Jump to content

Rajah Manchou

Members
  • Posts

    1,921
  • Joined

Everything posted by Rajah Manchou

  1. Again, I don’t know. I’m confident it all fits together in some way that we haven’t yet seen. According to Brigham Young, yes. But again I’m looking at Book of Mormon text exclusively. Everything else is commentary. The legend is told from the perspective of the older brothers that lost the book yet remained in the land, ie the Lamanites. The younger brother (Moroni) carried it West after the annihilation of the Nephites. Not sure if anything will (it’s probably too controversial), but thanks for discussing.
  2. This question is what first sparked my interest in the region. I was working in the Mae La refugee camps along the Myanmar border where I met a Christian group that claimed they were descendants of a family of seven brothers. As their father was dying he called his sons together to give them his final blessings. The oldest son was given a "book of gold" containing their spiritual history but due to negligence, he lost it. The youngest brother however had a copy of the book and carried it west, to America. Ever sense, these stateless refugees have rejected kings and governments as they wait for the return of their Book of Gold from America. They believe it will be returned to them by their younger brothers from the West wearing white and black clothes, and they believe that once they have their book, they will prosper. These Christian refugees have been sheltered by foreign governments, particularly America, for decades and are presently the largest group of refugees to be granted amnesty in the USA. The No. 1 group of modern refugees in America is neither Syrian nor Iraqi nor Muslim nor Arab. They’re Christians from Myanmar. As far as nursing mothers and fathers go, here's a few paragraphs from a PRI article: These people are waiting for us to bring back their Gold Book.
  3. As John Clark said in his Revisiting A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies: "It has been my experience that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when confronted with a Book of Mormon geography, worry about the wrong things. Almost invariably the first question that arise is whether the geography fits the archaeology of the proposed area. This should be our second question, the first being whether the geography fits the facts of the Book of Mormon—a question we all can answer without being versed in American archaeology. Only after a given geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit attention. The Book of Mormon must be the final and most important arbiter in deciding the correctness of a given geography; otherwise we will be forever hostage to the shifting sands of expert opinion." With that I request that our discussion stick to the text of the Book of Mormon only, putting aside all other questions (like "how did the Gold Plates get to Joseph Smith in NY?" or "what about the New Jerusalem in Missour?" or "where was the land Joseph Smith described in such detail to his family while being tutored by Moroni?") aside until the model has been tested against the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Its really difficult to test a BOM geogrpahy model against things that were said by 3rd party observers years, decades or even centuries after the Book of Mormon was published.
  4. I'm sure you know that Columbus never set foot in the United States of America.
  5. In my opinion, the promised lands of the Book of Mormon are the isles of the sea referred to in the Book of Mormon. The land that Columbus referred to as the new heaven and the new earth: "God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth of which he spoke in the Apocalypse of John after having spoken of it through the mouth of Isaiah; and he showed me the spot where to find it." I'm pretty much in agreement with the following two paragraphs from FAIR Mormon's article on the land of promise: "A “land of promise” can be different places to different people, because it is land that the Lord has covenanted to his people. To the Israelites, it was Israel, to Enos and his people, it was the land of Cainan. It is possible that it will be promised for “a little season,” or it can be a heavenly promised land we all wish to obtain. It is not a definite term that is used for places of earth, but has a spiritual meaning of what God covenants to give you. The operative word in the Land of Promise is not ‘Land.’ It is ‘Promise.’ A promise is a covenant involving two parties. It is a divine contract…with God. The land is given to the covenant people only as long as they continue faithful.” If you are looking for a specific location, the best answer I've seen is the one given by Orson Hyde: "This land,’ means both North and South America, and also the families of islands that geographically and naturally belong and adhere to the same." So pretty much every location that overlaps with Columbus' "discovery" of a New World and the blood of Lehi. This covers all the land between (1) where Columbus set foot and (2) where Columbus thought he'd set foot.
