Where in the New World did the Lehites plant the seeds they brought from the Old?

[Ariarates]

Somehow they made it overland from Jerusalem living off the land, now suddenly they forgot how to do that and need provisions?

If you go by the BoM text, the journey from Jerusalem appears to have taken quite a bit longer than the time that passed between arriving in the promised land and settling down to exceeding and abundant farming (10 to 15 chapters vs. 1 sentence).

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What is the point? That you can grow English Ivy in the desert and palm trees in England? I'll grant you that in a heartbeat. Does that mean you can just take fruits and grains from Jerusalem, plant them in the New World and expect them to yield abundantly right away? Possible, but highly unlikely, unless you settle an area similar to Jerusalem.

Or highly likely given the fact that Lord promised that if you would keep His commandments you would prosper in the land. (Unless, of course you believe God routinely lies to people.)

[bookofmormontruth]

Yes, never said there weren't. Just wanted to know which areas people think are likely candidated for Lehi to have landed on. So far, we have SoCal/NoMex and somewhere up the Mississippi.

Oh, that's all you are asking for?

With the thousands of possibilities and hundreds of rivers which could bring them deep inland (where we have evidence of barely etc), then you can include my answer as "anywhere and everywhere".

If it is just based on your map - I don't have an area for who is to say that this current map is an accurate representation of what the Americas looked like thousands of years ago? I will stick with what the Book of Mormon states. Besides, a spiritual conversion is the only way to know if the Book of Mormon is accurate for as your OP has proven, you can go round and round based on assumptions.

[Ariarates]

Or highly likely given the fact that Lord promised that if you would keep His commandments you would prosper in the land. (Unless, of course you believe God routinely lies to people.)

You can explain everything by appealing to God's omnipotence but that will not make for an interesting discussion, I'm afraid,

[mfbukowski]

What is the point? That you can grow English Ivy in the desert and palm trees in England? I'll grant you that in a heartbeat. Does that mean you can just take fruits and grains from Jerusalem, plant them in the New World and expect them to yield abundantly right away? Possible, but highly unlikely, unless you settle an area similar to Jerusalem.

No, you are right. They planted their crops from Jerusalem, and woke up the next morning, and VOILA! Mountains of food were everywhere!

Crops require cultivation no matter where they come from.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You can explain everything by appealing to God's omnipotence but that will not make for an interesting discussion, I'm afraid,

Sorry to disappoint you.

[mfbukowski]

If you go by the BoM text, the journey from Jerusalem appears to have taken quite a bit longer than the time that passed between arriving in the promised land and settling down to exceeding and abundant farming (10 to 15 chapters vs. 1 sentence).

Yes, and that is evidence that they had already lived off the land for a long time, and besides that, were able to get enough provisions for the journey besides. They had to have been very good at living off the land.

Also, you are assuming that they magically landed where their crops would grow well, without having to travel to find such a place.

To me that is an unwarranted assumption.

[Kemara]

The assumption regarding climatological limits on crop production is significantly overstated. With the right biological and mineralogical elements in the soil, all and I mean ALL production limiting factors can be overcome. In fact the availability of just a single specific mineral element can protect crops from all biotic and abiotic stresses. Uncultivated soils are generally very rich in these elements whether they be sandy, light, medium or heavy soils. Unfortunately, once soils are cultivated these elements can become deficient, as they relate to biotic and abiotic protection, in just a few crop cycles. If we assume that the Lehites planted seeds in uncultivated soils then we can also fairly safely assume (I would bet anything that they didn’t plant seeds in calcareous soils) that these soils contained the required mineral elements to at least minimize biotic and abiotic stresses. What we know from advanced soil science and plant physiology is that the Book of Mormon text describes a very plausible event in that seeds from Jerusalem could very well “grow exceedingly” once planted in Mesoamerica.

