New World Archaelogical Foundation

[cursor]

Hi Rob. Aside from external/modern data, have you paid attention to the codex text itself. As an adjunct, don't fail to read and reference JLS' Mormon's Map, which clearly limits the geographical extents of the Book of Mormon events (Nephi through Mormon). I'll be very mildly interested in your contrasting viewpoint ... because it does indeed contrast. It's the process of [inappropriate logic] and [skewed] deduction from logic that allows for any alternative real solution to the puzzle.

Edited February 13, 2015 by cursor

[cursor]

We must take all possibilites though. Those possibilities are that theywere 1. in a small geographical area. 2. in a large geographical area. 3. in both small geographical and large geographical areas. I understand without any blinders that it could be any of the three. Meso-american theorists are strictly in "1" and as such have placed blinders upon themselves by automatically rejecting 2 and 3 when the text doesnt justify such. Thus they have the blinders on. That is my point.

 

If the internal facts of the codex suggest that there is some restrictive range of geographic and cultural activity, then that IS the way that it is. You can't at all reasonably argue (despite the fact that you are a lawyer ... and arguing IS your mantra) that your views in of BofM events ... from THIS century ... trumps ... in ANY way the views of general Mormon in the early sixth century AD. Exactly how can your myopic views limit or override those of the prophet Mormon? I ask, because they certainly don't jive (at all).

[Bob Crockett]

I am mystified, Rob, that you assume that all of those who look at a Mesoamerican location have never seriously considered a larger geography before becoming convinced by the data that it was a smaller region. Clearly your experience was different, but you assumption that I look at a Mesoamerican location only because I ignore everything else is incorrect.

 

Your post hints at a fundamental flaw of Mesoamerican theory (as well as Heartland theory).  That is, a particularly limited geographic theory is plausible because it is better than a different limited theory, or better than a hemispheric theory.

 

Mesoamericanists in particular feel compelled to challenge the Moundbuilders theory (which, to me, seems to be a theory that Joseph Smith found more viable than any other) as a means to bolster a Mesoamerican theory.

 

Truth be told, Dr. Sorenson's theory (and his followers) is based upon one improbable assumption heaped upon another.

 

One example comes to mind, and that is the way Mike Ash has tried to bolster Dr. Sorenson's improbable and unsustainable views of the "narrow neck of land."

 

As I have said many times before, because Dr. Sorenson does not use acceptable methodology of cartographers and geographers to attempt theories of modern-day locations for events in ancient texts (the location of Troy, of many English battles, of Alexander the Great come to mind), and because his theories have absolutely no support in secular academic literature by Latter-day Saint geographers, anthropologists, archaeologists or cartographers, Dr. Sorenson's life's work is no more valuable than had he taken a position on the true meaning of the Shroud of Turin or had he been Erich von Daniken.

 

I'm sorry to offend once again, but a testimony built in part upon unsustainable secular speculation such as this is surely going to make us all Thomas Stuart Fergusons.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Brant Gardner]

Your post hints at a fundamental flaw of Mesoamerican theory (as well as Heartland theory).  That is, a particularly limited geographic theory is plausible because it is better than a different limited theory, or better than a hemispheric theory.

 

Mesoamericanists in particular feel compelled to challenge the Moundbuilders theory (which, to me, seems to be a theory that Joseph Smith found more viable than any other) as a means to bolster a Mesoamerican theory.

I'll have to try to give a longer response later, I'm shortly out the door tonight. However, I am not a geographer at all. What I find critical is the ability of the text to reflect a real world population, and do in the right time periods, correct relationships with other peoples, and with historical data that fit the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. If it were only geography, I would agree that we can argue it forever. When you attempt to move beyond only the geography and begin to apply more difficult tests, I am unaware of any other location that comes close.

 

I do agree that Joseph and the early Saints thought that the moundbuilders were probably Book of Mormon peoples. They probably still held that opinion when Joseph and others got excited about Mesoamerica. They weren't particularly careful of any correlations between the text and time and place, so we have to take all of their statements with caution. They were adapting almost anything they learned into some kind of support for the Book of Mormon. Joseph's location of Zarahemla in Mesoamerica was particularly problematic in that the location where he placed it wasn't a city during Book of Mormon times--but of course no one knew that at the time.

[Bob Crockett]

However, I am not a geographer at all. 

 

I guess I don't have too much of a problem with anthropologists finding similarities between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican traditions (although, none have ever done that in a secular academic journal).

 

After all, that sort of study doesn't necessarily prove they are one and the same, as you so well established in your recent two-volume work about the Book of Mormon and Hebraisms.  I agreed with almost every position in your book, and it caused a sea change in understanding for me, except for the chiasmus stuff where I don't think you carried the day.

 

I do find rather frivolous an anthropologist attempting to be a cartographer without having a clue as to how cartographic science is combined with the study of ancient texts.  It is like Roper and Fields claiming to be linguists in the article they published attempting to prove that Joseph Smith was the author of the article you reference in your post.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

The NWAF was started by Thomas Stuart Ferguson and has a fascinating history.  Stan Larson wrote a good piece about Ferguson and the NWAF in Dialogue.

