Question About Rod Meldrum Theories

[ERayR]

That is no justification.

Didn't say it did but just wondered why the meso-American model was singled out for criticism and the others were not. Incidentally I think you have misunderstood what they really said but since there are already posts covering that I will not rehash.

[teddyaware]

calmoriah,

Thanks for the input.

The ultimate point I'm trying to make here is that the Lord may have delberately hid vitually all traces of the Nephite civilization from the eyes of man (the Book of Mormon verses I cited most certainly indicate he can do this without even breaking a sweat). By hiding the remains fo the Nephite civilization from before his face (and our eyes) he creates a condition whereby man is impelled to either trust in the voice of the Spirit, without the empiricle physical proof 'sign seekers' require, or to trust in the five senses and in the arm of flesh.

Under this hypothesis, the testiomies of the eleven witnesses and of Joseph Smith, concerning the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, may be all the empirical evidence the Lord has given to the world that the Nephites did indeed exist, wheather the sign seekers like it or not. The Christian civilizations of the Lost Tribes, mentioned in 1 Nephi 29, also seem to be hidden as well.

So, if the Lord has in reality hidden the Nephite civilization from before his face (and from before our faces as well), then the Book of Mormon geography researchers may be wasting their time when getting involved in futile geographical wild goose chases. And they may be setting themselves up for a day of great embarrasment and humiliation as well. Could the sub-conscious specter of this coming day of humiliation be the reason why many Book of Mormon geography theorists are so defensive? One thing's for sure, some or, perhaps, all of these theorists are one fine day going to wind up very embarrassed and humiliated indeed...

Edited September 13, 2012 by teddyaware

[Calm]

One thing's for sure, some or, perhaps, all of these theorists are one fine day going to wind up very embarrassed and humiliated indeed...

This is truth.

[ERayR]

Half the pages were me chatting so maybe you should call it "nine pages".

Still 8 or 18 I am still sitting here with my hands on my wallet wondering what I should be believing.

[nealr]

Side note: I hate to break it to you guys, but the Heartland model has literally hundreds of supporters with advanced degrees and I'd dare say that we have more than twice as many accredited "scholars" on our side as you good fellows have on your side. So please stop with the "all LDS scholars" are on our side routine. It is no longer true.

Now I realize this was not directed at me, but I have a few questions about this comment. I want to know who these people are. Not necessarily all their names (though a few more notable ones would be nice), but I want to know, are these Latter-day Saints with advanced degrees, or are they LDS scholars? There is a difference. My grandfather is a Latter-day Saint with an advanced degree (PhD in mathematics), but he is not an LDS scholar. He has not kept up in his field of study (he finished school, went to work for Boeing and never returned to the world of academia), and though I think he does a decent amount of reading on LDS topics, he has not necessarily stayed abreast on scholarly issues related to the Church. Are these people who are actively involved in research in the field in which they have advanced degrees in? Are they publishing peer-reviewed research in their field of expertise? Would others in that field know who they are and that kind of research they do? These are the kinds of things I'd like to know before calling them a "scholar" in any sense of the word.

Furthermore, I don't call any scholar who happens to be LDS an "LDS scholar" (we don't typically identify random scholars by their faith). To me, an "LDS scholar" is a scholar who is (a) a member of the Church, and (b) who is active in researching and publishing on LDS topics in peer-reviewed sources (such as BYU Studies, Dialogue, Journal of Mormon History, The Religious Educator, Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, etc.). So, to add to the above questions, are they people who have used their expertise (in whatever field it might be) to study the Church or gospel in some way? Has that research been published in peer-reviewed journals? Essentially what I want to know is if these are people that anyone who follows academic discourse on LDS topics might recognize? Are they known figures in the realm of Mormon Studies?

I realize some may disagree with how I have defined "LDS scholars", and that is fine, I honestly don't want to get into a definitions debate here. I just want there to be a little clarity. I suspect when most people say that "no LDS scholars" support your view, they have something similar to what I do when they say "LDS scholars." So to challenge that by mentioning people who are both LDS and also have advanced degrees doesn't really address the criticism (though it may be evidence some intelligent people have been attracted to your ideas - want to be clear that I am not questioning their intelligence or ability to make sound judgments in these matters, I'm just asking for clarity in our use of certain labels like "LDS scholar").