[mfbukowski]

The assumption regarding climatological limits on crop production is significantly overstated. With the right biological and mineralogical elements in the soil, all and I mean ALL production limiting factors can be overcome. In fact the availability of just a single specific mineral element can protect crops from all biotic and abiotic stresses. Uncultivated soils are generally very rich in these elements whether they be sandy, light, medium or heavy soils. Unfortunately, once soils are cultivated these elements can become deficient, as they relate to biotic and abiotic protection, in just a few crop cycles. If we assume that the Lehites planted seeds in uncultivated soils then we can also fairly safely assume (I would bet anything that they didn’t plant seeds in calcareous soils) that these soils contained the required mineral elements to at least minimize biotic and abiotic stresses. What we know from advanced soil science and plant physiology is that the Book of Mormon text describes a very plausible event in that seeds from Jerusalem could very well “grow exceedingly” once planted in Mesoamerica.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The assumption regarding climatological limits on crop production is significantly overstated. With the right biological and mineralogical elements in the soil, all and I mean ALL production limiting factors can be overcome. In fact the availability of just a single specific mineral element can protect crops from all biotic and abiotic stresses. Uncultivated soils are generally very rich in these elements whether they be sandy, light, medium or heavy soils. Unfortunately, once soils are cultivated these elements can become deficient, as they relate to biotic and abiotic protection, in just a few crop cycles. If we assume that the Lehites planted seeds in uncultivated soils then we can also fairly safely assume (I would bet anything that they didn’t plant seeds in calcareous soils) that these soils contained the required mineral elements to at least minimize biotic and abiotic stresses. What we know from advanced soil science and plant physiology is that the Book of Mormon text describes a very plausible event in that seeds from Jerusalem could very well “grow exceedingly” once planted in Mesoamerica.

I believe Ariarates just got Jimmered.

[Calm]

The assumption regarding climatological limits on crop production is significantly overstated. With the right biological and mineralogical elements in the soil, all and I mean ALL production limiting factors can be overcome. In fact the availability of just a single specific mineral element can protect crops from all biotic and abiotic stresses. Uncultivated soils are generally very rich in these elements whether they be sandy, light, medium or heavy soils. Unfortunately, once soils are cultivated these elements can become deficient, as they relate to biotic and abiotic protection, in just a few crop cycles. If we assume that the Lehites planted seeds in uncultivated soils then we can also fairly safely assume (I would bet anything that they didn’t plant seeds in calcareous soils) that these soils contained the required mineral elements to at least minimize biotic and abiotic stresses. What we know from advanced soil science and plant physiology is that the Book of Mormon text describes a very plausible event in that seeds from Jerusalem could very well “grow exceedingly” once planted in Mesoamerica.

My, you actually sound like you know something about the subject. Welcome to the thread.

[mfbukowski]

My, you actually sound like you know something about the subject. Welcome to the thread.

Nah, I told her to say that because she sounds a lot smarter than me!

Just kidding of course- welcome!

[Ariarates]

The assumption regarding climatological limits on crop production is significantly overstated. With the right biological and mineralogical elements in the soil, all and I mean ALL production limiting factors can be overcome.

I'm sorry to disappoint you and your fans, but this is total and utter nonsense. Soil is important but not all-important. See my post no. 36 for a list of other relevant factors - and that list isn't even exhaustive.

In fact the availability of just a single specific mineral element can protect crops from all biotic and abiotic stresses.

I'd be interested to know which single specific mineral element you mean. I want to invest in it.

Uncultivated soils are generally very rich in these elements whether they be sandy, light, medium or heavy soils. Unfortunately, once soils are cultivated these elements can become deficient, as they relate to biotic and abiotic protection, in just a few crop cycles.

This is an interesting addition to Calmoriah's remarks in post no. 37. Maybe the seeds that the Lehites brought from Jerusalem grew exceedingly well upon arrival but quickly exhausted the soil.

What we know from advanced soil science and plant physiology is that the Book of Mormon text describes a very plausible event

Could you elaborate on which knowledge about plant physiology leads you to this conclusion?

[Kemara]

I'm sorry to disappoint you and your fans, but this is total and utter nonsense. Soil is important but not all-important. See my post no. 36 for a list of other relevant factors - and that list isn't even exhaustive.

Actually soil is all important and the only factor if, as I say, it contains the mineral elements that protect a plant against biotic and abiotic stresses. If a plant is protected against biotic and abiotic stresses then please explain to me how any of the factors you listed have any bearing? The sun, moon, seasons, tides, atmospheric humidity, rainfall, weather, evaporation, radiation, altitude, temperature etc are all abiotic stresses. Again, if a plant is protected from abiotic stresses how will these have any impact? Please explain, but in order to do so you will need to move beyond Agronomy 101 and refer to the gene apparatus, protein synthesis, metabolism cycle, the identification, generation and transportation of both specific and non-specific stress proteins and antioxidants and the energy matrix in a plant cell that is required to make it all happen. Take your time formulating your response.

I'd be interested to know which single specific mineral element you mean. I want to invest in it.

