Robert F. Smith Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 I certainly have.Name one LDS anthropologist who has gone on record in a professional setting agreeing with Codex.I responded:Might be a bit difficult for any anthropologist to publish any sort of approving comments in a secular academic journal which agrees with something John Sorenson has said in Mormon's Codex or Ancient America Setting. Such an anthropologist would be drummed out of the academy at worst and treated like a pariah at best -- without ever considering whether what he said was valid. I suggest that you ask more reasonable questions about LDS scholarship, and maybe even make rational suggestions for improvement where you see problems. For example, have you read Brant Gardner's Traditions of the Fathers yet? What shortcomings do you notice? What positive qualities? Does he make any useful comments or insights via secular scholarship? Or is it a wash? I don't have a particular issue with enthusiasts who beat the drum for an LGT theory. But when they invoke "science" without using the scientific method, then I see enthusiasm which should be subject to hearty criticism. Just like ethusiasts who invoke "science" to prove the claims of the Shroud of Turin.I don't buy your explanation. I would suspect the number of doctoral level anthropologists who agree with Codex even at the "fireside" level is about two. Again, you are dodging the relevant questions, as well as changing the goal posts. Well, perhaps you could humor me and answer my question anyway.I thought my response was a very reasonable one. My substantive questions very much on point, though you neglected to answer them. You then upped the ante from the professional to the doctoral level -- so as to leave out master's degrees. You not only miss the point, it appears that you do not even care one way of the other.
Bob Crockett Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) As I thought.Time to reject falsity. Edited November 8, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
livy111us Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 I've been reading some of your work and I have a comment on this statement. "There are two places that we know for sure were the Book of Mormon took place that would be the Hill Cumorah and Zarahemla found across from Nauvoo (D&C 125:3)." It doesn't say Zarahemla was the site of the Nephite's Zarahemla it says " Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of aZarahemla be named upon it." There can be more than one Zarahemla. There are many cities through out the world with the same names. When I search for weather for San Pedro I get 27 of them and 10 are in Mexico. Here is a video that Fair put together on a few of the flaws with putting Zarahemla in Iowa. There is more than meets the eye. 4
Stargazer Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Although your own thread is slightly more interesting than those other wasted posts to which Miserere Nobis referred, I am not interested...since you ask. Is it necessary to have some kind of theory that makes the Book of Mormon real history? No. As a non-LDS I wouldn't mind if it did. But it doesn't. Well, this one won't make the Book of Mormon real history. Because it is completely unbelievable. None of these Heartland theories can possibly explain how a Lehite landing on the west coast of North America somehow got all the way to Ohio or Michigan -- the text does not support it. So whether or not you have any interest in making the BoM real, this theory clearly couldn't. Unless they brought some magic carpets with them from Arabia. The poster is going to ask me if I've read his sources. The answer is a resounding NO, because I prefer my science fiction to be grounded in some form of reality.
rodheadlee Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 I have read the others' works; probably read more than anybody on this board as I have a paper pending on the subject. BYU's library has hundreds of books on Book of Mormon geography. Typed manuscripts as well as published books. I've read many. Dr. Sorenson's views might indeed be right. But Codex isn't science, even though Dr. Sorenson says it is.Your pending paper is a geography theory? or a critical analysis of other people's theories? 1
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 I've been reading some of your work and I have a comment on this statement. "There are two places that we know for sure were the Book of Mormon took place that would be the Hill Cumorah and Zarahemla found across from Nauvoo (D&C 125:3)." It doesn't say Zarahemla was the site of the Nephite's Zarahemla it says " Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of aZarahemla be named upon it." There can be more than one Zarahemla. There are many cities through out the world with the same names. When I search for weather for San Pedro I get 27 of them and 10 are in Mexico.Rod I'm going to refer you to d&c 54:8. 8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites. When Joseph smith was commanded by God in revelation to send missionaries to the Lamanites he sent missionaries to the Sauk and Fox tribes and various other tribes of North America.To understand Book of Mormon Geography I think you have to understand how many seas there are. After a couple weeks of research it became quite evident to me that there are six seas not four. West sea, sea west, East Sea, and sea east are four seas not two. Not knowing there are six seas makes it impossible in my opinion consistently place location geographic features mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Without knowing about six seas you can place the Book of Mormon anywhere to include mesoamerica, the Baja, Malaysia, Africa, etc. all of the places mention are proposed Book of Mormon Geography places. It's ideal to keep Book of Mormon Geogrpahy in North America or the land of promise.
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 Well, this one won't make the Book of Mormon real history. Because it is completely unbelievable. None of these Heartland theories can possibly explain how a Lehite landing on the west coast of North America somehow got all the way to Ohio or Michigan -- the text does not support it. So whether or not you have any interest in making the BoM real, this theory clearly couldn't. Unless they brought some magic carpets with them from Arabia. The poster is going to ask me if I've read his sources. The answer is a resounding NO, because I prefer my science fiction to be grounded in some form of reality.The Book of Mormon never states that Lehi landed on the west sea. In my geography model Lehi lands on the south sea.
rodheadlee Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 The Book of Mormon never states that Lehi landed on the west sea. In my geography model Lehi lands on the south sea.What is your proposed route for the sail over to the Americas?
