Mapping The Book Of Mormon

[poulsenll]

Remember your homework assignment. Does anybody have any thought about this subject?

At the University of Texas, where I taught and did research untill I retired, there is a faculty lounge call "Forty Acres". In western movies and novels one often finds the authors referring to "The south forty". Your assignment is to consider these terms which originated in the western frontier culture of the 19th century and what is their significance with relationship to that culture's view of geography.

Why were these phrases coined?

There are many phrases in American English that we use without thinking of their origin or the reasons they were originally coined. For instance "boot hill" for a cemetary.

Larry P

[juliann]

For directions and ownership? A plot of land was divided into units divisable to 40? That makes any measurement highly personal to the situation. My "south 40" could be somebody else's "north 40" depending on where they are standing.

Is that close or should I claim the dog ate my homework?

[charity]

juliann asked, "For directions and ownership? A plot of land was divided into units divisable to 40? That makes any measurement highly personal to the situation. My "south 40" could be somebody else's "north 40" depending on where they are standing."

Larry has posted in the pundit section my reply to this. This had origins in the various land acts. There were variations, but generally heads of household or individuals could claim 1/4 section, or 160 acres of land. These could be divided, not literally, but figuratively into 40 acre pieces for convenience of the farmer. They didn't usually have all 160 acres planted to wheat, for instance, in frontier days. Then a piece could be referred to by the direction. These were actual pieces of land owned by individuals. The farmer was referring to HIS south forty acres of HIS 1/4 section of land.

Edited to add in response to Larry's question, "which forty is the south forty?" When I was growing up in southern Oregon in a farming area, where there were many land claims from the 1800's, when you made a two x two square, the N forty was the upper left, E was the upper right, W was the lower left, and S was the lower right. Also, "south" forty could be used in the same way as the "back" forty, meaning the most remote, or the one not easiest to get to because of a creek, etc.

[poulsenll]

For directions and ownership?  A plot of land was divided into units divisable to 40?  That makes any measurement highly personal to the situation.  My "south 40" could be somebody else's "north 40" depending on where they are standing.

Is that close or should I claim the dog ate my homework?

Juliann

As mentioned by Charity, the 160 acres belonged to each individual or family. They usually built their home in the center of their section so that they would have equal access to all parts of the land. Their south forty would not be someone elses north forty but might share a common border {clue, think about how this could be so} with a section to the south belonging to someone else. Although the 40 acre sections were not necesarily 40 acres each, they did represent roughly 1/4 of the land alloted to them.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

Edited to add in response to Larry's question, "which forty is the south forty?"  When I was growing up in southern Oregon in a farming area, where there were many land claims from the 1800's,  when you made a two x two square, the N forty was the upper left, E was the upper right, W was the lower left, and S was the lower  right.  Also, "south" forty could be used in the same way as the "back" forty, meaning the most remote, or the one not easiest to get to because of a creek, etc.

By the time you grew up people were accustomed to our modern concept of dividing land according to a north-south and east-west coordinite system. They adapted the older concepts to this system without wondering about the fact that Northwest is not north nor is southeast to the south. In Joseph Smith's time people were still using the old Metes and Bounds system. It was based on corners and distances between natural features. When they were located in the center of the parcel they thought of the land around of them as being fixed by the corners of the section not the midpoints of the sides. Darn, now I have given you another clue. Oh allright here is another clue which fixes the concept to Joseph Smith's, time and culture. Look up westward in the 1828 Webster.

Larry P

[Irondukesteve]

With the new discovery of DNA evidence, with the numbers, and with the naturalistic explanation for a change of skin colour, for the incoporation of strange cultures so quickly, and for the short time that people move around the BoM to me....the LGT is the ONLY viable theory. If the church presidency stood up now and said the BoM encompassed the WHOLE of the americas I would REALLY struggle to believe that and my testimony in their reliability would be damaged.

To me there is no way that the BoM could have encompassed the whole of the Americas and claiming this is absurd.

Right now I am somewhere between beleiving in the non-literal symbolic nature of the BoM and the LGT.

From FARMS:

The geographical data in the book lead to

the following salient points:

1.When mapped, the outline of lands familiar

to the Nephites appears to have been more or less in

the shape of an hourglass but with the nature of the

northward and southward extremities being left

unclear.

2.What the Nephites considered their

[poulsenll]

With the new discovery of DNA evidence, with the numbers, and with the naturalistic explanation for a change of skin colour, for the incoporation of strange cultures so quickly, and for the short time that people move around the BoM to me....the LGT is the ONLY viable theory. If the church presidency stood up now and said the BoM encompassed the WHOLE of the americas I would REALLY struggle to believe that and my testimony in their reliability would be damaged.

