Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Evolution of Land of Promise Geography – Part IV

Continuing with the understanding of the paper on which Frederick G. Williams wrote that Lehi landed along the Chilean west coast at 30º South Latitude. It should be noted that theorists who champion other sites, such as Mesoamerica and the Heartland and Great Lakes, take issue with the Williams’ note, though they have no explanation what prompted it and why it was circulated about the early Church.     
Frederick G. Williams made more notes than just the landing site of Lehi. Above are characters that Williams copied from the Book of Mormon, suggesting he was prone to make notes of what was discussed in the First Presidency meetings and pertaining to the Church at the time

Many might reasonably question why the Williams statement was given such importance when numerous theories were being introduced at the time. The answer to that question becomes more apparent when we realize that Williams was the Prophet’s scribe during the years between 1833 and 1837, and because the proposed landing site of Lehi was found on the same sheet of paper with a known revelation regarding John the Beloved. Thus, many Saints believed the proposed Chilean landing site must have been a revelation as well.
    It is interesting, however, that critics like to point out that this was not a revelation, and we certainly have no axe to grind on that point since it was never acknowledged as such by Joseph Smith. Yet, that does not change the issue at hand. 
    How did these three men know about the 30º south latitude landing site matching the Book of Mormon description given by Nephi in Chapter 18, verses 23-25? 
     In addition, what was it doing written on that sheet of paper at all? What brought about the decision of Williams to write this statement down that Lehi landed at 30º south latitude along the west Chilean coast?
    It is interesting that critics of this statement never address that fact, only the “hysteria” that led to people thinking it was a revelation. But when you eliminate the revelation idea, you are still left with a statement written by Williams on a sheet of paper with other important information connected to his role as the scribe and 2nd counselor in the First Presidency. It is interesting that no one wants to address this issue beyond the question of whether or not it was a revelation.
    The fact remains, it was still an item of discussion between the First Presidency that prompted Williams to write it down in the first place. It is also of note that the revelation on the sheet of paper about John the Beloved was received in 1829 before Williams even joined the Church. Therefore, the paper with the heading "A Revelation Concerning John the Beloved" appears to be nothing more than a note penned by Mr. Williams in reference to the earlier revelation,  possibly during his hours spent in the school of the prophets.
    While this is of import, it does not change the fact that Williams wrote these four things on the sheet of paper, all issues that would have been discussed in some official capacity. The fact that Williams’ proposed landing site of Lehi eventually found its way into print should also be of interest since it was given some status of importance at the time.
Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little were the first to publish the Williams statement in A Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel in 1882. The work was titled Lehi’s Travels. A Revelation to Joseph the Seer. Now, since there was no title given on the original paper by Williams, both the title and the additional phrase, "A Revelation to Joseph the Seer" was simply added by either the authors or the publisher. However, while that seems likely, we cannot rule out that Williams’ himself let it be known to others who carried the information forward that this information was of serious consideration in whatever meeting Williams was in where this was discussed, and as the personal scribe of Joseph Smith, it may well have been from the prophet that the information originated.
    It should also be of note that critics of the statement have gone to great length to discredit its value and importance. Their statement: “It is interesting to note that the statement by Williams was not included in the 1857 edition of the Compendium which was much closer to the time the statement was made and began to be circulated throughout the Church. If this had been an official revelatory statement given to the Prophet for the benefit of the Church, surely it would have been included in the earlier edition.”
    The problem is, the value of the statement is not in whether or not it was revelatory (though one can only wonder where these men in the 1830s came up with such a thought), its importance is that it was made and written down by a counselor in the First Presidency, personal confidant of Joseph Smith and his personal scribe and physician. Thus, the source of the statement was not just a member with a wild idea, but someone of some importance and calling in the early Church.
To bring this again into focus, the sheet of paper containing the reference to John the Beloved was clearly labeled "A Revelation concerning John the beloved." The section of paper containing the Lehi’s travel statement had no title or header calling it a revelation or anything else, and was found on the sheet that had been separated into four sections by a line drawing. The top section contained a copy of the revelation pertinent to John, the second had "Questions in English and Answers in Hebrew," and the third section had writings titled "Characters on the Book of Mormon." The Lehi statement was found at the bottom of the page in the fourth section. There was no reference to authorship or headers of any kind in this section. It should be of interest that at least two of these four items would be directly associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith: 1) the Revelation, which he received, and 2) Questions in English and Answers in Hebrew, would be an area of Joseph’s expertise, for who else at the time in this group spent their time studying Hebrew other than Joseph Smith? Now it also seems that the third area, “Characters on the Book of Mormon,” would be connected to Joseph, since he above all the others would have been the leading expert on such matters pertaining to the Book of Mormon.
    Thus, it might be said that Joseph Smith was definitely connected to the four statements on the sheet of paper. So whether we want to call something a revelation, or revelatory, we ought to be asking ourselves:
1. Where did the information, unknown to these men and just about anyone else in the area, come from? 
2. Where did the statement originate? 
3. Who would have known about that particular landing site? 
4. Why would it have been written down at all? 
5. Why written  on that particular sheet of paper?
    While it is true that no basis for it being considered a revelation to Joseph could ever be justified, according to Williams’ great, great, grandson (who, by the way was connected to FARMS and the Mesoamerican theory for the Land of Promise), Orson Pratt did make the following statement: “As near as we can judge from the description of the country contained in this record {Book of Mormon} the first landing place was in Chile, not far from where the city of Valparaiso now stands,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, 11, Feb, 1872, p325).
    It is also interesting that this following statement made by some of the critics of the location: “Even though no information about the physical geology of Lehi’s landing site is ever given in the scriptures, those who were following the journey of Lehi eastward from the Arabian Peninsula may have still found the Chilean landing site plausible.” 
    It should be noted that in the 1830s onward, the total lack of information about the west coast of South America to the average person in the eastern United States would have been almost non-existent. Other than U.S. Navy vessels, no American ships sailed those waters at that time. The plausibility, therefore, would have been simply that the early members had no idea where Lehi landed and one place would have semed as good as any other at the time.
In any event, the theory that Lehi landed in Chile continued to persist. In fact, Orson Pratt found the theory so appealing he successfully perpetuated it for many years and unabashedly proclaimed "the western coast of South America" to be the site of Lehi’s landing” (An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery of Ancient Records, 3rd American ed., New York, 1842, p18).
(See the next post, “Evolution of Land of Promise Geography – Part V,” for more information regarding how the Book of Mormon Land of Promise geography came about).

