16 Comments

Stone Box found, just like Golden Plates

I am on an email list for the Nephi Project, and I get some interesting information. This is a group that does most research in Saudi Arabia, and has uncovered some interesting discoveries supporting the Book of Mormon. They also release information that others might find interesting for new world sites.

In the latest email they sent, is a link where they discovered a stone box, similar to the one that Joseph Smith described when he discovered the Golden Plates. The link is a Word doc, and shows some pictures.

They also have a link to the Archaeological History of New York. The link shows that carbon dating has been done, and reviews the various groups. The closest group to the Jaredite time period would be the Laurentian Culture, which existed about 3000 BC, but it seems this group was not as advanced as the Jaredite culture appears to be in the Book of Mormon. The Hopewellian Culture appears to be the best match for the Nephite time period.

In an earlier post on Book Of Mormon Geography, in the comments we discussed the New York Theory. While I intend to give a more formal review in the coming weeks, I just want to mention that the theory at True Book of Mormon Geography relies heavily on Iroquois archaeology. However, the link above, taken from Sept 1952, implies that the Iroquois didn’t inhabit the NY area until 1200 BC, which is roughly 700 years after the Book of Mormon. It seems that Hopewellian culture archaeology would be a much better match for NY claims.

Advertisements

16 comments on “Stone Box found, just like Golden Plates

  1. To Heretic:

    [One small correction to what you said. We do NOT rely on Iroquois archaeology at all. We simply recognize they were the inhabitants of Book of Mormon lands when the Gentiles arrived, and that together they did establish The New Jerusalem as foretold. It is known their history as a whole does not go back far enough.]

    My response to your last:

    Why is there a preoccupation with linking a “culture” with the people of The Book of Mormon? Is it to find evidence? Proof of their prior existence? What?

    The Book of Mormon is clear, the Nephites were a subset of a larger, pre-existing group and culture, which hated and despised them, even promised to erase them from off the earth, and in fact SUCCEEDED.

    The scriptures even foretold they would be “destroyed” and later would speak from the “dust” not ruins.

    —–

    Models that have misled researchers in the past were:

    – “The Indians descended from Lehi.” Wrong.
    – “They covered all of the American continents.” Wrong.
    – “They covered all of North America.” Wrong.
    – “They covered all of Western New York.” Wrong.

    I do not believe researchers will ever succeed unless they have a correct model to start with:

    -Nephites were only a subset of a larger, pre-existing culture. (The record says they were HALF that of the Indians.)

    -Though certain metals or technologies were stated in the record, researchers should not assume to find evidences now. (I live in the gold rush area of CA, but you would be hard pressed to find proof of that now.)

    -Because Nephite dwellings were by tent, wood and cement, we should not expect to find any remains other than mounds of dirt where their fortifications were, which is exactly what we find all over Western New York.

    —-

    What should they be looking for then? Anything that is not consistent with the greater Indian populations. Have they found anything inconsistent? Yes they have.

    Because the Buffalo Reservation in Buffalo, NY was and is full of artifacts, it has long been plundered but still, enough legitimate archaeological excavations have been done to show there were different groups which inhabited the area that they cannot account for. Even there are differences a few miles a way, showing there were different groups of people present.

    Here are some general statements from our web site:

    By the Governor of New York in 1820:

    “I am persuaded that enough has been said to demonstrate the existence of a vast population, settled in towns, defended by forts, cultivating agriculture, and more advanced in civilization than the nations which have inhabited the same countries since the European discovery.”

    The subtitle to the “Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York” by O. Turner dated 1850:

    “Pioneer History of the Holland Land Purchase of Western New York embracing some account of the Ancient Remains; a brief history of our immediate predecessors, the Confederated Iroquois, their system of government, wars, etc. A synopsis of Colonial History;”

    —-

    What is exciting to note is the difference between the Land Northward, and the Land Southward.

    Can anyone explain why they only built cement houses in the north and not the south? This must be explained in your model.

    We have the answer, with pictures on our web site at:

    http://www.bookofmormongeography.info

    If you go to the Error page, you will read details there.