 

Phaedrus

Sorry, good buddy, but that piece by Larson (not an anthropologist and completely ignorant on the subject) was utter nonsense.  It would be an important article if true, but it wasn't.  Ferguson's legacy was that of a disappointed lawyer and fund-raiser whose ridiculous expectations were not met.  I knew a couple of his children my age and I was embarrassed for them.  I had always thought lawyers were trained to be rational and logical, but Ferguson clearly had gone off the beam by the time I dealt with his crazy assertions in mid-1975.

[Bob Crockett]

I recommend Stan Larson's article as reasonably well-researched. It is a sharp poke in the eye to Mesomerican theorists (or any particular LGT theorist), but like any Dialogue article should be read with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Robert F. Smith]

I will spell it out for you-

The Book of Mormon does not specifiy any certain distance in miles. The closest it comes is when discussing the distance of the narrow neck in width at some point. Beyond this, it is rather vague as to how many miles it was between geographical areas such as the distance between the land northward beyond the narrow neck and the land of Zarahemla. This being the case, one cannot place a limit as to how far those distances were. It could be a hundred miles or a thousand or more miles. One places blinders upon themselves the moment they place a limit of miles it was and confine it to one small geographical location choice.

C'mon, Rob.  The Book of Mormon could not use "miles" because that would be an anachronism.  Right?  Like having a clock striking in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar."  Moreover, the Book of Mormon should not be expected to use modern distance terms.  So what does it use?  Have you even read the Book of Mormon?  As John Sorenson points out in excruciating detail in his book, Mormon's Map, there are several crucial and interlocking distance references:

 

1.  The journeys of Alma1’s people (Mosiah 18:1–7, 31–34; 23:1–3, 25–26; 24:18–25)

2.  Limhi’s explorers’ expedition to the land northward (Mosiah 8:7–9; 21:25–27)

3.  Movements in the Amlicite war (Alma 2)

4.  Alma2’s circuit of cities preaching repentance (Alma 5–15)

5.  The wars in the borders by the east sea and in the southwest quarter (Alma 43–62:42)

6.  The land of Nephi as described in the Zeniffite account and that of the sons of Mosiah2 (Mosiah 7–22; Alma 17–26)

7.  The last wars between Nephites and Lamanites (Mormon 2–6)

 

The text itself forces the following reasonable conclusions, as articulated by Sorenson (I merely summarize here):

1.  a total of about twenty-two or twenty-three days’ foot travel between the city of Nephi and the city of Zarahemla.   250 miles in round numbers, including twists and turns through mountainous country. The beeline distance between the two cities would more likely be on the order of 180 miles. The actual territory inhabited by the Nephites would probably have extended no more than 75 miles upstream from the city of Zarahemla to the local land of Manti, . . . the upper river was 75 miles long, the stretch downstream from the city of Zarahemla might have been, say, 100 miles northward. . .  the straight-line distance from the city of Zarahemla to the boundary between Bountiful and the land Desolation—the northern limit of the land southward—adds up to a total of 160 miles. That means that from the city of Nephi to where the land northward began was roughly 340 miles on a direct line. . . . the land southward stretched only a few hundred miles in length. (Keep in mind that Palestine from Dan to Beersheba was only about 150 miles long.)

2.  from the city of Nephi to the place where Ether left the plates, which was near the hill Ramah/Cumorah. . . . not much more than four hundred airline miles from Nephi. 

3.  two days and one night = hill Amnihu to Gideon, no more than twenty miles; Gideon direct to the ford at the river, maybe twelve miles; Zarahemla to Minon, not over thirty-five miles; Zarahemla city to the river ford, less than ten miles, . . . the river bank to the wilderness of Hermounts, not much greater than ten miles.  

4.  Two or three days of travel seem called for to reach Melek, perhaps fifty miles or more. From Melek it then took Alma2 three days’ travel northward to reach Ammonihah (see Alma 8:6), say another fifty-plus miles.5 Traveling from Ammonihah to Sidom (the name suggests that it was at the Sidon River) should have taken roughly the same time and distance as a journey from Zarahemla to Melek . . . from Sidom to Zarahemla, back up the river, would again have roughly reversed the distance from Melek to Ammonihah—three days’ travel

5.  about eighteen miles along an irregular trail. On a beeline, Bountiful to Mulek might then be on the order of twelve miles. . . . Mulek to Gid should be roughly the same distance (perhaps a normal day’s walking for a merchant. . . . Omner thirty miles southward from Bountiful.

6.  total distance the Lamanites traveled southward parallel to the beach could hardly have been more than fifteen miles. . . . Bountiful to Gid/Mulek, twelve miles; Gid/Mulek to Omner, twenty miles; the southward component of the last day’s flight, maximum fifteen miles. . . . the distance to Shilom could hardly have exceeded ten miles and the near border of Shemlon would have been within twenty miles   The Lamanite army pursued the fleeing people of Limhi but lost their track after two days (under fifty miles). After wandering about trying to find their way back to Nephi, those Lamanites stumbled onto the land of Amulon (see Mosiah 22:16; 23:30–31, 35). Still confused about how to reach Nephi, after leaving Amulon they came across the land of Helam, still lost, yet both lands were no more than eighty-five miles direct from Nephi.

