Topographic Information In The Book Of Mormon

[MormonMason]

Your trust in dates is dangerous, for if those dates prove to be wrong, then your argument falls apart. No rotating of any map is necessary for the river Sidon to be the Ucumacinta River for me. As for topography, I would like to know which statements in the Book of Mormon you are basing conflicts on.

 

To quickly find Book of Mormon passages relating to geographical directions and topography, I employ the "Geography Concordance" in The Book of Mormon: Restored Covenant Edition (1999). Since it refers to RLDS chapters and verses, I use a booklet linking up RLDS to LDS chapters and verses, so I can then find the passages in The Book of Mormon: the Earliest Text (2009), which I prefer (Restored Covenant Edition failed to correct "Amalikites" to "Amlicites", and failed to correct two geographical blunders that The Earliest Text corrected).

 

Although the LDS is far superior to Community of Christ in Book of Mormon scholarship, there have been and still are persons in the RLDS tradition who have contributed to Book of Mormon archaeology and geography (which requires reference to the topographic information in the Book of Mormon).

 

The Cerro Rabon designation as hill Cumorah by Verneil Simmons and Neil Steede has widespread acceptance among Book of Mormon enthusiasts in the RLDS tradition. A tour titled "The Land Northward" is being planned for March 27 - April 6, 2014 by the Pre-Columbian Studies Institute. "A highlight of the tour will be a visit to the Veracruz area and Hill Rabon (Cumorah), believed by many of us to be the resting place of the complete library of sacred records left by the Nephites. We travel where adventures often happen!"

The date of A.D. 600 that I gave was supposed to be the date of the beginning of the murals that were painted (most were painted over a hundred years afterward), rather than the founding of the city.  The city itself was founded earlier (some believe as far back as A.D. 250).  I had to go back and check some facts that I had misremembered.

 

That said, many of the murals and stele, as well as the lintels on the various buildings, contain actual long count dates in the inscriptions.  Many events in the murals and on the lintels can be dated to pretty much precise dates, some of which can be given to the day, particularly because the Maya who controlled the area actually dated the events depicted in many places.  In many of the murals, the names of the rulers and their victims were also put into the murals and carved on the lintels.

 

For instance, in Steede's newsletter regarding Yaxchilan, David B. Brown makes reference to goings on in the Book of Mormon and applies them to Yaxchilan.  A copy of Lintel 25 from building 23 is drawn for the reader with the explanation of the following:

 

Lintel 25 of Building 23 at Yaxchilan. Believed to be a depiction of the vision the wife of Mosiah experienced concerning the continuation of the throne.

 

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol1Issue2.pdf

 

Unfortunately, for anyone claiming such a thing, the names of people in the depiction also are on the lintels.  What this depiction actually shows is Shield Jaguar II's lady, K'ab'al Xoc.  They are engaged in a ritual in commemoration.  An inscription on the lintel dedicates the building to Lady Xoc.  Lintel 24 depicts Lady Xoc pulling a rope through her tongue to induce an hallucinatory vision.  On lintel 25, the completion of the blood-letting ritual on lintel 24 takes place and the blood is burned on bark paper, conjuring a serpent.  Shield Jaguar II, like his Lady Xoc, lived long after Book of Mormon times.  In point of fact, this collection of lintels dedicated to Lady Xoc carries a long count date, which is the actual date of the event depicted.  It is 9.13.17.15.12, or, in roughly modern calendrical equivalent, October 22, A.D. 709.

 

In other words, this event depicted in lintel 24 from building 23 is depicting an event that took place in A.D. 709, involving Shield Jaguar II, "blood lord of Yaxchilan."  Lintel 25 actually carries the year date of A.D. 681, the time of his ascension to the throne.  Lintel 26 dates to A.D. 725 (and remember, these dates are contained in glyphs carved into the lintels).  All three of the lintels from the same building have exactly zero to do with Mosiah or his wife.  A.D. 681 to A.D. 725 are a long way off from the time of Mosiah.  These folks should be ashamed of themselves for claiming such nonsense as they do in their newsletters.  They pull similar shenanigans with Bonampak's murals and building lintels, too!

 

Now, as to the details of the layout of the topography and directions in the Book of Mormon, I'll have to look those up again later.

