rcrocket wrote:What's your point. Almost all members of the church accept those quotes, as do I, and reject an LGT theory which would put Cumorah elsewhere.
No general authority has ever supported the LGT theory, at least which would reposition Cumorah, except for perhaps Elder Oaks who is open to the suggestion. But I think this little detail shows the freedom permitted members to discuss and promote different point of views and the Book of Mormon's historical basis.
rcrocket
If you believe all of those supposed battles from the Book of Mormon story happened at the NY Cumorah, then please show us where is the evidence??
Only a fool would believe 2,230,000 men died in battle around that hill in NY, especially when there isn't a single shred of evidence.
You know, that is something that has intrigued me.
I haven't read all of the Book of Mormon, but with having a TBM wife, I have read quite a bit of it.
I always wondered where all the people went? Surely there must be mass graves somewhere? What about all the trash? Kind of gross, but where were their bathrooms located? What about all the weaponry? Are there any sort of buildings left behind? What about fires?
Surely, there must be some sort of physical evidence left from these events?
I mean, we know where things happened in the Middle East, Turkey, etc. because we can find the evidence, from many, many thousand of years ago. We've found evidence of people that lived on this continent from over 10,000 years ago.
We can't even find stuff from less than 2000 years ago in a small part of NY state?
I'm sorry, but that just plain doesn't make sense.
The book 1491 explains that huge amounts of this material were excavated from mounds, but unfortunately almost all of it done by farmers plowing their fields level. Some of it made its way into museums. The book "The History of Tennessee, from its earliest settlemet to the present time," written by a justice in the Tennessee Supreme Court and an amateur archeologist, documents weaponry and iron implements (well, so he claims; he says the evidence is there but it rusted away) removed from mounds in Tennessee, along with evidence of copper or bronze armour. He also documents the finds of coins. The book was written in 1820, and is cited by the Tanners as evidence that Joseph Smith had some source for his theories (there is not evidence it was in a library in New York). The book is available as a reprint on Amazon.
But, the interesting point of this 1820 book is that it explains the state of the science before professionals took over; farmers plowed the mounds and if they found anything interesting, they might try to recover it and sell it.
Today, of the tens of thousands of burial mounds that were once extant, there are only a handful. Driving through the area, I have come across tourist signs to a mound here and there, and the guideposts indicated that the one or two survivors are examples of the tens of thousands which used to exist.
rcrocket
What a crock.
You have nothing to stand on.
Show us the evidence. You are blowing smoke.
I'd suppose that you also believe the BS from Young and others that there is a giant cave in the NY Cumorah?
rcrocket wrote:The high-population count theory explained in Charles Mann, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus is the source for my position about high populations in the New York mounds area. There has also been a Discovery Channel documentary explaining the high population count theory for New England.
I also note that no less an personage as Nathaniel Philbrick supports the high population count theory for New England in Philbrick, Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War (2007).
This theory both explains the disappearance of the burial mounds, the population that would have been expected among the Natives of the area, what happened to them, their warfare and sophistication. I think it is probably a minority theory but until Teddy Roosevelt's granddaugther, an anthropologist, started voicing the theory in the 1940s, nobody believed it.
rcrocket
Would you please explain the "high population theory", as I have not read, nor heard of this book?
The book was a best seller. Simply put, the high population theory explains that there is little virgin forest in north and south America; that before Columbus there were tens of millions of natives which inhabited the continent, that the great plains are the result of forestry burning and management to control buffalo populations, that the New England forests were largely cleared for cultivation; that the Brazilian rain forests were cleared and burned for the cultivation of food-bearing trees. That Indian population in the Ohio Valley was extraordinarily high; that they built large cities of wood and earthen embankments; that Hernan De Soto saw much of this (and, indeed, his journal supports the view); that his release of swine decimated the population; that European explorers relying on De Soto's account were confused by the almost complete vacancy of the Ohio Valley, etc etc and etc.
