Joseph's visions of the Nephite Civilization...

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

From what I have seen the Church tries to avoid too much contention on this subject...and the posts on this board are evidence of that...

Some people believe that the events took place in and around New York, others, down in Mexico and Guatemala, others, in Peru and Bolivia, and still more, that it took place on the entire American continent.

I personally like the Mexico/Guatemala component, given that there seems to be more evidence sprouting from there of advanced civilizations with writing capabilites...than in other regions. The Quipu does not really compare to the phonetic hieroglyphs used by the Maya.

The conflict teems to rest on some statements that the earlier prophets have said...Moroni is said to have dedicated the temple site of Manti, Utah. Joseph Smith showed great interest in the ruins of the Yucatan and Chiapas after reading a book on the matter. Another quote still attributed to Joseph Smith places Lehi's landing at 30 degrees south of the equator, putting the landing in the vincinity of La Serena/Coquimbo, Chile. And don't get me started on the disagreement of Cumorah.

[Ceeboo]

Hi Ceebo, just to be clear, BOMG is not LDS in the tradition of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. He follows an apostate group that broke off in 1837 after David Whitmer was excommunicated. BOMG can correct me if I'm wrong, or if he belongs to some other restorationist movement.

Cheers

Hi 7,

Ahhhhhh, that would make more sense ( thanks cuz I was a little baffled )

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Sevenbak]

Hi 7,

Ahhhhhh, that would make more sense ( thanks cuz I was a little baffled )

Peace,

Ceeboo

Peace right back at ya!

Are you enjoying our internal disagreements?

Or should the be eternal disagreements?

[BOMG]

Can you explain why it took Hagoth an entire year to return with his ship after launching in the West Sea, if the narrow neck was in the Great Lakes?

You assume he wasn't busy building, preparing homes for his existing group, and those who he went back for.

From what I have seen the Church tries to avoid too much contention on this subject...and the posts on this board are evidence of that...

I personally like the Mexico/Guatemala component, given that there seems to be more evidence sprouting from there of advanced civilizations with writing capabilites...than in other regions. The Quipu does not really compare to the phonetic hieroglyphs used by the Maya.

The conflict teems to rest on some statements that the earlier prophets have said...Moroni is said to have dedicated the temple site of Manti, Utah. Joseph Smith showed great interest in the ruins of the Yucatan and Chiapas after reading a book on the matter. Another quote still attributed to Joseph Smith places Lehi's landing at 30 degrees south of the equator, putting the landing in the vincinity of La Serena/Coquimbo, Chile. And don't get me started on the disagreement of Cumorah.

There would be no confusion if theorists did not create a "Second Cumorah." Likewise these same geography enthusiasts try to shore up strength in their positions by postulating a need for evidence of a written language.

The Nephites were the only record keepers, trained in the use of a written language, why would we expect a written language to exist after 2k years among the lazy Lamanites? What they are looking to confirm are the Lamanites, which is strange. The Book of Mormon will be confirmed by other books from the Gentiles.

Lastly, it is problematic to try and fit all statements by B.Y. with any geography model.

.

[Sevenbak]

You assume he wasn't busy building, preparing homes for his existing group, and those who he went back for.

I erred. Hagoth didn't go with the first ship that returned the following year. He stayed behind building other ships. Still, the first ship took a year to come back to the Narrow Neck.

Alma 63: 7 And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return...

[LeSellers]

Official Church Canon

Sorry, that's not part of the canon, it's part of an introduction to the canon. The difference is important.

Official Church History

Once again, close is not good enough.

This is not official church history, although it was the closest thing to it at the time of its publication in 1834.

As his understanding grew, Joseph Smith accepted that the locations of the Book of Mormon events in the "New World" was in the area he called "Peru" (not the same place as the nation of the same name today) and the "Isthmus of Darien" (modern Panama).

