Friday, July 28, 2017

The Word of Joseph

Over the past few months we have written several articles regarding the so-called Malay Theory regarding the fallacy of Lehi, and the Jaredites before him, landing on the Malaysia Peninsula and that this area in Indonesia was the Land of Promise of the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon. At each article a discussion in the comments section ensued where a defense of the Malay Theory of Lehi’s landing on that Peninsula took place (the last one amount to over a running dialogue between several readers of over 50 comments).    Regardless of the extensive evidence to the contrary and showing without question that Lehi landed in a Land of Promise that was located in the Western Hemisphere, called the Americas, this contrary dialogue has continued.
Despite the fact that Joseph Smith tells us that the Angel Moroni told him the record (gold plates) that he was about to receive contained a record of the people “of this continent” and “from whence they came,” and the record itself clearly states and identifies the location from whence they came as Jerusalem (and the Tower of Babel in the case of the Jaredites), and there that two groups were basically located in the same general area (Land Northward and Land Southward) this dialogue about Lehi’s landing in Malay had continued for months on end. In a recent defense of the Malay Theory, the comment write has rejected Joseph Smith’s statement regarding Moroni’s comment in light of the argument that what is not found in the Book of Mormon directly is to be rejected, quoting our own writing about the need to not stray from the Book of Mormon in our writing about the Land of Promise—which is good advice for any theory about where the principal group (Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites) landed and lived.
    On the other hand, it has to be acknowledged that the words of the very person who handed over the hidden records of these ancient groups, one angel Moroni, that last of the Nephites prophets, and final writer of the scriptural record, the one who, after writing the closing and final words of the record, hid up the plates and then appeared to Joseph Smith 1500 years later and eventually led him to the hidden records and commanded Joseph to translate the records, should be believable in his statements as to where his people, the Nephites, (from Lehi to Mormon and himself) originated and where they were and where their progenitors lived.
    If Moroni is not to be believed on a par with the record itself (part of which he wrote himself and another part he personally abridged), then what of the claim the record is accurate to begin with? Surely, Moroni’s instructions, explanations and information about the plates, the Nephite history and their origin are as truthful and accurate as the record itself.
Then there is the translator himself, one Joseph Smith, who was assigned by the Lord to do the translation. Surely, what he had to say about the record, the people, and their origin is as truthful and accurate as the record he translated. If it is not, then what is the point of the record being accepted if not the translator of the record being believed?
    So let us take a look at what Joseph Smith tells us about the origin of the people he wrote about—from whence they came and where they landed. After all, if we are going to accept and believe what Joseph Smith translated then we have to accept what he said about the people and their history which he translated. If we reject Joseph’s words, then we must reject what he translated—it is as simple as that. And if we are going to set ourselves above this man who translated the record and claim he was wrong in what he said about the very history he translated, then we are indeed more arrogant and stubbornly resistant to common sense and reality than we ought to be.
So let us turn to the Wentworth Letter, which Joseph Smith personally wrote on March 1, 1842, at the request of Mr. John Wentworth (left), editor and proprietor of the Chicago Democrat, regarding the early history of the Church and Joseph Smith’s involvement. First of all, according to B.H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy: “The letter is one of the choicest documents in our church literature; as also it is the earliest published document by the Prophet personally, making any pretension to consecutive narrative of those events in which the great Latter-day work had its origin…For combining conciseness of statement with comprehensiveness of treatment of the subject with which it deals, it has few equals among historical documents, and certainly none that excel it in our church literature” (History of the Church, pp535–541. The Wentworth Letter was originally published in Nauvoo in the Times and Seasons, 1 Mar. 1842, and it also appears in A Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:55).
    In this letter, which again is the background of Joseph’s translation work and development of the Book of Mormon and the experiences of the early Church and its members, Joseph wrote regarding the translation itself and the people who originally wrote the scriptural record: “I was informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, government.” He went on to say about the plates: “In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of the languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by the records that America in ancient times had been inhabited by two distinct races of people.
The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before the Savior’s birth. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph” (DHC Vol IV, pp 535-541, as found in Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Third Edition, compiled by Alma P. Burton, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 1965).
    As should be clear to anyone, Joseph Smith tells us that both the Jaredites and Lehi landed in the Americas, “this continent,” making their landing in the Western Hemisphere. This is not a debatable issue. In addition, the Book of Mormon tells us “from whence they came,” with the Jaredites coming from Mesopotamia, or the Tower of Babel” (Ether Chapter 1), about, according to the Bible dating, 2100 B.C. (Genesis Chapter 11), and that the Book of Mormon tells us that where Lehi landed and where Nephi traveled to (on foot) after Lehi’s death, was the same area or land where the Nephites spent their entire history.
    Thus, it should be understood that the Jaredites and the Nephites landed in the Western Hemisphere and remained in the same general area for their 1000-year history. At no time in the more than 500 pages of the scriptural record do we find any indication—not a single word—to suggest that they landed anywhere other than the Land of Promise, the Americas, where they spent their entire 1000-year history.
    Joseph Smith said of this: “The inhabitants of this continent anciently were so constituted, and were so determined and persevering, either in righteousness or wickedness, that God visited them immediately, either with great judgment or blessings. But the present generation, if they were going into battle, if they got any assistance from God, they would have to obtain it by faith” (DHC, Vol V, p 390). On page 189, Joseph added: “The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our Western tribes of Indians; having been found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gifts and powers of God, after having been hid up in the earth for the last fourteen hundred years.”
Joseph Smith, the translator of this record, who knew and understood the Nephites and their origin and history far more than any man, tells us they landed on this continent, in the Americas, and that is where the entire record unfolds—the Book of Mormon tells us Lehi came from Jerusalem, so they left Jerusalem and sailed directly to and landed in the Western Hemisphere.
    This should set to rest and end any ill-founded speculation regarding theories that do not center within the Western Hemisphere. For anyone to continue to champion Malay, Africa, or anywhere else other than the Americas is simply burying their heads in the sane and ignoring the truth surrounding this landing issue. In order to continue to tout Malay, one has to ignore that obvious truth of the fact that the very person who translated the record has told us in no uncertain terms that Lehi and the Jaredites before him landed in the Americas! Period! End of Discussion!

