FAIR

Fair Issues 96: Mapping Book of Mormon Lands

by

Podcast: Download (12.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Ash (newer) PictureIn this episode brother Ash relates how modern mapping may differ from ancient techniques used to define location and direction.

As Dr. Lawrence Poulsen points out, in most ancient languages, the words translated into English as “east” nearly always refer to the rising of the sun, while “west” refers to setting of the sun.

“The concept of direction in ancient cultures was centered on the movement of the sun, in particular its movement relative to the individual’s location.  This is an (egocentric: person centered) rather than a geocentric (earth centered) view of direction.  In other words, it is based on personal orientation rather than on contemporary global map orientation.”

The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FairMormon Bookstore. Tell your friends about the Mormon Fair-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon Fair-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

The views and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon

 

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Diane says

    Hmmm, that doesn’t explain why Joseph Smith found a laminate skeleton in Indiana. Good try.

  2. Mike Parker says

    Diane,

    The Zelph incident took place in Illinois, not Indiana.

    When evaluating statements about Book of Mormon geography, we should prioritize them in this order:

    1. What the Book of Mormon itself says about its own geography.
    2. Canonized revelations of Joseph Smith.
    3. Uncanonized statements written by Joseph himself.
    4. Secondhand contemporary reports of comments Joseph made.
    5. Secondhand late reports of comments Joseph made.

    The Zelph story falls squarely in the fourth and fifth categories, which means we should apply lesser weight to it than all the other statements found within the Book of Mormon or made by Joseph himself.

    Even worse, there are a number of significant problems with the Zelph account: It was stitched together from several separate statements, and went through a series of editors who both removed and reinstated various aspects of the quote.

    The most important study of the Zelph incident was done by Kenneth W. Godfrey (see “What Is the Significance of Zelph in the Study of Book of Mormon Geography?“, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999): 70–79, 88). Godfrey wrote:

    If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion’s Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion’s Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation. Furthermore, readers would be told that most sources agree that Zelph was a white Lamanite who fought under a leader named Onandagus (variously spelled). Beyond that, what Joseph said to his men is not entirely clear, judging by the variations in the available sources. (p. 75.)

    I strongly recommend you read Godfrey’s study.

  3. Peter K Bellville says

    The ideas in this broadcast are based on the assumption that Mesoamerica is the location for the Book of Mormon stories. If the theory is in the wrong place to begin with then the hypothetical solution to the theory is meaningless. In other words, the problem of directions may not exist at all. This whole construct is fabricated to support a theory. Why create a hypothetical solution to a problem if it doesn’t exist? How other ancient cultures view directions does not tell anyone about how the Nephites and Lamanites viewed directions. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is there any suggestion of confusion of cardinal directions. To the contrary, the story of the Liahona specifically demonstrates that Lehi and his family were well aware of cardinal directions. Ancient cultures, if you must depend on them for justification, built pyramids and megaliths accurately oriented to astronomical events. The assumption in this article is that the ancient cultures were too stupid to know the difference. They knew more than we typically are willing to acknowledge because of our own cultural and chronological chauvinism. Ancient cultures navigated both on the seas and on the deserts by the stars. They knew where north was. If you have to create a hypothesis to justify a theory then maybe your theory is wrong. Search on Amazon.com for the book “Forget Everything You Know About Book of Mormon Geography”.

  4. Mike Parker says

    Peter,

    The Liahona was not a “compass” in the sense of a magnetic indicator that points north. It was specifically given to Lehi to “point the way whither we should go into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 16:10). There is no evidence that the Nephites used it after Lehi’s party arrived in the New World; it was merely passed down as a symbol of authority (as described in Alma 37).

    Cardinal directions are not universal among all cultures, and it’s a false assumption to claim that an ancient civilization is “stupid” because they didn’t use magnetic north, as you do.

    While Panama in some ways fits the “narrow neck of land” described in the Book of Mormon, there is no record of ancient civilizations there of the size and complexity of the Book of Mormon peoples (most notably it lacks cities made of cement and complex legal codes). The Monagrillo culture ends far too early (c. 1700 BC) to be the Jaredites, and the hunter-gathering and light farming of pre-Columbian Panamanians does not match the Book of Mormon’s description of advanced Nephite society.

  5. Amy Badger says

    I would love to listen to your podcast on the Dicotamy of Truth, but thr audio seems to have been recorded over at about 20 seconds into it. Is there a way to restore your old podcast?

  6. Amy Badger says

    Sorry…the previous comment made it on the wrong page. It should have been on Ned’s podcast page for 4th watch.

  8. Ned Scarisbrick says

    We have had the same issue with some feed providers. I suggest you try using a different computer or iPhone and/or android device. Please let us know what you have success with so we can offer help to others. If you cannot get proper sound I could download the file to a Dropbox or We Transfer type of account.

    thanks,

    -Brother Ned