Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Question About The Book Of Mormon Geography Debate


Recommended Posts

You missed the problem with that earthquake. It is in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is considered an extremely rare occurrence, perhaps unique. There is no record of a similar earthquake during any Book of Mormon time, let alone at the time frame of Christ's death.

If that weren't sufficient, there are aspects of the Book of Mormon event that cannot be explained by an earthquake. Please see the geologists that were cited earlier. Since you cited the USGS, I'm sure you are willing to believe geologists.

Earthquakes are not considered rare in that area. You obviously didn't read Pages 11-13 of the USGS report. I'll copy a portion for you from page 12 which refers to earlier quakes. Note the "Indian Tradition."

Indian traditions.

Lyell records 1 that the Indians of the Missis- sippi Valley had a tradition of a great earthquake which had previously devastated the same region, but he concluded from the absence of old sink holes and of dead trees that no convulsion of similar magnitude could have occurred for many centuries previous to 1811. As shown in the following paragraphs he was mistaken in regard to the absence of such indications of previous shocks, for although it appears to be true that no fallen timber remained, there are many conspicuous and unquestionable geologic evidences of earlier disturbances.

Geologic evidence.

The geologic evidence of shocks long ante- dating that of 1811 is very conclusive, as has elsewhere been pointed out by the writer.2 Cracks as large as any of those of the last great' disturbance have been seen with trees fully 200 years old grown on their bottoms and slopes (PI. II, A) indicating early shocks of an intensity equal to if not greater than that of the last. Nor is the ac- tion apparently altogether recent, for post-Lafayette but pre-Iowan faults (antedating the deposition of the loess), and apparently being. either a cause or accompaniment of earthquakes, have been observed by the writer in Crowley Ridge, and Glenn has described 3 sandstone dikes filling old earthquake cracks in the Porters Creek formation of the Eocene Tertiary.

Other geologic evidence leading to the same conclusion is seen in the Tiptonville, Blytheville, and Little River domes and in the occur- rence of certain sand sloughs. The Tiptonville dome is known to have antedated, in part at least, the shocks of 1811, as several writers mention that previous to this earthquake the land at New Madrid was never overflowed. This would not have been the case if it had been a part of the undisturbed flood plain. The erosion of the Blytheville and Little River domes since their uplift has been con- siderable (p. 64) and took place almost entirely before the 1811 shocks. If these domes are classed as earthquake features, as ap- parently they should be, from the description of the additional uplift of the Tiptonville dome which took place in 1811, it follows that the original disturbance must have long antedated the New Madrid earth- quake. South of Lake St. Franc ..... Etc

So what do you think Bro. Brant Gardner?

Here you have an earthquake zone in the Mississippi Valley (the River Sidon) with the ground producing a thick lingering fog when it's disturbed by a quake. Included are Native American traditions of an earlier quake which devastated the area and physical evidence of such an earlier quake or quakes.

Don't you think it's exciting to learn of this?

Edited by PeterPear
Link to comment

Since the only locale in the Western Hemisphere with writing, large populations, and high civilization is Mesoamerica, it is natural to expect that Moroni begins his journey there.  A journey which many have taken in primitive but historical times.

 

Dr. Sorenson admitted in his "Open Letter To Dr. Coe" that the Maya were not the Nephites, but likely Lamanites, to paraphrase him. Maya glyphs are in no way similar to the characters on the gold plates. Nor did the Lamanites have a written language but were later taught the language of the Nephites via the wicked Priests of King Noah. The Nephites also taught the Mulekites the Nephite language as the Mulekites language became corrupted before meeting the Nephites.   So your language claim is inaccurate. It doesn't match the scriptures.

Actrually, since Coe made the silly and fatuous assumption that the Nephites and Lamanites were Mayan, Sorenson disabused him of that in his reply, suggesting that only the Lamanites were likely to have been associated with the Maya in highland Guatemala.  He did not identify the the Lamanites as Maya, and his geography correlations make that most unlikely.  Indeed, Mulekites and Nephites were most likely located in Chiapas, where we find non-Maya peoples.

 

Your claim that Maya glyphs don't look like the "Caractors Transcript" is fine by me.  I don't know anyone who would disagree with you, but your claim is a non sequitur.

 

I don't understand which part of my above statement you find faulty, or fails to match the Scriptures.  All New World archeologists admit that only in Mesoamerica does one find pre-Columbian writing, large populations, and high civilization.  Nowhere else in the Americas does this fact obtain.  That is why only in Mesoamerica can one find a good fit for the Book of Mormon.  Claro?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment

Yeah, my point is your links were to the 1. 1st inhabitants of America, and 2. Kinnewik man both of which science place well before the time of Adam of 4000 BC. I see no relevance in those links.

I was discussing the first peopling of the Americas and showing you how to cite actual sources, rather than making tendentious claims.

Second, your date for Adam is false.

 

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

 The Middle East has changed drastically since 600 BC, but R and X are at least tenable matches.

The ancient DNA found in the Middle East remains the same as it was when deposited.  Moreover, the ME has not changed drastically since 597 BC (the first year of King Zedekiah).

So you are latching onto this part of the article you cite:

 

 "mitochondrial evidence for the anomalous phylogeography of Native American haplogroup X2a and its most recent common ancestors in West Eurasia and North Africa (data in Reidla et al. 2003; Fernandes et al. 2012). This evidence is phylogeographically most-parsimonious with a specific additional pleistocene West Eurasian entry to Northeast America."

 

Excellent.  Now you are starting to talk.

 

"A concentration of dense volcanic gases (carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide) at ground level is sufficient to prevent igniting of the kindling and to cause suffocation

 

The inability to ignite the exceedingly dry wood is interesting in view of the fact that a few people are also described as dying from suffocation during the period of destruction which preceded the period of darkness (3 Nephi 10:13). This suggests that in some regions the concentration of dense volcanic gases (carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide) at ground level was sufficient to prevent igniting of the kindling and to cause suffocation. The uncle of Pliny died of suffocation as a consequence of a volcanic eruption."

 

If you can't light a fire from volcanic gases you are close to death.

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

You err in suggesting that everyone dies and no witnesses survive.  You need to read more carefully.

Link to comment

Actrually, since Coe made the silly and fatuous assumption that the Nephites and Lamanites were Mayan, Sorenson disabused him of that in his reply, suggesting that only the Lamanites were likely to have been associated with the Maya in highland Guatemala. He did not identify the the Lamanites as Maya, and his geography correlations make that most unlikely. Indeed, Mulekites and Nephites were most likely located in Chiapas, where we find non-Maya peoples.

Your claim that Maya glyphs don't look like the "Caractors Transcript" is fine by me. I don't know anyone who would disagree with you, but your claim is a non sequitur.

I don't understand which part of my above statement you find faulty, or fails to match the Scriptures. All New World archeologists admit that only in Mesoamerica does one find pre-Columbian writing, large populations, and high civilization. Nowhere else in the Americas does this fact obtain. That is why only in Mesoamerica can one find a good fit for the Book of Mormon. Claro?

Fine I'll quote from the open letter:

"There is too much gratuitous “Mayanization” going on throughout this entire discussion. The text’s “Nephites” were not Maya in all probability; the “Lamanites” may have been in part." http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

So why all the numerous references to, and articles about, the Maya by F.A.R.M.S. now on the MI website? F.A.R.M.S. never found any evidence of Nephites in Mesoamerica so they used the Maya as proxy. Yet in the open letter the Nephites were not Maya but the Lamanites in part. How in part? The Lamanites didn't have a separate language than the Nephites. From approx AD 35-321 (4Nephi) they interacted with each other for 300 years! Yet you claim maya glyphs represent a high civilization that can only belong to Book of Mormon peoples.

What you apparently fail to realize that according to Jacob Chapter 5 there were other groups led away by the Lord to the "nether*" parts of his vineyard and the Nephites/Mulekites were the last and took the "ground" of the Jaredites.

