Joseph Smith’s Historically Verifiable Written Statements

“Nearly all those familiar with the early statements by the Prophet touching on potential Book of Mormon lands know that he clearly indicated them to be in North America. This is evident in the historically verified accounts wherein he declared revelation such as in the Wentworth Letter, the American Revivalist Account, the Zelph Accounts and Joseph’s handwritten letter to Emma while on Zion’s camp. In addition, the prophet revealed a Nephite altar at Adam-ondi-Ahman, mentioned the land of Manti was near Huntsville, Missouri, and revealed that this land was “the borders of the Lamanites” (see D&C 54:8). Furthermore he received revelation from the Lord for the location of Zarahemla (see D&C 125:3) and New Jerusalem (see D&C 84:1-6) which Christ Himself declared to be on Book of Mormon lands (3 Nephi 20:22), both of which are absolutely located in North America. These accounts and their indications are not speculation based, but historically documented.” By Rod Meldrum

Faithful Question

Let me ask you a question. If you have a great great… grandfather (Let’s call him Bill), who lived during the time of Joseph Smith, and Bill personally knew and loved Joseph as a true prophet of God, wouldn’t that be exciting to explore the relationship of Bill and Joseph? Maybe some of you already have that relative. As you research and find out about the close relationship that Bill has with Joseph and the other Apostles, and Bill’s testimony of these men, wouldn’t you be so pleased to find out all you could know about their relationship? (I know some of your relatives maybe didn’t like Joseph but we are not talking about those relatives).

What if you found out Bill was present with Wilford Woodruff in Nauvoo when he told Bill, as Wilford pointed out a spot on the opposite side of the Mississippi River about a mile and a half above Montrose, IA, and said “there would be a city and a temple built there and the place would be called Zarahemla.“

Would you believe Bill? Of course you would, as you had studied and found out Bill was a good active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and had prayed about it. What if it was Bill’s witness after Joseph had passed away, that he saw the countenance of Brigham Young as “it appeared that Joseph had returned and was speaking to the people?” Bill said, As Brigham Young commences speaking, hundreds in the audience believe “in every possible degree it is Joseph’s voice, and his person, in look, attitude, dress and appearance it is Joseph himself, personified.” You want to and probably would believe Bill after prayer correct? Let’s say you prayed earnestly about that fact, and you received a personal witness that you indeed know that Bill believed Wilford Woodruff and Bill was present at the talk by Brigham Young and Bill knew that Brigham was to be the next Prophet. Is that even possible? Of course it is.

I can hear the non-believers say, “I don’t believe Bill”, or “he was lying”, or “Joseph didn’t mean it was a Book of Mormon city”, or “I still believe Zarahemla was somewhere in Mesoamerica.” What is the difference between you believing Bill and others not believing him? Is it because you are related to Bill and you are biased. Or is it because you have prayed about it and studied it out and you thought it was very important to know, and you believed what Moroni told you and that you could “know the truth of all things?”

Why do many people in the Church today not want to believe Bill, or Edward Phillips, or D&C 125? Why is their heart so hard? Why is it that you believe so strongly in Bill and Joseph and others in the church don’t? It’s probably because you want to believe, and you pray in faith to believe and others may only think of their bias that Zarahemla was in Mexico or some other place. You see, to believe it takes faith, study, and prayer. This is what I believe, that the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon was indeed across the river near Montrose, Iowa. It is a part of my testimony and I don’t have a relative named Bill, but through faith I really believe this.

Now you know The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not spoken on whether the Zarahemla of D&C 125 means it was a city in the Book of Mormon, but some of the General Authorities and many members believe personally that Iowa is the place of the ancient Zarahemla. In other words knowing this is not church doctrine but it is true all the same. Is it that important you know the answer? Maybe. To me it is very important as I look for additional evidences of the Book of Mormon not just my witness of the spirit, but as Elder Holland said, “Truth borne by the Holy Spirit comes with, in effect, two manifestations, two witnesses if you will—the force of fact as well as the force of feeling.” In the same talk Elder Holland said, “but not to seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a unique, persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation and sectarian debate.” The Greatness of the Evidence By Elder Jeffrey R. Holland August 16, 2017

I believe the Book of Mormon Zarahemla is near Montrose, Iowa, just as I believe there is only one Hill Cumorah in upstate New York.

City Opposite of Nauvoo

Below is a revelation, not a statement, not an idea, not conjecture, a revelation. If the Lord planned the name Zarahemla as just another name and not one in the Book of Mormon, the Lord may have called it in D&C 125 the New Zarahemla, signifying a different location as in the city of the New Jerusalem.

D&C 125:3-4

“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, March 1841, concerning the Saints in the territory of Iowa.” (Heading of D&C 125)

“Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.

And let all those who come from the east, and the west, and the north, and the south, that have desires to dwell therein, take up their inheritance in the same, as well as in the city of Nashville, or in the city of Nauvoo, and in all the stakes which I have appointed, saith the Lord.” D&C 125:3-4

Zarahemla According to Neville

“When Joseph Smith purchased the land for Nauvoo, he actually purchased far more land across the river in Iowa, as this map (left) from the Joseph Smith papers shows. If this area–designated in the 1800s as the “half-breed tract”–was the location of the ancient city of Zarahemla, the location could explain why the people were wealthy and why they had problems with pride, etc. (Of course, every human society has problems of pride, envy, etc.

However, Alma focuses particularly on this when he’s in the city of Zarahemla.) People ask if there is archaeological evidence for a city in this area. There is archaeological evidence of settlements along the river, north and south of this site, that date to Book of Mormon times, but nothing that can be identified as the city of Zarahemla, per se. The city of Zarahemla and its inhabitants were burned (3 Nephi 8:8). Later, the city was built again (4 Nephi 1:8) but the city is not mentioned afterward. It could have been destroyed again, of course. The river could have flooded the city, deposited sand over it, or any number of other possibilities.”

Neville continues, “For now, I note that it’s a location that seems to fit the text nicely. Another consideration is that D&C 125 hints at this site as the location of ancient Zarahemla. Another interesting aspect of Alma 5 is the mention of sheep, shepherds, and wolves. There must have been sheep in the city of Zarahemla. We’ve already stipulated that, because the Nephites “strictly” observed the Law of Moses, but Alma emphasizes the point is repeated here.

v. 37: ye that have professed to have known the ways of righteousness nevertheless have gone astray, as sheep having no shepherd, 
v. 38: ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd.
v. 39: And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye?
v. 59: For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? 
v. 60: if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed.

These metaphors would be ineffective if the people living in Zarahemla did not have sheep. In verse 59, Alma abandons the metaphorical use and speaks directly to actual shepherds. Some species of sheep that are indigenous to North America have survived to the present day, including the Bighorn and Dall. Anciently, their populations were in the millions. Although confined mainly to the western US, Canada, and northern Mexico. Wolves are indigenous to North America and were ubiquitous throughout North America before the Europeans arrived. They were part of Native American Indian legends and mythology. Their devastating impact on domesticated animals led to federal government programs to eradicate wolves from grazing areas. See this article.

Because Alma discussed wolves in this sense, I think it’s possible that whatever domesticated sheep the Nephites had–whether related to the other indigenous North American species or species Lehi brought with him–were killed off after the destruction of the Nephite society. The situation could be similar to that of horses, where recent research has shown the traditional explanation for horses–that the Spanish brought them all–is not consistent with the actual records. See excellent article on horses: https://byustudies.byu.edu/system/files/pdfs/54_3JohnsonHard.pdf.”

Source: 2016 Gospel Doctrine Resource by Jonathan Neville

“The Church did move to the Rocky Mountains into the midst of the Indians or Lamanites -or more properly speaking the Jews-and here expect to live until we move to the spirit land or the Lord moves us somewhere else.” Oliver B. Huntington, “Prophecy,” Young Woman’s Journal 2, no. 7 (April 1891): 314-15

[The Heartland Research Group headed by John Lefgren PhD, with Mike and Betty Lafontaine, have been doing research near Nauvoo and Montrose, Iowa for several years now looking for evidence of Zarahemla. They have found evidence for ancient fires pits in the area and a possible location of a temple mound.

The most exciting news in many years, is the 600 BC replica ‘Phoenicia’ is being re-assembled on the banks of the Mississippi River near Montrose, Iowa. Mike and Betty LaFontaine purchased the original Philip Beale  ‘Phoenicia’ which sailed over 30,000 nautical miles from the Old world to America in 2009 and another voyage in 2020. 

This area of Iowa across the river from Nauvoo, Illinois is very sacred that the ‘Phoenicia’ sits on. The Heartland Research Group also owns significant land in Montrose Iowa as you see below.

See their recent newsletter here: https://theheartlandresearchgroup.org/2023/11/1755/

The Phoenicia by Betty “Red Ant” Lafontaine

“For my people, the Dine’ oral tradition says that we came to this land from the East direction, at first light as the sun rises we give thanks for all we have in the east direction.  Our homes face the east direction, we believe to have come here from the east by The Holy People.

When I first learned of the Phoenicia and its beginning and how it sailed here to North America she fascinated me, especially learning of replication of a 600 BC ship.  The timeline of The Book of Mormon and the stories of my people coming to this sacred land America.   I believe The Phoenicia is a special ship, I believe she has a Spirit of discovery and a mission. In 2019 she came to the shore of Ft Lauderdale, I boarded her and instantly felt her Spirit, I thought of how it was very possible a ship like her came to North America carrying my Ancestors of The Book of Mormon!  She had a rough couple of years and even made it through a bad Tropical storm, and had some damage.  Mike and I drove to Ft Lauderdale in December 2021 to see her. As I walked around and touched her worn wood I instantly felt a strong presence, she lives!  She has a story to tell, others need to see her, touch her and hear her story.

Her figurehead a horse head on the bow of the ship was damaged but still made her beautiful presence known.  She lives and must live on were my thoughts, when we visited her that day in the shipyard in Ft Lauderdale, Florida.  She will need love and care to bring her back to where she will continue her story.  Philip Beale sailed her to America to tell a story without really knowing our story and the time era of 600 BC and what that means to us.  May we continue her story here in America”  Red Ant 

 

“The Heartland Research Group is a grassroots, boots-on-the-ground organization that believes that the historical narrative of the Book of Mormon took place in the Heartland of North America. The HRG is active in archaeological research and in the acquisition, restoration and display of ancient American artifacts. The HRG is currently preparing an ancient ship replica called the “Phoenicia” for display. The ships construction design is patterned after a shipwreck dating to 600 BC. The Phoenicia ship made modern voyages, first around Africa and then also from the Middle East to Florida in 2019 – proving that voyages around Africa or from Sidon to North America were feasible anciently.” Heartland Research Group

We invite you to support our efforts financially
so we can complete these worthy goals!
See their website here: phoenicia.rocks

Return of the Phoenicia on the Mississippi River

Law of Moses

No Sheep, Goats, Bullocks, Rams, Doves, Wheat, or Barley in Mesoamerica during the time of the Nephites. They couldn’t practice the Law of Moses unless they lived in North America. 

Hugh Nibley said, “If my insistent harping on central Asia annoys you, let me remind you again that the book of Ether gives us no choice. It never lets us forget that what the Jaredite kings did was a conscious imitation and unbroken continuation of the ways of “the ancients,” of “them of old” on the other side of the water. This, incidentally, is another indication that we are not to regard the Jaredite migration as taking place immediately after the flood, for the fall of the tower saw the destruction of an ancient and established order. The Jaredites left their homeland driving great herds of cattle before them in the immemorial Asiatic manner, and even if they had never been nomads before, they certainly lived the life of the steppes during those many years before they set sail (Ether 3:3), and when they embarked, they crammed all they could of their beasts into their small boats, “flocks and herds” and other beasts (Ether 6:4), and upon reaching the New World continued to cultivate “all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep” just as their ancestors had in the old country (Ether 9:18). Now you know, how the Nephites could have had sheep in North America brought to this land by the Jaredites. The Nephites could continue practicing the Law of Moses in the land of The New Jerusalem.” (2 Nephi 25:24 Mosiah 2:3) Hugh Nibley from Lehi in the Desert; The Great Open Spaces

3 Essential Truths about Nephite Observance of the Law of Moses
By Kendra Burton

“First Truth: Not only did the Nephites “strictly” keep the law of Moses (as indicated in 37 verses in the Book of Mormon (see Alma 30:3, Mosiah 13:29-30, Jarom 1:5), but they did so with delight as it was seen by them as both a collection of types of Christ and a means of coming unto Him. Occasionally even the Lamanites were known to “strictly” observe the law (Hel. 13:1).  Second: In “observing to keep the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the Law of Moses” (2 Ne. 5:10), the Nephites would have necessarily observed all the feasts or “holy days” given to Moses by Jehovah. These are recorded in Exodus and Leviticus and are known as “holy convocations” or “rehearsals” and they typify the life and mission of Jesus Christ in profoundly beautiful ways. Third: It was absolutely essential for these Jewish Lehites to be brought to a land that would provide an abundance of all the plants and animals required to keep the Law of Moses, with its concomitant Holy Days or festivals. Based on the latest archeological findings, it can now be irrefutably shown that the Heartland of North America is the only location in the Western Hemisphere where all ten of the essential items were found anciently including; lambs, oxen, goats, doves, barley, wheat, grapes, and altars made of stacked, unhewn stones. These aforementioned items have not been found in the archaeological record of the pre-Columbian peoples of Mesoamerica.” Amberli Nelson MBA Hebrew/Jewish Symbology Expert

Edward Phillips- Saint and Witness of Zarahemla

“I was one of the forty-six preachers that Brother Woodruff speaks of in his “Leaves of My Journal.” The forty-six were baptized except one, that was Phillip Holdt. Brother Woodruff baptized me at Hill Farm where he baptized six hundred. He told me not long ago, that less had apostatized out of that lot than any other of the same number in the church.” Edward Phillips

“I was standing by the temple talking to Brother Woodruff and he pointed out a spot to me on the opposit[e] side of the river about a mile and a half above Montrose, and said there would be a city and a temple built there and the place would be called Zarahemla.” Edward Phillips. More from his autobiography below.

Mesoamerican Theories of Zarahemla

Mesoamerica “Book of Mormon Lands” tour promoter Dr. John L. Lund, released a historically incorrect and misleading article in a newsletter and paid advertisement eblast (http://ldsliving.com/e/2012/db02_29_2012.html ) published Feb. 29, 2012. Lund’s piece, Joseph Smith Identified Zarahemla as Being in Guatemala, proclaims that an article appearing in the Times and Seasons on October 1, 1842 in Nauvoo, Illinois was emphatically “written by Joseph Smith.” Read more here:

In March 1841, a revelation known as Section 125, gave a name and location of a city. While the Lord had previously named Adam – ondi – Ahman and the New Jerusalem as being in the state of Missouri, perhaps this revelation has named yet another city in ancient America. The Lord said to Joseph: “Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it”. We first learned of the name Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon. However, very early in Church History documents, the name Zarahemla was disassociated with the revelation. Writers of the history of this period began to attribute the naming of Zarahemla to other persons who were contemporary with the Prophet Joseph or even to the Prophet himself rather than to the Lord and they made it appear that the word Zarahemla was used pre-1841 when the Lord actually gave the revelation to Joseph. We have learned from historic and current Church History publications the following clarifications about the naming of Zarahemla:

1. Joseph Smith DID NOT use the word Zarahemla in 1839. (Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, vol. 1, p. 336)

Read more 5 more example here under the title “The Naming of Zarahemla”

Thus, we have learned, that any use of the name Zarahemla prior to March 1841 is not correct and was inserted in historical accounts after 1841. Surely, further investigation is warranted as to why the Lord used such a name in the revelation.

Again do you remember Bill? Read study and pray and you will know the truth.

Autobiography of Edward Phillips (1813-1896)

This sketch was written by Sylvia Phillips, then a fourteen year old granddaughter of Edward Phillips, as he dictated it to her in the year 1889. Italicized portions are apparently Phillips’ corrections/additions. Typescript in hands of family.

Edward Phillips, son of William and Mary Phillips, born in Oxenhall Parrish [Parish], Glouscestershire [Gloucestershire], England, April 2, 1813. He was christened April 3, 1813.

When [I was] six months old my father moved to Leigh, Worcestershire, Upper Sandlin, and there rented a farm of one hundred acres for three years. From there moved to Black House, Creadley, Herefordshire, and rented a farm of seventy-five acres for four years then returning to Upper Sandlin and rented that farm again for three years. From there he moved to Creadley and rented another farm. While working there he was taken sick and died at Longley Groen [Green], Suckley, Worcestershire, November 29, 1825, at the age of sixty-two. He married Mary Ann Pressdee in Worcestershire, being about ten years her senior. She was the mother of eleven children. From that time I employed myself farming and learning blacksmithing. I joined the society called the “United Brethern” whose president and leader was Thomas Kington. Everything worked well with us until within a year of the time Brother Wilford Woodruff arrived in our neighborhood. It seemed to me that we had come to a precipice and could not go any farther until Brother Wilford Woodruff placed a bridge over that precipice and we went on with glad hearts rejoicing. I went to hear him preach at Ridgeway Crossing on or about March 15, 1840. A day or two following I went to Hill’s Farm to hear him speak. When I started my good old mother said, “Edward, I should think you will not come back without being baptized.” I obeyed this council. I was the only male member of my father’s family who received the gospel. My sister Susan followed suite. I was one of the forty-six preachers that Brother Woodruff speaks of in his “Leaves of My Journal.” The forty-six were baptized except one, that was Phillip Holdt. Brother Woodruff baptized me at Hill Farm where he baptized six hundred. He told me not long ago, that less had apostatized out of that lot than any other of the same number in the church.

I[n] a few days after I was baptized, I was ordained a priest and put in charge of two branches, Ashfield and Crocutt, with George Brooks as my addistant [assistant]. This was near Sherrage, Leigh, Worcestershire. In the fall of that year, I was ordained an elder at the conference, under the hands of Brother Woodruff, and was sent to preach the gospel with Elder John Gaily to the Forest of Deane and Glouscestershire [Gloucestershire]. There I had the privilege of visiting my father’s family. We traveled and preached nearly a year and many were brout [brought] into the church under our administration. My mother embraced the gospel about this time under the hands of Brother Woodruff at a place called Moorings Cross, Maythen Parrish [Parish], Herfordshire [Herefordshire], 1841.

I left my home to emigrate to America. I went to Gloucester and in company with one hundred saints went to Bristol and boarded the “Carolina” for America. We set sail for Quebec, August 8th, 1841. We had a tedious voyage of eight weeks and three days, but landed safely. Thomas Richardson was our President. We set sail for Quebec, from Quebec we went to Montreal by steamer, and from Montreal through the lock to Kinston and then we sailed along Lake Ontario to Lewiston. We had a fine view of the city of Toronto. From Lewiston we boarded the train (which was drawn by mules) from Niagara Falls.

