Friday, May 12, 2017

Legends of the Book of Mormon – Part I

-->Wherever Lehi landed, we should find, even today, steeped in the lore and legends of the area, semblances of information that dates back to and describes in part, the landing and occupation of the land by Lehi and his party, since they spent a thousand years in that land.
 
     In addition, since Hagoth built exceedingly large ships that carried many immigrants and their families into “a land which was northward,” we should find north of the landing area, and north of the Land of Zarahemla and Land of Bountiful area of the Nephite occupation, another civilization of similar cultural attributes, including building style and capability.

When all else is said and done, any Nephie Book of Mormon legends that exist today in areas should be at the most southern end of their location—that is, wherever the most southern location of these legends exist, that would be the starting point of the Nephite area and from there, the migration would have gone northward.
    Also, since, every theorist believes that the Land of Promise is in the Western Hemisphere (excluding the Malaysia and Africa theories, both of which have little to support their views since Moroni made it clear to Joseph Smith that the Plates contained a record of the people of “this continent,” meaning the Americas), then we need to look to this area for the legends of Lehi’s landing and Nephite occupation. 
Now, in doing so, we have three basic areas of theory locations, i.e., North America, Meso/Central America, and South America. Therefore, where the earliest legends exist, and those furthest south exist, of Book of Mormon activity, should be where Lehi landed.
    It also needs to be clearly understood, that despite where a theorist believes Lehi landed, and no matter how much he can show there was Nephite/Lamanite activity or occupation there, Lehi could only have landed in one location—not multiple ones. Therefore, the Land of First Inheritance can only be in one location with expansion northward from that point since the Nephites never went southward throughout their written history (i.e., 600 B.C. to 385/421 A.D.). Therefore, only one location can be the area of First Landing, not two or three—only one. So once we find the location that satisfies both of these points, i.e., earliest legends and furthest south legends, then we can assuredly know the general location of Lehi’s landing.
    We also have to keep in mind that the entire Western Hemisphere is the focal point of our search for these legends—not just one little corner or location.
So, if Lehi landed in North America, as the Heartland theorists, Great Lakes theorists, and Eastern U.S. theorists claim, we would not find any legend information of Nephites to the south of North America, since the Nephites would not have been in that direction, for they were always to the north of the Lamanites, and always to the north of where they landed as Mormon tells us (Alma 22:27-34).
    Consequently, if we can find Nephite legends to the south of North America, then there can be no question that North America was not the sight of either Lehi’s landing, or of the events described throughout Nephite history. That is not to say Nephites/Lamanites were never in North America, only that the events described on the pages of the Book of Mormon did not take place in North America and we can eliminate North America as the initial landing site and the general land of occupation of the Nephite Nation that is covered and written about in the Book of Mormon.
 On the other hand, if we find legends of the Book of Mormon to the south of North America, that is in Mesoamerica or Central America then we can eliminate both North America as the location of Lehi’s landing. It is as simple as that.
    Now, if we find any Nephite legends to the south of Mesoamerica or Central America, then we can eliminate those two locations as the landing site of Lehi, and the location of the Nephite nation, though once again, that is not to say that Nephites/Lamanites were never in that area, only that is was not the landing site of Lehi and the general occupation of the Nephite nation. 

Consequently, if we find Nephite legend information in South America, then we can eliminate not only North America, but also Mesoamerica and Central America as the landing site of Lehi and the general occupation area of the Nephite nation.
    Once again, let us remember that many Nephite and Lamanite immigrants went northward in Hagoth’s ships (Alma 63:5, 6-7). It can be debated how far north they went, but they did go north of the Land of Zarahemla land the Land of Bountiful to some land “which was northward.” Thus, it should be no surprise that Nephite information would have been to the north of the landing site of Lehi. After all, immigrants take with them records, information, memory, and their early history, so stories (legends) would have gone forward into other lands to the north of Lehi’s landing site.
    It is a simple process. So let’s look for legends.
    In 1735, James Adair lived isolated among the North American Indians for 40 years, had this observation to make: 1) Their division into tribes; 2) Their worship of J-hov-h; 3) Their notions of a theocracy; 4) Their belief in the administration of angels; 5) Their language and dialects; 6) Their manner of counting time; 7) Their prophets and high priests; 8) Their festivals, fasts and religious rites; 9) Their daily sacrifice; 10) Their ablutions and anointings; 11) Their laws of uncleanliness; 12) Their abstinence from unclean things; 18) Their marriage, divorces and punishments of adultery; 14) Their several punishments; 15) Their cities of refuge; 16) Their purifications and preparatory ceremonies; 17) Their ornaments; 18) Their manner of’ curing the sick; 19) Their burial of the dead; 20) Their mourning for the dead; 21) Their raising seed to a deceased brother; 22) Their change of names adapted to their circumstances and times.”
The furthest north legends seem to come from the area of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in Canada

The Mi'kmaq (Micmac) Indians of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in Canada, have an ancient Hebrew belief of a women being unclean during her menstrual period, which they observe still to this day certain ceremonies of which they do not know the origin, giving no other reasons than that their ancestors have always practiced the same thing. The first is this, that the women and girls, when they suffer the inconveniences usual to their sex, are accounted unclean.” They also have the custom that after the death of one’s brother, it is permissible to marry his wife, in order that she may have children of the same blood if she has not had any by her first husband  And Ojibwa history records legends and laws that are either descendants of the tribes of Israel, or they have had, in some former era, a close contact and intercourse with the Hebrews, imbibing from them their beliefs and customs and the traditions of their patriarchs.”