The Maya were likely an earlier group lead away by the Lord. For their traditions, customs, language, glyphs, manner of dress, do not match that of Israelites who governed themselves by the Law of Moses for centuries - even though the goa. of F.A.R.M.S. with its publicaciones was to "Mayanize" these Israelites and "Israelitize" the Maya - that is to equate the two.

The Lord said he destroyed the Nephite nation. You think maybe He kept His word by doing a good job of it? Yet you believe some discoveries in Central America of highly sophisticated civilizations to belong to the Nephites, then the attempt to equate them as Nephites and convince the academic world of the attempts, yet F.A.R.M.S. never could. Thus the open letter to Dr. Coe where it's conceded the Nephites were not the Maya.

And now you state that some non-Maya who could have been Nephites, lived in the Chiapas Highlands - thus making Book of Mormon lands even smaller than the original proposed 500 x 200 area? Wow! ¡Qué claro teoría! ¿Quién la necesita?

* nether - meaning lower or opposite side of the earth from the land of Israel.

Edited by PeterPear
Link to comment

So what do you think Bro. Brant Gardner?

 

Three things. First, the point isn't earthquakes at all. It is the severity that will create the widespread destruction. There is a difference between the great San Francisco earthquake and several smaller quakes in California. They are all quakes. They are not the same. Saying that there were other earthquakes does not provide evidence that there was another that created the destructive force of the one in 1812. Again, you can't get it to the right time period (so far you have some other quake 200 years earlier, not a thousand years earlier).

 

Second, it is still in the wrong place. That fault is not close enough to have the effects felt by those in the Heartland Bountiful. Historically, it got as far as St Louis--which is pretty far, but not nearly far enough.

 

Third, you are hanging a correlation on connecting only two pieces of the evidence.

 

Is there a reason why you won't believe geologists? Why is your interpretation (not really yours, of course, you are borrowing it) better than what degreed geologists say? Does your source really know that much more about geology that the three geologists I cited?

Link to comment

If we were to watch a movie about a group of people that sail to an island with elephants, silk, chariots, horses, writing, walled cities with wooden towers, iron, swords, etc. would anyone assume that the movie was set in Michigan, or Guatemala?

If we read the text literally, as a non-LDS scholar would, we wouldn't be satisfied with either location. But there is a location that meets all the requirements. That location was even called Sion in older texts. There is an iron-age civilization that practiced a unique and unidentified religion dating back to exactly 600 BC where the Lehites might have landed. Iron, elephants, silk, swords, golden plates, horses, barley, writing, chariots, walled cities. Its all there. One founding legends talk of a man that was led across the waters by God. Another legend tells of a warrior named Maran or Maroni who sailed from the Arabian peninsula. 

But most importantly, there is a tribe there called "Zoram People of Manasseh" that claim to be descendants of Manasseh, and have been officially recognized as Jews and are returning to Israel. This tribe has oral legends of a darkness that fell across their land around 30 AD that was so heavy that fires could not be lit and people would die if they fell asleep. Neighboring tribes have a legend of a lost golden book with their spiritual history that was taken west by their younger white brother. 

Is it possible that a tribe called Zoram officially recognized as descendants of Manasseh with legends of a lost golden book that will be returned to them by their white brothers from the west is just a coincidence? I recognize the dangers of parrallelomania, but when we discover a lost tribe of Zoramites who have been officially recognized as the Tribe of Manasseh, is it a stretch to assume they might be connected to the Book of Mormon in some way?
 

Link to comment

"If we read the text literally, as a non-LDS scholar would"

Please demonstrate why a nonLDS scholar of ancient texts would read the text literally. Would a nonLDS scholar read the Bible literally?

Can't get your links to load and nothing came up on google for your zoram people.

What is your documentation from and how do you know it is not a hoax?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Please demonstrate why a nonLDS scholar of ancient texts would read the text literally. Would a nonLDS scholar read the Bible literally?

When I say literally, I mean that when the text mentions something like an iron sword, that means (literally) an iron sword, not a wooden sword or an obsidian machuital. An isle in the sea is an island, an elephant is an elephant, silk is silk, etc.

