Book of Mormon Geography

[Zosimus]

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?

I almost added a comment saying the same thing about Shulem's replies to Dan. Alot of snark and snide remarks in his responses to Dan. Shulem has pretty much ignored the fact that Joseph Smith himself in 1830 was likely the source of Chile as the Lehite landing. Shulem brushed off that critical argument, claiming to somehow know that Joseph did so because he had a secret about Delmarva.

Best fix for double standards like this is to just bow out of the discussion. Later

[Marcus]

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?

I almost added a comment saying the same thing about Shulem's replies to Dan. Alot of snark and snide remarks in his responses to Dan....

Best fix for double standards like this is to just bow out of the discussion. Later

lol.

just to clarify, you apparently don't understand the difference between this (very strong) opinion about an idea:

I’m afraid, Dan, your Panama theory has zero merit and no support from Book of Mormon text. Your entire theory is based on afterthought! It’s DOA.

and your passive aggressive opinion, not about an idea, but about a person:

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.

anyway, so your Alma 22 objection is withdrawn? good idea. i took a quick look at that and your analysis seems really off base.

Shulem has pretty much ignored the fact that Joseph Smith himself in 1830 was likely the source of Chile as the Lehite landing. Shulem brushed off that critical argument, claiming to know that Joseph did so not because he believed it but rather because he had a secret about Delmarva. That's speculation.

no, he's explained his opinion quite well, thankfully, because i didn't see where Dan supported his opinion. your argument that Shulem is "claiming to know that Joseph did so not because he believed it but rather because he had a secret about Delmarva" is just weird. where do you get that? that's not what i saw in the thread, so an explanation of your interpretation would help. Shulem's been pretty clear about what motivates his explanations, but i'm not seeing the same clarity from you.

[Zosimus]

your argument that Shulem is "claiming to know that Joseph did so not because he believed it but rather because he had a secret about Delmarva" is just weird. where do you get that?

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

Dan explained why Joseph, in 1830, is the likely source of the Chile comments. Shulem then explains why Joseph didn't really mean it like that because Joseph was keeping Delmarva a secret. I suggested he would need to read Joseph's mind to known that.

[Marcus]

your argument that Shulem is "claiming to know that Joseph did so not because he believed it but rather because he had a secret about Delmarva" is just weird. where do you get that?

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

Dan explained why Joseph, in 1830, is the likely source of the Chile comments. Shulem then explains why Joseph didn't really mean it like that because Joseph was keeping Delmarva a secret. I suggested he would need to read Joseph's mind to known that.

oh. i don't agree that keeping a secret about a story location translates to "a secret about Delmarva," but i see your thought process.

re: the Chile comments, i see the narrative has gone from "Joseph said" to "Joseph is the likely source." ok. i'll go back and see if i can find that, but that kind of a shift usually means it's insupportable. apologetic materials tend to fall apart when you look at the footnotes.

[Zosimus]

that kind of a shift usually means it's insupportable. apologetic materials tend to fall apart when you look at the footnotes.

Well, digging into the sources Dan provided would be far more productive than dismissing his research as illogical and DOA, without first digging into the sources. If it helps, Dan explains it here:

"This item exists on a sheet of paper with other Book of Mormon items. He probably got his copy from Oliver Cowdery when he preached in the Kirtland area in November and December 1830. As one witness reported in Ohio’s Observer and Telegraph on 18 November 1830, Cowdery gave a public address in which he related Joseph Smith’s discovery of the plates and gave an outline of the Book of Mormon’s contents, including the information that Lehi’s party “landed on the coast of Chili 600 years before the coming of Christ, and from them descended all the Indians of America.”

I agree it'd be good to first look closer at the sources there.

[Marcus]

that kind of a shift usually means it's insupportable. apologetic materials tend to fall apart when you look at the footnotes.

Well, digging into the sources Dan provided would be far more productive than dismissing his research as illogical and DOA, without first digging into the sources. If it helps, Dan explains it here:

"This item exists on a sheet of paper with other Book of Mormon items. He probably got his copy from Oliver Cowdery when he preached in the Kirtland area in November and December 1830. As one witness reported in Ohio’s Observer and Telegraph on 18 November 1830, Cowdery gave a public address in which he related Joseph Smith’s discovery of the plates and gave an outline of the Book of Mormon’s contents, including the information that Lehi’s party “landed on the coast of Chili 600 years before the coming of Christ, and from them descended all the Indians of America.”

I agree it'd be good to first look closer at the sources there.

and here is the full quote:

As you mention, Pratt in 1840 said:

“[Lehi’s party] were first led to the eastern borders of the Red Sea; then they journeyed for sometime along the borders thereof, nearly in a southeast direct; after which, they altered their course nearly eastward, until they came to the great waters, where, by the commandments of God, they built a vessel, in which they were safely brought across the great Pacific Ocean, and landed upon the western coast of South America.” -- Orson Pratt, A Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840), 16.

Later, Pratt will specifically identify Chile as the place of Lehi’s landing.

There is an uncanonized revelation of Joseph Smith’s known as “Lehi’s Travels,” which existed in the early days of the church, probably 1830. The earliest copy is in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams.

“The course that Lehi traveled from the city of Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship, they traveled nearly a south south East direction untill they came to the nineteenth degree of North Lattitude, then nearly east to the sea of Arabia then sailed in a south east direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chili thirty degrees south Lattitude.” – LDS Church History Library.