In view of the fact that the Prophet's ideas matured on other subjects over time, his thinking on Book of Mormon geography could also have undergone change. In 1842, an editorial in the Church newspaper the Times and Seasons (September 15, pages 921-22) asserted that "Lehi . . . landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien (Panama)." Joseph Smith had assumed sole editorial responsibility for the contents of the paper six months before (page 710), although John Taylor was the formal editor.

Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great southern ocean, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, and improved the country . . .[the Nephites and Mulekites] lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found. Central America, or Guatemala . . .once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south -- The city of Zarahemla . . . stood upon this land. . . ."

Further, we have this:

Two Interesting Maps

Several years ago, I came across two copies of a map in the Archives Division of the Historical Department of the Church relative to Moroni's North American journeys (see Figures 1 and 2). On the back of the map in Figure 1 is written the following:

A chart, and description of Moroni's travels through this country. Got it from Br. Robert ****son. He got it from Patriarch Wm. McBride at Richfield in the Sevier and also from Andrew M. Hamilton of same place. And they got it from Joseph Smith the Prophet.

On the map "land Bountifull [sic]" is listed in "Sentral [sic] America." The cartographer wrote "starting point" below the reference to Central America. Above the "land Bountifull" is "Sand hills in south part of Arizona," and above it to the left is "Salt Lake." To the right is "Independens, Jackson Co, Mo." and above that is "Adam on Diamon, Davis Co, Mo." To the right of that is "Nauvoo, Hancock C.Ill." Below that is "Mound Kinderhook, Pick, Co, Ill, 6 Plates Bell shape were found" (were was was on one copy). Then to the right and above that is "Kirtland, Ohio," and to the right of that is "Commorre [Cumorah], N.Y." Below this on the right-hand side of the map is written: "Moroni's Travels starting from Sentral America to the Sand hills Arizona then to Salt Lake U[tah], T[erritory], then to Adam on Diammon Mo, then to Nauvoo, Ill, then to Independence Mo, then to Kirtland Ohio then to Cumoro NY."

The second map appears to have been drawn by the same hand and is quite similar to the first, though it twice spells Arizona as Arisony (one "y" has an "a" written over it); "eden" is written near the circle identifying "Independense"; "where adam blessed his posterity" is written near the circle identifying "Adam on Diammon"; the "missisipy river" is listed near Nauvoo; Kirtland is twice misspelled "kertland"; and Cumorah is misspelled "Cunora" and "Cumora."

It is interesting to note that the brethren mentioned on these documents were contemporaries of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and they credited him with the notion that the travels of Moroni began in the land Bountiful, which was in Central America, and went through the western New York. Why Moroni took the route he did is still without answers. These men stated that the Prophet Joseph believed Bountiful is in Central America while the Hill Cumorah, the burial place of the plates, is in New York State.

Official First Presidency Statement

This is not an official statement by the First Presidency. It was, as you will note, not signed by the First Presidency. We have discussed this very document for many months (and probably years), and you will find that the Brother Watson, at the insistence of the Brethren, issued a second, retracting letter later.

Sorry, you'll have to do better than this.

Lehi

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

You assume he wasn't busy building, preparing homes for his existing group, and those who he went back for.

There would be no confusion if theorists did not create a "Second Cumorah." Likewise these same geography enthusiasts try to shore up strength in their positions by postulating a need for evidence of a written language.

The Nephites were the only record keepers, trained in the use of a written language, why would we expect a written language to exist after 2k years among the lazy Lamanites? What they are looking to confirm are the Lamanites, which is strange. The Book of Mormon will be confirmed by other books from the Gentiles.

Lastly, it is problematic to try and fit all statements by B.Y. with any geography model.

.

On the written language part, that isn't entirely accurate that the Nephites were the only ones with a written language, given that the priests of Noah led by Amulon taught the Lamanites as well. Another interesting construct is the quipu of Peru

Out of all the statements that I gave by the early prophets, only one was attributable to Brigham Young, and that was the statement of the Manti Temple. Joseph Smith did show great interest in the Yucatan and Chiapas ruins after reading a book on the subject. Another quote attributed to Joseph Smith says that Lehi's party landed at 30 degrees south latitude, on the coast of Chile.

There is lots of disagreement on the matters of geography. And while it is fun to speculate where the happenings occured, I still think it is pretty bad when the members fight in a rather contentious way about it. I used to do it myself.

After having spoken with a seventy it is my understanding that the leaders of the Church do know exactly where the occurences in the Book of Mormon took place. However to avoid contention like what we have seen in this specific thread and also not to dehabilitate fragile testimonies, have decided to keep the locations secret.

After having heard that, I try not to debate the point...except where I need to put the facts that neither repudiate nor endorse the theories. In New York, in Mesoamerica, and Peru, there are quite a few evidences of the truth. Where exactly the events took place are still in disagreement.

[Cold Steel]

I said type in "Batavia." ... It is impossible to see on a Satellite, State or Country map something Mormon considered "narrow" from eye level. As we say, it should be the LAST THIING

Yes, I typed "Batavia" too. I ended up in some neighborhood in Illinois. So we're to see the narrow neck as something that's invisible on a map? Strange, but what would keep someone from just walking around the narrow neck and proceeding north, or south? And about the serpents being rattlesnakes, you're grasping at straws. Rattlesnakes hide in rocks and in woodpiles. People in the West have been dealing with them for generations. They're of little danger to migrating people, but settlers and colonists find them to be a danger because the snakes get into their barns, wood piles and are attracted to the warmth of fires and to mice which are attracted by food and places to live. During the winter the rattlesnakes hibernate.

And just what is the "unique species" of rattlesnake mentioned?

In Mesoamerica, poisonous serpents are extremely deadly and some are aggressive. In the jungles and marshlands, they're very dangerous, summer, winter, spring and fall. They can lurk in the vegetation or fall from the trees (tree vipers). In large numbers they could easily cut off a narrow strip of land. The deadly coral snake is known as the "20-minute snake" because that's about how long people bit by them live before dying. One source says: "Most of the bites...involve the foot and ankle and the hand and wrist. The protective coloring of many snakes may result in a bite on the buttocks, unless one is very observant.... The foot and ankle bites occur because vipers strike very low ... hand and wrist bites are incurred largely in climbing a slope, when the snake is located on the higher ground." Most snakes will avoid humans, if they can, but "in the case of...the pregnant female during the spring breeding season, which, laden with young or eggs, has found difficulty in obtaining food, with the result that her venom has become highly concentrated from enforced starvation. Being unable to cruise about, she becomes highly defensive and quite aggressive.... Bites from long-starved snakes are very serious and usually fatal." The bottom line is that rattlesnakes do not and cannot fit the Book of Mormon description, while the Mesoamerican snakes hide in the jungles and do not have a distinctive warning rattle. If you tread on them, you die. So no more about rattlesnakes, especially New York rattlers!

While it's true that the narrow neck of land is over-emphasized by some, it is vital to correctly placing the Hill Cumorah. If it is, in fact, the New York drumlin, then we should expect to find the narrow neck to the south of it.

About the maps I cited in my post, they bear no resemblance to actual maps. Please compare my Google Earth map with Olive's (which is why I posted it). She shows a prehistoric lake that has since been swallowed up (and was long gone in the days of Ether and Mormon).

You say that Olive has explained all this, but she really doesn't. For example, she states: "Contrary to the popular notion, heat was not the only weather condition mentioned in the scriptures; hail, which we can associate with cold weather, was also mentioned, once when the prophet Abinadi prophesied hail would be sent down to smite them (see Mosiah 12:6), and a second time when Helaman mentions hail in a discourse to his sons. (See Helaman 5:12)."

In the Bible, "hail" simply means "stones." Thus, in the Book of Revelation, John states: "And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." (Rev 16:21)

Hail cannot weigh as much as a talent (100-200 pounds, depending on whether it's silver or gold). When the scriptures speak of "hail," they're more likely speaking of meteorites. This is particularly true of the "hail" in the plagues that came upon Egypt. There the hail was associated with fire, which would be more logical of meteorites than of ice. And if this is true of the Bible, it also is likely true of the Book of Mormon.

Olive also states: "While New York enjoys a temperate climate, the regions to the east of the lakes can sometimes be hit rather hard during the colder winter months. Thus, since Book of Mormon territory appears to extend along much of the region to the east of Lake Erie, there can be little doubt that the Nephites experienced harsh winters at times during the last 384 years of their existence in the land."

I've heard New York winters described in various ways, but "temperate" isn't one of them. And the populations of people in that area during that time just don't fit the Book of Mormon's. She adds this to her bizarre statements: "As for Alma 3:5 referring to the Lamanites wearing nothing more than loin clothes, the Native American Indians in New York continued that practice until modernized by the Gentiles who made every effort to civilize them." The Book of Mormon did not say that the Lamanites continued to dress like this from then on. When Jesus came, both Lamanites and Nephites became one and lived in harmony. The scriptures never state that the Lamanites went back to wearing nothing but loincloths. Such a people could not have defeated the Nephites militarily, for the Nephites undoubtedly had armor and were schooled in the art of war. The Lamanites must have also been able warriors. If they went back to shaving their heads and wearing loincloths, the Book of Mormon never mentions it.

Look, there's little to be gained in debating this with you, as you just insist on slamming that round peg into the square hole. I'm delighted that you believe the Book of Mormon to be true, and if it gives you comfort to believe the book's lands to be in the great Northeast, then be my guest. As far as your website is concerned, you need to develop accurate maps and listen to such people as John L. Sorenson and John E. Clark. This isn't to say you need to adopt their conclusions. You just need to adopt more a more rigorous and scientific methodology.

What's wrong with starting at Cumorah, the real Cumorah, not one made up? Not only do the prophecies back it up, but D&C 128, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and a host of others. Mesotheorists ignore those at a cost. DNA is merely one. The fulfillment of prophecy a second, and their own canon a third.

Nothing's wrong with it if everything else fits. The problem, as we've seen, is that they don't fit. Jerry Ainsworth says: "Cumorah near Palmyra is just a plain little hill with grass and trees on it, only a bit more prominent than others in the immediate vicinity; not likely to be a place where the leaders of two great nations would arrange from a distance to meet a few years later for a final battle after the smaller nation had gathered all their people together. And where's the evidence near Palmyra, New York of hundreds of thousands of people killed in battle about 385 A.D.? It's just not there...." You might also want to read Cumorah's Cave, by Cameron J. Packer.

Honestly, you keeping drawing conclusions without facts, and here you want to say you know something we don't? Listen up, the city of Batavia isn't by the Finger Lakes, it's not even by Palmyra. Yes, it exists today as is explained in her books AND ON HER WEB SITE - READ! Or give it a rest.

I wish Phyllis Olive the best of luck in her work, but bless her heart, she just isn't up to the task and is hopelessly out of her league. Others may read her arguments and feel differently, but that's entirely up to them. For me, as far as this thread's concerned, I'm gonna give it a rest. It's like arguing with a member of the Flat Earth Society.

.

[BOMG]

Sorry, that's not part of the canon, it's part of an introduction to the canon. The difference is important. Once again, close is not good enough. This is not official church history, although it was the closest thing to it at the time of its publication in 1834.

If it's in the LDS scriptures, then it's your canon:

SECTION 128 An epistle from Joseph Smith the Prophet to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing further directions on baptism for the dead; dated at Nauvoo, Illinois, September 6, 1842. HC 5: 148

[BOMG]

For me, as far as this thread's concerned, I'm gonna give it a rest. It's like arguing with a member of the Flat Earth Society.

Great, you're circular arguments, lies and obfuscation won't be missed.

[Sevenbak]

On the written language part, that isn't entirely accurate that the Nephites were the only ones with a written language, given that the priests of Noah led by Amulon taught the Lamanites as well. Another interesting construct is the quipu of Peru It's my theory that the Mayan language was the evolving and common language of the Mulekites, and that the Nephite language or reformed egyptian was reserved for sacred writings of the kings. JMHO

Out of all the statements that I gave by the early prophets, only one was attributable to Brigham Young, and that was the statement of the Manti Temple. Joseph Smith did show great interest in the Yucatan and Chiapas ruins after reading a book on the subject. Another quote attributed to Joseph Smith says that Lehi's party landed at 30 degrees south latitude, on the coast of Chile.

Brigham Young also spoke about the Nephites dedicating a temple in St. George and Gaddianton Robbers in Utah mountains. I've always read his Manti/Moroni statement in the context of a larger group of Nephites fleeing north, led by Moroni, (not a solo trip after the battle) dedicating both Manti and St. George locations.

Also, Joseph Smith also spoke about the N. American sites within months of his Mesoamerican statements, so I think it's an error to assume he evolved in his teachings, but rather added to it.

There is lots of disagreement on the matters of geography. And while it is fun to speculate where the happenings occured, I still think it is pretty bad when the members fight in a rather contentious way about it. I used to do it myself. Agreed!

After having spoken with a seventy it is my understanding that the leaders of the Church do know exactly where the occurences in the Book of Mormon took place. However to avoid contention like what we have seen in this specific thread and also not to dehabilitate fragile testimonies, have decided to keep the locations secret.

Having spoken to the Mission President at the Cumorah Visitor's Center on this very issue, as part of a documentary trip, and knowing what they teach there about that sacred location at the Visitor's Center, I concur the church most definitely holds a position on the issue, though they are careful about it given how so many have different ideas.

I think Joseph Fielding Smith spoke to this very issue. "Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon." And we all know what he taught on the matter. http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Cumorah-JFeS-DofS3.pdf

In New York, in Mesoamerica, and Peru, there are quite a few evidences of the truth. Where exactly the events took place are still in disagreement.

D - All of the above.

[shrff]

Care to elaborate what you meant?

I apologize for not qualifying this statement. The term "Snail Suckers" is BYU Archaeology slang for small-scale societies or people on the periphery of major centers. The term comes from John Clark, who would often give those of us working in North America a hard time about splitting hairs in our research ("Who cares if one group of snail suckers were sending a few pots to another group of snail suckers").

The term is applicable here. The people who lived in this area during Book of Mormon time periods were in a cultural backwater. They didn't live in large, fortified settlements with monumental architecture. These sites in this area all post-date the widespread adoption of maize agriculture around A.D. 1000. John Clark reviews the archaeological literature of the region in this article.

[shrff]

Meaning the whole place was underwater?

Do you completely disregard the histories of Western New York by historians like Turner and Squire?

I wouldn't call what these people did "Histories". Pre-Histories maybe, but not histories. These early researchers could not date the sites they recorded. Now we can, and the big sites in the area being discussed are all too late.

With archaeological data, when matters just as much as where.

[Nofear]

Muc: After having spoken with a seventy it is my understanding that the leaders of the Church do know exactly where the occurences in the Book of Mormon took place. However to avoid contention like what we have seen in this specific thread and also not to dehabilitate fragile testimonies, have decided to keep the locations secret.

Sevenbak: Having spoken to the Mission President at the Cumorah Visitor's Center on this very issue, as part of a documentary trip, and knowing what they teach there about that sacred location at the Visitor's Center, I concur the church most definitely holds a position on the issue, though they are careful about it given how so many have different ideas.

Usually we criticize the nay-sayers for holding conspiracy theories. And yet, here I find two believing members explicitly espousing one!?

[BOMG]

I apologize for not qualifying this statement. The term "Snail Suckers" is BYU Archaeology slang for small-scale societies or people on the periphery of major centers. The term comes from John Clark, who would often give those of us working in North America a hard time about splitting hairs in our research ("Who cares if one group of snail suckers were sending a few pots to another group of snail suckers").

The term is applicable here. The people who lived in this area during Book of Mormon time periods were in a cultural backwater. They didn't live in large, fortified settlements with monumental architecture. These sites in this area all post-date the widespread adoption of maize agriculture around A.D. 1000. John Clark reviews the archaeological literature of the region in this article.

Unless you can show some original research by a snail sucking identifier/sympathizer of the Western New York area, such sweeping generalizations are nonsense.

Should you ignore fulfilled land prophecies because of a plant and offend God?

Here's some facts to be considered:

RACISM

A

virulent racism

permeated all aspects of America society and culture in the early and mid-nineteenth century and was reflected in both American and European anthropology. (Terry A. Bernhart,

Ephraim George Squire and the Development of American Anthropology

, 2005, p. 5)

LAND CHANGED OWNERSHIP

By the time Europeans, especially the English and the French, showed interests in the vast woodland and prairie region of western New York,

the land already had a long history of changing ownership and use

.

(

General Motors Tonawanda Engine Plant Expansion, Stage 1 Archaeological Investigation

, OPRHP, No. 00 PR 1166, August 4, 2000, p. 3-28)

DESTROYED BEFORE RESEARCHED

Although over

one hundred mounds are recorded

for Western New York, their

high visibility

attracted "antiquarian or treasure hunter" interest resulting in the

destruction of most before any systematic research could be done to determine their origins

.

(Shetrone 1930). (Ibid, p. 3-20)

I should not be telling BYU Archaeologist this, they should be telling us it!

I wouldn't call what these people did "Histories". Pre-Histories maybe, but not histories. These early researchers could not date the sites they recorded. Now we can, and the big sites in the area being discussed are all too late.

With archaeological data, when matters just as much as where.

Another sweeping generalization. Back your words. Show me the review of each title listed by a BYU Archaeologist.

Stop wasting our time, unless you can identify the FOUR SEAS spoken of on an Internal Map, and matched on a Physical Map, the quality of research you espouse will be considered flawed - not to mention the flagrant disregard for DNA evidence, which we have.

.

[BOMG]

Usually we criticize the nay-sayers for holding conspiracy theories. And yet, here I find two believing members explicitly espousing one!?

Where there's a "conspiracy" there's a ground swell.

Notice the work of Rodney Meldrum? If that doesn't tell you how suspicous the general populace is of FARMS et. al. then you're out of touch.

Did someone erase your memory of the wide sweeping lack of DNA evidence and BoM evidence AMONGST all the EXISTING evidence in Mesoamerica.

Western New York HAD evidence until it was "overrun" by the Gentiles (2 Nephi 1:8 ). Big difference.

[Kumenonhi]

I notice to great effect that Brant Gardner, Anijen and Coldsteel have decided to no longer participate in this discussion with BOMG this statement comes to mind;

When attacked by error, truth is better served by silence than by a bad argument.

[LeSellers]

If it's in the LDS scriptures, then it's your canon:

Are you defining our canon for us? How gracious, since we are obviously incapable of doing so ourselves.

This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. ... It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly.

SECTION 128 An epistle from Joseph Smith the Prophet to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing further directions on baptism for the dead; dated at Nauvoo, Illinois, September 6, 1842. HC 5: 148

[BOMG]

<br />I notice to great effect that Brant Gardner, Anijen and Coldsteel have decided to no longer participate in this discussion with BOMG

Unless they (or you) will:

a. Respect your canon.

b. Respect church history.

c. Acknowledge BoM land prophecies.

d. Show an Internal Map with FOUR SEAS.

What can they say???? Sad.

[BOMG]

Are you defining our canon for us? How gracious, since we are obviously incapable of doing so ourselves.

Obviously.

According to your own professors, you have little regard for the Book of Mormon:

Despite the effort that went into the translation, Joseph Smith did not make the book the foundation of the church. (Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, 1984, p. 142)

What, prithee, does this have to do with your argument? I freely admit it seems more than a bit off the wall to me.

What part of "Moroni" "Cumorah" and "Glad tidings" don't you understand?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/128/20#20

Pray tell, is your cognitive dissonance so apparent you are unable to see those words?

.

[rodheadlee]

I should not be telling BYU Archaeologist this, they should be telling us it!

Another sweeping generalization. Back your words. Show me the review of each title listed by a BYU Archaeologist.

Stop wasting our time, unless you can identify the FOUR SEAS spoken of on an Internal Map, and matched on a Physical Map, the quality of research you espouse will be considered flawed - not to mention the flagrant disregard for DNA evidence, which we have.

Dude, you are way too uptight. Calm down a bit. I appreciate shrff's posts and the fact that while he is out there digging in the trenches he takes the time to post. Stop acting like you speak for me.

I don't buy your explanation of the most important point, Lehi's departure point and landfall point. Why is this number 23 on your list? This should be number 1. Nor do I buy you calling those puddles - Seas and most of all calling Lake Ontario - Ripliancum. Ripliancum is the Pacific Ocean, large, to exceed all. It took 26 days to sail less than half way across for my wife and I. I can cross Lake Ontario in less than one day, I can run the length of lake Ontario in less than 2 days in an old piece of junk boat. In 70 days I could cover every square mile of Lake Ontario in a 5 knot boat.

But I still try to enjoy your posts and your website. These musings on BoM geography are fun diversions from real life but they are not Gospel Essentials. Chill out.

[LeSellers]

What part of "Moroni" "Cumorah" and "Glad tidings" don't you understand?

http://scriptures.ld...en/dc/128/20#20

Pray tell, is your cognitive dissonance so apparent you are unable to see those words?

You quoted the introduction to the section, and, as we were discussing introductions, it seemed obvious that you wanted to draw some sort of parallel between the introduction to the Book of Mormon and the introduction to section 128.

I'm sorry I was unable to read your mind.

Now, since "Glad tidings", "Moroni" and "Cumorah" in this context say nothing at all about the final battles at the Mesoamerican Cumorah and Ramah, this does nothing at all to buttress your position.

Lehi

[BOMG]

Nor do I buy you calling those puddles - Seas and most of all calling Lake Ontario - Ripliancum.

Right - WRONG! They're larger than the "Sea of Galilee."

Ripliancum is the Pacific Ocean, large, to exceed all.

You're wound tight, look Ripliancum is NOT the body of water anyone crossed, it only borders BoM lands. Sooooo, the Ocean does not border BoM lands - period!

You quoted the introduction to the section, and, as we were discussing introductions, it seemed obvious that you wanted to draw some sort of parallel between the introduction to the Book of Mormon and the introduction to section 128.

I'm sorry I was unable to read your mind.

Whatever. My original post was precise. Are you yet a third alias for coldsteal? Your techniques sure are the same.

[LeSellers]

According to your own professors, you have little regard for the Book of Mormon:

Despite the effort that went into the translation, Joseph Smith did not make the book the foundation of the church. (Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, 1984, p. 142)

How in the world do you derive your erroneous claim (that we have little regard for the Book of Mormon) from what Joseph Smith did (or did not do)?

The context of Brother/Professor Bushman's comment was that Joseph did not make extensive use of the Book of Mormon (as quotes or citations) in his own preaching, etc. (I disagree, by the way, but that's grist for a wholly different mill.) It does not mean that we LDSs, including Joseph Smith, do not hold the Book of Mormon in high esteem as the word of God and as holy scripture, for, in spite of your confusion on the matter, we most assuredly do, and he did, too.

Taking a quotation out of context, and making it appear to say something entirely opposite from its original meaning is little more than bearing false witness, is it not?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Whatever. My original post was precise. Are you yet a third alias for coldsteal? Your techniques sure are the same.

No, I am not. Both he and I are fully capable of holding our own against the distortions of such as you. Neither needs a sock puppet.

Lehi

By the way, it's "ColdSteel", not "coldsteal". The innuendo is most unbecoming, and worthy of being admonished, in my opinion. .