Jump to content

The "Heartland Theory" (?)


Recommended Posts

On 8/13/2019 at 7:35 PM, Anijen said:
On 8/5/2019 at 2:23 PM, Tajara said:

Anijen,

     You ask me to back up this claim with credible sources or retract:  "...as far as the issue of writing...  Many are unaware that the Taliwa, Navajo, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek and Shawnee), Iroquois, and many others had pre-Columbian, written records on bark, clay, stone, lead, copper, silver, and even gold plates."   I am happy to give you my references and expect the same from you.  Back up your claim with credible source or retract:  "Not true, incredibly false, fiction, dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, corrupt, scrupulous, dishonorable, untrustworthy, and falsehearted are the claims there was a pre-Columbian written language."  (emphasis mine)  You first?  :)

~ Tajara

Sorry just getting back from a much needed vacation abroad and just saw this today.

NO, no, no, none of this "you first" stuff. You made the claim of pre-Columbian languages, now  you back it up. This is an official CFR.

As for my resources:

  • New York Anthropology Depart
  • New York Archaeology Association
  • South Dakota Bureau of Indian Affairs
  • Chief Left Hand Tribal Law College
  • University of New Mexico Anthropology Dept.
  • Brian Stubbs Ancient American Language Expert see this article here

 

   "You first?" was a question, lol.  :)  I too, am sorry for the delayed response. 

A few of my resources:

  • Copway, George.  The Ojibway Nation
  • Bergen, Glade.  BYU Dept. of Ancient Scriptures
  • Navajo records keeper
  • Pickett, Albert James.  History of Alabama
  • Bird, Traveller.  Tell Them They Lie
  • Adair, James.  The History of the American Indians

 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Tajara said:

 

   "You first?" was a question, lol.  :)  I too, am sorry for the delayed response. 

A few of my resources:

  • Copway, George.  The Ojibway Nation
  • Bergen, Glade.  BYU Dept. of Ancient Scriptures
  • Navajo records keeper
  • Pickett, Albert James.  History of Alabama
  • Bird, Traveller.  Tell Them They Lie
  • Adair, James.  The History of the American Indians

 

I have read four of these none show a written language before the mid 19th century. If you know any source that can show a written language before the 1850s please let me know. Also, if you could quote a few of the findings or summary with book or paper title and page number. Thanks.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Tajara said:

Which four?

  • Tell Them They Lie, The Sequoya Myth 
  • Many papers from the BYU Department of  Ancient Scripture
  • Pickett's History of Alabama
  • Adair's History of the American Indians

These books or academic papers speak of theories with no proof (e.g. Adair tries to link the Native American to ancient Israelites. This was a very common practice back then). Or when talking about a written language, they are not speaking of a written language that was used anciently but of a language put into an alphabet with a syllabary format (around 1820-1850) such as Cherokee. These languages did not have a writing format before this. Belts, complex knots, even bead work was typically based by economic value and could not tell a story. Some could give a pretty good report of numbers and even dates as in 3 weeks from now etc. Again, they could not be classified as a writing. The Mayans, Aztecs, Olmecs, and a few south American tribes had very complex writing systems, but not in the United States. Hopi had something close in their pictographs, but again it was not a writing system as we know it. Even totem poles could convey a very brief bio about a person or god but they are not writing systems. 

There is a difference between a literal writing samples such as Mayan glyphs to a syllabary written in the early 1800's of the language. Unless you can show an example of a writing sample that is over say 300 years old then it is definitely not proof of ancient writing of the Native Americans.

 Sorry, tales, folklore,  mediums of exchange, or knots as numbers just are not scientific evidence of an ancient writing system.

Edited by Anijen
Link to comment
On 12/30/2018 at 11:22 AM, oklds said:

On the text specifically, no.  I've told everything I know, but here's the short version again:

There are 116 SHEETS  (as opposed to PAGES).  The first 88 SHEETS have very small and precise cursive script on both sides (88 SHEETS = 176 PAGES).  Another 26 SHEETS have large and mostly crude cursive script on one side, and 26 SHEETS have notes and scribbling on the backs (26 PAGES).  The last two SHEETS have illustrations on one side.  One is definitely a map; I have been there.  The other one probably is as well, but I cannot correlate that to any georef (doesn't match anything I can find).  My Great-Grand-Father Thomas went to the location on the map, and retrieved:

1.  One round wire-frame thing; I have no idea what it is/was or what it's use was.

2.  The top of a statue's head, broken off about mid-face, made of serpentine rock.

3.  One coin, about the size of a penny, which is almost illegible.

He also got his hands on a long knife/sword, but dropped that and could not reach it to retrieve it.

