The problem with Limited Geography,

[Solon]

among others, is the numbers involved.

Mormon 3 describes a battle with 80,000+ combatants.

Mormon 6.10, 12-15 describes the loss of 230,000 Nephites. I assume the opposing army of Lamanites was the same size or bigger, since "And it came to pass that they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers." (Mormon 6.8)

The two bloodiest battles I can think of from ancient history are the battle of Cannae in 216 BC, and Arausio in 105. At Cannae, Rome probably lost somewhere between 50 and 70,000, and at Arausio, 100,000+ died in sum.

By 105, Rome controlled a large chunk of the Mediterranean Sea region.

But these battles are chump change compared with a quarter million Nephites eating iron, er. . . . stone.

With "limited geography" growing in popularity, has anyone come across an explanation for this issue?

Addendum: I suppose the obvious response will be "the numbers are inaccurate." Fair enough, but LDS seem inclined to take numbers in the BoM very literally (e.g. Lehi and 600 BC).

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Solon

among others, is the numbers involved.

Mormon 3 describes a battle with 80,000+ combatants.

Mormon 6.10, 12-15 describes the loss of 230,000 Nephites. I assume the opposing army of Lamanites was the same size or bigger, since "And it came to pass that they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers." (Mormon 6.8)

The two bloodiest battles I can think of from ancient history are the battle of Cannae in 216 BC, and Arausio in 105. At Cannae, Rome probably lost somewhere between 50 and 70,000, and at Arausio, 100,000+ died in sum.

By 105, Rome controlled a large chunk of the Mediterranean Sea region.

But these battles are chump change compared with a quarter million Nephites eating iron, er. . . . stone.

With "limited geography" growing in popularity, has anyone come across an explanation for this issue?

Addendum: I suppose the obvious response will be "the numbers are inaccurate." Fair enough, but LDS seem inclined to take numbers in the BoM very literally (e.g. Lehi and 600 BC).

BOM geography is for LDS what the trinity is for other faiths. It is simply an inexplicable holy mystery.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Solon

among others, is the numbers involved.

Mormon 3 describes a battle with 80,000+ combatants.

Mormon 6.10, 12-15 describes the loss of 230,000 Nephites. I assume the opposing army of Lamanites was the same size or bigger, since "And it came to pass that they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers." (Mormon 6.8)

The two bloodiest battles I can think of from ancient history are the battle of Cannae in 216 BC, and Arausio in 105. At Cannae, Rome probably lost somewhere between 50 and 70,000, and at Arausio, 100,000+ died in sum.

By 105, Rome controlled a large chunk of the Mediterranean Sea region.

But these battles are chump change compared with a quarter million Nephites eating iron, er. . . . stone.

With "limited geography" growing in popularity, has anyone come across an explanation for this issue?

Addendum: I suppose the obvious response will be "the numbers are inaccurate." Fair enough, but LDS seem inclined to take numbers in the BoM very literally (e.g. Lehi and 600 BC).

Weren't they just following in the tradition of bible and over exaggerating the number of people? Also we are talking about the extinction of a people. 230k doesn't seem that unreasonable

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

BOM geography is for LDS what the trinity is for other faiths. It is simply an inexplicable holy mystery.

there is beauty in the trinity mystery. what beauty lies in bad geography?

[All-American]

Is it possible that 10,000 is the name of a specific military unit, similar to the Persian Immortals or what appears to be the case with Laban's 50 and 10,000 in 1 Nephi? If so, what are the chances that the unit would preserve the name even if unable to replace its casualties? And what are the chances that one side of a conflict would have twenty three units of this type?

And finally, at what point have these questions convoluted the idea beyond the reasonable point?

I'll give you this-- it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a battle wherein one side brought a quarter million people to the field, yet were vastly outnumbered so as to allow for their wholesale slaughter. The fact that previous battles pitted armies of forty thousand or so apiece makes me think that any other battle wouldn't pit forces that so greatly exceed that number, even if it were the last stand.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Weren't they just following in the tradition of bible and over exaggerating the number of people? Also we are talking about the extinction of a people. 230k doesn't seem that unreasonable

It seems unreasonable to me, given ancient world logistics such as transportation, supplies, communication, etc. It would take a huge amount of land in AD 350 to support 1/4 million people with ancient agricultural techniques.

I like AA's idea. There's precedent for groups of 10,000, but again, the Persian empire stretched from India to Turkey and Egypt.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

It seems unreasonable to me, given ancient world logistics such as transportation, supplies, communication, etc. It would take a huge amount of land in AD 350 to support 1/4 million people with ancient agricultural techniques.

I like AA's idea. There's precedent for groups of 10,000, but again, the Persian empire stretched from India to Turkey and Egypt.

I truly believe that history repeats itself and that the human experience throughout the ages is ‘reasonably’ cyclical. Therefore, I don’t adhere to a notion of limited geography and acute cultural isolation to explain the where’s and how’s of peoples of the book of Mormon. Rather, I think that Lehi’s Nephite descendents represent a distinct body of people that lived among, influenced and affected the larger populations that were already on the American continent. In fact it does not seem a stretch to me to believe that all of Lehi’s descendant’s knowledge in the realms of religion, systems of law, government and science greatly influenced certain indigenous cultures.

As I have studied the Book of Mormon I get the impression that the Lamanite descendents of Lehi were absorbed into the larger cultures and genetic lines of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, while the Nephite descendents remained culturally and, within reason, genetically distinct from the indigenous peoples. And as is stated in various places, the Book of Mormon, as we know it, is only a portion of the entire history. In fact, not only is it a condensed history but perhaps it must be considered an extremely biased telling of the history.

Imagine only having access to the history of World War II as compiled by a Jewish Pole … a history of Rome as compiled by an early Christian … a history of Babylon as compiled by Daniel … or, a history of Egypt as compiled by Joseph. History is full of examples, from China to Egypt to Europe of distinct, relatively small, culturally unique peoples that birth highly motivated individuals who unite kingdoms and change their respective worlds. Kingdoms that spanned entire continents. So perhaps when it is stated that 200,000 Nephites died, they were not pure Nephites in a genealogical sense but pure Nephites in an ideological sense? Certainly the final chapters of the Book of Mormon, as we know it, readily support such a notion.

Consider for a moment that Mormons or members of the LDS faith make up approximately 2 – 3 % of the American population. Yet, a disproportionate number of Mormons represent millions of Americans from all denominations and walks of life, and in an ideological sense as duly elected political officials. Mormonism is truly an American religion. Mormon church culture is as much American as it is ‘Mormon’. Mormon values and ideals are very much American values and ideals … ideals and values that are becoming more ‘Mormon’ the more and more American society embraces other philosophies that advocate alternative values and ideals.

Therefore, what if a Mormon American compiled the only record of the history of the United States of America available to future generations? How would it read and what conclusions would future generations make about the genetic make-up of the American people? And could it be said that history repeats itself and that the human experience is reasonably cyclical ...

[SeattleUte]

This is a fool's errand. There's no evidence of any of this. None. Not a shred. Tooblue, your entire lengthy post is made up. You made it up. No wonder you give yourself solace believing that all of history is just a myth, a charade.

There's tons of liguistic, archeological, geographic, and documentary evidence to support Homer, Herodotus, Josephus, the authors and editors of the Bible. THe parthenon stands before our eyes, my avatar is a visual testimonial that there is a great deal of factual truth in Josephesus' account, maybe most important that Josephus' account is a genuine ancient record, what it claims to be. We have old manuscripts, Dead Sea scrolls, we have modern people acting just like their forebears did 3,500 years ago in the Middle East. We have Jews, Iranians, Egyptians and Celts.

But there is no more evidence to support anything in this thread than Hobbits. I would not wast my time engaging in a discussion of "limited geography." There's nothing. Nothing. Not even a recognizable place name or geographic formation or structure in the Book of Mormon. I can't believe that when there are so many great things I haven't read or seen people spend time speculating about 230,000 Nephites or limited geography. It's why I abhor the exmo site. Those people continue to talk about nonsense. They should stop. It's ridiculous, and it's sad. It really is. I think that may be the biggest tragedy of Mormonism.

It isn't even good literature except the huge sections copied straight out of the KJV. It's a pale imitation of the KJV.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The numbers are highly suspect, to say the least.

AA's suggestion isn't crazy (he's saying the "numbers" aren't really numbers), but if one does that sort of thing with every issue that comes up with the historicity of the BoM, one eventually undercuts the literalness of the BoM anyway.

I sometimes wonder if FARMS, and it's "that doesn't mean what it obviously seems to mean, even though Mormons stand up by the thousands and testify of it from the shadowy depths of misunderstanding" and "It's the most perfect book, which is why none of you really get it" approach isn't actually an overt attempt to ease the Church onto less literal grounds. The trajectory of this approach certainly seems more mystical than historical.

