Archaeological facts to support Book of Mormon

[livy111us]

Even Joseph Smith agreed on this one...Central America.

I agree it happened in Central America, but Joseph Smiths statements were all over the board, even after he read Stephens and Catherwoods book. He seemed to embrace a hemispheric geography theory, not a limited. He was just fine accepting Josiah Priests work as evidence (North America) as he was Stephens (Central America). He did not rebuke or correct anyone who placed The Book of Mormon anywhere in the Americas. This speaks volumes. I don't believe he had any revelation on the issue (obviously), and took what he learned about the ancient inhabitants and tried to make the connection with The Book of Mormon, which does not allow for a HGT for the main land for The Book of Mormon.

Anyone who says that JS taught a North American geography, or a South American geography exclusively, is flat out wrong and hasn't studied the issue. We need to use The Book of Mormon as the ultimate guide, until/unless the Lord sees fit to reveal where these events took place.

[the Ogre]

. . . He did not rebuke or correct anyone who placed The Book of Mormon anywhere in the Americas. This speaks volumes. I don't believe he had any revelation on the issue . . .

I don't know. I think Joseph Smith might not have revealed to the church as much, but I believe he knew. I believe some of our current GAs know. So why won't they just tell us? Because it ultimately doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong; I know it is interesting and often quite exciting, but in the long view of the gospel it is only a Red Herring. Eventually we will all know, but by then it will matter even less.

I think they might not tell us thinking we are missing the point.

[Hemidakota]

I agree it happened in Central America, but Joseph Smiths statements were all over the board, even after he read Stephens and Catherwoods book. He seemed to embrace a hemispheric geography theory, not a limited. He was just fine accepting Josiah Priests work as evidence (North America) as he was Stephens (Central America). He did not rebuke or correct anyone who placed The Book of Mormon anywhere in the Americas. This speaks volumes. I don't believe he had any revelation on the issue (obviously), and took what he learned about the ancient inhabitants and tried to make the connection with The Book of Mormon, which does not allow for a HGT for the main land for The Book of Mormon.

Anyone who says that JS taught a North American geography, or a South American geography exclusively, is flat out wrong and hasn't studied the issue. We need to use The Book of Mormon as the ultimate guide, until/unless the Lord sees fit to reveal where these events took place.

I would summarize, it was in the beginning [youth] he was not sure on exact location when he was receiving those visions of the past nation was not defined to what area. It was quite noticeable in Lucy Mack Smith journal when the younger Joseph would entertain the family at night with past Nephite/Lamanite nations. In determining the location came in the latter years when studies of such areas began to reveal some startling facts.

[Misshalfway]

This is a total side note but sometimes I watch these archeological shows and some of the conclusions they come up with. It seems to me that a lot of what they say are glorified guesses. Interesting, compelling even. But true? I mean who really knows.

[livy111us]

I would summarize, it was in the beginning [youth] he was not sure on exact location when he was receiving those visions of the past nation was not defined to what area. It was quite noticeable in Lucy Mack Smith journal when the younger Joseph would entertain the family at night with past Nephite/Lamanite nations. In determining the location came in the latter years when studies of such areas began to reveal some startling facts.

Are you referring to Stephens work? As I mentioned, he still taught a North American setting (and allowed it to be taught) after such statements like the Bernhisel letter. It wouldn't make sense to *know* where BOM events took place, and then teach something different later. He may have recognized some of the building structures in Stephens book from previous visions, but that did not keep him from including NA sites as BOM as well.

[livy111us]

I don't know. I think Joseph Smith might not have revealed to the church as much, but I believe he knew. I believe some of our current GAs know. So why won't they just tell us? Because it ultimately doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong; I know it is interesting and often quite exciting, but in the long view of the gospel it is only a Red Herring. Eventually we will all know, but by then it will matter even less.

I think they might not tell us thinking we are missing the point.

A definite possibility. It could have been revealed just before his death, and modern GA's could know as well. The thing I have a problem with is people (like Meldrum mentioned before) who use JS statements as the ultimate guide to BOM geography. He has not studied early statements enough, or closes his eyes when it comes a statement that disagrees with him.

I like these quotes on not knowing the geography:

“If [the Lord] wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point. Some authors have felt ‘called upon’ to inform the world about Book of Mormon geography and have published writings giving their views. These books, however, are strictly private works and represent only their personal speculations.” (Deseret News, July 29, 1978, Church News Section, p.16.)

