Tuesday, July 25, 2017

How Theories Get Started – Part III

-->Continuing from the previous post regarding how theories get started despite the facts surrounding a theory so often show just the opposite of what the theorists is trying to claim. As mentioned in the previous post, the theory of the Great Lakes being the Land of Promise runs into trouble immediately with Samuel the Lamanite’s prophecy, as well as the theory of Central America being the Land of Promise runs into trouble regarding the Darien Gap. Here we have two other theories, regarding Malay and Africa, that run into trouble with what the Angel Moroni announced to Joseph Smith.
The Jaredites leaving Babylon on their trek to the seashore, which they would call Moriancumer

In addition, Apostle Mark E. Peterson in a talk entitled “The Angel Moroni Came!” in October 1983 General Conference, stated in part, “…including the account of still an earlier people, the Jaredites, who came to this continent from the Tower of Babel” This continent. Not the Asian continent as in the Malay Peninsula! Not the African continent, as in the Somalia-Comoros area! But this, i.e., the American continent!
    In addition, Joseph’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, told that over a four-year period “During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode” (Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, first ed., Liverpool: Published for Orson Pratt by S. W. Richards, Liverpool, 1853, pp84–85; emphasis added). 
    Once again, this continent refers to the continent of the Americas prior to when the U.S. government began demanding that North America be separated from South America in name terminology sometime prior to the Second World War.
A map created and Published in St. Dié (near Strasbourg) France, in 1507, which was labeled: Universalis cosmographia secundum Ptholomaei traditionem et Americi Vespucii alioru que lustrationes (The Universal Cosmography according to the Tradition of Ptolemy and the Discoveries of Amerigo Vespucci and others), its current repository is Library of Congress Geography and Map Division Washington, D.C.

Dating to April 25, 1507, this first map showing the name “America," was created by the renowned world map maker of the time, Martin Waldseemüller, which was to document and update new geographic knowledge derived from the discoveries of the late fifteenth and the first years of the sixteenth centuries, and included data gathered during Amerigo Vespucci’s voyages of 1501–1502 to the New World—Waldseemüller’s map supported Vespucci’s revolutionary concept by portraying the New World as a separate continent, with the Pacific as a separate ocean, and represented a huge leap forward in knowledge, recognizing the newly found American landmass and forever changing the European understanding of a world divided into only three parts—Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Schöner’s 1515 map of America re-drawn on an equirectangular projection and on the same uniform scale as that of Waldseemüller of 1507 (E.G. Ravenstein, Martin Behaim: His Life and His Globe, London, George Philip & Son, 1908, p36)

The problem with some people is their lack of understanding of correct terminology of North and South America. Currently there are many different continental models. In the United States, the model that is used and taught in schools is the 7 continent model (North America, South America, Asia, Europe, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica), which divides North and South America into two different continents; however, in many other parts of the world and most of Latin America, the continental model is of only 6 continents (America, Asia, Europe, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica) with the Americas as one single continent, with North, South and Central America simply the names of the regions within the continents. 
    In fact, while it might seem surprising to find North and South America still joined into a single continent in a book published in the United States in 1937, such a notion remained fairly common until World War II, which is when the U.S. began calling North and South America separate—which was coincidental, of course, with the idea that American geopolitical designs at the time, which sought both Western Hemispheric domination and disengagement from the "Old World" continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa. However, by the 1950s, virtually all American geographers had come to insist that the visually distinct landmasses of North and South America deserved separate designations. This was also the period when Antarctica was added to the list, despite its lack of human inhabitants, and when Oceania as a "great division" was replaced by Australia as a continent along with a series of isolated and continentally attached islands. The resulting seven-continent system quickly gained acceptance throughout the United States.
However, even today, it is still considered one continent in such areas as France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Greece as well as much of Africa, all of Mexico and the countries of Latin America (“The Continents of the World,” nationsonline.org. Retrieved September 2, 2016. Africa, the Americas, Antarctica, Asia, Australia together with Oceania, and Europe are considered to be Continents; “Map and Details of All 7 Continents,” worldatlas.com. Retrieved September 2, 2016. In some parts of the world students are taught that there are only six continents, as they combine North America and South America into one continent called the Americas).
    The point of all of this, and an extensive explanation has been given, that there is absolutely no question that in the minds of those in North America at the time and in the U.S. specifically, the Americas (both North and South America) were considered a single continent when Moroni visited Joseph Smith on the night of September 21, 1823 and told him that “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” (Joseph Smith History 1:34, emphasis added). 
    This statement tells us that the “former inhabitants” were on the American continent (Western Hemisphere), and the writing of Nephi tells us “the source from whence they sprang,” i.e., Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4) and was, as this story begins, living “at his own house at Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 7), which, without question, tells us “from whence they sprang,” i.e., Jerusalem.
    So there is no possibility, as Malay theorists claim, that Lehi left Jerusalem, sailed to Malay, then later sailed to the Land of Promise or to the Western Hemisphere, since Moroni tells us the book is about the people of “this continent.”
    Yet, the theory of Malay persists.
    As one theorist claims: “My approach in doing this research has been to focus primarily on the text itself. Sometimes we may start off with certain biases. For example, we may want to create a geographical model that fits with certain statements made by the prophet Joseph Smith. Or, we may try to make our model fit with known locations of ancient Mayan or Olmec cities. My feeling is that these biases can lead us off course. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to keep our minds open to all possibilities and focus on the text of the Book of Mormon itself.”
It is too bad most theorists do not do that in focusing on the descriptions Mormon left us.
Turning bits and pieces into an idea, an idea into a belief, a belief into a Theory