58 comments:

  1. Fredrick G Williams was excommunicated but to his credit did return back to the church. I would not place him as a authority figure on where the Nephites where. I personally find Joseph Smith and a more credible source not to mention the scriptures.

    D&c 54
    8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.

    LETTER PENNED BY JOSEPH SMITH TO EMMA DURRING ZION’S CAMP MARCH WHICH TRAVELED FROM EASTERN OHIO THROUGH ILLINOIS TO MISOURI. JUNE 4, 1834.

    “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, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed.” (The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, by Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), p 324 in care of Community of Christ church)
    THE ZELPH MOUND DISCOVERY DURING ZION’S CAMP MARCH AFTER CROSSING THE ILLINOIS RIVER. JUNE 3, 1834

    Zelph

    In May and June 1834 Joseph Smith led a Mormon group (a paramilitary expedition known as Zion’s Camp) on a march from Kirtland, Ohio to Jackson County, Missouri. On June 3, while passing through west-central Illinois near Griggsville, some bones were unearthed from a mound. These bones were identified by Smith as belonging to a Lamanite chieftain-warrior named Zelph. The mound in question is now known as Naples-Russell Mound 8.
    “At about one foot deep we discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire; and between two of his ribs we found an Indian arrow, which had evidently been the cause of his death. 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, thickset 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 Hopewell Indians made highways and had an advanced trade system that extended to the Rocky Mountains. Joseph Smith vision of Zelph matches the extensive trade of the Hopewell Indians.
    The Prophet Onandagus is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but he could have ties to the Onondaga Tribe whose traditional lands are in the state of New York.




    ReplyDelete
  2. David, obviously the American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites/Nephites. That doesn't mean North America is where they originally landed. There is little evidence in North America to indicate that. By comparison, look how large our own USA population has expanded here in less than 300 years. if our current civilization were to end now, there would be numerous ruins and evident to show we were here 1600 years from now. And the Nephite/Lamanite nations existed for around 900 years!! and the Jaredites for around 1800 years!! What little evidences you site are because over the course of those 900 years many Nephites/Lamanites migrated to Central America on Hagoth's ships and then on up to current USA land, so many of their legends and history were brought with them from their fore-fathers. There is no geography or near enough ruins of ancient cities to support that North America was the original landing place of Lehi and his company, nor is there a route for a ship to have come to North America from Saudi Arabia. You don't have any facts behind you and you're stretching many of Joseph Smith's comments out of context. Go where the evidence takes you rather than trying to bend the evidence to support what you believe. I'm no expert, but I've looked fairly closely at all 3 theories and South America has the most overwhelming evidence of all of them. It's not even close. Why people can't see this is beyond me. Probably because few have the time to really investigate all 3 so they tend to just believe the most vocal, which is the "Meso-American" theory. It's really to bad because the number of holes in the Meso American theory gives our true "opponents" to much fertile ground to contrivert the Church....

    Dell, one thing that I may have missed in all your blogs; have there been any cites found in South America that show remains of these large mounds of dirt thrown up around them as described repeatedly in the Book of Mormon? Also, and this has nothing to do with this post, but what do you know about what happened to the cememt box Joseph found the plates in? Did anyone else ever see it, etc...

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bryce I think Priddis said something about this too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bryce, It was the ruins of Puman-Chochan which Priddis identified as Ammonihah. The ruins have large mounds of dirt around it. Not sure either if Del has ever discussed this. It would be interesting.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Nephite’s built earthen mound walls around ALL their cities.

    Alma 50:1
    “that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about ALL THE CITIES, THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND which was possessed by the Nephites.”

    Having only one site in south America with earthen walls does not fit the Book of Mormon. The Hopewell built earthen Mounds around ALL their cities.

    The Hopewell extended from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico their trade extended thousands of miles to the rocky mountains and possibly to central America. The mounds cover thousands of miles.
    They occupied New York and Hill Cumorah at the time the Book of Mormon took place. They have dna from the Middle East. Their artifacts are the same as the Book of Mormon artifacts. The Hopewell civilization ended same time as the Nephites.
    The scriptures and Hill Cumorah take me to North America. The Hopewell civilizations is a perfect match for the Nephites
    By the way wind and ocean currents support the route that Lehi travelled landing in the Gulf of Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The mounds of the Hopewell's don't match the description in the Book of Mormon with their shallow ditches being on the inside of the earthen walls. The walls also are not very steep and wouldn't present much opposition to an enemy, although I'll grant you they may have eroded much over time. The biggest problem however still comes back to an utter lack of remains of what should have been 2 enormous civilizations: there are very few structures or buildings to be found in North America. Where are the remains of millions of Nephites who died by the hill Cumora?? And where is the land of many waters that supposedly surrounded it if it is the same hill Cumorah in New York? None of it fits David! Likely the Hopewells are descendants of Nephites/Lamamites who eventually made it clear up to New York.. where are the ruins David? Of millions and millions of people!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Hopewell are called the mound builders for a reason.

    Hill Cumorah Mass Burial Pits and Battlegrounds



    Hill Cumorah


    At the final battles at the Hill Cumorah, nearly a quarter of a million Nephites were slaughtered. An untold number of Lamanites were also killed. Indian legend supports this great and terrible battle that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people.


