Calm Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 All of Panama was settled in ancient times.CFR please. I googled "ancient ruins of Panama" and the only thing that came up was Spanish settlements. I would be interested in seeing any significant civilization located there. 1
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 Joseph Smith's actions in publishing an article in an official church newspaper, stating that Zarahemla was in what we now call Mesoamerica, puts the bigger nail into the coffin of Panama being the narrow neck of land. Panama used to be known as the Isthmus of Darien. Zarahemla was in "the land south" and was located south of the narrow neck of land, in the Book of Mormon. Thus Panama and South America are ruled out by that article, which was published with the full knowledge and approval of Joseph Smith. That is something you seem to want to ignore--a lot. And, as far as fresh water springs in New York are concerned, the nearest one I know about is more than 40 miles away from the New York Cumorah. The rest are further away--unless you know of a closer one by name. If so, please name it and make sure that this spring is nearer to the hill and puts out enough fresh water that could sustain hundreds of thousands of people camped around the hill for long periods of time. Make sure that it is defensible and that it would not be easy to cross barriers to get to the hill and attack. The Hill in New York does not fit the description of the region of Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. Children can cross the streams around upstate New York. What makes you think the Lamanites would have been held back at all by them? Remember, Mormon hoped to gain a military advantage there. Such an advantage is impossible in upstate New York. Remember, the fountains had to be of strategic significance. The Nephites were camped around the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon, and nearby to the south is the hill Shim, which they would have had to have passed on their way to Cumorah. 40 miles away from where they were camped is of no value to them and would make them vulnerable to siege, surrender, and easy capture. Mormon, the military strategist, would not have put his people into a situation like that. He would have put them somewhere defensible to give them at least a fighting chance. The patterns of the rivers and many waters would have given him defensibility by making it difficult to cross against them. The fountains near the hill Cumorah would have provided drinking water for the people and they would not have been forced out into the open, to travel for over 40 miles, just to get abundant enough and clean, fresh water. Not so with the Cumorah in New York. It would not have been sustainable for large populations concentrated in the area around the hill at the time period of the Book of Mormon and the area is not defensible at all. The fountains were important because clean water was necessary in a region that was difficult for the Lamanites to master (remember, military advantage to the Nephites to be in that land). This would have included treacherous swampland and many more or less dangerous rivers, not many streams that children easily can cross. Had the Nephites not been so bloodthirsty they could have held on for a very long time there--if the proposed place in Mesoamerica. Not so for the New York hill that only got the name Cumorah after 1834. In addition, many of the places that people thought were fortifications in North America actually have been turning out to be sacred sites rather than fortifications used for war. But, I see that you already do not trust archaeologists so I do not know why I bothered to just bring that up.Also published in times and seasons is the fact of Joseph Smith publishing that Lehi and company landed a little south of the isthmus of Darien. This would have to place Zarahemla in South America. As for the many waters of New York-http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_LakesThere are also at least 7,600 lakes, ponds, reservoirs in New York not to mention the thousands of rivers and creeks. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/26561.htmlYou also should read from Squiers book on The Antiuities of New York. He did a very thorough and exhaustive study of the geography of New York concerning the hundreds of ancient earthen fortidications in New York and his belief they were built as a defense. Almost all of the fortifications had caches for storing food, a water source and remains of the dead. http://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesofsta00squi
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 CFR please. I googled "ancient ruins of Panama" and the only thing that came up was Spanish settlements. I would be interested in seeing any significant civilization located there. http://archaeology.about.com/od/mesoamerica/a/panama_prehistory.htm