Joseph Smith idenrified reamins of a burial in Illinois curing Zion's Camp, which he identified as Zelph, a white Lamanite who lived during the time of Onandagus, a prophet known from the Rocky Mountains to the East Sea
North America: Bones identified on June 3, 1834, as Zelph, a white Lamanite and “a man of God,” was uncovered by some of the brethren in Zion’s Camp and verified by Joseph Smith, who received a vision of Zelph and his identity as a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Rocky Mountains to the eastern sea.” In a letter he wrote to his wife, Emma, the following day, he referred to the area in which they passed through as “wandering over the plains of the Nephites.” Joseph Smith also told Oliver Cowdery to preach to the Lamanites, and sent missionaries to the Lamanites on the frontier to the west of the Alegehny and Appalacian Mountains in the Indian Territory, and Joseph Smith himself on May 23, 1844, taught the Sac and Fox Indians the Gospel in his back kitchen. Joseph in a letter to John Wentworth in March of 1842, stated “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.”
    Consequently, though not Book of Mormon names, there can be no question that Joseph Smith placed Lamanites in the United States in his day and in times past. Therefore we know that the Nephites and Lamanites were this far northward in the Western Hemisphere. However, were they they earliest and the furthest south?
The Creek dominated the aareas of Georgia and Alabama, who outnumbered both European settlers and slaves until the 1760s, and then ceded the balance of their lands to the new state in the 1800s. Before the 1500s, the Creek were part of the larger Southeastern natives who lived thorughout the southeastern area of the present United States
In the Muscogee, also known as the Creek Nation, they have certain words that are the same as Hebrew or so similar it is remarkable. In addition, the area of the Creek was also dominated by the Cherokee who originated in Ohio and moved south reportedly before 1540 when the Spanish arrived. The Cherokee also had connections to the Hebrew language and customs, including a widow could not marry without the permission of her brother-in-aw, a custom only found among the Isralites and some American Indians. Also, like the Hebrews, the Cherokee had their own "Day of Atonement" in which insults were forgiven and all disputes buried. Their totem corresponded in significance to the Ark of the covenant, was carried on poles and could never touch the ground and during wartime, like the Israelites carrying their Ark, the Cherokee carried their totem. Their degree of connection between the New Moon and their ceremonies is also very similar and to the Biblical feast and festivals.

Obviously, then we find Book of Mormon or Hebrew references and legends within the North America native Indian.

Now, let’s take a look further south than North America to see if any such legends or Book of Mormon references exist south of North America.

(See the next post, “Legends of the Book of Mormon – Part II,” for a look into Mesoamerica)

54 comments:

  1. "Also, since, every theorist believes that the Land of Promise is in the Western Hemisphere (excluding the Malaysia and Africa theories, both of which have little to support their views since Moroni made it clear to Joseph Smith that the Plates contained a record of the people of “this continent,” meaning the Americas)"

    This continent and the western hemisphere are two different things.

    https://cloudup.com/cpYPFecv7xU

    - Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take a look at the evidence for South AMERICA. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of it. Moroni obviously meant North and South AMERICA. North America has the very least evidence for the BOM lands.

      Delete
    2. I do agree that North America has the very least evidence.

      In my opinion, Malaysia has the most, and South America is somewhere in the middle. I know your opinion differs from mine but I do enjoy discussing the pros/cons of all theories. - Jay

      Delete
  2. Jay, what about the Word of the Lord revelation given in January 1990 that says where the true Lamanites are today?

    Article of Faith 10 promises a latter-day literal gathering of the true blood of Israel, and for that to happen true Israel has to be identified.

    Patriarchal blessings are one way we know who is in the various tribes of Israel. But the Lord also has revealed racial signs to identify Israel and its tribes.

    Have any from Malaysia been identified as true Israelites? Joseph Smith was identified as an Ephriamite. How could people from Malaysia be racial brothers to Joseph?

    " 9 For I have many things yet to reveal pertaining to the gathering of Mine Israel.
    10 Yea, for those ye now call Lamanites, or the descendants of Laman and Lemuel in the land called North America, even in the nations ye call United States, Canada, Mexico and Central America, and for which ye have set aside reservations for, behold they are in the most part a mixture of their seed.
    11 For some of their descendants did indeed
    migrate to this land from the lands south which ye call South America, and mixed their blood with the heathen which had come previously from other lands.
    12 And thus the gospel was first preached to
    these Gentiles along with the Gentiles that came at a later time.
    13 And thus the prophecy was fulfilled that the last would be first, and the first would be last.
    14 And after the sealing of the heavens against them for their rejection of the fullness of My gospel, and their unbelief, behold the fullness of the gospel would be taken from amongst them and I would seek the true blood of Israel wherever they existed.
    ...
    18 For the true Lamanite resideth only in the
    South, even in the land ye call South America, yea and even there are some in the land ye call Central America.
    19 Nevertheless, they are in the most part in
    South America, yea and they are the true
    descendants of My servants Laman and Lemuel,
    and yet a few of My faithful servant Joseph, in the which I promised that his seed would not utterly be destroyed."

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is an important question. In short, yes, there are people in this model that have been identified as true Israelites. Millions of them. In fact, it is the only location in the world where you will find so many people who already claim to be descendants of the Joseph through the tribe of Manasseh. The best place to look for this is the border of Burma and India amongst the Bnei Menashe people who live in a stateless region they themselves call Zoram. These people are genetically related to groups further north in Mongolia who, according to many LDS sources, have been identified through patriarchal blessings as being from all the ten tribes, in numbers that exceed anywhere else in the world, including North and South America.

    So I have a hard time understanding why everybody dismisses Southeast Asia as having nothing to do with the prophesies found in the Book of Mormon.

    Not sure where you got that quote, but there are others noting that the Lamanite remnant extends across the Pacific and into the Indian Ocean. The Lamanites, we know, are scattered far and wide, not just within the Americas. They will gather in America, but Lehite blood is found all through the islands and into Asia. We have very strong physical proof of this (eg. millions of people calling themselves "Zoram" who also claim to be Manassehites) that LDS scholars completely neglect. These same tribes also claim that a golden book was taken from them by their younger brother and that one day it will be returned.

    So imagine that, a lost tribe of Joseph living in a stateless and kingless region called Zoram waiting for a golden book to brought back by their younger white brothers in the west. And now imagine Mormons in America scoffing at such a silly idea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No one I know of is scoffing at people led by the Lord to various areas of the world--the problem is, we have not verification in scripture of such. Moroni spoke of the Plates being of a people on "this continent" that is the American continent, then considered both North and South America. The brethren have repeatedly spoken about Hagoth's ships carrying people to the South Pacific Islands and we have written about that,and there is much proof in both plants and ocean currents. However, until we have revealed word of such, and a form (scriptures) in which we can learn more from, we concentrate on the Book of Mormon lineage which, according to all the Brethren from the beginning to now, speak of that being in the Western Hemisphere. That does not preclude descendants or others led into other lands, it just means we have no written record of it so the point is mute regarding the Book of Mormon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Del. I'm not referring to anybody on this blog, but I can confirm that among all the Book of Mormon models out there, the Malay model triggers the most laughs and eye rolls. Its not much different for suggestions that Burmese/Indian hill tribes are of the lineage of Lehi, whether directly or through Hagoth. But that's to be expected. I also thought it was laughable, until I went to some of these places and met some of the people in these tribes. Now I have no doubt that their claims are much more than claims, and their legends are much more than legends. I expect the evidence will soon bear this out. Until then, I acknowledge that the Mesoamerican model will remain the most popular, even though it is not the strongest.

