The Narrow Neck Debate Continues...

[Anijen]

You are unrealistic. Why do you insist on limiting ancient civilizations. Tell you what, why dont you go to your local university and talk to an anthropology professor and state that you believe there was an ancient civil war in North America that resulted in millions of deaths. He will most surely laugh you out of his office. Lets just stop the nonsense and be honest with the text of the BoM- what it actually does say and doesnt say.

Then a solution would be not to say anything about the Book of Mormon that way you wouldn't bias any of the Professors answers. Just ask him/her what exactly if those two people Mayans and those living in the area of the Great Lakes knew about each other and traded with easch other, remember it has to be during the time of the Book of Mormon.

[MormonMason]

I picture Tiotihuacan as being Jaredite. I have long debated with myself if this was the capital Moron. It appears by all means to be a capital city. My own belief is that it wasnt Nepgite or Lamanite. I dont believe the Nephites had the resources coupled with the type of vain ambition to build such monuments and pyramids. Some cite Tiotihuacan as Nepgite because of the use of "cement". My own theory is that the nephites "cement" was more of the "adobe" as seen in all parts of the Americas, especially the southwest.

I can believe some lakes and bodies of water existed on the cobtinents in ancient times. What really matters though is to what extent did the nephites speak of in these bodies northward- how many miles. My argument is that this boundary extended up into Canada. People naturally have the tendancy to venture and settle all parts of lands that are livable. It seems that the rate of griwth over thousands of miles is the natural effect of a civilization after several hundred years. Is this not how the Europeans who came to America also grew? Why should the Nephites and Jaredites be any different?

It cannot be Moron.  Moron was near Desolation, on the north border of Desolation, which puts it near the narrow neck of land.  Teotihuacan is too far northward and much of it of the wrong dating.  It does, however, match Nephite period dating to the time of their apostasy quite well.

 

They did not use miles like we do today so such an attempt as you propose is fruitless.  All that can be surmised is what the text says, including the number of days traveled to get from point A to point B, and comparing that with other parts of the primary text and what amount of time recorded, ancient migrations took to travel that far.  And, you keep forgetting about the Great Mexican Desert.  Are you doing that on purpose? That and the mountains was and is a massive natural barrier to large scale movement, of the kind on the order magnitudes observed in Book of Mormon migrations, much further north of Teotihuacan.  Tens of thousands of people would have died just making the attempt.

 

There were not enough resources to do something like that.  Only small groups of individuals could even attempt something like that and survive.  Are you are aware that even today many people die trying to cross that desert to get to America illegally? And, that is with the aid of modern transportation!  Imagine trying to cross that desert on foot in ancient times, with women and children and livestock in tow, all needing copious amounts of water just to survive the trek, with far more numbers than water containers available to enable survival of such large groups trying to cross that natural barrier.  I think you need to see just how big that desert is, to get an idea of the magnitude of such a crossing as you postulate must have happened to make the Great Lakes connection.

 

[MormonMason]

Rob Osborn, on 13 Sept 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

So, what point northward does the land northward stop being Nephite or Jaredite lands? Is it just beyond where Mexico city now is or was it farther north? Where exactly is this "north sea"?

So the North Sea and continents surrounded by water, was a mythical conception. Interesting. I bet the Nephites knowing the earth and the planets revolving around the sun at around 70 B.C. was also a mythical conception. (Alma 30:44) It may be Rahab and his dragon told them. The more I study the LGT, the more stupid the Nephites become, and the more myth is contained in their record.

Even the Jaredites were restricted, for thousands of years, to a narrow neck of land, 500 x 200 miles of it, despite this promise by The Creator of Heaven and Earth and All Things Therein:

43 And there will I bless thee and thy seed, and raise up unto me of thy seed, and of the seed of thy brother, and they who shall go with thee, a great nation. And there shall be none greater than the nation which I will raise up unto me of thy seed, upon all the face of the earth.

Its good to know great means puny. Would that be considered loan shifting?

All ancient records contain varying degrees of myth and mythological conception.  Period.  It should not surprise us when we come across something that might well be such a thing in the Book of Mormon.  Frankly, I am surprised at your reaction.  If there were no mythological elements whatsoever in the text, one could make good case that it wasn't really an ancient text.  But, there are mythological elements.

 

Of course, that said, I want to make clear that I do not hold that the sea north of the Book of Mormon was a mythological sea, although such ideas demonstrably did exist among the Mesoamericans, but I am of the studied opinion that ancient Lake Texcoco likely was the sea North in the northernmost borders of lands of the Book of Mormon.  It must be remembered that even in the Book of Mormon certain inhabitants made it to the northernmost borders of the land northward and built a city called Jacobugath.  If we take a full, hemispheric view of Book of Mormon geography, that would place Jacobugath within the Arctic circle.

 

Even meagerly-educated Joseph Smith would have known that to be untenable.  A line has to be drawn somewhere.  Given the natural barriers in what today is Mexico, a line not far above ancient Lake Texcoco is as good as any line to be drawn, and consonant with the Book of Mormon's requirements for the kinds of distances spoken of in most of the text, as well as how populations often stayed inside certain massively difficult geographical barriers bordering their boundaries.

 

As to the Jaredites, had they not screwed up they would have been the full beneficiaries of that promise (but they screwed up).  Already they had a population numbering in the millions, two millions of which died during wars just preceding the final battles at Ramah.  Of course, even with more than two millions they still did not take up all that much room so as to need to fill all of the Americas.  A limited geography easily could accommodate their whole population.

[Tiki]

All ancient records contain varying degrees of myth and mythological conception.  Period.  It should not surprise us when we come across something that might well be such a thing in the Book of Mormon.  Frankly, I am surprised at your reaction.  If there were no mythological elements whatsoever in the text, one could make good case that it wasn't really an ancient text.  But, there are mythological elements.

 

Of course, that said, I want to make clear that I do not hold that the sea north of the Book of Mormon was a mythological sea, although such ideas demonstrably did exist among the Mesoamericans, but I am of the studied opinion that ancient Lake Texcoco likely was the sea North in the northernmost borders of lands of the Book of Mormon.  It must be remembered that even in the Book of Mormon certain inhabitants made it to the northernmost borders of the land northward and built a city called Jacobugath.  If we take a full, hemispheric view of Book of Mormon geography, that would place Jacobugath within the Arctic circle.

 

Even meagerly-educated Joseph Smith would have known that to be untenable.  A line has to be drawn somewhere.  Given the natural barriers in what today is Mexico, a line not far above ancient Lake Texcoco is as good as any line to be drawn, and consonant with the Book of Mormon's requirements for the kinds of distances spoken of in most of the text, as well as how populations often stayed inside certain massively difficult geographical barriers bordering their boundaries.

 

As to the Jaredites, had they not screwed up they would have been the full beneficiaries of that promise (but they screwed up).  Already they had a population numbering in the millions, two millions of which died during wars just preceding the final battles at Ramah.  Of course, even with more than two millions they still did not take up all that much room so as to need to fill all of the Americas.  A limited geography easily could accommodate their whole population.

"Meagerly-educated Joseph Smith." Good grief. He's always your punching boy. I understand you believe he could no more interpret his own visions than could an untrained latter-day Saint, because The Prophet had no training in Anthropology, as you boldly noted elsewhere.

You even have to squabble about a promise that was given to and based on the righteousness of The Brother of Jared by contending about population figures of a people and Nation that destroyed itself which destruction was great because it happened to a Great Nation, which had great periods of righteousness and susequently blessed because of it, and survived much longer than the Nephite Nation, but you concentrate on its wickedness and alleged failure to prosper beyond some conceived geographical boundary.

