Desolation And West Sea

[cursor]

I'll do the same. Please, let me know if I can help in any way.

[prismsplay]

I often wonder if its just the alure of the Maya that we somehow keep coming at different angles to make the geography fit within their lands only.

 

The Book of Mormon describes the Nephite civilization as becoming an advanced, populous culture within a specific time period, and, with the Lamanites, fulfilling the Zenos prophecy concerning the branch of Israel that brought forth tame and wild fruit, with the wild overcoming the tame in the end. Mesoamerica matches the required time period, its archaeology revealing advanced civilizations, more recently having to admit dense populations with well-built highways connecting numerous cities. The only other place on the American continents where there is an archaeology with a similar time period and evidence of an advanced culture and large population, is Peru. But Peru's geography cannot be made to fit Mormon's account of Nephite lands nearly surrounded by water. If Peru has any connection with the Zenos prophecy, it would represent a different branch of Israel than the one described in the Book of Mormon.

 

How barren are Book of Mormon geography theories that have no relationship to actual civilizations! How unrealistic are traveling distances for the theory that spreads Book of Mormon lands over both North and South America! The extremely long isthmus of Panama is an exceedingly rough terrain that cannot be readily traveled through. Book of Mormon geography has to fit with actual civilizations living in the time periods described. If it does not, even though it looks to be feasible on a flat map, it has no connection to the reality of populous, advanced civilizations, which always leave evidence of their having lived there.

 

How does the theory that Book of Mormon lands were spead over two continents fit in with the reality of Mesoamerican civilizations, especially since the time period of Mesoamerica means that they existed during Book of Mormon times? The geographical position of Mesoamerica was smack dab in the way of any traveling between North and South America. Therefore, if Mesoamericans were not Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites, who in the hell were they? And why are they not mentioned in the Book of Mormon? I believe that they were the very peoples described in the Book of Mormon. They left behind a vast archaeological record that defines where Book of Mormon lands were. Therefore, Mesoamerican archaeology defines Book of Mormon geography.

[Rob Osborn]

Of real special interest to me is the Chavin and Moche cultures from South America. It has Nephite/Lamanite written all over them. I think tjis area of Peru along the coastline wad part of the land of Nephi where the Lamanites took over.

[cursor]

Of real special interest to me is the Chavin and Moche cultures from South America. It has Nephite/Lamanite written all over them. I think tjis area of Peru along the coastline wad part of the land of Nephi where the Lamanites took over.

 

Based on what, exactly?

[Rob Osborn]

The Book of Mormon describes the Nephite civilization as becoming an advanced, populous culture within a specific time period, and, with the Lamanites, fulfilling the Zenos prophecy concerning the branch of Israel that brought forth tame and wild fruit, with the wild overcoming the tame in the end. Mesoamerica matches the required time period, its archaeology revealing advanced civilizations, more recently having to admit dense populations with well-built highways connecting numerous cities. The only other place on the American continents where there is an archaeology with a similar time period and evidence of an advanced culture and large population, is Peru. But Peru's geography cannot be made to fit Mormon's account of Nephite lands nearly surrounded by water. If Peru has any connection with the Zenos prophecy, it would represent a different branch of Israel than the one described in the Book of Mormon.

 

How barren are Book of Mormon geography theories that have no relationship to actual civilizations! How unrealistic are traveling distances for the theory that spreads Book of Mormon lands over both North and South America! The extremely long isthmus of Panama is an exceedingly rough terrain that cannot be readily traveled through. Book of Mormon geography has to fit with actual civilizations living in the time periods described. If it does not, even though it looks to be feasible on a flat map, it has no connection to the reality of populous, advanced civilizations, which always leave evidence of their having lived there.