7.  the positions of the four lands—Moroni, Nephihah, Aaron, and Ammonihah— . . .  the total width from coast to coast across the land southward comes out to be on the order of two hundred miles.  a range of figures between 60 and 125 miles can be argued as reasonable for the “day and a half’s journey.” (Recall that the narrower one makes the neck, the more difficult it is to explain how Limhi’s explorers failed to realize that they had passed through it.)   the distance to Shilom could hardly have exceeded ten miles and the near border of Shemlon would have been within twenty miles.

 

You can of course ignore the interlocking distance references, and instead imagine thousands of miles, but why would you do that?  The text itself doesn't allow that.

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................................................

 

Truth be told, Dr. Sorenson's theory (and his followers) is based upon one improbable assumption heaped upon another.

 

One example comes to mind, and that is the way Mike Ash has tried to bolster Dr. Sorenson's improbable and unsustainable views of the "narrow neck of land."

Say it enough times, Bob, while carefully ignoring what you have already learned in these discussions, and it probably seems to your readers (and even to you) true without demonstration.  Empty assertion is just not the same as fact.

 

As I have said many times before, because Dr. Sorenson does not use acceptable methodology of cartographers and geographers to attempt theories of modern-day locations for events in ancient texts (the location of Troy, of many English battles, of Alexander the Great come to mind), and because his theories have absolutely no support in secular academic literature by Latter-day Saint geographers, anthropologists, archaeologists or cartographers, Dr. Sorenson's life's work is no more valuable than had he taken a position on the true meaning of the Shroud of Turin or had he been Erich von Daniken.

 

I'm sorry to offend once again, but a testimony built in part upon unsustainable secular speculation such as this is surely going to make us all Thomas Stuart Fergusons.

Is that your true fear, Bob, that you and the rest of us will all become either von Daniken on the one hand, or Tom Ferguson on the other, all based on "unsustainable secular speculation"?  Of course, I don't see von Daniken's work as at all rational or secular in nature, and I find his work on a par with your absurd speculations -- which you try to dignify as somehow above the fray.  Yet, try as I might, I find no substance whatsoever undergirding your critique of this or that statement or theory.  Nor do you seem to accept the correct notion that our eternal salvation is not wrapped up in theories of geography.  There may from time to  time be some validity to this or that offhand statement you make on these subjects (just by random luck of the draw), and we can all learn from such accidentally sage observations.  Yet, for the most part, that is not what you deign to do.  I keep hoping that you will make a positive contribution to our discussions here.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Osborn]

C'mon, Rob. The Book of Mormon could not use "miles" because that would be an anachronism. Right? Like having a clock striking in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar." Moreover, the Book of Mormon should not be expected to use modern distance terms. So what does it use? Have you even read the Book of Mormon? As John Sorenson points out in excruciating detail in his book, Mormon's Map, there are several crucial and interlocking distance references:

1. The journeys of Alma1’s people (Mosiah 18:1–7, 31–34; 23:1–3, 25–26; 24:18–25)

2. Limhi’s explorers’ expedition to the land northward (Mosiah 8:7–9; 21:25–27)

3. Movements in the Amlicite war (Alma 2)

4. Alma2’s circuit of cities preaching repentance (Alma 5–15)

5. The wars in the borders by the east sea and in the southwest quarter (Alma 43–62:42)

6. The land of Nephi as described in the Zeniffite account and that of the sons of Mosiah2 (Mosiah 7–22; Alma 17–26)

7. The last wars between Nephites and Lamanites (Mormon 2–6)

The text itself forces the following reasonable conclusions, as articulated by Sorenson (I merely summarize here):

1. a total of about twenty-two or twenty-three days’ foot travel between the city of Nephi and the city of Zarahemla. 250 miles in round numbers, including twists and turns through mountainous country. The beeline distance between the two cities would more likely be on the order of 180 miles. The actual territory inhabited by the Nephites would probably have extended no more than 75 miles upstream from the city of Zarahemla to the local land of Manti, . . . the upper river was 75 miles long, the stretch downstream from the city of Zarahemla might have been, say, 100 miles northward. . . the straight-line distance from the city of Zarahemla to the boundary between Bountiful and the land Desolation—the northern limit of the land southward—adds up to a total of 160 miles. That means that from the city of Nephi to where the land northward began was roughly 340 miles on a direct line. . . . the land southward stretched only a few hundred miles in length. (Keep in mind that Palestine from Dan to Beersheba was only about 150 miles long.)

2. from the city of Nephi to the place where Ether left the plates, which was near the hill Ramah/Cumorah. . . . not much more than four hundred airline miles from Nephi.

3. two days and one night = hill Amnihu to Gideon, no more than twenty miles; Gideon direct to the ford at the river, maybe twelve miles; Zarahemla to Minon, not over thirty-five miles; Zarahemla city to the river ford, less than ten miles, . . . the river bank to the wilderness of Hermounts, not much greater than ten miles.