I can get you in, the minimum buy in is $3.5 million, do you have PayPal?

This is an interesting addition to Calmoriah's remarks in post no. 37. Maybe the seeds that the Lehites brought from Jerusalem grew exceedingly well upon arrival but quickly exhausted the soil.

Maybe the soil became exhausted, maybe not, the Romans understood to a certain extent how to reintroduce the mineral elements that would provide biotic and abiotic protections as did the Chinese more than 2,000 years ago.

Could you elaborate on which knowledge about plant physiology leads you to this conclusion?

I really don’t want to cloud the issue by providing references to my own co-authored peer reviewed published research on the matter, instead I will provide references from both colleagues and luminaries in the field of soil science and plant physiology from various Universities and research institutions around the world that will confirm my general position. I will also provide references that will give specific examples. Perhaps I may even refer to the world first ground breaking research at California State University that one of my employee’s carried out in 2009 showing how this single mineral element can prevent the uptake of sodium by providing the plant with the capability to distinguish between sodium and potassium, or perhaps the Fullbright program at CSU that used the mineral element that I provided to reduce the crop irrigation requirements by 30 to 60% without a negative effect on the plant, or perhaps the research carried out by my friend and colleague from the Russian Academy of Science about how this element protects a plant and its production capability from extreme temperatures, both hot and cold, or perhaps........this is quite the conundrum for me, where shall I start?

However, if I provide the references I would like you to admit that it is you who is speaking total and utter nonsense. Agreed? While you are deciding if you really want to have to admit that you are speaking total and utter nonsense, let me show you how it all works.

Doc1.bmp

[mfbukowski]

Holy Photosynthesis, Batman!!

[Ariarates]

However, if I provide the references I would like you to admit that it is you who is speaking total and utter nonsense. Agreed? While you are deciding if you really want to have to admit that you are speaking total and utter nonsense, let me show you how it all works.

No, problem, if admitting that I am speaking total and utter nonsense is what it takes to get interesting references, I am happy to do so. My own limited involvement in this kind of research (reactions of plants to stress) ended in 1998, so my knowledge is dated anyway. And "total and utter nonsense" was a bit over the top, I agree.

Actually soil is all important and the only factor if, as I say, it contains the mineral elements that protect a plant against biotic and abiotic stresses.

Indeed, if….

If a plant is protected against biotic and abiotic stresses then please explain to me how any of the factors you listed have any bearing?

They don’t, of course, if…

Again, if a plant is protected from abiotic stresses how will these have any impact?

Indeed they won’t, if…

Please explain, but in order to do so you will need to move beyond Agronomy 101 and refer to the gene apparatus, protein synthesis, metabolism cycle, the identification, generation and transportation of both specific and non-specific stress proteins and antioxidants and the energy matrix in a plant cell that is required to make it all happen. Take your time formulating your response.

Nifty how you shifted the burden of proof there. So far, al you said is that if a plant is protected against biotic and abiotic stresses, it won’t be impacted by biotic and abiotic stresses. Well duh! How can I argue with that?

I can get you in, the minimum buy in is $3.5 million, do you have PayPal?

PayPal has a $10,000 transaction limit. What can you get me for ten grand?

Maybe the soil became exhausted, maybe not, the Romans understood to a certain extent how to reintroduce the mineral elements that would provide biotic and abiotic protections as did the Chinese more than 2,000 years ago.

What about the Lehites? Would they have known? If not, which possible landing areas would have been most likely to contain the right soil characteristics for the BoM scenario of the OP to play out?

I really don’t want to cloud the issue by providing references to my own co-authored peer reviewed published research on the matter

Why would that cloud the issue?

this is quite the conundrum for me, where shall I start?

With dropping the act maybe?

[Kemara]

No, problem, if admitting that I am speaking total and utter nonsense is what it takes to get interesting references, I am happy to do so.

A good place to start would be a textbook used in Universities in the United States:

Snyder, G.H, Matichenkov, V.V, Datnoff, L.E. Handbook of Plant Nutrition (Eds. Barker A.V, Pilbeam D.J.), 2007, p. 551-568

A very good paper to read for a good overview is the following; it provides research data and information concerning the Mechanical, Biochemical, Physiological and Chemical protection against biotic and abiotic stresses provided by Active Si (H4SiO4):

Matichenkov, V.V. 2009. Effects of Active Si in Agriculture. Institute Basic Biological Problems, Russian Academy of Science.

