Here are more
comments, questions and criticisms that have been sent in from readers of our
blog, along with our responses.
Comment #1: “Your post on The Book of
Abraham and the Facsimile Image-Part IV, was very good” Bumbu P B
Response: I’m glad you enjoyed it. And thank you
for the suggestions of more info on the subject.
Comment #2: “Did you not read the next page of that pretend article about
Lehi where the anti-Mormon author said he made up the whole thing to mock
Mormon's? There is no need for rebuttal, just a need to warn people”
Thomas W.
Response: My grateful thanks to you. I wrote those
articles for three reasons, one to send to Richard Packham (left), who wrote
the article under the name of L. Dwayne Samuelson, and who, by the way, left
the LDS Church in 1958 when he was 25 years old, and later founded the Exmormon Foundation (2001); and also to
show how any erroneous information about the Book of Mormon Land of Promise can
easily be rebutted, whether spoof, real, or otherwise, and finally as a point
to Mesoamericanists, such as John L. Sorenson, who believes Lehi actually
traveled across the Pacific somewhat in this manner, as does George Potter.
When the first five articles were finished, they
were forwarded to Packham’s website. My final article on “Was this Lehi's Route
Across the Pacific? – Part VI” was then set aside awaiting a reply—which,
unfortunately, never came. In the meantime, with Christmas and the holidays,
etc., I forgot all about it even afterward because of the amount of mail we get
and questions asked, each new request supplanting the older ones. Not until I
was checking my comments page on the website for any really old responses I had
missed, which I do occasionally, and found your pointed reply—more than a year
later!
So with egg on my face, let me answer your comment
with a condensed version of that long overdue post:
“In the past five posts, we have taken a moment to
show that such folly as Lehi crossing the Pacific and there being any proof
left along the way is not only idle speculation, but so improbable as to not
warrant a comment. However, as one will find in this wild world of theorists,
there is always a wild idea that ignores completely the scriptural record and,
in this case, ocean currents and winds that drive them. Some are so wild and
far out, that it occasionally catches people’s imagination, even one as dumb as
this one.
The
red line is the island-hopping path across the Pacific many Theorists attribute
to the Lehi voyage. However, as can be seen, the winds and currents (yellow
lines) run contrary to that path, keeping any ship “driven forth before the
wind” from taking any similar path
Lehi’s
actual course, consistent with winds and currents, is shown in red. After
sailing with the winds and currents away from Arabia and across the Arabian
Sea, their ship picked up the western edge of the Indian Ocean Gyre, swining it
southeast and into the wind of the Prevailing Westerlies and the West Wind
Drift Current, a fast-moving circumpolar current that circles the globe. Upon
reaching the South American shelf, the northern edge of this current is pushed
northward along the coast in the Humboldt (Peruvian) Current to where the winds
and currents die down around the 30º south latitude and a landing could be
achieved
“Yet, Lehi did
cross an ocean to get to the Land of Promise. John L. Sorenson paid little
attention to how Lehi crossed the Pacific, but George Potter was quite
specific, using nearly Packham’s exact course to take Lehi to South America. So
where did Lehi cross?
“L. Dwayne Samuelson suggested island-hopping across
the southern Pacific Ocean. But who is Samuelson? What research did he do? How
much does he really know? Did anyone reading his article look him up? Shame on
you if you did not.
“Why, L. Dwayne Samuelson is none other than a Book
of anti-Mormon and LDS critic, making fun of Mormons and their many attempts to
show proof of the Book of Mormon. In his own words, he states: “The article
"Lehi In the Pacific" is pure bunk. I happen to know this, because I wrote it. I
made it up. There is no such person as L. Dwayne Samuelson. If there is, I
apologize to him for using his name. I wrote the article in about four hours,
using nothing but maps of southeast Asia and the Pacific and a good dictionary
of biblical Hebrew.
“My purpose was
to show how easy it is to construct ‘evidence’ for the Book of Mormon from
superficial similarities in words and names, such as Mormon apologists continue
to do. I submit that my phony correspondences between various names in my
article are just as convincing and just as valid as those proposed by the
scholars at FARMS and BYU. Knowing that my article is a spoof, I am sure they
would find many valid objections to my methodology and my evidence. But their
(valid) objections to my "evidences" are the same objections any
scholar would justifiably raise against their claims about ‘Nehem’ and the ‘people
of Lihy.’
“Do the ‘amazing similarities’ I present in my article prove
that the Book of Mormon is true? Of course not! The Book of Mormon is still a
fictional work of the 19th century. It is not history. I have no doubt,
however, that some Mormons reading this article will accept it as genuine proof
that the Book of Mormon is historical.”
So Packham tried to pull the wool over our eyes!
Of course, anyone, and I mean anyone, who accepted such
ridiculous reasoning as was used in Packham/Samuelson’s article as reality and
proof of any kind of Lehi’s voyage, is simply both ignorant of the scriptural
record, and the facts surrounding Nephi’s 2500-year-old journey.
