Shulem Cracks Book of Mormon Geography

[Shulem]

I’ll leave you to do what you will with these sources.

Regards,
MG

Thank you for sharing links to important things about Book of Mormon geography that interest you. Anyone here is more than welcome to check them out and research the material therein to their heart’s content. As for me, I will no longer read apologetic source material from a faithful perspective with the intent to match the lands to a map that meets expectations for a genuine and historical perspective in order to support a nonfiction narrative. You see, it’s like asking the Pope to read a priesthood manual produced by the LDS Church or asking President Nelson to read Catechism of the Catholic Church in order to improve Church doctrine. Both are directly opposed. The same goes for the end result of the Book of Mormon: Fiction vs. Nonfiction!

I’m absolutely through with the apologists and their faith promoting ways. They have blinders on and are trying to make it work from a faithful point of view which is an impossible task from the fiction point of view. It can’t be done because the Book of Mormon *is* fiction and the Church is not what it claims to be. Reading apologetic material may be useful for some but not for me. I’m sure there are things I could pick up and learn and I for one do make mistakes and my work in this thread is not perfect, I will admit that. It needs further work and fine tuning. I certainly grant that. But I will not waste any more time reading faithful garbage from a testimony point of view. Eight billion people on planet earth don’t want that either. They want the real answer, not just apologetic excuses and contradictions. I really do not care what the apologists say or think let alone faithful members of the Church who cling to the Book of Mormon as if it’s genuine history. My target of interest is the world at large -- eight billion people. The Mormons can drown in their dreams for all I care.

[MG 2.0]

I’ll leave you to do what you will with these sources.

Regards,
MG

Thank you for sharing links to important things about Book of Mormon geography that interest you. Anyone here is more than welcome to check them out and research the material therein to their heart’s content. As for me, I will no longer read apologetic source material from a faithful perspective with the intent to match the lands to a map that meets expectations for a genuine and historical perspective in order to support a nonfiction narrative. You see, it’s like asking the Pope to read a priesthood manual produced by the LDS Church or asking President Nelson to read Catechism of the Catholic Church in order to improve Church doctrine. Both are directly opposed. The same goes for the end result of the Book of Mormon: Fiction vs. Nonfiction!

The Catholic Church and the CofJCofLDS cannot both be true. But they don’t need to be opposed to each other. But you’re right, President Nelson and the Pope aren’t going to be switching things up with the sources they refer to for guidance and direction. The Book of Mormon cannot be fiction and nonfiction at the same time, true. The sources I posted to are those that are supporting a nonfictional Book of Mormon. Some will be interested. Others, such as yourself, will not. That’s fine.

I’m absolutely through with the apologists and their faith promoting ways. They have blinders on and are trying to make it work from a faithful point of view which is an impossible task from the fiction point of view. It can’t be done because the Book of Mormon *is* fiction and the Church is not what it claims to be.

Of course there are many that would disagree with your view. But just as with the Catholics vs. Mormons, we don’t have to be opposed to each other. I’m happy that you are supportive of readers taking the time to read the links I provided. Different folks will pick up on and have different interpretive results in their own minds as they do the footwork of researching the information. That is as it should be. Nothing should be blocked out as being unreasonable or of no use.

Reading apologetic material may be useful for some but not for me. I’m sure there are things I could pick up and learn and I for one do make mistakes and my work in this thread is not perfect, I will admit that. It needs further work and fine tuning. I certainly grant that. But I will not waste any more time reading faithful garbage from a testimony point of view.

And that is your preference and prerogative. Your mind is closed and that gives you a certainty to live by as you form conclusions and then become settled in your ways. Many religionists do the same thing.

Eight billion people on planet earth don’t want that either. They want the real answer, not just apologetic excuses and contradictions.

I think you’re right in saying that people are looking for real answers. Is there a God? Does He have a plan? Is He able to make that plan known to mankind? Does He care about the world and its inhabitants? Etc.

Big questions.

The Book of Mormon makes the claim of being another testament of Christ. A testament based within antiquity brought forth to a modern era. That’s big. Some of those eight billion are looking for answers in regards to the questions I’ve posed. Many have, and will, find those answers within the pages of the Book of Mormon and the teachings/doctrines of the LDS Church. Others will not.

I really do not care what the apologists say or think let alone faithful members of the Church who cling to the Book of Mormon as if it’s genuine history. My target of interest is the world at large -- eight billion people. The Mormons can drown in their dreams for all I care.

