Land of Nephi

[bookofmormontruth]

What are thoughts of the LDS faithful on this model? My link

Whether plausible or not, it is fascinating to see the underwater cities off Cuba. My link

And how do the current models factor in the cities that were destroyed after the Lord's death? Do they have possible locations? Like Jerusalem in some current lake in Central America?

On a side note: I am open to hearing all hypothetical models no matter how ridiculous some seem to be. But I don't believe one camp has all the answers and so it is disappointing to see certain camps throw their fellow brothers and sisters under the bus no matter how "justified" they feel it to be. I understand the passion of the debate from the experts and so called amateurs, but it is only geography and the Book of Mormon remains true. Hopefully we can always keep it a healthy debate and not make it so divisive in the Lord's Church. The anti-Mormons have enough ammunition even though they shoot blanks.

I've been here a short time and I really appreciate the subjects and thoughts. There are definitely some amazing individuals that are on a higher level than I can ever be. I am honored to be your fellow brother in the Gospel for we are definitely in good company so now I know why we get all kinds of people on here who secretly want to be part of this great work of the Lord.

CTR,

[thesometimesaint]

bookofmormontruth:

I don't buy it. This proposed idea ignores the distances described in the BoM itself.

[BCSpace]

I agree. It's interesting, but ultimately the time/distance descriptions seem to force a much smaller area.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The thought of a large land mass between Florida and some segment of Latin America has occured to me a time or to. I have never seen the position advocated before though.

[rameumptom]

Nor is there archaeological evidence of there having been a large land mass in the Gulf beforehand. The sunken finds around Cuba, etc., only shows that those islands have sunk some or the waters have spilled over since ancient times.

The Mound builders of North America could not have been the Nephites. The dates do not coincide. They did not have writing. They did not have the numbers for the final wars involved. Others have mentioned distances (it was 12 days between the land of Nephi and Zarahemla - or perhaps 250-300 miles). There are many other issues that just do not fit in it.

[Kevin Christensen]

John Sorenson wrote up a couple of notes in Insights about a submerged city in Lake Atitlan, his candidate for the waters of Mormon.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=22&num=4&id=238

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[SkepticTheist]

I don't like models that have to go out of their way to show over-the-top catastrophism. I think that while it is clear that tsunamis occurred that swept away coastal cities and terrible things that changed the face of the land, I see nothing in the scriptures to indicate continental shelves sinking or sea levels rising to an extreme degree. Cities off the coast of Cuba can be explained as pre-flood cities or other things, and there is no need to bring the Book of Mormon into it.

When you say that one camp doesn't have all the answers, I agree for the most part. But I disagree in the sense that I think that we cannot get away from the fact that Mesoamerica is where the urban centers are, and there is nothing else like it in the Americas. To me, in my personal view, the question is how far northward the Nephites migrated. It isn't about Mesoamerica as the urban society that comprised the general Land of Zarahemla.

Ed Goble

What are thoughts of the LDS faithful on this model? My link

Whether plausible or not, it is fascinating to see the underwater cities of Cuba. My link

And how do the current models factor in the cities that were destroyed after the Lord's death? Do they have possible locations? Like Jerusalem in some current lake in Central America?

On a side note: I am open to hearing all hypothetical models no matter how ridiculous some seem to be. But I don't believe one camp has all the answers and so it is disappointing to see certain camps throw their fellow brothers and sisters under the bus no matter how "justified" they feel it to be. I understand the passion of the debate from the experts and so called amateurs, but it is only geography and the Book of Mormon remains true. Hopefully we can always keep it a healthy debate and not make it so divisive in the Lord's Church. The anti-Mormons have enough ammunition even though they shoot blanks.

I've been here a short time and I really appreciate the subjects and thoughts. There are definitely some amazing individuals that are on a higher level than I can ever be. I am honored to be your fellow brother in the Gospel for we are definitely in good company so now I know why we get all kinds of people on here who secretly want to be part of this great work of the Lord.

CTR,

[SkepticTheist]

Oh, and one other problem that conflicts with this view if you take Joseph Smith's beliefs into account. Joseph Smith is well documented to have taught that the City of Enoch was in the Gulf of Mexico and was lifted up from there along with the land mass. Now, I'm not suggesting that is the case, because I personally believe the people were lifted up, not the buildings and the land mass. If we take the city of Salem as an example, which is supposed to have been either Jerusalem or some other city by Shechem or something like that (if I remember right), that was the place that Melchizedek and his followers were lifted up to go live with the people of the city of Enoch, according to the JST. Now, there is no missing landmass in the Jerusalem/Israel area.

But my point here is, since we know from the reports that Joseph Smith believed that the City of Enoch was in the Gulf of Mexico and the landmass got lifted up, Joseph Smith would not have believed in an extended land of Zarahemla that catastrophically sunk in the Gulf of Mexico.

Ed Goble

What are thoughts of the LDS faithful on this model? My link

Whether plausible or not, it is fascinating to see the underwater cities of Cuba. My link

And how do the current models factor in the cities that were destroyed after the Lord's death? Do they have possible locations? Like Jerusalem in some current lake in Central America?

On a side note: I am open to hearing all hypothetical models no matter how ridiculous some seem to be. But I don't believe one camp has all the answers and so it is disappointing to see certain camps throw their fellow brothers and sisters under the bus no matter how "justified" they feel it to be. I understand the passion of the debate from the experts and so called amateurs, but it is only geography and the Book of Mormon remains true. Hopefully we can always keep it a healthy debate and not make it so divisive in the Lord's Church. The anti-Mormons have enough ammunition even though they shoot blanks.

I've been here a short time and I really appreciate the subjects and thoughts. There are definitely some amazing individuals that are on a higher level than I can ever be. I am honored to be your fellow brother in the Gospel for we are definitely in good company so now I know why we get all kinds of people on here who secretly want to be part of this great work of the Lord.

CTR,

[SkepticTheist]

This has been hashed out in other threads, but you are not right about everything you just said about the Moundbuilders as far as the plausiblity that they were Nephites. I'm not talking about the Heartland theory, but a theory with an extended Land Northward from Zarahemla (Mesoamerica) into the Great Lakes region. I'm not talking about their level of technology in comparison to Mesoamerica. I'm strictly talking about Nephite migrations and the location of the last battles in New York.

But I will not debate it on this thread, except for making this one small statement on this one post. It has already been debated on other threads very recently where I have debated it. I'm only stating it here so that your assertion about the Hopewell does not remain unchallenged. If anyone wants to debate this again, let's start a new thread but let's not do it here.

I have documented the argument in my book Resurrecting Cumorah.

there was an exceedingly great distance between the Large Bodies of Water that Cumorah was attached to, because Ripliancum was one of them, and the Narrow Neck of Land.

On this issue you can disagree, and you can certainly side with the more popular reading of the text, but you cannot assert that a rational reading of the text does not exist that establishes this as another very plausible option. I suppose you can say that that reading is not rational if you want to, because other people have and continue to do so, but I assert its rationality.

Ed Goble

Nor is there archaeological evidence of there having been a large land mass in the Gulf beforehand. The sunken finds around Cuba, etc., only shows that those islands have sunk some or the waters have spilled over since ancient times.

The Mound builders of North America could not have been the Nephites. The dates do not coincide. They did not have writing. They did not have the numbers for the final wars involved. Others have mentioned distances (it was 12 days between the land of Nephi and Zarahemla - or perhaps 250-300 miles). There are many other issues that just do not fit in it.

[bookofmormontruth]

I don't like models that have to go out of their way to show over-the-top catastrophism. I think that while it is clear that tsunamis occurred that swept away coastal cities and terrible things that changed the face of the land, I see nothing in the scriptures to indicate continental shelves sinking or sea levels rising to an extreme degree. Cities off the coast of Cuba can be explained as pre-flood cities or other things, and there is no need to bring the Book of Mormon into it.

When you say that one camp doesn't have all the answers, I agree for the most part. But I disagree in the sense that I think that we cannot get away from the fact that Mesoamerica is where the urban centers are, and there is nothing else like it in the Americas. To me, in my personal view, the question is how far northward the Nephites migrated. It isn't about Mesoamerica as the urban society that comprised the general Land of Zarahemla.

Ed Goble

I agree with what you said about Mesoamerica in it being one of the best models possible, but wouldn't the lost city off Cuba support this model? And correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Mayans have a belief that they came from the East?

Let's also say this city off the coast of Cuba is accurate in what was found. Pyramids and large highway and etc... Is there any evidence that civilizations on the American continent built pyramids exactly like the Egyptians? And if so, how would they get this knowledge?

[bookofmormontruth]

Oh, and one other problem that conflicts with this view if you take Joseph Smith's beliefs into account. Joseph Smith is well documented to have taught that the City of Enoch was in the Gulf of Mexico and was lifted up from there along with the land mass. Now, I'm not suggesting that is the case, because I personally believe the people were lifted up, not the buildings and the land mass. If we take the city of Salem as an example, which is supposed to have been either Jerusalem or some other city by Shechem or something like that (if I remember right), that was the place that Melchizedek and his followers were lifted up to go live with the people of the city of Enoch, according to the JST. Now, there is no missing landmass in the Jerusalem/Israel area.

But my point here is, since we know from the reports that Joseph Smith believed that the City of Enoch was in the Gulf of Mexico and the landmass got lifted up, Joseph Smith would not have believed in an extended land of Zarahemla that catastrophically sunk in the Gulf of Mexico.

Ed Goble

Do you have the source for what Joseph Smith said in regards to Enoch? Thanks

[SkepticTheist]

I guess the only way to answer your question would be for carbon dating to be done for some artifact from the cities off the coast of Cuba to see if they are pre-flood or Book of Mormon time period.