      Delete
  5. Unknown: You wrote, "This continent and the western hemisphere are two different things." While this is true, it is not as much as you might think. Since you obviously have not been a follower here long enough to have read the numerous articles regarding the term "continent" in the early 1800s, before you go further down this path you might want to know that the term "continent" regarding North America in the 1820s-1830s and officially all the way up to just before World War II meant the "American Continent" which was both North and South America. Maps through the late 1800s showed America as both lands listed as one continent and even today, Latin America considers both North and South America as one continent as does several countries in the world. When Moroni said "this continent" he was using the term in the same way everyone else used it at that time, meaning North and South America, which was known as one basic land form, or continent. You could research this in our blog list of past articles, or simply look it up in any history aspect. And while specifically "Western Hemisphere" includes Greenland and numerous outlying islands, continent does not always do that--however, as most people would say referring to the American Continent, or "this continent" in the 1800s, they meant both North and South America, including Central America and the Caribbean area.

    ReplyDelete
  6. (continuing)
    As a statement of fact, The Western Hemisphere is a geographical term for the half of the earth that lies west of the prime meridian (which crosses Greenwich, United Kingdom) and east of the antimeridian, the other half being called the Eastern Hemisphere. On the other hand, North and South America (the original continent) only included the major land masses of both, including Central America, and their associated islands, which covers about 8% of Earth's total surface, and about 28.4% of Earth's land area.Officially, Greenland,northern Canada, and Alaska is part of North and South America, or the term "the Americas," and presently includes 35 countries. It does not, on the other hand, include Iceland. However, it does include all the islands of the Beaufort Sea, Baffin Bay and Greenland Sea. At the same time, the term Western Hemisphere actually includes in addition the areas of Arctic and Antarctic within the appropriate longitudinal lines indicated above. The Americas (also collectively called America—according to Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Company dictionary; Marjorie Fee and Janice MacAlpine, Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage (2008) page 36 says "In Canada, American is used almost exclusively in reference to the United States and its citizens." Others, including The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, The Australian Oxford Dictionary and The Concise Oxford English Dictionary all specify both the Americas and the United States in their definition of "American".
    From the feminine of Americus, the Latinized first name of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci (1454–1512). The name America first appeared on a map in 1507 by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, referring to the area now called Brazil]. Since the 16c, a name of the western hemisphere, often in the plural Americas and more or less synonymous with the New World. Since the 18 century, a name of the United States of America.
    This encompass the totality of the continents of North America and South America as found in the above dictionaries. Together they make up most of the land in Earth's western hemisphere (United States Department of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs; USA Today, Washington, D.C. Associated Press. April 24, 2007; Taylor, Alan (2001). American Colonies. New York: Penguin Books) and comprise the New World.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (continuing)
    The Americas (also collectively called America—according to Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Company dictionary; Marjorie Fee and Janice MacAlpine, The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, The Australian Oxford Dictionary and The Concise Oxford English Dictionary all specify both the Americas and the United States in their definition of "American".
    From the feminine of Americus, the Latinized first name of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci (1454–1512). The name America first appeared on a map in 1507 by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, referring to the area now called Brazil]. Since the 16c, a name of the western hemisphere, often in the plural Americas and more or less synonymous with the New World. Since the 18 century, a name of the United States of America.
    The name America was first recorded in 1507 (together with the related term Amerigen) in the Cosmographiae Introductio, apparently written by Matthias Ringmann, in reference to South America. It was first applied to both North and South America by Gerardus Mercator in 1538. Amerigen means "land of Amerigo" and derives from Amerigo and gen, the accusative case of Ancient Greek gē "earth". America accorded with the feminine names of Asia, Africa, and Europa.
    This encompass the totality of the continents of North America and South America as found in the above dictionaries. Together they make up most of the land in Earth's western hemisphere (United States Department of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs; USA Today, Washington, D.C. Associated Press. April 24, 2007; Taylor, Alan (2001). American Colonies. New York: Penguin Books) and comprise the New World. Still, today, in some countries of the world (including France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Greece, and the countries of Latin America), America is considered a continent encompassing the North America and South America subcontinents, as well as Central America.


    ReplyDelete
  8. (continuing)
    Thus, we see, there is not a lot of difference between Continent and Western Hemisphere in the time frame under discussion, i.e., the early 1800s.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Therefore Malasia should never be considered because Moroni referred only to the people of this continent. There sould be no question about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

      According to all the evidence, where did the people of the American continent spring from?

      Delete
  10. "And the source from wench they sprang" (JS 1:34). Now within the record, the place from whence they sprang is shown as "at Jerusalem" where Lehi lived all his day" (1 Nephi 1:4). There is no intermediate stop on the way for a change of landing site one to another. Your argument of Malay being the Book of Mormon site is fallacious and without merit and has not supportive evidence whatever except what you claim now exists there. That a people from the Middle East, even Jews, ended up in and around Malay is not the issue of the Book of Mormon or this blog site. You are on the wrong side of the argument. The scriptural record is against your view; the brethren are against your view; the Angel Moroni is against your view; Joseph Smith's vision is against your view (1 Nephi 12 and 13). Give it up and follow the scriptural record, not Olsen's misguided views and your misunderstanding of what now exists in Malay according to your statements. If you want to discuss this further, use scriptural references or don't bother us with unfounded views, opinions, and ideas, which are a dime a dozen.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I understand your argument, and fully accept that my views are not mainstream. But you are ignoring the evidence. There is 0 evidence to support the claim that the former inhabitants of the American continent came from Jerusalem. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that there were three different migrations from the Middle East to the New World. As of yet, there is none. My approach is to build a model that works with evidence, not with guesses based on guesses. You made the claim in this post that the Malay model has little evidence to support its claims. I disagree. The evidence is there for every single claim. Let me start with one. If you find it to be unsupportable you can explain how your model provides a better solution. But please respond to the argument, and not to the reasons why you already believe my views are misguided.

