Book of Mormon geography

[_Fence Sitter]

for what it's worth Brant your name pops up here constantly when people are ask who they respect within the Mormon intellectual community.
I want to second what Blixa said.

I have not been interested in this particular aspect of LDS beliefs but what I have read, just in this thread, makes me want to read more of what you have written on the subject.

Thanks for participating.

FS

[_Buffalo]

But poppycock? A footnote? The presence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas would be poppycock and a footnote? A world shaking change to the pre-Columbian fauna? Aye, aye, aye, there's another Mormon apologist down the tube.

Horses may be a big deal in the controversy over the Book of Mormon, but they are little more than a footnote in general history.

Let's say that these anomalous remains are verified and that everyone accepts them. What then? Outside of Book of Mormon arguments what might happen? Well, historians will say, wow, that is interesting. I wonder why they were never domesticated in the New World and didn't have the impact that they did in the Old World.

That would be an interesting question to ask and answer, but little else would change in the way we see pre-contact history.

Now, what would change in the Book of Mormon world? Apologists would crow for a while, and pretty soon no one would talk about it. There would still be lots of other issues, so nothing would be settled.

A footnote.

I think you're right here. If they were around in some limited fashion, apologists WOULD crow, but it wouldn't serve much purpose otherwise as far as verifying or falsifying the Book of Mormon.

[_Shulem]

It's funny how Book of Mormon anachronisms always comes down to the horse. I think it's instructive to take a broader view as well:

Horses
Elephants
Metallurgy
Bows and arrows
Cattle and cows
Goats
Swine
Barley
Wheat
Wine
Silk
Compass
Windows
Cimiters
Metal based exchange systems
Synagogues
The presence of Deutero Isaiah on the brass plates


The problem is far greater than just the horses. The last one on that (incomplete) list absolutely falsifies the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient record.

The ONLY reason Brant and any other Mormon clings to their belief that the Book of Mormon is a true translation from ancient gold plates is because they feel the Holy Ghost has revealed it is true. Their testimony is based purely on feelings and not proof from evidence. Once they come to terms that those feelings are just feelings generated in the hearts of humans, they can drop the act and submit themselves to a correct scientific conclusion.

Understand that Mormons base their own conclusions even before any of the critical evidence is examined. They know it's true no matter what because the Holy Ghost made them feel good about it. Never mind where the evidence leads. I doubt, though, you'll ever hear Brant bear his testimony of the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. That's not covered by the Holy Ghost out of a matter of convenience. But there it is! And it stares him in the face every time he looks at it.

Paul O

[_Jaybear]

There is no way to intelligently discuss how a translation was made without positing that it was a translation. My introduction to the book makes that assumption clear. Obviously that begs a very big question, but answering whether it was a translation is a very different question.

So, yes, my assumption begins with accepting that it is a translation and proceeds from that point. In other places I have argued about why, so I am not avoiding the question entirely, just bracketing it.

While we can't discuss HOW a translation was made without agreeing or assuming that a translation occured, we can readily and intelligently discuss how Smith purported to translate the book. That is a secular discussion driven by examining the historical record.

So I take it the answer to my question is no? You have no evidence that Smith PURPORTED to translate the book by any means other than reading words that literally appeared to him by divine means.

I have to ask this again, because (1) you didn't say actually say no; and (2) its not axiomatic, because even though your assumption "begins with accepting that it is a translation", you could also have evidence that Smith purported to have employed at times a loose translation method.

[_Shulem]

My favorite Book of Mormon error is:

"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her day shall not be prolonged."

Joseph Smith was such a thief stealing that from the KJV. Had the Holy Ghost wrote it, it would be:

Hyenas, fortresses, and jackals



Paul O

[_Chap]

While we can't discuss HOW a translation was made without agreeing or assuming that a translation occurred, we can readily and intelligently discuss how Smith purported to translate the book. That is a secular discussion driven by examining the historical record.

So I take it the answer to my question is no? You have no evidence that Smith PURPORTED to translate the book by any means other than reading words that literally appeared to him by divine means.

Yes to that. I confess to having said 'evidence suggests that Smith translated by doing X' when I should have taken the time to make it clear that I meant 'evidence suggests that Smith purported to translate by doing X'.

Is there any evidence from Smith's intimate circle of early helpers that he ever purported to do anything else but a divinely defined tight translation?

[_Shulem]

Is there any evidence from Smith's intimate circle of early helpers that he ever purported to do anything else but a divinely defined tight translation?

1. The title page makes it clear that God is the author of the Book of Mormon and was more or less using Joseph Smith as a translator.

"The interpretation thereof by the gift of God"

2. But then there is a disclaimer to cover Joseph's butt just incase he didn't catch everything he thought he did:

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God"

So what are those mistakes? We know that the original Book of Mormon has been altered thousands of times, many changes have taken place. Are those the mistakes that Joseph was worried about? Has the church admitted to those changes as being mistakes or do they just say that they are clarification?

3. Where are the mistakes? Here are 3 of them:

"beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons"

Paul O

[_tapirrider]

Not at all. They already know why very few horses (if any) persisted. They were eaten. That is pretty well known and was the fate of most of the larger fauna in the New World that was here but didn't survive mankind. It would be a question of when, not whether.

I am really quite tired of being called a liar. I suppose you might suggest that my source was lying to me, but I happen to know enough about the source that it would be the least likely scenario. So, your resort to not having the evidence is to assume that I don't. Poor form.

You will note that while I have indicated that there have been tests, that I am not touting them as probatory of anything significant. I can't see how that merits accusations that I am either a silly Mormon or that I am a liar. You are the one making a mountain out of this molehill.

No sir, this is not a molehill. It is accepted by all but the fringe elements that the horse in America became extinct and was reintroduced by Europeans. The very fact that feral horses reproduced and spread so rapidly frames the question of why the horse died out in the first place. The environment of America certainly provided for a thriving population of horses. It was absent or it would have thrived. The idea of only a few and they were eaten does not agree with the facts.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes ... ower/3151/
“Wherever man has left his footprint in the long ascent from barbarism, we will find the hoofprint of the horse beside it.”

If the horse were in America before Columbus your explanation of them being eaten is not sufficient. It does not address why other people in other parts of the world domesticated a domesticatable animal while America's people simply ate it. This also fails to recognize how rapidly the horse cultures of the American Indian grew and spread. The humans in America were certainly able to incorporate the horse because they in fact did, once it was present in their landscapes.

You claim that Mormon scientists have data of horses before Columbus, then you say you don't know why it is not published. The assertion that a small number of scientists have something that no other mainstream researches have and then not properly publishing it for peer review in professional journals screams PSEUDO.

You see, this is not about the Book of Mormon, it is about reality, or rather the lack thereof.

[_lostindc]

As someone with a high-level professional understanding of geography, specifically human geography I have no idea how anyone can attempt to piece together more than a speculative idea on Book of Mormon geography. With the evidence currently in store, attempting to map the Book of Mormon is no different than attempting to map middle earth. Funny thing is, no real geographer has attempted to map the Book of Mormon because this would be silly. If greater evidence arises then mapping may begin.

[_SteelHead]

That is easy to deal with. The whole geography of the land was re arranged with the cataclysmic events at the time of the resurrection. Nothing to map it to.


Crisis averted.