Jaredites and their animal cargo, elephants, etc?

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Instead, you're pugnacious.  You call your own theory "absurd," even "absurd and ridiculous ... {and} preposterous," 

As I said the last two times you said this, its a play on Robert Smith's excellent presentation arguing that the Book of Mormon itself is preposterous.

The preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage - Robert Smith

I bristle because I've explained this before a couple of times but you keep coming back to it. Let's bookmark this comment to save us time next time we have this same conversation.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

As I said the last two times you said this, its a play on Robert Smith's excellent presentation arguing that the Book of Mormon itself is preposterous.

The preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage - Robert Smith

I bristle because I've explained this before a couple of times but you keep coming back to it. Let's bookmark this comment to save us time next time we have this same conversation.

Then let's start over.

It would be nice for you to lay out your theory for us to examine.  Have you published it somewhere?  Something more than hints and unexplained YouTube videos (they do not appear to have any audio)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 28, 2020 by smac97

[Rajah Manchou]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But if it's a serious proposal, with substantive and coherent and meaningful argument, reasoning, evidence, and so on to back it up, well, I'll read it.

Its a serious proposal, and I'd be happy to present it. But up until now you've only repeated numerous times that you aren't interested. So there's been little point to go to the effort.

Now that we are communicating to each other instead of past each other, I'd be delighted to share in a more organized manner from Point A to Point B. The problem is that I don't have enough time or money to write a 700 page Mormon Codex, so I've had to share in pieces scattered about over 3-4 years.

[smac97]

Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

Quote

But if it's a serious proposal, with substantive and coherent and meaningful argument, reasoning, evidence, and so on to back it up, well, I'll read it.

Its a serious proposal, and I'd be happy to present it. But up until now you've only repeated numerous times that you aren't interested. So there's been little point to go to the effort.

I've said a few times now that I'd be willing to read your theory.  But you haven't presented anything that can be evaluated.

Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

Now that we are communicating to each other instead of past each other, I'd be delighted to share in a more organized manner from Point A to Point B. The problem is that I don't have enough time or money to write a 700 page Mormon Codex, so I've had to share in pieces scattered about over 3-4 years.

I'm not asking for 700 pages, but some sort of systematized explanation would be nice.  Do you have that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've said a few times now that I'd be willing to read your theory.  But you haven't presented anything that can be evaluated. I'm not asking for 700 pages, but some sort of systematized explanation would be nice.  Do you have that?

There's more than can be presented in a single comment, so we'd have to start somewhere and work our way through. @Brant Gardner has recommended:

Quote

Begin with your geography, and then add the layers of topography, hydrology, and cultural history, and see how well it works. I would be interested.

As John Clark said in his Revisiting A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies:

"It has been my experience that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when confronted with a Book of Mormon geography, worry about the wrong things. Almost invariably the first question that arise is whether the geography fits the archaeology of the proposed area. This should be our second question, the first being whether the geography fits the facts of the Book of Mormon—a question we all can answer without being versed in American archaeology. Only after a given geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit attention. The Book of Mormon must be the final and most important arbiter in deciding the correctness of a given geography; otherwise we will be forever hostage to the shifting sands of expert opinion."

With that I request that our discussion stick to the text of the Book of Mormon only, putting aside all other questions (like how did the Gold Plates get to Joseph Smith in NY or what about the New Jerusalem in Missouri) aside until the map has been evaluated. We can consider extra-textual accounts, revelations and statements after we've tested the geography against the internal map found in Book of Mormon text itself. 