I'm not proposing the Arctic Ocean was the North Sea, though Native Americans were aware of Hudson Bay. It's this continual restriction of ancient Mesoamerica to a geographical singularity and continual excuses for it. It's tiresome.

Virginia

http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-s-connection-with-ancient-mexico-the-tomahitans

The Tamatli and the Tamahiti, used many words that originated from the Itza Maya and Totonac civilizations in Mexico. In fact, the name of the Itsati-Creek language came from the Maya word "Itza" for "corn tamale.". For example, the Totonac word for house was “chiki.” The Itsati word for house was also “chiki.” The Itza Maya and Itsati word for king was “mako.” The Tamatli even built houses that were finished in white stucco like the Maya houses in Campeche State, Mexico. “Tama” is the Totonac root for several words having to do with trading, buying or markets. “Tamahi” means “to buy or trade.” Tamahiti means “people who trade or buy” in the Itsati language of the Southeast.

[MormonMason]

True enough. Intriguing connections. But it will require a lot more of the same, before I will consider any such apparent connections as anything more than coincidence or even misapplied phonetics. I'd have to know for myself, in other words, that the association is based on solid fact and not just some modern twisting of the phonetics where there is actually no historic or continuous connection going clear back to before the time of Christ....

Hey!  I actually agree with you! Stop the presses! :-)

 

Now, there is another connection that I await further data on.  That is the use of the -ha phoneme at the end of some city names in the Book of Mormon as -hah, essentially the same sound but in Hebrew it is necessary to have the extraneous h for written names.  It turns out that this same phonemic sound occurs in Mesoamerica, and it is attached to the end of city names the same way in which that phoneme is attached to the end of some Book of Mormon names. Examples can be seen in such Maya city names as Balam-ha, Altun-ha and Xel-ha, as compared with Book of Mormon names Nephihah, Ammonihah, Moronihah.

 

Coincidence? Perhaps.  I, for one, await further data, if any can be recovered.  But, no doubt this is interesting--coincidence or not.

[MormonMason]

"Meagerly-educated Joseph Smith." Good grief. He's always your punching boy. I understand you believe he could no more interpret his own visions than could an untrained latter-day Saint, because The Prophet had no training in Anthropology, as you boldly noted elsewhere.

You even have to squabble about a promise that was given to and based on the righteousness of The Brother of Jared by contending about population figures of a people and Nation that destroyed itself which destruction was great because it happened to a Great Nation, which had great periods of righteousness and susequently blessed because of it, and survived much longer than the Nephite Nation, but you concentrate on its wickedness and alleged failure to prosper beyond some conceived geographical boundary.

I'm not proposing the Arctic Ocean was the North Sea, though Native Americans were aware of Hudson Bay. It's this continual restriction of ancient Mesoamerica to a geographical singularity and continual excuses for it. It's tiresome.

Virginia

http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-s-connection-with-ancient-mexico-the-tomahitans

The Tamatli and the Tamahiti, used many words that originated from the Itza Maya and Totonac civilizations in Mexico. In fact, the name of the Itsati-Creek language came from the Maya word "Itza" for "corn tamale.". For example, the Totonac word for house was “chiki.” The Itsati word for house was also “chiki.” The Itza Maya and Itsati word for king was “mako.” The Tamatli even built houses that were finished in white stucco like the Maya houses in Campeche State, Mexico. “Tama” is the Totonac root for several words having to do with trading, buying or markets. “Tamahi” means “to buy or trade.” Tamahiti means “people who trade or buy” in the Itsati language of the Southeast.

 

Joseph Smith is hardly my punching boy.  He had a meager education.  He himself admitted that and his being an "ignorant boy" on several occasions. Get over it, if you can.

 

As to interpreting visions, that is a matter for the initiated to understand.  Sometimes they indeed do need interpreting, and something things happen to make you realize that you did not interpret them aright.  I have experienced this firsthand.  Joseph Smith has experienced this firsthand.  You really need to do a little more digging into his life and his papers to see what he did and did not do, and what he could and could not do.  Even Times and Season editorial published under his editorship show that he sometimes changed his mind on things relating to the Book of Mormon and its locations.  He cut off South America and the Isthmus of Darien from Book of Mormon lands and often learned new things the hard way.  Get over it, if you can.

 

Do I need to "squabble" about everything? Hardly. I just find it necessary to point out inconsistencies in the misapplication of scripture so that people can force the Book of Mormon onto a hemispheric model, which the Book of Mormon itself does not support.  Don't misapply and you won't hear me "squabble" about it.  Alternatively, you always could ignore me.

 

By the way, did you also catch the article's statement regarding the Tomahitans? They went extinct in the early 1700s.  Hardly dating to Book of Mormon times.  That also possibly put them in contact with Late Classic Maya Period (or later) traders, who often traveled by canoe to do their trading.  It was easier and less life-threatening than trying to cross the Mexican Desert.  Also, that still does not put them in contact with the Great Lakes area.  Nice try, though.

 

By the way, do watch out for what you find on the Examiner.com website. They are known to carry a lot of crank science on that site and on its pages.  Have you got a source more scientifically legitimate?

[Rob Osborn]

Too many posters to reply individually but it needs to be established that there is no factual evidence from the BoM stating the size and distance of the Jaredites and later Nephites. We can apply logic to the text on our own but its so subjective to personal ideas that we will somehow just force fit the shoe on even if it isnt close at all. Whether Mormons record is correct concerning Cumorah and the encampment or not if one appliessome real logic they will find that things need a little more thinking to figure out. For instance, we know that almost exclusively, the Nephites counted their armies by "men" and did so rounding to the "thousand" and often spoke of the families as a separate number. In this context we know that some 230,000 men each led by their commander died in this battle. This does not include women and children. A number probably somewhere in the 1-2 million, including numbers from both sides is most likely a realistic number. Now, we know this was a final battle, Mormon knew it as well. Does one really believe you can fight a war in ancient times with numbers that big and fight on basically a thousand acres of land? We know that Mormon was gathering his last peopkes for up to 4 years to congregate at the land of Cumorah. Of interest, the text states that he gathered his people to the land of Cumorah but that he himself camped at the hill Cumorah. How ridiculous would it be if you tried to encamp upwards of a million men at the base of one hill to await a battle a few months to a few years down the road? Even though the text states they went to the hill Cumorah, it is likely that everyone didnt actually camp in this one small place to await the Lamanites.

It is quite likely that the army headquarters would be at Cumorah while the peopke themselves were spread out over a broader area. Food would still have to be grown or gathered, the logistics of living woyld have to be accounted for, etc. Lets put aside for a moment our differences on where exactly the hill Cumorah is and ask ourselves just how large of an area would be required to support and sustain a million people for a prolonged time of more than a few months awaiting the Laminite hords? Lets look at the food logistics- The average person consumes 4-5 pounds of food a day. Just for the men in the Nephite army this would be a million pounds of food a day. How many semitrucks worth of food is that? About 25 semitrailers worth of food per day. Where would all that food be found around one hill? Next is yhe problem of waste-human fecal matter. Imagine upwards of a milluon people camping aroubd one hill, eating millions of pounds of food per day and then having to use the outhouse. None of it makes any logical sense! You just cant encamp that many people in a small confined area of "one hill" without paramount logistics issues.

Most likely these people are grouped and camped over a greater area with their war camp headquarters at the one hill.

