skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Continuing with the article one of our readers sent in written by Mesoamericanist Aric Turner describing his view of the Narrow Neck of
Land. In the last post we were discussing Turner’s criteria for a narrow neck
of land. We continue here with him moving to the Land of Promise overall:
6. Turner: “Travel through jungle where no trails exist
can be as low as 10 to 15 miles per day (the lower limit).”
Response: Jungle,
forest, swamp, many rivers and lakes, etc. Depending upon the
topography, would depend upon the speed or movement. After all, a 5280 foot high
hill would mean one is covering two extra miles to walk over it, consequently, it
is not possible for us to determine the speed of someone covering this distance
based on our lack of knowledge as to the topography of the narrow neck.
Long distance runners rarely run more than five or ten miles with
marathons about 26 miles (Boston Marathon 26 miles 385 yards), who train with
20 mile weekly runs and a minimum of 40 miles in a week, with musculoskeletal
and dermatological problems following marathon runs of 26 miles, with many
suffering tendonitis, extreme fatigue, knee or ankle sprains, and extreme
dehydration, among other conditions
Obviously, these
specialty distances and abilities are far from normal, and there is no
indication of a specialty condition to the Nephite journey mentioned by Mormon.
Consequently, all these specialty situations are of little value. As an
example, Turner goes on to add, “The world record for a 48-hour run is 428,890
meters (266 miles), or 200 miles in a day and a half on a perfectly flat track
(the upper limit).” Does it seem reasonable that Mormon was giving us an
example of travel across the narrow neck using a world record to understand the
width? Hardly. Once we eliminate all this “fooferall” we find that Mormon was trying to
tell us how wide the narrow neck was, and used an average Nephite as the
measurement device, i.e., how long would it take a person to walk across that
distance. Had he meant someone who was more inclined to speed, perhaps he might
had used a Lamanite, or a “fit person,” or a "conditioned runner," etc.
7. Turner: “As a best estimate, the width of the narrow
neck should be between 15 and 200 miles.”
Response: Well, that
covers just about every known isthmus in the world. Which means, Turner gave us
a lot of writing that meant nothing at all. He even discusses canoe travel “on
flat, smooth, fast-flowing rivers can be up to 326 miles in 24 hours, but only
one river meets this criteria (Yukon). Otherwise, believe it or not,
travel is the same, or less, than foot travel,” which is another worthless
comment unless we are going to claim Mormon meant a Nephite in a canoe—or a
Nephite on a horse, etc. From this point, Turner returns to his criteria for
the location of the narrow neck of land:
8. Turner: “There
must be a north-flowing river south of the narrow neck. The river
Sidon headwaters are in the South Wilderness which are south of the narrow
neck.”
Response: And also
north of the Land of Nephi as Mormon describes (Alma 16:6), and very likely
does not reach Bountiful, because the area across the Land of Promise is
mentioned without any reference to the river Sidon in Bountiful, yet troops and battles
occur back and forth there in Alma (Alma 52).
9. Turner: “There
must be elevated areas on the west and south parts of the land.
There is a south wilderness and the Hermounts were on the west.”
Response: Obviously,
on the south, for the land moves upward to the Land of Nephi, with the south
wilderness the narrow strip of wilderness that lay in between the Land of Nephi
and the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 22:27). Now the wilderness called Hermounts was
on the west of the river Sidon and to the north of the city of Zarahemla (Alma
3:26, 37); however, there seems to be no wordage of an elevated area to the
west of the land.
10. Turner: “There
must be an elevated area on the east that borders an east sea. The
east wilderness bordered the east sea.”
Wilderness can be any area and type of topography, flat, hilly,
mountainous, desert, swamp, forest, etc., wherever people have not settled in
the land
Response: Again, we
do not have any indication in the scriptural record of the land to the east
being elevated. It would appear that Turner is translating the word
“wilderness” as being mountains, and thus claiming the east and west wilderness
areas of the Land of Zarahemla as being high in elevation, but the scriptural
record does not say that. Wilderness, after all, can be any elevation since it
means an “unoccupied tract of land.”
11. Turner: “There
must be at least two large bodies of water north of the narrow neck. Helaman 3:3 ...there were an exceeding
great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the
land northward, to inherit the land; And they did travel to an exceeding great
distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water, and many rivers.”
Response: And they did travel to an exceedingly
great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many
rivers” (Helaman 3:4) is the land described by Mormon as “it was in a land of
many waters, rivers, and fountains,” which was the Land of Cumorah (Mormon
6:4), which was also described by king Limhi who said his rescue mission
traveled in a land “among many waters” (Mosiah 8:8). This was the land far to
the north in the Land Northward, which had many waters, rivers and fountains
(sources of water). We are not talking about two large bodies of water, but
many bodies of water (the word large is not mentioned or implied), where rivers
and source rivers flowed.
12. Turner: “There needs to be significant
geological forces (earthquakes, volcanism, and tsunamis) that can explain the
destructions described in III Nephi.”
Response: This describes the entire west coast of North, Central and
South America, called the Pacific Rim, though there are far more volcanoes in
Andean South America, including earthquakes than anywhere else in the eastern
side of the rim. The Tsunamies that strike the northern half of South America are numerous,
since the current they travel tends to bend southward from the equator toward
the Western Hemisphere.
The internal map showing
the major land areas and their distribution in the Land of Promise, including
the six major waters mentioned in the scriptural record
Turner's entire views seem to stray far from the scriptural record and provide little, if anything of value in understanding the Land of Promise. His attempt to place this land in Mesoamerica simple falls short of Mormon's numerous descriptions.
