Shulem Cracked the Book of Mormon Code, the Land of Nephi is now revealed! See for yourself! The Golden Key!

[Marcus]

... I think I may have steered things away from where you want things to continue.

Nah. This is Shulem's thread.

I’ve said my piece so I’m willing to let things go where they may at this point.

How gracious of you.

[MG 2.0]

I read it. The main thrust of the essay is that the Two Cumorah stance/position that some members of the church take isn’t a position one is pressed to take if you’re a ‘south of the border’ kind of guy.

Now I'm having some doubts you read the article also. I'm no expert in this, but it's pretty clear the paper doesn't argue for the 'two cumorah' stance but rather only a single cumorah.

You’re getting real close. Good job.

Read what I said. That’s what I said. What I said. What I said.

Got it?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

snip

Nothing there.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In the context within which I am saying it I don’t see it as a personal insult. It’s just a matter of fact.
...I stand by my statement, he is of no concern to me....

Yup.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

... I think I may have steered things away from where you want things to continue.

Nah. This is Shulem's thread.

I’ve said my piece so I’m willing to let things go where they may at this point.

How gracious of you.

Thanks for your moderation.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, it appears MG didn’t actually read the article he linked. Why am I not damned surprised? This is actually too funny. Instead of reading the article he linked, and asked us to read, he complained about the person who simply asked him to copy and paste a portion of the essay he found contextual to this thread.

He couldn’t do it.

Once again, that Mormon priesthood holder lied, acted in bad faith, and threw a fit when found out.

Mormons. -_-

- Doc

I read it.

No. You didn’t. You’re lying again. Goddamn you Mormons are awfully comfortable lying through your teeth.

- Doc

[Marcus]

I read it.

No. You didn’t. You’re lying again. Goddamn you Mormons are awfully comfortable lying through your teeth.

- Doc

It's getting pretty pathological.

I read it. The main thrust of the essay is that the Two Cumorah stance/position that some members of the church take isn’t a position one is pressed to take if you’re a ‘south of the border’ kind of guy.

That's not the "main thrust of the essay" at ALL. He misses the entire point, but that's what happens when you Google, skim, then put up a link and tell others to read it.

Here's the rationale the author of mg's recommended essay puts forward to justify using ideas from Priest's 1830s book, Ancient Antiquities, even though they have been decisively debunked:

Many have argued that the Book of Mormon, which recounts the course of civilizations in America derived from biblical peoples, merely reflects common early American theories regarding the ancient ruins so visible in the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys.

Intent on refuting such ideas, Joseph Smith’s modern defenders have failed to see that the evidence behind these early theories might actually be invoked in support of the Book of Mormon’s claims to ancient origins and connections with ancient Near Eastern cultures.

So, the author thinks debunked theories might "actually be invoked" as a way to support Book of Mormon historicity.

Why? What would be the point of doing that? Other than to dupe the more gullible LDS? But mg says there are some good ideas here. : D

[MG 2.0]

No. You didn’t. You’re lying again. Goddamn you Mormons are awfully comfortable lying through your teeth.

- Doc

It's getting pretty pathological.

I read it. The main thrust of the essay is that the Two Cumorah stance/position that some members of the church take isn’t a position one is pressed to take if you’re a ‘south of the border’ kind of guy.

That's not the "main thrust of the essay" at ALL. He misses the entire point, but that's what happens when you Google, skim, then put up a link and tell others to read it.

Here's the rationale the author of mg's recommended essay puts forward to justify using ideas from Priest's 1830s book, Ancient Antiquities, even though they have been decisively debunked:

Many have argued that the Book of Mormon, which recounts the course of civilizations in America derived from biblical peoples, merely reflects common early American theories regarding the ancient ruins so visible in the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys.

Intent on refuting such ideas, Joseph Smith’s modern defenders have failed to see that the evidence behind these early theories might actually be invoked in support of the Book of Mormon’s claims to ancient origins and connections with ancient Near Eastern cultures.

So, the author thinks debunked theories might "actually be invoked" as a way to support Book of Mormon historicity.