This item exists on a sheet of paper with other Book of Mormon items. He probably got his copy from Oliver Cowdery when he preached in the Kirtland area in November and December 1830. As one witness reported in Ohio’s Observer and Telegraph on 18 November 1830, Cowdery gave a public address in which he related Joseph Smith’s discovery of the plates and gave an outline of the Book of Mormon’s contents, including the information that Lehi’s party “landed on the coast of Chili 600 years before the coming of Christ, and from them descended all the Indians of America.”

so, as i suspected, checking the "footnotes," or in this case, the full quote, leads to a story that does not fully support Dan's comment:

... When Joseph Smith says the American Continent, you must remember he claimed Lehi landed in Chile...

that's exactly what i meant when i wrote "... apologetic materials tend to fall apart when you look at the footnotes."

[Zosimus]

that's exactly what i meant when i wrote "... apologetic materials tend to fall apart when you look at the footnotes."

The important part is that on 18 November 1830, the Observer and Telegraph published a statement from a witness stating that Oliver Cowdery gave a public address in Kirtland, and included the information that Lehi’s party “landed on the coast of Chili 600 years before the coming of Christ".

I suppose its possible that Oliver Cowdery made that up out of the blue on his own, but even then it pushes the timing of the Chile statements to 1830 and (since the statement was made by the primary scribe of the Book of Mormon) it places it very close to Joseph Smith.

Also, note that in 1830 (just nine months after the publication of the Book of Mormon) Oliver Cowdery was not placing the Lehite landing in Delmarva. If Delmarva was the template used, why wouldn't he place the Lehite landing in Delmarva? I understand Shulem thinks this was an intentional attempt to shift focus away from Delmarva because there was no proof of the Book of Mormon to be found there, but I don't think that argument has much weight. Both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery made statements about the Book of Mormon events playing out in places where there was no proof of the Book of Mormon. For example, look at Cowdery's Hill Cumorah comments in the Wentworth Papers. In other words, I don't think Oliver would have thrown the entire Book of Mormon geography under the bus just because there wasn't evidence of Nephites and Lamanites in Delmarva.

[Shulem]

It's not going to be possible to prove you wrong,

So, you admit that you will not be able to use the text in order to prove me wrong. I agree with you. The conclusion is inevitably in my favor.

because you seem capable of reading Joseph Smith's mind and can attribute anything that makes your model work to him.

It seems that I’ve made quite an impression on you with my ability to claim that I know what Joseph was thinking. Even Vogel admits to wanting to know what was on his mind as well. It’s a worthy endeavor and the possibilities are boundless. The important thing is that we use the text which Joseph dictated to illustrate what he was seeing.

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.

The “land of Nephi” is one territory of the Book of Mormon lands that are south of the narrow neck. It’s a territory and is south of all the other territories. It has both length and width. Nothing is designated as being south of the “land of Nephi” other than Lehi’s landing and the Sea South. The text does not limit Nephi and his brethren from being able to traverse the width of a given part of the land of Nephi in a single day. The text does not limit us from imagining a width of 10 miles from sea to sea. We learn however that they felt they were on an isle of the sea and were surrounded by water. That means Nephi knew there was a Sea East and a Sea West because they traversed the land in exploration as easily as Joseph Smith’s eyes could judge the narrow distance of the long tail of Delmarva on the map.

In addition, the text makes it clear that various cities were founded within the territory of the land of Nephi just as I’ve placed them on my map, starting with: City of Lehi-Nephi (capital), Shilom, Shemlon, Mormon, etc.

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.

Well, Joseph Smith did not include that particular idea into his story and it was his story to tell, right? Bear in mind, the “land of Nephi” was *in* the land of Nephi and was therefore managed and controlled by the Lamanites. Building a 10-mile wall while being attacked by the enemy seems rather daunting. Instead, both parties had their territories and maintained their respective capitals from a distance.

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.

You’ll need to be specific. Which verse(s) did you have in mind? I address Alma 22 in the other thread. The lines between the territories are divided by both land and river and include length and width. A river runs through it and the map shows tributaries.

Alma 22 tells us precisely what’s described in the Book of Mormon and I take all that into account including seas east & west. Do you? Does Vogel? I should think you’d have a harder time fitting Alma 22 into Vogel’s South America than you would my Delmarva.

But here we are.

[Shulem]

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?

I’m really glad you are here in this thread and weighing in, Marcus. The wizard appreciates it!

[Shulem]

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?

I almost added a comment saying the same thing about Shulem's replies to Dan. Alot of snark and snide remarks in his responses to Dan. Shulem has pretty much ignored the fact that Joseph Smith himself in 1830 was likely the source of Chile as the Lehite landing. Shulem brushed off that critical argument, claiming to somehow know that Joseph did so because he had a secret about Delmarva.

Best fix for double standards like this is to just bow out of the discussion. Later

I’ve put a lot of work and thought into my threads (countless hours) and Dan pops in and makes ineffectual quick statements and then pops out as fast as he came in. That has been somewhat irritating to me and I’ve taken it in stride. Dan has done nothing to disprove Delmarva and my dissertation by using the text of the Book of Mormon. It is Dan who is ignoring me and the materials herein! I’ve felt rather insulted and blown off but I deal with it the best I can. I was generous and kind in referring to Dan as Dorthy rather than one of the witches.