The Narrow Neck Debate Continues...

[Anijen]

Just curious but, who do you think the Jaredites were?

I believe they were a people mentioned in the Book of Mormon. It is my opinion they probably lived somewhere near Veracruz, but I could be wrong. I think they had interaction with the Olmec and perhaps significantly changed either their own culture or changed the Olmec culture. They definitely were not any group we have found yet in the United States. If they did dwell here near Cahokia, or Poverty Point, or the mounds in Ohio, they were not a part of those groups, and we have no evidence of such a group ever living in the U.S. (not yet anyway).

[JDave]

Cant climb a mountain wounded the very next day...

Seems pretty reasonable.  Not any less reasonable that what you are describing.

[MormonMason]

Why is everything so microscopic with you? You think anything much beyond the isthmus of teahuantepec is unreasonable. Mormon marched with his people being swept off the land trying to outrun the hoards of the Lamanites. You honestly tjink they were being swept off less than 70 miles until Cumorah?

As to being "so microscopic," I prefer as much precision as possible, wherever possible.

 

As to thinking anything much beyond the Isthmus of Tehuantepec being unreasonable, I only think it is unreasonable when people talk in terms of thousands of miles when the Book of Mormon makes little to no allowance for that.

 

As to where Mormon marched forth, well, pretty close.  You see, the place where the Nephites were destroyed was not far from the place of the "Mulekites'" "first landing."  Since that "first landing" was in the land northward and not far from the narrow neck (i.e., in the land of Desolation), that would mean that Ramah/Cumorah could not have been all that far from where Mormon was first fleeing with a band of his people who were fast enough not to be overrun by the Lamanites.  I'd say, probably on the order of between 70 to 100 miles or so from the Nephite strongholds they lost and fled in Desolation to Cumorah, give or take.  But more than a thousand miles I would consider very unreasonable, in light of Mormon's remarks and very consistent, internal geography in the Book of Mormon text.

[MormonMason]

Cant climb a mountain wounded the very next day...

BikeeMikey stated that he was wounded and managed to climb all over the place in a mountain to try to get back to his car.

 

We also still do not know precisely where Mormon was wounded but it most likely was not his legs.  He most likely was knocked unconscious by a club and left for dead.  A flesh wound in the leg that made him unconscious would have made it very unlikely, if not impossible, to ascend the New York location as well.  And, he would not have been passed by and left alive.  The most likely place where he was wounded was in the head, most likely with a club.  Being knocked unconscious in the heat of battle would have made it more likely to be left for dead.  A flesh wound in the leg, not so much.

 

And, so far you are the only one who has been referring to Cerro El Vigia as a mountain.  None of the peoples who have lived in the vicinity of it, modern Mexican, Spaniard, and pre-Columbian alike, and for whom we have records and names left behind, have referred to it as a mountain.  They themselves have pretty consistently identified it as a hill.

 

And, if you take a look close look at Cerro El Vigia you would see that there seem to be places that would have been fairly easy to ascend.

[Robert F. Smith]

I dont see how you can read that out of th text. Omer departs out of the land and it says he traveled many days just to get to the hill of Shim. His journey then took him and his family from tjere to Cumorah and then from there over to the sea shore. The text never says how far that distance was. All we can secure is that it was many days travel from Moron to the hill Shim. So, the question becomes- how far did they travel in a day and how many is "many days"? Is it 10 days or 50 days? Maybe more, maybe less? Its too hard to discern. Its probably more than a few day (3-4). In context though, Omer, king if the Jaredite nation, leaves to go to another land for safety. After his departure the kingdom undergoes a massive destruction brought on by secret combinations. Two separate kingdoms form and over the space of many years they pretty much anhilate each other. This kingdom was no small kingdom. The Lord promised the brother of Jared that they would become the greatest civilization on the earth. This means their kingdom would surpass all those mighty nations like China, Rome, etc. You have to look at the Jaredites in this light. They built more buildings, pyramids, etc than other nations. They warred stronger than other nations, etc. The scope of their empire was truly magnificant. We must view their empire in this light. When we properly do so it brings the truth of the text to light.

