Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? – Part IX

In the last seven posts the several points in a FARMS website were introduced and an evaluation of those points covered. In this post, we will deal with John L. Sorenson’s next comment:

6. There are also arguments which explain Book of Mormon passages that speak of north and south seas (Helaman 3:8), the description of the land of Nephi and Zarahemla as nearly surrounded by water (Alma 22:32), and why Nephi compared their land to an “isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20).

Let’s take his comments one at a time:

1. “Explain Book of Mormon passages that speak of north and south seas (Helaman 3:8).”

First of all, this statement in Helaman has reference to a much larger subject, the expansion of the Nephites throughout the Land of Promise. Many people want to narrow the view of this passage to just the Land Northward, however, the scriptural record tells us differently. This begins about ten years earlier when the Nephites, tired of the wars and contentions in the Land Southward, that “in the thirty and seventh year of the reign of the judges, there was a large company of men, even to the amount of five thousand and four hundred men, with their wives and their children, departed out of the land of Zarahemla into the land which was northward” (Alma 63:4). In addition, some went by land “And it came to pass that in this year there were many people who went forth into the land northward. And thus ended the thirty and eighth year” (Alma 63:9).

Evidently, this migration continued, for ten years later, we see: “In the forty and sixth year, yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land” (Helaman 3:3). They traveled “to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers” (Helaman 3:4), and “Spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber” (Helaman 3:5), and finally, to the verse in question: “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 (Helaman 3:8).

Note the term “And they did go forth from the land southward to the land northward,” that is, Mormon is telling us that the entire Land of Promise, from the Land Southward to the Land Northward is involved in the following statement: “And did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth,” that is, the entire face of the Land of Promise was covered with people involved until they spread “from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.”

There is no further explanation necessary regarding the South Sea. They were on an island—the island was completely surrounded by water—and in every direction there was a sea, called the “Sea North,” “Sea South,” “Sea East,” and “Sea West.”

2. “The description of the land of Nephi and Zarahemla as nearly surrounded by water (Alma 22:32).”

The entire Land of Promise was surrounded by water—it was an island (2 Npehi 10:20). On the other hand, at the time in Alma that Mormon is describing the land, he is referring mostly to the Land Southward where the Nephites had contained the Lamanites to the lands southward of them. Thus, he is describing the Land of Nephi in great detail, and the Land of Zarahemla in some detail. These are the lands he describes when talking of the small or narrow neck of land. These lands, the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla, were the point of his writing about the water. They were surrounded by water except for the small neck of land.

However, Sorenson has to discredit this statement because his Mesoamerica model is not surrounded by water.

(See the next post, “Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located-Part X,” for more comments on the website quoted above and an understanding of Mormon’s Map)

Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? – Part VIII

In the last seven posts the several points in a FARMS website were introduced and an evaluation of those points covered. In this post, we will deal with John L. Sorenson’s next comment:

5. “Secondly, the overall shape of this geography, at least near the narrow neck of land was somewhat like an hourglass and flanked by an east and west sea.”

First of all, there is no mention or suggestion of an hourglass shape to the land in the scriptural record which would necessitate an indentation, inlet or bay on each side of the Narrow Neck of Land. What we know and are told is that there were two lands, the Land Southward and the Land Northward. The Land Southward was nearly surrounded by water except for a small neck that ran between these two lands—so narrow it could be crossed by a Nephite in a day and a half, as well as used as a defensible stopping point against an invading army. This suggests that this small or narrow neck was indeed very narrow; however, the only indication of an inlet, bay or indentation suggested would be on the West Sea where Hagoth built his ships and from which they sailed northward.

Obviously, Sorenson claims an hourglass shape because his Mesoamerican model has somewhat of an indentation on both sides. However, let’s compare his hourglass to his model.

(left) Sorenson’s map, (right) an hourglass

Of course, an hourglass does not look like Sorenson’s model. An hourglass is shaped very narrow at the middle to restrict the flow of sand. Just as the narrow neck of land was very narrow to restrict an enemy force (Lamanites) from breaking through into the Land Northward. But there the similarity ends, for there is no indication in the scriptural record that the narrow neck of land was in the middle of the two land masses.

While it is true that the narrow neck touched both the East Sea and the West Sea, there appears from the record to have a much larger area of West Sea moving into a gulf, bay, or inlet to protect the shipbuilding yards of Hagoth who launched into the West Sea (Alma 63:5). At the same time, there is not a single mention of any indentation on the east of the narrow neck. The one scriptural reference we have of that area is:

“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 50:34).

We know, of course, that there was activity in the West Sea of this narrow neck, for Hagoth “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” (Alma 63:5). In addition, not only were these ships “exceedingly large” but he built several of them. In fact, Helaman tells us that the Nephites were involved heavily in “shipping and their building of ships” (Helaman 3:14). Ships, of course, are not built on a coast or at a seashore, but in a protected inlet or bay of some type. Thus, the West Sea was indented along the narrow neck of land, and probably not the East Sea.

There is one more point. Since the Nephites knew that there was a narrow neck of land, we might discount anything that is not sharply indented, or easily observed by eyesight in a short distance—there were no satellite or aerial photos in that day. Sorenson’s narrow neck in Mesoamerica, could not really be identified by a Nephite because the land is so gradually effected.

Lastly, as been shown in previous posts, the isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica, is not 75 to 125 miles across, but a full 140 miles according to the Mexican records shown in previous posts.

Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? – Part VII – Determining Distances Part II

John L. Sorenson has determined certain distances within the Land of Promise, and thus an overall distance of the entire land. As an example he claims the distance of 180 miles from the City of Nephi to the City of Zarahemla, and another 180 miles from the City of Zarahemla to the narrow neck of land, which he claims is 75 to 125 miles across.

He arrives at a very short distance (no miles given) from the land of First Inheritance (Lehi’s landing site) to the City of Nephi stating that Nephi’s flight was of “many days.” He then measures the City of Nephi to the City of Zarahemla as 180 miles citing Alma’s 21+ day journey, and Ammon’s forty days. However, Alma’s journey was 21 days from the Waters of Mormon to the Land of Zarahemla—it doesn’t state the City of Zarahemla—and Ammon’s 40 days was “wandering” which means to travel without a certain course. Neither of these two examples are particularly helpful.

As an example, when Zeniff and his group traveled from Zarahemla to the City of Lehi-Nephi in the Land of Nephi, they “wandered” in the wilderness for forty days (Mosiah 7:4). When his grandson, Limhi, and the Nephites escaped and fled to Zarahemla, “after being many days in the wilderness they arrived in the land of Zarahemla” (Mosiah 22:13)—no length of time is given that is helpful for either direction.

The only possible distance shown by days is when Alma left from near the city of Nephi and reached the Land of Zarahemla. As stated: “From the borders of the land, from a place called the waters and forest of Mormon, some distance from the city of Nephi, Alma and his 450 converts fled with their tents and their families before the armies of the king” (Mosiah 18:30-35). They traveled eight days in the wilderness (Mosiah 23:3) and settled in a land “they called the land of Helam” (Mosiah 23:19). They eventually left and traveled all day in the wilderness and stopped in a valley, calling it Alma (Mosiah 24:20). They left there immediately and traveled 12 days in the wilderness and “they arrived in the land of Zarahemla” (Mosiah 24:25). Thus, they were 21 days between the Waters of Mormon and the Land of Zarahemla. However, we do not know how far from the city of Nephi lay the Waters of Mormon, or in which direction, nor do we know how far they traveled once in the Land of Zarahemla until they reached the city and Mosiah.