[Anijen]

"nor is there any credible scientific evidence that Old World civilizations were involved in developing Native American cultures in pre-Columbian times. Many of the artifacts used to support the film’s [Meldrums DVD], such as the Newark "Holy Stones," have been proven fraudulent based on convincing scientific evidence and historical documentation."~Dr. Bradley Lepper

"the context of our general remarks as they currently appear in the film might lead viewers to conclude that our words on these subjects provide support for the film’s claims."~Dr. Bradley Lepper

"our remarks, if presented in an unedited form, show clearly that we reject the assertions made in the finished documentary" ~Dr. Bradley Lepper

Edited September 13, 2012 by Anijen

[ERayR]

calmoriah,

Thanks for the input.

The ultimate point I'm trying to make here is that the Lord may have delberately hid vitually all traces of the Nephite civilization from the eyes of man (the Book of Mormon verses I cited most certainly indicate he can do this without even breaking a sweat). By hiding the remains fo the Nephite civilization from before his face (and our eyes) he creates a condition whereby man is impelled to either trust in the voice of the Spirit, without the empiricle physical proof 'sign seekers' require, or to trust in the five senses and in the arm of flesh.

I have great difficulty with the idea that God would deliberately hide all traces of Nephite civilization. Time blurs the lines enough without divine intervention.

[MormonMason]

Did you ever read the Book of Mormon? You know, part that specifically says that they had "altered" their language? Believe me, it's much less of a stretch to think that this single character could have been changed, than to magically revert the entire Mayan glyph system into Hebrew! Or Egyptian! Or anything even remotely like unto it. Your proposed Mayan glyph system is not in any way related to either of the two languages mentioned in the Book of Mormon, yet you seem to have no problem accepting that written language as somehow Book of Mormon related. Go figure! You are amazing in your ability to miss and completely ignore the elephant in the room!

Yes, I have read the Book of Mormon, in several editions, multiple times--so many times, in fact, that I lost count after 50. (And, that 50 times was over 25 years ago).

Yes, the Hebrews altered their language. They in fact did that all over the world. There is a lot of evidence for it. But, the Aramaic Square Script originated in Babylon. Thus, no Book of Mormon people would have or could have had access to it. Lehi and family were gone before the Exile and Return.

My proposed "Mayan glyph system"??? I accept Maya as related to the Book of Mormon??? Where on earth did that come from? I have never made that claim. I do not hold that claim. I never can hold that claim as valid. Perhaps a Sylvan Learning course is in order?

I posted no Mayan characters. What I posted was an example of inscriptional Hebrew from the 6th century BCE. This is the kind of Hebrew that would have formed the basis of any Hebrew modified by the Nephites over time. They would not have adopted an Aramaic Square Script that originated in Babylon because they were nowhere near enough to come in contact with it during Book of Mormon times.

The odds are astronomically and overwhelmingly against the canard that one people across the sea would create an identical script to another one that was across the oceans and thousands of miles away, independently. How often has that happened in the entire history of the world? They are forgeries. The forger also took things one step further. Stretching of certain Hebrew characters written in Aramaic Square Script, a practice not dating to Book of Mormon times (never mind the fact that Aramaic Square Script originated in Babylon, not Israel!), is to be seen on the "artifact," and--worse still--do it wrong.

But, you have made it obvious that you intend to continue to sell the replicas anyway and will do all you can to justify continuing doing what you do and (maybe) believing these to be genuine Book of Mormon artifacts. It is tragic. They are frauds (I cannot at present decide whether you in reality know that they are frauds and just want to sucker people into giving you money or just want to believe that they are related to the Book of Mormon no matter the evidence) and do not fit the cultural background in which the Book of Mormon originally was set.

Edited September 13, 2012 by MormonMason

[nealr]

One last thing. There has been some discussion on why Book of Mormon geography is important, with one person insisting it is a useless exercise. While I agree that one can get the important message of the book without knowing its geographical setting, and agree with Marilyn Arnold when she says "that anyone who can read, and is willing to be guided by the spirit, can access and understand [the Book of Mormon]," I think is a gross misunderstanding to say that learning the geographic setting of the Book of Mormon is completely useless. (Do we gain nothing from knowing and studying the Holy Land of the Bible?)

I am a political science student, so permit to use analogy related to my field of study. As a political science student, and one with emphasis in American government, the American Constitution forms an important part of what I study. In fact, there is a whole upper division course (which I haven't actually taken yet, but I know the gist of the course curriculum) dedicated to studying the American Constitution. Do you think all we do is read the document itself? (I wish, it would make my life much easier.) We study the additional writings of men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, we study what was going on at the time in colonial America, we study what was going on in Great Britian, we go back a century or so and study the works of thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbs, and beyond - ultimately going all the way to ancient Greece. All this to better understand a relatively shot document penned in the eighteenth century. While anyone who can read English can, for the most part, understand the essence of the Constitutional text, a great deal of studying the historical context and the intellectual heritage that produced the Constitution goes along way in bettering our understanding of it.

