Plates Of Brass Vs. Scrolls

[MormonMason]

You are ignoring the additional definitive part where the text says "from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east", words to that effect. I am not going to look up the exact passage, it's there. Aside from the Sorensen approach, where the sea east and north are the same, because of the way Central America twists until Sorensen's "narrow neck of land" is now north and south instead of east and west, there is no way to show these north, south, east and west seas that the population filled up the lands between.

One thing that tends to get ignored in debates about what constitutes a "sea north" is that Mesoamerica once had one as late as Aztec and even Columbian times. It was a large, saltwater lake system that would be classified as a sea by some ancient peoples, including those from the Middle East. We refer to it today as a lake complex and that complex once contained Lake Texcoco in the Valley of Mexico. It has long since been drained.

[Mike Reed]

Tacenda, forgive my laziness, I'll post links tommorow, but there is ancient writing engraved on metal plates, there are also ancient sources describing such, and Mike Reed has shown that this was accepted as true in the early 19th century.

Yes indeed. The belief that the ancients inscribed metal records was fairly well known in Joseph Smith's day. Common elementary school textbooks, enclyclopedias, bible dictionaries, etc. mention ancient metal records. The discovery of ancient metal records therefore should not be treated as an impressive find supporting the authenticity of the BoM. Neither should the discovery of rocks (despite the fact that the BoM mentions them). One of these days I will get around to publishing my paper. Maybe this summer. Frankly... I have gathered so many sources that publishing a paper on the topic has become a bit overwhelming for me me right now. Information overload to say the least.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes indeed. The belief that the ancients inscribed metal records was fairly well known in Joseph Smith's day. Common elementary school textbooks, enclyclopedias, bible dictionaries, etc. mention ancient metal records. The discovery of ancient metal records therefore should not be treated as an impressive find supporting the authenticity of the BoM. Neither should the discovery of rocks (despite the fact that the BoM mentions them). One of these days I will get around to publishing my paper. Maybe this summer. Frankly... I have gathered so many sources that publishing a paper on the topic has become a bit overwhelming for me me right now. Information overload to say the least.

Welcome back, Mike. Long time no see. Still looking forward to the publication of your piece on metal records.

However, it doesn't seem to me that the notion that metal records existed in antiquity is the primary oddity in the story of the Bronze Plates of Laban, or in the golden plates of Mormon, but rather that Israelites were keeping their records in book form on metal plates, engraved in Egyptian. The Bible doesn't give us any warrant for that sort of thing, and, despite the Egyptomania of the 19th century, it just doesn't make a lot of sense that Classical Hebrews didn't keep their biblical records in Hebrew -- until the post-Exilic era when enough Jews needed translations into Greek (LXX) and Aramaic (targums). If you have any ideas along those lines, I'd sure appreciate your passing them along. Thanks.

Bob

[volgadon]

Yes indeed. The belief that the ancients inscribed metal records was fairly well known in Joseph Smith's day. Common elementary school textbooks, enclyclopedias, bible dictionaries, etc. mention ancient metal records. The discovery of ancient metal records therefore should not be treated as an impressive find supporting the authenticity of the BoM. Neither should the discovery of rocks (despite the fact that the BoM mentions them). One of these days I will get around to publishing my paper. Maybe this summer.Frankly... I have gathered so many sources that publishing a paper on the topic has become a bit overwhelming for me me right now. Information overload to say the least.

I know the feeling very well.

[Questing Beast]

In virtually all your comments in reply to mine, Beast, you either missed the point or equivocated. Had you been in a high school or college class, turned in a composition on some subject, then received it back with a grade and some red marks here and there on it, you would basically ignore the teacher's comments. Since I am not your teacher, and you are not being graded for performance on this thread, I suppose that it doesn't matter much to you whether your performance here is adequate in someone else's opinion. You seem completely self-satisfied and unteachable. The RLDS Church Historian, Richard P. Howard, used to speak about a particular person's "invincible ignorance." Mostly that just comes from lack of humility -- the assumption that one has it all figured out, that any cognitive dissonance is undesirable and upsetting, so why entertain any other approaches to a subject?

You need a paradigm shift, Beast. And that can only come when you allow yourself to be challenged in a serious manner. I recommend some tough classes at a local college or university. Subject yourself to real learning challenges. Grow. Let your mind get wrenched around a bit. In the process, you'll find yourself renewed and reinvigorated for intellectual repartee. It's not about getting a degree, which is something I have not suggested. But it is about not carelessly running amuck with fallacies of every sort. I know TBMs every bit as shallow as you, so it has nothing to do with being a believer or not. It has to do with being honest and open to information and not imagining that you already have all bases covered. You clearly do not.

Again, I believe that you are mistaken. None of your advice rings true within me. I have spent a lifetime, now getting to be rather lengthy, so it seems!, doing my best to be well-read/educated, and it has led to my cynical approach to "learning". Most "learning" is acquiring written word opinions and collecting them as "facts". "Facts" are in fact so few on the ground as to be as rare as precious metal of the first order.

