps South America. So the point is, for people with a more extended theory, the text isn't talking about New York natives at all, and the archaeology of New York state has nothing to say about the fact that people from outside the region all gathered in the Palmyra area for the battle.

Think of it this way. If you are a Mesoamericanist, and you believe it took place at Lookout Mountain/Cerro Vigia, then the local Cerro Vigia archaeology has nothing to do with it beyond possible artifacts of the battle itself. The people that perished in that area, in that theory came from other parts of Mesoamerica, and were not necessarily locals. So it works the same way. It is a fallacy to invoke local archaeology when talking about a specific battle when the text itself said the people who perished there for the most part were from another region entirely, regardless of the theory you espouse.

Ed Goble

Another problem I see with warfare in the New York area, beyond the fact that it occurred after the Nephites were destroyed, is that the numbers for the battles are still too small. We're comparing battles with a few hundred to a few thousand in number for the New York Cumorah battle, when Mormon tells us that he alone had 120,000 men die in the last battle. That does not include the Lamanite dead, nor women and children.

As for claiming that Nephi built a smaller temple than Solomon did: where is your proof? He did not say he made a small temple. He said he made one just like Solomon's save fewer precious jewels and metals. If you only have 100 people, why build a temple at all? Why not build a tabernacle or better, just keep with altars in the wilderness as Lehi did? A supposition based on nothing is still a supposition based on nothing. It is reading the text in a more difficult way than needs to be. Occam's Razor cuts away from your point.

As for the Mulekites being the Maya, I personally do not think so. Most of the information we have on the Mulekites comes from Omni. In that book, we see that the Mulekites landed above the narrow neck of land. They lost their religion and language, and had a period of intense fighting. To escape this, they fled southward and established the city of Zarahemla. When Mosiah II discovered Zarahemla, he received the genealogy of the man Zarahemla (he obviously was still alive). At this point, Nephite names suddenly include Jaredite names in abundance. It seems clear that the Mulekites arrived in the Americas, were partially absorbed into the edges of Jaredite society for several centuries. They forgot Hebrew and the God of Israel, adopting the Jaredite language and gods. When the Jaredite wars heated up at the end (ca 250BC), the Mulekites fled southward and established a new colony.

As I understand it, this is a common event in ancient Mesoamerica (Brant can correct me if wrong). Whenever an area suffered from great drought, famine or destruction, the people moved to new areas to settle. In settling into new areas, they often ran into other peoples, and one became the ruling party over the other. Still, gods, languages and customs continued among the ruled.

[Sevenbak]

I recognize almost all of these books. This is a field I am seriously studying. I know we have differed in the past, but seriously if you quote a scholar saying "that no other area in the country has seen as much ancient warfare as New York has" and then give me a list of books copied from a biased site as verification, I find that entirely unspectacular and lacking in any academic credibility. You know (I assume you know) that when one quotes sources, regardless if it is in MLA or Chicago style part of correctly doing so is you include a page number.

What? Are you serious? Meldrum is known for providing only what he wants to show, even to the point of twisting the experts words. He has deceptively used it least seven well respected archaeologist works to the point of them actually writing a rebuking and one threatened to sue him outright if he did not remove any mention of his name.

You don't want to be lumped with Meldrums group and I know you believe in a hemispheric model but you use his site to back up your views and then say don't lump you in with his group. Then why would you expect us to take your source seriously if you do not? Why don't you use articles written by those who subscribe to a hemispheric model or better yet do some independent research (that is what I find the best). Honestly and though it is hard to hear, cutting and pasting sources without researching those sources is a lazy way to go. I mean a simple "control F key" search for the word war or warfare in some of these internet sites will give a better result than blindly listing a page of books that supposedly supports your theory.

Now Sevenbak I think you are a good guy and I certainly know that you do not side with Meldrum and I also know you have a strong testimony. I do not wish to place any wedges between us. However I know you are capable of a much better and frankly stronger argument for a hemispheric model than hastily using a site from Meldrum. And those books are fine to use to but when you do use them as a source please look up the reference with a page number. I do check sources. I order books and Use the internet libraries all wonderful ways to research than cutting and pasting.

