Ancient Cities Discovered In Mesoamerica

[USU78]

I remember a ReOrg buddy who used to post hereabouts, Uncle Dale, challenging the plausibility of the 2 Cumorah theory because it was just not possible for a Mesoamerican Moroni to cross the Mississippi and get himself up to the Finger Lakes.

 

Then I reminded him about my great-great grandparents (2 sets of 'em) crossing the frozen Mississippi to flee the Baptist cannonades in 1846.

 

He said:

 

"Oh yeah . . ."

[Robert F. Smith]

I remember a ReOrg buddy who used to post hereabouts, Uncle Dale, challenging the plausibility of the 2 Cumorah theory because it was just not possible for a Mesoamerican Moroni to cross the Mississippi and get himself up to the Finger Lakes.

 

Then I reminded him about my great-great grandparents (2 sets of 'em) crossing the frozen Mississippi to flee the Baptist cannonades in 1846.

 

He said:

 

"Oh yeah . . ."

I think that you are referring to Dale Broadhurst.  

 

Anyhow, René Robert La Salle made the trip by canoe from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico in 1682 and colonized the Louisiana coast -- later followed by the Acadians (“Cajuns”) as refugees from Acadia/ Nova Scotia/ New Brunswick -- while David Ingram (a shipwrecked English sailor) made the trek with several companions and on foot from Tampico, Mexico, to the border of Canada and Maine in 11 months in the mid-sixteenth century (J. L. Sorenson, Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon [1985], 45).  Note also the 8-year journey of a member of the Captain Narvaez Expedition, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca, across southern North America beginning in 1528 (he was a shipwrecked royal treasurer from Seville, Spain; see de Vaca’s own account, Castaways, ed. Enrique Pupo-Walker; trans. F. M. Lopez-Morillas [1993]).

 

Moroni likely  followed the Hopewell trade network of the Middle Woodland and later periods – an area extending from the Gulf of Mexico to Lakes Superior and Huron, and from the regions of New York to Kansas City, and even into Wyoming.  The Handbook of North American Indians, 15:44, provides that extent of trade in Moroni's day, and goes on to describe the iron, copper, bone, stone, and pottery artifacts involved in that trade (15:46), including embossed copper plate-sheets (15:48), of which at least some of Joseph’s contemporaries were well aware.   The Old Copper industry of the Great Lakes region had been in operation since the 3rd millennium B.C., and included knives, spear points, axes or "spuds," etc. (15:31).  A piece of well-crafted hematite (a plumb-bob?) was even found at the most impressive archaic site in ancient North America, among the nested octagons of Poverty Point, Louisiana (Michael Coe, Atlas of Ancient America [1986], 41.).  The highly concentrated wealth of the chiefdoms in the Hopewell Culture was at its peak when Moroni possibly traversed the area (15:49).  Temple mounds were being built and agriculture was being practiced on a large scale.  The following Late Woodland period, ca. 400-1000 A.D., is not at all as culturally impressive (15:52, 54), although the sophisticated Middle Mississippian Cahokia mounds are certainly worthy of notice.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[MormonFreeThinker]

And yet, a two Cumorah theory has never seen the light of day in any conference address

 

Because, "There are those who believe that there are two Hill Cumorahs. Their theory is that the hill on which Mormon fought the last battle with the Lamanites is not the same hill in which Joseph Smith found the gold plates. Advocates of this theory establish their analysis primarily from the internal evidences of the Book of Mormon. Others conclude that there is only one Hill Cumorah, and that the place where Joseph Smith and Moroni met was the same place Mormon and Moroni visited in the fifth century. There is no official Church view" - The Instructor, Vol. 103, No. 11 (November 1968): 429

 

"The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site"—Fax from the Office of the First Presidency to FARMS, April 12, 1993.

 

 

Your sense of "plausibility" is the same one rheorticians use to prove that the resurrection is impossible

 

Some secular scientists believe that Resurrection will be possible in the future, atheist Dr. Marvin L. Minsky endorsed cryonics. 

Some secular scientists believe in immortality, see

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

 

 

 that God does not exist, 

 

See Mormon Transhumanist Association 

http://transfigurism.org/

 

 

Moses did not really cross the Red Sea 

 

A volcanic eruption probably opened the Red Sea, see National Geographic episode.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/exodus-revealed/

 

 

 

Because some might perceive there are Book of Mormon problems with implements of war, steel, horses, battle areas and DNA, if you draw the box small enough you can just explain it all away.  That is what the Sorenson model does.

