Cumorah ... Has Time Changed Your Mind?

[cursor]

I don't give a hoot which is the better model or where the "shoe fits."

 

“Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so, that you may be as familiar with the spirit and meaning of the written word of God as you are with your daily walk and conversation, or as you are with your workmen or with your households” (DBY, 128).

 

Brigham Young suggests that we should "give a hoot," and that we have the God-given right to fully experience the scripture that we might best understand its meaning.

[cursor]

With respect to the geographic scope of "the land northward," consider that any historic volume/codex is limited (even if you don't like the idea of an LGT). How might Mormon, who is the principle contributor to the text, be aware of events thousands of miles away? Prior to the Pony Express (which only lasted a year, by the way) connecting the East to the West (north America), how delayed/disconnected was human communication and awareness of distant human life? If the narrow neck of land was ANYWHERE between North and South America, how far northward could events of human life logically be recorded? Recall that within the text itself, Hagoth built ships and hauled folks to "the land Northward." From Alma 63,

 

1. And it came to pass in the commencement of the thirty and sixth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Shiblon took possession of those sacred things which had been delivered unto Helaman by Alma.

 

2. And he was a just man, and he did walk uprightly before God; and he did observe to do good continually, to keep the commandments of the Lord his God; and also did his brother.

 

3. And it came to pass that Moroni died also. And thus ended the thirty and sixth year of the reign of the judges.

 

4. And it came to pass that in the thirty and seventh year of the reign of the judges, there was a large company of men, even to the amount of five thousand and four hundred men, with their wives and their children, departed out of the land of Zarahemla into the land which was northward.

 

5. And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.

 

6. And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took their course northward. And thus ended the thirty and seventh year.

 

7. And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward.

 

8. And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and whither she did go we know not.

 

Within a very short time frame multiple migrant voyages were executed. How far could they have gone? How is it that communication was so poor that the end whereabouts of these pioneers could not be identified? How is it that they were never heard of again? How is it that Hagoth didn't return for more migrants?

 

The text of the Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that the land of (and hill) Cumorah and the hill Ramah (a Jaredite designation ... same geographic spot) are not at all far from wherever the narrow neck of land might be.

 

From "An Ancient American Setting For the Book of Mormon," pages 49-50:

 

The Book of Mormon's title page  says the book is a "record of the people of Nephi." Can that be the same thing as "the history of the American Indian," as Latter-day Saints have sometimes labeled the book? Chapter 1 [of "Setting"] mustered scriptural statements to show that the account gives the history of only a limited territory. The events in America about which it tells directly were confined to a space perhaps 600 miles long and 200 miles wide. The time dimensions, too, are restricted, spanning 3,000 years or more from the Jaredite arrival to Moroni's last writing. However, lengthy periods are passed over in almost total silence. Sixty-two percent of the entire Book of Mormon deals with one particular 160-year period (130 BC to AD 30), while the following three centuries take up only four pages. The Jaredite account is even skimpier; some centuries get no more than a couple of lines [check out Omni]. Surely we could not label such a concise volume "the story of the American Indian." Even for "the people of Nephi" it can barely be considered a history.

 

What most people mean by history is a sequential record of significant events affecting a people or nation, and the Book of Mormon contains mainly sermons, letters, and other writings of religious intent. All this is strung together in a chronological scheme that many readers never realy get straight. From the historian's point of view there are major chronological and other gaps. For example, in the Book of Ether — the Jaredite  record — the major figure in the early portion is "the brother of Jared," yet throughout the rest of the account only a single one of his descendants is ever identified (Ether 12:18), and even he is represented as an interloper among the rulers. This is really an odd kind of history. Much the same situation is seen in the Nephite record, where, after we have been told that the Nephites descended from Lehi (Mosiah 25:2), nothing else substantial is said about that majority. What sort of history is that? The answer is, lineage history.

 

To fully understand what the Book of Mormon has to offer, we must interpret/understand it within its cultural and historical scope. It's NOT Peter Pan in freakin' Never Never Land. To NOT identify geographic locations and applicable ancient culture is to miss out a huge chunk of the flavor that the sandwich has to offer. Choosing to do so is like pinching your nose while eating that sandwich ... 80% of the real/complex flavor is unnecessarily lost. Brigham Young agrees.

Edited September 11, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

By the way, the second poll choice from the first section should be "Cerro el Vijia" (drop the 'd' from 'del').