You have chosen your path. It is in opposition to the CofJCofLDS. You’ve made your bed and you have to sleep in it.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I’ll leave you to do what you will with these sources…

Thank you for sharing links to important things about Book of Mormon geography that interest you. Anyone here is more than welcome to check them out and research the material therein to their heart’s content. As for me, I will no longer read apologetic source material from a faithful perspective with the intent to match the lands to a map that meets expectations for a genuine and historical perspective in order to support a nonfiction narrative….

It is pretty clear that Mormon-related “apologetic source material from a faithful perspective” is not written from a logical or rational perspective, even though they like to pretend it is. Most major religions seem to have a pretty realistic take on theological positions, in that when faith is required to believe they don’t argue facts. Mormon apologists haven’t figured that out, and it really is sinking them.

[Dr Exiled]

You have chosen your path. It is in opposition to the CofJCofLDS. You’ve made your bed and you have to sleep in it.

Regards,
MG

Why the threats? Your case is devoid of solid evidence of actual Nephites. The plates conveniently disappeared and Joseph Smith didn't use them in any event. His rock was useless when the 116 pages were lost/destroyed. The book itself is full of contradictions and copying from the Bible and Clarke's commentaries, etc., etc. So, the fiction conclusion is beyond a reasonable doubt and Shulem is on to a way to explain how the geography was invented. You ought to avoid the "believe or else" nonsense, especially when your case is so incredibly weak. However, if threats of having to live with the obvious conclusion are necessary for you, then by all means continue to threaten.

[Shulem]

And finally, to seal the deal in proving that Zarahemla was a coastal land, much of which was surrounded by ocean, we only need refer to the seafaring people who first inherited the land. They arrived by ship, disembarked, and claimed the seashore, territorial land inward, and called it Zarahemla which was the place they originally landed. Look at all the ocean surrounding the coastal lands of Zarahemla. This is what is meant by seashore in the Book of Mormon.

MG, do you understand this and how it destroys the Heartland model in which you have recently been considering? Delmarva is the one and only answer.

. . . which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing.

It should be pointed out that the people of Zarahemla were a seafaring people and the verse highlighted above is taken somewhat out of context. Therefore, I will cite more material to help see the big picture:

And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing.

And they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.

If there was a “first landing” then that also means there was also a second landing and so on. But the main point is that the people of Zarahemla established their capital in Zarahemla and were familiar with the land to include the northern and southern regions of the peninsula as well as the land north of the narrow neck which led into Desolation.

[Shulem]

The Catholic Church and the CofJCofLDS cannot both be true. But they don’t need to be opposed to each other. But you’re right, President Nelson and the Pope aren’t going to be switching things up with the sources they refer to for guidance and direction. The Book of Mormon cannot be fiction and nonfiction at the same time, true. The sources I posted to are those that are supporting a nonfictional Book of Mormon. Some will be interested. Others, such as yourself, will not. That’s fine.

I agree with everything you say except the point you make that they “don’t need to be opposed to each other.” Yes, they do, and they are! Both religions are diametrically opposed to each other doctrinally and the LDS Church aggressively sends out missionaries to steal convert members of the Catholic Church. Why does the LDS Church do that? Because it’s OPPOSED to Catholicism and offers a solution it thinks is better. Contrary to that, the Catholic Church opposes the Mormons and rejects its so-called restoration of the gospel as heretical. But it does not send out missionaries to actively try and convert Mormons.

Of course there are many that would disagree with your view. But just as with the Catholics vs. Mormons, we don’t have to be opposed to each other. I’m happy that you are supportive of readers taking the time to read the links I provided. Different folks will pick up on and have different interpretive results in their own minds as they do the footwork of researching the information. That is as it should be. Nothing should be blocked out as being unreasonable or of no use.

You have to admit that Dr. Shades has provided a wonderful place where we can gather and express ourselves freely on these boards. I’m glad you here, MG. I think you add value and interest to the board. I would encourage you to follow your instincts and do what you think is best. I appreciate you taking a stand. I also recognize that you are searching...

And that is your preference and prerogative. Your mind is closed and that gives you a certainty to live by as you form conclusions and then become settled in your ways. Many religionists do the same thing.

Yes, my mind is closed but bear in mind that it was OPEN for a long time, many years, and I was searching just like you are now. But you are right, my mind is now closed. I have my answer and I got it from Joseph Smith. Go figure.

