Cumorah

[PaulDupre]

The Lamanites were nomadic, and lived in tents or with no tent at all.

Really? The Lamanites slept in tents or under the stars, eh?

11 And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the city of Nephi;

12 And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Shilom, and who were in the land of Shemlon, and in the city of Lemuel, and in the city of Shimnilom.

13 And these are the names of the cities of the Lamanites which were converted unto the Lord; and these are they that laid down the weapons of their rebellion, yea, all their weapons of war; and they were all Lamanites.

14 And the Amalekites were not converted, save only one; neither were any of the Amulonites; but they did harden their hearts, and also the hearts of the Lamanites in that part of the land wheresoever they dwelt, yea, and all their villages and all their cities.

15 Therefore, we have named all the cities of the Lamanites in which they did repent and come to the knowledge of the truth, and were converted.

• Alma 23:11-15

Note that the text differentiates between villages and cities. The Lamanites (like the Nephites) lived in both small villages and large cities. When the text says “city”, it does not mean “a few dozen people in wooden shacks and tents”, as you would have us believe. And the Lamanites were apparently not so nomadic as you would have us believe.

Where is the archaeological evidence?

 

[ParkerD]

Really? The Lamanites slept in tents or under the stars, eh?

Note that the text differentiates between villages and cities. The Lamanites (like the Nephites) lived in both small villages and large cities. When the text says “city”, it does not mean “a few dozen people in wooden shacks and tents”, as you would have us believe. And the Lamanites were apparently not so nomadic as you would have us believe.

Where is the archaeological evidence?

The text does not differentiate in any substantive way between the word “villages” and the word “cities”.

I have not the slightest expectation that your already firmed up conclusions could be changed one iota by anyone writing on this forum.

Enos 1:20 describes nomadic Lamanites, dwelling in tents in the wilderness. Much later in time (the 90’s BC and forward), the following description confirms that same condition:

Alma 22: 28
28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.

Both groups became wanderers:

7 And it came to pass that we did gather in our people as fast as it were possible, that we might get them together in one body.
8 But behold, the land was filled with robbers and with Lamanites; and notwithstanding the great destruction which hung over my people, they did not repent of their evil doings; therefore there was blood and carnage spread throughout all the face of the land, both on the part of the Nephites and also on the part of the Lamanites; and it was one complete revolution throughout all the face of the land.
9 And now, the Lamanites had a king, and his name was Aaron; and he came against us with an army of forty and four thousand. And behold, I withstood him with forty and two thousand. And it came to pass that I beat him with my army that he fled before me. And behold, all this was done, and *three hundred and thirty years had passed away.
10 And it came to pass that the Nephites began to repent of their iniquity, and began to cry even as had been prophesied by Samuel the prophet; for behold no man could keep that which was his own, for the thieves, and the robbers, and the murderers, and the magic art, and the witchcraft which was in the land.
11 Thus there began to be a mourning and a lamentation in all the land because of these things, and more especially among the people of Nephi.
12 And it came to pass that when I, Mormon, saw their lamentation and their mourning and their sorrow before the Lord, my heart did begin to rejoice within me, knowing the mercies and the long-suffering of the Lord, therefore supposing that he would be merciful unto them that they would again become a righteous people.
13 But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin.
14 And they did not come unto Jesus with broken hearts and contrite spirits, but they did curse God, and wish to die. Nevertheless they would struggle with the sword for their lives.
15 And it came to pass that my sorrow did return unto me again, and I saw that the day of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually; for I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land. And thus *three hundred and forty and four years had passed away.
16 And it came to pass that in the three hundred and forty and fifth year the Nephites did begin to flee before the Lamanites; and they were pursued until they came even to the land of Jashon, before it was possible to stop them in their retreat.
17 And now, the city of Jashon was near the land where Ammaron had deposited the records unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed. And behold I had gone according to the word of Ammaron, and taken the plates of Nephi, and did make a record according to the words of Ammaron.
18 And upon the plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickedness and abominations; but upon these plates I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations, for behold, a continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes ever since I have been sufficient to behold the ways of man.
19 And wo is me because of their wickedness; for my heart has been filled with sorrow because of their wickedness, all my days; nevertheless, I know that I shall be lifted up at the last day.
20 And it came to pass that in this year the people of Nephi again were hunted and driven. And it came to pass that we were driven forth until we had come northward to the land which was called Shem.

