Attempting to Map the BOM

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent

Assuming Moroni speaks about the division of continents the same way we do today, and we assume we can take Moroni literally we can rule out every other continent but the North American Continent as a possible location of the Book of Mormon.  

I'm sure you realize you left off the ending of the sentence. You know, the part that some of us believe allows for a location other than the North American continent.

“He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

Edited December 10, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Oliver_Cowdery]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm sure you realize you left off the ending of the sentence. You know, the part that some of us believe allows for a location other than the North American continent.

“He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

Jerusalem?

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Jerusalem?

Possibly. Or anywhere between Jerusalem and the North American continent. Like an island in the sea perhaps, just as the Book of Mormon claims.

Why limit it to the North American continent when the text itself makes no claim and clearly states they were on an island (not a continent) in the sea?

You aren't the first to do so, but you are putting a restraint on the text that is not found in the text.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

19 hours ago, lostindc said:

Is New Zealand okay?  I mean, all I am doing is guessing just like the Limited Geography Theory or whatever.  

Sure, its worth a look. But it fails. It was uninhabited during the Book of Mormon period.

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, lostindc said:

Bob,

 

Your theories regarding BOM geography are just as valid as the LGT clan.  Both are essentially unmappable and just guessing, but your viewpoint is the only viewpoint ever endorsed by Mormon leadership. 

 

The Church endorses nowhere, except somewhere in the America's. 

[Rajah Manchou]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church endorses nowhere, except somewhere in the America's. 

The Church endorses nowhere, period.

[cdowis]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The Church endorses nowhere, period.

I guess I missed this, but how did Moroni get to the NY Hill Cumorah with the plates?   That is an "official" location.

Edited December 10, 2016 by cdowis

[Marmonboy]

25 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Sure, its worth a look. But it fails. It was uninhabited during the Book of Mormon period.

You guys are missing the joke--NZ is a reference to LOTR, where the movies were shot, not the BofM.

And isn't Elias the Hellenization of both Elijah and Elisha? So there could be two people.

[Rajah Manchou]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I guess I missed this, but how did Moroni get to the NY Hill Cumorah with the plates?   That is an "official" location.

NY is the location of the hill where the stone box and the golden plates were supposedly found, but it is not an officially endorsed Book of Mormon location.

[Rajah Manchou]

26 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

You guys are missing the joke--NZ is a reference to LOTR, where the movies were shot, not the BofM.

Haha, OK. But New Zealand also fails as a location for the Lord of the Rings. LOTR is supposed to have taken place around 6000 years before Tolkien's time. There's no evidence of humans, orcs, elves or hobbits living in New Zealand before 1200 AD.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

NY is the location of the hill where the stone box and the golden plates were supposedly found, but it is not an officially endorsed Book of Mormon location.

It is officially where the BoM was found. The main events of the BoM happened somewhere in the America's.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Possibly. Or anywhere between Jerusalem and the North American continent. Like an island in the sea perhaps, just as the Book of Mormon claims.

Why limit it to the North American continent when the text itself makes no claim and clearly states they were on an island (not a continent) in the sea?

You aren't the first to do so, but you are putting a restraint on the text that is not found in the text.

I don't think there is reason to accept that the Book of Mormon happened anywhere.  However, if we go by what Moroni said (as reported by Joseph) then it is quite understandable why someone would believe that at least some of the events described in the Book of Mormon happened in North America.

From a believing point of view, it was the angel Moroni who deliver a message to Joseph Smith in person as a resurrected being and repeated it several times. We can read Moroni's own words in Joseph Smith’s own journal in Joseph's own hand writing on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

“he said unto me I  am a messenger sent from God, be faithful  and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham”

According to Moroni, the Indians are literal descendants of Abraham.

Here is what Joseph said about the BoM and the western tribes of Indians in a letter to Noah Saxton.

“The Book of Mormon is a record  of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians, having  been found through the ministration of an holy Angel  translated into our own Language by the gift and  power of God, after having been hid up in the earth  for the last fourteen hundred years containing the word  of God, which was delivered unto them, By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from  that Joseph that was sold into Egypt, and that the Land  of America is a promised land unto them, and unto  it all the tribes of Israel will come. with as many of the  gentiles as shall comply with the requisitions of the new co[v]en ant. But the tribe of Judah will return to old Jerusalem” (Joseph Smith - Letter to Noah C. Saxton, 4 January 1833)

 

In the Wentworth letter Joseph Smith says,

"In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

There are plenty more statements where Joseph Smith (and later prophets) says very similar things. A modern limit geography apologist will discount as many of those types of teachings as possible. In most instances Joseph fails to explicitly claim he is speaking on behalf of God or Moroni. So they can discount those statements right off the bat as if Joseph was just claiming opinions on the matter. There are always some people who think a prophet must explicitly preface all revelation with, “thus saith the Lord..”. (McConkie had something to say about that.) But for a believer it isn’t so clear that every statement from Joseph Smith can be discounted in that manner.  It gets really difficult to discount every statement as uninspired and still view the restoration as a literal event.

In Doctrine and Covenants the voice of what is purported to be Jesus Christ calls the Native Americans Lamanites in several places.  Like in D&C 54:8
"And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites."

So the Lamanites would have had to have been were somewhere near Missouri.

Let's take a look at some of what Joseph said about aboriginal inhabitants of this country.

“I was also informed  concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this Country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me” (Joseph Smith - History, 1838–1856, volume C-1)

By what purports to be revelation, Moroni revealed to Joseph Smith who the aboriginal inhabitants are and where they came from. An angel spoke with Joseph Smith and explained the origins of the American Indians. That is a claim to revelation. That is a claim to how Joseph knows what he knows about of the origins of the Native Americans. That is how Joseph can claim to know that the Lamanites are found in the United States (among other places).  That is why a believer may feel justified in taking the statements of Joseph on this matter as something more than speculation. That is why to a believer in Joseph's prophetic gifts could conclude that Joseph’s  statements on the matter should be taken as official, or doctrine, or revelation, or truth, or a witness, or a faith claim, or a claim to knowledge, or whatever the preferred term is these days.

If someone proposes that the BoM happened on many parts of the American continents, I don't have much in the way of statements from Smith to refute that. But I think if one accepts that Joseph spoke with Moroni then one can't really discount that at least part of the BoM are claimed to have happened in North America.  And if one's geography model includes North American and some other place then that is the kind of a large geography model that is problematic to defend. 

There are many accounts of Joseph claiming to discover Zelph. That is further claimed revelation that put the Laminites within the United States, but I don't know if its worth pasting several account of the Zelph story here just yet.

I wish we would frame the issue as being about more than just geography.  It kind of trivializes the problem for Mormons who are concerned about this.  The problem is the fate of the Laminate people. The goal should be to identify the Laminate people rather than to find a place to put a pushpin in a map. The issue ought to be framed as “Who are the Lamanites?” rather than “Where did the Book of Mormon happen?”.  According the BoM, the gentiles are supposed to be getting off of our butts and teaching the Lamanites right now!  The purpose of the Book of Mormon is "to [show] unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers”. Home teaching is a great program and all, but the prophecies say Mormons are supposed to be finding and teaching the literal descendants of Abraham now.

According to scriptures, the Lamanites are suppose to come to a knowledge of Christ through the Book of Mormon. The Lamanites are suppose to blossom like a rose. According to prophecy, the Lamanites will one day "tear" the Gentiles into pieces. This prophecy is important enough that Mormon included it four times in the Book of Mormon. 
2 Nephi 15:29
3 Nephi 16:8-11
3 Nephi 22:3
Mormon 5:21-23
How many other prophecies are that well documented? If the Lamanites got swallowed up by a larger genetic population, then I wonder what group of people are these prophecies talking about?

It really feels like those going with the limited geography models (or "limited DNA" models) have their work cut out for them. The goal of many of the limited geography theories doesn’t seem to be to find a better location for the Book of Mormon or to narrow down who the Lamanites are. It seems like all an effort to make Book of Mormon’s claims unfalsifiable. If only the Book of Mormon could be revised into a record of an unknown people in an unknown location, in an unknown time, it would be unfalsifiable. And therefore easier to defend as possible. 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I used google ngram to confirm that you are correct.  In the corpus of books google uses the terms North or South America actually started coming into use around 1830.

If someone can point me to an old text book or map that shows all of america painted as one continent, I think we could confirm it further.

 

Edit:  I found a map from 1801 that separates North and South America into two different continents.

So, eh, I guess I don't know what to make of all this.  But I've at least found that map makers were drawing a distinction between North and South America by the time Moroni appeared, but book authors were not?

Lewis, Martin W.; Kären E. Wigen (1997). "1". The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20742-4, ISBN 0-520-20743-2. “While it might seem surprising to find North and South America still joined into a single continent in a book published in the United States in 1937, such a notion remained fairly common until World War II. [...] By the 1950s, however, virtually all American geographers had come to insist that the visually distinct landmasses of North and South America deserved separate designations.”

I think it very reasonable to suggest that Joseph may have viewed the Western Hemisphere as 1 continent.  The idea of 2 separate continents was probably very new and uncommon.  The fact that Moroni said "on this continent" is not very strong evidence in light of common perceptions of Joseph's time.  

Edited December 10, 2016 by pogi

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Lewis, Martin W.; Kären E. Wigen (1997). "1". The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20742-4, ISBN 0-520-20743-2. “While it might seem surprising to find North and South America still joined into a single continent in a book published in the United States in 1937, such a notion remained fairly common until World War II. [...] By the 1950s, however, virtually all American geographers had come to insist that the visually distinct landmasses of North and South America deserved separate designations.”

I think it very reasonable to suggest that Joseph may have viewed the Western Hemisphere as 1 continent.  The idea of 2 separate continents was probably very new and uncommon.  The fact that Moroni said "on this continent" is not very strong evidence in light of common perceions of Joseph's time.  

Nice find.

 

Now we have to consider the instances where Joseph says "this country" instead of "this continent".

Edited December 10, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

NY is the location of the hill where the stone box and the golden plates were supposedly found, but it is not an officially endorsed Book of Mormon location.

And how did Moroni transport himself to the North American continent to bury the plates in New York?  I understand if you refuse to answer this question if you assert that the BOM lands were not on the Western Continent.

Edited December 10, 2016 by cdowis

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Why limit it to the North American continent when the text itself makes no claim and clearly states they were on an island (not a continent) in the sea?

You aren't the first to do so, but you are putting a restraint on the text that is not found in the text.

But there are things found in the text which make strong allusions. This promised land would be taken over by the Gentiles. Hard to say that for the Malay Peninsula. There would be no kings on it so long as they served Jesus Christ - also hard to say for the Malay peninsula. 

As for the term "islands" that is a translation of a Hebrew word which also refers to coasts or essentially uninhabited land. Just referring to the text itself, it talks about traveling for exceedingly great distances and for many days. Alma travels for about 21 days to get from the first lands of inheritance to Zarahemla. This seems to rule out most islands. They just are not big enough. We are talking about an area which incorporates hundreds of miles. I can't think of one island in the Atlantic which could possibly be big enough besides maybe Cuba. I think New Zealand in the Pacific is ruled out archaeologically, and textually.

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

It really feels like those going with the limited geography models (or "limited DNA" models) have their work cut out for them. The goal of many of the limited geography theories doesn’t seem to be to find a better location for the Book of Mormon or to narrow down who the Lamanites are. It seems like all an effort to make Book of Mormon’s claims unfalsifiable. If only the Book of Mormon could be revised into a record of an unknown people in an unknown location, in an unknown time, it would be unfalsifiable. And therefore easier to defend as possible. 

 

And, that is one of my biggest objections to the Mesoamerican model.  But I don't think most fans of the MesoAmerican model really connect the effort to make the BoM unfalsifiable with the attraction of the model itself.  Frieberg's artwork is too compelling.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Nice find.

 

Now we have to consider the instances where Joseph says "this country" instead of "this continent".

Did Joseph use that phrase in a revelation?  What is the context?  Because without revelation, Joseph's opinion is as good as mine.  Moroni's words carry a little more weight as far as Book of Mormon geography goes.

Also, the word "country" is often used synonymously with the word "land".  As in, "this is beautiful country."  Keep in mind that in Joseph's time, North and South America was considered by most as one land or continent, and the whole of the Americas was likely viewed as the "promised land".  So, I'm afraid we can't rule out the possibility of that use of the word either. 

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

And how did Moroni transport himself to the North American continent to bury the plates in New York?  I understand if you refuse to answer this question if you assert that the BOM lands were not on the Western Continent.

As many here will know, I've never refused to answer this question. I've been asked it almost every single time I bring up an island setting for the Book of Mormon. I think you even asked once another thread. I could hunt that answer down, but will just give a simple summary here.

Although nobody knows the process by which a translated being like Moroni could bury golden plates in a hill, a literal believer in Joseph Smith's account would find it most likely that Moroni, or somebody else, carried the plates to New York, dug a hole, and placed the plates in that hole. After which, they covered the hole with dirt. 

If you don't find this answer acceptable, then I'm open to other suggestions. 

PS, I am not a believer in a literal interpretation of the account of an angel named Moroni burying golden plates in a hill in New York

Edited December 11, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

I will let your answer speak for itself whether your theory makes sense.

[Rajah Manchou]

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I will let your answer speak for itself whether your theory makes sense.

There are numerous accounts of Moroni being an older gentleman wandering around Palmyra before and after Joseph pulled the plates out of the hill. Why do you find it so impossible that the golden plates could have been placed in that hill in New York by an individual named Moroni, at any point between 420 AD and 1823 AD?

You have a tendency to ask this question again and again, and then dismiss the answer without a discussion. 

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

From a believing point of view, it was the angel Moroni who deliver a message to Joseph Smith in person as a resurrected being and repeated it several times. We can read Moroni's own words in Joseph Smith’s own journal in Joseph's own hand writing on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

“he said unto me I  am a messenger sent from God, be faithful  and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham”

I like this first version best, because it doesn't weigh the Book of Mormon text down with discussion about where it took place. Had this version made it into the final version of Joseph Smith's History, we'd see a lot more workable research on Book of Mormon geography.

13 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I wish we would frame the issue as being about more than just geography.  It kind of trivializes the problem for Mormons who are concerned about this.  The problem is the fate of the Laminate people. The goal should be to identify the Laminate people rather than to find a place to put a pushpin in a map. The issue ought to be framed as “Who are the Lamanites?” rather than “Where did the Book of Mormon happen?”.  According the BoM, the gentiles are supposed to be getting off of our butts and teaching the Lamanites right now!  The purpose of the Book of Mormon is "to [show] unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers”. Home teaching is a great program and all, but the prophecies say Mormons are supposed to be finding and teaching the literal descendants of Abraham now.

According to scriptures, the Lamanites are suppose to come to a knowledge of Christ through the Book of Mormon. The Lamanites are suppose to blossom like a rose. According to prophecy, the Lamanites will one day "tear" the Gentiles into pieces. This prophecy is important enough that Mormon included it four times in the Book of Mormon. 

It really feels like those going with the limited geography models (or "limited DNA" models) have their work cut out for them. The goal of many of the limited geography theories doesn’t seem to be to find a better location for the Book of Mormon or to narrow down who the Lamanites are. It seems like all an effort to make Book of Mormon’s claims unfalsifiable. If only the Book of Mormon could be revised into a record of an unknown people in an unknown location, in an unknown time, it would be unfalsifiable. And therefore easier to defend as possible. 

I agree, we've become so bogged down in the "former inhabitants of this continent" part that we have forgotten the real purpose of the Book of Mormon. I suspect as we argue about elephant bones in Mexico, the real Lamanite remnant is busy fulfilling their role somewhere in the world. And we're missing out on it.

I mentioned in another thread about a tribe of millions on the India-Burma border that claims to be of the Tribe of Manasseh. Israel has recognized them and they are making their return. But where are the Mormons in this process? Why aren't we there?

Edited December 11, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Brant Gardner]

18 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

The goal of many of the limited geography theories doesn’t seem to be to find a better location for the Book of Mormon or to narrow down who the Lamanites are. It seems like all an effort to make Book of Mormon’s claims unfalsifiable. If only the Book of Mormon could be revised into a record of an unknown people in an unknown location, in an unknown time, it would be unfalsifiable. And therefore easier to defend as possible. 

First, I know many of the people who have been working on this model, and your suggestion about their motives is incorrect--by a wide margin. Second, the idea that what they are doing has anything to do with "an unknown people in an unknown location, in an unknown time," is a nice turn of a phrase, but suggests no actual understanding of that work that has been done. They are, in fact, paying strict attention to location, time, and the people living in that place and time. The level of precision in matching text to locations and peoples is remarkably high, and therefore actually provides a greater chance of falsification than approaches that are so generalized that they are untestable.

 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

This promised land would be taken over by the Gentiles. Hard to say that for the Malay Peninsula.

Before Columbus, most Christians believed East Asia to be the location of the Garden of Eden, and a hidden Christian kingdom inhabited by millions of gentiles. Judeo-Christian accounts of the Islands of the Blessed were referring to the Malay Peninsula. I believe the Book of Mormon is no different.

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There would be no kings on it so long as they served Jesus Christ - also hard to say for the Malay peninsula. 

The northern part of the Malay Peninsula is part of a larger region recognized by political scientists as Zomia, an area that has been free from control of the state for millennia. Kings are not accepted, and in the past those who might try to make themselves kings were often put to death. There is an unofficial state in this region called Zoram, and it is believed to be the most densely Christian area in the world. No kings, and millions of extremely devout Christians that claim to be descendants of Menasseh.

Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the original word for Zion was Zom, or Zomar.

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

As for the term "islands" that is a translation of a Hebrew word which also refers to coasts or essentially uninhabited land. Just referring to the text itself, it talks about traveling for exceedingly great distances and for many days. Alma travels for about 21 days to get from the first lands of inheritance to Zarahemla. This seems to rule out most islands. They just are not big enough. We are talking about an area which incorporates hundreds of miles. I can't think of one island in the Atlantic which could possibly be big enough besides maybe Cuba. I think New Zealand in the Pacific is ruled out archaeologically, and textually.

The Malay Peninsula has long been known as the Golden Isle, of the Island of the Blessed. The geography, archeology and history fit the Book of Mormon surprisingly well. So closely that I don't feel it could be random. If this model is so ridiculous, then it should be rather easy to falsify. I've poured over the Book of Mormon text and have travelled in these locations to test distances. It fits. It is possible to map the Book of Mormon to the real world.

Land of Zarahemla
Land Northward
Land Southward

Edited December 11, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[rodheadlee]

18 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Before Joseph Smith, East Asia was the location of the Garden of Eden and a hidden Christian kingdom inhabited by millions of gentiles. Judeo-Christian accounts of the Islands of the Blessed were referring to the Malay Peninsula. I believe the Book of Mormon is no different.

The northern part of the Malay Peninsula is part of a larger region recognized by political scientists as Zomia, an area that has been free from control of the state for millennia. Kings are not accepted, and in the past those who might try to make themselves kings were often put to death. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the original word for Zion was Zom, or Zomar.

The Malay Peninsula has long been known as the Golden Isle, of the Island of the Blessed. The geography, archeology and history fit the Book of Mormon surprisingly well. So closely that I don't feel it could be random. If this model is so ridiculous, then it should be rather easy to falsify. I've poured over the Book of Mormon text and have travelled in these locations to test distances. It fits. It is possible to map the Book of Mormon to the real world.

Land of Zarahemla
Land Northward
Land Southward

I can't get the audio to work on you links. Do you have audio on them?