The Book of Mormon & Geography

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- Filament.io 0 Flares ×

14 thoughts on “The Book of Mormon & Geography

  1. One of the glaring issues with using limited geographical theories in regard to nailing down the historicity and geography of the BoM is that the smaller the area, the more concentrated should be the archaeological remains of the inhabitants.

    With enormous battles of millions of participants, the remains and tools of these people should be increasingly more concentrated, and thereby easier to find.

    Since I’ve not read of any huge announcements from Salt Lake speaking toward these archaeological finds, I’m pretty sure they haven’t taken place.

    The swords alone should lay in apparent abundance and there should be a record of the natives in the area having a distinct advantage in warfare over their sword-lacking neighbouring tribes. None of this has come to light.

    I pretty skeptical that the LGT goes much farther than any other theory toward proving the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

  2. Archeaological remains are only a small percentage of what was actually left. Most things decay and are not preserved. So to not have a lot of findings is not very crazy. Where archeaologists in any area have found large caches of artifacts are in cases where the preservation level was extremely high. Battle grounds do not tend to preserve very well.

  3. “Most things decay and are not preserved.”

    An area filled with metal smithing facilities would be readily apparent. Smelting itself is an incredibly distinctive activity. If these people were living that close to each other and making weapons, there would be remains.

    “Battle grounds do not tend to preserve very well.”

    Since when? Sites of large battles are renowned for the finds they present.

    “Most things decay and are not preserved.”

    Even if this were the case, all it would take is one semi-intact pre-columbian metal sword of the thousands present to tell the story. The fact that there have been none found speaks for itself.

  4. I’m no expert in archaeology, but it seemed to when I was in England that every little museum had examples of 2000 year-old helmets, coins, etc. England gets a lot of rain, but it is cooler than central America.

  5. Perhaps the real reason is that the Nephites did not exist at all in Central America. I remember being taught in Seminary that Lehi landed in South America. Perhaps the great LDS minds back then were wrong as to the actual continent the Nephities lived in. You have to remember that according to the BOM that during the time of Christ the land changed. Perhaps the land of the BOM is currently under ocean water. I think this theory makes more sense than the people on the video did.

  6. Comparing rainfall in the UK with rainfall in the rainforests of southern Mexico is like comparing Alberta rainfall with that of the Sahara. Mexico gets twice as much rainfall as the UK. To say nothing of the difference in temperature, as was already mentioned.

  7. So your opinion is that an area three times the size of Texas sunk into the Ocean and no other indigenous peoples noticed?

  8. anonymous,

    10,

    He was led by the Spirit from Central America to the Northeast.

    You gotta remember, Mormon states that the last battle, the one where he and all his 24 and each of their 10,000 die happened, in Mormon’s words, close to the location where Lehi landed originally. The Hill Cumorah where Mormon hid all the records of the Nephites—which he compiled into the Book of Mormon—is NOT the same Hill Cumorah where Moroni hides the plates containing the Book of Mormon.

Leave a Reply