Attempting to Map the BOM

[Rajah Manchou]

32 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

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

Sorry, I didn't record audio, so its not the most pleasant presentation. But hopefully the visuals would be useful. I realize that it could be possible to overlay a Book of Mormon map over many places in the world and make it kinda fit, but this model is different. The history and archaeological record also match up. Also, recent genetic testing shows that both the Mon tribes and the Khmer admixed with Middle Eastern populations.

And most importantly, this peninsula is directly in the most likely path that the Lehites and Mulekites would have taken in the 6th century BC, precisely the time when two different iron-age civilizations pop up on the peninsula. 

[pogi]

On 12/9/2016 at 10:26 PM, 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."

Can you explain how this allows for a possible location in Southeast Asia?  How could the BoM be an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they came, if there is no account in the Book of Mormon of them making it to this continent from Southeast Asia?  

[Bob Crockett]

Particularly since for decades a footnote in the BoM said Lehi landed in Chile.  

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Can you explain how this allows for a possible location in Southeast Asia?  How could the BoM be an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they came, if there is no account in the Book of Mormon of them making it to this continent from Southeast Asia?  

We've touched on this in other threads, and I don't want to hijack this one like I have been guilty of in the past. But I wanted to bring this model up because it does respond to the OP's original question by showing that there are Book of Mormon models that can be mapped to the real world and fit perfectly fine in real history.

"When one attempts to map the BOM what exactly is the difference compared to mapping Middle Earth in Lord of the Rings or something similar?"

LOTR is fiction, based on a mythological world. The Book of Mormon is a religious text based in the real world. The Book of Mormon works in the real world, and it fits into history between 600 BC and 420 AD. There is nothing anachronistic or ahistorical in the Book of Mormon.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Particularly since for decades a footnote in the BoM said Lehi landed in Chile.  

I've been through the Book of Mormon hundreds of times to map out the geographical references. Never encountered any mention of a specific location anywhere in the text. Never encountered the word Chile, never encountered the word continent, never encountered the word America. The closest we get to a macro geographical reference is that they were upon an isle in the sea almost completely surrounded by water. Chile is not an isle. Neither is America. I wouldn't rule those locations out, but the text itself isn't restricted to Chile or America. Despite what many have said after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

No geography matches all the speculation about the location of the Book of Mormon account. We have to shelve all 186 years of speculation and look at only the text found in the book itself. 

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[bcuzbcuz]

On 12/8/2016 at 10:13 PM, smac97 said:

"Scholarship" about geography is "frightening?"  And only that, but "absolutely" frightening?  

Next up for the resident Precious Snowflake Types: "Scholarship Regarding Botany and The Book of Mormon: The Night Terrors Return!"  It will leaf you "absolutely frightened"! 

I'm trying to treat you and your inquiries seriously, but statements like yours above make that difficult.

What people?  To whom are you referring?  To what scholarship are you referring?

Why don't we first clarify who these "folks" are?  And then let's identify their scholarship.  And then you can explain your assessment of that scholarship, including whatever flaws you have identified in it.

Let's put that aside for the moment, shall we?  Scholarship can and should be evaluated, should it not?  Or are you so prejudiced that you would refuse to consider, say, scholarship about ancient Judaism by a Jewish author solely on the basis that the author is Jewish?

With respect, you seem to be coming across as something of a provocateur.  You ask questions, which is great.  But then you refuse to engage scholarship which is directly relevant to the issues you are raising.

You are typifying the methodological errors which William Hamblin identified 23 years ago in his excellent article, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon."

Have you read this article?  If so, what are your thoughts about it?  If not, please read it and then come back with your thoughts.

Your statements seem to increasingly reflect not a desire to learn and discuss, but to accuse and antagonize.

With respect, I will not engage in substantive discussion with you about this topic.  You are plainly ignorant of the relevant scholarship.  And based on your above comments you appear unwilling to engage that scholarship.

We all have ways we can and should improve in our learning.  But determined, willful ignorance is not the way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

You show a proclivity in your post for using the word "scholarship". I was unaware of any meaning to the word scholarship that defined it other than than being the work of scholars (please don't distract with the word being used as a financial endorsement for supposed academic achievement)

Become a scholar and your work is then therefore, "scholarship". But it carries no meaning, either stated or implied, that means that such work is truthful, correct, or reviewable, falsifiable, or even knowledgable. The quality of scholarship is something that comes with evaluation. In science, that is the idea of peer review. So far, there is no science in the study of the geography of the BofM, only supposition. Every sentence describing the scholarship of the BofM must start with an "if" or a "maybe" or a "I believe".

Would it not be, instead of using the word scholarship, that it seems you want to imply some kernels of knowledge, to instead say, "Many things have been written, some by well educated people, that someday may provide some insight into the actual geography of the BofM. Until that time, your guess is as good as mine.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 12/8/2016 at 11:45 AM, lostindc said:

 

Attempting to Map the BOM

Good luck with that project. May I suggest politely (without mocking or insult intended) consider futile researches of; the Land of Atlantis or Mu.

[Rajah Manchou]

52 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Good luck with that project. May I suggest politely (without mocking or insult intended) consider futile researches of; the Land of Atlantis or Mu.

I agree, but I don't think such research is futile. For example, some early sketches of Atlantis do resemble the earliest maps of the Americas. There could be a relationship between 16th century ideas about Atlantis and American lost tribe lore. A well-known Jesuit missionary named Athanasius Kircher was fascinated by Atlantis and Egyptology. He also spent a good portion of his life translating an Arabic text he claimed was written by the son of Nephi. That's interesting, right? 

It also wouldn't be futile to consider everything Kircher had to say about Egyptian-Semitic traders venturing east by boat in 600 BC carrying with them proto-Christian ideas. Even Le Plongeon's commentary on Mu can offer some insights into the environment that revealed the Book of Mormon. For example, Joseph Smith Sr. supposedly believed there was a large sunken island in the Pacific that was once home to a complex civilization. He said that several decades before Le Plongeon or Churchward even thought up Mu. 

No insult intended, but we aren't going to get any closer to understanding the origins of the Book of Mormon if we keep thinking the same old stuff, and making the same tired comments.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[rodheadlee]

23 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Sorry, I didn't record audio, so its not the most pleasant presentation. But hopefully the visuals would be useful. I realize that it could be possible to overlay a Book of Mormon map over many places in the world and make it kinda fit, but this model is different. The history and archaeological record also match up. Also, recent genetic testing shows that both the Mon tribes and the Khmer admixed with Middle Eastern populations.

And most importantly, this peninsula is directly in the most likely path that the Lehites and Mulekites would have taken in the 6th century BC, precisely the time when two different iron-age civilizations pop up on the peninsula. 

OK I thought my computer was wiggin out. Are you going to ad some audio at a later date?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

A well-known Jesuit missionary named Athanasius Kircher was fascinated by Atlantis and Egyptology. He also spent a good portion of his life translating an Arabic text he claimed was written by the son of Nephi. That's interesting, right? 

The son of Nephi, the supposed ancient Babylonian Rabbi, who had nothing to do with America or Malaysia?  Not sure where you are going with this one.

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It also wouldn't be futile to consider everything Kircher had to say about Egyptian-Semitic traders venturing east by boat in 600 BC carrying with them proto-Christian ideas.

Considering that Kircher didn't really know how to interpret Egyptian, I would say that it would be "futile".  Also, those traders (who were not Nephi, or the son of Nephi) supposedly went to China right?  It wasn't really the uninhabited promised land of the Book of Mormon that they traveled to, nor was it Malaysia.

Edited December 12, 2016 by pogi

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I agree, but I don't think such research is futile. For example, some early sketches of Atlantis do resemble the earliest maps of the Americas. There could be a relationship between 16th century ideas about Atlantis and American lost tribe lore. A well-known Jesuit missionary named Athanasius Kircher was fascinated by Atlantis and Egyptology. He also spent a good portion of his life translating an Arabic text he claimed was written by the son of Nephi. That's interesting, right? 

It also wouldn't be futile to consider everything Kircher had to say about Egyptian-Semitic traders venturing east by boat in 600 BC carrying with them proto-Christian ideas. Even Le Plongeon's commentary on Mu can offer some insights into the environment that revealed the Book of Mormon. For example, Joseph Smith Sr. supposedly believed there was a large sunken island in the Pacific that was once home to a complex civilization. He said that several decades before Le Plongeon or Churchward even thought up Mu. 

No insult intended, but we aren't going to get any closer to understanding the origins of the Book of Mormon if we keep thinking the same old stuff, and making the same tired comments.

Rajah, If you have time to waste and pursue this stuff....by all means....I did it when I was much younger. Now @60something I have no time&energy to follow a dream which resembles looking the golden pot end of the Rainbow.

And you are very right in saying :but we aren't going to get any closer to understanding the origins of the Book of Mormon we already know (some of us at least), BoM was a product of it's time, it is so obvious to me that I feel bad for anyone chasing some other esoteric path to arrive to truth of the matter.

[Rajah Manchou]

25 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Rajah, If you have time to waste and pursue this stuff....by all means....I did it when I was much younger. Now @60something I have no time&energy to follow a dream which resembles looking the golden pot end of the Rainbow.

Fair enough, but it does seem strange that you frequent a board intended to be a place for discussion about Book of Mormon geography.

We all have our hobbies and time killers. Mine just happens to be related to the forum that I am posting in.

[Rajah Manchou]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

The son of Nephi, the supposed ancient Babylonian Rabbi, who had nothing to do with America or Malaysia?  Not sure where you are going with this one.

You're right, the writings of Ibn Nephi have nothing to do with America or Malaysia. 

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Considering that Kircher didn't really know how to interpret Egyptian, I would say that it would be "futile".

The writings of Ibn Nephi were in Arabic, a language Kircher knew. 

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

Also, those traders (who were not Nephi, or the son of Nephi) supposedly went to China right?  It wasn't really the uninhabited promised land of the Book of Mormon that they traveled to, nor was it Malaysia.

Before Columbus, everything beyond the Indian Ocean was called China. Columbus himself thought he was in China, or somewhere in the East Indies, around present day Malaysia.

[Bob Crockett]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've been through the Book of Mormon hundreds of times to map out the geographical references. Never encountered any mention of a specific location anywhere in the text. Never encountered the word Chile, never encountered the word continent, never encountered the word America. The closest we get to a macro geographical reference is that they were upon an isle in the sea almost completely surrounded by water. Chile is not an isle. Neither is America. I wouldn't rule those locations out, but the text itself isn't restricted to Chile or America. Despite what many have said after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

No geography matches all the speculation about the location of the Book of Mormon account. We have to shelve all 186 years of speculation and look at only the text found in the book itself. 

[Bob Crockett]

I'm sorry; I don't really understand the board editor.

Before Widstoe reorganized the Book of Mormon, the footnote text said that Lehi landed in Chile.

[Rajah Manchou]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm sorry; I don't really understand the board editor.

Before Widstoe reorganized the Book of Mormon, the footnote text said that Lehi landed in Chile.

My approach to mapping the Book of Mormon is treat the text as if I know nothing else about it.

So in this case, who is Widstoe, and why would he reorganize the Book of Mormon?
Why were there footnotes saying Lehi landed in Chile? There's nothing in the text to suggest that.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 The writings of Ibn Nephi were in Arabic, a language Kircher knew. 

Right, but was the information about "Egyptian-Semitic traders venturing East" from the writings of Ibn Nephi, or from one of his other projects and attempts to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics?

 

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right, but was the information about "Egyptian-Semitic traders venturing East" from the writings of Ibn Nephi, or from one of his other projects and attempts to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics?

That was from China Illustrata I think. Kircher believed that the Chinese were descendants of Ham from Egypt and that Chinese characters were a corrupt form of Egyptian hieroglyphics. The writings of Ibn Nephi were supposedly some sort of translation key. 

Kircher's ideas were popular and over the next couple of centuries the top orientalists believed that the eastern religions had egyptian roots. Kircher even claimed that the Buddha was a Coptic-Egyptian priest who fled east in the 6th century BC. 

I'm unsure how Ibn Nephi ties into all this, but since the timing and narrative is somewhat similar to the Book of Mormon, I am curious to know.

 

[Bob Crockett]

30 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

My approach to mapping the Book of Mormon is treat the text as if I know nothing else about it.

So in this case, who is Widstoe, and why would he reorganize the Book of Mormon?
Why were there footnotes saying Lehi landed in Chile? There's nothing in the text to suggest that.

Widstoe reorganized the Book of Mormon into columns and reworked the footnotes.  The source of the Chile footnote was Orson Pratt when he reorganized the Book of Mormon into chapters and verses and added footnotes.  

As far as "nothing in the text to suggest that," I'd say that Joseph Smith's boon companion Orson Pratt would have known something about what he was talking.

[Rajah Manchou]

35 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Widstoe reorganized the Book of Mormon into columns and reworked the footnotes.  The source of the Chile footnote was Orson Pratt when he reorganized the Book of Mormon into chapters and verses and added footnotes.  

As far as "nothing in the text to suggest that," I'd say that Joseph Smith's boon companion Orson Pratt would have known something about what he was talking.

Orson Pratt had some interesting insights, but it gets too confusing to give weight to everything that has been said about Book of Mormon geography. For example, if we take Orson Pratt's word as scripture, we also have:

"Here let me say again, according to the Book of Mormon, many of those great islands that are found in the Indian Ocean, also in the great Pacific Sea, have been planted with colonies of Israelites. Do they not resemble each other? Go to the Sandwich Islands, to the South Sea Islands, to Japan—go to the various islands of the Pacific Ocean, and you find a general resemblance in the characters and countenances of the people. Who are they? According to the Book of Mormon, Israelites were scattered forth from time to time, and colonies planted on these islands of the ocean. In that day the isles will sing with joy; in that day the isles of the sea will wait for the Lord's law; in that day the isles of the sea will rejoice, for they will give up their inhabitants, and they will be wafted in ships to their promised land, and God will show forth his power and gather millions of people from these numerous isles of the ocean, and he will bring them back to the land of their fathers. These poor degraded Lamanites, or American Indians, that are now so far sunk beneath humanity, are to be lifted up by the power of the Almighty when the day shall come for Israel to be restored, for God will not forget them. They are descendants of the tribe of Joseph, and consequently they are numbered with the people of the covenant. God will remember the covenant which he made with our ancient fathers."

It kinda sounds like Orson Pratt is saying that the inhabitants of the great islands of the Indian Ocean and the great Pacific Sea are Lamanites. How much weight do we give such a statement? The quote above is from the same address where he makes the claim the Lehites landed in Chile. So if one part is accurate, then isn't all of it? Can we now say that Austronesians are just as Israelite/Lamanite as Mesoamericans?

Edited December 12, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Fair enough, but it does seem strange that you frequent a board intended to be a place for discussion about Book of Mormon geography.

We all have our hobbies and time killers. Mine just happens to be related to the forum that I am posting in.

Rajah Do NOT ever let my words or anyone's discourage you! Yes this board is as discussion platform for BoM (among other Mormon stuff) and I'm telling you my opinion that's all. (Talk about time killers...I spent most of my free time in Utah's Canyons and Native American sites).

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Rajah Do NOT ever let my words or anyone's discourage you! Yes this board is as discussion platform for BoM (among other Mormon stuff) and I'm telling you my opinion that's all. (Talk about time killers...I spent most of my free time in Utah's Canyons and Native American sites).

No worries, I get where you are coming from. History (especially the history of religion) is a personal interest of mine, so I never feel like its time wasted. Watching reality TV or reading Internet news articles about Trump is, IMO, the more futile and discouraging exercise. I'd much rather read The Sacred Symbols of Mu than another article about American politics.

I appreciate your comments and opinions, even if we're taking different angles.

[PeterPear]

On 12/8/2016 at 2:33 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Tolkien actually drew maps. 

Mormon and Moroni provided texts that Joseph Smith translated, and that a wide range of people have dealt with in different ways.  (See Sorenson's Sourcebook, for instance.)

Some people have worked harder and longer than others, and have produced better work than others.  One issue, is that "paradigms provide not only maps, but some of the directions for map-making" that is, there is significant issue with self-referential standards. And there are ambiguities in the language which leaves open different possibilities for interpretation.  However, there is a way around that, which involves asking "which paradigm is better" and which problems are more significant to have solved.   There are some very good candidate locations.

I remain impressed by Sorenson's work, having read Ancient American Setting when it first came out in 1985, and found it a huge leap forward.  And there have been people like John Clarke offering his tests, Larry Poulson bringing in 3D satellite mapping and such.  Superficial readers focus on superficial issues.  Close and careful readers acknowledge that we've got a jigsaw puzzle with well over 500 pieces that need to be assembled from the Book of Mormon itself before any external correlation can be attempted.  And a good correlation will have the effect of casting unexpected light on the text.

Good work:

http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/index.html

And another somewhat different though also Mesoamerican Model:

http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2012/07/book-of-mormon-model.html

Fretting over Two Hill Cumorahs is just as silly as fretting over four Nephis, two Bountifuls, two Jerusalems, two Mormons, a Joseph of Egypt, Joseph husband of Mary, Joseph Smith Senior, Joseph Smith Jr., Joseph Smith III, Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith.  Names travel, but if I pay attention to context, I can navigate meanings without being confused.  I certainly don't confuse Bountiful Utah where I grew up with the Bountiful where Nephi built a ship nor with the Bountiful in 3 Nephi.

It was enlightening to me when I went to England in 1973 that many English words had different meanings, such as boots, bonnet, biscuits, chips, lifts and such.  Consequently, I'm not nearly as fussed as those who seem to think that the meaning of words emanates from objects, and should, like the speed of light, be the same to all observers.  Words are social conventions, and translated words can quite reasonably reflect some tension between the different societies and mind sets involved.   Close and careful reading ought to remove some things from the list of problems.  For instance, if the Book of Mormon never describes anyone riding any animal, and never spells out what the animals in Ammon's flocks were, then such things ought not be listed as problems.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

The only people who fret over two Hill Cumorahs are those who forget the Hill was called after the land of Cumorah. Thus you must fret over two lands of Cumorah as well.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=Hill+cumorah&x=0&y=0

And given The Book of Mormon states:

10 But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.

...It's obviously quite difficult for MesoAmerica "LDS scholars" to figure out that very few Gentiles in the year 2016 live in Mesoamerica or are blessed therein - or even said "LDS scholars" refuse to move and live in said "blessed" land of Mesoamerica but most prefer to reside in the cursed land of Utah where they have a better market to sell their books on MesoAmerica Theory and reap the financial and the glory of being worshiped-blessings thereof. Hypocrites.

These are the same who claim Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about until he received a travel book from John Lloyd Stephens who had visited the "blessed" land of Mesoamerica and its ruins -said book revealing to the Prophet the true location of the Book of Mormon. What a joke.

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, PeterPear said:

 

...It's obviously quite difficult for MesoAmerica "LDS scholars" to figure out that very few Gentiles in the year 2016 live in Mesoamerica or are blessed therein - or even said "LDS scholars" refuse to move and live in said "blessed" land of Mesoamerica but most prefer to reside in the cursed land of Utah where they have a better market to sell their books on MesoAmerica Theory and reap the financial and the glory of being worshiped-blessings thereof. Hypocrites.

These are the same who claim Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about until he received a travel book from John Lloyd Stephens who had visited the "blessed" land of Mesoamerica and its ruins -said book revealing to the Prophet the true location of the Book of Mormon. What a joke.

You mean this Blessed MesoAmerica? Where there are no gentiles?

 

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

or this Blessed MesoAmerica, where there are no gentiles? You can't throw a cat without hitting a gringo.

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by rodheadlee