 

How does the theory that Book of Mormon lands were spead over two continents fit in with the reality of Mesoamerican civilizations, especially since the time period of Mesoamerica means that they existed during Book of Mormon times? The geographical position of Mesoamerica was smack dab in the way of any traveling between North and South America. Therefore, if Mesoamericans were not Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites, who in the hell were they? And why are they not mentioned in the Book of Mormon? I believe that they were the very peoples described in the Book of Mormon. They left behind a vast archaeological record that defines where Book of Mormon lands were. Therefore, Mesoamerican archaeology defines Book of Mormon geography.

Not sure if you know my position but I honestly believe the Maya were the Jaredites. Some if not most of their lands were taken over in later times by the Nephite and Lamanite hoards. The narrow neck is spoken of as having some length to it not just a point. When Limhis expedition happened upon the ruins some 400 years later they documented the area as having buildings of every kind. The Jaredites were definately the greater of the two civilizations and thus one would suspect them leaving the greater amount of ruins to be foubd later on. But I also believe that this area was theie capitol city area and that they wete indeed strewn out over the entire continent.

[Rob Osborn]

Based on what, exactly?

They were ancient cultures in the land southward, they have warfare beyween light and dark skinned warriors. They had small walled cities, practiced ritualistic behavior consistant with BoM peoples.

[Robert F. Smith]

Not sure if you know my position but I honestly believe the Maya were the Jaredites. Some if not most of their lands were taken over in later times by the Nephite and Lamanite hoards. The narrow neck is spoken of as having some length to it not just a point. When Limhis expedition happened upon the ruins some 400 years later they documented the area as having buildings of every kind. The Jaredites were definately the greater of the two civilizations and thus one would suspect them leaving the greater amount of ruins to be foubd later on. But I also believe that this area was theie capitol city area and that they wete indeed strewn out over the entire continent.

The Olmec are archeologically coterminus with the Jaredites.  The Olmec (modern name) civilization was the "mother culture" of Mesoamerica, and the Maya are merely one of the inheritors of that civilization.  The Maya may have been well-known to the Lamanites, but they are otherwise quite marginal to any Nephite-Lamanite discussion.  Please see my paper on the Maya culture and calendar online at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/74773355-Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya .  The only literate cultures in the Americas were in Mesoamerica, and only there do we find an adequate population base for the huge battles we find described in the Book of Mormon..

Edited September 6, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Osborn]

The Olmec are archeologically coterminus with the Jaredites.  The Olmec (modern name) civilization was the "mother culture" of Mesoamerica, and the Maya are merely one of the inheritors of that civilization.  The Maya may have been well-known to the Lamanites, but they are otherwise quite marginal to any Nephite-Lamanite discussion.  Please see my paper on the Maya culture and calendar online at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/74773355-Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya .  The only literate cultures in the Americas were in Mesoamerica, and only there do we find an adequate population base for the huge battles we find described in the Book of Mormon..

The Olmec were most likely the early Jaredites who came over at the time of Babel. After hundreds and hundreds of years there was a terrible war, a great dearth, a plague of poisonous serpents which caused a relocation of the people to move south. There kingdom at this point had to be rebuilt. Because of the many ties in culture between Olmec and the Maya I can only wonder if they were not in fact the same people removed hundreds of years from each other. In analogy it would be like comparing presnt day Los Angelos with late 1600 Salem on the opposite coast- you would find similarities but in comparison two separate cultures.

[Freedom]

The Olmec were most likely the early Jaredites who came over at the time of Babel. After hundreds and hundreds of years there was a terrible war, a great dearth, a plague of poisonous serpents which caused a relocation of the people to move south. There kingdom at this point had to be rebuilt. Because of the many ties in culture between Olmec and the Maya I can only wonder if they were not in fact the same people removed hundreds of years from each other. In analogy it would be like comparing presnt day Los Angelos with late 1600 Salem on the opposite coast- you would find similarities but in comparison two separate cultures.

But of course Bountiful is right beside desolation where the Nephites lived. Olmec is an art form more than a people, but the people who created this art form lived primarily in mezzoamierica. If the Jaredites where there, the Nephites had to have been there. There is no indication that these people headed all the way to Peru.

