Cumorah ... Has Time Changed Your Mind?

[Cold Steel]

Some of our critics say the Liahona was an anachronism because it was called a "compass." For many years it was argued that pre-Columbian civilizations didn't have the wheel, but of course the wheel wasn't needed to build all those great cities in Mesoamerica because the aliens' levitation devices worked much better. ; )

 

The Heartland advocates seem to do a lot of referring to apostolic sources, as if an apostle would know by sheer insight and revelation where the lands of the Book of Mormon would be. As I said earlier, I don't think many of our apostles could walk up to a map of the Middle East and point to the valley of Armageddon unless it was marked, or they had been there.

 

It appears to me that late in his life, Joseph Smith saw something in the writings and drawings that appeared in John Lloyd Stephens' Incidents of Travel in Central America that he recognized. He may not have known where the Book of Mormon lands were, but he'd seen enough about them in visions over the years. The Heartlands advocates don't seem to very much like the prophet's fascination with Stephen's book, or Smith's comments on it directly linking the Mayan cities to the Book of Mormon. Had Stephen's book been about the Mound Builders, I suspect they would treat it as scripture.

 

"Reasoning with cats?  When you want your kitty to do your bidding, it's 
best to skip the small talk and bring out the bribes." Cat Talk

 

 

A number of years ago while visiting Cancun, I hiked over to a Mayan site that was still undeveloped. As I walked along the trail with my camera slung over my shoulder, I suddenly felt ill at ease. On my left was jungle, and to my right was a grassy area with some ruins that the city was clearing for tourists. But it was still a long ways from being open to the public. I stopped and looked into the jungle but could see nothing. I was just starting to think of that movie, Predator, where some unseen thing tracks these soldiers through an Asian jungle, picking them off one by one, when I suddenly heard a distinctly catlike growl from above me in the trees. It was dark back there, even though it was only about 3:45 in the afternoon. I began to slowly back away from my position and pulled my camera and bag off my shoulder because it was the only thing I had I might use as a distraction. After walking a ways, I finally made it up onto the main road from the airport and went back to my hotel. Since then, they've turned the site into an attraction called Ruinas Del Ray. 

 

Still don't know what was making that sound, but it was a big cat of some kind. Next time I should take treats!

[Cold Steel]

BTW, does anyone know of any maps of the Heartlands geographic model and where they might be found? Mesoamerican advocates and scholars usually aren't lacking in such maps, but I'd like to see where the narrow neck was located, where the lands northward and southward are, the River Sidon, land of Nephi and so forth.

 

The thing that most impresses me about the Mesoamerican model is even when the various scholars do rudimentary mock-ups of the hourglass shape of the land and various cities, one can't help but think of Mesoamerica. One just doesn't see the New York area.

[DragonLancer]

Although I don't accept it, the hourglass shape for the Heartland Model is that between the Atlantic and the Great Lakes, as you go from the Southwest to the Northeast the land gradually gets compressed.  The Narrow Neck of Land according to some of these models is the Niagara peninsula, being a neck to the side of where the hourglassy shape is.  The Misssissippi is usually considered the Sidon.  Zarahemla, Iowa (across from Nauvoo) is considered the ancient site for the city of Manti, and Huntsville, Missouri area is considered the land of Manti.  Its all "forced to fit" very nicely, just enough to fool anyone that is fool enough to believe it.

[DragonLancer]

Sorry.  Typo.  Zarahemla Iowa is considered the ancient site of Zarahemla.  Of course, there is just that little problem of ruins....  But that never stopped anybody from believing it.

[Rivers]

Please share with us some of those anachronisms.  Don't waste our time with "not found, not exist" stuff like horses.  Archeology in mesoamerica is where we can make absolute assertions.

 

Let's see what you got.

I was under the impression that you can't make absolute assertions with archeology.  And isn't something "not found" in a certain time period the very definition of an anachronism?

[rodheadlee]

I was under the impression that you can't make absolute assertions with archeology.  And isn't something "not found" in a certain time period the very definition of an anachronism?

Mesoamerican archeology is very young, many things are not yet found, it doesn't mean the never existed.

[Tiki]

Because studying the culture of where we believe the Nephites were helps us to determine if the sight has any plausibility. I study the Hopewell and Adena Traditions and I find that Mesoamerica fits excellently and has a greater percentage of credibility than the Mississippi Valley people (by far).

