Is the LGT the only plausible geographical theory for the BOM

[Sevenbak]

This is a major exaggeration in my case, and probably in Sevenbak's as well.

I think that's a pretty good summation for me as well. I chose not to engage him when he started equated not believing the brethren with the homosexual agenda.

[Helmuth]

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.

Other than your abuse of the long-suffering apostrophe, I agree with your statements above.

[shrff]

I have no problem of seeing the Pueblos as being the ones who went north building with "cement" and "timbers" in the land northward.

You probably should have a problem with this, as Pueblo people did not start living in Pueblos until about A.D. 750, as evidenced by hundreds of tree-ring dates. Furthermore, not all pueblos used mortar, and the mortar that was used was often little more than mud mixed with a little caliche -- hardly "cement". In A.D. 400, Pueblo people were living in small clusters of at most a few households practicing small-scale agriculture and had not yet adopted the bow and arrow. This description does not match the people described in the BOM. Direct association between Pueblo people and BOM events is very unlikely.

[cdowis]

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?

You asked for a simple demonstration, and your wish is my command.

Where do you find the civilization/technology described in the Book of Mormon. I know of only one location, mesoamerica. If the BOM was not located in mesoamerica, it was located nowhere.

PS, the LGT does not preclude the western hemisphere, e.g. the Great Lakes, having BOM inhabitants -- Nephites and Lamanites, only that the events described in the BOM text itself were in mesoamerica.

[Sevenbak]

You asked for a simple demonstration, and your wish is my command.

Where do you find the civilization/technology described in the Book of Mormon. I know of only one location, mesoamerica. If the BOM was not located in mesoamerica, it was located nowhere.

PS, the LGT does not preclude the western hemisphere, e.g. the Great Lakes, having BOM inhabitants -- Nephites and Lamanites, only that the events described in the BOM text itself were in mesoamerica.

Most of the events, at any rate...

[Helmuth]

You asked for a simple demonstration, and your wish is my command.

Where do you find the civilization/technology described in the Book of Mormon. I know of only one location, mesoamerica. If the BOM was not located in mesoamerica, it was located nowhere.

PS, the LGT does not preclude the western hemisphere, e.g. the Great Lakes, having BOM inhabitants -- Nephites and Lamanites, only that the events described in the BOM text itself were in mesoamerica.

I appreciate the demonstration. However, this is actually cultural information applied to solve the geographical problem. I am looking for actual geographic, spacial information from the Book of Mormon. Directions, distances, etc. Things like "it taketh 14 days to travel from the land Desolation to the city Manti". Things that, if we got enough of them amulgated together, could tell us something like "the distance from the northernmost city discussed in the BoM to the southernmost city is 92 days".

I see quite a bit of leeway and ambiguity in the text, but apparently every apologist scholar under the sun sees the text as straightforwardly and unavoidably setting forth a field of action of a certain specific size. I don't see it, so maybe someone smart can show me what I'm missing.

[cdowis]

I met your request and you now move the goalpost. You were willing to discuss not only DISTANCE but also the CLIMATE. Now you suddenly refuse to discuss the cultural/technology issue.

Any other restrictions that we need to know about, dear fellow?

In the future, when you ask a question, .....please...... give us your list of restrictions, so we don't waste our time responding to you.

[Brant Gardner]

I see quite a bit of leeway and ambiguity in the text, but apparently every apologist scholar under the sun sees the text as straightforwardly and unavoidably setting forth a field of action of a certain specific size. I don't see it, so maybe someone smart can show me what I'm missing.

There is clearly leeway in interpreting distance because the only way distances are recorded is in time of travel. Since that is a variable, you may enter different values into the equation and come up with different answers. I recommend Sorenson's discussion of distances and time variables in his Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. He lays out the various time-distances as well as the plausible days-travel distances that might be used. He notes that they can range from 12 to 100 miles per day, with the top end pretty much limited to military couriers and other special cases. They do all specify foot travel, as no text in the Book of Mormon indicates anyone riding an animal.

[Helmuth]

I met your request and you now move the goalpost. You were willing to discuss not only DISTANCE but also the CLIMATE. Now you suddenly refuse to discuss the cultural/technology issue.

Any other restrictions that we need to know about, dear fellow?

