Book of Mormon setting in North America

[Cowboycaptain of 100]

Has anyone seen the new DVD out from Rod Meldrum explaining his theory that the B of M took place in North America and not South or Central America as commonly held?
I just finished a 4 hour DVD titled DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography.
I highly recommend it as a primer on the theory of location of the B of M being up north instead of southerly in its setting.
It is very compelling and uses evidence which comes from the scientific community and he backs it up with scripture and Church History.
Very interesting.

www.bookofmormonevidence.org

link to their site.

[Rockhound7captain of 10]

That's just what I've been lookin for!,,,,,Thanks Cowboy!

[MahonriMaster]

As much as I respect much of what is in the video, I have not been able to reconcile its over all contention with the statements by
every prophet including this one from the LORD to Joseph Smith

The course that Lehi traveled from the city of Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship: they traveled nearly a south, south east direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of north latitude then nearly east to the sea of Arabia then sailed in a south east direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chile, thirty degrees south latitude.

That is some of the most danged specific words I have ever heard on the topic. And I would say I would trust the Lord over any man any day of the week.

[Rockhound7captain of 10]

Please,,,,,,,,,,show me where the Lord said that! It don't sound like the words of the Lord I know.,,,,,,,,,,,,,I have a hard time getting him to say either, "Yes" or "No"!

[MahonriMaster]

I would be a little more careful on how you phrase that next time, but here is the reference

The Un-Canonized Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Stephen C. Heidt page 20

Purchased at Deseret Book. According to the compilers note in the beginning it says that these are from publis\hed material by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Though I am not a fan of FARMS, the acknowledgment pages says "I owe thanks to FARMS at BYU for showing support and helping whenever I was in need; to the LDS Church Archives for graciously granting me the one or two hard to acquire revelations.."

[Cowboycaptain of 100]

As much as I respect much of what is in the video, I have not been able to reconcile its over all contention with the statements by
every prophet including this one from the LORD to Joseph Smith

The course that Lehi traveled from the city of Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship: they traveled nearly a south, south east direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of north latitude then nearly east to the sea of Arabia then sailed in a south east direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chile, thirty degrees south latitude.

That is some of the most danged specific words I have ever heard on the topic. And I would say I would trust the Lord over any man any day of the week.

You have to say where that came from, because I think he meant Chili, Ohio.....
Just kidding!
Where was that quote from?

[MahonriMaster]

our posts must of crossed. see above

[Cowboycaptain of 100]

Gracias!

[Rockhound7captain of 10]

I'm sure that any DNA tests or other archaeological evidence, is studied and handled properly, will coincide with anything the Lord has said.,,,,,,,,<carefull>

[MahonriMaster]

I'm sure that any DNA tests or other archaeological evidence, is studied and handled properly, will coincide with anything the Lord has said.,,,,,,,,<carefull>

Not me, with the exception of archaeological evidence, which there is tons of. DNA science is so flawed, and controlled by the conspiracy/Satan, that I expect it to come out "conclusively" against believers in the literal interpretation of the scriptures.

A few years ago, they came out and said they could (through DNA "evidence") "prove" that all current human beings come from some lady in Africa 10,000 years ago. What a bunch of bunk!!

To expect, rely, desire, etc, science to validate the truth as far as the truths in the Gospel are found is to ask for your testimony to be destroyed or at the very least to come to a false belief in the scriptures being nothing more than good stories.

Now that we have a living Prophet, we can be sure that true science will never contradict the revealed word of God.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

About 17 years ago some LDS did a VCR presentation trying to show that the Book of Mormon history took place in North America. I don't remember the particulars, and I really was not terribly interested. It is, however, feasable to me that Nephites and Lamanites migrated from South America to North America.

I don't know if there is any connection or not, but I found it interesting that immediately after the temple work was done in the St. George Tempel for the signers of the American Declaration of Independence and other eminent persons, work was done for a good many of the Eastern American Indians like Techumseh, several different Blackhawks, and others from tribes like the Algonquins, Delewares, etc. My family is from Eastern Canada, and I grew up in New England, and saw plenty of members of such tribes as the Iriquois, Mohawks, Penobscots, Passamaquoddys, etc. They seem to me to be a different breed from the Western Indians, anthropologically different. We live in Arizona now, so I've also seen quite a bit of the Indians of this area: Apache, Navaho, etc.