He told us that there were 10-12 clay jars, about 20 gallons each.  One of these had been broken, with coins spilling out.  There was also enough armor and weaponry to equip 200-300 men.  Several other items which I don't choose to go into.

My Dad's friend and Mother's Cousin's Husband, Dr. Harper (a PhD at JPL), had a metallurgical analysis done of that in 1970 or 71, and found thta it was mostly copper, with a little (4.6%) iron, and four other elements which I had never heard of: Nautneague, Neodymium, Monozite, and Bastnaesite.  Russ declared the report to be erroneous, since at least two these are ONLY found in North America, and therefore could not have (in his opinion) come from here.  Monozite-bearing copper is ONLY found in the eastern half of what is now the Carolinas, so that is where the metal was mined.  The JPL metallurgist dated it at 1,800 to 2,500 years old.   The wire-frame doohickey I played with as a child, and could probably draft a fairly accurate drawing of it.  I do now know where it is, but probably lost during my parent's divorce.  The statue head one of my siblings kept, but don't know what became of it.  I suspect it is long gone.  The coin I got in a box of Dad's stuff after he died.

That should bring everybody up-to-date.  As of now:

I had another metallurgical analysis done which results match that one exactly, with one exception.  They claim it is 2,300 years old, +/- 50 years.  Someone else told me that with the confirmation report, that made it extremely valuable, so I put it in a SD box.  I could have a full-scale analysis done, but it would be a destructive test, and very expensive.  I don't mind having the coin destroyed, since if it is accurate, I can get a lot more.  If it is not, then it was worthless anyway.  But, I cannot afford to do so; I've got too much into this already anyway, and not going to ask anyone else to spend their money on it.  When the weather gets warmer, I intend to go there and basically loot the place.  Then I'll know for sure.  Anybody got any better ideas, I'd love to hear 'em.

Please forgive me but I can not find the beginning of this story.  Oklds, this is fascinating -- especially the 400 B.C. coin with a North American origin.  Where is this site you speak of?  (General area only, of course).   And where did the 116 sheets come from?  For that matter, what is meant by "sheets"?  I would love to hear more of the story.  :)

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tajara said:

Please forgive me but I can not find the beginning of this story.  Oklds, this is fascinating -- especially the 400 B.C. coin with a North American origin.  Where is this site you speak of?  (General area only, of course).   And where did the 116 sheets come from?  For that matter, what is meant by "sheets"?  I would love to hear more of the story.  :)

 

Site searching on his name (site:mormondialogue.org oklds) is probably the easiest to find any other info.  It is somewhat confusing though.

A thread that probably has most of the info he's posted besides the above:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71707-brass-plates-gold-plates

 

Link to comment
On 8/26/2019 at 5:32 PM, Anijen said:
  • Tell Them They Lie, The Sequoya Myth 
  • Many papers from the BYU Department of  Ancient Scripture
  • Pickett's History of Alabama
  • Adair's History of the American Indians

These books or academic papers speak of theories with no proof (e.g. Adair tries to link the Native American to ancient Israelites. This was a very common practice back then).

Are you seriously trying to say that there is no proof of a link between the Native Americans and the ancient Israelites?  "Theories with no proof" ? 

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. 

Perhaps it was a very common practice back then because they could not help but take notice of the obvious similarities in:

* language,

* traditions,

* customs and habits,

*religious rites and ceremonies,

* public worship and religious opinions and prejudices.

Entire books were published on the subject dedicated "To all students of Archaeology and lovers of History, and especially all true friends of the Israel of God..."  See the works of Timothy Jenkins -1883, Ethan Smith - 1825 and others. 

 

Link to comment

If so, a skeptic who chooses not to be convinced even in light of an abundance of irrefutable evidence, could just continue to say "there is no proof..." and be correct. 🙄  In which case, it would be completely pointless to present to them any evidence of any truth.  Or even have a conversation.  So, my question stands.  Who or what determines the precise circumstance when evidence becomes proof?  🤔

Link to comment

Are you saying there is actual irrefutable evidence of the connection between Ancient Israelites and Native Americans or just talking hypothetically?  That anyone who was not biased against the idea would agree it was solid proof beyond a doubt?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying there is actual irrefutable evidence of the connection between Ancient Israelites and Native Americans or just talking hypothetically?  That anyone who was not biased against the idea would agree it was solid proof beyond a doubt?

