Joseph's visions of the Nephite Civilization...

[BOMG]

If the Book of Mormon peoples indeed settled in Mesoamerica, why would they travel thousands of miles to a more inhospitable climate to settle and leave the beautiful lush jungles for the bone-chilling climates of the Northeast?

The climate was different then.

Please don't misunderstand. I believe the Nephites did traverse into the lands northward; but I think there's no doubt but what Sidon, the narrow neck of land, Zarahemla and the other cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon were in Mesoamerica. We know that Cumorah was located somewhat to the north of that narrow neck -- but not thousands of miles.

Mormon/Moroni knew they would lose the last battle - it was foretold.

The records were secured in the Hill Cumorah PRIOR to the battle.

Outside of the comments of the early brethren, I don't see that there is any evidence that the New York drumlin was Cumorah. Do you?

1. Statement of Moroni.

2. Statement of Jesus Christ. (D&C 10:49-50)

3. Statement of Oliver.

4. Statement by an angel to David Whitmer, Joseph and Oliver.

5. D&C 128:20

6. BoM prophecies x 10.

Only two supports were needed to satisfy the law, you have more than twenty now. What did you have for Mesoamerica?

I believe there was quite a bit of trade going on between the peoples in Mesoamerica with both the people to the North and South. In the future I think we will start to see more and more proof of this, there is already some. The Mayans traded with those north of them we can see the proof of this...

Precisely why they are NOT Book of Mormon lands - which were HIDDEN and found by the LIAHONA.

Sure, that is your explanation to fit this evidence into your theory. All I was asking was where the evidence for revelation connects somehow with geography and artifacts. It appears that what evidence we do have that points toward revelations connects North American sites or artifacts with Book of Mormon civilizations. We do not, at least as far as I know, have similar evidence pointing toward revelations concerning geography or artifacts of Mesoamerica being connected with Book of Mormon civilizations. I am fine with however you want to make that work for your point of view.

All BoM prophecies were fulfilled with the Colonists. Mesotheorists are unable to show the same. Good point!

LHGT, limited hemispherical geographical theory. Using nothagoths theory of Nephite migration from the Yucatan to the US as well as Europe, there probably were Nephites and Lamanites spread throughout North and South America mingled with those already here. Kinda like combining Sevenbak, Cold Steel, Nothagoth7 into one.

Negative, their lands were HIDDEN.

The only North American leaning evidence is Zelph and the burial location of the Golden Plates.

Don't the prophecies have any merit in your model?

The Mesoamerican evidence we have (in no particular order) is Joseph's endorsement of Stephens travel memoir, Times and Seasons articles, anthropological and archeological compatibility, textual compatibility.

We have a bonafide vision (Zelph) of a location Joseph was standing on, and statements about fantastic ruins he never stepped foot on. What's your preference?

Any suggestion that it is preferential to take the most straight-forward and naive interpretation of the North American leaning evidence in defiance of all the Mesoamerican leaning evidence doesn't make much sense to me at all. Quite the contrary, we try to find an interpretation that fits all the available, relevant data (albeit deciding what is relevant is often tricky and subject to bias).

There is NO model in Mesoamerica that MATCHES the GEOGRAPHY of the Book of Mormon PERIOD!

[Brant Gardner]

BOMG, welcome to the thick of the arguments on the location of the Book of Mormon. There is a lot to discuss, but I would suggest that you do a little more homework before repeating some of the comments you made. My comments follow.

The climate was different then.

There are certainly cyclical patterns in the climate and core samples can track warmer and cooler trends. However, they track with variations in just a few degrees in the last thousand years, not enough to make upstate New York a destination for Native American snowbirds looking for some warmth in winter.

You suggest that there was a sufficient change in weather to make a difference in the way we perceive the Book of Mormon. I am unaware of any study that would support that, and much evidence to the contrary.

The records were secured in the Hill Cumorah PRIOR to the battle.

This is a common error, so you have joined a great many in making it. However, you should read what the text actually says.

6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni. (Mormon 6:6)

What the text says is that Mormon buried plates in Cumorah, but not the plates that Moroni was to deliver to their final resting place. In other words, the text says just the opposite of what you have asserted.

All BoM prophecies were fulfilled with the Colonists. Mesotheorists are unable to show the same. Good point!

You are obviously unaware of how the LGT theorists read and interpret this text. That you prefer your reading is a given, but that others have no answer is an incorrect assertion and betrays you lack of understanding of the arguments.

We have a bonafide vision (Zelph) of a location Joseph was standing on, and statements about fantastic ruins he never stepped foot on. What's your preference?

No matter how you see the Zelph information, you must remember (it is explicit) that it occurred after the ending of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, it has no absolute relevance to the text itself. There is, of course the question of how it might relate, but since it happens after the Book of Mormon, it cannot be conclusive evidence for the location where the text took place.

There is NO model in Mesoamerica that MATCHES the GEOGRAPHY of the Book of Mormon PERIOD!

That is a very bold statement. John Sorenson, Larry Poulsen, Garth Norman, Richard Hauck and Joseph Allen all disagree with you. While they disagree with each other as well, their differences at least deal with information. As for whether or not their descriptions fit text and geography, I would ask you to start with Sorenson and see where you can find disagreements.

[Anijen]

BOMG' date='30 January 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1264891936' post='1208796387']

The climate was different then.

Climate was different? How so and cite your source this is a CFR.

Mormon/Moroni knew they would lose the last battle - it was foretold.

I agree

The records were secured in the Hill Cumorah PRIOR to the battle.

With the exception being the small plates in which they were the ones that were given to Moroni. If you disagree with this then you disagree with the Book of Mormon.

2. Statement of Jesus Christ. (D&C 10:49-50)

Okay this says this land. Its a pretty large continent in which Mesoamerica is part of.

3. Statement of Oliver. Or do you put borders on "this land" and I would like you to explain why and how you placed the borders where you did.

4. Statement by an angel to David Whitmer, Joseph and Oliver

.Which statement? Cite your source please.

5. D&C 128:20

"Glad tidings from Cumorah" does not mean the events of Book of Mormon all happened in New York. The Hill was mistakenly called that by Oliver Cowdery and the name stuck. In this verse we realize they are talking about the "glad tidings" were the BoM come out of there earth to all of us in this last dispensation.

BoM prophecies x 10.

Just making statements like this doesn't even make your theory close to a fact. Please again quote which BoM prophecies and then explain what you mean by x10

Only two supports were needed to satisfy the law, you have more than twenty now. What did you have for Mesoamerica?

Please point out and number each support. You say you have twenty so it should be easy for you.

Precisely why they are NOT Book of Mormon lands - which were HIDDEN and found by the LIAHONA.

Huh? Please could you clarify this statement? its main purpose was to show the course which they (Lehi's family)should travel in the wilderness (in the old world). CFR Please show your source for any Book of Mormon land that was hidden and found by the Liahona.

All BoM prophecies were fulfilled with the Colonists.

All? says who/ Please site any church leader that has said all Book of Mormon prophecies were fulfilled with the Colonists.

Mesotheorists are unable to show the same.

Probably because we don't believe that all Book of Mormon prophecies were fulfilled with the Colonists.

Don't the prophecies have any merit in your model?

Please name the prophecies you are speaking about.

We have a bonafide vision (Zelph)

From who? please let me know where Joseph even mentioned the name Zelph and where we can read about this "bonafide" vision from him. Please do not give me sources from hearsay and many years removed because that isn't from Joseph and it surely doesn't make it "bonafide".

There is NO model in Mesoamerica that MATCHES the GEOGRAPHY of the Book of Mormon PERIOD!

Bold and absolute statements that flagrantly contradict what even Joseph Smith says about it.

Edited to add it looks like I was posting an answer the same time Brother Gardner was. Sorry if there is any overlap.

[BOMG]

BOMG, welcome to the thick of the arguments on the location of the Book of Mormon. There is a lot to discuss, but I would suggest that you do a little more homework before repeating some of the comments you made. My comments follow.

See my web site: http://www.bookofmormongeography.org then tell me if I "need to do more homework."

[You of all people will be held accountable for missing the mark. You live in the area of BoM lands, have the time, resources and interest (albeit biased), yet are fooled.]

There are certainly cyclical patterns in the climate and core samples can track warmer and cooler trends. However, they track with variations in just a few degrees in the last thousand years, not enough to make upstate New York a destination for Native American snowbirds looking for some warmth in winter.

Your sarcasm is not warranted. We hardly know BoM climate, yet to satisfy your "evidence" against NY, all we must show is a single hot day and scantly clothed natives. Done! You however must show a seasonal cold/flu season curable by herbs. Not done. What about hail and severe droughts? The list could go on.

you should read what the text actually says.

6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE LAMANITES, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni. (Mormon 6:6)

By "few" you interpret that to mean the 40-60 lbs Joseph hefted around? Come on!

No matter how you see the Zelph information, you must remember (it is explicit) that it occurred after the ending of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, it has no absolute relevance to the text itself. There is, of course the question of how it might relate, but since it happens after the Book of Mormon, it cannot be conclusive evidence for the location where the text took place.

I agree, nevertheless, Joseph's expression of the "plains of the Nephites" is incontrovertible.

That is a very bold statement. John Sorenson, Larry Poulsen, Garth Norman, Richard Hauck and Joseph Allen all disagree with you. While they disagree with each other as well, their differences at least deal with information. As for whether or not their descriptions fit text and geography, I would ask you to start with Sorenson and see where you can find disagreements.

You forgot Lund, Warren, Porritt, Palmer, Norman, Vincent, Hammond, Ferguson, Layton, Jakeman, Sjodhal, etc.

[Brant Gardner]

See my web site: http://www.bookofmormongeography.org then tell me if I "need to do more homework."

I agree, you have done homework on other theories. Unfortunately, I don't see the rigor of Sorenson's model being applied to yours.

Your sarcasm is not warranted.

I apologize if you thought it was sarcasm. It was not intended to be.

We hardly know BoM climate, yet to satisfy your "evidence" against NY, all we must show is a single hot day and scantly clothed natives. Done! You however must show a seasonal cold/flu season curable by herbs. Not done. What about hail and severe droughts? The list could go on.

Oh, darn. Here I had just acknowledged that you had done homework, and now I have to retract it. The climatic evidence is really much more complicated. In New York you have major seasons where warfare would be impossible. Then there are seasons when it is unlikely (planting and harvesting). The patterns of warfare in the Book of Mormon dont' fit with the timing available for warfare in the northeast. There is also a very interesting possibility that the Lamanite growing season was different from the Nephite, allowing for an invasion when the Nephite crops were in the field. The fielding of the army suggests that there had already been a harvest among the Lamanites.

Of course, we have the problem in the Northeast that there were no grain crops that would support the larger concentrated populations we see in the Book of Mormon, not just in the cities, but in the wars. Check your history of Indian warfare in the Northeast. You won't see any armies that large or that organized. There is a reason, and the reason returns to agriculture.

As for hail and severe droughts in Mesoamerica, you must not know much about Mesoamerica if you doubt droughts. The hail is interesting--see Sorenson's documentation of its occurrence in specific conditions (which match those in the prophecy that says hail will come).

By "few" you interpret that to mean the 40-60 lbs Joseph hefted around? Come on!

This response is supposed to contradict Mormon's explicit declaration? Are you certain that compared with the entire Nephite library, what Moroni had would not be considered "few"?

I would like to know how you interpret Mormon's statement. It seems rather definitive to me. I am not aware of another way to read it.

I agree, nevertheless, Joseph's expression of the "plains of the Nephites" is incontrovertible.

Really? Why would that be? I know of an Albany, New York, and an Albany, Georgia. I know of a Cairo, New York and a Madrid, New Mexico. Naming often repeats areas of a homeland without necessarily being the homeland. Given the way humans have named things in different areas and the fact that the "plains of the Nephites" (which, of course, is never mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon) is post-Book of Mormon, I don't see where there is anything incontrovertible about it at all.

[BOMG]

I agree, you have done homework on other theories. Unfortunately, I don't see the rigor of Sorenson's model being applied to yours.

I apologize if you thought it was sarcasm. It was not intended to be.

Apology accepted.

The ancillaries are interesting but they are NOT the geography.

Too often authors use the term "geography" but move on to areas that are not.

Priority is on the land and its perimeter, let's address those.

Where is the Sea North in your best model - internally first.

[Brant Gardner]

Too often authors use the term "geography" but move on to areas that are not.

Priority is on the land and its perimeter, let's address those.

Too often, geographies are created without examining the critical information about whether anything other than the geography fits. While the geography is important, it should be obvious that multiple geographies can be made to fit the descriptions of the text (although most do not attempt to deal with all of the descriptions).

