The exact location of the Waters of Ripliancum

[Rajah Manchou]

19 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

We are both reading the very same verse, but seeing it very differently. When I read the "therefore" that you bolded, it tells me that they build houses out of cement because "there being but little timber." It is true that you might use something else rather than wood for the wattle, but now you are going beyond the evidence. There are three problems: 1) the Hopewell did use wood, 2) there are lots of forests in that region in Book of Mormon times, 3) Helaman places this north of Nephite lands--but there were still forests (just even fewer people).

I do agree the woodlands of North America don't really fit, but there was at least some wood in the Land Northward:

9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.
10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.
11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

 

[Comet]

Thanks

[notHagoth7]

On 9/5/2016 at 10:08 PM, Brant Gardner said:

As has been noted, there are two problems here. The first is that we have to redefine cement as mud. 

Or zero problems.

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

CEMENT, noun

1. Any glutinous or other substance capable of uniting bodies in close cohesion, as mortar, glue, soder [sic], etc. In building, cement denotes a stronger kind of mortar than that which is ordinarily used.

2. Bond of union; that which unites firmly, as persons in friendship, or men in society.

3. Powders or pastes, surrounding bodies in pots and crucibles, for chimical [sic] purposes.

On 9/5/2016 at 10:08 PM, Brant Gardner said:

I suppose that is possible, but the more damaging is that the cement is used because there are no trees. The "wattle" is wood from trees. This is a complete mismatch for the Book of Mormon.

? Perhaps you're confusing the regions northward that were "without timber" (verse 5) with the other regions that had "but little" timber (verse 7).

In the timberless regions, the migrants were said to have *not* settled (verse 5).  

 However, in the regions that had some timber, they did settle (verse 7), and who knows how many unmentioned bushes (whose twigs/branches would work just fine for wattle) were there.

Based on the above, you may well have unintentionally constructed a strawman argument. (Or wattleman?)

On 9/5/2016 at 10:08 PM, Brant Gardner said:

According to this particular criterion, the Hopewell couldn't be the land northward that Helaman referred to.

Couldn't?

1) Plaster/daub is a reasonable form of glutinous cement.

2) As demonstrated above, the Nephite record didn't say there were "no" trees in the lands settled northward. Instead, "but little timber" means *some* workable tree trunks. In addition, per verse 10, those who settled in the land northward *did* import "much" timber (for beams?), as the Norse did much later in tree-starved Greenland.

3) Helaman says little on whether wattle was specifically among the building materials in whatever one deems to be the land northward (consider point #4). However, wattle can come from bushes, even when timber is "but little" and "scarce". 

4) Interestingly, Helaman did say (verse 11) that they built their cities "both of wood and of cement." Such a description does *not* exclude wattle and daub. Instead, it specifically allows for it, even if one is not willing to concede that it specifically *suggests* it.

5) So the basic elements for wattle-and-daub construction are provided in Helaman 3. As such, waving off that building method is apparently not merited by the available evidence.

That said, as I have written on the topic elsewhere, I personally think Helaman was referring to something/somewhere much more interesting when he said they "became exceedingly expert in the working of cement ."

Edited September 10, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Brant Gardner]

54 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Not really.

Let's make sure that our differences are really different. I agree that they built of wood and cement--but that they didn't have very much wood and therefore used cement. The Hopewell are known as a Woodland culture--which should give us a clue that wood was not scarce where they were. I am unaware of any nearly treeless area associated with the Hopewell, regardless of what we think they might have used as building materials. 

Next, and perhaps more importantly, the Book of Mormon isn't describing the Nephite lands, but rather the lands northward. So if the Hopewell were the Nephites, evidence of few trees and cement among the Hopewell misapply the text. They must be north (in a land of many waters, few trees, and buildings with cement--from perhaps the time of Christ to AD 400--I suspect that it was more wooded before and perhaps after ). 

We then hear that Nephites has left their homeland and moved north into that fewer-trees-cement-houses-many-waters region. There:

Quote

8 And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.
(Helaman 3:8)

So, now we are not interested in the Hopewell, but some place north of the Hopewell near many waters, with fewer trees--but a very large population. If the Nephites are the Hopewell, where in North America would that be? On the north of the Great Lakes--but we still have the problem of trees and very small populations. If we accept the Hopewell as Nephites (and I still maintain that there is zero evidence for that connection), then we are really in trouble meeting the requirements of Hel. 3:5-9.

Finding something we might call cement (regardless of how we define it) doesn't make a connection to this requirement. There is a very specific set of requirements that must all be met simultaneously in the same geography and at the appropriate time.
 

[notHagoth7]

7 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Let's make sure that our differences are really different.... some place north of the Hopewell near many waters, with fewer trees--but a very large population. If the Nephites are the Hopewell, where in North America would that be?  ...Finding something we might call cement (regardless of how we define it) doesn't make a connection to this requirement. There is a very specific set of requirements that must all be met simultaneously in the same geography and at the appropriate time.

Ah.

I appreciate your clarification and see your intended point.

Good food for thought.