[kgrigiocaptain of 100]

My mother tells a story of when she was with her parents as they served as mission presidents in Bolivia in the early 70's of President Kimball visiting and testifying that a certain spot in Bolivia (can't remember where she told me) where there are some famous ruins was once the center of life for the Nephite nation. Now, does this means this spot was where a lot of the Book of Mormon history was recorded or was it the center of the Nephite nation during the time of the Book of Mormon when not a lot is recorded, i.e. time between Jacob and Mosiah? I don't know and he didn't say.

The other question to really ask yourselves is, does it really matter? If you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, does it really matter where the events took place?

I for one think there may have been a lot of inhabitants scattered all around North and South America, but the history we have recorded in the Book of Mormon is for a certain portion of the people. We know several groups left and started their own civilizations but we don't have records of these people yet.

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

FAIRLDS has a great page the details where Joseph Smith felt the lands of the Nephites were. It seems that his opinion shifted throughout his life from a North American setting to a Central American setting. The most detailed opinion came in Times and Seasons in 1842, the last known statement of such a topic from Joseph:

[W]e have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatimala [Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.-The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma...It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them: and that a large stone with engravings upon it as Mosiah said; and a 'large round stone, with the sides sculptured in hieroglyphics,' as Mr. Stephens has published, is also among the left remembrances of the, (to him,) lost and unknown. We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon...It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... seph_Smith

[M249Gunnercaptain of 100]

I think at least some of the Book of Mormon took place in North America.

2Nephi 10:10-12

10 But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.
11 And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.
12 And I will fortify this land against all other nations.

I think the land spoken of in the above verses fits the USA. Gentiles have been blessed here, it is a land of liberty with no kings, and the USA has been pretty well fortified against all other nations. Also, Joseph Smith found a skeleton of a Lamanite named Zelph in the Midwest of the USA. Brigham Young said the spirits of Gadianton Robbers inhabited the mountains of the Wasatch Front. I read in a book about the Manti Temple (while in the waiting room of the Manti Temple) that Moroni stood in the current place of the temple and said that there would one day be a temple on that location.

I think the Book of Mormon peoples started off where Joseph said they did, then migrated north (if I remember corrrectly, the BOM said the Nephites went north). Also, Joseph talked of preaching to the Lamanites in the Midwest of the USA.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Meldrum has been around for a long time selling his book. The Book of Mormon world was Meso America, Southern Mexico, Central America, it's the only place where there's proof there was a written language.

Rod Meldrum does pretty well selling books at so called firesides. It's interesting that not a single BYU archeology professor accepts his theories. They all digging down there!

Bob

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

I think at least some of the Book of Mormon took place in North America.

2Nephi 10:10-12

10 But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.
11 And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.
12 And I will fortify this land against all other nations.

I think the land spoken of in the above verses fits the USA. Gentiles have been blessed here, it is a land of liberty with no kings, and the USA has been pretty well fortified against all other nations. Also, Joseph Smith found a skeleton of a Lamanite named Zelph in the Midwest of the USA. Brigham Young said the spirits of Gadianton Robbers inhabited the mountains of the Wasatch Front. I read in a book about the Manti Temple (while in the waiting room of the Manti Temple) that Moroni stood in the current place of the temple and said that there would one day be a temple on that location.

I think the Book of Mormon peoples started off where Joseph said they did, then migrated north (if I remember corrrectly, the BOM said the Nephites went north). Also, Joseph talked of preaching to the Lamanites in the Midwest of the USA.

I tend to look at it at least partially this way. The Alma-Helaman-3 Nephi regions can be nowhere else from the text other than Mesoamerica. However, after the 200 years of peace, the Nephite colony could have migrated north. We don't know.

[5tev3captain of 100]

The course that Lehi traveled from the city of Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship: they traveled nearly a south, south east direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of north latitude then nearly east to the sea of Arabia then sailed in a south east direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chile, thirty degrees south latitude.

I've heard this quote before, and it's not that unreasonable to assume that Lehi and his people then migrated north. After all, they wandered around for eight years on the Arabian peninsula. Just because it said they landed there, it doesn't mean that they stayed there.