In an article written by Elder George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency in 1890 he noted that there was wide disagreement at the time among students of the Book of Mormon as to the locations of Book of Mormon events. “The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared to even to suggest. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to to clear up many points now obscure . . . . Of course, there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by the Nephites, drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit. But beyond this we do not think it necessary, at the present time, to go, because it is plain to be seen, we think, that evils may result therefrom”(George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor (January 1, 1890); reprinted in The Instructor 73/4 [April 1938]: 159-60).

What may those evils be? Meldrum is saying that the Churchs scholars are leading the Church astray, you know, the guys that write the Gospel Doctrine manuals. Possibly.

Edited May 20, 2009 by livy111us

[Maya]

I think what we have to remember is to be very humble. Like pointed out the prophet will tell when the right time comes. I would not go so far in my IMHO that I would totally sink under if my toughts would prove wrong. We have to always hold a certain respect towards all idesa, as long as it is not relieved. And when it is we pray about it and hopefully can put our opinion at the back, never seeing arceology more important than gospel.

Like DNA.. I cant believ someone believes so much on todays DNA research that they get excommunicated ot resighn. It is hard when human knowledge seem to go against you, but opne should always have ones eyes on gospels truths. Sience is changeing, gospel dont.

I enjoy so much reading or watching in TV about diofferent possibilities of history, but I need to remember that each of these videoes, films is an interpration of someone, no matter how objective they try to be! Seldom have I heard that they would say fex some believe ... some dont.... all too often they tell things as facts and only one side of the story.

Interestingly the 2 of the most interesting places in Mexico are guarded as old holy places and no one is allowed there. Romers and fact is if someone has managed to the place they have died soon after.

This may be one of the reasons WHY we are not told yet. The political/religious situation around the places does not allow revealing. An other is simply that we saints are not ready for truth yet. Or the fact that it is not time yet to reviele it

Today it is like what ever you study IF you are an LDS dont go for arceology they will laugh you out! In other words they expect you are ONLY after profs for BoM!

[Hemidakota]

I do believe that there were others that came to this land [Americas] that we are not privy too but hardly the setting of the Lehites or the Jaredites was the North America.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Livy.

Thanks for your response.

Before you buy into Meldrums theory, I would recommend FAIR's review of his work. It is very shaky to say the least.

Reviews of DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography

In the Levi Hancock account of Zelph, Joseph Smith places Ohio in the Land of Desolation. Desolation is one of the most Northern geographical areas in The Book of Mormon. That would place about 99% of The Book of Mormon South of that area, which would mean that Meldrums, and most other North American theorists geography is wrong.

Assuming, of course, that Levi Hancock is a reliable source.

-----

Joseph Smith also said that The Book of Mormon happened in Central America (notice that I do not say he totally supported one theory above the other, because he taught both). Meldrum attempts to dismiss the Sept. and Oct.1842 Times and Seasons comments on The Book of Mormon happening in Central America, with Quirigua being Zarahemla, by saying he was in hiding. However, that is only partially true. He still acted as Prophet, husband, leader, and editor during that time period (a simple reading of his journal will tell you that, or I can post it).

I'm not a Meldrum fan-boy, Livy, so elucidating all of Meldrum's personality flaws and errors is not the way to go about convincing me that the Book of Mormon happened in Central America. I'm not arguing from his authority, but from a few of the simple evidences that he put forward.

-----

Among, many, many others. He misuses the X haplotype as evidence for The Book of Mormon, misuses weather/climate, geography, etc.... It is a horrible piece when looked at academically.

Is this part your own stuff? Or was it meant to be included in the preceding quote? Because, the formatting was a bit ambivalent in this regard.

Either way, I want to raise a couple of points:

First, my primary reason for rejecting the Central American and accepting the Great Lakes models is the genetics evidence.

Haplotypes are groups of genomes that contain a common collection of mutations in them. Haplotypes are highly correlated with ethnic groups, and can be clustered into haplogroups based on similarity between haplotypes. Haplogroups are highly correlated with broader patterns of ethnicity. X is a haplogroup, not a haplotype: the specific haplotype that Brother Meldrum is always on about is the mtDNA haplotype X2, which is present in the Great Lakes region of North America, as well as western Asia and eastern Europe. It's also present in a Middle Eastern community called the Druze, and this is the connection that Bro. Meldrum likes.

Unfortunately, the Druze are of ambiguous heritage themselves, so there's no way of knowing where their X2 minority came from. So, Bro. Meldrum’s haplotype evidence is extremely weak, and even a bit pathetic.

