Answering Recent Comments – Part XVIII

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first sixty comments were answered in the previous 17 posts, the sixty-first and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #61 “You Mormons claim the Nephites sailed east from Palestine and came ashore in South or Central America. The Mulekites are inferred to have crossed the Atlantic and landed on the Caribbean coast of Central America. Just what it was about the American environment that caused all these Caucasians to turn into Amerindians is unclear, but most Mormons will tell you it was "sin" that did it. Sounds rather ridiculous, don’t you think?”

Response: When Cain killed his brother Able, the Lord cursed him and placed a mark upon him (Genesis 4:11-16). The curse was that the earth would not yield its fruits to Cain’s future efforts, and the mark was to set him apart as a fugitive and a wanderer and to preserve his life. The Syriac Christianity of the 1^st century A.D. claims the mark was a black skin, as does the Eastern Christian Armenian Adam-book of the 4^th Century A.D. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, says: “And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.” However, you want to interpret Genesis 4:11-16, the point is that for sin, or because of sin, Cain was marked and cursed. So, yes, for sin, the sons of Lehi, Laban and Lemuel, and those with them, were marked and cursed for their sins, which mark and curse survived the thousand years of the Book of Mormon and remained with Laban and Lemuel’s seed or descendants. Personally, I never consider what the Lord does as being ridiculous. It may not be understood by the human finite mind, but God’s infinite knowledge far exceeds anything human. As a sidelight, the Lehi Colony traveled south, then south by southeast along the red sea from the Palestine area and finally nearly eastward until they reached the Arabian Sea. From there they sailed to the Western Hemisphere. It is unlikely that the Mulekites sailed, across the Atlantic, but probably followed along about ten years later the same course the Lehi Colony took. Also, Caucasians did not turn into Amerindians—the Lamanite civilization survived the wars with the Nephites and were all that remained in the Land of Promise (Western Hemisphere). They are, at least in part, the original American Indians.

Comment #62 “I read somewhere about the Book of Mormon geography, that for any two places on a map, there are two pieces of information that describe the relationship of one place to the other.  One piece describes one place as north or south of the other place.  The other piece of information describes one place as east or west of the other.  A visual way to show these relationships is to draw a line between the two places.  If there are 3 places, there are 3 lines (or 6 relationships).  For 4 places, there are 6 lines that connect all 4 places (12 relationships).  For 5 places, 10 lines connect each place (20 relationships), etc.”

Response: You have to love people who try to use information, scientific or not, to locate the cities, rivers, valleys, mountains, etc., of the Book of Mormon from the meager details left us by Mormon in his abridgement. There are so few locations that can be identified, if for no other reason than we do not know any distances between two points. As an example, Wendover is west of Salt Lake City, and both Elko and San Francisco are west of that. Does that give you a clear picture of the distances between these cities? Provo is south of Salt Lake City, as is both Milford and Montecello, with Phoenix south of both of them. Does that give you any idea of the distances or actual directions involved? We know that the city of Zarahemla was north of the city of Nephi—but to the east, west, or directly north? The city of Bountiful was far to the north, and the city of Desolation to the north of that—but at what distances and in what exact direction? We know that Manti was to the west of the Sidon River, and Moroni to the east, but we do not know at what distances from the river either city was, or the distance from Manti to Moroni. As an example, using more or less Book of Mormon directions, but using a location within the United States and the cities therein, see if you can draw a logical map with reasonably accurate distances of the following real locations without seeking the internet, atlas, or map. Troy is south of Wetumpka, which is west of Lake Martin, with Cataula to the east of that, Butler to the east of that, Manchester to the north, and Tyrone and Fairburn to the north of that. And so far north you come to Harrison Bay near Middle Valley and the city of Soddy-Daisy. I think you would agree that such information does not help much except in very general terms, yet, these areas actually exist, and is located in the area of Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky. In addition, the information you quote, by the way, is in relationship to a Mesoamerican model setting, which is not where the Land of Promise was located.

Comment #63 “You say the Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. Why then is there no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon's "cities, persons, animals, fabrics, metals, wars and war implements, kings, palaces, or crops" but "the archaeological evidence for the Bible is so convincing that even a former skeptic such as the great archaeologist Sir William Ramsay became converted to Christian belief."

