Temple complex Artifacts at "Khor Rohri"

[volgadon]

Unless the group were all supermen and women, it would have been physically impossible for them to carry all of the supplies necessary for desert travel in back packs. They had to utilize some type of beast of burden. Camels were the beast of choice for extended desert travel.

Glenn

Not strictly true. It would not be fun to carry provisions and tents and bows with no beasts of burden, but not impossible either.

They had 4 strapping boys.

As tents is in the plural, I imagine they were small affairs.

Provisions, some water or wine in skeins, and dried fruits mainly, perhaps some green wheat, certainly nothing incredibly heavy.

Not a word in all of 1st Nephi about beasts of burden. I'm not saying that this rules out the possibility of them, but that it is unlikely.

Camels are the beast of choice, but this wasn't a planned trip, it was a flight into the desert. Camels, it seems, were also pretty rare in Jerusalem back then.

[volgadon]

What would you do? Drop everything you do to help him on his foolish notion? I would be laughing my okole off at him. What your gonna build a boat and sail without an inkling of such knowledge to do so? God told you? Whatevers Nephi! Your gonna get killed and I'm not gonna help you do it. Noah built his ark alone with his family. Now bugger off.

I would stop him from wasting my valuable wood, were I a local.

[Glenn101]

Barter systems were prevalent during and up through the 19th century. They did not have to come up with cash. They were well educated as we read before leaving on their exodus. They could have trade skill work for goods as an indentured servant. This had to be as they had to pay tribute to all the Emirs along the frankincense trail and do the same with no money.

I understand the barter system. My point was, how much would they have available to barter for the goods needed? Especially after having to deal with the different tolls at the water holes/oasises along the way? Would a few camels be enough to buy the wood needed to build a ship, especially the expensive teak?

Also Nephi as did others had to have their own tools. Carpenters even today must have their own tools to build homes. They were highly valuable and not readily borrowed.

However, if he were to hire locals trained in ship building, as Potter surmises, they would already have the tools. When you hire a carpenter, you do not have to provide him with the tools of his trade.

Also if you were a local mariner, and found out of Nephi and his plans. What would you do? Drop everything you do to help him on his foolish notion? I would be laughing my okole off at him. What your gonna build a boat and sail without an inkling of such knowledge to do so? God told you? Whatevers Nephi! Your gonna get killed and I'm not gonna help you do it. Noah built his ark alone with his family. Now bugger off.

That is just what I have been thinking. That is also what Laman and Lemuel seemed to be thinking.

We see it all the time out here in Hawaii. Many tourists rent kayaks and say they are going to paddle to the other valley. We tell them don't do it just stay around here as the waters are safe. What happens they go off and get caught in rip currents and their kayak shows up but not the tourist. 5 to 6 a year so sad and too bad could've listened to the local. We are not gonna stop you from being foolish if you don't want to listen. Ditto with the surfers taking on wave action and not knowing the layout of the area. The bottom is not always sandy.

I'm sure Nephi got some pointers but probably more comedic laughter at his endeavor. Apparently his brothers were not keen on learning or leaving. After all why would you want to leave what seems paradise after the tortuous hell they just went through. You wonder why Nephi was almost thrown off the cliff?

I'm sure that also that Nephi got some pointers ..... from the Lord. As for the comedic laughter, he had a way of silencing that also. At least Laman and Lemuel were impressed.

Now the ship building could have been at Khor Rori. I do not know. But the latest information that we have from the archaeological digs indicate a settlement beginning around 300 B.C. This is from the Italian team that have been doing the brunt of the work. That information is subject to further refinement as the work progresses.

Also, the dearth of timber at Khor Rori now does not mandate that it was always so. According to the reports, Khor Kharfot is much more fertile now than Khor Rori. Whether it was so 600 BC is anyone's guess right now, until we get some better information.

As I have opined before, which one really doesn't matter.

Glenn

[handys003]

I would stop him from wasting my valuable wood, were I a local.

LOL! yeah Koa costs $50k per 50 foot tree now.

[handys003]

I understand the barter system. My point was, how much would they have available to barter for the goods needed? Especially after having to deal with the different tolls at the water holes/oasis's along the way? Would a few camels be enough to buy the wood needed to build a ship, especially the expensive teak?

However, if he were to hire locals trained in ship building, as Potter surmises, they would already have the tools. When you hire a carpenter, you do not have to provide him with the tools of his trade.

That is just what I have been thinking. That is also what Laman and Lemuel seemed to be thinking.

I'm sure that also that Nephi got some pointers ..... from the Lord. As for the comedic laughter, he had a way of silencing that also. At least Laman and Lemuel were impressed.

