Is There a Different Between the Narrow Neck and the Narrow Pass?

Many struggle with the four main areas often referred to as only the “narrow neck of land,” which is described in four different ways in seven different scriptures: 
1. Small Neck of Land (Alma 22:32)
2. Narrow Neck of Land (Alma 63:5, Ether 10:20)
3. Narrow Pass (Alma 52:9, 50:34; Mormon 3:5)
4. Narrow Passage (Mormon 2:29)

Top: Examples of a narrow neck between two larger land masses; Bottom: Examples of a narrow pass or passage
    With just a cursory reading of the scriptural record, one might be led to think these are different areas, while a more diligent reading shows they are not. However, because some people use the terms interchangeably, while others question whether they are two or more separate locations, let’s take a further look at the scriptural references to see if these statements all describe a single area, or whether more than one area is involved.
    As an example, we first must look to see if the three areas of Bountiful, Desolation and the narrow neck intersect. That is, is there one or more avenues or ways to get from the Land Southward into the Land Northward—is there more than one location where the two lands are connected? We also need to recognize that nearly all the important landmarks in the northwestern corner of their lands are mentioned in this scripture: 1) the west sea, 2) the land of Bountiful, 3) the land of Desolation, and 4) the narrow neck which led into the Land Northward. So how are each of these described in the scriptural record?
• “And thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32—emphasis mine).

To be nearly surrounded as shown in the example (left), means that some land kept the Land Southward from being completely surrounded. That land Mormon describes as a small neck of land. It should also be kept in mind that the Nephites of this period obviously had no access to aerial photos or satellite images—what they saw was from a standing position along the coast, or inland, and that view had to show the land was narrow, i.e., that is was both noticeably narrower than the land on either side, and that the narrowness was distinct enough to be seen from their vantage point in 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. It did not have to be an hourglass shape, but the narrowing had to be significant, with an inlet, bay, or other condition that actually separated the land at that point, except for a “small” and “narrow” neck of land.
• “And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward” (Alma 63:5 – emphasis mine).

Nearly all the important landmarks along the West Sea in the in the northwestern corner of the Land Southward are mentioned in this scripture: 1) the west sea, 2) the land of Bountiful, 3) the land of Desolation, 4) the narrow neck which led into the Land Northward, and 5) A sea path for a ship to head northward after launching. The following scriptural references address these areas and similarly describe the location for the narrow neck of land.
• “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20 emphasis mine).

This describes the incut of the ocean and/or a narrowing of the land on one or both sides of the narrow land mass, i.e., the narrow neck. This incut or narrowing must be significant enough for a land-based individual to see that it exists with the naked eye and his line of sight.
• “And he also sent orders unto him that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side” (Alma 52:9—emphasis mine).

Now, this narrowing area had to be narrow enough to provide a simple and meaningful military “choke point” that could be easily defended by part of an army. It also had to be a singular entrance into the Land Northward in order to guard it against an enemy flanking a defensive position and obtaining the north country from some other area. In addition, while those who were in Bountiful and the northern area of the Land Southward, this narrow pass led into the Land Northward, however, for those living in the Land Northward, they would have viewed this narrow pass as leading into the Land Southward, as is stated by Mormon:
• “And it came to pass that I did cause my people that they should gather themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward. “ (Mormon 2:3—emphasis mine).
This is obviously understood in the time frame Mormon writes it, for the Nephites at this time had been driven out of the Land Southward by the ever pressing-northward Lamanites, for in the earlier verse, we learn that:
• “And in the three hundred and fiftieth year we made a treaty with the Lamanites and the robbers of Gadianton, in which we did get the lands of our inheritance divided. And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward” (Mormon 2:28-29—emphasis mine).

It seems obvious from these scriptures that Mormon used these terms, “small neck,” “narrow neck,” “narrow pass,” and “narrow passage,” as terms describing the exact same area, however they were not interchangeable terms, since “neck of land” describes a land mass, and “narrow pass” or “narrow passage” describes the way through or across the land mass.
    That is, there was a narrow neck of land between the Land Southward and the Land Northward, that was both small (in overall size and length) and narrow (in width), and within that narrow neck of land was a narrow pass that allowed people to cross from the Land Southward to the Land Northward and back. It should also be noted that this was the only was between these two lands, through the narrow pass, across the small or narrow neck of land.
    Now, once understanding this, we can turn to another feature of this narrow neck and that is Mormon’s description of how long a man walking would take to cross through it. That is, its width, from the east to the west, and from the Land Southward to the Land Northward, and that was one day and a half. It is also important to keep in mind why Mormon described this distance in this manner, and to whom he was describing it.