Some of those eight billion are looking for answers in regards to the questions I’ve posed. Many have, and will, find those answers within the pages of the Book of Mormon and the teachings/doctrines of the LDS Church. Others will not.

Right. Some will accept the Book of Mormon based on a religious experience that involves thoughts and feelings and they will interpret those feelings as having come from God and convert. That is inevitable. I completely understand that. I was once a Mormon too!

You have chosen your path. It is in opposition to the CofJCofLDS. You’ve made your bed and you have to sleep in it.

Yes, I am very happy on my chosen path and the bed is very, very, comfortable. You’d like it too, and will, once you finally come around to it yourself.

[Shulem]

It is pretty clear that Mormon-related “apologetic source material from a faithful perspective” is not written from a logical or rational perspective, even though they like to pretend it is. Most major religions seem to have a pretty realistic take on theological positions, in that when faith is required to believe they don’t argue facts. Mormon apologists haven’t figured that out, and it really is sinking them.

Mormons have become a divided people embracing different theories about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Some say “lo here” and others “lo there.” The foundation of Mormonism has become a great divide and the contradictions of opposing forces within apologetics has reached explosive degrees of disagreement. Arguing about north being north or south being south and a myriad of problems associated with trying to match the text up with a land-candidate has become mission impossible. And we see also that the Presidents of the Church are clueless on what to do or what to say, let alone the position they should take in telling the world WHERE Zarahemla is.

All this is very, very, telling.

[Shulem]

You have chosen your path. It is in opposition to the CofJCofLDS. You’ve made your bed and you have to sleep in it.

Regards,
MG

Why the threats? Your case is devoid of solid evidence of actual Nephites. The plates conveniently disappeared and Joseph Smith didn't use them in any event. His rock was useless when the 116 pages were lost/destroyed. The book itself is full of contradictions and copying from the Bible and Clarke's commentaries, etc., etc. So, the fiction conclusion is beyond a reasonable doubt and Shulem is on to a way to explain how the geography was invented. You ought to avoid the "believe or else" nonsense, especially when your case is so incredibly weak. However, if threats of having to live with the obvious conclusion are necessary for you, then by all means continue to threaten.

Admittedly, MG is veiling in a subtle way that the bed I’m in is a death trap and will lead to my ultimate suffering after Jesus condemns me at the judgment seat and casts me down to a lower kingdom. Such is the bed I sleep in.

You’re wrong, MG! The bed is comfortable and wonderful. There is no fear whatsoever in this bed. You simply have to try it.

Thanks for you comments, Dr Exiled!

[Tator]

Truthfully…I’m looking at geography that fits in the Book of Mormon narrative as a whole. Not a geography that begins with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is fiction.

I suppose that’s mainly where we differ.

Regards,
MG

MG, Shulem has done better job fitting Delmarva to the geography that fits the Book of Mormon narrative than any of links that you just provided. Joe was a novelist and a storyteller. The Book of Mormon is a novel. Your links are fiction explaining the novel and so is Delmarva but it fits the narrative much, much better than your links.

If you want me to assume the Book of Mormon is not fiction please provide me one non-fiction item about it. Some DNA, a sword, breastplate, city ruins, golden plates, really anything.

I sleep well in my bed.

[Dr Exiled]

Why the threats? Your case is devoid of solid evidence of actual Nephites. The plates conveniently disappeared and Joseph Smith didn't use them in any event. His rock was useless when the 116 pages were lost/destroyed. The book itself is full of contradictions and copying from the Bible and Clarke's commentaries, etc., etc. So, the fiction conclusion is beyond a reasonable doubt and Shulem is on to a way to explain how the geography was invented. You ought to avoid the "believe or else" nonsense, especially when your case is so incredibly weak. However, if threats of having to live with the obvious conclusion are necessary for you, then by all means continue to threaten.

Admittedly, MG is veiling in a subtle way that the bed I’m in is a death trap and will lead to my ultimate suffering after Jesus condemns me at the judgment seat and casts me down to a lower kingdom. Such is the bed I sleep in.

You’re wrong, MG! The bed is comfortable and wonderful. There is no fear whatsoever in this bed. You simply have to try it.

Thanks for you comments, Dr Exiled!

Of course. I didn't see that at first.

MG, my God, perhaps you should take a look at why you feel it necessary to infer this? At some point, the lack of evidence for your claims has to sting. Lashing out at Shulem won't help and just makes you look bad.