Mapping The Book Of Mormon

[Cold Steel]

If the LORD gives inspiration to one, then why should He keep having to give it? He will give inspiration to those who study what He has inspired-- not give new detailed inspiration. But if someone does not prayerfully study it, they will never recieve the witness.

You earlier stated that part of your belief in Priddis' model was based on her strong spiritual witness that her model was accurate. My point is that anyone who would undertake this sort of work would naturally seek guidance. I'm happy to consider Priddis' arguments as I would anyone else's (providing I can do so without buying another book). But I read where much of the Amazon Basin was underwater before the time of Christ, in her opinion, and I know there is no scientific basis for this.

I've been wondering why the Isthmus of Tehuantepec would be considered "narrow," considering its width of 130 miles. Looking at a map, however, I see how the Nephites would have realized that it is narrow. The coasts on both the east and west have a decidedly "V" shape. Anyone going from one sea to the other would recognize the area as being narrow due to the simple shape of the coast.

There are so many possibilities, yet I believe that eventually someone will be able to provide a solid model based on geology and archeology.

[JarMan]

Jarman

I agree that Joseph may not have distinguished between "sea"and "lake" even though he lived right next to a large lake that could have been called a sea, and was not, but the Holy Ghost certainly knew the difference. Even though the Biblical language did not distinguish, people living in upper New York probably did. Webster drew his definitions from popular usage, not from a college or academy as did Europeans. Even today, we have no official learned academy that defines meanings for the English language.

I'm not sure that we know enough about the translation process to be certain that the Holy Ghost would have translated a word as "sea" or "lake." If "east" really means "where the sun rises" then why didn't the Holy Ghost translate it as such? And if "north" could really mean northeast or even east-northeast, why didn't the Holy Ghost provide that is was translated as "northeast" or even "east" (when it was closer to our idea of east)? I think your analysis of directions is very interesting and insightful. But I also think that it requires taking more liberties with the translation than would need to be taken to get "sea" instead of "lake."

I also live near a very large lake that is never called a sea. (Hint: it is a very salty lake.) But I still would not have defined a sea as necessarily having to be part of the ocean. The Salton Sea, the Dead Sea, and the Sea of Galilee are examples of lakes I am aware of that are called "seas." Also, the Great Lakes are sometimes referred to as "inland seas," at least in today's vernacular.

Also, is it possible that "sea north" and "sea south" were used metaphorically? Mormon may have believed that he was on an island. In a sense he would have been correct, but maybe he thought the "island" was much smaller than it really was. So when he spoke about the people spreading over the "whole earth" maybe he assumed that they would eventually come to seas on all sides. I find it very interesting that "sea north" and "sea south" are used only once in the entire Book of Mormon, and that they are used in the context of the "whole earth."

[thesometimesaint]

JarMan:

The Sea of Galilee is really nothing more than a lake.

[JarMan]

JarMan:

The Sea of Galilee is really nothing more than a lake.

Yes. That is my point. The Salton Sea and Dead Sea are Lakes also, albeit salty ones.

[poulsenll]

I'm not sure that we know enough about the translation process to be certain that the Holy Ghost would have translated a word as "sea" or "lake." If "east" really means "where the sun rises" then why didn't the Holy Ghost translate it as such? And if "north" could really mean northeast or even east-northeast, why didn't the Holy Ghost provide that is was translated as "northeast" or even "east" (when it was closer to our idea of east)? I think your analysis of directions is very interesting and insightful. But I also think that it requires taking more liberties with the translation than would need to be taken to get "sea" instead of "lake."

I also live near a very large lake that is never called a sea. (Hint: it is a very salty lake.) But I still would not have defined a sea as necessarily having to be part of the ocean. The Salton Sea, the Dead Sea, and the Sea of Galilee are examples of lakes I am aware of that are called "seas." Also, the Great Lakes are sometimes referred to as "inland seas," at least in today's vernacular.

Also, is it possible that "sea north" and "sea south" were used metaphorically? Mormon may have believed that he was on an island. In a sense he would have been correct, but maybe he thought the "island" was much smaller than it really was. So when he spoke about the people spreading over the "whole earth" maybe he assumed that they would eventually come to seas on all sides. I find it very interesting that "sea north" and "sea south" are used only once in the entire Book of Mormon, and that they are used in the context of the "whole earth."

Warship

You are right that much depends on the translation process. My use of the concept of sunrise and sunset is to try to get others to get away from the common interpretation of the phrase "from the west sea to the east" by inserting an implied sea after east. In actuality I think the Book of Mormon culture was not as tied to the sun's setting and rising as the other mesoamerican cultures and the Hebrew culture were and that Joseph Smith's translation to our words east and west is much closer to correct than would it be using the sun's activities.

The purpose of the translation was to produce a book that could be understood by the majority of its readers who speak English. To have used the rising sun and the setting sun as diectional references would have been confusing to the majority without an understanding of precolumbian cultures. Unfortunately it leads to ambiguity in some of the geographical and directional terms as pointed out by Hauck in 1988.

As for the possibility of sea and lake being synonomous, this will continue to plague us for some time to come. Saying that Seas are different from lakes will not stop people from using them interchangably to support their favorite location for where the Book of Mormon culture took place.

I tend to agree that the use of north sea and south sea were probably used poetically and possibly for the reason you suggest. However, there are two other scriptures which suggest the reality of what was considered a sea which was both west and south but not necesarily two different seas.

Larry P

[thesometimesaint]

Jarman:

I still fail to where in JS translation of the plates. That if the term "Sea" was used it necessarily would compare to JS or even to our understanding of the word. After all the ancients used the word "Sea" to denote a large body of water. I think you are being overly precise with our modern day definition of "Sea" and not taking into account how the ancients understood the term.

[JarMan]

Jarman:

I still fail to where in JS translation of the plates. That if the term "Sea" was used it necessarily would compare to JS or even to our understanding of the word. After all the ancients used the word "Sea" to denote a large body of water. I think you are being overly precise with our modern day definition of "Sea" and not taking into account how the ancients understood the term.

I think you are confusing my point with poulsenll's. I agree with you. I believe "sea" can mean "large lake" or "sea."

[Cold Steel]

Returning to the Marr model, I see he likes to point out the infestation of the snakes to prove his Isthmus Rivas to be the "narrow neck of land." But Ether notes:

"And it came to pass that there began to be a great dearth upon the land, and the inhabitants began to be destroyed exceedingly fast because of the dearth, for there was no rain upon the face of the earth. And there came forth poisonous serpents also upon the face of the land, and did poison many people. And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla. And it came to pass that there were many of them which did perish by the way; nevertheless, there were some which fled into the land southward. ... Now when the people saw that they must perish they began to repent of their iniquities and cry unto the Lord. And it came to pass that when they had humbled themselves sufficiently before the Lord he did send rain upon the face of the earth; and the people began to revive again, and there began to be fruit in the north countries, and in all the countries round about. And the Lord did show forth his power unto them in preserving them from famine." (Ether 9:30-34)

The lack of rain, or water, seemingly causes the dearth. But if the Isthmus of Rivas borders the narrow neck of land, then you've got the largest fresh water lake in Mesoamerica right next to the draught-stricken neck. This hardly makes sense unless the snakes could have blocked both man and beast from getting to the lake, which is unlikely. No, the Lord had to send rain to break the draught. So if there was a huge freshwater lake bordering the narrow neck of land, it's unlikely the area could have been hit by a draught.

Ether 10:19-20 reads: "And it came to pass that Lib also did that which was good in the sight of the Lord. And in the days of Lib the poisonous serpents were destroyed. Wherefore they did go into the land southward, to hunt food for the people of the land, for the land was covered with animals of the forest. And Lib also himself became a great hunter. And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land."

The scripture talks about the serpents being destroyed, most likely by the people. That, on the other hand, would seem to indicate that the narrow neck might be narrow after all. Clearing a 130-mile area of snakes would be a huge chore. Also, Warr says the lake is "the sea" which divides the land. Warr's model makes sense in this context, but so does Sorenson's. Some might see the north sea (East Sea) and the south sea (West Sea) as dividing the land which the Nephites knew led northward and southward.

The serpents create a problem for both models. Or do they?

[poulsenll]

Returning to the Marr model, I see he likes to point out the infestation of the snakes to prove his Isthmus Rivas to be the "narrow neck of land."

The lack of rain, or water, seemingly causes the dearth. But if the Isthmus of Rivas borders the narrow neck of land, then you've got the largest fresh water lake in Mesoamerica right next to the draught-stricken neck. This hardly makes sense unless the snakes could have blocked both man and beast from getting to the lake, which is unlikely. No, the Lord had to send rain to break the draught. So if there was a huge freshwater lake bordering the narrow neck of land, it's unlikely the area could have been hit by a draught.