So you interpret Ether 1:43 to refer to the planet Earth?  Even though the word for "land" and "earth" is the same in ancient Near Eastern languages?  In other words, the Jaredites are being promised that they will be the greatest nation in the land, which they were -- judging purely by current archeology.  You insist on a poorly informed surface reading of the text, and have no knowledge of the ancient peoples of the Americas with which to compare.  What would you do with God's promise to Abraham?  Ever heard of hyperbole?

Omer didnt just hop over the little mountain range to find safety from the kingdom that was self destructing. My opinion is that Omer truly traveked many many days to escape from the empires grasp. My opinion is that he had to travel literally hundreds and hundreds of miles. We must remember that this Jaredite nation which existed for upwards of 2 thousand years and was the greatest nation to ever walk the earth was a documented historical reality. They kept records of their dealings. Becauae the record was abridged, only the most notable dealings wete recorded for us to read about. Think of it this way, if you were to right an abridged version of American history of the past 400 years and were only able to use 2 pages to do so what notable things would you put down? And, you cant put down any actual measurements. My record would contain the obvious founding of the thirteen colonies, interactions with the natives, the Revolutionary war, the Civil war, slavery and its abolishment, the two great world wars, etc. My record would probably also mention things such as the monetary system, the settlement of peoples into all parts of the land, diseasrs and plagues, etc. When one looks at it this way it really isnt that much different than what the ancients who used the same land would have wrote about. Our own historical wars fought on this land didnt take place in small areas. Generals of armies had armies spread out over thousands of miles at times, etc. When you delete actual distances from text and keep it highly abridged you autonatically get lulled into seeing their culture as also small and abridged in confined areas.

Actually our Revolutionary War was indeed fought in a very small area, even though it didn't seem small to the men who fought.  As to our later wars, such as the Civil War, you seem to forget the rapid and distant travel by rail and ship.  Modern times telescopes what had always been considered to be long and arduous distances.  Yet you bring no sense of realism or perspective to this debate.

It always intrigues me to watch my fellow brothers be so enamored by the Mayan culture as being Nephite while relegating the smal Olmec "culture" as being the Jaredites. In doing so we minimize the mighty Jaredites and instead make the Nephites the greater nation. This all despite the fact that Mayan language as recorded on a myriad of stella resembles pretty much nothing even remotely like reformed Egyptian.

You have never studied Maya hieroglyphic writing, so how would you know whether it resembled ancient Egyptian?  You probably don't even realize that the man most responsible for the decipherment of Maya was an Egyptologist, Yuri Knorosov -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Knorozov .

 

We also have no record of Nephites writing inscriptions on large stones. Ironically, Coriantumr, the last surving Jaredite is recorded as inscribing his short history on a large stella! This tells me right away that the Maya along with the Olmec were part of that mighty Jaredite nation. Moron very well could have been the ruins we now call Teotihuacan.

Archeologists say a lot about the Maya simply because so much of what they left is preserved by the rain forest, their post-Book of Mormon period accomplishments so stellar -- including invention of the zero, sophisticarted math and astronomical observation, the most accurate calendar on the planet, stelae with historical inscriptions, amazing colored murals, etc.  However, as you have been told on this board multiple times, the Maya have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.  If anything they are on the margins of Lamanite territory and there may have been some trade with them by the Lamanites.  Those Classic Maya are post-Book of Mormon.  You speak glibly about the limited geography theory, but have no idea what it really means.  Moreover, the Maya are post-Olmec and did not know who the Olmec were when their culture arose.  The mother culture of Mesoamerica (called the Olmec nowadays, although we do not know what they called themselves) disappeared before the rise of other important Mesoamerican cultures.

Later, when Toltec rulers from Teotihuacan came down into Maya land to rule as elites at places like Chichen Itza, they surely thought that they had taken long treks of many days, but they did not see a necessity for traveling all across the USA.  And they did not.  Had they done so, we would have evidence of it in the form of artefacts.

