In another thread, one poster wrote:
If you don’t agree with me on Cumorah being our best strating point, I would be very open to hearing what you consider to be the best piece of evidence or the best witness to call upon as the most solid to date.
To which I responded:
In my opinion, it is a huge problem to start with ANY physical location. You’re already making assumptions, no matter how hard we try.
First, you need an internal map and geography. Only when you can say that you’ve got the Book of Mormon text figured out, can we start looking for physical locations.
So, I would say–pick a theoretical geography, and start from there. You can build your own, but since Sorenson has done the most work, I don’t understand why people don’t cheat and start with his. Explain what he gets wrong, and why. Then modify his map. Repeat.
Once that’s done, then one can start to think about placing that map with real-world correlates.
The article in question is here, and here and here should be read too.
Heck, just go ahead and read everything Clark has written, because he’s given more serious thought to the issues (even if you don’t agree with him) than most people who’ve written on the topic. See here. His are the sorts of issue any competent theory will have to address.
There’s lots of geography refs at the FAIR wiki here, including a long list of statements from various Church leaders and publications. It is by no means complete–it has been basically done in a “Hey, I stumbled onto a quote, I’m gonna note it” sort of a way. I recently noted that even some well-known statements were missing, as I worked with this data a little more. They’ve been added, but I have more in hard copy to add when I get time.
So if you can post sources with as much bibliographic info as possible, I’ll add them as I see new stuff show up and can confirm it. (This is called getting others to do my work for me!)
Since long threads get unwieldy with two many separate threads of conversation, I’ve started this thread for those interested in discussing geographic issues in a general, theoretical sense (which does not, of course, preclude real-world hypotheses).
With any luck, some experts in the field will show up.
Cumorah is described in the BofM with little or no geographic detail. On the other hand, The river Sidon is mentioned 37 times in 28 different verses with
accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least six different geographical locations The BofM Cumorah, whether in NY, Meoamerica or somewhere in between, lacks sufficient detail in its textual description to serve as a starting place. The river Sidon has suffiecient detail to eliminate most, if not all candidates except one when all of the geographic detail is considered.
See the following discusion for more detail.
http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/grijalvasidon.html
Because there are so few rivers in the Americas that even come close to meeting all of the geographic criteria found in the text, Occam’s razor would suggest that we use the River Sidon as a starting point and build an internal map as suggested by Clark. We can then fit this map to the real world geography of the Americas and judge the fit to any proposed location.
Larry P
I agree with this. Trying to use “land northward,” “land southward” and “narrow neck of land” puts us into the position of using very vague descriptors. Since there are a number of different theories based largely on these criteria that do not agree with each other, obviously we need another starting point.
So, our task should first be to find the river that best describes the River Sidon.
Larry, I disagree that it lacks sufficient detail. The details are plain enough to know that it is not in Mesoamerica, and it is only Mesoamericanists that claim that there is no detail for Cumorah. The great lakes region is the obvious place for Cumorah according to a plain reading of the text.
Here is cumorah’s internal geography:
Mormon indicicates that he and his father lived in the Land Northward. Mormon likely spent his early childhood there. Then he was taken by his father into the land Southward (Mormon 1:1-5). Mormon notes the large contrast between the sparseness of the population in the Land Lorthward versus the large population centers in the Land Southward:
“And it came to pass that I, being eleven years old, was carried by my father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla. The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.” (Mormon 1:6-7). Precisely as we see from the contrast in the archaeology of Mesoamerica versus the archaeology of the Great Lakes Region.
The Cumorah region was many days travel to the north (Mosiah 8 :7-11, Ether 9: 3). Omer, for example, departed OUT of the land he was in to get to Cumorah. It was tied to large bodies of water, Ripliancum being one of those large bodies of water. Cumorah is intimately ties with these large bodies of water. These large bodies of water were an exceedingly great distance from Zarahemla and the Narrow Neck. (Alma 50:29, Helaman 3:3-11, Mormon 6:4-5). Therefore, we have (1) the neck of land with Zarahemla closely tied to it, (2) an exceeedingly great distance of many days travel (3) and then after that exeedingly great distance, of many days travel, we have a land of many waters with extremely large bodies of water, with a hill near the eastern sea intimately tied to those large bodies of water.
You can claim all the day long that the text doesn’t say this plainly. You can disagree with this in order to justify your own reading of the text. But you cannot deny that it is a rational position that the text DOES say this plainly when one wants to believe in the literalness of what the text says. Furthermore, Occam’s razor favors the simple explanation of what the text says plainly. Why should we favor the idea that the text is “not plain” when it is obvious that it is plain. It says what it says plainly. When you draw this reading of the text on paper, then you have an internal map, with an exceedingly great distance between the neck of land and the large bodies of water, and then you look for a placement in the real world. Mesoamerica fits with the neck of land and the limited geography down there. But once you get to the land northward, it is anything but limited, and the great lakes region fits the description of a land far off to the north with exceedingly large bodies of water with a hill called Cumorah near them. You cannot deny the rationality of this reading of the text, even if you do not believe in it.
Here’s an interesting theory that spreads it all out between the Great Lakes region and Mesoamerica:
http://www.bookofmormongeography.net/
It kind of does, but it does something very unnatural with the map in the real world. It really is a hemispheric geography. It doesn’t specifically place zarahemla in Mesoamerica, but north of mesoamerica as you can see from the map.
The geography I propose is essentially the same as the McGavin and Bean geogrpahy, that is NOT hemispheric. A hemispheric geography places the narrow neck in panama and lehis landing in Chile.
My proposition is different. I’m saying almost all of Sorenson’s readings are correct with the exception of his readings for Cumorah and the land Northward. Placing the land southward in mesoamerica and having a limited geography there, and having a limited geography in the Great lakes region around the lakes and Cumorah with an exceedingly great distance between the two lands is a different proposition. In other words, I propose a limited geography in *two specific areas* with a great distance between the two. Archaeologically, the great Lakes reagion is indeed a transplant from Mesoamerica, even in Book of Mormon times.
Well, maybe I should also describe it this way. While it is true that there were people spread out between the two lands sparcely, I am proposing that the main heartland was in the land southward in Mesoamerica, but that there was also a *satellite heartland* in the north, with an exceedingly great distance between them. And the sattelite heartland in the north was not as densely populated as the one in the south. I hope that this makes it clear what my vision is here.
Ed Goble says
Larry, I disagree that it lacks sufficient detail. The details are plain enough to know that it is not in Mesoamerica, and it is only Mesoamericanists that claim that there is no detail for Cumorah. The great lakes region is the obvious place for Cumorah according to a plain reading of the text.
Surprise, surprise Ed.
For some time now, I have been trying to point out that the Mesoamerican location for the Hill Cumorah suggested by Sorenson and others does not fit with what little information is found in the text. As you say a plain reading of the text does not fit. The hill Vijia is too close to the narrow neck. It is south, not west of a large body of water. Their claim that the Gulf of Mexico is the east sea is based on a modern global view of the oceans rather than the ancient concept of a more local view based on sunrise and sunset. What we translate to east was always where the sun rose and not a description of a direction on a map.
For a while, I even contemplated the possibility of the BofM Cumorah being as far north as Palmyra, but a closer look at the geography of the Jaredites as described in the Book of Ether is difficult to fit into this area without proposing major geological changes in the area. No such geological evidence has been found.
There can be no question that the Hill Ramah was in Jaredite territory and that it was the same hill as the Hill Cumorah.
So I agree with you that it was further north but maybe not as far as you suggest.
Larry P
Very interesting Larry. I have to disagree about the geological changes thing in the land northward, but if you “convert” me with evidence, then I may end up agreeing. Go for it. Show me what you got.
Wait a sec. Where does the requirement of being west of a large body of water come in? I don’t see that in the Book of Ether. Cumorah in NY is also south of Lake Ontario, so lets discuss this point, as it is an important criterion whether it is south or west.
Archaeologically speaking though, only the great lakes region provides for a significant population in the land northward, albeit smaller than in Mesoamerica, which is what I see in the text.
The following scripture in Ether places the Hill Shim and the place where the Nephites were destroyed eastward from the land of Omer’s (Jaredites) residence near a seashore. In keeping with the concept that a sea is a large body of water, this places Cumorah west of a large body of water.
Ether 9:
3 And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land; wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore, and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and all his household, save it were Jared and his family.
Recent archeological findings have now shown that pre Maya cultures were of significantly large numbers as far north as San Lois Potosi and southern Tamaulipas. See the info on Tamtoc.
http://archaeology.about.com/b/2006/05/12/tamtoc-monolith-32-olmec-connection-in-san-luis-potosi.htm
This area is in the land northward a great distance from the land southward and had a significant population in Jaredite times.
Larry P
Quick note: Are we to understand that Joseph and his contemporaries were only making a wild guess that Hill Cumorah NY was the BoM Cumorah? Does anyone really believe that Joseph would have been ignorant about such a matter? He met with Moroni many times on that hill, and if Joseph and his contemporaries thought that it was indeed THE Cumorah, that deserves some special attention.
Otherwise, it is safe to assume that Joseph Smith’s views or words have virtually no bearing on the debate, which puts everything into pure speculation. If Cumorah isn’t really Cumorah, we don’t have any other location that can be tied into the narrative via physical evidence (ie the Golden Plates.)
As I previously stated, I doubt that Moroni would risk losing something as valuable as the Golden Plates by walking thousands upon thousands of miles with them with the Lamanites in pursuit. If he were to be captured or killed, the cause would be lost. My guess, based on common sense and intuition, is that he would bury them in the Hill Cumorah as quickly as he could after writing his final words and then he would take off to divert attention away from the site. Just a thought.
One more idea that deserves attention:
The mound building sites of N America are considerably older than most cities in C and S America.
The Jaredites were in the land Northward.
Cumorah and desolation were in the land Northward.
The Zelph story places the final battles of the Nephites in N America, unless Joseph was just ignorant about the whole thing, which I doubt.
The Land northward was a big place. Basically the simplest reading of the BofM text is that it included everything north and northward of the Narrow Neck.
According to the BofM, Moroni still had the plates in 400 AD. This was 15 years after the final war recorded by Mormon and Moroni in Mormon’s chapters in the BofM. He still had them in 421 AD.
Moroni 19L
1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that *more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.
Having kept them for some 35 years without losing them to the Lamanites it is not intuitive that he would suddenly decide to bury them to prevent the Lamanites from getting them. In addition. it is not intuitive that he would remain in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, an area completely in the control of the Lamanites, rather than get himself as far away from them as possible. If he fled the area, it is unreasonable that he would voluntarily return to those dangers just to bury the plates in a box in the same hill where all the other plates were stored rather than put them with the rest of the plates, something which he did do after Joseph Smith finished the translation.
Larry P
I get it. I understand where you are coming from now.
So pretty much Larry, you are of the “two Cumorah” type of theory still, in that the hill in NY is just where the plates ended up, not Cumorah, even though you don’t agree with Sorenson on Vigia. Furthermore, you still place it in Mesoamerica, reinterpreting the scripture to be not tied to the land northward, but rather east of the Jaredite domain.
The problem I have with this interpretation is that it is clear to me at least that the nephite retreat was into the Land Northward until finally they were cornered at Cumorah, and it was in the same land of many waters, tied to Ripliancum, which is one of the large bodies of water. And going eastward is simply the eastern sea. But you aren’t tying the scriptures about the Land Northward into your equation for the placement of Cumorah.
“The mound building sites of N America are considerably older than most cities in C and S America.”
This is simply not true. They fall within the Book of Mormon time period, but some of the oldest are the Adena, and they are in some cases contemporary with Olmec, but the Olmec and others in Mesoamerica simply go back much further.
“Are we to understand that Joseph and his contemporaries were only making a wild guess that Hill Cumorah NY was the BoM Cumorah? Does anyone really believe that Joseph would have been ignorant about such a matter? He met with Moroni many times on that hill, and if Joseph and his contemporaries thought that it was indeed THE Cumorah, that deserves some special attention.”
This is a bad assumption in the sense that we have no evidence they received revelation on it.
The best we can do is establish the plausibility of the site from the scriptures and archaeology. If it can be established that it is a plausible and rational location using other evidence, then you can say that it is something you can believe in. Otherwise, your belief is based on faith only, not any kind of rationality. If you take their words as revelation, then that is only faith. My purpose is to leave their words behind and do what I can do based on other evidences to assert and establish the rationality of my belief. Why should we believe they knew anything about Cumorah as a revelation? If they did, then such a possibility cannot be established because they said it was so. It must be demonstrated that it is rational that they did have a revelation.
Otherwise you might as well bag Cumorah till you get another revelation on the subject, because the old traditions are discredited. In the end though, even if you can establish it as rational, then you are still supposing that there was something revelatory that led to the tradition. But the difference is, you established the plausibility of your belief with evidence, not by asserting revelation. There is a big difference.
I will be the first one to admit that my belief in that tradition is based on my fundamental belief in some sort of revelatory thing on that particular site at some point. From who, I don’t know. But my continued belief in that is only because I have a rational basis for that belief. That may seem contradictory that I have previously said that we should dispense with all tradition and historical statements. Well yes, we should, as a matter of EVIDENCE IN AN ARGUMENT, because you can’t make an assertion of a revelatory basis for any of this as evidence for a rational argument. Because if you do, then your argument is no longer based on evidence, but on belief. So then why not bear your testimony and get it over with? Because obviously it is not based on rationality. I’m saying that I have both a belief in something revelatory on that site, plus I have a rational and plausible argument for my belief. I just don’t confuse my belief with evidence, nor do I use it in an argument. I hope this makes sense.
One more thing. These types of beliefs in something revelatory like this to me are secondary to my testimony of the gospel. I will be perfectly happy if I’m forced by evidence to re-evaluate my belief on Cumorah. I don’t know why I’m a die hard about it, but I’ve always sensed intuitively that there is something different about this site. I was perfectly able to let go of the rest of my old geography theory, but as you can see, I’m not so easily swayed with Cumorah. What is the difference? I don’t know. It may even be just an emotional tie more than testimony for all I know. But I nevertheless have a belief in it, but my arguments cannot be structured around an assertion of belief. Do I bend my interpretations around it? Perhaps. But this is no different than die hard Mesoamericanists refusing to admit the plausibility of an exceedingly great distance between Cumorah and the neck. They can claim they have cleared their mind ahead of time all the day long, but their belief in Mesoamerica always bleeds through. That’s why John Clark’s dialectical method thing is the only thing where I think he is really up in the night. I’m all for internal maps and everything, but that really is just a devious little scheme to say that somehow mesoamerican geographies have divested themselves from subjectivity whereas others have not. And I will never buy that for one second.
I’m all for internal maps and everything, but that really is just a devious little scheme to say that somehow mesoamerican geographies have divested themselves from subjectivity whereas others have not. And I will never buy that for one second.
I think any claims by anyone that they are “objective” is nonsense. At best, they’re hiding their biases from themselves.
The advantage of internal maps is that they allow us to rely on the one thing about which we must be certain–the Book of Mormon text. And, it makes one’s assumptions clear, and one must justify them from the text.
Plus, I have little interest in “proving” the Book of Mormon via archaeology etc. I’m more interested in the geography because of what it teaches me about the text–hence my almost exclusive personal interest in internal maps. 🙂
Even if one feels someone like Clark or Sorenson IS reading their views into the internal map, critiquing that internal map on the basis of the Book of Mormon text seems to me the most parsimonious approach.
Equally, you could say the same for a New York Cumorah geography that bases its reading on the text, or at least a reading of the text that is reasonable, whether you believe that reading of the text personally or not. My purpose really is not to convince, which I’m pretty sure that I cannot do, as much as to prove to myself that my beliefs are as rational as the next theorists, and to try to get an admission that a New York geography (only for Cumorah with the land southward in Mesoamerica) is actually rational from the opposition, even if they don’t believe it.
“The Zelph story places the final battles of the Nephites in N America, unless Joseph was just ignorant about the whole thing, which I doubt.”
The Zelph Story is so problematic and discredited as far as geography goes that its another one that you can have personal beliefs about, but you shouldn’t try to bring it into a geography discussion.
To me personally, its a no brainer. Zelph was a white lamanite among some struggling Nephites in the land Northward under Onandagus towards the end, before all the Nephites were destroyed. These Onandagus followers were among the last of the righteous, and these were Hopewell Indians. Zelph’s mound does archaeologically fit within the Hopewell domain and dates to the right time period. Furthermore Zelph was buried in a shallow burial in that mound, showing that he was one of the last to be buried in it.
But again, this is my personal belief on Zelph, and I can’t argue anything by it. I cannot use it as evidence, because the second I do, I discredit my argument. It would take a lot to overcome the fact that the whole Zelph thing is discredited, and to be perfectly frank, I know its a waste of time to try to do that, because I have picked my battles very carefully, and I know which ones I have a chance of winning. This one, I know I could never win.
Great. I see how this game is played.
Joseph Smith and his contemporaries are “discredited” unless you have “Thus saith the Lord” in front of whatever statement you want to refer to.
The Zelph story is “discredited.”
I would point out the fact that the cave of many plates is said (by B. Young)to be very near Cumorah which would place Mormon, Moroni, etc in the right area for the NY Cumorah to be the correct Cumorah, (unless Moroni carried an entire cave’s worth of plates several thousand miles) but I have the feeling that the cave story would somehow be “discredited” too, so I won’t waste any more energy on it.
