Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[Bob Crockett]

But the texts available to us in the Book of Mormon do nothing to suggest that such an anabasis actually happened, and both by what they say and by what they fail to say they point to a much less dramatic state of affairs, in which only a single Cumorah is involved – the Cumorah at which Joseph Smith eventually found the plates.

And, of course, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, unless one is wont to disregard the usual requirements to prove a negative.

What that means is that if the Book of Mormon does not mention an event in an episode that it is recounting, it is more likely than not that that event did not occur. We're talking about odds and percentages, not iron-clad proof.

Whereas I cannot rule out the possibility that the Sorensen model is correct, I must conclude based upon the absence of any mention of two Cumorahs in the Book of Mormon or the writings and speeches of Joseph Smith, and based further upon the First Presidency's statement in the 1920s that it is beyond cavil that the modern Cumorah is old Cumorah/Ramah, I must stick to the position dreaded by most here.

I suspect that the one's view of the Hill Cumorah will be sought asked on Judgment Day, and that a few of us here will pass the test in flying colors.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

"I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life."

SNIP

But the texts available to us in the Book of Mormon do nothing to suggest that such an anabasis actually happened, and both by what they say and by what they fail to say they point to a much less dramatic state of affairs, in which only a single Cumorah is involved – the Cumorah at which Joseph Smith eventually found the plates.

This approach presumes that there is nothing relevant to the question in the 1000 or so passages with geographical information (journeys, distances, up and down elevation, a description of a river uniquely fits the Grijalva, based on Larry Poulson's search of the entire Western Hemisphere for candidates that fit, the appearance of cement for city building in a time and place of convergent relevance, the right kinds of fortifications at the right time depth, the evidence of volcanic activity, not to mention the wealth of relevant cultural information, all provided by eye-witnessses, whose observations, I should think, ought to have relevance to the question.

And it seems to me that "wander withersoever I can for the safety of mine own life" is not equivalent to saying, "paced back and forth in the basically the same spot, ducking under the bushes whenever persons of murderous intent happened to come by, because after all, who would expect to find me right where they last saw me?"

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Pahoran]

And, of course, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, unless one is wont to disregard the usual requirements to prove a negative.

What that means is that if the Book of Mormon does not mention an event in an episode that it is recounting, it is more likely than not that that event did not occur. We're talking about odds and percentages, not iron-clad proof.

Whereas I cannot rule out the possibility that the Sorensen model is correct, I must conclude based upon the absence of any mention of two Cumorahs in the Book of Mormon or the writings and speeches of Joseph Smith, and based further upon the First Presidency's statement in the 1920s that it is beyond cavil that the modern Cumorah is old Cumorah/Ramah, I must stick to the position dreaded by most here.

Yes, Bob. By now everyone here knows that you have managed to take an ultra-conservative Protestant inerrantist paradigm and impose it upon conventional statements by LDS leaders for which no special inspiration is claimed.

Frankly I think it is a serious mistake, but it's no skin off my nose.

BTW, that flippant throwaway line about "the absence of any mention of two Cumorahs in the Book of Mormon" is simply nonsense. The Mesoamerican LGT requires that "Joseph Smith's Cumorah" would have been too geographically distant to have been known to any of the Book of Mormon writers until Moroni actually buried his already-completed record; only "Mormon's Cumorah" would have been.

I suspect that the one's view of the Hill Cumorah will be sought asked on Judgment Day, and that a few of us here will pass the test in flying colors.

That is in nowise a valid Latter-day Saint belief. If there is a question at all related to this issue that is asked on Judgement day, it is far more likely to take a form similar to, "Did you ever pass unrighteous judgement upon your fellow Latter-day Saints for disagreeing with you on a question of geography, or anything similarly irrelevant?"

How many US-centrist traditionalists would pass that test with flying colours?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited January 25, 2012 by Pahoran

[volgadon]

I suspect that the one's view of the Hill Cumorah will be sought asked on Judgment Day

Why?

[LeSellers]

I suspect that the one's view of the Hill Cumorah will be sought asked on Judgment Day, and that a few of us here will pass the test in flying colors.

Why?

I wondered the same thing.

I can't recall which of our prophets said it, but there is a rather famous talk in which whoever it was described the interview we'll have with the Savior on "judgement Day". It did not include much about our beliefs, but focused on what we did about those beliefs. If we helped neighbors in distress and did our Home Teaching. The Lord, he said, is not interested in which callings we had, but how well we filled them.

I cannot imagine His worrying about whether I think there is one Hill Cumorah or two, but I am convinced He's going to ask me if I read the Book of Mormon regularly.

