We continue to have comments, questions and criticisms being
sent in from readers of our blog. Here are a few more with our responses.
Comment #1: “A
Jewish friend sent me this email and I was wondering if it is an accurate
criticism of the Book of Mormon. He wrote - “The Book of Mormon, contrary to
every precept of the law of Moses, told of temple worship in the new land.
Unlike Jews of every time period, your Nephites were never sad about being cut
off from the main group and never having looked back to Jerusalem and to God's
temple. Even Jews in captivity looked to Jerusalem and God’s temple there, but
the Nephites, enjoyed God's presence in a substitute temple in a foreign land. It
is obvious that your Book of Mormon portrayed the Nephites as subverting the
law of Moses, even though Malachi and Moses commanded the Jews to keep the law
until the Messiah should come” Rialto C.
Response:
This reminds me a little of an early attack on the Book of Mormon by Alexander
Campbell, an Irish-born American minister, who organized the largest Protestant
group in the Western Hemisphere called the Campbellites (in Ohio). I seem to
recall an article or series of articles he ran around 1830 or so, in one of his
newspapers, called the Millennial
Harbinger (the other was the Christian
Baptist), which had a masthead that included the text of Revelation 14:6-7,
about this subject. Anyway, there are a few answers to this: 1) The Nephites
did follow the Law of Moses: “And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we
keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until
the law shall be fulfilled. For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become
dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep
the law because of the commandments. And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in
Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to
our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a
remission of their sins. Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our
children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of
the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what
end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need
not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away”
(2 Nephi :24-27);
2) Nephi did not
write about the Jews in Jerusalem because he was more interested in his own
people and that preaching of Christ. He said, “For behold, Isaiah spake many
things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not
concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews. For I, Nephi, have not
taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were
works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations.” (2 Nephi
25:1-2)
3) It cannot be said
that the Nephites did not look back to Jerusalem and the Lord’s people there.
In fact, the Nephites were so concerned about this in Jacob’s time (during Nephi's later years), that he
took occasion to settle their fears and concerns about being “cut off” from
Jerusalem and the Lord. However, Jacob made it clear that the Lord led them to
this new land and that they were blessed. He told them “And now, my beloved
brethren, seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge
concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not
hang down our heads, for we are not cast off; nevertheless, we have been driven
out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for
the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” (2
Nephi 10:20).
Consequently, his
arguments are ill-founded. On the other hand, it is the nature of today’s Jews
(and for millennia) to reject the word of God—they stoned and killed the
prophets, they rejected Jesus Christ when he came among them, and they rejected
his church that he set up, nor did they accept that Christ came and fulfilled
the law. The Jews have always felt that God would do nothing with anyone other
than themselves, but when he came to them and they rejected him, he replaced
them, something no Jew would ever accept.
Comment #2: “Why do you keep stressing that Lehi had
Beduin-style tents. He was Jewish, not Arabic” Gibby A.
Response: The only tents made in the Middle East in
Lehi’s time, before and for many centuries afterward, were tents in which a
person could live. When they traveled (and only those with purpose, and
typically with money), they did so in style. It was not until Roman times that
military tents of smaller size came into being, but the type of military or pup
tents known today, especially since World War I, are simply a very late
developing idea.
The style tents known in Lehi’s time had
several rooms, divided by rugs or heavy curtains, so at least Lehi would have
slept in a separate area from his sons, and there would have been a living room
where the caravan leaders would have sat down for drinks of water and
bargaining
In the Middle East,
the only people who had tents were those who used them—and that typically for
use in traveling many days, or traveling to a place and staying for several
days, which some claim was Lehi’s occupation in traveling down to the King’s
Highway at the base of the hills from Jerusalem, waiting for the Frankincense
caravans to pass, trading with them, perhaps using his agricultural products
from his own land, and then taking these new products up to Jerusalem (the
camels from caravans could not travel into Jerusalem because of the sharp rocks
in those hilltop areas), where he sold them to the city merchants. While
waiting for the caravans to come by, Lehi and his sons would have lived for a few
days in their tents along the trail. They are called Beduin-style tents today, because the Beduins are the only ones who now use them, i.e., Arabs or people of the desert who move about frequently, depending upon the water and grass of each area.
The tents above were drawn by artists who have
no idea what middle eastern tents looked like, or their purpose. Both depict a
modern style tent and appeared in Church magazines
Comment #3: “Nephi tells us that when Lehi left his home
in Jereusalem, he took nothing with him, ‘save it were his family, and
provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.’ We were discussing
this in a class Sunday and wondered about what provisions would he have taken”
Ashira T.
Response: First of
all, Lehi’s home was not in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4), meaning
he lived in the area outside, and lower, than Jerusalem (1 Nephi 3:16; 3:29). Secondly,
the best answer about provisions I know of is what was written by Lynn and Hope
Hilton. Lynn Hilton, by appointment of the Church’s Ensign magazine, was called to organize an expedition of discovery
to find the trail of Lehi and his family. The results of Hilton's discoveries
were first published in the Ensign in the September and October 1976
editions about their research and trip along Lehi’s trail. They said about his
provisions, “We know that they included
his tents, and probably such food as wheat, flour, barley, dried sour milk,
olive or sesame oil, olives, dates, a few cooking utensils, bedding, and
weapons such as bows, arrows, and knives. According to our research no spoons
or forks were used in Lehi’s day among the Hebrews or the Arabs.” In
addition to these provisions the Hopes outlined, we should certainly add the seeds they took from Jerusalem: “we had
gathered together all manner of seeds of every kind, both of grain of every
kind, and also of the seeds of fruit of every kind” (1 Nephi 8:1), and these seeds
were loaded on the ship Nephi built (1 Nephi 18:6), which seeds were brought
from Jerusalem (1 Nephi 18:24). Also, it would be obvious that they took what
cooking and living items Lehi deemed necessary—when the tents are set up, these
pots and other items are placed in baskets that are hung form the tent poles.
