The Line Between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Desolation

In John L. Sorenson’s book, he writes that:

1. “From Nephi to Zarahemla, on a direct line, was about 180 miles.”

There is no way a figure any distance can be determined from the scriptural record, let alone 180 miles. The only thing we can consider is that it took Alma and his group of some 450 men, women, children, and provisions, to walk from the Waters of Mormon to the Land of Zarahemla” (Mosiah 23:3;24:23-25). But that was not from the city of Nephi to the city of Zarahemla. The description of Limhi traveling directly from the city of Nephi to the Land of Zarahemla is described as “many days” (Mosiah 22:13), however, once again, this was to the “Land of Zarahemla,” not the city. In addition, it took Ammon and his group 40 days wandering in the wilderness (Mosiah 7:4) from the Land of Zarahemla to the hills over looking the valley north of the Land of Shilom. From there they went “down into” the Land of Nephi (Mosiah 7:6) and to the “walls of the city” (Mosiah 7:10)

It might even be said that Ammon might well have been more than 40 days, for “they knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness, therefore they wandered many days in the wilderness, even forty days did they wander” (Mosiah 7:4). This does that mean they wandered from the moment they left the city of Zarahemla, for they would have known of the land until they reached the borders of the wilderness. Therefore, Ammon may have been even longer reaching the Land of Shilom. And, too, how long did it take him to reach the city of Nephi from the hills north of Shilom?

To use the 21 day travel time of Alma, one would have to know how far from the city of Nephi were the Waters of Alma, and how far from the borders of the Land of Zarahemla to the city of Zarahemla. However, both of these figures are unknown.

The point is, all distances in the Book of Mormon are so ambiguous that it is simply not possible to arrive at even assumptive distance measurements, let alone set 180 miles as the distance between the city of Zarahemla and the city of Nephi—especially when there is not one single record of anyone traveling that specific route from city to city and how long it took.

2. “Twice that distance would have taken them to the "line" (Alma 22:32, logically a river) separating Bountiful from Desolation, the beginning of the land northward.”

First, there is no way of knowing that the distance between the city of Nephi and the city of Zarahemla was the same distance between the city of Zarahemla and the narrow neck of land boundary between Bountiful and Desolation. Here again, Sorenson sets an arbitrary distance between two points, then using that figure, uses it to determine the distance between two more points. That can hardly be called scholarship.

Second. The “line” mentioned by Mormon that separated the Land Northward from the Land Southward was the narrow neck of land (Alma 63:5), referred specifically as a “line” in which he states: “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). How Sorenson arrives at this line being a river is beyond the scriptural record. There is never a river, marshland, swamp, or other waters mentioned in connection with the narrow neck except for the east and west seas (Alma 50:34); however, there is a river in his Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica, so he glibly places it into his reading of the scriptural record. Whatever the reason, it is both lacking in scholarship and honesty since it cannot be tied to Mormon’s many descriptions in any way.

Third, “logically a river” is no more logical than the line being referred to is the narrow pass or passage, which is mentioned by Mormon (Alma 50:34;52:9). It is just as logical to assume that the line is imaginary, like any line referred to between two points, as in the line between Los Angeles County and Orange County, or between Ogden and Salt Lake City.

What is Behind the Compromise of 75 to 125 Miles? Part III

Continuing with John L. Sorenson’s lengthy comments about why the narrow neck of land had to be quite wide, the last two posts covered several of his justifications. In this post, his statement of the narrow neck covering 144 miles is covered. He wrote:

7. “That would amount to 144 miles. If some mode of travel other than on foot were used, the 144 figure might be increased. Or the distance might be as little as, say, 50 miles. If the low figure applied, it would be harder for Limhi's explorers to fail to notice they were going through a narrow isthmus; if we push toward the high extreme, the "day and a half's journey" becomes more troublesome. A plausible compromise range seems to me to be 75 to 125 miles.”

As has already been shown, Sorenson has said, “If we assume foot travel -- probably the normal mode -- we can work toward an estimate of the width of the isthmus. As we have already calculated, the rate for "a Nephite," a single individual, could potentially be up to six miles an hour for as long as 24 hours within the "day and a half." Thus, Sorenson sets his own distance measurement, then applies it to an answer of how wide the narrow neck must be. Let’s take a look at this:

First, since Mormon is trying to tell us how we can understand the width of the narrow neck by applying it to how far a man in his day could travel, we can rule out some ofher mode of transportation, such as horseback, since he would not know how a man in the future would travel. So he chose the only method in his day he could be assured would exist in some future day—walking.

Second. As has already been pointed out, an average man could never travel six miles an hour for 24 hours. Actually, the accepted maximum speed of an average man walking is 3 miles per hour—if that pace could be kept up for 10 hours, it would be 30 miles, or 64 miles in a 24 hour period. But again, who could keep up that pace? People need a break when walking—the military usually gives a ten minute break in every 60 minutes, which means in a prolonged period, a soldier on a forced march actually walks 5 hours in a 6 hour period. If that pace were kept up for 24 hours, they would actually be walking only 20 hours which is 60 miles at 3 miles an hour.

On the other hand, having been in the military and involved in numerous extended marches, both in training and in “war” conditions, as many as one half drop out of a march after the first five hours. In two youth/young adult 50/20 marches (50 miles in 20 hours) I supervised lately, only two out of 60 finished one, and three out of 75 finished the other--and not an adult finished either one. The point is, to arbitrary pick a walking speed to warrant a overall distance measurement is foolhardy, and completely negates Mormon’s measurement example.

As has been pointed out in numerous posts here, walking as an average man would to cover a long distance in a day and a half, the figure usually comes out to about 26 to 30 miles, when figuring in rest time, eating time, and sleep time. Even if no rest or eating or sleeping time is figure in, at the rate of 2.5 miles an hour over an extended period of time works out to only 60 miles in a 24 hour period, which is far short of the 140 miles of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica, and not likely a time that could be equaled by any average man.

It might also be noted that the fastest time on a force march ever recorded for a military unit in modern times was that of the Forth Regiment of the Ohio Veteran Volunteer Cavalry during the Civil War to keep the southern Rebels from burning a railroad and turnpike bridges. In the first day they covered 15 miles through dense forest, slept on the ground without meal or blankets, and picked up the pace on the next day and covered 22 miles in 5 hours (which is 4.4 miles an hour), but failed in their preventative attempt. In real time, this unit, under critical war conditions, completed a forced march of 37 miles in a day and a half over wooded flat ground with almost no rest.

Third. Sorenson says that the “distance might have been as little as 50 miles.” Moving at 2 miles per hour, a person could cover about 50 miles in a 24 hour period on a forced march without stopping, resting, eating or sleeping. While this is not what an average man would do in covering a long distance, it could be accomplished under unusual circumstances—and is the only distance Sorenson gives that just might be within the parameter Mormon gives us.

Fourth. Sorenson claims that “a plausible compromise range seems to me to be 75 to 125 miles.” That is simply no compromise. At the lower figure, the pace would have to be walking at 3.1 miles per hour for 24 straight, non-stop hours. The higher figure would be at the pace of 5.2 miles per hour for 24 straight, non-stop hours. That does not seem like a compromise in any way—nor is it plausible for any average man, Nephite or American.

So why not just use Mormon’s comment. A day and a half journey for a Nephite. How far could you walk in a day and a half over uneven terrain?

What is Behind the Compromise of 75 to 125 Miles Part II

Continuing with John L. Sorenson’s lengthy comments about why the narrow neck of land had to be quite wide, the last post covered several of his justifications. But quite often, Sorenson clouds the issue of simple language with information that is neither pertinent nor helpful in understanding Mormon’s description of the distance across this “small” and “narrow” neck of land. Take a look at these complex argument meant to confuse the simple issue of Mormon’s description in Alma 22:32:

3. “Of course we don't know how long the "day's travel" might have been. References given earlier illustrate how wide a range of distances might be meant by this term. Interpretations of the expression could also vary. Possibly "the distance of a day and a half's journey" was a standard length. The Nephites may have understood that a "day and a half's journey" meant so many miles.

