What Has Happened to Common Sense? –Part V

Continuing from the previous post, we take a look at other areas where common sense seems lacking as theorists taut their particular theories and maps regarding the geographical setting of the Land of Promise in the Book of Mormon, and ignore clear descriptions Mormon left us . Take, as an example, those in the Malay Peninsula camp that completely ignore two all important factors: 1) The winds and currents do not blow from Arabia to Malay; and 2) Moroni told Joseph Smith that the Plates contained information of the inhabitants of “this continent.” How on earth can you ignore the common sense that tells you Malay, which is on a totally different continent in another hemisphere, could not possibly be the location for the Land of Promise? 
    As stated throughout this series, the problem arises when theorists start comparing scriptural references with their chosen locations. As an example, Mormon tells us that Moroni prepared his defenses against the Lamanites in two distinct ways:

1. By “digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites” (Alma 50:1); and
2. By “building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land” (Alma 48:8).
    Now, clearly, Moroni did both. The stone walls were far more permanent both around the cities and around the land, but there were also wooden stakes driven into the ground on the tops of the heaped up Earth “ridges” (Alma 50:2). However, it is amazing that all theorists other than Mesoamericanists, spend a lot of time trying to sell us on the “heaps of Earth,” but totally ignore the “stone walls.” Probably, this is because the Malay, Baja California, Heartland, Great Lakes and Eastern U.S. theorists can claim the heaps of earth and the timbers have all deteriorated by now and no sample in this lands can be pointed to in order to show they once existed. However, if they acknowledge that stone walls were built all around the cities and the land, they haven’t a leg to stand on since no area outside Mesoamerica and Andean Peru have stone edifices, and only Andean Peru has stone edifices of the Jaredite and Nephite period.

Top: Stacked stone claimed to be a defensive wall in North America (Tennessee) that is only three-feet high and would not keep an invading army at bay; Bottom: A true defensive wall of the type found in Andean South America that was built for defense to keep an invading army from attack a city as the type Moroni built (Alma 48:8)

    Since Mormon makes it quite clear that “stone walls were built around cities and around the land,” then common sense would tall any honest individual that any Land of Promise location without remnant defense walls built around cities, and the land, must be discarded. Again, that eliminates all but Mesoamerica and Andean Peru.
    It simply is not intellectually honest to deny this specific fact!
    In addition, stacked stones, i.e., piles of stone on top of one another, is not a defensive wall. It might well be a division line, a boundary, the edge or outline of a field or location, but because such walls can be knocked down with little effort, certain do not qualify for “defensive walls,” which by their very terminology would require great stability to keep from being knocked down and circumvented.

Typical stacked stone walls found in the Eastern U.S., claimed by theorists to be defensive walls; however, they are neither tall enough nor strong enough to keep an enemy from breaching them

    Again, we are talking about common sense here. The stone walls were mentioned by Mormon in the context of Moroni “had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort,” and they had been “taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary.” These walls were meant to strengthen the defenses of the Nephites against their hereditary enemy, the Lamanites. In fact, their enemy, in this case “the Lamanites, or the Amalickiahites, were exceedingly astonished at their manner of preparation for war,” (Alma49:9) which Moroni had accomplished.

Stone defensive walls in Andean South America that would ensure stopping an army’s attack on a city and would withstand any attempt to knock it down

    The “chief captains of the Lamanites were astonished exceedingly, because of the wisdom of the Nephites in preparing their places of security” (Alma 49:5), because “to their uttermost astonishment, they were prepared for them, in a manner which never had been known among the children of Lehi” (49:8).
    This remarkable comment follows the statement “how great was their disappointment; for behold, the Nephites had dug up a ridge of earth round about them, which was so high that the Lamanites could not cast their stones and their arrows at them that they might take effect, neither could they come upon them save it was by their place of entrance” (Alma 49:4), thus two things are important here:
1. The Nephites had not employed any kind of so-called “mound building” prior to this time (72 B.C.); and
2. The Nephites had not used wooden stakes or stockade fencing before this time (72 B.C.)
    This shows that the idea so promoted by these theorists to support their location and building methods (mounds, wood fencing) is without support until 72 B.C. And then, of course, we only have that in the context of defensive works to ensure the safety of their cities, fortresses and armies.

Typical Jerusalem houses during Lehi’s time. All built of stone and would have been tyhpical of Lehi’s home outside Jerusalem

    Now compare this with the nature of the Hebrews and Jerusalem Jews in general, from which Lehi, Nephi and Sam came, and carried with them an understanding of how to build buildings, houses, and public works, such as Solomon’s Temple and his Palace, and all that was built in Jerusalem from about 950 B.C. down until the time Lehi left Jerusalem. All that construction was of stone, i.e., walls, floors, upper stories, etc., with wood being used for framework, roof supports and upper floor support and surfacing (which is why stone buildings catch on fire, i.e., the wood frame and supports burn and the building in-part collapses. On the other hand, we have no evidence at all of anything in Jerusalem built during this same time period (950 B.C. to 600 B.C.) was built of wood (other than framing, roofs, etc.)
    So common sense should tell one that what Lehi’s family and the family of Ishmael (also from the area of Jerusalem where everything was built of stone) would have built in their new land such edifices as those they knew so well and had lived in and around all their lives.

Scientists’ views of the early Woodlands, Adena, and Mound Builders houses in the eastern U.S.: Top Left: Mound Builders; Top Right: Early Woodland; Bottom Left: Iroquois and Huran; Bottom Right: Adena. Does anyone really think the Nephites, after 500 years of advanced living in Jerusalem behind them would have built such flimsy wood structures? Is this consistent with the scriptural record?

    Yet, despite the common sense here, theorists, like those of Heartland, Great Lakes, Eastern U.S. and their like, insist that the Nephites built everything of wood, and point toward Helaman 3 regarding building with timber, and without it had to learn to build with cement. Once again, you can build a floor and four walls out of stone, but you cannot build a ceiling and roof out of stone, for it would have no support. Consequently, timber is required to lay in wall to wall poles (even Solomon’s Temple was built this way, using Cedar of Lebanon for the timber). Then upon the poles, wood planks are laid crosswise, and on top of that light (thin) stone, such as flagstone, etc., can be laid, or finished and polished wood planking. Without timber, you would have no window or door frames, no doors, no flooring, no roofs, no stairs, etc., all of which are required to build any home, even ones of stone. So the Nephites sent southward for timber so they could finish their homes, and in the interim used cement for their framing, and likely a type of cement (like plaster) to finish off the rough stone walls, for that is how the houses in Jerusalem and the regions round about were built in that time frame.

 Left: Typical Eastern U.S. house of Mound Builders (Hopewell) at time of Lehi; Right: Typical house at (around) Jerusalem at time of lehi—which makes the most sense?
    No houses in Jerusalem or farmhouses around the area, were built solely of wood, because it was neither plentiful in many areas, did not weather well or last long, did not provide good protection and was cold in the winter and hot in the summer with such limited insulation. Stone was always superior.
    This is something that every builder would know if presented with such factors and when stone cutting was both inexpensive and well known, and overall cost was and maintenance was very low. Today, of course, it is just the opposite, but not in B.C. times.
    Is common sense a thing of the past among Land of Promise theorists?