Posted on 05/27/2010 6:44:33 AM PDT by Colofornian
The discussion on Book of Mormon geography was getting heated. Scholars gathered in Provo, Utah, to discuss their theories about where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. Some placed the Nephite capital city Zarahemla in Mesoamerica, others in South America. Others argued for a setting in the American heartland.
The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attended the two-day Book of Mormon convention. Although he found the discussion interesting, he was obviously concerned that people were getting a little too worked up about their geographic theories. He decided to intervene.
The Book of Mormon geography conference was held at Brigham Young Academy on May 23-24, 1903. But the advice President Joseph F. Smith gave at that conference 107 years ago could apply equally to current disputes over Book of Mormon geography.
"President Smith spoke briefly," the Deseret News account summarized, "and expressed the idea that the question of the city (of Zarahemla) was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people; and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel."
More recently, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism described how "Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography."
But the lack of an official position hasn't squelched interest. The subject attracts highly trained archaeologists and scholars and informed — and not-so-informed — amateurs and enthusiasts. Books, lectures and even Book of Mormon lands tours abound.
But something is rotten in Zarahemla — wherever it may be.
In the middle of what could be a fun and intellectually exciting pursuit similar to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann's famous search for the lost city of Troy, there are accusations of disloyalty tantamount to apostasy.
In one corner is the more-established idea of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. This theory places the events of the book in a limited geographic setting that is about the same size as ancient Israel. The location is in southern Mexico and Guatemala. The person most often associated with this theory is John L. Sorenson, a retired professor of anthropology at BYU, and the author of "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and a series of articles on Book of Mormon geography that ran in the Ensign magazine in September and October 1984. A new book, tentatively titled "Mormon's Codex," is in the process of being published.
In the other corner is the challenger, a new theory that places Book of Mormon events in a North American "heartland" setting. Like the Mesoamerican theory, it also is limited in area — but not quite as limited. Its symbolic head is Rod L. Meldrum and, more recently, Bruce H. Porter. Meldrum and Porter are the co-authors of the book "Prophecies and Promises," which promotes the heartland setting.
It wouldn't be hard to predict that some friction might come about from competing theories — that healthy sparring would occur with arguments and counter-arguments. But it has gone beyond that.
The source of the animosity comes from the heartland theory's mantra: "Joseph knew."
Joseph Smith made several statements that can be interpreted to have geographic implications. Proponents of a North American setting see these statements as authoritative and based in revelation. Mesoamerican theorists think that Joseph Smith's ideas about geography expanded over time and included approval of at least some connection to Central America.
To the heartlander, Joseph's knowledge about Book of Mormon locations is seen as proof of his divine calling and a testament to his being the chosen translator/expert of the book. Joseph didn't just know; he knew everything. This position, however, leaves little room for other opinions — or for charity.
"The way I look at Joseph Smith's statements is that he either knew or he didn't know. If he knew, he knew by revelation. And if he didn't know, you've got to ask yourself why he said the things that he said," Porter said. "If he didn't know, was he trying to show off? If he really didn't know, why was he telling people?
"My feeling is that Joseph Smith did not lie," Porter said.
If you don't agree with this line of reasoning, by implication, you think that Joseph lied.
"My authority is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon," Porter said. "Most of your Mesoamerican theorists, their authority is John Sorenson and Matthew Roper. They picked those as their authority at the neglect of Joseph Smith."
Matthew P. Roper, a research scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute Of Religious Scholarship, naturally doesn't like this characterization. "They seem to be trying to elevate a question of lesser importance, Book of Mormon geography, to the level of the doctrines of the church," Roper said. "And even though they give lip service to things like they know the church has not given an official position, they turn around and say, 'All these people are dismissing Joseph Smith.' "
It is somewhat ironic that believing that Joseph did not "know" also supports Joseph as a prophet. The more Joseph's assumptions about Book of Mormon geography prove to be wrong, the greater a testimony that he did not write the book himself. "We assume," Roper said, "that since Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon, and that it was translated by the gift and power of God, that he would know everything about the book that an author would. I would submit that the two are not the same thing. I could translate the 'Wars of Caesar' and not know anything about ancient Gaul or the different tribes."