[Robert F. Smith]

The church officially recognizes only one hill Cumorah and that it is located in New York just north of Manchester.

Utter hogwash.  There is zero support for this statement.

[Robert F. Smith]

Im curious here, how exactly does one make a claim of there being no evidence of a migration of people halfway across a continent 1600 years ago? What exactly would one hope to find of evidence of a trek like this? Of course no evidence is going to exist or at least be extremely difficult to see. What would one look for? Footprints?

Take an introductory course on archeology at a local college near you and your eyes will be opened.  Footprints, indeed!!  Are you even remotely serious, or are you just having fun putting us on?  You seem to be making this up, like a fantasy world, just using stream of consciousness as you go.  No data, no realia.  Just fantasy.

[Robert F. Smith]

You are right we dont have any idea how high it was. It wasnt a mountain though. Mormon, who abridged and wrote the BoM certainly knew the diffetence between a hill and a mountain and he called it the "Hill Cumorah".

Mormon did not speak English and did not use the word "hill."  Joseph used the word "hill" in his translation.  In the KJV Bible, "hill" and "mount" translate the same word, Hebrew har.  Get out your Strongs and look it up.

[Robert F. Smith]

The distance to the east sea (Atlantic ocean) from the hill Cumorah in New York is about 300 miles. That is not too far to be outside the scope of the scenrio at hand. When Lewis and Clark went on their expedition they came to the great falls of the Missouri and from there they went on over to a place by the ocean in the northwest. If I leave out actual mileage it sounds pretty much the same as Omers journy

Since you mention Lewis & Clark, I wonder whether you are aware that they were military officers under orders from Pres Jefferson to find the Northwest passage.  They were both experienced surveyors (officers were trained at West Point in engineering of which surveying is a part).  They were accompanied by a military unit on their expedition.  They used horses and boats from some of the trek, but their most important source of information on the geography was a teen Amerind who was multilingual and was able to obtain info from local tribes (including her own).  A small group such as that, with sextant and compass, and expert map-making ability, could live off the land or depend on the hospitality of local tribes as they traveled an enormous distance.  Such could never be the case for large numbers of more ancient troops, without that technical capability.  Where would they obtain food?  How would they know here they were going, or even why?  None of what you suggest makes coherent sense.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

We dont know how far north Mormon and those with him were when Mormon wrote to the Lamanite king. He very well was pushed vlear out of Mexico at this point.

Can you tell us why Mormon didn't have his people stop somewhere between the Mexican border and NY?  Surely there must have been some place they passed by that was at least as defensively/offensively good as the Hill Cumorah location.

[Bikeemikey]

In the Book of Mormon the first whole book is dedicated to a sojourn in the wilderness that presumably a distance if around 2000 miles.

It is a massive ordeal along a reasonably hospitable coast line.

The narrow neck to New York State "hill cumorah" is roughly twice that. Much of that through areas that suffer extreme winter etc.

Why do we think the Lehi nephi travel story was recorder but we can assume there is zero mention of the even more substantial hike from southern Mexico to up state ny?

There is so little support and credibility for a fully hemispheric model.

It is either a regional Great Lakes thing or a meso American thing.

It defies evidence to suggest it is both.

All the evidence for larger civilization is in the mesoamerican area. That's the one I lean towards.

Of course there may be something else entirely going on. If Moroni put the plates in the hill as an angel he could have moved them from Cambodia for all we know.

As for the hill thing... Seems to me it is time to realize that robs definition of a hill is not binding on anyway, let a lone a guy from 1600 years ago.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Robert F. Smith]

So you dont think Squiers work he presented for the Smithsonian is legitamte? I have backed up every claim I have made.

Perhaps you could tell me how often Squiers is cited in the Handbook of North American Indians?  It was put out by the Smithsonian. Then, when you have your answer, ask why?

A good thumbnail sketch of the current 15 volumes is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handbook_of_North_American_Indians .