When there are multiple possibilities, the very next question is whether or not the descriptions of the people and times seen in the text have any chance of fitting with the geography. That was a major failing of the Malay Hypothesis. It can be made to sound somewhat reasonable geographically, but a careful examination excludes it.

The same thing happens with a Northeastern geography. Regardless of how one reads the text against a geography, the rest of the text does not fit. That suggests that correlations in the geography are coincidence rather than reality.

By the way, to answer your question about the Sea North. We have exactly one reference:

8 And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east. (Helaman 3:8 )

The context of the description is as a continuation of "whole earth." From Nephi's time, there was a conception of their land as an "isle of the sea." Later Aztecs pictured their world surrounded by water (a fact for Tenochtitlan, but expanded to their known world, where it was not a fact). The conceptualization of a world surrounded by water is a very different thing from actually requiring it. Personally, I don't see this verse requiring a real Sea North, but rather a conceptual one that describes the nature of "face of the whole earth." That reading is consistent with ethnohistoric literature as well as a contextual reading. It is also consistent with the absence of the Sea North when describing more geographical features (which we do see for the Seas West and East).

[BOMG]

Too often, geographies are created without examining the critical information about whether anything other than the geography fits.

Indeed! Like prophecy, the Spiritual Geography; or the Internal Geography, separate from any preconceived physical location. Such models should have been vented prior to any physical gleanings. One verse alone of the Internal Geography has the makings for unraveling all models to date:

32 and now it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation from the East to the West sea and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward. (Alma 22)

True to skewing the Internal to make it fit an External, geographers have interpreted the above to mean the width of the Neck, rather than all lands together.

Which is it?

[Brant Gardner]

Which is it?

When you look at the directions traveled and the combined distances, it is clear that this is a narrow neck and not the entire land. Any reading other than a narrow neck between the land northward and the land southward makes the idea of using this particular feature as a line of defense rather unnecessary.

If you are reading that verse to describe the entire land, I find it irreconcilable with the descriptions of the action in the text.

I also notice that you are insisting on dealing with geographical features rather than a complete analysis of the geography, hydrology, climate, agriculture, culture, and history of the area. As I noted, the ability to find a way to read the text against a geographic feature is so demonstrably varied that geography alone cannot resolve anything.

[BOMG]

If you are reading that verse to describe the entire land, I find it irreconcilable with the descriptions of the action in the text.

Skousen did not find it irreconcilable; to him it was clearly referring to the lands Bountiful and and Desolation, not just some "narrow" neck:

And now it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite

on the line between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation,

from the east* to the west sea; (Royal Skousen,

Earliest Text of the Book of Mormon

)

I also notice that you are insisting on dealing with geographical features rather than a complete analysis of the geography, hydrology, climate, agriculture, culture, and history of the area. As I noted, the ability to find a way to read the text against a geographic feature is so demonstrably varied that geography alone cannot resolve anything.

The largest obstacle in building a coherent Internal Geographical Map has been the influence of Physical Models. Your use of Aztec understanding to influence your view of the Sea North is one such example. A Sea North and South should appear on ALL Internal Maps, the fact they don't shows a bias from the start.

[Brant Gardner]

Skousen did not find it irreconcilable;

I'm sorry, this is your reading, not Skousen's. Skousen is simply reporting the text. He has been pretty studious in avoiding interpretations as opposed to reconstruction. Skousen is no help to you here.

We have two "sea to sea" measurements, one a s a day, and one as a day and a half. How do you read those in a physical geography and then assume that there is no difference in that measurement than the over 3 day east to west distance required by one of Alma's trips? That certainly has a greater effect on an internal geography that an alternate reading of the "line."

The largest obstacle in building a coherent Internal Geographical Map has been the influence of Physical Models.

Perhaps. The problem is that many of the internal models have some resemblances, but are still placed on the map differently. Even the internal maps differ according to the way the creator has read the text. Regardless of the nature of the internal map, it is simply a starting point that tells you whether or not you have found a plausible geography.

Once you have a plausible geography (and every proponent of a different geography believes he/she has one), the next step, and one where most fail miserably, is to compare that physical geography to the human relationship to the geography. If the human history on that geography doesn't match the Book of Mormon, you can be sure that the resemblance in physical geography is simply a coincidence or a result of an idiosyncratic reading of the text.

Your use of Aztec understanding to influence your view of the Sea North is one such example. A Sea North and South should appear on ALL Internal Maps, the fact they don't shows a bias from the start.

I'm sorry, but your bias is showing. Your statement is true if and only if the Book of Mormon is both a literal translation and a literal representation. While many have made the case for the first (though, I believe, unconvincingly), the second is much more difficult to demonstrate. In fact, it should not be a literal representation. An ancient text devoid of any metaphorical use of vocabulary would not be representative of any of the written (or even oral) literatures that we know. Therefore, the assumption that there must be a Sea North simply because the words are in the text is contradicted by vast human experience.

If we believe the Book of Mormon to have been written by real people (and we do), then it should behave like a text that real people wrote (the Bible, for example). When we know that directionals and concepts such as "all the land" were much different for the ancients who did not have the global perspective we do, then the probability that this is metaphorical must be considered.

The next question, of course, is when is something metaphorical and when is it literal? The test is in the text. When the Sea is involved in contexts of description of place rather than a conceptual definition of "all the land," it is highly likely to exist. When the Sea North only exists in a context that is metaphorical and is never involved in the same kinds of description as the other seas, we have a high likelihood that it is metaphorical, particularly when we know that a conceptual world surrounded by water is a pretty standard issue mythology for many ancient peoples.

[Cold Steel]

All I was asking was where the evidence for revelation connects somehow with geography and artifacts. It appears that what evidence we do have that points toward revelations connects North American sites or artifacts with Book of Mormon civilizations.

If so, I'm not aware of it. But there's little doubt that some Nephites did move northward just as American settlers moved West. It's just the way people are.

The question, however, is where the Book of Mormon events took place, and based on all the geographic evidence, it was in Mesoamerica. Joseph Smith never said where it took place, but he seemed most fascinated with the Mesoamerican etchings. Remember, these cities weren't built by the Nephites or Lamanites, but by their descendants. Many of their cities were built over the ruins of older cities. But wherever the events themselves took place, there is no solid PROOF. And the evidence that they took place in New York and the Great Lakes area is pathetically lacking. Despite all the talk about a narrow neck of land and a narrow pass, they are important components to the geography question. And the fact is, there is no such geographical matches in New York. If the drumlin is Cumorah, you then have to link it to other known areas. The only "narrow neck" is to the south of the drumlin, not the north. That area also never had the necessary populations to wage such epic battles. There are no caves in the drumlin (which is all dirt), nor could anyone conceal themselves on the hill, as some of the Nephites were said to have done. The hill also is so pathetically small that it wouldn't be strategic to anyone except a bunch of kids playing "king of the hill." So in my view the size of the hill is wrong, the geography is wrong, the populations wrong, the weather wrong and the archeological evidence is lacking.

Again, you won't get any argument from me on the Nephites migrating north and establishing communities there, but it's not where the Book of Mormon story took place. In the end, you can believe as you wish, but so far proponents have failed to show any kind of a map. Until they do, they simply can't make their case. I think FAIR is correct is saying people like Meldrum are "poisoning the well," because despite the position of the church, he's pushing a spiritual link that could ultimately cause people to lose faith when it's discredited.

The climate was different then. ... Mormon/Moroni knew they would lose the last battle - it was foretold. The records were secured in the Hill Cumorah PRIOR to the battle. There is NO model in Mesoamerica that MATCHES the GEOGRAPHY of the Book of Mormon PERIOD!

Fine. All I need to see is evidence. Where's your map?

[Sevenbak]

The second "believe" is a stronger statement, it approaches sarcasm, ie. certainty. Context is what tells me this.

Wood

It is? How can you surmise what he meant in either use of the same word. I don't portend to read minds.

[Sevenbak]

I don't see anything about where's Cumorah in this statement either, just like Lucy's account of his descriptions. Is it really from these two quotations that you get Joseph weighing in on where Cumorah was?

Wood

You are moving the goalposts. This is about what he said about general statements based on his revelation of where events took place. If we want to get specific as to just Cumorah statements by him and his associates, we can, or you can start a new thread.

[Sevenbak]

Anijen, Omer's story of fleeing took "many days"... We don't know how long or how far that was. As to "passed by the place where the Nephites were destroyed", there is so much skipping over and barely making reference to events with the Jaredites, that I think it can be dangerous to read so much into one phrase. A casual reference from Ether in many instances can cover hundreds of years and generations. We can't go on that alone, if one is to stick with a text only model. JMHO

[Sevenbak]

Sidney B. Sperry

Still disagree with Brother Sperry. I think there are better sources of trust, no offense.

[Sevenbak]

I suppose the best way to resolve this is to ask how Cumorah could be in New York, yet the narrow neck of land be in Mesoamerica? We know something of the proximity of the land of Desolation with the narrow neck, and this is the aspect of the argument that has led to the debate at hand. It's not that there are two Cumorahs; it's that there's only one, and it's in Mesoamerica. If Desolation is just north of the narrow neck, and if the narrow neck is indeed the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, then how could the battles of great destruction be in New York?

John E. Clark notes: "The relative location of the hill Cumorah is most tenuous, since travel time from Bountiful, or the narrow neck, to Cumorah is nowhere specified. Cumorah was near the east sea in the land northward, and the limited evidence suggests that it was probably not many days' travel from the narrow neck of land (Mosiah 8:8; Ether 9:3). It is also probable that the portion of the land northward occupied by the Jaredites was smaller than the Nephite-Lamanite land southward." (Source)

Clark also explained the various views expressed in the church, none of which is formally adopted by the church:

In a 1993 statement, the church summed up the official view on Book of Mormon geography:

This means that the official position of the church is that it doesn't know where Cumorah is.

So again, the question we're discussing is how the New York Cumorah can be the one sited in the Book of Mormon when the geography cannot be shown to fit. By quoting early leaders of the church, you put the New York drumlin in an indefensible location. If the narrow neck was in Mesoamerica, then the Lamanites must have been largely confined to that area of the world during that period of time. If Mormon wrote the Lamanite leaders, how likely is it that they knew of the tiny drumlin located thousands of miles away? How could they have moved their armies that far north, trekking through the Rocky Mountains and across the western plains? And why would they have traveled so far to have their last battles? Why wouldn't they have fought in the warmer climates of the land of their origin? Why wouldn't they have fought on the plains of Vegia or Bernal? (Certainly they are much more imposing than the New York hill.) Finally, why would Mormon think that a small hill in what is now New York would have been more strategic than the lands in Mesoamerica?

If the Book of Mormon peoples indeed settled in Mesoamerica, why would they travel thousands of miles to a more inhospitable climate to settle and leave the beautiful lush jungles for the bone-chilling climates of the Northeast?

Please don't misunderstand. I believe the Nephites did traverse into the lands northward; but I think there's no doubt but what Sidon, the narrow neck of land, Zarahemla and the other cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon were in Mesoamerica. We know that Cumorah was located somewhat to the north of that narrow neck -- but not thousands of miles. I also believe that the Lamanites also traveled north and south into South America. Whether these great peoples fought on in undocumented battles is unknown, but they did migrate, just as peoples did in other parts of the world.

Outside of the comments of the early brethren, I don't see that there is any evidence that the New York drumlin was Cumorah. Do you?

The problem here is that we just don't know how big the land of desolation was. We know it was big enough that they had to use shipping to get wood from the land southward. There are too many unknowns to use the text only in figuring out where everything was.

And yes, the Church has recently discouraged the geography talk, there is too much unknown. However, without being to general, there certainly were specific locations that have been taught for a very long time. For me, one can know where Cumorah is based on the prophets without knowing where everything else was supposed to be.

[Sevenbak]

Alas, thought I could finish up this thread, not so. Try again tonight. Thanks all for your thoughts.

[Hyrum Page]

The only North American leaning evidence is Zelph and the burial location of the Golden Plates.

There is also the identification of Huntsville, Missouri as the location of Manti, but I am not aware of any revelation being involved in that id.

The Mesoamerican evidence we have (in no particular order) is Joseph's endorsement of Stephens travel memoir, Times and Seasons articles, anthropological and archeological compatibility, textual compatibility.

Any suggestion that it is preferential to take the most straight-forward and naive interpretation of the North American leaning evidence in defiance of all the Mesoamerican leaning evidence doesn't make much sense to me at all. Quite the contrary, we try to find an interpretation that fits all the available, relevant data (albeit deciding what is relevant is often tricky and subject to bias).

I am not particularly moved by Joseph's "endorsement" of the Stephens travel memoir, which has more of the appearance of "fun things that confirm what the Book of Mormon describes" than any clear identification of Mesoamerica as the setting of the Book of Mormon. And, while you may characterize it as naive, the evidence for some revelatory identification maps onto sites located in the US. It simply does.