Clark also recommends 6 initial assumptions about the geographic references found in the Book of Mormon: 

1. Assume a literal meaning.
2. Assume no scribal errors unless internal evidence indicates otherwise.
3. Assume no duplication of placenames unless the text is unambiguous on the matter.
4. Assume that all passages are internally consistent and can be reconciled.
5. Assume that the best internal reconstruction is one that reconciles all the data in the Book of Mormon with a minimum of additional assumptions.
6. Assume that uniformitarian rather than catastrophic principles apply to the actual Book of Mormon lands (i.e., that the locality where the Book of Mormon events took place was not unrecognizably altered at the time of the crucifixion, that geographic details in the small plates and in the book of Ether are therefore compatible with those in Mormon’s and Moroni’s abridgment, and that the principles of natural science that apply to today’s environments are also pertinent to Nephite lands).

If the above is acceptable, then I'll present my "Isles of the Sea" model point by point following John E. Clark's Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There's more than can be presented in a single comment, so we'd have to start somewhere and work our way through. @Brant Gardner has recommended:

As John Clark said in his Revisiting A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies:

"It has been my experience that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when confronted with a Book of Mormon geography, worry about the wrong things. Almost invariably the first question that arise is whether the geography fits the archaeology of the proposed area. This should be our second question, the first being whether the geography fits the facts of the Book of Mormon—a question we all can answer without being versed in American archaeology. Only after a given geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit attention. The Book of Mormon must be the final and most important arbiter in deciding the correctness of a given geography; otherwise we will be forever hostage to the shifting sands of expert opinion."

With that I request that our discussion stick to the text of the Book of Mormon only, putting aside all other questions (like how did the Gold Plates get to Joseph Smith in NY or what about the New Jerusalem in Missouri) aside until the map has been evaluated. We can consider extra-textual accounts, revelations and statements after we've tested the geography against the internal map found in Book of Mormon text itself. 

Clark also recommends 6 initial assumptions about the geographic references found in the Book of Mormon: 

1. Assume a literal meaning.
2. Assume no scribal errors unless internal evidence indicates otherwise.
3. Assume no duplication of placenames unless the text is unambiguous on the matter.
4. Assume that all passages are internally consistent and can be reconciled.
5. Assume that the best internal reconstruction is one that reconciles all the data in the Book of Mormon with a minimum of additional assumptions.
6. Assume that uniformitarian rather than catastrophic principles apply to the actual Book of Mormon lands (i.e., that the locality where the Book of Mormon events took place was not unrecognizably altered at the time of the crucifixion, that geographic details in the small plates and in the book of Ether are therefore compatible with those in Mormon’s and Moroni’s abridgment, and that the principles of natural science that apply to today’s environments are also pertinent to Nephite lands).

If the above is acceptable, then I'll present my "Isles of the Sea" model point by point following John E. Clark's Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies.

Sounds good.  Perhaps start a new thread devoted to it?

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There are multiple lands of promise. Take for example those that endorse Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, yet also New York as the Land of Promise. Or those that endorse all of the Americas as the Land of Promise. The Austronesian Kumr (Jaredites in the model I propose) were the among the first to settle in much of the New World. They departed from East Asia around 2500 BC and populated all the islands through the Pacific and were in contact with the Americas, also much of the uninhabited world as far west as Africa. They were the true New World explorers and colonzers. A quick glance to a map of the Austronesian world says it all.

The Austronesian Kumr were the Jaredites and they populated all the New World and the islands of the sea, from Africa to Southeast Asia to the Americas. The Book of Mormon is their account. If you have any doubts, just look up all the quotes from apostles and prophets confirming that Polynesians are of Lehite blood. This is why the Lehites acknowledged their brothers scattered throughout the isles of the sea, in the 6th century BC. 

This model is simple. Its only decades of attachment to the Hemispheric, Mesoamerican and Heartland Models that makes it difficult to grasp.

Of course, there are multiple "lands of promise." I noticed the word "hypothetical" in the map above, but you seem to be convinced that your scenario is the correct one when applied to the land of the Book of Mormon. Are you saying that the Church is wrong to refer to America as the Book of Mormon "land of promise?" From LDS.org:

Quote

Lands that the Lord promises as an inheritance to His faithful followers, and often also to their descendants. There are many promised lands. Often in the Book of Mormon, the promised land spoken of is the Americas.