 

 

 

 

So. This does not give any more weight to the heartland theory at all. Many, many people including Thomas Jefferson believed the ancient civilizations were not descendants of the Indians. They attributed the Hopewell and Adena etc. as an ancient, very advanced, and civilized culture and many believed they were the lost tribes of Israel. This is one reason many fake artifacts were made to support their beliefs. Artifacts such as the Bat Creek Stone, Davenport Tablets and Los Lunas stone (as well as others). To give credence to that belief, including that these ancient Americans were something more than they really were. In fact one of the goals of the Lewis and Clark expedition was to validate some of these theories. Jefferson really didn't put too much weight in the theory, but he was motivated to find support for such a theory believing that such evidence would bring in tourists, money, and advance Americas reputation  similar to how the pyramids did for Egypt.

 

 

Those who cling to a heartland theory have an enormous problem in solving the population question.

 

I can't believe you are unaware of the numerous mounds that were found throughout North America, many destroyed by early American Settlers. These were not built based on a "population problem."

[Anijen]

I can't believe you are unaware of the numerous mounds that were found throughout North America, many destroyed by early American Settlers. These were not built based on a "population problem."

Unaware? I am very much aware of the"numerous mounds" I have been to almost all of them, I go to Ohio every year, (every Summer to be precise). your post makes me feel like the professor who is lectured by the student. I realize I am not all that, but I do feel I am on an expert level considering the Mound builders. 

 

And to make my point more clear and succinctly; The largest population of all the Mound building people reached a peak of approximately 50K (not enough) and did so around 1150 AD (wrong time).

So yes there is a population problem to consider the mound builders to be the people of the Book of Mormon.

 

 

Now I do agree and can see some of these Nephites migrated North to Arizona, (other places) and perhaps up the Mississippi, but no where in large groups like described in that great book. 

[Tiki]

Can you define 'maya' in this context? Do you understand that there is a difference between the mayan civilization and the myan culture. Just as there is a difference between the english country (England) and the english language (Canada, U.S., Australia). 

 

I'll use Dr. Sorenson's own words:

 

"What do popular illustrations have to do with actual history? And even then, how would you know that the illustrator had in mind a “Maya” city instead of merely a Mesoamerican city? [the culture mentioned by Freedom] There is too much gratuitous “Mayanization” going on throughout this entire discussion. The text’s “Nephites” were not Maya in all probability; the “Lamanites” may have been in part.  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

 

 

If Dr. Coe believed there was "too much gratuitous Mayanization going on," it's because Dr. Coe was given that impression by LDS Mesoamerica apologists.

 

And the Lamanites did not have a written language, as they were separated from the Nephites per the text of the Book of Mormon, but later were taught by the Nephites the Nephite language.

To claim the Lamanites may have been in part Maya, ignores the text, as the Maya had a written language and existed before during and after Book of Mormon time periods.

 

If there's anything I learned from LDS Mesoamerica apologists, is they pooh pooh the Book of Mormon in their attempts to morph or "shape-shift" Israelites into Maya.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Tiki

[Anijen]

If there's anything I learned from LDS Mesoamerica apologists, is they pooh pooh the Book of Mormon in their attempts to morph or "shape-shift" Israelites into Maya.

Most of the apologist that I know and have read do not believe the Nephites or Lamanites were Mayan. Most of us come from the thought that they lived among them perhaps in small groups (until they became large). If that was the case then there is some transference of ideas and culture between the groups. We should been able to find some of that transference and we have. I really like Brant Gardner's view is to not find the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, but find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon and it comes flooding out when done through that perspective.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Anijen

[Tiki]

Unaware? I am very much aware of the"numerous mounds" I have been to almost all of them, I go to Ohio every year, (every Summer to be precise). your post makes me feel like the professor who is lectured by the student. I realize I am not all that, but I do feel I am on an expert level considering the Mound builders. 

 

And to make my point more clear and succinctly; The largest population of all the Mound building people reached a peak of approximately 50K (not enough) and did so around 1150 AD (wrong time).

So yes there is a population problem to consider the mound builders to be the people of the Book of Mormon.

 

 

Now I do agree and can see some of these Nephites migrated North to Arizona, (other places) and perhaps up the Mississippi, but no where in large groups like described in that great book. 

 

Some students are smarter than professors. Take Joseph Smith as an example.

 

Since you visit the mounds regularly, why do you believe a "small population" would expend its energy / resources in building these mounds? What kind of archeological training were you given to believe a small population would waste its resources on such work-intensive mounds?

