The Danger of Theorizing – Part II – Major River

As stated in the last post, a friend sent me info from a website of “the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum” in which 16 scriptural points were listed as having to exist for any site claiming to be the Land of Promise in the Book of Mormon to be considered. Last post we discussed point 14 and its inaccuracy. Below are the other 15 points with comments:

“(1) Major River flowing from South to North (Alma 2:15, 22:27).”

It is unlikely that any river’s location and course would have remained constant through the upheaval “thus the face of the whole earth became deformed” because of the quaking of the earth (3 Nephi 8:17), and “the whole earth was about to divide asunder” (3 Nephi 8:6), and the earth was carried upon cities with great mountains forming (3 Nephi 8:10), and “the higheways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough” (3 Nephi 8:13), and “the rocks were rent in twain.and found inbroken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land” (Mormon 8:18), all of which lasted for the space of three hours (3 Nephi 8:19). The only mention of the Sidon River after these events is in Mormon 1:10 in which they are referred to as “the waters of Sidon” not the Sidon River as prior to the cataclysm. We do not know from scripture whether or not these waters remained as a river and flowed to the sea in the last 400years of the Land of Promise topography, as they did before the cataclysm. To make this an absolute (and first) claim seems out of place here.

“(2) A Major River originating from a mountainous narrow strip of wilderness that runs from "the sea east even to the sea west" and serves as a natural feature providing protection from the Lamanites (Alma 50:11).”

First of all, the river did not provide the natural feature of separation, but the narrow strip of wilderness did (Alma 22:27). Second, one can read in this verse that the a river originated in the narrow strip of wilderness and ran to the west sea; however, it is not conclusive. We know from other scripture that the narrow strip of wilderness ran from the west sea to the east sea, separating the Land of Nephi from the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 22:27). Obviously, there was the head of a river along this narrow strip, but the verse does not say specifically that it ran clear to the west sea—only that the line between the two lands ran from the west sea to the east sea. “The Nephites possessing all the land northward” of this narrow strip of wilderness has been stated (Alma 22:27). To claim a river has to be in this wilderness area running into the west sea is not at all conclusive, nor can it be a requirement for a land to be the Land of Promise.

Though this cannot be a requirement for the Land of Promise as indicated above, there is such a river in the Andean area that not only meets this, but also makes a necessary loop around the Land of Jershon. But one of the issues is that Mesoamerican theorists will claim this river ran clear to the west sea when it does not say this specifically, but reject the narrow neck of land running form the west sea to the east (Alma 22:32)—claiming it does not say that specifically. Both statements were written by Alma or Mormon and, therefore, must be taken both to mean the same, or neither means that. You cannot pick and choose a meaning to match your own thinking a is being done here by these theorists.

Lastly, the area of the ancient Andean civilization from Ecuador to Chile has such factors as any archaeologist and anthropologist can tell you, and most have written about.

(See next post, “The Danger of Theorizing – Part III” for the remainder of these points)