How To Identify A Nephite City.

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course something carved in metal or stone that identified the boundaries of a city would be nice. There was such an artifact found in western NY, but that's besides the point of the op. Here's a primer for those unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon.

 

1. There were two factions - believers (Nephites) and non-believers (Lamanites).

 

2. The non-believing Lamanites vowed to erase all evidence of the Nephites from off the face of the earth.

 

3. The Lamanites were aware of Nephite prophecies that said among other things the following:

 

a. The Nephites would become wicked.

 

b. They, the Lamanites, would on God's behalf destroy the Nephites.

 

c. Nephite records would come forth in latter times to their descendants.

 

4. Prior to the final battle, the Lamanites destroyed all Nephite cities by fire.

 

5. At the coming of Jesus every house, wall and building collapsed.

 

6. Prior to the coming of Jesus there used to be some cement homes, but they were only found in the Land Northward.

 

7. After the destruction that occurred at the coming of Jesus they had timber so they only rebuilt with wood. 

 

Having laid that foundation it should be clear that attempts to find a Nephite artifact are slim to none.

 

 

Things To Keep In Mind

 

The Lamanites vowed to erase all evidences of the Nephites, their culture & religion from the earth and they made sure nothing would remain to confirm the record when it came forth.

 

For 3.5 years prior to the final battle, all believers were restricted to the small area of Cumorah much like Hitler restricted the Jews. They lived in tents only and awaited the final battle. NO ONE before that time ever lived in Cumorah.

 

Cumorahland was chosen for the final battle because it was away from the core area of Book of Mormon lands. The winner of the battle did not want the burden of burying the dead so they needed a location down wind and far away. Thus, bones that are allowed to moulder upon the ground turn to dust - like the bones of the Jaredites did.

 

What Would Remain

 

Aside from very distinct land marks and water boundaries, there should remain a great number of dirt palisades as described in the Book of Mormon. The largest number of such dirt palisades are found in one place - western New York.

 

Where Prophecies Were Fulfilled

 

There are a great many prophecies that readers can identify and then use those to identify Book of Mormon lands. For example, prophecy says the record would come forth ON Book of Mormon lands, which came to pass in Palmyra. Another prophecy said that the record would come forth to the descendants of the Lamanites, which came to pass in Buffalo, NY where the first missionaries were sent with copies of the Book of Mormon.

 

Conclusion

 

Even though no land markers remain for the public to see (yet), and all evidences of their existence were purposely destroyed, the plates themselves and the gospel on them confirm the Bible and the birth, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus, which we must each come to know like Peter, "not by flesh and blood."

It would be wonderful if you would read studies of Book of Mormon history and geography written by scholars who have bothered to systematically read the text.  What you have done here with your very inventive stream of consciousness version of the Book of Mormon is basically incoherent.  Reading Brant Gardner, Mark Wright, John Sorenson, or the like, could really help you see what the true issues are and how to deal with them.

[Robert F. Smith]

You forgot that Sorenson had to admit his model was biased.

All views are biased.  To say that (if Sorenson even said it, and you typically fail to cite your sources) is to try to control it.  I see no evidence whatsoever that you have any intention of controlling your biases.  In other words, you don't mind the pot calling the kettle black, and following that with very careless and irresponsible claims.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[helaman38]

All views are biased.  To say that (if Sorenson even said it, and you typically fail to cite your sources) is to try to control it.  I see no evidence whatsoever that you have any intention of controlling your biases.  In other words, you don't mind the pot calling the kettle black, and following that with very careless and irresponsible claims.

 

That's quite an assumption on your part. The fact you are not aware of Sorenson's famous admission is proof you are in the dark how "careful" and "systematic" Sorenson's approach was.

 

Regarding the other authors you assume I have not read, they are stirring the same peas, what does it matter in the end?

[helaman38]

It would be wonderful if you would read studies of Book of Mormon history and geography written by scholars who have bothered to systematically read the text.  What you have done here with your very inventive stream of consciousness version of the Book of Mormon is basically incoherent.  Reading Brant Gardner, Mark Wright, John Sorenson, or the like, could really help you see what the true issues are and how to deal with them.

 

What pray tell in your mind (or theirs) are the true issues? Please let me know so I can check myself, thanks.

