Where did the Book of Mormon take place?

[Sunday21]

I was wondering if we have a generally accepted theory of where the Book of Mormon took place? Do you have a personal view on this?

Edited September 14, 2017 by Sunday21

[Midwest LDS]

My view is mostly personal and based on ruins found throughout the Americas. I've always believed that parts of the Book of Mormon occurred in all three areas, and I can picture a lot of movement by the different peoples described (Hagoth comes to mind among others). The land was also changed by the natural disasters surrounding the Savior's death (how much we can only speculate but speculation can be fun ☺) which makes it difficult to pinpoint specific locations unless and untill we receive more revelation and more records from the Lord.

[omegaseamaster75]

I voted South America on 1 and 2. I think the area in which the BOM took place to be relatively small geographically.  It is inconceivable to me that the final battle took place in NY. 

Knowledge is important it would be useful to know.  Right now all we have is speculation and guesses.  There is no archaeological evidence discovered as of yet that accounts for a people who numbered in the hundred of thousands, maybe even millions.  No ruins uncovered date back to 400BC, they haven't found a single sword, shield, horse bone, no uncovered roads nothing.  

The roads the Romans built, they are still using them. You go to an ancient Roman battle field and even today if you dig enough you can find arrowheads, shields, bones, swords etc. etc. So no the final battle did not take place in NY at hill Comorah. If it did prove it to me.  If you do the math based on Moronis account of the final battle  2,000,000 people participated in it and yet left no trace behind? 

My personal theory is that if there is evidence it is located in South America. There is a lot of jungle that has yet to be uncovered.  

Really I should have voted "It is a fun and interesting issue" because at the end of the day the historicity or lack there of in no way detracts from its divinely inspired translation.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[MrShorty]

I think there ought to be an "I don't know" option to the first 2 questions, because that is honestly what I would answer. None of the BoM geography models has convinced me or even swayed me. I went ahead and voted "other" on these, meaning, "I don't have any idea".

For the 3rd question, I can't decide between "stop worrying" and "it is fun and interesting" I find it fun and interesting, as long as it is clear that it is purely speculation, which means I don't worry so about which model is right. I went ahead and voted "fun and interesting", but I would add that caveat to recognize that it is all speculation.

[NeuroTypical]

Serious answer: We don't know, we just speculate.  When we get entrenched in our speculating there are issues, otherwise, I don't care.

Much less serious answer: Speculation leads to disagreement.  Disagreement leads to arguing.  Arguing leads to contention.  Contention leads to all the puppies gettin' same-sex married and more redstate hurricanes and your aunts wearing pizza leggings.

[Just_A_Guy]

I read David Palmer's "In Search of Cumorah" in high school and have been sold on a Mesoamerican setting ever since.  We know most of Nephites history takes place in a relatively limited area, because Alma and his band of refugees (including women and children, almost certainly on foot; and most likely not traveling the most direct route) were able to travel from the Lamanite capital at Nephi to the Nephites capital at Zarahemla in twenty days.

I am inclined to think that the changes to the land after Christ's death were not as dramatic as we sometimes imagine.  Mormon, writing in the 4th century AD, seemed to have a comfortable grasp of pre-Crucifixion geography in his descriptions of 1st century BC military campaigns; and those descriptions never pause to say things like "by the way, this hill/river/city doesn't exist anymore".  

Edited September 14, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

I'm not sure.  I read a statement that was attributed to Joseph Smith that said that the Lamanite and Nephite society covered the ENTIRETY of America.  Now, whether that means just North America, or North and South America, I don't know.

However, I have found some conclusions laughable.  Many LDS historians ascribe to a Yucatan peninsula type idea because they can't imagine the Panama Peninsula crossable in a day.  It is some 135 miles across.

However, if it was on a path, and we took a fit soldier, just walking can walk 4 miles an hour (and jog/run more).  If they did not rest, that's 96 miles in a day.  If that was used as a method of measurement (rather than literally how far they would walk), than we can assume 96 miles a day is that measurement, so a day and a half is equal to....