They would also have
had water skins (left), that were likely made from the skin of a mature, large-sized goat with
the front legs sewn together with a rawhide thong to form a handle, and the
dorsal opening stitched together with rawhide. These were then filled with water. They would also have had pillows and rugs, a staple of travel in Lehi's time. Also, Lehi had donkeys in Jerusalem (no camels
were in or around the city because of the shale-like stone that cut the soft
under hooves of camels), in sufficient number to load the tents (typically
three donkeys to one tent, which was typically made of heavy, dark goat hair
along with lighter sheep skin), along ropes and pegs for the tent, along with
feed for the animals and all their seed, no doubt carried in goatskin bags,
which are still used by Beduins today. Later, they probably traded the donkeys
for camels for the journey along the Red Sea, but especially to cross the Rub’al Khali (Empty Quarter) when they
turned eastward. It should be noted that one of the reasons Lehi left all his
gold, silver and precious things behind, would have been as protection against
marauding desert tribes who would naturally investigate a small caravan
displaying many goods--which was the main reason they did not travel across the Empty Quarter cooking their meals each night over a fire, but eating their meat raw (1 Nephi 17:2).
Continuing from the last post
with Phyllis Carol Olive’s book The Lost
lands of the Book of Mormon, in which she makes several comments that
obviously need a scriptural reference check, since they have a lot to do with
her description of the Great Lakes as the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, and
not particularly what the scriptural record actually tells us.
Resuming with her unbelievable
descriptions of Hagoth and his ships and their course, Olive adds:
“The fact that Hagoth himself did not travel
a great distance from his homeland is made clear to us in Alma 63:7, for the
first ship he built left at the end of one year and returned at the beginning
of the next. This may have only been weeks or perhaps a month or two later.
Hagoth then built other ships to transport the growing nujber of those who
wished to lead the land southward for greener pastures.”
Instead of sailing off in one of his ships, Hagoth, the shipwright, was
busy in his shipyard building “other ships” while the first ship was gone
somewhere to the north. Nowhere in the scriptural record is there any
suggestion that Hagoth ever went anywhere in one of his ships
Response: Olive seems
to add her own opinion when interpreting the scriptural record. Alma does not
say at the end of one year or the beginning of the next year. What the
referenced scriptures tell us: “And it came to pass that in the
thirty and seventh year of the reign of the judges, there was a large company
of men, even to the amount of five thousand and four hundred men, with their
wives and their children, departed out of the land of Zarahemla into the land
which was northward. And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly
curious man, therefore he went forth and 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.
And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail
forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took
their course northward. And thus ended the thirty and seventh year.”
Now, in the following year, it is recorded, “And in the thirty and eighth year, this man
built other ships.” Interesting, during the time when the first ship was
gone, Hagoth built other ships (not the plural language). And while he was building other ships, Mormon
adds, “And the first ship
did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took
much provisions, and set out again to the land northward” (Alma 63:4-7).
So we see that:
1. In the 37th year of the reign of the judges
there were a large number of people who traveled in Hagoth’s ship to the “land
which was northward,” suggesting an area beyond the Land Northward.
2. Those immigrants went during the year in which other ships
were being built by a man named Hagoth.
3. That year ended with nothing more notable for Alma to
include in the record.
4. During the following year, the 38th year of
the reign of the judges, Hagoth built other ships.
5. During that year the first ship returned, was outfitted
again, and sailed northward again.
6. Also during this year another ship sailed from this same
area to an unknown location, i.e., did not take its course northward (Alma
63:8).
7. And in the same year many people went into the Land
Northward, not by ship, but overland through the narrow neck (Alma 63:9).
In addition to many entering into ships and
heading to a land which was northward, many other Nephites went overland
through the narrow neck of land into the Land Northward (Alma 63:9). A few
years later, even more Nephites went into the Land Northward (Helaman 3:3)
There is no suggestion of a short time frame involved here,
nor that Hagoth’s ship sailed at the close of one year, and returned at the
beginning of the next year as Olive claims. Mormon, in his abridgement, is
simply stating events that occurred during these two years, which he goes on in
the 39th year to list events that took place in that year, including
the death of Shiblon, and Helaman conferring the records on Helaman (Alma
63:10-11). Obviously, at the close of this lengthy record and the end of Alma,
Mormon is giving us a very brief compilation of events, while they are
obviously by year, we have no knowledge they are chronological within the year.
The point is that Olive’s reasoning is not consistent with
Mormon’s statements and descriptions, which then makes her results
questionable, if not outright erroneous.
Olive’s preface to her book states: “(this) is a work that introduces a
setting that meets all the requirements necessary to be the lands of the
ancient Nephites and Jaredites.”
Response:
It is sad that Olive feels her many points satisfies all the descriptions of
the land and what was in it Mormon mentioned in describing the Nephite Land of
Promise and the ancient Jaredite lands. As has been pointed out here in detail,
her many statements simply do not meet the requirements of Mormon’s words she
actually writes about, and little is devoted to the many things that are
written about in the scriptural record that helps poinpoint its location.
It
is also unfortunate that the entire basis of the Great Lakes theory espoused by
her and others touting the western New York area, is its proximity to the hill
Cumorah, a barrel drumline hill not even in Olive’s Land Northward, where
Mormon placed it (in the land of many waters, rivers and fountains) in the Land
Northward (Mormon 6:2-4). In fact, her Land of Many Waters is the Finger Lakes
Region, which is far to the east of Bountiful, and even to the east of the East
Sea, totally in opposition to Mormon’s description. It is even humorous that
her map shows Desolation to the east and south of her Narrow Neck, with
Bountiful and Desolation NOT separated by the narrow neck.
