The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[awyatt]

Markk said: Sure I have, I have made it very clear, they built in the manner of the Jews...

And exactly where did you get that? Is it in the Book of Mormon? Exactly what does "in the manner of the Jews" mean?

Markk said: ...the architecture would match...

Match what, Markk? Match the Old World architecture? Even though it was an entirely different climate? Even though "Jewish" architecture of, let's say, Russia does't match "Jewish" architecture of Israel or Egypt? Even though if they were the same at 600 A.D. it is probable that they would have diverged in the 2,500 years since then?

Again, what "match" would you expect to find?

Markk said: If there were millions of believing Jews that Knew and believed in the Messiah, later Jesus, and they wrote records, making them a record keeping people, they were educated, and well versed, we would find much evidence as in the book like I referenced to Brant in one of my first posts on this thread.

Where would we find the writing? Most critics say (incorrectly) that there was no writing on metal by MesoAmericans, so I guess we don't need to look at metal records. Anything written on perishable materials (scrolls, the like) would have deteriorated and decayed in the climate. Whatever survived was probably plundered and destroyed by the conquerers of the Nephites, and definitely plundered and destroyed by the Spanish invaders. The Old World never faced such problems related to record retention. How would you educate the MesoAmerican archaeologists to find such writings?

Markk said: There would be Hebrew writing and symbolism that would match Old World writing and symbolism.

Another assumption on your part. The Book of Mormon doesn't indicate that there was Hebrew writing. On what basis are you making this assumption?

Markk said: So know it is not pointless unless you ignore the BoM text.

Fascinating.

Markk said: ...there is more than enough data to put together a very structured profile of these people, their wars, their struggles, their ideology, the style of architecture, means and methods of transportation, the food they ate, the ore's they mined, the tools they made, the weapons they forged, the type of buildings they made and the materials they made them with. We know who they worshipped and what they worshipped, and how they worshipped and what they worshipped in. we know they had a thriving shipping industry and great armies. we know there was countless city's and they were from one end of the continent to the other, North, South, East, and West, as the sand of the beach.

And still you discount or completely ignore the LDS scholars who have made it their life's work to put together this very picture. Again, fascinating.

Markk said: When it tells us what kind of weapons they made, both Lamanite and Nephites, that is data, not sacred, but real hard data on what they went to war with.

I agree it is "hard data," but not nearly as extensive as you make it out to be. All the record tells us is that there were weapons, and it gives names to them. It does not tell us, however, about the composition of those weapons--how they were made and of what they were made (with the notable exception of Nephi's bow in the Old World). Any assumptions on your part about these matters are just that--assumptions.

Markk said: Before I go on, how many Nephites were in the BoM land from first page to last page? I would say countless and can supply evidence both physically described, and prophetically described in the BoM. give me a aprox number so I know were you are coming from?

I agree with you; there were "countless" (and dare I say, "uncountable") numbers of descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram.

Now that I've done what you asked, you can "go on" and answer my question: "What acceptable evidence would you expect to see survive these three facts, and where would you expect that evidence to be found?"

-Allen

[Dale]

You could only duplicate Old World architecture if they were an expert in it. I live in a house, but if you took me to another part of the world I doubt I would be able to reproduce the house I live in. I would probably adopt housing that was used in the culture.

[JNclone]

Dale:

You could only duplicate Old World architecture if they were an expert in it. I live in a house, but if you took me to another part of the world I doubt I would be able to reproduce the house I live in. I would probably adopt housing that was used in the culture.

# 2 Ne. 5: 16

16 And I, Nephi, did abuild

[Dale]

God could have given them plans, or they could have guessed from the Bible. It doesn't mean their regular buildings were typically Old World.

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

Thanks for the response.

And exactly where did you get that? Is it in the Book of Mormon? Exactly what does "in the manner of the Jews" mean?

13 And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews.

Note the quantities...

14 But behold, a ahundredth

[awyatt]

Markk said: It would mean that these buildings...would reflect Jewish culture...

Can you tell me what "Jewish culture" means? Can you tell me that Mormon (the person who wrote Alma 16:13) meant by "after the manner of the Jews?" Can you tell me if he meant the same thing that that you do?

In constructing your answer, you might wonder if Mormon, who lived 1000 years after Nephi and had never seen any authentic "Jewish" architecture (if he were indeed referring to such), could possibly be mistaken in his statement. You might also wonder if Mormon could be mistaken because "Jewish" architecture (if he were indeed talking about such) had changed in the time since Lehi had left Jerusalem. In other words, what benchmark do you think Mormon could have possibly used for comparison in making a statement that you are sure refers to architecture?

