Lands of Appropriate Scale -- Part VIII

John L. Sorenson and other Mesoamerican theorists claim that there is “no other possibility for the Land of Promise other than Mesoamerica.”

Not only do they try to restrict the scale of the land, and restrict the numbers of people living there in Book of Mormon times, we find that the Mesoamerican attack is being directed against all other areas as a possible location for the Land of Promise. This is quite interesting, since the Mesoamerica area does not meet even most of the criteria in the scriptural record, not to mention all of the criteria.

Sorenson has written: “Ingenious and impassioned arguments have been mustered in support of other theorized areas (from the Great Lakes to Peru or encompassing the entire hemisphere) as the scene for Nephite history. But every proposed geographical setting other than Mesoamerica fails to meet the criteria established by the text of Mormon's account.”

The arrogance of claiming your model is the only possible location when it does not meet very many of the criteria set forth by Mormon in the scriptural record is a little beyond the pale. Look at the items Sorenson and the others ignore and all found in the Andean area of South America:

1. The cureloms and cumoms (Ether 9:19)
2. Neas and Sheum (Mosiah 9:9)
3. Ziff (Mosiah 11:3)
4. Gold, silver and copper as a single ore (1 Nephi 18:25)
5. Growing of wheat and barley (Mosiah 9:9)
6. Working in metal and precious metals (2 Nephi 5:15)
7. Coins (Alma 11:3-20)
8. Forts or resorts (Alma 48:5, 8)
9. Plants and herbs to cure fever (Alma 46:40)
10. The Land of Promise was an island (2 Nephi 10:20)
11. Climate to grow seeds from Jerusalem (1 Nephi 18:24)
12. The great defensive wall built by the Nephites (Helaman 4:7)
13. Circumcision (Helaman 9:21)
14. Mountains whose height is great (Helaman 14:23)
15. Four seas (Helaman 3:8)
16. Winds and currents leading to their land (1 Nephi 18:8-9)
17. A narrow neck that is really narrow (Alma 22:32)

Sorenson also writes: “So while it is theoretically possible that another area of the New World could meet the criteria to be the historical Nephite and Lamanite lands, it has proved impossible to identify any such territory. All proposed locations other than Mesoamerica suffer from fatal flaws.”

Actually, such a statement is both false and fallacious. There is at least one area that is a far more viable location than Mesoamerica, that agrees with all the statements of Mormon’s map either now or at an ancient time, and has the 17 points stated above as well as the 65 actual descriptive statements or descriptions in the scriptural record.

That area is the one Sorenson so belittles and excuses out of hand with his: “Ingenious and impassioned arguments have been mustered in support of other theorized areas (from the Great Lakes to Peru or encompassing the entire hemisphere) as the scene for Nephite history. But every proposed geographical setting other than Mesoamerica fails to meet the criteria established by the text of Mormon's account.”

All right, let’s first put Peru (the Andean area) to the test shown above. These points and all 65 are covered in great detail in the book “Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica,” but briefly, these points will be covered in the next post.

(See the next post, “Lands of Appropriate Scale -- Part IX,” for the list of the above points regarding the Andean area)

Lands of Appropriate Scale Part VII – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part V

Continuing with the last of these comments by Hugh Nibley regarding his claim that other people were in the Land of Promise before, and during the Nephite occupation, he wrote: “The focusing of the whole account on religious themes as well as the limited cultural scope leaves all the rest of the stage clear for any other activities that might have been going on in the vast reaches of the New World, including the hypothetical Norsemen, Celts, Phoenicians, Libyans, or prehistoric infiltrations via the Bering Straits.”

It is true that the Book of Mormon is foremost and specifically a religious volume, and has many “religious themes.” However, it should be understood that much of the scriptural record was about a people, of their society, of their government, of their wars and difficulties. While religious understanding and faith results from their stories, they are, nonetheless, not always about religion per se, but about life in general and the chronological and historical events that took place.

In fact, Mormon tells us: “There are many records kept of the proceedings of this people, by many of this people, which are particular and very large, concerning them. But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work. But there are many books and many records of every kind, and they have been kept chiefly by the Nephites. And they have been handed down from one generation to another by the Nephites” (Helaman 3:13-16).

Mormon had all these records at his disposal when he eventually abridged all the writings. In addition, he included several comments of his own—some were religious instruction, some were of an historical nature, and some were geographical lessons. After all, Mormon knew that his writings were intended for a future people (Mormon 3:17), and he made every attempt to clarify directions, locations, distance relationships, and the different peoples involved.

In addition, one of the major themes of the Book of Mormon was the great heights of achievement both the Jaredites and later Nephites accomplished when they were righteous and obeyed the Lord, and the terrible depths they sunk to when they were disobedient and forgot the Lord. If there were other peoples the Lord led to the Land of Promise, would we not correctly assume that their story might well be mentioned—even as briefly as the Jaredite story was covered among the Nephites and also the brief Mulekite experience—for the value of teaching and instruction to both the later people(s) as well as us, the future readers? Why miss such a chance?

Nibley also wrote: “Indeed, the more varied the ancient American scene becomes, as newly discovered artifacts and even inscriptions hint at local populations of Near Eastern, Far Eastern, and European origin, the more hospitable it is to the activities of one tragically short-lived religious civilization that once flourished in Mesoamerica.”

So here we have the rationale for Nibley’s comments about other peoples. His model, not the scriptures, but the history of Mesoamerica, governs his need to verify and support the numerous tribes, peoples, and languages that have been found in Mesoamerica. The problem with academics is always their very nature to use man’s records before those of the Lord’s. Of course, we could argue that much of what is claimed in Mesoamerica is not as accurate as these theorists try to make it, but that is superfluous to the problem at hand—and that is the need for academics and theorists to include people in the Land of Promise despite there being not even a single inference of such ever existed.

The last of Nibley’s comments are, perhaps, the most degrading of all. He wrote of the peoples in the Book of Mormon, “and then vanished toward the northeast in the course of a series of confused tribal wars that was one long, drawn-out retreat into oblivion.”

The story of two of the greatest peoples that are recorded in history and the fantastic accomplishments they left behind, is here reduced by Nibley to some “tribal wars” and a “long, drawn-out retreat into oblivion.” It seems to me that Mormon and Moroni, the last of the Nephite generals deserve a better epitaph than that, as well as the lives of Abinadi, Samuel the Lamanite, Nephi, Captain Moroni, and the many other great and heroic men (and obviously their women) the Western Hemisphere, if not the world, has ever known.

Lands of Appropriate Scale Part VI – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part IV

Despite High Nibley’s irrational comments about other people in the Land of Promise covered in the last three posts, he also wrote: “the Book of Mormon . . . presents no obstacles to the arrival of whatever other bands may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge."

As stated in the last post, the scriptural record tells us quite clearly under what circumstances people would come to the Land of Promise. And in all cases, it is a people led by the hand of the Lord who once here serve him or are destroyed. That is the entire story of the Book of Mormon—that is, this is a choice land, a land choice above all others, and only those brought here by the Lord came to this land, and they remained only if they served him. One might say the Lamanites were an exception to the latter part of that statement, but no one can really say they were not “scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten” (1 Nephi 13:14).

Nibley also wrote: “And that the Book of Mormon dealt with a small, local geography that left plenty of room for other migrations and for a vast continent filled with people who had come from other places, including Asia via the Bering Strait.”

First, we need to keep in mind there were two groups of peoples on the earth: those who lived before the Flood (Antediluvians), and those who lived after the Flood. The Book of Mormon, unlike the Bible, makes no reference to the antedulivians except in Ether and only by inference (Ether 1:3-4). Therefore, what remains of people, incriptions and artifacts that might have survived the Flood is of no interest here. As for continent, again, we are not dealing with a continent in the Book of Mormon, except by inference (Ether 13:2), and in Nephi’s vision. Who the Lord brought and where he brought them is not known, nor is it covered or inferred in the scriptural record except for one place and that is in Jacob’s address to the Nephites “great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren” (2 Nephi 10:21).

