Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part V

Continuing with George Potter’s article on the Narrow Neck of Land.
    Potter Comment: “a strategic road through a narrow 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.”
    Response: It is interesting that here Potter uses the word “point” consistently with the Alma 52:9 usage, i.e., “…was so vital that this single place or position would allow the Lamanites to attack the Nephites…”
    Potter quoting Hauck again: “Throughout Nephite history, this strategic west sea land bridge was critical to their defense of the land northward. 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: First of all, there is no indication in the scriptural record that the narrow neck of land was a “West sea land bridge.” This is especially true when we understand that a “land bridge” is defined as “a strip of and subject to submergence that connects adjacent continental land masses and serves as a route of dispersal for plants and animals,” or a “land bridge can be created by marine regression, in which sea levels fall, exposing shallow, previously submerged sections of continental shelf; or when new land is created by plate tectonics; or occasionally when the sea floor rises due to post-glacial rebound after an ice age.” The term “land bridge” as a word/phrase did not come into being until 1895 to 1890. 

The so-called Beringia Land Bridge anciently connecting Siberia with Alaska; other such so-called land bridges were Doggerland, connecting England to Europe; Gibraltar Land Bridge, connecting Spain to North Africa; New Guinea-Australia Land Bridge, etc. 

It might be of interest to know that in the 19th century a number of scientists noted puzzling geological and zoological similarities between widely separated areas. To solve these problems, "whenever geologists and paleontologists were at a loss to explain the obvious transoceanic similarities of life that they deduced from the fossil records, they sharpened their pencils and sketched land bridges between appropriate continents" (William R. Corliss, Mysteries Beneath the Sea, Apollo Editions, June 1975, Chapter 5: "Up-and-Down Landbridges.” Corliss then went on to list “the hypothetical land bridges included” Africa, the North Atlantic, Central America, South America the Indian Ocean and Australia, where zoological similarities led scientists to invent ancient land bridges).
    Secondly, it cannot be said that this narrow neck and passage of the Book of Mormon was on the west coast as is indicated by Hauck, for no such indication is given by Mormon. Except for Hagoth’s shipyard being on the west coast (he launched his ships into the West Sea), there is equal mention of both the West Sea and the East Sea regarding the small or narrow neck of land.
    Third, the scriptural record does not say the Nephites defended the entrance into this corridor, or defended this narrow neck of land. However, it was important to Capt. Moroni that no defector or Lamanite army or group get into the Land Northward, and on occasion part of his army was dispatched to head off such an event, such as in the case of Morianton. In fact, in the case of Morianton, Moroni’s fear was that this defector would unite with the people of Bountiful in his defection and form an independent group to the Nephite north (Alma 50:32), which he knew would “lead to the overthrow of their liberty.”
    As a result, Moroni sent an army, to head the people of Morianton to stop their flight into the land northward” (Alma 50:33), which they did under the leadership of Teancum (Alma 50:35), and headed off Morianton’s northern flight 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). There is no mention of any defensive post, people, garrison, or other military function at the narrow neck, or at the narrow pass through it. Teancum was sent from some distance away with an army to head Morianton off from attaining the Land Northward.
    Continuing with Potter quoting 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: Again, this is not what the scriptural record says. Teancum was sent from Moroni’s camp, which was to the south of Bountiful, near enough to the Land of Lehi that the people could flee to Moroni’s camp and seek aid for Morianton’s takeover of some of their land. When Morianton heard about it, and fearing Moroni, he took off to the north with his defectors. Moroni, worried about an alliance between Morianton and the people of Bountiful, sent Teancum to intercede and head off Morianton from reaching the Land Northward.
    When Teancum was successful in defeating Morianton, he returned to the camp of Moroni (Alma 50:35). At no time was any garrison or fortified area of Judea, or any troops from Judea used in this intercession and subsequent battle. For verification, we find that just after this, Moroni, in his camp, received an epistle from Helaman (Alma 56:1), who was in Judea where he received two thousand stripling warriors to assist Antipus, the leader of the Judean area, who was battling a large Lamanite force in the area (Alma 56:10).
    And for the second period, 35 to 31 B.C., this has to do with a huge dissension among the Nephites, a war among them, and the dissenters driven out of the land who immediately went over to the Lamanites (Helaman 4:2), who came down to do battle with the Nephites (Helaman 4:5). In the ensuing struggle, the Nephites and the armies of Moronihah were driven clear up to the Land of Bountiful (Helaman 4:6), where they fortified a line of defense against the Lamanites from the West Sea even unto the east, a line about 20 to 30 miles long, at which they stationed their armies to defend their north countries (Helaman 4:7).
    It should be noted here, since so much that is inaccurate has been stated of this by various theorists, that the distance the Nephites built a fortification “from the West Sea even to the east,” is not given, and should not be confused with the following statement that “it being a day's journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country” (Helaman 4:7). That is, whatever the length of the fortification, “it being a day’s journey for a Nephite,” along that fortified line where they “stationed their armies to defend their north country.” That is, the fortification, such as a stone wall, could have been much longer than a day’s journey but that the Nephite armies were stationed only along the first 20-30 miles of it (day’s journey).
    It should also be noted that this is “north countries,” not Land Northward, meaning the Nephite lands in the northern reaches of the Land Southward. This fortification stopped the Lamanite advancement, and in the following year, Moronihah and his armies drove the Lamanites and the Nephite dissenters back toward the south (Helaman 4:9), and the following year regained half of all they had lost (Helaman 4:10).
    In all of this, nothing is said or implied that it had anything to do with the narrow neck of land, the narrow passage, or even the Land Northward. Once again, Hauck, like other theorists, makes the mistake of thinking or believing something the scriptural record simply does not say or imply.
(See the next post, “Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part VI,” for more of George Potter’s comments about how one theorist twists the scriptural record to meet his own pre-determined location for the Land of Promise)

Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part IV

Continuing with George Potter’s article on the Narrow Neck of Land with his next comment: “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.” 
     Response: This stance is only possible after a theorist convinces himself that Mormon was in error when he said that the land Southward (Nephi and Zarahemla) was nearly surrounded by water except for a small neck of land (Alma 22:32). Because this narrow neck of land, if it was all that kept the Land Southward from being surrounded by water, then it was the only stretch of land between the two land masses of the Land Southward and the Land Northward, and thus, any narrow passage leading into those two lands would have to be part of, and within, that narrow neck of land—the so-called transportation corridor. Thus, when Mormon tells us that “the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, “ (Alma 50:34, emphasis added), then he is telling us that this narrow neck of land had a sea on either side, i.e., the Sea East and the Sea West.
    Potter Comment: “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.”