One of our readers sent us an article by Aric
Turner describing his view of the Narrow Neck of Land. Turner is a
Mesoamericanist and quotes a lot out of the RLDS Book of Mormon, which has very
different chapter and verse numbers. Since there are a number of inaccuracies
in his article, we thought we would go over it in a full post, with our own responses
to it. According to Turner, there are some major
criteria needed for a world location to fit the Book of Mormon geography, which he states:
1.
Turner: “There
must be no cold or snow. There is only one reference to snow (I Nephi 3:46 [11:8], “...and the whiteness
thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.”) This
statement was made by Nephi in the Valley of Lemuel (in the Old World). So, the people in the Book of Mormon knew snow, yet there are no references to
cold or snow mentioned in the Promised Land.”
Response:
There is no reason to believe that there was no snow any more than there is
reason to believe that there was snow. It is simply not mentioned. As for the
reference cited above (1 Nephi 11:8), this is part of a vision, and Nephi
was using the term “driven snow” as a metaphor. It has nothing to do with any
temperature or weather condition in the Land of Promise. We do not know if the
people in the New World knew snow, if they had never seen it. Nephi knew snow
from living at Jerusalem, as did Sam and Zoram, as Jerusalem gets a major
snow storm about once every seven years.
A
recent snow in Jerusalem. While snow doesn’t fall all that often in Israel,
it does snow occasionally
As for cold, we do not know the temperature of the
Land of Promise. We know that at one point, Alma wrote that “people died from fever, which at some seasons of the year were
very frequent in the land” (Alma 46:40). To claim that a narrow neck of land
had to have no cold or snow, is simply self-serving to match his Mesoamerican
model.
2. Turner: “There must be an east wind of destruction. As for wind, there are several different kinds of references used. The
use of “wind” is very distinct and purposeful. The descriptions range
from mild wind to winds of destruction (“whirlwinds” and “east wind”). A
key description for locating the lands of the Book of Mormon is that is has to
be someplace where a wind from the east is strong enough to cause immediate
destruction and occurs often enough to be useful as an analogy. In Mosiah 5:50 [7:31], “...they shall reap the
east wind, which bringeth immediate destruction.”
Response: One needs to understand that very often
scriptural language refers metaphorically to possible events. The east wind was
not something to which the Nephites were threatened weather-wise, but from the
Lord’s wrath. As an example, when Moses tried to convince Pharaoh to
let the Israelites go free one of the plagues the Lord sent was a plague of
locusts—and how did the locusts get to Egypt in such large numbers? “The Lord
brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all that night; and
when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts” (Exodus 10:13). With
that wind came great destruction—which was a natural occurrence in Egypt (a wind from the east). It also became an idiom or warning to generations
of Jews about the result of not being obedient.
This “east wind” term is used
in other ways, as an example, when Moses and the Israelites were leaving Egypt
they came upon the Red Sea, with Pharaoh’s army hot on their heels. Israel was
saved by the power of the Lord, “And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea;
and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night,
and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided” (Exodus 14:21). It was
the “east wind” that blew and parted the Red Sea, saving Israel, while the
armies of Pharaoh drowned in the closing waters when the “east wind” ceased to
blow. The east wind is also a metaphor in Job 15:2, and also in Job 27:21. The
same is seen in “the scorching heat and east wind” of Psalm 48:7, and also in
Ezekiel 27:26, which is also the reason for its use in Mosiah 7:31. An east
wind is not associated with the Land of Promise in any physical other way.
3. Turner: “There
is criteria for the narrow neck. A key description is in Alma 22:32: 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. Many people
interpret this to describe the west sea to the east sea, but it just describes
a point to the east. It is important to note that this description does
not describe going all the way to the sea east, just to a point on the
east. A similar construction is seen in Alma 50:8: And the land of Nephi did run in a straight course from the
east sea to the west. Again, both seas are not mentioned, just a
point (to the west).”
Response: In English,
from the "east to the west sea," would be used rather than repeating the same
word (sea) twice in the same sentence--"west sea to the east sea" is a red
undant phrase in English. Whether this was Joseph Smith’s
translation is not known, and if it was, the Spirit would undoubtedly have
allowed it since the sentence carries the same meaning (see our previous post
on this subject). The reason we can see this, is in the statement: “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), since sea is not mentioned with west and east, but inarguably
means that—that is, there was a sea on the west, and a sea on the east. Again,
it is self-serving for a Mesoamericanist to try and limit meaning about these
two seas, since there is truly nothing “narrow” about the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec.
4. Turner: “So, how many
miles can a person travel in 1.5 days? It is very easy for a fit person to
travel 40 miles in a day over unimproved trails (60 miles in a day and a
half).”
Left: Map shows the Mesoamerican narrow neck of land, which runs about 140 miles north to south (instead of east to west as Mormon states); Right: Map shows the coastlines over a 200 miles distance, each shore only changing about 30 miles, which is 1/15 of a mile every mile--an extremely imperceptive change indeed. No one would even know it was a narrowing of the land without aerial or satellite photography
Response: 60 miles in
18 hours equals 3.3 miles per hour for 12 hours straight, then 3.3 miles per
hour for another 6 hours after a rest. While Turner may feel that is acceptable
for a fit person, I would like to invite Turner to try a 3.3 mile per hour pace
for just six hours. 3.3 miles works out to 17,424 feet. An average man would
step out at about two feet per stride over a long distance, making him cover
8,712 steps in 18 hours, or 484 steps per hour, or 8 steps per minute for 12 straight hours without stopping. While
someone might think they can do that, proof so they say is “in the pudding”—the
original statement was “the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” meaning you
had to actually eat the pudding to know what is inside. In this case, you
actually have to go do the 18-hour walk to see if it can be done. So, go ahead
and try it—not for 30 minutes or for an hour—but for at least six straight hours
and see how you feel after that little stint, then realize you need to do that
for another six hours straight, and then six more hours the next day! In
addition, one has to factor in uneven ground, avoidance of bushes, trees, other
indigenous terrain such as uphill and downhill, including gullies, ravines,
streams, etc. But Turner is not through with his examples…
5. “American Indian runners have been known to
run 75 to 100 miles per day.”
