Is the LGT the only plausible geographical theory for the BOM

[Sevenbak]

Ether 15:8

8. And it came to pass that he came to the waters of Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all;

Lake Maracaibo My linkis the largest lake on the South American continent, and one of the planet's oldest bodies of water. Geologists report that Maracaibo is one of only a handful of ancient lakes on earth, and it is estimated to be the second oldest; formed nearly 35 million years ago.

This is the best sight for Cumorah. Just to the West in Colombia. There are many waters. This one exceeds all.

There is evidence that the Great Lakes used to be one large body. Ripliancum, described by the Jaredites as being just north of Ramah (Cumorah), was further divided at the destruction during the death of Christ, as the land northward saw major geological changes, more so than the land southward. 3 Nephi 8:12

JMHO

[shrff]

Some people think that the Yucatan was pretty much under water in Book of Mormon times. My understanding is that Yucatan ruins do not date as far back as Book of Mormon times??

There are plenty of Late Preclassic (400 B.C. - A.D. 200) sites in northern Yucatan, although, the later period sites are probably better known. For example, BYU has worked at the site of Edzna, near Campeche, which was occupied from 400 B.C. through A.D. 1500.

[daycat]

There is evidence that the Great Lakes used to be one large body. Ripliancum, described by the Jaredites as being just north of Ramah (Cumorah), was further divided at the destruction during the death of Christ, as the land northward saw major geological changes, more so than the land southward. 3 Nephi 8:12

JMHO

I would say that the land northward ends with the Northern reaches of the South American continent. That would be possible to know. That one locale upon the planet could experience that thickness of darkness is reasonable. To imagine that the entire hemisphere was covered in the same thick darkness is not. The prophecy of Zenos was for this sign to be given to those who inhabit the isles of the sea. 1 Nephi 18:10

BTW there are no large bodies of water North of New York State's hill cumorah. All the Great Lakes are to the West.

[Sevenbak]

I would say that the land northward ends with the Northern reaches of the South American continent. That would be possible to know. That one locale upon the planet could experience that thickness of darkness is reasonable. To imagine that the entire hemisphere was covered in the same thick darkness is not. The prophecy of Zenos was for this sign to be given to those who inhabit the isles of the sea. 1 Nephi 18:10

BTW there are no large bodies of water North of New York State's hill cumorah. All the Great Lakes are to the West.

Not so. Lake Ontario is directly North. It's all part of the Great Lakes complex.

As to the destruction, the record reflects what happened around Bountiful and the capital of the Nephites, which I agree was not the Great Lakes region. That's where Cumorah is, not the Nephite homeland.

And if one thinks 3 days of darkness was bad in the homeland, imagine what it was like in the North countries, where the destruction was much worse, and the "whole face of the land was changed."

Cheers

[daycat]

Not so. Lake Ontario is directly North. It's all part of the Great Lakes complex.

As to the destruction, the record reflects what happened around Bountiful and the capital of the Nephites, which I agree was not the Great Lakes region. That's where Cumorah is, not the Nephite homeland.

And if one thinks 3 days of darkness was bad in the homeland, imagine what it was like in the North countries, where the destruction was much worse, and the "whole face of the land was changed."

Cheers

My bad. I was thinking Niagara Falls was the end of them. I've been on google earth a while. I could have taken a look. Duh!

[Sevenbak]

My bad. I was thinking Niagara Falls was the end of them. I've been on google earth a while. I could have taken a look. Duh!

No worries.

[Helmuth]

Hi, Helmuth.

This seems to be more of a ping pong match than a discussion. The major issues:

1. Destination. You see the trip as encompassing little more than the wilderness strip between Lamanite and Nephite holdings. I see it as originating in the borders of lands under King Noah's control in the Land of Nephi and terminating in Zarahemla, the seat of Mosiah's government. I've provided you with the textual readings that underly my assumption. You've responded with, "Well, Clark and I disagree."

To be more clear, "Well, Clark and I both disagree." That is, this is one case where I have a scholar on my side. Whoop-de-doo, right? But I thought that might at least incline you to consider the view valid rather than utterly ridiculous and kooky and unworthy of further consideration.