I believe the same can be said of any document - even the Book of Mormon. But with the Book of Mormon, how can we do that without knowing the geographic setting? It is the geography that provides us with the historical context to look to. We of course can - and do - study the Old World background (which is like studying the intellectual heritage of England and Europe in the centuries prior to the writing of the Constitution), and it has yielded a great deal of insight that helps us better understand the teachings in the Book of Mormon, and helps us better understand people like Lehi and Nephi who are direct products of that environment. But we can only do this for the New World by establishing where in the New World it took place. That is why I think it is important. And I think the recent work by Brant Gardner and others, who try and read the text as a Mesoamerican book, has already demonstrated how that historical setting can really help shed some light on the text and the men who wrote it.

[livy111us]

Has anyone noticed that Meldrum speaks most about how he was treated and other peripheral points but doesn't engage with any of the scholars who are on this forum? He can argue polemics until he is blue in the face but doesn't take on the facts when they are presented. Before you say anything, Rod, answer Brant Gardner and MormonMasons posts.

[juliann]

It is quite responsive. I have many times in the past put those quotes on this board. Now they are there on my blog. And there are other quotes like the three I reference. I really have not expected a dedicated MesoAmerican to sign onto the non-engagement quotes of the Brethren. Too much invested. Church hobbies are the worst. When I was a teenager it was the John Birchers in my ward. The level of rhetoric they directed to non-believers was unreasonable. The same now occurs with geographers on all sides.

If one wants to pursue a Book of Mormon geography hobby, it is best to use neutral language in discussing competing geographies because not a one is revealed or endorsed. I certainly question trying to make money off this hobby. I wonder what Nibley would say.

This is what you produce as documentation we have been told to not ever speculate on BOM geography? Please produce something somewhere near the 21st century.

From your blog [emphasis added]:

As Anthony Ivins, a member of the Church’s First Presidency, stated in 1929:

There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true.

As Elder Mark E. Peterson said in General Conference in 1953:

I do not believe that we should accept every theory advanced by men of science as though it were true. These men change their minds much too often for that. I do not believe that we should give credence to the highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography. I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America, and the other one in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates. I do not believe we can be good Latter-Day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith.

As Harold B. Lee said in a private setting: “And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?”

[teddyaware]

ERayR said,

"I have great difficulty with the idea that God would deliberately hide all traces of Nephite civilization. Time blurs the lines enough without divine intervention."

The fact is that at the time of the Lord's death he did indeed 'deliberately hide all traces" of many Nephite cities, so it's not as if doing such is not an established part of his modus operandi. But in fact the Lord didn't hide all traces of Nephite civilization, for as we all know he left for a time the plates, the breastplate, the urim and thummim and the sword of Laban that were testified to by chosen witnesses.

By the way, nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it say that Church members should seek to establish its divine authenticity by amassing archaeological evidence -- the only exception being the Lord's chosen and appointed witnesses who were to testify as to the reality of the gold plates.

12Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that ^athree ^bwitnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is ^anone other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were ^bfrom the dead.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that ^arejecteth the word of God! (2 Nephi 27)

Please note that verse 14 indicates the translation of the Book of Mormon, in concert with the testimonies of the appointed special witnesses who would bear sacred honor that they had actually seen the ancient plates, is enough for woes to be pronounced upon those who reject the 'book." That's because the Lord knows there is no more powerful witness than revelation given to man by the power of the Holy Ghost. Those who have received and felt this holy power can testify to the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon with the same degree of surity as the special witnesses; they can know it is true. In a very real sense, the Book of Mormon is a urim and thummim that reveals hidden truth to those who utilize in in the Lord's prescribed way.

So the Lord did allow some of the people of this dispensation to behold Nephite archaeological evidence but none others, the lone exception being these few appointed witnesses who were given the privilage. Remember, beside the written testimonies of these witnesses who saw the artifacts, the Lord warns us again and again that the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon is not to be established by satisfying the sign-seeking desires of the flesh. Rather, it is to be established by direct revelation from God, given as a result of diligent study and deep pondering of the words of the Nephite scripture, and by fervent prayer.

I challenge anyone to show me one verse in the Book of Mormon that stipulates the members of the Church (except for the chosen witnesses) are called upon to establish its truthfulness by archaeological and artifactual evidence. The Lord is testing us to see if we will trust in the Voice of the Spirit or in the arm of flesh. Will we walk away in shame from the Tree of Life and its precious fruit as the consequence of a wicked, sign-seeking world that mocks the saints of God because they have no "archaeological evidence?"

