Talk:Limited geography model/Archive 2

Merge proposal Apr 2009
The recently created article Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting seems to have the intention of covering pretty much the same ground as this already established Limited geography model one. As such much of the new article is largely redundant, not to mention less well-developed. Propose that anything salvagable from the new article be merged into this one.

I realise that there may be a case argued, that the scope of "Limited geography model" would not naturally include "hemispheric" models, which are mentioned in the new article. So possibly, the merger could go the other direction. However, this limited geography article is a much better one, it has been around for a while now and has a good deal of edit history that would otherwise be lost if it was merged (I think it would be best not to lose this edit history). Probably neither articles' titles are quite satisfactory anyway. Would leave it up to the discussion to determine the most appropriate article title for the merged product; whatever the outcome I don't see much value in sustaining two separate articles on this topic. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

--- I notice that there is a discussion at the top of this page about renaming this entry to the name I recently created. I think that would be a good idea. I like this article (LGT) but think the title reflects poorly on the actual content. When most people refer to LGT, they are generally referring to Mesoamerica, not other locations. Since this entry does discuss other locations, I think the title should reflect that, and I don't have a problem with renaming my newly created entry.

The purpose of my new entry is to "List" the authors of different theories (as well as show differences/discrepancies), which seems to be a different focus than this article. Perhaps someone could rename my article to "List of Book of Mormon Geography Theories" (or something similar), and then you can have my article title? I know someone did that for me already, and it kept the edit history intact.

Reds0xfan (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with Reds0xfan - I stumbled across this merge proposal when crafting my own. See below for an updated discussion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Several merge proposals - my take
There are two open merge proposals that have relevance to this article. 1) Merging Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting to this article 2) Merging Archaeology and the Book of Mormon to Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting.

Here is my take - this article is far more stable than Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting, and covers all of the relevant topics anyway (As RedS0xFan stated above.) I propose we merge all of the geographical setting content to this article. Once it has been merged, we should rename it to the formerly vacated title of "Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting". Please chime in.--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as proposed--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why 'setting' and not 'settings'? MOS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * I agreee "Settings" is more accurate.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge--I support merging the material into a single article, but after the merge, the name of the final article can be discussed further. Maybe it ought to be something like Book of Mormon and geography. CO GDEN  22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * merge as suggested the proposed settings article into this one (limited geography), and then find some suitable name for the resulting combined article. The geography section in the Archaeology & BOM article can then just be reduced to a precis of the contents here, with main article link. The Archaeology & BOM article shld just focus on the archaeological (lack of) evidence, without needing to delve into particulars re the various geog locales. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks! TheOtter (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * merge. We can work on an all inclusive title after the article layout and contents are combined.  WBardwin (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How 'bout Geography and the Book of Mormon (as in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon) as a title? WBardwin (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am for keeping the Limited Geography Model article and merging information from the Proposed Book of Mormon geography setting (should be settings) into it. The truth is, the Hemispheric setting is the result of carelessly reading the Book of Mormon (not paying attention to details about distances) and then looking up maps of the Western Hemisphere. Of course the first isthmus that caught our attention as kids was Panama, but the overall Hemispheric model is embarrassingly exaggerated and shows malice of forethought and a certain lack of attention to details in the sacred text. Still, I suppose we should have some references to exaggerated Book of Mormon geographies for historical reasons (showing how ideas have evolved) if nothing more. The main focus, I am convinced, needs to be on Limited Geographies. We do the public a disservice if we suggest or even encourage the notion that there is only one Limited Geography for the Book of Mormon. Good encyclopedias help to counter misconceptions. There are Mesoamerican limited geographies (plural) and there are also South American and northern American limited geographies for the Book of Mormon. As you may know, I stand with academia’s appraisal of the Book of Mormon fitting into the mound builder genre, but I believe in letting every one have a voice as long as things don’t get too ridiculous. For instance, I really think it is important for LDS to consider the Malay Peninsula theory in some detail and not because I think it is true. This brings up the point that you really can’t completely extricate the “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon” article from some reference to proposed settings. Sure elephants seem anachronistic for Jaredite times in the Western Hemisphere, but the Malay Peninsula theory gets a pass on this point. To do a good job, the archaeology of the separate proposed settings needs to be hashed out. The article sort of attempts this and maybe even does a pretty good job considering that Book of Mormon geography among LDS is a mass of confusion.

