Is The Book Of Mormon Either True Or Not?

[Mormonmaniac]

I would not call it speculation but simple error.  It is absurd that it would cover all that land.  They did not have cars, trains, planes, and other fast ways of transportation.  They did not phones or other ways to communicate over large distances quickly.  Given the technology that existed in those days, one really has to stretch reason to think the Book of Mormon lands extended beyond central America if Lehi landed in that area.  The Book of Mormon lands encompassed a geographical area that one could reasonable expect a person could travel in those days in the time period given to those travels and not much beyond it.

Let me just ask this one thing for you t ponder-

How many miles did the Inca empire cover when the Spanish explorers found them?

And-

Did they have cars, cell phones, etc, back then?

[carbon dioxide]

I would be cautious about simply dismissing the continental model as absurd. After all, that was the predominent presumption for well over a hundred years after its publication. Nor is it a matter of having to stretch reason to think the Book of Mormon lands extended beyond Central America. I already gave two examples of what is possible, one theoretical, the other based on the experience of the handcart migrations to Utah. In answer to the question "How do you account for the long distances and many miles this map would require people to travel?" the author(s) of this site point to several other treks related to Mormon history where great distances were covered in a relatively short time without cars, trains, planes, and other fast ways of transportation. While I am not endorsing the model proposed there, I do think simply dismissing the model as absurd would be acting a bit too hastily.

From that site I get this

 

Zion's Camp traveled over 900 miles from May 1 to June 19, 1834 with 25 wagons 205 men, 11 women and 7 children. They only took 40 days in travel.

 

The Mormon Battalion marched on foot 1,900 miles, from Omaha, Nebraska to San Diego, California in 6 months. Alexander Donaphin, (The man who saved Joseph Smith's life when he was arrested at Far West) was in the same Mexican War and took his men from Independence, Missouri to San Diego and back through New Orleans, Louisiana; 5,000 miles in 12 months.

 

The saints went from Winter Quarters with 73 wagons and one cannon to Salt Lake, 1,050 miles in 2.5 months. Brigham Young turned around in August and returned to Winder Quarters the same year.

 

The ship Brooklyn sailed from New York harbor to San Francisco, California with 238 Mormon saints and traveled 24,000 miles in five months and twenty-seven days.

 

I have no problem with the concept of people traveling a long distance over a period of time.  The question is what is the longest travel in the Book of Mormon?  I know it is not months.  So the fact that it took several months to travel 1000-2000 miles by the 19th century saints really does not apply.  The flight distance from Chicago to San Paulo Brazil is 5,200 miles.  That is the distance an airplane would have to fly which is not impeded by geography.  A Nephite group would have to travel several more thousands miles to cover that distance on land.  Which means it would have taken over a year for the Mormon Battalion to make a trip that long.  To consider North America and South America as the setting of the events in the Book of Mormon is just too big to consider in my mind.  The Lord of the Rings movie has the main characters constantly running.  I just can't see Nephites running thousands of miles to a battle and then have the energy to fight that battle.

Edited June 22, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

Note the sheer repetition of terms like all and every.  Note the lists of animal kinds that echo the creation story in Genesis 1. Note the mountains were covered to a depth of about twenty-two feet (a cubit of about eighteen inches actually yields 22.5 feet). Note the Flood lasted for about a year before it was deemed safe enough to leave the ark. At practically every turn, the author/redactors go out of their way to underscore the Flood was worldwide (probably a better term to use than "global" or "planetary"). Even the command to take a male and female of every land animal supports the idea the Flood is pictured as worldwide. If the Flood was pictured as only a fairly localized event, that command makes very little sense. Over-specialized species (itself a concept that would probably be foreign to the Israelites) may not survive, but there wouldn't be any need to be overly concerned about every animal of every kind.