If we use 40 days to go 180 miles, they were traveling at 4.5 miles per day. If we take this 180 miles in 21 days, the travel speed is 8.6 miles per day. In 21+ days (22 days) it would be 8.2 miles per day. So averaging out Alma’s trip, he traveled with 450 people, including women and children, flocks and possessions, at a much greater speed than did Zeniff with a much smaller group and therefore less baggage—that does not make much sense. On the other hand, when the Mormon Pioneers came west, they averaged 14-20 miles per day (figuring the middle average of 17 miles per day). Thus, if someone took 22 days to travel, that would be about 374 miles, not 180 miles as Sorenson claims. In 40 days, that would be 968 miles. It would appear that Sorenson’s figures are self-determined to meet his model, and obviously of no value.

Thus, we cannot draw conclusions from any of this as to set any type of distance whatsoever. To do so is merely an assumption often borne of an interest to limit the distance to a known model of the Land of Promise. So, when Sorenson says it was a land of “limited geography,” he is simply making up his own mind and violates his own stated premise to “approach the textual elements of geography as bias-free as possible.”

(See the next post, “Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located-Part VIII,” for more comments on the website quoted above and an understanding of Mormon’s Map)

Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? Part VI – Determining Distances Part I

In the last five posts the several points in a FARMS website were introduced and an evaluation of those points begun. In this post, we will deal with the comment:

4. “One of the premises is that “When an internal model is generated from the text we discover a number of significant features. First, and foremost, the Book of Mormon events took place in a limited geography.”

It is always interesting when one of these theorists try to show how fair they are, and the first thing they say is something that is totally inaccurate and completely biased. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it say or even suggest that “a limited geography” area was involved. Naturally, the geography was smaller than an entire continent, but not as small as the current size of Israel as many claim.

An internal map shows that the only distance we can ever determine to some extent is that distance Alma’s group traveled from the City of Nephi to the City of Zarahemla, which, as can be seen, is a small area within the Land of Promise

The fact is, we cannot determine the size of the Land of Promise, nor is its size even intimated other than it appearing to be a long and narrow land. The closest we can come to understanding this is the statement made by Mormon in Alma when he describes the Land of Promise, beginning with the Land of Nephi 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 thus “were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.”

There were Lamanites on the west in the Land of Nephi as far south as “in the place of their fathers' first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.” Now to the north was the Land of Zarahemla all the way northward “even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful” which land “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.”

The land went from the East Sea to the West Sea, making it narrower than its length, and at one point was narrow enough, that a small neck of land “was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea” (Alma 22:27-32).

From this very complete description, there is no way to determine distances. Travel time between areas, such as First Landing to the City of Nephi was “many days” travel (2 Nephi 5:7), “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” (Ether 9:3), and speaking of the length a king served, “having seen exceedingly many days, which were full of sorrow” (Ether 9:15), and “Corom did that which was good in the sight of the Lord all his days; and he begat many sons and daughters; and after he had seen many days he did pass away” (Ether 10:17). Limhi’s 43-man expedition that traveled far to the north “they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days” (Mosiah 8:8. The first group that traveled from Zarahemla toward the City of Nephi camped “after many days' wandering in the wilderness” (Mosiah 9:4). Alma hid near the Waters of Mormon “concealed for many days” where he wrote all the words of Abinadi (Mosiah 17:4). “After many days there were a goodly number gathered together at the place of Mormon, to hear the words of Alma” (Mosiah 18:7).

It seems obvious that “many days” is a term that could mean just about any time length. In some cases it is used for a short time frame: Alma “fasted and prayed many days” (Alma 5:46), and in others, more than 80 years: “And not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory” (Alma 9:26). Sometimes, it is implied as when Mosiah fled this city and discovered Zarahemla “they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness, until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla” (Omni 1:13).

(See the next post, “Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? Part VII – Determining Distances Part II,” for a further understanding of the fallacy of determining distances in the Land of Promise)

Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? – Part V – The Destruction of the Land – Part II

In the last post, the comment from the FARMS website regarding John L. Sorenson’s lack of belief that the Land of Promise was changed much from the destruction at the Savior’s death. His words were... "it just 'sounds impressive,' but did not include any major changes in the landscape. However, to those who lived through it, the destruction described 'changed the whole face of the land' (3 Nephi 8:12)." How can you change the whole face of the land yet “give no justification for supposing that the form or nature of the land changed in any essentials” as Sorenson claims?

So let’s take a look at Noah Webster’s “1828 American Dictionary of the English Language” which covered the New England understanding of words at the time Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. In that dictionary, the word “deform” meant to make it distorted, ugly, without symmetry. And “symmetry” means that it has some sort of evenness, apparent relationship, is “proportional in its parts, as to dimensions.” Thus, we can say that the face of the land WAS changed.

But let’s look further. The term “rocks were rent in twain.” First of all, in 1828, the term “rent” meant “torn asunder, split or burst by violence” and also “a fissure made by force.” The word “twain” means “in two, divided into two pieces.” In addition, though we all know what the word “rock” means, we probably do not know that its root is “burst, crack, tear, or break,” and more commonly meant “a large mass of stony matter” and “rocks compose the principal part of huge mountains,” and “huge rocks lie on the face of the earth, in detached blocks or masses.” Thus, the ““rocks were rent in twain,” takes on an entirely different understanding. In addition, these rocks “were broken up upon the face of the whole earth” suggests widespread destruction of the earth’s stony mass, huge blocks of rock on the surface, and the interior of mountains across the land. In addition, “they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land” exponentially compounds the destruction of the land, stony masses, and mountains.

Combing another verse: “And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder” (3 Nephi 8:6). The word “tempest” means “a wind of long continuance” and is the highest rating of wind, and is “a violent tumult or commotion.” The word “asunder” means “to divide into parts,” which suggests that the entire earth was divided into parts from the earthquakes—including the stony masses, surface rock slabs, and the base of mountains.

Samuel the Lamanite put it this way, “Yea, at the time that he shall yield up the ghost there shall be thunderings and lightnings for the space of many hours, and the earth shall shake and tremble; and the rocks which are upon the face of this earth, which are both above the earth and beneath, which ye know at this time are solid, or the more part of it is one solid mass, shall be broken up” (Helaman 14:21). Thus, this destruction of “the whole face of the earth” was not just a “mainly to the surface,” as Sorenson claims, but “both above the earth and beneath.”

After all, when we describe that “the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land” (3 Nephi 8:18) and that the “the whole face of the land was changed” (3 Nephi 8:12), and that mountains collapsed and others shot up to great heights, one can only wonder at the extent of such destruction. Obviously, Sorenson is no geologist. Such happenings would be remarkable!

Yet, as mentioned in the last post, certain areas might well remain undisturbed, such as the Bountiful Temple, survivors (the more righteous 3 Nephi 10:12) and their homes (it seems logical that survivors’ homes would be somewhat intact for they survived the destruction), and one particular hill (Ramah/Cumorah). Yet, while the “narrow passage” remained, evidently, the narrow or small neck of land did not, for it is never mentioned after the destruction—nor is the East Sea mentioned after the destruction (See the recent post, “What Happened to the East Sea).

No matter how serious the destruction that takes place, no matter how much the topography of the land is changed, there are always going to be some pockets undisturbed. In addition, the destruction described in the Land Southward, as bad as it was, that in the Land Northward was worse, “there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth” (3 Nephi 8:12).

