Does the Church Endorse a Specific Geography for the Book of Mormon?

[Hemidakota]

Meridian Magazine :: Answers to Critics: Does the Church Endorse a Specific Geography for the Book of Mormon?

Article snippet: A sample of writings by Church leaders and members through out its history, illustrates that debate and discussion about Book of Mormon geography has been very free, precisely because there was no revealed or "authoritative" geography model.

[NeuroTypical]

The answer is "no", right?

[Hemidakota]

Correct...

[BenRaines]

No they do not.

Ben Raines

[Hemidakota]

That one really puzzles me on why not....or perhaps, the Lord does not allow it to be known for them but to focus on main core gospel principles - MISSIONARY WORK -.

[BenRaines]

If we have knowledge we do not need faith. One purpose of our existence upon earth was to develop and show faith. With a perfect knowledge faith is unnecessary.

That is my take on it.

Ben Raines

[Prodigal_Son]

If we have knowledge we do not need faith. One purpose of our existence upon earth was to develop and show faith. With a perfect knowledge faith is unnecessary.

I agree. If we were to label sites, we'd have so many Mormon archaeological digs, it'd be ridiculous. People'd be hunting for proof in the ground, instead of in the scriptures...

[livy111us]

I agree that the Church has no official position on geography, but do find it interesting that the Church chose to use a Mesoamerican setting for the cover of this years Gospel Doctrine manual, for the movie playing at Temple Square "The Testaments" (which is based in a Mesoamerican setting), that photographs of Mesoamerican sites were found in the Book of Mormon from the 70's, the previous Book of Mormon Institute manual had Mesoamerican themes, pictures, and artwork throughout the book, and in Temple dedications from Mexico and other Mesoamerican countries, Gordon B Hinckley designated the inhabitants of those lands to be from Lehi.

While not binding whatsoever, I do find it interesting.

[Wingnut]

The Church maintains that the Book of Mormon took place "on the American continent" but beyond that there are no specifics. Also, I believe that in most places outside of the the USA, North and South America are lumped together.

[tubaloth]

That one really puzzles me on why not....or perhaps, the Lord does not allow it to be known for them but to focus on main core gospel principles - MISSIONARY WORK -.

Once looking into this, once realizes why a good map can't be located. Once Christ comes the land scape completely changes. The mountains and rivers and so forth are so different by the time Christ comes, anything spoken of in the first 2/3 of the book of mormon don't have that same reference any more. After Christ comes there isn't enough detail given to identify where things are any more.

3 Nephi 8

I don't know why the argument keeps coming up, things changes to much to make any corilation with how things are now, to the way they were before Christ came.

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/bm-in-sm1996/images/bm-1996-appen-b08.pdf

[Vort]

"Does the Church Endorse a Specific Geography for the Book of Mormon?"

The short answer is: No.

The longer answer is: No way.

[Vort]

Once looking into this, once realizes why a good map can't be located. Once Christ comes the land scape completely changes. The mountains and rivers and so forth are so different by the time Christ comes, anything spoken of in the first 2/3 of the book of mormon don't have that same reference any more. After Christ comes there isn't enough detail given to identify where things are any more.

3 Nephi 8

That is certainly one possible interpretation of the scripture, but not the only one. I don't agree with it, personally. There is too much ancient geography in the Americas to believe that it was all completely changed less than 2000 years ago. I also don't believe that the entire Book of Mormon history was confined to a tiny geographical region, all of which was completely changed less than 2000 years ago.

I don't know why the argument keeps coming up, things changes to much to make any corilation with how things are now, to the way they were before Christ came.

These things keep coming up because many people don't agree with your particular interpretation of that scripture.

[livy111us]

The argument has been made that yes, the land was changed, but much of the geography is coming from Mormon, who wrote it hundreds of years after the changes in the land. Therefore, what we have today as geography is pretty close to what it was as mentioned in the BOM.

[tubaloth]

There is too much ancient geography in the Americas to believe that it was all completely changed less than 2000 years ago.

Too Much? Older then 2000 years?

That very much could be, we don’t know how wide spread this destruction happen. What we do know that the “the whole face of the land was changed.” Trying to pin point anything before that time would be almost impossible. How would we know if the mountain that was there before Christ came, is still the same mountain after Christ came? Same with any River, or lake, or path way or anything? We wouldn’t.

The argument has been made that yes, the land was changed, but much of the geography is coming from Mormon, who wrote it hundreds of years after the changes in the land. Therefore, what we have today as geography is pretty close to what it was as mentioned in the BOM.

So you are saying that as Mormon was writing it, he would describe the places as they would be to him, not as they were when the people lived there? That would make things even more confusing! So when Mormon is talking about some big battle and going over moutains and by a river or what ever, he is talking about his time, not the time frame of those people? (You probably need to clearfy that idea more)

These things keep coming up because many people don't agree with your particular interpretation of that scripture.

That could very well be. But its not like each time this question is asked we get any closer to figuring out a map, or realizing we found the city of Bountiful? The question just keeps getting asked again and again, with the answer of “We don’t know”? So why keep asking it?

[Vort]

That could very well be. But its not like each time this question is asked we get any closer to figuring out a map, or realizing we found the city of Bountiful? The question just keeps getting asked again and again, with the answer of “We don’t know”? So why keep asking it?

Because people only live about 80 years, then they die. All these new people keep coming along, asking the same old questions.

[Islander]

Meridian Magazine :: Answers to Critics: Does the Church Endorse a Specific Geography for the Book of Mormon?

Article snippet: A sample of writings by Church leaders and members through out its history, illustrates that debate and discussion about Book of Mormon geography has been very free, precisely because there was no revealed or "authoritative" geography model.

Interesting, Elder Oaks of the Q of 12 and Elder Cordova of the 70's came to reorganized our Stake this past week. Among the many subjects they addressed, they spoke about our witness of the BoM as personal revelation. He cautioned us against being swept by the archeology euphoria. In terms of the geography of the BoM sites he said: "Prophets don't know much about it. I wonder how is it that archeologists think they do." The laughter was quite contagious.

[livy111us]

So you are saying that as Mormon was writing it, he would describe the places as they would be to him, not as they were when the people lived there? That would make things even more confusing! So when Mormon is talking about some big battle and going over moutains and by a river or what ever, he is talking about his time, not the time frame of those people? (You probably need to clearfy that idea more)

Yes, that is what the argument is. When this is looked at, it is realized that the land did not change as drastically in the places mentioned. We know that there were some major changes in parts of the land, but not enough to alter the points of geography that are mentioned by Mormon.

[Islander]

So you are saying that as Mormon was writing it, he would describe the places as they would be to him, not as they were when the people lived there? That would make things even more confusing! So when Mormon is talking about some big battle and going over moutains and by a river or what ever, he is talking about his time, not the time frame of those people? (You probably need to clearfy that idea more)

[/quote Yes, that is what the argument is. When this is looked at, it is realized that the land did not change as drastically in the places mentioned. We know that there were some major changes in parts of the land, but not enough to alter the points of geography that are mentioned by Mormon.

That is certainly an assertion that can be argued. I spent over 10 years roaming the jungles in Central America and except the rivers that remain more or less in the same place, vegetation, topography and other geographical landmarks can change and dramatically from year to year. Hurricanes, mud slides, volcanic eruptions and floods change the landscape in hours. Many times we arrived at a specific point and scratched our heads for 10 minutes trying to figure out where such and such landmark went!!!

The descriptions in the BoM are sufficiently vague as to avoid any definitive identification of specific landmarks, with rare exceptions. Even in Israel, where people have been digging up and scratching the rocks for 100 years we are not totally sure where some stuff is.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Islander

[tubaloth]

Yes, that is what the argument is. When this is looked at, it is realized that the land did not change as drastically in the places mentioned. We know that there were some major changes in parts of the land, but not enough to alter the points of geography that are mentioned by Mormon.

How did you reach this conclusion? How do you know that what Mormon is righting about is from HIS time, not the time of Alma, Helaman and Nephi?

[tubaloth]

Because people only live about 80 years, then they die. All these new people keep coming along, asking the same old questions.

It is surprising how many questions have already been answered before. Things like Evolution, to places in the book of mormon to if Holy Ghost well get a body. The same questions come up again and again. Reading through Joseph Fielding Smiths "Answers to Gospel Questions" published in the 50s are still the same questions today!

[livy111us]

How did you reach this conclusion? How do you know that what Mormon is righting about is from HIS time, not the time of Alma, Helaman and Nephi?