"22 Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the ^awitnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own ^bwisdom to ^creveal all things unto the children of men.

23 For behold, I am God; and I am a God of ^amiracles; and I will show unto the ^bworld that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I ^cwork not among the children of men save it be ^daccording to their faith. (2 Nephi 27)

Therefore, wherever on earth the events recorded in the Book of Mormon actually took place, it is quite possible and even very likely that there is very little, if any, remaining tangible empirical evidence to be found. There's a very good reason for this: The Lord is testing his people to determine if they will build a trusting, revelatory relationship with him through living faith, or if they will have weak or no faith and trust in the arm of flesh. He knows the Nephite ruins are there but he's trying our faith first. Alma explains the Lord's process of enlightenment through faith and not by sight perfectly in the following verse from Alma 32:

"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

Edited September 13, 2012 by teddyaware

[Greg Smith]

Did Nibley NEVER consider the value of geography (for any/all subject matter)?

I very seriously doubt it.

I doubt it too. See the wiki link--he expressed views on numerous occasions favoring Central America.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Hugh_Nibley

There may be other Nibley ones; I don't know if he expressed any pro-North American sites. If there are, if anyone can provide them with citations, I'll also include them there.

To Bob C:

Sorry you didn't like my review of Meldrum's DNA claims. I did my best. I read every paper he cites (and a number that he didn't, but ought to have). I rarely found a citation to a paper that was not either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what was claimed. Very disheartening. (No pun intended.)

I'd be open to critiques of my methodology, but haven't seen any except claims from Rod Meldrum that I'm some sort of closet evolutionist atheist. Which, even if it were true, would be utterly irrelevant to my reading of the genetics data.

GLS

[harfad]

CFR that "the authorities" say we shouldn't be speculating. I think their objection is the over-emphasis on it at the expense of focusing on more important matters such as its character as a book of divine scripture and the true message of the book as another testament of Jesus Christ.

As I see it, the only harm that comes from speculating is when people use this theory or that as a litmus test for one's faithfulness or devotion to the gospel or the Church. I don't recall having seen proponents of a meso-American theory for Book of Mormon geography do such a thing.

I think the biggest problem with speculation is when we like our speculations (or somebody else's) so much that we start substituting (and teaching) it for the truth.

[MormonMason]

By the way, nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it say that Church members should seek to establish its divine authenticity by amassing archaeological evidence -- the only exception being the Lord's chosen and appointed witnesses who were to testify as to the reality of the gold plates.

I think it is in order for me to state my views on the subject so as to leave no room for misunderstanding where I stand at present thereon.

The only reason why some of us try to work to find some actual location that can be pinned down is to try to see why it is that some people did what they did and how they did it, and even how it could be so easy for a people to come to reject what they knew under the influence of other peoples. We know and can understand why the Israelites in Palestine did it because of the layout of the land and the cultural traits of their neighboring nations. It makes the text more understandable and more sensible when we can look at a map and see a geographical situation of events in an ancient text. The same can be said about the Book of Mormon. Thing is, events do not happen in a vacuum. The same can be said about the Book of Mormon.

In my situation, however, I have not yet made the actual effort to pin down actual, precise locations on the map. I just have found myself generalizing on the overall location based upon evidences that I have seen in the text and what I have read elsewhere--independently. Before anyone can really do that we need to make sure that we understand what the text says first. One can hardly put events to a map without a clear understanding of geographical elements in the Book of Mormon as told to us by Mormon and others.

My views may seem like it to some but they are not set in stone, so far as precise geographical locations are concerned. I am not yet ready to set the Book of Mormon to a precise geographical map yet. I do agree that it is probably not a good idea to put cities that have been sunk in the sea or permanently in the ground to a map because there is no way to do that in a way that makes good sense. We can approximate but that is the best that can be done.

However, we also must be careful to ensure that our reading of the text is not too simplistic. A number of destroyed cities actually were rebuilt. The Book of Mormon often tells us which cities were rebuilt and which were not. But, it also is important to know which directions are given in the Book of Mormon for key elements of the text if you want to try to set something to a map and understand the reasons for why certain events happened in the Book of Mormon.

A nice side-benefit to that is to place a hard location for the ancient text to give more plausibility thereto. Some people need something like that to bring the text "to life," as it were, and some to give them just enough of an impetus to develop a real faith. There are other potential benefits to being able to place the events on a map but I am pretty tired right now and cannot put them to type clearly enough at the moment, so I won't bother to do so for now.