52 comments:

  1. One thing I have liked about this discussion is that the more those who can't offer a reasonable defense talk about their theories the more divergent they are from scripture and pronouncements of the prophets. They dig their own grave for their lousy theories.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've said all along that all models have their strengths and weaknesses. Obviously the weakness of the Malay models are that they do not fit with the statements made by church leaders.

    However, the strengths are that there are historical documents describing Biblical clans that resemble the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites sailing to the East Indies in the right time periods. This supports the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. For goodness sakes, this is solid proof that the Book of Mormon could not have been written by Joseph Smith.

    For example, I just ordered a book on Amazon about the history of the islands of the sea. In the centuries before Columbus discovered America most maps depicted all the land in the east as being islands. One of those islands is called Qamara and it was settled in ancient times by a group that left Mesopotamia in boats around the time of the tower of Babel. Another group called the Rechabites were carried by God to that island in 600 BC.

    Instead of constantly attacking the obvious weakness of other models, can we have a discussion about the how history seems to support the Book of Mormon? Thanks, Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. During the times in question, both of Lehi and of Jared, there were many migrations.

      The peoples surrounding the tower of Babel had their languages confused and many groups scattered across the Earth.

      Shortly after Lehi's group left, Babylon conquered Jerusalem and forcibly removed great numbers of the People of Israel and settled them elsewhere.

      During the events of both of the migrations recorded in the BoM, there were other migrations of related peoples taking place at very nearly the same point in history.

      The "lost" tribes of Israel are not hiding in caves or valley, but are "lost" because many of them have lost their history and no longer know where they came from.

      The proofs that you lay out may very well show that groups of people related to the Jaredites or Nephites did migrate to the area of the Malay peninsula at the times in question.

      But with the Americas being definitively described by Prophets as the Promised Land of the BoM, the people in that area of the world are not the people who's history is recorded in the Book of Mormon.

