I don't know that I'd go that far but he deserves a lot of credit for keeping so many things straight in his story while dictating with his face in a hat. It takes a special kind of person to do what he did and maintain the numbers, chronology, and timeline in a manner he did. Smith was utterly brilliant!
Also, remember Smith finished his dictation in June of 1929 and printing didn't start until September 1829. So, there was time to review and edit the book, a process Smith and Cowdery would continue to do with the 1835 version as well as with the D&C.
I haven't forgotten that. If only we had the Book of Mormon Original Manuscript so we could fully examine it. I think it was a thorn in Joseph's side and he was glad to ditch the damn thing and hide it up forever. I get the feeling he was evolving in his ideas and wanted to move forward with his grand plans in Nauvoo. I think the reason he ditched the manuscript is because it was a liability and it being around could arouse more questions about notations and changes in the text.
Even A.A. Milne's Hundred Acre Wood has an official map. So does William Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. You might not need a map for a short story, but if you are planning to set a bunch of stories in the same fictional setting, you've got to set the setting down straight in at least a sketch, to avoid awkward gaffs like having a river run uphill or the sun rise in the west.
Easier than making up a landscape oneself is to copy one that is already made. This is a particularly good tactic if you are planning to use any unusual geographical features to give your story more interest, because you can keep them believable if you base them on real geographical features. And I don't think it's far-fetched to imagine that Joseph Smith might have thought that way. An imaginative professional writer might decide consciously to adopt a real-world model for a setting, after thinking through the advantages of the tactic, but a story-telling amateur bumpkin might also just naturally picture things happening in a nearby place, because "a story that could really have happened" will naturally mean to them "a story that could have happened here".
That's all just "could have", but the setting of the Book of Mormon has a few distinctive geographical features, and it's not clear why they are there in the story. In principle they could be there because the story really happened to real Nephites in a place that really had those particular rivers and that narrow isthmus, or because Smith just happened to dream up those features at random when he created his geography from nothing. An explanation for the unusual geographical features that doesn't rely on either authenticity or chance, however, is that Smith picked a real-world geographical model because it was a nearby coastal area, and it happens to have those unusual features.
You make lots of good points. The main geographical features in the Book of Mormon are what Smith focused on. He needed a real world setting just like Cumorah was a real world setting in his own backyard. The designated seas and directions coupled with a narrow isthmus leading into the land northward is a very specialized geography -- there are not very many examples that meet the criteria described in the book. The bit about volcanos is just window dressing and easily imagined to have existed long ago on a changing landscape as mentioned in the story after Christ's death.
Delmarva is the place. I'm convinced that I've nailed it. It's the only place that meets the basic requirements described in the book. Heck, if there were ruins and archeological evidence on the peninsula to prove the book true, it would be a no-brainer for everyone and there would be no need for apologetics. Any mention of Mexico would be laughed at as a joke.
Heck, if there were ruins and archeological evidence on the peninsula to prove the book true, it would be a no-brainer for everyone and there would be no need for apologetics. Any mention of Mexico would be laughed at as a joke.
Heck, if there were ruins and archeological evidence on the peninsula to prove the book true, it would be a no-brainer for everyone and there would be no need for apologetics. Any mention of Mexico would be laughed at as a joke.
That's a telling point.
Indeed, it is. And here's another telling point:
It's a fact that Mormon apologists have not been able to present any archeological evidence from Mexico or further south to substantiate any Book of Mormon consideration from the Smithsonian Institution or National Geographic Society.
Even A.A. Milne's Hundred Acre Wood has an official map. So does William Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. You might not need a map for a short story, but if you are planning to set a bunch of stories in the same fictional setting, you've got to set the setting down straight in at least a sketch, to avoid awkward gaffs like having a river run uphill or the sun rise in the west.
Easier than making up a landscape oneself is to copy one that is already made. This is a particularly good tactic if you are planning to use any unusual geographical features to give your story more interest, because you can keep them believable if you base them on real geographical features. And I don't think it's far-fetched to imagine that Joseph Smith might have thought that way. An imaginative professional writer might decide consciously to adopt a real-world model for a setting, after thinking through the advantages of the tactic, but a story-telling amateur bumpkin might also just naturally picture things happening in a nearby place, because "a story that could really have happened" will naturally mean to them "a story that could have happened here".
That's all just "could have", but the setting of the Book of Mormon has a few distinctive geographical features, and it's not clear why they are there in the story. In principle they could be there because the story really happened to real Nephites in a place that really had those particular rivers and that narrow isthmus, or because Smith just happened to dream up those features at random when he created his geography from nothing. An explanation for the unusual geographical features that doesn't rely on either authenticity or chance, however, is that Smith picked a real-world geographical model because it was a nearby coastal area, and it happens to have those unusual features.
You make lots of good points. The main geographical features in the Book of Mormon are what Smith focused on. He needed a real world setting just like Cumorah was a real world setting in his own backyard. The designated seas and directions coupled with a narrow isthmus leading into the land northward is a very specialized geography -- there are not very many examples that meet the criteria described in the book. The bit about volcanos is just window dressing and easily imagined to have existed long ago on a changing landscape as mentioned in the story after Christ's death.
Delmarva is the place. I'm convinced that I've nailed it. It's the only place that meets the basic requirements described in the book. Heck, if there were ruins and archeological evidence on the peninsula to prove the book true, it would be a no-brainer for everyone and there would be no need for apologetics. Any mention of Mexico would be laughed at as a joke.
DCP is a dope.
I think Physics Guy has made pretty clear comments that fit with Shulems thoughts.
Otherwise, what volcano??
Last edited by huckelberry on Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think Physics Guy has made pretty comments that fit with Shulems thoughts.
Otherwise, what volcano??
Remember how we, including you, discussed in other threads the possible interpretation that volcanic eruptions may have been associated with the cataclysmic events described in the text after Christ died? It's a rather subjective interpretation whereby some have thought that the text is alluding to volcanic disturbance. But the text does not explicitly say there were volcanos per se.
I think Physics Guy has made pretty clear comments that fit with Shulems thoughts.
Otherwise, what volcano??
Remember how we, including you, discussed in other threads the possible interpretation that volcanic eruptions may have been associated with the cataclysmic events described in the text after Christ died? It's a rather subjective interpretation whereby some have thought that the text is alluding to volcanic disturbance. But the text does not explicitly say there were volcanos per se.
Shulem , yes I remember the discussion, I was expressing again my view that volcanoes are not described but some people hold the idea that there were volcanoes but the descriptions are poor and exaggerated. The attraction is that there are volcanoes in Mexico and central America. I found the descriptions grotesquely fantastical.
The attraction is that there are volcanoes in Mexico and central America.
Perhaps even more attractive is that New York Cumorah is a reasonable distance from the land south of the narrow neck, including Bountiful and Zarahemla located on Delmarva. I find it easy to imagine Mormon traveling about the region and Moroni doing the same before finally burying the plates at the top of the hill in honor to all those who perished around Cumorah.
I'm sure that Mark E Peterson would agree with me.
Screw you, Dan Peterson; I'll bet I know the Book of Mormon better than you do!