[Rob Osborn]

But of course Bountiful is right beside desolation where the Nephites lived. Olmec is an art form more than a people, but the people who created this art form lived primarily in mezzoamierica. If the Jaredites where there, the Nephites had to have been there. There is no indication that these people headed all the way to Peru.

The Nephites and Lamanites lived in Peru and slowly moved northward over time to inhabit the land including eventually settling the narrow neck and from there up into Desolation where Jaredite lands were. There is very strong evidence to suggest this just from the text.

[Questing Beast]

What is not plausible, Rob, is that Limhi's explorers could have been so out of touch with two generation previously, that they would have wandered far north of Zarahemla, the land of their grandfathers, and MISSED it entirely in order to get into the Isthmus of Panama. Not to mention that the distance traveled to find Zarahemla was several/many times too great, and they would have known this. And then, burdened with artifacts of the destroyed Jaredites, they returned all the way to Nephi, hundreds of miles beyond Zarahemla, again, and MISSED Zarahemla going and coming.

 

All of this only makes sense if JS came up with the story. Very imaginative, to be sure. But not all that well thought out upon close inspection. All of the BoM "gaffs" make sense under this assumption. It is the simplest explanation that answers all the main questions. "What is the BoM" then? If inspired by revelation, perhaps it is no more real to "Mormon and Moroni" than the Icelandic Sagas were to the 12th and 13th century Icelandic saga writers. Many/most of the asserted buildings and other features made by man as described in the Sagas are simply not there and never have been. Perhaps Mormon and Moroni were eponymous creators of a genre of religious "historical fiction" with a purpose....

Edited September 8, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Rob Osborn]

What is not plausible, Rob, is that Limhi's explorers could have been so out of touch with two generation previously, that they would have wandered far north of Zarahemla, the land of their grandfathers, and MISSED it entirely in order to get into the Isthmus of Panama. Not to mention that the distance traveled to find Zarahemla was several/many times too great, and they would have known this. And then, burdened with artifacts of the destroyed Jaredites, they returned all the way to Nephi, hundreds of miles beyond Zarahemla, again, and MISSED Zarahemla going and coming.

 

All of this only makes sense if JS came up with the story. Very imaginative, to be sure. But not all that well thought out upon close inspection. All of the BoM "gaffs" make sense under this assumption. It is the simplest explanation that answers all the main questions. "What is the BoM" then? If inspired by revelation, perhaps it is no more real to "Mormon and Moroni" than the Icelandic Sagas were to the 12th and 13th century Icelandic saga writers. Many/most of the asserted buildings and other features made by man as described in the Sagas are simply not there and never have been. Perhaps Mormon and Moroni were eponymous creators of a genre of religious "historical fiction" with a purpose....

Limhis group obviously didnt know much in regards to Zarahemlas location as witnessed by the fact that they never did find it but instead went north of it into Bountiful, then throufh the narrow neck and into Desolation. All we can assume is that Zarahemla was of some greatwr distance from Nephi than has been thought of. Limhis group obviously had no directions for Zarahemla nor approximate distances for trek. Remember that later on when their lands were well known the land of Desolation was a very great distance north of Nephi and Zarahemla.

[ERayR]

What is not plausible, Rob, is that Limhi's explorers could have been so out of touch with two generation previously, that they would have wandered far north of Zarahemla, the land of their grandfathers, and MISSED it entirely in order to get into the Isthmus of Panama. Not to mention that the distance traveled to find Zarahemla was several/many times too great, and they would have known this. And then, burdened with artifacts of the destroyed Jaredites, they returned all the way to Nephi, hundreds of miles beyond Zarahemla, again, and MISSED Zarahemla going and coming.