Response: I can’t speak for William Ramsey, however, while there is evidence of the city of Jericho, there is no archaeological evidence for the Good Samaritan who was on his way there. While there is a place called Bethlehem, there is no archaeological evidence of a stable where Christ was born. Except in Jewish tradition, there is no archaeological evidence of David’s defeat of Goliath, Samson’s pulling down the Philistine Temple of Dagon, or that Peter and the others fished on the Sea of Galilee. Not even science believes there is any evidence of the Great Flood. Now don’t get me wrong, I believe in all those things, but when someone starts talking about no evidence of the Book of Mormon, we are trying to compare apples and oranges. I remember in my early youth, there were many who did not accept the Bible, but over time, little by little (thousands of years as a matter of fact), the Bible has become more and more accepted. The Book of Mormon has only been in print 182 years. Few people have really been involved in archaeological evidence to prove it, etc., and almost no one ever in South America. As for evidence, there is plenty of evidence in South America (and some in Mesoamerica) of an advanced civilization during Book of Mormon times, numerous accomplishments rivaling and, in some cases according to the early conquistadors, surpassing Spain and even Rome’s accomplishments. However, is there evidence that Alma built churches there, is there evidence that Hagoth had a shipyard, or that King Benjamin addressed his people form a tower built within the temple grounds? Of course not. The kind of evidence that proves something like Biblical or Book of Mormon events is always coupled with faith, belief and understanding. That, over time, the Bible has earned. But by comparison, the Book of Mormon is only in its infancy—in the Bible’s infancy, few people believed in it.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XIX,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XVII

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first fifty-six comments were answered in the previous 16 posts, the fifty-seventh and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #57 “One area of major contradiction between these limited geography theories and the Book of Mormon concerns the identity and location of the hill Cumorah. John L. Sorenson locates Cumorah in Central America, at a site only 90 miles from the "narrow neck,” which conflicts with the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah as "an exceeding great distance" from the narrow neck into the "land northward" (Helaman 3:3,4). If the Isthmus of Tehuantepec — Sorenson's "narrow neck" of land — at 120 miles across is "narrow," how can the 90 miles from the "narrow neck" to Sorenson's Cumorah fit the Book of Mormon description of "an exceeding great distance"

Response: Another point in showing that the Book of Mormon lands were not in Mesoamerica as so many Mesoamerican Theorists claim. Like your comment, the things about the area simple don’t jive with the scriptural record. As a side note, Sorenson’s narrow neck is actually 144 miles across according to local area government records.

The Hill Cumorah in upstate New York. Not only does Mesoamerica not fit, neither does this small hill (right of image) which would never have provided either 1) hiding area where the Lamanites would not have seen Nephite survivors, 2) height enough for a battle to be overseen by Nephite leaders, 3) height enough to have seen the destruction of 23 officers and their commands (230,000 Nephite warriors), or 4) a place for Moroni to hide from the battle-crazed Lamanites after their annihilation of the Nephite army—none of this agrees with the depiction of the Hill and Land of Cumorah described by Mormon

Comment #58 “I find the following statement of great interest in showing your ideas of proof of the Book of Mormon: ‘Former Brigham Young University anthropology professor, Dr. Raymond T. Matheny, at an August 25, 1984 Sunstone conference in Salt Lake City, stated that after working in the area of Mesoamerican archaeology for twenty-two years, he reported his conclusion that the scientific evidence simply does not support the existence of the peoples and events chronicled in the Book of Mormon, be it in Central America or anywhere else in the western hemisphere.’ How can you possibly counter that?”

Response: If Professor Matheny had spent 22 years searching for Book of Mormon scientific evidence on the moon, I would expect him not to find any. Nor would I expect him to find any proof to the scriptural record in Mesoamerica, where he did spend 22 years. When a person looks in the wrong place for something, no matter how long he takes, he can’t expect to find anything, because it simply is not there. As for his statement “or anywhere else in the western hemisphere” is a silly comment, even for him. After 22 years in Mesoamerica, what on earth could he know about anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere? He was never in South America, so what could he know about that area and the Book of Mormon? By the way, also in that conference of which you mention, Metheny said, “You can't refine ore without leaving a bloom of some kind or impurities that blossom out and float to the top of the ore...and also the flux of limestone or whatever is used to flux the material…[This] blooms off into silicas and indestructible new rock forms. In other words, when you have a ferroused metallurgical industry, you have these evidences of the detritus that is left over. You also have the fuels, you have the furnaces, you have whatever technologies that were there performing these tasks; they leave solid evidences. And they are indestructible things...No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size kind of problem, it seems to me, for the so-called Book of Mormon archaeology. This evidence is absent." However, once again Prof Matheny searches in Mesoamerica where no iron or metallurgy technology has been found before 600 to 800 A.D. and concludes that “no where in the New World” is it found. That is simply fallacious for all sorts of evidence of metallurgy has been found in the Andean area of South America dating to the last millennium B.C. You cannot find what you are looking for when you look in the wrong area. I wonder if anyone would take me seriously if I said I had spent 22 years in Mesoamerican and could not find any archaeological evidence that Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great had ever lived. Unfortunately, Prof. Matheny is more of a Book of Mormon critic than a supporter, so you quote from a prejudicial source. When this good professor decides to spend 22 years in Peru and then comes up saying he didn’t find any evidence of the Book of Mormon, I would be more inclined to take him seriously, though I would question his abilities since numerous other archaeologists have found such evidence there.

