New World Archaelogical Foundation

[Brant Gardner]

You place too much faith in conjecture.

If you define what historians typically do as conjecture, you would be correct. However, I think you are using that word to dismiss something more substantive that you seem to be willing to credit.

[Rob Osborn]

This indicates as well as any of your statements, your complete lack of understanding of the arguments about Book of Mormon geography.  First, if we had only the Bible and no already extant geographical correlations, you would be claiming that Palestine must have been thousands of miles in extent (based on the kind of reasoning you employ); second, Jerusalem and parts of the Old World are part of the Book of Mormon story.  I have met people who actually made blatantly false claims about that Old World geography based on the kind of simple misreading that you use.  Non-Mormon biblical archeologists would laugh someone like that out of the room.

 

If you have read so widely and deeply, why is that you are completely unfamiliar with the arguments being made?  Surely you can do better than to dismiss everything as "conjecture."  Have you bothered to gather the distance references in the Book of Mormon and evaluated them for yourself?  Where is your substantive critique?  How is it that you completely miss the interlocking nature of such references?

You are so wrong. Let me ask- when the pilgrims and other settlers/separatists first came to America what did they do in the course of the next 200 years? Did they stay in some small 200x400 mile area? No, they moved around, explored and traveled thousands of miles. From the text, we can only assume that the Jaredites were the first to inhabit the Americas after the flood. and then later on the Nephites came along with Muleks explorers. The Nephites and Lamanites were thus separated for several hundred years from the people of Mulek who would later be known as Zarahemla. This was all n the land southward. In fact, almost very event spoken of in Nephites civilization takes place in the land southward in the land of Nephi and Zarahemla. The text supports the idea that the land northward from Nephi and Zarahemla was a far away distant place. I throw in my own conjecture here at this point to say that in analogy, the Mormon pioneers traveled over a thousand miles to go find a new place to live using basically the same technology that the Nephites had. The distance wasnt too far though that it made it hard. But it was far enough that it got noted as such. Every migration from the land southward to the land northward that is spoken of in the BoM is noteworthy as it being a far away place where it became an exceeding great distance to travel. When they first discovered the narrow neck and the land northward, the first migrations to the land northward happened by ship. Why is that? Also, why did the Jaredites never go to live and dwell into the land southward? It appears from the text that for a very long time this narrow neck was perhaps some kind of natural barrier. This doesnt describe any place in southern Mexico.

We cannot thus falsely assume that they all lived and died and recorded such great nations accomplishments and defeats to have all taken place in a small geographic area in meso-america especially when such great vast open lands lay before them to both the north and the south. Israle was a much different picture as they were locked in by surrounding nations and research work has in fact found that a lot of those events did happen around one small geographic area.

[Rob Osborn]

If you define what historians typically do as conjecture, you would be correct. However, I think you are using that word to dismiss something more substantive that you seem to be willing to credit.

I dont place too much faith in historians and the supposed ideas of what they have to say about how the America's got populated. If they were right, then the Book of Mormon is flat out wrong! In placing my belief in the validity of the Boo of Mormon as a historical text, of which I believe it is, then it means modern historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc, have it not only a little wrong, but almost entirely wrong!

Its thus easy for me to look at their evidence and readily dismiss dates and ideas they have regarding those dates. It is a well known fact that much of their carbon dating methods cannot be correlated with any known events in the new world. Besides that, carbon dating has a myriad of problems on its own. I do not for a second believe the fairytale that man walked over on some land bridge from Asia some 20-30 thousand years ago.

The greatest test of my faith compared to their theories is that I honestly believe that the warring Jaredites killed millions and millions of their peoples in an epic war lasting decades, but what does modern historians/ archaeologists have to say on that? They laugh. Whom am I to believe- modern science which laughs at the real truth, or the Book of Mormon that only proclaims the real truth?

[Brant Gardner]

I dont place too much faith in historians and the supposed ideas of what they have to say about how the America's got populated. If they were right, then the Book of Mormon is flat out wrong! In placing my belief in the validity of the Boo of Mormon as a historical text, of which I believe it is, then it means modern historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc, have it not only a little wrong, but almost entirely wrong!

Its thus easy for me to look at their evidence and readily dismiss dates and ideas they have regarding those dates. It is a well known fact that much of their carbon dating methods cannot be correlated with any known events in the new world. Besides that, carbon dating has a myriad of problems on its own. I do not for a second believe the fairytale that man walked over on some land bridge from Asia some 20-30 thousand years ago.

