Deep Theology
Kevin Thurston
believe two mutually exclusive items at the same time. Lately Red(neck)
Davis has been giving us an example of how they do, borrowing a quote from
G. B. Hinckley:
"That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much
about. "
As long as TBM's such as Red(neck) Davis can quote that statement, they can
accept that Hinckley wasn't lying when he denied that the LDS believe that
god was once a man.
There are probably other statements the TBM can use to comfort themselves
when they have to believe two mutually exclusive items, but I don't have
them readily at hand.
Kevin Thurston
--
"I've said jimminy jillikers so many times the words have lost all their
meaning."... Milhous Van Houten
John Manning
Kevin Thurston wrote:
>
> Some time ago, Steve Lowther posted a message about how mormons comfortably
> believe two mutually exclusive items at the same time. Lately Red(neck)
> Davis has been giving us an example of how they do, borrowing a quote from
> G. B. Hinckley:
>
> "That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much
> about. "
>
> As long as TBM's such as Red(neck) Davis can quote that statement, they can
> accept that Hinckley wasn't lying when he denied that the LDS believe that
> god was once a man.
>
> There are probably other statements the TBM can use to comfort themselves
> when they have to believe two mutually exclusive items, but I don't have
> them readily at hand.
How about, "Self-deception is OK, as long as it is approved by LDS
Church authorities".
John Manning
charles
> Kevin Thurston wrote:
> >
> > Some time ago, Steve Lowther posted a message about how mormons comfortably
> > believe two mutually exclusive items at the same time. Lately Red(neck)
> > Davis has been giving us an example of how they do, borrowing a quote from
> > G. B. Hinckley:
> >
> > "That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much
> > about. "
> >
> > As long as TBM's such as Red(neck) Davis can quote that statement, they can
> > accept that Hinckley wasn't lying when he denied that the LDS believe that
> > god was once a man.
> >
> > There are probably other statements the TBM can use to comfort themselves
> > when they have to believe two mutually exclusive items, but I don't have
> > them readily at hand.
>
> How about, "Self-deception is OK, as long as it is approved by LDS
> Church authorities".
Speaking of self-deception, could you please explain how, for
thousands of years, people thought that the sun revolved around the
earth. Millions of observations, peer reviewed, the most brilliant
scientists, duplicated observation -- confirmed, following the rules
of scientific observation.
Is it not possible that scientists still have self-deception? If is
"approved by the scientific community", iow scientific consensus.
We are human beings and none are exempt from this malady.
Clovis Lark
> John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<3E2C49F6...@terra.com.br>...
>> Kevin Thurston wrote:
>> >
>> > Some time ago, Steve Lowther posted a message about how mormons comfortably
>> > believe two mutually exclusive items at the same time. Lately Red(neck)
>> > Davis has been giving us an example of how they do, borrowing a quote from
>> > G. B. Hinckley:
>> >
>> > "That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much
>> > about. "
>> >
>> > As long as TBM's such as Red(neck) Davis can quote that statement, they can
>> > accept that Hinckley wasn't lying when he denied that the LDS believe that
>> > god was once a man.
>> >
>> > There are probably other statements the TBM can use to comfort themselves
>> > when they have to believe two mutually exclusive items, but I don't have
>> > them readily at hand.
>>
>> How about, "Self-deception is OK, as long as it is approved by LDS
>> Church authorities".
> Speaking of self-deception, could you please explain how, for
> thousands of years, people thought that the sun revolved around the
> earth. Millions of observations, peer reviewed, the most brilliant
> scientists, duplicated observation -- confirmed, following the rules
> of scientific observation.
Would you like to cite the peer reviewed articles on the sun orbitting the
earth? Guess when peer reviewing began?
> Is it not possible that scientists still have self-deception? If is
> "approved by the scientific community", iow scientific consensus.
You still do not understand the process of replication and verification.
> We are human beings and none are exempt from this malady.
Especially when we REFUSE to read the materials available, like
Cavalli_Sforza, when we are suffering from self deception and are sure
there are sampling errors evidence to the layman...
Kevin Thurston
"charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com...
Just keep telling yourself:"That gets into some pretty deep theology that we
don't know very much about. "
Eventually you won't have to concern yourself with that pesky science at
all. Why, you won't even have to read Cavalli-Sforza.
Kevin Thurston
--
"I'll bet Einstein turned himself lots of colors before he invented the
light bulb."... Homer Simpson
TheJordan6
>Date: 1/22/2003 12:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
>
>John Manning <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>news:<3E2C49F6...@terra.com.br>...
>> Kevin Thurston wrote:
>> >
>> > Some time ago, Steve Lowther posted a message about how mormons
>comfortably
>> > believe two mutually exclusive items at the same time. Lately Red(neck)
>> > Davis has been giving us an example of how they do, borrowing a quote
>from
>> > G. B. Hinckley:
>> >
>> > "That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much
>> > about. "
>> >
>> > As long as TBM's such as Red(neck) Davis can quote that statement, they
>can
>> > accept that Hinckley wasn't lying when he denied that the LDS believe
>that
>> > god was once a man.
>> >
>> > There are probably other statements the TBM can use to comfort themselves
>> > when they have to believe two mutually exclusive items, but I don't have
>> > them readily at hand.
>>
>> How about, "Self-deception is OK, as long as it is approved by LDS
>> Church authorities".
>Speaking of self-deception, could you please explain how, for
>thousands of years, people thought that the sun revolved around the
>earth.
Yes. It was because that is what the leaders of their churches told them to
believe, and they punished those who tried to tell them differently.
>Millions of observations, peer reviewed, the most brilliant
>scientists, duplicated observation -- confirmed, following the rules
>of scientific observation.
That's right, Charles. That's also exactly how we know that no displaced
Hebrews lived in the Americas beginning circa 600 B.C. and ending circa 400
A.D. Scientists have done the observing, and they've observed no evidence.
>Is it not possible that scientists still have self-deception?
Is it not possible that religionists still have self-deception?
> If is
>"approved by the scientific community", iow scientific consensus.
Would you like to offer comments on the scientific consensus concerning a
comparison between the validity of the concept that the earth revolves around
the sun, versus the validity of the concept that displaced Hebrews inhabited
the Americas from 600 BC to 400 AD?
>We are human beings and none are exempt from this malady.
Indeed, and you in particular are less exempt than most other humans.
Randy J.
charles
More self-deception ==>> blame everything on the "church".
Now, my fine feathered friend, what "church" did the ancient Greeks
belong to? And the other ancient peoples who accepted that the sun
revolved around the earth.
>
> >Millions of observations, peer reviewed, the most brilliant
> >scientists, duplicated observation -- confirmed, following the rules
> >of scientific observation.
>
> That's right, Charles. That's also exactly how we know that no displaced
> Hebrews lived in the Americas beginning circa 600 B.C. and ending circa 400
> A.D. Scientists have done the observing, and they've observed no evidence.
Just as they observed the sun revolving around the earth.
????????????????Don't you get it?????????????????????
>
> >Is it not possible that scientists still have self-deception?
>
> Is it not possible that religionists still have self-deception?
Scientists also practice self-deception. They are human beings. Will
you deny that fact? Humans ==> religionists, athiests, prostitutes,
scientists, politicians, human beings ==> practice self-deception.
You statements above are an example of that. The greeks, the romans,
etc were human beings and thought the sun revolved around the earth.
But YOU blame "the church".
I propose that scientist practice this art today. They deceive
themselves. It has been demonstrated many many times.
>
> > If is
> >"approved by the scientific community", iow scientific consensus.
>
> Would you like to offer comments on the scientific consensus concerning a
> comparison between the validity of the concept that the earth revolves around
> the sun, versus the validity of the concept that displaced Hebrews inhabited
> the Americas from 600 BC to 400 AD?
Let's comment on your propensity to blame "the church" despite the
facts of history. Perhaps we can gain some insights into your mind,
if anyone were really interested.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> More self-deception ==>> blame everything on the "church".
Charles Dowis, apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (LDS, or Mormon) is lying. NOBODY is blaming "everything on
the Church."
> Now, my fine feathered friend, what "church" did the ancient Greeks
> belong to? And the other ancient peoples who accepted that the sun
> revolved around the earth.
Charles, do you know what "self deception is?" Self deception is not
just about arriving at the wrong answer. Whenever limited data is
available, there is ALWAYS a risk of arriving at the wrong answer --
even with sound logic.
Self deception is arriving at the wrong answer when you don't have to.
It's about arriving at the wrong answer when the data shows it's
wrong, but the data is *ignored.* It's about playing pretend games,
that some miracle will happen to dig your favorite myth out of the
hole it's in, while sticking your own head in the sand and ignoring
all the evidence that IS available.
That's the point you continue to dodge. Science isn't about being
right all the time. It's about being as right as possible with the
data that's currently available. That's why science is progressive --
it changes with new information.
But self deception is different. Self deception doesn't change,
because self deception is about *ignoring* data that's available, so
that one's beliefs are NOT consistent even with the best available
data. Self deception is about maintaining belief in things even
though the data says it isn't so. It's about willful, deliberate
personal ignorance.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Fool Speck
> > >Speaking of self-deception, could you please explain how, for
> > >thousands of years, people thought that the sun revolved around the
> > >earth.
> >
> > Yes. It was because that is what the leaders of their churches told them to
> > believe, and they punished those who tried to tell them differently.
>
> More self-deception ==>> blame everything on the "church".
>
> Now, my fine feathered friend, what "church" did the ancient Greeks
> belong to? And the other ancient peoples who accepted that the sun
> revolved around the earth.
<Sigh> Charles, I am seriously concerned about you. It seems
absolutely you have lost some IQ points since I became "inactive" on
ARM. It is irritating to have to engage in expounding on the obvious,
but I suppose its my turn:
The observations on the sun were just that. Observations. It is when
with advancements in technology occurred that these old observations
were challanged. The "Church", misusing its authority, enforced
acceptance of the mistakes and rejection of the truth. It's really
VERY simple. The problem anciently was NOT self-deception, but lack
of imperical evidence.
> > >Millions of observations, peer reviewed, the most brilliant
> > >scientists, duplicated observation -- confirmed, following the rules
> > >of scientific observation.
> >
> > That's right, Charles. That's also exactly how we know that no displaced
> > Hebrews lived in the Americas beginning circa 600 B.C. and ending circa 400
> > A.D. Scientists have done the observing, and they've observed no evidence.
>
> Just as they observed the sun revolving around the earth.
>
> ????????????????Don't you get it?????????????????????
<Sigh> OK, maybe I should just laugh.
> > >Is it not possible that scientists still have self-deception?
> >
> > Is it not possible that religionists still have self-deception?
>
> Scientists also practice self-deception. They are human beings. Will
> you deny that fact? Humans ==> religionists, athiests, prostitutes,
> scientists, politicians, human beings ==> practice self-deception.
Deceiving oneself in the presence of contrary evidence is simply
different than not having the evidence to begin with. Religious
discipline often embraces a great deal of self deception. Spiritual
discipline includes accepting inconvenient and painful truths.
> You statements above are an example of that. The greeks, the romans,
> etc were human beings and thought the sun revolved around the earth.
> But YOU blame "the church".
>
> I propose that scientist practice this art today. They deceive
> themselves. It has been demonstrated many many times.
OK, Charles. Let's have an example of that in the scientific process.
Tell us by cited examples how this has been "demonstrated many, many
times". I am anticipating no response to this.
> > > If is
> > >"approved by the scientific community", iow scientific consensus.
> >
> > Would you like to offer comments on the scientific consensus concerning a
> > comparison between the validity of the concept that the earth revolves around
> > the sun, versus the validity of the concept that displaced Hebrews inhabited
> > the Americas from 600 BC to 400 AD?
>
> Let's comment on your propensity to blame "the church" despite the
> facts of history. Perhaps we can gain some insights into your mind,
> if anyone were really interested.
Now you're just blathering, Charles. Don't you ever think before you
post? Have you no desire in maintaining some semblance of
credibility?
Are there no LDS apologists ANYWHERE that can make decent arguments
without resorting to the kind of deflections we see here? I will say,
Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
Steve Lowther
charles
> cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message news:<e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> > thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030122200236...@mb-cf.aol.com>...
>
> > > >Speaking of self-deception, could you please explain how, for
> > > >thousands of years, people thought that the sun revolved around the
> > > >earth.
> > >
> > > Yes. It was because that is what the leaders of their churches told them to
> > > believe, and they punished those who tried to tell them differently.
> >
> > More self-deception ==>> blame everything on the "church".
> >
> > Now, my fine feathered friend, what "church" did the ancient Greeks
> > belong to? And the other ancient peoples who accepted that the sun
> > revolved around the earth.
>
> <Sigh> Charles, I am seriously concerned about you. It seems
> absolutely you have lost some IQ points since I became "inactive" on
> ARM. It is irritating to have to engage in expounding on the obvious,
> but I suppose its my turn:
>
> The observations on the sun were just that. Observations. It is when
> with advancements in technology occurred that these old observations
> were challanged.
Apparently you have not read my many many posts where I have said "I
understand the difference between facts and opinions." You have
precisely proven my point.
There is indeed a difference between an observation, a point of fact,
and the conclusion and interpretation of that fact.
Now if you could spread the word to the others and if you could only
convince the others of that very simple piece of logic.
> The "Church", misusing its authority, enforced
> acceptance of the mistakes and rejection of the truth. It's really
> VERY simple. The problem anciently was NOT self-deception, but lack
> of imperical evidence.
Hurrah!!!!!!!!! Your eyes are open. There is a difference between
fact and opinion.
With more technology, new discoveries, scientific opinion changes.
Amazing.
snip
charles
> > thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030122200236...@mb-cf.aol.com>...
> > > > If is
> > > >"approved by the scientific community", iow scientific consensus.
> > >
> > > Would you like to offer comments on the scientific consensus concerning a
> > > comparison between the validity of the concept that the earth revolves around
> > > the sun, versus the validity of the concept that displaced Hebrews inhabited
> > > the Americas from 600 BC to 400 AD?
> >
> > Let's comment on your propensity to blame "the church" despite the
> > facts of history. Perhaps we can gain some insights into your mind,
> > if anyone were really interested.
>
> Now you're just blathering, Charles. Don't you ever think before you
> post? Have you no desire in maintaining some semblance of
> credibility?
Don't bother reading my posts, if they are offensive to you.
>
> Are there no LDS apologists ANYWHERE that can make decent arguments
> without resorting to the kind of deflections we see here?
Actually I am getting this person back to the original subject -- self
deception. He is the one deflecting, and I am bringing it back on
track.
Re-read the post and see the whole point of this topic.
I've been at this a long time, and you have much to learn about the
antis and their techniques. Again, read the post and you will see the
flow of the logic, and the original topic was **self-deception**.
I will say,
> Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
inhabit this realm.