[MormonMason]

Rob,

 

Think about this as well, from the perspective of the Book of Mormon.  The peoples of the Book of Mormon cast up (meaning built) actual roads.  What civilizations actually built roads? Certainly not those of North America.  Actual roads of the kind that were built of building materials like crushed limestone and so forth, rather than just stone cobbles or nothing at all but worn paths caused by long-term use, was in Mesoamerica.  Many real evidences point to Mesoamerica as the logical place to look, rather than North America.  The evidences for this really are starting to come together.

 

And, again, we must focus on the text of the Book of Mormon as the primary source.  The Book of Mormon is clear that the Nephites were all gathered together in the land of Cumorah and that they lived in tents and camped round about the hill Cumorah before the final battles.  The New York model for Cumorah doesn't work when we focus on the text itself and what it actually says, and then compare that with what we see in New York.  New York's hill and the land surrounding it cannot sustain a population of the size that were all gathered together without spreading out for hundreds of miles in all directions, and you know it.  Why not just admit it?

 

This is not the case for the proposed Mesoamerica candidate I espouse, which overall proposal is closely allied to Sorenson's but not the same in all parameters.  It could manage the water and food needs for hundreds of thousands of people for extended periods of time, with all the rivers, fountains (a source of cool, clean water that would not become contaminated by E. Coli and kill thousands) and the soil so fertile that two or three growing seasons a year occurred there, as well as being next to a hill that is a strategic advantage.

 

Mormon built no fortifications in Cumorah or he would have mentioned it.  In that region in Mesoamerica, he would not have needed to build them.  Mormon gathered the people into one place, round about the hill Cumorah.  He thought that land of Cumorah and its large hill would have provided a military advantage to his people.

 

New York's hill cannot sustain that many people and is not militarily advantageous, just as the entire land around that hill in New York also is not militarily advantageous.  Cumorah proposed in Mesoamerica, on the other hand, could sustain large populations with adequate food and drink, was defensible without fortifications by being surrounded at times in the year by impassible rivers, forcing the Lamanites to look for alternative routes to get to the people, and is large enough to accommodate so many people "round about" it, unlike that hill in New York that I believe was named after the one in the Book of Mormon.

[MormonMason]

Too many posters to reply individually but it needs to be established that there is no factual evidence from the BoM stating the size and distance of the Jaredites and later Nephites. We can apply logic to the text on our own but its so subjective to personal ideas that we will somehow just force fit the shoe on even if it isnt close at all. Whether Mormons record is correct concerning Cumorah and the encampment or not if one appliessome real logic they will find that things need a little more thinking to figure out. For instance, we know that almost exclusively, the Nephites counted their armies by "men" and did so rounding to the "thousand" and often spoke of the families as a separate number. In this context we know that some 230,000 men each led by their commander died in this battle. This does not include women and children. A number probably somewhere in the 1-2 million, including numbers from both sides is most likely a realistic number. Now, we know this was a final battle, Mormon knew it as well. Does one really believe you can fight a war in ancient times with numbers that big and fight on basically a thousand acres of land? We know that Mormon was gathering his last peopkes for up to 4 years to congregate at the land of Cumorah. Of interest, the text states that he gathered his people to the land of Cumorah but that he himself camped at the hill Cumorah. How ridiculous would it be if you tried to encamp upwards of a million men at the base of one hill to await a battle a few months to a few years down the road? Even though the text states they went to the hill Cumorah, it is likely that everyone didnt actually camp in this one small place to await the Lamanites.

It is quite likely that the army headquarters would be at Cumorah while the peopke themselves were spread out over a broader area. Food would still have to be grown or gathered, the logistics of living woyld have to be accounted for, etc. Lets put aside for a moment our differences on where exactly the hill Cumorah is and ask ourselves just how large of an area would be required to support and sustain a million people for a prolonged time of more than a few months awaiting the Laminite hords? Lets look at the food logistics- The average person consumes 4-5 pounds of food a day. Just for the men in the Nephite army this would be a million pounds of food a day. How many semitrucks worth of food is that? About 25 semitrailers worth of food per day. Where would all that food be found around one hill? Next is yhe problem of waste-human fecal matter. Imagine upwards of a milluon people camping aroubd one hill, eating millions of pounds of food per day and then having to use the outhouse. None of it makes any logical sense! You just cant encamp that many people in a small confined area of "one hill" without paramount logistics issues.

Most likely these people are grouped and camped over a greater area with their war camp headquarters at the one hill.

Yes, the Book of Mormon does provide consistent geographic details, contrary to your position, that one can use to determine distances traveled and general locations and coordinates between cities, by carefully analyzing the text.  When Mormon says he gathered together his people "in one" he means it.  When he says that his people were camped round about the hill Cumorah and were living in tents, he means it.  When he doesn't mention fortifications when he has several opportunities to say something about it but doesn't he probably and most likely didn't use them.  He mentions them a lot so I cannot imagine Mormon the Nephite General not mentioning them if he were using them.  I prefer to take Mormon at his word for things like that.

 

If we place the Book of Mormon hill Cumorah in New York, there is no way that this was sustainable, as you notice, so you have to propose truckloads of food and all sors of additional nonsense that would only apply in the case of the New York location.  But, if you place it in Mesoamerica, around and near the Tuxtlas, the land could sustain very large populations with food and drink for long periods of time.  Two or three growing seasons in the region, even today!  That is a lot of food.  Have you yet listened?  The region in Mesoamerica around the Mesoamerican proposal is far more than a few acres, unlike the one in New York.  If they had been at the one at New York, they would have dies off in mass numbers of Cholera before the Lamanites ever got there.  And you get barely one growing season in upstate New York.

 

Which really is the one that better fits what Mormon actually says? Why not take Mormon at his word? I think he would have known what he was talking about when it came to knowing tactical advantages and what it was that he and his people actually did while they waited for the Lamanites to attack.  He says that they were all together in the land of Cumorah and camping round about the hill Cumorah.  Why not just believe him and let the text speak for itself here.  New York only could possibly and meagerly work only if you place all sorts of quid quo pros on what Mormon says, and add all sorts of tings like creating separate headquarters and spread out operations.  Not so with the Mesoamerican proposal.  That one can sustain them all, as is, and exactly as described in the Book of Mormon by Mormon himself.

 

Worse for your proposition, it would have made them easier pickings for the Lamanites.  "Divide and conquer!" Ever hear of it? That's how you wipe people out faster.  You spread them out and pick off the strong to leave only the weak, which you then can kill at leisure.  Staying in one body makes it more difficult when fighting ancient warfare.  Only in modern warfare do you spread people out as much as possible without weakening your forces.  The Romans were mostly victorius for so long beause of the way in which the troops were marched together very closely together, forming a sawtooth pattern on the attack.  They were able to plow through enemies like a hot knife through butter.  The soldiers on the interior could them pick off the enemies between the 'teeth' of the attack groups.

 

In ancient warfare, closeness of proximity makes for easier defense, unless you are locked in by city walls and fortifications, in which case you can be starved out.  No record of that in the Book of Mormon, so we know for a fact that Mormon could not possibly have been using fortifications and walled cities.  Mormon was right to keep his people together.  Why don't you want to believe him?

Edited September 14, 2013 by MormonMason

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, the Book of Mormon does provide consistent geographic details, contrary to your position, that one can use to determine distances traveled and general locations and coordinates between cities, by carefully analyzing the text.  When Mormon says he gathered together his people "in one" he means it.  When he says that his people were camped round about the hill Cumorah and were living in tents, he means it.  When he doesn't mention fortifications when he has several opportunities to say something about it but doesn't he probably and most likely didn't use them.  He mentions them a lot so I cannot imagine Mormon the Nephite General not mentioning them if he were using them.  I prefer to take Mormon at his word for things like that.