Lehi

[JNclone]

And, of course, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, unless one is wont to disregard the usual requirements to prove a negative.

What that means is that if the Book of Mormon does not mention an event in an episode that it is recounting, it is more likely than not that that event did not occur. ...

I don't think I said or implied anything so naive as the first sentence. The failure of the BoM to mention the assassination of Julius Caesar does not prove that he was not stabbed in the Senate on the Ides of March. On the other hand, if Moroni did dig up the plates his father deposited, and then undertake a long journey to rebury them in a distant land, it is a little odd that he did not mention that, or his reasons for doing so, in the large amount of material he wrote after the final battle in AD 385, in which he refers several times to the fact that he is wandering about and intends to hide up what he has written in company with what his father wrote. But it remains open to anybody to believe otherwise.

This approach presumes that there is nothing relevant to the question in the 1000 or so passages with geographical information (journeys, distances, up and down elevation, a description of a river uniquely fits the Grijalva, based on Larry Poulson's search of the entire Western Hemisphere for candidates that fit, the appearance of cement for city building in a time and place of convergent relevance, the right kinds of fortifications at the right time depth, the evidence of volcanic activity, not to mention the wealth of relevant cultural information, all provided by eye-witnessses, whose observations, I should think, ought to have relevance to the question.

...

I made it plain that I would deal only with what the Book of Mormon said about the activities of Mormon and Moroni. I also said:

If we are sure for other reasons that the battle at Mormon’s Cumorah took place in Central America, a long way from Joseph Smith’s Cumorah, the text of the Book of Mormon does not logically exclude the possibility that the required long journey, with Moroni transporting the plates for reburial, could have taken place.

I hope you think that was fairly put.

Pahoran says (though not to me)

BTW, that flippant throwaway line about "the absence of any mention of two Cumorahs in the Book of Mormon" is simply nonsense.

I am more interested in the fact that Moroni says nothing about digging up the plates his father deposited, carrying them on a long and dangerous journey, and then burying them in another hill than I am in the question of what he may have called the putative second hill. I don't think that it is nonsense to make that point - i.e. that there is no mention in the BoM of a second burial site distinct from the original Cumorah where Mormon made the original deposit.

By the way, I would also doubt very much whether any plausible deity in the Abrahamic tradition would ever be concerned about the views taken by his creatures on questions of historical geography. That hasn't stopped people who are evidently believing LDS from investing a lot of energy on both sides of the 'two-Cumorahs' question, even to the point of saying quite unpleasant things about each other.

So it is evidently a legitimate subject to discuss on this board. If it doesn't interest you, why not read something else? There are other threads going.

Edited January 25, 2012 by JNclone

[ERayR]

I don't think I said or implied anything so naive as the first sentence. The failure of the BoM to mention the assassination of Julius Caesar does not prove that he was not stabbed in the Senate on the Ides of March. On the other hand, if Moroni did dig up the plates his father deposited, and then undertake a long journey to rebury them in a distant land, it is a little odd that he did not mention that, or his reasons for doing so, in the large amount of material he wrote after the final battle in AD 385, in which he refers several times to the fact that he is wandering about and intends to hide up what he has written in company with what his father wrote. But it remains open to anybody to believe otherwise.

I made it plain that I would deal only with what the Book of Mormon said about the activities of Mormon and Moroni. I also said:

I hope you think that was fairly put.

Pahoran says (though not to me)

I am more interested in the fact that Moroni says nothing about digging up the plates his father deposited, carrying them on a long and dangerous journey, and then burying them in another hill than I am in the question of what he may have called the putative second hill. I don't think that it is nonsense to make that point - i.e. that there is no mention in the BoM of a second burial site distinct from the original Cumorah where Mormon made the original deposit.

By the way, I would also doubt very much whether any plausible deity in the Abrahamic tradition would ever be concerned about the views taken by his creatures on questions of historical geography. That hasn't stopped people who are evidently believing LDS from investing a lot of energy on both sides of the 'two-Cumorahs' question, even to the point of saying quite unpleasant things about each other.

So it is evidently a legitimate subject to discuss on this board. If it doesn't interest you, why not read something else? There are other threads going.

Moroni did not dig up any plates. He was given them by his father to care for and add to.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think I said or implied anything so naive as the first sentence. The failure of the BoM to mention the assassination of Julius Caesar does not prove that he was not stabbed in the Senate on the Ides of March.

.

Yes, any argument can be reduced to the absurd.

