The "Heartland Theory" (?)

[Brant Gardner]

46 minutes ago, Burnside said:

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. 

I am an employee (part-time) with Book of Mromon Central. I am a volunteer with the Interpreter Foundation. Neither association has anything to do with the reason why I said that you can't trust books from the 1800s about archaeology. That information came independently from reading modern archaeologists who have done work in the area. This is their professional opinion, which I am passing on. Having see the evidence they present, and knowing much of the history behind things written in the 1800s, I do support their professional opinions. They are neither employees nor volunteers for either Book of Mormon Central or the Interpreter Foundation.

Quote

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

You did say the words "conspiracy theory," you simply accused members of the manual committee of conspiring to hide information from the brethren and promote ideas that the brethren would not approve. You have no evidence for any of that, save that you think it happened. Having met many members of the manual writing committee a few years back, I must say that I could not see them as other than completely faithful, and in particular, they mentioned how hard they were trying to follow directives from the brethren.

You have maligned some faithful members without evidence.

Quote

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

We both agree that Oliver was a good man, and important in the early Church. I would strongly disagree that saying that he was a human with an opinion equals denigrating him. 

As for proving your point, you haven't proved anything. You have reiterated your arguments without engaging the evidence to the contrary. 

To summarize:

1) Oliver said the NY hill was Cumorah.

2) There is no evidence that he learned that from Joseph, and it is further unlikely because Joseph did not use that name until over a decade later, when it had become common. 

3) Although Oliver was an important figure, there is no evidence that he had a direct revelation from Moroni or anyone else. In fact, such a revelation for the church would be contrary to what Joseph would later establish as the rule of the church in the Hiram Page incident. No evidence for revelation, and some contraindications.

4) It could be Oliver's opinion. That would certainly fit, but Oliver's opinions are not the same as revelation. They are to be considered, but not canonized.

What evidence do we have that Oliver's opinion might have been mistaken?

1) Mormon said that the plates he gave Moroni were not buried in the hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6). Thus, there is no record that the plates were ever in the hill Cumorah. Logic says that since they were not in Cumorah, Cumorah could not have been the hill from which they were taken in NY.

2) All geographic and archaeological evidence contradicts the NY hill as being a Book of Mormon-described location. We might posit that God erased all such evidence, but that is difficult special pleading.

I repeat, you have not proved your point on any of these issues.

Quote

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.

No, it doesn't say that. The Joseph Smith Papers introduction to the letters says that when they were to be printed in the Millenial Star that Joseph would assist, but that is very different from declaring that everything is under Joseph's direction and approval. 

Quote

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

You have a different opinion that do historians for the Church. This is particularly true when the find errors in Oliver's letters. Assuming endorsement from the statement that Joseph offered assistance oversteps both the statement and the subsequent evidence of errors in the letters. 

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

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.

Since I have said nothing of this particular issue, you have again overstepped the actual arguments. In this case, the very fact that Olivcer wrote a letter to respond to an anti-Mormon publication cannot be used as evidence that everything he said was absolutely correct. It can certainly be said that it was his opinion, and that he was defending the Church. That is very different than asserting that every single statement is accurate--particularly when historians well-versed in Church History disagree.

Quote

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

And? Is there a reason why believers in the Book of Mormon should not study it, or that they could not be correct in their interpretation?

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Burnside said:

Compilation of General Conference ResolutionsAdopted 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. 

Surely you've also read what Oliver Cowdery had said about the leaders of the LDS Church and what the leaders of the LDS Church had to say about Oliver Cowdery. 

[Tajara]

On 9/2/2019 at 10:53 AM, Brant Gardner said:

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.

I do not know either -- part of the reason it was interesting to me. 

 

[Tajara]

 

 

[Tajara]

On 8/26/2019 at 8:14 PM, Calm said:

What  were you referring to?

I am sorry I forgot about this, Calm.  I was referring to Glade Burgon in 1972 with regards to the American inscriptions (Kinderhook, Michigan, etc.).  I will try to find a more complete reference, but an excerpt was included in the Kinderhook article previously posted.

[Tajara]

On 9/2/2019 at 11:01 AM, Burnside said:

Yes, The Book of Mormon.

Thank you, Burnside.  It is so nice to meet someone here that actually understands.   

I love this quote from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:  "Truth borne by the Holy Spirit comes with, in effect, two manifestations, two witnesses if you will -- the force of fact as well as the force of feeling... I believe God intends us to find and use the evidence He has given -- reasons, if you will -- which affirm the truthfulness of His work... Evidence is still evidence even if it is not immediately observable."

And this,  "The issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon highlights the difference between those who rely solely on scholarship and those who rely on revelation, faith, and scholarship.  Those who rely solely on scholarship reject revelation and focus on a limited number of issues.  But they can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon through their secular evidence and methods.  On the other hand, those who rely on a combination of revelation, faith, and scholarship can see and understand all of the complex issues of the Book of Mormon record, and it is only through that combination that the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon can be answered."  ~Elder Dallin H. Oaks.