We are repeating here
the 27 points outlined in a previous series of articles (“So Where is the Land
of Promise?” Part I thru XII, beginning December 26, 2013 thru January 7, 2014, complete with full explanations),
to show once again that if you are going to locate the Land of Promise,
according to Mormon’s description, which is the only foundation anyone can use,
these points, and many others have to be within that location now, or at the
time of the Nephite occupation.
1) Mountains, “whose height is great”
2) Two unknown animals
3) Two unknown grains
4) Plants that cure fever
5) Land of promise as an island
6) The four seas surrounding the Land
of Promise
7) the Climate where Lehi’s seeds grew
that he brought to the Land of Promise
8) Roads and Highways
9) Driven before the wind
10) Lehi’s Course to the Land of
Promise
11) Both Gold and Silver and Copper
12) Hagoth’s ships went northward
13) Forts, fortifications and resorts
14) Fortified wall
15) Narrow neck of land
16) Defendable narrow pass
17) Sea that divides the land
18) All manner of buildings
19) Great temple tower
20) Directions of the Land of Promise
21) All manner of ore
22) Land of many waters
23) Abundant crop growth
24) No other people in Land of Promise
25) Use of silks and fine-twined linen
26) Metallurgy
27) Volcanoes and earthquakes
To
ignore any of these is to ignore Mormon’s clearly stated descriptive
information, to ignore all of them is to ignore the scriptural record itself. A few of
these points can be found in most Theorist models, but none outside Andean South America has all of these (and many others) now or in antiquity—certainly the correct Land of Promise not only should, but must have all of them, or why else did Mormon described them to us? And why would any serious historian, writing about the scriptural record Land of Promise, ignore any of these descriptions that Mormon left for us?
With my internet back up and running after five days living in the black void...
Continuing from the last post
with Phyllis Carol Olive’s book The Lost
lands of the Book of Mormon, in which she makes several comments that
obviously need a scriptural reference check, since they have a lot to do with
her description of the Great Lakes as the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, and
not particularly what the scriptural record actually tells us.
Take for instance something that none of the Great Lakes Theorists ever talk
about is the fact that in the area of Montezuma Marsh, in the northern end of
Cayuga Lake in the Finger Lakes region. In this area, 1,000 workers on the Erie
Canal in 1820 died of malaria. Work on the canal stopped for months until
winter, when the swamps were frozen, before work could continue, though many
suffered from frostbite—it was considered the most difficult part in digging
the Erie Canal.
The Marsh
was created by the damming effect of the glacial ice and existed for thousands
of years, and would have been there during the Theorists’ era of the Nephites.
While Alma talks about many dying of fevers, he also told us: “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).
Malaria, for those
unfamiliar with it, has only one natural cure—the bark of the cinchona tree,
which naturally produces quinine. No other natural cure has ever been found
anywhere in the world—today, we use synthetic quinine, but in the Nephite
times, only the natural herbs, plant and roots would have cured Malaria as Alma
tells us and, by the way, the cinchona
tree is not only indigenous to the Andean area of Peru, it is the only place in
the world where it grew before it was transplanted in Indonesia by the Dutch in
the 1700s. In other words, the only natural cure for fever, which so
happens to be from plants and herbs, during the Book of Mormon time and for
more than a thousand years thereafter, grew in South America—not then Great
Lakes (nor Mesoamerica). Perhaps that is why no Theorist talking about the
location of the Nephite Land of Promise location ever mentions Alma 46:40). In
fact, the only place you will ever read about this requirement for the Land of
Promise is on this site.
It might also be
noted that this huge marsh area was a barrier to westward travel in colonial
times as roads could not be built across it—in fact, the Erie Canal was the
first passageway to be built across the marsh.
Olive’s Comment: “The course of those who journeyed northward
may have included three options. The first option would be the simplest and
most obvious, for it would have taken Hagoth’s ship northward across the west
sea where they would have disembarked on the northern shores of the lake.”
White Arrow shows Hagoth’s direction across the West Sea (Lake Erie)
where they would disembark on the north shore (✖), a distance of only about 25-33 miles,
depending on where they launched the ship—a rather costly endeavor to build an
“exceedingly large ship” only to travel across a lake for about 30 miles
Response: Olive continues to
ignore the fact that Mormon tells us Hagoth built “an exceedingly large ship.”
Granted she tried to downgrade the word “exceedingly,” claiming it was only
like our use of the word “very” today; however, in the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language,
we find that the word exceedingly
meant: “To a very great
degree; in a degree beyond what is usual; greatly; very much.”
This shows us that Olive’s attempt to lessen the value of this adjective is
inaccurate and shows us her tendency to try and change the meaning of the
scriptural record to meet her own interpretation.
Thus, we find that
Hagoth’s ship was “large to a very great degree,” “it was large to a degree
beyond what was usual for the time,” and not just some canoe or raft, but a
“ship” of significant or “exceedingly large” size.
Olive’s Comment: “We must remember the land just to the north of Lake Tonawanda included
the wide beach strip that lay along the southern shores of Lake Ontario.”
Olive’s Map showing the Land Northward (our green arrow) as a narrow
strip of land between Lake Ontario and the area known as ancient Lake Tonawanda
Response: This is the land that
Olive calls the Land Northward, a “narrow” strip of land about ten to fifteen
miles from north to south and about 25 to 30 miles from east to west—hardly
large enough to house the Jaredite nation with their population numbering in
the millions, and then the Nephite nation after 350 A.D., with their population
numbering over a million.
Olive’s Comment: “However, since Hagoth was described as a
very curious man, we would have to assume that his journeys took him much
farther away.”