      Delete
  3. Jay, we've been through this numerous times. You have to rely on revelation from God to get the truth. Revelation from God to Joseph Smith tells us that the Americas is the place where they lived. There might be a very minor similarity you are seeing, but it simply isn't the place. You haven't presented any convincing evidence that supports your lousy theory. I hope we can get back to discussing the real place where the lived and that us America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we have been through this numerous times and you have made your opinion about the lousy rubbish Malay theory very clear many many times. The problem is that there are not just minor similarities between the Book of Mormon narrative and the histories of the islands. There are hundreds of very convincing similarities that support the argument for Book of Mormon historicity. If you do not want to discuss these that is your choice, and I wish you well.

      Delete
  4. You can bring up your crappy model all you want. I will continue to point out the obvious errors and deprevity of the lousy model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

      Delete
    2. Nether from you. It's hard to understand your complete unwillingness to accept revelation from God.

      Delete
  5. I can now understand the phrase.. there are those that see.. yet are blind.. and those that hear.. yet are deaf. Stiff necked and hard of heart. Those who see the sun.. yet deny it shines.

    Think not that there is no great imposter and impersonator.. who will fight truth at every turn.. and deceive the very elect. Confusion and chaos are the weapons used which takes the plain and clear facts spoken by Prophets of God.. and mixes in the philosophies and so called intelligence of man.. to fool and sidetrack mankind. "Thou shalt surely not die".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that comment is aimed at me then it is certainly clear that you misunderstand the research that I am presenting. Let me boil it down:

      Up until Columbus discovered the Americas, there was much speculation amongst Jews, Christians and Muslims about a number of islands that existed "beyond India" that were inhabited by Biblical groups that resemble the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites in description. I believe these accounts are what little was known about the Book of Mormon among Christians and Jews in the Middle East. If we study these accounts we will surely find that Jews and Christians in Jerusalem had faint memories of the Jaredites and Lehites who departed to the islands in the East.

      These accounts of course do not refer to America, or the American continent, BECAUSE THE AMERICAS WERE NOT YET KNOWN TO THESE PEOPLE. Of course they didn't write about America, but instead they wrote about islands that were inhabited by Biblical clans. Oddly, these islands match the Book of Mormon almost perfectly. I don't have an answer why, maybe it is a tremendous coincidence, but it is worth discussing.

      I am not attacking your models. For all I know the Book of Mormon could have happened in Chile or Peru. I simply believe that there is value in researching and discussing what Christians and Jews knew about the islands of the sea before Columbus discovered America.

      Delete
  6. Unknown: We are not talking about "Church Leaders" we are talking about the very man that translated the record, regarding where that record took place and where the people in the record came from. This is not a strength of the Western Hemisphere idea, but a total and unequivocal proof of the location of the Land of Promise and is simply not arguable. For you to downplay this only shows your unwilling to face reality, which gets old after a time. Accept the fact that at best, Malaysians are from the House of Israel as you claim but not the Book of Mormon people and let it go at that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please see my comment above. Yes, I believe that Malaysians and Polynesians are from the House of Israel AND (like the Polynesians and others in the Americas) are the Book of Mormon people.

      Delete
    2. Just as those in MesoAmerica are OF the Book of Mormon people? So what I get from you is that you believe that those of Lehi's descendants.. left the Book of Mormon lands and sailed to all the regions about and populated and mixed with the locals bringing with them their oral history and names from their homeland which was not called Peru or Chile or Ecuador or Columbia.. but the promised land. It is those than inhabited Malaysia etc.

      If that is what you are saying.. then THAT I can agree with. But as I stated before.. there is currently NO record of those people as there is of Lehi.. his sons and their decedents.

      Delete
    3. What I am saying is I don't have answers, I only have thoughts and points of discussion. Its been nearly impossible to get to those points of discussion because many here are already convinced that everything related to the Malay model is at best a waste of time and at worst, lies, deception and rubbish. Hoping we can break that barrier down. -Jay

      Delete
    4. I'm certainly convinced of the deception of your model. I didn't know how weak your model was until you came Jay. For that I quite grateful to you. Del has destroyed your model completely.

      Delete
    5. Your opinion of my model means very little to me because I am 100% certain that you don't even know what the model is about. You can't even tell me where the model is based. Have you ever heard of the Island of Qamara? Do you know where it is? Have you read anything about the Rechabites? Do you know who Zosimus is?

      Your response will likely be "no, I don't know, and I don't care because your model is rubbish". Very well, that is fine. But if you don't know the basics your assessment means nothing.