  2. BOMC,

    You are adept at misdirection. On the one hand, on your website you imply that the Iroquois archeology lends credence to your theory of the Book of Mormon, and on the other hand you state “researchers should not assume to find evidences now.”

    So which is it? Is there evidence for your theory or not? Using Iroquois archeology to support your evidence, and then saying that no evidence will be found is complete double-speak. If you are trying to have it both ways, I’m afraid your theory is more flawed than I thought. Please explain why you include evidence of Iroquois when you know full well that they didn’t exist at the time of the Nephites.

    This is like saying that Leonardo Da Vinci personally knew Julius Caesar because they were both from Italy. Obviously this is absurd, because they lived centuries apart. I don’t understand your connection between Iroquois and Nephites.

  3. Heretic, don’t be upset at us for your adeptness for misunderstanding, the same way you misunderstood the Narrow Neck of Land in our model.

    [Please READ THE SITE(S) before making hasty generalizations which are NOT representative of our sites. We have never spoken of the Iroquois in terms of archaeology, only in terms of them being the current inhabitants of BoM geography.]

    We understand your fierce anger for us swiping away the hope, need, or precedence for finding certain evidences, but shouldn’t we be focusing on the things that are or should be so blatantly obvious – the geography?

    Why is that so important?

    First of all, you cannot correctly match its promises historically if you are on the wrong land.

    Secondly, you will not be able to correctly interpret, or expect prophecy to be fulfilled if you are on the wrong land.

    [Think in terms of “A New Jerusalem to be built.” Was and is that the Constitutional government of America as we propose, or a denominational undertaking in Independence, Missouri?]

    Why not respect the evidence we have already put forth on our geography site:

    http://www.bookofmormongeography.info

    Things Joseph did not know:

    1. Ancient Lake Tonawanda, its boundaries and direction of flow.
    2. The Narrow Neck of Land.
    3. The Land Northward, the cement houses, the rattle snakes, where the land was lifted up, etc.
    4. The huge archaeological discovery in East Aurora, the ancient location of the City of Zarahemla.
    5. The Lamanite Line of Possession, south of the River head., with archaeological forts all along it.
    6. The bay where Lehi’s family safely docked their ship in Erie, PA.

    The list of things he did not know, but are today found – exactly where The Book of Mormon says they would be found is astonishing. [Keep in mind, Joseph incorrectly identified several Book of Mormon locations – which is proof, he did not have a correct understanding of its geography, nor did he make it up.

  4. BOMC,

    Look, I’m really not trying to pick a fight, and I probably should have been more diplomatic in my previous post. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks regarding “adept at misdirection.” However, these are serious questions that you have not addressed on the website, and that is why I am asking you about them here. You did not address them above.

    Let me restate the questions to make sure you can respond directly: (1) Why do you reference Iroquois archeology on your website when you know that this does not cover the Book of Mormon time period? (2) What evidence do you have to indicate that the Hopewelian people may have had contact with the Nephites? (3) What links do you have to the Laurentian Culture and the Jaredites? (4) Archaeology indicates the Laurentians were not as advanced as the Jaredites. How do you reconcile this problem?

    Thanks.

  5. Heretic, again, we never used the words “Iroquois Archaeology” on our sites.

    Please stop making that statement and connection.

    Funny thing, we share ten amazing things and yet you don’t respect a single one.

    Our time is better spent with people who have an open mind and who are not afraid to admit something amazing when it is presented.

    Why don’t you review the site like you said instead of fabricating straw men you want us to defend.

  6. Ok, My smug friend. I tried to be more civil, but your tone has not changed. Here is what it says on your website.

    http://bookofmormongeography.info/land-southward

    Upon the middle branch of Buffalo Creek, three and a half miles from the village of Aurora, on the Seneca Indian Reservation, there are the remains of one of the largest class of ancient fortifications. A raised work, or mound of earth, enclosed an area of two acres. It occupied a bluff point, overlooking a bend of the stream, its location evincing much of modern military science. In an early period of the settlement of the country the whole work could be distinctly traced. Upon the spot and in the immediate vicinity, almost as often as the plough or the spade is put into the ground, relics, clearly distinguishable from those that mark the later occupancy of the Indian race, are found.

