poulsenll

Thanks There are many aspects of precolumbian cultures that differ significantly from our modern US culture and these differences impact the interpretation of the geographical descriptions found in the text of the Book of Mormon. For example, they thought of directions as sunrise, sunset, the position of the sun in the sky and the part of the sky where the sun was always absent. They thought of what was in there immediate vicinity rather than what was described in a book of maps or a globe of the entire earth. After careful study of the early history of the Church, the Book of Mormon text and of many aspects of precolumbian New World cultures, I have come to my own conclusions about the geography described in the Book of Mormon. I invite everyone else to do the same. Larry P

Hemidakota I think that is a great idea. I keep insisting that people consider all possible models as they read the Book of Mormon. If the model does not fit the Book of Mormon then one must consider why? I strongly suggest that one should draw their own simple map first. Base it on the information that Mormon inserted at the end of Alma 22 during his abridgement of Ammon and his brothers mission to the Lamanites. Although the time period that he was abridging was prior to the death of Christ, I seriously doubt that he would have inserted a discription, 350 Years after Christ, that did not corectly describe the lands as he knew them at the time he was making the abridgement. Here is a link to a primer that I wrote a couple of years ago for those who want to develop their own model of BoM geography. You have to be registered with MA&D in order to access it. It is in the Pundit forum. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=17985 Larry P

My questions are Why is it important to some that the Book of Mormon culture was located in the United States? What difference does it make if the important thing is the message it contains? What is more valid, the opinions of men, including General Authorities, or the text of the Book of Mormon, an ancient document translated into 1830 common English by the gift and power of God? The official statement from the Church is that there has been no revelation concerning the location of the Book of Mormon events. It is the text of the Book of Mormon and only the text, provided by the gift and power of God, that has any validity. If the cave was in the New York Cumorah, why has it not been found? If the reason is because the Lord has moved it, then would it have been just as easy for Him to transport Joseph Smith to where ever the cave was located whether it was hidden in New York or in Mexico? If Moroni wandered for 35 years before he buried the plates, why did he return to the Hill Cumorah to bury them and if he did return, why did he not metion this rather than say that he was in danger for his life and was therefore fleeing from Lamanite controlled lands? Larry P

Unfortunately for your thesis, Mormon wrote his abridgement 300+ years after the destruction at the time of Christ's death. He mentions that Zarahemla was rebuilt and then describes his moving the Nephites to the land of Cumorah after he had made a treaty with the Lamanites ceding everything south of the narrow neck to the Lamanites. No matter what happened at the death of Christ, 300 years later there was still a Zarahemla in its original location and a narrow neck with the land of Cumorah to the north of it. Moroni never had any more records than those few records given to him by his father prior to the final battle. The rest were buried in the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah. The location of the New York Hill Cumorah does not fit the description of its location found in the text of the Book of Mormon. If we accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet then we must accept the Book of Mormon as a translation of an ancient record and that its content accurately describes the lands and relationships between geographic features. Any other proposal, in my opinion, denies the validity of Joseph Smith as a prophet. Larry P

Doesn't anybody bother to read the Book of Mormon? This map shows Zarahemla to be just south of the East Sea. A quick look at Google Earth will show the New York Hill Cumorah to be about 15 miles to the east from where he locates Zarahemla. The Book of Mormon clearly places the Hill Cumorah in the Land Northward which according to this map would be north of the Narrow neck and thus north of the Great Lakes rather than south. If you really want to understand the geography of the Book of Mormon, list and correlate the over 500 geographical citations in the text and then figure out what fits using Google Maps. If you are unwilling to put in the effort to do so then read the works of someone who has done so such as John Sorenson instead of accepting someones half hearted attempt to fit it into the NY area. Larry P

FF Let me tell you a true story. My stepmother recieved her Patriarchal Blessing as a young women. It was rather bland with no really special promises other than the standard ones that show up in most Patriarchal Blessings. Years later, her Uncle was called to be a Patriarch. One of the privelidges of a Patriarch is to give Patriarchal Blessings to their close relatives even though they may have recieved one from another Patriarch. Thinking she might get something more personal from her uncle, she asked him to give her a new Patriarchal Blessing. When she compared them later, she found that both of them were essentially identical with the same blessings, no more no less, and in many cases the same wording. As others have already said, it should not surprise you that your brother should get the same blessings that you did and that they are personal to each of you as individuals. Remember that Patriarchal Blessing are revealed counsel for your use in carrying out and making life decisions. They are not fortune telling nor do they predict the future except as you use them to guide your life in order to make the promised blessings come true. Larry P

Poulsen is a good Danish name. My paternal ancester was converted in Denmark and came to the US. He was called by Brigham Young to settle southern Idaho and helped found the city of Preston, Idaho. Larry P