When Meldrum's theories first became popularized through firesides and a DVD he produced, the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) took notice and responded with gusto.
"The way he said things, they attack that more than they attack the evidence that he presented," Porter said.
Scott Gordon, president of FAIR, would not disagree. "We view this as a steadying-of-the-ark issue. We really don't care where he picks for his theory on where the Book of Mormon can take place," Gordon said. "What we care about that he is implying that the church is not following the teachings of Joseph Smith. Which means the church leadership, the prophet — everything is not following. And we think that is a very, very dangerous position."
"They are getting really worried because they are seeing this is becoming a movement. That's their words," Meldrum said. "They are just saying it's a movement because they are getting a lot of flak from people who are seeing the DVD and the information and thinking, 'You know what, this makes a lot of sense.' "
But supporters also see the heartland theory as an inspired movement that will transform the LDS Church: "(V)ery few people out there fully grasp the magnitude of this movement and the powerful influence that it is having and the sweeping nature of its message," wrote one prominent supporter. "It will sweep the church and most LDS will not even understand what happened until it's past. … Time is our friend."
A movement — about geography?
Historian Ronald O. Barney has seen similar attitudes in some people supporting Mesoamerica. One person described a particular Mesoamerican book as "life-transforming" and that the book "changed the way I think about everything."
Life-transforming?
"People are hanging their faith on evidence of Book of Mormon peoples," Barney said.
"I just think that this way of thinking about our religion is such a waste of time," Barney said, "It almost suggests we don't trust the Holy Ghost. Not only are we worried that he won't reveal to people the truthfulness of the book, but we want to augment it — even if we have to bend and distort — so that there can be no mistake about its truthfulness."
Meldrum said he doesn't hang his testimony on the heartland theory.
"I don't know that this geography is true. I've said that many times and I want to make sure that that's clear. If President Monson was to tomorrow say, 'You know what? I've had a revelation and the Book of Mormon occurred in Indonesia,' you know what? I'm with him." Meldrum said with a laugh.
John L. Sorenson stands by the Mesoamerican theory, but also the Prophet.
"(Geography) wasn't very important to him and he didn't know much about it," Sorenson said. "Joseph knew what he knew — and what he knew was far more important than geography."
Joseph's nephew, President Joseph F. Smith, would probably agree.
A chronological time line does not explain how the book was written. Nothing in your attack mode enlightens anyone concerning how the Book of Mormon was written. The sequence that I gave does explain the process of how the book was written.
The written testimonies of the witnesses, printed in every Book of Mormon, ARE their testimonies, which none of them denied. If they had, the last surviving witness would not have been badgered and hounded in a final attempt to prevent the nondenials of testimony from reaching the feared 11 out of 11. That number was reached at the death of David Whitmer.
The Memoirs of Joseph Smith III, President of the RLDS, record that in preparation for a new edition of the Book of Mormon, RLDS church leaders visited the home of David Whitmer to examine the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon.
Smith recalls:
The colonel, in an affable and friendly manner, discussed with Elder Whitmer the evidence the latter had borne as a special witness to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Rather suggestively he asked if it might not have been possible that he, Mr. Whitmer, had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance, or hallucination, which had deceived him into thinking he saw the Personage, the Angel, the plates, the Urim and Thummin, and the sword of Laban.
How well and how distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said in solemn and impressive tones:
"No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!"
Everyone present, including the colonel and his friend, stood under the spell of the impressive silence which followed this emphatic declaration. It was as if we were in the presence of the Angel himself!
http://solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm#pg001
Then what good is it having 'prophets', since they involved themselves in it.
Ah contrare John, it documents that smith 'translated' significant portions of it WITHOUT the gift or instruction from 'god'. Your mythology also ignores the testimonies that smith stuffed his face in a hat too - why are you avoiding that John?