Let’s say you lived in Provo during the early Pioneer days and someone approached you traveling into Provo from the south and asked you where Salt Lake City was located. You might have said, “Just around the point of that mountain to the north and then a way,” or, noting he sat on the box of a wagon drawn by two oxen, you might have said, “It’s about two more days and a bit to the north of here.” Today you would answer, “It’s about an hour north of here.” But let’s say you were trying to write that to a future people who would not live for 1800 years. What would they use for travel? A bicycle? On horseback? A 1928 Essex or a Model T Ford? Or maybe a Lamborghini or rocket sled? What if they could fly? Not knowing, how would you tell them the distance? Would they understand a “mile,” “kilometer,” or “meters”? Since there are “land miles,” “air miles,” “statute miles,” or “nautical miles,” it might be hard to be specific—in addition, there might be other meanings for “miles” in the future, as there was in the past between English mile, Roman mile, Arabic mile, or European mile. For example, the Norway and Sweden mil is 6 miles, and 100 Portuguese milha (mile) is 26 ½ miles longer than 100 American miles.
    What if a neighbor, a Russian immigrant, said it was 34,000 sazhens, or about 68 verstas? Or a Croatian told you it was six-and-a-half miles, or a Dane told you it was nine-and-a-half miles, or a Scot told you it was 40 miles, would you know that all four of these distances were the same as 45 American miles?
    The point is, there was no language Mormon could have used that we would be able to interpret as he meant it other than what a normal normal walking man (a Nephite) could cover in a certain length of time. Thus Mormon tells us the neck could be crossed by a Nephite in a day and a half. He did not mean a running, riding, or boating man—nor did he mean by someone who was a professional runner, a military courier, marathon runner, or some record-breaking athlete. He meant a normal, average man, in order to convey to us how far or wide was the narrow neck of land, since men throughout time had always been pretty much the same and walking was pretty much a normal and constant method of moving. Otherwise, there was no point in his making the comment in the first place.

Were There Other Nephite Survivors Besides Moroni?

Have you ever noticed how Mesoamericanists like to alter the meaning of, or the clear-cut messages of, the scriptural record? Take, as an example, the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites, which ended the Nephite nation and exterminated every single Nephite except for Moroni.

After the final battle, Moroni writes about he being the last Nephite alive, “The Lamanites have hunted my people, the Nephites, down from city to city and from place to place, even until they are no more; and great has been their fall” (Moroni 8:7)
    It was Moroni himself who wrote of this: “and I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people. But behold, they are gone, and I fulfil the commandment of my father….for I am alone” (Mormon 8:3, 5). 
    John L. Sorenson, the guru of Mesoamerican Theorists, would have us believe differently, however, that large numbers of Nephites survived. He writes:
    “Were there Nephites left after that battle? Some, yes. The scripture makes that clear. Only they were no longer called Nephites. Mormon noted that "a few...had escaped into the south countries, and a few...had dissented over unto the Lamanites" (Mormon 6:15). Naturally, large numbers of people of Nephite descent had never consented to flee their lands in the first place (Mormon 2:7-8), but had switched their allegiance rather than move out (Moroni 1:2).  Mormon observed to his son that "many of our brethren have dissented over unto the Lamanites" (Mormon 9:24).”
    Before we accept Sorenson's statements, perhaps we should look up his citings and see what the scriptural record actually says.  Mormon writes that a few escaped into the south and a few dissented. But what happened to these escapees and dissenters? First of all, Mormon did not know the fate of those who had escaped into the south countries when he wrote this. However, a few years later, Moroni fills in this blank when he wrote: “After the great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed” (Mormon 8:2 emphasis mine). "Until they were all destroyed" seems pretty clear and needs no further explanation by us or Sorenson.
    What about Sorenson's other references? 
•  Mormon 2:7-8 does not say that Nephites had refused to leave their lands as he infers—it describes the widespread revolution between Nephites, Lamanites and the Gaddianton robbers.
•  Moroni 1:2 does not say "large numbers switched their allegiance rather than move out" as he claims. The scripture says, speaking of the Lamanites that "that whatsoever lands we had passed  by, and the inhabitants thereof were not gathered in, were destroyed by the Lamanites, and their towns, and villages, and cities were burned with fire" (Mormon 5:5). Again, this is very clear and needs no further comment.

•  Mormon 9:24—this is an incorrect reference—he means Moroni 9:24, who is repeating the words of his father from a letter Mormon wrote him much earlier than Cumorah, which does state that many Nephites had and would dissent over to the Lamanites.  But nowhere does it say "large numbers" as Sorenson claims. 

    Actually, some, if not all of these were killed in that final battle (Mormon 6:15) or were hunted down and killed (Mormon 8:2).  Moroni makes this perfectly clear when he writes: “I say no more concerning them, for there are none save it be the Lamanites and robbers that do exist upon the face of the land” (Mormon 8:9). That is, there were none anywhere on the face of the land of the Land of Promise other than himself, Lamanites and Robbers--the Nephites had all been destroyed and no longer existed.
    Again, Mormon, writing prior to the final battle, outlines that many Nephites had dissented over to the Lamanites (Moroni 9:24). However, since Moroni shows that all those who dissented in the time of these final battles were killed outright or hunted down and killed, any Nephite dissenters who survived the purge would have been those who dissented much earlier in Nephite history (Alma 47:35; 63:14) becoming more vicious than the Lamanites (Alma 47:36), and also in (12 B.C.) and were thereafter called Lamanites (Helaman 11:24; 4:3-4) or robbers (Helaman 11:26; 3 Nephi 1:28). Obviously, there were those who did not go with Mosiah to Zarahemla around 200 B.C., and there were Amlicites, Zoramites, and others that made this switch, for Mormon speaks in the past tense of those who had gone over to the Lamanites (Moroni 9:24). 

