skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Continuing
with Alan C. Miner’s convoluted views on the geography of the narrow neck of
land, we find that he tries to change Mormon’s description of the narrow neck
of land to a west coastal corridor.
As
an example, concerning Bountiful, he states: “Mormon does not say here that the land of Bountiful definitely reached
the east sea, only that it stretched "from the east unto the west
sea." Nevertheless, as far as the eastern part of Bountiful ultimately
reaching the east coast, we find in Alma 51:32 that "they (the Nephites)
did slay them (the Lamanites) even until it was dark. And it came to pass that
Teancum and his men did pitch their tents in the borders of the land Bountiful;
and Amalickiah did pitch his tents in the borders on the beach by the
seashore."
As noted in the scriptures, the city of Mulek was along the eastern
seashore, to the east of Bountiful, with a plain in between
Response:
The Lamanites had taken the city of Mulek, which was in the northern part of
the Land of Bountiful along its eastern borders, which was along the seashore
(Alma 51:26). They then headed toward the borders of the Land Bountiful (Alma
51:28). At this time Teancum “marched forth with his numerous army that he
might take possession of the Land of Bountiful and also the land northward”
(Alma 51:30), and stopped the Lamanite advancement into Bountiful (Alma 51:31).
And as dark fell during the battle, Teancum and his men pitched their tents in
the borders of the land Bountiful; and Amalickiah pitched his tents in the
borders on the beach by the seashore” (Alma 51:32).
Now
we need to understand that these two army camps were not close together, each
had withdrawn after the days vigorous battle and made camp—Teancum to the west
along the borders of Bountiful and Amalakiah to the east, along the seashore,
evidently in the land of Mulek, the city of Mulek was on the east borders by
the seashore (Alma 51:26). In fact, beginning in the south with the city of Moroni,
several cities stretch northward along the eastern sea coast, including
Nephihah, Lehi, Morianton, Omner, Gid, and Mulek (Alma 51:26). In fact, there
were “so many cities” along this coastal range from the borders of Zarahemla
and Nephi in the south, to Bountiful in the north, and all had been taken by
the Lamanites in these wars (Alma 51:27).
Thus,
contrary to Miner’s view that “Therefore, we can probably say that the borders
of the land Bountiful were very close to if not right at the east sea,” the
Nephites would not have been that close to the Lamanite camp, nor would they
have been north or south of their camp, but obviously between their camp and
the city of Bountiful, which would have been beyond the borders where Teancum
camped (Alma 51:32).
The
next day, after Teancum stole into the Lamanite camp at night and killed
Amalakiah, the Lamanites awoke to find their leader dead and were frightened.
They quit their plan to march into the Land Northward, and retreated into the city
of Mulek. Eventually, the Nephites lured them out of the city and a great
battle commenced in which the Nephites soundly defeated the Lamanites and took
the survivors captive—after the battle around Mulek, the captured Lamanites
were forced to bury their dead and the Nephite dead, then they were marched
back into the Land of Bountiful where they commenced laboring in digging a
ditch round abut the city of Bountiful (Alma 53:3-4).
Now,
three things should be evident from the scriptural record at this point: 1) The
city of Mulek would have been to the east along the seashore from the land of
Bountiful, and 2) The Land of Bountiful would have run from the west of the
Land of Mulek to the west sea, and 3) The city of Bountiful would not have been
far from Mulek, so wither it was close to the eastern border of the land of
Bountiful, or the Land of Bountiful at this point was narrowing toward the
narrow neck area.
Miner
also continues with his random thoughts on the 22nd Chapter of Alma
in which he writes: “Alma 22:33 states ‘And
it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from
the east unto the west sea, and thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their
guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby
they [the Lamanites] should have no
more possession on the north, that they [the Lamanites] might not
overrun the land northward.’ One might ask, Does the fact that the Nephites
desired that the Lamanites "should have no more possession on the north" imply that the Lamanites
already had possessions on the north?”
Evidently,
Miner seems to have forgotten that at one time, for about 400 years, the
Nephites controlled much of the Land of Nephi, especially the northern portion
where the city of Nephi and numerous other cities had been built by them, then
vacated when Mosiah I was told to flee, and traveled northward until he
discovered the people of Zarahemla (Omni 1:13-14). At that time, the Lamanites
flooded into the Land of Nephi and took over all that area from where they had
been quartered somewhere in the south—exactly where we are not told. But the
point is, they expanded northward to control all the Land of Nephi.
The Nephties controlled everything to the north (yellow arrow) of the
narrow strip of wilderness (border) between the Land of Zarahemla and the Land
of Nephi, which the Lamanites controlled (red arrow)
So
Mormon is telling us in 22:33 that the Nephites had been wise in bottling up
the Lamanites to the south so they could not advance northward again—so they
could not have any greater possession to the north.
Miner
continues: “In the course of relating an
incident involving Nephite missionaries and the great king over the Lamanites,
Mormon inserted a 570-word aside that summarized major features of the land
southward (as well as connecting the geography of all the pertinent cultures
associated with the promised land in the Book of Mormon). This raises the
question of relating geographical statements in the Book of Mormon. In other
words, How can one construct a geographical map of the lands of the Book of
Mormon?”
There
are two very key issues at stake here: 1) Mormon inserted this 570-word “aside”
so that we, his future reader, would have a better understanding of not only
where the king’s proclamation was sent, but how the Nephites and Lamanites were
divided. It would seem he especially felt this was important because of the
lack of continuity between the last words of Omni (1:30) and the first words of
in Mosiah 1:1, keeping in mind that between those two statements several years
had elapsed, Mosiah had lived all his life, and his son, king Benjamin had
lived most of his. During those two generations, much had happened between the
Nephites and the Lamanites, and though Mormon gave us a brief Segway, his
insertion in Alma Chapter 22 adds a great deal to our understanding of the
makeup of the land divisions, their locations, directions, and overall
relationships. And 2) He did this not to confuse, but to clarify, consequently,
he made his directions simple, his statements brief, and painted a simple but
clear picture of what the Land of Promise looked like in general terms.