Robert F. Smith Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (and you might also have noted the absence of cold, ice, and snow in the Book of Mormon) Go back and read it again. You obviously missed something. It is important to remember that cold weather was also implied in the scriptures, for hail was mentioned twice, and Nephi mentions snow when he was recording the Tree of Life. He said: “and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.” (1 Nephi 11:8)While a gentle snow falls in Israel about every seven or eight years, it melts away rather quickly. Thus, Nephi likely did not experienced driven snow, the kind that blows in with a snow storm, until after he arrived in the promised land and had secured the ore he needed to record the experiences of his family. Rain, or the lack of it, is also mentioned in the Book of Mormon, usually in reference to the Lord’s sending it or withholding it according to the righteousness of the people. Thus, we have four separate weather conditions, heat, hail, snow and rain................................................... Unfortunately, a comment by John Sorenson to the effect that the promised land of the Nephites should be place in the tropics because of one lone statement to heat in the scriptures (see Alma 51:33) seems to have stuck in the minds of many, for it is the most often asked question by those investigating New York as the proposed setting for the Book of Mormon saga. He said: “The promised and was quite surely located in the tropics since no indication of cold or snow is given in the text while heat is.”------------------------------------------------- As for Alma 3:5 referring to the Lamanites wearing nothing more than loin clothes, the Native American Indians in New York continued that practice until modernized by the Gentiles who made every effort to civilize them. Many of the early colonizers were amazed by the Indians ability to go so scantily clad even during some of the harshest winters without the cold seeming to bother them. http://return.to/cumorah Yes, there is snow in the Holy Land from time to time. I was living in Jerusalem one year when it snowed, and the city was paralyzed.I Nephi 11 occurs while Nephi and his father are still in the Middle East.As to the Amerinds of New England, they did not wear loincloths in midwinter. They had very warm clothing made of soft deerskin, and their longhouses had excellent heat.They were much better adapted to survival in that area than were the early colonists (who eventually learned how to survive from the Amerinds). 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Moroni more than likely hid amongst the battlefield of the dead as a place of refuge that would not be checkwd for life. I highly doubt that Moroni traveled sone great distance after the great last battle to deposit plates to be found later on. Moroni was given charge of all the records hid in the Hill Cumorah by Mormon. After the great last battle Moroni finds time to take of some of those plates hid in Cumorah to abridge the record of the Jaredites. Moroni probably died within close proximity of where the Hill Cumorah is as a means to guard over and keep all the records safe. I find it tjus convenient that the church possesses that very hill in New York. Thats right- we, the church, own the very hill upon which contains all the holy ancient records.If one has done any study of the mound peoples and the extent of their culture into New York it is not difficult to determine their countless works of fortification for the defense of their lands. There is no doubt in my mind that the Nephites used the areas of their trade routes and also area of greatest pipulations as their man lines of defense of their country and people. This line extended up the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys and culminating in New York. There have been found thousands of fortifications built for defense in this vast area to fend off a warring nations all of ancient age. Particular especially to New York, the fortifications built were vastly pkaced upon every defensible hill. Those many drumlin hills of which the Hill Cumorah is part of had hundreds of defensive earthen works built upon them almost all of which are of ancient origin. There were people not associated with the mormons who declared that western New York was the site of some ancient horrendous battle between two warring nations in he hich the defending nation lost!All the evidence clearly supports New York as the final battle location of the Nephites and Lamanites.Wonderful final statement for someone on a discussion board, where he doesn't actually discuss anything!! Either you did not read what I wrote, or you couldn't care less what the anthropologists who study these things say. Archeology apparently means nothing to you, and the only opinion you believe is an apriori opinion which suits your preconceived notions. Is that the way to study history and to draw conclusions? Just any by gosh and by golly opinion is correct because you believe it to be correct? No further information needed. Who needs apologetics when mere assertion replaces fact? 1
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 Wonderful final statement for someone on a discussion board, where he doesn't actually discuss anything!! Either you did not read what I wrote, or you couldn't care less what the anthropologists who study these things say. Archeology apparently means nothing to you, and the only opinion you believe is an apriori opinion which suits your preconceived notions. Is that the way to study history and to draw conclusions? Just any by gosh and by golly opinion is correct because you believe it to be correct? No further information needed. Who needs apologetics when mere assertion replaces fact?So you dont think Squiers work he presented for the Smithsonian is legitamte? I have backed up every claim I have made.
Calm Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 http://archaeology.about.com/od/mesoamerica/a/panama_prehistory.htmThank you.