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 The Book of Mormon never states that Lehi landed on the west sea. In my geography model Lehi lands on the south sea.The Book of Mormon never states that Lehi landed on the west sea. In my geography model Lehi lands on the south sea.[/quotThe Book of Mormon never states that Lehi landed on the west sea. In my geography model Lehi lands on the south sea.I have the south sea as the Gulf of Mexico. This matches the Nephite migrating south to north because their lands were being over taken by lamanites. The Nephites were able to hold the Great Lakes area (New York) until they were finally extinguished by the Lamanites probably the Six Nations, Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, Onondaga, and Tuscarora. The tribes have traditional beliefs about a final battle that took place in New York.
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 What is your proposed route for the sail over to the Americas?Around Africa
rodheadlee Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Rod I'm going to refer you to d&c 54:8.8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.When Joseph smith was commanded by God in revelation to send missionaries to the Lamanites he sent missionaries to the Sauk and Fox tribes and various other tribes of North America.To understand Book of Mormon Geography I think you have to understand how many seas there are. After a couple weeks of research it became quite evident to me that there are six seas not four. West sea, sea west, East Sea, and sea east are four seas not two. Not knowing there are six seas makes it impossible in my opinion consistently place location geographic features mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Without knowing about six seas you can place the Book of Mormon anywhere to include mesoamerica, the Baja, Malaysia, Africa, etc. all of the places mention are proposed Book of Mormon Geography places. It's ideal to keep Book of Mormon Geogrpahy in North America or the land of promise.Thanks for answering my question. I believe the Lamanites were simply everyone in the Americas, at the time of the European conquest, that was not a Nephite. The Gentiles of the Americas. I also believe the Land of Promise was the entire American continents, North, South and Central America and that more people were sent over here than we presently know about. 1
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 What is your proposed route for the sail over to the Americas?Around Africa up to the Ivory Coast then they get blown into the Gulf of Mexico as hurricanes off of Africa get blown into the Gulf Coast
Anijen Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Your pending paper is a geography theory? or a critical analysis of other people's theories?If it is anything like his posts on this site 95% of it will be bashing Sorenson. 2
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 Thanks for answering my question. I believe the Lamanites were simply everyone in the Americas, at the time of the European conquest, that was not a Nephite. The Gentiles of the Americas. I also believe the Land of Promise was the entire American continents, North, South and Central America and that more people were sent over here than we presently know about.Based on the description of the land of promise I think it can only be North America.
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 If it is anything like his posts on this site 95% of it will be bashing Sorenson. It's not pending it has been posted see Technology and animalshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/DNAhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-2/Native American ties to Hebrewshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/Jaredites and a Caucasian race of Indianhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-1/New Geography modelhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-5/Sources citedhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-6/
Anijen Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 The Book of Mormon never states that Lehi landed on the west sea. In my geography model Lehi lands on the south sea.Although I hate to play the Prophet card, What is your answer about the statement made about "they landed on the Chile side? I bring this up because most heartlanders seem to cherry pick the statements from church authorities and use what they like and ignore or are unresponsive to the statements that contradict their theories.
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 Thanks for answering my question. I believe the Lamanites were simply everyone in the Americas, at the time of the European conquest, that was not a Nephite. The Gentiles of the Americas. I also believe the Land of Promise was the entire American continents, North, South and Central America and that more people were sent over here than we presently know about.Joseph Smith never sent missionaries to Mexico or South America. When sending missionaries to the Lamanites it was always to Places east of the Rocky Mountains in North America.