 

If we place the Book of Mormon hill Cumorah in New York, there is no way that this was sustainable, as you notice, so you have to propose truckloads of food and all sors of additional nonsense that would only apply in the case of the New York location.  But, if you place it in Mesoamerica, around and near the Tuxtlas, the land could sustain very large populations with food and drink for long periods of time.  Two or three growing seasons in the region, even today!  That is a lot of food.  Have you yet listened?  The region in Mesoamerica around the Mesoamerican proposal is far more than a few acres, unlike the one in New York.  If they had been at the one at New York, they would have dies off in mass numbers of Cholera before the Lamanites ever got there.  And you get barely one growing season in upstate New York.

 

Which really is the one that better fits what Mormon actually says? Why not take Mormon at his word? I think he would have known what he was talking about when it came to knowing tactical advantages and what it was that he and his people actually did while they waited for the Lamanites to attack.  He says that they were all together in the land of Cumorah and camping round about the hill Cumorah.  Why not just believe him and let the text speak for itself here.  New York only could possibly and meagerly work only if you place all sorts of quid quo pros on what Mormon says, and add all sorts of tings like creating separate headquarters and spread out operations.  Not so with the Mesoamerican proposal.  That one can sustain them all, as is, and exactly as described in the Book of Mormon by Mormon himself.

 

Worse for your proposition, it would have made them easier pickings for the Lamanites.  "Divide and conquer!" Ever hear of it? That's how you wipe people out faster.  You spread them out and pick off the strong to leave only the weak, which you then can kill at leisure.  Staying in one body makes it more difficult when fighting ancient warfare.  Only in modern warfare do you spread people out as much as possible without weakening your forces.  The Romans were mostly victorius for so long beause of the way in which the troops were marched together very closely together, forming a sawtooth pattern on the attack.  They were able to plow through enemies like a hot knife through butter.  The soldiers on the interior could them pick off the enemies between the 'teeth' of the attack groups.

 

In ancient warfare, closeness of proximity makes for easier defense, unless you are locked in by city walls and fortifications, in which case you can be starved out.  No record of that in the Book of Mormon, so we know for a fact that Mormon could not possibly have been using fortifications and walled cities.  Mormon was right to keep his people together.  Why don't you want to believe him?

The text states that Mormons initial group went and campwd at Cumorah and then after that he gathers the remainder to the land of Cumorah (verse 5).

I disagree with most of your views but thats fine.

[MormonMason]

The text states that Mormons initial group went and campwd at Cumorah and then after that he gathers the remainder to the land of Cumorah (verse 5).

I disagree with most of your views but thats fine.

You still misunderstand the entire context of the passage. What did Mormon want? What did Mormon tell the king of the Lamanites that he wanted? Where was Mormon going to put his people, the Nephites? Where did he tell the king of the Lamanite that he wanted to gather the people?

 

 

2 And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle.

 

He did exactly what he told the king of the Lamanites he was going to do.  He intended to camp the entire gathered people by the hill Cumorah and he told the king of the Lamanites so, and that was where he and his people could give the Lamanites battle.  There was no mention of a stratagem or of any form of deception concerning what he wrote in his epistle.  Mormon told the king exactly what he intended to do and kept to it.  There is no reason to suggest that he did otherwise because he never said otherwise.  There is no mention of spreading his people out to other places and no mention of small fortifications spread out over a "day's journey" from one another, or anything the like.  There is nothing to indicate that he didn't do exactly as he said he was going to do to prepare for battle with the Lamanites.  Everything they needed was right there by the hill called Cumorah.

 

He also would have wanted to stay near the hill Cumorah because he had a tactical advantage by that hill (Mormon 6:4) as well as would have had a consistent water supply near at hand (a land of many rivers and fountains comes in handy, particularly if you can get your water from a hill nearby that is large enough to protect your six from attack as you faced outward: no matter where you are your rear flank is protected if you are facing the approaching battle group).  The higher ground around the base of the hill also would give you the high ground, which gives you the advantage in ancient warfare.  In a hot climate you also need plenty of clean water.  The hill in New York could not provide any of that, now or ever.  Tens of thousands would have died of cholera before the Lamanites ever got there, had they been in New York.

 

And, then, while he waited, he continued to gather all the remainder of the people together.  In verse 5 he says:

 

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.

 

All the people had been "gathered in" unto the land of Cumorah.  Nowhere does he write that he spread all the people around in that land. No, rather, the very next thing he does is the following in verse 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 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.

 

 

Note what Mormon writes here, and it is specific.  You are misinterpreting what Mormon is directly stating here, rather than taking him at his word.  He states that he took at the records and hid them when "we had gathered in all our people in one" and then gave his son the plates he had been working on.  "Gathered in all our people in one" means that the whole of the Nephite people were gathered together into one place and in one body in Cumorah, regardless of where they were otherwise. They were "gathered in"..."in one," meaning together in one place in Cumorah.  That one place was by the hill Cumorah, as set forth both by what he stated his intentions were in verse 2 and by what was happening the entire time in verse 4, which was pitching tents around about the hill as people gathered to the very place Mormon told the Lamanite king he was going to gather the people, which was "in one."

 

Take it as it reads instead of trying to read into the text all sorts of other logistical issues that would cause serious problems with the New York hill.  Try fitting a million or more, or at the very least, hundreds of thousands, gathered "in one" "around about" the New York hill and let them try to survive. It wouldn't happen.  Many would die from cholera, if they managed to survive starvation and thirst, if they were in the New York location.  It really is that simple.  All one needs to do is to take Mormon at his word and accept what he wrote about what he and his people did, and it is pretty easy to see that it never could have happened in New York.

 

I once thought as you did until I took Mormon at his word.  Once I did that and realized all the logistical problems created by a New York scenario, I was done with the New York location.  I could no longer sustain that view and had to look to a place where that situation could work.  Lots of fresh water isolated from E. Coli contamination caused by closely assembled groups of people polluting the groundwater, and two to three growing seasons a year on and around a sizable piece of real estate would solve all the logistical problems of feeding such a large group of people for an extended period of time, not to mention no snow and no harsh winter to make life difficult for them, as would have been the case in any New York location.

 

Click on the map for the region where it has been proposed that Cumorah stood in Mesoamerica, which is San Andres Tuxtla at the following link (and select the climate tab for each month you want to check the climate):

 

http://www.myweather2.com/City-Town/Mexico/San-Andres-Tuxtla/map.aspx

 

You will note that no snow is mentioned and that even in December through February is warm enough that people living in tents and trying to survive will do just fine.  No winters to create famine conditions and no snow and ice to cause problems for anyone living around that hill for an extended time.  And, that extended time frame is inferred by what Mormon writes.

 

By the time nearing the end of the Nephite nation, Mormon is keeping a careful record of the years in which certain events occurred.  His last record of a date before he breaks into details of the Nephites' wickedness and breaks into mourning, was the three-hundred and eightieth year from the time of the coming of Christ among them (Mormon 5:6).  Now, when Mormon takes up where he left off on the record, he does not yet add another year marker to his history, implying that where he takes up the record again is still at 380 years after the coming of Christ.