To me there is no way that the BoM could have encompassed the whole of the Americas and claiming this is absurd.

Right now I am somewhere between beleiving in the non-literal symbolic nature of the BoM and the LGT.

Steve,

How muchof what you found on FARMS have you personnaly confirmed by comparing it to the text of the Book of Mormon? Even on FARMS there is no consensus that everything you summarized is acceptable to everyone.

The concept that the east sea and the west sea are the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is an imposition of modern concepts of geography onto an ancient culture without considering that cultures concept of geography. The more time that passes between the time the Book of Mormon was translated and our time, the more numerous are the misconceptions produced by imposing modern urban concepts of geography on the text that were not even present in Joseph Smith's time let alone in precolumbian civilizations.

The reason for carrying out this exercize for beginners is to give those who desire it, an opportunity and the tools to examine the theories proposed by the experts and decide for themselves what to accept.

Larry P

[charity]

Larry, 1828 Westers: WESTWARD, adv. [L.] Towards the west; as, to ride or sail westward.

I think the directional words used to describe the United States are particularly instructive about how we may be making unwarranted assumptions.

Down East. Maine, which is not down from anything in the US.

Mid-west - Those states bordering most of the Great Lakes. Not even past half point in the US from east to west, much less compising a middle.

West - those states from Montana on the Canadian border to Arizona and New Mexico on the Mexican border. California, Oregon and Washington are west of that segment.

[Irondukesteve]

Poulsenll,

Sorry I should have been more accurate with my source. That was John Sorenson.

What I have personally found? Well I focus more on the old world. My father had a part in writing "81 evidences of Lehi's Trail" with George Potter. I lived in Arabia and traveled to "Nahom", camped in the River and Valley (that are now accepted by FARMS as the most appropriate site, and went all down the west coast of arabia. I saw him constructing his theories, writing the book, I went with him to FARMS for numerous meetings. lol Similar to Nibley he didnt speak to highly of FARMS.....hahahaha.....GOOO F.A.I.R.!!!! hahaha...oops maybe I shouldnt have said that outloud.

I dont like to make assertions to the BoM geography in the new world because it is just so specualtive and non-constructive. However, if evidence is found in this way then I will definitely change my mind and see it as being completely useful. Like I said before I am leaning more to a non-literal symbolic interpretation of the BoM at the moment.

[poulsenll]

Larry,  1828 Westers:  WESTWARD, adv. [L.] Towards the west; as, to ride or sail westward.

I think the directional words used to describe the United States are particularly instructive about how we may be making unwarranted assumptions.

Down East. Maine, which is not down from anything in the US.

Mid-west - Those states bordering most of the Great Lakes.  Not even past half point in the US from east to west, much less compising a middle.

West - those states from Montana on the  Canadian border to Arizona and New Mexico on the Mexican border. California, Oregon and Washington are west of that segment. 

Charity

You are beginning to get the point. We should be very careful when we impose modern concepts on directional issues in the Book of Mormon text.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

Poulsenll,

Sorry I should have been more accurate with my source. That was John Sorenson.

What I have personally found? Well I focus more on the old world. My father had a part in writing "81 evidences of Lehi's Trail" with George Potter. I lived in Arabia and traveled to "Nahom", camped in the River and Valley (that are now accepted by FARMS as the most appropriate site, and went all down the west coast of arabia. I saw him constructing his theories, writing the book, I went with him to FARMS for numerous meetings. lol Similar to Nibley he didnt speak to highly of FARMS.....hahahaha.....GOOO F.A.I.R.!!!! hahaha...oops maybe I shouldnt have said that outloud.

I dont like to make assertions to the BoM geography in the new world because it is just so specualtive and non-constructive. However, if evidence is found in this way then I will definitely change my mind and see it as being completely useful. Like I said before I am leaning more to a non-literal symbolic interpretation of the BoM at the moment.

Steve

As pointed out by Brant Gardner in another thread, I and Sorenson differ in several aspects of BoM geography, in particular on the issue of the meaning of the directional terms used by Joseph Smith when translating the BoM into the English language. John Clark is also in disagreement with Sorenson on this issue as well.

I find the geographical information relative to the old world very compelling and it is one reason the antis are going to great pains to try and show that Joseph Smith was aware of this info at the time of the translation.