[prismsplay]

In other words, this event depicted in lintel 24 from building 23 is depicting an event that took place in A.D. 709, involving Shield Jaguar II, "blood lord of Yaxchilan."  Lintel 25 actually carries the year date of A.D. 681, the time of his ascension to the throne.  Lintel 26 dates to A.D. 725 (and remember, these dates are contained in glyphs carved into the lintels).  All three of the lintels from the same building have exactly zero to do with Mosiah or his wife.  A.D. 681 to A.D. 725 are a long way off from the time of Mosiah.  These folks should be ashamed of themselves for claiming such nonsense as they do in their newsletters.  They pull similar shenanigans with Bonampak's murals and building lintels, too!

 

Now, as to the details of the layout of the topography and directions in the Book of Mormon, I'll have to look those up again later.

 

 

Steede's interpretations are more sophisticated than you are giving him credit for. There is a Yaxchilan king list. Steede, considering the unique situation of a line of Mulekite kings ending and a Nephite line taking over (which probably involved a marriage uniting the two lines), compared the king list with Book of Mormon information and found a clear correspondency and information not included in the Book of Mormon. There had to have been some resentment about the Nephites taking over the leadership. Steede found evidence of attempts to reduce that resentment, which later, after kings ended and judges began, erupted in a movement of kingmen.

 

"These folks should be ashamed of themselves for claiming such nonsense as they do in their newsletters" is lacking sophistication. Either there is a king list that corresponds to the complexities of Book of Mormon history or there is not. Steede claims to have found one that does correspond, not in a superficial way, but in a complex way that actually reveals information not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. And it does point to Yaxchilan as being the city of Zarahemla. A sophisticated presentation deserves at least an equally sophisticated response.

 

Since (many would say if) the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we should expect to eventually find evidence of the living reality it describes. Our society's commemorating monuments are often built many years after the events being commemorated. Why should it be any different for those of ancient times?

[MormonMason]

Steede's interpretations are more sophisticated than you are giving him credit for. There is a Yaxchilan king list. Steede, considering the unique situation of a line of Mulekite kings ending and a Nephite line taking over (which probably involved a marriage uniting the two lines), compared the king list with Book of Mormon information and found a clear correspondency and information not included in the Book of Mormon. There had to have been some resentment about the Nephites taking over the leadership. Steede found evidence of attempts to reduce that resentment, which later, after kings ended and judges began, erupted in a movement of kingmen.

 

"These folks should be ashamed of themselves for claiming such nonsense as they do in their newsletters" is lacking sophistication. Either there is a king list that corresponds to the complexities of Book of Mormon history or there is not. Steede claims to have found one that does correspond, not in a superficial way, but in a complex way that actually reveals information not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. And it does point to Yaxchilan as being the city of Zarahemla. A sophisticated presentation deserves at least an equally sophisticated response.

 

Since (many would say if) the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we should expect to eventually find evidence of the living reality it describes. Our society's commemorating monuments are often built many years after the events being commemorated. Why should it be any different for those of ancient times?

Some monuments do have dates of building that transpire after the events mentioned in the murals, inscriptions and lintels.  In such cases there are two dates, the date of the event and the other the date of the building of the monument.  But in nearly 100% of these inscriptions they are outside of the range of the Book of Mormon time line.  Those that aren't clearly are connected to events that are mentioned elsewhere, and they are wrong for Book of Mormon events.  None of the dating and events described concerning the ruling inhabitants of Yaxchilan match up with the Book of Mormon--at all.

 

But, that is the thing.  The monuments actual carry dates and names of individuals, including those monuments in which Steede claims refer to Book of Mormon personages like he did with Lintel 25.  It is a false claim that it refers to the wife of Mosiah and her alleged revelation about succession.  The events are described on the lintels, and they are penitential bloodlettings along with conjurations of the spirits.  The inscriptions say so!  The dates of the bloodlettings via pulling a rope with shards of obsidian through her tongue, and sacrifice of blood in conjuration, also are dated.  None of these dates fall to within the time line of the Book of Mormon for Zarahemla.  Period.  I wish they did but they don't.  Worse, it is clearly ritual magic (conjuration of spirits) that is being practiced in Lintel 25.  I highly doubt that Book of Mormon Mosiah and his wife were practicing ritual magic Maya style.  The non-members of the Church may have been practicing that sort of thing but not Mosiah.