      Delete
    6. Jay it doesn't matter where it is because you have the wrong continent. That's why I don't care. You won't accept revelation that tells you it happened here. And you can't make a case for it.

      You make an acceptable case and I'll entertain it. Just basing it on a few remotely similar names and a golden book(likely buddism) doesn't cut it. Your model is wrong from the beginning. Any thinking person rejects it. So far all here have rejected it. You might try David Kane blog. He has a lousy North American model. But at least he had the continent right.

      Delete
    7. Have you heard of the Rechabites before?

      Delete
    8. The waste of time only applies to Malay being the Book of Mormon lands.

      I recently read a book called "They saw our day" by Lance M Richardson. He has ferreted out stories and legends from the Indian's of North America.. to those in Central and South America.. and other places in the world.. that speak of a white God that will return one day. Just so I do not have to explain all I know.. I will share a link with you that does a better job of explaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUVkzwPtwIw

      Out of those 10,000+ people that left the Book of Mormon lands.. and more later.. one would have to guess that they easily could have traveled to many different places.. and of course took with them the names of their ancestors.. along with that.. their stories and histories and names of places they lived. Who knows how or when or where all of those others went. It could be some of those that ended up in Malay were descendants of Lehi.. who knows. It is all pure speculation on that part.. but the main thing we do know.. Lehi did land in Chile at 30 degrees. And that given by revelation.

      Delete
  7. Hi iterry. I'm David Kane and I don't have a blog. After years of intense study of Book of Mormon geography, most books on the various theories, and detailed study of about 500 Book of Mormon scriptures referencing geography in some way- I'm convinced Del has identified the correct lands. Not sure whose blog you meant to reference.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's not you I was referring to. Sorry about that. I'm thinking of the guy that came here a year ago. Maybe it was Mckane. I on vacation right now and so I was guessing at the name. Shouldn't have done that obviously. My apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. iterry: It was David McKane who has a blog and claimed an Eastern U.S. theory that wss here a while back.