Then there's the consideration of who is referred to as "Lamanites". Usually all of the native tribes from North to South America have been referred to as Lamanites. The thing that anyone looking at this issue should probably consider is WHO the Lamanites were. According to the Book of Mormon, around the time of Jacob (Jacob 1:14 - look it up), the word "Lamanite" was used as a generic term much like the word "Gentile" is used in the Bible. They used the word "Lamanite" to describe anyone who was unfriendly to the Nephites and the word "Nephite" to describe anyone who was friendly to the Nephites. So technically, if Mayans were enemies to the Nephites, they would have been called "Lamanites" as well.

Just to add another element to the discussion, there's the whole DNA issue. I think there are a bunch of huge problems with the research but still, we see them finding that the native American DNA that they test is similar to Mongolian DNA. Well I have a theory that I haven't really heard from anyone else, but it's something to think about. The tower of Babel took place around 2200 BC; that predates ABRAHAM, Issac, Jacob, Judah, Joseph, Moses, etc. Could the Jaredites have actually looked Mongolian? Could they have traveled across Asia and launched their barges from around China? Could some people have stayed behind or split off from the group and settled in Asia while the rest continued on to the Americas?

Think about how long they were populating the Americas before the Nephites arrived; at the most, about 1,600 years! 2 million people died in the last battle alone! We know during the Nephite history that people were always leaving and going off to inherit distant lands. Remember Hagoth and his ships and the people that were always going NORTHWARD and never heard from again, etc.? So is it also safe to assume that during the Jaredite civilization that others also branched off and became Mayans and Incas and Sioux and Apache or Inuit? I think it is. This could also be the reason that the Lehites traveled North to Central America; because the land was already filled with apostate Jaredites.

I always wondered how the Lamanites always had such large groups to bring into battle against the Nephites. Is is possible that the Lamanites were mixing with existing tribes. If this was the case, then the Lamanites would have over a thousand years become mixed with the existing Jaredite (Mongolian) bloodlines. Mixing with Gentiles (Lamanites) was a big no-no to an Israelite (Nephite) so the Nephites would be more limited as to who they could marry and therefore would probably have a smaller civilization. Ancient civilizations would try and wipe out their enemies genetically by intermarrying with the women of the tribes they conquered. Any of the remaining Lamanites that killed off the Nephites could have been conquered by Incas or Mayans and then bred out of existence as a people. However, the blood would still be among the people that remained. Much like how many members of the church (who are mostly of European decent) are said to be of Ephriam but probably only have trace amounts of Israelite blood. We know that the tribe of Ephraim went north and became dispersed and mixed with the Europeans, but I wonder how much their DNA would match a Jews DNA; it probably wouldn't. And in the same way, native American DNA would probably not match Jewish DNA. So the whole DNA thing doesn't bother me, I think the premise is all wrong.

I also thought it was interesting how in the Book of Mormon that they mention that they had the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Why would they need that gift if they were all the same people and spoke the same language? The first mention of this is in Omni 1:25, that's around 317 B.C (about 255 since they arrived in the Americas).

I don't know if my theory holds any water, so if anyone would like to pick it apart or add to it, feel free. It's just impossible to fully understand history, especially when we have so little physical evidence. Down South America, they build city over city and civilization over civilization. I remember reading about one ancient city that had about seven layers to it! So anyway, just some interesting things to think about.

[MahonriMaster]

The problem with that is that the Jaredites were all but destroyed, with one lone survivor and no record of him having kids with Lamanites or Nephites or any other ites.
Not to say that it couldn't have happened, but those kids that were half Jaredite each following generation would have less and less Jaredite blood in them, not making those that DNA tests very likely to be descendants.

I tend not to believe any DNA stuff, just as I do not believe in evolution or the total accuracy of carbon dating. Adaptation maybe, but Adam was not a child of a half monkey, all of us are literal children of God

By the way, I have seen quite a bit of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon people, much more in fact than I have for the Ark, Moses parting the red sea, etc.

[5tev3captain of 100]

The problem with that is that the Jaredites were all but destroyed, with one lone survivor and no record of him having kids with Lamanites or Nephites or any other ites.
Not to say that it couldn't have happened, but those kids that were half Jaredite each following generation would have less and less Jaredite blood in them, not making those that DNA tests very likely to be descendants.