Mann authored an article for the Atlantic which summarized his view. The article does not do his research justice, but it is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200203/mann
ozemc wrote: You know, that is something that has intrigued me.
I haven't read all of the Book of Mormon, but with having a TBM wife, I have read quite a bit of it.
I always wondered where all the people went? Surely there must be mass graves somewhere? What about all the trash? Kind of gross, but where were their bathrooms located? What about all the weaponry? Are there any sort of buildings left behind? What about fires?
Surely, there must be some sort of physical evidence left from these events?
I mean, we know where things happened in the Middle East, Turkey, etc. because we can find the evidence, from many, many thousand of years ago. We've found evidence of people that lived on this continent from over 10,000 years ago.
We can't even find stuff from less than 2000 years ago in a small part of NY state?
I'm sorry, but that just plain doesn't make sense.
The book 1491 explains that huge amounts of this material were excavated from mounds, but unfortunately almost all of it done by farmers plowing their fields level. Some of it made its way into museums. The book "The History of Tennessee, from its earliest settlemet to the present time," written by a justice in the Tennessee Supreme Court and an amateur archeologist, documents weaponry and iron implements (well, so he claims; he says the evidence is there but it rusted away) removed from mounds in Tennessee, along with evidence of copper or bronze armour. He also documents the finds of coins. The book was written in 1820, and is cited by the Tanners as evidence that Joseph Smith had some source for his theories (there is not evidence it was in a library in New York). The book is available as a reprint on Amazon.
But, the interesting point of this 1820 book is that it explains the state of the science before professionals took over; farmers plowed the mounds and if they found anything interesting, they might try to recover it and sell it.
Today, of the tens of thousands of burial mounds that were once extant, there are only a handful. Driving through the area, I have come across tourist signs to a mound here and there, and the guideposts indicated that the one or two survivors are examples of the tens of thousands which used to exist.
rcrocket
So, we have "claims" from some judge in TN, of which there is no physical evidence, as it had "rusted away". How convenient. Sounds like some claims surrounding Roswell, NM.
I seriously doubt that "tens of thousand" of these mounds used to exist, as it did take a llong time to build them. I have toured the Etowah indian mounds in North GA extensively, and it took quite a while to make those. Tens of thousand would necessarily take a long time.
We were talking about the area around the hill Cumorah in NY state. If there were truly over 2,000,000 people that died and were buried there, only approximately 2000 years ago, there would be far too much for farmers to have excavated in the time since they began farming there. Surely it can't all have been dug up?
Last edited by Anonymous on Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk
Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
I'd suppose that you also believe the BS from Young and others that there is a giant cave in the NY Cumorah?
FOOL.
I think the book 1491 is fairly good summary of the evidence. He cites sources and experts. I trust it to your good judgment. His book is simply a re-stating of the scientific literature to date on the subject. It may be foolish, and I may be a fool to cite it, but it is certainly interesting.
I'm not sure what the cave business has to do with my point. If you link it together I would be glad to respond. Until then, not.
ozemc wrote:So, we have "claims" from some judge in TN, of which there is no physical evidence, as it had "rusted away". How convenient. Sounds like some claims surrounding Roswell, NM.
I seriously doubt that "tens of thousand" of these mounds used to exist, as it did take a llong time to build them. I have toured the Etowah indian mouns in North GA extensively, and it took quite a while to make those. Tens of thousand would necessarily take a long time.
We were talking about the area around the hill Cumorah in NY state. If there were truly over 2,000,000 people that died and were buried there, only approximately 2000 years ago, there would be far too much for farmers to have excavated in the time since they began farming there. Surely it can't all have been dug up?
Hey, I cite sources. The 1820 book I have cited was the state of the art; the author devoted a lifetime to the pursuit of archaeology in the mound reason of the Tennessee Valley. To some extent, one has to give some credit to contemporaneous observations (I was at a mound; I excavated it; this is what I found; and so forth). To completely disregard eyewitness evidence (and his book also recounts second-hand evidence) seems to ignore the scientific method. Archeologists writing research papers on a site will do library research and include a survey of past literature, so I don't think it unreasonable for me to cite it.
