Lack of DNA and archeological evidence did not influence the creation of the limited geography theory

[drumdude]

abc: "What is it, exactly, that makes you see the limited geography model as a strength?"

I wouldn't take IDMJ very seriously on that point (or on several others) as representing a widespread position among believers.
Limited geography models -- to which I myself am strongly inclined -- represent neither a strength nor a weakness.

abc: "By its very nature, it's an admission that there wasn't sufficient evidence for the traditional claims, so said claims had to be narrowed."

Not really. I've read most of the principal expressions of the model, and the principal exponent of it, John Sorenson, was a good friend of mine for decades prior to his death. The main impetus for the "limited" aspect of the model was a close reading of the Book of Mormon text, which plainly and consistently yields small distances in every direction.

abc: "Likewise, the idea of two Cumorahs is a response to the archaeological evidence not at all conforming with expectations, and instead needing to link the proposed Mesoamerican setting with New York."

Again, no. That there could not be a vast distance from the principal settlements of the Book of Mormon peoples to the hill of the final battle(s) flows from a close reading of the text.

abc: "Rather than strengths, these would indicate failures that needed to be accounted for. Indeed, most of the things you cite are actually attempts to explain inconsistencies between the text and the archaeological record."

No. You misconceive the origin and history of the models that were created by such careful students of the text as M. Wells Jakeman, John Sorenson, and others.

It was just a happy coincidence that a close reading of the text came up with an explanation to fit the lack of evidence.

[Rivendale]

Why didn't he state what part of the models they misconceived?

[I Have Questions]

How does the Limited Geography Model account for content in The Book of Mormon that can only have come from plagiarising a 17th Century Bible, when it wouldn't exist until 16 centuries after the book was supposedly sealed and hidden? If they cannot answer that satisfactorily then where the events supposedly took place is irrelevant, it's already shown itself to be a fraud.

In terms of the Limited Geography Theory - they are putting the cart before the horse. Why are they looking for where the events happened, when it remains unproven that the events happened at all, and all the available objective evidence points to the fact that the events are fictional?

[I Have Questions]

Sorenson was by no means the originator of the Limited Geography fantasy...here is some history...

Janne M. Sjödahl was one of the earliest proponents of a limited geography model. In 1927, he stated that "students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek and their companions."[11][12]

In 1938, an LDS church study guide for the Book of Mormon stated that "the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America, and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to its writers."[11][13]

Another prominent proponent of the limited geography model was LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, who argued that the assumption that there were no other people present in the New World at the time of Lehi's arrival might be incorrect. In 1980, Nibley, referring to archaeological evidence, stated that the assumption of an empty New World represented a "simplistic reading" of the Book of Mormon.[11][14]

In the 1920s, LDS General Authority and historian B.H. Roberts questioned the assumption of a hemispheric geography and population model for the Book of Mormon. In his critical examination of the Book of Mormon, eventually published in 1985 under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon, Roberts affirmed that Book of Mormon peoples numbered and occupied "the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah," and speculated that such peoples would have come "in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times." Finally he asserted that "the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming."[15]

Early in the twentieth century, RLDS (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) members proposed a limited Mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon.[16] By the middle of the twentieth century, most LDS authors shared the belief that the Book of Mormon events took place within a limited region in Mesoamerica, and that others were present on the continent at the time of Lehi's arrival.[17] This geographical and population model was formally published in the official church magazine, The Ensign, in a two-part series published in September and October 1984.[18] This was followed by a book on the subject by LDS anthropologist John L. Sorenson in 1985.

[huckelberry]

How does the Limited Geography Model account for content in The Book of Mormon that can only have come from plagiarising a 17th Century Bible, when it wouldn't exist until 16 centuries after the book was supposedly sealed and hidden? If they cannot answer that satisfactorily then where the events supposedly took place is irrelevant, it's already shown itself to be a fraud.

In terms of the Limited Geography Theory - they are putting the cart before the horse. Why are they looking for where the events happened, when it remains unproven that the events happened at all, and all the available objective evidence points to the fact that the events are fictional?

I think they would be looking for a location because they have been convinced the events were real not fiction. As I remember hearing it the Biblical material is based on plates, records brought from Jerusalem. KJ used as translation shortcut.

Paraphrased New Testament material may be a stronger indicator of 19th century creation but I think believers think a common source of inspiration, divine, would explain.

[drumdude]

Sorenson was by no means the originator of the Limited Geography fantasy...here is some history...

Janne M. Sjödahl was one of the earliest proponents of a limited geography model. In 1927, he stated that "students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek and their companions."[11][12]

In 1938, an LDS church study guide for the Book of Mormon stated that "the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America, and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to its writers."[11][13]

Another prominent proponent of the limited geography model was LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, who argued that the assumption that there were no other people present in the New World at the time of Lehi's arrival might be incorrect. In 1980, Nibley, referring to archaeological evidence, stated that the assumption of an empty New World represented a "simplistic reading" of the Book of Mormon.[11][14]

In the 1920s, LDS General Authority and historian B.H. Roberts questioned the assumption of a hemispheric geography and population model for the Book of Mormon. In his critical examination of the Book of Mormon, eventually published in 1985 under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon, Roberts affirmed that Book of Mormon peoples numbered and occupied "the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah," and speculated that such peoples would have come "in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times." Finally he asserted that "the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming."[15]

Early in the twentieth century, RLDS (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) members proposed a limited Mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon.[16] By the middle of the twentieth century, most LDS authors shared the belief that the Book of Mormon events took place within a limited region in Mesoamerica, and that others were present on the continent at the time of Lehi's arrival.[17] This geographical and population model was formally published in the official church magazine, The Ensign, in a two-part series published in September and October 1984.[18] This was followed by a book on the subject by LDS anthropologist John L. Sorenson in 1985.

It’s embarrassing how incorrect DCP is on this, as Wikipedia and the citations there clearly show.

But it’s very important for him to never concede a point to a critic, even one as benign as that commenter on SeN.

[I Have Questions]

How does the Limited Geography Model account for content in The Book of Mormon that can only have come from plagiarising a 17th Century Bible, when it wouldn't exist until 16 centuries after the book was supposedly sealed and hidden? If they cannot answer that satisfactorily then where the events supposedly took place is irrelevant, it's already shown itself to be a fraud.

In terms of the Limited Geography Theory - they are putting the cart before the horse. Why are they looking for where the events happened, when it remains unproven that the events happened at all, and all the available objective evidence points to the fact that the events are fictional?

I think they would be looking for a location because they have been convinced the events were real not fiction. As I remember hearing it the Biblical material is based on plates, records brought from Jerusalem. KJ used as translation shortcut.

Paraphrased New Testament material may be a stronger indicator of 19th century creation but I think believers think a common source of inspiration, divine, would explain.

That's the apologetic on it, but it automatically refutes the translation narratives. They'd have to say the Book of Mormon was translated by using magic spectacles, a magic stone, and by copying a KJV Bible. It's just unravelling. It's why Skousen spent 30 years finding reasons to think the Book of Mormon was pre-translated by 17th Century "spirits". Skousen was only half joking when he proffered to DCP that the Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon was there because John Tindale and some others pre translated the plates in the spirit world. Of course, that explanation doesn't deal with why the mistakes and syntax of the 17th Century KJV Bible appear in a book supposedly sealed up 1,600 years early. They really are clutching at straws with this one. Admitting Joseph Smith copied from the KJV Bible that he had available is the only credible explanation. But that opens the door to it being a fraud.

[drumdude]

Elsewhere on the web, my claim here (in a comment responding to a comment) that the development of limited geographical models for the Book of Mormon was primarily driven by close reading of the book’s text is being mocked. I said that panicked recognition of a lack of archaeological and DNA evidence for a hemispheric model wasn’t a motivator. It was, one of the mockers says, just pure coincidence that such models were developed. The lack of evidence wasn’t a factor at all.