As far as putting rational thought before belief, I think we need to put a bit more faith in what those who were really in the know had to say, because by all rational argument, we haven’t found diddle-squat as far as rational evidence for the BoM geography, (or even the BoM, for that matter). We seem to be stuck with nothing credible from church history, so what is left? Theories that amount to little more than well-guessed opinions, but everyone else’s is somehow that much more “credible” than yours. Especially if rooted firmly in Mesoamerica.
I suppose it is best just to forget about the whole thing, because nobody has anything of substance to bring to these arguments, and I guess i have to include myself in that statement. And to think I trusted the statements of the early brethren all these years. Stupid me.
What do you want from us? Do you want something that is scholarly, or do you want belief? Do you want testimony? What is it that you want? The Church no longer has official doctrines on these things. How then, shall we proceed? Shall we proceed on the words of dead prophets or living ones. Shall we make assertions based on what dead prophets said? You tell me then. How do you propose that we proceed? Do you want an assumption that everybody must agree on that Cumorah is in New York? How do you propose that we proceed with that? What should that be based on? Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation said so. Dead Prophet. Do you want me to give you the quotes with the Church’s current position that it has no position? I can certainly give you that.
I’m telling you my methodology that I am using to go forward in the scholarly environment we have to work with. Sorry if it offends you. I guess I don’t know what you want from me. Do you want an acknowledgment that it is so because dead prophets said so? How do you propose that I give that to you in the current environment of no new revelation on the subject?
DJ
The problem is that the geography has to match the book. If it doesn’t match the book, then we have to discard it.
So instead of simply using statements from modern day Saints and claiming they knew better, we have to compare that with what the Book of Mormon actually says. Just because someone lived during the same time period as Joseph Smith, doesn’t mean that they understood the Book of Mormon geography. If you want to use Zelph–fine. But, if you use it, make sure that it lines up with the other things in the Book of Mormon.
DJ,
Let me give you an analogy to what we are dealing with here. If you want to talk to people about something, you have to be on the same playing field as they are. If you want to talk science to an athiest, does asserting that you know that God created the world because you just know do anything for you? Or do you have to build your case differently?
Its all fine when you are preaching to the choir who all agree with you. If everyone agrees that the Cumorah cave stories mean something, then you have nothing to prove to those who take the cave stories at face value. I believe in them, but again, I’m your “choir.” I’ll bet in an discussion between me and you we could agree between ourselves that Zelph is what we think he is and that he represents for geography what we think the Zelph case represents, that Cumorah was in New York. But if you aren’t preaching to the choir, how do you propose to use Zelph as evidence? Don’t you have to structure your argument differently?
Easy, Ed!
You don’t need to discharge both barrels on me like you did at 5:03. The prophets may be dead now, but they were surely alive when the made the statements.
The stuff we get from within the BoM is just as shaky as what we have from Joseph and company. I mean, for example, if we read that something is “east” of somewhere, we have no clue how to take that. What if it was actually more like “northeast” or “southeast?” I don’t know how sophisticated their navigational equipment was back then (and I doubt anyone else here could say how reliable it was with any certainty) but I feel safer going with “less sophisticated.” The directions and descriptions are, as someone has pointed out, vague. I don’t want to sound like sour grapes, fellas. I just get a little amazed that people feel much more certain about Cumorah not being Cumorah based on the word “East” in the BoM while at the same time they can, with a straight face, say that Joseph Smith, who actually spoke with Moroni on multiple occasions and handled the plates, was probably just mistaken by thinking that the last great battle occured near Cumorah. If we look at one idea being more likely than another, I would think that leaning toward Joseph makes more sense.
I am perfectly aware that the church has no official standing on the issue of BOM geography. (Even though I have seen a copy of a letter issued several years back where the First Presidency maintains that the Church has always held the NY Cumorah to be the same as the BoM Cumorah, but I digress.)
I guess I just am dealing with the epiphany of realizing that for years we’ve been told to have more trust in faith and rely less on reasoning alone, and then I come to a forum to discuss things and suddenly faith is almost taboo. The BoM is one topic where I think we need to hit a balance. Call me crazy, but if Joseph seems to think, or at least condone, the idea that Lehi landed in/near Chile, and that Guatmamla sits near Zarahemla, and Cumorah is in New York, then the hemispheric model seems to line up just fine. The people who wrote the BoM didn’t have maps or airplanes or satellites, and they are going to most likely be a little hazy to us when it comes to describing directions and distances. The land North is divided from the Land South at the narrow neck of land. That is pretty clear. There are only so many places where such a dramatic demarcation can be made. I truly do think Cumorah is the best starting place for determining a geography, but I am baffled at how readily Joseph’s opinion on the matter is jettisoned and almost shunned. He never explicitly said the ideas came from “revelation,” but he surely got the ideas from somewhere. He had to have a starting point to those ideas.
Don’t think I didn’t note that the Times and Seasons quotes were given weight when they were being used against Rod. I would like to see some consistency 🙂
I’m really not mad, I’m just trying to understand and get a feel for what actually carries any weight around here. Greg Smith sums me up best at 2:53 when he talks about people being under the illusion of being objective. I’m not claiming objectivity in my views, but I think it is a bit shocking that so many people seem thoroughly convinced that Cumorah isn’t Cumorah. I guess I need to be directed to whatever evidences or ideas make them so certain.
F. Michael Watson (then secretary to the 1st Presidency) corrected his previous letter on this topic, if it is the same one to which you are referring.
If you are not, I’d like to see the other letter. Read about it here.
FAIR’s review was explicitly NOT intended to advocate for any geography. Our position has always been that there is no official position. Thus, only those quotes which disproved Rod’s claim that the geographical statements were all consistent and revelatory insisting upon HIS model were included.
If you want to see all the statements (or, a lot of them), see here: FAIR wiki.
(I think this has all the Times and Seasons stuff at least; the later dates are not as complete–there are a bunch from Orson Pratt, for example, that need to go in. He was more of a hemispheric view.)
This is part of the problem of trying to argue from earlier members’ statements–they are not all consistent. Which makes sense if they didn’t have a revealed geography. 🙂
That isn’t a recent development, though.
I think people are surprised because it’s new to them, but these ideas have been around for at least half a century. To research the arguments, you should probably start with Sperry’s stuff. He was one who changed his mind from NY to Meso.
Woah, hold on there a sec Greg. Now here’s something that I’m going to take you to task for. I want to see proof that this 1993 letter was sent in response as a clarification for the previous one. Until I see such proof, I will assert that the two letters actually *contradict each other,* and the Church never had a stance on Cumorah, let alone any Geography. I want to see proof that the 1993 letter addresses specifically the 1990 letter and that it was sent to William Hamblin who featured it in his article. It doesn’t clarify the Church’s position on Cumorah at all, but just clarifies the Church’s position in general that the Church has no position. Show the proof.
DJ says:
I’m really not mad, I’m just trying to understand and get a feel for what actually carries any weight around here.
DJ, the only thing that carries weight for me is what I can learn from my own study of the BofM text. People keep throwing out the statement that there is no revealed geography about the Nephite-Lamanite-Jaredite cultures. Although it is true that there has been no revelation as to where this culture was located other than that it was on this continent. However, the Book of Mormon was given to Josph Smith by an angel of God and he translated it by the gift and power of God. It is therefore the only revealed source for geography related to the BofM cultures. It contains geographic information relative to Nephi and his families travels and sojourns in both the old and new worlds. In the old world, where we have a known anchor point in Jerusalem, that geography has been shown to be an accurate description of the Arabian peninsula and the travel route that Lehi and his family followed. This gives one confidence that the geography described for the new world is about a real place and a real culture.
Due to the lack of a known anchor point in the new world, there are a multitude of proposed geographies ranging from simple internal maps to ones that postulate major changes in the configuration of the American continent within the last 2000 years.
Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have stated that science is a valid means of gaining and understanding of the world around us. They have also said that faith is a major factor in our aquisition of knowledge. But faith in whom? The fourth article of faith makes it very clear that our faith should be centered on Jesus Christ and not on the arm of the flesh. We should not place our faith in science but at the same time although we should respect our leaders both past and present, we must not forget that they are and were men and entitled to their own opinions about non revealed concepts.
In other words we are left to our own studies on non revealed matters. When it comes to BofM geography, we have the revealed text to guide us and we also have a great deal of facts about the pre columbian cultures provided by science. Between the two we should be able to arrive at some idea about the location and geography that is described in that revealed text.
However if we depend on others to do our studying for us we will end up torn between what are only the opinions of men.
Larry P
Wait, I think the language in the previous post wasn’t clear enough. Let me restate myself. I have studied the content of these particular letters for some time. I actually have a copy in my possession from 1990 (from the Tanners, incidentally, though I would have never asked them for anything normally, except I wanted to see proof that this letter actually existed).
I think that you are asserting much more than the evidence allows when you say that this 1993 was specifically a “clarification” on the previous letter.
I assert that the intent in the 1993 letter was NOT to clarify anything in the previous letter, but was specifically to answer something that Hamblin asked himself. If your claim is that it was sent as a follow up about the 1990 letter specifically, I want to see proof of that. Otherwise, I say that it was merely something sent to Hamblin to give Hamblin what he wanted to see, just as much as the letter from 1990 was to give this Ronnie Sparks what he wanted to see. In other words, I assert that there is an inconsistency between the two, because in both cases Elder Watson was giving the best answer he could at the time in both cases, because there is no good answer.
Furthermore, here is Elder Nelson’s statement on letters from authorities to individuals:
“Letters to individuals are not the channel for announcing the policy of the Church. For several important reasons, this letter itself is not a declaration of the position of the Church, as some have interpreted it to be. Do not anchor your position on this major issue to that one sentence!” (“The Law and the Light”)
Therefore, Hamblin’s claim that somehow in the 1993 letter “Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church’s position on Book of Mormon geography” is a false claim. And when I say that, I mean to say that it is Elder Watson’s own statement, NOT the Church’s statement. Elder Watson was not speaking for the Church in these cases, but on his own behalf to answer both individuals. It is actually the 1978 statement in the Church News on Geography that is what is binding.
Why am I making an issue about this technicality? Because Hamblin is trying to get mileage from the wording in Elder Watson’s statement that the “New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah”, implicitly saying that the Church has an official position that the New York Hill doesn’t fit the Book of Mormon description!! Therefore Hamblin was stealthily trying to say that the Church has a position that the New York Hill doesn’t fit the description in the text! This is why I have an issue with Hamblin on this point.
Good. That hasn’t happened enough lately. :-/
Um….exactly–that was my point. I think now-Elder Watson replied with his best understanding to a private member. This member made the letter public, the Tanners started pushing it, which brought it to the attention of folks at BYU. Hamblin wrote in asking if the letter was in fact the Church’s official stance, and there was a correction.
Like most big organizations, I doubt very much the First Presidency even SAW the first letter, or Elder Watson’s reply. They don’t have time to deal with the ton of trivia which must come their way–so, he dealt with it, wrote the letter, and fired it back to the Stake President to handle.
(I’ve heard secretaries of other large organizations indicate that this is standard protocol–it takes quite a bit to even get a letter through to the Powers that Be to whom it is addressed–which is partly what makes a secretary a powerful position if they are inclined to abuse their power. I hasten to add that I am certain Elder Watson did not abuse anything–I’m speaking generally–but that I suspect part of his duties are to relieve the First Presidency of a great deal of administrivia, such as ‘gospel questions’ that come in.)
I don’t, for the record, think the second Watson letter proves a Meso or limited or HGT or NY or any geography in any way. It proves simply that there is no revealed geography.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
As I have heard the story, Bill Hamblin wrote to assess whether the first letter in fact represented the Church’s position. Since Hamblin referenced the first letter in his query and specifically requested clarification on this point, I presumed, then, that it was a clarification and that iw was linked to that letter.
That is how Hamblin characterized it, and how members of FARMS/NAMI have continued to characterize it.
I readily grant that I cannot independently corroborate their version, but knowing Dr. Peterson somewhat, and Dr. Hamblin by reputation, I consider it trustworthy. Peterson notes that the published version “contains substantially the entire text of Brother Watson’s second letter.”
I suppose Hamblin could be misrepresenting it, but that seems a bit strange for employees of BYU to get away with falsely characterizing letters from the Secretary to the First Presidency. Dan Peterson talks about this here.
If you mean the second letter indicates there’s no official geography, then I agree with you completely. If you don’t mean that, then I don’t understand what you mean. 🙂
If you wanted to be certain, I suppose you could write the First Presidency with a copy of the first letter, mention Hamblin’s claim about the second, and ask what the scoop is.
I gather, though, from letters read regularly in sacrament meeting that it’s appreciated if we generally don’t do that. 🙂
May I focus on one thing for a moment? Bear with me, I’m still new to this 🙂
I’m looking at the Times & Seasons quote for 1 Oct 1842
(Zarahemla, Guatamala) Joseph definitely is not stating that the ruins discovered are Zarahemla, but he sure seems absolutelty certain that Zarahemla existed in the area mentioned. It seems as if Joseph has it quite fixed in his mind that the Isthmus of Darien was the narrow neck of land spoken of in the Book of Mormon. I detect no uncertainty in his mind about that in any of the given quotes. I think it is safe to say that the hemispheric model was THE view of Joseph’s immediate self and time.
As a result of this, I can’t help but side with Joseph. He never gave an explicit revelation on the matter, but he doesn’t offer up anything resembling a “maybe” when it comes to Lehi landing in the Land Southward (Chili) or Zarahemla being very near the middle of the Land Northward and Land Southward (Central America/Guatamala/et al) I don’t even think this represents a revised view on his part, because I know of no previous quotes tied so directly to Joseph that indicate that he held any other idea. Surely Moroni let loose SOMETHING about the geography to Joseph during all those meetings. Joseph had to form his ideas from something more than mere guesswork, or I doubt he would be so frank about quoting Alma and linking it to the Isthmus of Darien.
Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation), if I am not mistaken (correct me please, if I am) stated that Joseph Smith was on record as saying that the Hill Cumorah in NY was the BoM Cumorah. Does anyone know what record Joseph Fielding is referring to? That would deserve further investigation, would it not?
I realize that all of this is ultimately assumption, (just like everything else related to this issue) but surely this assumption is somewhat decent.
So, my points in regards to Isthmus of Darien thus far
1) I think it unlikely that Joseph was 100% ignorant to the geography. Not impossible, but unlikely.
2) Joseph seems to be stating the whole thing matter-of-factly with no reservation indicated.
3) The geography fits the details of the book as far as I read.
If anyone knows more about the Joseph Fielding Smith quote, please shout out!
Thanks, and forgive me if I’ve seemed a bit peeved or short with anyone. Like I said; I’m just trying to see what everyone else is seeing, but I’ve got my own views in the way 🙂
Thanks, Greg. When I get a bit of time, I’ll try to catch up with Sperry’s work.
Well Greg, I have read the quotes in question, and I’m not so unreasonable that I won’t take this stuff at face value. I will be happy to these guy’s word for it that the circumstances of how they got the letter is what it is. On the other hand, I think that you should document this testimony from these guys on your site, because this is all very important to document. These letters are quite controversial.
On the other hand, I stand by my other point about Elder Nelson’s statement that Mr. Hamblin is getting more mileage than he is allowed by the facts. Elder Watson’s statement is not to be taken as the Church’s position on the “Book of Mormon Description of Cumorah.” That is the real point here that I want to emphasize. Hamblin’s letter from Elder Watson is no more to be taken as the Church’s position on Cumorah than the 1990 letter is, as evidenced by Elder Nelson’s letter.
DJ,
It would probably do you well to collect all the statements of Joseph Smith on geography if you want to believe in something on geography, because if anyone knew anything at all, he probably did. If you want statements from authorities on the subject to build your point of view on, then Joseph Smith’s statements would probably be the best ones to build on rather than anybody else’s. My personal view is that his views on geography are essentially correct, though this is my personal view, again, not that I’m asserting that I have evidence that his statements represent revelations, although I personally believe they do have some inspiration to them, though obviously not binding on anybody, and subject to the need for further revelation to solidify that this is the case.
Here are Joseph Smith’s statements that I know of that seem to be beyond question:
(1) The statement on the area of Zelph’s mound being in the Land of Desolation from the Levi Hancock Journal.
(2) June 4, 1834, during Zion’s Camp in a letter that he wrote to his wife Emma:
We arrived this morning on the banks of the Mississippi . . . [W]e left the eastern part of the state of Ohio . . . The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and bones, as proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendor and the goodness so indescribable . . . (signed) Joseph Smith, Jr.” (Letter to Emma Smith, June 4, 1834).
(3) The statements in the Times and Seasons that Greg and others had referenced, showing that Joseph Smith favored a Mesoamerican placement for both the Land of Zarahemla as well as Lehi’s landing. Note that this contradicts the idea that Lehi’s landing was in Chile.
(4) Joseph Smith’s statement on Stephens and Catherwood:
“Messrs. Stephens and Catherwood have succeeded in collecting in the interior of America a large amount of relics of the Nephites, or the ancient inhabitants of America treated in the Book of Mormon, which relics have recently been landed in New York.” (The Journal of Joseph, p. 193, entry for Saturday, June 25, 1842).
Of course these guys were getting these artifacts in Mexico, and they are also referenced in the Times and Seasons articles.
