Finding Zarahemla?

[charity]

Scottie, I would use "doubt."

[cinepro]

They aren't perfect. But they have wisdom from experience that you lack. And no matter what, you love them.

I totally agree. In fact, this is pretty much where I am now; I appreciate the goodness in the Church, and in many ways I do "love" the Church for all its weaknesses.

But is this really what "the Church" wants? And what if the issue isn't "The Church", but the doctrines and teachings of the Church (i.e. "The Gospel"), which is supposed to be "perfect"? If someone asked you the following question, what you be your answer:

"I understand the members and leaders of the LDS Church are fallible, but is the gospel itself perfect? Can the God you worship do wrong? Does He have all the answers?"

I hate to bring it up again, but this being the season and all, what about Santa? If my parents taught me about Santa, and I felt disturbed when I found out they were teaching me something that wasn't true, couldn't I still love my parents and accept them for who they were without believing in Santa?

Could this be similar to how some people don't believe in Joseph Smith's supernatural claims, or the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but still find benefit from attending Church and being associated with Church members?

And how does your analogy fit with these two scriptures:

1 Cor. 13: 11

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

That seems simple enough, but what does it mean to "put away" childish things?

And what about this popular scripture:

Matt. 18: 3

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus seems to really like the idea of his followers being "as little children". In looking at your analogy, what conclusions can we draw about the ideal mental state of a follower of Christ?

[Beowulf]

But Cinepro, your two NT quotes give contrasting meanings, not reinforced ones.

Paul tells us to grow up. Jesus tells us to be children.

But of course, these are not incompatible. Have the faith of a child, but also the clear-eyed vision of an adult.

This is not cognitive dissonance so much as a description of a good Mormon apologist...

Beowulf

[Doc]

rongo:

Then again, excavations of LDS meetinghouses would present strong evidence that these people's worship centered around a ritual ballcourt (located in the middle of the religious structure), right?

And those future archaeologists, were they familiar with Mesoamerican ballcourts, would look for evidence of blood. From what I have seen of some of those basketball games, I bet they would find it!

And the archaeologist would probably puzzle what religious significance that cheerios played in LDS religious services.

Okay enough of this psychobabble about cognative dissonance, you can start your own thread. Let's get back to the OP.

Doc

~

[Dale]

How many possible place candidates have been proposed for Zarahemla? Finding cities should not be hard. Seems like an impossible task to me to say a place was the real Zarahemla for sure. But not having proof none of the places was Zarahemla I see it ok to continue to believe Zarahemla was a real place.

[Moksha]

How many possible place candidates have been proposed for Zarahemla? Finding cities should not be hard. Seems like an impossible task to me to say a place was the real Zarahemla for sure. But not having proof none of the places was Zarahemla I see it ok to continue to believe Zarahemla was a real place.

Think of it as like Brigadoon. It is out there in the mist...Come home, come home, come home to Bonnie Zarahemla....

[Dale]

I have been reading Mormon Apocrypha by edited by Brent Metcalfe & Dan Vogel. In the Editors introduction they go after Dr. John L. Sorensons limited Book of Mormon geography for several items of trivia. I feel the trivia used to discredit Dr. Sorenson was faulty. FARMS Review 16:1 has an article that responds to other material by Dan Vogel. But it treats some of what I am reading from Mormon Apocrypha as well. So at this time I feel I can rely on the Book of Mormon text as presenting having an internal geography that may be matched up with real places eventually.

[Calm]

Finding cities should not be hard.

Are you secure in this assumption? If so, could you explain your position please.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Dan,

I guess I should have given scriptural references. You seem to not understand what I said. The stone should be in Zarahemla regardless of the question of literacy. See Omni 1:20-22.

Apparently I failed to communicate my thoughts. I did not intend my response to specifically address your comment regarding Coraintumr

[Brant Gardner]

Dale:

So at this time I feel I can rely on the Book of Mormon text as presenting having an internal geography that may be matched up with real places eventually.

One of the common issues with Sorenson's geogrpaphic correlation is cardinal directions. Larry Poulsen has looked at Mesoamerican representations of directions and concluded (correctly, I might add) that the concept differs from what we consider "north." For us, the cardinal directions may be described with a + and therefore we consider north a straight line from the center toward north.

For Mesoamericans, the directions were based on the four corners - which were the quadrants. If our concept is a +, theirs was an x. This makes "north" the wedge of the pie rather than a straight line.

See Poulsen's application of that principle to the very location Sorenson suggests. We have two geographers finding the same basic location with slightly different processes.

Poulsen's Book of Mormon Geography

[Dale]

If I recall right the Old Testament which they had was written like the Book of Mormon in reformed egyptian. Unless the Nephites spoke in reformed egyptian it must have been translated back into whatever native language they used so they understood it.

What in the Book of Mormon text suggests that they would have used Hebrew over Mayan glyphs in Zarahemla? Do we know from the Book of Mormon the common language written & spoken of the people?

Plus the scribes would have been taught the proper name for Zarahemla in reformed egyptian. But what if the people preferred a non-reformed egyptian name for Zarahemla based on Mayan glyph's.

If you migrated to the new world you would need to trade & converse with the existing inhabitants. This would make the adoption of a new written & spoken language very much a matter of survival.

