Continuing
from the previous post and our responses to the article George Potter wrote
that was sent to us by one of our readers. Resuming with Potter’s reasoning
regarding the line between the Land of Desolation and the Land of Bountiful:
• “We know
that the narrow pass had great military significance, for if the “pass” fell,
the Lamanites could possess the land northward.”
The
Nephites were separated from the Lamanites by a (white arrow) narrow strip of
wilderness. North of there, beyond the Lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful lay the
(red arrow) narrow neck of land. It took the Lamanites until 350 A.D. 950 years
to reach that point where Mormon and the Lamanites made a treaty giving the
Lamanites all the Land Southward and the Nephites all the Land Northward;
obviously, Potter’s statement is not accurate
Response: First of all, the Lamanite throughout most
of the Nephite history (until around the third century A.D. in the time of
Mormon) were nowhere near the narrow wneck of land, being restricted to the
Land of Nephi as Mormon informs us (Alma 22:34). Before the Lamanites battled their way toward the
north in the last century B.C., most of the Nephite concerns were from
dissenters trying to gain the Land Northward as a base of operations, and in
some way enter into a liason with the Lamanites in order to have a two-front
war against the Nephites (Alma 50:32).
Secondly, the entire small or narrow
neck of land marked this area of significance. The narrow pass was simply the
means of ingress from one land (Land Southward) into the other land (Land
Northward). As long as that pass was held, the Lamanites or Nephite defectors
could not take possession of the Land Northward and create a Second Front the
Nephites would be compelled to protect.
• “In a later attack by the Lamanites, the same
strategic place is simply called “the line which was between the land Bountiful
and the land Desolation” (3 Nephi 3:23) with no mention of a narrow neck of
land.”
Response: There was only one way to get from one
land (Land Southward) into the other land (Land Northward) and that was through
the narrow pass or passage that led across the narrow neck of land. The line,
once again, was the division or boundary between these two major lands, and the
actual border between the Land of Desolation on the north and the Land of
Bountiful on the south (Alma 22:32).
From
all of this, it should be quite clear why this area was such a strategic value
to the Nephites. As long as they could hold the narrow pass within the narrow
neck of land, then they could maintain the Land Northward and keep it from
being infiltrated by Lamanites or defectors. In this way, as Mormon said “Therefore the Lamanites could have no more
possessions only in the land of Nephi, and the wilderness round about. Now this
was wisdom in the Nephite—as the Lamanites were an enemy to them, they would
not suffer their afflictions on every hand, and also that they might have a
country [Land Northward] whither they might flee, according to their desires” (Alma 22:34).
Now Potter switches in his writing to try and
place such an area within his Land of Promise. He writes:
Potter: “Is there in Peru a narrow, yet strategic,
transportation corridor that starts at the Pacific and ends in the mountains
that possessed these seven characteristics at the time of the Jaredites and
Nephites?”
Response: We are not
really looking for a transportation corridor, for no such language is used or
implied within the scriptural record. What we are looking for is an area that
could have been once, during the time of the Nephites, or today, a narrow neck
of land with a narrow pass or passage through it, enabling a limited or guarded
ingress from the Land Southward into the Land Northward.
As
Mormon wrote of the northward flight of the defector Morianton: “Now behold, the people who were
in the land Bountiful, or rather Moroni, feared that they would hearken to the
words of Morianton and unite with his people, and thus he would obtain
possession of those parts of the land, which would lay a foundation for serious
consequences among the people of Nephi, yea, which consequences would lead to
the overthrow of their liberty. Therefore Moroni sent an army, with their camp,
to head the people of Morianton, to stop their flight into the land northward”
(Alma 50:32-33).
The problem is, when we start calling it a
transportation corridor and not a narrow passage, we lose sight of the
restricted area this passage contained, which in turn, allows one to use a much
larger land area to claim is this area. Thus Potter answers his question about
there being such a place in Peru by saying:
Potter: “The
answer is yes, and it is not hard to identify. It is right where we would
expect it—the Lurin Valley.”
Response: The Lurin
Valley, or Lurin District, is about
22 miles south of Lima, and is a basin 112.8 square miles running east and west,
with its main archaeological complex that of Pachacamac, though there are
dozens of ruins in the valley. Though it appears as a defensible valley, there
are three separate unconnected valleys in this area, anyone of which, or all three, could
provide ingress to the north, which is not consistent with the description of
the area Mormon gives us.
Top: Lurin Valley from several vantage points. It should be noted that
most of these surrounding hills are scalable by an attacking force, which would not be restricted to the valley pass
One of the dozens of ruins within the Lurin valley. Ancient cities dot
the landscape of the Lurin Valley and certainly do not match the idea of the
narrow neck, narrow passage, or any land connection between the Land Northward
and the Land Southward
As an example, Potter then
introduces his map of the Lurin Valley, just south of Lima, Peru, as his
“transportation corridor,” which hardly fits the restricted are of ingress into
the Land Northward that a narrow pass through a narrow neck of land would be.
Left: Potter’s map. He has his Land of
Desolation in an area of Lima, which would include the ancient city of
Pachacamac, which was the area of a major cultural area including ten thousand
or more people, and does not show an East Sea; Right: A current map of the
larger area of the Lurin Valley and Lima
In addition, his Land of
Desolation would also incorporate the gigantic city of Huacas Pucllana, built
on seven staggered platforms, and one of the most important ancient monuments
in the area. Just one of the numerous plazas of this city was 1640 feet long
(over five football fields), 328 feet wide and 72 feet high (seven stories)
Huacas Pucllana.There is no suggestion in
the scriptural record that the narrow pass or narrow neck of land contained a
city of any size, let alone one as huge as this one, which is right in the city
area of Lima
Potter: “The Lurin
Valley where the Transporation Corridor is located—exactly between the Lima area
that the Incas called ‘land of the people of Desolation’ and their southeast
quarter of Contisuyu.