 

All of this only makes sense if JS came up with the story. Very imaginative, to be sure. But not all that well thought out upon close inspection. All of the BoM "gaffs" make sense under this assumption. It is the simplest explanation that answers all the main questions. "What is the BoM" then? If inspired by revelation, perhaps it is no more real to "Mormon and Moroni" than the Icelandic Sagas were to the 12th and 13th century Icelandic saga writers. Many/most of the asserted buildings and other features made by man as described in the Sagas are simply not there and never have been. Perhaps Mormon and Moroni were eponymous creators of a genre of religious "historical fiction" with a purpose....

 

Or if the terrain just happened to be dense jungle like foliage.

[MormonMason]

Perhaps I missed it, but from my reading, the land bountiful is on the east sea. It doesn't seem reasonable to have the land bountiful or the land desolation covering such a huge area. I will have to review my geography references.

Maybe I'm just being dense at the moment but from my reading of the following I see Bountiful stretching along the border of Desolation all the way from the East Sea to the West Sea.

 

 

32  And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

33  And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea, and thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward.

(Book of Mormon, Alma 22:32-33)

 

From other passages in the Book of Mormon it is clear that Zarahemla is due south from Bountiful, which could only be the case if Bountiful stretched from the East Sea to the West Sea.  From other readings in the Book of Mormon Zarahemla is west of Sidon, and situated north of Manti, which would place Zarahemla closer to the West Sea than to the East Sea.  If Bountiful is north of Zarahemla, and Zarahemla is closer to the West Sea than to the East, then it is another instance of Bountiful stretching from East Sea to West Sea, on the border of Desolation.

 

Given the worries of the Nephites about the Lamanites gaining a foothold in Bountiful and gaining control of the land northward after taking Zarahemla in one instance in the Book of Mormon, it stands to reason that there was little in the way of natural barriers blocking easy entry from Zarahemla to Bountiful.  That might indicate an eastward bend in Sidon after passing by Zarahemla, since there is no description of a river crossing from Zarahemla to Bountiful.  This also could be another indicator that Bountiful reached from East Sea to West Sea.  Even in the map I looked at in the article mentioned, the words "land Bountiful" are stretched across that part of the map.

 

As I said, maybe I am missing something but I am not seeing the problem at this point.

[MormonMason]

What is not plausible, Rob, is that Limhi's explorers could have been so out of touch with two generation previously, that they would have wandered far north of Zarahemla, the land of their grandfathers, and MISSED it entirely in order to get into the Isthmus of Panama. Not to mention that the distance traveled to find Zarahemla was several/many times too great, and they would have known this. And then, burdened with artifacts of the destroyed Jaredites, they returned all the way to Nephi, hundreds of miles beyond Zarahemla, again, and MISSED Zarahemla going and coming.

 

All of this only makes sense if JS came up with the story. Very imaginative, to be sure. But not all that well thought out upon close inspection. All of the BoM "gaffs" make sense under this assumption. It is the simplest explanation that answers all the main questions. "What is the BoM" then? If inspired by revelation, perhaps it is no more real to "Mormon and Moroni" than the Icelandic Sagas were to the 12th and 13th century Icelandic saga writers. Many/most of the asserted buildings and other features made by man as described in the Sagas are simply not there and never have been. Perhaps Mormon and Moroni were eponymous creators of a genre of religious "historical fiction" with a purpose....

I do not see it that way.  This is another reason why Mesoamerica makes so much sense.  If we place it there, the expedition sought for Zarahemla and still would have remembered enough to get them by had they taken known routes.  It is highly likely that they still would have known to follow a river to Zarahemla, for Zarahemla was to the west of and close to a large and important river.

 

Now, there is a place in the highlands where the Grijalva and Usumacinta come quite close to one another.  If, for some reason, they left the land of Nephi from a not so well traveled section of the land of Nephi to head for Zarahemla in order to avoid being caught by the Lamanites, and took the Usumacinta instead of Grijalva, they would have taken a much longer, meandering course to swampland, gotten further lost and wandering northward along the shores further in hopes of finding Zarahemla, ultimately finding Desolation instead.  They would have been prevented from crossing over to the Grijalva by impassible territory once they got further into the journey.