Yet, what starts as a singular belief, whether about the Great Lakes, Heartland, North America, Central America, Mesoamerica, etc., or about Malay, Africa, Baja, Florida or anywhere else, a short time ago has built into a full-blown Theory with all these different views, despite each being contrary to the scriptural record, its introduction, or the various supportive statements of Church Leaders throughout the time from Joseph Smith to now. That a singular statement may appear to match a singular idea is not the same as having all the information available to us, specifically in the scriptural record, as well as elsewhere, match the area being claims.
    Unfortunately, once an idea is introduced, even though it violates numerous scriptural references and statements, it quickly builds into a "fact"  based on uninformed "believers" repeating it, and soon becomes a Theory and then acquires a life of its own despite the lack of any overall and all-encompassing connection to the actual scriptural record and descriptions Mormon and others left us.


  1. Columbus believed the New World included Asia. Vespucci believed the New World included Asia. Balboa believed the New World included Asia. A large portion of Asia is on the North American plate. Early maps (including the ones you posted above) place the newly discovered lands amongst the islands of Asia. Look closely at the Schoner map above and you will see America is placed in between Zipangu (Japan) and Formosa (Taiwan). Other maps from the period place the Indonesian island of Halmahera off the coast of Mexico. Other maps and globes of the period place America between Madagascar and the Malay Peninsula. For example:


    It is possible to believe that the New World includes all of the islands of the sea between the East Indies and the West Indies. Columbus himself believed it. It was only later that our history books led us to believe that the New World Columbus discovered was only in the Americas. This is 100% false. Columbus believed the New World he had been led to was in Asia. I believe we should include all of this area, all of those islands Columbus, Vespucci and Magellan discovered, as the New World, the promised lands, 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."

  2. What I find interesting is that you repeat this stuff over and over again. Columbus and Vespucci if they actually wrote what they said they did then of course they were wrong.

    But what do you have to say about Moroni. Moroni told Joseph that the record of the BOM was a history of the people of this continent meaning America. Joseph Smith didn't believe that Asia and America were connected in anyway. He knew unlike Columbus that America was a separate continent. So why continue to sit there and tell us these obvious errors. Del has completely destroyed the Malaysian model and all I have to do is refer to Moroni's statement to Joseph Smith to destroy the model. Are you going to lie to me now and tell me that Joseph believed that Asia and America are the same continent? Are you going to lie to me and tell me that after the great battle the Lamanites jumped in a boat and sailed to America when it is obvious that it would be impossible. Why do you keep lying to yourself about the Malaysian model? Why not abandon that lousy model and accept what Del has discovered. It fits far better than anything you can come up with. The Malaysian model is so far out of the realm of possibility that it is absurd. It didn't happen and it couldn't happen. So give it a rest Jay.

  3. As I've said many times, what Moroni said to Joseph is not found in the Book of Mormon. I only look at the Book of Mormon text.

    Note the quote Del posted above: "

    "My approach in doing this research has been to focus primarily on the text itself. Sometimes we may start off with certain biases. For example, we may want to create a geographical model that fits with certain statements made by the prophet Joseph Smith. Or, we may try to make our model fit with known locations of ancient Mayan or Olmec cities. My feeling is that these biases can lead us off course. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to keep our minds open to all possibilities and focus on the text of the Book of Mormon itself.”