    Thayendanegea Mohawk/Iroquois Chief:


    “From the earliest knowledge the white men have possessed of the country of western New York, the Painted Post has been noted as a geographical landmark. When first traversed by the white men, a large oaken post stood at the spot, which has retained the name to this day. It was painted in the Indian manner, and was guarded as a monument by the Indiana, who renewed it as often as it showed evidence of going to decay. Tradition says it was a monument of great antiquity, marking the spot of a great and bloody battle, according to some statements. According to others, it was erected to perpetuate the memory of some great war-chief.” (My opinion is the great Chief is Mormon I can’t prove it though) (Painted Post, New York is located about 70 miles away from Hill Cumorah) (Stone 1838 pg. 318)


    In reference to Buffalo, New York in close proximity to what is the narrow neck of land and the Hill Cumorah:


    “Tradition fixes upon this spot as the scene of the final and most bloody conflict between the Iroquois and the ”Gah-kwas” or Eries, — a tradition which has been supposed to derive some sanction from the number of fragments of decayed human bones which are scattered over the area.” (Squier 1849)

    Mass Burial Pits and Battlegrounds
    Two thirds of the Book of Mormon is about wars between the Lamanites and Nephites. Large bone pits and piles were found in the state of New York and other states. These large bone pits are supportive evidence of the battles that took place between Nephites and Lamanites.

    In the last battles Mormon states that bodies of the Nephites were heaped into piles (Mormon 2:15).

    New York State:

    “It was called the “Bone Fort,” from the circumstance that the early settlers found within it a mound, six feet in height by thirty at the base, which was entirely made up of human bones slightly covered with earth… The popular opinion concerning this accumulation is, that it contained the bones of the slain, thus heaped together after some severe battle.” (Squier 1849)

    Kentucky:

    “Half a mile from this place, at the foot of the mountain, in a large cave full of human bones, perhaps several wagon loads; some of which are small, and others very large” (Haywood 1823 pg. 153)

    New York State:

    “The bones were of individuals of both sexes and of all ages. Among them were a few fetal bones. Many of the skulls bore marks of violence, leading to the belief that they were broken before burial.” (Squier 1849)

    Illinois:

    “Mr. Ramey, the owner of the mound, speaks about digging in one part of the field and finding heaps of bones eight feet deep, and says that the bones are everywhere present.” (Peet 1892 pg. 163)

    New York State:

    “Human bones have been discovered beneath the leaves; and in nearly every part of the trench skeletons of adults of both sexes, of children, and infants, have been found, covered only by the vegetable accumulations. They seem to have been thrown together promiscuously.” (Squier 1849)

    New York State:

    “Among them may be mentioned the “bone-pits,” or deposits of human bones. One is found near the village of Brownsville, on Black River. It is described as a pit, ten or twelve feet square, by perhaps four feet deep, in which are promiscuously heaped together a large number of human skeletons.” (Squier 1849)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Problem David, Del has pointed out that the Israelites don't bury their dead in mounds. They did in North America which means they weren't Israelites. So what happen is a few lamanites/Nephites came up from the south and these few were Zelph and a few on the boarders of Missouri. The bulk of them are in South America today. In fact the America idean pure bred have about disappeared today and so few or likely none will be gathered to the New Jerusalem. So your model again completely fails.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you missed some key points. Zelph particapted and died in the last battles of the nephites. Known from the Rocky Mountains to the hill Cumorah he was killed in Illinois. To say he travelled 4000 miles to Illinois when he supposedly lived in chile is problematic. Common sense goes out the window.

      Delete
  9. Actually hopewell burial method matches up with Hebrew rituals quite well. The burial mounds were more like Hebrew tombs and oussaury

    See link

    http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/11/nephite-hopewell-mik-maq-old-world.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's not looking good for the chile model your batting 0 for 20 right now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't seen any criticism of the South American model yet. And I haven't seen a logical defense of the North American. So lets recap.

      1. The NA model fails because you tell me they landed in Florida(h). Alma 22:28 says that the land of first inheritance was on the west of the land bordering on the sea. This of course is the west sea. You told me that the Gulf of Mexico was the sea South and lake Erie was the sea west. Well - thats 700 miles apart. So that is where you are wrong from the beginning.

      2. There are no gold and silver deposits in Florida(h). I say duh because anybody with any knowledge of geology know this. Nephi said they found gold and silver in abundance on the land. THERE ARE NONE IN FLORIDA. So from the very beginning you are wrong.

      3. The seeds grew exceedingly well in the land of promise. That means the climate had to be the same as Jerusalem. The climate is NOT the same in Florida(h). Their crops would have grown poorly in Florida. Not so in Chile where they did land.

      3. You are telling me that a great wind blew the Jaredites in barges up a river for about 500 miles. That there were mountain waves in a river. This is laughable and anybody with any kind of common sense knows this is a physical impossibility. The area was covered by ice but even so if it were a river as you claim then it's absurd. The current of the river alone would have kept them from being blown upstream. It's not just a crazy notion but stupid and displays a complete lack of knowledge of physics. You might be able to fool others with that stupid idea but you aren't going to fool anybody with any common sense here.

      4. Alma 22:28 says that Zarahemla and the land of their first inheritance was located on the seashore of the sea west. This is in the scriptural records. Yet your Zarahemla isn't anywhere near the west sea. It is south of the west sea which is lake Erie.

      As for Zelph who knows - I think the brethren simply guessed. They were so caught up in finding this guy that they concocted a good story. Del has discussed this one in detail and you might want to go back and look for his discussion. It doesn't prove anything. On the other hand the 30-degrees south latitude is very specific and the brethren did not know that Gold and silver deposits are found there in Chile along with the exact same climate as Jerusalem. How do you account for that? The winds and currents flow out of Arabia and head to Chile. The winds and current do not flow toward Florida(h). You would need exceedingly great skill to make it there which they of course did not and the Alma 22 PROVES IT.

      Keep on jabbering away David. You keep digging a deeper grave for you crappy model every time you say something.

      Delete
    2. Part 1

      The six sea model says they landed between Florida and Mississippi. The six sea model does not place them in Florida. Nonetheless your argument about Florida not having gold is pointless since the Hopewell had gold and silver artifacts.
      Your argument about seeds is ridiculous. The only plants that we know the Nephites grew was corn Wheat and Barley. The Hopewell grew Little barley, may grass (in the same family as wheat both are grass seeds) and they also grew corn. In south America the indigenous people never grew barley or wheat. Quite problematic don’t you think. If you know of Jerusalem plants that are grown in South America that can’t grow in North America let me know. On top of that 30 North Latitude runs through North America.
      The barges were driven and steered by God. Going up the ST Lawrence sea way is not impossible at all. You believe that 8 barges could stick together traveling thousands of miles with no human steering the barges, right?
      Ether 6:6
      The barges were driven by fierce winds and tempest also the great and terrible tempests which were caused by the fierceness of the wind.

      You could not be more wrong about Zarahemla being first Inheritance. First Inheritance is where they landed first not Zarahemla. The Nephites went from First inheritance to the land of Nephi THEN king Mosiah brings the people from the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla and they join the Muelikites

      Omni 1:12
      I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land
      of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi...

      Delete
    3. David the fact that these southern states don't have gold deposits is exactly the point. Nephi said they found gold in the land of their 1st inheritance. That means they found it where they landed. The fact that you don't have any gold in the south destroys your model. Simple as that. Now down where they landed they did have gold and silver so again your model is garbage.

      Delete
  11. David: You wrote above: “Actually hopewell burial method matches up with Hebrew rituals quite well. The burial mounds were more like Hebrew tombs and oussaury.”
    Again, you state erroneous information that you evidently do not know is erroneous, otherwise why would you write it? However, erroneous it is because you completely misunderstand the Hebrew burial attitude—a room cut out of a rock mountain, cliff, etc., or one made of stone by man, is not the same as burying “underground,” even if the ground is above, i.e., mounds covered with earth. Their aversion to the ground connected with burial is well documented and part of their Law of Moses directives regarding burial. You cannot just say something you think or sounds right—you ought to learn about what you write since the Hebrews or Jews had and have very extensive rules and laws by which they live and are not violated by them anywhere!
    You will find in the Biblical record constant reference to “sepulcher,” which, by definition is: “a small room or monument, cut in rock or built of stone, in which a dead person is laid or buried.” It is not a heap of dirt piled up over the dead in the form of a mound. And nothing you can say can change that. We never find burials in the scriptural record connected with mounds of dirt, but among the Hebrews and Jews only sepulchers.
    In the Book of Mormon, neither tomb nor sepulcher is mentioned, only “burial,” which is given 7 times, but never connected with dirt, ground, or mounds. The word ossuary (not oussaury) is also not mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
    “From the burial of Sarah in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23:19), to the funeral rites prepared for Dorcas (Acts 9:37), there is no mention of any sarcophagus, or even coffin, in any Jewish burial. Still less were the rites of the Jews like those of the Pelasgi or Etruscans. They were marked with the same simplicity that characterized all their religious observances. This simplicity of rite led to what may be called the distinguishing characteristic of Jewish sepulchers—the deep loculus—which, so far as is now known, is universal in all purely Jewish rock-cut tombs, but hardly known elsewhere” (Bible Dictionary). By the way, a “loculus” (which means “small chamber”) is a small recess cut in the rock sepulcher where the body is laid—usually a sepulcher had many of these tables and rooms cut into them for various members of a related family, as found in the many remarkable rock-cut sepulchers around Jerusalem, especially in the valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat and on the plateau to the north. In addition, “these rock tombs were situated outside the third wall near a gate between the tower Psephinus and the Royal Caverns. In fact, the people still cling to their ancient cemeteries in the valley of Jehoshaphat with a tenacity singularly characteristic of the east.”
    You seem to feel that you know things you do not and simply make wild, unsupported comments in answer to factual information.
    In watching the many comments you have made along these lines and the severe reaction from many of our readers should have suggested to you some time ago that you are way off base; it has been interesting to see your extremely immature reaction to some people that have impeccable credentials in their knowledge of the Book of Mormon, and about the subjects they write, something you appear not to have. While we welcome comments, both in agreement and challenging non-agreement ones in this blog and, in fact, encourage them, we expect those comments to be intelligent and factual—disagreeing for disagreement sake is neither scholarly nor useful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given were the Nephites landed they made due with what the had.

      Using mounds was a everyday thing for a Nephite. Earthen Mounds were around EVERY major Nephite city.

      From Zarahemla the Jaredite land is far northward.

      I'm waiting with bated breath to respond to your four page report. If its anything like Iterry responses your in deep trouble.

      Delete
  12. David, in addition, beginning in four days, we will be posting 12 articles, all in answer to your numerous comments that are almost all in error, as well as showing your errors on the map you claim no one has ever found an error. We certainly don't expect your agreement on any of them since you have shown a tendency to counter everything, even irrefutable facts, though you do so without references but just flippant statements, like when you wrote: “If the Jaredites were "far northward " as you say. Show me in scripture instead of unfounded statements”; however, as you could easily find with a little effort that the term ”so far northward” is easy enough to find with a global search of the Book of Mormon. And since that is where the bones of the Jaredites were found (Alma 22:30) and since those who found them (Limhi’s 43-man expedition) brought back the gold plates of Ether, we know it was the Jaredites land where they were wiped out “so far northward” the point is hardly as your flippant comment states “Show me in scripture instead of unfounded statements.” We make no unfounded statements in this blog—almost nothing here is simply opinion (when it is it is usually stated as such), but relative to actual scriptural comment—not someone’s speculation or opinion, like you often use from people who were not there (in the Land of Promise) and therefore could not possibly know more than those who were there and wrote descriptive information about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Given were the Nephites landed they made due with what the had.

      Using mounds was a everyday thing for a Nephite. Earthen Mounds were around EVERY major Nephite city.

      From Zarahemla the Jaredite land is far northward.

      I'm waiting with bated breath to respond to your four page report. If its anything like Iterry responses your in deep trouble.

      Delete
    3. Del
      Could you map out every aspect of Alma 22. That is the crucible of any Book of Mormon Geography model. If you can map out Alma 22 your model can hold water otherwise it will be easy to pick apart. Mapping it will allow your readers a better understanding of the Book of Mormon and how it applies to your model. If you ignore aspects of Alma 22 that don't fit. Well its not going to mean anything. Based on your blog you should be able to map it out I and your readers would like to see it.

      Delete
  13. David, the geography doesn't match at all, ocean current don't either, & as Iterry states the going up 500 miles of river in barges only propelled by currents. Add in virtually no remains of civilization in the form of buildings, roads etc.... the North American model makes us look like idiots to Book of Mormon critics. It just doesn't fit David, no matter how bad you want it to! But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm done arguing with you.

