BoM Geography: The Gloves are Off...

[cdowis]

CFR

I think Elder Eyring said it best here

I would like to add my testimony of the divinity of this book. I have read it many times. I have also read much that has been written about it. Some authors have focused upon its stories, its people, or its vignettes of history. Others have been intrigued by its language structure or its records of weapons, geography, animal life, techniques of building, or systems of weights and measures.

Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose

[Kevin Christensen]

FACT CHECK FIRST

That being said, I now ask for 2 CFRs. The first I gave, I repeat for the THIRD TIME to demonstrate your a assertion about LDS prophecy 'that the LDS Chrurch "officially denies that there is a declared geography '

Actually, if you had followed up on some of the references that Brant gave, you could have found such information:

Matt Roper's FARMS Review essay here:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=555

has things likes this, for example from Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency in 1929:

There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. . . . As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true.102

Plus, this:

In 1950 Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote: "As far as can be learned, the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know." While we know the hill at which the Prophet Joseph Smith recovered the Nephite record, Elder Widtsoe noted, "There is a controversy . . . about the Hill Cumorah

[John T]

Actually, if you had followed up on some of the references that Brant gave, you could have found such information:

Matt Roper's FARMS Review essay here:

http://mi.byu.edu/pu...16&num=2&id=555

has things likes this, for example from Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency in 1929:

There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. . . . As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true.102

Plus, this:

In 1950 Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote: "As far as can be learned, the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know." While we know the hill at which the Prophet Joseph Smith recovered the Nephite record, Elder Widtsoe noted, "There is a controversy . . . about the Hill Cumorah

[Brant Gardner]

As I stated earlier, I am sure that he is a good fellow, but he blew off several thoughts without so much as addressing them. That is not giving me the same respect that I gave to him; then became upset when I asked for the relevance about a claim he made.

You seem to have missed my statement that I was on the road and away from my sources. I am sure that you are a good fellow, just one that doesn't seem to read carefully, or deeply enough in the requisite material. Your very question about "prima facie" evidence is a clear indication that you don't understand archaeology (secular or religiously-informed), hence my attempt to get us discussing on the level that can actually deal with evidence and arguments instead of overly simplified caricatures of them.

I would still be willing to discuss evidence if you are willing to show some interest in understanding the nature of archaeological evidence.

[David Bokovoy]

And what of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, who upon finally being captured, it was discovered in his medicine bag AN ANCIENT CUNEIFORM TABLET, measuring one inch square?

Indeed. What about this? What type of cuneiform does it allegedly feature? Is there a picture of the tablet available online? I would like to know a bit more.

[Tiberius]

Indeed. What about this? What type of cuneiform does it allegedly feature? Is there a picture of the tablet available online? I would like to know a bit more.

The ARTICLE mentions the tablet is in:

The ancient tablet now resides in the museum at West Point in Virginia. How it got to America is still a mystery.

The article also indicates the translation.

http://www.usma.edu/Museum/

http://www.usma.edu/Museum/Galleries.htm

email address at bottom of page: museum@usma.edu

There was also a second one.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arqueologia/monks_mound04.htm

81.Two cuneiform tablets have been found and deciphered: One from LaGrange, GA and the second fround in Nez Perce Chief Joseph's medicine pouch when he was captured is now in the West Point, Museum.

[Tiberius]

This site has the image

[flashmax67]

I love Geography, in school it was favorite subject and to me the NY stae theory is absolutely DEAD, end of story.

MesoAmerica however makes a lot of sense, with its climate, locations and distances.

[David Bokovoy]

This site has the image

I can't believe this! I was just at West Point a couple of week ago and missed this because I had no idea! I'm not an orthographer. For my doctorate I completed a comprehensive exam in Akkadian that included 3000 lines of cuneiform from all the historic periods. I can't tell from the picture what the signs are. Does anyone know if Cyrus Gordon translated this tablet and what language it was identified as?

I'm extremely curious.

[David Bokovoy]

And even though I'm not an orthographer, I can easily critique the translation and signs if somebody knows who did the work and where we can find it.