 

As for Arizona, there is no evidence of warfare or infighting among or for any of the "Indian" ruins in that State, the most famous being Casa Grande, yet that was built after the BoM time period. Yet we know the text of the Book of Mormon indicates the entire Nephite Nation was destroyed - including the Northern portions of that Nation. Did not Mormon retreat northward? Are there not previously unmentioned names of Nephite cities noted in his history as well as his mentioning Zarahemla?

 

As for my previous post, quoting the article from F.A.R.M.S., why would Dr. Mitchell come to the conclusion - before Joseph Smith had the plates - that Western New York was the sight of a last great battle? Was Mitchell wrong like Dr. Anthon claims Joseph Smith was?  Was it intended as a lie by the Lord to trick Martin Harris into believing Joseph Smith was correct? Or could not an observant archaeologist discover the same truth as recorded in the Book of Mormon?

 

Was Isaiah, who prophesied of Harris's visits, in on the lie? Was Nephi quoting Isaiah, also in on the lie? 2 Nephi 27:17

 

Why do you ignore Mitchell's knowledge then imply he was wrong?

Edited January 19, 2014 by Tiki

[Anijen]

Some students are smarter than professors. Take Joseph Smith as an example. 

 

I wouldn't say Joseph was smarter than professors. I do not think he knew Hebrew better than the guy who taught him. Now I love Joseph Smith, I do believe he was more inspired by too huge of a margin than I could articulate than others.

 

 

 

Since you visit the mounds regularly, why do you believe a "small population" would expend their energy / resources in building these mounds?

Simply because the mounds were not made by one family or contemporaneous group, but over time. Lets take Monks mound for example all the artifacts found in that mound date to many different times and people. I used Monks mound because this is where the largest population was (around 1150 AD). however Monks mound began many many years before that and kept growing after that time. 

 

 

 

What kind of archeological training were you given to believe a small population would waste its resources on such work-intensive mounds?

 

Fair question. I majored in History and Anthropology (all Archaeologist are anthropologist but not all anthropologist are archaeologist). IOW Archaeology is the subset of Anthropology. I was the recipient of the Outstanding Student of Anthropology at my college (Wayne State College), where only one student is selected for that award. I graduated with honors. I will be attending grad school at the University of South Dakota this Fall, where they have one of the best Native American Indian studies in the United States. I have participated in some excavation at Ash fall Nebraska, studied the mound builders, and continue to do so every Summer when I go to Columbus Ohio for business (I spend extra time to study the mounds there). I also visit St. Louis every year and drive 10 minutes across the river to Illinois and study at Cahokia. I have wrote many papers (most on the subject of Celtic, Myths, Celtic Symbolism, Celtic Origins, the Celtics in general), I wrote on the environmental impact the handcart had on the Mormon trail and the forced migration of the Marshallese from the atoll of Bikini. Some of those will be published soon. I am working on a paper for the BMAF and at one point was invited to be a presenter there. I will be presenting at the Missouri valley History Conference sponsored by Phi Alpha Theta in March. I have personally consulted with Dr. Kenneth Feder, Dr. William Iseminger, Dr. Bradley Lepper, and many others regarding the Hopewell and Adena, Clovis etc.. Hope that helps answer your question on some of my training.

 

 

 

Arizona, there is no evidence of warfare or infighting among or for any of the "Indian" ruins in that State,

It is my opinion that is a false theory. IMO I believe there has been some sort of fighting in all groups since Adam and Eve.

 

 

 

we know the text of the Book of Mormon indicates the entire Nephite Nation was destroyed - including the Northern portions of that Nation.

Note the Book of Mormon does not say they went to Arizona or New York that part is speculation and there is no evidence where such a gigantic migration of people either.

 

 

 

 

 

As for my previous post, quoting the article from F.A.R.M.S., why would Dr. Mitchell come to the conclusion - before Joseph Smith had the plates - that Western New York was the sight of a last great battle? Was Mitchell wrong like Dr. Anthon claims Joseph Smith was?  Was it intended as a lie by the Lord to trick Martin Harris into believing Joseph Smith was correct? Or could not an observant archaeologist discover the same truth as recorded in the Book of Mormon?

I do not believe that Dr. Anthon could read the transcript but I believe the characters on it were similar enough to say what he did.

 

 

 

Was Isaiah, who prophesied of Harris's visits, in on the lie?

No.

 

 

 

 

Why do you ignore Mitchell's knowledge then imply he was wrong?