What I want to point out, however, is the alternatives to his model. There are 5 mtDNA haplogroups found in Native American peoples, and all the other 4 (A,B,C, and D) are strongly associated with East Asia, specifically, with Mongolia and Siberia, and really with no where else. This evidence is highly consistent with the Beringian Strait theory, and utterly undermines any attempt to explain most of the peoples of North America as anything but Asian.

Suffice to say, if the Great Lakes model is misusing haplogroups, then all other models are torturing and adulterating them beyond belief. So, if you wish to argue against the Great Lakes model using genetics, academic integrity requires you to reject all the alternatives on the same grounds.

-----

Second, in regards to Bro. Meldrum’s comments about weather, I can’t really remember what his argument was. Was it the one about the Nephites using snow in their metaphors? That actually seems quite legitimate to me: certainly a civilization in Central America (such as the Mayas) would not know what snow was, let alone be able to use it for comparative purposes. Certainly, it doesn’t refute the non-limited geography model, but you can’t really call this misusing evidence: Bro. Meldrum’s arguments have been mainly against other limited geography models, as far as I remember, anyway.

-----

And, I don’t know what misuse of geography you’re referring to, so I won’t comment on that one.

It seems that the “narrow neck of land” is thoroughly explained by the Great Lakes region, as well as the two seas; much better than the Central American models do. Further, the timing of the Hopewell civilization is appropriate, whereas the timing of the Maya civilization is not.

I am no archaeologist, so I can’t go much further in this direction without extensive reading (but, I have my own research to do right now, so please be patient as I attempt to bring myself up to speed again).

-----

What I have presented is physical evidence from genetics, as well as apologetics from cultural and geographical cues. What has been presented against me so far is third-hand hearsay. My scientific mind only allows me to judge between two models based on the strength of the evidence for and against each: while the evidence for the Great Lakes model is weak, it still seems to outclass the evidence for the other models.

[livy111us]

Hello Bluejay,

I'm not sure how to do the individual quotes, so I hope you don't mind the format I use.

You-What I have presented is physical evidence from genetics, as well as apologetics from cultural and geographical cues. What has been presented against me so far is third-hand hearsay.

Me- I brought that up because it is a common argument for a North American setting. You are actually the first who doesn't take the Zelph incident as 100% reliable. I have no problem with it's authenticity, or i'ts unreliabilty. I actually believe that there were Nephites in the Great Lakes area, but the main text of the BOM happened in Central America. It will be nice not to do the quote war. You know, "Joseph Smith said....so I'm right!" deal. (BTW, Levi Hancock is a reliable source. His journal coincides with the accounts of 6 others who recorded the incident).

I also don't care much about what others believe about BOM geography, but do have a problem with Meldrums methods and "science".

You-Haplotypes are groups of genomes that contain a common collection of mutations in them. Haplotypes are highly correlated with ethnic groups, and can be clustered into haplogroups based on similarity between haplotypes. Haplogroups are highly correlated with broader patterns of ethnicity. X is a haplogroup, not a haplotype: the specific haplotype that Brother Meldrum is always on about is the mtDNA haplotype X2, which is present in the Great Lakes region of North America, as well as western Asia and eastern Europe. It's also present in a Middle Eastern community called the Druze, and this is the connection that Bro. Meldrum likes.

Me- I am familiar with genetics and spent a year speaking with, and interviewing geneticists regarding DNA and The Book of Mormon. One common theme among them, the X has nothing to do with The Book of Mormon. But, population genetics is still a new science with new information being found every day. Because of this, we cannot rely on old research.

The X is generally accepted to have come from the Middle East, but the timing is a little off by about 25,000 years. As you know, the X2a is ONLY found in the Great Lakes region, no where else in the world, it is exclusive to that area (even though previous studies have found it in Mexico). New research has found the X among the Altai people in Asia, it also shows that the X in America, actually came through Asia, across the land bridge, as a founding marker in the Americas. One recent study states:

“Native American populations exhibit almost exclusively five mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups (A-D and X). Haplogroups A-D are also frequent in Asia, suggesting a northeastern Asian origin of these lineages. However, the differential pattern of distribution and frequency of haplogroup X led some to suggest that it may represent an independent migration to the Americas. Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models. Our results strongly support the hypothesis that haplogroup X, together with the other four main mtDNA haplogroups, was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population; therefore they do not support models that propose haplogroup-independent migrations, such as the migration from Europe posed by the Solutrean hypothesis.” [[[Nelson J.R. Fagundes, Ricardo Kanitz, et al., "Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas," The American Journal of Human Genetics 82/3 (28 February 2008): 583-592]]]