    As in other instances, the spot had attractions for the successive Indian Nations that possessed this region of the Lakes – the Eries, the Neuter Nation, and the Iroquois; for there are palpable evidences of a continued occupancy, extending down to our own period. Second, and even third timber growths were apparent over a space of fifty or sixty acres. When the French Franciscan and Jesuit Missionaries, and Fur traders, came to this region, they undoubtedly found there a considerable settlement of the Iroquois, and made it one of their principal stations. The author found in the possession of Mr. John T. King, the present owner of the land, numerous relics he had ploughed up in his fields, and among them two large French padlocks; (*This is pure speculation as to their origins. See note below.) one of them, especially, in its rude construction, marking an early period of the science of lock making. It is of a size unparalelled in locks of modern construction, unique in shape, resembling the padlocks that we see in pictures, upon the doors of ancient castles, prisons, and monasteries. Intelligent foreigners say that such locks are found now in France and Germany, but are regarded there as those of primitive construction. The padlocks were both locked; from which circumstance we may infer that the French made a hurried evacuation of the locality, during one of the periods of hostile demonstrations on the part of the Iroquois; and it is not likely that such articles would have been left behind in a peaceful or premeditated departure.

    Now, this certainly leads one to believe that the Iroquois might have had something to do with BOM peoples. No, it doesn’t say “Iroquois archeology”, but the implication is there.

    Now, please answer these questions. Why are you avoiding them? Don’t you have an acceptable answer?

    (1) Why do you reference Iroquois archeology on your website when you know that this does not cover the Book of Mormon time period? (2) What evidence do you have to indicate that the Hopewelian people may have had contact with the Nephites? (3) What links do you have to the Laurentian Culture and the Jaredites? (4) Archaeology indicates the Laurentians were not as advanced as the Jaredites. How do you reconcile this problem?

    A humble, well-reasoned response would be appreciated.

  7. To Heretic,

    An “acceptable answer?” If you like.

    Your #1. We reference the Iroquois Nation for two reasons:

    a. As the current inhabitants of Book of Mormon lands.

    b. They fulfilled BoM prophecy by jointly establishing a New Jerusalem with the Colonists upon Book of Mormon lands. (Details at http://www.bomchristian.com/c/the-geography )

    Your #2. It is common knowledge that the Hopewell peoples were in SOME PARTS of Western New York:

    “The Iroquois were and are still the most recent aborigines to occupy this region; but they are late comers. Before them were other peoples. Our investigations show that long before the Iroquois came, the Algonkian tribes occupied at vairous times almost every portion of the State. There were also band of the mound-building people, and at an earlier time, wandering tribes of people who made implements like the Eskimo.” (The Archeological History of New York, p. 35)

    Your #3. FYI, the Laurentian Culture does not cover Western New York, that was the Lamoka. Very little is known about them.

    Your #4. You will not find evidence that says “Jaredites were here” anywhere. Let’s be clear how things turned out for the Jaredites. They battled all across their land until only one person was left, and he did not bury the dead. What happens to unburied bodies? They dissolve. And their buildings or armaments? They were taken by the Nephites. And after the Nephites? The same thing happened.

    Regarding the Iroquois Nation, here are some things to understand:

    1. They are just like the Lamanites were in the sense they would remove ALL TRACES of the people they conquered:

    “When one considers how many captives were taken by the Iroquois tribes, and how extensive their trade and their raids were, it seems little short of marvelous that so few non-Iroquoian articles are found on the sites of their former habitation. Nearly everything we find is unmistakably Iroquois, as if among all the tribes that they met and conquered nothing that they made was worth taking or copying by the Iroquois. They even rejected certain objects, as we have already seen, that ordinarily must have been attractive to them.” (Ibid, p. 159)

    2. After all that has been documented there in Western New York, there is so much they don’t know:

    “It is possible that several or many stocks (of people) now unknown and perhaps impossible to know left traces behind. Certainly there are many sites that are puzzling and that suggest an occupation by people the nature of which we now have no means of determining.” (Ibid, p. 42)

  8. BOMG, welcome. I am assuming you are different from BOMC. Thanks for your response.

    You said, “They fulfilled BoM prophecy by jointly establishing a New Jerusalem with the Colonists upon Book of Mormon lands. (Details at http://www.bomchristian.com/c/the-geography ),

    I went to the link but didn’t see a reference to this prophecy you are speaking of. I’m not sure if I went to the wrong place, or perhaps I failed to recognize what you were referring to? Could you be more specific?