Now the ship building could have been at Khor Rori. I do not know. But the latest information that we have from the archaeological digs indicate a settlement beginning around 300 B.C. This is from the Italian team that have been doing the brunt of the work. That information is subject to further refinement as the work progresses.

Also, the dearth of timber at Khor Rori now does not mandate that it was always so. According to the reports, Khor Kharfot is much more fertile now than Khor Rori. Whether it was so 600 BC is anyone's guess right now, until we get some better information.

As I have opined before, which one really doesn't matter.

Glenn

I believe that was the temple dated to 300 BCE. The settlement was there several centuries before Nephi arrived. Some food for thought. Possibly it was a Lehynite temple such as the one at Dedan. As to Khor Kharfot being more fertile now. I would not deny that plausibility as more than likely the nutrients are getting depleted based on population growth.

[Zakuska]

It isn't even clear that he had any camels, let alone many.

He had a tent. You try carrying a bedoun tent across the desert on your back.

[volgadon]

He had a tent. You try carrying a bedoun tent across the desert on your back.

I told you that I have. I've carried different kinds of tents as well.

Not fun, but certainly not impossible.

Besides, we don't know that it was a bedouin tent.

[Zakuska]

So he carried a pup-tent?

A Bedoin tent which has been used traditionally for centuries sounds like a better fit to me.

[volgadon]

So he carried a pup-tent?

A Bedoin tent which has been used traditionally for centuries sounds like a better fit to me.

For starters, Lehi was not a Beduin.

Why the plural? One Beduin tent of the kind commonly seen today would have been more than sufficient for Lehi's family.

This was an unexpected, hasty flight into the wilderness. One grabs the bare essentials.

[blackwolf]

Thought I'd weigh in. I enjoy reading the forums but rarely post but don't like misinformation being spread too far.

I've been to most of the Bountiful candidates, been to the al Baleed museum, Khor Rori, Kharfot, Dalqut, Rakyut, Mughsayl and at least seen most places in between. No one knows for sure where 'Bountiful' was or wasn't so statements like

[Glenn101]

For starters, Lehi was not a Beduin.

Why the plural? One Beduin tent of the kind commonly seen today would have been more than sufficient for Lehi's family.

This was an unexpected, hasty flight into the wilderness. One grabs the bare essentials.

I do not think this was an unexpected, hasty flight. The Lord warned Lehi in a dream to take his family and flee from Jerusalem. There is no indication that the departure is in haste because in 1 Nephi 2 verse 4 we learn "4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness."

That verse denotes some preparation, because provisions and tents were included. The plural is because the test of verse 4 says "tents". It is highly unlikely that the troupe carried all of those provisions on their backs. Although the text does not indicate one way or the other, it is rational to expect people heading into the wilderness to use the preferred beasts of burden for such travels at the time, which were camels. Lehi may or may not already have been an experienced desert traveler. However, the Lord knew what the final destination was to be, and I do expect that He had Lehi prepare accordingly.

Although Lehi was not a Bedouin, the tents that he did carry were probably made in the same style as those of the nomads because they would have been used for the same purposes in the same geographic locations and conditions.

Some of the Bedouin tents are smallish, while some can be rather spacious. The text does not tell us just how many if any of the rest of the family dwelt with Lehi and Sariah, but that point is mot because they did take more than one tent.

Glenn

[handys003]

Thought I'd weigh in. I enjoy reading the forums but rarely post but don't like misinformation being spread too far.

I've been to most of the Bountiful candidates, been to the al Baleed museum, Khor Rori, Kharfot, Dalqut, Rakyut, Mughsayl and at least seen most places in between. No one knows for sure where 'Bountiful' was or wasn't so statements like

[volgadon]

I do not think this was an unexpected, hasty flight. The Lord warned Lehi in a dream to take his family and flee from Jerusalem. There is no indication that the departure is in haste because in 1 Nephi 2 verse 4 we learn "4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness."

Actually, it seems to me that there is every indication of a hasty flight. Contrast Lehi's flight with Genesis 22, where Abraham's actions are very plodding. My point is that those who composed ancient records knew how to manipulate verbs in order to convey the desired impression.

That verse denotes some preparation, because provisions and tents were included.

Very minimal preparation. Tents by their very nature are held in readiness, unless one lives in them permanently. even then they can be packed up very quickly.

The plural is because the test of verse 4 says "tents".

