The Danger of Theorizing – Part I – Lamanite Attacks in Winter

As stated in the last post, the sixteen points listed in the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum website, it is interesting to me that the author of this claim lists only 16 points. I have a list of over 45 points taken right from specific Book of Mormon scripture, plus another 20 coming out of the scriptures in general (such as wars and their location, etc.), or directly from Hebrew culture during the time Lehi lived at Jerusalem. 65 points that must be met for any place or model to qualify as a location for the Land of Promise—not just 18.

But the real problem lies in comments such as the following—his 14th point:

“(14) The winter climate must be bearable enough for Lamanite combatants to wear loin-cloths and shaven heads (Alma 3:5, 20-25)

Now the problem lies in the scriptures quoted:

3:5: “Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth”
3:20-25: Not many days after the battle which was fought in the land of Zarahemla, by the Lamanites and the Amlicites, that there was another army of the Lamanites came in upon the people of Nephi, in the same place where the first army met the Amlicites….the scripture goes on to talk about Alma being wounded and not involved, the Nephites killing many Lamanites and driving the remainder out of the land, then the Nephites returned to their homes, ending with… ”Now all these things were done, yea, all these wars and contentions were commenced and ended in the fifth year of the reign of the judges.”

There is absolutely no mention of any Lamanite WINTER campaign against the Nephites. In fact, all armies and generals know not to mount any serious attack against an enemy during the winter—both Napoleon and Hitler learned that lesson by losing most of their armies in such winter campains in Russia. To even consider that the Lamanites came down to do battle with the Nephites during the winter is unthinkable. In fact, any even cursory reading of the scripture shows that after any battle during the first about 900 years of warfare, the Lamanites retreated back to their lands and did not mount another attack until at least a year later—suggesting to any strategist that the Lamanites were in their homeland during the winter, sallying forth during the summer months to attack.

The point is, you can make any claim you want, but the scripture you reference MUST state that claim the way intended. In this case, and in so many cases of Mesoamerican, Great Lakes, Heartland, et all, theorists try to claim something not in scripture. In fact, the only mention of climate in the Book of Mormon is found in Alma 46:40:

“And there were some who died with fevers which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land—but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate.”

It is a sad commentary on scholarship when someone has a model of a location in mind and then tries to find ways to defend or support it. Scholarship should be involved in finding ALL the requirements in scripture and then seeing where that might lead one—however, theorizing on locations never allows such and the result is a disingenuous approach to the scriptural record.

(See next Post, “The Danger of Theorizing – Part II” for a commentary on the other 15 points listed and their comparison with the 65 points we have stated in previous posts)