 

So, at that point, still at 380 years, he takes up where he left off: "And now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites."  They march forth from where they were when they had taken flight in Mormon 5:6, and continue to march forth before the Lamanites, who still are in pursuit.  At that moment in time (in what is still the 380th year), Mormon writes an epistle to the king of the Lamanites, telling him of his plans to go to Cumorah and camp by a hill called Cumorah, there to give the king battle.  Now, the next date that Mormon gives is the 384th year, which is the time when they completed gathering in all the remainder of the people.  That is about a whole four years, at least, in ever increasing numbers until the 384th year, that they lived in Cumorah "around about" the hill Cumorah!  That's hundreds of thousands to something around a million people, give or take.  That is the entire population living in the Salt Lake Valley, camping around a large hill, together in one place, for about four years!

 

Four years!  Even if only for a year there would have been severe trouble and many deaths from starvation, cold and disease alone in the New York location.  But they were there gathering forces and living there by Cumorah (remember, the Book of Mormon says "gathered in all our people in one" and "by a hill which was called Cumorah") for four years surviving! To put it as my younger son (all grown up and serving in the military) would put it, or as my grandson also would say it, "Stick a fork into New York Cumorah. It's done!"

 

Edited to add:  I thought I would add a photo of one of the proposals for hill Cumorah in Mesoamerica, for comparison purposes to photos already posted of the New York location.  This is a photo taken by George and Eve DeLange and was taken from within the modern city of Santiago Tuxtla.

 

Edited September 14, 2013 by MormonMason

[prismsplay]

True enough. Intriguing connections. But it will require a lot more of the same, before I will consider any such apparent connections as anything more than coincidence or even misapplied phonetics. I'd have to know for myself, in other words, that the association is based on solid fact and not just some modern twisting of the phonetics where there is actually no historic or continuous connection going clear back to before the time of Christ....

 

My source of information concerning a distinctive pottery found at Chalchuapa, El Salvador later showing up in Belize is the 2002 edition of Voices from the Dust by Glenn A. Scott, which quotes from "Maya Lowland Ceramics" (American Antiquity, Willey et al., 1967) and Preclassic Ceramics from Chalchapa (Sharer and Gifford, 1970).

 

Here is part of Glenn A. Scott's summary: "in 1966, at a conference on Maya ceramics in Guatemala Coty, archaeologists agreed that Floral Park ceramics "probably represent an intrusion associated with the movement of peoples." Robert Sharer wrote "The similarity between ... pottery fro  Chuachuapa and certain ceramics of the lowlands is so close that individual sherds can barely be distinguished from one another." Robert Sharer and James Gifford said, "The only reasonable explanation for a set of such close ceramic connections would seem to be that originally they were the products of a single population." "Ceramic links ... appear to relate to populations ... in the two regions because the pottery involved is domestic ... not likely to be the result of trade."

 

Scott continues: "To sum up, evidence indicates that sometime after 144 BC (=/- 44), a pottery making people (identified by their distinctive pottery), who once lived in the highlands around Chalchuapa, El Salvador, migrated north into the lowlands of Belize and brought their culture with them. That included making the same type of pottery as they had made in their formwer homeland.

Thus archaeological evidence agrees closely with the migration of the Ammonites who brought their Lamanite culture with them into the Land of Jershon. Even the time frame is extremely close, for both sources describe events which took place very close to 100 BC. Archaeology has located the lowland area into which this southern highland pottery was introduced. Examples have been found in tombs at the sites of Barton-Ramie and Tzimin Kax; north as far as Nohmul; west (into Guatemala) at Holmul; southwest at Poptun; and southest to Stann Creek. None has been found as far west as Tikal or Uaxactun, nor to the north in Yucatan."

 

That this information has application to Book to Mormon geography is obvious to me. According to Alma 27:22: "And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful." If that refers to the Belize area, then the migration of peoples indicated by the migration of Floral Park ceramics from El Salvador to Belize fits in with the Book of Mormon's account of the migration of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who the Nephites called the people of Ammon, or the Ammonites. And since Lamoni was probably among those who migrated, the place named Lamanai in Belize cannot fail to at least suggest some connection.

[prismsplay]

My source of information concerning a distinctive pottery found at Chalchuapa, El Salvador later showing up in Belize is the 2002 edition of Voices from the Dust by Glenn A. Scott, which quotes from "Maya Lowland Ceramics" (American Antiquity, Willey et al., 1967) and Preclassic Ceramics from Chalchapa (Sharer and Gifford, 1970).

 

Here is part of Glenn A. Scott's summary: "in 1966, at a conference on Maya ceramics in Guatemala City, archaeologists agreed that Floral Park ceramics "probably represent an intrusion associated with the movement of peoples." Robert Sharer wrote "The similarity between ... pottery from Chuachuapa and certain ceramics of the lowlands is so close that individual sherds can barely be distinguished from one another." Robert Sharer and James Gifford said, "The only reasonable explanation for a set of such close ceramic connections would seem to be that originally they were the products of a single population." "Ceramic links ... appear to relate to populations ... in the two regions because the pottery involved is domestic ... not likely to be the result of trade."

 

Scott continues: "To sum up, evidence indicates that sometime after 144 BC (=/- 44), a pottery making people (identified by their distinctive pottery), who once lived in the highlands around Chalchuapa, El Salvador, migrated north into the lowlands of Belize and brought their culture with them. That included making the same type of pottery as they had made in their formwer homeland. Thus archaeological evidence agrees closely with the migration of the Ammonites who brought their Lamanite culture with them into the Land of Jershon. Even the time frame is extremely close, for both sources describe events which took place very close to 100 BC. Archaeology has located the lowland area into which this southern highland pottery was introduced. Examples have been found in tombs at the sites of Barton-Ramie and Tzimin Kax; north as far as Nohmul; west (into Guatemala) at Holmul; southwest at Poptun; and southest to Stann Creek. None has been found as far west as Tikal or Uaxactun, nor to the north in Yucatan."

 

That this information has application to Book to Mormon geography is obvious to me. According to Alma 27:22: "And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful." If that refers to the Belize area, then the migration of peoples indicated by the migration of Floral Park ceramics from El Salvador to Belize fits in with the Book of Mormon's account of the migration of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who the Nephites called the people of Ammon, or the Ammonites. And since Lamoni was probably among those who migrated, the place named Lamanai in Belize cannot fail to at least suggest some connection.

[Rob Osborn]

You still misunderstand the entire context of the passage. What did Mormon want? What did Mormon tell the king of the Lamanites that he wanted? Where was Mormon going to put his people, the Nephites? Where did he tell the king of the Lamanite that he wanted to gather the people?

He did exactly what he told the king of the Lamanites he was going to do. He intended to camp the entire gathered people by the hill Cumorah and he told the king of the Lamanites so, and that was where he and his people could give the Lamanites battle. There was no mention of a stratagem or of any form of deception concerning what he wrote in his epistle. Mormon told the king exactly what he intended to do and kept to it. There is no reason to suggest that he did otherwise because he never said otherwise. There is no mention of spreading his people out to other places and no mention of small fortifications spread out over a "day's journey" from one another, or anything the like. There is nothing to indicate that he didn't do exactly as he said he was going to do to prepare for battle with the Lamanites. Everything they needed was right there by the hill called Cumorah.