According to Diffen Comparison Charts, an Isthmus has water on two sides, with the other two sides being land that the narrow isthmus connects; is not very long when compared to the land mass it connects to, and are formed via a series of events like a shift in the tectonic plates and volcanic eruption

Response: Of course it does! We have just shown that it does in the proceeding two comments and responses, based on clear and simple evidence in the scriptural record. The problem is, that Potter needs it not to be an isthmus, or neck of land with water on both sides, since that description does not match his pre-determined model in Peru. The funny thing is, when one of the two land masses of the Land of Promise, i.e., the Land Southward, made up of the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla (in this case, Zarahamla is all inclusive of the Nephite lands in the Land Southward, as shown in the comment made by Mormon when he said:
    “And it came to pass that I, being eleven years old, was carried by my father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla” (Mormon 1:6), skipping the Land of Bountiful, which he would have had to pass through coming from the Land Northward, where Ammaron was when he told Mormon about the land of Antum and the hill Shim, which are in the Land Northward where he hid up the plates for Mormon to retrieve when he turned twenty-four (Mormon 1:3).
    When it says that this Land Southward was “nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32), it can only mean that the narrow neck of land had water on both sides, since that was what kept the entire Land Southward from being surrounded by water. And we can verify this with Hagoth’s shipyard being along the West Sea, by the narrow neck (Alma 63:5), and that the Jaredites built a city by the narrow neck of land “where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20).
    Potter Comment: “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: No doubt. However, there is no mention of such a geographic location of either a "transportation corridor" or a "land bridge" in the entire scriptural record—and certainly not regarding the narrow neck of land, at least not before the destruction in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion. What existed after that destruction, we are not informed.
    Potter Comment: “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: This merely shows what happens when a Theorist wants to further his own personal views of a pre-determined location—first, he makes up a problem that does not exist (creating an unknown eastern point instead of the recognized Sea East), then solves it with his personal view (a highly secured mountain pass). While it is true there was a pass or passage through the narrow neck of land (Alma 50:34; 52:9), that pass is clearly stated to have seas on each side: “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 is about as clear as any statement can be, yet Potter, like many theorists, wants to change that simple statement because it does not agree with his pre-determined view.
    Potter Comment: “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: Not what the scriptural record says. As stated above, we learn from Alma Chapter 50, that this pass runs between the Sea East and the Sea West! The pass mentioned in Chapter 52, is merely a continuation of that storyline regarding the pass that led between the seas into the Land Northward. What caused it to be a pass is unstated. It could have been a mountain pass, a canyon, gorge, or, as shown in the last post at Thermopalae, merely a flat narrow strip of land.
    Potter Comment: “The narrow pass or neck is described in the Book of Mormon as a “point” (Alma 52:9).”
    Response: That is not what the cited scripture says at all. “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). The word “point” in this case, means (from the 1828 dictionary) “Exact place,” “To direct towards an object or place,” “a spot,” “The place to which any thing is directed,” and “A thing to be reached or accomplished.” Stated differently, the comment in Alma 52:9 means the same as: “…lest the Lamanites should obtain that place (that position) and should have power to harass them on every side.”
    Potter then goes on to claim one of the 43 definitions Webster lists for point as: “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.”
    However, though he lists Webster’s 1828 dictionary as the source, he actually obtained the definition from a current Merriam-Webster dictionary (An Encyclopaedia Britannica Company), but not the original 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, which he then uses to list other definitions.
    For the sake of comparison, the 1828 dictionary definition of “point” regarding geometry is: “In geometry, that which has neither parts nor magnitude: 1) A point is that which has position but not magnitude; 2) A point is a limit terminating a line. Stated differently, Potter made up the part about the Webster 1828 dictionary definition! 
(See the next post, “Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part V,” for more of George Potter’s comments about how one theorist twists the scriptural record to meet his own pre-determined location for the Land of Promise)

Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part III

Continuing with George Potter’s article on the Narrow Neck of Land with his next comment: “Furthermore, the Book of Mormon tells us that the Nephites fortified this line (3 Nephi 3:23,25).” 
     Response: It is always interesting that people try to combine separate incidents together as though they complimented one another. In the case in 3 Nephi cited, it has to do with the time the Nephites all gathered together in the middle of their land to fight the Gadianton Robbers, and has nothing to do with the narrow neck of land, except that the area the Nephites gathered into had its northern terminus along this line or border between  Bountiful and Desolation, but included southward the Land of Bountiful, the land in between Bountiful and Zarahemla, and the Land of Zarahemla (3 Nephi 3:23), and “they fortify themselves against their enemies; and they did dwell in one land, and in one body” (3 Nephi 3:25).
    That is, though this was a large territory, they were together, in one body and filled up this area completely, and fortified it against their enemies. The event is not talking about fortifying the line between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Desolation, but the entire defensive line around their entire position across three separate lands where they dwelt together in one body.