[2BizE]

I'm sure the exact location will be where they find ancient horse bones and iron swords, as there was a great battle by the waters.

[sam]

9 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Let's make sure that our differences are really different. I agree that they built of wood and cement--but that they didn't have very much wood and therefore used cement. The Hopewell are known as a Woodland culture--which should give us a clue that wood was not scarce where they were. I am unaware of any nearly treeless area associated with the Hopewell, regardless of what we think they might have used as building materials. 

Next, and perhaps more importantly, the Book of Mormon isn't describing the Nephite lands, but rather the lands northward. So if the Hopewell were the Nephites, evidence of few trees and cement among the Hopewell misapply the text. They must be north (in a land of many waters, few trees, and buildings with cement--from perhaps the time of Christ to AD 400--I suspect that it was more wooded before and perhaps after ). 

We then hear that Nephites has left their homeland and moved north into that fewer-trees-cement-houses-many-waters region. There:

So, now we are not interested in the Hopewell, but some place north of the Hopewell near many waters, with fewer trees--but a very large population. If the Nephites are the Hopewell, where in North America would that be? On the north of the Great Lakes--but we still have the problem of trees and very small populations. If we accept the Hopewell as Nephites (and I still maintain that there is zero evidence for that connection), then we are really in trouble meeting the requirements of Hel. 3:5-9.

Finding something we might call cement (regardless of how we define it) doesn't make a connection to this requirement. There is a very specific set of requirements that must all be met simultaneously in the same geography and at the appropriate time.
 

Nobody can say exactly how large the Hopewell populations were. They extended to the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes. We have no idea how many Hopewell sites are out there that were destroyed by farmers that we know of some we do not know of in the 18th and 19th century. we can't make decisive opinions about the Hopewell in the Great Lakes if we do not have all the facts. to many Hopewell sites were destroyed into and plundered. If you went by what early settlers wrote the Hopewell Indians have all the artifacts and technology needed to be the nephites.

[sam]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

I'm sure the exact location will be where they find ancient horse bones and iron swords, as there was a great battle by the waters.

Just wait 

[Brant Gardner]

3 hours ago, sam said:

Nobody can say exactly how large the Hopewell populations were.

I suggest that you read more archaeology. There are quite a few methods for determining populations, and pretty good ones for understanding the size of particular locations. When the archaeologists (whom you have cited, and in articles you have cited) tell us that they lived in villages and hamlets--that wasn't a guess. That was the result of digs that examined the living spaces of Hopewell communities. So yes, someone can tell us, and they have told us--and they are the ones who have done the research and reported it.

Quote

We have no idea how many Hopewell sites are out there that were destroyed by farmers. 

This is true, but irrelevant. The problem is not the overall population of a whole region, but the nature of the communities in which they lived. The Nephites and Lamanites are both described in terms that require large concentrated populations near other cities of larger populations (large in terms of antiquity, not modern sizes). They require political structures that would have kings--or layers of judges for post-Mosiah Nephites. They require that even in the city of Nephi-Lehi that there have been massive building projects of living quarters (not ceremonial mounds for the dead). Those are the things that don't fit between the Hopewell and the Book of Mormon. The Hopewell do not have communities of the requisite size. None of them had the complex political structures. None of them had an agricultural base that provided sufficient calories to become larger. They were limited in size by their means of subsistence--so we know we aren't missing something. They weren't large and couldn't have become larger than villages and hamlets.

Please remember that you are inconsistently using archaeological evidence. You cite only what you think supports your idea, and ignore the very same archaeologists when they disagree with you. These are people who have actually studied all of the evidence on the ground, not read Internet sites. Could you explain why you think that your ideas are better than their data?

[sam]

7 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I suggest that you read more archaeology. There are quite a few methods for determining populations, and pretty good ones for understanding the size of particular locations. When the archaeologists (whom you have cited, and in articles you have cited) tell us that they lived in villages and hamlets--that wasn't a guess. That was the result of digs that examined the living spaces of Hopewell communities. So yes, someone can tell us, and they have told us--and they are the ones who have done the research and reported it.

This is true, but irrelevant. The problem is not the overall population of a whole region, but the nature of the communities in which they lived. The Nephites and Lamanites are both described in terms that require large concentrated populations near other cities of larger populations (large in terms of antiquity, not modern sizes). They require political structures that would have kings--or layers of judges for post-Mosiah Nephites. They require that even in the city of Nephi-Lehi that there have been massive building projects of living quarters (not ceremonial mounds for the dead). Those are the things that don't fit between the Hopewell and the Book of Mormon. The Hopewell do not have communities of the requisite size. None of them had the complex political structures. None of them had an agricultural base that provided sufficient calories to become larger. They were limited in size by their means of subsistence--so we know we aren't missing something. They weren't large and couldn't have become larger than villages and hamlets.

Please remember that you are inconsistently using archaeological evidence. You cite only what you think supports your idea, and ignore the very same archaeologists when they disagree with you. These are people who have actually studied all of the evidence on the ground, not read Internet sites. Could you explain why you think that your ideas are better than their data?