The links are working for me but I can embed them here again if it doesn't get too annoying. The image below is from the newsletter of the Shavei Israel community which is dedicated to restoring the lost tribes to Israel. Their website is here. There is plenty written about the Bnei Manashe of Zoram (an unrecognized state straddling India and Myanmar) that can be Googled but this is their official website. 

-

iwI4S1naMY.thumb.png

 

Link to comment

Three things. First, the point isn't earthquakes at all. It is the severity that will create the widespread destruction. There is a difference between the great San Francisco earthquake and several smaller quakes in California. They are all quakes. They are not the same. Saying that there were other earthquakes does not provide evidence that there was another that created the destructive force of the one in 1812. Again, you can't get it to the right time period (so far you have some other quake 200 years earlier, not a thousand years earlier).

 

Second, it is still in the wrong place. That fault is not close enough to have the effects felt by those in the Heartland Bountiful. Historically, it got as far as St Louis--which is pretty far, but not nearly far enough.

 

Third, you are hanging a correlation on connecting only two pieces of the evidence.

 

Is there a reason why you won't believe geologists? Why is your interpretation (not really yours, of course, you are borrowing it) better than what degreed geologists say? Does your source really know that much more about geology that the three geologists I cited?

First: You need to rely on a limited 500 x 200 sq mile area in Mesoamerica to rely on a widespread area of destruction - which isn't a widespread area. The USGS article does point out that there were earlier more destructive quakes originating in that area of the Eastern US.

Second: The USGS article indicates the 1812 New Madrid quake was felt as far as the Atlantic coast including Charleston, SC; Savannah, GA; Washington D.C., Detroit, along the Great Lakes, at Niagra Falls, NY. A much larger quake would be expected at the death of the Savior thus it would have been felt that much stronger in the Eastern US.

Third: You are hanging on a correlation of volcano(s) apparently, to come up with a "vapor of darkness" and violent earth deformations. Most volcanoes spew their ash skyward with the heavier ash falling to the ground covering objects with a layer of this ash. No such thing as a layer of ash or the vapor covering or coating things is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. It mentions after a few days the vapor of darkness dissipating as noted in the USGS article.

For other readers: Google 'New Madrid Earthquake Fog' to find more sites. The quake ocurred in 1812. You should come across eyewitness accounts of lands sinking, flooding due to the Mississippi running backwards for a time, water and sand spewing from the earth. An eyewitness account of the quake in Charleston - noted in the USGS article - noted the earth undulating in waves and when the waves got severe or high enough the ground when break open in cracks or fissures and sand and water would come up out of the ground.

During the death of the Savior, one would expect an even more violent quake which could cause the destruction mentioned in the Book of Mormon - without the need of volcanoes or a limited geography of 500 x 200 miles - a literal "Indian Reservation" - which Bro. Brant Gardner and Bro. Robert F. Smith would have you believe the peoples of the Book of Mormon restricted themselves to.

But if you want to believe in the F.A.R.M.S. "Indian Reservation" Book of Mormon Theory, no one is stopping you.

Link to comment

 

And how does the Heartland model account for Hagoth sailing the pacific? Mormon lore says that the polynesians are remnants of Hagoth and his people. How does that happen if the limited geography doesn't include the pacific coast?

So, has anyone broken the news to the polynesians that it is unlikely they are descendents of Lehi?

Link to comment

Wiki says this about the origins claimed by the group:

 

The Bnei Menashe say their oral history of 2,700 years describes their escape from slavery in Assyria to Media/Persia. From there they moved to what is now Afghanistan, mostly through less-traveled areas to avoid being recaptured and taken back into slavery. From Afghanistan they traveled toward Hindu Kush and proceeded to Tibet, then to Kaifeng, reaching the Chinese city around 240 B.C.E. The Bnei Menashe believe that while in China, their ancestors were enslaved again.[citation needed]