I tend not to believe any DNA stuff, just as I do not believe in evolution or the total accuracy of carbon dating. Adaptation maybe, but Adam was not a child of a half monkey, all of us are literal children of God

By the way, I have seen quite a bit of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon people, much more in fact than I have for the Ark, Moses parting the red sea, etc.

All the Jaredites were destroyed, but all that that were still parts of the warring factions. We read that all the Nephites were destroyed, but what about the people that split off. See that's my point. Not ALL the Nephites were destroyed. All of the Nephites that remained as part of the core civilization that kept records were. But Lorenzo Snow once told the Maori people of New Zealand that they were of Hagoth...Nephites. There were always Nephite people who took off and ditched the main core group. All that I am saying is that it's pretty safe to assume that the same thing happened with the Jaredites. In their 1,600 or so years, I would imagine that with all the wars that some groups just high-tailed it out of the main civilization to start their own groups. So Coriantumr would technically not have been the last blood Jaredite. My theory is that the main civilization perished while other splinter groups fled and over time were not even considered Jaredites (Just like the Lamanites) but were still BLOOD Jaredites. Does that make sense? Don't have any evidence, just drawing some conclusions about the Jaredites based on what happened with the Nephites.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Cowboy, here is a very detailed look, by FAIR, of Meldrum's theories .

Reviews of DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography

In early 2008 Rodney Meldrum published a DVD titled DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography: New scientific support for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon; Correlation and Verification through DNA, Prophetic, Scriptural, Historical, Climatological, Archaeological, Social, and Cultural Evidence. The DVD is based upon a popular presentation given in a number of fireside venues since at least the middle of 2007. This page provides easy access to FAIR's reviews of the presentation.

Why These Reviews?

This publication by FAIR addresses the oral presentations by Rod Meldrum, and the DVDs he produces and sells, that ostensibly deal with the geography of the Book of Mormon and the issues that have recently emerged concerning DNA and its implications for the Book of Mormon. Were Rod Meldrum's work merely another of many theories about where the events in the Book of Mormon happened in the new world and the meaning of DNA studies, FAIR would not have published these reviews. It is doing so in response to questions addressed to FAIR by concerned or confused Church members and because the core issues raised by Rod Meldrum's propositions are fundamental to the faith of the Latter-day Saints and the integrity of the leadership of the Church. Accordingly, FAIR is addressing the needs of the public and here, at the outset, wishes to ensure that readers are clear about what the real matters in issue are.

We repeat what is noted above: the ostensible subjects of Rod Meldrum's oral presentations are geography and DNA, in support of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. We repeat, for emphasis, that were Rod Meldrum's work simply the theories of another man on geography and DNA, FAIR would not have become involved. FAIR has taken the carefully considered decision to prepare and publish this paper because there is convincing evidence demonstrating that his work puts the basis of the faith of not a few Latter-day Saints at risk and because its core premise calls the allegiance to Joseph Smith's teachings by today's Church leaders in question. If the leaders of our Church can be questioned on this point, it is a small step to put their allegiance to any of the Prophet's revealed teachings in question, and from small seeds large weeds do grow.
Neither of the two fundamental issues which FAIR has with Rod Meldrum's work (misplaced faith and the questionable loyalty of today's prophets, seers, and revelators) is obvious to all—indeed, at first viewing it wasn't initially obvious to some at FAIR. The work is persuasive, appears to be sincere, is accompanied by what looks like solid evidence with respect to geography and the purported views of the Prophet—and it is therein that the real danger lies. Therefore, in these reviews we first ask whether what Rod Meldrum says in his presentations and DVDs is something upon which a Latter-day Saint should base his faith and will then demonstrate that it is not. Second, we address whether the core premise of Rod Meldrum's presentations is consistent with the proposition that the revelations of Joseph Smith are being proclaimed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by the prophets, seers, and revelators requiring, as Rodney Meldrum claims, that he must proclaim aspects of the Prophet's revelations anew, and we show that his core claim is not correct.

We again emphasize, that were the issues raised only matters of geography or genetics, FAIR's members would not have devoted many hundreds of hours of volunteer, unpaid work, and the expenditure by some of their own money, to the preparation of these reviews. However, although geography and DNA appear at first glance to be the subjects in question, they are not the real issues, and the real issues strike at fundamentals of the faith of the Saints, So, as onerous and unpleasant a task as it has been, and recognizing that there may be some who won't be familiar with our purpose, and who do not carefully study our papers, or who act out of partisan loyalty, who may criticize us, we are nonetheless obliged to publish. There have already been mutterings about lawsuits, but we are well advised on the law and are not troubled by such threats. We know the law, and we honor and abide by it. We are also fully aware that Rod Meldrum may attack us for what we are doing; however, FAIR members are willing to weather the criticisms of the few on behalf of the many, and have willingly made these sacrifices as part of FAIR's mission to defend the true faith of the Latter-day Saints.

It will be evident that FAIR regrets the necessity of having to have engaged Rod Meldrum's theories. He is, after all, a fellow Latter-day Saint. But, as noted, FAIR has received numerous requests from Church members for information on his theories and there is a clear public need for us to respond given the cry for it, according to our mandate to provide well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice. That mission is invoked because the core of Rod Meldrum's presentation is not Book of Mormon geography or DNA. Instead, it is a challenge to core issues of LDS doctrine, belief and practice, which have been entrusted by the Lord to the sole province of the leaders of the Church. The core claim Rod Meldrum makes is that he must "proclaim anew" some revelations of Joseph Smith. From that claim the obvious and unmistakable conclusion is that he is telling his audience, in effect, that the Church and its leaders have not been, and are not now, proclaiming the Prophet fully or with faith—or, of course, Rod Meldrum would not be proclaiming him "anew." The seriousness of this can hardly be overstated.

Reviews, by Section

In the table below you will find, at the left, the sections of the DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography DVD. To the right of each of these sections you will find links to both an executive summary and full analysis. Some sections don't have reviews listed to the right of them; these reviews will be posted as they become available. For other sections there is only a single review listed; these reviews address multiple sections in the DVD presentation. (For instance, the "Geography" review analyzes several DVD sections, so it is listed to the right of several DVD sections.) The first line in the table is an overview of the entire review (Misguided Zeal) and will be of interest to all.

See the rest here;
http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for ... Geography/

[MahonriMaster]

interesting....

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

The problem with that is that the Jaredites were all but destroyed, with one lone survivor and no record of him having kids with Lamanites or Nephites or any other ites.
Not to say that it couldn't have happened, but those kids that were half Jaredite each following generation would have less and less Jaredite blood in them, not making those that DNA tests very likely to be descendants.

I tend not to believe any DNA stuff, just as I do not believe in evolution or the total accuracy of carbon dating. Adaptation maybe, but Adam was not a child of a half monkey, all of us are literal children of God

By the way, I have seen quite a bit of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon people, much more in fact than I have for the Ark, Moses parting the red sea, etc.

The Jaredite nation was all destroyed. Is it possible that from 2500 BC to 200 BC that outmigrations created colonies that were apart from the Jaredite nations? We don't know. I for one think that Jaredites could have been the Asiatic cousins everyone points to minus the land bridge.

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

The problem with that is that the Jaredites were all but destroyed, with one lone survivor and no record of him having kids with Lamanites or Nephites or any other ites.
Not to say that it couldn't have happened, but those kids that were half Jaredite each following generation would have less and less Jaredite blood in them, not making those that DNA tests very likely to be descendants.

I tend not to believe any DNA stuff, just as I do not believe in evolution or the total accuracy of carbon dating. Adaptation maybe, but Adam was not a child of a half monkey, all of us are literal children of God

By the way, I have seen quite a bit of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon people, much more in fact than I have for the Ark, Moses parting the red sea, etc.

All the Jaredites were destroyed, but all that that were still parts of the warring factions. We read that all the Nephites were destroyed, but what about the people that split off. See that's my point. Not ALL the Nephites were destroyed. All of the Nephites that remained as part of the core civilization that kept records were. But Lorenzo Snow once told the Maori people of New Zealand that they were of Hagoth...Nephites. There were always Nephite people who took off and ditched the main core group. All that I am saying is that it's pretty safe to assume that the same thing happened with the Jaredites. In their 1,600 or so years, I would imagine that with all the wars that some groups just high-tailed it out of the main civilization to start their own groups. So Coriantumr would technically not have been the last blood Jaredite. My theory is that the main civilization perished while other splinter groups fled and over time were not even considered Jaredites (Just like the Lamanites) but were still BLOOD Jaredites. Does that make sense? Don't have any evidence, just drawing some conclusions about the Jaredites based on what happened with the Nephites.