The book says they entered the land of Zarahemla, after travelling in the wilderness. The possibility is there that that travel time was talking about time in the wilderness, prior to entering the greater land of Zarahemla. That's totally logical, but I guess you shake your head and throw it out as hopelessly wacky and kooky, like my "horse theory".

2. Travel Mode. You insist that the group rode horses (or could have done so) on their journies. I disagree fairly strongly. I have provided no textual readings because . . . well, because there are no textual readings about riding horses in the BOM. You responded with the rather odd claim that the idea that people rode horses in the BOM has been the majority view until recently, therefore your assumption that they rode horses on this trip is justified until proven otherwise.

The textual evidence is at least 14 separate occurrences of the word horses in the BoM. I mean, how many do you need? If you take the word "horses" at face value (hardly a non-textual thing to do), then they were definitely ridden. Horses get ridden -- it doesn't need to be mentioned, it's what horses do. Here's one verse:

And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.

In it, horses are connected with vehicles and "conducting him forth". If you just read this verse unbiased-like, it tends to support the idea that these were normal horses, doing normal horse-type things. It's not proof, no. There is still room for llamas or tapirs based solely on the text. But there is certainly, obviously, absolutely no proof against horses, either. The Book of Mormon talks about people who have horses. It's clear as crystal. The fact that there exists an interesting theory to explain away all occurrences of the word "horses" does not change that.

3. Travel Speed. I have asserted that a group of 450 men, women and children carrying equipment and food while herding flocks would be hard pressed to consistently average much more than 10 miles per day over a sustained period of time. You consistently disagree while consistently refusing to give your own estimate of what a reasonable maximum speed could have been. You did, however, provide an interesting example from central Asia while refusing to give a citation or provide the details that I asked for.

OK, first off you didn't use the magic letters and I can hardly be said to have "refused"! Anyway, it's from this. Second, this is not really what you have said; rather you have used multiple mitigating factors to slow down your originally-higher estimate to 11 miles a day. So are you now saying that your estimate for realistic travel speed is 10 miles a day under ideal conditions and flat, easy terrain?

Instead, I simply granted you that speed for Alma's group, at which point we found ourselves at an impasse because, while you had bested my giant, you simply took the 400 miles and applied them to the wilderness strip. (Back to Number 1 above.)

Which it easily could! Helam was in the wilderness. The beginning of the journey could have been on the north edge of Lamanite territory, and the end when they arrived at the south end of Nephite territory. That's just not a stretch at all!! I would argue it's the most natural reading of the story, in fact.

The other points are merely subsets of the ones above. You disputed that Lehi-Nephi is the original Nephi but won't provide any textual reading for this assumption.

It's the whole idea of the thing. *You* didn't answer any of my questions about it. It doesn't make sense to evacuate your capital city to give it to a group of colonists. Two Nephis is one plausible solution to that puzzle.

Yet Zeniff's intent and the presence of the temple make the view that they are the same the default assumption unless you can provide some textual evidence to the contrary.

I think you just weren't paying attention when I did so, shorthand. If you (or anyone) actually are interested in the possibility, I guess I can write more about it. Otherwise, there is no point, since you have already dismissed it as hopelessly kooky.

You also disputed my assumption that the group would have been larger on the second leg of the journey with an implication that there would not have been enough time to bear children during their stay in Helam. Let's see what the text has to say: "And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam" (Mos 23:20; see also chap. 24 for more timeline clues). So there evidently was enough time in Helam to build a city and multiply. Thus my assumption has an underlying textual basis.

That makes sense. Good job. I'd forgotten that.

These issues don't seem like they will be resolved any time soon unless a dual involving Iocane powder is on the horizon. It may simply come down to allowing others here to determine whose assumptions are more reasonable. I'm happy with that.

I doubt anyone is reading us at all, much less forming conclusions. I am not the one making assumptions. I am pointing out your assumptions and presenting possibilities. In my first post I presented the possibility of an outrageously short trip Nephi->Zarahemla as well.

You claimed that you just read the book and it was obvious the rough scale of the geography. I say that it is not possible for one to simply read the book, in a vacuum as it were, and come up with any clear-cut idea as to the scale of geography. Those who say just letting the text speak for itself with no biases whatsoever leads inevitably to the conclusion of a 200-mile-radius story are completely wrong in saying that. Their conclusions are most definitely biased. There is only one lengthy transect with documented distances. Only one. Uno. 1. That's it. Everything else is up for grabs.

[Cold Steel]

What happens to the models if we assume that JS was just not very good at estimating how long it would take to get from one place to another?

Nothing happens. What would Joseph Smith's estimations have anything to do with it? Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon was exceedingly consistent. It's not just one place to another, but one place in relation to another in relation to a third and fourth, then relating to the second and to the sixth, and then to the fifth as it relates to the first. For someone to dictate such a complex record and never at any time lose the spatial relationships is, of itself, nothing short of amazing. It's this very consistency that is such a plus in Joseph Smith's claims. Fitting it in Mesoamerica is one thing; doing it in Saudi Arabia (where we know what the spatial relationships are) is another thing completely.

At the time of Joseph Smith, there was nothing available to anyone in the New World anything relating to the areas we've now identified as Bountiful and the harbor. In fact, it was a staple of anti-Mormonism that people kept poking us in the chest with. There was no river of water, there was no Bountiful or anyplace Nephi could have built a ship. Those arguments have now been relegated to the same place as the objection that people didn't write on metal plates anciently, especially gold.

[J Green]

Hi, Helmuth

We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this. I'll let your response stand as the last word on the subject. Have a great day.

[Helmuth]

Hi, Helmuth

We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this.

I don't know why you think that. I have got somewhere. I have come up with or clarified in my mind a bunch of new ideas about the BoM's geography just by writing in this thread. And reading one of your responses reminded me of one ambiguity (12 days or 13?) that I vaguely remember noticing before, but had since forgotten. So that's great!

I'll let your response stand as the last word on the subject. Have a great day.

I personally think it would be a lot more fun if you, or someone, was willing and able to defend your view that a LGT follows unavoidably and obviously from the text, as plain as my nose follows my face. Many people seem to hold this view. One would think it would be trivial to defend it from an amateur like me. But, perhaps I am a particularly stupid and kooky amateur with particularly ill-informed, ill-considered ideas about the topic, so it wouldn't be worth the time and effort to stoop to my level.

[Cold Steel]

Not so. Lake Ontario is directly North. It's all part of the Great Lakes complex.

If you believe the Book of Mormon lands to be in the Great Lakes region, how do you account for the fact that there's never even one report of any snow or ice storm? Or that there's no accounts of anyone dying of exposure, or it being too cold to move? Again, U.S. history and church history are replete with such stories. Valley Forge, the crossing of the Missouri, the Donner party, people being so cold they had had problems burying people. Even in our relatively warm period now, there are still snow and ice storms. Yet the Book of Mormon is silent.

I can't speak on the Peru setting, Daycat, but there have been so many correlations in Mesoamerica that I'd be stunned if the geography fit in Peru. In fact, according to John Sorenson, it doesn't. To gain any credence, such views would have to produce predictive results; that is, predict the geology was thus and so, with cities here, here and here, and then back it up with results. This Priddis has never done and she seems, instead, stuck on speculative research. The Nephi Project has seemingly taken up the torch and is presently touting Peru, so only time will tell if they come up with something.

[Sevenbak]

If you believe the Book of Mormon lands to be in the Great Lakes region...

Cold Steel, again, not the Book of Mormon lands, the final battle, which is 4 years worth of fleeing for their lives northward, distance wise, from the BOM lands.

Cheers

[Helmuth]

If you believe the Book of Mormon lands to be in the Great Lakes region, how do you account for the fact that there's never even one report of any snow or ice storm?

To be fair, if you believe the BoM lands to be in Guatemala, how do you account for the fact that it refers to hot weather very rarely -- only once directly (in the context of the story -- Isaiah and analogies in sermons don't count) that I can find:

33 And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night, and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.

Shouldn't the heat figure more prominently? Be mentioned every once in a while? What about the rainy season?