Sorry I have had a hard day with bad news and I think you got caught in the transference,

Anijen

Anijen, I know you had a bad day, but you're kidding right?

I didn't post a single theory from Meldrum, quote a single statement from the Limited Great Lakes folk, and yet you lump me in with him simply because he compiled a list of long held views from academia in the region.

Do you expect me to garner such a specific New York list from Meso only proponents?

I've read 4 of those on that list, and will tackle the others as I have time, but do not bother with Meldrum or his interpretations. It serves no purpose.

Again, let's compare apples to apples and try not to graft into the tree and make tangerines.

Many on that list are well known. I know you are familiar with some of them.

If you want specifics, here's one that I referenced from Orsamus Turner. "Pioneer history of the Holland Purchase of western New York: By Orsamus Turner. Chapter 1 - THE ANCIENT PRE-OCCUPANTS OF THE REGION OF WESTERN NEW-YORK.

"We are surrounded by evidences that a race preceded them, farther advanced in civilization and the arts, and far more numerous. Here and there upon the brows of our hills, at the head of our ravines, are their fortifications; their locations selected with skill, adapted to refuge, subsistence and defence. The uprooted trees of our forest, that are the growth of centuries, expose their mouldering remains; the uncovered mounds masses of their skeletons promiscuously heaped one upon the other, as if they were the gathered and hurriedly entombed of well contested fields. In our vallies, upon our hill sides, the plough and the spade discover their rude implements, adapted to war, the chase, and domestic use. All these are dumb yet eloquent chronicles of by-gone ages. We ask the red man to tell us from whence they came and whither they went? and he either amuses us with wild and extravagant traditionary legends, or acknowledges himself as ignorant as his interrogators. He and his progenitors have gazed upon these ancient relics for centuries, as we do now,—wondered and consulted their wise men, and yet he is unable to aid our inquiries. We invoke the aid of revelation, turn over the pages of history, trace the origin and dispersion of the races of mankind from the earliest period of the world's existence, and yet we gather only enough to form the basis of vague surmise and conjecture. The crumbling walls—the " Ruins," overgrown by the gigantic forests of Central America, are not involved in more impenetrable obscurity, than are the more humble, but equally interesting mounds and relics that abound in our own region.

We are prone to speak of ourselves as the inhabitants of a new world; and yet we are confronted with such evidences of antiquity! We clear away the forests and speak familiarly of subduing a " virgin soil;"—and yet the plough up-turns the skulls of those whose history is lost!...

...Although not peculiar to this region, there is perhaps no portion of the United States where ancient relics are more numerous. Commencing principally near the Oswego River, they extend westwardly over all the western counties of our State, Canada West, the western Lake Region, the vallies of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Either as now, the western portion of our State had attractions and inducements to make it a favorite residence; or these people, assailed from the north and the east, made this a refuge in a war of extermination, fortified the commanding eminences, met the shock of a final issue; were subject to its adverse results. Were their habits and pursuits mixed ones, their residence was well chosen. The Forest invited to the chase; the Lakes and Rivers to local commerce, — to the use of the net and the angling rod; the soil, to agriculture. The evidences that this was one at least, of their final battlegrounds, predominate. They are the fortifications, entrenchments, and warlike instruments. That here was a war of extermination, we may conclude, from the masses of human skeletons we find indiscriminately thrown together, indicating a common and simultaneous sepulture; from which age, infancy, sex, no condition, was exempt...