Response: First, throwing in this comment as though it
is both proven and realistic, in an attempt to relate a scriptural point (Land
of Desolation) with this area of Peru is not very scholarly since the
impression is completely inaccurate. According to Paul Richard Steele and
Catherine J.Allen (Handbook of Inca
Mythology, 2004) In Peruvian mythology, the People of Desolation, an
ancient people of Peru of whom nothing is known, other than their name Purum
Runa, a term that elsewhere was applied to a dangerous epoch and were born from
live eggs that were hatched, And according to Thomas C. Patterson (The Inca Empire, 1992), “that life was never easy in the Andes,
heightening the ever-present sense of desolation, imminent danger, and vulnerability.” He points out that much of
Andean history is based upon “the level of the supernatural world, confronted
by dangerous forces of nature.” Therefore, “people of desolation,” is linked in
Peruvian thought to incidents of nature, such as storms, earthquakes, and lightening
“that are responsible for destructive forms of precipitation.”
Secondly, introducing Inca
information of this manner is misleading, since the Inca came to power around
1423 A.D., and certainly under no circumstances existed before 1200 A.D., all
of which is about 1000 years after the demise of the Nephite nation and its
people, could have no bearing on anything Nephite, such as the People of the
Desolation, even if the appellation was accurate, which is highly doubtful.
(See the next post, “Why Was the Narrow Neck Strategic? – PtVI,”
to see not only why the narrow neck was strategic, but also to see how
theorists get so many wrong ideas about Mormon’s many descriptions when they
try to alter or change his meanings that are clearly stated in his writing)
Continuing
from the previous posts and our responses to the article George Potter wrote
that was sent to us by one of our readers. In the article, Potter again quotes
Hauck:
Hauck : “Throughout
Nephite history, this strategic west sea land bridge was critical to their
defense of the land northward.”
Response: Because Hauck is trying to make a case for
his own model and the location of his own narrow neck, he keeps referring to it
as a land bridge and therefore is able to maintain it as a multiple connection
between the Land Northward and the Land Southward, which it is not as the
scriptural record describes it as a singular connection.
Hauck: “Nephite
protection of the entrance into this corridor began as early as the first
century B.C. based on the information given in Alma 22:32-34. The Nephi
defensive strategy repeatedly included the defense of the entrance into this
corridor.”
Response: The 1828 dictionary does not provide a
definition for “corridor” that matches Hauck’s use of the term. The scriptural
record uses “pass” (Alma 50:34; 52:9) and “passage” (Mormon 2:29), which is
given the meaning in the 1828 dictionary of “entrance or avenue,” “a difficult
place of entrance and exit, as a pass between mountains,” “a passage, a road.”
Hauck: “It was
defended from fortifications at Judea and in the land of Bountiful between 67
and 65 B.C., and again from 35 to 31 B.C.”
Response: While it is true that when the Lamanites
attacked up the east coast and overran several Nephite cities of Manti,
Zeezrom, Cumeni, and Antiparah (Alma 56:14), Helaman arrived at the city of
Judea with his “stripling” warriors. However, this had nothing to do with the
narrow neck of land, the narrow pass or passage into the Land Northward, but
with the defense of the eastern coastal area and the city of Judea, in which
Helaman’s arrival with 2000 warriors was to assist in Judea’s defense, which was
under the direction of Antipus (Alma 56:15-19). This was not a corridor, but the
entire eastern coastal area that contained cities from Moroni in the south to
Mulek in the north. The narrow neck of land and its narrow passage was further
inland and north, beyond the Land of Bountiful along the border of the Land of
Desolation.
Hauck: “This
corridor became the Nephite place of refuge during a war with the Gadianton
robbers between A.D. 17 and 22.”
Response: The area of refuge was a very large area.
As Gidgiddoni said to the Nephites: “we
will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our
armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they
shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will
deliver them into our hands” (3 Nephi 3:21). So in the 17th year
“Lachoneous had gone forth throughout all the face of the land” and gathered in
the people and their belongings, “and did march forth by thousands and by tens
of thousands until they had all gone forth to the place which had been
appointed” (3 Nephi 3:22), and the land “which was appointed was the land of
Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land Zarahemla and the land
Bountiful, yea, to the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation” (3 Nephi
3:23). Therefore, this place of refuge was capable of holding many tens of
thousands of people and could hardly serve as the narrow neck or passage (or
Hauck’s corridor) as claimed.
Hauck:
“Last
of all, it was a pertinent defensive asset to the Nephites in their final war,
for it helped them block Lamanite access to their resources and population in
the land northward during 48 years of bloody warfare.”
Response:
Actually, during 23 years between 327 A.D. (Mormon 2:2) and 350 A.D. (Mormon
2:27), a bloody war took place that saw the Nephties first losing much of their
lands in the Land Southward and then regaining them. At this point, a treaty
was enacted between them (Mormon 2:28), “in which we did get the lands of our inheritance divided.
And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow
passage, which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites
all the land southward” (Mormon 2:28-29). This gave the Nephites a ten year
hiatus in which they spent their time “preparing their lands and their arms
against the time of battle” (Mormon 3:1).
In all of this, it should be
obvious that Hauck’s many comments are all inaccurate and do not give a correct
picture of the narrow neck of land, the narrow pass or passage, or the area of
lands under discussion, which in turn, invalidate Potter’s arguments for this
area of the Land of Promise. However, continuing with Potter’s discussion:
Potter: “So what information
do we have that can help us find a candidate for the “small and narrow corridor
of land” in Peru?
• “It was a track of land that separated
the land of Desolation on the north and the land of Bountiful on the south.”