He also would have wanted to stay near the hill Cumorah because he had a tactical advantage by that hill (Mormon 6:4) as well as would have had a consistent water supply near at hand (a land of many rivers and fountains comes in handy, particularly if you can get your water from a hill nearby that is large enough to protect your six from attack as you faced outward: no matter where you are your rear flank is protected if you are facing the approaching battle group). The higher ground around the base of the hill also would give you the high ground, which gives you the advantage in ancient warfare. In a hot climate you also need plenty of clean water. The hill in New York could not provide any of that, now or ever. Tens of thousands would have died of cholera before the Lamanites ever got there, had they been in New York.

And, then, while he waited, he continued to gather all the remainder of the people together. In verse 5 he says:

All the people had been "gathered in" unto the land of Cumorah. Nowhere does he write that he spread all the people around in that land. No, rather, the very next thing he does is the following in verse 6:

Note what Mormon writes here, and it is specific. You are misinterpreting what Mormon is directly stating here, rather than taking him at his word. He states that he took at the records and hid them when "we had gathered in all our people in one" and then gave his son the plates he had been working on. "Gathered in all our people in one" means that the whole of the Nephite people were gathered together into one place and in one body in Cumorah, regardless of where they were otherwise. They were "gathered in"..."in one," meaning together in one place in Cumorah. That one place was by the hill Cumorah, as set forth both by what he stated his intentions were in verse 2 and by what was happening the entire time in verse 4, which was pitching tents around about the hill as people gathered to the very place Mormon told the Lamanite king he was going to gather the people, which was "in one."

Take it as it reads instead of trying to read into the text all sorts of other logistical issues that would cause serious problems with the New York hill. Try fitting a million or more, or at the very least, hundreds of thousands, gathered "in one" "around about" the New York hill and let them try to survive. It wouldn't happen. Many would die from cholera, if they managed to survive starvation and thirst, if they were in the New York location. It really is that simple. All one needs to do is to take Mormon at his word and accept what he wrote about what he and his people did, and it is pretty easy to see that it never could have happened in New York.

I once thought as you did until I took Mormon at his word. Once I did that and realized all the logistical problems created by a New York scenario, I was done with the New York location. I could no longer sustain that view and had to look to a place where that situation could work. Lots of fresh water isolated from E. Coli contamination caused by closely assembled groups of people polluting the groundwater, and two to three growing seasons a year on and around a sizable piece of real estate would solve all the logistical problems of feeding such a large group of people for an extended period of time, not to mention no snow and no harsh winter to make life difficult for them, as would have been the case in any New York location.

Click on the map for the region where it has been proposed that Cumorah stood in Mesoamerica, which is San Andres Tuxtla at the following link (and select the climate tab for each month you want to check the climate):

http://www.myweather2.com/City-Town/Mexico/San-Andres-Tuxtla/map.aspx

You will note that no snow is mentioned and that even in December through February is warm enough that people living in tents and trying to survive will do just fine. No winters to create famine conditions and no snow and ice to cause problems for anyone living around that hill for an extended time. And, that extended time frame is inferred by what Mormon writes.

By the time nearing the end of the Nephite nation, Mormon is keeping a careful record of the years in which certain events occurred. His last record of a date before he breaks into details of the Nephites' wickedness and breaks into mourning, was the three-hundred and eightieth year from the time of the coming of Christ among them (Mormon 5:6). Now, when Mormon takes up where he left off on the record, he does not yet add another year marker to his history, implying that where he takes up the record again is still at 380 years after the coming of Christ.

So, at that point, still at 380 years, he takes up where he left off: "And now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites." They march forth from where they were when they had taken flight in Mormon 5:6, and continue to march forth before the Lamanites, who still are in pursuit. At that moment in time (in what is still the 380th year), Mormon writes an epistle to the king of the Lamanites, telling him of his plans to go to Cumorah and camp by a hill called Cumorah, there to give the king battle. Now, the next date that Mormon gives is the 384th year, which is the time when they completed gathering in all the remainder of the people. That is about a whole four years, at least, in ever increasing numbers until the 384th year, that they lived in Cumorah "around about" the hill Cumorah! That's hundreds of thousands to something around a million people, give or take. That is the entire population living in the Salt Lake Valley, camping around a large hill, together in one place, for about four years!

Four years! Even if only for a year there would have been severe trouble and many deaths from starvation, cold and disease alone in the New York location. But they were there gathering forces and living there by Cumorah (remember, the Book of Mormon says "gathered in all our people in one" and "by a hill which was called Cumorah") for four years surviving! To put it as my younger son (all grown up and serving in the military) would put it, or as my grandson also would say it, "Stick a fork into New York Cumorah. It's done!"

Edited to add: I thought I would add a photo of one of the proposals for hill Cumorah in Mesoamerica, for comparison purposes to photos already posted of the New York location. This is a photo taken by George and Eve DeLange and was taken from within the modern city of Santiago Tuxtla.

It doesnt matter where the hill is in the case of encamping that many people into and around one hill. The limitwd geography modeks hill is no hill BTW, its a mountain. I think we can both agree that you woyld have some serious logistics problem of camping that many peopke around one hill. But somehow you think just shifting those people to an area of a different climate solves the problem. It doesnt. Whether they camp at a hill in New York or in Mexico they still take up the same amount of space, still eat and drink the same amount of food and water, etc. Let me ask this- what would happen if you took the whole Sakt Lake valley residents and moved them to any one hill. Where or how are they getting their food? How many miles in length would be their encampment? How long do you really think they could survive in one encampment before completely running out of food? Remember this- pretty much the entire Salt Lake valley has all their food trucked in from outside sources. Do you really think that that many people could survive off the land in a gathered encampment group around one hill for longer than a month? I highly doubt it.

This is no different than Ether going out by night to view the entire destruction of his nation. Ether could not of possibly traveled to all locations in one night and return by daylight to his cave. Sometimes one must logically make it work.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[cursor]

Does one really believe you can fight a war in ancient times with numbers that big and fight on basically a thousand acres of land? 

 

John L. Sorenson wrote:

"The following facts are documented: The Quiché force opposing the Spaniards numbered 232,000 despite the fact that some groups abstained from the alliance. The Aztecs mustered a force of 400,000 in a fairly routine campaign against a nearby kingdom. Etc. More problematic is Alba Ixtlilxochitl’s account of central Mexican history according to which a combined Aztec army at one point consisted of 700,000 men. Of the hazier past the historian said that in the last war of the “Tultecs” a total (including women) of “5,600,000” persons were slain. Even if we skeptically and arbitrarily reduce that figure by 90 per cent, the remaining number would be of the same order of magnitude as that reported in the Book of Mormon for the final battle at Cumorah."

 

http://www.johnlsorenson.com/docs/OpenLetterCoe.pdf (page 6)

[Rob Osborn]

John L. Sorenson wrote:

"The following facts are documented: The Quiché force opposing the Spaniards numbered 232,000 despite the fact that some groups abstained from the alliance. The Aztecs mustered a force of 400,000 in a fairly routine campaign against a nearby kingdom. Etc. More problematic is Alba Ixtlilxochitl’s account of central Mexican history according to which a combined Aztec army at one point consisted of 700,000 men. Of the hazier past the historian said that in the last war of the “Tultecs” a total (including women) of “5,600,000” persons were slain. Even if we skeptically and arbitrarily reduce that figure by 90 per cent, the remaining number would be of the same order of magnitude as that reported in the Book of Mormon for the final battle at Cumorah."

 

http://www.johnlsorenson.com/docs/OpenLetterCoe.pdf (page 6)

I can believe in the size of the army but I have issues with how small the battlefields were in BoM times.