During their years there, remaining Israelite descendants were killed and survivors started assimilating. The former slaves fled and lived in caves. When the group was expelled from China in 100 C.E., their "leather scrolls" were confiscated and burned. At that point different groups went in various directions. Some went down the Mekong River into VietnamSiam (Thailand), and Malaysia, and the Philippines. Others migrated to Burma and into northeast India. These people were referred to by others as Shinlung, the "cave dwellers." Today, descendants of these peoples are known locally as Shinlung, some Kuki, Mizo, Lushai or Mar.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnei_Menashe

Link to comment

During the death of the Savior, one would expect an even more violent quake which could cause the destruction mentioned in the Book of Mormon 

Then shouldn't there be geological evidence left behind?  Can you point to where this is documented?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Second, it is still in the wrong place. That fault is not close enough to have the effects felt by those in the Heartland Bountiful. Historically, it got as far as St Louis--which is pretty far, but not nearly far enough.

 

Third, you are hanging a correlation on connecting only two pieces of the evidence.

 

Is there a reason why you won't believe geologists? Why is your interpretation (not really yours, of course, you are borrowing it) better than what degreed geologists say? Does your source really know that much more about geology that the three geologists I cited?

The Mississippi river fault system is not well understood by geologists because it cannot be closely studied in some places because it is underground. But it is known to also branch up the Ohio River. There are actually 2 major fault lines north of the New Madrid - Wabash Valley and one that basically runs along the Ohio river called the Rome Trough fault. There is also a smaller, but active fault in the Cleveland area of Lake Eerie. It is possible that a "New Madrid type event" happened along the Ohio River fault, which would have directly affected any Nephite peoples at the time of Christ.

Link to comment

Wiki says this about the origins claimed by the group:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnei_Menashe

The connection of that group to Israel seems to be based on one or two legends/chants they supposedly have. DNA suggests any men in the original group got replaced with indigenous men from China and Asia, and that the legend survived due to the women.

However, the story of their migration does seem to correspond with other groups of "Pathans" in the Afghan/Hindu Kush region. The name Pathan is of an unknown origin, but I believe could have been derived from the eastern remnant of the Parthian Empire which started from the Parthian satrape of the Persian empire which was the first to revolt against the Seleucids. Anyway, there are tribes among these Pathans who have very Israeli names, and there are locales among them with ancient Hebrew artifacts and scripts. During the Persian empire it is quite conceivable that some of the tribes taken to Media migrated further east along the trade routes looking for a better life for themselves. I believe some migrated into the region of Bactria looking for a better life there, and from there got dispersed into the mountains of Afghanistan during the Muslim invasion hundreds of years later. Some could have followed the trade routes into China as the legends suggest.

 

The Persian kings were actually a mostly tolerant group who did not enslave their subjects. They allowed Jews in Babylon to return to Jerusalem which had fallen subject to various tribes of peoples. Undoubtedly during the Persian, and later empires the Hebrews did some migrating around the empire.

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment

Then shouldn't there be geological evidence left behind?  Can you point to where this is documented?

No, I cannot.

Other than the Prophet Zenos prophecying of pagan kings on the isles of the sea declaring "The God of Nature suffers."

1 Nephi 19:12

Thus the event wasn't merely a local event but likely differing forms of geological catastrophes happened worldwide, such as the earthquake in Jerusalem (and the veil in the Temple being rent as symbolic of the Savior overcoming death for all).

But the vapor mentioned in http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0494/report.pdf during the New Madrid quake correlates very well to the scripture:

3 Nephi 10:

9 And it came to pass that thus did the three days pass away. And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land, and the earth did cease to tremble, and the rocks did cease to rend, and the dreadful groanings did cease, and all the tumultuous noises did pass away.

That is, the vapor exhibited itself only when the quaking occurred. Not so with volcanic ash or other vocanic cloud.

Page 44 of the .pdf

"A writer from New Madrid states that at the time of the shock the air was clear, but in five minutes it became very dark, and the darkness continued until nearly morning, during which period there were six shocks. At 6.30 the air cleared, but at the severe shock later in the morning the darkness returned.4"

Link to comment

So, has anyone broken the news to the polynesians that it is unlikely they are descendents of Lehi?

