Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[Scott Lloyd]

Although this thread is about non mormon crticism of Meldrum's model, his model hinges on the assumption that Moroni never wandered far from the BofM Cumorah. The enclosed diagram from the Church HIstroy LIbrary does not agree with this assumption. I have personally handled this diagram and an accompanying copy. The original diagram can be dated based on a notation on the back. It was drawn sometime in 1872 at the Sevier in Utah and shows a proposed route followed be Moroni as he traved from Central America to New York. This route coincides with the Camino Real from Mexico to Utah and the North American indian trade routes from Utah to New York. Although the diagram includes a reference to the KInderhook Plates it does not invalidte the balance of the figure because in in 1872, these plates were thought by most members to be related the Book of Mormon and the author of the diagram, in all likelyhood included them simply because the location where they were found fell on the route presumably originating from the Prophet Joseph Smith as claimed by the author of the diagram.

One of the obvious ways for Moroni to hide from the Lamanites was to disguise himself as a trader, and directed by the Lord, follow the trade routes in order to get to the place where Joseph would later find them. There is some additional evidence among the myths of the Southwest United States that support this possiblity but that is a subject for another thread.

Although this figure does not come from outside the Church, it is just one of many facts that disagrees with Meldrum's assumptions.

Moroni's Travels 1.pdf

Larry P

Larry, I understand there is a legend that Moroni stood on the hill where the Manti Utah Temple is now located and dedicated it as the location for a future temple. Does this map refer in any way to that legend?

Edited January 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Tepui]

I believe I just answered my own question. Just by searching on line.

The name of Patriarch McBride, was Reuben McBride. He was in Zion's Camp per this site: http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/xviin3we/28.%20OLD%20DIARY%20SUGGESTS%20JOSEPH%20SMITH%20ALLUDED%20TO%20A%20RIVER.htm?n=0

So McBride is the same mentioned at the Maxwell Institute (MI) article here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=39 .

Per the article, McBride mentioned in his journal the comments made by the Prophet Joseph Smith about Zelph. Yet, the MI has tried to discount the Zelph account by claiming, "[it's] based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place." http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=571 Footnote # 2 states: "2. Reuben McBride, Diary, 3 June 1834, LDS Church Archives. For a detailed account regarding McBride's diary and the fact that it duplicates itself, see Kenneth W. Godfrey, "Zelph," BYU Studies 29/2 (1989): 34.

The MI is questioning the accuracy of McBride's journal to discount the Zelph account in Church History - due to memory issues.

This, I believe, leads to some contradictory conclusions:

1. If we can question McBride's journal about Zelph in 1834, then we can question McBride's map of 1872 - since both "were written long after the event took place."

2. McBride must have thought or believed Joseph Smith taught or believed in a Hemispheric Geography Model - since he must have believed what Joseph Smith said about Zelph: 'known from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountain'

3. McBride is contradicting himself by claiming Joseph Smith taught of a North America location for Nephites, (from his 1834 journal entry of Zelph) while providing a 1872 map showing a Central America location taught by Joseph Smith.

4. McBride was wrong about what Joseph Smith believed

5. The story behind the maps has been embellished

In addition, the MI site states: "Reuben McBride's account of the discovery of Zelph is shorter and less detailed than the others but may have been the first one recorded, possibly having been written on the day the find occurred, although in no case are we completely sure when the information was put down in writing." <a href="http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=571">http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=571

Yet, the last phrase still questions McBrides diary entry.

Yes, this is an interesting discussion. Thank you.

[livy111us]

I believe I just answered my own question. Just by searching on line.

The name of Patriarch McBride, was Reuben McBride. He was in Zion's Camp per this site: http://www.ancientam...20RIVER.htm?n=0

So McBride is the same mentioned at the Maxwell Institute (MI) article here: http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=39 .