Hypothetically.  

Link to comment

Isn't there scripture in the Book of Mormon that says that everyone sent to the new world was sent by God? I haven't had a chance to look for scripture up but from memory everyone sent here was sent by God and must obey the God of the land to receive the blessings of the land. That's would include the Jaredites the Mulekites the Nephites and the Lamanites among others who may have been sent that we are not aware of.

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to comment
19 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Isn't there scripture in the Book of Mormon that says that everyone sent to the new world was sent by God? I haven't had a chance to look for scripture up but from memory everyone sent here was sent by God and must obey the God of the land to receive the blessings of the land. That's would include the Jaredites the Mulekites the Nephites and the Lamanites among others who may have been sent that we are not aware of.

2 Nephi 1:6-7 "Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

Wherefore this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down unto captivity;..."

Link to comment
Quote

I had another metallurgical analysis done which results match that one exactly, with one exception.  They claim it is 2,300 years old, +/- 50 years. 

This is quoted from oklds that Tajara quoted above. I am not aware of any means of dating the metal itself after smelting. Metals are dated stratigraphically according to what is found around them, but I am suspicious of the claim of dating. It cannot mean C-14 dating, because it was never alive to have the measurable carbon.

If someone knows what method might be used to date smelted metal, please let me know.

Link to comment
On 8/31/2019 at 4:53 PM, Calm said:

Are you saying there is actual irrefutable evidence of the connection between Ancient Israelites and Native Americans or just talking hypothetically?  That anyone who was not biased against the idea would agree it was solid proof beyond a doubt?

Yes, The Book of Mormon.

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient
America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came
from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the
beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed
by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by
two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and
came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly
from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ.
They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The
Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came
from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the
country. 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. This book also tells us that our
Savior made his appearance upon this continent after his
resurrection, that he planted the gospel here in all its fulness,
and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had apostles,
prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists; the same order, the
same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings,
as was enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut
off in consequence of their transgressions, that the last of their
prophets who existed among them was commanded to write an abridgment
of their prophecies, history, &c., and to hide it up in the earth,
and that it should come forth and be united with the bible for the
accomplishment of the purposes of God in the last days. For a more
particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be
purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our travelling elders.
Link to comment
On 8/31/2019 at 4:49 PM, Tajara said:

Perhaps it was a very common practice back then because they could not help but take notice of the obvious similarities in:

* language,

* traditions,

* customs and habits,

*religious rites and ceremonies,

* public worship and religious opinions and prejudices.

Entire books were published on the subject dedicated "To all students of Archaeology and lovers of History, and especially all true friends of the Israel of God..."  See the works of Timothy Jenkins -1883, Ethan Smith - 1825 and others. 

Beginning with a question that I didn't copy, yes, there is no proof. As for evidence, it depends upon the nature and quality of the evidence, and that leads us to the quoted material.

It is absolutely true that there have been entire books dedicated to the topic. You see that the ones quoted are from the 1800s. You will find that most of them are. That was an era that preceded serious and careful archaeology, and is an era known for speculation and sometimes imaginary evidence. For example:

1) language: there were many attempts to show that native american languages were related to Hebrew. None can pass a modern linguistic test. These were people making connections without understanding.

2) traditions: this is complicated because the way that the traditions are recorded certainly make it seem that there must have been some similarity. However, in Central Mexico where there were native documents written in European script soon after the conquest, there is enough evidence to compare native traditions with what was said about them. What was said about them is what is most obvious in similarity--and very similar to the themes we see in South America and North America. That is, when the Europeans encountered the natives, there were similar ways in which they understood native traditions. The evidence of Central Mexico tells us that they misunderstood and recast the traditions into the European Christian (and conquest-affirming) interests.

3) Customs and habits: Ethnographers do not find what the earlier books said was so obvious.

4) religious rites and ceremonies: These are also interpreted through the writers' lens and not authentic descriptions.

5) public worship and religious opinions and prejudices: these follow the same rules of contact and reinterpretation as see for the legends.

In the 1800s there were a lot of obvious similarities, but those similarities were the result of intentional recasting as part of the descriptions. More careful archaeology, history,  and linguistics have shown that anything from the 1800s is questionable. We know we are supposed to be careful of what we see on the Internet, and books in the 1800s were the day's Internet.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, alter idem said:

2 Nephi 1:6-7 "Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

Wherefore this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down unto captivity;..."