    Unknown: As we have written numerous times, including our books, etc., Lehi landed in Chile, Nephi traveled northward into Peru, the scriptural record Land of Promise took place in what is now Peru, Ecuador, western Bolivia, and probably southern Colombia. At one time, though not necessarily in the dates shown in the record, Hagoth built "exceedingly large" ships, of which several went north to "a land which was northward" and not heard from again, which would have been into Central and Mesoamerica, which is where we find evidence of a Nephite-type civilization. We know nothing of them from any existing record except they sailed north (Alma 63). Another ship and group of immigrants sailed elsewhere (had to have been West, since the known ones sailed north, and south would have been into Lamanite territory), leaving West, which is where the winds and current would have taken them to Polynesia, where they took the cotton, yams, and other items with them and transplanted them throughout the Polynesian area as historical records show. As for Malay, I have no idea who settled there-I am not convinced it was Israelites, but it certainly could have been since we are told time and again, which I have quoted to you several times, that the Lord has led people from the House of Israel from time to time to many places, etc. But when Moroni and Joseph Smith both tell me that Lehi left Jerusalem and landed in the continent (Americas) of the Western Hemisphere, I have no reason not to accept and believe that, especially when all the other matches exist there.
    I would hope that this explains the landing and population of both South, Central (Meso), and North America of remnants of the House of Israel, as well as Polynesia and the islands of the South Pacific, and possibly Hawaii, parts of Indonesia perhaps, and touching on New Zealand, the latter however, merely an assumption at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You guys are all great. Thank you for your constant communications and comments. Enjoy reading what you have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Unknown: Regarding your question abut the Rechabites--The Rechabites (Recabite, Rekabite) were descendants of Rechab (Recab or Rekab—a name, by the way, whose root has to do with chariots and riding them—as well as riding camels, donkeys and mules—and the word, “rakab” רכב, is believed to have been imported from Babylon). They were a Judaic sect, not of Israel but of Kenite origin (a people dating back to Abraham; his father-in-law, Jethro, was a Kenite [Judges 1:16], and Abraham married into the Kenite tribe with his marriage to Zipporah, after fleeing Egypt—it is likely the Kenites and Midianites were related [1 chronicles 2:55]).
    The Rechabites were a very faithful people to their set of strict rules set down by Rechab’s son (or descendant) Jehonadab (Jonadab) as found in Jeremiah 35:6. This son is also the one that helped Jehu rid Israel of Baal-worship after the time of Ahab (2 Kings 10:15-27).
    These strict rules strict rules, and their resistance to assimilating into the cultures of the time, included abstaining from wine, from building houses, from sowing seed, and from planting vineyards (Jeremiah 35:6-7), and their strict adherence to their rules, the Lord used them as an example to Israel what it meant to be faithful to one’s covenants, etc.
    The Talmud makes much mention of the Rechabites, and usually explains God's promise to mean that the Rechabites would be celebrated scribes and Sanhedrin members. Whether that happened isn't clear (some rabbis explain the scribal families of Jabez to be post-Jeremiah Rechabites) but Yose ben Halafta, the traditional 2nd century author of the Seder Olam Rabbah and fifth most mentioned rabbi in the Mishnah, was claimed to be a Rechabite (Genesis Rabba xcviii.13). A 12th century traveler named Benjamin of Tudela claimed to have met marauding bands of Jewish Rechabites in Arabia, and in the 19th century, a Jewish Christian missionary named Joseph Wolff found 60,000 of them in fervent expectation of the Messiah’s arrival to occur around the year 1840.
    In 1835 and riding the waves of the world-wide temperance movement, a club was created in Salford, England, which demanded abstinence from alcohol from its members, and which called itself the Independent Order of Rechabites. It swept across the Atlantic, and spawned the Independent Order of Rechabites of North America and the Encamped Knights of Rechab of North America. Local groups convened in "tents" and to become a member, one had to “believe in a Supreme Being.” Members could attain formal levels of commitment called degrees: Knight of Temperance, Knight of Fortitude and Covenanted Knight of Justice. Besides being an obvious Freemason rip-off, the "High Tent" of Rechabitism was headquartered in Washington D.C. and was instrumental in bringing about the eighteenth amendment to the United States' constitution, which in turn effected the Prohibition of 1920-1933.
    What happened to the Rechabites of Arabia after 1840 isn't clear but the Easton's Bible Dictionary of 1897 reports that "recently" near the Dead Sea a tribe was discovered which also claimed ancestry from Rechab.
    They were one of many such groups that passed through the Old Testament period and had some interaction, good or evil, with Israel, such as the Agagites, Gibeonites, Kadarites, Madains, Sebains, Arvadites, Dedanites, etc., etc., etc.
    I hope you are not going to tell me that Rechabites ended up in Malay because not a single Jewish source lays any claim to such a people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I hope you are not going to tell me that Rechabites ended up in Malay because not a single Jewish source lays any claim to such a people."

      Yes, according to Jewish and Christian sources such as the History of the Rechabites and the Narrative of Zosimus, they ended up on the Island of the Blessed around 600 BC.

      https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1081&index=20

      https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=16

      There are many reasons to believe that the Island of the Blessed is the Malay Peninsula.

      Delete
  12. Lol Del I knew he was going to say that. I guess you didn't know that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all originally settled in Malaysia. It's the original holy Land. Next Jay is going to tell you that is where the garden of Eden was located lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As mentioned before, the islands of the East Indies were believed by many Christians for centuries to be the location of the Garden of Eden. Christopher Columbus himself believed that Paradise was located there.

      This is an interesting book on the topic written by a well known population geneticist: Eden in the East

      http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/books/eden_in_the_east.php

      Delete
  13. Of course! And the Chinese are the true House of Israel. You are delusional Jay. Thats the only explanation at this point. At least I get a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ira, we are not talking about the "Chinese". I have told you this many times. We are talking about a Biblical clan that, according to many Arabic texts, are called the Qumr. They are the grandsons of Noah. We are also talking about the Kayin tribes of the Malay Peninsula (Kayin is the Hebrew word given to the Kenites) and the Bnei Mesnashe (People of Manasseh). You keep misrepresenting the model through false statements to make it sound outrageous and laughable. If you honestly believe that people find your argument that the Peruvians are House of Israel, but the Bnei Menashe (who are officially recognized as Manasseh) are not, then by all means have a good hearty laugh.

