Book of Mormon Lands

[allquieton]

So I’ve read a bit about Book of Mormon Geography. And I know the Church funds a lot of research claiming the Yucatan Penninsula as the BoM lands. But after studying Maya hieroglyphs in school, I don’t believe it could have been. I just think with all the names of kings/queens we can read in Maya inscription dating from BoM times, that some of the names would match up. I would think a lot of them would.

Does anyone know if this is addressed in any Maya BoM Geography claims? How do they explain the lack of name matches?

(I side with the N. American geography claims btw.)

[Anonymous]

I am no expert on BoM geography theories, mostly because the historicity issue isn’t that vital to me personally. I skim the arguments now and then though. As far as I know, the most popular and practical theory currently is a very limited version of the “Limited Geography” theory. This style theorizes that the events in the Book of Mormon really happened in a small geographical area, and it was a small society overall in the grand scheme of the overall cultures in the Americas. The idea is that size, numbers and distance were inflated, as is common in other ancient cultural histories, to make them seem more grandiose than reality provided for — a form of tall tale, sort of, but based on real people.

So when we read and get the picture in our mind of millions of soldiers fighting huge battles all across North and South America, it really may have been only hundred or perhaps a couple thousand fighting battles in an area smaller than a medium-sized U.S. state.

That is one explanation why you don’t find names like “Nephi,” horses or steel weapons and armor among Mayan, Aztec, Toltec cultural and archeological remains.

Like I said, I am not personally all that attached to the historicity question. I find it interesting enough to be slightly informed and sometimes read a little on the apologetic theories.

Let me make it clear though. I don’t have any problem with people who do believe the Book of Mormon is a historical record. That’s fine with me. I am more of a believer in the ideas and concepts, the resolutions to various questions that plague Christianity throughout history, in the Book of Mormon.

[Anonymous]

I think the Limited Geogrpahy view is the only one that makes sense, given what the book actually says. Don’t know where it would have occurred, since it really doens’t give any precise location after the beginning of II Nephi.

I also think we tend to GREATLY undervalue the book of Ether when it comes to basic assumptions of the early membership – including Joseph Smith and the early leaders. The Jaredites appear to be much more of a nomadic, wide-ranging people than the Lamanites and Nephites – and they probably originated in the Asiatic region, based solely on what the record implies.

Mormon Heretic has done some wonderful posts about possible locations, based on various theories that are out there. I recommend his blog highly, if you are interested in reading some very good analyses. That site is:

http://www.mormonheretic.org/

[Anonymous]

Yes, this is a favorite topic of mine. Let me give you a link that’s more focused on the many geography theories out there.

http://www.mormonheretic.org/category/geography/

Malay is the strangest theory out there. While unorthodox, it certainly solves many problems too.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info all.

[Author]

Posts