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Although I hate to play the Prophet card, What is your answer about the statement made about "they landed on the Chile side?I bring this up because most heartlanders seem to cherry pick the statements from church authorities and use what they like and ignore or are unresponsive to the statements that contradict their theories.Except for the revelation that Joseph smith received for where Zarahemla is d&c 125:3 and that Missouri is the Border of the Lamanites d&c 54:8. I know of no other prophet or church authority claiming they received a revelation from God to where specific Book of Mormon locations are. I believe the church authorities have speculated on where geographic locations based on current popular theories of their time, but no revelations. I'm sure they where convinced of their own speculations on geography but once again revelation versus speculation. Revelation wins every time. Edited November 9, 2015 by Bomgeography
Anijen Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Except for the revelation that Joseph smith received for where Zarahemla is d&c 125:3 and that Missouri is the Border of the Lamanites d&c 54:8. I know of no other prophet or church authority claiming they received a revelation from God to where specific Book of Mormon locations are. I believe the church authorities have speculated on where geographic locations based on current popular theories of their time, but no revelations. I'm sure they where convinced of their own speculations on geography but once again revelation versus speculation. Revelation wins every time. Let the readers judge for themselves. I have pasted the verse you claim is a revelation for where the ancient Book of Mormon city of Zarahemla is. In my humble opinion you apply your interpretation into the verse. I believe the church has influenced many cities to be built, (Bountiful, Manti, Moroni, etc) that are not the actual city mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the same goes for rivers (Jordan), the same goes for the names of people. This verse does no way mean that is where Zarahemla was. Plus do you not think there would be some archaeological evidence to prove your point? 3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it. Edited November 9, 2015 by Anijen 1
Bomgeography Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Let the readers judge for themselves. I have pasted the verse you claim is a revelation for where the ancient Book of Mormon city of Zarahemla is. In my humble opinion you apply your interpretation into the verse. I believe the church has influenced many cities to be built, (Bountiful, Manti, Moroni, etc) that are not the actual city mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the same goes for rivers (Jordan), the same goes for the names of people. This verse does no way mean that is where Zarahemla was. Plus do you not think there would be some archaeological evidence to prove your point? 3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name ofZarahemla be named upon it.D&C never commands the saints to build a city and name it after a Book of Mormon city or location except in one case that being Zarahemla. D&C tells the saints that a new Jerusalem will be built in Missouri. But it distinguishes it from Jerusalem in Israel by being called a new jerusalem. In the case of Zarahemla there is no such distinction. It's not being called New Zarahemla. But I agree readers can decide on their own. The Book of Mormon names found in Utah was not given by revelation as in New Jerusalem or Zarahemla. In my opinion you are comparing apples and oranges.When it comes to archeological evidence that area is now a farm my assumption is that archeological evidence was found there or destroyed by 19th and 18th century farming and farmers. And if archeologists dig there I believe Hopewell artifacts can be found at that site.3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it. Edited November 9, 2015 by Bomgeography
Anijen Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) D&C never commands the saints to build a city and name it after a Book of Mormon city or location except in one case that being Zarahemla. I would agree, especially if you write; "..name it after.." this is quite a difference to what you said previously; "Except for the revelation that Joseph smith received for where Zarahemla is" Show me in Doctrine and Covenants 125:3 where it says that was the actual place of the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon. I agree it was revelation, but this revelation does not state that place to be the actual location of the city of Zarahemla that is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. You are still misinterpreting this verse to what you want it to mean. Edited November 9, 2015 by Anijen
Anijen Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 In my opinion you are comparing apples and oranges.When it comes to archeological evidence that area is now a farm my assumption is that archeological evidence was found there or destroyed by 19th and 18th century farming and farmers. And if archeologists dig there I believe Hopewell artifacts can be found at that site.3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.Apples and oranges, really? You are the oneclaiming it is a revelation that places the original Zarahamla across the river from Nauvoo. I am somewhat an expert in Hopewell and Adena traditions (culture), (Anthropology and History degree with a focus on pre-Columbian America), I can honestly state there is no evidence for this hypothesis at all. CFR on evidence found or destroyed there.
Bomgeography Posted November 10, 2015 Author Posted November 10, 2015 Apples and oranges, really? You are the oneclaiming it is a revelation that places the original Zarahamla across the river from Nauvoo. I am somewhat an expert in Hopewell and Adena traditions (culture), (Anthropology and History degree with a focus on pre-Columbian America), I can honestly state there is no evidence for this hypothesis at all. CFR on evidence found or destroyed there.I would agree, especially if you write; "..name it after.." this is quite a difference to what you said previously; "Except for the revelation that Joseph smith received for where Zarahemla is" Show me in Doctrine and Covenants 125:3 where it says that was the actual place of the Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon. I agree it was revelation, but this revelation does not state that place to be the actual location of the city of Zarahemla that is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. You are still misinterpreting this verse to what you want it to mean.Do you have comment about d&c 54:88 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 ................................................... I believe the Lamanites were simply everyone in the Americas, at the time of the European conquest, that was not a Nephite. The Gentiles of the Americas............................................................ ...........................................Does that include the Inuit and Aleut?
Bomgeography Posted November 10, 2015 Author Posted November 10, 2015 Apples and oranges, really? You are the oneclaiming it is a revelation that places the original Zarahamla across the river from Nauvoo. I am somewhat an expert in Hopewell and Adena traditions (culture), (Anthropology and History degree with a focus on pre-Columbian America), I can honestly state there is no evidence for this hypothesis at all. CFR on evidence found or destroyed there.For someone who is "somewhat of an expert on Hopewell culture". I'm sure you know that the Nauvoo area is the Havana Hopewell complex that dates to 200BC-400AD. A timeline that I would say matches the Nephite migration north from the Gulf of Mexico or land of Nephi going north. And it also matches the Book of Mormon timeline perfectly. There is no reason why artifacts would not be found there unless of course the farm presently located on that area destroyed much of the artifacts if any remain at all.If I was you I would brush up on Hopewell culture and obtain a expertise in that area you might need it in the future. Good luckhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_Hopewell_culture
Recommended Posts