Book of Mormon geography

[_Chap]

...
For some reason, you paste attempted to show that quotation as an indication that I believed that it was the correct interpretation, which is quite the opposite of the reason that it is in the book. ... .

Here is what I said:

Amazon allows 'look inside' for Brant Gardner's book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, allowing one to read the first few pages. See:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Tr ... 1589581318

BG (pages 6-7) gives a further and very early story to add to the impression of an 'exact translation' story being current in Smith's circle, one I have not heard before. That was given by a Presbyterian minister Truman Coe, 'living amongst the Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1836'.

By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummim, he would see the English written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi, he would again proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so on until he came to the part of the plates which were sealed up.

Once again, we have a story clearly designed to suggest that Smith had no role in choosing the wording of the text.

I am sorry if you got the impression that I thought you were asserting the truth of Coe's story. But I can't really see how you got that impression from what I wrote.

All I meant to convey was that Coe's account showed that a story emerged very early on, to the effect that Smith played no creative or discretionary role in the 'translation' of the Book of Mormon, but simply passed on what was divinely revealed to him.

[_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.

The specific disagreements among those who agree on a general geography suggest that you have a point. There are, nevertheless, some interesting things that have been done. One of them is a three dimensional comparison of the Grijalva River against the textual evidence for the river Sidon.

I am no geographer. My interests are in seeing if there is any cultural data in the region identified that fit with the text and geography. I believe there are, so I am not as pessimistic as you are.

I understand what you attempting to do and respect your attempts. Personally, I believe the lack of data makes it very difficult to map. In no way does the lack of data infer the Book of Mormon cannot be mapped in the future, but currently mapping is not possible. Book of Mormon of geography requires speculation to even begin the conversation. Until a name or similar phenomenon matches a location and at least a quasi-geocode can be established then we are left with speculation and this is not adequate geography.

I want to be clear, in no way should one give up attempts to find Book of Mormon locations in relation to the actual earth, if this is their passion, but at the same time there is not one adequate Geography of the Book of Mormon theory.

[_Brant Gardner]

Gee Brant, that's a monumental leap (Knievel's attempt at jumping the Grand Canyon?). You don't think that your beginning premise might cast some doubt on your entire endeavor? A model based on such a thin premise?

Really? One of the historians I was reading noted that we are much more likely to find what we are looking for than anything else. That tells me that if I begin with the premise that the Book of Mormon isn't historical that the premise will dictate the conclusion. While it just might be true, it is rather like an antebellum slave holder proclaiming that the Bible not only supports slavery, but demonstrates that blacks are inferior (this happened, you know).

Now, if I start with the premise that it could be true, I can falsify the hypothesis. If I begin with the premise that it can't possibly be true, what evidence might possibly falsify the hypothesis?

Don't you think we should use reasonable methodologies in our search?

[_Brant Gardner]

I am sorry if you got the impression that I thought you were asserting the truth of Coe's story.

My apologies. I'm afraid that I was influence by other conversations on this board. I appear to have jumped to an erroneous conclusion.

[_Shulem]

Finally, one of the possible approaches (and to my mind a necessary one) is to assume that the text is historical and then compare it to history to discover whether or not it fits into the proper production culture. That assumption shouldn't dictate the conclusion, but simply provide the model for how data are to be analyzed.

Fine. Let's employ your model and test your prophet's ability to translate correctly. Let's assume the Explanations (text) of Facsimile No. 3 is historical and compare it to history to discover whether or not it fits into proper. . . .

You may call your first expert witness to testify.

Paul O

[_Brant Gardner]

I understand what you attempting to do and respect your attempts. Personally, I believe the lack of data makes it very difficult to map. In no way does the lack of data infer the Book of Mormon cannot be mapped in the future, but currently mapping is not possible.

Not to the extent that it becomes clear from the geography alone. Even the best correlations still have problems. My assumptions are that extra-geographical data can assist in informing the geography. I will have a paper on directions in the Book of Mormon coming out in the Mormon Studies Review. It won't be in the next one (which will be issue 2 for 2011!) but the one after that. I propose using the assumption of a Mesoamerican geography as justification for using a Mesoamerican cultural approach to understanding the text's use of directions. Interestingly enough, it fits very well as a reflection of Mesoamerican usage.

Book of Mormon of geography requires speculation to even begin the conversation. Until a name or similar phenomenon matches a location and at least a quasi-geocode can be established then we are left with speculation and this is not adequate geography.

I sincerely doubt that we will every have a name that is usable. We have Lamanai, but I strongly oppose that as a remembrance of a Book of Mormon name.

So, yes, there is a lot of speculation, but there are ways to work with other type of data to narrow the speculative field.

I want to be clear, in no way should one give up attempts to find Book of Mormon locations in relation to the actual earth, if this is their passion, but at the same time there is not one adequate Geography of the Book of Mormon theory.

I understand. I think there is one that is most useful, but it still has unresolved issues.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

1

[_Brant Gardner]

By the way, doesn't anybody here work for a living?!! I just finish a post and am told that I have one or two more that have just been added. I work from home and have a flexible schedule, but what the heck are you all doing? Get some work done for heaven's sake?

Of course, I think I had better do some of the same.

[and it happened again when I tried to post this!]

[_Brant Gardner]

1

6 (volumes)

[Guest]

It's May 17th!!! Hooo-ra!!!!