Response: Once again, Hagoth did
not sail anywhere in his ships. He remained in his shipyard building other
ships (Alma 63:7) while the first one mentioned sailed to “a land which was
northward” (Alma 63:4). It is obvious, that the people who entered into
Hagoth’s ships were resettling, taking “much provisions” (Alma 63:6-7).
Olive’s Comment: “A second option would have started out the
same way—with Hagoth launching his ship into the west sea by the narrow neck,
and then sailing as far as he could northward. Once he reached the northern
shores of the lake, the crew and passengers may have disembarked, unloaded and
then carried their craft over the hills of the escarpment and into the waters
of Lake Ontario just as the early explorers and trappers did—and from there to
more distance lands.”
No early trappers ever carried a “ship” over any portage. They carried
canoes. Canoes! And none of their canoes exceeded the cargo of 2 ½ ton and a
crew of 12. Olive’s lack of knowledge on such a simple subject shows her lack
of interest in both detail and simple research.
Olive’s Land of Promise. Yellow Arrow: 33 miles across the West Sea
(Lake Erie); White Arrow: 25 miles across the West Sea; Orange Arrow: The crew
and passengers portaging (carrying) the ship across land (25 miles) to the Sea
(Lake Ontario)
Response: In order to reach Lake
Ontario after crossing Lake Erie (West Sea), the voyage across the West Sea
would have had to be no more than 25-33 miles (depending on where the ship was
launched, and in order to reach Lake Ontario, the ship would have to be portaged
across land for about 25 miles. One thing we might want to keep in mind is that
Mormon tells us: “Many of the Nephites who did enter
therein and did sail forth with much
provisions, and also many women and
children; and they took their course northward” (Alma 63:6—emphasis mine).
Women and children along with “much provisions” plus “an exceedingly large
ship” being carried across a 25-mile stretch of land—twenty-five miles! Olive is now taking us into the world of the
absurd!
Olive’s Comment: “A third option would have taken them into
the east-west channel which would have allowed them to cross the land
horizontally. Once they reached the land of many waters other waterways would
have been available to them as well. They could have either entered Lake Ontario
at that point or traveled down the Mohawk to the Hudson and from there to the
open waters of the Atlantic. Any number of destinations would have been
possible from there.”
Response: I wonder
what it is about the expression “and they took their course northward” (Alma
63:6) that Olive doesn’t understand? The Mohawk River begins in Lewis County,
about 40 to 50 miles east of Lake
Ontario, and flows generally east
through the Mohawk Valley, passing by the cities of Rome, Utica, Little Falls,
Canajoharie, Amsterdam, and Schenectady, before entering the Hudson River at
Cohoes, just north of Albany, which is 100
miles to the southeast. Then from there on, the Hudson flows almost due south. So while Mormon tells us
Hagoth’s ship took its course northward,
Olive feels completely comfortable telling us they sailed east, then southeast, then due south! With that type of
thinking, Olive can say “Any number of
destinations would have been possible from there” since she doesn’t pay any
attention to the scriptural record.
(See the next post, “A Look at Phyllis Carol Olive
and Her Great Lakes Model-Part VI,” for more of Olive’s statements that are not
supported by the scriptural record, and do not match the descriptions of the
Land of Promise as we have them)
Continuing from the last post
with Phyllis Carol Olive’s book The Lost
lands of the Book of Mormon, in which she makes several comments that
obviously need a scriptural reference check, since they have a lot to do with
her description of the Great Lakes as the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, and
not particularly what the scriptural record actually tells us.
Resuming the last
post’s comments, and running across perhaps Olive’s most ridiculous statement,
she writes: “Hagoth’s ship may have been
even larger, but may still have been light weight enough for overland portage
by a strong crew…”
Portage is carrying a canoe or small boat
across land from one water source (river, lake, etc.) to another. The early fur
traders made this famous carrying their small canoes from river to river in
order to move their fur pelts from the mountains to Rendezvous or trading
posts; however, these portages were small boats, something two or three men
could carry—and at times a single man, though this was rare. To portage “an
exceedingly large ship” is simply out of the questions—no one could carry such
a vessel across mountains, through forests, over even or in hilly country—not even
by “a strong crew”
Response: Here again Olive is
conditioned to think along her pre-determined location in the Great Lakes
causing her to think of Hagoth’s ship as some type of canoe or raft that could
be carried or portaged across the land between the many rivers in the area.
There is absolutely nothing in the scriptural record to suggest such a thing
was done or needed to be done. Hagoth launched his ships into the West Sea—that
is not a river or lake, but a sea—and they took their course northward.
Hagoth’s was a business, and
contrary to those who have not run their own business, was in business to make
money. Consequently, to build an “exceedingly large ship” to transport people a
couple of miles or so would not only be unprofitable, but clearly foolish. In
addition, Joseph Smith in 1829 would have known what a canoe was, and also a
raft, and no doubt a sailing ship. He chose the word ship and the Spirit
allowed that word which should suggest it was a ship—the kind at least known in
Joseph’s day.
Horse-drawn packet boat being hauled along the Erie Canal in 1840.
These were used primarily to move freight and goods. In a few years, $15-mllion
passed over the canal, twice that carried along the Mississippi River
Olive’s Comment: “By way of comparison—in the 1800s the
barges that traversed the Erie Canal were two story, snub nosed boats about 50
to 55 feet in length and carried over four dozen passengers. Today, the vessels
that traverse the very same waterways can be as much as 300 feet long and 40
feet wide and can carry burdens of many tons. Such a waterway could certainly
carry vessels large enough to carry many to more distant lands.”