I'm not really refusing to discuss anything. There are several posts I've made earlier in this thread, which you may or may not have read, all about geographical issues. The climate, Doctrines of Salvation, etc., are just instances of me jumping into things others are talking about.

Discuss whatever you want, all you want. I will try to help you however I can.

In the future, when you ask a question, .....please...... give us your list of restrictions, so we don't waste our time responding to you.

The response is its own reward! Find joy in your own response, and your time in it will not be wasted.

To help your joy, I'll respond a tiny bit to your post on its own terms. What about the Malay Peninsula? It's gots the culture, it's gots the tech, it's gots the animals(unlike meso, atleast it's an easier fit), it's even gots north pointing to the north. The text never says "America". Much like Joseph Smith and the early Saints, your preconceived notions and prejudices about the text are preventing you from seeing what reality really matches the text!

Anyway, in this thread I am just especially interested in spacial information used to construct an abstract geography. So now I will go on and see what Brant Gardner has to say -- I'm excited. Refute me! Give me more truth which I have heretofore missed!

[poulsenll]

Anyway, in this thread I am just especially interested in spacial information used to construct an abstract geography. So now I will go on and see what Brant Gardner has to say -- I'm excited. Refute me! Give me more truth which I have heretofore missed!

You might want to look up and read this article.

A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies

John E. Clark

FARMS Review: Volume - 1, Issue - 1, Pages: 20-70

A review of "Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon" by F. Richard Hauck

Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1989

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=1&num=1&id=7

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

What about the Malay Peninsula? It's gots the culture, it's gots the tech, it's gots the animals(unlike meso, atleast it's an easier fit), it's even gots north pointing to the north. The text never says "America".

One of the things I am adamant about is applying a consistent and usable methodology to test geographic/cultural hypotheses. My current umbrella concept is an adaptation of William Dever's term "convergence," which he uses to talk about text, artifact, and time converging on the same information. For the Book of Mormon we have to expand that - we have to have text, geography, topography, hydrology, artifacts, cultural history and very specifically time all converging before we can say that we have anything useful.

I decided to test the methodology using the Malay hypothesis. It falls apart fast. The proportions are wrong. The cultural connections don't fit in the correct timeframe (one of the groups of people proposed comes into the area way too late). The idea that silk is found is correct, but too late. The geography has the largest portion of the peninsula as Nephite territory, leaving only a very small part for the Lamanites, but the text says that the Lamanites are way more numerous. That tells us that they have to have a larger territory (for sustainable farming).

The Malay hypothesis is good only in the most superficial reading. It doesn't hold up to a rigorous methodological analysis.

[Helmuth]

There is clearly leeway in interpreting distance because the only way distances are recorded is in time of travel.

As I said earlier in this thread, I think that is only one half of the stretchiness -- the less stretchy half.

The more important half, the aspect that really opens things up to wide-ranging possibilities, is the lack of any distances whatsoever, whether measured in time of travel or however. Wherever there is no distance given whatsoever, that really opens it up for speculation, wouldn't you say? So are there any such cases, of features with no quantified, defined distances from any other feature? Maybe a few? Ha! No, the vast majority of features in the BoM are unattached to any quantified distances. At least that's how it seems to me, right now. Perhaps you can give me a reason to believe otherwise.

They do all specify foot travel, as no text in the Book of Mormon indicates anyone riding an animal.

The text speaks of horses. Horses are ridden. That is their most prominent characteristic. If we are going to let the text speak for itself, and leave our assumptions at the door, a course which the LGT apologists recommend, claiming it will lead inevitably to acceptance of an LGT, then the assumption that horses were horse-like must be accorded at least as much consideration as the assumption that they were not. Even the possibility that (gasp!) horses were horses must be entertained, if we are to take the text as it reads. Since, umm, it reads, uh, yeah... "horses".

[Helmuth]

You might want to look up and read this article.

You might want to look up and read pages 1, 2, and 3 of this thread.

[Helmuth]

The Malay hypothesis is good only in the most superficial reading. It doesn't hold up to a rigorous methodological analysis.

Good to know; thanks for the info. Maybe I'll have to buy the Malay book and see if I agree with you.

[Brant Gardner]

The more important half, the aspect that really opens things up to wide-ranging possibilities, is the lack of any distances whatsoever, whether measured in time of travel or however.

Hence the reason to go to Sorenson, who lists them. While there are not an overabundance, there are enough to give the major lay of the land.

