"Finger Lakes" Theory of Book of Mormon Geography

[Shulem]

I hope we see him flesh out this theory a lot more.

Dear beloved Kishy,

It may interest you to know that another theory (Delmarva) has been fleshed out in another thread on this board see here in which it has been shown therein that Joseph Smith had his mind in certain matters that dealt with American landscape associated close to the founding fathers of a newly established nation.

It may interest you to know that I researched these matters around 2005 and abandoned Delmarva because it lacked archeological evidence as well as certain features described in the Book of Mormon text. I needed something that seemed exact and had proof in order to make it work. But all that has since changed. I hope you find some time to investigate this thread and welcome any input or thoughts you might have on this very important subject.

As ever,

Shulem

[John Hamer]

I am going to take partial exception to your statement. I think there is a huge difference between trying to establish an ancient Book of Mormon geography situated in Mesoamerica and speculating about the environmental influences that might have inspired Joseph Smith as he was writing the Book of Mormon. For one thing, we know which hill Joseph Smith identified as Cumorah. Period. Therefore, to try to form the map around the site he personally identified and claimed to have found the plates in is a speculative exercise, to be sure, but it is also one that proceeds from the reasonable supposition that the placement of other sites in the Book of Mormon would be relative to the one that we know Smith identified.

I am all for methodological care, but your statement goes too far for my taste. Because we have not seen a good argument, supported by evidence, for the inspiration for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon “geography” does not mean there is not one to be found, and it could be that some version of your fun speculative object lesson turns out to be the one. On the other hand, it may be that Smith did not keep a single schema in mind. That hypothesis, too, should be demonstrated with evidence and argumentation, not just assumed.

Finally, this post-truth stuff is silly. At what time were people not prepared to believe all kinds of goofy stuff? I can guarantee that there is no danger of Book of Mormon geography running amok in our “post-truth age” like Q and other nonsense. It just has no bearing on the concerns of most people, even the unhinged. Book of Mormon geography has always been, for the most part, a hobby for people with way too much time on their hands.

In any case, thanks for your fun speculation, which was exactly that. I have no problem with fun speculations, and very many silly beliefs do not have a dire impact. Rather, I enjoy fun speculations, and I am amused and intrigued by the odd beliefs of others. They will always exist, and they provide just one more window on the human organism.

I agree with you that there is a distinction between limited Book of Mormon geographies. Whereas none have any value at all in terms of describing the author's perspective at the time he was composing the text, some are nevertheless pernicious in that they deny the true history and legitimate identity of indigenous peoples (i.e., contribute to our ongoing cultural genocide of native cultures in North America), whereas others are simply speculative and frivolous. That's a big and important divide.

I appreciate that it may seem that Joseph Smith's later statements making Book of Mormon identifications are relevant to his mental itinerary of locations at the time of the book's composition, it turns out that they actually are not. This is because Smith was not particularly committed to the content of the text after it was written and he was a very flexible thinker. So he's on a trek and they dig in an Indian mound, suddenly that's "Zelph the white Lamanite," somebody finds Mayan ruins in Central America — that's a proof of Smith's prophetic gift. These are not relevant details to the locational itinerary of the Book of Mormon's telling of the story of the Americas at the time it was composed, for which no accurate map is possible.

I disagree with you about the post-truth universe. Too many people are not equipped to discern a clear separation between idle speculation about nonsense and actual knowledge. I appreciate that there's a difference between pernicious misinformation, but the inability to tell the difference between harmless disinformation, pernicious misinformation, and actual knowledge is part of the overall problem.

[John Hamer]

A John Hamer sighting! I am so here for this.

Great post.

I think there is at least as much support for the notion that this is the map Joseph Smith had in mind for the Book of Mormon as there is for the theory that the Italian peninsula was the setting.

Precisely. Nice seeing you too.

[John Hamer]

Just saying, I don't mean to be rude, but the map you provide as it corresponds with the text in the Book of Mormon is absurd and retarded. Sorry if that is offensive but I needed to say it as I see it.

No worries. I think this statement is rather illustrative. Not knowing you previously, I appreciate coming to an understanding of you and your thinking.

[Kishkumen]

I agree with you that there is a distinction between limited Book of Mormon geographies. Whereas none have any value at all in terms of describing the author's perspective at the time he was composing the text, some are nevertheless pernicious in that they deny the true history and legitimate identity of indigenous peoples (i.e., contribute to our ongoing cultural genocide of native cultures in North America), whereas others are simply speculative and frivolous. That's a big and important divide.

