Book of Mormon Geography

[Shulem]

To create peace, why don't we postulate that the Cumoms first landed at Utah Beach in Chile

Speaking of beach, there is some 3,000 miles of coastline from the South American 30th parallel leading up into the southern base of the Isthmus of Darien. That’s 3,000 miles of west coast beach for all the inhabitants who knew where to find the Pacific Ocean. But what of the beaches of the East Coast? You know, the eastern coastline that interacted with the stories outlined in the text of the Book of Mormon itself. East Coast cities vs. West Coast cities! That’s quite a contrast, mind you. That’s why I asked Vogel a very simple question in which to show me the East Coast beach as it correlates with the geography outlined in the text. Show me that beach! But no, he could not. He could not produce the eastern seaboard! Why? Because the Atlantic Ocean (Sea East/East Sea) of South America is too far away from the story told in the Book of Mormon to make any sense whatsoever. Vogel has a theory based on Smith’s later lies and I have a theory based on Smith’s original lies. There is a big difference between the two. I do believe I’ve gotten to the heart of the matter. Smith fooled me once but he won’t fool me twice!

[Shulem]

I don't follow your logic here. Lehi landed on the coast of Chile. I'm not advocating the limited Chile theory. Chile is the landing place, then Nephi moved north to Zehahemla, which would be Peru where the ruins were located.

Look, I don’t mean to be picky but I feel your posts are not well thought out and very little goes into them when my posts are jammed packed with all kinds of data. I feel like you’re just throwing spaghetti on the wall when you can’t find Zarahemla on a map, let alone spell it correctly. You can do better than that, Dan. This is not the kind of scholarship you want to exhibit.

[Marcus]

... Vogel has a theory based on Smith’s later lies and I have a theory based on Smith’s original lies. There is a big difference between the two. I do believe I’ve gotten to the heart of the matter. Smith fooled me once but he won’t fool me twice!

and worse yet, the later lies are apparently not well sourced at all. a conundrum.

[Shulem]

... Vogel has a theory based on Smith’s later lies and I have a theory based on Smith’s original lies. There is a big difference between the two. I do believe I’ve gotten to the heart of the matter. Smith fooled me once but he won’t fool me twice!

and worse yet, the later lies are apparently not well sourced at all. a conundrum.

Chile is nothing more than an afterthought to raise faith in Smith’s Book of Mormon location which he kept SECRET at the beginning. Smith did not reveal the actual location of Zarahemla and Bountiful in a revelation when first publishing his book. The very spot of ground in which Jesus Christ the Son of God came down out of heaven to pay tribute to his people and temple -- Smith said nothing. Zilch! And for good reason, he was ignorant of the location of such ruins while dictating his novel and elected to build a story close to home on a secreted peninsula so that he could manage the story and make the geography unfold in combination with the chronology. Smith did an excellent job keeping space and time intact with one major exception which I explained in my other thread.

A Chile landing and Panama neck is absolutely DOA. It flies against everything we are told in the Book of Mormon. Scholars and intelligent people have been able to carefully analyze the data in a logical manner to determine and conclude that the story really is based on a limited geography. It’s not rocket science. It’s not that hard to figure it out. I have! And I’m not the smartest cookie in the jar.

Yeah baby!

[Zosimus]

I feel like you’re just throwing spaghetti on the wall when you can’t find Zarahemla on a map,

I'm still not seeing much of a template in Delmarva. Your graphic seems to have been constructed by dropping random points on the delmarva map and putting Book of Mormon city names next to them, even though the distances aren't at the right scale.

Again, your Zarahemla sits incorrectly on the west coast near the mouth of the River Sidon which runs the wrong direction. Your Land of Nephi is about 10 miles wide, that's far too narrow given what is said about the Land of Nephi in the Book of Mormon. The Land of Nephi should not be narrower than the narrow neck of land.

[Zosimus]

Chile is nothing more than an afterthought to raise faith in Smith’s Book of Mormon location which he kept SECRET at the beginning.

Dan has laid out how Chile probably came from Joseph Smith himself, in the same year the Book of Mormon was published. If Chile was first mentioned by Smith as the Lehite landing in 1830, that's difficult to explain away as an afterthought.

[Shulem]

I'm still not seeing much of a template in Delmarva.

I do, and I’ve read the Book of Mormon more times than I have fingers and toes.

Your graphic seems to have been constructed by dropping random points on the delmarva map and putting Book of Mormon city names next to them,

I’ve read the Book of Mormon verse by verse and city by city. It works for me.

even though the distances aren't at the right scale.

Prove it. Chapter and verse -- city by city. I will follow along, believe me, I will.

Again, your Zarahemla sits incorrectly on the west coast near the mouth of the River Sidon which runs the wrong direction.

It works find and satisfies the story content. Can you find a better river in South America?

Your Land of Nephi is about 10 miles wide, that's far too narrow given what is said about the Land of Nephi in the Book of Mormon. The Land of Nephi should not be narrower than the narrow neck of land.

Please cite chapter and verse and let’s do the math. I can add, count, and deduce as easily as anyone can.

I want chapter and verse -- and I want you to explain yourself and how you calculate.

Quote my materials and show me how they do not work using the Book of Mormon. I’ve shown how it works using my materials. Prove me wrong if you can by using the text of the Book of Mormon -- chapter and verse, please.

[Shulem]

Chile is nothing more than an afterthought to raise faith in Smith’s Book of Mormon location which he kept SECRET at the beginning.

Dan has laid out how Chile probably came from Joseph Smith himself, in the same year the Book of Mormon was published. If Chile was first mentioned by Smith as the Lehite landing in 1830, that's difficult to explain away as an afterthought.

Dan has given absolutely nothing. Zilch. Pretty much just hit and run. He does not use the Book of Mormon to support his theory.

[Zosimus]

Quote my materials and show me how they do not work using the Book of Mormon. I’ve shown how it works using my materials. Prove me wrong if you can by using the text of the Book of Mormon -- chapter and verse, please.

It's not going to be possible to prove you wrong, because you seem capable of reading Joseph Smith's mind and can attribute anything that makes your model work to him.

For example, I'll say that Delmarva doesn't work as a geographic template because the Land of Nephi is only 10 miles across, and it would only take less than a day to walk across it. All the Nephites would need to do to prevent the Lamanites from attacking the Land of Zarahemla is build a 10 mile long defensive wall and put all their armies along the north side of that defensive line to prevent any Lamanite from crossing it.



The above scenario, which would be the most likely narrative if Delmarva was used as a template, is not even close to what is described in the Book of Mormon. In Alma 22, the line between the Nephites and Lamanites was porous and seemingly indefensible.

[Marcus]

Quote my materials and show me how they do not work using the Book of Mormon. I’ve shown how it works using my materials. Prove me wrong if you can by using the text of the Book of Mormon -- chapter and verse, please.

It's not going to be possible to prove you wrong, because you seem capable of reading Joseph Smith's mind and can attribute anything that makes your model work to him....

This is the kind of passive aggressive coment that some Mormons seem to have perfected. It adds nothing to the conversation and is inappropriate and rude. Shulem has made specific points so could you just discuss the underlying concepts and leave the snide remarks aside?

The above scenario, which would be the most likely narrative if Delmarva was used as a template, is not even close to what is described in the Book of Mormon in Alma 22, the line between the Nephites and Lamanites was porous and seemingly indefensible.

Could you be more specific with what you mean by your Alma 22 objection?