Book of Mormon Geography

[Shulem]

How did you sort Kerry, Consiglieri, Dans, and Bill into the respective Wizard of Oz characters? Remember, you are under the Oath of the Freemen.

Because putting real people into a fantasy helps to imagine how a fantasy such as the Book of Mormon is not real.

I hope that answers your question satisfactorily.

[Moksha]

How did you sort Kerry, Consiglieri, Dans, and Bill into the respective Wizard of Oz characters? Remember, you are under the Oath of the Freemen.

Because putting real people into a fantasy helps to imagine how a fantasy such as the Book of Mormon is not real.

I hope that answers your question satisfactorily.

I understand and agree. I wanted to know about sorting them into those particular characters, like would Consiglieri have preferred to be Toto in order to incorporate some creative dance steps? Does Bill Reel have Tinman-type qualities?

[Shulem]

Your neck at the top of the Delmarva Peninsula is only 10 miles wide at most, which seems too small for a day and a half’s journey. What would Joseph Smith call a day and a half’s journey? Certainly more than 10 miles.

Dan,

Today’s Chesapeake & Delaware Canal is about 14 miles long across from sea to sea. That’s about how wide the neck is. Unfortunately, (in my opinion) EVERYONE (except for me of course) has been reading the Book of Mormon wrong with regard to the neck and I explain that in my very long threads that you don’t have time to read.

I hope you will come to the realization that Smith was carefully and meticulously providing a calculation for a man to walk the distance of the narrow neck WIDTH & LENGTH. Both calculations are given in the book as I attempt to explain in my maps. When it’s understood that the narrow neck is given in these terms then all of the sudden we have our mark at Delmarva which was the secret geography Smith originally used. Later, the geography mutated and went wherever it was convenient. That is the fairytale. The same principle applies to the First Vision which mutated and changed according to Smith’s needs. First he saw God the Savior. Later, after he purchased the Egyptian papyrus that showed 3 gods in one he changed his story to Two Persons.

Delmarva was conceived early on before Smith ever dictated a single word to Martin Harris’s lost 116 pages. Delmarva continued to be the plan when Smith retold the story to Cowdery.

Anyway, thanks for chiming in.

See maps and read the definitions:

[Shulem]

How did you sort Kerry, Consiglieri, Dans, and Bill into the respective Wizard of Oz characters? Remember, you are under the Oath of the Freemen.

Well, you see, it just seems to work. Kerry makes a good lion and he used to look like one when he had the beard. So, it’s a toss up with the Scarecrow and Tinman. RFM seems like the brainy type so he must have got his brain from a wizard. So Bill gets to be the Tinman. And Vogel can be Dorothy because he’s trying to get home to Delmarva. And Peterson doesn’t have anything to add other than constant yapping about nothing.

[Shulem]

Hemispheric geography comes from the Mound Builder Myth. Joseph Smith’s contemporaries saw the ruins and mounds as one long chain, beginning in Peru, extending through Central America and Mexico, and ending in the Great Lakes Region, where the builders were destroyed in a great battle and buried in the mounds.

Dan,

One thing we have in common or in which we agree: Twenty-two year old Joseph was familiar with a world map and globe to include:

• North America

• Central America

• South America

The outline of the TWO continents (North & South America) was something that Joseph was able to visualize because he had a map and globe at his disposal.
And, we can agree that eighteen year old Joseph told many, many stories to his family about the original inhabitants of *this* continent (singular) who were ancestors of the North American Indians. Recall that mother Smith said Joseph described the inhabitants “of this continent” which is North America. She said nothing about South America. I touch upon the differences between the singular and plural use of continent/continents in the long threads you don’t have time to read. So, I’m afraid you are missing out on something that may have gone over your head. The point being is that absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon includes the South American continent. The whole story takes place up north where Joseph lived.

Anyway, glad to hear from you.

Shulem

[Shulem]

I would like to take a moment, permit me please, to criticize the hemispheric model and point out that it does not lend support from the text of the Book of Mormon. It was a later construct accepted by the saints, especially the pesky Pratt brothers. Although Smith later taught a hemispheric model, that makes no difference to what the Book of Mormon originally says. Joseph Smith was a liar from day one, day two, and ever onward. He was willing to change his story to suit his purposes. That’s what liars do!

The narrow neck described in the Book of Mormon is NOT Panama. The text will not bear that out. Not at all! The Book of Mormon makes no allusion to a long LAND BRIDGE that separates the American continents. The text illustrates ONE continent and in that continent there is an island like land in which Lehi landed. That land also contains Lehi’s first inheritance, Zarahemla, and Bountiful. It is a peninsula of tear drop shape with a narrow neck at the top into which to pass (narrow pass) into the land of Desolation which leads into the northern part of the continent.

Again, the hemispheric model using Panama and Central America as the narrow neck of land separating Bountiful from Desolation is NOT within the text of the Book of Mormon! That is a later construct and was adopted by the saints who needed something to latch on to and make the story come alive for them. But it does not in any way match the text itself which is *the* genuine template to show how the geography was built. I don’t care what Smith said after the fact; that’s irrelevant. Apologists and critics who agree on a limited geographical model as described in the Book of Mormon are absolutely correct. Early Latter-day Saints (including the late ministry of Joseph Smith) are incorrect and make a mockery of what is actually contained in the text. The math simply won’t work and it contradicts the text. The numbers don’t add up!

This business of Lehi landing at Chile is preposterous. It’s impossible given what is described and defined by the text. It forces us to conclude that Zarahemla and Bountiful are in South America, a land nearly surrounded by water (which it is) but is entirely unproportionate to what’s contained in the text with regard to the size of the landform from Sea West to Sea East. It’s impossible to relate South America in this format. The width of the peninsula landform was traversed quite easily and time and distance can be ascertained thereby. The idea that the body of South America was traversed from coast to coast as described in the Book of Mormon is preposterous and silly beyond all measure. That’s like putting west coast cities of the Book of Mormon in Peru and east coast cities in Brazil at a distance of thousands of miles. THAT is not described in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith was not that stupid in providing calculated descriptions in the text of how the Nephites traveled from coast to coast. He was accurate and meticulous with the geography and the chronology. South America is a farce! You can’t put the west coast land of Joshua in Peru and east coast cities such as Nephihah and Morianton in Brazil and maintain any kind of integrity with the text. Oh snap!

I encourage readers to dismiss the hemispheric model because it’s NOT described in the Book of Mormon and that is not what Smith first presented to the saints when publishing the book in 1830. A hemispheric model was a later construct and was built on the idea of converting the land bridge of Panama and Central America into the narrow neck of land described in the text. But the numbers and the math for that concept do not add up. It’s wrong. It will not work. Period. End of story.

[dan vogel]

Shulem,

When you have the author of the book very near the time of publication designating Chile as Lehi’s landing place you have to take notice. It won’t do to simply dismiss it because it doesn’t fit a realistic geography. We are talking about a book that doesn’t make sense anyway. The whole book is preposterous and fictional and you want to insist that the geography make sense? No one noticed this problem of distances until many years later. Yet you argue that Joseph Smith had this reasonable limited geography in mind when he dictated the Book of Mormon, but quickly changed to an absurd hemispheric geography hoping no one would notice. Insisting that the geography make sense is arbitrary. To argue that Joseph Smith couldn’t have had hemispheric geography in mind as he dictated the Book of Mormon because it doesn’t make sense is weak because then how do you explain his sudden change to Lehi lading in Chile? If hemispheric geography is illogical while dictating the Book of Mormon, it’s still illogical when he said Lehi landed in Chile. Now, I should tell you historians regard such an argument as a version of the Idealist Fallacy, which is the assumption that humans always act consistently and rationally. As Historian David Hackett Fischer observes, “A presumption of logical consistency is as unjustified as a presumption of the opposite.” (David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 199.)

I think Kerry made an excellent point when he included your theory with the other limited geographies, particularly the heartland model, in arguing that the hour-glass shape can be forced into many situations.

In my biography of Joseph Smith, I gave an explanation for why the sudden discussion of geography appears in Alma 22.

Joseph may have been vague about the book’s geography until after he concluded to have the resurrected Jesus visit America (Al. 7:8; 16:20). The book no longer centered on God’s dealings with a family that had migrated to America but was a history of the Western Hemisphere. Anticipating Jesus' visit to the New World, the Book of Mormon began to take on a monumental quality with a geography to match. However, this sudden introduction of hemispheric geography, while consistent with the mound-builder myth, created problems of distance. Mormon’s account of the Limhi expedition from the city of Nephi, now located in the “land southward,” to the site of the Jaredite destruction somewhere in the Aland northward," contains unrealistic distances considering that the group was looking for the nearby city of Zarahemla, especially if Smith equated the Aland among many waters" with the Great Lakes Region (see Mos. 8:8 11; 21:25 26).

[Shulem]

Dan,

Joseph was not about to reveal the geographical model he used at Delmarva because he knew that a lack of archeological evidence would set him back and question the legitimacy of his entire book leading into his new ministry. He let the chips fall where they would and it seems that fairly early on people associated the “narrow neck” with Panama because it looked like an obvious fit from the onset. But how hardly does it agree with a technical analysis in deconstructing the geography described by the text which is the only testimony we need to arrive at the obvious conclusion. The author (Joseph) was careful with his geography just as he was with his complex chronology. Both are a testament to the incremental building of the stories and the book based on the real life measurement of space and time. That is the strongest argument for the limited geographical model. The hemispheric model doesn’t have a leg to stand on because it’s not supported by the text and is contrary to Smith’s measured manner of keeping track of his stories. It makes no sense to admit that Joseph was virtually a genius with his chronology but a total idiot with geography. Smith’s chronology is not preposterous but is a well-kept timeline that intertwines and maintains consistency. A well kept chronology and a well kept geography go hand in hand. consistency is the key!

Concerning archeology, Smith had something to hide and he kept it hidden and for good reason! His whole ministry would have failed had a Mormon expedition gone to Delmarva looking for Bountiful in hopes of finding the very place where Jesus walked. Think about that! Think about motive!

Shulem

[Shulem]

I think Kerry made an excellent point when he included your theory with the other limited geographies, particularly the heartland model, in arguing that the hour-glass shape can be forced into many situations.

Dan

Yes, and I hope Kerry will further explore the matter and ask his subscribers if they would like to know more about the Delmarva theory and let the chips fall where they may. The Delmarva theory fills the bill in so many ways and answers so many questions. It’s important to know the Book of Mormon is a fraud and that Smith’s geography was a secret known to him and one he did not care to discuss for obvious reasons. Look, the hemispheric model when put under a microscope and examined carefully turns the Book of Mormon into a circus act with pink elephants having red polka dots! Come on, Let’s give Joseph more credit than that. Nobody on God’s green earth is ever going to convince me that the LAND BRIDGE of Central America is the “narrow neck” described in the story. No way. No chance. Forget it. I used to think that when I was 10 years old. I know better now.

Shulem

[Moksha]

Lamanites having dinner along with their horses
--Nibley Collection, 3rd level sub-basement Marriott Library, Provo Utah