Limited Geography Theories

[Brant Gardner]

You know nothing about me or what I believe, nor do I expect that you would or should.

Nor have I suggested anything about your faith. You, on the other hand, have declared mine insufficient without knowing anything about me. I plead with you to be a little more generous. I know of no approved way to measure the quantity or quality of one's faith. That leaves room for both of us to be faithful.

It was originated by people who are troubled by a lack of on-the-ground evidence for the Book of Mormon.

On this I can profess knowledge. You are incorrect. I have had personal conversations with several of the people behind the limited geography approach, and I know my own story. Your depiction of their motives is simply not accurate. I don't know where it comes from, save perhaps some way to justify your belief in their lack of faith.

My personal experience, and that of anyone with whom I have spoken who writes on this topic, tells me that the motivations were always to understand the Book of Mormon better, and they began with the firm conviction that the book represented an authentic ancient history, and then let the text dictate its own evidence. Others might not agree with they way we have read the evidence, but asserting any other motive is not only wrong, but uncharitable.

What better way to counter that fear than to draw the ground so small that nobody can find it?

This statement doesn't represent any writer I know either. They are quite explicit about the where, and much more detailed than anyone purporting a hemispheric proposal. Again, you have an opinion, but that opinion is contradicted by easily discerned facts.

I agree with President Joseph F. Smith who said that such a theory demonstrates a lack of faith.

I do not. I disagree with President (then Apostle) Smith's ideas about evolution. I side rather with Talmage and Widstoe on that. In the case of modern Apostles, I side with those who took classes on the limited theory and approved publication in the Ensign after that. Surely you would allow me to have faith in modern Apostles?

I agree with President Cannon that the Book of Mormon is the message.

As do I. As does anyone writing on geography and history (including those with whom I disagree.

Trying to prove an LGT basis for the Book of Mormon is no different than publishing papers on the possible whereabouts of Noah's Ark.

This statement has no greater basis in fact than any of the others.

You are quite welcome to your opinion. Please know, however, that those opinions stand in face of facts, not because of them.

[Brant Gardner]

Since Tom Murphy's article in 2002, it has become popular to suggest that proponents of the Limited Geography Theory have done so in response to that devastating information. That may make for interesting post hoc justification, but it fundamentally misunderstands the history of the LGT, which had its origins at least with M. Wells Jakeman in the 50's and was well established by a circle of communicating scholars by the 70's (though there were then, and still persist, differences in the details of the model). The entire impetus came from reading and trying to understand the Book of Mormon. None of the initial work that I have seen, or heard discussed, spoke of anything in the motivation that came from trying to fix problems. It was the outgrowth of accepted internal interest in the Book of Mormon and the increasing application of more scholarly approaches to what had always before been a pre-critical approach to the text.

DNA came way later. However, blood types were known before and had the exact same basic information as Murphy's DNA. That article played on the new ideas about DNA as proof of everything, and managed to ignore the history of Book of Mormon examination. I was surprised at the time, and continue to be amazed, at how that article sparked so many people's assumption that there was something fundamentally different. The argument was old hat by decades by the time it found that particular incarnation.

If current Book of Mormon research is "reactive" to anything, it is to the unschooled and unsophisticated way that the Book or Mormon was treated before. I sat with a few BYU archaeologists as they discussed the film Ancient America Speaks, which was typical of the unsophisticated catch-all "proofs" of the Book of Mormon. They thought the film humorous, not serious.

The LGT is the direct result of an increasing education among the LDS, and particularly an increasing education in the relevant fields of history, archaeology, and anthropology. That is the reason behind the development of the theory. It had nothing to do with reacting against specific problems or because of a lack of faith. It has had the advantage, however, of being a much more successful paradigm in explaining the text, and that should count for something (as it has in other non-religious fields).

[MelvinCJohnson]

President Canon was waiting for more information, and that is always wise. In this case, however, we not only have more information, but that information serves a purpose much more important that proving the Book of Mormon. It helps us understand it. That is always a worthy goal.