  6. If you want me to say the "Church is wrong to refer to America as the land of promise” I'm not going to do that. Nor would anybody who endorses the Mesoamerican model. You're actually dodging the issue by pursuing this instead of commenting on the model itself. No thanks
  7. The word doesn't bother me anymore, but I was raised to be deathly afraid of it or any appearance of it. I remember one time my father scolding me for saying darn, because it was a word that was meant to replace a profanity. I can't imagine him facing the decision whether to recommend this 'faith-promoting' video to my confused Aaronic Priesthood self. 😅 Have times really changed this much in the past 20 years?
  8. I'm sure this was put in there to trick someone like me into sharing it as outrageous, but this is pretty bold desperate marketing: https://youtu.be/C0umGReiTRU?t=119 For those that don't want to click, Kwaku says "No, Joseph Smith did not use a BLEEPing ouija board to translate the Book of Mormon!" A certain word can be read on his lips, but is bleeped out in the edit. Me being surprised enough to share this in an internet forum is probably the intention of FAIR Mormon content marketing team, and that's pretty wild. On the FAIR Mormon YouTUbe channel. What's going on?
  9. A good 10000 years before Jared, but confirmed that South Americans did once know what elephants and horses looked like: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/nov/29/sistine-chapel-of-the-ancients-rock-art-discovered-in-remote-amazon-forest
  10. Well, it’s a model that I’m proposing and posting for others to take a look at and test. I feel the geography in this model fits much better than the geography in the Heartland and Mesoamerican models. There’s frankly no existing American model that fits the land of promise referred to in the Book of Mormon so I don’t understand why you are asking me if I’m saying the “Church is wrong to refer to America as the land of promise”. It’s not a question I’m asking or even trying to answer. Its not at all “my message”. When it comes to BOM geography there’s a tendency to ask questions that don’t have anything to do with the models that are out there, in a “No True Scotsman” fashion. “No true Mormon would propose that the Book of Mormon didn’t take place here or there” ignoring the fact that Mormons are all over the map on this question. If you’d like to comment on the model itself, there’s a thread here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73334-book-of-mormon-geography-kamara-model/
  11. There are quite a few references, the catch is that different geographers spanning several centuries referred to the same island/peninsula by dozens of different names. This lends to pages and pages of discussions about which toponym refers to which location. I've updated the link above to include screenshots of the first few pages of the chapter discussing Komara and Rahma. Or you can try this link and do a search for Komara. You can also scan this book discussing Ptolemy's Geography for references to Komar. You'll get a hint of the swarm of toponyms. Common readings of Arabic geographies from the 10th century identify Rahma as either Sumatra or Ramañña on the Malay Peninsula. Komara is also on the Malay Peninsula. Kalah or Cala is the point on the map I posted above marked "First Inheritance". This is the point where all ancient traders heading east landed and it is dated to within 10 years of the Lehite departure from Oman. Note that the text mentions Cala/Kalah as the landing point for traders from Oman. I propose Kalah as the most logical landing point for the Lehites in the 6th century BC.
  12. If we don't know where the River Sidon was, then I can't answer your question. Nobody knows where the River Sidon was with certainty so I don't know whether or not "the Church is wrong to refer to America as the Book of Mormon "land of promise". Why are you asking me that?
  13. There’s no location in the USA that fits the material culture or geography of the Book of Mormon. How does that square with your model? Where do you propose the River Sidon in the land of promise was located?
