Limited Geography and 1 Nephi.

[Mudcat]

Is the concept of a Mesoamerican limited geography compatible with the 1 Nephi?

Couple of Scriptures

1 Nephi 13

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

Emphasis mine, this Scripture seems to be a strong inference the American Revolution.

30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.

31 Neither will he suffer that the Gentiles shall destroy the seed of thy brethren.

This seems to infer that the choice land, afforded to Lehi, is this self same land...not to mention what seems to be a reference to the treatment of the Indians who dwelt in that land...

There are other verses that seem to enforce this point, I am at 2 Nephi 25, at present.... but these in Chapt 13 of 1 Nephi seem the strongest indicators.... they just aren't the only ones. As I have read the text, I get the overwhelming impression that this land of the Nephites was America. There are references to a land that will have no King...

I understand that the LGT is a very popular theory, there are Mesosmerican cities their, etc..., but as far as I have read, I don't see the theory converging with what seems to be said.

I am curious as to those that believe the LGT is most likely correct, how do they reconcile it with the BoM?

I posted this on another forum, with no response as of yet. The subject matter may be overly controversial for this forum.... I am not sure. If so, Mods please feel free to delete the thread and my sincerest apologies.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[BenRaines]

LGT?

Ben Raines

[Wingnut]

I'm guessing Limited Geography Theory, but I'm not sure.

[Mudcat]

LGT?

Ben Raines

Hi Ben,

Wingnut was correct, it is the Limited Geography Theory... which is basically the theory that all these things occurred in Mesoamerica.

I posted this on an apologetics forum as well. Apparently there have been some responses there, since I posted this thread.

Mudcat

[nimrod]

I started a similar post just a couple weeks ago in this forum.

I agree with your assessment.

The biggest indicators for me, are your references, the promises associated with the land and the descriptions of the promised land (ie: land of liberty, no king, a nation lifted above other nations, that the promised land IS a nation, choice land above all other lands, etc)

[skalenfehl]

Mudcat, you are very perceptive in your reading and studies. So far you've hit the nail on the head. I've studied this as well in the past and there's more to this as you may find in your subsequent readings.

[Elgama]

Personally I don't care where the Book of Mormon happened, we are told someplace in the America's I am inclined to say its somewhere under a major East Coast City but is just my personal view. I don't think it changes it is what God wants us to know for our progress.

-Charley

[HiJolly]

Is the concept of a Mesoamerican limited geography compatible with the 1 Nephi?

Couple of Scriptures

Emphasis mine, this Scripture seems to be a strong inference the American Revolution.

This seems to infer that the choice land, afforded to Lehi, is this self same land...not to mention what seems to be a reference to the treatment of the Indians who dwelt in that land...

There are other verses that seem to enforce this point, I am at 2 Nephi 25, at present.... but these in Chapt 13 of 1 Nephi seem the strongest indicators.... they just aren't the only ones. As I have read the text, I get the overwhelming impression that this land of the Nephites was America. There are references to a land that will have no King...

I understand that the LGT is a very popular theory, there are Mesosmerican cities their, etc..., but as far as I have read, I don't see the theory converging with what seems to be said.

I am curious as to those that believe the LGT is most likely correct, how do they reconcile it with the BoM?

I posted this on another forum, with no response as of yet. The subject matter may be overly controversial for this forum.... I am not sure. If so, Mods please feel free to delete the thread and my sincerest apologies.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I do believe the LGT, though certainly I don't *know* that it is the case. It makes the most sense to me, though.

My explanation is that geography was seen from an entirely different 'world view' in the BoM, than how we view it today. Even such simple things as cardinal directions were, IMO, not the same as we use today.

When we see the word 'land' in the BoM, we need to keep in mind that it is entirely a vague and general term. Seems to me though that it is basically a limited term, as in it may refer to an area with a radius of 50 miles or so (see

Alma 7: 10

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. )

But later when reference is made to a larger area (Mosiah 27: 6

6 And there began to be much peace again in the land; and the people began to be very numerous, and began to scatter abroad upon the face of the earth, yea, on the north and on the south, on the east and on the west, building large cities and villages in all quarters of the land.)

I still think they are NOT speaking of continental lands - I think the best arguement I have read on this was by Brant Gardner, at the FAIR conference last August. And that's due to the fact that I'm too cheap to buy his book, alas.

