Cumorah

[MormonHero]

typical LDS head-in-the-sand routine. We can see archelogical evidence of the Bible, but not a lick of it for the BM, so suddenly we NEED the evidence? We do not need it Parker. But the lack of ANY of it proves you DO check your brain at the door

John 20:29

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[scipio337]

…If “new members” came into the LDS church from archeological “proof” or from DNA “proof”, they might last six months to a year in the church, and would fall away when they found out that they had joined an organization that has none of the bells and whistles of physical evidence to keep going back to, but instead expects a person to “build their house of testimony and faith” on revealed knowledge and a personal, intimate, ongoing relationship with the Lord, Jesus Christ.

If only there weren’t so many attempts by LDS leadership to confirm the veracity of the BoM through archeology, from Joseph’s Smith’s time up to BYU’s New World Archaeological Foundation, your comment wouldn’t ring so hollow.

LDS church members, and “prophets, seers, and revelators” have attempted to prove the “truth” of the BoM through DNA, commenting on the “whiteness” of new converts, trumpeting MesoAmerican finds as “Zarahemla”, etc. Unfortunately, these attempts have all fallen flat.

You can have it both ways: looking to the sciences of archeology and DNA to prove the BoM as true, then claiming not to “look” back, “it should be based on faith/not a part of salvation”, disregard the “wisdom of men” when they prove to be epic failures.

 

[ParkerD]

If only there weren’t so many attempts by LDS leadership to confirm the veracity of the BoM through archeology, from Joseph’s Smith’s time up to BYU’s New World Archaeological Foundation, your comment wouldn’t ring so hollow.

LDS church members, and “prophets, seers, and revelators” have attempted to prove the “truth” of the BoM through DNA, commenting on the “whiteness” of new converts, trumpeting MesoAmerican finds as “Zarahemla”, etc. Unfortunately, these attempts have all fallen flat.

You can have it both ways: looking to the sciences of archeology and DNA to prove the BoM as true, then claiming not to “look” back, “it should be based on faith/not a part of salvation”, disregard the “wisdom of men” when they prove to be epic failures.

Scipio,
I suppose you’ll want to go ahead and specify the quotes you are talking about, from the current apostles. (The “whiteness” of someone does not have to do with their DNA.)

BYU is a scholastic institution. Since archeology is a scholastic pursuit, students there have just as much right as anyone else to explore archeology, if they are so inclined.

Have a nice day.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Scipio,
I suppose you’ll want to go ahead and specify the quotes you are talking about, from the current apostles. (The “whiteness” of someone does not have to do with their DNA.)

BYU is a scholastic institution. Since archeology is a scholastic pursuit, students there have just as much right as anyone else to explore archeology, if they are so inclined.

Have a nice day.

not on LDS property without permission

 

[LongJourney]

Archeology on that sacred Mormon ground can be conducted using ultrasound and other measures, without disturbing with diggings. However, the interpretation of those ultrasound recordings will be up to the biased researchers. In the spirit of JS, however, what kind of Gold treasures can be found? After all, gold is just god, with one extra letter. And they really don’t want to damage the income from the pageant by digging. A curious double-bind.

 

[ParkerD]

Archeology on that sacred Mormon ground can be conducted using ultrasound and other measures, without disturbing with diggings.

What you don’t seem to understand is that when Mormon looked at the outcome of the battles, he was on the hill looking out over the landscape and seeing the results down below him. In other words, those battles could have been anywhere within his scope of vision from standing on the hill. The LDS church doesn’t own the properties surrounding the Hill Cumorah–it’s private farmland.

Perhaps a picture will help:

scriptures.lds.org/en/chphotos/2

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Scipio,
I suppose you’ll want to go ahead and specify the quotes you are talking about, from the current apostles. (The “whiteness” of someone does not have to do with their DNA.)

Where did he say anything about “the current apostles”?

Scipio also did not say that whiteness had something to do with DNA. I assume the quote he is talking about (the “whiteness” of converts) is this one, by President Spencer Kimball, in General Conference, 1960:
**
“The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather…”**

BYU is a scholastic institution. Since archeology is a scholastic pursuit, students there have just as much right as anyone else to explore archeology, if they are so inclined.

Have a nice day.

BYU is of course directly tied to the LDS church. The LDS church clearly has an avenue to pursue archaeological research (since it has anthropology and archaeology programs), which brings us back to the question of why they don’t excavate the Hill Cumorah. Sure, you can say that they have made no official statement on the location of Book of Mormon events, however the Hill Cumorah in NY is one possible location that has been brought up by LDS authorities throughout the history of Mormonism. Therefore it would make perfect sense to excavate it to see what is actually there.