    In relation to the Iroquois, it seems to me that they are about 800 years too late to be of any real value to your theory. Personally, I think the person in charge of the site should be more specific about this, because it seems to cloud the issues, and leads the reader to make some incorrect conclusions. It seems that you agree the Iroquois weren’t there at the correct time, but your website doesn’t make this distinction clearly.

    You said “It is common knowledge that the Hopewell peoples were in SOME PARTS of Western New York”

    I completely disagree. It is not at all “common knowledge.” Perhaps you are aware of it, and it is common knowledge to you. I had never heard of the Hopewell Peoples until reading the article from the Nephi Project, and I doubt any casual reader of your website had heard of Hopewell people. You should not make such an assumption, and I think you would be well-served to look at the ties of Hopewell peoples. It will strengthen your arguments.

    (3)Thanks for the update on the Lamoka vs Laurentian culture. While not much is known, I would encourage you to build on those links. I think it would strengthen your theory.

    (4) I’m not sure I agree with your theory that because the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed, that all evidence of them would be obliterated. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were much smaller. For a long time, many believed these cities never existed or were myths. However, they have been discovered recently. If these small cities, destroyed by God, have been found, I would expect that there should be evidence of Nephites found someday. Yes, it has not been found yet, but I think it is a false assumption to assume evidence will never be found.

    I’m sure you have heard of the Nag Hammadi Library, found in Egypt. These scrolls contain biblical writings, as well as Gnostic gospels. The Gnostics have been completely extinct, due in large part to the persecutions of Constantine in the 3rd and 4th century AD. Even though the people are extinct, there is evidence that they existed. This same parallel should apply to BoM peoples.

    Finally, you quoted “Certainly there are many sites that are puzzling and that suggest an occupation by people the nature of which we now have no means of determining.” (Ibid, p. 42)”

    This is an old link. While many of the conclusions are certainly still relevant, I think it is important to look at some other examples.

    I recently watched an Episode of Digging for the Truth. The episode was about the Vikings, who traveled from the Netherlands, to Iceland, Greenland, and Canada around 1200 AD. For many years, archaeologists thought some mounds were made by Native Americans. However, they have recently discovered that these huts are nearly identical to those found in Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. They have come to the conclusion that these mounds were not created by Indians at all, but rather by Vikings. Yes, they are about 800 years old, but have nothing to do with the supposedly indigenous peoples. They were made by foreign Vikings.

    I bring this up, because throughout the website, it refers to ancient Indian mounds. I think more research needs to be done to make sure these sites are (1) old enough to be from the BoM times, (2) that they were made by Indians, and not Vikings (or other peoples). There are many assumptions made in the website that don’t have good scientific backing. Perhaps these mounds were made by Indians, perhaps not. But to make blanket statements that they “must” be from the BoM time period is to make some assumptions that can’t possibly be validated by science.

  9. BOMG, you posted a link to a new website I was not familiar with. On the site it says http://www.bomchristian.com/c/the-geography?start=6

    The core Iroquois Nation area mirrors that of the core Book of Mormon area; which mirrors the Holland Land Company Purchase; which mirrors the main fighting area between the Colonists and Britian; which mirrors the main fighting area between the French and Indians, which mirrors the main fighting area between the Nephites and Lamanites; which mirrors the main fighting area of the Six Nations before they were united by the Peace Maker.”

    While I know that the revolutionary war had many battles in New York, the Boston Tea Party, Bunker Hill, George Washington crossing the Potomac, etc are well outside the New York area. Can you explain this to me? It doesn’t seem to mirror very well to me, and the Revolutionary war seems much larger in area than the limited geography you are supporting for the Book of Mormon.