It is a little far-fetched that the Nephites would have some type of pre-determined measurement called “a day and a half journey.” Distance is typically measured by some type of length, i.e., a foot, meter, yards, miles, kilometers, leagues, furlong, or fathoms (depth), More importantly, what was Mormon trying to convey to his future reader. Would he know of any of our types of measurement terms? Would the Nephite terms be known to us? Consequently, the only measurement of distance that he could convey was in time, since it would not change—how long it took to travel from point A to point B, and that was seldom used. Mostly the term “many days” is used to suggest a length of time. Thus, when Mormon inserted his description of the Land of Promise in Alma 22 into Alma’s story of the proclamation sent by the king, Mormon came to a point where he thought his future reader should understand how “narrow” or “small” this neck of land between the Land Northward and the Land Southward actually was. So he chose to use the only measurement available to him for his future reader—how long would it take to cover that distance. Thus, he used the term “a Nephite” to show us that no special person, prowess, or ability was needed. Just a Nephite, as opposed to a person which could have included a Lamanite who, as a hunter, may have possessed greater skill and speed. So he used a “Nephite.”

4. “In parallel fashion the Spanish legua (league) meant the distance a loaded mule could travel on the average in an estimated hour; the term said nothing about any particular mule or route or number of hours of consecutive travel.”

The Nephites had horses and chariots (3 Nephi 3:22), as did the Lamanites (Alma 18:9). However, except for King Lamoni giving Ammon a ride in his chariot, these are never mentioned in connection with travel. Obviously, they were used for such, but if any of the distances covered involved horseback or by chariot, one would think it might be mentioned at least once by the Nephites. In any event, the most likely mode of travel would be by foot, and for a future reader to understand, it is the only mode of travel that would make sense.

5. “If we assume foot travel -- probably the normal mode -- we can work toward an estimate of the width of the isthmus. As we have already calculated, the rate for "a Nephite," a single individual, could potentially be up to six miles an hour for as long as 24 hours within the "day and a half."

Go out and try to walk at 6 miles per hour for more than a couple of hours—you would be winded by the first hour. By contrast, the highly acclaimed Roman Army, which marched all over the known world, had a requirement that a legionnaire must be able to march at the rate of “20 Roman miles in 5 summer hours.” That is, they must walk 18.4 (U.S.) miles in five hours during the heat of the summer—that is at the rate of 3.68 miles per hour for five hours. The legionnaire also had to fast march at the rate of 22 miles in 5 hours, which is 4.4 miles per hour. Thus, six miles per hour for 24 hours is ridiculously out of the question for a normal man. In fact, the average man walks for a prolonged length of time at about 2.5 miles per hour, but certainly not for 24 hours.

6. “The phrase, ‘a Nephite’ might imply that a special messenger was the one doing the traveling, for the statement occurs in the context of military defense.”

Two points are covered here. 1) a Nephite would not mean someone special, or what good would it do a future reader if that was someone special that we would have no idea about—it would be like Mormon saying “The narrow neck was 7 dactuns across.” No one not knowing what a dactun was would know how far across it would be. Obviously, the Nephite had to be a normal man for it to mean anything to a future reader; 2) the term “military defense” is a disingenuous approach here to change the subject of Mormon’s writing. The subject at hand in Alma 22 is one of the king sending a proclamation throughout all his land (Alma 22:27) to tell his people to let Ammon, Aaron, Omner and Himni preach throughout the land (Alma 23:1). Everything in between is given as an understanding of how the Nephites and Lamanites were arranged in the land (Alma 22:28-32), which also showed how the Nephites had kept the Lamanites from gaining more territory in the land (Alma 22:34). There is absolutely no military context involved in this description.

(See next post, “What is Behind the Compromise of 75 to 125 Miles? Part III,” for more on this issue)

What is Behind the Compromise of 75 to 125 Miles? Part I

In writing about the narrow neck of land within his Mesoamerican model, John L. Sorenson asks the question:

1. “What are we told about the narrow neck of land itself? First, it had to be wide enough that Limhi's explorers could pass through it without even realizing that it was an isthmus (Remember that upon their return they supposed they had been in the land southward all the time.)”

First of all to be accurate, they never "supposed they had been in the land southward all the time" for they never knew there was a Land Northward at this time. They did, however, know they "did find a land which had been peopled; yea, a land which was covered with dry bones; yea, a land which had been peopled and which had been destroyed; and they, having supposed it to be the land of Zarahemla, returned to the land of Nephi" (Mosiah 21:26). It does not do the study of the scriptural record well when words and meanings are added not supported by the record.

Secondly, the word “isthmus” is used by Sorenson because it matches the terminology of Mesoamerica. However, the term used is a “neck of land.” According to Webster’s 1828 dictionary, an “isthmus” is a wide area and does not apply to the scriptural record terminology Joseph Smith used to describe this area.