Comment #59 “Archaeological evidence shows conclusively that the western hemisphere was populated at least as far back as 10,000 B.C. by east Asian peoples who migrated across the Bering Strait. It is these Mongolian peoples who are the ancestors of the American Indians, according to numerous archaeologists and anthropologists.”

The destructive power of the Great Flood of Noah’s time would have destroyed any trace of anything living and almost all features of the world. No one could possible know what might have happened prior to this Flood

Response: I have written many times about what science claims existed in previous eons. Between 10,000 B.C. and now, there was a Great Flood, of which only Noah’s immediate family survived. It is hard to say what evidence might exist today of that prior, antediluvian period. But no matter the evidence, if any, survived the catastrophic flood, everyone was wiped off the face of the earth except for Noah’s family in the Ark. Thus, Moroni’s remark in Ether 13:2, that after the waters had receded, the Lord kept the Land of Promise free of all except who he would send there. As a result, when science talks about finding 10,000 year old evidence of anything, one might want to be a little suspicious.

Comment #60 “Many articles and books about the geography of the Book of Mormon are not written by people using any kind of scientific method to determine the locations of each place.  The error that occurs when someone is not using scientific methods is that the author introduces their own biases and opinions.  Biases and opinions are not facts; hence, they only serve to confuse the facts that are present.  Their opinions may ultimately turn out to be correct or incorrect, but for now, they cannot be proved right or wrong.”

Response: Obviously, science has its place. And just as obviously, people who create models tend to have a lot of opinions and bias involved. However, the error of locating maps regarding Book of Mormon geography is not because they do not use a “scientific method” in that location, but because they do not use the scriptural record as the basis for all decisions, locations, places, comparisons, understandings, etc. As an example, we do not locate the Land of Promise in the Andean area of South American because science tells us that east of the Andean fault line was under water anciently, we look to the Andean area because we know where Lehi started his ocean voyage, and where the winds and currents would have taken a sailing ship dependent upon those winds and currents since the scriptural record tells us they were “driven forth before the wind.” The fact that the science part backs up and supports the scriptural record is a welcome plus.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XVIII,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XVI

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first fifty-three comments were answered in the previous 15 posts, the fifty-fourth and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #54 “You Mormons talk about the Bible being the word of God so long as it is translated correctly; however, you do not hold the same for the Book of Mormon. In addition, how does anyone know if all the different languages you have translated the Book of Mormon into have been translated correctly?”

Response: Five points in answer: 1) Early transcribers of the Bible were more like copyists, not translators, and their mistakes were often intentional, changing wordage and meaning to fit their church understanding of what the scriptures meant, not specifically what they said. In addition, there were translators who may not have been interested in being 100% accurate. One example of this problem is that of the scholar Erasmus in 1516—he was so moved to correct the numerous errors in the corrupt Latin Vulgate, that with the help of printer John Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament; 2) There are numerous versions of the Bible--today there are some 450 different versions or translations, with the top ten sellers being the New American Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, King James Version, The Message, New American Standard Bible, New Living Translation, Revised Standard Version, Amplified Bible, and the Orthodoxy Study Bible. There is also the New King James Version, etc. 3) There were numerous translations, each providing a chance of error: The Hebrew Bible was translated into three Greek versions (the Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila Septuagints), into Latin (St. Jerome Latin Vulgate, Old Latin Septuagint), into Aramaic (Targums), into Syriac (Peshitta), into Masonretic Text consonantal and Masoretic Text pointed, German (Luther and Zwingli), into English (Nicholas Hereford Version, John Purvey Version), and various others (William Tyndale, John Rogers, Richard Taverner, Great Bible, Bishop’s Bible, King James (1611), Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition), Jerusalem (English) Version, New Revised Standard Version, Good News Version, New International Version, John Paul II Neo-Vulgate, etc.; 4) The Book of Mormon was translated only once, from the original writings of ancient prophets, through the Urim and Thummim under the guidance of the Spirit; and 5) All translations from the original English translation into other languages is a most careful process, with the only structure change in a single language at a time, not from language to language to language, etc. with the biggest difference in having the original translation available for checking, and all translations double-checked against the original translation—something the earlier copyists and translators did not have.

Comment #55 “With the Hill Cumorah in upstate New Yori, where the plates were retrieved and where the final battle of the Nephites and Lamanites took place, it seems ridiculously strange that the two opposing armies would have marched the thousands of miles from Central America (or even further from South America) in order to stage their final conflict. There is no way that makes sense and yet another proof of the falseness of your Book of Mormon.”

Response: You are absolutely correct—it would be ridiculous to make such a march. That is why the Hill Cumorah in upstate New York where Joseph Smith was directed by the angel Moroni to secure the plates, is simply another hill with the same name in a totally different geographical area. First of all, it is not unusual for people (all people) when settling an area to give a place a name from an earlier time. When Lehi reached the Irreantum Sea (Arabian Sea), he named the place Bountiful—and when the Nephites settled the furthest northern area of the Land Southward in the Land of Promise, they also named it Bountiful--in a totally different hemisphere. Several names in the Book of Mormon were Old World names, including a city of Jerusalem in the Land of Promise. When the early Spanish came into the New World, they named the entire area that was under their control by the name: New Spain, and the English settlers arrived in the New World named many places after Old World cities and areas. The fact that a hill in New York was also named Cumorah is not unusual as long as we remember that the name Cumorah came from the angel and was known as such within the early Church—that was not the name of the hill as known by local and earlier settlers of the area, in fact historically, it had no name at all. After Joseph Smith, the hill became known to those outside the church as Mormon Hill, Gold Bible Hill, and to some members as Inspiration Point. As for the distance involved between the two areas, it would be far easier for one man—Moroni—to move the plates from an original Hill Cumorah in the Land of Promise to the hill in Manchester, New York, than to assume or make a case for two opposing armies to march thousands of unnecessary miles to do battle.

Comment #56 “Another significant problem for traditional Book of Mormon geography involves the premise that the native populations of the vast North and South American continents are the descendents of two tiny groups of transoceanic Semitic immigrants (the Jaredites, who arrived in the New World between 3000 - 2000 B.C. but later battled themselves to extinction, and the Nephites and Mulekites, who arrived beginning about 600 B.C.)”

Response: There is no question that many members of the Church think or believe that all American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites of the Book of Mormon. When Moroni, the last Nephite, wrote in about 400 A.D., “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” (Ether 13:2). The waters was the Great Flood of Noah’s time, about 200 to 300 years or so before the Jaredites arrived. If any people were led to that land between the Flood waters receding and the Jaredite arrive, we have no knowledge, nor is there any reference of such in the scriptural record. When the Lord told Ether to call Coriantumr to repentance or he would destroy him and his nation, and that he “should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance” (Ether 13:21) there could have been no others already in the land or the prophesy would not have made sense. That “other people,” then, was obviously the Mulekites into whose city he wandered, lived for nine months, and then died. Had anyone else been in the Land of Promise, then the Lord’s prophesy to Coriantumr through Ether would have been in error. When the Lord promised Lehi that his land of promise would be kept from the knowledge of others, and the only other people shown Lehi and Nephi in visions were the gentiles of Columbus time and afterward, then one must recognize that we are seeing any reference whatever of any other people at any time in the Land of Promise prior to the last words written by Moroni in 421 A.D. By the time the Nephites (and Mulekites) arrived from Jerusalem in about 600 to 585 B.C., the Jaredites were near extinction. Again, if there were any others in the Land of Promise prior to that than these three groups, we have no evidence from the scriptural record. Thus, any combination of other people mixed in with the blood line of the various tribes and peoples found in the New World when the Spanish and later French and English arrived would have to have been after the demise of the Nephites. What peoples mixed with what tribes, etc., is not known, but obviously, and with certainty, many lineages were intermixed after the sixteenth century.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XV,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XV

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first fifty comments were answered in the previous 14 posts, the fifty-first and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #51 “The scriptures do not say "clearly lead the Lehi Colony to the southern coast of Arabia" as you claim. 1 Nephi 17:1, 'nearly eastward' could mean northeast, to Lebanon, sailing out the Mediterranean.”

Response: If you read the scriptures, you will find that the Lehi Colony was far south along the east coast of the Red Sea, after traveling for many days (1 Nephi 16:15,17) from the borders of the Red Sea (1 Nephi 2:5). At the point where they turned “nearly eastward” (1 Nephi 17:1), Lebanon would be northwest, not northeast, and to get to Lebanon from that point along the Red Sea, they would have had to retrace their steps toward Jerusalem, pick up the King’s Highway along the east coast of the Dead Sea, and travel through Jordan. To go northeast, as you suggest, would take them 1045 miles across the Empty Quarter, an area where there were no water holes and where people in four-wheel vehicles today do not travel. Besides, even if you could go that way, you would end up in the area of Kuwait, over 805 miles from the Mediterranean. None of this would be a likely route for the Lehi colony, which was traveling secretively to keep the Jews from trailing after them and killing Lehi (1 Nephi 1:20; 4:36). The route they took, along the Frankincense Trail, would lead them only to the shores of the Arabian Sea. In fact, the scriptural record does say that is where they went.

As can be clearly seen, the trek of the Lehi Colony toward the southeast, following the eastern shore of the Red Sea as the scriptural record reads, there is no way they sailed out of the Mediterranean Sea

Comment #52 “According to Joseph Smith and subsequent presidents and apostles of the LDS Church, the geographical extent of Book of Mormon lands included virtually all of North and South America.”