The 1850 passenger/freight snub-nosed boats moving along the Erie Canal--this was a leisurely, social event, hardly the description of an emigrant ship as mentioned in the scriptural record
Response: First of all, the Erie
Canal (Clinton’s Big Ditch” and “Clinton’s Folly”), was a hand dug canal forty
feet wide and only four feet deep, where vessels were towed with rope by horses
or mules—they did not sail because of
the narrowness of the way and the lowness of the many bridges spanning the
canal. In fact, as one 1836 passenger wrote: “
The Bridges on the Canal are very low, particularly the old ones. Indeed they
are so low as to scarcely allow the baggage to clear, and in some cases
actually rubbing against it. Every Bridge makes us bend double if seated on
anything, and in many cases you have to lie on your back. The Man at the helm
gives the word to the passengers: 'Bridge,' 'very low Bridge,' 'the
lowest in the Canal,' as the case may be. Some serious accidents have happened
for want of caution. A young English Woman met with her death a short time
since, she having fallen asleep with her head upon a box, had her head crushed
to pieces.” Obviously, it would have been impossible to have a two-story barge
as Olive claims.
Of all the images found showing the barges pulled along the Erie Canal
from 1825 onward are open cargo carriers or one level passenger boats. Though
passengers would occasionally sit on the roof during open stretches, no
two-story boats were ever on the Erie Canal because of the short clearance
between bridges and boat
Secondly, the Erie Canal, like
all canals and small rivers, have little or no current to speak of and movement
was easy and generally very slow. In the 1800s, a leisurely ride along the Erie
Canal was a social delight, a pleasant experience with a striking view. Even
today, it takes 8 days to travel the 338 miles of the canal at such a slow pace
as to drive modern people to stress after the first couple of days. It is hard
to imagine that Hagoth’s immigrants would have been satisfied to take such a
leisurely ride to an unknown land where they were interested in starting a new
life in a new land.
Third, the Packet Boats of the
Canal were generally 70 feet long, with a kitchen and bar, with the forward
part being the ladies’ cabin and separated by a curtain, but at meal time, the
curtain was removed and the table was set the whole length of the boat, and at
night settees on each side unfolded into sleeping cots with the outside hung by
cord.
As described by one passenger in
1836, “When unfolded, the cots look like so many shelves and I was apprehensive
upon first seeing them, lest the cords should break; however, I was told such
never happened.” Also, the top of the cabin, which formed a sort of deck, was
nearly flat, with a six inch rail around it, and was only about four or five
feet above the water line
Today, the Erie Canal can carry much larger and heavier boats under
their own power, though they have to be less than 300 feet because that is the
length of the locks
In the
beginning, however, before the opening of the Erie Canal,
Genesee Valley wheat took 20 days to reach Albany by wagon. The cost to move a
ton of wheat was $100. With the completion of the canal, a ton of wheat could
make the trip all the way to New York City in just 10 days for only $5 in
transportation charges. In 1825, roughly
562,000 bushels of wheat, plus 221,000 barrels of flour, 435,000 gallons of
whiskey, and 32 million board feet of lumber helped make up the 185,000 tons of
eastbound canal cargo. Only 32,000 tons were shipped west, consisting mainly of
manufactured goods. The total amount of freight moved on the Erie
Canal
increased in volume as the years went by. Although it took until 1845 for
annual tonnage to surpass one million, the two-million-ton mark was topped only
seven years later. By 1860, freight totals on the canal had increased to
1,896,975 tons eastbound and 379,000 tons westbound.
In 1862, swollen by Civil War shipments, canal freight
traffic exceeded three million tons. This high rate of tonnage continued after
the end of the war and during much of the next three decades. In fact, in 1880
the Erie Canal experienced its greatest year, with 4,608,651 tons carried. The
huge amount of trade on the canal produced considerable revenue for the state
of New York. Tolls collected in 1820 totaled a mere $28,000; four years later, before
the canal was officially opened, canal traffic had surged to 10,000 boats
paying $300,000 in tolls.
The Erie Canal today. When we speak of very long boats, they are
commercial barges under their own power. No boats pulled by horses, mules or
oxen in the 1800s and 1900s were very long because of the weight involved in
pulling
However,
in the 1800-1900s, the thousands of boats that plied the Erie
and other canals in the 19th century fell into two categories: packet boats and
freight boats. Packet boats were designed to carry people and had cabins
stretching nearly from bow (front section of a vessel) to stern (rear section
of a vessel); and freighters generally had two small shelters at either end of
the boat. Often family-owned, the freight boat housed people in the stern cabin
and stabled horses or mules in the bow cabin. Nonworking animals rested on the
boat between towing shifts. The remainder of the space on a freight boat was
for cargo. These boats were normally about 75-feet long, and carried
agricultural products east and manufactured goods west.
The point of all this is merely to show that when Olive, or
other Theorists begin talking about history to try and substantiate their Great
Lakes claim for the Land of Promise, they often talk about matters of which
they are truly unfamiliar—some believe no one will check up on what they say,
and some simply do not pay a great deal of attention to actual fact. The end
result is the continuation of a theory that simply is not defensible according
to the scriptural record.
(See the next post, “A Look at Phyllis Carol Olive
and Her Great Lakes Model-Part V,” for more of Olive’s statements that are not
supported by the scriptural record, and do not match the descriptions of the
Land of Promise as we have them)
Continuing from the last post
with Phyllis Carol Olive’s book The Lost
lands of the Book of Mormon, in which she makes several comments that
obviously need a scriptural reference check, since they have a lot to do with
her description of the Great Lakes as the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, and
not particularly what the scriptural record actually tells us.
Olive’s
Comment: “Even though
Hagoth’s ship was described as being exceedingly large it would in no way
compare to anything we might consider a large ship today, but was simply a ship
considerably larger than those that were the norm for the time.”