Thank you so much for supplying this scripture. This says to me that anybody that came here we're brought by the hand of the Lord and there could be many groups from Israel. Perhaps this causes some of the confusion .

For me when I speak of where the Book of Mormon took place I mean where Christ appeared in the Americas.

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Burnside said:

Speculation and imaginary evidence” These are the latest key words to denounce.

What Brant Gardner is trying to say is that everyone in the 1800s were speculative idiots and morons.

Please accept the fact that I am a better source of what I mean to say than you are, and I do not appreciate your particular twist on what I said. What I said is that in the pre-modern age, there were a lot of people who wrote things that have never been corroborated, and have, in fact, been contradicted by better and more qualified methods. It is a simple thing for you to do what many have, which is to actually look at the modern literature, to see that I have not misstated the case. 

Quote

Even the Prophet Joseph Smith was speculating when he mentioned in the Wentworth Letter (which contains the Thirteen Articles of Faith) that: “The Remnants are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” (The United States.) This is why the paragraph with that statement was removed from the 2007 Joseph Smith Priesthood manual:

Was Joseph speculating? How about when he also included the natives of Central Mexico as Lamanites? What about the fact that much of the Wentworth letter was borrowed content, and might not represent only what Joseph thought? What about the fact that Joseph never declared any exclusive knowledge of where the Lamanite remnant might be, and appears to have included the entire continent--something that seems justified by the way that people who knew him interpreted his teachings. 

Now, why was that statement removed from the 2007 Priesthood manual? 

 

Quote

This was done by duped Church employees. Church Priesthood leaders are not to blame. They assign committees to create Church Publications, called Correlation Committees.

Ah. I understand now. Conspiracy theory. Of course Church employees dupe the General Authorities. Otherwise, how could the General Authorities ever approve anything with which you disagree? Please read the church essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon, an essay vetted by the those General Authorities. It should be easy to see that they approve of greater caution in the statements that are made.

 

Quote

Oliver Cowdery was also speculating when he mentioned in 1834 in Letter VII that it was a fact that the final Nephite and Jaredite battles were at the Hill Cumorah in New York

Yes, he was. In case no one has noticed, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith are two different people, and no one has ever sustained Oliver as the prophet for the church. It becomes an important question of how Oliver got the information that the NY drumlin was Cumorah. The best source would have been Joseph Smith. Unfortunately for that hypothesis, Joseph himself did not refer to the hill by the name Cumorah until over a decade later when it had become a common appellation. Until that time, he did not use the name when referring to the hill. One would think that if Joseph knew that the NY hill was Cumorah, he might have said so. He didn't, even when he had the chance. That seems to remove Joseph as the source for Cowdery's identification.

What about revelation? That might be possible, since Letter VII includes a 1,000 word quotation of something Moroni said to Joseph--six years before Oliver knew Joseph. Perhaps that was authentic, but there is no way to know how much literary license is included, since (again) we don't have Joseph's corroboration.

We never have Joseph endorsing Letter VII. So, is there any evidence that it wasn't Oliver's speculation, in face of the evidence that it was?

Quote

This is why Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the 1800s were using speculation and imaginary evidence: their statements contradict a Mesoamerica Two-Hill Cumorah Book of Mormon Geography Theory which originated with the RLDS Church,

Since I am unaware of either Joseph or Oliver speculating, or even discussing, the concept of two Cumorahs, this is a red herring argument. That goes for your repeated statement that this idea originated in the RLDS Church. That is certainly the first appearance, but why does that invalidate it? Did no one in the RLDS church believe in the Book of Mormon? Was it impossible for them to think clearly because they believed in the Book of Mormon, but not Brigham? That is worse than a red herring argument. It is really insulting to those in the RLDS community (and branches continuing today) who revere and accept the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Each of these Private Businesses are Charitable Corporations aka 501(c)(3)s (tax code) and accept donations which to them are Fed and State tax-free.

As opposed to those who pander Book of Mormon geographies for profit? The Church itself accepts donations which are tax free. Be careful of the brush with which you paint.

Quote

They have embraced a 100-yr old RLDS Mesoamerica Two-Hill Cumorah Book of Mormon Geography Theory which came about basically in 1919 and 1924:

And you have embraced an older concept that was quite popular, but fails in terms of geography, history, agriculture, geology, and population sizes. Personally, I like Joseph's and Brigham's ideas that truth may be found in many places, and where true, we believe it as well. Since the inception of the Mesoamerican model, there have been numerous clarifications and refinements. The process hasn't ended. However, the reason that those who have degrees and experience in archaeology and history, and geology, and demographics all prefer the Mesoamerican hypothesis (when they express an opinion), is that the evidence leads to that conclusion. We are not speaking of speculation, but rather evidence.