Ugo Perego, who probably has done more research on the X than anyone else (and LDS) writes in a study that came out only months ago:

haplogroup X2a might have arrived from

Beringia through a path that was different from that followed by the pan-American haplogroups. According to environmental and paleoecological data, such a path existed and was represented by the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets, which opened approximately 15 kya [5] or possibly was never completely closed [38]. Through such a corridor, where some glacial-refuge areas have been recently identified [39], X2a could have moved from Beringia directly into the North American regions located east of the Rocky Mountains. This latter scenario would imply

that the X2a expansion in America occurred in the Great Plains region, where the terminal part of the glacial corridor ended, and is in complete agreement with both the extent of diversity and distribution of X2a observed in modern Native American populations.” [Distinctive Paleo-Indian Migration Routes from Beringia Marked by Two Rare mtDNA Haplogroups, pg 4-5]

Ugo Perego continues

Since X2a is not found anywhere else in the world, it makes it difficult to trace. However, it is supported by a close Asian counterpart to the X2a called the X2e and is found among the Altai people. This mutation is actually younger "cousin” with a smaller genetic variation than the lineages found in North America. In other words, the Asian X2e is not ancestral to X2a being much younger in age and the result of a more recent migration event. This could be possible, as geneticist Ugo Perego points out, “the Asian ancestor of X2a could have disappeared due to genetic drift (it basically disappeared for not given cause simply because all the female lineages died out - a phenomenon to keep into consideration when studying ancient populations using DNA samples from individuals living today). Genetic drift (a naturally occurring event) and bottleneck (caused by the non-random extermination of millions of Native Americans) took place in the American continent after the first Paleo-Indians settled, began to multiply, and then encountered the Europeans.” (Personal correspondence with Ugo Perego 3-30-09)

You-Suffice to say, if the Great Lakes model is misusing haplogroups, then all other models are torturing and adulterating them beyond belief. So, if you wish to argue against the Great Lakes model using genetics, academic integrity requires you to reject all the alternatives on the same grounds.

Me- As I said, that is the exciting thing about population genetics, it is ever changing. I do not doubt the X2a was found in the Americas, only doubt that it can be used as evidence for The Book of Mormon.

You-Second, in regards to Bro. Meldrum’s comments about weather, I can’t really remember what his argument was. Was it the one about the Nephites using snow in their metaphors? That actually seems quite legitimate to me: certainly a civilization in Central America (such as the Mayas) would not know what snow was, let alone be able to use it for comparative purposes. Certainly, it doesn’t refute the non-limited geography model, but you can’t really call this misusing evidence: Bro. Meldrum’s arguments have been mainly against other limited geography models, as far as I remember, anyway.

Me- Actually, the only time the word snow is used is by Nephi when the Lehites were still in the Old World, where snow was not uncommon in the winter time (http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Snow)

So it does not matter if the Maya knew what it was or not (even though they did).

On the contrary, if the Book of Mormon happened in the Great Lakes area, we would hear more about snow.

However, that is not what we hear about. Instead, we hear phrases like “heat of the day”, without any indication of a cold climate we would expect to see in North Eastern United States. The Lehites came from the Middle East, travelled years through the Saudi Arabian desert which has some of the hottest lands on earth, and then we only hear about the heat of the new land. If it were a new, colder climate, it would most certainly be mentioned.

There are several stories in The Book of Mormon which Lund states, that just could not have happened in the North East. In Alma 14, Alma and Amulek were stripped naked and suffered “many days” (Alma 14:21,23). John Lund says “Amulek set the date as the ‘fourth day of the seventh month’ (Alma 10:6). The 7th month and the 4th day on a lunar calendar of twenty-nine or thirty days per month would be around September 27th. The day they were delivered from prison was ‘on the twelfth day of the tenth month’ (Alma 14:23). This would have been approximately ninety-six days later. This date corresponds to around the first week of January. The minimum amount of time they would have spent in that condition would have been five days (Alma 14:18, 20, 23-28).” Pg 207. The average temperature in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, the area where some place Zarahemla which is by the Genesee and Niagra rivers, two rivers some interpret to be the river Sidon, has an average temperature of 31 degrees F during the day, with a nighttime average of 19 degrees F. This is hardly an area that would sustain life for someone cast into a cold prison without any clothing or blankets for “many days”.