[cursor]

This inability to deal with the points on the compass reveals the inherent weakness of the foundational LGT theorists None of them are trained geographers or cartographers. Such trained persons can read historical texts, use the tools of their profession, some of which include statistical packages, to reach some conclusions about the locale proposed by an ancient text. (I would predict that such a person would say there are insufficient data points in the Book of Mormon to provide reference points for a cartographic exercise, thus proving my points made in the past about Dr. Sorenson's work.)

Instead, LGT theorists are anthropoligists, or professors of history, or accountants or lawyers who have no real training in cartography but are trained, perhaps, in the art of rhetoric and logical fallacies (detecting and denouncing such) and similar skills which are more adept to persuading somebody to give up rather than to establish the truth of a matter.

 

Just exactly what combination of professional skills/qualifications might buy reasonable credibility for this topic?

1. If one is an anthropologist, but not a professional cartographer ... does that disqualify anything they might write regarding mapping or geography? By the way, one of my father's lifelong friends has been a professional cartographer for nearly 70 years. They each share a mutual high regard for the other (both professionally and personally) — Herb Harker, Santa Paula, CA ... now 91 years old ... just a tad older than Dad.
2. If one is cartographer, but not a geographer .... where might that place him/her on the credibility scale? I mean, if said professional cartographer doesn't have the background to grasp archaeological/anthropological/historical significances, is he/she qualified to comment at all on this topic?
3. If one is a lawyer, but not a cartographer ... nor a geographer ... nor an anthropologist ...  nor an archaeologist ... nor an historian ... where might that place him/her on the credibility scale? 
4. John L. Sorenson is an anthropologist, an archaeologist, a political scientist, a linguist, an historian (hell, he even owns an advanced degree in meteorology) ... but (alas) he's not a lawyer.

What is it, exactly, that makes John L. Sorenson unqualified to address this topic? [That's a rhetorical question, in case you didn't quite get that, Bob.]

Edited September 12, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

To reach this conclusion to support the LGT's theories of "north", MesoAmerican apologists have had to do handsprings over what is north and what is west. It is astounding to argue that east or west may be north, since marginally sophisticated cultures on every populated continent in the northern hemisphere figured out where north was.

...

This inability to deal with the points on the compass reveals the inherent weakness of the foundational LGT theorists None of them are trained geographers or cartographers. Such trained persons can read historical texts, use the tools of their profession, some of which include statistical packages, to reach some conclusions about the locale proposed by an ancient text. (I would predict that such a person would say there are insufficient data points in ts proving my points made in the past about Dr. Sorenson's work.)

Instead, LGT theorists are anthropoligists, or professors of history, or accountants or lawyers who have no real training in cartography but are trained, perhaps, in the art of rhetoric and logical fallacies (detecting and denouncing such) and similar skills which are more adept to persuading somebody to give up rather than to establish the truth of a matter.

Again, I don't really care which theory is the right one, but I do think the LGT is stuff and nonsense. That doesn't necessarily mean that I support some other notion. I support the text for what it is, not for what it may become with the help of science.

 

How many culturally developed directional systems have been created and adopted over the course of human history, Bob ... two, ten ... a hundred. Can you detail [any of] them? Can you describe how they might vary from our now universally adopted cardinal system? What kind of system did Lehi and his family use when they left Jerusalem? How might any such system have varied from YOUR direction system? Think about it.

Edited September 12, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

... are trained ... in the art of rhetoric and logical fallacies (detecting and denouncing such) and similar skills which are more adept to persuading somebody to give up rather than to establish the truth of a matter.

 

 

Kowabunga ... that pretty much sounds like lawyers to me!

[Bob Crockett]

How many culturally developed directional systems have been created and adopted over the course of human history, Bob ... two, ten ... a hundred. Can you detail [any of] them? Can you describe how they might vary from our now universally adopted cardinal system? What kind of system did Lehi and his family use when they left Jerusalem? How might any such system have varied from YOUR direction system? Think about it.

Excuse me for misspelling anthropologists.

[Bob Crockett]

Just exactly what combination of professional skills/qualifications might buy reasonable credibility for this topic?

•  
• If one is an anthropologist, but not a professional cartographer ... does that disqualify anything they might write regarding mapping or geography? By the way, one of my father's lifelong friends has been a professional cartographer for nearly 70 years. They each share a mutual high regard for the other (both professionally and personally) — Herb Harker, Santa Paula, CA ... now 91 years old ... just a tad older than Dad.
• If one is cartographer, but not a geographer .... where might that place him/her on the credibility scale? I mean, if said professional cartographer doesn't have the background to grasp archaeological/anthropological/historical significances, is he/she qualified to comment at all on this topic?
• If one is a lawyer, but not a cartographer ... nor a geographer ... nor an anthropologist ...  nor an archaeologist ... nor an historian ... where might that place him/her on the credibility scale? 
• John L. Sorenson is an anthropologist, an archaeologist, a political scientist, a linguist, an historian (hell, he even owns an advanced degree in meteorology) ... but (alas) he's not a lawyer.