Larry P

[Moessers]

With the new discovery of DNA evidence, with the numbers, and with the naturalistic explanation for a change of skin colour, for the incoporation of strange cultures so quickly, and for the short time that people move around the BoM to me....the LGT is the ONLY viable theory. If the church presidency stood up now and said the BoM encompassed the WHOLE of the americas I would REALLY struggle to believe that and my testimony in their reliability would be damaged.

To me there is no way that the BoM could have encompassed the whole of the Americas and claiming this is absurd.

Right now I am somewhere between beleiving in the non-literal symbolic nature of the BoM and the LGT.

From FARMS:

The geographical data in the book lead to

the following salient points:

1.When mapped, the outline of lands familiar

to the Nephites appears to have been more or less in

the shape of an hourglass but with the nature of the

northward and southward extremities being left

unclear.

2.What the Nephites considered their

[charity]

Moessers, you have made a common mistake. Certain Church members thought that the Book of Mormon covered both continents. The CHURCH never taught it. No canonized scripture, no Gospel Doctrine manual, taught that. You have assumed because individuals thought this particular theory was correct that the Church taught it. That is an error.

I know a good Latter-Day Saint lady who believes that autism is caused by chicken pox vaccine. But the Church doesn't teach that. You have to separate the individual from the Church.

[Irondukesteve]

Charity, that is easy to say, but sometimes it can be difficult especially when they teach things in GC that one does not believe. (i.e. blacks not having the priesthood because they have the mark of cain) But I do agree with you that opinion and doctrine must be seperated. But it can be difficult.

Moessers, Yeah I have to go with Charity on this one. People have said things about BoM sites even JS with Zelph etc. But at the end of the day, the BoM will give you what God wanted you to receive from it, i.e. a testimony of the church and of Jesus. Other people's speculations and beliefs are irrelevant. The LGT is very blatant to me with a few concerns that make me lean between this and non-literalness.

poulsenll, very interesting mate. I would love to chat with you sometime about your theories and the competing theories in modern mormonism. I must say that I am not aquainted with the new world theories etc. I totally agree with you about the Old World Geography. It is very compelling and I am really grateful to my dad, Nibley, George, S. Kent Brown, Sorenson, and all the many others who have put time into developing theories and sites about the Old World. It really has produced evidence for me to hold on somewhat to the LGT and the validity of the BoM despite of recently learning of JS translating the majority of the plates with seer stones that we used to search for treasure.

[poulsenll]

My issue is that the church had claimed for years that the BOM covered the whole of America. Now they are eerily silent on any of that.

Moessers

As Charity says, The church has never taught that concept but have always been eerily silent on any of that. Although never taught as doctrine, many members, including those who later became General Authorities grew up with this belief. And thus it was perpetuated down to our day mainly, in my opinion, because the majority of the members seldom read or studied the scriptures. They depended on others to do so and expected to be spoon fed correct doctrine.

One of the reasons for searching the scriptures, is to build our own testimony of the Gospel. When our testimony depends on someone else's beliefs, then when we find out that one of their beliefs has changed or does not agree with more recent "authorities", we begin to doubt and blame our doubt on them instead of our lack of study on our part.

As more and more emphasis has been put on scripture study in recent years, more and more people have come to understand that the culture described in the BoM is not that of the indians as observed by early saints. With that understanding has come the realization that the geography described in the BoM is more limited than formerly thought. Maybe not as much as some have proposed but still a great deal less than early saints thought.

Larry P

[Irondukesteve]

Well said Larry....hear hear

[Cold Steel]

My father had a part in writing "81 evidences of Lehi's Trail" with George Potter. I lived in Arabia and traveled to "Nahom," camped in the River and Valley (that are now accepted by FARMS as the most appropriate site, and went all down the west coast of Arabia. ...Like I said before I am leaning more to a non-literal symbolic interpretation of the BoM at the moment.

Having seen what you've seen in the Old World, how can you possibly go with the non-literal symbolic interpretation? You said the river and valley was the most likely site of Lehi's camp, but how many other candidate sites could there be? (How many "rivers of water"?) It seems we have a very good idea where the Lehi party went right up til the time they shoved off -- after that it's a mystery.

I've also wondered if the great destructions could have affected geographical aspects of what we know. The record said the "whole face of the land was changed."

"And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward. But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth; and the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough. And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate." (3 Nephi

[poulsenll]

I've also wondered if the great destructions could have affected geographical aspects of what we know. The record said the "whole face of the land was changed."

