Book of Mormon Maps

[Larrin]

There are many different maps available for use in studying the Book of Mormon, but they're all so different I never know which one to use. There is of course the excellent possibility that none of them are even close, but I have in the past attempted to find one that I would like to use in my study of the Book of Mormon. They range all the way from hemispheric models to the Mesoamerican model to the more unusual theories. There are maps based only on internal evidence (i.e. "Mormon's Map" and Ludlow's map that is in the Institute manuals) to those maps that attempt to fit it into the surrounding geography, such as Sorenson's, Norman's (His map), the Allens' or many others.

Do you use a map when you study the Book of Mormon? Which map do you prefer?

[thesometimesaint]

larrin:

I believe that Mesoamerica has the best probability of being the location for events described in the BoM. But am open to other ideas.

[ERayR]

I don't have "a" map that I use. If I remember right Sorenson's and Norman's maps are pretty close to the same. They fit well with what I believe BoM lands were/are. Unfortunatly without access to the papers of General Mormon's cartographer we are just guessing.

[Brant Gardner]

There are many different maps available for use in studying the Book of Mormon, but they're all so different I never know which one to use. There is of course the excellent possibility that none of them are even close, but I have in the past attempted to find one that I would like to use in my study of the Book of Mormon. They range all the way from hemispheric models to the Mesoamerican model to the more unusual theories. There are maps based only on internal evidence (i.e. "Mormon's Map" and Ludlow's map that is in the Institute manuals) to those maps that attempt to fit it into the surrounding geography, such as Sorenson's, Norman's (His map), the Allens' or many others.

Do you use a map when you study the Book of Mormon? Which map do you prefer?

Larrin:

I can understand your impression that many of the maps appear similar. For some of us, however, suggesting that Sorenson's and Norman's maps are even close could be fightin' words

I follow the Mesoamerican model based on cultural/historical correlations with the map more than the map itself. I'm not much of a geographer. From the standpoint of having a model that not only fits the geography but also best fits the historical information available for that geography, I recommend Sorenson as a beginning, but also suggest strongly that you look at Larry Poulsen's site.

[Brant Gardner]

I don't have "a" map that I use. If I remember right Sorenson's and Norman's maps are pretty close to the same. They fit well with what I believe BoM lands were/are. Unfortunatly without access to the papers of General Mormon's cartographer we are just guessing.

I'll bet you think Fords and Chevys are pretty close to the same . I chose those examples deliberately because they really are close, but you could get into long conversations with rabid fans of each about how different they really are. That is exactly how I feel about Sorenson's and Norman's maps. While they work with the same general area of the world, when it comes to actually reading the text against those geographies, I can follow Sorenson's basic model, but not Norman's. Since the Book of Mormon (at least to the believers) is about real people, the ability to read the text against the known historical trends of the area is equally as important as making a geography match up with textual descriptions.

[ERayR]

I'll bet you think Fords and Chevys are pretty close to the same . I chose those examples deliberately because they really are close, but you could get into long conversations with rabid fans of each about how different they really are. That is exactly how I feel about Sorenson's and Norman's maps. While they work with the same general area of the world, when it comes to actually reading the text against those geographies, I can follow Sorenson's basic model, but not Norman's. Since the Book of Mormon (at least to the believers) is about real people, the ability to read the text against the known historical trends of the area is equally as important as making a geography match up with textual descriptions.

I can live with that. So far for my purposes I am satisfied with generalities. I just haven't gotten to that kind of detail yet. However, I do like Sorenson's very much.

Thanks and Peace

[cinepro]

As far as I know, Ludlow's "map" is the only one that has ever appeared in any Church publication. It intentionally avoids any reference to a real world location though:

[volgadon]

There are many different maps available for use in studying the Book of Mormon, but they're all so different I never know which one to use. There is of course the excellent possibility that none of them are even close, but I have in the past attempted to find one that I would like to use in my study of the Book of Mormon. They range all the way from hemispheric models to the Mesoamerican model to the more unusual theories. There are maps based only on internal evidence (i.e. "Mormon's Map" and Ludlow's map that is in the Institute manuals) to those maps that attempt to fit it into the surrounding geography, such as Sorenson's, Norman's (His map), the Allens' or many others.