  10. To Heretic,

    We have links to our other sites right on the main page of http://www.bookofmormongeography.info. The fact you never noticed these shows you are not genuine in wanting to understanding the topic, but rather you find some pleasure in acting sincere, all the while nit picking your way around.

    You imply you do not believe confirming evidence will ever be forth coming on The Book of Mormon. I take this as part of your testimony that you believe the book to be fictitious? Please state your position.

    Now on to some more of your side tracking:

    1. ” I went to the link but didn’t see a reference to this prophecy you are speaking of.”

    Many times we do not document the current, common, understandings of Book of Mormon prophecy. Those topics are for current or past believers. If you are not aware of the verses referring to the building of a New Jerusalem jointly with the American Indians, then you were never a believer in the first place. Instead of squinting at that, you should have noted the extent to which we referred to the Iroquois on our sites, and acknowledge we never referred to their archaeology.

    2. “In relation to the Iroquois, it seems to me that they are about 800 years too late to be of any real value to your theory.”

    Nice try. No matter how you restate you objections, we will never confirm your assumption that we referred to Iroquois archaeology. Are we 800 years to late to say they fulfilled Book of Mormon prophecy by jointly founding our nation? I think not.

    3. “It seems that you agree the Iroquois weren’t there at the correct time, but your web site doesn’t make this distinction clearly.”

    The correct times we are referring to is what you just read – to help the Colonists to establish a free government – end of story, sorry you reached beyond that.

    4. “I think you would be well-served to look at the ties of Hopewell peoples.”

    That is not our approach. Were we to state this culture or nation was Book of Mormon, we would be at the mercy of current anthropological and archaeological understanding to bear us up. That will never happen for precisely the next point.

    5. “I’m not sure I agree with your theory that because the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed, that all evidence of them would be obliterated.”

    You fail to acknowledge what archaeologists themselves have stated regarding the archaeology in Western New York, so I will restate it:

    “When one considers how many captives were taken by the Iroquois tribes, and how extensive their trade and their raids were, it seems little short of marvelous that so few non-Iroquoian articles are found on the sites of their former habitation. Nearly everything we find is unmistakably Iroquois, as if among all the tribes that they met and conquered nothing that they made was worth taking or copying by the Iroquois. They even rejected certain objects, as we have already seen, that ordinarily must have been attractive to them.” (Ibid, p. 159)

    In other words, they SUCCEEDED in “obliterating” their enemies and other prior occupants of Western New York. And they probably learned that from the groups that preceded them going all the way back to 400 AD.

    Regarding the remains of Old Testament cities, you fail to recognize they were not made of wood as Book of Mormon cities were. Before the last battle it says the Lamanites burned ALL Nephite cities – ALL.

    6. We do and have drawn a parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library and The Book of Mormon.

    7, “But to make blanket statements that they “must” be from the BoM time period is to make some assumptions that can’t possibly be validated by science.”

    That is not our approach at all. We came to our geography model by The Book of Mormon and by what the angel told Joseph (as stated on our site), not like others who erroneously searched for a people with a written language and massive ruins. The location of certain sites however was helpful due to the fact that one tribe would build upon the site of another for strategic reasons for many generations.

    Was the land inhabited during Book of Mormons times? Yes it was. That is the only question we care to ask.

    There is nothing in the archaeological record that can tell us anything more about Christ or Salvation than what is found in The Book of Mormon.

    The Book of Mormon was specifically written to be thorough on Jesus, not on culture.

    There are other records that are detailed about those things which will yet come forth. Until then, we encourage everyone to spend more time on learning the doctrine of The Book of Mormon than they do on any other subject. Unless you do that, you will be studying it for the wrong reason.

  11. BOMG and BOMC,

    Why do you antagonize people who have questions about your theory. For example, “you are not genuine in wanting to understanding the topic, but rather you find some pleasure in acting sincere, all the while nit picking your way around.

    or this

    “you were never a believer in the first place.”

    If you want people to understand your position, please don’t insult them first. You create your own enemies.