Though I don't believe the flood to be worldwide, I don't believe it to be localized either.  I think the truth is found between both extremes.  I don't believe the flood waters was 22.5 feet above the top of Mount Everest.  I believe the "mountains" or hills spoken of are the ones within the area that Noah was around.  I do believe that many animals were on the ark but there is no reason to believe that all animals that existed were on it.  How did the Anaconda get from the Amazon to where Noah was.  How did the sloth make this long journey and more important how did these animals get back to their native habitat after the flood?  The idea of Noah placing termites on a wooden ark probably would not have been a good idea either.  I think the animals that went on the ark were from the surrounding area that Noah lived.

 

How people have read the story over time does mean a whole lot.  It is possible that a wrong interpretation being passed on from one generation to the next.  Since whether the flood was global or not is not an issue of critical importance to God, there is no reason for him to correct man on the subject.  Perhaps he just is waiting for man to figure it out. 

[Sevenbak]

 I just can't see Nephites running thousands of miles to a battle and then have the energy to fight that battle.

This pretty much summarizes your ideas on the matter, so I will just respond to this.

 

The Nephites didn't just run to Cumorah and turn and fight breathlessly with no energy.  They spent 4 years gathering their people from across the land.

 

There are other clues as to distances, here's a couple.   Alma describes the north migrations as "an exceedingly great distance".  Hagoth's first ship took a year to return from the North.  If the above mentioned ship "Brooklyn traveled 24,000 miles in 5 months, you might consider giving Hagoth a little break, ok?  Further, Nephi and Lehi, Helaman's sons, went on a 8 year mission to the North, and were rejected outright.  How much of hat was travel, we do not know.

[Sevenbak]

Though I don't believe the flood to be worldwide, I don't believe it to be localized either.  I think the truth is found between both extremes.  I don't believe the flood waters was 22.5 feet above the top of Mount Everest.  I believe the "mountains" or hills spoken of are the ones within the area that Noah was around.  I do believe that many animals were on the ark but there is no reason to believe that all animals that existed were on it.  How did the Anaconda get from the Amazon to where Noah was.  How did the sloth make this long journey and more important how did these animals get back to their native habitat after the flood?  The idea of Noah placing termites on a wooden ark probably would not have been a good idea either.  I think the animals that went on the ark were from the surrounding area that Noah lived.

 

How people have read the story over time does mean a whole lot.  It is possible that a wrong interpretation being passed on from one generation to the next.  Since whether the flood was global or not is not an issue of critical importance to God, there is no reason for him to correct man on the subject.  Perhaps he just is waiting for man to figure it out. 

And some of us believe that the global flood was literal, and that the land masses were not yet separated and Everest didn't yet exist, as per D&C 133.

 

Until the Church decides to get rid of the cross reference of verse D&C 133:24 to Gen. 10:25, a lot more people than just myself will hold this view.  The manuals teach the same thing.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Sevenbak

[ed2276]

And some of us believe that the global flood was literal, and that the land masses were not yet separated and Everest didn't yet exist, as per D&C 133.

 

  If it is the case that all of the land was in one place at the time of the flood then we should not expect to see mountains during that period of time, as there was no tectonic plate compression/collision between moving land masses to form mountains. That would account for Everest not existing at the time of the flood. However, how do you account for the Ark coming to rest on a mountain top only roughly a year after the flood began, when all of the land mass was still in one place and there still was no tectonic plate movement or other mountain-forming activity during that one year period? Should the ark have come to rest on a flat plain after the waters receded, rather than on a mountain top/side?

[Robert F. Smith]

Let me just ask this one thing for you t ponder-

How many miles did the Inca empire cover when the Spanish explorers found them?

And-

Did they have cars, cell phones, etc, back then?

At its greatest extent (ca 1527 AD), the Inca civilization ruled around 800,000 square miles of territory and 2,000 miles extent, north to south along paths within the Andes mountains, with around 20 million subjects.  It was the largest empire ever in the pre-Columbian Americas.  However, it was in place from around 1200 to 1532 AD., preceded by the much more modest Wari/Tiwanaku (600 to 1000 AD), Moche/Mochica (200 to 600 AD), Chavin (900 BC to 200 AD), and earlier peoples who built the Cumbe Mayo Aquaduct (sometime from 1800 to 900 BC).  None of these cultures had writing, math, or other components of high culture required by the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................