Markk said: ...there would be vast amounts of evidence in these Holy places that these people Worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...and Jesus.

Assuming that such buildings could be found, what "evidence" do you think would depict God and Jesus within those buildings? Also, you seem incapable of addressing the fact that at about 400 BC nobody worshiped "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...and Jesus" anymore; they were all wiped out. When the non-Christian conquerers took their cities and their buildings, why do you think that the evidence you are positive about would still remain to this day?

Markk said: The BoM says Nephi taught the people to build in that old world style...

You are jumping to conclusions. Nephi said that the temple he built was "the same but different" as the temple of Solomon. You extrapolate that to mean that *all* their buildings were built in the Old World style, but the text doesn't say that.

Markk said: Who said it was a different climate? That would be true and false in that the land spread from sea to sea North, South, East, and West.

Now you are stretching a bit, aren't you? (Aren't you the one who said that LDS scholars try to "force" data to fit their ideas? Interesting.)

Markk said: ...remember, there is not proof in the BoM that others existed, if your going to compare, be fair and compare apples to apples.

OK, I will. I suggest you do the same.

Lehi and his people came, according to the best scholarly information, to the area we now call MesoAmerica in about 600 BC. Archaeology shows that there were people living in that area long before that time. What are we to do with those people, Markk? Are you insisting that they be somehow ignored because the Book of Mormon doesn't mention them? Taking all available information, we *know* there were people in the area. Comparing apples to apples yourself.

Markk said: According to the BoM quote sabove,from Nephi to Alma they were built in the manner of the Jews and that is from about 600BC to 80 BC, so that argument won't fly.

Not true, for reasons already mentioned.

Markk said: Get out your concordance and look up the words written, wrote, write, writings...

Don't need to; I know they wrote. That wasn't the issue at point. You need to address how the writing would last through 2,500 years in a humid environment and through at least two military and cultural conquests that performed, as part of their conquest, the mass destruction of records.

Markk said: Again your assuming that the BoM lands are in a jungle, that is not what it says Allen, your just guessing at best, we need to stick to the context which demands a people over the whole American continent, North South, East, and West like the sands on a beach it was populated.

You are just talking past me, Markk. Even though you don't believe in the Book of Mormon, you are insisting in a hemispheric theory that I don't accept. The text you are fond of quoting demands a much more limited coverage. (Try doing a study of travel times in the Book of Mormon sometime, then figure out how they could travel so fast over the entire hemisphere.)

Markk said: Are you sure?

33 And if our plates had been asufficiently

[asciikerr]

Can you tell me what "Jewish culture" means? Can you tell me that Mormon (the person who wrote Alma 16:13) meant by "after the manner of the Jews?" Can you tell me if he meant the same thing that that you do?

In constructing your answer, you might wonder if Mormon, who lived 1000 years after Nephi and had never seen any authentic "Jewish" architecture (if he were indeed referring to such), could possibly be mistaken in his statement. You might also wonder if Mormon could be mistaken because "Jewish" architecture (if he were indeed talking about such) had changed in the time since Lehi had left Jerusalem. In other words, what benchmark do you think Mormon could have possibly used for comparison in making a statement that you are sure refers to architecture?

May I add a spin on this question, rather than focus on the actual temple build.

Ask yourself, were they correct before God to build another temple (Deut 12)?

Didn't God choose a prescribed place of worship, one that wasn't followed by the Northern Kingdom of Israel? They mention below a widely held belief "you Jews say that in Jerusaem is the place where one ought to worship" clearly this was well founded. Jesus backs this up by stating: "You (Samaritans & others) worship what you do not know." Clearly, Jesus (God) seen their worship as futile since they weren't really sure who they were worshipping (Yahweh of Samaria and his asherah). I believe He made a profound point identifying the Yahweh from Samaria was not the same as the Yahweh from Jerusalem. He continues by saying, "we know what we worship..." and worship being dictated by Deuteronomy 12 said the place of worship was in Jerusalem.