..."These forts were, generally speaking, erected on the most commanding ground. The walls or breastworks were earthen. The ditches were on the exterior of works. On some of the parapets, oak trees were to be seen, which, from the number of concentric circles, must have been standing 150, 260, and 300 years; and there were evident indications, not only that they had sprung up since the creation of those works, but that they were at least a second growth. The trenches were in some cases deep and wide, and in others shallow and narrow; and the breastworks varied in altitude from three to eight feet. They sometimes had one, and sometimes two entrances, as was to be inferred from there being no ditch at those places. When the works were protected by a deep ravine or a large stream of water no ditch was to be seen. The areas of these forts varied from two to six acres; and the form was generally an irregular elipsis; and in some of them fragments of earthenware and pulverized substances, supposed to have been originally human bones, were to be found.

"These fortifications, thus diffused over the interior of our country, have been generally considered as surpassing the skill, Eatience, and industry of the Indian race..."

ps, I'm leaving now for the 4 corners region again, and will be offline all day, but I hope this is sufficient to answer your question. I think if we start to become hostile about the issue, then the point of the exercise becomes moot, and isn't worth it to us. I know I've learned that in the past and am trying to repent. Just my two cents.

Cheers

[Sevenbak]

Please tell us who espouses such a theory. The BOM tells us that the Nephites also lived in the land northward, and we do not know anything about the lands southward of the Lamanites.

The LGT does not say that the Nephites were "limited to such a small radius". This is a phoney argument.

As the Limited Meso theorists advance, the Land Northward and the Hill Cumorah are in Mexico, and different locals are guessed at in that region... so no, it's not a phony argument.

Unless there are evolving Meso theories I'm not aware of...

[Bob Crockett]

I hope so, too. There's no reason that I can see why this shouldn't be a perfectly amicable discussion amongst fellow Book of Mormon believers. However, I see two factors that militate against that:

1. Some traditionalists, instead of actually addressing the textual evidence, prefer to introduce irrelevant observations to the effect that LGT advocates are "weak in the faith" or otherwise heterodox; and
   
2. Anti-Mormon agents provocateurs who have neither part nor lot in this matter nevertheless love to stir the pot.
   

Sad, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

I speak only for myself and for no other "traditionalist" or "agent provocateur," but I think the "textual evidence" is non-existent. If Dr. Sorenson attests to the best of it then I laugh, as I have.

[Rivers]

If we go with the hemispheric model, how the heck do we account for the DNA evidence?

[WalkerW]

I speak only for myself and for no other "traditionalist" or "agent provocateur," but I think the "textual evidence" is non-existent. If Dr. Sorenson attests to the best of it then I laugh, as I have.

I haven't engaged much with live individuals who disagree with the Mesoamerican setting. What exactly do you find wrong with the theory beyond statements by early brethren?

[WalkerW]

If we go with the hemispheric model, how the heck do we account for the DNA evidence?

What's odd is that I have always been under the impression (as far as I can remember) that the Book of Mormon in large part took place in Central America. When I was much younger, I thought they started in Central America and worked their way up to New York for the final battle toward the end of the book. I figured with all the running around and wars they would have been moving a lot. But I connected the Mayan cities with Book of Mormon cities. So, technically I had a hemispheric view, but only because I thought Cumorah was in New York.

Of course, I knew nothing of Mormon scholarship or Mayan cities beyond their pictures. All I knew was that the Mayan pictures looked a lot like the cities in the Living Scriptures VHS.

I never gave it any thought in high school (I struggled enough with the existence of God). It wasn't until my mission that I became acquainted with Mormon scholarship. The only person I knew of beforehand was Hugh Nibley and that was only because my mom had some notes in her scriptures that referenced him.

It's funny what you come across when you take a trip down memory lane.

[Bob Crockett]

I haven't engaged much with live individuals who disagree with the Mesoamerican setting. What exactly do you find wrong with the theory beyond statements by early brethren?

It isn't that I don't believe that Book of Mormon events occurred in Mesoamerica. Rather, I take literally the many statements of the Brethren that the Lehites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians, and I believe that the New York Cumorah is old Cumorah/Ramah. Further, I believe the statements made about the final battles of extermination occurring around Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah and not someplace else.

