Did Lehi Really Sail up a River to Reach the Land of Promise? – Part II

Continued from the previous post regarding the Great Lakes theory of bringing Lehi up the St. Lawrence River to Lake Erie to land in their West Sea adjacent to their Lane of Nephi and Land of Zarahemla—and also of the Heartland theory of bringing Lehi into the Florida panhandle.

Originally, as shown earlier, these eastern rivers that empty into the Atlantic, shallow-out very soon after leaving the coastal area and begin their climb into the mountainous areas of the eastern mountains that lie between the sea and the inland Great Lakes. There simply was no way to move upstream in any of the rivers between the coast and the Great Lakes.

Again, it was the man-made St. Lawrence Seaway, and the man-made Great Lakes Waterway that allowed both ocean-going vessels and the ore and coal-bearing lake freighters to travel from the system’s saltwater outlet to its far interior. The Waterway has larger locks and deeper than the lower Seaway, limiting large freighters to the four lakes upstream of the Welland Canal and Lake Ontario, and similarly restricting passage beyond the canal by larger ocean vessels.

The two waterways are often jointly and simply referred to as the "St. Lawrence Seaway," since the Great Lakes, together with the St. Lawrence River, comprise a single navigable body of freshwater linking the Atlantic Ocean to the continental interior, though to get from the St. Lawrence River, the aforementioned locks are required to first raise the vessel up to the level of Lake Ontario. From 1844 through 1857, palace steamers carried passengers and cargo around the Great Lakes (Mark L. Thompson, Steamboats & Sailors of the Great Lakes, Wayne State University Press, Detroit Michigan, 1991, p210).

The map of the Island of Montreal, the St. Lawrence River that passes by and through it, and the Lachine Rapids that block the river along the Lachine Section of Montreal

 

The point of all of this is to show, without question, that the Great Lakes were not reachable in 600 BC, nor at any time before the 18^th century, when modern governments began funding the opening up the interiors of their country. Lehi, at no time, could have reached Lake Ontario or Lake Erie—in fact, could not have sailed past Montreal on the St. Lawrence River because of the Lachine Rapids, which were (and are) a series of rapids on the river between the Island of Montreal and the South shore, near the former city of Lachine, which was located in the southwest portion of the island. The Rapids contain large standing waves because the water volume and current do not change as they flow over a riverbed of shelf-like drops, with the seasonal variation in the water flow does not change the position of the waves, though they do change their size and shape. The rapids are about 3 miles in length and until the Lachine Canal was dug, represented a considerable barrier to maritime traffic. Until the canal was finished through Montreal, any and all cargoes had to be portages—even when the canal was finished, difficulty was such that it was usually more convenient to ship goods by rail to Montreal, where they could be loaded at the city's port on the upriver side of the rapids. Montreal remains a major rail hub and one of Canada's largest ports for that reason. Today, the Lachine Rapids are passed by the South Shore Canal (Saint-Lambert and Côte Sainte-Catherine locks) of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

As stated previously, it is quite obvious—except to Great Lakes theorists—that Lehi did not sail up the St. Lawrence River in 600 BC to Lake Erie and land along the west shore of western New York!

The three main landing sites promoted by Heartland theorists and the current that would have kept a ship driven forth by the wind from doing so

 

As for the Heartland theorists, their landing site varies between three locations—Crystal River and Tallahassee, both in Florida, and Mobile, Alabama. Tallahassee was part of their “Land of First Inheritance, with their actual claimed landing site at Apalachicola, 76 miles south and a little west of Tallahassee, along the coast, and 23 miles east of Cape San Blas—on the tip of St. Joseph’s Peninsula.

One of the problems with all three of these landing sites and never discussed by Heartland enthusiasts, is that the ocean currents in the Gulf of Mexico flow around in a circular manner as does the gulf coast, with the current beginning along Mexico’s east coast around the Bay of Campeche and moving northward, curving with the coast into a west to east direction, then southward down the western coast of the Florida peninsula to swirl out into the Atlantic and northward into the Gulf Stream, which has three tributaries: a West Indies current, a Caribbean current and a Gulf of Mexico current, creating a powerful western boundary current in the North Atlantic Ocean that strongly influences the climate of the East Coast of the United States and many Western European countries. 