    Keep your mind open. Let other people share their ideas. Its not that hard Ira.

  4. Your approach is complete nonsense. What Joseph wrote in the history of the restoration is true. What you want me to do is not believe what Joseph Smith wrote. You are telling me that the revealation to FG Williams is false. You want me to replace it with your lousy research. Nothing doing Jay. I reject your lousy model and Moroni's statement is revelation to Joseph Smith. So stick with revelation and not your own bias. It is clear you have a bias toward the Malaysian people.

  5. I'm not telling you to do anything Ira. You believe whatever you want. Whatever works best for you. I'll do the same.

  6. Sure but don't tell me to keep an open mind when it is obvious you are rejecting revelation to Joseph Smith. Your lousy theory is very easy to refute completely.

  7. Written in the Book of Mormon...
    is the testimony of Joseph Smith.

    This is Joseph.. telling us.. what he saw.. and heard.

    And when he heard words..
    they were not his words he heard..
    but the words of Moroni.

    So.. it is not Joseph that spoke the words about the land of promise..
    but Moroni.

    Here are Joseph's words about what HE saw:

    “Not only was his robe exceedingly white,
    but his whole person was glorious beyond description,
    and his countenance truly like lightning.
    The room was exceedingly light,
    but not so very bright as immediately around his person.
    When I first looked upon him,
    I was afraid;
    but the fear soon left me.

    Here are the words..
    that Moroni said...
    to Joseph..
    before the Book of Mormon was even translated...
    and before Joseph knew what the book was about:

    “He called me by name,
    and said unto me
    that he was a messenger
    sent from the presence of God to me,
    and that his name was Moroni;
    that God had a work for me to do;
    and that my name should be had
    for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues,
    or that it should be both good and evil
    spoken of among all people.

    “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.
    He also said
    that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel
    was contained in it,
    as delivered by the Savior
    to the ancient inhabitants;

    At that point right there...
    What did Joseph Smith understand about this book?

    It does not matter what Columbus understood..
    or what anyone else understood..
    all that matters is what Joseph understood.

    1828 Dictionary: Continent

    CONTINENT, noun

    1. In geography, a great extent of land, not disjoined or interrupted by a sea; a connected tract of land of great extent; as the Eastern and Western continent It differs from an isle only in extent. New Holland may be denominated a continent Britain is called a continent as opposed to the isle of Anglesey.

    In Spenser, continent is use for ground in general.

    So for Joseph..

    It would only mean one thing.
    The Continent that he was living on.

    That... is simple... and that is the truth.

    We need no interpretation of what Columbus thought or anybody else. The words that Moroni gave to Joseph were not from a book back in time..
    but were from HIS lips..
    to Joseph's ears!!

    1. Correct. An account of the former inhabitants of the American continent, and the source from whence the sprang. We know from massive amounts of data that the inhabitants of the American continent came from Asia. If your model does not explain how the Americas came to be inhabited by millions of Asians AND middle eastern Jews, then it is not complete. Following your model, can you explain how millions of Asians ended up in America?

    2. No... This continent.. I don't care what you call it... America.. Western.. whatever.. It was upon THIS continent that Joseph lived on.. that the former inhabitants of THIS continent is who the Book of Mormon was written about... and then.. the source from which they sprang.

      Where did they spring from according to the Book of Mormon? Israel.

      We do not need to explain where everyone else came from after the destruction of the Nephites.. or the end of the Book of Mormon. We know that the Spanish certainly came and conquered the area. But after the Nephites all died.. anybody could have come to North America.. Central America.. South America.. it doesn't matter. We are only concerned with who was here During the Book of Mormon times. That is it! We don't have the records of the Asians.. do we?

    3. The Americas were populated with millions of people with Asian, Siberian and West Eurasian DNA before, during and after the Book of Mormon times. There is substantial evidence of this.

      For a Book of Mormon model to be complete you will need to explain how the Americas came to be inhabited by millions of non-Jewish people with maternal haplogroups A, B, C and D and paternal haplogroups Q and C, and how they got there before the Book of Mormon times.

    4. The Book of Mormon stands on it own. It is the only "History" of its kind. It is complete.

      It has already offered the information and promise that no other people would inherit the land which they possessed for 1000 years.

      We know that 10,000+ got on ships built by Hagoth and sailed North. They even returned one time and picked up more people to sail North.

