Limited Geography Theories

[mapman]

He met Moroni before he had the plates. He had interviews with him for four years previous to getting the plates. It is incredible to me that he did not know the name of the hill before getting the plates, after having all these interviews and intependent revelations on the subject of the ancient inhabitants.

How do you even know that the hill had a name before Joseph acquired the plates? I kind of doubt it did as it was just one of the hundreds of drumlins in the area. The only thing significant enough about the hill to earn it a name is the fact that the plates were buried in it.

[SkepticTheist]

The Hill Cumorah is the highest drumlin in the local area, first of all.

The fact that it was a lookout point in the area is the significant issue.

Right back at you. How do you even know the hill DIDN'T? That's the point. You claim it didn't for lack of historical evidence, in your attempts to cast doubt on it. Why do you feel such a need to cast doubt on the New York Hill? Why is it that you must trash on that hill in order to justify your own theory? Answer that? You say you are apologists but you are out to destroy the faith of those who believe in the NY Cumorah. Are you faith destroyers, or are you faith builders?

The logical lapse in the Mesoamerican viewpoint is that lack of evidence for something to you guys seems means positive evidence in your favor for your claim. It means nothing of the sort. But you parade it as if you have won the argument nevertheless, using an appeal to the emotion and ignorance of your audience rather than having real evidence.

Ed Goble

How do you even know that the hill had a name before Joseph acquired the plates? I kind of doubt it did as it was just one of the hundreds of drumlins in the area. The only thing significant enough about the hill to earn it a name is the fact that the plates were buried in it.

[SkepticTheist]

I'm sorry my friend but I don't have a real lot of desire to engage you on these points to a real in-depth degree.

You misunderstand. Mesoamericanists in quite a number of instances assert that only their viewpoint on Mormon 6:6 is reasonable, including Bill Hamblin's treatment on the subject. Their/your position and mine are both speculation. I have dealt with people like Mike Parker who insist that this means what he thinks it says, that it indicates it wasn't the same hill. My position on the word "exceedingly" is speculative, that is true, but I assert is is reasonable. My core point is not that. You see, I have to fight against your camp constantly to assert my very right to claim that my reading of the scriptures is REASONABLE and RATIONAL, because of the overconfidence of those of your camp in asserting that only their position, which is speculative, is the only reasonable way to read the text. It is not you that has to fight for your right to believe as you do and not be considered a crank. It is I that am in that position my friend.

So, please don't go off on this thing trying to appeal to the fact that both of our positions are speculative. I think we both already know that. It is me that is constantly having to beat back the overconfident charges from your camp, not the other way around. I think I am the first to ever fight back in a reasonable manner with a reasonable theory to create some pushback, with the exception of Andrew Hedges. I don't see the Heartlanders or the Hemispherical advocates coming back against your camp with reason and logic, and a reasonable alternative. I only see appeals to 19th century authority and emotion coming from them.

Ed

Yes it could but there is no evidence that is was, therefore speculation. The written evidence is that it was not until later. I have researched this and it appears the first mention anywhere of it is from Oliver Cowdery five years after the Book of Mormons publication (1835).

I am of the opinion that he was tutored yes but he was not given every detail and certainly not all at once, for example after years of tutoring by Moroni he still had to ask Emma if there really were walls around Jerusalem.

It is not a poor argument that we will use history (written accounts). We you and me can only speculate on what is not written?

Not true. As a "Mesoamericanist" I use evidence and interpret from that evidence. The simple plain fact is the evidence from the Book of Mormon states that the Plates of Nephi were not buried in Cumorah (Mormon 6:6). It is pure speculation to say they were buried in that same hill 36 years later It does not say that. The evidence from the time of the Prophet Joseph is that not until 1835 was the first mention of Cumorah written. Now I assume others thought the same as Oliver but that would be speculation the evidence is not until 1835 was the name Cumorah written outside of the Book of Mormon. Until a journal entry is found that places it in an earlier time that is what we have.

I have never did this.

That is what Mesoamericanist do. Saying that the plates of Nephi were reburied by Moroni in the same hill his father buried the other plates, many years later, after running from the Nephites, only to go back to that same dangerous place is purely speculation and not in the text.