Ridiculously circular argument. WHY does verse 4 say tents, that is the million dollar question. As for provisions, if they took bread then it was simply a matter of starting a fire, grinding some wheat, mixing water, kneading the dough by hand for a minute or two until thin and roasting on top of the oven. An experienced housewife, whose daily routine this was, could have accomplished all of that in 15 minutes or less. I've seen it done many times. In fact, if Lehi was warned in a dream, it was probably around the same time she was waking up to make bread anyway. The other provisions would almost certainly have been dried fruit, perhaps if the season was right even friqeh, green crushed wheat. Oh and wine too, or yoghurt in skeins, which each would carry.

It is highly unlikely that the troupe carried all of those provisions on their backs.

They probably carried most of it in the folds of their robes.

Although the text does not indicate one way or the other, it is rational to expect people heading into the wilderness to use the preferred beasts of burden for such travels at the time, which were camels.

Camels were not a feature of Judah. The standard mode of travel for any Judahite of the time was either by foot or with mules. Camels would be a striking and unusual fact, not something to be taken for granted, so the text being silent on the matter speaks volumes.

it is even more rational to expect people heading into the wilderness to save their lives from assassins to go as quickly as possible and with the least amount of impediments.

Especially considering the probable route from Jerusalem, traveling without animals was easier.

Lehi may or may not already have been an experienced desert traveler.

Highly doubtful that he was.

However, the Lord knew what the final destination was to be, and I do expect that He had Lehi prepare accordingly.

I expect rather that he wanted Lehi to act with faith step-by-step.

Although Lehi was not a Bedouin, the tents that he did carry were probably made in the same style as those of the nomads because they would have been used for the same purposes in the same geographic locations and conditions.

Beduin tents were not the only kind of tents.

Some of the Bedouin tents are smallish, while some can be rather spacious.

And even the smallish ones can accomodate just as many people if not more than what Lehi's arty consisted of.

The text does not tell us just how many if any of the rest of the family dwelt with Lehi and Sariah, but that point is mot because they did take more than one tent.

Glenn

If the sons were single, and they were, there would be no reason for them to dwell apart from their parents, unless the tent was too small for all of them.

If you are fleeing for your life, wouldn't you take the bare minimum with you? if they could make do with one tent, why take more?

[blackwolf]

Since I personally have not been to such and you have. How deep are the inlets. Also by what I see in the available photographs on-line I do not see a suitable inlet for building a large hulled ship at Kharfot. The basis that Nephi's ship was of raft design is not likely. The logistics and demands of ocean voyaging over such a vast distance makes it seem unlikely the Lord would give such designs to build a flat hull design. The only close resemblance to such hull would be as in a Polynesian voyaging canoe design. However that too would require several feet of draft. another point potter makes that the local inhabitants did point out that large hardwood trees once flourished in the Khor Rori area but were all cut down in the past and only a few are left as shown in his video. IMO both sites in regards to resources negate the argument. What makes Khor Rori stand out is the long standing skills and knowledge gained by the locals on seamanship and the ability to build large draft ships nearby is the factor over Kharfot.

I'll try and find some figures - I know I've read some details somewhere - but the current wadi and fresh water lagoon at Kharfot is all well below sea level and extends for some distance back. I'll get the figures and post again, I may have to dig a bit but I believe you could have a sizable ship for 50 - 80 people in either inlet. I also believe that Aston and others current line of thinking is that a raft type vessel is looking more likely - not because of hull depth but because it is easier to construct and repair enroute, allows water to flow the deck, can be driven by the wind, and is not after the 'manner of men' ( for Nephi to make this comment he must have been familiar with a type of ship - which would most likely have been hulled). I'll dig up some references for this too.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest there were large timber trees at Khor Rori. In the same article it states:

"Scientists today see little evidence of sea-level change in that region since Lehi

[handys003]

Volgadon - I'm not so quite convinced of a hasty flight.

1 nephi 1:15-19

15 And after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God; for his soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord had shown unto him.

16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in ^avisions and in ^b; and he also hath written many things which he ^c and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

17 But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an ^aabridgment of the record of my ^b, upon ^c which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my ^d then will I make an account of mine own life.

18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the ^adestruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to ^b and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.

19 And it came to pass that the ^aJews did ^bmock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their ^cwickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a ^dMessiah, and also the redemption of the world.

It seems as if Lehi had seen visions before concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and was spending quite awhile perhaps even months preaching and imploring for the people to straighten up or face destruction. That would give sufficient time to gather and organize the needs to move out.

[blackwolf]

Volgadon - I'm not so quite convinced of a hasty flight.

It seems as if Lehi had seen visions before concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and was spending quite awhile perhaps even months preaching and imploring for the people to straighten up or face destruction. That would give sufficient time to gather and organize the needs to move out.