      Delete
    2. I certainly will laugh because your model is garbage. Those people are Chinese. Oh there certainly might be very few of the House of Israel in China but they aren't the Lamanites. The one or two of them would have descended from the 10 tribes.

      You simply do not understand the importance of lineage as it relates to the restoration. The people of Peru are indeed of the House of Israel because that is where the Lord brought them according to the revelation to FG Williams.

      When the Lord spoke of settling the tribes of Israel on the Islands there is one island completely ignored in all this discussion. When the restoration took place many thousands of Israelites were found on this island. Of course I am talking about England.

      One way you can tell where the Israelites are located is by the conversion rate in the countries. How many converts are found in the Muslim country of Malaysia? Not very many because they aren't the House of Israel. This is one indicator that you are ignoring because as I said you do not understand the importance of lineage in the restoration.

      As far as your rabbis telling you they are Manassah. Since when does the apostate Jews at this time have the gospel and can make such a pronouncement. They aren't inspired at this time. Why are you running after them? Why do you believe them and not the writings of FG Williams and Joseph Smith? Again you do not understand the restoration and the importance of lineage in the restoration.

      Delete
    3. You are intentionally misrepresenting the model:

      (1) The people/tribes I am discussing are not Chinese. They never lived in China, so how could they be Chinese? You're intentionally misrepresenting.

      (2) The people I am discussing are not Muslims in Malaysia. They have lived for millennia in the hills of Burma and India. Many millions of them have converted to Christianity at rates that exceed any other place in the world. They regions of Zoram in Burma/India has the highest concentration of Christians in the world...even higher than the island of England. So your argument that they are Muslims living in Malaysia doesn't hold. They are Burmese Christians. Christians in Burma are not Muslims in Malaysia. There is a big difference. You're intentionally misrepresenting.

      (3) The Bnei Menashe themselves claim to be the Tribe of Manasseh and are converting to Judaism and Christianity en masse. It hardly matters whether you believe them or not. You're intentionally misrepresenting.

      Delete
    4. One other thing that you might want to consider. The Lord often leads his people to where they have a greater chance to live righteous lives. They are in the North countries right now according to the scriptures. Why would the Lord lead them to a place where the surrounding people are pagan? The land of promise is described as a good land meaning there wasn't anybody there. There have been people in those eastern countries from ancient times. That is why your model is garbage. You need to reexamine and reject it because it does not confirm to revelation.

      Delete
    5. "The land of promise is described as a good land meaning there wasn't anybody there."

      By your own reasoning America cannot be the place, because there were people in the Americas before, during and after the Book of Mormon time period. The source from whence those people sprang was Asia.

      So if the Lord "often leads his people to where they have a greater chance to live righteous lives" then you need to explain why the Lord led all those pagan Asians to the Americas.

      Delete
    6. South America didn't have anybody because it was an island. You have to explain to me why you accept your lousy model that we all know there were people there from ancient times. You model doesn't fit. Mine does

      Delete
    7. Also those Asians as I explained to before are the Lamanites. When the tribes went North they married into the Asians. That is why the dna says Asian because through the mothers line is Asian.

      Your model is surrounded by the Chinese. I don't believe your people of Malaysia are nothing but Chinese. Today for example many Etheopeans which are black claim they are ethic Jews. Samething.

      Delete
    8. I am not talking about Malaysia. I am not talking about the Chinese. I propose we just agree to disagree. This will go nowhere, again.

      Delete
    9. You are here spouting your garbage I will respond. There has been not one reasonable argument from you. Your model is simply wrong and we all can see it. So you keep on spouting I will keep on pointing out the obvious errors. Del will polish you off with his scholarship.

      Delete
  14. Okay then if you want to believe that it's okay. They are not Lamanite. The Revelations tell us that the tribe of Manassah can be found in the North and in South America. Those people are likely not Manassah at all. Some rabbi came along at some point and convinced them they were. I'm going by revelation. What are you going by?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going by the revelations that we have that Polynesians/Austronesians and the inhabitants of the Isles of the Sea are Lehites. We have revelation that clearly identifies the inhabitants of the isles of the sea as being from the House of Israel. But you are so fixated on South America that you are having trouble accepting it. Do you believe the revelations that Polynesians/Austronesians are Lehites?