[Calm]

And even though I'm not an orthographer, I can easily critique the translation and signs if somebody knows who did the work and where we can find it.

Probably the best place to find info would be this reference: Park, Edwards; "Where Did Chief Joseph Get a Cuneiform Tablet?" Smithsonian Magazine, 9:36, February 1979

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf007/sf007p01.htm

Unfortunately the online archives of the Smithsonian don't appear to go back that far.

[David Bokovoy]

Probably the best place to find info would be this reference: Park, Edwards; "Where Did Chief Joseph Get a Cuneiform Tablet?" Smithsonian Magazine, 9:36, February 1979

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf007/sf007p01.htm

Unfortunately the online archives of the Smithsonian don't appear to go back that far.

Thanks. I may have to try ILL if to get this. Unfortunately, I have done a preliminary search and have not been able to find anything on this other than claims that a "cuneiform expert" said that it contains information about a lamb. Would love to know what language it allegedly is and who the expert was. I cannot make out the signs.

[David Bokovoy]

I may have to drive back down to West Point and check out the tablet for myself. It's about a three hour drive for me. I suspect I might even be able to get my hand on it personally. But even if I can establish that this is a legitimate cuneiform tablet from the ancient Near East, I can't see how this would ever provide evidence for a Northern Hemisphere setting for the Book of Mormon. Could someone please explain the argument?

[John T]

Indeed. What about this? What type of cuneiform does it allegedly feature? Is there a picture of the tablet available online? I would like to know a bit more.

Your link to your blog is broken, or else your server may be out.

FYI

This is posted in the legacy of the "legacy" section of Wikipedia for Chief Joseph

Numerous structures, including schools, dams and roads, have been named for Chief Joseph, as well as several geographic features. Some of the most notable of these are and Chief Joseph Scenic Byway in Wyoming and Chief Joseph Dam, on the Columbia River in Washington. Chief Joseph Dam is the second largest hydropower producer in the U.S. and is the only dam in the Northwest named after an American Indian.

The city of Joseph, Oregon is also named for the chief, as well as Joseph Canyon and Joseph Creek, on the Oregon-Washington border, and Chief Joseph Pass in Montana. Chief Joseph is depicted on currently issued $200 Series I Savings Bonds.

Notice that there is no mention here (or in the entire article ) about his Cuneiform tablets.

There is no article on Nez Perce Indians or Chief Joseph or cuneiform in the Mormon Encyclopedia http://www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/ Therefore based upon its absence in the major online sources, as well as the LDS Encyclopedia, I am inclined to believe that it is a well-intentioned fraud.

[David Bokovoy]

Your link to your blog is broken, or else your server may be out.

FYI

This is posted in the legacy of the "legacy" section of Wikipedia for Chief Joseph

Numerous structures, including schools, dams and roads, have been named for Chief Joseph, as well as several geographic features. Some of the most notable of these are and Chief Joseph Scenic Byway in Wyoming and Chief Joseph Dam, on the Columbia River in Washington. Chief Joseph Dam is the second largest hydropower producer in the U.S. and is the only dam in the Northwest named after an American Indian.

The city of Joseph, Oregon is also named for the chief, as well as Joseph Canyon and Joseph Creek, on the Oregon-Washington border, and Chief Joseph Pass in Montana. Chief Joseph is depicted on currently issued $200 Series I Savings Bonds.

Notice that there is no mention here (or in the entire article ) about his Cuneiform tablets.

There is no article on Nez Perce Indians or Chief Joseph or cuneiform in the Mormon Encyclopedia http://www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/ Therefore based upon its absence in the major online sources, as well as the LDS Encyclopedia, I am inclined to believe that it is a well-intentioned fraud.

Yes. I lost my sponsor. I've picked up someone else who can host my site, so I hope to be up and running again soon. I emailed the museum telling them my background in cuneiform and expressing my interest in the piece. I've also contacted a direct contact at West Point. I'm going to get to the bottom of this one way or another. But again, even if it is a legitimate piece, it won't even establish transoceanic contact between the Americas and the Near East, since an archeologist didn't pull it out of the ground, and Chief Joseph could have acquired the piece in the same way Joseph Smith obtained Egyptian papyri.

But even if it was a legitimate piece that came out of the ground, I can't see how it would provide any evidence that the Book of Mormon took place in North America. The most it would suggest under these ideal circumstances would be that transatlantic journeys from the ancient Near East did occur. I mean, that would be really cool! But then again, even if the tablet is legit, if an archeologist didn't pull it out of the ground, it doesn't do us any good.

[John T]

You seem to have missed my statement that I was on the road and away from my sources. I am sure that you are a good fellow, just one that doesn't seem to read carefully, or deeply enough in the requisite material. Your very question about "prima facie" evidence is a clear indication that you don't understand archaeology (secular or religiously-informed), hence my attempt to get us discussing on the level that can actually deal with evidence and arguments instead of overly simplified caricatures of them.

I would still be willing to discuss evidence if you are willing to show some interest in understanding the nature of archaeological evidence.

I used the Latin phrase PRIMA FACIE to indicate evidence that is so strong that it is irrefutable in a forensic sense, and that only evidence to the contrary can dislodge it. The same holds true in debate. For example if I were to quote from Sozomen, or Plutarch of Joseph (going backwards in time order) that something happened to the Early Church Fathers, or to the Apostles, or to the Apostles following the death of Jesus, then that would be prima facie evidence. That it is corroborated other sources, so the ones objecting to the evidence must provide evidence that negates, or is contrary to the prima facie in order to refute it.

Now in the terms of archeology, at the University of Pennsylvania Museum in Philly, (Go Eagles!) I had the opportunity to tough the walls from Egyptian tombs, and touch the sarcophagi of Pharaohs. My relating that story to you is prima facie because I can go to the UofP and take pictures of the things I saw there. No one could doubt that I touched them when I said that I did.

So while I am not archeologically trained (are you?) I can demonstrate to you that there are two separate and distinct peer reviews from people like FW Albright, Francis Steele ( I sat under him once) and other well-known scholars that independently testify of something. The same thing holds when comparing the Masoretic Texts with the Dead Sea Scrolls in Isaiah 53. There is an insignificant difference in only three letters, and 700 years separate them.

Is that the sort of archeological evidence you can offer that testifies of the BoM? Thus I am very interested in the details you can offer me, especially if they are independently peer reviewed. If you cite articles frpm JSTOR, I appreciate your sending to me the entire article. We can work out the details on that later.

Gotta go until Monday (perhaps) as there is much for me to accomplish in a short time.

[Brant Gardner]

So while I am not archeologically trained (are you?)

Believe me, it is obvious that you don't have training in archaeology. Your examples of what you consider "prima facie" evidence also suggest that you misunderstand that term as well. For example, there is absolutely sound evidence that the text of Isaiah existed around 200 BC, because there is a copy that old in the Dead Sea Scrolls. That doesn't indicate that anything in it is older than that, might have happened, happened to a guy named Isaiah, etc. All of those "facts" rely upon analysis and argument and don't meet your definition of prima facie evidence.

As for my training, I was training in anthropology, of which archaeology is a subdiscipline. I haven't been on a dig, but I understand what they are doing, how they come up with their arguments, and my specialty (ethnohistory) uses their data when we construct the story of an ancient people.

Unfortunately, you are still asking the wrong questions. Of course you can touch Egyptian walls. You can touch Maya walls. If I then tell you that Joseph lived in Egypt and touched an Egyptian wall and that Nephi lived in Mesoamerica and touched a Mesoamerican wall, the wall remains solid evidence of something, but what? You can touch and see Olmec art and architecture. What you cannot do with prima facie evidence is know what they called themselves (it wasn't Olmec, that is a modern designation that is based on a misidentification with a much later people) what language they spoke (there is a good argument, but that isn't prima facie evidence), or what kind of political and religious system they had (all of those are reconstructed, not prima facie).