Having said that, however, it should be crystal clear that the area of the Land of Promise addressed from 1 Nephi to Moroni, includes no other people than those mentioned as far as the scriptural record is concerned. If Nibley and Sorenson and others want to claim there were other people, then we need to understand they are outside the scriptural record, and making up an issue that cannot be verified in any way. As Quinton L. Cook, addressed in an earlier post, said, they are “looking beyond the mark.”

Nibley, referring to archaeological evidence, stated that the assumption of an empty New World represented a "simplistic reading" of the Book of Mormon.

As has been stated in these posts numerous times, Nephi delighted in plainness—what we may call “simplistic writing.” He 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). And again, “I shall prophesy according to the plainness which hath been with me from the time that I came out from Jerusalem with my father; for behold, my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn” (2 Nephi 25:4).

Of the scriptures, Nephi said, “Because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God -- because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them” (1 Nephi 13:29), and also “At the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men” (1 Nephi 14:23), and finally, Nephi “received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates (1 Nephi 19:3).

It would seem from this that a "simplistic reading" of the Book of Mormon is the correct path and not one that causes people to “look beyond the mark,” or try and read into something that is plain and simple things that are complicated and complex. The Book of Mormon is not an ancient writing that needs to be interpreted or translated by scholars, for Joseph Smith already performed that task under the Spirit, but it is a book of plain and simple language written in a manner for our understanding.

(See the next post, “Lands of Appropriate Scale Part VII – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part V,” for the last of this series of Nibley’s comments about other people being in the Land of Promise)

Lands of Appropriate Scale Part V – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part III

From 1952 onward, LDS scholar Hugh Nibley repeatedly argued that the assumption that there were no other people present in the New World at the time of Lehi's arrival might be incorrect. He stated that “the argument of silence bears some weight in considering the possibility of "other sheep."

Stated differently, he means that because there is no mention that other people were NOT in the Land of Promise, that there could have been people. On the other hand, one might say, “Because there is no mention of other people in the scriptural record, there must NOT have been any.”

Nibley also wrote: “When the Jaredites journey into a land "where there never had man been," [Ether 2:5, referring to a portion of their journey in the Old World] our history finds the fact worthy of note, even though the part was only passing through.”

However, that is not what is said. “The Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been. And it came to pass that the Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel.” So where did they travel from the valley where the Lord met them? They were led into the wilderness, built barges, crossed many waters (Ether 2:6), 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).

Thus, the Lord led them to the Land of Promise—“into that quarter where there never had man been” (Ether 2:5). Thus, the Lord was not “referring to a portion of their journey in the Old World” nor something “our history finds the fact worthy of note, even though the part was only passing through.” The Lord was referring very obviously to the land where he was leading them—the Land of Promise. Why would the lord tell them about some “portion of the journey they were passing through” when they were not stopping there—there was nothing significant about where they traveled. The significance, the land to which he was leading them—was the end of their journey, the Land of Promise, “where there never had man been."

The scriptures are not difficult to understand—they were written in our language for our understanding. Scholars like Nibley and Sorenson cloud the issue by looking far beyond the mark and reading into the scriptural record that which is not there.

But that is not all. Nibley wrote: “Now there is a great deal said in the Book of Mormon about the past and future of the promised land, but never is it described as an empty land.”

It was pointed out above that the land of promise was described as that “quarter of land where man had never been.” That seems pretty clear, but evidenty not to Nibley.

He also wrote: “The descendents of Lehi were never the only people on the continent, and the Jaredites never claimed to be."

Now, once the word continent is used, we are moving far afield of the scriptural record. Jacob tells us the colony landed on an island (2 Nephi 10:20), which Noah Webster in 1828 described as “a small tract of land in the middle of the ocean.” There is no mention of a continent, nor is one suggested in any way, for the distances of the scriptural record suggest a much smaller area than a continent.

As for the Jaredites, time and again Ether writes about “all the face of the land” and “all the people in the land,” which to most of us means there were no others. When he wrote: “they did gather together all the people upon all the face of the land, who had not been slain, save it was Ether” (Ether 15:12), one must wonder what Nibley had in mind. Surely, if Ether was only talking about Jaredites, he might have chosen a better term than “all the people upon all the face of the land.”

Now, let’s apply a little reasoning here. Moroni wrote of the Land of Promise: “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2). So, if anyone was in the Land of Promise prior to the Jaredites, then they would have been brought there by the Lord, and if they did “serve him,” what happened to them—for surely the land would have been theirs forever as Lehi was promised. And if they did not “serve him” then why do we not know of it as we know of the Jaredites and Nephites who failed to “serve him” in the end? Surely, their failure to serve him would have been another model or pattern for the later people[s] led to the Land of Promise, as the Jaredites’ failure was an example to the Nephites (Alma 46:22).

(See the next post, “Lands of Appropriate Scale Part VI – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part IV,” for more of Nibley’s confusing comments about other people in the Land of Promise)

Lands of Appropriate Scale Part IV – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part II

Continuing with the subject of whether or not others were in the Land of Promise besides those recorded in the Book of Mormon, the Lord said to Lehi:

1. It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance

2. Inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land

3. They shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves

4. If they keep his commandments there shall be none to molest them

5. There will be none to take away the land of their inheritance

6 They shall dwell safely (in the Land of Promise) forever.

Note that the promise the Lord made to Lehi is that HIS PEOPLE, that is, Lehi’s descendants (and those brought out of Jerusalem) “shall be kept from all other nations” and that his people “may possess this land unto themselves” and that there shall be “none to molest them” and none to take away the land of their inheritance” and “they shall dwell safely forever.”

This promise is not possible if others already possessed the land, or came to it from elsewhere than out of Jerusalem

So who were those led out of Jerusalem to the Land of Promise besides Lehi? The Mulekites.

Who were the people the Lord referred to “and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord”?

Nephi saw them in his vision. They were:

1) Columbus’ arrival (1 Nephi 13:12)

2) The Gentiles that would follow and subjugate the Lamanites (1 Nephi 13:12)

3) There came “many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise” (1 Nephi 13:14)

3) The Gentiles that would come to the United States “did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance” (1 Nephi 13:15)

4) The battles between other nations for this land (1 Nephi 13:16-17)

5. The victory of the peoples in the land of promise over the European nations (1 Nephi 13:17-19)

Now in these events, which are not limited to just the religious events of the Jaredites and Nephites (as Nibley claims), we understand that other peoples would be led to the land of promise—and specifically, they would come at some point in the future after the Lamanites had dwindled in unbelief. They would come from Portugal, Spain, England, France, Holland, Ireland, Scandinavia, Germany, etc., to which Nephi described them as “they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain” (1 Nephi 13:15).

Obviously, the scriptural record limits who were in the Land of Promise, who the Lord led here, and the non-existence of others where and when Lehi landed.

(See the next post, “Lands of Appropriate Scale Part V – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part III,” to show that Hugh Nibley’s arguments for other people is not consistent with both reason and the scriptural record)

Lands of Appropriate Scale Part III – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part I

Once again, it might seem like beating a dead horse because of all the posts on the subject, but when John L. Sorenson’s writing is considered to be the epitome of Book of Mormon historical knowledge—“Those who comment on the historicity of Book of Mormon accounts henceforth are irresponsible or uninformed if they ignore or neglect Dr. Sorenson's present work,” according to Leonard J. Arrington, author, academic and founder of the Mormon History Association, is known as the "Dean and Father of Mormon History,” Truman G. Madsen, an emeritus professor of religion and philosophy at BYU, and BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies, and John W. Welch, the founding director of FARMS, and the current editor of the periodical BYU Studies—it becomes important to continually show what Sorenson has written and compare it to the scriptural record.

First of all, Mesoamerican theorists all seem to believe there were other people in the Land of Promise at the time Lehi arrived. Sorenson goes further, stating that not only were there other people when Lehi arrived, but that they were living where Lehi landed.