The next day we boarded the train for Buffalo and arrived at that place after dark. We put up at the Farmer’s Exchange for a week because of sickness. We then boarded the Chespeake [Chesapeake] for where now stands the great city of Chicago. We hired a man there to take us to Nauvoo with a team which contract he filled. We arrives [arrived] at Nauvoo in the latter part of October, 1841, on Saturday. On Sunday, I was anxious to see the Prophet. I attended meeting there and saw him for the first time. I did not need an introduction for I knew him the moment I saw him. He preached the gospel of salvation to us that morning which caused my heart to rejoice. Next day, Monday, I went to work in quarrying rock for the temple, (that was my first days work in America) near the upper Stone House on the Mississippi River. I continued to work on the temple and the Nauvoo House, most of the winter. I boarded with an old friend by the name of Jenkins, a shoemaker. There I fell in love with my present wife, who had preceeded [preceded] me a few weeks to America. On the 2nd of August of the next year, being one year from the time I left home, we were married by Heber C. Kimball near Camp Creek in Hancock County. She bore me fifteen children, nine of whom are still living, three of whom were born in Illinois, and the two first, a boy and a girl, died there. We were driven from their graves at the point of a bayonet, which was very grievous to us. I had some land and made me a nice home near where they were buried. I was working in the field near the house when the news came that the Prophet and his brother were killed at Carthage Jail. This made me shed bitter tears for I felt they were two good friends and I knew Joseph was a true prophet of God. He had said that he would go and die for the people. I was under arms in Nauvoo when he gave himself up to die for the people. He discharged us and told us to go home and he would go and die for us. We would gladly have gone and stood between him and death, but he would not let us. I was ready and willing to go. We were quartered at the tithing yard and slept in the Nauvoo Exposition Building. We went one day for foliage for our horses, and met Gen. Joseph Smith with his staff in the street. He cheered us and said, “Well done, boys.” We had been out inspecting the ground where we expected to meet our enemies. Word came to our Captain one night that the pickett guard was driven in and we were ordered out in the dead of night to go and meet the mob. I was determined to go and assist, so I borrowed a horse from a boy who did not like to go himself. Nevertheless this proved to be a false alarm and I went back disappointed. The prophet said he would go and die for us. He did and was butchered in cold blood. I was not there when he was killed, but I went later and took my wife with me to show her the well, curb, and the window where he jumped out when he was shot.

I have a Patriarchal blessing hanging in a frame in my room, which was pronounced upon my head by the prophet and patriarch, Hyrum Smith, in the fall of 1844[1843?], which is worth more than gold to me – Gold is no name for it. The predictions are being literally fulfilled every day. I know if I prove faithful it will all come to pass. I knew then and also know now that Joseph was a true prophet of God, and that the mantle of Joseph fell on Brigham Young who was his legal successor.

I was present at the meeting when this took place (Read about that meeting below with the *) and heard with my own ears and saw with my own eyes. We all thought Joseph had come back to us although we knew he was in his grave. I was standing by the temple talking to Brother Woodruff and he pointed out a spot to me on the opposit[e] side of the river about a mile and a half above Montrose, and said there would be a city and a temple built there and the place would be called Zarahemla. I was at Nauvoo when the temple was finished and dedicated. I went up into the tower and wrote my name there. As I understand, the wicked have burned that temple to the ground and it is all destroyed like the Jerusalem temple. But I expect to see that temple re-erected and the one built on the opposite side of the river to match. Source Here and Here

*Is there evidence for the transfiguration of Brigham Young?

James F. Stoddard IV and Aaron R. Halsell

“The day is Thursday, August 8, 1844. Six weeks to the day have passed since the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844. The majority of the Twelve Apostles have recently returned from missions¹ and some are still stunned and disheartened by the loss of their Prophet. Upon their arrival they find “Sidney Rigdon busy among the Saints, trying to establish his claim to the presidency of the Church.”² According to a report issued by the Times and Seasons:

[A] special meeting of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, convened at the stand in the city of Nauvoo, President Brigham Young, called the audience to order, and arranged the several quorums according to their standing, and the rules of the church. The meeting had been previously called, as stated, to choose a guardian, or trustee for said church.³

Opinions differ,⁴ either Sidney Rigdon, former First Counselor in the First Presidency,⁵ or the Quorum of the Twelve with Brigham Young at their head. The audience is divided as the polished and eloquent Sidney Rigdon commences his message. The old gentleman is charismatic and the arguments are compelling to some of the flock.⁶

Brigham Young, a man fiercely loyal to the Prophet Joseph Smith, current President of the Twelve and later to become known as the “Lion of the Lord”, takes the stand. Suddenly, the people arise “en-masse to their feet astonished.”⁷ One eyewitness later remembered, “it appeared that Joseph had returned and was speaking to the people.”⁸ As Brigham Young commences speaking, hundreds in the audience believe “in every possible degree it [is] Joseph’s voice, and his person, in look, attitude, dress and appearance [it is] Joseph himself, personified”.⁹ William Hyde later remembers:

[Brigham Young] then called upon the saints to know if they would receive the Twelve and let them stand in their place as the First Presidency of the Church in the absense of Joseph. The vote was unanimous in the affirmative. On this day it was plainly manifest that the mantle of Joseph had rested upon President Young.¹⁰ James F. Stoddard IV and Aaron R. Halsell

Here are other evidences to pray about as you decide where the Book of Mormon Events happened. I believe the events happened right here in the USA.

Nephitish Altar

“George W. Robinson, a scribe of Joseph Smith who was with him at the time, writes: “We next kept [traveling] up the river mostly in the timber for ten miles, until we came to Colonel Lyman Wright’s who lives at the foot of Tower Hill. A name appropriated by President Smith in consequence of the remains of an old Nephitish Altar and Tower where we camped for the Sabbath.” (Scott H. Faulring ed., An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, SLC: Signature Books, 1989, p. 184.) 1838 Joseph Smith, Jr. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 3:34-35 Quoted in Step by Step through the Book of Mormon by Alan C. Miner

“So what did Robinson mean when he said they discovered the remains of a “Nephtish” structure? It is important to note that the early Latter-day Saints clearly believed that the native North American tribes were descendants of the earlier Nephite-Lamanite civilization. With this belief, Robinson probably used the word “Nephitish” to indicate that the structure or altar was built by, or originated with, the North American Indians. He may have also used “Nephitish” to mean that the altar was of ancient origin. Therefore, what Robinson was attempting to describe were the remains of what appeared to be a sacred altar structure erected by early Native Americans.” (Alexander L. Baugh, “Joseph Smith in Northern Missouri,” in Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 291–346.) See article here about other Altars

Hopewellian Stone Tower

“We have been to Adam-Ondi-Ahman, and there are large stones scattered around on top of Tower Hill that are the remains of a structures, so it was apparently a Hopewellian stone tower or altar as indicated by Joseph.  In connection with this, George W. Robinson in 1838 also wrote: “President Smith and myself . . . returned to the camp in Robinson’s Grove .  We next scouted west in order to obtain some game to supply our necessities but found or killed none.  We [found] some ancient antiquities about one mile west of the camp, which consisted of stone mounds , apparently laid  up in square piles, though somewhat decayed and obliterated by the almost continual rains.  Undoubtedly these were made to seclude some valuable treasures deposited by the aborigines of this land.” Faulring, Scott H. ed., 1989, An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, p. 185, spelling corrected 

Zelph of Zarahemla

“Before breaking camp the morning of June 3, the Prophet Joseph Smith, accompanied by several of the men, went to observe a large mound which was located approximately one mile below the Phillip’s Ferry crossing. It was of unusual size and lay within the proximity of a number of smaller mounds. Heber C. Kimball and Wilford Woodruff recorded in their journals that the mound was one hundred feet high and three hundred feet above the level of the river. The height of the mound enabled the men to look over the tops of the trees and view the surrounding area. At the crest of the mound, human bones were strewn around the base of what appeared to be a three-tiered altar. Heber C. Kimball wrote that the arrangement of the stones resembled the ancient order or altars..

The men were curious about the area, the mounds, and particularly about the scattered bones.  As they began to descend  the mound, Joseph Smith suddenly stopped, pointed to the ground, and said, “Brethren, dig in there.”  When the earth had been removed to the depth of one or two feet, the men found the skeleton of a large man.  Journal accounts state that, “the bones were all there and in a good state of preservation.”  Buried in the backbone, between the ribs of the man was a stone arrowhead which Milton Holmes took.  Examining the skeleton more closely, it was noted that one of the thigh bones had been previously broken and knitted together.  The thigh bones and the arrowhead were taken back to camp and placed in Wilford Woodruff’s wagon.  The skeleton was unusually large .  It was estimated to be over eight feet tall.” James L. Bradley, Zion’s Camp 1834: Prelude to the Civil War (Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1990), p. 207.

“The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity… During our travels we visited several of the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this country-Nephites, Lamanites, etc.” Joseph Smith Papers Letter to Emma Smith, 4 June 1834 Page 56

“On the top of the mound were stones which presented the appearance of three altars having been erected one above the other, according to the ancient order; and the remains of bones were strewn over the surface of the ground. The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or, at least, in part-one of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites.” Joseph Smith Papers History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834], Page 483

Book of Mormon City Manti

“The camp passed through Huntsville, in Randolph County, which has been appointed as one of the stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti…” Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 296 “September 25, 1838. We passed through Huntsville, Co, seat of Randolph Co, Pop. 450, and three miles further we bought 32 bu. of corn off one of the brethren who resides in this place. There are several of the brethren round about here and this is the ancient site of the City of Manti, which is spoken of in the Book of Mormon and this is appointed one of the Stakes of Zion, and it is in Randolph County, Missouri, three miles west of the county seat.” Journal of Samuel D. Tyler, filed in Church Historian’s Office. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3: 239  History of Joseph Smith page 296

“We came through Huntsville, the county seat of Randolph county . . . A mile and a half west of Huntsville we crossed the east branch of Chariton (River), and one and a half miles west of the river we found Ira Ames and some other brethren near the place where the city of Manti is to be built, and encamped for the night on Dark creek, six miles from Huntsville. Traveled this day seventeen miles. Distance from Kirtland, seven hundred and fifty-five miles.” Joseph Smith Documentary History of the Church, 3:10:144:1

Joseph Smith accompanied several Church members in exploring the area around Lyman Wight’s northern Missouri home. In his journal, A. Jenson wrote: “The [Kirtland] camp passed through Huntsville, in Randolph County, which has been appointed as one of the stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti.” A. Jenson, Historical Record, Book 1, p. 601 Millennial Star 16:296

Indians that now Inhabit this Country

“In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country…” Wentworth Letter reprinted in Ensign July 2002

Joseph said that “the Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians . . . By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.” Joseph Smith’s Letter to The American Revivalist Feb 2, 1833 (Quoted in Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), p. 273)

“He told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham…” Joseph Smith Journal, November 9, 1835; The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals Volume 1:1832-1839 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 88-89.

“Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel;” BofM Title Page

“You shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them;… and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites. D&C 28:8-9

The Lamanites that were first taught the gospel, as Parley Pratt says were the Native American Indians of the United States. There were two tribes of the Iroquois, Wyandot, and Cattaraugus, and two from the Algonquian, the Delaware or Leni Lape, and the Shawnee.

“Once the red men were many; they occupied the country from sea to sea — from the rising to the setting sun; the whole land . . .  Thousands of moons ago, when the red men’s forefathers dwelt in peace and possessed this whole land the Great Spirit talked with them, and revealed His law and His will and much knowledge to their wise men and prophets.  This they wrote in a Book . . . written on plates of gold and handed down from father to son for many ages and generations. It was then that the people prospered and were strong and mighty; they cultivated the earth, built buildings and cities and abounded in all good things, as the pale faces now do . . . This Book, which contained these things was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him Cumorah, which hill is now in the state of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario county . . .  Thus ended our first Indian mission, in which we had preached the Gospel in its fullness and distributed the record of their forefathers among three viz.: the Cattaraugus Indians, near Buffalo, N.Y., the Wyandots, of Ohio and the Delawares, west of Missouri.” Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, pp. 56-6; Documentary History of the Church Vol 1: Footnotes 183:2-18 

“Thus ended our first Indian mission, in which we had preached the Gospel in its fullness and distributed the record of their forefathers among three tribes… west of Missouri.” Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, p 56-61

“Now, to my story again. Besides the Delawares, Shawnees, Kickapoos, Wyandots, Pottowattomies, Senecas, Osages, Choctaws, Cherokees, Kaskaskias, Kansas, &c. &c. which our nation and the missionaries are domesticating as they are gathered, upon the southern limits of the land of Israel, the Pawnees, the Sioux, the Rickarees, the Mandans, the Nespersees, the Blackfeet, the Sacs, the Foxes, and many other tribes, rove and hunt from prairie to prairie, from river to river, from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, and live, and are blessed before the face of heaven daily as well as their contemporary whites; and, perhaps I may add, are as justifiable before God, as any people on the globe, called heathens. No church bell from its elevated steeple, rings “Go to meeting; it is Sunday,” while a dozen lesser ones, for stages and Steam boats, peal a ding dong “for parties of pleasure, as a holiday,” among these rude sons of the west.—And it is a difficult matter to make one soul of them believe the Great Spirit ever said, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” while they know, that the majority of the white nation, use it for a holiday. No politicians boast of freedom and equal rights, while thousands are imprisoned for debt, or are in bondage: No; when the tribes are at peace, the Indian is free; his land is free; his game is free; his time is free, and all is free.” LETTER NO. II. From WW Phelps to Oliver Cowdery Liberty, Mo. Nov. 6, 1834

“I accordingly went down, and met Keokuk, Kis-Ku-Kosh, Appenoose, and about one hundred chiefs and braves of those tribes (Sac, Fox), with their families.” … and instructed them in many things which the Lord had revealed unto me concerning their fathers, and the promises that were made concerning them in the Book of Mormon.” Joseph Smith Papers; History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 Addenda page 10-11

Joseph Knew where the Book of Mormon took Place

“From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same. I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth–all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons, and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation  and deep study… During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode, their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.” Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845 Book 4 Joseph Smith Papers

One Cumorah

“I do not believe that the classrooms or the pulpits of our Church are for laboratory purposes in which to experiment with new doctrines and speculative notions. They are exclusively for the use of those who are willing to convert men and women and boys and girls to the truth. . . . I do not believe we should give credence to the highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other one up in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates. I do not believe we can be good Latter-day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith. I do not believe we can be good Latter-day Saints and question the testimony of the eleven witnesses of the Book of Mormon. I do not believe you have a testimony of the truth if you question the accuracy of the translation of the Book of Mormon.” Mark E. Petersen LDS Conference Reports, Sunday afternoon, April 5, 1953

“…This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case… It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Ramah. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, “by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all…

It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery. Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history.” Doctrines of Salvation Joseph Fielding Smith Chapter 12

The United States is the Land of the Book of Mormon

“The United States is the promised land foretold in the Book of Mormon—a place where divine guidance directed inspired men to create the conditions necessary for the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Elder L. Tom promised Ensign Dec. 2012

“The Lord gave a divine promise to the ancient inhabitants of this favored country (the United States): ‘Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12).

“Our Heavenly Father inspired the leaders of…the United States of America, that they might together, under His direction, having been raised up by God for the purpose, establish the Constitution of this country and…Bill of Rights, that by the year of our Lord 1805 [there would be] a climate where our Heavenly Father could send into this period of mortality a choice spirit who would be known as Joseph Smith, Jr.” Teachings of Thomas S. Monson by Thomas S. Monson 2011 (Ordained an Apostle, 1963; ordained President of the Church, 2008)

President Monson believes the United States is the Promised Land of the Book of Mormon. Why do Mesoamericanists believe the entire continent of the Americas is the Promised land? You mean Greenland, Guatemala, and the Northwest Territories are the Promised Lands? I love all of God’s children in the entire world and God loves us all the same, but seriously? If a person from Greenland comes to the United States legally as a citizen that person can also live in the Promised Land, correct? I’m sure Greenland has much beauty on its own, but it is not the Promised Land, is it? I am not belittling other lands. I’m just making a factual statement. Why is the United States and Israel the two Promised Lands? Because Christ said so. See 3 Nephi 20:22,29 Rian Nelson

Gadianton Robbers

“Upon one occasion President Brigham Young was in the Tabernacle at St. George and was speaking on the spirit world.  He stated that it was not far from us and if the veil could be taken from our eyes there wouldn’t be either a man, woman or child who would dare go out of “this tabernacle as the spirits of the Gadianton robbers were so thick out there.  This is where they lived in these mountains,” said he.” Crowther, Duane S., 1967, Life Everlasting, Bookcraft, SLC, UT, p. 165, as quoted from N. B. Lundwall, Temples of the Most High, p. 89. 

“Of course, the significance of this statement makes sense only in light of the land of Zarahemla being in the United States.  The Nephites wouldn’t have gone all the way from Mexico into the United States to hunt the Gadianton Robbers, nor would the Gadiantons have gone into the United States to hide from Nephites in Mexico.  It is clear that since the Gadianton Robbers were hiding out in Utah in the St. George region, the Land of Zarahemla must have been in the United States as well.  The “mountains” mentioned in the following scriptures, therefore, are the Rocky Mountains of the United States.” Josephsmithacademy.org

I have received a lot of feedback in the comments section on my recent blog here titled, “WHY DO MANY CHURCH HISTORIANS INSIST THAT THE FINAL BATTLE OF THE NEPHITES AND LAMANITES DIDN’T HAPPEN AT THE ONE AND ONLY HILL CUMORAH?” There is a good discussion with friends of the Mesoamerican Theory and the Heartland Theory that I think is informative and you will enjoy reading.

I believe it is important to understand both sides of the issue as we search for truth. From the earliest age until I was well into my 40’s I always thought the Hill Cumorah was in Mexico somewhere. With much reading and studying and prayer on my own, after hearing a message from Rod Meldrum, and through much prayer, I now believe strongly there is only one Cumorah in upstate New York.

Here are the Comments after the Blog above

• Bruce Lloyd says: July 9, 2021 For those who ask “where are all the bones and weapons that should be on the hill Cumorah”, I say where are the 60 Million buffalo bones? Surely, the victors would have retrieved all the useful weapons. However, we know that many stone arrowheads have been found in the last 200 years. Many mass grave burial pits have been found in the area. I’ve wondered why more copper weapons and artifacts have not been found in the Cumorah area. I wonder if access to copper around Lake Superior was cut off after about the year 321 AD when the 3 Nephites were pulled and the Nephites retreated to Cumorah for the next 60 years. As far as iron goes, we know the people of Limhi found the 24 plates and rusted swords left by the Jaredites. Here is an interesting account for a rusty pocketknife that has been around since about 1715 at a Michigan Fort. Look at https://www.archaeology.org/news/9832-210707-michigan-colonial-knife Would there be anything left after 1,600 or 2,000 years?
• [email protected] says: July 9, 2021 I am just amazed at the people who just want to talk and not investigate. The evidence is everywhere. Thanks Bruce.
• Wayne Sikes says: July 9, 2021 For me, a modern day effort to change the history, culture, language, laws and foundation upon which the United States of America is built, by such groups as BLM, Antifa, far left sided individuals and political parties including teachers, school boards, mayors, city councils, etc. is undeniable evidence that the United States of America is the promised/choice land of the Book of Mormon. If not so, why else would Satan and his minions put forth such a strong effort and work so hard, spending so much money to destroy the very land (United States of America) which we, the true believers and even the Mesoamerica crowd believe the Lord established. There is no other nation on this Earth which has such an effort to destroy and change everything good and true about it. The United States and our Constitution is incorporated into scripture making them part of Gods word ever much as any other part of the the scriptures. The United States of America as a nation, country and land along with the Constitution for the United States of America, is incorporated within the Doctrine and Covenants thereby making them scripture and the word of God. See Sections: 98, 101, 109 and Official Declaration 1. The only other nations, countries and lands that are found in scriptures is Israel, Jerusalem, and those lands within the middle East that are around Israel and Palestine including Rome, Greece and a few others all of which are in the middle East, Europe and the Mediterranean area. We know Israel and Jerusalem are a promised land but all of the others in that area we know are not choice and no others are unanimously accepted as being the promised/choice land of the Book of Mormon given to Lehi and the Jaredites. Satan would only work so hard to destroy that which God has blessed, established and that is choice and promised to his faithful. There are two lands which he has been trying to destroy from their inception and those are Israel and the United States of America. We will lose this choice land a third time if good people of the Lord choose to do nothing. The stakes are high and many souls are in danger. God’s people must keep every covenant and commandment they have made an oath to obey. God will not be mocked. Sins cannot be tolerated and we cannot put our hands in our pockets because we are ashamed to put our right hand over our heart. Our vote must express our true outward displays of religious belief and faith. How can a true member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints vote for a person or principle which promotes abortion, socialism, communism or anything which is contrary to the scriptures, the Prophets, the Temple and baptism covenants or any of the questions we are asked in a Temple Recommend interview? The answer is they cannot. If it is against the teachings of the Church and Gospel of Jesus Christ (please read over the Temple Recommend questions slowly) then we are to stand against those principles in our public and private lives including voting against those individuals and parties which uphold those un-Godly principles. How and for whom we cast our ballot will be counted unto us for our salvation or our damnation. It is time to choose. There is enough time to save this beautiful, choice land and there are yet enough good men, women and Priesthood to save The United States of America. However, time is short and the clock is ticking.
• [email protected] says: July 9, 2021 Hi Wayne: You have given an excellent talk about our Country, Religion and Freedoms. We need good people like you spreading the word. It is so critical that the USA is indeed the Promised Land of the Book of Mormon. How can rational people think differently with the many quotes of the BofM?

• Matthew Grow says: July 10, 2021 In October 2019 General Conference, President Oaks reminded us…”As to all of these, the wise cautions of Elders D. Todd Christofferson and Neil L. Andersen in earlier general conference messages are important to remember. Elder Christofferson taught: ‘It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.’” Many of the statements you quote by church leaders are used as authoritative as to geography and are given the weight of revelation. But those statements are not in the canon of scripture, so the counsel President Oaks gives should be considered when reading those statements. I appreciate your work and what you are sharing, but please note that many faithful members of the church don’t interpret the statements quoted and often included in your commentary as statements that are about geography. “America” covers more than the current political boundaries of the US, which did not exist when the Book of Mormon was written. A promised land geography that reaches into Mesoamerica fits comfortably within the framework of the statements within the Book of Mormon itself and comments by church leaders. Lamanite descended people could easily have made their way into the heartland over the 1,400 years between the end of the BoM and the time of Joseph Smith. These sorts of things should be acknowledged so as to give greater credence to your efforts at approaching the matter objectively. Many of us who lean towards a Mesoamerican setting do so based on the text of The Book of Mormon itself. Statements like the land of Nephi being nearly surrounded by water that don’t make sense for an Appalachia location unless people consider rivers to be sufficient water to define themselves as living on an island of the sea. The great lakes don’t seem to fit well within the descriptions in The Book of Mormon, either.
• While I’m very interested in what you’re doing and would like to believe a heartland geography for the BoM, I remain unconvinced based on the language in the scripture itself. Until we can account for mountains being raised along the Mississippi river and sinking into the sea, as described in the BoM, among many other things, it’s hard to conclude a heartland location is reasonable. I recommend you devote more efforts to addressing the language in the scripture and explaining how that fits in the heartland. What I have seen thus far on this front isn’t conclusive. Cumorah as the name of a hill makes perfect sense–what else would it be called? But that doesn’t mean there can’t be another hill with the same name. Mormon buried all the plates in Cumorah except the golden plates he gave to Moroni. Moroni never indicates he buries the plates in the same hill where his father buried the other records. Instead, he says he wanders where he can. He wanders for decades and flees from the Lamanites. Very possible to arrive in the great lakes region over that period of time.
• [email protected] says: July 10, 2021 
• Thank you, Matthew, for a cordial reply to my blog. My response may be long, but this subject is important to me. As you quoted, Elder Christofferson says, “It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.’ ”This quote saying “made by one leader” above is absolutely true, but it does not account for the hundreds of leaders who speak about North American geography.
• Do you who trust and believe Joseph Smith, believe his words when he said to Emma that he was “wandering over the Plains of the Nephites?” Do you trust the fact that Joseph was camped on the Mississippi River near a small landing near the town of Atlas, Illinois? Do you indeed believe Joseph wrote said letter of June 4, 1834, as shown in the Joseph Smith papers? Was Joseph telling Emma the truth? Did he have any reason to be making something up here? Do you really think that Joseph was traveling on the very plains that the Nephites had once walked on, some 2,000 years ago? If he were not, why would Joseph say he was walking on those very plains of the Nephites? Was he really roving over the Nephite mounds and was it indeed a proof of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon?
• Joseph was speaking to his wife, and he would have no reason to make something up or lie to her, would he? Did Zion’s Camp really see physical mounds? Did Joseph really say this, “proof of [the Book of Mormon’s] divine authenticity?” Yes, and yes. So, Joseph spoke a FACT, not a FEELING. Joseph spoke the truth and I believe Joseph, and I know that Joseph knows that the plains of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon are in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Today not one of the maps representing all the various geography of the Book of Mormon believe in the Hemispheric Model anymore. Not even the Mesoamericans or the Heartlanders believe the Hemispheric Model anymore because the vast distance in miles make it impossible to say all of North America is where the Nephites lived, and the Lamanites lived in South America.
• Also, if the Nephites really lived somewhere as I know they did, why do we need a fantasy map pretending we don’t know where they lived? If the Mesoamerican theorists really believe their theory, they would continue to use a real map of Central America, wouldn’t they?
• My friend Jonathan Neville said, “For decades, LDS scholars have labored to establish and defend a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon because they believed they were vindicating what Joseph Smith wrote (or approved) in three articles published in the Times and Seasons on 15 September and 1 October 1842. The discovery that it was someone other than Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, or John Taylor who wrote the articles, led to the further discovery that Benjamin Winchester wrote the articles linking the Book of Mormon to Central America, and that William Smith edited and published them. These discoveries raise serious questions about the original premise for both hemispheric and Mesoamerican theories of Book of Mormon geography. Although now discredited, these Times and Seasons articles have influenced generations of Latter-day Saints—members, scholars, and leaders—and have been frequently cited by those who advocate a Mesoamerican setting.” Moroni’s America Page 317.
• Joseph Fielding Smith said about the theory of Book of Mormon Geography in Mesoamerica; “Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Edited by Bruce McConkie, Vol. 3 [1999] 232–243.
• “The Prophet Joseph Smith here declares that “this land” shall be the place of the New Jerusalem and adds that it is to be “established on this continent.” Here the prophet links “this continent” with the “very spot of land” for the New Jerusalem indicating that it was not a hemispherical setting of which he was thinking. Joseph knew where the New Jerusalem was to be built, what “continent” and what “spot of land” that was prophesied of in the Book of Mormon, and they are all within the confines of North America and the United States.” Prophesies and Promises by Rod Meldrum and Bruce Porter

• The Prophet Joseph Smith makes it clear that we “learn from the Book of Mormon the very identical continent” and the very “spot of land” upon that continent that the New Jerusalem “is to stand” in the latter days. The Prophet continues: “Now many will feel disposed to say, that this New Jerusalem spoken of, is the Jerusalem that was built by the Jews on the eastern continent. But you will see, from Revelation 21:2, there was a New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven, adorned as a bride for her husband; that after this, the Revelator was caught away in the Spirit, to a great and high mountain, and saw the great and holy city descending out of heaven from God. Now there are two cities spoken of here. As everything cannot be had in so narrow a compass as a letter, I shall say with brevity, that there is a New Jerusalem to be established on this continent, and also Jerusalem shall be rebuilt on the eastern continent (see Book of Mormon, Ether 13:1-12).
• “Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake also concerning the house of Israel, and the Jerusalem from whence Lehi should come; after it should be destroyed, it should be built up again, a holy city unto the Lord, wherefore it could not be a New Jerusalem, for it had been in a time of old.” This may suffice, upon the subject of gathering, until my next.” Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 85.
• You say in your reply, I recommend you devote more efforts to addressing the language in the scripture and explaining how that fits in the heartland. What I have seen thus far on this front isn’t conclusive. “One of the most common questions asked about the North American setting is, “what about the narrow neck of land?” People have been taught to think the Book of Mormon describes two large land masses connected by the “narrow neck of land.” The hourglass shape has been depicted in many LDS publications. When we look on a globe, we immediately think of Panama as a narrow neck of land connecting North and South America.
• However, scholars have pointed out that a hemispheric interpretation of Book of Mormon geography contradicts the text; the distances are simply too great.” Moroni’s America page 20I.
• It may be surprising to realize that the term “narrow neck of land” is used only once in the entire Book of Mormon. The passage is in Ether 10:20: “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.”

• That’s it. A single passage. A passage describing the location of a Jaredite city. Nowhere in the Book of Ether does Moroni mention Nephite or Lamanite locations, except that the Jaredite hill Ramah is the same hill where Mormon hid the records (Ether 15:11).
• In the first verse of the first chapter, Moroni explained the territory addressed in the Book of Ether: “And now I, Moroni, proceed to give an account of those ancient inhabitants who were destroyed by the hand of the Lord upon the face of this north country.” Despite its solitary appearance in Ether, many commentators have considered the “narrow neck of land” to be a defining feature of both Nephite and Jaredite lands. They think the verse in Ether refers to the same feature as a verse in Alma 22:32, which says “thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.” That interpretation is a mistake. Besides the difference in terminology (narrow does not mean small), the context and frame of reference of the two passages are entirely different, and they were written by different authors hundreds of years apart.
• There are 3 unique mentions in the Book of Mormon about NECKS! 1.NECK OF LAND Ether 10:20 2. NARROW NECK Alma 63:5 3. SMALL NECK OF LAND Alma 22:32 These three unique mentions of NECK are all in different locations in North America.
• THE NARROW NECK OF LAND is defined below: Lake Ontario (a sea) divides the land at Hamilton, OT Canada, and Lake Erie (a sea) divides the land at Buffalo, NY. In Central America, the” land divides the sea.” (Isthmus of Tehuantepec), which is opposite of what the scripture says about the “sea divides” the land. Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are seas, where the “sea divides the land” as quoted in Ether 10:20. The N/S distance from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario is only about 24 miles wide and in Central America it is 140 miles, which does not sound very narrow to me. In the Book of Mormon, the Narrow Neck of Land is only described in the Book of Ether, so the Jaredites used it, not the Nephites. There is archaeological verification at the Niagara Peninsula that dates from 800 BC to 3000 BC which is the time of the Jaredites.
• Matthew, you also are quoted saying, “Lamanite descended people could easily have made their way into the heartland over the 1,400 years between the end of the BoM and the time of Joseph Smith. These sorts of things should be acknowledged so as to give greater credence to your efforts at approaching the matter objectively.”
• I speak about Lamanites descending to South America all the time. I call South and Central America the “Hinterlands.” Hinterlands is defined here as meaning the unknown area of North and South America that are not within the scope of the writings of the Book of Mormon. In other words, since we believe main events of the Book of Mormon happened in a limited area of North America around the Great Lakes in the east, and Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri to the west, and south in Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia, and Florida, all other areas will be discussed as “The Hinterlands”.
• We propose that Mesoamerica is the Hinterlands along with many other areas of the continent. As Mormon has said, “…I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people (Words of Mormon 1:5). There are many people in South and Central America that are Lamanites and part of the Hinterlands.

• In other words, if the Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica, then every other area would be the “Hinterlands” where other Lamanites may have migrated and lived. If, however the events of the Book of Mormon took place in the Heartland of the United States (As I believe they did), then every other area outside of this limited Heartland area would contain migrating Lamanites, including the western United States, Canada, Mexico, and South and Central America.
• Here are my two definitions. Heartland Core – Where the main Nephite and Lamanite events occurred! Mesoamerican Periphery – Where Nephites and Lamanites migrated to outside of this core! You also say, “He wanders for decades and flees from the Lamanites.” I believe it is more likely Moroni traveled and wandered within maybe 100 miles of his home, and more than likely he knew of many places locally to hide with the plates. Why would Moroni travel some 3,500 miles for 36 years all the time worrying about running into strangers, staying alive, hiding the plates etc? I would think Moroni would stay close to where the Cave in Cumorah was also located.
• I know you probably think the Cave in Cumorah was either a dream of Joseph’s as told to Brigham’s and Oliver, or that the Cave was somewhere in Mesoamerica. I believe what Orson Pratt said here. “These new plates were given to Moroni to finish the history. And all the ancient plates, Mormon deposited in Cumorah, about three hundred and eighty-four years after Christ. When Moroni, about thirty-six years after, made the deposit of the book entrusted to him, he was, without doubt, inspired to select a department of the hill separate from the great depository of the numerous volumes hid up by his father. The particular place in the hill where Moroni secreted the book, was revealed, by the angel, to the prophet Joseph Smith, to whom the volume was delivered in September, A.D. 1827. But the grand repository of all the numerous records of the ancient nations of the western continent, was located in another department of the hill, and its contents under the charge of holy angels, until the day should come for them to be transferred to the sacred temple of Zion.” 1866 Orson Pratt Millennial Star (28 (27): 417)
• Matthew, I appreciate your responses and your dialogue, but I will just have to disagree with you. There is only one Hill Cumorah in NY where Joseph received the plates and the same hill where the Jaredites and the Nephites were both destroyed. I love the article called, Pilgrimage to Palmyra: President B. H. Roberts and the Eastern States Mission’s 1923 Commemoration of Cumorah by Author Reid L. Neilson and Carson V. Teuscher
• “Because the Church was still several years away from purchasing the entire Hill Cumorah, conference organizers secured special permission from non–Latter-day Saint Pliny T. Sexton, owner and proprietor of the hill and surrounding farmland, to hold ceremonies on his property.87 The missionaries and members made their way, flags in hand, to the top of the hill while the sun peeked over the eastern horizon. When everyone summited, the appointed “Flag Sergeants” erected America’s national banner.
• They also raised a unique “Cumorah—Ramah” flag specially designed for the occasion—bisected into two colors, the blue “Cumorah” side bore the hill’s name “as it was known by the Nephites” in bright gold letters. The purple “Ramah” side similarly bore the ancient name of the hill in gold, as it “was known to the Jaredites—the people who first possessed the land.”8887. See David F. Boone, “‘A Man Raised Up’: The Role of Willard W. Bean in the Acquisition of the Hill Cumorah,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 13, nos. 1–2 (2004): 24–37, 168–69. (88. Smith, “Minutes—the First General Conference of the Eastern States Mission,” 3; and “Palmyra Scene Re-Enacted,” 1. 89)
• “After President McKay’s remarks the canvas shroud that was covering the monument was removed and the congregations joined in the song “What Was Witnessed in the Heavens.” In attendance at this session was a young Gordon B. Hinckley, on his way home from his mission to England. He later wrote an article for the Deseret News giving these details of that event:
• “On the summit of the hill was a canvas-draped monument. At an appointed signal four trumpeters raised their gleaming instruments. In sharp clear tones “An Angel from On High” echoed across the placid countryside. The flag—the Stars and Stripes—fluttered in the wind, and it never looked more beautiful than it did over that hill sacred and important to the history of America. Then the canvas shroud fell from the monument, and the figure of Moroni looked out across the quiet fields which in his day of life had been scenes of carnage and sorrow. It is interesting to note that Gordon B. Hinckley, present at the first dedication of the Hill Cumorah as a returning missionary, would also be present at the 50th anniversary of the dedication in 1985 as a member of the First Presidency. Following the unveiling of the monument, President Heber J. Grant shared a few remarks followed by the dedicatory prayer.” A Study of the Hill Cumorah: A Significant Latter-Day Saint Landmark in Western New York Cameron J. Packer Brigham Young University – Provo
• I have fasted and prayed about the Hill Cumorah location, and it has become an important part of my testimony. Until the Prophet says otherwise, I will always believe there is only one Hill Cumorah in NY. I know the church is neutral on their position about geography. I am fine with that. I am not neutral. I also think it is disingenuous for other apologetic groups to claim they are neutral when I know they are decidedly proponents of the Mesoamerican Theory. Many of these groups claim to be neutral as to show themselves in agreement with the Church. Many of these groups dismiss the Heartland Theory and will not even allow our information on their website as a balance to their liberal views. I would think Matthew, you would help us give the members of the Church both sides of the argument. I am the organizer for Rod Meldrum’s events. I would like to personally give you an invitation to speak at our next FIRM Foundation Conference on Sept 23-25, 2021 at the Mountain America Expo Center in Sandy Utah. I would love for you to spend about 45 minutes on stage and share with our group how you feel we can support each other as fellow Saints in strengthening each of our testimonies about the Book of Mormon. Thanks for your consideration. Blog Here about Ramah and Cumorah with the Flag

• Kevin Price, PhD in Geography says: July 10, 2021 
• Rian, you have responded to Brother Grow’s comments well. For years I looked to Mesoamerica to find the scientific evidence for Book of Mormon Geography and it was a big nothing burger for over 30 years. The ruins they look to in Mesoamerica area were constructed hundred of years after the Nephites were destroyed, the ruins are not Israelite in structure but solid Hindu, the DNA of the Maya is Asian.
• The remains of human bone powder covering large areas have been found around the Hill Cumorah in New York as confirmed by Cornell University, the metals from the battles were carried off long ago and Parley Pratt said his father, who was a blacksmith found all the scrap metal he needed around Hill Cumorah.
• More importantly, however, we do not find Adam-ondi-Ahman, New Jerusalem, the restored gospel, the Land of Liberty, the Promised Land in Mesoamerica. The church headquarters is not found in Mesoamerica. Why did Thomas Stuart Ferguson leave the church after exploring for Book of Mormon evidence in Mesoamerica for decades and after spending hundreds of thousands of members money in Mesoamerica.
• To me, Meso is like eating cotton candy, it looks beautiful (Pagans have been very good at building temples, but they used them for Human blood sacrifices, and used stairs and ornately carved stone altars forbidden by God), but take a bite of the cotton candy and there is NOTHING there. The good news is many members are abandoning Meso and coming back to North America. Every member I talk to tells me they never believed in Meso and was waiting for the evidence to be found in North America. As we find more evidence, increasing numbers of members are coming to the truth. The avalanche of true is near and it is exciting.

