So, which of these theories sounds most plausible to you?  I’ve studied quite a few, and am aware of both strengths and weaknesses of many of the theories.  I’d love to hear what you think.

I thought I’d post the more egregious errors here, instead of going section by section as I had originally intended to do.  I just checked the site, and got a chuckle out of this little exchange:

On May 29th, 2008 reds0xfan (not verified) says:

I’ve searched all over your website, and can’t understand your rationale for why the lands are 75 x 120 miles wide. Please provide a reference as to how you came to this conclusion. Saying “Please read the site, it is very clear.” is not helpful. Please be more specific as to what page(s) you are referring to.

On May 29th, 2008 admin says:

Measure Erie, PA to Rochester, NY.

You call that justification?  In the “Errors” section, you said people should figure the internal map first, and then you did just the opposite.  Puhleeez.

Here are some unanswered questions of the theory, along with some other points.

1. Is seismic activity normal for NY?  A catastrophic earthquake from 2000 years ago would provide great evidence for your theory.  Does the evidence exist?
2. The website never addresses the issues of cement.  The author says that the only extravagant building mentioned is Noah’s palace, but Nephi says his temple was after the manner of Solomon’s temple.  Shouldn’t a cement building last longer than wood?
3. Lake Tonawanda is from wrong time period.  10,000 BC is not same as 600 BC.
4. The author calls Genessee River Gorge a “sea.”  Seems more like a river….
5. Where are bones from last battles?  Mass graves?  Weapons?
6. Why did Moroni bury plates in a war zone (Cumorah)?  Wouldn’t it have been easier/safer to bury them away from the fighting?
7. The author attacks Evolution, when he means to attack Carbon Dating.  Evolutionists didn’t create carbon dating, chemists did.  He is attacking the wrong scientists when he says mammoth is from 600 BC not 10,000 BC.  Whether he chooses to attack evolutionists, or carbon daters, he’s not just fighting uphill, he’s fighting up a cliff.
8. Does Geology say Niagara Falls rose/fell 2000 years ago?  I don’t think so.
9. Archaeological Evidence Section should be renamed “Archeological Speculation”.  There is absolutely no evidence in this section.  Perhaps it is plausible, but a prosecutor would be fired if he referred to these things as evidence.
10. “pre-historic stone age savage” does not describe the more civilized Nephites/Lamanites who fought with iron.
11. Seneca and Iroquois do not date to BoM times.  I know you did not mean to imply this, but it is easy for the reader to make this leap.
12. Where is the evidence for barley, wheat, other grains?
13. Why is there no mention of DNA evidence?

I’m happy to discuss these problems, but it seems like the crickets are chirping too loud for me to hear any rebuttals…

Here is Part 4 of a review of http://www.bookofmormongeography.info

“Amazing” is a new section, which didn’t exist a few months ago when I began researching this theory.  The author tries to make the Book of Mormon match NY geography, instead of first coming up with an internal model, and seeing if NY fits.  He makes the following claim:

The only extravagant building mentioned in The Book of Mormon is a “palace.” Wicked king Noah built one:

And he also built him a spacious palace, and a throne in the midst thereof, all of which was of fine wood and was ornamented with gold and silver and with precious things. (Mosiah 11:9)

The main difference between Noah’s palace (Which was built in weeks and months not generations.) and those cited above, is that it was made of wood. Wood does not last thousands of years. There will not be ruins left to either photograph or to walk in, and geographers should not expect to find any since they were ALL DESTROYED in the last battle. (Mormon 5:5)

Apparently, the author either doesn’t know about, or is ignoring the following scriptures from the Book of Mormon.

Helaman 3: 7, 9, 11

7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.

• • •

9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

• • •

11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

Yes, these are not palaces, they are entire cities. Cement is much more durable than wood. It is interesting to note that Helaman occurs before the visit of Christ, so cement buildings (could it also be translated adobe?) were around, and could conceivably be found, and many have been found in other possible sites.