You are already breaking your first rule. It does not say this. It says only an exceedingly great distance. I agree 2500+ miles is definitely an exceedingly great distance but that part is speculation on both our parts. Until we know exactly how far we can only offer opinion. Who knows how far in 400 A.D. an exceedingly great distance was, it could have been 400 miles it could have been 40 miles. but the text definitely does not say it was confined to Mesoamerica it does not say it was confined to any place.

No, it is lack of data that makes any place including New York a candidate.

Yet it is alright for you to do this?

Yes, this would have been nice for all of us. To condemn a "mesoamericanist" for speculation and leave out those who profess a hemispheric model is simply a double standard.

I have never wanted this.

For someone whose first rule is sticking to the text, just a clue this opinion of yours is not in the text. Again the text says the plates of Nephi were not buried in the hill. To say they were later is opinion and not textual.

Yet again, it is wrong for the mesoamericanist but okay for those who subscribe to a hemispheric model. This again is a double standard.

I completely agree!

[mapman]

The Hill Cumorah is the highest drumlin in the local area, first of all.

The fact that it was a lookout point in the area is the significant issue.

Right back at you. How do you even know the hill DIDN'T? That's the point. You claim it didn't for lack of historical evidence, in your attempts to cast doubt on it. Why do you feel such a need to cast doubt on the New York Hill? Why is it that you must trash on that hill in order to justify your own theory? Answer that? You say you are apologists but you are out to destroy the faith of those who believe in the NY Cumorah. Are you faith destroyers, or are you faith builders?

The logical lapse in the Mesoamerican viewpoint is that lack of evidence for something to you guys seems means positive evidence in your favor for your claim. It means nothing of the sort. But you parade it as if you have won the argument nevertheless, using an appeal to the emotion and ignorance of your audience rather than having real evidence.

Ed Goble

Cool down, man. I make one little comment and then you go and accuse me of trashing on the NY hill, that I am a faith destroyer, that I am parading around that I won an argument, and that I am taking advantage of my "audience". ???

First of all, I am not trashing on the NY hill. As a matter of fact, I think that it is very important because that is where Joseph found the plates and was instructed by Moroni. It is a beautiful place and has a special spirit (my visit to it with my family when I was a kid was actually one of the most important events in the development of my testimony). However, I don't think that it is significant because it was the site of the final battle of the Nephites or because it has geographical significance (it may be the tallest hill in its immediate neighborhood, but it isn't that much taller and there are taller drumlins in a larger area around it).

Second, if people are having their faith torn down by people promoting two Cumorahs, then they are basing their faith in the wrong foundation. I am not really trying to do anything to anyone's faith. What I am doing is trying to make sense of the scriptures and come to a better understanding of how things were. It doesn't really have anything to do with faith.

Third, even if the hill did have a name before Joseph got the plates, it doesn't help or hurt the Mesoamerican LGT. But if the hill never did have a name before Joseph got the plates then Moroni couldn't have told Joseph what it was.

[SkepticTheist]

-deleted-

[poulsenll]

The Hill Cumorah is the highest drumlin in the local area, first of all.

Ed Goble

Ed

Before you make such a statement, you might check out the area around Cumorah NY. Just two miles to the west is another drumlin that is 136 feet high compared to Cumorah NY's 124 ft. It is 9.6% higher than Cumorah. Looking at the many drumlins in the area, one finds many that are significantly higher that Cumorah NY. One, 4.8 miles north of Cumorah NY, stands out at 218 ft, over 75% higher than Cumorah NY. The possiblity that Cumorah NY was used as a lookout is of little signifcance because not only were there higher hills in the same area, it is probable that all of the higher hills were used as lookout points.

Larry P

[SkepticTheist]

Larry, I'm tired. Have a great day. I have faith in my hill. Go have faith in yours my friend. To tell you the truth, I just don't care anymore. I don't know why I should care about this subject anymore.

Ed

Before you make such a statement, you might check out the area around Cumorah NY. Just two miles to the west is another drumlin that is 136 feet high compared to Cumorah NY's 124 ft. It is 9.6% higher than Cumorah. Looking at the many drumlins in the area, one finds many that are significantly higher that Cumorah NY. One, 4.8 miles north of Cumorah NY, stands out at 218 ft, over 75% higher than Cumorah NY. The possiblity that Cumorah NY was used as a lookout is of little signifcance because not only were there higher hills in the same area, it is probable that all of the higher hills were used as lookout points.

Larry P

[Bob Crockett]

Ed

Before you make such a statement, you might check out the area around Cumorah NY. Just two miles to the west is another drumlin that is 136 feet high compared to Cumorah NY's 124 ft. It is 9.6% higher than Cumorah. Looking at the many drumlins in the area, one finds many that are significantly higher that Cumorah NY. One, 4.8 miles north of Cumorah NY, stands out at 218 ft, over 75% higher than Cumorah NY. The possiblity that Cumorah NY was used as a lookout is of little signifcance because not only were there higher hills in the same area, it is probable that all of the higher hills were used as lookout points.

Larry P

In the Battle of Gettysburg, the highest hill in the area was not the most important. Altitude was important, but so were a lot of other things in combination with altitude: steepness, how rugged the terrain, the distance of an artillery shot, who got there first, who had cavalry and who didn't and so forth.

[SkepticTheist]

-deleted-

[Pahoran]

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.

As such, it is a malicious, calculated attempt to poison the well.

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.

In the which, you are wrong.

The notion that it is an expression of "faithlessness" to study the Book of Mormon and look for internal textual evidence about its geographical setting is actually risible. The reality is that only genuine, faithful Book of Mormon believers have even the slightest interest in where the Nephites lived, because only genuine, faithful Book of Mormon believers actually suppose there were any Nephites to begin with.

It seems that if the LGT theorists have the upper hand they'd respond with polite dialog and toe-to-toe general authority statements.

While it seems to me that if the HGT theorists had the upper hand, they'd abandon the nasty polemical tactic of speculating about their opponents' faith -- something that is entirely beyond their competence -- and respond with polite dialogue and actual textual evidence.

It also seems to me that if they actually read the Book of Mormon -- instead of setting it up as a 15-book idol to be worshipped, patterned after the 66-book idol of the EV Protestants -- they'd discover that it has a lot to say, and none of it good, about "the vain and foolish traditions of the fathers," which in our day could be represented by an undue attachment to the non-revelatory opinions of dead GA's.

I like you, Rob. I am very fond of your treatment of LDS historical issues, especially around the MMM and related events. But that just goes to show that someone who is right about one thing can be completely wrong about another. The fact that various Latter-day Saints in high positions and low have assumed that the New York drumlin was Mormon's Cumorah, and that they have assumed that those who went before them must have had good reasons for making that assumption, is one that LGT proponents have not, to my knowledge, disputed.

And all that your favourite handful of GA quotes does is demonstrate that undisputed fact.

However: there is something astonishingly hypocritical about casting aspersions upon the faith of your opponents whom you know to be Book of Mormon believers and then, in the very next sentence, asking for "polite dialog." In what universe is it "polite" to accuse believers of "faithlessness?"

Here is a challenge for you, Rob: will you agree to maintain your position without introducing such aspersions into the discussion?

Can it even be done?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Pahoran, while I don't understand the need for rcrockett to take the position of that supporting a LGT position is "faithless" or at least leading to "faithlessness" (especially after personally knowing many of the scholars who do research in this area and hearing them speak of their love and belief in not only the BoM, but the Gospel itself and seeing no trace of "faithlessness" in their words or countenance as well as knowing how research in this area has led me to a greater love and appreciation of the text and of the prophets who have given it and other revelations to us), I don't see his accusation as rooted in a "malicious, calculated attempt to poison the well". I've seen that done as well and I don't see what is being said here by rcrockett comparing to that.

[Bob Crockett]

Paharon:

You are one of my favorites. I get a kick out of being on the receiving end of your wrath. I excuse you on account of you being a foreigner. Living in the commonwealth instead of the Promised Land must be a bummer.

You are indeed correct to say that the many academic proponents of the LGT are BoM lovers with firm testimonies. I used to be Welch's research assistant and he ribs me for my position.

But on matters of faith I tend to distrust efforts to shore up the BoM with archeaology. I think it a risky proposition driven by a perceived need to backfill where there is no hole to begin with.

[Calm]

But on matters of faith I tend to distrust efforts to shore up the BoM with archeaology.

What if the effort to tie the BoM to a particular spot is on behalf of trying to understand the BoM text better, not to justify its historicity?

[Hestia]

Stop the personal attacks. Rcrocket needs to stop calling people "faithless" because he disagrees with them and Pahoran needs to stop the counter accusations.

[ELF1024]

See my point 10 above.

You are projecting your own hostility onto me. Please stop it.

[ELF1024]

Yet we have seen those who have smugly denied LGT attacked as if they are apostates, we have seen the testimonies of presidents and apostles denigrated to the status of an arrogant "you weren't there", and we see two wings of faithful LDS attacking like, well, mopologists. Good people, President Cannon was quite correct in suggesting that such disputations were not helpful. They only get you all in an uproar with each other. And if you can't treat your brother and sisters in the church with decency, do you truly expect those outside of the church are much concerned with your mopology?

You are also projecting your own hostility onto me. I have not attacked anyone. Nor have I called anyone "faithless". I am simply willing to following the scientific evidence.

Please drop the attitude and stick to the topic.

[Pahoran]

ELF1024,

Rather than protest Melvin's hostility, there is a much simpler way:

Yet we have seen those who have smugly denied LGT attacked as if they are apostates, we have seen the testimonies of presidents and apostles denigrated to the status of an arrogant "you weren't there", and we see two wings of faithful LDS attacking like, well, mopologists. Good people, President Cannon was quite correct in suggesting that such disputations were not helpful. They only get you all in an uproar with each other. And if you can't treat your brother and sisters in the church with decency, do you truly expect those outside of the church are much concerned with your mopology?

Melvin,

Call For References that LGT opponents have been "attacked as if they are apostates."

Elf, that chirping you can now hear is the sound of crickets, undisturbed by any activity in Melvin's direction.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bookofmormontruth]

ELF1024,

Rather than protest Melvin's hostility, there is a much simpler way:

Melvin,

Call For References that LGT opponents have been "attacked as if they are apostates."

Elf, that chirping you can now hear is the sound of crickets, undisturbed by any activity in Melvin's direction.

Regards,

Pahoran

good stuff!

And what a beautiful sound crickets make in "praising".

[Anijen]

Been studying this a little more and some results have strengthened my view that there are no remnants of two large armies. There would have been something left behind.

"When members of a foreign group enter into a new territory, they bring elements of their material culture with them. The sudden intrusive of their own unique brand of stuff is precisely the way archaeologist detect the presence of such intruders in the territories of other people. This holds true for all the people we know who have came to the new world, including Columbus.” Kenneth Feder

We have remnants of materials Columbus left behind including some of the wreckage of the Santa Maria, which survivors used as a makeshift fort; there was not enough room on the other two ships for the return voyage. On the arrival of the second voyage they found that those who had stayed behind were killed by disease or either by the crew or the natives (Haitian) and the fort was burned down.

We can trace almost the exact route of Hernando de Soto in North America crossing over 3500 miles of territory because of what they left behind. Having said that we have yet to find any trace of an enormous army that migrated from Mesoamerica to New York and finally there is no trace of such a battle of such magnitude at the hill Cumorah in New York. No not one bit of signature of this migration or final battle has been found.

Some mounds in North America predates the Book of Mormon (even the Jaradites). In fact the oldest evidence for mound building in North America has been found at the Watson Brake site in Louisiana and dates to 5000 to 5400 years ago. To say the mound builders were a migration of a mixture of Nephites and Lamanites from the time of the Book of Mormon goes against the archaeological evidence. However incremental families or small groups could have migrated north from Mesoamerica and were assimilated into the culture is certainly within the realm of plausibility. These could have been before and after the final battle.

Lastly in no time in the entire history of the Clovis, Adena, and Hopewell people did they ever have a large population like reported in the Book of Mormon. In fact the largest population of all the mound builders (that of the Cahokia people) only reached a maximum population of 20,000 people and this was not until 600 plus years after the final battle.

[ELF1024]

Been studying this a little more and some results have strengthened my view that there are no remnants of two large armies. There would have been something left behind.

We have remnants of materials Columbus left behind including some of the wreckage of the Santa Maria, which survivors used as a makeshift fort; there was not enough room on the other two ships for the return voyage. On the arrival of the second voyage they found that those who had stayed behind were killed by disease or either by the crew or the natives (Haitian) and the fort was burned down.

We can trace almost the exact route of Hernando de Soto in North America crossing over 3500 miles of territory because of what they left behind. Having said that we have yet to find any trace of an enormous army that migrated from Mesoamerica to New York and finally there is no trace of such a battle of such magnitude at the hill Cumorah in New York. No not one bit of signature of this migration or final battle has been found.

Some mounds in North America predates the Book of Mormon (even the Jaradites). In fact the oldest evidence for mound building in North America has been found at the Watson Brake site in Louisiana and dates to 5000 to 5400 years ago. To say the mound builders were a migration of a mixture of Nephites and Lamanites from the time of the Book of Mormon goes against the archaeological evidence. However incremental families or small groups could have migrated north from Mesoamerica and were assimilated into the culture is certainly within the realm of plausibility. These could have been before and after the final battle.

Lastly in no time in the entire history of the Clovis, Adena, and Hopewell people did they ever have a large population like reported in the Book of Mormon. In fact the largest population of all the mound builders (that of the Cahokia people) only reached a maximum population of 20,000 people and this was not until 600 plus years after the final battle.

What cinched it for me was the supply lines involved in marching an army from meso-America to New York. An Army moves on it's stomach. You are limited by your supply lines, if you cannot get food and water to that Army in sufficient amount to sustain the movement, you end up no army due to death or desertion.

There are area's between Guatemala and New York, that I wouldn't want to have to cross on foot over an extended period of time. Add in the weather conditions, and you have a nightmarish logistical problem. Also keep in mind that these people were exploring the lands, it wasn't like they had topographical maps and grease pencils to work with. They may not have even had magnetic compasses and were still navigating by the stars (not that there is anything wrong with that).

[Sevenbak]

I realize I was a little hard on Sevenbak. The best professors never let their students take a easy way out...

Anijen

No, you weren't hard on me, nor am I studying at your feet.

[Calm]

What cinched it for me was the supply lines involved in marching an army from meso-America to New York. An Army moves on it's stomach. You are limited by your supply lines, if you cannot get food and water to that Army in sufficient amount to sustain the movement, you end up no army due to death or desertion.

The idea that (I have heard this from time to time pointing to the possible 5 year gap between the prior battles and the last fight according to the dates given by Mormon as in 380-385 AD) they could have picked up sufficient supplies along the way presupposes a couple of things as well, that they weren't moving in areas that held populations that already made use of the area's resources or that they had enough time to plant their own crops along the way...which seems to ignore the extensive amount of work it takes to clear land as well as the time it takes to grow the crops. There is also the issue of just how much collection and storage of food could have taken place in the previous years due to the constant and extensive warfare plus the loss of land to the Lamanites.

[Sevenbak]

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.

And of course, the elephant in the room... what kind of DNA changes did the Lord's curse bring on the Lamanites? Skin color only? No one knows.

[thesometimesaint]

Sevenbak:

As there are points in Lehite history where the two groups were indistinguishable, and appear to be political/cultural and not genetic. I think we can safely say that God did not change the DNA.

[Calm]

And of course, the elephant in the room... what kind of DNA changes did the Lord's curse bring on the Lamanites? Skin color only? No one knows.

Unfortunately this is something that cannot be studied...at least not now, if DNA studies existed at the time of the change so one had the DNA of a Lamanite prior to the alleged change and afterwards, then it could be discussed, but since we don't have that....

I don't think it is so much an "elephant" in the room where people are refusing to discuss it as there is nothing to discuss beyond saying "God did it" even if one assumes that is what happened.