Book Of Mormon Geography

[poulsenll]

Yediyd requested a thread on Book of Mormon Geography so here goes. I will start out with a question.

What is the only Authoritative source we have for the geography of the Book of Mormon cultures?

Although I have invested many hours, even days investigating this topic, I still maintain and admonish others to figure it out for themselves. Set your own rules for analysis of data and information. In doing so examine your assumptions and preconcieved conclusions. Any conclusions based on a false assumption is no better than the assumption.

My basic assumtion is found on the first page of the Book of Mormon where Mormon tells us the Lord's purpose for the Book of Mormon. It was translated by the power of God for our benefit and understanding. We should not have to be trained archeologists or hold a doctorate in ancient languages and history in order to understand its message. This is not only true of the Gospel message contained therein but of the geographic information and descriptions, what little there is, found in the translated text.

Larry P

[Jeny]

Yediyd requested a thread on Book of Mormon Geography so here goes. I will start out with a question.

What is the only Authoritative source we have for the geography of the Book of Mormon cultures?

Although I have invested many hours, even days investigating this topic, I still maintain and admonish others to figure it out for themselves. Set your own rules for analysis of data and information. In doing so examine your assumptions and preconcieved conclusions. Any conclusions based on a false assumption is no better than the assumption.

My basic assumtion is found on the first page of the Book of Mormon where Mormon tells us the Lord's purpose for the Book of Mormon. It was translated by the power of God for our benefit and understanding. We should not have to be trained archeologists or hold a doctorate in ancient languages and history in order to understand its message. This is not only true of the Gospel message contained therein but of the geographic information and descriptions, what little there is, found in the translated text.

Larry P

I went to a fireside at church that was very fascinating...the speaker had maps and he told us that the compass was off and if you tilted the current map to the side...it would fit with BoM geography...he used a slide projector and had maps for us to see...I was fascinated, as I stated.

[poulsenll]

I went to a fireside at church that was very fascinating...the speaker had maps and he told us that the compass was off and if you tilted the current map to the side...it would fit with BoM geography...he used a slide projector and had maps for us to see...I was fascinated, as I stated.

No, what he was saying was that if you tilted the map, it would fit with his concept of Book of Mormon geography.

A good example of a bad assumption. Why should we have to tilt the map in order to make it fit the geography? In particular, if the translation was into the English language of the 19th century and was done under the influence of the Holy Ghost, should the directions not be correct as we understand them or at least as Joseph Smith understood them at the time of the translation. After examination of the 1828 Webster dictionary, which reflects the language as spoken in Joseph Smith's day, I find little difference in the meaning of directional terms in his day with those of today.

Perhaps we should examine first the use of directional terms in the Book of Mormon text and compare them with similar concepts in pre columbian cultures of the Americas or for that matter with ancient cultures of the old world.

For example, our English word "east" originated in the Germanic culture and had the meaning of "the dawn" or the direction of sunrise. They did not think of it as a compasss point as we do, in fact they did not even have compasses. We obtained the compass from the Chinese well into the middle ages, long after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem.

This concept is true for both Hebrew and Latin. In these languages the word which is translated as east actually means sunrise. Our word orient meaning to detrmine where we are, comes from the Latin word oriens which means where the sun originates or rises. Orient means to relate our position to where the sun rises or to a compass point. Anciently this was done with respect to sunrise however since a magnetic compass always points north, over time, we have changed to an orientation with the northen or southern magnetic pole.

Because, in all probability, the Book of Mormon cultures oriented themselves based on sunrise, it is difficult for me to believe that they were unaware of where the sun rose and therefore erroneously tilted ther concept of direction and Joseph Smith then translated this erroneous concept of direction.

In my opinion, too many bad assumptions.

Larry P

[Jeny]

No, what he was saying was that if you tilted the map, it would fit with his concept of Book of Mormon geography.