 

"Individuals and settings of obscurity are not unusual to the Lord's purposes. Meridian–day Christianity was initiated on a very small geographical scale and with comparatively few people. The larger, busy world paid little heed to it. Likewise with the Book of Mormon peoples. Whether located in Meso–America or elsewhere, they were one people among many peoples on this planet and perhaps even on the western hemisphere" - Elder Maxwell 

 

There are big problems with the one Cumorah theory, it contradicts logic. 

Edited September 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

 

There are big problems with the one Cumorah theory, it contradicts logic.

I think your last post rather proves some of my points.

It is one thing to say the Church takes no position. It is another to build up a whole subculture of speculative academics trying to take a position.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I think your last post rather proves some of my points.

It is one thing to say the Church takes no position. It is another to build up a whole subculture of speculative academics trying to take a position.

 

So we do not disagree, every LDS scholars should admit that the church does not have an official position, and no LDS scholar claims that their theories are official doctrine. 

 

It is okay to search for reasonable models and theories, that is what Sorenson and other respectable scholars are doing, just as long as they don't say it is doctrine. The One Cumorah theory is not reasonable, unless you believe that God changed the geography. 

 

The Book of Mormon Arabian model as been very successful, but is not doctrine.  

[Anijen]

I think that you are referring to Dale Broadhurst.  

 

Anyhow, René Robert La Salle made the trip by canoe from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico in 1682 and colonized the Louisiana coast -- later followed by the Acadians (“Cajuns”) as refugees from Acadia/ Nova Scotia/ New Brunswick -- while David Ingram (a shipwrecked English sailor) made the trek with several companions and on foot from Tampico, Mexico, to the border of Canada and Maine in 11 months in the mid-sixteenth century (J. L. Sorenson, Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon [1985], 45).  Note also the 8-year journey of a member of the Captain Narvaez Expedition, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca, across southern North America beginning in 1528 (he was a shipwrecked royal treasurer from Seville, Spain; see de Vaca’s own account, Castaways, ed. Enrique Pupo-Walker; trans. F. M. Lopez-Morillas [1993]).

 

Moroni likely  followed the Hopewell trade network of the Middle Woodland and later periods – an area extending from the Gulf of Mexico to Lakes Superior and Huron, and from the regions of New York to Kansas City, and even into Wyoming.  The Handbook of North American Indians, 15:44, provides that extent of trade in Moroni's day, and goes on to describe the iron, copper, bone, stone, and pottery artifacts involved in that trade (15:46), including embossed copper plate-sheets (15:48), of which at least some of Joseph’s contemporaries were well aware.   The Old Copper industry of the Great Lakes region had been in operation since the 3rd millennium B.C., and included knives, spear points, axes or "spuds," etc. (15:31).  A piece of well-crafted hematite (a plumb-bob?) was even found at the most impressive archaic site in ancient North America, among the nested octagons of Poverty Point, Louisiana (Michael Coe, Atlas of Ancient America [1986], 41.).  The highly concentrated wealth of the chiefdoms in the Hopewell Culture was at its peak when Moroni possibly traversed the area (15:49).  Temple mounds were being built and agriculture was being practiced on a large scale.  The following Late Woodland period, ca. 400-1000 A.D., is not at all as culturally impressive (15:52, 54), although the sophisticated Middle Mississippian Cahokia mounds are certainly worthy of notice.

Nice post.

 

For some clarification Poverty Point was before Lehi's time; approximately 1500 BC to 700 BC, but even these dates are a bit misleading because most of the sites at Poverty Point are older than that. Arguments can be made for a much older dates than the ones I use. Another consideration the people of Poverty Point were not sedentary (other than fishing) they were hunter gatherers mostly. I would posit that Poverty Point was a gathering place for nomadic people to come and trade, catch up with extended family, learn better techniques in hunting, fishing, etc.. PP although a meeting place for hunter gatherer groups there is some evidence, but very small in scale would only support an agri system for very small groups.