4. Two or three days of travel seem called for to reach Melek, perhaps fifty miles or more. From Melek it then took Alma2 three days’ travel northward to reach Ammonihah (see Alma 8:6), say another fifty-plus miles.5 Traveling from Ammonihah to Sidom (the name suggests that it was at the Sidon River) should have taken roughly the same time and distance as a journey from Zarahemla to Melek . . . from Sidom to Zarahemla, back up the river, would again have roughly reversed the distance from Melek to Ammonihah—three days’ travel

5. about eighteen miles along an irregular trail. On a beeline, Bountiful to Mulek might then be on the order of twelve miles. . . . Mulek to Gid should be roughly the same distance (perhaps a normal day’s walking for a merchant. . . . Omner thirty miles southward from Bountiful.

6. total distance the Lamanites traveled southward parallel to the beach could hardly have been more than fifteen miles. . . . Bountiful to Gid/Mulek, twelve miles; Gid/Mulek to Omner, twenty miles; the southward component of the last day’s flight, maximum fifteen miles. . . . the distance to Shilom could hardly have exceeded ten miles and the near border of Shemlon would have been within twenty miles The Lamanite army pursued the fleeing people of Limhi but lost their track after two days (under fifty miles). After wandering about trying to find their way back to Nephi, those Lamanites stumbled onto the land of Amulon (see Mosiah 22:16; 23:30–31, 35). Still confused about how to reach Nephi, after leaving Amulon they came across the land of Helam, still lost, yet both lands were no more than eighty-five miles direct from Nephi.

7. the positions of the four lands—Moroni, Nephihah, Aaron, and Ammonihah— . . . the total width from coast to coast across the land southward comes out to be on the order of two hundred miles. a range of figures between 60 and 125 miles can be argued as reasonable for the “day and a half’s journey.” (Recall that the narrower one makes the neck, the more difficult it is to explain how Limhi’s explorers failed to realize that they had passed through it.) the distance to Shilom could hardly have exceeded ten miles and the near border of Shemlon would have been within twenty miles.

You can of course ignore the interlocking distance references, and instead imagine thousands of miles, but why would you do that? The text itself doesn't allow that.

You bring up a lot of the conjecture that I was referring to in not using correct logic to deduce the truth. For instance- in your #1 you belive the assumption that it was only roughly 180 miles from the city of Nephi to the city of Zarahemla and then make the assumption that it was only 340 miles from the city of Nephi to the place where the land northward started. But this is all unsupported conjecture form the text. The text only supports that there was 20+ days journey from some point in the borders of the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla. So, we do not know from this text the actual distance in days travel from the actual two cities, only the distance in days travels from somehwere in the borders of the land to the land of Zarahemla. Also up for debate is that we do not know the terrain they were traveling upon, how straight their course was,nor how far they traveled per day. It certainly could have been just 180 miles, but it could have also been 300-400 miles from those two locations. What we must acknowledge here also is that the city of Zarahemla was in the middle of their lands and that it only tells of them taking their journey until they come to the land of Zarahemla, not necessarily the city itself. The Nephites most assuredly had their borders protected and as such, flight from the enemy would have only been accounted to the actual border of Zarahemla lands and not into the center of the land itself. So, this begs the question of just what the north to south distance was of the land of Zarahemla? There is no actual text of what this total distance is. We do know that from the land of Zarahemla to the north that one came to the land of bountiful and that it bordered upon the area they called the narrow neck which led into the land northward. Again, we do not know the distance from the borders of the land of bountiful to the actual land northward.

We end up making a lot of conjecture to fill in the blanks and make unwarranted assumptions. That is my point. What truly must be asked is just how far it was from the southern most lands spoken of in the BoM to the place they described as the "narrow neck" and then from there to the waters of Ripliancum which appears to be the northern most location of events spoken of. Is it hundreds of miles? Or, is it thousands of miles? Well, there certainly isnt anything to prove either question. And that, is once again my point. The main problem we have is that there is no specific text to draw upon that even vaguely gives us some idea how far the land of Nephi was from the waters of Ripliancum. The text only says that distances between one point in the land southward and some point in the land northward and thus somewhere within this scope (not the greatest distance itself) the distance was exceedingly great. We also know that it was a far enough distance from the land of Nephi to Zarahemla that no one knew the course and so they became lost.

Arguing your #1 alone shows that here is just not enough information to know that actual distance between the center of the land of Nephi and the center of the land of Zarahemla. And, there is definitely no supporting text to state how far it was from Zarahemla to the land northward.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Rob Osborn

[Robert F. Smith]

You bring up a lot of the conjecture that I was referring to in not using correct logic to deduce the truth. For instance- in your #1 you belive the assumption that it was only roughly 180 miles from the city of Nephi to the city of Zarahemla and then make the assumption that it was only 340 miles from the city of Nephi to the place where the land northward started. But this is all unsupported conjecture form the text. The text only supports that there was 20+ days journey from some point in the borders of the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla. So, we do not know from this text the actual distance in days travel from the actual two cities, only the distance in days travels from somehwere in the borders of the land to the land of Zarahemla. Also up for debate is that we do not know the terrain they were traveling upon, how straight their course was,nor how far they traveled per day. It certainly could have been just 180 miles, but it could have also been 300-400 miles from those two locations. What we must acknowledge here also is that the city of Zarahemla was in the middle of their lands and that it only tells of them taking their journey until they come to the land of Nephi, not necessarily the city itself. The Nephites most assuredly had their borders protected and as such, flight from the enemy would have only been accounted to the actual border of Zarahemla lands and not into the center of the land itself. So, this begs the question of just what the north to south distance was of the land of Zarahemla? There is no actual text of what this total distance is. We do know that from the land of Zarahemla to the north that one came to the land of bountiful and that it bordered upon the area they called the narrow neck which led into the land northward. Again, we do not know the distance from the borders of the land of bountiful to the actual land northward.