I know the text is true aside from material evidences. I know that from the testimony of the Spirit of the Lord that I have thereof. But, it is nice to see elements in the text that have genuinely ancient counterparts. So, I also have seen a lot of evidences that are internal to the text to provide a background to the text and better understanding thereof, in addition to the information that the Spirit provides.

That said, I also have seen enough reasons (some of which I have never discussed here or elsewhere) to come to the general belief that the Book of Mormon was set somewhere in Mesoamerica. Some features make more sense to me, such as the seeming ease in which certain men became lost and went the wrong way, ultimately finding the plates of Ether. In Mesoamerica, the layout of the land provides features that can contribute to such loss of directional sense and make it easy to understand how one could get lost after some years their ancestors left Zarahemla in a fairly small region of space. The Grijalva and Usumucinta rivers are laid out in such a way as to contribute to all of that. It is easy to see how people could get so lost while looking for the Sidon and ending up going the wrong way at a certain point.

But, as I said, I have nothing set in stone as of yet. If a better place can be demonstrated for a plausible setting for the Book of Mormon than Mesoamerica, I would have no problem switching to a particular place other than that. But, as to precise locations, if the map cannot be fit to the Book of Mormon's most important geographical settings (such as the locations of Zarahemla, Manti, the river Sidon and the like) it should be discarded in favor of a better alternative should one present itself.

In point of fact, I have a number of books and papers dealing with general locations such as a limited South American geography, various Mesoamerican settings, and various Great Lakes hypotheses, and even private papers detailing a hypothesis that the Delaware peninsula was the land Southward. I ended up discarding holding to that view when I realized that the layout and other details just did not fit with details given in the Book of Mormon. Each time I have given thought for a time to other locations as a possible location to the Book of Mormon I keep getting drawn back to Mesoamerica as the setting for most of the events of the Book of Mormon. There are so many cultural aspects of the Book of Mormon that are clarified and make better sense in that setting that seem to me to make less or no sense elsewhere. I cannot fathom a Malaysian setting for the Book of Mormon at the present time so I do not even consider that in the least credible. However, others might.

But, as I have already written, if something truly better comes along that fits with what the Book of Mormon says I would not be unwilling to switch over to such a view in a moment's notice. However, when I see that details do not fit or when I see that things that require having to use far too many mental gymnastics and misinterpretation of evidences to make the proposed setting work at all, I have to discard such a thesis and continue working on locating the Book of Mormon events elsewhere. It really does not occupy much of my time in the overall scheme of things. One day it also might be nice to be able to tell a critic that we know exactly where the Book of Mormon took place. I can guarantee that, even if we knew with point-blank accuracy where important events of the Book of Mormon took place, there would still be critics of the Book of Mormon who would deny the truthfulness of the work and look for excuses not to believe. Faith still would be required in the long and the short of it when all the chips are down.

[teddyaware]

MormonMason said:

"However, we also must be careful to ensure that our reading of the text is not too simplistic. A number of destroyed cities actually were rebuilt. The Book of Mormon often tells us which cities were rebuilt and which were not. But, it also is important to know which directions are given in the Book of Mormon for key elements of the text if you want to try to set something to a map and understand the reasons for why certain events happened in the Book of Mormon."

Yes, while its true the Nephites did rebuild much of what was lost on that first great day of judgement and destruction recorded in 3rd Nephi, they subsequently did ripen in wickedness to a degree, if it were possible, even worse than the sate they were in during that first time they forsook the Lord. In 3 Nephi 9, the Lord tells us that when his people are totally ripened in iniquity, divine justice calls for the former habitations of the slain and fallen to be utterly destroyed, buried and hid from before his face, that the blood of the prophets and innocents be avenged. Therefore, since the Nephites were in an even worse state of wickedness at the time of their final demise than they were during the period of ripened iniquity recorded in 3rd Nephi, it is posible that these latter Nephite cities and towns were buried and hidden away as well, in order to hide them before his face.

I say again, this principle of the "hidding away" of the habitations of the uttely rebellious is also likely the reason the great Christain civilizations of the lost tribes of Israel, referred to in 2 Nepi 29, also seem lost to the world. In the parable of the olive tree we're told they fell like the Nephites as well. Therefore, it is likely the earth and seas are loaded with hidden ruins of fallen and lost civilizations. But for now the Lord is testing our faith, till the day he chooses to reveal these things,

Edited September 13, 2012 by teddyaware

[Bob Crockett]

This is what you produce as documentation we have been told to not ever speculate on BOM geography? Please produce something somewhere near the 21st century.