Thanks, well said. There have been several Book of Mormon geographys proposed based on the claim that it was revealed by inspiration and therefore had to be correct. Until the actual geography is revealed through proper priesthood channels, all else depends on scholarly studies and/or opinion and their inherent bias. Larry P

Sorry about that but I can just blame it on the computer's residiual memory:(. Here is the correct link Christopher Marc Nemelka - FAIRMormon One should not take writings other than the scriptures too seriously but use them along with the scriptures to, as you say, broaden our knowledge and understanding. Larry P

If you are into people who claim to have found the lost pages, check these guys out. Christopher Marc Nemelka claimed to have found the lost pages in 1980 and some guy in Africa made a similar claim. Here is a link to Fairs criticism of lost pages. Lost Truth Found.com ~ William C. Chappell | My Books Have fun. Larry P

The author makes no claim to have found or purchased the lost pages. Lost Truth Found.com ~ William C. Chappell | My Books He claims sole authorship by way of inspiration. Perhaps you have more documentation to support your claim. If so, please supply the reference. Larry P

Yes. One and the same. I retired from the Univ of TX about 8 yrs ago. Larry P

I just got back from the annual Maya Meetings here in Austin, TX. These meetings are one of the major venues for information about the Mayan culture and archaeology. One of the invited sholars was Allen Christiansen from BYU who presented a talk on weaving and culture in Guatemala. He is certainly respected among Mayan researchers and is also an active Latter Day Saint. I could list others who are recognized in their fields by the non LDS research community. I am personnaly recognized as a scholar in the field of drug metabolism and toxicology and am a firm believer in the Book of Mormon. President Eyring's father was a world renowned Chemist who pioneered the field of modern chemical Kinetics and his work plays a significant part of any modern book on chemical kinetics. He was always an active member of the Church and had a firm testimony of the Book of Mormon as does his son. Larry P

It is fabulous. It was introduced in our Temple District last month and makes name submission so much easier. It does have some limitations however. It will not link to Living persons data except your own or wikk it link to anyone born within the last 110 years that does not have a death date in the data record of interest. For this reason it is still useful to maintain your records with an offline Genealogy program. It accepts uploads of Gedcom files but after upload you must manually combine duplicates that are already in the data base. They reccomend that you limit the uploads to data that you are pretty sure does not already exist in the multiple data bases that it references. It took me a while to find all the Temple work done on my wifes line because of the peacemeal way it had been done and the minimal data that had been submitted with each name submission request in the past. It will certainly eliminate this problem with future submissions because it automatically integrates all new submissions with your personal database and prevents anyone else submitting the same names again. Larry P

Breezy Although Lehi and Ismael were Hebrews, they were not from the tribe of Judah (Jews). They were from the tribe of Mannasah and in addition, Lehi was a descendent of a Hebrew father, Joseph, and an Egyption mother, an Egyption Princess. We do not know the ancestry of Sariah, Joram and Ismael. They could have been from the same tribe as Lehi but there is no record about it. Larry P

I agree with you. I was talking about when it was called a stake house. It has been over 50 years since this was common usage in the church. This term has not been in common use for at least 30 years or longer. Larry P

As I said, when I was a youngerster. Most of you were not even a twinkle in your father's eye at that time. Mainly because your father's were just a twinkle in their father's eyes.

Interestingly, when I was a youngster, it was common practice in the Church to call them Stake Houses just as we now call Chapels meeting houses. As the Church expanded a concerted effort was made to change the practice to call them Stake Centers. I still catch myself calling it the Stake House instead of Stake Center. After all, we have dinners there and sometimes even serve steak. Larry P

You are welcome. I just dig it out of books and pass it along. Unfortunately, as I get older, less and less of it seems to stick for very long. I am very lucky to have the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American collection available to me at the Univ of Texas, with full access and faculty checkout privileges. It is one of the largest libraries on Mesoamerica outside of Mexico. Larry P

Addendum After posting this I thought I had better go back and check my books on the Mayan calendar system. The difference between 12.0.0.0.0 and 13.0.0.0.0 is shorter than I thought. I had forgotten that the number system used for calendar dates is in days not years. The Mayan's calendar count is modified from a true base twenty count in that they used 360 rather than 400 to represent the number of days in a year. Starting at the right, the numbers between the decimal points represent the following. A 400 year period called a baktun A 20 year period called a katun A 360 day period called a tun similar to our year but 5 1/4 days shorter. They made up for this by having a 5 day period at the end of the year which was not included in the calendar count. They then did another adjustment every 52 years to account for the slippage due to the 1/4 days. A 20 day period called a winal similar to our month And a one day period called a kin. A period of 13 baktans was called a great cycle and according to Mayan theorists, at the end of each great cycle the count was set back to 0.0.0.0.0 although there is no real support for this conclusion. The present zero date corresponds to 13 Aug 3114 BC. A great cycle is 5200 years long. All Mayan dates encountered so far fall within this range although use of a dating system which counts days before or after a fixed date reference happennings far in the past and in the future. What is causing all the furor is the fact that in the year 2012, a great cycle is completed. Our millenium is equal to 10x10x10 years. Their millenium was 20x20x13 or 5200 years compared to our 1000 year millenium. Larry P