The Nephites didn't just run to Cumorah and turn and fight breathlessly with no energy.  They spent 4 years gathering their people from across the land.

 

There are other clues as to distances, here's a couple.   Alma describes the north migrations as "an exceedingly great distance".  Hagoth's first ship took a year to return from the North.  If the above mentioned ship "Brooklyn traveled 24,000 miles in 5 months, you might consider giving Hagoth a little break, ok?  Further, Nephi and Lehi, Helaman's sons, went on a 8 year mission to the North, and were rejected outright.  How much of hat was travel, we do not know.

If we did not know any better, we could equally well characterize the long Israelite war with the Philistines as requiring long treks over the steppes, for distances of thousands of miles.  Since we already know the geography so well, that absurd option never occurs to us.  Thus, phrases such as "an exceedingly great distance" do not require thousands of miles to satisfy, and gathering people from across the land does not require a continental trek.

 

What is required first is a careful analysis of actual distances described in the Book of Mormon text, together with geographic coordination of named sites.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Mormonmaniac]

At its greatest extent (ca 1527 AD), the Inca civilization ruled around 800,000 square miles of territory and 2,000 miles extent, north to south along paths within the Andes mountains, with around 20 million subjects.  It was the largest empire ever in the pre-Columbian Americas.  However, it was in place from around 1200 to 1532 AD., preceded by the much more modest Wari/Tiwanaku (600 to 1000 AD), Moche/Mochica (200 to 600 AD), Chavin (900 BC to 200 AD), and earlier peoples who built the Cumbe Mayo Aquaduct (sometime from 1800 to 900 BC).  None of these cultures had writing, math, or other components of high culture required by the Book of Mormon.

Well, the Inca empire actually stretched around 3,000 miles north to south.

My point is that it covered a very large area. So why not the Nephites also?

[Kevin Christensen]

Well, the Inca empire actually stretched around 3,000 miles north to south.

My point is that it covered a very large area. So why not the Nephites also?

Because the Nephites weren't the Incas. Reading the text closely helps close readers to get a handle on the scale. For example, notice the scale of events implied in Mosiah 1:10

10 Therefore, he had Mosiah brought before him; and these are the words which he spake unto him, saying: My son, I would that ye should make a proclamation throughout all this land among all this people, or the people of Zarahemla, and the people of Mosiah who dwell in the land, that thereby they may be gathered together; for on the morrow I shall proclaim unto this my people out of mine own mouth that thou art a king and a ruler over this people, whom the Lord our God hath given us.

If Benjamin can make a proclaimation throughtout all the land among this people, and get them to show up the next day, what does that imply?

Sorenson's book Mormon's Map goes through the military campaigns that came as a consequence of the shift to judges rather than Kings after Mosiah..

The campaigns all make a great deal of sense in Mesoamerica. (Larry Poulson's work on this is also helpful.) It's clear that in most instances, the marching between named cities involves single days, which makes sense for a defensive strategy. It means they built to have help reasonably close at hand.

There is movement and retreat to the north later, moving into former Jaredite lands but it's also important for issues of scale that Limhi's explorers could travel from a location in the land of Nephi and into Jaredite territory where they could find plates and artifacts in a location they they could mistake for Zarahemla. And the people who told them how to get there were living grandparents who made the journey on foot.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited June 22, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Mormonmaniac]

Because the Nephites weren't the Incas. Reading the text closely helps close readers to get a handle on the scale. For example, notice the scale of events implied in Mosiah 1:10

If Benjamin can make a proclaimation throughtout all the land among this people, and get them to show up the next day, what does that imply?

Sorenson's book Mormon's Map goes through the military campaigns that came as a consequence of the shift to judges rather than Kings after Mosiah..