MormonMason Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) Also published in times and seasons is the fact of Joseph Smith publishing that Lehi and company landed a little south of the isthmus of Darien. This would have to place Zarahemla in South America. As for the many waters of New York-http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_LakesThere are also at least 7,600 lakes, ponds, reservoirs in New York not to mention the thousands of rivers and creeks. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/26561.htmlYou also should read from Squiers book on The Antiuities of New York. He did a very thorough and exhaustive study of the geography of New York concerning the hundreds of ancient earthen fortidications in New York and his belief they were built as a defense. Almost all of the fortifications had caches for storing food, a water source and remains of the dead. http://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesofsta00squiDo name that article and cite its precise location in the Times and Seasons, please. The only thing I knew about is a scrap of paper of questionable provenance that came into the possession of Frederick G. Williams. And, Lehi's landing would have had zero to do with Zarahemla. Zarahemla was not found or founded either by Lehi or Nephi. Zarahemla was a "Mulekite" city before Mosiah I led his people into the region of Zarahemla. And, the article I before mentioned stated that Zarahemla was north of the Isthmus of Darien. In other words, the article published with full knowledge of Joseph Smith, with no rebuttal and very likely actually written by Joseph Smith himself (because he likely was one of the only ones with the book mentioned in the article within over a hundred miles of Nauvoo, and was editor of the Times and Seasons (editors write editorials)), says the "land on which Zarahemla stood" was north of the Isthmus of Darien, which rules out both Panama as narrow neck of land and South America as "the land south" where stood Zarahemla. Again, the narrow neck was "northward" of Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon. Thus, if Zarahemla was north of the Isthmus of Darien, that rules out both Panama and the whole of South America from being the "land south" where Zarahemla was located. Most of the creeks and rivers in the area in upstate New York are not defensible. Period. Children easily can cross a great many of them. The entire region is not militarily defensible. The nearest fresh water spring I know about is over 40 miles (in a virtually straight line on a modern road system, no less!) from New York Cumorah. I know the name of the spring, too. Ever heard of DiRisio Crystal Spring, in Port Byron, NY? Can you even name one closer, as in within a mile or less, that produces/produced enough water to supply hundreds of thousands of people camped around the hill Cumorah? And, it was around Cumorah and in the land of Cumorah that the Nephites camped on their "last stand." They were not spread out over hundreds of miles at that time and did not have to travel days to get fresh water from the fountains. Otherwise, if fresh water can be had anywhere, why bother about the fountains? Why were fountains important if there was plenty of potable water lying around elsewhere? Why even mention fountains at all? I have found that when Mormon mentions something it most often is quite important to the story in his mind. Remember, Cumorah was a strategic location for Mormon where he had hoped his people could gain a military advantage. It is very likely that the fountains were important because Mormon knew potable water was not necessarily in the rivers and bodies of water and swamps surrounding a defensible Cumorah. If the region is as defensible as the Book of Mormon implies, the region would have been difficult for the Lamanites to get supplies from that region and also the region surrounding Cumorah was likely very dangerous due to the kinds of predatory wildlife that likely were there outside the defensible zones. As to Squier, his work is from a survey in 1848, and published in 1851, and is dreadfully outdated. We now know a lot more about the region and its ancient peoples than he did. Rather than fortifications they are now being seen as sacred sites. I know...archaeologists before the end of the 19th century cannot be trusted so I think I may be wasting my very limited time even bringing this stuff up. Have you even read what Squier wrote, by the way? He himself says that most of these "earthworks" ranged no more than "one to four acres--the largest not exceeding sixteen acres in area"! (Squier, 12). The embankments were described "slight" and the ditches as being "shallow." Those are hardly cities walled in by earthworks, much less comparable to Book of Mormon earthworks! Even worse, a number of these earthworks and other structures mentioned were from more modern times than Book of Mormon times, some of them mentioned as existing and inhabited in the time of Champlain! (Squier, 41-42). One was mentioned as being erected by the French! (Squier, 45-46). Edited September 9, 2013 by MormonMason 2
Anijen Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Also published in times and seasons is the fact of Joseph Smith publishing that Lehi and company landed a little south of the isthmus of Darien. This would have to place Zarahemla in South America. As for the many waters of New York-http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_LakesThere are also at least 7,600 lakes, ponds, reservoirs in New York not to mention the thousands of rivers and creeks. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/26561.htmlYou also should read from Squiers book on The Antiuities of New York. He did a very thorough and exhaustive study of the geography of New York concerning the hundreds of ancient earthen fortidications in New York and his belief they were built as a defense. Almost all of the fortifications had caches for storing food, a water source and remains of the dead. http://archive.org/stream/antiquitiesofsta00squiCFR please list the page numbers in these books you cite so that I can read the full text in its context.