Dotted line shows the swift Gulf current curving with the coat southward, right into the path of the proposed course of Lehi promoted by Rod L. Meldrum and other Heartland theorists

 

Obviously, this current moves swiftly in a counter direction than the claimed course that Lehi would have taken to land on the Florida (Crystal River or Apalachicola) or Alabama (Mobile) coast. Of course, theorists with erroneous models, pay little attention to such matters either because they have no argument to offset such a simple, but important fact; do not know about it; or pay little attention to matters contrary to their beliefs.

We need to keep in mind that Mormon had much larger volumes of records that each earlier custodian of the sacred record left, and had to abridge all that information into a much smaller volume that he engraved on the plates that ended up in Joseph Smith hands by way of Mormon’s son, Moroni. The incidents Mormon condenses and the words he chooses to use, were carefully crafted by him because he had so little space to abridge the record than the vastly larger originals.

To bear this out, Mormon wrote: “I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people” (Words of Mormon 1:5)—this was also experienced by others: “And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people” (2 Nephi 33:1); “And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates” (Jacob 3:13); “And many more things did king Benjamin teach his sons, which are not written in this book” (Mosiah 1:8); After king Limhi had made an end of speaking to his people, for he spake many things unto them and only a few of them have I written in this book (Mosiah 8:1)

“And now the words of Amulek are not all written, nevertheless a part of his words are written in this book” (Alma 9:34); “But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work” (Helaman 3:14) 

It is also clear, that the Lord was involved in constraining what the prophets wrote in the sacred record: “But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write” (1 Nephi 14:25); “Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it” (3 Nephi 16:11). “And now I, Mormon, make an end of my sayings, and proceed to write the things which have been commanded me (3 Nephi 26:8–12).” Moroni wrote Wherefore the Lord hath commanded me [Moroni] to write them; and I have written them. And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord” (Ether 4:5).

Consequently, when Mormon wrote his abridgement, he obviously was both constrained by the Lord from writing certain things and prompted to write others, as well as  having to condense an earlier prophet’s writing because of space on the plates. Thus, it should be clear that when Mormon uses any word, description, or statement that the words he chose were highly considered before using. Thus, we continually urge readers of the scriptural record to consider carefully the wordage used and their meaning, both today and in 1829 when Joseph translated them, and possibly in 380 AD when Mormon wrote them. When we read with any type of pre-conceived opinion or belief, or without a knowledge of who is speaking, what is being covered, and why, one is likely headed toward a misunderstanding of what Mormon wrote. Thus we have dozens of theories and sub-theories, numerous locations for Lehi’s landing and the Land of Promise—and obviously, not everyone can be right. So how do we know what is correct? Compare everything to the scriptural record and the simple and clear understanding of Mormon’s descriptions.

The point is, neither Heartland nor Great Lakes theorists would find it difficult to have an intelligent conversation regarding how Lehi’s ship could have reached the landing sites singled out by them. There are, of course, numerous other points that preclude such a consideration, but it should start with the fact that what Mormon and others wrote has specific meanings and with an understanding those words, will find it difficult to maintain such models.

As a side note: Some readers may wonder why we spend so much time on details, even to interrupt the normal free-flowing article and it is because critics are seldom knowledgeable about the things they say and believe—they have neither studied nor understood the history surrounding the event they describe and when confronted with inarguable information that opposes their viewpoint, they are both confounded and shown to be in error—though it seldom changes anyone’s mind—but leaves them no ground to further argue their point. They either respond with bluster and a raising of their voice, or they slink off into temporary oblivion. As an example, when the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service—who oversees the National System and protects over 12,700 miles of 209 rivers in 40 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as keeping watch over all of the nation's rivers, which flow over 3.5 million miles across the United States—claim that a river was not navigable before it was deepened, widened, or built locks, there is little room for a counter argument to be mounted.

Did Lehi Really Sail up a River to Reach the Land of Promise? – Part I

There are two hotly contested theories as to where Lehi Landed, each couched within a different theory postulation or premise. These two theories are: 1) North America or 2) Mesoamerica; and the North America advocates have two of their own theories, 1) Great Lakes and 2) Heartland. Each of the latter, of course, requires inner rivers to traverse in order to reach their area for landing in a place they claim is Lehi’s Land of Promise. The problem is, what exists today that provides easy access to the interior did not exist in the time of Lehi, nor did it for some 2400 years after Lehi.