As I said, it has been argued that this is the case, and believe it is a possibility. In Alma 22, after there is much mention geography, Mormon says

"And now I, after having said this, return again to the account of Ammon and Aaron, Omner and Himni, and their brethren."

Now, whether Mormon was just re-iterating what was written on the plates concerning geography, or he was going into geographical detail where the plates did not so we would understand better, we may never know. But the possibility is there.

Scholar Larry Poulsen explains a bit of it here:

Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board -> Mormon’s Map And Real World Three Dimensional Geog

[livy111us]

It is surprising how many questions have already been answered before. Things like Evolution, to places in the book of mormon to if Holy Ghost well get a body. The same questions come up again and again. Reading through Joseph Fielding Smiths "Answers to Gospel Questions" published in the 50s are still the same questions today!

President Smith did answer many questions, but the important question must be asked, was he speaking for the Church? Is it doctrine? ATGQ is not considered doctrine and past leaders have had varying opinions on these controversial subjects. Until something is revealed as doctrine, I am sure there will be plenty of other conjecture on these and other topics.

[livy111us]

That is certainly an assertion that can be argued. I spent over 10 years roaming the jungles in Central America and except the rivers that remain more or less in the same place, vegetation, topography and other geographical landmarks can change and dramatically from year to year. Hurricanes, mud slides, volcanic eruptions and floods change the landscape in hours. Many times we arrived at a specific point and scratched our heads for 10 minutes trying to figure out where such and such landmark went!!!

The descriptions in the BoM are sufficiently vague as to avoid any definitive identification of specific landmarks, with rare exceptions. Even in Israel, where people have been digging up and scratching the rocks for 100 years we are not totally sure where some stuff is.

That is interesting Islander. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of landmarks were no longer there? I agree that some things can disappear (and have), but I believe the major ones, more or less, are generally the same. But I could be wrong. Until we KNOW where the BOM happened, it is nothing but guessing on our part.

[skalenfehl]

Here's a very interesting site:

Book of Mormon Geography

There are many very intriguing photographs that seem to prove civilizations had long been buried in the "sea" which we know as the Caribbean Sea. What if the entire area was once land populated by the Nephites and Lamanites? Seems there is more evidence to indicate that the entire sea area from Venezuela to Florida shows the Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc was once above water where structures are being found today. Click the "Supporting Evidences" to see all the pictures.

Here are a couple points of what could be considered positions taken by the church. I don't know if they have been verified, though:

Q. What is the church’s position on Book of Mormon geography?

A. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints takes no official position on the geography detailed in the Book of Mormon. They do put forth the position that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is where Joseph Smith retrieved the gold plates that were buried by Moroni. They say this is the same hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon where the last great battle of the Lamanites and Nephites took place.

Q. Did Joseph Smith say anything about the geography in the Book of Mormon?

A. Yes. He did say that:

* Lehi sailed from the Middle East and landed in the Americas a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, Panama. It is about 40 miles across whereas the Panama canal is 37 miles.

* He said that the ruins of Quirigua, Guatemala was surely from Nephite origin.

* He said that the Jaredites settled in Aztalan, Wisconsin. This is an archeological site similar to the thousands found in the Mississippi valley region attributed to the Mound Builders of North America. The site contains three small stepped pyramidal mounds located between Milwaukee and Madison. It was named by judge N. F. Hyer who surveyed the site in 1837. The Aztecs had a tradition that their ancestors came from a country at the north, which they called Aztalan and since they looked to be of Aztec origin, the name of Aztalan was given.

* Joseph stated that a skeleton found by Zion’s Camp in southern Illinois was a Lamanite warrior by the name of Zelph. Zelph was a chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, whose fame was known from the Hill Cumorah or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. Joseph also said that an arrow had killed Zelph during the last great struggle between the Lamanites and Nephites. This had been shown to him of the Almighty.

There's quite a bit of information on the site. So can it be verified that the Hill Cumorah in New York is not the same as in the Book of Mormon?

[HoosierGuy]

If there was solid scientific evidence on where the events of the Book of Mormon took place then there would be no need for Faith with regards to that and Faith is something Heavenly Father wants us to have.

I know the Prophets and people in the Book of Mormon walked and lived in the Americas. I don’t need any evidence except the Holy Ghost to tell me this is true and I know it is true.