I'd love to see really substantial evidence either way, but I haven't yet. People who claim hemispheric scope due to opinions of General Authorities don't move me one little bit. Call me a skeptic. :o

HiJolly

[skalenfehl]

Personally I don't care where the Book of Mormon happened, we are told someplace in the America's I am inclined to say its somewhere under a major East Coast City but is just my personal view. I don't think it changes it is what God wants us to know for our progress.

-Charley

Yes, but some of us find it fascinating to study the geographical and anthropological aspects. It paints a more vivid picture for me, anyway, and helps me to understand better some of the environmental nuances and how they impacted the people of the BoM. There are many more lessons to be learned than just the spiritual ones, for me anyway. Just my two cents.

[Mudcat]

Yes, but some of us find it fascinating to study the geographical and anthropological aspects. It paints a more vivid picture for me, anyway, and helps me to understand better some of the environmental nuances and how they impacted the people of the BoM. There are many more lessons to be learned than just the spiritual ones, for me anyway. Just my two cents.

Skalenfehl,

As it seems we are likely to engage in future conversation, I wish to abbreviate your name.

I have no clue as to skalefehl means, or what language it derives from, or if it was just something cool you though up. From this point forward, I will address you as Sk, unless you have a better option.... I am afraid I will butcher 'Skalenfehl' if I continue to try and type it.

Anyways... it seems you and I seem to be on the same page, regarding the topic. IMO, it seems that if the BoM is true, and as of yet I don't that, but assuming it is so. Then I am of the opinion that the text should direct our thoughts. It seems there are lots of folks who would try to make the text fit with what seems most historically logical at present.

However, it wasn't all that long ago that the world being round was illogical. I think there are possibly some people who sacrifice a good interpretation for what 'fits' with the world today. It's a totally different topic, but I think there are those would make 'Creation' fit 'Evolution', instead of the other way around. Don't get me wrong, I've done a bit of scientific justification myself and I don't want to rail to hardly against such thought.

I am curious, what is perception of who, what, where of all these happenings?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[skalenfehl]

Skalen or SF is fine. It's just something I came up with years ago for other forums that just stuck.

I'm not sure I understand your post. Can you clarify or rephrase?

[nimrod]

I too do not believe it to be imperitive to know the geography. However, when I read, I have a mental picture of the locations, etc. With my current 'theory' of the BOM location, my mental picture as I read seems to make sense to me, thereby making my reading experience more enjoyable.....and understandable.

Someday, I may be shown to be wrong. No problem.....see first sentence above.

Although I say it is not imperitive, there is a HUGE amount of discussion in the BOM regarding the promised land and promises/warnings pertaining to it. In that context, I believe it IS important (not imperitive) to know to have a true understanding of such things and how they play out in the last days. Eventually, we WILL know.

[Mudcat]

Skalen or SF is fine. It's just something I came up with years ago for other forums that just stuck.

I'm not sure I understand your post. Can you clarify or rephrase?

SF,

I'll try and rephrase it. But before I do, I will comment that Skalenfehl is a cool name to come up with. You didn't ever perchance play D&D?

I have a bad habit of saying things that make a lot of sense to me, but don't seem to make much sense to anyone else. I don't offer enough information off the front... and it is a fault.

... But here goes

Anyways... it seems you and I seem to be on the same page, regarding the topic. IMO, it seems that if the BoM is true, and as of yet I don't that, but assuming it is so. Then I am of the opinion that the text should direct our thoughts. It seems there are lots of folks who would try to make the text fit with what seems most historically logical at present.

However, it wasn't all that long ago that the world being round was illogical. I think there are possibly some people who sacrifice a good interpretation for what 'fits' with the world today. It's a totally different topic, but I think there are those would make 'Creation' fit 'Evolution', instead of the other way around. Don't get me wrong, I've done a bit of scientific justification myself and I don't want to rail to hardly against such thought.

What I am saying is that if the BoM is true, then the Scriptures in it should guide our belief in relation to it. This makes sense to me.

However, there seem to be a number of folks that the believe the BoM is true, but instead of letting scripture guide belief, they let belief be conditioned by what seems 'most apparent or consistent with the times'. I think it is very natural to try to rationalize things to 'fit' with what is happening now. A good example might be how that a number of Evangelicals seem to thing we are at the end times and draw consistent parallels to the book of Revelations. IMO, they make them 'fit' with the world today.

It's possible that I may not have articulated my original position, though. Which is that in light of what I have read so far, it seems to me that if I hold the text of the BoM to be true, then it makes more sense to me that the lands in which they transpired is in America. My thoughts don't quite fit with what a lot of LDS seem to believe in regards to these things happening in Mesoamerica.

However the Scripture itself seems more inclined to a view that all this as happening in America.

Admittedly, I am curious as to what your take is on all this.

Hopefully, that is somewhat clearer.... but sometimes I am as clear as mud on my thoughts. My apologies for any confusion and if I have generated more questions than answer to what I am thinking, let me know and I will try to iron them out.

Thank you for your patience.

Mudcat

[skalenfehl]

Well, I go by Skalen Fehl in other forums. It's just a geek alias. I'm a Star Wars geek.

Anyway, I think I understand what your saying about making things fit. From your perspective it makes sense. From my perspective, many things just do fit. Perspective is in the eye of the beholder.

There are a growing number of people receiving tangible witnesses all the time. I have received witnesses to the gospel and many other things, some too personal to mention. Does this mean that I understand the mysteries of the universe? Nope. But I'm learning..."line upon line, precept upon precept" until a perfect knowledge.

When we started kindergarten, we didn't know there was a whole world of mathematics. While we were learning our one-two-three's, others in universities were discussing and working out complex mathematical equations. Does this make sense? The kindergarteners still needed to learn to add and subtract for themselves the process by which professors had arrived at their own conclusions.

I don't know all the intricacies about the gospel, the mysteries of God, etc, but I do have a testimony-a witness- of its truth. From my perspective, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true accounts written by prophets called of God to perform works. I know that the Book of Mormon is true. This tells me that Joseph Smith truly did interpret it from plates. This also means that he saw God and Jesus in a vision. There is a pattern here. This leads me to know that the LDS church is true and correct.

In the 1800's it was believed and accepted by the world that scriptures were not written on metal plates by ancient cultures. Some time later, ancient plates were discovered.

http://www.avoicefromthedust.com/media/goldplates.pdf

Slowly over time, more and more truths are coming to light, but God will have a tested people. In due time we will have all the anthropological evidence that we need, but that won't make a difference if one has a testimony. For example, when I die and stand to be judged by the Savior, I won't know any more then than I do now that He lives because of my personal witness. This is all from my perspective. I hope it makes sense

Edited December 11, 2008 by skalenfehl

[Mudcat]

Well, I go by Skalen Fehl in other forums. It's just a geek alias. I'm a Star Wars geek.

Anyway, I think I understand what your saying about making things fit. From your perspective it makes sense. From my perspective, many things just do fit. Perspective is in the eye of the beholder.

There are a growing number of people receiving tangible witnesses all the time. I have received witnesses to the gospel and many other things, some too personal to mention. Does this mean that I understand the mysteries of the universe? Nope. But I'm learning..."line upon line, precept upon precept" until a perfect knowledge.

When we started kindergarten, we didn't know there was a whole world of mathematics. While we were learning our one-two-three's, others in universities were discussing and working out complex mathematical equations. Does this make sense? The kindergarteners still needed to learn to add and subtract for themselves the process by which professors had arrived at their own conclusions.

I don't know all the intricacies about the gospel, the mysteries of God, etc, but I do have a testimony-a witness- of its truth. From my perspective, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true accounts written by prophets called of God to perform works. I know that the Book of Mormon is true. This tells me that Joseph Smith truly did interpret it from plates. This also means that he saw God and Jesus in a vision. There is a pattern here. This leads me to know that the LDS church is true and correct.

In the 1800's it was believed and accepted by the world that scriptures were not written on metal plates by ancient cultures. Some time later, ancient plates were discovered.

http://www.avoicefromthedust.com/media/goldplates.pdf

Slowly over time, more and more truths are coming to light, but God will have a tested people. In due time we will have all the anthropological evidence that we need, but that won't make a difference if one has a testimony. For example, when I die and stand to be judged by the Savior, I won't know any more then than I do now that He lives because of my personal witness. This is all from my perspective. I hope it makes sense

Well SF,

Nothing wrong with being a Star Wars geek... I suppose I fit in the category myself. In fact, I spent a bit of the evening playing LEGO Star Wars with my son. Fun game, you kill somene they just bust into LEGO bits... its a hoot.

I suppose we are alike in the fact that both our faiths are rooted in what God has revealed to us. It is interesting to speculate, but at the end of the day my faith doesn't rest in speculation nor does it seem does yours.

