Is The Book Of Mormon Either True Or Not?

[TheSkepticChristian]

delete 

Edited June 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[tagriffy]

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.

 

Just for fun, I ran some rough figures and applied them to the twenty-two day distance between Nephi and Zarahemla. They are based on average miles per day.

 

Zion's camp: 495 miles

The author's figure is wrong though. I make it fifty days between 1 May and 19 June. This actually makes it 396 miles.

Mormon Battalion: 232 miles

Donaphin's group: 301 miles

Brigham Young's group: 308 miles.

 

My completely theoretical figure of 528 miles is thus probably far off. If retained at all, it would be as an absolute upper limit. OTOH, these figure are in line with the 264 mile figure I came up with based on the handcart companies. A distance of about 300 miles between Nephi and Zarahemla would seem plausible.

 

 

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.

 

My caution was not to be too hasty, not that the continental model shouldn't be rejected at all. According to some, even my estimates are on the low side. I don't know what the longest travel time in the Book of Mormon is off the top of my head. Ammon's group wandered for forty days on the trip from Zarahemla to Nephi. That may well be the longest travel time that is actually specified.

[tagriffy]

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. 

 

You're assuming the story is true, and then trying to fit what we now know into the text. I am not asking whether the story is true; I am asking what the story says. If my hypothesis about the Table of Nations encompassing the extent of the world known to Genesis is correct, Mount Everest is probably not on the horizon, and the Amazon is almost certainly not. Take the map I included in post #140, lay it flat, and put a dome on top of it. That is basically the world of Genesis. Genesis simply doesn't know just how big the world really is, and it doesn't know the world is round. This is precisely why it could depict the Flood as being worldwide.

 

I am thinking you meant to say "does not mean a whole lot." In any case, you're basically ignoring everything I said, which is that they didn't misinterpret the story, for the reasons I noted. They interpreted the story correctly, it's just the conception of the world changed and it's size grew. For a long time, those changes could be accommodated without presenting insuperable problems. But the problems just kept adding up and adding up until the idea of a worldwide flood could simply no longer be sustained. But none of that has anything to do with what story says.

 

Now I agree with you the issue is not of critical importance to God. It may not have even been of critical importance to the writer/redactors. What is of critical importance is what they were trying to convey about God, both by using the story and by placing it in history. Whether the story is true is irrelevant.

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

So assumptions are something that happens to other people. You are assuming against the evidence of the explicit generational line from Zeniff to Noah to Limhi that they didn't have reasonable directions. You are assuming that there were no living survivors who had made the walk.

Back in FARMS Review 16/1, pages 321-332, I did an experiment with the story of Limhi's explorers as set against a journey from a point in South America to North America. It does not work in the real world. People could make that journey, given time and motivation, but they could not and would not make that journey and suppose that they had found where grandma grew up. Poulson's model, in contrast, works in the real world, with human motivation, the reports of what they found along the way and at journey's end.

You are assuming that "far" can mean exactly what you want it to mean when ever you need it to do so. You are assuming that even though Mulekite tradition recounts a meeting with Coriantumr, and the merging of Nephite and Mulekite society at Zarahemla brings Jaredite names into the mix, that such a circumstance tells nothing about the distance to Jaredite territory. You are assuming that the descriptions of Jaredite lands, including such features as Cumorah/Ramah, and the place where the sea divides the land, the city of Lib, the proximity of desolation to the narrow neck and Bountiful are not a constraint.

You are assuming that if I have looked at Sorenson's work, and Clark's and Poulson's that a charge that Sorenson is "making assumptions" that you have authoritatively and decisively canceled out the detailed interlocking of the hundreds of puzzle pieces in a specific set of real locations that in turn casts valuable light on the text we have. I have the Sourcebook, and Mormon's Map, and Ancient American Setting, and Clark's reviews of several competing models, and Poulson's helpful work. From you we get sweeping assertions and little else.

I work as a technical writer in the computer aided engineering field. The whole point of computer aided engineering is to create simulations, models of real systems so that they can be tested before you build them in real life, so that the physical designs work in the real world. What makes the models valuable is the degree to which they match and provide predictions that work in the real world. And a key strategy is the use of hierarchy to address complexity.

There are people who deal with overwhelming complexity by appealing to some authority, whether or not the models provided by those authorities work in the real world. Our scriptures tell us the "truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come." Our scriptures also tell us that our authorities are in process themselves. D&C 1 bluntly states that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest." The guarantee on our hierarchy is not infallibility but of expedience.