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 Do name that article and cite its precise location in the Times and Seasons, please. The only thing I knew about is a scrap of paper of questionable provenance that came into the possession of Frederick G. Williams. And, Lehi's landing would have had zero to do with Zarahemla. Zarahemla was not found or founded either by Lehi or Nephi. Zarahemla was a "Mulekite" city before Mosiah I led his people into the region of Zarahemla. And, the article I before mentioned stated that Zarahemla was north of the Isthmus of Darien. In other words, the article published with full knowledge of Joseph Smith, with no rebuttal and very likely actually written by Joseph Smith himself (because he likely was one of the only ones with the book mentioned in the article within over a hundred miles of Nauvoo, and was editor of the Times and Seasons (editors write editorials)), says the "land on which Zarahemla stood" was north of the Isthmus of Darien, which rules out both Panama as narrow neck of land and South America as "the land south" where stood Zarahemla. Again, the narrow neck was "northward" of Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon. Thus, if Zarahemla was north of the Isthmus of Darien, that rules out both Panama and the whole of South America from being the "land south" where Zarahemla was located. Most of the creeks and rivers in the area in upstate New York are not defensible. Period. Children easily can cross a great many of them. The entire region is not militarily defensible. The nearest fresh water spring I know about is over 40 miles (in a virtually straight line on a modern road system, no less!) from New York Cumorah. I know the name of the spring, too. Ever heard of DiRisio Crystal Spring, in Port Byron, NY? Can you even name one closer, as in within a mile or less, that produces/produced enough water to supply hundreds of thousands of people camped around the hill Cumorah? And, it was around Cumorah and in the land of Cumorah that the Nephites camped on their "last stand." They were not spread out over hundreds of miles at that time and did not have to travel days to get fresh water from the fountains. Otherwise, if fresh water can be had anywhere, why bother about the fountains? Why were fountains important if there was plenty of potable water lying around elsewhere? Why even mention fountains at all? I have found that when Mormon mentions something it most often is quite important to the story in his mind. Remember, Cumorah was a strategic location for Mormon where he had hoped his people could gain a military advantage. It is very likely that the fountains were important because Mormon knew potable water was not necessarily in the rivers and bodies of water and swamps surrounding a defensible Cumorah. If the region is as defensible as the Book of Mormon implies, the region would have been difficult for the Lamanites to get supplies from that region and also the region surrounding Cumorah was likely very dangerous due to the kinds of predatory wildlife that likely were there outside the defensible zones. As to Squier, his work is from a survey in 1848, and published in 1851, and is dreadfully outdated. We now know a lot more about the region and its ancient peoples than he did. Rather than fortifications they are now being seen as sacred sites. I know...archaeologists before the end of the 19th century cannot be trusted so I think I may be wasting my very limited time even bringing this stuff up. Have you even read what Squier wrote, by the way? He himself says that most of these "earthworks" ranged no more than "one to four acres--the largest not exceeding sixteen acres in area"! (Squier, 12). The embankments were described "slight" and the ditches as being "shallow." Those are hardly cities walled in by earthworks, much less comparable to Book of Mormon earthworks! Even worse, a number of these earthworks and other structures mentioned were from more modern times than Book of Mormon times, some of them mentioned as existing and inhabited in the time of Champlain! (Squier, 41-42). One was mentioned as being erected by the French! (Squier, 45-46).Lehi landed a little south of the isthmus of Darien according to vol.3 of the times and seasons. We could debate it all day I guess. We cannot thus rule out South America.Of course the fortifications are going to be much smaller in Squiers day because of a myriad of factors. He was however a specialist of his day on ancient earthen works who did much study on the mound people and those in Mexico. I know you want to discredit him and be picky. Yes it is true that some of the fortifications he came accross were of modern origin. But the fact still remains that almost entirely the works were of ancient origin and could have served no other reason than that of being a defensive work. Whose word am. I thus going to believe, your or his? Well, until you write a thorough book on the subject ans go walk the ground he did I am gonna believe Squier. You keep bringing up that it wasnt a defensible land. But that is completely false. It took over two decades for the white man warring with the Iriquois befote internal conflict finally led to their demise in this same area. The area is very defensible and provides every substance in abundance to be able to hold off an army obvioysly.