As you can see, the implication is that Mesoamerica was clearly on Joseph Smith’s mind as his personal placement for the Land of Zarahemla and the Narrow Neck of Land. Furthermore, he had in mind the idea that Nephites had inhabited the United States and that Zelph’s mound was in the Land of Desolation. As for Cumorah, no statement from Joseph Smith clarifies it. But if you are wanting to believe something from some authority that would give you the placement for most things mentioned in the Book of Mormon, then clearly the evidence shows Joseph Smith had Mesoamerica in mind for the Land of Zarahemla, not South America. The fact that in his mind the Land of Desolation stretched up into the Great Lakes region is a very significant point, that is, if statements from him hold any weight, because this implies clearly that Cumorah in his mind could easily have been in the Great Lakes region, but doesn’t prove that he believed that.
We’ll have to include them. I wasn’t aware that it was controversial (save for people like the Tanners) because I heard/read the story from Peterson and Hamblin.
I can’t speak to that. All I understood Hamblin to be saying is that there was no official position. There is the bit about how some people have noted problems with a NY location, but I don’t see that as Church SAYING there are problems, but merely acknowledging the uncontroversial fact that some people have so claimed.
Absolutely. Who is “Elder Nelson”? Russell M. Nelson?
For some reason, your site wont let me make a post with links in it to this talk. Sorry. I messed up. It is Elder Boyd K. Packer that gave the talk “The Law and the Light” and made this statement about personal letters from Church authorities, not Elder Nelson. I can provide you with a pdf to this talk if you want, but your site won’t let me link to it in my message apparently.
Sorry for all the posts, but sometimes thoughts don’t come to me until after I already make a post. I know I’m occupying a lot of space on this blog, and for that I apologize. It might be good to also reference this statement by Elder Packer also on your site with the statement in the Hamblin/Watson letter to show just how much these letters do not announce Church policy.
I just wanted to point out something that was said about “dead prophets”. How long does it take after a prophet dies for his words to become invalid? Why even use the scriptures if we can’t trust in the words of dead prophets? Or am I missing something? Even if the current position is that the church has no position, how does that conflict with what was said before?
In the first response to this blog Larry Poulsen wrote:
**… The river Sidon is mentioned 37 times in 28 different verses with
accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least six different geographical …The river Sidon has suffiecient detail to eliminate most, if not all candidates except one when all of the geographic detail is considered…
Because there are so few rivers in the Americas that even come close to meeting all of the geographic criteria found in the text, Occam’s razor would suggest that we use the River Sidon as a starting point …**
To expand on Larry’s suggestion consider the following:
The city of Zarahemla was on the west bank of the river Sidon (Alma 6:7) and Helaman informs us that there was much timber shipped from the land of Zarahemla into the Land Northward, which was “an exceedingly great distance” (Helaman 3:3-14). This tells us that the river was large enough to float timber sailing rafts for a great distance, and that the river ran north and south. This north-south orientation is confirmed by many references to places being either on the west side or on the east side of the river Sidon (Alma 2:15, 34; 6:7; 8:3; 16:6; 43:27, 53; 49:16).
That Zarahemla was not far from the sea is evidenced by the fact that Zarahemla was in the lowlands. The Nephites always traveled down to Zarahemla, and came up from Zarahemla (Omni 1:13; Alma 2:24; plus 14 additional references through Alma and Helaman). In ancient times traveling up or down referred to elevation changes rather than the modern connotation of north or south on the map. One always went up to Jerusalem no matter which direction they were coming from.
Following a battle near Zarahemla the bodies of the Lamanites and the Amlicites were cast into the waters of Sidon, and “their bones are in the depths of the sea”( Alma 2:26-27, 3:3). The sea could not have been far from Zarahemla or the bodies would have decomposed before they made it there. As the sea was not far from Zarahemla, and they shipped timber on the river for an exceedingly great distance to the Land Northward (Helaman 3:3-14), then the river ran from the north to the sea in the south.
The City of Manti was south of Zarahemla and near the “head of the river Sidon” (Alma 6:7 & 17:1, 22:7, 43:2). Normally the head of a river refers to the head-waters, or the source of a river in the high lands. The word “head” however, has a different meaning when it relates to lands by the sea. In that case it refers to a promontory or headland that juts out into the sea, such as Hilton Head in South Carolina or Nags Head in North Carolina. A large river forms a delta or a headland where it empties into the sea as the silt carried by the river is deposited there over time. Being that Zarahemla was in the lowlands, and not far from the sea, it would seem that this would be the meaning of the “head of the river Sidon,” or as we would now say it, Sidon Head.
As Sidon Head was south of Zarahemla this is consistent with the river Sidon flowing from north to south. LDS scholar Hugh Nibley also thought this was the direction of the flow of Sidon. Speaking extemporaneously about the head of the river Sidon mentioned in Alma 22:27 he said, “If that’s the head of the river, I suppose it’s the source of the river. Well, it may be the head of the river where it empties. Sidon goes the other way, I think.” (Hugh Nibley, Teachings of The Book of Mormon–Semester 1: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University, 1988—1990, Provo: Foundation for Ancient Re, p.143)
There is only one major river in the Western Hemisphere north of Argentina that flows for a great distance from north to south and that is the Mississippi. The Ohio/Allegheny branch of the Mississippi River system runs to within 100 miles of the Hill Cumorah.
-Theodore
Hi Theodore:
The “sailing” part is supposition, I think. It says nothing about wind power. Since they’re shipping from Zarahemla to Desolation, it may be more parsimonious to put river flow FROM Zarahemla TO Desolation (south to north).
Actually, human bodies bloat up and can last for weeks in water, depending on conditions. I suspect you’re right that it wasn’t THAT far, but I don’t think we can rely on body decay to establish that except in a very broad range.
Points to consider in the theoretical map:
* what we think of as “an exceedingly great distance” may not be the same as what Mormon considers to be so. This is all relative. So, one has to get a sense of what distances are great or small in the context of the culture before one can try to quantify this.
* you’re presuming, I think, that the RIVER is the way that shipping is carried out. How do we know that there isn’t SEA shipping going on? After all, that’s where Hagoth did it–from the west sea, heading to the land northward.
* the shipping is from “the land” of Zarahemla, not the city itself (one would expect, perhaps, that the timber would have been less plentiful around the largest, most important Nephite polity, given that it would have been their major building material and fuel source).
* Even though the Sidon runs past the city of Zarahemla, is it the best shipping route for timber to the land northward? This would require the Sidon to pass through the narrow neck, it seems to me–I don’t know of any evidence from the text that this is the case….
Other points to consider:
* one comes “up” from Desolation to Bountiful/Zarahemla.
* one comes “up” from Zarahemla toward Manti/the Sidon Head
* one also comes “up” from Nephi to the narrow strip/Sidon head, and then DOWN into Zarahemla.
This suggests that the Manti/head region is higher in elevation.
Thus, the elevation from lowest to highest appears to be:
Desolation < Zarahemla < Manti/Sidon head area/narrow neck
Since water runs downhill, many have concluded that this requires a south to north Sidon flow, Nibley notwithstanding. 🙂
But, this illustrates the power of internal mapping–it lays bare our assumptions, and allows us to consider what the text is telling us.
Oops, I lied. It doesn’t even say “land of Zarahemla.” (Always check the text!) It just says:
So, all we really know is that it was shipped from somewhere (presumably in the land southward) to the land northward. Route, source of timber, and whether was sea or river is not specified. Given Hagoth’s practice, my money would be on sea, with the timber probably cut close to the departure point. (Too inefficient otherwise).
RE: “I just wanted to point out something that was said about “dead prophets”. How long does it take after a prophet dies for his words to become invalid? Why even use the scriptures if we can’t trust in the words of dead prophets? Or am I missing something? Even if the current position is that the church has no position, how does that conflict with what was said before?”
Adam,
The statements from prophets on geography are so muddled and in conflict with one another that they have all invalidated each other to the point where we lack discernment, and can have no confidence in the lot of them. Even if we have confidence in some of them, we are left to pick and choose, without a reliable way of discernment to do so. Furthermore, later authorities have unambiguously stated there is no revelation, and in my personal belief system, I take that to mean that we lack discernment even if there was revelation in some. How do you pick and choose between them to know what is revealed and what is not?
If you use the scriptures, that is good, and the scriptures are certainly revealed, but unfortunately, so does everybody else that does geography and it all. And the fact that everybody comes to varying conclusions based on the text shows the ambiguity of many points in the text.
This is what we are left with, and current authorities refuse to take a position, and are clearly waiting for further light and knowledge directly from the Lord.
This is, perhaps, one of the biggest problem with Rod Meldrum’s work, is he claims to be able to filter which statements of prophets contain revealed knowledge and which one’s do not, and bears testimony of how it was revealed to him.
Here’s the official statement:
“If [the Lord] wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point. Some authors have felt ‘called upon’ to inform the world about Book of Mormon geography and have published writings giving their views. These books, however, are strictly private works and represent only their personal speculations.” (Deseret News, July 29, 1978, Church News Section, p.16.)
So, though Meldrum accuses others of going against “authority”, he clearly goes against this statement.
Then there is John Sorenson’s well reasoned statement, in full harmony with the Church News Statement:
“It has often been supposed that the Church authorities (particularly Joseph Smith) must have had accurate, and by implication revealed, knowledge about Book of Mormon geography. The evidence is against that view; too many statements from those authorities are in contradiction to the text and to each other to allow us to suppose that anybody knew for sure the answers to the crucial geographical questions. Furthermore, later Church authorities have asserted that definite knowledge about geography has never been revealed to the Church. Hence, statements about geography made by historical figures deserve to be assessed critically in the same terms as do modern statements; those of early date are no more likely to be correct because they were early and none are authoritative.” (Sorenson, John, 1992, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, Provo, UT: FARMS, p. 353)
And now, here are the same principles from past prophets, and it is very clear that at least one of these two was a New York Cumorah advocate from his writings in Doctrines of Salvation.
Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside . . . You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If what he writes is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Smith, Joseph Fielding, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1956, pp. 203-204).
Harold B. Lee said something very similar:
“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator-please note that one exception-you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea!” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard”-it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it.” (Lee, Harold B. “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, July 8, 1964.)
So it can be clearly discerned from the principles taught in these statements that EVEN IF SOME of the old statements from earlier generations contained revealed information, that is obscured by false statements and speculation. Therefore, there is no way to discern it. One principle that might help is to see if they conflict with the book of Mormon. But according to who’s standard of interpretation of the book of Mormon text, I may ask, shall we use, to determine if a statement is in conflict with the text? Does scholarly consensus help? Sometimes perhaps. But I’m in direct conflict with that idea, because I go against the consensus of the Mesoamericanist Cumorah theory, because I believe their ideas conflict with the text.
The following are all of the scriptures that pertain to shipping of goods and timber into the land northward.
Alma 63: 5, 7-8, 10
5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.
• • •
7 And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward.
8 And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and whither she did go we know not.
• • •
10 And it came to pass in the *thirty and ninth year of the reign of the judges, Shiblon died also, and Corianton had gone forth to the land northward in a ship, to carry forth provisions unto the people who had gone forth into that land.
Hel. 3: 10, 14
10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.
• • •
14 But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work.
I see no reference to shipping from the Land of Zarahemla. I see people moving from the Land of Zarahemla to the land northward in at least two migrations about 10 years apart but all the references to shipping of timber were by sea. Those by Hagoth’s group specifically departed from the west sea near the narrow neck and Bountiful. Bountiful is north of the Land of Zarahemla so can not be the source of the timber. Bountiful, however, is described as a wilderness and probably had plentiful timber available.
Larry P
Sorry Larry, I missed what you mean. Do you think Bountiful was a potential source for the shipping of timber, or no?
*The “sailing” part is supposition, I think. It says nothing about wind power.*
Yes, wind power is not specifically mentioned but it is not excluded either. Sailing rafts were common in ancient America and are still used off the coasts of Peru and Northern Brazil. This is where Thor Heyerdahl got his inspiration for the Kon-tiki expedition. Since Kon-tiki, scientists have learned that the Ancient Americans could readily steer their sailing rafts into the wind with the use of “Guara” or centerboards that they would insert or remove in various places between the logs. These sailing rafts could carry tons of cargo along with several people. (Rick Sanders, The Case of the Guara or Centerboard, 21st Century Science and Technology, Fall 2003). Pre-Columbian sailing rafts were used by the people of Ecuador and Peru, as well as the Mayan, Caribbean and Brazilian peoples (Clinton R. Edwards, Aboriginal Sail in the New World, Southwest Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Winter 1965) pp. 351-358).
With its shallow draft the sailing raft would have been an excellent river craft.
**what we think of as “an exceedingly great distance” may not be the same as what Mormon considers to be so. This is all relative. So, one has to get a sense of what distances are great or small in the context of the culture before one can try to quantify this.**
Good point! Therefore consider that the Nephites had a heritage of long distance travel. From Jerusalem they traveled about fifteen hundred miles across the Arabian Peninsula, and then more than half way around the world on a sailing ship.
Many statements in the Book of Mormon require great distances. It took the Nephite Captain, Moroni, the most part of a year to move a portion of his army through friendly territory from Zarahemla to Bountiful (Alma 52:11, 15, 18). This makes no sense if the distance was only two or three hundred miles. An army could march that in ten days. Later, Helaman, an officer of Moroni’s army, wrote a lengthy epistle from the war theatre near the west sea to Captain Moroni near the east sea. Helaman’s epistle described the battle situation over a period of four years (Alma 56:1, 9). If the distance between them had only been two or three hundred miles, runners could have kept them in regular communication. The fact that these military officers only communicated about the conduct of the war once in those four years is further evidence that there was a great distance between them.
Mormon wrote that in AD 375, “from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as dew before the sun.” (Mormon 4:16-18) This final rout lasted ten years and culminated at Cumorah in AD 385. (Mormon 6:5.) A military rout lasting ten years speaks of a vast territory. A similar situation occurred previously amongst the Jaredites. When the armies of Coriantumr and Shiz faced off at Ramah (Cumorah) for their final battle, they paused in their fighting to gather their survivors. It took them four years to gather their people for battle (Ether 15:14), indicating a very large territory from which they were gathered.
So when Mormon wrote, “They did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers” (Helaman 3:3-4), he knew that the Nephites had a recorded heritage of long-distance travel and were covering distances more than a few hundred miles.
** you’re presuming, I think, that the RIVER is the way that shipping is carried out. How do we know that there isn’t SEA shipping going on? After all, that’s where Hagoth did it–from the west sea, heading to the land northward.**
Hagoth launched his ship near the border of Bountiful and Desolation (Alma 63:5) which was “far northward” of the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 22:30).
** the shipping is from “the land” of Zarahemla, not the city itself (one would expect, perhaps, that the timber would have been less plentiful around the largest, most important Nephite polity, given that it would have been their major building material and fuel source).**
This is irrelevant to the point as the Land of Zarahemla would be surrounding the City of Zarahemla and the River Sidon would also pass through the Land of Zarahemla.
** Even though the Sidon runs past the city of Zarahemla, is it the best shipping route for timber to the land northward? This would require the Sidon to pass through the narrow neck, it seems to me–I don’t know of any evidence from the text that this is the case….**
This is where the hourglass model restricts your thinking. This is where the “power of internal mapping” can lock you in. One needs to think outside of the hourglass. There is nothing in the text that prohibits an entry into the Land Northward other than by the narrow neck of land. “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place WHERE THE SEA DIVIDES THE LAND” (Ether 10:20, emphasis added). Notice that the text states that the narrow neck of land was where the sea divides the land, not where the land divides the sea.
**one comes “up” from Desolation to Bountiful/Zarahemla**
You didn’t give a reference for this so I assume you were referring to the following:
Alma 22:31
And they came from [Desolation] up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.
This says nothing about the Land of Zarahemla. It is referring to passing from Desolation into Bountiful.
**one comes “up” from Zarahemla toward Manti/the Sidon Head**
Again no reference and I could not find it.
* one also comes “up” from Nephi to the narrow strip/Sidon head, and then DOWN into Zarahemla.**
Again no reference. You’ve got to help me out here.
Best regards – Theodore
Of course. I merely caution that until one has an entire internal geography, presuming that this refers to river transit OR presuming it is wind-driven is premature. If one concludes it was in the sea, then wind becomes more certain, of course.
I note you say “off the coast,” which I take it means sea travel, not river. Is there evidence that such craft were used for river transport? (Draft is, after all, only one issue in whether river navigation is feasible/plausible.)
I wasn’t aware that the rivers of the above areas were particularly amenable to long-distance travel or the transport of goods (that fell, IIRC, almost exclusively to human porters), but I’m not an expert.
Whether this correlates to the society as a whole, though, especially centuries later, is an entirely different matter.
“Require”? Are you sure? Many others have read it differently. Again, you need to quantify what YOU mean when you say “great”—is it 100 miles? 1000 miles? 10 miles?
You’re presuming that the army is mustered and ready to go, and that there’s nothing to do besides march. But, let’s consider some other factors before we conclude that this is how we must read the text:
* premodern societies rarely had standing armies. The troops were farmers/peasants or what have you. Such people had to be rallied, convinced to assemble and fight, equipped, provisioned, arrangements made to secure homes and families from attack (otherwise they’re less likely to want to leave to go fight), etc. That’s before they set out.