Response:
More accurately, it separated the entire Land Northward from the entire Land Southward
and was the only connection of land between these two larger land masses—that
is why the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla were not completely
surrounded by water (Alma 22:32)—this narrow neck kept that from happening.
• “The small neck was not an isthmus or
passage between water, it was a “pass” which suggest a mountain passage (Alma
52:9).”
Response:
Once again, a small neck of land between larger lands is called an “isthmus,”
though that term is usually meant for much larger lands, such as continent
sized according to the 1828 dictionary.
• “It
started in the “east” and ended at the “west sea.”
Response:
According to Mormon, it was “a 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), thus it ran from sea to sea.
• “From the “east” to the “west
sea” took a Nephite one and one-half days to cross.”
Response:
The narrow neck of land took a Nephite a day and a half to cross (Alma
22:32),and since Mormon tells us the narrow pass that runs through this narrow neck of land is flanked by both seas (Alma 50:34), the
statement in 22:32 is an ellipted statement with “sea” mentioned only once, not
twice, but meant in both cases.
• “It included a “line” which in antiquity
probably meant a defensive wall.”
Response:
While the 1828 dictionary in this case is of no help, there is a reference
elsewhere about this line that suggests it means a border: “which was appointed was the land
of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land Zarahemla and the land
Bountiful, yea, to the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land
Desolation” (3 Nephi 3:23).
There
is no reason to indicate that the word “line” as used here has referene to
anything military since the word “line” in a military sense is usually
connected to an explanation, i.e., “line of defense,” “a defensive line,” “a
line of troops,” “a line of fortifications,” etc. However, a line on a map is
always used as a border or boundary. In modern language, a line is defined as: “A border or boundary: the county
line (or state line),” “A demarcation, to establish limits,” “to form a bordering line” (If you cross the border between Utah and Nevada, or between Nevada and California, there is no specific feature involved, just a "political" line drawn on a map).
(See the next post, “Why Was the Narrow Neck Strategic? – PtV,”
to see not only why the narrow neck was strategic, but also to see how
theorists get so many wrong ideas about Mormon’s many descriptions when they
try to alter or change his meanings that are clearly stated in his writing)
Continuing
from the previous post and our responses to the article George Potter wrote
that was sent to us by one of our readers.
Potter:
“Furthermore, the Book of Mormon tells us
that the Nephites fortified this line (3 Nephi 3:23,25). It would appear then that the “line” was a
fortified border line, a road or a
defensive line which must have had a length of no more than 30-40 miles. One
definition Webster’s provides for a “line” is “6 b – disposition made to cover
extended military positions and presenting a front to the enemy.” The Noah
Webster’s original 1828 American Dictionary of English Language defines a line
as “a trench or rampart; an extended work in fortification.” Again, it is
important to remember that whenever the small neck of land is mentioned in the
Book of Mormon, it is specifically in reference to military defenses needed to
protect the land northward from the Lamanites in the south.”
Response: Perhaps the reader might want to read our
earlier posts: “What Did Mormon Mean
“The
Line Which was Between the Land“? and “What Did Mormon Mean “On the
Line Bountiful and the Land of Desolation”?, both of which discuss this very
subject of the meaning of this “line.”
The point is that this line, as a border,
could have been any number of things: a river, canyon, ridge, swamp, trail,
depression, etc., its purpose was obviously to divide the two lands mentioned
in connection with it—“Yes, to the line which was between the Land Bountiful
and the Land Desolation” (3 Nephi 23)
The line is a border, and could have
been anywhere along the narrow neck of land, such as shown here, or further
south
Potter:
“This
is probably a new notion to readers of the Book of Mormon; however, two decades
prior to my analysis, F. Richard Hauck (M.A. degree in Anthropology from
Brigham Young University and a Ph.D in anthropology from the University of
Utah) formulated the same conclusion in his book, Deciphering the Geography of
the Book of Mormon. Hauck writes:
Hauck:
“One of the traditional assumptions
of Book of Mormon scholars and casual readers alike has been to equate the
“narrow neck of land” with an isthmus. Because this assumption has been widely
accepted without careful examination, it has complicated and confused the
numerous attempts made to identify the setting of the book, for the
identification of the proper isthmus is frequently the primary focus of
attempts made to identify the Book of Mormon geography. Careful analyses of all
the references in the text to this topographic feature fails to identify the
presences of two seas flanking the transportation corridor. The west sea is
clearly evident in the descriptions given in the text, but the east sea is
never specifically mentioned as being associated with the narrow corridor.
Since two bodies of water flanking a narrow strip of land create an isthmus,
the “narrow neck of land” as described in the Book of Mormon, does not qualify
as an isthmus. The description of a transportation corridor narrowly
constricted on the west flank by the sea and on the east flank by a possible
mountain barrier does, however, qualify as a land bridge.”
Response: If we use the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language that recorded the
language of New England that existed during the time of Joseph Smith, we find three
definitions:
Neck: A narrow track of land projecting from the
main body, or a narrow tract connecting two larger tracts of land
Bridge: Any
structure of wood stone, brick, or iron, raised over a river, pond, or lake,
for the passage of men and other animals.
Isthmus: A neck or narrow slip of land by which two
continents are connected, or why which a peninsula is united to the mainland.
While the word “isthmus” does not appear anywhere in
the scriptural record, it at least is much closer to the meaning of narrow
neck of land that Hauck’s land bridge.
Obviously, Mormon’s small and narrow neck of land
does not equate to a land bridge at all and the idea of Potter referencing
Hauck who, himself, is way off the mark, shows a certain amount of non
professionalism for a scholar, let alone one writing about the scriptural
record.
Potter: “The
question remains. “What was on the ‘east’ of the line?” It appears to have been
a highly secured mountain pass that was a strategic gateway between the
northward and southward lands.”