This from Marion Romney is typical of many statements. In your opinion, is this incorrect?

 

Quote

Lehi, the patriarch of the colony divinely led to America in 600 B.C., prophesied that “there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord” (2 Ne. 1:6). Just as Jesus Christ has piloted to this land of America the vanguard of each succeeding civilization which has dwelt upon it, so has he made known to them his everlasting decree “that whoso should possess [it] should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off … when they … are ripened in iniquity." Our present civilization is no exception. We who live in America are under this everlasting decree. And the Lord has said, “My word shall be verified at this time as it hath hitherto been verified” (D&C 5:20). Jesus Christ, the God of this land, led Columbus to it. He led the Pilgrims to Plymouth. He sustained and gave victory to the colonists. He established the Constitution of the United States (see D&C 101:80). Over a period of some twenty-six centuries he directed the writing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the record of the former inhabitants of this land. At his command, Moroni finished the record and hid it up in the Hill Cumorah, where, under his surveillance, it was safely preserved for some fourteen hundred years. By the power of Jesus Christ, the God of this land, the record was brought forth, translated, and in 1830 published. For nearly 150 years now it has been bearing its message to all who will receive it.

To which of the many "lands of promise" does this refer?
 

Quote

Ether 2: 7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people. 8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them. 9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. 10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. 11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done. 12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

As I said the last two times you said this, its a play on Robert Smith's excellent presentation arguing that the Book of Mormon itself is preposterous.

The preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage - Robert Smith

I bristle because I've explained this before a couple of times but you keep coming back to it. Let's bookmark this comment to save us time next time we have this same conversation.

I recall the old joke about the prisoners and the jokebook.  Maybe I should just call out a number.....!

A newbie came into the clink, and the first night he would hear the inmates calling out numbers from their various individual cells.  "32!" and this would be followed by laughter.  Then "18". Followed by  a little less laughter.  "42!" uproarious laughter followed by guffaws.

He asked his cell mate what this was all about, and the cell mate explained, "Oh- you are new!  We only have one jokebook and we pass it around and have memorized all the jokes and their page numbers.  Instead of telling the jokes all over again, we can just call out the page numbers, and we remember the joke on that page!  It's a lot more efficient than telling them over and over!!"

Maybe that would be a good strategy. 

Or better, make a blog site and put it all down there, and then refer people to the right section!

I can relate because I have an unorthodox approach to the church as well, but it seems I have to go over the basics every time.   I should follow my own advice!

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

To which of the many "lands of promise" does this refer?

Sounds like he's referring to the United States of America. But there's nowhere in the USA that aligns with the internal map of the Book of Mormon. 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Sounds like he's referring to the United States of America. But there's nowhere in the USA that aligns with the internal map of the Book of Mormon. 

Yes, he is clearly referring to the USA. How does this fit with your model? Is he wrong?

Are you saying that the Church is wrong to refer to America as the Book of Mormon "land of promise?" 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, he is clearly referring to the USA. How does this fit with your model? Is he wrong?

Are you saying that the Church is wrong to refer to America as the Book of Mormon "land of promise?" 

There’s no location in the USA that fits the material culture or geography of the Book of Mormon. How does that square with your model?

Where do you propose the River Sidon in the land of promise was located? 

 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There’s no location in the USA that fits the material culture or geography of the Book of Mormon. How does that square with your model?

Where do you propose the River Sidon in the land of promise was located? 

 

Please just answer the questions I asked. I have no idea where the River Sidon is. I wasn't there. Neither were you. 

[Rajah Manchou]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please just answer the questions I asked. I have no idea where the River Sidon is. I wasn't there. Neither were you. 

If we don't know where the River Sidon was, then I can't answer your question. Nobody knows where the River Sidon was with certainty so I don't know whether or not "the Church is wrong to refer to America as the Book of Mormon "land of promise". Why are you asking me that?

