More comments keep flooding in. Here are a few more and our
responses:
Commennt #1: “Your
Church has no official
position on geography of the Book of Mormon because they know the lands in the
Book of Mormon never existed” Century Man
Response: First of all, it is not required for salvation to know where the Book
of Mormon took place any more than it is to know where the Bible took
place. Second, as has been pointed out
in these posts several times, critics often exaggerate the extent to which
Biblical locations are known (see recent post “Finding Proof of the Book of
Mormon”).
Due to the historic interest in the archaeology of the Near
East, especially due to the Biblical links of the area, there are a large number
of organizations dedicated to the archaeological investigation of the region.
These include the American Schools of Oriental Research, which publishes the
journal Near Eastern Archaeology Magazine, and the Council for British Research
in the Levant, which publishes the journal Levant. The most common fields of
study are Biblical archaeology, dealing with the region and history of the
Bible; Assyriology dealing with Mesopotamia; Egyptology, dealing with the
ancient history of what is today Egypt and parts of the Sudan, which, all of
the above, has to do with the Bible; and the fourth is not tied to a region but
instead deals with the origins of culture before the invention of writing; the
number of archaeologists looking for Book of Mormon evidence is infinitely
small by comparison
Third, critics also
ignore the disadvantages under which New World archaeology labors compared to
the Old World, especially how many are looking for Biblical matches as compared
to the extreme few looking for Book of Mormon matches. Fourth, critics also
ignore that there is substantial evidence for the Old World accounts in the
Book of Mormon that were not known in Joseph Smith's day. Fifth, while many LDS
scholars believe that a Mesoamerican setting best matches the Book of Mormon
data, numerous other models have been advanced, with South America being the
most likely of all locations suggested (See the three books in the series: Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica, Who Really
Settled Mesoamerica, and Inaccuracies
of Mesoamerican & Other Theorists). Lastly, and most importantly, in
1829, when Joseph Smith translated the plates, the lands of Peru and the South
American Andes, with their ruins dating to Jaredite and Nephite times, and the
ruins in Mesoamerica, dating to Nephite A.D. times, was unknown. When Joseph
Smith first heard of the explorer who wrote of the Central American ruins, he
was excited to see such verification of the Book of Mormon. In addition, at the
time Joseph was translating, no one knew about the conditions of the 30º south
latitude landing he proclaimed along the Chilean coast and how it matched
exactly the description of Nephi’s writings of how he got to the Land of
Promise and what he found there. The list goes on and on, but the point is,
this information can be matched to an exact area and every descriptive point in
the scriptural text can be verified by present or past circumstances
surrounding the Andean area of South America as three years of posts on this
blog have shown.
Comment #2: “It is unconscionable how anyone could
espouse a model outside of Western New York or Colonial America with all the
fulfilled land prophecies there. Please read the Spiritual Geography next time
you visit the true Book of Mormon Geography site.” BOMG
Response: Perhaps you
should say that to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Ezra Taft
Benson, and Bruce R. McConkie. All of these general authorities (and four
prophets) have stated unequivocally, that “Zion is North and South America,”
and that “The Americas are the Land of Joseph, the land of Ephraim and
Manasseh, the land of the Nephites, the land of the Ephraimites who are
gathering in for the latter days,” and “It is the land God gave to Jacob, and
that land is North and South America,” and “right here on this choice land of
the Americas.” You might also want to suggest these five brethren to Rodney
Meldrum and his Spiritual Geography, and include Joseph Smith’s comment from
his July 19, 1840 message that the Land of Zion consists of North and South
America (see Dean C. Jessee, The Personal
Writings of Joseph Smith).
Comment #3: Those who know little about science should not profess to. The
evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that only the ignorant can deny it. I
agree that God created the earth, the solar system, and the entire universe. He
made it. A baker makes a cake. But does that mean that he placed each and every
particle of the cake exactly as they are found in the finished product? Of
course not! The baker understands how to put the right ingredients together in
the right proportions and under the right circumstances to get what he wants.
Likewise, God knows what ingredients (elements) to mix together in what
proportions, at what place and time and under what conditions (laws of physics
and chemistry) in order to create the universe and the world in which we live.
The evidence is as vast as the evidence cited by Alma to Korihor (Alma 30:44)”
Brandon R.
Response: Might I suggest you read my book,
"Scientific Fallacies & Other Myths," or, if I am not creditable to
you, then read the numerous writings of very serious scientists who disagree
with evolution, of which there are many. At the same time, I might add a
thought about “Let us form man in our own image,” doesn’t seem to ring true
with life being formed in a primordial soup 3.8 billion years before man was
actually organized. Either man or God is lying to us! You choose.
Comment 4: “I really enjoy your blog and find it
all so interesting and rings true, thanks! Will be ordering your book soon”
Tiffany.
Response: Thank you.
The beginning of the
Mississippi River is in northern Minnesota, 2530 miles north of its (Right)
mouth which empties in the south of Louisiana and into the Gulf of Mexico
Comment #5: “I read where the
Mississippi River, at 2300 miles long, is far too long to be the River Sidon.
The article added, ‘Alma tells us the Sidon River is in the Land of Zarahemla,
but the length of the entire Land of Promise from Bountiful in the north (Alma
27:22) to Manti in the south (Alma 16:7; 22:27) was a day (Alma
43:18-24).’ Therefore, the Mississippi River could not be the River Sidon. I am
a little confused though about claiming the head of the river was actually its
confluence or mouth” Granger.
Response: “While the idea
of the Mississippi River not being the River Sidon is correct, the scriptures
quoted have nothing to do with the length of the Land of Promise from Bountiful
to Manti. In the 11 verses quoted, found in 4 chapters and covering 696 words,
there is not one single mention of anything being “a day,” nor is any distance
given, time frame of travel, or anything else involved—they only show
directions, and even those are not always clear. As for the meaning of the
“head of the river” used in the Book of Mormon, like any dictionary today, Noah
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the
English Language, and the Book of Mormon itself, the head of a river is its
source, not its confluence or mouth as Heartland theorists like to claim. Take
just one example in 1 Nephi 8:13-14 in the description of Lehi’s dream: “And as
I cast my eyes round about that perhaps I might discover my family also I
beheld a river of water and it ran along and it was near the tree of
which I was partaking the fruit. And I looked to behold from whence it came and
I saw the head thereof a little way off and at the head thereof I
beheld your mother Sariah and Sam and Nephi and they stood as if they knew not
whither they should go” (1 Nephi 8:13-14, emphasis
mine). In this passage, the "head" of a river in the Book of
Mormon meant its source, not its mouth. Also, in case you are interested the
Urubamba River in Peru is 450 miles long, flows from the south to the north,
and now through the Amazon to the sea, though in Alma’s time, it flowed
directly into the East Sea, and meets the criteria described in the scriptural
record.