Nevertheless, you would be considered quite uneducated if you suggested to a Mesoamericanist that there were no Olmec because we have no prima facie evidence of who they were. We have as much prima facie evidence for the Olmec as we do for the Jaredite. Exactly the same amount (and even in the same place). It is all the rest of the information that makes the difference. That is the reason that you didn't understand the impact of the example I gave you. That is the type of evidence that is used to connect a text to a time and place. It is the sort of information that gives us the fairly accepted hypothesis of Mixe-Zoque as the language of the Olmecs. It isn't (and cannot be) prima facie evidence. It is, however, very good evidence.

Your suggestion that the only evidence acceptable is that accepted by the secular world also misunderstands the slow march of some social sciences. It was precisely that thinking that delayed the translation of the Maya hieroglyphs for over 20 years--the "establishment" didn't believe the article that made the breakthrough. They railed on it. They were wrong, but it took time and more evidence to convince them. You seem to be willing to make the same mistake.

There is a reason why training in a field is helpful to understanding a field. Believe me, I would never make pronouncements such as you have made in the area of physics. A physicist would know in one or two sentences that I didn't know the field.

[Cold Steel]

Where is the beef? IOW where EXACTLY is that prima facie evidence that you claim you have? What EXACTLY are those "convergences" and how do they provide the incontrovertible evidence of which you spoke of previously? Shall we sing with Peter Paul and Mary, "The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind, the answer is blowin' in the wind? ...some human-sacrificing natives in now southern Mexico moved about 100 miles north 2200 years ago. What does that have to do with Palmyra? That is really grasping at straws, whenever you try to foist off conjecture as fact Brant.

Before engaging in this debate, you would be well served in reading up on it. This is what Brother Gardener was trying to get through to you. If your comments sound intelligent to you, it's because you are grossly ignorant of the facts that are being debated. There are multiple websites and books/articles that deal with the points you've raised and most people here discussing it are conversant in them. In short, you're trying to debate in ignorance, and you were called on it. Instead of taking the criticism and educating yourself, you simply return and reestablish your lack of knowledge.

Here are some sites to start with:

Lawrence Poulsen's Website

John Pratt's Mormon Maps

Jerry Ainsworth's Mormon Sites

Robert Pate's Website

The church has never taken a position on Book of Mormon geography, neither did Joseph Smith ever refer to the hill from which he took the plates as "Cumorah." The geography in the Book of Mormon is clear enough to suggest that there are some viable locations worthy of study and regardless of your ill advised snippets to the contrary, you lack the basic knowledge to debate the issue intelligently.

Do some reading, then come back and leave comments. It will spare you embarrassment in the end and you may learn something.

.

[Tiberius]

I may have to drive back down to West Point and check out the tablet for myself. It's about a three hour drive for me. I suspect I might even be able to get my hand on it personally. But even if I can establish that this is a legitimate cuneiform tablet from the ancient Near East, I can't see how this would ever provide evidence for a Northern Hemisphere setting for the Book of Mormon. Could someone please explain the argument?

That would be fascinating on what you find. Please keep us up to date.

This site states:

History mystery: Chief Joseph's cuneiform tablet

The chief said that the tablet had been passed down in his family for many generations, and that they had inherited it from their white ancestors. Chief Joseph said that white men had come among his ancestors long ago, and had taught his people many things.

Hopefully, if you visit the museum you could confirm this statement and others related to the cuneiform tablet attributed to Chief Joseph?

That was one of my points, that Chief Joseph stated he had white ancestors - he being an inhabitant of North America. Sort of expands one's mind to think outside of the restrictive LGT Mesoamerica box. Chief Joseph was considered to be an honorable man, so I doubt he had any intention to lie. The tablet was probably intended on how to confirm it.

I met a great-great^{2 ?} granddaughter of Chief Joseph. She's LDS, a beautiful lady, true and faithful. Her father of the Northern Paiute nation. Apparently, Chief Joseph had more than one wife from several "tribes" - my point being there was familiarity among North American indigenous peoples over wide areas. To believe the Book of Mormon, with a 1000 yr time span, including 400 yrs of peace, occurred in a LG area seems very restrictive based on modern history.