I do not "run amok with fallacies of every sort". Perhaps you have not seen this favorite aphorism that I coined: "I know practically nothing about almost everything". It is like a first tenet of faith to me. Anyone who does not agree that it applies to them as well occupies a much lower level in my respect for them. They have much disabusement of their paradigm to undergo before we can begin to see eye to eye on existence, "about life, the universe and everything". I do have much to blather on with/about. But don't mistake my age-old habit of enjoying spending some time this way, for a self-congratulatory position of superiority! I live with cognitive dissonance every day. But at least I don't pay it much heed anymore. Cognitive dissonance is the monkey on the back of every academic who believes that because of what they have amassed from human learning they are "onto something". They are not onto anything but a dimly perceived view of what this planet is, and what the world it is part of Is, and what it all means.

Dwelling upon the metaphysical is where wisdom is at. Learning enough about the physical world to avoid its pitfalls is sufficient knowledge of this planet. We can't control what's out there, that may cross "paths" with this planet at any time in the future, much less can we alter what this planet and its immediate neighbors might wind up doing. We are no more substantial than a drop of water about to drip from the edge of a leaf in a forest. So any study of physical/empirical "sciences" (history is not a science) is at best a human distraction, it certainly isn't natural to anything except to us.

I don't use any of this as an excuse to avoid the hours required to learn things about the sciences, or humanities or any of the rest of the offerings at "university". I just don't have the time at this point in my life to devote to it.

Thanks for your concern about my level of understanding....

[Questing Beast]

One thing that tends to get ignored in debates about what constitutes a "sea north" is that Mesoamerica once had one as late as Aztec and even Columbian times. It was a large, saltwater lake system that would be classified as a sea by some ancient peoples, including those from the Middle East. We refer to it today as a lake complex and that complex once contained Lake Texcoco in the Valley of Mexico. It has long since been drained.

And where did Hagoth and his ships vanish to, after they crossed this "lake" of which you speak?...

[Kevin Christensen]

And where did Hagoth and his ships vanish to, after they crossed this "lake" of which you speak?...

The figure of a proposed Sea North has no relevance to Hagoth.You should be able to see why:

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

And not so incidentally, Sorenson's important and useful 1985 Ancient American Setting is not the only, nor last word on the topic of accounting for seas and directions in the Book of Mormon. Brant Gardner's recent FAIR presentation presents a more recent solution.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[MormonMason]

And where did Hagoth and his ships vanish to, after they crossed this "lake" of which you speak?...

Nowhere does it say that Hagoth put his ships into the "sea north." It says that he sailed from the land southward to the land northward, and that he put into the west sea near the narrow neck of land to get there. Even for a hemispheric paradigm your misunderstanding of a text you haven't apparently read very well would have put Hagoth into the Arctic.

There goes those assumptions again....

[Questing Beast]

Nowhere does it say that Hagoth put his ships into the "sea north." It says that he sailed from the land southward to the land northward, and that he put into the west sea near the narrow neck of land to get there. Even for a hemispheric paradigm your misunderstanding of a text you haven't apparently read very well would have put Hagoth into the Arctic.

There goes those assumptions again....

My point was that the BoM makes no distinctions between seas as "lakes" and the great west, east, north and south seas frequently mentioned in the text. So asserting that "lakes" reconciles the assertion that the population began to fill up the lands between these four seas is false logic applied with a tenacious will....

[Questing Beast]

@Kevin Christensen: from the link: "Any geography that tries to accommodate a north and south sea, I think, is doomed to fail."

I agree.

So any theory is reduced to arguing from metaphor and plausibility only. Nothing literal can be pointed to. Because we don't know of a literal geography for the BoM we have nothing to go by except metaphor and plausibility. This was extremely frustrating for me back in the day of my BoM studies. Now it doesn't matter. But I see the arguments multiplying without getting any further.

Believe the "holy books" or don't/can't believe them, there is no right or wrong here, only an individual imperative. And what was imperative yesterday or even today might become unimportant tomorrow. The future is unwritten. But that is nothing to fear.

Arguing to convince others is really only arguing to continue conviction of belief for the self. I didn't see that, back in the day, but it's crystal clear now....

[Tacenda]

@Kevin Christensen: from the link: "Any geography that tries to accommodate a north and south sea, I think, is doomed to fail."

I agree.

So any theory is reduced to arguing from metaphor and plausibility only. Nothing literal can be pointed to. Because we don't know of a literal geography for the BoM we have nothing to go by except metaphor and plausibility. This was extremely frustrating for me back in the day of my BoM studies. Now it doesn't matter. But I see the arguments multiplying without getting any further.

Believe the "holy books" or don't/can't believe them, there is no right or wrong here, only an individual imperative. And what was imperative yesterday or even today might become unimportant tomorrow. The future is unwritten. But that is nothing to fear.