 

Cahokia although very impressive was also not during the time of the Book of Mormon and post date it by hundreds of years. Perhaps when Moroni was alive Cahokia was in its very young stage, but it was definitely not a site to be even remotely connected to the people or places of the Book of Mormon. I guess it could be only in the sense that the people of Cahokia could have been influenced by BofM descendants. I do subscribe to the theory that not just Moroni, but many people over time, incrementally migrated from Mesoamerica throughout the US generally making a Northeast route up to Maine area. I can see evidence of this such with pollen samples, the pattern teocinte aka maize, aka corn traveled, artifacts of Mesoamerican influence found along the Mississippi trade routes or IOW late Hopewell traditions (periods). 

 

Still the best locus for a BofM setting is still Mesoamerica. Kind regards...

Edited September 24, 2014 by Anijen

[Bob Crockett]

So we do not disagree, every LDS scholars should admit that the church does not have an official position, and no LDS scholar claims that their theories are official doctrine. 

 

It is okay to search for reasonable models and theories, that is what Sorenson and other respectable scholars are doing, just as long as they don't say it is doctrine. The One Cumorah theory is not reasonable, unless you believe that God changed the geography. 

 

The Book of Mormon Arabian model as been very successful, but is not doctrine.

We don't agree. You keep (anonymously) saying that the MesoAmerican two-Cumorah model is the only plausible view. You've used that word many times. I say, the Church counsels against taking a view. So, when somebody takes a view, like you do, I'd say they are open for intense criticism.

[MormonFreeThinker]

We don't agree. You keep (anonymously) saying that the MesoAmerican two-Cumorah model is the only plausible view. You've used that word many times. I say, the Church counsels against taking a view. So, when somebody takes a view, like you do, I'd say they are open for intense criticism.

 

The Church counsels against preaching it as doctrine, because it is not doctrine. The Church does not prohibit members to take personal views about the geography of the Book of Mormon. How is the One Cumorah theory plausible? 

 

I am just a student, I am a nobody. 

Edited September 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bob Crockett]

The Church counsels against preaching it as doctrine, because it is not doctrine. The Church does not prohibit members to take personal views about the geography of the Book of Mormon. How is the One Cumorah theory plausible? 

 

I am just a student, I am a nobody.

A one Cumorah theory is most plausible because that is what Joseph Smith taught, as well as many other members of the FP. Not a single general authority has ever taught in conference or in books that there are two Cumorahs.

Whereas I don't care a hoot, really, as to whether there is one Cumorah or two, I study with great interest the sub-cultural sociological practice of a vocal minority in the church of eliminating cognitive dissonance about fears of the supposed deficiencies (I don't think there are any) in the Book of Mormon by dreaming up implausible and speculative theories, like a MesoAmerican theory. I think my interest in this subject matter was piqued in studying the life of Thomas Stuart Ferguson and his relationship with Milton R. Hunter and the NWAF. You put your trust in the arm of flesh and sow seeds of doubt, you will reap the whirlwind (to mix metaphors).

Edited September 24, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

A one Cumorah theory is most plausible because that is what Joseph Smith taught, as well as many other members of the FP. Not a single general authority has ever taught in conference or in books that there are two Cumorahs.

 

Most LDS used to think that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. 

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, "In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded... We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people... The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. " 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng

 

Now read the new Book of Mormon DNA essay. 

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith was a human, his opinions are not doctrine, we know that because the church does not have an official position.  The opinions of the Prophet Joseph Smith are not superior. 

 

 

 You put your trust in the arm of flesh and sow seeds of doubt, you will reap the whirlwind (to mix metaphors).

 

I trust logic, evidence, and the scientific method, Elder Scott taught, "There are two ways to find truth—both useful, provided we follow the laws upon which they are predicated. The first is the scientific method"  

 

The Church stated, "the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Edited September 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[theplains]

Ancient cities discovered in Mesoamerica, and there are more to have not been discovered yet. 

 

What makes them the cities spoken of in the Book of Mormon instead of other civilizations

that lived there? 

 

Thanks,

Jim

[MormonFreeThinker]

What makes them the cities spoken of in the Book of Mormon instead of other civilizations

that lived there? 

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

My point is that there is still a lot to be discovered about Mesoamerica 

[theplains]

My point is that there is still a lot to be discovered about Mesoamerica 

 

As long as they can differentiate between BOM cities and non-BOM cities.