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If we don't know where the River Sidon was, then I can't answer your question. Nobody knows where the River Sidon was with certainty so I don't know whether or not "the Church is wrong to refer to America as the Book of Mormon "land of promise". Why are you asking me that?

That is the message you are trying to put across here, no? We're looking for Sidon in all the wrong places? Do you know where it is? How would you know a river was Sidon?

Quote

I guess his theory is that Lehi and Mulek left Jerusalem, sailed to and settled in Malaysia, such that all the events described in the Book of Mormon took place there rather than in the Americas.  Then Moroni somehow sailed from Malaysia to the Americas and wandered to New York State and buried the Plates there.

Yes, this is accurate. But its misleading to say Malaysia as the events recorded took place in what was then called Kamara, what is now known as Myanmar and Thailand. 

   On 11/23/2020 at 2:03 PM,  smac97 said: 

Well, okay.  This seems a bit hard to swallow (and follow), even for - particularly for - Latter-day Saints who are otherwise open to miraculous and amazing narratives about pre-Columbian migrations.

Miraculous and amazing narratives are different than the evidence-based reasoning you have called for.

   On 11/23/2020 at 2:03 PM,  smac97 said: 

I don't know who "Rajah" is (IRL), but in 2013 Brandt Gardner assessed Ralph A. Olsen's The Malay Peninsula as the Setting for the Book of Mormon.  To his credit, Gardner evaluated this theory under the assumption "that it could be valid" and proceeds to utilize "various types of convergences to test its strength as a possible location for the Book of Mormon," including geospatial, cultural and other types of convergences. Gardner concluded that "{t}he 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."

It's an entirely different model in an entirely different location. 

 

Quote

Sounds like he's referring to the United States of America. But there's nowhere in the USA that aligns with the internal map of the Book of Mormon. 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It seems to be the message you are trying to put across here. Is this not your message? 

Well, it’s a model that I’m proposing and posting for others to take a look at and test. I feel the geography in this model fits much better than the geography in the Heartland and Mesoamerican models. 

There’s frankly no existing American model that fits the land of promise referred to in the Book of Mormon so I don’t understand why you are asking me if I’m saying the “Church is wrong to refer to America as the land of promise”. It’s not a question I’m asking or even trying to answer. Its not at all “my message”.
 

When it comes to BOM geography there’s a tendency to ask questions that don’t have anything to do with the models that are out there, in a “No True Scotsman” fashion. “No true Mormon would propose that the Book of Mormon didn’t take place here or there” ignoring the fact that Mormons are all over the map on this question. If you’d like to comment on the model itself, there’s a thread here:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73334-book-of-mormon-geography-kamara-model/

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[nuclearfuels]

On 11/23/2020 at 10:20 AM, smac97 said:

The title of this painting is "Journey of the Jaredites Across Asia" (see here and here), and hence this representation would seem to be of the Jaredites' travels before reaching the sea and building the barges.

Thanks,

-Smac

True. 

The verse that spurred my question was written about Jaredite life after their sea voyage:

And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms. (Ether 9:19)

Rajah shared in a different thread:

A good 10,000 years before Jared, but confirmed that South Americans did once know what elephants and horses looked like:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/nov/29/sistine-chapel-of-the-ancients-rock-art-discovered-in-remote-amazon-forest

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Well, it’s a model that I’m proposing and posting for others to take a look at and test. I feel the geography in this model fits much better than the geography in the Heartland and Mesoamerican models. 

There’s frankly no existing American model that fits the land of promise referred to in the Book of Mormon so I don’t understand why you are asking me if I’m saying the “Church is wrong to refer to America as the land of promise”. It’s not a question I’m asking or even trying to answer. Its not at all “my message”.
 

When it comes to BOM geography there’s a tendency to ask questions that don’t have anything to do with the models that are out there, in a “No True Scotsman” fashion. “No true Mormon would propose that the Book of Mormon didn’t take place here or there” ignoring the fact that Mormons are all over the map on this question. If you’d like to comment on the model itself, there’s a thread here:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73334-book-of-mormon-geography-kamara-model/

 

It certainly comes across as your message. You are dodging the issue, but thanks anyway.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It certainly comes across as your message. You are dodging the issue, but thanks anyway.

If you want me to say the "Church is wrong to refer to America as the land of promise” I'm not going to do that. Nor would anybody who endorses the Mesoamerican model. You're actually dodging the issue by pursuing this instead of commenting on the model itself. No thanks

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If you want me to say the "Church is wrong to refer to America as the land of promise” I'm not going to do that. Nor would anybody who endorses the Mesoamerican model. You're actually dodging the issue by pursuing this instead of commenting on the model itself. No thanks

I don’t want you to say anything like that. It’s a simple question, but I understand your reluctance to address it. By all means, keep working on it,though. Who knows what may come of it?

I have followed this since you first introduced it. It is interesting, but that’s about it for me. IMO, there are a number of conflicts with  fundamental teachings of the Book of Mormon that make it unviable. America being the promised land and all the ramifications of that doctrine, for example. I believe that is a fatal flaw.

According to your scenario, what is the promised land of the Book of Mormon?

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

According to your scenario, what is the promised land of the Book of Mormon?

In my opinion, the promised lands of the Book of Mormon are the isles of the sea referred to in the Book of Mormon. The land that Columbus referred to as the new heaven and the new earth:

"God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth of which he spoke in the Apocalypse of John after having spoken of it through the mouth of Isaiah; and he showed me the spot where to find it."

I'm pretty much in agreement with the following two paragraphs from FAIR Mormon's article on the land of promise:

"A “land of promise” can be different places to different people, because it is land that the Lord has covenanted to his people. To the Israelites, it was Israel, to Enos and his people, it was the land of Cainan. It is possible that it will be promised for “a little season,” or it can be a heavenly promised land we all wish to obtain. It is not a definite term that is used for places of earth, but has a spiritual meaning of what God covenants to give you. The operative word in the Land of Promise is not ‘Land.’ It is ‘Promise.’ A promise is a covenant involving two parties. It is a divine contract…with God. The land is given to the covenant people only as long as they continue faithful.”

If you are looking for a specific location, the best answer I've seen is the one given by Orson Hyde: 

"This land,’ means both North and South America, and also the families of islands that geographically and naturally belong and adhere to the same."

So pretty much every location that overlaps with Columbus' "discovery" of a New World and the blood of Lehi. This covers all the land between (1) where Columbus set foot and (2) where Columbus thought he'd set foot.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

In my opinion, the promised lands of the Book of Mormon are the isles of the sea referred to in the Book of Mormon. The land that Columbus referred to as the new heaven and the new earth:

"God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth of which he spoke in the Apocalypse of John after having spoken of it through the mouth of Isaiah; and he showed me the spot where to find it."

I'm pretty much in agreement with the following two paragraphs from FAIR Mormon's article on the land of promise:

"A “land of promise” can be different places to different people, because it is land that the Lord has covenanted to his people. To the Israelites, it was Israel, to Enos and his people, it was the land of Cainan. It is possible that it will be promised for “a little season,” or it can be a heavenly promised land we all wish to obtain. It is not a definite term that is used for places of earth, but has a spiritual meaning of what God covenants to give you. The operative word in the Land of Promise is not ‘Land.’ It is ‘Promise.’ A promise is a covenant involving two parties. It is a divine contract…with God. The land is given to the covenant people only as long as they continue faithful.”

If you are looking for a specific location, the best answer I've seen is the one given by Orson Hyde: 

"This land,’ means both North and South America, and also the families of islands that geographically and naturally belong and adhere to the same."

So pretty much every location that overlaps with Columbus' "discovery" of a New World and the blood of Lehi. This covers all the land between (1) where Columbus set foot and (2) where Columbus thought he'd set foot.