(Image A – An exceedingly large ship being built
anciently. Modern men try to lessen the abilities of the ancients, but such
curious craftsmen have existed in all ages
Response: The word large is a
relative term. Large compared to what? However, we might assume that large in
this sense meant as large as, or larger than, other ships of the day—and
“exceedingly large” meant much larger than anything they had seen up to that
point. This, then, suggests that there had been shipbuilders before Hagoth, and
he was not the first to initiate land-to-land shipping. It may well have been
going on for some time. What is noted by the Hagoth story, is that he built a
different kind of ship than the others—we know it was exceedingly large, which
should suggest something out of the ordinary, and we know it was meant to carry
immigrant families, along with supplies and equipment to settle in a new land.
A 100-foot ship being built which dwarfs all the other small boats on
the beach
Immigration, it would appear, was
the issue and the fact that Hagoth built a very large ship meant to transport
large numbers of people to a far off land, launching into the West Sea (Ocean)
where deep water waves pounding on the hull and high winds hammering the vessel
would require someone like Hagoth, a shipwright
extroadinarie to build such “curious” vessels—that is, highly skilled
construction.
Left: The Mayflower that brought the pilgrims to Plymouth in 1607; Right: Drake's Golden Hind which sailed around the world in 1577
The Mayflower, as an example, a
ship of 180 tons, about 100 feet long and 25 feet wide, that carried a crew and passengers
of about 152 people, along with a large amount of ship’s stores, tools and
weapons, including 12 cannon, shot and gunpowder, for the voyage. On that
voyage huge waves struck the ship’s topside until a structural support timber
fractured and they survived only because the passengers carried equipment to
construct homes when they landed. By comparison, Sir Frances Drake's ship, the Golden Hind, which was meant for exploring, not passengers, was 102 feet in hull length and 22 feet in width, with 22 guns and canon and a maximum crew of 95.
Obviously, sailing in deep water was
dangerous and it is just as obvious that Hagoth built ships that could
withstand deep water where earlier ship builders probably only built coastal
vessels. Certainly, this would have made
his shipbuilding effort worth mentioning by Mormon, for these ships went north
to “a land which was northward,” and also elsewhere, to an unknown location,
and no further word was known from them (Alma 63:8). However, the significance
of this singling out of Hagoth’s ship seems lost on Olive.
As an example, the word ship in
1828 New England meant: “In a general sense, a vessel
or building of a peculiar structure, adapted to navigation, or floating on
water by means of sails. In an appropriate sense, a building of a
structure or form fitted for navigation, furnished with a bowsprit and three
masts, a main-mast, a fore-mast and a mizen-mast, each of which is composed a
lower-mast, a top-mast and top-gallant-mast, and square rigged”—this pretty
much describes the “Mayflower” shown above.
The
point is, this term as used by Joseph Smith, would have meant a ship of some
size built along certain lines with sails, etc. Compare that to Olive’s later
comment:
Olive’s
Comment: “Most ships traveling th4
waterways in early American history were made of bark and were small enough to
maneuver the rivers and creeks with east…”
Response:
A canoe is simply not a ship, is never in any historical report or writing
called a “ship,” and certainly would not be capable o carrying a large number
of people. What Olive seems not to know is that the maritime world, and the
dictionary anciently as today, separate vessels by size and usage, each with
its own class name. A ship in Joseph Smith’s day described a very particular
vessel (see above).
Olive’s
Comment: “Still others were made from
heavier materials such as logs which were lashed together to make flat rafts…”
Left: Depiction of an early log raft
with a small cabin; Right: the keel boat which followed, carried more freight
and moved downriver with punt poles
Response:
Again, a raft is not a ship and has never been called or referred to or
considered a “ship,” not even the more sturdy keep boats were called ships.
Olive’s
Comment: “The boats used to transport
furs to various trading posts were the largest of the bark canoes and often
carried tons of freight, crew and passengers…”
This painting depicting the large
trading canoes of early America shows 17 people in the canoe; however, the
largest of the birch bark trading canoes carried only 12 along with 2 ½ tons of
cargo. Obviously, these were never called ships
Response:
Actually, during the
Coureurs de Bois (runners of the
woods)—the fur trade business, or the expansion of the fur trade markets, the
canoes became famous because of the voyageurs (hired fur traders) who were
trading fur in North America. From 1690 up to 1850, the voyageurs, as well as
the canoe, played a very important role in the early American history as the
canoe was the principal means of transportation on water. The birch bark canoes
were boats created by the North American Indians. It was made from a frame of
wooden ribs covered with the bark of birch trees. This type of canoe proved to
be the best solution for a long journey: waterproof, resilient and light enough
to be easily transported on one’s shoulders across a portage. These boats were
capable to carry a crew of up to 12 people and 2400 kilograms of cargo, which
is 5280 pounds, or just over 2 ½ ton. Olive’s “Tons of freight” is a poor
definition of 2 ½ ton and is a disingenuous expression—in no way would the largest of these trading canoes be able
to meet the description of Hagoth’s ships and their immigrant cargo. Nor were
they ever called ships.
Nor were the big packet boats
that moved along the Erie Canal ever called ships, though they were the largest
of the freight boats in early America.
Top:
The 363-mile long Erie Canal built in 1817-1825 to carry freight (center) and
transport (bottom), helped New York eclipse Philadelphia as the largest city
and port on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. These barges (or packet boats)
were 60-80 feet long and 14 feet wide (about 2/3 the size of the Mayflower)
(See the next post, “A Look at Phyllis Carol Olive
and Her Great Lakes Model-Part IV,” for more of Olive’s statements that are not
supported by the scriptural record, and do not match the descriptions of the
Land of Promise as we have them)
Continuing from the last post with
Phyllis Carol Olive’s book The Lost lands
of the Book of Mormon, in which she makes several comments that obviously
need a scriptural reference check, since they have a lot to do with her
description of the Great Lakes as the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, and not
particularly what the scriptural record actually tells us. Continuing here with Olive’s
inaccurate comments about Hagoth, she writes: “But since [Hagoth] was described as being a curious man, he must have
wanted to explore those lands that lay beyond the bounds of their normal
territory.”