 

I do kind of like the Yaxchilan location for Zarahemla in some ways.  Unfortunately, there is not a scrap of evidence tying Yaxchilan to Zarahemla that hasn't been made up.  I am disheartened by that sort of behavior.  Yaxchilan does not match up with what the Book of Mormon says about Zarahemla.  As I stated before, the nearest walls are ten miles away, blocking up valleys to protect an entire border with its outposts rather than walling in Yaxchilan by itself.

 

What Steede is doing is deplorable.  I feel genuine sorrow for anyone he misleads with his false claims and suckers with misinformation he is disseminating.

[prismsplay]

What Steede is doing is deplorable.  I feel genuine sorrow for anyone he misleads with his false claims and suckers with misinformation he is disseminating.

 

Interpreting relics of the past is very difficult. Which interpretations you are accepting as true I do not know. Steede's interpretations have a trust that the Book of Mormon is true behind them. Since the Book of Mormon peoples were the peoples of Mesoamerica, studying the evidence of their existence should result in finding correspondencies with the Book of Mormon account. Steede reports on the correspondencies that he finds. Many of them are not easy to immediately understand, as is the case with the Yaxchilan king list. Sometimes the information from archaeology reveals more than the Book of Mormon tells. By Steede's interpretation, the Yaxchilan king list reveals the number of Mulekite kings before Mosiah was appointed king. The Book of Mormon does not. You think that Steede's interpretations are false. But calling them, without proof, deplorable? I am not sure that is good for these discussions.

Edited October 3, 2013 by prismsplay

[MormonMason]

Interpreting relics of the past is very difficult. Which interpretations you are accepting as true I do not know. Steede's interpretations have a trust that the Book of Mormon is true behind them. Since the Book of Mormon peoples were the peoples of Mesoamerica, studying the evidence of their existence should have correspondencies with the Book of Mormon account. Steede reports on the correspondencies that he finds. Many of them are not easy to immediately understand, as is the case with the Yaxchilan king list. Sometimes the information from archaeology reveals more than the Book of Mormon tells. By Steede's interpretation, the Yaxchilan king list reveals the number of Mulekite kings before Mosiah was appointed king. The Book of Mormon does not. You think that Steede's interpretations are false. But calling them, without proof, deplorable? I am not sure that is good for these discussions.

I am looking at the inscriptions themselves.  The one that Brown references in Steede's newsletters is sitting in the British Museum, along with its companion lintels.  Photos and transcriptions and translations also are readily available for those who cannot read the actual inscriptions themselves.  The inscriptions say exactly what is going on, and they have actual dates of the events written in these inscriptions.  The Yaxchilan king list has ties with other monuments in the region, which allow archaeologists to pin the various individuals to dates because these other monuments also carry dates.

 

To even say that these king lists and lintels refer to Book of Mormon personalities when the inscriptions themselves have zero to do with the Book of Mormon or with "Mulekites," is deplorable behavior.  Those dated are clearly dated by the inscriptions on the monuments, lintels, etc., and these dates postdate any king of the Nephites and of the "Mulekites" in the Book of Mormon.  The very lintel that Brown and Steede say refer to Mosiah's wife getting revelation states the date of accession for the king of the Lady Xoc, to whom the lintel is dedicated, and the year date given in the actual inscription is A.D. 681!

 

__^__ __^__

4 Mak 5 Imix'

<-----------------Read this way on Lintel 25 of building 23.

 

Note the bar representing 5 on top of the first character starting on the right.  Note also the four 'dots' that represent 4 of the number 1, or the number 4 on top of the other one following.  Remember, the inscription is retrograde but legible.  If we place the dates in their normal order from left to right it properly is 5 Imix' 4 Mak.

 

So, we see that the Tzolk'in and Haab dates on the inscription for the event depicted on lintel 25 are given as "5 Imix' 4 Mak" in the inscription, the first part of which inscription reads: "On 5 Imix 4 Mak he conjured the power of the flints and shields of the god Aj K'ahk' O' Chahk."  The dates are very clear.  The equivalent of these dates? The Maya Long Count Date of 9.12.9.8.1, or roughly October 18-20, A.D. 681.   You tell me how that equates to Mosiah and his wife.  How? You have to admit that it does not and cannot.  And, yet, Brown and Steede are making the fallacious claim that this dated inscription on lintel 25 is supposed to be Mosiah's wife receiving a revelation regarding succession.  What else am I supposed to think when they do things like that?

