Attempting to Map the BOM

[sam]

11 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

The problem is, people have found discrepancies, but they are summarily dismissed by heartlanders because the Heartland theory is the only valid one. Which it isn't, due to the aforementioned discrepancies.

Your speaking of heart lander models mine is the six sea Book of Mormon geography model. Same continent very different models.

nobody has found any discrepancies with this model

Edited December 19, 2016 by sam

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, sam said:

I'm telling you guys this is the map of the Book of Mormon Nobody has been able to find any discrepancies.

"32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward."

Discrepancy #1
Your Land of Nephi and your Land of Zarahemla are not nearly surrounded by water. In other words, if you went to Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee and told people there they were nearly surrounded by water, they'd most likely wonder what on earth you are talking about. Especially if you went on to argue that the only way they could get to the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center was through Niagara Falls.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

There are many posters in this thread that do not seem to understand who has the burden of proof.

I find that all of the currently proposed models are flawed in one way or another. I am in favor for testing ideas and pointing out errors that may exist in any BoM geography model. However, if there was a model with no known flaws that should not be reason enough to accept it as true.  It is the obligation of the person advocating for a particular BoM geography model to provide sufficient evidence for it.  The time to believe an idea is after sufficient evidence has been presented.

The null hypothesis should be that the events described in the Book of Mormon happened nowhere.  The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until there is sufficient evidence to indicate otherwise.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Rajah Manchou]

16 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

However, if there was a model with no known flaws that should not be reason enough to accept it as true.  It is the obligation of the person advocating for a particular BoM geography model to provide sufficient evidence for it.  The time to believe an idea is after sufficient evidence has been presented.

What constitutes sufficient evidence?

[sam]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

"32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward."

Discrepancy #1
Your Land of Nephi and your Land of Zarahemla are not nearly surrounded by water. In other words, if you went to Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee and told people there they were nearly surrounded by water, they'd most likely wonder what on earth you are talking about. Especially if you went on to argue that the only way they could get to the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center was through Niagara Falls.

All the major borders are large rivers, seas and coastlines. I see no issue.

[sam]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

There are many posters in this thread that do not seem to understand who has the burden of proof.

I find that all of the currently proposed models are flawed in one way or another. I am in favor for testing ideas and pointing out errors in any BoM geography model where they can be found. However, if there was a model with no known flaws that should not be reason enough to accept it as true.  It is the obligation of the person advocating for a particular BoM geography model to provide sufficient evidence for it.  The time to believe an idea is after sufficient evidence has been presented.

The null hypothesis should be that the events described in the Book of Mormon happened nowhere.  The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until there is sufficient evidence to indicate otherwise.

 

I believe I supplied sufficient evidence.

 

Native American Freemasonry and the Temple

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/11/native-american-freemasonry-and-temple.html

 

Buried Nephite City and BOM Elephants

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/11/buried-nephite-city-and-bom-elephants.html

What City of Bountiful Artifacts Would Look Like

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/11/what-city-of-bountiful-artifacts-would.html

 

Children of Israel and Native American Fiery Flying Serpents

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/11/children-of-israel-and-native-american.html

Native American Traditional use of Sacred Metal Tablets

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/11/native-american-traditional-use-of.html

Nephite (Hopewell Mik Maq) Old World Burial Rites and Rituals

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/11/nephite-hopewell-mik-maq-old-world.html

Exact Location of the Waters of Mormon

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/10/exact-location-of-waters-of-mormon.html

Mik Maq Nephites and Christ visit

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/10/mik-maq-nephites-and-christ-visit.html

Iroquios Lamanites

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/10/iroquios-lamanites.html

Cherokee Zoramites

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/cherokee-zoramites.html

Hopewell Smelting

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/hopewell-smelting.html

Hopewell meteoric iron axes and tools

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/hopewell-meteoric-iron-axes-and-tools.html

Archeological Evidence of the West Sea Fortified Line

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/archeological-evidence-of-west-sea.html

DNA Evidence of A white race of Indian

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/dna-evidence-of-white-race-of-indian_12.html

 

The extermination of a white race of Indian

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-extermination-of-white-race-of.html

Best Book of Mormon DNA Evidence X2A'J

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/best-book-of-mormon-dna-evidence-x2a.html

Hill Cumorah Mass Burial Pits and Battlegrounds

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/hill-cumorah-mass-burial-pits-and.html

Reformed Egyptian Four Surviving Characters

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/native-american-egyptian-hieroglyph.html

Native American ties to the Book of Mormon

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/native-american-ties-to-book-of-mormon.html

Native American Jewish Hamsa Symbol

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/native-american-jewish-hamsa-symbol.html

Book of Mormon Cloth and Fine Twined Linen

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/book-of-mormon-clothclothing-and-buttons.html

Book of Mormon Breastplates and Jewelry

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/book-of-mormon-breastplates-and-jewelry.html

Book of Mormon Horses Chariots Highways and Trade

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/book-of-mormon-horses-chariots-highways.html

Native American Hebrew like temples

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/native-american-hebrew-like-temples.html

Native American Hebrew and Old World Language Ties

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/native-american-hebrew-language.html

Book of Mormon Swords

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/book-of-mormon-swords.html

Exact location of the Waters of Ripliancum: to Exceed All

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/exact-location-of-waters-of-ripliancum.html

Archeological Evidence of the Fortified Cities by the East Sea

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/archeological-evidence-of-fortified.html

 

Best map of the Book of Mormon nobody can find any discrepancies with it

Six Sea Model Alma Chapter 22 BOM Map

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/six-sea-model-alma-chapter-22-bom-map.html

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

What constitutes sufficient evidence?

That is the question that I ask myself.  The question warrants considerations, but I don't know the answer for certain. It is a judgement call.  Reasonable people frequently disagree on the type and quantity of evidence that warrants accepting an idea.  Even though the line is hard to define it is generally a good idea to proportion one's acceptance of ideas to the evidence.

I basically have three criteria that come to my mind when it comes to what would be sufficient evidence.

• All evidence should be considered, including evidence for competing explanations.
• Each claim in the BoM as it relates to a location has to be validated by the evidence independently.  Finding evidence for one claim does not validate all other claims.
• Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. In the case of BoM Geography the strength of the evidence for a particular location would have to be at least be strong as the evidence that establishes our current understanding of the pre-Comlubian people for a given location.  

How would you go about figuring out whats constitutes sufficient evidence?

Edited December 19, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Oliver_Cowdery]

33 minutes ago, sam said:

I believe I supplied sufficient evidence.

Your bar for sufficient evidence may be set too low. Better evidence would be stronger positive evidence that the BoM happened at a particular location.  It is not enough to show that a particular reading of the text is congruent with a particular reading of science or archaeology.  Its easy to see that in a religion that is not one's own. Google "Quran evidence" to see what I mean.  Many Muslims also put together long list of what they think is hard evidence for the validity of the Quran.  But like most rebellious evidences really the evidence they use does not support their conclusion as well as they think.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[sam]

23 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

That is the question that I ask myself.  It warrants considerations,  but I don't know the answer for certain. It is a judgement call.  Reasonable people frequently disagree on the type and quantity of evidence that warrants accepting an idea.  Even though the line is hard to define it is generally a good idea to proportion one's acceptance of ideas to the evidence.

I basically have three criteria that come to my mind when it comes to what would be sufficient evidence.

• All evidence should be considered, including evidence for competing explanations.
• Each claim in the BoM as it relates to a location has to be validated by the evidence.  Finding evidence for one claim does not validate all other claims.
• Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. In the case of BoM Geography the strength of the evidence for a particular location would have to be at least be strong as the evidence that establishes our current understanding of the pre-Comlubian people for a given location.  

I have provided plenty of evidence artifact archeological etc. to include an example that only fits my model. That being lamanites occupying land north of Zarahemla as well as bountiful. Also there is another example that fits my model perfectly. Lamanites gather south of the west sea to eventually attack bountiful. The model allows for this the west sea and bountiful are in the right spot. And there archeological evidence for the fortifying against this attack. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by sam

[sam]

7 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Your bar for sufficient evidence may be set too low. Better evidence would be evidence that the BoM happened at a particular location.  It is not enough to show that a particular reading of the text is congruent with a particular reading of science or archaeology.  Its easy to see that in a religion that is not one's own. Google "Quran evidence" to see what I mean.  Many Muslims also put together long list of what they think is hard evidence for the vitality of the Quran.  But really the evidence they use does not support there conclusion as well as they think.

I given plenty of examples of the exact location of the waters of Mormon the waters of ripliancum the Hill Cumorah.

based on what you said this should be easy to disprove because I have set the bar so low so good ahead. Instead of speaking in platitudes disprove it. Otherwise I will continue to say this model is the most correct model of the Book of Mormon. Platitudes mean nothing at this point.

i need to go to bed I will respond to any criticisms when the opportunity arises.

Exact location of the Waters of Ripliancum: to Exceed All

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/exact-location-of-waters-of-ripliancum.html

Exact Location of the Waters of Mormon

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.com/2016/10/exact-location-of-waters-of-mormon.html

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

26 minutes ago, sam said:

I have provided plenty of evidence artifact archeological etc. to include an example that only fits my model. That being lamanites occupying land north of Zarahemla as well as bountiful. Also there is another example that fits my model perfectly. Lamanites gather south of the west sea to eventually attack bountiful. The model allows for this the west sea and bountiful are in the right spot. And this is evidence for the fortifying against this attack. 

I don't think the blog posts you linked to are all that reliable. I have not yet read all of them.  I only read a few of them where I knew a little about the topic.  A few posts lack even the low bar of rigor that Mormon apologists work with. However, I am not the guy you need to convince.  If you have sufficient evidence you can make major waves.  You should be able to start changing minds, publishing in academic journals, writing books, and establish a new field of study. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Oliver_Cowdery]

7 minutes ago, sam said:

based on what you said this should be easy to disprove because I have set the bar so low so good ahead. Instead of speaking in platitudes disprove it. Otherwise I will continue to say this model is the most correct model of the Book of Mormon. Platitudes mean nothing at this point.

That is not how this works. You have the burden of proof here.  I do not have the burden to disprove any proposed idea.  Please see my earlier post.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[sam]

24 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

6 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

That is not how this works. You have the burden of proof here.  I do not have the burden to disprove any proposed idea.  Please see my earlier post.

 

No I think you are confused. I have given a map here that when compared to scripture archeological evidence statements by Joseph smith no one including yourself cannot find one discrepancy.

I have provided the evidence now disprove it or my claims will stand.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

22 minutes ago, sam said:

No I think you are confused. I have given a map here that when compared to scripture archeological evidence statements by Joseph smith no one including yourself cannot find one discrepancy.

I have provided the evidence now disprove it or my claims will stand.

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

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-skepticism-reveals/

If I claim there are aliens living among us, is it your job to prove all humans were born on Earth? Or does the burden fall on me to show you an alien?

 

I agree that Joseph made claims that the Book of Mormon happened where you say.  But is Joseph testimony sufficient evidence?

Edited December 19, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[sam]

3 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

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

I agree that Joseph made claims that the Book of Mormon happened where you say.  But is Joseph testimony sufficient evidence?

To some yes to others no but there is DNA, archeological, artifact, linguistic, and cultural evidence nonetheless.

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

8 minutes ago, sam said:

To some yes to others no but there is DNA, archeological, artifact, linguistic, and cultural evidence nonetheless.

 

I understand the tendency to go with what Joseph said. I understand your position better than those who disregard Joseph's statements on the location of the BoM, but then for some reason hold tight to Joseph's testimony on other matters of BoM historicity.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[bdouglas]

11 minutes ago, sam said:

To some yes to others no but there is DNA, archeological, artifact, linguistic, and cultural evidence nonetheless.

 

I doubt your "evidence" would withstand scrutiny. There are very good reasons why no trained LDS archaeologist accepts your theories but rather is drawn to Meso-America.

I've often wondered at the scorn with which people like sam regard trained (i.e. formally educated) experts not only in archaeology but other areas as well. In "Zeal Without Knowledge" Nibley put his finger upon one of the signal weaknesses of LDS culture.

[Brant Gardner]

3 hours ago, sam said:

The border of the lamanites is Missouri D&C54:8

Just as in the Book of Mormon, the modern saints used Lamanite broadly, without specific reference to particular tribes. That generic usage is what you see in D&C 54:8, and was not intended to dictate a location. It reflected the current opinion, but remember, the official church leadership has always said that the location wasn't revealed. That means that what you are reading the the D&C must be read as I suggest, because official statements say that there is no known geography. If you want a history of how the church has defined, and redefined, the word Lamanite, see the relevant chapters in Armand Mauss All Abraham's Children.

Quote

The church has only one Hill Cumorah visitor center.

Of course. That hill was designated as Cumorah, and has been known as that for a long time. Of course that is what it is called. That doesn't mean that this is the original Cumorah. In fact, the idea that other locations are named in honor of an original is easily seen in my home state of New Mexico, where we have a Las Vegas, and a Madrid (neither of which is quite as interesting as the more well-known ones).

Quote

If Joseph Smith was open to different interpretations beyond what the scriptures state and he himself stated I need to see the statement you are referring to. And not a second hand account.

Ah yes, the "first-hand account" issue. There are several statements that are so clear, that those who want to see Joseph exclusive in North America find ways to suggest that Joseph didn't say them. Of course, that is the problem for most things about Joseph. He didn't write things himself, but did so through scribes--including the revelations. Are you suggesting that all of the church leaders that knew Joseph were mistaken about what Joseph said? Are you suggesting that a man who would later become prophet intentionally misrepresented Joseph?

Quote

The Hopewells had large cities and also small villages as described in the Book of Mormon They stretched from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of mexico. Their mounds took millions of man hours to build.

With regard to your map, the Hopewell were south of where you have the later events of the Book of Mormon located. If the Hopewell are the culture you equate with the Book of Mormon, then you have the wrong place, or the wrong people--they weren't there at the right time.

Lots of indigenous populations had bigger and smaller settlements. That isn't the question. The problem is population. There simply wasn't that kind of population, and certainly not in single cities. In fact, there were no locations that could be called cities. They were small enough that they never appear to have arisen to more than a headman type of government, which is significantly less developed than the Book of Mormon. The agricultural base was minimal, and the types of cultigens could not provide the caloric count to sustain large populations. In fact, agriculture could not sustain the populations that were there, they were only supplemental to hunting and gathering. None of that fits the Book of Mormon (and yes, that is what the trained archaeologists have said, including in some articles to which I was referred by a Heartland proponent).

That the mounds took a long time and a lot of work is certain. That they indicate a high level society is not required at all. Many were built over a very long time, and served as burial sites for multiple people at different times. There are some that show differentiation of status in the burials, but that still hasn't indicated more than a village-level society. 

There is only one thing that suggests that the Hopewell might be Book of Mormon peoples, and that is the generalized timeline. Other than that, nothing actually fits if you examine the actual evidence, and not 1800's pre-scientific articles that are known to have both exaggerations and inaccuracies.

The Hopewell lived in the same areas as the Adena. While the generalized timeline would suggest the Adena could have been the Jaredites, two factors deny that possibility. The first is location. The Hopewell lived in the same regions, including southern sections. That clearly contradicts the Book of Mormon descriptions of the Jaredite lands. Second is the timing itself. That is now in question, because archaeologists are questioning whether the Hopewell were even a different people from the Adena. or simply the later incarnation after they had adopted some new cultural items. Should that trend continue, every possibility that the Hopewell would be connected to the Book of Mormon will disappear.

There is a very good reason why those faithful LDS who have actually studied the archaeology and anthropology, and have degrees in those fields, do not accept the Hopewell hypothesis. 

Quote

I can come up with a million different reasons why none of the meso American civilizations do not match the civilizations found in the Book of Mormon. Name one civilization and we can compare. 

That sounds like an interesting challenge. I name the civilization living along the Grijalva river from about 200 BC to AD 250. That was culturally Maya, with historical influences from Zoque. Please begin with only five, as I won't have time to respond to a million.

[Marmonboy]

3 hours ago, sam said:

Your speaking of heart lander models mine is the six sea Book of Mormon geography model. Same continent very different models.

nobody has found any discrepancies with this model

My apologies for confusing your idea with the Heartland theory. Having said that, there is no slam-dunk with any theory. But I still like Mesoamerica.

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, sam said:

There is DNA, archeological, artifact, linguistic, and cultural evidence [for a North American setting].

1) DNA. All of the proferred evidence is based on research from a decade ago that has long been superseded. The current science demonstrates that the assumptions that were made about DNA were incorrect. That research had been reported by a faithful researcher who had no background in the relevant science. It has been disputed by several faithful brothers who have precisely the kind of background required to opine on that topic. The result is that the DNA evidence you are referring to is incorrect according to more modern science, was not fully reported originally, and did nor--and does not--have relevance to the Book of Mormon.

2) Artifacts. This is simply incorrect. There are artifacts that show Hopewell culture, but none of them can be equated with any solidity to the Book of Mormon. Those few that can (Michigan artifacts primarily, but tangentially the Bat Creek stone and the Decalogue stone) and known to be forgeries. Therefore, they demonstrate nothing but the cultural climate at the time of their creation.

3) Linguistic. There is none. The best possibility is Brian Stubb's work on Uto-Aztecan, but I am personally hesitant on that. Nevertheless, it is way better than what is used for North America. There is relies on non-scientific statements about language that have never been substantiated. I have seen much about the Mik'maq, but those reports fail to recognize that the alphabet was constructed by a French priest (which is confirmed history).