[Rob Osborn]

And yet with all the firestorm headed my way I see no one- not one, has put forth the evidence of a major battle a Cerro Vigia....interesting!

[Rob Osborn]

Can you tell us why Mormon didn't have his people stop somewhere between the Mexican border and NY?  Surely there must have been some place they passed by that was at least as defensively/offensively good as the Hill Cumorah location.

Why did Brigham Young journey his peoples 1,300 miles to escape mob rule in Nauvoo? Surely there must have some place they passed by that was safe?

[Rob Osborn]

Utter hogwash.  There is zero support for this statement.

From the church's official Guide to the Scriptures defining the Hill Cumorah-

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6:2–4

Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6:4

Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6:6

All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6:11

We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128:20

Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS—H 1:42, 50–54, 59

[Freedom]

Why did Brigham Young journey his peoples 1,300 miles to escape mob rule in Nauvoo? Surely there must have some place they passed by that was safe?

I assume you are being facetious and not demonstrating utter ignorance.

[USU78]

Why did Brigham Young journey his peoples 1,300 miles to escape mob rule in Nauvoo? Surely there must have some place they passed by that was safe?

 

You mean, besides Winter Quarters?  Where they had leave of the US Gov't and the local tribes to stay there temporarily?

 

They were headed to Mexico, and everybody knew it.

[Rob Osborn]

Archeologists say a lot about the Maya simply because so much of what they left is preserved by the rain forest, their post-Book of Mormon period accomplishments so stellar -- including invention of the zero, sophisticarted math and astronomical observation, the most accurate calendar on the planet, stelae with historical inscriptions, amazing colored murals, etc.  However, as you have been told on this board multiple times, the Maya have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.  If anything they are on the margins of Lamanite territory and there may have been some trade with them by the Lamanites.  Those Classic Maya are post-Book of Mormon.  You speak glibly about the limited geography theory, but have no idea what it really means.  Moreover, the Maya are post-Olmec and did not know who the Olmec were when their culture arose.  The mother culture of Mesoamerica (called the Olmec nowadays, although we do not know what they called themselves) disappeared before the rise of other important Mesoamerican cultures.

Later, when Toltec rulers from Teotihuacan came down into Maya land to rule as elites at places like Chichen Itza, they surely thought that they had taken long treks of many days, but they did not see a necessity for traveling all across the USA.  And they did not.  Had they done so, we would have evidence of it in the form of artefacts.

God promised that from the Jaredites seed a mighty nation would arise that would be greater than all other nation on the entire earth. You can read whatever you want into that but I believe it literally- the Jaredites were the greatest nation to ever walk the earth.

I dobt know where or what you are alluding to with the Mayan language being helped deciphering by someone who wad Egyptian but everyone knows there is no connection between Mayan and Egyptian glyphs.

Trusting archaeologists is like trusting the weatherman and luckily we dont have to rely on archaeologists to state the BoM is true because if we did, the BoM would be the greaest fairy tale ever written according to them. Thats the number one reason I dont rely on archaeologists as to who peopled the Americeas- they are just plain wrong!

The connections of all the meso-Americans have tell me they all came from the same source. Its a no-brainer for me. Just the connections between the Olmec and Mayan tell me that they were not separate peoples but rather just separated by sone years

[thesometimesaint]

They made it to Mexico.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/1846_map.png&imgrefurl=http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/wilmot-proviso-of-1846-definition-summary-significance.html&h=253&w=384&sz=23&tbnid=FiqclsIBz52GIM:&tbnh=76&tbnw=116&zoom=1&usg=__bWLRQgl0xd6UJZtNcWv32x5C9kQ=&docid=cZf0gwI8NUqzYM&sa=X&ei=FlA7UsXrG4nMiQL1tIGoAQ&ved=0CDYQ9QEwAg&dur=2784

[ksfisher]

God promised that from the Jaredites seed a mighty nation would arise that would be greater than all other nation on the entire earth. You can read whatever you want into that but I believe it literally- the Jaredites were the greatest nation to ever walk the earth.

 

 

This is a curious statement.  It relies on our understanding of a great nation being the same as Joseph Smith's, and his being the same as Moroni's, and his being the same as Mosiah's, and his being the same as the brother of Jared's.  Quite a number of translators involved.

 

So, how would you define greatest?  Biggest geographically?  Most populous? Wealthiest? Most obedient to God's commandemnts? etc.

 

Greatest nation seems like a very subjective term and open to a number of interpretations (and misinterpretations).

[Freedom]

From the church's official Guide to the Scriptures defining the Hill Cumorah-

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6:2–4

Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6:4

Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6:6

All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6:11

We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128:20

Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS—H 1:42, 50–54, 59

This quote proves the point. Nowhere in the church's definition is this hill in New York the same hill as the battle. What they do provide is references in the scriptures where this same word is found. As far as the church is concerned, the hill in new York, commonly referred to as the Hill Cumorah, is where Moroni buried the plates and where Joseph recovered them. They have no opinion on where the hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon is located.

[Freedom]

God promised that from the Jaredites seed a mighty nation would arise that would be greater than all other nation on the entire earth. You can read whatever you want into that but I believe it literally- the Jaredites were the greatest nation to ever walk the earth.

 

Of course, you are adding to this promise by inserting the notion of 'all time'. He made the following promise:

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. And thus I will do unto thee because this long time ye have cried unto me.

So the nation he will raise up unto him will be great. It does not say when or what is meant by great. I can raise up the tallest building that ever was upon the earth. This would  not preclude someone else at some future time from building an even taller building. At that time, they would have been the greatest nation 'raised up unto me'. In other words, as far as nations that are raised up unto God, this would have been the greatest. There is no comparisons to nations that are not raised up unto God, and nor is there any qualifier of time. You are again interpreting and adding to the scriptures to justify your preconceived opinions.

[Rob Osborn]

Of course, you are adding to this promise by inserting the notion of 'all time'. He made the following promise:

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. And thus I will do unto thee because this long time ye have cried unto me.

So the nation he will raise up unto him will be great. It does not say when or what is meant by great. I can raise up the tallest building that ever was upon the earth. This would  not preclude someone else at some future time from building an even taller building. At that time, they would have been the greatest nation 'raised up unto me'. In other words, as far as nations that are raised up unto God, this would have been the greatest. There is no comparisons to nations that are not raised up unto God, and nor is there any qualifier of time. You are again interpreting and adding to the scriptures to justify your preconceived opinions.

No, I am interpreting the scriptures exactly how it says. God says "there shall be none greater". So let me ask- when God says "thou shall not steal" is he meaining only in old testament times? It seems ambiguous and even if it was just during their time it would still cover a period of 2,000 years. The greatest civilization would also leave the greatest evidences of their doings in the land. Just exactly what we see in my opinion.

[Rob Osborn]

This quote proves the point. Nowhere in the church's definition is this hill in New York the same hill as the battle. What they do provide is references in the scriptures where this same word is found. As far as the church is concerned, the hill in new York, commonly referred to as the Hill Cumorah, is where Moroni buried the plates and where Joseph recovered them. They have no opinion on where the hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon is located.

Humm....so you think every prophet since Joseph Smith was up in the night then?

[Rob Osborn]

This is a curious statement.  It relies on our understanding of a great nation being the same as Joseph Smith's, and his being the same as Moroni's, and his being the same as Mosiah's, and his being the same as the brother of Jared's.  Quite a number of translators involved.

 

So, how would you define greatest?  Biggest geographically?  Most populous? Wealthiest? Most obedient to God's commandemnts? etc.

 

Greatest nation seems like a very subjective term and open to a number of interpretations (and misinterpretations).

Not too hard to figure out- it would be the greatest nation on earth. Read the text, they were blessed in almost every aspect- they were large and mighty men, they lived very long, had lots of children, built lots of buildings, etc, etc.