Cumorah ... Has Time Changed Your Mind?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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."

Driven snow.

The Brass Plates and Nephi's native Hebrew included the word "snow," and some high mountains in Mexico have snow on top.  Why couldn't he use it?

 

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

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

Not at all.  The great Olmec (=Jaredite) civilization in Veracruz didn't seem to need a huge area to thrive.  You may be understimating what a Mesoamerican area 500 x 200 mi is actually like, and you may want to compare that with ancient Palestine.  It seems "small" until you have to walk it.  The tribal cultures located elsewhere in North America were usually small because of their tribal and more primitive nature.  The empires of the Olmec, Inca, Maya, Teotihuacan, Oaxaca, and the Aztecs were at a much higher level of development, and some scholars suggest a look at them in the context of "oriental despotism" (Karl Wittfogel, Yale 1957).

Edited September 15, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

If that identification were so easy, why didn't Joseph himself (or Moroni) call that hill convenient to Manchester the hill Cumorah?  Because he didn't know that it would become known as "Cumorah" until many years later.  This is after-the-fact speculation and you have hoodwinked yourself, without a close examination of your assumptions.

 

Joseph Smith - History

51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

[Robert F. Smith]

Joseph certainly said similar things about the Mounds and their builders on multiple occasions as well, and as I quote him in my tagline, he certainly saw and understood much more than we sometimes give him credit for.

Mightn't he have gone too far on occasion, or were his comments infallible?  Are you, in other words, giving him too much credit?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Recorded on plates, yes, but there's so much specific information/history/doctrine, etc. there before they got to the promised land, I just can't imagine Nephi not writing down in some form what transpired to him and his family, to be made more permanent later.   Our prophets today commend us to write down important things so we don't forget them.   I wouldn't think the ancients did differently and just relied on their memories.  Mormon states that "there are many books and many records of every kind". Not everything they wrote was on plates.

 

For example, I've always assumed the scriptures and records had by the poor of the Ammoniha-ites, that were burned and destroyed with fire, were not of metal origin. 

Jacob explains the bare fact that the metal Plates were preferable to perishable materials (Jacob 4:2), which would have consisted of vellum (specially prepared sheepskin).  They may even have been able to make paper from the papyrus plants possibly growing in Bountiful.

 

In the New World, in Mesoamerica, paper was made largely from tree bark.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

"A false theory of infallibility"? What an interesting expression. A double negative theory of that which can't be right. And here I thought I was just saying that Joseph stated, many times, that the local area he lived in, contained a multitude of proofs of the Book of Mormon and its peoples.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

 

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.

Who are these nameless "LDS Mesoamerica apologists," Tiki.  Did you meet them in the Tiki Room?  Please give me a little CFR.

 

You say that you learned from them to "pooh pooh the Book of Mormon in their attempts to morph or 'shape-shift' Israelites into Maya."  Was John Dehlin one of those "LDS apologists" who "shape-shifted Israelites into Maya" while he interviewed Mike Coe?  That might tell us where Coe in fact got that idiotic notion, and a lot more nonsense besides. Or maybe he got it from an "LDS apologist" who really wasn't LDS, but was instead ranting and raving about the Maya and the Book of Mormon in order to attack the Book of Mormon.  We've seen that often enough -- wolves in sheep's clothing (courtesy of the anonymity of this board).

[Robert F. Smith]

"A false theory of infallibility"? What an interesting expression. A double negative theory of that which can't be right. And here I thought I was just saying that Joseph stated, many times, that the local area he lived in, contained a multitude of proofs of the Book of Mormon and its peoples.

How about your false belief in infallibility?  Will that suit you?

 

Joseph Smith and I say a lot of things, not all of which are necessarily true, even though we try hard to get it right.  Just bcuz.

[cursor]

The Boy Scout motto says, "Do your best." Who's gonna argue with that?

[bcuzbcuz]

How about your false belief in infallibility?  Will that suit you?

 

Joseph Smith and I say a lot of things, not all of which are necessarily true, even though we try hard to get it right.  Just bcuz.

Yeah, I say a lot of things as well. Usually it's my wife who points out that I'm not infallible. ((Funny, but both my wives from two different marriages are somehow connected, Telepathy? and they say exactly the same things about me being wrong.) But I've never claimed to be a prophet of God, either.