[Calm]

It doesnt matter where the hill is in the case of encamping that many people into and around one hill. The limitwd geography modeks hill is no hill BTW, its a mountain.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-mountain-and-a-hill.htm

If I am reading the thumbnail that Larry Poulsen provided, from the lowest point by the river to the top of the two main hills are 1200 ft and 1900 ft. If one were to move to the foot of the hill. At least for the first it would be under the 1000ft old UK standard.

But I think most people label hills based on two things...what they have to compare it to (the higher the mountains, the label hill will likely be attached to higher elevations than if there were no tall mountains around) and if the elevation is in a large group connected with mountains or not. There are some elevations around Utah Valley that should be called a hill, IMO, but because it is part of a larger group of mountains, people identify them as mountains as well. An example of the first would be in Witchita, Kansas where College Hill is barely a bump, being 60 ft higher in elevation than downtown.

Edited September 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[MormonMason]

It doesnt matter where the hill is in the case of encamping that many people into and around one hill. The limitwd geography modeks hill is no hill BTW, its a mountain. I think we can both agree that you woyld have some serious logistics problem of camping that many peopke around one hill. But somehow you think just shifting those people to an area of a different climate solves the problem. It doesnt. Whether they camp at a hill in New York or in Mexico they still take up the same amount of space, still eat and drink the same amount of food and water, etc. Let me ask this- what would happen if you took the whole Sakt Lake valley residents and moved them to any one hill. Where or how are they getting their food? How many miles in length would be their encampment? How long do you really think they could survive in one encampment before completely running out of food? Remember this- pretty much the entire Salt Lake valley has all their food trucked in from outside sources. Do you really think that that many people could survive off the land in a gathered encampment group around one hill for longer than a month? I highly doubt it.

This is no different than Ether going out by night to view the entire destruction of his nation. Ether could not of possibly traveled to all locations in one night and return by daylight to his cave. Sometimes one must logically make it work.

Your claim that this is a mountain is pretty funny considering that the Hispanics there now refer to it as a Cerro.  Montaña is mountain.  Cerro means hill.  It is a large one, I'll grant you that.  But, there is plenty of room and it is a strategic military asset for a band of ancient warriors, and those points are among the most important of things relating to this whole situation.  The very small by comparison hill in New York simply isn't large enough to be of strategic importance, for one thing.

 

As to your proposition regarding the logistics, you are right that this is most problematic with the New York hill.  No one could have survived something like that, especially in the snowy winters of New York.  The Lamanites would not have needed to come against them.  The Nephites would have been dead or dying long before the Lamanites got to them.  Ever hear of rationing? The ancients did it, too.  And, where they are getting their food is both what they would have brought with them, what each arriving band of people would have brought with them on arrival, and what they would have grown in the region surrounding the hill, as well as what may already have been growing in the region in addition to what could be gathered and hunted.  Remember, in the region where hill Cumorah is proposed would have been two to three growing seasons every year.  The ground is and was very fertile.  Winters were and are not harsh, bitterly cold, and snow-ridden, so no famine condition would have existed there apart from drought (lots of water there, so not likely).  Food would have been available all year round and there was plenty of water available here, and all not requiring them to wander for more than 40 miles just to get to clean water. Logistically, it is possible with this very large hill and the region surrounding it.  It is not possible for the New York location.  Period.

 

But the important thing is, what does the Book of Mormon say? It says that they were going to be encamped in the land of Cumorah and by a hill named Cumorah.  It says that they went to Cumorah and pitched tents "around about" were encamped by the hill Cumorah, and that over a period of four years they "had gathered in all [their] people in one."  During this period, no fortifications were built or Mormon would have written at least something relative to that.  If they had spread around in the land, Mormon would have mentioned something like that.  But, there is nothing but complete silence concerning even small fortifications and spreading out through the land of Cumorah.  Mormon instead very clearly states that they were all gathered in together in one.  That is "one group" or they would not all have been gathered in one.

 

What you continue to fail to realize is that this isn't the first time they gathered as one body of people to battle against a superior military force.  Remember what the Nephites did with the Gadianton Robbers? "Gathering in" all the people "in one" was an accepted military stratagem.  The difference is that at Cumorah they did not utilize fortifications.  There is nothing about laying siege to the Nephites, which certainly would have been the case had there been fortifications--even small ones like those called "fortifications" in spread out territories in New York.

 

And, you need to lay that "Ether looking around at two millions" stuff to rest.  I already showed that you were misreading the text there, too.  The two millions dead event occurred before the last stand at Ramah.  It would have been relatively easy for Ether to go out and observe the destruction with the much smaller numbers that were left during the last stand of Coriantumr.

[MormonMason]

I can believe in the size of the army but I have issues with how small the battlefields were in BoM times.

????? You saw the size of the hill and the region of land around it, in the Mesoamerican proposal.  That is a lot more than 1,000 acres.  What it looks like you are doing is taking the New York battlefields (most of which do not even date to Book of Mormon times, anyway) and the area around the hill in New York, and trying to force the Book of Mormon battlefields into those strictures.

 

What Mormon describes and what you are bending his words into meaning are two different things.  There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that defines the sizes of the battlefields as being as small as you maintain, especially with the situation in the land of Cumorah and by the hill.  New York Cumorah could not have fit such a large battle group, and you would be correct there.  The Mesoamerican proposal would have fit them all, and then some.  And, this is yet another reason why New York's Cumorah doesn't cut it as a final battleground for such large numbers.

 

That is why you keep insisting on spreading people out, and placing fortifications over hundreds of miles, instead of believing Mormon on the matter.  You have to force the text of the Book of Mormon just to attempt to make the New York location even close to attaining plausibility.  Book of Mormon battles better fit the descriptions of the kinds of battles and logistics fought in Mesoamerica, not like those meager numbers, fortifications, and hill, in New York.

[poulsenll]

In 1947, the Utah Centennial Scout Encampment was held at Fort Douglas in Salt Lake City. Approximately 5000 scouts were camped in tents, just south of the This Is The Place monument, in an area of less than 0.04 square miles. This equates to about 125,000 individuals camped in tents per square mile. I was privileged to attend this encampment and there was little or no crowding present.

The central valley of the Misantla proposal for Cumorah measures out at about 4 square miles and would accommodate at least 500,000 individuauals camped in tents as described by Mormon.

Hope this gives you some perspective.

Larry P

[prismsplay]

And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle.

 

The Hill Cumorah Expedition Team believes that Cerro Rabon in Oaxaca, Mexico, is Hill Cumorah:

 

"On a mountain in Mexico there is a cave that is believed to contain the ancient records of a people who were destroyed by the hatred of their enemy and by their own disobedience to God’s word.  The battle that destroyed this people is described in both the Popol Vuh and the Book of Mormon. According to the Popol Vuh the followers of the Jaguar annihilated the followers of the Quetzal in a huge battle of epic proportions. Both books describe the battle ground in details that geographically fit a valley in the northern area of the state of Oaxaca in Mexico."

 

Many images of Cerro Rabon are available online. Here is one of them:

 

http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#user=123343&with_photo_id=7266820&order=date_desc

[Rob Osborn]

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-mountain-and-a-hill.htm

If I am reading the thumbnail that Larry Poulsen provided, from the lowest point by the river to the top of the two main hills are 1200 ft and 1900 ft. If one were to move to the foot of the hill. At least for the first it would be under the 1000ft old UK standard.

But I think most people label hills based on two things...what they have to compare it to (the higher the mountains, the label hill will likely be attached to higher elevations than if there were no tall mountains around) and if the elevation is in a large group connected with mountains or not. There are some elevations around Utah Valley that should be called a hill, IMO, but because it is part of a larger group of mountains, people identify them as mountains as well. An example of the first would be in Witchita, Kansas where College Hill is barely a bump, being 60 ft higher in elevation than downtown.

