Brigham Young And Limited Geography Theory

[Freedom]

Oh, the many times I've been told that I've missed somebody's point.

The fact that the Hill Cumorah is the same today and yesterday is official; the rest of the geography is not.

It is?

[blackstrap]

I think it would be a good use of the Brethern's time to go through all the quotes ever made on the record and put a stamp on each as to whether the statement was doctrine,personal opinion,or false.

[ANACO]

One myth regarding LGT is that the Nephites only lived in mesoamerica. That simply is not true.

The LGT proposes that the text of the BOM is geographically based in mesoamerica, but it does not preclude Nephites/Lamanites living also in North and South America.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

It doesn't clarify anything. It contradicts. The LGT places the entire "Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite activities" in an area "five hundred miles long and over two hundred miles wide".

Summary on distances

In Mormon’s mind, the scene of the Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite activities was of limited size. Main lands, minor lands, mountain ranges, plains, valleys, rivers, and oceans are all referred to in a manner that indicates that Mormon not only knew about those geographical elements from the records of his ancestors, but he knew much of the scene personally and intimately. The dimensions are small, although hardly tiny. The promised land in which the Nephites’ history played out was on the order of five hundred miles long and over two hundred miles wide, according to Mormon’s mental map. That is still considerably larger than the stage on which most Old Testament events took place.

http://maxwellinstit...101&chapid=1139

emphasis added

Yep, even the Jaredites, who existed for thousands of years.

Absolutely unbelievable. This while it took 8 years for Lehi's and Ishmael's families to traverse the Arabian peninsula.

And NAMI considered 8 years to be too long!

The extended family of Lehi and Sariah required eight years to travel from Jerusalem to the seacoast of southeastern Arabia (1 Nephi 17:4). This span of time suggests that the party spent a considerable period in at least one location. As travelers, they took far more time than caravans did in that era. To illustrate, a loaded caravan of several hundred camels could travel from the coast of the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea—approximately the assumed route traveled by Lehi and his family, though in reverse—in a matter of weeks, not years. http://maxwellinstit...=6&num=2&id=151

emphasis added

So while the text of the Book of Mormon mentions it took 8 years to travel from Jerusalem to Bountiful, the rest of the history of the Book occurred strictly within a 500 x 200 mile area. This sounds like restricting Lehi's descendants to a reservation - a reservation filled with the Maya who were already there. :/

Unbelievable. That is the LGT.

Kind regards

Edited August 1, 2012 by ANACO

[Scott Lloyd]

It is?

No, it's not.

[Bob Crockett]

It is?

The church says it is.

[William Schryver]

One myth regarding LGT is that the Nephites only lived in mesoamerica. That simply is not true.

The LGT proposes that the text of the BOM is geographically based in mesoamerica, but it does not preclude Nephites/Lamanites living also in North and South America.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

I agree with this. To me, when the text reads "an exceeding great distance," that's what it means. I believe, when the "books are opened," we will discover that the Nephites were quite capable of doing things, for example, like establishing colonies along the Mississippi/Ohio rivers, while yet maintaining communications with Zarahemla, which was almost certainly in Central America.

[Analytics]

I don't follow you.

A hemispheric model would include North and South America (i.e. the western hemisphere). The Brigham Young quote clearly seems to me to exclude North America.

Is there something I'm not seeing?

The key element of the hemispheric model is that the "narrow neck of land" refers to Isthmus of Panama. Almost all of the action in the Book of Mormon takes place south of the "narrow neck of land." So according to the hemispheric model, the "land where the Nephites flourished" (e.g. Zarahemla, Bountiful, Land of Nephi, etc.) were all in South America.

[guerreiro9]

I don't follow you.

A hemispheric model would include North and South America (i.e. the western hemisphere). The Brigham Young quote clearly seems to me to exclude North America.

Is there something I'm not seeing?

I should have been more explicit in my response, I apologize. I do not believe the Brigham Young quote excludes the possibility that the homeland of the Nephites (Zarahemla, Bountiful, etc...) were in South America. As many people have commented, this is the form of the "hemispheric model" I am most familiar with (Land Northward = North America, Land Southward = South America).

I also think the Brigham Young quote could just as easily be indicating a belief that the "land where the Nephites flourished" was in Central America. It's too bad that Brigham Young didn't realize that 136 years later we would be having a discussion in an obscure internet forum about his obscure letter or he probably would have been more explicit .

This also brings up an annoyance of mine, that I fell victim to, but will try to avoid in the future. The use of labels to describe anything tends to induce more confusion than it avoids. If I had simply stated that "the Brigham Young quote does not exclude the possibility that the homeland of the Nephites was in South America" I believe the confusion would have been avoided. Instead I chose to state "Brigham Young's statement does not necessarily contradict the hemispheric model" which requires that both you and I have the identical understanding of the "hemispheric model" to avoid confusion.