    Let's start with the earliest event recorded in the Book of Ether: the migration of Jaredites from Mesopotamia to the Land of Promise. I propose that the Jaredites are the same as the Qumr people described in numerous Arabic histories. These were the grandsons of Noah who migrated to Asia in boats that resembled the Ark. This is evidence of a Jaredite (Cumr) migration to the Malay Peninsula at the right time through an event that closely resembles that found in the Book of Ether. Within Burma, just north of the Malay Peninsula, the Arakan king lists record the arrival of the first king named Marayu from the Mauryan (Morian?) clan from the land of Moron. The textual evidence supports a Jaredite migration to the Land of Moron in Asia, not America. In summary, historical texts document a Biblical clan named Morian/Cumr around the time of the tower to the Malay Peninsula.

    I'm open to a rebuttal of the argument, but you must provide a model that works better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is interesting that your entire rebuttal contains not a single scriptural reference to support your view. As I stated above, use scriptural references or don't bother us with your speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Apologies, I assumed you would already be familiar with the scriptural references, but you are correct. I should have included them.

    Ether 2:13 "And as they came to the sea they pitched their tents; and they called the name of the place Moriancumer; and they dwelt in tents, and dwelt in tents upon the seashore for the space of four years."

    Moriancumer was spelled Morian cumer in the printer's manuscript, so it appears to be two different words. Morian and Cumer. I reference the BYU Onomasticon project which suggests "Moriancumer may also be a misspelling of Moriancumr, like Coriantumr."

    I propose that Morian refers to the Mauryan clan spanning the region between Iran and India, who have been connected to the Amorites and Gutians of the Levant. The Mauryan clan is also known as the Mor, from a land of Moron.

    https://www.evernote.com/l/AAjw0okIbJRFwIuDqvn4Lv9qDxVrhyghGQU

    I also propose that Cumr is related to the Qumr (also transliterated as Komr) described in early Arabic texts as a Biblical clan that sailed in boats resembling the Ark of Noah to found a new civilization in Asia.

    "A branch of the family of Āmir, son of Japheth, separated and went to China. The leader of this tribe built vessels on the model of the ark of Noah, his grandfather, in which all his family embarked; they crossed the sea, reached China, multiplied, built cities, and there developed the sciences and arts, and exploited its gold mines. This leader reigned three hundred years." - Akhbar al-Zaman

    "And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the ark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters." - Ether 6:7

    “The majority of the descendents of Amur followed the sea coast and arrived at the extremities of China. Thus, it is explained to us the alleged common descent of Amur, son of Japheth, of the Komr and the Chinese.”

    Many more references (mostly French sources) are here:

    https://www.evernote.com/l/AAg8sGn1M4pCNrUFJNBkV8CEHmgHYvJvQKo

    ReplyDelete
  14. Correction, I should have said the "Amorites and Gutians of Mesopotamia" since the Gutians didn't have a strong presence in the Levant, as far as I know.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your argument seems to be that "these words sound kind of alike, so they are the same thing." Del has published several posts about similar sounding names (I recall one about the land of Moron near the Indian Ocean). He gave a well-reasoned rebuttal of the words being related to the BoM and description of the actual origin of the BoM-sounding words, with academic sources listed.

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

      Delete
    2. My argument is that textual sources confirm that a Biblical group left Mesopotamia around the time of the tower and sailed east in boats that were modeled after Noah's Ark. Just as the Book of Ether states.

      They just happen to have names that are pronounced exactly like the relevant terms in the Book of Mormon. The similar sounding names are not the proof, but they do support the arguments.

      This is what puzzles me about Book of Mormon models. I have provided textual sources demonstrating that the Book of Mormon gets the history right, but we will quibble all day about where. To be honest, I don't care where. If you don't like the Malay model, that's perfectly fine. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Delete
    3. I also want to point out, and Del can confirm this, that Amaru is a common name among the early Peruvian kings.

      I believe there is evidence that the Inca civilization and the Arakan civilization of Burma were parallel, and they both originated with the Amuru (Amorites) of Mesopotamia.

      The voyage of Amur to Asia (and maybe also America?) described in Arabic texts is a memory of this migration.

      https://www.evernote.com/l/AAjIcbsqUfJAbL793p8x0dBEUunLKgWCDg4

      Delete
  16. On the contrary, Amaru was neither a common name among the early Peruvian kings, which is a very long list dating back to 1224 B.C. according to Montesinos and only two people, Amaru Tupac and Amaru Tupac II were actually given that name. Following is some additional information about Amaru, often written as Amaro.
    Name or Word “Amaru” and “Amaro”
    1. Amaru is a village in Buzau County, Romania;
    2. A village in the island of Rimatara, French Polynesia;
    3. A poet of India; “Amau Shataka” finest poem of Sanskrit literature;
    4. Amaru Ryudo, a fictional character in the Sohryuden: Legend of the Dragon Kings (Japanese, based on Chinese legend)
    5. A dragon also in Indian and Chinese folklore; also Indonesian/Malay and connected to Hinduism; found in most Asian countries;
    6. Amaru(s), composition by Czeck composer Leos Janacek
    7. Amaro a Christian saint (St Amaro of Portugal) found in Brazilian and Portuguese names
    8. Amaro (commune), municipality in Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy.
    9. San Amaro municipality in Galicia, Spain.
    10. An Italian liquor
    11. Padre Amaro, Mexico
    12. Can mean an angel in Inca; was the original name of the town of Paucartampu in Peru; and the old palace in Cuzco was Amarucancha
    In a complete search of the “The Incas of Peru” based on writings dating back into the 18th century and translated several times, and originally attributed to both Bias Valera and Fernando Montesinos.
    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  17. (continuing)
    It should be noted that the words found mostly in Peru history are Ayamara and Ayamarca, not Amaru or Amaro. And contrary to “Unknown” only two “kings” of Peruvian history, numbering 100 (depending on which chronicler as much as 102 on Montesinos list), Amaru Tupac, and Amaru Tupac II, the first being then last indigenous monarch (sapa Ina) 1545-1572), and the second being the last revolutionary in Peru, 1738 to 1781 (Lesane Parish Crooks (tupac) changed his name to Tupac Amaru Shakur after Amaru Tupac II.

    While three or four other names were given this as an add on in recent history, Montesinos suggests it is an inaccurate compilation of Tupac.