As a threshold matter, and this is a first because I don't believe in revealing spiritual beliefs, I am a firm believer in the divinity of the Book of Mormon. But, I am one who thinks the truth of the Book of Mormon lies in its message; the background, the characters, the locales are important to convey that message, but whether or not they are real people is not important. (I personally believe that the Nephis (where there four?) were all real people telling real stories, but for doctrinal purposes I don't think a member has to believe that they were real people.)

Along those lines, I think:

1. Attempts to narrow Book of Mormon events, including the Hill Cumorah, to a small area in Mesoamerica is often a matter of faithlessness. See the post just above this one where a poster asks about the absence of DNA evidence. That one little post made my entire case. If we don't accept a very limited LGT model, then what explanation we have for the absence of DNA?

Usually people take umbrage at this statement, as if I am questioning their faith or their faithfulness. I don't. I say nothing about an individual persons' faith or faithfulness. I believe that the thinking of the LGT and faithless go hand in hand; see Thomas Stuart Ferguson. Signing on to the LGT theory as a good member of the Church is like falling for Landmark; it doesn't mean that a person is faithless but they are headed down a bad road.

2. My view on DNA, having hired archeologists for Native American digs and asked them questions about DNA issues, but by no means being an expert, is that if God can change a skin color to separate the Lamanites from the Nephites to keep them from intermarrying, then God can use DNA to do so. So the DNA issue is a non-issue for me.

3. I have read Dr. Sorenson's book several times. In fact, when I wanted to read it again and couldn't find it in my library, I bought another copy. I spent several years with another FARMS writer (I am one) in a study group studying only Sorenson's book. I think it valuable for only one thing -- an understanding of the spatial movements of the Book of Mormon characters. Previously, I had really only read the Book of Mormon for doctrine, but an understanding of the spatial movements helped me better understand the doctrinal statements. But, beyond that, Dr. Sorenson's book is laughable for its speculation. I am not an expert in archaeology, but I believe myself to be broadly read in a number of disciplines and I think that Dr. Sorenson's speculation is embarrassing to the work he does otherwise as a credible diffusionist.

Dr. Sorenson's book isn't of the same quality as say, for example, Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating Book of Mormon Witnesses, who put his professional reputation on the table for writing a book about mystical proofs. Anderson used standard methodology and reasoning to make his proofs. Sorenson didn't.

5. Yes, an article by Sorenson was published in the Ensign. But, as has been pointed out on this Board by me and others, he was asked to remove from his articles his conclusions about the Hill Cumorah. As published in the Ensign, to me that article is just harmless speculation and not contrary to the teachings of the Brethren. It isn't speculation that would really interest me, however.

6. The general authority statements supporting a Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah are overwhelming to anything possibly approaching support for an LGT model. In fact, my various challenges to contemporaneous LGT support here has been met with: "My general authority and apostle pals tell me they support the LGT, but they don't go on record." That's the very antithesis of evidence, and offensive. The argument that there is a select group of scholars and believers that are in the "know" about Book of Mormon theology because they have private audiences with the prophets, and the rest of us are just so much dross, is a bunch of hooey, is elitism and gnosticism (the hidden knowledge will save).

7. I subscribe to Sevenbak's view that there can be and has been plenty of evidence of armaments and battlements in North America in the Ohio Valley area, and that we can't positively limit our thinking to late pre-Columbian activity. There has been extensive writing about the Mounds, their dating and contents.

8. I am roundly condemned for not engaging in a textual analysis of the Book of Mormon where these LGT proofs can be found. I have, I don't see it; they're not there.

9. I am roundly condemned for taking the same approach as the anti-Mormon "pot-stirrers" or as the nasty Meldrumites. I have never read a single Meldrum/Porter publication. But, my position remains thus: If I were to spend 15 minutes in a sacrament meeting with my stake president in attendance, and I quoted from the Brethren about the Hill Cumorah and then concluded my talk with the opinion that Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah is a sacred site bathed in Nephite blood and the foundation for the modern church, I'd receive an atta-boy and a pat on the back by the stake president. If I read from Sorenson adherents and argued that the Hill Cumorah was somewhere else and the Lehites are not the ancestors of the modern Indians, I would be counseled to be quiet.