The campaigns all make a great deal of sense in Mesoamerica. (Larry Poulson's work on this is also helpful.) It's clear that in most instances, the marching between named cities involves single days, which makes sense for a defensive strategy. It means they built to have help reasonably close at hand.

There is movement and retreat to the north later, moving into former Jaredite lands but it's also important for issues of scale that Limhi's explorers could travel from a location in the land of Nephi and into Jaredite territory where they could find plates and artifacts in a location they they could mistake for Zarahemla. And the people who told them how to get there were living grandparents who made the journey on foot.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

My point was that the Inca which came after the Nephites and were probably descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites most likely built upon the same roads and structures as their ancestors.

Sorenson relies heavily on assumptions, not facts. For example- Limhi's explorers had no idea where they were going to find Zarahemla. It had been several generations and no one had the slightest clue on where to find it other than it was to the north somewhere. As proof they didnt have a clue, they found some other extinct civilization (Jaredites) and supposed it was Zarahemla. They were in fact so far removed from knowing anything of Zarahemla that they supposed the records they found was of their long lost brothers the nephites. If we can it in perspective here- the land of Nephi was far away enough from where the Jaredites were that it took several hundred of years to find the land northward. And also, the land of the Jaredites was also far enough away from Zarahemla that the Nephites in Zarahemla knew nothing of it either. So, we can extrapolate through logic that because Zarahemla was not close to the Jaredites stomping grounds that Limhi's group had no idea where in fact Zarahemla was.

[Kevin Christensen]

My point was that the Inca which came after the Nephites and were probably descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites most likely built upon the same roads and structures as their ancestors.

Sorenson relies heavily on assumptions, not facts. For example- Limhi's explorers had no idea where they were going to find Zarahemla. It had been several generations and no one had the slightest clue on where to find it other than it was to the north somewhere. As proof they didnt have a clue, they found some other extinct civilization (Jaredites) and supposed it was Zarahemla. They were in fact so far removed from knowing anything of Zarahemla that they supposed the records they found was of their long lost brothers the nephites. If we can it in perspective here- the land of Nephi was far away enough from where the Jaredites were that it took several hundred of years to find the land northward. And also, the land of the Jaredites was also far enough away from Zarahemla that the Nephites in Zarahemla knew nothing of it either. So, we can extrapolate through logic that because Zarahemla was not close to the Jaredites stomping grounds that Limhi's group had no idea where in fact Zarahemla was.

Sorenson replies heavily on work that he actually shows me. I've got and read the Sourcebook, and Mormon's Map. And Ancient American Setting, and Mormon's Codex. He identifies hundreds of Book of Mormon passages and puts them together.

If you want to rely on facts rather than assumptions then you ought to count the generations. Zeniff, Noah, Limhi. Third generation is much more specific and factual than "several."

That means grandparents who had made the trip were very likely alive (as leader, Zeniff would not have been the oldest, and Noah died violently), and could give directions. If they had no idea where to go and what they were looking for, why bother to go? But if Grandpa can say, go up to the highlands and cross the narrow strip of wilderness, and find the source of the river. Follow the river for a few weeks and find Zarahemla on the west bank, then it all makes sense..

Several years ago, in FARMS Review 16/1, I worked through this:

Omni 1:27-30 describes how a group left Zarahemla to journey to the land of Nephi. Mosiah 8:7-8 and 21:25-27 describe how, two generations later, Limhi sent a small party from Nephi looking for Zarahemla. Alma's group of men, women, children, and flocks traveled from the waters of Mormon, near the land of Nephi, to Zarahemla in twenty-two or twenty-three days, which must have been close to the travel time that Limhi's group expected. Sorenson figures the beeline distance as around 180 miles. Mosiah also sent a party from Zarahemla toward Nephi, and they "wandered" forty days before arriving in Nephi (Mosiah 7:4).

