Bom Geography Theory Survey

[OGHoosier]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In our efforts to find the actual place where the Book of Mormon took place it would be hard for us to know exactly what the lands looked like back at that time based on current maps, since the whole face of the land changed at the time of Christ's crucifixion:

3 Nephi 8

"And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.
But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth; 
And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.
And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.
And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate."

 All these changes to the earth could make it near impossible to determine the exact place it all happened. 

I ain't gonna lie to you, I don't think the place changed so much that it was unrecognizable. That whole description smacks of legendarium. I don't necessarily blame Mormon for it (or think its blameworthy in general), he might have gotten that impression from his records, but this sounds like hyperbole meant to make a point. Again, not uncommon in ancient literature across cultures, wherein superlatives were promiscuously applied in order to make a point. 

A lava flow here and there, some landslides, rising swamp waters and coastal inundations, cities burned, heavy ashfalls, earthquake damage - all that makes sense. No problem. But if someone suggests that the entire Andes mountain range sprang up during the crucifixion tumults - nope, not buying it. 

[pogi]

On 11/1/2022 at 7:43 PM, OGHoosier said:

I've come to the partial conclusion (based on the imperative of divine hiddenness - no smoking guns) that the geography of the Book of Mormon is probably off by design, which feels weird but also seems necessary. 

I'm not sure what you are referencing here. Is there some divine imperative that the geographical location of the Book of Mormon setting be hidden?

I have not heard that before, but I am familiar with the warning the church gives about speculating -

Quote

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.

It doesn't appear that members take this warning too seriously, or perhaps we think that we are somehow less vulnerable than others to be mislead or distracted and the warning doesn't apply to us. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

On 11/2/2022 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Sure there are open questions, but as Kuhn says, "No paradigm solves all the problems it defines."  

"To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted." 

"It makes a great deal of sense to ask which of two actual and competing theories fits the facts better." 

From where I sit, the Mesoamerican model is just the least-poor fit of a bunch of poor fits. I have a hard time taking it seriously that the Mesoamerican model is the best theory that explains the most facts. 

[OGHoosier]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you are referencing here. Is there some divine imperative that the geographical location of the Book of Mormon setting be hidden?

I'm referring more generally to divine hiddenness - in other words, the hiddenness of God from casual observation or direct proof. This seems to be the way God works, and I likewise accept philosophical arguments by Travis Dumsday et. al. that it is necessary. I also accept Robert F. Smith's thesis that, given the preposterous origins of the Book of Mormon, an unambiguous verdict in its favor would mutatis mutandis be an unambiguous verdict in God's favor, independent of any variety of faith or direct experience. An unambiguous verdict in the Book of Mormon's favor would not be an unambiguous verdict in God's favor on deductive reasoning, but on inductive and abductive reasoning (all of which are common to the human experience) I believe it would be.  

From this I surmise that, whatever the character of the Book of Mormon, historical or otherwise, God is unlikely to allow it to be unambiguously confirmed. 

This leads us to a discussion of archaeology. If it is a science that can reveal truths, then as it progresses it will reveal more. Eventually it would be expected to reveal unambiguous evidence of the Book of Mormon's narrative, which God is unlikely to allow per the above discussion. Therefore, I believe that God has taken action to ensure that, whatever the nature of the evidence, it will never be unambiguous. The easiest way to do that, in my mind, would be to corrupt the geography of the Book of Mormon text so it doesn't really neatly fit. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I also accept Robert F. Smith's thesis...

Have not heard from Bob in a while, anyone know how he's doing?

[Kevin Christensen]

On 11/3/2022 at 10:22 AM, JAHS said:

In our efforts to find the actual place where the Book of Mormon took place it would be hard for us to know exactly what the lands looked like back at that time based on current maps, since the whole face of the land changed at the time of Christ's crucifixion:

3 Nephi 8

"And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.
But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth; 
And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.
And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.
And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate."

 All these changes to the earth could make it near impossible to determine the exact place it all happened. 

Sorenson pointed out long ago that, like us, Mormon lived after the great destruction and that he had no trouble corrolating before and after locations.  "Face of the land" is not the same as basic shape and structure and major defining features.  And consider Jerry D. Grover Jr. Geology of the Book of Mormon, (2014), which uses geological evidence of specific known volcanic events (the San Martin volcano, see pages 180 to 184) and fault systems as a means to show which corrolations fit best. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[OGHoosier]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Have not heard from Bob in a while, anyone know how he's doing?