 

[PaulDupre]

It doesn’t say that all Lamanites were nomads. Quite the opposite. It says:

Alma 22: 28
28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents;

The rest of them stayed in the villlages and cities.

The rest of your quote merely reports an army on the move, not an entire civilization that had become nomadic.

And why would the text specify “villages” and “cities” if there was no difference between a village and a city. That really makes no sense.

 

[Returning_Home]

It doesn’t say that all Lamanites were nomads. Quite the opposite. It says:

The rest of them stayed in the villlages and cities.

The rest of your quote merely reports an army on the move, not an entire civilization that had become nomadic.

And why would the text specify “villages” and “cities” if there was no difference between a village and a city. That really makes no sense.

Funny how Parker knows so much about the ancient fictional people of the Americas except where to find any evidence of their existance.

 

[Returning_Home]

The Aztecs used “swords.” But they were not made of steel. They were made of wood and obsidian.
ezinearticles.com/?The-Macuahuitl—An-Aztec-Obsidian-Sword&id=3203175

Since it’s clear that Nephi was able to make swords, I wonder why he didn’t bother to make any for his own people. I assume he made theirs out of cardboard or plast of Paris and kept the only good one for himself. While that’s a good strategy, is sort of backfired since they were wiped out, eh?

 

[PaulDupre]

It has become clear over the past several decades that there is absolutely no evidence to support the historicity of the BoM and plenty of evidence which undermines the historicity of the BoM.

In an attempt to cover this up, the LDS have come up with several different “limited geography theories”. They hope that if they say the BoM story took place in a very small geographic area (location unknown) as opposed to covering all of (at least) what is now the United States, then the public at large will give them a pass concerning the utter lack of archaeological evidence for a BoM civilization. (Hint: It’s not working.)

This theory also posits that the BoM grossly exagerates the level of civilization, population and technology among the Nephites and Lamanites, so that:

“Great cities” = small villages
“great buildings” = small hovels and tents
“exceedingly numerous” population = a few dozen people
“armies with hundreds of thousands of soldiers” = small bands of fighting men
“steel swords” = wooden clubs
“cement” = stucco
etc…

The lower the expectations, the less evidence you need to produce.

 

[dianaiad]

It has become clear over the past several decades that there is absolutely no evidence to support the historicity of the BoM and plenty of evidence which undermines the historicity of the BoM.

In an attempt to cover this up, the LDS have come up with several different “limited geography theories”. They hope that if they say the BoM story took place in a very small geographic area (location unknown) as opposed to covering all of (at least) what is now the United States, then the public at large will give them a pass concerning the utter lack of archaeological evidence for a BoM civilization. (Hint: It’s not working.)

This theory also posits that the BoM grossly exagerates the level of civilization, population and technology among the Nephites and Lamanites, so that:

“Great cities” = small villages
“great buildings” = small hovels and tents
“exceedingly numerous” population = a few dozen people
“armies with hundreds of thousands of soldiers” = small bands of fighting men
“steel swords” = wooden clubs
“cement” = stucco
etc…

The lower the expectations, the less evidence you need to produce.

Paul, TODAY 'great cities" means lots and lots of people. However, given that the world population of the period in question was a whole bunch smaller, the term 'large" and ‘great’ as far as population goes has to be pretty relative.

For instance…until 1800 NO city in the world had more than 500,000 people in it, and of the top ten cities from 100 AD to 1800 AD, only two or three had that many. The rest were between 70 to 120 thousand. Right now, the town I live in has a population of 130,000, and is considered to be ‘rural’ by the folks in LA.