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 CFR please list the page numbers in these books you cite so that I can read the full text in its context.If you have the time read the whole book or at least the first 75 pages or so.
cursor Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) Also published in times and seasons is the fact of Joseph Smith publishing that Lehi and company landed a little south of the isthmus of Darien. This would have to place Zarahemla in South America. The Times and Seasons, Is edited, printed and published about the first fifteenth of every month, on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by JOSEPH SMITH. 09-15-1842"When we read in the Book of Mormon that Jared and his brother came onto this continent from the confusion and scattering at the tower, and lived more than 1, 000 years, and covered the whole continent from sea to sea with towns and cities; and that Lehi went down to the Red Sea to the great southern ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, and improved the country according to the word of the Lord, as a branch of the House of Israel, and then read such a goodly traditionary account as the one below, we cannot but think the Lord has had a hand in bringing to pass His strange act, and proving the Book of Mormon true in the eyes of all the people. The extract below, comes as near the real fact as the four evangelists do to the Crucifixion of Jesus. Surely "Facts are Stubborn Things. " It will be as it ever has been, the world will prove Joseph Smith a true prophet by circumstantial evidence, in experiments, as they did Moses and Elijah. "(Times and Seasons, Vol. III, no. 22, p. 922) Just two weeks later, Joseph seems to have changed his mind: 10-01-1842"Since our 'extract' was published from Mr. Stephens' "Incidents of Travel, " and etc. , we have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatemala, is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south. The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the Crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the Book of Alma. - "And now it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful, and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the Land of Nehpi, and the Land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water: there being a small neck of land between the Land Northward and the Land Southward."(Times and Seasons, Vol. III, no. 23, p. 927) PDF scans of the source documents can be found here:http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/9200/rec/4 Edited September 9, 2013 by cursor 1
cursor Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 CFR please list the page numbers in these books you cite so that I can read the full text in its context. The real title of the book is Antiquities of New York. The author's name is E. G. Squier [reference]http://www.amazon.com/Antiquities-New-York-E-Squier/dp/B003R3XYQ4 One of his works can be found online, here.
Anijen Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 He was however a specialist of his day on ancient earthen works who did much study on the mound people and those in Mexico. I have all of Squires books , the ones published by the Smithsonian. I did not know he was an expert on earth works in Mexico please cite the page for that info too. If you have the time read the whole book or at least the first 75 pages or so. You are the one who used him as a source and quoted him. That is why I CFR you so I wouldn't have to read "75 pages or so." Please cite your resource correctly with page numbers.
Anijen Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) The real title of the book is Antiquities of New York. The author's name is E. G. Squier [reference]http://www.amazon.com/Antiquities-New-York-E-Squier/dp/B003R3XYQ4 One of his works can be found online, here.I know his works, I have them. Please quote the page numbers as previously requested. Edited September 9, 2013 by Anijen
rodheadlee Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 1) There are no roads to Columbia from Panama. Even today if you wish to go from Portobello to Cartagena you must go by boat. 2) I think wherever the plates are is called Cumorah. If the plates are moved the new location is called Cumorah. 1
cursor Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) I know his works, I have them. Please quote the page numbers as previously requested. That's great that you have them all. I thought that it might be helpful for those who don't, to know the proper book title and the correct author name. Since you're familiar with Squier's writings, I'm curious to hear your perspective on whatever Rob offers as a specific response to your CFR. Edited September 9, 2013 by cursor
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 I have all of Squires books , the ones published by the Smithsonian. I did not know he was an expert on earth works in Mexico please cite the page for that info too. You are the one who used him as a source and quoted him. That is why I CFR you so I wouldn't have to read "75 pages or so." Please cite your resource correctly with page numbers.Look in your Aboriginal monuments of the state of New York book starting on page 93 where he discusses the Mexican earthworks and other stone fortifications there in Mexico.As for the CFR, you are just gonna have to read the first 75 pages as to the number of citations I woykd give are just about that many.
Anijen Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 That's great that you have them all. I thought that it might be helpful for those who don't, to know the proper book title and the correct author name. Since you're familiar with Squier's writings, I'm curious to hear your perspective on whatever Rob offers as a specific response to your CFR. I have Squire and Davis, Edited by David J.Meltzer Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley 1998 edition 5th printingIt is wonderful book with current editorials by Meltzer who is a top notch anthropologist. Squier and Davis hated each other and as a researcher it is bonus material to get the inside history of these two fellows. I also have Antiquities of the State of New York. I also have some of the oldest and most up to date books on archaeology of New York. I am study in my own time the digs that have produced some of the best pottery and projectile points of that state. I am almost to the point (pun intended) to be able to classify type, date and origin of most projectile points found there. When I say origin I mean the quarry source where the projectile point came from as for pottery I am not as good as my Anthropology Professor, but I am getting better. Rob's argument seems to me the same old points (pun again) made from previous threads, such as; mass graves, or copper works, and earth fortifications. What most these arguments lack is that they do not match with the Book of Mormon. For example almost all mass grave sites are speaking of about 50-100 skeletal remains most are not from warfare and all of these are not burials from the same time. To be more clear a grave that has 100 skeletal remains maybe 55 are from warfare (Utah site, none from New York) the rest are common burials, each site of these burials could range from a few years apart to hundreds (such as mound 72 at Cahokia). Not one of these sites show any (none) evidence of any great battle, nor any evidence of migration either from the plains such as from Cahokia to New York, Great Lakes to New York (Palmyra area), or Mesoamerica to New York. Many of these finds used as support for a Great Lakes theory or a Plains theory do not match to the time of the Book of Mormon ie. Cahokia dates at its peak 1050 AD. They also seem to use fake items (although I am starting to see some reluctance here) such as the Bat Creek Stone, Los Lunas, Davenport Tablets etc. When Desoto was looking for gold it was at a time when so many Indians were dying from disease that they would pile bones too scare off the explorers (it didn't work), but we are only talking of 20-30 skeletal remains and these remains obviously do not date to the Book of Mormon. After a while the Indians would tell Desoto and the explorers that there was no gold where they were, but they knew of gold a hundred miles away and off they went on a wild goose chase set by the Indians to get rid of the disease giving whites (this worked). So I am skeptical on claims such as these and that is why I CFR often because I know NY history and that of the Hopewell, Adena, Clovis etc hence my reservations I have for such a setting for the Book of Mormon. On the other hand the evidence for a setting for the Book of Mormon is quite strong. I think as Gardner and Wright has posited that looking for Mesoamerica from inside the pages of the Book of Mormon is a brilliant way to look at it and it is a heck of a lot cheaper than finding the BofM in Mesoamerica. 2
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 Hum, so when I read about a bone pile from New York that states the bodies were piled randomly, had arrow points in them, etc, I am just suppised to ignore it?
cursor Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Hum, so when I read about a bone pile from New York that states the bodies were piled randomly, had arrow points in them, etc, I am just suppised to ignore it? What ... ignore it? Kinda like you seem to have ignored this post?http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61694-the-narrow-neck-debate-continues/?p=1209297164 Even Joseph Smith was learning "line upon line." 1
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 What ... ignore it? Kinda like you seem to have ignored this post?http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61694-the-narrow-neck-debate-continues/?p=1209297164 Even Joseph Smith was learning "line upon line."All I can assume was that it is disputed over where Joseph "thought" the landing of Lehi was. Here- http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=books&bookid=71&id=781Seems as if it osnt teally known where JS thought first landing occurred.