 

And, the Yaxchilan king list cannot mention any king before Mosiah because every single name in that list that has a date for accession to the throne postdates Mosiah, including the first name in the list, which is the first king of Yaxchilan, Yat B'alam!  So, how to equate any name with any Book of Mormon kingship figure or "Mulekite predecessor or even spouse of such a figure? You cannot.  That is why what Steede and others of his ilk are doing is deplorable.  The very earliest date that one can get off the inscriptions and monuments for the kings of Yaxchilan is c. A.D. 320.  That is long after Mosiah and not before.  Thus, it cannot be referring either to Mosiah, his wife, or to "Mulekite" predecessors.  And, yet, people like Steede and Brown say that they are.

Edited October 3, 2013 by MormonMason

[prismsplay]

And, the Yaxchilan king list cannot mention any king before Mosiah because every single name in that list that has a date for accession to the throne postdates Mosiah, including the first name in the list, which is the first king of Yaxchilan, Yat B'alam!  So, how to equate any name with any Book of Mormon kingship figure or "Mulekite predecessor or even spouse of such a figure? You cannot.  That is why what Steede and others of his ilk are doing is deplorable.  The very earliest date that one can get off the inscriptions and monuments for the kings of Yaxchilan is c. A.D. 320.  That is long after Mosiah and not before.  Thus, it cannot be referring either to Mosiah, his wife, or to "Mulekite" predecessors.  And, yet, people like Steede and Brown say that they are.

 

Again, you are locked into a dating systems that are guesses by consensus much like the hoax known as global warming is established, not by pure science (which refutes it) but by consensus of those who want to see the theory used as a tool for controlling nations and the people in them (because their god is human government).

 

Steede fully admits that his interpretations are contrary to dating consensus:

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol2Issue32.pdf

So he is not trying to deceive anyone. He is merely reporting on his interpretations which he finds to be in harmony with the Book of Mormon. If only a few correspondencies could be pointed to, they could be dismissed as coincidental. But when numerous correspondencies began coming into focus, regardless what a consensus says, he is displaying intellectual honesty in calling attention to them.

 

Consensus science is not always true science. Witness the e-mails of scientists of the global warming community that reveal gross dishonesty in reporting data in order to support an agenda of global control.

 

Intellectual honesty is not deplorable.

[Calm]

Prismsplay, do you have access to a summary of the HCEt's conclusions so far.  I don't have the time to go through all of their stuff at the moment, so was wondering what were the highlights...how developed is their geographical theory, maybe a list of specific topics they have dealt with, etc.

Edited October 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[MormonMason]

Again, you are locked into a dating systems that are guesses by consensus much like the hoax known as global warming is established, not by pure science (which refutes it) but by consensus of those who want to see the theory used as a tool for controlling nations and the people in them (because their god is human government).

 

Steede fully admits that his interpretations are contrary to dating consensus:

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol2Issue32.pdf

So he is not trying to deceive anyone. He is merely reporting on his interpretations which he finds to be in harmony with the Book of Mormon. If only a few correspondencies could be pointed to, they could be dismissed as coincidental. But when numerous correspondencies began coming into focus, regardless what a consensus says, he is displaying intellectual honesty in calling attention to them.

 

Consensus science is not always true science. Witness the e-mails of scientists of the global warming community that reveal gross dishonesty in reporting data in order to support an agenda of global control.

 

Intellectual honesty is not deplorable.

The dating system is upheld by several branches of the sciences, including C-14 dating corrected and made far more accurate by several other dating methodologies, such as dendrochronology as well as C-14 testing of individual tree rings to calibrate to each period.  We also know what the numbers mean in the Maya inscriptions because the numbering system is known and has long been known.  We have correspondences in the writings of the Spanish and Native Chroniclers who kept records of events in both the Long Count and Gregorian, so we have things with which to compare the two systems which were contemporary to the events.  We have astronomical events accurately recorded that uphold it all together.  The dating system is pretty solid at this point.

 

One must be careful to take into account what the inscriptions also say, which Steede does not do.  Otherwise, it is akin to the "numerous correspondences" of the astrologers.  Steede does not just have the problem of dating and opposition to the dating.  He ignores what the inscriptions themselves say (which say what is going on, who is doing it, and when) and ignores what is in the ground.  He discards anything stated about dating that conflicts with his views and works to convince others that his approach is valid by telling people that the dating is nothing but "best guesses."  He is making up a bunch of nonsense and working to get people with wishful thinking to swallow it all--hook, line, and sinker--all the while assuaging his conscience by saying what he does in the way that he does.