    Dell. I would still like additional info on defensive mounds found in South America and any info you have on the cement and stone box the Book of Mormon was found in.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Hopewell built roads.

      http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/book-of-mormon-horses-chariots-highways.html

      The Nephites building structure was wood so in that case they would there would be little remains.
      In the land northward they used cement only after timber was in short supply.
      When it comes to stone. It never states that the Nephites built building out of stone only wood. The one mention of stone is only in stone walls. Which the Hopewell built stone walls.

      There is a current that travels south around the east side of Africa and a north current around the west side of Africa.

      But it really doesn't matter the direction of currents because both the Nephite and Jaredite boats were driven by wind.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part 1
    The six sea model says they landed between Florida and Mississippi. The six sea model does not place them in Florida. Nonetheless your argument about Florida not having gold is pointless since the Hopewell had gold and silver artifacts.
    Your argument about seeds is ridiculous. The only plants that we know the Nephites grew was corn Wheat and Barley. The Hopewell grew Little barley, may grass (in the same family as wheat both are grass seeds) and they also grew corn. In south America the indigenous people never grew barley or wheat. Quite problematic don’t you think. If you know of Jerusalem plants that are grown in South America that can’t grow in North America let me know. On top of that 30 North Latitude runs through North America.
    The barges were driven and steered by God. Going up the ST Lawrence sea way is not impossible at all. You believe that 8 barges could stick together traveling thousands of miles with no human steering the barges, right?
    Ether 6:6
    The barges were driven by fierce winds and tempest also the great and terrible tempests which were caused by the fierceness of the wind.

    You could not be more wrong about Zarahemla being first Inheritance. First Inheritance is where they landed first not Zarahemla. The Nephites went from First inheritance to the land of Nephi THEN king Mosiah brings the people from the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla and they join the Muelikites

    Omni 1:12
    I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land
    of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi...
    First Inheritance is not next to the West Sea. There is no verse in the Book of Mormon that states which sea borders first Inheritance. The verse you are pointing to when it talks about the forefather’s inheritance refers ONLY to the Forefathers of the Lamanites. The Lamanites Inheritance is on the shoreline of the WEST side of the land of Nephi. The west sea is not in the verse YOUR CITING. Given the Nephites migrated south to north it only makes sense that the Nephites landed in the South Sea. The Hopewell covered thousands of miles from the Gulf Cost to the Great Lakes their trade extended thousands of miles to the Rock Mountains. I’m sure their horses and Chariots helped their trade. 700 miles is not an issue.
    http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/book-of-mormon-horses-chariots-highways.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. Part 2

    I would not reference this verse its detrimental to your case (all of scripture is) it states that the Lamanites on the west side of Zarahemla lived in tents. It’s a perfect description of the Plain Indians who lived west of Missouri. Missouri is described as being a border of the Lamanites unless you do not believe D&C. See D&C54:8.
    I’m not familiar with many South American tribes but I don’t know of any South American tribe that lived-in tents, do you?

    28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in TENTS; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of THEIR FARTHER’S (LAMANITE FOREFATHERS NOT NEPHITES) first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.


    Yes the scriptures Imply that the West Sea is North of Zarahemla. Bountiful is north of Zarahemla. In this verse the Lamanites gather to attack Bountiful by gathering SOUTH of the WEST SEA
    Alma 52:8
    8 And now it came to pass that the armies of the Lamanites, on the west sea, SOUTH while in the absence of Moroni on account of some intrigue amongst the Nephites,

    Hagoth Instead of Launching from Zarahemla has to go northward near bountiful to Launch his boat. This verse alone implies Zarahemla does not border the West Sea. In the six sea model Zarahemla extends out to Iowa.

    Alma 63:4,5
    with their wives and their children, departed out of the land
    of Zarahemla into the land which was northward.

    5. exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and
    launched it forth into the west sea,

    If you look at the six sea map Bountiful it borders the West Sea.

    The six sea model is the only model that can map out every aspect of Alma 22 without letting go of common sense and logic. Can Del map out EVERY aspect of Alma 22. He does not need to worry about wheat barley tents horses swords breastplates etc because they did not exist in South America at the time of the BOM even though there mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Del quick question

    Alma 22:28 that Iterry brought up states that Lamanites occupied lands west of Zarahemla yet your maps don't show Lamanites occupying lands west of Zarahemla.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You have Zarahemla bordering the west sea instead of the lamanites
    Before you map Alma 22 you need to change that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to read Alma 22 again. zarahelma is on the sea coast. You are wrong about that. And the Mulikites landed and settled it so again your model is garbage because the Mulikites would not be able to sail to your zarahemla. You model is complete garbage

      Delete
  19. You have hermounts in the right place I will give you credit on that. Most meso American apologist put hermounts south of Zarahemla because it's controlled by lamanites.
    Numerous host of lamanites were north of Zarahemla alma 2:24. I recommend you show the lamanites on the west of Zarahemla extending all the way north to Hermounts.

    I'm trying to help you map Alma 22 it's very tough to do
    You will probably have to do redo your map.
    Lamanites surrounded the nephites southward lands on the east and west. Zarahemla was in the land southward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David look at Alma 22:28. It says that the Lamanites were on the west of THE LAND of Zarahemla BY THE SEASHORE. So what is happening here is the City of Zarahemla is located on the seashore. The land of Zarahemla occupies the area around Zarahemla going south a certain distance. The Lamanites occupied the land from the East sea to the West sea right up to and part of the LAND of Zarahemla. They aren't west of the city of Zarahelma. They are SOUTH of the city of Zarahemla. That is what it means that in the next verse where it says they were nearly surrounded. But here is something interesting. Your model is so bogus because we are dealing with a contenent that the Nephites could never be nearly surrounded by anything. All they would have to do is hope over the Mississippi and vola they aren't surrounded. So that alone tells you that the West sea is a barrier. Something that is not present in your model. Same with the east sea. Your east sea is Lake Ontario. How to you fit all of the Nephites in between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario? It doesn't fit. If you want the East sea to be the Atlantic then your model again collapses because you now don't have a narrow neck anymore. So nothing makes sense and they didn't live in North America as has been pointed out. Your model is garbage and these verses prove it.