They were, in fact, called Lamanites from that point on (Alma 3:4; compare Alma 3:13-13-17), though they carried the Nephite blood within their veins, allowing Mormon to know that in the last days, both Nephites and Lamanites would be the future readers of the Book of Mormon record. As to those that Mormon said would dissent, Moroni closes the book on these some twenty years later by saying they were hunted down and killed.
    Thus, it cannot be said, as Sorenson insists, and several other Theorists agree, that various Nephites survived the last battle and their descendants now walk among us. Moroni tells us that: “after the great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed. And my father also was killed by them, and I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people. But behold, they are gone, and I fulfil the commandment of my father. And whether they will slay me, I know not” (Mormon 8:2-3 emphasis mine).
    Moroni makes it clear that there are no more Nephites—only himself! Not only the Nephite Nation was annihilated, but every Nephite was killed in the final 63 years of wars with the Lamanites that ended at Cumorah. Some Nephites escaped from that battle and fled into the south countries, but as Moroni tells us, they were all tracked down by the Lamanites and killed.
    Yet Sorenson would have us believe that not all the Nephites were killed. In fact, he claims that large numbers of Nephites did not agree to flee with Mormon and his armies at all as they retreated ever northward. Sorenson states: “Naturally, large numbers of people of Nephite descent had never consented to flee their lands in the first place (Mormon 2:7-8), but had switched their allegiance rather than move out (Moroni 1:2). But Mormon, who was there, tells this quite differently for in 380 A.D.:
    “In the three hundred and eightieth year the Lamanites did come again against us to battle, and we did stand against them boldly; but it was all in vain, for so great were their numbers that they did tread the people of the Nephites under their feet. And it came to pass that we did again take to flight, and those whose flight was swifter than the Lamanites' did escape, and those whose flight did not exceed the Lamanites' were swept down and destroyed” (Mormon 5:6-7 emphasis mine). This seems quite clear. Mormon also tells us that the Lamanites swept through these towns and villages that Mormon and his army quit, killing everyone that did not flee with Mormon and his army. He put it this way:

“Whatsoever lands we had passed by, and the inhabitants thereof were not gathered in, were destroyed by the Lamanites, and their towns, and villages, and cities were burned with fire” (Mormon 5:5). So while Sorenson can claim from his 20^th century office that “large numbers of Nephites did not agree to join the fight,” Mormon, from his on-the-spot vantage point tells us that those Nephites who did not join the flight of he and his army, were all killed by the Lamanites and their towns, villages and cities were all burned with fire.”
    In fact, Mormon tells us that the bloodbath and butchery of these Nephites by the Lamanites was so horrible to witness, that he wrote: “I, Mormon, do not desire to harrow up the souls of men in casting before them such an awful scene of blood and carnage as was laid before mine eyes” (Mormon 5:8).
    Obviously, the murderous, unrestrained brutality of the Lamanites’ thirst for the blood of the Nephites was so vicious and all consuming that they killed every Nephite they could find, even tracking down a few who escaped and killing them. Even after every Nephite had been destroyed, Moroni still feared for his life;

He was an eye-witness to this savage barbarity that led to continual murder and ferocious civil war for “the Lamanites are at war one with another; and the whole face of this land is one continual round of murder and bloodshed; and no one knoweth the end of the war” (Mormon 8:8). 36 years later, Moroni tells us these civil wars were still going on: “For behold, their wars are exceedingly fierce among themselves” (Moroni 1:2).
    At the conclusion of these 63 years of wars, Mormon tells us that “when three hundred and eighty and four years had passed away, we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah” (Mormon 6:5—emphasis mine). And Moroni makes it quite clear that every Nephite was dead when he wrote: “the Lamanites have hunted my people, the Nephites, down from city to city and from place to place, even until they are no more” (Mormon 8:7—emphasis mine).
    It is amazing that Sorenson and others can, in light of this very clear language, claim a contrary situation where “large numbers of Nephites” were not killed simply because they did not agree to join in the fight. It would be an interesting conversation between Moroni, who saw that they were all killed, and Sorenson, and other Mesoamericanists, who insists they were not.

Two Glaring Problems with Mesoamerica – Part III

Continuing with the last two posts regarding these two glaring problems of Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, it seems that we should use some reason here when discussing the scriptural record. An idea that seems to be lost on Mesoamericanists.

• Mormon is either trapped in the area of the Land of Cumorah with his army and their families, numbering at least half a million people with no escape possible, or he is not.
• The Land of Cumorah, and land of many waters, is either the furthest point northward in the Land of Promise where no escape would be possible further north, or it is not.
• Either Mormon had elsewhere in which he could have retreated, or he did not.
• Either the Nephites, or those who fled the battlefield, could have escaped further northward, or they could not.
• Either the Land of Promise extended further northward, providing escape for Mormon and his beleaguered army, or there was not.
Finally, either there was land northward of the Land of Promise, as there is in Mesoamerica, or there was no such area in which the Nephites could have retreated in Mormon’s Land of Promise.
It is as simple as that!

In Mesoamerica, north of Cumorah lies thousands of square miles of Mexico, and millions of square miles of the U.S. and Canada. Mormon, or the Nephites, could have continued to retreat for as long as they could keep ahead of the pursuing Lamanites 
    There is unquestionably no good reason why anyone would choose to stand and be slaughtered by their hereditary enemy if they had an escape route—an enemy who they had been fighting for some thousand years, and steadily for the past 55 years or so. Why would anyone willingly lay down their lives and be slaughtered like this if there was more room to the north to retreat? And why would those who chose to escape and flee, go south into the heart of the Lamanite country rather than go north into Mexico as would be the case in a Mesoamerican Land of Promise?
    If someone wants to consider Mesoamerica as the Book of Mormon Land of Promise, it seems prudent to lift their head out of the sand and at least answer these two very glaring problems. And Sorenson-type ridiculous answers are simply neither acceptable nor even reasonable. Intelligence and logic alone would rule out the land of Mesoamerica as the Nephite land of promise.

There are of course numerous other problems about Mesoamerica that need to be answered as well, but these two are inarguable problems in the scriptural record. So if one is going to choose Mesoamerica, they simply are hiding their head in the ground when it comes to these two problems.
    And when it comes to those other people Sorenson is prone to include in any discussion of the Land of Promise, he certainly never arrived at the existence of these people from any Book of Mormon record.  And who could be north of the land of many waters (Mormon 6:4)?  Nowhere in the scriptural record do we find any reference to anything north of this land, other than the Ripliancum Sea found in Ether’s writings.

Sorenson, on the other hand, must have a crystal ball since he creates a people not mentioned, eluded to, or suggested in all of scripture. A strong state made up of people aligned with the Lamanites. How convenient an answer to keep the Nephites from escaping to the north. One must wonder if he is writing fiction or about the scriptural record.
   Consider:
1.  There is suddenly a previously unmentioned land to the north of the northern most recorded area in the Book of Mormon;
2.  This land is peopled with an indigenous civilization;
3.  These indigenous people form a powerful state;
4.  This state is aligned culturally if not militarily with the Lamanites;
5.  This state is so large that it cuts off all movement into the land farther north—a land 600 miles wide;
6.  Mormon and the Nephites are well aware of this state and its alignment with the Lamanites though it is never mentioned;
7.  This state is uninvolved in the struggle between the Nephites and the Lamanites lands, but that they would enter into the conflict on the side of the Lamanites if the Nephites were to move northward.

“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) 
    Even following along Sorenson’s scenario further, we might ask, where were Hagoth’s immigrants? Remember the people who went north by ship in large numbers (Alma 63:6-7) and were never heard from again? (Alma 63:8) There were five thousand four hundred men, plus their wives and children—very likely a number near 20,000 or more. By 400 years later, the time when Mormon is determining his last stand at Cumorah, these immigrants would have multiplied into very large numbers, becoming a strong and imposing people.  
    Mormon, in abridging the record, read all the Nephite records that had been kept (Helaman 3:13,15), would certainly have understood that somewhere to the north were other Nephites who might be expected to help them against their hereditary enemy, the Lamanites. Those Nephites that “were never heard of more” (Alma 63:8). Certainly, he would have considered the possibility of their being somewhere to the north, and no doubt wondered if they were still there to provide aid to him and his beleaguered army.
    Yet, his letters to his son suggest that there was nowhere to go, no further land to which he could retreat, and no people to whom he could call upon or hope might aid him.  He knew he faced certain death, though held out hope he might see his son one more time (Moroni 9:24)

Another certainty, outlined quite clearly by Mormon in his writing, shows that Sorenson's scenario of a land farther to the north than that which the Nephites controlled, yet contiguous to the Land of Promise, is simply in opposition to the record.  After the major emigration into the land northward (north of the narrow neck), the Nephite emigrants came to the old Jaredite domain, the land of many waters (Mormon 6:4). At which time they did “multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east” (Helaman 3:8).
    In all that time, the expanding Nephite Nation in the Land Northward never encountered these Nephites that went north in Hagoth’s ships. Were there a contiguous land to the north, Mormon, who had written about these immigrants not long before his last battle at Cumorah, would have considered their existence in a land to the north. Why not keep traveling to see if they could be encountered—by now, they would have achieved such numbers as to be greater than the approaching Lamanite armies.
    But Mormon never considered it. Never even gave it a thought according to his record. He knew there was nowhere to go, no land to the north, no possible help available. There simply was no other place to go. They had to stand and fight.  In the Land of Cumorah they made their last stand with their women and their children. Had there been anywhere left to go, they most certainly would have gone.  But there was not.  They had reached the end of the line.
    Despite Mesoamerianists trying to convince us that the Nephites were in their contiguous land, with thousands to millions of square miles to their north, they were not—there was no extension of land to the north into which Mormon could have taken his people. There was no land to the north into which escaping Nephites could run.
    The Land of Promise was simply not placed in Mesoamerica and the scriptural record is as clear about that any argument about Mesoamerica being the Land of Promise falls flat on its own evidence.

Two Glaring Problems with Mesoamerica – Part II

Continuing with the last post regarding the second problem of Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, which has to do with the Last Stand of the Nephite Nation and Mormon’s decision to fight at Cumorah rather than continue retreating. In the last post we discussed John L. Sorenson’s defense of Mormon not moving further northward in retreat, though there was some 5,000 miles he could have fled through to escape certain death at Cumorah. 
   However, with that one ridiculous statement (see the last post), Sorenson introduces a factor not mentioned, suggested, or even intimated anywhere in the entire scriptural record of the Nephite Nation, and that is other people occupying the Land of Promise or adjacent areas. One has to ask, “Where did these people come from, and what makes Sorenson or any other Mesoamericanist believe there were other people in this land that was promised solely to Lehi and his descendants?”