  14. John E. Clark proposes an elemental geography for the internal map of the Book of Mormon: "During the days of Alma and General Moroni, Book of Mormon lands consisted of three sectors that could be considered Nephite, Lamanite, and former Jaredite. The depopulated Jaredite lands constituted the land northward; Nephite and Lamanite lands lay in the land southward. Nephite lands, known as the land of Zarahemla, were sandwiched between the ancient Jaredite lands to the north and the Lamanite land of Nephi to the south. A narrow neck of land divided the land northward and the land southward; thus Book of Mormon lands were shaped like an hourglass. The land southward was further divided into northern and southern sectors by a narrow strip of wilderness that ran from the east sea to the west sea. Nephites inhabited the lands north of this wilderness divide, and Lamanites controlled those to the south." The ancient Kingdoms of Komara and Rahma were located on the Malay Peninsula. Zooming out on the region, the present-day political borders of Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar mark the three sectors identified by John E. Clark: Jaredite Land of Moron: Manoron region of southern Myanmar Nephite Land of Zarahemla: Tapi River basin in southern Thailand Lamanite Land of Nephi: Highlands of northern Malaysia All geographical features required by Clark's Key for Evaluating a Nephite Geography have their parallel on the peninsula: Highlands in the Land of Nephi on the south Narrow strip of wilderness separating the Land of Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi Large river system flowing north through the Land of Zarahemla Headwaters running from the east to the west out of a narrow strip of wilderness Wilderness pass between Manti and Moroni Valley of Gideon southeast of Zarahemla Wilderness pass between Gideon and Gid Elevated area between Zarahemla and Melek Elevated area between Zarahemla and Sidom Elevated area between Sidom and Ammonihah Wilderness pass between Judea and the Seashore City Marshy area near Moroni East to west passage at the Line Bountiful Plains to south of Bountiful City Land divided by the Sea West near Bountiful Land divided by the sea is a natural port where large timber trading ships launched anciently Seashores near Mulek Land Bountiful leading into a narrow neck of land in the north Line Bountiful is a day and a half's journey Line Bountiful known anciently as a gathering place for soldiers Wilderness on the west of Zarahemla Wilderness separating Zarahemla from the cities on the Sea East Wilderness pass leading from the Sea West to Ammonihah Western mountain wilderness dropping quickly to the coast Land of many waters in the Land Northward Prominent mountain with many waterfalls on the Sea East in the Land Northward I'll get into the details later, but its worth mentioning here that the first signs of an iron-age civilization in this map are found in Kedah Tua (marked on the map to the left as "first inheritance". Iron furnaces and slag found in this location are dated to within 5 to 10 years of the Lehite departure from the Arabian Peninsula (source).
  15. Following a number of discussions on this forum over the past few years, I've slowly cranked out a Book of Mormon geography that conforms with the geography, archaeology and history of a real world setting in the Indian Ocean, the kingdom known anciently as Kamara. I haven't had the time to put my conclusions together into one place. Rather than dropping bits and pieces all over the place, @smac97 has requested that I put it all together in a thread. @Brant Gardner, who was the only BOM geography expert to fairly review Ralph Olsen's Malay Model. has also stated a willingness to test the model and has recommended that we begin with the geography, and then add the layers of topography, hydrology, and cultural history, and see how well it works. I request that this discussion stick to the text of the Book of Mormon only, putting aside all other questions (like how did the Gold Plates get to Joseph Smith in NY or what about revelations placing New Jerusalem in Missouri) aside until the map has been evaluated. We can consider extra-textual accounts, revelations and statements after we've tested the geography against the internal map found in Book of Mormon text itself. As John Clark said in his Revisiting A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies: "It has been my experience that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when confronted with a Book of Mormon geography, worry about the wrong things. Almost invariably the first question that arise is whether the geography fits the archaeology of the proposed area. This should be our second question, the first being whether the geography fits the facts of the Book of Mormon—a question we all can answer without being versed in American archaeology. Only after a given geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit attention. The Book of Mormon must be the final and most important arbiter in deciding the correctness of a given geography; otherwise we will be forever hostage to the shifting sands of expert opinion." Clark also recommends 6 initial assumptions about the geographic references found in the Book of Mormon: Assume a literal meaning. Assume no scribal errors unless internal evidence indicates otherwise. Assume no duplication of placenames unless the text is unambiguous on the matter. Assume that all passages are internally consistent and can be reconciled. Assume that the best internal reconstruction is one that reconciles all the data in the Book of Mormon with a minimum of additional assumptions. Assume that uniformitarian rather than catastrophic principles apply to the actual Book of Mormon lands (i.e., that the locality where the Book of Mormon events took place was not unrecognizably altered at the time of the crucifixion, that geographic details in the small plates and in the book of Ether are therefore compatible with those in Mormon’s and Moroni’s abridgment, and that the principles of natural science that apply to today’s environments are also pertinent to Nephite lands). I'll start with the bird's eye view of the geography in the next post and then will zoom in closer to discuss each place and event in the Book of Mormon in more detail.
