Narrow neck of land

Post by **_charity** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:38 am

Inconceivable wrote:Some of the names of the areas/towns still exist on current maps today. If it is agreed that this is not the location of these great citys, rivers and seas of the Lehites, why would we conclude that God inspired men to name the area so distinctly in reference to an area presumeably thousands of miles away?

This came from a review of Mr. Holley's work. "Other pertinent questions surface when considering just how original the place names are. For instance, several of the Book of Mormon place names appear in the Bible. These include Ephraim (2 Samuel 13:23), Ramah (Joshua 19:36), and, of course, Jerusalem. If the author of the Book of Mormon were given to pilfering, why would he need the Manuscript Story when the Bible would serve just as well?

It is also important to note that some of the New England cities were not even incorporated entities prior to 1830. Angola was incorporated in 1873,and in Monroe County, Ohio, Jerusalem's post office wasn't established until January 8, 1850. Thus, Mr. Holley's claim that such places were known in the neighborhood of Joseph Smith is chronologically misinformed. Finally, to draw etymological parallels between "Jacobugath" and "Jacobsburg," or "Shurr" and "Sherbrooke" is to strain one's credulity."

Kind of waters down the theory.

Post by **_ludwigm** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:27 am

charity wrote:
Pokatator wrote:Paul and Charity why don't you draft a letter together and ask Hinckley?

Because it isn't a doctrinal question. ...

And because asking is a sin, as it was in the socialism.
You are lucky to not know it. I have lived in it, and as the time passes I see more and more similarities with Mormonism.

Post by **_Abinadi's Fire** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:44 am

I think Holley got Zarahemla wrong - it should be in the Niagara falls region, based on the historical setting in the early 1800s, and he could have added a correlation between Manti and Mentor, Ohio, the home of Rigdon's congregation.

_Paul Osborne · Post by **_Paul Osborne** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:40 pm

Some of the names of the areas/towns still exist on current maps today. If it is agreed that this is not the location of these great citys, rivers and seas of the Lehites, why would we conclude that God inspired men to name the area so distinctly in reference to an area presumeably thousands of miles away?

God can surprise you. He takes pleasures in many different things. God doesn’t think like man does – his ways are much higher and he sees one big picture as a single whole. To me, there is nothing strange about God inspiring man to name cities in a lost book in any region whether it be north, east, south, or west. The earth is the Lord’s and fullness thereof. With God there is no time or distance. These things are measured by mortal man who seeks answers in a mortal environment. But we seek our answers in a spiritual environment and must allow God to work according to his own will and in his own way.

Paul O

_Paul Osborne · Post by **_Paul Osborne** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:45 pm

The believers will say that this is a test of faith to view truth through the mountain of evidence to the contrary (or the lack thereof). I would say it is a test of pure and child "like" reasoning to determine an imposter.

I honestly believe the Book of Mormon is a true historical account. The Lord has scattered the clues and has not made it easy to put the pieces together for our own amusement or, personal satisfaction. This is because there must be a foundation of faith when it comes to believing the Book of Mormon. This book was given to the world to be received by faith only, and then comes the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Like it or not, it’s part of the foundation of the LDS Church through our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The LDS Church was set up by God to be found only through faith and the witness of the Spirit. God wouldn’t have it any other way. Where would the test be if God made it easy to believe the historical account of the Book of Mormon? If this was the case the Church might be overrun with faithless people who never sought a testimony through the Spirit! What kind of Church would that be?

Paul O

Post by **_charity** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:41 pm

ludwigm wrote:And because asking is a sin, as it was in the socialism.
You are lucky to not know it. I have lived in it, and as the time passes I see more and more similarities with Mormonism.

I am sorry you live in a repressive country. But the Church is not like that. I could walk up to the prophet and ask him if Joseph Smith was a fraud, and nothing would happen to me.

If you are seeing similarities between socialism and Mormonism, you are beocming paranoid and seeing a socilaist behind every bush.

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:20 pm

Paul Osborne wrote:
The believers will say that this is a test of faith to view truth through the mountain of evidence to the contrary (or the lack thereof). I would say it is a test of pure and child "like" reasoning to determine an imposter.

..Like it or not, it’s part of the foundation of the LDS Church through our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The LDS Church was set up by God to be found only through faith and the witness of the Spirit. God wouldn’t have it any other way. Where would the test be if God made it easy to believe the historical account of the Book of Mormon? If this was the case the Church might be overrun with faithless people who never sought a testimony through the Spirit! What kind of Church would that be[/b]?

Paul O

Paul,

Sorry much of my comments are a stretch of the topic -

My conclusion is that this makes Him to appear to be a God of inconsistancy. It didn't seem to bother him to put His son in the midst of the nation of Israel for 32 (33) years to testify for Himself and demonstrate via daily miracles (for example). People are people. They still have a choice to follow, reject or do something in between. Lucky for them, at least they had Him with them.

For this "dispensation", Jesus' quote ought to have been "My sheep hear my voice - but only if their other God given senses are broken".

The mountain of evidence contrary to the Book of Mormon is greater than the conjecture for it - confirmations of the "spirit" included. Today this is a factual statement.

Is the Book of Mormon an evil book? I don't know. I have read it over 20 times. More than twice with my family at 5am. Feasting, not nibbling. I've written paradigms based solely on it's teachings ranging from organized crime to charity. I've taught it for over 20 years in various callings. I'm pretty familiar with it.

Did these people exist? Well, unfortunately it appears they did not. But whoever did write it seems to have had a deep understanding of many things - but surely not geography or DNA.

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:05 pm

charity wrote:
Inconceivable wrote:Some of the names of the areas/towns still exist on current maps today. If it is agreed that this is not the location of these great citys, rivers and seas of the Lehites, why would we conclude that God inspired men to name the area so distinctly in reference to an area presumeably thousands of miles away?

It is also important to note that some of the New England cities were not even incorporated entities prior to 1830. Angola was incorporated in 1873,and in Monroe County, Ohio, Jerusalem's post office wasn't established until January 8, 1850. Thus, Mr. Holley's claim that such places were known in the neighborhood of Joseph Smith is chronologically misinformed. Finally, to draw etymological parallels between "Jacobugath" and "Jacobsburg," or "Shurr" and "Sherbrooke" is to strain one's credulity."

Kind of waters down the theory.

Incorporations and post offices came much later for many podunks on the edge of the frontier. We own land where the area has gone by a specific name for over 100 years and it is yet to be incorporated. The area still doesn't have a post office, yet there are mail boxes that dot the countryside. Once again, you are a nut.

Brefering to a train on fredulity:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fbg1x11xF_E (go to 1:50)

Pull ranscript:

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/95/95qnightline.phtml

Post by **_moksha** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:34 pm

If there can be two Hill Cumorahs, does that mean there can be other duplicate places as well, such as two Zarahemlas? Would this help or hinder in apologetic explanations?

(by the way, I am still curious as to whether Charity designating me as a critic constitutes a promotion or a demotion?)

Post by **_Abinadi's Fire** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:16 pm

moksha wrote:If there can be two Hill Cumorahs, does that mean there can be other duplicate places as well, such as two Zarahemlas? Would this help or hinder in apologetic explanations?

Maybe a trade-off, instead of two Cumorahs there could be two Moronis? Or two sets of Nephi's plates?

Oh, wait...