Stormin' Mormon

Brant Gardner, in his book "Traditions of the Fathers," argues that for a geographic correlation to be compelling, it must be productive. In other words, the correlation feeds back into the text expanding our understanding of it and explaining some other oddities. One example he highlights is the Lamanite attack on Ammonihah. In the text, this is the only Lamanite attack (or one of the only) that does not put the subject city under tribute. Instead, it's a lightning raid that carries off captives. It's an oddity in the text. But place that story in a Mesoamerican context, and that context expands our understanding of what happened. The Lamanites have a new king. A coronation ceremony requires human sacrifices taken in battle. The Anti-Nephi-Lehis aren't fighting back and so aren't suitable for this purpose. Thus, the raid on Ammonihah, the emphasis on captives, and the lack of an actual conquest of the city. I subscribe to the Sorenson model, but not just because the book fits inside that cultural region, but because the cultural region fits inside the book.

Never mind. Wrong thread. My post was not responsive to the actual topic. My bad. Posting here is apparently NOT like riding a bicycle.

Kind of a side thought, something I've been thinking about recently: The historicity of the Book of Mormon does not turn on whether Zarahemla was a real place, or if the events in Ammonihah actually happened, or if Captain Moroni used military technology centuries earlier than it should have been available. Really, the only question is whether or not Mormon and Moroni were real people. Mormon could have had all sorts of false beliefs about his people's mythical past, and the Book of Mormon would still be historical. If Mormon was a real person, he could have been a lousy historian and the miraculous transmission method from his day to ours would be just as miraculous.