  16. Sounds like he's referring to the United States of America. But there's nowhere in the USA that aligns with the internal map of the Book of Mormon.
  17. There's more than can be presented in a single comment, so we'd have to start somewhere and work our way through. @Brant Gardner has recommended: As John Clark said in his Revisiting A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies: "It has been my experience that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when confronted with a Book of Mormon geography, worry about the wrong things. Almost invariably the first question that arise is whether the geography fits the archaeology of the proposed area. This should be our second question, the first being whether the geography fits the facts of the Book of Mormon—a question we all can answer without being versed in American archaeology. Only after a given geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit attention. The Book of Mormon must be the final and most important arbiter in deciding the correctness of a given geography; otherwise we will be forever hostage to the shifting sands of expert opinion." With that I request that our discussion stick to the text of the Book of Mormon only, putting aside all other questions (like how did the Gold Plates get to Joseph Smith in NY or what about the New Jerusalem in Missouri) aside until the map has been evaluated. We can consider extra-textual accounts, revelations and statements after we've tested the geography against the internal map found in Book of Mormon text itself. Clark also recommends 6 initial assumptions about the geographic references found in the Book of Mormon: Assume a literal meaning. Assume no scribal errors unless internal evidence indicates otherwise. Assume no duplication of placenames unless the text is unambiguous on the matter. Assume that all passages are internally consistent and can be reconciled. Assume that the best internal reconstruction is one that reconciles all the data in the Book of Mormon with a minimum of additional assumptions. Assume that uniformitarian rather than catastrophic principles apply to the actual Book of Mormon lands (i.e., that the locality where the Book of Mormon events took place was not unrecognizably altered at the time of the crucifixion, that geographic details in the small plates and in the book of Ether are therefore compatible with those in Mormon’s and Moroni’s abridgment, and that the principles of natural science that apply to today’s environments are also pertinent to Nephite lands). If the above is acceptable, then I'll present my "Isles of the Sea" model point by point following John E. Clark's Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies.
  18. Its a serious proposal, and I'd be happy to present it. But up until now you've only repeated numerous times that you aren't interested. So there's been little point to go to the effort. Now that we are communicating to each other instead of past each other, I'd be delighted to share in a more organized manner from Point A to Point B. The problem is that I don't have enough time or money to write a 700 page Mormon Codex, so I've had to share in pieces scattered about over 3-4 years.
  19. As I said the last two times you said this, its a play on Robert Smith's excellent presentation arguing that the Book of Mormon itself is preposterous. The preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage - Robert Smith I bristle because I've explained this before a couple of times but you keep coming back to it. Let's bookmark this comment to save us time next time we have this same conversation.
  20. There are multiple lands of promise. Take for example those that endorse Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, yet also New York as the Land of Promise. Or those that endorse all of the Americas as the Land of Promise. The Austronesian Kumr (Jaredites in the model I propose) were the among the first to settle in much of the New World. They departed from East Asia around 2500 BC and populated all the islands through the Pacific and were in contact with the Americas, also much of the uninhabited world as far west as Africa. They were the true New World explorers and colonzers. A quick glance to a map of the Austronesian world says it all. The Austronesian Kumr were the Jaredites and they populated all the New World and the islands of the sea, from Africa to Southeast Asia to the Americas. The Book of Mormon is their account. If you have any doubts, just look up all the quotes from apostles and prophets confirming that Polynesians are of Lehite blood. This is why the Lehites acknowledged their brothers scattered throughout the isles of the sea, in the 6th century BC. This model is simple. Its only decades of attachment to the Hemispheric, Mesoamerican and Heartland Models that makes it difficult to grasp.