Third, how wide does an area need to be to pass through it without knowing what is on the other sides of your pathway? Throughout South and Central America, there is a very large series of mountain chains, commencing from the Andes in Tierra del Fuego and going north through the cordilleras of the Sierra Madres in Central America, and on into the Rockies of North America. Within these ranges are valleys, canyons and other natural breaks, that if a group of men were to pass through, the high mountains on either side would preclude anyone from knowing much of what was beyond the narrow confines of the pass, canyon or otherwise passage through the mountains.

So difficult was it to see from east to west through the narrow neck, that the expedition had no idea they were in a different land than that of Zarahemla and returned to the city of Nephi thinking they had seen the ruins of the city and people of Zarahemla.

2. “On the other hand, it was narrow enough that "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).”

Wide enough but narrow enough. You cannot have it both ways—either the narrow neck was wide or it was narrow. Of course, Mormon tells us it was both “small” (Alma 22:32) and “narrow” (Alma 63:5) and that a pass existed through it from the Land Southward to the Land Northward (Alma 50:34;52:9). A “pass” is defined as “a pass between mountains; a narrow passage,” and Mormon calls it a “narrow passage” as well (Mormon 2:29). Thus it would seem reasonable to accept this narrow pass within the narrow neck is a pass or passage between mountains.

In addition, we know that this narrow neck was sufficiently narrow enough for the Nephite militarily to guard it against their enemy, the Lamanites, from gaining access to the Land Northward (Alma 22:33).

Now, as for the day and a half journey, we ought to understand that Mormon, who wrote this, was writing to a future reader (us) and trying to explain the distance in terms a future reader would understand, since he would not have known mile, league, furlong, etc. So he chose to use how long it would take a man to walk across the area of the narrow neck, from east to west, since anyone, at any time, could understand that length within a reasonable distance.

So how fast would an average man walk to cover a given distance? In his book, Sorenson involves numerous unusual circumstances of men’s achievement, such as Philippides (or Erchius), an ancient Greek day-runner, who carried a message of victory from the battlefield of Marathon to Athens—a distance of 150 miles in two days without stopping before collapsing in death—these runners were specially trained and possessed great stamina and strength of character to carry messages in times of war, often through enemy territory; or Mohave Indians reportedly who could cover 100 miles in a day; or the Toltecs of Mesoamerica who were called “tlanquacemilhuique,” which, according to Sorenson, means they cold run an entire day without tiring. On the other hand, the information carried in all writings concerned with this name (such as Bancroft’s 14-volume History of Mexico, in which he quotes from Sahagun and numerous others), the statement is: “When they (the tlanquacemilhuique) wished to publish any command of Quetalcoatl, they sent a crier up upon a high mountain called Tazatzitepec, where with a loud voice he proclaimed the order; and the voice of this crier was heard for a hundred leagues distance, and further, even to the costs of the sea.” Of course, most historians consider this information a myth.

The point is, it matters little what special men have achieved in walking, running, or racing. Mormon tells us “for a Nephite,” which should eliminate any consideration beyond that of a normal man. And only in this context is his distance measurement of any value and can be clearly understood by a future reader.

(See next post, “What is Behind the Compromise of 75 to 125 Miles? Part II,” for more on this issue)

Was the Land of Promise Really That Small? Part II

Continuing with the debate started in the last post on the size of the Land of Promise, John L. Sorenson claimed:

3. “Yet all of these people are said to have come together to a single area small enough to be besieged (3 Nephi 4:16-18).”

When Sorenson says an area “small enough to be besieged,” we need to understand what this described action means. First of all, both the Robbers and the Nephites had tens of thousands of people and several armies each. By today’s understanding, that would be equivalent to an entire U.S. Army—about 50,000 soldiers (about 5 Divisions, about 50-60 Battalions, about 350 Companies). That is a lot of manpower! And when we realize how the people were utilized during more than three years, Nehemiah describes an incident when the Jews rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, they placed the men of the army by their families with their swords, spears and bows (Nehemiah 4:13), had half of the people working while the other half guarded the perimeter (Nehemiah 4:16), and used an early warning system with the blowing of trumpets to call men to action at any given spot of attack (Nehemiah 4:16).