Response: This is not exactly correct. Joseph Smith and others have always maintained that the Land of Promise, that is the land that “became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord” (Ether 13:2) was the entire Western Hemisphere, that is, North and South America. The lands specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon in which the Jaredite civilization, Nephite nation, and Lamanites existed between about 2100 B.C. to about 421 A.D., are only a part of that promised land, and nether Joseph Smith nor any apostles have, in speaking for the Church, ever said where they were specifically located. Obviously, like many of us today, they had their opinions, and sometimes mentioned those opinions, but the Church has never made any such statement. The problem members of the Church have, as well as others, including critics of the Book of Mormon, is that they get these two thoughts mixed up, and seldom, if ever, distinguish between them. There are two specific areas involved in this land that the Lord promised to the tribes of Manessah and Ephraim: 1) the overall land—the Western Hemisphere, and 2) the Book of Mormon lands where the events of the scriptural record take place. The latter, obviously, is located within the former, but the latter, the actual lands of the Book of Mormon, have never been officially located or identified by the Church or any of its leaders.

Comment #53 “I find your claims untenable. As an example, despite the teaching of the Church's spiritual leaders, unquestioned for a hundred years, a number of Mormon scholars have concluded that the traditional view of Book of Mormon geography is unrealistic. Their conclusions are based on a number of major problems that arise when one attempts to apply Book of Mormon descriptions of travel times and population growth to the vast territories of North and South America. For instance, while the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the rival Nephite and Lamanite civilizations were centered near the "narrow neck" of land (understood to be somewhere in Central America), it says that they agreed to meet for their epic final battle at the "Hill Cumorah" (Mormon 6:1-6). Joseph Smith and Mormon tradition locate this site several thousand miles distant in New York state. It is difficult to find a reasonable explanation for why the armies would travel this immense distance to do battle.”

Response: When the Book of Mormon was first published, many read it, including church leaders and members, and assumed North America was the Land Northward, South America was the Land Southward, and Central America was the narrow land in between. This was a common belief well into my teen years. It was based on general concepts, not specific reading of geographical terms. After all, the early church members and leaders were interested far more in the spiritual matters, and the doctrines stated therein, and were not concerned about location other than a general understanding of these Western Hemispheric lands.

When knowledge of the ruins in Central America emerged, many people immediately saw that as a verification of the Book of Mormon civilizations living there thousands of years ago. Sometime in the 1940-1950s, archaeological and anthropological minds began to think in terms of specific locations, which  became known as the Limited Geography Theory, which matched the actual descriptions of the scriptural record. The problem arose when people began limiting the entire concept of the promised land to merely the areas described in the Book of Mormon, and not understanding its much broader significance. Obviously, Joseph Smith did, for he knew the Nephites and Lamanites were not only in South and Central America, but also in North America—something few people have really understood. Consequently, in trying to apply many of Joseph’s comments to a limited area, problems and misunderstandings have occurred.

However, there is no conflict in any of this. In a very brief and simple explanation, these events occurred: 1) Lehi landed around the 30º south latitude as Joseph Smith said; 2) they moved northward along the Andean plain and occupied the areas of Peru and Ecuador and western Bolivia which is where most of the Book of Mormon took place; 3) in the last century B.C., ships were built and many thousands of men, women and children emigrants set sail northward from that area and landed in what is now Central (Meso) America. The ruins we find in both the Andean area and Mesoamerica testify to their existence in these lands. We also know, 4) that Nephites and Lamanites traveled further northward and eastward and occupied the area from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean from Joseph’s explanation of the warrior Zelph and the prophet Onandagus. However we need to keep in mind, that the lands illustrated in the scriptural record took place where Lehi landed and where Nephi traveled—from mid-Chile to southern Peru, and from there Mosiah went further northward and eventually the Nephites spread as far north as the Ecuadorian southern Colombian area.

That is the location of the Book of Mormon lands. But, the promised land mentioned in Ether 13:2 is all of the Western Hemisphere, where the Nephites and Lamanites expanded, and eventually, where Lamanite descendants were found when the Spanish arrived, from the Inca in the south to the American Indians in the north. In all of this there is no contradiction in any of the Book of Mormon, or anything most church leaders have ever proposed.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XV,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XIV

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first forty-eight comments were answered in the previous thirteen posts, the forty-ninth and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #49 “Come now, do you really claim that the wind and sea currents from the coast of Oman would only take a sailing ship in the direction you claim? It seems to me that your wind and sea currents need some elasticity. What about the sailing of the Phoenician sailing ship Phoenicia in 2008 that traveled around Africa from the Arabian Sea to the Atlantic, etc.?” Reggie

Response: Sea currents and wind currents are what they are and they haven’t changed in all of known history. And the currents of the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean move as has been shown in these numerous posts.