In the center of the land, the entire perimeter of this large territory was fortified by the Nephite Army with everyone inside that perimeter. The line to the left was further northward, including Bountiful to the line separating Bountiful from Desolation

  
Potter Comment: “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.”
    Response: It is doubtful that it would have been a road. This was virgin territory when the Nephites moved into it, and probably had no reason to create a road from east to west. On the other hand, it was likely a natural barrier of some type, such as a canyon, ridge, forest, etc. Depending on the terrain to be covered, 25 to 30 miles might be as good a guess. On the other hand, with a narrow pass running from the Land Southward to the Land Northward through this narrow neck of land, it might be that crossing this pass from east to west might have been more difficult.
    Potter Comment: “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.”
    Response: First of all, the definition Potter gives is one of 30 separate definitions, with the military definition No. 10 and right with it is the definition that a line is "a limit, a border." It is also always interesting how people interpret military matters. Obviously, they were not in the military. A military line, even a line of defense, is rarely, if ever a straight line. The famed Maginot Line of World War II winds from across Belgium and German borders with France, covering several different angles, peaking in places to the north, others to the south, meandering here and there. On the other hand, the political 38º parallel border in Korea is a straight line. But defensive lines usually follow the best terrain for a defensive position, and since World War I, “a trench or rampart; an extended work in fortification,” is not only impractical, but would seldom, if ever, be found. In the Nephite period, a defensive line would have been high walls to keep the enemy from advancing, since bullets, bombs, and rockets were not available at the time, and hand-to-hand combat was the method of the day.
    Potter Comment: “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: This is simply not true. The narrow neck is mentioned in conjunction with location, i.e., where Hagoth built his shipyard, where the Jaredites built a city, where Mormon and the Lamanites signed a treaty, or divided up the land. Mormon mentions it several times in conjunction with how the lands in the Land of Promise joined one another moving from south to north.
    Potter Comment: “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: “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.”
    Response: Hauk’s book has been on my shelf since it was first published. His comment about the narrow neck is as erroneous as Potter’s. The narrow neck is defined by Mormon, who saw it, walked over it, passed through the narrow passage, and used it as a basis of his treaty with the Lamanites, and describes it as a geographical feature of the land:
1. “…it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus 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). This is obviously a geographical feature, describing a small neck of land between two larger land masses.
2. “…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” (Alma 63:5). This is obviously a geographical feature, i.e., a narrow neck of land between two land masses, which leads into the Land Northward.
3. “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20). A narrow neck of land is a geographical feature.
    Now the definition of a narrow neck in the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language states: “a narrow track connecting two larger tracts of land.” Today, the words narrow neck or “isthmus” are defined as “a narrow strip of land with sea on either side, forming a link between two larger areas of land. The word “isthmus” is taken from Ancient Greek “isthmos” meaning “neck,” and was defined anciently as “a narrow piece of land connecting two larger areas across an expanse of water that otherwise separates them.”
    Thus a small and narrow neck of land would be a small and narrow isthmus, or stretch (tract) of land connecting two larger land masses, exactly what is described in the scriptural record. The point of all of this is to show that a “narrow” or “small” neck of land is like an “isthmus,” in that it is a description of a geographical feature of land, "a bridging neck between two larger land masses." Consequently, both Potter and Hauk are incorrect in their assessments.
    Potter Comment: Quoting Hauk: “[the narrow neck] 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.”
    Response: This is exactly why every theorist comes up short in discussing this location subject. They try to identify physical features of the land to existing land features on a current map. The method to be used is not looking at a map and trying to determine an area to champion as the Land of Promise. The answer is to start in 1 Nephi and follow his descriptions of the land, where he went, what he did, where he built his ship, how the ship sailed, along what currents and winds would he have been “driven forth before the wind to the promised land,” and continue with what he found where he landed; then through 2 Nephi and Jacob’s statement that “we are on an island in the midst of the sea,” to Nephi’s description of traveling to a new area and what he taught his people to do, etc., to Mormon’s many descriptions of the Land of Promise. Any other approach is bound to fail—as would be any attempt to change the meaning of the scriptural record, ignore statements about the Land of Promise, like (2 Nephi 10:20) and Alma 22:27-34), etc.
    Most importantly, one needs to use every description, every part of the scriptural record that discusses what is and was found in the Land of Promise. And equally important, do not ignore, change, alter, or try to clarify what the scriptural record says—use what is exactly written there, but do not assume you know more about what the descriptions means or should mean. You did not live there, you did not walk the land, you did not move about the many lands and cities, you have no experience in the Land of Promise, so do not try to make the words used mean something other than what they clearly mean. North means north, narrow means narrow, island means island, head means head (of a river), North Sea means North Sea, as does South Sea mean South Sea, a day-and-a-half journey for a Nephite means exactly that (not the distance a Mohave Indian can run in a day), when the narrow neck of land is the only stretch of land between the two larger land masses, accept that, when there is a narrow pass that runs between the two larger land masses, accept that it must run through the only land that stretches between the two land masses—the narrow neck of land.
(See the next post, “Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part IV,” for more of George Potter’s comments about how one theorist twists the scriptural record to meet his own pre-determined location for the Land of Promise)

Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part II

Continuing with George Potter’s article on the Narrow Neck of Land, in which he states:  “As with all the Book of Mormon sites, we have very limited information available to identify it. Readers of the Book of Mormon usually assume that the “narrow neck of land” defines a geographical feature.”    
    Response: Now why wouldn’t the reader of the scriptural record define the narrow neck of land as a geographical feature—it is a narrow neck of land! That is geographical.  However, Potter has something else in mind since he does not have a narrow neck of land in his model, he has to deflect or change the meaning of the scriptural record to suggest something else.
    Potter: “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.”

The Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. with 7,000 Greeks against 100,000 Persiands

Response: It was still, and only, a geographical feature. After all, the Pass of Thermopylae where the famed 300 Spartans under their king Leonidas stood off Xerxes I and his Persian army of thousands, was not a “fortification,” but a natural narrowing of land between the mountains and the sea. And the same can be said about the narrow passage in the narrow neck of land separating the Land Southward from the Land Northward.
    In fact, we are unaware that the Nephites even understood the value of this narrow neck until the last century B.C., when the Nephites moved northward into the Land of Bountiful, probably saw the narrow neck and pass for the first time, and realized there was more to their Land of Promise than they had imagined. As for its military value, Moroni realized this and started to lay early plans to keep the Lamanites far to the south with his extensive defenses described through the latter part of Alma.
    However, when we read “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. 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 22:33-34), we are reading Mormon’s words, written in the mid to latter half of the 4^th century A.D., almost 600 years after the period of time we are reading about in Alma.
    Mormon, of course, in 350 A.D. well understood the value of that narrow neck and pass from a military point of view and its strategic value. By the time he wrote this, he had already made the treaty with the Lamanites for the Land Northward to be ceded to the Nephites and the Land Southward to the Lamanites.
    The point is, the geographical feature of the narrow neck is obvious in the writings of Mormon and his descriptions as outlined in the previous post. To say that “Readers of the Book of Mormon usually assume that the “narrow neck of land” defines a geographical feature,” is not only correct, it is the only thing one would think about up until Moroni lets us know that he “dare not let defectors get into the Land Northward” since that would cause the Nephites to fight a two-front war and eventually spell their doom.
    Potter: “John Sorenson notes of the narrow neck of land: “Mormon was speaking of a fortified line of defense.” The most commonly cited clues to its nature are found in the Book of Alma.”
    Response: Actually, it is unlikely that the Nephites had fortified this narrow neck and pass before the time Moroni’s army under Teancum was sent to head off Morianton’s bid to gain the Land Northward. In fact, at no time in the scriptural record do we ever hear of any defenses built, staged, or stationed in that area until after the treaty and Mormon spends the next ten years having his army and people defend in case of a probable future attack (Mormon 3:1).
    Potter: “As important as what is written in [Alma 22:32-33], it is what is not written. 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.”
    Response: This is an old argument we have written several posts about. There is what is called ellipsis (elliptic writing), where words are omitted for the sake of brevity when those words are understood. As an example, “from sea to shining sea” to Americans is clearly understood to mean the Atlantic to the Pacific. As an example, “my wife likes fish more than I,” is an elliptical sentence with the implied “more than I like fish.” Or, “Nephi wrote two books and Jacob one.” That is, Nephi wrote two books and Jacob (wrote) one (book).” Or, “Nephi went north, and Sam, too.” That is, Nephi went north, and Sam (went north), too. Or “One of Ishmael’s daughters favored Nephi, and another Sam.”  That is, One of Ishmael’s daughters favored Nephi, and another (favored) Sam. Or “Moroni built many walls and fortifications and his soldiers, too.” That is, Moroni built many walls and fortifications, and his soldiers (built many walls and fortifications), too. Obviously, this last example shows why elliptical writing and speaking is necessary and preferred, especially to the Nephite record keepers since scribing on metal plates was difficult and time consuming.
    In the case of the scriptural record, there are several cases where ellipsis is used, especially in not having to repeat east sea and west sea, etc. It is also found in the following: “For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the…” (1 Nephi 14:7), meaning of course, “either on the one hand or on the other hand.”
    However, Potter, like most theorists, has an ulterior motive in mind, since the two seas do not match his model, he must eliminate one of them and fails to understand elliptical writing, since Mormon also tells us the Land Southward was surrounded by water except for the narrow neck, telling us there were two seas at the narrow neck, one to the east and one to the west.
    Potter: “A similar phrase would be “the Union Pacific railroad ran from the “east” to the Pacific Ocean.”
    Response: Actually, it is not the same. In fact, Potter’s example is very poor writing, since “the east” in this case is not mentioned or inferred, so the reader is faced with having to guess at what was meant. Correctly, his statement would need a reference, such as “from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans,” or “from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean,” or “from Topeka to the Pacific Ocean.” On the other hand, “From the east to the West Sea,” is inferred since there is a known East Sea.
    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: Another problem theorists make is in expecting the Land of Promise to look exactly the way now, that it did in B.C. times, especially the Land of Promise which underwent such tremendous changes described in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion. When mountains tumbled to the ground to become valleys and valleys rose up to become mountains, whose height was great, one has got to understand these changes were extensive, especially when we are told the destruction "changed the entire face of the land." Thus, this entire argument is without merit!
    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 between the Land of Desolation and the Land of Bountiful was a boundary or border, marking the separation of the Land Northward from the Land Southward

Response: Here we go again, trying to cloud issues and make scriptural language mean something it does not say. The scripture quoted is: “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” (Alma 22:32, emphasis added to show what Potter left out). The point is, the traversed line is from the east to the west, not north to south, yet to go from Bountiful to Desolation would have to go from south to north. Even using his words that a “line” is a boundary, which is exactly correct, the sentence would read “And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the border of Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea,” that is, on the border between Bountiful and Desolation, which border would run east and west since Bountiful and Desolation were north and south of each other, the sentence says exactly that when you include what Potter left off: “from the east to the west sea.”
(See the next post, “Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part III,” for more of George Potter’s comments about how one theorist twists the scriptural record to meet his own pre-determined location for the Land of Promise)

Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part I

George Potter begins his article on the Narrow Neck of Land by saying it 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.” 
    While it is true that different theorists like to play games with Mormon’s simple descriptions and make the narrow neck into something different than described, it is far from misunderstood if one simply relies on Mormon’s descriptions and the scriptural record without trying to make it fit a pre-determined location.
    First of all, Mormon describes the narrow neck as:
1. “…there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32). That is simple enough and places the narrow neck without question.
2. This narrow neck “…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” (Alma 22:32). Again, a simple explanation that is pretty clear.          
3.  Hagoth…”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” (Alma 63:5). 
    All three of these statements are clear enough to understand the most basic information about the narrow neck of land.

The Narrow Neck of Land led into the Land Northward (from the Land Southward). Thus, the narrow neck must be between the two larger land masses, i.e., Land Southward and Land Northward

From this and other descriptions we find that in the Land of Promise there were two major land masses: 1) the Land Southward, which included the Land of Nephi, the Land of Zarahemla, and the Land of Bountiful, plus other smaller lands connected to cities, and 2) the Land Northward, which contained the Land of Desolation, the Land of Cumorah, and the Land of Many Waters, plus other smaller lands connected to cities. These two land masses were divided in part by a sea (Ether 10:20), and connecting these two major land masses was a small or narrow neck of land.
    This narrow neck of land separated the two named lands of Desolation on the north and Bountiful on the south (Alma 22:31), and there was a line (boundary or border) somewhere along this narrow neck of land (in the middle, or at or toward the north or south end) that ran east and west, separating these two lands of Desolation and Bountiful (Alma 22:31).
    In addition, at least the Land Southward was surrounded by water, except for this narrow neck of land (Alma 22:32), so it was evidently the only land between the Land Southward and the Land Northward.