Response: Again, when someone
starts writing about the scriptural record without considering the meaning of
the words used, we find error after error, which then leads to conclusions that
are inaccurate. The word “curious” was defined in Joseph Smith’s day as “Habitually
inquisitive; addicted to research or enquiry; having a curious turn of mind;
Curious after things elegant and beautiful; accurate; careful not to mistake;
to be correct; difficult to please; exact; made with care; artful, diligent.”
Today,
we use the term curious to mean inquisitive, strange or unusual, however, its
original meaning and the way it was used in the scriptures the word “curious”
meant skilled, typically used to
describe something that was skillfully made.
The curious workmanship of (left)
Liahona, (center) Ephod, (right) Bezaleel gold workings
Thus
we have David saying he was “curiously
wrought” (Psalms 139:15), meaning skillfully made in the womb; and when
Lehi found the Liahona, Nephi described it as “a round ball of curious workmanship” (1 Nephi
16:10—emphasis mine), meaning it was very skillfully made, or the curious
girdle of the ephod worn by the
Israelite high priest, made of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet fine twined
linen (Exodus 28:8, 27-28; 29:5; 39:5, 20-21; Leviticus 8:7). Of Bezaleel was
described as “filled . . . with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding,
and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship; And to devise curious works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
And in the cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of wood, to make any
manner of cunning work” (Exodus 35:30-33).
Hagoth was a curious man, that is, he was a skilled
man who did fine, accomplished work. He built “exceedingly large” ships that
were exact, artful, and diligently made with care. In Helaman we find that the
Nephites were involved in the building of ships and in the industry of shipping
(Helaman 3:14)—obviously, the Nephites were a shipbuilding nation, which were
involved in the business of shipping, trade and maritime industry. It is
interesting in Helaman’s lengthy explanation of what the many Nephite records
contained, building of ships and shipping, along with building of temples, were
the only businesses described.
Olive’s Comment: “Such an adventure would take more
than the small water craft used to transport them over the calm waters of Lake
Tonawanda, however.”
Response: Again, Olive is using
her own pre-determined model location for the Land of Promise that results in
her limiting her thinking about Hagoth’s ship and where they went. She has him
sailing on the “calm waters” of a lake; however, his vessels went into the West Sea, that is an Ocean, and took
their course northward.
Lake Tonawanda (yellow
arrow) is along and narrow, and Hagoth’s ships went west (white asrrow) where
there is no outlet into the West Sea. No “exceedingly large” ship would be
needed on such a small lake and would have little purpose, being far too costly
to build and navigate on this small and shallow ancient lake bed. To get to the
west sea (Lake Erie), the ship would have to navigate Niagara River (where the
Falls make navigation impossible)
No shipbuilder is going to spend
his time building ships unless it is a profitable enterprise. Hagoth was obviously
a businessman, he built ships and others paid for passage on them, leased them,
or bought them. Lake Tonawanda was a very small lake area—why build shipyards
on a small lake when the Sea (Erie or Ontario) was close by, which would make a
lot more sense (however, there is no narrow neck of land off Lake Erie or Lake
Ontario so her scenario is limited).
Olive’s Comment: “It would take a sturdy ship to travel the
greater distances proposed. Since the scriptures tell us Hagoth took passengers
along, a ship large enough for many was necessary.”
Response: Mind-sets are hard to
get around. Hagoth was a shipwright—he built ships. He was not an explorer, nor
did he go anywhere in his ships as far as the scriptural record tells us. He
did not take passengers along. Whoever captained the ship and whoever arranged
for the immigrants to board and was responsible for the arrangements of the
voyage, we are not told (Alma 63:6). We only know that Hagoth built the ships.
It is difficult to take anyone’s idea seriously when they so blatantly
disregard, or so obviously do not know or understand, the scriptural record
about which they are writing.
In a rather bizarre twist on the
actual scripture in Omni, Olive writes: “It
was Hagoth who seems to have initiated the practice of shipping from one land
to the other. Up until this time, most of those who came up from the land of
Nephi with Mosiah settled in Zarahemla and remained there from that time
forth.”
Response: First of all, it was
not the Nephites who “remained there from that time forth,” but the Mulekites
who we are told “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 1:16—emphasis mine). Secondly, the
Nephites, once arriving in Zarahemla, began to spread out and settle in various
towns and villages. Not long afterward, Alma requests from Mosiah’s grandson,
that he be allowed to “establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla”
(Mosiah 25:19) and Mosiah gave Alma authority over the church (Mosiah 26:8).
In fact, there were
seven churches set up by Alma (Mosiah 25:23), and Mormon talks about matters
“throughout all the land,” suggesting the Nephites did not remain in Zarahemla,
but scattered all over the land. Shortly afterward, Moroni is moving people
into the wilderness areas of the east and west coasts after he drove out the
Lamanites living there in tents (Alma 50:7, 9, 11), and built cities along the
east seashore (Alma 50:13-15). Consequently, the Nephites did not remain in the
city of Zarahemla as Olive would have us believe.
(See the next post, “A Look at Phyllis Carol Olive
and Her Great Lakes Model-Part III,” for more of Olive’s statements that are
not supported by the scriptural record, and do not match the descriptions of
the Land of Promise as we have them)
In the book The Lost lands of the Book of Mormon, Phyllis Carol Olive makes
several comments that obviously need a scriptural reference check, since they
have a lot to do with her description of the Great Lakes as the Book of Mormon
Land of Promise.