[Bob Crockett]

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith was a human, his opinions are not doctrine, we know that because the church does not have an official position.  The opinions of the Prophet Joseph Smith are not superior. 

 

 

Therein lies the crux of the problem.   Declare what Joseph Smith is doctrine or not doctrine to sue your tastes.  Problem is, what he said is very significant, as Dr. Sorenson went out on a limb to try and find multiple-level hearsay quotes from the Prophet to support his LGT, and Matt Roper has done completely inadequate wordprint studies to do the same.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Therein lies the crux of the problem.   Declare what Joseph Smith is doctrine or not doctrine to sue your tastes.  Problem is, what he said is very significant, as Dr. Sorenson went out on a limb to try and find multiple-level hearsay quotes from the Prophet to support his LGT, and Matt Roper has done completely inadequate wordprint studies to do the same.

 

Why is it very significant? How is it very significant? The church does not have an official position, so please explain. 

Dr. Sorenson didn't need to quote the opinions of the prophet Joseph Smith, it was unnecessary. 

 

 “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such"

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

 

 

Declare what Joseph Smith is doctrine or not doctrine to sue your tastes.  

 

I do not declare doctrine, the church does. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Therein lies the crux of the problem.   Declare what Joseph Smith is doctrine or not doctrine to sue your tastes.  ........................................................................................... 

So far, the only person actually claiming to take the doctrinal high ground has been you, Bob.

 

The Brethren certainly have as much right to speculate as the rest of us.  So what else is new?

[Gervin]

As long as they can differentiate between BOM cities and non-BOM cities.

I don't know who "they" are, but they can start with the assumption that all the ones discovered so far are non.

[Robert F. Smith]

A one Cumorah theory is most plausible because that is what Joseph Smith taught, as well as many other members of the FP. Not a single general authority has ever taught in conference or in books that there are two Cumorahs.

Joseph had no inkling that the hill from which he took the plates was actually Ramah-Cumodrah until years later.  The notion of two Cumorahs comes from the mistaken and illogical assumption that the hill near Manchester Village was the actual site of the final Nephite battle.  The Book of Mormon itself invalidates that assumption (Mormon 6:6).  Your argument for plausibility comes from the claim that such-and-such said so, not a very convincing basis.

 

Whereas I don't care a hoot, really, as to whether there is one Cumorah or two, I study with great interest the sub-cultural sociological practice of a vocal minority in the church of eliminating cognitive dissonance about fears of the supposed deficiencies (I don't think there are any) in the Book of Mormon by dreaming up implausible and speculative theories, like a MesoAmerican theory. I think my interest in this subject matter was piqued in studying the life of Thomas Stuart Ferguson and his relationship with Milton R. Hunter and the NWAF. You put your trust in the arm of flesh and sow seeds of doubt, you will reap the whirlwind (to mix metaphors).

Once again, a string of non sequiturs, and your usual intimidation tactic, without any substantive fact or logic.  This was, to my mind, the singular failing of attorney Ferguson in his incoherent response to the 1975 evaluation of the Norman & Sorenson geographical theories.  His response showed that he had never taken the Book of Mormon seriously, never made it a matter of study, and was prone to excessive errors of logic and fact in his denunciation of the Book of Mormon.  I was frankly taken aback by the off-the-wall nature of his comments.  Even the Tanners made more sense than he did.  Far from putting his trust in the arm of flesh (he was completely ignorant of archeology), he simply ran amuck, perhaps evincing early dementia.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know who "they" are, but they can start with the assumption that all the ones discovered so far are non.

The archeologists (they?) never begin an excavation with the notion that it is a particular or even a general Book of Mormon city.  Indeed, nearly all of them are non-Mormons and know nothing of the Book of Mormon. They usually begin with a local, traditional name in Spanish, Aztec, or Maya (or other local language).  Sometimes they are lucky enough to find actual glyphs identifying the site, which can then be theoretically vocalized in an earlier form of the language.  Mormon scholars can examine the pristine, uncontaminated excavation reports for clues, and have been doing so for some time.

[Bob Crockett]

So far, the only person actually claiming to take the doctrinal high ground has been you, Bob.

 

 

Perhaps I occupy it.  It does seem to be a topic of contention; otherwise Dr. Sorenson wouldn't have claimed Joseph Smith as a champion of the LGT in his Codex and he wouldn't have declared in his 1976 article that his competitors were dangers to the church.  (Like, Dr. Cheesman).