In fact, is it necessary, as Sorenson does, to even ask, “Were there other populations present in the Americas who were not exclusively descended from Lehi's party?”

To most of us, the answer to this is not complicated. As has already been pointed out in numerous posts on this site, the Lord promised Lehi that the Land of Promise would be kept from other nations—which means other people. The scriptural record covers the Jaredites, who were led to the land by the Lord (Ether 2:7); Lehi was guided there by the Lord (1 Nephi 5:5), from which came the Nephites and Lamanites; and the Mulekites were guided there by the hand of the Lord (1:16). Thus, we know of those who inhabited the Land of Promise during the period of the Book of Mormon (Jaredites 2200 B.C., Lehi 600 B.C., Mulek 587 B.C.)

No other groups, peoples, families, communities, ship-wrecked people, other survivors (including Jaredite survivors), etc., are mentioned in the scriptural record, nor even suggested, refered to, or intimated. Hugh Nibley once said “there is nothing in the Book of Mormon to keep us from understanding that other people occupied the Land of Promise.” We might turn that around and say with emphasis: “There is nothing in the Book of Mormon to suggest there were any others in the Land of Promise.”

And to say there is nothing in the scriptural record to preclude others in the land, let’s consider some of the recorded information to the contrary.

1. Moroni wrote of the post flood condition of the Land of Promise: “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2). Obviously, this suggests that before the Flood of Noah, people may have lived upon the land.

2. Moroni also precludes any others from living upon the land after the Flood other than the Jaredites, until the future event (Moroni’s past) of Lehi. Speaking of the Old Jerusalem, Moroni wrote: “from whence Lehi should come” (Ether 13:5), obviously meaning after the Flood, between when he was writing and the future coming of the New Jerusalem to the land of promise, he knew of nothing in the land until the Lehi colony was to arrive.

3. Moroni wrote that at some time in the future, another event would take place in the land of promise and that was the coming of the New Jerusalem.

4. Lehi was given a promise regarding this land “we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord” (2 Nephi 1:5); and it shall be a land of liberty to them (2 Nephi 1:7).

(See the next post, “Lands of Appropriate Scale Part IV – Other Peoples in the Land of Promise Part II,” to see what other people were led to the land of promise)

Lands of Appropriate Scale – Part II

As discussed in the last post, John L. Sorenson makes unsupportable claims about his Mesoamerican model. In addition to the earlier comments (see last post), he wrote: “that only in Mesoamerica are there ‘lands of appropriate size’.”

Appropriate to what? The scriptural record gives us very little information, but most of it describes lands inhabited by tens of millions of people (see an earlier post).

We do not even know how they traveled—we assume they did so on foot, which is a reasonable conclusion; however, Ammon and king Limhi traveled by chariot from the Land of Ishmael to the Land of Middoni (Alma 20:6-7). We do not know if Alma, when he moved between the Waters of Mormon and the Land of Zarahemla with some 450 people, including men, women and children, had any horses, chariots or types of wagons. The record is completely silent about this—therefore, no definitive conclusion can be drawn of their mode of travel.

So how can anyone decide that the city of Nephi was 231 miles from the city of Zarahemla, as Sorenson does? Then he goes on to tell us that “only in Mesoamerica are there lands of appropriate scale,” and that anything larger than this is not consistent with the record.

Undaunted by his making up distances, he also wrote: “the Nephite homeland area confirm Mesoamerica as the only plausible location of Book of Mormon lands.” Several rebuffs were mentioned, but another of his statements regarding this was not covered. In this regard, Sorenson wrote that only his limited size of the Land Southward “can appropriately be said to be ‘nearly surrounded by water’ (Alma 22:32), as well as an isthmus bounded by Pacific and Atlantic waters.”

This might be a little humorous in light of the 772-page book, “Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica,” with more than a thousand references, showing where a much more suitable location, matching ALL of scripture, is located. That site also had a Land Southward completely surrounded by water except for the “small neck of land” (Alma 22:32), and at one time was an island as Jacob said (2 Nephi 10:20).

Despite the short comings and fallacious tinkering with the scriptural record, Sorenson goes on to write: “The record actually describes a setting where the people were limited in numbers and the lands they occupied were restricted in scale. Yet the issue touches more than geography alone; the entrained question is one of demography and descent. Were there other populations present in the Americas who were not exclusively descended from Lehi's party?”

Stripping away the academic gobbledygook, the meaning of this middle sentence, is that “the follow-on question is one of population and ancestral lineage.” That is, Sorenson claims we are not just talking about geography, but also the population in the Land of Promise, and the lineage of the people. This is important to him since he believes there were numerous other people in the Land of Promise at the time Lehi landed and in the area where Lehi landed.

Obviously, since the scriptural record does not bear this out in any way—unless overlaid onto the very small area in Mesoamerica he claims is the Land of Promise, then his interest in population and other peoples plays an important role—since they are necessary. That is, it is necessary to his Mesoamerican model to restrict the population of the Lehi Colony and descendants, and to limit the lineage line of Lehi to only one of many present at the time Lehi landed.

His comment: “The record actually describes a setting where the people were limited in numbers and the lands they occupied were restricted in scale,” has already been dealt with in showing there is no way to determine any exactness in size of the Land of Promise—certainly not to a few hundred miles. Nor can it be said “the people were limited in numbers,” since it has been shown that the Jaredites alone numbered as many as 15 to 25 million after 1600 years in the Land Northward (see earlier post “Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part VI,” where this was covered).

(See the next post, “Lands of Appropriate Scale – Part III,” for the answer to Sorenson’s claim of other peoples in the Land of Promise)

Lands of Appropriate Scale – Part I

In addition to “painting with a broad brush” (see last posts), we find that the Mesoamerican approach to the scriptural record is to limit its meaning and down scale its distances. All of this is done to support the Mesoamerica model and landscape. As John L. Sorenson writes:

“In addition to writing, other social and cultural conditions required by the scriptural text to be present in the Nephite homeland area confirm Mesoamerica as the only plausible location of Book of Mormon lands.”

The only plausible location?

• What about the narrow neck not being narrow?

As shown in the map (left), this area only narrows over a 200 mile stretch (that’s the distance from Provo, Utah, to Cedar City, Utah, a mere 30 miles on each coastal area, or from 200 miles width to 140 miles width overall. That is a narrowing of only 1650 yards along a 6 mile coastal line, or 275 yards in a mile—less than three football fields—almost imperceptible to the human eye. And this very slight incline would be enough for a Nephite 2000 years ago to say, that the coast line cut in so significantly to create a “narrow neck.” Not only could such a tiny narrowing even be seen by the naked eye, it certainly would not be called a “narrow neck” of land. Without a satellite or aerial photograph, it wouldn’t even be known to exist. Even on a map today, it is not really significant.

And what about other discrepancies in Mesoamerica?

• What about the Land Northward being to the NORTH of the Land Southward (see map below)
• What about the Land Southward being restricted in size?
• What about the Land Northward being equally limited?
• What about Bountiful being to the east of Desolation instead of north?
• What about Cumorah being next to Desolation but nearly 300 miles away from the Land of Many Waters where Mormon places Cumorah?
• What about the climate of Guatemala not conducive to growing seeds from Jerusalem?
• Where are the two unknown animals?
• Where are the two unknown grains?
• Where are the plants and roots the cure fever?
• Where is the gold, silver and copper ore? (It is interesting that copper products being exported from Guatemala today use copper from Chile)

There are, of course, many more items in the scriptural record that are not found in Mesoamerica. But the above should suggest that Mesoamerican is not “the only plausible location,” it is not even a plausible one. (It is humorously interesting that one of the explanations of the word “plausible” is “superficially pleasing” and “appearing well at first view”). However, it might needs be that we should give this idea a second view.

But, before we do, let’s take a look at Sorenson’s follow-up comment: “In addition to the cultural criteria, only in that area can all of the geographical requirements be met. For example, only in Mesoamerica are there lands of appropriate scale (that is, several hundreds, but not thousands, of miles in extent) that can appropriately be said to be "nearly surrounded by water" (Alma 22:32), as well as an isthmus bounded by Pacific and Atlantic waters.”

First of all, “cultural criteria” may seem an unimportant phrase used here, but it actually means the society in general, the cultivation of that society, the shared knowledge and value of that society, or to the raising of plants and animals. None of these uses describes anything under question regarding the size, shape, or distances involved in describing or locating the Land of Promise. So let’s set that term aside. The rest of the statement is: “only in that area can all of the geographical requirements be met. For example, only in Mesoamerica are there lands of appropriate scale (that is, several hundreds, but not thousands, of miles in extent).” Obviously, Sorenson is telling us that only in Mesoamerica can the geographical requirements of the Land of Promise be met. The funny thing is, who set those geographical requirements such as: “only in Mesoamerica are there lands of appropriate scale (that is, several hundreds, but not thousands, of miles in extent).”

The problem with Sorenson’s thinking is that we do not know or have any really good idea of how large or small the Land of Promise was from the scriptural record—but despite this, Sorenson has come up with “hundreds of miles” and actually decided that the miles from “land of first inheritance” is known (despite Nephi telling us only that they traveled for many days), how many miles it was from the city of Nephi to the city of Zarahemla, despite the closest area of description is the 21 days from the Waters of Mormon to the Land of Zarahemla, etc. And, as shown in a previous post, Sorenson, where no description is given at all, arbitrarily uses 30 miles to round out his mileage calculation.

(See the next post, “Lands of Appropriate Scale – Part II,” to see the further unsupportable statements Sorenson makes about his Land of Promise model)

Painting With a Broad Brush—Written Language – Part IV

For the last point of John L. Sorenson’s claim that because writing was found in Mesoamerica, and none other in the Americas, it : “restricts the possible real-world location [of the Land of Promise] to Mesoamerica (central and southern Mexico and northern Central America).”

In 1517, when Spanish explorers landed on the coast of Yucatan, the peninsula was divided into city-states constantly at war with each other and trying to establish their own boundaries. Each city state had a ruler, the "halach uinic" under which were an elite of brave warriors. The priesthood had enormous influence over the lives of the Maya whose lives were ruled by religion and the calendar. The priests were in charge of keeping the books and the calendar.

It is interesting that the Maya codices of which Sorenson speaks of there being thousands: “In Mesoamerica there were thousands of books in use at the time of the Spanish Conquest, but nowhere else in the Western Hemisphere is there convincing evidence for genuine writing being used on a consistent basis”—only four survived the conquistadors, making it literally impossible to know how many previously existed. However, the Spanish destruction of the written records they found in Mesoamerica has a familiar ring to it, for that is exactly what Mormon said would happen to his own writing 1100 years earlier—thus, where only four survived the destruction of the Spanish, consider that none would have survived the destruction of the Lamanites after the annihilation of the Nephites in 400 A.D.

Perhaps we should take another look at Mesoamerica and Sorenson’s claim that suggests the Maya would be the outgrowth of the Nephite nation because they had a written lanaguage. First of all, prehistory is the study of people without writing, while history is the study of the societies that possessed writing. The history of Mesoamerica is claimed to have begun well before Christopher Columbus landed in the New World in 1492—though Columbus never set foot in Mesoamerica.

Spanish priests and soldiers were the first Europeans to see Maya glyphs. Although these Europeans were intrigued by the strangeness of the signs, their strong Christian beliefs against any display of paganism literally forced them to consign the native documents to the bonfire, to neglect, or to ultimate oblivion in innumerable official archives

It is recognized today that the Mayan languages form a language family spoken in Mesoamerica and northern Central America, and spoken by at least 6 million indigenous Maya, primarily in Guatemala, Mexico, Belize and Honduras. In 1996, Guatemala formally recognized 21 Mayan languages by name, and Mexico recognizes eight more.

The Mayan language family is one of the best documented and most studied in the Americas. Modern Mayan languages descend from Proto-Mayan, a language claimed to have been spoken at least 5,000 years ago, and is partially reconstructed using the comparative method.

Now here’s the rub, if, indeed, the Mayan language was spoken 5,000 years ago, it would have been spoken from 3000 B.C. to the present—this is an interesting idea, since in the Land of Promise, the Nephites spoke Hebrew and taught the Lamanites Hebrew at one point in their history, and there has never been found to be any connection whatsoever between Maya and Hebrew.

During the pre-Columbian era of Mesoamerican history, some Mayan languages were written in the Maya hieroglyphic script. Its use was particularly widespread during the Classic period of Maya civilization (c. 250–900 CE), which would place the time frame around the end of the Nephite golden age (the 200 years or so after Christ’s apperance to the Nephites in the Land of Promie).

This also means that during the Nephite era in the Land of Promise, the Mayan language was spoken and written in Mesoamerica. While Maya hieroglyphic script with their logograms or syllables, is more like Japanese writing than any other, and as has already been pointed out, has no resemblance to Hebrew which should suggest, even to the most naiveté, that Mesoamerica was not the Land of Promise.

Painting With a Broad Brush—Written Language – Part III

Continuing again with John L. Sorenson’s claim that because writing was found in Mesoamerica, and none other in the Americas, it : “restricts the possible real-world location [of the Land of Promise] to Mesoamerica (central and southern Mexico and northern Central America),” is not as conclusive as he would like us to believe.

First of all, as mentioned in the last post, the ancient Peruvians had a form of writing that was found on Easter Island and called today Rongo Rongo, a written form that dates back to B.C. times and was brought to the island from the Peruvian mainland—obviously, afterward in the Andean area, it was either destroyed or died out.

Second, since it was pointed out in the first post of this series, the Maya written form has no semblance nor outgrowth of either ancient Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian, the only two languages known to the Nephites around the time they were destroyed (Mormon 9:32-33), it cannot be claimed that this writing originated with the Nephites.

Third, it was the language of the Nephites that was taught among the Lamanites (Mosiah 24:4), and that language was Hebrew, and the Lamanites wrote to each other (Mosiah 24:6), which increased their trade and wealth (Mosiah 24:7)—and it was told them that they should keep a record of themselves (Mosiah 24:6). Whether they kept a record or not, we have no knowledge, but if they did, it would have been written in Hebrew, which was the written language they were taught.

We also know that Giddianhi, the governor of the band of robbers, and of the secret society of Gadianton (3 Nephi 3:8) wrote an epistle to the Nephite governor Lachoneus around 15 A.D.

During the time the Savior was on the earth and for the two hundred years following when there were no –ites, but all were one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God (4 Nephi 1:17), we might assume that all or most were literate. In addition, by about 385 A.D., Mormon writes an epistle to the Lamanite king (Mormon 6:2), which might lead one to believe that at least the king could read the Hebrew. Yet, this might not be true, for the epistle could have been delivered by one of Mormon’s trusted officers and read to the Lamanite king. While most believe that the Lamanite king responded in writing, the scriptural record does not say that. The response is stated by Mormon as:

“And it came to pass that the king of the Lamanites did grant unto me the thing which I desired” (Mormon 6:3).

Thus, while the Lamanites might have retained their literacy from the time around 231 A.D. when a division among the people took place once again (4 Nephi 1:35), and the time of Mormon’s epistle, 155 years later. If the Lamanites did retain the Hebrew they were taught, then when the Nephites were annihilated in 385 A.D., and the internal wars between the Lamanites continued afterward for many years, they would have spoken Hebrew, and possibly still have written it.

One of three things must be understood from this. 1) The Lamanites could write in the Hebrew language after the fall of the Nephites, 2) Whether the Lamanites were literate or not, they certainly would not have written in Reformed Egyptian, since that was the language of the record keepers, and had to be especially taught in order to read the record on the gold plates (Mosiah 1:2), or 3) The Lamanites did not write at all.

Whatever the response, there is no way that the Lamanites from the Nephite language of Hebrew could have evolved a written language to that of the Mayan glyphs as a result of Nephite influence.

Thus, it must also be understood that the Mayan glyphs, which bear no resemblance to written Hebrew, could be considered proof that the Nephites existed in the area of the Mayan people, that of Guatemala. It is a perfect example, when Sorenson lays claim to such, that he is indeed painting with a broad brush.

In addition, Moroni was told by the Lord and wrote for us that: “none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof” (Mormon 9:34). Obviously, the language that no man knew could only be translated by the power of God, and this through the two stones called the Urim and Thumin, which “were prepared from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages” (Mosiah 28:14).

Therefore, that the language of the Nephites could have been interpreted by a linguist or modern-day scientist simply does not hold true with the discovery and eventual deciphering of the Maya language. Simply put, what was discovered in Guatemala and the Yucatan has absolutely nothing to do with the Nephite writings and, therefore, cannot be used to suggest the Nephites once lived where it was written. Obviously, the natives of the area evolved their own writing, as those of ancient Peru did with the Rongo-Rongo language—neither proving nor disproving where the Nephites dwelt, or the location of the Land of Promise.

Painting With a Broad Brush—Written Language – Part II

Continuing with John L. Sorenson’s claim that: “The inhabitants of Book of Mormon lands knew and used formal writing systems and compiled numerous books (see Helaman 3:15) restricts the possible real-world location to Mesoamerica (central and southern Mexico and northern Central America),” suggests another comparison to be made.

First of all, the writing the Nephites knew was very specific. Around 400 A.D., Moroni, completing his father’s record, tells us: “And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record” (Mormon 9:32-33).

Thus, we can correctly understand that the Nephites, even a thousand years after leaving Jerusalem, still spoke and wrote in Hebrew, though modified or altered over the years from its original Jerusalem Hebrew (even the Hebrews of today speak and write slightly different from the Hebrew spoken and written during Old Testament times). We can also correctly understand that the Nephite prophets and keepers of the sacred records, wrote in Reformed Egyptian, that was also modified or altered somewhat over the thousand years of its use when Nephi first began using it “I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2), and Mosiah wrote around 130 B.C., “For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time” (Mosiah 1:4).

We can also correctly understand from Moroni’s next statement: “the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof” (Mormon 9:34), that it would be the Lord’s instruments, not that of science or the interpretation of trained linguists, that would correctly interpret the writing.

From these two understandings, we can correctly conclude that 1) the Nephites wrote and spoke an altered form of Hebrew at the time of their demise, and 2) the Nephite record (the gold plates interpreted by Joseph Smith) were written in an altered form of Reformed Egyptian—a type of Egyptian shorthand, so to speak. A short writing in Reformed Egyptian is shown in the Anton transcript.

In addition, we know that Hebrew was an alphabetic language, that is, based upon individual letter symbols and combination of letter sounds.

Now with that understanding, let us consider the writing symbols found in Mesoamerica. In looking at the visual construction of Maya glyphs is very interesting. At first inspection, the glyphs appear to be very intricate squares laid out in a gridlike pattern. In fact, each square is a glyph block that actually contain one to five glyphs, often forming a word or even a phrase. However, these glyphs are not based upon an alphabet, but word meanings or phrases.

One look should show anyone that the language of the Maya is not an outgrowth over centuries of either Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian. So why would we conclude, unless trying to force the issue, that the Maya language proves that “The inhabitants of Book of Mormon lands knew and used formal writing systems and compiled numerous books (see Helaman 3:15) restricts the possible real-world location to Mesoamerica”?

In addition, while rarely mentioned and never by Mesoamerica Theorists, the people of Peru had a written language that was transported to Easter Island from the mainland prior to the complete annihilation of the Nephites. This language, referred to as Rongo Rongo, has never been translated, and certainly fits the parameters Sorenson points out for his Maya language, in matching Book of Mormon times. This also shows that while the Lamanties destroyed all written matter of the Nephites after eliminating them from the land, the language survived on a nearby island where Peruvians are known to have traveled in B.C. times.

Thus we can conclude that Sorenson’s conclusion is based on erroneous information—the ancient Peruvian people had a written language, and two, the Maya hieroglyphics have no semblance in appearance or meaning to ancient Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian.

Painting With a Broad Brush

Mesoamerican theorists, forever trying to sell their Land of Promise model in Central America (or more accurately, shove it down our throats), time and again make drastic, unprovable, unsupportable and broad sweeping claims. As an example:

John L. Sorenson wrote: “That the inhabitants of Book of Mormon lands knew and used formal writing systems and compiled numerous books (see Helaman 3:15) restricts the possible real-world location to Mesoamerica (central and southern Mexico and northern Central America).”

Actually, and almost humorously, it should be pointed out that this very thing should be a disqualifier, not a proof of location. But first, let’s finish the statement:

“In Mesoamerica there were thousands of books in use at the time of the Spanish Conquest, but nowhere else in the Western Hemisphere is there convincing evidence for genuine writing being used on a consistent basis.”

Now, for someone not trying to prove Mesoamerica is the site, let us consider the scriptural record about such matters of “convincing evidence for genuine writing.” On more than one occasion, we are assured by Mormon and others that if the Lamanites found any Nephite written records they would destroy them.

Mormon tells us: “Ammaron had deposited the records unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed” (Mormon 2:17), and also “I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni” (Mormon 6:6). Even those who were opposed to the Church, burned the Nephite records (Alma 14:8,14)

Even the magnificent buildings were destroyed, torn down, by the surviving Lamanites, evidence of their terrible destruction in the land.

It seems quite evident, that if ANY Nephite writings had survived this last, great battle, the Lamanites, in finding them, would have destroyed them. Keep in mind the hatred that drove the Lamanites to destroy the Nephites, also existed after the last Nephite had been killed, except for Moroni who wrote: “the Lamanites are at war one with another; and the whole face of this land is one continual round of murder and bloodshed; and no one knoweth the end of the war” (Mormon 8:8). Later, with these wars still going on, Moroni closes out his record by stating: “their wars are exceedingly fierce among themselves” (Moroni 1:2).

Nephi tells us one of the purposes of having records “it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers” (1 Nephi 3:19). With the death of every Nephite, the records were not only removed (hidden away by the hand of the Lord), but did not come forth until 1829, 1400 years later. Thus, it might be concluded that whatever the Lamanites knew of writing in 400 A.D., would have been lost over time left to their own without records of their heritage.

So the question begs to be asked: “Why would we expect to find any written records in the Land of Promise where the Nephites were totally destroyed and the Lamanites continued with their hatred and wars?”

The Lord told us that the Lamanites would destroy the Nephite records. Mormon tells us the same, and hid them up to protect them so the Lamanties could not find them. These records were later taken by Moroni and hidden in the hill Cumorah. There were so many records that Brigham Young is quoted as saying: “There are many wagonloads of ancient records hidden in the hill Cumorah.” Obviously, the records were hidden from the Lamanites so they could not be destroyed, and evidently none but the Plates of Nephi and of Mormon have been allowed to come forth. Thus, all those records Helaman spoke of “And now 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) are still kept from us in the wisdom of the Lord.

Once again, the question begs to be asked: “Why would we expect to find any written records in the Land of Promise where the Nephites were totally destroyed and the Lamanites continued with their hatred and wars?” Obviously, all those records were hidden up by the Lord. Whatever other records there might have been would have been destroyed, as the Lord told Mormon: “Having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them)” (Mormon 6:6).

So where are they now? They are “hid up in the hill Cumorah,” in such numbers to fill “many wagonloads.”

Thus, it should be said, if ancient written records ARE found in Mesoamerica, that is just another disqualifier of that area being the Land of Promise.

(See the next post, "Painting With a Broad Brush - Part II," for more on the writing of Mesoamerica compared to the writing of the Nephites/Book of Mormon")

Focusing on the Philosophies of Men—Looking Beyond the Mark - Part II

In the previous post, it was discussed about the importance of not looking beyond the mark, and not trying to alter, add, change, or delete the meaning of the scriptural record. The post ended with countering Sorenson’s effort to change the meaning of the cardinal points of direction of which Mormon so often wrote. However, Sorenson does not accept Mormon’s directions, and to counter this, Sorenson wrote:

“Eastern Eskimo language groups distinguish direction primarily as either inland (literally ‘above’) or seaward (‘below’). From this we have the interesting contradiction that in Labrador a word meaning ‘seaward’ translates as ‘east,’ because the sea happens to lie more or less in that direction, while the same word across the strait in nearby western Greenland corresponds to our ‘west,’ for there the sea is on the west. Polynesians use a similar pair of terms for basic directions, ‘inland’ and ‘coastward,’ sometimes combined with a ‘fore’ or ‘behind’ distinction. Icelanders referred to directions in terms of where a traveler had come from, not the route by which he arrived. (This idea applied to us would mean we'd say a traveler arriving in New York from Miami had journeyed ‘east,’ as long as his trip had begun in California.) At Picuris Pueblo in New Mexico, five directions are distinguished and labeled, none of them equivalent to our own cardinal points.”

In the above map, white line is Jerusalem (Mediterranean Climate); yellow line is Lehi’s landing site (Mediterranean Climate); red line is Sorenson’s Mesoamerica as well as the area of Bountiful where Nephi built his ship; green line is where the land of Zarahemla was located; blue lines indicate the two tropic zones (Capricorn and Cancer) where the sun reaches its furthest point from the equator in winter and summer; purple line is Greenland and Iceland where Sorenson draws his so-called parallels (far outside of the sun’s normal movement). The point is, at no time is the Lehi colony outside their understanding of the sun’s location except for the reversal of summer and winter (from white line to yellow line). The white (north) and yellow (south) lines shows that the Nephites were within the same distance from the edge of the sun’s route with the summer-winter reversal.

Thus, looking beyond the mark, Sorenson clouds the issue of simple directions in a writing meant for our understanding, with directional differences in numerous cultures. However, what he seems to have forgotten, is that Lehi and Nephi were brought up in a culture that understood cardinal points correctly—the fact that their ancestors might have referred to them by local terms does not change the fact. They knew “north,” “south,” “east,” and “west,” in their correct cardinal points. Certainly the Lord knows the correct cardinal points, as does the Spirit, so when Joseph was translating, he read the direction he understood and the Spirit acknowledged that it was correct. Sorenson does not help this understanding by bringing into play how some cultures view directions.

Also, while Jerusalem is about 32º north latitude, the area of Bountiful where they spent at least a year or two building a ship and preparing for their ocean voyage, is located at about 17ºnorth latitude—the exact same latitude of Sorenson’s city of Nephi in Guatemala. Now when the Lehi colony reached Bountiful, they knew they were traveling eastward (1 Nephi 17:1), thus they would have known for the time spent there were the sun was in the east each day throughout at least a full year, and probably more. If they reached Sorenson’s Land of Promise in Guatemala (Mesoamerica), the sun would be in the exact same rising point as it had been in Bountiful. Therefore, there can be no confusion regarding that direction no matter how much Sorenson wants to “look beyond the mark” to “find the new” that “tramples on what is true.” We do this, Elder Cook wrote: “When we substitute the philosophies of men for gospel truths, engage in gospel extremism, seek heroic gestures at the expense of daily consecration, or elevate rules over doctrine.”

Whatever rules the Eskimo, Greenlander, Polynesian, Icelander, or man of New Mexico might have for directions, it cannot be elevated over doctrine—the scriptural record.

The Lord said regarding important doctrine, “Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me” (D&C 10:68), and “That which is more or less than this cometh of evil” (D&C 124:120)

And, as a side note, Sorenson’s comment about “we'd say a traveler arriving in New York from Miami had journeyed ‘east,’ as long as his trip had begun in California” is simply not true. Such a traveler would have arrived in New York from the south. He earlier arrived in the South from the West. So for his trip from California to Miami he would have “journeyed east,” but his trip from Miami to New York, he would have “journeyed north.” To those in New York, he came “from the west,” but he did not “arrive from the west.” Playing on words simply is no substitution for correctness.

Focusing on the Philosophies of Men—Looking Beyond the Mark - Part I

Over the past several posts, and numerous ones of the past, and the book “Inaccuracies of Mesoamerican & Other Theorists,” we have been centering on the “philosophies of Men” when it comes to naming Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise—specifically, the writings of John L. Sorenson, the so-called guru of Mesoamerican thought regarding Lehi’s land of promise. In the last post, his idea of not accepting Mormon’s statements about directions was covered. In this post, a concept discussed by Quentin L. Cook of the Seventy, is very important to consider when we start changing the scriptural record to meet our pre-conceived ideas.

Elder Cook wrote in a March, 2003, “Ensign” article: “Focusing on the philosophies of men, pursuing ‘gospel hobbies’ with excess zeal, and elevating rules over doctrine are ways we may look beyond the mark. We live in a world where the latest story, the buzz, the hype, the ‘new thing’ is much sought after and then publicized throughout the world.”

In the case of “the mark,” it could be the scriptural record left us by Mormon, who abridged many other writings of ancient prophets. Looking beyond the mark may well be to read more than what is written, alter what is written, add to what is written, or eliminate what is written. Elder Cook also wrote: “The wild rush to find the new often tramples on what is true.”

The scriptures are the true word, written by the original prophets who lived at the time of their writing, abridged by Mormon who had “all the records of the Nephites, which were many” (4 Nephi 48-49; Mormon 1:2-3; 2-17), and translated by Joseph Smith under the direction of the Spirit. They need not be explained by scholars who “look beyond the mark” to try and find something new that “tramples on what is true.”

Of directions, Soreonson wrote: “Labeling directions has always presented linguistic and cultural challenges to the world's peoples. Like other customs the whole business is actually quite arbitrary rather than logical, as modern people would like to think. We in the European tradition say that ‘east’ is ‘where the sun comes up’; but in the arctic, the sun unconcernedly rises in the south. Even in middle latitudes sunrise is precisely to the east only two days of the year. A knowledge of our own and other cultures can help disabuse us of the notion of one single ‘right’ or ‘obvious’ way to label directions.”

This scholarly comment may sound of value until you consider what is involved in the issue. Sorenson is trying to tell us Mormon’s writings, and the early prophets’ understanding of directions, was inaccurate when they reached the Land of Promise. Forget that the Nephites had the Liahona, forget that they had a history of knowing and understanding cardinal directions, forget that Nephi wrote unerringly of “south-southeast” and “eastward” (1 Nephi 16:13, 17:1) regarding their trip across 17-degrees of latitude from Jerusalem to Bountiful. Regarding the Land of Promise, Mormon used the term “northward,” “north,” “northern” all in the same statement (Alma 22:29-30), and used the “west sea” and “east sea” correctly in relationship to “north” and “south” in the same statement (Alma 22:33), providing cardinal directions to the Land Southward regarding the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla.

Elder Cook also wrote: ““The Jewish people … rejected the gospel, in part because it lacked adequate intellectual embroidery.” We look beyond the mark when we refuse to accept simple gospel truths for what they are.”

(See the next post, “Focusing on the Philosophies of Men—Looking Beyond the Mark - Part II,” for more of Sorenson’s rejection of the scriptural record and his trying to implant his own meanings into the record)

Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part VI

Continuing with the article by Matthew Roper and John L. Sorenson, discussed in the last five posts, some of their points about the shape and size of the Land of Promise need further discussion and understanding. In their article, speaking of the Land Northward, they wrote:

“The climate throughout the entire territory was relatively warm, at least as far as the text indicates. While we read of extreme heat, there is no hint of cold weather or snow.”

First of all, we do not know what the climate was “throughout the entire territory,” let alone try to claim it was relatively warm.

There are only two specific comments about weather or climate, and both indicate heat—but those two comments are restricted to the Land Southward (Alma 46:40), and to the east coastal area of the Land Southward (Alma 51:33). We are never told what the weather was like in the Land Northward, nor along the west coastal area of the Land Southward.

The first is indicated in connection with fever and the plants the Lord prepared to cure fever. “And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land -- but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate “ (Alma 46:40). This suggests that the heat in the land was only during a particular season (some seasons means more than one, probably meaning all four, which suggests that only one of the seasons was it particularly hot, nor does it imply extreme heat.)

The word season relating to periods of time means either 1) “A time of some continuance, but not long,” or 2) “one of the four divisions of the year.” In either case, this would not be continual, but broken up in time frames. Thus, fevers (typically from hot, humid weather, were frequent at some seasons of the year, but obviously not all year long—therefore, the heat period did not last all year long, but was limited to a season, meaning either during the summer, or during the “heat season.”

In the second reference, (Alma 51:33), heat is mentioned in connection with long military marches. But nowhere does it imply that the heat in season lasted longer than a season—“a time of some continuance, but not long.”

It is obvious that Mesoamerican theorists want to claim a continual heat season since that is the weather condition of their Land Southward in Guatemala, which is described as: “The tropical climate zone encompasses areas between sea level and roughly 3,300 feet of altitude. The climate of these lowlands is indeed tropical, i.e. hot and humid day and night, year round.”

However, this is merely another indication that the Land of Promise was not in Mesoamerica since not even the weather matches.

The article also goes on to claim: “Near the east sea a relatively small area of hills was located no great distance northward from the narrow pass. The final battleground of the Jaredites (at ‘the hill Ramah’) and of the Nephites (at the same hill, called by them ‘the hill Cumorah’) was in this area.”

This area, according to Sorenson’s map shows that the Land of Cumorah is over 250 miles east and south of the Land of Many Waters, yet Mormon describes the two places are the same: “And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle. And it came to pass that the king of the Lamanites did grant unto me the thing which I desired. And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites” (Mormon 6:2-4). Thus, Sorenson’s map is off in locating both Cumorah and the land of Many Waters.

Obviously, then, Sorenson’s statement about Cumorah being: “located no great distance northward from the narrow pass,” is not accurate.

This is just another of the numerous occasions where Sorenson’s statements and map fall far short of the scriptural record in his attempt to justify his model of Mesoamerica for the Land of Promise.

Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part VI

Continuing with the article by Matthew Roper and John L. Sorenson, discussed in the last five posts, some of their points about the shape and size of the Land of Promise need further discussion and understanding. In their article, speaking of the Land Northward, they wrote:

“The groups occupying most of this territory at times reached a civilized level of development and at one point constituted a population of more than two million.”

First of all, it would seem “two million” is only a fraction of the numbers of Jaredites that lived in the Land Northward. His “constituted a population of more than two million” is simply far smaller than the scriptural record tells us.

The problem is, since the area of Mesoamerica Sorenson uses as his Land of Promise is quite small, only a few hundred miles in each direction, he has to limit the numbers of Jaredites who lived there. However, the record tells us another story.

“And it came to pass when Coriantumr had recovered of his wounds, he began to remember the words which Ether had spoken unto him. He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children” (Ether 15:1-2).

Two million mighty men of his army had been killed. More or less, there would have been an equal number of wives—which makes the number close to 4 million. And if only two children per couple that is another 4 million, or a total of about 8 million Jaredites had been killed at this point in the war just in Coriantumr’s army and among his people. And that does not include the number of Shiz’ army and people. In fact, his numbers must have been quite similar because he saw that “the loss of men, women and children on both sides was so great that Shiz commanded his people that they should not pursue the armies of Coriantumr; wherefore, they returned to their camp” (Ether 14:31).

Therefore, at this point in the war, those killed on both sides could have exceeded a conservative number of 16 million people. If there were three or four children per family, the numbers could have been 20 to 25 million, and so on to a much higher number of dead if much larger numbers were involved. But that is not all. After exchanging letters to end the war (Ether 15:3-5), no truce could be agreed upon, and the war continued with more fighting and dead (Ether 15:6-7). This followed with a day’s break and then “an exceeding sore battle” took place (Ether 15:9).

After this, both sides “did gather together all the people upon all the face of the land, who had not been slain, save it was Ether” (Ether 15:12), which took four years “that they might receive all the strength which it was possible that they could receive” (Ether 15:14), with “every one to the army which he would, with their wives and their children -- both men women and children being armed with weapons of war, having shields, and breastplates, and head-plates, and being clothed after the manner of war” (Ether 15:15).

We have no idea how many Jaredites were in the two armies at this point, but it must have been a significant number, having spent four years gathering all the remaining people “upon the face of the land” (Ether 15:14). After four full days of battle with the sword, there were but ”fifty and two of the people of Coriantumr, and sixty and nine of the people of Shiz” (Ether 15:23). After three more days of fighting, there were only the two leaders left (Ether 15:29).

That is, there were seven full days of battle, from sun up to sun down, with breaks only during the night. How many were killed? In just one day of fighting, the Nephites lost 230,000 in their final battle with the Lamanites (Mormon 6:7-15). How many Lamanites were killed in that battle is not recorded—but reason alone suggests that the numbers must have been a total of 300,000 to 350,000 killed in one day of battle on both sides. If we applied that figure to the final battle of the Jaredites, we could add as much as another two million dead.

The point is, there were tens of millions of Jaredites killed in the final battles in the Land Northward. So many, in fact, that the land “was covered with bones of men” (Mosiah 8:8). And this does not include the numerous Jaredites who had lived and died over the previous 1500 years of their existence in the Land of Promise before the events recorded by Ether.

Thus, it must be concluded that the Land Northward was large enough to have handled upwards of 15 to 25 million people at one time in the last few years of their society.

Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part V

Continuing with the article by Matthew Roper and John L. Sorenson, discussed in the last four posts, some of their points about the shape and size of the Land of Promise need further discussion and understanding. In the last post, it was shown that their Land Southward, at least the Land of Nephi, was about 600 miles wide, yet, they wrote:

“Based chiefly on the travel times required to go between various points, we can confidently infer that the land southward was on the order of only a few hundred miles in length (northward—southward). At one point the land southward was plausibly about 200 miles wide. The distance across the narrowest part of the narrow neck, or isthmus, is left vague but might have been on the order of 100 miles. The dimensions of the land northward are also unclear, but the implication is that the size of that area was of the same order of magnitude as the land southward.”

First of all, their own map shows a distance of 600 miles for the width as mentioned above, yet they also claim it was only 200 miles wide in the same article (see map of last post).

Second, it is claimed: “Based chiefly on the travel times required to go between various points,” but there is only one instance of any journey covering a specific time frame and that was the 21 days from the Waters of Mormon to the Land of Zarahemla (Mosiah 23:3; 24:25); however, this time frame is entirely inconclusive, for it was based on a journey from the Waters of Mormon, an unknown distance from the city of Nephi, to the Land of Zarahemla--not the city of Zarahemal. Thus, we do not know how far the Waters of Mormon were from the city of Nephi, nor how far the city of Zarahemla was from the borders of the Land of Zarahemla.

All other travel times of any use are mentioned in terms of “many days,” a most inconclusive term since it was used to cover the distance of thousands of miles in a ship as well as much shorter land movement.

Third. Mesoamerican theorists may feel “we can confidently infer that the land southward was on the order of only a few hundred miles in length (northward—southward),” but no one else can for the distance is not spelled out at all. Sorenson himself has stated that he believes the distance from the city of Nephi to the Land of Zarahemla was about 231 miles, but even if that was true, no one knows how far it was from the area of first landing to the city of Nephi, nor how far it was from the city of Zarahemla to the narrow neck of land, nor even how far it was from the borders of the Land of Zarahemla to the city of Zarahemla.

Fourth. “The distance across the narrowest part of the narrow neck, or isthmus, is left vague but might have been on the order of 100 miles.” The Isthmus of Tehuantepec, their Narrow Neck of Land, is 140 miles across, and the term “narrow” does not suggest 100 miles to start with. Actually, Mormon was quite specific--the distance across the narrow neck is laid out in specific terms. In addition, the day and a half journey across this narrow neck (Alma 22:32) would suggest something closer to about 25-30 miles at most, and is not a vague comment at all!

Fifth. “The dimensions of the land northward are also unclear, but the implication is that the size of that area was of the same order of magnitude as the land southward.” There is nothing in the scriptural record to suggest the Land Northward was the same size as the Land Southward. But there is a suggestion that it was smaller in size. As mentioned in an earlier post, it would seem from the movement of the Jaredites during their final battles that ranged from the Land of Moron (near the West Sea where they landed, not far from the narrow neck), to the north, the Waters of Ripliancum, and to Ablom, near the east seashore and then to the land the Nephites called Cumorah, suggests a much smaller land mass than the Land Southward.

It seems obvious that Sorenson and Roper are using distances that equate to their pre-determined Mesoamerican model and not to the scriptural record. Thus, there writing is self-serving and of no value in trying to understand the distances Mormon and other ancient prophets wrote about.

(See the next post, “Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part VI,” for more of these inaccurate points)

Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part IV

Continuing with the article by Matthew Roper and John L. Sorenson, discussed in the last three posts, some of the answers they gave need further discussion and understanding. As an example, the comment:

“The west sea coastal zone of the land southward was considered a ‘narrow strip,’ apparently with such a small population that it played no significant historical role in Book of Mormon history, but the flatlands adjacent to the east sea coast of the land southward were more extensive.”

First, this is one of the most disingenuous statements made regarding Mesoamerica being the Land of Promise, and is completely and totally self-serving. The area Mesoamerican theorists refer to as the east coast encompassed the Yucatan Peninsula, making their east coast enormously larger than their west coast—including an extra 900 miles of coastline, and about 64,000 square miles of land space, all of which falls outside the description in the scriptural record of the east seashore.

Second, there is nothing in the scriptural record to indicate the west seacoast of the Land of Promise was a “narrow strip” that “played no significant historical role in Book of Mormon history.” This is entirely fabricated. The west seacoast was the landing site of both the Nephites (Alma 22:28) and evidently the Mulekites (Omni 1:15-16). All along the west coast of both the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla there were Lamanites living (Alma 22:28). There were also Lamanites living along the east coast of the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 22:29). The Sidon River ran down to the West Sea, and the city of Zarahemla was in the west, probably along the coastal area (Omni 1:16). Further north, the West Sea area was the home of Hagoth’s shipyards and from which he launched numerous ships carrying thousands of people northward. In addition, the west seacoast was used for very important markers by the Nephites (Alma 50:11; Helaman 4:7).

Third, in the scriptural record, the east sea is not shown to be more extensive, nor does it suggest extra distance. But in the Mesoamerican map, the dimensions become indefensible. As an example, “Antionum, which was east of the land of Zarahemla, which lay nearly bordering upon the seashore, which was south of the land of Jershon, which also bordered upon the wilderness south, which wilderness was full of the Lamanites” (Alma 31:3), means that in Sorenson’s map these areas were some 550 miles away from their Zarahemla (the west wilderness about 60 miles away). In fact, on their map, moving inland (their east), the nearest coast to Zarahemla would be the Caribbean which would be true east (225 miles) but to their south, and 300 miles to the Gulf of Mexico, the theorists “East Sea,” though actually true north, and 550 miles to the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, again their “East Sea,” but true north.

In fact, when Mormon wrote, “that when Moroni had driven all the Lamanites out of the east wilderness, which was north of the lands of their own possessions, he caused that the inhabitants who were in the land of Zarahemla and in the land round about should go forth into the east wilderness, even to the borders by the seashore, and possess the land” (Alma 50:9).

This means, using their map, that the Nephites were displaced to an area 550 miles away from the protection of Zarahemla—a trip at the rate of the Mormon Pioneers, would take 69 days. And “they also began in that same year to build many cities on the north, one in a particular manner which they called Lehi, which was in the north by the borders of the seashore” (Alma 50:15), which, according to their map, would be less than 200 miles distant. Thus, their east seashore varied in distance from a generally straight line, by about 350 miles—about the same width as their Land of Zarahemla. Or, stated differently, their Land of Nephi was twice the width as their Land of Zarahemla—a point not supported in any way by the scriptural record.

Simply put, there is no way in the scriptural record to account for the bulge of the Yucatan Peninsula along the east coast, nor any way to account for the extra 900 mile of coastline, or the extra 64,000 square miles of land the Mesoamerica theorists must explain.

(See the next post, “Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part V,” for more of these inaccurate points)

Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part III

Continuing with the article by Matthew Roper and John L. Sorenson, discussed in the last earlier posts (Part I and Part II), some of the answers they gave need further discussion and understanding. As an example, the comment:

“The southern portion of the land southward, called the land of Nephi, was mostly elevated and mountainous (it included the headwaters of the principal river); the territory closer to the isthmus, called the land of Zarahemla, lay at an intermediate elevation.”

First, for the in correct term “isthmus,” see the last post. Second, certainly, the area of the city of Nephi was elevated and mountainous, for the city itself lay in a mountain valley. This is understood when Ammon and his friends were to “go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi to inquire concerning their brethren” (Mosiah 2), and that after “forty days they came to a hill, which is north of the land of Shilom, and there they pitched their tents. And Ammon took three of his brethren…and they went down into the land of Nephi” (Mosiah 8:5-6).

However, the term “Land of Nephi” when using it to cover the “southern portion of the land southward,” was not all mountainous or elevated, for when Ammon and king Lamoni prepared to leave the Land of Ishmael (a land within, or a sub-division of, the Land of Nephi), they were in a less elevated area for they had to “go up to the land of Nephi” (Alma 20:2), but “down to the land of Middoni” (Alma 20:7), another land within the Land of Nephi.

In addition, the cities or lands of Amulon, and also in the land of Helam, and who were in the land of Jerusalem, and in fine, in all the land round about (Alma 24:1), were also at a lower elevation for they “came up to the land of Nephi” (Alma 24:20), to do battle with those Lamanites who had converted to the gospel preached by Ammon, Aaron and the others.

Thus, this overall land was at different levels, and cannot be called “elevated and mountainous,” for some of this land was at lower elevations and might even have been quite low in elevation—we simply do not know. To use such a term to describe all the Land of Nephi is both erroneous and self-serving, for the area in Mesoamerica chosen by theorists as the Land Southward may all be “mountainous and elevated,” but the scriptural record does not bear this out in total.

Obviously, the term “Land of Nephi” for all the land is correct, since Lamoni was king of his own kingdom (Alma 20:12), the land of Ishmael, but his father was king “over all the land” (Alma 20:8), which is also borne out when his father sent a proclamation “throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness” (Alma 22:27).

Third, for “the territory closer to the isthmus, called the land of Zarahemla, lay at an intermediate elevation,” is another inaccurate statement. We simply do not know what the elevation of the Land of Zarahemla was; however, we can take an educated guess that it was near or at sea level.

When Amaleki wrote of Mosiah discovering a people “who were called the people of Zarahemla” (Omni 1:14), he writes of them, “that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.“ (Omni 1:15-16)

It stands to reason that where the Mulekites first settled would have been at or near where they landed. This was true with the Lehi Colony and with the Jaredites, and was probably true with the Mulekites. Thus, the “land where Mosiah discovered them would have been near the coast. Such land is rarely more than a couple of hundred feet above sea level, making the city and much of the land of Zarahemla near sea level, not at “an intermediate elevation.”

An intermediate elevation to the Mesoamerican theorists, who claim the city of Nephi was Kaminaljuyu, now Guatemala City, at about 5,000 feet, would be about 2,500 feet. The scriptural record simply does not bear this out.

(See the next post, “Where the Events of the Book of Mormon Took Place – Part IV,” for more of these inaccurate points)