I included some maps of what happens to the Limhi story if you try to start somewhere in South America, and it gets very ugly very quickly, more so if you are thinking Peru.

Poulson takes it further, even accounting for what Limhi's explorers reported seeing on the way, and a real Olmec site that was unoccupied at the time, and in a location that they could have mistaken for Zarahemla.

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/index.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited June 22, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Mormonmaniac]

Sorenson replies heavily on work that he actually shows me. I've got and read the Sourcebook, and Mormon's Map. And Ancient American Setting, and Mormon's Codex. He identifies hundreds of Book of Mormon passages and puts them together.

If you want to rely on facts rather than assumptions then you ought to count the generations. Zeniff, Noah, Limhi. Third generation is much more specific and factual than "several."

That means grandparents who had made the trip were very likely alive (as leader, Zeniff would not have been the oldest, and Noah died violently), and could give directions. If they had no idea where to go and what they were looking for, why bother to go? But if Grandpa can say, go up to the highlands and cross the narrow strip of wilderness, and find the source of the river. Follow the river for a few weeks and find Zarahemla on the west bank, then it all makes sense..

Several years ago, in FARMS Review 16/1, I worked through this:

I included some maps of what happens to the Limhi story if you try to start somewhere in South America, and it gets very ugly very quickly, more so if you are thinking Peru.

Poulson takes it further, even accounting for what Limhi's explorers reported seeing on the way, and a real Olmec site that was unoccupied at the time, and in a location that they could have mistaken for Zarahemla.

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/index.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

You are falling into the trap of assuming too much.

[Calm]

Please demonstrate rather than just saying where he did so.

[Mormonmaniac]

Please demonstrate rather than just saying where he did so.

Already did, already did.

[Calm]

Then point me to the post where you predicted that Kevin would say that and demolished his arguments in that post.

[Sevenbak]

  If it is the case that all of the land was in one place at the time of the flood then we should not expect to see mountains during that period of time, as there was no tectonic plate compression/collision between moving land masses to form mountains. That would account for Everest not existing at the time of the flood. However, how do you account for the Ark coming to rest on a mountain top only roughly a year after the flood began, when all of the land mass was still in one place and there still was no tectonic plate movement or other mountain-forming activity during that one year period? Should the ark have come to rest on a flat plain after the waters receded, rather than on a mountain top/side?

Says who?  No other mountain forming activity?  Volcanic action and other uplift can and does occur away from tectonic plate borders.  That the ark came to rest on a mountain (we don't know how high) isn't a problem.  Another example:  A land mass rose from the sea during Enoch's time, long before the flood or the separating of the continents.

 

Here's some more references that speak directly to this issue:

 

 

D&C Student Manual:  https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-133-the-lords-appendix-to-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

 

"

D&C 133:23–24. Will the Continents Be Rejoined?

Genesis indicates that in the early history of the world the land masses were united. Moses recorded that one of the great-great-grandsons of Shem was named Peleg (a Hebrew word meaning division) because “in his days was the earth divided” (Genesis 10:25). Many scholars have passed this reference off as meaning some sort of cultural or political division, but modern prophets have taught that this statement should be taken literally.

An article published early in the history of the Church under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith stated: “The Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!” (“The Last Days,” Evening and Morning Star, Feb. 1833, p. 1.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “If … the earth is to be restored as it was in the beginning, then all the land surface will again be in one place as it was before the days of Peleg, when this great division was accomplished. Europe, Africa, and the islands of the sea including Australia, New Zealand, and other places in the Pacific must be brought back and joined together as they were in the beginning.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:74.)

In an introduction to a book on continental drift, a scientist writes:

“Formerly, most scientists regarded the earth as rigid and the continents as fixed, but now the surface of the earth is seen as slowly deformable and the continents as ‘rafts’ floating on a ‘sea’ of denser rock. The continents have repeatedly collided and joined, repeatedly broken and separated in different patterns, and, very likely, they have grown larger in the process.