A good example of a bad assumption. Why should we have to tilt the map in order to make it fit the geography? In particular, if the translation was into the English language of the 19th century and was done under the influence of the Holy Ghost, should the directions not be correct as we understand them or at least as Joseph Smith understood them at the time of the translation. After examination of the 1828 Webster dictionary, which reflects the language as spoken in Joseph Smith's day, I find little difference in the meaning of directional terms in his day with those of today.

Perhaps we should examine first the use of directional terms in the Book of Mormon text and compare them with similar concepts in pre columbian cultures of the Americas or for that matter with ancient cultures of the old world.

For example, our English word "east" originated in the Germanic culture and had the meaning of "the dawn" or the direction of sunrise. They did not think of it as a compasss point as we do, in fact they did not even have compasses. We obtained the compass from the Chinese well into the middle ages, long after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem.

This concept is true for both Hebrew and Latin. In these languages the word which is translated as east actually means sunrise. Our word orient meaning to detrmine where we are, comes from the Latin word oriens which means where the sun originates or rises. Orient means to relate our position to where the sun rises or to a compass point. Anciently this was done with respect to sunrise however since a magnetic compass always points north, over time, we have changed to an orientation with the northen or southern magnetic pole.

Because, in all probability, the Book of Mormon cultures oriented themselves based on sunrise, it is difficult for me to believe that they were unaware of where the sun rose and therefore erroneously tilted ther concept of direction and Joseph Smith then translated this erroneous concept of direction.

In my opinion, too many bad assumptions.

Larry P

Actually, The speaker at the fireside said much the same things as you just did...he went into great detail and explained that they did not have the compasses as we do today so their East was different to some degree than ours, and with just a slight tilt of the modern day map...the geography fit beautifully as he showed us with the maps. He went to South America and studied this whole thing out and was quite knowledgeable, as I said, I was fascinated...but much of what he said went right over my head as I was still a new convert and had not read much of the Book of Mormon to know a whole lot about what he was saying...

[poulsenll]

In starting this thread, I posed the question

What is the only Authoritative source we have for the geography of the Book of Mormon cultures?

The only archeological ruins I have visited are those at Teotihuacan and Tula that are located just north of Mexico City. When I first started this study while serving my mission in Mexico, I was convinced that these ruins had to be from the Book of Mormon culture. However as I studied the Book of Mormon over the years I came to realize that the area did not fit the geographic discriptions found in the text of the book itself. Over the years I have listened to many people tell me that they have visited this ruin or that one and are certain that it must have been built by the Nephites. We have too much of a tendency to see what we find to be amazing or beautiful and immediately conclude it must have been the Nephites because how could those awfull Lamanites ever create anything like this. Unfortunately the Nephites were probably not the only culture capable of building amazing or wonderful things. The Maya culture, the culture resposible for most of the amazing buildings commonly visited by tourists, built these structures sometime between 400 and 800 AD, long after the destruction of the Nephite culture. The BofM also talks about Ammons missionary trip to the Lamanites where the Lamanite King lived in a palace and had many servants and riches.

Back to my question, Where must we turn in order to evaluate whether our proposal for the geography has merit?

Larry P

[Jeny]

Back to my question, Where must we turn in order to evaluate whether our proposal for the geography has merit?

Larry P

...and a good question it is!! Sorry I can't help you with it!!

[poulsenll]

...and a good question it is!! Sorry I can't help you with it!!

The answer should be obvious but people seldom think about it. They look to others for an answer or read or hear about someone's model and think, Oh that sounds reasonable. I will go along with it. They then go back to reading the Book of Mormon without once checking to see if the model agrees with what the Book of Mormon says. The Book of Mormon is the only revealed source for information about the geography of the cultures described within its pages. No other information has been revealed to any modern prophet even though many of them have expressed opinions over the years prior to being called as the Prophet of the Church. It has always intrigued me that they have all been silent in this area after becoming the Prophet and spokesman for the Lord. Several, however, have made the statement that there is no revealed location for the Book of Mormon cultures other than that they came from the old world and settled somewhere on the American continents.

The Book of Mormon contains over 500 verses that relate to or describe aspects of the geography in which Book of Mormon events took place. Correlating them to produce a comprehensive picture and then fitting it to the known geography of the Americas is an enormous task but a simple general picture is easily obtained by anyone willing to invest a little effort. The availability of tools such as Google Earth allows anyone to cruise the American continents and compare the three dimentional geography to that describerd in the 22nd chapter of Alma. This is commonly called Mormon's Map because it is an insert writtem by Mormon to describe the territorial relationship between the Nephites and the Lamanites at the time of Ammon's mission to the Lamanites.

Larry P

[Jeny]

The answer should be obvious but people seldom think about it. They look to others for an answer or read or hear about someone's model and think, Oh that sounds reasonable. I will go along with it. They then go back to reading the Book of Mormon without once checking to see if the model agrees with what the Book of Mormon says. The Book of Mormon is the only revealed source for information about the geography of the cultures described within its pages. No other information has been revealed to any modern prophet even though many of them have expressed opinions over the years prior to being called as the Prophet of the Church. It has always intrigued me that they have all been silent in this area after becoming the Prophet and spokesman for the Lord. Several, however, have made the statement that there is no revealed location for the Book of Mormon cultures other than that they came from the old world and settled somewhere on the American continents.

The Book of Mormon contains over 500 verses that relate to or describe aspects of the geography in which Book of Mormon events took place. Correlating them to produce a comprehensive picture and then fitting it to the known geography of the Americas is an enormous task but a simple general picture is easily obtained by anyone willing to invest a little effort. The availability of tools such as Google Earth allows anyone to cruise the American continents and compare the three dimentional geography to that describerd in the 22nd chapter of Alma. This is commonly called Mormon's Map because it is an insert writtem by Mormon to describe the territorial relationship between the Nephites and the Lamanites at the time of Ammon's mission to the Lamanites.

Larry P

I guess the reason that I have not taken the time to really study it out is because it is not really all that important to me!! It is not needful information to my salvation and it doesn't change the gospel of G-d..so, I am curious and interested, but not majorly invested in finding out the true geography...although...as I said. I am interested in "other people's findings" as YOU said! Guess I am just lazy, or just have other priorities with my scripture learning!!

[poulsenll]

I guess the reason that I have not taken the time to really study it out is because it is not really all that important to me!! It is not needful information to my salvation and it doesn't change the gospel of G-d..so, I am curious and interested, but not majorly invested in finding out the true geography...although...as I said. I am interested in "other people's findings" as YOU said! Guess I am just lazy, or just have other priorities with my scripture learning!!

I agree that it is not important to your salvation. Understanding the scriptures and the full meaning they can have in our lives is important though.

A couple of questions to think about as you read the Book of Mormon.

How was it possible for Alma to petition the Lord for a means to save the prisoners taken by the Lamanites during the destruction of Ammonihah, even though the Nephites did not discover what had happened untill several days after the battle? The Lamanites should have had plenty of time to return to their strongholds in the Land of Nephi-Lehi.

Why did the search party, sent out by King Limhi, get lost in the wilderness and end up in a location where they found the plates of Ether. After all, there were some people alive whos parents had come up from the Land of Zarahemla and should have been able to give them reasonably accurate directions to find the Land of Zarahemla?

Why did Jacob, the brother of Nephi, preach against the wearing of costly garments? Were there cultural influences in the geographical area where the small group of Nephite refugees found themselves at this early time in their history?

Where did the Nephites find women in order to have multiple wives and concubines as recounted by Jacob?

All of these questions are related to the geography and location of the Nephite culture.

Just as in the Bible, we find the Israelites falling under the influence of surrounding cultures, similar influences must have been present in the Americas during the time of the Nephite culture. At a minimum there must have been descendents of the friends of Jared and his brother of whom we have no record.

What would happen to our understanding about King David without the existence of the Philistines and what about the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal?

Just some thoughts about the importance of geography in our study of the scriptures.

Larry P

[charity]

I know we should study for ourselves. But can't we learn from someone who has spent many years of study on the subject. As long as we realize that this learned person may get something wrong now and again?

[poulsenll]

I know we should study for ourselves. But can't we learn from someone who has spent many years of study on the subject. As long as we realize that this learned person may get something wrong now and again?

Yes

After all I learned most of what I know from reading Sorenson's work even though he may have made some mistakes. The trick when depending on someone else's conclusions is to recognize what is speculative, disagrees with the text, contradicts the geological and archeological record, or is just plain wrong. Only by personal study can we make these judgements. Sometimes we give the excuse that the spirit will discern for us. Years ago I was taught that the Holy Ghost could only recall the right answer to an exam question if we had studied enough to at least know the possible answers. I think this counsel applies to all aspects of the Gospel and not only to questions about Book of Mormon Geography.

With that little sermon aside, I ask questions mainly because I am interested in what conclusions others have arrived at in order to see if maybe they have a better answer than mine or maybe an additional insight . For those of you who are interested in some of my conclusions, you will find them on my web site at

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/index.html

If you dont find enough info there to satisfy your appetite then ask questions and I will give the best answer that I know for now.

Larry P

[charity]

For any new to the Church, or asking questions, one of the first lessons I learned about geography and the Book of Mormon, even after many years in the Church, is that different cultures look at things differently, and we have to try to get past the culturally imbedded ideas we have and to see things from their point of view.

The best example is the direction thing. We think that everyone should think north should be as it appears on a map, north is at the top, south is at the bottom and east and west to the sides.

Larry showed me that hasn't even always been so in our American culture. I grew up on a farm, and we had a "south forty." I knew it had to do with the fact that the farm was one of the land claim farms, 160 acres, and 40 acres was on quarter of it. But it didn't really even sink in until Larry asked me how you decided which of the two quarters below the midline was the "south" one? You can't, if you have taken a square and divided it into fourths in the standard manner. But if you take the center point, and make a line to each corner, then you have 4 equal sections, with one clearly north, one south, one east and one west.

It was an eye opener.

[poulsenll]

For any new to the Church, or asking questions, one of the first lessons I learned about geography and the Book of Mormon, even after many years in the Church, is that different cultures look at things differently, and we have to try to get past the culturally imbedded ideas we have and to see things from their point of view.

The best example is the direction thing. We think that everyone should think north should be as it appears on a map, north is at the top, south is at the bottom and east and west to the sides.

Larry showed me that hasn't even always been so in our American culture. I grew up on a farm, and we had a "south forty." I knew it had to do with the fact that the farm was one of the land claim farms, 160 acres, and 40 acres was on quarter of it. But it didn't really even sink in until Larry asked me how you decided which of the two quarters below the midline was the "south" one? You can't, if you have taken a square and divided it into fourths in the standard manner. But if you take the center point, and make a line to each corner, then you have 4 equal sections, with one clearly north, one south, one east and one west.

It was an eye opener.

Charity

I have given this little test to many people. I give them a sheet of paper with a rectangle and a square drawn on it and ask them to divide each of the figures into four equal quarters. About half of them divide the square using a + and the other half divide it using an x. With a square, it is immediately apparent that both methods produce equal quarters. Almosy everyone divides the rectangle using a + because it is not intuitively obvious that using the x method also produces quarters of equal area. It takes a little application of geometry to show this and it was not until someone on the other board demonstrated this that I came to realize it to be true.

What is different between the two methods with squares and rectangles are the angles between the two lines.In the square they are identical while in the rectangle they are different. When we think of directions about a point it is the size of the angle which determines the distribution of possible directions. In the normal compass rose the number of possible directions in each quarter of the rose are equal but if we divide the rose by inscribing a rectangle in the circle we discover that there are more directions in the northen and southern quarters than there are in the eastern and western quarters.