Another possibility would be a future edition of the BoM that allows the wording (the signifiers) to be more easily reconciled to more historically reasonable agruments concerning their meaning (the signifieds). You change "his ten thousand" to conform to what AA says it really means and so on, and therein conform the text to a more transparent and accessible historicity. You change the individual words to more accurately reflect what the thousands of pages of scholarship suggest; you condense and take the burden off of the missionary, the member, and the investigator.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to this second approach. You'd be making exactly the kinds of changes critics of the Church want people to imagine when they cite the 4,000 changes in the BoM. But truth be told, in 150 years no one will care and in 300 years only a handful of scholars will know. In Mormonism the wording changes are possible within the context of continuing revelation, could be made incrementally, and actually wouldn't involve all that many wording changes anyway (at least not in English). Moreover, these are the kinds of changes that have been made in the Bible from time to time.

The situation as it is, is unstable. Signifiers (words) need to be reconciled to signifieds (meanings), whether the former are considered in literal terms or not. The mental gymnastics required are already hurting missionary efforts amongst some people and contribute to inactivity too. It doesn't so much contribute to apostasy as it does to people wanting to be able to have a straightforward faith.

Movement in either direction should put the "Mormons are a cult" business to rest for good. There will be no more, "Well, when it says 'chariot' it really means 'Olmec deer sled' or whatever other kind of double think.

I see scholars in the Church pushing both directions, and as I have said before, I'm happy to accept the BoM as a book that teaches spiritual truth without being historical. I have a spiritual witness of it. But the Church will eventually start moving in one direction (the less literal) or the other (the more literal), and in the case of the latter, will actually have to make some wording changes that reflect a tenable historical understanding.

I suspect that FARMS is already subtly moving the Church in the less-literal direction and that some leaders are aware of this (and some approve). There could always be direction changes of course, or even a schism.

[Sassy in RS]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The numbers are highly suspect, to say the least.

AA's suggestion isn't crazy (he's saying the "numbers" aren't really numbers), but if one does that sort of thing with every issue that comes up with the historicity of the BoM, one eventually undercuts the literalness of the BoM anyway.

I sometimes wonder if FARMS, and it's "that doesn't mean what it obviously seems to mean, even though Mormons stand up by the thousands and testify of it from the shadowy depths of misunderstanding" and "It's the most perfect book, which is why none of you really get it" approach isn't actually an overt attempt to ease the Church onto less literal grounds. The trajectory of this approach certainly seems more mystical than historical.

Another possibility would be a future edition of the BoM that allows the wording (the signifiers) to be more easily reconciled to more historically reasonable agruments concerning their meaning (the signifieds). You change "his ten thousand" to conform to what AA says it really means and so on, and therein conform the text to a more transparent and accessible historicity. You change the individual words to more accurately reflect what the thousands of pages of scholarship suggest; you condense and take the burden off of the missionary, the member, and the investigator.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to this second approach. You'd be making exactly the kinds of changes critics of the Church want people to imagine when they cite the 4,000 changes in the BoM. But truth be told, in 150 years no one will care and in 300 years only a handful of scholars will know. In Mormonism the wording changes are possible within the context of continuing revelation, could be made incrementally, and actually wouldn't involve all that many wording changes anyway (at least not in English). Moreover, these are the kinds of changes that have been made in the Bible from time to time.

The situation as it is, is unstable. Signifiers (words) need to be reconciled to signifieds (meanings), whether the former are considered in literal terms or not. The mental gymnastics required are already hurting missionary efforts amongst some people and contribute to inactivity too. It doesn't so much contribute to apostasy as it does to people wanting to be able to have a straightforward faith.

Movement in either direction should put the "Mormons are a cult" business to rest for good. There will be no more, "Well, when it says 'chariot' it really means 'Olmec deer sled' or whatever other kind of double think.

I see scholars in the Church pushing both directions, and as I have said before, I'm happy to accept the BoM as a book that teaches spiritual truth without being historical. I have a spiritual witness of it. But the Church will eventually start moving in one direction (the less literal) or the other (the more literal), and in the case of the latter, will actually have to make some wording changes that reflect a tenable historical understanding.

I suspect that FARMS is already subtly moving the Church in the less-literal direction and that some leaders are aware of this (and some approve). There could always be direction changes of course, or even a schism.

Couldn't we also say "we don't know and Church members have different ideas about it?"