In Mesoamerica, this is the land Mormon could have continued to retreat into northward. Even today, there are thousands of square miles of open, unoccupied territory in central and northern Mexico. It is hard to believe that this might have been so occupied in Nephite times that there would have been no room for the Nephites to pass through this area
    But, for the sake of argument, let’s go along with Sorenson’s comment. Consider that the Nephites were terribly outnumbered (Mormon 6:8) and Mormon himself knew this would be the Nephites' last stand (Mormon 6:6), so why not go farther north and take your chances?  Hope is always preferable to extinction, in an individual or in a group.  And why concern themselves with "all the best spots being taken"? 
    A secondary place, or even a desert, would be preferable to being slaughtered by the Lamanites who sacrificed Nephite women and children (Mormon 5:21), or to the total annihilation, which had been predicted since the days of Lehi (1 Nephi 12:19-20).  Surely these people would have been aware of the Israelites being led out of Egypt across a formidable desert, and of the Lehi colony being led across the Empty Quarter, the worst desert in the world in their eight years of wandering in the wilderness. 
    Then, too, the Nephites might even have held out hope that some of these "other people" would help them against the Lamanites, or that they would receive shelter and protection from them. The Nephites could even have avoided these "other people" if they feared them equally hostile and kept retreating until the Lamanites, hopefully, just gave up.  The Nephites had already lost tens of thousands in these running battles with the Lamanites (Mormon 2:15; 3:8; 4:11; 5:8), so why stick around and let the Lamanites catch up to them?  This simply does not make any sense at all.  Not, that is, if the Nephites had anywhere farther north to go as they most definitely would have in Mesoamerica.
    To offset this possible route of escape from Mesoamerica, though, Sorenson creates unconvincing reasons why the Nephites had to stay and fight. In addition, he wrote:
    “Moving farther on, they would have entered ecologically new territory, and the prospects would be slim that they could successfully feed their numbers in a new environment with no time to learn how to exploit the land.”
    The Nephites were running for their lives, if they stopped they would die. So whether or not they would have known how to exploit the land in an ecologically new territory would not have made any different to them. To live, even half-starving, is better than being slaughtered! In addition, the Nephites were never in a land further north than the land of many waters according to the scriptural record. They would not have known other peoples were there, or what food would be available. After all, they had been feeding their army and their people during the time of this long retreat. There were animals in the land and crops. They must have had some type of residue food to hold them for a while, and could have continued to hunt as they continued their retreat northward.

Since Mesoamericanists’ Land of Promise places their Land Northward in the area of central to southern Mexico, they would have been familiar with and endless supply of Josehua Trees, whose raw blossoms are not only edible, but the stems can be baked, blossoms cooked, and stalks eaten. One can also boil and eat creosote bush, rabbit brush, and sagebrush, along with wolf berry, ephedra and juniper for beverages and especially the yucca plant. The desert is full of food sources
    Can anyone but Sorenson believe that the Nephites, facing the possibility of complete slaughter by a relentless hereditary enemy with an overwhelming numerically superior force, would not have willingly taken the chance on an unknown area? These people had their wives and children with them (Mormon 6:7), and results show they were no threat to stop the Lamanites (Mormon 6:9-15). To stay and fight when there was a chance to retreat (they had already retreated hundreds of miles from Zarahemla) with hopes of a better tomorrow simply does not make any sense at all.
    Yet, Sorenson also adds: “Beyond they would come nearer and nearer to the territory of Teotihuacan proper, the powerful state allied culturally if not militarily with the Lamanites on their other side...any farther north by Mormon's people would have encountered this great power, standing in the wings but uninvolved directly in the present conflict.”
    Teotihuacan? That certainly didn’t come from any Book of Mormon statement, word, or idea. Where on earth is Sorenson getting this powerful state. And how does he know such a state, if it existed, was aligned with the Lamanites?
     First of all, Teotihuacan is about 30 miles northeast of modern-day Mexico City, and at its height, around 600 A.D., had about 125,000 population according to Rene Millon, who also claimed it was the sixth largest city in the world at that time. Now even using Sorenson’s scenario, Mormon’s 300,000-400,000 people, 230,000 warriors, would have had nothing to fear from a culture that small, which at most would have had only about 25,000 to 30,000 men for battle (the battle-tested Nephite army was about six times larger). So this entire idea of a great power standing in the wings is inaccurate and meaningless to start with.

The Nephites had thousands of square miles to the north where they could have escaped a final battle at Cumorah. The gray circle is Teotihuacan, the distance between the green arrows is 600 miles, the yellow arrows show how the Nephites could have bypassed Teotihuacan on their retreat northward. Thus, if these retreating Nephites wanted to avoid this city, they could have traveled around it and continued northward
    One might also ask at this point, what makes Sorenson think that this city of Teotihuacan was aligned in any way with the Lamanites, who had never been north of the Nephites? How could they be aligned culturally or militarily with a people they could not have known even existed some 40 to 50 miles north of the Land of Many Waters? Why, in fact, would the Nephites even know of their existence? But if they somehow did, why would Mormon or the Nephites think the Lamanites would be aligned, militarily or not, with any people to the north of the Land of Promise? The Nephites had always occupied the lands to the north and the Lamanites had never been north of the Land of Zarahemla, and never north of the Nephites!
    So, in all reality, none of Sorenson’s arguments hold true—nor is there any legitimate reason why the Nephites did not continue to retreat northward. Nor can we find any reason whatsoever that those who escaped into the south countries—“and also a few who had escaped into the south countries” (Mormon 6:15)—for them to have gone southward when they had all this land to the north of them into which they could have fled away from the Lamanites.
(See the next post, “Two Glaring Problems with Mesoamerica – Part III,” for the continuation of these two glaring problems with a Mesoamerican model as the Land of Promise)

Two Glaring Problems with Mesoamerica – Part I

The first glaring problem that cannot be overcome, despite all the rhetoric written to do so, is the problem with the directions of Mesoamerica. This land, without question, even to the agreement of all Mesoamericanists themselves, runs east and west, not north and south as Mormon describes (Alma 22:27-34). Much has been written abut this glaring disagreement with the Book of Mormon and all of Mormon’s numerous descriptions of the Nephite lands. There is simply no way to get around this very glaring difficulty despite the numerous different Theorists who have chosen to champion Mesoamerica, including FARMS, FAIR, BMAF, and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, and the archaeological and anthropology departments at BYU. 
    It is always interesting why educated and lettered people would consider a model for the Land of Promise that is so glaringly different from Mormon’s so clear, precise, and simple descriptions. It is not rocket science—it is simply about north being north and south being south! Mesoamericanists, though, go to great lengths to try and sell us on north being west and south being east!

