Talk:Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting

Merge from Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
There is an incredibly lengthy section in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon covering the "Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting", and does not really talk about any hard archaeological evidences. I think this is a clear cut case of merging this information into this article. Please chime in, and if you oppose, I would like to see a solid reason why.--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the updated merge discussion at Talk:Limited geography model --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Baja California
This minority opinion asserted by the Rosenvalls online may not be as notable as others, however if we retain the Malay theory (asserted by one author) I can't see eliminating this one. As for the lower three paragraphs, I simply added recent archeo info about people in the region. This could be documented if the material is determined to be applicable. WBardwin (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
The introductory paragraph previously stated that the Book of Mormon is scripture for the LDS Church. There are of course, other churches which belong to Latter Day Saint movement which also regard the Book of Mormon as scripture. A Wikipedia link has been added to the introductory paragraph clarifying this. I have also added a brief sentence on how mainstream academia views the Book of Mormon - citing authoritative sources.

Previously the article gave the impression that the LDS Church has always taken a non committal stance on such questions as the location of Lehi’s landing. Historical detail to the contrary, has been added to the reference.

The internal map section has been ameliorated and given a synopsis on the relationship between major lands and key geographic features, referenced in the Book of Mormon.

Kovesh (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While it is true that Orson Pratt’s Hemispheric model (with its Chilean landing proposal) appears to have prevailed with members of the First Presidency to the extent that Pratt’s ideas were actually published as footnotes in the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon; It is important to realize that there never was complete acceptance of this geography among other LDS. I have referenced the historical facts in the “Hemispheric models” section. Onondaga (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Central American models introduction I have added a brief historical sketch and reference material regarding the earliest proposed limited Central American geographies. Onondaga (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no proof that Joseph Smith dictated the “thirty degrees south latitude” statement. I have cited B.H. Roberts and other LDS Church authorities calling the unsigned document into question. Richards and Little redacted the statement, attributed it to Joseph Smith and published it in their A Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, 1882 edition. The shrapnel from deeds like this have never been fully dislodged from the brains of LDS members. I have corrected the allegation and provided a much needed reference. I also added the reference to Priddis on “South American Island” and “Andes upheaval theory”, and made minor corrections in the Internal map section. Onondaga (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article mentioned Rod Meldrum as a supporter of the Great Lakes setting. Last time I checked, Rod was a supporter of the Heart Land setting (greatly influenced by the work of Wayne N. May). This is not exactly the same as a Great Lakes setting. Any way - the word entrepreneur was misspelled. I have made some improvements to the Great Lakes section. Onondaga (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is much improved! I made a slight change to the wording of the Malay Peninsula paragraph. The 16,000 mile journey to the Americas with “no appropriate currents” refers to an Indian and Pacific Ocean crossing. If there is something you want to adjust in this section please don’t let my recent contribution keep you from it. Thanks! Kovesh (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made some minor language improvements, including in the Malay Peninsula section. Onondaga (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Added a reference from George Reynolds, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, calling into question (early on) the authority of the unsigned Sept 15, 1842 T&S article – the one asserting that Lehi landing “a little south of the Isthmus of Darien”. Also added more references at the end of the Hemispheric model section, just to show how “mainstream” this notion once was. Kovesh (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Internal map improvements
The recent note that “sea” is implied though not explicitly written for instance in Alma pg 388 (1830 edition) is a good call. I am dubious about the land Cumorah being dedicated only to battle. The text does not explicitly say this. The same goes for the claim about the south countries. We need to be careful with drawing such conclusions based on the lack of explicit statements. Onondaga (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made what I think are improvements to the section. Onondaga (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the capitalization (or not) of directions in the 1830 B of M. We should ask whether these indicators were originally in the manuscript, whether Joseph approved or was even made aware of them, or whether they are purely the result of the printer’s discretion. Why were they later removed? How do we know for certain the East Sea or else the West Sea were intended, if these are not explicitly mentioned? Maybe there was a swamp or some other geographic demarcation in the east and that is why we read “from the East to the West Sea”.


 * Also I perceive that the “land among many waters” found by the Limhi search party is adjacent to, in the same general region as, if not identical to “the land of many waters” where Cumorah resides. I see this as yet another instance showing the relative close proximity of Zarahemla and Cumorah – not thousands or even hundreds of miles apart! For goodness sake, the search party thought they had found Zarahemla! Kovesh (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This section needs a major overhaul.It appears biased towards a heartland setting. The internal geography should be able to be used independent of any external concept of were the events in the BofM took place. I intend to rewrite the section. Basing the rewrite around how the geography is structured in the Book of Mormon. — Preceding unsigned comment added bycontribs) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparable Finds in Northeastern America. No long journey involved.
I added references to non-LDS archaeologist Trento and LDS apologist Coon in the Central American model section discussing Moroni’s depositing of the plates. Onondaga (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's statements on Book of Mormon geography
Updated the “Joseph Smith’s statements…” section, in light of the recent word-print analysis claims. Kovesh (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead
I have no idea how to fix it, but the wording of the lead ("It is difficult to discuss the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon without either suggesting that the book is historical and set in real-world geography or suggesting that it is fiction. Either assumption carries profound implications for the claims of Joseph Smith, Jr. and the Latter Day Saint movement. To Latter Day Saints, the book is regarded as a historical record, whereas secular historians consider it to be fiction") is completely inappropriate. It violates WP:NOTESSAY and WP:WEASEL also. To put it bluntly, the wording is simply an embarrassed attempt to avoid stating that the Book of Mormon is fiction, and it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That pretty much sums it up. --Taivo (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * perhaps add a line at the end of the first paragraph saying something like "No non-Mormon scholars consider the events of the book compatible with archaeology or history." One hesitates to use the word "pseudoscience" but it would fit - the wiki article says "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method", the scientific method here being the one appropriate to archaeology, history, etc.--142.163.195.212 (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How many of these suggestions meet WP:UNDUE?
Which says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Some of these suggestions seem to have made no significant impact, eg Ralph Olsen's Malay theory. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hobby/Smith 1988
Tried adding: Source: Smith, Troy J. The War against Christianity: History and Geography of Ancient America in the Book of Mormon, 600-51 BC. Springville: Cedar Fort, 2016. Print.

This is new source material regarding the Hobby/Smith 1988 model by one of the original authors (Troy Smith). It is not self-published. It is not a questionable source. How does this violoate WP:RS?

Internal Map
It might be useful to include relative positions of the various cities described in the Book of Mormon. (If there are dual interpretations then include them both) For example:

Various issues: WP:UNDUE, lists of proponents, bad sourcing
I've raised WP:UNDUE above and just deleted a section for that reason. I've deleted a list of proponents in one section but there are many more in other sections. Normally we only list those with their own articles. We have sources that are dead links, sources that are not inline citations, etc. We have Hobby & Smith's self-published Zarahemla Quarterly. And that's being used with no explanation in the "Ricks pre-1921" subsection, which discussed a map that may have been ignored by the 1919 “Book of Mormon committee".

This article seems to have been edited often by a series of single purpose accounts with little to no knowledge of our guidelines and policies. I'm thinking it should be pruned. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Taivo (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the subsections, those giving only a source with little to no description, could be condensed into a couple of paragraphs comprising footnoted prose lists. Or just made into a Further Reading list, possibly sorted by “model“ as in the article sections.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Undue Weight Given to the Heartland Model
The Heartland Model, still a minority opinion in the Latter Day Saint movement, is given more discussion than Mesoamerican models, which have the vast majority of supporters, both academic scholars and lay members. The statements of Joseph Smith are written so as to fit the theory that he was a Heartland model advocate, while ignoring the many articles published, possibly by him, in the Times and Seasons, which suggested Central America could have been the location of Book of Mormon events. It supposes Joseph could have thought Nephites and Lamanites migrated south to Mesoamerica from the Great Lakes, but doesn't make mention of the opposing theory that small bands of Nephites and Lamanites migrated north from Mesoamerica to the Great Lakes. This theory actually has more support in the Book of Mormon itself since it speaks of many groups of people that left for the north and were never seen again. It also doesn't make mention of Brigham Young's comments regarding Moroni's journeys across the American Southwest on his way to the hill Joseph Smith found the plates in. I have no opinion on the Heartland model or the Mesoamerican model, but I do believe that the Heartland model has been given far too much undue weight in this article. Any thoughts from others? Jacobalbee (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Info from First Nephi
Hi, I'm cleaning up First Nephi and there's a section that discusses Lehi's family's journey. It doesn't really belong in the interpretations section, and I'm not sure where it does belong. I've pasted it below.

Book of Mormon scholars have been unable to determine the family’s exact traveling route; each scholar prefers a specific route. Former LDS Institute teacher Dave LeFevre admits that, while the families stayed in the Valley of Lemuel for some time after intermarrying, it is unclear for how long they did so. In her interpretation of the journey, Jana Riess explains that some scholars think it is possible that the actual journey took about a year, being slowed down to eight years by the family's afflictions. Still, she concedes that the text offers no proof to support such a claim. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)