Mormon's Map

[Cold Steel]

I got this from the Nephi Project. Comments?

Metals in Mesoamerica:

A Misleading Book of Mormon Defense

By George Potter

During the ten years I have written monthly newsletters for the Nephi Project, I have refrained from criticizing other Book of Mormon researchers. Unfortunately, I find it necessary to make an exception. While I believe the author

[Questing Beast]

"Back in the day" (of my greatest interest in "mapping" the BofM), I read Sorenson's book and "The Book of the Map", but the author's name is lost to me, as is the book (loaned out and never recovered). I was intrigued with the S. American setting proposed by the latter. But various details proved untenable, as always.

Sorenson's book (my daughter had it last, alas I do not have access) was the most detailed, lengthy and convincing, imho. Yet even here we have impossible stretches of credulity in order to make it work; especially the "narrow neck of land" which is missing altogether and must be contrived using modern geologic phenomena. In the end, I gave up on the whole subject, even long before I gave up on the BofM possibly being a literal history of Ancient American peoples....

[Cold Steel]

Joseph Smith didn't leave a lot of clues, but he did say Palenque was a Book of Mormon city, and he almost certainly knew the meaning of the word "continent" when he referred to the Book of Mormon being a history of the people living on this continent. One can believe that Moroni went north and trekked across the North American land mass, but to come up South America, traverse the land of Mesoamerica and then the North American land mass -- that's a bit of a hike!

One knows that the people of Mesoamerica were living in great numbers at the time of the last great war, and we know that the military history in Mesoamerica was very similar to that of the Nephites and Lamanites.

I like the Nephi Project, but I think they're batting a little off on this. I have a great admiration for Sorenson and others who advocate the Mesoamerican theories, and I think the Great Plains advocates are way off, primarily because of no mention of snow and ice. Snow and ice take a lot of casualties in war, and the Book of Mormon is a history of war. Yet there's no crossing of frozen winters and no blizzards, etc. Living in the great North East, I can't see why people live here NOW, much less back then. And the Book of Mormon geography just doesn't fit the Great Plains.

[Anijen]

Sorenson's book (my daughter had it last, alas I do not have access) was the most detailed, lengthy and convincing, imho. Yet even here we have impossible stretches of credulity in order to make it work; especially the "narrow neck of land" which is missing altogether and must be contrived using modern geologic phenomena. In the end, I gave up on the whole subject, even long before I gave up on the BofM possibly being a literal history of Ancient American peoples....

Sorenson's book was published in 1985 and many advancements have been made since those 25 years. However I would like to point out that in the 355 + pages that the narrow neck of land is only talked about seven times (Pgs. 16-17, 29, 32-36, 40-41, 46, 243,338) No where in those seven instances were there "impossible stretches of credulity." For example the first time he mentions the narrow neck is describing it had to be wide enough to pass through without realizing it was a isthmus (they supposed they were still in the land southward) yet it had to be narrow enough that it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite to travel. He quotes the relevant verses from the Book of Mormon which backs up his theory. To say Sorenson stretched the limits of credulity is over critical. Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon is considered a major breakthrough of BofM geography books and is so because there are no fancy guess work or pure imagination he backs it up with verses from the BofM that support his theory and with sound archeological research.

Since Sorenson much research has been done and more and more is being made available. Brant Gardner, Mark Wright and Lawrence Paulson all have contributed greatly IMO.

[Questing Beast]

Sorenson's book was published in 1985 and many advancements have been made since those 25 years. However I would like to point out that in the 355 + pages that the narrow neck of land is only talked about seven times (Pgs. 16-17, 29, 32-36, 40-41, 46, 243,338) No where in those seven instances were there "impossible stretches of credulity." For example the first time he mentions the narrow neck is describing it had to be wide enough to pass through without realizing it was a isthmus (they supposed they were still in the land southward) yet it had to be narrow enough that it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite to travel. He quotes the relevant verses from the Book of Mormon which backs up his theory. To say Sorenson stretched the limits of credulity is over critical. Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon is considered a major breakthrough of BofM geography books and is so because there are no fancy guess work or pure imagination he backs it up with verses from the BofM that support his theory and with sound archeological research.