Mormon tells us that Lehi landed along the shore of the West Sea and that this area was called “The Land of First Inheritance,”—“and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers' first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore” (Alma 22:28, emphasis added)—usually referred to within the Land of Nephi, but more accurate was probably called the Land of Lehi. When Nephi left and traveled for many days before settling with those who would go with him, they called the area the Land of Nephi, no doubt to separate it from the Land of Lehi. In any event, each theory requires that Lehi land along the shores of the West Sea.

Lehi’s route to reach the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence River to the Great Lakes

 

However, in order to do so in the Great Lakes theory, Lehi would have had to land along the eastern shore of Lake Erie to satisfy Mormon’s information with their theory location. This means that Lehi would have landed somewhere between Westfield and Dunkirk along the eastern shore of Lake Erie or the Western shore of upper New York state, south of Buffalo.

It might also be of note that of the waterways which fall into Lake Erie is the Cayahoga the most important, though it is only 80 miles long—but in its natural state (then as now) it was not navigable. Its waters were used to feed the Erie Canal (1825) and the Ohio Canal (1827) in the 19^th century, and were built to connect the Ohio River to the Erie Canal at Cleveland. Thus the Cayahoga and other feeder rivers into Lake Erie were not navigable—even today, except for small boats in the early part of the year, these feeder rivers are not navigable according to the

When the canal opened officially between Cleveland and Akron in 1827, it was 308 miles long and required 146 lift locks. Wooden canal boats were limited by the size of its locks—90' long in the chamber and 15' wide, with a pair of wooden gates at either end. Large-capacity freight boats were towed by mules in tandem and passenger packets, designed for faster travel, were towed by horses at a speed of 4 miles per hour or less (the river flow was in the opposite direction at 2 miles per hour—thus the speed when towed at 4mph was limited to 2mph progress).

8 Locks are needed to lift ships from Lake Ontario up 244 feet to Lake Erie; the Sault Ste. Marie Canal from Lake Huron to Lake Superior enable bypassing the St. Marys River Rapids— The Sault Ste. Marie Locks (“Sault” is pronounced “soo” in Old French), in the waterway that connects the Great Lakes Superior and Huron, servse as an international border between the cities of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada

 

In addition, while the Great Lakes Waterway was and is an internal system of natural channels and canals which enable navigation between lakes because they are naturally connected as a chain—the waterway flows from west to east with Lake Superior draining into Lake Huron via the St. Mary’s River; Lake Huron drains into Lake Erie via the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers; Lake Erie drains into Lake Ontario via the Niagara River, and the entire system flows to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence River. As it flows from its westernmost point in Duluth, Minnesota to the Atlantic Ocean, the waterway drops in elevation approximately 600 feet. To compensate for this extreme difference, river deepening and widening with dams and scores of locks were built to lift ships from one level to the next.

Native Americans, French fur traders, missionaries and explorers had to portage their canoes around the rapids, and large vessels were forced to unload and cart their goods to a second ship on the other side of the rushing waters—as they did to bypass the Lachine Rapids on the St. Lawrence River around Memphis. To aid in this navigation and compensate for the 21-foot difference between the two Great Lakes, in 1797 the Northwest Trading Company constructed a lock on the Canadian side of the river. The Straits of Mackinac are 3½ miles long and connects Lake Michigan to Lake Huron (12 ships have gone down in the Straits).

There are a total of 18 locks (see above map) on the Great Lakes Seaway system built to lift incoming or lower outgoing vessels between Montreal on the St. Lawrence River and Lake Superior, the furthest point of the Great Lakes—8 of these locks are required to lift ships 326.5 feet up from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie, each Lock Chamber is 766 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 30 feet deep. In addition, there are several canals built to reach the lakes from various directions, such as the 240-mile long Trent Canal between Buffalo and Rochester that requires 46 locks; the Severn Waterway with 44 locks, etc.

Moreover, any water travel between the lakes was impeded for centuries by natural obstacles such as Niagara Falls, and the rapids of the St. Marys River and the St. Lawrence River—St. Marys rapids were important only if one was to sail from Lake Erie to Lake Huron and then on to Lake Michigan or northward to Lake Superior, along whose  southern shore was all the copper deposits in the Great Lakes area. The other would be important from anyone trying to sail in Lehi’s day from the Atlantic to Lake Erie, as these Great Lakes theorists claim was achieved.

