Book of Mormon Geography

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 am
The east coast would not necessarily be Brazil, but Columbia or Venezuela, as the early Mormons imagined it. George Reynolds, If I recall correctly, made a map of South America with Book of Mormon sites. Locations are in his Book of Mormon concordance.

Then George Reynolds was a dodo, a fool. He didn’t know up from down or east from west and was lost in his own silly imagination. I would love to have a conversation with him and explain to him that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to Book of Mormon geography as outlined within the text. Now, I know that sounds a bit rude, but I have a firm handle on this discussion and I tend to think there are some smart LDS apologists who will back me on this. The Book of Mormon text is what counts! Period. To heck with Reynolds.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 am
Don't forget Joseph Smith always had an escape with the changes that took place at the crucifixion.

I am well aware of this and have considered it in the long thread and other places as well.

Here:
Shulem wrote:
Sat Feb 05, 2022 6:06 pm
huckelberry wrote:
Sat Feb 05, 2022 5:34 pm
MG, I do not quite see why you are asking about volcanic activity. I read in the Book of Mormon about destruction from tempest storm lightning fires earthquakes, a city sinking into the sea and another being buried. I do not see volcanoes. As physics guy mentioned the darkness does not fit a Volcano. Believe me I was in the darkness created by Mt St Helens. It was very dark but did not prevent fire or sources of light.

I suppose you might project the idea of volcano because there are volcanoes in the area you prefer to see the books events taking place. I think the destruction described could have happened on the US eastern seaboard as likely or unlikely as most anyplace else.

Indeed! Just look at all the broken up landscape and the rocks and seams split apart and the cities sunk by the earthquakes and all that destruction. Just look! A picture tells a thousand words.


Image
Shulem wrote:
Sun Feb 27, 2022 6:02 pm
Conclusive evidence shows that Smith was familiar with the Adam Clarke Commentary, moreover, the Genesis account became his specialty as witnessed in the new translation of the Old Testament which he began immediately after the Book of Mormon was published. Clarke noted in the Genesis section that "great changes that have taken place in different parts of the earth since the flood, by volcanic eruptions, earthquakes" and so it makes sense that Smith contemplated these things. Clarke notes how science questions the biblical account of the earth being only 6,000 years old whereby scientific evidence shows it's much older due to "the formation of different strata or beds of earth, either by inundations or volcanic eruption", so the crust of the earth is much older in spite of traditional belief passed down from the Mosaic bible. Even more curious is Clarke noting how "Volcanoes in the moon have been observed by means of the telescope" thus "lunar volcanoes". And, if there are volcanos on the moon then there might also be men on the moon, perhaps dressed as Quakers as reported by those who heard Joseph Smith teach that very thing. The point is that if Smith thought men and volcanos were on the moon then he might also think that volcanos were at Delmarva because that is no less fantastic than volcanos on the moon. The Book of Mormon tells us about great changes being made to the landmass at Christ's coming and the rocks were broken up and whole cities were sunk. It's reasonable to think Smith may have visualized volcanic destruction even at Delmarva all those years ago and that such were sunken into the ocean and disappeared forever. But, volcanos or exploding mountains bursting with lava are not specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Earthquakes were the main catastrophe along with fires and even mountains being made low. 3 Nephi 8 describes all the natural destructive phenomena that took place when the people were killed and the land was changed.

Look, see for yourself. Is it reasonable to think an ignorant farm boy could look at this map and think the jagged landform was caused by earthquakes or even volcanos as a direct result of what we read in the Book of Mormon? Whether Smith knowingly wrote volcanos into his story being cloaked in mystery makes no difference because all is fiction. Smith had never been to Delmarva. He didn't know what was down there. For him, it was an open book and it looked like a great place to write his story having the exact landmass, waterways, oceans, and cardinal directions described in the Book of Mormon. Delmarva fits like a glove. It's a perfect fit. It remained for Smith to fill in all the blanks and decorate the story. But most important, provide means for Moroni to bury the plates at Cumorah.

Image
Shulem wrote:
Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:13 am
Assume there were a great many ruins scattered about Delmarva, many of which are at the ocean's edge and geologists confirm that ancient cities sunk into the sea long ago. Suppose there were massive stone structures like those down in Central America but that the ones in Delmarva were sunken into the earth. Suppose science had proven that the Delmarva landscape was formerly rough having many hills but was made smooth and flattened by catastrophic storms and earthquakes a millennia ago.
Shulem wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:39 pm
Hmmm, I'm barely 20 years old and am just a lowly farmer and really don't know much about science or the evolution of how the planet evolves. But looking at this map below I think Jesus did it when he appeared to the Indians and will someday write that into the story:

3 Nephi 8 wrote: 11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.

13 And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.

18 And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land.Image
_Paul Osborne wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:48 am
Although the land was broken up and the rocks cracked due to the shaking of the earth it is reasonable to assume that the basic geographical shape of the Book of Mormon bounderies were constant. There was the narrow neck and the two lands: North and south. Some cities were sunk suggesting that the coastslines were deformed to some degree. But there remained a "narrow neck", nonetheless.