Though Mormon’s many descriptions show a north-south oriented Land of Promise, Mesoamerica clearly runs east and west
    There simply has never been a workable, reasonable, or even viable argument in favor of the skewed directions of Mesoamerica, though many have tried. Much has been written about the great discrepancy of these directions in this blog over the past three years, and in the book Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica.
    The second glaring problem is one that has seldom, if ever, been discussed in a serious manner. And that is the glaring problem with Mesoamerica being an extended land, with more than 5,000 continuous miles to the north of Mesoamerica and well over 5,000 continuous miles to the south. Yet, despite Jacob telling us that the Land of Promise was an island (2 Nephi 10:20), and never in the scriptural record is there any mention of any land to the south of the Land of Nephi, or area of First Landing, and nary a word, suggestions, or idea stated of any land to the north of the Land of Many Waters, Mesoamericanists blithely try to sell us on their model, part of some 11,000 miles of continuous land.
    However, the real issue rests with the Last Battle of the Nephite Nation and Mormon’s decision to stand and fight at Cumorah. There is simply no logical or even workable reason to suggest why Mormon did not continue to retreat northward if there was so much land available to the north of the Land Northward.
    This second problem rests on the Mesoamerican claim that the Land of Promise (placed in Mesoamerica) does not have a northern boundary. That is, the land extends northward into Mexico, into the United States and also into Canada—a direct route of over 5,000 miles. And it does so without obstacles to traffic for people, both men, women and children, to travel in 385 A.D. And once reaching the area of the present U.S.-Mexico border, traffic could continue moving northward in a 2,500 mile arc, from west to east.
    There simply is no end to the direction a retreating army in Mesoamerica could have traveled in 385 A.D. to avoid a final, annihilating battle that would see women and children as well as every soldier, perhaps half a million people in all, slaughtered by a tremendously superior force.
    “My people, with their wives and their children, did now behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them” (Mormon 6:7), and thus some 230,000 men-at-arms, plus their wives and children, faced an approaching Lamanite army of some 500,000 men or more marching toward them, knowing this would be their last hour of life as “they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers” (Mormon 6:8).

If the Nephites had anywhere to flee northward beyond Cumorah and the Land of Many Waters, surely they would have kept retreating rather than stand and be slaughtered by the tremendously superior advancing Lamanite army
    Now, one might think, that if there was any chance to continue retreating, which the Nephites had basically been doing for some 50 years from the Lamanite armies that first attacked along the southern borders of Zarahemla in 327 A.D. (Mormon 2:3), they would do so.
    In fact, the Nephites from the very beginning were fearful of the Lamanite armies since when they crossed into the land of Zarahemla, “they did frighten my armies; therefore they would not fight, and they began to retreat towards the north countries.” This retreat eventually took them to the narrow neck of land, where a treaty between Mormon and the Lamanites-Robbers was signed 23 years later (Mormon 2:28). Then after a shaky ten year peace, the Lamanites attacked again and the war moved back and forth around the city of Desolation near the narrow neck of land for three years, and after the Nephites “went up to battle against the Lamanites, out of the Land Desolation” (Mormon 4:2) the following year, the Lamanites retaliated and drove the Nephites further and further northward, destroying every city that the Nephites vacated, capturing those who did not retreat fast enough, sacrificing Nephite women and children to their dumb idols (Mormon 4:14-15). Finally, knowing there was nowhere else to run, Mormon agreed to a final battle.

Mormon gathered all his forces and all the people far to the north in the Land of Cumorah, which contained the land of many waters, for one climatic, final battle with the Lamanite invaders (Mormon 5:19). And the vastly superior Lamanite armies descended upon the Nephites as Mormon arranged his forces around the hill Cumorah.
    Now the question begs to be asked, as Sorenson did in his book, “Why didn't the Nephites continue retreating farther and farther north and so escape the Lamanites altogether?"

It is a question seldom asked by Mesoamericanists because there is no legitimate answer. But it is still a legitimate question given the extended Mesoamerican model of the land of promise. Why not retreat clear through Mexico and beyond?  Certainly, if the land of promise was in Central America as they claim, there were thousands and thousands of miles to the north where the Nephites could have gone to escape the Lamanites and total destruction.    
    However, listen to Sorenson's unbelievable answer to his own question: 
    “In the first place, we must realize that rarely if ever is there any decent land that does not already contain a sizable population, so they would have had to deposess other people first.” 
    All the best parts of millions of square miles already taken by other people?  Having traveled through Mexico, even today, there are hundreds of thousands of square miles to the east/north of Mesoamerica (their land of promise) that is still vacant, open land. If not suitable for settlement (and who is suggesting these fleeing Nephites were looking for a place to settle?), it would certainly have been a land through which the Nephites could have continued in their retreat.

