Joseph's visions of the Nephite Civilization...

[LeSellers]

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

The Hebrew has but a single word for "lake" "sea" "ocean": yam. It's the word used to describe the baptismal font in 1 King 7:44.

It is obvious that Nephi knew the word, and, to make the point that this was something much larger than anything in his experience, he used a different word: "Ripliancum".

Lehi

[shrff]

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!

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.

.

Settle down tiger. Not all the sites were destroyed, and some of them have been investigated, so your argument that the evidence is all gone is invalid. I suggest that you read Clark's article I referenced that reviews the archaeological literature for the area you are discussing. I'm not going to summarize the review article for you. It's only like 15 pages long. Go have a look at it.

A common thread among North American setting advocates is the emphasis of extremely early archaeological work (when methodologies were not as robust as they are now) and the near-ignorance or more recent archaeological investigations (which indicate that Moundbuilder cultures lacked the kind of social organization described in the text of the BOM during the appropriate time periods).

I'm just showing you where to find the known data. It's not my fault that the data don't fit the theory you think is correct.

[Nofear]

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.

The idea that the Church leadership is deliberately keeping secrets is the meat of deception and apostasy. I can certainly see why your primary interlocutors gave up discussion if this comment is any indication.

[BOMG]

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)?

You (as whole) do not follow a single doctrine of the Book of Mormon - that's a fact!

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.

No, that's not what he meant, BUT it is a SECOND fact, thank you for addressing FACT #2.

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

To lay that claim against may be construed as bearing false witness - yes. I have more quotes, witnesses and facts, pick your poison, I'll gladly respond.

The Hebrew has but a single word for "lake" "sea" "ocean": yam. It's the word used to describe the baptismal font in 1 King 7:44.

It is obvious that Nephi knew the word, and, to make the point that this was something much larger than anything in his experience, he used a different word: "Ripliancum".Lehi

Correct, of the FOUR SEAS you all ignore, the North Sea was LARGER than all.

Also, you ignore the fact that it does NOT say they crossed "Ripliancum" to get to their lands. Comprehend???

[BOMG]

Settle down tiger. Not all the sites were destroyed,

No doubt, and as soon as the world no longer associates the Book of Mormon with Mormon Doctrine, the proof will be forthcoming. Until then, God's been good to lead the deceived down illusionary paths.

read Clark's article I referenced that reviews the archaeological literature for the area you are discussing.

I have, and like I said, until he believes in FOUR REAL SEAS, at least for an Internal Map, its a waste of anyone's time.

The idea that the Church leadership is deliberately keeping secrets is the meat of deception and apostasy. I can certainly see why your primary interlocutors gave up discussion if this comment is any indication.

That was not my statement, take it up with your fellow members.

.

[Nofear]

That was not my statement, take it up with your fellow members.

No, you didn't imply any conspiracy directly. I'm glad you deny it. But, what motivated my comment " I can certainly see why your primary interlocutors gave up discussion if this comment is any indication." was all the non sequitur attacks that stemmed from my bemoaning of implied (I suspect unintentionally so) conspiracy by Sevenbak and Muc. For the record, I personally find your Book of Mormon geography arguments, criticisms, and advocacy unreasonable and unpersuasive. But hey, that's just me.

[Nemesis]

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

We don't allow this here. Knock it off.

Nemesis

[BOMG]

We don't allow this here. Knock it off. Nemesis

That's a record, I made it to 357 posts!

[LeSellers]

You (as whole) do not follow a single doctrine of the Book of Mormon - that's a fact!

Eh, that's a rather broad brush you wield there.

To refute it, I need merely point out one doctrine we do practice, and your statement is proven false. I do so here:

1 The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it

[BOMG]

Eh, that's a rather broad brush you wield there.

To refute it, I need merely point out one doctrine we do practice, and your statement is proven false. I do so here:

If I recall, we use those same words every Sunday, in every ward and branch of the Church. Ergo, we do follow (at least one) doctrine in the Book of Mormon, and you have made a false statement.

Wrong. Communion is forbidden from the unbaptized and you give it to your infants and investigators every Sunday.

Even were I to grant you the premise in this message, and I do not, it does not address my position, i.e., that whatever Joseph, in the XIX, may or may not have done in regards to making the Book of Mormon foundational to his theology or doctrines has little to do with what we do in the XXI. Your statement, that we have little regard for the Book of Mormon is patently false.

If Joseph made the foundation of your church, and if it was not upon the Book of Mormon, ergo, your logic backfired.

Here's another quote in context:

Mormonism would not have endured had its leaders relied solely on the Book of Mormon.

("David Whitmer and the Shaping of Latter-day Saint History" by Kenneth Godfrey in

The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson

, FARMS, 2000.)

Jesus Christ is that foundation (or at the very least, the chief cornerstone, the Apostles and Prophets being the foundation.)

That's what you perceive. Unfortunately, not based on the Book of Mormon - no apostles, and no man-called prophets.