TImelines also show that smith had months and years to research (read plagerize ideas) his story in between writing events.
The written testimonies of the witnesses, printed in every Book of Mormon, ARE their testimonies, which none of them denied.
Written by smith and denied by their later actions.
David Whitmer testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates "by the eye of faith" handled by an angel.(Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831)
David Whitmer changed his story about seeing the plates and later told of finding them lying in a field and later still, told Orson Pratt that they were on a table with all sorts of brass plates, gold plates, the Sword of Laban, the ‘Director' and the Urim and Thumim. (Millennial Star, vol. XL, pp. 771-772)
Why would Whitmer need to have faith first before he would see the plates - why were they shown as a result of 'supernatural power' if they were in fact physical plates. Why did they go into the wood and pray to 'see' the plates? Smith should have had them on hand according to the mythology you've been repeating. Why was prayer necessary at all if the plates were tangible. Whitmer also told about finding the plates in a field. Whitmer has so garbled his story, even the faith promoting myth of JS 3 just add to the compost that is the 'testimony' of the witnesses.
One last thought John. smith once boasted that “I have more to boast of than any man ever had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a church together since the days of Adam.… Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.”
Yet smith couldn’t even keep his witnesses together John - and his friends and relatives all apostatized - in the end all left or were excommunicated.
Thanks for the link. This is what the RLDS published in 1885, which proves that Joe Smith haters lied when they claimed that the manuscript mentioned Nephi and Lehi. The Reverend Hyde, himself a Joe Smith hater, called them out for lying about that in his article on the manuscript.
Prime/first source is preferred for any investigation...
You are using facts instead of feelings and fiction.
It is not really fair to do that you know...
Prophets ain’t what they used to be...
Glibly labeling as myth any experience that you don't agree with says more about you than it does about what you say is a myth. Joseph Smith III was an honest man. The experience he described was witnessed by several persons, none of whom have stated that Smith recollection of the experience is false. There is no reason for anyone to believe your statement that Joseph Smith's recollection is a myth, which implies that he lied about it. If you call anyone a liar that states anything that you don't like, what kind of person are you? Your attacks on other's beliefs without revealing your own suggests that you would not like anyone to attack your beliefs in the same manner in which you attack theirs. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a good teaching that I wish that you would learn.
As stated before, Spaldings family’s sworn testimonies say that there was another ms - that this ms is not the one claimed by rlds/lds.
But that isn’t the point now is it John. The point is that even THIS particular ms contains numerous parallels to the bom’s story line - which I see you haven’t refuted either.
M. D. Bown found 100 parallels between spaldings work and the bom. There are also 515 shared Spalding MS/1830 Book of Mormon word-strings. Details shown here
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/BookSol1.htm#intro
At the very least, the claim that the Spaulding theory has been put to rest appears to be from from the truth.
Were my 'labeling' glib John, I would not have taken the time or effort to construct the detailed replies that i have. As has been shown numerous times - witnesses related to the bom are not credible.
Joseph Smith III was an honest man.
He also made himself out to be a prophet of God.
If you call anyone a liar that states anything that you don't like, what kind of person are you?
Ah, thanks for the predictability John - when finding oneself refuted on every hand - launch personal attacks. John - I've produced factual documentation to support my statements, therefore I base my judgments upon those facts. To infer other is to attempt to make the discussion personal against me John - don't go down that road.
Your attacks on other's beliefs without revealing your own suggests that you would not like anyone to attack your beliefs in the same manner in which you attack theirs.
The issue YOU started was the attempt to defend the bom via the 11 witnesses. What my beliefs are of no bearing on the reliability or rather the unreliability, of the individuals. But so you sleep better, I am an equal opportunity offender and have challenged dozens of other cults and their followers throughout the years.
