Book of Mormon geography

[_DarkHelmet]

I don't believe the place was vacant of people, and I don't believe that every Native American requires direct DNA ancestry. I believe that adoption and political position became important. I don't believe that the plates would have been dragged all the way up to New York just cause without some mention of it in the Book of Mormon.

Just my belief.

JMS

do you think Lehi and company landed at Plymouth Rock?

"We didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth rock landed on us." - Malcolm Y, the radical Lamanite.

[_Drifting]

I don't believe the place was vacant of people, and I don't believe that every Native American requires direct DNA ancestry. I believe that adoption and political position became important. I don't believe that the plates would have been dragged all the way up to New York just cause without some mention of it in the Book of Mormon.

Just my belief.

JMS

Does the Book of Mormon have to an accurate historical record to sustain your faith. Or, should it come to light with 101% certainty that it was a fraud, would you faith in God still be maintained?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't believe the place was vacant of people

Which place?

and I don't believe that every Native American requires direct DNA ancestry.

Doesn't this fall in line with FAIR apologia?

I believe that adoption and political position became important.

Doesn't this fall in line with FAIR apologia?

I don't believe that the plates would have been dragged all the way up to New York just cause without some mention of it in the Book of Mormon.

Isn't this a Meldrum position, thus contradicting FAIR apologia?

- VRDRC

[_MCB]

As I have said before, multiple times, the only documented pre-Columbian contact on the East was the Norse, who settled on Greenland. And the point of contact was awfully close to the St. Lawrence River. If one reads the Book of Mormon with this in mind, the entire meaning of the story changes. And Mormons, with their [latent, in many respects] white supremacist mindset cannot accept that. Therefore, they run like crazy to meso-America. And there is a reason for that, too.

Literate Natives who read the book could see some parallels with their legends (perhaps influenced by the speculations of the Jesuit missionaries).

[_Quasimodo]

I don't know the exact landing place. But I also don't have a good diagram that shows where in the desert Moses ran around so we can find the evidence of his massive crew. *Shrug*

JMS

Good point! There is no evidence of Moses and the hundred thousand roaming the wilderness of the near east (there would be if it were true) and there is no evidence of a Jewish presence in early North America (Central or South America, for that matter). There would be ample evidence if that were true.

Clearly, there is no reason to believe either story.

[_Tobin]

The fact is there is little evidence of large populations in New York during the time period in question and so there is little reason to believe the Book of Mormon took place there. The reason many believe it took place in MesoAmerica is precisely because of the remains of large civilizations and the populations necessary, in close proximity to one another, to sustain such a story.

[_Quasimodo]

The fact is there is little evidence of large populations in New York during the time period in question and so there is little reason to believe the Book of Mormon took place there. The reason many believe it took place in MesoAmerica is precisely because of the remains of large civilizations and the populations necessary, in close proximity to one another, to sustain such a story.

Those "many" would be in error. There is no provable connection between the civilizations of Meso America and Jewish civilizations. Nothing in the writings or artifacts of those Native American cultures is in any way related to the Semitic peoples. Nothing in their cultural histories and nothing in their lifestyles, language or religion. They are as different as the ancient Chinese and the Britons.

[_Tobin]

The fact is there is little evidence of large populations in New York during the time period in question and so there is little reason to believe the Book of Mormon took place there. The reason many believe it took place in MesoAmerica is precisely because of the remains of large civilizations and the populations necessary, in close proximity to one another, to sustain such a story.

Those "many" would be in error. There is no provable connection between the civilizations of Meso America and Jewish civilizations. Nothing in the writings or artifacts of those Native American cultures is in any way related to the Semitic peoples. Nothing in their cultural histories and nothing in their lifestyles, language or religion. They are as different as the ancient Chinese and the Britons.

You are under a few mistaken impressions I believe.
1) The Jaredite civilization was not Jewish so there is no reason to suspect their remains would reflect Jewish culture in any way.
2) The Nephite civilization was built on the remains of that civilization. It was also geographically distinct from the Jewish culture.
3) The idea that we would find a Jewish culture much in the vein of that developed around Jerusalem is ridiculous. The fact is the Israelites were highly likely to degenerate into worshipping other Gods and idols and were highly adaptable. Much of the idea here is centered around what the Jewish culture was as portrayed in the Bible and mostly having to do with the Jewish temple culture of Jerusalem. There is little reason to assume that a similar culture developed here and no reason to believe the Lamanites would develop that culture at all.

[_DWhitmer]

Why can't the geography be in new York area.

Can you help me out?

A better question may be: "How could it be anywhere but western New York"? Prophecy was ONLY fulfilled there!