This is the same problem that occurs with whether or not "Mormons" can be labeled as christians, which has been the topic of much discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I should have been more explicit in my response, I apologize. I do not believe the Brigham Young quote excludes the possibility that the homeland of the Nephites (Zarahemla, Bountiful, etc...) were in South America. As many people have commented, this is the form of the "hemispheric model" I am most familiar with (Land Northward = North America, Land Southward = South America).

I also think the Brigham Young quote could just as easily be indicating a belief that the "land where the Nephites flourished" was in Central America. It's too bad that Brigham Young didn't realize that 136 years later we would be having a discussion in an obscure internet forum about his obscure letter or he probably would have been more explicit .

This also brings up an annoyance of mine, that I fell victim to, but will try to avoid in the future. The use of labels to describe anything tends to induce more confusion than it avoids. If I had simply stated that "the Brigham Young quote does not exclude the possibility that the homeland of the Nephites was in South America" I believe the confusion would have been avoided. Instead I chose to state "Brigham Young's statement does not necessarily contradict the hemispheric model" which requires that both you and I have the identical understanding of the "hemispheric model" to avoid confusion.

This is the same problem that occurs with whether or not "Mormons" can be labeled as christians, which has been the topic of much discussion.

OK, thanks.

I'm not trying to read too much into the Brigham Young quote. It just struck me as interesting when I ran across it yesterday that he seemed to have in mind the Nephite homeland being somewhere south of Mexico, especially considering all the hoopla there has been in recent years about a "heartland model" and such. I still insist that the Church — historically or currently — has never settled on one specific geographic model for the Book of Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

The church says it is.

Church Correlation — which is charged with safeguarding the purity of the doctrine of the Church — has told me otherwise.

No offense, Bob, but between believing Correlation and believing you, I pick Correlation.

[Bob Crockett]

Church Correlation — which is charged with safeguarding the purity of the doctrine of the Church — has told me otherwise.

No offense, Bob, but between believing Correlation and believing you, I pick Correlation.

And a member of the First Presidency has told me otherwise, a relative.

No offense, but secret discussions don't fly. And I have never asked you to believe me (and certainly not on my private communication). I've asked you to believe public statements of the First Presidency.

The difference between you and me on this topic is that I, an outsider to secret knowledge, am forced to rely upon official statements. You aren't, so you have a different perspective.

It is comparable to my old battles on the other board which I no longer pursue. I often had to defend Mormonism against atheists,a difficult task. They didn't believe the statements of the prophets and apostles so it was difficult to cite them as a source. Same here. Really, it is the very same thing. I'm not saying you're an atheist or an unbeliever, but if I can't cite the statements of the First Presidency as proof, I'm stuck.

I think the location of Cumorah is a matter of revealed fact -- latter-day revealed fact. You think it is a matter of Book of Mormon textual exegesis in combination with anthropological evidence, which I reject. So, all the citations to revealed fact won't make any difference to you, at least the ones I've mustered.

And, that really frames the issue. I claim to be a believer and those who don't believe that way to be disturbed in the faith (to use JFS' language). You claim that anthropological evidence in NY doesn't support this view and there must be a reasoned explanation consistent with BoM text found elsewhere, which I reject.

I know you think I am personally attacking you by saying that those who do not see it my way are "disturbed," but I'm not. I'm just citing JSF's language. I try to use the language of the Brethren rather than my own.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Craig Paxton]

Yeah Brigham Young made alot of interesting comments and speculated on a lot of things that members took literally...

With respect to the Manti Temple Brigham Young announced the temple site 25 June 1875 and dedicated the site on 25 April 1877. Earlier that same morning, he had taken Warren S. Snow with him to the southeast corner of the temple site and told him, “Here is the spot where the Prophet Moroni stood and dedicated this piece of land for a Temple site, and that is the reason why the location is made here, and we can’t move it from this spot.”

http://www.lds.org/e...he-manti-temple

So I guess that he specualted on a lot of things that he too took literally...if one thing he speculated about can be taken literally why not others...yet if something is then taken literally and found not to be true...why then take anything he said literally.

So called prophetic prounouncements that need to be filtered and tested through the passage of time really have no value at all. Particularly to the generation that took the prouncement literally and were acting on things they thought were true...but were just the mere speculations of a man speaking as a man.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[USU78]

I don't get how a LGT requires that Moroni dedicate temple sites for later construction only within Nephite polity.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't get how a LGT requires that Moroni dedicate temple sites for later construction only within Nephite polity.