A few others for you to get a general idea of what I am talking about, while searching the internet for these you will come across many others so there isnt really a need to provide lots and lots of references for you:

Biel, K. Matichenkov, V. Fomina I. Role of Silicon in plant defensive system. 2008

Liang, Y. Effect of Si on growth and tolerance to stressful environments and plant diseases in higher plants including protein and oil-bearing crops. 4th International Conference, South Africa, 2008.

Schmidt, R. E., Zhang, X., and Chalmers, D. R. 1999. Response of photosynthesis and superoxide dismutase to silica applied to creeping bentgrass grown under two fertility levels. J. Plant Nutr. 22:1763-1773.

Shimoyama S. 1958. Effect of silicon on lodging and wind damage of rice p.82 Report for the Research Funds Granted by Ministry of Agriculture Japan.

Winslow, M.D. 1992. Silicon, disease resistance, and yield of rice genotypes under upland cultural conditions. Crop Sci. 32:1208–1213.

Indeed, if….

By your use of the word “Indeed” I am assuming that you admit your list of factors is void if the soil contains the mineral elements that protect a plant against biotic and abiotic stresses.

They don’t, of course, if…

Another admission that your factors are void providing the elements are there to protect the plant.

Indeed they won’t, if…

An admission that the specific abiotic stresses you listed will not have any impact if the right elements are in the soil.

Nifty how you shifted the burden of proof there.

Actually, I didn’t shift the burden of proof at all, I simply asked for an explanation of your stated position which was that I was speaking total and utter nonsense. I asked you to show me and gave you a helping hand by pointing out what you would need to explain in order to show me. No good deed goes unpunished it seems.

So far, al you said is that if a plant is protected against biotic and abiotic stresses, it won’t be impacted by biotic and abiotic stresses.

Actually I have said a couple of things, one you mentioned and the other is that non-cultivated soils are generally rich in the biological and mineralogical elements needed to protect a plant against biotic and abiotic stresses. I hope you are not disagreeing with this position.

Well duh! How can I argue with that?

Well I really don’t know, but you seemed to manage it. It was a very poor argument you made, but make it you did.

PayPal has a $10,000 transaction limit. What can you get me for ten grand?

An invitation to make another 349 deposits at $10,000 each.

What about the Lehites? Would they have known?

I have no idea.

If not, which possible landing areas would have been most likely to contain the right soil characteristics for the BoM scenario of the OP to play out?

Most likely any non cultivated soil regardless of its physical characteristics, including sandy soil.

Why would that cloud the issue?

I wouldn’t want to be accused of bias or of stacking the deck with my own published research.

With dropping the act maybe?

I will when you do Pot.

You stated that the purpose of this thread was to use Brant Gardners approach of assuming that the text is ancient and seeing if it matches what we know. The text states that the seeds grew exceedingly so how does that match up with what we now know? How does the text match with knowing that uncultivated soil generally has an abudance of specific mineral elements that will provide protection from biotic and abiotic stresses?

[mfbukowski]

I am the first to admit that I know nothing about this, but I do know enough to spot a BS'er, and it appears to me that Kemara indeed knows what she (he?) is talking about.

This quick search alone seems to confirm much evidence about the efficacy of active silicon in helping plants resist stresses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=active%20silicon%20plants&itool=QuerySuggestion

You stated that the purpose of this thread was to use Brant Gardners approach of assuming that the text is ancient and seeing if it matches what we know. The text states that the seeds grew exceedingly so how does that match up with what we now know? How does the text match with knowing that uncultivated soil generally has an abudance of specific mineral elements that will provide protection from biotic and abiotic stresses?

How does it match?

Apparently, very well indeed!

[BOMG]

When the Lehites left Jerusalem, they brought along seeds which they planted on arrival in the New World. Here’s the gist of the story...

http://bookofmormongeography.org/trees

[mfbukowski]

http://bookofmormongeography.org/trees

Posts which advertise one's own website, and only do that, are not cool hereabouts.

If you make a comment and then refer to your site, or put your site in your siggy- it is considered cool.

I am from Buffalo originally and know a lot about cherry trees.

[BOMG]

According to this verse, the Lehites did not live off the coastline or by the ocean which is your assumption. The "we went forth" phrase shows they traveled further inland. If they decided to pitch their tents on the coastline: the phrase would say "and we went upon the land".