In the year 100, Rome and Hunan, China, had 450,000 people in it. The next runner up, Seleucia, had 250,000. The population went down very fast from there. Even such 'great cities" as Paris and London didn’t hit the half million population mark until the 1800’s…

In 1830, the population of New York was a whopping 202,000…less than the population of the valley in which I live, and right now the valley in which I live is considered to be RURAL.

Shoot, about a month ago we had a freeway chase that came up the 14 freeway, and the folks describing it from the air were speculating about the dangers to some local walking his dog, or dealing with livestock, as the “perp” and the cops came roaring up the freeway. We were told that, perhaps for that night, we should actually lock our front doors.

The next largest city in America in 1830 was Baltimore, at 80,000 Philidelphia fell short of Baltimore by about 200 people. The fourth largest city? Boston, at 60 thousand, then New Orleans at 46 thousand. After those five, nobody has more than 30,000 people (we would consider that a 'small town." )

As I mentioned, it’s relative. So we, now, wouldn’t consider a city of less than 2 or 3 million as 'great…" but even Beijing didn’t hit the million mark until 1800.

So stop using today’s standard of measurements to apply to yesterday’s populations. In fact, you can’t use today’s standard to apply to the standards of two centuries ago, much less the times spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

As well, get over the cement thing. You are equating ‘cement’ with 'concrete." The ‘cement’ thing has been settled a long time ago, and NOT in the favor of the BoM CRITICS.

 

[scipio337]

Paul, TODAY 'great cities" …

In strictly archeological terms, the Cahokia site was probably the largest “city” in pre-historic North America, with around 40,000 at its peak. Teotihuacan, on the other hand, had as many as 200,000 during its peak. The standards of measurements are not applied, relative to today’s cities, but to their historical counterparts for that era.

Again, there is absolutely no historical or archeological evidence to support the historicity of the BoM.

 

[dianaiad]

In strictly archeological terms, the Cahokia site was probably the largest “city” in pre-historic North America, with around 40,000 at its peak. Teotihuacan, on the other hand, had as many as 200,000 during its peak. The standards of measurements are not applied, relative to today’s cities, but to their historical counterparts for that era.

Again, there is absolutely no historical or archeological evidence to support the historicity of the BoM.

You, of course, cannot admit that there is, unless that evidence is so overwhelming as to be unexplainable by any other means…even means that would be, ordinarily, considered incredibly improbable, even impossible, for any other fact.

If the Book of Mormon were ever proven to be true archeologically, you realize what that means, right?

It means…
…that the book was written by people who lived through the events they claim they did.
…that it was preserved by supernatural means and given by supernatural means, proving that God is, Christianity is True and that the Mormon version of it is also True.

…not in terms of faith, but in terms of fact. Indeed, the claim ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’ applies to the Book of Mormon more than about any other item on the planet.

Because of this, I don’t expect any non-Mormon to ever admit that there is any evidence, no matter how strong…or how much that evidence would satisfy any scientist about any OTHER thing…that would prove the Book of Mormon to be 'True."

Frankly, that’s as it should be. I can’t see that it would be a good thing to have God so factually proven that faith holds no place.

 

[SirThomasMore]

QUOTE=dianaiad;6861055]Paul, TODAY 'great cities" means lots and lots of people. However, given that the world population of the period in question was a whole bunch smaller, the term 'large" and ‘great’ as far as population goes has to be pretty relative.

For instance…until 1800 NO city in the world had more than 500,000 people in it, and of the top ten cities from 100 AD to 1800 AD, only two or three had that many. The rest were between 70 to 120 thousand. Right now, the town I live in has a population of 130,000, and is considered to be ‘rural’ by the folks in LA.

In the year 100, Rome and Hunan, China, had 450,000 people in it. The next runner up, Seleucia, had 250,000. The population went down very fast from there. Even such 'great cities" as Paris and London didn’t hit the half million population mark until the 1800’s…

In 1830, the population of New York was a whopping 202,000…less than the population of the valley in which I live, and right now the valley in which I live is considered to be RURAL.