And thus I don't see why LGT proponents keep quoting from Central American temple dedication prayers which refer to Lehi and his descendants in the local environs when Cardston and other temples contains the same material.

[USU78]

And thus I don't see why LGT proponents keep quoting from Central American temple dedication prayers which refer to Lehi and his descendants in the local environs when Cardston and other temples contains the same material.

I likewise don't get how Canada must be the land northward in order to avoid a XIXth Century Cumorah problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

And a member of the First Presidency has told me otherwise, a relative.

No offense, but secret discussions don't fly. And I have never asked you to believe me (and certainly not on my private communication). I've asked you to believe public statements of the First Presidency.

The difference between you and me on this topic is that I, an outsider to secret knowledge, am forced to rely upon official statements. You aren't, so you have a different perspective.

I don't know what else to tell you at this point, Bob, except that it is in my interest to be certain what does and does not constitute Church doctrine and position lest I put something in print in an official Church organ that just ain't so — like the notion that the precise location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah is a matter of revealed fact.

[ERayR]

Oh, the many times I've been told that I've missed somebody's point.

The fact that the Hill Cumorah is the same today and yesterday is official; the rest of the geography is not.

That takes care of today and yesterday. What about 300 years ago today?

[cdowis]

It doesn't clarify anything. It contradicts. The LGT places the entire "Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite activities" in an area "five hundred miles long and over two hundred miles wide".

You "forgot" to include this in your quote:

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

emphasis added

Do you understand what that means? It means exactly what it says, that this is an opinon piece not representing anybody's opionion except their own. Just pretend that it is a post here on this forum.

Using red colour as emphasis changes nothing.

Here are the facts -- Nephites moved into the north country, there were many many many records, but none of those records are found in the text of the BOM.

The Lamanites lived somewhere south of the Nephites. Can you tell us how far they lived? Nope, because there NO (emphasis added) records kept by the Lamanites. So, the BOM text only includes those who lives below the line of the north country, and above the southern area of the Lamanites.

This article cites ONLY geographic features found in the BOM text. Nothing from the Lamanites' perspective, nothing from the records of the northern land. So, his conclusions are based, not on the entire Nephite and Lamanite nations but only those who are discussed in the BOM text.

So simple, but somehow you missed that obvious point.

Perhaps someday I will write something in the BOM Journal and that will make my statements "officiall" and then you can quote me with red lettering in your posts.

Edited August 1, 2012 by cdowis

[ERayR]

It doesn't clarify anything. It contradicts. The LGT places the entire "Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite activities" in an area "five hundred miles long and over two hundred miles wide".

emphasis added

Straw man construct. the LGT does not place the entire "Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite activities" in an area "five hundred miles long and over two hundred miles wide". What it does is place the recorded "Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite activities", the Book of Mormon activities in an area "five hundred miles long and over two hundred miles wide". From what is recorded we know that a lot of "Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite activities" were carried on outside of the sphere of Book of Mormon activities.

[Nevo]

You "forgot" to include this in your quote:

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

emphasis added

Do you understand what that means? It means exactly what it says, that this is an opinon piece not representing anybody's opionion except their own. Just pretend that it is a post here on this forum.

If John Sorenson isn't a reliable exponent of the Limited Geography Theory, then I'm not sure who is. Why do you think his opinion is unrepresentative of Limited Geography theorists?

[Bob Crockett]

That takes care of today and yesterday. What about 300 years ago today?

If a joke, hah hah, very funny.

If a disingenuous post, shouldn't do that. That is little different than baiting.

[ERayR]

If a joke, hah hah, very funny.

If a disingenuous post, shouldn't do that. That is little different than baiting.

A joke with a point. Since you missed it let me spell it out. We have no indication that was the BoM hill Cumorah. It was first called Cumorah in the 1800's. Moroni did not call it Cumorah. So it is now called Cumorah but what was it called 300 years ago. A valid question.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm always accused by LGT theorists of missing the point.

There really is no point to the theory. Really.

[ERayR]

I'm always accused by LGT theorists of missing the point.

There really is no point to the theory. Really.

So let it be written, so let it be done - Pharaoh Crockett

Since you have spoken I take it the thinking has been done?

Edited August 2, 2012 by ERayR

[cdowis]

If John Sorenson isn't a reliable exponent of the Limited Geography Theory, then I'm not sure who is. Why do you think his opinion is unrepresentative of Limited Geography theorists?

I think you are an unreliable interpreter of his work, for the reasons I have already given. He is specifically giving his interpretation of the geographical context of the population in the BOM text, a subset of the total population.

Reading and interpretation of the BOM text requires no specialized knowledge. He and I, for example, disagree on several points of interpretation of the text.

Edited August 2, 2012 by cdowis