He posted a comment in response to Jennifer Roach's review of Michael Ash's 2017 book on September 30. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/comments-page/?id=58635

That's the most recent thing I've seen from him. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm referring more generally to divine hiddenness - in other words, the hiddenness of God from casual observation or direct proof. This seems to be the way God works, and I likewise accept philosophical arguments by Travis Dumsday et. al. that it is necessary. I also accept Robert F. Smith's thesis that, given the preposterous origins of the Book of Mormon, an unambiguous verdict in its favor would mutatis mutandis be an unambiguous verdict in God's favor, independent of any variety of faith or direct experience. An unambiguous verdict in the Book of Mormon's favor would not be an unambiguous verdict in God's favor on deductive reasoning, but on inductive and abductive reasoning (all of which are common to the human experience) I believe it would be.  

From this I surmise that, whatever the character of the Book of Mormon, historical or otherwise, God is unlikely to allow it to be unambiguously confirmed. 

This leads us to a discussion of archaeology. If it is a science that can reveal truths, then as it progresses it will reveal more. Eventually it would be expected to reveal unambiguous evidence of the Book of Mormon's narrative, which God is unlikely to allow per the above discussion. Therefore, I believe that God has taken action to ensure that, whatever the nature of the evidence, it will never be unambiguous. The easiest way to do that, in my mind, would be to corrupt the geography of the Book of Mormon text so it doesn't really neatly fit. 

Would it be safe to say that efforts to identify a location would be a fools errand for the reasons you mention, and also because of the church's warning? 

I understand the draw to look for evidence, but if what you say is true - then what's the point?  Why look for something that is intentionally hidden by God?  Isn't it true that such attempts would truly be a "distraction from its divine purpose" as the church suggests?

If God is intentionally concealing the location, then any effort to create plausibility could just as easily back-fire and damage faith, as the church warns.  

[OGHoosier]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Would it be safe to say that efforts to identify a location would be a fools errand for the reasons you mention, and also because of the church's warning? 

I understand the draw to look for evidence, but if what you say is true - then what's the point?  Why look for something that is intentionally hidden by God?  Isn't it true that such attempts would truly be a "distraction from its divine purpose" as the church suggests?

If God is intentionally concealing the location, then any effort to create plausibility could just as easily back-fire and damage faith, as the church warns.  

I would generally agree with that sentiment. God has not revealed the location of Zarahemla, nor did He guide the Cluff Expedition to it, etc. It seems clear to me that the Book of Mormon's purpose is to introduce essential Restoration doctrines, testify of Christ's love for peoples across time and space, testify of the continued force of the covenants of the House of Israel, and serve as a "opening salvo" of the broader Restoration and the return of formalized revelation. Nephite history is secondary, since the Book of Mormon skips most of it. Jarom, Omni, and 4 Nephi together pass over about 700 years in minimal detail. If an event does not occur in the lifetimes of Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Mosiah, the line of prophets from Alma the Elder to Nephi son of Nephi, Mormon, or Moroni, it does not make it into the narrative. The Book of Mormon very clearly intends to present Nephite history in the context of the covenant between Israel and God, and little more. 

Now, to be fair, I do think that it's possible for evidence to survive and be found. I'm pretty compelled by Stubb's linguistic data myself, which is a reason why I hold to loose historicity. But such evidence will always be ambiguous and vulnerable to claims of coincidence or confounded causation. It will always underdetermine. And people who take a certain plausible proposal for a Book of Mormon geography and make it a pillar of their faith will be disappointed. Due to the characteristic vagaries of ancient history, translation, and my theorized confounding of the geography, it will never be a clean fit. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by OGHoosier
clarified my prose and added a note about the purpose of BoM history

[RevTestament]

Well, I appear to be in the minority... not too surprised there. I will eventually provide a somewhat detailed belief of my geographical beliefs, but suffice it to  say that the BoM is definitely not consistent with a population of many millions in MesoAmerica at the time... nor the description of being sent to a promised land unknown to other nations. 

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I appear to be in the minority... not too surprised there. I will eventually provide a somewhat detailed belief of my geographical beliefs, but suffice it to  say that the BoM is definitely not consistent with a population of many millions in MesoAmerica at the time... nor the description of being sent to a promised land unknown to other nations. 

I would very much like to hear it. You can PM me if you feel so inclined.

I've nursed some suspicions about the Atrato River Valley myself, but the problem is that it is an archaeological vacuum. All the archaeology energy in Colombia is focused on the Muisca and Tairona civilizations. Not as much for the Cauca and Atrato river areass, which means that there isn't a lot to work with. But then again, per my above posts, I don't expect to find anything particularly good, God will not allow smoking guns.