Per the article, McBride mentioned in his journal the comments made by the Prophet Joseph Smith about Zelph. Yet, the MI has tried to discount the Zelph account by claiming, "[it's] based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place." http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=2&id=571 Footnote # 2 states: "2. Reuben McBride, Diary, 3 June 1834, LDS Church Archives. For a detailed account regarding McBride's diary and the fact that it duplicates itself, see Kenneth W. Godfrey, "Zelph," BYU Studies 29/2 (1989): 34.

The MI is questioning the accuracy of McBride's journal to discount the Zelph account in Church History - due to memory issues.

This, I believe, leads to some contradictory conclusions:

1. If we can question McBride's journal about Zelph in 1834, then we can question McBride's map of 1872 - since both "were written long after the event took place."

2. McBride must have thought or believed Joseph Smith taught or believed in a Hemispheric Geography Model - since he must have believed what Joseph Smith said about Zelph: 'known from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountain'

3. McBride is contradicting himself by claiming Joseph Smith taught of a North America location for Nephites, (from his 1834 journal entry of Zelph) while providing a 1872 map showing a Central America location taught by Joseph Smith.

4. McBride was wrong about what Joseph Smith believed

5. The story behind the maps has been embellished

In addition, the MI site states: "Reuben McBride's account of the discovery of Zelph is shorter and less detailed than the others but may have been the first one recorded, possibly having been written on the day the find occurred, although in no case are we completely sure when the information was put down in writing." <a href="http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=571">http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=571

Yet, the last phrase still questions McBrides diary entry.

Yes, this is an interesting discussion. Thank you.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Reuben Augustus McBride is the same person as William McBride? I went to the Church archives a few years back and looked at this journal entry myself as well as other material. I was able to make several photocopies of information on William McBride and they are not one and the same person. Besides having different names, they were at different places at the same time, and died 4 years apart. Here is the obituary for William McBride:

http://books.google....mcbride&f=false

http://mcbride-familyhistory.blogspot.com/2008/09/william-mcbride-great-grandfather-to.html

and info on Reuben:

http://www.biographi...ride_(1803-1891)

I am actually VERY happy to have found the obituary for William. I had a hard time finding much information on him and this now gives several leads to his life.

But even if it was the same person, McBride wouldn't be the first person who was part of Zions camp and experienced the Zelph incident firsthand only to later accept a setting for The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff are a few that come to mind. They didn't seem to think the Zelph incident was proof positive of a North American only setting for The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith didn't correct them on teaching and publishing a Mesoamerican setting for The BOM.

Edited January 15, 2012 by livy111us

[poulsenll]

Livy has it right. It is a different McBride although both were in Nauvoo with the prophet.

Scott

Both Manti and St George sites were presumed to have been dedicated by Moroni during his travels.

Larry P

[Scott Lloyd]

Livy has it right. It is a different McBride although both were in Nauvoo with the prophet.

Scott

Both Manti and St George sites were presumed to have been dedicated by Moroni during his travels.

Larry P

Fascinating. Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

The warmth here, from some, could melt an ice cube in a week or so.

Why are you calling people "Mr."? That strikes me as distant, strained and odd among Latter-day Saints, where the custom is to use "Brother" or "Sister" where courtesy titles are used at all.

[Tepui]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Reuben Augustus McBride is the same person as William McBride? I went to the Church archives a few years back and looked at this journal entry myself as well as other material. I was able to make several photocopies of information on William McBride and they are not one and the same person. Besides having different names, they were at different places at the same time, and died 4 years apart. Here is the obituary for William McBride:

http://books.google....mcbride&f=false

http://mcbride-famil...dfather-to.html

and info on Reuben:

http://www.biographi...ride_(1803-1891)

I am actually VERY happy to have found the obituary for William. I had a hard time finding much information on him and this now gives several leads to his life.

But even if it was the same person, McBride wouldn't be the first person who was part of Zions camp and experienced the Zelph incident firsthand only to later accept a setting for The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff are a few that come to mind. They didn't seem to think the Zelph incident was proof positive of a North American only setting for The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith didn't correct them on teaching and publishing a Mesoamerican setting for The BOM.