    In Peru: Amaru is an archaeological site in Peru north of Cuzco; called Amaru Marka Wasi (meaning “Sacred or Village House of the Snake”)

    Amaru (Quechua) means “snake,” “serpent” or “dragon” the latter with bird-feet and wings (huge double-headed serpent that dwells underground – one head a bird and one of a puma), called katari in Aymara. It was thought to be able to move between the spirit world and physical world
    In mythology of Andean civilizations of South America, the amaro, amaru (quechua) or katari (aymara) is a mythical serpent or dragon, most associated with the Tiwanaku and Inca empires.

    As for Peruvian Kings named Amaru:
    • Tupac Amaru—more accurately Amaro Thupa (Amaru Tupaq, Amaro Tupac) oldest son of Pachacuti (Pachakutiq Inka Yupanki)
    • Tupac Amaru II
    The name Tupac connected with Amaru is Aztec and means “warrior” or “messenger”
    In Arabic, the name “Amaru tupac” means “Shining Serpent”
    Not a name, but a type of friend (fictional or unreal)
    Inca Amaru
    Huanachici Amaru
    The Amaru Muru in Peru is claimed to be a portal to the “otherworld”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also wanted to share this recent pre-print with you. I think there are problems with the methods, but it is interesting that such unexpected markers were found in at least one of the Chinchorro Mummies.

      http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/01/132555

      "It is widely held that, except for migrations from Beringia or Siberia, there was no contact between the Old World and the New World prior to the colonization of North America by the Norse in the late 10th century AD. Analyses of 23 ancient American DNA samples reveal, however, the presence of European admixture in a sample taken from a Chinchorro mummy of northern Chile dated to 3972-3806 BC. This discovery implies a more complex history of the peopling of the Americas than previously accepted."

      Delete
  18. I find that interesting. The early warrior kings of southeast Asia were also often associated with serpents (nagas), and their names are often variations of Mara, Marayu, or even Maroni.

    Maroni is the serpent or dragon in the Siamese Zodiac and is also a title given to warriors or military leaders.

    Anyway, I don't know if Amur of the Arabic texts has a connection to the Amorites or Peru. You are likely correct that the similar king names in Peru are a coincidence, but I wanted to add that to keep in line with the theme of your blog.

    Anyway, I'm curious what your thoughts about the Arabic texts that mention the Amur clan sailing east in boats resembling Noah's Ark.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jay- welcome to Del's blog. There is a nice search function in the upper left corner you can search Malaysia to see the significant research and analysis Del has done about Malaysia as a theory. Many of us thought the Book of Mormon lands may have been other than south america until we studied Del's work. The evidence for south america based on the exact words of the book of mormon is extremely compelling. Hope you continue to enjoy your studies.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi David. Thanks for the warm welcome. I've been lurking here on Del's blog for some time, and occasionally drop comments when the Malay theory is mentioned, as was the case on this post. I have used the search many times and read (more than once) the interesting articles Del has posted on Malay. But the model I am proposing is not the same, the map I propose is completely different than the one proposed by Ralph Olsen. I have tried my best to correct the weaknesses in the earlier model, in response to some of the flaws in the model Del and others like Brant Gardner have written about. I believe this latest iteration of the Malay model to be very solid, and would be very grateful if Del or any others here would, with an open mind, have another look.

    But just to clarify, my purpose in proposing this model is not to prove the Book of Mormon happened anywhere in particular, but rather that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jay, There are a number of reason why I can't take what you say or propose seriously. And we've all been through these before and so they are nothing new.

    1. What you are proposing is the wrong continent. Moroni clearly stated that the former inhabitants lived in America. That's number one.

    2. The scripture record does not match in anyway possible what you propose. It is not an Island.

    3. Those people are not descendant from Manasseh. The 10 tribes went North Jay. And according to D&C 133 they will be brought back from the North and they include Manasseh. Today the tribes are lost in the steppes of Russia.

    The family of Lehi returned to Jerusalem and were led to America. That is the promised land Not Asia. The people of Malaysia descend from Japheth the son of Noah. The table of nations in Genesis tells us this. They are Asian not of the House of Israel. It's nonsense to think that they are somehow.

    So why keep bringing your spurious stuff here? Why not just start your own blog and invite anybody that you can convince to come by and believe what you put forth? I've found that Del's information as well as Venice Priddis is accurate and answers the question completely as to where the BOM lands are located. I don't need to go outside the scriptures as you propose to come up with a truly ridiculous proposal for the BOM.

    I haven't seen one thing yet that convinces me that you have anything to offer. Give it up Jay. The place you propose in nonsense. Ira

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ira, If you are confident in your view, then great, it works for you. But to respond to your question. “So why keep bringing your spurious stuff here?”

      I only comment on articles that mention the Malay model. If the post made no mention of the Malay theory, I wouldn’t have commented. Its as simple as that.

      But one thing I must correct is your continued claim that the Bnei Menashe are not of the House of Israel. The Israeli Knesset disagrees. The Bnei Menashe (who originated in the steppes of Russia and Mongolia) are accepted as Israelites and are returning to Jerusalem.

      https://shavei.org/bnei-menashe-leave-absorption-center-for-their-new-homes/

      You can call it nonsense, but the return of Manasseh is already happening and I invite you to set aside your opinions and reconsider the evidence.

      Delete
    2. All these articles are from last week:

      http://forward.com/fast-forward/371895/102-immigrants-from-india-ready-for-normal-life-in-israel/

      http://m.stljewishlight.com/news/world/article_ea82d97c-32ff-56bb-9bd0-a3ec4fcd0acb.html?mode=jqm

      http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/102-olim-from-India-set-to-leave-absorption-center-and-settle-down-490727

      http://www.timesofisrael.com/102-bnei-menashe-set-to-leave-absorption-center-and-settle-down/

      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/229575

      http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/1275343/120-indian-bnei-menashe-officially-join-israeli-society.html

      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/229575

      Delete
    3. Jay, The rabbi's don't have a clue as to where Manasseh is located and who they are. Yes I am very confident that the right place has been found. We have far more revelation on this subject and we understand those revelations much more than the Rabbi's. After all the Jews are in apostasy and actually will be gathered at the very last. They simply have it wrong. Moroni tells you where they are located and they are not found in Malaysia. It's as simple as that. You have to stick to the revelation's Jay and not go running after all this other garbage.