I agree with you that deciding what is relevant is often tricky and subject to bias. In the end, it really does not matter to me where one views the Book of Mormon as having taken place. Thus far I have not been overly impressed with the case for Mesoamerica, and I think it needs to be scrutinized more closely.

[Sevenbak]

There is no direct quote from Joseph on this matter. It is written in the journals of others concerning any artifact. I do believe in them, for the reason that Joseph wrote Emma and spoke of the plains of the Nephites. However this does not mean it was an event in the Book of Mormon. Let us take the account of Zelph.

The quotes (all hearsay, not Joseph himself)say Zelph was a Lamanite albeit a righteous one. IMO Zelph migrated North, or his ancestors did before him.

I believe there was quite a bit of trade going on between the peoples in Mesoamerica with both the people to the North and South. In the future I think we will start to see more and more proof of this, there is already some. The Mayans traded with those north of them we can see the proof of this as we see the three main groups of domesticated food (corn, squash and beans) eventually reach all the way to the Atlantic, this occured after the events of the Book of Mormon by hundreds of years. I am not saying the Mayans went that far just the food did via through many hands of the traders. The Mississippi river probably was the main reason that makes this possible.

Are you referring to the Zelph incident? That can't be classified as hearsay. So many of the trusted men with Joseph, including the official historian all wrote down his words. And the Zelph incident was specifically about the final conflict between the Nephites and Lamanites, so even though it's not about the final battle, it's my understanding it happened prior to Cumorah.

Certainly the LDS institute manual still teaches that the Zelph incident happened during the final war, and not after.

[Hyrum Page]

And, the Zelph mound incident is not isolated either. Joseph also mentioned on two different occasions other areas of the Hopewell territory as being part of the Nephite civilization. His letter to Emma, as well as his statements about other mounds they were passing, previous to the Zelph mound.

Details? Thanks.

[Sevenbak]

Okay, maybe you don't agree with the original reason for dropping the hemispheric theory, but you really don't believe in the hemispheric theory now, do you? The DNA evidence pretty much slammed that door shut. The Church even recognized this when they changed the introduction to the BOM by adding the word "among" to the following statement: "This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

If you still believe in the hemispheric theory of the BOM, then you really are a guy that will follow the prophets no matter what.

There is no reason not to believe in the Hemispheric model, or the Joseph Smith model as many call it.

And yes, I do hold to those teachings, unless they are ever taught differently. When that happens, let me know and I'll reconsider.

[Sevenbak]

See my web site: http://www.bookofmormongeography.org then tell me if I "need to do more homework."

[You of all people will be held accountable for missing the mark. You live in the area of BoM lands, have the time, resources and interest (albeit biased), yet are fooled.]

Your sarcasm is not warranted. We hardly know BoM climate, yet to satisfy your "evidence" against NY, all we must show is a single hot day and scantly clothed natives. Done! You however must show a seasonal cold/flu season curable by herbs. Not done. What about hail and severe droughts? The list could go on.

By "few" you interpret that to mean the 40-60 lbs Joseph hefted around? Come on!

I agree, nevertheless, Joseph's expression of the "plains of the Nephites" is incontrovertible.

You forgot Lund, Warren, Porritt, Palmer, Norman, Vincent, Hammond, Ferguson, Layton, Jakeman, Sjodhal, etc.

BOMG, while I agree with some of your reasoning about Joseph's and his contemporaries statements and beliefs about locations, I'm struggling with your view of accepting Joseph's visions as truth (even though I do). Your website makes it pretty clear you follow David Whitmer's restoration movement, and thus believe Joseph was a fallen prophet. So I guess my question is, at what point do you NOT accept Joseph's revelations on the matter?

Just curious...

[Sevenbak]

Joseph Smith never said where it took place, but he seemed most fascinated with the Mesoamerican etchings.

Joseph certainly made known his feelings on the matter of the Zarahemla setting in Mesoamerica, but I would hardly say he was "most fascinated" with that over his many statements of N. America. His statements about the latter were more numerous than the former. I for one don't feel the need to pit one against the other. I believe both were truths.

[Sevenbak]

Details? Thanks.

The first mention of a mound encountered on the Zion Camp journey is an entry in Joseph