Therefore, if we are going to construct a map, we need to do so carefully,
using Mormon’s words, without change, alteration, or explanation beyond his
simple statements.
Consequently, north is north; narrow is narrow; small is
small; and isle is isle (island), etc., etc., etc. In addition, we should not
be trying to locate lands, borders, cities, etc., until we have shown without a
shadow of doubt, that Nephi’s ship traveled from Point A to Point B, that is,
from the first Bountiful, across the Irreantum Sea to the Land of Promise, and
be able to do so with the movement of the vessel being nothing more than where
a ship “driven forth before the wind” (1 Nephi 18:8) would have gone (i.e.,
with winds and currents), and how and why it would have stopped (i.e., lack of
wind and currents).
We
simply cannot, no matter how much we might want to, nor how many others have
done so, decide on a location because of what we find there, then try to fit
the scriptures to that location—something
every single Mesoamerican Theorists has done, and no doubt, every other
North American, Baja California, Malay and other theorists have done as well.
(See
the next post, “Other Thoughts on Theorist’s Views of the Narrow Neck—Part V,”
for more on Alan C. Miner’s views on the Narrow Neck of Land and how he thinks
it fits into Mesoamerica despite so much scriptural comments to the opposite)
Continuing
with Alan C. Miner’s convoluted views on the geography of the narrow neck of
land, we find that he tries to change Mormon’s description of the narrow neck to a west coastal corridor.
Resuming
now from the last post with the second problem of this, 2) is in the scriptural record,
there is little mention or suggestion of a narrow corridor along the West Sea
coastal area. In fact, there is almost no comment about the west coast of
the Land of Promise in the entire scriptural record regarding population movement,
development, or settlement up and down the coastal area. In fact, there are few
things mentioned along the west sea coastal area at all. There is the
wilderness of Hermounts (Alma 2:37); there is the narrow strip of wilderness
that separated the Land of Nephi from the Land of Zarahemla (22:27; 50:11); and
a wilderness then ran along the west coastal area for a short distance (Alma
22:28); Bountiful bordered along the west sea (Alma 22:33); there was a sea on
the west of the narrow pass through the narrow neck of land (Alma 50:34);
Moroni was camped with his army along the west sea (Alma 52:11); Lamanites had
an army on the west sea, south (Alma 53:8); there was a settlement(s) along the
south by the west sea (Alma 53:22); Hagoth has his shipyard along the west sea
near the narrow neck of land (Alma 63:5); Moronihah made a stand along the wall
from the west sea to the east (Helaman 4:7); Mormon fought a battle along the
west sea in the land of Joshua (Mormon 2:6). While there are grounds to suggest
an eastern corridor since much discussion and movement up and down the eastern
seaboard is covered in all of these references, especially in Alma, there is almost nothing to suggest a west sea coastal corridor.
Top: Miner's western coastal corridor; Bottom: That corridor in relation to the rest of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Obviously, an invading army could simply bypass any defensive position within this corridor and invade the Land Northward anywhere along the many passes through the 144-mile wide isthmus
Miner,
however, is still trying to sell his narrow neck along this western seacoast,
as Joseph Allen has tried to do. Miner adds: “It is bordered on the west by the Pacific and on the east by a
formidable mountain land barrier—the Sierra Madre mountain range. In the area
shown, the neck narrows, and there is a natural pass that leads into the land
northward. Heavy fortifications have been discovered at this site just south of
Tonala, Mexico. Just to the north of this pass the land is dry and desolate—to
the south it is rich and verdant.”
With Miner's description one can only wonder why there was not more activity in this
area mentioned in the scriptural record. However, there is not. How Moroni
marched his army northward we are not told, however, when Moriancumr had a
choice, he chose to move northward through the center of the land (Helaman
1:25), even though that was where the Nephites’ greatest populace was located
(Helaman 1:24), which does not suggest a narrow coastal corridor.
In
addition, Miner tells us that to the south of this pass it is rich and
verdant,” which means most of the west coastal area of his Land of Zarahemla
would be ideal for settlement and crop production, yet there is not one word of
any settlement, city, or Nephite holdings along this coast in the scriptural record
until you go far south (Alma 53:8). Compare that with the east coast where
cities were built all along the coastal area from the Land of Nephite clear to
the land of Mulek. In addition, there are almost no major developments along
this coastal strip even today, until you travel 50 miles eastward to
Mapasterpec, and then another 70 miles to almost the Guatemala border before
reaching Tapachula in the area of Mazatlan, it being the only coastal city in
the first 200 miles.
The circle area is where Miner feels the Nephites withstood the Robbers; however, Mormon ltells us they were in thel "center of their land, from Bountiful to Zarahemla" (3 Nephi 3:23)
Miner
continues with, “Because of all the
natural defenses here and the archaeological evidences in the area that match
the descriptions from the Book of Mormon, some scholars believe this may be the
region where the people gathered together to stand firm against the Gadiantons.”
First
of all, while Mesoamericanists continue to claim that archaeological evidence
supports the Book of Moron era in Mesoamerica, the same can be said, and with
far more accuracy in Andean Peru; however, it might be of interest exactly what
archaeological evidences Miner thinks might be found in this area along the
western coastal plain that “match the descriptions from the Book of Mormon,”
since we have already shown that there is almost no mention of anything in that
area in the scriptural record. If this coastal plain was along the east coast,
then Miner at least would have some grounds to make that statement. And if
there were such defenses along this coastal plain, why is there almost no
mention of Moroni or Moronihah fighting any battles there? Secondly, the area
where the Nephites battled the Gadianton Robbers was not along the coastal area
of either sea.