 

[SirThomasMore]

What you don’t seem to understand is that when Mormon looked at the outcome of the battles, he was on the hill looking out over the landscape and seeing the results down below him. In other words, those battles could have been anywhere within his scope of vision from standing on the hill. The LDS church doesn’t own the properties surrounding the Hill Cumorah–it’s private farmland.

Perhaps a picture will help:

scriptures.lds.org/en/chphotos/2

RED HERRING! If there were millions of people killed…then there WOULD be evidence on land the CoLDS owns…just dig…

 

[ParkerD]

What you don’t seem to understand is that when Mormon looked at the outcome of the battles, he was on the hill looking out over the landscape and seeing the results down below him. In other words, those battles could have been anywhere within his scope of vision from standing on the hill. The LDS church doesn’t own the properties surrounding the Hill Cumorah–it’s private farmland.

Perhaps a picture will help:

scriptures.lds.org/en/chphotos/2

CatholicGuyNY,
You probably were posting at about the time I posted the above link. I suppose private archeologists can go to a farm and ask the farmer for permission to dig about, but that would be up to the two parties involved. You can do that yourself, if you have a mind to. We are talking about a location in New York. It is near Palmyra. You can find it on a good map of the state.

By the way, you’d want to be clear and upfront with the farmer that the artifacts you would be looking for would likely be six to seven feet buried, so your digging would need to be that deep, and would need to be a pretty good sample of the farm property to have any validity, if at all anyway.

 

[scipio337]

Where did he say anything about “the current apostles”?

Scipio also did not say that whiteness had something to do with DNA. I assume the quote he is talking about (the “whiteness” of converts) is this one, by President Spencer Kimball, in General Conference, 1960:
**
“The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather…”**

BYU is of course directly tied to the LDS church. The LDS church clearly has an avenue to pursue archaeological research (since it has anthropology and archaeology programs), which brings us back to the question of why they don’t excavate the Hill Cumorah. Sure, you can say that they have made no official statement on the location of Book of Mormon events, however the Hill Cumorah in NY is one possible location that has been brought up by LDS authorities throughout the history of Mormonism. Therefore it would make perfect sense to excavate it to see what is actually there.

Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut, CatholicGuyNY.

If Parker doesn’t think melanin production is genetic, I have a bridge for sale.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

CatholicGuyNY,
You probably were posting at about the time I posted the above link. I suppose private archeologists can go to a farm and ask the farmer for permission to dig about, but that would be up to the two parties involved. You can do that yourself, if you have a mind to. We are talking about a location in New York. It is near Palmyra. You can find it on a good map of the state.

By the way, you’d want to be clear and upfront with the farmer that the artifacts you would be looking for would likely be six to seven feet buried, so your digging would need to be that deep, and would need to be a pretty good sample of the farm property to have any validity, if at all anyway.

Again, BYU archaeologists can do this themselves, including starting with the Hill itself. The central question of this thread, why they do not do this, has yet to be adequately answered. The LDS church has academic outlets for such research, and it is not done. Various LDS authorities have made statements on that land being Book of Mormon land, and nothing is done to see whether there is merit to such statements.

 

[LongJourney]

Non-Mormon archaeologists see no need to examine that area for a wealth of artifacts, because they know that nothing significant is there. Mormon archaeologists have a a lot to gain or lose by digging, or at least using non-invasive means to look at the area. Evidently they are afraid they might find what is really there-- nothing unusual.

 

[twopekinguys]

Paul,
My comments go far deeper into the Bible as a source of insight than do yours, although that was a perceptive comment you made on the thread about the “rock”–thank you.

Dismissal number 1

I assure you I have never, not once in my life, checked my brain at the door with regard to my seriousness about seeking the Lord’s will in my life, including studying and loving the Bible and having a thorough knowledge of it’s truths. I have attended church every Sunday of my life without fail, unless I was too sick to attend (perhaps six to a dozen times in my life being too sick to attend.) So we’re not talking about shallow, baseless belief or hot and cold streaks in life. We’re talking about seeking to understand God’s purposes, and indeed desiring and gaining an understanding of those purposes and that they may differ for me than for you or anyone else.

Testimony number 1

God deals with each of humankind one-to-one, at wherever they are.

If you need archeological evidence, fine–you have it. Keep it, and love it. As I wrote before more generally, it gives you exactly what you want.

Dismissal number 2

BYU is a scholastic institution. Since archeology is a scholastic pursuit, students there have just as much right as anyone else to explore archeology, if they are so inclined.

Have a nice day.

Dismissal number 3

And we have a combo:

Evidently you haven’t paid much attention to 1 Corinthians 2 which the LDS apostles often quote. Why in the world you would think they would want people to join the LDS church with a person’s “evidence” for joining based on either DNA or archeology, when Paul says the “wisdom of men” is contrary to gaining revealed knowledge, is beyond me other than your unfamiliarity with the either 1 Corinthians 2 or with what it teaches about the essence of revealed knowledge.

