When do we consider the evidence for the Book of Mormon?

[Uncertain]

Please remember that you are dealing with a time period prior to when there was any actual mapping convention. All directions were given according to localized instructions. If you ask someone where something is and they say "north", you will have the definition of north according to the way they perceive it. When 30 years have passed in the New World, 30 years of referring to "north" according to a different conceptual system won't seem unusual at all. It is only problematic for the modern mind that assumes that there is some kind of constant and that we always know exactly where north is. That is not a historically accurate assumption.

There is a tremendous amount that is not in the text. In fact, it is often the absence of explanatory material that tells us that the text was written by people who assumed that we knew things that we really don't know.

However, suggesting that this is an ad hoc supposition suggests that you are unaware of the background in history and anthropology that lies behind the suggestions. From an ethnohistorical standpoint, it is the supposition that would be most natural for the real world. Your suggestion that it has to remain constant is actually an anachronistic supposition.

There appears to be some misunderstanding of my point. I am in no way disputing that directions could change between the old and new worlds. I am by no means arguing as you appear to believe that directions must have remained constant throughout the ancient world. What I am arguing is that unless we know when those directions changed trying to match BOM geography with the real world is highly problematic. Because North could mean very different things depending on which section of the BOM we are dealing with. You are apparently arguing Nephi must have used New world directions when he was describing New world geography. I see no reason why this must be the case it is not mentioned anywhere in the text. And the cardinal directions we know Nephi did use based on correlation with Nahom do not match the New world cardinal directions(assuming of course all this is real and not fictional). I see no reason why Nephi could not simply have continued using those same cardinal directions we know he used. I understand he could have switched right when he set foot on the new world but I see no reason why this must necessarily be the case. I grant it is a reasonable possibility but it is not the only reasonable possibility. I wonder how far you would take this. When the Nephites relocated did they always use the native coordinate system? If they moved one valley over is North suddenly different than at the old valley do we then see multiple coordinate changes throughout the BOM these switches never being mentioned? Or is it just one coordinate shift that happily enough for apologists occurs right when Nephi sets foot in the New World?

If anyone reads the text assuming that there is a fit and then makes only those selections from the text that fit the hypothesis and ignoring others, they have made a grave methodological mistake. In this case, if you assume that you are conversing with Mesoamerican theorists who have done that, you are insufficiently aware of the work that has been done. It simply is not the case.

I will freely admit that we don't all agree on all points, but that is quite different that suggesting that the points have been selected in order to fit a theory. I know that in my case I began reading the text against a Mesoamerican background, but I understood from the beginning how dangerous that approach was. There are any number of places where the initial assumption would not agree with the text -- unless -- the Mesoamerican background were actually the appropriate historical context. The confluence of a very large amount of information lies behind my suggestion, not simply geography.

Well here again we seem to have a misunderstanding. I have been consistently arguing against the idea that because internal BOM references match a location in the real world this is strong evidence the BOM is historical. I am not attempting take on the entire corpus of apologetic work placing the BOM in the Mesoamerica. I have neither the time nor the training for such an endeavor. I am simply addressing one particular apologetic argument. So can I take it you agree with me that the fact the BOM using internal geographic references can be matched with locations in the real world this is not strong evidence of historicity? If you agree then there is nothing more to discuss. This was the sole point I was trying to make. It reminds me of those anti-Mormons when a particular criticism is explained immediately move on to something else well what about this? they say.

Before turning my attention to the Book of Mormon, I worked with Mesoamerican ethnohistory. If I were unable to use ethnographic analogy to understand the unstated in texts, I would understand few texts. Your suggestion that this approach is simply to salvage a pre-existing model tells me that you have no experience in ethnohistory.

As I mentioned I am by no means disputing the idea that directions could and did change in the ancient world. What I am disputing is that Nephi must have used different cardinal directions than those he used in the Old world and he never bothered to mentioned this fact. He certainly could have but it is one reasonable possibility from a number of reasonable possibilities. What I view as ad hoc and salvaging a pre-existing model is selecting one reasonable possibility from many reasonable possibilities motivated it appears simply by making an existing model "work".

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

What evidence do you have that Nephi was using the same coordinate system as we use today? Ancient cultures oriented their directional system based on the sun's position. No magnetic compass was available until Marco Polo retuned from China in about 1200 AD. The oldest known map of Palestine is oriented to east as described at this site.

http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/Ancient%20Web%20Pages/121mono.html

It describes the map as follows:

For further discussion of the directional concepts of ancient cultures see:

http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/bomdirections.html

As Brant has already told you, before you accuse apologists of ad hoc explanations, you need to become more familiar with the beliefs and practices of ancient cultures and not base your conclusions on your modern concepts (the logical fallacy of presentism) of how you think things should be.