      What we don't have.. is their record.
      We don't know what peoples they came in contact with and what peoples they mated with.

      How you dismiss the evidence that has been presented is mind boggling.

      The similarities between South and Central America.. where in South America.. the ruins have signs of fortification against a warring people.. where as.. in Central America.. none. We know from the Book of Mormon that there has been 1000 years of continuous war.

      Tell me.. just what does the DNA of the Lamanite look like? They certainly appeared different than a Nephite... so what was their DNA like? Was it haplogroups A, B, C or D? Or paternal haplogroups Q or C?

      Even those that fled Northward.. and their descendants.. would have mixed their DNA with whoever was upon the land. And just how many different DNA groups were there for them to mix with?

      It does amaze me the amount of babble that some people will put into their model.. like one group telling me that the curelom or cummom.. was the Giant Sloth. Like.. ya.. that can be compared as good for man like the elephant. BTW.. what is your version of the Malaysian curelom or cummom?

    5. The Southeast Asian animals that would fit best are the water buffalo (carabah) and the rhino (kerkedan). Both were useful domesticated animals and fit in the right time period. Cumay is also a Malayo-Polynesian word for a bear-like animal.

  8. That's easy. When the 10 tribes were taken North into Asia at 721bc the men married Asian women. All the other women were killed. So when the dna says they are of Asia that is correct. The dna follows the women line not the men. That Jay is your answer as to why the dna shows Asian. The idea they came from Malaysia is a lie.

    1. OK, that's good for discussion. Thanks. The problem with this hypothesis is that the paternal DNA of native Americans is also Eurasian, primarily haplogrouops Q and C. There is no semitic DNA in maternal or paternal lines of native Americans. The closest is one case of a haplogroup Q that appears to be Yemeni Jew. This likely passed through southeast asia. So your model needs to explain why all maternal and paternal DNA in the Americas originates in asia, the source from whence they sprang.

  9. one other thing. The North American Indians are not Lamanites but came down from the far North. The Navajo's history tell us they came from the North countries. So it does depend on whos dna you are testing. Not all are actual Lamanites. The South American Indians come from Asia because that is where Ephraim and Manassah went for over 100 years until the filtered back into the area of Jerusalem.

    Jay you can't give us a resonable explanation of how a million Lamanites in Malaysia came to America. The idea is absolutely absurd. There are millions of Indians in America. There were millions of Indians at the time of the massacre in South America. How did any of the come from Malaysia? It's absurd.

    1. How did millions of Polynesians (lamanites) get from Asia to the Pacific islands? How did millions of Navajos (also lamanites) get from Asia to America?

      They migrated, by foot and by boat. These are well established facts.

  10. This is a very odd discussion because you haven't explained how Malaysians Orientals got here to America. And too you don't seem to be able to explain what Moroni said to Joseph Smith. He said the former inhabitants of this continent and the source from when this sprang. The former inhabitants of this continent are the Nephites and the Lamanites. Former means not the ones that are here now. And the source where they came if Jerusalem. If Moroni said something like. The record contains the history of the current Indians of the continent and how they came from China. But Moroni didn't say any of that. He said the former inhabitants and where they came from. So you still haven't explained how they got from Malaysia to America. Your explanation is nonsense.

    Your DNA is also bogus because as I explained to you they came from Asia and that is what the DNA shows. You haven't differentiated which tribes have their DNA tested. So the Asian DNA still stands. They came from Asia because that is where the 10 tribes were taken at 721bc. You explanation which you haven't explained in any detail fails completely because you can't explain how they came from Malaysia to America. Nor can you tell me when they came. None of the scriptures support you view either.

  11. Jay,

    I'm not really sure why you're so adamant about Malaysia being the land of the Nephites. It just doesn't fit. The only way it could fit is if the Malay peninsula was on the American continent (North, Central, or South America). Malaysia is nowhere near the American continent.

    You won't accept what Joseph Smith said about Book of Mormon geography (which was always on the American continent), you won't accept Frederick G. Williams revelation about Lehi landing at the 30th parallel in present day Chile (even though Del has painstakingly shown in his book and on his blog that this is a perfect match), but worse than that you won't accept what the Book of Mormon has to say about the matter (even though you claim you do).