"And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward. But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth; and the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough. And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate." (3 Nephi

Cold Steel

Did you ever look at the effect of the recent earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area. Highways were thrown up and smooth areas were made rough. The verse itself describes the means by which the changes were created. In a later verse, Mormon points out that Zarahemla was rebuilt, while other cities were not because they were buried or sunk in the sea. He knew exactly where they had been so the changes had to be more related to the surface with little change in the levels of the total land mass. Most mountains were probably in the same place although there may have been some new ones created by volcanic action similar to what happened recently in a corn field in Paracutin, Mexico. The geological record shows evidence of great volcanic activity in southern Mexico at about the time of Christs death and even today volcanic activity is more prevalent in Mexico than it is in Guatamala and southward.

Larry P

[Irondukesteve]

Good point....well there are several reasons for my feelings.

I just recently read Rough Stone Rolling, have some Michael Quinn to read, have read several articles in Farms, Fair, Book of Mormon Authorship revisited, Dean C. Jesee.....and several sites for apologetics and anti....

and I could honestly go on forever about my concerns. A short list being:

1) Joseph Smith Sn's dream in Nephi?

2) Masonry in the BoM as a result of JS environment? (See Reed C. Durham)

3) The use of seerstones to translate the plates?

4) The Egyptian Alphabet and grammar being nothing like egyptian at all, and just being twaddle to me.

5) The Documentary Hypothesis

6) The "scalping" found in the book of mormon

7) Use of the word ADIEU (hahaha just kidding..I have no problem with this )

The limited number of character levels in the BoM. E.g. Shakespeare was the master of this and could use up to 5 to 6 character levels. In the BoM there are very fewer levels which to me gives me feelings of its uneducated composition.

9) The View of the Hebrews and the belief at the time that American Indians were israelites.

10) Zelph

11) Cumorah and the numerous plates and swords being in the hill

12) The fact that people claim that JS sat at the table and translated the plates the whole time when he BLATANTLY used the KJV for portions of the BoM

13) There are some flaws with the BoM sites found in the 81 evidences books that my father wrote but which are not talked about or put on the photographs. They are generally as is. The large canyons where the water is do not correlate to me with the Dream of Lehi as is suggested in the book.

14) The evidence used for building a bow was pretty weak. I saw how it was made out of Hittim wood or something like that and I dont think Nephi could have done that espcially at the terrain he was supposedly at.

15) The lack of evidence in the New World (but this is not a huge biggy)

16) JS being an imaginative boy and talking about the people of the Americas before he even had the BoM

17) The terms Moroni and Nephi being interchanged.

18) Then there are the historical accounts of glossolalia in the early church meetings, in the kirtland temple and other church events that make me suspicious, especially having a fixation with speaking in unkown Indian languages.

19) The stories of Joseph seeking for treasure with the same stone in a hat that he used to translate the BoM. i.e. needle in a haystack

20) DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon. This means that it MUST be LGT to me. Therefore this invalidates the words of prophets. Thus I am more doubtful of prophets utterances or dismiss the BoM. The first one please. e.g. the polynesians are decendants of Haggar, and other quotes i have read.

21) JS practicing polygamy and freemasonry when in fact the BoM says not too.

22) Generally a more natural explanation is that he wrote it and put personal influences in it than it actually being what he said and having so many things mount up against it and Joseph's translating power.

23) The history of Sally Chase the "glass looker" and Beaman "rodsman" finding seeing the plates and coming close to them a couple of times sufficiently enough for Joseph to move them. I struggle to believe that people can look in these things and get revelation. JS belived it, as did Oliver, and the Whitmers, and Harris for that matter. And that is the 3 witnesses.

24) The fact that we do not have the plates, or "Urim and Thummim" but the seerstone is still owned by the church.

25)Kinderhook plates and constant reference to burial mounds being lamanite or nephite burial places.

26) The Puritanical and Democratic tone of the BoM seems to me based in the time of Joseph Smith rather than an ancient civilisation.

and there are a few more I cannot think of right now.

This isn't a thread about your feelings. Get back on topic - Mod

[poulsenll]

poulsenll, very interesting mate. I would love to chat with you sometime about your theories and the competing theories in modern mormonism. I must say that I am not aquainted with the new world theories etc.

Steve

If you are ever in Austin, TX, look me up and we can get together and chat. That goes for the rest of you as well.

Larry P

[charity]

Steve, I know each of the issues which are of concern to you, and they aren't anything to be concerned about. Of course, if you go to anti-sites you will see them all the time. (And shhhhhh, don't tell anyone, but the people who bring these things up are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.)

When you look at them, each is about as big as the "adieu" question which has been so thoroughly demolished that the person who brings it up immediately identifies himself as an idiot. Good thing you put, "just kidding" on that one.

Let me take just one. #26. If you look at the Book of Mormon closely, you will see that it is not at all democratic in tone. Back at the Bicentennial of the United States, an LDS professor of political science thought he would make up a presentation honoring the United States with quotes from the Book of Mormon. He couldn't do it, because the Book of Mormon is not democratic in the least. Look at the way the judges operated, for instance. Itr may look like voting by the voice of the people, but it isn't that simple. The judges were "appointed." Not elected.

And reconcile this passage from Mosiah 29 with the culture in American who had less than 50 years earlier fought a war to end the rule of king over them:

Mosiah 29: 13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people

[Irondukesteve]

awwwww.....Charity that was one of the sweetest replies I have ever had to my conerns. That really almost brough tears to my eyes. I can't tell you how grateful I am to be able to share these with other people and not feel judged but to have people that empathize and to then tell me how they resolved them.

ok....so I shouldnt mention them or I will be giving away my lower IQ levels right ;-)??

Yeah....reading RSR has been amazing....and I do hope to be able to honestly resolve all of them to the point that I can honestly say in my heart of hearts that JS was a prophet of God when I sit for my temple recommend interview. At the moment I dont think I can.

Maybe we could go through some more of them like the Documentary hypothesis, seer stones etc?

And a big one for me is the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar!!!!

poulsenll, do you have msn messenger?

You are on your last warning on this board. Your commentary is off-topic. Get on topic or get out of the thread. - Mod

[charity]

steve, you won't get a testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith by reading Rough Stone Rolling. You will get it by reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it.

You think Joseph could have written the Book of Mormon on his own? There isn't anyone in the anti-group who really believes that. Which is why you will see all kinds of preposterous suggestions (without any evidence) that others wrote it and gave it to Joseph to pretend to come up with on his own. The logical arguments against that premise have been addressed elsewhere.

And the Egyptian Alphabet is being answered by experts in the Pundit's Forum.

#3. Use of seer stones. That is a long established practice for those individuals appointed by God to be seers. Why does it bother you that a prophet, seer and revelator would use seer stones?

Steve, talk to good peole like Larry, and others you know who will want to help you build your faith, not destroy it.

[poulsenll]

poulsenll, do you have msn messenger?

Steve

I have never set it up on any of my computers. My grandkids use Yahoo and I even have an account on it but never turn it on. I used to moderate chat sessions on MSN but got burned out on it and have never returned to any chat session. I prefer to correspond face to face or by email. Email gives me a chance to avoid snap answers but it is not always successful. I will PM you with my Email address if you want to ask questions and chat that way .

Larry P

[poulsenll]

Time to get back on topic.

Your homework.

Edited to add in response to Larry's question, "which forty is the south forty?"  When I was growing up in southern Oregon in a farming area, where there were many land claims from the 1800's,  when you made a two x two square, the N forty was the upper left, E was the upper right, W was the lower left, and S was the lower  right.  Also, "south" forty could be used in the same way as the "back" forty, meaning the most remote, or the one not easiest to get to because of a creek, etc.

Charity has correctly described the result of dividing the square section into 4 smaller squares, but as she points out a work around had to be used by assigning an artificial direction to each 40 acre plot since none of them was south of the center. Similar work arounds have been applied in some BoM geography models in order to make the diections coincide with the choice of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as the east and west sea respectively. As I said earlier, in Joseph Smith's time they established the center of their homestead based on the corners not the mid points of the sides as in Charity's description. They did not normally have surveyers around to determine the midpoint so they used a simpler and accurate procedure based on the corners.

There are two ways to divide a square into 4 equal quarters. One is that described by Charity, the other is to draw lines diagonally between opposite corners. They intersect at the center and divide the square into 4 equal quarters or 40 acre plots. And lo and behold one of them is to the south of the center,"the south forty". this method requires no survey equipment, only the ability to walk from corner to corner in a straight line.

I have asked numerous people to divide a square into 4 equal quarters. The majority use Charity's method but there is a significant number who use the second method. Using this figure ask your friends to divide the Square and the rectangle into 4 equal quarters.

Based on equal use of all four quarters, directional references should reference all four points of the compass equally or in other words each direction will be used 25 % of the time.

One of the anomilies which has puzzled BoM geographers is the uneven distribution of directional references in the BoM text.

My next question, Is there a rational explanation of this based on precolumbian cultures and is there any support for such an explanation in the Book of Mormon textual references to directions?

Clue, the rectangle can not be divided into equal areas by drawing diagonals.

Larry P