However, the average temperature in the Mesoamerican lowlands is in the mid-sixties. This temperature would make it much more plausible for someone to survive in extreme conditions.

We don’t see the clothing one would wear, that is consistent with the climate of North America. To the contrary, we see them wearing “loincloths”, “leathern girdles”, etc…

Dr. Lund also makes the observation that the clothing worn in the Great Lakes region would not be conducive to the weather. The Lamanites would not have survived, or even thought about wearing a loincloth in battle, in an area that is known for it’s freezing winters, and copious amounts of snow. Enos describes the Lamanites as “wandering about the wilderness with a short girdle about their loins” (Enos 1:25). Zeniff portrayed the Lamanites as having “their heads shaved and they were naked; and they were girded with a leathern girdle about their loins.” (Mosiah 10:8). Alma said the Amlicites “had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites. Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins.” (Alma 3:4-5). Zarahemnahs army is described as being “naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins, yea all were naked save it were the Zoramites and the Amalekites.” (Alma 43:20). Because of this “nakedness”, the Lamanites were exposed and had a higher death rate than the Nephites (Alma 43:37). Moroni said this of speaking about the Nephites: “Behold, their naked skins and their bare heads were exposed to the sharp swords of the Nephites.” (Alma 44:18). Giddianhi, the leader of the Gadianton robbers, and his army wore “…lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn…” (3 Nephi 4:7)

These wars were not seasonal, but sometimes lasted for years and were one continuous war (Alma 51-62). The Lamanites came to war in the sixth month (April according to the Hebrew calendar, 3 Nephi 4:7), and in the commencement of the year (April according to the Hebrew calendar) and at the end of the year (March, according to the Hebrew calendar) (3 Nephi 4:1; 3 Nephi 2:17; Alma 56:20). In the “second month”, the fathers of the stripling warriors brought them provisions (Alma 56:27) before a commencement of a battle in the “seventh month” (Alma 56:42). (Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?)

Again, I don't care what others believe about BOM geography, but only have problems with Meldrums methodology.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Livy.

Sorry I’ve taken so long on this: I have a busy field season this year.

I'm not sure how to do the individual quotes, so I hope you don't mind the format I use.

The "quote" tags that result when you quote an entire message can be used for separate quotes, too. Just write this:

Text of quote here

And it comes out like this:

Text of quote here.

I learned this on another debate forum.

-----

You are actually the first who doesn't take the Zelph incident as 100% reliable. I have no problem with it's authenticity, or i'ts unreliabilty. I actually believe that there were Nephites in the Great Lakes area, but the main text of the BOM happened in Central America... (BTW, Levi Hancock is a reliable source. His journal coincides with the accounts of 6 others who recorded the incident).

Well, it isn't really that I question the Zelph incident: It was aimed specifically at Bro. Hancock’s mentioning of Desolation. I generally question the reliability of details in historical accounts, especially when only one of several different accounts contains the detail in question (I’ve only read a couple of the Zion’s Camp journals personally, though, and that was a while ago, so I may just be assuming that Levi Hancock is the only one to mention the land of Desolation).

-----

It will be nice not to do the quote war. You know, "Joseph Smith said... so I'm right!" deal.

Amen.

-----

I also don't care much about what others believe about BOM geography, but do have a problem with Meldrums methods and "science".

Amen again.

Again, I’m not a Meldrum fan, and I’ve only seen his video once. I wasn’t impressed with him as a researcher, but there are just a few points that he made that I rather like. I liked his suggestion that some of the buildings were temples.

-----

You-Haplotypes are groups of genomes that contain a common collection of mutations in them. Haplotypes are highly correlated with ethnic groups, and can be clustered into haplogroups based on similarity between haplotypes. Haplogroups are highly correlated with broader patterns of ethnicity. X is a haplogroup, not a haplotype: the specific haplotype that Brother Meldrum is always on about is the mtDNA haplotype X2, which is present in the Great Lakes region of North America, as well as western Asia and eastern Europe. It's also present in a Middle Eastern community called the Druze, and this is the connection that Bro. Meldrum likes.

Me- I am familiar with genetics...

And, it’s quite refreshing! :)

...and spent a year speaking with, and interviewing geneticists regarding DNA and The Book of Mormon. One common theme among them, the X has nothing to do with The Book of Mormon. But, population genetics is still a new science with new information being found every day. Because of this, we cannot rely on old research.

The X is generally accepted to have come from the Middle East, but the timing is a little off by about 25,000 years...