In a religion which relies heavily upon the pronouncements of its prophets and apostles, one cannot simply discard the direction I've cited. I certainly would have a different view of things if modern statements encourage the study of Book of Mormon geography. (I exclude, of course, a study of internal BoM geography which is a legitimate form of study.) But, they don't.

I've reviewed the Encyclopedia's statement on Book of Mormon geography, which leads me to the conclusion that the Church and the Brethren tolerate Book of Mormon geographic speculation, but don't encourage it.

Given that state of affairs, I return back to my original thesis. Those who write books and have websites dedicated to the topic of a real-world Book of Mormon geography are doing little more to advance the Church's mission or an understanding of the Book of Mormon than those who write books or host websites about episodes of the 1960s' Star Trek. Harmless? Maybe. Harmful? Maybe.

But those who make money off books, websites and tours relating to Book of Mormon geography are preying upon the gullible. Paying money to hire a tour guide to take me to the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem, or to Zarahemla sites in Yucatan, is about as valuable and uplifting as spending money on a lottery ticket. There is little difference between a for-profit or a non-profit pursuit of such.

[ERayR]

ERayR said,

"I have great difficulty with the idea that God would deliberately hide all traces of Nephite civilization. Time blurs the lines enough without divine intervention."

The fact is that at the time of the Lord's death he did indeed 'deliberately hide all traces" of many Nephite cities, so it's not as if doing such is not an established part of his modus operandi. But in fact the Lord didn't hide all traces of Nephite civilization, for as we all know he left for a time the plates, the breastplate, the urim and thummim and the sword of Laban that were testified to by chosen witnesses.

By the way, nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it say that Church members should seek to establish its divine authenticity by amassing archaeological evidence -- the only exception being the Lord's chosen and appointed witnesses who were to testify as to the reality of the gold plates.

12Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that ^athree ^bwitnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is ^anone other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were ^bfrom the dead.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that ^arejecteth the word of God! (2 Nephi 27)

Please note that verse 14 indicates the translation of the Book of Mormon, in concert with the testimonies of the appointed special witnesses who would bear sacred honor that they had actually seen the ancient plates, is enough for woes to be pronounced upon those who reject the 'book." That's because the Lord knows there is no more powerful witness than revelation given to man by the power of the Holy Ghost. Those who have received and felt this holy power can testify to the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon with the same degree of surity as the special witnesses; they can know it is true. In a very real sense, the Book of Mormon is a urim and thummim that reveals hidden truth to those who utilize in in the Lord's prescribed way.

So the Lord did allow some of the people of this dispensation to behold Nephite archaeological evidence but none others, the lone exception being these few appointed witnesses who were given the privilage. Remember, beside the written testimonies of these witnesses who saw the artifacts, the Lord warns us again and again that the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon is not to be established by satisfying the sign-seeking desires of the flesh. Rather, it is to be established by direct revelation from God, given as a result of diligent study and deep pondering of the words of the Nephite scripture, and by fervent prayer.

I challenge anyone to show me one verse in the Book of Mormon that stipulates the members of the Church (except for the chosen witnesses) are called upon to establish its truthfulness by archaeological and artifactual evidence. The Lord is testing us to see if we will trust in the Voice of the Spirit or in the arm of flesh. Will we walk away in shame from the Tree of Life and its precious fruit as the consequence of a wicked, sign-seeking world that mocks the saints of God because they have no "archaeological evidence?"

"22 Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the ^awitnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own ^bwisdom to ^creveal all things unto the children of men.

23 For behold, I am God; and I am a God of ^amiracles; and I will show unto the ^bworld that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I ^cwork not among the children of men save it be ^daccording to their faith. (2 Nephi 27)

Therefore, wherever on earth the events recorded in the Book of Mormon actually took place, it is quite possible and even very likely that there is very little, if any, remaining tangible empirical evidence to be found. There's a very good reason for this: The Lord is testing his people to determine if they will build a trusting, revelatory relationship with him through living faith, or if they will have weak or no faith and trust in the arm of flesh. He knows the Nephite ruins are there but he's trying our faith first. Alma explains the Lord's process of enlightenment through faith and not by sight perfectly in the following verse from Alma 32:

"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

You are over reaching with your interpretations of these verses. The verses you cite are speaking of the plates from which the Book of Mormon came, not the archeological remains of their cities.

Now to cease the derail and back to topic.