A narrow pass exists between the Land of Desolation an thnre Land of Bountiful that in history was called the Pass of Huayna Capac, after an Inca battle that took place there

Now, between these two lands is also a narrow pass or passage, that led into the Land of Desolation: “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). Thus, a narrow pass ran from the Land Southward (where Morianton was fleeing from Teancum and the Nephite Army), “into the land northward,” which means it ran through the narrow neck of land from south to north—it being the only land between the Land Southward and the Land Northward. Thus, this “narrow pass, which led into the land northward” (Alma 52:9), connected the Land of Bountiful to the Land Northward.
    We also learn that the narrow neck of land, running between the two major land masses, had a sea on both sides, so the water that surrounded the Land Southward extended to the shores of the Land Northward.
    So far, this is pretty simple. Between the Land Northward and the Land Southward was a small, narrow neck of land, the only connection between the two lands. And within this narrow neck of land ran a narrow pass, which allowed movement between these two major land masses. The narrow neck of land was narrow enough that a Nephite could cross it in a day and a half, from the Sea West to the Sea East, since it had a sea on both sides as stated.

In addition, we learn that not only Hagoth had his shipyard in the Land of Bountiful at the southern end of the narrow neck of land (Alma 63:5), but that the Jaredites built a city on the northern end of the narrow neck of land (Ether 10:20), which city was probably called Desolation (Mormon 3:5).
    In addition, this narrow neck of land was the dividing line between the Nephites and the Lamanites when Mormon arranged a treaty with the Lamanite king in 350 A.D. (Mormon 2:28).
    To make sure we understand that this narrow pass or passage (Mormon 2:28) ran through the narrow neck of land, we find that it ran from the Land Northward into the Land Southward (Mormon 2:29; 3:5), also this pass led into the Land Northward (Alma 50:34; 52:9). Thus, the pass, like the narrow neck of land, ran between the two major land masses.

Now, let’s take a look at Alma 50:34 one more time: “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). Stated simply:
1. They (Nephites) headed (cut off) them (Morianton) from reaching the Land Northward;
2. This occurred by the borders of the Land Desolation—the land Desolation was north of Bountiful and had a common border, i.e., the narrow neck of land in between these two lands—Bountiful and Desolation;
3. Through this common border, which was a narrow neck of land, was a narrow pass;
4. The narrow pass ran by the sea into the Land Northward—this narrow pass was flanked by the Sea East and the Sea West, i.e., on either side of the narrow pass through the narrow neck of land were two seas—the Sea East and the Sea West.

The narrow neck of land was bordered on the east and on the west by the sea. Morianton was coming northward along the eastern coast in the Land Southward (yellow arrow) toward this narrow neck, where he was cut off by Moroni (white arrow) before Morianton could reach the Land Northward

The statement is simple: the narrow pass led by the sea that was on the east and on the west, and into the land Desolation (in the Land Northward). Thus the statement by the sea is “affirmed” to be running between the Sea East and the Sea West; or the statement by the sea is “indeed” running between the Sea East and the Sea West, or the statement by the sea is “even” running between the Sea East and the Sea West.
    Since the statement “by the narrow pass which led by the sea” is not a parenthetical clause, and the statement, “yea, by the sea,” is also not a parenthetical clause, and the statement “on the west and on the east” is also not a parenthetical clause, these cannot be said to modify the Land of Desolation. In fact, it should be obvious that we are dealing with two connected sentences here, hence the use of the semi-colon:
1. And it came to pass that they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation.
2. 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.
    Thus, the article’s comment: “The land Desolation is by the Sea West, so the phrase 'narrow pass which led by the sea' indicates the narrow pass is also by the Sea West.  The phrase 'yea, by the sea' modifies the object directly in front of the term 'yea.'  So, the Land Northward is by the sea.  The phrase 'on the west, and on the east' is a simple statement referring to the sentence before, i.e., the sea.
    Thus, the narrow pass ran between two seas, the Sea East and the Sea West. So it cannot be said, as Potter does, that "the Narrow Neck of Land...is “one of the most misunderstood features of Book of Mormon geography." Consequently, as Potter goes on to say, "As a result, there have developed over time many popular misconceptions about its nature and location,” can be understood in the light that the only reason theorists have developed misconceptions is because they fail to follow Mormon's simple and clear explanations and descriptions in order to justify their own pre-determined ideas.
    This is not rocket science, simply English 101. And it is simple and easy to understand.
(See the next post, “Is the Small and Narrow Neck of Land Misunderstood? Part II,” for more of George Potter’s comments about how one theorist twists the scriptural record to meet his own pre-determined location for the Land of Promise)

Limiting Distances and Other Criteria – Part IV

Continuing from the last post regarding an article a reader sent in to us recently written by James Warr and our responses to their comments, and specifically regarding the Lord using snakes with both the Hebrews and with the Jaredites. 
   Also continuing with the directional system Warr tries to bring into question and suggesting, like John L. Sorenson, that the Nephites used a different north-south system than we do today, when Zeniff, in Mosiah as Limhi recounts, returned to the Land of Nephi to reclaim the land of their inheritance. He said: “I, Zeniff, in the thirteen year of my reign in the land of Nephi, away on the south of the land of Shilom…” (Mosiah 9:14).