[volgadon]

That's quite an assumption on your part. The fact you are not aware of Sorenson's famous admission is proof you are in the dark how "careful" and "systematic" Sorenson's approach was.

 

Regarding the other authors you assume I have not read, they are stirring the same peas, what does it matter in the end?

 

 

Please quote his famous admission, consider this an official call for references.

[Freedom]

Heleman38, we are all just waiting with bated breath for you to provide references to support any of your claims.

[helaman38]

A simple internet search will confirm it, it's old news.

[volgadon]

A simple internet search will confirm it, it's old news.

 

 

Then, please, by all means provide the results of that simple internet search.

[Robert F. Smith]

That's quite an assumption on your part. The fact you are not aware of Sorenson's famous admission is proof you are in the dark how "careful" and "systematic" Sorenson's approach was.

 

Regarding the other authors you assume I have not read, they are stirring the same peas, what does it matter in the end?

Perhaps to you it doesn't matter much whether one is careful and systematic. Perhaps to you it is all just a game, not a matter of serious discussion.

All scholars assume bias on their part and those of their colleagues.  To you that may be amazing news, since you can't believe that scholars actually think that way.  The difference between them and you is that you couldn't care less.

As for your attack on my lack of total recall, the only honest response from you would have been to cite the source.  You claim he made the statement, which would seem an entirely normal thing to me, but I don't recall him saying so.

What does seem more than obvious by your erroneous and tendentious summary of Book of Mormon "factoids," is that you don't recall important issues at all.

[Robert F. Smith]

A simple internet search will confirm it, it's old news.

With 54 posts herein, perhaps you are not familiar with our rules.  When someone asks for a source you are required to deliver it.  You may not refer us to the internet, but you must provide the specific source on the internet.  If you cannot do that, then you must concede the point.  We have written rules.  You should read them.

[helaman38]

Perhaps to you it doesn't matter much whether one is careful and systematic. Perhaps to you it is all just a game, not a matter of serious discussion.

All scholars assume bias on their part and those of their colleagues.  To you that may be amazing news, since you can't believe that scholars actually think that way.  The difference between them and you is that you couldn't care less.

As for your attack on my lack of total recall, the only honest response from you would have been to cite the source.  You claim he made the statement, which would seem an entirely normal thing to me, but I don't recall him saying so.

What does seem more than obvious by your erroneous and tendentious summary of Book of Mormon "factoids," is that you don't recall important issues at all.

 

You mean I'm not sticking to the same peas as they do.

 

You should embrace a fresh view, particularly when it is more respectful of the prophet Joseph and other church leaders.

 

The quality of research done by those you respect left me sadly disappointed. I could provide a list of their errors but that would only make me look good and I am not seeking that. With what I have provided above, it is more revealing than each of theirs combined.

[Calm]

 

 it is more respectful of the prophet Joseph and other church leaders.

Please explain your reasoning here...what position is more respectful, yours perhaps? If so, why?

[helaman38]

Please explain your reasoning here...what position is more respectful, yours perhaps? If so, why?

 

Defenders of the south of the border models like to obfuscate and lie about Joseph not identifying the hill in Palmyra as "Cumorah" for starters. Let's see if you grasp the significance of that.... 

[Calm]

Defenders of the south of the border models like to obfuscate and lie about Joseph not identifying the hill in Palmyra as "Cumorah" for starters. Let's see if you grasp the significance of that.... 

So focusing completely on one aspect of Joseph's commentary and insisting on only one valid interpretation of that comment to the exclusion of much else that he said and did is more respectful than attempting to look at what he taught as a whole?

 

Not in my view.

[helaman38]

So focusing completely on one aspect of Joseph's commentary and insisting on only one valid interpretation of that comment to the exclusion of much else that he said and did is more respectful than attempting to look at what he taught as a whole?

 

Not in my view.

 

That's what I thought. You're in the same camp and have no respect. It's not just Joseph, there are others. It's dishonest to say Joseph never identified the hill as Cumorah and if you are writing on that topic you damn well better cite his statements and then give us your spin; don't leave them out, that shows either dishonesty or incompetence, I'll let you decide.

Edited August 29, 2013 by helaman38

[Calm]

That's what I thought. You're in the same camp and have no respect. It's not just Joseph, there are others. It's dishonest to say Joseph never identified the hill as Cumorah and if you are writing on that topic you damn well better cite his statements and then give us your spin; don't leave them out, that shows either dishonesty or incompetence, I'll let you decide.