144 miles.

Others say that is far to generous and we must reduce that amount of mileage such as

Book of Mormon geography relates to Joseph Smith's USofA at the time

Others say it may not have been a landfeature like what think at all, but we misinterpreted our ideas and it's something more like

The Narrow Neck of Land as a seaside passage

Something else of interest that I read or heard (maybe it was here that I read this as it wasn't an official source) was that where Nauvoo was, that was supposedly where Zarahemla was located near as well (so not just the Garden of Eden). 

What this means...I don't know where things happened in the Book of Mormon...AT ALL...but I think some ideas like Tehuantepec doesn't really seem like it matches those ideas to me.

I'd be more inclined to a Limited Geography in what is in the United States than that idea, if I were going by a Limited Geography model...but I actually think the Book of Mormon refers to a greater civilization than that.

Edited September 14, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I was wondering if we have a generally accepted theory of where the Book of Mormon took place?

No, we don't. It used to be assumed that the Book of Mormon took place in what today is the United States, with the plates shown to Joseph being buried in the same Cumorah where the Nephite race was exterminated. This assumption was natural and reasonable at the time, but is rather more difficult to accept today. Decades of careful reading of the Book of Mormon rather suggest a more tropical setting, and the distances mentioned are simply far too confined to fit comfortably in a US model. Central American seems a far better fit for our views today than the continental US.

I have a friend who has gotten very involved in this discussion in the past few years, to his great detriment. I truly believe he has based his testimony of the gospel and the Church on the US "homeland" model of the Book of Mormon. It's almost all he talks about on Facebook. He is not merely passionate; he's downright vitriolic toward those who reject that model, and hates FAIR for taking another opinion. Sad stuff; I'm hoping he pulls out of the obsession in the near future.

For the record, if you were to ask my friend, he would deny any sort of obsession with the topic and would scoff at the idea that his testimony is based on such things. But my opinions about my observations stand. Hope he's right in this.

[zil]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

It used to be assumed that the Book of Mormon took place in what today is the United States, with the plates shown to Joseph being buried in the same Cumorah where the Nephite race was exterminated.

Interesting.  I grew up in upstate New York in the 80s, and don't recall ever thinking or being taught this.  I'm pretty sure we were told (perhaps the first time our family went to the Hill Cumorah in upstate NY) that it was not the same hill as is mentioned in the BofM.  I always figured (rather passively) that it took place in South or Central America.

[Fether]

I knew a bishop in KY that was set in the idea that that was where the Book of Mormon took place. I do t remember specifics, but I guess there is a massive ancient battlefield where millions of arrow heads still rest today. He also suggestrf that at that time, "North" referred to "up hill" rather than the direction.

I wonder if God inspired Joseph to put inaccuracies in the geography and directions to prevent us from finding places in the Book of Mormon

Edited September 15, 2017 by Fether

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am inclined to think that the changes to the land after Christ's death were not as dramatic as we sometimes imagine.  Mormon, writing in the 4th century AD, seemed to have a comfortable grasp of pre-Crucifixion geography in his descriptions of 1st century BC military campaigns; and those descriptions never pause to say things like "by the way, this hill/river/city doesn't exist anymore".  

Actually, he does.

Background:

Quote

Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world...

2Ne10:3

Nephi had never heard the name "Christ" (or his equivalent) before that vision.  And he feels the need to clarify his use of the name "Christ" by stating that the angel used that name.

Mormon did something similar.

Quote

And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

Mosiah 18:8

Mormon seemed to be unfamiliar with the waters that were known as "The Waters of Mormon" until he read it in the plates he was abridging.  So, he felt the need to clarify 'For thus were they called".  Why would he never have heard of them without some major changes in geography?

After the death of Christ, much of  the landscape changed.  3 Nephi specifically mentions that entire cities were made desolate.  And a very interesting description of Moronihah.

Quote

9 And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

3 Ne 8:--10

That sounds like he was saying the entire surface of the earth rearranged itself.  Why do we not see some of the artifacts and skeletons and other anthropological evidence?  Because if the landscape was changed so dramatically that entire cities were completely swallowed up by the earth such that a mountain took its place, then quite a bit of it would be buried so deep that we will not even have a hope of finding much of it.

Then all the BoM after the resurrection of Christ has virtually NOTHING to guide us on where any of this took place.  BoM geography is simply not what we can really even compare to today.

[SilentOne]

Just now, Fether said:

I wonder if God inspired Joseph to put inaccuracies in the geography and directions to prevent us from finding places in the Book of Mormon

A God of truth deliberately changing the text to contain lies? That seems unlikely to me.

[zil]

" here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) "

I always figured he said that because his own name was Mormon.  But I'm not emotionally attached to the idea.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, he does.

Background:

Nephi had never heard the name "Christ" (or his equivalent) before that vision.  And he feels the need to clarify his use of the name "Christ" by stating that the angel used that name.

Mormon did something similar.

Mormon seemed to be unfamiliar with the waters that were known as "The Waters of Mormon" until he read it in the plates he was abridging.  So, he felt the need to clarify 'For thus were they called".  Why would he never have heard of them without some major changes in geography?

After the death of Christ, much of  the landscape changed.  3 Nephi specifically mentions that entire cities were made desolate.  And a very interesting description of Moronihah.

That sounds like he was saying the entire surface of the earth rearranged itself.  Why do we not see some of the artifacts and skeletons and other anthropological evidence?  Because if the landscape was changed so dramatically that entire cities were completely swallowed up by the earth such that a mountain took its place, then quite a bit of it would be buried so deep that we will not even have a hope of finding much of it.

Then all the BoM after the resurrection of Christ has virtually NOTHING to guide us on where any of this took place.  BoM geography is simply not what we can really even compare to today.

I respect Carb's interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography in this case, one that I used to share. I don't any more.

Clearly, some elements of geography changed, even drastically, with the disasters attending the Crucifixion of Jesus, such as cities being sunk into the sea or buried under what would appear to be volcanic ash. If the Book of Mormon history took place within a small geographical area, say 200 miles x 100 miles or perhaps much less, then it is not unreasonable to think that the geography might have changed so drastically as to be unrecognizable today. But I doubt that's the case. I would guess that most of the landmarks would be more or less in place, such as the locations of rivers, seas, and mountains or hills. Some cities were lost, even irrecoverable, but many others survived.

As for "Christ" being Jesus' name: Christos (χριστός) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew term Messiah, which means "anointed". To anoint someone is to put oil on the head, pursuant to blessing or ordaining him to some office or holy purpose. So a messiah (or christos) would apply to anyone anointed to hold an office or perform a task. The term "messiah" had been applied to many people throughout Jewish history. Today, Christians use "messiah" to refer uniquely to Jesus, though sometimes it is used figuratively to refer to someone who is a Christ-like figure. I have been told that, in Greek, there is a difference in pronunciation between the term "christ" (χριστός) and the name "Christ" (Χρίστος; note the accent is on the penult and not on the final syllable). I wonder if perhaps this is what the angel was referring to.

As for Mormon's specification, I always assumed that his "for thus were they called" was simply his way of adding [sic] to his account -- that is, to say, "Yes, I realize that's exactly the same word as my own name, but I'm not making a mistake; that really is what they were called."

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, he does.

Background:

Nephi had never heard the name "Christ" (or his equivalent) before that vision.  And he feels the need to clarify his use of the name "Christ" by stating that the angel used that name.

Mormon did something similar.

Mormon seemed to be unfamiliar with the waters that were known as "The Waters of Mormon" until he read it in the plates he was abridging.  So, he felt the need to clarify 'For thus were they called".  Why would he never have heard of them without some major changes in geography?