I do not have any misconceptions about Joseph Smith's infallibilty. At the same time I'm poorly equipped to interpret or determine when he was spot on with the truth and when he was "streeeetching" the facts for the sake of a better,, more entertaining story. Given the number of people who repeated many of his stories during his life time and further on in their lives of being faithful members, I think it can be understood that others didn't know when he was being a "prophet" and when he was Joe, the plumber.

What do you use as a divining rod,, to decifer truthfulness and from fiction?

[ERayR]

What do you use as a divining rod,, to decifer truthfulness and from fiction?

 

What would you suggest.  What works for me might or might not work for you, depending on how you applied it and your life experiences. 

 

I like what mfbukowski has to say;

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64180-how-do-so-many-people-leave-the-church-or-go-inactive/page-7

[Robert F. Smith]

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

What do you use as a divining rod,, to decifer truthfulness and from fiction?

When you can't "witch" it, or "see" it in a stone, you might want to try the Holy Spirit.  You may have that gift.  I don't know.

 

I have been particularly impressed by Richard G. Scott's excellent and very practical advice on how to go about that in his "How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life," 182nd LDS General Conference, April 2012, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/how-to-obtain-revelation-and-inspiration-for-your-personal-life?lang=eng&query=scott,+(name%3a%22Richard+G.+Scott%22) ;  Ensign, 42/5 (May 2012):45-47.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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

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

 

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.

Heads you win and tails I lose?  But you gallantly allow that (even though you want your time back) you don't begrudge anyone the effort.  All are really cut from the same cloth, all equally mind-numbing?  None having anything worthwhile to say?

 

I hope that your forthcoming review doesn't whack-em-all in this sort of pox on all their houses approach, since presumably you are using human reason, logic, and factual research to judge Sorenson's work.  Reminds me of Wittgenstein climbing into a loft with a ladder, then kicking the ladder away and declaring that ladders cannot be used to climb into lofts.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

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

I'm saying that the text has known sources and a known history. The best understanding of the story should be built on the known facts, known accounts, known context. The Church History version is not an autograph account written by Joseph Smith, but is something edited later from a range of contemporary accounts that have obvious, irreconcilable differences on significant points.

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.

What does all of this have to do with the fact of known original sources with differing details on significant points? Just because I went on to become an English major and professional writer does not mean that in 7th grade I could not bungle some spelling tests, or even that I can't make mistakes now that I am certified and professional. The D&C guarantee on prophets amounts to expedience relative to the LORD's purposes, which leaves a considerable amount of room for humanity. Just because someone goes on to become a brain surgeon does not mean they were doing those operations at youth camp-outs. Just because someone is a prophet does not mean they may not require the services of a typesetter and editor in order to get a text printed, and that does not automatically mean that everything the editor and typesetter did may as well have been done by the prophet himself.

And of course, Joseph Smith himself said that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy, which, according to him in that line of reasoning, ought to grant credit to the testimony of Jesus conspicuously present among the writers at 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?

It's not about throwing things out but understanding better the nature of what we do have and what we do not have. It's about building on rock rather than sand, embracing further light and knowledge that is available, and frank acknowledgement of when we see only through a glass darkly.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Pinecone]

I'm saying that the text has known sources and a known history. The best understanding of the story should be built on the known facts, known accounts, known context. The Church History version is not an autograph account written by Joseph Smith, but is something edited later from a range of contemporary accounts that have obvious, irreconcilable differences on significant points.What does all of this have to do with the fact of known original sources with differing details on significant points? Just because I went on to become an English major and professional writer does not mean that in 7th grade I could not bungle some spelling tests, or even that I can't make mistakes now that I am certified and professional. The D&C guarantee on prophets amounts to expedience relative to the LORD's purposes, which leaves a considerable amount of room for humanity. Just because someone goes on to become a brain surgeon does not mean they were doing those operations at youth camp-outs. Just because someone is a prophet does not mean they may not require the services of a typesetter and editor in order to get a text printed, and that does not automatically mean that everything the editor and typesetter did may as well have been done by the prophet himself.And of course, Joseph Smith himself said that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy, which, according to him in that line of reasoning, ought to grant credit to the testimony of Jesus conspicuously present among the writers at FAIR.It's not about throwing things out but understanding better the nature of what we do have and what we do not have. It's about building on rock rather than sand, embracing further light and knowledge that is available, and frank acknowledgement of when we see only through a glass darkly.FWIWKevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA

So in other words, your belief system for Cumorah being located in Mesoamerica is because Joseph Smith made errors?

I may be late to the party in this discussion, but comparing speakers at FAIR as being prophets who are more accurate than Joseph Smith, is suspect.