Larry P

Hi Larry,

Well its a good thing I have never claimed the ancients all used our modern coordinate system so I fail to see how I am engaging in presentism. What I did claim is that the complex of parallels used to identify the various locations associated with Old World travel i.e.(Nahom, bountiful etc.) use a given coordinate system that more or less matches up with our modern coordinate system. For example the purported location of Bountiful is "east" of Nahom as we today would understand the direction east. And Nahom is "south" of Jerusalem as we would understand the direction south. Which argues Nephi's coordinate system was in fact very similar to our modern coordinate system at least when he was in the Old world. Of course maybe your right and Nephi did not use such a coordinate system in which case I suppose you do not accept the Nahom complex of locations? Since they were found using a more or less modern coordinate system.

Best,

Uncertain

[cdowis]

It is really quite rare that a text from that long ago would still provide valuable insights. More and better are available, but they tend to be refinements rather than replacements for much of what Nibley did in that book. I wouldn't read it without the more recent work, but I would never suggest skipping it.

Can you give specific suggestions on the more recent works that you would read with Nibley.

[Uncertain]

To Brant and Poulsen,

So I am now confused. I have repeatedly been told that Poulsens map does not use shifted coordinate systems. But I am now informed by Brant according to the most modern ethnohistory techniques we would expect the Nephites to use a shifted coordinate system. In which case contrary to Poulsen's approach of not using a shifted coordinate system we should use a shifted system. So which is it? Do we assume a shifted system or not?

Best,

Uncertain

[poulsenll]

Hi Larry,

Well its a good thing I have never claimed the ancients all used our modern coordinate system so I fail to see how I am engaging in presentism. What I did claim is that the complex of parallels used to identify the various locations associated with the Old World travel i.e.(Nahom, bountiful etc.) use a given coordinate system that more or less matches up with our modern coordinate system. For example the purported location of Bountiful is "east" of Nahom as we today would understand the direction east. And Nahom is "south" of Jerusalem as we would understand the direction south. Which argues Nephi's coordinate system was in fact very similar to our modern coordinate system at least when he was in the Old world. Of course maybe your right and Nephi did not use such a coordinate system in which case I suppose you do not accept the Nahom complex of locations? Since they were found using a more or less modern coordinate system.

Best,

Uncertain

Did you even bother to read the references I gave. If you had you would realize that with respect to the general directions of east, west, north and south, they are essentially the same. There was therefore no reason to change them when coming to the new world.

However, in detail, they differed from our modern rectangular coordinate system in that they were less exact in designating what directions were meant by north and south and were more limited in what was meant by east and west. There is no conflict with the direction system used in describing Nahom and the old world Bountiful, however, when the modern concept is applied to the new world BofM use of directions it leads to misunderstandings. For example, our modern view is based on a global view of directions. Living in the US we think of the Atlantic ocean as being the eastern ocean, however a careful inspection of maps of the Americas will show that in Central America there are locations where the Atlantic is on the western shore.

We also think of oceans as contiguous bodies of water. Ancient cultures viewed bodies of water from a local view point, thus the Gulf of Mexico and the Carrabean Sea were seen as two distinct bodies of water, one to the north and the other to the east. Ancient cultures did not have satelites and global maps and therefore saw no connection between bodies of water that for all intents were seperated from each other by land areas they were not familiar with having never traveled there.

Unfortunately Sorenson was afflicted by this form of presentism and tried to justify the concept of a different coordinate system for the Nephites in order to make the BofM text agree with a Mesoamerican location. Using the ancient Mesaamerican concept of directions makes this unnecesary and results in a map that directionally is consistant with the text.

Larry P

[Uncertain]

Did you even bother to read the references I gave. If you had you would realize that with respect to the general directions of east, west, north and south, they are essentially the same. There was therefore no reason to change them when coming to the new world.

However, in detail, they differed from our modern rectangular coordinate system in that they were less exact in designating what directions were meant by north and south and were more limited in what was meant by east and west. There is no conflict with the direction system used in describing Nahom and the old world Bountiful, however, when the modern concept is applied to the new world BofM use of directions it leads to misunderstandings. For example, our modern view is based on a global view of directions. Living in the US we think of the Atlantic ocean as being the eastern ocean, however a careful inspection of maps of the Americas will show that in Central America there are locations where the Atlantic is on the western shore.