I know that is your opinion, but you are stretching it with the implication that President Cannon would agree with you. Have you ever read much in President Cannon's preaching and teaching? I don't think he would agree with you that the "information serves a purpose much more important that [sic :than] proving the Book of Mormon." The teaching and preaching of Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and Taylor, I don't think, would support your conclusion, either.

[ERayR]

These "Mormon Mesoamericanists"are engaged in their work for various reasons, the biggest, I suppose, being to limit archaeological and genetic attacks along the BoM locations and peoples. Such discussion generates much heat but little light.

And I suppose you would be wrong. What evidence do you have that is the biggest reason they are engaged in their work?

[MelvinCJohnson]

And I suppose you would be wrong. What evidence do you have that is the biggest reason they are engaged in their work?

Because that seems to be the general arguments. President Cannon would suppose your supposition was only that, a supposition. See how that works, ErayR? I gave an opinion. You don't like it; ok, you don't like it. Not important.

[ERayR]

Because that seems to be the general arguments. President Cannon would suppose your supposition was only that, a supposition. See how that works, ErayR? I gave an opinion. You don't like it; ok, you don't like it. Not important.

See how that works, ErayR? MelvinCJohnson I gave an opinion. You don't like it; ok, you don't like it. Not important.

[Brant Gardner]

I know that is your opinion, but you are stretching it with the implication that President Cannon would agree with you. Have you ever read much in President Cannon's preaching and teaching? I don't think he would agree with you that the "information serves a purpose much more important that [sic :than] proving the Book of Mormon." The teaching and preaching of Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and Taylor, I don't think, would support your conclusion, either.

I viewed it more as agreeing with him. Playing the game of what someone in the past would think about things long in their future that they never had any preparation for is a strange game. I have a better idea of what modern Apostles might think (a report had independently from two different sources who were there).

[bookofmormontruth]

I personally like all the models. Some more than others (like MesoAmerica with only 1% of the 3000+ Mayan sites have been uncovered is absolutely mind boggling!).

Evidence is evidence no matter where it is found.

But I just want to publicly disagree (even though I don't) with Brant Gardner to see if I will end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom for doing so.

[MelvinCJohnson]

I viewed it more as agreeing with him. Playing the game of what someone in the past would think about things long in their future that they never had any preparation for is a strange game. I have a better idea of what modern Apostles might think (a report had independently from two different sources who were there).

That well may be. And I agree that the perniciousness of 'presentism' as well as 'age-ism' should be guarded against. That leads, of course, to the question of "authority", where I presented an one's opinion from 121 years ago in his own words, and you have presented a "report" "of what modern Apostles might think." I think you are suggesting that we submit to your authority to verify for their authority against my authority. Once again, Brant, I am having fun with words and situations.

In fact, we both know that many on various forums do oppose the LGT on the grounds that it is supposedly a 'homer' defense against archaeological and genetic attacks. I do not know enough about either disciplines to offer an opinion as to the merit of such opposition. President Cannon certainly had his opinion about the merits of defining BoM geography, and he suggested strongly that such an approach was not worthy.

[Pahoran]

In fact, we both know that many on various forums do oppose the LGT on the grounds that it is supposedly a 'homer' defense against archaeological and genetic attacks.

An accusation that is demonstrably false, and merely showcases the ignorance of those making it.

I do not know enough about either disciplines to offer an opinion as to the merit of such opposition. President Cannon certainly had his opinion about the merits of defining BoM geography, and he suggested strongly that such an approach was not worthy.

The quote you posted -- good quote, BTW -- actually tells me something different. It tells me that the Church does not have a position on questions of geography, because nothing has been revealed on that subject. As such, it would be improper for the First Presidency to produce any map or other authoritative geographical schema for people to follow.

I do not see him closing the door on further inquiry, though. And I suspect that any attempt to use his statement to that effect might resemble the standard anti-Mormon tactic of trying to pretend that LDS scholars are "contradicting the leaders."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Monster]

I disagree. Lack of evidence for a "lost tribe" does not preclude their existance.