The text speaks of horses. Horses are ridden. That is their most prominent characteristic. If we are going to let the text speak for itself, and leave our assumptions at the door, a course which the LGT apologists recommend, claiming it will lead inevitably to acceptance of an LGT, then the assumption that horses were horse-like must be accorded at least as much consideration as the assumption that they were not.

Hardly. The assumption is that they would be ridden. The textual support for that would be any occasion where that actually happened, or that it might be reasonably inferred. That does not happen in the New World. We only see horse moving once (as I remember) and they were not ridden, but being herded along with a group of food animals.

If we go to the text, we cannot find any justification that if there is a horse it must be ridden. Let us assume for a moment the continuation of the Pleistocene horse (not a given, just an example). That could be called (and is called) a horse. It was too small to be ridden. An unjustified assumption remains an assumption. It just isn't a very good one.

Even the possibility that (gasp!) horses were horses must be entertained, if we are to take the text as it reads. Since, umm, it reads, uh, yeah... "horses".

Which is an issue for translation theory, which is far from settled. However, in any case I know of where we are not certain that a cross-cultural description is accurate, the fall-back is on textual description, not label (I am referring here to Spanish descriptions of the New World--where labels were often misapplied).

[LeSellers]

The text speaks of horses. Horses are ridden. That is their most prominent characteristic.

Sorry, brother. This is not true and does not even make sense.

Horses are not always ridden. They drag a load as often as carrying it. Men did not learn to ride horses until long after they had domesticated them. They are draft animals pulling plows and wagons even today.

I'd have to say that the horse's most prominent characteristic is the mane or tail, perhaps its size or head shape. But its being ridden is definitely not that characteristic.

If we are going to let the text speak for itself, and leave our assumptions at the door,...

A good idea, since the text does not ever claim the horses were ridden (nor that the "flocks" were "sheep").

... a course which the LGT apologists recommend, claiming it will lead inevitably to acceptance of an LGT, then the assumption that horses were horse-like must be accorded at least as much consideration as the assumption that they were not.

I can't see how anyone could assume an animal that is called a "horse" was not a horse. It can only be after discarding the assumption that it is that one can start looking at the question from a different perspective. Once that issue is called into question, i.e., that the word horse does not necessarily mandate the the animal is an equine, can he determine that other animals might fill the textual requirements.

Even the possibility that (gasp!) horses were horses must be entertained, if we are to take the text as it reads. Since, umm, it reads, uh, yeah... "horses".

While true as far as it goes, your position seems to ignore its own preconceptions.

As with evolution, there is no explicit revelation on the matter.

Lehi

[Helmuth]

Hence the reason to go to Sorenson, who lists them. While there are not an overabundance, there are enough to give the major lay of the land.

I do not think there are enough to give the major lay of the land, if that means "to tell us the rough square mileage of the area discussed". Where one person assumes 1 day between Mulek and Gid, another may assume 5 days. Or ten. Can you prove that 1 day is the correct position? Multiply this situation by every instance where uncertainty exists, and you get a wide range of possibilities.

There are really only two important distances which are given, in my opinion (at the moment, and my mind may be rusty): the Mormon-land of Zarahemla distance, and the narrow neck of land distance. Everything else is up for grabs! All other distances are short (e.g. City X must be a day or less from City Y) and severed from connecting distances that could link up and form a longer transverse.

Hardly. The assumption is that they would be ridden. The textual support for that would be any occasion where that actually happened, or that it might be reasonably inferred. That does not happen in the New World. We only see horse moving once (as I remember) and they were not ridden, but being herded along with a group of food animals.

Perhaps your memory is rusty, too. Horses are linked with chariots. Look it up! If Animal X is pulling chariots, and is called a horse, it is not a huge mind-boggling stretch to think that it may be something pretty close to a horse.

How many references are there in the New Testament to horses being ridden? Can you think of any? I can't! OK, I looked, and there's the Four Horsemen, and James talks about bits. Still, my point is that the BoM talks about horses not very much, it's a small sample size, and so you can't draw a definite conclusion and say "they must never have rode on their horses". The fact that there exists an interesting theory to explain away all instances of the word "horse" as meaning something else, does not change the fact that the purely textual interpretation of horse is horse! Let's remember to put the cart and the horse in the right order: the interesting theory is not a result of careful and unbiased study of the text, it is a result of an archaeological problem. You will never see an apologetic argument for "fruit" being "non-fruit" because, after all, nowhere in the text can you find it growing on trees or being eaten -- only in dreams, just like the horses in the Isaiah chapters, a clear reference to fruit from the Old World, not the completely different non-fruit fruit they found in the promised land You will never see this because fruit is not problematic to anyone's theory, whereas horses are.