When Ammon is sent back to the area of Lehi-Nephi, what Nephi, son of Lehi, called the Land of Nephi, and the city of Nephi when he first settled it. Ammon stops with his group and pitches his tents on a hill “north of the land of Shilom” (Mosiah 7:5, 16; 10:8; 11:13), Shilom, of course, being a city next to the city of Nephi (Lehi-Nephi).
    Now we know that Zeniff was returning to the south, to the Land of Nephi, from the Land of Zarahemla in the north—Mormon makes that quite clear (Alma 22:27). We also know that while Shilom was next to the city of Nephi, the land and city of Shemlon was also to the south  and deeper into Lamanite controlled lands. Consequently, the term “south” as Zeniff uses it is correct.
    In addition, since Ammon was coming from the north (Land of Zarahemla) and heading south (toward Land of Nephi), in stopping short on a hill, looking down on the land of Shilom (next to Nephi), he would have been to the north on the hill. Thus, both these instances of directions are correctly used.
    Later, Mormon’s abridgement covered the point that in the land of Zarahemla, the “people began to be very numerous, and began to scatter abroad upon the face of the earth, yea, on the north and on the south, on the east and on the west, building large cities and villages in all quarters of the land” (Mosiah 27:6).
    Thus, we can be fairly certain all these directions are correct, and used as we would use them today. Nor do we have any reason at all to doubt their being correct. Thus it is far more correct and makes for better understanding to see them used correctly, than try to claim they were not, since no case can be built against their proper use. Also since we have already discussed this in great detail we won’t go into detail here, but the point is that to the Hebrew, especially those from Jerusalem as Nephi, Sam, Zoram, Laban, Lemuel, the sons of Ishmael and their wives were, plus Jacob learning directions from his brothers Nephi and Sam…

…all understood the importance of east, or qedem (qadim) which means “east,” “in the east,” “eastward,” and according to James Strong (Hebrew Concordance), literally means “the direction of the rising sun.”
    While we in the West (United States, Europe, etc.) use north as our major orientation such as in maps which are always oriented to the north, the Hebrews use east as their major direction and all directions are oriented to this. For example one of the words for south is teyman from the root yaman meaning "to the right," i.e., “to the right of the rising sun.” The word West, means “behind me when I am facing the rising sun.”
    In the east, Arabs and Jews alike face east in prayer no matter where they might be. “And from wheresoever you start forth (for prayers), turn your face in the direction of Al-Masjid-al-Haram, that is indeed the truth from your Lord, and God is not unaware of what you do.” Obviously, then the Easterner’s very religious devotion is to face east when praying. For the Jew, “Like magnets attracted to metal, Jews, no matter where in the world they find themselves, turn their hearts and prayers, to one direction: Jerusalem. Why do Jews face east towards Jerusalem? “If I forget Jerusalem, then let my right hand forget its own strength (Psalms 137:5).” For the Jew, forgetting Jerusalem is tantamount to forgetting one’s identity. It is forgetting oneself. And by contrast, remembering Jerusalem is identifying with one’s very essence and inner-self.
    When Jews pray facing east, they are not merely turning to the capital city in the Promised Land of their forefathers—like a missile that narrows in on its target—the soul of the Jew is programmed to seek out its source…the root of its holiness.
    Thus, Jews first face Israel, then as they reach Israel, they face Jerusalem, and lastly as they reach Jerusalem, they face the Western Wall—site of the Holy Temple. Ha-kotel ha-ma'aravi or "Western Wall,” considered holy due to its connection to the Temple Mount. Their direction is one of progressive holiness, one that narrows in and targets the highest level of closeness to the Divine Presence. And that’s the secret of Jerusalem—the place where the soul unites with its Creator, the life-line of all humanity.
    The point is, “east” is at the center of all things Hebrew, all things Jewish, all things Eastern. It is impossible for the Nephites, living the Law of Moses, not to know their cardinal directions based on “east” and the rising sun, which, in any latitude between the tropics (Capricorn and Cancer), which Mesoamerica falls, as well as several latitudes beyond to the north and the south, the sun rises in the east, traveling north and then back in the Northern Hemisphere from solstice to solstice.
    Sooner or later, Mesoamericanists, must come to understand that to the Hebrew, to those living the Law of Moses, the “east” was sacred, it was where God dwelt, it was the direction from which God would come, it held numerous sacred meanings. They would not have settled for an estimation, or an assumption about east—every Hebrew, Jew, and Nephite would have known exactly where “east” was located! Not an east that is different from our east—but true east, where their religion, their God, their Temple, their history and future reside. Thus, it cannot be said they did not know the direction of east, or had a different understanding of east, or had a different direction for east.
    It is impossible to think and suggest otherwise.
    In addition, in 600 B.C. all the way to 400 A.D., during the Nephite nation’s 1000-year history, that like any ancient culture, their very lives depended upon knowing the true directions of the sun and its rising and settings through the course of the year for planting and harvesting. They had no corner stores or supermarkets, and in the beginning, not a single merchant selling food stuff—they had to know when to plant, and when to harvest. And Nephi is very clear that they did, for their “seeds they brought from Jerusalem grew exceedingly,” providing an abundant crop (1 Nephi 18:24), and when they planted again later (2 Nephi 5:11). And this is also true 350 years later when Zeniff planted seeds (Mosiah 7:22; 9:9, 14) that grew in such abundance the Lamanites came to war over it and later demanded one half of all the Nephite crops as tribute.
    It is time to ignore ideas like Sorenson's and Warr's and other Mesoamericanists that directions were changed—the very nature and essence of the Jews and Nephites demands that the Nephite directions were the same as those of ancient Israel as well as modern Israel. East is east, not somewhere else. It is time we read the scriptural record with the intent and understanding in which it was written and stop trying to make claims it meant something else!

Limiting Distances and Other Criteria – Part III

Continuing from the last post regarding an article a reader sent in to us recently and our responses to their comments, and specifically regarding the Lord using snakes with both the Hebrews and with the Jaredites. 
   In the case of the Jaredites, the Lord also brought about an increase in the number of snakes because of the drought, a condition, by the way, that has been known in history, such as at the Araxas (Aras) River, located in Lesser Armenia, beyond Hycrania (part of Iran facing Caspian Sea) a damp environment along the swampy banks which the snakes prefer because of the presence of lizards, a favorite food.

When Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) the Great (above) invaded Armenia, he was stopped in his attempt to advance with his forces upon the Hyrcanian and Caspian Sea, by crossing the Araxes River, which takes its rise in the same mountain as the Euphrates, but turns towards the east and empties into the Caspian Sea; however, he was forced to retreat at a distance of three days' march from it by the number of venomous serpents, and so he retreated into Armenia the Less where he was led by Tigranes around the snakes, where he attacked the King of Parthia, who had made incursions upon Gordyene, and despoiled an army under the command of Afranius, and put him to the rout, and followed him in chase as far as the district of Arbela.
    Comment: “The Isthmus of Tehuantepec has a few things going for it: "It is surrounded by ancient ruins of the classical Maya and Olmec eras. . . . The land below the isthmus (east and south) is largely surrounded by water and could loosely be considered an island…It is at a lower elevation than the land on either side" (Warr, "The Isthmus of Tehuantepec")
    Response: Except for the mention of the city of Desolation, which Mormon describes as “they should gather themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward. And there we did place our armies, that we might stop the armies of the Lamanites, that they might not get possession of any of our lands; therefore we did fortify against them with all our force. And it came to pass that in the three hundred and sixty and first year the Lamanites did come down to the city of Desolation to battle against us; and it came to pass that in that year we did beat them, insomuch that they did return to their own lands again” (Mormon 3:5-7), there are few areas of description that can be pinpointed.
    The Jaredite Land of Moron and perhaps the Nephite city of Teancum which is by the seashore near Desolation, but not much else can be placed with any certainty, though theorists always do make such placements.

The point being, that the city of Desolation is located in the borders of the narrow neck of land (borders between Land of Desolation in the north, and the Land of Bountiful in the south), and the mouth of the narrow pass

 

Comment: “The Isthmus of Tehuantepec is not bordered by a west sea and an east sea, but by a north sea and a south sea (Alma 22:32).”
    Response: Not only is the sea to the north called the East Sea, and the sea to the south called the West Sea, making only two seas in Mesoamerica, but when we take 2 Nephi 10:20 and Helaman 3:8, we see that there are four seas (Sea North, Sea South, Sea East and Sea West), and when we add Ether 10:20 (the Sea that divides the land), we find there are five sea descriptions. The only answer to this is Jacob’s comment that they were on an island in the midst of the sea. It is interesting how hard all theorists fight against this description, delivered by a prophet in the temple and recorded by another prophet in the temple, and verified by the Spirit in the translation by Joseph Smith. However, they all do, because their models do not include more than two seas, let alone four. And the fifth one mentioned, is merely where the sea cuts in and separates the two lands—or divides the Land Northward from the Land Southward.

The Sea that divides the land is the Gulf of Guayaquil that surrounds an island (Puna) today and divides the Ecuador area from the Peru area

 

Comment: “We may be tempted to think automatically that "northward" and "southward" label directions that are the same as "north" and "south." But "northward" signals a different concept than does "north," something like "in a general northerly direction."
    Response: Because this is such a common thread among theorists, it is an issue that we constantly try to correct. In this case, “northward” does not mean something like “in a general northerly direction. It means “toward the north,” or “nearer to the north than to the east and west points.” That is quite specific. It does not leave any “something like” comments. Thus, when Mormon writes northward, he is saying “toward the north, not due north” and when he writes southward, he is saying “toward the south, not due south.”

It means a direction toward the north, and nearer to the north than east or west. In name: it means “North by East to North by West; on a degree compass rose, it means from 11.25º to 348.75º, or a swing of 22.5º; the next wider movement is from North by Northeast to North by Northwest, or 22.50º to 337.50º. While both of these designations are more to the north than east or west, officially the movement of “Northward” means the former, not the latter.
    We might also add that our normal first reaction to directions would have been what Mormon was directing us toward—or at least the Spirit in the translation—a direction to which we would normally and easily understand.
    Comment: “By their frequency of using the -ward suffix, we can infer that Mormon and his ancestors used a somewhat different cultural scheme for directions than we do. However, we cannot tell from the Book of Mormon text exactly how their concepts differed from ours, because all we have to work with is the English translation provided through Joseph Smith.”
    Response: This sounds almost like an apology that all we have is Joseph Smith’s translation. As for the Nephite concepts, one can only wonder in what way the author thinks they differ from ours. Of course, every society’s concepts differ a little from another society. The Nephites, being believers in the Law of Moses, would have had certain concepts that were different than most, but not too different from Latter-day Saints.
    The point is, however, that these directions are not different in any way than our own. All we have to keep in mind is the fact that in the ancient Hebrew language, there was north, south, east and west. They combined these in simple terms, i.e., northeast, southwest, etc. However, they did not have north-by northwest, south by east, etc. as we have on our compass rose today. So northward, was a general term, meaning “toward the north,” it was not a different directional meaning than we understand today—only a term we use a little more specific, north by northwest; north by north by east, etc.
    As for the author’s main purpose in clouding the directional system again is to throw another monkey wrench in the mix by trying to suggest that because all we have is Joseph Smith’s translations, we really don’t know how the Nephite directional system differed from ours.
    This, then, leads to the obvious question “what makes you think it did differ from ours?” After all, in the very beginning, Nephi uses the cardinal direction of south, the ordinal direction of southeast, and the inter-ordinal direction of south-southeast, as well as eastward (we today use south, south east, and south by east and southeast by east).
    Where, then do we find a difference, since we can evaluate those directions against a known location with known directions and find he used all three levels of the compass rose exactly correct, and as anyone of us today would use those directions.
(See the next post, “Limiting Distances and Other Criteria – Part IV,” for more on the article sent to us and our responses)

Limiting Distances and Other Criteria – Part II

Continuing with the previous post regarding the arbitrary distances that theorists like to place on the scriptural record so they can support and defend their models, and specifically the article written by James Warr and his 12 criteria for identifying the Land of Promise (which he places in Central America), that was sent to us on the matter. 
   Comment from Warr: “Of course, there is always a possibility that surface appearances are unproblematic [not presenting a problem or difficulty], obvious, and correct, but such could only be shown through analysis that explored other options and did not presume a priori [theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience] the validity of one's own superficial interpretation. Cultural background [what shapes our upbringing, family society or organizational level] passes as epistemology [theory of knowledge—justified belief from opinion] here, and unconvincingly so” (explanations added).

Response: There is a word in the English language called “gobbledygook” which means language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms—in a word “nonsense”). The writer of this article being discussed here uses gobbledygook. Thus, in clear English we could say he means: “There is always the chance what we read and see, is obvious and therefore correct; on the other hand, if one is simply making it up based on his beliefs rather than fact, or is relying on classroom teachings or standards, it is unconvincing. But any way you look at it, the point is belief and opinion does not prove the point; therefore, one needs more than that.”
    This is why we present in our blog and in each article numerous historical, Biblical, and scriptural record information from which a conclusion becomes both obvious and believable to all who seek the truth of the scriptural record and not trying to sell or justify their own predetermined viewpoint or model.
    Comment: “The narrow neck of land could be traversed in 1 to 1 1/2 days (this would make it approximately 15–40 miles wide; Alma 22:32; Helaman 4:7).”
    Response: First, any intelligent reading of these two scriptures show they refer to two different things, 1) the width of the narrow neck of land (Alma) and 2) a defensive line across the northern area of Bountiful (Helaman). The first isl described as taking a Nephite 1 ½ days to cross, the second is one day in length. Second, since covering forty miles in a day-and-a-half would take a record movement of 2 miles a day for 12 straight hours of day light, then 2 miles a day for 6 hours of day light the next day without a rest while in movement, it seems that would be an excessive distance. It would be more like 18 to 30 miles in width at the very most, depending upon the terrain being covered.
    Comment: “The combined land of Zarahemla and Nephi, southward from the narrow neck, was almost completely surrounded by water and was small enough that the inhabitants considered it an island" (Alma 22:32; 2 Nephi 10:20–21).”
    Response: Just because it is an island, does not mean it is small. When theorists start putting their own ideas into their comments, rather than sticking with the scriptural record, they go far astray in their eventual assumptions. By saying: “was small enough that the inhabitants considered it an island,” is both unhelpful and misleading. After all, seven of the largest islands of the world might not have been considered an island by ancient inhabitants unless they were, or until they became, a maritime culture:
• Greenland - (840,004 sq. miles)
• New Guinea - (303,381 sq. miles)
• Borneo - (288,869 sq. miles)
• Madagascar - (226,917 sq. miles)
• Baffin - (194,574 sq. miles)
• Sumatra - (171,069 sq. miles)
• Japan - (143,939 sq. miles)
(By comparison, California is 163,696 sq. miles; and Montana is 147,042 sq. miles)
    On the other hand, seven other islands would have obviously been understood to have been islands:
• Borneo, Indonesia - (13,698 feet)
• Formosa, China - (13,114 feet)
• Sumatra, Indonesia - (12,484 feet)
• Ross, Antarctica - (12,448 feet)
• Honshu, Japan - (12,388 feet)
• South Island, NZ - (12,349 feet)
• Lombok, Indonesia - (12,224 feet)
(By comparison, Maryland is 12,406 sq. miles).
    Comment: “At one time in Jaredite history the narrow neck was blocked by an infestation of poisonous snakes so that neither man nor beast could pass. (This could only occur if there were a water barrier on both sides; Ether 9:31–34)”
    Response: As Ether tells us “the Lord did cause the serpents that they should pursue them no more, but that they should hedge up the way that the people could not pass, that whoso should attempt to pass might fall by the poisonous serpents” (Ether 9:33). There is nothing written or suggested here that alters the narrow neck of land in any way, nor is there anything to suggest there was a water barrier or any type of restriction other than the pass itself, and certainly no cause for the writer to claim that “this could only occur if there were a water barrier on both sides.”  A narrow neck of land means it was “narrow.” What caused it to be narrow is not indicated, whether it was the sea on both sides, or canyons, or mountains, is not indicated. Certainly, there is no reason to insert a water barrier without further explanation or support.

Left: A map of the narrow neck area of the Land of Promise, showing the narrow isthmus of land between the east end of the Bay of Guayaquil in Ecuador, and what was once the Sea East and now the cliffsides of the Andes Mountains—a distance of 26 miles; Right: An example of a narrow pass or passage. Such a restriction is mentioned by Mormon (Alma 50:34; 52:9; Mormon 3:5), and exists, called since the 15^th century, before the Spanish arrived, the “Pass of Huayna Capac,” an Inca leader who made the pass famous during a battler with the northern tribes. With the pass within the narrow neck of land (Alma 22:32; 63:5; Mormon 2:29) it could easily be “hedged up by serpents” as Ether tells us

On the other hand, since Mormon describes the narrow neck of land as the only ingress into the Land Northward from the Land Southward (and visa versa), and that there was a narrow pass or passage that would have had to have ran through the narrow neck of land from the north to the south, then we can understand that at least one point there was a narrow pass that would have limited the width of passage from the Land Southward into the Land Northward. Thus, it would not have taken many snakes or serpents to have blocked off movement through this narrow pass.
    It should also be kept in mind that, according to “Facts About Snakes” in Fusion Time, “Snakes are isolated creatures when it comes to their living behaviors. From time to time they will come into contact with each other by accident. Most of the time they will go their own way,” thus, snakes don’t congregate together except through unusual circumstances, such as droughts or the congregating of their food supply, such as mice, which often move toward new planting following famines. Snakes are by nature solitary creatures, despite such movies as Raiders of the Lost Ark. The only other time we know that snakes so congregated is when “the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died” (Numbers 21:6). Since there were 186,400 total number of men of the camp of Judah (Numbers 2:10), we can assume there were a large number of snakes sent by the Lord.
(See the next post, “Limiting Distances and Other Criteria – Part III,” for more on the article sent to us and our responses)