[clarkgoble]

On 9/2/2019 at 4:24 PM, Brant Gardner said:

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.

"Isotopic Techniques in Archaeometry"  I'll confess not something I know a lot about, but apparently with a knowledge of the chemistry of the alloy you can look at the relative frequency of the isotopes. It sounds like it's primarily used to identify sites for the components of artifacts. i.e. "Metal provenancing using isotopes and the Oxford archaeological lead isotope database" It sounds like it's a technique archaeologists are only starting to really make use of though for analyzing things like coins.

[Brant Gardner]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

"Isotopic Techniques in Archaeometry"  I'll confess not something I know a lot about, but apparently with a knowledge of the chemistry of the alloy you can look at the relative frequency of the isotopes. It sounds like it's primarily used to identify sites for the components of artifacts. i.e. "Metal provenancing using isotopes and the Oxford archaeological lead isotope database" It sounds like it's a technique archaeologists are only starting to really make use of though for analyzing things like coins.

Provenancing I believe I remembered. Dating is questionable.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

Provenancing I believe I remembered. Dating is questionable.

Not my field obviously so I can't say too much. I'll also confess not completely seeing the difference between provenancing and dating since often knowledge of the former (location) seems to given information about the latter. Not always, particularly if a site was used for centuries, but enough information to tie a date due to other information from the original site. Just doing a Google search it does seem like more explicit dating is starting to happen though although it relies on robust databases of the metal in question and sites of production. So it's not radio-isotopes by themselves but tied to a database of metals and provenance. At least as I understand it. I'm under no illusions that a night of Googling means I understand.

Edited September 4, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Tajara]

On 9/2/2019 at 11:03 AM, Brant Gardner said:

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.

With all due respect, does it not occur to you that the Europeans in the 1600's - 1800's who actually observed the culture, customs, habits, religious rites and ceremonies of the Native Americans first hand, would know far more about them than you do?!  Those who interacted with them, heard and learned their language, spoke with them about their history, lived among them, fought with them, etc. were in a far better position to judge, and they graciously left us plenty of evidence.  How is it that you think you have a better understanding of them 200 years after they have vanished from the earth?  It is so easy to simply say that particular evidence is not proof enough for you, but just because you say it, does not make it true.  The Book of Mormon clearly outlines the Hebrew origin of native American peoples and evidence of them is abundant right here in America  whether you or anyone else believes it or not, really doesn't matter.  The truth will prevail. Five ancient Hebrew holy stones were discovered near Newark, Ohio -- evidence.  The Bat Creek stone with Paleo-Hebrew written on it -- evidence.  The list goes on.  Yes, I am aware that some will claim these finds are all a hoax.  Not true.  Some(not all) of them have been tarnished with doubt, but even those have not been proven.

Some here have insisted that there was no ancient writing in North America.  That is absolutely not true.  The Book of Mormon is all the evidence we need, yet not all the evidence we have. 

[Rajah Manchou]

21 minutes ago, Tajara said:

does it not occur to you that the Europeans in the 1600's - 1800's who actually observed the culture, customs, habits, religious rites and ceremonies of the Native Americans first hand, would know far more about them than you do?! 

Europeans in the 1600's - 1800's found "evidence" that every group, tribe, culture, civilization they stumbled upon as they expanded out of Europe was Israelite.

Ethiopians were supposedly lost Jews, Tibetans were lost Jews, Japanese were lost Jews, Polynesians were lost Jews, Siberians, Zimbabweans, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Papuans, Sri Lankans, Sumatrans, Filipinos, and finally Ecuadoreans, Brazilians, Aztecs, Maya, Ojibweans, Hopis, Cherokees, Navajo etc. 

If we're looking at only European publications between 1600 to 1800, pretty much everybody is an Israelite.  

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, Tajara said:

With all due respect, does it not occur to you that the Europeans in the 1600's - 1800's who actually observed the culture, customs, habits, religious rites and ceremonies of the Native Americans first hand, would know far more about them than you do?!  Those who interacted with them, heard and learned their language, spoke with them about their history, lived among them, fought with them, etc. were in a far better position to judge, and they graciously left us plenty of evidence. 

I would never dismiss it without evidence. They provided their evidence and their descriptions. We have the information they left us, and we have further studies on the history  and languages and cultures of these peoples. It is on the basis of that information that I judge them. For example, Boudinot described a chant that was, to him, very clearly Hebrew--but they changed an oddly Anglicized Hebrew. Basically, he didn't understand their language, or Hebrew. He heard what he wished to hear. That is corroborated by historical linguistics on the native languages.

Those who learned their languages have much to tell us, but they tend not to be the ones who left the records that show the miraculously Hebraic traits. However, based on Central Mexican evidence, even some who spoke the language modified what they learned through their own religious understanding. That information comes after comparing what they wrote with native records rather than Spanish writings.

