New Book Of Mormon Geography Model

[Brant Gardner]

So much depends on what sources one accepts. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by Brant Gardner

[Bomgeography]

So much depends on what sources one accepts.

I find the sources reliable but the readers themselves can decide what is reliable. The early sources are used by historians and anthropologist. Then you have current sources dated to 2015.

Sources cited

https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-6/

Edited November 13, 2015 by Bomgeography

[theplains]

The relative geographies don't fit the Book of Mormon descriptions.

 

Which American geography (i.e. the land between the north and south poles) fits Book of

Mormon descriptions the best?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Brant Gardner]

Which American geography (i.e. the land between the north and south poles) fits Book of

Mormon descriptions the best?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Jim, the only one that I have been able to make fit into the human descriptions of the text is the one John Sorenson proposes--with caveats for some specific locations. Geographic interrelationships fit. Jerry Grover has made a very compelling case for the specific volcanic event that is described in 3 Nephi--correlated to an eruption dated to the correct time period and explaining why certain cities felt the particular effects they did.

 

The cultural information intersects with, and times explains, actions in the Book of Mormon. 

 

Man geographies can be proposed that make it appear that the hypothesis's descriptions fit the text, but then they fall apart when trying to fit more details into the text. If you start with a good geography, but it continues to have problems the more you try to fit it into the known world, then it was a an interesting beginning, but not the right one.

 

There is very little in the Sorenson geography that hasn't held up over time, and become stronger with more data points added from history, culture, and geology. 

[Bob Crockett]

There is very little in the Sorenson geography that hasn't held up over time, and become stronger with more data points added from history, culture, and geology.

Well, the whole "narrow neck of land" attempt is quite a debacle, for reasons I have previously stated. It seems the BoM's nnarrow neck of land discussion better fits the Niagara isthmus.

[Anijen]

I find the sources reliable but the readers themselves can decide what is reliable. The early sources are used by historians and anthropologist. Then you have current sources dated to 2015.

Sources cited

https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-6/

Please follow my CFR or admit  or retract your statement. Those are board rules.

You cannot cite your page with a list of citations and expect me to sift through them all.

 

You need to post a cite directly to where you say;

 it's confirmed that Hopewell had metallurgy technology

 

Do not post your site and then expect me to rummage through all the pseudo sites and a few legit ones that have been cherry picked by yourself.

 

You made the claim, now you back it up.

 

My claim is and is backed up by the archaeologist who are experts in the Hopewell Adena Traditons and that is the Hopewell only cold hammered meteoric copper, their was no smelting especially during the time of the Book of Mormon.

 

Also (as if it isnt enough) your claim that their is connections of pre-Columbian Hebrew are false as well.

Those are;

Michigan relics     -False

Davenport Stone  -False

Batcreek Stone     -False

Los Lunas Stone   -False

so many others...

 

The only preColumbian Hebrew connections that I am aware of is the Book of Mormon itself and a few similarities found in the Mesoamerican culture, in which I am not an expert. I have  my expertise in the Hopewell, Adea, and Mississippian Valley in which you are trying to tell me evidence exist, I am sorry, it does not.

[Bob Crockett]

My claim is and is backed up by the archaeologist who are experts in the Hopewell Adena Traditons and that is the Hopewell only cold hammered meteoric copper, their was no smelting especially during the time of the Book of Mormon.

Any cite to an archaeologist in a professional journal supporting the Sorenson model? Any cite to a General Authority's book or conference sermon lending support to the Sorenson model?

[Brant Gardner]

Well, the whole "narrow neck of land" attempt is quite a debacle, for reasons I have previously stated. It seems the BoM's nnarrow neck of land discussion better fits the Niagara isthmus.

 

I agree that it is not a simple issue. However, it is also not as textually simple as it is suggested to be. We don't have a distance across--just a measurement of a defensive line. It is presumed to cross the whole narrow neck, but that presumption might be incorrect. In this particular case, the seasonal flooding of the region, and probable nature of the land during the times the Book of Mormon mention the military value suggest that the land that was usable was far less than the entire extent of the Isthmus.

[Anijen]

Any cite to an archaeologist in a professional journal supporting the Sorenson model? Any cite to a General Authority's book or conference sermon lending support to the Sorenson model?

Emphasis mine.