“This scientific revolution, as others before it, was long in the making, but it was not until the late 1960s that it began to succeed. At a meeting of the world’s geophysicists in August of 1971, it was made clear that the notion of continental drift, which had been heresy only a few years before, had become the orthodoxy of the great majority.” (Continents Adrift, preface.)

Though the time of this division of the land is placed much earlier by scientists than by the biblical chronology, the idea of one land mass is widely accepted. This revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 133declares that sometime in the future that geographical unity will be restored."

 

Bruce R. McConkie

It is an interesting speculative enterprise to look at a map or a globe of the world and to wonder how, with modest adjustments involving the rising and sinking of various areas of the earth, the continents and islands might fit back together again. There is much to indicate they once were joined and would easily fit back in their former positions.

Knowing as we do from latter-day revelation that the islands and continents were once joined in one landmass and will yet again be joined, we find new meaning in allusions and comments found in the ancient scriptures. As part of a description of the Second Coming, John tells us: "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places." (Rev. 6:14.) In connection with the greatest earthquake of the ages, John says: "And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found." (Rev. 16:20.) Also in a Second Coming setting John speaks of the voice of the Lord "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder." (Rev. 14:2.) This is the identical language used by the Lord in telling Joseph Smith that the mountains and valleys shall not be found, that the great deep (apparently the Atlantic Ocean) will be driven back into the north countries, "and the islands shall become one land." ("D&C 133:22"D&C 133:23D&C 133:22-23.) The voice of many waters and of a great thunder could well be the thunderous surging of a whole ocean moving half an earth's distance from where it now is...

 

Isaiah, speaking of Zion and Jerusalem in a Second Coming setting, in an apparent reference to the joining of the continents, and using that prophetic imagery for which he has such great renown, says: "Thy land shall be married." (Isa. 62:4.)  (The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 623-624)

 

 

Joseph Fielding Smith

The notion prevails quite generally that the dividing of the earth in the days of Peleg was a division politically among the people, but from this word of the Lord we gain the idea that the earth itself was divided and that when Christ comes it will again be brought back to the same conditions physically as prevailed before this division took place. The sea is to be driven back into the north. The land is to be brought back as it was originally and the lands of Zion (America) and Jerusalem (Palestine and all the land pertaining unto it) will be restored to their own place as they were in the beginning. The Savior will stand in the midst of his people, and shall reign over all flesh. We have discovered in our study that the wicked, or all things that are corruptible (D&C 101:23-25), will be consumed and therefore will not be permitted to be on the earth when this time comes. (Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 2: 35)

[Sevenbak]

If we did not know any better, we could equally well characterize the long Israelite war with the Philistines as requiring long treks over the steppes, for distances of thousands of miles.  Since we already know the geography so well, that absurd option never occurs to us.  Thus, phrases such as "an exceedingly great distance" do not require thousands of miles to satisfy, and gathering people from across the land does not require a continental trek.

 

What is required first is a careful analysis of actual distances described in the Book of Mormon text, together with geographic coordination of named sites.

That doesn't seem like a relevant comparison.    The Israelites never claimed to have moved from their homeland.  In fact, they fought the Philistines at home to preserve their rights to their land. 

Mormon, on the other hand, makes the claim that the Nephites fled their homeland and took their flight north over several years, gathering those who had strength to flee, and those who didn't were destroyed.

[Mormonmaniac]

Then point me to the post where you predicted that Kevin would say that and demolished his arguments in that post.

Read post 161.

I pointed out the obvious that Limhi's explorers didn't know much about the whereabouts of Zarahemla and that Zarahemla itself was not in close proximity to the Jaredites lands. The assumption Kevin is falling under is that he assumes along with many others that the Jaredite ruins and Zarahemla were very close to each other and that they had good directions to get to Zarahemla from the land of Nephi. None of that is implied in the text though- its just a mere assumption not based on the facts from the text itself. We know from the text that the land northward was far beyond Zarahemla and that between Zarahemla and the Jaredites ruins was the land of bountiful and the narrow neck which then led into the land northward where the Jaredite civilization was. The BoM text describes the land northward as quite a great distance northward even from Zarahemla. So, putting those facts together, we can thus correctly know that Limhi's group had really no idea distance wise to the north as to where Zarahemla was.