What is it, exactly, that makes John L. Sorenson unqualified to address this topic? [That's a rhetorical question, in case you didn't get that, Bob.]

 

I'm just an observer. But it appears from my review of the study of cartography and geography is that there are modern statistical techniques employed to make certain decisions about questionable geography. Further, it seems to me (and I haven't gone very far in this analysis) that there is a certain methodology used by geographers and cartographers to assess ancient texts to reconstruct a map.  As my pending paper argues a little (because I don't feel like I have gone very far in this yet), Bruce Warren has commented about this particular deficiency in LGT studies.  

 

And, to sum up my position, I think Dr. Sorenson's conclusions about geography are too suppositional when he's dealing with the Book of Mormon text and they don't meet the rigor of secular methodology when looking at ancient texts to compare to modern geography.   I think that secular methodology is an inappropriate means to study the Book of Mormon.  There are dozens of books in the BYU library written by people about Book of Mormon geography. They are mind-numbing.   My pending paper is stalled with the prospect of trying to read and understand them; I've read about two dozen and it isn't fruitful and it isn't faith promoting.   Dr. Sorenson's is better written than them all but still suffers from the same defect of lacking in foundation.   We could have a whole cottage industry of writers on the subject of whether the gold plates were 24 ct gold or some other material; it would have the same foundation and same value.

 

But I don't begrudge much the effort. I've sat through stake firesides on the subjects of questionable personal finance, the Turin Shroud, evolution and weird Word of Wisdom theories.  Not all that harmful but I'd like that time back.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

I'm just an observer.

 

 

I seems to me that someone who takes what expertise they have and applies it in the search of answers deserves more than to have one who is just an observer nipping at their heels..

[cursor]

To sum up my position, I think Dr. Sorenson's conclusions about geography are too suppositional when he's dealing with the Book of Mormon text.

 

I would challenge you to identify anyone who has evaluated the actual text/content of the Book of Mormon (line by line, precept by precept) more thoroughly than John L. Sorenson. Really.

 

I think that secular methodology is an inappropriate means to study the Book of Mormon.

See my former quote from Brigham Young. How does it NOT apply here?

[bcuzbcuz]

I would challenge you to identify anyone who has evaluated the actual text/content of the Book of Mormon (line by line, precept by precept) more thoroughly than John L. Sorenson. Really.

 

See my former quote from Brigham Young. How does it NOT apply here?

NO, Sorenson establishes his premise upon geophysical limitations. He places a map over the story and corresponds the story to fit the geography. That´s like using dialog from a "Transformer" movie to establish how the future will be.

Use instead the stories of Joseph to establish the points of origin. Joseph found the plates in the hill off Comorah. Moroni placed them there. If the others details don´t match the story, then, either you´ve misread the details, or you have put your personal interpretation in front of the actual details. That sounds slightly pretentious to me.

You either accept the story as it´s told, or you reject it. Which way does your testimony point?

[ERayR]

NO, Sorenson establishes his premise upon geophysical limitations. He places a map over the story and corresponds the story to fit the geography. That´s like using dialog from a "Transformer" movie to establish how the future will be.

Use instead the stories of Joseph to establish the points of origin. Joseph found the plates in the hill off Comorah. Moroni placed them there. If the others details don´t match the story, then, either you´ve misread the details, or you have put your personal interpretation in front of the actual details. That sounds slightly pretentious to me.

You either accept the story as it´s told, or you reject it. Which way does your testimony point?

 

Obviously you have missed the details.  There is none given in your scenario.  Just questions.

[cursor]

Have you read and understood "Mormon's Map"? It's an internal evaluation of distances and geographical relationships of BofM locations. You can buy a copy for less than $9 here. I'd suggest that you invest. The cost is measly ... yet, the dividends are "priceless."

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Map-John-L-Sorenson/dp/0934893489

Edited September 12, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

Joseph found the plates in the hill off Comorah. Moroni placed them there. If the others details don´t match the story, then, either you´ve misread the details, or you have put your personal interpretation in front of the actual details. That sounds slightly pretentious to me.

You either accept the story as it´s told, or you reject it. Which way does your testimony point?