>
>
> Steve Lowther
charles
> cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message news:<e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > More self-deception ==>> blame everything on the "church".
>
> Charles Dowis, apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> Saints (LDS, or Mormon) is lying. NOBODY is blaming "everything on
> the Church."
>
> > Now, my fine feathered friend, what "church" did the ancient Greeks
> > belong to? And the other ancient peoples who accepted that the sun
> > revolved around the earth.
>
> Charles, do you know what "self deception is?"
I think so, but I am always learning.
> Self deception is not
> just about arriving at the wrong answer. Whenever limited data is
> available, there is ALWAYS a risk of arriving at the wrong answer --
> even with sound logic.
OK, ok, o....k....
>
> Self deception is arriving at the wrong answer when you don't have to.
> It's about arriving at the wrong answer when the data shows it's
> wrong, but the data is *ignored.*
OK, you are correct. Over the centuries, observers trusted the
previous conclusions, and the established scientific model was that of
a geocentric universe and, probably did not bother to question that
assumption.
It's about playing pretend games,
> that some miracle will happen to dig your favorite myth out of the
> hole it's in, while sticking your own head in the sand and ignoring
> all the evidence that IS available.
I think that you are a captive of your own self deception, that there
is no God. At the end, we all will know the truth of that.
>
> That's the point you continue to dodge. Science isn't about being
> right all the time. It's about being as right as possible with the
> data that's currently available. That's why science is progressive --
> it changes with new information.
But they must be convinced that the new information changes their
paradigm. The appearance of "moving stars", or planets, did not
change the geocentric universe, they simply made adjustments --
various circular paths -- to their model. Were they "self deceived"
when they did this? Did they attempt to continue the geocentric myth.
Or, do you agree that science is reluctant to abandon a model which
has "stood the test of time", as the geocentric model did. Do you
define that as self-deception?
Your definition of self-deception is where I and other Mormons are
unconvinced by your arguments. They contain logical flaws, and are
unconvincing.
But that becomes self-evident every time you trot out your "evidence"
against mormonism. I found amusing your denial of my responses
whenever I point out the flaws in your logic and argument.
I guess "self-deception" is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> But self deception is different. Self deception doesn't change,
> because self deception is about *ignoring* data that's available, so
> that one's beliefs are NOT consistent even with the best available
> data. Self deception is about maintaining belief in things even
> though the data says it isn't so. It's about willful, deliberate
> personal ignorance.
We agree but in different ways.
Tim, Some call me
news:b0mm5i$nt5$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu:
> charles <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Speaking of self-deception, could you please explain how, for
>> thousands of years, people thought that the sun revolved around the
>> earth. Millions of observations, peer reviewed, the most brilliant
>> scientists, duplicated observation -- confirmed, following the rules
>> of scientific observation.
>
> Would you like to cite the peer reviewed articles on the sun orbitting
> the earth? Guess when peer reviewing began?
The depth of Dowis' ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
--
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
Tim, Some call me
news:e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com:
> OK, you are correct. Over the centuries, observers trusted the
> previous conclusions, and the established scientific model was that of
> a geocentric universe and, probably did not bother to question that
> assumption.
The Scientific Method as we know it today did not exist before the 16th
century. Some may argue that the Greeks and employed observation as a tool,
but observation is only a part of science. We don't start really seeing a
hegalian aspect to science until the time of Copernicus. It was a response
to the Church's heliocentric paradigm.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> OK, you are correct. Over the centuries, observers trusted the
> previous conclusions, and the established scientific model was that of
> a geocentric universe and, probably did not bother to question that
> assumption.
False. Wrong. Totally incorrect.
There was no "trust." The observations were readily available to
anyone who wanted to see them first hand.
And people who failed to question them were not acting like
scientists, they were acting like YOU, Charles. They were acting like
religionists.
Your response, Charles, illustrates *exactly* how YOU engage in self
deception. You could have looked up the history, and educated
yourself, but you chose, instead, to remain ignorant of the history,
and repeat your favorite myths, instead.
> It's about playing pretend games,
> > that some miracle will happen to dig your favorite myth out of the
> > hole it's in, while sticking your own head in the sand and ignoring
> > all the evidence that IS available.
>
> I think that you are a captive of your own self deception, that there
> is no God. At the end, we all will know the truth of that.
Okay, Charles. Time to put up or shut up.
1) Define god. I challenge you.
2) Show that your definition of god is self consistent and consistent
with observations of nature. I challenge you.
3) Produce the evidence for your god. I challenge you.
4) Show that you have any evidence for your pompous assertion about
knowing you are right in "the end."
In short, Charles, show that you are doing anything more than spitting
assertions all over the place.
I challenge you.
> >
> > That's the point you continue to dodge. Science isn't about being
> > right all the time. It's about being as right as possible with the
> > data that's currently available. That's why science is progressive --
> > it changes with new information.
>
> But they must be convinced that the new information changes their
> paradigm.
As opposed to the mythologist, who refuses to change at all, and
clings to their mythology with the hope it will "all make sense"
someday.
Requiring evidence to change is a GOOD thing, Charles. That's why the
scientific community did not run off like a bunch of idiots the way
the Utah Legislature did when some quacks said they could do fusion in
a jar.
> The appearance of "moving stars", or planets, did not
> change the geocentric universe, they simply made adjustments --
> various circular paths -- to their model. Were they "self deceived"
> when they did this?
Accepting a model that is consistent with the facts is not self
deception. Self deception is the stuff YOU do -- it's holding to a
model that does NOT fit the facts.
> Did they attempt to continue the geocentric myth.
>
> Or, do you agree that science is reluctant to abandon a model which
> has "stood the test of time", as the geocentric model did.
Requiring evidence to change is a GOOD thing, Charles. That's why the
scientific community did not run off like a bunch of idiots the way
the Utah Legislature did when some quacks said they could do fusion in
a jar.
> Do you
> define that as self-deception?
I already told you what self-deception is, Charles. It's ignoring the
evidence and holding to myths are inconsistent with evidence.
> Your definition of self-deception is where I and other Mormons are
> unconvinced by your arguments.
Charles is lying. Here is how I explained self deception:
Self deception doesn't change,
because self deception is about *ignoring* data that's available, so
that one's beliefs are NOT consistent even with the best available
data. Self deception is about maintaining belief in things even
though the data says it isn't so. It's about willful, deliberate
personal ignorance.
> They contain logical flaws, and are
> unconvincing.
I challenge you, Charles, to demonstrate the logical flaws.
> But that becomes self-evident every time you trot out your "evidence"
> against mormonism.
It's self deception because you ignore the evidence.
> I found amusing your denial of my responses
> whenever I point out the flaws in your logic and argument.
I challenge you, Charles, to demonstrate the logical flaws.
> I guess "self-deception" is in the eye of the beholder.
The idea that self-deception is relative is, itself, a form of self
deception. But at least you are consistent, Charles. You seem to do
it all the time.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Apparently you have not read my many many posts where I have said "I
> understand the difference between facts and opinions."
<snip>
Sure. We all have. And don't pretend we have not all observed the
way you have ignored calls to present the facts supporting the Book of
Mormon. You say the Book of Mormon is true. Show it. And do so
without confusing facts and opinion.
Waiting .....
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
>
> I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
> flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
> inhabit this realm.
Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
assertions. Put up or shut up.
charles
>
> <snip>
> > > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> > > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> > > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
> >
> > I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
> > flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
> > inhabit this realm.
>
> Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
> assertions. Put up or shut up.
Do a search on "sheum".
ForWhatItsWorth
Do a search on
"I-am-too-scared-too-answer-honestly-so-I-will-shoot-ink-into-the-water-and-
escape"... you will get back a link to Yawning Chuckles.
FWIW
Mark
Clovis Lark
Giffle, the one where I convinced "pacumeni" that lds claims were
completely offbase... You DO mean THAT one, eh?
charles
>
> <snip>
> > > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> > > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> > > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
> >
> > I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
> > flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
> > inhabit this realm.
>
> Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
> assertions. Put up or shut up.
Also do a search on our discussions on "monsters under my bed". You
were unable to comprehend that a million square miles of jungle,
mountains, rivers are not the same thing as looking under your bed.
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> > cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message news:<e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> > > > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> > > > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
> > >
> > > I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
> > > flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
> > > inhabit this realm.
> >
> > Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
> > assertions. Put up or shut up.
>
> Do a search on "sheum".
Gawd, Charles. Can't you read? Here, let's post the challenge again,
and see if you can act on it, this time:
Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
assertions. Put up or shut up.
Duwayne Anderson
Clovis Lark
And you were unable to comprehend that the bom describes NO JUNGLES, NO
MOUNTAINS. It describes nondescript terrain that could easily be the
greater Lake Ontario region. Indeed, it uses 3 indian nations' names from
this region. Its description of the River Laman could easily be the
Hudson, Susquehannah, or even Niagara. Descriptions of fauna match
precisely that of rural NY (except for the fanciful elephants). In a
certain respect, this geography I describe is tantamount to JSjr's "under
the bed". You insist we should ignore this and go looking in all the
other rooms of the house for what we've already found under the bed.
Pretty silly, eh?
And through ALL OF THIS, you are still too lazy and duplicitous to show a
documented sampling error from Cavalli-Sforza's research. You even lie
claiming you've done so already.
(somebody please repost, since Charles is probably refusing to read my
comments)
ForWhatItsWorth
"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:b168ub$5ep$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
Hey, cdowis! Lookit!!!!
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> > cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message news:<e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> > > > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> > > > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
> > >
> > > I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
> > > flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
> > > inhabit this realm.
> >
> > Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
> > assertions. Put up or shut up.
>
>
> Also do a search on our discussions on "monsters under my bed".
Ho ho ho. That, Charles, shows YOUR logical flaws. After all, you
don't believe in monsters under the bed because the expected evidence,
should they exist, is not found. Yet you DO believe in the Book of
Mormon, even though the expected evidence for the Book of Mormon is
not found, either.
Now, Charles, stop yer stalling and pretending. I challenge you here,
on the spot. List them (the logical flaws by the LDS critics). No
more empty
assertions. Put up or shut up.
> You
> were unable to comprehend that a million square miles of jungle,
> mountains, rivers are not the same thing as looking under your bed.
Now, Charles, you will have to do better than tell lies. I never said
they were the same. Why do Mormons have to tell lies in order to try
and defend their religion?
A million square miles may not be the same as looking under the bed,
but 2 million Jaredites is a helluvalot more than one monster, too.
That is the point YOU ignore. It's about expected evidence, Charles.
There is expected evidence if the Book of Mormon is true, but we don't
find it.
Duwayne Anderson
Charles, stop playing peek-a-boo and deal with the issues.
charles
>
> <snip>
> > > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> > > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> > > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
> >
> > I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
> > flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
> > inhabit this realm.
>
> Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
> assertions. Put up or shut up.
Please do a search on my discussion with Dr. Brown regarding the
dating of the haplogroup x evidence. His specific answer to my
question in that regard, and you response to me.
charles
dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic issues.
After doing so, I will be happy to discuss bom geography with you.
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<b168ub$5ep$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>...
Clovis Lark
> Read and study Allen's book "Exploring the lands of the BOM". He
> dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic issues.
> After doing so, I will be happy to discuss bom geography with you.
You know, Charles. I'll be HAPPY to do so when you've kept your part of
the bargain and documented a sampling error in Cavalli-Sforza, citing
volume, page and the error. Since we've already told you Cavalli-Sforza
makes no comment about bom claims, your dodge about DNA from Lehi,
Nephites, Lamanites, etc. will not fly.
After you have completed this, I will disassemble Allen's book page by
page. AND I WILL DO IT.
Now use the space below to eliminate the greater Lake Ontario region from
the bom descriptions. Be careful NOT to add text to the book, including
deserts, jungles, canyons. Take special care with the names:
Ramah
Midian
Onidah
Kishkumin
Hill Ephraim
Shurr
Morianton
Ogath
Moron
Teancum
Jacobugath
Lehi
Minon
Omner
Ripliancum
Shilom
Valley of Alma
Clovis Lark
Brown gave you NO specific answer. We went over that. Since your vague
phone convesation with him, much more corroborating evidence has placed
his and Wallace's research SQUARELY within the expected results for Bering
Strait migrations 25-12 thousand years ago. You know, that murky time
your spiritual leaders like to refer to as the "pre-existence"...
Lee Paulson
"charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com...
Oh God, yes, let's rehash that. Charles didn't misrepresent it enough when
he started that. Then do the search on what Doug Wallace told me, and what
questions Charles actually asked. Hint: It's similar to "Do the Druse
display haplotype x?" Then find out whether Charles even read the abstract
of the paper before he commented on it. Hint: I posted the article for
Charles after the fact.
Charles, did you read Cavalli-Sforza yet? Did you read the Wallace and
Brown paper in its entirety (not just the summary I posted)? Did you ever
read any of these scientific papers you believe you have sufficient
knowledge of that you can critically review them?
Oh, I didn't think so.
--
Regards,
Lee, The James
Equus, Pliohippus, Protohippus, Miohippus, Mesohippus, Orohippus. Evolution
is just a theory. So is gravity
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> > cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message news:<e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> > > > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> > > > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
> > >
> > > I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
> > > flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
> > > inhabit this realm.
> >
> > Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
> > assertions. Put up or shut up.
>
> Please do a search on my discussion with Dr. Brown regarding the
> dating of the haplogroup x evidence. His specific answer to my
> question in that regard, and you response to me.
Gawd, Charles. Can't you read? Charles, I challenged you here, on
the spot. List them. No more empty assertions. Put up or shut up.
Do you *really* need to be told what an "assertion" is, Charles?
That's where you tell someone else you did it, and then tell them to
do your homework by doing all this searching.
You made the assertion, Charles. Put up or shut up. No more
assertions, an no more telling other people to do your homework.
Of course, we know you will never do that. You can't backup your
assertions, and that's why you play these games of yours.
Clovis Lark
Charles once used the unfortunate word, "tapestry", to describe the moth
eaten fabric of apology. I reminded him at the time, that Wallace, Brown,
et al., Cavalli-Sforza, et al., Santos, et al. AND a host of other
research, ALL INDEPENDENTLY UNDERTAKEN AND PEER REVIEWED BY DIFFERENT
GROUPS, all of this research confirmed 3 large migrations out of Africa,
splits in those migrations in Mesopotamia and central Asia, ultimately
leading to 3 major migrations over the Beringean land bridge, the last
being c. 12000 years ago. This was not just one study. This was not a
group of studies using only one type of data. This is a corpus of
research in different areas. Some use bone types. Some use blood
alleles. Some use Y chromosomal DNA. Some use mtDNA. Some use artifacts.
Some use socio-cultural detritus. ALL of them come to the same conclusion
regarding the overview on migration. Each specific study that appears
adds another detail to what was once only a general model. As the details
emerge, the model gathers weight. It no longer is a conclusion based upon
supositions.