Sevenbak Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Look in your Aboriginal monuments of the state of New York book starting on page 93 where he discusses the Mexican earthworks and other stone fortifications there in Mexico.As for the CFR, you are just gonna have to read the first 75 pages as to the number of citations I woykd give are just about that many.All good. There is so much there, thank you. Another gem is historian Orsamus Turner's work. "Pioneer history of the Holland purchase of Western New York" http://books.google.com/books/about/Pioneer_History_of_the_Holland_Purchase.html?id=IioWAAAAYAAJ Here's a snip: "We are surrounded by evidence that a race preceded them farther advanced in civilization and the arts, and far more numerous. Here and there upon the brows of our hills, at the head of our ravines, are the fortifications; their locations selected with skill, adapted to refuge, subsistence and defense. The uprooted trees of our forest, that are the growth of centuries expose their mouldering remains; the uncovered mounds masses of their skeletons promiscuously heaped one upon the other, as if they were gathered and hurriedly entombed of well contested battle fields. In our valleys, upon our hillsides, the plough and the spade discover their rude implements, adapted to war, the chase, and domestic use. All these are dumb but eloquent chronicles of by-gone ages. We ask the red man to tell us from whence they came and whither they went: and he either amuse us with a wild and extravagant traditionary legend or acknowledges himself as ignorant as his interrogators. He and his progenitors have gazed upon these ancient relics for centuries, as we do now, wondered and consulted their wise men, and yet he is unable to aid our inquires. We invoke the aid of revelation, turn over the pages of history, trace the origin and dispersion of the races of mankind from the earliest period of the worlds existence, and yet we gather only enough to form the basis of vague surmise and conjecture. The crumbling walls the ruins overgrown by the gigantic forests of Central America, are no more involved in impenetrable obscurity than are the more humble, but equally interesting mounds and relics that abound in our region. “
cursor Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) All I can assume was that it is disputed over where Joseph "thought" the landing of Lehi was. Here- http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=books&bookid=71&id=781Seems as if it osnt teally known where JS thought first landing occurred. My point is not about where Lehi might have landed, but rather about the location of the very significant "narrow neck of land." The Book of Mormon makes it clear that Lehi landed in the "land southward", below the narrow neck of land. The source text also makes it abundantly clear that Zarahemla (in the heart of the land [southward]), the land of Nephi, and the land of first inheritance (where Lehi landed) are all in the land southward. Joseph Smith, in his final months of life, takes responsibility for the published statement in the Times and Seasons,"... Central America, or Guatemala, is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama] and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south. The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the Crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land ..." As far as I'm aware, this is his final BofM geographic perspective. What this means is that:Lehi did not land "south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]."Lands Zarahemla, Nephi, and first inheritance are not in South America.Lands Zarahemla, Nephi, and first inheritance are north of the isthmus of Darien (Panama).The narrow neck of land MUST be the isthmus of Tehuantepec. [if not there, then where else might there be a narrow neck of land, north of Guatemala (where the land of Zarahemla is generally located?)]This significant information, in conjunction with the [hands/eyes-on] geographic perspective offered by Mormon within the source text, suggests a dramatically reduced scope of activity for these ancient American cultural interactions. Edited September 9, 2013 by cursor 2
Rob Osborn Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 All good. There is so much there, thank you. Another gem is historian Orsamus Turner's work. "Pioneer history of the Holland purchase of Western New York" http://books.google.com/books/about/Pioneer_History_of_the_Holland_Purchase.html?id=IioWAAAAYAAJ Here's a snip: "We are surrounded by evidence that a race preceded them farther advanced in civilization and the arts, and far more numerous. Here and there upon the brows of our hills, at the head of our ravines, are the fortifications; their locations selected with skill, adapted to refuge, subsistence and defense. The uprooted trees of our forest, that are the growth of centuries expose their mouldering remains; the uncovered mounds masses of their skeletons promiscuously heaped one upon the other, as if they were gathered and hurriedly entombed of well contested battle fields. In our valleys, upon our hillsides, the plough and the spade discover their rude implements, adapted to war, the chase, and domestic use. All these are dumb but eloquent chronicles of by-gone ages. We ask the red man to tell us from whence they came and whither they went: and he either amuse us with a wild and extravagant traditionary legend or acknowledges himself as ignorant as his interrogators. He and his progenitors have gazed upon these ancient relics for centuries, as we do now, wondered and consulted their wise men, and yet he is unable to aid our inquires. We invoke the aid of revelation, turn over the pages of history, trace the origin and dispersion of the races of mankind from the earliest period of the worlds existence, and yet we gather only enough to form the basis of vague surmise and conjecture. The crumbling walls the ruins overgrown by the gigantic forests of Central America, are no more involved in impenetrable obscurity than are the more humble, but equally interesting mounds and relics that abound in our region. “Thanks a lot! A very good read. To me it stands as yet another testament of ancient warfare in Western New York.
Recommended Posts