    The Book of Mormon is crystal clear that the New Jerusalem will be built on the same continent that the Jaredites and Nephites lived on. See Ether 13

    1 And now I, Moroni, proceed to finish my record concerning the destruction of the people of whom I have been writing.

    2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

    3 And that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord.

    4 Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land.

    Unless you reject the D&C then it is obvious that this land refers to the American continent because the New Jerusalem will be built in Jackson County Missouri.

    1. I am adamant because I have done the research and have found that the Book of Mormon account fits 100% with what was known about the New World before the 16th century. This proves without a doubt that Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon and suggests that it is in fact a historical document.

  12. cont...

    There's also the matter of Nephi's vision in 1 Nephi 13 concerning Columbus discovering the Americas, the gentiles overrunning the descendants of the Lamanites, and the restoration of the gospel among them. This all happened on the American continent not in Malaysia.

    You claim that you stick to the words of the Book of Mormon, but you don't. The idea that the Nephites lived in Malaysia and then their ancestors came to the Americas at some point is not sustainable from the Book of Mormon or from the statements of Joseph Smith. It doesn't matter what DNA testing says or what historians say about how the Native Americans got to North and South America originally. What matters is what the scriptures say. The scriptures are quite clear that the Jaredites and the Lehi left the middle east and crossed the ocean where they landed directly on the the promise land, which land was then overrun by the gentiles (Nephi 13) and will one day be the place of the New Jerusalem (Ether 13). That is not open to interpretation. That is what the scriptures say, end of story.

    You should just drop this endless debate about the Malay model, it just doesn't fit. You have to add to and twist the scriptural record to make it work, just like every other theory out there like Mesoamerica, Heartland, Great Lakes, Florida, Baha California, and Africa.

    The house of Israel was scattered all over the earth, with righteous remnants being led away from time to time as well. In a future day, likely very soon, Israel will be gathered to Zion from the four corners of the earth. There's bound to be lots of evidence out there of Israelites in places other than on the American continent, but that doesn't make those places the land of the Book of Mormon.


    1. Hi Matthias. All models have their strengths and weaknesses. Like you said, "there's bound to be lots of evidence out there of Israelites in places other than on the American continent". And that is the reason why I will not drop this endless debate. I think it is all connected.

    2. Jay the Malaysian model has no strengths. You haven't been able to express even one strength of the model. We've gone through the list over and over again by many different posters. You haven't made the case because your model does not fit scripture. We've asked you many times to explain why you model doesn't fit and you can't give even one reasonable or believable explanation. Give it up Jay we simply don't buy your twisted logic.

    3. Ira, do you even know anything about the model I am proposing? For example, where do I propose the city of Zarahemla is located? What is the name of the tribe that claims to have once had a golden book? What was the name given to the Malay Peninsula anciently? If you don't know the very basics then you can't evaluate the model.

      I'm not here to push the model, but I just want to point out that you don't yet know enough about it to form an opinion. For example, this model I propose is not even based in Malaysia yet you continue to call it the Malaysian model and you continue to refer to the tribes as Malaysians. The model I propose is set mostly in Myanmar and refers to the ancient Qumr and Mron tribes. They are not Malaysian and they never lived in Malaysia.

    4. So what! Wrong continent!

    5. Yes, according to many people it is the wrong continent.

    6. Case closed. Wrong continent.

  13. Jay,

    While I can respect that you see a possible match between ancient Malaysian history and what is described in the pages of the Book of Mormon and have done extensive research to try and connect the two, I don't see the connection. The only thing I see is a possible link between the ancient inhabitants of Malaysia and some other branch of Israel that had been broken off anciently. That of course would be strictly speculation, because we don't as of yet have the records of the lost 10 tribes or any other remnant of Israel. Isaiah tells us that when the gathering of the lost 10 tribes occurs that some will be gathered from the land of Sinim, which refers to ancient China or more likely all of the Asian nations. Beyond that we just don't know.

    Unless you have a reasonable answer to the Ether 13 and 1 Nephi 13, and quite a few other serious problems with the Malay model, then you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. If you still want to hold on to the Malay model go right ahead, but there's no point in continuing to push it here without being able to address the issues.

    1. Hi Matthias, As I've said a few times, I only comment on the Malay model in Del's comment section when there is misinformation about it. I haven't even shared the model here so not sure why you think I am pushing it. If someone were to misrepresent Del's theory on a different blog, would you not try to correct that misinformation in the comments section? That would be very different from "pushing the model" and "wasting everybody's time".