      Now heres the kicker - the West sea goes all the way from Zarahemla to the land of their first inheritance. The Nephites landed on the SEA WEST. The last phrase says and thus bordering along by the seashore.

      This is why your model fails so spectacularly. Your Zarahemla isn't on the seashore where it was founded by the Mulekites. Infact since Zarhemla is on the seashore, and that seashore goes all the way to the land of their first inheritance. You claim also that they landed in the South Sea - your words not mine. Yet here it says they landed on the seashore of the west sea. So you have it all goofed up. They could not land in Lake Erie even though you claim the Jaredites do which is complete nonsense. You even claim that the Gulf is the South Sea which is the Florida/Mississippi area. This is your words not mine. Your model does fit this description at all. Nothing fits. It's all nonsense. and no matter how hard you try to make it fit it simply does not. The Nephites simply did not live in North America period.

      David - nothing you've said convinces me or anyone else that we are wrong. You are wrong and the scriptures are clear. You just have to read and understand them which you obviously are incapable of doing.

      Delete
  20. It's really not that hard at all to map Alma 22 if you understand the geography which you obviously do not. Look for the word seashore. That alone destroys your model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually no it doesn't because it fits Alma 22 and the D&C.
      There are lamanites north of Zarahemla that border the west sea.

      Sea Alma 2

      Also the six sea matches Joseph Smith revelation of Zelph. How do think there are countless number of lamanites north of Zarahemla without there being lamanites west of Zarahemla

      Delete
    2. By all means then map Alma 22

      Delete
    3. Zelph has been discussed in this blog before. If there was a revelation which I doubt why isn't it in the D&C? Why do you ignore the revelation to Joseph Smith that Lehi landed at 30-degrees south latitude?

      Delete
  21. Alma 22:29 states the Nephites are surrounded except for the northern parts

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What you fail to understand is the shoreline closest to Zarahemla on the west side I s controlled by Lamanites. This shoreline is north of Zarahemla. The shoreline bordering bountiful that hagoth uses to launch from he does not launch from Zarahemla because he can't there is no shoreline its north of Zarahemla. I had to delete and fix some grammatical errors

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nonsense David. The Lamanites did not control the area to the North. They were hemmed in on the south. But here is the funny part about your lousy model. Hagoth builds a ship in Lake Erie and sails North right? Well, that is what the records says. How far would he have to sail north? Well looking at a map about 2 miles and he would hit the other shore. Wow - that was a worth while endeavor. Hagoth sailed from near the narrow neck and that means near Niagara. And then it says that they sailed off never to heard of again. So why couldn't the Nephites just saddle up their llama (Curelom) and travel a few miles and say hello? I find it rather funny that your model is so goofed up. Have you ever bother to get out a map and compare the actual scriptural record to yours?

      Delete
  25. Quote the verse that says the nephites landed on the west sea. Saying the lamanite forefathers started on the shoreline on the west part of the land of Nephi has nothing to do with the Nephites nor does it say which sea this shoreline borders.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You constantly make statements without backing up your statement using scripture.

    At this point for me unless you reference a verse to backup your false statements. Your false statements stay false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here it is Alma 22:28. Now, the more idle part of the Lamanties lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; ya and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.
      vs 29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possission of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about the wilderness side; on the north , even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful.

      Okay David look at vs 28. It says very clearly that they Zarahemla is on the west by the seashore. It says the first inheritance was alwo in the west bordering on the seashore. So it should be obvious that the Nephites are bounded by a west sea. They landed in Chile on the west sea which is the Pacific. They had gold and silver in the area where they landed too. Nothing said here about a south sea. Then after they landed the traveled North to Cuzco Peru which is the city of Nephi. The remnant of the tower of Noah is still there today. We know a number of the cities because the geography FITS very well to this model. They also have high mountains that you don't have at all in your lousy model. So read over it - it's all there and I've quoted in many times. You simply ignore everything that is being said to you even though we've already destroyed your model completely.

      Delete

    2. The verse your quoting is about the Lamanites and their first Inheritance.
      Since the inheritance for Lamanites is on the west part of the Land of Nephi one could only assume that the Nephite Inheritance is at a different location from the Lamanites. That being it is not on the west part of the Land of Nephi. So for you is the Nephite Inheritance on the east, south or north of the Land of Nephi? Given that the Nephites migrated from south to North its on the south part of the land of Nephi. Verse 29 says that the east side was filled with Lamanites along the seashore
      In the six sea model the Nephite first in inheritance is east of the Lamanite first inheritance.
      For a better explanation of Alma 22 see link specifically verses 28 and 29.
      http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/six-sea-model-alma-chapter-22-bom-map.html
      The Book of Mormon does differentiate between the Nephite first Inheritance and the Lamanite first inheritance.

      Delete
    3. Oh this is really funny. So did the Lamanites come in different ships then? I don't get your point. The 1st inheritance is their first inheritance and that is in Chile of course. Nothing said here about the South sea where you claim they landed. Nephi and his people left their first inheritance in Chile and traveled up to the city of Nephi which is now Cuzco Peru. The Lamanites left their 1st inheritance later and followed them. So no I don't agree with your interpretation. It's quite faulty and really has no justification because there isn't any other 1st inheritance other than where they first landed. You are reading more into it then is there just to make your crappy model work.

      So let me map this out for you. Obviously I can't do graphics - Del will have to do that.

      They landed along the west sea which is the Pacific ocean coming from Arabia and landing at 30-degrees south latitude. That's the place of both Nephites and Lamanites 1st inheritance. I really don't know what you are talking about when you talk about any other 1st inheritance. That doesn't make any sense at all. The geography of South America at that time was a long narrow Island which was about 2500-3000 miles long from north to south by about 75-500 miles wide (give or take) east to west. The narrow neck is the 50-75 miles wide and a day and a half journey for a Nephite. There were some large Islands as well in the area of Brazil. So when Nephi took his family he traveled about 1000 from Chile to Cuzco.

      The Lamanites followed them and left their first inheritance in Chile. They settled south of the Nephites and lived in tents. This is clearly seen in the archealogy of the area because many cities were built by the Nephites whereas the areas to the south were not developed. So when it says they occupied the area from the east sea to the west sea it is very clear to me that it means they occupied the area south of the Nephites because they were hemmed in and they occupied the land from the east see (Atlantic at that time) and the west sea which is the Pacific. The Heartland model to me has great flaws and isn't even worth considering. It's very clear to me that you have it all goofed up. You can't show me that the term 1st inheritance means anything other than where Lehi/Nephi and the Lamanites first landed. Your model is still garbage and not even worth to the time to explore. Doesn't make any sense at all. You might want to read some of the postings on this site because they are very good and will correct your obvious errors. This is a pretty big error that there was something other than a 1st inheritance. Maybe Mormon should have called the 1st inheritance the 1st 1st inheritance (haha).

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  27. So are you saying that the lamanites are only composed of laman and Lemuel or did they join the indigenous tribes already located in North America? In the case of the lamanites who lived in tents their first inheritance is on the west part of the land of Nephi.

    Academia does not say there was a Sea where del says there was a sea at the time of the Book of Mormon.
    Not for millions of years

    ReplyDelete
  28. David, I don't even consider anything about North America. I don't care about north America for where the Lamanites now live.

    Did you know that Charles Darwin said that South America came up in recent times in his book on evolution? He found a bed of sea shells that extended 200 miles down in Argentina. The evidence is very clear that South America came up in recent times. There are EYE witnesses to the event and its in the BOM. The ground shook for 3 hours. If you had bothered to read any of the information in this blog you would be presented with the evidence that tells us that the continent was raised up at the time of Christ. Nothing like that occurred in North America and that alone destroys your lousy model.

    Now I want to wax a little bit religious for a moment and point out the reason why the continent was raised up. Del hasn't gone into this part.

    The American Indian has largely disappeared from the North American Continent. They have ether mixed with the whites or died out. During the coming destruction of America all of the Indians are going to die. The destruction of America is prophesied in the scriptures in a number of places. If this is the only place they lived then there will be none saved and taken to the New Jerusalem. What the Lord did and I know you don't believe in the power of God - that is clear. He raised up the South American continent to great heights to protect the future remaining Indians during the coming Tribulation. During the Tribulation the entire earth will be conqueror and if the Lord did not protect them they also would be destroyed and none make it to the New Jerusalem. They are now living at 12,000+ feet in the Andes where it is difficult to live for anybody. They have developed large lungs to help them survive up there. They will be gathered to the New Jerusalem and are the true descendants of Laman and Lemuel. There might be a few others here or there but there are millions of them in South America like nowhere else. That is where they settled and that is where they will be gathered in the future which isn't too far off. I could quote a number of scriptures about this but this should suffice as to what I believe. I could care less what you believe on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Its unfair having a debate with you and del.
    You guys just make stuff up. If science does not support what you are saying you make up your own stuff. When I point this out. Your statement above is filled with opinions only you believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We haven't made anything up David. Your model is garbage. Here is one example. You redefine what the BOM says to support your lousy model. Take for example the term used in the BOM "1st inheritance". You've redefined it to mean that after they landed the Lamanites traveled to some place and that was their 1st inheritance. Just a simple check of the BOM says otherwise. All I need to do is find one scripture that says that where they landed is the land of their 1st inheritance. So lets find one. I've read the BOM many times and I know what the term means.

      Looky here David Mosiah 10:13
      And again, that they were wronged (speaking of the Lamantes of course) while in the land of their FIRST INHERITANCE, after they had CROSSED THE SEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Okay - so there it is. This again destroys your model. There isn't any other interpretation for what 1st inheritance means David. The land of their 1st inheritance is where they landed. When you look now at Alma 22 it says the land of their 1st inheritance is on the SEA WEST. That means that now you have to blow Nephi up 500 miles of river (Oh I can't stand it - It makes me giggle)to Lake Erie.

      Another thing is your starting point is all wrong as I've said before. Your starting point was a few statements by the early brethren who thought they lived here. From that you've built a fantasy of a model that does not fit the scriptural record in any way as I've pointed out. You ignore the scriptures and you won't except the only revelation on where they landed and that is 30-degrees south latitude.

      Del's starting point was using the scriputal record. They traveled to Oman in Arabia then sailed (without tacking) being DRIVEN FORTH BY THE WIND to the new world. So what he found is the sea path and the only one mind you that works. The winds and currents blow out of Arabia AND THE ONLY PLACE THEY GO without any trouble at all is to the WEST COAST of South America at 30-degrees South Latitude.

      These are all facts, yours are all made up fantasy. In a day or two Del well continue to destroy completely your model. You won't accept it because you've changed the definitions in the BOM to fit your lousy model. It will be a waste of time but at least a few of us here will learn new things as to how terrible the so-called Heartland model is and we'll have new tools to fight this fraud that you've perpetrated on the saints.

      Delete
  30. Your models problems has a lot more to question then mine. You stated that del should have no problem answering these questions so what are the answers.

    Del these are some of the issues I have with your model.
    I would appreciate short concise answers if you choose to respond to these questions. If you cite North America for answers to items not found In south America that you have already done that only supports North America models not South America.
    1) Migrating beast any evidence of migrating beast in South America (Alma 22:31)
    2) Head-plates no evidence of Head-plates in South America during BOM timeline (Alma 43:38)
    3) West Lamanites lived in tents any evidence of South American indigenous population that lived in tents (Alma 22:28)
    4) The Nephite building structure is wood. When timber was low they used cement in the Land Northward. Any South American tribes that used timber for the houses buildings and temples. Note that the Book of Mormon never states that the Nephites or Lamanites built there building from stone. (Helaman 3:7)
    5) Shipping the Nephites shipped timber to the land northward because of the lack of timber how do you suggest this was done in South America. Specifics like which river would be helpful. (Helaman 3:10)
    6) Earthen mound wall around ALL their cities. Do you have evidence that the indigenous people of South America used earthen mounds around all their cities? (Alma 50:1)
    7) Timber stockades and evidence the indigenous people of south America during the time of the Book of Mormon or any time for that matter used timber stockades around all their cities. (Alma 50:2)
    8) D&C 54:8 states that Missouri is a border of the Lamanites suggesting one side is Lamanite the other side is Nephites.
    9) Joseph Smith has made many statements that North American, American Indians as the laminates.
    10) Joseph Smith pointed to the Hopewell mounds as the Nephites.
    11) When missionaries were sent to the Lamanites see D&C they were always sent to North American, American Indians.
    12) The church has Identified the hill Cumorah as THE hill Cumorah. It has only one Hill Cumorah visitor center.
    13) Your East Sea is not supported by Academia. Atnthe time of the BOM your East sea does not exist by millions of years.
    14) Horses no evidence of horses in South America pre-European arrival (Enos 1:21)
    15) Cattle no evidence of cattle in South America pre European arrival (Enos 1:21)
    16) Goats no evidence of goats in South America pre European arrival (Enos 1:21)
    17) Wheat no evidence of wheat in South America pre European arrival (Mosiah 9:9)
    18) Barley no evidence of barley in South America pre European arrival (Mosiah 9:9)
    19) Iron Sword no evidence of Iron swords in South America pre European arrival (Mosiah 8:9)
    20) Breast-plates no evidence of breastplates in South America during BOM timeline (Mosiah 8:10)
    21) I would like to see a visual representation of all aspects of Alma 22.
    22) Generally south and meso American models place Lamanite wilderness always south of Zarahemla. The Lamanites were in wilderness on the South West and East of Zarahemla.
    23) You have Zarahemla close to the shoreline. But when Hagoth launches his ships him and thousands of men women and Children leave the Land of Zarahemla go by the Narrow neck and launch their boats. Why wouldn’t Hagoth launch from the Land of Zarahemla. In your model Zarahemla is closer to the shoreline than bountiful is.
    24) Hill Cumorah is in the South Countries Mormon ask the lamanite King permission to enter the Land of Cumorah essentially making one last stand.
    Why didn’t the Nephites continue to migrate north when they knew they were outnumbered and would lose to the Lamanites. A continued migration north would be their best option to preserve life. The land northward did not have Lamanites. With your model there would be no issue with a continued Northward migration (Alma 22:29, Mormon 6:2)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't think you can answer these questions ^^^^^^^^

    ReplyDelete
  32. Give it time, David. All these questions are answered and coming up--only so much can be published here in a day. However, I asked you only one question but I see you have refused to answer it so far. Funny how that is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. David: You wrote "Its unfair having a debate with you and del.
    You guys just make stuff up. If science does not support what you are saying you make up your own stuff. When I point this out. Your statement above is filled with opinions only you believe."

    Again, If you are talking about the time frame of the Earth, then it was not an opinion to the Lord and to Moses and I will take their view and comments over that of Academia every time. Funny that you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  34. David, you say it is unfair to have a debate with us. I can’t speak for our readers, but from the standpoint of this blog, it is not intended to have a debate. We answers questions and respond to comments, which, by the way, few such sites as ours do. However, a debate is defined as: “a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward, i.e, an argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved.” Some of its synonyms are argument, counterargument, dispute, wrangle, war of words, argumentation, disputation, dissension, contention and conflict.
    This is not the purpose of our site as I’ve stated several times. You ask a question or make a comment in our comments section, we will answer it. However, you evidently do not want a discussion, you want to attack, shoot down, and win an argument. Our site does not argue points of difference. We support and follow the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon regarding the location Mormon describes as being the area of the Land of Promise.
    You talk about our “making things up,” the funny thing is, that is exactly what you do. Take the first two responses we have made to your maps, that will appear on February 6 and 7, and the some 15 articles that follow. All we see is stuff you have made up—very little matches the scriptural statements of Mormon, Nephi, Jacob, Moroni, and others. Not a single statement we make not follow a scriptural reference and the clear and precise intent of it.
    While you obviously disagree with what we write about, and that is certainly your privilege, your intent seems to force your opinion on us and others. That is not our interest and our intent and I, personally, object to your doing so on my blog. If you want to debate things, create your own blog and invite people to disagree with you and respond to them. Please stop trying to turn my blog into your personal battle ground.
    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  35. (Constinuing from above)
    You asked scores of questions, and made numerous comments in my blog over the past few weeks. For the most part, my readers, fed up with your viewpoints, have responded quite effectively, mostly ignored by you—your responses do not address directly their comments. Nor do you answer anyone other than with rhetoric and rarely with any scholarly, or knowledgeable effort. In the coming two weeks, I am posting answers and responses to all that you have written and questioned. I am certain before the first one appears that you will disagree with everything and that is your privilege, but after you read them all, if you will, take your arguments elsewhere. You’ve asked for answers and you will get them. That is the end of my interest in your comments. This is not a war zone, nor a debating society, but a friendly, loving, kind website that supports the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 110% and all that the Book of Mormon testifies of, and the very explicit, clear and precise comments made by Mormon who was inspired to write everything he did. I, for one, am not going to debate or argue his points—he needs no such help, his words stand well alone.
    Over the 8 years we have been doing this blog, and some 2,366 different articles we have posted, being some nearly 5,000 typewritten pages published here, plus four books and answering more than 1,000 questions people have asked, I have met a lot of people, many of which I consider my friends—people who are smart, intelligent, professional, and interested, some of which have contributed greatly to this site and its purpose, to which I great appreciate their input. I thought in the beginning that you might fall into that category, but you have shown an opposite factor. I have visited your site and looked over what you have written. Your information on the American Indian presence in North America is informative and valuable, and, since the greater Land of Promise involves all of the Americas, and that the Nephites and Lamanites moved northward as we have repeated said, the fact that Nephite tendencies, lore, and concepts would obviously show up in Central and North America—which merely supports that claim of so many prophets and General Authorities how have made the claim that this entire Western Hemisphere is the Land of Promise, with various parts of it dedicated to fulfil different and varying purposes of the Lord. This, of course, makes every theory by Malay, Africa, etc., accurate to some degree.
    My best of luck to you in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Did you ever find a verse that states that Zarahemla has mountains.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep Helaman 11. You keep failing spectacularly. I've seen this before when a model doesn't work. When you start done that road then the mistakes begin to pile up very quickly. We've reached that point with your model where all the scriptures contradict everything you say. You've already been disproven in so many ways. You need to abandon the model. The Mesoamerican model is far superior to yours, but even it stinks.

      Delete