 

Such a story would work quite well in such a Mesoamerican setting where people could get disoriented if they entered a watershed from the wrong way in.  It is an accurate depiction of the kind of disorientation that can follow from entering into not very well known territories in a roundabout effort to avoid notice from your enemies of a group of people leaving the land of Nephi through more well-known paths.  This would even more be the case if they attempted the first leg of the trip during cover of night.

[Questing Beast]

Limhis group obviously didnt know much in regards to Zarahemlas location as witnessed by the fact that they never did find it but instead went north of it into Bountiful, then throufh the narrow neck and into Desolation. All we can assume is that Zarahemla was of some greatwr distance from Nephi than has been thought of. Limhis group obviously had no directions for Zarahemla nor approximate distances for trek. Remember that later on when their lands were well known the land of Desolation was a very great distance north of Nephi and Zarahemla.

On the other "Narrow Neck debate continues" thread, you posted a link http://archaeology.about.com/od/mesoamerica/a/panama_prehistory.htm that says human occupation of the Panama isthmus has been continuous: specific to BoM times: "Late Ceramic Period I (300 BC – AD 750): By 300 BC, diffusion of large, permanent maize-cultivating villages. Still intensive exploitation of hunting and aquatic resources. By AD 500, emerging of ceremonial centers with public architecture. Increasing social differentiation visible in burial types and goods. Examples of mass burials located around interment of single individuals, who are accompanied by luxury items. Bichrome and polychrome pottery with zoomorphic and geometric motifs. Wide array of tools used for stone jewelry and stone carving. Gold appears by AD 500 in co-occurrence with higher display of social status. Important sites: El Hatillo, Sitio Conte, Sitio Sierra, Las Huacas, Panama Viejo, El Caño."

 

This "fact" seems to eliminate your explanation here, in answer to my objection that the Isthmus of Darien was way too far for Limhi's explorers to go looking for Zarahemla, without seeing a soul, but rather coming upon ruins of a once great civilization, and the debris/remains of a battle. They assumed that Zarahemla was no more and returned with their artifacts. If Panama was occupied as the archaeological evidence cited above shows, there is no plausible way that Limhi's explorers could have missed people, from whom they could have obtained directions and finally wound up in Zarahemla. The textual evidence is clear to me: JS's story is simplistic and even novelistic but not historic. The people were there in that narrowest of geographical confines in the Western Hemisphere, and yet a large body of explorers see nobody either going out or returning. They in fact see no evidence of humanity until they get to Desolation and find the remains of the Jaredites last war (not their last battle, however, as that was yet thousands of miles to the north)....

[Questing Beast]

I do not see it that way.  This is another reason why Mesoamerica makes so much sense.  If we place it there, the expedition sought for Zarahemla and still would have remembered enough to get them by had they taken known routes.  It is highly likely that they still would have known to follow a river to Zarahemla, for Zarahemla was to the west of and close to a large and important river.

 

Now, there is a place in the highlands where the Grijalva and Usumacinta come quite close to one another.  If, for some reason, they left the land of Nephi from a not so well traveled section of the land of Nephi to head for Zarahemla in order to avoid being caught by the Lamanites, and took the Usumacinta instead of Grijalva, they would have taken a much longer, meandering course to swampland, gotten further lost and wandering northward along the shores further in hopes of finding Zarahemla, ultimately finding Desolation instead.  They would have been prevented from crossing over to the Grijalva by impassible territory once they got further into the journey.

 

Such a story would work quite well in such a Mesoamerican setting where people could get disoriented if they entered a watershed from the wrong way in.  It is an accurate depiction of the kind of disorientation that can follow from entering into not very well known territories in a roundabout effort to avoid notice from your enemies of a group of people leaving the land of Nephi through more well-known paths.  This would even more be the case if they attempted the first leg of the trip during cover of night.