What you seem to fail to understand about the buildings being built near the LDS Salt Lake Temple is that those buildings will be (and are) “self-sustaining” as an investment, meaning the resources used to build them were funded by capital investment funds generated from prior investments (not from LDS members tithing), and those buildings are an investment for a future revenue stream, with projections for that revenue stream that were studied in detail before the decisions were made relating to making such an investment. (This is how a good growing economy works–businesses become willing to invest when they project a revenue stream from their investment. A robust economy thrives in that kind of environment. A stagnant economy happens when businesses pull their resources because they see no long-term benefit from investing.)

If “new members” came into the LDS church from archeological “proof” or from DNA “proof”, they might last six months to a year in the church, and would fall away when they found out that they had joined an organization that has none of the bells and whistles of physical evidence to keep going back to, but instead expects a person to “build their house of testimony and faith” on revealed knowledge and a personal, intimate, ongoing relationship with the Lord, Jesus Christ.

Dismissal number 4, and testimony number 2, and that is just from a few of the last posts.

Anyone detecting a trend here besides me?

You know, even Jesus accomadated Thomas when he doubted. Thomas after all put his hands in Jesus’ side. Wouldn’t he do the same for the lds by giving them some sort of “proof”?

It makes it appear that the lds jesus is all talk, unlike the Jesus of the Bible.

 

[ParkerD]

Again, BYU archaeologists can do this themselves, including starting with the Hill itself. The central question of this thread, why they do not do this, has yet to be adequately answered. The LDS church has academic outlets for such research, and it is not done. Various LDS authorities have made statements on that land being Book of Mormon land, and nothing is done to see whether there is merit to such statements.

Seriously, what evidence do you think would be on the hill itself, if it was just a look-out location where the person hikes up to see out over the surrounding landscape? The fighting wasn’t on the hill itself. Any archeologist who wasted their time by digging on the hill itself would not evidently be very scholarly, because they would have started from a premise that is an incorrect premise.

 

[Catholic20064]

Which brings us back to the central question of the thread:

If the Hill Cumorah area in New York is the one and only geographical spot that the LDS church knows for sure had lots of Jaredite/Nephite/Lamanite activity and millions of people died in battle thereabouts, then WHY don’t they excavate?

They don’t have to hang around waiting for their god to stop hiding the evidence, they can dig it up for themselves. WHY DON’T THEY DO IT?

We excavate bible sites and it does not destroy anyone’s faith. In fact it gives great understanding of the historical and cultural milieu in which the events took place, increasing our bond with the ancient faithful. That is good for faith.

There is absolutely no valid excuse for the LDS not excavating the Cumorah area.

Unless, of course, their leaders already know that there is nothing to find.

I think they probably think it would be a waste of time – the remains would probably be slippery and if any excavations were attempted the remains would simply slip further into the earth just like the buried treasure did when Joseph was trying to find it with his rock. So they have the experience of Joseph Smith to help them understand it would be an unprofitable venture.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Seriously, what evidence do you think would be on the hill itself, if it was just a look-out location where the person hikes up to see out over the surrounding landscape? The fighting wasn’t on the hill itself. Any archeologist who wasted their time by digging on the hill itself would not evidently be very scholarly, because they would have started from a premise that is an incorrect premise.

So they wouldn’t find the cave that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith allegedly saw, with the Sword of Laban and “wagon loads” of plates?

 

[Catholic20064]

So they wouldn’t find the cave that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith allegedly saw, with the Sword of Laban and “wagon loads” of plates?

I should point out that this account is second hand at best. I don’t think Oliver or Joseph ever said any such thing in public. Brigham Young mentioned it, but there is no telling who he might have heard it from. I don’t really give his account much credibility – Joseph claimed to have been led to the plates which were under a rock on the hill, not in a cave. That’s really the only firsthand description we have of the plates.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

So they wouldn’t find the cave that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith allegedly saw, with the Sword of Laban and “wagon loads” of plates?

The’ll find it if they believe in an “imaginary” cave, using words like “I could almost see a cave in my mind” and “I could almost make out lots of plats in my mind.”

 

[SirThomasMore]

Seriously, what evidence do you think would be on the hill itself, if it was just a look-out location where the person hikes up to see out over the surrounding landscape? The fighting wasn’t on the hill itself. Any archeologist who wasted their time by digging on the hill itself would not evidently be very scholarly, because they would have started from a premise that is an incorrect premise.

It was YOUR “prophets” that said the battles happened on the hill. I see you disagree with them. That puts you in apostasy

 

[Returning_Home]

John 20:29

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Are you sure that’s translated correctly and not a part of the Bible missing many ‘plain and precious things?’ No, actually you have no idea.

Fail.