Response: Here we go again. How can anything “appear
to have been” when it is not eluded to in the scriptural record. If you
eliminate ellipted writing, then you obviously feel free to make up anything
you choose.
Potter: “We
learn in Chapter 52 of Alma
that the narrow entry or neck leading from the land of Bountiful into the land
northward was a “pass,” i.e., presumably a narrow mountain pass through the
Andes.”
Response:
Following Morianton’s aborted attempt at reaching the narrow neck of land and
getting into the Land Northward, thanks to Teancum’s race to head him off and
intercept him before he reached that point, Moroni issue further instructions
to Teancum (Alma 52:8) to retain the prisoners “who fell into his hands,” for a
potential prisoner exchange with the Lamanites. He added, “And he also sent
orders unto him that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the
narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain
that point and should have power to harass them on every side” (Alma 52:9).
That
point, obviously, is the Land Northward, the narrow neck of land, through which
the narrow pass ran, was the most strategic place within the entire Nephite
territory. However, oblivious to the obvious, Potter goes on:
Potter:
“The
narrow pass or neck is described in the Book of Mormon as a “point” (Alma
52:9).”
Response: Again, the point is a location—the Land
Northward. The 1828 dictionary describes point: “A small space, as a small
point of land,” and “An exact place,” and “A place to which anything is
directed.” Moroni was directing Teancum to secure the narrow pass so the
Lamanites could not get to a point beyond that, or to the Land of Desolation in
the Land Northward.
Potter: “Webster’s
defines a “point” as “4. a (2): a geometric element determined by an ordered
set of coordinates; b (1): a narrowly
localized place having a precisely indicated position (2): a particular place.” A strategic road
through a narrow a mountain pass between two geopolitical lands would form a
strategic military point, which was so vital that this single point would allow
the Lamanites to attack in the Nephites from every side. (Alma 52:9) Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary includes
these definitions of a “point.”: “a small space; as a small point of land,”“the
place in which anything is directed.” Both these definitions could apply to a
narrow passage through the mountains.”
The
narrow pass (yellow arrow) ran between the Land Northward and the Land
Southward within the narrow neck of land
Response: To make things clear, there was a narrow
pass running through the small and narrow neck of land, the only connection
between the Land Northward and the Land Southward mentioned in the scriptural record. It was through this narrow
passage “And it came to pass that
they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land
Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the
sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east”
(Alma 50:34) that ingress to the Land Northward could be reached, but it was
not a narrow pass through the Andes since it had the West Sea to one side and
the East Sea to the other (Alma 50:34).
(See the next post, “Why Was the Narrow Neck Strategic? – PtIV,”
to see not only why the narrow neck was strategic, but also to see how
theorists get so many wrong ideas about Mormon’s many descriptions when they
try to alter or change his meanings that are clearly stated in his writing)
Continuing
from the previous post and our responses to the article George Potter wrote
that was sent to us by one of our readers asking for our view on his work. In speaking of the narrow neck of land, Potter writes:
Potter:
“The most commonly cited clues to its nature
are found in the Book of Alma. ‘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”
Response: Commonly means “ordinarily” and
“frequently,” which in neither case would that be the correct word to use here.
The point is, though, that the statement made is a simple explanation as to the
width and/or length of the small neck of land. And that means that said distance
would be about 25 to 30 miles, based on what a Nephite, or average man, could
travel in a day and a half.
The
Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica, the theorists’ narrow neck of land, is
144 miles wide according to information released by the Mexican government
Despite Sorenson, and other Mesoamericanists, trying
desperately to fit their 144-mile wide Isthmus of Tehuantepec into a day and a
half journey and describing unusual and heroic individual effort, such as “small
groups of Mohave Indians could cover nearly 100 miles in a day,” or Toltecs
described as tlanquacemilhuique,
meaning “they could run an entire day without tiring,” or describing “Toltecs
in the Mexican chronicles, on dawn-to-dusk marches without animals along,
averaged six leagues, somewhere between 15 and 24 miles.” Now if we were to
take this last one, traveling 15 to 24 miles in a day, would mean 17 to 36
miles in a day and a half, which when comparing the meaning of league to
current distances, probably talking about 20 to 30 miles—so compare that to the 144 mile width Isthmus of
Tehuantepec
While Sorenson in his book (p9) says, “other data on travel rates
fall within these established ranges,” the fact is that the only normal
possibilities described by him are far closer to the 25 to 30 miles a modern
man can walk in a day and a half than his 144-mile Mesoamerica narrow neck.
Obviously, when Mormon is giving his future reader a way to determine a
distance, he would not use some unusual or out of the ordinary example, like
the Mohave Indians, but one that would hold true down through time, i.e., what
a common man could do.
Potter: “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.”
Response: In all Mormon’s descriptions of this connection between the two lands, this is
the only one he describes. Consequently, it is difficult to say there were
multiple connections between the two lands when only one is singled out and
mentioned. Therefore, it seems prudent to say that any movement or connection
between these two lands (Land Northward and Land Southward) is connected with
and within this small and narrow neck of land.
Potter: “And it came to pass that the Nephites had
inhabited the land of Bountiful, even from the east [Andes mountains] to 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 should have
no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land
northward.”
Response: The Andes
mountains had not risen when Mormon first describes the small neck of land, and
that area was the East Sea. After the destruction and drastic land form changes
described in 3 Nephi, with the Andes have then risen (Helaman 14:23), this area
would have been between the West Sea and the Andes Mountains. It might also be
of interest to realize that Mormon never mentions a narrow neck of land after the destruction in 3
Nephi, but only the narrow pass.
Potter: “As
important as what is written in this verse is what is not written.”
Response: Again, this is where theorists go astray,
trying to inject meaning into the written word that is not so described or
mentioned in the actual scriptural record. It is as if they know what Mormon meant to write but for some reason chose not to write.