      I haven't been given much of an opportunity to even discuss the model because it has already been judged to be "rubbish" and "lousy" before you even the very basics about it are known.

  14. Jay, Del has attacked your model using the scriptures and modern revelation such as the revelation given to FG Williams. You have not offered any reasonable defense of the model. There can't be one because it defies scripture. Your wasting your time trying because it's so obviously wrong.

    1. Yes, many people have attacked the model before they even know what the model is. I can't offer a reasonable defense if you are not going to take the time to read the very basics and if you aren't open to a discussion. Any attempt would be wasting time.

    2. If you had the right continent we could have a discussion. But you don't and any discussion is a waste of time. You ate asking me to disregard what Moroni said. FG Williams wrote and all the prophets have said. So with that body of evidence against your theory your right. I'm not going to waste my time with anything you have to say period because it is contrary to revelation. You want to make a case that it fits go ahead. But don't try to get me to buy your garbage if you can't make a convincing case.

    3. Ira, again, I am not looking for a continent, I am not looking for a place. I am looking for evidences of the Book of Mormon. Such evidence can be found anywhere. In my mind, when it comes to identifying the lost tribes and/or the Lamanite remnant there is no right or wrong continent.

  15. Jay,

    The thing is that in order for us to consider your model we have to ignore what the Book of Mormon says about the land of promise being on the American continent.

    Like I keep trying to tell you, at best your model could be of a different group of Israelites led away by the Lord. Even if you could prove that Christ visited the inhabitants of ancient Burman or anywhere in the Malay peninsula, that would still point to some other branch of Israel other than the Nephites.

    It's not that we're all ignorant and closed minded, it's that we understand that the evidence and common sense points to only way place for the land of the Book of Mormon and that is on the American continent.

    1. Question for MC and Ira: if there was an island in the middle of the ocean that:

      (1) resembles the geography of the Book of Mormon, and
      (2) was first inhabited by a Biblical clan with a name found in the Book of Mormon around the time of the tower, and
      (3) later inhabited by two different Biblical groups with Book of Mormon names around the 6th century BC.
      (4) has legends of a warrior chief named Maroni, and
      (5) is in an area inhabited by a large tribe named "the people of Manasseh" in a land called Zoram, and
      (6) has hundreds of other interesting parallels with the Book of Mormon...

      Would you be interested in hearing more about it and discussing, or would you say it is all rubbish because its not in America?

      If you say the latter, than yes, this is all a tremendous waste of time.

  16. Latter - complete waste of time because you haven't got the right continent. As few names that might be somewhat similar does not impress me at all. Del has pointed out a number of times how those names you keep touting aren't what you say they are. The bottom line is as MC has told you the people of Malaysia or Myanmar are not Lamanties/Nephites. They can't be because revelation to Joseph Smith tells us quite clearly that America is the place. So any similarity is simply either a coincidence or more likely simply a misinterpretation of the data.

    Since you have not been able to explain any of the scriptures that MC or others have put forth why keep trying to explain something that is contrary to revelation. You need to come to grips with this and reject your model because it doesn't work.

    1. Sure, if its a waste of your time then you are always free to not respond or participate in discussions about the topic.

    2. I have participated and asked you many times to respond to the scriptures. You have refused to give any reasonable explanation of why you reject the scriptures. I'll keep responding and pointing out the utter nonsense of your rediculous model.

    3. I do not reject scriptures, but I do have a different interpretation of scriptures. I believe I have responded to most of your arguments in other comment threads, but it you have a particular one you would like to discuss again, list it here. But only one at a time please.

    4. You haven't responded to any of them. Del has tried, I've tried, MC just asked you and you blew him off

      You simply reject the scriptures that are very clear and unambiguous that tells you that this continent is where it all happened. You reject that. So don't tell me you haven't explained it because you haven't. You simply reject what is clearly written. Maybe MC can talk some sense into you. Good luck MC

    5. Ether 13: "For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof"

      My response is that for almost two millennia Southeast Asia was considered by Christians to be the location of Paradise and the Garden of Eden, and it was also believed to be a promised land by many of the European explorers (such as Columbus) who searched for it and the hidden Christian kingdom that they believed existed there. So its a matter of perspective. If you lived 2000 to 600 years ago you would have read the words of Ether 13 and assumed it was talking about Southeast Asia.

      I believe, as I have said many times here in response to these questions, that the promised land includes all the islands of the sea, from the East Indies to the West Indies. Historically all this area has at one time or another been accepted as 'promised land' by Christians.