We end up making a lot of conjecture to fill in the blanks and make unwarranted assumptions. That is my point. What truly must be asked is just how far it was from the southern most lands spoken of in the BoM to the place they described as the "narrow neck" and then from there to the waters of Ripliancum which appears to be the northern most location of events spoken of. Is it hundreds of miles? Or, is it thousands of miles? Well, there certainly isnt anything to prove either question. And that, is once again my point. The main problem we have is that there is no specific text to draw upon that even vaguely gives us some idea how far the land of Nephi was from the waters of Ripliancum. The text only says that distances between one point in the land southward and some point in the land northward and thus somewhere within this scope (not the greatest distance itself) the distance was exceedingly great. We also know that it was a far enough distance from the land of Nephi to the place of their first inheritance was far enough that no one knew the course and so they became lost.

Arguing your #1 alone shows that here is just not enough information to know that actual distance between the center of the land of Nephi and the center of the land of Zarahemla. And, there is definitely no supporting text to state how far it was from Zarahemla to the land northward.

You are obviously unacquainted with Sorenson's detailed argument in his book, which I only summarized, but you also ignored the interlocking nature of the distance references (many of them) throughout the Book of Mormon by only considering #1.  Naturally, if you are going to deal with distance references in atomistic fashion and ignore their interlocking nature, you can escape thousands of miles into the wild blue yonder.  One can just as easily do that with the Bible, and make outlandish assertions that the biblical lands extend ten times further than we know they do.  The distance references are very important, and you just sweep them aside as though they don't exist.  Are you even willing to sit down with Mormon's Map and consider the possibilities?

 

You appear to be as guilty as those you accuse of being closed-minded.  Unlike you, most of the scholars who consider these issues do not decide their conclusions first and then do the research.  For them it is the other way around.  First they read the book carefully, and build up a generic map.  Then they ask, where in the world would this fit?  There is even a theory that the Book of Mormon lands are in the Malay Peninsula.  Others maintain that if fits nowhere -- erehwon.  When I was young I thought that it took place on a hemispheric scale.  Now I realize that such is impossible.  Instead of being closed-minded, I listened to the arguments made by others.

[Rob Osborn]

If the internal facts of the codex suggest that there is some restrictive range of geographic and cultural activity, then that IS the way that it is. You can't at all reasonably argue (despite the fact that you are a lawyer ... and arguing IS your mantra) that your views in of BofM events ... from THIS century ... trumps ... in ANY way the views of general Mormon in the early sixth century AD. Exactly how can your myopic views limit or override those of the prophet Mormon? I ask, because they certainly don't jive (at all).

Not sure where you are going with the whole "codex" thing. I am placing no restrictions at all on the BoM geographical events. They could be "just in mesoamerica" or they could be in bothe south and north American continents. I have my own theory but in no way am I limiting any possibility on that theory alone. This allows me to loo at all evidence from all of both North and south American continents without having to draw an actual geographical limit of which the text is silent upon. Thats what being open minded is all about.

[Rob Osborn]

You are obviously unacquainted with Sorenson's detailed argument in his book, which I only summarized, but you also ignored the interlocking nature of the distance references (many of them) throughout the Book of Mormon by only considering #1.  Naturally, if you are going to deal with distance references in atomistic fashion and ignore their interlocking nature, you can escape thousands of miles into the wild blue yonder.  One can just as easily do that with the Bible, and make outlandish assertions that the biblical lands extend ten times further than we know they do.  The distance references are very important, and you just sweep them aside as though they don't exist.  Are you even willing to sit down with Mormon's Map and consider the possibilities?

 

You appear to be as guilty as those you accuse of being closed-minded.  Unlike you, most of the scholars who consider these issues do not decide their conclusions first and then do the research.  For them it is the other way around.  First they read the book carefully, and build up a generic map.  Then they ask, where in the world would this fit?  There is even a theory that the Book of Mormon lands are in the Malay Peninsula.  Others maintain that if fits nowhere -- erehwon.  When I was young I thought that it took place on a hemispheric scale.  Now I realize that such is impossible.  Instead of being closed-minded, I listened to the arguments made by others.

One thing one must keep in mind is that in no way are we able to compare lands in and around Jerusalem with relevence to "distances" as spoken of in the BoM. They are two completely different places with completely different histories and circumstances.