Olive’s Comment: “Because access to the land northward was so
limited, many have wondered how Limhi’s search party made it to the land of
many waters undetected by the people of Nephi. Let us address this issue. Their
original destination was Zarahemla, which was to the north, but since the Lord
fully intended them to retrieve the plates deposited in the land of many
waters, he may have simply diverted their sense of direction somewhat and led
them to the south instead…”
Response: Since Limhi and his
people were in the City of Nephi (Lehi-Nephi) at the time, which was in the
Land of Nephi and that, as Olive comments a little later in her writing (see
below), was in the southernmost portion of the land, and both Zarahemla and
ultimately, the Jaredite lands which Limhi’s 43-man expedition found, were to
the north, it is hardly worth discussing this point of the Lord leading them to
the south.”
Olive’s Comment: “Losing one’s
sense of direction is not uncommon in the heavily wooded areas…”
Response: There is no mention of
“heavily wood areas” in the scriptural record relating to this journey. Olive,
like far too many Theorists has a place already in mind and is inserting that
descriptive area into the scriptural record, which is totally inappropriate and
certainly not scholarly. There is no mention at any time of the type of terrain
these men encountered—we only know they “took a journey into the wilderness”
(Mosiah 8:7). Certainly, these men would have been familiar enough with this
land they had been in for three-generations to know in which direction they
needed to go from their city walls. After all, Limhi, and evidently some of his
people, spent some time outside the city (Mosiah 7:10), and earlier they had
rebuilt both the city of Lehi-Nephi (city of Nephi) as well as the city of
Shilom (Mosiah 9:8)—both in the area of land that the Lamanite king had
covenanted that these returning Nephites could possess (Mosiah 9:6). They would
have been familiar enough with their land to know their directions. Any
confusion, if such existed, would have occurred long after they left the area
of which they were so familiar.
Even if it was a heavily wooded area, young Boy Scouts today know how to
find their way in a heavily wooded area without a compass, and it is not based
on a sense of direction, but on understanding the forest, how it grows, and
what to look for—certainly men who lived in such lands all their lives would at
least know that; and why would the Lord need to confuse direction—everything
Limhi’s men were looking for and found was in the same direction—to the north!
There would be no reason to head south except in areas Olive is inventing
Olive’s Comment: “Since the Land of Nephi was in the
southernmost portion of the land it would have been easy for the Lord to direct
them around the great wetlands to the southeast and from there northward where
they ultimately came across the remains of the fallen Jaredite people.”
Response: First of all, there are
no “great wetlands” anywhere in the scriptural record. The only area that could
possibly be so described is the “Land of Many Waters,” which was far to the
north of where Limhi was located and where his men would have traveled in
Olive’s description. It is interesting how Theorists make up situations out of
the blue, then build their scenarios around it, and claim it is the Land of
Promise. One often wonders if they really ever read the scriptural record at
all, or at least gave them more than cursory glance.
Besides, it is not a problem for
the expedition to have passed through the narrow neck of land and not seen the
seas on either side, since there was a narrow pass through this neck and a
narrow pass suggests a corridor between mountains, cliffs, etc. where vision to
right and left would be severely restricted.
A narrow pass by interpretation suggests a
narrow area likely with limited view to either side, which would easily hide
what lay beyond the cliffs, rocks, hills, etc. Passing through areas such as
these two would keep anyone from knowing what was to the right or left beyond
the pass
Olive’s Comment: “Now Hagoth was described as a very curious
man. Evidently his curiosity about more distant lands finally got the better of
him, for he built a ship launched it forth into the west sea and headed north.”
Response: Again, one should be
more familiar with the scriptural record before one attempts to write about it.
At no time does it suggest or indicate that Hagoth sailed anywhere. In fact,
Mormon tells us just the opposite: “And
behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail
forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took
their course northward. And thus ended the thirty and seventh year. And in the
thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also
return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much
provisions, and set out again to the land northward” (Alma 63:6-7).
Mormon tells us he was building
“other ships,” that is, Hagoth was evidently a shipwright—a builder of
ships—and not an explorer. His was a business, and he built many ships and
while the first ship mentioned was sailing to “a land which was northward,”
Hagoth was busy in his shipyards building “other ships,” and there he was when
the first ship returned, loaded up and sailed again. Mormon makes it clear that
the Nephites were involved in shipping and the building of ships (Helaman
3:14). The trouble is, when people pay so little attention to the actual
scriptural account, they are more free to create scenarios they want that are
not scripturally accurate.
Olive’s Comment: “Had [Hagoth] only been interested in
traveling to the land of many waters he could easily have launched his ship
into the sea on the east of the narrow neck…”
Response: First of all, Hagoth
obviously had a shipyard where he built many ships (Alma 63:7). Secondly, that
shipyard was just as obviously on the West Sea (Alma 63:5), suggesting that
along the west coast there was some type of inlet, bay, or lagoon where it
would make sense to build and launch ships that would be protected from the weather
that strikes coasts. It might just as obvious to note that since there is no mention
of anything on the east coast at this point, that there was no protective
harbor there. So it would make sense that Hagoth built and launched his ships
in the protective area of such a harbor along the west coast.
Olive’s Comment: “…and sailed
across Lake Tonawanda to that region.”
(Yellow Arrow) Lake Tonawanda; (white arrow) Olive's Sea East; (red arrow) Finger Lakes area, which is Olive's Land of Many Waters. On a map, her directions and statements are out of alignment
Response: When you have a
pre-determined area in mind, then try to make the scriptural record fit it, you
end up in trouble. Given the area of their narrow neck of land, it would be
interesting to see how one might sail across Lake Tonawanda to reach the land
of many waters. It would even be of greater interest to know why anyone would
build a large ship to sail across a lake that was only 3 ½ miles across at its widest!
(See the next post, “A Look at Phyllis Carol Olive
and Her Great Lakes Model-Part II,” for more of Olive’s statements that are not
supported by the scriptural record, and do not match the descriptions of the
Land of Promise as we have them)