Do you use a map when you study the Book of Mormon? Which map do you prefer?

None. It is kind of pointless.

[Larrin]

Poulsen's site is great, I know I've seen it before but rediscovery always leads to learning new things. An attractive map utilizing all of this research and displaying general locations of cities, mountains, etc. sure would be awesome.

[J Green]

Brant,

Apologies if you have discussed this before. What are your thoughts on Norman's argument for the Grijalva as the mistaken tributary in Limhi's expedition?

Regards

[Mark Beesley]

There are many different maps available for use in studying the Book of Mormon, but they're all so different I never know which one to use. There is of course the excellent possibility that none of them are even close, but I have in the past attempted to find one that I would like to use in my study of the Book of Mormon. They range all the way from hemispheric models to the Mesoamerican model to the more unusual theories. There are maps based only on internal evidence (i.e. "Mormon's Map" and Ludlow's map that is in the Institute manuals) to those maps that attempt to fit it into the surrounding geography, such as Sorenson's, Norman's (His map), the Allens' or many others.

Do you use a map when you study the Book of Mormon? Which map do you prefer?

I prefer Moroni's map:

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

Moroni 7

[Brant Gardner]

Brant,

Apologies if you have discussed this before. What are your thoughts on Norman's argument for the Grijalva as the mistaken tributary in Limhi's expedition?

Regards

Frankly, I think he borrowed the argument from Poulsen and then adapted it to his own theory. If I remember, Larry covers some of this in his response to Norman.

[BCSpace]

As far as I know, Ludlow's "map" is the only one that has ever appeared in any Church publication. It intentionally avoids any reference to a real world location though:

A good thing imho. However, it would be interesting to compare relative positions from that one with one based on someone else's theory like this one.

If you turn the manual's map a quarter turn to the left to match the angle of mesoamerica on the other map, the relative positions match up pretty well which is what one should expect if the manual does a reasonable job based on the BoM descriptions.

Brant won't like it of course as he gave this theory a negative review (which I thought was somewhat unwarranted except for one particularly glaring error), but it's one of the most comprehensive maps I've seen and it links the BoM cities to real world sites.

[Calm]

Do you use a map when you study the Book of Mormon? Which map do you prefer?

Depends on what I'm looking for. If I am merely trying to keep events straight in my head, I like the Mormon's Map book (easier to haul around than the Institute manual). If I am trying to understand certain apologetic discussions, I use the relevant map.

[J Green]

That's a great article, but it doesn't address the Limhi expedition. I too prefer Sorenson's model, and I agree with Poulson that Limhi's expedition makes sense if they were following the wrong river. In fact, Larry makes a good point on his site about Sidon's headwaters running east to west that is pertinent to this:

When Mormon inserted his description of the geography relative to the

King's Proclamation, he was careful to describe the head of the River

Sidon as running east to west as opposed to the head of the Usamacinta

which runs from west to east. It is tempting to think he did this because he

realized the mistake made by King Limhi's search party. Or it might just be

that he was more careful in his description than were those who instructed

the search party.

But it does seem easier to understand the jump from the Grijalva to Desolation rather than the Usamacinta. Of course, we're talking about a lost expedition, so maybe logic doesn't play any part of it.

Thoughts?

[Brant Gardner]

But it does seem easier to understand the jump from the Grijalva to Desolation rather than the Usamacinta. Of course, we're talking about a lost expedition, so maybe logic doesn't play any part of it.

It depends upon whether you read "a desolation" or "the Desolation." Frankly, I don't think that they have to be the same. "Desolation" was an abandoned area, and there were lots of them, including areas between the mouth of the Usumacinta and the Grijalva. Normon would like it to require being the very same cities as the most important of the Olmec, because I suspect that he (and Sorenson, for that matter) actually tend to equate the Jaredites and Olmecs.

I think that is an erroneous assumption that will not stand scrutiny. That Jaredites participated in Olmec culture is much more defensible (for the very same reasons that the Maya=Nephite or Maya=Lamanite equations are flawed).

[J Green]

Great response, Brant. That makes a lot of sense.