[TheSkepticChristian]

You are falling into the trap of assuming too much.

 

What is the evidence the Book of Mormon events happened in Peru? Can you name at least one professional archaeologist that takes the Peruvian model seriously? 

 

 

 That the ark came to rest on a mountain 

 

there was no global flood 

Edited June 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mormonmaniac]

What is the evidence the Book of Mormon events happened in Peru? Can you name at least one professional archaeologist that takes the Peruvian model seriously? 

 

 

 

there was no global flood

BoM events happened in Peru all the way up into North America in my opinion and the text supports such. Now, when you say "professional archaeologist" I am already put off. Let me ask you this- what "professional archaeologist" that is not LDS, takes the Book of Mormon as a historical text?

BTW, there was a flood and it was global and that after the flood the great mountain upthrusts took place along with the division of continents by oceans.

[Sevenbak]

 

 

there was no global flood 

It has been so proclaimed.  Thanks for playing everyone.  Turn out the lights on your way out.

[TheSkepticChristian]

BoM events happened in Peru all the way up into North America in my opinion and the text supports such. 

 

but DNA research doesn't allow for that possibility, it has to be a very small region. 

 

 

h. Now, when you say "professional archaeologist" I am already put off. Let me ask you this- what "professional archaeologist" that is not LDS, takes the Book of Mormon as a historical text?

 

None because there is no hard evidence.. However, all LDS archaeologists that believe in the historicity of the BOM believe that it happened in Mesoamerica. Just name one LDS archaeologist that believes in the Peru model? 

 

 

BTW, there was a flood and it was global and that after the flood the great mountain upthrusts took place along with the division of continents by oceans.

 

Read 1 Corinthians 13:11

[Sevenbak]

but DNA research doesn't allow for that possibility, it has to be a very small region. 

 

DNA doesn't allow for the possibility of Nephites coming from Israel.  Not sure where you're placing your faith and trust.   

Frankly, I don't think any one of us knows the extent that Laman and co had their DNA changed when they were cursed by the Lord, and all subsequent generations received the same change.  It was certainly genetic in nature.  To try to put that into modern DNA equations when there are no unchanged Nephites left is just asking for trouble.

 

None because there is no hard evidence.. However, all LDS archaeologists that believe in the historicity of the BOM believe that it happened in Mesoamerica. Just name one LDS archaeologist that believes in the Peru model? 

 

Really?    Some of it in Meso, certainly, but all archeologists believe only Meso?  Really?  CFR please.

 

Read 1 Corinthians 13:11

 

I'll see your Cor. 13:11 and call you with 2 peter 2:5

Edited June 23, 2015 by Sevenbak

[Mormonmaniac]

but DNA research doesn't allow for that possibility, it has to be a very small region. 

 

 

 

None because there is no hard evidence.. However, all LDS archaeologists that believe in the historicity of the BOM believe that it happened in Mesoamerica. Just name one LDS archaeologist that believes in the Peru model? 

 

 

 

Read 1 Corinthians 13:11

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. We do not know for sure what DNA came with all of the people who later made up the "Nephites and Lamanites". For example- who were all of the people who came with Mulek? No idea. What about Zoram? Again, no idea. What about Ishmael's family? Again- no idea. Besides that we have no idea as to what people came to the America's during and after the Nephites to possess the land. There are so many unknowns that we just can't say exactly what the DNA should be.

Personally, I don't put much faith in archaeologists be they LDS or not. I think they are all swayed by mans understanding and not God's. Proof of that is that biologists at BYU teach evolution and in pre-adamites. LDS can and are just as worldly as the rest of em.