> Oh, I didn't think so.
And he never will. The only science he ever divulges comes from watching
teevee.
charles
> charles <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> >> cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message news:<e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> > > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
> >> > > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
> >> > > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
> >> >
> >> > I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
> >> > flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
> >> > inhabit this realm.
> >>
> >> Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
> >> assertions. Put up or shut up.
>
> > Please do a search on my discussion with Dr. Brown regarding the
> > dating of the haplogroup x evidence. His specific answer to my
> > question in that regard, and you response to me.
>
> Brown gave you NO specific answer. We went over that.
We did indeed, and you have still to prove the dating.
We have gone over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and
And you still have refused to furnish us proof of the dating.
> Since your vague
> phone convesation with him, much more corroborating evidence has placed
> his and Wallace's research SQUARELY within the expected results for Bering
> Strait migrations 25-12 thousand years ago. You know, that murky time
> your spiritual leaders like to refer to as the "pre-existence"...
I see no proof of the dating of the haplogroup x. Please give proof
Please give proof
Please give proof
Please give proof
Please give proof
Please give proof
Duwayne Anderson
> dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic issues.
Brown's book fails totally to identify any geological area that is
fully -- or even reasonabley -- consistent with the Book of Mormon
narrative.
> After doing so, I will be happy to discuss bom geography with you.
Stop making excuses and stalling, Charles. If you have anything to
offer, besides assertions, just say it.
<snip to end>
Lee Paulson
"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:b18rj6$bb6$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
Oh, give credit where credit is due. He also reads Jeff Lindsay's junk and
FARMS.
--
Regards,
Lee, The James
Equus, Pliohippus, Protohippus, Miohippus, Mesohippus, Orohippus. Evolution
is just a theory. So is gravity.
Lee Paulson
"charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com...
Dating of what? mtDNA? Charles, do you even know WHY mtDNA is a reasonable
way to determine lineage?
Oh geez. I can't believe I'm trying to explain elementary college biology
to someone who has demonstrated he has no interest in knowing it.
ForWhatItsWorth
What will you do for an encore, Charles? Hold your breath till you turn
blue, kick your heels, and refuse to eat your strained beets?
Uh oh.... more tantrum coming....
>
>
> > Since your vague
> > phone convesation with him, much more corroborating evidence has placed
> > his and Wallace's research SQUARELY within the expected results for
Bering
> > Strait migrations 25-12 thousand years ago. You know, that murky time
> > your spiritual leaders like to refer to as the "pre-existence"...
>
> I see no proof of the dating of the haplogroup x. Please give proof
> Please give proof
> Please give proof
>
>
> Please give proof
>
> Please give proof
>
> Please give proof
WAAAHHH!!!! WAAAAAAHHH!!!! WAAAAAHHHH!!!!
Mark
Fwiw
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<b171qe$jkk$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> charles <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03012...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message news:<e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>...
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > > Charles, that your embracing the idea of universal self-deception at
>> >> > > least gives us insight into why you cling to the philistine notion
>> >> > > that the LDS Church is beyond the reach of its critics.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have never expressed such a lofty opinion. I merely point out the
>> >> > flaws in the logic, and the various techniques of the antis who
>> >> > inhabit this realm.
>> >>
>> >> Charles, I challenge you here, on the spot. List them. No more empty
>> >> assertions. Put up or shut up.
>>
>> > Please do a search on my discussion with Dr. Brown regarding the
>> > dating of the haplogroup x evidence. His specific answer to my
>> > question in that regard, and you response to me.
>>
>> Brown gave you NO specific answer. We went over that.
> We did indeed, and you have still to prove the dating.
The dating is in the collation of all the research, Wallace, Santos,
Cavalli-Sforza, Greenberg,Turner, Zegura, Hammer, Karafet
> We have gone over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and
You can continue to repeat till you are blue in the face. But that does
NOT change the fact that you haven't read the science or collated the
conclusions. The conclusions completely destroy the bom claims of a
source population arriving and populating the Americas some 2500 years
ago. They place the terminus of source population influx at 10000 years
prior to that date. They do this based upon linguistics, blood allele
markers, archeological digs, mtDNA, Y-chromosomal DNA, as well as other
factors including geological-climatic changes facilitating/hindering
migration, disease transmission. These factors, as a group deny the
plausibility of jews/mideasterners arriving 2500 years ago. They place all
significant migrations prior to the Columbian migrations during what
mormonism calls the pre-existence. They deny a global flood facilitating
boat travel from Missouri to Ararat 5000 years ago.
> And you still have refused to furnish us proof of the dating.
We have. You just cannot seem to understand it. It denies bom claims.
> > Since your vague
>> phone convesation with him, much more corroborating evidence has placed
>> his and Wallace's research SQUARELY within the expected results for Bering
>> Strait migrations 25-12 thousand years ago. You know, that murky time
>> your spiritual leaders like to refer to as the "pre-existence"...
> I see no proof of the dating of the haplogroup x. Please give proof
Haplogroup X fits in with Y-chromosomal, blood-allele, bone, linguistic,
etc. analyses for dating. It is a detail in a "tapestry" of data.
Haplogroup X by itself is NOT the issue. But you still do not understand
this, even after years to educate yourself.
TheJordan6
>Date: 1/28/2003 3:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
>
>Read and study Allen's book "Exploring the lands of the BOM". He
>dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic issues.
>
>After doing so, I will be happy to discuss bom geography with you.
Readers,
Charles has recommended that people read Allen's book several times in the
past. I happen to own that book, and I'll take the opportunity here to point
out that some of Allen's theories are in contradiction to what many modern LDS
apologists are currently asserting about ancient America.
A few weeks ago, I offered some comments on Allen's assertions in a response on
another forum. Since Charles apparently thinks that Allen is a credible
source, perhaps readers can judge Charles' credibility by comparing Allen's
assertions to those of other LDS apologists.
A questioning Mormon asked:
>Isn't it possible that other people could have come over after the
flood to intermarry with BoM people?
I responded:
I see that you're still thinking like a Mormon. You're using circular
reasoning---you're using one unproven premise (the literalness of the global
flood) to support another unproven premise (the authenticity of the BOM). For
us to even entertain your theory, you must first prove that the global flood
which killed every human on earth even happened.
But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the flood did happen exactly
as Mormon doctrine mandates. The problems here as they concern the BOM's
claims are ones of chronology and archaelogical evidence.
To explain: One popular pro-Mormon work which some apologists use as a
reference is Joseph Allen's "Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon" (BYU
Print Services, 1989.)
In his book, Allen uses dates from the Mayan calendar and other material to
attempt to give a beginning date for civilization in Mesoamerica. On page 14,
Allen states on a timeline:
"3114 BC---Calendar base date/Proposed flood date
2700 BC---Arrival of first settlers to Mesoamerica/Arrival of Jaredites to
Promised land/Tower of Babel--Iraq"
Allen then states on page 16: "the Maya used a base system that, when
correlated with our calendar, dates to August 13, 3114 BC. We do not know to
what event, if any, the 3114 BC date is attached. However, the date apparently
is associated with some great event, such as the great flood or the arrival of
the first settlers in Mesoamerica."
It's obvious that Allen is trying to suggest that the "Jaredites" were the
first settlers of America, just as passages in the BOM and statements of LDS
leaders including Joseph Smith also do. To quote Smith:
"In this important and interesting book, the history of America is unfolded,
from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the
confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian
era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been
inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and
came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the
city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were
principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were
destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded
them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second
race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnent are
the Indians that now inhabit this country." (Joseph Smith Jr., published in
Times and Seasons March 1, 1842 and in History of the Church, Vol 4).
Note that Smith did not mention any Asians nor anyone else inhabiting the
Americas before the "Jaredites." In keeping with LDS belief in the
"young-earth" theory, which holds that humans have only existed for about
5000+- years, LDS apologists like Allen above date the flood at circa 3000 BC.
The problem with that is that the archaelogical and DNA evidence demonstrate
that human civilization in the Americas is thousands of years older than that,
and there has never been a break in the chain of continuous human habitation in
the Americas such as a catastrophic flood which killed everyone. For example,
In his 1954 "The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization," noted archaelogist Eric
Thompson wrote:
"Considerable evidence of early hunters has been found recently in a district a
few miles north of Mexico City, once the swampy fringe of Lake Texcoco. At
Itzapan the remains of a young mammoth were found in 1952 with a flint point
lodged between two of the ribs and with other implements of flint and obsidian
mixed with the bones. The beast had been butchered after apparently being
driven into the sticky soil of the so-called Upper Becerra formation, dated
about *nine to ten thousand years ago.* Bones of another mammoth found two
years later under similar conditions had clearly been moved around by human
agency, and again points were associated with them. Some of the bones showed
deep cuts made by the hunters as they chopped up the beast. At Tepexpan, only
one and one-half miles away, and in a similar formation were the remains of a
woman of about thirty, the only human so far associable with those early
hunters. *Her bones did not differ noticeably from those of the general run of
present-day Indians of Mexico;* there was nothing primitive about her, although
she was buried when mammoth still roamed the land."
Note that Thompson dated human remains at circa 9,000-10,000 years ago (many
centuries before the alleged global flood), and yet the remains were similar to
modern-day Mesoamericans which inhabited the same region---the point being,
that modern-day Amerinds are descended from those 10,000-year-old mammoth
hunters---and that means that no global flood interrupted human culture or
activity in Mesoamerica during or after the time in which it allegedly
occurred.
The alleged global flood did not interrupt human civilization in other areas
around the world either. Archaelogical and DNA evidence of unbroken human
culture abounds in Egypt, Israel, Malaysia, and Australia, to name a few.
Study the info at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/realeve.html
Thus, the ancient inhabitants of America did not arrive after the time of the
alleged flood to intermarry with the "BOM people," as you hypothesize. They
were already in America centuries before the alleged flood, and they never
ceased to exist at any time.
But that is only half of the BOM's problem in this area. The other half is the
DNA evidence which does not support the idea of ANY ancient Americans being
descended from Semite stock beginning circa 2500 BC (the alleged "Jaredites")
or 600 BC (the alleged "Lehites.")
Also, the population figures of the "Jaredites" as stated in the BOM---which
alleges that at least two million of them were killed in battles circa 600
BC---mandate that the Jaredites and their enemies would have necessarily been
the dominant culture in the region, rather than just a small minority which
intermarried with, and were swallowed up, by a larger population of alleged
Asian-descended peoples. That being the case, then we should be able to find
"Jaredite" (Semite) DNA relationships in spades among modern Amerinds, if the
"Jaredites" existed as recently as 2600 years ago. But we don't.
The final nail in the coffin of your premise is that IF any "non-BOM people"
settled in the Americas sometime between the flood of circa 3000 BC and the
"Jaredite" crossing circa 2500 BC, those people would have necessarily been
closely related to Noah---a Semite. Since, according to LDS doctrine, only
eight humans survived the flood circa 3000 BC, then all humans who migrated to
the Americas after the flood should show a close relationship with a common,
small group of ancestors beginning some 5000 years ago. But they don't. So
your premise is destroyed from four directions:
*The lack of evidence for the global flood
*The archaelogical evidence which shows the Americas to have been continuously
inhabited for at least 10,000 years
*The DNA evidence which shows a close relationship between Amerinds and Asians
*The DNA evidence which does not support the Semite origins of Amerinds in the
timeline necessary for us to accept the BOM's claims.
Conclusion: The Book of Mormon has no basis in historical or scientific fact.
It is soundly refuted by everything we know about ancient American history,
anthropology, archaelogy, and by DNA research.
Randy J.
Fool Speck
Steve Lowther
charles
> >From: cdo...@my-deja.com (charles)
> >Date: 1/28/2003 3:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >Read and study Allen's book "Exploring the lands of the BOM". He
> >dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic issues.
> >
> >After doing so, I will be happy to discuss bom geography with you.
>
>
> Readers,
>
> Charles has recommended that people read Allen's book several times in the
> past. I happen to own that book, and I'll take the opportunity here to point
> out that some of Allen's theories are in contradiction to what many modern LDS
> apologists are currently asserting about ancient America.
>
> A few weeks ago, I offered some comments on Allen's assertions in a response on
> another forum. Since Charles apparently thinks that Allen is a credible
> source, perhaps readers can judge Charles' credibility by comparing Allen's
> assertions to those of other LDS apologists.
I have expressed no opinion on Allen, except that his book, or other
similar books, are a pre-requisite for discussion on modern view of
bom geography. He devotes entire chapters on such topics as "narrow
places", "land southward", "bodies of water", etc.
I do not agree completely with everything he says, but we can use his
maps, etc in our discussions.
>
> A questioning Mormon asked:
>
> >Isn't it possible that other people could have come over after the
> flood to intermarry with BoM people?
>
>
> I responded:
>
None of your post relates to bom geography. That is the topic of
discussion regarding Allen's book.
> To explain: One popular pro-Mormon work which some apologists use as a
> reference is Joseph Allen's "Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon" (BYU
> Print Services, 1989.)
> In his book, Allen uses dates from the Mayan calendar and other material to
> attempt to give a beginning date for civilization in Mesoamerica. On page 14,
> Allen states on a timeline:
You talk about dates, dna, etc etc. Nothing here on geography and
that is the topic of discussion, if you will look at the previous
posts.
snipped
snip
Clovis Lark
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030129135736...@mb-mp.aol.com>...
>> >From: cdo...@my-deja.com (charles)
>> >Date: 1/28/2003 3:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >Read and study Allen's book "Exploring the lands of the BOM". He
>> >dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic issues.
>> >
>> >After doing so, I will be happy to discuss bom geography with you.
>>
>>
>> Readers,
>>
>> Charles has recommended that people read Allen's book several times in the
>> past. I happen to own that book, and I'll take the opportunity here to point
>> out that some of Allen's theories are in contradiction to what many modern LDS
>> apologists are currently asserting about ancient America.
>>
>> A few weeks ago, I offered some comments on Allen's assertions in a response on
>> another forum. Since Charles apparently thinks that Allen is a credible
>> source, perhaps readers can judge Charles' credibility by comparing Allen's
>> assertions to those of other LDS apologists.
> I have expressed no opinion on Allen, except that his book, or other
> similar books, are a pre-requisite for discussion on modern view of
> bom geography. He devotes entire chapters on such topics as "narrow
> places", "land southward", "bodies of water", etc.
> I do not agree completely with everything he says, but we can use his
> maps, etc in our discussions.
As we can use mine, a verifiable map of the Ontario region with all sorts
of relative names appearing in all the expected locations. Each time I
post this most OBVIOUS reference, you myopically seem to elide it...
€ R. L. Measures
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
** Charles Dowis -- the weapon of choice for critics of God's one true church.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures, remove ^ from adr.
€ R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> ...