I dont see Cerro el Vigia as a hill but rather a mount. Its pretty high. In order for it to be the hill Cumorah Mormon would have had to climb its 1500 feet elevation to see his devasted army. Not that this was impossible, just more than likely improbable.

[Rob Osborn]

Your claim that this is a mountain is pretty funny considering that the Hispanics there now refer to it as a Cerro.  Montaña is mountain.  Cerro means hill.  It is a large one, I'll grant you that.  But, there is plenty of room and it is a strategic military asset for a band of ancient warriors, and those points are among the most important of things relating to this whole situation.  The very small by comparison hill in New York simply isn't large enough to be of strategic importance, for one thing.

 

As to your proposition regarding the logistics, you are right that this is most problematic with the New York hill.  No one could have survived something like that, especially in the snowy winters of New York.  The Lamanites would not have needed to come against them.  The Nephites would have been dead or dying long before the Lamanites got to them.  Ever hear of rationing? The ancients did it, too.  And, where they are getting their food is both what they would have brought with them, what each arriving band of people would have brought with them on arrival, and what they would have grown in the region surrounding the hill, as well as what may already have been growing in the region in addition to what could be gathered and hunted.  Remember, in the region where hill Cumorah is proposed would have been two to three growing seasons every year.  The ground is and was very fertile.  Winters were and are not harsh, bitterly cold, and snow-ridden, so no famine condition would have existed there apart from drought (lots of water there, so not likely).  Food would have been available all year round and there was plenty of water available here, and all not requiring them to wander for more than 40 miles just to get to clean water. Logistically, it is possible with this very large hill and the region surrounding it.  It is not possible for the New York location.  Period.

 

But the important thing is, what does the Book of Mormon say? It says that they were going to be encamped in the land of Cumorah and by a hill named Cumorah.  It says that they went to Cumorah and pitched tents "around about" were encamped by the hill Cumorah, and that over a period of four years they "had gathered in all [their] people in one."  During this period, no fortifications were built or Mormon would have written at least something relative to that.  If they had spread around in the land, Mormon would have mentioned something like that.  But, there is nothing but complete silence concerning even small fortifications and spreading out through the land of Cumorah.  Mormon instead very clearly states that they were all gathered in together in one.  That is "one group" or they would not all have been gathered in one.

 

What you continue to fail to realize is that this isn't the first time they gathered as one body of people to battle against a superior military force.  Remember what the Nephites did with the Gadianton Robbers? "Gathering in" all the people "in one" was an accepted military stratagem.  The difference is that at Cumorah they did not utilize fortifications.  There is nothing about laying siege to the Nephites, which certainly would have been the case had there been fortifications--even small ones like those called "fortifications" in spread out territories in New York.

 

And, you need to lay that "Ether looking around at two millions" stuff to rest.  I already showed that you were misreading the text there, too.  The two millions dead event occurred before the last stand at Ramah.  It would have been relatively easy for Ether to go out and observe the destruction with the much smaller numbers that were left during the last stand of Coriantumr.

Ether was expelled from society before the last great wars of the Jaredites, before the two million slain warriors, before the great wars of going all over the land in battle. Ether was writing this stuff from his cave. Not probable at all that he alone was going out at night to record all this carnage.

You keep bringing up this climate issue as if it is impossible to live in New York. As I mentioned before the most powerful Indians in North America when the Europeans came to America was the five nations who lived in this very area you say is impossible to live in. Seems to me that the Indians used the topography and climate of the land to their incredible advantage. They successfully defended this region in and around the Finger Lakes for over two hundred years before the white man overcame them. They even had some tribes migrate to their area for protection. Lets thus lay this notion to rest. Historical fact proves your idea bunk.

The text supports the idea that the people in general were located in the land of Cumorah not necessarily specifically all at this one hill location.

[MormonMason]

I dont see Cerro el Vigia as a hill but rather a mount. Its pretty high. In order for it to be the hill Cumorah Mormon would have had to climb its 1500 feet elevation to see his devasted army. Not that this was impossible, just more than likely improbable.

It is irrelevant what you would see this as being.  What matters is what Mormon would have thought about it.  He calls it a hill.  We know nothing about that and his criteria other than that.  All that we can know about Cerro El Vigía is that it is called by the people who live there now a cerro, not a montaña or monte.  A hill, not mountain or mount.

 

We can know another matter as well.  Mormon and the other Nephites were "gathered in" "in one" in the land of Cumorah, and that they were there for four years.  There is not one mention of snow, of frozen rivers, of cold temperatures, or even of any difficulties finding and obtaining food because of the winter.  Absolute silence on these points.  That doesn't sound like upstate New York during winter at all.  The people were living in tents.  If there had been any of these conditions there (and there would have been during the course of New York winters), would not Mormon have spoken of any of it, at least in passing? Not a complaint or mention of cold winters whatsoever.  Not one mention of snow in any amount where they were.  They cannot have been in upstate New York for the final battles.

[MormonMason]

Ether was expelled from society before the last great wars of the Jaredites, before the two million slain warriors, before the great wars of going all over the land in battle. Ether was writing this stuff from his cave. Not probable at all that he alone was going out at night to record all this carnage.

You keep bringing up this climate issue as if it is impossible to live in New York. As I mentioned before the most powerful Indians in North America when the Europeans came to America was the five nations who lived in this very area you say is impossible to live in. Seems to me that the Indians used the topography and climate of the land to their incredible advantage. They successfully defended this region in and around the Finger Lakes for over two hundred years before the white man overcame them. They even had some tribes migrate to their area for protection. Lets thus lay this notion to rest. Historical fact proves your idea bunk.

The text supports the idea that the people in general were located in the land of Cumorah not necessarily specifically all at this one hill location.

Malarkey.  The text says "gathered in" and "in one" to describe where they were.  We know Mormon and the first group were camped "around about" the hill Cumorah.  If one group was in one place and others groups were in other places, they most certainly were not "in one" as Mormon states that they were, and as Mormon told the king of the Lamanites he was going to to.  You essentially are calling Mormon a liar.

 

As to Ether, the Book of Mormon does not state where he went on his night observations, only that he went to look to see what would come of the people.  It is entirely possible that he actually went to talk to people at night because at might he would not be easily recognizable.  He got his statistics from somewhere.  But, he did not finish up his record and go on night observations of the final battles until his second exile.  Recall that he was exiled twice.  On the first instance, he easily could have found out what was going on by speaking with others at night.  After the second exile, that would not have been as easy.

 

I bring up the climate issue because the people you keep comparing were in small bands, not a group of hundreds of thousands of people camped together for four years waiting for battle.  I keep bringing up the climate issue because there is not a single mention of snow or cold weather where Mormon is located.  There is not one mention of having difficulty obtaining water because the rivers and brooks were frozen and they needed to melt snow to drink.  There is not one mention of having food supply problems due to winter.  In fact, Mormon doesn't mention winter at all.  He would have had this occurred in New York.  They are in the open and exposed for four years camped in a body of hundreds of thousands of people.  There is no mention of collapses of peoples' tents from the weight of the snow pressing upon them.  No way the final battles happened in New York.  It really is that simple.  Mormon would have said something relating to the weather had it been notable.  I can assure you that an upstate New York winter is anything but not notable.

Edited September 15, 2013 by MormonMason