Miner
continues with: “The descriptions given in the Book of Mormon of the narrow
neck of land and the narrow pass that led into the land northward so perfectly
match this region that it is hard not to recognize this area as being the most
probable candidate.”
Unfortunately,
Mormon would have a hard time recognizing Miner’s model. The ancient prophet
told us that the Land of Bountiful was separated from the Land of Desolation by
a narrow neck that divided the Land Northward from the Land Southward (Alma
22:32), and that this narrow neck was the width of a day-and-a-half journey for
a Nephite, and by controlling this area, they had hemmed in the Lamanites on
the south (Alma 22:33); he also told us that Desolation was on the north of
Bountiful (Alma 22:31), and that the Land Southward was surrounded by water
except for this narrow neck of land (Alma 22:32). One look at Miner’s coastal
corridor and not one of these scriptural references can be seen except in
Miner’s eyes. In addition, the Land of Nephi was separated from the Land of
Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness that ran from the Sea East clear to
the Sea West (Alma 22:27), and there was a narrow pass that was flanked on the
east and on the west by seas (Alma 50:34).
Undaunted
by his incongruous model, Miner goes on to write: “The references in the Book of Mormon do not give a clear indication
that the narrow neck of land is surrounded by water, only that there is a sea
on the west.”
There
is one and only one land area between the Land Southward and the Land Northward
(Alma 22:, yet we are told that a pass or passage also goes from the Land
Southward to the Land Northward: “The land of Nephi and
the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water” (Alma 22:32)—so why were
they nearly surrounded and not surrounded? Because Mormon tells us, to the
north of the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla (which contained the Land
of Bountiful), there was “a smallneck of land between the Land Northward and
the Land Southward” (Alma 22:32). Ether, also aware of this “narrow neck of
land” tell us that it was “where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20). Now
what better description can you have than the narrow neck of land was flanked
by water on two sides, and extended into the Land Northward from the Land
Southward? If further clarification is needed, we also find that Hagoth built
him an exceedingly large ship “on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the
land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck
which led into the land northward” (Alma 63:5).
Miner adds: “The distance across this line
between the two ecosystems at the north end of this narrow neck of land is
about a day and a half's journey.”
Note
that Miner tells us this distance Mormon mentioned across the width of the
narrow neck was at the north end of
the neck, but we simply do not know that, nor do we know that this neck was
wider or narrower in one part or the other. It was “small” (Alma 22:32) and
small would suggest a more even neck than one that is dramatically wider in one
point over another, which it seems would require a larger or longer neck. But it
is the adding of language where there is absolutely no support, indication, or
suggestion in the scriptural record that Miner and most other Mesoamericanists
do that is not helpful, and certainly not good scholarship, for it can be
misleading, as well as self-serving.
(See
the next post, “Other Thoughts on Theorist’s Views of the Narrow Neck—Part
IV,” for more on Alan C. Miner’s views on the Narrow Neck of Land and how he
thinks it fits into Mesoamerica despite so much scriptural comments to the
opposite)
Continuing
with Alan C. Miner’s convoluted views on the geography of the narrow neck of
land, we find that he, like so many theorists who want to promote their own
beliefs and not Mormon’s clear and concise descriptions, seem to fit this
reference: “for they will not search knowledge,
nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even
as plain as word can be” (2 Nephi 32:7).
This is shown by
Miner’s statement: “Thus
we see that the interpretation of the terms "small neck," “narrow
neck," "narrow passage," and "narrow pass," is not a
simple task.”
Nothing, of course, is a simple task when you go about confusing the issues,
complicating simple things, and weaving elaborate, complex labyrinths of
misleading scenarios.
In fact, Miner adds to his last issue by saying, “Since I can be biased in this section, I
will start by assuming a Mesoamerican setting.” That, of course, is the
wrong approach. We have to start by understanding the scriptural record on its
own merits! He adds, “Much has been
written in the way of interpretation concerning this verse. Many maps have
taken this verse to mean the total distance "from the east (sea) to the
west sea. However, the verse does not
say that. It says from the east (not east sea). By referring to the
Mesoamerican map…” Again, the problem is in using an existing,
pre-determined map to try and figure out what a statement in the scriptural
record means is seldom, if ever, going to lead to an understanding of Mormon’s
description—for the mind is made up, the interpretation already determined, and
there is no room for the Spirit, common sense, or logic to play a role. It is a
fait accompli before one even begins.
This is simply not the way we should read scripture.
In addition, Miner compares the travel circumstances of
Mesoamerica “from ancient Jaredite
(Olmec) times until the present,” where he states “it seems that most all traffic going from the Pacific coast of
Guatemala, when confronted with these rugged mountains, moved instead through
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec on relatively flat ground and thus moved toward the
Atlantic coast and the Veracruz area in its course northward.”
Blue arrows show the mountain ranges
that run through Mexico and Central America that block most egress into the interior
from the Pacific Coast. Red arrow shows the gap in the ranges through the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Naturally, coastal traffic would go north or south to
this area to penetrate the interior
Since
there are mountain ranges running vertically down the coastal plain from north
to south through Mexico and Central America as shown in map above, it is not
surprising that traffic from this narrow coastal plain would travel through
whatever gaps there are in that range. However, since that does not match any description
in the scriptural record, it is not a basis for any land description criteria
of the Land of Promise.
Miner
adds, “The dilemma that Mormon might have
been trying to explain is that Bountiful and Desolation had a boundary line
separating the two lands ("north" of the line was Desolation and
"south" of the line was Bountiful).”