I have done tons of studies reading others works, others maps, other theories, and almost every one of them make giant leaps of faith to try to nail down some distance that is never agreed upon by the text itself. Do me a favor- give me actual text from the BoM that states how many days travel it was from Nephi to the land northward. Dont give me conjecture.

[Brant Gardner]

You bring up a lot of the conjecture that I was referring to in not using correct logic to deduce the truth. For instance- in your #1 you belive the assumption that it was only roughly 180 miles from the city of Nephi to the city of Zarahemla and then make the assumption that it was only 340 miles from the city of Nephi to the place where the land northward started. But this is all unsupported conjecture form the text. The text only supports that there was 20+ days journey from some point in the borders of the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla. 

A couple of points. First, your are correct that the text doesn't state any distance in miles. However, giving a distance in time is a rough indicator of miles. We do that all of the time in modern society. Some one asks us how far it is to some new restaurant, and we well them 20 minutes. That is actually a more important indication of what we need to know. 

 

The problem of course, is how we are traveling. If I am in my car, 20 minutes gets me a lot farther than if I am walking. So when we attempt to get general ideas of the dimensions from the Book of Mormon, we have to translate time into distance by attempting to find out what might reasonably correlate. First on the list of important things is to determine the mode of travel. Cars are out. In the New World, there is no known travel on (or being pulled by) any animal (nor is there any indication of that in the text). So we are down to river travel, which is possible, and foot travel. While it is possible that we might have river travel distances, it seems like a stretch to assume that for all distances, so the safest is foot travel. That is where the question of how far can one travel comes into play. While the distances may vary widely, using any kind of reasonable constant gives you a limited geography for the known action in the Book of Mormon.

 

Why limit that statement to the known action? We have people who leave and go "a great distance" north. There is no way to know what that was (though basic human population movement on foot makes some of the long distances speculated in some geographies highly unlikely). So we have to take what the text deals with and construct a reasonable set of interrelated distances. They will never be precise, because the text doesn't give us distance, only time. Terrain can change the linear distance. Nevertheless, you set a constant and see if the proposed geography fits.

 

Once there is a proposed geography, other factors come into play. It cannot be only a geographical  discussion. An important one is the destructive events in 3 Nephi. If you haven't seen it yet, read Jerry D. Grover's new Geology of the Book of Mormon. He looks at the descriptions and discusses what might have caused them. He concludes (as other geologists have) that the best cause is a volcano--with accompanying conditions. He checks the geology of the Mesoamerican region to find locals where the events might possibly occur. Then he checks with eruption dates (which cannot be given with precision, but certainly within a reasonable time range). He is able to identify the plausible volcano and discusses why the particular geography of that region allows for the descriptions in the text. 

 

Another important approach is to look at anthropology and ethnohistory. Bob Crockett suggested that we are only looking at similarities. We are far beyond that, although you will still see that a lot. We are looking at specific correlations between the action in the text and the known events of a time and place. By placing the events of the text against that background, we can see how well the text follows the known cultural and social developments in that region at the appropriate time periods. We can explain who the likely Lamanites were that finally caused Mosiah's people to flee to Zarahemla, because we know who invaded that area and caused migrations during that time period. We know why the people of Nephi and people of Zarahemla spoke such different languages and why the subsequent Book of Mormon history developed precisely as it did. We can explain why the Nephites followed a particular form of apostasy when a fiction writer could have made up any number of different reasons. We can explain why the end of the Nephites finally came when it did--and not earlier.

 

We are far beyond worrying about little things like how many miles. With a reasonable geography to test, we are now testing and finding that the Book of Mormon fits comfortably into the greater background of the events happening all around them. We learn more about the Bible when we see it against the historical background of the Middle East and later Roman domination of Judah. Events in the text sometimes aren't explicit, but we can enrich them by knowing that background, and those correlations wouldn't happen anywhere else because the historical conditions were different. That is what we are finding in Mesoamerica. Geography is only a beginning point to allow more rigorous testing.

[Brant Gardner]

I guess I don't have too much of a problem with anthropologists finding similarities between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican traditions (although, none have ever done that in a secular academic journal).

Bob, I'm really surprised you fell back on that particular argument. Are you really suggesting that there are academic journals that would publish this information, and that the only reason they wouldn't is because it couldn't be demonstrated? Surely you have a better grasp of the social realities of publishing that to make those assumptions.

 

We might ask why, if the Book of Mormon is true, not everyone believes it. The fact that some don't doesn't mean that the book isn't what it says it is. What matters is the arguments and the evidence, and using the shorthand that people who don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical don't believe argument about its historicity is a thin foundation for dismissing the arguments and evidence.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob, I'm really surprised you fell back on that particular argument. Are you really suggesting that there are academic journals that would publish this information, and that the only reason they wouldn't is because it couldn't be demonstrated? Surely you have a better grasp of the social realities of publishing that to make those assumptions.

 

We might ask why, if the Book of Mormon is true, not everyone believes it. The fact that some don't doesn't mean that the book isn't what it says it is. What matters is the arguments and the evidence, and using the shorthand that people who don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical don't believe argument about its historicity is a thin foundation for dismissing the arguments and evidence.

My harping on this point comes from Dr. Sorenson's argument that secular and scientific methodology demonstrates his point. If that were true, we would see another LDS anthropologist agreeing with him in a secular setting. We don't. Under the rigors that guide scientific theorizing, Dr. Sorenson is worse than Fleishman and Pons.

I gain a lot from reading Dr. Sorenson and the work of his followers. I have greater insight to the Book of Mormon. But.

[Bob Crockett]

 

We might ask why, if the Book of Mormon is true, not everyone believes it. The fact that some don't doesn't mean that the book isn't what it says it is. What matters is the arguments and the evidence, and using the shorthand that people who don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical don't believe argument about its historicity is a thin foundation for dismissing the arguments and evidence.

Dr. Sorenson is not Mormon, nor is Codex an authorized religious text in the Church, nor is an appeal to ignorance all that compelling. Who is to say there aren't aliens visiting Earth? Just because there is no scientific proof of them doesn't necessarily mean they haven't visited the Earth.

[Tacenda]

Dr. Sorenson is not Mormon, nor is Codex an authorized religious text in the Church, nor is an appeal to ignorance all that compelling. Who is to say there aren't aliens visiting Earth? Just because there is no scientific proof of them doesn't necessarily mean they haven't visited the Earth.

I thought of Aliens after reading the back and forths between the 4 or 5 of you, funny that you bring them up. For some reason I thought they could have been the mode of travel. Ok, I'll shut up now.

[Bob Crockett]

Say it enough times, Bob, while carefully ignoring what you have already learned in these discussions, and it probably seems to your readers (and even to you) true without demonstration. Empty assertion is just not the same as fact.

Is that your true fear, Bob, that you and the rest of us will all become either von Daniken on the one hand, or Tom Ferguson on the other, all based on "unsustainable secular speculation"? Of course, I don't see von Daniken's work as at all rational or secular in nature, and I find his work on a par with your absurd speculations -- which you try to dignify as somehow above the fray. Yet, try as I might, I find no substance whatsoever undergirding your critique of this or that statement or theory. Nor do you seem to accept the correct notion that our eternal salvation is not wrapped up in theories of geography. There may from time to time be some validity to this or that offhand statement you make on these subjects (just by random luck of the draw), and we can all learn from such accidentally sage observations. Yet, for the most part, that is not what you deign to do. I keep hoping that you will make a positive contribution to our discussions here.

This thread is not about me. I have no hidden agenda in my critique of the Sorenson methodology. I have tried to be transparent about who I am and what I think on the subject.

Dr. Sorenson's work on the Book of Mormon is a legitimate subject for critique. He has been supported by FARMS writers for decades now and his views are entrenched. Having been at BYU when Jack Welch arrived and having served as his very first research assistant, and having been a Platinum level supporter of old FARMS/MI, I think I have had reasonable exposure to the facts as well as have demonstrated my loyalty to the FARMS regime.

Merely because a few of us question Dr. Sorenson does not make us disingenuous, deceitful or calculating. I came to my views after participating in a study group with another FARMS author wherein we read and discussed Dr Sorenson's views. I just don't see it his way. That doesn't mean that I attack him, you, Brant or Kevin personally. (Those who challenge me anonymously, however, I think are charlatans.)

True it is that geographic speculations are not important to our salvation. That fact alone does not make such speculation immune to reasoned criticism.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Rob Osborn]

A couple of points. First, your are correct that the text doesn't state any distance in miles. However, giving a distance in time is a rough indicator of miles. We do that all of the time in modern society. Some one asks us how far it is to some new restaurant, and we well them 20 minutes. That is actually a more important indication of what we need to know. 

 

The problem of course, is how we are traveling. If I am in my car, 20 minutes gets me a lot farther than if I am walking. So when we attempt to get general ideas of the dimensions from the Book of Mormon, we have to translate time into distance by attempting to find out what might reasonably correlate. First on the list of important things is to determine the mode of travel. Cars are out. In the New World, there is no known travel on (or being pulled by) any animal (nor is there any indication of that in the text). So we are down to river travel, which is possible, and foot travel. While it is possible that we might have river travel distances, it seems like a stretch to assume that for all distances, so the safest is foot travel. That is where the question of how far can one travel comes into play. While the distances may vary widely, using any kind of reasonable constant gives you a limited geography for the known action in the Book of Mormon.

 

Why limit that statement to the known action? We have people who leave and go "a great distance" north. There is no way to know what that was (though basic human population movement on foot makes some of the long distances speculated in some geographies highly unlikely). So we have to take what the text deals with and construct a reasonable set of interrelated distances. They will never be precise, because the text doesn't give us distance, only time. Terrain can change the linear distance. Nevertheless, you set a constant and see if the proposed geography fits.

 

Once there is a proposed geography, other factors come into play. It cannot be only a geographical  discussion. An important one is the destructive events in 3 Nephi. If you haven't seen it yet, read Jerry D. Grover's new Geology of the Book of Mormon. He looks at the descriptions and discusses what might have caused them. He concludes (as other geologists have) that the best cause is a volcano--with accompanying conditions. He checks the geology of the Mesoamerican region to find locals where the events might possibly occur. Then he checks with eruption dates (which cannot be given with precision, but certainly within a reasonable time range). He is able to identify the plausible volcano and discusses why the particular geography of that region allows for the descriptions in the text. 