JMS

That is an apologist argument. Stating that lack of evidence does not preclude something from existing may be true but it by no means can be used as an argument that it does. It is arguing for a valid conclusion with nothing to support it.

[Calm]

That is an apologist argument. Stating that lack of evidence does not preclude something from existing may be true but it by no means can be used as an argument that it does. It is arguing for a valid conclusion with nothing to support it.

I dont' see most apologists using it as an argument for whatever existing, but rather an argument that the discussion about whatever shouldn't be closed yet. Do you see this as an invalid conclusion?

[Rivers]

So the big points in favor of traditional one Hill/North American views (Hemispheric Model) is the Jeredites, the position that anyone against the Nephites were considered Lamanites, and finally the heavy adoption theme.

What are the current driving forces for this need for FAIR and other groups to limit the geography of the BoM?

JMS

Current understanding of the ancient americas and a closer reading of the text that shows it all took place in a small area.

[Brant Gardner]

That is an apologist argument. Stating that lack of evidence does not preclude something from existing may be true but it by no means can be used as an argument that it does. It is arguing for a valid conclusion with nothing to support it.

You seem to misunderstand how that argument is used. It cannot be used for a positive connection, because as you note, none exists. However, in all archaeology it is a caution against a negative conclusion based on absence of evidence. There is a good reason for that. Subsequent finds make everyone retreat from positions held on the basis of absence--witness the aftermath of the finds at San Bartolo, which were contrary to expectations built on previous absence of information.

Because an absence of evidence simply means that there is no evidence, no positive case can be built around it. However, if a positive case can be built on other complex items, then the absence of evidence should not, by itself, disqualify the stronger case built on other evidence.

[rameumptom]

For me, there were many things within the text of the Book of Mormon that did not fit with a Hemispheric Model. Here are a couple of examples:

1. How could Nephi, with a hundred adults at best, build a temple like Solomon's within 20 years of arriving in the New World? King Solomon's temple required thousands of workers and several years to accomplish the same thing.

2. If it is Hemispheric, why are distances so close together? Why does it only take a couple weeks to walk from the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla? It should be months of walking, if we were talking about a Hemispheric model.

3. There is no evidence of a giant battle around the New York Hill Cumorah. Any battle with hundreds of thousands of people involved would show up today in archaeology. As it is, the populations of Native Americans in the area when the first Europeans showed up and before, did not add up to anything near hundreds of thousands of people. The peoples that dwelt here in the Nephite times and afterward were lucky to have any villages of a few thousand.

Doing a critical study of the text enhances my faith, not diminishes it. I'm not afraid of what I'll find in regards of science and the Book of Mormon. Instead, I have found and expect to continue finding more clarity.

[Sevenbak]

For me, there were many things within the text of the Book of Mormon that did not fit with a Hemispheric Model. Here are a couple of examples:

1. How could Nephi, with a hundred adults at best, build a temple like Solomon's within 20 years of arriving in the New World? King Solomon's temple required thousands of workers and several years to accomplish the same thing.

2. If it is Hemispheric, why are distances so close together? Why does it only take a couple weeks to walk from the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla? It should be months of walking, if we were talking about a Hemispheric model.

3. There is no evidence of a giant battle around the New York Hill Cumorah. Any battle with hundreds of thousands of people involved would show up today in archaeology. As it is, the populations of Native Americans in the area when the first Europeans showed up and before, did not add up to anything near hundreds of thousands of people. The peoples that dwelt here in the Nephite times and afterward were lucky to have any villages of a few thousand.

Doing a critical study of the text enhances my faith, not diminishes it. I'm not afraid of what I'll find in regards of science and the Book of Mormon. Instead, I have found and expect to continue finding more clarity.

I've got a problem with some of these approaches.

First... Is it safe to say that President Hinckley built the smaller temples "after the manner of" the others? Besides maybe Provo and Ogden, are there any temples that are pretty much the same design anyway?