* the text is also clear that part of Mormon’s defensive strategy involved fortification, “defense in depth,” if you will, etc. This means that it may not be the case that he did nothing but march men from point A to point B. There may have been other aspects of this which he felt important. We aren’t told.
* groups of men with equipment may not be able to take routes which small groups or individuals can travel
* the speed of movement over any terrain is greatly dependant on the terrain itself. What would be easy over a coastal plain, for example, might be much longer over mountainous terrain, for example. In some regions, even a few miles could take months.
The most clear discussion of distances and travel times is in the Alma/Limhite refugees in Mosiah, as Sorenson has emphasized. There we have specific times, and it’s pretty clear people aren’t doing anything except fleeing/traveling. You might try making your case based on a critique of Sorenson on that point.
It’s _possibly_ evidence of that. But, it’s also potentially evidence for other things, such as:
* the terrain was so difficult that message turn-around time would have had little benefit for anyone—Moroni has to trust his generals on the ground; he can’t micro-manage the ward from the eastern campaign.
* the tactical situation was such that the risks of getting runners through “enemy territory” was not worth it.
* Zarahemla was closer to Helaman than Moroni was; thus, it would make little sense for Helaman to write to Moroni (who was further away, and needed his own troops and supplies) when he can write to Zarahemla for reinforcements and reprovisioning? (Indeed, Helaman’s letter to Moroni is precipitated in part by the fact that he ISN’T getting the replies or help he needs from Zarahemla.)
It _may_ speak of a vast territory. Again, terrain counts for a lot. We are deceived, sometimes I think, by the pace of modern mechanized warfare. What is rapid to a premodern culture may strike us as rather slow-paced.
Again, you’re presuming, I think, that gathering the people required nothing else than sending out a call. How do you provision these people? How do you equip them? The land had been at war for years; agriculture was human-powered, labor intensive, and nowhere near our modern yields.
They had ONE long-distance immigration that was unique and extraordinary. What does Mormon tell us elsewhere about journeys? Again, I’d like to see your map—what dimensions are we talking here? 500 miles? 50 miles? 5000 miles? We need to define our terms, because what I think is exceedingly long may not match YOUR exceedingly (much less the Nephites’!) 🙂
ALL models both constrain and illuminate. No model of anything matches what is being modeled in all particulars, else it would BE that thing. I’m trying to speak of just the text.
Well, Hagoth goes there by ship. But, there’s no other entry. Militarily, the goal is always to seize the narrow neck. Mormon repeatedly emphasizes that only by controlling Bountiful and the Narrow Neck can the Nephites have a place to retreat to (the land northward). If it can be detoured around easily, why haven’ the more numerous Lamanites tried it, instead of always getting burned in a slugging match over Bountiful?
The references to elevation are all in the review paper here:
http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Book_of_Mormon_Geography/DEBMG02F.html
Sorry, I had presumed you had read it.
Thanks Ed, what you said makes sense. Maybe with the recent increase of interest in BOM geography, the church leaders might ask to receive further light and knowledge directly from the Lord.
Scriptures are a good standard for our belief. I can see how it’d be easy to gradually loose basic truths without them, like the Mulekites did.
I wonder, are there any verified quotes from prophets that contradict that begin with “Thus saith the Lord?” I wouldn’t think there ever would be. I know Joseph Smith had said that many times, but I don’t hear that said very often any more. I’m not quite sure why that is.
Greg says:
Sorry Larry, I missed what you mean. Do you think Bountiful was a potential source for the shipping of timber, or no?
Yes although I could not find a reference to timber being available in Bountiful. The only reference to timber in Bountiful is to one where it was used to make walls around the city.
Larry P
Greg Smith Says: September 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
**Oops, I lied. It doesn’t even say “land of Zarahemla.” (Always check the text!) It just says:
And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping. – Hel. 3:10
So, all we really know is that it was shipped from somewhere (presumably in the land southward) to the land northward. Route, source of timber, and whether was sea or river is not specified. Given Hagoth’s practice, my money would be on sea, with the timber probably cut close to the departure point. (Too inefficient otherwise).**
In the context of Helaman 3:3-11, it says nothing about going through Bountiful to get to the Land Northward. The people went from the Land of Zarahemla “an exceedingly great distance” into the land northward where there were large bodies of water and “many rivers.” In the same context they shipped timber into the Land Northward, so the text implies that it came from the Land of Zarahemla. If it were shipped from somewhere else Mormon would probably have told us so that we would not be misled. (The term “many rivers” in and of itself implies a large territory.)
We can go off in about 100 different tangents here, so before we continue with the issue of distances I would like to get back to the direction of flow of the river. Our arguments have been focused on the shipping issue but you did not address the point of the “head of the river Sidon” being where it empties into the sea rather than the source of the river. If this is the case then again the river flows from north to south and again it would be the Mississippi.
Greg, you have given several arguments why Sidon might not be the Mississippi but I have not read any of your arguments that prevent it from being so. I think you would have to agree that there is at least a 50/50 chance that the river flows from north to south rather than from south to north. So, rather than fight against everything I am suggesting, like a good defense lawyer defending his client, ;- why don’t you consider the Mississippi as a possibility and see where it goes?
The dominant geographical feature in The Book Of Mormon is the river Sidon. Likewise, the dominant geographical feature in North America, east of the Rocky Mountains, is the Mississippi River system. Author John Gunther wrote:
The Mississippi River remains what it always was—a kind of huge rope…tying the United States together. It is the Nile of the Western Hemisphere.
The River Sidon was the Nile of The Book Of Mormon.
There may be a parallel here.
-Theodore
Adam,
I don’t know of any statements like that myself.
A lot of it has to do with change in procedure. The Church has so much well established policy and procedure, that they don’t need to ask the Lord what to do in mundane things anymore. They certainly get inspiration all the time, and I know it, because I’ve seen it. The proclamation on the family, I feel, is a revelation, though it is presented as a statement not unlike an official declaration. But seldom do they get a “Thus saith the Lord” type in the sense of something earth shattering that changes our perception of doctrine, because the Lord has already revealed what we need to go forward in a lot of ways. And even when they do get an earth shattering thing like the blacks and the priesthood, they give it in the manner of an official declaration rather than a quote of the precise words they received, if they received any. The other issue is, so often, revelation comes in so many other ways that a thus saith the Lord thing doesn’t work. Its like the account I heard of when President Hinckley recieved the revelation on the Hong Kong Temple. It came by night vision if I remember right, but it was significant, and gave him what he needed to move forward on how to build that temple. It wasn’t a thus saith the Lord voice on that one, as on so many others. We sometimes fail to remember that we seldom hear voices when we get personal revelation also. Revelation for these men is no different except for the weightiness of the calling they have, and what they are called to preside over. It is recieved by the same spirit, and it isn’t logical to believe that the Lord would have respect for these men over other people so much so that he would give them voices all the time, and other people not. These men are among the best in the Church obviously, but we often forget that they are regular guys with a weighty calling. But there are so many other people in the Church that are likely to be just as spiritual, and recieve manifestations just as much, having the same gift of the Holy Ghost and the same priesthood.
Greg says:
Thus, the elevation from lowest to highest appears to be:
Desolation < Zarahemla < Manti/Sidon head area/narrow neck
Greg meant to say Narrow strip rather than narrow neck.
The Narrow neck is in desolation at sea level.
Larry P
Thanks Ed, I totally agree with you on that.
Larry & Greg,
There are probably high elevations and sea level elevations in all of these Lands.
-Theodore
Yes, this is why I suspect that the text fits better if we presume that the timber went by sea going ship. Your idea of floating logs down the Sidon would require the Sidon to go through Bountiful/narrow neck/land Northward OR require some other route of the Sidon from Zarahemla to land northward. But, if a river can take that course, why can’t armies and men? But, they don’t.
And, the river log shippers would either:
1) have to sail against the flow (i.e., river runs north to south); or
2) have to have a river which flows south to north, which you’re arguing against.
As I said, I don’t think the direction flow your proposing works (leaving aside the “head” issue) because of the described topography. Thus, your suggestion for a head cannot be correct, because rivers don’t run away from the sea. See the article I referenced.
If you want to argue that Desolation to Bountiful is “up”, but Bountiful to Zarahemla is “down,” then you have an even greater problem, since it means that the river is running down INTO the Zarahemla river valley, but must run uphill to Manti/narrow strip of wilderness. Zarahemla will soon be a large lake. 🙂
The book is pretty clear that Bountiful sits north of Zarahemla, athwart the route into Desolation/the narrow neck/the land northward. It is the focus of at least three separate military actions.
I’ve not argued against the Mississippi at all. I’m trying to estabish which direction the river flows. Internal map first. 🙂
No, I don’t. Any given river may have a 50/50 shot, but there are textual clues, and they may well (and, I think, in this case DO) shift that balance of probabilities. One can’t just say “Well, the river could run either way.” The question is, from the text, “Can it?”
This should be an issue to be demonstrated, not an assumption upon which to base further theorizing. Do you see what I mean?
I think the text quite clear that south to north makes much more sense based on topography. If we can’t determine the direction of flow from the text, then one moves on, bracketing that issue.
I’m not trying to “defend” anything–I’m just saying, one of the first things to establish about the Sidon is the direction of flow. You want your model to address the most potent possible objections, don’t you?
The Mississippi idea seems to contradict what I get from the text. Remember, we must consider ALL the text–not just some. So, you must take the verses I’ve mentioned, and account for them in your model.
This is precisely WHY I think it so important to establish an internal map–as soon as I start to assume that the Mississippi is “it,” (or anywhere else) then I will read everything in that light, and I will miss textual clues.
(Incidentally, this is why I’ve personally never gotten beyond an internal map. I’m not confident enough to move beyond that.)
So, just getting an internal map that works must be the first step. Thus far, I’m not persuaded that one can have the Sidon run north to south. The topography doesn’t work. It requires an idiiosyncratic use of “head” of the river.
And, if that’s the case, then reading of “head” as “near the sea” must be false.
One could just as easily argue that the Amazon is “the Nile” of the Americas. 🙂 Analogies are easy.
There are many parallels to many things. Not all are meaningful. Such an argument presupposes a USA location for the majority of Book of Mormon history. Possible, but an assumption.
Greg
Theodore says:
(The term “many rivers” in and of itself implies a large territory.)
The Sierra Otontepec in northern Veracruz covers an area of less than 15 miles across and contains the headwaters of at least 5 rivers, maybe six if I recall correctly. It is the principal source of water for the entire region. It also contains many springs that help to feed the rivers.
Incidentally it is located in an area that fits the grographic description of Cumorah in the BofM
Larry P
Larry P
Greg,
Don’t you think at some point it would be useful to consider a real world location? One that *best* fits one’s internal map in spite of one or two incongruities? It seems to me that even if one were to piece together a map from the text–with as much objectivity as is possible to conjure up–one will never divest oneself completely of one’s subjectivity. We really don’t comprehend much of the time just how much our culture informs our perceptions–in everything, including how we read a text.
What if, for example, it is only the problem with “directions” in Sorensen’s model that keeps us from buying in to it completely? (I understand that there may be other complications–but for the sake of argument) If his model were to match one’s internal map pretty well in just about every other detail then it might be useful to embrace it (at least as an exercise) and see how one might be informed buy it. Or how one might be informed as to one’s reading of the text.
…not that you haven’t thought along these lines before. Just sayin’…
Greg wrote:
**Your idea of floating logs down the Sidon would require the Sidon to go through Bountiful/narrow neck/land Northward OR require some other route of the Sidon from Zarahemla to land northward. But, if a river can take that course, why can’t armies and men? But, they don’t.**
My model does not require the Sidon to go through Bountiful nor the narrow neck. In Helaman 3:3 “an exceedingly great many” traveled from Zarahemla to the Land Northward with no mention of their going through Bountiful or the narrow neck. The scouts of Limhi probably went the same route or they would have run into some Nephites going through the Land Bountiful. There is no record of armies going that route but that does not mean that at some time or other they did not. It appears that up until about 50 BC, as Mormon describes above, there were very few settlers in the Land Northward so there would be no need for armies to go that way. After that time period there are no details of Lamanite/ Nephite wars until you get to the days of Mormon.
**And, the river log shippers would either:
1) have to sail against the flow (i.e., river runs north to south); or..**
Sailing against the flow of a big lazy river is not a problem. The current is always faster on the outside of the curves (centrifugal force) and is usually quite still on the inside. Sailing from the inside to the inside of successive curves avoids the fast water and shortens the journey.
**Thus, your suggestion for a head cannot be correct, because rivers don’t run away from the sea**
The word “head” has a different meaning when it relates to lands by the sea. In that case it refers to a promontory or headland that juts out into the sea. English Captain William Hilton, in August of 1663, while exploring the Port Royal Sound, sighted the high bluffs of an Island, and named it for himself, “Hilton Head.” The word “Head” refers to the headlands visible to them as they sailed the uncharted waters.” (hiltonheadisland.com/history)
That the head of the River Sidon was near the sea is evidenced in the following texts:
“And thus he cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, FROM THE WEST SEA, RUNNING BY THE HEAD OF THE RIVER SIDON…” (Alma 50:11, emphasis added).
And again in Alma 22:27 notice that the narrow strip of wilderness was “roundabout on the borders of the seashore,” and by the head of the river Sidon.
“And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west–and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.” (Alma 22:27)
The text is clear that the narrow strip of wilderness and the head of the river Sidon were near the sea. Therefore the head of the river Sidon cannot be the “headwaters” of the river which would be far away from the sea and in the highlands (as you mentioned water runs downhill 🙂 ). The text is clear that the river Sidon runs from north to south.
At a huge battle near Sidon, again a multitude of bodies were thrown into the river “and they have gone forth and are buried in the depths of the sea” (Alma 44:22). It is not reasonable that all these dead bodies, in a warm climate where the Lamanites wore only loin clothes, would float all the way from the headwaters of the river, past the city of Zarahemla, to the sea before decomposing. It only makes sense if Manti was closer to the sea than Zarahemla—in which case again the river Sidon ran from north to south.
**If you want to argue that Desolation to Bountiful is “up”, but Bountiful to Zarahemla is “down,” then you have an even greater problem, since it means that the river is running down INTO the Zarahemla river valley, but must run uphill to Manti/narrow strip of wilderness. Zarahemla will soon be a large lake. **
Nowhere in the text does the river Sidon run through, around or near the Land of Bountiful, and Manti/narrow strip of wilderness is near the sea and therefore very low so there is no problem in draining your imaginary lake. 🙂
There is a narrow pass that runs between Desolation and Bountiful (Alma 52:9) so there obviously is a range of high hills or mountains between them that one must go up and over..
**The book is pretty clear that Bountiful sits north of Zarahemla, athwart the route into Desolation/the narrow neck/the land northward. It is the focus of at least three separate military actions.**
This is one of the routes into Desolation but not the only one.
Now, if you can accept the possibility that the river Sidon might flow from north to south then we can continue forward to explore what that might mean.
-Theodore
Of course. I’m just saying, life is short. Starting with a single claim (e.g., the narrow neck = structure X) is a route that lies to madness, as the dozens upon dozens of proposed models demonstrate.
One needs the whole map to really assess a model. Or, at least, I do. (But, making a whole internal map is hard work; it isn’t the ‘fun part’–so people often seem to skip it.)
Yes, I know this is your argument. But I think this argument is circular, because I can see no reason for presuming that the “head” and “narrow strip of wilderness” is lower than the surrounding areas.
There are lots that really make it sound higher:
* “Behold, the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the
land of Manti. (Alma 16:6)
* remainder he concealed in the west valley, on the west of the river Sidon, and so down into the borders of the land Manti. (Alma 43:32) Here it sounds like Manti is DOWN from the Sidon ford where the battle takes place (which makes sense if Manti is near the headwaters; how do we have something downhill from the Sidon at the point where it is about to enter the sea? Maybe I need a visual to show me what you’re thinking)
* 27 And now I would speak somewhat concerning a certain number who went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi; for there was a large number who were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance. Wherefore, they went up into the wilderness. (Omni 1:27 – 28)
* I have brought this my people [Zeniffites, from Zarahemla] up into this land, that they may destroy them; yea, and we have suffered these many years in the land [of Nephi]. (Mosiah 10:18)
* [from Nephi,] through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla. (Omni 1:13)
There are also several other examples of people coming “down into” Zarahemla from Nephi (e.g., Helaman 6:4)
So, this is why I have trouble picturing how you reconcile these repeated references with the idea that the “head” is effectively the lowest point (at sea level, entering the ocean).
There’s also a battle on foot up near Manti; sounds more like a headwaters sort of place than a large river running into a sea.
So, just to be clear, your map says:
1) there is more than one land route from Zarahemla to the land northward;
2) there is a river route (the Sidon) that follows within that same route;
3) the Sidon runs (downhill) from the land northward to Zarahemla, to the sea in the narrow strip of wilderness south of Zarahemla near Manti;
4) The Sidon does not enter Bountiful or the narrow neck or Desolation
5) The river was navigable by boat, and served as a major route for shipping timber, including sailing upstream loaded with timber cargo.
Is that right? (Again, SEEING the map would be easier; picture = 10^3 words and all…. :-))
A sense of scale would be useful too for helping me visualize. How far as the crow flies from Zarahemla to Nephi, for example? Is Sorenson’s estimate too high, too low, and why?
Feel free to sketch and upload a rough “back of the envelope” sort of sketch/cartoon if you want.
You’re welcome, of course, to explore any possibility you’d like here. I’m not in charge. 🙂
I’m just trying to point out–it is things like the above that are going to make some people (including me, at the moment) feel like you’ve put the cart before the horse by moving on with an assumption that seems to run counter to some aspects of the text.
But, by now you may consider me un-persuadable. 😉
Greg wrote:
**Yes, I know this is your argument. But I think this argument is circular, because I can see no reason for presuming that the “head” and “narrow strip of wilderness” is lower than the surrounding areas. There are lots that really make it sound higher:
There is a narrow strip of wilderness south between Manti and the sea which is in low country, but this is only a small part of the wilderness. The majority of the wilderness both west and east as where the land rises away from the lowlands on both sides of the Sidon valley.
“Behold, the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti. (Alma 16:6)**
Across the river Sidon from the land of Manti to the east the land rises sharply and is quite hilly.
** remainder he concealed in the west valley, on the west of the river Sidon, and so down into the borders of the land Manti. (Alma 43:32) Here it sounds like Manti is DOWN from the Sidon ford where the battle takes place (which makes sense if Manti is near the headwaters; how do we have something downhill from the Sidon at the point where it is about to enter the sea? Maybe I need a visual to show me what you’re thinking) **
This is the same terrain as the item above. The previous verse shows that there was the hill Riplah on the east of the river. One comes down out of the hills into the borders of the land Manti which is just across the river in the flat country.
** 27 And now I would speak somewhat concerning a certain number who went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi; for there was a large number who were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance. Wherefore, they went up into the wilderness. (Omni 1:27 – 28)**
Exactly. They went up out of the river Sidon lowlands of Zarahemla into the wilderness hills on the west.
** I have brought this my people [Zeniffites, from Zarahemla] up into this land, that they may destroy them; yea, and we have suffered these many years in the land [of Nephi]. (Mosiah 10:18)**
Same as above. One always travels up out of the Sidon valley of Zarahemla to where ever because Zarahemla was in the lowlands, and not far from the sea.
**There’s also a battle on foot up near Manti; sounds more like a headwaters sort of place than a large river running into a sea.**
I think you are referring to the battle of the Hill Riplah above, where Zerahemnah got scalped. Notice in Alma 43:35 that Lehi didn’t hit them from behind until they started crossing the river. Crossing a big river with a large army didn’t happen in an hour or two. Lehi really caught them when they were vulnerable.
1.So, just to be clear, your map says:
1) there is more than one land route from Zarahemla to the land northward; RIGHT
2) there is a river route (the Sidon) that follows within that same route; RIGHT
3) the Sidon runs (downhill) from the land northward to Zarahemla, to the sea in the narrow strip of wilderness south of Zarahemla near Manti;
SIDON PASSES THROUGH THE NARROW STIP OF WILDERNESS THAT RUN PARALLEL TO THE SEA.
4) The Sidon does not enter Bountiful or the narrow neck or Desolation. RIGHT
5) The river was navigable by boat, and served as a major route for shipping timber, including sailing upstream loaded with timber cargo. RIGHT
Is that right? (Again, SEEING the map would be easier; picture = 10^3 words and all…. :-))
A sense of scale would be useful too for helping me visualize. How far as the crow flies from Zarahemla to Nephi, for example? Is Sorenson’s estimate too high, too low, and why?**
I’ll give you a map plus. You can download my thesis, “A North American Setting For The Book of Mormon” at http://brandley.poulsenll.org/ Once you click on the link be patient in giving it time to download as it is a big file in MS Word format.
Have a look at it and we can go from there. Steven Danderson was going to critique it on a separate FAIRblog but he has gotten too busy teaching to do it until the end of the year. So, now that we are into it I guess you are the one to do it if you want to.
-Theodore
Greg,
Slight correction in #4 above:
The river Sidon does enter Desolation but not through Bountiful nor the narrow neck.
-Theodore
Oops, forgot–remember, it is called the head of the SIDON, not the head of some land. (Your Hilton Head Island example doesn’t seem relevant–it’s the name of the island or the promontory, not the river.)
To use your example:
So, the island is named as a “headland,” part of the river isn’t named “the head” just because it’s by the river.
As Webster’s 1828 edition has it:
Are there any examples of calling a river the “head” near its exit into the sea? (I.E., cases where the “mouth” is really the “head”? Again, this strikes me as terribly idiosyncratic, and certainly not supported by (say) Webster 1828).
It’s the “head of the river Sidon,” not the “head of the land of Sidon,” or something like that.
This doesn’t follow. High land can be near the sea with no gradual slope downward. I don’t argue with the fact that the narrow strip of wilderness is near the sea. But, it does not follow that the narrow strip and Sidon head is therefore of low elevation.
(For example, there could be two high ridges on either side of the strip, near seas–cliffs, if you will. The narrow strip (also high) could be between them, with a drainage parallel to the cliffs and the seas.)
So, being near the sea isn’t enough–you need to demonstrate that this area was LOW (there is, after all, seas also near your higher elevation area from whence springs the south-bound Sidon.)
So, they’re headed to Nephi (south) so they head west instead?
Why not head DOWNhill (in your model) toward Manti and Nephi? What good does going west go?
Anyone going south tends to go east first (to Gideon) and then south to Manti, and crossing the narrow strip. Why do you presume that going “up” into the wilderness from Zarahemla means going west? That doesn’t seem to make geographic or textual sense….people can go south, and often do go south. In your model, that way is downhill. So, why go to the work of going UP into a wilderness?
But, isn’t Desolation north of Bountiful? (Alma 22:30-32)
And, isn’t Zarahemla south of Bountiful? (Alma 22:29)
And, don’t these touch? (3 Nephi 3:23)
So, how does the river get from Zarahemla, to Desolation, but never touch Bountiful?
I’m confused. I see you’ve put up a download, so I’ll puzzle over that….
Greg Smith Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
**Oops, forgot–remember, it is called the head of the SIDON, not the head of some land. (Your Hilton Head Island example doesn’t seem relevant–it’s the name of the island or the promontory, not the river.)**
A large river like the Mississippi creates a headland over time where the silt is deposited into the sea. We usually refer to it as a delta but it can also be called a “head.” So instead of the “delta of the river Sidon” the Book of Mormon refers to it as the “head of the river Sidon.”
**To use your example:In 1663, the abundant, untamed island was surveyed by William Hilton, an English sea captain, sailing from Barbados in search of tropical lands on which to establish profitable English plantations. Hilton then claimed it for the British crown, establishing the legacy with his own name…Hilton’s Headland.**
Except William did not name it “Hilton’s Headland,” he named it “Hilton Head.”
**So, the island is named as a “headland,” part of the river isn’t named “the head” just because it’s by the river.**
The “head of the river Sidon” isn’t referring to the water it is referring to the headland around the water. It is the head created by the river Sidon, so what else would you call it?
**As Webster’s 1828 edition has it: HEADLAND, n. hed’land. A cape; a promontory; a point of land projecting from the shore into the sea, or other expanse of water.**
With all due respect and appreciation to Noah Webster for his wonderful 70,000 word first dictionary it was far from complete. He did not include the above definition under the entry “head” as subsequent editions did. But as you can see in my example above, the word “head” was being used in place of “headland” at least as far back as 1663. The town of Nags Head, NC, was so named in 1830, two years after Noah published his first edition. Around the coasts of Ireland there are about 50 promontories that are named “Head.”
**Are there any examples of calling a river the “head” near its exit into the sea? (I.E., cases where the “mouth” is really the “head”? Again, this strikes me as terribly idiosyncratic, and certainly not supported by (say) Webster 1828).**
Not that I am aware of. However, the only other river in English speaking countries that has created a headland from its silt deposits that I can think of, is the Mackenzie in Northern Canada. It flows into the Arctic Ocean and its delta was named Richard’s Island after an explorer. The “Big Muddy” is kind of unique in America.
**This doesn’t follow. High land can be near the sea with no gradual slope downward. I don’t argue with the fact that the narrow strip of wilderness is near the sea. But, it does not follow that the narrow strip and Sidon head is therefore of low elevation. (For example, there could be two high ridges on either side of the strip, near seas–cliffs, if you will. The narrow strip (also high) could be between them, with a drainage parallel to the cliffs and the seas.) So, being near the sea isn’t enough–you need to demonstrate that this area was LOW (there is, after all, seas also near your higher elevation area from whence springs the south-bound Sidon.)**
You’re grasping at straws. Large rivers don’t begin on promontories near the sea—a few springs and streams perhaps but not significant rivers.
**Anyone going south tends to go east first (to Gideon) and then south to Manti, and crossing the narrow strip. Why do you presume that going “up” into the wilderness from Zarahemla means going west? That doesn’t seem to make geographic or textual sense….people can go south, and often do go south. In your model, that way is downhill. So, why go to the work of going UP into a wilderness?**
Straight south from Zarahemla takes one to Manti, then the narrow strip of wilderness and then to the sea. Therefore the land of Nephi cannot be straight south, one must go west and south. In the first recorded battle in the Land of Zarahemla the Nephites drove the Lamanites west and north into the Wilderness of Hermounts (Alma 2:37)
There are several texts that refer to the Lamanites and a wilderness being west of Zarahemla.
Alma 8:3
3 And it came to pass in the commencement of the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness.
Alma 22:28
28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla…
-Theodore
Hmm. The source I provided suggested he did name it “Hilton Headland.” In either case, though, for this to help your argument, wouldn’t it have to be “Name of the River” Head, though? Hilton named it after himself, not the river.
I’m not suggesting that the narrow strip is on a “promontory.”
I see “narrow” as a description of the distance between the northside of the strip (Manti-direction) and the southside of the strip (land of Nephi direction.) This is the distance that would matter to travelers. There is never a discussion of east/west travel that I know of; it’s all a question of having to cross it to get to Zarahemla from Nephi, or vice-versa.
The strip stretches from east sea to west sea (Alma 22:27), and that distance can be large or small as one prefers, I suspect. So, what I’m picturing is a narrow (in the N/S direction) strip of elevated terrain:
[TO Manti]
[Sea W] |
[Sea W] |———————–y————————> [to Sea East at far right]
[Sea W] X
[Sea W] |
[Sea W] |
[To Nephi]
Thus, the “narrow” part is direction “x.” The width is direction “y,” which can be of any dimension one likes. The height increase is in the north south direction, creating a drainage basin toward the north (and, likely toward the south also, though we don’t hear about that).
I looked through your thesis packet. It is a beautifully formatted and presented document, and obviously represents what I expect is months or years of hard work and thought.
There are several things on quick inspection that didn’t work for me (e.g., the distance from Bountiful to the narrow pass and narrow neck strikes me as FAR too far, and the layout doesn’t make tactical military sense to me at all), but if we cannot agree on a simple matter like the “head,” of the Sidon then I suspect that anything I said about those other matters would risk being offensive without producing much light. 😉
Greg,
Your diagram above is a prefect example of where the mapping can lead you astray without real world geography. Notice the description of the narrow strip in the following verse:
Alma 22:7
“…and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore,…”
Without real world geography who knows what, “and round about on the borders of the seashore,” means? But if the sea west is the Gulf of Mexico and the sea east is the Atlantic Ocean then the meaning of this phrase becomes clear. From the Panhandle of Florida the Gulf of Mexico curves around to the southwest so this narrow strip of wilderness curves “round about” with it.
Then if the Land of Nephi is Mexico and Mesoamerica it is definitely south of the land of Zarahemla but does not have to straight south of Zarahemla/Manti. Larry Poulsen’s presentation at the FAIR conference on the subject of Book of Mormon directions is classic! (http://poulsenll.org/bom/bomdirections.html ). Larry suggests that the Nephite directions east and west are only 50 degrees wide and north and south are 130 degrees wide each. This fits well with my geographic studies.
**There are several things on quick inspection that didn’t work for me (e.g., the distance from Bountiful to the narrow pass and narrow neck strikes me as FAR too far, and the layout doesn’t make tactical military sense to me at all), but if we cannot agree on a simple matter like the “head,” of the Sidon then I suspect that anything I said about those other matters would risk being offensive without producing much light. **
OK. Now we can get into distances. I’m not that easily offended. 😉
As a boy, I helped my father move sheep and cattle between two ranches that were twenty miles apart, which we always did in a day. Alma, moving from the Waters of Mormon towards Zarahemla was traveling with children and flocks but they were fleeing for their lives. “The Lord did strengthen them that the people of King Noah did not overtake them to destroy them” (Mosiah 23:2). Joseph Smith, leading Zion’s Camp, made twenty-five to forty miles a day (LDS Church, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 287). There is a book by Don Rickey about US enlisted soldiers during the Indian Wars. It is entitled, Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay. Assuming normal terrain (and there is no mention of mountains) the pursuers of Alma’s band could have done forty miles a day, but since Alma had a head start his group would not need to travel that fast. It would seem that fleeing for their lives, with the Lord’s help, thirty miles a day would be a reasonable distance for Alma’s group to travel.
Step on your treadmill at the gym or at home and see how comfortable a walk 3 mph is. Agrarian people could keep up that pace all day. When pushed one could do it from sun up to sun down. Walking 2.5 mph for 12 hours will get them 30 miles. Little children would be carried in chariots or ride on beasts of burden.
At 30 miles a day for 22 days Alma’s company would travel approximately 600 miles. This is just the distance from the Mississippi to the Rio Grande, across the great wilderness of the plains of Texas.
-Theodore
I presume it means that the strip of wilderness reaches from sea to sea, and then extends along the seashore, in a type of encircling tendency. Larry P, Sorenson, and others have provided plausible diagrams of the same.
Again, I think that you’ve allowed your choice of site to influence your reading in a way that the text doesn’t really support–but, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.
The word “head” with reference to a river is used twice in the text of the BofM.
The first use is in Nephi’s description of his vision of the Tree of Life.
1 Ne. 8:
14 And I looked to behold from whence it came; and I saw the head thereof a little way off; and at the head thereof I beheld your mother Sariah, and Sam, and Nephi; and they stood as if they knew not whither they should go.
The second place is in Alma where it is used to describe the River Sidon in the narrow strip of wilderness.
Alma 22: 27
27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.
In the first case Nephi goes on to describe this head as a fountain.
1 Ne. 11: 25
25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.
Given that the BofM was translated by the gift and power of God, I find it inconsistant that Joseph would have been inspired to use this word to describe the source of one river in Nephi’s vision as a “Fountain of Living Waters” and the delta or mouth of the River Sidon in the second instance. To me this type of argument denies the participation of the Holy Ghost in the process of translation.
To me the definition of “head” should be consistant and I doubt that one would describe the “Fountain of Many Waters, the Love of God” as a mouth or river delta.
Larry P
Larry wrote:
**Given that the BofM was translated by the gift and power of God, I find it inconsistant that Joseph would have been inspired to use this word to describe the source of one river in Nephi’s vision as a “Fountain of Living Waters” and the delta or mouth of the River Sidon in the second instance. To me this type of argument denies the participation of the Holy Ghost in the process of translation.
To me the definition of “head” should be consistant and I doubt that one would describe the “Fountain of Many Waters, the Love of God” as a mouth or river delta.**
This is a very good point. There is no question that Lehi was referring to the headwaters of the fountain. However, it is Alma that speaks about the “head of the river Sidon” 500 years later. He could certainly us a similar expression to convey a different meaning. It’s true that both authors were translated by the power of God but I don’t think God would necessarily change the words of one prophet to avoid confusion with those of another 500 years earlier. As you well know each author in the Book of Mormon has his own distinct style of writing that comes through the translation intact.
The best evidence for the correct interpretation of the phrase, “head of the river Sidon” is to test its validity on the map of America. This is what my thesis is all about—testing this theory to see if it works—and it does.
The first thing I did after coming up with the theory of Sidon Head was to search for a substantial archaeological site on the west side of the Mississippi within 200-300 miles of the Gulf. Bingo! There it was! The marvelous site at Poverty Point that still has a 50 foot tower at the west end of the temple mound. This process went on and on. Every time I looked for a site or a landmark described in the text, there it was.
Rather than base you opinion of the theory on the perceived meaning of the word “head,” I would suggest that you test the theory by checking the text against the facts on the ground as I have in the thesis.
-Theodore
Larry,
A slight correction from what I wrote above:
It was Mormon who used the term “head of the river Sidon” not Alma. This was 900 years after Nephi wrote about the head of the fountain. Mormon did not write 1 Nephi, he just inserted into his record. So, there is no need to suppose that there would be continuity in the use of terms between Nephi’s writing and Mormon’s.
-Theodore
The problem with continuity is not with the original authors, who could have been writing in two different languages but with the translator who was a single person. In addition, the translation was done by the gift and power of God. If the words of the original writers had different meanings then I would suppose that the translator would have been inspired to make that clear by using different words and not require the reader to search for obscure less frequently used meanings. The difference between a source and a mouth of a river was well understood in Joseph Smith’s time. After all most people at that time were involved in agriculure and very concerned with where the water came from and where it went. Unlike most people in the US today.
Larry P
Larry wrote:
**If the words of the original writers had different meanings then I would suppose that the translator would have been inspired to make that clear by using different words and not require the reader to search for obscure less frequently used meanings.**
Possibly, but the correlation between the text and the facts on the ground indicate otherwise.
There is also another possibility. It seems that the Lord had the geographic information written cryptically so that we would not discover the sacred sites until such time they would be protected. Hundreds of Ancient American archaeological sites in the US have been destroyed by development and vandalism. It is only recently that laws have been put in place to protect them. Under previous conditions any site identified as possible evidence for the Book of Mormon would have been a prime target for destruction.
-Theodore
Consider the following:
A. Zarahemla is on the west side of the river Sidon across the river from Gideon.
(Alma 6:7) …Alma…departed from…the city of Zarahemla, and went over upon the east of the river Sidon, into the valley of Gideon, there having been a city built, which was called the city of Gideon…
B. Manti is south of Gideon and Zarahemla
(Alma 17:1) And now it came to pass that as Alma was journeying from the land of Gideon southward, away to the land of Manti, behold, to his astonishment, he met with the sons of Mosiah journeying towards the land of Zarahemla.
C. Manti is on the west side of the river Sidon
(Alma 43:32) And the remainder he concealed in the west valley, on the west of the river Sidon, and so down into the borders of the land Manti.
CONCLUSION #1. The river Sidon runs north and south between Zarahemla and Manti
Then consider the following:
(Alma 22:27) …a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west…
From the above we find:
A. The narrow strip of wilderness runs east and west round about on the edge of the seashore
B. Manti is near the narrow strip of wilderness, that is by the sea
C. The head of the river Sidon is by the narrow strip of wilderness, that is by the sea
CONCLUSION #2. As rivers run to the sea, the river Sidon runs from Zarahemla south to Manti, and through the east/west narrow strip of wilderness to the “head of the river Sidon” near the sea.
-Theodore
Now let us consider Alma 22
“27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west,”
1. The land of the Lamanite King stretched from the sea east to the sea west. The lamanites were always greater in number than the Nephites so this must have been a rather large area.
“and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west,
2. The Narrow Strip of Wilderness divides the Land of the Lamanites from the Land of Zarahemla and also stretches from the sea east to the sea west.
“and round about on the borders of the seashore,and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla”
3. The Narrow Strip of Wilderness extends along the borders of the seashore.
4. The borders of the wilderness were on the North of the Lamanite lands by the Land of Zarahemla.
In other words Zarahemla was north of the Strip of Wildernes which in turn was north of the Land of the Lamanites.
“, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.”
5. This wilderness area seperated the two cultures along an east west oriented barrier.
If as you suggest the Narrow strip was located along a southern seashore near the mouth of the river Sidon and the mouth (head was in this strip along the seashore this would place the land of the Lamanites in the Gulf of Mexico south of the Mouth of the river Mississippi or on the delta itself.
I dont think so. The land of the Lamanites was much to big to fit in such a small area.
Larry P
Larry,
Your statements are essentially correct but your conclusions are wrong because you left out the next two verses:
(Alma 22:29)
28 Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.
29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful.
This covers all of Mexico, Mesoamerica and Florida. Plenty of room for the Lamanites in that territory. 😉
-Theodore
Sorry, I left out parts of Texas.
-Theodore
Speaking of Texas:
WATERS OF MORMON
Alma fled from King Noah and hid out at the waters of Mormon which was in the “borders of the land” (Mosiah 18:4-5). Converts gathered to this place to be baptized and to hear Alma preach. It was therefore probably not more than a day’s journey from the city of Nephi. The waters of Mormon were fed by a “fountain of pure water,” which would be a spring rather than a river or creek.
Alma wrote that at “certain seasons” the area was infested with wild beasts. These “certain seasons” would be seasons of drought, when other watering places dried up. This would certainly be consistent with the climate of the southern plains of Texas. This spring was surrounded by a “thicket of small trees” that was large enough to conceal the activities of four hundred and fifty people (Mosiah 18:35).
Thirty miles east of the Rio Grande, from a point about halfway between Del Rio and Laredo, is a town called Carrizo Springs. The town was named after a large spring surrounded by a thicket of carrizo (Spanish for reeds). These plants were the native giant switchcane (Arundinaria gigantean—Dr. Lynn G. Clark, Iowa State University, personal correspondence with author). This is a leafy bamboo-like plant that grows twenty to thirty feet high with stems up to one and one-half inches thick. This would certainly match Alma’s description of a “thicket of small trees,” and notice that he didn’t say “young trees.” These would have been a small variety of tree, or a large cane or bamboo. As cane and bamboo grow from rhizomes on the roots this creates a “thicket.”
The Carrizo Springs were actually a line of springs stretching for about six miles. There were deep fish-filled pools, and a waterfall, which was a favorite “bathing” spot on Mrs. Bill Johnson’s Ranch in the 1920’s. This would also have been a wonderful baptismal spot (Gunnar Brune, Springs of Texas, Vol. 1, Texas A&M University Press, p. 165-166).
The archeological sites of many Indian villages have been found there. Unfortunately, the water table of the aquifer was lowered by extensive pumping. During the drought of the 1950’s the spring dried, and the cane thickets around it died (Ibid.).
In 1718 Martin de Alarcon, founder of San Antonio, described El Carrizo as being a very lovely place” (Ibid.). Alma wrote that the place was beautiful “to the eyes of them who there came to a knowledge of their redeemer” (Mosiah 18:30).
The Carrizo Springs appear to fit the location and the description of the waters of Mormon.
-Theodore
More thoughts on Texas:
In my post above of September 12 I stated, “At 30 miles a day for 22 days Alma’s company would travel approximately 600 miles. This is just the distance from the Mississippi to the Rio Grande, across the great wilderness of the plains of Texas.”
The Rio Grande would have been a natural border for the land of Nephi at that time. Separating the land of Nephi from the land of Zarahemla was the huge southern plain of Texas. During the Nephite period this area of Texas was a grassy savannah rather than the mesquite and brush we see today. It is easy to understand how the Nephites kept getting lost on this vast ocean of grass with few landmarks.
Around 500 BC West and Southwest Texas underwent a notable cooling that encouraged the southward expansion of the lush grasslands of the Southern High Plains. This expansion reached the Rio Grande and was widespread enough to encourage large herds of bison to range freely as far south and east as Langtry and Del Rio. (Paleoenvironments, The Handbook of Texas Online)
There are five groups recorded in The Book Of Mormon who got lost in this vast Texas prairie. Zeniff wandered for many days trying to find the city of Lehi-Nephi (Mosiah 9:4); Ammon wandered for forty days in this wilderness for the same purpose (Mosiah 7:5); the scouts of Limhi going the other way looking for Zarahemla couldn’t find it (Mosiah 8:8); the Lamanite army pursuing the people of Limhi got lost and wandered many days (Mosiah 22:16, 23:30); and Amulon and the priests of Noah didn’t know where they were from the city of Lehi-Nephi (23:35-36).
Navigating over this sea of grass would have been like sailing on an ocean without a compass, sextant, or Liahona. When they came to the top of a hill, all they would have seen on the horizon were other hills of grass, like waves on the sea. If they were only twenty degrees off course, after two hundred miles they would miss their destination by sixty miles.
The plains of Texas appear to fit the text describing the wilderness between the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla.
More later on Lehi’s landing and how Mesoamerica fits into the text of the Book of Mormon.
-Theodore
Regarding “exceeding” in the Book of Mormon, for my essay in FR 16:1, I looked up the other Book of Mormon uses as a way to clarify the implications.
“Never does the word exceeding appear to describe the order of magnitude that Vogel’s reading demands but rather that a circumstance exceeds normal measures or efforts.144 It is not unreasonable to suppose that a foot journey of three or four hundred miles (neglecting terrain-imposed detours) would be called an exceeding great distance, particularly when undertaken by a mixed group of migrants with flocks (see Helaman 3:3—4). Limhi’s explorers, traveling without flocks or children, would be guided by oral traditions that gave a reasonable idea of the direction they should travel and a travel time estimate measured in days. However, I find it unreasonable to suppose that after a one-way foot journey of four to seven thousand miles—and the repeated changes of direction and climate that Vogel’s reading requires—Limhi’s party would mistake the Jaredite ruins for Zarahemla in the south (Mosiah 21:26).”
My note 144:
“Other uses of exceeding do not exhibit either the precision or the orders of magnitude that Vogel requires: “And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young” (1 Nephi 2:16). “And it came to pass that when Laban saw our property [carried in by Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, and Sam], and that it was exceedingly great” (1 Nephi 3:25). “They came unto me, and loosed the bands which were upon my wrists, and behold they had swollen exceedingly” (1 Nephi 18:15). “And upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains” (2 Nephi 4:25). “Now the number of their dead was not numbered because of the greatness of the number; yea, the number of their dead was exceedingly great, both on the Nephites and on the Lamanites” (Alma 44:21). Also, “They had encircled the city of Bountiful round about with a strong wall of timbers and earth, to an exceeding height” (Alma 53:4). Compare, “And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities” (Alma 50:2). How high must the earth and timbers be? Also compare, “And it came to pass that the brother of Jared . . . went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height” (Ether 3:1). How high must the mountain be?”
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Hi Kevin. You wrote:
**It is not unreasonable to suppose that a foot journey of three or four hundred miles (neglecting terrain-imposed detours) would be called an exceeding great distance, particularly when undertaken by a mixed group of migrants with flocks.**
The 22 day journey from Lehi-Nephi to Zarahemla was never classified as exceedingly great. A journey of 300 miles with flocks & herds might easily be done in 15 days.
**Limhi’s explorers, traveling without flocks or children, would be guided by oral traditions that gave a reasonable idea of the direction they should travel and a travel time estimate measured in days. However, I find it unreasonable to suppose that after a one-way foot journey of four to seven thousand miles**
First, Zeniff’s group wandered in the wilderness for “many days” so even if the number of days was handed down by oral tradition the scouts of Limhi would have thought that it was farther than it really was. Assuming the river Sidon was the Mississippi, the scouts must have come to the banks of the River above Zarahemla, built dugout canoes or a sailing raft and continued upstream. The distance from Lehi-Nephi to the Mississippi river is about 600 miles (see above). After they had gone only another 250 miles upstream they were into the central plains at the fork of the Ohio River. By then they would have been finding the death and destruction of the Jaredites and they assumed that it was the people of Zarahemla (Mosiah 21:25-26). They would have continued to follow the trail of death upstream looking for survivors. King Limhi referred to the scouts as being “diligent” even though they did not find Zarahemla (Mosiah 8:8).
Second, they were being led by the Lord to pick up the 24 gold plates of Ether. Ether set the plates in the place where the Lord would bring the scouts of Limhi (Ether 15:33). The Book of Ether gave the Nephites a record of the people who came before them and was another testament to them of Jesus Christ. The Book of Ether was to the Nephites what The Book Of Mormon is to us (Mosiah 28:17-19; Alma 37:21, 29-30). The long trip of the scouts of Limhi was a small price for them to pay for the Book of Ether.
-Theodore
Kevin,
Whether or not you agree with the traditional interpretation of “exceedingly great distance” or not, and notwithstanding your examples which seem to be easily used in support of “exceeding” as “exceeding”, you simply cannot dispute the plausibility of the reading of that phrase being precisely to the contrary of your reading of the text. We are left once again to your interpretation versus the traditional interpretation, and your reasons for favoring your interpretation versus someone else’s. Just because you see plausibility in your own doesn’t take away from the plausibility of mine, and that is what I have been seeking from you people is the admission of your own lack of ability to declare that something is precise and your overconfidence in your ability to pronounce the likelihood in your own favor of how that phrase should be interpreted, when the obvious interpretation of the phrase is perfectly plausible and favored by Occam’s razor. The only reason you favor your interpretation so much is to read Mesoamerica into it. Otherwise you wouldn’t be trying so hard to apply some kind of games with the phrase. And if you dispute what I’m saying here, then it manifests your lack of enthusiasm for admitting plausibility to something contrary to what you favor.
Lehi’s Landing
In his description of their arrival at the Promised Land, Nephi wrote that their seeds grew exceedingly and they were blessed with abundance. He described beasts in the forests of every kind, and all manner of wild animals. Nephi wrote that they found all manner of ore, both of gold, and silver, and of copper (1 Nephi 18:23-25). It was certainly a blessed land. From this brief description we learn that the soil was fertile and they had abundant rainfall. There were forests, and also grassy areas to feed the cow and the ass and the horse.
This wonderful land was located on the west in the Land of Nephi, on the seacoast, so it would be somewhere along the Pacific coast (Alma 22:28). The Panama land-bridge between North and South America is almost impenetrable. The 16,000 mile Pan American Highway that runs from Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic Ocean to the southern tip of Argentina, has only one break—the fifty-four mile gap through the Darien Jungle between Panama City, Panama, and Columbia, South America. Modern equipment and engineering have not been able to built a road through this jungle. In 1854 an American Expedition searching for a route for the Panama Canal could not hack their way through this jungle. They became so lost and hungry in this forty mile wide isthmus that they ate their dead (LA Times, March 18, 2005). If Lehi had landed in South America, it is highly unlikely that the Nephites could have migrated to North America by land.
The first thing to look for in searching for this location is the ore deposits. US Geological Survey maps show that from Mexico to Panama there is only one spot on the Pacific coast where there are known deposits of gold, silver and copper, all within a radius of thirty miles of a coastal point (USGS Minerals Information). That point is the middle of the Pacific coastline of Costa Rica.
When Columbus came to this area he saw people wearing many ornaments of gold, and so named it Cost Rica (Rich Coast). Costa Rica is rich in many other ways. It has all the other features Nephi described. Costa Rica has fertile soil and 150 inches of rainfall per year. Fruit trees such as avocado, nance and guapinol, as well as tubers such as yucca and “name,” are indigenous to Costa Rica (Costa Rica Agriculture). Today the rich soils produce bananas, pineapple, oranges, nuts, coconuts, yams, and a long list of exotic fruits and vegetables.
The almond tree is indigenous to the Levant of the Middle East (Wikipedia, Almond), and is mentioned ten times in the Old Testament. However, the almond is also considered to be native to Costa Rica (Native Trees of Costa Rica). Lehi’s family brought many fruit and grain seeds and planted them in the Promised Land (1 Nephi 8:1, 18:24) and perhaps the almond and other fruits and grains still growing in Costa Rica were among the varieties brought by Lehi. Future botanical studies may provide additional supporting evidence.
Twenty five percent of Costa Rica is protected forests and reserves. The Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve has two thousand plant species with various orchids, and a hundred species of wild animals. There are eight hundred species of birds in Costa Rica. Nephi’s description of all manner of wild animals still holds true today.
The most probable point for Lehi and his family to land would have been on the lush costal strip where the fresh water of the River Grande flows into the Gulf of Nicoya, near the present town of Tárcoles. When Lehi left Jerusalem, the first place he camped was beside a river of fresh water where it emptied into the Red Sea. He named the river, Laman, and admonished this son to be “like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!” (1 Nephi 2:6-9).
The place Lehi sailed from was a fruitful valley near the sea they called Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:5-6). When Lehi landed in the Promised Land he surely would have settled his family along a fresh water river, not far from the sea. They may have sailed a short distance up the River Grande and found a good settlement site on the rich flat soil on the north bank of the river.
After eight years in the desert, and traveling more than half way around the world by sea, the tropical paradise of Costa Rica would have been an unimaginable fulfillment of the promised blessing to Lehi and his family.
More later on Mesoamerica.
-Theodore
Mesoamerica
When Nephi and those that went with him left the land of their first inheritance to escape persecution, the record simply states that they journeyed in the wilderness for many days, and called the place where they settled, Nephi (2 Nephi 5:7-8). Nephi told us that the land was fertile and there was an abundance of iron, copper, gold and silver ores. They also worked with brass, which is an alloy of copper and zinc, so there would have been zinc deposits as well. To find all of these minerals within a reasonable proximity Nephi needed to travel north to what is now central Guatemala, just south of Mexico (USGS Minerals Information, Guatemala). This would have been a distance of about five hundred miles. Through that terrain it would have required thirty to forty days travel time, which is consistent with Nephi’s statement that they journeyed many days.
(2 Nephi 5:15)
“15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.”
Nephi does not mention building with stone but with all manner of wood and metals. That may not exclude stone but it was not a major material worth mentioning in his list.
Within ten or fifteen years the Lamanites had found where the Nephites had settled, and the wars between them began (2 Nephi 5:34). Two hundred years after Lehi left Jerusalem, Jarom records that the wars had continued and that the Nephites and the Lamanites were scattered upon much of the face of the land.
(Jarom 1:5-6, 8)
“5 And now, behold, two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land…
6 And they were scattered upon much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites…
8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war–yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.”
The Nephites had multiplied exceedingly and the Lamanites even more so. They were scattered and spread upon much of the face of the land and obviously had a thriving civilization in Mesoamerica. The text does not indicate what “much of the face of the land” means but having traveled “many days” to get away from the Lamanites the first time it is probable that this civilization was scattered throughout much of Mesoamerica and into Mexico, and may not have been concentrated in any one place.
By 280 BC the more wicked part of the Nephites had been destroyed, but the record does not indicate where the survivors among them were living at that time (Omni 1:4-7). In wars where one side is losing badly the survivors are those who flee the battle zone. In ancient wars the prime goal of the attacker is to capture the enemy cities and especially the central or capital city. Surely the Nephites would have been driven from their original city of Nephi. It appears that the Lamanites kept pushing the Nephites further north.
With the passage of another hundred years the more righteous Nephites were living in a city called Lehi-Nephi (Mosiah 7:1). The name “Lehi-Nephi” was first used by King Mosiah 2nd in expressing his desire to find out what happened to the people of Zeniff who had returned to that city. This would therefore have been the name that the city was known by when the Nephites had left it in the days of King Mosiah’s grandfather, King Mosiah 1st. Early in his record Zeniff stops using the name “Lehi-Nephi” and the city was referred to thereafter simply by the name “Nephi,” not to be confused with the original city of Nephi in Mesoamerica from which the Nephites would have been driven generations earlier.
Under the leadership of King Mosiah 1st they were warned by the Lord to flee again. Mosiah led his people as Brigham Young 2,000 years later led the Latter-Day Saints out of Nauvoo and across the plains (Omni 1:12-13). Mosiah and his people would have traveled about 600 miles to the river Sidon and Zarahemla (see post above, September 12 at 2:12 pm). This places the city of Lehi-Nephi on the Rio Grande of Mexico/Texas.
There are no further details in the text about events in Mesoamerica. Subsequent to the coming of Christ all of the people in all of the land were converted to the Gospel and lived the fullness of law of consecration for at least 165 years. This would have occurred in Mesoamerica as well as in the Land of Zarahemla and Bountiful and Desolation. What kind of civilization developed there afterwards, or who else then came into the land of Mesoamerica we can only surmise from the archaeological remains. What is evident is that vestiges of the Lamanite and Nephite cultures are still found in Mesoamerica.
More later on the Land Bountiful
-Theodore
That face up there is actually verse “8” followed by a close parenthesis.
We are told that Zarahemla bordered on the river Sidon [Mormon 1:10], and that Zarahemla was NORTH of the Sidon’s head [Alma 22:27]. This means that the river flowed northward, which, to me, is fatal to any claim that the Mississippi River, or any of its tributaries, is the River Sidon.
Further, we are told that Bountiful (further along the river) is near the narrow neck of land separating the Lands Northward and Southward [Alma 22:29-30], the latter being a peninsula [verse 32]. I think this also disqualifies all Great Lakes models of Book of Mormon Geography.
Moreover, there are only five northward-flowing rivers in the western hemisphere: the Grijalva, Usumacinta, Mackenzie, Red (in Minnesota), and Saint Johns. Only the first two and the last flow through anything that can be called a peninsula. This makes Florida and Georgia the ONLY possible North American setting for Book of Mormon geography.
The Book of Mormon tells us that the hill Riplah is near the River Sidon [Alma 43:35]. One thing people note about Florida is that it is FLAT. The highest elevations in peninsular Florida are Sugarloaf Mountain (312 feet), near Clermont, and Iron Mountain (295 feet), near Lake Wales. Both are more than 40 miles from the Saint Johns River.
I think this pretty much disqualifies Florida, leaving Mesoamerica as the only viable location of the River Sidon.
The Usumacinta comes from the Sierrrra Santa Cruz [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usumacinta_River], and the Grijalva flows through the Chiapas highlands [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grijalva]. Thus, either of these rivers could qualify.
Hi Steven:
You probably missed my post of September 14 at 2:43, so I will repost it.
Consider the following:
A. Zarahemla is on the west side of the river Sidon across the river from Gideon.
(Alma 6:7) …Alma…departed from…the city of Zarahemla, and went over upon the east of the river Sidon, into the valley of Gideon, there having been a city built, which was called the city of Gideon…
B. Manti is south of Gideon and Zarahemla
(Alma 17:1) And now it came to pass that as Alma was journeying from the land of Gideon southward, away to the land of Manti, behold, to his astonishment, he met with the sons of Mosiah journeying towards the land of Zarahemla.
C. Manti is on the west side of the river Sidon
(Alma 43:32) And the remainder he concealed in the west valley, on the west of the river Sidon, and so down into the borders of the land Manti.
CONCLUSION #1. The river Sidon runs north and south between Zarahemla and Manti
Then consider the following:
(Alma 22:27) …a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west…
From the above we find:
A. The narrow strip of wilderness runs east and west round about on the edge of the seashore
B. Manti is near the narrow strip of wilderness, that is by the sea
C. The head of the river Sidon is by the narrow strip of wilderness, that is by the sea
CONCLUSION #2. As rivers run to the sea, the river Sidon runs from Zarahemla south to Manti, and through the east/west narrow strip of wilderness to the “head of the river Sidon” near the sea.
Consider the next post regarding the “narrow neck of land.”
-Theodore
LAND OF BOUNTIFUL
South Boundary of the Land Bountiful:
When Ammon explained to the people of Zarahemla about the people of Anti-Lehi-Nephi, the voice of the people came saying:
(Alma 27:22)
“Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful…”
This places Jershon and Bountiful east of the land of Zarahemla. It also informs us that the land of Jershon joined the land of Bountiful, by the sea which was on the south of the Land Bountiful. This is good information because the Land of Bountiful bordered on two seas—one was the East Sea and the other was the West Sea.
(Alma 22:33)
“And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea…”
East of the river Sidon and Zarahemla, these two seas can only be the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. The Gulf would be the West Sea and the Atlantic the East Sea. Residents of Florida today also refer to the east sea and the west sea.
(Alma 22:33)
“And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea, and thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward.”
Therefore, the south boundary of the land of Bountiful went from Jershon on the Gulf of Mexico, east to the Atlantic Ocean, hemming the Lamanites in Florida (Jershon location considered later).
East Boundary of the Land Bountiful:
The east boundary of the Land Bountiful must therefore be the Atlantic Ocean, running north from Florida. This is confirmed by several Nephite cities being built by the east sea towards the north.
(Alma 50:13)
“And it came to pass that the Nephites began the foundation of a city, and they called the name of the city Moroni; and it was by the east sea; and it was on the south by the line of the possessions of the Lamanites.”
Some years later Lamanite King Amalickiah captured the city of Moroni and then marched north.
Alma 51:26)
“And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore.”
West Boundary of the Land of Bountiful:
The sea south of the land Bountiful is the Gulf Coast west of Tallahassee, along the Florida Panhandle to the west. Just west of the Panhandle, above Mobile Bay, Alabama, is the ancient mound complex at Bottle Creek. This is a very large archeological site, with eighteen mounds, located in the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta and is a probable site for the city of Jershon. The Tensaw/Alabama River runs from there northeast to the Blue Ridge Mountain Range, which runs parallel to the Atlantic seacoast for another 700 miles to the Susquehanna River.
Rivers and mountain ranges are natural borders so it is probable that the western border of the land Bountiful is the Tensaw/Alabama River and the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Northern Boundary of the Land Bountiful:
We learn the location of the northern boundary from Mormon’s commentary when he wrote the following:
(Alma 22:30)
“And it [Bountiful] bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their [the Jaredites] first landing.”
The north-south border between Bountiful and Desolation was by the narrow neck of land, “where the sea divides the land.” The following are the only two references to “the narrow neck of land.”
(Alma 63:5)
“And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.”
(Ether 10:20)
“And they [the Jaredites] built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.”
On the eastern seaboard, Chesapeake Bay divides the land for 170 miles. At the head of the bay is a 20 mile wide narrow neck of land that separates it from Delaware Bay on the east. This narrow neck of land is the Delmarva Peninsula, shared by the three states of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. It is known locally simply as “The Peninsula.” The Susquehanna River flows from around the north end of the Blue Ridge Mountains and into Chesapeake Bay at the top of the narrow neck of land. The Susquehanna River would therefore mark the north/south boundary between the land of Bountiful and the land of Desolation. Hagoth launched his ships into the sea on the west side of this narrow neck of land.
The Land of Bountiful was therefore all of the Atlantic coastal plain east of the Blue Ridge Mountains from Florida to the Susquehanna River,. This outlines a territory about 800 miles long and 250 miles wide, roughly the size of the Mexican province of California in 1846.
More later on the Narrow Pass
-Theodore
The Narrow Pass
In 68 BC, a Nephite by the name of Morianton, head of the city of Morianton, attempted to conquer the people of the land of Lehi. Both cities were by the east sea in the land of Bountiful. The people of the land of Lehi fled to the camp of Moroni and plead for assistance. Morianton’s fear of Moroni caused him to take his people and “flee to the land which was northward, which was covered with large bodies of water, and take possession of this land” (Alma 50:29).
Moroni sent an army commanded by Teancum, with their supply camp, to head the people of Morianton and stop their flight into the land northward.
(Alma 50:34)
“And it came to pass that they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.”
Alma described a narrow pass which led from the sea into the land northward, which was the land of Desolation.
From the Alabama River north there are no river valley passes through the Blue Ridge Mountains for about 600 miles. About fifty miles northwest of Washington D.C there is an unusual tectonic transect in the Blue Ridge Mountain Range that created a corridor through which the Potomac River flows to the sea. When Thomas Jefferson viewed this mountain gap from a high ridge in 1783 he wrote:
“The passage of the Patowmac [sic] through the Blue Ridge is perhaps one of the most stupendous scenes in Nature. You stand on a very high point of land. On your right comes up the Shenandoah, having ranged along the foot of the mountain a hundred miles to seek a vent. On your left approaches the Patowmac in quest of a passage also. In the moment of their junction they rush together against the mountain, rend it asunder and pass off to the sea. The first glance of this scene hurries our senses into the opinion that this earth has been created in time, that the mountains were formed first, that the rivers began to flow afterwards, that in this place particularly they have been so dammed up by the Blue Ridge of mountains as to have formed an ocean which filled the whole valley; that, continuing to rise, they have at last broken over at this spot and have torn the mountain down from its summit to its base. The piles of rock on each hand, but particularly on the Shenandoah, the evident marks of their disruptions and avulsions from their beds by the most powerful agents in nature, corroborate the impression” (Notes on the State of Virginia, published in 1785). This site is now included in Harpers Ferry National Historic Park.
The narrow pass was near a place where there was a sea on the west and a sea on the east. Fifty miles from the Potomac River Corridor through the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Potomac flows into the Atlantic across the bay from “The Peninsula,” that has a sea on the west, and a sea on the east. It would have been near here where Teancum slew Morianton, defeated his army and took them all as prisoners back to the camp of Moroni (Alma 50:35).
Two years later, in a major war with the Lamanites, Moroni sent orders to Teancum, “that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side”( Alma 52:9).
Over 400 years later the situation was somewhat reversed, as the Nephites controlled the land Desolation and the Lamanites controlled the land Bountiful.
(Mormon 2:29)
“And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward.”
(Mormon 3:5-6)
“5 And it came to pass that I did cause my people that they should gather themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward.
6 And there we did place our armies, that we might stop the armies of the Lamanites, that they might not get possession of any of our lands; therefore we did fortify against them with all our force.”
This narrow pass was a strategic place at that time, and it was in our day as well. During the American Civil War this pass was on the boundary between the Confederate and the Union Forces. Control of the pass changed hands eight times during the course of the war.
More later on the Journey of the Jaredites and the Jaredite Landing
-Theodore
The Journey of the Jaredites
The Jaredites began their journey from the Tower of Babel, which is located in present day Iraq on the Euphrates River, about 50 miles south of Baghdad. The Jaredites petitioned the Lord that he would lead them to a land “which is choice above all the earth.” The Lord had them gather their flocks and herds, and seeds of all kinds, and led them northward (Ether 1:33-42).
The Nephite land of Desolation was the place of the Jaredites (Alma 22:30). The land of Desolation bordered on the Atlantic Ocean so the Jaredites would have crossed the Atlantic to get there. The Jaredites left Babel and traveled overland northward into a valley called Nimrod. From there the Lord guided them to a sea where they built barges. They crossed this inland sea and then journeyed through a land where no man had ever been. They continued on until they came to the shores of that sea which divides the lands and remained camped on the shores of this sea for four years (Ether 2:1-13).
The most logical route north from Babel would have been to go up the Diyala River Valley into what is now northern Iran. This valley has been an important trade route through the centuries. Continuing north leads into the valley of Lake Urmia which is about 100 miles south of Mount Ararat and would be a probable location for the Valley of Nimrod. From there the Lord directed them through the wilderness to the shores of a sea where they built barges. This would be the Caspian Sea, about 170 miles east of the Valley of Nimrod. The Mediterranean Sea was west of Babel, rather than north. The Black Sea was much farther from Babel, and across the high mountains of Turkey.
A barge is generally a vessel that is pushed or pulled through the water. This indicates that they rowed or oared these vessels rather than being propelled by sail. These vessels did not have a top on them like the later vessels they built, which is evidenced by the fact that there was no concern about lighting them, ventilating them, or being able to see to steer them. They were light on the water like a fowl, peaked at both ends and were the “length of a tree” (Ether 2:16-17). This description sounds very similar to a Viking long ship without a sail.
(Ether 2:6)
“And it came to pass that they did travel in the wilderness, and did build barges, in which they did cross many waters, being directed continually by the hand of the Lord.”
Notice that the Jaredites crossed “many waters” in these barges, and had to be continually directed by the Lord in doing so. It is unlikely that the Lord would have the Jaredites build barges just to cross the Caspian Sea. It would have taken less time to walk around the southern end of the sea than to build vessels to cross it. An interesting thing about the Caspian Sea is that the largest and longest river in Europe empties into the north end of it. The Volga River goes from the Caspian Sea all the way through the heart of present day Russia. The likeliest scenario is that the Jaredites rowed to the north end of the Caspian Sea, and then up the full length of the Volga to its source in the Valdai Hills of Russia. That would put the Jaredites only 200 miles from the Baltic Sea.
The Jaredites stopped for four years at a place they named Moriancumer, after the name of the brother of Jared (Ether 2:13). Moriancumer was beside the great sea and near an exceedingly high mountain (Ether 3:1). To find an exceedingly high mountain beside the great sea, the Jaredites needed to travel through the Baltic Sea and around the southern tip of Norway. On the west coast of Norway at Stavanger, a major fjord leads inland to the first exceedingly high mountain, Snonuten, rising one mile high above the fjord. There are higher mountains further north that are glacier capped but there would have been no reason for the Jaredites to travel that far north along the west coast of Norway.
To get from the Volga River to the west coast of Norway they could have gone overland for 200 miles and built new ships on the Baltic Shore. However, their most likely course of action was to portage their lightweight ships for about 15 miles from the Volga River to the Western Dvina River (Daugava), which then flows into the Baltic Sea near Riga, Latvia. The Vikings portaged their Longships between these two rivers for three centuries. From the head of the Dvina they could row their vessels down the river, then through the Baltic to the western shore of the Scandinavian Peninsula.
At some time during his life the brother of Jared used the power of the priesthood to remove the mountain Zerin (Ether 12:30). There is no indication in the record as to where that mountain was or why it needed to be moved. Moses parted the Red Sea because it was an impediment to the required travel of the Children of Israel. It may be that the brother of Jared needed to move the mountain Zerin because it was blocking the path of the Jaredites from moving their barges from the Volga River to the Western Dvina River.
It is easy to understand why the Jaredites camped on the shore at Moriancumer for four years and quit talking to the Lord. What an arduous journey! Over 3,000 miles, and many years in the wilderness, and they were not there yet! In addition, they were on the shore of what the brother of Jared described to the Lord as the “raging deep” (Ether 3:3), which is an apt description of the North Atlantic. The Jaredites were probably afraid that if they spoke with the Lord He would tell them to get up and start traveling again, and to cross that raging deep. It would have taken some time for them to recuperate from their long journey, and to raise their flocks and harvest grain in preparation for the final leg of the journey.
The ships they built to cross the North Atlantic were similar to what they had previously built, except they were totally enclosed, like the fuselage of an aircraft. They had no oars, paddles, nor sails to propel them, and no rudder to steer by. They had a porthole in the hull and another in the top for ventilation. Stones, illuminated by the finger of God, gave them light (Ether 2:17-25; 6:2-3). They didn’t need to row, or sail, or steer, because they commended themselves totally to the Lord, who caused a wind to blow them always in the direction of the Promised Land (Ether 6:4-5). God was their pilot.
(Ether 6:5-11)
“And it came to pass that the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land; and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind. And it came to pass that they were many times buried in the depths of the sea, because of the mountain waves which broke upon them, and also the great and terrible tempests which were caused by the fierceness of the wind… And it came to pass that the wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land while they were upon the waters… And thus they were driven forth, three hundred and forty and four days upon the water.”
Almost a year on the North Atlantic! Normally the prevailing winds across the North Atlantic flow from west to east. Low pressure systems coming up from the south alter this norm. These systems sometimes develop storms along the Canadian and American North Atlantic coast known as Nor’easters, because the wind is coming from the northeast. They usually result in high winds and heavy seas. It is about 3,000 miles across the North Atlantic and the average speed for the Jaredites would have been nine to ten miles per day. With no sail, and peaked at both ends, these ships would not catch a lot of wind. Moving mostly against the current of the Gulf Stream, nine or ten miles per day would have been a reasonable rate of travel in strong, steady winds.
(Ether 6:12-13)
“And they did land upon the shore of the promised land. And when they had set their feet upon the shores of the promised land they bowed themselves down upon the face of the land, and did humble themselves before the Lord, and did shed tears of joy before the Lord, because of the multitude of his tender mercies over them.
And it came to pass that they went forth upon the face of the land, and began to till the earth.”
More later on the Jaredite Landing
-Theodore
Jaredite Landing and the Land of Desolation
(Alma 22:30)
“And [Bountiful] bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their [the Jaredites] first landing.”
The Jaredites landed in the land the Nephites called Desolation. This could have been anywhere along 600 miles of Atlantic coastline from the Susquehanna River to Maine. However, Mormon narrows this down when he tells us that a Nephite city named Desolation was built in the borders by the sea, near the narrow pass which led to the land southward (Mormon 3:5). The “narrow pass” was the mountain pass where the Potomac Rivers flows through the Blue Ridge to the sea. This places the Nephite city of Desolation near present day Washington D.C. Moroni then explains that the Land of Moron was the first Jaredite kingdom and it was near the land called Desolation, or more specifically, near the land around the city of Desolation (Ether 7:4-6). A probable landing site for the Jaredites was therefore north of Washington D.C., near Newark, New Jersey. As the Delaware River is the western border of New Jersey, the land of Moron would probably have been roughly equivalent to the present state of New Jersey.
The great-grandson of Jared, Shule “went to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel” (Ether 7:9) There had to be iron ore nearby the Jaredite landing site. Forty miles northwest of Newark, near Andover, New Jersey, is a hill which had a massive deposit of hematite iron ore which was mined extensively before the Revolutionary War, and again in the mid 1800’s. It is estimated that a total of 400,000 tons of ore was taken from this location (New Jersey Geological Survey, Final Report of the State Geologist, 1910, pp. 79, 83).
The Jaredites mined various kinds of metals.
(Ether 10:23)
“And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work.”
There are over 340 different minerals that have been found in northwestern New Jersey, including gold, sliver and copper. This is about 10% of all known minerals and constitutes a world record for the number of mineral species from a single locality. The Sterling Hill Mining Museum, about 15 miles (25 km) north of Andover, is listed on the Register of Historic Sites (Sterling Hill Mine Museum web site). The rich mineral deposits in the state of New Jersey are supporting evidence for the supposition that this was the site of the landing of the Jaredites.
(Ether 6:18)
“And it came to pass that they began to spread upon the face of the land, and to multiply and to till the earth; and they did wax strong in the land.”
Shule, who was a righteous king to the Jaredites, “did spread his kingdom upon all the face of the land, for the people had become exceedingly numerous” (Ether 7:11). This would not include the Nephite lands of Bountiful or Zarahemla as the Jaredites never did settle in those areas.
(Ether 10:20-21)
“And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.
And they did preserve the land southward for a wilderness, to get game. And the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants.”
(Ether 9:28-35)
“And there came forth poisonous serpents also upon the face of the land, and did poison many people. And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla.
And it came to pass that there were many of them which did perish by the way; nevertheless, there were some which fled into the land southward.
And it came to pass that the Lord did cause the serpents that they should pursue them no more, but that they should hedge up the way that the people could not pass, that whoso should attempt to pass might fall by the poisonous serpents.”
The Jaredites preserved the Land Bountiful for a hunting preserve, and the poisonous serpents prevented them from going into the Land of Zarahemla. That the Jaredites were north of the Land Zarahemla is further evidence that they had settled in the Central Plains, where the scouts of Limhi first discovered their remains.
Therefore the Land of Desolation went from the Atlantic Ocean (north of the Land of Bountiful) to at least the Missouri river and possibly further west.
My foregoing posts have been an overview of how I believe the Lands of the Book of Mormon, as described in the text, fit accurately into the geography of North America, from Costa Rica to Cumorah.
If anyone is interested in learning more about the probable archaeological sites of the cities of Zarahemla and Bountiful and many other cities, other geographical locations and battle sites, you may download my thesis “A North American Setting For The Book Of Mormon” at http://brandley.poulsenll.org/ Be patient in giving it time to download as it is a big file in MS Word format.
Any questions or comments?
Theodore Brandley
Hi Theodore!
I read your posts and your thesis. There are thing with which I agree, and others with which I profoundly disagree. Time and space preclude much treatment here.
Yes, River Sidon does runthrough both Manti and Zarahemla–and Manti is to the south. The problem is that the headwaters are nearer to Manti than to Zarahemla, which means that Sidon runs from south to north.
Theodore and other North American proponents, the Mississippi cannot be the River Sidon, because it flows in the wrong direction!
Moreover, both Manti and Zarahemla are in the Land Southward–and are thus south of the narrow neck. Based on those factors alone, there is only ONE North American candidate for the Land Southward: Peninsular Florida, because no other North American candidates for the River Sidon (that is, northward flowing) do not flow from a peninsular Land Southward to a narrow neck.
But there are problems with peninsular Florida, as well (I know; I live there! 😉 ). As I stated in my earlier posts, the souther part of the River Sidon is hilly, and FLorida is known for being FLAT (The hills that are there are quite short, and, at any rate, are, in my judgment, too far west.), which is fatal to that model, as well.
I’m not saying that Nephites didn’t live or trade in North America (The economics, I think, make that happening very likely!), but the geography in the text simply doesn’t match the geography of North America, but it does match that of Mesoamerica.
Steven, you wrote:
**Yes, River Sidon does runthrough both Manti and Zarahemla–and Manti is to the south. The problem is that the headwaters are nearer to Manti than to Zarahemla, which means that Sidon runs from south to north.**
Steven, consider again carefully the following:
(Alma 22:27)
…a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west…
From the above we find:
A. The narrow strip of wilderness runs east and west round about on the edge of the seashore.
B. Manti is near the narrow strip of wilderness, that is by the sea.
C. The head of the river Sidon is by the narrow strip of wilderness, that is by the sea.
CONCLUSION: As rivers run to the sea, the river Sidon runs from Zarahemla SOUTH to Manti, and through the east/west narrow
The “head of the river Sidon” cannot be the “headwaters” of the river Sidon because it is by the sea and rivers run to the sea, not away from the sea. Rivers do not begin by the sea they end at the sea. The “head of the river Sidon” has to be the river delta, or “headland” where the river empties into the sea.
There is only one river in North America that meets the criteria for the river Sidon and that is the Mississippi. With the Mississippi as the river Sidon the text of the Book of Mormon matches the geography of North America perfectly, as I have explained in the above posts.
This is why there has never been a consensus on the geography of the Book of Mormon. It has always been assumed that the “head of the river Sidon was the “headwaters.” Nothing fits properly with the river running from south to north, whether it is in Mesoamerica or Northern US, and nothing ever will. It’s trying to put square pegs into round holes. There is no solution to the puzzle with the river running from south to north because it didn’t.
It is only when the “head of the river Sidon” is next to the sea, as demonstrated in the text above, that the picture becomes clear. With the “head of the river Sidon” being “Sidon Head,” the river delta, all of the text of the Book of Mormon fits beautifully into the geography of North America, from Costa Rica to Cumorah, as I have demonstrated in my thesis and in the foregoing posts.
-Theodore
Correction:
Part of the Conclusion got cut off above it should read:
CONCLUSION: As rivers run to the sea, the river Sidon runs from Zarahemla south to Manti, and through the east/west narrow strip of wilderness to the “head of the river Sidon” near the sea.
Here is a second witness from the text that the head of the river Sidon was by the sea.
Alma 50:11
11 And thus he cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon…
Rivers run to the sea.
Theodore
I recommend a book “Book and the Map” by Venice Priddis that places the BoM events primarily in the Andean mountain range of South America. The river Sidon model she proposes fits quite well, as well as the hill Cumorah. The BoM seas on the east and west can be explained by the fact that the Amzon river basin was once a freshwater sea, drained when the very young Amazon river was formed, evidenced by the fact that the delta is rather small, indicating a comparitively recent origin. The BoM records massive geological upheaval in 3rd Nephi. That area (the Andeas) has an extensive history of many earthquakes over 7 on the Richter scale. Darwin noted probale vertical uplifting of about 2,000 feet in northern Chile of again comparitively recent origin. Potatoes grow up to 15,000 feet, yet there are old potato terraces in Bolivia found at 18,000 feet that are at a geological slant. Western South America sit on top of a huge subduction zone, with the Pacific Nazca plate being driven under the South American plate, in other words, tectonic activity. A perfect mechanism for 3rd Nephi disasters. I served my mission in Ecuador where I saw several still smoking volcanos. Knowing where the BoM lands are located would satisfy an intellectual pursuit, but wound’nt change my faith or testimony that the BoM is the word of God brought forth to us through an actual modern prophet of God. That is the real fact that is important.
The Bible is a history of a people, and archaeological evidence corresponds with this history. The geography and archaeology do not prove the divine, only the history.
There is no scientific proof of the parting of the Red Sea, nor of any other miracles. Because the bible includes histories, it does correspond with scientific findings, but does not prove anything more. Belief requires faith.
The Book of Mormon is a history also, but consider the record. It was not kept through the generations as was the Bible writings. It was brought to the world by “the gift and power of God”.
Any archaeological evidence proving it to be an accurate history will also prove the reality of God and the truth of the book, including the miracle that brought it to print.
Religion will not be able to do this. To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, God gives just enough evidence for those who have faith, but never enough to prove a belief to those who require indisputable evidence.
It is unfortunate that the focus on Meso America has caused a disregard for Haplogroup X DNA, simply because there were no X populations in that region. All for this group are found in North America, except a very small one in Brazil.
This DNA record ties North America to a Middle Eastern source, but it does not fit the Meso America model, and the time chronology extends back long before the end of the last ice age. Of course, geology, DNA and radiocarbon dating also show the Bible to be in error concerning the age of the earth and the human species, but that argument does not seem to come up. The point is, there is a DNA connection with the Holy Land, but it is found in North America.
Ephraim is symbolized by the wild ox, and Manasseh by arrows. Certain North American people patterned their lives after the bison, even to ancient prophecies of a sacred white buffalo calf. These people used arrows long after archers had become obsolete in Europe. More white buffalo calves have been born in the last fifteen years than in the past two centuries and are today considered prophetic fullfillment by some tribes.
So much interest in ruins so long ago and far away has blinded too many from recognizing symbols and events of even 150 years ago. Many American Indian beliefs cannot be found accuratley in books, because they are as sacred as the temple ceremonies are to the LDS. Often what is read is incomplete, and even incorrect when published with New Age writings.
When people require proof for a belief, they are no longer living by faith. Those who try to provide evidence beyond all doubt to the world are really attempting to remove the cover from God.
Read Pascal; “The Wager” is a good writing of his concerning faith, evidence and proof.
Theodore Brandley wrote:
“Nothing fits properly with the river running from south to north, whether it is in Mesoamerica or Northern US, and nothing ever will. It’s trying to put square pegs into round holes. There is no solution to the puzzle with the river running from south to north because it didn’t”.
I do not disagree with you, but I wonder if you fully realize the North American river drainage. Along the Minnesota/North Dakota border, the Red River flows from south to north, draining into Lake Winnipeg, which in turn drains into Hudson Bay through the Nelson River. To the east of the Red River, in Minnesota, are the headwaters of the Mississippi at Lake Itasca, and it flows south. West of North Dakota, in Montana, the Missouri river begins, and crosses both North and South Dakota on it’s flow southward. In one region rivers are flowing both directions.
Tired Old Man,
With age comes wisdom. I do not understand much about DNA but I hope you are correct on the subject. I was very interested in your thoughts on Ephraim and the bison. Here is a quote from Monte S Nyman on the subject:
“All interpreters agree that the white bull represents the David Messiah, while the buffalo (wild ox) immediately brings to mind the blessing given to Joseph in Deuteronomy 33:13-17. The great horns with which the bullock is to push Israel together are “the emblem of Messiah ben Joseph” according to The Jewish Encyclopedia. Of this Enoch passage Charles Torrey writes:
In thus seems assured, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the “great animal” of Enoch 90:38, destined to appear in the very last days, is the Messiah ben Joseph. It is not by accident that the words with which he is introduced, “and the foremost among them (the cattle) was the buffalo,” repeat the beginning of Deut. 33:17: “The firstling of his herd, … his horns are the horns of the wild-ox.” The author of Enoch, who knew the Jewish tradition, intended by his “buffalo” the divine-human scion of Joseph’s house. With the buffalo, yet above him, stood the white bull, the Anointed One of David’s line; “and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over them both.” (Monte S. Nyman, ed., Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament, p.14)
You wrote:
**I wonder if you fully realize the North American river drainage. Along the Minnesota/North Dakota border, the Red River flows from south to north, draining into Lake Winnipeg, which in turn drains into Hudson Bay through the Nelson River. To the east of the Red River, in Minnesota, are the headwaters of the Mississippi at Lake Itasca, and it flows south. West of North Dakota, in Montana, the Missouri river begins, and crosses both North and South Dakota on it’s flow southward. In one region rivers are flowing both directions.**
Having spent most of my life in Alberta, courted my wife while she was attending the University of Manitoba, and spent many days near the headwaters of the Missouri River, I am somewhat familiar with the rivers of which you speak.
Helaman 3:8
“And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.”
Thanks for your comments.
-Theodore
Theodore Brandley,
We have certainly walked over the some of the same ground in Manitoba. The DNA issue of haplogroup x is highly controversial, mainly because of the timeline beyond the Book of Mormon migration years. I get a kick out of science arguments about this, because DNA of humans already indicate a beginning much older than the Bible chronology. The bottom line is, no scientific proof can be found to indisputably verify the Book of Mormon because of what it would do to the need for faith. When a focus of study becomes too concentrated in one geographical area, many things are overlooked in other places. Entire groups of people who interacted in the 19th century gathering are disregarded because of popular scholarly models. I am not proposing that what I mentioned is right, simply that there is much more to consider than ancient ruins of long ago.
Greg Smith: In my opinion, it is a huge problem to start with ANY physical location. You’re already making assumptions, no matter how hard we try.
Oh, I don’t think that’s true, because we know the plates were buried at the hill cumorah. Why is it unreasonable to start at that location?
Ed says: Mormon notes the large contrast between the sparseness of the population in the Land Lorthward versus the large population centers in the Land Southward:
That’s not necessarily true. Mormon does not note sparseness in the land northward, but does note how large the population is southward.
Dear Steve:
In between your sarcasm, it does not seem that you have paid very close attention to the discussion up to now. Since you are coming in late, hopefully we can make some things clear.
1) In the first place, FAIR does not hold the positions which you attribute to it.
FAIR endorses no geographical model of the Book of Mormon. There are members of FAIR who hold a North American model, some hold a continental model, some favor a Mesoamerican model, and a sizeable chunk don’t care and have no real opinion on the matter at all.
This is made very clear at the beginning of each section of the review listed here.
===
2) In the second place, Joseph Smith made several statements about Book of Mormon geography. These statements changed over time–indicating that either he got revelation later in the process OR that he was speaking of his own best assessment of the evidence, and this changed as he learned more.
You can see all statements made by the prophet Joseph Smith here.
You can read about this and treatment of the evidence in our review of Rod Meldrum’s material here. You will note he both ignored evidence which did not fit his model, and distorted some which he did cite.
3) FAIR is not making the statement that prophets do not automatically know everything, especially peripheral details. FAIR has drawn that conclusion via numerous scriptures and statements of the modern prophets and apostles.
Joseph Smith himself said that a prophet was only a prophet “when he was acting as such.” Scripture makes it clear that even serious matters affecting the progress of the Church were not always revealed to Joseph (D&C 10:37).
In the LDS tradition, prophets are not omniscient, nor are they infallible
As George Q. Cannon explained:
The Presidency of the Church have to walk just as you walk. They have to take steps just as you take steps. They have to depend upon the revelations of God as they come to them. They cannot see the end from the beginning, as the Lord does. They have their faith tested as you have your faith tested. So with the Twelve Apostles. All that we can do is to seek the mind and will of God, and when that comes to us, though it may come in contact [conflict?] with every feeling that we have previously entertained, we have no option but to take the step that God points out, and to trust to Him… [George Q. Cannon, “Enduring to the End,” 5 October 1890; reported in ”Collected Discourses: delivered by Wilford Woodruff, his two counselors, the twelve apostles, and others”, Vol. 2, edited and compiled by Brian H. Stuy, (Woodland Hills, Utah: B. H. S. Publishing, 1988), 115–116.]
===
Finally, leaders of the Church have repeatedly been clear that there is no revealed location for Book of Mormon geography.
FAIR aims to support and defend the leaders of the Church. And our review used their words on this point.
If you are convinced that the Church and its leaders are neglecting a revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith on Book of Mormon geography, and not teaching it, perhaps you should make your concern known by writing to:
President Boyd K. Packer
President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
50 E. North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
You should explain to him how he and the other prophets and apostles are ignoring a revelation to Joseph Smith. You may even with to point out how FAIR members are also guilty of “heresy” on this point, as you put it, and that many employees of the Church’s flagship university (BYU, in Provo) have published and taught the same thing for over fifty years. You should also point out that Rod Meldrum is trying to correct this matter.
Please let us know how he replies.
Your recent comment on this and other blog threads (making essentially the same claims) are, unfortunately, why FAIR believed it was necessary to respond to the material and claims made by Rod Meldrum which are at variance with the teachings of the living prophets and the historical record.
I hope you will examine the evidence and refrain from charging members of the Church (including the prophets and apostles) who do not agree with you with heresy or a rejection of Joseph Smith’s or Brigham Young’s prophetic role.
Best wishes,
Greg Smith