Wednesday, December 26, 2018

More Comments from Readers – Part II

Here are more comments that we have received from readers of this website blog:
Comment #1: “The Mulekite migration to the New World appears to have been between the destruction of Jerusalem, 587 B.C. and the overthrow of Babylon in 539 B.C. This I adduce from the phrase “driven out,” used in the account “Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us., and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem? (Helaman 8:20-21) Dennis C.
    Response: Zedekiah and his sons were driven out of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Mulek, his only surviving son, was: “The people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon” (Omni 1:15). That was about 587 B.C., not 40 or 50 years later. Whether he was “driven out” or “came out” of his own (or his adult protectors’) volition is unknown. The phrase “driven out” in 1828 meant “constrained by necessity” (better to leave than to stay), “impelled to move” (moved by force) or “urged forward by force” (to press; to drive; to impel). There is no doubt they came out of Jerusalem as a result of the Babylonians—had they not left, Mulek would surely have been killed, even if a lad or baby.  
“And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth” (Omni 1:16). Why people continue to try and cloud the issue with added ideas rather than what is said is hard to understand.
    In addition, Mulek and those who brought him came out of Jerusalem and were led by the hand of the Lord—which means this was not a group of people rushing out looking for a ship somewhere to hire along the Mediterranean. They were led by the Lord, as Lehi was led by the Lord. Also, there is no indication that Mosiah discovered Zarahemla along the east coast, nor in the number of cities mentioned along the east are there any that indicate they were named Zarahemla.
Comment #2: “I just wandered onto your site as I've been looking into these things recently. In a recent blog post, responding to David McKane's 24 questions, you say that the East Sea exists as you have described in a 13,000-year-old world. I am only asking for reference, but are you of the opinion that the Creation represented a period of 6000 years as per interpreting "day" under the context of 2 Peter 3:8 and Abraham 5:13? This of course being added upon by the last 6000, equaling 13,000 in total? Ninthtale
    Response: The time frame is based on more than the two quotes you make, and in part by the description of the time of the Earth and the patriarchal lives as indicated by Moses who wrote in Genesis and the Book of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price, which lists the time frame of the creation. These tell us the Lord dictated to him—which Joseph Smith used verbatim in his second session of the School of the Prophets in which he tested the brethren to make sure they learned those dates. In addition, since there was no death before Adam, then there could not have been millions or billions of years before man of anything living. 13,000 years would be a rough approximation.
The "day" period in the scriptural record, which the Lord dictated to Moses to write, is not an exact 365-day year, or 24-hour day, etc. In other words, did Adam and Eve spend 1000 years in the Garden of Eden? Undoubtedly not. But the idea of 13,000 as a rounded figure is used and basically correct. If you were to read our book Scientific Fallacies and Other Myths, all the information is therein listed and referenced.
Comment #3: “I explain more in my comments on the promised land, but my general point was that the Nephites must not have actually explored that far north or they would have discovered the Mulekites or the remains of the Jaredites” Tyrus.
    Response: You may well be right in that the very top of the island may not have been visited and the Sea North seen by exploration; however, one would not have had to see that to understand they were on an island given the amount of water that would be seen exploring along the coast of the Sea East nearly to the top (northern most) of the island combined with seeing the Sea South and the Sea West on their approach by ship. In addition, Limhi's expedition was sent to look for Zarahemla, not explore, and thus they may have been in areas more conducive to seeing inland than an exploring party; however, that is merely speculation. In reality, it tends toward a vision and the Lord rather than walking around the entire island to know they were on an isle. The point is, Jacob said they were on an island that was in the midst of the sea over which they traveled, i.e., the sea was their path to the island on which they lived—a subject which would have been understood by Nephi, Sam and Zoram, and their wives, and possibly by Jacob personally having been somewhere around 6 to 10 years old when making the original journey to the Land of Promise.
Comment #4: “If your Book of Mormon actually took place in the Americas, why has no one found the cities mentioned within the work, such as Nephi, Zarahemla, Bountiful, etc.? After all, we know where the Biblical Jerusalem is located” Rob E.
    Response: Names do not remain constant over time. You mention Jerusalem, but you might not be aware of the fact that this city’s name changed numerous times, based on conquest and linguistic changes. From the Canaanite u-ru-sa-lim derived the Hebrew Yerushalem or Yerushalayim.
The city was also frequently called the City of David, Salem, and Zion, giving five common names for Jerusalem in the Old Testament alone. The Greeks called the city both Ierousalem and Hierosolyma; the Latins retained Hierosolyma. However, following the Roman conquest in A.D. 135, the emperor Hadrian changed the name to Aelia Capitolina. It retained its identity as Jerusalem only because Christians eventually came to dominate the Roman Empire and changed the name back.
    Following the Muslim conquests, however, the city was called Aliya (from the Roman Aelia), Bayt al-Maqdis, or al-Quds, as it still is by Palestinians today. If Christianity had been exterminated rather than becoming the dominant religion of the Roman empire, what linguistic evidence would we have that al-Quds of today was the ancient Jerusalem? None at all. For example, the Greeks renamed all of the major Egyptian cities with Greek names, such as Hierakonopolis for the Egyptian Nekhen; Heliopolis for the Egyptian Iunu; Diospolis Magna or Thebes for the Egyptian Waset; Hermopolis for the Greek Khmun. Although some of these names represent translations of Egyptian names, in almost no cases is there a phonetic relationship among these changes. In addition, the Classical Greek Byzantium became Constantinople in the fourth century A.D., and eventually Istanbul in the fifteenth century; Baghdad has been known as Kish (Sumerian), Agade (Akkadian), Babylon, Seleucia (Greek), Ctesiphon (Persian), and Dar al-Salam (Muslim).
    Without a continuity of occupation, names slip into oblivion from one culture to another, which is exactly what we find in the Americas. And in Central and South America (Andes), names known today are the invention of archaeologists and anthropologist who give areas they are working on names according to location, and names known at the time. As an example, what were the original names of Cuzco, Tiwanaku, Cajamarka, Kuelap, Chan-Chan, Ollantaytambo, and Machu Picchu?
    What was he original name of Saltillo claimed to date back to the last Ice Age on Central coast of British Columbia, Canada. Since a 13,000-year-old skeleton was found in an underwater cave near Tulum, what was the original settlement name of what the Yucatecs called Tu’lum, on the Caribbean coast of the Yucatan before the Maya built there? Was it anciently called Zama (City of Dawn) as some have suggested, because it was built facing the sunrise, or perhaps the name Siguanaba, the Maya word for cliff or bluff, upon which it was built?
Comment #5: “Why do you keep talking about the Flood, since scientists and geologists claim it never happened!” T. E.
A carving of Allessandro Masnago in Milan around 1600, from a woodcut by the French book illustrator Bernard Salomon around 1540s

Response: We are not the ones that claim there was Noah’s Flood, the Lord is the one who claims it. First, in the Bible in Genesis, and then during his visit to the Nephites in which he said, “For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee” (3 Nephi 22:9).
    Joseph Fielding Smith said it best: “So far as the philosophy and wisdom of the world are concerned, they mean nothing unless they conform to the revealed word of God. Any doctrine, whether it comes in the name of religion, science, philosophy, or whatever it may be, if it is in conflict with the revealed word of the Lord, will fail. It may appear plausible. It may be put before you in language that appeals and which you may not be able to answer. It may appear to be established by evidence that you cannot controvert, but all you need to do is to abide your time. Time will level all things. You will find that every doctrine, every principle, no matter how universally believed, if it is not in accord with the divine word of the Lord to his servants, will perish. Nor is it necessary for us to try to stretch the word of the Lord in a vain attempt to make it conform to these theories and teachings. The word of the Lord shall not pass away unfulfilled, but these false doctrines and theories will all fail. Truth, and only truth, will remain when all else has perished (Conference Report, Oct. 1952, p60)


  1. I'm a geologist and I believe in flood. So no, not all geologists believe in the world's propaganda and war against Christianity.

  2. You are an exceptional genius and belong to a small minority--too bad more geologists aren't like you. After all, if they understood God's word and workings as you do, how much further they could have advanced the field they are in, and how much more truth the world would have known.

  3. Hi Del, This is a little late but just published a short article about their RATE study that was completed some 15 years ago or so. They found that the diffusion rate of Helium from Zircon crystals give an age date of about 7,000 years for the earth. It is interesting that they would come up with a date such as that. I know the idea that the earth is about 13,000 years is intriguing too and that is based solely on the scriptures. I thought you might be interested in the results. Beats me if it is accurate or not. The fact that it shows a young earth is good enough for me.

    Happy new year! You're doing a great work.

  4. Wow! Maybe this work will provide some movement among mainstream professionals toward the truth, though I won't hold my breath for it. Thanks for the reference. Have a great and successful New Year.