Posted on 09/11/2009 7:29:00 AM PDT by Colofornian
I came across some interesting Book of Mormon geography theories. Some of which I was familiar with and a few that were new to me. I found them interesting to read through. I’m sure there are more theories out there, but here are a few for you to read through. I’ve included links for more information on each theory on the titles of the theory.
Mesoamerica Theory 1: Isthmus of Tehuantepec
As you can see in this map, this theory is the one in which people believe the main location for the Book of Mormon is in Central America and Mexico. The theory is that the land and continent formation is the same as today for the most part and that the archeological findings in that area could be related to Book of Mormon people. It is also a limited geography model in that the geography covers just parts of the Americas rather than all of North and South America.
Mesoamerica Theory 2: Part of the Caribean that sunk into the ocean
This theory is similar to the first theory, except the geography covers most of North and Central America and it also includes areas of the Carribean that have sunk into the ocean that appear to be cities and/or civilizations.
Baja Penninsula Theory
This theory is a relatively new one that I found the other day which claims that Lehi and company landed on the Baja Penninsula in Mexico. The theory is that this is one of the only locations in the world that supports a Meditteranean climate similar to the one Lehi and his family departed from.
Great Lakes Theory
This theory is that the whole Book of Mormon took place around the Great Lakes region.
Malay Penninsula Theory
This one is another relatively new theory. The theory is that the archeological findings in Mesoamerica do not support Book of Mormon civilizations and also that Lehi and company couldn’t feasibly make the journey 16,000 miles to the Americas. Therefore, they landed on the Malay Penninsula , which is in the area of Singapore and Thailand.
So now it’s your turn to share your thoughts. Which theory do you believe in or do you not believe in any of them? Take time to vote on which theory you believe in and feel free to leave a comment as well.
I used to spend hours debating, arguing, haranging the mormonism apologists at FR. Sure, I do believe the BofM is hogwash fiction and not well written fiction. But there comes a point when only God's Holy Spirit can reach folks so determined tow ork on their own salvation instead of allowing God to do it.
Recall please:
"Many are called, but few are chosen" ... "Faithful is He that calleth you, for He will also do it" ...
If so many are called why are so few chosen? ... Because so few will let Him do it.
No matter how much we want to be effective in showing the Light, only God's Holy Spirit rays can actually reach the windows of the human spirit.
| 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" |
| US / CANADA PLACES *Agathe, Saint Alma Angola Antrim Antioch Boaz *Conner *Ephrem, Saint Hellam Jacobsburg Jerusalem Jordan Kishkiminetas Lehigh Mantua Monroe Minoa *Moraviantown *Morin Noah Lakes Oneida Oneida Castle Omer *Rama *Ripple Lake Sodom Shiloh Land of Midian *Tecumseh/Tenecum |
BOOK OF MORMON PLACES Ogath Alma, Valley of Angola Antum Anti-Anti Boaz Comner Ephraim, Hill Helam Jacobugath Jerusalem Jordan Kishkumen Lehi Manti Moroni Minon Morianton Moron Noah, Land of Onidah Onidah, Hill Omner Ramah Ripliancum, Waters of Sidom Shilom Land of Midian Teancum |
Since when the BOM has anything to do with true geography? There is more real geography in the _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy than in the BOM. To argue otherwise is a huge waste of time for me.
-Theo
Flawed assumption. This was written by Smith some 1830 years after the crucifixion. It is circlar logic to use it to prove it's inspiration.
I sure with the critics would try to come to a consensus on who wrote it.
In Search of Book of Mormon Geography at post 52.
I posted the link to Helland's
BOOK OF MORMON PROBLEMS in the post following yours.
Even mormon Apostle B.H. Roberts conceeds that one of the other writings in existance at the time, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnished structural material for the bom. Roberts admited that the evidence pointed in this direction:
It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin ... The material in Ethan Smith's book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon (B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992, p. 240).
In this case, it is a mormon with integrity who points to the clear evidence that smith et.al. came up with the material for the bom from existing sources, and not a mythical set of golden plates (that mormon history itself indicates were not used).
What he wrote was a work explaining how some geography theories as well as books like View of the Hebrews could lead to critics (like yourself) in denigrating the Church. He wrote this for the Church leadership giving them a heads up.
Some Anti Mormons actual dredge this up from time to time, (like today) claiming he lost his faith in the Book of Mormon. Funny stuff.
“Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.”
How does Roberts explain it?
You can get it here.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Studies-of-the-Book-of-Mormon/Brigham-H-Roberts/e/9781560850274
Can you please give me a summary of his explanation?
Book of Mormon Geography: Which Theory do you Believe?
_______________________________________________
None of them...
Harry Potter is more believable...
Joey Smith should have plagurized JK Rowling...
It’s not my argument. Ask whomever posted the snips from whatever anti Mormon site they got them from. Or read the whole thing. That’s your choice. I’m sure the intent of the purpose of out of context snips has been made clear.
Ping to #21 above.
I was wondering about the factual part of how Roberts gets from “Smith’s book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon” to “our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon.”
There would seem to be an explanation of the first statement required for the second. Perhaps not, perhaps Roberts doesn’t give one.
Is it just a “heads up” without an apologetic? I’m asking you because you seemed to have a dog in this hunt.
If you don’t know, that’s ok too, no problem. I’m just looking for information, not commenting on “intent of the purpose.”
I’m with you now. I think that’s a fair question. Roberts was an able scholar, and he was not afraid to play ‘devil’s advocate’ to strengthen the Church’s defenses against its critics.
It is lost as is Caprica
You are so funny L, please read my posts before jumping the shark. I never said Roberts ‘lost’ his faith (go back and read my post again. It will save you time from having lame strawmen exposed.
Secondly, Roberts words were cited, not an ‘anti’ interpretation of them. Nice of you to recognize Robert’s claim - that there are an abundance of parallels between “View to the Hebrews” and the bom. Roberts took about 100 pages alone to document the parallels.
If you weren’t saying as much, then I apologize. It seemed obvious to me, but I suppose I tend to do that with so much anti Mormon stuff here.
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.