Nephi says specifically that it wasn't built with the same kind of ornate materials, as they were "not had upon the land". Nephi never states that his temple was a duplicate of Solomon's.

Second... the text doesn't say it should take months of walking to get from Zarahemla to the land of Nephi. The Land Northward being an "exceedingly great distance", yes, but that's a different animal.

Thirdly, there is ample evidence of ancient mass warfare in Western New York. It has been stated by non-LDS scholars that no other area in the country has seen as much ancient warfare as New York has. See some of the following works:

Memoir on the Antiquities of the Western Parts of the State of New York by Governor De Witt Clinton in 1820

History of the State of New York by John V. N. Yates and Joseph W. Moulton in 1824

The Natural, Statistical and Civil History of the State of New York in Three Volumes by James Macauley in 1829

American Antiquities by Josiah Priest in 1833

A Geographical History of the State of New York: Embracing its History, Government, Physical Features, Climate, Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, Zoology, Education, Internal Improvements, &c. With a Separate Map of Each County. The Whole Forming a Complete History of the State. by J. H. Mather and L. P. Brockett, M. D. in 1848

Documentary History of New York by Christopher Morgan in 1849

Aboriginal monuments of the state of New-York : comprising the results of original surveys and explorations; with an illustrative appendix by E. G. Squier in 1849

Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York by O. Turner in 1850

League of the Iroquois by Lewis Henry Morgan in 1851

Antiquities of the state of New York : being the results of extensive original surveys and explorations, with a supplement on the antiquities of the west by E. G. Squier in 1851, previously published as Aboriginal monuments of the state of New-York : comprising the results of original surveys and explorations; with an illustrative appendix in 1849.

Ancient Man in America Including Works in Western New York and Portions of Other States, by Frederick Larkin, M.D. in 1880

Aboriginal Occupation of New York by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1900

Metallic Implements of the New York Indians by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1902

Metallic Ornaments of the New York Indians by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1903

Archeological History of New York vol. 1-2 by Arthur Caswell Parker in 1920

History of New York State, 1523-1927, vol. 1-6 by Dr. James Sullivan in 1927

Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York by William A. Ritchie in 1944

The Archaeology of New York State by William A. Ritchie in 1965

Ephraim George Squier and the Development of American Anthropology by Terry A. Barnhart in 2005

As a proponent of the historical Hemispheric model, I believe the Nephites would not have remained isolated for a thousand years to limit themselves to such a small radius, cramped within 3-400 miles.

Cheers

[Brant Gardner]

As a proponent of the historical Hemispheric model, I believe the Nephites would not have remained isolated for a thousand years to limit themselves to such a small radius, cramped within 3-400 miles.

And yet almost all known ancient populations did. Not all, of course, but most. That doesn't meant that there were not some who traveled far for trading, but it was very rare for any culture to shift from a sedentary agricultural base to a nomadic lifestyle. For example, the Maya traded widely, but their discernible culture never exceeded the boundaries you call "cramped."

[Anijen]

Thirdly, there is ample evidence of ancient mass warfare in Western New York. It has been stated by non-LDS scholars that no other area in the country has seen as much ancient warfare as New York has. See some of the following works:

Memoir on the Antiquities of the Western Parts of the State of New York by Governor De Witt Clinton in 1820

History of the State of New York by John V. N. Yates and Joseph W. Moulton in 1824

The Natural, Statistical and Civil History of the State of New York in Three Volumes by James Macauley in 1829

American Antiquities by Josiah Priest in 1833

A Geographical History of the State of New York: Embracing its History, Government, Physical Features, Climate, Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, Zoology, Education, Internal Improvements, &c. With a Separate Map of Each County. The Whole Forming a Complete History of the State. by J. H. Mather and L. P. Brockett, M. D. in 1848

Documentary History of New York by Christopher Morgan in 1849

Aboriginal monuments of the state of New-York : comprising the results of original surveys and explorations; with an illustrative appendix by E. G. Squier in 1849

Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York by O. Turner in 1850

League of the Iroquois by Lewis Henry Morgan in 1851

Antiquities of the state of New York : being the results of extensive original surveys and explorations, with a supplement on the antiquities of the west by E. G. Squier in 1851, previously published as Aboriginal monuments of the state of New-York : comprising the results of original surveys and explorations; with an illustrative appendix in 1849.

Ancient Man in America Including Works in Western New York and Portions of Other States, by Frederick Larkin, M.D. in 1880

Aboriginal Occupation of New York by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1900

Metallic Implements of the New York Indians by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1902

Metallic Ornaments of the New York Indians by Rev. Dr. William M. Beauchamp in 1903

Archeological History of New York vol. 1-2 by Arthur Caswell Parker in 1920

History of New York State, 1523-1927, vol. 1-6 by Dr. James Sullivan in 1927

Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York by William A. Ritchie in 1944

The Archaeology of New York State by William A. Ritchie in 1965

Ephraim George Squier and the Development of American Anthropology by Terry A. Barnhart in 2005

So if I check your sources here, each one is going to state that no other area in the country has seen as much ancient warfare as New York? Why don't you give us page numbers even better a quote from each which verifies what you are claiming.

[Sevenbak]

Hi Brant. The problem I have with assuming the culture was so limited in scope is that there were different groups. The Mulekites, which I believe were the mayans, absorbed the small group of nephites, but certainly wouldn't have changed there entire culture to match. There were always groups breaking out to do their own thing too.

This reminds me of something I saw a couple weeks ago in Banding Utah. At the edge of the cedars museum, they have an artifact, a sash like clothing item, made from macaw feathers from Mexico, and squrill hide from Utah specific animals. It dates to after the nephites, by about 500 years, but still shows interaction. The jaguar gorget in ohio... Same thing

[Sevenbak]

So if I check your sources here, each one is going to state that no other area in the country has seen as much ancient warfare as New York? Why don't you give us page numbers even better a quote from each which verifies what you are claiming.

Of course not every one will say that,

but I'm sure you're familiar withsome of these that do. Its a pretty comprehensive list for those interested.

Let me just add that responding on a mobile device is not fun...fat fingers

[Anijen]

After further research on Sevanbak's sources I am very disappointed in his post and how he portrays his view (post #41).

Sevenbak's list is nothing but a copy and paste see here

Here are a few quotes from that site;

Book of Mormon geography is to serve one purpose: Identify land promisesand hold her inhabitants accountable to them (Ether 2:11), which involves defending those land promises from those who dabble (geography hobbyists: Ash, Brandley, Covino, Kiester, etc.), obscure (Ericson, May, Meldrum, etc.) and ignore (DowDell, Hauck, Olsen, Rosenvall, Sorenson, Stoddard, etc.).

Source here

This is also from that same site;

Us: Book of Mormon => Handbook for America

Them: Book of Mormon => Handbook for Mexico or Canada

The spirit of Anti-Christ denies the resurrection and denies America is the New Jerusalem.

The site Sevenbak copied and pasted from describes John Clark who is a very well respected archaeologist as nothing more than a fringe theorist.

I expected more than a just a copy and paste reply. It will be hard for me to take Sevenbak's sources as credible next time.

When I do my research I actually purchase the books and quote directly from them not from a site that has the agenda to belittle any Mesoamerican theory.

[Anijen]

Of course not every one will say that,

but I'm sure you're familiar withsome of these that do. Its a pretty comprehensive list for those interested.

Let me just add that responding on a mobile device is not fun...fat fingers

I have to keep my reply short. I have read many of these (not all) and I do not read them the same way, for example some of these do not even mention warfare at all! A comprehensive list from an ardent anti-mesoamerican site, who's authors labels me as having the spirit of an antichrist and apostate just for subscribing to a LGT.

Thirdly, there is ample evidence of ancient mass warfare in Western New York. It has been stated by non-LDS scholars that no other area in the country has seen as much ancient warfare as New York has. See some of the following works:

I would next time check the source before you actually use it, just saying...

Not Impressed

Anijen

[ELF1024]

Of course not every one will say that,

but I'm sure you're familiar withsome of these that do. Its a pretty comprehensive list for those interested.

Let me just add that responding on a mobile device is not fun...fat fingers

I am by no means an expert on much of anything. I have looked over some of the Meso-American research, and have found it to be plausible from my ignorant prospective. I have yet to find anything remotely plausible from group that claims the NY is the center of the Book of Mormon geography. So, based on the facts I have reviewed, I fall into the LGT group.

If that makes me an apostate because I tend to look to the research done on the subject; then so be it.

(I also don't find Global Warming/Climate Change to be convincing, so your mileage may vary)

[Sevenbak]

After further research on Sevanbak's sources I am very disappointed in his post and how he portrays his view (post #41).

Sevenbak's list is nothing but a copy and paste see here

Here are a few quotes from that site;

Source here

This is also from that same site;

The site Sevenbak copied and pasted from describes John Clark who is a very well respected archaeologist as nothing more than a fringe theorist.

I expected more than a just a copy and paste reply. It will be hard for me to take Sevenbak's sources as credible next time.

When I do my research I actually purchase the books and quote directly from them not from a site that has the agenda to belittle any Mesoamerican theory.

Anijen, I quoted a referenced list from known sources from outside the lds community. I have no use for meldrum or his cabal... but he does provide a good resource on new york archaeology.

be careful how you lump me in with the limited great lakes theory people. I know we be differred in the past... let's try to keep it on the up and up can call apples apples.. deal?

I'll give you specific references when I'm back at a computer. I really thought you would recognize some of these books we talked about them before

[Anijen]

Anijen, I quoted a referenced list from known sources from outside the lds community. I have no use for meldrum or his cabal... but he does provide a good resource on new york archaeology.

be careful how you lump me in with the limited great lakes theory people. I know we be differred in the past... let's try to keep it on the up and up can call apples apples.. deal?

I'll give you specific references when I'm back at a computer. I really thought you would recognize some of these books we talked about them before

I recognize almost all of these books. This is a field I am seriously studying. I know we have differed in the past, but seriously if you quote a scholar saying "that no other area in the country has seen as much ancient warfare as New York has" and then give me a list of books copied from a biased site as verification, I find that entirely unspectacular and lacking in any academic credibility. You know (I assume you know) that when one quotes sources, regardless if it is in MLA or Chicago style part of correctly doing so is you include a page number.

... meldrum ... he does provide a good resource on new york archaeology

What? Are you serious? Meldrum is known for providing only what he wants to show, even to the point of twisting the experts words. He has deceptively used it least seven well respected archaeologist works to the point of them actually writing a rebuking and one threatened to sue him outright if he did not remove any mention of his name.

You don't want to be lumped with Meldrums group and I know you believe in a hemispheric model but you use his site to back up your views and then say don't lump you in with his group. Then why would you expect us to take your source seriously if you do not? Why don't you use articles written by those who subscribe to a hemispheric model or better yet do some independent research (that is what I find the best). Honestly and though it is hard to hear, cutting and pasting sources without researching those sources is a lazy way to go. I mean a simple "control F key" search for the word war or warfare in some of these internet sites will give a better result than blindly listing a page of books that supposedly supports your theory.

Now Sevenbak I think you are a good guy and I certainly know that you do not side with Meldrum and I also know you have a strong testimony. I do not wish to place any wedges between us. However I know you are capable of a much better and frankly stronger argument for a hemispheric model than hastily using a site from Meldrum. And those books are fine to use to but when you do use them as a source please look up the reference with a page number. I do check sources. I order books and Use the internet libraries all wonderful ways to research than cutting and pasting.

Sorry I have had a hard day with bad news and I think you got caught in the transference,

Anijen