I suppose I am at the greatest peace with things when I trust God and don't lean on my conceptions. But I am curious sort and I don't forget for a moment that those that seek in good faith shall find.

Thanks for you insights and also some perspective on yourself.

In Christ,

Mudcat

[ninjormon]

Remember even if we had a complete map of the events during the times of the Nephites the great upheavels and earthquakes that could have shifted much of the land around. I did read in a pioneet journal that Joseph Smith said that Zarahemla was opposite of Novou, wheter that is opposite of the city or the country I dont know

[Elgama]

Yes, but some of us find it fascinating to study the geographical and anthropological aspects. It paints a more vivid picture for me, anyway, and helps me to understand better some of the environmental nuances and how they impacted the people of the BoM. There are many more lessons to be learned than just the spiritual ones, for me anyway. Just my two cents.

oh it is interesting I have my own belief that it was in the NE USA, not sure why aside from I feel another great city is probably now on top of a good potion of the land of Nephi etc and probably another for the Jaredites..... although did used to find the similarities between some Book of Mormon Peoples and the Olmecs interesting. I feel it all happened in an area probably no bigger than the UK in size. But the question Mudcat posed was how do you reconcile it, I am not sure it needs to be.

But if I find my own picture and ideas are wrong I am not going to say the Book of Mormon is not the Word of God.,,, for me its is that because of faith and will be whether or not even Nephi, Lehi etc didn;t exist.

-Charley

[skalenfehl]

I've studied a little about the Olmecs and the large head stones. Very fascinating to the potential connection to the Jaredites (read Nephilim and Anakim, etc), who were a much different people than the Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, etc, who were much smaller people, etc.

I can't reconcile everything yet. One thing about the Old Testament, particularly Isaiah, is much of it is a bit difficult to understand without knowing Hebrew custom, the geography of the old world, etc. It's difficult to relate to much of what is discussed if one is not familiar with the times and cultures of the people back then. Once one begins to understand these things, it is so much easier to discern the parables, prophecies, poetry, references, etc. Some things, that I initially thought were expressions were literal explanations. The same thing can be said of the Book of Mormon and the customs, geography, industry, etc of the people of ancient America.

[Mudcat]

Remember even if we had a complete map of the events during the times of the Nephites the great upheavels and earthquakes that could have shifted much of the land around. I did read in a pioneet journal that Joseph Smith said that Zarahemla was opposite of Novou, wheter that is opposite of the city or the country I dont know

Ninjormon,

Youdidn't by chancee produce the Ninjorman You Tube video?

If so.... you made me laugh chocolate milk out my nose.

Mudcat

[jadams_4040]

Mudcat, you are very perceptive in your reading and studies. So far you've hit the nail on the head. I've studied this as well in the past and there's more to this as you may find in your subsequent readings.

I know Mudcat ,{converse with him regularly} He is a wonderfull person with a family; hes a non member, his wife is l.d.s. third child on the way; he is reading the B.O.M {as i am as well} please help him with anything you can.:)

[skalenfehl]

I know Mudcat..he is reading the B.O.M {as i am as well} please help him with anything you can.:)

It is my pleasure!

[poulsenll]

Skalenfehl,

Anyways... it seems you and I seem to be on the same page, regarding the topic. IMO, it seems that if the BoM is true, and as of yet I don't that, but assuming it is so. Then I am of the opinion that the text should direct our thoughts. It seems there are lots of folks who would try to make the text fit with what seems most historically logical at present.

However, it wasn't all that long ago that the world being round was illogical. I think there are possibly some people who sacrifice a good interpretation for what 'fits' with the world today. It's a totally different topic, but I think there are those would make 'Creation' fit 'Evolution', instead of the other way around. Don't get me wrong, I've done a bit of scientific justification myself and I don't want to rail to hardly against such thought.

I am curious, what is perception of who, what, where of all these happenings?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Mudcat

Nice to see you on this board. It is of course less hectic than MADB and although we dont all have the same opinions on contraversial issues, we do try to respect other opinions.

One of the problems with interpreting the prophecies in first Nephi, is our tendency to see evertything as related to ourselves. Of course we believe that the US is a land of Liberty and without ever having a king. What we forget is that the land occupied by the US was ruled over by kings from 1620 to 1776. This is almost as long as it has been without kings. Mexico has the same history with respect to kings with the small difference that they did not gain independence until 1820.

This same prophecy seems to speak of Columbus. Columbus never reached US territory, the closest he came was the West Indies and Central America.