Quote

This is pure RLDS, an Apostate church.

Please stop accusing people who believe in the Book of Mormon of being apostate. That is not your position to judge.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

Please accept the fact that I am a better source of what I mean to say than you are, and I do not appreciate your particular twist on what I said. What I said is that in the pre-modern age, there were a lot of people who wrote things that have never been corroborated, and have, in fact, been contradicted by better and more qualified methods. It is a simple thing for you to do what many have, which is to actually look at the modern literature, to see that I have not misstated the case. 

You’re an employee of Book of Mormon Central and the Interpreter Foundation. Both organizations state Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were speculating about geography which ties in why you stated we can’t trust books from the 1800s. 

Quote

Was Joseph speculating? How about when he also included the natives of Central Mexico as Lamanites? What about the fact that much of the Wentworth letter was borrowed content, and might not represent only what Joseph thought? What about the fact that Joseph never declared any exclusive knowledge of where the Lamanite remnant might be, and appears to have included the entire continent--something that seems justified by the way that people who knew him interpreted his teachings. 

Now, why was that statement removed from the 2007 Priesthood manual?

As I noted, the portion removed from the Wentworth Letter in 2007 Priesthood manual, contradicts the Mesoamerica Theory.

Quote

 

Ah. I understand now. Conspiracy theory. Of course Church employees dupe the General Authorities. Otherwise, how could the General Authorities ever approve anything with which you disagree? Please read the church essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon, an essay vetted by the those General Authorities. It should be easy to see that they approve of greater caution in the statements that are made.

I never mentioned a conspiracy theory. You placed words in my mouth.

Quote

Yes, he was. In case no one has noticed, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith are two different people, and no one has ever sustained Oliver as the prophet for the church. It becomes an important question of how Oliver got the information that the NY drumlin was Cumorah. The best source would have been Joseph Smith. Unfortunately for that hypothesis, Joseph himself did not refer to the hill by the name Cumorah until over a decade later when it had become a common appellation. Until that time, he did not use the name when referring to the hill. One would think that if Joseph knew that the NY hill was Cumorah, he might have said so. He didn't, even when he had the chance. That seems to remove Joseph as the source for Cowdery's identification.

Oliver Cowdery as it states in the Doctrine & Covenants, was an Apostle, the Second Elder of the Church, an Assistant to the President, he wrote the majority of the text of The Book of Mormon as it was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God. Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John. Your priesthood Line of Authority runs through Oliver Cowdery as wells as for the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Oliver Cowdery was also one of the Three Witnesses to the Angel and the Book of Mormon. And he with the other two Witnesses, were instructed to choose and ordain the first members of the Quorum of the Twelve in this dispensation.

You agree with all this, but that you have to denigrate him on nothing but the naming of the Hill Cumorah, proves my point. 

As for the name of the Hill, Oliver Cowdery stated in his first letter, Letter I, that he received this information with the help from the Prophet Joseph Smith. In 1834, Oliver Cowdery was still scribe for the Church with the “gift of Aaron” as mentioned in the the D&C, to be a spokesperson for the Prophet. Joseph Smith wanted the Eight Letters included in his personal history which is why they are in the Joseph Smith Papers.

Quote

What about revelation? That might be possible, since Letter VII includes a 1,000 word quotation of something Moroni said to Joseph--six years before Oliver knew Joseph. Perhaps that was authentic, but there is no way to know how much literary license is included, since (again) we don't have Joseph's corroboration.

We never have Joseph endorsing Letter VII. So, is there any evidence that it wasn't Oliver's speculation, in face of the evidence that it was?

Oliver Cowdery wrote at the introduction to his letters: “That our narrative may be correct, and particularly the introduction, it is proper to inform our patrons, that our brother J. Smith Jr. has offered to assist us. Indeed, there are many items connected with the fore part of this subject that render his labor indispensible. With his labor and with authentic documents now in our possession, we hope to render this a pleasing and agreeable narrative, well worth the examination and perusal of the Saints.—

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/48

Joseph Smith endorsed these letters, that’s why they were included in his personal history and in the Joseph Smith Papers.

28

Oliver Cowdery also wrote these eight letters in response to an anti-Mormon publication called “Mormonism Unvailed” as mentioned in the Editor notes in the Joseph Smith Papers - yet oddly, you claim Oliver Cowdery was wrong in that defense.