Top: Central Mexico, just east/north of Mesoamerica; Bottom: Northern Mexico. These pics show the emptiness of the Mexican interior. Rather than facing certain death, the Nephites could have escaped northward through this open land 
(See the next post, “Two Glaring Problems with Mesoamerica – Part II,” for the continuation of this second glaring problem with a Mesoamerican model as the Land of Promise and specifically about Mormon’s army retreating northward)

Could Central Baja California be the Narrow Neck? – Part II

Continuing from the last post about Central Baja California not being the narrow neck of land, and the entire peninsula not being the Land of Promise. 
    In addition to the earlier comments in the last post, at 48 miles across, it would take a Nephite walking at the rate of 2.7 miles per hour for 12 straight hours, then another 2.7 miles an hour for 6 more hours the following day. While the average person can walk at that rate for a short time, it would be highly unlikely that an average  man could maintain such a pace for 12 straight hours—and that is over basically level, hard-packed ground, where Baja is rough country, with a spine of mountains running down its middle length, and at this point the topography is mountainous almost the entire way across the peninsula.

As these pictures, taken across the area of the Theorists “narrow neck of land” show, almost everywhere are mountains, even along the coast. Note also, the land is mostly up and down, with boulders, uneven ground, etc., which would slow down anyone trying to walk across this peninsula—maintaining a pace of even one mile an hour over such ground would be very difficult
    On an almost humorous note, this Baja Peninsula that Theorists try to claim is the narrow neck of land and completely misunderstands Mormon’s comment, claims that this narrow neck of land “was sufficiently narrow that it could be protected by one army and was described by Mormon as a “point” (Alma 52:9).
    However, when we look at that scriptural reference, we find something entirely different: “And he also sent orders unto him that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side” (Alma 52:9—emphasis mine). Mormon is not talking about a point of land in this passage, its shape, size, or anything else. When Mormon wrote that, he was referring to a geographical area of the overall narrow neck. This is much like saying, when you reach that point in the music, remember to play double forte—very loud,” or, “See that huge boulder at the bottom of the slide? When you reach that point, turn south.”

One look at the Theorist’s Baja map, shows five very distinct errors:
1) The sea to the east is called both the north and east seas, and the sea to the west is called both the west and south seas, which leads to a problem for someone in the Land Northward when they refer to a seashore to the east (Ether 9:3; 14:26). So if the seashore was to the east, they would not refer to it as the North Sea. We also know that to the north was a very large sea they called Ripliancum, which means “large” and “to exceed all,” which should suggest a North Sea.
    This also raises the question, why is the sea to the east referred to as the North Sea above the narrow neck area and the West Sea below the narrow neck area, but the sea to the west is referred to as the West Sea all along the west coast until you get near the southern end of the peninsula where it is called the South Sea. This inconsistency makes no sense at all.
2) One of the obvious problems with Baja is that the land does not narrow as Mormon describes –“small neck,” “narrow neck,” for there is no “neck” anywhere in Baja, as mentioned in the last post. In the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the language especially known in the New England area at the time Joseph Smith was translating the plates, a neck of land is defined as: “A long narrow tract of land projecting from the main body, or a narrow tract connecting two larger tracts.” Neither of these two definitions meet anywhere in Baja since there is no distinct area where the land narrows into a small and narrow neck as Mormon so clearly states (Alma 22:32; 63:5).
3) The map shows a very long distance between the area where the city of Nephi would be located (just south of the Valley of Alma), and the Land of Zarahemla, a distance it might be added, the Lamanites covered numerous times going to battle. It does not seem realistic that they would travel so far in order to reach the battle area.
4) Another point about Baja, is that when Coriantumr led his army up the central part of the land (Helaman 1:25), that area in Baja is very mountainous, and cannot be considered the “capitol parts of the land” (Helaman 1:27); nor would there have been sufficient room in the “center of the land” in Baja for the Nephites to gather from the Robbers (3 Nephi 3:21). None of these
5) Land of Desolation is shown to the south of the narrow neck, when Mormon tells us specifically it is to the north of the narrow neck in the Land Northward (Alma 22:31-32; 63:5).
    In addition, these Baja Theorists claim that “The narrow neck of land was possibly a natural land bridge or a man-made bridge that spanned the spot where the sea (large river) divided the lands of Desolation and Bountiful. After the earthquakes at the time of the Crucifixion, it may have been nothing more than a narrows in the river or a ford.”

As can be seen by this photo/map example, the land of this area of the Theorists narrow neck of land is hilly and mountainous. The yellow arrows show the same line of sight on both map and photo. Note the red arrow showing the rugged, almost impassable area of their actual narrow neck
    The problem with this is, not only is there nothing in the scriptural record to suggest such a thing, how would a man-made bridge get made? During the famine when the animals fled into the Land Southward (Ether 9:32) the poisonous serpents stopped and “hedged up the way” so the people would not follow into the southern land (Ether 9:33). In fact, after the famine lifted, the Jaredites “preserved the land southward for a wilderness to get game” (Ether 10:21), thus it would appear from this that the Jaredites had never crossed the narrow neck or gone into the Land Southward. It would seem strange to build a bridge to a land that no one had ever before entered.
    It would certainly not have been “a narrows in a river,” since a river is never called a “sea,” nor would Ether/Moroni say “a narrow neck of land by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:21), if it had been a river. Obviously this is a statement that would not be indicative of two lands with a bridge or man-made causeway between them. So why don’t we just take Mormon and Moroni’s description of a narrow neck of land separating the two lands at face value and as they describe.
    For further information on the fallacies of this Baja Theory, see “The Fallacy of Extremist Theories—the Baja California Theory, Part V, as well as the entire 24-part series in January of 2011 in this blog.

Could Central Baja California be the Narrow Neck? – Part I

Continuing with this series of posts regarding the location of the narrow neck of land, the following covers the Central area of Baja California between the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California) where the Isla Angel de la Guarda (Archangel Island) is located on the east and the Pacific Ocean on the west.

This distance is 48 miles across. 140 miles north of this point, the peninsula is still only 65 miles across at San Felipe, which is such a gradual change that the peninsula widens at only one mile in every fifteen miles—that is, about the length of a football field every mile—such an imperceptible change that someone even with a satellite image or aerial photo would not consider this a narrowing of land between two larger bodies of land as Mormon describes—that is, no one would consider this a narrow neck of land.

If someone is going to choose this peninsula and look for a narrow neck, one would be better off picking the indentation just south of Loreto at about the Puerto Escondido on the east coast (Sea of Cortes/Gulf of California) through San Javier to Faro de San Andresito and El Pabellon on the west coast (Pacific Ocean), where it drops from 70 miles across to 48 miles and back up to 100 miles in just 100 miles along the peninsula, or a change in width of about one mile in every two. Still, however, it is really not a narrow neck of land, but it is twice the narrowing of the area chosen by the Theorists.

However, the only actual break in the entire Baja Peninsula of any note is the western coast of the Mulegé Municipality that juts out (red arrow) into the Pacific beyond Laguna Ojo de Liebre (originally Scammon’s Lagoon) and the Bay of Sebastian Vizcaino to punta Falsa (False Point); yet, north of there, including the area of their narrow neck of land, the west coast shoreline runs almost unbroken for about 600 miles to Long Beach, California. Certainly straight enough for any man on foot, or standing on a mountain in the Baja Peninsula to believe there was no narrow neck anywhere. And on the Gulf of California side, the unbroken shoreline of some 550 miles would elicit the same belief from someone standing anywhere or at any elevation along the entire Peninsula that there was no narrow neck of land.

Left: Baja California Sur (black) is the southern state of the Baja Peninsula, the other state is Baja California (white); Right: In the lower state, Baja California Sur, the northernmost area (black) is Mulegé Municipality, the only part of the peninsula that actually alters the normal narrow width. As can be seen, there is no area that actually narrows into a narrow neck in the entire peninsula
    There is no possibility of any area north of the Mulegé Municipality to even be considered as a narrowing of the land, and the jutting land itself out to Punta Falsa would be seen as a peninsula sticking out into the ocean that forms the Bay Sebastian Vizcaino, not a narrowing of the land. It is sad that people will study the scriptural record and read where Mormon says that the entire Land Southward was surrounded by water except for a small neck of land, and then turn right around and claim there is a small neck of land in their model where there is no narrowing at all.  
    Consider the width of the entire peninsula, except for the jutting Mulegé Municipality, is about the same from north to south other than in the far south between La Paz and San Jose Island—a distance of about 550 miles from north (Montague Island in the Gulf of Santa Clara) to south (San Jose Island). Along this entire eastern coast adjacent to the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortes), there is so little variance that the idea of a narrowing is simply out of the question. And from the area of Mulegé Municipality (south) to San Pedro, California (north), there is almost no variance in the west coast adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.
    In fact, the width where the Gulf ends at Montegue Island in the Gulf of Santa Clara, is about 100 miles across. So, in a distance of approximately 200 miles, this so-called “narrow neck” only increases to 100 miles, or doubles, meaning it increases in width ever so gradually at about one mile every four miles. This is hardly a “narrow neck,” and no Nephite in B.C. times would know it was a narrowing of the land in any way.
    Thus, Mormon’s words simply cannot be applied to the so-called “narrow neck of land” anywhere along the entire Baja Peninsula.
    However, despite all this limited variance in the geography of Baja California and Baja California Sur, these Theorists insist on using the peninsula as the Book of Mormon Land of Promise. This land has at least two glaring problems with matching Mormon’s descriptions of the land: 1) As mentioned above, it’s shape does not allow for a “small” or “narrow” neck of land, since there is no neck of land anywhere along the 800-mile peninsula; and 2) Like Mesoamerica, there is plenty of land to the north (thousands of miles to the east of the northern boundary northeast and north) for Mormon and his army, with their women and children, to continue their retreat away from the Lamanite armies which, in the scriptural record, destroyed by them in their stand at Cumorah.

After all, can anyone believe that the Nephites, facing the possibility of complete slaughter by a relentless hereditary enemy with a numerically superior force, would not have willingly tried to continue their retreat to the north?  These people had their wives and children with them (Mormon 6:7), and results show they were no threat to stop the Lamanites (Mormon 6:9-15).  To stay and fight when there was a chance to retreat (they had already retreated hundreds of miles from Zarahemla) with hopes of a better tomorrow simply does not make any sense at all.
    Yet Baja California Theorists would have us believe that Mormon, despite plenty of room to keep retreating, decided to stand and fight at Cumorah with thousands upon thousands of square miles to the north and northeast open to his retreat. In addition, why would the Nephites who escaped to the south countries (Mormon 6:15) have chosen to go south into the heart of the Lamanite lands where only certain death awaited them when they could have escaped to the north in this Baja model?
    Despite all the rhetoric in its defense, the Baja model Theorists simply cannot respond to these two questions with any reasonable answer at all. They tell us that a narrow neck of land existed where the land is 48 miles across and is that same width for more than a hundred miles where it very gradually (Imperceptively to the naked eye) widens to 63 miles and then very gradually to 80 miles for about 100 miles then gradually widens to 100 miles where it reaches the northern border. Such gradual widening of the land does not suggest in any way a narrowing to a neck of land.
(See the next post, “Could Central Baja California be the Narrow Neck? – Part II,” for more on why the Baja California Peninsula could not be the Book of Mormon Land of Promise through a comparison of the land and Mormon’s descriptions in the scriptural record)