Arguing to convince others is really only arguing to continue conviction of belief for the self. I didn't see that, back in the day, but it's crystal clear now....

No wonder I'm half nuts since finding things in the church that didn't coincide with my belief growing up in the church, of course I was all growed up when I found disturbing truths. These three sentences above spell out my frustrations to the nth degree. Thanks QB, you've said quite alot of how I feel, yet I get the other side constantly too, to just have faith and it's true. So thanks for being the equalizer for me, but I do believe the bible has truth and facts to back it up, especially with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. I wish Moroni hadn't taken the gold plates back so that we'd have proof like the scrolls. And in the case with the papryri, if only....if only what was said on them matched to what JS said of them, how nice it would be to have that back up. There's a reason, for having the papryi come back to the church, maybe God is putting forth, that truth is sublime. And truth in religion is imperative. Why do members hem and haw or even have to lie for the Lord in our history? It shoudn't happen. Thanks be to Fair for bringing forth most of the truth, and maybe the church will do this to the nth degree someday, whether it hurts testimony or not.

[Kevin Christensen]

@Kevin Christensen: from the link: "Any geography that tries to accommodate a north and south sea, I think, is doomed to fail."

I agree.

So any theory is reduced to arguing from metaphor and plausibility only. Nothing literal can be pointed to. Because we don't know of a literal geography for the BoM we have nothing to go by except metaphor and plausibility. This was extremely frustrating for me back in the day of my BoM studies. Now it doesn't matter. But I see the arguments multiplying without getting any further.

Believe the "holy books" or don't/can't believe them, there is no right or wrong here, only an individual imperative. And what was imperative yesterday or even today might become unimportant tomorrow. The future is unwritten. But that is nothing to fear.

Arguing to convince others is really only arguing to continue conviction of belief for the self. I didn't see that, back in the day, but it's crystal clear now....

it would be nice for you to have acknowledged that the crack about Hagoth and the Sea North had no basis in since Hagoth traveled on the Sea West.

Reducing the most significant content of a complex set of studies down to "metaphor and plausibility" and then applying the rhetorically dismissive "only" makes me glad I've tried to keep up with the scholarship myself. Anyone who relies on such a summary for guidance is headed straight for the proverbial ditch. I recommend reading the essay, and paying attention to the footnotes.

"Nothing literal can be pointed to," you say. I see Sorenson, Gardner, Poulson, Clark, Wright, Christenson, Wirth, and others as pointing to some very real and interesting things. Poulson's use of Google Earth 3D maps in his recent FAIR presentations provides a case in point. Is the Grijalva only a metaphor? Is the cement at Teotihuican not literal? Are the cultural concepts and sources Gardner explores only metaphors for actual sources and concepts which remain unexamined by anyone?

You say, "because we don't know of a literal geography," as though your perspective has subsumed all others.

It hasn't.

And there is a difference between those who want to "know" with absolute certainty and finality, certified by skeptical human authority, before making any commitment that requires personal sacrifice, and those who are willing to settle for "cause to believe." (See Alma 32). The first involves a refusal to have faith in anything that requires any faith. The latter recognizes the inescapable importance of faith and accepts the real limitations on human experience, accepts reasons for belief despite the lack of absolute coercive certainty.

The whole point of Sorenson's and Gardner's and Poulson's work has been to point to ways in which the Book of Mormon text matches real locations. I'm still very impressed that Poulson showed that the descriptions of the Sidon in the Book of Mormon matches only one river in the Western Hemisphere, and that reading the stories of Limhi's explorers against that setting sheds light on the text. That's not just a metaphor or an argument based only on a metaphor. It's very specific and literal, based on a comprehensive look at the data provided in the text, compared to all potential Western Hemisphere rivers, which contributes to the notion of plausibility. And not just in isolation, but in concert with a whole network of interconnected solutions and weighing open issues. What it means may be up for argument, but the argument should account for such details of precise fit. That is one example of how the arguments has gone further than they were in 1985, when Sorenson's book was published.

Either the books are Holy or they are not. That may be a separate question from whether the Grijalva is the best and only fit for the Sidon, and separate from whether the stories fit the context. But if the stories do seem to fit the New World context and if the general trend is for increased fit and resolution of problems (as John Clark pointed out in 2005 at Washington DC), then believers, even if short of proof, do have rational and substantial and literal "cause to believe."

It is true "all data are theory laden" which means that phrases like "whole earth" don't emanate their meaning to all observers unmediated by cultural assumptions, but must be interpreted, and are best interpreted by those who are willing to consider how the various layers of cultural assumption affect interpretation. That is, ancient author, editor, transmitter, 19th century translator, and 21st century reader all affect interpretation.

