Jump to content

Would the Lds Church Be Interest in Researching the Masaya Nicaragua Area for Bom Related Antiques


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but mostly through continuity.  Hamblin: "{W}ithout the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located."

To be sure, he said this in 1993.  How much has changed since then?

Well, that's true, but your comment is more of the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument.  When in fact, as a lawyer, you know that a negative can be proven by showing that something has not been observed.

I realize the difficulty in language.  But if Book of Mormon civilizations really did exist in Central America, we see large scale proof of chariots, horses, swords, breastplates and writings.   

Link to post
7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Whoa there, let's break this down.

Okay.

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I propose a Book of Mormon geography that fits squarely in history.

Honestly, I haven't been paying much attention to your proposal.  I have taken the proposed setting in Malaysia as an unserious idea.

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Despite the evidence, its a struggle to be recognized because Hamblin and others must dismiss the requirement to even produce evidence of steel swords.

I think the "struggle to be recognized" arises from you putting the Book of Mormon events in Malaysia.  I've been taking that as an an out-of-the-chute indicator of unseriousness.  You seemed to invite this assessment when you characterized your model as "absurd."  Also consider what Robert said: "Now, of course, Rajah is not saying that Malaysia is the land of the BofM.  He is merely demonstrating that it fits remarkably well."  And then there was this comment by Clark Goble

Quote

The part I'm confused about with Rajah's model is I can't quite understand whether he thinks it was information about these populations that led to a fictional original source for the Book of Mormon or he thinks that's where a real Moroni came from. I often get the impression he's pushing a fictional model, particularly with comments about Joseph's distant uncle at Dartmouth. Yet at other times it sounds like he thinks it's authentic in some sense and that just the early Mormon beliefs (including Joseph's) about the origin of the Book of Mormon are wrong. That is that there were authentic plates. In this thread he seems to suggest that an actual Moroni gave them to him but I'm then really confused about the relevance of Dartmouth.

And here:

Quote

I think the issue for the believer (here ignoring inspirational fiction models) is latterday scripture in the D&C such as section 28 or 57. This seems incongruitous with the Thailand model. Now one can argue the "fuzziness" of revelation and how ones assumptions color it as God speaks to us in our weakness. And of course the heartland model proponents point to these same scriptures to argue for a northeast location for the Book of Mormon given the New Jerusalem and references to Lamanites. However I think that can be reconciled with mesoamerica due to groups moving around the Americas via well known trade routes. Thailand involves far more problems than merely getting Moroni from there to America. It requires rejecting straightforward readings of many D&C prophecies.

I know trade routes and how it affects genetics is still controversial. There are rather heated archaeological debates just over mayan influences on Florida. At minimum though we know the Aztec Pochteca were traveling long distances. While Mayan or Aztec contact with the Hopewell or subsequent groups is still quite controversial, it's at least reasonably plausible. The Hopewell proper (ending around 400 AD) certainly had wide trade routes.

So there's a rather plausible explanation for D&C references to native Americas in New York through Ohio as Lamanites. I'm not sure there is for Thailand.

In this thread, you stated:

Quote
Quote

The Church endorses nowhere, except somewhere in the America's. 

The Church endorses nowhere, period.

But that's not quite so.  See here (emphasis added) :

Quote

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon —with the exception of the events in the Near East —occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.

If, as Robert states (and, AFAIK, you have not disputed), that you are "not saying that Malaysia is the land of the BofM," then I'm just not that interested in exploring the model.  In addition to be purely speculative (per Robert's characterization), exceedingly farfetched ("absurd," as you put it), it also has substantial threshold problems such as those pointed out by Clark above, and contradicting the Church's essay, and contradicting JS-H 1:34.

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Book of Mormon artifacts like steel swords, and things like horses and elephants, are distinct enough to be identified. The problematic assumptions are not mine.

The problematic assumptions remain.  I think you are expecting too much from evidence available through Mesoamerican archaeology.  The chances of a very small number of steel swords manufactured by Nephi surviving 2,600 years seem quite low.  The sheer passage of time.  The climate.  The location.  The paucity of archaeological examination of Mesoamerica.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seemed to invite this assessment when you characterized your model as "absurd." 

Absurd and ridiculous. Yet it fits. And that's what makes it so preposterous.

Quote

The Church endorses nowhere, period.

I posted that in December of 2016. The church statement you are referencing was made in January 2019.

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If, as Robert states (and, AFAIK, you have not disputed), that you are "not saying that Malaysia is the land of the BofM," then I'm just not that interested in exploring the model

Robert misunderstood. I am saying the author(s) of the Book of Mormon were describing the geography of the Malay Peninsula. There's no other way to explain the perfect fit of the internal map of the Book of Mormon and the geography of the Malay Peninsula

Quote

The problematic assumptions remain. I think you are expecting too much from evidence available through Mesoamerican archaeology.

Its not too much to expect that if the text describes elephants, horses, chariots, cows, scimatars, pigs, breastplates, iron swords, goats, silk, histories etched on golden plates etc. that there should be evidence of these easily identifiable objects. 