With tens of thousands of fighting men, the Robbers could have encircled a very large area, for a siege is not a compact circle, but a military restraint from keeping those encircled from getting out to gain supplies, etc. Nor can it be said that the Robber’s siege was successful, for the Nephites ventured out at will, which would suggest a large area that could not be well controlled by the Robbers: “And the Nephites were continually marching out by day and by night, and falling upon their armies, and cutting them off by thousands and by tens of thousands” (3 Nephi 4:21). As most military experts will tell you, “Sieges were notoriously gruesome with a massive death and injury toll.” Yet, despite the tens of thousands that were being killed, there were still many thousands more Robbers who later surrendered when retreating, and many more who were killed (3 Nephi 4:27).

4. “Clearly the record deals with an overall area only hundreds of miles in dimension.”

It is like Sorenson to always claim something was a certain size or distance by his own reasoning, then turn around and use that as the correct basis for another size or distance. Here we see that he erroneously claims that the tens of thousands of Nephites, with their herds, flocks, and seven year’s supply of food and provisions would have been “bunched in a compact area,” then claims that “Clearly the record deals with an overall area only hundreds of miles in dimension.”

As shown above, this area to accommodate as much as 50,000 to 100,000 people on both sides (tens of thousands suggests at least 30,000 on each side), had to be of huge proportions, for they were not “bunched together “ like sardines, nor in concentration camps—but were together as families for over three years. In addition, the Robbers encircling the Nephites also had a vast wilderness around them in which to hunt (3 Nephi 4:2), there were many lands the Nephites vacated (3 Nephi 3:6;4:1;5:26;6:1), the Nephites gathered together in the center of their lands, meaning more than one former land (3 Nephi 3:21), and these lands were surrounded by wilderness, hills, and mountains (3 Nephi 4:1). And this area was only in the Land Southward, between the narrow neck and the Land of Nephi (3 Nephi 3:23). This, then left, the land to the east and west (for they were in the center of the land), all of the Land of Nephi, and all of the Land Northward, in addition to what is described in 3 Nephi.

It seems quite difficult to describe all this land, from the area of first landing to the waters of Ripliancum, as only covering a few hundred miles.

Was the Land of Promise Really That Small? Part I

After going into great length about how small and compact the Land of Promise really was, John L. Sorenson supports his belief by stating:

1. “Many Latter-day Saints will have to change their thinking markedly to adjust to the dimensions we have discussed.”

Those dimensions are just a few hundred miles in distance, rather than a much larger Land of Promise most people have come to understand. The problem is, that Soreonson claims he is right on the dimensions that, as has been pointed in earlier posts, are based on Sorenson’s completely arbitrary distances that are not supported in the scriptural record. Perhaps Sorenson is the one that should change his thinking.

2. “And we have other evidences in the scripture that the Nephites occupied a fairly compact area. For example, 3 Nephi 3 tells how the Nephites and righteous Lamanites, threatened by Gadianton robbers, gathered to a common stronghold with a seven-year supply of food to starve the parasitic robbers out of the land. The size of the gathered population was described as "thousands and... tens of thousands: from the land southward and the land northward."

He goes on to state that these people had to be in a small, compact area for the Robbers to lay a siege. But once again, Sorenson shows his lack of understanding military maneuvering, yet seems to feel his knowledge of such tactics is sufficient to explain away the scriptural record on such matters.

First, scorched-earth policies have been around for a long time. Russia used the tactic against Nazi Germany in World War II, where the Russians burned every farm, village and crop as they retreated before the German army, which, as most thrusts into enemy territory do, they ran out of supplies and food and could not gather it from the land. The Nephite governor, Lachoneus understood this principal very well, and brought his scattered people from far distances. Leaving their lands desolate (3 Nephbi 3:3), the Nephites took up a position in the Land Southward (3 Nephi 3:24), just south of the narrow neck of land (3 Nephi 3:23).

The Nephites were numbered in the tens of thousands (3 Nephi 3:22), and had populated the land about 63 years earlier from sea to sea (Helaman 3:8). Thus, the Nephites were many in number, and had several armies (3 Nephi 4:8). They were obviously guarded by those armies around the perimeter of the land they occupied in the center of the land (3 Nephi 3:21). This perimeter must have been very large indeed, for it covered tens of thousands of people who would have had their tents, flocks and herds, and all their substance, with them (3 Nephi 3:3).