So, you are right to ask how we can doubt. The answer is that it comes down to better information, much comparison, and much study. It is not done lightly, and only after evidence leads in that direction.

Quote

How is it that you think you have a better understanding of them 200 years after they have vanished from the earth?

Not all have vanished. There are some lost languages, but many were recorded. In some cases, we have better information than was then available. As I noted above, it is a combination of the kinds of evidence available, and in some cases, inference based on the locations where we have better evidence to be able to pull apart the types of European records that were kept. The answer to why we might have better information today is simply that we actually have more, and in many cases, better information. We also have information that lets us know how those early European writers altered the material they collected.

Quote

It is so easy to simply say that particular evidence is not proof enough for you, but just because you say it, does not make it true. 

That is true. Unfortunately, that is also true of those who wrote in the 1800s. Just because they wrote it does not mean it was correct. The final answer lies in a greater body of comparative evidence.

Quote

The Book of Mormon clearly outlines the Hebrew origin of native American peoples and evidence of them is abundant right here in America  whether you or anyone else believes it or not, really doesn't matter. 

To be clear, the Book of Mormon says that there were some people from Jerusalem who came. It does not describe all of the inhabitants of the Americas. There is ample evidence that there were more non-Hebrew descended peoples here. We might be able to claim up to 100 Hebrews, and they arrived in a land (no matter where you think it was) that was already inhabited by a large number of non-Hebrews. Combine that with the way that culture typically moves in cases of cultural contact, and there is little chance that much identifiable Hebrew culture or language would survive the over 1000 years from the destruction of the Nephites to the coming of the Europeans. Mind you, I firmly believe that the Book of Mormon is historical, but by believing it is historical I must also believe that the people acted in ways typical of humanity in history.

Quote

The truth will prevail. Five ancient Hebrew holy stones were discovered near Newark, Ohio -- evidence.  The Bat Creek stone with Paleo-Hebrew written on it -- evidence.  The list goes on.  Yes, I am aware that some will claim these finds are all a hoax.  Not true.  Some(not all) of them have been tarnished with doubt, but even those have not been proven.

 There are those who do believe that there were Hebrew holy stones. None of those who believe such things are trained in appropriate fields. Those who know archaeology and linguistics (and modern history, for some of the inscriptions were copied from modern documents, including errors, as I recall), believe them authentic. Much as I would love to have authentic evidence of Hebrew from Book of Mormon times, all of these are fakes, and even were they not, are way too late.

Quote

Some here have insisted that there was no ancient writing in North America.  That is absolutely not true.  The Book of Mormon is all the evidence we need, yet not all the evidence we have. 

The Book of Mormon was certainly created by a literate people. There is no evidence of literacy anywhere in the New World outside of Central America. I am aware that there are those who have claimed that there is evidence, but again, there is no one with the training to understand the evidence who makes that claim. You may believe, based on what you have been told, that it is not true that there was no writing in North America. Unfortunately, the information you have received is incorrect. It is utterly without evidence, and often presented in such a way to not present the reasons why it is incorrect. For example one example shows an alphabet from native Americans--but it is an alphabet created by a French priest. The name and time is known, but those who use it as evidence neglect to provide the full information. 

[Ryan Dahle]

10 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Those who know archaeology and linguistics (and modern history, for some of the inscriptions were copied from modern documents, including errors, as I recall), believe them authentic.

I think you may be missing negation in that sentence. Probably should be: "do not believe them authentic."

[Brant Gardner]

21 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think you may be missing negation in that sentence. Probably should be: "do not believe them authentic."

Quite right. You, and others, are supposed to read my mind and fill in what my fingers forget to add. Thank you.

[ksfisher]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Europeans in the 1600's - 1800's found "evidence" that every group, tribe, culture, civilization they stumbled upon as they expanded out of Europe was Israelite.

Ethiopians were supposedly lost Jews, Tibetans were lost Jews, Japanese were lost Jews, Polynesians were lost Jews, Siberians, Zimbabweans, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Papuans, Sri Lankans, Sumatrans, Filipinos, and finally Ecuadoreans, Brazilians, Aztecs, Maya, Ojibweans, Hopis, Cherokees, Navajo etc. 

If we're looking at only European publications between 1600 to 1800, pretty much everybody is an Israelite.  

Here's a good intro article on this type of thing

http://religiondispatches.org/fascinating-history-of-search-for-lost-white-tribe-sheds-light-on-construction-of-race/

"What ended up emerging is a kind of loop. Europeans went abroad, looking for traces of themselves. And when they looked, they found things—dramatic ruins, light-skinned people, local legends about mythical travelers—that could support their theories of an ancient white dispersal. Armed with this new evidence, the theories got stronger, making future explorers likelier to find even more evidence."