The Land Northward – Part II

Continuing with the article we ran across on the internet and decided it would make a good posting based on the numerous errors and misstatements it contained regarding the Land of Promise:    
    Comment: “Alma 50:34 shows that the land Desolation is by the Sea West, so the phrase 'narrow pass which led by the sea' indicates the narrow pass is also by the Sea West.  The phrase 'yea, by the sea' modifies the object directly in front of the term 'yea'.  So, the land northward is by the sea.  The phrase 'on the west, and on the east' is difficult to interpret.  On the one hand, phrases after a 'yea' term describe the phrases in front of the 'yea' term.  So, 'by the sea' describes 'the land northward'.  The phrase 'on the west' describes 'they did head them' indicating they were headed on the west parts of the land.  The phrase 'on the east' describes 'the borders of the land Desolation' indicating the eastern border of the land Desolation.”
    Response: Wow! It is interesting how someone can make a mountain out of a molehill. The statement in question is: “And it came to pass that they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east” (Alma 50:34).
    This involves:
    1. They (Nephites) headed (cut off) them (Morianton) from reaching the Land Northward;
    2. This occurred by the borders of the Land Desolation—the land Desolation was north of Bountiful and had a common border, i.e., the narrow neck of land in between these two lands--Bountiful and Desolation;
    3. Through this common border, which was a narrow neck of land, was a narrow pass;
    4. The narrow pass ran by the sea into the Land Northward;
    5. This narrow pass was flanked by the Sea East and the Sea West, i.e., on either side of the narrow pass through the narrow neck of land were two seas—the Sea East and the Sea West.

The narrow neck of land (yellow arrows) was bordered on the east and on the west by the sea. Morianton was coming northward along the eastern coast in the Land Southward (green arrow) toward this narrow neck, where he was cut off by Morianton before he could reach the Land Northward
    The question here is over the word “yea.” This word means (as a noun) “an affirmation,” or “affirming” the previous statement; or means (as an adverb) “indeed” or “even.” That is, “there they did head them” – where did they head them? “by the narrow pass” – what narrow pass? The one that “led by the sea” – what sea? The one “on the east and on the west” – of what? Of the narrow pass. It is not difficult to read this sentence if someone is not trying to prove a model that this statement does not match—like in Mesoamerica. The statement is simple: the narrow pass led by the sea that was on the east and on the west, and into the land Desolation (in the Land Northward). Thus the statement by the sea is “affirmed” to be running between the Sea East and the Sea West; or the statement by the sea is “indeed” running between the Sea East and the Sea West, or the statement by the sea is “even” running between the Sea East and the Sea West.
    Since the statement “by the narrow pass which led by the sea” is not a parenthetical clause, and the statement, “yea, by the sea,” is also not a parenthetical clause, and the statement “on the west and on the east” is also not a parenthetical clause, these cannot be said to modify the Land of Desolation. In fact, it should be obvious that we are dealing with two connected sentences here, hence the use of the semi-colon:
    1. And it came to pass that they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation.
    2. They did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.
    Thus, the article’s comment: “The land Desolation is by the Sea West, so the phrase 'narrow pass which led by the sea' indicates the narrow pass is also by the Sea West.  The phrase 'yea, by the sea' modifies the object directly in front of the term 'yea'.  So, the land northward is by the sea.  The phrase 'on the west, and on the east' is difficult to interpret” is simply not accurate, nor is it difficult to interpret unless you are trying to prove a model where this statement does not fit in or agree with your model—then it is difficult to interpret because it does not match what you believe.
    Comment: “The phraseology in the Book of Mormon is not conclusive about how to interpret clauses that are not immediately in front or behind a 'yea' term. The phrase 'on the west, and on the east' could also mean that Teancum had split his army into a west part and an east part to protect the entire entrance to the narrow pass.”

Response:  This is exactly what Mesoamericanists are always trying to do with their convoluted thinking in dismissing the simple language of the scriptural record. Under discussion is the statement of a narrow pass that ran from the Land Southward into the Land Northward, and if Morianton could get his army through that pass, it could spell disaster for the Nephites since they would then have an enemy on the north (Morianton) and an enemy on the south (Lamanites). This narrow pass was “narrow”! It ran between two seas, one on the east (Sea East) and one on the west (Sea West). There is no way Teancum could have split his army to be on both sides of this pass, such a thought is ridiculous—is was a narrow pass. Teancum had an army! How many men would it take to seal off a “narrow” pass? And why split your army when you were cutting off the entire pass? It is always best to stick with the simple wording of the scriptural record instead of trying to read something into it that was not intended.
    Comment: “Neither interpretation really contradicts the other nor adds unique information about the relative locations of the geography.”

Response: On the contrary, though no Mesoamerianist is going to want to admit this, this statement shows that between the Land Southward and the Land Northward, there was a narrow pass—that narrow pass was flanked by two seas: the Sea East and the Sea West. That is crucial information, for it confirms Mormon’s statement “nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 33:32), thus we see that there is only one body of land between the Land Southward and the Land Northward, and that is this narrow neck of land. Since there is also a narrow pass or passage described going between these two lands, it obviously has to go through the narrow neck. Mesoamericanists ignore this simple fact, because they cannot justify it in their narrow neck which is 144 miles across.
    Comment: “Alma 51:30 shows that while Teancum was marching toward Bountiful, Amalickiah was also marching toward Bountiful with his numerous Lamanite army, that he might take possession of the land Bountiful, and also the land northward.  Obviously, the land Bountiful was in the path of getting from the city Mulek to the land northward.  To take possession of the land northward indicates that the land northward is something that could be taken (a defined area).”

Response: As long as the thinking is not aligned to a narrow pass and narrow neck of land, all sorts of ideas can run freely through people’s heads who have a different model to which they are dedicated. There is no defined area of the Land Northward in this sense—what is defined is the narrow neck of land and the narrow pass that ran through it. This neck and pass could be defended, that is, blocked off so that Amalakiah, and Morianton before him (Alma 51:34),) could be kept from getting into the Land Northward, which by stratagem and arms, Teancum accomplished (Alma 52:2). This entire sequence of battles is intended to show (or at least does show) that there was a narrow area that led from the Land Southward into the Land Northward, and within this narrow area was a pass, which was even narrower, that could easily be defended. Surely, if this was not the case, then it would be next to impossible for any army to defend an area that had multiple ways to enter along a 140 miles or more of land, since without aerial reconnaissance, it would be, again, impossible to know where your enemy was approaching and planned to cross over into the Land Northward. Without this singular narrow land bridge between these two lands and the narrow pass within it, none of Mormon's descriptions of these battles makes any sense at all.
(See the next post, “The Land Northward – Part III,” for more information from the Article and our responses to it)