      That's my response. If you can remember it (even you don't have to agree with it) then we can prevent miscommunication in the future.

    6. 1 Nephi 13: "14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren [Lamanites]; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

      15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain."

      As mentioned above I believe all the islands of the sea from the East Indies to the West Indies are lands of inheritance or promised lands for various tribes. Fair-skinned Gentiles from the Middle East and Europe have colonized these islands (and continents) for nearly two millennia. The East Indies, including the Malay Peninsula, and the Americas were colonized in a similar fashion. Columbus, the gentile, discovered all the islands of the sea between the West Indies and the East Indies at the same time. All this area between the Malay Peninsula and Cuba was the "New World" as he described it that God had protected and preserved. If we read 1 Nephi 13 from the perspective of Columbus, he would surely have included the Malay Peninsula in the land of promise.

    7. This is the first time I have seen this response from you. So to you the entire earth is one continent. Shazam! It's like saying I believe in though shalt not commit adultry I just see it a differently.

    8. No, the earth is not one continent. Rather the New World includes everything that Columbus, Vespucci and Magellan discovered in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, from the East Indies to the West Indies.

      The Book of Mormon is an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent and the source from whence they sprang, Asia.

  17. Jay,

    Let's read from 1 Nephi 13:

    "14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren [Lamanites]; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

    15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain."

    Is there any evidence that there was a people that was White and exceedingly fair and beautiful in Malaysia that was destroyed around 420 AD after having lived there for about a 1000 years?

    1. Yes, very definitely there are accounts of a white or fair skinned people in the north named the Sami and a darker skinned people in the south. There are accounts of gentiles from the Middle East arriving and ruling over the locals and prospering. These gentiles would have been similar complexion to the Nephites because, unlike the Europeans who colonized America, they came from the same region.

      Have you ever wondered how Nephites could be as fair as the British? It isn't likely. It is more likely that the gentiles described in 1 Nephi were of Middle Eastern descent because they were like unto the fairness and beauty of the Nephites, who were Middle Eastern, not European.

    2. And yes, the Biblical clan known to Arab historians as the Kumr (Cumr) are said to have fought a great battle near a place called Komoriyya around the 5th century AD. They were defeated and driven away. They later settled the Comoros Islands where the capital city is called Moroni, and where the native inhabitants have tested positively for Jewish-Arab DNA dating back to the time period around 600 BC.

  18. Jay,

    I actually do find your evidences interesting and don't write them off as worthless. If nothing else the similar names are evidence that the names from the Book of Mormon are authentic ancient names and were not made up by Joseph Smith.

    I don't have a problem discussing your model and whatever evidences you might have to support it. However, ultimately I have to agree with Ira that you have the wrong continent based on Ether 13 and 1 Nephi 13 alone.

    That's not to say that you can't possibly be on to some evidence of other decendents of Shem and/or another remnant of Israelites being led to Malay.

    There are other problems with a Malay Book of Mormon model in general. One being why the Lord would have had the people of the Book of Mormon build barges and a ship and sail for a year or many days respectively to the promised land, when they could have travelled all or most of the way by land? Land obstacles such as mountains clearly wouldn't have been a problem since the brother of Jared moved one and Nephi said he had the power to change the terrain and even dry up an ocean if the Lord commanded it.

    I have no desire to contend over theories. What I like about Del's writings is that he sticks to what the scriptures say and facts. I have not observed him ever twisting the scriptures or facts, beyond adjusting the geological time frames to fit the scriptural 7 thousand year temporal existence of the earth.


    1. Hi Matthias, land journeys from the Middle East to the Malay Peninsula were possible, but not easy. Historically, most recorded instances of migration between these two regions have taken place by sea. The hills of India and Burma are too difficult to pass on foot and there aren't any examples of this happening that I am aware of. There are plenty of documented examples of ocean voyages from the 5th century AD onwards as this became a well-travelled trade route.

      I also don't like to argue models. I think all models have something of value to offer.

    2. Models.. are not religions. You can speak that all religions have something of value to offer.. but not models. There can only be ONE RIGHT MODEL!

      You can never say that the Heartland and Malaysian are both right. Nor can you say that MesoAmerica and Andean are both correct... yet they both share some similar things.

      I still can not figure how you honestly believe Malay is the land of Promise.. after being shown that "THIS CONTINENT" that Moroni spoke about was said upon the continent of North & South America.