 

So much is said about General Authorities having their own opinions about this and we should form our conclusions based upon secular cartography, whereas Dr. Sorenson thinks it important to cite pseudo-revelatory material from Joseph Smith.  

Edited September 25, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Gervin]

The archeologists (they?) never begin an excavation with the notion that it is a particular or even a general Book of Mormon city.  Indeed, nearly all of them are non-Mormons and know nothing of the Book of Mormon. They usually begin with a local, traditional name in Spanish, Aztec, or Maya (or other local language).  Sometimes they are lucky enough to find actual glyphs identifying the site, which can then be theoretically vocalized in an earlier form of the language.  Mormon scholars can examine the pristine, uncontaminated excavation reports for clues, and have been doing so for some time.

 

 

I imagine that archaeologists, of all faiths and none, try to keep preconceived ideas to a minimum to allow the site to speak to them.  Where are the Mormon archaeologists who believe there exist Book of Mormon cities in mesoamerica and, like those people who believed that Troy existed, make it their life work to prove it?

[Robert F. Smith]

I imagine that archaeologists, of all faiths and none, try to keep preconceived ideas to a minimum to allow the site to speak to them.  Where are the Mormon archaeologists who believe there exist Book of Mormon cities in mesoamerica and, like those people who believed that Troy existed, make it their life work to prove it?

If Mormon archeologists spent their lives trying to "prove" the Book of Mormon true the way Schliemann attempted to show that Troy was the very city attacked by the Myceneans in the Iliad, they would be given no credence at all by normative scholars, and most of them are not so stupid as to "poison the wells" by making archeology dance to their tune.  It is much better to allow the non-Mormon scholars do their work, write their reports, and (like Sorenson, Gardner, and Wright) to cite those secular reports in their reconstructions of cultures in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times.  If the Book of Mormon is authentic, such secular data should match the internal chronology and cultural attributes of the Book of Mormon -- which they do.

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps I occupy it.  It does seem to be a topic of contention; otherwise Dr. Sorenson wouldn't have claimed Joseph Smith as a champion of the LGT in his Codex and he wouldn't have declared in his 1976 article that his competitors were dangers to the church.  (Like, Dr. Cheesman).

 

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

You know very well that Sorenson and his colleague Martin Raish have each frankly discussed the "snake oil salesmen" within the Mormon community.  The purveying of folklore and nonsense among Mormons is a cottage industry, and someone needed to warn of the misleading nature of those claims.  At all events, as you know, the nonsense continues to be published, and we will no doubt always have it to be with us.  Your false characterization of what Sorenson has done in that respect merely continues the nonsense which we have been subjected to by a variety of well-meaning but poorly-informed folk.

[Gervin]

If Mormon archeologists spent their lives trying to "prove" the Book of Mormon true the way Schliemann attempted to show that Troy was the very city attacked by the Myceneans in the Iliad, they would be given no credence at all by normative scholars, and most of them are not so stupid as to "poison the wells" by making archeology dance to their tune.  It is much better to allow the non-Mormon scholars do their work, write their reports, and (like Sorenson, Gardner, and Wright) to cite those secular reports in their reconstructions of cultures in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times.  If the Book of Mormon is authentic, such secular data should match the internal chronology and cultural attributes of the Book of Mormon -- which they do.

 

So, Mormon archaeologists (I assume some exist) don't pursue proving the existence of Book of Mormon cities because they would be given no credence by normative scholars, yet these normative scholars have provided enough data to prove the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica is authentic in the eyes of Mormon scholars.  If there truly were cultural attributes of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, Mormon archaeologists would be on it like white on rice.  In truth, nothing putting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica has been found and never will be, and Mormon archaeologists are probably the best indicator of this by their lack of pursuit of such evidences. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

So, Mormon archaeologists (I assume some exist) don't pursue proving the existence of Book of Mormon cities because they would be given no credence by normative scholars, yet these normative scholars have provided enough data to prove the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica is authentic in the eyes of Mormon scholars.  If there truly were cultural attributes of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, Mormon archaeologists would be on it like white on rice.  In truth, nothing putting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica has been found and never will be, and Mormon archaeologists are probably the best indicator of this by their lack of pursuit of such evidences. 

 

Do you believe in the Bible?