The wind and sea currents of the planet are well documented and images can be found on the internet and in any atlas. The more detailed the information, the more accurate it becomes

As for your ship Phoenicia, it was basically a coastal vessel and definitely unsuited for deep sea crossings. It never got further away from shore than the Azores, and sailed in modern times with exact knowledge of winds and currents, distances, land sites, known locations for food, equipment, and service replacements, etc. It had been built buy experienced shipping companies, had an experienced sailing crew, was sponsored by the Osman shipping company, the Syrian Chamber of Shipping, the Royal Cape Yacht Club, Horta Marina of the Azores, the city of Cape Town, and had for equipment sponsors ten different companies, with Pioneer Expeditions and Risk Management Consultants for expedition advisors. They had Raymarine providing sonar, depth, speed, and radar to assist in their navigation, and the crew at all times knew they were within radio distance of air and sea rescue, with most of the Arab world following their day to day accomplishments along with the security agency of Drum Cussac, one of the leading maritime security agencies. While I would not wish to diminish what was accomplished, it cannot compare with crossing the deep ocean in a ship of farmers who had never been to sea. In addition, when people of today start talking about and comparing voyage achievements, most lack the understanding of the difference between coastal vessels and deep sea ships. While that difference today is fleeting, it was paramount to life and death in centuries past.

Comment #50 “I read the following in a FAIR publication: ‘At first glance there appears to be a problem with Book of Mormon directions and the layout of Mesoamerica. Whereas the Nephites generally used terms such as “northward” and “southward,” the hourglass shape of Mesoamerica runs northwest and southeast. To put it simply, the directional systems of some ancient cultures were not based on the same cultural principals as ours. Thus, a Mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon is not problematic when considering cardinal directions.’” Lester R.

Response: First, Mesoamerica, contrary to all Mesoamerican Theorists, does not run northwest and southeast. Mesoamerica is located on the isthmus that connects North and South America, and geographically covers the region that includes southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica; however, as far as the Mesoamerican Model for the Land of Promise, the area runs from about Mexico City to the borders of Guatemala and Honduras, and includes the Yucatan. When you single out that area for the Land of Promise, you find (using Mesoamericanist maps) that it actually runs almost exactly east and west.

Map of Norman, V. Garth, Book of Mormon - Mesoamerican Historic Geography, American Fork, Utah: Ancient America Foundation, 2006; this map is representative of  all other Mesoamerican Theorists’ model map. Note that the land runs basically east and west

Secondly, not only at first glance, but at every glance, “there is a problem with Book of Mormon directions and the layout of Mesoamerica.” No skewing or explaining away can change this fact. Nephi knew and understood his cardinal directions very well when he wrote: “…we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer…And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea” (1 Nephi 16:13-14). Because Mesoamerica does not run northward and southward as the Land of Promise is shown in the scriptural record, Mesoamerican Theorists must try to explain away this fact, and they do so with numerous fallacious arguments, such as: “Systems for labeling directions in ancient times varied by thousands of different schemes and were generally arbitrary systems designed by individual groups to deal with their unique geographical and linguistic situations. To put it simply, the directional systems of some ancient cultures were not based on the same cultural principals as ours."

Typical Mesoamerica Land of Promise map as promoted by John L. Sorenson and other Mesoamericanists. Note how their Land of Promise runs east and west, with an East Sea to the North and a West Sea to the South—hardly what Mormon tell us

They can say all they want to that "Thus, a Mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon is not problematic when considering cardinal directions. “ However, the simple fact is, Nephi did know his cardinal directions, even when traveling in a land where he had never before been, and would have known little if anything about. Later, he describes turning and “we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth” (1 Nephi 17:1). To belittle his knowledge and understanding, not to mention the Liahona compass in their possession, is extremely poor journalism and not worthy of a discussion about the Book of Mormon. FAIR also states “When one tries to fit the history given in the Book of Mormon to a map of the western hemisphere, one finds an excellent match geographically, archaeologically, culturally, and linguistically to the area of southern Mexico and Guatemala as being the setting for most of the record.” Nothing further from the truth could ever be written, yet so many people have bought into this Mesoamerian theory that it has worked its way into the conscience of Church members as though it is the truth, when in fact, it is as erroneous as most other Land of Promise models.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XV,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XIII

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first forty-three comments were answered in the previous twelve posts, the forty-fourth and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #44 “I also want to state in addition, the very content of the Book of Mormon makes it impossible to accept it as divine revelation. The Book of Mormon claims to be a translation of ancient writing on gold plates. These plates were supposedly written 1,400 years ago and detailed the history of the Jewish "Nephites" from 600 B.C. through A.D. 421. But it is virtually impossible that records written 1,400 (years) prior to the time of Joseph Smith should detail specific social, political, and religious concerns unique to nineteenth-century America.” Brian.

Response: Evidently you have not read the Book of Mormon. First of all, the plates were first written about 2600 years ago and last engraved around 1400 years ago. However, there is nothing in the entire record to state that it was similar in any way to 19^th century America. The social, political and religious matters, as you call them, were specific to the time indicated, between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D. (more accurately to 375 A.D.) The political aspect surrounded “secret combinations,” a concept coined from the secret pact made between Cain and Satan in Genesis. There is actually not a lot regarding the social customs in the scriptural record, but a lot to do with warfare and religion. Perhaps you ought to be more familiar with what you intend to criticize if you are going to put it in print.