• [email protected] says: July 10, 2021 
• Hi Dr. Price: I appreciate your feedback. Do they still have a Dept. of Geography at BYU do you know? I grew up believing my seminary teachers and seeing the Meso buildings in our light blue copies of the Book of Mormon when I served a mission. I always thought things happened in Central America. Just after my mission in 1977, I began wondering really how Moroni walked all the way some 3,000 miles to New York. I finally justified it and said, “well the Lord could have just moved the plates to New York Himself”, so I forgot about things.
• Then about 12 years ago this man named Rod Meldrum told me about the mounds of North America and I had never heard of mounds or any ancient civilization in North America. I began exploring and the rest is history. I believe now as Pres Monson said, “The Lord gave a divine promise to the ancient inhabitants of this favored country (the United States): ‘Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12). Our Heavenly Father inspired the leaders of…the United States of America, that they might together, under His direction, having been raised up by God for the purpose, establish the Constitution of this country and…Bill of Rights, that by the year of our Lord 1805 [there would be] a climate where our Heavenly Father could send into this period of mortality a choice spirit who would be known as Joseph Smith, Jr.” Teachings of Thomas S. Monson by Thomas S. Monson 2011 (Ordained an Apostle, 1963; ordained President of the Church, 2008) I love the Book of Mormon!
• Dr. Kevin Price says: July 10, 2021 
• Yes, BYU does have a geography department, but I turned down a job offer from this department about 10 years ago because they decided to eliminate their graduate program. This means the department is more like a community college teaching program. At the time I had millions in NASA research funding and needed good graduate students to assist with the NASA work. I decided the program was not well suited for the research work I was doing. Their focus was more on tourism and mine was on the use of satellite and airborne color infrared imagery and other remote sensing data types for studying the earth (crops, range and forest lands). I was working in China, Zambia, El Salvador, Brazil, and Kazakhstan and needed good research assistance, which I knew could not be provided by undergraduate students. So, yes, BYU has an undergraduate program focuses mainly on tourism.

• [email protected] says: July 11, 2021
• Did BYU’s geography Dept. ever speak about geography in any other place other that Mesoamerica? How would those departments allocate gifts from donors and who would determine where to put the donation and why? Who allocates those dollars today to Mesoamerica and why? Maybe you could help me understand the process.
• Could a donor give money and the donor tell a University where they want the money spent in a particular place? I hear about a project headed by John Lefgren PhD in Iowa where he is looking for evidence of the city Zarahemla in the Heartland of the USA. Why wouldn’t the Church take an interest in that and allow even a small amount of money to that project? It would be nice to hear from someone in the appropriate Department at BYU on answering these questions as I truly believe the evidence for One Hill Cumorah in NY and Zarahemla being in Iowa D&C 125 should be looked into.
• It is obvious over all these years there has been no evidence of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Here is an article, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/how-mormon-lawyer-transformed-archaeology-mexico-and-ended-losing-his-faith about a brother Ferguson who ended up losing his testimony after looking and looking in Mesoamerica for evidence using donated money from the Church and he lost his testimony. What follow-up has there been from that, by our Church do you know?
• Dr. Kevin Price says: July 11, 2021 at 7:50 pm
• Responses to Brother Nelson’s questions above.
• Nelson – Did BYU’s geography Dept. ever speak about geography in any other place other that Mesoamerica?
• Price – First, I should clarify that my BS and MS degrees are from BYU in plant biology, my PhD is in geography from the University of Utah. I never took a class in geography at BYU. I therefore cannot confidently respond to your question above.
• Nelson – How would those departments allocate gifts from donors and who would determine where to put the donation and why?
• Price – For reasons stated above, I cannot speak specifically to your question regarding BYU Department of Geography. I know many of the faculty in geography at BYU and they are exceptionally fine people. I can speak as to how donations were handled in my former Department of Geography at the University of Kansas and Kansas State University. The donor often specifies how they want their funding allocated. This is one reason universities have distinguished professors or endowed chairs. A person or organization that donates funding often tells the university how they want their donation used. They may specify that they want the funds used to hire the best person they can in a particular area of research. Such people are offered impressive salaries to lure them away from other institutions and given funding to run their research program. Sometimes the funding is used to build a new building that is usually named after the donor. I should make clear that I am speaking of donations, not research funding from organizations such as the National Science Foundation or other research funding organizations.
• Nelson – Who allocates those dollars today to Mesoamerica and why? Maybe you could help me understand the process.
• Price – I think most of their funding is coming from private donors. I hope BYU or the Church is not providing them funding or they would not be adhering to their statement of neutrality concerning Book of Mormon geography. If BYU or the Church are providing them funding, then members should be concerned and challenge these funding allocations. People working in or with these organization should not be funded by BYU or the LDS Church if there is to be a neutral stand regarding Book of Mormon geography. This is true for the Departments of Religion/History and the Church Education System. If they are teaching the Mesoamerica Model, they are using Church funding in violation of the neutrality position stated by the Church presidency. Any Church publications should be neutral with respect to artwork, publications and talks given by Church funded individuals or organizations. If they are using Church funding facilities, they must be neutral in what they say and show. If not, the membership should challenge them on the matter and asked that neutrality be observed.
• I should point out too that universities usually charge over 50% overhead rates, meaning for every research dollar a professor is successful in securing, the university gets about half of the funds. This is one of the reasons BYU tried to recruit me away from the University of Kansas (KU). BYU offered me twice my KU salary and KU came back and beat BYU’s offer. I generated about a million dollars in overhead for KU over a 5-year period and they were not going to let me leave without a fight. I turned down BYU’s offer not because of money, but because the department that was recruiting me had decided to eliminate their graduate student program, so I would have no graduate research assistance to help with my research. To me, it was very foolish to do this – they turned the department into the equivalent of a teaching school (I love to teach, but I could not be nearly as successful in winning research funding without a graduate student program to support the efforts. Ironically, BYU was recruiting me for my research funding success.
• Nelson – Could a donor give money and the donor tell a university where they want the money spent in a particular place?
• Price – Yes as I stated above, but if the organization doing the donation or receiving donation is funded by the Church, they cannot violate the Church’s Book of Mormon neutrality position. They would need to tell the donor that they cannot violate the Church’s neutrality position unless they stop receiving funding from the Church and are independently funded such at the those working on the Heartland Model.
• Nelson – I hear about a project headed by John Lefgren PhD in Iowa where he is looking for evidence of the city Zarahemla in the Heartland of the USA. Why wouldn’t the Church take an interest in that and allow even a small amount of money to that project?
• Price – My response is based somewhat on person opinion and not sure knowledge, but I believe the Church has taken many attacks for past support of the Mesoamerica Model (no evidence, DNA, etc.). The Church spent a lot of money in Mesoamerica, and the outcome has never proven the Geography of the Book of Mormon. If the thousands of dollars spent looking for proof of Book of Mormon geography in Mesoamerica has been productive we would not have Mesoamerica supporters using a Fantasy Map in some of our Church educational materials to teach Book of Mormon geography (something that needs to be stopped immediately – it is destroying testimonies of the Book of Mormon).
• If the Book of Mormon geography were known in Mesoamerica, we would have a map showing the location of Zarahemla, the Hill Cumorah, and other locations spoken of in the Book of Mormon – the Mesoamerica model supporters do not have a reality map so they use a fabricated map that looks too much like Mesoamerica and should be stopped NOW. This fantasy map (photo below) is leading many members to believe the events described in the Book of Mormon are only metaphorical. Tell me, why would Moroni in chapter 10 of the Book of Mormon ask us to pray about a metaphor? That would be like asking someone to pray about Alice in Wonderland or Disneyland (at least Disneyland does not need to be plotted on a fantasy map.)
• Nelson – It would be nice to hear from someone in the appropriate Department at BYU on answering these questions as I truly believe the evidence for One Hill Cumorah in NY and Zarahemla being in Iowa D&C 125 should be looked into.
• Price – Do not hold your breath Brother Nelson. The Mesoamerica Model is so entrenched at BYU that I am not sure if there is anyone at BYU who dares challenge it. They would not want to be expelled from the Great and Spacious Building of Academia. I agree that there is only ONE HILL CUMORAH just as has been taught by many Prophets and Apostles of the Church in the past.
• I believe the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith the location of Zarahemla when He gave him the revelation recorded in D&C 125 and when I ask those who challenge our interpretation of the revelation, asking them why did the Lord give this revelation, I never get a response.
• I had a friend in my ward doing his PhD in archaeology at the University of Kansas (I still live in Lawrence, Kansas) and he was specializing in archaeology in Mesoamerica. I remember my surprise when I asked him “Are you finding evidence in Mesoamerica supporting the Book of Mormon geography in this area, and he said, without apology, “no – nothing is there.”
• I see below that you cite the paper in Science Magazine about Thomas Stuart Ferguson losing his testimony after not finding evidence supporting Book of Mormon geography in Mesoamerica. He spent years and fortunes trying to find it and left the Church after he found nothing. Later he was rebaptized, but he never stepped foot in Mesoamerica again. It is time members start looking at the Heartland for answers – the evidence is abundant, and the Spirit confirms what it cannot confirm in Mesoamerica.
• Nelson – It is obvious over all these years there has been no evidence of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Here is an article, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/how-mormon-lawyer-transformed-archaeology-mexico-and-ended-losing-his-faith about a brother Ferguson who ended up losing his testimony after looking and looking in Mesoamerica for evidence using donated money from the Church and he lost his testimony. What follow-up has there been from that by our Church, do you know?
• Price – Some things are easier to sweep under the rug, but I am glad the Church finally came out with a neutrality statement on this matter and we as members should expect those working for the Church to honor this position. I am not worried about getting great amounts of funding. I have faith the Lord will provide, and He has done so so far.
• The Lord never seems to make those who are his servants rich. He continues to bring faithful members forward with support right at the times it is most needed. I believe He will continue to support our efforts. I have had so many amazing spiritual experiences since I started working with those doing the work to reveal the Book of Mormon geography in the Promised Land. I wish I could share some of these spiritual events, but right now it would not be appropriate, but please know that I know the Lord is mindful of our efforts and He is opening the doors as fast as we can investigate and document our findings.
• I am using my skills as a plant scientist, geographer, and geospatial scientists (remote sensing, GIS, GPS, statistics) to support this effort. I am working one some amazing projects right now. I am scanning artifacts that have been found in the Book of Mormon lands of the Heartland and building 3D models that we plan to post online in a virtual museum so people can view these artifacts and rotate them in 3D. The work is voluntary just like work done by most of those working on Book of Mormon geography in the Heartland. We are not enriching ourselves but are volunteering our time and talents.

If any have questions, please feel free to write me at my personal email account ([email protected]). Or call me at my mobile number of 785-393-5428. I would love to talk and share with you many exciting things that are now happening.

Dr. Kevin Price Senior Geospatial Analytics Scientist, Heartland Research Group [email protected] 785-393-5428

Hopewell/Nephites Important Similarities

The Hopewell Culture describes the common aspects of the Native American culture that began in the Florida panhandle in 600 – 500 BC that flourished along rivers in the northeastern and Midwestern United States from 300 BC to 400 AD, in the Middle Woodland period.

As you can see in the map below, and as you read history, the proven historical location and timelines of the Hopewell Culture are facts. Just think about it. If we found a people that had a history following this same beginning and ending pattern in North America and we called it the Book of Mormon, we would have validation that indeed the Hopewell people are the same as the Nephites. So as we surmise, Lehi landed in Florida, Nephi was chased by his brothers into Tennessee, then Mosiah left and went north on the Tennessee River (which by the way, flows north) to Missouri and Illinois where he met up with the Mulekites near the Mississippi River. Remember the Mulekites began their civilization at the same place they were found by Mosiah. (read here) “And they [Mulekites] journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.” Omni 1:16

Because of being found where they landed, we show a great probability that the Mulekites followed the same path as Lehi to the Gulf of Mexico, with the Mulekites following the Mississippi River all the way up to Montrose Iowa, where the Des Moines river rapids halted their journey, as it restricted boat traffic until the Army Corps of Engineers opened that waterway in the 19th century.

The area of Ohio is known as the Cultural Center of both the Adena and the Hopewell People with the Great Hopewell road running from Chillicothe, OH to Newark OH, the place of the amazing Newark Earthworks.

In the Land Zarahemla (WI, IA, MO, IL), there were many battles as well as in the Land Bountiful, (IN, OH, PA, NY) from Illinois to Indiana to Ohio and finally at Cumorah. What happened near Cumorah historically? Historians have found a sudden end to Hopewell civilization and pottery in that area from about 400-500 AD. We Latter-day Saints know what happened in that time range as the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites.
For a Full Nephite Time-Line visit: https://bookofmormonevidence.org/nephite-timeline/

---

Origins, Mound Builders and Mormonism 1491 New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann

“The major metatheoretical issue in the pre-professional anthropology of Squier’s day was whether humankind had a single origin (monogenism, with Native Americans often assumed to be the ‘Lost Tribes of Israel’ or other people mentioned in the Bible) or whether the races had multiple origins (polygenism, with various kinds of non-whites viewed as being created separately and comprising inferior species).” The question being raised was: Who were the people who built such amazing earthwork structures and mounds? “The result was that mound construction was widely and popularly attributed to a race of [Mound Builders], who no longer existed or at least no longer existed where and as they had earlier.”

In the 1998 republication of the Squier and Davis report, David J. Meltzer states, “All this was riding on a book devoted to the questions of the origin, antiquity, and identity of the [Mound Builders].” Questions had surfaced after the Revolutionary War, as emigrant trains began streaming over the Appalachian and Allegheny Mountains into the lowlands of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, where the settlers were finding a vast number of abandoned mound sites, fortifications and earthworks structures.

Buy the book here: https://bookofmormonevidence.org/bookstore/product/ancient-monuments-of-the-mississippi-valley-1848-book/

With the publication of Squier and Davis’s “Ancient Monuments”, many questions were being raised, as many considered the Indians too savage and primitive to have built such monumental structures. Others believed that some of the tribes of the Indians that existed in North America could be the descendants of the Mound Builders, a remnant of the Lost Tribes of Israel; and that the Mound Builders could be their progenitors, who through war and disease had experienced monumental reduction of their populations, changing the way they had once lived, causing the remaining populations, to revert to a more primitive way of existence, as “Hunter Gathers” relying on hunting and the gathering of fruits and nuts for their very existences. Meltzer states; “There was considerable speculation, among antiquarians no less than others, about who the Mound Builders were, where they had come from and when and where they had disappeared to…Nor was it clear how the [Mound Builders] related to living Native Americans: Were they linked as ancestors and descendants?”

The speculation about the people who had built these earthworks and mound structures had escalated as a number of early colonists and religious leaders were praising the virtues of the Indians and sending out missionaries to them. The early Jesuits viewed the Indians in a different light than most, for they were seekers of the Lost Ten Tribes. Other religious leaders of the day held the view that Native Americans might be of Jewish descent and needed to be familiarized with their heritage. “Reverend John Eliot, of Roxbury, Massachusetts, in a spirited effort to convert the Algonquian tribe of Indians, made a translation of many parts of the bible into the Algonquian language. He and Roger Williams were of the branch of Puritans still cleaving to the view that Indians were people worthy of salvation.” William Penn disposed toward conversion rather than extinction of the Indians reported; “that the Indians of Pennsylvania resembled the Jews of London…”

By the 1820’s there was among reformist Protestants a settled body of opinion holding that Indians should be handled more gingerly than mere imperial convenience might dictate. This thinking was grounded in the opinion that they were not, so to speak, Indians at all. While others were calling for extermination of bloodthirsty savages, the reformers asked some consideration at least for impoverished descendants of Lost Tribes, who might be as capable of redemption as New Testament Jews. This strain of Puritanism bore fruit again in 1823, when Ethan Smith published his View of the Hebrews; or the Lost Tribes of Israel in America; this Smith [was] no kin to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of [Jesus] Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

Joseph Smith had published the Book of Mormon in 1830 in Palmyra, New York. It tells of migrations of people to America before Columbus. “Smith became the founder of the only world religion to be based in American archeology. Because the American Indians have never sought to evangelize Europeans or Africans, Mormonism is also the only world religion to place American Indian experience at the center of its creed.” “It is true to this day that the Mormon church, the largest denomination to accept the Lost Tribes view of Indian origins, has been consistently interested in evangelistic—that is respectful—relations with Native Americans.”

Ancient Monuments of The Mississippi Valley

Set of 48 original plates in 1848 (Book)This spiral bound oversized book contains a complete set of 48 of the plates from the book, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley by the Smithsonian’s E.G. Squier and E.H. Davis from their original surveys. These reproductions have been enlarged 120% from the original size for greater detail.  They include such works as those of Newark, Chillicothe and Marietta, Ohio, the Great Circle & Octagon, Fort Ancient, Fort Hill, Serpent Mound, and “the Cross.”

Upon the publication of the Book of Mormon in Palmyra New York, Joseph Smith began to reach out in a missionary effort to the Indians of America’s heartland. He directed missionaries to the Cattaraugus Indians near Buffalo, New York, the Wyandot’s of Ohio, and the Delawares of Missouri, along with the Fox, Sac and other Algonquian tribes; declaring to them that they were of a remnant of the House of Israel. This idea, that the Indians were of Mid-Eastern origin, was a concept that was contrary to the political doctrine of Manifest Destiny and to the social engineering efforts that were being advanced in the 1800s. The primary political and social agenda of the late 1700s and 1800s was centered on questions as to who would control the lands of America. The desired outcome would require the removal of the Indians from their ancestral lands and the placing of them on reservations as settlers moved westward. If the Indians were to be viewed as of Hebrew or European descent, then a case could be made that the Indians were more than mere savages with rights that should be granted under a constitutional law.” 1491 New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann and information provided by Ancient American Magazine

The 300-acre Hopewell Mound Group

The 300-acre Hopewell Mound Group is the type site for the Hopewell culture. Early archeologists named the site for its owner, Mordecai C. Hopewell. The artifacts in the picture below were found in Mound 25 called a double burial site in the Hopewell Mound Group in Ross County, OH. The significance of the better known mica hand placed between the skulls of the double burial and two mica eagle talons which were placed on each chest is not understood.

Hopewell Mica Cutouts

The native peoples of Ohio may have begun to use mica during the Early Woodland period, but its use in the crafting of ceremonial objects became especially important during the Middle Woodland period. 

Mica is a shiny mineral that occurs in layers, which can be split apart into thin, translucent sheets. Sometimes called isenglass, plates of mica have been used historically as windows for stoves. 

Hopewell culture spiritual leaders used small slabs of mica for a kind of mirror, possibly used in divination ceremonies, and artisans cut sheets into a variety of delicate shapes that may have been sewn onto garments to serve as personal ornaments.

Mica does not occur naturally in Ohio. Its source is in the Appalachian Mountains of North and South Carolina. Ohio’s Hopewell people may have obtained the mica in trade with the Middle Woodland cultures in this region, or perhaps pilgrims brought offerings of mica and other rare and precious materials to the great earthwork centers of southern Ohio.

Mica continued to be used by some Late Woodland cultures in Ohio, but only in much smaller quantities and these later peoples did not cut it into the elegant effigies so characteristic of the Hopewell culture.