A Mesoamerican setting works for things like what you explain. But it has other problems. Any limited geography model does. Then there is the full hemispheric model and its problems, which Rob is not successfully defending, imho. I am pointing out his own source saying that Panama was occupied. And the distances involved and geographical locations of Zarahemla and Bountiful, virtually blocking access to Panama, make all assertion that Limhi's explorers could get lost very, very improbable. Limhi's explorers were trying to make contact with non Lamanites, and would have found them the moment that they started through "Panama": but instead, according to Rob, they wended their way through over 400 miles of "narrow neck" and saw no one....

[MormonMason]

Just about any geography, for any ancient text, poses problems of varying kinds for us moderns.  We weren't there so we don't know diddley-squat and can only guess from a text.  Compounding the problem is English translation.

 

But, if time is friendly to certain views, and more and more of those problems lessen or go away entirely as more research is done in those areas...well, you understand.

[Rob Osborn]

A Mesoamerican setting works for things like what you explain. But it has other problems. Any limited geography model does. Then there is the full hemispheric model and its problems, which Rob is not successfully defending, imho. I am pointing out his own source saying that Panama was occupied. And the distances involved and geographical locations of Zarahemla and Bountiful, virtually blocking access to Panama, make all assertion that Limhi's explorers could get lost very, very improbable. Limhi's explorers were trying to make contact with non Lamanites, and would have found them the moment that they started through "Panama": but instead, according to Rob, they wended their way through over 400 miles of "narrow neck" and saw no one....

Well, if we just go off of what the archaeologists have to say then the Americas have been habitated for over 30,000 years. This to me is the obvious problem with modern archaeology methods- their dates are so way off in my opinion that you pretty much just have to throw out their conjecture.

[Freedom]

Well, if we just go off of what the archaeologists have to say then the Americas have been habitated for over 30,000 years. This to me is the obvious problem with modern archaeology methods- their dates are so way off in my opinion that you pretty much just have to throw out their conjecture.

And why is this a problem? Is it simply a problem because you believe in the non-doctrinal idea of a young earth? Do you take issue with BYU's research into how long humans have been in the Utah valley?

[ERayR]

And why is this a problem? Is it simply a problem because you believe in the non-doctrinal idea of a young earth? Do you take issue with BYU's research into how long humans have been in the Utah valley?

 

However, an ancient earth earth does not validate macro-evolution.

[MormonMason]

However, an ancient earth earth does not validate macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution stretched out over eons of time.  Have you bee seeing what they have been doing with DNA lately? They have found that it overlaps between species.  You can lay it out together and show where changes occurred to produce speciation.  Yes, you can also and they have done this with chimps, apes, and humans.  If there were no relation there would be no overlap.  Unfortunately for some, there is considerable overlap between the DNA of humans, apes and monkeys.

 

But that is another subject entirely.  We are discussing Book of Mormon geography in light of archaeology.

[Rob Osborn]

And why is this a problem? Is it simply a problem because you believe in the non-doctrinal idea of a young earth? Do you take issue with BYU's research into how long humans have been in the Utah valley?

I believe in tje doctrinal temporal age of the earth that Adam, the first man, lived on the earth some six thousand years ago.

[Freedom]

However, an ancient earth earth does not validate macro-evolution.

No, but the fossil record found on this ancient earth does. You are talking about two different issues. Two facts: the earth is very very old and the fossil record shows a progressive change in types of species (i.e. evolution).

[Freedom]

I believe in tje doctrinal temporal age of the earth that Adam, the first man, lived on the earth some six thousand years ago.

 

The problem is, you make assumptions of the meaning of 'temporal age' to fit your belief of a young earth despite the fact that the church holds no position on the matter. Curious that you are so certain of a doctrine upon which the church remains silent.