** A True Beliver's zombie-eyes do not see that which is not faithbuilding.
charles
Could you be specific. Give us specific bom geographic landmarks,
their distance between them and the bom reference texts. Allen did
this extensively in his book, so let's see specific details of your
theory.
Palmer (I forget the title of his book at present) also did an
extensive "path analysis" of bom geographic features, with distances
between these features. He then compared this complex with the
American continent and found only one location which fit --
mesoamerica.
The second issue is to locate cities with specific features -- the use
of cement, technology (writing, calendar, etc), submerged cities, and
cities which fit specific features found in the bom text.
Yes, a superficial look at the Ontario area shows some similarity to
the bom geography, but the "devil" is in the details.
I look forward to your response.
snip
Clovis Lark
The Book of Mormon text does not identify the actual location of its
[story's] setting, and Mormon Church authorities have never issued an
official statement to establish the location. However, the traditional
belief of faithful Church members is that a major portion of the history
took place in either South or Central America, an assumption that seems to
have evolved from early beliefs.
Early Mormon leaders, Franklin D. Richards, James A. Little, and Frederick
G. Williams, all stated that the landing place of the Book of Mormon
Lehite voyagers was "on the continent of South America, in Chili, 30
degrees south latitude."52 One of the first ordained apostles in the
Mormon Church, Orson Pratt, was also a proponent of the Chilean location.
On three occasions between 1867 and 1872, Pratt speaking from the pulpit,
told his listeners the landing place was on the coast of Chile. According
to Pratt, "30 degrees south latitude was not far from where the city of
Valparaiso now stands."53
Many problems surface, however, when Book of Mormon geographical
descriptions are compared with the actual geography of either South or
Central America. Because of these problems and because literary
similarities exist between Spaulding's Manuscript Story and the Book of
Mormon, it seems reasonable to question whether or not the geographical
descriptions in the Book of Mormonfit those of the Great Lakes area [as
described] in the Spaulding story.
Since there are few apparent contraditions among the geographical
descriptions in the Book of Mormon, [(see page 59, note 59 for the
solution to one possible contradiction) the reader can assume that its
geographical information is internally consistent and that] the author had
a definite area in mind when he wrote the story.
If Solomon Spaulding did in fact make a substantial contribution to the
Book of Mormon [text] then the geographical account in that book, [as well
as the one found in Manuscript Story] may also have been his work. The
geographies [of these] two texts is compared in this section.
Spaulding's account tells of settlements existing throughout "the whole
country on both sides of the Ohio River. . . also along the Great Lakes of
Erie and Michigan. . . and in some part of the country which borders on
Lake Ontario" (Manuscript Story pp. 20, 54). The entire area was
[encompassed] within a five or six hundred mile radius [of Spaulding's
Conneaut home] and included the present states of New York, Pennsylvania,
and Ohio, [along with portions of outlying regions such as Michigan,
Kentucky, and Ontario].
There are many place names in the Book of Mormon; only a few have good
location descriptions. We know that the city of Zarahemla was on the west
side of the River Sidon and that the land of Minon was on the east. We
know that there was a narrow neck of land that separated the "land
northward" from the "land southward" and that the lands of Zarahemla and
Bountiful were in the land to the south, adjacent to the narrow neck of
land. We also know that the Hill Cumorah was in the land to the north. In
recent years, Mormon scholars have tried to confirm their belief that
these
-----------------------
52 Paul R. Cheesman, The World of the Book of Mormon, 1978, pp. 22-23.
53 Journal of Discourses, vol, 12, p. 342; vol. 13, p. 129; vol. 14, p.
325.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[55]
locations existed in either South or Central America, but the geographical
descriptions within the Book of Mormon do not support this theory.
Stories within the text give us some indication of the distance between
the different locations, An example is in the story of Alma: he fled into
the wilderness with his people to escape the king's men. He fled from the
land of Shilom, near the landing place of the Lehites, to the city of
Zarahemla, near the narrow neck of land. This journey was made in
twenty-one days (Mosiah 23:3, 24:20, 24:25).
According to George Reynolds, in his Concordance of Book of Mormon, the
land of Zarahemla was in northern Colombia. If the landing place of the
Lehites was on the coast of Chile, as stated by early Mormon leaders, and
the land of Zarahemla was in northern Colombia, Alma would have traveled
approximately twenty-seven hundred miles in twenty-one days, averaging one
hundred twenty-eight miles per day. The journey would have required Alma
and his party to cross the Andes Mountains and to ford many rivers while
driving their flocks and conveying provisions necessary to support four
hundred fifty people (Mosiah 23:1, 18:35). Because such an accomplishment
seemed impossible, Mormon scholars have searched for more logical
locations for these and other Book of Mormon sites, including the landing
place of the Lehi party and the narrow neck of land that led to the north
countries.
After explorer John L. Stephens published in 1841 his Incidents of Travel
in Central America, Mormon Church leaders changed the location of Book of
Mormon geography from the traditional South American area to Central
America54 This changed the location of the city of Zarahemla to a new site
and identified the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as the narrow neck of land of
the Book of Mormon. However, this new theory also proved to be
controversial. Mormon author Hugh Nibley said: "To call the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec, one hundred and thirty miles wide, a narrow passage is of
course out of the question."55 The Book of Mormon states that the narrow
passage was "only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a
Nephite" (Alma 22:32). It is obvious that neither location chosen by
Mormon scholars for Book of Mormon geography is compatible with the
evidence within the text.
Joseph Smith, who claimed to have translated the ancient record through
divine guidance, seemed also to [have been] ignorant of Book of Mormon
geographic locations.
In 1836, the Prophet Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others, found it
best, on account of apostasy and bitterness, to leave Kirtland and go to
Far West, Mo., where the Saints were endeavoring to establish themselves.
On September 25, they passed through Huntsville, Randolph Co., and the
Prophet is said to have told the brethren that that place, where a stake
of Zion had been established, was the ancient site of the citv of Manti.56
-----------------------
54 Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 23, (1842), p. 927.
55 Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 2nd ed., 1976, p.
361.
56 Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol 2 (1956),
p. 324.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[56]
This statement, attributed to Joseph Smith, conflicts with the Book of
Mormon description of the location of Manti. Commenting on this problem in
his In Search of Cumorah, David Palmer said: "There is only one city of
Manti referred to in the Book of Mormon. It was by the 'head of the river
Sidon. . . there is no possible way for a site up in the United States to
have been the city of Manti."
If Joseph Smith had been inspired to make this statement, or if he had
been the original author of the Book of Mormon, why would he have made
such an error concerning the location of the Book of Mormon city of Manti?
And why did he not correct the erroneous theories taught by other Church
leaders about Book of Mormon geography locations?
Hill Cumorah
Joseph Smith claimed he obtained metal plates, cdntaining the ancient Book
of Mormon record, from a hill near his home in New York State. However,
the Book of Mormon description of the Hill Cumorah location is not
compatible with it being in New York State.
One of the' many Book of Mormon stories that do not support this theory is
the account given by Zeniff of a small party of men who left the land of
Nephi in search of the land of Zarahemla. During their search, they became
lost and happened onto the remains of an extinct civilization. Believing
they had found the land of Zarahemla, they returned to the land of Nephi
(Mosiah 21:25-26). The ruins they supposed to be the land of Zarahemla
were actually the remains of the Jaredite people who had fought and died
at the Hill Ramah, the same hill that was called Cumorah by the Nephites
(Ether 15:11).
If the land of Nephi was in the traditional South or Central American
location and the Hill Cumorah (Ramah) was in what is now New York State,
the Nephites would have traveled a minimum of forty-six hundred miles in
their journey. It is unlikely that these Nephites would have wandered from
either South or Central America to the New York area while looking for the
land of Zarahemla, which, according to Reynolds, was in northern Colombia.
Mormonarchaeologist Joseph Vincent has reached the same conclusion:
If a sincere student of the Book of Mormon will conscientiously read and
study the book itself and will plot out all the locations mentioned. . .
he will find that all Book of Mormon lands lie within a five or six
hundred mile radius, and that this area could not possibly extend from
Chile to New York.57
This contradiction has caused many Mormon scholars to look elsewhere for
the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah location. David Palmer speculated that the
hill was in southern Mexico. Fletcher
-----------------------
57 Founteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures,
BYU, 1963, p. 68.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[57]
Hammond wrote, ". . .the only proper conclusion to be reached is: the Book
of Mormon Hill Cumorah was somewhere in what is now Central America or
southern Mexico."58 These theories present an obvious problem. If the Hill
Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is in either southern Mexico or Central
America, then how did the metal plates get from such a distant location to
New York State? Speculation on this problem caused some Mormon scholars to
conclude that Moroni, the last survivor of the Nephite nation, transferred
a wagonload of metal plates from the Hill Cumorah of southern Mexico to
the Hill Cumorah of New York State, where they could be found and
translated by Joseph Smith (Palmer p. 20).
These contradictions, recognized by Mormon scholars, suggest that the
writer of the Book of Mormon did not have the traditional location in mind
when he wrote the Cumorah story. Either the Nephites did not live in South
or Central America or the Hill Cumorah was not in New York State.
Sea East and Sea West
Most of the Book of Mornlon story setting was in or near the land of
Zarahemla, which was adjacent to both the Sea East and the Sea West. Of
the fourteen references to these seas in the Book of Mormon, none suggests
that the Sea Aast was the Atlantic Ocean or that the Sea West was the
Pacific. Yet this assumption is a common belief among members of the
Mormon Church.
The Lehites reached their "land of promise" after crossing the "waters of
the great deep." For the next three hundred and twenty years they lived
near their landing place (Omni 1:15). During that time, the Seas East and
West were not mentioned in the record. It was only after Mosiah and his
people migrated to the land of Zarahemla that these seas were introduced
into the story. This suggests that these were inland seas, near the land
of Zarahemla, and not the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
If Spaulding [wrote the Book of Mormon to replace his unfinished
Manuscript Story, but retained his original] Great Lakes area [setting,
then] Lake Ontario would have been his Sea East and Lake Erie his Sea West
(see footnote below,* and my Great Lakes area maps included in Figures 1
and 2 on pp. 60-61).
Hill Onidah
The Book of Mormon Hill Onidah was in the land of Antionum, east of
Zarahemla (Alma 31:3, 32:4). About one hundred miles east of where I have
placed the land of Zarahemla in New York State is a place called Oneida
Castle. It is located on a hill in Oneida County and was the chief
settlement of the Oneida Indians of New York. It seems more than
coincidental that when the Great Lakes area is used as the setting for the
Book of Mormon geography that this place has the same name, is also
situated on a hill, and is in the same location as the Book of Mormon Hill
Onidah.
-----------------------
* [Note: In 1844 local historian Harvey Nettleton explained that in
early post-colonial times Lake Erie "was regarded as a distant solitary
lake, situated far toward the setting sun, and its name intimately
associated with that of the West Sea." ("History of Astabula County," as
reprinted in the Geneva Times, no date, copy in the Dale R. Broadhurst
Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library at the University of Utah).]
58 Fletcher Hammond, Geography of the Book of Mormon, 1959, p. 119.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[58]
River Sidon
In the Book of Mormon there are thirty-seven references to the River
Sidon. It ran south to north and emptied into the sea. The line of
fortification that divided the land of Zarahemla from the land of Nephi
was close to the river's headwaters (Alma 50:11). If my Great Lakes theory
is correct, the Genesee River in New York is the River Sidon of the Book
of Mormon, It runs from south to north, empties into Lake Ontario, and
fits all the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon for the River Sidon.
[An alternative identification for the Sidon would be the Niagara River,
which has its "head" in the "Sea West," (cf. Alma 22:28-29; 50:11). Such
an identification would, however, reduce the area of the great Land of
Zarahemla to an impossibly small patch of land in the neighborhood of the
Niagara River's Grand Island and place the parallel "narrow strip of
wilderness" atop the Welland Canal tract.]
Narrow Neck of Land
The most important geographic feature in the Book of Mormon is the "narrow
neck of land." It is described as [being] "only a day and a half's
journey" from sea to sea. It divided the land to the north from the land
to the south (Alma 22:32).
If the Book of Mormon setting is placed in the Great Lakes area, Canada
becomes the land to the north and the United States the land to the south.
The thirty mile wide narrow neck of land between Lake Ontario and Lake
Erie would take about a day and a half to cross on foot. North of the
narrow neck of land in the Book of Mormon were "many waters, rivers, and
fountains" (Mormon 6:4). North of my suggested narrow neck of land, in
southern Ontario, the area is covered with many lakes, rivers, and
springs.
Lines of Fortification
Several lines of fortification were described in the Book of Mormon. The
first is spoken of in Alms 22:32. It was called the "line Bountiful" and
its length was "a day and a half's journey" across the narrow neck of land
from the east to the west sea. Apparently the Nephites gathered their
armies to this line because it was a natural line of fortification. A
seemingly inconsistent description of the line Bountiful is given by
Helaman fifty years later in the story. He describes it as being "a day's
journey for a Nephite on the line which they had fortified" (Helaman 4:7).
The writer of the Book of Mormon apparently had Helaman retreat to the
narrowest part of the neck of land to make another line of fortification.
The proposed "narrow neck of land" between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario
narrows in width from about thirty miles (a day and a halfs journey) to
about twenty miles (a day's journey). It was used as a natural
fortification line between the United States and Canada in two wars: the
French and Indian War and the War of 1812
After driving the Lamanites southward, the Nephites built a different line
of fortification to separate the two nations. That line ran from the west
sea past the headwaters of the River Sidon (Alma 50:11) and, at that time,
formed the southernmost boundary of the Nephite country. If Book of Mormon
geography were placed in the context of Spaulding's Manuscript Story, this
line of fortification would extend from Lake Erie (the west sea), east
past the headwaters of the Genesee River. In his Geography of New York
State,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[59]
J. H. Thompson says that sixty-seven ancient fortified earthworks have
been found in an area extending from Lake Erie past the headwaters of the
Genesee River and on into the Oneida Indian country.
Narrow Strip of Wilderness
The Book of Mormon describes a "narrow strip of wilderness" or natural
land feature that divided the land of Nephi from the land of Zarahemla.59
It "ran from the Sea East even to the Sea West" (Alma 22:27).
In his Modern Geography (1822), Sidney E. Morse gives this description of
an unusual ridge of land in the area of my proposed land of Zarahemla.
From Genesse River, near its mouth, to Lewiston on the Niagara River,
there is a remarkable ridge running in a direction from east to west
almost the whole distance, which is 78 miles. Its general height above the
neighboring land is 30 feet: its width varies considerably, and in some
places is not more than 40 yards . . . and its distance from that water
(Lake Ontario) is between 6 and 10 miles. . . about 20 miles south of this
ridge and parallel with it, there is another, which runs from Genesee
River to Black Rock on Niagara River.