Potter: “The
verse does NOT say the “small neck…ran from the east sea even to the west sea,”
nor does it state that it ran between the east to the west seas (plural). Rather the small neck of land ran
from the east to the west
sea. Clearly, the phrase is only
referring to one sea, the Pacific and a place called the east. A similar phrase
would be “the Union Pacific railroad ran from the “east” to the Pacific Ocean.”
Driving of the Golden Spike, Promontory Point, Utah, May 10, 1869
Response: First of all, the Union Pacific Railroad,
created by the 1862 Pacific Railroad Act of Congress ran from Sacramento,
California to Council Bluffs, Iowa—it did not run to the Pacific Ocean. It was at Promontory Summit, Utah,
on May 10, 1869 that Governor Stanford drove the Golden Spike (or the Last
Spike), that symbolized the completion of the transcontinental railroad,
joining the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific railroads.
Secondly, whenever theorists try to claim the
scriptures do not mean what most would interpret them to mean, they tend to run
into difficult ground, always thing to explain away what is reasonable and
inserting what is unreasonable. In the English language, there is what is
called an ellipsis, and is used in the economy of speech. It is like saying the
“Pacific and Atlantic ocean,” rather than the longer “the Pacific Ocean and the
Atlantic Ocean,” or “She didn’t water the flowers, I did” (instead of "She didn’t water the
flowers, I watered the flowers").
While we do not know if that was what Mormon in his
abridgement, or Joseph Smith in his translation, had in mind, it makes a lot
more sense in translating than would Potter’s comment about “a place called ‘the east’.” The problem is that theorists often forget
why Mormon is writing and to whom he is writing. In this case:
1. Why: Mormon is describing the Land of Promise and
its various parts and their locations along with the separation between the
Lamanite and the Nephite lands (an ellipted statement, meaning Lamanite lands
and Nephite lands).
2. Whom: His future readers. Therefore, his
intention would have been for simplicity and clarity.
Consequently, it should not take a complicated or
unreasonable answer to make his meaning clear. It should be clear in the
simplest and clearest manner.
Generally speaking, in English, an ellipted
statement (meaning something is left out; marked by extreme economy of speech
or writing, also refers to merismus and brachylogous writing), the ellipted
part is clearly understood and does not allow for making up something not
implied. Ellipted statements are used primarily for the purpose of using fewer
words to convey much information or meaning. It is far more understanding that
East and West Sea would refer to two seas since those two seas are constantly
used within the scriptural record. To claim it means some point to the east
that has never been established in unreasonable and without merit.
Potter: “Two
reasons can be cited for believing that there was no sea on the east side of
the small neck of land. First, a Nephite could cross the “line” on the small
neck of land in one and one half days. There is nowhere in the Western
Hemisphere where one can start at the Pacific Ocean and walk to another
separate large body of water (sea) in one and a half days.”
Response: While that is true, the problem is that
theorists forget Jacob said and Nephi wrote that they were on an island. There is no
island now, but there was in B.C. times, and, no doubt, was altered at the time
of 3 Nephi by mountains that rose “whose height is great.”
Potter: “Second,
what was being traversed in a day and a half was not a crossing between two
bodies of water, but a “line” between two lands: “yea, to
the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation” (3 Nephi
3:23) and “it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a
Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation” (Alma 22:32).”
The Line (yellow arrow) between the
Land of Bountiful and the Land of Desolation was a border, or separation of the
two lands, and also marked the narrow neck of land or the boundary between the
Land Northward and the Land Southward, and like many modern lines used on maps
as borders, it was not a physical line, but a “political” line
Response:
The line was the border between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of
Desolation that was within the small neck of land. The small neck marked the
line, or boundary, and walking across that small neck took a day and a half for
a Nephite as Mormon writes.
(See the next post, “Why Was the Narrow Neck Strategic? – PtIII,”
to see not only why the narrow neck was strategic, but also to see how
theorists get so many wrong ideas about Mormon’s many descriptions when they
try to alter or change his meanings that are clearly stated in his writing)
A
reader sent in a lengthy article by George Potter about the Narrow Neck of Land
and requested we respond to his views. We are doing so in this post.
Potter: “Along the border that
separated the Book of Mormon land northward from the land southward and the
land of Bountiful was a feature referred to as a “small neck of land.”
Response: Mormon
referred to this neck as both a small neck (Alma 22:32) and a narrow neck (Alma
63:5). Since he used both these terms, then we should put them together to
describe:
1. Neck: Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language describes
a neck of land as “a narrow tract connecting two larger tracts”
2. Small: 1828
dictionary: “Slender, thin, of little diameter” and “little in size”
3. Narrow: 1828
dictionary: “Of little breadth, not wide or broad, of little extent, very
limited” and “a narrow passage through a mountain, or a narrow channel of water
between seas”
Thus, Mormon is
describing a section of land that is small (not long) and narrow (not wide)
between two larger land masses. Elsewhere, we find that this narrow neck is the
only connection link or land between the Land
Northward and the Land Southward of the Land of Promise, i.e., “there being a
small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma
22:32).
We need to keep in mind
that Mormon’s description of this small neck in Alma 22:32 is specific and
requires no additional knowledge or information to describe its overall land
mass. To add to or subtract from is merely an attempt to change or alter the
scriptural meaning of Mormon’s specific description (that does not mean that
Mormon elsewhere does not give us more information about how this neck fit into
the Nephite plans and the overall Land of Promise).
Potter: “This feature is one of the most
misunderstood features of Book of Mormon geography. As a result, there have
developed over time many popular misconceptions about its nature and location.
As with all the Book of Mormon sites, we have very limited information
available to identify it.”