      I am also going by the LDS patriarchal blessings that have identified many many people of this region of Asia as being from the Tribe of Manasseh. Did you know that LDS members in certain parts of Asia have been identified as coming from every branch of the House of Israel?

      I don't know what your hangup is.

      Delete
  15. You didn't answer the question which is typical. The hang up is Malaysia is the wrong continent. England is the island referred to in Scripture. I don't know if the Polynesians are from South America or not. We know from revelation that Lehi landed in Chile. So then how do you get Malaysia? They are all Chinese. So what is your hang up that you can't accept revelation? FG Williams revelation says Chile. Where is your revelation that says Malaysia.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Unknown: Hugh Nibley was not saying the Rechabites sailed to Malay or anywhere else, but only that they, like numerous small groups of Israelites of the time, separated themselves from the cityh life and went into the desert or wilderness to live, a back to the past type of concept. We have the Amish, etc., in the U.S. in somewhat of the same philosophical origins. That is a far cry from a Malay connection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Rechabites were led to the Island of the Blessed. According to most scholarly assessments, the Island of the Blessed is the Malay Archipelago.

      https://www.academia.edu/21785432/Two_Eastern_Christian_Sources_on_Medieval_Nusantara

      Delete
  17. ...they did this to distance themselves from the corruptions of city life. Those of the Dead Sea Scrolls were another such group and others can be found in history who did the same thing. This is not being led by the Lord to a distant land like Lehi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Rechabites were led to the Island of the Blessed. According to most scholarly assessments, the Island of the Blessed is the Malay Archipelago.

      https://www.academia.edu/21785432/Two_Eastern_Christian_Sources_on_Medieval_Nusantara

      Delete
  18. Lol so you aren't relying on revelation but rather what scholars tell you. At least we have that cleared up. Now tell me why you reject the revelation to FG Williams.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I reject it for the same reason I reject everything so and so said about Book of Mormon geography. If you accepted everything someone said then the Book of Mormon had a hemispheric setting, and an Upstate New York setting and a Mesoamerican setting.

      You do realize that the Heartland modelers use this argument of "so and so once revealed" to reject the South American model?

      Delete
  19. Really Jay. So fg Williams didn't know anything about Chile but he mailed exactly the only place he could have landed. Del has verified it but you reject it. I guess that's okay because I reject everything you say

    ReplyDelete
  20. The word is nailed. Jay you have no ability to discern what is real revelation and what is only opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guilty as charged. I have always struggled to discern between revelation and what is opinion. I don't know how both FG Williams can be correct about the Lehites landing in Chile and the Times and Seasons can be right about the Lehites landing "a little south of the Isthmus of Darien". Both cannot be correct, and I do not know which is opinion and which is revelation. What about the FG Williams comment makes you certain that it is revelation? Is the Times & Seasons comment wrong? Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere on this blog. It is not always easy to search past articles.

      Delete
  21. Because the details of this revelation are very specific and they check out completely when examined. This revelation was given to FG Williams. Only the specifics are known of this revelation. Revelation from God has a specific metaphorical language that can only be understood by the spirit of prophecy or explained by one who has that spirit. In this case we have a revelation that gives specifics. When the details are checked they fit perfectly. In this case there is a sea path out of Arabia to 30degrees South lat. At that location is found all the conditions the Nephi describe. All the details of revelation had to match and they do. That is the difference between true revelation and merely opinion.

    So with that do you have a specific revelation that tells you that Lehi sailed out of Arabia to the Malay penisula? Do you have one that tells you degrees North-south latitude? At that location will you find all the conditions that Nephi describes?

    Sense we know there is no sea path to Malaysia we know your model fails right from the start. We also know that the place does not have the right climate. How about the other factors such as minerals that are available. All these things have to match if you have a revelation which we do in the case of FG Williams.

    We already know that other places are only opinion because when to check out the specifics they do not match

    There is no sea path to the ismas of Darian. The conditions there do not match anything that Nephi said. This is opinion and not revelation. So that is how you tell and again it it obvious you simply don't understand the difference. In that regard I'm glad you asked.

    ReplyDelete