Does the Church Endorse a Specific Geography for the Book of Mormon?

[Vort]

"Does the Church Endorse a Specific Geography for the Book of Mormon?"

The short answer is: No.

The longer answer is: No way.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by tubaloth

Once looking into this, once realizes why a good map can't be located. Once Christ comes the land scape completely changes. The mountains and rivers and so forth are so different by the time Christ comes, anything spoken of in the first 2/3 of the book of mormon don't have that same reference any more. After Christ comes there isn't enough detail given to identify where things are any more.
3 Nephi 8

That is certainly one possible interpretation of the scripture, but not the only one. I don't agree with it, personally. There is too much ancient geography in the Americas to believe that it was all completely changed less than 2000 years ago. I also don't believe that the entire Book of Mormon history was confined to a tiny geographical region, all of which was completely changed less than 2000 years ago.

Originally Posted by tubaloth

I don't know why the argument keeps coming up, things changes to much to make any corilation with how things are now, to the way they were before Christ came.

These things keep coming up because many people don't agree with your particular interpretation of that scripture.

[livy111us]

The argument has been made that yes, the land was changed, but much of the geography is coming from Mormon, who wrote it hundreds of years after the changes in the land. Therefore, what we have today as geography is pretty close to what it was as mentioned in the BOM.

[tubaloth]

There is too much ancient geography in the Americas to believe that it was all completely changed less than 2000 years ago.

Too Much? Older then 2000 years?

That very much could be, we don’t know how wide spread this destruction happen. What we do know that the “the whole face of the land was changed.” Trying to pin point anything before that time would be almost impossible. How would we know if the mountain that was there before Christ came, is still the same mountain after Christ came? Same with any River, or lake, or path way or anything? We wouldn’t.

The argument has been made that yes, the land was changed, but much of the geography is coming from Mormon, who wrote it hundreds of years after the changes in the land. Therefore, what we have today as geography is pretty close to what it was as mentioned in the BOM.

So you are saying that as Mormon was writing it, he would describe the places as they would be to him, not as they were when the people lived there? That would make things even more confusing! So when Mormon is talking about some big battle and going over moutains and by a river or what ever, he is talking about his time, not the time frame of those people? (You probably need to clearfy that idea more)

These things keep coming up because many people don't agree with your particular interpretation of that scripture.

That could very well be. But its not like each time this question is asked we get any closer to figuring out a map, or realizing we found the city of Bountiful? The question just keeps getting asked again and again, with the answer of “We don’t know”? So why keep asking it?

[Vort]

Originally Posted by tubaloth

That could very well be. But its not like each time this question is asked we get any closer to figuring out a map, or realizing we found the city of Bountiful? The question just keeps getting asked again and again, with the answer of “We don’t know”? So why keep asking it?

Because people only live about 80 years, then they die. All these new people keep coming along, asking the same old questions.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

Meridian Magazine :: Answers to Critics: Does the Church Endorse a Specific Geography for the Book of Mormon?

Article snippet: A sample of writings by Church leaders and members through out its history, illustrates that debate and discussion about Book of Mormon geography has been very free, precisely because there was no revealed or "authoritative" geography model.

Interesting, Elder Oaks of the Q of 12 and Elder Cordova of the 70's came to reorganized our Stake this past week. Among the many subjects they addressed, they spoke about our witness of the BoM as personal revelation. He cautioned us against being swept by the archeology euphoria. In terms of the geography of the BoM sites he said: "Prophets don't know much about it. I wonder how is it that archeologists think they do." The laughter was quite contagious.

[livy111us]

[/quote] So you are saying that as Mormon was writing it, he would describe the places as they would be to him, not as they were when the people lived there? That would make things even more confusing! So when Mormon is talking about some big battle and going over moutains and by a river or what ever, he is talking about his time, not the time frame of those people? (You probably need to clearfy that idea more) [/quote]


Yes, that is what the argument is. When this is looked at, it is realized that the land did not change as drastically in the places mentioned. We know that there were some major changes in parts of the land, but not enough to alter the points of geography that are mentioned by Mormon.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by livy111us

So you are saying that as Mormon was writing it, he would describe the places as they would be to him, not as they were when the people lived there? That would make things even more confusing! So when Mormon is talking about some big battle and going over moutains and by a river or what ever, he is talking about his time, not the time frame of those people? (You probably need to clearfy that idea more)

Originally Posted by livy111us

[FONT=Verdana][/quote Yes, that is what the argument is. When this is looked at, it is realized that the land did not change as drastically in the places mentioned. We know that there were some major changes in parts of the land, but not enough to alter the points of geography that are mentioned by Mormon.

That is certainly an assertion that can be argued. I spent over 10 years roaming the jungles in Central America and except the rivers that remain more or less in the same place, vegetation, topography and other geographical landmarks can change and dramatically from year to year. Hurricanes, mud slides, volcanic eruptions and floods change the landscape in hours. Many times we arrived at a specific point and scratched our heads for 10 minutes trying to figure out where such and such landmark went!!!

The descriptions in the BoM are sufficiently vague as to avoid any definitive identification of specific landmarks, with rare exceptions. Even in Israel, where people have been digging up and scratching the rocks for 100 years we are not totally sure where some stuff is.

[tubaloth]

Yes, that is what the argument is. When this is looked at, it is realized that the land did not change as drastically in the places mentioned. We know that there were some major changes in parts of the land, but not enough to alter the points of geography that are mentioned by Mormon.

How did you reach this conclusion? How do you know that what Mormon is righting about is from HIS time, not the time of Alma, Helaman and Nephi?

[tubaloth]

Because people only live about 80 years, then they die. All these new people keep coming along, asking the same old questions.

It is surprising how many questions have already been answered before. Things like Evolution, to places in the book of mormon to if Holy Ghost well get a body. The same questions come up again and again. Reading through Joseph Fielding Smiths "Answers to Gospel Questions" published in the 50s are still the same questions today!