It seems that the author is trying to shoehorn the Book of Mormon into NY, rather that seeing where the evidence leads. I have another question? If Western NY is the site of Book or Mormon lands, where did Nephi land? The shortest route seems to be near Boston, or perhaps Plymouth, Massachusetts. Or is it Manhattan? Or did they come up the St Laurence river in Canada? (No, that would be heresy according to his theory, because he wants nothing to do with Canada.)

Why is he silent on this point of his theory? This is an important consideration, which it seems he is ignoring.

Also, all of the artifacts found in NY are stone age artifacts. These artifacts, flint arrowheads, basic tools are nowhere near elaborate as the palace listed that he references Mosiah 11:9. This palace, even though made of wood, was “ornamented with gold and silver and with precious things.” What happened to the gold, silver and precious things? Should we not find these artifacts, even if the wood building was destroyed? Where is the evidence?

The author is making a statement that they are not found because they were destroyed. However, the Lamanites would have not have destroyed “gold and silver and with precious things” (as mentioned in Mosiah), because they were valuable. After all, the Lamanites were known for robbery, and desired many things of the Nephites. They would not only have kept the gold, but would probably have used it for their own purposes.  They did not have the technology to vaporize gold and silver.

The author is trying to tell us that there can be no evidence found. This is completely wrong. He is trying to make this claim, because the archaeology does not support his theory.

As for the only “palace” mentioned in the Book of Mormon was King Noah’s, don’t you think the temple is pretty important, and ornate as well?  There are at least 20 references to temples in the Book of Mormon.  Let’s look at these references:

Mosiah 2:1

1 And it came to pass that after Mosiah had done as his father had commanded him, and had made a proclamation throughout all the land, that the people ^agathered themselves together throughout all the land, that they might go up to the ^btemple to ^chear the ^dwords which king Benjamin should speak unto them.

2 Ne. 5: 16

16 And I, Nephi, did ^abuild a ^btemple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of ^cSolomon save it were not built of so many ^dprecious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s ^etemple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of ^fSolomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Jacob 2: 2, 11

2 Now, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, according to the ^aresponsibility which I am under to God, to ^bmagnify mine office with ^csoberness, and that I might ^drid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God.

Hel. 3: 9

9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in ^atents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their ^bsynagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

I agree with the following point:

no buildings, no homes, nothing else. Which is exactly what we find all over Western New York.

This statement weakens this theory; it does not strengthen the author’s position.  Either do some real research and update these problems, or realize that NY does not fit the Book of Mormon.

The author has a Welcome section which we reviewed earlier, and this is the second section (called Errors), detailing what the author finds as Errors many other have made.  (I am going to refer to the author as “he” from now on–I’m not sure if the author is a he or she, and he so far prefers to stay anonymous, except has posted here as BOMC.)

This section has both parts that I agree with, and parts I disagree with.  Let me quote:

[People have been randomly choosing areas of geography for which they then try to force a scriptural interpretation into that is not congruent with what the scriptures say. The internal geography must first be known and respected before choosing a geographical area.]

I agree, but the author makes absolutely no attempt to show us his internal geography.  It looks like he is falling into the same error he accuses others of making.

According to Joseph, the angel said it gave:  “…an account of the former inhabitants of this continent. (Joseph Smith History v.34)”

This is a problem for anyone choosing a setting other than North America, so he makes a very valid point here.  Central and South America proponents have to stretch the geography to cover Moroni’s quote here.

a. The angel said “this land” meaning Western New York.

I’m willing to go along with this proposition, as it is critical to the author’s theory, and quite believable, but the Book of Mormon does not say “New York”, so there is a pretty big assumption here that is certainly subject to dispute.

b. The Book of Mormon said it covers a limited geographical area, approximately 75 miles x 120 miles.

Ok, where are the references?  It’s not that I dispute this fact, but where is your internal geography?  My guess is that the author is relying on Sorenson or another author’s internal maps, but the author makes no attempt to acknowledge where this information came from.  Why not 30 x 40 miles, or 300 x 400 miles, or any other dimensions?  This point is completely unsubstantiated.  Mind you, I don’t necessarily disagree with his dimensions, but I do ask where are these dimensions coming from?  Please make your internal geography known.

c. The angel was referring to the land or continent as he knew it when he lived there. Back then, Western New York was surrounded by water. (Our maps show this.)