The treatment of the Indians by the Spanish was far more damaging than anything done in the US. Ninety percent of the indian population was destroyed due to slavery, indian wars and deseases brought by the Spaniards. At least in the US we did not make slaves out of the indians and force them to mine gold and silver for us.

As others have already pointed out the word "land" in ancient writings almost always referred to a limited area. It is only today that due to such statements as "this land is our land" that we apply the term to the whole nation. The idea that the US is the promised land comes not fro the Book of Mormon but from a political philosopy than began with the pilgrims and reched its peak about the time of the restoration of the Gospel. This phiosophy is called "Manifest Destiny" and is a strictly political philosophy which in the beginning maintained that the US was destined by God to expand into all the area of the New World. It was later modified to limit this expansion to strech from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. However in political doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine the earlier concept is still maintained. Joseph Smith and his contemoraries were highly influenced by this Doctrine. Most of them were converts from other churches that had used the Bible for years to dupport this concept. Joseph Smith even wrote a letter to the US government suggesting that the Saints should go to California and form a settlement there to hold the land for the eventual arrival of the rest of the country. This of course influeneced them to see the Book of Mormon as supporting this concept along with the Bible.

With these facts in mind, I find it far easier to interpret these passages as referring to Mesoamerica rather than the United States.

Larry P

[justamere10]

Is the concept of a Mesoamerican limited geography compatible with the 1 Nephi?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

There is an entire website devoted to the Mesoamerican theory of Book of Mormon geography. You might find it useful:

Mormon Sites - rising from the dust...

.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat

Nice to see you on this board. It is of course less hectic than MADB and although we dont all have the same opinions on contraversial issues, we do try to respect other opinions.

Hi Larry,

It's good to see you over hear as well. And admittedly it is a much less hectic environment here. I have made some posts there, as well regarding some thoughts generated from my read through. Everyone seems real polite and there isn't a 'critically edged' atmosphere here. That sort of thing has its place, but its nice to address a group without being to concerned you will be thread jacked or having people assume you are coming from a critical angle.

One of the problems with interpreting the prophecies in first Nephi, is our tendency to see evertything as related to ourselves. Of course we believe that the US is a land of Liberty and without ever having a king. What we forget is that the land occupied by the US was ruled over by kings from 1620 to 1776. This is almost as long as it has been without kings. Mexico has the same history with respect to kings with the small difference that they did not gain independence until 1820.

This same prophecy seems to speak of Columbus. Columbus never reached US territory, the closest he came was the West Indies and Central America.

I see your point, in that regard. However, I suppose we could say that the Nephite Kings actually disqualified the BoM lands of the get go. I suppose it could be dissected down to the point that no land could actually qualify for this fulfillment.

I am operating under the assumption that it will be a land that has no Kings from the point in which the posited LDS Restoration occurs. From that singular standpoint, America seems a likely candidate. Admittedly, I don't know if the Mesoamerican are was under a Kings authority since 1830... That might be something I'll look into.

The treatment of the Indians by the Spanish was far more damaging than anything done in the US. Ninety percent of the indian population was destroyed due to slavery, indian wars and deseases brought by the Spaniards. At least in the US we did not make slaves out of the indians and force them to mine gold and silver for us.

As others have already pointed out the word "land" in ancient writings almost always referred to a limited area. It is only today that due to such statements as "this land is our land" that we apply the term to the whole nation. The idea that the US is the promised land comes not fro the Book of Mormon but from a political philosopy than began with the pilgrims and reched its peak about the time of the restoration of the Gospel. This phiosophy is called "Manifest Destiny" and is a strictly political philosophy which in the beginning maintained that the US was destined by God to expand into all the area of the New World. It was later modified to limit this expansion to strech from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. However in political doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine the earlier concept is still maintained. Joseph Smith and his contemoraries were highly influenced by this Doctrine. Most of them were converts from other churches that had used the Bible for years to dupport this concept. Joseph Smith even wrote a letter to the US government suggesting that the Saints should go to California and form a settlement there to hold the land for the eventual arrival of the rest of the country. This of course influeneced them to see the Book of Mormon as supporting this concept along with the Bible.

With these facts in mind, I find it far easier to interpret these passages as referring to Mesoamerica rather than the United States.

Larry P

You make another fine point, with "Manifest Destiny". Im going to give this some thought.

Thanks as always for you insights.

Respectfully,

Mudcat