But, if you want to dismiss it completely out of hand, be my guest.
I'd suppose that you also believe the BS from Young and others that there is a giant cave in the NY Cumorah?
FOOL.
I think the book 1491 is fairly good summary of the evidence. He cites sources and experts. I trust it to your good judgment. His book is simply a re-stating of the scientific literature to date on the subject. It may be foolish, and I may be a fool to cite it, but it is certainly interesting.
I'm not sure what the cave business has to do with my point. If you link it together I would be glad to respond. Until then, not.
rcrocket
Young and others made statements in the same books that they made statements about the location of Cumorah. Do you not believe these additional statements by past leaders?
ozemc wrote:So, we have "claims" from some judge in TN, of which there is no physical evidence, as it had "rusted away". How convenient. Sounds like some claims surrounding Roswell, NM.
I seriously doubt that "tens of thousand" of these mounds used to exist, as it did take a llong time to build them. I have toured the Etowah indian mouns in North GA extensively, and it took quite a while to make those. Tens of thousand would necessarily take a long time.
We were talking about the area around the hill Cumorah in NY state. If there were truly over 2,000,000 people that died and were buried there, only approximately 2000 years ago, there would be far too much for farmers to have excavated in the time since they began farming there. Surely it can't all have been dug up?
Hey, I cite sources. The 1820 book I have cited was the state of the art; the author devoted a lifetime to the pursuit of archaeology in the mound reason of the Tennessee Valley. To some extent, one has to give some credit to contemporaneous observations (I was at a mound; I excavated it; this is what I found; and so forth). To completely disregard eyewitness evidence (and his book also recounts second-hand evidence) seems to ignore the scientific method. Archeologists writing research papers on a site will do library research and include a survey of past literature, so I don't think it unreasonable for me to cite it.
But, if you want to dismiss it completely out of hand, be my guest.
rcrocket
No, I don't dismiss it completely, but we are talking about one book, written in 1820. The state of the science has certainly changed since then, and I would necessarily think that any of the claims of that many mounds could be validated. I.E. there would be evidence that they had existed and were dug up. Also, I would think that, using the crude tools available for that time period would indicate that there would be something left. Again, my question, it can't have all been dug up, can it?
Especially at a site such as Cumorah, which supposedly had so many people there. If there were millions, I would think it hgihly improbable, if not impossible that everything had been unearthed.
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk
Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
Polygamy Porter wrote: Young and others made statements in the same books that they made statements about the location of Cumorah. Do you not believe these additional statements by past leaders?
Well, that's a model of clarity. Can't type without a game controller in your hand?
Just read my opening post on this thread and you'll see what I believe about the location of Cumorah and what the brethren have said.
ozemc wrote:No, I don't dismiss it completely, but we are talking about one book, written in 1820. The state of the science has certainly changed since then, and I would necessarily think that any of the claims of that many mounds could be validated. I.E. there would be evidence that they had existed and were dug up. Also, I would think that, using the crude tools available for that time period would indicate that there would be something left. Again, my question, it can't have all been dug up, can it?
Especially at a site such as Cumorah, which supposedly had so many people there. If there were millions, I would think it hgihly improbable, if not impossible that everything had been unearthed.
If I chose to do so, I could cite many many more books just like the one I have cited. I happen to try and cite books I own. But, there are many more. But, I can understand why you would want to simply dismiss it out of hand without a thought because it doesn't fit what you think you know about the history of the Native Americans.
ozemc wrote:Especially at a site such as Cumorah, which supposedly had so many people there. If there were millions, I would think it hgihly improbable, if not impossible that everything had been unearthed.
I am waiting for rcrocket to pull the "god hid the evidence" card in a last ditch effort to justify his foolish belief.