The greatest test of my faith compared to their theories is that I honestly believe that the warring Jaredites killed millions and millions of their peoples in an epic war lasting decades, but what does modern historians/ archaeologists have to say on that? They laugh. Whom am I to believe- modern science which laughs at the real truth, or the Book of Mormon that only proclaims the real truth?

Now I understand. We will never agree, nor be able to properly communicate. Happens.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I hope you don't mind that I show your response, I am glad that you believe in climate change and evolution as a change over time. 

Can you please clarify, do you believe that humans and apes share common ancestor?

 

You said, 

 

Thank you for the complements. As to answers, I tend to think that humanity is contributing to climate change. I don't have the expertise to back that up, but that is where I fall on the basis of the evidence I've seen.

 

As to evolution, the answer has to be a little more complex because that one word can mean so many things.

 

a) evolution as change over time is a certainty. Even human evolution as a change over time is certain. For a simple example, human jaws have been receding and we have enough skulls to see the change. Once upon a time, most people's front teeth lined up with those on the bottom. Now we all have some sort of an overbite, with the top teeth on the outside of the bottom.

b) evolution as shorthand for the mechanism of change seems pretty well established although still a theory that may be refined. That explains how changes have happened. In the case of the teeth, the proposed cause is the removal of any survival advantage to a person who could easily tear food with teeth. With a knife and fork, and can eat and survive long enough to pass on my genetic heritage even though I might not have been as able to survive in times before we cut up our food as much. The idea makes some sense, but there might be other factors.

c) evolution as causation, or as the ultimate beginning. It is here that there is a religious issue, and the science is applied only because it works on life after the creation, so it is extended to creation. Perhaps. However, I see a place for God in the process. Stephen Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time suggested that there is a place for God in pure secular science in the instances after the Big Bang (and that theory is now being questioned). He suggested that there are unique aspects of the universe that allow for life as we know it, and they could have been arranged by a god. That is much farther back in the process than I would place God, but it does show that even scientists can see where God fits in the process (or might fit, even if they don't believe).

 

Brant Gardner

Edited February 13, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

Now I understand. We will never agree, nor be able to properly communicate. Happens.

As a side note, I find it quite amusing that mesoamerican believers in the BoM believe the Mayan were Nephite or lamanite and use scientists dating methods to validate such. But the irony is that preclassic mayan sites date back before Lehi and company ever sailed. So much for Nephi teaching them the manner of buildibg eh?

[Brant Gardner]

As a side note, I find it quite amusing that mesoamerican believers in the BoM believe the Mayan were Nephite or lamanite and use scientists dating methods to validate such. But the irony is that preclassic mayan sites date back before Lehi and company ever sailed. So much for Nephi teaching them the manner of buildibg eh?

You might try reading what we are saying before making such simple characterizations. I am well aware of the dating of the pre-Classic origins, and have never espoused a direct correlation between Book of Mormon peoples and the generic cultural labels that are widely applied to Mesoamerican peoples. There is a lot you could interact with that I have said rather than things I have not.

[Brant Gardner]

I hope you don't mind that I show your response, I am glad that you believe in climate change and evolution as a change over time. 

Can you please clarify, do you believe that humans and apes share common ancestor? 

This is pretty severely off topic, so if any more gets said, please start a new thread. My personal understanding of God's definition of "man" is a spirit capable of exaltation, and that part of the process requires a physical body. I don't think the origin of the physical body is part of God's definition of man. What that means, for me, is that it is possible that there is a common ancestor of the hominids. There is enough genetic similarity in our DNA to suggest that, even though the direct connections are unclear. However, I also don't think that all hominids met God's definition of man, regardless of the quality of spirit that might have animated them. 

 

The rest, of course, is personal theology and certain the subject of a different thread.

[Rob Osborn]

You might try reading what we are saying before making such simple characterizations. I am well aware of the dating of the pre-Classic origins, and have never espoused a direct correlation between Book of Mormon peoples and the generic cultural labels that are widely applied to Mesoamerican peoples. There is a lot you could interact with that I have said rather than things I have not.

So who do you think the Mayans were? I have my own idea but I would like to hear what you think.

[ERayR]

So who do you think the Mayans were? I have my own idea but I would like to hear what you think.

 

Indigenous inhabitants when Lehi and family arrived.  The could have been remnant Jaredites and other indigenous peoples.

[Gervin]

I do have some guidelines that I use. The geography has to fit with all of the information in the text rather than only certain major similarities. 