Why in the world would I bother to put up cites and such for you to dismiss when you can't be bothered to support your own claims when CFRed and just dismiss as irrelevant when citations are given?

[Freedom]

hate to belabor this mr 38 but we are all still waiting for references.

[helaman38]

hate to belabor this mr 38 but we are all still waiting for references.

 

I doubt it will phase you in the slightest, I'm signing off. 

[Calm]

Another hit and run when asked to actually support claims....I'm so surprised.

[Kenngo1969]

Another hit and run when asked to actually support claims....I'm so surprised.

Shocking, isn't it?!

[canard78]

Of course something carved in metal or stone that identified the boundaries of a city would be nice. There was such an artifact found in western NY, but that's besides the point of the op. Here's a primer for those unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon.

1. There were two factions - believers (Nephites) and non-believers (Lamanites).

2. The non-believing Lamanites vowed to erase all evidence of the Nephites from off the face of the earth.

3. The Lamanites were aware of Nephite prophecies that said among other things the following:

a. The Nephites would become wicked.

b. They, the Lamanites, would on God's behalf destroy the Nephites.

c. Nephite records would come forth in latter times to their descendants.

4. Prior to the final battle, the Lamanites destroyed all Nephite cities by fire.

5. At the coming of Jesus every house, wall and building collapsed.

6. Prior to the coming of Jesus there used to be some cement homes, but they were only found in the Land Northward.

7. After the destruction that occurred at the coming of Jesus they had timber so they only rebuilt with wood.

Having laid that foundation it should be clear that attempts to find a Nephite artifact are slim to none.

Things To Keep In Mind

The Lamanites vowed to erase all evidences of the Nephites, their culture & religion from the earth and they made sure nothing would remain to confirm the record when it came forth.

For 3.5 years prior to the final battle, all believers were restricted to the small area of Cumorah much like Hitler restricted the Jews. They lived in tents only and awaited the final battle. NO ONE before that time ever lived in Cumorah.

Cumorahland was chosen for the final battle because it was away from the core area of Book of Mormon lands. The winner of the battle did not want the burden of burying the dead so they needed a location down wind and far away. Thus, bones that are allowed to moulder upon the ground turn to dust - like the bones of the Jaredites did.

What Would Remain

Aside from very distinct land marks and water boundaries, there should remain a great number of dirt palisades as described in the Book of Mormon. The largest number of such dirt palisades are found in one place - western New York.

Where Prophecies Were Fulfilled

There are a great many prophecies that readers can identify and then use those to identify Book of Mormon lands. For example, prophecy says the record would come forth ON Book of Mormon lands, which came to pass in Palmyra. Another prophecy said that the record would come forth to the descendants of the Lamanites, which came to pass in Buffalo, NY where the first missionaries were sent with copies of the Book of Mormon.

Conclusion

Even though no land markers remain for the public to see (yet), and all evidences of their existence were purposely destroyed, the plates themselves and the gospel on them confirm the Bible and the birth, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus, which we must each come to know like Peter, "not by flesh and blood."

Helaman38, do you own a different edition of the Book of Mormon to me or something because I've really no idea where you're getting it from.

On that basis: CFR.

This should be fairly straightforward. For each of the above please provide the BoM reference where you got your conclusions. Please be specific.

[cdowis]

del

Edited August 29, 2013 by cdowis

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A simple internet search will confirm it, it's old news.

Sorry dude, you don't get off so easy. What you are obligated to do is to post the reference. If you don't Ill just consider that you made it up out of whole cloth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I doubt it will phase you in the slightest, I'm signing off. 

You are being so lame. Stop dodging. Produce the quote. What I think is so funny is that you are so sure of your self and you claim it is so easy to find the source yet you constantly dodge to produce it. That tells me something quite revealing about the type of person we are dealing with. And what it tells me is that you lack credability and should not be taken seriously. Is that really the reputation you want?

Edited August 29, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Defenders of the south of the border models like to obfuscate and lie about Joseph not identifying the hill in Palmyra as "Cumorah" for starters. Let's see if you grasp the significance of that.... 

How charitable. So those that don't agree wiht you lie and obfuscate. You sir don't deserve any respect. And since you resort to ad hom attacks that tells me your position is one of weakness.