I reprinted the article and responded to each point to show
two things: 1) Any inaccurate description of Book of Mormon events are easily
recognized, and 2) they are easily explained and countered. I also wrote the
articles to help any who might have been swayed by the ideas and “facts”
presented to show that they would not stand up to even the most cursory
reading, let alone a serious examination—as do all such ideas not founded upon
the scriptural record as it was written and translated.
And so it is with all theories about the Book of Mormon Land
of Promise that stray from the scriptural record. While I am an historian,
researcher and writer, I am also a very big supporter of truth and the Book of
Mormon, and of all those who engraved the plates that Joseph Smith accurately
translated. One can stand by every word found on those pages, for the content
and meaning make up the most accurate book ever written.
We do not need to go outside those pages to try and prove
anything about the writings or Mormon’s descriptions. They stand on their own. If
someone doesn’t think so, then they need to do more reading, more research and
increase their knowledge and understanding. Sooner or later, all that Mormon
abridged will stand upon their own merits. When Mormon said they had horses,
then know they had horses, even when no remains of such had ever been found.
Sooner or later. Then, when the time is right, the Lord allows additional
information to come forth and, lo and behold, horse remains are found in the
Americas, specifically in Andean South America, along with elephants, etc.
It is not the Book of Mormon that is on trial here. It is
those who read it. May I in all honesty and fervor testify to you that every
word in that book is the Word of God as it was written in the time of the
Nephites and has come forth in our day.
Comment #3: “Hi Del ~ I have been
a fan of your blog for a couple years and recently went to Peru as part of a
humanitarian trip and as part of that was able to visit some of the sites. I'm
already looking forward to another trip where I can really spend time there.
Anyway, after the trip my folks are now interested in going to Peru and I told
them they should see if you are planning a trip anytime soon. Not sure if you
do group tours, but if so they would be interested in visiting with you about a
trip together to have you tell them about the sites rather than some other
"typical" guide. Do you do this? Would you consider doing this?”
Darryl B.
Response: Thank you
for your confidence and interest. However, I have never taken groups to, or
been a guide for people in, South America, it is not among the things I want to
accomplish in my work with the Book of Mormon Land of Promise. I don’t object
to those who do, however, making commercializing my work would lessen the
importance I attach to the Book of Mormon. Besides, at my age now, I couldn’t
get a third of the way up Machu Picchu :)
Comment #4: “Pretty good post. I
found your website perfect for my needs. Thanks for sharing these great ideas”
Leslie L.
Response: Always nice
to know. Thank you.
After reading your post, I looked up Packham's article and read this rebuttal that I thought you might be interested in: "I am embarrassed by those suppositions. When comparing similarities in languages looking for cognates, one must be careful of false cognate (words which appear to share an origin, but have different meaning. As an example, the Portuguese word "taco" means a roof tile, and not the tasty Mexican food. The Japanese "tako" means octopus. Since I am from Hawaii, I will tackle Hawaiian false cognates. Samuelson supposes that "Hawaii'i" is derived from the name of Jehovah. In fact, it can be broken into the following roots: Ha (breath) wai (water) 'i (life); it is poetically translated as "breath of life in the waters". Mauna is Hawaiian for "Mount", not derived from the Hebrew "maon" (habitation). And Samuelson got the Hawaiian word "kea" completely backwards. He supposes that it is derived from the Hebrew "kehah" (darkness or smoking) literally means "white". It has long been believed (and echoed in temple dedications) that "Hagoth" from the Book of Alma is "Hawai'i Loa" - the ancestor of Polynesians. When I read the title "Lehi in the Pacific" I thought Samuelson would address the descendants of Hagoth and not try to plot Lehi's voyage.
ReplyDeleteThe article you quote showed up on Answer Bag in October 2009 by someone who identified themselves as laie_tehie. Interesting how people accept as reality whatever they read on the internet. This individual from Hawaii, while correct in showing Packham’s article to be filled with inaccuracies regarding the Hawaiian-Hebrew language comparison, as obviously it was from the get-go, is incorrect on one thing (which shows that many LDS write and talk about an error themselves). The scriptural record does not suggest that Hagoth ever sailed anywhere (Alma 63:5-9). Hagoth is identified as a shipbuilder, not an explorer, sailor, or adventurer—while he was building ships, those ships sailed and at least one returned and sailed again. Nor can we suggest that Hagoth’s descendants were among those who emigrated elsewhere (northward, or to an unknown destination). The scriptural record gives no such suggestion.
ReplyDeleteConsequently, and given them the benefit of the doubt, while some speakers might have used Hagoth’s name in conjunction with those who went in the ship that sailed to an unknown destination—which many (including myself) believe it was to Polynesia, since that is where the currents would have taken it—it was probably simply for easy identification purposes. That is, “Hagoth’s people” refers to those who sailed in Hagoth’s ships—not himself or his literal offspring.