After the death of Christ, much of  the landscape changed.  3 Nephi specifically mentions that entire cities were made desolate.  And a very interesting description of Moronihah.

That sounds like he was saying the entire surface of the earth rearranged itself.  Why do we not see some of the artifacts and skeletons and other anthropological evidence?  Because if the landscape was changed so dramatically that entire cities were completely swallowed up by the earth such that a mountain took its place, then quite a bit of it would be buried so deep that we will not even have a hope of finding much of it.

Then all the BoM after the resurrection of Christ has virtually NOTHING to guide us on where any of this took place.  BoM geography is simply not what we can really even compare to today.

I don't deny that major landmarks were changed/obliterated; but again--Mormon still knows enough of the general lay of the land to, for example, connect the Jaredite Ramah to the Nephite Cumorah.  And Mormon speaks of events in his own lifetime involving prominent locations in the 1st century BC such as Bountiful, Desolation, the narrow neck/pass leading southwards, Zarahemla, and the Sidon river.  The BC/AD geography was not irreconcilable to Mormon.

Like Vort, I see Mormon's parenthetical in Mosiah 18 as a narrator's note explaining a part of his character's (Alma's) monologue that would otherwise be unclear to the reader; not as a mark of unfamiliarity with the name "Mormon" or confusion at the location of the waters bearing that name. (I think it's safe to infer that Mormon was named for the events described in Mosiah 18, and would have been inculcated with that story from his childhood.  The record he's abridging is unlikely to be surprising or confusing to him.)  Nor does Mormon betray any such confusion when the "land of Mormon" is mentioned a few verses earlier in that same chapter.

I don't mean to imply that we must inevitably be able to find exact archaeological parallels for every location mentioned in the BoM.  But as a general principle I think that once we've got a basic set of criteria compiled from evidence gleaned between 1 Nephi - Helaman, we don't have to throw the list away just because of what's described in 3 Nephi.

[Fether]

4 hours ago, SilentOne said:

A God of truth deliberately changing the text to contain lies? That seems unlikely to me.

What about in this scenario?

 

They seek inspiration on how to get home and are sent in a wrong way... but later realize it was for a greater purpose.

Not defending my original comment, it was just a thought. I'm more challenging your answer.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Fether

[SilentOne]

Direct instructions aren't lies. In order for go left, go right, or go straight to be a lie, they would have to be in answer to a very specifically worded question, like, "In which direction should I go to most quickly reach my destination assuming I do not at any point retrace my steps?"

IF He wanted to make it impossible to use the geographic references to determine where the events from the Book of Mormon took place, that could be accomplished through earthquakes, volcanoes, shifting coastlines, landslides, etc. without having to resort to dishonesty. And maybe Moroni could have been caused to be confused while inscribing some descriptions and then the mistakes translated, though I think changing the shape of the landscape a more likely possibility.

I'm willing to consider the possibility that a human could be instructed to lie in certain extreme circumstances. But I don't believe God would directly lie to his prophets.

Ether 3:12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

Enos 1:6 And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

D&C 62:6 Behold, I, the Lord, have brought you together that the promise might be fulfilled, that the faithful among you should be preserved and rejoice together in the land of Missouri. I, the Lord, promise the faithful and cannot lie.

Edit: I typed this up before watching the video, recognizing which story it must be. The show going on in this room has since ended and so I started the video, and the question they seem to have asked was which way they should go. In this case, the most truthful answer was to go right because, as was said, they would have wasted a lot of time by turning back if they first went left.

Edited September 15, 2017 by SilentOne

[omegaseamaster75]

21 hours ago, Fether said:

I wonder if God inspired Joseph to put inaccuracies in the geography and directions to prevent us from finding places in the Book of Mormon

No

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

No

Oh

[Traveler]

 

There are many things that remain unrevealed.  Sometimes these things do not matter much.   It is my impression that many things are not known or revealed concerning scriptures because the empirical aspects just are not that important.  I tend to think that most things presented in scripture are symbolic.  Many times, when we deal with the empirical aspects of ideas the symbolism is lost. 