Perhaps we can keep the title “Limited Geography” and include some commentary and history up front on how Limited Geography came to be (i.e. paying attention to Book of Mormon details at last!) and how it is distinguished from gross hemispheric settings. I believe that the first limited Mesoamerican setting was proposed by an RLDS member in the 1900s. Of course the question may be asked, how limited is limited? Does May’s heartland setting qualify as limited? How limited are settings which have Moroni traveling thousands of miles to deposit the plates? For now I define limited as meaning not hemispheric. You can’t have Limhi’s search party setting out from South American and then mistakenly think they have found the ruins of Zarahemla near the Finger Lakes.

There I’ve gone on enough for now.

Kovesh (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK maybe I am opening a can of worms here - but I have to bite. You said, "As you may know, I stand with academia’s appraisal of the Book of Mormon fitting into the mound builder genre..." - you are kidding right? "Academia's" appraisal of the Book of Mormon alleges no such connection. One or two FARMS scholars or other Mormon enthusiasts may speculate, but archaeological research paints a very consistent picture about the history of this continent - and that picture has no place in it for the Book of Mormon or its alleged history - and the limited geographical setting is just as absurd as the hemispheric model. In any case, I will soon be slicing and dicing this article gratuitously based on the merge vote above.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to further explain: The Book of Mormon is classed by academia as a work of 19th century American literature, fittings into a distinct genre treating “the mound builders” of North America. Though academia does not recognize the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American scripture (I don’t see where anyone in the article or talk section has said that academia accepts the Book of Mormon as an ancient work), academia does recognize that the literary setting for the book, has to do with the “mound builders”, or the American mythology centered on “the mound builders”. In the 19th century there was a great deal of public interest in those mysterious peoples who built and left behind impressive works of earth and timber found throughout the northeastern United States. Numerous pieces were written on this subject. The annihilation of an advanced people by a more savage people is a common theme in this body of literature. Ancient encounters with “elephants” appear in the genre, and a host of other details that resonate with the Book of Mormon. So you accept the Book of Mormon as a work of 19th century literature - it still has a setting! Scholars who are genuinely interested in the book’s original setting have decided that the work attempts to portray “mound builder” societies of North America. Pick up almost any scholarly work on “the mound builders” and you are likely to find some comment on ideas about lost tribes of Israel, and various other theories that contributed to the American mythology of the time. The Book of Mormon is often mentioned as participating in “the mound builder” interest. All this predates Stephens’ and Catherwood’s discoveries of stone ruins in Central America. To objective eyes, the Book of Mormon clearly does not reflect these later interests. You may have lost any personal fascination for the Book of Mormon and now call it absurd, but those who are interested in its internal details, even as a 19th century work, recognize that its principle New World setting is geographically limited. For all I know, you may think various anachronistic books of the Bible equally absurd, but others (even professionals) still pay attention to and discuss biblical details. Some say the distinction between wines is lost on teetotalers. I for one find the Book of Mormon fascinating! In any event, I appreciate your willingness to try and organize a subject in which you may be disappointed, and for which you may now even have some distain.

Kovesh (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with statement above about the "hemispheric model" resulting from lack of attention to detail in the text. The hemispheric model was the dominant model assumed by early Mormons including Joseph Smith himself. The LGM model came about only recently, after Mormon apologists figured out a way to explain what had previously been viewed as evidence of the Book's inauthenticity: the fact that the distances and travel times don't add up. That doesn't mean that people previously didn't pay attention to the details--it just means that a new model was created to replace the old "accepted" model that the Book of Mormon was a history of the Native Americans. Given the conflict between (1) a literal but implausible reading of the text together with Smith's own statements, and (2) a less literal reading of the text that disagrees with early Mormon thought, but has plausible distance scales, most apologists today pick model #2. CO GDEN  20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please back up you statement by showing us one firsthand, verifiable statement by Joseph Smith supporting the Hemispheric Model. Please state the source. If you have a hard time coming up with something, I can point you to a piece of unverified hearsay published in the Juvenile Instructor – I actually have an old copy of the volume. The truth is many early LDS did not pay a lot of attention to Book of Mormon details about distances. I will take firsthand, verifiable statements by Joseph Smith and LDS scripture over the conjectures of others. Just because Orson Pratt, for instance, promoted a Hemispheric geography does not mean that he speaks for the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith.