If there is no evidence of these things, its likely your model is wrong.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to post
38 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, that's true, but your comment is more of the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument.  When in fact, as a lawyer, you know that a negative can be proven by showing that something has not been observed.

I don't think that's an apt approach when discussing Mesoamerican archaeology.

38 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I realize the difficulty in language.  But if Book of Mormon civilizations really did exist in Central America, we see large scale proof of chariots, horses, swords, breastplates and writings.   

I'm not sure about that.  Again, lots of assumptions are built into this.  What are the "chariots" referenced in the Book of Mormon?  A la Ben Hur?  Or could it be something as different from our assumptions/expectations as a sedan chair?

Horses?  That's been addressed a lot.  See, e.g., John Sorenson's open letter to Michael Coe:

Quote

The question of the presence of the horse in civilized Mesoamerica further illustrates the problem of what is “adequate” archaeological sampling and documentation. C. E. Ray’s report ((C. E. Ray, “Pre-Columbian horses from Yucatan,” Journal of Mammalogy 38 (1957): 278.))  of finding horse bones in deep layers of the water hole at Mayapan (Yucatan) raised anew an issue that Mercer ((Henry C. Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man’s Antiquity in the Caverns of Central America (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1896), 172.))  and Hatt ((Robert T. Hatt, “Faunal and Archaeological Researches in Yucatan Caves,” Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bulletin 33 (1953).))  had earlier noted with their finds of horse bones in Yucatan caves. The matter was compounded by Peter Schmidt’s 1988 work in Loltun Cave that found horse bones scattered through a number of layers of early pottery-bearing debris. He observed, “Something went on here that is still difficult to explain.” ((Peter J. Schmidt, “La entrada del hombre a la peninsula de Yucatan,” in Origines del Hombre Americano, comp. Alba Gonzalez Jacome (Mexico: Secretaria de Educación Publica, 1988), 250.)) (Interestingly, he was not aware of Ray’s finds.) There are also further evidences for pre-AD 1500 dates of other horse bones (including three radiocarbon-dated finds from North America). ((Wade E. Miller, Science and the Book of Mormon: Cureloms, Cumoms, Horses and More. (Laguna Niguel, CA: KCT Associates, 2009), 75–78.)) This, like the metals, is an “unfinished” archaeological story, in this case defying the dictum that “there were no horses” for the last ten thousand years in America. Simultaneously it shows the limits of the data revealed by excavations about which so much is said.

Another possibility is that some other species was counted as a horse. For example, upon seeing Spanish horses, the Aztecs referred to them as “the deer that people ride,” and there are artistic representations of riders-on-deer. So what is a “horse”? ((See the discussion in Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, 293–97.))

Swords?  Again, that's been addressed a lot.  

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
28 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I posted that in December of 2016. The church statement you are referencing was made in January 2019.

  

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

My earlier comment was true in December 2016 since the Church put out that statement on January 2019. 

JS-H 1:34 was published well before December 2016.

See also here:

Quote

The Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ and confirms the truths found in the Holy Bible. While the Bible details events in the Eastern Hemisphere, the Book of Mormon documents the lives of some of the inhabitants of the ancient Americas. 

And here:

Quote

The Book of Mormon came forth in this dispensation by the will of the Lord. It is a record of God’s dealings with the people who lived in the ancient Americas. 

And here:

Quote

Jesus Visited the Americas

Illustrations by Apryl Stott

And here:

Quote

After His Resurrection, the Savior came to the Americas and taught the Nephites the same ordinance (see 3 Nephi 18:1–11; 20:1–9).

And here:

Quote

As part of the Restoration of the gospel, God brought forth the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. By the power of God, Joseph Smith translated this book from an ancient record written on gold plates. The Book of Mormon is “a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel” (introduction to the Book of Mormon).

And here:

Quote

The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is a sacred record of some of the people who lived on the American continents between about 2000 B.C. and A.D. 400. It contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (see D&C 20:9; 42:12; 135:3). The Book of Mormon tells of the visit Jesus Christ made to the people in the Americas soon after His Resurrection.

And here:

Quote

The Book of Mormon … testifies of Him who was born in Bethlehem of Judea and who died on the hill of Calvary. To a world wavering in its faith, the Book of Mormon is another and powerful witness of the divinity of the Lord. Its very preface, written by a prophet who walked the Americas a millennium and a half ago...

And here:

Quote

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It contains a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. It is another testament of Jesus Christ.

And here:

Quote

The Book of Mormon tells of the resurrected Lord visiting some of the people of the Americas.

And here:

Quote

Truly the people of Mexico and other Latin American countries are among the descendants of prophets. The Book of Mormon is their inheritance. Jesus Christ did minister unto their fathers.

After His Resurrection, Jesus Christ descended out of heaven, clothed in a white robe, and stood in the midst of their ancestors here in the Americas. He stretched forth His hand and said: “Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

“… I am the light and the life of the world.”

And here:

Quote

The Book of Mormon will encourage only righteousness. Why, then, has hostility been engendered against the book? In part, no doubt, it may have come because the origin of the book was from golden plates delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel. These were seen and handled by selected witnesses, but not put on public display. Perhaps it is also because it is claimed primarily to be the work of ancient prophets here on the American continent.

And many, many more.

28 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Robert misunderstood. I am saying the author(s) of the Book of Mormon were describing the geography of the Malay Peninsula. There's no other way to explain the perfect fit of the internal map of the Book of Mormon and the geography of the Malay Peninsula

As you like.  I find the threshold issues with the theory insurmountable, such that I'm not particularly interested in examining it further.

28 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Its not too much to expect that if the text describes elephants, horses, chariots, cows, scimatars, pigs, breastplates, iron swords, goats, silk, histories etched on golden plates etc. that there should be evidence of these easily identifiable objects. 

Alas, you are demonstrating my point (actually, Hamblin's - I'm just cribbing from him).

These discussions seldom focus on the subject matter, and instead end up being more about the assumptions and expectations we bring with us to the table.  Your statement above is a good example of that.

28 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If there is no evidence of these things, its likely your model is wrong.

That's way too facile for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  I find the threshold issues with the theory insurmountable, such that I'm not particularly interested in examining it further.

Exactly the kind of comment you might hear from a critic of the claims that the Book of Mormon is a historical account set in Mesoamerica. Its always disappointing to hear, especially from those who in the next breath wonder why academics don't give Sorenson a shot.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Alas, you are demonstrating my point (actually, Hamblin's - I'm just cribbing from him).

These discussions seldom focus on the subject matter, and instead end up being more about the assumptions and expectations we bring with us to the table.  Your statement above is a good example of that.

What subject matter would you like to focus on? Would you like to rehash that argument that we don't know what a Nephite elephant might look like, so there should be no expectation that elephants be found. Or that a Nephite horse might not be a horse. Is it so unreasonable that my expectation is that a Nephite horse looks like a horse? Can you see why non-Mormons stop reading these Book of Mormon geography books after the first page?

What I can't understand is that you quickly dismiss a model -- without even reviewing it -- that provides evidence of all the above (eg. real elephants, horses, chariots, swords, pigs, golden plates, silk) because your threshold issues won't allow for anything outside of Mesoamerica.

Link to post
48 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Its not too much to expect that if the text describes elephants, horses, chariots, cows, scimatars, pigs, breastplates, iron swords, goats, silk, histories etched on golden plates etc. that there should be evidence of these easily identifiable objects. 

If there is no evidence of these things, its likely your model is wrong.

It seems like the same could be said of JSH 1:34.  If your model does not fit JSH 1:34, it's likely your model is wrong.

Link to post
1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

It seems like the same could be said of JSH 1:34.  If your model does not fit JSH 1:34, it's likely your model is wrong.

JSH 1:34 was not a part of the Book of Mormon. JSH 1:34 was not etched into the Golden Plates.

Link to post
20 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

JSH 1:34 was not a part of the Book of Mormon. JSH 1:34 was not etched into the Golden Plates.

It's not, but it is accepted as scripture by the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It reports statements made to the prophet Joseph Smith by a Nephite, Moroni. 

How do you get past the point that Moroni seemed to believe that the Nephites lived in North America?

Link to post
56 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It's not, but it is accepted as scripture by the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It reports statements made to the prophet Joseph Smith by a Nephite, Moroni. 

How do you get past the point that Moroni seemed to believe that the Nephites lived in North America?

In the earliest version of the JS-H, the angel was identified as Maroni, and Maroni didn't comment on geography.

"I was seventeen years of age I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me and it was by night and he called me by name and he said the Lord had forgiven me my sins and he revealed unto me that in the Town of Manchester Ontario County N.Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers the servants of the living God in ancient days and deposited by th[e] commandments of God and kept by the power thereof and that I should go and get them and he revealed unto me many things concerning the inhabitents of of the earth which since have been revealed in commandments & revelations and it was on the 22d day of Sept. AD 1822 and thus he appeared unto me three times in one night and once on the next day and then I immediately went to the place and found where the plates was deposited as the angel of the Lord had commanded me" (source)

I've responded to this question a few times before so I won't go into detail, but the short answer is that Maroni was a warrior in Malay folklore. He was a founding figure in the geography I have proposed as the setting of the Book of Mormon.

If anyone can find earlier references to Maroni describing the Book of Mormon as an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent, I would appreciate it. I'm limited to what I can find in the Joseph Smith Papers.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:
Quote

As you like.  I find the threshold issues with the theory insurmountable, such that I'm not particularly interested in examining it further.

Exactly the kind of comment you might hear from a critic of the claims that the Book of Mormon is a historical account set in Mesoamerica.

I don't know about that.  I've read a bit on the Heartland model, even though I don't subscribe to it.  And I've read tons of explanations of naturalistic explanations.

It's not that I'm closed-minded.  JS-H 1:34 has a preclusive effect for me as to your theory.  It seems like an unserious effort in the first instance, such that I'm not really inclined to peruse it in the second.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Its always disappointing to hear, especially from those who in the next breath wonder why academics don't give Sorenson a shot.

I'm not an academic, though.

I'm open to various theories about the Book of Mormon, even yours in a de minimis sense.  But I've no particular interest in evaluating it since its threshold issues (particularly JS-H 1:34) are so manifest.  

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:
Quote

Alas, you are demonstrating my point (actually, Hamblin's - I'm just cribbing from him).

These discussions seldom focus on the subject matter, and instead end up being more about the assumptions and expectations we bring with us to the table.  Your statement above is a good example of that.

What subject matter would you like to focus on?

Mesoamerican archaeology and the scope of its impact in evaluations of BOM geography.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Would you like to rehash that argument that we don't know what a Nephite elephant might look like, so there should be no expectation that elephants be found.

We've never had such an argument.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Or that a Nephite horse might not be a horse.

We've never had that argument, either.  But sure, I'm game if you are.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Is it so unreasonable that my expectation is that a Nephite horse looks like a horse?

Definitively?  Yes.  Generally?  No.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Can you see why non-Mormons stop reading these Book of Mormon geography books after the first page?

I'm not sure what books you are referencing here.  But you arguing for the BOM as having taken place in Malaysia seems way too speculative and unserious.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

What I can't understand is that you quickly dismiss a model -- without even reviewing it -- that provides evidence of all the above (eg. real elephants, horses, chariots, swords, pigs, golden plates, silk) because your threshold issues won't allow for anything outside of Mesoamerica.

The "threshold issues" aren't mine.  And they aren't preclusive of "anything outside of Mesoamerica."

I didn't write JS-H 1:34.  I didn't quote Moroni speaking of the Plates as "giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

But oh, well.  You've managed to pique my curiousity.  How do you reconcile your theory with JS-H 1:34?  Is your theory that

  1. The Jaredites traveled to Malaysia, not the Americas;
  2. Lehi's party landed in Malaysia, not the Americas;
  3. The Mulekites landed in Malaysia, not the Americas;
  4. All of the events described in the Book of Mormon took place in Malaysia, not the Americas
  5. Moroni somehow traveled from Malaysia to (what is now known as) New York State and buried the plates there,
  6. "The former inhabitants of this continent" in JS-H 1:34 refers to the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites while they were living in Malaysia, not the Americas, and
  7. "{T}he source from whence they {the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites} sprang" in JS-H 1:34 refers, at least in part, to them spending centuries in Malaysia?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

In the earliest version of the JS-H, the angel was identified as Maroni, and Maroni didn't comment on geography.

"I was seventeen years of age I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me and it was by night and he called me by name and he said the Lord had forgiven me my sins and he revealed unto me that in the Town of Manchester Ontario County N.Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers the servants of the living God in ancient days and deposited by th[e] commandments of God and kept by the power thereof and that I should go and get them and he revealed unto me many things concerning the inhabitents of of the earth which since have been revealed in commandments & revelations and it was on the 22d day of Sept. AD 1822 and thus he appeared unto me three times in one night and once on the next day and then I immediately went to the place and found where the plates was deposited as the angel of the Lord had commanded me" (source)

I've responded to this question a few times before so I won't go into detail, but the short answer is that Maroni was a warrior in Malay folklore. He was a founding figure in the geography I have proposed as the setting of the Book of Mormon.

If anyone can find earlier references to Maroni describing the Book of Mormon as an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent, I would appreciate it. I'm limited to what I can find in the Joseph Smith Papers.

Spelling has never been as consistent as it is today.  I don't think a change of one vowel can be seen as conclusive of anything.  Plenty of other Book of Mormon names were spelled inconsistently.

Are you saying that no mention of "this continent" in the earliest version means that a later version using those words was false? 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

In the earliest version of the JS-H, the angel was identified as Maroni, and Maroni didn't comment on geography.

"I was seventeen years of age I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me and it was by night and he called me by name and he said the Lord had forgiven me my sins and he revealed unto me that in the Town of Manchester Ontario County N.Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers the servants of the living God in ancient days and deposited by th[e] commandments of God and kept by the power thereof and that I should go and get them and he revealed unto me many things concerning the inhabitents of of the earth which since have been revealed in commandments & revelations and it was on the 22d day of Sept. AD 1822 and thus he appeared unto me three times in one night and once on the next day and then I immediately went to the place and found where the plates was deposited as the angel of the Lord had commanded me" (source)

I've responded to this question a few times before so I won't go into detail, but the short answer is that Maroni was a warrior in Malay folklore. He was a founding figure in the geography I have proposed as the setting of the Book of Mormon.

If anyone can find earlier references to Maroni describing the Book of Mormon as an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent, I would appreciate it. I'm limited to what I can find in the Joseph Smith Papers.

I don't understand.  Are you rejecting JS-H 1:34 as published by the Church?  Are you claiming it was falsified or fabricated?  That it is not attributable to Joseph Smith?

Brant Gardner seems to have gone further than anyone else in examining the Malay theory.  His conclusion seems worth mentioning:

Quote

With the categories I use as the framework for the methodology of convergences, I now turn to evaluating Olsen’s Malay Hypothesis against that methodology.

Geospatial Convergences: Olsen’s model matches the text with geography in gross features. It is oriented according to western conventions of north, south, east and west. It is nearly surrounded by water. It has seas on the west and east. These are the only times the model converges with the text. The convergences are so general that they cannot make a distinction between the Malay Peninsula and the South American continent.

When the model must deal with specifics of distance, it fails. In particular, the Bountiful location is improperly placed to meet the textual requirements as a guardian of the narrow neck into the land northward. Olsen’s model has the land northward occupying an enormous amount of land (since he implies that Burma and Thailand are also part of the land northward). This leaves only a very small geography into which all of the more numerous Lamanites must fit.

Olsen’s suggestion that volcanism lies behind the 3 Nephi descriptions is accepted by knowledgeable scholars. ((Bart J. Kowallis, “In the Thirty and Fourth Year: A Geologist’s View of the Great Destruction in 3 Nephi,” BYU Studies 37, no. 3 (1997–98): 145, and Isaac B. Ball, “Additional Internal Evidence for the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon,” Improvement Era, May 1931, on GospeLink 2001, CD-ROM (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000).)) However, he cannot locate active volcanoes in sufficient proximity in time or space to fit with the texts descriptions. The Malay Hypothesis fails the geospatial convergence tests.

Chronological Convergences: Olsen does not explicitly deal with chronology, which disguises one of the most important conflicts with historical data. The Karen people that Olsen suggests as support for his model come too late to have been part of the Book of Mormon. Olsen’s model fails the chronological convergence tests.

Cultural Convergences: Olsen provides much more information in the category of cultural convergences. His model provides a convergence with cultural data with metallurgy, specific animals and specific grains.

Other attempts at cultural convergence are not solid enough to provide any confirmation of the hypothesis: Jewish affinities, metal plates, Fruits, silk, place names and Polynesian origins.

The only possible convergences, those dealing with metals and flora and fauna, do not pinpoint any particular civilization or time. While the few cultural convergences that are presented work they are not strong enough to overcome the failure of the model on other tests.

Productive Convergences: Olsen lists none, and the model doesn’t supply enough information to judge if there would be any.

Contrary Data Must be Accounted For: Olsen makes no attempt to account for contrary data. Unfortunately, some of the data he presents to support the model are actually counter-indications.

The result of a careful analysis of the Malay Hypothesis finds nothing more than general connections to the Book of Mormon texts, with significant counter-indications. The application of the methodology of convergences demonstrates its ability to falsify a hypothesis. This suggests that when we use the same methodology with the same rigor and find acceptable convergences that they arise from the data and not solely for a preconceived desire to find them.

Like Olsen, you don't seem to be accounting for "contrary data" when it comes to JS-H 1:34.  That is, you account for it by dismissing it as impliedly spurious, though it seems more likely that you dismiss it because it fundamentally undermines your theory.

Look, I have no qualms with speculation.  I just hope you haven't let this become a "gospel hobby horse," a fixation that distracts from far more important and worthy areas of study and effort.

THanks,

-Smac

Link to post
27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:
Quote

In the earliest version of the JS-H, the angel was identified as Maroni, and Maroni didn't comment on geography.

"I was seventeen years of age I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me and it was by night and he called me by name and he said the Lord had forgiven me my sins and he revealed unto me that in the Town of Manchester Ontario County N.Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers the servants of the living God in ancient days and deposited by th[e] commandments of God and kept by the power thereof and that I should go and get them and he revealed unto me many things concerning the inhabitents of of the earth which since have been revealed in commandments & revelations and it was on the 22d day of Sept. AD 1822 and thus he appeared unto me three times in one night and once on the next day and then I immediately went to the place and found where the plates was deposited as the angel of the Lord had commanded me" (source)

I've responded to this question a few times before so I won't go into detail, but the short answer is that Maroni was a warrior in Malay folklore. He was a founding figure in the geography I have proposed as the setting of the Book of Mormon.

If anyone can find earlier references to Maroni describing the Book of Mormon as an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent, I would appreciate it. I'm limited to what I can find in the Joseph Smith Papers.

Spelling has never been as consistent as it is today.  I don't think a change of one vowel can be seen as conclusive of anything.  Plenty of other Book of Mormon names were spelled inconsistently.

Indeed, Rajah's link about "Maroni" gives a spelling of "Merong" with "Maroni" being an alternative.

Quote

Are you saying that no mention of "this continent" in the earliest version means that a later version using those words was false? 

The link provided by Rajah dates to a statement from "circa Summer 1832."  JS-H 1:34 appeared in published form in April 1842, but also in August 1838

See also here:

Quote

Joseph also reflected on what is called the “Wentworth letter,” written in 1842. Joseph also reported that the angel “informed [him] concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments. . . . I was told where there was deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgement of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continents.” Joseph Smith, “Latter Day Saints,” in JSP, H1: 509. Lucy Smith also wrote in her history that Joseph would “describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent their dress their manner of traveling the animals which they rode,” etc., but not the language of the plates. Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–45, book 3.

So it looks like Joseph referred to the Americas in the August 1838 account ("giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent"), in the April 1842 account ("giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent") and the 1842 Wentworth Letter ("I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent" ... "This book also tells us that our Savior made His appearance upon this continent after His Resurrection").

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: "The tenth article of faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1842, declares that the New Jerusalem will be built upon the American continent."  (Encyclopedia of Mormonism)  Joseph learned of this "as he translated the Book of Mormon (3 Ne. 20:22; Ether 13:2-6)."  (Id.)

Nephi 20:22 states quotes the resurrected Savior as declaring: "And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you."

Rajah, how do you reconcile this with your theory?  The Book of Mormon has Jesus saying that he "will {} establish in this land ... a New Jerusalem," which Joseph Smith in AoF 1:10 states "will be built upon the American continent."  If Jesus was in Malaysia when he was quoted in 3 Nephi, why will the "New Jerusalem" not be built there?

Ether 13:2-6 states (emphases added) :

Quote

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;
3 And that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord.
4 Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land.
5 And he spake also concerning the house of Israel, and the Jerusalem from whence Lehi should come—after it should be destroyed it should be built up again, a holy city unto the Lord; wherefore, it could not be a new Jerusalem for it had been in a time of old; but it should be built up again, and become a holy city of the Lord; and it should be built unto the house of Israel—
6 And that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for which things there has been a type.

Same question as above, Rajah.  How do you reconcile your theory with Ether 13 and AoF 1:10?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I didn't write JS-H 1:34.  I didn't quote Moroni speaking of the Plates as "giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

Who did write it, and when? I honestly can't find an answer to those two questions. The first reference I can find to the visit of Maroni was in 1832 and there's no mention of geography or the location of the Book of Mormon setting. By the way, Maroni is the name given to a warrior in Malay folklore, a founding figure in the Land of Zarahemla in the geography I propose. 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But oh, well.  You've managed to pique my curiousity.  How do you reconcile your theory with JS-H 1:34?  Is your theory that

  1. The Jaredites traveled to Malaysia, not the Americas;
  2. Lehi's party landed in Malaysia, not the Americas;
  3. The Mulekites landed in Malaysia, not the Americas;
  4. All of the events described in the Book of Mormon took place in Malaysia, not the Americas
  5. Moroni somehow traveled from Malaysia to (what is now known as) New York State and buried the plates there,
  6. "The former inhabitants of this continent" in JS-H 1:34 refers to the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites while they were living in Malaysia, not the Americas, and
  7. "{T}he source from whence they {the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites} sprang" in JS-H 1:34 refers, at least in part, to them spending centuries in Malaysia?

No need to reconcile, it says clearly that the Book of Mormon is an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent and the source from whence they sprang. Native Americans came from Asia, not Jerusalem. Maroni's comment as recorded in JS-H is historically accurate and conforms with the model I propose. 

The Jaredites traveled to Malaysia, not the Americas: In this model, yes. They were known as the Camarini in Roman and Greek texts and the Kumr in Arabic texts. According to the Arabic geogrphies, around the time of the tower, they sailed to the Malay Peninsula in boats modelled after Noah's Ark. Its verisimilar. 

Lehi's party landed in Malaysia, not the Americas: In this model, yes. The Malay Peninsula was a natural barrier that could not be traversed in 580 BC. The Lehites would have had no options but to land on the Malay Peninsula. It was a wall in their path that could not be bypassed. There's no evidence that anybody managed to sail beyond the Malay Peninsula before the 2nd century BC. This is a significant challenge to the Heartland and Mesoamerican models. 

The Mulekites landed in Malaysia, not the Americas: Like Lehi, Muloch -- as he was known in the original manuscript -- would have not been able to navigate beyond the Malay Peninsula. There is no evidence of Trans-Pacific migrations before Columbus in 1492. How do you reconcile this with your theory? It's hard to take it seriously. However, in the model I propose a group from the Near East arrives in the nothern portion of the Malay Peninsula bearing Mediterranean and South Asian pottery and artifacts. The founder of this group was named Mola and the city Mola founded was in the middle of the Peninsula next to a river that runs north. That city had walls and was called Sra.

All of the events described in the Book of Mormon took place in Malaysia, not the Americas: In this model yes, but to clarify the peninsula was known as Ramah and Kamara at the time and it was commonly though that this peninsula was inhabited by Rechabites. Nibley proposes that the Lehites were Rechabites.

Moroni somehow traveled from Malaysia to (what is now known as) New York State and buried the plates there: I don't know, its not a story found in the text of the Book of Mormon. Anything could be possible if we speculate hard enough and it gets us nowhere. For example, we could speculate that Zelph the White Lamanite carried the plates from Malaysia to New York. Ridiculous isn't it? Speculation on events outside the Book of Mormon is pointless.

"The former inhabitants of this continent" in JS-H 1:34 refers to the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites while they were living in Malaysia, not the Americas, and "The source from whence they {the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites} sprang" in JS-H 1:34 refers, at least in part, to them spending centuries in Malaysia?

Yes, the former inhabitants of the American continent came from Asia. There's no evidence that they came from Jerusalem. There's also no evidence for elephants, chariots, horses, iron, swords, scimitars, pigs, goats, silk etc. All these things are found in abundance on the Malay Peninsula. There are no anachronisms in the Malay model and the geography matches the internal map of the Book of Mormon.

Link to post
35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Spelling has never been as consistent as it is today.  I don't think a change of one vowel can be seen as conclusive of anything.  Plenty of other Book of Mormon names were spelled inconsistently.

Are you saying that no mention of "this continent" in the earliest version means that a later version using those words was false? 

No, I've already explained. JS-H says clearly that the Book of Mormon is an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent and the source from whence they sprang. Native Americans came from Asia, not Jerusalem. Maroni's comment as recorded in JS-H is historically accurate and conforms with the model I propose. 

Link to post
Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

Who did write it, and when? I honestly can't find an answer to those two questions.

So now your disputing the authenticity of JS-H?  And the published accounts in August 1838 and April 1842?  And the 1842 Wentworth Letter?

I'm sensing a problem here.  You can only shore up your theory by ignoring or unjustifiably disputing contrary evidence.

Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

No need to reconcile, it says clearly that the Book of Mormon is an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent and the source from whence they sprang. Native Americans came from Asia, not Jerusalem. 

This is way too facile for me.

Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

Maroni's comment as recorded in JS-H is historically accurate and conforms with the model I propose. 

No, it don't think it does.

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your theory of AoF 1:10, 3 Nephi 20:22 and Ether 13:2-6.  If your theory holds, why is "New Jerusalem" to be built on the American continent, rather than in Malaysia?

Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

The Jaredites traveled to Malaysia, not the Americas: In this model, yes. They were known as the Camarini in Roman and Greek texts and the Kumr in Arabic texts. According to the Arabic geogrphies, around the time of the tower, they sailed to the Malay Peninsula in boats modelled after Noah's Ark. Its verisimilar. 

Lehi's party landed in Malaysia, not the Americas: In this model, yes. The Malay Peninsula was a natural barrier that could not be traversed in 580 BC. The Lehites would have had no options but to land on the Malay Peninsula. It was a wall in their path that could not be bypassed. There's no evidence that anybody managed to sail beyond the Malay Peninsula before the 2nd century BC. This is a significant challenge to the Heartland and Mesoamerican models. 

The Mulekites landed in Malaysia, not the Americas: Like Lehi, Muloch -- as he was known in the original manuscript -- would have not been able to navigate beyond the Malay Peninsula. There is no evidence of Trans-Pacific migrations before Columbus in 1492. How do you reconcile this with your theory? It's hard to take it seriously. However, in the model I propose a group from the Near East arrives in the nothern portion of the Malay Peninsula bearing Mediterranean and South Asian pottery and artifacts. The founder of this group was named Mola and the city Mola founded was in the middle of the Peninsula next to a river that runs north. That city had walls and was called Sra.

All of the events described in the Book of Mormon took place in Malaysia, not the Americas: In this model yes, but to clarify the peninsula was known as Ramah and Kamara at the time and it was commonly though that this peninsula was inhabited by Rechabites. Nibley proposes that the Lehites were Rechabites.

Moroni somehow traveled from Malaysia to (what is now known as) New York State and buried the plates there: I don't know, its not a story found in the text of the Book of Mormon. Anything could be possible if we speculate hard enough and it gets us nowhere. For example, we could speculate that Zelph the White Lamanite carried the plates from Malaysia to New York. Ridiculous isn't it? Speculation on events outside the Book of Mormon is pointless.

"The former inhabitants of this continent" in JS-H 1:34 refers to the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites while they were living in Malaysia, not the Americas, and "The source from whence they {the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites} sprang" in JS-H 1:34 refers, at least in part, to them spending centuries in Malaysia?

Yes, the former inhabitants of the American continent came from Asia. There's no evidence that they came from Jerusalem. There's also no evidence for elephants, chariots, horses, iron, swords, scimitars, pigs, goats, silk etc. All these things are found in abundance on the Malay Peninsula. There are no anachronisms in the Malay model and the geography matches the internal map of the Book of Mormon.

Well, okay.  This seems might ad hoc to me.  And incompatible with the position of the Church, with JS-H 1:34, with Joseph's published accounts in August 1838 and April 1842 and the 1842 Wentworth Letter, and with AoF 1:10 and 3 Nephi 20:22 Ether 13:2-6.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you rejecting JS-H 1:34 as published by the Church?  Are you claiming it was falsified or fabricated?  That it is not attributable to Joseph Smith?

Already answered, like four times now.

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Brant Gardner seems to have gone further than anyone else in examining the Malay theory.  His conclusion seems worth mentioning:

@Brant Gardner has acknowledged that the model I propose resolves many of the problems in Olsen's model. I would argue that it resolves all of them, but I need to have that discussion with Brother Gardner first.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Like Olsen, you don't seem to be accounting for "contrary data" when it comes to JS-H 1:34.  That is, you account for it by dismissing it as impliedly spurious, though it seems more likely that you dismiss it because it fundamentally undermines your theory.

Already answered. JS-H 1:34 fits the Malay model better than it fits the Heartland or Mesoamerican models. Native Americans sprang from Asia, not from Jerusalem.

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I just hope you haven't let this become a "gospel hobby horse," a fixation that distracts from far more important and worthy areas of study and effort.

True, if I don't check myself, I might end up writing 500 page books or organizing annual conferences where I can sell my Book of Mormon land tours.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 Maroni's comment as recorded in JS-H is historically accurate and conforms with the model I propose. 

 

I don't see the agreement.  You seem to be saying that Book of Mormon events took place both in Malaysia and North America.  Or are you proposing a post Book of Mormon migration of Lamanites from Malaysia to North America?

Link to post
18 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Native Americans sprang from Asia, not from Jerusalem.

Perhaps I'm being too pedantic here, but Jerusalem is located in Asia. :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So now your disputing the authenticity of JS-H?  And the published accounts in August 1838 and April 1842?  And the 1842 Wentworth Letter?

You can only shore up your theory by ignoring or unjustifiably disputing contrary evidence.

Isn't this what the Heartland folks say to the Mesoamerican folks? This is why we don't get into the extra-textual weeds. If you want to get into those weeds, then Rod Meldrum and Jonathon Neville have the best-fit models.

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm sensing a problem here.  

Probably because you believe, without supporting evidence, that Native Americans came from Jerusalem and not Asia.

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your theory of AoF 1:10, 3 Nephi 20:22 and Ether 13:2-6.  If your theory holds, why is "New Jerusalem" to be built on the American continent, rather than in Malaysia?

The same way you explained it the other day? Those promises are conditional?

But not to worry, there are tribes here that identify as Joseph and Manasseh, and they are already building their New Jerusalem. I guess it is just a matter of who finishes first.

I'm not concerned about it to be honest. As you said, my hobby horse is geography.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to post
6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't see the agreement.  You seem to be saying that Book of Mormon events took place both in Malaysia and North America.  Or are you proposing a post Book of Mormon migration of Lamanites from Malaysia to North America?

The events found in the portion of the Book of Mormon we have took place on the Malay Peninsula. This is evident because the geography matches, and there are no anachronisms. Elephants are elephants, chariots are chariots, gold plates are gold plates. No need to stretch the text to fit the geography here. I'm supose some Jaredites could have crossed over early, around the time the archeological record indicates a migration of Na-Dene speakers into the Americas around 2500 BC.

I also propose a post-Book of Mormon migration of Lehites to North America. This coincides with the recent findings that Polynesians were in contact with South America. By the way, there's a widespread layer of extinct Paleoamericans that originated in the Bay of Bengal and Malaysia. The former inhabitants of the American continent certainly came from Southeast Asia and East Asia.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Probably because you believe, without supporting evidence, that Native Americans came from Jerusalem and not Asia.

I don't believe that.  I believe that a tiny group came from Jerusalem, and arrived in the Americas to find lots of people already there.

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The same way you explained it the other day? Those promises are conditional?

I don't know what you are talking about.

And this doesn't answer the question.

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But not to worry, there are tribes here that identify as Joseph and Manasseh, and they are already building their New Jerusalem. I guess it is just a matter of who finishes first.

I'm not concerned about it to be honest. As you said, my hobby horse is geography.

Okay.  I'll go back to being uninterested in the theory.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't believe that.  I believe that a tiny group came from Jerusalem, and arrived in the Americas to find lots of people already there.

Wait, that's not what the Book of Mormon says, or all the prophets and commentary over the past two centuries. Didn't Joseph Smith say Missouri was the borders of the Lamanites? And aren't the Polynesians Lehites? How do you reconcile those statements?

Besides, there's no evidence for it, in contrast to the overwhelming evidence that Paleoamericans originate around the Malay Peninsula and Native Americans originate in SE Asia and East Asia. You're arguing against the evidence here.

Quote

I don't know what you are talking about.

And this doesn't answer the question.

The other day I asked why other groups were present in the Americas when the Jaredites and Lehites arrived. This went against the promise made.

Your response was that the promises were conditional and the Nephites must have broken the conditions. In any case, it doesn't matter because I believe the groups in SE Asia that self-identify as Joseph and Manasseh will build a New Jerusalem long before Missouri does. So yes, it comes down to we believe different things, and there's no problem with that.

Quote

Okay.  I'll go back to being uninterested in the theory.  

OK thanks for playing. 

Edited by Rajah Manchou
  • Like 1
Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2020 at 2:54 PM, Bob Crockett said:

That really isn't a response.  Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, not the other way around.

Nice circular logic!!!!!!!!

 

96% yet to discover!!!!  You are being kind of absurd.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...