Yet that means nothing, since no one has claimed they did. Lehi

A few posts back it was, thus my response.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

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!

Yeah, were does the text of the BoM say what you assert? CFR.

In your assertion BoM lands do not boarder the ocean. If you cant' back it up your assertion is meanngless. Period!! I typed it even in bold letters. Ohhhh!!

[Hestia]

That's what you perceive. Unfortunately, not based on the Book of Mormon - no apostles, and no man-called prophets.

If you are going to cite such misinformation you need to cite the source and credit it, especially if it is from anti-LDS sites such as this? http://www.bomchristian.com/c/

[BOMG]

If you are going to cite such misinformation you need to cite the source and credit it, especially if it is from anti-LDS sites such as this? http://www.bomchristian.com/c/

More precisely: http://www.whitmercollege.com

[LeSellers]

Wrong. Communion is forbidden from the unbaptized and you give it to your infants and investigators every Sunday.

Didn't claim that, did I? Only that we use the precise wording and mechanism from the Book of Mormon in blessing the bread of the Sacrament. That's one doctrine we practice from the Book of Mormon and thus your claim is false. (BTW, you used a very odd construction for this sentence. The correct preposition would be "to", rather than "from".)

You do know, do you not, that the word "communion" does not appear in the Book of Mormon in regards to the Sacrament.

If Joseph made the foundation of your church, and if it was not upon the Book of Mormon, ergo, your logic backfired.

Eh, how so? (Or, more to the point, what does that even mean?)

Joseph did not make the Book of Mormon the foundation of the Church. That honor goes to Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is the keystone, a rather different element in the architecture.

Here's another quote in context:

Mormonism would not have endured had its leaders relied solely on the Book of Mormon.

("David Whitmer and the Shaping of Latter-day Saint History" by Kenneth Godfrey in

The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson

, FARMS, 2000.)

That's not "context", but, as I have already said, the Book of Mormon is not the foundation of the Church, never was, will never be.

We have never claimed to rely on the Book of Mormon solely. There's the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and, even more importantly, continuing revelation.

What's your point?

That's what you perceive. Unfortunately, not based on the Book of Mormon - no apostles, and no man-called prophets.

There are Apostles in the Book of Mormon: Peter, James, John, etc. (John is even mentioned by name.)

We don't have "man-called prophets", either. They have all been called of God, by prophecy, and the laying on of hands.

Lehi

[BOMG]

Didn't claim that..one doctrine we practice from the Book of Mormon and thus your claim is false.

As I said, you (as a group) do not follow a single doctrine in the Book of Mormon. Had you not given the "Sacrament" to infants and investigators you'd be right. Unfortunately, the second act (giving to children and investigators) canceled the first (the prayer).

Joseph did not make the Book of Mormon the foundation of the Church. That honor goes to Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is the keystone, a rather different element in the architecture.

Wrong. Not only did he remove reference to our Savior from the name of the church, but he replaced the atonement with the Old Testament, Old Covenant "High Priests" who must minister on your behalf. Which doesn't reflect the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon OR the Bible.

We have never claimed to rely on the Book of Mormon solely. There's the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and, even more importantly, continuing revelation.

LeSellers, repent, return to the Holy Book of Mormon and be saved in the Kingdom of God!

There are Apostles in the Book of Mormon: Peter, James, John, etc. (John is even mentioned by name.

You said as "the foundation" of your church. Wrong. The Christ set up his church in America, and he made it so clear as to stop arguing - unless you ignore what he said!

We don't have "man-called prophets", either. They have all been called of God, by prophecy, and the laying on of hands. Lehi

That's what you infer. Regardless, the New Covenant church as stated in the Bible and Book of Mormon is void of this system.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I said, you (as a group) do not follow a single doctrine in the Book of Mormon. Had you not given the "Sacrament" to infants and investigators you'd be right. Unfortunately, the second act (giving to children and investigators) canceled the first (the prayer).

Wrong. Not only did he remove reference to our Savior from the name of the church, but he replaced the atonement with the Old Testament, Old Covenant "High Priests" who must minister on your behalf. Which doesn't reflect the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon OR the Bible.

LeSellers, repent, return to the Holy Book of Mormon and be saved in the Kingdom of God!

You said as "the foundation" of your church. Wrong. The Christ set up his church in America, and he made it so clear as to stop arguing - unless you ignore what he said!

That's what you infer. Regardless, the New Covenant church as stated in the Bible and Book of Mormon is void of this system.

Not another one of thes people. Away with you.

[Deborah]

As I said, you (as a group) do not follow a single doctrine in the Book of Mormon. Had you not given the "Sacrament" to infants and investigators you'd be right. Unfortunately, the second act (giving to children and investigators) canceled the first (the prayer).

This scripture came to mind:

Matt 23: 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Seriously, you need to get back to the real world.

[LeSellers]

LeSellers, repent, return to the Holy Book of Mormon and be saved in the Kingdom of God!

Having never left it, I cannot return.