Edited September 13, 2012 by ERayR

[nealr]

Given that state of affairs, I return back to my original thesis. Those who write books and have websites dedicated to the topic of a real-world Book of Mormon geography are doing little more to advance the Church's mission or an understanding of the Book of Mormon than those who write books or host websites about episodes of the 1960s' Star Trek. Harmless? Maybe. Harmful? Maybe.

But those who make money off books, websites and tours relating to Book of Mormon geography are preying upon the gullible. Paying money to hire a tour guide to take me to the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem, or to Zarahemla sites in Yucatan, is about as valuable and uplifting as spending money on a lottery ticket. There is little difference between a for-profit or a non-profit pursuit of such.

Really? You apparently didn't read my post (#359) or the one by MormonMason (#365). Historical and cultural context makes a difference in understanding, but we can't know that context until we know where the Book of Mormon took place, at least generally.

Also, I know plenty of people who have had powerful spiritual experiences while visiting places like the Garden Tomb or other sites in the Holy Land. You are being very dismissive of other peoples legitimate experiences. Your attitude seems to be if you don't see the value, or gain anything, from a certain activity, then it is worthless and nobody should engage in it. Problem is, not everybody is like you. Some people do benefit from having a real world setting to study the Book of Mormon in, and others find value in visiting places that help them better visualize scriptural events. If it is something you don't care for, fine, but you don't have to be so flippant toward others who do find such activities worthwhile.

[Bob Crockett]

Really? You apparently didn't read my post (#359) or the one by MormonMason (#365). Historical and cultural context makes a difference in understanding, but we can't know that context until we know where the Book of Mormon took place, at least generally.

Also, I know plenty of people who have had powerful spiritual experiences while visiting places like the Garden Tomb or other sites in the Holy Land. You are being very dismissive of other peoples legitimate experiences. Your attitude seems to be if you don't see the value, or gain anything, from a certain activity, then it is worthless and nobody should engage in it. Problem is, not everybody is like you. Some people do benefit from having a real world setting to study the Book of Mormon in, and others find value in visiting places that help them better visualize scriptural events. If it is something you don't care for, fine, but you don't have to be so flippant toward others who do find such activities worthwhile.

Really. And most certainly I read your posts. I'm not being dismissive if I don't quote from them; sorry.

we can't know that context until we know where the Book of Mormon took place

I believe the Book of Mormon was not intended that we have to know such things before understanding it, so I take exception to this statement.

you don't have to be so flippant toward others who do find such activities worthwhile.

I have been heavily influenced, I suppose, by Approaching Zion. I am not being flippant. I'm just being matter-of-fact in stating my opinion. After all, that is all I have, my opinion. I do, however, seriously question earning a living by charging money to reveal or discuss real-world geographic sites which have no relationship whatsoever, as per evidence, to the Book of Mormon or the Bible. I'm also one of those who believe we shouldn't bear testimony of a trip in fast and testimony meeting.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[MormonMason]

MormonMason said:

"However, we also must be careful to ensure that our reading of the text is not too simplistic. A number of destroyed cities actually were rebuilt. The Book of Mormon often tells us which cities were rebuilt and which were not. But, it also is important to know which directions are given in the Book of Mormon for key elements of the text if you want to try to set something to a map and understand the reasons for why certain events happened in the Book of Mormon."

Yes, while its true the Nephites did rebuild much of what was lost on that first great day of judgement and destruction recorded in 3rd Nephi, they subsequently did ripen in wickedness to a degree, if it were possible, even worse than the sate they were in during that first time they forsook the Lord. In 3 Nephi 9, the Lord tells us that when his people are totally ripened in iniquity, divine justice calls for the former habitations of the slain and fallen to be utterly destroyed, buried and hid from before his face, that the blood of the prophets and innocents be avenged. Therefore, since the Nephites were in an even worse state of wickedness at the time of their final demise than they were during the period of ripened iniquity recorded in 3rd Nephi, it is posible that these latter Nephite cities and towns were buried and hidden away as well, in order to hide them before his face.

I say again, this principle of the "hidding away" of the habitations of the uttely rebellious is also likely the reason the great Christain civilizations of the lost tribes of Israel, referred to in 2 Nepi 29, also seem lost to the world. In the parable of the olive tree we're told they fell like the Nephites as well. Therefore, it is likely the earth and seas are loaded with hidden ruins of fallen and lost civilizations. But for now the Lord is testing our faith, till the day he chooses to reveal these things,

I don't see the need for the Lord to do anything to hide anything. He ceased to help his people because they turned their backs upon him. At that point it was "game over." The Lamanites wiped them all out save a few that managed to escape. Those who were caught denied Christ and joined the Lamanites or were wiped out. After that, they moved into the cities and over time likely built overtop of them, making them no longer distinctively Nephite (if such a thing could be said to have existed; we are not assured of that based upon evidence of Hebraic interaction in various parts of the world). Any others in the land simply would have done what they do and built overtop of the cities of their enemies as various cultures indeed did do in Mesoamerica. Good luck getting the Mexican and Guatemalan governments to give permission to dig under the ruins that have been found to see what is beneath. Exceptions have been made by these governments but these have been rare. These few have tended to show such patterns of overbuilding. But, I can guarantee that anything destructive to their tourist attractions will not be tolerated or allowed.