The quality of arguments ought to count, regardless of who is or is not convinced.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 4, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[MormonMason]

My point was that the BoM makes no distinctions between seas as "lakes" and the great west, east, north and south seas frequently mentioned in the text. So asserting that "lakes" reconciles the assertion that the population began to fill up the lands between these four seas is false logic applied with a tenacious will....

And, why would they make a distinction between a lake and sea? The ancient Hebrews referred to them as seas, particularly the larger ones, as did others who derived from Middle Eastern peoples. The Book of Mormon claims to have originated from peoples that came from the Middle East, who were Hebrews themselves. There goes those assumptions when coming to the text again....

In point of fact, the region where what we call Lake Texcoco is located actually is the northernmost boundary for Mesoamerican culture cores that fit surrounding cultural patterns alluded to by the Book of Mormon. There is no false logic about it at all. It has a basis in ancient usages that are pertinent to the Book of Mormon. After all, it claims to be a translation of an ancient text so we should expect ancient linguistic patterns to emerge from the text, even through English translation.

In your situation, however, is where the false logic actually resides. It is necessary for people like you to claim that a distinction would be required, or that such argues against any geographical point being discussed, when the ancient Hebrews certainly did not make such a distinction at the time when Lehi left Jerusalem and its environs. Even up to the time of Jesus they still continued to call 'seas' what we today would refer to as lakes. Your underlying assumptions are based upon false logic, with zero basis in linguistic perspective, whereas my position actually fits within known paradigms of thought among the ancient Hebrews and others.

In any case, the Book of Mormon still does not say anything about shipping in the sea north or about Hagoth going there. You were quite mistaken about that. In addition, nowhere in the Book of Mormon are ships, shipping and related constructs, ever taking place in either the sea north or the sea south. We only know of ships in the sea east and the sea west from what we have in the Book of Mormon. If a truly hemispheric paradigm were intended by the authors of the Book of Mormon texts, or especially if Joseph Smith were the author, one would expect what Joseph Smith would have known about the sea south of South America, namely, that ships travelled through this sea. And, yet, no ships can be found mentioned as being in or going there, anywhere in the Book of Mormon. One has to ask why that might be. Such a paradigm, however, perfectly fits what we know about Mesoamerica and its shorelines.

Remember your "heaps of earth not existing in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times" argument? Your argument you are making about this "sea north" point is a lot like that. I think you just don't recognize that it is, yet.

[USU78]

My point was that the BoM makes no distinctions between seas as "lakes" and the great west, east, north and south seas frequently mentioned in the text.

Not that much of a problem, linguistically. Modern German (and, I believe, Dutch) have See/Zee applying both to lakes and ocean seas, though in German the gender of See/See [lake/ocean sea] is not identical, though the plural forms are. Context tells the modern speaker whether we're boating on Lake Constance or the North Sea.

[Calm]

Not that much of a problem, linguistically. Modern German (and, I believe, Dutch) have See/Zee applying both to lakes and ocean seas, though in German the gender of See/See [lake/ocean sea] is not identical, though the plural forms are. Context tells the modern speaker whether we're boating on Lake Constance or the North Sea.

The Sea of Galilee, also Kinneret, Lake of Gennesaret, or Lake Tiberias....is the largest freshwater lake in Israel

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

The Dead Sea ..."Sea of Salt", also Hebrew: ... "The Sea of Death"), also called the Salt Sea, is a salt lake bordering Jordan to the east and Israel and the West Bank to the west.

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

Edited April 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

it would be nice for you to have acknowledged that the crack about Hagoth and the Sea North had no basis in since Hagoth traveled on the Sea West.

The way it was put, I thought, was that seas can just as readily be "lakes", therefore Hagoth is being asked to disappear on a "lake" heading north. And since the Mesoamerican orientation is dead east-west near Sorensen's "narrow neck of land" (Isthmus of Tehuantepec), any "west sea" that is also an inland lake is going to wind up being a "south sea" as well, which makes disappearing to the north even more impossible.

Reducing the most significant content of a complex set of studies down to "metaphor and plausibility" and then applying the rhetorically dismissive "only" makes me glad I've tried to keep up with the scholarship myself. Anyone who relies on such a summary for guidance is headed straight for the proverbial ditch. I recommend reading the essay, and paying attention to the footnotes.

I read the essay, all of it. What did you want me to further glean from the footnotes? The essay identified the sources in the text.

"Nothing literal can be pointed to," you say. I see Sorenson, Gardner, Poulson, Clark, Wright, Christenson, Wirth, and others as pointing to some very real and interesting things. Poulson's use of Google Earth 3D maps in his recent FAIR presentations provides a case in point. Is the Grijalva only a metaphor? Is the cement at Teotihuican not literal? Are the cultural concepts and sources Gardner explores only metaphors for actual sources and concepts which remain unexamined by anyone?

Nothing literal about directional sense and "seas" north, south, east and west. The essay said as much, I quoted the most pithy line IDing the limitation of a literal geography approach. The essay uses the words metaphor and plausible to advance its premise.

