Hill Cumorah

[_Daniel Peterson]

.What made Moroni walk 3,000 miles over 35 years just to bury his load of treasure?

You mean, to bury a sixty-pound set of plates and a few other portable items?

I presume he was led to take them there because that's where the Smiths would be living. If one believes in a God capable of creating the universe, raising the dead, and the like, supposing that such a being could lead somebody to travel somewhat less than 100 miles per year in order to deposit something where this incredibly powerful being wanted that something deposited doesn't seem particularly extravagant.

Convoluted apologetic rationale: Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's plausible. Did Moroni have a wheelbarrow or a handcart?

You find the existence of a wheelbarrow, a handcart, a travois, or something of that sort intrinsically implausible?

Weird.

Also, where do you get the 35 years figure? I'll admit I haven't read up on this and I don't have a Book of Mormon handy.

The notes at the bottom of the page in the Book of Mormon put the final Nephite battle at ca. 385 AD and the burial of the plates at roughly 421 AD. Subtracting 385 from 421 yields 36. I was being conservative.

[_beastie]

Wow. God can inspire Moroni to walk thousands of miles, lugging heavy plates, but he can't quite inspire his modern prophets and apostles to teach correct principles about the location of such an important location as Hill Cumorah.

I guess it goes without saying that God is a cafeteria God.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So what is your position?

I've already explained it several times.

Put some of your own effort into this.

Did they pray beforehand?

Very likely.

Did God only inspire them in certain portions of their talk and not others?

Have I mentioned that I don't think that humans, including prophets, are infallible?

Use that as a starting point, and see if you can maybe figure out how I might answer that question -- or, more precisely, how I already and repeatedly have.

Did the leaders know they weren't inspired in some portions of their talk?

I would imagine if I had asked them, "Did you receive a revelation just prior to that talk regarding the GPS coordinates of the final Nephite battle?" that they would probably respond "No." Certainly, they don't seem to have claimed such a revelation. On the other hand, if I had asked them whether they felt that their theme of the ephemerality of human civilizations or the truth of the Book of Mormon or the importance for civilization of moral living (or whatever it was) came to them as they prayerfully considered their remarks, I would guess that they would probably respond "Yes." And I would agree wit them.

If leaders can't figure it out, why do you think you can?

Have I mentioned that I don't believe in human inerrancy? If I haven't, please permit me to mention it now: I don't believe in human inerrancy. In this life, to borrow a phrase, "we see through a glass, darkly." That's true for me, and it's true for prophets. (It was a prophet who used that phrase.)

Still, I doubt that, if pressed, the prophets would be utterly unable in all, most, or even many cases to distinguish tradition from inspiration. And, since I see virtually no evidence that they've claimed revelation on the subject of the location of the original Cumorah, I'm not even sure that your question is relevant.

[_The Dude]

I presume he was led to take them there because that's where the Smiths would be living. If one believes in a God capable of creating the universe, raising the dead, and the like, supposing that such a being could lead somebody to travel somewhat less than 100 miles per year in order to deposit something where this incredibly powerful being wanted that something deposited doesn't seem particularly extravagant.

Yeah, God can fit any shape or size you request, and I've already given you credit for that. It is only extravagant when there are simpler explanations, but to be fair, Joseph Smith's original tale was only slightly simpler than what you are peddling today. Everything you have to offer is a far cry from the simplest explanation of all: the Mormon Church is based on lies.

[_Tarski]

If leaders can't figure it out, why do you think you can?

Have I mentioned that I don't believe in human inerrancy? If I haven't, please permit me to mention it now: I don't believe in human inerrancy. In this life, to borrow a phrase, "we see through a glass, darkly." That's true for me, and it's true for prophets. (It was a prophet who used that phrase.) .

I don't believe in human inerrancy either. One very big thing that a human or group of humans may be mistaken about it whether something is revelation or not. Indeed, it is possible that the prophet may declare something to be a revelation and yet be wrong about precisely that. This goes for groups too. All of the First Presidency may be in error when they say the X is a revelation.


By the way, how many instances of unambiguous declarations of revelation has there been lately. We need further light and knowledge on all sorts of stuff. (I'll look elsewhere for such having had my fill of the wisdom of Mormon leaders).

[_truth dancer]

Dan wrote,

The vision of the cave of records was . . . a vision.

Hold the phone!

Aren't you really saying that, YOU interpret the many accounts of the various men seeing and being in the cave, as a vision?

I have read no evidence that any of the ten or so accounts describe the experiences of seeing and being in the cave, as a vision. Could you provide some evidence for your interpretation?

Thanks,

~dancer~

[_antishock8]

Kirtland temple corner stone? Check.

Adam-ondi-Ahman alter? Check.

Hill Cumorah stone box? Ummm... crap.

[_beastie]

To briefly sum up some of the missing posts, crocket referred to the fact that there are two schools of thought regarding NA ancient native american population called "low count" and "high count". He stated that the high counters state there were hundreds of thousands of inhabitants between the Great Plains and New England. I asked him to explain the level of social complexity that scholars generally accept existed in the New England (and mid-west) region during the main Book of Mormon period, 600 BC - 400 AD. I asked him this question because I already knew the answer. See, in considering whether or not an ancient society could have performed certain feats what really matters is population density and subsequent social complexity (referring to hierarchical layers, political power, and social differentiation). He simply reasserted that high counters believe there were hundreds of thousands of inhabitants between the Great Plains and New England, completely ignoring my question about social complexity. He also declared that my statements were irrelevant, and engaged in his normal lying slander by claiming that I have attacked his family and wife, and that I rely on internet searches for my research. In fact, when I referred him to one of my website pages that contains my research and includes dozens of references to texts on this topic, he said he wasn't interested in "internet research". We can only hope, for his clients' sake, that he pays more attention to facts and details in his law practice than he does on this board.

In response, I copied a quote from one of my books that quite explicitly stated that chiefdoms didn't arise in North America until the latter part of the first millennium AD. I provided a definition of the different levels of social complexity, and commented that the society described in the Book of Mormon required at least an advanced chiefdom, and more likely a state level of complexity. I called bob a liar for repeatedly claiming that I have attacked his family and wife when all I did was make one joke saying his wife probably had to lay back and think of England to conceive their kids. He's repeatedly lied about this point and always ignores me when I protest and insist he provide evidence of all my "attacks".

But, to sum up, there is a serious reason that most Book of Mormon apologists insist that Mesoamerica is THE setting. They seem to understand something bob does not, and that is that any feasible setting for the Book of Mormon requires a certain level of social complexity, layers of hierarchy, a certain type of political power and control, and that scholars generally accept that, during the specified Book of Mormon time range, the social complexity in North America was "kin groups". No way, no how, could this ever qualify for the Book of Mormon.