Do archeologist know exactly how many hamlets and big cities the Hopewell had. If the Hopewell had tens of thousands of hamlets/villages with big cities then it fits the Book of Mormon narrative. I personally think archeologist have no clue how big the Hopewell populations were. The majority of Hopewell are were existing farms are today. If archeologist were smart they would use the Book of Mormon as a guide to study the Hopewell

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Could you explain why you think that your ideas are better than their data?

Simple.  He has a map.

[sam]

57 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Simple.  He has a map.

Because the book of Mormon is a historical record that in my opinion happened in North America and the Nephites are Hopewell

[cdowis]

2 minutes ago, sam said:

Because the book of Mormon is a historical record that in my opinion happened in North America and the Nephites are Hopewell

Hey, I may disagree with you, but I am on your side.  You obviously spent alot of time and effort on your map, and I admire your dedication.

But it does seem to cover a great deal of territory that seems to contradict the narrative.  But that's just me.

[Mark Parker]

You may be interested in the waters of Ripliancum, interpreted it means; is large, or to exceed all. And describes waters.

What if they are referring to the ocean or sea where it is the largest? Where the largest body of water is found?

In Mesoamerica that's off the top of Yucatan.

Coastal sailors would need to be aware of it and be cautious as they navigated along the coast. On the gulf coast the land curves into the sea and if you lost sight of it you could easily find it again.

But at the top of Yucatan there is much more water and less land as the land curves away and would be harder to find if you lost sight of it. And maybe they gave that geographical location that distinctive name.

[2BizE]

On 8/23/2016 at 4:48 PM, sam said:

Based on a simple interpretation of verses in the Book of Mormon there is an excellent chance we can know the exact location of the waters of ripliancum. Based on the simple idea that Mormon hid the golden found exactly where it was revealed to Joseph Smith we can know with good assurance where these waters or should I say waterfall is located.

 

Ether 15:8-11

In the last battles of the Jaredites Shiz and Coriantumr armies are battling. After one particular the armies make camp next to the water of Ripliancum.

8 And it came to pass that he came to the waters of Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all; wherefore, when they came to these waters they pitched their tents; and Shiz also pitched his tents near unto them; and therefore on the morrow they did come to battle.

The waters of ripliancum is not described as a sea or body of water or even a river. But we know that the waters are large or in this description it exceeds all in size. If it was a body of water that would have been made known.

9 And it came to pass that they fought an exceedingly sore battle, in which Coriantumr was wounded again, and he fainted with the loss of blood.

The armies battle again.

10 And it came to pass that the armies of Coriantumr did press upon the armies of Shiz that they beat them, that they caused them to flee before them; and they did flee southward, and did pitch their tents in a place which was called Ogath.

Coriantumr causes the armies of Shiz to flee or retreat. Shiz’s Armies flee southward. But it does not state in which direction the Armies of Coriantumr flee or for how long they retreated for but it does state in the next verse when they did pitch their tents and the following verse states they did gather all the people in the land.

11 And it came to pass that the army of Coriantumr did pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was that same hill where my father Mormon did up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred.

12 And it came to pass that they did gather together all the people upon all the face of the land, who had not been slain, save it was Ether.

Assuming that Mormon did hide up the records at the Hill Cumorah (and there is no reason not think otherwise) then the Waters of Ripliancum could be nothing other than the Niagara Falls. Its approximately 70 miles from Niagara fall to the Hill Cumorah. Niagara Falls is the largest waterfall in the world in terms of water flow. Its an impressive site mentioned in the Book of Mormon as large or to exceed all.

Interesting.  I always thought it was Lake Okeechobee.

[rodheadlee]

The largest body of water is the Pacific Ocean. 

[Mark Parker]

"Based on the simple idea that Mormon hid the golden (plates)found exactly where it was revealed to Joseph Smith we can know with good assurance where these waters or should I say waterfall is located."

The trouble with that statement is why church Authorities state it has not yet been revealed. Mormon hid the main Nephite records in a hill north of Zarahemla, called Cumorah. He gave to his son Moroni a small number of plates that would be later translated by Joseph as the Book of Mormon. Centuries later Moroni instructed Joseph and allowed him to obtain the plates. Joseph took them from a stone box on the side of a New York hill which is clearly known. It now goes by the name Cumorah, but we have no way of telling if it was the same as Mormon's hill Cumorah. Why the GA's statement on geography.

Ripliancum is described as waters off. It's something described with insufficient detail to be able to more than have a theory about. A guess about what and where it may be, whatever it's based on. Hopefully in the future more detail will be given and we will see which theories, if any, were actually close.

Knowing precisely that the book is true has been provided to us, so the question of such riddles are intriguing. For me taking a guess as to what and where Ripliancum is is an interesting exercise and working out a theory based on perceived evidence is fine, but until more is known, it remains simply an interesting theory to consider. 

I do not think it's the Pacific as I imagine the Atlantic looked as big to them. I think it was reginal and as the hill, identifiable with a regional location. Why I don't think there are nearby mountains to Mormon's hill Cumorah, mountains would be visible from further, I think the hill Cumorah will be prominent in the landscape as a land mark. Because in some passages it is mentioned that way.