I understand your holistic approach, and think it is the correct one. However, if we are just looking at only geographic information, not trying to link it to any particular time or place in the world, just to make an abstract map, or to lay out the textually-acceptable range of map possibilities, then the only thing that the presence of the word horse in the text does for us is to raise the possibility -- not the certainty -- that by riding horses the (very few) distances talked about could be read in terms of horse-riding distances.

[Helmuth]

Sorry, brother. This is not true and does not even make sense.

Horses are not always ridden.

But they are pretty frequently, huh?

While true as far as it goes, your position seems to ignore its own preconceptions.

I am not arguing that horses were horses. I do not have that preconception. Not I, I am just arguing that that possibility should not be thrown out out of hand. If we are talking about just taking what the text says about geography, before bringing all the other factors into it that Bro. Gardner mentions, horses being horses should be considered one legitimate possibility.

1) Horses were tapirs

2) Horses were llamas that they rode

3) Horses were llamas that they never rode

4) Horses were horses that they rode

5) Horses were Pleistocene horses

6) Some other theory

These are all possibilities, with horses being horses the one that actually fits Occum's Razor the best, not requiring a paragraph of explanation, appeals to external evidences outside the text itself, etc., but with all of them being legitimate possibilities.

[shrff]

I appreciate the demonstration. However, this is actually cultural information applied to solve the geographical problem. I am looking for actual geographic, spacial information from the Book of Mormon. Directions, distances, etc. Things like "it taketh 14 days to travel from the land Desolation to the city Manti". Things that, if we got enough of them amulgated together, could tell us something like "the distance from the northernmost city discussed in the BoM to the southernmost city is 92 days".

There is a problem with your methodology. If one is seeking to evaluate the location of the Book of Mormon based on a reading of the text, one should first look at the relative abundance of evidence included the text. How much geographic information is given in the text of the BOM? It fits into a thimble when compared to buckets and buckets of cultural information.

Giving prominence to geographic textual evidence over cultural textual information is a mistake, a common one made by many apologists. John Clark has been saying this for years. Sure, take both classes of evidence together, it makes for a better study, but if you're going to rank one above the other, the cultural should be ranked higher.

[Helmuth]

There is a problem with your methodology. If one is seeking to evaluate the location of the Book of Mormon...

But I am not. I am trying to explain that, over and over. Abstract only. What the text says about geography only. Lay all real-world topography aside, initially, to only focus on the BoM. What does it say? What does it require? That's what Clark was doing in his Review article, but I think an even better job can be done, making even fewer assumptions and containing even less bias.

How much geographic information is given in the text of the BOM? It fits into a thimble when compared to buckets and buckets of cultural information.

Yes, I agree.

[poulsenll]

You might want to look up and read pages 1, 2, and 3 of this thread.

You asked for information about the spatial relationships described in the text. I was simply giving you a reference to what I have found to be one of the best reviews of this information. I see from a later one of your posts that you are aware of this review.

By the way I have been following this thread from the beginning. Anything to do with BofM geography theories always interests me. I think all theories should be given due consideration. Allthough some theories may not stand up as well as others, they often present a viewpoint that can enhance the clarity of other theories and sometimes even cast some doubt as to whether they are as good as some think they are.

Larry P

[Helmuth]

I see from a later one of your posts that you are aware of this review.

By the way I have been following this thread from the beginning.

My first post, on page 1, refers to and links to this important article.

[poulsenll]

My first post, on page 1, refers to and links to this important article.

Sorry I missed the link. And I agree that it is a most important article. It was what got me started on trying to sort out all the BofM geographic info. I had bought and read Hauck's book shortly after it was published. I thought it was interesting that someone was attempting to use modern geographic methods to study BofM geography. After reading Clarks review I was less enamored and decided to follow Clark's advice and work it out on my own from the text. I still think that is a good proceedure for anyone else to follow.

Larry P