This nonsense falls into the same category as "the world will end in 2000 or 3000" using the Gregorian calender. The year 2012 is written 13.0.0.0.0 using Mayan numbers that have a base of 20 rather than base 10 used by the Gregorian calendar numbering system. Just as there was a furor of predictions of the end of the world in the centennial year 2000, so there are similar predictions about the Mayan turnover of all zeros except the "milenium" count. I use millenium very loosely because the time beyween 12.0.0.0.0 and 13.0.0.0.0 is much longer than the millenial turnover of 1000 years. The greater time period between turnovers is significantly longer than several generations and this may contribute to greater frenzy over this date than is normally found for millenium turnovers on the Gregorian calender. Larry P

You are possibly right about the compass, although, I am not sure they had a magnetic compass based on orientation to the north. All of the maps that I can find for ancient cultures are oriented towards sunrise rather than north. This is true even among at least some modern mesoamerican amerind cultures. See Jerry Aims book "Travels of Mormon and Moroni". Norman's map IMO, is based on two false premises. One is his assumption of the Usamacinta river as the River Sidon and the other is that the Nephite culture was located and coincident with the Maya. These two assumptions seem to go together. Those who favor the Maya as Nephites also faver the Usamacinta as the River Sidon. Sorenson's excellent book "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" details sound reasons for equating the Grijalva river with the River Sidon. Norman presents no such support for his choice other than that he disagrees with Sorenson on the basis that no significant ruins were found by the NWAF's excursion. His support for locating BofM sites is slim to non existent. For example, he locates Zarahemla to some yet to be excavated site near Palenque. The BofM describes the location of Zarahemla to be north of the narrow strip of wildersness and south of both Bountiful and the Land of Desolation. I find it wxtremely difficult to fit both the land of Bountiful and the land of Desolation to be north of Palenque and between it and the Gulf of Mexico. If you are interested, you may want to look at my comparison between citations in the BofM text relative to the River Sidon and the satelite image based 3D geography of mesoamerica, http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/grijalvasidon.html I urge you to check it out using Google Earth and come to your own conclusions. I have made no attempt to make a similar comparison with the Usamacinta. I will leave that to others if they are so inclined. Larry P

NQWY This is the right place to ask this kind of question. You will probably get several ansewers and they may not all agree. Many members are not well founded in the difference between the Holy Ghost as a member of the Godhead and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. As a member of the Godhead the Holy Ghost may interact with anyone, be they member of the Church or not. In this capacity He makes it possible for God the Father and the Son to manifest themselves to mortal beings as occured when Joseph Smith prayed in the Sacred Grove. He, under the direction of the Father does whatever is necesary to carry out God's work to bring to pass the Eternal Life of Man. He is also the giver of gifts as taught in He is also the comforter and the only source by which we may know that Jesus is the Christ. The HG may interact with men and women in these ways whether they are members or not but it is th HG who initiates these interactions. On the Day of Prntecost the crowd, who had not been baptized, were given the gift of the interpretation of tongues and heard the apostles each in his own tongue. When a person is confirmed, he is told to "recieve the Holy Ghost". He is not given the Gift of the Holy Ghost, he must recieve the Holy Ghost into his life and then accept what the HG has in store for him. If we recieve Him, we then , if worthy, can petition Him for help and guidance beyond our own capacities. This does not mean that a non member can not be guided by the Holy Ghost, it just means that he does not have this special gift, NOT A RIGHT. In fact it is only by the power of the Holy Ghost that a non member can gain a testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel and therefore accept baptism and take upon themselves the Name of Christ. Dont let those that, even though they are members, lack the desire to listen to the whispering of the HG testifying that what an Apostle is teching is the truth, discourage you from recognizing what is truth whether it is by the Spirit of Christ or maybe the HG Himself bearing testimony to you. Larry P

Charity I just submitted a brief article to FAIR. Haven't heard any response yet. I wrote a second one but decided it was better to publish it on my Blog on MAD&B. For those who may have an interest but seldom return to MAD&B. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...;blogid=20& Enjoy. I will be glad to respond to comments, if any, on this board. Larry P

Fo all of you who love to wash dishes/ How do you tell apart an engineer, a biologist and a chemist. Give each of them cupand ask them if it is clean. The chemist will check it to determine if there is any visible or invisible chemical contaminants on the inside of the cup. The bioogist will test it to see if it is sterile and that there is no microbial contamination. The engineer will look in the cup, turn it upside down and if nothing falls out he will tell you that it is clean enough to use. Larry P.