Had the Book of Mormon purported to be an ancient history of Roman dictators, the lack of that story is indeed evidence that it didn't occur.

Here, the Book of Mormon is a history which includes Moroni. An absence of a story about his experience is indeed evidence of absence.

[JNclone]

Moroni did not dig up any plates. He was given them by his father to care for and add to.

Please excuse me for differing from you on that point. By my hypothesis, the accounts written by Mormon and Moroni are to be taken as historical, so I have no choice but to follow the indications given in the Book of Mormon, which are quite clear.

It is certainly true that Mormon originally indicated that it was his intention to pass all his records to his son - see my document A above:

Words of Mormon

1 And now I, Mormon, being about to deliver up the record which I have been making into the hands of my son Moroni, behold I have witnessed almost all the destruction of my people, the Nephites.

2 And it is many hundred years after the coming of Christ that I deliver these records into the hands of my son; and it supposeth me that he will witness the entire destruction of my people. But may God grant that he may survive them, that he may write somewhat concerning them, and somewhat concerning Christ, that perhaps some day it may profit them.

[…]

5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the cplates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people.

But that was written at a time before the final battle, when (as indicated in verse 5) Mormon still felt he had the time and security for more literary work ahead of him.

For his change of plan at the time of the battle, see my document B cited in my main post:

Mormon 6

The Nephites gather to the land of Cumorah for the final battles—Mormon hides the sacred records in the hill Cumorah—The Lamanites are victorious, and the Nephite nation is destroyed—Hundreds of thousands are slain with the sword. About A.D. 385.

1 And now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites. And it came to pass that we did march forth before the Lamanites.

[…]

5 And when three hundred and eighty and four years had passed away, we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah.

6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

[…]

10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.

11 And when they had gone through and hewn down all my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION:

Around AD 385, Mormon hid the majority of the plates in his possession by burying them at the hill Cumorah – this being the location of the final stand and massacre of the Nephites. A small number of plates were passed to Moroni. This represents a change in the plan made at the time of the Words of Mormon, under which he had intended to give his son all the plates.

After that, disaster fell, and all but 24 of the Nephites died. The words recorded above were written or dictated by the wounded (and we may deduce from Moroni’s later references) dying Mormon.

So according to the BoM, the main body of the plates 'save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni' were buried by Mormon, who 'hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to [him] by the hand of the Lord'.

Therefore, if it is assumed that the Cumorah of the final battle was in Central America, and if you believe in the account given in the Book of Mormon, as well as Joseph Smith's account of finding the plates far away in New York, then contrary to the assertion you make that

Moroni did not dig up any plates. He was given them by his father to care for and add to

it follows that Moroni must have dug up and removed the plates first deposited by this father in the original hill Cumorah, site of the final battle between Nephites and Lamanites in Central America. Otherwise he could not have moved them to the location in New York where they are said to have been found.

And that (digging up Mormon's plates and moving them to a new burial site) is something he nowhere refers to having done, despite doing quite a lot of writing in the years between the battle in AD 385 and his final words in AD 420 about his hiding, wandering and intention to deposit what he has written with his father's material.

The only person who is described in the BoM as having deposited plates in the hill Cumorah is Mormon, not Moroni, and that act of concealment is clearly stated to have taken place on the site of the final battle. I don't say that point and the facts linked to it can completely determine our overall conclusion about the history of the plates and their possible travels - there may well be other factors to consider - but it does demand to be taken quite seriously.

Edited January 26, 2012 by JNclone

[Brant Gardner]

it follows that Moroni must have dug up and removed the plates first deposited by this father in the original hill Cumorah, site of the final battle between Nephites and Lamanites in Central America. Otherwise he could not have moved them to the location in New York where they are said to have been found.

Mormon was the official Nepite record keeper, and there were a lot of records to keep. They had been buried in the hill Shim for safe keeping, the Mormon brought them out. Those were the plates of Nephi, the source records for Mormon's book. That large collection was in Mormon's possession, and he buries them in Cumorah. What he does not bury is the record he gives to Moroni, which would be the plates translated into our Book of Mormon, and onto which Moroni adds the concluding chapters to his fathers personal book in the larger work.

There was, by this time, no reason to transport the plates of Nephi anywhere, as Mormon was clearly almost finished with the work (witnessed by his eponymous book).

[Pahoran]

Please excuse me for differing from you on that point. By my hypothesis, the accounts written by Mormon and Moroni are to be taken as historical, so I have no choice but to follow the indications given in the Book of Mormon, which are quite clear.

It is certainly true that Mormon originally indicated that it was his intention to pass all his records to his son - see my document A above:

But that was written at a time before the final battle, when (as indicated in verse 5) Mormon still felt he had the time and security for more literary work ahead of him.

For his change of plan at the time of the battle, see my document B cited in my main post:

So according to the BoM, the main body of the plates 'save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni' were buried by Mormon, who 'hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to [him] by the hand of the Lord'.

Therefore, if it is assumed that the Cumorah of the final battle was in Central America, and if you believe in the account given in the Book of Mormon, as well as Joseph Smith's account of finding the plates far away in New York, then contrary to the assertion you make that

it follows that Moroni must have dug up and removed the plates first deposited by this father in the original hill Cumorah, site of the final battle between Nephites and Lamanites in Central America. Otherwise he could not have moved them to the location in New York where they are said to have been found.

No, it does not follow at all. Sorry.

I refer you again to one of the passages you quoted:

Mormon 6:6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer (1) the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made (2) this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah (1) all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were (2) these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

Thus, the plain meaning of the text is that there are two quite distinct sets of records in view. The documents buried in Mormon's Cumorah were the great body of the Nephite records, the product of a thousand years of royal and priestly record-keeping. What was handed over to Moroni was Mormon's own abridgement, "these few plates." There was no need for Moroni to dig anything up.

The notion that a Mesoamerican LGT should only be accepted if the Book of Mormon contained some kind of note to the effect that the plates would be placed in a stone box in the side of a drumlin in upstate New York so that they could be dug up in 1827 is utterly silly. It also borders on idolatry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

There was, by this time, no reason to transport the plates of Nephi anywhere, as Mormon was clearly almost finished with the work (witnessed by his eponymous book).

I'm sure you answered this question before. (By the way, I actually Kindled your book and am in the second volume; very interesting indeed. I was hoping to publish a review of it but I'm taking too long to read it.)

Wouldn't it seem that the cave story in the Hill Cumorah is indicative of the fact that the NY hill (and I'm not using the pejorative "drumlin," because that's not the word the Brethren have ever used for it) is the same as the old hill:

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 17 June 1877

"Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: "This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ." I tell you this as coming not only from Oliver Cowdery, but others who were familiar with it, and who understood it just as well as we understand coming to this meeting. . . . [Don] Carlos Smith was a young man of as much veracity as any young man we had, and he was a witness to these things. Samuel Smith saw some things, Hyrum saw a good many things, but Joseph was the leader."

Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 5 May 1867

"President [Heber C.] Kimball talked familiarly to the brethren about Father Smith, [Oliver] Cowdery, and others walking into the hill Cumorah and seeing records upon records piled upon table[s,] they walked from cell to cell and saw the records that were piled up. . . ."

Wilford Woodruff Journal, 11 December 1869

"In his journal, Wilford Woodruff recounted what he had heard Brigham Young say about the cave: President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the Plates of the Book of Mormon that He did not return them to the box from wh[ence?] He had Received [them]. But He went [into] a Cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf. In that room were deposited a large amount of gold plates Containing sacred records & when they first visited that Room the sword of Laban was Hanging upon the wall & when they last visited it the sword was drawn from the scabbard and [laid?] upon a table and a Messenger who was the keeper of the room informed them that that sword would never be returned to its scabbard untill the Kingdom of God was Esstablished upon the Earth & untill it reigned triumphant over Evry Enemy. Joseph Smith said that Cave Contained tons of Choice Treasures & records.”

Jesse Nathaniel Smith Journal, February 1874

"A southern Utah Saint, Jesse Nathaniel Smith, heard Brigham Young speak in Cedar City, Utah, and recorded:

I heard him [brigham Young] at an evening meeting in Cedar City describe an apartment in the Hill Cumorah that some of the brethren had been permitted to enter. He said there was great wealth in the room in sacred implements, vestments, arms, precious metals and precious stones, more than a six-mule team could draw."

[Pahoran]

I'm sure you answered this question before. (By the way, I actually Kindled your book and am in the second volume; very interesting indeed. I was hoping to publish a review of it but I'm taking too long to read it.)

Wouldn't it seem that the cave story in the Hill Cumorah is indicative of the fact that the NY hill (and I'm not using the pejorative "drumlin," because that's not the word the Brethren have ever used for it) is the same as the old hill:

Oh for goodness sake. How on earth is "drumlin" in any way a "pejorative?" It simply designates a particular geographical feature, namely a hill formed by an advancing glacier scouring loose bits of rock and soil, and then left behind when the glacier retreats. It's sometimes also called a moraine. The hill on which the Nauvoo Temple is built is also a drumlin, and it was called that in the Ensign.

People sometimes point out that the New York Cumorah is a drumlin, not to say something "pejorative" about it, but simply to point out that it won't have any natural caves. If you think that's "pejorative," then I recommend you build a bridge.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 17 June 1877

"Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: "This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ." I tell you this as coming not only from Oliver Cowdery, but others who were familiar with it, and who understood it just as well as we understand coming to this meeting. . . . [Don] Carlos Smith was a young man of as much veracity as any young man we had, and he was a witness to these things. Samuel Smith saw some things, Hyrum saw a good many things, but Joseph was the leader."

Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 5 May 1867

"President [Heber C.] Kimball talked familiarly to the brethren about Father Smith, [Oliver] Cowdery, and others walking into the hill Cumorah and seeing records upon records piled upon table[s,] they walked from cell to cell and saw the records that were piled up. . . ."

Wilford Woodruff Journal, 11 December 1869

"In his journal, Wilford Woodruff recounted what he had heard Brigham Young say about the cave: President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the Plates of the Book of Mormon that He did not return them to the box from wh[ence?] He had Received [them]. But He went [into] a Cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf. In that room were deposited a large amount of gold plates Containing sacred records & when they first visited that Room the sword of Laban was Hanging upon the wall & when they last visited it the sword was drawn from the scabbard and [laid?] upon a table and a Messenger who was the keeper of the room informed them that that sword would never be returned to its scabbard untill the Kingdom of God was Esstablished upon the Earth & untill it reigned triumphant over Evry Enemy. Joseph Smith said that Cave Contained tons of Choice Treasures & records.”

Jesse Nathaniel Smith Journal, February 1874

"A southern Utah Saint, Jesse Nathaniel Smith, heard Brigham Young speak in Cedar City, Utah, and recorded:

I heard him [brigham Young] at an evening meeting in Cedar City describe an apartment in the Hill Cumorah that some of the brethren had been permitted to enter. He said there was great wealth in the room in sacred implements, vestments, arms, precious metals and precious stones, more than a six-mule team could draw."

Yes, these are all very interesting hearsay stories.

Tell me, Bob: what do you think Paul meant when he said he couldn't always tell whether he was in our out of the body when he had some of his visions? (2 Corinthians 12:2-3)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Brant Gardner]

Wouldn't it seem that the cave story in the Hill Cumorah is indicative of the fact that the NY hill

What I have read suggests that this event occurred in vision and was later turned into a fact. Perhaps the best indication that that it was a vision and not connected to the hill is that no one took it seriously enough to excavate the whole hill. For that much treasure more has been done. Assuming that it was a vision, it doesn't matter where the original storage location was and certainly doesn't require that it be in the hill that became known as Cumorah.

[teddyaware]

Many days since this thread's last post, yours truly adds what he believes is a final, cogent comment:

Before finally burying the several gold plates he had personally inscribed, Moroni wrote that he hoped his words -- as well as the words found in the abridgement of his father -- would one day be instrumental in bringing his brethren, the Lamanites, unto Christ. Moroni's own words, as found in our Book of Mormon, indicate he remained in geographic proximity to the victorious Lamanites long after that final, decisive battle on Cumorah. So when Moroni expressed his heartfelt hope that the buried record would one day be the means whereby the Lamanites would be reclaimed by the truth, why would he then carry off the plates of the Book of Mormon to a place so far away that there would be no hope of ''his brethren' ever coming into contact with them. Of course, it cannot be doubted that Moroni had a large part of the 'big picture' as to how the sacred events of futurity would unfold; nevertheless, even prophets, at times, "look through a glass darkly." So carrying away the plates from some region of Meso-America, to a location so very far away, would seem to be illogical and counterintuitive.

In accord with the above, if the Lamanites actually once lived, and continued to live, in what is now the 'heartland' of the United States, Moroni's fervent hopes for "his brethren" began to be fulfilled in 1830, when the Prophet Joseph Smith sent out the first missionaries to teach the nearby Lamanites, only six months after the organization of the Church. If the "Heartland Model" is true, the Nephite record was buried near the ancient habitations of the Lamanites, and was then uncovered in the same vicinity where their descendants still continued to dwell. This makes reasonable sense, without having to contort and strain simple logic. Remember, the Prophet Joseph called these folks, who were preached to so early in Church history, Lamanites. So tell me, by what reasonable standard should I doubt whereof he spoke and officially acted in his office as prophet, seer and revelator?"