Of course, if we accept Meldrum’s cherry-picking about mutation rates, then the 25,000 years thing is anachronistic. It’s always nice if you can just hand-wave away years of science, isn’t it?

As you know, the X2a is ONLY found in the Great Lakes region, no where else in the world, it is exclusive to that area (even though previous studies have found it in Mexico)...

Well, that’s not technically true: some of the western and Great Plains tribes have X2a in small amounts (the Navajo and Sioux are notable).

New research has found the X among the Altai people in Asia, it also shows that the X in America, actually came through Asia, across the land bridge, as a founding marker in the Americas.

I was actually going to quote the same source in my post, but I thought I'd keep it simple (I'm brand-new here, and I have no idea how much everybody knows about various topics; plus, internet forums are for recreation: in-depth literature searching is for my dissertation).

-----

You-Suffice to say, if the Great Lakes model is misusing haplogroups, then all other models are torturing and adulterating them beyond belief. So, if you wish to argue against the Great Lakes model using genetics, academic integrity requires you to reject all the alternatives on the same grounds.

Me-As I said, that is the exciting thing about population genetics, it is ever changing. I do not doubt the X2a was found in the Americas, only doubt that it can be used as evidence for The Book of Mormon.

You're probably right. The only trouble is that genetics have to come into play at some point, and Meldrum’s X2 connection is the most parsimonious of the available options (with the exception of the Nephites-didn’t-exist argument): it’s my scientific custom to stick with parsimony until something better comes along.

A civilization that spanned the hemisphere would surely leave its haplotype behind in noticeable amounts, but extensive population studies haven’t found anything decidedly Middle Eastern.

-----

You-Second, in regards to Bro. Meldrum’s comments about weather, I can’t really remember what his argument was. Was it the one about the Nephites using snow in their metaphors? That actually seems quite legitimate to me: certainly a civilization in Central America (such as the Mayas) would not know what snow was, let alone be able to use it for comparative purposes. Certainly, it doesn’t refute the non-limited geography model, but you can’t really call this misusing evidence: Bro. Meldrum’s arguments have been mainly against other limited geography models, as far as I remember, anyway

Me- Actually, the only time the word snow is used is by Nephi when the Lehites were still in the Old World...

I stand corrected.

-----

In Alma 14, Alma and Amulek were stripped naked and suffered “many days” (Alma 14:21,23). John Lund says “Amulek set the date as the ‘fourth day of the seventh month’ (Alma 10:6).

I would like to use this as an example of why I don’t like contextual/literary evidence.

First, the only types of suffering explicitly described are hunger and thirst. Nakedness is mentioned, but suffering is never explicitly tied to the nakedness. It’s really a matter of speculation that they would have died from exposure, because Alma 14 doesn’t say how exposed they were. They were indoors: they could have been near a fire.

Second, I am postulating the Hopewell civilization as the Nephites. The Hopewell culture was found across the eastern United States. I don’t know where Ammonihah would have been (except west of Zarahemla and along the river Sidon), but anywhere south of the Ohio River would have had far less severe weather (even here in Kentucky, the winters (except this last one, which was awful) are quite mild).

I could make a number of other arguments to support my claim, because vague contextual clues simply are not capable of providing enough solid information on which to form an opinion.

-----

Another example of it:

Dr. Lund also makes the observation that the clothing worn in the Great Lakes region would not be conducive to the weather.

And yet, strangely enough, there is documented evidence of Native Americans in the region wearing loincloths.

Lamanites going into battle naked was mentioned twice in the Book of Mormon (Alma 3, Alma 43). Alma 43 was in April, by your reckoning, and Alma 3 didn’t specify a season. At no times was nakedness mentioned in relation to winter. Bro. Lund is simply assuming that the nakedness applies year-round, when, in fact, the evidence only supports the argument that they were naked in summer.

But, if we’re just going to talk about the semantics of the Book of Mormon, I’ll quickly lose interest.

This is why I hope some real archaeological evidence comes up soon: so we’ll have something to talk about.

[Ammoclip]

National Geographic April 25th 2013

Takeshi Inomata, professor of anthropology at the University of Arizona and a National Geographic research grantee, disagrees with both theories. In his work at the archaeological site of Ceibal in Guatemala, he has unearthed evidence for a more complex origin story.

[Guest Pseuncachiese]

In some sexual cialis was dysfunction be around over the man, doctor had a attack grand harry smiled of middle. and cheap cialis jelly. How To Purchase Cialis Tadalafil 10mg Without A Prescription .