Response: Does anyone
think that Mormon had in mind such a Nephie racing for 75 to 100 miles in
a day when he wrote that? Really, what was Mormon’s purpose in inserting this information
if not to give us an understanding of the width of the narrow neck of land. I
wonder how a Nephite would have stacked up against a modern American Indian runner
doing 75 to 100 miles in a day. But let’s take this Indian runner. An average
between 75 and 100 miles in a day would amount to about 88 miles in 12 hours,
which is 7.33 miles per hour for 12 straight hours; which works out to 38,544
feet to cover in an hour. An average man would step out at about three feet per
stride in a run over a long distance, making him cover 12,484 steps in 12
hours, or 1040 steps per hour, or 17 running steps per minute for 12 straight hours without stopping.
In
case this is lost on anyone, that is running
at the speed of ½ the world’s record for a mile for 12 straight hours! That’s
one I wouldn’t advise anyone trying under any circumstances (100 miles is 8.33
miles an hour).
(See the next post,
“One Theorist’s View of the Narrow Neck – Part II,” for more of Aric Turner’s
views on the Narrow Neck of Land and our responses)
Continuing with the question of “What
was the size and shape of Mormon’s small neck of land” from the previous four
posts, we take a look at the ideas and beliefs held by many Theorists that
allows them to place this area in settings that do not match Mormon’s
descriptions. As an example, Matthew Roper in his Travel Across the Narrow Neck of Land in a FARMS Update claims:
“While it was a day and a half journey on the defensive line
"from the east to the west sea" (Alma 22:32), it was apparently only
a day's journey "from the west sea unto the east" (Helaman 3:7).
First of
all, it is Helaman 4:7, not 3:7. Secondly, the problem is, like all
Mesoamericanists, Roper sees the Land of Promise through his pre-determined map
of Mesoamerica. Consequently, he feels these two comments are about the same
place, however, they are not. One (Mormon 22:32) is referencing the width
distance of the narrow neck of land; the other (Helaman 4:7), is referring to a
defensive position which Moronihah commanding the Nephite army fortified as a
defensive line against Lamanite approaches—at this time, the Lamanites had
overrun and occupied all the Nephite areas in the Land Southward (Helaman 4:5).
Using the same rationale to let his future reader know how long this line was,
Mormon tells us it was a day’s journey for a Nephite along this line—which must
have been some type of obstacle, perhaps a wall, maybe even one that Moroni had
built 41 years earlier (Alma 48:8). Once this line or wall was fortified or
repaired, in whatever way Moronihah accomplished it, he “stationed his armies
to defend their north country” (Helaman 4:7).
One such ancient wall in Peru built
around 200-100 BC (about 200 years before the Romans built Vallum Aelian
[Hadrian’s Wall] in northern Britain) running many miles from the east on a
line to the sea in the west (Pacific Ocean).Archaeologists claim it was built
for defensive purposes to stop those attacking from the south from reaching
further north
However,
though the Lamanites “succeeded in obtaining possession of
the land of Zarahemla; yea, and also all the lands, even unto the land which
was near the land Bountiful, they did not capture or overrun the Land of
Bountiful for they were stopped at whatever border area existed separating the
Land of Bountiful from “the land which was near the Land Bountiful” (Helaman
4:5).
Thus, this line that Moronihah
fortified must have been somewhere in that area along the southern border of
Bountiful and this unnamed land to the south. Evidently, this wall or
obstruction existed from the West Sea for the distance it would take a Nephite
to walk in a day, perhaps about 15 to 20 miles, depending upon the landscape.
Also, evidently, at the end of that distance, other, existing and impassable
obstructions existed, such as unscalable cliffs, mountains, or deep ravines,
etc.
Not
finished with his thought, Roper adds: “Although
other interpretations are possible, these two passages would make sense if part
of that journey was by water, since those traveling eastward would be going
downstream and could presumably move much faster with the current than could
those journeying upstream.”
As can be seen, it would be difficult to
fortify a river with just troops. Crossing could be anywhere and the defending
troops would be strung out along the river, unable to bunch for a defense
For troops to fortify a
line, they need something to protect them from the advancing force against
them. Standing out in the open with a shield is the least effect way to fortify
a line. Typically, troops are stationed behind a wall, since walls (before
artillery) deterred an advancing force. Certainly a river could never be
fortified with troops—while the river might slow down an advancing force,
sooner or later the attackers will find a way to cross and then you are in
hand-to-hand fighting, which is not the best way to plan a defense. However, evidently,
Roper did not consider this line and for what it was intended or he never would
have suggested this river idea. Obviously, then, this fortification was not
Moronihah stationing troops along a river. Nor is that the meaning of the
statement of “fortify,” since “on the line which
they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country”
(Helaman 4:7), tells us that some type of “line” was fortified, and then the
troops were stationed.
That is, Moronihah 1) fortified that
line, whether repairing a wall or some other obstacle, then 2) he stationed his
troops along it.
This is what Rome did when
they first builtg Hadrian’s Wall, and then stationed troops at intervals alolng
the wall to fortify it
Consequently, this line being a day’s
journey for a Nephite, and figuring that to be about 18 miles or so, stationing
troops along an entire 18 mile line that is not, in and of itself a deterrent,
such as a wall would be, than Moronihah would have needed an extremely large
number of men to fortify 18 miles of nothing more than open land or a river,
etc. This is especially important to consider when one realizes that the
Lamanites would have attacked a single area, maybe a half mile wide with a
concentration of such numbers that a line stretched along 18 miles simply could
not have held any one location.
