Looking for " other side " of Mormanism

[PaulDupre]

That’s a good point, Paul. But you have to admit that people are always naming new places with names from their old lands. Happens all the time.

If Moroni had the plates hidden in a hill called “Cumorah,” collected them, wandered for 30 years, and then buried them in another hill, it would be natural for him to call that hill by the same name. It served the same function, after all.

Almost all the work of abridgment had already been done by the time Moroni took the plates and went wandering. It’s not too big of a stretch to figure he took his Father’s plates and Ether’s plates (there were only 24 of them), tacked a few things on the end of what his father had done, and buried them.

Which is the more likely and reasonable scenario?

 

[BDawg]

Another point to note about a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon.

3 Nephi has a description of a great destruction that PERFECTLY describes a pyroclastic volcanic eruption. And guess what? A big volcanic disaster did happen in the area of Mesoamerica that LDS scholars think were the BofM lands, just about 2000 years ago.

And guess what else? There are no volcanoes of any kind in the Great Lakes region where Joseph Smith was. See Jeff Lindsay’s page here for a summary.

There was an excellent article about this in BYU Studies by LDS geologist Bart Kowallis, back in 1998.

 

[BartBurk]

That’s a good point, Paul. But you have to admit that people are always naming new places with names from their old lands. Happens all the time.

If Moroni had the plates hidden in a hill called “Cumorah,” collected them, wandered for 30 years, and then buried them in another hill, it would be natural for him to call that hill by the same name. It served the same function, after all.

Almost all the work of abridgment had already been done by the time Moroni took the plates and went wandering. It’s not too big of a stretch to figure he took his Father’s plates and Ether’s plates (there were only 24 of them), tacked a few things on the end of what his father had done, and buried them.

But there is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon which would support such an assertion. Stick with the text of the Book of Mormon. It gives absolutely no indication there were two different hills – apologists have had to invent that as a way to justify their theory. And why have they had to invent it? Why can’t they just accept what the Book of Mormon says? The reason is simple – if they accept what the Book of Mormon actually says then the Book of Mormon is wrong about too many things to be true.

 

[majick275]

Not so. For instance, see this talk by Dallin Oaks. Here’s a relevant quote.

For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the “Archaeology of the Book of Mormon.” In retrospect, I think it should have been labelled something like “An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon.” Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

note that he is careful to espouse this view. he merely states it as a “what if” while not overtly endorsing it. during the process he gives us an essay by a sci-fi author and a lot of legalese basically amounting to you don’t need to “prove” anything about the BoM cuz you can just accept it on faith and eventually it’ll be proven right.

 

[RAR]

If it is true that the Nephites never ventured outside a small area in Mesoamerica, then how do you explain Moroni burying the plates in New York?

To piggy-back on that… wasn’t Moroni the last of the Lamanites and why wouldn’t the Nephites (who are present day Indians?) have their own records of all this? Why would all this have to have come to us from a conquered tribe/race? Or do I have all this mixed up?

RAR

 

[Jerusha]

My chronology sets “Jesus coming to the Americas” as His Presence in the Eucharist, about 1052, when a bishop was appointed. It WAS a big thing. Third Nephi is one of the biggest pieces of BS in the book.

3 Nephi has a description of a great destruction that PERFECTLY describes a pyroclastic volcanic eruption. .

And guess what else? There are no volcanoes of any kind in the Great Lakes region where Joseph Smith was.

Of course, can’t you smell BS?

 

[BDawg]

Which is the more likely and reasonable scenario?

That depends on what other evidence exists, of course. So the bottom line is that your point isn’t conclusive. Which was my point.

 

[PaulDupre]

To piggy-back on that… wasn’t Moroni the last of the Lamanites and why wouldn’t the Nephites (who are present day Indians?) have their own records of all this? Why would all this have to have come to us from a conquered tribe/race? Or do I have all this mixed up?

RAR

You have it backwards. Moroni was that last of the Nephites. They were wiped out by the Lamanites (who are present-day Indians).

The Lamanites apparently had no records. According to the BoM their dark skins made them incapable of writing.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

That’s a good point, Paul. But you have to admit that people are always naming new places with names from their old lands. Happens all the time.

If Moroni had the plates hidden in a hill called “Cumorah,” collected them, wandered for 30 years, and then buried them in another hill, it would be natural for him to call that hill by the same name. It served the same function, after all.

Almost all the work of abridgment had already been done by the time Moroni took the plates and went wandering. It’s not too big of a stretch to figure he took his Father’s plates and Ether’s plates (there were only 24 of them), tacked a few things on the end of what his father had done, and buried them.