I am aware of a site that seemed a very good candidate for Zarahemla. Unfortunately, that city now resides under many feet of water as a result of installation of dams and formation of reservoirs. I am sure that archaeological studies might be allowed if they were financed. Unfortunately, that sort of archaeology is very expensive and very difficult in many instances. Good luck trying to get useful information out of that, too.

As I said, God did not really have to do anything. Man did it all for him after the demise of Nephite civilization.

[nealr]

Really. And most certainly I read your posts. I'm not being dismissive if I don't quote from them; sorry.

Sure, but it is pretty dismissive to simply not address or engage the arguments made. But that is besides the point. In my last post, I'm not accusing you of being "dismissive" in the sense of ignoring my comments, but rather that your sweeping statements are generalizing your own point of view and dismissing the experience of others who gained value in their understanding of scripture from knowing the real world setting, or from visiting the Holy Land, etc.

I believe the Book of Mormon was not intended that we have to know such things before understanding it, so I take exception to this statement.

Okay, but this is going to require a little more explaining and argumentation. If the Book of Mormon does not require such background for improved understanding, then it is an anomaly in all of history. For a couple of years now, I've been more convinced that if we are going to believe the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record, we need to take it seriously as a translation of ancient record. To me, that means recognizing in it all the complexities, nuance, and influencing factors that real ancient documents and their translations manifest. That means taking historical and cultural context into consideration.

Though, I should perhaps make comment of clarification. I thought I was pretty clear that a person can understand the important points of the Book of Mormon without knowing its real world setting. But my point is that we can gain greater understanding by knowing that setting. Doing Book of Mormon geography may not be necessary, but that does not mean it is inherently worthless or that no value can be gained from it. The fact that historical and cultural context improves understanding of everything else that has ever been written (I make that statement without qualification), it seems a stretch beyond compare to insists it does not offer the same benefit for the Book of Mormon.

I do, however, seriously question earning a living by charging money to reveal or discuss real-world geographic sites which have no relationship whatsoever, as per evidence, to the Book of Mormon or the Bible. I'm also one of those who believe we shouldn't bear testimony of a trip in fast and testimony meeting.

Okay, that is fair. I would more or less agree with this point.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the biggest problem with speculation is when we like our speculations (or somebody else's) so much that we start substituting (and teaching) it for the truth.

I agree this is very problematic as well, and I take back my comment about what I cited being the "only" problem with speculation.

However, I would submit that publicly impugning one's faithfulness or loyalty to the Church or the prophets merely because that person does not subscribe to this or that speculative theory is a more egregious problem even than what you cite here.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[cursor]

I challenge anyone to show me one verse in the Book of Mormon that stipulates the members of the Church (except for the chosen witnesses) are called upon to establish its truthfulness by archaeological and artifactual evidence.

While not from the Book of Mormon, consider

D&C 88:118

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

D&C 90:15

And set in order the churches, and study and learn and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people.

Consider the added depth of understanding that we can have of the Doctrine and Covenants by understanding its history—particularly the cultural setting within which it evolved.

Surely the Church understands the value of maps, charts, and other study materials (http://classic.scrip...org/en/chmaps/6). How much more significantly do we appreciate the sacrifices of the pioneers crossing the plains, when we can trace the path, understand the terrain, and know the weather conditions, etc.

Brigham Young once said,

"Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so ..."

(DBY 128)

[Anijen]

While not from the Book of Mormon, consider

D&C 88:118

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

D&C 90:15

And set in order the churches, and study and learn and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people.

Consider the added depth of understanding that we can have of the Doctrine and Covenants by understanding its history—particularly the cultural setting within which it evolved.

Surely the Church understands the value of maps, charts, and other study materials (http://classic.scrip...org/en/chmaps/6). How much more significantly do we appreciate the sacrifices of the pioneers crossing the plains, when we can trace the path, understand the terrain, and know the weather conditions, etc.

Brigham Young once said,

"Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so ..."

(DBY 128)

Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory,

How about D&C 88:78 and D&C 97:14