 

Another important approach is to look at anthropology and ethnohistory. Bob Crockett suggested that we are only looking at similarities. We are far beyond that, although you will still see that a lot. We are looking at specific correlations between the action in the text and the known events of a time and place. By placing the events of the text against that background, we can see how well the text follows the known cultural and social developments in that region at the appropriate time periods. We can explain who the likely Lamanites were that finally caused Mosiah's people to flee to Zarahemla, because we know who invaded that area and caused migrations during that time period. We know why the people of Nephi and people of Zarahemla spoke such different languages and why the subsequent Book of Mormon history developed precisely as it did. We can explain why the Nephites followed a particular form of apostasy when a fiction writer could have made up any number of different reasons. We can explain why the end of the Nephites finally came when it did--and not earlier.

 

We are far beyond worrying about little things like how many miles. With a reasonable geography to test, we are now testing and finding that the Book of Mormon fits comfortably into the greater background of the events happening all around them. We learn more about the Bible when we see it against the historical background of the Middle East and later Roman domination of Judah. Events in the text sometimes aren't explicit, but we can enrich them by knowing that background, and those correlations wouldn't happen anywhere else because the historical conditions were different. That is what we are finding in Mesoamerica. Geography is only a beginning point to allow more rigorous testing.

You place too much faith in conjecture.

[Robert F. Smith]

Dr. Sorenson is not Mormon, nor is Codex an authorized religious text in the Church, nor is an appeal to ignorance all that compelling. Who is to say there aren't aliens visiting Earth? Just because there is no scientific proof of them doesn't necessarily mean they haven't visited the Earth.

In the midst of yet another non sequitur, does this mean that von Daniken has a chance with you?

[Robert F. Smith]

My harping on this point comes from Dr. Sorenson's argument that secular and scientific methodology demonstrates his point. If that were true, we would see another LDS anthropologist agreeing with him in a secular setting. We don't. Under the rigors that guide scientific theorizing, Dr. Sorenson is worse than Fleishman and Pons.

.............................................................

That is utter hogwash.  What bothers me is that you do not apparently know it, and you go on to make these invidious and absurd comparisons.

[Robert F. Smith]

One thing one must keep in mind is that in no way are we able to compare lands in and around Jerusalem with relevence to "distances" as spoken of in the BoM. They are two completely different places with completely different histories and circumstances.

This indicates as well as any of your statements, your complete lack of understanding of the arguments about Book of Mormon geography.  First, if we had only the Bible and no already extant geographical correlations, you would be claiming that Palestine must have been thousands of miles in extent (based on the kind of reasoning you employ); second, Jerusalem and parts of the Old World are part of the Book of Mormon story.  I have met people who actually made blatantly false claims about that Old World geography based on the kind of simple misreading that you use.  Non-Mormon biblical archeologists would laugh someone like that out of the room.

 

I have done tons of studies reading others works, others maps, other theories, and almost every one of them make giant leaps of faith to try to nail down some distance that is never agreed upon by the text itself. Do me a favor- give me actual text from the BoM that states how many days travel it was from Nephi to the land northward. Dont give me conjecture.

If you have read so widely and deeply, why is that you are completely unfamiliar with the arguments being made?  Surely you can do better than to dismiss everything as "conjecture."  Have you bothered to gather the distance references in the Book of Mormon and evaluated them for yourself?  Where is your substantive critique?  How is it that you completely miss the interlocking nature of such references?

[Bob Crockett]

That is utter hogwash.  What bothers me is that you do not apparently know it, and you go on to make these invidious and absurd comparisons.

 

Don't be bothered.  I'd be bothered by Dr. Sorenson's proofs.

 

In the midst of yet another non sequitur, does this mean that von Daniken has a chance with you?

 

Hah; I demonstrated the absurdity of the appeal to ignorance and you thought I was appealing to aliens!

 

Name one doctoral-level LDS anthropologist or geographer who has published his or her agreement with Sorenson's theories other than one or two affiliated with the BYU religion department.   And, if you identify such a person, has he or she published in a professional journal his or her conclusions about Sorenson?  Doesn't it rather appear that the particular Sorenson view of Mesoamerica has achieved a cult-like following?  Science is claimed, but science be damned?  [because science is claimed, shouldn't we see the trappings of the scientific method?  Peer acceptance?]

 

Again, if you're going to throw yourself on the scientific method to support Dr. Sorenson's views, then you should not be immune to the charge that you're basically appealing to ignorance by claiming that it would be impossible to have his views accepted in traditional scientific venues.

 

I'm all for believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  I'm not in for books published by religious houses masquerading as science.  It doesn't matter to me that BYU or Deseret Books publish Dr. Sorenson; my library is filled with such books that I routinely reference.  But, such publication doesn't immunize them from silliness, speculation and falsity.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

Nice to see you are so open minded.

 

You and Rob Osborn open minded?