(See the next post, “Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located-Part VI,” for more comments on the website quoted above and an understanding of Mormon’s Map)

Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? – Part IV – The Destruction of the Land – Part I

In the last three posts, several points in a FARMS website were introduced and an evaluation of those points begun. In this post, we will deal with the comment:

3. “In order to approach the textual elements of geography as bias-free as possible, Sorenson spells out some necessary assumptions that undergird the research such as “both textual evidence and logic require an assumption of uniformity in the way nature operates today and operated in Book of Mormon times … subject to the normal laws and processes of nature.”

Naturally, the laws of nature are the same today as in the past. However, those laws are not necessarily how Sorenson sees them. In the following statement, he claims. “The volume itself says that the changes at the Savior's death were mainly to the surface.” After citing that the Bountiful temple was still there, Zarahemla was rebuilt, the narrow pass, river Sidon, and Ramah/Cumnorah were still there, he adds, “Thus the record itself gives no justification for supposing that the form or nature of the land changed in any essentials, despite the impressive destruction that signaled the Savior's death. Nor is there reliable evidence from the earth sciences to lead us to suppose major changes took place. Nothing we know prevents our placing most of the ancient places on today's map.”

Because Mesoamerica, Sorenson’s Land of Promise, was not affected by anything physical according to “earth sciences,” to him the events in 3 Nephi did not change much. On the other hand, if we remove Mesoamerica from the equation and shift elsewhere, we find “earth sciences” telling us a lot of changes took place in the Andean area of South America, as listed in the book “Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica.”

The point is, when one has a pre-determine location, the scriptural record is interpreted according to that pre-determined location. But when one approaches the scriptural record with an open mind, not trying to justify, validate, or prove a pre-disposition, the record takes on a totally new meaning. Take, for example, Samuel the Lamanite, who claimed that during the Savior’s crucifixion, the Land of Promise would be so disarranged, that “there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great” (Helaman 14:23). Obviously, such changes would change the natural order of things as they had been prior to this event.

Or, what of the Savior’s own comments that He burned six cities, sunk four cities into the depths of the sea, and buried six cities in the earth, and “made hills and valleys in the places thereof,” and “many great destructions have I caused” (3 Nephi 9:4-9), or what of the destructions the disciple Nephi described. “And the face of the whole earth became deformed” (3 Nephi 8:17) “the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land” (3 Nephi 8:18).

To figure that 300 years later Mormon still knew certain landmarks only suggests that certain landmarks were not changed or altered, such as the Bountiful temple.

Take, for example, a fictitious occurrence where South Salt Lake was burned to the ground, a 22,000 foot high mountain range popped up along the I-15 from Murray to Ogden, the Corner Canyon between Draper and Highland collapsed into a valley, and the Uinta Mountains from Park City to Sandy were “laid low.” That would still leave the Temple standing, and many, many houses, and an understanding of the Salt Lake Valley—though it would be completely deformed.

How distorted would a mountain have to be to not know it exists? And to recognize that a series of mountains after 300 years, which had become natural to the landscape for around 10 generations or more would confuse someone who only lived when those mountains existed is disingenuous in the extreme. What Mormon knew and understood was based upon having all the records of the Nephites “there are many records kept of the proceedings of this people, by many of this people, which are particular and very large, concerning them” (Helaman 3:13), and making comparisons between his day and the days of earlier times.

(See the next post, “Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located-Part V – Destruction of the Land – Part II,” for an understanding of what was meant in the words written of the destruction)

Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? – Part III

In the last two posts the several points in a FARMS website were introduced and an evaluation of those points begun. In this post, we will deal with the comment:

2. “As a professional scholar, Sorenson recognizes that no text speaks for itself. All readers approach a text with preconceived notions, bias and assumptions, and all people interpret passages based on a variety of other influences.”

First, taken at face value, this statement appears true. Certainly, many, many people have preconceived notions that interfere with their evaluation of information. But to say “all people” is totally inaccurate. Many years ago, scientific research was an open and challenging field where scientists sought for factual truths, not just to prove their own knowledge—they had numerous ways to evaluate their findings along the way to see if any bias or prejudices were influencing their work. Today, this is rarely the case. But that does not mean all people are incapable of approaching a subject matter with an open and unbiased mind.

Certainly Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove sought truth; Moses listened to the voice in the burning bush with fear and trembling; Mother Theresa performed her duties without looking for aggrandizement; and every prophet of the Lord spoke the words given him by the spirit without injecting his own ideas into the message—even if it meant persecution and death, as shown in the case of Abinadi.

To say that a person cannot read the scriptures and work out an accurate understanding of the geography of the Land of Promise is to belittle the efforts of numerous individuals who never write books, post a blog, or claim they know the answer—but arrive at an understanding of truth through the spirit testifying to them.

Secondly, “no text speaks for itself” is strictly a worldly approach of the academic. The Book of Mormon speaks for itself. Each and every statement speaks for itself. Mormon’s descriptions speak for themselves. The problem lies in people with preconceived models and locations in mind and how they react to the “plain and simple” language of the scriptural record. John L. Sorenson is convinced Mesoamerica is the site, and as he claims, he is biased toward that and prejudiced toward any other location. Arlin Nasbaum is convinced the “South Sea” was located in the area of the narrow neck of land and arrogantly belittles any other view. And the list goes on. As Paul wrote: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

However, the text does speak for itself and those who read without preconceived ideas, locations and reputations at stake, see things the spirit shows them and that the “plan and simple” language tells them.

Thirdly, “all people interpret passages based on a variety of other influences” is a rather ambiguous statement. It would seem that most people are influenced by a desire to learn and understand—however, people like Sorenson, who was convinced of Mesoamerica at an early stage in his career, cannot imagine someone not agreeing with him. To him, having a preconceived belief in the location of the Land of Promise is a natural occurrence. However, it is not with all people.

No, the reason for such a belief is to satisfy oneself that a certain approach is the only proper method. For anyone disagreeing with Mesoamerica, they are approaching the scriptural record with a bias or prejudice and that the scriptural record cannot speak for itself. The same could be said about any other location theorists have developed. But the fact of the matter is, the Book of Mormon speaks for itself, those who wrote in it knew what they were talking about, and did so with plainness as Nephi described. It is rather arrogant for someone to come along thousands of years later and say those men did not know what they were talking about.

(See the next post, “Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located-Part IV,” for more comments on the website quoted above)

Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? – Part II

In the last post the several points in a FARMS website were introduced and an evaluation of those points begun. The first was a statement made by FAIR; “Faithful individuals and scholars can honestly disagree on where Book of Mormon events took place.” This was shown to be in error in the last post—there can be no honest disagreement on scripture for all scripture, Peter tells us, is “not for private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). It was also quoted that Mormon said that what he engraved on the plates was "according to the knowledge and the understanding which God has given me" (Words of Mormon 1:9).

Therefore, to understand scripture, one must take scripture at face value and not try to alter, bend, change, add to it, or delete anything from it. This is a particularly major problem when dealing with Book of Mormon scholars and theorists regarding the topographical geography spelled out in the scriptural record—who constantly want to change, alter, delete or add to the written word.

Another point in understanding scripture is to accept what Nephi tells us: “For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3).

In addition, we understand the scripture by accepting Peter’s declaration: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21),

And lastly, to understand what Amos the Prophet said, “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

All this means is that when we read Book of Mormon scripture, any part of it, we must keep in mind that it was written by prophets in plain and simple language for our understanding—“our” means each of us, not to be understood by special people and then told to us, but understood by each of us. Secondly, it means that the scriptural record is not open to individual and separate interpretation—it is to be understood through the Spirit as we read, ponder and understand the plain and simple language. Third, that this writing came not by the will of men, but by spiritual men guided by the spirit who wrote for our plain and simple understanding.