This sort of thing is, however, explicitly forbidden in the board rules, so it is you who should repent lest you be banned.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

As I said, you (as a group) do not follow a single doctrine in the Book of Mormon. Had you not given the "Sacrament" to infants and investigators you'd be right. Unfortunately, the second act (giving to children and investigators) canceled the first (the prayer).

You base this (the second act's canceling the first) on what, exactly? And, one might ask, what happened to "communion"? It's now "'Sacrament'", in glorious, and pregnant, quotation marks, not to mention the bolding.

We do follow the one, which you claim we did not do, i.e., we do not follow a single doctrine from the Book of Mormon. Now, having to pull you pants back up, you change the rules on us. That's called "moving the goal posts", and it is a fallacy. It also means you've lost the battle, irrespective of the position of your trousers.

Lehi

[Skylla]

BOMG:

Knock if off. You're out of line.

Skylla

[shrff]

Looks like this thread is about to be closed. BOMG, you seem pretty fixated on a few points of BOM geography (like the 4 seas thing) and are ignoring other important qualifications (such as archaeological evidence). Good luck with your model, but it's not going to be be robust until you look at a broader swath of evidence. Clark's review of the archaeological literature in the New York area is pretty good. To dismiss that because John "can't produce a 4 seas geography" seems like a bad idea. Clark's ideas about BOM geography stand independent of his review of the known archaeological literature in the area of your model.

[BOMG]

Clark's review of the archaeological literature in the New York area is pretty good. To dismiss that because John "can't produce a 4 seas geography" seems like a bad idea.

I follow Clark's advice:

Only after a given geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit attention.

[A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies, John E. Clark, FARMS Review: Volume - 1, Issue - 1, Pages: 20-70, A review of "Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon" by F. Richard Hauck, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1989]

The seas are key for locating Cumorah, thus, without them you're lost. [Now you know why there's so many Mesoamerican models]

Clark's ideas about BOM geography stand independent of his review of the known archaeological literature in the area of your model.

Really?

Here I consider reasons for questioning the case for a New York location. I am unaware of any archaeological investigation of the hill itself,

but sufficient information is available for the surrounding regions to make a critical assessment.

[source: "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions," John E. Clark, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 13, Issue - 1, Pages: 144-51, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2004]

Anything else?

.

[shrff]

I follow Clark's advice:

Only after a given geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit attention.

[A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies, John E. Clark, FARMS Review: Volume - 1, Issue - 1, Pages: 20-70, A review of "Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon" by F. Richard Hauck, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1989]

The seas are key for locating Cumorah, thus, without them you're lost. [Now you know why there's so many Mesoamerican models]

Except you seem to be ignoring the second portion of Clark's equation. If you're so confident that your model fits the geographic requirements in the text of the Book of Mormon, then move on and examine the archaeology as Clark suggests. As indicated in "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions," the archaeology of your area doesn't fit the expectations in the text, disqualifying it as a potential location for the Book of Mormon.

Really?

Here I consider reasons for questioning the case for a New York location. I am unaware of any archaeological investigation of the hill itself,

but sufficient information is available for the surrounding regions to make a critical assessment.

[source: "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions," John E. Clark, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 13, Issue - 1, Pages: 144-51, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2004]

Anything else?

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Clark's "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions" presents a review of the archaeological literature in the area of your model. The archaeological evidence summarized in that article are inconsistent with the cultures described in the text of the Book of Mormon.

[BOMG]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Clark's "Archaeology and Cumorah Questions" presents a review of the archaeological literature in the area of your model. The archaeological evidence summarized in that article are inconsistent with the cultures described in the text of the Book of Mormon.

If you're fixed on Mesoamerica, no amount of evidence will sway you.

The only hope we have is for those who haven't been indoctrinated, and are not friends or relatives of Mesotheorists.

I wish to please the Lord, respect the history, the prophecies, and first hand accounts like Oliver, Joseph, and David.

Clark (like most researchers), lack a basic understanding of how and where the final war(s) were fought.

1. The Jaredite battle was fought at the Hill Ramah, not Cumorah.

2. The Hill Cumorah was opposite the front line. Anyone looking within a mile of the hill will find nothing.

3. Discoveries have already been made and documented. (See Olive's book for details.)

4. We have the location of a Nephite war camp that is undisturbed, and ready to be radio carbon dated. This knowledge was posted on our Book of Mormon Christian web site SIX YEARS AGO! The archaeologists and Book of Mormon geography enthusiasts we have spoken to RUN scared. No one is interested. Sad.

[Sevenbak]

BOMG, please don't get this thread shut down! If you want to badmouth the LDS church and promote your own, start your own thread. Don't use this one to promote your own faith and agenda, that's not what it is for. Keep it to the topic please.

Also, I'll try to catch up on this today, but just because I share a view with you that the Nephites and Jaredites ended their civilization in Western New York, does not mean I agree with your narrow model in any other way. Cumorah near Palmyra is the only agreement I have with you.