The Spanish chroniclers (Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon) note of a white race of Indians in the Amazon that had a prominent nose and facial hair. Critics dismiss theme now as the race mixing from the conquistadors, but they wrote in their journals that they existed, so it must be true that not all Nephites were destroyed (remember that by the time of Moroni, Nephite was a cultural term, not racial, ie those that believed in the gospel or descended from that culture of belief).

[MahonriMaster]

The Spanish chroniclers (Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon) note of a white race of Indians in the Amazon that had a prominent nose and facial hair. Critics dismiss theme now as the race mixing from the conquistadors, but they wrote in their journals that they existed, so it must be true that not all Nephites were destroyed

interesting.

(remember that by the time of Moroni, Nephite was a cultural term, not racial, ie those that believed in the gospel or descended from that culture of belief).

It was also racial. When they became Lamanites, (rejected the Gospel) their skin was darkened. I am assuming that the white natives you mentioned above must have apostatized in a less dramatic manner than those that had been changed.

[5tev3captain of 100]

The Spanish chroniclers (Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon) note of a white race of Indians in the Amazon that had a prominent nose and facial hair. Critics dismiss theme now as the race mixing from the conquistadors, but they wrote in their journals that they existed, so it must be true that not all Nephites were destroyed

interesting.

(remember that by the time of Moroni, Nephite was a cultural term, not racial, ie those that believed in the gospel or descended from that culture of belief).

It was also racial. When they became Lamanites, (rejected the Gospel) their skin was darkened. I am assuming that the white natives you mentioned above must have apostatized in a less dramatic manner than those that had been changed.

You know, I've done a little research on the whole 'darkening of the skin' idea in the Book of Mormon. I decided one day that I would look up every single reference in the Book of Mormon and in the Bible as well. The results were quite interesting. Pay particular attention to the Amalicites in Alma 3. Note that God said: "I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and they seed." So you would naturally assume that anyone who joined the Lamanites would change skin color. Because wasn't that the mark? But note that by putting red on their foreheads "...the word of God is fulfilled..." and they didn't know they were fulfilling God's words by marking themselves on their foreheads. It doesn't make any mention of skin color.

Earlier in verses 6-10 it appears that the Lamanites had dark skin and that "Whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him." Yet the mark on the Amalicites was red on their foreheads which is really emphasized in verses 13-19. Also, who ever said that the Nephites had white skin? They weren't European, they were Middle-Eastern! I dunno, I don't think the Nephites looked like blond-haired Europeans as they are often depicted in LDS artwork. The Nephites are called "white and delightsome" but this is descriptive of their righteousness and not of their skin color.

Check out these scriptures that I have dug up in the Old Testament:
Daniel 12:10 - many shall be purified and made white
Job 30:26,30 - when I waited for light, there came darkness...my skin is black upon me and my bones are burnt with heat.
Joel 2:6 - Beforetheir face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness
Psalm 51:7 - purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean: wash me and I shall be whiter than snow
Nahom 2:10 - and the faces of them all gather blackness
Jeremiah 8:21 - for the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt, I am black
Lamentations 4:7,8 - her Nazerites were purer than now, they were whiter than milk...their visage is blacker than coal
Daniel 12:10 - and some of them of understanding shall fall to try them and to purge and to make them white.
Lamentations 5:10 - our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

So I've often wondered if the whole white/black, light, dark was more metaphorical than physical. And if 'skins' had more of a symbolic meaning that would make sense to an endowed person, read this: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=6&num=2&id=149 note the Gadianton's use of the lamb-skin girdle. We often hear of garments representing righteousness and the garments of Adam and Eve were 'skins'. Try replacing the word 'skin' for 'garment' and it's kind of interesting since the two words could technically be interchangeable.

So basically, I doubt that the Nephites were pale, pasty European-colored because they weren't European, they were a Semetic people like the Arabs. But then again, maybe it is a simple as 'their skin turned dark'. We read that the Lord did it to make a distinction between the people, however remember Enos' description of the Lamanites in Enos 1:20? He described them in detail yet said noting of skin color. So to me it's still kind of a toss-up because I can make the argument either way to myself. If it is all metaphorical, I'd understand that, if it was in fact physical, that wouldn't bother me either. All the races came from somewhere didn't they? It would make sense that the Lord did it to differentiate people. Anyone else got any insight?

[5tev3captain of 100]

The problem with that is that the Jaredites were all but destroyed, with one lone survivor and no record of him having kids with Lamanites or Nephites or any other ites.
Not to say that it couldn't have happened, but those kids that were half Jaredite each following generation would have less and less Jaredite blood in them, not making those that DNA tests very likely to be descendants.

I tend not to believe any DNA stuff, just as I do not believe in evolution or the total accuracy of carbon dating. Adaptation maybe, but Adam was not a child of a half monkey, all of us are literal children of God

By the way, I have seen quite a bit of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon people, much more in fact than I have for the Ark, Moses parting the red sea, etc.

The Jaredite nation was all destroyed. Is it possible that from 2500 BC to 200 BC that outmigrations created colonies that were apart from the Jaredite nations? We don't know. I for one think that Jaredites could have been the Asiatic cousins everyone points to minus the land bridge.

Yes, the Jaredite NATION was all destroyed, but are you telling me that for about 1,400 to 1,600 years, that EVERY Jaredite existed in the same community on these vast continents? The Nephite NATION was all destroyed but not every blood Nephite because others migrated away and survived; but we don't know to what extent. 1,400 years, that's about the same amount of time between when Moroni buried the plates and they were picked up again by Joseph Smith and wow did a lot happen across the globe during that time! I'm just saying that it seems a little strange to assume that every single Jaradite stayed in the same place on such a vast group of continents for a millenia and a half and then all died in the same spot.

Many now believe and are backed up by the church's recent change to the introduction that the Nephites and Lamanites were "AMONG the ancestors of the American Indians." So who were the ancestors of the American Indians? Could it be that they were apostate remnants of the Jaredites that were NO LONGER Jaredites but existed as separate nations all across North and South America?

[MahonriMaster]

The Spanish chroniclers (Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon) note of a white race of Indians in the Amazon that had a prominent nose and facial hair. Critics dismiss theme now as the race mixing from the conquistadors, but they wrote in their journals that they existed, so it must be true that not all Nephites were destroyed

interesting.

(remember that by the time of Moroni, Nephite was a cultural term, not racial, ie those that believed in the gospel or descended from that culture of belief).

It was also racial. When they became Lamanites, (rejected the Gospel) their skin was darkened. I am assuming that the white natives you mentioned above must have apostatized in a less dramatic manner than those that had been changed.

You know, I've done a little research on the whole 'darkening of the skin' idea in the Book of Mormon. I decided one day that I would look up every single reference in the Book of Mormon and in the Bible as well. The results were quite interesting. Pay particular attention to the Amalicites in Alma 3. Note that God said: "I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and they seed." So you would naturally assume that anyone who joined the Lamanites would change skin color. Because wasn't that the mark? But note that by putting red on their foreheads "...the word of God is fulfilled..." and they didn't know they were fulfilling God's words by marking themselves on their foreheads. It doesn't make any mention of skin color.

Earlier in verses 6-10 it appears that the Lamanites had dark skin and that "Whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him." Yet the mark on the Amalicites was red on their foreheads which is really emphasized in verses 13-19. Also, who ever said that the Nephites had white skin? They weren't European, they were Middle-Eastern! I dunno, I don't think the Nephites looked like blond-haired Europeans as they are often depicted in LDS artwork. The Nephites are called "white and delightsome" but this is descriptive of their righteousness and not of their skin color.

Check out these scriptures that I have dug up in the Old Testament:
Daniel 12:10 - many shall be purified and made white
Job 30:26,30 - when I waited for light, there came darkness...my skin is black upon me and my bones are burnt with heat.
Joel 2:6 - Beforetheir face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness
Psalm 51:7 - purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean: wash me and I shall be whiter than snow
Nahom 2:10 - and the faces of them all gather blackness
Jeremiah 8:21 - for the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt, I am black
Lamentations 4:7,8 - her Nazerites were purer than now, they were whiter than milk...their visage is blacker than coal
Daniel 12:10 - and some of them of understanding shall fall to try them and to purge and to make them white.
Lamentations 5:10 - our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

So I've often wondered if the whole white/black, light, dark was more metaphorical than physical. And if 'skins' had more of a symbolic meaning that would make sense to an endowed person, read this: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=6&num=2&id=149 note the Gadianton's use of the lamb-skin girdle. We often hear of garments representing righteousness and the garments of Adam and Eve were 'skins'. Try replacing the word 'skin' for 'garment' and it's kind of interesting since the two words could technically be interchangeable.