Show me where I have did this.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Anijen

[Tiki]

Why do you ignore Mitchell's knowledge then imply he was wrong?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Show me where I have did this.

 

 

It's correctly inferred from your remarks that North America could not have been the setting for the Book of Mormon. If that's your claim, then you would have to ignore Mitchell's own visits and observations to the mounds in the Mississippi and Ohio valleys and his conclusions that a last battle occurred in Western New York.  Am I wrong?   But thank you for your replies and I wish you the best in your educational pursuits.

[poulsenll]

Tiki

 

Now that Anijen has detailed his background, scholarship and expertise for commenting on the Mound Builder culture; let us hear documentation for your expertise so we can decide who to listen too.

 

Larry P

[Anijen]

 

It's correctly inferred from your remarks that North America could not have been the setting for the Book of Mormon. If that's your claim, then you would have to ignore Mitchell's own visits and observations to the mounds in the Mississippi and Ohio valleys and his conclusions that a last battle occurred in Western New York.  Am I wrong?   But thank you for your replies and I wish you the best in your educational pursuits.

 

I admit I perused the paper on Mitchell if you would be so kind to re-post the link I will read it and give you my thoughts on it in a future post.

Yes, you correctly assume that I do not believe that the heartland (Illinois, Cahokia etc.), Great Lakes, or New York could be a legitimate setting for the Book of Mormon. But you are wrong that North America could not have been a setting because technically Central America is part of North America. I am a strong proponent for a Mesoamerican setting, including a final battle somewhere there (I posit in Veracruz). I think Larry Paulsen, Brant Gardner, Tyler Livingston, Mark Wright are excellent contributors and scholars on the subject of Mesoamerica. I have studied too, but I am not in their class regarding Mesoamerica.

[cdowis]

Tiki,

 

I have to agree with Larry's post.  You make grandiose statements on the mound builders, population numbers, etc.  You talk and ask pointed questions as if you were actually knowledgeable and know what you are talking about.

 

Please don't be modest with us.  Let's hear about your credentials and background.

Edited January 19, 2014 by cdowis

[Cold Steel]

Moroni Chapter 1:1 : Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared, I had supposed not to have written more, but I have not as yet perished; and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me.

This verse completely contradicts the Mesoamerica Theory which claims Moroni "escaped" the Lamanites in Central America then wandered/traveled "unmolested" for 3 decades eventually to Western New York State. He was among the Lamanites as he stated and "hid" from them for the safety of his life.

 

How so? When did he write it? And where was he when he wrote it?

If Moroni had supposed to have not written more, then he would not have returned to the alleged Mesoamerica Hill where that theory claims he hid them. So if the Lamanites were restricted to Mesoamerica, why was he wandering around there among them for 30 years hiding for the safety of his life?

 

 

I'm still not following your logic. After Cumorah, Moroni gathered the plates and ultimately, leaving the plates that weren't necessary secured in Mesoamerica, he moved north into what is now the U.S. He wandered for a little more than three decades and was commanded to bury the remaining plates in the New York drumlin. He had to place them in a box since there are no caves in the drumlin, nor can there be because it's just DIRT. If one tried to dig a cave, it would cave in upon itself. The Cumorah that had a cave in which the sword of Laban was unsheathed and many other plates were buried had to be in a sizable hill or mountain, and the only viable alternatives are the hills in Mesoamerica.

 

Cold: Joseph Smith Sr. raised a family in the "cold." He also had neighbors. Why would this deter Nephites?

He raised a family in the cold? How do we know this? Because a lot of people recorded that it was cold. But the writers of the Book of Mormon never mentioned the cold. Washington mentioned it in Valley Forge. Civil War officers complained about it. Frozen earth is difficult to move and fortifications are difficult to build. I guarantee if there had been snow and ice in the Book of Mormon, someone would have mentioned it! Also, keep in mind

Thats not the point. The point is it was too cold for a Nephite nation or a portion of it to dwell in New York. But people have lived there who had the same resources, notably the Smiths themselves. The Book of Mormon is no more a meterological "Farmers Almanac" as it is a geographical travel book. The only time it mentions weather is when it became extremely deadly such as droughts and whirlwinds.