Regards,

Kovesh (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph.  He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains." DHC 2:79-80.  Clearly, Smith believed that Nephites and/or Lamanites extended at least from the Atlantic to the Rockies.  This is also supported by a letter (June 4, 1834) he wrote to Emma around that time where he referred to the Great Plains as the "plains of the Nephites" and made reference to the "history of the Book of Mormon" of that area.  Perhaps even better evidence of Smith's view was the fact that so many "hemispheric model" article appeared in official church publications, sometimes under Smith's own editorship--meaning that he personally approved the articles for publication--and Smith never corrected or retracted any of these articles.  If he had any different ideas that what everybody else was saying in official church publications, particularly on such an important subject, he would certainly have spoken up. CO GDEN  17:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first two sources you cite. Although, it would have been good to point out that we have no firsthand account by Joseph Smith, of the “Zelph” revelation. Like the New Testament gospels, the “Zelph” accounts generally agree, but there are points of confusion and disagreement. Taken together we may conclude that Joseph Smith taught that “Zelph” was a descendent of Book of Mormon people and that he died in battle in North America. His remains were interred atop a North American mound. You seem to want to make something of “…the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains…” Joseph Smith probably believed that Book of Mormon peoples, or their descendents, traveled far and wide. This does not tell us much about the borders of the lands of Nephi, Zarahemla, Bountiful and Desolation. Archaeologists tell us that mound builder societies collected obsidian from as far away as the Rocky Mountains, and shells from the eastern sea board. You need to be careful with what you think you can conclude from the “Zelph” accounts.

You next cite a fine example of a firsthand statement by Joseph Smith – Bravo! But in all fairness, it doesn’t support your attempt to pin a two-continent setting on the Mormon Prophet. In his own handwriting, Joseph’s exact words read:“…wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionaly [occasionally] the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as proof of its divine authenticity…”

You might pay attention to LDS scripture which states that after the appearance of Jesus Christ to the Nephites, “…the people…spread upon all the face of the land…” (4 Nephi 1:23) We should not be surprised to find Joseph Smith identifying “plains of the Nephites” southwest of New York. Olive’s Great Lakes setting has Book of Mormon peoples migrating to locations outside the above mentioned Book of Mormon lands. You might want to look at Olive’s website (bookofmormonlands.com), if you haven’t already.

Now to your “better evidence”: You fail to give a specific reference just where you need it the most! That’s ok; there are those who know the source material well. Even I can probably guess what you are referring to. If I don’t guess the articles you have in mind, I trust you’ll let me know. First let me point out that early LDS brethren had different, even conflicting ideas about Book of Mormon geography. Joseph apparently tolerated this, but he refused to take responsibility for things published (even with his name on the newspaper), that did not come under his supervisions. See Times and Seasons, March 15, 1842. Joseph refused to take responsibility for the previous Feb. 15 issue which was published in his name. You seem to imply that “every body else was saying” the same thing in terms of Book of Mormon geography. You haven’t done your homework here. Just because we don’t have a certified comment from Joseph Smith on: Manti in Missouri, Lehi’s landing in Chile, Lehi’s landing just south of Panama, the narrow neck of land embracing Central America, Zarahemla at Quirigua, etc., does not mean that he endorsed these conflicting ideas. Joseph at the very least had resolved that Book of Mormon events took place in his own country. He clearly states this! Beyond this he allowed the Saints to use there faculties, speak their minds, and to some extent, disagree. (Judges 19:30) If Joseph had taught the hemispheric model as an oral tradition, then how do you account for early stalwarts like Apostle John E. Page publishing a non-hemispheric setting for the Book of Mormon! Page clearly did not agree with the gross geography of his contemporary Orson Pratt (who apparently did not attribute his geography to Joseph Smith or to revelation). How do you account for LDS in the late 1830s, placing the southern Nephite land (Manti) in the United States? Page tried hard to force a geographic fit between teachings of the Prophet and LDS scripture, and the sensational finds described in Stephens’ 1841 bestseller? Personally, I think one of these sources has to go! If you want the best sources on the subject, go to Joseph Smith’s authentic statements, and LDS scripture. If you can’t find it there – maybe you should stop torturing the subject.

The articles I believe you are referring to were published in the Times and Seasons in the fall of 1842. These articles are not only inconsistent with the Book of Mormon (can’t even cite the right Book of Mormon character in one instance), they are inconsistent with themselves. There is no evidence whatsoever that these articles were intended to be anything more than provocative press highlighting John Lloyd Stephens’ bestseller. They are not LDS scripture!

The first of these articles (Sept 15) has the Book of Mormon’s “narrow neck of land” embracing all of Central America. This article is followed by another in the same issue that has Lehi landing a little south of Panama. The last of these unsigned articles, published Oct.1, anachronistically places Zarahemla at the ruins of Quirigua. If Zarahemla is at Quirigua, then all of Central America cannot be the narrow neck north of Zarahemla. More than one author probably contributed to these pieces, hence the use of the first person plural (Joseph Smith is mentioned in the third person in one article). It happened that the sensational Quirigua (Zarahemla) article came out in the same issue as a letter to the Church from the prophet in hiding! In his epistle to the Church, Joseph Smith designates the general location of Cumorah (Finger Lakes region). Joseph was publicly absent when he wrote the letter. For his own safety, he kept away from the public eye for most of that fall. He turned over his public responsibilities to others. (D&C 127) Yes, Joseph was still the official editor of the newspaper - in name! Historians believe that the acting editor may have been John Taylor. Joseph was burdened with far greater concerns. Read his official resignation as editor. (Nov. 15, 1842) None of the dubious fall articles end with Joseph’s “Ed”. If you really want to know what Joseph Smith believes relative to Book of Mormon setting, study the earlier 1842 editorials that end with his “Ed”. There is absolutely no proof that Joseph Smith personally approved any of the unsigned fall 1842 articles. I’m tired of seeing this poorly researched rumor propagated. Matthew Roper for one gets it right, in not attributing the unsigned 1842 fall articles to Joseph Smith. Roper attributes them to acting editor John Taylor.

As far as reproving those who carried on with the newspaper in his public absence, Joseph was probably more inclined to overlook their follies and to thank them! If Joseph had felt it important to publicly endorse one or more of the sensational articles he could have simply signed them with his “Ed” as he had the articles that he previously edited. Alternately, if it were important, he could have had them published when he felt safe to resume public life. There is no mention of any of these unsigned articles or their subjects in his journal. His fall epistle to the Church signed in his name and referencing Cumorah, is there!

To those who seek the best sources, Joseph reinforced the location of Cumorah in his canonical 1842 epistle. (D&C 128) If you pay attention to the Book of Mormon, it becomes clear that the land Cumorah, in a land of many waters, where the Jaredites were destroyed, cannot be thousands of miles distant from the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla. It’s that simple! Remember the search party Limhi sent out? What land did they suppose they had found?

Now I will be fair with you and call STRIKE ONE! I asked you for one firsthand, verifiable statement by Joseph Smith endorsing a hemispheric setting, and you have not delivered. Instead, the two sources you have referenced so far, involve North American mounds.

But thanks for your response. Kovesh (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Things Joseph Smith Probably Never Said!
The following is a short list of statements that at one time or another have been hastily attributed to Joseph Smith:

(1)	 The William’s document stating that Lehi “…landed on the continent of South America in Chili [Chile] thirty degrees south Latitude.” (Written sometime between 1836 and 1845) Even though there was no proof that Joseph Smith was responsible for this document, more than one church authority published it as a revelation to Joseph Smith the Seer. Later, a more thoughtful analysis of the document by other LDS authorities tried to set the record straight. (“ROUTE TRAVELED BY LEHI AND HIS COMPANY”, The Instructor, Vol. 73, No. 4, April 1938, pg 160) Incidentally, the proposed landing site is essentially the same as the one promoted in Orson Pratt’s hemispheric model. Pratt essentially admitted the landing site was based on speculation not revelation. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, pg 325)

(2)	The unsigned Times and Seasons article (September 15, 1842, Vol. 3, pp 921-922) stating that Lehi “…landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien…” (Far to the north of temperate Chile) Even though the original article mentions Joseph Smith in the third person, the above statement was inserted among the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith’s assistants in the Historian’s Office of the Church. This has tended to give the statement more weight than it deserves. Careful scholarship has concluded that all of the fall 1842 Times and Seasons articles, featuring extracts from John Lloyd Stephens’ popular book, were written by someone(s) other than Joseph Smith – possibly John Taylor was involved. (“Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations”, by Matthew Roper, section titled “John Taylor’s View”, BYU Maxwell Institute, 2004) The fact is the prophet spent much of that fall in hiding or keeping a low public profile (See D&C 127, 128) and had discharged his responsibility for the newspaper to others.

It is interesting to note that articles which we know Joseph Smith personally edited (they end with his “Ed”) clearly relate the setting for the Book of Mormon to discoveries surrounding the mounds of North America. A southern migration seems to be implied in two of the articles, but Joseph Smith (editor) never once states that Book of Mormon lands are to be found in Mexico and Central America. (Times and Seasons, 1842, Vol. 3: May 2, pg. 781; June 15, pg. 818; July 15, pg. 858; Oct 1, pg. 935) Joseph Smith had read Stephens’ volumes previous to writing these articles. Based on the content of these articles alone, no hemispheric setting is deducible.

(3)	Prior to all the excitement over John Lloyd Stephens’ 1841 bestseller (documenting Central American stone ruins) some LDS held the belief that the stake of Zion in Randolph County, Mo, was near “…the ancient site of the City of Manti…” (Millennial Star “History of Joseph Smith,” May 13, 1854, Vol. 16, pg 296) This idea was not clearly instigated by Joseph Smith, though some (such as Wayne May, editor of Ancient American) suggest that it was. It is interesting to note, however, that Manti in the United States is incompatible with a Central or South American Zarahemla. Zarahemla is north of Manti! As far as I can tell, Orson Pratt was one of the first to propose a hemispheric model. This is not clearly the geography perceived by other Mormons in 1838.

(4)	History of the Church (Vol. 5, pg 44) takes a statement from Joseph Smith’s journal (Saturday, June 25, 1842), originally written by Willard Richards (clerk), redacts it in the first person as if Joseph actually penned it, and then adds a statement about Stephens and Catherwood “…collecting in the interior of America a large amount of relics of the Nephites, or the ancient inhabitants of America treated of in the Book of Mormon...” This statement was not made or dictated by Joseph Smith, but it is easy to see how readers (not investigating the source material) would get that impression.

(5)	The 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon with speculative footnotes by Orson Pratt. Previously, Pratt’s hemispheric setting competed with other settings, all of them exaggerated in some way, though not all hemispheric. Pratt’s geographic ideas were definitely not accepted early on by all Church authorities. Pratt, however, eventually succeeded in imposing his geographic ideas in the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon. His footnotes were later removed.

I hope this helps!

Onondaga (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Malay Peninsula
Given the relatively sketchy nature of this idea, and the small amount of space in the article, would it be better addressed in two sentences or so in the intro section? WBardwin (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it needs more details, and I am happy to add them, if you would like. Reds0xfan (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Olsen the only published proponent of the idea? If there is another scholar/writer supporting the idea, expansion would make sense to me.  WBardwin (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Olsen (the originator) is the only advocate that I know of. There may be others who wonder in silence. I too am for more details on this setting. I think that would be great! I believe that the setting shows how it is possible to drum up supportive evidence for a “Book of Mormon setting”: matching geographic features, animal species, artifacts, even place names with just one problem - its location! I guess this sort of makes me an unbelieving proponent of the setting. I think it teaches us something important about evidence and conclusions. If the Malay Peninsula were in the place of Florida, I think a lot of Central and South American setting advocates would drop their models in a heartbeat!

Kovesh (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If this idea is only pushed by one individual, we will want to be careful about over-covering it, in light of WP:UNDUE. ClovisPt (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. I believe that a little more detail on the Malay Peninsula setting could be given without de-emphasizing the literary setting accepted by academia.

Kovesh (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A Feasible Voyage
Earlier, a request was made for clarification on how Lehi arrived in the vicinity of the Great Lakes according to advocates of that setting. I have added a map to the section. Kovesh (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Added an additional reference to the Great Lakes Setting section on the topic of the three days of darkness. Kovesh (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated and added additional referenced to the Great Lakes setting section.Kovesh (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"narrow neck", "narrow passage"
The section "Moroni and the final resting place of the plates" previously said that the Book of Mormon states that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place near the narrow neck of land. I have provided scriptural references showing that certain last battles of the Nephites occurred near "the narrow passage" or "narrow pass". This “narrow passage” is clearly not a wide isthmus. The sentence was phrased to suggest that the proximity of an isthmus or narrow moraine to the land Cumorah, rules out the site in Western New York as a candidate for the last great struggle of the Nephite nation. I have provided references to the contrary. Onondaga (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference in the “narrow neck of land” section explaining that the book of Mormon nowhere states that “the narrow neck of land” was a day and a half’s journey across. This distance relates to a line of demarcation between the northern land of Desolation and the more southern land of Bountiful. (Alma 22:32) The Mesoamerican Isthmus of Tehuantepec is so wide that advocates of this setting are forced to place the entire Desolation / Bountiful line within “the small neck of land”. Kovesh (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Beside the introduction, I have contributed to the following sections:

“Limited geography and Book of Mormon population”, “Matching the Book of Mormon model to existing geography”, “Mesoamerican setting”, “Existence of ancient system of writing”, “Position of oceans” (which I more accurately titled “Position of seas”), "The "narrow" neck of land".

The arguments put forward in these sections tended to be one-sided. Onondaga (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Made contributions to several of the smaller sections: "Determining plausible locations for cities and events", "Waters of Mormon" and city "Jerusalem", "Location of the final battles of the Lamanites and the Nephites", "Moroni and the final resting place of the plates". The purpose of these contributions is the same as before - "better subject balance".Onondaga (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)