Where he thought he was? Wow! That’s quite a stretch. Far beyond the FAIR, Hyde, and Romney quote I provided earlier which is typical of many such statements by General Authorities over many years.

Even Joseph and his mother were confused. 
“During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.”

Edited December 1, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Where he thought he was? Wow! That’s quite a stretch.

I'm sure you know that Columbus never set foot in the United States of America.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

In my opinion, the promised lands of the Book of Mormon are the isles of the sea referred to in the Book of Mormon. The land that Columbus referred to as the new heaven and the new earth:

"God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth of which he spoke in the Apocalypse of John after having spoken of it through the mouth of Isaiah; and he showed me the spot where to find it."

I'm pretty much in agreement with the following two paragraphs from FAIR Mormon's article on the land of promise:

"A “land of promise” can be different places to different people, because it is land that the Lord has covenanted to his people. To the Israelites, it was Israel, to Enos and his people, it was the land of Cainan. It is possible that it will be promised for “a little season,” or it can be a heavenly promised land we all wish to obtain. It is not a definite term that is used for places of earth, but has a spiritual meaning of what God covenants to give you. The operative word in the Land of Promise is not ‘Land.’ It is ‘Promise.’ A promise is a covenant involving two parties. It is a divine contract…with God. The land is given to the covenant people only as long as they continue faithful.”

If you are looking for a specific location, the best answer I've seen is the one given by Orson Hyde: 

"This land,’ means both North and South America, and also the families of islands that geographically and naturally belong and adhere to the same."

So pretty much every location that overlaps with Columbus' "discovery" of a New World and the blood of Lehi. This covers all the land between (1) where Columbus set foot and (2) where Columbus thought he'd set foot.

The island of San Salvador and Thailand are just under 180 degrees apart, so technically they are in the same hemisphere, which would include the original 13 colonies, all of Europe and the Middle East, India, etc. Jackson County MO is a bit too far west by 900-1000 miles so I wonder where the New Jerusalem will begin. But the isles of the sea are also found in just about any hemispheric division.

Edited December 1, 2020 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The island of San Salvador and Thailand are just under 180 degrees apart, so technically they are in the same hemisphere, which would include the original 13 colonies, all of Europe and the Middle East, India, etc. Jackson County MO is a bit too far west by 900-1000 miles so I wonder where the New Jerusalem will begin. But the isles of the sea are also found in just about any hemispheric division.

 

Yes, the issue of the New Jerusalem is also a serious problem for that hypothetical scenario.

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm sure you know that Columbus never set foot in the United States of America.

No way! I thought he came through Ellis Island.  You learn something new every day.

Where was the land Joseph Smith described in such detail to his family while being tutored by Moroni?

Apparently this will have to be rewritten:

Quote

Another important preparation for the restoration of the gospel was the discovery and colonization of America. It had been preserved as a choice land from which the gospel would go to the nations of the earth in the last days. Moroni, an ancient American prophet, wrote: “Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written” (Ether 2:12).

The arrival of Christopher Columbus was seen in vision by Nephi, also an ancient American prophet, over two thousand years before Columbus was born. “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren [descendants of Lehi], by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land” (1 Nephi 13:12). Columbus himself confirmed in his writings that he felt inspired in his ventures as a mariner and in establishing religion among the Indians.

Nephi continued his prophecy: “And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters” (1 Nephi 13:13). Many people who settled the promised land were led there by the hand of God (see 2 Nephi 1:6).

Nephi foresaw many other events in America. He saw that the Lamanites would be scattered throughout the land by the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles would humble themselves and call upon the Lord, and the Lord would be with them. Nephi beheld that the Gentiles who had settled in North and South America would war against their “mother Gentiles” and would be delivered by the hand of the Lord (see 1 Nephi 13:14–19).

President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “The discovery [of America] was one of the most important factors in bringing to pass the purpose of the Almighty in the restoration of his Gospel in its fulness for the salvation of men in the latter days.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-one?lang=eng

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui