Jump to content

Book of Mormon Historicity


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's been a while since I've seen the maps. Are they real? If so I don't remember the apologetic answer for them being so similar. 

lkz8bx95pti51.png?width=1154&format=png&auto=webp&s=c3d2ef5a4fca9137b12ac16168b5c4ac4be2eebf

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

Link to post
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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 by mfbukowski
Link to post

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 by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post

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 by OGHoosier
  • Like 2
Link to post
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. 


Book+of+Mormon+Lands+January+2016.jpgHave you ever looked at the Mesoamerica model? Most of the same problems.
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:


Book+of+Mormon+Lands+January+2016.jpgHave you ever looked at the Mesoamerica model? Most of the same problems.
 

Whose map is that? There are several for mesoamerica. 

Link to post
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.

Link to post
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.

Link to post
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

  • Like 3
Link to post
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

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

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!!

Link to post
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 watersTherefore 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.

K7X9ENI.pngSo 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 by Rajah Manchou
Link to post

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 by Kevin Christensen
typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
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.

Link to post

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
On 8/10/2020 at 4:11 PM, Bernard Gui said:

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 by caspianrex
  • Like 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...