Are you that insecure in your faith that it cannot be critically examined? Didn't smith do EXACTLY the same as you are accusing me of? Of course he did - but that is just another part of the false prophet that is joseph smith. He can't keep his story straight with out lying about how the bom got written, he can't keep his story straight about the first vision. You, as a CoC already acknowledge that the book of abraham is spurious, as well as all the temple rituals, ordinances, etc that smith initiated under the so-called direction of 'god'. By those two things alone smith is a certified false prophet - why believe anything else he may have said or written.
Most of all it gets down to it being pointless to argue with a person saying it is a clear and sunny day while you watch from under your umbrella as they are getting drenched in a down pour, because agreeing with them will not stop the rain allowing you to put the umbrella down, it will just means BOTH of you are now all wet if you do...
BTW the pinata is down to its core atomic particles, a few random electrons and protons are all that's left...
But you produced no documents backing up your claim that Joseph Smith III made up a myth. You accused him of lying without any basis for doing so.
As reluctantly admitted by Joe Smith hater Reverend Hyde in 1885, the Spalding-Rigdon theory has no basis in reality. Not only is there no evidence of contact between Rigdon and Smith prior to publication of the Book of Mormon, but Reverend Hyde had no choice but to call statements by a group of Joe Smith haters that the manuscript prominently included the names Nephi and Lehi what they were: lies.
As for whatever parallels there are between the manuscript and the Book of Mormon, that still does not prove that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. Joseph Smith dictated as scribes wrote, and there is no evidence that he was reading from manuscripts or books of any kind, other than the gold plates that were handled and hefted by reliable witnesses.
The motivation for the Spalding-Rigdon theory was that Joseph Smith was poorly educated, while Rigdon was well educated. Whatever book or manuscripts that are claimed to be either the origin of or at least influences on what was published as the Book of Mormon, there is still the problem of where the transfer of those ideas took place. That the plates existed is proven by testimonies that were never denied. There is no evidence for, and indeed, there is good evidence against, Joseph Smith reading from a prepared manuscript that scribes would then write down to make another manuscript, the dictated manuscript, which was then used to create the printer's manuscript.
What it gets down to is this: since Joseph Smith did not use a manuscript to dictate so that another manuscript would be written, how could he have made up the Book of Mormon in his mind while speaking to scribes, when there is no evidence that he had read or studied any manuscript or books claimed to have been sources of inspiration?
The disagreement and confusion among Joe Smith haters regarding HOW the Book of Mormon was recited with nothing to read from except the gold plates that they don't want to admit existed is an embarrassment to themselves that none of them has resolved in a way that the others can agree with.
Hold fast to that umbrella...
Whew...
JS3 claimed to be a prophet - thats adequate basis for me.
“If these men were liars, why didn’t God embarrass them by having the first edition of the Book of Mormon also be its last?”
I think it has far more to do with what Satan wants than God. Though God will ultimately use the cult for His heresy. The Christian God is omnipotent, unlike the trillions of mormon gods, who are not omnipotent.
“Their printed testimonies have greater weight than disgruntled Stephen Burnett’s angry letter.”
It was admitted in the quote Godzilla posted that they did not actually SEE the plates. Nor did they “testify”. Smith coerced them into signing something HE wrote.
“Though many of them became disgruntled themselves, instead of going Stephen Burnett, they never denied their written testimonies, which means that their testimonies are all the more reliable. “
That’s the only possibility you can muster, huh? It is, of course, not likely, since they never saw any of the plates - and virtually all left the mormonic church.
If they had witnessed this as from God, why would they all leave???????
If that’s the best mormonism has, it is certainly lame.
ampu
Incase you haven't noticed, this is 2010 and the evidence is still there - in greater quantities both by computer analysis as well as word phrase evaluation - let alone the 100 direct parallels between the two books.
