What Has Happened to Common Sense? - Part IV

Continuing with 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. 
     As an example, take a look at Tom Wheeler’s map, where he has created “an ancient extension of the Gulf of Mexico,” where no geologist or oceanographer or historian has ever claimed the area was ever underwater.

Blue area (red circle) is the area of Wheeler’s “Ancient Extension of the Gulf of Mexico” where no historic evidence has ever been found of it being underwater, let alone any creditable scientific support

    In the region of his map, they have discovered an underwater cave and flooded tunnels near Hoyo Negro, just north of Tulum along the northeastern Yucatan coast of the Caribbean Sea where human remains dated to 8000 B.C. have been found (Glenn Hodges, National Geographic, May 15, 2014). There is also a flooded sinkhole in southern Mexico located in the Yucatan (A. R. Williams, National Geographic, Januaryh 16, 2014). An ancient submerged forest has been found ten miles off the Alabama coast in the Gulf of Mexico that was apparently uncovered by Hurricane Katrina and lies about 60 feet beneath the sea near the Mobile-Tensaw Delta (Ben Raines, Mobile Press-Register, Alabama Media Group, September 2, 2012, updated April 10, 2014). There are also ancient river basins now underwater in the Gulf of Mexico along the Florida coast (Florida Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee Florida/Rosenthal School Division of Marine Affairs). There are underwater cities discovered off the coast of Cuba (Frank Joseph, “The Atlantis Encyclopedia” p269). However, nothing whatever has been found along the eastern coast of Mexico, especially where Wheeler claims there was an ancient extension of the Gulf of Mexico into the Mexican inland area around central to northern Mexico.
    In addition, and most importantly, the area that Wheeler claims was underwater, has a relatively  high elevation of between 5,285 feet and 12,39 feet—which means to be underwater, the Gulf of Mexico would have had to rise high enough to get over the Sierra Madre Oriental mountain range, which runs parallel to the Gulf of Mexico and just inland from the coast!

Top left: Location of (red circle) Wheeler’s extension of the Gulf of Mexico. Note the mountain range in the midst of it; Top right: The Sierra Madre Oriental, rising to over 10,000 feet in height—could the sea-level Gulf have gotten over those mountains? Bottom: The Sierra Madre Oriental running just inland from the coast, completely blocks any inland movement of water from the sea

    Consider these areas, which pretty much covers the entire region of Wheeler’s “an ancient extension of the Gulf of Mexico” claim:
Cuates de Australia 5285-feet
San Luis Potosi  6069-feet
Guanajuato  6586-feet
Iturbide  6896-feet
San Antonio de las Alazanas  7150-feet
Zacatacas  8100-feet
Hildago  9160-feet
Tamaulpas  10760-feet
    In addition, the Sierra Madre Oriental mountains which run from the Texas border southward for 620 miles in an almost continuous chain of mountains, running to Puebla where it joins with the east west running Eje Volcánico mountain range. The Sierra Madre Oriental has several peaks over 10,000 feet, with the three highest peaks over 12,100 feet. How on earth could the Gulf of Mexico have risen high enough to have ran inland as Wheeler claims? 
    What has happened to common sense?
    After all, common sense alone should tell Wheeler that to be inundated with water, that such a huge rise in the ocean would have been impossible and there is no record of such happening in the Gulf of Mexico, which would have wiped out most of coastal Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and all of Florida. How ridiculous. Besides, without some type of supportive evidence, that such a claim is outright fallacious—sure it makes the map look good and creates a narrow neck, but the fact remains that there was never an inland sea there and therefore, never a narrow neck where he claims.
    Another case of a lack of common sense is seen in the Heartland and Eastern U.S theorists who clsim the Nephite Nation’s capitol of Zarahemla was located in eastern Iowa across the Mississippi River from Nauvoo, and claim the Mississippi River was the River Sidon of the Land of Promise. Neither could be further from the truth. One fact alone discounts this fallacy.

As the scriptural record so clearly tells us, the Land of Nephi was to the south of the Land of Zarahemla, and that the Land of Nephi was at a  higher elevation than the Land of Zarahemla

    The problem, and lack of common sense, is in not accepting the clearly stated circumstance as the fact that the Land of Nephi, the Lamanite lands, were at a higher elevation than the Land of Zarahemla, for the Lamanites were continually “going down” to Zarahemla (Alma 27:5,8-9; 57:16:28,30). Yet, in a drastic ignoring of the scriptural record, the Heartland and Eastern U.S. theorists place Zarahemla in Iowa where there is no higher elevation lands anywhere around to the south of there.

Top: Looking south from Nauvoo, along the Mississippi (Zarahemla in Iowa is across the river to the right), the land as far as can be seen is flat as a pancake; Bottom: Further south from Nauvoo and Zarahemla, just below Keokuk, looking south. Again, flat as a pancake

    Common sense tells one that if he is going to find a place he wants to call the Land of Promise, then he obviously needs to make sure it matches the scriptural record. If not, then anyone can claim any place is the Land of Promise, which distorts and makes a mockery of the Book of Mormon.

Top: Continuing down the Mississippi southward from Zarahemla, we come to Quincy (47 miles). Note the flat land continues; Bottom: Further south, looking toward St. Louis, Mo. 184 miles from Zarahemla. Note the flat land still continues. This is true in every direction from the Mississippi River southward and northward of the so-called location of Zarahemla

    Another amazing lack of common sense stems from the misunderstanding of a simple statement Moroni abridged in Ether, when he wrote: “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20). Now this simple phrase has three parts:
1. Built a city
2. By the narrow neck of land
3. Where the sea divides the land
    This is not a separate sea, for in English, it is written “where the sea,” in which case the word “the” signals that the noun following has already been introduced, i.e., is already known—it is not a new sea not already mentioned.

Two possibilities based on the scriptural record and the descriptions of both Moroni and Mormon are shown in this sample of two land masses connected by a narrow neck with a "sea that divides the land"

    Thus, we can look for the narrow neck of land where the sea (in this case the West Sea or the East Sea) divides the land. We know this from Mormon’s writing: “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). Consequently, one of those two seas must cut into the land, dividing it. In Mesoamerica, there is no such indentation that separates the land anywhere around their Isthmus of Tehuantepec (narrow neck).

In South America, however, the West Sea extends into the land, cutting the lower land mass in two from the upper land mass, separating the two land masses, or divided them as the scriptural record states

As pointed out in the previous post, Voltair stated almost 300 years ago, that "Common sense is not so common." Today's numerous Land of Promise theorists are surely proving him correct.