 

Exactly! The other night I took an envelope to the mailbox just down the street from where I live. The wind was blowing and it was bitter cold. According to climatologists, we're now in a warming trend that actually pre-dates the industrial era. What I'm saying is that I've complained about the weather here in three emails! Yet no Nephite or Lamanite general or commanding officer is ever on record complaining about deaths due to exposure or trying to cross frozen rivers to outflank an enemy. Odd, isn't it? Our history in the north is replete with stories of the cold. Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, Andrew Jackson, George Washington -- all have written about their exploits in the cold. Also, Parley P. Pratt, who trudged through a blinding snow storm with only a frozen piece of stale bread to suck on the way. And there are many other examples. Yet the Book of Mormon is silent as the grave (from whence no traveler can return) about cold and snow.

 

Other branches of the House of Israel traveled into Northern Europe where it also is cold. Some are likely your ancestors from the Tribe of Ephraim.

Yes, well, I'm certain that if they did, they wrote about it. Also, in the kind of temperatures in the northern U.S., you simply could not sustain HUGE populations as stated in the Book of Mormon.

Snow: Nephi used the best description, apparently, that he knew of to describe the appearance of the fruit of The Tree of Life: "...and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow."

Non sequitur. Nephi was raised in Jerusalem, where they do get snow. A few years ago, I was on the phone with a woman in Jerusalem. I told her we had just gotten snow, and she said they had, too. "Do you get it often," I asked. "Only once or twice a year, but we get it." She also talked about how beautiful it was and how white it was...until soot from the cars and industry began to muck it up.

This vision / description was not only for readers of The Book of Mormon in the latter days, but for his descendants the Nephites, etc. so why would he have used an unknown metaphor to an alleged population confined in Mesoamerica as "driven snow"...to confuse his children?

 

I personally don't think he gave it a second thought. And just because Mesoamerica doesn't get snow doesn't mean that the people who lived there didn't know what it was. They had explorers, they were skilled cartographers and sailors. Why didn't anyone after Nephi mention it?

For Anijen: the nephites/mulekites inherited the land northward that had been occupied by the Jaredites.
You've forgotten the Jaredite nation was the greatest on the face of the earth during its time as promised to the Brother of Jared, and they had eventually occupied the northern regions leaving the southern regions unoccupied as a preserve for hunting. This does not fit a small 500 x 200 mile Mesoamerica model which has had ancient inhabitants throughout it. Ether 10:21. Helaman 6:10. This could also explain why ancient populations in North America appear to be small.

Yeah, but in that case the populations to the north would have to be substantially larger and show more development. But, actually, it all fits perfectly in Mesoamerica. In fact, it would be illogical in the great Northeast. I'd leave the northern lands as a wilderness preserve and occupy the southern lands if I were the Jaredites. BTW, the Olmecs were one of the greatest civilizations on Earth...certainly more advanced than the Adena civilization, which may very well be an offshoot given its approximated age.

 

Your remaining comments are speculations and excuses and dont take into account the ridiculousness of the Maya already having inhabited Mesoamerica before during and after Book of Mormon time periods, yet it being the land promised to Lehi and his descendants. Thats more damning to the Meso. theory than any excuse about limited population in North America because it completely contradicts the text which is built on the premise that Lehi left Jerusalem for a land promised to him. Your alleged great and massive population used to pinpoint Mesoamerica was a population not even related to Lehi, as they were there before him, so your excuses using population for North America can be used for even greater effect for Mesoamerica.

 

Well, believe what you wish, brother. One day we'll know. Joseph Smith, who had seen the Nephites in vision extensively when he was 17, clearly recognized the architecture and cities of the Mayans. He never said the mound builders were the peoples of the Book of Mormon, but he did say the peoples of Mesoamerica were. For example:

 

“Let us turn our subject, however, to the Book of Mormon, where these wonderful ruins of Palenque are among the mighty works of the Nephites — and the mystery is solved.” Times and Seasons, September 15, 1842, p. 914 

 

 

“Zarahemla. Since our ‘Extract’ was published from Mr. Stephens’ ‘Incidents of Travel,’ 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....

 

“...It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them.... We are not a-going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon....”

 

Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, p. 927

 

 

 

So for those who claim to believe Joseph Smith's inspiration even when he never said he was inspired. He did, however, know the cultures. His mother wrote: "He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them." Thus, when Joseph saw the etchings of the great Mesoamerican cities, he recognized them. 

 

Additionally, one can't readily separate the cultures of the Mayans and the Olmecs, for the former built on the ruins of the latter. So when archeologists trace cities back to 700 or 800 B.C., they think the Book of Mormon has been discredited, or that people are digging in the wrong spot. So the answer will come one day, but for now we should understand that the church's official position on Book of Mormon lands is that there is no official position. And the opinions of general authorities are only that -- opinions. Some early brethren thought there might be life on the sun. Some thought dinosaur bones found in the ground came from other planets when the earth was formed. But if death can only come through a fall and there can be no fall except there be an atonement, there are also theological problems as well as scientific issues. So again, Mesoamerica had the requisite populations, it fits the geological requirements while the Heartland doesn't. The New York drumlin had no strategic value but is only one of many dirt hills in the region; it can't sustain caves; there are no swords, weapons, bucklers, etc., in the areas surrounding it that would indicate a great battle, and the weather is all wrong in the Heartland. All descriptions of  dress and weather indicate a tropical environment, and the Book of Mormon clearly describes volcanic activity that just isn't a possibility in the Heartland. Add to all this that Joseph Smith clearly said it all happened in Mesoamerica and thus, the Hill Cumorah can only be where it's described as being. The drumlin is not north of the narrow neck; it's not near the seashore. In short, the Heartland model is fine, but it should come with a crowbar.

 

 

[Bob Crockett]

From a Church News Editorial.   I admit that I cut and paste this from a Tanner source:

 

GEOGRAPHY PROBLEMS

 

THE GEOGRAPHY OF the Book of Mormon has intrigued some readers of that volume ever since its publication. But why worry about it?

 

Efforts to pinpoint certain places from what is written in the book are fruitless because the record does not give evidence of such locations in terms of our modern geography.

 

Attempts to designate certain areas as the Land Bountiful or the site of Zarahemla or the place where the Nephite city of Jerusalem sank into the sea ‘and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof’ can bring no definitive results. So why speculate?

 

To guess where Zarahemla stood can in no wise add to anyone’s faith. But to raise doubts in people’s minds about the location of the Hill Cumorah, and thus challenge the words of the prophets concerning the place where Moroni buried the records, is most certainly harmful. And who has the right to raise doubts in anyone’s mind?

 

Our position is to build faith, not to weaken it, and theories concerning the geography of the Book of Mormon can most certainly undermine faith if allowed to run rampant.

 

Why not leave hidden the things that the Lord has hidden? If He wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point.

 

SOME AUTHORS have felt ‘called upon’ to inform the world about Book of Mormon geography and have published writings giving their views. These books, however, are strictly private works and represent only their personal speculations.

 

(Deseret News, July 29, 1978, Church News Section, p.16)

Edited January 26, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[poulsenll]

cdowis

 

Apparently the tiki bird has flown the coup.

 

Larry P

[BCSpace]

Of the following, which do you think is the BEST candidate for Ramah/Cumorah?

 

Can't vote in the poll because my candidate, Santa Cruz del Quiché (Utatlán) in Guatemala, for where the last battle was is not listed.  Of course I accept the Two Cumorah hypothesis.

 

My mind has not changed in more than five years since there are no hypothesis, including the one(s) I like, that have enough evidential support.

Edited January 26, 2014 by BCSpace

[Anijen]

 

 

 

All good points. I especially agree on the weather. As I have studied American history in depth, I have found that the cold is mentioned by many, numerous times, and very often. If the Book of Mormon were in the Heartland, Great Lakes, or New York I feel that it would have mentioned the cold.

 

 

 

BobCrockett said; "Our position is to build faith, not to weaken it, and theories concerning the geography of the Book of Mormon can most certainly undermine faith if allowed to run rampant."

 

 

I agree with Bob a lot more than he suspects however, I do not think the studying of the Book of Mormon including from its text to theorize on its geography, politics, science, etc is forbidden or discouraged. In fact I believe it coincides with D&C 88:78 very nicely; "...that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory...,"  Even Joseph Smith theorized about the geography of the Book of Mormon. 

 

Bob is correct also that the study of its alleged geography can sometimes undermine faith, but not because the study of it is wrong to do, but because whenever one theorizes something their is an opposition, it is one way scientist prove theories by trying to disprove them (irony). And when any theory or a subject of that theory turns out to be untrue those members whose testimony is based on empirical evidence can be damaging. I have always endeavored to include as most important the validity of the Book of Mormon by prayer (i.e. Moroni 10:3-4).