Human Hand Effigy, Hopewell Culture, Hopewell Mound Group

Human Hand Effigy, Hopewell Culture, Hopewell Mound Group,
Ross Co., A 283/000294
Hopewell Culture: Double Burial Mica Set artifacts
Time period: 100 BC-AD 400
Provenience: Hopewell site (Mound 25), Ross County, Ohio USA
Original artifact size: 8-31 cm (3-12 inches)
Original artifact material: Mica

Hopewell Double Burial Context and Interpretation:

“Mica cutouts were produced by the Hopewell culture (100 BC-AD 400) which thrived in the American Midwest and southern Ohio more than two thousand years ago. The artifacts that the replicas pictured above were based upon were excavated from a double burial in Mound 25 that was part of a complex of earthworks known as the Hopewell site. The site name honored Mordecai C. Hopewell who in the 1800s owned the farm which the 44.5 hectare (110 acre) mound complex was located. Since excavations on the Hopewell site produced artifacts that were previously unknown, the culture was also named after Hopewell.  Complex geometric earthworks, some the largest in the world, were a trademark of the Hopewell culture. Usually Hopewell mound complexes comprise of very regular geometric shapes: a combination of circular, square and octagonal earthen walls that lined the site perimeter. The Hopewell site is unusual in that it has a mound geometry that is irregular in shape. The site has two orthogonal walls on the south and east sides with a j-shaped curve forming the remaining north and western walls. There is however a smaller square walled complex sharing the eastern wall of this larger complex that conforms to the classic Hopewell plan. A survey of the Hopewell site in 1847 described more than 20 smaller mounds within the enclosure of the perimeter walls. Many contained multiple burials with abnormally large amounts of burial objects.

In 1891, Warren K. Moorehead was employed by Harvard University to excavate the site. His methods have been described euphemistically as “cavalier” by modern standards.  Mosaics of colored sand, one represented a panther, were uncovered and then destroyed as his investigation cut through stratigraphy of the mounds. Mound 2 had 8,000 palm-sized discs of flint, about 5.4 metric tons (6 tons) uncovered. He must have been overwhelmed by the shear number of artifacts for a famous picture taken at the time (left) showed these discs recklessly piled outside one of his field camp tents. Mound 17 had 3,000 sheets of mica excavated, “enough to fill two barrels”. The same mound had 5,000 copper objects, of which Moorehead thought 4,000 were copper ear spools, 100 were breast plates, and another 120 were “cut into numerous designs”. He also found in Mound 17 by his estimates over 100,000 fresh water pearls from the various species mussels and clams that inhabit Ohio streams (they were at the time worth one million dollars).

Mound 25, the largest in the Hopewell site enclosure, was composed of the Central Mound and two side mounds that over time, due to additional burials, merged to become one conjoined mound  9 m (30 ft) high and 152 m (500 ft) long. There were a total of 69 copper and (meteoritic) iron celts and 92 copper breastplates found in all the features of this mound. The significance of the better known mica hand placed between the skulls of the double burial and two mica eagle talons which were placed on each chest is not understood. Evidence of incising has been found on one of the mica talons. No pigment is observed on the surface of these artifacts as has been found on painted mica artifacts. The burial also had smaller two mica circular discs, a pierced claw and two other mica geometric forms placed at their waist. The photograph (above right) has the mica replicas positioned as they were found in the Hopewell grave (relative distances between replicas not accurate). The geographical origins of grave goods from this and other excavations indicated the Hopewell culture had trade sophisticated trade networks extending to the Gulf of Mexico (marine shells), Rocky Mountains (obsidian), and Michigan (native copper). North Carolina is one source of mica where one pre-Columbian mine was reported to have blunt excavation makings on its wall characteristic of stone tools. Cause for the Hopewell culture decline about AD 400 is not known.” Jack Corbo Cleveland Ohio

The subject of the disappearance of the Hopewell in 400 AD is well understood by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe the Hopewell are the same Nephites of the Book of Mormon who where destroyed about 400 AD. Some coincidences are just to wonderful, as we understand the lands of the Book of Mormon. According to some historians, “little is known about why Hopewell mound-building ended, either about AD 200 in the lower Illinois Valley and about AD 350-400 in the Scioto river valley. There is no evidence of failure, no evidence of widespread diseases or heightened death rates: basically, the smaller Hopewell sites simply aggregated into larger communities, located away from the Hopewell heartland, and the valleys were largely abandoned.” Why Did the Hopewell People Build Enormous Mounds? John Weinstein © The Field Museum by K. Kris Hirst Updated March 08, 2017

Squier & Davis, c.1848

Two thousand years ago, people of an advanced culture gathered here to conduct religious rituals and ceremonies related to their society. At this site, they built an enormous earthwork complex spanning about 130 acres. An earthen wall extended for over two miles, surrounding an immense sacred space that included 29 burial mounds. Astounding quantities of finely crafted art made of exotic materials were buried here as part of elaborate mortuary ceremonies.

The 300-acre Hopewell Mound Group is the type site for the Hopewell culture. Early archeologists named the site for its owner, Mordecai C. Hopewell. The general shape of the Hopewell Mound Group is a parallelogram 1,800 feet long on the east and the west sides and 2,800 feet long on the north and south. Archeologists estimated that the walls were originally 35 feet wide at the base and enclosed an area of 111 acres. A smaller square enclosure with sides 850 feet long is connected to the east side of the parallelogram. Remnants of the east, west, and north walls are visible. Two earthworks features are located within the parallelogram, one circular and one D-shaped. Three of the seven mounds in the D-shaped enclosure are joined. Their original size is estimated to be 500 feet long, 180 feet wide, and 30 feet tall. This is the largest known mound constructed by the Hopewell culture, and a remnant of it is visible today.

Additional Hopewell Mound Group Information

Squier & Davis, c.1848 Two thousand years ago, people of an advanced culture gathered here to conduct religious rituals and ceremonies related to their society. At this site, they built an enormous earthwork complex spanning about 130 acres. An earthen wall extended for over two miles, surrounding an immense sacred space that included 29 burial mounds. Astounding quantities of finely crafted art made of exotic materials were buried here as part of elaborate mortuary ceremonies. This site is accessible for visitors during daylight hours. Hopewell Mound Group has a 2.5 mile interpretive trail and a portion of the Rails-To-Trails bike path. Bikes are only permitted on the bike path, not on the interpretive trail. This site contains restrooms and a covered picnic shelter. Information on visiting the site today. Squier & Davis 1848  New to Science The culture discovered at this site was new to the science of archeology in the late 1800’s. Newly described cultures field, which happened to be owned by a gentleman named Mordecai Hopewell at the time. Consequently, a remarkable American Indian culture, which is believed to have stretched from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, is named after an otherwise obscure Chillicothe land owner. The true tribal names of these people were lost over the millennia, but the ancient American Indians who built this sprawling structure were part of a cultural golden age that flourished in this region from A.D. 1 to 400. The monumental architecture and artifacts of the Hopewell culture reflect a pinnacle of achievement in the fields of art, astronomy, mathematics and engineering, the likes of which was seldom seen again in eastern North America. A List of Superlatives Even when compared to all of the other astonishing prehistoric earthworks in the Chillicothe area, Hopewell Mound Group stands out in many regards. This complex included the largest single earthen-walled enclosure constructed by the Hopewell – encompassing over 110 acres. Within its walls was the largest burial mound the Hopewell people ever built: Mound 25 was 500 feet long and 33 feet high. Ephraim Squire’s dramatic 1848 engraving (seen above) pictures this enormous triple peaked mound surrounded by the low earthen wall that formed a smaller D-shaped enclosure within the great enclosure. This site provided the greatest set, both in quality and quantity, of artistic Hopewell objects ever discovered. Many of the most famous images of the Hopewell culture are from the objects found at this site: the mica bird claw the copper bear paw, and the mica hand with its elongated fingers stretching upward. The artifacts were often made of exotic materials not found in Ohio. A vast trade network appears to have thrived during this period. Huge ceremonial blades made of obsidian from Yellowstone National Park were discovered here. In fact, the total amount of obsidian here was the largest ever found east of the Mississippi River. While most Hopewell complexes seem to have been used for less than two centuries, evidence suggests that Hopewell Mound Group remained an important ceremonial center throughout the entire era of the Hopewell Culture in Ohio, a period of about four hundred years! All of these extraordinary features support the idea that Hopewell Mound Group was possibly the most important ceremonial center of all the earthworks in southern Ohio. Searching for Remnants Unfortunately, this fabulous earthwork complex fell victim to the same fate that claimed nearly all of the many renowned earthwork complexes of southern Ohio. Two centuries of plowing gradually leveled the sloping earthen embankment walls until they are barely visible today. The mounds that were too large to plow were excavated to below ground level by archeologists in the early 1900’s and never reconstructed. Sadly, the great earthen monuments of this sacred site are now all but invisible to the casual visitor’s eye. However, with some effort, the keen-eyed observer can still find signs of prehistoric grandeur here. The interpretive trail meanders past some of the site’s significant features. Paralleling the trail on the northwest side of the great enclosure, lies an intact, six-foot-high section of the original 2,000-year-old embankment wall. Use the key on the below map to locate the other visible remnants of the Hopewell Mound Group earthworks.  Archeological crew from Hopewell Culture NHP work under a tent at Hopewell Mound Group during the 2014 field season. NPS / Tom Engberg Archeological Expeditions When Europeans first came to this area in the late 1700’s they were amazed to find so many giant earthworks in the Chillicothe area. Eventually, word spread about the intriguing phenomenon and archeologists arrived to study the earthwork and its burials. The current theories about Hopewell Mound Group and its builders are founded on the scientific conclusions of archeologists who have studied this site over nearly two centuries.1820: Caleb Atwater draws the first map of these earthworks. Atwater assumes the site had been built for defense. He names the earthworks “Clark Fort” after the owners of the farm field. 1848: Ephraim Squier and Edwin Davis draw the most famous map of the site and include it in their groundbreaking work Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, the first book ever published by the Smithsonian Institution. They name the complex “North Fork Works,” due to its proximity to the North Fork Paint Creek. 1891-92: Warren Moorehead excavates to find artifacts for the 1893 “World’s Columbian Exposition” in Chicago. By this time, Mordecai Hopewell owns the land. Moorehead partially excavates several of the mounds, including about a quarter of the largest mound, Mound 25. The abundance and exquisite craftsmanship of the artifacts enthralls visitors at the exposition and the concept of the “Hopewell Culture” is born. After the exposition, all the artifacts are stored and displayed in Chicago’s newly created “Field Museum.” 1922-25: Henry Shetrone and William Mills of the Ohio Historical Society excavate all the mounds of what is now called “Hopewell Mound Group.” By this time, many of the mounds and the walls of the square have disappeared under the plow. None of the excavated mounds are reconstructed. Today, the discovered artifacts are stored or displayed at the Ohio Historical Center in Columbus. 1980: Archeologist Mark Seeman of Kent State University accurately relocates most of the mounds through aerial photography and surface survey. By this time, the only part of the earthworks left intact is the wall and adjacent ditch on the north side of the great enclosure. 2001: Using magnetometry, archeologists from the National Park Service and OSU find no evidence of long term settlement within the earthen walls. They also discover a new 90-foot diameter circular earthwork within the great enclosure (the smaller circle on the map between Mounds 2 and 23). Visiting the Site Park grounds are open every day during daylight hours. Facilities at Hopewell Mound Group include restrooms, a picnic shelter and a two-mile self-guided interpretive trail. The Tri-County Triangle Trail, a paved bike trail which traverses the site, runs for over thirty miles between Chillicothe and Washington Courthouse. See map below for layout of trail and parking lot access. The parking area at the trailhead is located on Sulphur Lick road, just west of Maple Grove road and the North Fork Creek.

HOPETON GREAT CIRCLE & SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN

“There was a wall at the Great Circle at the Hopeton site. For those of you interested in dry archeological research, here is more about an interesting and recent discovery at the Hopeton Great Circle (adjacent to the Cedar Bank site near Chillicothe OH and also adjacent to the Chillicothe Ward building). Typically, I try to remain abreast with the research happening each year in Ohio and nearby. I spoke with an archaeologist last summer [2017] at the site, and learned of his confirmation of anomalies indicated by a an extensive magnetometry survey. The other day in conversation, we discussed more details regarding the findings. It appears the Great Circle has evidences of a wooden fence, where the at least 6 ft height 1050 ft diameter earthen wall (enclosing 20 acres) was located. Indications are a pattern of very large posts spaced every 6 meters. This excavation last season revealed a post mold to be 96cm (about 38 inches) in diameter and 1.13 meters deep. One can estimate the height from that data. Indications are that smaller posts existed between the larger ones. The Hopeton site is significant in its location in relation to Cedar Bank, Sugarloaf, Mound City, and Dunlap Works and likely others. The current Chillicothe Ward building aligns with the Cedar Bank site (specifically the platform mound) and is within sight of Sugarloaf and in association with other major earthworks, including Hopeton. I am pretty sure Church engineering had not considered the earthworks when the building was designed.

Sugarloaf Mountain – “The Hopewell road from Newark points straight as an arrow to Sugarloaf Mountain, the hill directly behind the Cedar Bank site. It is also the hill which many Chillicothe earthworks align to. Additionally, the Marietta Road, another ancient thruway, points straight to Sugarloaf from Marietta. Then consider the Kanawha Trail from Charleston WV and the Scioto Trail from Portsmouth OH…yep, the same. It seems everything in southern Ohio points to Sugarloaf. And there is more. The largest concentration of Hopewell earthworks are within minutes of Sugarloaf (over 500).  You can see Columbus OH from the top of the hill. It commands the valley more in presence as opposed to height.

I cannot overstate the significance of the hillscape in Chillicothe! The Creation and Creator can be read like a book. Consider how many times we read of the symbolic ‘get thee to the mountain’ in many accounts in the scriptures.

And then there is the irony of Ohio’s founding fathers choosing the same hills for inclusion of the state’s official seal (picture right) with the sun rising and dawning from the EAST, rising over a land that we know the Savior himself appeared in our time…in fact just a few years later.

You can not make this stuff up any better. I absolutely skip through life fearless of death because of my testimony of the things I have witnessed living a lifetime in this land. These were the people. Ohio was the place. But Sugarloaf is special. As I have climbed to the summit of Sugarloaf I have realized a spirit equal to that in the temple. My wife agrees of its uniqueness. It was clear to her the area of compaction at the summit. I hiked with my oldest son and he experienced strongly the feelings associated with the place. He described at as a place where one should remove his shoes.

Come to Ohio and I will guide you to the top of Sugarloaf. We will sit down on a fallen tree near an area of ancient compaction. We will look down on the Cedar Bank site and dozens of others immediately below us. And then I will ask you, “What do you feel?

Like Wayne May says, “There’s more.“ Assemble yourselves at the Ohio and see “I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations.”

It is a dawning of yet another season.” Anthony George Lifelong Resident of Chillicothe, Ohio and Archaeological Researcher. Email Tony at: [email protected]

 

Since my last post on the Newark Holy Stones in 2019 we have found additional evidence from Scott E. Meyer of Northwestern University, and Dr. Arnold Fischel called “Newark” Ritual Artifacts By Rochelle I. Altman January 2004. She quotes saying, “If you found a US penny in a trench at a dig that was assumed to contain only ancient items, you wouldn’t claim the penny to be a forgery when you saw it. First, however, you would have to recognize that it’s a penny. Anon. Also see page 545 in the Annotated Book of Mormon. https://www.bofm.blog/additional-evidence-newark-holy-stones/ You can also read my blog at https://bookofmormonevidence.org/america-unearthed-holy-stone-analysis/

“In 1867, David M. Johnson, a banker who co-founded the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum, in conjunction with Dr. N. Roe Bradner, M.D., of Pennsylvania, found a fifth stone, in the same mound group south of Newark in which Wyrick had located the Decalogue. The original of this small stone is now lost, but a lithograph, published in France, survives.

The “Holy” Stones Found Near Newark, Ohio Dr. Yitzchok Levine Department of Mathematical Sciences Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ 07030 [email protected]

“The letters on the lid and base of the Johnson-Bradner stone are in the same peculiar alphabet as the Decalogue inscription, and appear to wrap around in the same manner as on the Decalogue’s back platform.

“The independent discovery, in a related context, by reputable citizens, of a third stone bearing the same unique characters as the Decalogue stone, strongly confirms the authenticity and context of the Decalogue Stone, as well as Wyrick’s reliability.”7 Dr. Yitzchok Levine Department of Mathematical Sciences Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ 07030 [email protected] More Here:

As our friend Wayne May says, We Report, You Decide! Additional Resources:The following articles has links to many additional sources and information.https://bookofmormonevidence.org/hebrew-languageculture-in-n-america-at-8-sites/ and https://bookofmormonevidence.org/hebrew-languageculture-in-n-america-at-8-sites/ Forensic geologist Scott Wolters, star of the History2 Channel’s hit series America Unearthed, meets professor Hugh McCullough at the Johnson Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton, Ohio to conduct an analysis on the Ohio Decalogue stone. 

Previously (March 2020) I shared the following information called, ANCIENT HEBREW ARTIFACTS IN THE UNITED STATES here: https://www.bofm.blog/ancient-hebrew-artifacts-in-the-united-states

New Jeff Downs Information

Our great Heartland friend Jeff Downs was attending a Wayne May seminar in 2021 and sent me some of the slides. They go along with evidence of the Holy Stone’s authenticity and we appreciate Jeff sending me the information.

Jeff said, “Wayne May recently gave a presentation in Utah (2 days ago).  A site I am subscribed to posted it online.  I watched the 2 hours 11 min presentation and wanted to share some new nuggets of information I found interesting.  Cool stuff!

I thought I would share a small exchange I had with my son Steve and some friends. Steve after watching Wayne May’s most recent presentation said, “I just did some digging on the importance of these types of statues. It seems like they were placed at the burial sites of individuals or in temples to reverence the individual. I’d be curious if the site where they found the Decalogue was either of these? 

(Above) “[Wayne] May was visiting his daughter whose husband is a military doctor stationed in Rome. Wayne was visiting the museum when he stumbled across the display above. (note the figure on the left and the second to the last figure on the right). The second picture (insert) shows how the decalogue stone matches very well with the statues on display. There WAS a precedent for the decalogue stone! For those that dismiss this stone, there are those who were creating something similar before!

My son, Steve, found this info on the 2 pictures Wayne highlighted (see picture above).  
New Kingdom (c. 1570- c. 1069 BCE)
Graeco–Roman Period (332 BC -395 AD)
Eighteenth Dynasty spanned the period from 1550/1549 to 1292 BC.
There is some debate whether the figure in the decalogue stone is Moses or Mosiah.
Moses: Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE; Jerome suggested 1592 BCE, and James Ussher suggested 1571 BCE as his birth year.
Mosiah: By about 225 B.C. the Nephites had become wicked, so Mosiah led a group of righteous Nephites to Zarahemla and merged with the Mulekites.” Jeff and Steve Downs

Hebrew Holy Stones-More Proof!

Today in July 2021 we continue to come across believable evidence to consider the Nephites of Hebrew descent living here in North America and within the United States as the Book of Mormon indicates.. There has been a lot of talk from some intellectuals about various hoaxes purported to be associated with ancient Hebrew stones and script found in North America. It makes sense that when Lehi landed in North America he and his culture would have left behind evidence of his Jewish and Israelite heritage. Since nothing has been found in South and Central America, these intellectuals want to condemn anything that may have been found in North America. Of the 10-12 evidences found in North America related to Hebrew, the scholars refute ALL OF THEM as hoaxes!. That seems way to easy to just out of hand condemn any evidence. That’s what people do when they can’t explain things. Much of today’s science is not engaged in finding new truths, but in finding new pet theories. Since no new “Scientific Law” has been discovered and proven in over 100 years, the scientists are now propping up their new “theories” as if they are true. Take for example the theory of evolution. Last time I heard it is still a theory and has never been proven to be a law. What about the theory of magma in the center of the earth? It has been shown in Dean Sessions book that it is more likely that water is at the center of the earth? I’m not a scientist but just an ordinary man who likes to have science and history just “make sense”. What about the intellectuals (some at BYU) that say Noah’s flood was not universal and was probably a myth? What about those who say Adam was not the first man created on this earth? I would rather ask the simple question of, “does it make common sense” rather than listen to many intellectuals who claim to know the unknown or have a good theory for it. I don’t know the unknown either, but I study and pray about all things and it has to make sense as well. For example, something cannot be created out of nothing. We know this by the scriptures (D&C 93:29) and yet the vast majority of these intellectuals don’t believe in scripture either.