If it is true that Mesoamerican geography can be characterized as lowlands and highlands, how does the Book of Mormon narrative fit?

[Brant Gardner]

If it is true that Mesoamerican geography can be characterized as lowlands and highlands, how does the Book of Mormon narrative fit?

I'm not sure that that characterization is correct. Typically one speaks of highland or lowland Maya, and the portion of the Book of Mormon that I think took place in lands inhabited by Maya would have been highland. There is no clear evidence of any Book of Mormon description taking place in the lowlands. From highland Guatemala the story moves to Chiapas, which is lower that the Guatemalan highland, but is not the jungle that we see for the lowland Maya.

[Gervin]

... the portion of the Book of Mormon that I think took place in lands inhabited by Maya would have been highland. There is no clear evidence of any Book of Mormon description taking place in the lowlands. From highland Guatemala the story moves to Chiapas, which is lower that the Guatemalan highland, but is not the jungle that we see for the lowland Maya.

What information in the text of the Book of Mormon convinces you that events took place in the Guatemalan highlands?

[Brant Gardner]

What information in the text of the Book of Mormon convinces you that events took place in the Guatemalan highlands?

There isn't a simple message board appropriate answer. Part of the evidence depends upon the geographic reconstruction and interrelationships with other times and places. There is better information for later in the Book of Mormon. While the Nephites were in the land of Nephi for nearly 400 years, we have little information in the text and that makes it rather difficult for firm descriptions based on the text and the highlands alone. However, as part of the overall picture, things fit well, and the timing and reason for the exodus coincides with the invasion of Quichean speakers into the highlands which created a population dispersal at the same time that the Book of Mormon describes one. That is probably the best piece for their time in the highlands.

[Gervin]

While the Nephites were in the land of Nephi for nearly 400 years, we have little information in the text and that makes it rather difficult for firm descriptions based on the text and the highlands alone. 

 

You said, above

 

"The geography has to fit with all of the information in the text rather than only certain major similarities. "

 

If the geography has to fit with all the information in the text, yet you don't have textual descriptions that show the Book of Mormon culture in the highlands, then you haven't established a Book of Mormon geography based on your own guidelines.  I'm not trying for some "gotcha" moment; your methodology and assumptions deserve rigorous scrutiny if they result in conclusions that the Book of Mormon (or parts of it) took place in the Guatemalan highlands.  

 

However, as part of the overall picture, things fit well, and the timing and reason for the exodus coincides with the invasion of Quichean speakers into the highlands which created a population dispersal at the same time that the Book of Mormon describes one. That is probably the best piece for their time in the highlands.

 

 

 

"Things fit well" is a conclusion that you haven't supported.  If a Quichean invasion is in the text, then please provide a reference.

[Brant Gardner]

You said, above

 

"The geography has to fit with all of the information in the text rather than only certain major similarities. "

 

If the geography has to fit with all the information in the text, yet you don't have textual descriptions that show the Book of Mormon culture in the highlands, then you haven't established a Book of Mormon geography based on your own guidelines.  I'm not trying for some "gotcha" moment; your methodology and assumptions deserve rigorous scrutiny if they result in conclusions that the Book of Mormon (or parts of it) took place in the Guatemalan highlands.  

 

I agree that both the methodology and assumptions require rigorous scrutiny as well as rigorous presentation. It won't happen on a message board. 

 

"Things fit well" is a conclusion that you haven't supported.  If a Quichean invasion is in the text, then please provide a reference.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are asking if the text mention Quiche peoples, then clearly it does not. However, it does mention a Lamanite invasion during this time that was different from the rest of the continuous warfare because it cause population relocations that hadn't happened before. From what we can see archaeologically, during the time period defined by the Book of Mormon there was an invasion of an outside people that we define as Quiche that caused population locations. As a single instance, that is an interesting coincidence. Many more such correlations between what is reported in the text and what is known to have happened have to be demonstrated. Again, it won't happen on a message board.

 

As for the missing name Quiche in the text, I'm sure you are aware that exonyms and internal demonyms are not always the same, and frequently not similar at all. Many ancient societies are not known by what they called themselves, but what other record writers called them.

[Gervin]

I agree that both the methodology and assumptions require rigorous scrutiny as well as rigorous presentation. It won't happen on a message board. 

 

Well, it certainly isn't inappropriate for such a discussion to take place on a discussion board ... but you have to be comfortable enough with your own methodology and assumptions for that to happen. Do you believe that they have otherwise gone through rigorous scrutiny and, if so, by whom?

 

I

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are asking if the text mention Quiche peoples, then clearly it does not. However, it does mention a Lamanite invasion during this time that was different from the rest of the continuous warfare because it cause population relocations that hadn't happened before. From what we can see archaeologically, during the time period defined by the Book of Mormon there was an invasion of an outside people that we define as Quiche that caused population locations. As a single instance, that is an interesting coincidence. Many more such correlations between what is reported in the text and what is known to have happened have to be demonstrated. Again, it won't happen on a message board.

 

 

 

Do you believe the Quiche people are in the Book of Mormon, and that they are called Lamanites? Or some other name?  What archaeological evidence are you drawing on, and what time period? 

[Brant Gardner]

 

Well, it certainly isn't inappropriate for such a discussion to take place on a discussion board ... but you have to be comfortable enough with your own methodology and assumptions for that to happen. Do you believe that they have otherwise gone through rigorous scrutiny and, if so, by whom?

 

Discussions are appropriate for a discussion board, naturally. Book length arguments are clearly not appropriate. For most serious arguments, they have to see the light of day and those who wish to then interact. Those with relevant experience are the ones whose criticisms are most valuable.

 

Do you believe the Quiche people are in the Book of Mormon, and that they are called Lamanites? Or some other name?  What archaeological evidence are you drawing on, and what time period?

 

The Nephites used the term "Lamanite" in the same way that Israelites used Gentile. It is an exonym that basically refers to "not us." In that sense, the Quiche were Lamanites, but so were any people they displaced who might have spoken Cholan but were not considered Nephites. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that once the Nephites were removed to what I believe was in the Grijalva river basin in Chiapas, that there were Zoquean speakers were were "not us" and therefore were called "Lamanite." 

 

Any attempt to identify Book of Mormon peoples with any broad category such as Quiche, or especially Maya (Quiche is a Maya language, as is Cholan) falls prey to the same misconception that assumes any kind of overarching Mayanness among the various cities that spoke the same or related languages. There were important differences from city to city even where there were other shared concepts. 

[Gervin]

Discussions are appropriate for a discussion board, naturally. Book length arguments are clearly not appropriate. For most serious arguments, they have to see the light of day and those who wish to then interact. Those with relevant experience are the ones whose criticisms are most valuable.

 

 

How would one go about putting assumptions and methods through rigorous scrutiny?

 

The Nephites <snip> ...

 

 

You're giving me conclusions.  And you shouldn't get a free pass by simply claiming that a discussion of methods and assumptions is "inappropriate." 

 

looit's "Dear Evangelical ..." thread is book length ... and probably more relevant than anything packaged as LDS /non-LDS dialogue.  

 

Did you see my question about your archeology and time frame reference?

[Robert F. Smith]

 

How would one go about putting assumptions and methods through rigorous scrutiny?

 

 

You're giving me conclusions.  And you shouldn't get a free pass by simply claiming that a discussion of methods and assumptions is "inappropriate."

 

looit's "Dear Evangelical ..." thread is book length ... and probably more relevant than anything packaged as LDS /non-LDS dialogue.  

 

Did you see my question about your archeology and time frame reference?

Since most of the relevant material has been covered by professionals, I would suggest that you avail yourself of those arguments in detailed and systematic form, with full documentation:

 

Gardner, Brant, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (SLC: Greg Kofford Books, 2007).

Brant Gardner received a MA in anthropology from the State University of New York, Albany, emphasizing Mesoamerican ethnohistory.

 

Sorenson, John L., Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Provo: BYU Maxwell Institute/ SLC: Deseret Book, 2013).

John Sorenson received his PhD in anthropology at UCLA.

[Brant Gardner]

 

How would one go about putting assumptions and methods through rigorous scrutiny?

I am really not sure why you would ask  that question. Historians have dealt with texts for a long time, and the problem of correlating textual material with the text has been around somewhat less time. There is no agreed upon methodology, so various attempts are made and the arguments tend to help substantiate the evidence. For an example, see Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002.

 

You're giving me conclusions.  And you shouldn't get a free pass by simply claiming that a discussion of methods and assumptions is "inappropriate."

What is inappropriate is attempting to repeat a book on a message board. That is why we have books. If you are interested in Crossan and Reed's arguments, you can get a summary on a message board, but if you want to understand the evidence, you will be required to go to the book.

 

If you are interested in what my methods and assumptions are, you might have asked that question instead of specific ones about the Quiche.

 

The short summary is that any geography has to fit the descriptions in the text for geographical features, hydrological features, and geological features (and for that we really have only the descriptions in 3 Nephi of a great destruction--but those descriptions are sufficient to understand what natural event they were describing).

 

For cultural information, we need to have events known from history that match in time and space with the text's information. While texts give us different information than archaeology, there are clearly points of contact (see Crossan and Reed, or any of several books from Dever on the Israel/Judah). Cultural trends need to match, and when the cultural trends provide explanations for elements of the text there are further locations of confluence between the text and the archaeology. It is really what Mesoamerican ethnographers do all of the time. See any of the reconstructions that Linda Schele worked on.

[Robert F. Smith]

You are so wrong. Let me ask- when the pilgrims and other settlers/separatists first came to America what did they do in the course of the next 200 years? Did they stay in some small 200x400 mile area? No, they moved around, explored and traveled thousands of miles.

The colonists from Holland and Britain came in significant numbers during those two centuries, and they brought with them advanced technology for that day. The Nephites and Mulekites did nothing similar:  They had no continuous stream of settlers coming in, and they had no similar technology.  Plus, they were entering a relatively sparsely populated area, whereas the Nephites and Mulekites came into the most heavily populated area in the Americas -- with millions of inhabitants.

 

From the text, we can only assume that the Jaredites were the first to inhabit the Americas after the flood.

Wrong again.  The text says no such thing, although that is a frequent mistake made by careless readers.  Moreover, the Great Flood was likely local or regional, rather than the sort of thing which covered the mountains of planet Earth.  The Bible says no such thing.  In any case, there were lots of peoples inhabiting the Americas for thousands of years before the arrival of the Jaredites -- who established a great civilization centered on Veracruz state in southern Mexico.

 

and then later on the Nephites came along with Muleks explorers. The Nephites and Lamanites were thus separated for several hundred years from the people of Mulek who would later be known as Zarahemla. This was all n the land southward. In fact, almost very event spoken of in Nephites civilization takes place in the land southward in the land of Nephi and Zarahemla. The text supports the idea that the land northward from Nephi and Zarahemla was a far away distant place.

Again the text says no such thing.  The interlocking geographical references of the Book of Mormon require that the Jaredite land northward be immediately adjacent to the land southward.  Only a careless reading of the text could lead one to believe otherwise.

 

I throw in my own conjecture here at this point to say that in analogy, the Mormon pioneers traveled over a thousand miles to go find a new place to live using basically the same technology that the Nephites had. The distance wasnt too far though that it made it hard. But it was far enough that it got noted as such. Every migration from the land southward to the land northward that is spoken of in the BoM is noteworthy as it being a far away place where it became an exceeding great distance to travel. When they first discovered the narrow neck and the land northward, the first migrations to the land northward happened by ship. Why is that? Also, why did the Jaredites never go to live and dwell into the land southward? It appears from the text that for a very long time this narrow neck was perhaps some kind of natural barrier. This doesnt describe any place in southern Mexico.

The Mormon pioneers had advanced technology (wagons rifles, etc.) and the geography did not obstruct their path.  Then too, the areas they passed through were sparsely populated.  Again, you are comparing apples with oranges and creating a fantasy world.  It seems true to you, but you just haven't thought it through in realistic fashion.

 

We cannot thus falsely assume that they all lived and died and recorded such great nations accomplishments and defeats to have all taken place in a small geographic area in meso-america especially when such great vast open lands lay before them to both the north and the south. Israle was a much different picture as they were locked in by surrounding nations and research work has in fact found that a lot of those events did happen around one small geographic area.

As with the nation of Israel, they were also hemmed in by other powerful neighbors, and did not have vast open lands available to both north and south.  Both the Bible and Book of Mormon took place largely in quite small geographical areas, for similar reasons, and there is nothing odd or unaccountable in that fact.

[Robert F. Smith]

I dont place too much faith in historians and the supposed ideas of what they have to say about how the America's got populated. If they were right, then the Book of Mormon is flat out wrong! In placing my belief in the validity of the Boo of Mormon as a historical text, of which I believe it is, then it means modern historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc, have it not only a little wrong, but almost entirely wrong!

You are flat out wrong, Rob.  The Book of Mormon does not conflict with the archeological history of the Americas at all.  You are badly misinformed about the content of modern history, archeology, anthropology, etc., and also woefully misinformed about the content of the Book of Mormon.

 

Its thus easy for me to look at their evidence and readily dismiss dates and ideas they have regarding those dates. It is a well known fact that much of their carbon dating methods cannot be correlated with any known events in the new world. Besides that, carbon dating has a myriad of problems on its own. I do not for a second believe the fairytale that man walked over on some land bridge from Asia some 20-30 thousand years ago.

Carbon dating is only one of many dating techniques applied in archeology, and it is very reliable.  Moreover, nobody takes one carbon date without correlating it with other dating.  For example, it can be compared to tree-ring dates, dates carved on stelae, relative stratigraphy, pottery styles, etc.  As for your problem with Beringia, that is an unnecessary exclusion of valid evidence, without even realizing the implications.  In any case, humans crossing Beringia 24,000 years ago pose no problem for the Book of Mormon.

 

The greatest test of my faith compared to their theories is that I honestly believe that the warring Jaredites killed millions and millions of their peoples in an epic war lasting decades, but what does modern historians/ archaeologists have to say on that? They laugh. Whom am I to believe- modern science which laughs at the real truth, or the Book of Mormon that only proclaims the real truth?

You conjure up the false picture of " modern historians/ archaeologists" laughing uproariously at millions of deaths in Mesoamerican warfare, even though they are the ones telling us that such death rates actually took place there.  What Brant Gardner and John Sorenson do is to read those modern scientific works and apply their conclusions to the Book of Mormon.  Your approach to modern science, Rob, is quite different.  Why?

[Gervin]

I am really not sure why you would ask  that question.

 

 

 

I ask the question because in post #66 you agreed that assumptions and methodology require rigorous scrutiny.  I'll ask again, do you believe your methods and assumptions have undergone rigorous scrutiny and, if so, by whom. or who. or what.

 

 

The short summary is that any geography has to fit the descriptions in the text for geographical features, hydrological features, and geological features (and for that we really have only the descriptions in 3 Nephi of a great destruction--but those descriptions are sufficient to understand what natural event they were describing).

 

 

 

I find this sentence confusing.  Perhaps you assume that the Book of Mormon is historical.  Perhaps you assume that XY&Z text of the Book of Mormon equates to AB&C of known mesoamerican cultures, or places.  "Things have to fit" is neither an assumption nor a method.  This goes back to the question at the top. 

However, we can agree that any archaeological evidence used needs to fit the spatial and temporal frames in the text to be useful-

 

 

No, we can't agree on that.  The art/science of archaeology is grounded in the fact that it has to fit - as some type of recordation - on a timeline. Even if that timeline is dynamic to findings and changing assumptions/conclusions. The time periods before and after an assumed era or timeframe are important for setting context pre- and post-event.

 

So, I'm interested in your reference in post #66 ("From what we can see archaeologically, ")

Edited February 15, 2015 by Gervin

[ERayR]

You are so wrong. Let me ask- when the pilgrims and other settlers/separatists first came to America what did they do in the course of the next 200 years? Did they stay in some small 200x400 mile area? No, they moved around, explored and traveled thousands of miles. From the text, we can only assume that the Jaredites were the first to inhabit the Americas after the flood. and then later on the Nephites came along with Muleks explorers. The Nephites and Lamanites were thus separated for several hundred years from the people of Mulek who would later be known as Zarahemla. This was all n the land southward. In fact, almost very event spoken of in Nephites civilization takes place in the land southward in the land of Nephi and Zarahemla. The text supports the idea that the land northward from Nephi and Zarahemla was a far away distant place. I throw in my own conjecture here at this point to say that in analogy, the Mormon pioneers traveled over a thousand miles to go find a new place to live using basically the same technology that the Nephites had. The distance wasnt too far though that it made it hard. But it was far enough that it got noted as such. Every migration from the land southward to the land northward that is spoken of in the BoM is noteworthy as it being a far away place where it became an exceeding great distance to travel. When they first discovered the narrow neck and the land northward, the first migrations to the land northward happened by ship. Why is that? Also, why did the Jaredites never go to live and dwell into the land southward? It appears from the text that for a very long time this narrow neck was perhaps some kind of natural barrier. This doesnt describe any place in southern Mexico.

We cannot thus falsely assume that they all lived and died and recorded such great nations accomplishments and defeats to have all taken place in a small geographic area in meso-america especially when such great vast open lands lay before them to both the north and the south. Israle was a much different picture as they were locked in by surrounding nations and research work has in fact found that a lot of those events did happen around one small geographic area.

 

But their records pertaining to, say Rhode Island did not include the records of New York City.  However as people migrated between the two they may have been included in the records of the area they migrated to.