Book of Mormon geography

[_Tobin]

The Book of Mormon mentions Jerusalem too. We know where that is and here is a good overlay if you get bored. http://www.openbible.information/geo/overlays/ I guess the Book of Mormon is now true. QED.

Probably not very many people dispute that Jerusalem existed in 600 B.C.E. So, anyway, how about Zarahemla? You know, since large populations leave behind remains called cities?
Although.....the Harry Potter books mention London, which is a real city. Are you suggesting that the Book of Mormon and Harry Potter are on equal ontological footing?

Not really. I think the whole question is preposterous. There is no way of placing the Nephite cities because there is no independent method of doing so at this time. I'm not saying that will always be the case, but you simply can't demand a lost city be found when there is no concete way way to identify which city it is (if any of them). And even if it is identified, which I believe it will be eventually, I really doubt those that don't believe in the Mormonism will join.

[_Darth J]

the fully developed Nephite civilization with all its complicated interactions with many different people

You're begging the question with "many different people," but aside from that, a fully-developed civilization with complicated interactions would have left remains called cities.

Anyway, Google Earth coordinates for Zarahemla. Go ahead, take your time. It's not like there have been 182 years to find it so far.

[_lulu]

Do yourself a favor beastie. Read a book on Moundbuilders rather than just ignoring my posts while playing cowboy and Indians. Moundbuilders were, settled, agricultural and developed large, sophisticated, complex cities with wide ranging trade connections and monumental architecture.

Settle down, Lulu. Beastie has read or is reading my refutation of that. The time-line doesn't fit. Just as tight as her refutation of meso-America. I hope.

Can't settle down on that one. I think it is a crime that people don't know about North American Indian cities.

[_Morley]

I challenge anyone to provide evidence from respected scholars that show that ANY area in the New World, OTHER than Mesoamerica, had the population density and complexity of civilization that reached the very top level of a complex chiefdom, or, more likely, city-state.

If you're serious, please make your case, lulu.

Seriously, Morely, you've never heard of Moundbuilders? If not, I'll do my best to prepare a primer.

Yeah. I've read about the mound builders. Please make the case for how they fit Book of Mormon population, technology, and geography dynamics. I'm interested in reading your argument. Thank you, lulu.

[_beastie]

Do yourself a favor beastie. Read a book on Moundbuilders rather than just ignoring my posts while playing cowboy and Indians. Moundbuilders were, settled, agricultural and developed large, sophisticated, complex cities with wide ranging trade connections and monumental architecture.

Lawzie, it just wouldn't have OCCURRED to me to read a book! My word, what will they think of next???

Unless, of course, this one I just pulled off my shelf will do:

Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America by George R. Milner

The Book of Mormon period would be the Late Woodland period. Here's one quote, age 120:

Perhaps the burial grounds are telling us that many Late Woodland societies were divided into roughly equivalent descent groups that used funerals as one means of signaling their separation from other members of their communities. The artifacts, however, indicate that nobody enjoyed much greater access to special goods than any of the other people who shared a particular burial ground.
Residential structures confirm this lack of social differentiation. One house within a village looked very much like the rest, as long as due allowances are made for inevitable differences in household size, composition, competence, industriousness, and good fortune.

The massive chiefdoms to which you refer occurred past the Book of Mormon time period, by around the eleventh century.

page 124

Societies with higher population densities and greater political centralization that included inherited leadership positions legitimized by widely shared beliefs and customs - societies often called chiefdoms - had become increasingly common by the eleventh century AD.

Of course, just simple chiefdoms won't cut it for the Book of Mormon. They were extremely advanced, most likely city-states. So even the eleventh century moundbuilders isn't quite complex enough.

Here's a page briefly describing the stages of political complexity and organization:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/pol_3.htm

Now, if you actually have a case to make, make it.

[_Tobin]

As you should know, this part of the Book of Mormon is was written during the small Nephite colony stage. It covered a very small population over a very small geographic region. You are trying to generalize this small Nephite colony and pretend it applies to the fully developed Nephite civilization with all its complicated interactions with many different people. This is just simply not the case.

What's your favorite part of the Book of Mormon that talks about this native populace they were interbreeding with?
Do you have maybe a chapter and verse you can cite?

It must be in the sealed section of the Book of Mormon with the Nephite recipe on how best to prepare Tapir.

[_beastie]

Settle down, Lulu. Beastie has read or is reading my refutation of that. The time-line doesn't fit. Just as tight as her refutation of meso-America. I hope.

Still working on it!

[_Tobin]

the fully developed Nephite civilization with all its complicated interactions with many different people

You're begging the question with "many different people," but aside from that, a fully-developed civilization with complicated interactions would have left remains called cities.
Anyway, Google Earth coordinates for Zarahemla. Go ahead, take your time. It's not like there have been 182 years to find it so far.

182 years huh? Is hyperbole the new way to make preposterous demands seem valid?

[_Darth J]

I think the whole question is preposterous. There is no way of placing the Nephite cities because there is no independent method of doing so at this time. I'm not saying that will always be the case, but you simply can't demand a lost city be found when there is no concete way way to identify which city it is (if any of them).

So in summary, a large polity of pre-Columbian Hebrew Christians persists for a thousand years, and in 182 years, we can't find any cities anywhere in the Americas that cause archaeologists to say, "Hey! This isn't Aztec or Mayan or anything else we have found previously! It must be some other heretofore unknown civilization of Hebrew Christians that had steel swords, writing, agriculture, a sophisticated government, pieces of metal used as a medium of exchange, etc.!"

And even if it is identified, which I believe it will be eventually, I really doubt those that don't believe in the Mormonism will join.

And even if it is not identified, which I will believe it never will be, I really doubt that those who do believe in Mormonism will leave.

[_beastie]

The only argument that can be made for a North American setting of the Book of Mormon is the one that kish has made. That is that even the Mesoamerican setting requires "adjustments", as in creating justifications and excuses for the anachronisms and other basic elements that don't fit, so apologists might as well bite the bulllet and make those justifications and excuses for the Moundbuilders. At least that way they won't have to worry about the two Cumorahs and other statements by Joseph Smith.

The fact is that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, produced in the nineteenth century. That is the only clear fit. So any apologia to make it work in ancient America is going to be flawed and fairly easily refuted. So why not go whole hog, and at least preserve your religious tradition.