 

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I would very much like to hear it. You can PM me if you feel so inclined.

I've nursed some suspicions about the Atrato River Valley myself, but the problem is that it is an archaeological vacuum. All the archaeology energy in Colombia is focused on the Muisca and Tairona civilizations. Not as much for the Cauca and Atrato river areass, which means that there isn't a lot to work with. But then again, per my above posts, I don't expect to find anything particularly good, God will not allow smoking guns.

 

Sorry, it is part of a much larger work I have been working on, and I am not inclined to release any part of it just yet.  It will be a good bit of time yet. I know that is frustrating, so perhaps it is best not to post. I just post from time to time on interpretation/theological issues.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry, it is part of a much larger work I have been working on, and I am not inclined to release any part of it just yet.  It will be a good bit of time yet. I know that is frustrating, so perhaps it is best not to post. I just post from time to time on interpretation/theological issues.

That's a shame, I wish you the best of luck with it. 

[Zosimus]

Another interesting set of convergences between the civilization on the Malay Peninsula between 600 BC and 420 AD and the Book of Mormon are the ancient highways through mountains and wildernesses, connecting ancient historical settlements that line up with the internal BOM map.

I've superimposed Book of Mormon toponyms over a map I took from Archeological Research in the Malay Peninsula by Michel Jacq-Hergoualc'h to show how the highways, wildernesses and mountain passes in the Book of Mormon line up with the ancient highways and mountain passes of the Malay Peninsula.

Reminder: this civilization was named Kamarah (I'll explain in an upcoming post how this name is taken directly from a Biblical clan that sailed in boats at the time of the confusion of languages) and its historical founder was named Maroni.



I have not edited the lines representing historical highways on the map at all. I've only superimposed the names of Book of Mormon toponyms and added a blue line for the north-flowing river. I propose that this is far too much convergence to be a coincidence, and if a coincidence, it is enough to call into question common methodologies.

@Brant GardnerSince this is a significant update to the model you covered in "Testing a Methodology: A Malaysian Setting for the Book of Mormon", It would be great to get your thoughts on the map and convergences mentioned.

Oh, another important one. The historical city corresponding with Zarahemla in the map below was known as Wiang Sra, which means the Walled City of Sra. It served as a sort of central capital on the peninsula during the Book of Mormon time period, connecting the coastal port cities to a river which flows north into a river basin known anciently as Suntien or Sundun. I won't get into it here, but there's a strong argument to be made that this is the Sidun/Sidon mentioned in Arabic geographies of the Indies such as the 9th century Akhbar al Zaman and popular stories such as those found in the 10th century History of the Prophets and Kings Vol. 3: The Children of Israel.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Zosimus

[SkyRock]

A few years back, pre Covid, my father told me that his ward was being torn apart by contention related to BoM geography.  About half the ward jumped on the Midwest geography idea and decided anyone who rejected it was an apostate.

[carbon dioxide]

I like the Mezo model.  The whole North American model, especially north east part of the US seems way off.  The lack of references to snow or extreme cold causes me problems.  Near naked Lamanites would not do well in January and February as blizzards and Arctic storms come down.  Plus the highly developed post BOM Mayans culture suggests a fairly developed culture before them.  The only thing worse than the North East would be proposing the BOM occurred in Northern Canada or Alaska. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I like the Mezo model.  The whole North American model, especially north east part of the US seems way off.  The lack of references to snow or extreme cold causes me problems.  Near naked Lamanites would not do well in January and February as blizzards and Arctic storms come down.  Plus the highly developed post BOM Mayans culture suggests a fairly developed culture before them.  The only thing worse than the North East would be proposing the BOM occurred in Northern Canada or Alaska. 

I don't think the BOM said they were always nearly-naked, except when they were fighting during perhaps warmer months. These more modern lamanites look well prepared for the cold. I would think the BOM Lamanites also knew how to use animal furs to keep warm.

[CV75]

I think these events could have taken place anywhere and the record transported to upstate New York, but my net inclination is that it took place in the Western Hemisphere within 15 degrees north or south of the Equator, including any islands (which would render a fairly small geography, to which I am also inclined). Purely speculative on my part.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Another interesting set of convergences between the civilization on the Malay Peninsula between 600 BC and 420 AD and the Book of Mormon are the ancient highways through mountains and wildernesses, connecting ancient historical settlements that line up with the internal BOM map.

I've superimposed Book of Mormon toponyms over a map I took from Archeological Research in the Malay Peninsula by Michel Jacq-Hergoualc'h to show how the highways, wildernesses and mountain passes in the Book of Mormon line up with the ancient highways and mountain passes of the Malay Peninsula.