Thus, the idea of this foritified line
being a wall is a much more likely scenario, and especially so when we know
that Moronihah’s father, Moroni, 40 years earlier, was “building walls of stone
to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their
lands; yea, all round about the land” (Alma 48:8). If this is the case, then
this forty-year-old wall would likely have been in need of repair, or “fortifying,”
a word defined in 1828 as “To strengthen against any attack, “ “To surround
with a wall, ditch, palisades or other works, with a view to defend against the
attacks of an enemy; to strengthen and secure by forts, batteries and other
works; as, to fortify a city, town or harbor.” Fortify did not mean simply to
place troops along a line, but to “add strength and firmness,” as in building
up, repairing or creating an obstacle to deter or withstand attack. So there is
no way to conclude from this that this line, or the narrow neck Mormon
described in Alma 22:32, was referring to a river.
Consequently, despite Roper’s efforts
to cloud the issue with scenarios resulting from his erroneous views, these two
lines were not the same and were not located in the exact same place, i.e., one
was in the narrow neck of land, the other was in the Land of Bountiful.
In quoting this river theme of Roper,
Alan C. Miner in his extensive two volume work Step by Step Through the Book of Mormon, states: “Mormon does note travel by boat
in Alma 63:5, and even locates the launching into the west sea "by the
narrow neck which led into the land northward." On the other hand, if
travel by boat is significant enough for Mormon to mention with respect to
Hagoth, one might wonder why Mormon is silent in connecting it with "a day
and a half's journey for a Nephite."
It is
amazing that anyone would try to connect Roper’s comments about balsa wood
canoes with Mormon’s comment about the Nephites being involved in “shipping and
their building of ships” (Helaman 3:14). After all Hagoth “built
him an exceedingly large ship” (Alma
63:5—emphasis mine), in which “there were many of the Nephites who did enter
therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and
children” (Alma 63:6), which would also include supplies and equipment for
starting new lives in a distant land.
In addition, one of the main prerequisites
in reading the scriptural record should be not to inject thoughts, ideas, or
events, not specifically mentioned, suggested, or intimated. There is no
suggestion of a journey by water across the narrow neck of land, nor is there
any intimation that the day-and-a-half journey of a Nephite across this narrow
neck was the same location of the day’s journey of a Nephite along Moronihah’s
fortified line.
When one starts along such speculative
lines, one is bound to get far afield in his thinking, and the result is
typically the invention of one idea after another, none of which can hold up
under clear and honest evaluation.
Miner
continues with “The only other mode of travel mentioned, other than by foot,
has to do with "chariots" and "horses" and is found very
close in the text at Alma 18:9.” However, once again, Mormon is trying to tell
us the distance of the width of the narrow neck—would he say a journey of a
Nephite and then mean “on horseback or bychariot” without mentioning it? If so,
then his comment is absolutely worthless and such speculative writing is
neither scholarlyn or of any value, other than to be intentionally misleading.
Continuing with the question “What
was the size and shape of Mormon’s small neck of land” from the previous three
posts, we take a look at some amazing comments from Mesoamerican Theorists
regarding this width distance of the narrow
neck.
First of all, we need to set the stage
for those unaware of the purpose of Mormon’s description in Alma 22. At this
point in abridging Alma’s record where Aaron converted the Lamanite king,
the king has Aaron and his brethren stand in the midst of the gathered
Lamanites “that they should preach the
word unto them” (Alma 22:26). Afterward, since his people obviously
accepted Aaron’s preaching, the king “sent
a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all
his land, who were in all the regions round about…” (Alma 22:27). This land
was the Land of Nephi (green arrow below on the map, which is not drawn to scale
and is only representative).
After abridging Alma’s writing of this,
Mormon decides to inform his future reader where exactly this Lamanite land was
in relation to the Nephite lands, as he adds “…which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and
which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness [yellow
arrow on map], which ran from the sea
east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and
the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla,
through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the
east towards the west -- and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided”
(Alma 22:27).
Now, having said this, he goes on to
add how the rest of the Land of Promise was oriented to the Land of Nephi and
the Lamanite king’s domain, finally commenting: “on the north, even until they came to the land which they called
Bountiful” (Alma 22:28-29).
He then he adds that Bountiful (left: yellow
arrow): “bordered upon the land which
they called Desolation [left:green arrow],
it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been people and
been destroyed” (Alma 22:30). Finally, he states: “And they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land
on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was
called Bountiful…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; 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 22:31-32). And in conclusion, he states: “And now I, after having said this, return again to the account of
Ammon and Aaron, Omner and Himni, and their brethren” (Alma 22:35).
The point of all this is to show that
from verse 27 through verse 34 Mormon is injecting his own words—a description
of the Land of Promise and where the major land divisions were located. Now why
does he inject this? The answer seems obvious—he wants his future reader (us) to
have a clearer picture of the land the Lamanite king controlled as well as the entire Land of Promise, and that Lamanite
leader was offering free missionary passage throughout his land (Land of Nephi) for Aaron and
his brethren in which to preach the gospel.
Now, as he is doing this, Mormon finds
himself with the need to describe a distance, but not having words in which to
tell his future reader his meaning. As an example, every culture has its own
way of measuring distance. There is the Greek stadion, Spanish league, English
kilometer, Scots furlong, American mile, Roman mille passuum (one thousand paces), German meile (24,000 feet), Russian verst (7.4 kilometers), French lieue
(2000 body lengths), etc. So, what example for distance should Mormon use? What
if he said the distance was 5,000 plethron, akaina, or daktyloi, or possibly 20,000
com, zads, or bouns? Obviously, no one would know what such words meant. Nor
how long it would take a person to walk 53 zads.