That's quite a tangle. The text contains geographical references. They could be completely made up, or partly made up. One thing is certain, the geographical language in the Book is a reflection of the composition process. One can be interested in the composition of the Book within its historical context without investing in present erroneous and damaging beliefs or affirming or supporting the erroneous and damaging beliefs of Joseph Smith's time. I happen to agree that cultural genocide is a horrible thing that the Book of Mormon is a part of, and yet I am still interested, as a point of historical inquiry, in the imaginary geographies of the Book of Mormon.

I appreciate that it may seem that Joseph Smith's later statements making Book of Mormon identifications are relevant to his mental itinerary of locations at the time of the book's composition, it turns out that they actually are not. This is because Smith was not particularly committed to the content of the text after it was written and he was a very flexible thinker. So he's on a trek and they dig in an Indian mound, suddenly that's "Zelph the white Lamanite," somebody finds Mayan ruins in Central America — that's a proof of Smith's prophetic gift. These are not relevant details to the locational itinerary of the Book of Mormon's telling of the story of the Americas at the time it was composed, for which no accurate map is possible.

Whatever you think my position is, it is not reflected in what you wrote above. Look, whatever Joseph Smith said after the composition of the Book of Mormon does not prove that there is no correspondence between his imagined geography in the Book of Mormon and his local environment. We know because of Cumorah that there is at least one secure correspondence. Zelph and other later comments by definition do not bear on imagined geographies during the process of composition because they postdate the composition process. That said, they sure do bear on his evolving sense of the relationship between American geography and the Book of Mormon, whether you like it, find it inconsistent, or not, etc.

I disagree with you about the post-truth universe. Too many people are not equipped to discern a clear separation between idle speculation about nonsense and actual knowledge. I appreciate that there's a difference between pernicious misinformation, but the inability to tell the difference between harmless disinformation, pernicious misinformation, and actual knowledge is part of the overall problem.

I find it charming that you believe things are suddenly awful when they used to be so much better, but the truth is that this situation is not entirely new. The problem is severely aggravated by certain technological developments, but honestly the basic problem has always been with us.

[Physics Guy]

I repeat that I know I'm not an expert in this topic; I'm just a casually interested observer. I have never thought for a moment that the Book of Mormon stories really happened anywhere, but I'm interested in the author's composition process, whether the author was Smith alone or a group, because whoever did this managed to attract a core of unusually enthusiastic fans for a fantasy author. Not as many as Tolkien, perhaps, but with a higher average level of commitment.

As I've said, it seems plausible that the author might have based their fantasy geography on a real world model, at least in part. In kind of the way that movies may have their outdoor scenes shot in New Zealand with interior scenes in Los Angeles, there might have been multiple models, and some aspects of the fantasy geography may not have been based on real models at all.

But is John Hamer saying that we have evidence that Smith was always wildly cavalier about geography, happily claiming direct connection to his story for things on his doorstep and things half a world away? This is not a rhetorical question—I've heard of Zelph but otherwise don't know much about what Smith said about geography, or about how precise or consistent the text of the Book of Mormon seems to be about geographical details.

If Smith really was consistently inconsistent about geography, and if the text of the Book is geographically impressionistic rather than systematic, then I'd tend to agree with John Hamer, that maybe real geographic models were just irrelevant to the Book of Mormon, because Smith (and whoever helped him, if anyone did) didn't even think for two moments about Book of Mormon geography.

[Marcus]

I repeat that I know I'm not an expert in this topic; I'm just a casually interested observer. I have never thought for a moment that the Book of Mormon stories really happened anywhere, but I'm interested in the author's composition process, whether the author was Smith alone or a group, because whoever did this managed to attract a core of unusually enthusiastic fans for a fantasy author. Not as many as Tolkien, perhaps, but with a higher average level of commitment.

As I've said, it seems plausible that the author might have based their fantasy geography on a real world model, at least in part. In kind of the way that movies may have their outdoor scenes shot in New Zealand with interior scenes in Los Angeles, there might have been multiple models, and some aspects of the fantasy geography may not have been based on real models at all.

But is John Hamer saying that we have evidence that Smith was always wildly cavalier about geography, happily claiming direct connection to his story for things on his doorstep and things half a world away? This is not a rhetorical question—I've heard of Zelph but otherwise don't know much about what Smith said about geography, or about how precise or consistent the text of the Book of Mormon seems to be about geographical details.

If Smith really was consistently inconsistent about geography, and if the text of the Book is geographically impressionistic rather than systematic, then I'd tend to agree with John Hamer, that maybe real geographic models were just irrelevant to the Book of Mormon, because Smith (and whoever helped him, if anyone did) didn't even think for two moments about Book of Mormon geography.

If oral presentation was a big part of Smith's method of dictating the Book of Mormon, I don't see any inconsistency between him using a mental image of a map he's seen somewhere to tell the story, followed by wildly inconsistent geographical claims well after the fact of his dictation process. (Zelph, Hill Cumorah, etc.)

One is a method for organizing one's thoughts in storytelling, the other is just opportunistically using whatever is available to further a con. He may have given absolutely no thought as to whether the disparate stories would be consistent; he could simply have been attempting to accomplish those two separate things without considering the attempts to connect them that might happen in the future.

[John Hamer]

The Book of Mormon is not consistent in its geography. In one of the more obvious examples, when Joseph Smith introduces the land the Nephites had abandoned in the Book of Mosiah (the first component composed), he calls it the "Land of Lehi-Nephi." But later when he composes the beginning of the story in 2nd Nephi, he's apparently forgotten the name and now calls it the "Land of Nephi."

In general, the Book of Mormon has a very simple geography that isn't dependent on a map any more than the oral composition was dependent on a written outline. Joseph Smith is telling a Bible-inspired story of the Americas, including explanations not only for Native Americans existence after the Flood, but also the existence of animals after the Flood. Like most people prior to the widespread availability of maps, Joseph Smith is keeping track of things in his mind based on an itinerary. To get from A to Z, you travel from A to B to C and then X and Y and finally Z. So first inheritance is next to Lehi-Nephi which is separated from Zarahemla from a narrow strip of wilderness. Zarahemla is next to Bountiful which is next to the narrow neck of land which is next to Desolation and so forth.

Yes, there is a limited number of geographical locations in the text, but this is due to the limitation of the author's worldview and his source: Genesis is actually a surprisingly limited tale for a text that purports to be about the beginning of all Earth's history. So there is no fantasy map in the mind of the author — he's telling a hemispheric story that is a sequel to Genesis. Whereas Smith has the major regions in his head as an itinerary, he only has to expand on the details during limited components to the story that are not returned to, i.e., he'll list off a bunch of cities which we never hear of again. And in one major example, I cited above, from the beginning of the composition to the end, he actually forgets the name that he'd established by the time he's composing the new beginning.

The details remain deliberately vague and ultimately it doesn't matter how long it takes to walk across Panama — since this can easily be explained as information that Joseph Smith did have access to. Travel times in historical or fantasy novels are among the least understood components of world-building — modern novelists can hardly imagine how long it took to get anywhere in ancient times.

[Shulem]

The Book of Mormon is not consistent in its geography.

Creative license in describing localized battles are all over the map with regard to direction, rivers, and landscape, but I view the geography of the Book of Mormon as generally consistent as is the internal chronology carefully maintained and counted therein -- with hardly any error. Smith was a marksman and a master storyteller. Praise to the man who wrote the Book of Mormon!

In one of the more obvious examples, when Joseph Smith introduces the land the Nephites had abandoned in the Book of Mosiah (the first component composed), he calls it the "Land of Lehi-Nephi." But later when he composes the beginning of the story in 2nd Nephi, he's apparently forgotten the name and now calls it the "Land of Nephi."

It was a figure of speech but one in the same. Lehi and Nephi were cut from the same cloth in the Land of Promise and the southern tail of the peninsula of Delmarva *is* that cloth.

[Shulem]

In general, the Book of Mormon has a very simple geography that isn't dependent on a map any more than the oral composition was dependent on a written outline.

The geography is defined beginning with Lehi landing at the southern most place described in the entire book. Nobody was ever said to have gone south of Lehi's landing, NOBODY! That's simple enough. Simple deduction would lead us to believe that all roads led north because Lehi landed on what was practically considered an isle because it was nearly surrounded with sea water, the same fluid sea water in which they sailed from across the vast ocean surrounded their little isle that afforded a narrow neck to the north in which they could escape into the northern country.

The geography is one thing. The oral composition or story is entirely another. That is plain enough for me to see.