Once again, where is the internal geography?  As we will see later, he uses extinct bodies of water to support this claim, specifically Lake Tonawanda.  While it is clear the lake existed 10-12000 BC, it is highly likely that the lake had dried up during the Book of Mormon period.  Also, why can’t you supply us with a map at this point?

d. Nephi said he believed they were on an “isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20), and the Lord referred to them as being upon an “isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 29:7). [This excludes large geographical areas, or areas not surrounded by water.]

Valid point.

Geographers must show how the land in their model was surrounded by water, AND, how it was small FROM EYE LEVEL – so small the inhabitants thought they were on an ISLAND. No other modelers even acknowledge this mindset, let alone have models surrounded by water. Western New York was.

Apparently, the author is not familiar with some of the South American models, or the Malay model, as there are some theories that acknowledge this fact.  Also, as I mentioned before, Lake Tonawonda was probably dried up during the Book of Mormon period, so his model would exhibit the same flaw he sees in other theories.

3. LAND OF PROMISE

Book of Mormon enthusiasts want to claim the ruins in Mesoamerica AND the greatness of the United States of America as their own, but they can’t have it both ways. If America is fulfilling Book of Mormon prophecy then IT is the land where Book of Mormon events took place, and the land where God made His promises.

Valid point.

The promise that a New Jerusalem would be built upon Book of Mormon lands was already fulfilled with the Albany Plan of Union by Benjamin Franklin and the Iroquois Nation. The idea that one would be built in Missouri because Joseph said so has no bearing on this fact.

Please expound.  There is a link, but it does not adequately address this issue.  Are you referring to Jerusalem, NY, population 4525?  Interesting, but where’s the temple, and the jews?  This hardly fits the description of the New Jerusalem described by Joseph Smith.  Just because a city is named Jerusalem, does not make it THE New Jerusalem…..

The author then launches into volcanoes.  When Christ came to America, there was smoke, and darkness that “could be felt.”  Many scholars have speculated that this could describe a volcano.  The author disputes this fact that volcanoes caused this, and makes a claim that some spiritual experiences caused the individuals to quake, and tremble.  True, but what about the smoke and fire?

b. Volcanic destruction would have been widespread, whereas God wanted the destruction to be selective. The geographic boundaries of Nephite lands were small and volcanic eruptions could not explain the selective damages:

Look, nobody can predict damages.  Tornadoes destroy neighborhoods, and then leave 1 or 2 houses in tact.  My grandmother’s house was spared during the Teton Dam flood in Idaho in the 1970′s, but most of her neighbors houses floated away or were severely damaged.  I disagree with this line of reasoning.

d. The rivers and seas were untouched. If there had been ash, they would have turned to mud, and become polluted affecting the crops, animals, and areas of habitation. There is no mention of any of this.

The BM also doesn’t mention snow, but BOMC made fun of this when I mentioned it. You can’t have it both ways (unless your the author of the theory, and you choose to ignore unhelpful facts.)

As you can see up to this point, there are Errors in this “Errors” section the author fails to acknowledge.  I could go on, and will if needed, but at this point I’ll try to summarize, instead of go point by point.  Here’s some stuff I agree with:

11. CARDINAL POINTS
12. POPULATION
15. SEAS
17. WOODEN SWORDS

Everything else he lists is either wrong, or highly disputable.  In a later section he tries to take on Evolution when he really should be taking on Carbon Dating.  Either way, he’s already turned off the scientific community, and any other person who might try to take his theory seriously.

Let me restate my position here.  I do not deny that the Book of Mormon could have taken place in NY.  However, this theory is as full of holes as the Mexican-American immigration border.