You say, "because we don't know of a literal geography," as though your perspective has subsumed all others.

Again, I quoted the assertion from the essay, which I agree with.

It hasn't.

And there is a difference between those who want to "know" with absolute certainty and finality, certified by skeptical human authority, before making any commitment that requires personal sacrifice, and those who are willing to settle for "cause to believe." (See Alma 32). The first involves a refusal to have faith in anything that requires any faith. The latter recognizes the inescapable importance of faith and accepts the real limitations on human experience, accepts reasons for belief despite the lack of absolute coercive certainty.

I agree with this. I do not lack faith. But faith cannot continue unaltered when evidence reaches a tipping point. No one is immune. Those who do not study are safest in ignorance, for the time being.

The whole point of Sorenson's and Gardner's and Poulson's work has been to point to ways in which the Book of Mormon text matches real locations. I'm still very impressed that Poulson showed that the descriptions of the Sidon in the Book of Mormon matches only one river in the Western Hemisphere, and that reading the stories of Limhi's explorers against that setting sheds light on the text. That's not just a metaphor or an argument based only on a metaphor. It's very specific and literal, based on a comprehensive look at the data provided in the text, compared to all potential Western Hemisphere rivers, which contributes to the notion of plausibility. And not just in isolation, but in concert with a whole network of interconnected solutions and weighing open issues. What it means may be up for argument, but the argument should account for such details of precise fit. That is one example of how the arguments has gone further than they were in 1985, when Sorenson's book was published.

Have the arguments "gone further" or around? I haven't seen anything significant. And arguing from Metaphor and plausibility is a poor substitute for literal geography, which all BoM geographical hypotheses are hampered by.

Either the books are Holy or they are not. That may be a separate question from whether the Grijalva is the best and only fit for the Sidon, and separate from whether the stories fit the context. But if the stories do seem to fit the New World context and if the general trend is for increased fit and resolution of problems (as John Clark pointed out in 2005 at Washington DC), then believers, even if short of proof, do have rational and substantial and literal "cause to believe."

The books are "holy" if their teachings are sufficient to direct men toward seeking God. Then "how holy" is probably measured by how many believers there are.

It is true "all data are theory laden" which means that phrases like "whole earth" don't emanate their meaning to all observers unmediated by cultural assumptions, but must be interpreted, and are best interpreted by those who are willing to consider how the various layers of cultural assumption affect interpretation. That is, ancient author, editor, transmitter, 19th century translator, and 21st century reader all affect interpretation.

The quality of arguments ought to count, regardless of who is or is not convinced.

Quality is subjective in a milieu that is increasingly metaphoric and plausibility based. If we are going to pin down a literal BoM geography it is going to have to not be impossible or "doomed to fail". The only way the quality of arguments can improve, imho, is for real empirical evidence to come "out of the ground". I'm still waiting, but with no expectation/hope anymore. I expect to wait a long time, in fact forever or at least as long as there is even one BoM "archaeologist" remaining....

[Questing Beast]

And, why would they make a distinction between a lake and sea? ....

"They" don't have to make the distinction, for, as you point out clearly, "they" apparently never did make such distinctions. "We" make the distinctions. And having the freedom to alternate between inland lakes/seas, and oceans and their attendant seas, makes any "plausibility" possible. The entire area is riddled with lakes and oceans and their attendant seas. Yet nothing solidifies into a definite geography. The quest for such goes on unabated or narrowed down one iota. It all gets to be rather droll and pointless at some point.

In point of fact, the region where what we call Lake Texcoco is located actually is the northernmost boundary for Mesoamerican culture cores that fit surrounding cultural patterns alluded to by the Book of Mormon.

The trouble with that, as I pointed out with my facile question, is that in order for Hagoth to launch ships into the "west sea", that journey into the north and return, there must be a connection to this "north sea", or else we have two "north" seas with no distinction between them: which, given that Mormon elsewhere takes a great deal of effort to get "his" geographical details about lands and wildernesses, seas and rivers all as straight as possible, seems to me to be highly unlikely. If Mormon were talking about an inland lake/sea, and a different "north" sea, he would make sure the reader knew what he was saying. Or is Jacob talking about yet a third option when he describes the land of Nephi as an "isle of the sea"? Yes, Jacob is talking about something else. There is no way that upland Guatemala is mistaken as an "isle of the sea", because that set of surrounding seas/lakes is populated by as-yet undiscovered Mulekites to the north.

...

In your situation, however, is where the false logic actually resides. It is necessary for people like you to claim that a distinction would be required, or that such argues against any geographical point being discussed, when the ancient Hebrews certainly did not make such a distinction at the time when Lehi left Jerusalem and its environs. Even up to the time of Jesus they still continued to call 'seas' what we today would refer to as lakes. Your underlying assumptions are based upon false logic, with zero basis in linguistic perspective, whereas my position actually fits within known paradigms of thought among the ancient Hebrews and others.

