The Mesoamerica Model's Setting For The Book of Mormon, Its One Major Flaw


Rob Osborn
 Share

Recommended Posts

From what I see the church hasn't made any official stance on WHERE the events of the Book of Mormon came about.  There are many scholarly and historical assumptions and ideas, but none that are the OFFICIAL stance of the LDS church, at least from what I understand.  Thus, if one feels that the Arabian peninsula and the Yucatan Peninsula ideas are what they want to believe, that thought is probably just as valid and strong as someone who wishes to believe the North America was the place, or that South America was the place.

 

PS:

(It is interesting that there are those in the Missouri and Illinios areas have some particular ideas on geography.  Joseph Smith claimed that The Garden of Eden was found near these areas and also claimed, if I remember right, that Zarahemla was originally found on the banks opposite of where Nauvoo was...but this is HEARSAY from others that I have heard these rumors...well...the Zarahemla one.  The Garden of Eden one is pretty well documented and found in official products of the LDS church).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2018 at 8:26 AM, BJ64 said:

Perhaps around the south of Africa then in a northwest direction to North America. That’s a much shorter route that all the way around the other way across the Pacific Ocean and to the west coast of America. It would be a safer journey as well since there would be less open sea to cross. 

Actually, the open seas are far more safe than the southern southern tips of Africa and America.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2018 at 7:20 AM, BJ64 said:

They were brought here by the Lord. Ether 6:5 And it came to pass that the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land; and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind.

Wind currents tend to follow ocean currents, or vice versa. Here are the wind currents for the Mediterranean Sea:

current.GIF

While I suppose it is possible for God to work in defiance of his own creation (causing the winds to change general direction and blow consistently in the opposite direction to the ocean currents),over the 2,300 miles across the Mediterranean sea. These opposing forces over that distance would indeed create enormous waves, which would toss vessels-- the Apostle Paul's travels is a testament to that (Act 27 and 2 Cor 11:25)

The question, however, isn't whether God had the ability to do as you suggest, but whether or not Ether 6:5 supports your conjecture about the Jaredite journey as opposed to other theories. Given that God can cause the wind to blow just as easily in the Indian and Pacific oceans as the Mediterranean and Atlantic oceans, It doesn't lend credence either way., thus leaving us with the natural forces weighing much more heavily in favor of the Indian and Pacific Ocean direction of the journey.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A simple answer is that they didn't go from the Southern end of the Arabian Peninsula.  The Arabian Peninsula popular opinion held by Mormon scholars (and no one else, no one even hypothesizes one went from the Arabian Peninsula, though there IS some evidence of those coming from the Asian coasts and even the islands of the Pacific as well as from European coasts) but not necessarily how it happened.  They focus on one statement (and not an extremely WELL documented one either) from Joseph Smith and ignore others that he stated in their theories (which is also why they focus on the Yucatan peninsula instead of accepting the more well documented ideas where Joseph stated that the Nephite and Lamanite population engulfed all of the North American continent) to the exclusion of all others in regards to their theories in many instances. The Book of Mormon states that they went due East for 8 years.  They either went a VERY short distance in 8 years (and probably were massacred if the culture of the tribes in Arabia at the time is accurate, they couldn't have stayed that long in one area...but that's not something Mormon scholars like to see) OR they didn't follow the route that Mormon Scholars say they did.  If they followed the route Joseph initially indicated they followed (which actually was NOT deep into the Arabian Peninsula, though third party sources would say that he said otherwise) and then due east, other theories actually come to light. 

If the Israelites could wander for 40 years over not that great of a distance....?

Quote

IF, they went from the Southern end of the Arabian peninsula, there ARE NO CURRENTS TO the Americas.  You would have to jump currents which leaves several hundreds of miles where it is very unlikely they did so without more modern conveniences (which is something Mormon scholars also include and could be plausible as Nephi was instructed of the Lord rather than by ship building methods of his day).  The currents go from East Asia to the Americas and from Europe and Africa.  There is no connection from Arabia.

The proposed currents posted above actually do NOT make any sense in regards to the actual currents in the Ocean.  Several LONG leaps between currents would have had to be made.  It wasn't until the past several hundred years where our own technology even made it possible for US to leap those currents, much less those from 600 BC.  On the otherhand, it's been shown the currents from East Asia and the Pacific Islands at least had the possibilities...and it's been shown that there were currents from Europe (though not necessarily the Mediterranean, though the Greeks DID have technology to scale from one end of the Mediterranean to the other and the Romans even more so) to the Americas as well which enabled ancient technology at least almost a millennia ago to make that voyage.

I will have to take your word for it since I haven't studied it in-depth. I was simply and curiously testing BJ64's theory against the only other theory I had hears.

Quote

So, with the Lord's help it is possible from Arabia, though it is irony that the LDS scholars use this approach.  There IS evidence in Indiana and Ohio of seafarers that came to the Americas via the sea but this evidence (as well as others regarding the Pacific Islands) have largely been ignored by LDS scholars in regards to Book of Mormon plausibility and evidence due to their extreme focus on the Arabian Peninsula theory.

Again, I will have to take your word for it.  I appreciate the information.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how one thinks the Book of Mormon people got here or where they landed, those theories do not address what is written in the book itself. The Book of Mormon is clearly written about “This Land”. A promised land blessed above all other lands where there would be freedom and where the New Jerusalem will be built. Those promises and prophecies are not written about Mexico or Central America.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Regardless of how one thinks the Book of Mormon people got here or where they landed, those theories do not address what is written in the book itself. The Book of Mormon is clearly written about “This Land”. A promised land blessed above all other lands where there would be freedom and where the New Jerusalem will be built. Those promises and prophecies are not written about Mexico or Central America.     

The word "land" is, by itself, relatively generic in terms of size. Depending upon the scriptural context, land could be understood as large as the dry portion of the earth and as small as a farm.  

And, not all scriptures contain sufficient context to determine size-- as with "this land" and "promised land" in the Book of Mormon--which means that one can reasonably view it as referring to the entire American continent, or a relatively limited geographic area.

Besides, the blessings of freedom for "this land" are contingent upon righteousness, As such there were, and have since been portions of Book of Mormon lands that , at various times, were free while other portions were in bondage because of unrighteousness.

In other words, in the minds of those who actually know what the Book of Mormon says, it lacks sufficient specificity  to dogmatically dismiss the scholarship of opposing views--particularly if one has read little if any of the opposing scholarship.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Regardless of how one thinks the Book of Mormon people got here or where they landed, those theories do not address what is written in the book itself. The Book of Mormon is clearly written about “This Land”. A promised land blessed above all other lands where there would be freedom and where the New Jerusalem will be built. Those promises and prophecies are not written about Mexico or Central America.     

I disagree. The Book of Mormon promises we're written about both the North and South American continents.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

this is HEARSAY from others that I have heard these rumors...well...the Zarahemla one.

This is not technically hearsay; the Zarahemla idea is clearly founded in scripture.

Quote

3 Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it.
(D&C 125:3)

The only problem is that many people claim that this city of Zarahemla was not the same physical location as the original, and so either way it is speculation on both sides of the argument.  Even the Church does not want to make any official connection as they designate it City of Zarahemla2 in the index:
image.png.231557d98a7bd89d026761bfd2914f2e.png

That does not automatically mean it is not the same location, but simply that the Church has no knowledge of whether or not it is the same location, and does not want to unintentionally appear to connect the two as being the same.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share