10. I think that the personal nastiness that has been directed my way on this board, LoaP calling me a "jerk" and Goble using cuss words (with asterisks, of course) is an implicit proof that the devil is on their side. [That's a joke; I couldn't resist.] I don't think this discussion merits nastiness but forgive me if I don't roll over.

11. I find it disingenuous that some, but not all, LGT adherents pretend as if there is no support in the Church for a long-standing set of teachings and a custom for Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah and the proximity thereto for the final battles. That teaching is so common, so pervasive, that I just won't even attempt to provide proof; it is axiomatic.

[jskains]

If we go with the hemispheric model, how the heck do we account for the DNA evidence?

There is no DNA "evidence". But if you want to focus on Asian influence of DNA, there are my questions:

1. Do we know 100% that the Asian DNA from the Jeridites was not possibly intermingled with the Lamanities?

2. Do we know 100% what ancient DNA of the Jewish people look like?

3. Do we know 100% what Sariah's DNA looks like?

4. Do we know 100% even what Nephi's DNA looks like?

5. What impact does the heavy adoption theme have on DNA?

6. What impact does the use of Lamanite as a term of anyone against the Nephites have?

I think we assume we can find DNA evidence when even BoM text does not demand DNA lineage.

JMHO.

[ELF1024]

It isn't that I don't believe that Book of Mormon events occurred in Mesoamerica. Rather, I take literally the many statements of the Brethren that the Lehites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians, and I believe that the New York Cumorah is old Cumorah/Ramah. Further, I believe the statements made about the final battles of extermination occurring around Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah and not someplace else.

Along those lines, I think:

1. Attempts to narrow Book of Mormon events, including the Hill Cumorah, to a small area in Mesoamerica is often a matter of faithlessness. See the post just above this one where a poster asks about the absence of DNA evidence. That one little post made my entire case. If we don't accept a very limited LGT model, then what explanation we have for the absence of DNA?

Usually people take umbrage at this statement, as if I am questioning their faith or their faithfulness. I don't. I say nothing about an individual persons' faith or faithfulness. I believe that the thinking of the LGT and faithless go hand in hand; see Thomas Stuart Ferguson. Signing on the an LGT theory as a good member of the Church is like falling for Landmark; it doesn't mean that a person is faithless but they are headed down a bad road.

Perhaps you can explain this one point to me. "they are headed down a bad road."

What difference does it make, on an Eternal level, if you believe in a LGT or a different model? Does this somehow impact your eternal progression? Will you somehow be cast into the pit for giving the wrong answer if God asks, "where do you think the Book of Mormon took place"?

Honestly, what in the hairy heck does it matter; and why in the name of all creation would it make a difference to what path your on?

[MelvinCJohnson]

Call For References that I have contradicted myself, either four or any other number of times, in this thread. //// Here's a suggestion: if you're going to participate in a discussion -- and especially if you're going to pose as an authority on the subject at hand -- then it's usually a good idea to actually follow what is being discussed.

You're welcome, Pahoran

Neither of us, Pahoran, are authorities. I am asking for clarity. You don't like me treating as you treat me. Got it. Tough. Be polite and get it in return. I will begin now, right now. Let's see how it goes.

[MelvinCJohnson]

The mopologists clearly reveal that they don't want to play nice and attempt to hog the sand box. Anti-Mormonism is anti-truth, mopologists, as we see two LDS groups throwing sand around. I find it interesting Bob does not like being called out, but, hey, that's just my view.

If Bob and I end up on the same side, one a defender of the truth and the other one who has fun with mopology, yet both see the same issue in clarity, I find that interesting.

The facts are this.

(1) President Cannon more than 120 years ago counselled against trying for a definitive geography. Rather the BoM, he believed, should be evaluated in terms of doctrine and history. Now we see two groups going at it tongs and hammer.

(2) Most Mormons have thought in broad geographical terms for the descendents of Lehi.

(3) The arguments for the LGT are, in part, an attempt to reject attacks on the BoM archaeologically and genetically.

(4) Any party interested in the discussion need not be a true believing Mormon. Authenticiry of argument does not automatically inform one's post if one is a LDS true believer.

(5) Demonizing Bob in terms used for anti-mopologists is not very smart.

[RoseMadder]

I was able to help clean out my grandmother's home after she unfortunately had to be placed in a nursing facility last year. Among her abundant, dusty piles of books and papers, I found dozens upon dozens of old church publications. It has been interesting looking thorough them.

The back cover of a pamphlet published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in November of 1974 says the following: "The Book of Mormon, written by ancient American prophets, telling of God's dealings with the earliest American nations and shedding light on who these people were and where they went, has now been published in millions of copies and translated into thirty-four different languages, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that in the last days an angel would return to earth '...having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.'"

The final page of the pamphlet states: "Commanded by the Lord to gather the sacred records of ancient America, the prophet Mormon abridged many larger records onto thin sheets of gold. He compiled these inspired writings into one volume containing several thousand years of religious history telling of the first colonizers in the Americas and how God led them here from the Holy Land. Fourteen centuries later this important record was revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith who translated it by the gift and power of God and published it as The Book of Mormon."

The Book of Mormon tells of the first colonizers of the Americas. The Book of Mormon peoples were the earliest American nations.

Is the pamphlet published by the church incorrect?

[WalkerW]

Perhaps you can explain this one point to me. "they are headed down a bad road."

Maybe he means that weighing your testimony based on the shifting evidence of the LGT model is a manifestation of placing your faith in the wrong thing. That is what I gather from the Ferguson reference.

But I don't see anything wrong with making sense of the book.

[ELF1024]

The mopologists clearly reveal that they don't want to play nice and attempt to hog the sand box. Anti-Mormonism is anti-truth, mopologists, as we see two LDS groups throwing sand around. I find it interesting Bob does not like being called out, but, hey, that's just my view.

If Bob and I end up on the same side, one a defender of the truth and the other one who has fun with mopology, yet both see the same issue in clarity, I find that interesting.

The facts are this.

(1) President Cannon more than 120 years ago counselled against trying for a definitive geography. Rather the BoM, he believed, should be evaluated in terms of doctrine and history. Now we see two groups going at it tongs and hammer.

(2) Most Mormons have thought in broad geographical terms for the descendents of Lehi.

(3) The arguments for the LGT are, in part, an attempt to reject attacks on the BoM archaeologically and genetically.

(4) Any party interested in the discussion need not be a true believing Mormon. Authenticiry of argument does not automatically inform one's post if one is a LDS true believer.

(5) Demonizing Bob in terms used for anti-mopologists is not very smart.

Well, first off, I'm not a mopologist, I don't claim to be an expert in anything. I'm just Joe Schmo who happens to have read some of the articles on the LGT. I'm not a scientist, I'm not a expert on languages, I'm just a guy.

1) 120 years go, we didn't have the amount of information on Central America that we do now. Things have changed in 120 years.

2) I have no idea what "Most" Mormons have thought; I also find your conclusion on what "Most" Mormons have thought to be questionable. If you would care to provide some kind of documentation for what "Most" Mormons think, I love to see it. Otherwise it's just an amusing and likely made up factoid.

3) I have found that the arguments are not based in rejecting attacks, but are based on the Archeological/Geographical facts on the ground. Things like Warm Winters, and Cement Cites for example; neither of which are found in NY State.

[Rivers]

I was able to help clean out my grandmother's home after she unfortunately had to be placed in a nursing facility last year. Among her abundant, dusty piles of books and papers, I found dozens upon dozens of old church publications. It has been interesting looking thorough them.

The back cover of a pamphlet published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in November of 1974 says the following: "The Book of Mormon, written by ancient American prophets, telling of God's dealings with the earliest American nations and shedding light on who these people were and where they went, has now been published in millions of copies and translated into thirty-four different languages, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that in the last days an angel would return to earth '...having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.'"