Shoot, about a month ago we had a freeway chase that came up the 14 freeway, and the folks describing it from the air were speculating about the dangers to some local walking his dog, or dealing with livestock, as the “perp” and the cops came roaring up the freeway. We were told that, perhaps for that night, we should actually lock our front doors.

The next largest city in America in 1830 was Baltimore, at 80,000 Philidelphia fell short of Baltimore by about 200 people. The fourth largest city? Boston, at 60 thousand, then New Orleans at 46 thousand. After those five, nobody has more than 30,000 people (we would consider that a 'small town." )

As I mentioned, it’s relative. So we, now, wouldn’t consider a city of less than 2 or 3 million as 'great…" but even Beijing didn’t hit the million mark until 1800.

So stop using today’s standard of measurements to apply to yesterday’s populations. In fact, you can’t use today’s standard to apply to the standards of two centuries ago, much less the times spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

Geez, can you be truthful with us for a momsnt and stop all the red herring arguments? It does not matter how big cities were or are. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE KILLED AT CUMORAH…that is a lot of people killed even by today’s standards. So get on track here

As well, get over the cement thing. You are equating ‘cement’ with 'concrete." The ‘cement’ thing has been settled a long time ago, and NOT in the favor of the BoM CRITICS.

Cement is still a product that is MADE. And it is NOT mud. So, no, your are WRONG…it has been settled AGAINST the LDS fictional book.

Cement is not concrete…that is true. In fact, cement is an ingredient of concrete. Sans, gravel, water, cement and a few other goodies are used to make concrete. Regardless, Cement is something that is manufactured. You are simply as wrong and Joe was

 

[SirThomasMore]

You, of course, cannot admit that there is, unless that evidence is so overwhelming as to be unexplainable by any other means…even means that would be, ordinarily, considered incredibly improbable, even impossible, for any other fact.

 

[Catholic20064]

You, of course, cannot admit that there is, unless that evidence is so overwhelming as to be unexplainable by any other means…even means that would be, ordinarily, considered incredibly improbable, even impossible, for any other fact.

If the Book of Mormon were ever proven to be true archeologically, you realize what that means, right?

It means…
…that the book was written by people who lived through the events they claim they did.
…that it was preserved by supernatural means and given by supernatural means, proving that God is, Christianity is True and that the Mormon version of it is also True.

…not in terms of faith, but in terms of fact. Indeed, the claim ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’ applies to the Book of Mormon more than about any other item on the planet.

Because of this, I don’t expect any non-Mormon to ever admit that there is any evidence, no matter how strong…or how much that evidence would satisfy any scientist about any OTHER thing…that would prove the Book of Mormon to be 'True."

Frankly, that’s as it should be. I can’t see that it would be a good thing to have God so factually proven that faith holds no place.

I think you are completely wrong here. I believe most people are reasonable. If there were some evidence that ancient Americans actually descended from Israelites, I think there would be plenty of people who would take another look at the Book of Mormon. It certainly wouldn’t make it a slam dunk, but it would make the book plausible. Now there isn’t any reason to consider it plausible because the evidence is all going in the opposite direction. Even if we were to prove an ancient Israelite civilization in America it would still take faith to believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling. For one thing, would one become LDS or Community of Christ or a member of some other group that claims the Book of Mormon as scripture?

 

[scipio337]

You, of course, cannot admit that there is, unless that evidence is so overwhelming as to be unexplainable by any other means…even means that would be, ordinarily, considered incredibly improbable, even impossible, for any other fact.

I cannot admit there is because I’m an honest student of history. As others point out, the “evidence” doesn’t have to be “overwhelming”, just convincing enough that it would be accepted in a non-LDS, peer-reviewed publication.

dianaiad:

If the Book of Mormon were ever proven to be true archeologically, you realize what that means, right?

A bit of a conditional “if”, wouldn’t you say? So far, the proof is to the contrary, and it IS overwhelming.

You realize what this means, right?

It means…

…Joseph Smith WAS NOT a prophet, and the BoM is not the Word of God. That the LDS faith is not as it claims to be.

Because of this, I don’t expect any Mormon to ever admit that there is any evidence, no matter how strong…or how much that evidence would satisfy any scientist about any OTHER thing…that would prove the Book of Mormon to be factually, historically inaccurate.

 

[Returning_Home]

You, of course, cannot admit that there is, unless that evidence is so overwhelming as to be unexplainable by any other means…even means that would be, ordinarily, considered incredibly improbable, even impossible, for any other fact.

If the Book of Mormon were ever proven to be true archeologically, you realize what that means, right?

It means…
…that the book was written by people who lived through the events they claim they did.
…that it was preserved by supernatural means and given by supernatural means, proving that God is, Christianity is True and that the Mormon version of it is also True.

…not in terms of faith, but in terms of fact. Indeed, the claim ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’ applies to the Book of Mormon more than about any other item on the planet.

Because of this, I don’t expect any non-Mormon to ever admit that there is any evidence, no matter how strong…or how much that evidence would satisfy any scientist about any OTHER thing…that would prove the Book of Mormon to be 'True."

Frankly, that’s as it should be. I can’t see that it would be a good thing to have God so factually proven that faith holds no place.

Your basis for argument is based on the assumption that the book is correct and therefore anything you present as ‘evidence’ is seen through your LDS-issued rose colored glasses. When looked at objectively by people who stand to gain nothing by it being untrue, you have nothing to work with.

But let’s assume there is evidence to show that the BOM events actually happened. Then what? The argument then becomes why the book has nothing to do with modern Mormonism, doesn’t it? That mens you now have two hurdles to overcome instead of just the one about proving the book correct.

Your assumption is also that Mormonism is acutal Christianity which is proven false over and over because you expect to become gods like God; we harbor no such illusion.

And your last sentence is the most telling of all because it confirms exactly what you’re accused of: faith without facts, or, in Returning Home-speak, the three Fs (faith and fuzzy feelings).

 

[lax16]

Paul, TODAY 'great cities" means lots and lots of people. However, given that the world population of the period in question was a whole bunch smaller, the term 'large" and ‘great’ as far as population goes has to be pretty relative.

For instance…until 1800 NO city in the world had more than 500,000 people in it, and of the top ten cities from 100 AD to 1800 AD, only two or three had that many. The rest were between 70 to 120 thousand. Right now, the town I live in has a population of 130,000, and is considered to be ‘rural’ by the folks in LA.

In the year 100, Rome and Hunan, China, had 450,000 people in it. The next runner up, Seleucia, had 250,000. The population went down very fast from there. Even such 'great cities" as Paris and London didn’t hit the half million population mark until the 1800’s…

In 1830, the population of New York was a whopping 202,000…less than the population of the valley in which I live, and right now the valley in which I live is considered to be RURAL.

Shoot, about a month ago we had a freeway chase that came up the 14 freeway, and the folks describing it from the air were speculating about the dangers to some local walking his dog, or dealing with livestock, as the “perp” and the cops came roaring up the freeway. We were told that, perhaps for that night, we should actually lock our front doors.

The next largest city in America in 1830 was Baltimore, at 80,000 Philidelphia fell short of Baltimore by about 200 people. The fourth largest city? Boston, at 60 thousand, then New Orleans at 46 thousand. After those five, nobody has more than 30,000 people (we would consider that a 'small town." )

As I mentioned, it’s relative. So we, now, wouldn’t consider a city of less than 2 or 3 million as 'great…" but even Beijing didn’t hit the million mark until 1800.

So stop using today’s standard of measurements to apply to yesterday’s populations. In fact, you can’t use today’s standard to apply to the standards of two centuries ago, much less the times spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

As well, get over the cement thing. You are equating ‘cement’ with 'concrete." The ‘cement’ thing has been settled a long time ago, and NOT in the favor of the BoM CRITICS.

Uh Diana - if millions died in the battles, they had to live somewhere and the numbers would add up to the same. So, there tens of thousands of villages with thousands of people living in them? Or hundreds of thousands of villages with hundreds of people living in them? Or two villages with 1.5 million people living in them…

No matter how you slice it, there were millions of people living within walking distance of upstate New York.