Response: While it is
true that many theorists have stated misconceptions about its nature and
location, we have sufficient information from Mormon to describe its
appearance, location and purpose
Potter: “Readers of the Book of Mormon usually assume
that the “narrow neck of land” defines a geographical feature, but a closer
examination of its context in the Book of Mormon shows that it describes an
important military fortification that must be defended to stop a Lamanite
invasion.”
Response: Here is where
Potter goes astray in his thinking. There is no assumption about the small or
narrow neck being a geographical feature—Mormon carefully and succinctly
describes it as such: a narrow neck of land separating the Land Northward from
the Land Southward (Alma 22:32). In fact, he makes it quite clear that “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).
An
example of an island with two major land masses and a narrow neck of land in
between. The circle in the southern land shows “nearly surrounded by water”
except for the narrow neck of land as Mormon describes
Obviously it is a geographical feature—it is a
small neck of land that exists between two larger land masses, and so far as
the entire scriptural record states, is the only parcel of land lying between
the Land Northward and the Land Southward. That is geographical! Now, we can go
on to suggest, as Potter states, that it held an important and strategic
position to the Nephites, but not for the reason Potter states. There was no
likelihood that the Lamanites could have invaded the Nephite territory by
coming through or using the narrow neck of land. After all, it was to the far
north of the Land of Nephi that the Lamanites controlled and inhabited. In
fact, the entire Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Bountiful lay between the
Land of Nephi and the narrow neck of land (Alma 22:27-32), and Mormon makes
this quite clear when he said, “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 should have no more possession on the north, that they might
not overrun the land northward” (Alma 22:33, emphasis mine).
The fear was not of an invasion as Potter claims,
but that somehow the Lamanites (or the defector Morianton or others unfriendly to the
Nephites) might get through the narrow neck into the Land Northward and in
someway make an alliance with the Lamanites, to have an attacking force on the
north while the Lamanites had their attacking force on the south of the Nephite
lands. However, throughout the scriptural record until the last final series of
battles in the third century A.D., the Nephites had restricted the Lamanites
from gaining ground in the Land of Zarahemla or the Land of Bountiful. Of this,
Mormon said, “Therefore the Lamanites could have no more possessions only in
the land of Nephi, and the wilderness round about. Now this was wisdom in the
Nephites -- as the Lamanites were an enemy to them, they would not suffer their
afflictions on every hand, and also that they might have a country whither they
might flee, according to their desires” (Alma 22:34).
Showing how the narrow neck of land, about 26 miles
across, could be defended against a pursuing army, allowing the Nephites to
escape into the Land Northward, if that was their desire
This country to which they could flee, obviously,
is the entire Land Northward, which lay beyond or to the north of the narrow
neck of land. Not until the final battles, did the Lamanites ever gain access
to the Land Northward. In fact, in 350 A.D., after the Lamanites had overrun
the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Bountiful, they entered into a treaty
(Mormon 2:28) with Mormon and the Nephites in which the narrow neck of land
became the new southern boundary of the Nephite people (Mormon 2:29) and the
Lamanites controlled everything south of that.
Potter: “John Sorenson notes of the narrow neck of
land: “Mormon was speaking of a fortified line of defense.”
Response: The narrow
neck of land was not a line of defense. It was simply a piece of land between
the Land Northward and the Land Southward. However, because of its narrow and
small size, it served as a line of defense, and was easily defended by the
Nephites. As an example, when Morianton fled northward with his rebellious
followers, Moroni feared he would gain the land Northward and set up a “second
front” against the Nephites. While the narrow neck at that time may not have
been guarded, or at least sufficiently, to withstand an attack, he dispatched
Teancum with an army to “head them by the narrow pass, which led by the sea
into the land northward” (Alma 50:34).
The mistake so many
people make is to try and separate this narrow passage from the narrow neck of
land; however, both of them led from the Land of Bountiful into the Land
Northward—the narrow neck being the only parcel or tract of land between the two larger land
masses. In fact, Mormon makes this clear when he shows in this instance with
Teancom and Morianton that the Land of Bountiful was to the north, then the
narrow neck and passage, and then the Land of Desolation, which is in the Land
Northward (Alma 50:32-34, compare with Alma 22:32).
(See the next post, “Why Was the Narrow Neck Strategic? – PtII,” to
see not only why the narrow neck was strategic, but also to see how theorists
get so many wrong ideas about Mormon’s many descriptions when they try to alter
or change his meanings that are clearly stated in his writing)
Continuing with our
series on “What did Mormon mean”? or, in this case, “What did Nephi mean”?, we
look at the simple statement Nephi made as he talks about setting out on their
voyage to the Land of Promise (1 Nephi 18:8). Considering the amount of people
in Lehi’s party, the vessel would have had to have been in the neighborhood of 70
to 100 tons to handle the size of Lehi’s party, and a minimum of 55 to 60 feet
(though probably longer) in length to be able to handle the swells yet recover
easily in the troughs
By comparison with
ships built by man in the Age of Sail 13th through 19th
centuries, nearly two thousand years after Nephi built his ship, the ships of
Columbus, Santa Maria, the largest of
his three ships was 108 tons, 62 feet long, with a keel length of 41 feet, and
18-foot beam (width) and a draught (depth) of 10 feet, with a compliment of 40
people. The ship had a single deck and three masts. It was comparable in size
to a modern-day cruising yacht. The other two vessels, the Pinta (60 to 70 tons, 56-foot deck with a complement of 26) and Nina, (about 50 to 60 tons, 50-foot deck
with a complement of 24.
Magellan’s fleet
included his ship, Trinidad, was 100
tons, 77-feet in length, with a compliment of 55; the San Antonio, 120 tons, with a compliment of 60; the Concepcion, 90 tons, with a compliment
of 45; the Victoria, 85 tons,
65-feet, and a compliment of 42; and the Santiago,
75 tons and a compliment of 32.