      I just can't get past that. How do you?

    3. "This continent (America), and the source from whence they sprang (Asia)"

      We know that the former inhabitants of the Americas came from the East Asia, Southeast Asia, Western Eurasia and possibly the Middle East. The model I propose is the only model that explains how that is possible.

      There were millions of Asians in North, Central and South America during the Book of Mormon time period. This is a fact. How do you get past that?
      How does your model explain that the Americas were populated with millions of Asians and Eurasians before, during and after the Book of Mormon time period?

    4. I believe that primary foundation points of Del's theory are that a world wide flood literally happened as stated in scripture, that the scriptural timeline of the Patriarchs is literally true, and that the age of the Earth as stated in scripture is literally true.

      If you utterly reject those foundation points, and the basis of your theory depends on that, then you will constantly be frustrated that no one here seems to be able to perceive the brilliance of your arguments.

      Additionally, your arguments appear to be along the lines of; 'the BoM doesn't mean what it seems to', and 'the Prophets are incorrect in stating that the Promised Land is the Americas'.

      The foundation of the theory you support is completely antithetical to the theory supported by this website and by many readers of it.

      I would really encourage you to either read at least the first two of Del's books or thoroughly read through this site (an amazingly large portion of the information in the books is available among the many posts on this site).

      At the very least, it would give you a firm grasp on Del's theory so that you could be in a better position to engage in a true dialog rather than simply talking at and past others here.

    5. Hi Michael. I don't reject the foundation points of Del's theory. I have said that of the American models I prefer Del's. My comments are meant to correct misrepresentations of the Malay models. To be clear, I am not saying the "prophets are incorrect in stating that the Promised Land is the Americas", instead I am saying that the Promised Land is all the islands of the sea, everything between the West Indies and the East Indies. So it is not antithetical to the theory supported by this website and its readers. I believe South America and the islands of the Malay Archipelago were in contact with each other, and the two models support each other. Of course it is not possible that both geographies are correct, but I am not interested in finding the correct location as much as I am interested in demonstrating the historicity of the Book of Mormon by presenting evidence from across the wide range of islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It seems my effort is terribly misunderstood here as some sort of attack, but in time I hope dialogue will become easier.

    6. Your analysis of the land of promise is completely absurd. South America and Malay connected? Really? That's the most rediculous statement you've made here and believe me you've made a bunch of them.

      I just hope others can see the clear absurdity of your rediculous arguments.

  19. Wait.. The source from which they sprang.. you said it is Asia? Not Jerusalem?

    We are talking about Lehi.. and his family. Where did they come from? What was their source?

    So you are saying that the entire world is populated with Asians? North, Central & South America.. during the Book of Mormon time period?

    So there was no promise to Lehi? Or the promise that was made to him.. the Lord backed out of it?

    Fact?? They don't even know who came before the Inca's.

  20. Jay,

    I can understand your argument of their being millions of people of Asian descent all over the American continent before and after Lehi based on current scientific opinion and even genetics on where the inhabitants of ancient America came from.

    If it wasn't for the statements in the Book of Mormon that contradict what you're saying, I would say that your model could work as a possible way to harmonize the perceived issue.

    I will say this, and this is pure speculation, but it is possible that other Israelites of the house of Joseph were led to North America after Lehi or perhaps even around the same time, who may have mixed with the decendents of Lehi who went north in Hagoth's ships.

    As I said this is pure speculation and can't be verified one way or the other without further information from God. We know that the American continent was given to the seed of Joseph as an everlasting inheritance so it's not impossible for others of the house of Joseph to have been led here at some point. The problem is that the scriptures don't mention it, so we have nothing to go on but theories and speculation.

    Until further light is shed and we have the records of the various remnants of Israel we should stick to what the scriptures say and not add to or twist what they say to try and explain perceived issues of genetics or migration theories.

    1. Yes, it is speculation, but I also accept it could be possible that there was a relationship and interaction between the cultures of South America and Southeast Asia. There is evidence of Southeast Asian chickens reaching South America. There is evidence of Southeast Asian blowpipes in South America. There is evidence of Southeast Asian DNA in South America. And a number of other hints that there had been contact and interaction across the ocean.

      If the Book of Mormon correctly identifies the islands of the sea being inhabited by the brothers of the Lehites since the opening of the narrative in the 6th century BC then it is interesting to consider some of these populations interacted with each other and eventually migrated to the Americas.