Why? What would be the point of doing that? Other than to dupe the more gullible LDS? But mg says there are some good ideas here. : D

Your cut and paste is a footnote found in this paragraph within the essay:

Just as early Spanish descriptions of Central American peoples and ruins have shed light on a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon,[63] so might the records of early explorers, missionaries, and settlers in North America shed some light on a possible Jaredite and Nephite backcountry in the north. Such sources and resources have received very little attention in the past from trained scholars, some of whom have quickly dismissed them as “very old gossip and folklore,” “old hearsay,” or a “credulous mishmash of opinions.”[64] This charge, to a degree, is true; one reading these sources quickly finds himself buried in suppositions about Persians, Tartars, antediluvians, and other explanations growing out of the sources on ancient peoples available to nineteenth-century Americans. At the same time, many of the sites and artifacts are still around today and have subsequently been classified as representative of the Adena and Hopewell cultures mentioned above.[65] While we might be inclined to disagree with early Americans’ interpretations of what they saw, their descriptions of the ruins, artifacts, native vocabularies, native practices, and native traditions that they found so suggestive of biblical and classical civilizations constitute an important source for understanding pre-Columbian America.[66] At the very least, such sources deserve the careful scrutiny of Book of Mormon scholars trained in archaeology, anthropology, ethnography, history, linguistic and comparative religion before they are rejected as irrelevant to Book of Mormon studies.[67]

The two paragraphs previous to this one tell us:

However plausible one may or may not consider the idea of a New York Cumorah to be, it should be noted here that two distinct cultures did flourish in the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys during Jaredite and Nephite times. Remains of the earlier of the two, the Adena, date from around 500 BC to AD 100; remains of the latter, the Hopewell, date from around 100 BC to AD 400.[56] While neither culture appears to have attained to the level of urbanization we read about in much of the Book of Mormon,[57] a Hopewellian effigy pipe carved in the shape of a toucan taking food from a hand, and a caiman-shaped copper cutout from Pike County, Illinois, indicate contact of some sort between these people and Central American peoples during Book of Mormon times.[58]
Could these cultures represent a distant, relatively sparsely settled Jaredite and Nephite backcountry or hinterland that developed over the course of these peoples’ histories (for examples, see Alma 63:4, 9; Helaman 3:3–8), or could they reflect the presence or influence of Book of Mormon peoples or traders in the area? Less dramatically, might these areas simply have been within the purview of Jaredites and Nephites? The dates of the remains, their location in a natural corridor extending north from Central America, and the physical evidence for contact with that area are certainly suggestive of such possibilities. So, too, is the nature of their artifacts and remains, which include both barley and maize (compare Mosiah 9:9), strings of pearls (compare 4 Nephi 1:24), and numerous copper headplates and breastplates (compare Mosiah 8:10; Alma 43:38; Helaman 1:14; 3 Nephi 4:7; Ether 15:15).[59] The orientation and dimensions of many Hopewell mounds and earthworks also indicate an advanced understanding of astronomy and mathematics.[60] Suggestive, too, at least for those willing to take seriously the possibility that the final battles were fought in upstate New York, is the fact that the northeasternmost sites for both cultures are located near Lake Ontario.[61] With a text that allows for “towns and villages” lying some distance north of the great urban centers near the narrow neck of land, the remains of these two cultures beg the attention of those Book of Mormon scholars who have traditionally confined their researches to Central America.[62]

If you read the complete essay you find that the author gives reason to consider the possible fact that the great final battles in the Book of Mormon didn’t take place ‘south of the border’ but up in the region in which we find the modern Cumorah.

Interesting stuff.

Thanks Marcus. We might get some others to read and consider some of the salient points made in this essay.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/vol-10-no-2-2009/cu ... can-theory

I appreciate that in this instance you have tried to add to the conversation rather than detract. That’s a sign of maturity.

Shulem ought to love this essay, at least in some respects. It does Oliver proud.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

*snip temper tantrum

[Marcus]

Thanks for trying again mentalgymnast, but when you're in a hole you should stop digging.

here is what was stated that generated the footnote I quoted:

While we might be inclined to disagree with early Americans’ interpretations of what they saw, their descriptions of the ruins, artifacts, native vocabularies, native practices, and native traditions that they found so suggestive of biblical and classical civilizations constitute an important source for understanding pre-Columbian America.[66]

The above nonsense led to the footnote, which recommended a debunked source. This idea that native Americans had to have come from "biblical and classical civilizations" is about as racist as you can get. Those racist ideas that dismiss native american civilizations as being unable to generate the things listed on their own are exactly the racist ideas Smith built into the Book of Mormon. In other words, your essay author says the sources of racism quoted "constitute an important source."

No, they don't. Your recommended essay is based on offensive, long-debunked drivel. But keep insisting you read it and recommend it to Shulem. It only reflects badly on you.