Drake’s fleet of five
ships were much smaller, though his ship, Pelican,
renamed Golden Hind, was typical of
the time at 100 tons, 70-foot hull and 102 feet in length, with a 19-foot beam,
and a drought of 9 feet, carrying a compliment of 80 people, with five decks
and three masts. On the other hand, Marigold, 30 tons; Elizabeth, 80 tons; Swan
50 tons; and Christopher, 15 tons, were all much smaller. Cabot’s ship, Matthew, (1497), 50-tons and 78-foot in
length, beam of 20 foot, draught of 7.5 feet, with two decks and three masts,
and had a crew of only 19
Theorists can talk
about the size and construction of Nephi’s and Hagoth’s ships, but when
discussing ocean-going vessels, there are certain things about design that
cannot be ignored. While modern man has far more knowledge of ship design than
did the people of Nephi and Hagoth’s eras, we cannot ignore that ships in deep
ocean sailing were faced with circumstances of the elements no different than
those of today. And their vessels show that they learned how to build ships
that could go to sea.
As an example, swamping
underway in today’s smaller vessels are caused by only a few problems, one of
which is too low transom height, i.e., the rear or stern of the vessel is not
high enough to keep following waves from flooding over the stern.
Ancient Polynesian ocean-going ships like
those seen by Captain Cook in the 18th century, had (Red Arrow) high
prows and (White Arrow) high sterns. Their shortcoming was their size in regard
to carrying large numbers of people
In large sailing ships, transoms
or sterns were square (hence the term “transom”), and was attached to the last
U-shaped rib-like frame called the “fashion timber” or “fashion piece,” because
fashioned to it was the aft part of the ship.
These were square stern transoms
originally built to stop any type of following wave action in high seas,
especially when tightly maneuvering. However, in 1817 the British
naval architect Sir Robert Seppings first introduced the concept of the round
or circular stern, because the square transom had been an easy target
for enemy cannon, and could not support the weight of heavy stern chase guns. But
Seppings' design the rudder head was exposed, and was regarded by many as
simply ugly, giving way to the elliptical stern design in 1820.
The elliptical design that lasted long after
the Age of Sail and far into the steam and later diesel eras
Another important
need for a deep ocean vessel, not needed in coastal sailing, such as the
Portuguese rounding Africa and sailing the Mediterranean, Red Sea and
along the coasts of Arabia, India, and Indonesia, is the need for a front and
rear structure in the design that discouraged swamping, i.e., being
over-powered by large cresting and following surface waves (especially storm
waves) of a wind sea in evolving sea states. It should be kept in mind that in
the deep ocean, a fully developed sea has the maximum wave size theoretically
possible for a wind of a specific strength, duration and fetch, and often reaches
a significant wave height.
There is
always the danger of being swamped by following waves
To compensate for this, early
ship designs included a poopdeck. Just
aft (to the rear) of the mainmast the lower or main deck gives way to a higher
deck, referred to as the poopdeck (from the French term for stern—la poupe, and Latin puppis). This structure, which was the flat roof of the poop
(stern) cabin, was essential in ocean-going vessels to keep from being swamped
from the stern by a wave and served the same purpose as a raised bow. In fact,
at 45 feet above the waterline and nearly 60 feet above the keel, the structure
was so high that no following sea could ever have conceivably “pooped” it. The
raised stern structure also gave the captain and helmsman an elevated position
that was ideal for both navigation and observation of the crew and sails.
In ocean-going vessels, one of the
important parts of ship design was the poopdeck, the high, elevated structure
at the rear or stern of the ship: Left: Yellow Arrow: the poopdeck; Right: Red
Arrow: main deck; White Line: height of a man; White Arrow: height of the gunrail
or side of the ship
When
Nephi says, “We did put forth into the sea,” this was no idle comment to be
taken for granted, or passed over by the reader if one wants to truly
understand the scriptural record and what it contains. After all, the adventure
Lehi set out upon to reach the distant Land of Promise by voyaging across the
deep ocean was fraught with difficulties and dangers unknown to them and very
likely, unheard of in their experiences.
Had
not the Lord designed the ship (1 Nephi 17:8) and told Nephi exactly how it was
to be built, how the boards were shaped and fashioned, joined and framed, how
all parts of the ship came together (1 Nephi 18:1), it would have been
impossible for 600 B.C. man to have made such a voyage. For those theorists who
love to talk about the sailing of Phoenicians who voyaged far and wide around
the globe is far from true—few sailed out of the Mediterranean, an inland sea
that had become well know, and most of that sailing was coastal. The same is
true of those who finally ventured beyond the Gates of Gibraltar and along the
currents to northern Africa, and then along that coast. There were even early
mariners who traveled up the coast of Portugal, Spain and Gaul (France) and
braved the jaunt across the channel to Britain, in search of tin for trade.
However,
the islands to the west, the Canaries (60 miles off the coast of Morocco); Sao
Tome (150 miles off Africa); Cape Verde (350 miles off Africa), the Azores (850
miles off Portugal) were not to be reached for more than two thousand years
after Nephi sailed.
Madeira,
due west of Gibraltar and off the coasts of Portugal and Morocco, the first of
the offshore islands to be discovered possibly as early as 1000 A.D., by
Vikings, and actually visited as early as 1339, but not officially “discovered”
until 1415, and considered to be the first territorial discovery of the
exploratory period of the Portuguese Age of Discovery (1415 to 1542), shows how
long it took for man to venture out into the Atlantic Ocean. It is easy to give
credit in writing to Phoenician sailors for exploits they never achieved, but
something else to show evidence of their sailing away from coastal waters until
long after the time of Christ.
