Talk:Limited geography model/Archive 1

Article title

I'm pleased to see this subject addressed in its own article, and the content is above average, but I'm not sure the title is accurate. Although the limited geography model may predominate, the article also addresses alternative models. This is as it should be, at least until there are separate articles for the other models (if ever). So perhaps a more inclusive title would be "Book of Mormon geography models", or something similar.

The content of the article wouldn't need to change appreciably. The models could be described in order of preference among scholars. The Limited Geography Model would still be addressed in more detail, since more research is available.

Paul D. Anderson 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- my previous comment was mistaken. I thought the term "Limited Geography" meant the Mesoamerican model only. I stand by my other comments however. I still think the title is misleading and a more general "Book of Mormon geography ..." would be better. Paul D. Anderson 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree about the title - I had to think a lot about what to call it before I created it. There may certainly be something better. I could see that there was quite a bit of misperception regarding the "limited geography" on other pages, and there is just too much material to shoehorn it into the "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" page, which is already too large. A good example of the need for the page are the repeated comments regarding genetics in which people attempt to claim that the LGM was created in response to the genetic claims, when in reality the LGM predates the genetic issues by at least 25 years. If we were to call it "Book of Mormon geography models" (which is probably a pretty good title) then we would want to include a complete section on the Hemispheric Geography Model as well. Bochica 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right... The way I see it is this is an offspring of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon because of size constraints to specifically deal with the LGM (which is the predominant model, the only one with serious scholarly credence). I think the alternate theories need brief mention here for comparison and context, but that the other theories can be sufficiently addressed on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Since the other models haven't had nearly as much attention I don't think this article's focus should be pulled away from the LGM... Just my opinion... gdavies 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cumorah

As I read this article I had a big question that was never directly addresssed - that is, how does the limited geography model take into account the hill Cumorah being thousands of miles away in New York? 64.60.160.98

This is a good question, and I'll add some information about this when I get some time. According to the LGM, the final battles (both Jaredite and Nephite) occurred somewhere in Mesoamerica. There is a specific hill and location (I'll have to get back into the books to get the name and location). After the final battle, Moroni wandered for over thirty years (this is supported by the text of the BoM), and it is considered plausible that he reached the area in New York where the plates were buried. Regarding the "Hill Cumorah" in New York, it is interesting to note that this hill is a drumlin: a collection of glacial scrapings or "pile of gravel." As such, it is geologically impossible for the hill in New York to have any sort of significant cave of the type described as the repository for large quantities of Nephite records (or, by the way, for Joseph Smith to have "set up shop" to fabricate tin plates to fool the witnesses :-)). I'll be adding more to this article later, but please edit or add information (pro or con - whatever your particular POV is) as you see fit. Bochica 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, Mormon hid up the unabridged records (only a "one hundredth" or less of the material was included in the Golden Plates/Book of Mormon) in the Hill Cumorah, most likely the "Cerro Vigia" hill on the isthmus of tehuantepec (if I'm not mistaken), and then gave the abridged smaller set to Moroni, and these are the plates that ended up in New York. Smith or Rigdon named the (previously unnamed) hill near Smith's home "Cumorah" afterwards, although no claim is made that they were the same hill. gdavies 07:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm working on it. In addition to the hill, there is more to be added for the Tehuantepec model on the matches of other plausible locations, such as the Land of Nephi/Guatemala and the city of Jerusalem/Waters of Mormon/Lake Atitlan. Bochica 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the River Sidon has two candidates if I remember right, let's see... yes at Meridian's website they have Usumacinta and Grijalva as the two candidates, since it's described as flowing North (that narrows down the candidates a lot). The "strip of wilderness" runs east west according to the Book of Mormon, and the river Sidon is described as having it's head in the wilderness strip (Alma 22:29), strongly implying the "wilderness" was a mountain range. This also agrees with descriptions of the Gadianton robbers being both in the "mountains" and in the "wilderness". Because there are only 2 ranges in the Western Hemisphere (if I remember right) that run east west, and they're both in Guatemala/South East Mexico they've said that one or the other (or both) make up the "wilderness strip". Very useful website for this article... gdavies 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking Out Loud

I think we're making awesome progress on this article, and I was just envisioning where it's going to be when we're "done" (i.e. a few months down the road when major edits might start to slow). It seems like we're going to overlap a lot of material in the Archeology and the Book of Mormon article... There's a lot of gray area as to which article some material should be in (if we're wanting to avoid overlap... which isn't necessarily the case) such as the section (in A and the BoM) about the Olmecs, fauna, etc. There isn't a problem yet, but I was wondering what your thoughts on this might be. gdavies 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there will be a lot of overlap. My vote would be to fill out the sub-articles, and then pare down the information in the main "Archaeology and the BOM" article to the essentials. For now, however, I've been very careful not to remove much from the main article until the sub-articles are fleshed out. One thing I'd like to eventually do in the main article is to note in the individual sections that one can find certain information in the sub-article. This might avoid the issue that I see cropping up of editors adding information back into the main article that was already moved to or dealt with in detail in a sub-article (e.g. the Lemba in the Genetics section and the "narrow neck" in the LGM section - although I see that another editor eventually noticed the overlap with this article and removed that last one.) Some overlap is inevitable, but I think that we should be able to reach a good balance down the road. The same issue is true, by the way, with the main BOM article, which contains a lot of overlap with the Archaeology article, but I'm not even going to touch that one for a while. I actually prefer to build supporting articles and then work my way up, rather than down. Bochica 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! gdavies 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I just did some various edits, rearranged a little and hid an entire section. The section material (the Oceans) was covered in the "directions" section, so I thought it might be redundant. I was about to start adding more locations, but thought we could start a list here so we can get things organized before we put it all in. Thanks! gdavies 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are things that I've been planning to add:

- River Sidon

- Bountiful

- Land of the Jaredites/city of Lib

- How the Moroni and the plates could have gotten to New York

Bochica 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

- Land of Nephi - Guatemala City (if I remember right...)

- Narrow strip of Wilderness

I know there are several "maps" of the LGM, and I think that would be very useful in this article. Do you guys know of anywhere we could find one of these that we could use? gdavies 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, if we could find one whose owner would give the needed permission. My favorite is the one recently published by Garth Norman (I have a copy of the full size map). I wonder if he would give permission for a small, low res version (like the image of the map on his web site) to be used? Bochica 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

The Crazy Malay Peninsula Guy's link is dead. I think it should be fixed or, if nothing suitable can be found, removed.Metalrobot (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"qedemah mizrachah" means "before sunrise" - "east"

Please understand that I am not trying to offend anyone in reporting that Section 3.2 “Directions” misrepresents in a subtle but significant way, how ancient Israelites coordinated directions.

Sorenson argues that if an Israelite party stepped ashore in Central America with their backs to the Pacific Ocean, that this would readily and endemically established “west” for the party, even if the sea faced southward from the Central Americas coast. Sorenson would have us believe that because the Ocean was behind the disembarking Israelites, that the Hebrew word “yamah”, “seaward” in the New World would have designated “west” regardless of the direction of sunset. With the Pacific behind, “forward” would have designated “east”, according to Sorenson, even though this direction really points northward.

Quoting from Sorenson’s published work cited in Wikipedia:

“The Israelites of Palestine, in their most common mental framework, derived directions as though standing with backs to the sea, facing the desert. Yam ("sea") then meant "west," for the Mediterranean lay in that direction, while qedem ("fore") stood for "east." Then yamin ("right hand") meant "south," while semol ("left hand") denoted "north.” [Footnote: Beth Mikra 48(1971): 100-104.] In Palestine, this model coincided nicely with nature (the coast runs nearly north-south) and also proved neatly translatable to our European uses of the terms east, west, north, and south. (This was not the only model of directions in use among the Israelites, but it was the most fundamental, being deeply embedded in the language.)…” (Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, pg 38)

Sorenson cites a single Hebrew reference: a short article by S. H. Weingarten published in Beit Mikra that proposes how the “Red Sea” got its name. The article associates various colors with directions (dwelling on the colors of horses). There is nothing substantial in this article justifying Sorenson’s idea that migrating Israelites would have favored an inland orientation (from an arbitrary coastline) over sunrise in defining east. The article, in fact, makes repeated use of the Hebrew terms “mizrah” (sunrise, east) and “maarav” (sunset, west) which Sorenson does not mention. Sorenson continues:

“Suppose, for a moment, that you were with Lehi's party as it arrived on the Pacific coast of Central America. By western civilization's general present-day terminology, the shore would be oriented approximately northwest-southeast. When you said yamah, intending "westward," the term would mean literally "seaward," although the water would actually be "behind your back" to our southwest. Further, the first step you took inland, away from the sea, would be "eastward" ("to the fore," literally) in Hebrew; we today would say the motion had been northeastward. In the absence of a conscious group decision to shift the sense of their Hebrew direction terms by 45 degrees or more, the little group of colonists would have fallen into a new directional language pattern as their Semitic-language model encountered the new setting.”

I propose that the following clarification be added to the Wikipedia text:

The Book of Mormon requires us to ask how a colony of ancient Israelites would have coordinated directions outside Palestine. It is important to note that Hebraic scholars disagree with Sorenson’s interpretation of Israelite coordinates. Sorenson is correct in pointing out that the “sea” (seaward) in Palestine is locally west. “Sea” or “seaward” in Hebrew can substitute for “west” when referring to the Mediterranean Sea. Yehoshua (Joshua) 1:4 reads, “…as far as the great sea [Mediterranean] toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border.” However, Sorenson is incorrect in suggesting that Israelites outside of Palestine would have generally defined west standing with their backs to a sea. The Israelite coordinate system is based on the perceived movement of the heavenly quarters. East is therefore defined not by facing inland from an arbitrary coast, but by standing before the general direction of the rising sun. (מִזְרָח, Shemot (Exodus) 27:13, Devarim (Deuteronomy) 3:27, Yehoshua (Joshua) 11:3) It is facing sunrise that “before” defines east, the “right hand” directs south, the “left hand” directs north and “behind” becomes west. “Place of sunset” (מַעֲרָב) properly defines Israelite west outside of Palestine. (Tehillim (Psalms) 1-3:12, Yesha’yahu (Isaiah) 43:5) There is in fact an instance in Hebrew scripture in which “from the sea” may be translated “from the south”, possibly referring to the Arabian Sea. (Tehillim (Psalms) 107:3). See also Encyclopedia Judaica, MIZRAH; SUN.

Thank you. 132.190.12.40 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Glad tidings from Cumorah..."

Section 4 as of March 2, 2008, could be titled "Great Lakes setting according to Curtis (1988) and Aston (1998)". Anticipating that readers may wish the topic broadened and updated, with common objections reviewed in some detail and pith, the subject of Great Lakes settings has been revised.

Regards

Oneida NY (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Great Lakes setting section lacks the more neutral POV expressed in the rest of the article. It is quite interesting, but could probably be easily flagged as biased content. Criticisms, counter-claims, and hedges are bit jumbled, making it hard for a non-expert (like me) to sort it out. Might be better if criticisms were given their own paragraph instead of mingled so much with the positive claims.

Also, there seems one obvious criticism to the GL theory: sure it doesn't have to explain how the plates got to upstate New York, but it does have to explain how the land of original inheritance (The Land of Nephi) of a sea-travelled people ended up right smack in the middle of the eastern half of North American continent. Nephi and Lehi left from the Red Sea, so even landing on the East Coast USA seems strange, since the voyage would have been so much more direct with a Mediterranean sea departure, without having to circumnavigate the whole of Africa. But the landing issue aside, why would the people inhabit a land so far away from the coast!?! Like I said, I am no expert so there may be a textually plausible explanation, but it seems like an important question. -Adlib24 (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I for one agree that there should be some explanation in the section on the limited Great Lakes setting on how the land of “first inheritance” (extending to and including a place by a west sea (not necessarily salt water), Alma 22:28) is reconciled with an Atlantic crossing. Chapter Four of Olive’s “Lost Lands of the Book of Mormon”, I think, does a good job explaining this; as does the website bookofmormonpromisedland.com.

These sources and others, advance the idea that Lehi’s party kept close to shoreline for most of their voyage. They thus required fewer onboard supplies (stored fresh water etc.) compared to an extreme Indian Ocean and vast Pacific crossing. Having slain Laban, one of Jerusalem’s prominent residents, a flight into the southern wilderness (rather than to the populated Mediterranean coast) became rather expedient. Avoiding contact with potential adversaries, Lehi’s party eventually established themselves on a remote southeastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula, where they build a ship. From there they sail with the seasonal winds to, and along the coast of Africa. They are able to re-supply at any number of locations (e.g. the island of Grande Comore whose capital port city incidentally, has a Semitic name – “Moroni”). Bravely rounding the tempestuous Cape of Good Hope (they encounter frightful seas midway through their voyage), with the benefit of the prevailing winds and equatorial currents, they sail the shorter, more direct distance between the Old World and the New. They have enough fresh water stored onboard for the crossing. After crossing over to the Western Hemisphere, they sail northward near American coastline and chains of islands until the constellations and seasons are again familiar. Remember, these are Israelites intent on keeping the temperate seasonal ordinances of the Torah (the Biblical Promised Land is also in the Northern Hemisphere). They eventually (perhaps even with some spiritual significance, Helaman 3:29) sail up interconnected North American straits and waterways (the Mississippi, Ohio and Allegheny rivers) from the Gulf to within walking distance of a freshwater west sea (Lake Eerie). They finally settle just a few hundred miles from scriptural Cumorah (“in a land of many waters…” - the Finger Lakes region, D&C 128:20) Sailing along the African coast and across the Atlantic not only keeps them closest to coastline (and needed supplies) compared to an extreme Indian / Pacific crossing, it also provides a realistic route to lands just to the south and east of Lake Eerie (the proposed Book of Mormon “west sea, south”). Voyages across the Mediterranean and Atlantic to the St Lawrence channel favor arrivals in the Book of Mormon’s land northward, according to the limited Great Lakes setting. (Helaman 6:10)

Most of the limited geography article has the Mesoamerican setting at center stage. The section on the limited Great Lakes setting brings some thoughtful balance to the article. The limited Mesoamerican setting has evolved from the ideas of LDS who were strongly influenced by John Lloyd Stephens' 1841 bestseller, Incidence of Travel in Central America. Stephens' own conclusion that the Central American stone ruins which he and Catherwood documented were not of any great antiquity, went unheeded by excited LDS readers. Scholars of American History and 19th Century American literature agree that the original setting for the Book of Mormon is that of the mound builders of North America.

A segment on the land of first inheritance and the oceanic crossing has been added to the Great Lakes setting section.

comment added by Onondaga (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)