Continued from the previous post regarding additional comments made by theorists regarding their interpretation of the information regarding claims that North America is the location of Lehi’s Land of Promise). The Third point regarding the hill in Manchester being the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, and the assertion that the Book of Mormon places a town or city nearby the hill, it should be note that such a claim is spurious since there is no mention of such in the scriptural record.
In Book of Mormon times, there was no city around the Hill Cumorah
In fact, Mormon and Moroni make it clear there was no city around the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon—at least they never said there was one, or inferred that there was such.
The first mention of the Hill Cumorah in Lehi’s Land of Promise is found in Mormon 6: “And now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites. And it came to pass that we did march forth before the Lamanites. And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle” (Mormon 6:1-2, emphasis added).
In addition, the best description of the Hill Cumorah in Lehi’s Land of Promise is also found in Mormon 6: “We did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites” (Mormon 6:4, emphasis added).
Note there is no mention of any settlement, town or city around the Hill Cumorah. The hill is also mentioned in chronological events:
1. At the end of 80th year (Mormon 5:6)
2. Three hundred and eighty and four years had passed away, we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah” (Mormon 6:5, emphasis added);
Mormon burying the plates (all but those he gave to Moroni) before the final battle at Cumorah
3. “When we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old…therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni” (Moromn 6:6, emphasis added).
4. “We having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down” (Mormon 6:11, emphasis added)
5. “After the great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed” (Mormon 8:2, emphasis added)
Once again, note there is no mention of any development around the Hill Cumorah. In fact, if one thinks about it with any equitable manner, coming to a town, village or city at Cumorah with at least an army of 230,000 people (not to mention the extensive amount of non-combatants, i.e., the old, infirmed, children, and many women), a people in a city would be overwhelmed by the sudden arrival and unable to handle the requirements of a quarter of a million people.
It would not take long for the army to use up whatever natural resources or food supplies of the city that might exist. Scuffles would, obviously, break out, turmoil would exist and both military and civilian leaders would be hard-pressed to maintain control.
Not only is there no mention of a city, it is highly unlikely that any such development or city existed anywhere near the Hill Cumorah.
Sometimes the farmers did build a wall out of the rocks they took from their planting fields, but stacked them in piles—called cairns
As mentioned earlier, the argument North American theorists (both Heartland and Great Lakes models) use to show their beliefs and opinions to be backed by the scriptural record and their claims, are erroneous. The one, though, that seems to have the most questionable talking points are the so-called stone walls found in New England and upstate New York, though mostly in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Theorists who have their opinions about North America being Lehi’s Land of Promise, often develop them from viewing maps, hearing someone state their opinion about an area, or just plain supposition. However, quite often if they would have “boots on the ground” regarding their claims, they would never make them.
As an example, North American theorists point to the many “rock walls” found in New England, and scattered close around that area. Despite Mormon stating that Capt. Moroni “had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land” (Alma 48:8, emphasis added), they proceed to show a scattering of rocks, or low stacks of rocks, claiming this supports Mormon’s statement.
However, when one tarries long enough in New England, they find another story altogether. Now New England has really rocky soil. When European settlers arrived in New England, they set about clearing the land for agriculture. As they cleared it, however, they kept turning up rocks. What were they supposed to do with all these rocks? They built walls that served a variety of purposes, primarily as property lines and windbreaks. Sometimes they were also used to demarcate fields growing different crops, or to keep livestock in a given area. They also served as the foundations for settlers’ homes, and many old farmhouses and barns have sturdy fieldstone foundations to this day.
Some of the farm demarcation walls built after the Europeans arrived
In fact, New England has so many short stone walls, typically under three feet in height, though some are as high as 3½ feet, it is almost impossible to go anywhere outside a townhship and not see dozens in the first mile or so.
As for the stone walls in the middle of the woods? While there’s much talk by theorists that these walls could not have been borders or divisional lines, the outsider (not New Englander) has little knowledge of the area’s history as compared to its seemingly unchanged present. However, since the early 1800s, people have been leaving farming communities, which are losing populations, and old farms are often left abandoned—which have become overgrown and merged into part of the growing forests. This has resulted in there being almost no “old growth”—that is, current forests in the region, particularly in southern New England, especially Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, as well as elsewhere, were once fields, now thickly overgrown, and those walls were once what demarcated those fields. Sometimes the foundation of an old farmhouse will be stumbled over.
The point is, those rock walls that authors, theorists, historians and others have tried to place in an ancient time with an unknown people, simply have been around since the Europeans entered the land. After all, there is little history or factual data to suggest any of the indigenous “Indian” tribes that were known for clearing large fields and planting voluminous crops, which is why they did not have much in the way of stones for building—if building is what they intended to do, though that is questionable, given the state of their construction for many centuries.
Thus, it cannot be used by these theorists that stone walls are evidence that these were Nephite lands and were built at the direction of Capt. Moroni as many theorists claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment