Posted on 01/18/2009 6:08:09 AM PST by greyfoxx39
| In Search of Book of Mormon Geography | |
| The Book of Mormon is supposed to be a history of real people living in a real place. For the first 150 years of Mormonism's existence, everyone thought it was a story about a people who left the Middle East and came to South or Central America, and who fought wars clear up into New York state where their history was hidden in a hillside, inscribed on gold plates. Joseph Smith, in 1830, translated those plates, he said, by "the gift and power of God," into 1611 English from "Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Or so the story goes. However, one needs to look no further than New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to find the setting of the Book of Mormon. Whoever pieced the Book of Mormon together had a land in mind which was very similar to the Northeast United States and Southeast Canada. My friend, the late Vernal Holley, originally published these maps in his book Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look in the early 1980s. I was fascinated with them then and remain so today. Basically, the two maps compare a "proposed map" constructed by Vernal from the internal descriptions of the Book of Mormon and comments, over the years by Latter-day Saint scholars, with a map showing actual place names on maps of the area around Palmyra, New York, where to the Book of Mormon originally was published. Vernal gave me permission to put the whole book on line. I just need the time to do that. In the meantime I hope you enjoy this. |
|
| The first map is the "proposed map," constructed from internal comparisons in the Book of Mormon. Throughout the Book of Mormon we read of such features as "The Narrow Neck of Land" which was a days and a half's journey (roughly 30 miles) separating two great seas. We read much of the Hill Onidah, the Hill Ramah, and the city of the City of Angola—all place names in the land of Joseph Smith's youth. We read, in the Book of Mormon of the Land of Desolation named for a warrior named Teancum who helped General Moroni fight in the Land of Desolation. In Smith's era, an Indian Chief named Tecumseh fought and died near the narrow neck of land helping the British in the War of 1812. Today the Canadian city Techumseh (near the narrow neck of land) is named after him. We see the Book of Mormon city Kishkumen located near an area named, on modern maps, as Kiskiminetas. There are more than two dozen Book of Mormon names that are the same as or nearly the same as modern geographical locations. See below |
|
| Below is the modern Map of the area of Smith's Youth | |
| Book of Mormon place names compared to actual Northeast US/Southeast Canada place names Canadian locations are marked with an asterisk and appear in the Book of Mormon as lying in "The Land Northward" |
| ACTUAL PLACE NAMES *Agathe, Saint Alma Angola Antrim Antioch Boaz Jerusalem Monroe Noah Lakes |
BOOK OF MORMON PLACE NAMES Ogath Alma, Avlley of Angola Antum Anti-Anti Boaz Jerusalem Moroni Noah, Land of |
| Copyright 1989, 1992 by Vernal Holley Used by permission. |
|
http://www.uwec.edu/geOGrApHY/Ivogeler/w188/utopian/mormon-place-names.htm
"The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed."
- Dee F. Green, Mormon archaeologist, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78
“The Book of Mormon talks about ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgical industries. A ferrous industry is a whole system of doing something. It’s just not an esoteric process that a few people are involved in, but ferrous industry.., means mining iron ores and then processing these ores and casting [them] into irons.... This is a process that’s very complicated...it also calls for cultural backup to allow such an activity to take place.... In my recent reading of the Book of Mormon, I find that iron and steel are mentioned in sufficient context to suggest that there was a ferrous industry here.... You can’t refine ore without leaving a bloom of some kind or impurities that blossom out and float to the top of the ore... and also the flux of limestone or whatever is used to flux the material.... [This] blooms off into silicas and indestructible new rock forms. In other words, when you have a ferroused metallurgical industry, you have these evidences of the detritus that is left over. You also have the fuels, you have the furnaces, you have whatever technologies that were there performing these tasks; they leave solid evidences. And they are indestructible things.... No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size kind of problem, it seems to me, for the so-called Book of Mormon archaeology. This evidence is absent.”
- Ray T. Matheny, Speech at Sunstone Symposium 6, "Book of Mormon Archaeology," August 25, 1984
“Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonian's position is contained in the enclosed "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic. "Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonian's name.”
- Statement by the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Spring 1996, available online at: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/smithsonianletter.htm
“I wonder what really goes on in the minds of Church leadership who know of the data concerning the Book of Abraham, the new data on the First Vision, etc.... It would tend to devastate the Church if a top leader were to announce the facts.”
- Thomas Ferguson to John W. Fitzgerald, March 6, 1976, John Fitzgerald Collection, Special Collections, Milton R. Merrill Library, Utah State University
As posted at the front end of the thread, smith could have composed the bom geography from his local area. However, mormons are not content with letting sleeping dogs lay and continue to try to find physical evidenced for the bom. The top figure is the traditional concept
Mormon apologists (NOTE: Not the Prophet) are looking to central america since nothing has been found in N. America. They hold to the hope that SOMEWHERE there are pre-Colombian ruins that are mormon. To date, nothing of the sort have been found, and what has been found contradicts the history in the bom.
However problems arise when one considers that “the sea south” and the “sea north” are irreconcilable with this limited geographical location for Book of Mormon lands, and the Hill Cumorah would have to be moved from North America to Central America. This limited geographical view for the Book of Mormon lands being in Central America also runs into problems with the Mormon Scripture, Doctrine and Covenants, section 54:8 that claims the “land of Missouri…borders… the Lamanites.” How could the Lamanite lands border “Missouri” in North America if Book of Mormon lands and events were located in Central America?
Mere details.
Don’t you KNOW that the sea level was MUCH different then?
Mormon stuff may be UNDER the water - off the coasts!
You mean they had global warming then too?!?!?
Yup!
Lot’s of HOT AIR still wafts toward the ice!
But it’s Global COOLING that locks up the water into ice and exposes the shoreline further out.
It was the HEAT from all the IRON smelting operations that cuased the thaw and drowned their civiliation.
Right, theres that opening to the center of the earth and the lost tribes that is causing it.
DNA analysis that shows Native Americans are not related to Israelis? Sound science, iron clad, unassailable.
DNA analysis showing that humans and chimps share a more recent common ancestor than chimps and gorillas? Suddenly the same science isn't so iron clad.
HILARIOUS!!!
You have portrayed a strawman. Noone has denied the validity of archaeology, linguistics, or DNA. It is the assumptions that have made based on those that are in question. You have just misstated the case radically!
The principles of DNA divergence and homology that show how long ago Native Americans and Jews shared a common ancestor are identical to the principles of DNA divergence and homology that show when humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. Both the theory and techniques used are identical.
The same posters who would decry the use of linguistics, archeology, or DNA analysis when the results conflict with their theological cosmology seem to take to it like a fish to water when it it conflicts with Mormon theology.
That is an observation, not a strawman argument, and I have stated the case quite accurately.
When you throw a rock at a pack of mongrels, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.
The same posters who would decry the use of linguistics, archeology, or DNA analysis when the results conflict with their theological cosmology seem to take to it like a fish to water when it it conflicts with Mormon theology.
Linguistics do not conflict with my theology, neither does archaeology (which infact reinforces and confirms it in many ways), or DNA. The problem you face is the convergence of these fields (as well as others such as anthropology) that over and over again show that the story presented in the bom is fictional. I could show you the pavement stones Jesus stood upon infront of Pilate (the real ones, not the present day via dolarosa) - can you show me the same for where Jesus stood here in the Americas? Can you show me where any of the 35 or so major bom cities have been found? If mormons were so sure about the truth of the bom account, why are there at least 4 major, competing theories regarding where the bom took place?
That is an observation, not a strawman argument, and I have stated the case quite accurately.
Sorry, particularly in the case of DNA, you have managed to state the case most inaccurately.
Occam's Razor; the simplest explanation is most likely the correct explanation. Overwhelming evidence of non-mormon settlement and habitation of the Americas - or the total lack of evidence of bom culture, documented only in a book of highly questionable authenticity written by a man of highly questionable character.........
Linguistics do not agree that any MesoAmerican language was similar to Hebrew. Linguistics do not agree that all languages disseminated recently from the tower of Babel. The techniques used are identical. That is not a “strawman” it is the truth.
Archeology doesn't support the notion of a large Semitic population in MesoAmerica, neither does it support the notion that there was a recent “global” flood. Egyptian records both before and after any recent date for the “global flood” do not record any flooding. The techniques used are identical. That is not a “strawman” argument, it is the truth.
So the same posters who would deny that DNA analysis, linguistics, or archeology has any thing to say relevant that could conflict with their theological model, seem to LOVE IT, EMBRACE IT, and hail it as DIFINITIVE when it similarly conflicts with Mormon theology.
Those are just simple facts.
Different techniques and methodologies are applied between the two - therefore they are not identical except that in both cases DNA is used. Because you broadbrush ALL techniques and methodologies as being the same, your strawman is a logical fallacy. MORMON geneticists even use DNA techniques and methodologies within their work. They (as well as non-mormon experts) would dispute you assessment of the effectiveness of DNA. In fact, DNA has been effectively used to confirm the genetic source of Lemba tribe in africa to be descended from Jewish ancestors, having departed from Israel about 700 BC - close to that of Nephi. Needless to say, you have no grasp of what is involved here.
Linguistics do not agree that any MesoAmerican language was similar to Hebrew. Linguistics do not agree that all languages disseminated recently from the tower of Babel. The techniques used are identical. That is not a “strawman” it is the truth.
You strawman is based upon timeframe involved. Linguists generally accept that there was a common language base and are working on developing how this happened. Secondly, because of the much shorter time frame (less than 2000 years), it is not too hard for linguists to show that the languages used by native americans did not originate from hebrew. That destroys your strawman because it IS the truth.
Archeology doesn't support the notion of a large Semitic population in MesoAmerica, neither does it support the notion that there was a recent “global” flood.
Again it is a scale of times and evidence. First the global flood is based upon an estimated date. Secondly, it ignores the archaeological and anthropological facts that there are global flood stories in many old cultures. But it also tries to cover up the time separation issue. The alleged advanced Nephite/bom culture is stated more accurately to have occurred between 600 BC - 400 AD. This is very recent for archeological purposes - therefore it is more appropriate to compare similarly aged settings. From the bom, this advanced culture numbered in the millions, had at least 35 major cities and temples like Solomon's, had battles where the combatants had swords, shields, arm shields, chariots, spears, etc of steel and other advanced metals and where upwards of 250,000 were killed at a single battle. Archaeological evidence from Israel and the middle east for the same period contains evidence in abundance of ruined cities, armament, etc. In fact archaeological finds go even further back in time and consistently confirm the biblical record. Many of these records are from cultures OTHER than the Jews
If there was a multimillion advanced culture (pre-Colombian) - NO, none, nada, zilch - direct evidence has been found. Pre-colombian Indian culture finds show an extensive influence and contacts with other tribes - all EXCEPT the 'advanced' bom culture. So when you compare oranges to oranges, dreamer, your little strawman crumbles really quick. Same techniques, same period involved - truth no bom peoples
Those are just simple facts.
That is what I have done. Embrace it, love it, learn from it.
What expertise to you bring to the table to establish that one is on solid scientific ground and the other is mere speculation other than your a priori theological beliefs?
The same technique used to establish that Jews and Native Americans have not shared a recent common ancestor are identical to the techniques used to establish the common ancestry of humanity with apes.
the same techniques used to show that there was no Semitic influence in Mesoamerican cultural artifacts also show that there was no influence of Semitic influence from Noah's family on cultural artifacts after the supposed worldwide flood.
The time frame argument is silly. We can make a good determination on what happened a couple thousand years ago, but any more than that and it is a complete mystery? Only if you are hopelessly confused, or have an a priori commitment to a theological model not supported by any evidence.
That is well and good. Then you should be aware of the the volume of science that contradicts your claim to the ability to track people groups via DNA. National Geographic Society affiliated researchers shows that it works. If you are conversant as you say, you will have to agree with me that the use of specific haplotypes to identify heredity and racial origins in addition to mtDNA. If not perhaps you should read up.
Zakharov, I., et al. 2004. Mitochondrial DNA variation in the aboriginal populations of the Altai-Baikal region: Implications for the genetic history of North Asia and America. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1011 (April): 21-–35.
Zegura, S., et al. 2004. High-resolution SNPs and microsatellite haplotypes point to a single, recent entry of Native American Y chromosomes into the Americas. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (1): 164-75
Seielstad, Mark T. et al. (2003) A novel Y chromosome variant puts an upper limit on the timing of the first entry into the Americas. Am J Hum Genet 73 (3):700-05
Wang S., et al. 2007. Genetic variation and population structure in Native Americans. PLoS Genet 3 (11): e185
Gonzaléz-Oliver A., et al. 2001. Founding Amerindian mitochondrial DNA lineages in ancient Maya from Xcaret, Quintana Roo. Am J Phys Anthropol 116 (3):230-35
Dornelles, C., et al. 2005. Is haplogroup X present in extant South American Indians? Am J Phys Anthropol 127 (4):439-48
This is a short list of real studies that say DNA can and does track people groups. They also show that the history presented in the bom is bogus by showing that there is a substantially better documented explanation for the presence and origin of the native americans. I'm afraid you band of hebrews just didn't exist in the americas.
The same technique used to establish that Jews and Native Americans have not shared a recent common ancestor are identical to the techniques used to establish the common ancestry of humanity with apes.
Another strawman, dreamy. Human DNA comparisons are based on the fact first off that we have the same number of genes in our DNA. The FACT that apes do not have the same number of genes invalidates your assessment at a basic level. Secondly, if those methods are applied to find a common ancestor, it is a comparison between two species which is far more divergent and incomparable when applied to same species studies (humans).
the same techniques used to show that there was no Semitic influence in Mesoamerican cultural artifacts also show that there was no influence of Semitic influence from Noah's family on cultural artifacts after the supposed worldwide flood.
LOL, oh this is so choice and convoluted. Again you have thousands of years separating the events - that directly impacts the survivalabilty of any artifacts. Secondly, following a rigorous genealogy of the bible, semitic influence post flood would be negligible initially since that culture is not in existence until several centuries later. . Thus any influence would not appear until city/state development and the level of technology re-advanced. Again, another apples to oranges comparison and flawed logic. Secondly, archaeological findings show a lot of interplay between pre-Colombian groups. If these people were present, the bom completely ignores them. The writings and information from pre-Colombian tribes record their interaction. No influence, zero, nada, zilch from any hebraic advanced culture.
The time frame argument is silly. We can make a good determination on what happened a couple thousand years ago, but any more than that and it is a complete mystery?
No it is not and from your OWN statement above you validate my point. The bom era is within you couple thousand year bracket. Your counter examples are 4000-6000 years - big difference. Lets look at the claims of the culture that was supposed to have been here:
... multiplied exceedingly and spread across the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich (Jarom 1:8)
. . began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east (Helaman 3:8)
Over 250,000 Nephites were killed at or near hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:10-15)
. . The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings (Mormon 1:7)
Helaman 3:14 indicates that there were ships, temples, synagogues, and sancturaries. Alma 11:4 tells of coins of gold and silver. At least 37 cities are named in the bom
For an advanced and extensive civilization as indicated by the bom, being younger than 2000 years old, there should be a plethora of archaeological findings. I'm sure that if pre-Colombian indians had encountered and fought a white army with swords, shields of steel and chariots with horses - it would have made a significant cultural impact. Does any evidence of this exist - none, nada, zilch, zip, zero. One can go elsewhere in the world and find artifacts from a similar period in abundance. The only black hole is the mormon history of the americas. It doesn't exist because it never existed in the first place.
Only if you are hopelessly confused, or have an a priori commitment to a theological model not supported by any evidence.
Well, since you cannot provide a single positive piece of authentic evidence of hebraic peoples existing in the americas between 600BC-400AD, I would venture that you are the one with an a priori commitment to a theological model not supported by the evidence (which you haven't presented). I have yet to read a discovery in the americas of anything that resembles hebrew or reformed hieroglyphics in the americas. The Smithsonian Inst and Nat'l Geographic society both are on record that the history presented in the bom is a myth. Mormon scientists over the past decade when evaluating the FACTS surrounding the lack of DNA support (we are talking pHD's here in genetic studies) have left the mormon church. So too have archaeologists and egyptologist lost their faith when they have seen the abysmal lack of scientific support for the bom.
Answer me this - If support for the physical presence of hebrew peoples here is so good, why are there at least four competing and exclusionary theories by mormons as to where the bom lands were? Where is hill Cumorah really located at.
You are also confused about the usage of DNA to establish common ancestry. It is in no way dependent upon the different species having the exact same number of genes.
In fact most phylogenetic comparisons to find common ancestry do not even use genes.
It is obvious from reading your objections to DNA analysis that you have no idea what you are talking about.
The exact same theory and techniques used to establish that Jews and Native Americans do not share a more recent common ancestor than Jews and Arabs or Asians and Native Americans; are also used to show that humans and chimps share a more recent common ancestor than either shares with a gorilla.
IT IS THE EXACT SAME THEORY, USING THE EXACT SAME TECHNIQUES, and is in no way dependent upon them having the exact same gene number. I have no idea where you came up with that particular piece of odious nonsense.
Please take time then to read the subject of this thread.
IT IS THE EXACT SAME THEORY, USING THE EXACT SAME TECHNIQUES, and is in no way dependent upon them having the exact same gene number. I have no idea where you came up with that particular piece of odious nonsense..
You know, shouting it doesn't prove it either. Are you saying that DNA studies cannot prove or invalidate a connection between sematic peoples and native americans. It reads like you do. So what if similar techniques may be used to try to prove a common ancestor between humans and apes. Those studies have to first of all cope with the additional genes (distinct sequence of nucleotides) we have as humans. Those postulating that have to deal with a mechanism that regresses the development of human and ape dna backwards to a common origin. DNA studies on ancestry are not trying to go back and find a common ancestor with apes - having a different dna structure. Ancestory studies look at existing haplogroups, such as A, B, C, D and X lineages. Those haplogroups form a dna fingerprint of the people-groups. Following those back do not involve changing the number of genes or arrangement of the dna as trying to find a common ancestor with apes - but work within the species. Even a noob can see that there are different techniques and methodologies involved. Whether or not DNA related studies can prove a common ancestor is not germain to this thread any way. What is the application to trace people groups (common ancestory - humans not apes) and to verify what anthropology, archaeology and linguistic data indicated for origins of native american. The rest of it you can start your own thread for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.