Since
Mormon does not try to explain this factor more than the one time he addresses
it, one has no basis to claim that he might have had a dilemma in that
explanation—a dilemma, by the way, means “a doubtful or difficult choice,” and
“a situation where it is difficult to determine what course to pursue.” Nowhere
is there reason in Mormon’s writing to suggest he had a “dilemma” regarding any
layout of land—a land he knew extremely well, having fought battles from one
end to the other, as well as having all the records written from all the
Nephites before him.
After
all, his description is simple and straight forward, suggesting that he had a
very clear picture in his mind of that border or boundary or division between
the Land of Desolation and the Land of Bountiful.
Evidently
trying to make something out of nothing, Miner continues: “This boundary line might have been located within this ancient travel
corridor or ‘small neck of land’" (verse 32). Now this "small
neck" apparently separated (or connected) the total "land
northward" from the total "land southward". So far, so good.
We are looking at a narrow neck of land between the two major land masses, as
Mormon described. However, that is not Miner’s intent. In one quick sentence,
he changes direction completely when he writes: “Could the day and a half's journey or the small neck of land be a
description of the width of the coastal travel corridor from the Pacific Coast
through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec?” He has now deflected the scriptural
content of Alma 22:32, to a coastal corridor totally separate and in opposition
to Mormon’s actual description of a small neck of land and a narrow pass or
passage.
Alan Miner’s location for his narrow
corridor along the West Sea east of the narrow neck of land. This is his narrow
area, including his narrow pass or passage which is totally disconnected from
the narrow neck and precludes any movement through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
along the northern corridor, or in the center
This
coastal corridor is the same area for the narrow neck and narrow pass described
by Joseph Allen, which we discussed in a previous post in this series about the
narrow neck of land. Miner points out that “this
narrow neck of land runs nearly two hundred miles along the Pacific coast of
Guatemala and Mexico and has served as the primary north-south corridor of
travel for millennia.”
That
may well be so in Mesoamerica, however, there are two scriptural problems here:
1) this coastal corridor does not run north and south—in this two hundred mile
distance Miner uses as Mormon described, which is actually almost 365 miles,
from just east of Acajutla in Guatemala where the mountains of San Salvador
reach the coast to the west of La Libertad, to around Arriaga, where a pass can
be taken north (55 miles) through the mountains to Ocozocoautla de Espinosa.
Miner’s 365-mile-long “narrow neck of
land” along the southwest coast of Guatelmala and Mexico—hardly what Mormon
describes in Alma 22
If
one were to stay along the coastal “corridor” and continue west to Santa Cruz
(another hundred miles), they could continue southwest to Pochutla, or take the
gap through the mountains and north across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. While it
is true that this coastal plain from Arriaga to Acajutla mostly moves along the
shore on a northwest direction, the actual land mass inland runs east and west
through Mesoamerica, or stated differently, Guatemala is situated to the east
of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. It is like saying Nevada is to the west of Utah,
however, Reno, Nevada, is northwest of St. George, and Las Vegas, Nevada is
southwest of St. George, while Elko, Nevada, is due west of Salt Lake City, but
Carson City is southwest of Logan.
The
point is, one can make directions sound pretty much the way they want by
picking and choosing a comparison; however, Guatemale is east of the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec and the coastal plain Miner refers to really runs east and west
when looking at the major land mass of both areas—as Nevada is west of Utah and
Colorado is east of Utah.
(See
the next post, “Other Thoughts on Theorist’s Views of the Narrow Neck—Part
III,” for more on Alan C. Miner’s views on the Narrow Neck of Land and how he
thinks it fits into Mesoamerica despite so much scriptural comments to the
opposite)
In
a never ending effort to change, alter, or adjust the meaning of Mormon’s
descriptions in the scriptural record, Alan C. Miner weighs in with: “Perhaps the fault is with me, but I fail to
see how "internally" (or within the scope of the scriptures cited
here), the writer Mormon has demonstrated (notice he uses the word "thus") that the land of Nephi
and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water.”
Response:
First of all, the word “thus” has a very specific meaning, both in 1828 and
today. The specific meaning is “accordingly”, “consequently”,
“for this reason”, “in this manner”, etc.
Left: The narrow neck of land separating the Land Southward from the
Land Northward; Right: the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla nearly surrounded by
water except for the narrow neck of land
Thus,
Mormon’s statement is rendered: “And now, it was only the distance of a day and
a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation,
from the east to the west sea; and consequently
the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water,
there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land
southward” (Alma 22:32).
The distance across the narrow neck of land is the distance a Nephite
could journey in a day and a half (Alma 22:32). Since a “Nephite” was used by
Mormon, it would stand to reason that this was referencing a typical or normal
man and how far he could walk in a day and a half. The narrow neck of land in
Ecuador to the east of the Bay of Guayaquil is about 26 miles—anciently it was
between seas, today it is between the sea and the sheer Andes Mountains there
Secondly, it seems that one Theorist
after another wants
to debate the specific language of Mormon when he could not be clearer in his
descriptions. Mormon wrote as plainly and distinctly as possible, after
describing the entire Land Southward and the Land Northward, “And
now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on
the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and
thus [accordingly, consequently] the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla
were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the
land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32).
One might ask, after reading that, what
exactly is it that Miner does not understand about “nearly surrounded by
water”? After all, this is not an open forum, a debating team, or even a
classroom where we are seeking people’s agreement. This is the Book of Mormon, written
by prophets, abridged by prophets, translated by a prophet, and it is revered
by millions as a sacred document. When Miner says that “I fail to see how…Mormon has demonstrated…that the land of Nephi and
the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water,” we are getting into
the realm of man thinking he is smarter than God. Again, the Book of Mormon was
never intended as a classroom guide, book of history, geography, or fodder for
debate.
It is the word of the Lord handed down
through prophets for us to better understand His workings with a segment of the
House of Israel in the ancient Americas. Mormon clearly states the Land
Southward was nearly surrounded by water, then tells us the reason is was not
completely surrounded by water—because there was a “small neck of land”
connecting the two major land masses (Alma 22:27-32), which, by the way, Ether
described as “where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20).
Not
one single word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, or part of the Book of Mormon,
of course, is dependent upon Miner’s approval, or that of any human being—it is
the word handed down to us by ancient prophets that both bear witness of Jesus
Christ, His gospel, and His workings with man, as well as some descriptions of
the land on which these people lived. That John L. Sorenson can claim Mormon
and the Nephites did not know their cardinal directions though they are clearly
stated, and skews the land by about 90º; that Miner claims the Land Southward
was not surrounded by water except for the narrow neck, that F. Richard Hauck
claims there were two Bountifuls, one in the north and one in the west; that he
and Joseph Allen can claim the pass that led into the Land Northward was
somewhere other than where Mormon placed it, and all the other questionable
facts with which so many Theorists have taken great license to claim, is, in
the simplest form of understanding extremely arrogant, as well as fallacious
and disingenuous, and, perhaps mirrors the words of Jacob who lamented: “O the vainness and frailties and
the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and
they hearken not unto the counsels of God” (2 Nephi 9:28), and also Peter, who
spoke clearly, saying: “Knowing this first, that no
prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy
came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20).
Using his own words, I think it is
very clear that the fault is with Miner, not with Mormon, nor with the
scriptural record itself.
However,
Miner is not finished with his curious and rather convoluted method of
thinking. After a lengthy equation trying to match up meanings to the four descriptions
given, i.e., “small neck,” “narrow neck,” “narrow pass,” and “narrow passage,” he
claims that logic could consolidate all of the terms into one isthmus; that
logic could divide them into two entities; or that logic could make four
separate entities out of them. However, that is Miner’s logic, for Mormon’s
descriptions are specific and frankly not open to speculation. For someone to
claim that through logic you could interpret Mormon’s writing anyway you
wanted, simply lacks an understanding of the scriptural record.
Yet, most Mesoamericanists do that very
thing. It is as though they believe that scriptures should be bent, changed,
altered and adjusted in order to fit them into their particular model—so
convinced are they of their model, whether Mesoamerica or elsewhere, that the
scriptural record must be wrong, or unclear, or needs a different
interpretation since the record does not match their preconceived model.
Unfortunately, they do this, rather than finding a model that matches the
descriptive information Mormon gave us.
This is especially obvious with Miner’s
conclusions when comparing them to the knowledge that the Land Southward was surrounded by
water except for the narrow neck, thus each of these four areas had to have
been singularly connected since each was between the Land Northward and the
Land Southward—and only one such connection is given us by Mormon, However,
Miner still feels the need to ask the question—no doubt because he is leading
to his specific model that has these entities separate.
In
doing so, Miner plunges into the world of speculation when he writes: “Logic could make a
narrow corridor (1-1.5 day's journey in width) running north along the west
coast of Zarahemla, then have it move eastward between the land northward and
the land southward through a much broader and longer isthmus, and then have it
run northward and parallel to the east coast. If this corridor was referred to
both as a "narrow passage" and a "narrow neck," then my
narrow neck (passage) would not be an isthmus, it would be a
travel corridor through an isthmus. It would also be a consolidation of terms.”
Well,
that kind of logic then opens the door to separating Mormon’s description of
the narrow neck of land being the width of a day-and-a-half journey for a
Nephite, and places that statement somewhere else in the Land of Promise; thus,
a person could conclude that the neck of land could be 300 miles wide, or any
figure they want or claim, such as Tehuantepec being 144 miles across (as
stated by the Mexican government), and then it doesn’t have to be a real narrowing
of land at all. In that way, Sorenson, Miner, and other Mesoamericanists can
claim the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the narrow neck of land. Then all they have
to do is place a narrow passage through it to match one of their previous
logical scenarios.
In this
way, the scriptural record can be made to fit the Mesoamerican model of a
144-mile wide “narrow neck” since the day-and-a-half journey of a Nephite could
be placed elsewhere. Of course, there is still the problem with the east-west
alignment and the Land Northward to the west and the Land Southward to the
east, but more special-type logic and solve that problem, too, as Sorenson so
loquaciously did
The point is—which is definitely lost on Miner—the scriptures
are not for our personal interpretation to make of them what we want. They are
not a mix and match collection of statements that we can manipulate however we choose.
They are there for us to use as they are, as they were written, and as they
were intended, in the simple language that Nephi described and Mormon used.
(See
the next post, “Other Thoughts on Theorist’s Views of the Narrow Neck—Part II,”
for more on Alan C. Miner’s views on the Narrow Neck of Land and how he thinks
it fits into Mesoamerica despite so much scriptural comments to the opposite)
Continuing
with Jerry L. Ainsworth’s descriptions of the narrow neck of land found in his,
The Lives and Travels of Mormon and
Moroni, p 168. In his discussion of the narrow neck, he completely misses
the several scriptures that that are contrary to what he writes—a few of these were
covered in our last post.
Example of two narrow passes that
would be easy to defend against an invading force
Continuing
with his thought of the narrow pass or passage running from east to west,
rather than north to south as Mormon describes (Alma 50:34), and as we covered extensively
with several scriptural references in the last post, we find that Ainsworth goes
on to write:
“I
always asked myself why Alma said in his day that "a Nephite" could
walk the narrow pass in a day and a half. That implies a Lamanite could not.”