That's not accurate. There are legends of Native Americans of the Northwest travelling to Hawaii and back:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest_canoes#Modern_examples

This site asks the question why the Haida of the Pacific Northwest are related to Polynesians.

http://www.mount.ai/n/articles/haida-hawaii

I'm not saying this is Hagoth.

1 Nephi 12:20 states AFTER the Nephites were destroyed, the Lamanites covered the face of the land then likely Polynesia also.

One would have to found out when the Polynesian islands were populated, that I do not know.

Have you ever read "Kon-Tiki" by Thor Heyerdahl? He turned on the head the theory that the Polynesian Islands were populated from Africa/Asia. He proved Native Americans could sail to Polynesia.

"Heyerdahl believed that people from South America could have settled Polynesia in pre-Columbian times. Although most anthropologists as of 2010 had come to the conclusion they did not,[1][2][3] in 2011, new genetic evidence was uncovered by Erik Thorsby that Easter Island inhabitants do have some South American DNA,[4] lending credence to at least some of Heyerdahl's theses. In 2015, analysis of the genome of some Amazonian Native Americans shown ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition

Remember your studies of the Book of Mormon. It clearly states the Nephites were "nearly surrounded" on the south, east and west, by the Lamanites. And the Nephites kept the land northward as a retreat for a defense. Thus Hagoth could not of gotten to the Pacific Ocean. But this does not rule out the Polynesians are descendants of Lehi. They are.

Edited by PeterPear
Link to comment

There is so much information in Jerry D. Grover, Jr. Geology of the Book of Mormon, 2014, that it is hard to pull just a brief quotation. However, as I have suggested that we really should consult geologists rather than those who simply suggest what might have been the cause of the 3 Nephi events, I thought I should provide at least one quotation. 

 

p. 157: All of the events described as occurring in the land northward are explained by a volcanic eruption and effects of the San Martin volcano or secondarily by the Pico de Orizaba volcano and by a large earthquake along the Veracruz fault system, with the associated earthquake effects including subsidence, landslides, and debris flows.

Whirlwinds are also associated with destruction in the land northward. There have been reports of occasional isolated tornadoes in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, but the best fit for the whirlwinds referred to in the Book of Mormon seems to be whirlwinds associated with volcanic eruptions, with a secondary possibility being tornadoes spawned by a hurricane.

Destructive whirlwinds that destroy buildings and take people and livestock are common in volcanic eruptions and have been reported in the 1815 Tambora eruption, the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, the 1766 Mayon eruption, the 1947 Hekla eruption, the 1963 Surtsey eruption, and the 1973 Eldfeld eruption (Kowallis, 1997).

 

 

it is also important to recognize, as do Grover, Ball, and Kowallis, that any proposed geologic event must account for all of the descriptions. The New Madrid fault covers perhaps 2 of the many that are associated with the event. I continue to suggest that when geologists look at the descriptions and tell us that all fo the conditions are best described by including a volcanic event (Grover suggests one that was accompanied by/triggered by an earthquake--which is not unusual), that we should listen to those who have studied these phenomena.

Link to comment

Where on the official site does it use the name of Zoram?

 

At the very bottom of the page:

 
"The Bnei Menashe come from Aizawl, in Mizoram Province and Churachandpur and Imphal in Manipur Province."

As noted in the previous post and linked article, Zoram is an unrecognized state straddling India and Myanmar. Its divided up into East Zoram and West Zoram. Their leader is named Zoramthanga, so it is also a personal name. The name is also present in the name of the Indian state where the Bnei Manashe live, Mizoram.

The Bnei Manashe do not know their exact origins, they've lost their records which were believed to be kept on leather scrolls instead of metal plates like neighboring tribes. There are a few different versions. One being that they fled slavery in Assyria by going down the Arabian Peninsula and crossing the Indian Ocean. This seems to have been a common route as there are also Jews in Cochin India that claim to have come that direction around 600 BC.