What if he said it was 10,000 paces—how
long is a pace? In ancient Rome, a pace was five feet, measured from the heel
of a man’s foot to the heel of the same foot the next time it hit the
ground—what we would likely call two strides today. Even a “mile distance” can
be translated differently, depending upon the country: U.S. 1,760 yards;
Austria 8,297 yards; Hungary 9,139 yards; Italy 2,025 yards; Netherlands 1,094
yards; Norway 12,182 yards; Poland 8,100 yards; Spain 1,552 yards; Sweden
11,660 yards; and Switzerland 8,548 yards. In such a world, how could any
specific measurement not create enormous differences in distance?
In addition, depending on where you
live, measurement might be determined by time. As an example, in the New
York-New England world, you could conceivably pass through four states in about
4 hours; however, in California, you could drive north from San Diego and still
be in the state 12 hours later. Moreover, many places when locals are asked how
far something is, they often answer in time: “It’s just a 45 minute drive,” “It
will take you about two hours,” etc.
Consequently, Mormon picked a
measurement that he assumed would be understood in any age, regardless of what
future motive power might exist, how advanced they were, or what their
circumstances might be—that of a man walking. In all the ages, walking has not
changed much. There is the normal Fit Walking, and of course there are walking races,
Power Walking, Speed Walking, and now Race Walking
World Cup Race Walking Trials, for the 12.4 mile race walk for men and
women, the 31 mile race walk for men, both Olympic events, and the 50 mile race
walk
It would stand to reason that a person
on a skateboard could cross a large, empty parking lot faster than a person on
foot; but what if you had the other person running, what if he was a
world-class runner, or if he set the mile distance record? Obviously, when you
change the obvious, you change the outcome. What if you put the other person on
a bicycle, on a horse, on a motorcycle? Again, you are changing the parameters,
and the outcome is changed.
Mormon wanted us to understand what he was measuring, not
trying to confuse us. When he said
the Nephite was journeying, he did not mean jogging, running, racing, riding,
swimming, sailing, rafting, etc. Yet, true to the nature of the Mesoamerican Theorist,
who must find a way to justify a 144-mile wide distance to be covered in a
day-and-a-half by a Nephite, Glenn A. Scott, in Voices from the Dust, claims the Nahua Couriers or Runners “could
run at the greatest speeds for hours.” Then there is John L. Sorenson who talks
of native runners traveling distances of up to 100 miles in a day; and
Matthew Roper suggests that more than half of this day-and-a-half journey could
have been traveled by water along the Coatzacoalcos River, while Alan C. Miner proposes travel by horseback,
even to the point of a "pony express" style journey; there is also Ross
Hassig who writes
that the Nephite involved sea travel, such as that from Veracruz to
Coatzacoalcos, "canoes were employed to go up the Coatzacoalcos River to
Antigua Malpaso, where land transport was employed for the remaining 12 leagues
to Tehuantepec. This route was also employed in traveling between Mexico City
and Tehuantepec, [because] water transportation was easier than overland
travel."
All we have to realize is why Mormon
was telling us this width and we realize that all these exceptional and unusual
possibilities are simply worthless and quite inconsistent with Mormon’s
writing. If his journeying example was not a common man (a Nephite), then what
was its purpose? As an example, suppose he knew of a particular Nephite who,
speedier than his fellows, could race across that narrow neck, like a
modern-day world record holder. Would it make sense for him to use that as a
guide to tell us how wide the narrow neck was? How would his future reader know
he was referring to some unusual running ability? Certainly, when Mormon wrote
a Nephite could make the journey in a day-and-a-half, would he not have been
thinking of a normal, every-day Nephite so that in the future, his reader could
grasp the meaning of this distance? Certainly, Mormon would not have known
about the Zuni Indian runners, the marathon racers, the world record holders.
And if he indeed wanted to confuse the issue, he certainly could have used a
Lamanite who lived and traveled outdoors in the hunt, etc.
The point is, Mormon was writing to us
today and used a typical example in his day so that we could relate to such a
typical example in our day. A man walking is not going to change much over
time.
Continuing with the question of “What
was the size and shape of Mormon’s small neck of land,” we find some
interesting thoughts from other writers, including John Clark, regarding this
all-important topographical area of the Nephite Land of Promise. As an example,
what exactly did Mormon mean when he wrote: “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).
While a rather simple statement, much
has been written about this, including some extremely exaggerated ideas, first
fostered by John L. Sorenson in his An
Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, published in 1985. For the
following 28 years, it has held a pre-eminence in the discussion of any Land of
Promise location. So much so, that nearly all non-LDS and most LDS believe the
Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. Yet, if you take a subject-by-subject
analysis of his book, and compare it directly to the scriptural record, you
will find that most of his ideas simply do not agree with what Mormon wrote
(see the book Inaccuracies of
Mesoamerican & Other Theorists for such a subject-by-subject analysis).
The sad result of this is that just
about every archaeologist and anthropologist who studied at BYU under Sorenson
or his ongoing ideas, have continued to champion his views on Mesoamerica. And
one of those ideas is that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica is the
Nephite narrow neck of land. While some have begun to question that idea, it
still holds the pre-eminent claim among the vast majority of Mesoamericanists.
Yet, even Mesoamericanist John Clark
has said, “The Book
of Mormon apparently specifies precise travel times for this area [the small
neck and the narrow neck]. But the short distances involved (one to one-and-a-half
days) cannot be squared with any known isthmus (without special conditions or
travel rates being specified),” which we discussed in the last post. But the
point is, the day-and-a-half journey cannot be found in any existing
isthmus—that is, Mesoamerica and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec does not qualify
for the site of the Book of Mormon narrow neck of land. At least not without
some fancy changes, what Clark calls special conditions, which one way or
another change the meaning and text of Mormon’s description.
But Clark
raises another point, and excellent point no one else has ever raised that we
have seen. His point is that if there is a major pass (the narrow pass) running
north-south right in the middle of his small (narrow) neck of land, one might
wonder how travel could be facilitated from west to east (the width of the
narrow neck)? A thoughtful and important point. He states further that, by definition,
what defines a "pass" is the inability or obstruction of travel on
either side of the "pass." That is, a pass would be a way through an
area and, in this case, it would be a way through the narrow neck of land, and
Clark is pointing out that there would not be egress width wise (east-west).
In the Mesoamerican model, Red Arrows show north and south pass;
Yellow arrows show east and west neck or movement through the Mesoamerican
narrow neck of land
Clark
also states that if the pass was of such major importance that it needed to be
fortified, and it led into the land northward (rather than leading into the
narrow neck)…
Here we
disagree, however, since both the small/narrow neck and the narrow pass/passage
led into the Land Northward and into
the Land Southward. That is, the narrow neck led into the Land Northward (Alma
63:5), and also into the Land
Southward (Alma 22:32), with the narrow pass also leading into the Land
Northward (Alma 50:34; 52:9), and also
led into the Land Southward (Mormon 2:29; 3:5).
Clark
continues with “…and if the small neck was between the land northward and the
land southward, then this implies at least in my way of thinking that there was
no easy way around this narrow pass.”
Actually,
there was no way around this simple division of the land at the narrow neck. It
was the dividing line between Bountiful and Desolation (Alma 22:32), and became
the line dividing the Nephites from the Lamanites in the treaty between Mormon
and the Lamanite king in 350 A.D. (Mormon 2:28-29).
Now here
is a vital point about the narrow neck of land, for we are talking about a north-south running narrow neck, and an east-west measurement. So let us take a
look at this apparent dichotomy.
First of
all, both the small/narrow neck and the narrow pass/passage ran north and
south, between the Land Southward and the Land Northward (Alma 50:34; 63:5). The
narrow neck was the only connection of land between the Land Southward and the
Land Northward, since it was surrounded by water except for this small neck
(Alma 22:32); at the same time it was a barrier between these two lands, except
for the narrow pass that led through it, connecting passage by land between the
Land Southward and the Land Northward; and it was narrow enough that the sea
encroached on either side (Alma 50:34), sufficiently to create an attitude that
here was “where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20).
According
to Alan C. Miner, in his Step by Step Through the Book of Mormon: “Balboa and
his men took 26 days to travel the 50 miles from the Atlantic Ocean to the
Pacific shores of Panama, an average of less than 2 miles per day.” Also,
Cortez and his men averaged only 10 miles per day in traveling the flat terrain
of the Yucatan peninsula,” stating also that there is no mention of any
restrictions on travel or any internal blockage as there would be if traffic
had to channel through a pass. Evidently, he feels such a pass would inhibit
travel, or that hindrances within the pass would slow down travel. Either way,
there is no indication of such within the scriptural record.
But let
us keep to the point of the width of this small neck being a day-and-a-half
journey for a Nephite. The problem in all of this is that, as English-speaking
people, we have a tendency to think visually—we think in straight lines and
right angle lines, but usually not in angles, curves, or loops. Consequently, when
Mormon says: “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), we find:
1. The narrow pass ran from the Land
Southward to the Land Northward;
2. The narrow pass ran from the east
[sea] to the west sea;
3. The narrow pass ran on the line
[boundary] between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Desolation;
4. It took a day and a half for a Nephite
to traverse this distance.
So, let’s look at this from a
different, but accurate view according to the scriptural record. Take a box (small neck of land) and
place it with north at the top, then take a long ruler (narrow pass) and place
one end on the southeast corner and the other end on the northwest corner, and you
have a pass that runs from the south to the north, yet also covers the ground
from the east to the west, yet also leading from one land into the other.
Consequently, if it took a day-and-a-half to travel through this narrow pass,
then you have an area that meets Mormon’s descriptions.
In this drawing (not to scale) also
shown above, is illustrated the box and ruler diagram concept stated above—it
is actually a location in South America near the border of Peru (south) and
Ecuador (north) at the Bay of Guayaquil. Where the East Sea is shown, it is now
the Andes Mountains, but the narrow neck and pass still exist, the pass being
prominent in Incan history as covered in a previous post
Actually,
there is such a place in South America as shown above and it meets all the
requirements of Mormon’s description without changing, altering or editing, or
explaining away anything in the scriptural record. It might also be of note, as
reported earlier in these posts, that the Inca Huayna Capac marched through
this pass that now bears his name at the head of his army taking a day and a
half to lead them through it.
(See the next post, ““What Was the
Shape and Size of Mormon's Small Neck? – Part IV,” for more information about
the narrow neck of land and what Mormon meant when he wrote: “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”)
Continuing with the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum
(BMAF) website article on Alma 22. When Mormon introduces a narrow pass or
passage within the narrow neck of land that leads between the Land Northward
and the Land Southward, we find an interesting corollary about this pass which was recorded in the 16th
century by the Spanish conquistador and chronicler of Peru, Pedro de Cieza
Leon.
“Huayna Capac was in
Quito,” he wrote,“ with all his captains and veteran soldiers, when he received
word that one of his armies he sent to conquer a neighbor had been routed and
were in rapid retreat. He sent fast runners to stop the retreat and for his army
to take high ground and wait for him to arrive. Huanyna Capac not wanting to
tell his soldiers one of their armies had been defeated, merely said they were
marching against an enemy.
The Inca, Huayna Capac, rode in his litter
south to the narrow pass through the mountains, but once in the passage, he
dismounted and walked for a day and a half at the head of his army
“Once into the pass from
Ecuador toward Peru, he got out of his litter, and marched in front of his army
for a day and a half, and those who were retreating in great numbers, when they
saw that the approaching army consisted of their own people, stopped on one
side, while the pursuers began to attack them, and killed many. But Huayna
Capac surrounded them on three sides, which amazed them not a little and even
those who had been conquered, rallied and fought with such resolve that the ground
was covered with dead. When the pursuers wished to retreat, they found the pass
occupied, and so many were slain that very few remained alive except the
prisoners, who were numerous. In honor of this great victory, Huayna Capac
named the pass or corridor through the mountains after himself in honor of his
great victory (taken from The Second Part
of the Chronicle of Peru by Pedro de Cieza Leon (Antwerp 1554, translated
by Clements R. Markham, 1883, London. p.214-215).
Huayna Capac’s enemies had
nowhere else to go—they were bottled up, the land was narrow, the pass was
occupied, so there was no escape. This was the same condition Morianton found
himself in when he tried to get through the pass when Teancum cut him off (Alma
50:34). This area was such a natural division between the lands, that it was
chosen by the Lamanites and Nephites as the boundary between their two lands
for the treaty they agreed to in 350 A.D. (Mormon 2:28).
Thus, we can see the narrow
neck of land Mormon describes was simply that—a “narrow” neck of land—that
could be easily defended against an enemy attack, was basically a natural
division of land, had the sea on the east and west, with a natural pass or
passage through it. Obviously, the 144-mile wide Isthmus of Tehuantepec does
not qualify for this ‘small” and “narrow” neck.
Current definitions of the
word “narrow,” suggest it to be “of small or limited width,” and “limited in
area,” and “a part of little width, as a pass through mountains.” And from
1828, the definition is “A strait; a narrow passage through a
mountain,” “of little breadth; not wide or broad; having little distance from
side to side; as a narrow board; a narrow street; a narrow sea; a narrow hem or
border,” “of little extent; very limited; as a narrow space,” ”near, within a
small distance, close.” Webster also says of narrow: “It is only or chiefly
applied to the surface of flat or level bodies.”
Thus, when we look at a piece of land
that is “narrow,” it should show some indication that it is narrower than that
surrounding it, in fact, considerably narrower to meet Webster’s definition—a
small distance, close from side to side, and certainly not wide or broad. One
needs only look at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to see that these descriptions
easily discount that area as a “narrow” area. And most importantly, for people
from 600 B.C. to 420 A.D. able to recognize that it is a narrow neck of land for they would not have satellite
images, aerial photography, global maps or charts. It would also have to be so designed
to show land-bound people that the sea “divided” the land at that point (Ether
10:20), such as a very large bay or inlet cutting into most of the land’s
width.
From great height, like this satellite photo, we can see that
Mesoamerica does indent at what is called the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; however,
from ground level, the indentation is so small, and covers 375 miles in the Bay
of Campeche (north) and 250 miles in the Gulf of Tehuantepec (south), limiting
anyone’s view of an indentation, let alone see that it was a “narrow” neck of land
Consider this Mesoamerican
coastline in the image above that shows the northern shore coastline of the Bay
of Campeche from a non-aerial view and think of how it would appear to
someone at ground level or low-lying hills along the coast. Would they see a
slight indentation or a narrow neck? In addition, the distance between the two
yellow X’s (below) is 225 miles. It would be impossible for anyone along this coast to
recognize any indentation or any narrowing at all. Consequently, and once
again, the Mesoamerican Theorists’ model of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec could
not possibly have even been known as a “narrow neck of land” to the ground-based
Nephites.
John Clark, a strong
Mesoamerican advocate, has stated: “The Book of Mormon apparently specifies precise travel times
for this area [the small neck and the narrow neck]. But the short distances
involved (one to one-and-a-half days) cannot be squared with any known isthmus
(without special conditions or travel rates being specified).” That is, his
view states that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec does not qualify as the narrow neck
of land “without special conditions or travel rates being specified.” So, in
order to make Tehuantepec qualify, he, like other Mesoamericanists create
“special conditions,” i.e., a way to make a 144-mile-wide isthmus qualify for a
day and a half journey, by flattening out the terrain and removing any natural
obstacles, and also, by “travel rates being specified,” which is done by
increasing the distance one could travel in a day-and-a-half. It was John L.
Sorenson who first suggested such a method of solving the dilemma of the width
of Tehuantepec and Mormon’s day-and-a-half journey by introducing special runners, marathon records, ancient athletes, etc.
After
all, any distance and time can be justified if you change the natural
parameters. Where Mormon says a Nephite, you change that to what a remarkable
group of Zuni Indian’s have accomplished, or a marathon runner, or a world
record holder has achieved. Obviously, as you increase the ability to cover the
distance, you can widen that distance. However, it does not change the fact
that Mormon gave us a simple parameter—the width of the narrow neck was what a
Nephite could cover in a day-and-a-half journey. A journey is not a race, it is
not an endurance factor, it is not a world record. It is simply a common man
(Nephite) journeying (traveling) a distance in a day-and-a-half. How far could
such a person travel in a day and a half? We don’t know directly that it was 18
hours (12 hours daylight, 12 hours darkness, 6 hours daylight), however, the
word journey suggests a normal travel sequence. The 1828 dictionary defines
“journey” as “the travel of a day; travel by land to any distance and for any
time; passage from one place to another,” all of which suggests a normal
journey, trip, travel of an individual from one place to another.
Thus, we
can only conclude that the narrow neck of land was, indeed narrow, and the
width of it was the distance a normal person could cover in a day-and-a-half
without looking for unusual circumstances.
(See the next post, ““What Was the
Shape and Size of Mormon's Small Neck of Land? – Part III,” for more information about the narrow neck of
land and what Mormon meant when he wrote: “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”)
Another look at Book of Mormon
Archaeological Forum (BMAF) website tells us that their interpretation of Alma
22 is far from accurate. However, in an introduction they write an interesting
precedent for understanding the Book of Mormon, which relates back to the last
post regarding Hender’s two Bountifuls.
BMAF writes: “Why is redundancy in geographic reference
association so important? Because redundancy eliminates confusion…”
It is interesting when we
apply this very accurate statement to Hender’s point in the previous posts about
where Lehi landed. In doing so, we find that an obscure comment by Neal A.
Maxwell in a Conference talk (“Lessons from
Laman and Lemuel,” Oct 1999) regarding Laman and Lemuel
unwilling or unable to rise to the level of their birthright in both the Old
World Bountiful and also in the Land of Promise, which, as a subject connector,
Elder Maxwell also called Bountiful (“From Bountiful to Bountiful”), to show
that in both worlds, Laman and Lemuel “became
rebels instead of leaders.” Hender took this small comment about Lehi
landing in Bountiful and built an entire concept around it that Lehi landed in
the northern part of the Land Southward, in what became later known as
Bountiful, then traveled south to the area of what became known as the Land of
Nephi. As BMAF concludes, “one single
reference should never be used to establish a critical correlation..” But
from there, they go off point and state: “Take
the idea of an isthmus, for instance. Only one single reference in the book’s
text, Alma 22:32, can be interpreted as an isthmus explanation yet numerous
current and historic geographies of the Book of Mormon pivot around this
concept.”
It is true that
Mesoamericanists’ models of the Land of Promise pivot around this area called
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; however, the term “isthmus” is never used in the
scriptural record, though Joseph Smith would have been familiar with that word.
The problem is, a narrow neck of land can be called an isthmus in our present
language; however, in 370 A.D., the term would not have been known and,
perhaps, “small neck” translates to the same thing—but this is simply not known
to us. The point is, however, that when we start using words that are not in the
scriptural record to describe a different term used, we run into difficulty. And
the only reason that Mesoamericanists use Isthmus is because they want to
associated their so-called narrow neck to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which is
neither narrow nor small as Mormon writes.
• “…there
being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward“
(Alma 22:32);
• “…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);
• “…secure
the narrow pass which led into the land northward” (Alma 52:9);
• “…by
the narrow neck which led into the land northward” (Alma 63:5);
• “…even
to the narrow passage which led into the land southward” (Mormon 2:29);
• “…by
the narrow pass which led into the land southward” (Mormon 3:5);
• “…by
the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land”
(Ether 10:20)
The Isthmus of Tehuantepec on this NASA satellite photo is barely
discernable—one can only imagine how anyone in Nephite times would have
considered it a “narrow neck” or “small neck” of land
This illustrates the problem when
someone inserts a word to replace another explanation. Once calling the narrow
neck an Isthmus, it then allows the giant leap to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
(which, of course, is called an isthmus—but certainly no one would ever relate
the terms “small neck” or “narrow neck” to it), and having done so, the other
correlating statements no longer apply, since a narrow pass or passage through
Tehuantepec, 144 miles by foot across, simply could not be defensible and allow
someone to cut off another group trying to get through to the north. This then
leads others to think of the narrow pass and narrow passage as separate and
disconnected locations, even though all of them relate to the single factor of
connecting the Land Southward to the Land Northward, which Mormon also
describes the former as nearly surrounded by water except for this small neck
of land (Alma 22:32)—which agrees with Jacob’s description in 2 Nephi 10:20) and
shows that it was the only land connection between these two large land masses
of the Land of Promise.
Again, BMAF goes far afield when they
add, “If a variety of similar reinforcing references
concerning an isthmus should actually exist, than everyone writing their
geographies around this core concept would be standing on bedrock. Since there
is no redundancy, these writers are standing on sand when they rely on the term
“isthmus” as a correct interpretation of Alma 22:32.”
In the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language,
Webster defines isthmus as: “A neck
or narrow slip of land by which two continents are connected, or why which a
peninsula is united to the mainland…the word is applied to land of considerable
extent, between seas, as the isthmus of Darien, which connects North and South
America.”
As one can see, the term in Joseph Smith’s time referred to as an
extensive amount of land. Today’s definition, on the other hand, is more
aligned with Mormon’s usage and is defined as: “A narrow strip of
land with sea on either side, forming a link between two larger areas of land,”
which is exactly what Mormon wrote.
However, the important thing here is Webster’s
1828 definition from Joseph Smith’s time. But setting that aside, we can take
the more modern definition and point out that the key word here is “narrow.”
And to make sure we understand how narrow this small, narrow neck was, Mormon
adds: “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)—a day and a half
journey. This is not for a Lamanite, for some special individual, record-breaking
run, world-setting pace, Book of Guiness rarity, marathon runner, or some
remarkable individual or group, but a typical Nephite, or in our day, a typical
man.
So we have several references to a
small, narrow neck of land that separates the Land Northward from the Land
Southward, where the sea encroaches on either side, perhaps like a bay or some
type of inlet and “divides the land,” where a narrow pass or passage extends
through the land providing movement between the two major land divisions. There
are at least seven references to this location, of which, in 1829, the word
Isthmus would not apply.
Consequently, from all of
this, we find that Mormon’s narrow neck was a strip of land, perhaps 20-30
miles long (north to south) and 25-30 miles wide (east to west). While we do
not have a measurement or comment from Mormon to its length, he informs us that
overall it was “small” (Alma 22:32), and the width was “narrow” enough for a
man to cover in a day and a half, which makes that distance about 25-30 miles, and to make it "small" the length would probably be a similar distance.
(See the next post, “What Was the Shape and Size of Mormon's Small Neck of Land? – Part II,” for more information on this narrow neck of land that separated
the Land Northward from the Land Southward “where the sea divides the land.")