Bob, nice use of a few trick questions. You know darn well an archaeologist/anthropologist would not risk their reputation and mix their secular publications with religious publications.

 

You also know the brethren wont speculate (it least recently) and digress from the Book of Mormons goal which is to bring people to Christ, and they will not use a religious forum such as to author a book or conference sermon to speculate where Zarahemla is.   

 

I do wonder what Brother Sorenson has done to you to make you so bitter against him (you can deny it, but it is true). Almost all of your posts you can't help but be derogatory toward him or his work. Why is that?

[Robert F. Smith]

Any cite to an archaeologist in a professional journal supporting the Sorenson model? Any cite to a General Authority's book or conference sermon lending support to the Sorenson model?

C'mon,Bob.  Do you only have non sequiturs for us?  Surely you can come up with something both meaningful and substantive?

[Robert F. Smith]

CFR Bobbie.  Perhaps you can name even one member of this imaginary "LDS intelligentsia" or "LDS educational elite," who doesn't care at all about evidence.  I don't know of any.  Indeed, I can't think of any plausible evidence which has been amassed in favor of the so-called Heartland Theory.  Perhaps you could enlighten us on that -- give us a short summary of the actual evidence.  I have yet to see any.

Amazon book sales.

Or, contrarywise, Deseret Book sales.  

Edited November 14, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I would agree all the Book of Mormon experts at fair and the maxwell institute are all mesoamerica experts.

False.  There are no Mesoamerica experts at the Maxwell Institute, and only a couple of Mesoamerica experts ever show up at FairMormon conferences (Mark Wright, Brant Gardner, et al.).  You recklessly bandy about so many blatantly false statements, that it is hard to get a handle on them all.

 

Some have spent the entire life's work and education and a lot of money focused on the mesoamerican model. I would do my best to defend this model. The only thing that would stop me from this is when I see people leaving the church because they believe there is no physical evidence for the Book of Mormon.

So you believe that people leave the LDS Church because they believe that there is no physical evidence for the Book of Mormon.  Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

 

Or is all of this merely your idea of a satirical put-on?

[Bomgeography]

False. There are no Mesoamerica experts at the Maxwell Institute, and only a couple of Mesoamerica experts ever show up at FairMormon conferences (Mark Wright, Brant Gardner, et al.). You recklessly bandy about so many blatantly false statements, that it is hard to get a handle on them all.

So you believe that people leave the LDS Church because they believe that there is no physical evidence for the Book of Mormon. Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

Or is all of this merely your idea of a satirical put-on?

False. There are no Mesoamerica experts at the Maxwell Institute, and only a couple of Mesoamerica experts ever show up at FairMormon conferences (Mark Wright, Brant Gardner, et al.). You recklessly bandy about so many blatantly false statements, that it is hard to get a handle on them all.

So you believe that people leave the LDS Church because they believe that there is no physical evidence for the Book of Mormon. Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

Or is all of this merely your idea of a satirical put-on?

I will say it this way there are no Book of Mormon experts at fair and maxwell institute who purport the North American model that I know of neither do any of these groups have people who have expertise in Native American culture.

Plenty of people have left the church who site Book of Mormon historicity issues as being part of why they have left. I prefer not to name names or web sites but I will if you absolutely want me to.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Bomgeography

[Bomgeography]

Please follow my CFR or admit or retract your statement. Those are board rules.

You cannot cite your page with a list of citations and expect me to sift through them all.

You need to post a cite directly to where you say;

Do not post your site and then expect me to rummage through all the pseudo sites and a few legit ones that have been cherry picked by yourself.

You made the claim, now you back it up.

My claim is and is backed up by the archaeologist who are experts in the Hopewell Adena Traditons and that is the Hopewell only cold hammered meteoric copper, their was no smelting especially during the time of the Book of Mormon.

Also (as if it isnt enough) your claim that their is connections of pre-Columbian Hebrew are false as well.

Those are;

Michigan relics -False

Davenport Stone -False

Batcreek Stone -False

Los Lunas Stone -False

so many others...

The only preColumbian Hebrew connections that I am aware of is the Book of Mormon itself and a few similarities found in the Mesoamerican culture, in which I am not an expert. I have my expertise in the Hopewell, Adea, and Mississippian Valley in which you are trying to tell me evidence exist, I am sorry, it does not.

I would agree that anthropologist have speculated that the Hopewell had smelting.

“That may be answered in the last, and perhaps the most remarkable discovery at Mann. Linderman says scientists are starting tests on what appears to be evidence of lead smelting. The practice of melting metals at a very high temperature is just one of the many questions archaeologists will be confronting.”

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/03/132412112/the-prehistoric-treasure-in-the-fields-of-indiana

Its proven that copper breastplates was not due to “cold hammering ” but heat was applied

“The researchers also tested theories that some archeologists had made about the coppersmiths’ techniques. One idea was that they made large copper pieces, like ceremonial breastplates, by “laminating” sheets of copper together through a hammering technique. Deymier-Black said that the lamination could not be reproduced, even with much greater weights achievable with a modern press.”

They scientist assumed rivets were used to laminate these sheets but no evidence of rivets were ever provided.

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/06/cahokia-copper-artifacts-explained.html

Arlington Mallory published a book 1952 entitled Rediscovery of Lost America he found prehistoric furnaces and slag as did early settlers.

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_rediscovery_of_lost_America.html?id=YCAWAQAAIAAJ

If you want to look up the books from which the Hebrew quotes come from you can without difficulty.

Under each quote is the name of the author and the page number it is found on. If you do a CTRL F search on the source webpage it will bring you to the author and title of the book. Some of the 19th 18th 17th 16th century books are not copyrighted so you can read the book for free.

As far as the artifacts that are believed to be fake I state that in the essay that they are considered fake what I did contest is that early 19th and 18th century farmers would not have had the ability to make fake paleo Hebrew, Greek, and Phoenician characters that some scientist say appear on the (fake) artifacts.

I believe that Jewish hand and eye symbol used by Jews and Arabs is the same symbol used by pre-Columbian Native Americans.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=rattle+snake+disc&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamsa

I also believe the depictions of pre-Columbian flying serpents and there description of them glowing like fire come from the old testament as described by Nephi in the Promise land.

1 Nephi 17:41

“He sent fiery flying serpents among them;”

http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Moundville-Winged-Serpent.jpg

http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Moundville-Alabama-Flying-Serpent-Pot.jpg

“Those who know say the Uktena is a great snake…with horns on its head, and a bright blazing crest like a diamond on its forehead, and scales glowing like sparks of fire.”

(Mooney, James. Myths of the Cherokee. US Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897-8 Annual Report, 1902)

Native American Idioms and Phraseology

Native American idioms and phraseology, as described by early settlers, are consistent with the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. Below are some examples of Native American idioms consistent with scripture. Examples are from John Heckewelder’s Manners and Customs of The Indian Nations Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States.

Native American saying: “I will place you under my wings!”

Meaning: I will protect you at all hazards! You shall be perfectly safe, nobody shall molest you!

Scripture: 3 Nephi 10:6 O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.

(Heckewelder pg. 139)

Native American saying: ”To bury deep in the earth” (an injury done)

Meaning: To consign it to oblivion.

Scripture: 2 Nephi 26:5 And they that kill the prophets, and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and mountains shall cover them.

(Heckewelder pg. 140)

Native American saying: “You have spoken with your lips only, not from the heart!”

Meaning: You endeavor to deceive me; you do not intend to do as you say!

Scripture: 2 Nephi 27:25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men.

(Heckewelder pg. 139)

Native American saying: “draw the thorns out of your feet and legs, grease your Stiffened joints with oil, and wipe the sweat off your body.”

Meaning: I make you feel comfortable after your fatiguing journey, that you may enjoy yourself while with us.

Hebrew Custom: The washing of feet is a Hebrew custom. It was the first item done when entering a house or tent. The host would provide the water and the guest would wash his own feet. If the host was wealthy, a slave would wash the feet.

Anointing of oil was used by Jews to refresh and invigorate the body. This custom is still done today by Arabians. In the example there are some similarities in the cleaning of feet and legs from thorns and the anointing of oil or grease to refresh the body.

(Heckewelder pg. 139)

Let me know if you want more examples.

Anijen

You said that there are examples of Hebrew culture among the Mayan and meso America culture. I’m not aware of these examples neither are non lds experts of Mesoamerican culture could you provide sources and any other evidence that shows a connection between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican culture.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Bomgeography

[Bob Crockett]

Emphasis mine.

Bob, nice use of a few trick questions. You know darn well an archaeologist/anthropologist would not risk their reputation and mix their secular publications with religious publications.

 

You also know the brethren wont speculate (it least recently) and digress from the Book of Mormons goal which is to bring people to Christ, and they will not use a religious forum such as to author a book or conference sermon to speculate where Zarahemla is.   

 

I do wonder what Brother Sorenson has done to you to make you so bitter against him (you can deny it, but it is true). Almost all of your posts you can't help but be derogatory toward him or his work. Why is that?

 

Not a trick.  The question is quite legitimate.

 

"Ancient" and "Codex" purport to be scientific rigorous texts, and probably lead many members to think that, but they are not.  One way, at least according to the law, to measure scientific rigor is to determine if a proposition has support in a peer reviewed journal.

 

Ancient and Codex also try to lead one to the conclusion that Joseph Smith supported a Mesoamerican LGT.  Now, I think that such a discussion is completely inappropriate in a "scientific" setting, but be that as it may, members probably have come to believe that.  Probably the best way to determine if a particular theory, like chocolate being against the Word of Wisdom, or that God approves of owning guns, or that one can engage in plural marriage, is to determine if there seems to be active currency in such thought amongst the Brethren in their books or sermons.  Not in off-hand hearsay statements of things they may have said in private, but in things meant for church consumption.

 

Ancient and Codex fail on those two fronts. 

 

Another way to determine if a theory may be wrong in the church is if it leads to spiteful ill will and hard feelings when promulgated and defended.  I point to Dr. Sorenson's 1976 BYU Studies article, as well as to the various things said about me here, including the charge that I am "bitter."  I am not bitter.  I have also read Dr. Milton Hunter's works, and Rod Meldrum's as well, and think that they are even sillier than Dr. Sorenson's.

 

If one takes a global, holistic view of things the Brethren have said, including Joseph Smith, starting with a review of the official church history manuscripts put out by the Papers project, the Millennial Star, Times and Seasons, conference talks and sermons, and temple prayers, it is pretty easy to see that the Brethren believe that Nephite civilization filled both South and North America, and that the hill s in New York where the plates were deposited is, indeed, the site of the last battle of the Nephites.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Gervin]

 

Bob, nice use of a few trick questions. You know darn well an archaeologist/anthropologist would not risk their reputation and mix their secular publications with religious publications.

 

The admixture of secular and Biblical literalists (to speak broadly) occurs quite a bit (ever read BAR?).  It can be informative. E.g., http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/archaeologists-biblical-scholars-works/a-minimalist-disputes-his-demise/

 

It is the LDS scholar's choice whether to engage in a secular dialogue about the Book of Mormon. But I don't believe avoiding the conversation is about potential harm to reputations but, rather, their lack of confidence in an ability to make a secular argument for the book.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Gervin

[Bob Crockett]

Right.

[Brant Gardner]

But I don't believe avoiding the conversation is about potential harm to reputations but, rather, their lack of confidence in an ability to make a secular argument for the book.

You certainly believe that. However, conversations I have had with those who have had personal experience that contradicts your belief suggests that your opinion is not based on data.

[Gervin]

You certainly believe that. However, conversations I have had with those who have had personal experience that contradicts your belief suggests that your opinion is not based on data.

If you have data I'd love to see it.  

 

If a professional anthropologist (let's say) has a good reputation then my guess is that it was earned by abiding to agreed-upon standards for field methods, research, review, and publishing.  

 

Are there any reputable LDS Anthropologists?  My guess is there are, for the very reason above.  And armed with these professional standards, the LDS scholar knows full well the scrutiny he/she would receive - would want - if their work were published.  Especially if it tied the BOM to the New World. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Gervin

[Anijen]

I often see those who subscribe to a Heartland model often use an equivalent of the Frye Standard for their evidence, i.e. Joe Shmoe says; I'm no expert so what the scientist say, it must be correct" This used to be an acceptable standard, not anymore. An example of this would be many Heartlanders whom use the books of Cyrus Thomas as their expert on the Mound Builders. They use Thomas because his theories match their own current opinions. Thomas was an expert in his day. I would use him as an expert witness, that is, if I were alive in 1900. The Frye Standard had its weaknesses because laymen would automatically defer to the scientist and sometimes the scientist were wrong, sometimes the scientist even made up their own stuff (see the Daubert case)

 

In the legal system the Daubert Standard  is what is currently used. I wont get into any details, but one of the conditions is to use the most current, accepted, up to date scientific methods. Cyrus Thomas and his writings have been outdated and should not be used today to validate a current hypothesis on the people of the Book of Mormon, unless, that is of course, you live in 1900.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Anijen

[Anijen]

Except for the revelation that Joseph smith received for where Zarahemla is d&c 125:3 and that Missouri is the Border of the Lamanites d&c 54:8. I know of no other prophet or church authority claiming they received a revelation from God to where specific Book of Mormon locations are.

If the bold portions were true (emphasis mine), why would not the Church mention it here?

 

The church when writing educational manuals for the seminary institute, and gospel doctrine classes almost always write about the revelation and what, how it effects the doctrine. If what you say is true (that Section 125:3 is a revelation of the actual city of Zarahemla), then why isn't it even mentioned?

 

Again I submit that it is a place for the Saints to inhabit and build up and was told to name it Zarahemla in honor of the great city of Zarahemla mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Plenty of people have left the church who site Book of Mormon historicity issues as being part of why they have left. I prefer not to name names or web sites but I will if you absolutely want me to.

Yes, I would like you to present actual evidence that people really do leave the LDS faith due to actual lack of evidence of historicity of the Book of Mormon.  I do not believe they do.  In virtually every instance, not only do such people have no knowledge of the presence or lack of historical evidence for the Book of Mormon, but they are merely camouflaging their real reasons for leaving -- which are personal and emotional in content.  A prime example is the letter sent to a CES Director by Jeremy Runnells, in which the letter-writer is wholly ignorant of the issues -- and demonstrates that ignorance for all to see.  See, for example,  http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director .

[Robert F. Smith]

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

If a professional anthropologist (let's say) has a good reputation then my guess is that it was earned by abiding to agreed-upon standards for field methods, research, review, and publishing.  

 

Are there any reputable LDS Anthropologists?  My guess is there are, for the very reason above.  And armed with these professional standards, the LDS scholar knows full well the scrutiny he/she would receive - would want - if their work were published.  Especially if it tied the BOM to the New World. 

I agree with everything you say here, Gervin.

 

Moreover, since reputable LDS anthropologists have indeed published in accordance with said professional standards and applied them to the Book of Mormon, why do you have a problem with that?  Or, do you have a problem with that?  Do you have substantive comments on particulars?  That's where the rubber meets the road . . . 

[Gervin]

I agree with everything you say here, Gervin.

 

Moreover, since reputable LDS anthropologists have indeed published in accordance with said professional standards and applied them to the Book of Mormon, why do you have a problem with that?  Or, do you have a problem with that?  Do you have substantive comments on particulars?  That's where the rubber meets the road . . . 

I don't believe that LDS scholars have made an academic argument for the historicity of the Book of Mormon outside of their own religious publications, but if I'm wrong, feel free to share.

[Robert F. Smith]

The admixture of secular and Biblical literalists (to speak broadly) occurs quite a bit (ever read BAR?).  It can be informative. E.g., http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/archaeologists-biblical-scholars-works/a-minimalist-disputes-his-demise/

I agree, and have enjoyed publications and symposia held by BAS, ASOR, SBL, etc., for many years.  I have also spent many years in major universities in secular classes taught on that material.  Brant had the same experience in his graduate program at the State University of New York.  Indeed, Brant's massive 6-volume commentary on the Book of Mormon, and his more recent Traditions of the Fathers (Kofford, 2015), show just how thoroughly and successfully one can apply secular learning to the Book of Mormon.  What's not to like?

 

It is the LDS scholar's choice whether to engage in a secular dialogue about the Book of Mormon. But I don't believe avoiding the conversation is about potential harm to reputations but, rather, their lack of confidence in an ability to make a secular argument for the book.

The LDS scholars I know don't hesitate to apply secular standards and learning to the Book of Mormon.  B. H. Roberts didn't hesitate, and neither did Hugh Nibley -- nor their intellectual successors.  I see no lack of confidence.