Ed Goble

I agree with what you said about Mesoamerica in it being one of the best models possible, but wouldn't the lost city off Cuba support this model? And correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Mayans have a belief that they came from the East?

Let's also say this city off the coast of Cuba is accurate in what was found. Pyramids and large highway and etc... Is there any evidence that civilizations on the American continent built pyramids exactly like the Egyptians? And if so, how would they get this knowledge?

[SkepticTheist]

Yeah, I'll dig it out.

Do you have the source for what Joseph Smith said in regards to Enoch? Thanks

[mapman]

One problem is the fact that many of the same geographical features are mentioned before and after the destruction at Christ's death. This implies that the topography had not been distorted so much as to be unrecognizable. If one reads carefully, you can see that the Book of Mormon does not talk about the enormous geographic changes some people think it does. There is no reason to think that whole lands were buried under water, but rather individual cities and are said to have been destroyed

[bookofmormontruth]

Nor is there archaeological evidence of there having been a large land mass in the Gulf beforehand. The sunken finds around Cuba, etc., only shows that those islands have sunk some or the waters have spilled over since ancient times.

The Mound builders of North America could not have been the Nephites. The dates do not coincide. They did not have writing. They did not have the numbers for the final wars involved. Others have mentioned distances (it was 12 days between the land of Nephi and Zarahemla - or perhaps 250-300 miles). There are many other issues that just do not fit in it.

Of course there is! Pangea!

[Cherubbish]

Although very interesting, I've never believed a BoM geography that encompasses large land masses, such as all of Central and North America. I believe the geography of the BoM is relatively small due to the travel time constraints give in the BoM such as "a day and half for a Nephite". I don't limit myself to believe that the hill Cumorah mentioned in the BoM is the same one where Joseph Smith found the plates. Moroni had too much time to travel and move the records to their final resting place. But as stated, whatever the geography is or you believe in, it shouldn't deter one's faith in the BoM.

[SkepticTheist]

I never said that everything beneath the Narrow Neck of Land was not limited in size. Of course everything down there was very limited in size.

The question of large distances only has to do with the scope of Land Northward issues. Too often people believe that the Book of Mormon only dealt with small distances, conflating the facts of the Land Southward into the readings of scripture about the Land Northward. The two lands are two separate animals altogether.

Moroni's time that he had to travel in his wanderings says nothing for the distances or directions that he traveled. A long time period does not imply by any means that he covered great distances. He could have been doing zigzags and loops around the Land Northward just as easily as he could do a straight line. Lack of geographical data in the text does not mean that one point of view can have precedence over another because of what something doesn't say. That is one of my biggest pet peeves is that people try to get mileage out of what something didn't say.

As an analogy, some people think Kolob is immense because it rotates slowly. But the one concept has nothing to do with the other. Some supermassive black holes rotate incredibly fast. Other bodies like the moon are tidally locked to their parent body, so they rarely if ever have any kind of rotation at all, and one face always faces the parent body. Perhaps Kolob is a supermassive star revolving around a supermassive black hole, and it rotates slowly because it is tidally locked. Just because it is tidally locked does not have any implication for its size. The moon is pretty small but it is tidally locked.

I know that has nothing to do with geography, but it illustrates how one concept about something can be mixed up with another when the two have nothing to do with each other, and have no implication for each other.

Although very interesting, I've never believed a BoM geography that encompasses large land masses, such as all of Central and North America. I believe the geography of the BoM is relatively small due to the travel time constraints give in the BoM such as "a day and half for a Nephite". I don't limit myself to believe that the hill Cumorah mentioned in the BoM is the same one where Joseph Smith found the plates. Moroni had too much time to travel and move the records to their final resting place. But as stated, whatever the geography is or you believe in, it shouldn't deter one's faith in the BoM.

[bookofmormontruth]

Do we get more points, stars or planets in the after-life if we choose the correct Book of Mormon Geography Model?

I am going to go with..........that they are all wrong and all of them have some parts that are true........................except that one camp.

[TAO]

Do we get more points, stars or planets in the after-life if we choose the correct Book of Mormon Geography Model?

I am going to go with..........that they are all wrong and all of them have some parts that are true........................except that one camp.

I'd have to agree... it doesn't really matter too much XD. The gospel, and our choices while following it is all that matters, that it is =D.

[livy111us]

Do you have the source for what Joseph Smith said in regards to Enoch? Thanks

"Joseph (Smith) also said that when the City of Enoch fled and was translated, it was where the Gulf of Mexico now is. It left that gulf a body of water" (Waiting for World

[bookofmormontruth]

"Joseph (Smith) also said that when the City of Enoch fled and was translated, it was where the Gulf of Mexico now is. It left that gulf a body of water" (Waiting for World