I offer this additional information below that I just read thanks to my friend David Hocking who sent it to me, (July 2021), that adds to all my previous information about the Newark Holy Stones. Take it to heart. Learn and listen, search and pray and things will make sense to you. By all means I don’t want you to believe me or this article, as like you, I am only one who loves the Lord and tries daily to learn His truths that He is sharing with us. Stay close to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and follow the Prophet and Apostles in all you do. I have a witness that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and I also know as Moroni promised that I, “may know the truth of all things.” Rian Nelson 

Great Information https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/arch/decalog.html

---

“Newark” Ritual Artifacts

INTRODUCTION

The photograph of an unfamiliar inscribed artifact appeared in the mail one day. The sender had only one question: what was the date of the artifact? The object itself was shaped like an ancient arch-topped tablet of “The” Law. In the center nested a bas-relief sculpture, with clear late-medieval attributes, enclosed in yet another Hammurabi-Jerusalemite arch-topped shape of “The” Law. Running down the sides of the object, between the inset sculpture and the outer edge, was an inscription expertly executed in a consolidated, sans-serif script design based on a Late-Medieval Hebrew font. Incorporated into the consolidated font were Sinaitic, Hebraeo-Phoenician, and Nabatean graphs. The object bore unmistakable evidence that it had been produced during the Late-Medieval period and was a product of probably France or Spain. A short summary report as to date and probable place of manufacture was duly supplied along with the very obvious markers as to both time and place. Upon reading this summary, the correspondent supplied more data.

Combined amazement and dismay are not the usual response to reading about an artifact. It was amazing that the clear evidence of medieval manufacture was not recognized and that this artifact and its companion pieces had been branded a 19th-century forgery — simply because it was assumed that the items had to be 1300 years old and, quite obviously, they were not that old. It was dismaying to learn that, because the objects had been found in the United States, this artifact, along with the rest of the set, had been annexed to support the dubious claims of an ancient Israelite presence in pre-Columbian America. This connection was murky enough; worse was to come.

It was disturbing to learn later that the artifact with the shape of “The” Law had been correctly identified as medieval and European in 1861 by Dr. Arnold Fischel.[1] It was disgraceful to learn that the Report, issued in 1863 by the committee appointed by the Ethnological Society which stated that they accepted Dr. Fischel’s assessment and could not label the items as “fakes,”[2] was ignored. Investigation into why the correct identification had been literally swept under the rug only made matters worse.

Why was the identification ignored? Because neither the committee’s report nor Fischel’s identification fit the two models erected with regard to these artifacts. On one side, we had a group who maintained that the artifacts were evidence of the presence of the ten lost tribes of Israel in “Ancient America.” On the other side, we had a school who declared the artifacts were “modern forgeries.” David Wyrick, who found two of the artifacts in 1860, including the one in the shape of the “Law” (now called “the decalog”), was “convicted” by rumor-consensus of forgery. Both Wyrick’s reputation and finances were ruined; he committed suicide in 1864. In 1872, Charles Whittlesey published his Archaeological Frauds: Inscriptions Attributed to the Mound Builders. Three Remarkable Forgeries.[3] These authentic artifacts were featured as one of the three forgeries. And there matters rested until 1980.

In 1980, Robert Alrutz carefully investigated the available data and re-opened the subject with his article, “The Newark Holy Stones: The History of an Archaeological Tragedy.”[4] In 1982, in his Mysteries of the Holy Stones, (Pheasant Run Publications, St. Louis), Joseph Schenck cleared Wyrick of the forgery charges. Between Alrutz and Schenck, the slightly revised position — now stated as “the artifacts are evidence of an Israelite presence in pre-Columbian America” — came back to life. The artifacts have been the subject of dispute between the two extremes ever since.

In 1991, Stephen Williams included these artifacts in his Fantastic Archaeology and still treats the artifacts as forgeries.[5] In 2000, Bradley T. Lepper and Jeff Gill, in an article entitled “The Newark Holy Stones,” decided that the artifact in the shape of “The” Law is a forgery made for political purposes by someone else they name.[6]

In the meantime, the other side was gathering forces. Cyrus Gordon entered the fray in 1995; in spite of the fact that the artifact has a handle and there are no holes with which to mount it, he decided that the “decalog” was a Samaritan mezzuzah.[7] In 1996, David A. Deal, published his article, “The Ohio Decalog: A Case of Fraudulent Archaeology,” in Ancient American, a magazine title that clearly states Deal’s position.[8] J. Huston McCulloch opened a web site devoted to proving that the artifacts are pre-Colombian.[9] Although Alrutz specifically mentions both Fischel’s and the Committee’s reports, both sides treat Fischel and Committee as if neither existed. The penny had been identified; but the identification was, and still is, ignored.

Fischel assumed that the artifacts had been stolen from a European settler and that they had been “planted.”[10] The artifacts were not “planted,” but, writing in 1861, Fischel lacked key information supplied in 1867. He was, however, right about the theft from a European settler in the United States and the medieval and European origins of the artifacts. The amount of information revealed by the artifacts, particularly with regard to the antiquity of certain Jewish traditions and their continued use many centuries after their presumed proscription in 200 CE, is stunning.

The evidence of continuity with the ancient wide-spread use of “magic letters” is substantial. These aspects demand that this particular penny be made known and recognized for what it is.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ARTIFACTS:

There are five pieces, four of which compose a set of ritual artifacts of two types. The fifth item is a case, made-to-order, to house one of the ritual artifacts. The two types are intended for different purposes.

Type one consists of head (“rosh”) and hand (“yad”) phylacteries (tefillin), made of black limestone (black is required for phylacteries).[11] The hand phylactery is 6-7/8″ in length by 2-7/8″ in width by 1-3/4″ in thickness.[12]

A typical Semitic-style profile pose of Moses in bas-relief is on the front (Figure 1).

The artifact is inscribed in the incantation format and displays a variant of a known condensed version of the “decalogue,” with abbreviations and composite graphs, that dates to before the second century BCE.[13] The head phylactery, inscribed with two of the four excerpts of Exodus required by halacha (Laws), is also written in the spirals of an incantation format and is also made of black limestone. Now only a lithograph of the head piece remains.[14] The phylactery was approximately 3″ long by 1-3/4″ in thickness and tapered from approximately 1″ at the top to a rounded “point” at the bottom (Figure 2).

Type two, made of novaculite, a very hard fine-grained rock, consists of a flow detector, for determining whether water is stagnant or flowing (thus pure), and a bowl for containing the water for ritual purification prior to donning the phylacteries. The flow detector is four-sided and approximately 6″ in length by 1-5/8 in thickness and bears a resemblance to a rounded “plumb bob” (Figure 3).[15]

Each side of the flow detector is inscribed in a Hebrew Square Script. The four inscriptions read as follows: D’var YHVH, (Saying/Word/Speech of [the] Lord);[16] Torat YHVH (Instructions of [the] Lord);[17] Qodesh Qadashim (Most pure/Most Sanctified/Most Sacred/Most Clean)[18] and Melekh Aretz (King of Earth).[19] Both the “mem” in “Melekh” and the “Aleph” in “Aretz” are expanded to indicate extra duration on “Mel” and “Ar.”

The durational notation on this last inscription shows us how the flow detector was used. The detector was inserted into whatever outdoor water source was available, and the inscriptions were recited in the above order (D, , Q, M) ending with a resounding “ME-lekh AR-etz.”

The use of durational notation to expand the “mem” in “melekh” and the “aleph” in “aretz” places the inscriptions, at the latest, to the 13th century when durational and stress notation were still in use on parts of the Continent.[20] The bowl was professionally shaped on a stone lathe, undoubtedly pedal- or hand-powered. The washing bowl is the “size of a teacup.”[21]

Four of the artifacts are in the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton, Ohio: the hand phylactery, its made-to-order case, the bowl, and the flow detector. The case is made of the same material as the flow detector and bowl.

A copy of the lithograph of the head phylactery is on hand. The set was meant for use when traveling; this is clear from the flow detector, bowl, and the protective case.[22] One does not need to check whether the water is free-flowing in one’s own home, nor does one need to carry around a matching bowl for washing. One does, however, have to assure that the water for washing is pure and a stone container is an ideal material for such a purpose.[23] Purity would also affect the choice of stone for the two phylacteries. Whatever else the traveler would be exposed to, stone would ensure that the ritual set would remain undefiled. The head phylactery probably had a case as well, but we shall never know.

That the artifacts were found more than 4,000 miles in distance and 400 to 600 years after their manufacture at a site in Ohio is completely irrelevant to an analysis of the artifacts themselves. Nevertheless, their disposition when found is relevant and is linked to how they got there. The evidence of “how” is stark and clear and, incidentally, answers “when.” We will now dispose of this side issue and then be free to concentrate on the artifacts themselves.[24]

DISPOSITION WHEN FOUND

The town of Newark, Ohio was founded in 1802 on a branch of the Licking River in one of the areas that had been filled with “great stone works” and Indian burial mounds covered with loose stone “stacks.” The burial mounds were located 10 miles to the south and east of Newark in an area that had never been inhabited but had long been dug into and pillaged.

The flow detector was found in June of 1860 about a mile from Newark in a pit at the edge of the nearby “great stone works.” The artifact was encased in a spherical “clay” ball typical of finds in the Indian mounds.[25] The hand phylactery, nestling in its case, and the water bowl were found in close proximity to each other in one of many Indian burial mounds on November 1, 1860. Also found were two small objects.[26] A branch of the river passed near by the mound. The burial mounds were under what had been reputed to be a “stone stack” 40 feet in height. “Reputed” is the key word; the site of the finds was hardly undisturbed.

The entire area of the “stone stack” and burial mounds had been thoroughly dug over during the early 1800’s in a search for the treasure of the notorious pirate, Captain Kidd. Then, in 1831-32, after the “pirate treasure hunt” had already erased evidence of the original state of the site and “stone stack,” the stones had been removed in their entirety to build the retaining wall around what is now called “Buckeye Lake.” The “stack” was neither described before the treasure hunt nor before it was destroyed; neither was the specific mound where the artifacts were found. Evidence that the site was continuously disturbed comes in 1850 when some farmers spent part of one day in excavating and turned up a small wooden “coffin” embedded in the clay about 2-3 feet beneath the surface of one mound. The wooden coffin was not excavated until July, 1860.[27]

The hand phylactery and bowl were found in this same mound in November 1860. Further, in November, when digging around where the “coffin” had been excavated in July, water seeped in at the head end where it had been. In digging, the texture of the wet clay has been described as comparable to “cutting through cheese.”[28]

Thus the site had continuously been disturbed, the soil was easily dug into, and we know nothing at all about the actual state of the site. In spite of the mass of evidence to the contrary, the site was (and still is) treated as if it were in a “virginal” state as left by the Indians 1300 years before. The head phylactery, with its matching spiraled inscription and black limestone material, was found in 1867 in the same mound and in the same area of the mound in which were found the hand phylactery and the bowl.

With the finding of the head phylactery, we are told when and how this set of late-medieval ritual artifacts found their way to these sites. The head phylactery was found by David M. Johnson (Banker) and N. Roe Bradner (MD), or rather skulls and other human bones and remains of “a burning place,” containing charcoal and ashes, and “other relics” were found by Johnson in what was a shallow grave twelve to fourteen inches in depth.[29] The skulls were encased in clay. The pirate’s treasure hunt, 50 to 75 workmen digging around and carting off the stones, and other numerous disturbances to the site across at least 60 years were completely ignored. As a result, the raised “burning place” (composed of rocks and clay and quite necessary to making any kind of “fireplace” in that soil at any period), skulls, and skeletal remains of humans were automatically assigned to “Ancient America” without further ado.

A number of skulls found in the dig were lifted out by banker Johnson and some of these were later handed to MD Bradner to be packed and shipped to Philadelphia. One particular “fragile skull,” with its damaged condition “tolerably well preserved,” was held together by the wet clay in which it was found. When Bradner lifted out the clay encased skull to examine it, the now dried-out clay fell apart, the skull disintegrated, and the head phylactery was revealed.[30]

Unlike the other pieces, the head phylactery is damaged. The damage to the “tolerably well preserved” skull showed that the person had been hit with force on the back of the head with the traditional “blunt instrument.” We know that the owner was wearing the head phylactery from its disposition when found: glued in place by the clay to the front of the “fragile” skull. We also know he was wearing the head phylactery from the condition of the artifact itself.

Chips of stone are knocked off both the lid and the matching place on the side of the “box” precisely where they should be if the owner were wearing it and had been struck from behind with force enough to pitch the person forward and hit stony ground directly in front of him. We also know that the hand phylactery was still in its case; therefore, the owner was killed after he had donned the head phylactery but was probably in the process of purifying himself before opening the case to don the hand phylactery.

That the skull and other skeletal remains were found in a shallow grave tells us that the area was no longer an empty wilderness in a climax forest. The only reason for a body to be hidden is because the area was now populated and the site regularly visited by local farmers and by people from the already founded Newark, Ohio — not to mention treasure hunters.

The flow detector was taken away while the other artifacts were buried with the deceased owner. We know that the owner had used the flow detector and the bowl because the head phylactery was on his head and he had, necessarily, washed before donning the phylactery. Therefore, he had recited the formula inscribed on the flow detector out loud and drawn attention to himself and what he was doing in a place he had chosen for privacy while performing the ritual.

One plausible reason for the removal of the flow detector comes to mind: after all, people have been killed for a pair of roller skates and the flow detector is a neat device for checking a water supply. Whatever the reason for carrying off the flow detector, the killer headed north and east to Newark and finally threw the item, with its Hebrew writing and evidence of mayhem, into the “bone-pit” where it acquired its “clay ball” and was found around 25-40 years later in 1860.

D. Francis Bacon, in 1860, acidly commented on the flow detector: “no stone, whether novaculite or any thing else (even granite), can be buried in that soil for so much as half a century without becoming covered by a calcareous incrustation, . . . or acquiring a ferruginous or other stain from the earth which encloses it. And yet this Newark Holy Stone comes up from its entombment of some thousand some hundreds and some odd years as clean and bright and slick as a new whistle!”[31]

It is hardly surprising that the stone came up “clean as a new whistle”: it had not been buried there long enough to acquire “a calcareous incrustation.” The evidence is quite clear: the artifacts were indeed stolen from a European settler, as Fischel surmised, and deposited at these sites earlier in the nineteenth century

That the head phylactery was bound in place on the owner’s head and the hand phylactery still in its case is relevant to an analysis of the artifacts.

BACKGROUND MATERIAL

WRITING SYSTEMS

We cannot emphasize often enough that a writing system is an integral part of cultural identity.[32] Prior to the first half of the 17th century, everything on a document had meaning: size, shape, color, format, script, material — literally everything. All these elements are sub-systems in a culture’s writing system. All of the sub-systems had to be correct for a given class of document and within a given culture for a document to be accepted as authentic. We cannot ignore any part of a culture’s writing system. To rephrase this, we must examine the whole elephant, or we are in danger of coming to conclusions based on a trunk or a tail.

PHYLACTERIES (TEFILLIN):

The word “phylactery” is Greek and means “to guard against evil”: in other words, a protective “amulet.” The term is never used in the Masoretic Text [MT] or Rabbinic discussions and is mentioned only once in the Old Greek [OG] in Matthew 25:3. Nevertheless, “phylactery” was picked up and became the standard term of reference.

Phylacteries (tefillin) are square boxes made of black leather and contain the four Biblical passages (Exodus 13:9, 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 6:18) that relate to the wearing of a sign [OTT] on the hand, to remind the wearer of the instructions of the Lord [Torat IHVH], and on the forehead, to keep the words of the Lord in mind. Since the second century CE, the four verses are written on one piece of parchment placed in the hand piece. The same four verses are written on four separate pieces of parchment and placed in four compartments in the head piece. Referred to as “halacha mosheh misinai” [laws given to Moses at Sinai], the wearing of phylacteries are derived from these four verses; however, there were disputes about the order in which the verses should be placed in the compartments. With the finding of one head piece at Qumran that still contained its parchments, these disputes, once thought to be medieval, were shown to date from at least the first century CE.

As far back as 1927, J. Mann maintained that the contents were not always limited to these four verses.[33] He pointed out that a ruling in Mishna Sanhedrin 11.3 specifically forbids the use of five instead of four verses. Mann claimed that the forbidden fifth verse was the decalogue itself. In the late 4th century CE, Jerome mentions that the phylacteries also contained the decalogue;[34] Jerome was considered in error; everyone “knew” that the decalogue had been forbidden.

Although long assumed to be only used in Samaritan ritual, evidence that the decalogue was recited daily in the temple along with Deut 6:4-9 and 11:13-21 comes from Mishna Tamid 5:1 and is also indicated in the Nash papyri from Fayyum (second century BCE). Finds at Qumran show that Mann was correct and so was Jerome: the decalogue was indeed used in phylacteries during the second-temple period. As of the second century CE, the practice of reciting the fifth part (the decalogue) was forbidden, so was its inclusion in the phylacteries.

Mann notes that the argument forbidding the inclusion of the decalogue is an interpretation that assigns the reciting of the decalogue only to Moses.[35] In current use, the hand piece is donned first; the head piece second. Yet, the Talmud generally places the head piece first because, unlike the hand piece, the head one was always visible and permitted a Jew to be recognized as one under the protection of the name of God. The placing of the hand piece first seems to date to the Talmudic period and has been assumed to have supplanted the older order.

The Rabbis held that the general law was figurative and expressed in the Bible; the application and amplification of these verses were matters of tradition and inference.[36] In addition to the evidence that among diverse Jewish groups a hand phylactery certainly could have the decalogue written on it, research has shown that the four Biblical passages may very well have been meant literally.[37]

While the specialized terminology of “magic” (divination, protection, placation, influencing of the supernatural, and so forth) appears throughout the MT, the terms are clustered in legal materials. The appearance of “magic” terminology in Exodus 22:18 (22:17 in the English texts) and Deuteronomy 18:10-11 would appear relevant to the discussion of the wearing of the phylacteries.

The custom appears related to the known ancient practice of wearing “magic” charms and protective amulets inscribed with the name of, or symbol for, a deity, or inscribed on hand and head denoting clan membership. Arguments on this subject abound and have since the late 19th century.[38] Even the supporters of the figurative interpretation admit that the language used in the text is borrowed from known, ancient customs connected with magic charms and with regard to amulets and incised or tattooed signs in use in the Ancient Near East. Among the suggestive passages are Gen 4:15; I Kings 20:41; and Ezekiel 9:4-6.

The four passages contained in the phylacteries themselves are ambiguous. There is also Isaiah 56:5, with the inexplicable combination of “yad v’shem” [hand and name] — unless the association is meant as a literal reference to the practice of placing a sign upon the hand. There is also the point that, although worn on the left arm (nearest the heart), the Hebrew name for the piece is “yad” (hand). Whether protective amulets or not, the wearing of the phylacteries and their contents are prescribed.

FORMAT:

Everyone is familiar with the “block” format; today we call this format “justified text.” The primary purpose of the block, or justified, format is to prevent the insertion of words not put there by the author.[39]

There are, however, other formats; each format had a special purpose. The “incantation format” was reserved for incantations or charms. The purpose of this format is to “freeze” the text to ensure that the words are said exactly as written. Incantation documents are instantly recognizable by the way they are written: the text is written in a spiral or circling manner.

Many examples of such incantation texts have been found. Incantations texts appear from Portugal of the 8th century BCE to Babylon in the 8th century CE; from Etruscan lead tablets to Roman dedications to Juno; from early Greek inscriptions from Thera to Ionic votive inscriptions to Apollo. They even appear written in Cretan Linear A. (Figure 4). From the number of texts written in boustrophedon (writing back and forth like an ox plowing) that appear at ancient Greek sacred sites, e.g., a wall block from Temple of Apollo Pythas (7th BCE), sacred laws from Magnesia, grave pillars, and other ritual inscriptions, we may have to re-assess the purpose of the technique. It appears to be another way of writing incantations in a “spiral.”

An inscription that is written in a spiral or circularly is an incantation text.

Limits are the framework of a writing system and enclose the writing zone Our modern writing limits are Quattro linear, that is, four lines, with the outer limits marking the upper limit for ascenders (e.g., “h”) and lower limit for descenders (e.g., “y”). Graphs are written between the limits. Quattro linear limit systems are tri linear limit systems moved down one limit-line to accommodate ascenders. Writing systems on the eastern side of the Ancient Near East used tri linear limit systems. Tri linear limits are dynamic; graphs are written within the limits and permit the graphs to move up and down and from side to side in imitation of words as-spoken. Bilinear scripts and fonts fill the entire space between the upper and lower limits. Because the graphs fill the writing zone, bilinear limit systems are static. The main purpose of bilinear limit systems is to “freeze” the written words into an unchanging form to preserve the “magic” power of speech. Bilinear limit systems are favored by religio-mystico societies.

Any document written using bilinear limits indicates that the text is meant to be “frozen” and said exactly as written.

CONSOLIDATED SCRIPTS AND FONTS:

A script design is a closed system that functions as an independent and coherent whole within the complete writing system. Consolidated fonts are the exact opposite of conglomerate fonts. While both scripts use graphs from other script designs, they share no other features. Conglomerate fonts make no attempt to merge two or more different designs into a coherent whole. Instead, a conglomerate font displays a haphazard assortment of graphs from different designs within one word or phrase.[41]

As xenographic exchange[41] depends upon the strict adherence to a coherent font within the body of a text, conglomerate fonts are a meaningless mixture of graphs and are a definitive sign of a forgery.

Consolidated fonts are designed to merge graphs from different designs to create a coherent whole. These fonts are difficult to design because the final sub-system must frequently incorporate graphs from far different script systems. All consolidated designs start from a base script, that is, an existing script design is used as the base and the graphs from the other script systems are modified to match and merge with the existing base.

While not as common as single script designs, consolidated fonts are not rare and already appear under Sargon I of Sumer and Akkad. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11QPs, the large Psalm scroll from Cave 11 in the general vicinity of Khirbet Qumran, is written in a consolidated Paleo-Square Script design. Paleo-Hebraic does not have serifs. This font incorporates features of Monumental Paleo-Hebraic and formal Square Script designs to make a formal sans-serif font. The base script is the Monumental Paleo-Hebraic. The font is carefully designed to use Monumental Paleo-Hebraic in xenographic exchange.

The graphs from the square script have been modified to match the base-script. The left leg of the “shin/sin,” for example, imitates the exact angle of the uprights of monumental Paleo, as do the uprights on the “ayin.” The right-hand angles imitate exactly the down-strokes, as on the Paleo-Hebraic “heh” (Figure 5).[42]

Constantine’s Uncial script is a consolidated font intended to unite the Greco-Roman Empire by creating a new official script design that incorporates graphs from both Latin and Greek script systems into one matching whole.

Consolidated fonts are used as “standard” fonts; thus, the fact that a document is written in a consolidated font does not tell us anything about the status of the document as genuine or fake. On the other hand, close examination of the elements used in a consolidated font frequently yields otherwise inaccessible data.

GRID FONTS:

A “grid” font is geometrically based. A grid of squares, all of the same size, is laid out, then the graphs, always starting with the “A” (or “aleph”) of the base-script, are squared off to outline a given “box” on the grid.

Each graph is then modified to approximate the desired appropriate symbol but filling the limits of a square. Grid fonts frequently result in the distortion of standard graphs to meet the coherence required in a font design. Nevertheless, grid fonts are useful when the consolidated font must combine graphs from many areas or ages and must be written without descenders or ascenders.

Grid fonts frequently are used with the incantation format.

SHAPE:

The shape of the Mosaic, or arch-topped, tablet derives directly, and practically unchanged down the millennia, from the shape associated with the architecture of Mesopotamian “House of God” buildings.[43] While the interpretation of the arch is dependent upon a culture (high and rounded, flattened and broad, “cloud,” or pointed), the arch always is a symbol that whatever is presented under the arch is backed by the word of a god. Today the shape is frequently referred to as the shape of a “tombstone.” This is backwards: the tombstone is shaped to imitate the narrow high arch associated with the Mosaic code; the shape symbolizes that the deceased has been entrusted to God. This use dates back to the earliest Christian grave markers and is used with the same symbolism on Moslem graves.[45]

Any article in the shape of a Mosaic tablet should contain a law or imply the law code handed down “at Sinai” by God.

COLOR:

While most people are aware that the color (or lack of color really) white indicates purity, not many are aware that, in antiquity, the color of the law was black. In fact, the color of the law is black to this day.

Because the contents of the phylacteries represent laws on wearing signs on hand and head, phylacteries are required by religious law to be black.

MATERIAL:

A symposium on the artifacts was held on Nov. 6, 1999. At the request of Patti Malenke, curator of the museum, Kenneth Bork and David Hawkins of Denison University examined the stone on which the “decalogue” is inscribed (and from the lithograph and description also the lost companion piece) and found it to be a black limestone in which “a fossil crinoid stem is visible on the surface.[45] “The “stems” (or “tests”) of the marine creatures (both extinct and living) are “limy” and white.[46] The flow detector, cup, and case for the “yad” piece are made of novaculite.

An article made of stone is necessarily pure according to Rabbinic halachic rules.

THE SCULPTURE:

The figure on the bas-relief sculpture, enclosed within the shape of “The” Law, is the classic Semitic profile pose that, when a ruler or member of the elite is portrayed, is usually enclosed within an arch. The Semitic pose is quite distinct from the classic Egyptian pose, which combines a frontal body with a profile head.[47] In the Semitic pose, the entire body is portrayed in profile. This pose dates back to the oldest surviving stele from Akkad (ca. 2371-ca. 2255 BCE); the profile pose enclosed in an arch reappears down the millennia. In the classic Semitic pose, the figure is in profile, one hand is raised or the arm is bent forward pointing at something or holding something.

A sculpture in this classic pose indicates a Semitic model.

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS:

PHYLACTERIES:

The two phylacteries are made of black material, which is in accord with the rabbinical law that phylacteries must be black in color. Although contrary to Palestinian and Babylonian rabbinic rulings in the second century CE, the use of a condensed “decalogue” is in accord with a known prior tradition. That other traditions continued to exist alongside the Palestinian and Babylonian tradition is known from the Dead Sea Scrolls, papyri from Egypt, and was also was mentioned by Jerome.

PASS

FORMAT:

The two phylacteries are written in the incantation format (Figure 6). As they are, in fact, incantation texts meant to be recited exactly as written, the format matches the text — and the purpose of the artifact.

Fig. 6: The incantation format on the back of the hand phylactery: (photo, J. Huston McCulloch)

PASS

WRITING LIMITS:

The texts on the two phylacteries are written between bilinear limits, that is, the text is “frozen.” Incantation texts are intended to be frozen and are written between bilinear limits The limit system is in accord with the incantation format used on the two artifacts.

PASS

SCRIPTS:

The font used on these two phylacteries is a consolidated grid font. The base script is a Late-Medieval Hebrew “squared” font where the “aleph” is a three-sided “box” open at the bottom. Of the 21 symbols (“tet” is not used), 12 graphs are directly from the base-script: aleph, bet, dalet, heh, chet, khaf, nun, samech, peh, resh, shin, and taf. The shin and bet are squared off standard graphs from the base script. The “yod” is a single line that runs full height of the square; full height yods have been used in various Hebrew script systems since the late BCE period. Qof has a descender and caused a problem in this design. The designer used the top part of the qof and incorporated the descender into a tail that wraps around the bottom of the grid square.

Incorporated into the font are one cuneiform-type composite graph (ca. 16th BCE) that appears to have been the model for numerous descendants both in North and South Semitic script systems; one South-Sinaitic graph (ca. 16th-15th BCE), two South-Semitic graphs, one Nabatean graph; one Neo-Sinaitic graph, and one Hebraeo-Phoenician graph that dates to ca. 10th BCE (Figure 7).

Fig. 7:(a) Modern Hebrew — Formal typeface and cursive;(b) The Late-Medieval Hebrew Base-script;(c) The Consolidated Grid font on the phylacteries;(d) South Sinaitic;(e) Nabatean;(f) South-Semitic;(g) Neo-Sinaitic;(h) Hebraeo-Phoenician

  (click on image for larger view)

As there can be neither ascenders or descenders in this design (or the graphs will not fit between the limits and will intrude on the incantation spiral), the designer created a variant form to indicate a final (sofit) graph on the “khaf” by leaving a space. Variant forms are also used to distinguish “shin” from “sin” and “taf” from “dhaf.”

We should also note that the ancients were “thrifty.” Graphs were used not only as themselves, but to indicate special purpose. Xenographic exchange is one example of multiple use; variant forms are another. Just as Phoenician territorial scripts used variant forms of “aleph” to indicate which vowel phone was attached to the consonant, this design includes four variant forms of “aleph.” Each variant form has a different “vowel” attached to the specific location and shape of the left-hand leg of the “aleph.” The technique of denoting instructions on the left-hand leg of an “aleph” or an “A is well attested.[48]

Multiple use is also seen in the tzadik. The tzadik is a cuneiform-type composite and appears to be the class model for both North and South Sinaitic graphs. As the mutations of this graph are found in both branches of Semitic script systems, the composite graph antedates the earliest descendants and is from ca. 16th or 15th centuries BCE.[49] The “V”of the tzadik appears in Aramaic and Hebrew Square Script systems from at least the fifth century BCE onwards and can be seen in the Medieval Hebrew base-script [b]); the “V” on the “tzadik” is still used in the modern formal typeface [a]. In South-Semitic scripts systems [e, f, g], the tzadik appears with a rounded upper graph along with a second form that indicates a “tzadik sofit.” The “mem” is a squared off South Sinaitic graph, as old as the tzadik. These two graphs may be “magic” letters, for the designer did not include final forms of either the “tzadik” or “mem.” Whether “magic” or not, it is clear that these graphs were to be copied without change — which they were.

We should note that somewhere down the fifteen centuries or more of copying this decalogue text, the “vav” and “zayin” became interchanged. What is placed in the “vav” position is a South Semitic “zayin”; in the “zayin” position is the third form of Hebraeo-Phoenician “vav.” While the two graphs were interchanged, again, it is clear that the “vav” was to be copied without change.

The lamed is a Nabatean graph that was the model for the Neo-Sinaitic, and later, the Kufic scripts.50 Two forms of “taf” (“t” and “dh”) are also used in Nabatean and appear as variant forms in the Nabatean script systems. The “crossed” gimel is Neo-Sinaitic. The “ayin” is a South Semitic graph that dates to ca. 10th-century BCE. (The North Semitic “ayin” at this date is a circle, i.e., “o [h].) The symbol at the center and front of the inscription may be some type of religious emblem or it may be an identification of sect affiliation. We cannot, at this juncture, know its purpose.

The text is written in a consolidated grid font, which is what we would expect for use in an incantation format.

PASS

SHAPE:

The hand phylactery is the shape of a Mosaic tablet and it does indeed contain a “law” code. In fact, it contains a condensed version of “The” Law code.

PASS

COLOR:

Phylacteries are black under the “halacha mosheh misinai” [laws given to Moses at Sinai].

PASS

MATERIAL:

Stone as the materials used for the set follows rabbinic halachic rules on purity. Both the black stone for the phylacteries and a different stone for the purification ritual of washing are in accord with these rulings.

PASS

THE SCULPTURE:

The pose on the sculpture is the classic Semitic pose.

In 1861, the appearance of the bas-relief on the hand phylactery led Rabbi Lederer, editor of the “Israelite,” to class the artifact as “not Jewish” because the making of images of anything in the sky, on the earth, or in the sea contravenes Exodus 20: 4.51 Exodus 20: 5, however, is the second half of the injunction in Exodus 20:4 and explicitly states that such images should not be worshipped as gods. This further statement can be interpreted as not applicable to anything that is not worshipped as a god. It is rather apparent that the second half in Exodus 20:5 was so interpreted in some communities. There is nothing “god-like” in this “portrait” of Moses.

The word “Moses” (Moshe) is inscribed above the head of the figure, which is just as well or we would not know who was depicted. In medieval Christian art, Moses is rendered with a stern expression; a long, flowing beard and hair; and voluminous sweeping robes that descend from the shoulders and also from which depend wide flowing sleeves. Moses is always depicted as holding tablets with the high rounded-arch shape of “The” Law. This Moses, however, wears a benign expression; his hair is completely covered, his beard is the neatly trimmed beard of late medieval portraits, his robe is loose, but not flowing, and he is wearing a short tunic with close fitting sleeves. Tucked under his arm is a tablet in the triangle “arch” shape of “The” Law used by the North Central and Northwest Semitic peoples in the Dan-Edom area.52

More specifically, Moses’ clothing consists of a robe, a short tunic, a hat with a tight band, and a girdle. From the bulk at the shoulders, he may also be wearing an ephod.53 This ensemble, of course, is the description in Exodus 28 of the priestly garments to be made for Aaron. All in all, his clothing most closely resembles Josephus’ word picture in Ant. III, vi, 3. We should note that the entire ensemble has been depicted with a decided South Semitic bent.

The “hat” may originally have been an interpretation of the “priestly” headwear;54 but here it more closely resembles the identifying hat of an Arabic Ollamh, a professor of the law.55 Similarly, the robe worn by the figure of Moses may have been an interpretation of the priestly garments described in Exodus.56 Again, in this sculpture, we find the type of robe worn by “teachers of the law” in the Moslem world. The neatly trimmed beard, in direct contrast to the usual flowing beard on Moses in other medieval portraits is a mark of late-medieval provenance. The sculpture bears all the signs of a late-medieval interpretation of a Semitic profile portrait. The workmanship is more likely to be Spanish than French because of the decided Arabic influences, although we cannot rule out the possibility that a Spanish artisan worked in France. There is little doubt as to the ca. 11th-13th centuries date of this sculpture. The workmanship and style date the sculpture to the same period as the late-medieval base-script used for the consolidated font.

PASS

CONCLUSIONS:

The artifacts could not possibly have been created in the nineteenth century; nobody had the knowledge necessary to do so. Indeed, nobody who previously examined these artifacts has recognized that two of the artifacts are inscribed in the ancient incantation format. Nor has anyone previously realized that the “peculiar” font is a consolidated design or that it is a grid font typical of scripts and fonts used with incantation formats. It is rather clear that no one until today has recognized the Late-Medieval Hebrew script that is the base-script of this consolidated grid font.

The inclusion of ancient Sinaitic graphs in the consolidated grid font is an indication that these particular “letters” were considered “magic” and had to be copied exactly. Nor could they be modified much to suit the script design. There are other indications that the tzadik is a “magic” graph. As has been noted, the tzadik is a cuneiform-type composite — a graph of which mutations were incorporated into both North and South Semitic script systems adapted for dry surface writing. There are many abbreviations in the text. In accord with the typical practice of multiple use, this composite stands as both a “tzadik” and as the symbol for “Sinai.”

The first words running down the left hand side of the artifact are not the “decalogue”: they are a condensation of Exodus 20:2, which reads: “asher hotzetecha m’eretz mitzrai’im” (confirm [that I] brought you from the land of Egypt). The first three letters of “Hotzetecha” are “heh-vav-tzadik;” but that is not what is written on the artifact. What is written on the artifact is “heh-resh[half grid space] tzadik/Sinai.” “Heh-resh” is “har and means “mount.” The line reads: “asher har Sinai/tzetecha m’eretz[sinai] mitz[sinai]rai’im.” (Confirm [that I] [at] mount Sinai brought you [at Sinai] out of the land of Egypt [at Sinai].)

Perhaps it should be explained that, when asked what script would have been used for the tablets described in Exodus 32:15, more than one expert on ancient Semitic scripts will reply that an educated guess would be Sinaitic. The preservation of one Sinaitic graph in the symbol-set used on the hand phylactery, as well as the preservation of the “V” of the composite “tzadik” in Hebrew script systems down the millennia, is the first tiny bit of concrete evidence that the description of the Mosaic code as inscribed on tablets, no matter how many embellishments accrued, is based in fact.

The preservation of one Hebraeo-Phoenician graph suggests that this graph was considered another “magic” letter that had to be copied exactly for the incantation to work. It also represents a small piece of evidence that the texts of the first four books of the Pentateuch were written down early in the Monarchial period in the 10th century BCE.

The large number of South-Semitic graphs (six out of twenty-one) are strong evidence that the older tradition of including the decalogue in the phylacteries was continued among a group of religious Jews living in South Semitic countries long after the tradition was forbidden by the Palestinian and Babylonian Rabbis in the second century CE. Equally strong as evidence is the sculpture with its distinctly Semitic pose and Islamic-influenced clothing. These aspects that show clear South Semitic influence indicate that the set was commissioned by a Sephardic Jew and, as the set is clearly intended for use when traveling, probably by a merchant-trader. From details on the sculpture, the most likely site for the place of production is Spain. If at the earliest range for the date (11th CE), the set may have been produced in Catalonia. If the later date range (13th CE), the set was possibly produced in Cordoba or Toledo during the time of Alfonso X of Castille. Nor can we ignore the possibility that the set was produced in France; Sephardic Jews handled the trade between the Holy Roman Empire and the Moslem world.

While the words in the phylacteries are linked to both identification and protection, there is no direct evidence that the words were linked to magic. On the other hand, evidence that certain graphs were linked to “magic” signs can be seen in the format and symbol-set used on the late-medieval hand phylactery inscribed with the “forbidden” condensed decalogue. The inclusion of “antique” graphs in the consolidated script design tends to support the school that maintains that the texts of Exodus and Deuteronomy which refer to the wearing of signs on hand and on forehead may have been meant literally. These graphs also link phylacteries with the ancient “magic” letter/signs inscribed on protective charms and amulets — and, possibly, literally inscribed on the skin of the left hand and the forehead.

The fact that the hand piece was still in its case, while the bowl, flow detector, and head piece were not, gives us further information. The head piece clearly was bound to the skull; thus, we know that the flow detector and bowl had been used. We now also have evidence that the older tradition of donning the head piece first was carried on among some Jewish communities for many centuries after the Rabbinical ruling that the hand piece be placed first.

The use of the condensed decalogue on the hand phylactery gives us concrete evidence that, although as of the second century CE, the decalogue was forbidden to use in the Palestinian and Babylonian traditions, the older tradition of a “fifth” text, the decalogue itself, was alive and well among other Jewish communities. We do have some indications as to the age of this older tradition. The finds at Qumran, the Nash Papyri, and this hand phylactery, make it clear that the condensed “decalogue” was not a Samaritan concept as had been previously assumed. Samaritans do not use phylacteries, although a similar condensed version appears on Samaritan stone mezzuzahs. The use by Samaritans of a similar condensed “decalogue” indicates that the tradition of this condensed “decalogue” dates to before the rift between the Samaritan and Jerusalem communities, which may be as early as the 7th-6th BCE.57 The rift certainly was indicated by the fifth century BCE in a letter from Elephantine.

We have, however, further indications as to the antiquity of the tradition of reciting this condensed decalogue, which pushes the probable date back to the 9th century BCE. Although the hand phylactery is shaped as the familiar high-rounded arch of the Jerusalemite tradition and although the sculpture is encased in another Jerusalemite arch, the tablet that Moses is holding is not the high rounded-arch of the Southern Kingdom. The tablet is the shape used in the Phoenicianized northwest and north central corner of the area in that period. The tablet, in fact, is the same shape as the “Beit David”stele found at the Tel Dan archaeological site (Figure 8).58

Fig. 8:(a) Shape of the tablet tucked under the arm of Moses 

We will never be able to date this “portrait” of Moses: the shape of the tablet he is holding indicates a very ancient tradition in the Northern Kingdom with regard to interpretations of the instructions in Exodus. On the other hand, with the evidence of the “Newark” hand phylactery, we can now state with confidence that an older tradition of reciting the decalogue daily continued for at least another 1100 years among some Sephardic Jewish communities.59 It also seems that a compromise on the contested point was arrived at, albeit many centuries before the question was even raised: a condensed version of the decalogue avoids the exact repetition of the words said by Moses. Indeed, the bas-relief of a benign Moses would appear to lend his countenance to the saying of the condensed decalogue.

The Newark Ritual artifacts date to the Late Medieval period, as is made clear from stylistic features on the bas-relief sculpture on one of the artifacts and the Late Medieval Hebrew base-script used for the consolidated grid font that appears in the inscriptions on two of the artifacts. The artifacts are authentic, if not what they were thought to be in the 19th century, and, unfortunately, even today.60

Claims of modern forgery based on the “peculiar” script, or “spelling” errors (of which there is precisely one after 1500 years or more of copying the text),61 or the pose of the figure on the bas-relief are equally erroneous and have no basis in actuality. The fact that black limestone with crinoid stems can be found in Ohio also has been claimed as evidence that the artifacts are forgeries. Black limestone containing crinoid stems, however, is available throughout the world. The material may be found, for example, in Belgium, England, France, Hungary and Spain. It may also be found in Idaho and the Dakotas as well as in Mercer and Muskingum Counties Ohio.62 The artifacts pass all visual forensic analysis tests. They also pass the materials examination as far as the availability of the material at the probable site(s) of manufacture. That black limestone can also be found in Ohio is irrelevant.

Archaeology as a soundly based field only came into being in the 1880’s. That in the 1860’s claims that the artifacts were forgeries, although the evidence at the site and expert opinion was against this, can be excused. Claims today that these artifacts are forgeries and not “old” enough for where they were found are unacceptable; such claims ignore both basic archaeological standards and the evidence. We can never know whether the artifacts were deposited during the “pirate treasure hunt” phase or sometime shortly after 1832 when the workmen removed 144,000 cartloads of stones from all the stacks at the site. There is, though, little doubt: this set of ritual artifacts was deposited at the two sites during the early part of the nineteenth century. As Dr. Fischel pointed out in 1861, these artifacts are medieval and European and had been stolen from a European settler.

The “Newark” Ritual artifacts are neither forgeries nor relics of “Ancient America.” They are, however, very important concrete evidence of Ancient and Medieval Israelite practices. The ancient graphs included in the consolidated script on these phylacteries are also our first small pieces of concrete evidence that a factual basis underlies Exodus 32:15. The shape of the tablet held by Moses as well as the condensed “decalogue” inscribed on the hand phylactery is concrete evidence of the types of authoritative and theological disputes that divided the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. In addition, these artifacts also give us some hints as to the continuation of Jewish traditions among the peoples displaced after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed. This particular penny is far too important to leave in the obscurity of a wrangle between two extremist sides, both of whom ignore the evidence.

If an American penny finds its way onto the Acropolis in Athens or the Colosseum in Rome, we dismiss the question of how it got there as too obvious to be worth asking. This set of late-medieval ritual artifacts found their way to these sites in the United States because they were brought there, as so many family heirlooms were, by a settler from Europe searching for a new home in the new world.

Many thanks to Scott E. Meyer of Northwestern University for supplying me with the Alrutz article (which I could not acquire for myself) and then for digging out further information on Dr. Arnold Fischel after the provocative (and incomplete) reference in the Alrutz article. My gratitude must also be expressed to Herb Basser of Queens University for his erudite comments on Hebrew and Mishnaic sources. Obviously, any errors that may remain are mine.

Notes

[1] Dr. Arnold Fischel, lecturer at the Sephardic synagogue in New York (founded in 1654, thus with a Sephardic-Dutch connection), a noted scholar and authority, had written a paper, “The Hebrew Inscribed Stones Found in Ohio,” delivered in June of 1861 to The American Ethnological Society. In this paper, he stated he was convinced of the authenticity of the artifact and ascribed it to “medieval and European origins.” (See Alrutz, “The Newark Holy Stones: The History of an Archaeological Tragedy,” Journal of the Scientific Laboratories, Denison University, 1980, 57: 1-57.) In Fischel’s paper, he commented that he had nothing with which to compare these artifacts (Alrutz 44), yet accustomed to Medieval Sephardic styles, if not this precise object, he would certainly have noted the obvious medieval and Sephardic attributes of the artifact.

[2] The Report from the committee appointed by the society was issued in 1863. (See, Alrutz, 44).

[3] Whittlesey, Western Reserve Historical Society Historical & Archaeological Tract #9.

[4] Alrutz, “Tragedy” 1-57.

[5] Williams, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991, 167-75.

[6] Lepper and Gill, TIMELINE: A Publication of the Ohio Historical Society, 2000, 17-25.

[7] Cyrus H. Gordon, “Diffusion of Near East Culture in Antiquity and in Byzantine Times,” Orient, vol. 30-31 (1995): 69-81. Gordon was not familiar with late-medieval scripts and artifacts.

[8] Deal, Ancient American, Issue # 11 [Jan/Feb 1996], pp. 10- 19.

[9] McCulloch’s site is at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/. McCulloch includes other items, such as the Los Lunas inscription (an obvious fake) and the Bat Creek inscription, which appears to be an authentic souvenir” of Judea, as it states. (Another European family heirloom displayed whenever the words, “Next Year in Jerusalem,” were uttered?) McCulloch as also written numerous articles on the artifacts.

[10] See, Jonathan Waxman, “Arnold Fischel: ‘Unsung Hero’ in American Israel,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly, Volume 60, No. 4, June 1971.

[11] The tefillin were the subject of much debate for centuries. The color, however, has never been debated as, from the time of Sumer and Akkad on down through the centuries, black is the color of the Law. This is why the robe of a judge is black to this day.

[12] The item is referred to as a “yad” (hand) tefilla by Rabbinical sources and, even though worn on the arm in more modern use, it is still referred to as the “yad” tefilla.

[13] Similar condensed “decalogues” (with abbreviations and composite graphs) appear in Samaritan documents and among the Dead Sea Scrolls. References in the 2nd century CE to not using the “decalogue” indicate that the text dates earlier. Curiously enough, these condensed versions have points in common with the condensed decalogue in Josephus, Ant. III, vi, 3.

[14] In 1996, David A. Deal and James S. Trimm came to the conclusion that the “decalogue” was a phylactery. (“Ohio Decalog is Ancient Arm Phylactery,” Ancient American, Vol. 3, Issue 13: May/June 1996, 25-27) Deal and Trim are correct, if off by 800 odd years on the dating. In 2002, Myron Paine of Martinez, California suggested that the other piece was a head phylactery. It is. (see: The Newark, Ohio Decalogue Stone and Keystone)

[15] The flow detector has been named the “Keystone” because of its shape. It was also stated to be a “Masonic” device in 1860.

[16] The data has been biased by more than ignoring Fischel and the Committee Report. The bias extends to the mistransliterations and mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. The tetragrammaton (YHVH) translates into English as “Lord.” El or Elohim (plural) translates as “God.”

[17] “Torah” means “instruction” or “direction,” not “law.”

[18] The translation of QDS as “Holy” is a King James-ism and there is also a semantic shift in meaning to complicate matters. QDS may be translated as to sanctify, to purify, to cleanse, to hallow, to make sacred –depending upon context. The inscription has been mistranscribed and mistranslated as “Holy of Holies.” (A closer translation would be Sanctity of Sanctities/Sacred of Sacreds.) Even using the translation terms of the KJV, “Holy of Holies” would be transliterated as “Qodesh Haqadashim.” The definite article “ha” (the) is not written on the flow detector; it does not translate as “Holy of Holies.” What is written is idiomatic; in context the translation would be “Most Pure”; but other possibilities have been given as well.

[19] This was mistransliterated as “Melek Eretz,” “King of the Earth.” Eretz translates into English as “land,” as in “Eretz Israel,” land of Israel; “Eretz Mitzrai’im,” Land of Egypt.” Aretz is translated as the equivalent of “Earth.” The definite article, “ha” is missing; the text does not read “the Earth” but is more encompassing.

[20] Durational and stress notation dates back to Sumer. They were in continuous use for nearly 4,000 years. The notations appear on items as diverse as the Yadi and Roman Imperial stelae; the Dead Sea Scrolls and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle A. Their use on the Continent tapered off slowly, depending upon location. By the 12th century, they were no longer in use to the north. Their use in the south lasted for another century. In England, durational notation was still in use in the Age of Elizabeth I. (See, Altman, “Some Aspects of Older Writing Systems: With Focus on the DSS.” Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem., 1999; Altman, “Writing Systems and Manuscripts.” Guest Lecture: St. Mary’s School of Divinity, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland, 1999. For Elizabethan use, see Altman, Absent Voices: The Story of Writing Systems in the West. Newcastle, DE: forthcoming.

[21] The “size of a teacup” accords with the size of the water vessel per rabbinic halakha.

[22] Tefillin are kept in a special “phylactery” bag. Whether this ritual set had a special bag cannot be ascertained.

[23] As Hanan Eshel noted in his paper, given at the 3rd symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1998, with respect to the stone vessels found at Qumran: “In the late Second Temple period, from the first century BCE to the second century CE, we find a stone vessel industry in the Jerusalem region whose products were used for storage and measurement. These stone vessels were made for observant Jews who observed the laws of purity strictly, since according to rabbinic halakha, stone vessels always stay pure.” Eshel cites the following sources on the ruling: M[ishna] Kelim 10:1; M. Oholot 5:5, 6:1; M. Para 5:5; M. Miqwa’ot 4:1; M. Yadayim 1:2. (see: Stone Vessels Found at Qumran).

[24] One need not be a police forensic detective to reconstruct events. Historians are detectives and are accustomed to evaluating and reconstructing evidence from textual sources. With these artifacts, we have unambiguous physical evidence in addition to textual evidence. The artifacts were deposited after 1802. For a thorough discussion of the events surrounding the finding of the artifacts, see, Alrutz, “Newark Holy Stones.”

[25] Any hard object thrown into river-bed clay of this type, if the clay is moist, will quickly accumulate a spherical mass around it. When the soil dries out, it will leave behind such hard clay balls.

[26] The two small objects, square in shape, are now missing. Two other artifacts were found in another mound some distance away. One was a carved head with Hebrew writing in Square script on it. The other is said to be some sort of “talisman” with intertwined human and animal heads, also with a few letters of Hebrew writing in Square script on it. The Corresponding Secretary of the Ethnological Society, Theodore Dwight, Jr. (1796-1866), sent a copy of the drawing of the incised head to Dr. Fischel in Amsterdam in 1865. Fischel was reluctant to trust a drawing but did state: “These stones as described in your letter could never have been the work of a Jew.” The drawing may not be accurate, but that this item is a fake is patent. A photograph of the “talisman” exists: it is an intriguing object, but the reproduction of photograph is quite poor. From what can be seen, however, the object would appear to be an authentic artifact that was defaced by scribbling a few Hebrew graphs on it. Like the “inscribed head,” this object “could never have been the work of a Jew.” (Fischel-Dwight correspondence; National Anthropological Archives at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

[27] The site was described for the first time in 1852, two years after the “coffin” was found. For specifics, see Alrutz.

[28] For specifics and cites, see Alrutz.

[29] For a partial description of the find, see Alrutz, 36; Bradner, 1873. For further information on the depth at which the hand phylactery and the bowl were found. (See: The Newark, Ohio Decalogue Stone and Keystone)

[30] Bradner assumed that the skulls “powdered” because of “great age.” The rate of disintegration of bone depends entirely on the ph of the soil. In some soils, such as this river-bed clay, disintegration is very rapid. The powdering was due to the soil, not “great age.” (See Alrutz)

[31] See Alrutz, 42, for more details and cites.

[32] See Altman, “Report on the Temple Tablet,” Altman, Absent Voices.

[33] J. Mann. “Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue due to Religious Persecution,” Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Annual 4, 1927. 288-99.

[34] See Jerome’s “Commentary on Matthew, 25:3.”

[35] Mann, “Changes,” 292.

[36] Cited as given in Sanhedrin 88b.

[37] We should also bear in mind that the Ancients were literalists. When the ancients spoke of the “voice of authority,” they meant it literally. When referring to the “colors of music,” they meant it literally. The colors of music number 12, as in a twelve-tone scale. The first indications of color-to-tone appear in Pythagorean documents (6th century BCE). Recorded evidence from the 3rd and 5th centuries CE places the central color as yellow/gold and the equivalent of “C;” red equaled “F.” When staff lines first appeared in musical notation systems, two lines were drawn: yellow (C) and red (F). These ancient colors of music can still be seen today on the academic gowns of doctors of musicology. We have reason to suspect that the ancients also meant inscribed in heart (left hand) and in mind (on the forehead) literally as well.

[38] This connection between the phylacteries, amulets, tattoos, and other signs were already hotly debated in the late 19th century in works such as History of Amulets, Charms and Talismans, New York, 1893. The bibliography on the subject is enormous. For concise discussions and bibliography on the subject of magic in the ANE and the MT, see the Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), Vol.IV, 464-471.

[39] For a discussion of the block format, see Altman, Temple Tablet; for a discussion of the “centering” technique on bi-ethnic (bilingual) inscriptions, see “Report on the Zoilos Votive Inscription from Tel-Dan.” Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Jerusalem.

[40] For a discussion of conglomerate fonts, see Altman, Temple Tablet.

[41] Xenographic (foreign graph) exchange is the use of Font B in a text written in Font A. Dating back to Akkad, the use of italics to denote “book title” or “foreign word” is a modern use of xenographic exchange..

[42] For further information on the design of the consolidated font used in 11QPs, see, Altman, “The Writing World of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Lecture: St. Mary’s School of Divinity, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland, 2001.

[43] For discussions on the “shape of the law,” see Altman, Temple Tablet; Altman, Absent Voices, 33-35.

[44] Interesting aspects of the grave markers used in Islam are 1) a marker is placed at both head and feet — which may refer to the two tablets as is written in Exodus; and 2) pairs of Islamic “cloud” arch and “Mosaic” arch tablets appear, but on different graves.

[45] For both the Symposium, Nov. 6, 1999, and Bork and Hawkins. See: The Newark Ohio Decalog Stone and Keystone, by J. Huston McCulloch.” (http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/decalog.html)

[46] Existing class Crinoidea, phylum Echinodermata include sand dollars, star fish, and sea urchins.

[47] Both poses appear to have something to do with the concept of the “eyes as the mirror of the soul.” The oldest known sculpture, the “venus” head from the Magdalene period (ca. 22,000 BCE) is lifelike, but where the eyes should be are two concave “blanks.” These same concave “blank eyes” appear in archaic Greek sculptures-in-the-round. Cave paintings from ca. 5,000 BCE show rounded, lifelike figures, usually in perspective, but their backs are to the viewer. A similar taboo on depicting the eyes, though not concave, appears to operate in the late archaic Greek frontal pose. The subject warrants further research.

[48] The replacement of the left-leg on an “A” with a cephalicus neume to indicate, for example, which of three singers was to lead the congregation can be seen in BN MS. Lat. 8824 and in St. Gall MSS. 329 and 359. See, Altman, Absent Voices, Chapter 10.

[49] Many of the South Sinaitic graphs are adaptations of cuneiform graphs, minus “wedges,” for use in dry surface writing.

[50] The Nabatean language was the formal Aramaic of Achamaenid Persia. Their script systems were a territorial variant. The modern Arabic script systems descend from the Nabatean.

[51] See Alrutz, “Tragedy,” 44.

[52] The “triangle arch” led people to believe that the item was a “breastplate,” although a breastplate would be in the center, not tucked under an arm.

[53] While the ephod is described in detail, nobody knows exactly what the item is, and it is not translated.

[54] The “priestly” hat in this sculpture seems to follow the description in Josephus, Ant. III. vi, 3 rather closely..

[55] The identifying hat worn by European lawyers during the period also has a tight band, but it has a crown and the hair is free in the back above the band..

[56] Again, the robe seems closer to the description in Josephus, Ant. III, vii, 1 than to the one in the MT.

[57] The Samaritan Chronicles relate feuding between Zerrubabel (the builder of the Second Temple in Jerusalem) and Sanballat, the Samaritan priesteven while in Babylon during the exile (6th BCE). (See, Paul Stenhouse, The Kitab al Tarikh of Abu’l-Fath Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, 1985.)

[58] The appearance of the “Phoenician” triangle arch used on this hand phylactery gives external corroboration that the “beit david” stele found at Tel-Dan is the correct “shape” for the area and is authentic. Its use also has very important implications in respect to the differences in interpretative traditions between the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom..

[59] The hand piece also makes it patent that the tradition of reciting the decalogue, albeit in a condensed form, continued for at least 1100 years after it was forbidden in the Babylonian and Tiberian communities in the 2nd century CE..

[60] See above, footnotes 5 and 6.

[61] The interchange of the “vav” and the “zayin” cannot be classed as “spelling errors.” Once the two graphs were interchanged, they were used consistently to represent the opposite graph..

[62] “Stems” on fossil crinodea come in a variety of shapes: circular, v-shaped, and irregular. The “stems” embedded in the artifact would have to match the “stems” in the black limestone from these Ohio counties; the structural granulation from the way the limestone was formed would also have to match. These tests are performed by “thin-sections,” that is, thin “wafers” or cross sections of stone are cut and then glued to a glass slide. The wafer is ground and polished until the structure and fossil contents can be seen through a microscope. These tests have not been done, although such tests are crucial to asserting that the artifact is a forgery and that the material comes from Ohio.” “Newark” Ritual Artifacts by By Rochelle I. Altman