Thank you. I'm glad to be corrected about which McBride. Actually, it doesn't matter which McBride it was.

According to the MI, the diaries of the seven members who wrote of Zelph at Zion's Camp are suspect, because they "were written long after the event took place."

So Patriarch McBride's map was created in 1872 - ?, long after the Prophet's death. Thus we should apply the same logic to the map?

Regarding Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor, I don't believe they accepted a Mesoamerica only setting for the Book of Mormon, but a hemispheric.

Yet, Woodruff's journal is also suspect - to make it appear as if he were in error about Zelph or a North America setting. See http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=2&id=571

[Tepui]

Regarding David Ingram's account of walking from near present-day Tampico to Nova Scotia, Ingram was illiterate. He survived with 2 men after setting out with 2 dozen. Then returned to England. 15 years later, his told his account to the Court of England which recorded it. http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A1143488%7C

Yet, despite "written long after the event took place" it's held up as evidence of Moroni able to travel to New York.

So why are the Zelph accounts questioned as "written long after the event took place," whereas David Ingram's account is not?

[livy111us]

Thank you. I'm glad to be corrected about which McBride.

Glad to help.

Actually, it doesn't matter which McBride it was.

The whole point of your last post was based on them being the same person. So it seemed relevant enough to address.

According to the MI, the diaries of the seven members who wrote of Zelph at Zion's Camp are suspect, because they "were written long after the event took place."

You mean to say according to one author who published with the MI. It is a radical view (or the interpretation of it that is forced on it by others) that I have never agreed with and I doubt many others at MI accept that view as well. If there were just one account, perhaps a case could be made. But due to the fact that there are numerous witnesses that say pretty much the same thing makes it hard to discount. But it is not the point of the article to dismiss the Zelph accounts, that is only pointed out (generally) by North American theorists who want to try to point out that the MI disregards all evidence for their claim, therefore poisoning the well so others do not read anymore of their material which supports a Mesoamerican setting for The BOM. The article itself states "I agree with historian Don Cannon that "we not reject the story of Zelph and its relationship to Book of Mormon geography;" rather, we should be aware of how the story came to us as well as how it became a part of the history of the church."

So Patriarch McBride's map was created in 1872 - ?, long after the Prophet's death. Thus we should apply the same logic to the map?

The maps are not a slam dunk because of the reasons you bring up, but that does not mean they are false. They line up with what Joseph Smith believed/taught, thus are not that outrageous. If they were maps of the South Pole, we would be a bit more skeptical, but I believe it gives them credence since it was a previously held belief. If maps were found that were purportedly written by JS that were centralized in North America, I would also feel the same way about them as I do these maps.

Regarding Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor, I don't believe they accepted a Mesoamerica only setting for the Book of Mormon, but a hemispheric.

I'm not an expert on John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff's view on BOM geography, but no statement by them come to mind that supports a North American setting for The BOM. I wouldn't be surprised if at some time they did, but the point of my post was to show that members of Zions camp who were there for the discovery of Zelph didn't even take the event as proof positive of BOM geography as North American theorist's do today. The ones who knew JS intimately and discussed BOM geography with him weren't as dogmatic as modern day readers are on the subject of Zelph.

[Calm]

At the very least, the maps demonstrate the idea of a more limited geography was not purely in response to scientists and others demonstrating the impracticality of a hemisphere-wide civilization nor a Mesoamerican due to the lack of evidence in the Hill Cumorah area.

[Tepui]

Glad to help.

The whole point of your last post was based on them being the same person. So it seemed relevant enough to address.