 

The "story" as told by whom? By what collective group?

 

Joseph Smith was directed by a heavenly messenger (Moroni) to a local hill in upstate NY where historic plates were introduced to him (where they were anciently interred by Moroni, personally). At that time, that local geography was not called the "hill of Comorah" (and not even the "hill Cumorah"). It was only later that that hill was colloquially named by early LDS folk, who presumed that it was the final battleground of the Nephites (and the hill Ramah, for the Jaredites).

 

"Testimony" is a more real thing to some, than to some others. I hope that you'll respect my right to own my own opinion, belief or view. Thanks, bcuzbcuz. There's lots of room to move here. 

Edited September 12, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

NO, Sorenson establishes his premise upon geophysical limitations. He places a map over the story and corresponds the story to fit the geography. That´s like using dialog from a "Transformer" movie to establish how the future will be.

 

Actually, I would suggest that you're not seeing clearly. Sorenson's perspective exceeds purely geophysical considerations. That would be shallow. He is, after all, an anthropologist and an historian. Surely, geophysical limitations must be considered, yes ... but so must historical/cultural realities ... as well as a huge variety of other considerations. It is the SUM of those lifelong considerations that lead to Sorenson's conclusions regarding the true historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[Bob Crockett]

I seems to me that someone who takes what expertise they have and applies it in the search of answers deserves more than to have one who is just an observer nipping at their heels..

I've reconsidered my post.  What's the use?  What's the harm in believing the Nephites were confined to MesoAmerica?  None.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

I've reconsidered my post.  What's the use?  What's the harm in believing the Nephites were confined to MesoAmerica?  None.

 

Yes!

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually, I would suggest that you're not seeing clearly. Sorenson's perspective exceeds purely geophysical considerations. That would be shallow. He is, after all, an anthropologist and an historian. Surely, geophysical limitations must be considered, yes ... but so must historical/cultural realities ... as well as a huge variety of other considerations. It is the SUM of those lifelong considerations that lead to Sorenson's conclusions regarding the true historicity of the Book of Mormon.

That´s what Sorenson thinks. Church history, on the other hand, stated: While Zion’s camp was marching on the way to Jackson County, near the bank of the Illinois River they came to a mound containing the skeleton of a man. The history of this incident is as follows:

“The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thickset man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or at least, in part—one of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites.”

History of the Church, 1948 ed., vol. 2, pp. 79–80. Through error the part of this quotation naming the ‘H111 Cuniorah’ and specifying that Zeiph died In the last great struggle was omitted in editions prior to 1948. It was, however quoted correctly, as written by the Prophet and here given, In vol. 6 of the Times and Seasons of Jan. 1, 1846.

[Kevin Christensen]

For the record:

 It should be noted, however, that the History of the Church version was created by amalgamating the journal entries of several people:

• Wilford Woodruff (WW),
• Heber C. Kimball (HCK),
• George A. Smith (GAS),
• Levi Hancock (LH),
• Moses Martin (MM),
• Reuben McBride (RM).^[2]

The accounts were published after the death of Joseph Smith, and the text has a convoluted history:

See http://en.fairmormon.org/Zelph

 and Kenneth Godfrey, http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1398&index=11

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[mfbukowski]

nevermind

Edited September 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

For the record:

See http://en.fairmormon.org/Zelph

 and Kenneth Godfrey, http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1398&index=11

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Wait a minute. Are you saying the accounts of Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith and Heber C.Kimball were untrustworthy?

I seem to recall something about 'out of the mouths of three witnesses'....yada, yada, ya. And these three are not names chosen out of a hat.Two went on to become presidents, prophets and seers. Kimball was in the presidency and served faithfully all his life, Are there any prophets among the writers from FAIR.

Just because Joseph Smith didn't write it personally (his spelling was atrocious) doesn't automatically disqualify it or make it something that Joseph didn't say. Jesus, for that matter, didn't write a single word in the New Testament. Do we throw that out as well?

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm actually surprised the New York Cumorah/Ramah has gotten so many votes.  I had come to think of this site as more prone to a 2 Cumorah theory, pro science and hard evidence in its direction.

 

..........................................................  

The problem is that the poll was poorly designed:

(1)  The first choice was the well-known New York Cumorah, which Joseph never called "Cumorah" till many years later.

(2)  Indeed, the first choice was listed as in Palmyra, which it is not.  Cold Steel should have designated it as in or near Manchester, which is what Joseph Smith himself does.

(3)  All other choices are unrecognizable, except to a few specialists, only a couple of whom ever come to this board.