One of the anomalies with the distribution of directional references in the Book of Mormon is the fact that there are more references to northern and southern directions than to eastern and western directions. Ancient cultures divided directions into four general sets. one where the sun rises, one where the sun sets. one where the sun traveled between sunrise and sunset and one where the sun was never present. We translate these concepts into our modern words of East, West, South and North respectively even though there is no direct correspondence in meaning.

Even though Joseph Smith used the English language in translating the Book of Mormon, the usage distribution indicates that the Book of Mormon culture was an ancient culture and not a modern one as would be the case if Joseph Smith had invented the whole story. In addition the distribution pattern is almost exactly that expected for a mesoamerican culture than that for one in New York. For you budding astronomers, the angle between summer solstice and winter solstice sunrise increases in size the further north one goes and is rectangualar in mesoamerica and becomes quadratic at 45 degrees lattitude.

Palmyra, New York is located at 43 1/4 degrees north latitude. This would have produced a square distribution of directional vectors instead of the one atually found in the Book of Mormon. For the details see

http://poulsenll.org/bom/bomdirections.html

Another point is that even if Joseph Smith was aware of the ancient custom, he would have used the distribution familiar to his location rather than that for mesoamerica.

As pointed out by Charity, understanding the fact that the cultures of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are different from our modern American culture is essential to our study of the scriptures not only from the point of view of geography but from the point of view of what they wrote about their relationship with God and His interaction and communication with His children here on earth.

Larry P

[Maya]

Hi Poulsell

I love this subject. I do have to confess I feel very much a novise here... I was thinking as an answer, as I red your question, that we have to read from the book of Mormon about the georgraphical places and hints. I also tought, what do they call a sunrise... how big an angle does that mean? Like here in Scandinavia it is a very large angle.... so it is many degrees difference to where the sun rises or sets in the winter and where in the Summer.... I have no idea of how it is in South America, are the angles (not angels) as big there?

I also wonder if the earth has turned any since that day or continent moved so that the possibility of fex. south is even bigger...

Like I told you before your site is very interesting. I keep studying... maybe I get it someday... Now I ahve to go to sleep... too late now....

[charity]

Charity

One of the anomalies with the distribution of directional references in the Book of Mormon is the fact that there are more references to northern and southern directions than to eastern and western directions. Ancient cultures divided directions into four general sets. one where the sun rises, one where the sun sets. one where the sun traveled between sunrise and sunset and one where the sun was never present. We translate these concepts into our modern words of East, West, South and North respectively even though there is no direct correspondence in meaning.

Even though Joseph Smith used the English language in translating the Book of Mormon, the usage distribution indicates that the Book of Mormon culture was an ancient culture and not a modern one as would be the case if Joseph Smith had invented the whole story. In addition the distribution pattern is almost exactly that expected for a mesoamerican culture than that for one in New York. For you budding astronomers, the angle between summer solstice and winter solstice sunrise increases in size the further north one goes and is rectangualar in mesoamerica and becomes quadratic at 45 degrees lattitude.

Palmyra, New York is located at 43 1/4 degrees north latitude. This would have produced a square distribution of directional vectors instead of the one atually found in the Book of Mormon. For the details see

http://poulsenll.org/bom/bomdirections.html

Larry P

Larry, this sounds like a FAIR brochure or a FAIRwiki piece. Are you planning either one?

[poulsenll]

Larry, this sounds like a FAIR brochure or a FAIRwiki piece. Are you planning either one?

I am at present writing a invited review for FARMS Reviews. Some of this will be included in the review if it ever gets finished. A rough draft is presently in the hands of the editorial board for comment. When it is finalised, I will probably write something up for the FAIR newsletter. It is still percolating at the back of my mind but I think it will eventually mature to something worth publishing.