Well, I stand corrected. Crick and Watson arrived at their double helix model for DNA in February of 1953, and the study of DNA took off thereafter. Within mere decades of February 1953, DNA analysis began to be applied to the Pre-Columbian Americas.

Which – coupled with a remarkable display of clairvoyance — explains why John Sorenson was down in Chiapas, in the very south of Mexico, on a dig with BYU’s New World Archaeological Foundation that began in January 1953. The DNA data from decades later that would ultimately force creation of a limited Tehuantepec model drove him to it. Obviously. Only small minds believe that historical causation works in just one direction. Sophisticated minds, at least when they badly need to do so, can believe that the Second World War was one of the causes of the Versailles Treaty and that Reconstruction caused the American Civil War.

And, of course, the origins of the limited-geographical Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon go back well before John Sorenson (who, however, remains its best-known advocate) to people like M. Wells Jakeman and, before him, to Janne M. Sjödahl at the start of the 1920s and, if we cast the net a bit further, to Louis Edward Hills (a member of what was then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) in about 1917 — which makes the cause-and-effect relationship between post-1953 DNA discoveries and the idea of a limited geography even more remarkable. (For an extended discussion of the subject, see Matthew Roper, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,” The FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 225-275.)

And yes, it’s true that Latter-day Saint scholars seeking to identify a geographical setting for the Book of Mormon have tended to go where they reasoned that relevant evidence would be found rather than to places where they had decided that it wouldn’t be found. Is that really surprising? Researchers looking for genetic links to cancer don’t typically focus first on the Huntington Library’s holdings of Western Americana. Historians looking for the causes of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire probably don’t start their work with a census of elk herds in the Canadian Rockies. Similarly, those looking for evidence of the large cities described in the Book of Mormon for the Pre-Classic period are likely to search first in places where large cities were built in the Americas during the Pre-Classic period.

Another critic demands, with a straight face, that believers in the Book of Mormon prove it authentically ancient prior to trying to figure out where its narrative might have occurred and, therefore, prior to looking for supporting evidence in that location. Otherwise, he says, with every appearance of being serious, we’re putting the cart before the horse. Oy veh.

I feel the need to educate DCP on the evolution of the limited geography theory, and the reasoning behind it.

During the 19th century, American society was captivated by the widespread "Mound Builder" myth. This popular theory attributed the extensive earthen mounds and earthworks found across the eastern and midwestern United States to various non-Native American origins, such as Vikings, the Welsh prince Madoc, inhabitants of Atlantis, giants, or ancient Israelites. This intellectual climate significantly shaped early LDS thought, as the Book of Mormon's narrative of Old World immigrants establishing advanced civilizations in the Americas resonated strongly with these prevailing popular theories. Joseph Smith himself, in the 1820s, was employed as a "treasure-hunter," engaged in digging activities in Hopewell ruins located in upstate New York. This early, direct engagement with North American archaeological features indicates how the cultural fascination with mounds influenced the nascent LDS movement.

The plain fact is that the Book of Mormon itself exists as an explanation for the origin of the Native American peoples. This is how it was understood in the context of people who lived at that time. This was why it was written. This is the reason for the “principal ancestors” explanation which was subsequently changed.

So we begin with the first Mormon belief, that the Book of Mormon explains the origin of Native Americans in the Americas.

Joseph Smith and other early Mormon leaders endorsed what became known as the "Hemispheric Geography Model," which posited that the events described in the Book of Mormon took place across the entirety of both North and South American continents. This model often included the belief that the New World was unpopulated prior to the arrival of the Jaredites around 2000 BC, making the Book of Mormon peoples the "first and only inhabitants". This expansive geographical scope naturally directed early LDS attention to archaeological sites throughout the United States, including the Hill Cumorah in New York, where the gold plates were purportedly discovered.

It only makes sense to search the area around the Hill Cumorah, in New York. The two hills theory is a later invention to fit the lack of evidence.