“Throughout the series of letters, he defended JS’s character and that of the Smith family, and his explicitly apologetic statements include apparent allusions to both Alexander Campbell’s Delusions (1832) and Eber Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed (1834).”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/48

 

Quote

Since I am unaware of either Joseph or Oliver speculating, or even discussing, the concept of two Cumorahs, this is a red herring argument. That goes for your repeated statement that this idea originated in the RLDS Church. That is certainly the first appearance, but why does that invalidate it? Did no one in the RLDS church believe in the Book of Mormon? Was it impossible for them to think clearly because they believed in the Book of Mormon, but not Brigham? That is worse than a red herring argument. It is really insulting to those in the RLDS community (and branches continuing today) who revere and accept the Book of Mormon.

It’s not a red herring. Joseph and Oliver never had to mention the concept of Two Cumorahs because it never came up until the 1920s, long after they were dead.

It was the RLDS church created in 1860, which came up with an Archaeological Committee in 1894. This is their report:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074867811;view=2up;seq=2;skin=mobile

In his 1924 book, page 131, RLDS Author Louis E Hills mentions a Elder HA Stebbins (RLDS), here:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058377359;view=2up;seq=134;skin=mobile

Stebbins was born in 1844, the year the Prophet Joseph Smith was killed.

In his autobiography, Stebbins mentions creating a Book of Mormon geography theory for his Book of Mormon lectures:

Page 34: http://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100746.pdf

“I sat down and began to go over the antiquarian writings of John L. Stephens, Josiah Priest, J.D. Baldwin, C. G. Foster, H. H. Bancro:fit, Desire Charney, W. H. Prescott, and other historians. The first distinct instDuction given me was, "Take the Jaredites first, as the first people who came." The next was to take up tJhe narrative and follow it in its order clear through. In ,the first I was astonished at the clear proofs brought to my attention, those I had never heard any of our ministers use nor seen in any writings. As I continued the Holy Spirit bore witness ,to me in such power and gave me light I had never had before.”

Louise E Hills modified the older Stebbins theory to restrict it to Mesoamerica as noted in Hills’ 1924 book.

Dr. John L. Sorenson included Hills’ theory in his 1991, “The Geography Book of Mormon Events: A Scource Book,” in which Sorenson stated that Hills was the first scholar to place the Hill Cumorah outside of New York.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/john-l-sorenson-geography-book-mormon-events-source-book

 

Quote

As opposed to those who pander Book of Mormon geographies for profit? The Church itself accepts donations which are tax free. Be careful of the brush with which you paint.

I am careful. The Church is not a 501(c)(3). 

Book of Mormon Central, The Interpreter Foundation and FairMormon are private Charitable 501(c)(3) Corporations.

Since they are tax-free, their documents are open to the public:

BAMF = BOMC
Quote

And you have embraced an older concept that was quite popular, but fails in terms of geography, history, agriculture, geology, and population sizes. Personally, I like Joseph's and Brigham's ideas that truth may be found in many places, and where true, we believe it as well. Since the inception of the Mesoamerican model, there have been numerous clarifications and refinements. The process hasn't ended. However, the reason that those who have degrees and experience in archaeology and history, and geology, and demographics all prefer the Mesoamerican hypothesis (when they express an opinion), is that the evidence leads to that conclusion. We are not speaking of speculation, but rather evidence.

Oliver Cowdery’s letters were published in early church newspapers. The Mesoamerica came later from the RLDS Church.

I provided links. You provided nothing.

Quote

Please stop accusing people who believe in the Book of Mormon of being apostate. That is not your position to judge.

People who are members of a church who denounced the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are considered apostates whether they believe in The Book of Mormon or not.

See Resolution 1 from the newly formed RLDS Church, with HA Stebbins as a member of that Committee:

—-

http://www.centerplace.org/library/Study/GCRall.htm

Compilation of General Conference Resolutions

Adopted June 12, 1852.  

 

No. 1. Resolved, That this conference regards the pretensions of Brigham Young, James J. Strang, James C. Brewster, and William Smith and James Wood's joint claim to the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as assumptions of power in violation of the law of God, and consequently we disclaim all connection and fellowship with them. 

——

I don’t know why you don’t understand that basic principle.

The fact you have to raise questions in the mind of your readers about Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery speculating on the location of the Hill Cumorah and BoM geography in general, makes me wonder.

Regards, Burnside

Edited by Burnside
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...