"Truth," said Joseph Smith, "will cut its own way." Words and opinions that don't fit the real world are like inaccurate simulation models. They have to be modified to fit reality on grounds that reality is the arbiter.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 23, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Mormonmaniac]

So assumptions are something that happens to other people. You are assuming against the evidence of the explicit generational line from Zeniff to Noah to Limhi that they didn't have reasonable directions. You are assuming that there were no living survivors who had made the walk.Back in FARMS Review 16/1, pages 321-332, I did an experiment with the story of Limhi's explorers as set against a journey from a point in South America to North America. It does not work in the real world. People could make that journey, given time and motivation, but they could not and would not make that journey and suppose that they had found where grandma grew up. Poulson's model, in contrast, works in the real world, with human motivation, the reports of what they found along the way and at journey's end.You are assuming that "far" can mean exactly what you want it to mean when ever you need it to do so. You are assuming that even though Mulekite tradition recounts a meeting with Coriantumr, and the merging of Nephite and Mulekite society at Zarahemla brings Jaredite names into the mix, that such a circumstance tells nothing about the distance to Jaredite territory. You are assuming that the descriptions of Jaredite lands, including such features as Cumorah/Ramah, and the place where the sea divides the land, the city of Lib, the proximity of desolation to the narrow neck and Bountiful are not a constraint.You are assuming that if I have looked at Sorenson's work, and Clark's and Poulson's that a charge that Sorenson is "making assumptions" that you have authoritatively and decisively canceled out the detailed interlocking of the hundreds of puzzle pieces in a specific set of real locations that in turn casts valuable light on the text we have. I have the Sourcebook, and Mormon's Map, and Ancient American Setting, and Clark's reviews of several competing models, and Poulson's helpful work. From you we get sweeping assertions and little else.I work as a technical writer in the computer aided engineering field. The whole point of computer aided engineering is to create simulations, models of real systems so that they can be tested before you build them in real life, so that the physical designs work in the real world. What makes the models valuable is the degree to which they match and provide predictions that work in the real world. And a key strategy is the use of hierarchy to address complexity.There are people who deal with overwhelming complexity by appealing to some authority, whether or not the models provided by those authorities work in the real world. Our scriptures tell us the "truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come." Our scriptures also tell us that our authorities are in process themselves. D&C 1 bluntly states that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest." The guarantee on our hierarchy is not infallibility but of expedience."Truth," said Joseph Smith, "will cut its own way." Words and opinions that don't fit the real world are like inaccurate simulation models. They have to be modified to fit reality on grounds that reality is the arbiter.Kevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA

Let's get this one fact straight- Zarahemla and the land northward were not in close proximity to each other.

[tagriffy]

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.

 

I have my own problems with the model, but the assumption Limhi's group had some idea how to get where they were going is not one of them. Kevin's hypothesis Limhi's group had living grandparents who could give directions is entirely possible given what we have in the text. Moreover, there is something else we know that does come from the text--they had records. In my mind, the puzzle isn't so much about what happened once they missed Zarahemla, but how they managed to miss it in the first place. Given the desperate straits Limhi's people were in, it is not hard to imagine the group continuing an apparently fruitless search for as long as possible once they did miss Zarahemla. The people were relying on them, so it makes sense they'd keep going until they found something.

[TheSkepticChristian]

DNA doesn't allow for the possibility of Nephites coming from Israel.  

 

It is possible, read Dr. Ugo A. Perego. I don't believe in stuff that is contradicted by strong evidence. The evidence says that most Native Americans have Asian DNA, so that means that the hemispheric model or a huge region does not work. Archaeology also contradicts the huge region possibility. 

 

 

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

 

The burden of proof falls on you. Please name one archaeologist that believes in the historicity of the BOM but doesn't accept Meso. Is there just one archaeologist that believes in Peru or New York model? 

 

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.

 

Darwinian Evolution is true and AGW is real. May science be with  you

Edited June 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Of course it is relevant.  You are making automatic assumptions which would never fit a simply Palestinian context -- only because we already know the lay of the land -- so that no one dares expand the Israelite and Philistine territories out of their actual bounds.  You feel no such limits in considering Jaredite or Nephite-Lamanite-Mulekite territories, and feel free to expand in absurd ways not required by the text.