...I don't believe that the plates would have been dragged all the way up to New York just cause without some mention of it in the Book of Mormon. Just my belief. JMS

These are significant facts Mesoapologists are ignorant of:

1. Mormon and Moroni knew prophecy said their people would be destroyed - at the find battle.
2. Both Mormon and his son Moroni went to battle "at the head" of their 10k.
3. Are we to believe he risked the loss of the entire plates by carrying them with him into battle? Not hardly, they were secured before they went into battle and he only carried 2 or 3 spare sheets IF he survived to write.
4. Moroni stayed in the area for two reasons: a. He knew the area. b. To watch over the depository.
5. The evidence is clear that Moroni stayed nearby. On two separate occasions he reports what was going on with the Lamanites.
6. At the end of the Book of Mormon (within the Book of Mormon), Moroni says he has but few plates (what could be carried into battle, 2 or 3 maybe) and regrets that he doesn't have more plates to write on.
7. At the beginning of the Book of Moroni, he informs us that he added the Book of Ether - where did he get that record and all those plates?? (Answer, he hid where Ether hid during the
Jaredite battle and there found additional plates. The place where the Jaredites were destroyed was Ramah, not Cumorah. They are two different locations, a fact ALL geography enthusiasts miss!)
8. After adding the Book of Ether and at the start of his book Moroni AGAIN reports that the Lamanites are STILL around! (yes, he was still by Lamanites at the end of his life 20+ years later.)

Does the Book of Mormon have to an accurate historical record to sustain your faith. Or, should it come to light with 101% certainty that it was a fraud, would you faith in God still be maintained?

Yes and that won't happen. What is keeping back proof is God - He will NOT LET PROOFS UNTIL THE Book of Mormon IS NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH THE FALSE Mormon RELIGION! Give thanks, don't complain. They blew it and are under a curse (D&C 84:54). That's ALL THAT EVER NEED BE SAID.

The fact is there is little evidence of large populations in New York during the time period in question and so there is little reason to believe the Book of Mormon took place there. The reason many believe it took place in MesoAmerica is precisely because of the remains of large civilizations and the populations necessary, in close proximity to one another, to sustain such a story.

That's incorrect, but precisely what they want you to believe. The Smithsonian has an agenda - don't show a. large numbers, b. written language, c. use of metals, etc. The truth is, western New York was highly populated and advanced:

"Commencing at the southern shores of the northern lakes [Erie & Ontario] and extending southward a hundred miles or more we find a greater number of military works than in any other section of the United States" (Frederick Larkin, M.D., Ancient Man in America, 1888, p. 72)

"From all the evidence in the Book of Mormon, augmented by the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, these final battles took place in the territory known as the United States, and in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes, and hills of Western New York." (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr.)

Keep in mind that every military work was a city and each city had from 200-300 people. Therefore western New York was extensively populated by hundreds of thousands. Also keep in mind that the battle numbers are not synonymous with the population of core Book of Mormon lands. It took 3.5 years to gather all believers to the final battle, and core Book of Mormon lands were only 75 x 120 miles, which could be covered in a day and half on flat terrain. They gathered believers from far away as Missouri, i.e. Zelph.

[_Tobin]

The fact is there is little evidence of large populations in New York during the time period in question and so there is little reason to believe the Book of Mormon took place there. The reason many believe it took place in MesoAmerica is precisely because of the remains of large civilizations and the populations necessary, in close proximity to one another, to sustain such a story.

That's incorrect, but precisely what they want you to believe. The Smithsonian has an agenda - don't show a. large numbers, b. written language, c. use of metals, etc. The truth is, western New York was highly populated and advanced:

"Commencing at the southern shores of the northern lakes [Erie & Ontario] and extending southward a hundred miles or more we find a greater number of military works than in any other section of the United States" (Frederick Larkin, M.D., Ancient Man in America, 1888, p. 72)

You'll find I have a hard time believing the idea that the Smithsonian covered up all evidence of the Nephite civilizations in New York. I just don't buy conspiracy theories. And you have a slight problem here too. Joseph Smith thought it might have occurred in the MesoAmerica too.

ZARAHEMLA
Central America, or Guatimala [sic], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.—The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma:—“And now it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful, and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi, and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water: there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.” [Alma 22:32.]
It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them: and that a large stone with engraving upon it, as Mosiah said; and a ‘large round stone, with the sides sculptured in hieroglyphics,’ [such as found in Quiriguá] as Mr. Stephens has published, is also among the left remembrances of the, to him, lost and unknown. We are not agoing [sic] to declare positively that the ruins of Quiriguá are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of [the] opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon. - Joseph Smith, ed., Times and Seasons (October 1, 1842), 3:927.