      We have revelation that tells us what we need to know about where they are located. The reason we know is because at some point they will be gathered. That gathering has not started yet and won't start until the 144,000 are called to do the work as prophesied in Revelation. Ephraim is the only tribe gathered right now and Ephraim will gather Manasseh to the New Jerusalem when the time comes. That time has not come and won't come until 3-1/2 years into the Tribulation. There are a few Indians in South America have joined the Church but that isn't the gathering as prophesied in D&C 133 and Ezekiel 47:1-12. That event is still future and I assure you that it won't be from Malaysia because they are descendant from Japheth and not the House of Israel.
      Ira

      Delete
    4. I mentioned before that if you don't agree with the model, that's perfectly fine. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

      You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

      Delete
    5. No I'm not - the scriptures are clear that you are not on the right track. Moroni said so and all the scriptures say so. Those Rabbi's simply don't know what they are talking about. You obviously do not understand scripture or you wouldn't be running after these spurious sources to prove your point. Stick with the revelations my friend and you'll find the right answers.

      The South American model fits everything perfectly. You don't have to bend anything to make it fit as you are doing. You need to reject that model of yours because it doesn't work. It's not even close to working. And you won't be able to convince me because it violates so many scripture and that's the final point. It simply can't be correct.

      Delete
    6. "But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren."

      Ira, South America is clearly correct, but there must be more than that. There must be.

      Delete
  22. You still are ignoring the main fact here that the majority of the Lamanites/Nephites lived in America period. That is Moroni said. There maybe a few Lamanites somewhere else but they aren't part of the main group that landed here in America. That's what this blog is about and you can't prove your point because you have departed from scripture to make it.

    The people of Malaysia are NOT of the House of Israel. That's complete and utter nonsense. They are descendant from Japheth through his son Javan. The Chinese were once known as the people of Cathay or Kittim. Kittim was the son of Javan. Some of the descendants of Japheth moved north and some east east. The descendants of Japheth settled in Western Europe but also in the far east in China and that includes the Malay Archipelago and various islands of the ocean.

    This is a known fact. And no rabbi can come along and tell me that somehow Manasseh settled there at any point in time. The scriptures clearly tell us the lost tribes went north. North Jay not south or east. One small family were brought to America and that was Lehi and his associates. This is recorded in the records of the nations. You just can't go out and make things up like this and expect thinking people to believe it.

    When the time comes that the tribes are all brought in to the New Jerusalem then they will be identified fully and they will be gathered. The promises of God are to only one people on this planet and that is to the House of Israel. They are the ones that are gathered and not the descendants of any of the other tribes. Japheth is not gathered, neither is Ham. Only a portion of Shem is gathered. The Arabs are not gathered for example and in fact are destroyed as it says in Obadiah 18. A few Christians are gathered out in the end but they never join with the House of Israel. In the end of time at the battle of Gog and Magog. The bottom line is we know who these people descend from. And we know from scripture that the Indians of North and South America are descendants of the Lamanites. That’s a known fact Jay.

    If South America is clearly correct then why not focus on it rather than the descendants of the Chinese who descend through Japheth?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ira, I am not the one making it up. The Bnei Menashe have been calling themselves Josephites since before I was born. American protestants have been claiming the Karen of Burma were Manasseh since before Mormonism. Arabic historians have been claiming the Malay were Shem since before America was discovered. Christian writers were claiming that the Malay Peninsula was inhabited by the Blessed Ones (Rechabites) since the 2nd century AD. Even the Bible says that Solomon sent ships to Ophir, which most agree was not north or west, but east through the Indian Ocean.

    If you aren't going to believe the writings of historians and geographers of the last two millennia, I don't think I'll ever be able to change your mind.

    I've provided evidence to support my arguments, I can't force you to accept them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Of course you won't because these people are Oriental and descend from Japheth. The rabbis call the black Etheopeans true Jews. So what - they aren't but are called that. You and others can claim whatever you want but they aren't anything other than Orientals that decend from Japheth.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ira, that's not accurate history, at least it hasn't been since the turn of the 19th century. You are using one blanket term "oriental" to describe well over 5 billion people of completely different genetic composition and dumping them into the same bucket because you think the are all descendants of Japheth, over 5000 years ago.

    There are countless volumes describing the "orientals" as Shem, this is a tradition that goes back a very very lone time. Kircher and Webb and hundreds of other commentators speculated that the Chinese came from Shem. Much of this comes from the belief that Joktan, son of Eber (Hebrews), descendant of Shem (Semite) went east into the hills. Are you certain the "orientals" do not, in part, descend from Joktan in any way? If so, how do you know this?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thats nonsense Jay - they certainly are not descendant from Shem. Shem stayed in the area around the middle east. We know that from the records that have been left behind. These people are Chinese. You have it all screwed up because you do not understand the scriptures. The scriptures trace the House of Israel and they are in the North countries and in the America's. That's scripture. The Oriental people all descend from Japheth. Not once has the gospel ever been taken to the people of China through all the ages. Why is that? Never once has even Christianity been established among these people. And you are telling me they descend from Shem! What a bunch of nonsense. They are what I told you they are - they descend from Japheth through his other sons and certainly not Shem.

    There are some who believe they descend from Ham. But that isn't true because they certainly are not black. Ham only had one son Canaan from which all the black race descend.

    The Miautso People of China descend from Japheth and they have a genealogy descent that shows this through Gomer. Other peoples in China descend from the other sons as I mentioned.

    But regardless of all this. The orientals are certainly not of the House of Israel. They will not be gathered. Again, Moroni tells you where the Lamanites are located. He didn't in anyway hint that they were located apart from this continent. He said they were here in America. The other tribes will be gathered from the North Countries as it says in D&C 133.

    Jacob 5 tells you where they went as well. The Nephites and Lamanites were taken to a good spot of ground. The good spot had no people there unlike the Orientals. Malyasia would have had people there on the peninsula. The lost tribes were taken to a poor spot of ground or the nethermost which means poor. The reason it was poor is because there were people there and they polluted the tribes. Hence their apostasy. That would have happened to the Lamanties/Nephites if they were in Malaysia which they were not. There were people there who are Oriental/Chinese.
    Your sources are all nonsense and that is quite obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was not one single grand migratory event of Japheth to China. There have been countless migrations from the Middle East to China over the last 5000 years. It is a well-established fact that Christianity and Judaism flourished in the East during the Book of Mormon period. These are undisputed facts backed up by archaeology, genetics, and "the records they left behind". There is substantial evidence that the Church in the East was larger than the Church in Europe during the first millennium AD. There were entire Mongol tribes in China that were Christian. There were at least 65 Jewish colonies stretching from India to China where the Kaifeng Jews had synagogues and even a temple. There are large inscribed stones in the middle of China confirming that there were indeed Semites and Christians there from, according to Tiberiu Weisz, as far back as 600 BC. He says "a literary analysis of Chinese and Hebrew sources pointed to an indirect but unmistakable link between the land of Israel and China as early as the seventh century BCE."

      http://www.covenant.idc.ac.il/en/vol1/issue3/kaifeng-stone-inscriptions-revisited.html

      These Jews still live there, and no doubt will be included in the gathering. Sorry, its not for you to disinvite them just because you have decided that there isn't a single Israelite in all of China.

      Delete
  27. Ira, to assure you that I alone am not the source of these outrageous claims (which existed long before me) please watch this report from a legitimate news organization:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=057TwFlGz10

    ReplyDelete
  28. Unknown:
    Unknown: You mentioned earlier in response to my statement that you were not using scriptural references, you wrote: “Apologies, I assumed you would already be familiar with the scriptural references, but you are correct. I should have included them. Ether 2:13 "And as they came to the sea they pitched their tents; and they called the name of the place Moriancumer; and they dwelt in tents, and dwelt in tents upon the seashore for the space of four years." Moriancumer was spelled Morian cumer in the printer's manuscript, so it appears to be two different words. Morian and Cumer. I reference the BYU Onomasticon project which suggests "Moriancumer may also be a misspelling of Moriancumr, like Coriantumr."
    A simple response here would be that in using Moriancumer, you are outside the realm of the Book of Mormon, for the name is never given there. In this case, a correct reference would be Joseph Smith’s statement regarding a blessing name he gave in Nauvoo.
    However, using your information, being as it is, I am quite familiar with the scriptural reference, what I am not familiar with is the distortion being used here to claim it is something it is not. The term “onomasticon” of which you speak, is relatively unknown to most people, was not a word in Joseph Smith’s time, and basically means a list of names not arranged in any manner, yet relating to the same semantic field. Some claim such lists of names dates back to Roman Emperor Augustus period (last century B.C.), and was the most common type of list prior to that. As an example, the name Nhm has been used by Book of Mormon researchers to verify “Nahom” as a place name from the region known as “Nehem” in southern Arabia (Warren P. Aston, “The Origins of the Nihm Tribe of Yemen: A Window into Arabia's Past,” Journal of Arabian Studies: Arabia, the Gulf, and the Red Sea, 4/1, 2014, pp134-148). Hugh Nibley made this connection in 1950; however, even today, this is an unknown but oft repeated “fact.”
    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  29. (continuing) It should be noted here, at the heading of the etymology of the name Moriancumer in the instance cited above (Book of Mormon Onomasticon), it reads: “Until possible language affinities for Jaredite names can be determined, all suggestions for etymologies of Jaredite names must remain more speculative than substantive” (emphasis added).
    With that in mind, let’ take a look at the name you indicated: Morian cumer does not make up the full name. It was Mahonri Moriancumer (“The Jaredites,” Juvenile Instructor, May 1, 1892, 282n) and is spelled correctly, not suggesting it was two words (BUY Religious Education, Religious Studies Center).
    According to Joseph Smith, this was the name of the Brother of Jared, the Jaredites named the place they settled along the coast “Moriancumer.” It should also be pointed out that at the BYU Onomasticon, in the category of “variant” we find: “Spelled Morian cumer in P; since Cowdery did not capitalize cumer, perhaps shows that he intended to write the name as a single word. Moriancumer may also be a misspelling of Moriancumr, like Coriantumr.” Once again, you have taken the incorrect path for an unwarranted explanation, that supports your point of view.
    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  30. (continuing) In another variant, in checking the name Cumr you indicated, which is another stretch, as told in Sirat Sayf (vol 1 p 49), the “Curse of Ham,” which is claimed to have been the “black skin” invoked by Noah upon Ham, is referred to totally as the “Curse of Noah,” i.e., meaning Noah was cursed with a “black skin.” In Yemen today, ironically, this claim of Ham’s children being subjugated by Shem’s children, etc., is at the heart of the Yemeni-Habashi conflict, and dates back to Ham marrying Princess Qamar Shahiq after the death of Noah—supposedly she fell in love with Ham at first sight because of his “shiny black skin.” Queen Qamar Shahiq had three black children, who married white people but their children were black “by God’s will.” As the “months and years passed, all of the people of the city became black and they married their neighbors from the surrounding lands and they in turn intermarried, until all the lands became black.” A king from this land was prophesied to bring forth the religion of Islam to the world, conquer the lands of Habasha and Sudan, and subjugate their people to the descendants of Shem, son of Noah (Helen Blatherwick, Prophets, Gods and kings in Sirat Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan, Koninklijke Brill, The Netherlands, 2016, pp81-83).
    In this “The Adventures of Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan,” there is a legend of the life and adventures of Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan, son of the Yemeni king Dhu Yazan, that tells the story of how Sayf leads his people into Egypt, diverts the Nile to its current course, then then goes on to conquer the worlds of men and jinn in the name of Islam. This legend is set in the pre-Islamic time, history is rewritten in the sira to present Egypt as born out of an exodus led by a proto-Islamic Yemeni king.
    Are you sure you want to delve into this type of thing, and the Qur’an, to try and claim origins of the Book of Mormon people, i.e., “from whence they came”? Youi would also have a hard time selling Surat al-Qamar and his story regarding Noah when it is none of it is supported by the punishment stories narrated regarding the events (Surat al A’raf (Q7).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Unknown...for whatever it is worth, it is obvious you are not reading what I post, since you never comment about it but continued with your isolated narrative. What kind of discussion is that?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "A simple response here would be that in using Moriancumer, you are outside the realm of the Book of Mormon, for the name is never given there."

    Sorry, I'm not following. Moriancumer is mentioned in Ether 2:13. I am referring to Moriancumer as a toponym, and comparing it to the toponym given to an island/peninsula in the Malay Archipelago. I realize Joseph Smith said it was also the name of the Brother of Jared, so I accept it can also be used as a personal name/title. But its usage in the Book of Mormon is as a location, most likely on the east coast of Asia (according to Nibley). I agree, and I think there is evidence of this in the identification made by Arabic geographers of a location called Qumr in the Far East.

    "In another variant, in checking the name Cumr you indicated, which is another stretch, as told in Sirat Sayf..."

    Qamar in Arabic and Qumr in Arabic are two different words. Qamar means moon. So the story you provide is about a queen named "moon". This word isn't related to the Qumr, the Biblical group that migrated east to the island of Komr around the time of the tower.

    "it is obvious you are not reading what I post, since you never comment about it but continued with your isolated narrative. What kind of discussion is that?"

    I've read dozens, if not hundreds, of your posts over the years. I read all your comments as well. I believe I have responded to any that were addressed to me. Sometimes because your comments are broken up into many parts, I might miss some, or my response might not nest properly underneath. Apologies if I missed any. - Jay

    ReplyDelete
  33. Perhaps I have not followed your train of thought very well, since I was under the impression that your remarks dealt with Malay--and in that part of the world Qamar is a variant of Qumr, and it was you using such words to create a tie in and I was pointing out that a tie in does not in all cases and cited an example. If you have read as much as you say, then you know we have here discussed those similar sounding names before in connection to the Lehi party and Southeast Asia. In addition, since you were using names of people, my comment about Moriancumer is correct--the Book of Mormon does not use that word in connection to a name. On the other hand, thanks to Joseph Smith's explanation of that name, we now can pretty conclusively suggest that the area along the shore was called Moriancumer after the name of the Brother of Jared. Also, since Moriancumer was named Mahonri Moriancumer, and the printing error of Morian cumer is explained, the Cumr you mention seems to hold no water since that name or term is not used in the scriptural record except in connection with Moriancumer's full name. Also, if you haven't read my explanation of who the Jaredites were, i.e., which brother Jared was and which Moriancumer was, as found in the second book "Who Really Settled Mesoamerica," it might help you to better understand "from whence they came" which you seem to have a problem understanding--it is certainly as valid as your name connections and probably more so since we are dealing with Biblical and Book of Mormon names. Lastly, I will repeat once again that the Lord has said he leads people away from time to time--that he has led others out of the House of Israel in the past should be a foregone conclusion. My problem with what you claim is that you are trying to put two things into one, i.e., that those led to Malay are the same as Lehi and his family and that is in opposition to the scriptural record. And if you think the Lord would have allowed such a huge, gargantuum (my grandkds' word) error to enter into the Church and remain for over 100 years is beyond my most vivid imagination and as far as I am concerned once and for all, does not deserve any credence whatsoever. The Lord I know does not operate that way and it is disheartening to me to think that intelligent people can so misunderstand the simple language of the scriptural record. However, every person has the agency to believe what they choose.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "in that part of the world Qamar is a variant of Qumr"

    They are two distinct words. Qamar is Arabic for "moon" and we don't know the origins of the word Qumr. Ibn Sa'id claimed it was the name of the Biblical clan that sailed east around the time of the tower. But he was clear that it was not pronounced the same as Qamar, for moon. Two different words.

    https://www.evernote.com/l/AAhyhtXqB5ZLOo_nwIcvYTlihfiX7Xld2yE

    I do understand that sometimes unrelated words can be spelled the same or pronounced the same. That is to be expected. But when two words are pronounced the same and also have the same meaning, then it is more likely that they are related. In this case both Qumr and Cumr seem to be connected to a Biblical group that migrated east in boats resembling Noah's Ark around the time of the tower. I just offer this as one piece of evidence that the Book of Mormon gets the history correct. Again, if you don't like the Malay model, that's perfectly fine. This evidence is independent of any Book of Mormon geography model.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Unknown: You wrote: "Sorry, I'm not following. Moriancumer is mentioned in Ether 2:13. I am referring to Moriancumer as a toponym, and comparing it to the toponym given to an island/peninsula in the Malay Archipelago. I realize Joseph Smith said it was also the name of the Brother of Jared, so I accept it can also be used as a personal name/title. But its usage in the Book of Mormon is as a location, most likely on the east coast of Asia (according to Nibley). I agree, and I think there is evidence of this in the identification made by Arabic geographers of a location called Qumr in the Far East."

    In the Book of Mormon place names (toponym) are almost always the result of the name of an individual - We do not know that the Jaredites followed this pattern, but some evidences suggest they might have. On the other hand, you were using Morian cumr has a double name when my response showed it was not and the mistake was corrected and the full name is Mahonri Moriancumer, which leads to the naming of the land along the seashore is most likelyh an eopnym or eponymous since the second name was the one used. It would not be unlikely for the Jaredites to name the area after the man who talked with God, was led by God, to this beautiful land. That is speculation, but has more to do with the Book of Mormon than does your Cumr connection.

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

    ReplyDelete
  37. Arabic texts tell of a Biblical group called the Qumr who sailed east in boats resembling Noah's Ark around the time of the tower. These people lived in tents in a place called Qumr.

    The Book of Ether tells of a Biblical group led by Mahonri Moriancumer who sailed east in boats resembling Noah's Ark around the time of the tower. These people also lived in tents in a place called Moriancumer or Morian cumr.

    Do you not find these two accounts to be remarkably similar?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Since there is almost nothing to tie these together later on, i.e., Malay Peninsula does not match the scriptural record which is about a settlement on an island (2 Nephi 10:20) not a peninsula, why is it you continue to try and combine two separate things when so many prophets have written about various people being led away to different parts of the world as described in my comment earlier. All you are doing is showing that two separate groups were led away, which is verified by numerous scriptural references. You do not show connections in those two groups later on except through name connections.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I repeat, the Malay Peninsula was known as the island of Qumr or Komr until at least the 15th century AD. It was known as an island, and it very well could have been an island as the sea levels were 2 meters higher between the time of the Jaredites and the the time of the Lehites. There are numerous accounts of the peninsula being an island many centuries ago. Another interesteing coincidence is that the Island of Komr was also called Djezer or Dsrt (Deseret) in Arabic texts.

    https://www.evernote.com/l/AAiuxipYB9RA_LwficKdFZqjy151MysVEJE

    There are no accounts of Chile and Ecuador being an island. I think your model has merit, but the biggest problem I see is that South America was not island at any time between 2500 BC and 420 AD. It does not match 2 Nephi 10:20. I understand your argument is that the world is around 6000-7000 years old, but there is no evidence of this being true. The Malay Peninsula matches, and there are many accounts of it being an island during the Book of Mormon period.

    ReplyDelete