"The first material traces of Jewish settlements in India are dated back by the end of the first millennium A.D. They include the above mentioned copper plates from Cochin. But there are a lot of testimonies showing that in reality, Jews could come to Southern Asia much earlier. The very fact that the Jewish groups we know about preferred to settle along the Malabar Coast speaks of their involvement in the international trading system. It is clear that numerous ethno-genetic legends spread around different groups of Indian Jews get concentrated on other events or causes. The meaning of an ethno-genetic legend, Jewish in particular, boils down to tying them to the general pattern of Jewish and world history. This is essentially the task of all etiologic and exegetic narratives, both written and folklore, up to the new times and the development of critical historical thinking. No wonder both the Kochi and the Bene Israel Jews tell different variations of how their coming to India is tied to significant events in the biblical history: exile of ten tribes to Assyria, exile to Babylon, destruction of the First and Second Temples, etc. The allusion to the voyage of King Solomon’s messengers to Ophir breaks somewhat out of the beaten track but it still brings the history of the group in line with the common Jewish history." (source)

In short, nobody knows their origins, but there they are, Zoramites from the Tribe of Manasseh. There are also the Lemba Jews in Zimbabwe that have a similar story. They claim their ancestors left around 700-600 BC by sea, but they had a layover in a place called Sena and then sailed off again. After reading a bit about them, I suspect they sailed along the trading routes to Ophir (present day India or Malaysia). Then after a few hundred years, like Hagoth, they sailed west along the trading routes to the area around Madagascar, which could explain the names of Moroni in the Comoros Islands. Their oral legends say their ship was destroyed and they ended up in Zimbabwe. DNA tests on the Lemba show higher rates of the Cohen Haplotype than some Jewish communities in Israel. (source) This is one of the main reasons I identify the Malay Peninsula as a point of interest for the Book of Mormon account. I suspect the Lehites landed at Lembah Bujang and set up the iron forging industry that is just now being discovered. (source) The iron swords forged in this region were said to be of the highest quality, even Muhammad had a sword made here.

Pretty interesting that there is historical and genetic evidence that Jewish refugees/merchants were sailing east from the Arabian Peninsula in 600 BC. +1 for the Book of Mormon as a historical record. And a civilization with iron forging appearing around 600 BC. +1. And a founding legend of man named Maroni. +1. And an unidentified religion that looks a bit like it could be straight out of the Arabian Desert. +1. Elephants, silk, chariots, horses etc. Joseph couldn't have made it up.

Link to comment

One would have to found out when the Polynesian islands were populated, that I do not know.

Polynesians are of Malay and Austronesian descent. The Malay are a scattered race that extends from east Africa and across the isles of the sea to the jungles of Brazil (source). The prevailing theory is that they originated on the east coast of Asia, in Formosa (Taiwan) and started their expansion through the isles of the sea around the time of the Jaredites (3000 BC). But recent genetic testing shows highest concentrations of shared DNA between some aboriginal tribes in Brazil and aboriginal tribes found on the Malay Peninsula and the nearby Andaman Islands.

Link to comment

And how does the Heartland model account for Hagoth sailing the pacific? Mormon lore says that the polynesians are remnants of Hagoth and his people. How does that happen if the limited geography doesn't include the pacific coast?

 

Hagoth's journeys were not necessarily Pacific Ocean journeys.

Link to comment

There is so much information in Jerry D. Grover, Jr. Geology of the Book of Mormon, 2014, that it is hard to pull just a brief quotation. However, as I have suggested that we really should consult geologists rather than those who simply suggest what might have been the cause of the 3 Nephi events, I thought I should provide at least one quotation. 

 

 

it is also important to recognize, as do Grover, Ball, and Kowallis, that any proposed geologic event must account for all of the descriptions. The New Madrid fault covers perhaps 2 of the many that are associated with the event. I continue to suggest that when geologists look at the descriptions and tell us that all fo the conditions are best described by including a volcanic event (Grover suggests one that was accompanied by/triggered by an earthquake--which is not unusual), that we should listen to those who have studied these phenomena.

I respect that. Thanks.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...