A 2008 computer analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon compared to writings of possible authors of the text shows a high probability that the authors of the book were Spalding, Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery; concluding that "our analysis supports the theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple, nineteenth-century authors, and more specifically, we find strong support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship. In all the data, we find Rigdon as a unifying force. His signal dominates the book, and where other candidates are more probable, Rigdon is often hiding in the shadows".(Jockers et al., Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification, Literary and Linguistic Computing, December, 2008)
But if that isn't enough John, lets examine one interesting passage from the existing Spauldings ms -
NEAR the west Bank of the Coneaught River there are the remains of an ancient fort. As I was walking and forming various conjectures respecting the character situation & numbers of those people who far exceeded the present Indians in works of art and inginuety, I hapned to tread on a flat stone. This was at a small distance from the fort, it lay on the top of a great small mound of Earth exactly horizontal. The face of it had a singular appearance. I discovered a number of characters, which appeared to me to be letters, but so much effaced by the ravages of time, that I could not read the inscription. With the assistance of a leaver I raised the stone. But you may easily conjecture my astonishment when I discovered that its ends and sides rested on stones & that it was designed as a cover to an artificial Cave. I found by examining that its sides were lined with stones built in a connical form with down, & that it was about eight feet deep. Determined to investigate the design of this extraordinary work of antiquity, I prepared myself with the necessary requisites for that purpose and descended to the Bottom of the Cave. Observing one side to be perpendicular nearly three feet from the bottom, I began to inspect that part with accuracy. Here I noticed a big flat stone fixed in the form of a doar.
I immediately tore it down and lo, a cavity within the wall presented itself; it being about three feet in diameter from side to side and about two feet high. Within this cavity I found an earthen box with a cover which shut it perfectly tight. The box was two feet in length one and half in breadth and one and three inches in diameter. My mind filled with awful sensations which crowded fast upon me (( and )) would hardly permit my hands to remove this venerable deposit, but curiosity soon gained the ascendancy (( and )) the box was taken and raised to open (( its cover. )) When I had removed the cover I found that it contained twenty-eight (( rolls )) of parchment; and that when (( examined )) appeared to be manuscripts written in elegant hand with ROMAN letters and in the Latin Language. They were written on a variety of subjects. But the roll which principally attracted my attention contained a history of the author's life and that part of America which extends along the Great Lakes and the waters of the Mississippi. Extracts of the most interesting and important matters contained in this roll I take the liberty to publish. Gentle Reader, tread lightly on the ashes of the venerable dead. Thou must know that this country was once inhabited by great and powerful nations, considerably civilized and skilled in the arts of war; and that on ground where thou (( now )) treadest many a bloody battle hath been fought, and heroes by thousands have been made to bite the dust.
Hmmmmmmmmm, now where have we heard this story before?
Not only is there no evidence of contact between Rigdon and Smith prior to publication of the Book of Mormon,
Sorry, there is evidence that smith met Rigdon in Ohio as early as 1826
As for whatever parallels there are between the manuscript and the Book of Mormon, that still does not prove that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.
Hmmmmmm, there are in addition to the spaulding ms as many as how many other books that contained similar parallels and exact wordings - at least 8-10 - in a previous post, and given that smith copied about 25% of the bom directly from the KJV bible (scribal errors and all), it means its credability already has taken one at the water line. Add to it the occultic use of a 'seer' stone - the same he used for trying to find buried treasure doesn't help either. Add to it the clear anachronisms (horses, elephants, steel, chariots, old world crops, etc), no archaeological evidence (except of the 'great pumpkin' variaty) plus a beginning that doesn't mesh with events in the bible just further degrade any credability.
Joseph Smith dictated as scribes wrote, and there is no evidence that he was reading from manuscripts or books of any kind,. .
Smith is already documented as being a 'story teller'. Go back to the chronology John - there are months on a stretch where smith wasn't 'translating' where he could have been collobrating with rigdon and others and reading these other stories to get ideas for his own story - which he later dictated.
. . . other than the gold plates that were handled and hefted by reliable witnesses.
As already proven well beyond doubt - these 'reliable' witnesses were anything but 'reliable', many being pulled away by other religion scams and seer stones, publically denegrated by the 'prophet' and excommunicated. Their testimonies state they saw with spiritual eyes and what they 'hefted' was in a box and covered up. Credabilty is in the dumps John.