We also think of oceans as contiguous bodies of water. Ancient cultures viewed bodies of water from a local view point, thus the Gulf of Mexico and the Carrabean Sea were seen as two distinct bodies of water, one to the north and the other to the east. Ancient cultures did not have satelites and global maps and therefore saw no connection between bodies of water that for all intents were seperated from each other by land areas they were not familiar with having never traveled there.

Unfortunately Sorenson was afflicted by this form of presentism and tried to justify the concept of a different coordinate system for the Nephites in order to make the BofM text agree with a Mesoamerican location. Using the ancient Mesaamerican concept of directions makes this unnecesary and results in a map that directionally is consistant with the text.

Larry P

Okay fair enough, I don't see how this changes anything I said or justifies claiming I am engaging in presentism. So if I understand you correctly contrary to what I understand Brant is claiming the same cardinal directions are used throughout the BOM? That is what Nephi meant by North in the Old World is exactly the same thing as what Moroni at the end of the BOM meant by North? In other words you would not agree with Sorenson that the Nephites used a "shifted" coordinate system.

Best,

Uncertain

[Nathair/|\]

What other kinds of evidence for the BoM do ye find of interest?

[Brant Gardner]

So I am now confused. I have repeatedly been told that Poulsens map does not use shifted coordinate systems. But I am now informed by Brant according to the most modern ethnohistory techniques we would expect the Nephites to use a shifted coordinate system. In which case contrary to Poulsen's approach of not using a shifted coordinate system we should use a shifted system. So which is it? Do we assume a shifted system or not?

I expect that your confusion comes because we haven't explained things well enough, combined with some assumptions you start with. Allow me to try to be more clear. We understand cardinal directions as a +, with North being a specific linear direction. Mesoamericans considered North to be the pie wedge to the north of an x (but a flattened x created by the path of the sun). In both cases, north is still north, but the conception around what that means is different. For the Old World, north corresponds best to the + concept. In the New World, North would also contain areas that we would consider NW and NE (we have to designate them with two indications, because they are neither north nor east, etc.). In the Mesoamerican system, they would all be subsumed under "north."

Hence Sorenson's "skewed" directions are not skewed at all. North is still north, but it includes the direction that he believed was skewed.

The next part of the issue is that terrestrial directions are not the same as celestial directions. Even in our + system, I have been in places where the directions regularized to the + when the reality was shifted. The model dictated the directions, not the precise placement of the roads on the map.

Directions are cultural. When the Nephites moved from one world to another, north didn't move. What changed was the comprehension of what it meant when one said something was north - in the Old World the more familiar (to us) + system, or on the New World, the x system.

[Brant Gardner]

Can you give specific suggestions on the more recent works that you would read with Nibley.

Nibley's strength was the Old World connections, and his inspiration has led to a large number of scholars working on the Old World background to the Book of Mormon. You will find that most of what FARMS published fell into that category. Most of it does an excellent job of following up on Nibley's insights.

What to read would depend on whether you are looking for specific updates of something Nibley did, or the work he inspired.

Here are some places to start:

Brown, S. Kent. From Jerusalem to Zarahemla: Literary and Historical Studies of the Book of Mormon. Provo, UT: Religious studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998.

Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002.

Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, edited by John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 2004 Tvedtnes, John A. The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar. Salt Lake City, UT: Cornerstone, 1999.

[Brant Gardner]

As I mentioned I am by no means disputing the idea that directions could and did change in the ancient world. What I am disputing is that Nephi must have used different cardinal directions than those he used in the Old world and he never bothered to mentioned this fact.

Let's begin with the rather common misperception that Nephi should have told us when there are things that we would be interested in. That simply doesn't happen in ancient documents (including the Bible). By the time Nephi wrote, it would not have occurred to mention that he had any different perception, because he was writing to people who shared his perception. There was no reason to clarify the Old World system because no reader he conceived would care and the basic understanding would be sufficient.

There was simply no reason to clarify it, and the absence of such things is absolutely common in authentic ancient documents.

He certainly could have but it is one reasonable possibility from a number of reasonable possibilities. What I view as ad hoc and salvaging a pre-existing model is selecting one reasonable possibility from many reasonable possibilities motivated it appears simply by making an existing model "work".

Any model must be subjected to multiple tests, and every model has problems to resolve. The question is how well they are resolved and whether or not the resolution fits inside the explicating model. In this case, the directional "problem" is no longer a problem inside the model - not because the text is altered to fit the model, but because the model supplies reason and understanding to the text. To really understand what I mean by that, you need to follow Larry's arguments on the directions. The really are quite persuasive and explain certain textual features that would otherwise be quite difficult to reconcile (using the + directional model).