The Book of Mormon writer may have thought of this area [the continuation
of the Niagara Escarpment] as a narrow strip of wilderness running from
the east sea to the west sea. [An alternative identification would be the
Welland Canal lands, in Spaulding's day a narrow, N-S oriented strip of
swampy low-lands which intersected the Niagara Escarpment just south of
present-day St. Catherines, Ontario).
Land of Minon
In the Book of Mormon story, the writer says the Nephites followed the
Amlicites from the hill Amnihu, which was east of the River Sidon, to the
land of Minon (Alma 2:15, 24). In Ontario County, New York, east of the
Genesee River, are the remains of an ancient fortified hill that today is
called Boughton Hill.60 This ancient hill is in the same location as the
hill Amnihu of the Book of Mormon, if my theory is correct.
Speaking before the New York Historical Society in December 1811, New York
Governor DeWitt Clinton told of a tribe of Indians called "Minonion." The
geographic descriptions of the land of Minon in the Book of Mormon (Alma
2:15-24) are [generally] compatible with this New York location [for the
Minonion Indians].
Waters of Ripliancum
One of the north country battle areas in the Book of Mormon was near a
place called the Waters of Ripliancum. These waters were described as
being "large to exceed all" (Ether 15:8). The text does not explain what
is meant by the phrase "large to exceed all." If the Great Lakes area was
the intended story location of the Book of Mormon, the
-----------------------
59 According to George Reynolds, in his Complete Concordance of the Book
of Mormon, (1976), there are two places called Nephi and two called
Zarahemla. If this is so, it would account for seemingly contradictory
descriptions of these places.
60 H.C. Shetrone, The Mound Builders, p. 276.
[60 - 61]
BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY
(cont'd.)
Maps of the Great Lakes Region
[Figure 1. below shows the actual landscape of the Great Lakes Region
where Rev. Solomon Spaulding lived after leaving his home state of
Conneticut in about 1795. Place names shown in brown represent the
locations of imaginary cities and lands appearing in his Roman story
manuscript. All the other features and sites are actual places existing
before his death in 1816.
Figure 1. Actual Place Names and Locations [in the] Spaulding Story
Larger image of Figure 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Figure 2. shows several of the Book of Mormon place names fit to the
landscape of the Great Lakes Region. Several of the sites have the same
names, or similar names, of sites at the same locations as in Figure 1.
The inset in the upper left indicates the "Narrow Strip of Wilderness"
ridge that runs between the Sea West and the Sea East.
Figure 2. Proposed Book of Mormon Lands Locations
larger image of Figure 2.
[62]
Waters of Ripliancum (cont'd.)
Waters of Ripliancum may have been Lake Superior, the largest of the five
Great Lakes. On or near the north shore of Lake Superior are Ripple Bay,
Ripple Creek, Ripple Reef, and Ripple Lake -- names surprisingly similar
to the "Waters of Ripliancum." [One possible alternative identification
could be the great natural wonder of Niagara Falls, whose outpourings
"exceed all" other "waters" in North American waterfalls.]
Hill Ramah
In the Book of Mormon story, the armies of Coriantumr ["beat" the armies
of Shiz and caused them to retreat "southward"] from Ripliancum. [The
armies of Coriantumr apparently remained in the north country] and pitched
their tents by the Hill Ramah (Ether 15:10-11). Today, south by southeast
from Lake Superior (Waters of Ripliancum?), near Lake Simcoe in Ontario,
Canada, is the Rama Indian Reservation,61 located within the boundaries of
Rama Township62
The Book of Mormon Ramah was [relatively near] the Waters of Ripliancum in
the "land northward," and, similarly, the modern day Rama Indian
Reservation is located [relatively near] several place names with a
"Ripple" designation, in Canada (the north country).
Book of Mormon Cities
The following modern place names are actually located in the area of
Spaulding's Manuscript Story setting. All but a few can be found in
gazetteers published prior to the Book of Mormon. Also shown is all
companion list of Book of Mormon place names that are either identical or
similar to the modern names listed. Some of these modern place names are
located north of the Great Lakes in Canada. In each case, the parallel
name in the Book of Mormon is in the area called the "land northward." An
asterisk (*) identifies these places.
Modern Maps Book of Mormon
Agathe, Saint * Ogath
Alma Alma
Angola Angola
Antrim Antum
Antioch Anti-Anti
Boaz Boaz
Conner * Comner
Ephrem, Saint * Ephraim, Hill
Hellam Helam
Jacobsburg Jacobugath
Jordan Jordan
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Kishkiminetas Kishkumen
Lehigh Lehi
Mantua Manti
Monroe Moroni
Minoa Minon
Moraviantown * Morianton
Morin * Moron
-----------------------
61 According to G.H. Armstrong, in his The Origin and Meanings of Place
Names in Canada, Toronto, 1972,
"Rama is the Greek form of Ramah of the Bible, which is said to
mean 'high place'".
62 J.G. Farewell, History of the County of Ontario, 1907.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[63]
Modern Maps Book of Mormon
Noah Lake Noah, Land of
Oneida Onidah
Oneida Castle Onidah, Hill
Omer Omner
Rama * Ramah
Ripple Lake * Ripliancum, Waters of
Sodom Sidom
Shiloh Shilom
lands of the Minonion Land of Minon
Tenecum (Tecumsah) * Teancum
City of Angola
One of the war stories related in the Book of Mormon was fought "in the
borders of Zarahemla by the Waters of Sidon" (Mormon 1:10). Later the war
resumed, and [Mormon's armies] retreated towards the "north countries."
[At this time they occupied] a city called Angola (Mormon 2:4).
The present day city of Angola, New York, is located west of the Genesee
(Sidon?) River and south ["in the borders"] of the proposed land of
Zarahemla. This is another example of the many actual locations in the
Great Lakes area that can be located on modern maps by following
geographical information in the Book of Mormon.
City of Teancum
Teancum, a Book of Mormon city located in a land called Desolation, within
the north country, was "in the borders by the seashore" (Mormon 4:3). It
was named after Teancum, who fought and died in the land Desolation while
helping the Nephite military commander, Moroni, contain the Lamanites who
were trying to gain access to the "land northward" (Alma, Chapters 50-62).
The modern city of Tecumseh [Tenecum] is located in Canada (the land to
the north), by "the borders" of Canada and the United States, and by "the
seashore." It was named after the great Shawnee Indian chief, who fought
and died as a military commander under the British in the War of 1812,
while helping their forces contain the Americans, who were trying to gain
access to British territory in Canada.
"King Gideon" [& the Land of Lehi-Nephi]
In 1750, the Delaware "king," Chief Tadeuskund, was baptized into
Christianity and christened "Gideon." He was a counselor to his nation and
negotiated peace with the other Indian nations. Gideon was eventually
burned to death in Wyoming County, Penneylvania, after being supplied with
liquor and made drunk63
The Book of Mormon tells a similar story of a "Gideon" who was a Christian
convert of Alma. He was also a great peacemaker (Mosiah 20:17-21). Within
this story, King Limhi desired baptism to Christianity, King Noah was
burned to death, and the Lamanites were made drunk with a tribute of wine
supplied by Gideon.
-----------------------
63 Rev. John Heckewelder,History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian
Nations, 1876, pp. 302-305.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[64]
The historical location of the Delaware King Gideon story was in the area
of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, near the [Roman's] landing place in the
Spaulding story. The Book of Mormon Gideon story took place in the land of
Lehi-Nephi, the landing place of the Lehites. [The Land of Lehi-Nephi may
thus correspond to the land of modern Lehigh County.] The similarities
between the elements of the two stories suggest that the writer of the
Book of Mormon used [post-columbian] Indian history [and geography] as the
basis for some of his stories, using the same ideas, but applying them to
different parts of [his own] story. This suggestion [may be quite]
significant, considering the fact that Spaulding wrote his Manuscript
Story as a fictional history of the Delaware Indians [and their
neighbors].
Kishkumen
The location of the Book of Mormon city of Kishkumen is not given in the
text. However. there are names similar to Kishkumen, on modern maps, in
the location of Spaulding's Manuscript Story setting.
In Spaulding's story, his travelers left their landing place on the
Delaware River and traveled west across the "Great Mountain." They "came
to the confluence of two great rivers which in conjunction produced a
river which was called Owaho" (Ohio) (Manuscript Story, p. 18). This place
was on the site of the present day city of Pittsburgh. Near this area, are
the remains of an ancient Delaware Indian village named Kiskiminetas. A
monument marks the site of the ancient village. There was also a group of
Delaware towns called Kuskuski in Lawrence County, near the present-day
site of New Castle.64 Another variation of this Delaware name, found on
early maps, is Kishkiminetas.
The Book of Mormon Kishkumen appears to be yet another variation of this
Delaware Indian name. Here, again, the evidence suggests that the writer
of the Book of Mormon used [Anglicized] Indian place names and [elements
of Indian] stories as ideas for his story about the ancestors of the
American Indians.
(Excerpted from Vernal Holley )
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>
>Many problems surface, however, when Book of Mormon geographical
>descriptions are compared with the actual geography of either South or
>Central America. Because of these problems and because literary
>similarities exist between Spaulding's Manuscript Story and the Book of
>Mormon, it seems reasonable to question whether or not the geographical
>descriptions in the Book of Mormonfit those of the Great Lakes area [as
>described] in the Spaulding story.
>
The only problem with imposing the geography of "Manuscript Story--Conneaught
Creek" on the Book of Mormon is this glaring problem:
The Ms. has a Roman ship headed for Britain blown off course to the Delaware
peninsula. This is a halfway plausible excuse.
To suppose that the geography of the Ms. underlies the Book of Mormon, and that
Spaulding wrote most of the Book of Mormon is to suppose that the Nephites
could leave the Persian Gulf area and sail directly to the Mid Atlantic States
with no other landfall in between. This is ridiculous. To get to Spauldingland,
the Nephites would have to hug the coast of Africa all the way around, sail
northward along the coast of Africa to arrive at the point Fabius was blown off
course, or sail across the narrow part of the Atlantic, and then work their way
up the coast of S. America, Mexico, the southern states, and the entire Eastern
seaboard. If indeed Spaulding reworked his original story into the Book of
Mormon, he was so lazy at the rewrite that he made it more ridiculous than the
first, and not less.
The story in the Book of Mormon is that of a sea voyage directly across a
large open sea, with few or no islands in the way, which pretty much describes
the Atlantic between Europe and New York. That is just another "geographical
problem." How does one move the Persian Gulf around to an open sea that goes
straight to the U.S.?
Raleigh
Actually, the Community of Christ leaders have done the true saints a favor by
taking a new name for their part of the Church, for it has helped make a
definite distinction between the true and false parts.
-- Richard Price
Clovis Lark
> wrote:
That, of course, goes without saying. The point being that BH Roberts'
description of he narrative proceeding as though from a child's POV
without regard to consistency, etc. includes the normative "signposts"
that child would have encountered.
Duwayne Anderson
And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
And there being but little timber upon the face of the land,
nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in
the working of cement, therefore they did build houses of cement, in
which they did dwell. [Heleman 3:7]
Give the modern-day name of the narrow neck of land, Charles. The
Book of Mormon says there was a major city built there. Tell us the
modern-day name of that city. Give us the modern-day name of the east
and west seas. Give us the modern-day name of the land northward and
the land southward. Make sure these regions are fully consistent with
the Book of Mormon description. For example, the land northward had
no (very few) trees.
> Allen did
> this extensively in his book, so let's see specific details of your
> theory.
Allen's attempts were a joke, Charles. To illustrate exactly how they
are a joke, I challenge you to post for us Allen's description of the
narrow neck of land. Go ahead. I challenge you. Post it here, and
watch it get shredded.
> Palmer (I forget the title of his book at present) also did an
> extensive "path analysis" of bom geographic features, with distances
> between these features.
Palmer's attempts were a joke, Charles. To illustrate exactly how
they are a joke, I challenge you to post for us Palmer's description
of the narrow neck of land. Go ahead. I challenge you. Post it
here, and watch it get shredded.
> He then compared this complex with the
> American continent and found only one location which fit --
> mesoamerica.
Oh, pins and needles. Notice how careful Charles is not to tell us
what that location is. Palmer's attempts were a joke, Charles. To
illustrate exactly how they are a joke, I challenge you to post for us
Palmer's description of the narrow neck of land. Go ahead. I
challenge you. Post it here, and watch it get shredded.
> The second issue is to locate cities with specific features -- the use
> of cement,
In a land with virtually no trees. Can you even point to the land,
Charles?
> technology (writing, calendar, etc),
Yeah. Where is this ancient American civilization that used Hebrew
and Egyptian, the Hebrew calendar, and things like steel swords?
> submerged cities, and
> cities which fit specific features found in the bom text.
Where is the narrow neck of land, Charles, and the major city built on
it?
> Yes, a superficial look at the Ontario area shows some similarity to
> the bom geography, but the "devil" is in the details.
Surprise, surprise. Right there, practically in the back yard of the
19th century author who wrote the Book of Mormon.
> I look forward to your response.
> snip
I'll bet. You have it, Charles. Let's see if you can deal with any
of the issues.
Clovis Lark
I am reposting for Charles the details. As with Cavalli-Sforza, he
provides no response:
Hill Cumorah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[57]
Hill Onidah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[58]
River Sidon
Narrow Neck of Land
Lines of Fortification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[59]
Narrow Strip of Wilderness
Land of Minon
Waters of Ripliancum
[60 - 61]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[62]
Hill Ramah
Book of Mormon Cities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[63]
City of Angola
City of Teancum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[64]
Kishkumen
Vernal Holley author
father of peace
About ten years ago I visited an indian mound in Ohio. When I
arrived at the top of the mound I had a vision, whether from
my own bliss, or from God, or from the Devil, is still open to
debate, but as a result of the vision, I have come to believe
that if the Book of Mormon has some historicity to it, that
it's setting was around the great lakes.
A south or central american setting never did make sense
to me.
Love,
Absalom
--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon
ForWhatItsWorth
Just to chunk in my $.02, and before Charles can roll over and accept the
Ontario/New York geographical theory, I wonder if he has looked in the BoM
for a meterorlogical attribute common to that area: snow. In the current
version of the BoM, there is but one reference to "snow":
1 Nephi 11:8
And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I
looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my
father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea,
exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the
whiteness of the driven snow.
It seems odd to compare something to snow, if they lived in a hot climate,
and were from a hot climate in the middle East. If they did not live in a
tropical area, but did indeed live near New York, it seems equally odd there
should be only one reference to snow. After all, the BoM *was* translated
correctly and all...
References to "cold": one. 2 Nephi 1:14 - the "cold and silent grave"
References to "ice": zero
References to "frost": zero
References to "freeze": zero
References to "weather": zero
Now,
References to "heat": 7, all referring to weather-type heat.