 

That way he gets to maintain the appearance of intellectual honesty for his followers, while working to get people to disbelieve anything that disagrees with his conclusions.  And, he uses fraudulent discussion points to do so.  The dating has so much collective evidence for its very close accuracy, so much more than Steede is willing to admit to his readership.  His work is little different than that of astrologers who cite "numerous correspondences" in drawing up their star charts and horoscopes.  When he mistranslates and misinterprets the inscriptions themselves the way that he does, and dismisses all the sciences backing the dating, he is being less than honest.  I am sorry that you cannot see that.

[prismsplay]

Prismsplay, do you have access to a summary of the HCEt's conclusions so far.  I don't have the time to go through all of their stuff at the moment, so was wondering what were the highlights...how developed is their geographical theory, maybe a list of specific topics they have dealt with, etc.

 

A brief summary is the lead article at:

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol7Issue1.pdf

 

Many years ago I once witnessed Neil Steede making a presentation, but I have never personally met him. Since he has gone blind, he often uses David Brown to write up articles for the Hill Cumorah Expedition Team's quarterly newsletter, the next issue of which should be available soon. I have personally met David Brown and others who are active in HCET and regard them to be intelligent and of good character. They have made many expeditions to the Mesoamerica area. To better answer your questions, I think I should revisit the Community of Christ church where many of them attend and ask them about these matters and then report back here.

Edited October 3, 2013 by prismsplay

[MormonMason]

A brief summary is the lead article at:

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol7Issue1.pdf

 

Many years ago I once witnessed Neil Steede making a presentation, but I have never personally met him. Since he has gone blind, he often uses David Brown to write up articles for the Hill Cumorah Expedition Team's quarterly newsletter, the next issue of which should be available soon. I have personally met David Brown and others who are active in HCET and regard them to be intelligent and of good character. They have made many expeditions to the Mesoamerica area. To better answer your questions, I think I should revisit the Community of Christ church where many of them attend and ask them about these matters and then report back here.

I didn't think anything could be worse than Thomas Stuart Ferguson's and Milton R. Hunter's Ancient America and the Book of Mormon.  I now freely and unconditionally admit that I was wrong in thinking that way.  I have found something worse than that horrid book, and it is found at the end of the above link and the other materials on the connected website.

 

In this newsletter I was again treated to a picture of Lintel 25, this time being described as a revelation to Lady Xoc (the article says Lady K'uk), not regarding succession (as in another article on the same site) but a visitation from an ancestor who confirms that she should marry Mosiah I (called Jaguar Shield II in the article).  Again, the inscription and date written in the inscription are ignored in favor of whatever fantasy suits at the time.

 

I was also greeted by a list of various rulers and K'inich Yax K'uk Mo' is specifically identified with Amalickiah.  Never mind that Yax K'uk Mo' was entombed sometime around A.D. 437.  Never mind that we also know that he lived around that same time because a Mot Mot marker monument at Copan was dedicated by him in the year A.D. 435.  The same goes for the Shield Jaguar II identification with Mosiah the Elder or Mosiah I.  Shield Jaguar II ruled Yaxchilan between A.D. 681 and A.D. 742.  This, of course, is far too late to have been Mosiah I but we can just ignore the dates in the inscriptions, and can just pretty much ignore any inscription that does not support such a view as this.  Steede and Brown say this is Mosiah I and his wife, so it must be. 

 

The more I read from this group, the more disgusted I become.  And, that is pretty sad.

[prismsplay]

At Alma 23:8-15 Mormon names "all the cities of the Lamanites in which they did repent". Since some names are preceded by "land of", that would suggest, in those cases, city-states:

 

1. the land of Ishmael
2. the land of Middoni
3. the city of Nephi
4. the land of Shilom
5. the land of Shemlon
6. the city of Lemuel
7. the city of Shimnilom

 

If one sought to know where these cities and city-states were, topographic information would be helpful.

 

The land of Ishmael was lower in elevation than the land of Nephi.

 

Alma 20:1-2:
And it came to pass that when they had established a church in that land [of Ishmael] that king Lamoni desired that Ammon should go with him to the land of Nephi, that he might shew him unto his father. And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord came to Ammon, saying: Thou shalt not go up to the land of Nephi, for behold, the king will seek thy life; but thou shalt go  to the land of Middoni, for behold, thy brother Aaron and also Muloki and Ammah are in prison.

 

The land of Ishmael was higher in elevation than the land of Middoni.

 

Alma 20:7:
And he [Lamoni, in the land of Ishmael] saith unto Ammon: Come, I will go with thee down to the land of Middoni, and there I will plead with the king that he will cast thy brethren out of prison.

 

There were elevated areas between the city of Jerusalem and the land of Middoni.

 

Alma 21:11-12:
Therefore when he [Aaron] saw that they [the people in the city of Jerusalem] would not hear his words, he departed out of the synagogue and came over [an elevated area] to a village which was called Ani-Anti. And there he found Muloki a preaching the word unto them, and also Ammah and his brethren; and they contended with many about the word. And it came to pass that they saw that the people would harden their hearts; therefore they departed and came over [another elevated area] into the land of Middoni unto the regions round about.

 

Archaeology has shown us where one of the seven cities listed in Alma 23:8-15 was located: the site of Chalchuapa, El Salvador.

 

Quetzal Codex issue 4 (2012):
"After a group of Lamanites (Anti-Nephi-Lehis who became known as the people of Ammon) were converted, they were relocated about 76 BC from their homeland in the Land of Nephi to the Land of Jershon (Alma 27:21-26). Later, converted Zoramites also arrived in Jershon and the people of Ammon subsequently moved to the Land of Melek. This made it possible for the Nephites and the converted Zoramites to contend with the invading Lamanites and dissident Zoramites (Alma 35:13). At the site of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, a distinct pottery has been found which is named Aguacate Orange (dating around 100 BC). Almost directly north in Belize, a pottery style was independently found which was named Floral Park. It wasn't until a conference in Guatemala City in 1965 that the two pottery collections were recognized as being 'so close that individual sherds ... can barely be distinguished one from another' (Sharer and Gifford 1970:446). The story gets even better when this same pottery type is found at Dos Pilas, Seibal and Aguateca (which may be evidence for Ammonites relocating to the Land of Melek). These evidences from archaeology are useful in pinpointing and confirming the location of the lands referred to in The Book of Mormon."

[danieldemol]

Within Jaredite lands, there was an elevated area between the land of Moron and the land of Nehor, which was lower in elevation than the land of Moron.

For a moment this gave me a shock until I looked up the etymology of the word "moron", which wikipedia gives as;

""Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard[3] from the Ancient Greek word μωρός (moros), which meant "dull"[4] (as opposed to oxy, which meant "sharp" (see also: oxymoron)), and used to describe a person with a mental age in adulthood of between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale."

So given that the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, it seems unlikely the term had a similar meaning when it was written.

[prismsplay]

For a moment this gave me a shock until I looked up the etymology of the word "moron", which wikipedia gives as;

""Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard[3] from the Ancient Greek word μωρός (moros), which meant "dull"[4] (as opposed to oxy, which meant "sharp" (see also: oxymoron)), and used to describe a person with a mental age in adulthood of between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale."

So given that the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, it seems unlikely the term had a similar meaning when it was written.

 

Merriam-Webster specializes in trying to find the earliest date of a word usage, and they also put "moron" at 1910. In Royal Skousen's preface to his The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (2009) he states: 

 

"In virtually all cases, the words in the Book of Mormon are still used in English, but their meanings are often different. For the most part, these meanings can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), where we often find that the citations for those meanings date to the 1500s and 1600s but do not extend into the 1700s and 1800s."

 

Concerning topographic information in the Book of Mormon, the words involved are so commonplace that they are rarely even included in a concordance, words like up, down, and went over or came over. So to discover this information, one must actually read the book slowly and carefully.

[danieldemol]

One thing I find unusual about L.D.S geography, is that I think to myself, "The Lord of the Rings is just a fictional book, and yet it includes a map complete with Mordor and other points of interest. If someone turned up on my doorstep telling me about all these historical civilizations they had visited, the first thing I would probably do is show them a map of America and be like, 'can you mark the sites these tribes lived at' for the sake of the archeological explorative potential such a map would provide"

I would probably do something similar to have the location of Kolob identified too.

Does it ever occur to anyone that Joseph Smith had remarkably few questions for an individual under such circumstances?