Makes sense, Jerusalem wasn't destroyed for many years so I doubt there was a need to drop everything and flee. I believe leaving posessions behind is more an indication that they knew how harsh the desert was and didn't want unnecessary baggage.

[handys003]

I'll try and find some figures - I know I've read some details somewhere - but the current wadi and fresh water lagoon at Kharfot is all well below sea level and extends for some distance back. I'll get the figures and post again, I may have to dig a bit but I believe you could have a sizable ship for 50 - 80 people in either inlet. I also believe that Aston and others current line of thinking is that a raft type vessel is looking more likely - not because of hull depth but because it is easier to construct and repair enroute, allows water to flow the deck, can be driven by the wind, and is not after the 'manner of men' ( for Nephi to make this comment he must have been familiar with a type of ship - which would most likely have been hulled). I'll dig up some references for this too.

Well as an experience contributing builder of and navigator of the Makali'i here in Hawaii. I can tell you from experience that a raft is not plausible on the ocean. Especially during heavy storms. A raft configuration will not stand up to 40 foot swells crashing over the bow. The design has to be of such to deflect the force, and the angles of a flat raft would not do that. Trust me there is nothing more scarier and nerve racking than such conditions fro several days and in the pitch darkness of night. The bow alone needs to be able to deflect over waves to survive. I cannot see the Lord allowing such design to occur. That is why I cannot accept a raft.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest there were large timber trees at Khor Rori. In the same article it states:

"Scientists today see little evidence of sea-level change in that region since Lehi

[blackwolf]

Well I can see them saying that. However that would be considered supposition as the counter argument was that locals of the area know that the trees were cut to almost extinction. Also Potters film shows some hardwood trees suitable for shipbuilding. I would tell you the names of the few left, but I loaned my bishop the videos 4 months ago. I keep being reminded to ask him for them when I see threads pertain to such, but as ES I always forget since it's rush to meetings in church. If you hadn't brought back this thread to life I would've completely forgotten them. Gotta give my mahalos for that end.

Potter shows they date further and like I said I need the videos to refresh the old noggin. It had to deal with trade and evidence of such with India and Egypt.

Ditto on the Potter video. he showed where flint was available.

Interesting thoughts on the raft. I'd like to hear more about that given your experience. I believe the raft idea was supported by at least some experienced persons though. Can't a raft still have a bow; it doesn't need to be a huge rectangle does it? Anyway that's probably a discussion for another forum.

I'd be careful with relying on Potter's evidence unless it's well supported with references etc. I've read about a few instances where he's fudged facts, used green tints or misrepresented things to support his theories. I mean as far as anyone knows he's still never even been to Kharfot.

The locals telling stories of large hard wood trees being there in the past also seems a little dubious. I mean they can recall what type of trees where in the area 1000-2600 years ago? I know legends can be passed down but if they remember this perhaps they would have remembered a prophet travelling from Jerusalem and building a ship to sail across the world too. When I was there only six months ago I certainly saw no evidence of local trees and the only information the locals told us about the site was that it was currently used by a group who met there weekly for devil worship and witch craft. Either way I'd like to see Potter's source for these local rumours. Same as the flint - as far as I can tell I have not seen any pictures of flint that he has taken either. Though it's possible as there is certainly flint a couple hundred miles away.

No trees, fruit, honey, or

[Glenn101]

Actually, it seems to me that there is every indication of a hasty flight. Contrast Lehi's flight with Genesis 22, where Abraham's actions are very plodding. My point is that those who composed ancient records knew how to manipulate verbs in order to convey the desired impression.

I agree about the verbs part. When the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream he specified "flee" while in Lehi's dream, the Lord just told Lehi to depart.

Very minimal preparation. Tents by their very nature are held in readiness, unless one lives in them permanently. even then they can be packed up very quickly.

Possibly minimal preparation, yet still quite plausibly a well laid out departure.

Ridiculously circular argument. WHY does verse 4 say tents, that is the million dollar question. As for provisions, if they took bread then it was simply a matter of starting a fire, grinding some wheat, mixing water, kneading the dough by hand for a minute or two until thin and roasting on top of the oven. An experienced housewife, whose daily routine this was, could have accomplished all of that in 15 minutes or less. I've seen it done many times. In fact, if Lehi was warned in a dream, it was probably around the same time she was waking up to make bread anyway. The other provisions would almost certainly have been dried fruit, perhaps if the season was right even friqeh, green crushed wheat. Oh and wine too, or yoghurt in skeins, which each would carry.

I don't see what is circular about noting that the verse four says tents, which to most everyone denotes more than one. If it were a misprint, it was repeated when Nephi tells about the departure from the Valley of Lemuel. As for provisions, if you remember they also took seeds of every kind with them when they left the Valley of Lemuel. I doubt that they obtained those seeds from the valley of Lemuel itself. Those seeds either were part of the original preparation or were obtained on one of the two trips back to Jerusalem.

It is highly unlikely that the troupe carried all of those provisions on their backs.

They probably carried most of it in the folds of their robes.

Tents?

Camels were not a feature of Judah. The standard mode of travel for any Judahite of the time was either by foot or with mules. Camels would be a striking and unusual fact, not something to be taken for granted, so the text being silent on the matter speaks volumes.

it is even more rational to expect people heading into the wilderness to save their lives from assassins to go as quickly as possible and with the least amount of impediments.

Especially considering the probable route from Jerusalem, traveling without animals was easier.

The use of camels, especially for long trips is attested to throughout the Old Testament. Caravans of camels were probably a normal sight in Jerusalem as it was on one of the eastern branches of the frankincense trail. Lehi probably also did not depart from Jerusalem proper, but from the lands of his inheritance. He was probably safe enough there, not actualu engaged in preaching hellfire and brimstone to the Jews.

Highly doubtful that he was.

(The above was in response to a comment about Lehi may or may not have been an experienced desert traveler.)

Hugh Nibley and others have made a plausible case for Lehi being a merchant of some sort, or engaged in some type of business which required a knowledge of Egyptian. He, in the very least was a well educated man. The details are sparse, but Lehi and Nephi had obtained a knowledge of Eqyptian for some reason. Trade with and travel to Egypt (through desert country} is very plausible.

I expect rather that he wanted Lehi to act with faith step-by-step.

Agreed. Lehi did not question the Lord. He just did as the Lord commanded. That does not preclude the Lord from having Lehi prepare well for the journey.

Beduin tents were not the only kind of tents.

And even the smallish ones can accomodate just as many people if not more than what Lehi's arty consisted of.

That is possible.

If the sons were single, and they were, there would be no reason for them to dwell apart from their parents, unless the tent was too small for all of them.

That is also possible. But that still does not change the fact that the text says tents over and over again, that they pitched their tents. They could have pitched a dozen tents, then the whole crowd, including Ishmael and his sons and daughters all crowded into Lehi's tent.

However, I really do not see that being the case, especially after the marriages.

If you are fleeing for your life, wouldn't you take the bare minimum with you? if they could make do with one tent, why take more?

If I hear an assassin coming in through a window or a door, I am going to get out another way, as quickly as I can. If God warns me well ahead of time and tells me what to take, I'm going to take along what he tells me.

Glenn

[Doug the Hutt]

mornin' folks,

I'll try to identify the problems I have with the logic in this thread:

1. Big-Z throws comes out of the gate and immediately trys to throw the burden of proof on the other side by insisting that "they have splainin to do". No no. The onus is upon the one who makes the assertion. You need to explain why these artifacts support the Book of Mormon's possibility/plausibility/probability/certainty/other-degree-of-certitude.

2. Finding a bronze voltive plaque dating 900 years after Lehi and his bunch of merry Israelites traversed the peninsula is not proof that Kilroy Nephi was there.

3. the first link in his assertion already brushed off the pro-LDS position, telling us to ignore it. Makes you wonder why most of the planet is willing to dismiss assertions of real Book of Mormon places so quickly.

4. the George Potter .pdf is riddled with bad logic and made me throw up in my mouth a few times:

http://www.nephiproj...ge%20Plates.pdf

a. Potter is faced with a need to associate Nephi with those bronze or brass plates found in Oman. He then inserts Nephi into a gentile civilization or a group of people from which he takes a metallurgy class. That real people traveled through Arabia along the Frankincense Trial or along the coast isn't in dispute, but the Book of Mormon is 100% silent on these mysterious-other-people. I find it extremely convenient that Potter multiplies entities from within the Book of Mormon to try to make other logical stretches.

b. Potter tries to associate a laundry list of iron-age materials that have been found with Nephi learning how to make "metal plates" (iron axes, iron nails, iron knife, iron razor, iron smelting slag (!), bronze nails, COINS, a bronze bell and a bronze plaque). Just because you find a bunch of metal tools in a location does not mean that Nephi learned metallurgy from them.

c . If Nephi had iron tools available from ironsmiths why didn't he just obtain professionally-crafted-ready-made-tools from them? Why would he have to go on out to the mountain miles away to smelt his own?

d. Potter appeals to BYU scholarship to convert brass plates into bronze plates because that allows him to set the "brass...er...now it's bronze plates" alongside these seven other real bronze plates found in Oman as if that makes the "brass....er...now it's bronze plates" real in that valid-by-association sort of way. I find it dishonest to just allow redefinitions of objects found in the scriptures to make them fit better into the real world based on convenience. That's the exact opposite of truth-finding and insults our intelligence.

e. Potter states regarding Khor Rori that "it was a fascinating example, showing that bronze plates were being made where Nephi built his ship". This statement isn't supported by anything in his argument, but wishful thinking, convenient redefinitions, multiplication of entities, imposing his predetermined bias view on the archaeology and conjecture. That he visited Oman is nice. That he makes truth assertions without a logical foundation is not.

f. Potter asserts that the little plaque in Zak's OP might be evidence that Nephi taught these here-to-fore-unmentioned people the Gospel. So much of the Book of Mormon spends time on spreading the Gospel. If they spread the Gospel why didn't they mention it _at_all_, especially considering that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be about spreading the Gospel? When would Nephi have fit it into his schedule, what with smelting his own tools, cutting down his own timber, forming his own boat & all? The short answer: because Nephi didn't do it. Potter is trying to make it look that way out of need, not because the evidence supports the idea.

g. Potter thinks the "three wise men" came from Khor Rori. He thinks he has a "theory" that proves it. I think he's up-in-the-night. He doesn't use the word "theory" correctly. He has an idea combined with a belief based on faith without any real way to prove it.

h. Potter tries to appeal to the LDS sense of sacred-not-secret Temple rituals by pointing out a few superficial things:

"Notice the robes the man is wearing, the headdress, and the position of the right arm (to the square) and left arm (bent at the elbow then projecting forward)"

Does wearing robes and a hat mean that they're dressed in Temple garb doing endowments?

The man in the bas relief doesn't even have his arm to the square -- squares have 90 degree angles. That right arm is around 45 degrees (looks more like what you would expect from a common hand gesture than what Potter insinuates). I can't see that his left arm is doing anything other than hanging to the left side. THIS IS NOT AN ANCIENT OMAN-ESE DUDE SHOWING US THE BLANK SIGN OF THE BLANK PRIESTHOOD. Potter's interpretation is clouded by his need to force facts around his wrinkled belief system. That is not scholarship. Nobody looking at his argument from a scholarly position would accept any of it.

5. Much of this thread involves true defenders of the faith maligning the vast majority of the archaeological community -- scholars and scientists who dedicate their life to discovering and describing the world around them in the most unbiased, critical and logically brutal process possible (scientific method). To an outside observer the complaining against them just looks like bad-mouthing/whining, no different than people who complain that the whole scientific community doesn't believe their alien abduction stories and cry out 'conspiracy!'

6. Zak repeats a common sentiment regarding non-LDS religions -- hnmmm....there's a temple there, and it was dedicated to some other non-LDS god.....let's just say that they used to have the Gospel and apostatized! Yeah! That makes any religious artifacts proof that Nephi taught them the missionary discussions! LDS-mesoamerican-scholar-wannabes and people at Temple Square do it with the Mayans (visit the Church History Museum bottom floor and tell me otherwise). Let's just go ahead and impose our belief system of their evil wicked apostacy on them!

7. Handy goes on to repeat the idea that Joseph Smith could not have *possibly* got this cherry picking expedition/Texas target shooting match correct, and of course it proves it's true!!! Um, not to someone who doesn't already believe. To everyone else that type of statement is beyond ludicrous -- it's gone plaid.

8. PT Barnum once said "there's a sucker born every minute". What do you folks do to prevent yourself from being suckered?

[handys003]

What's the matter Doug you don't like the idea that JS descriptions of the plausible route Lehi took. He got it from the local library? I already gave you links indicating the only book on Saudi Arabia in the USA at the time was at Dartmouth College. Also only written in French, and never ever was available for public viewing until 1945.

You also seem to think that I don't have a clue on anthropology. Even though I have a BA in Business. I have spent the last 28 years of my life around such. Especially with a local family member who is a renowned anthropologist in the Polynesian field whose books are required reading at Universities in the Pacific. Next you'll be arguing with me over the Austronesian theory of west to east migration of Polynesians. Also I know doubt you will tell me my lack of knowledge on building voyaging canoes, and the mastery of the sailing techniques, navigation, and the engineering of building sailing vessels.

You also seem to think that I try to discredit other anthropologists. Well actually I don't Doug. There are many leading experts I do agree with at this time. However as in all science the data is subject to change based on discoveries. I at this time accept Potters premise but am still open to Ashton. I've seen many anthropologists disagree with issues of supposition among themselves with each stating their version as proof. You want an example of such is Dr. Zahi Hawass who will not accept the Sphinx being older than 2500 BCE. However Geology and Astronomy point differently and tell him it's much older. Two science disciplines telling the leading expert Egyptologist he is wrong. However he maintains he knows better. Your ability to have a closed minded preconception of things, that may contradict your thinking, is exactly the same as when theologians themselves tried to stifle science. Same old prejudice just wearing different clothes. You think you know better and make snide remarks at others when you know nothing of such of who your dealing with.

'Oe no'ono'o 'oe nui hewahewa, aia na?e 'oe 'ike hemahema. E pili mau na pomaikai me oe na'auao ka mea i.

[handys003]

Interesting thoughts on the raft. I'd like to hear more about that given your experience. I believe the raft idea was supported by at least some experienced persons though. Can't a raft still have a bow; it doesn't need to be a huge rectangle does it? Anyway that's probably a discussion for another forum.

I'd be careful with relying on Potter's evidence unless it's well supported with references etc. I've read about a few instances where he's fudged facts, used green tints or misrepresented things to support his theories. I mean as far as anyone knows he's still never even been to Kharfot.

The locals telling stories of large hard wood trees being there in the past also seems a little dubious. I mean they can recall what type of trees where in the area 1000-2600 years ago? I know legends can be passed down but if they remember this perhaps they would have remembered a prophet travelling from Jerusalem and building a ship to sail across the world too. When I was there only six months ago I certainly saw no evidence of local trees and the only information the locals told us about the site was that it was currently used by a group who met there weekly for devil worship and witch craft. Either way I'd like to see Potter's source for these local rumours. Same as the flint - as far as I can tell I have not seen any pictures of flint that he has taken either. Though it's possible as there is certainly flint a couple hundred miles away.

No trees, fruit, honey, or

[Doug the Hutt]

<br>What's the matter Doug you don't like the idea that JS descriptions of the plausible route Lehi took. He got it from the local library? I already gave you links indicating the only book on Saudi Arabia in the USA at the time was at Dartmouth College. Also only written in French, and never ever was available for public viewing until 1945.<br><br>You also seem to think that I don't have a clue on anthropology. Even though I have a BA in Business. I have spent the last 28 years of my life around such. Especially with a local family member who is a renowned anthropologist in the Polynesian field whose books are required reading at Universities in the Pacific. Next you'll be arguing with me over the Austronesian theory of west to east migration of Polynesians. Also I know doubt you will tell me my lack of knowledge on building voyaging canoes, and the mastery of the sailing techniques, navigation, and the engineering of building sailing vessels.<br><br>You also seem to think that I try to discredit other anthropologists. Well actually I don't Doug. There are many leading experts I do agree with at this time. However as in all science the data is subject to change based on discoveries. I at this time accept Potters premise but am still open to Ashton. I've seen many anthropologists disagree with issues of supposition among themselves with each stating their version as proof. You want an example of such is Dr. Zahi Hawass who will not accept the Sphinx being older than 2500 BCE. However Geology and Astronomy point differently and tell him it's much older. Two science disciplines telling the leading expert Egyptologist he is wrong. However he maintains he knows better. Your ability to have a closed minded preconception of things, that may contradict your thinking, is exactly the same as when theologians themselves tried to stifle science. Same old prejudice just wearing different clothes. You think you know better and make snide remarks at others when you know nothing of such of who your dealing with.<br><br>'Oe no'ono'o 'oe nui hewahewa, aia na?e 'oe 'ike hemahema. E pili mau na pomaikai me oe na'auao ka mea i.<br>

<br><br>handy,<br><br>

I'll do my best to describe what I don't like about the argument you presented without being Mr. Grouchy-pants (my natural disposition):

1. There's no more "plausibility" between asserting that Lehi crew traveled along Arabia and lived for a time at this place known as Khor Rori as there is in believing that Noah built the Ark in Sanpete County, Utah:

2. You said that there was one solitary book on Arabia in all of North America when the Book of Mormon was ~translated~. So what? Are you saying that the only place for knowledge of anything about Arabia was at Dartmouth? I find that interesting since Solomon Spalding went to Dartmouth, and many people recognized Book of Mormon names from the writings of Spalding. Hmmm... I also find it interesting since Dr. Nathan Smith, the surgeon for Joseph's leg at age 12, also went to Dartmouth. Anyways, I find it ridiculous to believe that other sources of information about the near east were completely unattainable to the 19th century translator/author of the Book of Mormon. People like to embellish the lack of "formal" education for young Joseph but that imposes artificial restrictions on the things he knew, learned, observed or studied outside of his "formal" classes. Surely the things you know are not confined to grammar school or college Some of the best things I know come outside of college and I'm sure your knowledge-base is similar in that regard. Joseph had time to sit back and look at books, maps and documents while recovering from his surgery back at his relative's home in Boston(?). To insist that he had no avenues for looking at books, maps, newspaper, etc. oversimplifies his learning experiences.

3. You very well may have a clue on anthropology but there's a certain point where one's faith-based belief system overrules their normal worldview and makes unwarranted, pathological jumps to conclusion. Pons & Fleishman really believed in cold fusion and let that cloud their judgment/interpretation of data. I guess I hate to see people make similar mistakes even if it's just about their religion and doesn't bring ridicule upon the U of U.

4. I think you meant to say that the interpretation of the data will change, as well as more collaborative points of data will be found, and that's fine. IMHO the swing in interpretation should follow the scientific method where the strongest idea that survives the beating by a skeptical educated scientific community takes the prize. I've no idea how to catapult LDS-influenced/backed ideas into mainstream scientific world since the entire argument invariably comes down to faith in things not seen, and statements regarding "possibility" and "plausibility".

5. I may or may not have a closed mind. I'd like to believe my mind is closed to illogical thinking, deception and ignorance. Then there's the flip side -- don't open your mind so much that your brains fall out. Is someone considered close-minded because they refuse to believe that Xenu brought billions of people to earth, placed them near volcanoes and chucked hydrogen bombs at them 75,000,000 years ago? To a scientologist non-believers of this notion are close-minded. I'd say most of us don't believe that story, but should we walk around with that label "close-minded"? No, we should recognize it for what it is: they have their weird Xenu beliefs, and we expect significant affirmative proof based in multiple collaborative sciences before we would even consider it, and since they have nothing of the sort we feel justified in our non-belief. They think we're closed minded, we think we're just protecting ourselves from being flogged for tens of thousands of dollars. That's all I'm trying to do -- just trying to do the best I can with what little intellect, time and resources I have in my short, mundane existence without the benefit of divine aid. I figure I'll get it figured out within the next 60 years or so.

6. I find it ironic that you accuse me, one who trusts the scientific pattern over special-self-interest-groups for describing the world around us, of being closed minded by not accepting your pro-theology-view (or the OP) at face value. Pot. Kettle. Black. Good times though.

[volgadon]

I also find it interesting since Dr. Nathan Smith, the surgeon for Joseph's leg at age 12, also went to Dartmouth

So that is how they whiled away the time during the course of the operation!

Sorry, I can't begin to tell you how utterly ridiculous that argument of yours is. Sarcasm is the closest I can get.

[blackwolf]

Mahalo for the info dig up blackwolf. That is sufficient for a deep enough hulled vessel. I just really couldn't tell looking at pics online and of Google Earth. Didn't want to put you through the trouble as previously asserted that the sands do shift depending on conditions over time.

Both areas are not bearing fruits and orchards of different variety now? The video he presents demonstrates Khor Rori as plentiful in local growers.Alos honey is done there as well. I wish I had some way of downloading other than illegally. Also he showed the trees of several hardwoods in hte National park above Khor Rori. Keeping in mind I am taking this in as what he is presenting. I have not had the luxury of visiting the area. Hopefully I can talk Chad into taking the Makali'i and Ho'okulea to such on the around the world voyage in 2012. I don't accept everything Potter asserts as proof. I caught him on an error about the sycamore trees as not suitable material for building a ship. However you can use such. However based on his suppositions I find sound probability, but now on your site description of Kharfottravelingrumorss waemphasister depth and inlet I am more open as this sAlsoight is plausible for shipbuilding. The problem with all this is extracting specific information from so little in the BoM. It lacks more detail. Therefore allowing too much leeway of dissenting opinons.

I believe there are irrigated orchards some miles away from Khor rori. Where as wild fruit (passionfruit, dates etc) grow abundantly in Kharfot without human intervention. Either way the case for no resident population when Nephi and co arrived and the need for a mountain almost completely discount Khor rori for me. There are too many scriptural passages that don't make sense if there is no nearby prominent mountain or if there were people living there already.

I'm afraid it will take a fair amount more of his creative writing if I'm to believe Potter's alternate reality. When he's already been proven to distort the truth more than once and none of his current arguments or theories seem to be based on anything except his fanciful version of events I'd take anything in that video with a grain of salt. I do have access to it through a friend though and will have a watch anyway - if only for a bit of light entertainment.

Thanks for the info on boats, I'd like to look into this further.