It doth seemeth me the BoM is set in a tropical clime. This leaves poor
Mormon and/or Moroni humpin' from Panama to New York, across lands filled
with his enemies, with 250 pounds of gold.
Mark
Fwiw
Roy Stogner
> References to "cold": one. 2 Nephi 1:14 - the "cold and silent grave"
> References to "ice": zero
> References to "frost": zero
> References to "freeze": zero
> References to "weather": zero
>
> Now,
>
> References to "heat": 7, all referring to weather-type heat.
>
> It doth seemeth me the BoM is set in a tropical clime. This leaves poor
> Mormon and/or Moroni humpin' from Panama to New York, across lands
> filled with his enemies, with 250 pounds of gold.
I think you missed one: "hail", somewhere in Helaman, I believe. Used in
a metaphorical sense, but it would demonstrate familiarity with the
occurance after half a millenium.
---
Roy Stogner
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Just to chunk in my $.02, and before Charles can roll over and accept the
> Ontario/New York geographical theory, I wonder if he has looked in the BoM
> for a meterorlogical attribute common to that area: snow. In the current
> version of the BoM, there is but one reference to "snow":
> 1 Nephi 11:8
> And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I
> looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my
> father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea,
> exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the
> whiteness of the driven snow.
>
> It seems odd to compare something to snow, if they lived in a hot climate,
> and were from a hot climate in the middle East. If they did not live in a
> tropical area, but did indeed live near New York, it seems equally odd there
> should be only one reference to snow. After all, the BoM *was* translated
> correctly and all...
>
> References to "cold": one. 2 Nephi 1:14 - the "cold and silent grave"
> References to "ice": zero
> References to "frost": zero
> References to "freeze": zero
> References to "weather": zero
What makes this even more interesting is the manner in which the Book
of Mormon describes the Lamanites so frequently as being "naked:"
"Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save
it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor,
which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and
their stones, and their slings, and so forth." [Alma 3:5]
One can only imagine those naked Lamanites in New York in January.
> Now,
>
> References to "heat": 7, all referring to weather-type heat.
>
> It doth seemeth me the BoM is set in a tropical clime. This leaves poor
> Mormon and/or Moroni humpin' from Panama to New York, across lands filled
> with his enemies, with 250 pounds of gold.
Another interesting mention regarding weather are the "whirlwinds:"
"But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the
land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed,
because of the tempest and the whirlwinds and the thunderings and the
lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;" [3
Nephi 8:12]
The problem is, whirlwinds are formed by the collision of hot and cold
fronts. That's why they are so common in the US Midwest. Cold air
from Canada collides with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico, and
woosh. You get tornadoes. But they are quite rare in most other parts
of the world. What's the occurrence in Central America?
<snip to end>
TheJordan6
>Date: 1/29/2003 7:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20030129135736...@mb-mp.aol.com>...
>> >From: cdo...@my-deja.com (charles)
>> >Date: 1/28/2003 3:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >Read and study Allen's book "Exploring the lands of the BOM". He
>> >dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic issues.
>> >
>> >After doing so, I will be happy to discuss bom geography with you.
>>
>>
>> Readers,
>>
>> Charles has recommended that people read Allen's book several times in the
>> past. I happen to own that book, and I'll take the opportunity here to
>point
>> out that some of Allen's theories are in contradiction to what many modern
>LDS
>> apologists are currently asserting about ancient America.
>>
>> A few weeks ago, I offered some comments on Allen's assertions in a
>response on
>> another forum. Since Charles apparently thinks that Allen is a credible
>> source, perhaps readers can judge Charles' credibility by comparing Allen's
>> assertions to those of other LDS apologists.
>I have expressed no opinion on Allen, except that his book, or other
>similar books, are a pre-requisite for discussion on modern view of
>bom geography.
Folks, note how Charles points us to a source of "information", and then
quickly backpedals and acts like he really doesn't endorse the views of the
very source he cited.
>He devotes entire chapters on such topics as "narrow
>places", "land southward", "bodies of water", etc.
And several months ago, when you cited Allen's views, I wrote an exhaustive
post illustrating why Allen's views are incredible and worthless.
>I do not agree completely with everything he says, but we can use his
>maps, etc in our discussions.
Okay, Charles. Tell us exactly what actual locations match up with any of
Allen's proposed maps. Then list the details of data within those locations
that support the existence of the ancient cultures that the BOM claims were
there.
>> A questioning Mormon asked:
>>
>> >Isn't it possible that other people could have come over after the
>> flood to intermarry with BoM people?
>>
>>
>> I responded:
>None of your post relates to bom geography. That is the topic of
>discussion regarding Allen's book.
To the contrary, my post is directly relevant to "BOM geography." Allen's
views are that the American continent was unhabited before the alleged global
flood of Noah's time. That contradicts modern scientific research which shows
that the Americas have been inhabited for at least 10,000 years.
Allen's views suggest that the ancient cities and other artifacts found in
Mesoamerica originated from the "Book of Mormon people." Modern scientific
research indicates that the people who originated those ancient civilizations
were descended from Asians who emigrated there many thusands of years before
the alleged "Book of Mormon people" arrived.
The issue here is Allen's credibility. If he has no credibility on speaking of
the dating and origin of ancient Americans, then he has no credibility in
speaking of supposed "BOM geography" either.
Furthermore, Allen's views on "BOM geography" are mere speculation anyhow.
John Sorenson furnished similar maps of "proposed BOM locations" in his
"Ancient American Setting got the BOM," but none of it corresponds to any
actual locations which can be matched with the BOM's claims.
>> To explain: One popular pro-Mormon work which some apologists use as a
>> reference is Joseph Allen's "Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon"
>(BYU
>> Print Services, 1989.)
>> In his book, Allen uses dates from the Mayan calendar and other material to
>> attempt to give a beginning date for civilization in Mesoamerica. On page
>14,
>> Allen states on a timeline:
>You talk about dates, dna, etc etc. Nothing here on geography and
>that is the topic of discussion, if you will look at the previous
>posts.
I'll repeat my previous response to your endorsement of Allen's claims about
geography in another post.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>>> >Read and study Allen's book "Exploring the lands of the BOM". He
>>> >dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic issues.
>>> >
>>> >After doing so, I will be happy to discuss bom geography with you.
Readers: Last July, Charles Dowis recommended us to read and study this same
book. I have that book, and I wrote some comments to ARM then aoubt it, which
I'll repeat here:
>See chapter 24 in Joseph Allen's "Exploring the Lands of the Book of
>Mormon". The entire book examines bom geography in detail, comparing
>the text of the bom with the map.
>
>You now have an answer, if you are truly interested in persuing it.
Randy replied:
For those who are new to ARM, Charles Dowis has a habit of repeating the same
material over and over, even though his assertions have been refuted over and
over.
Charles occasionally refers readers to the book he names above. I happen to
have that book. Joseph Allen's theory on the location of the "narrow neck of
land", which Charles endorses, is nonsense.
To quote from Allen (p. 279):
"The Book of Mormon requirement for the Narrow Neck of Land/Narrow Pass is that
it divided the Land Southward from the Land Northward:
'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 were nearly surrounded by
water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land
southward.' (Alma 22:32.)"
Allen then offers, "I propose that the Narrow Neck of Land is located in what
is now called the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Southern Mexico. Furthermore, I
propose that the Narrow Pass runs through the Isthmus in a north-south
direction and runs between two mountain ranges, as opposed to running between
two oceans or seas."
The first and most glaring fatal error in Allen's proposal is one of distance.
At its narrowest point between the Gulf of Mexico on the north and the Pacific
Ocean on the south, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is 125 miles wide. The Book of
Mormon verse quoted above clearly states that it was "a day and a half's
journey" for a "Nephite" to travel "from the east to the west sea." Obviously,
no "Nephite" or any other human could travel 125 miles in a "day and a half" in
the era proposed in the BOM, unless he possessed a means of travel unknown to
modern science.
Secondly, the BOM text calls for an "east sea" and a "west sea," whereby the
"narrow neck of land" would necessarily run north-south (as the BOM states, the
"land northward" and the "Land southward.")
Contrary to that, the actual physical layout of the Isthmus and its surrounding
bodies of water is 90 degrees rotated from the directions stated in the BOM; so
in proposing the Isthmus as the "narrow neck of land," Allen must misrepresent
what the BOM actually states concerning directions. Twisting and
misrepresenting what the BOM actually states is a common habit of Mormon
apologists, including Charles Dowis. By engaging in such twisting, they render
everything written in the BOM meaningless.
Thirdly, the BOM states that "the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla was
nearly surrounded by water." Allen proposes that the "Land of Zarahemla" lay
in the southern and narrowest point of the Isthmus (in present-day Chiapas),
and the "land of Nephi" was 200 miles or so to the east (in present-day
Guatemala.)
The problem here is that in light of the proposed areas and distances, no
ancient person would have described such a large area of land as being "nearly
surrounded by water." The term "narrow neck of land" requires, in the eyes of
an ancient, primitive observer, an easily visible, measurable span. Obviously,
no observer of 2000+ years ago would describe a region which was at least 125
miles thick at its narrowest point as a "narrow neck of land." Also, Allen's
proposed areas and distances do not in the least fit the BOM's description of
the region as "being nearly surrounded by water." The BOM's description
requires the area to be more like a small peninsula of no more than 20-50 miles
separating the two "seas" by which it is "nearly surrounded."
Another fatal error in Allen's theory is that by pinning himself down to actual
locations for BOM sites, he must then provide the actual physical evidence in
those areas which would give readers some cause to believe that the people and
events described in the BOM actually existed in those areas.
For instance, Allen proposes the location of the land of "Zarahemla." The BOM
describes Zarahemla as a major capital of the Nephites between 200 BC and 200
AD. Many major BOM events occurred in the region; supposedly, even Christian
"churches" were established there, several decades before the birth of Christ.
If Allen's theory is to be given any credence whatsoever, then archaelogists
should be able to unearth evidence of such a culture in the proposed region.
Of course, that would also require the discovery of evidence for many more of
the BOM's unique claimed culture---Hebrew/Egyptian roots, religion, and/or
language, advanced metalwork, horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, etc., chariots and
other wheeled vehicles and/or implements, and so on.
Allen's effort of simply proposing locales, particularly when he has to twist
what the BOM actually states to make his theories force-fit into his proposed
regions, is useless unless he can produce evidence that "BOM events" took place
in the areas he proposes.
For example, the ancient city of Ur in Mesopotamia, although mentioned in the
Bible and other ancient texts, had been abandoned and covered with sand for
more than 2,000 years, until re-discovered in the 1910's. Texts and artifacts
discovered at the site positively identified the city as the Ur of lore. The
artifacts unearthed from its tombs now constitute one of archaelogy's greatest
treasure troves, including 3,000-year-old bronze spears and exquisite goldwork.
For a proposed "BOM site" to move past the "theory" stage, it will have to
produce actual positive evidence of unique "BOM culture," just as Ur and
numerous other sites have. The proposing of "vague parallels" and "interesting
possibilities" simply don't cut the mustard.
The average teenager can produce maps of "proposed locales" such as those
pitched by Joseph Allen. His proposals do not move us one inch further towards
verifying the authenticity of the BOM. Therefore, Charles, when you refer
people to Allen's book, you are directing them to one man's unverifiable
opinions, rather than any verifiable facts.
Randy J.
€ R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >From: cdo...@my-deja.com (charles)
> >Date: 1/29/2003 7:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
> >news:<20030129135736...@mb-mp.aol.com>...
> >> >From: cdo...@my-deja.com (charles)
> >> >Date: 1/28/2003 3:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
> >> >
> >> >...
>
> >> A questioning Mormon asked:
> >>
> >> >Isn't it possible that other people could have come over after the
> >> flood to intermarry with BoM people?
> >>
> >>
> >> I responded:
>
>
> >None of your post relates to bom geography. That is the topic of
> >discussion regarding Allen's book.
>
> To the contrary, my post is directly relevant to "BOM geography." Allen's
> views are that the American continent was unhabited before the alleged global
> flood of Noah's time. That contradicts modern scientific research which shows
> that the Americas have been inhabited for at least 10,000 years.
>
> ...
** A site in the Mojave desert indicates that homo sapiens were there
over 20,000 years ago.
€ R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> ...
** Randy: North American antelopes can run over 45 miles per hour. If
a lightweight Nephite titanium racing chariot was being pulled by a team
of 4 North American antelopes, they could probably cover 100 miles per
day.
Clovis Lark
I have posted Vernal Holley's correlation of bom names and locations in
the greater Ontario region here twice without a rebuttal by Charles.
However a few Aunties have loosed thei bonnets and offered that the
greater Ontario climate does not mesh with details of the bom (lack of
mention of snow, naked lamanites). I would caution everyone reading
Holley's work to remember BH Roberts words concerning the narrative of the
bom:
"In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things
the book relates as history that points quite clearly to
an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in
characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its
reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter
disregard for consistency."
With that in mind, it is my conclusion that JSjr and his fellow authors
(Cowdery...) wrote using the geography they knew all too well. The names
were easily varied versions of place names they knew. From that point
onwards, they spun out the details without regard for climate, flora,
fauna, even consistent timelines (note the anachronistic appearances of
persons). As easily as it is to dismiss the greater Ontario region for
climatological reasons, it is even easier to dismiss mesoamerica and south
america (for where are there even remote resemblances of climate
described, geography, fauna and flora--it is even less plausible). Onlt
the Ontario region matches key general features of bom names, and
plausible locations. It doesn't lessen the fiction of the book, but it
drives home a basic skeleton well known to the authors from personal
roaming and a solid knowledge of the region. The internal components of
the bom clearly point to a basic geography that the authors knew quite
well into which was spun a complete fantasy of events and conditions for
those events that could never have transpired.
Randy has reminded the forum that he has read and disected Allen's
childish attempt to fantasize the bom down near Yucatan. Reading Randy's
comments and the references from Allen, one sees NO correlation to
ANYTHING contained in the bom. On the contrary, Holley does do just this.
He identifies the narrow neck of land between the seas, the river Sion,
and believable sites and real names for supposed bom places and peoples
(remember the 3 NA nations?). Once this geographical framework is laid
out, it is possible for the author to proceed with "a certain lack of
perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite
clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in
characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness,
as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency."
For Charles benefit, and since he not yet commented (as with
Cavalli-Sforza), I repost Holley's work
-------
Hill Cumorah
Joseph Smith claimed he obtained metal plates,
cdntaining the ancient Book
of Mormon record, from a hill near his home in
New York State. However,
the Book of Mormon description of the Hill
Cumorah location is not
compatible with it being in New York State.