    I am really trying to understand your theory. No, I didn’t read every one of the 15 websites you listed, no, I didn’t read every footnote, no, I didn’t buy your other books for sale and read every page and understand them perfectly, and no I didn’t memorize everything I read before I asked the question, and no, I don’t understand sentences the way you understand them.

    THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. Why do you think my motives are attacking?

    I ask simple questions, and you attack me. I just don’t get it. It seems you are more interested in attacking others, than you are in clarifying your position. Please, get off your high horse and please help a stupid person like me understand your theories. Please, I AM SORRY I AM SO STUPID.

    You could very well be correct. Please remember, that Galileo said the sun was the center of the universe. The Catholics made him recant. Perhaps you are like Galileo.

    Please, act like the Christian you pretend to be, and don’t attack every person who asks a question, or comes to a different conclusion than you do. I am greatly troubled by your tone.

    End of rant for now.

  12. Just answer the question we posted in the last. What is your stance on The Book of Mormon?

  13. Let me address some of your comments. This is not meant to attack, but it does address some inconsistencies. In your comment above you said, Many times we do not document the current, common, understandings of Book of Mormon prophecy. Those topics are for current or past believers.

    However, on your title page of you website: First a challenge to Book of Mormon enthusiasts:

    and then 2 lines below that, And to Book of Mormon skeptics:

    I made an assumption, based on the first things I read on your website, that you were talking to 2 groups of people with completely different backgrounds. Skeptics don’t have the same background as believers, and need these prophecies explained. If you choose not to explain them, then this implies that you are really only talking to “enthusiasts.” As a kind reminder, perhaps you should detail this better for the “skeptics” who happen across your website, since they obviously understand things differently than “believers,” and may not have the background you assume they have.

    Regarding point #2, we are talking past each other on this point, and I will give up trying to resurrect this topic.

    Regarding point #3, thanks for clarifying this for me. The correct times we are referring to is what you just read – to help the Colonists to establish a free government – end of story Let me say that if your aim was to show that the Iroquois helped the Colonists establish a free government, then please include that sentence on your website. To me, It did not appear at all that this was your point. For me, the confusion arises from the fact that the title page in the Book of Mormon says the Lamanites are ancestors of ALL American Indians. While I know the LDS church has recently backed off this claim, your reference to the Iroquois seems to be a Lamanite reference (for most people), not a Colonial reference. I think the website could use a little clarification here. (It doesn’t seem like you’re open to suggestions, so I’m sorry for my unsolicited suggestion, but I just thought you might like to understand how a total stranger might interpret your references. Perhaps it could have prevented this acrimonious tone?)

    Point #4, we would be at the mercy of current anthropological and archaeological understanding to bear us up.

    Yes, you are correct. But if you’re telling the truth, won’t the anthropological and archeaological evidence help your theory? If evidence supports your theory, I doubt you would throw it away…..

    On the other hand, if it is not helpful to your theory, it could destroy you. Are you more interested in truth, or being right? Personally, I’m more interested in truth, but it sounds to me you only like the truth that agrees with your theory. I know this sounds harsh, but tell me where I am wrong in my reasoning on this point. We shouldn’t be afraid of the truth. The truth will set you free.

    Regarding point #5, “Regarding the remains of Old Testament cities, you fail to recognize they were not made of wood as Book of Mormon cities were. Before the last battle it says the Lamanites burned ALL Nephite cities – ALL.

    This is faulty reasoning.

    There is a recent episode of Digging for the Truth about the burned cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Because they were burned, there is tons of ash in the city. Ash is everywhere, precisely because the wood burned. You should be able to find plenty of ash if the Iroquois burned the wood.

    The city of Jericho was also burned, and plenty of ash is found there too. Every burned city will leave an ash residue.

    Point #7. Was the land inhabited during Book of Mormons times? Yes it was. That is the only question we care to ask.

    I find this approach short-sighted, and therefore subject to all sorts of flaws and criticism. This helps me understand why you are probably attacked so much, and therefore, why you attack others for asking simple questions. I ask you to be Christian in your responses. I am not trying to attack you, but to ask thoughtful, scientific questions.