-----------

Thanks for the other information Brant. The Book of Mormon text must be read as possibly matching up with real places or Zarahemla can be anywhere or no place at all.

[Brant Gardner]

Dale:

The brass plates appear to be in Egyptian, not reformed Egyptian. We don't hear of reformed Egyptian until a thousand years later and the term indicates that it is different from Egyptian - and cannot be read by others.

The text at the end also indicates that it is not written in Hebrew - though they had to be able to read Hebrew to make sense of the statement that it could have been written in Hebrew. The Hebrew, however, had also been modified and might be called "reformed Hebrew" as a parallel to the changes in "Egyptian."

There is no indication what the popular language or text would have been. Both Hebrew/reformed Hebrew and Egyptian/reformed Egyptian were at least scribal languages. They may have been specialized texts for the writing of sacred scriptures (much as an archaeized Hebrew was used for many of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

[Dale]

Brant thanks for the clarification. I doubt based on your information then that we can be sure based on the Book of Mormon text alone that they would have left Hebrew, or Egyptian lying around. Zarahemla references may have been lost

Another difficulty is if they knew the Book of Mormon plates would alone preserve the history they may have thought it a waste of time to produce records on scrolls, or whatever they wrote on. And with all the wars they had their enemies could have easily destroyed records kept on perishable materials. With the New Testament I think we have 5,000 greek N.T. manuscripts of various conditions. Meso-Americans from Book of Mormon times did not appear to be in the habit of making many copies of their records. They made one big book for future publication and that was it.

[Bill Hamblin]

It appears that Dan Vogel has followed the example of Brent Metcalfe in deciding that discretion is the better part of valor, and is refusing to answer my questions concerning the issue he raised.

Vogel declaimed:

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

It appears that Dan Vogel has followed the example of Brent Metcalfe in deciding that discretion is the better part of valor, and is refusing to answer my questions concerning the issue he raised.

Sorry, other things got in the way of answering.

Vogel declaimed:

[Confidential Informant]

I agree with Wright that NHM

[Dale]

If a name like Zarahemla were found would it be classified as coincidence, or would Zarahemla be proved? What more would we have to have if a similar, or exact name wern't enough in order to prove it was really the Book of Mormon Zarahemla?

[Uncle Dale]

If a name like Zarahemla were found would it be classified as coincidence, or would Zarahemla be proved? What more would we have to have if a similar, or exact name wern't enough in order to prove it was really the Book of Mormon Zarahemla?

I think that a unique, truly ancient occurence of that name, discovered within the

context of artifacts which COULD have been of Mulekite/Nephite origin would be

enough to reassure Latter Day Saints that the BoM is "true," just as most of them

have believed all along. Such a discovery would probably catch the attention of

the Gentile archaeologists, anthropoligists, and preColumbian historians as well.

I am also totally convinced that neither the city, nor the name, nor any evidence of

ancient Zarahemlaites whatsoever will EVER be discovered.

Of course that is merely my personal opinion, and many folks here will no doubt

disagree. But, all considered, I think that it is better that non-TBMs such as myself

are open and honest about their opinions, (rather than hypocritical or voicing words

of testimony they cannot really utter as an outcome of true personal revelation).

Uncle Dale

[Dale]

Uncle Dale what do you think of Confidential Informants proof for Book of Mormon locations? I have seen some attempts to disprove the geography of 1st Nephi, but am satisfied with the research. This research gives me hope Zarahemla will be found, or made known to us some day with or without the discovery of a place name.

[Bernard Gui]

Interesting how so many of us need some sort of hard evidence

to verify our faith. Kind of reminds me of the story of Sherem

who tried to dissuade Jacob from his belief in Jesus because there was

not physical evidence for it, nor could there be. Jacob scoffed...

he had had visions and prophecies that were his evidence and

that was unshakable.

Bernard

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel

Name similarities by themselves can be explained as coincidence.

Hamblin

Perhaps. But so can any nineteenth century parallel that you claim to find. Anything can be explained as a coincidence. Parallels in and of themselves are not significant, as I

[Bernard Gui]

Bro. Hamblin:

This is the kind of discussion that makes it worthwhile to

hang around here. Thanks so much.

Bernard

[Moksha]

Does this help any? Look on the map to find Zarahemla.

[Abulafia]

I am familiar with this map Moksha, apparantly done by Vernal Holley.

Is the lower map from the 19th Century?

I know that various non-mormon sources use it.

Abulafia

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale what do you think of Confidential Informants proof for Book of Mormon locations? I have seen some attempts to disprove the geography of 1st Nephi, but am satisfied with the research. This research gives me hope Zarahemla will be found, or made known to us some day with or without the discovery of a place name.

I have only heard references to, and summaries of, the material you mention. I see

what has been posted in this thread by "Confidential Informant;" however, it appears

to me that it has not yet made it into the reputable, scholarly, peer-reviewed

journals -- which is where I might first take closer notice.

However, if you wish to bring out a certain point, which you feel well represents the

value of the "Confidential Informant's proof for Book of Mormon locations," I

would be most happy to consider the "evidence" thus presented.

Uncle Dale