In formulating my comments above, for the first time I looked at what the angle would be in NY and realized that it is another nail in the coffin related to a NY location as well as a count against Joseph Smith or any of the other supposed authors of the BofM being involved. They were all from the northern region of the US and it is unlikely that they would have even thought of the implication of ancient directionality on the geography of the BofM. It is true as well that the early saints were unaware of this implication in their adoption of a hemispheric interpretation of the geography.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

Hi Poulsell

I love this subject. I do have to confess I feel very much a novise here... I was thinking as an answer, as I red your question, that we have to read from the book of Mormon about the georgraphical places and hints. I also tought, what do they call a sunrise... how big an angle does that mean? Like here in Scandinavia it is a very large angle.... so it is many degrees difference to where the sun rises or sets in the winter and where in the Summer.... I have no idea of how it is in South America, are the angles (not angels) as big there?

I also wonder if the earth has turned any since that day or continent moved so that the possibility of fex. south is even bigger...

Like I told you before your site is very interesting. I keep studying... maybe I get it someday... Now I ahve to go to sleep... too late now....

Maya

We all start out as novices so dont dispair.

The angle starts out at about 50 degrees at the equater and remains constant until you reach the Tropic of Cancer or, going south, the Tropic of Capricorn. It then starts increasing until it reachs 90 degrees at the 45th north and south parallels and continues to grow till it reaches 180 degrees at each of the poles.

The data in the Book of Mormon limit the location of the BofM culture to some place between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn. This is a fairly large area and so other information must be examined to fix the location more pecisely, One of these criteria is the description in Alma of a narow strip of wilderness that divided the Nephite culture from the majority of the Lamanite culture at the time of Alma. This wilderness contained the head of the river Sidon and therefore must have been at a higher elevation than the land of Zarahemla because of text that mentions that one needed to go up to find the headwaters. This suggests that in was a narrow range of mountains that formed a natural barrier between the two different cultures. The directionality of this narow strip is described to run from east to west and to extend from a sea in the east to a sea in the west. The most obvious geographical feature found using three dimensional topographic maps in the region between the tropics is the Cuchamantanes range which runs from the Carrabean Sea in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west. The headwaters of at least three major rivers are found in this range of mountains. Two of these flow northward as required by the BofM text with the third flowing east and emtying into the Carribean Sea. The two that flow north have their mouths near each other and empty into the Gulf of Mexico.

There is a lack of agreement as to which north flowing river should be identfied as the river Sidon. I favor the Grijalva River that is the same one chosen by Sorenson. My reasons are fodder for another post.

Larry P

[Maya]

I had difficulties with the word wilderness... it sounded to me like a deseret.. so I did not think there would be any mountins... but that sounds very clair about the mountinridge.... Is the walkingdistances too possible? How fast did they walk? There where it says about the distances.

My first tought was that the narrow neck would have been Panama.... but I suppose you have good reasons why not?

Uh Have to work prepare an evening meetingin my work... will be around later or tomorrow...

[poulsenll]

I had difficulties with the word wilderness... it sounded to me like a deseret.. so I did not think there would be any mountins... but that sounds very clair about the mountinridge.... Is the walkingdistances too possible? How fast did they walk? There where it says about the distances.

My first tought was that the narrow neck would have been Panama.... but I suppose you have good reasons why not?

Uh Have to work prepare an evening meetingin my work... will be around later or tomorrow...

Maya

Thanks for your interest and your perfectly valid questions. Sometimes us native English speakers, in particular those who only speak English, assume that everyone knows all the meanings for a given English word.

Wilderness is an old English word of Germanic origen.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=w&p=7

wilderness

c.1200, from O.E. wildeoren "wild, savage," from wildern (adj.) "wild, savage" (from wilde "wild" + deor "animal;" see deer) + -ness. Cf. Du. wildernis, Ger. Wildernis, though the usual form is Wildnis

.

In English, it can be used to describe either deserts, mountains, oceans or jungles. The basic meaning is a place uninhabited by man but possibly inhabited my animals. Think of the concept of a wild animal versus a domesticated animal. A wilderness is basically an undomesticated geographic area.

Translators of the BofM to other languages have unfortunately chosen in many cases words which are correct but in that culture are more commonly thought of as deserts. When one back translates these words to English one gets desert rather than wilderness.