That
is certainly a giant leap. He did not say a Lamanite could not walk it, he
chose a Nephite. So the question should be, why did he say a “Nephite”?
If
we would just keep in mind that Mormon is trying to tell us about the land in
his insertion where the Lamanite king’s proclamation was sent, and then added
how the Nephites and Lamanites were divided, and in doing so, is giving us a little
insight into the distance of the narrow neck of land by using a typical person
of his day that would be understood by a future reader. Mormon was a Nephite,
Nephites occupied the lands he was describing north of the narrow strip of
wilderness and the Land of Nephi.
He
knew his future readers would be much like his own Nephites, and that they would
understand an example of his own people rather than someone else, like a
Lamanite who were hunters, running in the wild, no doubt stronger and swifter
than Nephites, as later described in the scriptural record.
A
Nephite, obviously, would be the best example he could use. However, instead of
this simple understanding, Ainsworth launches into a lengthy discussion about
temperatures in the Land of Promise and that the Lamanites were used to higher
and cooler climates and that the pass was in the lowlands and the hottest place
in the land and would have sapped the strength of a Lamanite.
Perhaps
it would be a good idea to introduce Ainsworth to Ockham’s Razor, since the
scriptural record is written in simple language and is not complicated or
convoluted or meant to confuse or make understanding difficult. The point is,
we are trying to understand the simple writings of Mormon who wrote for us—his
purpose would not be to confuse, or make his meaning difficult to understand.
Mormon (left) was given the
assignment by the Lord to abridge the Nephite record. The title page (right)
states “Wherefore, it is an abridgement of the record of the people of Nephi,
and alao of the Lamanites—written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the
house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—written by way of commandment, and
also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation”
Mormon
stated: “And now I, Mormon, proceed to finish
out my record, which I take from the plates of Nephi; and I make it according
to the knowledge and the understanding which God has given me” (WofM 1:9).
Regarding this record he was abridging, he also said, “I do this for a wise
purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of
the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord
knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do
according to his will” (WofM 1:7).
There is no need to confuse the issue
of which Mormon writes. He had all the records before him, he lived at the
time, he fought battles from one end of the Land of Promise to the other.
He
was well acquainted with both the current conditions of the land, and the
previous conditons before the destructions mentioned in 3 Nephi, and was able
to draw comparisons and wrote about them from time to time for our better
understanding.
Consider, as an example some of the
misleading concepts Mesoamerican and other theorists write about that fall far
short of the scriptural record.
While
the standard “narrow neck” in Mesoamerica is approximately 140 miles across
(red line), Ether tells us that the Lord had poisonous serpents “hedge up the
way” through the narrow neck of land so the people could not gain access to the
Land Southward.
Consider the impossibility of snakes forming a barrier across
140 miles of open land; however, how understandable it would be to have snakes hedge up the entrance to a narrow pass through a narrow neck of land
Top: Among other points, this
Mesoamerican map shows where the “sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20); however,
(Bottom) when you look at the overall map of Mesoamerica, it can hardly he said
that the body of water (an inland lagoon) actually divides any land. To be
accurate, this lagoon runs between the coastal shore and a spit of land that
often occurs across the mouths of estuaries and may develop from each headland
at harbor mouths. These spits may he composed of sand (sandspit) or shingle,
and are formed by the longshore movement of sediment. No one would say that
this was a sea dividing a land, and to claim this inland lagoon formed by the
spit divides the land is disingenuous at best
This
map shows the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica, which John L. Sorenson claims
is the Nephite “narrow neck of land.” Note the reality of the map compared with
the scriptural record. 1) The land runs north and south (Alma 22:27-31), but
Mesoamerica runs east and west; 2) The narrow neck ran north and south between
the Land Northward and the Land Southward (Alma 22:32), but Sorenson’s map
shows this connection running east and west; 3) The Land
Northward—Desolation—is north of the Land Southward—Bountiful (Alma 22:32); but
Sorenson’s lands are east and west of each other; 4) Bountiful ran “from the
east unto the west sea” (Alma 22:33), but Sorenson’s map has no sea to the
west—his seas are to the north and south. We could go on with the many
discrepancies, which Sorenson passes off with the Nephite snot knowing the
cardinal directions, but the point is, his map, and no other Mesoamerica map,
meets Mormon’s many descriptions
The
point is, it should behoove every person who is a searcher after truth and
correctness in regard to people interpreting the scriptural record, to do their
own research, also. To merely accept what someone has written, regardless of
their credentials, standing and following is foolhardy. Mormon told us how his
land was configured, and the least we can do is accept his simple descriptions
and not get led away by someone who ignores Mormon’s writings and tries to tell
us his clear and simple words mean something other than what they say.
In yet another example of an erroneous narrow neck of land, Jerry
L. Ainsworth, in The Lives and Travels of
Mormon and Moroni, p 168, discusses his opinions about the narrow neck of
land and in the process, completely misses the several scriptures that that are
contrary to what he writes:
Ainsworth:
“Mormon relates a "small neck of land between the land northward and the
land southward" with "the distance of a day and a half's journey for
a Nephite" from "the east to the west sea" (Alma 22:32). This
"small neck of land" was also called the "narrow pass."
Response:
While others struggle with this because their models are too large to fit one
small neck of land between their lands to the north and south, we need to keep
in mind that the several statements regarding the “small neck,” “narrow neck,”
“narrow pass,” and “narrow passage,” all refer to the same area, but not
necessarily in the same way.
The “Narrow or Small Neck” (between
the yellow arrows) describes the land between the Land Southward and the Land
Northward; the “Narrow Pass or Passage” (between the red arrows) describes the
method of moving through the neck of land. Near the present Ecuador-Peru border
today, there is a narrow pass through this small neck of land that once had
ocean on both sides, and now has the ocean on the west, and the cliffs of the
magnificent Andes mountain on the other. Anciently, this was a narrow area with
the sea on both sides, today it is a narrow area with the sea on one side and
tall mountains on the other. This distance ancient was approximately 26 miles
across as it is today
That
is, the “small neck” and “narrow neck” both refer to the land between the Land
Northward and the Land Southward, but the “narrow pass” and the “narrow
passage” refer not to this connecting neck, but to a way through the neck of land. Note that when the “small neck” or
“narrow neck” terms are used, they always refer to the land that connects the
two major land masses; however, when “narrow pass” and “narrow passage” are
used, they refer to movement through or across the land.
Mormon
also tells us that there is only one land mass between the Land Northward and
the Land Southward, and that is what he called the “small neck of land” (Alma
22:32). He also tells us the since the Land Southward was completely surrounded
by water except for this narrow neck of land. So if the narrow neck is the only
way to get from one land to the other, then it stands to reason that any pass
or passage between these lands would have to be within or through the
narrow neck. And this is what Mormon so clearly describes in his writing about
the pass or passage.
In
addition, Mormon tells us the distance across this narrow neck is a
day-and-a-half for a Nephite, making it a span that could be walked in that
time by a normal person (Nephites were normal, Lamanites wore loin cloths,
searched in the wild for food, and lived in tents in the wilderness). Now all
these points can easily be found in the scriptural record and we have written
about them numerous times in this blog.
As
stated in an earlier post Alma 22:32 tells us:
1. The narrow pass ran from the Land
Southward to the Land Northward;
2. The narrow pass ran from the east
[sea] to the west sea;
3. The narrow pass ran on the line
[boundary] between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Desolation;
4. It took a day and a half for a
Nephite to traverse this distance.
In addition, the “small neck” or
“narrow neck” was a connector between the two major land masses:
• “and thus the land of Nephi and the
land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of
land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32)
Left: Hagoth’s ships traveled northward (Alma 63:6,7), and one ship went
elsewhere “and whither she did go we know not” (Alma 63:8). A northern course
is not possible from anywhere in the narrow neck of Mesoamerica
• Hagoth’s ships were launched into the
west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward (Alma 63:5), and
the ships sailed northward (something
that cannot be done from Mesoamerica’s narrow neck)
It should also be noted that not only
did the “small neck” or “narrow neck” ran north and south between these two land
masses, but the “narrow pass” or “narrow passage” did also:
• “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—emphasis mine)
• “and secure the narrow pass which led into
the land northward” (Alma 52:9—emphasis mine)
• “even to the narrow passage which led into
the land southward” (Mormon 2:29—emphasis mine)
• “by the narrow pass which led into
the land southward” (Mormon 3:5—emphasis mine)
In
addition, this “narrow neck” was at the end of a large bay or long inlet, so
that water mostly filled the area between the two lands except for the “narrow
neck,” or as Mormon said, “nearly surrounded by water except for the small neck”
(Alma 22:32), and Ether wrote, “They built a great city by the narrow neck of
land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20).
Now,
despite all this, Ainsworth claims: “The pass did not run from the east sea to
the west sea, but from the east to the west sea. The pass did not extend
the entire length of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which would be from north to
south, not from east to west. The narrow pass ran from the direction east,
then made a turn and ended up at the west sea.”
In
his convoluted way, Ainsworth tries to tell us that this narrow pass ran east
to west, though it had a turn within it. Setting the turn aside for the moment,
let us deal with the direction of this pass. Mormon makes it rather clear that
this pass ran north to south, that is: “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).
How anyone can not understand this is beyond rational explanation—the pass ran
into the Land Northward. From where?
Well,
it ran by the sea that was on the east
and on the west, therefore, it ran from south to north and into the Land
Northward. What was to the south of the Land Northward? The Land Southward.
This pass ran from the Land Southward into the Land Northward.
(See
the next post, “Yet Another Theorist’s View of the Narrow Neck – Part II,” for
more of Ainsworth’s views on the Narrow Neck of Land and the Land of Promise
overall.
While we are on the theme of the narrow neck of land
and how some theorists have completely misunderstood and even misled others
into believing views inconsistent with the scriptural record, we have received
additional comments, questions, and examples of still other views. Take for
instance, the view of Joseph Allen:
“From what we
know of the Maya, we can now deduce that a day’s travel
is approximately 10 miles and that it would make the narrow neck about 15 miles
wide.”
It would seem that this is a
debate that will go on forever, since whenever someone determines a place they
believe is the narrow neck of land, they adjust their travel time to fit that
location.
Though Allen is a Mesoamericanist, he departs from John L. Sorenson’s
view (and many others) that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the narrow neck, and
chooses an area just inland from the coast where highway 200 (Tapachula-Juchitán de Zaragoza) now runs
past Tres Picos. About two miles east
of there is an ancient archaeological site called La Perseverancia in Chiapas, Mexico.
La Perseverancia is
merely a test pit
dug by the NWAF that, according to them, has produced Late Preclassic material
dating to about 100 BC. It was a large ceremonial and population center,
located northward from present-day Pijijiapán between the Rio Jesus and the Finca Perseverancia. It is said to have
flourished from about 400 B.C. to about 200 A.D., and had strong ties with the
Olmec, and is claimed to be similar in many ways to Izapa and Takalik Abaj,
but without any known stone sculpture. Allen claims that from Perseverancia northwest between the
coast and the mountains to Paredón
was the supposed “fortification
line that made up the ‘day and a half journey’ in the Book of Mormon.” ("How
far was 'a day-and-a-half's' journey for a Nephite?" Book of Mormon Archaeological Digest, Vol. 1/1, Spring 1998, p 7).