I haven't disputed that "sea" is undistinguished between seas of the oceans and inland lakes in the ancient lingo. I wouldn't have the knowledge to dispute it even if I doubted it, which I do not. "Mare" is not a female horse either, and the word is applied by the Latins to bodies of water that are more vast than ponds.

What I dispute is the logic that takes one kind of body of water and applies it to a necessarily different body of water than the text uses, specifically Hagoth launching in the "west" sea and winding up in the north "sea", from whence he later returns. Two distinct bodies of water are being asserted with your north lake and where Hagoth went. And Mormon says nothing to point out two bodies of water.

In any case, the Book of Mormon still does not say anything about shipping in the sea north or about Hagoth going there. You were quite mistaken about that.

"They took their course northward." Which is only possible by entering the "north" sea? How else can the "west" sea allow northward passage?

In addition, nowhere in the Book of Mormon are ships, shipping and related constructs, ever taking place in either the sea north or the sea south.

JS said on some occasion that the Jaredites entered the Americas from the north, through the Gulf of St Lawrence.

We only know of ships in the sea east and the sea west from what we have in the Book of Mormon. If a truly hemispheric paradigm were intended by the authors of the Book of Mormon texts, or especially if Joseph Smith were the author, one would expect what Joseph Smith would have known about the sea south of South America, namely, that ships travelled through this sea. And, yet, no ships can be found mentioned as being in or going there, anywhere in the Book of Mormon. One has to ask why that might be. Such a paradigm, however, perfectly fits what we know about Mesoamerica and its shorelines.

It is simple: Joseph Smith had the Western Hemisphere in mind as he translated/dictated the BoM, and afterward as well. There is no evidence that JS ever consider the "limited geography" model, but anecdotal evidence from the recollections of those who knew and talked with him on the subject of BoM geography, that he saw a full hemispheric setting, with the obvious Isthmus of Panama as the "narrow neck of land", with plenty of "west" sea to sail into northward. The reason why no Nephites sailed into the south, or around the southernmost part of the "land southward" (i.e. South America), is because that land was occupied by Lamanites, and the Nephite colonists at the end of Alma occupy the largely uninhabited "land northward", and finally sail out of Nephite purview by sailing off into the South Pacific.

Mesoamerica does not "perfectly" fit anything, if it did, we would no longer have these discussions.

Remember your "heaps of earth not existing in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times" argument? Your argument you are making about this "sea north" point is a lot like that. I think you just don't recognize that it is, yet.

The "heaps of earth" were a new wrinkle to me (which I still call into question based on the lack of said-heaps being iron slag, which they must be if iron/steel working Jaredites caused them). But not the "seas" issue. You do know, I suppose, that those who insist on North American settings for the BoM try to place the Land of Zarahemla between the Great Lakes, in a similar fashion to your trying to put it amidst the Aztec lakes?...

Edited April 5, 2013 by Questing Beast

[MormonMason]

"They" don't have to make the distinction, for, as you point out clearly, "they" apparently never did make such distinctions. "We" make the distinctions. And having the freedom to alternate between inland lakes/seas, and oceans and their attendant seas, makes any "plausibility" possible. The entire area is riddled with lakes and oceans and their attendant seas. Yet nothing solidifies into a definite geography. The quest for such goes on unabated or narrowed down one iota. It all gets to be rather droll and pointless at some point.

While such discussions can get tedious, considerable discussion tends to lead to new discoveries. It also is of the utmost importance to try to fit propositions to what the ancients would likely have thought of the situation. You cannot reconstruct a geography using modern assumptions read into a purported ancient text.

The trouble with that, as I pointed out with my facile question, is that in order for Hagoth to launch ships into the "west sea", that journey into the north and return, there must be a connection to this "north sea", or else we have two "north" seas with no distinction between them: which, given that Mormon elsewhere takes a great deal of effort to get "his" geographical details about lands and wildernesses, seas and rivers all as straight as possible, seems to me to be highly unlikely. If Mormon were talking about an inland lake/sea, and a different "north" sea, he would make sure the reader knew what he was saying. Or is Jacob talking about yet a third option when he describes the land of Nephi as an "isle of the sea"? Yes, Jacob is talking about something else. There is no way that upland Guatemala is mistaken as an "isle of the sea", because that set of surrounding seas/lakes is populated by as-yet undiscovered Mulekites to the north.

Absolutely unmitigated BS. No connection to a sea north is required and the Book of Mormon does not state such for the Hagoth journeys--anywhere. If you follow the coastline in a northward direction you are going northward. There is no need for a sea north to be connected to the sea west at all, contrary to your need to do so.

Beware on the "isle of the sea" point. That Hebrew phrase actually can and has been used to describe connected shorelines rather than literal islands as we think of them. Beware those assumptions...