Still, if nothing else worked, it wouldn't be very interesting a all. That is why focusing an argument exclusively on geography (or any other topic) misses the essential nature of a usable explanatory model. There is much more that has to be explained with the same background. The geography simply creates the stage on which many, many other factors must play out.

[Mudcat]

How does the posited cataclysmic events that seemed to make everything different interplay into all this?

In some sense, I have seen that as a bit of obfuscation on the part of the author(s) of the BoM.

But if it isn't such. Then if there where really some very serious geographic calamities that changed the look of it all, how does any pro/con argument make it past such?

[poulsenll]

I expect that your confusion comes because we haven't explained things well enough, combined with some assumptions you start with. Allow me to try to be more clear. We understand cardinal directions as a +, with North being a specific linear direction. Mesoamericans considered North to be the pie wedge to the north of an x (but a flattened x created by the path of the sun). In both cases, north is still north, but the conception around what that means is different. For the Old World, north corresponds best to the + concept. In the New World, North would also contain areas that we would consider NW and NE (we have to designate them with two indications, because they are neither north nor east, etc.). In the Mesoamerican system, they would all be subsumed under "north."

Brant

I am not sure that ancient European cultures did not also use a directional system based on an x.

According to the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_direction

Germanic origin of names

During the Migration Period, the Germanic languages' names for the cardinal directions entered the Romance languages, where they replaced the Latin names borealis (or septentrionalis) with north, australis (or meridionalis) with south, occidentalis with west and orientalis with east. It is possible that some northern people used the Germanic names for the intermediate directions. Medieval Scandinavian orientation would thus have involved a 45 degree rotation of cardinal directions.[3]

[Anijen]

How does the posited cataclysmic events that seemed to make everything different interplay into all this?

In some sense, I have seen that as a bit of obfuscation on the part of the author(s) of the BoM.

But if it isn't such. Then if there where really some very serious geographic calamities that changed the look of it all, how does any pro/con argument make it past such?

Hi Mudcat. I'll take a stab at answering this. In a nut shell, the Book of Mormon's description of some of the cataclysmic altering of the face of the land is significant, however not so much as to make places unidentifiable. They still knew where other places where compared to where they where (or where cities no longer were), regardless if the cities were burned, destroyed, sunk etc.

clear as mud? not really I should have quit and gone to bed its like 3:37 in the morning.

[Uncertain]

I expect that your confusion comes because we haven't explained things well enough, combined with some assumptions you start with. Allow me to try to be more clear. We understand cardinal directions as a +, with North being a specific linear direction. Mesoamericans considered North to be the pie wedge to the north of an x (but a flattened x created by the path of the sun). In both cases, north is still north, but the conception around what that means is different. For the Old World, north corresponds best to the + concept. In the New World, North would also contain areas that we would consider NW and NE (we have to designate them with two indications, because they are neither north nor east, etc.). In the Mesoamerican system, they would all be subsumed under "north."

Hence Sorenson's "skewed" directions are not skewed at all. North is still north, but it includes the direction that he believed was skewed.

The next part of the issue is that terrestrial directions are not the same as celestial directions. Even in our + system, I have been in places where the directions regularized to the + when the reality was shifted. The model dictated the directions, not the precise placement of the roads on the map.

Directions are cultural. When the Nephites moved from one world to another, north didn't move. What changed was the comprehension of what it meant when one said something was north - in the Old World the more familiar (to us) + system, or on the New World, the x system.

I appreciate the clarification I now better understand where you are coming from. In any case this is a peripheral issue. To me the skewed directions only become an issue when the given map is based on skewed directions since Poulsen's is not it is not an issue.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Let's begin with the rather common misperception that Nephi should have told us when there are things that we would be interested in. That simply doesn't happen in ancient documents (including the Bible). By the time Nephi wrote, it would not have occurred to mention that he had any different perception, because he was writing to people who shared his perception. There was no reason to clarify the Old World system because no reader he conceived would care and the basic understanding would be sufficient.

There was simply no reason to clarify it, and the absence of such things is absolutely common in authentic ancient documents.