Good point. I had never thought of this problem with the concept of of lakes and seas being interchangable.

The scripture talks about the serpents being destroyed, most likely by the people. That, on the other hand, would seem to indicate that the narrow neck might be narrow after all. Clearing a 130-mile area of snakes would be a huge chore. Also, Warr says the lake is "the sea" which divides the land. Warr's model makes sense in this context, but so does Sorenson's. Some might see the north sea (East Sea) and the south sea (West Sea) as dividing the land which the Nephites knew led northward and southward.

Sorenson points out in his model that between the San Andres Tuxtla mountains and the mountains in Oaxaca, there is an area about 70 miles wide and 30 miles deep that, even today, is mostly swamp. It is known that there was a greater amount of rainfall in the south during Book of Mormon times which would have made this area even more of a swamp, an ideal environment for serpents. With the serpents controlling the area there would have been little access to the water and with the drowth concentrated further north the pepple would not have access to freah water.

With a large fresh water lake nearby, it would have been hard for an infestation of serpents in the narrow neck, no matter how narrow, to block access to the fresh water available in the lake.

The serpents create a problem for both models. Or do they?

I think there is more of a problem for Warr's location than for the Chiapas Veracruz model.

Larry P

[LittleBrother]

Some of my observations about the geography of the Book of Mormon:

1. Up, down, and elevation:

a. The direction east has spiritual significance. It could be considered an upward direction. West would therefore be a downward direction.

b. The "right hand" also has spiritual significance. It could be considered an upward direction.

c. For a person facing east, the right hand (south) would be an upward direction and the left hand (north) would be a downward direction.

d. For a person standing between the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla and facing east, the land of Nephi would be to the right, or "up", and the land of Zarahemla would be to the left, or "down".

Conclusion: With these points in mind, the elevation of Nephi would not necessarily be higher than the elevation of Zarahemla. Thus the river Sidon would not have to flow in a northerly direction.

2. Head vs. headwaters:

a. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is the term headwaters used.

b. The word head in the Book of Mormon may have a broader or alternate meaning than headwater.

Conclusion: The head of the river Sidon may not be the headwaters of a river.

3. The boundary between the Nephites and Lamanites (Alma 22).

a. The Nephites occupied all of the north parts of the land.

b. The Lamanites were hemmened in south of the Nephites in the land of Nephi and in the nearby areas of wilderness.

c. The Lamanites nearly surrounded the Nephites.

Conclusion: The line separating the Nephites and Lamanites was probably more "V" shaped than a straight line.

4. The land of Minon

a. The Nephite army fought the Amlicites east of the river Sidon.

b. The next day, the Nephites had to cross the river Sidon to the west bank in order to go fight the Lamanites.

c. The Lamanites had just left the land of Minon after being joined by the Amlicites during the night and they were on their way north to the city of Zarahemla on the west side of the river Sidon.

Conclusion: The land of Minon would therefore be on the west side of the river Sidon.

5. The phrase "in the border"

a. The battle involving the cities of Manti, Cumeni, Zeezrom, Antiparah and Judea was described as being "by the west sea" and "in the borders" of the land of Zarahemla.

b. If speaking to someone from Europe about where I live, I could say, "I live in the borders of Utah, by the Pacific Ocean.". It would not mean Utah was right next to the Pacific ocean.

Conclusion: The west battle in the land of Zarahemla wasn't necessarily real close to the west sea, and the west border of Zarahemla didn't necessarily extend to the west sea.

6. A great distance!

a. It was an "exceedingly great distance" from the land of Zarahemla to the land northward. (Helaman 3)

b. Bountiful was near the narrow pass leading to the land northward. (Alma 50)

c. In the 26th year, when Helaman and his 2,000 went to Judea to assist Antipus, Moroni and his army had already departed toward Bountiful. (Alma 56:7-9)

d. It wasn't until the end of the 27th year that Moroni and his army arrived at Bountiful to assist Teancum with the "east battle".

Conclusion: The distance between Zarahemla and Bountiful must have been hundreds of miles.

7. Cities of the same name.

a. There was a city of Nephihah near the "west battle".

b. There was a city of Nephihah near the city of Moroni at the east seashore.

c. The index to the scriptures says the city of Nephihah may have been two cities.

d. There was a city of Aaron west of Zarahemla.

e. There was a city of Aaron near the east seashore.

c. The index to the scriptures says the city of Aaron may have been two cities.

Conclusion: Yes, there were two cities called Nephihah and two called Aaron.

So, did that hurt anyone else's brain?

LB

[LittleBrother]

Ever read Phyllis Carol Olive or Delbert W. Curtis?

Vernal Holley's map is similar to theirs:

However, I'd move the Sidon several miles to the west, so as to coincide

with the modern Niagra River, cutting through the "narrow neck."

UD

A few problems I can see with Vernal Holley's map:

1. Ramah is Cumorah, and Cumorah is by the finger lakes.

2. Ogath should be adjacent to the hill Ramah.

3. The Hill Ephraim should be closer to Moron, not across a major river.

4. Morianton should be in the land southward. Morianton's group wanted to flee to the land northward.

5. Zarahemla should be southward from Bountiful.

6. Onidah should be much closer to the land of Lehi-Nephi.

7. Shilom (and Shemlon) were visible from a tower in the land of Lehi-Nephi. Shilom should be closer to Lehi-Nephi. (And the lands of Shilom and Lehi-Nephi could be overlooked from a hill north of Shilom.)

Just my two cents.

LB

[alex]

How about using GOOGLE EARTH to make overlays to show where some of the major Nephite civilization discoveries have been identified?

[poulsenll]

How about using GOOGLE EARTH to make overlays to show where some of the major Nephite civilization discoveries have been identified?

Google Earth overlays are not easily used to display this info. They have an opague background which hides the underlying geography. I have used screen shots and either Photoshop or Microsoft Photodraw to make overlays showing correlation of the text with the 3D geography using the Mesoamerican model. No convincing correlation is available for the Holley map. I have a copy of The Zarahemla Puzzle by Simiskey that contains his correlation but it does not use a 3D map. The degree of resolution with Google Earth makes it very useful to check elavations and thus check for correspondenc with the textual descriptions.

I am working on one for Simiskeys model and will post it on simiskey.poulsenll.org when it is available.

Larry P

[alex]

How about using GOOGLE EARTH to make overlays to show where some of the major Nephite civilization discoveries have been identified?

Google Earth overlays are not easily used to display this info. They have an opague background which hides the underlying geography. I have used screen shots and either Photoshop or Microsoft Photodraw to make overlays showing correlation of the text with the 3D geography using the Mesoamerican model. .....

Hmmmmm well maybe if you just provide the latitude/longitude coordinates for some key sites such as Zarahemla, Land of Nephi, Bountiful, Ammonihah, the Cumorahs, landing sites for Jaredite barges & Nephi's ship, etc. then I could make up a transparent overlay for GOOGLE EARTH users so we can finally let the world know where all these events took place and put an end to the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth from the critics who oftentimes allege that no evidence of the Book of Mormon civilizations has been found.

[LittleBrother]

How about using GOOGLE EARTH to make overlays to show where some of the major Nephite civilization discoveries have been identified?

Nope! Can't do it on this thread. This thread started as...

"Here is a place for non pundits to participate and declare their intentions to develop their own concept of BoM geography. ... "

LB

[erichard]

[...But I read where much of the Amazon Basin was underwater before the time of Christ, in her opinion, and I know there is no scientific basis for this.

...

Priddis does present some scientific basis for it. I may get back on this matter later if this thread is still around.

On my day off I went through her book and made a list of Book of Mormon places which she ties to present day places-- admitting these are just her best bets, based on her model. Her book was published in 1975. Here is a link to a pdf file of this list that one can print out.

Richard

[LittleBrother]

Here is a place for non pundits to participate and declare their intentions to develop their own concept of BoM geography. If attendence warrants we will open other sections. Those who take up the challenge are welcome to ask questions which if in context , I will answer in the tutorial. They also are invited to tell us about their progress and successes as well as the reasoning they used for making their choices. Remember, nobody has the wrong answer because nobody as yet knows the right answer. Expect to have your reasoning put to the question and be required to justify it from the BoM text based on your thoughts and not on what some "expert" has said in the past. You may use positive data from the sciences but lets not have any arguments based on the abscence of data.

Larry P

I'm declaring that I have developed my own concept of BofM geography!

First, please read the post "Seeking Guidance" in the "FAIR LDS Fellowship section"...

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=19465

LB

[poulsenll]

I'm declaring that I have developed my own concept of BofM geography!

First, please read the post "Seeking Guidance" in the "FAIR LDS Fellowship section"...

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=19465

LB

Go for it.

Larry P

[erichard]

...Richard

Here is a link to a html file with the Priddis model:

Priddis Model

Richard