- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just posted the first of a 5 part series on the Baja Theory of the Book of Mormon. David Rosenvall and his father put together what became scriptures.lds.org, and this led to their theory that the Book of Mormon took place on the Baja Peninsula (below California.) Here’s my first interview: https://gospeltangents.com/2017/07/12/book-mormon-baja-peninsula/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://gospeltangents.com/2017/07/12/book-mormon-baja-peninsula/ Have you heard of this theory before? Do you think this is a plausible location?
I plan to interview others as well, including George Potter who has 2 very interesting theories. (1) He think he’s found Nephi’s Harbor in Yemen, (2) He thinks the Book of Mormon took place in Peru.
I have heard this theory, as well as others. I have two points of view. My current predominate view is that the BoM is not what is is claimed to be and is at most a parable/allegory or series of parables/allegories. In other words, it is not a literal history of any people and that being the case, it didn’t take place anywhere.
Like most others here I was once an orthodox believing member (as opposed to the less orthodox believer I am now). In truth I never thought about it much then (and I don’t really think about it much now). I suppose I did subscribe to the Yucatan theory and generally poo-pooed the Great Lakes theory. Either way, I was never really concerned with where it took place as much as what was in it.
So, from both my current and past points of view, location matters not to me. I do believe the BoM to be a good book which can and does bring people closer to God and Christ and that’s all that really matters.
I suppose that if God wanted us to know details about where the BoM took place he would have made it known in the book or through modern prophets (perhaps supposing it’s not in the sealed portions). We do, after all, know the vast majority of locations in which Bible stories (most of which I also believe to be parables/allegories) took place.
I have heard of it and am interested in all theories, even though I believe it is an unanswerable question, lacking archeological evidence. It is set in a very small area in a very large world (even if the focus remains only on the American continents), and the archaeological descriptions are scarce enough to be difficult to find – especially given the destruction described in 3 Nephi. I had read that the “bountiful” or launch site would have to be from the east coast of the Arabian peninsula and that the most direct eastern route would put the landing in the neighborhood of Peru. I have a forthcoming interview scheduled with George Potter. He thinks he’s found Nephi’s harbor in Yemen. It’s a pretty interesting theory. I think a couple of other guys names Ashworth have a slightly different location in Yemen too. Here’s part 2 where David compares Baja to Meso: https://gospeltangents.com/2017/07/15/baja-vs-meso/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Roy wrote:
I had read that the “bountiful” or launch site would have to be from the east coast of the Arabian peninsula and that the most direct eastern route would put the landing in the neighborhood of Peru.
There isn’t really one. Westward and you must round Africa… eastwards and you must round India, South East Asia with its thousands of islands and of course Australia.
Has anyone come up with an Aussie BOM theory?
SamBee wrote:
Roy wrote:
I had read that the “bountiful” or launch site would have to be from the east coast of the Arabian peninsula and that the most direct eastern route would put the landing in the neighborhood of Peru.
There isn’t really one. Westward and you must round Africa… eastwards and you must round India, South East Asia with its thousands of islands and of course Australia.
Has anyone come up with an Aussie BOM theory?
I jokingly did a New Zealand one once (I served my mission there and my companion was not amused). I have also seen a Malaysian theory somewhere.
Back at BYU, I remember having BOM professor who made us memorize the exact location of where he thought the BOM cities are located… 🙄 Honestly, I don’t think anyone will ever be able to pinpoint exactly where the BOM took place (barring the Second Coming). Were it possible to uncover, I’m confident it would’ve been uncovered with certainty by now. But uncovering the exact location would “take away our need for faith” and “frustrate God’s purposes”, right?
Narrow neck of land? * Baja
* Malay peninsula
* Cape Yorke, Queensland, Australia (Oz top right)
* Northland, New Zealand (top left)
* Central America
* Florida
* Cuba
* Tierra del Fuego (Southern South America)
* Italy
* Crimea
* Japan
* Indonesia
* Papua New Guinea
* Greece
* Denmark
* Great Britain
* Antarctic Peninsula
* Kamchatka
* Westfjords, Iceland
* Norway…
The list goes on
I just posted part 3 of my series, called “Can David Answer Critics Questions about Animals, Steel, & Cumorah?” https://gospeltangents.com/2017/07/18/two-cumorahs-rusted-swords/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://gospeltangents.com/2017/07/18/two-cumorahs-rusted-swords/ Concerning animals, David Rosenvall said,
Quote:The La Brea Tar Pits are an interesting sample along the western side just north of Baja California where animals in that climate in that area came to drink, got caught, died. So they have this whole array of animal bones there. A couple of animals in there are very unique: camels are found in there, elephants are found in there, all of the animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon are found in the La Brea Tar Pits. Just a little while ago while they were digging the subway in Los Angeles, this is just last November 2016, a big article in the LA Times, Elephant Found in that area, not woolly mammoth, elephant. When we look at animals, we look for the plausibility of the animals in the area.
However, I asked him right before that answer.
Quote:GT: I have heard of them but I don’t think they date to Book of Mormon times, do they?
I did some further research.
Quote:A cursory glance at Wikipedia notes “Among the prehistoric species associated with the La Brea Tar Pits are Pleistocene mammoths, dire wolves, short-faced bears, ground sloths, and the state fossil of California, the saber-toothed cat (Smilodon fatalis).
Only one human has been found, a partial skeleton of the La Brea Woman[18] dated to approximately 10,000 calendar years (~9,000 radiocarbon years) BP,[19] who was 17 to 25 years old at death[20] and found associated with remains of a domestic dog, and so was interpreted to have been ceremonially interred.[21] John C. Merriam of the University of California led much of the early work in identifying species in the early 20th century.
The park is known for producing myriad mammal fossils dating from the last glacial period.” See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar_Pits#Flora_and_fauna As for his mention of the LA Time article:
Quote:Title of article dated November 30, 2016 is “Remains of ancient elephant unearthed at L.A. subway excavation site” and states “The mammal fossils that were found are at least 10,000 years old and are from the ice age, Sotero said. Further analysis of the teeth will help paleontologists identify what type of ancient elephant it was, Sotero said.” See
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ice-age-20161130-story.html
It seems like a big problem to me.
The elephant issue is an interesting one, since a lot of Native American tribes have oral histories of exposure to animals that legitimately could be translated as “elephant” in the 1800s. The tar pit example dates too far back, but the overall presence of “elephants” being mentioned in the Book of Mormon is a non-issue – especially since the only references are in Ether, which dates WAY before the rest of the book. If you don’t take the early Old Testament dating literally (and anyone not biased by religious inerrancy demands would not take it literally), the references in the BoM easily could be 3,000 -7,000 years old – which definitely fits the oral stories.
dande48 wrote:
… But uncovering the exact location would “take away our need for faith” and “frustrate God’s purposes”, right?
That is my position, and why I have no interest in discussions that rely on an assumption that the BoM is literal history. The only way to hear God’s voice in the book is through reading the pages. Finding proof of a landscape or people that matches the text does nothing toward helping someone personally know Christ. I consider it a waste of time, and possibly related to pride. To me everything about the book says “take me on the merit of my message alone.”
Orson wrote:
dande48 wrote:
… But uncovering the exact location would “take away our need for faith” and “frustrate God’s purposes”, right?
That is my position, and why I have no interest in discussions that rely on an assumption that the BoM is literal history. The only way to hear God’s voice in the book is through reading the pages. Finding proof of a landscape or people that matches the text does nothing toward helping someone personally know Christ. I consider it a waste of time, and possibly related to pride. To me everything about the book says “take me on the merit of my message alone.”
I also agree. However…it is a mind-shift to be open to that approach when you’ve been taught by the organization to take it as literal as if Moroni would appear as an angel to your bedside and tell you relics were buried up the hillside because that is where they were laid from literal historical figures. There are logical assumptions from such events if taken literally.
So…it may take a bit of time to divorce thought from what others say or believe…and just be open to an “unknown” history…but still find there can be spiritual value to it.
My experience is it helps make the spiritual value greater, by letting go of literal needs for spiritual learning. It still requires integrity, to not just accept Lord of the Rings fiction as scripture…but let go of needing to prove the location of the Book of Mormon. It is a bit of a dance.
It is a paradigm shift. But it can be done honestly and sincerely…not in a fake or dishonest way.
I also find that teasing out some theories like this, are helpful in understanding what the book actually says and doesn’t say. Geography theories can have their place in my spiritual journey. I find them interesting to consider.
You make several good points Heber, thank you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.