 

Anthropological reality tells us that Mesoamerican warfare (including invasion by the Conquistadores) never required long distance actions such as you imagine in the Book of Mormon context.  Yet it took the Spanish years to effect the full conquest of relatively small territories.  Indeed, the Spanish did not conquer the Itza at Tayasal (1697) until nearly two centuries after they first arrived.  What took them so long, since you claim such small territories could never remain unfound and unmolested?  Even before that, however, the elite Itza rulers of Chichen in Yucatan were forced to leave and go to Chakanputun, from which they were expelled about 300 years later.  The Itza then returned to take over Chichen Itza (perhaps assisted by the Toltecs), only to be expelled from Chichen again a couple hundred years later, then taking over at Tayasal and Mayapan -- the latter being destroyed, and the former finally being taken by the Spanish in 1697.  How is it possible that all that action could take place in such a small area over a period of so many years?  One fact is clear, lots of years don't translate into distance.

 

According to the scenarios you spin, the Olmec had to have spread over the entire North American continent (or a large part of it at least), and the central Mexican empire of Teotihuacan must have likewise ruled over vast regions of North America as well.  In fact none of that is true.  What is true is that some of the city-states in the Yucatan were very well organized and had populations in the millions.  This was likewise true for Oaxaca, Veracruz, and other areas of Mesoamerica.  You vastly underestimate the difficulty of moving around within uncontrolled rain forest and swamp.  I say "uncontrolled" since some of the civilizations in the area exercised some control over such environmental problems -- the forest and swamp returning when such controls disappeared.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Mormonmaniac]

I have my own problems with the model, but the assumption Limhi's group had some idea how to get where they were going is not one of them. Kevin's hypothesis Limhi's group had living grandparents who could give directions is entirely possible given what we have in the text. Moreover, there is something else we know that does come from the text--they had records. In my mind, the puzzle isn't so much about what happened once they missed Zarahemla, but how they managed to miss it in the first place. Given the desperate straits Limhi's people were in, it is not hard to imagine the group continuing an apparently fruitless search for as long as possible once they did miss Zarahemla. The people were relying on them, so it makes sense they'd keep going until they found something.

They managed to miss it because they didnt have any directions on how to get there. I would assume that because the land northward was far enough to the north that many migrated From Zarahemla to Bountiful, boarded ships ocean bound and migrated to the land northward. This tells me that Jaredite lands from Zarahemla was a considerable distance, perhaps more than just a few hundred miles. You don't build ships to travel just a hundred or two hundred miles.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

The real question is, Why would we require that when the text does not?  The Book of Mormon narrative wouldn't make any sense with such great distances to trek, aside from the fact that the Inca empire is much later than the BofM period.

[Mormonmaniac]

The real question is, Why would we require that when the text does not?  The Book of Mormon narrative wouldn't make any sense with such great distances to trek, aside from the fact that the Inca empire is much later than the BofM period.

The text actually requires large distances. You have several basic lands spoken of in the BoM. You have the land of Nephi to the south. From there you head north until you come to the land f Zarahemla. From there you head further north till you come to Bountiful. Its from here that Hagoth built ocean going ships to transport people and supplies to the land northward where the Jaredites destroyed each other. From there, northward was lands consisting of large bodies of water and it is at this land the Nephites called it an exceedingly great distance. We are not speaking of a total of 400 miles or less from the southern most Nephite lands to these lands in the land northward as is described by meso-american believers. That absolutely does not fit the text at all.

Given, most of the Nephite dealings in the BoM are in the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla, these of course do not cover all of the lands in the BoM events. The distances between these two lands sitting next to each other probably were within a few hundred miles of each other. But, we do not have a reference of distance ever given of how far it actually was from the land of Nephi to the land northward. If the Inca traversed 3,000 miles on roads that predated them then it makes sense that the cultures that sprang up from the warring Nephites and Lamanites were most likely similar as the Inca did in fact build and fortify the same exact roads and points as the Lamanite sand Nephites before them.

[tagriffy]

They managed to miss it because they didnt have any directions on how to get there. I would assume that because the land northward was far enough to the north that many migrated From Zarahemla to Bountiful, boarded ships ocean bound and migrated to the land northward. This tells me that Jaredite lands from Zarahemla was a considerable distance, perhaps more than just a few hundred miles. You don't build ships to travel just a hundred or two hundred miles.

 

The question is how could they not have had directions to get to Zarahemla? We know they had records, and it is quite possible there were living elders who knew the way. Since this was a journey meant to obtain help, it would have been exceedingly stupid not to have consulted whatever resources they did have.

[Robert F. Smith]

The text actually requires large distances. You have several basic lands spoken of in the BoM. You have the land of Nephi to the south. From there you head north until you come to the land f Zarahemla. From there you head further north till you come to Bountiful. Its from here that Hagoth built ocean going ships to transport people and supplies to the land northward where the Jaredites destroyed each other. From there, northward was lands consisting of large bodies of water and it is at this land the Nephites called it an exceedingly great distance. We are not speaking of a total of 400 miles or less from the southern most Nephite lands to these lands in the land northward as is described by meso-american believers. That absolutely does not fit the text at all.

You clearly read the same text quite differently than others, including me.  Palestine also had several basic lands, yet a lot action took place within it not requiring thousands of miles of distance.  You are confusing  Hagoth and the Jaredites, for example, when the text contains no such confusion.  You clearly bring to the text a whole set of preconceived notions.  And they just don't fit.

 

Given, most of the Nephite dealings in the BoM are in the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla, these of course do not cover all of the lands in the BoM events. The distances between these two lands sitting next to each other probably were within a few hundred miles of each other. But, we do not have a reference of distance ever given of how far it actually was from the land of Nephi to the land northward. If the Inca traversed 3,000 miles on roads that predated them then it makes sense that the cultures that sprang up from the warring Nephites and Lamanites were most likely similar as the Inca did in fact build and fortify the same exact roads and points as the Lamanite sand Nephites before them.

Inca roads were not maintained by the central government, but by local villages en route.  Trade networks which had existed before the Inca certainly continued, but that would be true in any area of the world.

[Mormonmaniac]

The question is how could they not have had directions to get to Zarahemla? We know they had records, and it is quite possible there were living elders who knew the way. Since this was a journey meant to obtain help, it would have been exceedingly stupid not to have consulted whatever resources they did have.

They went to find the "land of Zarahemla" not just Zarahemla the city. They obviously had either no directions or extremely poor directions because not only did they not find it they went far beyond the land of Zarahemla, found some entirely different extinct civilization and supposed they had thus found Zarahemla. Quite obvious they didnt really have any clue as to any remotely clear directions regarding Zarahemla.

[Mormonmaniac]

You clearly read the same text quite differently than others, including me.  Palestine also had several basic lands, yet a lot action took place within it not requiring thousands of miles of distance.  You are confusing  Hagoth and the Jaredites, for example, when the text contains no such confusion.  You clearly bring to the text a whole set of preconceived notions.  And they just don't fit.

 

Inca roads were not maintained by the central government, but by local villages en route.  Trade networks which had existed before the Inca certainly continued, but that would be true in any area of the world.

Hagoth built ships to go from the narrow neck area to transport, by ocean, people to the land northward. I shouldnt have to say any more. No part of the meso-american theory works. I have seen the cute little picture of the people marching across the land, getting on the boat, then traveling a hundred miles, getting off and marching a hundred more the opposite direction to get where they ended up. Its stupid- it doesnt work.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mormonmaniac, on 23 Jun 2015 - 3:30 PM, said:

The text actually requires large distances. You have several basic lands spoken of in the BoM. You have the land of Nephi to the south. From there you head north until you come to the land f Zarahemla. From there you head further north till you come to Bountiful. Its from here that Hagoth built ocean going ships to transport people and supplies to the land northward where the Jaredites destroyed each other. From there, northward was lands consisting of large bodies of water and it is at this land the Nephites called it an exceedingly great distance. We are not speaking of a total of 400 miles or less from the southern most Nephite lands to these lands in the land northward as is described by meso-american believers. That absolutely does not fit the text at all.

Hagoth built ships to go from the narrow neck area to transport, by ocean, people to the land northward. I shouldnt have to say any more. No part of the meso-american theory works. I have seen the cute little picture of the people marching across the land, getting on the boat, then traveling a hundred miles, getting off and marching a hundred more the opposite direction to get where they ended up. Its stupid- it doesnt work.

You said that "Hagoth built ocean going ships to transport people and supplies to the land northward where the Jaredites destroyed each other."  The text makes no such statement, nor does it suggest that that is the case.  The Jaredite lands and the objective of the ocean going ships of Hagoth are unconnected.  You make an automatic and unjustified assumption there.  You also claim something about a "cute little picture" (unknown to me and to the text) having people embarking and disembarking in a way not mentioned in the text.  Then you add, "Its stupid - it doesnt work."  As though that explains the matter in a logical and rational way.

 

You are not allowing the text to speak for itself.  Instead you impose preconceived notions upon it which seem convenient to your argument.  Scholars quote text and allow it to speak for itself.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[tagriffy]

They went to find the "land of Zarahemla" not just Zarahemla the city. They obviously had either no directions or extremely poor directions because not only did they not find it they went far beyond the land of Zarahemla, found some entirely different extinct civilization and supposed they had thus found Zarahemla. Quite obvious they didnt really have any clue as to any remotely clear directions regarding Zarahemla.

 

So, they were exceedingly stupid then.

[Mormonmaniac]

Mormonmaniac, on 23 Jun 2015 - 3:30 PM, said:

You said that "Hagoth built ocean going ships to transport people and supplies to the land northward where the Jaredites destroyed each other."  The text makes no such statement, nor does it suggest that that is the case.  The Jaredite lands and the objective of the ocean going ships of Hagoth are unconnected.  You make an automatic and unjustified assumption there.  You also claim something about a "cute little picture" (unknown to me and to the text) having people embarking and disembarking in a way not mentioned in the text.  Then you add, "Its stupid - it doesnt work."  As though that explains the matter in a logical and rational way.

 

You are not allowing the text to speak for itself.  Instead you impose preconceived notions upon it which seem convenient to your argument.  Scholars quote text and allow it to speak for itself.

Hagoth built ships to transport people from Bountiful to the land northward, the very land where the Jaredites lived and died. The point here is to show that you don't build a ship unless you are traveling a long distance. The Mesoamerican theory doesn't work with Hagoth.

[Mormonmaniac]

So, they were exceedingly stupid then.

No,just exceedingly clueless as to finding and identifying Zarahemla. That much is completely obvious.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The point here is to show that you don't build a ship unless you are traveling a long distance.

 

It can't be a huge area because DNA and archaeology don't allow for that possibility. No archaeologist believes in the Peru model. 

Even the church takes the evidence seriously 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

 

If you don't care about the evidence, why are you arguing for the Peru model? Perhaps it is because you know more than all the archaeologists? 

[Robert F. Smith]

Hagoth built ships to transport people from Bountiful to the land northward, the very land where the Jaredites lived and died. The point here is to show that you don't build a ship unless you are traveling a long distance. The Mesoamerican theory doesn't work with Hagoth.

Again, the text makes no such statement.  The text does not say that the land of the Jaredites was the region to which Hagoth's ships went.  Why would they do so anyhow, since the Jaredite region was immediately north of the narrow neck of land?  The regions to the north where Hagoth's ships went are completely unrelated to the Jaredite areas, and much more distant.  Indeed, it would make no sense for Hagoth to build ships for such a  very short journey into Jaredite country.

 

As usual, you do not quote text, but instead build up an apriori concept using circular logic which does great violence to the text.

[Mormonmaniac]

Again, the text makes no such statement.  The text does not say that the land of the Jaredites was the region to which Hagoth's ships went.  Why would they do so anyhow, since the Jaredite region was immediately north of the narrow neck of land?  The regions to the north where Hagoth's ships went are completely unrelated to the Jaredite areas, and much more distant.  Indeed, it would make no sense for Hagoth to build ships for such a  very short journey into Jaredite country.

 

As usual, you do not quote text, but instead build up an apriori concept using circular logic which does great violence to the text.

You seem to believe the Jaredites possessed a very small piece of real estate immediately north ofBountiful. The text doesn't imply such.

[Mormonmaniac]

It can't be a huge area because DNA and archaeology don't allow for that possibility. No archaeologist believes in the Peru model. 

Even the church takes the evidence seriously 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

 

If you don't care about the evidence, why are you arguing for the Peru model? Perhaps it is because you know more than all the archaeologists?

The church makes no claim to where the lands were other than the location of Cumorah. The same with DNA. Perhaps you should ask the church the same questions.

[filovirus]

So, they were exceedingly stupid then.

I support the meso model. Makes the most sense. Two rivers start from the highlands in Guatemala and travel north to the Gulf of Mexico, and believe it or not, they both start near enough each other to be easily mixed up. The two rivers are the Grijalva and the Usumacinta. I believe the people of Limhi followed what they thought was the Sidon river when in reality is was the other river, therefore completely missing Zarahemla. Vague directions and no GPS makes it the most logical conclusion to make.

[TheSkepticChristian]

delete 

Edited June 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian