A Reader’s Exception to Baja Critique—Part IV

Continuing with the reader who identifies himself only as Elbeau, who took several exceptions to a previous series of posts about Baja California not qualifying for the site of the Book of Mormon Land of Promise (The Fallacy of Extremist Theories--the Baja California Theory). His critiques of our posts, along with current answering responses, are listed below:

7. Our post said, "The images of inland Baja are stark, forbidding, and extremely rugged, and the coast is often no less rugged and inhospitable."

Elbeau's comment: "Simply wrong. The higher elevation inland areas that the Baja model proposes are green and pleasant, while the "wilderness" areas...particularly the "wilderness" areas by seashore are dry and desolate. The Book of Mormon consistently describes the areas by the seashore as being "wilderness" and describing inland areas to be the desirable places to live. This is especially true when you look at everywhere south of what the Baja model shows as the Land of Desolation. The description given in this article presumes that the "choice land" means all of the peninsula, when the Book of Mormon clearly says otherwise."

Response:  Pictures belay that point. Inland areas are generally desert, with cacti and desert plants as shown below in the two bottom images; while the sea area or coastal area are shown as green in the northern Pacific area. Of course, not all coastal areas are green, and where man has had a hand in the agriculture, inland valley areas are green, as are the mountains after a heavy rainfall--however, rainfall is scarce and desert plant life abounds inland. Along the coast, especially on the Pacific side, moisture is more abundant, but the mountains running down the length of the Peninsula keep moisture from the east coast and it is, like almost all the land, a dry desert--actually it is part of the Sonora Desert.
Top LtoR: Coastal areas of Valley de Guadalupe, just north of Ensenada, just off the coast; Coastal area in Baja California Sur along the Pacific Ocean; Bottom LtoR: Central peninsula, inland from Loreto, about midway north and south in the proposed Land Southward; Central peninsula, inland from San Felipe, in the proposed Land Northward

It should also be noted, that about 95%of the population in Baja California (proposed Land Northward), is found in the three city areas of Tijuana, Mexicali and Ensenada--two cities along the U.S. border, and one a few miles down the Pacific Coast seashore. There are few towns inland in the central areas.

8. Our post said, "Baja is not only a desert, and the topography considered extremely rugged as well as dry and hot, it is a difficult land to journey across or through. The early Spanish who searched for an overland trail to San Diego, ended up thinking it would be more profitable and much faster to go by sea."

Elbeau's comment centered on only a portion of this statement when  he singled out: "it is a difficult land to journey across or through." He then went on to criticize it by writing: "not because it is wrong, but because it is right, and by being right it describes exactly what the Book of Mormon describes: A land where groups of people frequently get lost for "many days" and where the northern border of the land is called "Desolation"...which is so desolate that it's not until the book of Helaman that it is successfully crossed by the Nephites. The book CLEARLY DESCRIBES a land that is difficult to travel around."

Response:  It is always interesting to see how frequently such critiques show an ignorance of the scriptural record. It is also interesting to see how modern man thinks--after all, we  have street signs, maps, compasses, satellite photos, road directions, well-marked trails off road, etc. However, in the Nephite era being discussed, much of the land of Zarahemla and northward, was unexplored or even known when the incidents Elbeau describes took plac, such as:

1) The 43-man expedition that King Limhi sent to find Zarahemla.  When this group traveled northward, no one in that group knew where Zarahemla was located--they were third generation Nephites away from Zarahemla, and as far as known, no one had ever even traveled into the north country since Zeniff brought the Nephites into the Land of Nephi to reacquire their ancient homeland. Limhi reports his men "were lost in the wilderness for many days"--why? Because they could not find their destination (Mosiah 8:8). As he said, "yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla" but found instead a land far to the north. The reason they were lost was because they  had no idea where their destination lie--the City of Zarahemla was only a distant memory among the Nephites in Lehi-Nephi, none still living had ever been there.

2) When Ammon was sent to find the city of Lehi-Nephi and ascertain what happened to those Nephites who left Zarahemla three generations earlier. No one in Zarahemla had been to Lehi-Nephi since Mosiah I left there and discovered Zarahemla, perhaps four or even five generations earlier--nor had there been any intercourse between these two cities, one held by the Nephites, the other by the Lamanites, since the time of Mosiah I. Ammon reported that "when they had wandered forty days they came to a hill, which is north of the land of Shilom" (Mosiah 7:5).

In both these cases, the distance was between the City of Zarahemla and the City of Lehi-Nephi, which obviously did not have roads, trails, or even known directions. This problem was due to not knowing where one was going rather than the topography of the land covered. After all, when Ammon led Limhi and his people back to Zarahemla, he did so without incident (Mosiah 22:12-13), since he then knew the way.

None of this suggests that "The book CLEARLY DESCRIBES a land that is difficult to travel around" as Elbeau so adamantly states. Nor does the scriptural record suggest the Land of Promise was "A land where groups of people frequently get lost for "many days." Nor do we find anywhere in the record any description of a land that is difficult to travel around or through. In fact, the dissident Nephite, Coriantumr, who became king of the Lamanites and led his army to attack Zarahemla, then later raced northward to attack Bountiful, shows us how easy it was to move through this land from the southern border of Zarahemla to nearly the border of Bountiful (Helaman 1:19, 24, 27-29). In fact, this center of the Land of Promise is referred to as "the most capital parts of the land" (Helaman 1:27), meaning the most important or best parts of the land. In addition, Alma, in his missionary journeys, seems to make it from city to city or land to land, without difficulty. And certainly, the sons of Mosiah had no difficulty in traveling all around the Land of Nephi. Nor do we find any difficulty for Mormon, carrying his son, Mormon, from far to the north in the Land Northward clear down to the City of Zarahemla.

Nor is Eldeau's statement correct when he claims, "and where the northern border of the land is called "Desolation"...which is so desolate that it's not until the book of Helaman that it is successfully crossed by the Nephites." The fact of the matter is, the Nephites began their occupation of this Land of Promise after landing in the far south, were then driven northward by Laman and Lemuel threatening to kill Nephi, were then driven further northward when Mosiah was told to get out of the city, and then, once occupying the Land of Zarahemla around 200 B.C., continued to expand as they grew in size and number until, abut a hundred years later move into what they called the Land of Bountiful. They did not reach the narrow neck of land until about 50 years later when Hagoth is building ships in his shipyard there. Finally, they moved further northward to get away from the wars and evil happenings in Bountiful-Zarahemla to "inherit" the land in the Land Northward as Helaman describes.

As for the "Land of Desolation," it was not called that because it was barren and unlivable or desolate, but because it was the place of the Jaredite defeat (Helaman 3:6). It seems one should actually read the scriptural record before trying to discuss it.

(See the next post, "A Reader's Exception to Baja Critique--Part V," for more of Elbeau's disagreements to our earlier series of posts)