John 4:19-23 

19 The woman said to Him,

[Gervin]

Markk,

Exercise caution because awyatt practices the same style of apologetic as Brant Gardner; they want you to describe the artifacts and archeological evidence you expect to find relating to the Book of Mormon. Then, whatever you say, can be deemed wrong because you are either asking the wrong questions, making faulty interpretation of the Book of Mormon, looking at their evidence the wrong way, or some varation on these themes. They merrily take you along their path of reasoning, claiming that all the cities in the Book of Mormon are located ("just read Sorenson!"), that all the apparent anachronisms have logical explanations, and that the evidence is there if you'll only bother to look. And if you look and don't see, well you just are very "good looking" are you? Invariably they get carried along in the bliss of their argument to the point that they don't see that they've waded into some deep cow dung. To wit,

You can go through all the archaeological evidence you want, and during the time of Christ you won't find any evidence of candles, bushels, or candlesticks; they just don't exist. Based on that, should we throw out the Sermon on the Mount? No; we attribute the choice of language to the translators, who knew the needs of their audience and selected images that the audience was familiar with in order to get the idea across.

What a load. We have source languages for the Bible and know that words like "candle" and "bushel" have Hebrew and Greek origins (in this case "luchnos" and "moidros" in the Greek). Archaeologically there are literally thousands of examples of "luchnos" that have been found. Dating back to Bronze Age I. People write books and scholarly papers about "luchnos" and there is no doubt that whatever word you want to use - luchnos, candle, lamp - there is a real connection to verifiable artifacts. awyatt isn't going to take you down that path; he'd rather create obscufation. Archaeologically there are numerous examples of candlesticks from biblical times. For decades Harvard University has excavated at Sardis and in 1962 they located the synagogue and discovered a marble platform with the relief of a seven-branched candle-stick and tree, and an inscription in Hebrew letters. A number of menorahs were found, either as graffiti or made of actual stone. The relief found on the Arch of Titus shows Roman soldiers carrying spoils from the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (70 AD), including the Temple Menorah. Also, 1st-3rd Century AD, candle sticks often come up for auction

[David Bokovoy]

Asciikerr,

Didn't God choose a prescribed place of worship, one that wasn't followed by the Northern Kingdom of Israel?... He made a profound point identifying the Yahweh from Samaria was not the same as the Yahweh from Jerusalem. He continues by saying, "we know what we worship..." and worship being dictated by Deuteronomy 12 said the place of worship was in Jerusalem.

This claim from the film is really problematic. You need to recognize that

[Markk]

Hi Gervin,

Actually I enjoy it, I believe it should be thrown out and let the folks decide. If you have read through our conversation it is clear as to what their approach is, and those reading can decide. Actually I enjoyed your discussion with Peterson allot, the same results. I have a letter from a ex-member I would love for you to read, I'll try to figure out how to attach it here or maybe I'll type it out if I get time, it really hits the nail on the head to why "they must".

Mark

John 1:12

[awyatt]

Gervin said: Exercise caution because awyatt practices the same style of apologetic as Brant Gardner;

Would it disappoint you if I take your effort at poisoning the well as a compliment?

Gervin said: ...they want you to describe the artifacts and archeological evidence you expect to find relating to the Book of Mormon. Then, whatever you say, can be deemed wrong because you are either asking the wrong questions, making faulty interpretation of the Book of Mormon, looking at their evidence the wrong way, or some varation on these themes.

Actually, this isn't really true. Nice try, though.

Gervin said: They merrily take you along their path of reasoning, claiming that all the cities in the Book of Mormon are located ("just read Sorenson!")...

Another nice try. Sorensen, to my knowledge, doesn't claim to have located them all. He posits potential locations for many of them, but not all of them. And whether you like it or not, if you want to play in the Book of Mormon archeaological sandbox, you are going to have to grapple with Sorenson sooner or later. No matter how long you close your eyes, you eventually have to deal with the elephant in the room.

Gervin said: ...that all the apparent anachronisms have logical explanations...

This was never claimed, and would be falacious if it was claimed.

Gervin said: ...and that the evidence is there if you'll only bother to look.

Good--you've learned something. (Or were you really being sarcastic? I can't tell.)

Gervin said: And if you look and don't see, well you just are very "good looking" are you?

What does Markk's looks have to do with this discussion? I never brought them up, and Markk may be offended by you bringing them up now.

Gervin said: Invariably they get carried along in the bliss of their argument to the point that they don't see that they've waded into some deep cow dung. To wit,

You can go through all the archaeological evidence you want, and during the time of Christ you won't find any evidence of candles, bushels, or candlesticks; they just don't exist. Based on that, should we throw out the Sermon on the Mount? No; we attribute the choice of language to the translators, who knew the needs of their audience and selected images that the audience was familiar with in order to get the idea across.

What a load. We have source languages for the Bible and know that words like "candle" and "bushel" have Hebrew and Greek origins (in this case "luchnos" and "moidros" in the Greek). Archaeologically there are literally thousands of examples of "luchnos" that have been found. Dating back to Bronze Age I. People write books and scholarly papers about "luchnos" and there is no doubt that whatever word you want to use - luchnos, candle, lamp - there is a real connection to verifiable artifacts. awyatt isn't going to take you down that path; he'd rather create obscufation. Archaeologically there are numerous examples of candlesticks from biblical times. For decades Harvard University has excavated at Sardis and in 1962 they located the synagogue and discovered a marble platform with the relief of a seven-branched candle-stick and tree, and an inscription in Hebrew letters. A number of menorahs were found, either as graffiti or made of actual stone. The relief found on the Arch of Titus shows Roman soldiers carrying spoils from the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (70 AD), including the Temple Menorah. Also, 1st-3rd Century AD, candle sticks often come up for auction

[Brant Gardner]

Gervin:

Word choices are made on a knowledge of the source language and its application to present-day knowledge. And "candle" could have been correctly translated "lamp" and bushel could have been correctly translated "measuring container."

I'm not really sure what you thought the point was with this particular sentence, but you are demonstrating exactly what the issue is for the Book of Mormon. A translation can be technically anachronouse but the underlying text can be correct. The "candle" could have been correctly translated. Absolutely.

The point is, however, that it wasn't. The fact that it wasn't technically correct is an issue of translation, not of historicity. As you have just demonstrated.

Thank you.

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

But what about all the evidence a translation can identify, I'm looking at a photo of a biblical time oil lamp with a menorah on it. The bottom line is, the BoM gives a ample amount, at the least, that a evidence of its people would and could be identified, but there is none, while the bible has a abundance that keeps growing.

What I never see by LDS "scholars " here is what does the evidence protray of the evidence of what is found in these places that are suspected BoM cities and lands. What did they worship and how and where, what did they eat, etc. It is always a excuse if the evidence its against the BoM itself. or I don't know, or it can't be found, then when there is a hint of a evidence, it is proven and reliable.

Wyatt says there is no evidence in the BoM about what swords were made of, I gave him proof text and he then says we don't know what they would look like etc. I showed him where they wrote in Hebrew and he denies it says that when it clearly does, if didn't know anything about Hebrew and couldn't write it, how did they know that, give me a break. That is just a example of the isogenical approach and the fact that no matter what, faith will trump any or lack of evidence that would prove either wrong or right.

Then as Gervin stated, he applies stupidity on our part and says that he is done with the conversation.

Mark

John 1:12

[amo]

I would really appreciate it if asciikerr could comment on what was said by David Bokovoy on the subject of temples out of Jerusalem, so we can once & for all turn the page on this particular issue…

Amo

[awyatt]

Markk said: Then as Gervin stated, he applies stupidity on our part and says that he is done with the conversation.

I see you've decided to join Gervin in putting words in my mouth. I never applied "stupidity" to you or him. If I thought you were stupid (incapable of understanding), I wouldn't have bothered to discuss anything with you, as such would reflect poorly on me, wouldn't it?

In addition, I didn't say I was "done with the conversation." I did say that "until you recognize your own preconceptions and recognize that you could be wrong, I don't hold out much hope for our continued conversation." I will stand by that; if you aren't willing to see the other person's side in a discussion, there really isn't much hope that can be held out. But I didn't end the discussion; that is your characterization.

You asked questions; I gave answers. You don't have to accept them, which is what I have said all along. What gets tiresome (to use Gervin's terminology) is when critics, just because they disagree, pretend that no answer has been given when one truly was given.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi allen,

That works both ways, I have given clear answers and BoM reference that show that you were wrong, should you in turn admit that or ignor it?

mark

John 1;12

[awyatt]

Hi allen,

That works both ways, I have given clear answers and BoM reference that show that you were wrong, should you in turn admit that or ignor it?

mark

John 1;12

If you recognize it works both ways, perhaps we are making progress.

1. I understand your position; I even understand how you could arrive at your position.

2. Even though #1 is true, I don't accept your position because of the evidence quoted and much more. (Remember how I said, earlier in this thread, that I've been studying this for years and years and invited you to do the same?)

3. I have repeatedly told you that despite #2 you are free to believe what you want.

But when it comes to you:

1. You've given no indication that you understand my position, nor do you given any indication that you understand how my position could be arrived at.

2. Even without understanding my position (or making any visible attempt to do so) you dismiss my position.

3. You've made no statement comparable to my #3.

So, what am I to make of all this? I keep talking to you in the hope that further knowledge (if you are indeed seeking such) will bring you to a point where you can at least recognize that you understand why the LDS believe the way they do. If you are not interested in such an understand, though, you should come right out and say so.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

First we need to qualify your statement,

So, what am I to make of all this? I keep talking to you in the hope that further knowledge (if you are indeed seeking such) will bring you to a point where you can at least recognize that you understand why the LDS believe the way they do. If you are not interested in such an understand, though, you should come right out and say so.

I assure you your veiw on this is not the LDS veiw, it is a select group that believes and teaches this, more than 99% wouldn't have a clue, they might agree with you if asked in a forum like this, but only because I disagree with the LDS faith as a whole. If I am incorrect, give me a reference to the "offical" view you hold by the church. and to be fair 99.999 percent of Ev's wouldn't even know what a Nephite was, let alone what we are discussing. I have a brother who is a bishop and has worked at BYU for 25 years or so and thinks LDS scholarship is certainly not main stream and doesn't have much use for it, He is as TBM as they come. so lets just call it Mark's view and Allens view

So Allen"s view is this in a nut shell, correct me if I'm wrong. After the split there was such a small group of Nephites that, whether or not they intermixed with other people, in the years to follow all culture from the Old world would have been lost and they would have developed a culture of either their own, or a mixed culture of there own and the people they have mixed with. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what "we' could/would find, verify, or placing it as a "BoM' land antiquity, place or culture. And, the BoM is sacred and religoues by nature and doesn't offer enough data at face value to make anything more than a assumption.

Fair, please correct me if i do not understand and tell me what my view is?

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Mark-You are correct in that all areas of LDS scholarship is not embraced by all in the mainstream. But neither is many areas of Evangelical apologetics for the Bible. Creation science is one area that I think of is mocked by mainstream scientists. Scholarship is as much as an apologetic for a position as is any religious apologetic. And since LDS scholarship is religious outside of that faith adherants I doubt it would be accepted by the mainstream. Doesn't make it bad scholarship though.

As to your Bishop relative some might agree with him, and others might not. I have collected examples of mainstream literature on the Book of Mormon. Two examples I can think of is American Apocrypha & New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. I do not have much use of that scholarship. I read it to be informed as to other positions, but that's all. Since I am Community of Christ/RLDS we have a lot more people that feel like him than the LDS.

I just think scholarship should be judged on its own merits & not on how many people in the mainstream feel differently. In American Apocrypha edited by Dan Vogel & Brent Metcalfe you read Tom Murphy's essay on DNA issues & you would think he dealt the Book of Mormon historicity position a death blow. After reading several responses to the essay, and seeing Tom Murphy in Bible vs. The Book of Mormon film I doubt he is correct.

He represents a mainstream position on the idea man originated in Africa & not from Adam & Eve after they came out of the garden. He rejects the idea of a young earth, pre-Adamites, and a lot of ideas some in the Evangelical community hold. Though its my understanding belief in pre-Adamic human like beings is a belief some Evangelicals hold. I do not know I could reject scholarship just because not embraced by the mainstream.

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

Every body has different opinions, but the point I was making is that we should not make our opinions a blanket opinion unless we are quoting some kind of "official" quote or reference. In the case of the LDS church that is a very important point, allot of people on this site who are LDS seem to alway get up set at others who are not LDS and say things like "don't tell us what we believe", as if their actual view at the time is accepted by all members. If you read my posts on LDS theology I always try to go out of my way to say " the LDS teachers teach", or " LDS theology says". So my point is to Allen is his view is just that, his view. I unerstand that others share his view, but it is in the minority, not so much that others have different "thought out " views, but that others just believe a general excepted view and really do not care to take it farther, or hold to the traditional views like i was taught.

Mark

John 1:12

[awyatt]

Markk said: I assure you your veiw on this is not the LDS veiw...

And how, pray tell, do you know this? Do you think that since you left the Church you have a better concept of the "LDS view" than someone like me who is still in the Church?

Markk said: ...it is a select group that believes and teaches this, more than 99% wouldn't have a clue...

Again, why do you think you know this better than I do?

Markk said: ...they might agree with you if asked in a forum like this, but only because I disagree with the LDS faith as a whole.

If you don't trust the answers you get here, Markk, then why do you stay? I would think you would want to go somewhere that you could get what you view to be authoritative answers.

Markk said: If I am incorrect, give me a reference to the "offical" view you hold by the church.

Since we have been talking about Book of Mormon geography, you are asking for something (an "official" view) that doesn't exist. I thought you knew this--the Church takes no official stand on Book of Mormon geography.

Markk said: ...and to be fair 99.999 percent of Ev's wouldn't even know what a Nephite was, let alone what we are discussing.

I'm not concerned about EVs, Markk. You asked what the LDS believe, not what EVs think that the LDS believe.

Markk said: I have a brother who is a bishop and has worked at BYU for 25 years or so and thinks LDS scholarship is certainly not main stream and doesn't have much use for it, He is as TBM as they come.

That doesn't surprise me, since Mormons can have differing views in an area in which there is no official doctrine or pronouncement. I have a brother who is a bishop, a newphew who is a bishop, and have two very close friends who are bishops. None of them has any problem with "LDS scholarship" in this area. I'm not doubting what you are saying, and I'm not trying to say that my personal knowledge of various bishops somehow trumps your knowledge of bishops; it doesn't. I only provide the information so that you can hopefully understand that there is room for a divergence of opinion on this and many other topics among LDS clergy.

Markk said: ...so lets just call it Mark's view and Allens view.

We can do that if you want; no problem.

Markk said: So Allen's view is this in a nut shell, correct me if I'm wrong. After the split there was such a small group of Nephites that, whether or not they intermixed with other people, in the years to follow all culture from the Old world would have been lost and they would have developed a culture of either their own, or a mixed culture of there own and the people they have mixed with.

This is all fine up to here.

Markk said: Therefore, there is no way of knowing what "we' could/would find, verify, or placing it as a "BoM' land antiquity, place or culture.

There are other ways to try to place the geography, and folks have been working on that for the last hundred years or so. The real scholarship in the area has occurred in the last 40 years, however.

Markk said: And, the BoM is sacred and religoues by nature and doesn't offer enough data at face value to make anything more than a assumption.

It is sacred and religious by nature. It provides clues as to geography and other items, but those are incidental to the sacred and religious nature of the book; they are not essential to it. The clues can be studied, explored, interpreted, and analyzed. The analysis can be compared against what we know of "real-world" environments in the interest of placing the geography. But such placing only provides evidences and is not done to "verify" or "prove" the book.

Markk said: Fair, please correct me if i do not understand and tell me what my view is?

Your view, if I gather correctly from our discussion, is that the Lehites entered a pristine, unspoiled hemisphere in which there were no other peoples. (You seem to believe that every last Jaredite died before the Lehites arrived.) The Lehites then grew to be as numerous as the sands of the sea and covered the entire hemisphere from Point Barrow, Alaska, to the southern tip of South America. You believe that every Native American, regardless of tribe or location in the hemisphere, is descended either from Lehi, Ishmael, or Zoram. You believe that these people built many cities, went into battle riding wheeled chariots pulled by horses, mined tons of metal to make armor and armaments for those battles, and built machines to do much of their work.

I probably left a few things out, but I think that is the gist of what I've gathered that you believe.

-Allen

[Scott Gordon]

I assure you your veiw on this is not the LDS veiw, it is a select group that believes and teaches this, more than 99% wouldn't have a clue,

This seems to be a standard answer these days. I have heard this claim many times in relation to where the Book of Mormon took place and who are the lamanites.

If you talk to an LDS bookstore owner, you will find that doctrinal books are not all that popular. What is most popular are the various novels, and one of the most popular set of novels is "Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites." This set of books places the events of the Book of Mormon squarely in MesoAmerica only.

So it seems that popular Mormon culture accepts the LGT.

[Markk]

Hi Scott,

I haven't read the book you referenced, but I assume it is not a ridged work that would go into detail for study, at least by the title and your, correct me if I am wrong. One of the most read books in the Christian book stores is the Left Behind series, but I know that most of the people who read these books couldn't explain the pre trib view in escotology beyond the general view, and I know post and mid tribers redathese books too. But maybe the church is changing, i'll make it a point to ask my friens to explain what they believe.

I would still say most LDS would not even know what LGT means.

Mark

John 1:12

[awyatt]

Markk said: ...we should not make our opinions a blanket opinion unless we are quoting some kind of "official" quote or reference.

Agreed.

Markk said: In the case of the LDS church that is a very important point, allot of people on this site who are LDS seem to alway get up set at others who are not LDS and say things like "don't tell us what we believe", as if their actual view at the time is accepted by all members.

Nope. You seem to be misunderstanding. Let's see if I can make it clearer.

I say "don't tell me what I believe" because I consider that rude, pure and simple. It don't say it because I think I hold the same opinion on theological, doctrinal, or non-doctrinal matters as any other LDS. I know there are differences of opinion, just as there are in any other religious tradition.

Markk said: If you read my posts on LDS theology I always try to go out of my way to say "the LDS teachers teach", or "LDS theology says".

You have not said that even once that I can recall in this entire thread, and if you did, you would be wrong to have done so. Why? Because geography and theology are not synonymous. It is not even apples and oranges; it is more like apples and spark plugs. They are entirely different things.

Markk said: So my point is to Allen is his view is just that, his view.

I've never claimed anything else.

Markk said: I unerstand that others share his view, but it is in the minority...

This may very well be, but again I ask how you know this. Do you have some sort of evidence to back up the assertion?

Markk said: ...not so much that others have different "thought out" views, but that others just believe a general excepted view and really do not care to take it farther, or hold to the traditional views like i was taught.

This may very well be, Markk. But you have to understand that there is no "perfect" view when it comes to Book of Mormon geography. There is no view that is so authoritative that it knocks out all other views. When you couple this fact with the very real doctrine of Mormonism related to "continuing revelation" that grows, changes, and adapts over time, you should also understand that everything we are talking about right now (in relation to Book of Mormon geography) could change in rather drastic or radical ways in the next 10, 50, or 100 years.

And that's OK with me.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

You have not said that even once that I can recall in this entire thread, and if you did, you would be wrong to have done so. Why? Because geography and theology are not synonymous. It is not even apples and oranges; it is more like apples and spark plugs. They are entirely different things.

I said LDS theology, go read my posts on faith VS works with Del. But in the case of our conversation, how many times did I say, "The BoM says", or "Helaman says", I do no belive I ever said "this is what Mormons believe".

And how, pray tell, do you know this? Do you think that since you left the Church you have a better concept of the "LDS view" than someone like me who is still in the Church?

My family is still LDS, we talk, I know LDS people, and have good friend sthat are LDS, and to tell you the truth,most could care less. I have a cousin that lives up the street from me who is a Bishop with a PHD, and although I haven't talked to him about this, I am sure he knows, but he is the quit type that would never discuss it, but is the exception, at least in my world. To tell you the truth Allen, most are just trying to take care of their families and are not the least bit interested and could really care less. And allot posters here just follow what you guys say, if they were isolated from you guys they would be lost in explaining this stuff. As you said the Church is silent, so how else would they even know about it?

There are other ways to try to place the geography, and folks have been working on that for the last hundred years or so. The real scholarship in the area has occurred in the last 40 years, however.

What are these ways?

It is sacred and religious by nature. It provides clues as to geography and other items, but those are incidental to the sacred and religious nature of the book; they are not essential to it. The clues can be studied, explored, interpreted, and analyzed. The analysis can be compared against what we know of "real-world" environments in the interest of placing the geography. But such placing only provides evidences and is not done to "verify" or "prove" the book.

Why does that work for geography, and not antiquity. How would you know what a narrow neck of land really is to these people?

Your view, if I gather correctly from our discussion, is that the Lehites entered a pristine, unspoiled hemisphere in which there were no other peoples. (You seem to believe that every last Jaredite died before the Lehites arrived.) The Lehites then grew to be as numerous as the sands of the sea and covered the entire hemisphere from Point Barrow, Alaska, to the southern tip of South America. You believe that every Native American, regardless of tribe or location in the hemisphere, is descended either from Lehi, Ishmael, or Zoram. You believe that these people built many cities, went into battle riding wheeled chariots pulled by horses, mined tons of metal to make armor and armaments for those battles, and built machines to do much of their work.

I probably left a few things out, but I think that is the gist of what I've gathered that you believe.

No, that couldn't be farther from the truth Allen, I don't believe any of that stuff, I am just telling you what the Bom says, and it says almost everything you wrote, and yet you are saying I'm wrong for quoting these things.

Mark

john 1;12