First of all, there is a very interesting perspective, mentioned in bold on the website. **The doctrine of the Mormon Church has no basis in The Book of Mormon, and the two should be held separate.**

That got my attention.

The author goes on to list some websites to try to get others to convert to his/her brand of theology.

Then, these 2 questions:

First a challenge to Book of Mormon enthusiasts:

If you are unable to learn the Theology of The Book of Mormon, what chance is there you will be able to learn the Geography?

And to Book of Mormon skeptics:

If you are unable to recognize the promptings of the Holy Spirit, what chance is there you will be able to recognize the truth of The Book of Mormon? John 16:13

So, the author attacks both “enthusiasts” and “skeptics”, right off the bat. It seems he is more interested in arguing his own brand of Book of Mormon theology, than on scientifically backing up claims. While this is certainly the author’s prerogative, it does not make good science, as we will see in my future posts on this topic.

If you dare to disagree with any of the author’s conclusions, he/she can be quite combative, and is quite “unwelcome” to those questioning hisher beliefs. While wanting us to “**Respect the Boundaries of The Promised Land.**”, he/she often does not respect people who question his/her conclusions. So much for “Welcome.” A kinder, gentler approach would be much more persuasive, but it appears he/she is more adept at “arguments” than “persuasion.”

The author then uses some interesting analogies:

The promise God gave Nephi that The Land of Promise would remain hidden to non-believers is just as true today as it was 2600 years ago:

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given (Book of Mormon doctrine.), it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations (Theorists);….

The true believers have discovered the true geography of The Book of Mormon, while others have been turned over to a false geography they cannot understand. This is analogous to what happened to the Jews:

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness (Like Geographers deny what The Book of Mormon says.), and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand (Statements by Joseph Smith.). Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. (A forced Mesoamerican or Mississippi River setting.) And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. (Jacob 4:14)

I find these analogies very tenuous. This is not what Jacob was talking about, and to try to stretch is to cover Book of Mormon geography is too great of a stretch.

The author then says something I actually agree with:

Those who espouse the Mesoamerican or Mississippi River setting for Book of Mormon geography have a vested interest in the theory. It goes like this:

Joseph made certain statements + Joseph was not wrong = The Mormon Church is true.

However, if Joseph’s statements were wrong, they fear the formula would look like this:

Joseph made certain statements + Joseph was wrong = The Mormon Church is not true.

We do not follow this logic. Joseph was supposed to bring forth The Book of Mormon – which he did do, but he was not an expert on its contents. The many contradictory doctrines he taught are evidence he did not write the book, nor follow it.

I agree with his outline of some of these outlines of peoples beliefs, but I do not subscribe to them. Some call this “binary thinking.” While binary thinking has its place, I think that religion is generally much more complex than to lump it into true/false.

Certainly, Joseph Smith made some contradictory statements regarding Book of Mormon Lands, but I do not subscribe to either of these propositions. I think the statement could look like this:

Joseph made certain statements + Joseph misinterpreted some things + Joseph was right about other things = The Mormon Church is true.

Anyway, while this wraps up the “Welcome” section, I just wanted to note some of the areas where this theory is silent on, that I wish the author would add.

1. How did Nephi cross the Atlantic?
2. How do you resolve DNA issues?
3. What happened to Hagoth?
4. What linguistic analysis has been done?

Finally, it seems that the author is quite familiar with the NY area. However, most of us are not. It would be nice to explain many issues, landmarks, etc that he assumes the reader is familiar with. I am not familiar with NY. I suspect others are not familiar with NY either. Also, it appears he addresses most of his theories to “enthusiasts”, and does not adequately address “skeptics”. Further explanations for “skeptics” would help many people better appreciate his research.

]]> http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/05/18/unwelcome-to-ny-geography-theory-part-2/feed/ 7 http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/05/05/book-of-mormon-ny-geography-theory-part-1/ http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/05/05/book-of-mormon-ny-geography-theory-part-1/#comments Tue, 06 May 2008 06:18:37 +0000 Mormon Heretic http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/05/05/book-of-mormon-ny-geography-theory-part-1/ Ok, for those who follow my blog (both of you ), you’ll notice that I have an interest in Book of Mormon Geography.  While I am open to many theories, so far the only one that has generated any interest is a theory placing the Book of Mormon lands in the New York area.  The website is found at http://www.bookofmormongeography.info/, and is self-titled, “True Book of Mormon Geography.”

My first disclaimers are that I am certainly no expert on the subject of Book of Mormon geography, so I may come to good or bad conclusions.  I will say that I study the subject more than the average person, and I am  familiar with the various theories.  We discussed them here, if you would like to review them.

Here are some of the major categories that the website has:

1. Welcome
2.  Errors
3. Amazing
4. Prerequisites
5. Cumorah
6. West Sea
7. Land Northward
8. Sea North
9. Land Southward
10. Narrow Passage
11. East Sea
12. Land Southward
13. Narrow Passage
14. East Sea
15. Bookstore
16. Read
17. Rodney Meldrum

First, I noticed that BOMC (or whomever is in charge of the site) has been updating it.  The bolded topics are the ones I printed out a few months ago.  I will endeavor to stay updated with him/her.

I have had some interesting conversations with BOMC, who is representing the site.  I would like to give an impartial analysis of the information he/she presents, over the course of the next few months.  We have had some spirited discussions (sometimes heated), but I would like BOMC to know first of all, that I greatly admire his research, as well as his fortitude in putting his opinions on the internet.

For my first post on the topic, I would like to be somewhat biased, and state the things that I admire.  While I don’t agree with everything on the site, I want to put forth some of the positive things I like, so as to not appear overly antagonistic.  I also do this so that BOMC knows that I really am trying to be impartial, as I fear that he/she thinks that I have poor opinions of the site.  While I know that the negative things will probably draw many more comments, let it be said that I do like many things in his/her theory.  (BOMC, please let me know if you are a he or a she, so I can use the proper pronoun.) 

Things I like:

1. BOMC starts with the premise that since Joseph found the plates in New York, then the Book of Mormon lands must be nearby.  While this idea was probably very popular in Joseph Smith’s day, the research of many has generally discounted this idea.  I think this is a logical conclusion, and needs to be explored to see the validity.
2. BOMC says the seas mentioned in the Book of Mormon refer to some of the Great Lakes.  While many may question this premise at first blush, it is evident that the Great Lakes are much larger than the Sea of Galilee, the Dead Sea, etc, so this is actually a plausible option.  It is definitely worth an in-depth look at this theory.
3. BOMC makes many references to Moroni saying that the Book of Mormon is a record of the people of this continent, and that the prophecies in the BM about the Gentiles being a great nation, which scatters the Lamanites, do not really refer to Mexico or other nations.  While I see that there are other interpretations of these scriptures, I tend to agree that BOMC’s interpretation is probably the most logical conclusion.

So, with that brief introduction, I plan to post more on this topic in the coming weeks and months.  I do want to let everyone know that I will be out of town for the next few days, and probably won’t have easy access to internet, so please be patient for me to respond.

In the latest email they sent, is a link where they discovered a stone box, similar to the one that Joseph Smith described when he discovered the Golden Plates. The link is a Word doc, and shows some pictures.

They also have a link to the Archaeological History of New York. The link shows that carbon dating has been done, and reviews the various groups. The closest group to the Jaredite time period would be the Laurentian Culture, which existed about 3000 BC, but it seems this group was not as advanced as the Jaredite culture appears to be in the Book of Mormon. The Hopewellian Culture appears to be the best match for the Nephite time period.

In an earlier post on Book Of Mormon Geography, in the comments we discussed the New York Theory. While I intend to give a more formal review in the coming weeks, I just want to mention that the theory at True Book of Mormon Geography relies heavily on Iroquois archeology. However, the link above, taken from Sept 1952, implies that the Iroquois didn’t inhabit the NY area until 1200 BC, which is roughly 700 years after the Book of Mormon. It seems that Hopewellian culture archeology would be a much better match for NY claims.