Hello BDawg,

Considering all your insight and the many other previous arguments to defend Mormanism, This one ( " this is not too big a stretch " ) is ( Respectfully ) an enormous stretch to say the least.

God bless,
Carl

 

[majick275]

let’s not forget the claim that inside the hill cumorah in new york is a whole room full of the records and the sword of laban as well.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

let’s not forget the claim that inside the hill cumorah in new york is a whole room full of the records and the sword of laban as well.

Hi Majick,

Not to pile on,

The sword of laban made it through the elemants and time, however in the account of J Lindsay ( great last battle that put an extermination to the nephite people) thousands of men with heavy armor, shields, spears, etc, etc. All seems to be gone without a trace.

Peace,
Carl

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s a good point, Paul. But you have to admit that people are always naming new places with names from their old lands. Happens all the time.

If Moroni had the plates hidden in a hill called “Cumorah,” collected them, wandered for 30 years, and then buried them in another hill, it would be natural for him to call that hill by the same name. It served the same function, after all.

Considering how thoroughly the Nephites seemed to explain every little thing, it seems more likely that Moroni would have pointed out that it was a different hill with the same name, so as to avoid confusion.

Besides, it was really Joseph Smith who identifed the hill near Palmyra as Cumorah - apparently because Moroni during one of their many conversations identified it as such.

 

[Jerusha]

Sigh!! Well, I got done with what I had to do on the internet today. Ahhh, fun debate. Sort of made what I HAD to get done take a lot longer.

 

[zerinus]

Hi Majick,

Not to pile on,

The sword of laban made it through the elemants and time, however in the account of J Lindsay ( great last battle that put an extermination to the nephite people) thousands of men with heavy armor, shields, spears, etc, etc. All seems to be gone without a trace.

Peace,
Carl

The sword of Laban was one of the relics of the Nephrites that God decided to preserve for future generations, just like the Liahona and the brass plates of Laban. There is a difference between a sword that is kept in a museum and one that is left on the field and exposed to the elements. That one can rust very quickly and disappear into the soil in a short period of time. Their armor and shields were most likely made of leather, which would disintegrate even more quickly.

zerinus

 

[AMDGtoo]

Moroni was that last of the Nephites.

Paul, on one of these threads, it was said that there were three Nephites still roaming the earth. If so, then how can Moroni be the last?

I am getting confused, so I can just imagine how the poor “Mormon in the pew” must feel if he/she tries to think of this. It stretches sanity to the breaking point.

 

[RAR]

The Lamanites apparently had no records. According to the BoM their dark skins made them incapable of writing.

Really???

Is that explanation from the BoM?

So the Lamanites had no interest in preserving the history of such a great battle? What ever happened to “history is written by the victors?” (by the way, I hate that saying)

RAR

 

[PaulDupre]

The sword of Laban was one of the relics of the Nephrites that God decided to preserve for future generations, just like the Liahona and the brass plates of Laban. There is a difference between a sword that is kept in a museum and one that is left on the field and exposed to the elements. That one can rust very quickly and disappear into the soil in a short period of time. Their armor and shields were most likely made of leather, which would disintegrate even more quickly.

zerinus

Alma chapters 43 and 49 describe the Nephite soldiers as having shields, breastplates and head-plates. Breastplates and head-plates would be made of metal. Otherwise why call them “plates”?

The Nephite authors certainly knew what “plates” were and what they were made of.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

Paul, on one of these threads, it was said that there were three Nephites still roaming the earth. If so, then how can Moroni be the last?

I am getting confused, so I can just imagine how the poor “Mormon in the pew” must feel if he/she tries to think of this. It stretches sanity to the breaking point.

Hi AMDGtoo,

Not to answer for paul ( sorry ) he, Indeed is much more capable, but according to J Lindsay ( Mormon, from my OP site ) the extermination of the Nephites took place at that last great battle.

Peace,
Carl

 

[BDawg]

But there is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon which would support such an assertion. Stick with the text of the Book of Mormon. It gives absolutely no indication there were two different hills – apologists have had to invent that as a way to justify their theory. And why have they had to invent it? Why can’t they just accept what the Book of Mormon says? The reason is simple – if they accept what the Book of Mormon actually says then the Book of Mormon is wrong about too many things to be true.

Bart, the Book of Mormon doesn’t say anything about where Moroni finally buried the plates.

 

[BDawg]

The Lamanites apparently had no records. According to the BoM their dark skins made them incapable of writing.

That was both untrue and uncalled-for, Paul. At one point, the Lamanites were depicted as much more righteous than the Nephites.

I have no problem with the idea that the Book of Mormon is a bit racist–almost all ancient cultures were. (Read the Old Testament, for crying out loud!) But let’s not exaggerate.