There is only one person touting this argument and it has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that no one here countered the statement means they're ignorant of Book of Mormon geography rather than that they are in agreement. Notice the twisting of verse by a cherry picked dictionary definition, not unlike the cherry picked definition for river "head" by some. The desire to stretch distances including before they even tilled the earth to possibly "100 miles" means a hemispheric mindset is at work.

Consider its use in the following example:

18

And Noah went

forth

, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him:

19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl,

and

whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds,

went

forth

out of the ark.

20 ¶

And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord;

and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (Gen.

Are we to assume that Noah traveled "inland" possibly "100 miles" before building his altar and offering the burnt offerings?

Royal Skousen discusses the modernization of the text in 1 Nephi 18:23 and says:

"But in two cases (1 Nephi 18:23 and Alma 52:18), the preposition

to

was changed to

at

[in the 1981 LDS edition], which seems strange when referring to lands." (Royal Skousen,

Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon

, Pt. 1, 2004, p. 357)

Skousen therefore recommends that the original 1830 version of 1 Nephi 18:23 be restored:

"Summary: Maintain in 1 Nephi 18:23 the original [i.e. 1830] preposition

to

in the phrase 'arrive to the promised land.'" (Ibid., p. 394)

Thus, the original reading of the text makes it clear that "went forth" simply meant they walked off the boat:

"and it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did

arrive

to

the promised land

and we went forth upon the land and did pitch our tents and we did call it the promised land." (1 Nephi 18:23, 1830 edition)

In regards to "till the earth" in verse 24. How do you"till" the sand of the beach for crops? You can't.

Honestly, who said anything about a sandy beach? The text doesn't.

There has been a concerted effort to realign the text with lands not supported, whether by denying official church history or by denying church canon. Where John Sorenson did well was to show the smallness of BoM lands which the OP ignores entirely. Where Sorenson failed miserably was to ignore fulfilled land promises which are congruent with church history and canon. It is high time geography enthusiasts respect what Sorenson, Clark and FAIR suggest and that is to begin with an Internal Geography Map FIRST. Second, identify fulfilled land prophecies - a Spiritual Map. Fit the Internal Map within the boundaries of the Spiritual Map, i.e. Colonial America.

[Ariarates]

A good place to start would be (...)

Thanks, I'll head to the library.

By your use of the word “Indeed” I am assuming that you admit your list of factors is void if the soil contains the mineral elements that protect a plant against biotic and abiotic stresses.

Of course - against all and I mean ALL stresses is how you phrased it, I believe.

Another admission that your factors are void providing the elements are there to protect the plant.

Well there's one I didn't list. When I was 8 years old, I built an elaborate highway system in the wheat field next to our home. There wasn't much harvesting in that particular field that year, even though the soil was pretty suitable. I guess I was a biotic factor there :-) (and a risk factor to my parents' insurance).

Actually I have said a couple of things, one you mentioned and the other is that non-cultivated soils are generally rich in the biological and mineralogical elements needed to protect a plant against biotic and abiotic stresses. I hope you are not disagreeing with this position.

No, not at all.

An invitation to make another 349 deposits at $10,000 each.

:-)

Most likely any non cultivated soil regardless of its physical characteristics, including sandy soil.

I'll see if I can dig up an nice soil map of the world that has any relevance to 600 BC.

I will when you do Pot.

You stated that the purpose of this thread was to use Brant Gardners approach of assuming that the text is ancient and seeing if it matches what we know. The text states that the seeds grew exceedingly so how does that match up with what we now know? How does the text match with knowing that uncultivated soil generally has an abudance of specific mineral elements that will provide protection from biotic and abiotic stresses?

It seems to match that assumption very well. I'll get back to you after I've read some of your references.

[cacheman]

... In fact the availability of just a single specific mineral element can protect crops from all biotic and abiotic stresses....

CFR

[Kemara]

CFR

Matichenkov, V.V. 2009. Effects of Active Si in Agriculture. Institute Basic Biological Problems, Russian Academy of Science.

[cacheman]

Matichenkov, V.V. 2009. Effects of Active Si in Agriculture. Institute Basic Biological Problems, Russian Academy of Science.

I would prefer to have a reference that is available to read. I am unable to find any reference as to where I can find this particular book . It doesn't seem to come up when I do a Google search or use my library's search function. Where can I find it?

In any case, I am familiar with the role of Si in plant stress tolerance, but it seems that your statement is (as you referenced the OP), "significantly overstated".

cacheman