Comment #45 “The war population of the Jaredites does not reflect a limited geography population. It took years to gather the large number from outer lying areas.” Sandy.

Response: “Actually, it took four years; however, we do not know when that four year period occurred. At the time it is inserted into the scriptural record, both Coriantumr’s army and that of Shiz were encamped in tents by the hill Ramah. It then mentioned that they gathered all the people upon the face of the land. It then mentions that Ether saw all this happening, and saw that both Coriantumr and Shiz had all the people who were divided between these two armies. And when this was accomplished, they marched against one another and fought all that day. Ether’s comment could simply be that by the time they reached the hill Ramah and were encamped there, the last of the people came into each camp to bring each army to its full strength before the last, great battles (Ether 15:11-15). The flow of events and timing does not seem to work if they camped there, after fighting several running battles and waited four years while everyone was gathered in. It seems more likely the narrative followed the battles, and by the time of the final battle near Ramah, everyone was on one side or the other. As for a limited geography theory, that is not the basis of the South American Andean area—however, it cannot be deduced from this scripture that it took four years to reach outlying areas and gather in the people. The record only states that by the time this last battle was begun, every Jaredite was committed to one army or the other, and that over a four year period, they had been joining these two armies until everyone was present--men, women, and children--and all armed and ready for the last battle.

Comment #46 “I read this recently and wondered what you thought of it. If the Book of Mormon was first written between 600 B.C. and A.D. 421, how could it possibly contain such extensive quotations from the King James Bible, not to be written for another 1200 to 2000 years? The Tanners have listed, one by one, 400 verses and portions of verses quoted from the New Testament in the Book of Mormon in their book, The Case Against Mormonism." Janice.

Response: Isn’t it interesting that two religious works, both claiming to be inspired by the Spirit of God, would have similar and even identical passages. One might think they were both actually inspired by God because of it. I would be worried if the Book of Mormon did not have such similar and identical language since the Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I have seven children. When they were at home and growing up, I am sure I instructed each in the same manner, with much of the same language, and probably, at times, with the same exact words. What is so unusual about the Lord doing so with his children scattered in different locations? It is the same gospel, doctrines, and instructions from God to man.

Comment #47 “You err. The Land Southward was not 'completely surrounded by water.' (Alma 22:32)." Roberto

Response: Mormon describes the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla, with the Land of Bountiful and any other land in the Land Southward, as being nearly surrounded by water except for “there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32). Now, if this narrow neck reached from the sea east to the sea west as described, and the sea west was west of the Land of Nephi, and the sea east was to the east of the Land Nephi (Alma 22:27), how else could you describe this except for the entire lands in the south were surrounded by water except where the Land Southward was joined to the Land Northward at the narrow neck of land?

Comment #48 “Mormon makes it clear that Bountiful was higher in elevation than was Desolation.” Eloise S.

Response: If you mean the city of Desolation, then yes, the Land of Bountiful, at leas that area just south of the narrow neck of land, would be higher ground. If you mean all of the Land of Desolation, we do not know that and the scriptural record does not say that. We only know that the Nephites “gathered themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward” (Mormon 3:5), and that city was called the City of Desolation (Mormon 3:7). Since the City was in the borders of the narrow pass, which separated the Land Northward from the Land Southward, and that narrow neck area was more or less at sea level since it was bordered by the Sea East and Sea West, then just about any location would be higher ground than the city.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XIV,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)

Answering Recent Comments – Part XII

Continuing with the comments previously mentioned in the last post, the first forty comments were answered in the previous eleven posts, the forty-first and additional comments are answered beginning below:

Comment #41 “Contrary to the Bible prophecy concerning the Lord’s birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the fulfillment of that prophecy in Matthew 2:1, the Book of Mormon reads: “And behold, he (Jesus) shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem” (Alma 7:10). The writer of the Book of Mormon was simply wrong.” Carl S.

Response: In Alma’s time (last century B.C.), the Nephites had almost no knowledge of the Jews other than that they were in a distant land called Jerusalem, the area from which their forefathers came. The name of Bethlehem would be unknown to the people to whom Alma was speaking. What was important was Alma’s pronouncement that the Savior of the World would be born. Today, we could say that Christ was born in the Middle East, that he was born in the Fertile Crescent, that he was born in Israel, etc., and each statement would be correct. When Alma declared: “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers,” he was correctly addressing this exact fact. Christ was to be born of mortal woman, in the land of Jerusalem, from whence their forefathers had come. At the time of this statement there was no Israel--just Jerusalem--that was known to the Nephites.

Comment #42 “I am not a member of your church, but have been reading your blog out of curiosity. However, it seems a major problem for the Book of Mormon is archeology, which many people I know claim is a major embarrassment for the Mormon Church. There are those, yourself included, who continue to claim that the science of archeology substantiates the Book of Mormon, but whether we consider the alleged cities, persons, animals, fabrics, metals, wars and war implements, kings, palaces, or crops, scientists claim that all the evidence points to their nonexistence.” Sage M.

Response: People who criticize historical matters, whether it be archaeology, the Book of Mormon, the Nephites, animals, or other matters, sometimes forget that ancient history is very different than it appears in novels, movies, and even the classroom. Archaeologists have found a great many things that pertain to the events described in the Book of Mormon, specifically in the Andean area of South America. Do the archaeologists know they are the Book of Mormon facts? Of course not. When a piece of pottery, weapon, or other artifact is unearthed, the archaeologist is going to make a guess to whom and when it applies. Since C-14 dating, though widely accepted, is so far off it is almost useless to use, dates, times, even places, are seldom listed properly in the long run. Just to pick a few things—the Book of Mormon describes: 1) ancient cities, palaces, temples, etc., all of which have been found to have existed, and in the same time frame, in the Andean area; 2) ancient roads and highways, which also exist in the Andes, and were so well made, the Spanish marveled at what they saw and compared them favorably with Roman roads; 3) a thousand year development of culture, accomplishment, building, etc., also found to have existed in the Andean area in the same time frame; 4) two animals (cureloms and cumoms) “useful to man” that were unknown in the U.S. in the 1820s, also found in the llama and alpaca of the Andean area; 5) two unknown grains (neas and sheum), found in the Andean area of Peru (quinoa and kwichi). That is, there are all sorts of matches to the Book of Mormon. Obviously, after two thousand years some animals have not been found. But silk has been found in burial clothing, as well as Old World Jewish facts, such as circumcision, etc. You just don’t hear about it since science is not looking to make any matches with the Book of Mormon.

-->

Comment #43 “The Book of Mormon is a fraud! Although the Church denies it, there is little doubt that, given Smith's claims, the Book of Mormon was translated by occult means. Smith put a magical "seer" stone into a hat, and then buried his face in the hat to exclude the light. Next, words in "reformed Egyptian" (no such language is known to exist) magically appeared with their translation, and Smith spoke the translation to a scribe who wrote it down.” Brian.

Response: Granted, there are many things in this world that are fraudulent, but the Book of Mormon is not one of them. As for your comments, in the ancient Israelite religion and culture, the Urim and Thummim is a phrase from the Hebrew Scriptures or Torah associate4d with divination in general, and cleromancy  in particular.

Joseph looked into the darkened interior of the hat and saw written upon the seer stone the symbols off the plates and translated them while the scribe wrote them down

Most scholars suspect that the phrase Urim and Thummim refers to specific objects involved in the divination. Translated as “lights and perfections,” the Urim and Thummim was used in Israel to translate, receive visions, and make inquiries of the Lord. It was, simply put, two stones of some sort connected to the high priest’s breastplate (hoshen). Seer stones are referenced in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as well, and seem to have been used to receive revelation. The latter part of Esther 1:6 speaks of several types of stone, two of which are called dar and socheret. These are rendered “white” and “black” in the King James Bible, but the real meaning is unknown, since this is the only place the two Hebrew words are used in the Bible. Jewish tradition holds that they were precious stones used for some type of communication with God. There are several stories in the Bible where the Urim and Thummim were used. Joshua, in Numbers 27:21, was commissioned to succeed Moses and was instructed to go before Eleazar, the high priest and to obtain decisions from him by consulting the Urim. Joshua knew when to stay and when to go by consulting the Urim and Thummim. Saul consulted the Urim and Thummim in 1 Samuel 28:6, but he didn’t get the answer he was looking for. Later, David received clear direction after consulting the ephod on attacking the Amalekites (1 Samuel 23:1-2, 9-12 and 1 Samuel 30:1-8). The Urim and Thummim are mentioned in Nehemiah when they were rebuilding the wall and returning to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity. A question arose as to who were eligible to become priests, since all family records had been lost (Nehemiah 7:65 and Ezra 2:63). In these verses the men were told to wait until the priest could use the Urim and Thummim. It is very important to note here that only the high priest was allowed to consult the Urim and Thummim, and only in matters of great concern to the public good, and in instances where men could not possibly know the answer—which was not considered a matter of chance, but God giving his judgment, his decision as to what to do. As for the seer stone in Joseph Smith’s possession, it was placed in a tall hat (the type dress hat worn in that day) in order to block out the ambient light of the room so he could see the words that appeared on the stone. A person can call this magic, occult, or any other term, however, its use as a spiritual and religious method of communicating with God has many thousands of years of history with the Jews in Israel.

The Urim and Thummim was carried in the priest’s breastplate of judgment.  They even received explicit instructions from God regarding who could use them and where they should be placed.

(See the next post, “Answering Recent Comments – Part XIII,” for more comments made about different posts on this website)