You mean to say according to one author who published with the MI. It is a radical view (or the interpretation of it that is forced on it by others) that I have never agreed with and I doubt many others at MI accept that view as well. If there were just one account, perhaps a case could be made. But due to the fact that there are numerous witnesses that say pretty much the same thing makes it hard to discount. But it is not the point of the article to dismiss the Zelph accounts, that is only pointed out (generally) by North American theorists who want to try to point out that the MI disregards all evidence for their claim, therefore poisoning the well so others do not read anymore of their material which supports a Mesoamerican setting for The BOM. The article itself states "I agree with historian Don Cannon that "we not reject the story of Zelph and its relationship to Book of Mormon geography;" rather, we should be aware of how the story came to us as well as how it became a part of the history of the church."

The maps are not a slam dunk because of the reasons you bring up, but that does not mean they are false. They line up with what Joseph Smith believed/taught, thus are not that outrageous. If they were maps of the South Pole, we would be a bit more skeptical, but I believe it gives them credence since it was a previously held belief. If maps were found that were purportedly written by JS that were centralized in North America, I would also feel the same way about them as I do these maps.

I'm not an expert on John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff's view on BOM geography, but no statement by them come to mind that supports a North American setting for The BOM. I wouldn't be surprised if at some time they did, but the point of my post was to show that members of Zions camp who were there for the discovery of Zelph didn't even take the event as proof positive of BOM geography as North American theorist's do today. The ones who knew JS intimately and discussed BOM geography with him weren't as dogmatic as modern day readers are on the subject of Zelph.

Glad to help.

The whole point of your last post was based on them being the same person. So it seemed relevant enough to address.

You mean to say according to one author who published with the MI. It is a radical view (or the interpretation of it that is forced on it by others) that I have never agreed with and I doubt many others at MI accept that view as well. If there were just one account, perhaps a case could be made. But due to the fact that there are numerous witnesses that say pretty much the same thing makes it hard to discount. But it is not the point of the article to dismiss the Zelph accounts, that is only pointed out (generally) by North American theorists who want to try to point out that the MI disregards all evidence for their claim, therefore poisoning the well so others do not read anymore of their material which supports a Mesoamerican setting for The BOM. The article itself states "I agree with historian Don Cannon that "we not reject the story of Zelph and its relationship to Book of Mormon geography;" rather, we should be aware of how the story came to us as well as how it became a part of the history of the church."

The maps are not a slam dunk because of the reasons you bring up, but that does not mean they are false. They line up with what Joseph Smith believed/taught, thus are not that outrageous. If they were maps of the South Pole, we would be a bit more skeptical, but I believe it gives them credence since it was a previously held belief. If maps were found that were purportedly written by JS that were centralized in North America, I would also feel the same way about them as I do these maps.

I'm not an expert on John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff's view on BOM geography, but no statement by them come to mind that supports a North American setting for The BOM. I wouldn't be surprised if at some time they did, but the point of my post was to show that members of Zions camp who were there for the discovery of Zelph didn't even take the event as proof positive of BOM geography as North American theorist's do today. The ones who knew JS intimately and discussed BOM geography with him weren't as dogmatic as modern day readers are on the subject of Zelph.

Well, I would hate to be considered "dogmatic." I'll leave asserting strong opinions about an LGT theory to the MI - formerly known as F.A.R.M.S. which was founded, dogmatically, on that opinion.

But thank you for the clarification about how to understand the MI. I didn't see a user's manual. I didn't realize one author would be in a limited disagreement over another about a limited geography.

All seem in agreement against any other model.

And it's not just one author at MI who spoke out against Zelph. The MI has an excellent search engine - is the author of this having the opinions of other forced upon him about his dismissal of Zelph?

The "Zelph" story is another piece of evidence that is frequently used to associate Joseph Smith with the Hemispheric Geography Model. It is claimed that Joseph Smith had a revelation concerning the discovery of some bones in Illinois during the Zion's Camp march in 1834.⁴⁷ However, the version of the story that appeared in the Documentary History of the Church,⁴⁸ although editorially couched in the first person, does not in fact represent Joseph Smith's own written account of the event, nor a revelation, nor was it editorially approved by Joseph Smith. Rather, it is an editorial compilation by Willard Richards written in manuscript between 1842 and 1843.⁴⁹ It was not published until 1846, after the death of Joseph Smith, and so could not have had his final editorial approval. In the printed version, editorial deletions and changes in the original manuscript (which might have represented Joseph Smith's work) were mistakenly ignored.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=39

What's next? We shouldn't believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon because Martin Harris, Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote it down?

But I know the answer already: "You mean to say according to one two author(s) who published with the MI. It is a radical view (or the interpretation of it that is forced on it by others) that I have never agreed with and I doubt many others at MI accept that view as well."

Hey, I didn't make the rules about how to interpret the MI. So don't be dogmatic with me. I'm just pointing out what I read. But thank you for pointing out the MI's inconsistency. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Pahoran]

Regarding David Ingram's account of walking from near present-day Tampico to Nova Scotia, Ingram was illiterate. He survived with 2 men after setting out with 2 dozen. Then returned to England. 15 years later, his told his account to the Court of England which recorded it. http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A1143488%7C

Yet, despite "written long after the event took place" it's held up as evidence of Moroni able to travel to New York.

So why are the Zelph accounts questioned as "written long after the event took place," whereas David Ingram's account is not?

That's right, Tepui. Making a long journey on foot and in person makes exactly the same impression upon the memory as hearing a statement just once.

Oh dear.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tepui]

That's right, Tepui. Making a long journey on foot and in person makes exactly the same impression upon the memory as hearing a statement just once.

Oh dear.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm not questioning the Zelph account. Neither Ingram's account.

I'm questioning the inconsistency of the logic applied to how historical incidents should be considered factual, by a scholar who represents an organization of scholars who represent and promote a geography model.

But tell me if these are the rules for BoM Geography:

1 If it promotes a BoM geography theory other than a LGT theory in Mesoamerica, then it should be dismissed.

2 If it promotes a BoM geography theory for a LGT theory in Mesoameria, then it should be embraced.

It follows:

1The Zelph account is dismissed

2 The Ingram account is accepted (Ancient American Setting, 45...) even though Ingram didn't walk alone... lol!

If I'm wrong, maybe you can be so kind as to tell me what the correct rules are.

Thank you. I hope you're enjoying your sabbath day.

[cinepro]

I, of course, was referring to the LDS Church News, not the Deseret News.

And apparently, you're complaining that the Deseret News reported on (not advocated) a theory you don't like. It sounds like you're calling for censorship that accommodates your personal views.

Not complaining at all.

In fact, I can only hope that the Deseret news continues to report on the scientific arguments that support a belief in the world-wide flood of Noah. Nothing would make me happier than to have daily or weekly articles of that nature.

[Bob Oliverio]

After reading all that is out there about Ingram, one question comes to mind: "Why is there such a great and determined interest in using him as evidence of a supposed journey by Moroni?". The claims of Ingram are subject to great skepticism by historians and he came 1000 years later.  Frankly, I would doubt any serious scholars would find a parallel or supportive comparison to these claims of a Moroni journey of sorts.  Most challenge the claim to begin with.  Let alone the difference of 1000 years of difference to make such a journey with a team of dozens as opposed to an individual effort.  Am I missing any commen sense here?

But more importantly, why is there such a seemingly effort here to distant the BOM from Hill Cumprah in NY?  Is there a legitimate fear that I am not aware of here?

[Cushan Rishathaim]

After reading all that is out there about Ingram, one question comes to mind: "Why is there such a great and determined interest in using him as evidence of a supposed journey by Moroni?". The claims of Ingram are subject to great skepticism by historians and he came 1000 years later. Frankly, I would doubt any serious scholars would find a parallel or supportive comparison to these claims of a Moroni journey of sorts.

John Sorenson noted the parallel in his classic work An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Contrary to your assertion, Sorenson is very much a "serious scholar."

But more importantly, why is there such a seemingly effort here to distant the BOM from Hill Cumprah in NY? Is there a legitimate fear that I am not aware of here?

You don't appear to understand these issues. I'm not aware of anyone who accepts a LGT for the Book of Mormon based in ancient Meso-America who seeks to distance the BofM from the Hill Cumorah in NY.

[Daniel Peterson]

After reading all that is out there about Ingram, one question comes to mind: "Why is there such a great and determined interest in using him as evidence of a supposed journey by Moroni?".

I don't see anything particularly "great and determined" about offering Ingram as a seeming parallel to Moroni's possible journey. Some critics allege that Moroni's proposed journey is impossible, or, at least, extraordinarily unlikely. They sometimes claim that it savors of over-the-top miracle. However, if the Ingram story is true, that provides a quite unmiraculous parallel story that demonstrates the plausibility of Moroni's proposed journey.

The claims of Ingram are subject to great skepticism by historians and he came 1000 years later.

I'm aware that some have doubted the Ingram account, and that can be debated. But I'm not sure why it matters very much that "he came 1000 years later."

The topography hadn't changed. Technology hadn't appreciably changed. The population was perhaps somewhat larger, but still very small compared to what it would be today, or even in the nineteenth century. The fundamental challenges of the journey would have been essentially the same in Ingram's time as in Moroni's time.

Frankly, I would doubt any serious scholars would find a parallel or supportive comparison to these claims of a Moroni journey of sorts.

I'm not sure why you say this.

And, by the way, I do pretend, at least, to be a serious scholar.

Most challenge the claim to begin with.

Got that. Some do. Some don't. Not sure about the precise ratio between those two groups.

Let alone the difference of 1000 years

The chronological difference seems to me quite unimportant.

Now, if we we're talking about the difference between, say, 1611 and 2011, I would agree that that would represent something substantial. Populations are many times higher now in the relevant areas. There have been several technological revolutions in the meantime. Nation-states have arisen, with borders and border guards. Urbanization has occurred on a massive scale. Lands have been fenced. And so on and so forth. But none of those things happened between the fifth century and the early seventeenth century.

of difference to make such a journey with a team of dozens as opposed to an individual effort.

A few dozen wouldn't have been enough to have fended off a serious attack by a determined enemy. I don't see such a number as much more viable than one alone -- particularly if he were a trained and experienced and vigorous warrior, determined to be stealthy, and even more so if -- as he might well have had, being on a divinely-ordained errand -- he had Help.

Am I missing any commen sense here?

I'd prefer not to answer that question.

But more importantly, why is there such a seemingly effort here to distant the BOM from Hill Cumprah in NY?

The Book of Mormon seems to sketch out a history that took place within a distinctly limited area. Many (including myself) are convinced that the most likely setting for that history is in Mesoamerica. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon to suggest Nephite or Jaredite journeys of thousands of miles within the New World, nor any hint of the migration of the Nephites and, earlier, of the Jaredites from Mesoamerica to what is now upstate New York. (Your objections to Moroni's having covered that distance apply in spades to the notion that entire populations of men, women, and children made such a journey.) Ergo, it seems likely to many (including myself) that the final battles took place in Mesoamerica.

If you wish to become familiar with the case for a limited geographical area in Mesoamerica as the principal setting for Book of Mormon events, good starting points are John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, and David Palmer, In Search of Cumorah.

Is there a legitimate fear that I am not aware of here?

"Fear"?

No, there's no "fear."

[Tepui]

But more importantly, why is there such a seemingly effort here to distant the BOM from Hill Cumprah in NY? Is there a legitimate fear that I am not aware of here?

Those who are trying to distance the BoM from the Hill Cumorah in NY, really are not that serious-if you study up on the alleged original Hill Cumorah placed in Mesoamerica. The "hill" identified is near the Gulf of Mexico in the Tuxtla mountains in Veracruz, Mexico - an isolated range of volcanoes. The mountain "Cerro Vigia" is the "chosen" Hill Cumorah. It's near the coast and rises 3,522 ft above seal level and is allegedly the hill the injured Mormon and 24 surviving Nephites, including his son Moroni climbed to "the top" to view the aftermath of the final Nephite battle which destroyed that nation. To the top, the Book of Mormon states.

The "Hill Cumorah" is located at Peakery.com: http://peakery.com/cerro-vigia-3/

It states:

No one has reported climbing or hiking to Cerro Vigia summit on peakery. If you’ve climbed this peak be the first to report it! Share your summit log entry and add Cerro Vigia pictures from your climb below. Include the names of the routes or trails you took to the summit and back.

Apparently, despite all the promoting of a Mesoamerica Theory, the Cerro Vigia or the original 3,522 foot Hill Cumorah, covered by clouds and a dense forest, from the top Mormon and 24 Nephites could allegedly look down upon and see the remains of the Nephites, isn't exactly a tourist attraction. LOL! (And Peakery.com isn't some ridiculous site either: see their list: http://peakery.com/explore/list/?)

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Cumorah#Cerro_Vigia

Mormon scholars have proposed the "Cerro Vigia" (coordinates: 18°33′N 95°11′W

or 18°27′25″N 95°21′01″W

) in Veracruz, Mexico, as the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon for a variety of reasons.

Don't worry Brother Oliverio. The whole LGT theory is nothing other than some intellectual mind game. Just play along.

[Anijen]

After reading all that is out there about Ingram, one question comes to mind:

CFR, okay I call you on this. You admit you have read "all that is out there" please list your sources. I ask because I have studied this and what I thought all was out there I would like to compare my notes with yours. I can see if I am missing some of these sources. Oh and there are some sources that I found that were incredibly hard to obtain, so I do look forward to adding to my sources from your complete list.

"Why is there such a great and determined interest in using him as evidence of a supposed journey by Moroni?".

Isn't that self evident? some LDS claim Moroni made a journey from Mesoamerica to New York, some critics claim it would have been impossible, hence the David Ingram account is evidence that it not only is possible but has happened.

The claims of Ingram are subject to great skepticism

For someone who has studied all the evidence out there, this is a bold statement to make to say the claims are subject to great skepticism. Again I am interested to see your list to compare it to mine.

Most challenge the claim to begin with

What? You say you have studied all that is out there and write most scholars challenge the claim? CFR on who are these "most"

Reminder of board rules you must cite your sources when CFR or retract your statement. I will be looking forward to your citations or a retraction.

[Anijen]

The whole LGT theory is nothing other than some intellectual mind game. Just play along.

Tepui, I have a few questions for you.

Are you a member?

If you are a member, could you please list what geography setting for the Book of Mormon you subscribe to?

Do you accept a hemispheric model?

Do you accept a US only model?

Why that model?

What evidence is out there that will support your geographic setting for the Book of Mormon?

You are very quick to criticize the LGT (in Mesoamerica) but you have not expressed which setting you do adopt and why or what evidence you have that will support your theory. I would like to compare your thoughts with my own.

It is one thing to offer a blanket criticism and another to do so but not give a reasonable alternative. I know why rcrocket and sevenbac believe in a different theory I would like to know yours.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think it is important to note that we know almost nothing about the life of Moroni in the years following the end of the book of Mormon. If he wandered to the region of Palmyra in New York, there is no reason to necessarily think that he was alone. Furthermore, it is possible to sail a canoe up the coast of Mexico, then up the Mississippi River, then up the Ohio River to within less than 100 miles of modern Palmyra. There is simply no reason to think that he walked this entire distance.

[Daniel Peterson]

Those who are trying to distance the BoM from the Hill Cumorah in NY, really are not that serious. . . . The whole LGT theory is nothing other than some intellectual mind game. Just play along.