I haven't disputed that "sea" is undistinguished between seas of the oceans and inland lakes in the ancient lingo. I wouldn't have the knowledge to dispute it even if I doubted it, which I do not. "Mare" is not a female horse either, and the word is applied by the Latins to bodies of water that are more vast than ponds.

What I dispute is the logic that takes one kind of body of water and applies it to a necessarily different body of water than the text uses, specifically Hagoth launching in the "west" sea and winding up in the north "sea", from whence he later returns. Two distinct bodies of water are being asserted with your north lake and where Hagoth went. And Mormon says nothing to point out two bodies of water.

Hagoth does not go to the sea north so your entire argument is moot. There is no need for two bodies of water in the north.

"They took their course northward." Which is only possibly by entering the "north" sea? How else can the "west" sea allow northward passage?

Crapulous nonsense. People travel northward in the Pacific all the time and never reach the Arctic. You can travel northward along the shore of Mexico and hit the Gulf of California. "Took their course northward" simply means that they sailed in a northward direction. It says nothing about reaching and navigating the sea north in connection therewith.

It is simple: Joseph Smith had the Western Hemisphere in mind as he translated/dictated the BoM, and afterward as well. There is no evidence that JS ever consider the "limited geography" model, but anecdotal evidence from the recollections of those who knew and talked with him on the subject of BoM geography, that he saw a full hemispheric setting, with the obvious Isthmus of Panama as the "narrow neck of land", with plenty of "west" sea to sail into northward. The reason when no Nephites sailed into the south, or around the southernmost part of the "land southward" (i.e. South America), is because that land was occupied by Lamanites, and the Nephite colonists at the end of Alma occupy the largely uninhabited "land northward", and finally sail out of Nephite purview by sailing off into the South Pacific.

I suppose you are unaware of his 1842 editorial he oversaw and published that put the land of Zarahemla NORTH of the Isthmus of Darien (Isthmus of Panama) and SOUTH of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Mesoamerica does not "perfectly" fit anything, if it did, we would no longer have these discussions.

No, these discussions would still continue. Even if a general location is agreed upon the precise details remain to be hammered out. But the various hints in the Book of Mormon fit well with the background of Mesoamerica. I have been all over the map in years past but after literally decades of study on the issue my money, so to speak, is on Mesoamerica.

The region in North America around the hill in New York is not a defensible position in a war. But the region in Mesoamerica that has a proposal for Cumorah matches every description of defensibility, and every element in the Book of Mormon describing the region of Cumorah fits that location rather well.

The "heaps of earth" were a new wrinkle to me (which I still call into question based on the lack of said-heaps being iron slag, which they must be if iron/steel working Jaredites caused them). But not the "seas" issue. You do know, I suppose, that those who insist on North American settings for the BoM try to place the Land of Zarahemla between the Great Lakes, in a similar fashion to your trying to put it amidst the Aztec lakes?...

The Book of Mormon nowhere even hints that the heaps of earth are slag heaps. They are HEAPS OF EARTH! That is mining, pure and simple. It is the digging that raised the heaps not the metallurgy and byproduct. The text even says that they "did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore." To get ore! Not to refine metal. Not to process the ore. They dug up the heaps of earth to get the ore. Any other interpretation of "heaps of earth" in that context is an obtuse interpretation at best.

And, I am aware of Great Lakes settings for the Book of Mormon. Some time ago I actually saw two or three of those as plausible, including one that posited the Delmarva Peninsula, in North America, as the land southward--until I studied the issue out for many years and saw cultural and climactic underpinnings that just did not match up with any Great Lakes setting, not the least of which was the direction of flow of the Sidon. So you know, I have also held a South American setting as well. But subsequent research put that idea in the discard for me, too. But I suggest a more careful reading of the Book of Mormon than you have put into it. Try to discard your modern assumptions as you read, too. That would be considerably more helpful in your reading and understanding of the text.

[Questing Beast]

@MormonMason: I read the BoM very carefully.

You discard the observation that Mormon makes the effort, at length, to be very specific in detailing "his" geography, yet makes no mention of a "lake" as some "north" sea, just "east, west, north and south" seas without distinction as to size or proximity. This of course fits the hemispheric reality perfectly, just looking at the world map.

I accept that my belaboring of the point no longer makes any point: "you" can have your north lake as a "sea north" if you like. The only point I was making is the way this ambiguity conveniently allows just about any "plausibility" model to be constructed. We have too many lakes and seas to play with, and too many scales of occupation to go with.

(Btw, shouldn't lake Texcoco be crammed with human remains? The Nephite and Lamanite casualties all get tossed into the river Sidon and "buried in the depths of the sea". Wait, there isn't a river "Sidon" emptying into Texcoco. There goes that assumption.)

JS putting Zaramehla in a specific location between the two possible isthmuses does not show that JS believed in a limited geography theory, only that he made conflicting statements without saying anything to clear them up, that we know of anyway....

[Questing Beast]

http://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Gross%20Geographies.htm This an interesting read....