[Brant Gardner]

To believe the Book of Mormon, with a 1000 yr time span, including 400 yrs of peace, occurred in a LG area seems very restrictive based on modern history.

I know what you mean. It is just has hard to believe that the record of the Hebrews could be about such a restricted region (virtually the same size as Sorenson has proposed for the Book of Mormon lands).

[Tiberius]

I know what you mean. It is just has hard to believe that the record of the Hebrews could be about such a restricted region (virtually the same size as Sorenson has proposed for the Book of Mormon lands).

Restricted region? LOL!

1 Nephi 22:3 "the house of Israel, sooner or later, will be scattered upon all the face of the earth, and also among all nations.

Jacob Ch 5. Is that not a history of the Hebrews?

Denmark = Jutland = Jewland = Tribe of Dan = Danube = River of Dan

D&C 133:31; Promise to the seed of Joseph

New Jerusalem: 3 Ne. 20: 22; 3 Ne. 21: 23-24; Ether 13: 3-6, 10;

D&C 84:2-3

2...the city of New Jerusalem.

3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri...

Ether, Nephi, Joseph Smith, Jr. Prophets of the Lord, different eras, all testified as to the location of the New Jerusalem.

And why should we care about Sorenson's proposals?

[Tiberius]

This SITE sells Paleo Casts of stone points found in North America.

The Clovis Point at the Kimmswick Site in Jefferson County, MO indicates it was found at a Mammoth and Mastodon kill site near the Mississippi River. If I'm not mistaken, it's generally agreed upon that Mammoth are associated with the Jaredite civilization.

Moroni stated that Ether, a Jaredite Prophet, proclaimed:

Ether 13: 4 Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land.

The Kimmswick Site is approx. 250 miles from Independence, MO. Would that be a limited LGT enough for you?

[Cold Steel]

Sorry dudes. The Book of Mormon occurred mainly in North America.

Very few have challenged that. You do know that Mexico is in North America, don't you?

Look, I have an open mind on the topic. Show me a credible River Sidon in what is now the United States. Establish a workable map showing about where you believe other notable places are, such as the land of Nephi, Cumorah (and, if you insist on associating it with the New York drumlin, please show how it meets the requisite Book of Mormon geography). Explain how a snake infestation can close down a passage even in a winter with snow and ice?

Showing that women toiled and spun clothing does not prove a winter environment, neither does a cuneiform tablet in the possession of one man prove anything at all except that he had it. Don't people in warm environs wear clothing, too, don't they? And in high mountainous regions, isn't it colder than it is in the lowlands?

John T: I don't know what evidence the Nephi Project has to suggest the Book of Mormon geography took place in Peru, but I would have to be a fool to make bold declarations about prima facie evidence when I was ignorant of evidence either way, nor would I try to enter into a debate about it without knowing anything about it. (As a matter of fact, cite one example of prima facie evidence that you think would stand against the Book of Mormon and remember, that evidence, if you are to comply with the term, must be (according to the definition) "true on its face...evident without proof or reasoning; obvious." It can't be evidence that you think implies otherwise. Brant was right to call you on it and so far you've failed to live up to your contentions. The thing about making bold declarative statements in ignorance is that you have to fall back when someone calls your bluff. It's a dangerous thing to do on this site, as you soon become guppy food for people like Brant and others who have read extensively on the subject.

My advice is to proceed with caution unless you know your stuff. Don't get in Brant's face and start poking him in the chest unless you want to be taken down a notch. His knowledge deserves some respect, and if you haven't read one book on Book of Mormon geography, it might be wiser to ask questions, read and then state your opinions.

.

[notHagoth7]

Denmark = Jutland = Jewland = Tribe of Dan = Danube = River of Dan

I'm with you up to the point of Jewland.

I don't agree with the assertion that Denmark derives from the tribe of Dan.

[Calm]

Denmark = Jutland = Jewland = Tribe of Dan = Danube = River of Dan

CFR

A quick google that may or may not be accurate:

The Kingdom of Denmark (Kongeriget Danmark) since 1814 when Norway was ceded to Sweden. The Kingdom includes the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Named after the Danes, possibly meaning