  21. We have historical insight into the Jaredite voyage. If we accept that they departed Shandong area (as Nibley has suggested) then we can look to the voyages of the Austronesians as an example of what was possible. At the same time Mohonri Moriancumr was launching his barges into the East China Sea, he would have likely encountered the Austronesians (known anciently as kumr) doing the same thing. Once the austronesians hit the Kirushio Current from the Yellow Sea or the East China Sea, they were looped down to the Pacific South Equatorial Current and looped back into Micronesia, the Phillippines and the Malay Archipelago. Is there any reason to suspect the Jaredites would not have gone the same direction? What conditions would have been necessary for a Jaredite barge without rudder or sail to catch the North Pacific Current? Wouldn't they have to launch from Japan?
  22. I couldn't find it in here, but iirc that conversation was sparked by Clark Goble's article on Times & Seasons. We miss you Clark. His opinion was that Jaredite barges could have had a relationship with early Polynesian/Austronesian boat forms. Austronesians, throughout the Book of Mormon time period, were the only people capable of crossing oceans. There's evidence of Austronesian influence from Mozambique to Madagascar to Oman to the Cook Islands deep into the Pacific Ocean. This year it was determined that Austronesians/Polynesians were in contact with Native Americans. At the same time the Jaredites were launching barges from the coast of China into the Pacific Ocean the Austronesians were doing the same, in the same place, heading in the same direction. There's also evidence that seafaring Austronesians were present in the Dhofar region while the Lehites built their ship. In my opinion, the Austronesians (known anciently as the Kumr) were Jaredites. In fitting fashion, some of these Jaredites (Kumr) had settled in the Dhofar region of Oman. The Lehites, having heard their accounts of their Kingdom of Kamara, set sail on a boat modelled after their massive kolandia or djongs. Its rather simple, the Lehites sailed to Kamara (the land of gold) in a massive junk.
  23. Yes, this is accurate. But its misleading to say Malaysia as the events recorded took place in what was then called Kamara, what is now known as Myanmar and Thailand. Miraculous and amazing narratives are different than the evidence-based reasoning you have called for. It's an entirely different model in an entirely different location. I've said this a few times, and Dr. Gardner has acknowledged it is a different model, but you continue to post this out. Its a lazy counter-argument. My behaviour here? Another lazy counter-argument. Why not address the evidence instead? There were migrations of Israelites into the Indian Ocean from 600 BC. I've provided evidence for this. There's no evidence that any Middle Eastern vessels managed to pass the Malay Peninsula previous to 420 AD. The burden of evidence is on those that claim otherwise. That's you. Don't be lazy. Don't shift the topic.
  24. I am not proposing that. Jaredite barges were the length of a tree. We don't know much about Lehi's ship and Mulek's ship. But there's no evidence that open voyages across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans were possible during the Book of Mormon time period. The farthest vessels were known to go in the open ocean in the Book of Mormon time period (600 BC to 420 AD) was, surprise, the Malay Peninsula. Evidence-based reasoning. Don't stretch evidence to fit your argument. Lehi and Mulek were from Jerusalem. Which locations in the world received migrations of Jews from Jerusalem as early as 600 BC? Is there evidence of Israelite migrations past the Malay Peninsula before 420 AD? Is there evidence anybody from the Middle East sailed into the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans before 420 AD? The maps of that period don't even show that these oceans existed. There was no knowledge of the Pacific Ocean in Lehi and Mulek's time. In that world the Indian Ocean was completely sealed off by land with the farthest islands known as Rahma and Kamara. As you know, these are toponyms found in the Book of Mormon dating to the same time period. The same names in the same time periods in a geography that matches the internal map of the Book of Mormon. Evidence-based reasoning. Follow the evidence. I continue to find this argument lazy.
×
×
  • Create New...