Whatever book or manuscripts that are claimed to be either the origin of or at least influences on what was published as the Book of Mormon, there is still the problem of where the transfer of those ideas took place.
Again - the chronology shows significant gaps of time between writing periods of the bom - lots of potential for interactions. It has already been proved through D&C 10 that smith would deliberately lie to falsify his 'revelations' when it was necessary to cover up the production of the bom.
That the plates existed is proven by testimonies that were never denied.
These same witnesses were called liars and worse by the prophet - and their actions speak louder than the script smith wrote up for them to sign. There are testimonies regarding the Spaulding ms that have never been denied either John - if that is your standard.
There is no evidence for, and indeed, there is good evidence against, Joseph Smith reading from a prepared manuscript that scribes would then write down to make another manuscript, the dictated manuscript, which was then used to create the printer's manuscript.
There is no evidence that smith had the plates even in the house where this 'translation' was taking place John. Part of your mythology on the writing of the bom includes a curtain between smith and the scribes that would have prevented the scribes from physically seeing what smith was reading - plenty of opportunity there - plus given his story telling ability he could have easily memorized portions of those other sources as well. And let us not forget John - just as smith was a swindler, these three also stood to make money from the book - either through the selling of the copywrite (which they tried and failed - despite 'god's assurance it would sell) and eventually as smith's inner circle skimming the profits and power off this 'church'.
What it gets down to is this: since Joseph Smith did not use a manuscript to dictate so that another manuscript would be written, how could he have made up the Book of Mormon in his mind while speaking to scribes, when there is no evidence that he had read or studied any manuscript or books claimed to have been sources of inspiration?
It has already been proven that smith copied directly from the KJV and included scribal errors - are you aware of what this means John? These are errors in the Greek/Hebrew MS from which the KJV at that time was translated from. Since then, additonal discoveries, such as the DSS, have identified these errors John. Smith wasn't inspired John, he was a scam artist and saved brain power by citing 25% of the bible (predominantly Isaiah - which "View to the Hebrews" also uses extensively - another source for the bom). You have 100 parallels to the existing spaulding script - parallels to these other books as well -
Thomas Thorowgood. Jews in America, or, Probabilities that the Americans are of that Race. London, 1650.
James Adair. The History of the American Indians. London, 1775.
Charles Crawford. An Essay upon the Propagation of the Gospel, in which there are facts to prove that many of the Indians in America are descended from the Ten Tribes. Philadelphia, 1799.
Elias Boudinot. A Star in the West; or, a Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Tribes of Israel. Trenton, NJ: Published by D. Fenton, S. Hutchinson, and J. Dunham, 1816.
Ethan Smith. View of the Hebrews. Poultney, VT: Printed and Published by Smith & Shute, 1823.
___________. View of the Hebrews; or, The Tribes of Israel in America. Poultney, VT: Published and Printed by Smith & Shute, 1825, 2d ed.
Josiah Priest. The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed. Albany, NY, 1825.
Ethan Smith, author of "View to the Hebrews" was also Cowdrey's minister from 1823-1828 - they both are from Poultney, VT. This is also where the book was published.
". . how could he have made up the Book of Mormon in his mind while speaking to scribes, . .
Come on John - the information is out there that clearly explains his ability to spin a yarn
"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith The Prophet, Lucy Mack Smith).
Yes John, smith had and displayed the capability to tell stories.
The disagreement and confusion among Joe Smith haters regarding HOW the Book of Mormon was recited with nothing to read from except the gold plates that they don't want to admit existed is an embarrassment to themselves that none of them has resolved in a way that the others can agree with.
Mythology once again John, there is no evidence that smith used the plates at all! The gold plates were either always covered in a cloth, where no one including Joseph could even see them or they were not even in the house at the time Joseph was 'translating'. Further John, it is hard to read anything with one's face stuffed into a hat.
John, when viewed in its fullest context - the narrative that you present is clearly mythology, and fails to even begin to have any credability.
Umbrella . . . no, need hipwaders!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.