The absence of clarification does not give us free range to wedge in whatever we wish. So sure I can agree just because Nephi didn't mention a shift in directions this doesn't mean a shift didn't happen. But in the absence of such a statement considerable strong evidence from other sources would be needed in order to assert such a thing certainly happened. The issue is just because the text is silent doesn't mean we then get to insert whatever we wish in order to make a given model work. Now I am not claiming you are doing this. But frankly I see little evidence to show Nephi must and would certainly have discarded his Old World coordinate system right when he got to the New World. Sure I can see the Nephites eventually doing so but there is a world of difference between stating eventually this would happen and you are confident when and how it did happen. In other words if there is insufficient evidence either from the text (there isn't) or from some other source (do you have any?) to know when such a transition happened we should not confidently state we know when it did happen. Therefore trying to build a model based on BOM geography when at some point in the text we can't precisely identify the directions were suddenly skewed without mention seems fraught with peril.

In any case this appears to be only relevant when we are discussing Sorenson's map which uses skewed directions. Poulsen's map does not so it isn't an issue.

Any model must be subjected to multiple tests, and every model has problems to resolve. The question is how well they are resolved and whether or not the resolution fits inside the explicating model. In this case, the directional "problem" is no longer a problem inside the model - not because the text is altered to fit the model, but because the model supplies reason and understanding to the text. To really understand what I mean by that, you need to follow Larry's arguments on the directions. The really are quite persuasive and explain certain textual features that would otherwise be quite difficult to reconcile (using the + directional model).

Still, if nothing else worked, it wouldn't be very interesting a all. That is why focusing an argument exclusively on geography (or any other topic) misses the essential nature of a usable explanatory model. There is much more that has to be explained with the same background. The geography simply creates the stage on which many, many other factors must play out.

Okay then we are agreed with my original point. Simply because the BOM can be mapped to somewhere based on internal geographic clues this alone is not strong evidence for historicity. This is the only argument I was addressing. I understand a large body of apologetic work has been done trying to place the BOM in Mesoamerica I have no intention of taking on this entire body of work. I was simply addressing one particular argument put forward that because the BOM can be mapped to the real world this is strong evidence the BOM is historical. (Well what about this other argument the apologist responds brings me back to my bible bashing days ).

Best,

Uncertain

[krose]

It's not just the direction shift that I see as a problem with Larry's map. I definitely do not agree that the slight narrowing there would likely be characterized as a "narrow neck" by people who live there. Especially for people who get around on foot, the width at the narrowest point, from sea to sea, is still pretty vast (~200 Km), approximately equal to the distance from Washington DC to Philadelphia (or Ogden to Pocatello for us westerners).

I just don't envision one of them deciding to call that a "narrow neck of land."

So was this comment judged to be too uninformed to be taken seriously?

[poulsenll]

duplicate

[poulsenll]

So was this comment judged to be too uninformed to be taken seriously?

Krose

Their are only two verses in the BofM that refer to the narrow neck. Neither of these say that it stretchs from sea to sea. Viewing the Tehuantepec region with Google Earth maps shows that the Pacific coast is seperated from the Atlantic coast by a pass bordered on the east and west by essentially unoassible mountain ranges. This pass is only 35 miles long. To me this looks like a relatively narrow neck.

Three additional verses refer to a narrow pass that seperates the land nortward from the land southward. Whether these are the same as the north-south passage through the isthmus or as sorenson suggests the east-west passage along the atlantic coast near the Cuatzocoalco river is immaterial because together they effectively seperate the land northward from the land southward. This being the point made in the followin verses.

1. Alma 52: 9

1. 9 And he also sent orders unto him that he should fortify the land aBountiful, and secure the bnarrow pass which led into the land cnorthward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side.

1. Morm. 2: 29

29 And the Lamanites did give unto us the land anorthward, yea, even to the bnarrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward.

2. Morm. 3: 5

5 And it came to pass that I did cause my people that they should gather themselves together at the land aDesolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land bsouthward.

3. Alma 63: 5

5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an aexceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land bBountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the cnarrow neck which led into the land northward.

4. Ether 10: 20

20 And they built a great city by the anarrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

3. Alma 63: 5

5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an aexceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land bBountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the cnarrow neck which led into the land northward.

4. Ether 10: 20

20 And they built a great city by the anarrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.

Yet more evidence that if we are really serious we have to actually go to the text ourselves rather than use someone else's perception of it. It is certainly possible to read the narrow neck as a feature in an area where the "sea divides the land" rather than as the isthmus itself. Do I see you reading "narrow neck" and "narrow pass" as coterminous and therefore separate from the "place where the sea divides the land?" The text does say that the narrow neck is by the place where the sea divides the land, not the same thing as it.

Interesting.