Consider the first, St. Marys River, which was navigable from St. Mary's Fort downward to Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the Ohio River during half the year for large boats carrying from 100 to 200 barrels of flour; during the rest of the year, in the dry season, there was scarcely water enough to float a canoe and the course was much impeded by driftwood. Even today the St. Marys River has a non-navigable status.

The Maumee River in Grand Rapids, Ohio, across the river from Providence at the bend past Howard Island

 

The Maumee River, which empties into Maumee Bay along the harbor of Toledo, Ohio, is 137-miles long, but is only navigable (even today) for the 12 miles from Lake Erie through Toledo. Its deepest point at Antwerp, Ohio (about 25 miles northeast of Fort Wayne is only 10 feet—the rest of the river on both sides of this point is quite shallow—today that depth is 19-feet due to dredging and deepening of the river from Defiance to Fort Wayne during the 1800s).(G. Long, ed., The Penny Cyclopædia, The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, vol. 16, London, 1840,p413)

Such engineering works included the Welland Canal, finished in 1833, that provided a water way between lakes Ontario and Erie; also the  and huge Soo Locks to overcome the elevation change. Two parallel locks operating at the Soo, the MacArthur Lock is 800 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 29.5 feet deep, and the Poe Lock is 1200 feet long, 110 feet wide, and 32 feet deep. These two locks are between Huron and Superior, with dredged channels crossing the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River between Huron and Erie. Usually, one or more U.S. Coast Guard Icebreakers keep the water passage open for part of the fall and early winter, although shipping usually ceases for two to three months thereafter.

It seems perfectly clear that Lehi could  not have sailed up the St. Lawrence River in 600 BC to Lake Erie and land along the west shore of western New York as these Great Lakes theorists claim.

(See the next post for a continuation of the Great Lakes theory of bringing Lehi up the St. Lawrence River to Lake Erie to land in their West Sea adjacent to their Lane of Nephi and Land of Zarahemla—and also of the Heartland theory of bringing Lehi into the Florida panhandle)

Earliest American Textiles found in Peru

There is no question that the Nephites were adept at weaving and making outstanding clothes and other items. “I did cause that the women should spin, and toil, and work, and work all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind, that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land “ (Mosiah 10:5); There was an “abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth” (Alma 1:29); “The people of the church began to wax proud, because of their exceeding riches, and their fine silks, and their fine-twined linen, and because of their many flocks and herds, and their gold and their silver, and all manner of precious things, which they had obtained by their industry; and in all these things were they lifted up in the pride of their eyes, for they began to wear very costly apparel” (Alma 4:6, 5:53; 31:28); “Behold their women did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of fine-twined linen and cloth of every kind, to clothe their nakedness. And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace” Helaman 6:13; 13:28).

About forty years ago, a discovery of major importance was uncovered in Peru, where textiles and rope fragments were found in a Peruvian cave that were dated back to the later centuries BC, making them the oldest textiles ever found in the Americas (April issue of Current Anthropology). Though the items were found more than 30 years ago in Guitarrero Cave—located high in the Andes Mountains of Yungay Province, in the Ancash Region and located 160 feet above the Santa River in the Intermontane Callejón de Huaylas Valley in the north-central highlands or Peru, 8,460 feet above sea level—their significance only recently reached the scientific journals when they appeared in Science and Current Anthropology.

Some artifacts were “carbon dated” and were taken from bone, obsidian, and charcoal—items that are well known at times to produce inaccurate radiocarbon ages. However, the textiles themselves were not dated, and whether they too were that old had been controversial, according to Edward Jolie, an archaeologist at Mercyhurst College (Erie, Pennsylvania) who led this latest research. Further, Jolie stated that “charcoal especially can produce dates that tend to overestimate a site's age,” so "By dating the textiles themselves, we were able to confirm their antiquity and refine the timing of the early occupation of the Andes highlands," he added. 

Ancient Textiles (blanket) found in the Peruvian Guitaarrero Cave

 

Jolie’s team used the latest radiocarbon dating technique—accelerated mass spectrometry—to place the textiles between 12,100 and 11,080 years old. These textile items included fragments of woven fabrics possibly used for bags, baskets, wall or floor coverings, or even bedding. Jolie suggests that “they were likely left by settlers from lower altitude areas during periodic forays into the mountains.” Guitarrero Cave's location at a lower elevation in a more temperate environment as compared with the high Andean [plain] would have made it an ideal site for humans to camp and provision themselves for excursions to even higher altitudes," Jolie and his colleagues wrote.

It was suggested that these early mountain forays set the stage for the permanent settlements that came later when the climate warmed, glaciers receded, and settlers had a chance to adapt to living at higher altitudes. Jolie's research also suggests that women were among these earliest high altitude explorers. Bundles of processed plant material found in the cave indicate that textile weaving occurred on site. Said Jolie, "Given what we know about textile and basket production in other cultures, there's a good possibility that it would have been women doing this work,” which appears to have altered the early assumptions that such forays only included men (Edward A. Jolie, et al., “Cordage, Textiles, and the Late Pleistocene Peopling of the Andes,” Current Anthropology, vol.52, no.2, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, April 2011, p285).

Ancient textiles at the Museo Nacional de Arqueologða, Antropologða e Historia del Perð, is Peru`s biggest museum and contains the largest textile collection from the pre-ceramic period—about 2000 BC. This National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology, and History, a $125 million edifice to preserve the country’s heritage, currently boasts a collection of 50,000 pre-Columbian objects, including repatriated artifacts, making it the largest and oldest museum in Peru. The museum and also houses more than 100,000 artifacts spanning the entire history of human occupation in what is now Andean South America. The works were transferred from the defunct Museo de la Nación, the Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú and federal archives. Among them are artifacts that were looted and returned to Peru, such as ancient Andean textiles that were repatriated in 2017 by the ethnographic museum Världskulturmuseerna in Gothenburg, Sweden. 

Many fragments of woven cloth found in tombs around Andean Peru—these  from the Paracas mummies

 

Many fragments of these brilliantly colored and intricate tie-dyed patchwork cloths survive, which cloaks were frequently finished off by a wide edge with fringes that contrasted with the central cloth, claimed to be associated with the Late Nazca period, of about 500 to 700 AD, when the Huari culture was rising in the same area. These cloaks seem to have been assembled in two major zones, with the upper half consisting of two stepped-patterned pieces of separate designs and colors making up each square, with the other half made of small squares with smaller motifs, all joined together. According to Jolie, “Their complex geometry both delights and challenges the eye.”

The same strong colors predominate in both halves: red, green, blue and dark blue were dyed by dipping cream and yellowish plain-weave cloth into baths of dyes, with ringed squares and lines protected to make the pattern. Sometimes the background cloth is protected, and the little diamonds or lines are dyed in red. Rather than a simple sewn patchwork joining however, a discontinuous warp and weft technique—similar to that seen in the Paracas stepped mantle was used.

As described by Rebecca Stone-Miller, Professor emerita at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, with an extensive background in Andean art and architecture (emphasis on textiles), each shape of cloth was woven separately: with its threads in both directions turning back rather than interlocking, with scaffold threads temporarily holding them  together.” Evidently, when the scaffold threads were pulled out, the variously colored individual parts were reassembled with warps dovetailed and weft slits sewn. Of surprising significance, she notes that this technique is unique in the history of world textiles, and that it underscores how important it was to the ancient Andeans not to cut fabric. Rather, much labor was expended to obtain a particular visual effect, and how central innovation was to the aesthetic system (Rebecca Stone-Miller, To weave for the sun: Ancient Andean textiles in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and London, Museum of Fine Arts, Thames and Hudson, 1994, p101).

In fact, Paracas society, located on the south coast of Peru, is best known for its large cemeteries and funerary practices which included individuals and multiple individuals being wrapped in layers of textiles creating mummy bundles—the subtropical dessert environment in the Paracas Peninsulas also allowed for the most favorable conditions for mummification, preservation of spectacular textiles that were part of the mummy bundles. In 1929, the Peruvian archeologist Julio C. Tello unearthed the Paracas Necropolis Wari Kayan, an important site that uncovered 429 mummy bundles, which were unique for the multiple layers of extraordinary woven textiles that enveloped both the body and the grave goods. The mummies were often wrapped “in sumptuous embroidered textiles, some several feet long by half its width, and ranged in quality from rough swaths of undecorated cloth to finely embroidered mantles.”

Paracas textiles provide some of the most stunning examples of pre-Columbian Andean fiber art. Close examination of Paracas textiles reveals a great deal of information on the sophisticated embroidery techniques developed by Paracas artists, and their system of textile production in the last millennium BC.

In a systematic and methodical manner the early Peruvians created their designs  with (at the time) brilliant colors

 

On a red or black background, the usual decorative motifs are repeated in an orderly fashion: geometric designs, or stylized jaguars, fishes, fruits, and flowers. The Wari, who followed the Paracas, and found throughout Peru, are characterized by geometric designs that are alternated forming varied compositions, and animal motifs and characters with animal masks, all with a geometric profile.

The oldest woven fabric in the Americas has been found in Andean Peru (Paracas Culture), carbon-dated to 12,000 years old; in North America (Titusville, Florida, east along the coast from Orlando and just north of Cape Canaveral) estimated to be 5,000 to 6,000 years old (cannot be carbon dated because of their condition); Mesoamerica dated at 5,000 years old. While we place little value on carbon-dating as it relates to the actual calendar of time, it has value in comparison between carbon-dated events or items. As can be seen from these dates, the woven cloth textiles of the Andes in South America pre-dates that of Mesoamericas and North America by several thousand years—or in calendar time, predates the earliest usage in time of both Mesoamerica and the Heartland and Great Lakes locations.

Words in Describing Lehi’s Land of Promise

We have mentioned the importance of words many times in the past, but still find people who either write or talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon that misuse them, misinterpret them, or ignore them entirely when they read the scriptural record—specifically relating to the geographical setting and events described in Lehi’s Land of Promise.

This is easily seen when reading in the 63^rd chapter of Alma, with the wordage: “into the land which was northward” (emphasis added). Throughout the scriptural record in any discussion about the Land Northward, that term is used in the assumptive manner, i.e., as already having been introduced. On fifteen occasions in Alma alone, the term “the land northward” is used.

The two exceptions are found in:

1. “the Nephites possessing all the land northward, yea, even all the land which was northward of the land Bountiful, according to their pleasure (Alma 50:11).

In this instance, the entire Land Northward is included in a description of its location and giving a specific place where it was located: “which was northward of the Land Bountiful.”

There are two indications where the Land Northward is mentioned in connection with Bountiful (Alma 51:30 and Alma 52:9), stating where the land which was north of Bountiful being described as the Land Northward: “That he might take possession of the land Bountiful, and also the land northward” (Alma 51:30) and “He should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward” (Alma 52:9). However, in neither case is the description like the introduction of that land as being northward of these other descriptions (Alma 63:4).

2. “That they should flee to the land which was northward, which was covered with large bodies of water, and take possession of the land which was northward” (Alma 50:29).

In this case a land northward is connected with large bodies of water as seen in Helaman 3:4 (went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land), and in Mormon 6:4 (they did travel to an exceedingly great distance—away from the Lamanites to the south of the narrow neck, further into the and northward).

Further, the entire description (Mormon’s abridged one or “shortened one”) states: “And it came to pass that in the thirty and seventh year of the reign of the judges, there was a large company of men, even to the amount of five thousand and four hundred men, with their wives and their children, departed out of the land of Zarahemla into the land which was northward” (Alma 63:4)

• What: A large number of people migrated

• How: By ship to another land

• Where: A land which was northward

Northward of what? Not northward of Bountiful since it did not make that inference as found in Alma 51:30 and Alma 52:9. Yet, in this same set of descriptions (found in Alma 63), a “land northward” is connected with or north of the land of Bountiful. And since Bountiful is so connected to a Land Northward, why then use a different term in describing that land—into the land which was northward?

The ancient Central American Seaway (Panamanic Seaway, Inter-American Seaway or Proto-Caribbean Seaway) was a body of water that once separated North American from South America. This was verified by the deep-sea drilling rig Glomar Challenger which was a deep sea research and scientific drilling vessel for oceanography and marine geology studies

 

Obviously, this different description of a northward land was different than the Land Northward mentioned 15 times in Alma; 30 times overall in the Book of Mormon.

In addition, common words have specific meanings, as in the word down. In fact, there are usually, in any written story, event, or description, tell-tale words that aid in understanding what is written and if misunderstood or ignored limit understanding of what is really intended or occurring within these descriptions. As an example, the word “down” can be used in different ways, conveying different meanings:

• Movement in elevation: They came down from Timpanogos (11,753’) to Alpine (4951)—“Until they came down into the and which is called the Land of Zarahemla” (Omni 1:13); “the armies of the Lamanites came down out of the land of Nephi” (Words of Mormon 1:13); “the brother of Jared came down out of the mount” (Ether 6:2).

• Movement direction: “They traveled from Salt Lake (4226’) down to Cedar City (5846’)—“And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea (1 Nephi 2:5); They were encircled about as if it were by fire; and it came down from heaven, and the multitude did witness it, and did bear record; and angels did come down out of heaven and did minister unto them: (3 Nephi 19:14).

Others are:

• Downward in position: He is far down the chain of command”;

• In volume: “Turn down the TV”;

• In thought: “He has been remembered down through time.”

Nephi tells us his father lived “all his days” at Jerusalem, not in Jerusalem

 

Obviously, any single word is dependent upon how the word is used in context, meaning in conjunction with other words, in a sentence, thought, or idea—but it does have a specific meaning! And it had a single, specific meaning to the one who wrote it. The Lamaniters were located at such an elevation difference, that it was the descriptive term used when introducing pending battles: “they came down with a numerous army to war against the people of Moronihah, or against the army of Moronihah” (Alma 63:15);” And they came down again that they might pitch battle against the Nephites” (Helaman 1:15).

Mormon (like the others before him and whose records he abridged) chose his words wisely, after all, engraving with a stylus on metal plates (or pages) was a slow and laborious effort—extra or meaningless words were simply not used because if an error was made, it could not be removed—so an explanation was given to correct it: “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” (Alma 50:32) or “but by Ammon and his brethren, or rather by the power and word of God, they had been converted unto the Lord; and they had been brought down into the land of Zarahemla, and had ever since been protected by the Nephites” (Alma 53:10), or “I have written unto you somewhat concerning this war which ye have waged against my people, or rather which thy brother hath waged against them, and which ye are still determined to carry on after his death” (Alma 54:5).

An example of comparing meanings is found when Mormon writes: “When Lehonti had come down with his guards to Amalickiah, that Amalickiah desired him to come down with his army in the night-time, and surround those men in their camps over whom the king had given him command, and that he would deliver them up into Lehonti's hands, if he would make him (Amalickiah) a second leader over the whole army. And it came to pass that Lehonti came down with his men and surrounded the men of Amalickiah, so that before they awoke at the dawn of day they were surrounded by the armies of Lehonti” (Alma 47:13-14).

Lamonti with his whole army surrounded the men of Amalickiah and made Amalickiah second in command of all his armies

 

Obviously, we can accurately conclude that Lahonti was located at a higher elevation—mount Antipas (Alma 47:10)—and came down to a lower elevation—foot of the mount (Alma 47:10) to meet with Amalickiah.

So when Mormon writes that “In this same year they [Lamanites Alma 63:14] came down with a numerous army to war against the people of Moronihah,” or “They had been brought down into the land of Zarahemla, and had ever since been protected by the Nephites” (Alma 53:10, 12); or “Two thousand of the sons of those men whom Ammon brought down out of the land of Nephi” (Alma 56:3); or “Neither durst they march down against the city of Zarahemla” (Alma 56:25); or “Let us gather together this people of the Lord, and let us go down to the land of Zarahemla to our brethren the Nephites, and flee out of the hands of our enemies, that we be not destroyed” (Alma 27:5); or “Notwithstanding their great loss, Amalickiah had gathered together a wonderfully great army, insomuch that he feared not to come down to the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 51:11).

”Therefore it became expedient for us, that we should put an end to their lives, or guard them, sword in hand, down to the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 57:15); or “we did resolve to send them down to the land of Zarahemla; therefore we selected a part of our men, and gave them charge over our prisoners to go down to the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 57:16); or “and did cause that they should march down to the land of Zarahemla to battle against the Nephites” (Helaman  1:17); or “they did come down against the Nephites to battle” (Helaman 4:5); or “many of the Lamanites did come down into the land of Zarahemla” (Helaman 6:4); “Go down upon the Nephites and destroy them” (3 Nephi 3:3,8,17).

Thus, there should be no question where the Land of Cumorah or the Land of Many Waters were located; or even the entire Land Northward. Nor should there be any question about the much higher elevation of the Land of Nephi was to the Land of Zarahemla. Neither should there be any question that the Land which was Northward was located, i.e., beyond Lehi’s Land of Promise.

Thus, we can conclude that the City of Nephi, or the Land of Nephi, was located at a much higher elevation than the city and land of Zarahemla, much to the chagrin of the Heartland theorists, and even to the Mesoamerican theorists as well.