Charity, you infer that I need to read the Book of Mormon text carefully. Well, I’ve done that more times than I have fingers and toes. Look, the trip across the narrow neck is from sea to sea, thus, feet in the sands of the eastern sea and feet in the sands of the western sea. Common sense tells me that it is what Alma meant even though he did not spell it out in plain English like you might require. Indeed, the distance of a Nephite in traversing the neck is from beach to beach – putting it plainly, that’s the west beach on one side of the land and the east beach on the other side. The whole line must be fortified lest the Lamanites sneak through. The Nephite generals understood this quite well.

Paul O
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:28 am
Thanks for watching the video. There is no reason for Joseph Smith to change the myth that he was hoping to tap into to lend credibility to his book. It makes no sense for Joseph Smith to adopt a limited geography. If he wanted a limited geography, he didn't have to have a neck of land at all. He could have done what Spaulding did. There is absolutely no reason for a limited geography to have a neck of land unless one is trying to save the Book of Mormon.

Dan,

I love your videos and hope you make many more. Bravo!

I feel that my threads show good reason why Joseph did not wholly adopt everything about myths and stories presented by other accounts into his own creation. Smith’s credibility was based on the idea that an angel appeared to him and gave him a golden book that had been buried up in a hill in which ancient prophets (Mormon & Moroni) fought a final battle at a considerable distance from the original land in which was settled by Nephi at Delmarva.

It makes every sense that Smith adopt a limited geography because that *is* exactly what he did as expressed and outlined in the text! Smith could do whatever he wanted. Nobody told him what to do. He was the boss.

The narrow neck of land with a land to the north and to south represents a limited geography because that is exactly how the text explains it compliments of Joseph Smith speaking out of a hat. I affirm that I’m not trying to save the Book of Mormon. I’m simply solving the equation and putting the puzzle together for in behalf of Joseph Smith who is dead. He is not here to do that and I’m glad to do it for him.

I guess that makes me extra special. Maybe more than you?

;)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 am
As to actual cities, Joseph Smith didn't care about the locations of his imaginary cities, because he didn't think that far into the future when archaeology would develop.

WHAT?! You don’t mean that.

Joseph Smith’s original claim was that he was a seer who can not only sense hidden treasure in the earth as you so well explain in your own writings, but understand past, present, and future. The future and the past was always on Smith’s mind as he understood God and the bible.

The Book of Mormon describes archeology taking place therein. The large, engraved stone of an ancient civilization uncovered in the midst of the ruins from former inhabitants of long ago.

Smith not only thought ahead but he thought behind too and covered his tracks for his present needs.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:26 pm
Good. It would be disheartening to think of the Dúnedain of Númenor building in the land of Snookie and Mehmet Oz.

Archeology and the Book of Mormon go hand in hand. Little wonder Joseph must have been concerned that people would straight up question and demand to know the very site where Bountiful lay so they could go uncover it and confirm its existence. It makes sense Smith never really taught anything from Book of Mormon geography but seems to have avoided his own precious book as if it was the plague. Smith must have worried that if the Nephites could uncover ruins up north then New Yorkers could go down to Delmarva and find Nephite ruins. It works both ways, baby.

Yep. Yeah baby!!

Mosiah 8 wrote: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.

9 And for a testimony that the things that they had said are true they have brought twenty-four plates which are filled with engravings, and they are of pure gold.

10 And behold, also, they have brought breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound.

11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; and there is no one in the land that is able to interpret the language or the engravings that are on the plates. Therefore I said unto thee: Canst thou translate?
User avatar
dan vogel
Sunbeam
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by dan vogel »

The reason I quote Pratt, is the same as for Joseph Smith, they know more about how the Book of Mormon fit into the 19th century than you. It would be like trying to increase the size of the ark because it’s silly to think all the animals could fit on such a small ship. Kerry’s discussion of the eight Jaredite barges show how silly the Book of Mormon is when compared with reality. So trying to find a limited geography that makes sense is misguided to say the least. That’s why I brought up the Idealist Fallacy, or the assumption that humans are always rational. It’s irrational for Joseph Smith to have believed the Nephites could travel such great distances or to have populated such a great expanse of territory, therefore he didn’t. Just about everything in the Book of Mormon is irrational, especially to us who have more education and have studied it longer than it took for him to write it.
“And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.” Helaman 3:8
Helaman 3:8 is not written from the perspective of the land southward. It’s migration into the land northward that prompts discussion of the four seas. They travel “an exceeding great distance” into the land northward where the timber is sparse due to deforestation by the Jaredites. Early Mormons identified this land as Mexico and the Great Plaines. Joseph Smith contemporaries believe the Plaines were created by the Mound Builders. So, in this passage, these are the major seas, not local seas. It is the only mention of a “sea north.” I don’t see this feature in your model.

