The Importance of Clues

As has been pointed out in the last twenty posts, the importance of clues—matching scriptural references—in determining an area that could have been the Land of Promise cannot be overstated.

In far too many cases, someone decides on a location because of a personal feeling, a limited matching of scriptural references, a comment by a General Authority or Church Leader, or a lack of effort in understanding the importance of what Mormon wrote. However, there is only one way to determine the location of the Land of Promise, and that is to go over in great detail the scriptures, accepting them as written, and seeing where those clues/statements take you without trying to alter them or think you know more than those who wrote them.

However, many people ignore the scriptural references or try to bend or change them and their original meaning, or try to cloud the issue by introducing information that has nothing to do with the scriptural record, or they become so convinced of a particular location that they pass over all those references that do not agree with their location, or try to restrict the understanding and intent of the scripture to make it fit their predetermined ideas.

All of these attempts to satisfy a location for the Land of Promise is not only disingenuous, but is so misleading that others, even less knowledgeable of Mormon’s actual writings, are misinformed and become followers of inaccurate theories.

Just as an example, take the two most well-known Land of Promise locations with the largest number of followers: Mesoamerica and the Great Lakes-eastern United States. You might even draw a parallel between this and the many churches extant in New England when Joseph Smith went into the Sacred Grove and received an understanding contrary to all of those religious theories.

The Mesoamerica Theory: First, the directions are not aligned as Mormon and others described them and no amount of misinformation about north, east, south or west directions, such as Mesoamerica guru John L. Sorenson gives, can change this one simple fact. Secondly, there are no two unknown animals meeting Moroni’s description; no two unknown grains equivalent to corn, wheat, and barley as Mosiah describes; no herbs and plants to cure fever as Alma wrote; there was no metallurgy during B.C. times and not until about 200 A.D. (according to Hosler in “American Anthropologist” and “Journal of the minerals,” in 800 A.D.), and that “metallurgy in Mesoamerica developed from contacts with South America.” Thirdly, there is no way seeds from the Mediterranean Climate, soils, temperature and precipitation as that of Jerusalem would have grown anywhere in the warm, wet, tropical regions of Mesoamerican area, let alone provide abundant harvests. Fourthly, the suggested Narrow Neck of Land simply does not meet any of the requirements described by Mormon. Fifth, there simply are no mountains “whose height is great” anywhere in Mesoamerica or Central America, and only a few moderate sized mountains in southern Mexico. Sixth, it is simply not possible to sail “north” from the suggested Narrow Neck in the “west sea” that Mormon describes—any journey could only have been to the west, rendering Mormon’s description of the ships that went north meaningless. Seventh, there can only be two “seas” in this area, a “sea north” and a “sea south.”

The Great Lakes Theory: First, there is no isolated area of land that runs from sea to sea as Mormon and others describe, nor was there ever an ocean separating part of this land, nor was there any way to reach this area by sea, especially “driven forth before the wind.” In addition, there was no way to reach any of the Great Lakes until the Erie Canal was built in 1825, and the Illinois and Michigan Canal in 1848. Secondly, there were no unknown animals, grain, herbal cures, etc., as Mormon and others described as mentioned above in the Mesoamerican Theory. Nor was there any abundant deposits of gold and silver, and the copper of the area was metal found in nature and not requiting smelting nor alloying techniques used; nor were there any roads, rock or stone walls, buildings, forts or resorts as described (there are remnants of wood pole forts, however, the vast majority of these were not pre-Columbian); there were no cities (just stick, hide and mud huts, though some of these were fairly large). According to Martin in “Wonderful Power: The Story of Ancient Copper Working in the Lake Superior Basin,” who wrote: “no one has found evidence that points to the use of melting, smelting and casting in prehistoric eastern North America.” Thirdly, there is no way seeds from the Mediterranean Climate, soils, temperature and precipitation as that of Jerusalem would have grown anywhere in the Great Lakes region, an area referred to as the “snow belt,” with extremely cold winters, hurricanes, and even subtropical cyclones, let alone provide abundant harvests of seeds used to a mild climate. Fourthly the suggested Narrow Neck of Land in no way would allow for the blocking of invasion from the south, and simply does not meet any of the requirements described by Mormon. Fifth, there simply are no mountains “whose height is great” anywhere in the Eastern United States, Great Lakes area, or anywhere around this region. Sixth, there is no place for Hagoth’s ships that sailed north to go from the suggested Narrow Neck area into the “west sea,” making his ship building business almost meaningless and Mormon’s description of the ships that went north. Seventh, there are no “seas” (oceans) surrounding this area.

If one is to choose either of these two areas for the Land of Promise, one must either change or ignore much of Mormon’s descriptions of what that land looked like, what it contained, and how it was geographically laid out. That is hardly the approach to an accurate location for the Land of Promise!