So basically, I doubt that the Nephites were pale, pasty European-colored because they weren't European, they were a Semetic people like the Arabs. But then again, maybe it is a simple as 'their skin turned dark'. We read that the Lord did it to make a distinction between the people, however remember Enos' description of the Lamanites in Enos 1:20? He described them in detail yet said noting of skin color. So to me it's still kind of a toss-up because I can make the argument either way to myself. If it is all metaphorical, I'd understand that, if it was in fact physical, that wouldn't bother me either. All the races came from somewhere didn't they? It would make sense that the Lord did it to differentiate people. Anyone else got any insight?

Read what the Prophets have said on this. It is much more clear, and it is not just the spirituality, it is physical.

[truthseedscaptain of 100]

I think the North American theory is a very compelling one indeed. I believe that America is the only place that fulfills the promises of the Book of Mormon and also Joseph Smiths words on the matter.

America is the nation above all other nations, the Land of Promise, the Land of Liberty, the location of Zion containing the City of Zarahemla by revelation with civilization and culture in proper chronology to BofM peoples. America is the location of the New Jerusalem, the location of the original Hill Cumorah, it's where Joseph sent the first Missionaries and to the natives at that, the place with a narrow neck of land that can be crossed in 1-1/2 days with present day Indians of lighter skin and DNA matching with Hebrews (Druze). There are structures liken to Solomon's temple (unlike the Pagan temples of central America) that are oriented and apparently used in proper order. The archeological sites and defenses match the BofM descriptions. The stones used were for walls and not for cities (use of timbers for city walls).

Note also that the civilization disappeared the same time as the Nephites, unlike the Mayans. There are BofM artifacts such as headplates made of copper and other war implements are found in America all around the Great Lakes region- in addition to the copper that would've been available in Michigan in large quantities. There are multiple oral and written histories of mass extinction . This is where the gospel would be restored and the BofM would come forth. I think it's a great theory with strong evidences. Very exciting!

I implore people who haven't seen the presentation do so. It's available for free via download on torrent:
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/9206 ... ab=summary
Or purchase here:
http://bookofmormonevidence.org/shop.php

Or see it in person. Here is the foundation's website: http://www.thefirmfoundationonline.org/

Here are the graphic slides from the presentation:
DNA http://www.redhotlogo.com/DNA1.htm
General Locations http://www.redhotlogo.com/DNALOCATION1.htm
What did Joseph Smith say?http://www.redhotlogo.com/DNAJSKNEW.htm
Implements http://www.redhotlogo.com/DNAnephiteImplements.htm
DNA specific location speculation
http://www.redhotlogo.com/DNAspeculation.htm

More info on North American theories:
http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/index.htm

Free books at the following site including the 1948 book, The Geography of The Book of Mormon by Cecil McGavin and Willard Bean http://www.bookofmormongeography.info/b ... y-research

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

Vis-a-vis the previous post, did you see what I posted from FAIR on the prophet Joseph Smith's opinion on where Zarahemla was -- Guatemala.

Did you care to deal with that or did you just skim it?

[Cowboycaptain of 100]

Just skim it... ha ha
I went back and watched the DVD again and have to agree with Truth Seeds. This makes much more sense than what FAIR puts out or Farms or the others.
I grew up with the facts saying that it was South America and then popular opinions change and so on.
I went through all of what FAIR analyzed and was shocked at the way they went after Meldrum..... "He is a crook, thief and idiot..... oh but remember he is a good brother in the gospel, by the way become a contributor to FAIR with one easy $1000.00 payment and enjoy this type of commentary every week".
Since it is not given to us to know at this point I think it fun to search and speculate without getting hung up on one place it has to be in our own mind.
I think in the competing theories, North America makes the most sense and is much better presented. Just not as well funded.