Now the maps above show the
Mesoamerican Land of Promise, with their Land Northward to the west of the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec and their Land Southward to the east, with Allen’s 1 ½
day fortified line. Obviously, while this might defend against a force coming
west along the southern coastal area, there is still some 140 miles of terrain
to the Gulf of Mexico, much of it passable from the Land Southward into the
Land Northward, therefore disqualifying it as the defensive line mentioned in
Helaman 4:7, and certainly does not match the narrow neck area mentioned in
Alma 22:32. The bottom image is the line between the ancient ruins of
Perseverancia and Paredón, a distance of 15 miles. In Allen’s writing, there is
simply no relationship to the scriptural record and Allen’s placement of his
narrow neck or day-and-a-half journey area Mormon writes in Alma 22, nor does
it qualify for Helaman’s day journey line of defense, which ran from the West
Sea to the east (Helaman 4:7).
Top: Allen's map showing (yellow arrow) invading movement from the south along the coastal corridor, which his defensive line (green line) could stop because of the parallel run of the mountain range (green arrow) limiting the distance; Bottom: On a larger map of the same area, the same yellow and green arrows show the same defensive line and mountain range; however, when showing the entire isthmus area, there are easy approaches (white arrows) for an invading force to gain access to the Land Northward, which Allen's defensive line cannot stop
Allen's map, showing this easy access area (Yellow Arrow, gold circle) into the Land Northward filled with cities, villages, and development--an obvious lowland area where travel of an invading force from the Land Southward would have easy access, defeating the purpose of Allen's defensive line along the western coastal corridor
Allen also notes that Mormon’s
description states that "it was only the distance of a day and a
half's journey for a Nephite on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation
[and] since it was "only," we may assume that it was not a huge
distance.” From there, Allen jumps to a distance of 15 miles to match his La Perseverancia to Paredón span. However, if you take a day’s journey for a Nephite
to cover 15 miles, he is only walking at a 1.25 mile-per-hour pace for 12 hours.
Since this is mentioned in connection with a military situation (the fortified
line), we may be looking at something closer to 20 to 20 miles—1.6 to 2 miles
per hour, though a general individual we have discussed in other posts as
traveling about 1.4 miles per hour. Still, 15 miles seems a little short for a
day’s journey for a Nephite.
Yet, the real problem lies in
Allen mixing up his scriptures and evidently assuming no one is going to
notice. The day-and-a-half journey Mormon mentioned in connection to the narrow
neck of land was a measurement of its width (Alma 22:32), while the fortified
line mentioned in Helaman had to do with a line of defense (Helaman 4:7). This
is one of the reasons we continually place the scriptural reference within our
writing so one can check up on our content throughout the reading, while most
Mesoamericanists often neglect to provide references, and when they do, they
are infrequent, and actually, sometimes wrong. Anyone reading any other
person’s understanding of the Book of Mormon should follow along with the
scriptural record and double-check everything a person writes. Only in that way
can one really know if he is being misled, or reading accurate information. And
never, never, take someone’s reference information or blatant statements at
face value—if they do not cite a reference, look it up yourself. With the
scriptures digitized today, and the internet so available to everyone, there is
simply no reason to be a lazy reader.
Allen also writes that “Both
from a Mesoamerican perspective and a Book of Mormon view, we know that major
division lines consisted of high mountain peaks.” However, there simply is no
way to justify this with the scriptural record. Today we look at borders or
division lines from strictly a political view, i.e., we have city, county,
state, and national borders. In modern times, boundaries often were a line of
degrees; but in the past, and especially anciently, boundaries, where they
existed at all, were typically rivers, canyons, gorges, deserts or other
transportation obstacle, which could have included high mountains, but not
chiefly. If Allen can make a case for mountain peaks in ancient Mesoamerican,
fine—but that does not mean that the Land of Promise was so divided or
bordered. Very anciently, where there was not a lot of movement of people,
boundaries were hills surrounding a valley, where the Land of— was the valley
cup and the next Land of— was the next valley, etc. It was not often anciently
that a mountain peak divided lands, since people did not climb those peaks, or
settle up to those peaks, such a boundary would have been meaningless. Today, a
mountain peak may be chosen, as he shows in Mesoamerica, but that is merely for
convenience and map drawing, etc. Few governments are concerned about land
along a high mountain peak, unless there is something on that mountain they
want.
Allen goes on to talk about a
wall built at Paredón (big wall) from the sea eastward to the mountains that
sealed off that coastal corridor; however, that distance is about 12 miles—they
would have been more successful, if he intends this to be a Nephite defense position,
to have built it about 13 miles eastward at La Polca where the width between the
sea (La Joya, the jewel) and mountains, is only about four miles. However,
because of the ancient ruins of Paredón, he chooses to show that location, but
it is less of a defensive line than one would have been at La Polca, had this
been Nephite lands and Moroni was building a defensive wall to cut off or stop
the advancing Lamanites. Again, though, a Nephite defensive position as
described in Helaman 4:7 which stopped the Lamanites from advancing further
northward, and then allowed the Nephites to push southward and drive the
Lamanites out of their lands does not match the situation Allen describes at
Paredón since this was simply a coastal corridor, and there were numerous other
approaches through this area, especially on the other half of the land, which was
more level and quite wide, some 60 miles at its narrowest.
Once again, a Theorist is trying
to make something fit their model, and in so doing, either misunderstands or
tries to stretch the scriptural record to cover their idea. But a 15-mile
defensive line running in the same direction as the Land of Promise is not a
defensive line across the movement of advancing Lamanite forces.