The “narrow pass” is a feature of the “small neck.” While the neck has length, the pass is measured by width, a journey of a day and a half from sea to sea. The pass is right where the neck fits onto the land southward.
“And it came to pass that they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.” Alma 50:34


Note here that the point where the neck attaches to the land southward it has seas on the east and west. You seem to think that the long bay disqualifies Panama, but it doesn’t. Note this passage doesn’t name these seas, although it is merely a bay of the general sea east. Note also that Alma 22:32 describes the line Desolation and Bountiful as running from “the east to the west sea.” Again, no specific mention of the “east sea,” although it implies the line touches water on both ends. Even if the passage is read to imply “east sea,” it would not disqualify Panama.
Then there is what to do with the city of TEANCUM that is north of the narrow neck and encroaching into Desolation! How do you fit that into the Panama narrow neck that is suppose to be only 1 ½ days long leading into the continent proper? The Panama neck scenario is an impossible scene when trying to make it work with the text and the layout of how Smith interwove the cities which you seem to think are in South America. Impossible. Can't be done.
What do you mean how do I fit Teanchum into the area north of the narrow pass? There isn’t enough information to be dogmatic about the placement of any city. Certainly, it can’t be used to criticize any geography theory. It’s just an arbitrary game that makes some theories look more precise than what is possible. Nevertheless, your Teancum is not by the seashore. Your land northward has no east sea.

I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing with the list of cities. Placing names of cities arbitrarily on a map proves nothing.
User avatar
dan vogel
Sunbeam
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by dan vogel »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:27 pm
dan vogel wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 am
I'm not sure what Joseph Smith was thinking about the Sideon, but early Mormons identified the Magdolina in northern South America.

Dan,

Again, I really don’t care what the early Mormons thought or said about the Sidon river. They are not qualified when it comes to explaining and expounding on Book of Mormon geography as are modern scholars who have dissected the text and discovered that it carefully and meticulously describes a limited geography -- and with that, I concur.

I discuss the Sidon river quite a bit in my long threads that you don't have time to read.
Joseph Smith, early Mormons, and the 19th century are important to understanding the Book of Mormon in every other way besides geography. That's an interesting position.
User avatar
dan vogel
Sunbeam
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by dan vogel »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:36 pm
dan vogel wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 am
As to actual cities, Joseph Smith didn't care about the locations of his imaginary cities, because he didn't think that far into the future when archaeology would develop.

I disagree. I think Joseph Smith carefully planned what he wanted in his novel before he wrote it and considered the implications and what might come of it once he released it. He carefully placed all the cities on the main body of the land where there is a clear pattern between them and the seas. There are three main factors or what I call the ABC’s for the mainland south of the narrow neck:

A = Land of Nephi (South)
B = Zarahemla (Midland)
C = Bountiful (North)

I have carefully studied how these cities intermingle and are geographically placed on the map using time, space, and distance. Joseph Smith did the same and he used Delmarva as his template which assisted him in keeping it all together within his complex presentation -- which he dictated out of a hat.
Of course, Joseph Smith had to be careful not to create internal contradictions, but he didn't care about how specific cities would correlate to the real world. He just have to stay within what was considered the overall pattern of ancient settlement, that is, ruins in Peru, Mexico and Central America, and fortification and earth mounds in North America.
User avatar
dan vogel
Sunbeam
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by dan vogel »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:48 pm
dan vogel wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 am
The distance (12 days) between Zarahemla and Nephi has nothing to do with the overall size of the land.

Oh but it does! It’s an important clue in plotting how POINT A relates to POINT B exactly how Joseph Smith visualized it and measured it in his mind based on the map he chose to place his story. Point A in reference to point B then takes us to POINT C (Bountiful) as well as the other cities surrounded by the East & West coasts described by the text. The main body of the land was nearly surrounding by sea -- ocean blue. It’s the text that counts! That is what I go by!
Again, of course, Joseph Smith had a mental map and was careful not to contradict himself, but internal relative distances do not tell us how big or small the land southward was. Besides, even if such information existed, it can't be used to disqualify hemispheric geography. How far could Joseph Smith travel in twelve days?
User avatar
dan vogel
Sunbeam
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Book of Mormon Geography

Post by dan vogel »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:57 pm
dan vogel wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 am
The east coast would not necessarily be Brazil, but Columbia or Venezuela, as the early Mormons imagined it. George Reynolds, If I recall correctly, made a map of South America with Book of Mormon sites. Locations are in his Book of Mormon concordance.

Then George Reynolds was a dodo, a fool. He didn’t know up from down or east from west and was lost in his own silly imagination. I would love to have a conversation with him and explain to him that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to Book of Mormon geography as outlined within the text. Now, I know that sounds a bit rude, but I have a firm handle on this discussion and I tend to think there are some smart LDS apologists who will back me on this. The Book of Mormon text is what counts! Period. To heck with Reynolds.
My point about Reynolds is that anyone can place names on any map relative to what the Book of Mormon describes, regardless of the overall geography. If you look at a map of South America, you will see that Brazil is not the only or even the best choice.
Post Reply