The final page of the pamphlet states: "Commanded by the Lord to gather the sacred records of ancient America, the prophet Mormon abridged many larger records onto thin sheets of gold. He compiled these inspired writings into one volume containing several thousand years of religious history telling of the first colonizers in the Americas and how God led them here from the Holy Land. Fourteen centuries later this important record was revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith who translated it by the gift and power of God and published it as The Book of Mormon."

The Book of Mormon tells of the first colonizers of the Americas. The Book of Mormon peoples were the earliest American nations.

Is the pamphlet published by the church incorrect?

Yes, this pamphlet is incorrect. People crossed the land bridge to the Americas long before Jeredites, Lehites, and Mulekites are purported to have came over. To claim otherwise is to throw archaeology and anthropology under the bus.

[Bob Crockett]

2) I have no idea what "Most" Mormons have thought; I also find your conclusion on what "Most" Mormons have thought to be questionable. If you would care to provide some kind of documentation for what "Most" Mormons think, I love to see it. Otherwise it's just an amusing and likely made up factoid.

I should have added to my list above that the LGT adherents often are irrational about historic church teachings and customs.

[ELF1024]

I should have added to my list above that the LGT adherents often are irrational about historic church teachings and customs.

You found that to be irrational? Really?

[Calm]

Of course, I knew nothing of Mormon scholarship or Mayan cities beyond their pictures. All I knew was that the Mayan pictures looked a lot like the cities in the Living Scriptures VHS.

Also many of the pictures in the BoM that were also used to create the dioramas at Temple Square (the artist being Arnold Friberg)

[thesometimesaint]

While I find a discussion of BoM archaeology interesting, and to my mind the best evidence is for a Mesoamerican setting. I don't put my faith in the theories of archaeologist.

[Calm]

It would have been more appropriate to respond in that thread - not just suddenly on another thread.

Since the only thing my comment was supposed to mean (and I admit that my comment didn't make this clear) was if you are unhappy about negative atmospheres, it is probably a wise thing to avoid making negative comments (whether or not they have specific or general targets) it would have been inappropriate to mention it in the other thread since your comment dealing with atmosphere was in here.

And now I will say no more except to say I'm sorry for contributing to the negativity by not being clear about what I was saying.

[Calm]

While I find a discussion of BoM archaeology interesting, and to my mind the best evidence is for a Mesoamerican setting. I don't put my faith in the theories of archaeologist.

Indeed. I think there is a huge difference in between relying on the theories as evidence of historicity and using the theories to try and inform one's reading of the text, as in placing it in a specific cultural setting etc. My only interest in Mesoamerican theories---as strong as that interest is----is how well they do the latter.

[RoseMadder]

I haven't engaged much with live individuals who disagree with the Mesoamerican setting. What exactly do you find wrong with the theory beyond statements by early brethren?

I have in front of me my Granny's 1920 edition of the BoM. There is a page at the beginning of the book which lists interesting facts about the Book of Mormon. One interesting fact is that the builders of early American civilizations discovered by scientists were the BoM peoples. Helaman is referenced, and the time frame mentioned for the building is B.C 49. Orson Pratt believed the narrow neck of land described in the BoM to be Panama, but his theory apparently was abandoned as I don't see such references in future editions of the BoM. I suppose that majority who abandoned Pratt's theory did so because of the same question I'm about to pose here: How, if the BoM has a Mesoamerican setting, did the plates find their way to New York? That, to me, seems to be a major glitch in the Mesoamerican theory.

I should mention here, for the sake of disclosure, that I'm no longer a Mormon, and I've only cursorily studied the Mesoamerican setting theory as I grew up believing like rcrocket. I no longer believe the BoM to be an ancient record, but I do believe that rcrocket's beliefs re: the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon remain fairly standard among the Mormons I know, and I know quite a few. My family reunions rival General Conference. ;-)