It would seem to me like such a list of obvious questions would surely come to mind.

[Tiki]

So where in Mesoamerica are the two distinct plains?

The plains between the city of Mulek and the City of Bountiful? Alma 52:20

The plains of Nephihah? Alma 62:18

The plains of Heshlon? Ether 13

The plains of Agosh? Ether 14

Granted, the last two were the same as the former in the list. So where in Mesoamerica are the two plains?

It seems to me both the Nephite and the Jaredite armies preferred open warfare, not some jungle guerrilla warfare.

Are these two plains in the boggy lowlands of the Grijalva and Usumacinta river delta? Were these plains covered with trees and other jungle foliage? Are they in the Maya Highlands were the Grijalva river cuts through the terrain with a deep canyon?

http://www.locogringo.com/chiapas/sumiderocanyon.html

Up and down are nice. But flat plains are also mentioned in the text.

[prismsplay]

Up and down are nice. But flat plains are also mentioned in the text.

 

The word "flat" does not occur in the concordance of the Book of Mormon that I use, but flatness is implied in the term "plains".

 

For the plains of Nephihah, we have some good information.

 

Alma 62:18:

And it came to pass that when they had come to the city Nephihah, they did pitch their tents in the plains of Nephihah, which is near the city Nephihah.

 

Alma 50:14:

And they also began a foundation for a city between the city of Moroni and the city of Aaron, joining the borders of [the land of] Aaron and [the land of] Moroni, and they called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah.

 

If we can identify the location of any of the places mentioned in Alma 50:14, we are well on our way towards locating the plains of Nephihah. Although the city of Moroni was later "sunk in the depths of the sea" (3 Nephi 9:4), we know generally where the city of Moroni was:

 

Alma 50:13:

And it came to pass that the Nephites began the foundation of a city, and they called the name of the city Moroni. And it was by the east sea; and it was on the south by the line of the possessions of the Lamanites.

 

Some keen students of the Book of Mormon believe that the ruins of the city of Moroni are under the water of the Gulf of Honduras near the south end of Belize.

Edited October 10, 2013 by prismsplay

[danieldemol]

Some keen students of the Book of Mormon believe that the ruins of the city of Moroni are under the water of the Gulf of Honduras near the south end of Belize.

Has anything actually been discovered under the water there?

It seems like the only thing that the text clearly indicates is that somewhere on the east coast of (presumably) America, there should be plains, and possibly architectural ruins nearby, with possibly some underwater ruins nearby to the south a bit, with no real qualifier for what constitutes "near".

[prismsplay]

Has anything actually been discovered under the water there?

It seems like the only thing that the text clearly indicates is that somewhere on the east coast of (presumably) America, there should be plains, and possibly architectural ruins nearby, with possibly some underwater ruins nearby to the south a bit, with no real qualifier for what constitutes "near".

 

Topographic information adds a third dimension to the search for Book of Mormon geography. If a proposed geography is in not in harmony with that information, it must be rejected. Some would suggest that the general topography was so violently changed by the crucifixion upheaval, that nothing can be learned from it. However, most of the topographic information comes from Mormon, who as a military general would have been completely familiar with topography, and the topographic information that shows up in his writing was based on his knowledge centuries after the upheaval.

 

In the case of the city of Moroni, Mormon tells us, in Alma 50:13-14, where the city of Moroni was in relationship to other places prior to its being "sunk in the depths of the sea." The word "sunk" is topographic in nature, because it tells us that it was not a case of water heaving up upon the city of Moroni and then retracting. "Sunk" indicates that the elevation level of the city of Moroni dropped below sea level. Therefore, its ruins have to be under water. And when we consider that it was "by the east sea" "on the south by the line of the possessions of the Lamanites", that pretty much confines it to where I suggested that keen minds would want to look for its ruins.

[Anijen]

The word "flat" does not occur in the concordance of the Book of Mormon that I use, but flatness is implied in the term "plains".

 

For the plains of Nephihah, we have some good information.

 

Alma 62:18:

And it came to pass that when they had come to the city Nephihah, they did pitch their tents in the plains of Nephihah, which is near the city Nephihah.

 

Alma 50:14:

And they also began a foundation for a city between the city of Moroni and the city of Aaron, joining the borders of [the land of] Aaron and [the land of] Moroni, and they called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah.