Again,
coastal sailing, like the early traders along the coasts of Arabia, India and
Indonesia is not the same thing as sailing deep oceans. Nor were ships built
before the Age of Discovery capable of withstanding the pounding of the ocean
waves that often could take a ship up and slam it down into a trough and split
it in half. The Lord knew how to build such ships, but not man, not for more
than a thousand years after Nephi, and it was His knowledge and direction that
caused Nephi to build a ship that could have successfully “put forth into the
sea.”
Continuing with our series on “What Did Mormon Mean,” we all too often
skip over statements or phrases used in the scriptural record, that if we would
dwell on them for a moment (contemplate their meaning, “ponder” them as Joseph
B. Wirthlin of the Seventy stated in a Conference Talk in April 1982), we often
get an insight into events and happenings that otherwise seem vague or
unimportant to us.
"Pondering," as Elder Wirthlin
explained, means to “weigh mentally, to deliberate, to mediate, and can achieve
the opening of the spiritual eyes of one’s understanding.” Nephi wrote that he
“sat pondering in his heart and was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord” (1
Nephi 11:1), and the Lord told the Nephites, “Go ye unto your homes, and ponder
upon the things which I have said” (3 Nephi 17:3).
As we ponder Mormon’s many
meanings, there is no question we get a deeper understanding of what he was
writing about. This is not the same as change the meaning, or injecting
information not found in the scriptures as theorists do, but simply ponder what
has been written—exactly what was written exactly the way it was written.
Take, for example, Mormon’s comment
at the end of the record of Alma regarding the emigrants that entered into the
ship(s) Hagoth built and “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).
Over the years, with seven
children and living in Southern California with most of our extended family in
Utah, we made several trips by car with the family. Even in those days, with
nine of us pulling into a restaurant (there were few fast food places along the
freeway then), it cost a considerable amount to feed us all, especially with
each kid having a different “like” than the others. So, often we would pack “provisions”
for us to nibble on and sometimes eat our meals while driving.
Before air conditioning (yes,
there was a time when we drove across the summer heat of the 120º of Death
Valley, etc.), we also made sure we had sufficient water (I remember a time
when we took extra water for the radiator [left]—an unheard of need today),
made sure the spare tire had air in it (no tiny emergency wheels in those
days), and other paraphernalia in case of an emergency.
Today, we grab a couple of
battles of water and hop in the car. There are In-n-Out Hamburgers all along
the way, rest stops and restrooms everywhere, and cars are built to travel
across the heat of the desert on long trips without a problem.
One can only wonder at the
“provisions,” Hagoth’s emigrants took with them. When it says much provisions, the emphasis is on “a
lot.” In addition, these people were going somewhere they, and possibly others,
had never been, so they could not count on supplies of any kind being where
they were going, certainly no food stuff would be available wherever they went,
other than what they took, and need to prepare for most kinds of needs and
emergencies.
Since the ship returned without
them the following year, we can conclude two things:
1. They went a very long way (it
took a long time for the ship to return);
2. They were not intending to
return (had no future way of obtaining supplies).
So their provisions would have
been quite extensive, including seeds “of every kind” for planting;
constructing tools to make houses, forts, cities, and other building needs;
clothes, blankets, and other materials to see them through the winter,
especially if this was a land they knew little about. In addition, they would
have taken special plants, even the core of their culture, including food
plants, fiber plants such as flax or hemp, cotton or husk fibers like coconut,
medicinal plants and their ritual plants. The first settlers to an area might
have found incredibly unique ecosystems, yet very little that could sustain
them other than a marine ecosystem. Initially, of course, they would have
looked for a place with abundant marine resources, fresh water, and rainfall
to water the plants they brought.
All of this would have required a
vessel large enough not only for themselves, which included entire families,
and provisions needed to sustain life, but also that which would have been
required for the future success of a colony. In any type of a migration, people
move prepared to take care of themselves, sometimes individually, sometimes
collectively.
In
a mass exodus from the Plains during the 1930s, poor migrants streamed out of
the Dust Bowl area of the mid west and flocked to California looking for a
better life. They often carried their entire belongings on the top of their
cars. By 1950, one quarter of all people born in Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas or
Missouri lived outside their region with most having come like the above photos
to make a new life in the west
When taking passage on a ship to
an unknown land in 55 B.C., in a time when survival depended on what you could
take with you to build a new home would also have included tents, means of
cooking meals, obtaining food in the wild, weapons for protection and tools for
everyday use.
The point is, all of this would
have required much space and a type of vessel unlike those most theorists
envision, even large, the high-sided canoes Sorenson claims Hagoth built would not have been sufficient.
Certainly, there would have been
a need for a lower deck where provisions, supplies, and all implements could
have been stored during the voyage—a sort of cargo hold. In later European
ships, there was an Orlopp deck like that, a low storage deck, right about the
waterline, and typically filled with casks of stores for maintaining the ship
and crew. Plus, a loaded deck such as that helped a vessel to be
stable, otherwise it could be top-heavy with people.
Also,
an important point that most theorists and especially academicians, often
forget, is that from a
financial point of view, there had to be a lot of passengers in order to
compensate the owners of the ship for its use and their passage. Contrary to
popular belief among certain historians and scholars, there has never been a
time when people were not expected to work for their sustenance, and worked to
support themselves and their families.
Nobody builds a “very large ship”
without expecting to be paid for its use or sale. No one opens up an emigration
route by ship without charging for passage. And when we talk about taking along
women and children (Alma 63:4), then we are talking families and all the needs,
burdens and responsibilities families require; and when we talk about
provisions, we are talking about life-sustaining needs for everything from
eating to building to professions for continued earnings; and when we are talking
about not returning, we are talking about taking with you everything you would
possibly need to continue life, growth, and future.
Thus, a lot of passengers
requires a “very large ship,” which is exactly what Hagoth built and Mormon
records: “Therefore he went forth and built him
an exceedingly large ship” (Alma 63:5).