Reminder: this civilization was named Kamarah (I'll explain in an upcoming post how this name is taken directly from a Biblical clan that sailed in boats at the time of the confusion of languages) and its historical founder was named Maroni.



I have not edited the lines representing historical highways on the map at all. I've only superimposed the names of Book of Mormon toponyms and added a blue line for the north-flowing river. I propose that this is far too much convergence to be a coincidence, and if a coincidence, it is enough to call into question common methodologies.

@Brant GardnerSince this is a significant update to the model you covered in "Testing a Methodology: A Malaysian Setting for the Book of Mormon", It would be great to get your thoughts on the map and convergences mentioned.

Oh, another important one. The historical city corresponding with Zarahemla in the map below was known as Wiang Sra, which means the Walled City of Sra. It served as a sort of central capital on the peninsula during the Book of Mormon time period, connecting the coastal port cities to a river which flows north into a river basin known anciently as Suntien or Sundun. I won't get into it here, but there's a strong argument to be made that this is the Sidun/Sidon mentioned in Arabic geographies of the Indies such as the 9th century Akhbar al Zaman and popular stories such as those found in the 10th century History of the Prophets and Kings Vol. 3: The Children of Israel.

I've seen various presentations of this model over the years and that the Karen may have transported Lehite traditions (including a reworked origin story, hero and place names, etc.) to this area from the original locale for the Book of Mormon setting.

[OGHoosier]

If we are willing to put aside the text's statements regarding geography (which I am) then yeah, it could have happened pretty much anywhere. There are only so many narrow necks to go around but once you remove that then yeah. 

I'm kinda curious about the Atrato River Valley in western Colombia, not a perfect fit but it has some advantages. Perfect fits, I believe, will never be found. 

[Zosimus]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I've seen various presentations of this model over the years and that the Karen may have transported Lehite traditions (including a reworked origin story, hero and place names, etc.) to this area from the original locale for the Book of Mormon setting

There's a lot to be said about the Karen. There is even an indigenous Karen religion (called Lehkai or Ariya) with a set of scriptures that was translated from golden plates in a script that was revealed to their prophet by an angel in a white robe on the top of a mountain. 

KC Kern has written up a few articles and was recently a guest on Gospel Tangents:

Edited November 6, 2022 by Zosimus

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

If we are willing to put aside the text's statements regarding geography (which I am) then yeah, it could have happened pretty much anywhere. There are only so many narrow necks to go around but once you remove that then yeah. 

I'm kinda curious about the Atrato River Valley in western Colombia, not a perfect fit but it has some advantages. Perfect fits, I believe, will never be found. 

Did someone say "Narrow neck??"

[OGHoosier]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Did someone say "Narrow neck??"

> mfw the promised land is actually a vase.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, SkyRock said:

A few years back, pre Covid, my father told me that his ward was being torn apart by contention related to BoM geography.  About half the ward jumped on the Midwest geography idea and decided anyone who rejected it was an apostate.

That is pretty much the only theory that happens with, I believe because this theory gets overlytied to so many other things, such as patriotism by its commercial promoters (the ones that make a living off of this stuff).  Too get investments at the level they wanted, they took the easier route of wooing supporters by making it a political and faithfulness issue. 

[cinepro]

On 11/4/2022 at 11:10 AM, OGHoosier said:

I'm referring more generally to divine hiddenness - in other words, the hiddenness of God from casual observation or direct proof. This seems to be the way God works, and I likewise accept philosophical arguments by Travis Dumsday et. al. that it is necessary.

 

There is, of course, another explanation for why there isn't any "direct proof"...

The oddest thing about all this to me is that the debate could easily be resolved with a 20-second revelation. RMN could announce his dozen temples at the next conference, and then add "Oh, and thus saith the Lord, the ancient city of Zarahemla was in the location now known as XYZ." It would be no different than God letting us know that Adam dwelt in the place now known as Spring Hill, Missouri.

If the Book of Mormon is describing real people, places and events, then that means Zarahemla (and other Book of Mormon locations) existed in a single location. And even with changes in topography, that location could be approximated against modern geography.

This has practical application because, since the Book of Mormon locations could only have existed in one place, every proposed geography (except one at the most) is wrong. So any amount of time and money that someone spends on the wrong geography is wasted, and is spent promoting error and falsehood. It isn't enough to say "we don't know where the geography is", because that still doesn't negate the fact that people are wasting time and money on false geographies when the knowledge could be easily shared (and God has shared similar knowledge, canonically, with past prophets.)