(4)  Cerro Vigia ("Lookout Mtn"), in the Tuxtlas Mountains of Veracruz, was John Sorenson's famous choice.

(5)  Lookout Mountain, Tennessee, would have served as well, and probably gotten lots of votes.

 

Bad poll, cockeyed results.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Another thing I have come across in my studies of the Ohio Valley mound builders.

 

Considering the faulty theory that the Adena were Jaredites and the Hopewell were Nephites (shared by many heartlanders), it should at the very least raise concerns. Bear in mind that the Hopewell and Adena basically shared the same geography, but the Book of Mormon states the Jaredites lived north of the Nephites. This works for a Mesoamerican theory, but does not for a heartland theory. 

Or we could go with Professor John A. Price, an anthropologist at York University in Downsview, Canada (and an erstwhile Mormon), who argued that Joseph Jr used local Indian lore in putting together the substratum of the Book of Mormon story, concluding that the Iroquois were the Lamanites, while the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) were the Nephites whom they destroyed – at least as far as young Joseph's creative imagination was concerned.¹  Might one even extend this sort of thing to ask whether Tecumseh and his brother the Shawnee Prophet were the models used by Joseph for Jared and his Brother?²

 

1.  Naturally the same pattern would apply to the Jaredite demise.  Price, Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974):35-40; cf. Price's Native Studies:  American and Canadian Indians (1978).  Vernal Holley, Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look (1983), 10, 34, 38; one is, in fact, astonished at the amount of misinformation and illogic bandied about by these writers, none of whom has attempted to be objective.  See also Robert Silverberg, Mound Builders of Ancient America: The Archeology of a Myth (1968); Egerton Sykes, "The Origins of the Book of Mormon," New World Antiquity, 24 (March-April 1979):32; and James Fenimore Cooper’s 1826 Last of the Mohicans.

2.  See Benjamin Drake, The Life of Tecumseh and of his Brother the Prophet (1841; reprinted 1969).  The Shawnee Prophet, Tenskwatawa, lived ca. 1775-1837.  He was the successor to the Delaware and Munsee Prophets.  He foretold the solar eclipse of 1806, led his confederation in the Battle of Tippecanoe (1811), sided with the British in the War of 1812, and inspired the Creek War (1813).  Cf. John Sugden, Tecumseh: A Life (Henry Holt, 1998).  The Delaware Prophet had (ca 1762) prepared deer-skin charts with glyphs in order to help his disciples teach others.  He helped inspire Chief Pontiac's Rebellion (1763-1766).  The Shawnee (Shawano), Delaware, and Munsee are of Algonquian-Wakashan stock.  Cf. also A. F. C. Wallace, "New Religious Beliefs Among the Delaware Indians," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 12 (1956), and the material cited there (20-21).  The Delaware are the ultimate source of the esoteric rites of the Order of the Arrow of the Boy Scouts of America.

[Robert F. Smith]

Tiki, good points, and while I am inclined to be of a more hemispheric belief system, it should be worth noting that Nephi had and recorded his vision of the Tree of Life while still in the old world.

 

But hey, they had snow this year in Jerusalem, so no big deal...

 

 

Actually, snow is very rare in Jerusalem, which is high up in the hills of Judah.  The first time I saw snow in Jerusalem, while living there, it was the first time in ten years they had had any, and it was only an inch or so.  It crippled the city for a day (no snow tires), so the Israeli Army came to every neighborhood in trucks and distributed loaves of bread -- to tide people over.

I have been out in cold rains in Israel in winter, in the Galilee, but the weather is usually quite temperate.  Global warming probably has it warmer now than in the past.

[Robert F. Smith]

Wait a minute. Are you saying the accounts of Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith and Heber C.Kimball were untrustworthy?

I seem to recall something about 'out of the mouths of three witnesses'....yada, yada, ya. And these three are not names chosen out of a hat.Two went on to become presidents, prophets and seers. Kimball was in the presidency and served faithfully all his life, Are there any prophets among the writers from FAIR.

Just because Joseph Smith didn't write it personally (his spelling was atrocious) doesn't automatically disqualify it or make it something that Joseph didn't say. Jesus, for that matter, didn't write a single word in the New Testament. Do we throw that out as well?

Joseph and his brethren are certainly entitled to engage in the same speculation that we do.  B. H. Roberts as well.  Today we know a great deal more about geography, archeology, history, and linguistics, and it would be irresponsible for us to ignore anthropological reality in favor of a false theory of infallibility -- which you seem to hold as a very strong doctrine, bcuz.