inquiringmind Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Is there evidence the battle took place at the same place the plates were buried?(null)Didn't Mormon prophets prophecy that "this land" would be a land of freedom, without a king, and that it would be settled by gentiles who would have to fight gentiles from their mother country?Wouldn't that make "this land" (i.e. the land where the battle took place) the land of North America? Edited March 31, 2012 by inquiringmind
Bikeemikey Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I think that description would fit any of the countries in north and south america.(null) 1
bcuzbcuz Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I don't know about that, but Joseph Smith said they landed in Peru (but it is important to remember that "Peru" was, in the XIX, very different: it extended well beyond present-day Peru, going, primarily, a great deal further north).Modern-day Chile may have been the destination of some of the "lost" Nephites who, according to Moroni, went south to escape the destruction of Cumorah/Ramah. But, as with many things, we have no explicit, scriptural information on the matter.LehiIf they landed in Peru/Chilé how come the Book of Mormon makes no mention of the potato?
inquiringmind Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) I think that description would fit any of the countries in north and south america.(null)So the land of freedom, choice above all other lands, could be Hugo Chavez's Venezuela as easily as it could be the United States?What about Colombia, or Peru?Could the prophecies given by Mormon prophets in the BOM really apply to any country in central, North, or South America? Edited March 31, 2012 by inquiringmind
Bikeemikey Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) The land of freedom may have been referring to then or now, that is compared to the BOM era Jerusalem or modern day geopolitical considerations. Also, I dont think there is a actual credible measure that has determined the USA is the most free of all countries in north and south America. Is seems a little unnecessary to say the book of Mormon mentions "land of freedom" there fore it just have been referring to the USA because we think we are the most free.Why not Canada, brazil, panama, or any number of other locations.Also the BOM only claimed the land would be free when people were living righteous. Who's to say it was Venezuela and now it's not because they have started living unrighteousnessly?(null) Edited March 31, 2012 by Bikeemikey
Calm Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Didn't Mormon prophets prophecy that "this land" would be a land of freedom, without a king, and that it would be settled by gentiles who would have to fight gentiles from their mother country?Wouldn't that make "this land" (i.e. the land where the battle took place) the land of North America?The land of promise referred to in 1 Nephi 13 also speaks of a man most interpret as Columbus, who never came to land that would later become the US or Canada. I would think one has to include at least any lands that Columbus visited.
Bikeemikey Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Arguably the BOM narration on future events seems to finish around the mid 1700, assuming that we accept the idea of the US constitution being reveals in the BOM. The divinity of the USA government and constitution is something that is not widely held outside the USA church membership. Infact, many non-USA lds communities interpret the BOM narrative to express that a great nation in the promised land will become corrupt and fall away from the truth and usher in the last days. Many think this is a prophecy of the downfall of the USA as a sign of the times.It is interesting that we fill the scriptures with different messages based on our on tradition-cultural context.(null) Edited March 31, 2012 by Bikeemikey
inquiringmind Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Also the BOM only claimed the land would be free when people were living righteous. Who's to say it was Venezuela and now it's not because they have started living unrighteousnessly?That's the first thing said here that makes some sense to me.Thank you.Arguably the BOM narration on future events seems to finish around the mid 1700's, assuming that we accept the idea of the US constitution being revealed in the BOM. I think I vaguely remember something here, but where in the BOM might the U.S. constitution be revealed? Edited March 31, 2012 by inquiringmind
livy111us Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 The land of promise, liberty, zion, nation, this land, this country, etc... have been used to describe Mesoamerica and all of North and South America.http://www.fairblog.org/2010/09/16/land-of-promise-in-the-book-of-mormon/http://www.bmaf.org/node/384 2
inquiringmind Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 The land of promise, liberty, zion, nation, this land, this country, etc... have been used to describe Mesoamerica and all of North and South America.http://www.fairblog....book-of-mormon/http://www.bmaf.org/node/384Thank you.
Anijen Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) Didn't Mormon prophets prophecy that "this land" would be a land of freedom, without a king, and that it would be settled by gentiles who would have to fight gentiles from their mother country?Wouldn't that make "this land" (i.e. the land where the battle took place) the land of North America?Just an FYI this land has had many kings and queens. This land has been a land of freedom except for African Americans and Native Americans.I subscribe to a Mesoamerican setting. That being said the Book of Mormon is another witness of the Lord and its purpose is to bring people to Him. It doesn't matter at all where it happened. Edited April 1, 2012 by Jeff Holt
LeSellers Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 If they landed in Peru/Chilé how come the Book of Mormon makes no mention of the potato?There's no reason to assume they would have eaten potatoes. There's no reason to assume that, had they eaten potatoes, they would have mentioned them anywhere in the sacred text that became the Book of Mormon.I don't recall saying that the Nephites, prior to the end of the Book of Mormon, were in Chile. So there is nothing for me to defend on the this point.Lehi
Bikeemikey Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) We have every reason to assume they would not have told us of their diet. In fact, they hardly ever mention food - though they do wine from time to time.We do know they farmed. We also know they could starve. I don't think the author of this religious text thought so little of the readers as to assume the lack of specifc food groups would very be a relevant topic of conversation!!But sure - specifc food is not mentioned - lets assume they didn't need to eat period.(null) Edited April 1, 2012 by Bikeemikey
bcuzbcuz Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 There's no reason to assume they would have eaten potatoes. There's no reason to assume that, had they eaten potatoes, they would have mentioned them anywhere in the sacred text that became the Book of Mormon.I don't recall saying that the Nephites, prior to the end of the Book of Mormon, were in Chile. So there is nothing for me to defend on the this point.LehiI ask about potatoes in reference to the Peru/Chilé supposition. My wife comes from Chilé and I've been there twice. My youngest has worked as an exchange worker in Peru and at Lima University as a guest lecturer. It is virtually impossible to be in Peru or Chilé and not eat potatoes. There are more than 4000 varieties of potatoes (nothing like the 5 or so sorts usually served in North America) and local peoples are very proud about serving local specialities.Other foods are mentioned in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The humble potato, being native to South America, and being grown from sea level to the tips of the Andes, would have figured prominently in any foods. It would have been an entirely new experience for new arrivals. Its look, colors, tastes and coming from under the ground, are distinct. I would think that the fact that the potato is not mentioned, contrary to a few posts here, would be ample evidence that there were no settlements in Peru or Chilé by the Nephites, Lamanites or Jaredites.
Bikeemikey Posted April 1, 2012 Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) Bcuzbcuz,A very quick summation of all foods mentioned in the BOM would make it totally clear that eating habits, historical or present, and dietary and food consumption patterns were not the focus of the BOM.Are we able to extrapolate from the D&C what the early saints ate?Could I read the general conference talks and understand the table habits of lds conference attendees? To suggest the presence or absence of food mentioned in the BOM as a tool to determine anything is totally futile.I have no idea if the BOM has any tie to chile! The BOM is fundamentally silent on the issue. Potatoes or other wise.(null) Edited April 1, 2012 by Bikeemikey
Recommended Posts