Really, I think that snow in Michigan is more likely to be mentioned than heat in Central America, just because snow is more dramatically problematic than heat, which you kind of get used to and deal with. But still...

[Sevenbak]

To be fair, if you believe the BoM lands to be in Guatemala, how do you account for the fact that it refers to hot weather very rarely -- only once directly (in the context of the story -- Isaiah and analogies in sermons don't count) that I can find:

33 And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night, and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.

Shouldn't the heat figure more prominently? Be mentioned every once in a while? What about the rainy season?

Really, I think that snow in Michigan is more likely to be mentioned than heat in Central America, just because snow is more dramatically problematic than heat, which you kind of get used to and deal with. But still...

To be fair, I've always liked this verse. It can be read either way, cold or hot climate. It just fuels the debate.

Alma 46:40

And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the landâ??but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climateâ??

[Cold Steel]

Cold Steel, again, not the Book of Mormon lands, the final battle, which is 4 years worth of fleeing for their lives northward, distance wise, from the BOM lands.

You're telling me that you think that Mormon and the Lamanite commander agreed to go to New York for their final battle? You don't really believe that, do you? Why would they travel four years to fight around a hill the size of the New York drumlin? How would Moroni know about such a place and why would he select it out of all the other locations in the Book of Mormon lands? I can understand someone going to Cerro Vigia or even Cerro Bernal, but not New York. I don't know -- maybe I still don't get your drift.

[Cold Steel]

To be fair, if you believe the BoM lands to be in Guatemala, how do you account for the fact that it refers to hot weather very rarely?

When I was in Cancun a few years back, I asked one of the natives what the weather was like the rest of the year. He laughed and said that it was always the way it was then (about 98 degrees F). Summer, winter, it was all about the same. That being the case, I don't see that they would mention the rigors of climate at all. I tend to mention cold inclimate weather a great deal more than hot weather, but frankly, without air conditioning, I'd think people would just get used to it.

[LeSellers]

To be fair, if you believe the BoM lands to be in Guatemala, how do you account for the fact that it refers to hot weather very rarely -- only once directly (in the context of the story -- Isaiah and analogies in sermons don't count) that I can find:

33 And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night, and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.

This is a very good scripture to support the mesoamerican geography. After all, the heat of the day that fatigued Amalikiah's troops was during the "winter". We read:

37 And thus endeth the twenty and fifth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; and thus endeth the days of Amalickiah.

It is a mere convention among us moderns to have the year end on an arbitrary date. But for the Jews and the Egyptians (whence came the various calendars of the Nephites and, to a lesser extent, the Lamanites), the turning of the years was of religious import. We also read that the Savior was born in the spring of the year which was the first of the Nephites' calendar (and also the end thereof, as in "thus endeth the ... year"), and that He died in the spring of the year ("on the fourth day of the [year]").

So, for there to have been such heat as would have fatigued Amalickiah's army, in the early spring, the climate (not jut the weather) must have been hot. That fits a mesoamerican scenario much better than a New England, Great Lakes, or other North American milieu.

For myself, while I prefer a mesoamerican locale, it makes no difference at all where the events of the book of Mormon happened; it is enough to know that they did and that Jesus is the Christ. (Which is the point of the book, we should recall.)

Lehi

[Sevenbak]

You're telling me that you think that Mormon and the Lamanite commander agreed to go to New York for their final battle? You don't really believe that, do you? Why would they travel four years to fight around a hill the size of the New York drumlin? How would Moroni know about such a place and why would he select it out of all the other locations in the Book of Mormon lands? I can understand someone going to Cerro Vigia or even Cerro Bernal, but not New York. I don't know -- maybe I still don't get your drift.

That's very condescending, considering it the same belief held by all the early brethren and most today.

They didn't stop fighting and say, "hey, let's meet in NY". They fought and fled in a continual bloodletting journey that took 4 years.

Let me give you a couple references, there are tons more. Shall we post them all? (actually, that sounds like a great idea for a new thread)

Joseph Fielding Smith

"This modernistic theory of necessity, (LGT) in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case..." (Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, pp. 233-234.)

Bruce R. McConkie

Both the Nephite and the Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is locatedâ?¦in the western part of the state of New York ... Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and many early brethren, who were familiar with the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah. (Mormon Doctrine; pg. 174.)

Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 232-241

[Kevin Christensen]

Joseph Fielding Smith

"This modernistic theory of necessity, (LGT) in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case..." (Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, pp. 233-234.)

Bruce R. McConkie

â??Both the Nephite and the Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is locatedâ?¦in the western part of the state of New York ... Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and many early brethren, who were familiar with the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah.â? (Mormon Doctrine; pg. 174.)

Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 232-241

I notice that neither of these two scriptorians support these statements with close analysis of the Book of Mormon on these topics. Wouldn't it be worth asking whether what Mormon and Moroni provided as eyewitnesses and as prophets, actually supports those church teachings for "upwards of 100 years." If we do not assume that when a scriptorian writes, the research has been done, one thing that is very clear from the work of Sorenson, Clark, and others, is that the first serious attempt to study the Book of Mormon's internal statements did not appear until the Washburns did in 1938. JSF did get round to dismissing it after twenty years, but without confronting the substance of the work. It's rather amazing that for upwards of 100 years, no one did the basic work necessary to define the the internal geography that an external correlation would have to fit. It's also rather ironic in these circumstances of clear neglect that this particular passage keeps being resurrected as though it possessed special authority when there was neither revelation nor close study of the most important texts behind it.

D&C 1 does not call for us to assume that LDS leaders never make mistakes. Rather, that when they do, it will be made manifest. Given that revelation is so closely tied to inquiry in LDS scripture, the fact that for over a hundred years, no LDS members made a serious effort to understand internal Book of Mormon geography should be admitted. Even Orson Pratt's 1870 chapter headings were recognized as seriously deficient, and inconsistent with the relationships spelled out in the text. A serious article on the topic, a review of Sorenson's Mormon's Map in the FARMS Review counted around a thousand passages with geographic information to consider. And they all have to fit together, as Sorensen says, like a jigsaw puzzle. Beyond that, they all have to be read in the appropriate context, or at least, with some awareness that context may make a difference in how to read many passages. For example, Brant has talked about how Mesoamericans imagined North was a quadrant, rather than a vector. And John Clark has argued that the Sea North and Sea South were conceptual in a Mesoamerican worldview rather than literal.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Anijen]

Sevenbak ~"That's very condescending, considering it the same belief held by all the early brethren and most today."

CFR prove this since you state it as an absolute.

[J Green]

I suspect there is some move toward considering LGT at some levels within church leadership. I've seen several signs of this over the years, but two that come immediately to mind are the following:

1. Elder Dallin H. Oaks' comments at the FARMS annual dinner in 1993 seem to be open to the concept of LGT:

Speaking for a moment as one whose profession is advocacy, I suggest that if one is willing to acknowledge the importance of faith and the reality of a realm beyond human understanding, the case for the Book of Mormon is the stronger case to argue. The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative. You don't prove a negative by prevailing on one debater's point or by establishing some subsidiary arguments.

For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the "Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." In retrospect, I think it should have been labelled something like "An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon." Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

2. The Doubleday edition of the BOM in 2006 change in the Introduction to "among the ancestors" was approved at some level. This change seems to support more of an LGT concept than otherwise.

Assumptions, tradition, and interpretation go hand in hand, and they can certainly evolve over time. I advocate reading the text with faith, scholarship, and a prayer for understanding. The important thing is that it is true. But let's not use others' interpretations to demonize those who hold a differing view.

[Freedom]

That's very condescending, considering it the same belief held by all the early brethren and most today.

They didn't stop fighting and say, "hey, let's meet in NY". They fought and fled in a continual bloodletting journey that took 4 years.

Let me give you a couple references, there are tons more. Shall we post them all? (actually, that sounds like a great idea for a new thread)

Joseph Fielding Smith

"This modernistic theory of necessity, (LGT) in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case..." (Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, pp. 233-234.)

Bruce R. McConkie

â??Both the Nephite and the Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is locatedâ?¦in the western part of the state of New York ... Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and many early brethren, who were familiar with the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah.â? (Mormon Doctrine; pg. 174.)

Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 232-241

Here is a little game you can play. Try reading Doctrines of Salvation and Mormon Doctrine from cover to cover and determine for yourself if these books are consistently good sources of doctrine. Are you aware that card and board games are of the devil? That evolution (a concept that the church has officialy delaired 'no comment') is of the devil? Have you read what has been said of the Catholic church? There are no doubt thousands of quotes you can find to support your view, but these same sources will also provide thousands of quotes that will go against much of what you believe in. You are being very selective of the quotes that support your point of view while ignoring the many that contradict it. You need to catch up with the times and accept the fact that the earth is not flat.

[Helmuth]

Bump-a-bump.

So does any LGT person have any interest in refuting my geographical assertions? I mean, the scope of the geography is so apparent and obvious in the text, it should be pretty simple to demonstrate. Right?

Also, I have been told that the Mormon-Land of Zarahemla transverse is only one transverse we have a good distance for, and there are others. Yet no one ever gave me any examples. What other major distances can be definitively pinned down? Bountiful-Cumorah? Middoni-Nephi? Does anyone have a reference to another lengthy journey with distances attached?

I hate to win without having convinced anyone!

[Helmuth]

...these same sources will also provide thousands of quotes that will go against much of what you believe in.

This is a major exaggeration in my case, and probably in Sevenbak's as well. Offhand, I don't know of anything in them I would outright say is definitely false. Even if I could find some such statements, there would not be thousands.

By the by, my imperfect memory says it was face cards in particular that Joseph Fielding Smith said were evil, with occultic roots (and he's probably right). So poker is out, but Uno has no Satanic connections .

He did also counsel against card games in general, other games, pool, etc., as being time-wasters, associated with an unsavory element, and unfitting for a Latter-day Saint. Again, he was probably right.

[Rob Osborn]

Time to jump in I guess...

One of the biggest problems I have with BoM geography is that we really have no starting point of where it all starts (in the America's). Another is that we do not know much about traveling and distances in Nephite terms. Some things can be deduced from the read but mostly it is entirely up to the imagination and assumption. Years ago I took an entirely new approach at the geography problem. What I did was I made paper copies of the entire North and South American continents maps. From there I started looking at the evidence of ancient civilizations and what they were capable of doing and how far their influence was distance wise. This helped me to understand two important things- 1. Ancient American civilizations did not see large distances as problematic to trade. 2. Ancient American civilizations generally covered large and broad areas of influence during specific reigns rather than small areas. Let me give some examples of this.

Gold Metalurgy as a science and craft peaked in the America's long before the White man arrived. Goldwork from Colombia is of the highest value and in greatest quantity for ancient findings. Their work influenced a very broad area stretching for distances over a thousand miles. In relation and in connection are the Great Lake ancient copper mines found in and around Ohio, Michigan, New York. These mines are of ancient origins and their influence of trade stretched for thousands of miles to the south (Mexico and Central America) and west, not to mention all of the Eastern and Southern United States and into Canada.

Stylistic patterns found in building architecture, pottery, clothes show prominence from Peru and Chile in South America all the way into North America with the late Pueblos.

What all of this evidence shows me is that distance itself in ancient America was not a great ordeal, that trade routes in ancient BoM times encompassed thousands of miles- in one direction! Sometimes we want to look at the map and at known popular ancient ruins (Like the Mayan) and then cram everything into it- making the shoe fit! What we should do is analyze all of the data, and then rather than rule out certain areas because they don't fit a certain hypothesis, rule everything in and then give more time to actually looking outside the known sites that have been over-run with every theory under the Sun. By now we all know the popular Mayans and their areas. The truth of the matter is that Evidence from the ancients in the America's reveal that their influence and lands were much greater than we have credited them with and that they were well aquainted with large spatial direction and navigation abilities allowing them to trade commonly amongst themselves over very large areas.

Personally i do not have a problem of associating the Chimu in Peru with ancient Nephite and Lamanite peoples just as I have no problem of seeing the Pueblos as being the ones who went north building with "cement" and "timbers" in the land northward. I also do not see a problem with the Nephites literally fleeing thousands of miles in their final destruction days. They were used to traveling large distances as part of their culture and economics.