Thus, as an example, when John L. Sorenson spends pages trying to tell us that the Nephites did not understand the cardinal directions and that “east,” “west,” “north,” and “south,” really meant something else to them, he is violating this “plain and simple understanding” that God used to speak to us “in our own language.” The same is true when Sorenson tries to tell us “it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite” really meant some special type of athlete, military runner, or unique individual, who could run great distances in record time, is also incorrect.

The same inaccuracies also show up when someone writes that the “Sea East,” “Sea West,” and “Sea South,” were really just lakes, rivers, and small fresh water bodies of water, as the Great Lakes, Heartland and eastern U.S. theorists try to tell us. Or that Mound Building was all that the Nephites, who were taught “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,” (2 Nephi 5:15), could manage and leave behind.

The point of all this is simple. To understand the scriptural record regarding the location and topography of the Land of Promise, we need only take the scriptural record at face value and believe what the men who lived there have to tell us. After all, they were not trying to confuse us, nor was Joseph Smith trying to confuse us, nor was the Spirit trying to confuse us. “Plain and simple language” means just that. As does “speak to us in our own language for our understanding.”

Now that we understand these points, we are ready to look at the rest of the issue written on the FARMS website

(See the next post, “Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located-Part III,” for more comments on the website quoted above)

Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located? – Part I

A friend recently sent me an article from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship website (formerly the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS]).

It states that in 1992, the Foundation published John L. Sorenson’s research in the 415-page study aid “The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book.” In 2000, FARMS published an updated summary of Sorenson’s work in the book "Mormon's Map." It states that as a professional scholar, Sorenson recognizes that no text speaks for itself. All readers approach a text with preconceived notions, bias and assumptions, and all people interpret passages based on a variety of other influences. In order to approach the textual elements of geography as bias-free as possible, Sorenson spells out some necessary assumptions that undergird the research such as “both textual evidence and logic require an assumption of uniformity in the way nature operates today and operated in Book of Mormon times … subject to the normal laws and processes of nature.” One of the premises is that “When an internal model is generated from the text we discover a number of significant features. First, and foremost, the Book of Mormon events took place in a limited geography. Secondly, the overall shape of this geography, at least near the narrow neck of land was somewhat like an hourglass and flanked by an east and west sea.” There are also arguments which explain Book of Mormon passages that speak of north and south seas (Helaman 3:8), the description of the land of Nephi and Zarahemla as nearly surrounded by water (Alma 22:32), and why Nephi compared their land to and “isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20).

The article concludes with “FAIR recognizes that faithful individuals and scholars can honestly disagree on where Book of Mormon events took place; there is no revealed or officially accepted geography.”

Now, there seems to be a lot said in the short information provided above, and taken as a whole, most people would probably accept that scholarly approach and the comments made. However, being more interested in the scriptural record than a scholarly approach to the Book of Mormon, there seems several problems with these statements. Starting in this post and continuing until the above points have been answered, these points of inaccuracy are:

1. “Faithful individuals and scholars can honestly disagree on where Book of Mormon events took place; there is no revealed or officially accepted geography.”

While it is true there is no official declaration by the Church on this issue, the fact that people can honestly disagree over scripture is an inaccurate and satanic idea. How can one interpret the scripture for himself? As an example, Peter cautioned against that: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). Peter went on to say, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21), and also “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1). Obviously, Peter is telling us that the scriptures are not for private interpretation. In addition, it can be said that the primary cause of the false beliefs of the numerous Christian sects that exist in the world is based upon their individual interpretations of the Bible.

Certainly the Book of Mormon is not open to private interpretation. From Nephi to Moroni, prophets have written about the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and intermingled within that record, mostly inserted by Mormon, is geographical information that is clear and precise, needing no contemporary scholar or theorist to explain. It was Nephi himself who said, “For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3).

This hardly suggests that we need someone to interpret the scriptural record for us—especially some professional scholar like Sorenson who cannot accept that “east” means “east” and “west” means “west” as written by Mormon. In addition, Mormon himself tells us that what he has engraved on the plates is "according to the knowledge and the understanding which God has given me" (Words of Mormon 1:9).

If we accept the statement that we can all honestly have different opinions of what was written by Mormon, it seems we are doomed to failure in understanding that those words meant.

(See the next post, “Do We Know Where the Land of Promise is Located-Part II,” for more comments on the website quoted above)

Are the European Goths named after Hagoth?

Someone wrote me a while back regarding the name Hagoth. “What of the white tribes who marched out of Central Asia as Goths (Hagoths?) to help found the Feudal systems of the Vikings and of all of Europe?”

First of all, though this is not a history site, the Goths, who were basically a Germanic tribe, attacked Rome in 387 A.D., signing a treaty with Theodosius I. Later, under the name of Visigoths (the eastern branch of the Goths—the other branch were the Ostrogoths—both east Germanic tribes), sacked and conquered Rome in 410 A.D., and claimed all the land clear to Thrace.

The feudal system of Europe began 500 years later, and was not instituted by the Goths, but established when the monarchs of central governments lost power because of their inability to stop the incursions. At this time a new type of government evolved called Feudalism, which began in France around 900 A.D., and spread throughout the remainder of Europe within 150 years. This reciprocal legal and military obligation among the warrior nobility was established, based on the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs in an effort to provide strong resistance to the incursions—a system that worked and continued from about 900 A.D. to the 15th century.

Now for Hagoth, who built many ships (Alma 63:5,7-8). He is never recorded as leaving the Land of Promise in one of those ships as many theorists erroneously claim. While his ships were venturing into the West Sea and taking their course northward, he was busy building more ships (Alma 63:7).

One of those ships “did sail forth; and whither she did go we know not” (Alma 63:8). It would seem evident it did not go north where the others ships went, and south would have been down the coast of the Lamanite lands. Therefore, it seems likely this ship went west. Now the currents from the area of the Bay of Guayaquil in Ecuador, would have taken a ship heading west out into the South Pacific Current and directly to Polynesia (see any atlas of sea currents).

While in religious matters, many people of Polynesia claim to be the people of Hagoth, this has more to do with their origination coming on Hagoth’s ships—an attestation to the importance of this man and his stature among the Nephites in the Land of Promise—than being descended from him unless the ship was captained by one of Hagoth’s sons which would strictly be an unconfirmable assumption.

As an example, “the people of Hagoth” is more a label than a descendency. Like “the people of Israel” would be both a descendency (the children of Israel) and a location, Israel as a land. While “the people of America” would not be a descendency (how many Americans know of Amerigo Vespucci) but strictly a label.

As for the Goths of the 3rd century A.D., they had many names, possibly due to their population being composed of many separate ethnic groups. The name Goths derives from the Germanic Guton to Gutaniz and Gutar, the self-designation of the Gotlanders. There was also the Scandinavian tribal name Geat, from Gautoz derived from geutan, meaning "to pour.” The Indo-European root of the "pour,” is connected with the name of a river flowing through Vastergötlamd in Sweden, the Göta-aly, which drains Lake Vanern into the Kattegat. Old Norse records do not distinguish between the Goths from the Gutar and the Gotlanders—both are called Gotar in Old West Norse. The Old East Norse term found on the Rökstone and elsewhere for both Goths and Gotlanders was Gutar, At some time in European prehistory, consonant changes created a “g” from the “gh” and “t” from the “d.” Thus, what has come down in history as Goths, was originally Ghöd. This is hardly a convincing argument for Hagoth originations.

It is always dangerous to start playing around with names that, on the surface, may seem to have some relationships, but typically in reality have nothing to do with one another. Many errors have been made by Mesoamerican theorists regarding this issue, beginning with Hugh Nibley, a linguist of the first rank and speaker of seven languages, who ought to have known better.

Inland Waterways to the Land of Promise? Part II

Continuing with Arlin Nasbaum’s statement regarding Lehi’s voyage to the Great Lakes area, “and then navigate North American waterways inland until you arrive within walking distance of a freshwater ‘west sea’."

Even though none of these rivers would have accepted the depth of a deep sea vessel, and the fact that any movement up any one of these rivers would be against the downstream currents, the following major rivers are cited to show the ridiculous idea of sailing the inland waterways in 600 B.C:

Delaware River. The government dug a 30-foot channel from Philadelphia to Delaware Bay for the use of shipping in 1885, with small improvements beginning in 1771. Even so, the “walking distance” from the closest point of the river to the “sea west” would be 200 miles, and that would be to the upper lake by Nasbaum’s narrow neck. To an area along the “west seashore” (Alma 22:28) would be 300 miles. However, according to the DIT depth charts, the river depth at Lambertville, about halfway up the river, ranges from just under two feet to a high of three feet, a distance of 350 miles from Lake Erie (Nausbaum’s West Sea).

Map of the Delaware River. The Image is the upper Delaware, the closer point to the Great Lakes—note the narrow and shallow waterway (about 10 feet across) where fishermen stand in the river to flyfish; no ship of any kind could fit into this waterway

Susquehanna River. Coming off the eastern fork of the Chesepeak Bay north of Baltimore, this river is very shallow. In fact, local legend claims that the name of the river comes from an Indian phrase meaning "mile wide, foot deep," referring to the Susquehanna's unusually shallow depth. There are also many rapids in the river, preventing any kind of movement of boat until the 18th century. The closest this river comes for walking distance to the west shore of the “Sea West” is about 450 miles.

Juniata River. This is a tributary to the Susquehanna River branching to the west and takes one about 90 miles closer to the “West Sea,” however, for any shipping of any kind to be used here, the Juniata Divison Canal had to be dug in the 19th century, later abandoned because of flooding.

Ohio River. This river is an offshoot (or feeder) of the Mississippi River. A previous post has shown how the Mississippi River was not navigatible very far north of its delta mouth until new depths were dug in the 18th and 19th centuries. Thus, the Ohio River was not reachable from the Sea. The Ohio and Missouri tributaries of the Mississippi themselves had to be developed for ship navigation, including dredging the river deeper and the Mississippi itself to remove dangerous sandbars the sometimes raised the water depth to just a couple of feet.

Potomac River. 14 miles upriver from present day Washington D.C. is located the “Great Falls of the Potomac.” Here the river cascades over a series of 20-foot falls, falling a total of 76 feet in elevation over a distance of less than 1 mile—obviously, not navigatable.

These falls are about 300 miles from Lake Erie and impassable

Of course, other rivers could be cited, but they are smaller and of far less distance from the Atlantic Ocean. The point is, that the glib comment “and then navigate North American waterways inland until you arrive within walking distance of a freshwater ‘west sea’," shows how inexperienced and unknowledgeable a person is. It strikes as someone looking at a current map and saying, “yeah, that looks possible.” However, it was not.

When one studies the rivers and waterways along the eastern United States, one easily comes to the conclusion that anything larger than a raft or canoe could not have gone very far up any of these rivers. Just another nail in the coffin of the H38 theory and the West New York model.

Inland Waterways to the Land of Promise? Part I

It is always interesting to see into the thinking of another person regarding how the Lehi Colony reached the Western Hemisphere. The problem, typically ignored by Book of Mormon scholars and theorists is the fact that in 600 B.C., when Nephi sailed his ship that was “driven forth before the wind,” he had but one choice in his direction and that was where the wind blew and the ocean currents took him.

So many scholars and theorists today, so immersed in their modern knowledge of oceans and ships, fail to understand this very simple fact—sailing ships in B.C. times, and even until the 13th century, went where winds and currents took them. During these eras, in the Mediterranean Sea, which is fairly calm, ships were able to sail in most directions because they were rowed by banks of oars, usually with furled sails unless they were heading in the direction the wind blew.

In fact, sailing ventures were fairly narrow, bringing trade goods from the western regions of the Mediterranean to the east shores where caravans took the goods inland for sale in the east, and eastern goods were loaded to be brought back to the northern and western shore villages. Mostly, these oar-driven vessels moved along in sight of land, where wind had less effect, and currents almost none.

But, like all Mesoamerican and Great Lakes, Heartland, and eastern U.S. theorists try to do, Arlin Nasbaum of H38 Virus notoriety, ignoring the facts, writes about his view of the Lehi Colony voyage: “After crossing over to the western hemisphere, you sail along coastal waters and northward, near chains of islands; and then navigate North American waterways inland until you arrive within walking distance of a freshwater ‘west sea’."

Now, crossing the Atlantic to the Western Hemisphere is no simple fete coming around the Cape of Africa, since a ship would be constantly traveling against the winds and currents. In addition, turning west toward the Western Hemisphere would only have been possible following Columbus’ route west from the Cape Verde islands. The distance from the Cape of Africa to the Cape Verde Islands is approximately 5800 miles—all against winds and currents. A formidable task in and of itself.

However, the funniest part of Nasbaum’s statement is “and then navigate North American waterways inland until you arrive within walking distance of a freshwater ‘west sea’."

First of all, there are no known waterways to navigate very far inland, and none that a deep sea vessel could use, especially in 600 B.C. before modern canals and dredging had taken place.

More than half of the inland waterways in the eastern half of the United States (as shown above) were created by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, who built 191 active lock sites, with 237 lock chambers to reach distant inland ports, such as Minneapolis, Chicago, and Pittsburg along the Mississippi and Ohio River systems. This multi-billion dollar Inland Waterways Trust Fund is necessary to allow shipping to reach inland ports along waterways that are naturally too shallow to allow for ships, and to remove or bypass obstacles such as rapids and falls.

These locks provide the essential infrastructure that allows tows to "stair-step" their way through the system and navigate inland along the waterways. These locks can generally be categorized by three different sizes, as expressed by length. About 15% of the lock chambers are 1,000 to 1,200 feet long, 60 percent are 600-999 feet long, and 25 percent are less than 600 feet long. Lock widths are mostly 110 feet. Today, over 50 percent of the locks and dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are over 50 years old, making the locks system in its entirety less than 100 years old. Many of the 600-foot locks on the system were built in the 1930s or earlier, including those on the Ohio, Upper Mississippi, Illinois and Tennessee rivers. These projects are approaching the end of their design lives and are in need of modernization or major rehabilitation.

The purpose of these locks, of course, is to bypass or compensate for numerous natural obstacles where a ship could not pass along the river. Before the locks were built, not even a rowboat could pass some of these areas where rapids, falls, and limited depth occur. The idea that any natural waterway existed before the inland waterway system was developed and built in the 20th century, is ludicrous.

(See the next post, “Inland Waterways to the Land of Promise? Part II,” for more information on these locks and the cause for their creation)

The Seas Bordering the Narrow Neck of Land

It is redundant to continually describe the Land of Promise here since it has been adequately stated in previous posts, and also is described with simple clarity in the scriptural record, and in the book “Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica.” However, I continually receive comments and questions regarding other Land of Promise models, which seem to have been designed to cloud the very simple language of Nephi and Mormon, especially the latter who injected so many points of geographical clarification into the record.

So one more time, with each statement verified by at least one of the references:

The Land of Promise obviously had two major land surfaces, the Land Southward (Helaman 5:16), including the Land of Nephi (Alma 2:24), Land of Zarahemla (Omni 1:13), and the Land of Bountiful (Alma 22:32)—with numerous other smaller lands and their cities—and the Land Northward (Alma 22:33), including the Land of Desolation (Alma 22:31), the Land of Many Waters (Mormon 6:4), and the Land of Cumorah (Mormon 6:2).

Now the land Southward had a sea nearly surrounding it. “On the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32). Thus, between these two major land surfaces was a small (Alma 22:32), narrow (Alma 63:5) neck of land (Alma 22:32). Within this neck ran a passage (Alma 50:34; Mormon 2:29) or pass (Alma 52:9) that gave a means of access between the Land Southward (Mormon 2:29) and the Land Northward (Alma 50:34).

Now this narrow neck of land with its pass or passage, was bordered on the east and on the west with water, for “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 50:34). Thus there was a West Sea on the west of the narrow neck and an East Sea on the east of the narrow neck.

This West Sea is also referred to as the “sea that divides the land” in the following statement: “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20). This West Sea to the west of the narrow neck is also the place Hagoth had his shipyard “on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation…by the narrow neck” (Alma 63:5) and built his ships for they were launched “into the West Sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward“ (Alma 63:5).

Now the Land Northward had a West Sea, North Sea and East Sea (Helaman 3:8), and the Land Southward had a West Sea, East Sea, and South Sea (Helaman 3:8). This North Sea was likely called Ripliancum (Ether 15:8), though there is no specific supportive evidence of this, other than the fact that the entire Land of Promise was an island as Jacob said: “For the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20), and since Ripliancum means “by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all” (Ether 15:8), what could be larger or exceed a North Sea connected to an East Sea, West Sea and South Sea around the Land of Promise island?

Thus the narrow neck of land, with its narrow passage or pass that ran between the Land Northward and the Land Southward, was narrow enough that a Nephite, or common man, could walk across it in a day and a half (Alma 22:32).

Based on these simple descriptions in the Book of Mormon there is no need to make it complex by trying to invent lakes and rivers and calling them “seas,” and using interpretations of the ancient Hebrew language, which is a very questionable approach, since the Book of Mormon was originally written in Reformed Egyptian (Mormon 9:32) and not Hebrew (Mormon 9:33), or trying to show that an ancient lake bed was once the “south sea” which did not connect to anything else. Jacob made it clear—they sailed across a very large ocean and while upon that ocean, then landed on an island (2 Nephi 10:20), but simple understanding meant that the entire Land of Promise was an island in the middle of the ocean.

By the way, the word “ocean” in Noah Webster’s “1828 American Dictionary of the English Language,” the language known to Joseph Smith, was derived in part from the Welch word meaning “great deep.” And in ancient Hebrew taken from the word for “greatness of extent.” In 1828, the word ocean was understood to mean “the sea or great sea.” Quoting Webster: “It is customary to speak of the ocean as if divided into three party’s, the Atlantic ocean, the Pacific ocean, and the Indian ocean, but the ocean is one mass or body, partially separated by the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa on the one side, and by America on the other.” Webster also noted in his definition “the ancients understood the ocean to encompass the earth.”

Thus, “sea” as used by Joseph Smith in his translation, was known to be the ocean—that which covers more than three-fifths of the world’s surface. Obviously, then, the narrow neck of land separated the two land masses that made up the island of the Land of Promise, with the “sea” on all sides.

The Sea That Divided the land Part II – The Death Knoll to H38

As stated in previous posts, Arlin Nasbaum, creator of the highly flawed and totally inaccurate H38 Virus idea, bases his entire concept on Helaman 3:8 which reads: “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.” He also claims this Sea South is the same as the sea mentioned in “where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20).

First of all, as mentioned in the last post, in English, an article is used in a specific manner to introduce a noun, or state a noun that is already known, and is not possessive (“our,” “my,” “Paul’s,” etc.) This is called using “Indefinite or Definite Articles with Nouns.” An indefinite article “a” (an) is used for previously unknown nouns that are being introduced into a dialogue or story, and a definite article “the” is used for nouns that have already been introduced. The premise is simple—when reading what someone else has written, it is quickly apparent whether a noun has been previous introduced or whether this is the first time the noun has been mentioned. This allows the reader to know if a new item is meant, or one already discussed is meant.

In simple grammar, the following is used to clarify this point: “I saw a cat. The cat was sitting on a fence. The fence was painted white. The cat jumped off the fence when it saw a mouse. The mouse ran toward a hole when it saw the cat. The hole was very close, so the cat did not catch the mouse.”

Note that in each case when a noun is first mentioned, the indefinite article “a” is used to introduce it for the first time, then the definite article “the” is used thereafter for that noun.

Thus, when reading the scriptural record of the geography of the Land of Promise, we should be able to see this rule in effect. That is “a” (an) when first introduced or mentioned, and “the” when it is already discussed and known.

As an example, when first introduced it is called “a land of promise“ (1 Nephi 2:20), but thereafter called “the land of promise” (1 Nephi 4:14; 5:5). When the Liahona is first introduced into the record, it is described as “a round ball,” then mentioned as “the ball” (1 Nephi 16:10). When Nephi’s ship is first mentioned, it is “a ship” (1 Nephi 17:8), and the next statement calls it “the ship” (1 Nephi 17:9; 18:5). On the sea, there arose “a great storm, yea, a great and terrible tempest” (1 Nephi 18:13), called thereafter “the tempest” (1 Nephi 18:14), and “the storm” (1 Nephi 18:21).

Thus, when we read “where the sea divides the land,” we should recognize this sea is not newly being introduced, but is already known, if not mentioned directly. That is, the other part of the rule of using indefinite or definite articles to introduce a noun is: “already known or is assumed to be known at the point of introduction to the conversation.” That is, the definite article “the” is used, even though the noun following has not directly been previously introduced, but when the noun is already known or assumed to be known.

Thus, when Nephi writes of the Lord for the first time, “having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days” (1 Nephi 1:1), he uses the definite article since the noun “Lord” is already known. Or “prophesying unto the people” (1 Nephi 1:4), “people” can be assumed from the previous introduction of “king of Judah” and “at Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 1:4).

So when Moroni wrote “where the sea divides the land” he is referring to a sea already introduced and known, that is, the “East Sea,” “West Sea,” “North Sea,” or “South Sea.” So the only question, which of these seas is being assumed to divide the land. Here we already know that the narrow neck of land is bordered on the west and on the east by seas (Helaman 50:34), as well as on the south because the Land Southward is nearly surrounded by water (Alma 22:32), and that the sea on the west had some type of inlet or bay large enough for a shipyard and many ships to be built and launched into the West Sea (Alma 63:5-8). So it stands to reason that the sea previously introduced would be the West Sea. It would not, of course, be the South Sea, since that sea would be along the southern seashore of the island of the Land of Promise creating an island (2 Nephi 10:20).

The Sea That Divided the land – Part I

The language of the Book of Mormon is particularly important for two reasons—Joseph translated the record according to his own language and knowledge of the time, and that the end result is according to our understanding.

In fact, Mormon initially tells us that what he has engraved on the plates is "according to the knowledge and the understanding which God has given me" (Words of Mormon 1:9), and Nephi wrote “For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3).

Therefore, we need to better understand the English language before starting to determine what the scriptural text says. And that language should be the one known to Joseph Smith in 1829, as well as the proper use of that language so that we can understand it today.

As an example, in proper English, there is a correct usage of the word “the” and “a” when preceding a noun. That is, “the door” is used when the door has been earlier introduced, but the wordage “a door” is used when the door has not been earlier introduced, and is the introduction of that word. Therefore, a person “opened a door,” but later “closed the door,” to show it is the same door. Stated differently, we would initially say that a sea surrounds an island, but after that refer to it as “the sea around the island.”

In Mormon’s writings, we find: “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 50:34). Thus, we find that the narrow pass in the narrow neck of land was bordered on the east by the East Sea and on the west by the West Sea.

This is why “the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32). Later we find that Mormon writes: “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20).

Note, this is the first introduction of the city built there (probably the City of Desolation), but not the first time the sea has been introduced. Consequently, Mormon is telling us that the sea that divides the land is the East Sea and West Sea, which has earlier been introduced, that divides “the land” (also earlier introduced), but the wordage where “a city” was built is not previously introduced.

Thus, we can see that this “sea that divides the land” is not a new sea being introduced to the reader—it is not a large lake, or another unconnected body of water—but the same body of water earlier described. That is, the East Sea and the West Sea, which bordered the area of the narrow neck of land where the city was built.

The only seas ever mentioned in relationship to the Land of Promise are the “East Sea, West Sea, North Sea, and South Sea,” and since these seas are often mentioned in concurrence with one another, it would stand to reason that these seas were not only connected, but one continuous sea around the “island” of the Promised Land (2 Nephi 10:20).

This is also found in the explanation of Hagoth. Mormon wrote; “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” (Alma 63:5). There is one introduction of a subject (an exceedingly large ship), and six uses of the word "the," which in each case describes a noun previously introduced.

Obviously, that sea that divided the land was, in this case, the West Sea, for there is where Hagoth launched his ships, and it was by the narrow neck of land that led into the land northward.

Thus, we can see that the “sea that divides the land” was not describing the South Sea, or any other body of water so located around or in conjunction with the narrow neck of land, but the seas already described that ran on either side of the narrow neck.

What Happened to the East Sea?

After the Savior’s crucifixion, and the destruction outlined in 3 Nephi, the terms “East Sea” or “Sea East,” are never mentioned.

In fact, in Mormon’s writing after 34 A.D., he uses the word “seashore” in regard only to to the West Sea (Mormon 2:6; 4:3), but never the east sea. In addition, the term “narrow neck” or “small neck” is not mentioned after the destruction either, though the term narrow passage is mentioned once (Mormon 2:29), as is the narrow pass (Mormon 3:8).

Thus, it can be concluded that the east seashore was altered considerably and, evidently, no longer in existence, for it is never mentioned after 34 A.D. Before that time, the east sea or seashore was mentioned 4 times in Alma and 2 times in Helaman, with 14 references to the east seashore regarding cities built there and military engagements from the Land of Nephi to the Land of Bountiful. Thus, the East Sea was referenced 20 times before the destruction, not once after.

Consequently, for whatever reason, the activity that had been so prevalent in the east shore before the destruction, ceased after the destruction. It is as though some type of huge wall had been erected in the east, blocking off the eastern cities, seashore and East Sea at the time or directly after the destruction described in 3 Nephi regarding the time of the savior’s crucifixion.

So the question remains, what happened to the East Sea?

The simple answer is that the East Sea ceased to exist at the time or directly after the destruction. “the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth” (3 Nephi 8:12).

Many Book of Mormon scholars and theorists want to lessen the destruction that took place, however, at least this major landmark, the East Sea, was altered complete, so much so that it ceased to exist in the writings of Mormon. The Disciple Nephi, and later the Lord himself, described the destruction of cities that sank into the sea, or were buried under a mountain, or sank into the earth (3 Nephi 8:9,14; 9:3-10).

During this time, mountains appeared where level land had been (3 Nephi 8:10) and cities covered over by earth (2 Nephi 9:5,8). Some of these mountains and hills were described by Samuel the Lamanite who saw in a vision “there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great” (Helaman 23:14).

In the entire Western Hemisphere, the only mountains that can be described “whose height is great” would be the Andes of South America. As has been described in these posts, the Andes have several mountain peaks over 22,000 feet—and are the only mountains that climb sharply from near level ground, appearing even higher. In addition, the Andes are a range that were formed in very recent times, and are the youngest mountains in the Western Hemisphere. Lastly, the Andes formed along what was once the east coast of the Andean plateau, running from the middle of Chile to southern Colombia, including Ecuador, Peru and western Bolivia—an area once an island with everything to the east underwater until the South American plates emerged, bringing the eastern continent up out of the Atlantic Ocean.

In this way, the East Sea was pushed hundreds of miles to the east, to the current eastern shores of the Brazilian and Argentinian lands, and the Andes arose where the eastern seashore had once been. Indeed, a huge wall of rock and stone jutting up out of the ground, forming “mountains whose height is great.”

From this point on, Mormon writes of no eastern boundary, but of a narrow passage and pass that once existed in a narrow neck of land, now ending in the mountains instead of at the East Sea. While he personally had never seen the East Sea, he had all the records the Nephites had written about it and he knew of its earlier existence and, therefore, wrote about it in the proper time frame of its existence—during the time prior to the destruction—but never after.

Promised Land is the Land of Promise

First of all, the definition of a “land of promise,” is a land that has been promised. In the case of the Land of Promise mentioned in the Book of Mormon, it was the Lord who made the promise—as He did with the children of Israel when they left Egypt: “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever” (Exodus 32:13).

As he also did with Lehi and Nephi “ye shall be led towards the promised land; and ye shall know that it is by me that ye are led,” and “the Lord said also that: After ye have arrived in the promised land, ye shall know that I, the Lord, am God; and that I, the Lord, did deliver you from destruction; yea, that I did bring you out of the land of Jerusalem (1 Nephi 17:13-14). And as he did with Jared and his brother: “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” (Ether 6:5). And also that “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” (Ether 6:12).

Thus, a land of promise is a land that has been promised to a person, family, people or group, and is rightly called a “promised land.” Consequently, we find the term “promised land” used continually in the scriptural record, as it relates to both the Jaredites in the land Northward, and the Nephites in the Land Southward, the latter eventually including both of these lands.

As an example, when Nephi saw the vision of Columbus coming to the Americas, he wrote: “And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land” (1 Nephi 13:12).

Now the “seed of my brethren” were the Lamanites, the literal seed of his brothers, Laman and Lemuel, and more specifically, their descendants living at the time of Columbus throughout the Americas. These are those Nephi saw in his vision. His statement “who were in the promised land” has reference to where Columbus was led. And it should be kept in mind that he was led to the Caribbean islands, South America, and Central America—Columbus never set foot on North America.

As the vision continued, Nephi wrote: “I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten” (1 Nephi 13:14). Now those that followed Columbus “scattered and smite” the inhabitants of Mexico (Aztec), Mesoamerica (Maya), and South America (Inca) in one of the worst displays of conquering cruelty ever known in the Western Hemisphere—perhaps anywhere.

Thus, it can be seen that the promised land, at this point in Nephi’s vision, was the Central and South American areas. However, in this same vision, Nephi’s view was expanded to a larger Land of Promise as he saw: “I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them” (1 Nephi 13:15-16).

At this point, Nephi’s vision was expanded further to see European nations laying claim to the Americas: “And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them. And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle. And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them” (1 Nephi 13:17-20). At this point, Nephi’s vision branched out regarding the Bible and its work.

The point is, Nephi’s vision began with the promised land of which he was familiar (the Land Southward) and expanded to include the Land Northward, then expanded further to include all of the Western Hemisphere. This, then, by definition, is the Land of Promise—the land that was promised to the descendants of Joseph, both the tribes of Ephraim (in the north) and Menasseh (in the south).

Choice Above all Other Lands

There seems to be some misunderstanding among many Book of Mormon scholars and theorists regarding which land was called “choice above all other lands” in the Land of Promise. Arlin Nasbaum with his H38 Virus test, and other Great Lakes and Heartland theorists, claim that this statement only applies to the Land Northward, which is claimed is in the western New York area, around the Great Lakes, or the eastern U.S. However, the scriptural record tells us a totally different story.

First of all, there are two specific lands mentioned in regard to the Land of Promise: 1) Land Southward, where Lehi and later Mulek landed, and 2) Land Northward, where the Jaredites landed and lived. In addition, there are two divisions called the Land North and the Land South, and according to Moroni, both these lands were “south of the land Desolation” (Alma 46:17). Thus we can see how the Lord and Mormon described both these lands:

The Land Northward—the land of the Jaredites:

“And when thou hast done this thou shalt go at the head of them down into the valley which is northward. And there will I meet thee, and I will go before thee into a land which is choice above all the lands of the earth” (Ether 1:42).

“For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off” (Ether 2:10)

“And these are my thoughts upon the land which I shall give you for your inheritance; for it shall be a land choice above all other lands” (Ether 2:15).

“And thus the Lord did pour out his blessings upon this land, which was choice above all other lands; and he commanded that whoso should possess the land should possess it unto the Lord, or they should be destroyed when they were ripened in iniquity; for upon such, saith the Lord: I will pour out the fulness of my wrath” (Ether 9:20).

“And never could be a people more blessed than were they, and more prospered by the hand of the Lord. And they were in a land that was choice above all lands, for the Lord had spoken it.” (Ether 10:28).

Obviously, the Land Northward, the land of the Jaredites, was a land choice above all other lands.

The Land Southward—the land where Lehi landed:

“And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart. And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands” (1 Nephi 2:19-20).

“The land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance” (1 Nephi 13:30).

Obviously, the Land Southward, the lands of Nephi, Zarahemla and Bountiful, was a land choice above all other lands.

However, both these lands cannot separately be the choicest land above all other lands—this would not be possible and a totally inaccurate concept introduced into the scriptural record. Unless, of course, these two lands were combined together in an overall land, called the Land of Promise—combining the Land Southward and the Land Northward into one land, which in total was choice above all other lands. And such is indicated in the following overall Land of Promise statement in Ether showing that thee lands, connected into one overall land, was the promised land shown throughout the scriptural record.:

“And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people” (Ether 2:7).

In any event, it cannot be said that one part of the Land of Promise was more choice than another, as many theorists want to claim to promote their model.

Book of Mormon Land of Promise Internal Map

Arlin Nasbaum, creator of the highly flawed and totally inaccurate H38 Virus concept, has made arrogant claims about what he calls his “internal map,” and uses the concept to ridicule other models. So here is our internal map, perhaps the most accurate “internal map” available regarding the points covered by Mormon in the scriptural record:


While this map does not include every feature, city, land, and area mentioned in the scriptural record, it does show the relationship of the most important geographical topography covered in the Book of Mormon.

It should be noted that the scriptural record does not indicate or suggest that the four seas mentioned (north, south, east and west seas) were not connected, thus the diagram shows them one continual sea which is consistent with Jacob’s description (2 Nephi 10:20). Mormon used the term “south countries” only once in describing the Nephites who had escaped the terrible annihilation at Cumorah, by saying “and also a few who had escaped into the south countries” (Mormon 6:15). These south countries Moroni clarifies: “And now it came to pass that after the great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed” (Mormon 8:2). Thus the South Countries are the lands south of the narrow neck as shown on the map.

The H38 Map of the Land of Promise – Part V – The Internal Map Part II

Arlin Nasbaum, creator of the highly flawed and totally inaccurate H38 Virus concept, has made arrogant claims about what he calls his “internal map,” and uses the concept to ridicule other models. The first five contradictory points were listed in the previous post, along with his map. This post will cover the rest.

6. The Land of Nephi, as shown, is to the west within the Land of Zarahemla. This is contrary to the scriptural account for the land of Nephi: “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). Now this Land of Nephi “did run in a straight course from the east sea to the west” (Alma 50:8); however, Nasbaum’s “internal map” shows the Land of Nephi running from the west sea to the east, with the Land of Zarahemla east of that.

In addition, the “narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west,” and was an oft-mentioned physical feature of the Land of Promise, is not even shown.

7. Manti is not shown on Nasbaum’s “internal map” though it is mentioned as being in the west of the Land of Nephi, by the head of the River Sidon in the wilderness area that separates the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi (Alma 22:27)

8. No wilderness is shown to the west of the Land of Nephi, nor to the west of the Land of Zarahemla, nor is the Land of First Inheritance shown (Alma 22:28) nor is there any indication of Lamanites to the east along the seashore (Alma 22:28).

9. The Land of Ishmael was not stuck somewhere beyond the Land of Nephi, as shown, but next to the Land of Nephi, along with the Land of Middoni (Alma 20:7,14). In fact, the Land of Shilom and the Land of Shemlon, and the city of Lemuel and city of Shimnilom were very close to these three lands (Alma 23:9-12).

10. The terms “Lamanite Lands” and “South Countries” are shown on Nasbaum’s “internal map,” however, these terms are not listed as specific separate areas in the scriptural record. In the case of “the south countries,” Mormon mentioned this in regard to the final battle with the Lamanites in the Land of Cumorah in the Land Northward, that “even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries (Mormon 6:15). Since this took place in the Land Northward, “so far north” they were in the land of many waters, the “south countries” could have been anywhere from the Land of Desolation to the land of Nephi, but not a particular land area. However, the term “Lamanite Lands” does not appear in the Book of Mormon at all.

11. Nasbaum has along the south and east borders of his “internal map” and in a large area to the southeast, south of the Land of Npehi, south countries and Lamanite Lands, the term “Unknown.” Nowhere in scripture is there any indication of any land in the Land of Promise that is unknown.

All in all, these eleven points that are totally contradictory to the scriptural record are the result of Arlin Nasbaum’s highly toughted “internal map.” The type of map he continually ridicules of others for they do not include one thing or another, and are subject to the creator’s “own ideas are reflected in the map.” Such seems clearly the case with Nasbaum—his predetermination of lands and areas and geographical relationships are clearly struck with his own “virus” and does not reflect a true understanding of the scriptural record regarding the geography of the Book of Mormon.

Thus, using Nasbaum’s own words, “The reason to have an internal Book of Mormon geography map is to show that the modeler understands the text, and whether a bias virus has infected it.” Seems quite evident Nasbaum’s own bias virus has infected his own “internal map.”

(See the next post, “Book of Mormon Land of Promise Internal Map”)