 

We are admonished to search, ponder, and pray, I feel that when we study that great and marvelous book , including its politics (like Bokovoy does) or the parts about war, prisoners, spying, and other temporal subjects, we can learn from them. The study of speculated geography of the Book of Mormon makes me study that book even more. It is not a bad thing. If I am wrong then I fully expect the Lord, or Nephi, or Mormon, or someone who was there to someday correct me and chastise me if it is such an evil doing as Bob might feel it is.

 

Lastly if any of my research strengthens someones testimony by supporting what they have already gained through the Spirit or has brought someone to investigate it more, then I feel perhaps my study in some small way may have had an impact in bringing him/her closer to the Lord.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Anijen

[Calm]

I'm still not following your logic. After Cumorah, Moroni gathered the plates and ultimately, leaving the plates that weren't necessary secured in Mesoamerica, he moved north into what is now the U.S. He wandered for a little more than three decades and was commanded to bury the remaining plates in the New York drumlin. He had to place them in a box since there are no caves in the drumlin, nor can there be because it's just DIRT. If one tried to dig a cave, it would cave in upon itself. The Cumorah that had a cave in which the sword of Laban was unsheathed and many other plates were buried had to be in a sizable hill or mountain, and the only viable alternatives are the hills in Mesoamerica. t]

I believe he meant the scriptures have Moroni always surrounded by Lamanites who are trying to kill him for the full time he is living, combined with the Mesoamerican theory locating in his view the Lamanites solely in the Mesoamerican area, that requires in his view for Moroni to hang out in the same spot for 30 years.

[Bob Crockett]

 I do not think the studying of the Book of Mormon including from its text to theorize on its geography, politics, science, etc is forbidden or discouraged. In fact I believe it coincides with D&C 88:78 very nicely; "...that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory...,"  Even Joseph Smith theorized about the geography of the Book of Mormon. 

 

Bob is correct also that the study of its alleged geography can sometimes undermine faith, but not because the study of it is wrong to do, but because whenever one theorizes something their is an opposition, it is one way scientist prove theories by trying to disprove them (irony). And when any theory or a subject of that theory turns out to be untrue those members whose testimony is based on empirical evidence can be damaging. I have always endeavored to include as most important the validity of the Book of Mormon by prayer (i.e. Moroni 10:3-4).

 

We are admonished to search, ponder, and pray, I feel that when we study that great and marvelous book , including its politics (like Bokovoy does) or the parts about war, prisoners, spying, and other temporal subjects, we can learn from them. The study of speculated geography of the Book of Mormon makes me study that book even more. It is not a bad thing. If I am wrong then I fully expect the Lord, or Nephi, or Mormon, or someone who was there to someday correct me and chastise me if it is such an evil doing as Bob might feel it is.

Study of real word Book of Mormon geography is officially discouraged.  That some people do it, and it is that is is once or twice mentioned in the Ensign, is like seeing the New Era mention the accomplishments of an LDS pro football player.  

 

Your reference to the laudable practice of learning as some sort of response to this official discouragement doesn't wash.  In the case of specific statements of official discouragement, and no official specific statements to the contrary, a general statement that members ought to study and learn does not outweigh the specific proscription.

 

But I fully acknowledge that I'm taking on a huge cottage industry amongst Church members.  

 

and other temporal subjects, we can learn from them.

but because whenever one theorizes something their is an opposition, it is one way scientist prove theories by trying to disprove them 

 

"While there are some “evidences” for gospel truths (for example, see Psalm 19:1; Helaman 8:24), scientific methods will not yield spiritual knowledge."  Dallin Oaks, “Testimony,” Ensign, May 2008, 26–29.

 

It is not a bad thing. If I am wrong then I fully expect the Lord, or Nephi, or Mormon, or someone who was there to someday correct me and chastise me if it is such an evil doing as Bob might feel it is.

 

I think it is more akin to the saying that if Moses rose from the dead the chastise the Saints on this topic, they still wouldn't listen.  I'm surprised that good Saints haven't learned from the Thomas Stuart Ferguson story. 

 

"If He wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point."  -- Official chuch position in 1978.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Tiki]

The Tiki bird, as I was called so charitably, has returned from a well deserved vacation.

My background? I do not have training in archeology, as someone asked. I respect Anijen's opinions, but I was not making claims of visiting the "mounds" on a regular basis then making declarative statements that they were evidence of small populations not fitting to a Book of Mormon setting.