Since Sorenson much research has been done and more and more is being made available. Brant Gardner, Mark Wright and Lawrence Paulson all have contributed greatly IMO.

What "many advancements" have been made since 1985? All I have come across are more questions and a continuing lack of evidence for virtually all of the asserted presence of things in the BofM from horses and crops and domestic herds to ore tailings, etc.

I enjoyed the book hugely at the time, for the sound reasons you state here. But, the "narrow neck of land" explanation was a stretch, imho. I seem to recall a specific observation of modern weather phenomena, which turns a lowlands on either side of a highland ridge through the flood plains into a very narrow "neck of land" indeed; and iirc Sorenson hypothesized that such a geographical feature (if not that actual one) could account for the use of the descriptive term in the BofM. I was unconvinced, that much I DO remember.

To me the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is too big by more than a stretch; it does not "divide the land" into the "land northward and the land southward"; it faces 90 degrees the wrong way (a "north sea" and "south sea" flank it, not an "east sea" and "west sea" as required - you cannot launch a ship into the "west sea" from Tehuantepec). And besides all that I just can't rectify Joseph Smith's statements (few though they be) with a "limited geography" theory, when all is said and done. To assume that his geographical views were merely HIS opinion is apologetics strained to the breaking point, imho, of course.

The only thing that could flabbergast me at this point would be an actual uncovering of named sites somewhere in America that positively prove the existence of BofM places as we have for archeological discoveries in the ME....

[Kevin Christensen]

But, the "narrow neck of land" explanation was a stretch, imho. I seem to recall a specific observation of modern weather phenomena, which turns a lowlands on either side of a highland ridge through the flood plains into a very narrow "neck of land" indeed; and iirc Sorenson hypothesized that such a geographical feature (if not that actual one) could account for the use of the descriptive term in the BofM. I was unconvinced, that much I DO remember.

In your recollection here, you appear to be conflating Sorenson's discussion of his candidate for the Narrow pass with his discussion of the narrow neck. He sees the pass as a feature within the neck.

Subsequent discussion of the Narrow neck have looked closer at the textual requirements that point out that the passages describing the distance across the narrow neck don't specify coast to coast descriptions. Larry Poulson has offered an interesting way to reconcile the directions, and offered an argument that the Grijalva is the only river in the Western Hemisphere that matches the textual requirements for the Sidon. Brant has published his six volume commentary. Mark Wright has given some interesting talks and posts. I was very impressed with his observations about the relevance of the San Bartelo murals, for instance, which are contemporary with King Benjamin. Sorenson published "A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East" by John L. Sorenson in 2009 in Sino-Platonic papers, which is interesting to compare with his earlier approaches in Man Across the Sea, and the Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Codex." The list of shared features is greatly expanded from the earlier essays, and the extensive evidence of biological transmissions has undercut the easy "parallel invention" argument for the cultural features. John Clark has been documenting that the trend has been toward resolution of Book of Mormon questions.

I've seen all sorts of exciting developments for the Old and New World contexts for the Book of Mormon study in the four decades since I first plowed through the book in 9th Grade seminary, as well as all sorts of fascinating insights into the story of its production.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ERayR]

"Back in the day" (of my greatest interest in "mapping" the BofM), I read Sorenson's book and "The Book of the Map", but the author's name is lost to me, as is the book (loaned out and never recovered). I was intrigued with the S. American setting proposed by the latter. But various details proved untenable, as always.

Sorenson's book (my daughter had it last, alas I do not have access) was the most detailed, lengthy and convincing, imho. Yet even here we have impossible stretches of credulity in order to make it work; especially the "narrow neck of land" which is missing altogether and must be contrived using modern geologic phenomena. In the end, I gave up on the whole subject, even long before I gave up on the BofM possibly being a literal history of Ancient American peoples....

The problem is that those who have problems, want the history of ancient american people to be one cohesive whole and it isn't. The Book of Mormon is but one history of one ancient american people. We are left trying to figure out which neighborhood it fits in.