[MormonMason]

@MormonMason: I read the BoM very carefully.

Not from where I sit. If you think that the heaps of earth are slag piles when the context is so clear, you really aren't reading it very carefully.

You discard the observation that Mormon makes the effort, at length, to be very specific in detailing "his" geography, yet makes no mention of a "lake" as some "north" sea, just "east, west, north and south" seas without distinction as to size or proximity. This of course fits the hemispheric reality perfectly, just looking at the world map.

Mormon does not describe the relative sizes of things quite frequently. Sometimes he does but a lot of the time he doesn't. It was not important to him because he was familiar with his geography. We are not because we are separated from the original text by over a thousand years. But one thing is certain, and that is that Mormon in no case speaks of a hemispheric geography. Once again, if you read the Book of Mormon as carefully as you claim you could not possibly miss that.

I accept that my belaboring of the point no longer makes any point: "you" can have your north lake as a "sea north" if you like. The only point I was making is the way this ambiguity conveniently allows just about any "plausibility" model to be constructed. We have too many lakes and seas to play with, and too many scales of occupation to go with.

Yes, it does allow a lot of models to be constructed. However, once you begin reading the text carefully, and begin to put the pieces of the geographical puzzle together, the pieces either will fit together or they will not. My only purpose in suggesting the Texcoco lake complex is that the ancients would have seen it that way and because supposed lack of a "sea north" in Mesoamerican models have tended to cast doubt upon them unnecessarily. The interesting thing is that the lake complex is in the region of the northernmost boundaries of Mesoamerican culture cores. That right there could be posited as another plausible fit with the extant data.

(Btw, shouldn't lake Texcoco be crammed with human remains? The Nephite and Lamanite casualties all get tossed into the river Sidon and "buried in the depths of the sea". Wait, there isn't a river "Sidon" emptying into Texcoco. There goes that assumption.)

It would be impossible to know this, for one. Texcoco no longer exists (I did point out above that it was drained and no longer exists). Mexico City, and its sprawling metropolis, is all built overtop of any potential remains.

Additionally, you are making assumptions that Sidon emptied into a sea north. For all you know, it emptied into either sea west or sea east. Of course, it is likely that you have been influenced in such thinking by the entry for River Sidon in the Triple Combination Index. It should be pointed out that the heading for the entry was also an assumption and has since been discarded.

The old one read:

SIDON, RIVER—most prominent river in Nephite territory, runs north to sea (see also River)

Alma 2:15 hill Amnihu is on east of S.; 2:34 Lamanites camp on west of S.; 4:4 many are baptized in waters of S.; 22:29 wilderness at S.

The new (non-assumptive) one reads:

Sidon, River—most prominent river in Nephite territory. See also River

Alma 2:15 hill Amnihu is on east of S.; 2:34 Lamanites camp on west of S.; 4:4 many are baptized in waters of S.; 22:29 wilderness at S.

The evidence of the Book of Mormon's text itself suggests to me a northward course from Manti past Zarahemla, ultimately making a turn eastward after Zarahemla and emptying into sea east. The relative ease of going to Bountiful and Desolation from Zarahemla, Zarahemla being on the western side of Sidon, without a Sidon River crossing, and the fact that the River Sidon is located in the land southward and does not go into the land northward, suggests this scenario.

JS putting Zaramehla in a specific location between the two possible isthmuses does not show that JS believed in a limited geography theory, only that he made conflicting statements without saying anything to clear them up, that we know of anyway....

No, you are wrong. It blows out of the water any geography that includes South America as the land southward. Zarahemla, as anyone who has read the Book of Mormon carefully knows (and surely Joseph Smith would have know that, too), was located in the land southward, southward of the narrow neck of land. This means that his view in 1842 was that the Isthmus of Darien (Isthmus of Panama) was NOT and could not be the narrow neck of land in the Book of Mormon.

That he made statements that have been taken as conflicting by some is a given. But the limited geography was his view concerning the Book of Mormon. It is this one in which he was willing to allow to be published in print as editor of the paper in which it was published.

[Calm]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the only use of "lake" in the BoM is in regards to the "lake of fire and brimstone":

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/lake?lang=eng&letter=l

There is no use of lake to identify an actual point of geography.

[MormonMason]

No, it hasn't been mentioned yet. But, thank you for bringing it up so it could be discussed. Hebrew had a word that moderns translate as "lake" but the original word signified "pool" (or, possibly, "swamp" in a place or two) in various Hebrew texts. This Hebrew word is used in some Hebrew translations of passages in the Bible that mention the lake of fire and brimstone. Others Hebrew translations use the word for "sea" in the same places.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Gross%20Geographies.htm This an interesting read....

It is, indeed, if you are studying the benighted thought and psychology of yokels.

[Robert F. Smith]

@MormonMason: I read the BoM very carefully.

...................................

And you are just as confused as Alice after she went down the rabbit hole.