This is the link to the article at MI about Dr. Mitchell whom Martin Harris visited: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1422&index=4&keyword=King

I just found it to be contradictory that a private organization promoting a Mesoamerica setting would publish the discovery that Dr. Mitchell, through his own observations of mounds throughout the current eastern U.S., had proposed a final battle in Western New York, then used this as a premise as to why Martin Harris accepted the Prophet Joseph Smith's claims, all while this same private organization, which published said article, claims, or was founded on the claim that the Book of Mormon events/final battles occurred in Mesoamerica.

Then why a member here on this board would, seeing said but much older mounds, would come to a different conclusion than Mitchell.

If you want to villify me because I pointed out such a contradiction, that's your perogative, but it doesn't change the issue that Martin Harris was convinced because of the knowledge of Mitchell.

I can speculate that current archeology that Anijen is exposed to in today's Universities do not have access to what Mitchell saw, as many mounds have been destroyed. Maybe current academics know of Joseph Smith's comments about the mounds and do not want to support that claim or religion in general, thus diminish alleged populations which would build, add to or maintain said mounds.

Certainly early Americans diminished Native Americans as being savages as an excuse to steal their lands, thus this attitude may also still exist in academia that such could not have built civilized cities, etc. in North America.

Or said private organization promoted a Mesoamerica setting to be accepted of said current attitudes in academia about North America.

But again, no one here, as far as I can tell, has explained why Martin Harris was convinved by Dr. Mitchell's knowledge to continue to help Joseph Smith, all why holding to their claim that the Book of Mormon new world events, occurred within the confines of Mesoamerica.

In my humble opinion, if someone holds that Martin Harris was convinced by Dr. Mithcell's knowledge to continue to help Joseph Smith, then claim it all occured within Mesoamerica, they are perpetuating disinformation about the latter. For Martin Harris was lied to.

Am I not proposing an honest question?

Edited January 27, 2014 by Tiki

[Anijen]

I can speculate that current archeology that Anijen is exposed to in today's Universities do not have access to what Mitchell saw, as many mounds have been destroyed. 

 

Actually the Universities that I have asked for study materials, papers, samples etc., are very well aware of how much the mounds have been dug up and farmed over.

 

 

 

 

Maybe current academics know of Joseph Smith's comments about the mounds and do not want to support that claim or religion in general,

I couldn't speak for them, but I would assume they [academics] do not know or care what Joseph Smith said on the matter, nor do they care about 18th or 19th century religious beliefs.

 

 

 

thus diminish alleged populations which would build, add to or maintain said mounds.

Please clarify this statement. The populations have been small but population size was not much of a factor in mound building. Let me use again as an example of Monks Mound in Cahokia; it is the largest of the mounds of all the mound builders. It was started as some experts believed when families started building them over hundreds of years it grew because families continued that practice. The artifacts and human remains in Monks Mound vary over different times. The artifacts at the bottom are the oldest those at the top are the youngest. The time difference from bottom to top is significant. Of the hundreds of skeletal remains they all have differing burial times. When a heartlander says "look at all those mass graves;" they do not take into account that all those "mass graves" are spread over hundreds of years. very few are from battles. Most are from families saving their grandpa, fathers bodies etc. until a convenient time they could make their way up or down the Mississippi to bury them at the mound (on top of a previous burial, and so on). Most of the artifacts were ritually used. So again when a heartlander says look at all the arrows and arrow heads buried, they do not understand they were not battle used arrows, but never before used and tied together, pointing a certain direction and buried with the body in a ritual ceremony. Overtime Cahokia grew in size and population. By 1150 AD Cahokia reached its largest population (this includes outlying areas) of approximately 50,000 people. Cahokia started to diminish in population after that date. So again Heartlanders who subscribe to Cahokia as a setting for the Book of Mormon (as Meldrum, May do) Are choosing a area that did not have the correct population and also wrong for the time.

 

 

 

Certainly early Americans diminished Native Americans as being savages as an excuse to steal their lands, thus this attitude may also still exist in academia that such could not have built civilized cities, etc.

in North America.

Early Americans did want the land, but it is not true as far as academia having the same attitude that has continued to this day, they do not. Scholars know that the Native American here today are descendants of the Hopewell, Adena, Clovis etc. Early Americans did not hold to that theory at all. The theory was that the mound builders were a completely different people, far advanced from The Indian that lived contemporaneously with them. Many thought they were the lost tribes of Israel. Many forgeries with Hebrew writing, ten commandments etc. were made to bolster that thought.

 

As far as your questions about Mitchell and Martin I need to take some time to read and study your link. It is not that I can't or don't want to answer, I just want to give an informed answer that you deserve.