Book of Mormon Historicity

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t know if that is specifically from Holley’s map or if it just borrowed his stuff as it looks less crowded to me. Maybe they dumped the less attractive parallels. 

I've never understood why the Holley map has a "Zarahemla" New York on it. Where is that coming from?

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've never understood why the Holley map has a "Zarahemla" New York on it. Where is that coming from?

Clearly it comes from the similarity in pronunciation between "Zarahemla" and "Rochester", since Rochester is the name the native Americans used.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t know if that is specifically from Holley’s map or if it just borrowed his stuff as it looks less crowded to me. Maybe they dumped the less attractive parallels. 
 

See here for a response to Holley’s claims:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/Place_names_from_North_America/Vernal_Holley_map

Quote

Vernal Holley claimed to have reconstructed a Book of Mormon geography based on a Great Lakes setting from the Book of Mormon text, which he then compares to the New England of Joseph Smith's day.^[1

Quote

In order for Holley's theory to work at all, critics must develop a map based on New England; they cannot reconstruct their map from the Book of Mormon text itself—the Book of Mormon's geography is coherent and consistent, and it does not match Holley's efforts at all.

Quote

Clearly, then, this map has been designed by first looking at a New England map, and then placing Book of Mormon place names on it.

"New England"???

Who the heck wrote that??

Edited August 24, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

I believe he just marked where Zarahemla theoretically would be on his map rather than finding a place name that corresponded with it, but I get that from reading the FM critique.  Probably should double check.

Added: Here's a critique that says Zarahemla and Bountiful are missing, so it was probably inserted by someone using his ideas or he had a later version.

https://www.deseret.com/2010/11/29/20384669/challenging-issues-keeping-the-faith-the-errors-of-holley-s-map

Edited August 24, 2020 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

The Holley map is laughable. Jacobugath is supposed to be to the north, Angola should be north of the narrow neck while Morianton should be south of Bountiful, Zarahemla is nowhere near the coast whereas the land of Lehi-Nephi should be at least somewhere near a coast, and Onidah needs to be south, closer to Jerusalem than Zarahemla. For the life of me I'll never understand why Jeremy Runnells wasted any time on this one. 

Also Zarahemla = Palmyra is ludicrous.

Edited August 26, 2020 by OGHoosier

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The Holley map is laughable. Jacobugath is supposed to be to the north, Angola should be north of the narrow neck while Morianton should be south of Bountiful, Zarahemla is nowhere near the coast whereas the land of Lehi-Nephi should be at least somewhere near a coast, and Onidah needs to be south, closer to Jerusalem than Zarahemla. For the life of me I'll never understand why Jeremy Runnells wasted any time on this one. 

Have you ever looked at the Mesoamerica model? Most of the same problems.
 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Have you ever looked at the Mesoamerica model? Most of the same problems.
 

Whose map is that? There are several for mesoamerica. 

[Rajah Manchou]

32 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Whose map is that? There are several for mesoamerica. 

Thats the next problem, nobody can agree which river of the two major rivers was the one Sidon River and there's disagreement about where all the cities of the east were located. 

If this region was the historical setting for the Book of Mormon, there shouldn't be disagreement about something as unmistakably critical as the River Sidon.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the Grijalva versus the Usumacinta as Sidon candidates, Larry Poulson went through the Book of Mormon for all passages describing the river, and then did a computer search of a 3D map of the Western hemisphere to find candidate rivers.  He found one candidate that fit the Book of Mormon criteria, the Grijalva.  

Quote

Although the narrow (small) neck is only mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon, it has been the
primary focus of attempts to define the geographic location of the Book of Mormon lands. This narrow focus
has resulted in numerous possible locations being proposed with, in many cases, little attention to whether
surrounding geography is consistent with the text of the Book of Mormon. The river Sidon , however, occurs
37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least
six different geographical locations. Using satellite maps, a 3D satellite mapping program and the text of the
Book of Mormon, the geography of the Americas was analyzed in an attempt to find unique areas that
correlate with the textual descriptions of the river Sidon. The following comparison with the Grijalva River is
the result of that investigation.
 

His website has gone away, since his death.  I saved it while it was up.  After a detailed analysis, he concludes that:

Quote

From its source in the Sierra Los Cuchumatanes mountains to its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico, the Grijalva
river matches the descriptions of the river Sidon found in the text of the Book of Mormon. Although the Grijalva
River runs south to north over most of its course, it has segments that run East to West (Alma 22:27) and
other segments which run southeast to northwest  (not explicitly mentioned in the Book of Mormon). It is a
twisty mountain river with many turns, some quite sharp, and would certainly have been able to carry the
bodies cast into it out to the sea Alma 3:3 and Alma 44:22. The Usamacinta , however, from its source that
runs from west to east and south to north (See Figure 1) does not appear to match. In addition the
Usamacinta runs for most of its course through the lowlands emptying into an area of extended floodlands
near the Gulf of Mexico making it too slow to be able to carry bodies out to sea.

More recently, on the same question, the last section of Jerry D. Grover's Geology of the Book of Mormon concludes that the Sorenson model with the Grijalva as the Sidon fits the geologic requirements better than the Usumacinta models offered by Magleby and Norman.    See Grover, 219.

Plus Larry Poulson gave an impressive presentation at FAIR, describing how the story of Limhi's explorers works nicely with both geographic and archeological details available in a real setting, with the Grijalva as the Sidon, and Limhi's explorers mistaking the source of the Usumacita for the Sidon, they could experience what the record describes, while missing Zarahemla, coming and going.

Quote

The archeological record locates the La Venta ruins just to the west of the Grijalva River. If they followed the Grijalva, keeping to the west bank, they would have encountered these ruins, concluded that it was Zarahemla and returned to the land of Nephi-Lehi without ever passing through the land of many waters. Therefore based on the geography of the area, they most likely followed the Usamacinta and missed the Land of Zarahemla located in the Grijalva river valley. This is in agreement with Sorenson’s conclusions for the location of the river Sidon and the Book of Mormon culture.

See the pdf here, which also addresses the issues of Mesoamerican directional concepts, seas, and the Land of Wild beasts, and several other specific journeys and directions.

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Remember that paradigm choice always involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved?",  "which paradigm is better?" and recognizing that since no paradigm solves all available problems,  "which is the most promising for addressing problem no candidate has yet solved?"

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 26, 2020 by Kevin Christensen
correction

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

His website has gone away, since he death.

Did you happen to save his website address?  I wonder if it was captured on the Internet Archive site (the "Wayback Machine", here:  https://archive.org/web/)    His site sounds interesting.

[Kevin Christensen]

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Did you happen to save his website address?  I wonder if it was captured on the Internet Archive site (the "Wayback Machine", here:  https://archive.org/web/)    His site sounds interesting.

It was http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[InCognitus]

20 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It was http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thank you, Kevin.  That works!   Here's a December 2018 archive of the site:   https://web.archive.org/web/20181220195842/http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

[Kevin Christensen]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Whose map is that? There are several for mesoamerica. 

Looks like Allen's.  John Clark did several evalutations of competing Book of Mormon geography prosals for the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, including his important Key for Evaluating Geographies in RBBM 1, and reprinted later.  Commenting on Allen's model, Clark made this notable comment:

Quote

In Allen’s model, the land of Bountiful is more important and larger than the land of Zarahemla. I see no support in the Book of Mormon for this proposition. Figure 10B shows a simplification of the Allen model. Of greatest interest here is that Allen inverts the specified relations among territories, with Nephite territories being four to five times more extensive than Lamanite lands. Allen’s Nephite territories are on a par with those of the Jaredites in the land northward. This constitutes a fundamental flub and sufficient reason for rejecting his model outright. Other fatal flaws could be listed, but the few mentioned suffice to disqualify Allen’s model as a credible correlation of Book of Mormon lands.

From FARMS Review 16:2, page 34, here:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1617&context=msr

The most frequent complaints about Sorenson's model involve directions, which Larry Poulson and Brant Gardner have both superceded, noting Mesoamerican concepts, and the width of the narrow neck, where Sorenson accepted criticism of his 1985 Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (35 years old now, but a quantum leap forward when it came out) noting that the Book of Mormon text does not actually specify East Sea to West Sea.  See Sorenson's Mormon's Map from 2000 on the topic of what the internal text requires of any model.  And then there was Mormon's Codex.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Calm]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Thank you, Kevin.  That works!   Here's a December 2018 archive of the site:   https://web.archive.org/web/20181220195842/http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

Some info on Poulsen:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73119-3-nephi-8/?do=findComment&comment=1209988716

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Some info on Poulsen:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73119-3-nephi-8/?do=findComment&comment=1209988716

 

This was on his list of qualifications.

Quote

 I am a fifth generation
member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Lions and tigers and bears!  Oh MY!!

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

More recently, on the same question, the last section of Jerry D. Grover's Geology of the Book of Mormon concludes that the Sorenson model with the Grijalva as the Sidon fits the geologic requirements better than the Usumacinta models offered by Magleby and Norman.

The Book of Mormon only mentions one major river, and it is mentioned numerous times.

So the problem with the Mesoamerica model is that there are two major rivers in the geography and we have to pick one as Sidon and try and ignore that the other ever existed because the Nephites didn't seem to know about it. 

9 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Plus Larry Poulson gave an impressive presentation at FAIR, describing how the story of Limhi's explorers works nicely with both geographic and archeological details available in a real setting, with the Grijalva as the Sidon, and Limhi's explorers mistaking the source of the Usumacita for the Sidon, they could experience what the record describes, while missing Zarahemla, coming and going.

Paulson was saying Limhi's explorers followed the Usamacinta and completely missed the Grivalja, which they would have passed. They wouldn't have been misled through the narrow neck but would have been led to the Gulf of Mexico, the end of the line. Would they not, on their return, take the Grijalva instead of retracing up a river (Usamacinta) that they knew would not take them to Zarahemla?

Paulson argues that they knew Zarahemla was west of the Sidon. If this was the case, they wouldn't mistake the land of many waters for Zarahemla, because what they believed was the River Sidon had terminated at the Gulf of Mexico many hundreds of miles earlier in their expedition. 

This model doesn't work nicely when you look closely at it.

[Kevin Christensen]

18 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The Book of Mormon only mentions one major river, and it is mentioned numerous times.

So the problem with the Mesoamerica model is that there are two major rivers in the geography and we have to pick one as Sidon and try and ignore that the other ever existed because the Nephites didn't seem to know about it. 

Paulson was saying Limhi's explorers followed the Usamacinta and completely missed the Grivalja, which they would have passed. They wouldn't have been misled through the narrow neck but would have been led to the Gulf of Mexico, the end of the line. Would they not, on their return, take the Grijalva instead of retracing up a river (Usamacinta) that they knew would not take them to Zarahemla?

Paulson argues that they knew Zarahemla was west of the Sidon. If this was the case, they wouldn't mistake the land of many waters for Zarahemla, because what they believed was the River Sidon had terminated at the Gulf of Mexico many hundreds of miles earlier in their expedition. 

This model doesn't work nicely when you look closely at it.

As far as mentioning the river goes, yes.  That is why Poulson (check spelling, it shows how closely you are paying attention to details)  made the point of searching the entire Western Hemiphere for candidate rivers.   I think it of significant interest that his broad computerized search reduced the number of candidates to one.

One reason that the Nephites didn't mention the Sidon on the Arabian journey is that they didn't encounter it there.  That is reasonable.  Right?  But if the Nephites, after migrating to Zarahemla, which Sorenson places in the Sidon River Valley, don't concern themselves much with other rivers, is that really a scandal?  Think about Limhi's explorers.  Their goal is to get help from Zarahemla.  How to get there?  This is third generation, remember, (Zeniff, Noah, Limhi), so the way to go back is to find someone who had made the journey.  "Grandpa... how to we get to Zarahemla?"  Well, go up into the narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the east sea to the west sea (and for us, think about how many of those there are in the Western Hemisphere... spoiler, one), and find the source of the Sidon.  Follow the river for a few weeks until you get to Zarahemla, which is on the West of the Sidon river bank."    So Poulson asks, how do we explain that story in a specific location?  If they follow the river that the Zarahemla is adjacent to, they can't miss.  So what both explains how they missed Zarahemla coming and going is that they followed the wrong river.  The sources of the two rivers are within a few miles of another in that same unique narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the east sea to the west sea.  

Quote

Mosiah 8:
7 And the king said unto him: Being grieved for the afflictions of my people, I caused that forty and
three of my people should take a journey into the wilderness, that thereby they might find the land of
Zarahemla, that we might appeal unto our brethren to deliver us out of bondage. 8 And they were lost
in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of
Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a
land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings
of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous
as the hosts of Israel.
12 And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these
records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant
of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us
a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their
destruction.

Poulson says this, in detail in his important FAIR presentation in 2008.  He includes satellite pictures with captions, very worth looking over to get the full flavor of things.

Quote

Which river did they follow?
A closer satellite view of the area where the two rivers empty into the gulf shows the
Usamacinta passing through an area filled with lakes and swampland
The path followed by the search partly was probably to the west of the river because
they were probably aware that the city of Zarahemla was west of the Sidon.
The Grijalva, however, flows directly to the sea after leaving the mountains and if they
were keeping to the west bank they would have never encountered the land of many waters.

The archeological record locates the La Venta ruins just to the west of the Grijalva River. If they
followed the Grijalva, keeping to the west bank, they would have encountered these ruins, concluded
that it was Zarahemla and returned to the land of Nephi-Lehi without ever passing through the land of
many waters.
Therefore based on the geography of the area, they most likely followed the Usamacinta and missed the
Land of Zarahemla located in the Grijalva river valley. This is in agreement with Sorenson’s conclusions
for the location of the river Sidon and the Book of Mormon culture.

The reason that they did not follow the Grijalva back to the Land of Nephi is simply because that it was not the way they came and therefore, they did not know where it went.  And they thought they had found Zarahemla in ruins (La Vanta, conveniently an unoccupied Olmec at the right time), which also means that they did not know that they had been lost until they got back and Ammon and company provided the information that set them straight.

So we have a convergence here of many important, mutually intersecting details.  We have Sorenson's candidate for Zarahemla west of the Grijalva.  We have a boundary between language groups.  We have the source of the Sidon in the only narrow strip of wilderness in the Western Hemiphere.  We have a ruins of a Jaredite city, unoccupied at the time the explorers come, that they could have mistaken for Zarehemla, and overall time and scale parallels between Olmec and Pre-classive civilizations.  And we have the Geological information from Grover, the covergence from the details that Clark and Sorenson and Gardner got into, and expand in Mormon's Codex, and the Second Witness volumes and much more.  Open questions, sure.  Steel, horses, and such.  But, as I said, the width of the narrow neck and the cultural directional system have both been refined since Ancient American Setting.  And I expect more surprises to come.  We have candidate volcanic eruptions in the right time and place to do what the text describes, written language, the Uto-Aztecan material, the kinds of cultural things that Mark Wright and others point out (such as the San Bartolo murals depicting a coronation on a tower, contemporary with the story of Benjamin's tower and coronation). 

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/

The two Mesoamerican cylinder seals, with characters resembling the Anthon manuscript.   And the recent Lidar survey, for instance, was very cool and profoundly relevant.  And several other specific stories that Poulson explores in detail his FAIR talk and on his website.

Quote

The battle ends as the Amlicites and Nephites enter the wilderness of Hermounts. A number of years
ago, I had chosen these Barrancas as the location for Hermounts because of their fit to the description of
this wilderness found in the text of the Book of Mormon.
About a year ago, on the Aztlan discussion list, someone raised the topic of whether or not there were
man-eating beasts in Mesoamerica. One of the list members, an expert of the Nahuatl language, responded by explaining
that Tehuantepec is a Nahuatl word meaning “hills” or “mountains of the man-eating beast.”

Personally, for a great many reasons, I find the Mesoamerican approach to the Book of Mormon to be the most appealing paradigm.  Paradigm choice is never just a matter of facing facts that force everyone to the same conclusions, but of weighing overall arguments.

Quote

Insofar as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. Though he may, during the search for a particular puzzle’s solution, try out a number of alternative approaches, rejecting those that fail to yield the desired result, he is not testing the paradigm when he does so. Instead he is like the chess player who, with a problem stated and the board physically or mentally before him, tries out various alternative moves in the search for a solution. These trial attempts, whether by the chess player or by the scientist, are trials only of themselves, not of the rules of the game. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 144–45.

One of the ways that paradigm choice gets complicated is that 

Quote

In the sciences the [paradigm] testing situation never consists, as puzzle-solving does, simply in the comparison of a single paradi gm with nature. Instead, testing occurs as part of the competition between two rival paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community. (Kuhn, 145)

And this:

Quote

Paradigms differ in more than substance. for they are directed not only to nature but also back upon the science thai produced them. They are the source of the methods, problem-field. and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time. (Kuhn, 103)

So, there are those who will dismiss a case simply on the grounds it is is not "us", whoever "us" happens to be, or because "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed?", needing the support of popular secular authorities  On the other hand, the LDS faith is a notably high stakes proposition.   And we get all sorts of criticism, inside and out, with alternate views constantly thrust into our conciousness, and so the necessity to operate at paradigm choice, rather than on just puzzle solving, is chronic and recurrent.  Some want to offer a whole new thing, like the Malay model, which means, also the need to justify tossing out all of the solutions Mesoamerican correlations provide, just to clear the way.  Some want the Book of Mormon to be a manifestation of American Exceptionalism, making righteousness and blessing a matter of citizenship in the USA. Some, like McMurrin, famously reduced everything to the implausiblity of angels with books.  Each individual decides for themselves, deciding "Which problems are significant to have solved?"  Which approach is the most promising in approaching unsolved problems?  Which is better?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 27, 2020 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

One reason that the Nephites didn't mention the Sidon on the Arabian journey is that they didn't encounter it there.  That is reasonable.  Right?  But if the Nephites, after migrating to Zarahemla, which Sorenson places in the Sidon River Valley, don't concern themselves much with other rivers, is that really a scandal? 

The Nephites did not limit themselves to the Sidon River Valley, they would have had to cross the Usamacinta every time they went back and forth to the cities on the eastern coast. They couldn't choose to "not concern themselves much" with this other river. It is the largest river in Guatemala, it was the major trade highway for the Maya, and it flows right down the middle of the Nephite map. To exclude the Usamacinta is not a scandal, but it is problematic. 

But its difficult discussing geography without knowing which Mesoamerican model you are referring to. In discussions I've had with Mesamerican modellers there's a tendency to shift things depending on the topic of discussion. Sometimes the Sidon is the Usamacinta, sometimes it is the Grijalva. Sometimes the cities of the east coast are in Belize, sometimes they are up in Tabasco. 

Where do you place the cities of the east coast? 

Quote

The archeological record locates the La Venta ruins just to the west of the Grijalva River. If they followed the Grijalva, keeping to the west bank, they would have encountered these ruins, concluded that it was Zarahemla and returned to the land of Nephi-Lehi without ever passing through the land of many waters. Therefore based on the geography of the area, they most likely followed the Usamacinta and missed the Land of Zarahemla located in the Grijalva river valley. The reason that they did not follow the Grijalva back to the Land of Nephi is simply because that it was not the way they came and therefore, they did not know where it went.  And they thought they had found Zarahemla in ruins (La Vanta, conveniently an unoccupied Olmec at the right time), which also means that they did not know that they had been lost until they got back and Ammon and company provided the information that set them straight.

So they never arrived in Cumorah? The Jaredite ruins and 24 plates were in La Venta south of the narrow neck?

La Venta was west of the Grijalva, assuming its course was different in the second century BC. So you are proposing that they hit the end of the Usamacinta and since they didn't find Zarahemla they continued along the coast until they found the mouth of the Grijalva. They follow the Grijalva up until they find La Venta, which they mistake as Zarahemla. They collect the plates and rusty swords and instead of going back home alone the Grijalva (knowing now that this was the correct path of their fathers) they backtrack 100 miles to return home via the wrong path up the Usamacinta?

 

 

 

 

Quote

The two Mesoamerican cylinder seals, with characters resembling the Anthon manuscript.

You've referenced this numerous times. I remind that the characters on one of these cylinders were found to closely resemble various oriental scripts ranging from Burma and China to the rim of the Mediterranean. (reference) (original source) Why do you suppose the characters resemble both the Anthon manuscript and the Brahmic/Mon-Khmer -- the Rahman that I mentioned to @Brant Gardner earlier in this thread -- scripts of the model I have proposed? Note that the only other scholar besides Anthon to comment on the manuscript identified the characters as the "language of a people formerly in existence in the East". (source)

13 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Some want to offer a whole new thing, like the Malay model, which means, also the need to justify tossing out all of the solutions Mesoamerican correlations provide, just to clear the way. 

I'm not trying to clear the way for a single model. Rather I believe there is a relationship between the Malay model and the Mesoamerican model. Are you open to that possibility?

If you have followed my threads its clear that I view the two civilizations as parallel, as did Michael Coe who was an expert on both the Maya and the Khmer. (source)

But let me go back to the cylinders as a starting point. Why do you suppose there is a cylinder with a script that resembles both the Mon-Khmer script and the Anthon Manuscript characters in Mexico?

Edited August 28, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Kevin Christensen]

Rajah says.

Quote

The Nephites did not limit themselves to the Sidon River Valley, they would have had to cross the Usamacinta every time they went back and forth to the cities on the eastern coast. They couldn't choose to "not concern themselves much" with this other river. It is the largest river in Guatemala, it was the major trade highway for the Maya, and it flows right down the middle of the Nephite map. To exclude the Usamacinta is not a scandal, but it is problematic. 

But its difficult discussing geography without knowing which Mesoamerican model you are referring to. In discussions I've had with Mesamerican modellers there's a tendency to shift things depending on the topic of discussion. Sometimes the Sidon is the Usamacinta, sometimes it is the Grijalva. Sometimes the cities of the east coast are in Belize, sometimes they are up in Tabasco. 

Since I frequently refer to Sorenson, to John Clark's assessments of various models that characterisitically conclude that Sorenson fits the textual requirements best, and Poulson and Gardner, who largely follow Sorenson with some improvements, and Grover, whose geological expertise provides further support for the Sorenson model, I see the Grijalva as the best Sidon candidate.  And other than the story of Limhi's explorers, in Sorenson's model (as opposed to Norman's and Magleby's model) the Usamacinta and Yucatan Penninsula does not figure in the movements described within the text.  (Sorenson pointed this out to Matheny in his RBBM 6 response to her critique.  At one point, someone wrote a Meridan essay, following the logic of Poulson's case, but reversed the rivers. The problem is that had the explorers could have followed the river to La Venta, but they could not have missed the then existing and then populated site of Santa Rosa, Sorenson's Zarahemla candidate.  So, as Poulson argued, the story does not work.)

And the Mesoamerican map you show has Limhi's explorers starting from a very different spot, literally on the other side of the narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the East Sea to the West sea.  Sorenson places the Land of Nephi, on the South, of that natural and cultural boundary.  He nominates Lake Atitlan, which you can see on the map far South and a little East as Waters of Mormon.  The different starting point makes a difference in trying to make sense of what follows.  The starting point south of the Narrow strip makes it possible to go and find the source of the wrong river.

 Mormon's Map has a section on "How did the Borders by the East Sea Relate to the Land of Zarahemla" on pages 39 to 43 makes it all very clear.  And that model makes very good sense of the military movements and tactical situations described in the Book of Mormon text, whereas the one you posted on Wednesday, does not.  And the sense is improved if you consider that the land bordering the East Sea does not have to have our North South orientation to border that sea.

And yes, I think Poulson's version makes very good sense.  The course of the Grijalva has actually changed, and in 2200 years, the river deltas have done what deltas do best, that is, deposit silt, and change the geography somewhat.

As far as transoceanic connections, besides, or, in connection with Nephites, Mulekites and Jaredites, I don't have any problems with that.  

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Rajah Manchou]

On 8/29/2020 at 1:39 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

The problem is that had the explorers could have followed the river to La Venta, but they could not have missed the then existing and then populated site of Santa Rosa, Sorenson's Zarahemla candidate. So, as Poulson argued, the story does not work.

The solution here is that Limhi's party found the Jaredite plates in La Venta?

On 8/29/2020 at 1:39 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Mormon's Map has a section on "How did the Borders by the East Sea Relate to the Land of Zarahemla" on pages 39 to 43 makes it all very clear.  

I reviewed that section in Mormon's Map and it is still unclear to me how the eastern defensive cities end up in the north near the mouth of the River Sidon. The internal maps, including John Clark's, place the cities of Nephihah and Moroni near Manti, the source of the River Sidon. 

But not going to get anywhere nitpicking the model. I'll post a few comments this week with a model that matches Clark's internal geography.

[Rivers]

The fact that there is a consistent and coherent geography found within the Book of Mormon is something I find impressive.  That is when one takes into account the witness accounts of Joseph Smith dictating the whole thing with his face in a hat.  Joseph Smith must of had a photographic memory.

[caspianrex]

On 8/10/2020 at 4:11 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Have you seen Donald Parry’s https://www.amazon.com/Poetic-Parallelisms-Book-Mormon-Reformatted/dp/1627301208/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&hvadid=78340256794088&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&keywords=poetic+parallelisms+in+the+book+of+mormon&qid=1597093782&sr=8-1&tag=mh0b-20
 

In my opinion it is extraordinary, but we don’t hear too much about it here.

I don't know if anyone else posted this (this thread's a bit long), but here's a PDF of Donald Perry's Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, for your convenience.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=mi

Edited September 9, 2020 by caspianrex