Some things lost in history.

1. Where the Nephite civilization was located

2. Where any city or place (prior to the flood) is located.

3. Any original copy of any book of scripture.  (strangely this even includes the Doctrine and Covenants)

4. Ancient and modern artifacts missing – like the Ack of the covenant, the cross of Jesus.

Some think that places and things are sacred – I am not so sure.  Even seer stones seem to not be sacred only when in the possession of someone acceptable to G-d.  Sometimes I wonder if we are on earth to live by faith?

 

The Traveler

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

the Ack of the covenant

 

[SilentOne]

I couldn't figure out why the word 'Ark' looked so funny to me until I saw @zil's picture.

[Rob Osborn]

I am quite convinced that most of the dealings of the Nephites took place in South America. If one looks at the area around Cusco Peru there some very striking similarities to the Land of Nephi/ city of Nephi. The first evidence for me is that there are the remains of a large ancient tower overlooking the land. In Mosiah ch. 11 it speaks of king Noah building a high tower at a resort (place of defense) overlooking the land of Shilom. It also speaks of king Noah building gold ornamented chairs for the high priests. When the Spanish conquerors found what is now Cusco they disvovered a land and civilization that had built a temple with a tower next to the temple and a resort (defensive fortification) overlooking the land with a high tower on top. Not only that but in the temple they found 13 chairs all finely ornamented with gold in which were the remains of the elder high priests of that people. The second evidence is that high in the mountains around Cusco are the remains of defensive outlooks and cities. The most famous is of course Machu picchu. I believe those remains and others like it were the hideouts and strongholds of the gadianton robbers. In the Book of Mormon it stated that their strongholds were in the tops of the mountains and they would saly forth out of them to war and plunder. 

Other evidences are the extensive roads they built from place to place. Its also the only area in the Americas that have ample ruins of walled cities and ruins of walls that border lands just like the Nephites report.

The lost civilization of the Maya I attribute to the Jaredites. 

I believe the hill Cumorah in New York is the same geographical area that both civilizations spoke of in their final battles.

[person0]

I believe my response to a similar thread applies here as well, so I have included it below.  We don't know with exactness where the events of the Book of Mormon took place,  however, the scriptures only ever point to locations within the continental U.S. as areas of latter-day Laminate residence.  Personally, I will stick with that until we are granted additional revelation on the matter.

Edit:  Regardless of the location of the civilizations spoken of in the Book of Mormon, another thing that could contribute to potential errors until additional revelation comes forth is the fact that the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites are not the only extra-biblical civilizations with prophets, scriptures, and knowledge of the gospel.  The Book of Mormon makes this clear:

Quote

For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
(2 Ne. 29:12) emphasis added

Knowing that the Lord shall speak unto all nations of the earth, who will write His words, is it not reasonable that we could find similar pieces of 'gospel life' among many different ancient civilizations?  What if evidences in Central America actually apply to scriptures and prophets who anciently dwelled among them, which have not yet been made known to us?  Someone could also flip that vice-versa (but I won't ).

Edited September 17, 2017 by person0

[Jamie123]

On 9/14/2017 at 1:10 PM, Sunday21 said:

I was wondering if we have a generally accepted theory of where the Book of Mormon took place? Do you have a personal view on this?

When I took the missionary lessons way back in the 1990s I was given to understand that it was South America, and that Lehi sailed west over the Atlantic. I daresay this was an innocent misunderstanding but it coloured my none-too-attentive reading of the BoM and I got the impression that "Bountiful" must have been somewhere in western Africa - Morocco perhaps. It's only since coming to this forum that I discovered it was a Pacific crossing - which actually makes more sense. The Pacific has many islands so the journey could have been made in short "hops" and the ship repaired en-route. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Jamie123