4) Cultural evidence. I am not aware of any that has been reported in scientifically-based articles. What was professed as Hebraic culture connections come from the 1800's accounts that begin with the premise that it should be there, and pretty much made up the evidence. There is nothing that has been found since, and the original sources--even by reading them--show no evidence that there really were connections.

I agree that many people believe all of the above, and that you can cite the website you have previously cited. I have read many of the articles on the site, and some of the papers. My analysis above stands, based on all of the data that I have seen. There is nothing in that has appeared since archaeology became a modern discipline that supports any of your four premises.

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I basically have three criteria that come to my mind when it comes to what would be sufficient evidence.

• All evidence should be considered, including evidence for competing explanations.
• Each claim in the BoM as it relates to a location has to be validated by the evidence independently.  Finding evidence for one claim does not validate all other claims.
• Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. In the case of BoM Geography the strength of the evidence for a particular location would have to be at least be strong as the evidence that establishes our current understanding of the pre-Comlubian people for a given location.  

How would you go about figuring out whats constitutes sufficient evidence?

Those seem reasonable. I would add:

• Extraordinary claims outside the text should not constrain the text or the evidence.

If you read the book, knowing nothing about its origins, would you assume it took place nowhere? Would the null hypothesis be that the author(s) had no specific location in mind when they wrote it?

The text claims that the account takes place on an island or peninsula almost completely surrounded by water. If the angel Nephi tells a young boy in New York that it is an account of the "former inhabitants of the American continent, as well as their origins", then who has made the extraordinary claim?



I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the claims of the text, but not sufficient evidence to support the claims of location found in Joseph Smith's History, which appears to have significant errors. We cannot expect to prove both at the same time.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If the angel Nephi tells a young boy in New York that it is an account of the "former inhabitants of the American continent, as well as their origins", then who has made the extraordinary claim?

Anyone who is claiming a visitation by angels is making an extraordinary claim.  If we are going to step into the realm of basing beliefs on evidence then Joseph Smith (or those who make claims about him) have the burden to supply extraordinary evidence.

 

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If you read the book, knowing nothing about its origins, would you assume it took place nowhere? 

If Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon then his intended location doesn't matter very much because that would mean the BoM did not happen anywhere.  If ancient American light-skinned Jews wrote the record in an unknown modified version of Egyptian on gold plates then they obviously did have a location on their mind when they were writing their own account with their own hands with their feet standing on a piece of ground somewhere which they vaguely describe the features of in the text.

There's that church video about pastoral Francesca finding the BoM without a cover, but I wonder about the accuracy of that story. Francesca never realized that the book he had contained a sub book that was actually called, "The Book of Mormon"?  

If one reads the BoM without knowing anything about the origins then one wouldn't be all that likely to take it seriously in the first place.  However, if one takes into consideration the "prophecies" about Columbus, the American Revolutionary War, and the "prophecies" of Joseph Smith himself found in the BoM, then it would appear that the Book was claiming to be set somewhere that includes the United States.  But of course, text can always be reinterpret.  So yeah, the text itself could be bent into a number of different theories.  However, the text of the BoM didn't come out of vacuum.  I would argue that Joseph's claims about the text are just as relevant as the text itself.  (And I do kind of make that argument on page 3 of this thread.)  

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Would the null hypothesis be that the author(s) had no specific location in mind when they wrote it?

Phrasing a null hypothesis in terms of what unknown assumed authors believed in their heads is a problematic starting point.  A null hypothesis phrased like that may not really be a falsifiable hypothesis. A null hypothesis should be falsifiable. In a expirmental setting, one typically phrases the null hypothesis as something they suspect the evidance can show to be false.    A null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two quantities.  A better null hypothesis on this issue is that the events described in the Book of Mormon didn't happen anywhere.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Brant Gardner]

23 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

1) Anyone who is claiming a visitation by angels is making an extraordinary claim.  If we are going to step into the realm of basing beliefs on evidence then Joseph Smith (or those who make claims about him) have the burden to supply extraordinary evidence.

2) If Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon then his intended location doesn't matter very much because that would mean the BoM did not happen anywhere.

3) If ancient American light-skinned Jews wrote the record in an unknown modified version of Egyptian on gold plates then they obviously did have a location on their mind when they were writing their own account with their own hands with their feet standing on a piece of ground somewhere which they vaguely describe the features of in the text.

These three statements deserve a reasoned response. I numbered them to make responding a little clearer.

1) While the extraordinary claim of angels is certainly one that implies a extraordinary evidence, the reality of the logical situation is a little different. Angels have long been a subject of faith, and faith is notoriously (and intentionally?) unresponsive to proof. However, since this comment comes in the context of the Book of Mormon, we are back to more familiar grounds. We can take the text of the Book of Mormon and test it against what is known of the world and of various cultures and test it to see if it reflects a specific location, time and place. That isn't really extraordinary. It is a task that at least in my field of Mesoamerican has been required more than once. The best case is the Histoire du Mechique, which purported to be the translation of an earlier lost work from Andres de Olmos. The text was in the wrong language, and came from a couple hundred years later that de Olmos. Nevertheless, the information could be correlated with what was known and is affirmed as a translation of an authentic document. Of course, there were some advantages that confirmation had that the Book of Mormon does not, but there is nothing about the need for the process that is different. If the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text, then it should reflect a time and place.

3) The above leads directly to number three. You are correct that if it is an ancient text, there was a place in mind and clearly took place at particular times. Fortunately, we don't have to guess on time which is really helpful. The question here is what might we expect of a text from antiquity? The most important thing is that they don't read like modern histories, don't tell us everything we wish they would, don't pay attention to things we are interested in, and frequently assume rather than explain. That is why we get the geographic features which are incidental to the text. They also don't have bird's-eye views of the landscape, or an understanding of distant geographies (in most cases). Still, these are things that historians can work with to reconstruct the ways in which a text does or doesn't conform to a particular time or place.

2) Since your conclusion is already that the Book of Mormon didn't happen anywhere, it is hard to know how to engage with your questions about geography or location. Your position is clear, but nothing about how you arrived at it is clear, and therefore the reason for the kinds of requirements you place on the text are also unclear. They appear to come from a position that is already concretely held, and isn't looking for information. In essence, your response to Rajah Manchou is "your arguments must be wrong because you can't possibly be right." Now, I also disagree with Rajah Manchou's hypothesis, but must do so based on actually considering his position rather than rejecting it as impossible from the outset.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

Since your conclusion is already that the Book of Mormon didn't happen anywhere, it is hard to know how to engage with your questions about geography or location. Your position is clear, but nothing about how you arrived at it is clear, and therefore the reason for the kinds of requirements you place on the text are also unclear. They appear to come from a position that is already concretely held, and isn't looking for information. In essence, your response to Rajah Manchou is "your arguments must be wrong because you can't possibly be right." Now, I also disagree with Rajah Manchou's hypothesis, but must do so based on actually considering his position rather than rejecting it as impossible from the outset.

Sorry if I come across that way. I didn't mean to state any conclusion there. I was trying to describe how the null hypothesis applies here.  In many cases people start from a null hypothesis they suspect might not be true.  The whole point of inquiry is to disprove the null hypothesis if that is possible.  However, the time to accept an idea is after the evidence has show it to be correct.

Establishing the null hypothesis also helps answering where the burden of proof lies and what should be sufficient evidence.

I have these discussions with the hope that someone might be able to change my position. I have a certain uncomfortableness with the conclusions I've come to.  But I think there in some virtue in uncertainty. With the right evidence I will accept other ideas.

There are plenty of threads on faith, this one has stepped into the world of examining claims of BoM geography through evidence.  We can't pick up one end of the empirical stick without picking up the other end too.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[nealr]

On 12/19/2016 at 10:24 AM, sam said:

I'm telling you guys this is the map of the Book of Mormon Nobody has been able to find any discrepancies.

I have found the story of the stripling warriors to be a particularly devastating story for North American models, and yours is no different. First, let's just take a look at the map:

Notice that both west seas are north of Zarahemla. Alma 53:22 reads:

 

Quote

And now it came to pass that Helaman did march at the head of his two thousand stripling soldiers, to the support of the people in the borders of the land on the south by the west sea.

There is no question that this is south of the land Zarahemla. They were near the land of Manti (Alma 56:14; 57:22; 58:1, 13, 25–28, 39), the head of Sidon (Alma 56:25), along with a city by the seashore (Alma 56:31). Yet there is no west sea near Manti in your six sea model, and consequently no city near both Manti and the seashore.

The whole stripling warrior story simply does not work with your model at all. I have yet to see a North American model where it does. On the other hand, it is a story that plays out fairly well in most Mesoamerican models. Just sayin'.