    You go on to say, “There is nothing in the archaeological record that can tell us anything more about Christ or Salvation than what is found in The Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was specifically written to be thorough on Jesus, not on culture….we encourage everyone to spend more time on learning the doctrine of The Book of Mormon than they do on any other subject. Unless you do that, you will be studying it for the wrong reason.

    Your approach is certainly a valid approach, although not a scientific one. I think your response is an excellent response for those desiring to gain a testimony of Christ.

    By your reasoning, I am studying it for the WRONG reason. I will agree with this logic to a degree.

    However, I put up this website, because this is what I want to do. I want to ask questions. I want to learn more. Perhaps it is wrong to ask these questions….

    Or perhaps I am like Galileo, and trying to understand the universe better. Perhaps, in 500 years, when we understand these things better, perhaps I will add to the spiritual conversation of others. Nobody’s testimony is threatened now because the sun is the center of the universe. 500 years ago, Galileo was threatened.

    Perhaps in 500 years, I will contribute to a better understanding of the Book of Mormon, and we will know that:

    (1) it did in fact occur in the Iroquois lands because we found ash there, or

    (2) it occured in Missouri, because we found the Tree of Life, or

    (3) it occured in Guatemala, because we found Laban’s sword, or

    (4) it occured in Chile, because we found “Nephi, son of Lehi” inscribed in a tablet, or

    (5) perhaps we found DNA evidence linking the Tribe of Manassah in the Malay peninsula

    All of these are possibilities. One might be right. They might all be wrong. Either way, in 500 years, some internet archaeologist will laugh at how uninformed we are today. I hope to contribute to this understanding, and I will apologize for studying the Book of Mormon for the wrong reasons. After all, most everyone thought Galileo was wrong too.

    Or perhaps, my WRONG reasons are not really wrong at all, but faith-building….. Ever been to the Empty Tomb and had your testimony of Jesus increase? Whether it is really the tomb of Jesus or not, the fact that it might be, will cause some people to increase their testimony. I hope my wrong reasons may help others, who like to ask scientific questions, to gain a stronger testimony.

  14. To more fully answer your question in post 12, “I am a skeptical believer, or perhaps a believing skeptic.” Pick the term that makes you more comfortable. I am both a skeptic and a believer, not one or the other.

  15. We could play your game of a 101 questions, but there will always be another won’t there.

    Your original question was about the geography of The Book of Mormon. We answered that. Not only did we answer it, but you failed to show a single flaw in it.

    Just to clarify, the domain is http://www.bookofmormongeography.info . For those who go there that is what they will find – “Geography.”

    Have ash pits, utensils and weapons been found there dating to Book of Mormon times? Yes.

    Has DNA evidence been found connecting the Great Lakes Indians with the Jews in Israel? Yes.

    Under the current world view, that fact alone should cause all to step back and wonder.

    For others reading this comment, we would encourage you to read The Book of Mormon with an open mind and pray about it. Pray with all seriousness knowing there is a good chance it is true. Then, when you get the chance, go near Niagara Fort to the place we describe on our site, you will experience the glory of God for yourself, and THAT will speak louder than the rational mind.

    Good luck Heretic.

  16. BOMC,

    Yes I do have many questions for you. I set up this website specifically to ask questions, and have discussions. I don’t have all the answers.

    It seems you take great delight in trashing Sorensen, Curtis, and any others that think the BoM lands occured in places other than NY. However, when the microscope is focused on your theory, you don’t appreciate all these “101 questions.”

    BOMC, your theory could very well be right, and Sorensen could very well be wrong. However, Sorenson has done much more research, and his conclusions are much more compelling than yours. If you want to stand on equal footing with him, you’ve got to allow your theory to be scrutinized as he has allowed his. Yes, it is not pleasant, but it is through these “nit-picking” that he has established his credentials.

    Perhaps your aim is different. It seems you are more interested in theology and conversion to Christ. This is certainly admirable, and probably more valuable than secular knowledge.

    But don’t be afraid of a little criticism, or tough questions that come your way if you intend to have all the answers for Book of Mormon geography.

    I admire what you’ve done, and thank you for your efforts. I think what you are doing is fruitful, and stimulating.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: