Book Of Mormon Land In Baja

[Freedom]

http://www.achoiceland.com/home

 

I have looked for any responses to the arguments of placing the events in Baja California but I suppose that their argument is so unique that it has never shown up on anybodies radar. From my reading, they seem to be finding places in Baja that matches the Book of of Mormon and use this as proof. I could use their approach to prove that the events took place on Vancouver Island. 

 

Has anybody looked closely at their arguments? I just don't have the time to read through it all. They resolve the matter of a complete lack of archaeological evidence by saying it just did not survive because the land was cursed. 

[strappinglad]

I have read their presentation. There are some fair points , particularly about the climate .Others don't line up as good . Brant G commented on it but only briefly , and I can't find it now. If you google the Baja area you will see that it really is a great place to grow a lot of crops and the climate in not so tropical as much of the coastal parts of Mesoamerica . More temperate. Not much archeology has taken place there , even though it would be a great place to inhabit over the centuries.

   I keep the idea of it as a possible Nephite area on a whatnot shelf in my mind.

[nosmelone]

I recall in a podcast Mark Alan Wright commenting on the Baja theory stating that the population numbers don't even begin to add up.  He stated he has a friend who is an archaeologist in that area who was extremely excited about finding some ruins to excavate that were considered a big deal.  He stated that in size they were considered a few houses or households which was considered a huge finding for that area nothing like the commonly found city sites found in central America that held massive populations.

[JAHS]

Years ago I remember reading someones argument, insisting that the Book of Mormon story could have happened on the island of Japan.  It has North, South, East, and West seas and a narrow neck of land. Not sure how the plates got to the American continent though.

 

[Traela]

Years ago I remember reading someones argument, insisting that the Book of Mormon story could have happened on the island of Japan.  It has North, South, East, and West seas and a narrow neck of land. Not sure how the plates got to the American continent though.

 

Obviously, he was picked up by Hagoth's descendants, who ferried him across the Pacific.

[Freedom]

I found this article by Michel Ash

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705362644/The-Baja-model-of-Book-of-Mormon-geography.html?pg=all

 

and this one from Mormon Matters. There is a good long discussion in the posts after the article. 

http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/02/book-of-mormon-on-the-baja/

 

 

In an article called 'The Waters of Sideon': The Grijalva River or the Usumacinta River by Allen, Allen and Stoddard, the following argument about geography is put forward:

 

1. The area must show evidence of a high-level written language that was in use during the Book of Mormon time period for the Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites.

2. The area must reflect two high civilizations that show extensive evidence of major population centers, continual shifts in population demographics, extensive trading among the cultures, and almost constant warfare among the inhabitants—in harmony with the dates given in the Book of Mormon.

3. The archaeological dating of the proposed area must reflect thorough analyses of sites and artifacts with resulting radiocarbon dates that agree with the dates given in the Book of Mormon.

4. The historical evidence from the area must provide valid findings that dovetail with the customs and traditions associated with the peoples and dates of the Book of Mormon. 

5. The geographic configuration of the area must resemble an hourglass as a reflection of two land masses and a narrow neck of land (an isthmus) dividing the two. The hourglass must be on its side in a horizontal position to justify the Nephite cardinal directions of “northward” and “southward” associated with the two land masses.

 

Are these requirements overstated? 

[hagoth7]

...In an article called 'The Waters of Sideon': The Grijalva River or the Usumacinta River by Allen, Allen and Stoddard, the following argument about geography is put forward:

 

1. The area must show evidence of a high-level written language that was in use during the Book of Mormon time period for the Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites.

2. The area must reflect two high civilizations that show extensive evidence of major population centers, continual shifts in population demographics, extensive trading among the cultures, and almost constant warfare among the inhabitants—in harmony with the dates given in the Book of Mormon.

3. The archaeological dating of the proposed area must reflect thorough analyses of sites and artifacts with resulting radiocarbon dates that agree with the dates given in the Book of Mormon.

4. The historical evidence from the area must provide valid findings that dovetail with the customs and traditions associated with the peoples and dates of the Book of Mormon. 

5. The geographic configuration of the area must resemble an hourglass as a reflection of two land masses and a narrow neck of land (an isthmus) dividing the two. The hourglass must be on its side in a horizontal position to justify the Nephite cardinal directions of “northward” and “southward” associated with the two land masses.

 

Are these requirements overstated? 

In my opinion, #5 is overstated.

I also have a few caveats with #1, but I'll let it pass for now without further comment.

Edited July 18, 2015 by hagoth7

[Freedom]

In my opinion, #5 is overstated.

I also have a few caveats with #1, but I'll let it pass for now without further comment.

i would agree with you. 

[Guest]

http://www.achoiceland.com/home

 

I have looked for any responses to the arguments of placing the events in Baja California but I suppose that their argument is so unique that it has never shown up on anybodies radar. From my reading, they seem to be finding places in Baja that matches the Book of of Mormon and use this as proof. I could use their approach to prove that the events took place on Vancouver Island. 

 

Has anybody looked closely at their arguments? I just don't have the time to read through it all. They resolve the matter of a complete lack of archaeological evidence by saying it just did not survive because the land was cursed.

We may never know or have evidence of the BoM until Christ comes...question is can we have faith in it's teaching? We know where most of the Bible took place, but that does not mean the supernatural events took place, just because we have the geography. All must be believed on faith, there is no evidence. I for one believe despite the lack of proof.

[JAHS]

In my opinion, #5 is overstated.

I also have a few caveats with #1, but I'll let it pass for now without further comment.

The idea that the land should be in a horizontal direction is definately debatable. The idea that the cardinal directions are skewed 90 degrees, doesn't fit well with all scriptures; especially the ones where Nephi says they traveled from Jesrusalem in a south-southeast direction and then in an eastward direction. If these direction were skewed 90 degrees from what we call them today, their journey would not fit the geography.

[Freedom]

We may never know or have evidence of the BoM until Christ comes...question is can we have faith in it's teaching? We know where most of the Bible took place, but that does not mean the supernatural events took place, just because we have the geography. All must be believed on faith, there is no evidence. I for one believe despite the lack of proof.

Geography is a strictly academic exercise and any models should be examined based on the requirements of the text. None of the theories have any bearing on the doctrines of the restoration any more than does archaeology in Jerusalem. 

[bofmmodel]

I'm the author of a Baja model, but I just created my mormondialogue account today and I'm a little worried that if I start responding to this thread too much it will be seen as an attempt to advertise my model.  Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I don't want to come across wrong on my first day using the forums.  Where do they draw the line?  I assume I can comment about The Book of Mormon & Baja, but can I provide links to relevant articles on my site, etc.?

[Freedom]

Welcome aboard. My father-in-law is a big fan. Defend away. 

[sunstoned]

Please, defend your model.  This is a discussion forum and I think we would all like to hear more of your thoughts on this.  I for one would be interested in hearing about any artifacts that might have been found in Baja.

[JAHS]

 In one of your articles you talk about the four seas and make the comment,  "the “north sea” was probably a large inland salt water sea in the

“land of many waters” on the northern borders of their occupied lands."

 

3 Nephi 8:18 says:

"But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;"

 

Three questions:

1. Is there any indication that such bodies of water exist there now or did some time in the past?

 

2. If none is there now, could such destruction have wiped out any sea that did exist there? 

 

3. In your model do you account for all this destruction which would have altered the face of other areas of the land?

[jkwilliams]

I never would have thought of Baja. I've been there too many times to count, but it's so dry and arid that I can't imagine it sustaining any kind of civilization. Maybe up the Colorado Delta area, but even then. 

[stemelbow]

I'm the author of a Baja model, but I just created my mormondialogue account today and I'm a little worried that if I start responding to this thread too much it will be seen as an attempt to advertise my model.  Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I don't want to come across wrong on my first day using the forums.  Where do they draw the line?  I assume I can comment about The Book of Mormon & Baja, but can I provide links to relevant articles on my site, etc.?

No doubt your wrong, but we'd still like more info. We're all wrong about something, so don't feel bad about it.

[bofmmodel]

Thank you for the warm welcome.

 

Although I appreciate the invitation to "defend" my model, I do want to first be clear that the model does not yet satisfactorily answer some important questions, so you won't find me trying to defend those things.  I will simply acknowledge them as weaknesses and hope that better evidence turns up someday.  On the other hand, there are things about Baja models that are actually quite compelling and which don't get enough attention.

 

 

The website for my model is:  http://bofmmodel.org

 

The model I present is significantly different than the Rosenvall's model (their model was mentioned at the beginning of this forum topic and can be found here) so if you're familiar with their content, you will find that some of their work relates to my model and some of it does not.  I can't speak for the Rosenvalls, so I will focus my comments largely on my own model and try to limit references to theirs except in cases where they deserve credit for research that also strengthens my model.

 

 

One thing that has been pointed out by other LDS authors is that Book of Mormon models tend to address the subject by giving primary importance to one of three different approaches.  These three approaches are:

• Geography - Models with geographic focus tend to look for geographic correlations with the text.  Once an external geography is selected, investigation is made to find out if other important subjects also fit the geographic context.
• Anthropology - Models that place priority on anthropology tend to look for cultural features first.  Once the model's author is comfortable with the idea that they have identified one or more Book of Mormon cultures, the model is constructed by explaining how the geography surrounding the chosen culture might parallel references to geography in the Book of Mormon.
• Prophetic - Models with prophetic focus tend to focus on statements made by modern prophets in relation to the lands of the Book of Mormon.  Correlations with the Book of Mormon itself only tend to be addressed after a model's author decides that they have identified an external context that they believe was authoritatively identified by modern prophecy.

My model definitely fits the geography-first category.  By saying this I'm not saying that the other approaches are wrong or unimportant, but I think that by knowing the approach that my model takes it will help readers understand my model's strengths and its weaknesses.  Going deeper than just physical geography, members of the Rosenvall's working group have also done a fantastic job of pointing out that the climate of Baja California and Southern California parallel climate-related references in the Book of Mormon quite well.

 

This means that the primary strengths of Baja models tend to be related to the peninsula's geography and climate.  Topics related to archaeology and anthropology are being actively researched and we are learning things here and there about the prehistory of the peninsula's cultures, but cultural parallels to the Jaredites and Nephites are not yet strong enough for me to call them "compelling".  On the other hand, cultural parallels to the Lamanites are abundant.

 

My model is presented somewhat differently than other Book of Mormon geographical models.  I tend to frown on doing too much internal modeling.  Although there are some compelling reasons for scholars to use internal modeling to identify the lands of the Book of Mormon, internal models can also cause us to lose focus on what the text itself says.  On the other hand, a lot of LDS authors have done a lot of important research into the internals of the Book of Mormon and that research should not be ignored.

 

In order to present my model in a way that is easy to understand without publishing my own corresponding internal model, I have done two things:

1. I present my model in a narrative form (see here), quoting the geographical references in the text as directly as possible while still maintaining the storyline of Book of Mormon cultures.  This narrative is presented as a series of slides with each slide showing a map representing the corresponding scene from the narrative.  This way my readers can see how the text relates to the geography without me needing to inject long-winded internal interpretations for each scriptural reference.
2. I also compare my model to Sorenson's internal geography.  This way I avoid the pitfalls of publishing my own internal model but still allow my readers to relate my geography to well-known internal geography.  This comparison to Sorenson's internal geography is a new feature on my website and I hope to expand it with explanatory maps when time allows.

I guess that's enough of an introduction for now.  I can see that a few people are commenting and asking questions so I'll try to address them.

[rodheadlee]

I never would have thought of Baja. I've been there too many times to count, but it's so dry and arid that I can't imagine it sustaining any kind of civilization. Maybe up the Colorado Delta area, but even then. 

 

I never would have thought of Baja. I've been there too many times to count, but it's so dry and arid that I can't imagine it sustaining any kind of civilization. Maybe up the Colorado Delta area, but even then. 

Mulege.

[jkwilliams]

Mulege.

 

Oases generally don't provide the resources to support a large civilization. That's part of the reason they are called oases.

[jkwilliams]

Skimming the page (333 slides that load rather slowly is too much), I note that you have Lehi arriving in the approximate area of Cabo San Lucas. Have you been there? Do you honestly believe the following description fits Cabo?

 

24 And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

 25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both ofgold, and of silver, and of copper.

 

Sorry, but this makes no sense. There's little to no water there (indeed, there's not enough water even for the relatively small tourist town today, so they have a desalination plant that processes sea water). Unless you want to argue for some kind of miracle, the story of tilling seeds that "grow exceedingly" and forests full of useful beasts is just not a fit at all. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by jkwilliams

[bofmmodel]

Please, defend your model.  This is a discussion forum and I think we would all like to hear more of your thoughts on this.  I for one would be interested in hearing about any artifacts that might have been found in Baja.

Hi sunstoned,

 

That's a pretty broad question.  Archaeological and anthropological correlations are not the biggest strengths of the model, but there are some fun tidbits:

• The Book of Mormon describes the Lamanite city of Jerusalem being built several decades before the time of Christ, but the voice of Christ lists it among cities that were "sunk in the depths of the earth" but with one difference compared to those other cities.  He says "and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof" (3 Nephi 9:7).  The location of this Lamanite city in my model corresponds to an important coastal archaeology site in the peninsula.  The bulk of this site is underwater, but burials that are found on what is now the seashore have been professionally researched and they date very well to the expected beginning and ending occupation times that we would expect for the Lamanite city of Jerusalem.
• My model's location for Onidah, "the place of arms" (Alma 47:5) matches one of the most exploited obsidian deposits in the world.  The scale of weapon production at this site astonishes modern researchers and is completely out-of-scale with what they would expect to find based on modern perceptions of prehistoric cultures in the peninsula. See here for more information about this site.
• The road network around our location for Zarahemla is truly amazing and is completely out-of-scale compared to modern perceptions of the peninsula's prehistoric past.  The Rosenvalls are doing a lot of boots-on-the-ground research related to these roads.  I believe this is one of the most promising lines of archaeological research for Baja models, but untangling Nephite roads from other prehistoric and historic road-building activities is not a simple task, as described here.
• The tribes of the Colorado River delta are apparently genetically and linguistically related to the tribes that inhabited the lands we identify as Nephite lands at the time of historic contact with the Spanish.  Initial contact with the tribes of the delta is well recorded (see here) and does a good job describing many (non-metalic) Book of Mormon weapons.  There are other primary sources that also document other weapons that parallel Book of Mormon descriptions quite well, including the use of scimitars.  I've started a blog post regarding this but haven't found time to finish it yet.  Hopefully soon.
• These tribes of the Colorado River delta were also quit adept at organized warfare.  They had broad-ranging alliances and there are good historical accounts of large-scale battles with well-organized military tactics reminiscent of accounts found in the Book of Mormon.

There are other examples, but this response is already getting long-winded.  It's true that archaeological and anthropological parallels like these are fun and interesting, but they do not make a convincing case for Book of Mormon cultures in the peninsula.

 

...yet

[bofmmodel]

 

 In one of your articles you talk about the four seas and make the comment,  "the “north sea” was probably a large inland salt water sea in the

“land of many waters” on the northern borders of their occupied lands."...

 

Three questions:

1. Is there any indication that such bodies of water exist there now or did some time in the past?

 

2. If none is there now, could such destruction have wiped out any sea that did exist there? 

 

3. In your model do you account for all this destruction which would have altered the face of other areas of the land?

 

 

The quote you provided is from the Rosenvall's site rather than mine so it does not entirely apply, particularly about it being a salt water sea.

 

My responses to your three questions:

 

1.  Yes.  Intermittent lake Cahuilla forms when sediment from the Colorado River builds up and causes it to flow northward into the Salton trough.  This happened many times in prehistoric times and even once in the 20th century.  Lake Cahuilla most likely existed at the time of Jaredite destruction, but probably not during the first several centuries AD.  Please see here and here.

 

2.  The creation and dessication of Lake Cahuilla is well understood and documented.

 

3.  In keeping with what the text of the Book of Mormon says, we do believe that the face of the land was changed and other destructions occurred as described in 3 Nephi.  In relation to Lake Cahuilla, I don't know of any textual requirement for the dessication of Cahuilla at the time of the destructions described in the Book of Mormon, but the timing of one scientifically-inferred dessication event (which is very loosely dated) tends to line up well with those destructions.  This coincidence is not important for our model but it should be noted that the creation and dessication of the lake would have had very profound effects on the ecology of the area and the populations of people living there.

[Alan]

For me, it's the Great Lakes model, though I do find this Californian idea interesting.

[bofmmodel]

I never would have thought of Baja. I've been there too many times to count, but it's so dry and arid that I can't imagine it sustaining any kind of civilization. Maybe up the Colorado Delta area, but even then. 

 

I think you're on the right track.  There are good reasons to believe that the peninsula received somewhat more precipitation during Nephite times, but not so much that the current flora wouldn't survive.

 

Your comment about the possible carrying-capacity of the Colorado River delta is important.  I can't see how the Baja peninsula itself could support the large numbers of people described in the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites, but the idea that those numbers could be mustered from other areas in the southwest merits consideration.  My model identifies Cerra Prieto, a hill in the Colorado Delta, as the hill Ramah/Cumorah in the Book of Mormon.

 

This makes sense for a variety of reasons (see here), and the location is a place that is centered in between several significant cultural areas.  Both the Jaredite and Nephite destruction stories recount a time period where people gathered together from surrounding areas to Cumorah.  We don't know how geographically broad these gathering activities were.  Our model suggests that they might have been wide-ranging enough to muster the numbers mentioned in those battles and wars, but more research needs to be done to evaluate this idea.