 

If we can identify the location of any of the places mentioned in Alma 50:14, we are well on our way towards locating the plains of Nephihah. Although the city of Moroni was later "sunk in the depths of the sea" (3 Nephi 9:4), we know generally where the city of Moroni was:

 

Alma 50:13:

And it came to pass that the Nephites began the foundation of a city, and they called the name of the city Moroni. And it was by the east sea; and it was on the south by the line of the possessions of the Lamanites.

 

Some keen students of the Book of Mormon believe that the ruins of the city of Moroni are under the water of the Gulf of Honduras near the south end of Belize.

It is interesting to note that the word "ha" in the Mayan language means by the sea. These cities are all by Nephihah and Nephihah was described in the Book of Mormon as by the sea.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Anijen

[Rob Osborn]

Topographic information adds a third dimension to the search for Book of Mormon geography. If a proposed geography is in not in harmony with that information, it must be rejected. Some would suggest that the general topography was so violently changed by the crucifixion upheaval, that nothing can be learned from it. However, most of the topographic information comes from Mormon, who as a military general would have been completely familiar with topography, and the topographic information that shows up in his writing was based on his knowledge centuries after the upheaval.

 

In the case of the city of Moroni, Mormon tells us, in Alma 50:13-14, where the city of Moroni was in relationship to other places prior to its being "sunk in the depths of the sea." The word "sunk" is topographic in nature, because it tells us that it was not a case of water heaving up upon the city of Moroni and then retracting. "Sunk" indicates that the elevation level of the city of Moroni dropped below sea level. Therefore, its ruins have to be under water. And when we consider that it was "by the east sea" "on the south by the line of the possessions of the Lamanites", that pretty much confines it to where I suggested that keen minds would want to look for its ruins.

Another possibillity that cant be ruled out is that the land of South America was mostly underwater in the past. Ancient cities like that of Puma Punka not far from lake Titicaca served as an ancient seaport. The lake has sealife such as seahorses. Evidence shows that the whole land was over two miles lower during ancient civilized times. They have even found ruins in the bottom of the lake. Perhaps the city of Moroni?

[Anijen]

Another possibillity that cant be ruled out is that the land of South America was mostly underwater in the past.

This is true, but it was underwater long before the time of the Book of Mormon. South America around 3500 BC looks pretty much how it looks now. See here.

 

So yes it can be ruled out.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Anijen

[Rob Osborn]

This is true, but it was underwater long before the time of the Book of Mormon. South America around 3500 BC looks pretty much how it looks now. See here.

 

So yes it can be ruled out.

You have a time machine? We know great mountains came into existance around the time of Christs death in the Americas. So what does empiracle science have to say about that?

[Anijen]

You have a time machine? We know great mountains came into existance around the time of Christs death in the Americas. So what does empiracle science have to say about that?

We know? Empirical science would agree with me that South America looks pretty much like it does now.

 

As far as mountains being raised up or coming down does not matter since we do not know where these mountains were raised up at, nor do we know with certainty where the events of the Book of Mormon took place.

 

How about volcanic activity for mountains in which I certainly know of some that have become mountains. There was volcanic activity in Mesoamerica in the 1st century AD, but no where in the United States. The last volcano eruption East of the Mississippi river was about 65 million years ago.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Anijen

[Rob Osborn]

We know? Empirical science would agree with me that South America looks pretty much like it does now.

 

As far as mountains being raised up or coming down does not matter since we do not know where these mountains were raised up at, nor do we know with certainty where the events of the Book of Mormon took place.

 

How about volcanic activity for mountains in which I certainly know of some that have become mountains. There was volcanic activity in Mesoamerica in the 1st century AD, but no where in the United States. The last volcano eruption East of the Mississippi river was about 65 million years ago.

The BoM account tells of mountain upthrust- basic mountain building of upthrust sedimentary kayers and other areas severely rippled and valleies forming.

[Anijen]

The BoM account tells of mountain upthrust- basic mountain building of upthrust sedimentary kayers and other areas severely rippled and valleies forming.

I realize what the Book of Mormon says. 

 

The Book of Mormon does not say where it happened. It could have been in the U.S, South America, Mesoamerica, Ireland, or in India. 

 

Show me a mountain anywhere in the world that dates to 1st century AD. The only ones I can think of are from volcanic eruptions in the ring of fire. That leaves out all of the United States east of the Mississippi river.