Bomgeography Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 What do you guys think of the new Book of Mormon geography model. I'm proposing there are six seas not four Sea East, East Sea, West Sea, Sea West, North Sea and a South Sea. Also I think the narrow neck and the narrow passage are different geographic features. I think the Land Bountiful is what would be in present day Michigan. See link below.https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-5/Here is evidence for native american practicing hebrew beliefs and practiceshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/Here is evidence for Nephite metalurgy and animals listed in the Book of mormonhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/Here is dna proof for the Book of Mormonhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-2/ 3
Buckeye Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 As a proud Buckeye, I wholly reject any theory that identifies Bountiful as that state up north.* * For reference, see: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/president-obama-calls-michigan-school-north-during-ohio-203529855.html 4
Buckeye Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Also, have you ever been to Ontario? No way that place is the barren land northward where cement houses had to be constructed because of a lack of lumber. There's a reason the canucks' national symbol is a beaver. That said, cool idea that Zarahemla is basically present-day Nauvoo. False, but still cool. 3
MiserereNobis Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Were all those 2-3 word posts on other threads just so you could get enough posts to start your own thread? Based on your name, I'd say you really wanted this thread 2
cinepro Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 What do you guys think of the new Book of Mormon geography model. I'm proposing there are six seas not four Sea East, East Sea, West Sea, Sea West, North Sea and a South Sea. Also I think the narrow neck and the narrow passage are different geographic features. I think the Land Bountiful is what would be in present day Michigan. See link below.https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-5/Here is evidence for native american practicing hebrew beliefs and practiceshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/Here is evidence for Nephite metalurgy and animals listed in the Book of mormonhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/Here is dna proof for the Book of Mormonhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-2/ Very cool. I didn't read all your evidence, but from what I saw I'm confident in saying that your model isn't any less likely to be correct than the other existing models. 3
Buckeye Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Very cool. I didn't read all your evidence, but from what I saw I'm confident in saying that your model isn't any less likely to be correct than the other existing models. Oh c'mon. You know that the southeast asia model is a lot more believable. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I've always preferred the Italian setting. 1
Popular Post Buckeye Posted October 29, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 29, 2015 I've always preferred the Italian setting. I'm still holding out for a middle-earth setting. 5
jkwilliams Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I'm still holding out for a middle-earth setting. Italy fits better than anything else: horses, chariots, steel, barley, written language, plates, etc. And recent discoveries show that the Etruscans had a Hebraic origin. Perfect match. 3
Buckeye Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Italy fits better than anything else: horses, chariots, steel, barley, written language, plates, etc. And recent discoveries show that the Etruscans had a Hebraic origin. Perfect match. But who would be the presiding authority if Paul and Nephi were in the same meeting in Rome?
jkwilliams Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 But who would be the presiding authority if Paul and Nephi were in the same meeting in Rome? Perhaps the Nephites were just a small population that never assimilated with the larger population. 2
ERayR Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I'm still holding out for a middle-earth setting. South Central Idaho? 1
Traela Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 South Central Idaho?No, Central Idaho. There's a reason why there's no real roads through that big chunk of wilderness. 1
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 But who would be the presiding authority if Paul and Nephi were in the same meeting in Rome? Which Nephi? 1
Bomgeography Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Also, have you ever been to Ontario? No way that place is the barren land northward where cement houses had to be constructed because of a lack of lumber. There's a reason the canucks' national symbol is a beaver. That said, cool idea that Zarahemla is basically present-day Nauvoo. False, but still cool.The land desolation is called desolation because of the Jaredite bones. The land desolation was a land of many waters.Native American in that area did use a mud/cement see angel mound fortifications and you can see the use of cement.https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/
Bomgeography Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Also, have you ever been to Ontario? No way that place is the barren land northward where cement houses had to be constructed because of a lack of lumber. There's a reason the canucks' national symbol is a beaver. That said, cool idea that Zarahemla is basically present-day Nauvoo. False, but still cool.I will refer you d&c 125:3 it says in my interpretation that zarahemla is across from nauvoo
Bomgeography Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Perhaps the Nephites were just a small population that never assimilated with the larger population. The hopewell Indians who fit the Nephites stretched from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. Their trade extended to the Rocky Mountains and possibly into central and South America. The also had metal breastplates metal weapons tools and jewelry.
Bomgeography Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Italy fits better than anything else: horses, chariots, steel, barley, written language, plates, etc. And recent discoveries show that the Etruscans had a Hebraic origin. Perfect match.See section about horses,chariots,steel, barley, plates in this section. I did cover those topics.https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/
3DOP Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Although your own thread is slightly more interesting than those other wasted posts to which Miserere Nobis referred, I am not interested...since you ask. Is it necessary to have some kind of theory that makes the Book of Mormon real history? No. As a non-LDS I wouldn't mind if it did. But it doesn't. Edited October 30, 2015 by 3DOP 1
mapman Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 I will refer you d&c 125:3 it says in my interpretation that zarahemla is across from nauvoo That is referring to a Mormon settlement in Iowa that they named after the Book of Mormon city. It's not like they actually thought that was where Zarahemla actually was, just like no one thinks Manti, Utah, has anything to do with Manti in the Book of Mormon (or Bountiful, Utah, for that matter). http://josephsmithpapers.org/place/zarahemla-iowa-territory 3
Bomgeography Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 Although your own thread is slightly more interesting than those other wasted posts to which Miserere Nobis referred, I am not interested...since you ask. Is it necessary to have some kind of theory that makes the Book of Mormon real history? No. As a non-LDS I wouldn't mind if it did. But it doesn't.I guess this is for people interested in Book of Mormon geography.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Italy fits better than anything else: horses, chariots, steel, barley, written language, plates, etc. And recent discoveries show that the Etruscans had a Hebraic origin. Perfect match.You mean the Etruscans weren't the Jaredites? Devastating . . .
Bomgeography Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 That is referring to a Mormon settlement in Iowa that they named after the Book of Mormon city. It's not like they actually thought that was where Zarahemla actually was, just like no one thinks Manti, Utah, has anything to do with Manti in the Book of Mormon (or Bountiful, Utah, for that matter). http://josephsmithpapers.org/place/zarahemla-iowa-territorywI would disagree
Robert F. Smith Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Although your own thread is slightly more interesting than those other wasted posts to which Miserere Nobis referred, I am not interested...since you ask. Is it necessary to have some kind of theory that makes the Book of Mormon real history? No. As a non-LDS I wouldn't mind if it did. But it doesn't.See, Beomgeog, Rory is the gold standard you'd have to convince, and he remains unconvinced by anyone's theory. Why should he accept yours? The same probably applies to Bob Crockett. In short, what does your theory have that the others don't? And where do you really find brass or cement in the heartland or north? Any literate cultures anywhere in that region? A good population density in that area for the huge wars fought by Jaredites, and then the Nephites-Lamanites at the very same hill? 2
Recommended Posts