According to contemporary accounts from participants such as Heber C. Kimball and Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Smith ordered an excavation into this mound. At a depth of approximately one foot, a nearly complete human skeleton was discovered. Notably, an "Indian arrow" was found lodged between its ribs, which was believed to have caused the individual's death. Following this discovery, Joseph Smith identified these remains as belonging to "Zelph," whom he described as a "white Lamanite" chieftain-warrior. Zelph was said to have been a general among the Nephites and to have been killed in battle. The accounts further specified that Zelph was known "from the hill Cumorah on East sea to the Rocky mountains," directly linking this North American find to the broader geographical claims of the Book of Mormon

Here we have the founding prophet himself completely confused as to the geographical relationship of the events of the Book of Mormon and their proper location.

Joseph Smith himself reinforced this belief in a letter to his wife Emma, describing their journey as "wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as proof of its". This statement clearly illustrates his conviction that the North American mounds served as direct evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations.

Mormon trickster God deceiving Joseph yet again.

To be continued….

[Everybody Wang Chung]

abc: "What is it, exactly, that makes you see the limited geography model as a strength?"

I wouldn't take IDMJ very seriously on that point (or on several others) as representing a widespread position among believers.
Limited geography models -- to which I myself am strongly inclined -- represent neither a strength nor a weakness.

abc: "By its very nature, it's an admission that there wasn't sufficient evidence for the traditional claims, so said claims had to be narrowed."

Not really. I've read most of the principal expressions of the model, and the principal exponent of it, John Sorenson, was a good friend of mine for decades prior to his death. The main impetus for the "limited" aspect of the model was a close reading of the Book of Mormon text, which plainly and consistently yields small distances in every direction.

abc: "Likewise, the idea of two Cumorahs is a response to the archaeological evidence not at all conforming with expectations, and instead needing to link the proposed Mesoamerican setting with New York."

Again, no. That there could not be a vast distance from the principal settlements of the Book of Mormon peoples to the hill of the final battle(s) flows from a close reading of the text.

abc: "Rather than strengths, these would indicate failures that needed to be accounted for. Indeed, most of the things you cite are actually attempts to explain inconsistencies between the text and the archaeological record."

No. You misconceive the origin and history of the models that were created by such careful students of the text as M. Wells Jakeman, John Sorenson, and others.

It was just a happy coincidence that a close reading of the text came up with an explanation to fit the lack of evidence.

Just when I thought the Afore couldn’t look any more ridiculous.

[Marcus]

Edited to note that mg's derailment about AI was split off and moved to AI thread. Thank you, mods!!
----

And the mentalgymnastical troll has derailed yet another thread, this time by posting, insanely, idiotically, and uselessly, about using AI. It's just another work around of Shades' AI rule, and the intent is to disrupt, as mg literally admitted yesterday:

... I do think you are upset that I upset your 'critic narrative '. In order to do that I do feel as though it is sometimes/often necessary to get in the 'thick of it'. Of course when I rock the boat...

That's what trolls do:

...[Trolls] post comments or messages on social media platforms with the intention of provoking a reaction from other users.

https://www.truzzer.com/the-psychology- ... -comments/

Bypassing the troll comments and getting back on traffic:

I think they would be looking for a location because they have been convinced the events were real not fiction. As I remember hearing it the Biblical material is based on plates, records brought from Jerusalem. KJ used as translation shortcut.

Paraphrased New Testament material may be a stronger indicator of 19th century creation but I think believers think a common source of inspiration, divine, would explain.

That's the apologetic on it, but it automatically refutes the translation narratives. They'd have to say the Book of Mormon was translated by using magic spectacles, a magic stone, and by copying a KJV Bible. It's just unravelling. It's why Skousen spent 30 years finding reasons to think the Book of Mormon was pre-translated by 17th Century "spirits". Skousen was only half joking when he proffered to DCP that the Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon was there because John Tindale and some others pre translated the plates in the spirit world. Of course, that explanation doesn't deal with why the mistakes and syntax of the 17th Century KJV Bible appear in a book supposedly sealed up 1,600 years early. They really are clutching at straws with this one. Admitting Joseph Smith copied from the KJV Bible that he had available is the only credible explanation. But that opens the door to it being a fraud.