One of the' many Book of Mormon stories that do
not support this theory is
the account given by Zeniff of a small party of
men who left the land of
Nephi in search of the land of Zarahemla. During
their search, they became
lost and happened onto the remains of an extinct
civilization. Believing they
had found the land of Zarahemla, they returned to
the land of Nephi
(Mosiah 21:25-26). The ruins they supposed to be
the land of Zarahemla
[57]
Hammond wrote, ". . .the only proper conclusion
to be reached is: the Book
of Mormon Hill Cumorah was somewhere in what is
now Central America
or southern Mexico."58 These theories present an
obvious problem. If the
Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is in either
Hill Onidah
[58]
River Sidon
In the Book of Mormon there are thirty-seven
references to the River
Sidon. It ran south to north and emptied into the
sea. The line of
fortification that divided the land of Zarahemla
from the land of Nephi was
Narrow Neck of Land
Lines of Fortification
length was "a day and a half's journey" across
the narrow neck of land from
the east to the west sea. Apparently the Nephites
gathered their armies to
this line because it was a natural line of
fortification. A seemingly
inconsistent description of the line Bountiful is
given by Helaman fifty years
later in the story. He describes it as being "a
day's journey for a Nephite on
the line which they had fortified" (Helaman 4:7).
The writer of the Book of
[59]
Narrow Strip of Wilderness
Land of Minon
Waters of Ripliancum
[60 - 61]
[62]
Hill Ramah
Book of Mormon Cities
[63]
City of Angola
City of Teancum
[64]
The historical location of the Delaware King
Gideon story was in the area
of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, near the
[Roman's] landing place in the
Spaulding story. The Book of Mormon Gideon story
took place in the land
of Lehi-Nephi, the landing place of the Lehites.
[The Land of Lehi-Nephi
may thus correspond to the land of modern Lehigh
County.] The
similarities between the elements of the two
stories suggest that the writer
of the Book of Mormon used [post-columbian]
Kishkumen
suggests that the writer of
dangerous1
> I have posted Vernal Holley's correlation of bom names and locations in
> the greater Ontario region here twice without a rebuttal by Charles.
> However a few Aunties have loosed thei bonnets and offered that the
> greater Ontario climate does not mesh with details of the bom (lack of
> mention of snow, naked lamanites).
That's more indicative, I think, of the silliness of the book than with
anything else.
The place-names list should be an eye opener to anyone who hasn't seen it.
--
Cheers,
Dangerous1
Don Marchant
cheapsuit at Dangerous1.com
Think global, act loco
charles
1. Nephi had not gone to America at this time.
2. A simple search on the OT reveals:
snip
charles
Are you going to give us the "Saddam" technique?
Please cut the garbage, and get down to the issues. For example, I
don't care what Reynolds wrote abt bom geography. I don't care what
this author thinks abt the link between spalding and the bom.
Don't waste our time with this garbage.
Cut the baloney, and get to the issues.
Clovis Lark
Charles, there you go again...
> Please cut the garbage, and get down to the issues. For example, I
> don't care what Reynolds wrote abt bom geography. I don't care what
> this author thinks abt the link between spalding and the bom.
But I DO CARE ABOUT THE OBVIOUS NAME REPLICATIONS AND THEIR LINING UP WITH
THOSE IN THE BOM. Are you so disingenuous that after you get the detailed
reference you asked for, you cannot respond intelligently? Are you going
to give your "greek woman response" yet again?
Each time we get into one of these detailed discussions and you get the
details you ask for, you throw one of these tantrums. It happened before
with Cavalli-Sforza, and before that.
> Don't waste our time with this garbage.
Charles, you waste your time on this chat line. It is not productive to
either your faith or to your profession.
> Cut the baloney, and get to the issues.
The issues are below. Do you have the integrity to address them? By the
way, why not post Allen as I have done with Holley? Or are you scared?
ForWhatItsWorth
"charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e877bb3f.03020...@posting.google.com...
Good point, Charles. Of course, it does snow occasionally in the Middle
East, and the mountains certainly receive their share. The same cannot be
said for the steamy jungles of south america, where all the steel rusted
away and the silk rotted.
I notice you snipped all the *other* references to snow and ice and cold and
hail and freezing your ass off and so on. I wonder why you did that?
Mark
Fwiw
>
>
>
> snip
charles
You're right. This is just a simple "cut and paste" job. Just a
bunch of stuff thrown together from very old information.
Completely ignores the most recent research and discussions.
>
> > Please cut the garbage, and get down to the issues. For example, I
> > don't care what Reynolds wrote abt bom geography. I don't care what
> > this author thinks abt the link between spalding and the bom.
>
> But I DO CARE ABOUT THE OBVIOUS NAME REPLICATIONS AND THEIR LINING UP WITH
> THOSE IN THE BOM.
Again, you have a point, but why bury it?
The prob with names of mesoamerican cities is that they are, for the
most part, completely unknown. Only modern names are used so no
comparisons can be made with the bom.
> Are you so disingenuous that after you get the detailed
> reference you asked for, you cannot respond intelligently?
Why waste our time with this chaff. Make your points directly. The
name issue is a good one, but I'm not in the mood to slog my way thru
an article that cites Renolds as if he is the most modern LDS thinker
on bom geography, and ignores the work that has been done in the
last..... 30 years!
Give me a break.
> Are you going
> to give your "greek woman response" yet again?
Are you finally going to address it? I am still waiting on the proof
of the 30kya dating of the common ancestor.
Perhaps I missed it.
>
> Each time we get into one of these detailed discussions and you get the
> details you ask for, you throw one of these tantrums. It happened before
> with Cavalli-Sforza, and before that.
Just tired of waiting for you guys to answer my questions, and to stop
pretending that I have not responded to your questions.
When are you going to respond to my several posts on the sampling
errors in C-S?
In case you missed it ==> c-s has the time machine problem. Many
tribes have been extinct, so we are unable to determine their dna
characteristics. Now, you may ask that perhaps that does not matter
since the dna in other existing tribes are sufficient. Well, the prob
is that haplogroup x was found only in couple of very small groups,
and if these groups had been extinct, we would have missed it
altogether.
We simply do not know what is missing if we cannot sample these
groups. They are unable to go into a time machine and draw samples,
so their samples are from *existing* tribes.
Please show me the error of my thinking.
>
> > Don't waste our time with this garbage.
>
> Charles, you waste your time on this chat line. It is not productive to
> either your faith or to your profession.
>
> > Cut the baloney, and get to the issues.
>
> The issues are below. Do you have the integrity to address them?
Please do something besides a cut and paste. I am not going to waste
my time wallowing thru this garbage to find one or two points.
> By the
> way, why not post Allen as I have done with Holley? Or are you scared?
Allen has 400 pages, with many graphics (maps, etc). He has entire
chapters on specific geographic features, and entire chapter on hills
and valleys, bodies of water, wilderness areas, etc.
Yes, I am scared to post this. I am soooooooooo afraid.
snip
charles
When was the last time you saw manna?
"Hail" is mentioned in the OT and, having the brass plates they were
familiar with it in the same way that manna is familiar with modern
readers. The context in which hail was used makes it somewhat clear
what it is.
> ---
> Roy Stogner
JES
>
> When was the last time you saw manna?
>
Actually today and everyday since I was a child. Manna (mentioned 14 times
in Hebrew in the OT and 5 times in the NT) is the Greek word (of Heb.
origin) for; "an edible gum-like food." I'm eating (chewing some) right now.
Hi gang, I'm back and have been lurking for about a week or so now, but
couldn't pass this one up.......;-)
Hi Charles. How you been?
Clovis Lark
You still refuse to deal with the name identities. Ignoring them won't
make it go away.
> Completely ignores the most recent research and discussions.
You mean there's research that is more recent than 1989 Kishkumen and
Kishkiminetas, Minoa and Minon, Lehigh, Angola and Boaz, Oneida-Onidah?
I'm ALL ears. Make sure your citation deals with these very specifics!
>>
>> > Please cut the garbage, and get down to the issues. For example, I
>> > don't care what Reynolds wrote abt bom geography. I don't care what
>> > this author thinks abt the link between spalding and the bom.
>>
>> But I DO CARE ABOUT THE OBVIOUS NAME REPLICATIONS AND THEIR LINING UP WITH
>> THOSE IN THE BOM.
> Again, you have a point, but why bury it?
Why not answer it?
> The prob with names of mesoamerican cities is that they are, for the
> most part, completely unknown. Only modern names are used so no
> comparisons can be made with the bom.
Obviously you and Allen have no idea of the state of mesoamerican
research.
>> Are you so disingenuous that after you get the detailed
>> reference you asked for, you cannot respond intelligently?
> Why waste our time with this chaff. Make your points directly. The
> name issue is a good one, but I'm not in the mood to slog my way thru
> an article that cites Renolds as if he is the most modern LDS thinker
> on bom geography, and ignores the work that has been done in the
> last..... 30 years!
Here they are again:
> Give me a break.
>> Are you going
>> to give your "greek woman response" yet again?
> Are you finally going to address it? I am still waiting on the proof
> of the 30kya dating of the common ancestor.
> Perhaps I missed it.
You did... LEe addressed it. I addressed it. The person who saw the same
show and actually maintained attention throughout addressed it. You can
reference it on Google.
>>
>> Each time we get into one of these detailed discussions and you get the
>> details you ask for, you throw one of these tantrums. It happened before
>> with Cavalli-Sforza, and before that.
> Just tired of waiting for you guys to answer my questions, and to stop
> pretending that I have not responded to your questions.
> When are you going to respond to my several posts on the sampling
> errors in C-S?
You never did, see below.
> In case you missed it ==> c-s has the time machine problem. Many
> tribes have been extinct, so we are unable to determine their dna
> characteristics. Now, you may ask that perhaps that does not matter
> since the dna in other existing tribes are sufficient. Well, the prob
> is that haplogroup x was found only in couple of very small groups,
> and if these groups had been extinct, we would have missed it
> altogether.
> We simply do not know what is missing if we cannot sample these
> groups. They are unable to go into a time machine and draw samples,
> so their samples are from *existing* tribes.
> Please show me the error of my thinking.
The error of your thinking is assuming Cavalli-Sforza's research and
fantasizing a sampling error. Cavalli-Sforza never mentions the bom. He
has nothing to say about it. Your claim for sampling error by making up
something not in the book, Kinda like Hinckley's comment "we don't teach
that" (about Adam/God). So you tossed a rock and missed the side of the
barn. ONCE AGAIN, you claimed that with NO expertise, YOU could provide
an example of sampling error in Cavalli-Sforza'a work. Once again, I ask:
PROVIDE A CITATION
PROVIDE A PAGE NUMBER
PROVIDE THE ACTUAL SAMPLING ERROR
Can you do it? It will not do to fantasize about ancient hebraic
mariners...
ForWhatItsWorth
news:<2nB_9.2441$xc.2...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:35:11 +0000, ForWhatItsWorth wrote:
> >
> > > References to "cold": one. 2 Nephi 1:14 - the "cold and silent grave"
> > > References to "ice": zero
> > > References to "frost": zero
> > > References to "freeze": zero
> > > References to "weather": zero
> > >
> > > Now,
> > >
> > > References to "heat": 7, all referring to weather-type heat.
> > >
> > > It doth seemeth me the BoM is set in a tropical clime. This leaves
poor
> > > Mormon and/or Moroni humpin' from Panama to New York, across lands
> > > filled with his enemies, with 250 pounds of gold.
> >
> > I think you missed one: "hail", somewhere in Helaman, I believe. Used
in
> > a metaphorical sense, but it would demonstrate familiarity with the
> > occurance after half a millenium.
>
> When was the last time you saw manna?
Yesterday. If you understood the scriptural basis behind manna, you would
know what manna is, as well as I do.
Consider how it fell to earth, how it was collected, stored, distributed,
and eaten.
It is clear to me -- manna is Pop-Tarts. The perfect food, whether you are
sitting behind a keyboard at 2AM, or plodding thru the desert for 4 years.
Mark
Fwiw
Lee Paulson
All right, Charles. Give us the citations to the most recent research.
Please.
snip foolish dna talk.
--
Regards,
Lee, The James & GW
charles
Is it really necessary to repeat myself?
>
> Mark
> Fwiw
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > snip
ForWhatItsWorth
Not at all, esteemed adversary. Far be it from me to ask you to repeat
yourself, when you make so little sense in the first place.
In other words, a link to a selection of Bible verses that have the word
"snow" in them has zero reference to the jungles of Guatamala, for example.
Or are you now implying the BOM lands were *not* in the jungles after all,
but were in more temperate climes? Just where *were* they, anyways?
Mark
Fwiw
> >
> > Mark
> > Fwiw
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > snip
charles
Why do you change the subject.
Stay on topic.................
charles
Please cite the latest articles on bom geography, which is the subject
in this thread.
>
> snip foolish dna talk.
Lee Paulson
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<b286cl$18noj0$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:e877bb3f.03020...@posting.google.com...
> > > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<b212th$l7i$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > > > charles <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<b1c1i3$p86$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > > > >> charles <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<b1a5r0$v1$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > > > >> >> charles <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
> > news:<20030129135736...@mb-mp.aol.com>...
> > > > >> >> >> >From: cdo...@my-deja.com (charles)
> > > > >> >> >> >Date: 1/28/2003 3:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
> > > > >> >> >> >Message-id:
<e877bb3f.03012...@posting.google.com>
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >Read and study Allen's book "Exploring the lands of the
BOM".
> > He
> > > > >> >> >> >dedicates entire chapters on several specific geographic
> > issues.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> >
> > > > > Ar you going to give us the "Saddam" technique?
> > > >
> > > > Charles, there you go again...
> > >
> > > You're right. This is just a simple "cut and paste" job. Just a
> > > bunch of stuff thrown together from very old information.
> > >
> > > Completely ignores the most recent research and discussions.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > All right, Charles. Give us the citations to the most recent research.
> > Please.
>
> Why do you change the subject.
>
> Stay on topic.................
>
> Please.
> >
> > snip foolish dna talk.
Have you completely lost your mind? Look above, Charles. I'm NOT changing
the topic. CHARLES DOWIS said "This is just a simple "cut and paste" job.
Just a bunch of stuff thrown together from very old information. Completely
ignores the most recent research and discussions."
I responded by asking what that recent research was. I suppose your
response means you don't have any. Typical, Charles, typical.
You should be ashamed of yourself on behalf of all LDS and in the name of
personal integrity.
Lee Paulson
Got it. You can refer to the most recent research, but when questioned,
can't provide it. I understand. Prevarication noted.
clovis lark
I note Charles refuses to acknowledge Vernal Holley's research, saying
it is not recent enough. He insists that we use Allen. Odd, but both
are copyrighted 1989! Fancy that!
Efialtis
arguments from you.
And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
Fine and good. To me this sounds like Mesoamerica. The Panama neck
is only about 50 miles across. Any person in good health can walk a
good pace up to 30 miles a day, so 45 miles would not be
unreasonable...but we are talking about people who walked (or ran) as
a normal method of travel...who really knows how far they could have
traveled in a day...
But lets see what else Duwayne had to say...
And there being but little timber upon the face of the land,
nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in
the working of cement, therefore they did build houses of cement, in
which they did dwell. [Heleman 3:7]
Since there are many areas that have some trees in the area, AND many
areas that are almost devoid of trees (as an extreme example: anyone
ever driven through Nevada?) and we know that many Indians worked with
Adobe (cement)...I see nothing wrong with this either...
Duwayne continues...
> Another interesting mention regarding weather are the "whirlwinds:"
"But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the
land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed,
because of the tempest and the whirlwinds and the thunderings and the
lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;" [3
Nephi 8:12]
> The problem is, whirlwinds are formed by the collision of hot
> and cold fronts. That's why they are so common in the US Midwest.
> Cold air from Canada collides with warm, moist air from the Gulf
> of Mexico, and woosh. You get tornadoes. But they are quite rare
> in most other parts of the world. What's the occurrence in
> Central America?
So, you don't think that a Hurricane could landfall in that area? Or
could have done so, with the right weather patterns (who knows what
the weather patterns were like back then...)
Finally, a Good Point made by Duwayne (among others)
> What makes this even more interesting is the manner in which the
> Book of Mormon describes the Lamanites so frequently as being
> "naked:"
"Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save
it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor,
which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and
their stones, and their slings, and so forth." [Alma 3:5]
> One can only imagine those naked Lamanites in New York in January.
Very good point. This is probably why they weren't in New York. They
most likely were in the Central/South America regions, where the
temperatures are much higher most of the time, and that mode of dress
would have been appropriate. Thank you for pointing that out.
--Efialtis, O Tromokratis
father of peace
>And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
>were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
>between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
>Fine and good. To me this sounds like Mesoamerica.
Sounds more like the great lakes to me.
Duwayne Anderson
> I sure hope this isn't par for the course Duwayne...I expect better
> arguments from you.
>
> And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
> were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
> between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
>
> Fine and good. To me this sounds like Mesoamerica.
Then give the modern name of the narrow neck of land.
> The Panama neck
> is only about 50 miles across.
And if you look at a map, you will find that the line crossing it runs
nearly north to south, not east to west. You made the same mistake
Smith made.
> Any person in good health can walk a
> good pace up to 30 miles a day, so 45 miles would not be
> unreasonable...but we are talking about people who walked (or ran) as
> a normal method of travel...who really knows how far they could have
> traveled in a day...
The Book of Mormon says the ancient Americans built a major city very
near the narrow neck of land. Since you claim to have found the
narrow neck of land, describe the archaeological remains of this city.
Show that the inhabitants fit the description of the ancient
Americans as found in the Book of Mormon.
>
> But lets see what else Duwayne had to say...
Efialtis, I challenge you to deal with these issues.
> And there being but little timber upon the face of the land,
> nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in
> the working of cement, therefore they did build houses of cement, in
> which they did dwell. [Heleman 3:7]
That was the land north of the narrow neck. But the land north of the
"narrow neck" that YOU just described is COVERED in trees.
>
> Since there are many areas that have some trees in the area, AND many
> areas that are almost devoid of trees (as an extreme example: anyone
> ever driven through Nevada?) and we know that many Indians worked with
> Adobe (cement)...I see nothing wrong with this either...
What's this stuff about "some areas?" The Book of Mormon says nothing
about that. And where did you get this crazy idea that adobe is
cement?
>
> Duwayne continues...
> > Another interesting mention regarding weather are the "whirlwinds:"
>
> "But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the
> land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed,
> because of the tempest and the whirlwinds and the thunderings and the
> lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;" [3
> Nephi 8:12]
The land north of Panama -- unless you are going all the way to the
American Midwest, does not have whirlwinds.
You have struck out on every point. You do realize that, don't you?
>
> > The problem is, whirlwinds are formed by the collision of hot
> > and cold fronts. That's why they are so common in the US Midwest.
> > Cold air from Canada collides with warm, moist air from the Gulf
> > of Mexico, and woosh. You get tornadoes. But they are quite rare
> > in most other parts of the world. What's the occurrence in
> > Central America?
>
> So, you don't think that a Hurricane could landfall in that area?
Hurricanes are not whirlwinds. Adobe is not cement. And east-west is
not north-south.
>Or
> could have done so, with the right weather patterns (who knows what
> the weather patterns were like back then...)
Only when you masturbate with semantics.
> Finally, a Good Point made by Duwayne (among others)
> > What makes this even more interesting is the manner in which the
> > Book of Mormon describes the Lamanites so frequently as being
> > "naked:"
>
> "Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save
> it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor,
> which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and
> their stones, and their slings, and so forth." [Alma 3:5]
You do realize the ancient Amerindians did not use bows and arrows,
don't you?
>
> > One can only imagine those naked Lamanites in New York in January.
>
> Very good point. This is probably why they weren't in New York.
But some Mormon apologists say they were. They, like you, trip all
over the place trying to find the lands of the Book of Mormon.
> They
> most likely were in the Central/South America regions, where the
> temperatures are much higher most of the time, and that mode of dress
> would have been appropriate.
Then you should have no trouble naming a single Nephite city. Go
ahead. Try.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Clovis Lark
> Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>> I sure hope this isn't par for the course Duwayne...I expect better
>> arguments from you.
>>
>> And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
>> were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
>> between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
>>
>> Fine and good. To me this sounds like Mesoamerica.
> Then give the modern name of the narrow neck of land.
>> The Panama neck
>> is only about 50 miles across.
> And if you look at a map, you will find that the line crossing it runs
> nearly north to south, not east to west. You made the same mistake
> Smith made.
According to Alma, the narrow neck of land was a day and half travel.
Nobody in those days was going to traipse accrss 50 miles in a day and a
half.
>> Any person in good health can walk a
>> good pace up to 30 miles a day, so 45 miles would not be
>> unreasonable...but we are talking about people who walked (or ran) as
>> a normal method of travel...who really knows how far they could have
>> traveled in a day...
This is foolish speculation. Find out from your history books how long it
takes people to comfortably travel from place to place on foot.
charles
Yucatan peninsula
ForWhatItsWorth
Oh? You have it placed with such precision? So it should be no trouble for
you to show where Zarahemla is, or Bountiful, then. Where?
Mark
Fwiw
Lee Paulson
Citation for the Greek woman?
Clovis Lark
> Yucatan peninsula
Baseless assertion.
TheJordan6
>> > Please.
>>
>> Why do you change the subject.
>>
>> Stay on topic.................
>>
>> Please.
>> >
>> > snip foolish dna talk.
>
>Have you completely lost your mind? Look above, Charles. I'm NOT changing
>the topic. CHARLES DOWIS said "This is just a simple "cut and paste" job.
>Just a bunch of stuff thrown together from very old information. Completely
>ignores the most recent research and discussions."
>
>
>I responded by asking what that recent research was. I suppose your
>response means you don't have any. Typical, Charles, typical.
>
>You should be ashamed of yourself on behalf of all LDS and in the name of
>personal integrity.
>
>Regards,
>Lee, The James & GW
Just an opinion, but I'd say that insane people don't worry much about their
personal integrity.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>> > in this thread.
>>
>> Got it. You can refer to the most recent research, but when questioned,
>> can't provide it. I understand. Prevarication noted.
>
>I note Charles refuses to acknowledge Vernal Holley's research, saying
>it is not recent enough. He insists that we use Allen. Odd, but both
>are copyrighted 1989! Fancy that!
And when I illustrate why Allen's views on BOM geography are incredible,
Charles' response is a deafening silence.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 2/12/2003 1:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b2e2t5$b7s$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
Comoros Islands. :-)
Randy J.
Clovis Lark
For the record, Vernal Holley's summary of bom place names, their real
locations and real names shows the most likely origin for the bom...
> Randy J.
charles
Take a tour of Allen's book if you are truly interested. He
identifies "best guess" on various cities.
Best guess for Zarahemla is Santa Rosa, for example.
>
> Mark
> Fwiw
charles
Please refer to Allen's book for specific criticisms.
ForWhatItsWorth
Why is it, Charles, that you so freely throw around references to obscure
books, yet take high umbrage when anyone suggests that you read anything?
Charles, why should a Church that is just chock-filled with prophets, seers,
and revelators have to rely on a best-guess at all for anything? Don't snow
me with that tired line about seeking for a sign, either, because it was
bloody good enough for Joseph Smith to use his phenomenal cosmic powers to
locate things like the Gold Plates, Zelph, the Kinderhook plates, not to
mention translating the Book of Breathings, um, I mean the PoGP, his
"reformed" Egyptian, and so on.
If there was a single prophet-type person, one small revelation could clear
the whole thing up. Sorenson or some other FARM animal could have been led
right to a rusting steel chariot, or some horse bones, or ANYthing.
But, after 160-some years and millions of dollars, you got bupkiss. All you
can do is throw empty half-ass references to books that you have never read,
while to refusing to answer a single Gotterverdammt question.
Zarahemla is Santa Rosa. Riiiight. And my winkie is the Staff of Ra, too.
Mark
Fwiw
>
> >
> > Mark
> > Fwiw
ForWhatItsWorth
Barking Dog Dung. Charles, post the ISBN of this book, just to prove you
have read it.
Mark
Fwiw
charles
> Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > I sure hope this isn't par for the course Duwayne...I expect better
> > arguments from you.
> >
> > And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
> > were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
> > between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
> >
> > Fine and good. To me this sounds like Mesoamerica.
>
> Then give the modern name of the narrow neck of land.
See chapter 24 of Allen's book "Things that are narrow". Basically the
isthmus of tehuantepec.
>
> > The Panama neck
> > is only about 50 miles across.
>
> And if you look at a map, you will find that the line crossing it runs
> nearly north to south, not east to west. You made the same mistake
> Smith made.
>
JS never said said the istmus of Panama.
> > Any person in good health can walk a
> > good pace up to 30 miles a day, so 45 miles would not be
> > unreasonable...but we are talking about people who walked (or ran) as
> > a normal method of travel...who really knows how far they could have
> > traveled in a day...
>
> The Book of Mormon says the ancient Americans built a major city very
> near the narrow neck of land. Since you claim to have found the
> narrow neck of land, describe the archaeological remains of this city.
> Show that the inhabitants fit the description of the ancient
> Americans as found in the Book of Mormon.
Start with the basics. Read "exploring the Lands of the Book of
Mormon" by Joseph Allen, if you are really interested in a basic
treatment of the subject.
Otherwise you just want to argue.
>
> >
> > But lets see what else Duwayne had to say...
>
> Efialtis, I challenge you to deal with these issues.
Read Allen. He has entire chapters on various bom features.
santa rosa is the best guess for Zarahemla.
Roy Stogner
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
> news:<a42139e3.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>> Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message
>> news:<3154b26e.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>> > I sure hope this isn't par for the course Duwayne...I expect better
>> > arguments from you.
>> >
>> > And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
>> > were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
>> > between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
>> >
>> > Fine and good. To me this sounds like Mesoamerica.
>>
>> Then give the modern name of the narrow neck of land.
>
> See chapter 24 of Allen's book "Things that are narrow". Basically the
> isthmus of tehuantepec.
It's been a while since I looked at that book, so I don't recall: were
there any proposed geographies in it that didn't depend on the "narrow
neck of land" and the "narrow pass" being two different things, so he
could place this narrow pass somewhere that wasn't bordered by two seas?
---
Roy Stogner
Clovis Lark
You've provided the sufficient references and they do NOT add up like
those in the contemporaneous research actually based upon Smith's life and
understanding of his surroundings. We still await a coherent response on
those observations.
Clovis Lark
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>> Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>> > I sure hope this isn't par for the course Duwayne...I expect better
>> > arguments from you.
>> >
>> > And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
>> > were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
>> > between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
>> >
>> > Fine and good. To me this sounds like Mesoamerica.
>>
>> Then give the modern name of the narrow neck of land.
> See chapter 24 of Allen's book "Things that are narrow". Basically the
> isthmus of tehuantepec.
Did Allen mention that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is approximately 120
miles in width? Did he also mention that it is home to 2.2 million people
and has been thoroughly investigated?
Mike W
news:b2e2t5$b7s$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
A parallel dimension that looks like this earth with it's continents and sky
with it's stars. :-)
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I sure hope this isn't par for the course Duwayne...I expect better
> > > arguments from you.
> > >
> > > And now, it was only the distance of a day and 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
> > > were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land
> > > between the land northward and the land southward. [Alma 22:32]
> > >
> > > Fine and good. To me this sounds like Mesoamerica.
> >
> > Then give the modern name of the narrow neck of land.
>
> See chapter 24 of Allen's book "Things that are narrow". Basically the
> isthmus of tehuantepec.
No good, Charles. The isthums of tehuantepec is way too wide, given
the description in the Book of Mormon, which says it could be crossed
in 1.5 days. The Book of Mormon also says the land north of the
narrow neck of land had no trees. That's not true for tehuantepec.
Furthermore, the Book of Mormon says there was a great city built near
the narrow neck of land, yet no civilizations like those in the Book
of Mormon are found anywhere on the American continent.
C'mon, Charles. Get serious.
>
> >
> > > The Panama neck
> > > is only about 50 miles across.
> >
> > And if you look at a map, you will find that the line crossing it runs
> > nearly north to south, not east to west. You made the same mistake
> > Smith made.
> >
>
> JS never said said the istmus of Panama.
True. I think that was one of your apologetic buddies -- but Panama
does not fit the description either.
>
>
> > > Any person in good health can walk a
> > > good pace up to 30 miles a day, so 45 miles would not be
> > > unreasonable...but we are talking about people who walked (or ran) as
> > > a normal method of travel...who really knows how far they could have
> > > traveled in a day...
> >
> > The Book of Mormon says the ancient Americans built a major city very
> > near the narrow neck of land. Since you claim to have found the
> > narrow neck of land, describe the archaeological remains of this city.
> > Show that the inhabitants fit the description of the ancient
> > Americans as found in the Book of Mormon.
>
> Start with the basics. Read "exploring the Lands of the Book of
> Mormon" by Joseph Allen, if you are really interested in a basic
> treatment of the subject.
Deal with the issues, Charles. Allen's book doesn't do a thing for
Book of Mormon geology -- which is why you keep making assertions
instead of getting down to details.
> Otherwise you just want to argue.
Is this your excuse for failing to deal with the issues?
>
> >
> > >
> > > But lets see what else Duwayne had to say...
> >
> > Efialtis, I challenge you to deal with these issues.
>
>
> Read Allen. He has entire chapters on various bom features.
Name one. Give it's modern-day name, and show (don't assert) that it
fits all the descriptions in the Book of Mormon.
That's a pretty hard-up guess. Name a single non-trivial similarity
between the two.
Waiting .....