Rather bad form, Tepui, insinuating (without evidence) that those with whom you disagree are disingenuous and unserious. Very ungracious.

For the record: I knew the late David Palmer (In Search of Cumorah) somewhat, and I never saw anything to suggest that he wasn't sincere in his views. I've known John Sorenson (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Mormon's Map, Images of Ancient America, World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492, Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans, the forthcoming Mormon's Codex, and etc. and etc.) very well for more than two decades, and I'm confident that he really means what he says and what he's written. And I know that I'm serious.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think it is important to note that we know almost nothing about the life of Moroni in the years following the end of the book of Mormon. If he wandered to the region of Palmyra in New York, there is no reason to necessarily think that he was alone. Furthermore, it is possible to sail a canoe up the coast of Mexico, then up the Mississippi River, then up the Ohio River to within less than 100 miles of modern Palmyra. There is simply no reason to think that he walked this entire distance.

Another thing to remember is that there were over thirty years between the last conflict of the Nephites and the burial of the plates (Morm. 6:5; Moroni 10:1). For all we know Moroni could have settled the Mississippi River Valley, raised a family, become a merchant, slowly migrated northward, or perhaps even gone to bury the plates in his later years with the help of his sons, who could have been in their late twenties by this time. Now, of course, all of this is pure speculation, but nonetheless entirely plausible. Therefore, there's no reason to assume that Moron by made the trek to the Hill Camorra in New York under duress, or in the shortest time possible.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rather bad form, Tepui, insinuating (without evidence) that those with whom you disagree are disingenuous and unserious. Very ungracious.

I agree. It is pure anti-Mormon nincompoopery.

[Tepui]

Rather bad form, Tepui, insinuating (without evidence) that those with whom you disagree are disingenuous and unserious. Very ungracious.

For the record: I knew the late David Palmer (In Search of Cumorah) somewhat, and I never saw anything to suggest that he wasn't sincere in his views. I've known John Sorenson (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Mormon's Map, Images of Ancient America, World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492, Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans, the forthcoming Mormon's Codex, and etc. and etc.) very well for more than two decades, and I'm confident that he really means what he says and what he's written. And I know that I'm serious.

I don't agree. I don't believe any LDS scholar is serious, who claims a 3,500 foot peak in Mesoamerica is the Hill Cumorah. There is no evidence it was selected by revelation, merely by scholarship. It's too high to look down from and covered with dense foliage.

You can criticize my statement "that it's a mind game" but I've come to that conclusion when looking at the facts that allegedly support the as yet unproven LGT theory. One's mind has to accept the unprovable. If you were offended by that, I'm sorry. But I'm sure the scholars you know have long weathered criticism from in and out of the Church. I believe that should be expected of any serious scholar who defends his/her work of any subject from critics.

I also believe your and Brother Hamblin's criticizing my last statement is a red herring and an attempt to label me (as a nincompoop) to divert attention away from the unprovable assertion that Cerro Vigiia is the Hill Cumorah. It's an important part of the LGT theory but a very very weak assertion. It's part of the question which Brother Oliverio had been asking about the Hill Cumorah - for from it it's alleged Moroni traveled to New York.

I've already dis-proven to one person here who claimed Brother Oliverio was incorrect when he stated David Ingram had a dozen companions. He was claimed to be incorrect when a simple internet search proved him to be correct. Yet that was then dismissed as being unimportant. A mind game. Pick and choose facts, and change the rules for submitting these facts as evidence for or against a theory-as one goes along. At the risk of again offending, I believe that is disingenuous.

In reply to Anijen, my profile will answer your question of my membership. I do not subscribe to a limited geography model which Dr. Sorenson has described as being about 500 miles in length. I subscribe to one located in the Northern Hemisphere because that is where the Hill Cumorah is located. I am also interested in the truth, not a theory.

In reply, which model do you subscribe to Anijen? And why?

Thank you. Respectfully, Tepui