You and a lot of others think of Panama as a narrow neck. When you look at a map of the Americas, it is so obvious, how could it not be. Part of the problem is that when we do this we are thinking in a global map oriented manner. From a local point of view, on the ground, the isthmus of Panama is almost 600 miles long. It would require several months travel through dense jungle to go from one end to the other. It is unlikely that a culture without airplanes or satelites would think of this as a narrow neck of land between a land northward and a land southward that could be easily traversed and defended. The isthmus of Tehuantepec, however is located between two mountain ranges and is easily traversed from sea to sea in less than a week and can be crossed at several points in less than a day.. There are geographically narrow passages at several locations that could easily be defended to prevent travel from one side of the isthmus to the other. It more closely fits the concept of a narrow neck of land as described by a ground based culture as was the Nephite culture.

Keep asking questions/

Larry P

[Maya]

I never liked the idea of Nephites living close to the big lakes in Nothern America. I just cant get the BM happenings to that area. Was there 2 or one Cumorah... it really does not matter. I think it was quite human for the early saints to think, that BMs happenings happened there where they were. I cant find enough proof for that.

I been also thinking, that maybe most of the land dissapeared under water and in the earthquakes, and thus one can not find anything.

I suppose it says wilderness not deseret in: alma 22:30,32 Mormon 3:5, Eter 7:6, Al 16:11?

Was there any deseret mentionet in the scriptures... I always kind of tought of the big deseret north mexico... meaning a really dry place? Or are all the places more like wildernesses?

When Lehi landed with his boat... they came to a place that seemed to have a lot of everything a man needed at the time. AtleastLehi already then said it was the best of all lands.... or was that only a prophesy? Is it Berliz fruitful? ? Bountiful was also a place with good vegetation and a lot of food wasnt it?

[charity]

I always kind of tought of the big deseret north mexico... meaning a really dry place?

In the mid 1800's the land west of the Mississippi River all the way to the Rocky Mountains was called The Great American Desert. The reason for the settling of the west coast states of America by pioneers in the 1800's was that they didn't think they could have farming in the Great American Desert. That area now is called America's Breadbakset with a highly productive farming industry.

[poulsenll]

I never liked the idea of Nephites living close to the big lakes in Nothern America. I just cant get the BM happenings to that area.

Was there 2 or one Cumorah... it really does not matter.

Joseph Smith never refered to the hill near his home as the Hill Cumorah. This was a custom started by the early saints. Moroni buried the plates in the NY hill 35 tears after the events that took place at the BofM hill Cumorah. He tells us that he wandered during this time. It is not reasonable to assume that he stayed near that area which was occupied by his enemies who were very anxious to kill him.

I think it was quite human for the early saints to think, that BMs happenings happened there where they were. I cant find enough proof for that.

There is no evidence in the text that supports a New York location for Book of Morman events. There is lots of text that supports a non New York location.

For example:

No Snow mentioned.

A tendency for the people to suffer from climate related fevers and deseases.

and much more

The text indicates that the BofM Cumorah was located near an eastern seashore. Even if we accept the possibility of calling the Great Lakes seas, the NY Cumorah would be near a southern seashore..

I been also thinking, that maybe most of the land dissapeared under water and in the earthquakes, and thus one can not find anything.

I suppose it says wilderness not deseret in: alma 22:30,32 Mormon 3:5, Eter 7:6, Al 16:11?

Mormon's ability to describe the lands 350 years after Christ and that along with the geological record do not support this conjecture. There are several people who try to use this as a basis for highly speculative and imaginative concepts of BofM geograpphy.

Was there any deseret mentionet in the scriptures... I always kind of tought of the big deseret north mexico... meaning a really dry place? Or are all the places more like wildernesses?

The BofM speaks of an area in the land northeard that lacked trees but specifically states that it was not a desert.

When Lehi landed with his boat... they came to a place that seemed to have a lot of everything a man needed at the time. At least Lehi already then said it was the best of all lands.... or was that only a prophesy? Is it Berliz fruitful? ? Bountiful was also a place with good vegetation and a lot of food wasnt it?

Belize (not Berlitz) is a fruitful land east of Mexico and may be where a number of BofM cities were located. Bountiful simply means a land of plenty. That is why it was given that name by the Nephites.

Larry P

[Jeny]

Charity

I have given this little test to many people. I give them a sheet of paper with a rectangle and a square drawn on it and ask them to divide each of the figures into four equal quarters. About half of them divide the square using a + and the other half divide it using an x. With a square, it is immediately apparent that both methods produce equal quarters. Almosy everyone divides the rectangle using a + because it is not intuitively obvious that using the x method also produces quarters of equal area. It takes a little application of geometry to show this and it was not until someone on the other board demonstrated this that I came to realize it to be true.

What is different between the two methods with squares and rectangles are the angles between the two lines.In the square they are identical while in the rectangle they are different. When we think of directions about a point it is the size of the angle which determines the distribution of possible directions. In the normal compass rose the number of possible directions in each quarter of the rose are equal but if we divide the rose by inscribing a rectangle in the circle we discover that there are more directions in the northen and southern quarters than there are in the eastern and western quarters.

One of the anomalies with the distribution of directional references in the Book of Mormon is the fact that there are more references to northern and southern directions than to eastern and western directions. Ancient cultures divided directions into four general sets. one where the sun rises, one where the sun sets. one where the sun traveled between sunrise and sunset and one where the sun was never present. We translate these concepts into our modern words of East, West, South and North respectively even though there is no direct correspondence in meaning.

Even though Joseph Smith used the English language in translating the Book of Mormon, the usage distribution indicates that the Book of Mormon culture was an ancient culture and not a modern one as would be the case if Joseph Smith had invented the whole story. In addition the distribution pattern is almost exactly that expected for a mesoamerican culture than that for one in New York. For you budding astronomers, the angle between summer solstice and winter solstice sunrise increases in size the further north one goes and is rectangualar in mesoamerica and becomes quadratic at 45 degrees lattitude.

Palmyra, New York is located at 43 1/4 degrees north latitude. This would have produced a square distribution of directional vectors instead of the one atually found in the Book of Mormon. For the details see

http://poulsenll.org/bom/bomdirections.html

Another point is that even if Joseph Smith was aware of the ancient custom, he would have used the distribution familiar to his location rather than that for mesoamerica.

As pointed out by Charity, understanding the fact that the cultures of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are different from our modern American culture is essential to our study of the scriptures not only from the point of view of geography but from the point of view of what they wrote about their relationship with God and His interaction and communication with His children here on earth.

Larry P

Huh? You lost me after the second rectangle!

[poulsenll]

Huh? You lost me after the second rectangle!

In this figure of a compass rose with 32 defined directions, each quarter of the rose defined by the quarters of the square , has an equal number of directions.

In this figure of the same compass rose, although the quarters of the rectangle have equal areas, the north and south quarters contain more directions than do the east and west quarters.

The book of Mormon text fits the rectangular distribution of directions while the New York locality would fit the square distribution. The rectangle drawn in the second figure is based on the angles between sunrise at the summer solstice and sunrise at the winter solstice in locations found between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn..

the original compass rose is found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Compass_Card.png

with additional information about the compass rose.

Larry P

[Jeny]

In this figure of a compass rose with 32 defined directions, each quarter of the rose defined by the quarters of the square , has an equal number of directions.

In this figure of the same compass rose, although the quarters of the rectangle have equal areas, the north and south quarters contain more directions than do the east and west quarters.

The book of Mormon text fits the rectangular distribution of directions while the New York locality would fit the square distribution. The rectangle drawn in the second figure is based on the angles between sunrise at the summer solstice and sunrise at the winter solstice in locations found between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn..

the original compass rose is found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Compass_Card.png

with additional information about the compass rose.

Larry P

OK...that clears it up...