Now the Robbers also had several armies (3 Nephi 4:1) and numbered in the tens of thousands (3 Nephi 4:21). For so many people to be in close proximity to one another, a very large area would have to have been occupied since these people spent three years living together (3 Nephi 4:14-16) in an area where they could protect one another, rather than being spread out across the land as they had been. Obviously, this grouping could not have been as compact as Sorenson claims. Also, as long as the guarding armies were stationed around the perimeter (3 Nephi 3:14), with scouts out monitoring the enemy movements—as Alma did when fighting the Amlicites (Alma 2:21), it would have been very difficult for the Robbers to penetrate any one area because sufficient repelling forces could be summoned. Nor could they amass a large army to attack one spot, for the scouts would have seen and reported this build up.

Thus, it would seem, a compact area would not only have not been needed, but certainly impractical to a small portion of a land occupied by such large numbers of both Nephites and Robbers.

(See the next post, “Was the Land of Promise Really That Small? Part II,” for the rest of this debate)

Were There Other People in the Land of Promise? Part IV

Continuing with the last post, Sorenson’s next points are:

9. “Jacob 5:25 and 43 clearly speak of Lehi's people being represented by such a broken-off branch.

It would seem that vs 43 is specifically indicting the land of promise, however, once again, this grafting took place with the restitution of the Church in America by Joseph Smith and the conversion to the Church by thousands upon thousands of indigenous people of North, Central and South America, especially in the countries of the latter.

10. “That branch was to be planted in "the choicest spot" of the vineyard. In that prime location, the Lord had already cut down "that which cumbered this spot of ground," clearly a reference to the elimination of the Jaredites.”

Same comment as above in #9.

11. “In addition, the statement that one part of the new hybrid tree brought forth good fruit while the other portion "brought forth wild fruit" is an obvious reference to the Nephites and the Lamanites respectively (v. 45). So the Lehite "tree" of the allegory was constituted of a geographically transplanted population from the original Israelite promised land "grafted" onto a wild root—joined with a non-Israelite people. (Note that the Lord considered the new root to be "good" despite its being "wild," v. 48).”
The verse referenced above states: “And thou beheldest that a part thereof brought forth good fruit, and a part thereof brought forth wild fruit; and because I plucked not the branches thereof and cast them into the fire, behold, they have overcome the good branch that it hath withered away” (Jacob 5:45). In this case, the “good fruit” was Nephi’s immediate people who were basically a righteous people for about 900 years or more until around 344 A.D., when Mormon “saw that the day of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually” (Mormon 2:15). In the case of the “wild fruit,” the reference is clearly of the Lamanites. And because the Lord did not remove the Lamanites from the Land of Promise, they “overcame the good branch that it hath withered away’—surely, the reference is about the Lamanites destroying the Nephites socially and spiritually, as Mormon said, before they did so physically.

12. “This allegorical description requires that a non-Israelite "root"— "other peoples" in terms of this paper—already be present on the scene where the "young and tender branch," Lehi's group, would be amalgamated with them.”

This is purely Sorenson’s imagination. The three groups involved in this allegorical description has to do with the Nephites and Lamanites and very likely the Mulekites, where a true grafting took place. The Nephites were the chosen lineage to earn the promise of the land given to Lehi, they were planted in a choice spot in the vineyard, the Land of Promise, their grafting took place with a wild group, that is, a people of Jerusalem who had “denied their God,” the Mulekites, and the Lamanites are the ones that should have been “plucked up” and burned.

13. “DNA analysts should expect that the immigrants, Lehi's party and Mulek's group too, would immediately begin to incorporate and hybridize with New World "native" populations.”

This is true and we should keep in mind that this line was eventually wiped out. Which means there would be no DNA of either the Nephites or the Mulekites. As for the Lamanites, their DNA was changed, as was those who joined with them, by the Lord who caused their skin and features to be altered. Thus, no DNA in the Western Hemisphere should be found to match anything form the Jerusalem area.

The point is, as is always the case, there is no need to invent people or groups that are not mentioned in the scriptural record in order to make sense out of what is written. Everything has its understanding when taken within the framework of what is written. When someone starts adding to, creating people not listed, the clear and concise language of the Book of Mormon is clouded and much is taken away from the plain and simple writing Nephi so loved.