And the millions who died had wives and children right?

So you are right in a way - it is absolutely impossible to believe that millions of people lived within walking distance of upstate NY at any time prior to…1900? I don’t know, somebody can google that info.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
It is fairly silly to think that I “have them memorized”. (I don’t–it’s not a big deal to me, at all. But I can certainly use a search tool given that lds.org has that available for all the LDS scriptures.)

Search results for “sword of steel”:

1 Ne. 4: 9
9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.
Ether 7: 9
9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

Search results for “breastplate of brass”:

Mosiah 8: 10
10 And behold, also, they have brought breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound.

The passage in 1 Nephi is talking about the “sword of Laban” which was brought by Nephi from Jerusalem, and was kept as a sort of “artifact” and actually was used as an example of how to configure a sword in its shape, but in no other place does there appear in the Book of Mormon language that suggests that swords were made of steel by either the Nephites or the Lamanites, and note also that the Lamanites are said to have swords several times yet only Nephi is discussed as having brought with him the skill and knowledge of how to do metal work within the Nephite and Lamanite time frame, and taught that knowledge to his followers but not to the Lamanites since they had left as enemies and became nomadic.

The passage in Ether is talking about the Jaredites, who were an earlier group in the New World and died out around 588 BC.

Those are the only references to “sword of steel”, and the Jaredite reference occurred in about 2000 BC. So it is not a logical assumption to assume that every use of the word “sword” in the Book of Mormon is talking about a metal sword, and quite the contrary since the Lamanites are said to have swords and they had no such knowledge base among them.

The Nephites had “breastplates”, but no reference is made that those breastplates were made of metal. The Jaredite group had “breastplates” and some of those were made of “brass and copper” which stood out as something unusual enough to point out by the Mulekites who found the artifacts.

So, again, there is not the slightest indication that the battles around Cumorah used metal weapons or metal breastplates.

As far as cement dwellings, here are the search results for “cement”:

Hel. 3:3 And it came to pass in the *forty and sixth, yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land.
4 And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers.
5 Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land.
6 And now no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber; but because of the greatness of the destruction of the people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate.
7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.
• • •
9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.
• • •
11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

So wood was the preferred building material, and cement was used if wood was not available, but in certain locations only which are described as being built at places “exceedingly great distance” “northward”. This could be near the Great Lakes, or who knows where.

Parker - I wasn’t being silly at all. I know that you are very good at scripture and assumed you had it memorized. My apologies if you took it as a joke - it was actually a compliment and I am sorry it didn’t come out that way.

Thanks for the scriptural passages. I was asking for the references in the BoM so I would know where to find the info on this not just “steel in the BoM” etc, but the actual chapters in the BoM that covered the battles etc.

 

[Geocacher]

Went to the hill cumorah pageant once in the 70’s, then once in the 80’s, then visited the hill once with a friend back in 1995. Was not really into the BofM, even back then. Was a well done pageant.

 

[LongJourney]

Went to the hill cumorah pageant once in the 70’s,… Was a well done pageant.

One of the positive LDS values, The performing arts are important to them.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Went to the hill cumorah pageant once in the 70’s, then once in the 80’s, then visited the hill once with a friend back in 1995. Was not really into the BofM, even back then. Was a well done pageant.

I visited Cumorah in the 80s three times, once for the pageant. It is VERY well done.

But I still believe they would be excavating there if they really believe the BM to be true

 

[Javl]

A few hundred million years ago, the north eastern portion of the North American continent was covered by what was known as the Kansas Sea. All of New York state was under water. As the sea subsided and the land rose, many remnants ( fossils ) were left.
These remnants consisted of various plant and animal ( fish, shellfish, worms, etc. ) life forms that lived in this sea.

Now, I can assure you with certainty that if the LDS ever would dig around Cumorah, N.Y., all they would ever find would be the fossil remains of the plant and animal life that once lived in this ancient sea.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem