Only in the United States? Erroneous List of Heartland Matches – Part I

According to Heartland theory authors Rod L. Meldrum and Bruce H. Porter, two dominant leaders in the Heartland movement, have established a table of thirty-six prophecies and promises, listing passages that they believe show “the American land of promise can refer only to the United States.” Their chart of this narrow view of the land promised to Lehi and his descendants is meant to show readers what to use in identifying the ancient Nephite Land of Promise—which they claim is the United States—but misses certain critical points of understanding that show their erroneous conclusions.

According to their book, their list of thirty-six prophecies and promises, proves that the Book of Mormon’s geography was located exclusively within the confines of what is now the United States of America; however, the very basis of this view is undermined by an understanding of the Angel Moroni’s view of this land he lived in, fought in, wrote about, and produced, along with his father, the basis of what became the Book of Mormon. 

Moroni’s first appearance to Joseph Smith

 

As an example, Moroni made a simple statement to Joseph Smith in his first appearance (September 21, 1823) and subsequently twice again, that “there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang” (Joseph Smith—History 1:34, emphasis added).

Now, while the word “continent” has a meaning today, we need to ask “what meaning did it have anciently during Moroni’s time and when Moroni spoke those words to Joseph?”

This is a critical point that Porter and Meldrum never address, relying on the current modern interpretation that the United States, Canada and northern Mexico make up the North American continent, and then limiting Moroni’s statement to mean only the United States which they claim meets all their 36 points.

However, three points are completely left out by them and need to be understood about this word “continent.”

• What did the word mean in 1823 America when Moroni used it?

• What did the word mean to Moroni and why did he use it?

•  What did the word mean during the publications of the Book of Mormon between 1830 and about 1940?

To understand these and their importance, there is Nephi’s statement about how the Lord communicates to us: “For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3, emphasis added).

Thus, the Book of Mormon was written in basic English of the 1830s New England region—a language Joseph Smith knew and used, along with his family and the vast majority of the people at the time (and appears in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language). 

A conference of the early Church to discuss the printing of the Book of Commandments

 

However, as people are, some of the early members of the Church, which grew rapidly in 1830–1831, felt at a conference where it was agreed to print the Book of Commandments (Doctrine and Covenants), that the language used in the revelations was not worthy of the voice of God and that a more sophisticated language should be adopted.

However, the Lord responded with, “these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24, emphasis added).

Thus, it should be concluded that the words of God to man are in the form of man’s own language (in the case of the Book of Mormon that is 1830 English). So what did the word “continent” mean?

• What did the word mean in 1823 America?

In 1820, the prevailing view of most of the world, as well as much of the United States, including New York where Joseph Smith lived, was that North and South America comprised one continent—and was viewed as a single continent known as America. This viewpoint was common in the United States until World War II, and remains prevalent in some Asian six-continent models even today.

In the four-continent model (Afro-Eurasia, America, Australia and Antarctica); five-continent model (Africa, Eurasia, America, Australia and Antarctica); and the six-continent model (Africa, Asia, Europe, America, Australia and Antarctica), both North and South America are considered just one continent, an attitude that prevailed even in America prior to World War II. 

The six-continent model

 

They are considered as separate continents only in the seven-continent model, which though prevalent in the U.S. today, Latin America (Central and South America) still hold to the Americas as one continent (“Continents,” National Curriculum in England: Geogreaph Programmes of Study, Department of Education London, UK; F-10 Curriculum Geograph, Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority; 6 continents combined-America model; Lexico tes Hellenikes Glossas, Papyros Publications; Combined-America continents model, Neos Eikonographemenos Geographikos Atlas, Siola-Alexiou).

• What did the word mean to Moroni and why did he use it?

Even though North America and South America are treated as separate continents in the seven-continent model, they may also be viewed as a single continent known as America. This viewpoint was common in the United States until the 1940s and remains prevalent in some Asian six-continent models today (Martin W. Lewis and Kären E. Wigen, The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography, University of California Press, Berkeley California 1997).

In fact, way back in Moroni’s time, he described the entire area of the Western Hemisphere as one land in his insert while translating the Book of Ether: “After the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2, emphasis added).

It was not only the United States or even North America from which the waters withdrew, but all of North, Central and South America—an extended Land of Promise, but not just the land the Lord promised to Lehi.

“This land,” of course, would refer either to 1) the Land of the Jaredites, or 2) the entire connected land mass without political borders—which did not exist in Moroni’s lifetime.

Moroni used the word “continent” to mean all the land, since: “the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3, emphasis added). And to Joseph Smith in the 1820s, he understood continent as both North and South America.

• What did the word mean during the publications of the Book of Mormon between 1830 and about 1940?

Normally, it would be surprising to find North and South America still joined into a single continent in a book published in the United States in 1937; however, such an occurrence and belief remained fairly common until World War II (Alexander L. DuToit, Our Wandering Continents: an Hypothesis of Continental Drifting, Oliver and Boyd Publishers, Edinburg, Scotland, 1937).

By the 1950s, however, American geographers had come to insist that the visually distinct landmasses of North and South America deserved separate designations, yet, the single American continent model still remains the more common view today in France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, and Latin American countries.

The point is, that in communicating to Joseph Smith in Joseph’s understanding, Moroni was referring to the “continent” of America, including North and South America.

(See the next post for more information on Porter and Meldrum’s 36 erroneous points)

MERRY CRISTMAS

 Celebrating our 12th Christmas Season of our Blog

How Heartland and Great Lakes Theorists Err in their Location of the Land of Promise - Part II

Some theorists write, when evaluating someone else’s map, that it does not agree with their own map and, therefore, is in error. Since both maps are in error in not matching the scriptural record, both are of little value. In this blog, we only relate points to the scriptural record and do not include personal opinions unless so noted—which is very seldom.

The point being, which should be the point of all searches for Lehi’s Land of Promise, and that is to start with the scriptural record—and not just a single or few cherry-picked verses, but from 1 Nephi and the trip to Bountiful, the building of the ship, and the course Nephi took in guiding his ship to the promised land.

There are at least, 40, and perhaps 50 or so scriptural references of Mormon and others writings in the scriptural record, as they described the land upon which they lived. It seems inherently arrogant to set their views aside today and insert one’s own views and opinions—yet, that is what most theorists do!

Sorenson’s map of his Land of Promise, running east and west in Mesoamerica

 

Take John L. Sorenson as an example. Considered the guru of the widely-accepted Mesoamerican theory, he has turned his map nearly 90º to the west, causing an east-west Land of Promise rather than a north-south land as Mormon gives us (Alma 22:27-34), in order to provide what he called Mormon north. This means his East Sea is in the north (Gulf of Mexico), his West Sea is in the south (Pacific Ocean), his Land Northward is to the west (southern Mexico) and his Land Southward is in the east (Guatemala, Belieze, Yucatan, and Honduras).

Hardly anything in his map (or theory) is in compliance with the scriptural record without changing the meaning of Mormon’s writing to conform to his changes.

Olive’s map of her Land of Promise in the Great Lakes

 

Also, take Carol Phyllis Olive, an original leaders in the Great Lakes theory, states that one should start with the Hill Cumorah and then expand outward from there since Cumorah is the only geographic point known for certain. However, the only point known about Cumorah is the hill near Palmyra in which Joseph Smith received the plates of the Book of Mormon. We do not know, for example, that this was the same hill Cumorah as written about in the Book of Mormon—in fact, there is much in Mormon’s writing to suggest that it is not.

In addition, Olive has Lehi landing in the area north of Detroit along the St. Clair River between Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron, probably around Anchor Bay or Algonac. The question is, how did Nephi get an ocean-going ship (or any boat larger than a canoe) southwest of Montreal on the St. Lawrence River, since that three-mile part of the river was fraught with the Lachine Rapids that required even canoes to offload and be portaged the three miles past the rapids, descending from 581-feet to 92-feet (from about Lasalle to about Dorval) where they could pick up the river once again—not until the Canadian engineers dug a canal around Montreal in the late 1800s could a ship sail past Montreal. And then it was stopped by the rise in the river of several hundred feet to Lake Ontario and even higher to Lake Erie, requiring a complete lock system today to achieve.

Meldrum and Porter’s map of their Land of Promise in the vast plains of the heartland

 

In addition, one can take Rod Meldrum and Bruce H. Porter’s Heartland theory, who suggest that Book of Mormon events took place in the heartland of the United States, east of the Mississippi River from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. Their map, however, places the sequence of the Land of Promise lands completely out of order, which enables them to use the vast plains of the United States heartland as the land of the Nephites.

Meldrum and Porter place (White Circles) the Land of Zarahemla to the west, and a little north of the Land of Bountiful, where Mormon places Bountiful to the north of Zarahemla. They also place (Yellow Circle) the “head” of the river Sidon at the confluence of the Mississippi River and the Ohio River, at Cairo, Illinois. However, according to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the Ohio River is 981 miles long, starting at the confluence of the Allegheny and the Monongahela Rivers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and ending in Cairo, Illinois, where it flows into the Mississippi River.

Consequently, there is no “head” of any river at this confluence—it is the mouth (end) of the Ohio River. The Mississippi River, which is the second longest river in North America, flowing 2,350 miles from its source (or “head”) at Lake Itasca in Minnesota, through the center of the continental United States to where it empties (mouth) into the Gulf of Mexico.

Another Heartland view from “Moroni’s America” theorist. Note the erroneous placement of the lands

 

From the theorist of Moroni’s America on the Book of Mormon Evidence website under “The North American Setting for the Book of Mormon,” comes the above map, showing the same disconnect from Mormon’s descriptions of the Land of Promise and this theorist’s view of that land.

Note (Red Circle) the erroneous widening of the Mississippi River south of Illinois to accommodate a “sea” rather than a river, which the Mississippi definitely is.

Note also that the Land of Bountiful is east (not north) of the Land of Zarahemla. Also note that the Land of Nephi (in the east) borders the Land of Bountiful, which Mormon never states. And note (White Cirlce) the tiny Land of Desolation which led into the Land Northward—not shown.

There are several disconnected seas in their map: 1) 2 Sea Wests; 2) 2 Sea Norths; 3) 2 Sea Easts; and 4) 1 Sea South—though what the Gulf of Mexico is called in this diagram is unknown. It should be noted that only four seas are mentioned in the scriptural record, and not in multiple terms: “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).

There is, of course, the Jaredite “Sea that divided the land,” which was connected to the Narrow Neck of Land, as well as their Ripliancum, a water area in the north.

However, Mormon makes it clear that the Land of Promise began in the south where Lehi landed (Alma 22:28)—not in North America as Meldrum and Porter claim, or in Mesoamerica as Sorenson and others claim. This is seen in their various Land of Promise maps which shows an attempt to place various lands in the space each has suggested that do not fit properly, nor agree with Mormon’s description.

From this landing location, Mormon tells us that the Nephites moved northward when Nephi was told by the Lord to flee into the wilderness and take as many as would go with him (2  Nephi 5:5). Now to the south were the Lamanites, to the west was the Sea West, and to the east was the Sea East—that left only northward.

Nephi was led by the Liahona and settled in a location the Lord had chosen for them, the area later known as the City of Nephi within the Land of Nephi. There the Nephites stayed about 400 years until they became so wicked, that the Lord told Mosiah to “flee out of the Land of Nephi with as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness” (Omni 1:12).

Nephi traveled northward in search of a settlement area far distant from his older brothers who sought his life, which when settled, called it the Land of Nephi

 

They traveled northward, since the Land of Zarahemla and the city of Zarahemla, which Mosiah discovered, was in that direction (Alma 22:27). As Mormon inserts: “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, 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” (the Land of Nephi was to the south and the Land of Zarahemla was to the north of this narrow strip of wilderness), 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, (north of the king’s Land of Nephi) 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, emphasis added).

Northward from the Land of Zarahemla was the Land of Bountiful (Alma22:29) and northward, beyond that, Bountiful bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed—thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful” (Alma 22:30-31). And northward of this area was the Land of Cumorah within a Land of Many Waters (Mormon 6:4).

It seems inarguable that if one is going to located the Land of Promise that these scriptural reference points, locations and directions need to be considered, and more specifically, the descriptions of all this written and described by Mormon.

How Heartland and Great Lakes Theorists Err in their Location of the Land of Promise - Part I

There is considerable controversy and differences of opinion as to where Lehi landed, and where the land “we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord” (2 Nephi 1:5).

In looking for that land promised to Lehi, many theorists have put forth their opinions and beliefs as to its geographical location. Many, as the following Heartland theorist does, begin with a specific and single point in mind, and then build an entire Land of Promise around it. Quoting him: “In my view, there are two categories of Book of Mormon maps: Those that show Cumorah in New York, and those that don’t. I see this as a clear binary choice. For me, any map that doesn’t put Cumorah in New York is not useful or even relevant.”

A theorist beginning with Cumorah in New York

 

In order to do this, the theorist must place his Land of Nephi up against the Land Northward, ignoring Alma’s description that the Land Northward was “so far Northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed” (Alma 22:30)—referring to the Jaredites—and that the Land of Zarahemla was between the Land of Nephi and the Land Northward (Alma 22:27).

In addition, his map shows no Sea West as Mormon describes for the Land of Nephi’s western boundary: “on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers' first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore” (Alma 22:28, emphasis added).

In addition, this theorist has to place his Land of Bountiful between the Land of Zarahemal and the Land of Nephi, contrary to Mormon’s description (Alma 22:27). Also, this theorist claims that Bountiful, which he locates between the Land of Zarahemla, to the west, and the Land of Nephi, to the east, does not touch any sea to the West other than the Great Lakes—which are clearly lakes and had no outlet to the sea in 600 BC. Yet, Mormon states: “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 added).

It is also interesting that on this map, the Sea South is north of the lands of Zarahemla, Bountiful, and Nephi; and the Sea West is in the middle of the Nephite lands—hardly correct or near-correct directional labels which all other places in the Book of Mormon are.

Heartland Theorist map of the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla

  

Another Heartland Theorist also claims that the Land of Nephi is separated from the Land of Zarahemla by the Land of Bountiful which they have placed in between—rather than by a narrow strip of wilderness as Mormon states (Alma 22:27). In fact, several errors appear in this brief map as in all theorists’ maps:

• The land of Zarahemla is north of the Land of Nephi (Alma 53:10). Map shows it to the west;

• There is a Narrow Strip of Wilderness running from the Sea East to the Sea West between the Land of Zarahemla, to the north, and the Land of Nephi, to the South (Alma 22:27). Map shows no such strip of wilderness, only the Ohio River, which is not a wilderness but a river. Also Map shows Nephi and Zarahemla east and west of one another, not north and south;

• Land of Zarahemla lower in elevation than the Land of Nephi (Alma 51:11; 53:10). One the Map, these two locations are nearly the same elevation;

• The Land of Nephi runs from the West Sea to the East Sea, throughout which Land of Nephi the Lamanite King sent his proclamation: “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, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west: (Alma 22:27). Map does not show this, with the Land of Nephi running from the Allegheny River to the East.

Another theorists’ map

 

Yet another theorist map showing errors in the scriptural matches, with no West Sea to the west of the lands of Nephi, Bountiful and Zarahemla. Mormon specifically mentions such a Sea, when he states that: “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); and also that Hagoth launched his ships into the West Sea at the narrow neck of land (Alma 63:5).

In addition, this theorist’s Narrow Strip of Wilderness does not separate the Land of Nephi from the Land of Zarahemla, but  lies between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Nephi. Also, he has the Land of Bountiful north of the Land of Nephi, with the Land of Zarahemla north of the Land of Bountiful, all contrary to Mormon’s descriptions. Also, the land of Bountiful does not touch the Land of Desolation. 

A Mesoamerican map showing the same error

 

A Mesoamericanist has the same trouble following Mormon’s directions, when he places the Land of Desolation to the west of the Land of Bountiful instead of to the north as Mormon states: “on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful. And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed” (Alma 22:29-30).

The land of Bountiful lies far north of the land of Zarahemla (Alma 22:29), with a “fortified” line between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Bountiful that could be crossed in a single day from the west sea to the east—Royal Skousen, a professor of linguistics at BYU, claims the word "sea" was purposely "ellipted" or removed in several cases.

Note that in Alma 22:32-33 that "East" implies the proper noun East Sea in the 1830 Ed., p288; Alma 50:8, note that "West" implies the proper noun West Sea, p363, 1830 Ed; in Alma 50:34, note that "west" and "east" are not capitalized, p365, Helaman 4:7. Also, note that "East" implies East Sea, p415, 1830 Ed. Implicitly, there was a "sea" east of Bountiful (Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part Four, FARMS, 2007, p2069).

 

Still another Mesoamerican map

 

This theorist has the Land of Bountiful far to the east of the Land of Desolation (Land Northward). Yet, Mormon makes it clear that Desolation was north of Bountiful: “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” (Alma 22:31, emphasis added).

It is also interesting that this theorist has Hagoth’s ships sailing several hundred miles westward rather than follow Mormon’s description: “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. And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward (Alma 63:5,7, emphasis added).

The point is, as always, none of these maps match Mormon’s many descriptive explanations of various views and terrain of the Land of Promise—these theorists seem to be more interested in their own opinions and beliefs than the scriptural record.

(See the next post regarding more of theorist maps and the errors they contain based on the scriptural record).

Is Climate Really Important? – A Middle Latitude Location - Part IV

 When those who sailed for the New World, to settle in a new land that was totally disconnected from the lands of Spain, as in the settlement of St. Augustine, Florida (1585); or from Europe, whether Jamestown, Virginia (1606); or Plymouth Rock 1620); they had to bring with them their own living equipment and provisions, including food production. This meant, of course, shelter (which they brought with them the tools to build shelters) and agricultural needs (which they brought with them the tools for tilling and plowing the ground to plant seeds, which they also brought with them).

There was no going down to the corner grocery story or 7-11 to pick up dinner, you ate what you grew or starved (hunting and fishing were never enough to feed an entire colony).

The problem each of these and all other initial colonies encountered was that seeds from Europe did not grow in the New World. 

Early Settlements that had great difficulty initially feeding themselves

 

• As an example, St. Augustine has a Humid Subtropical Climate—however, their seeds came from a hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters climate.

• Jamestown has a Humid Continental

Climate—however, their seeds came from an Oceanic Climate .

• Plymouth, Massachusetts, has a Humid Subtropical Climate, however, their seeds came from an Oceanic Climate.

Each of these colonies found that their seeds brought from the Old World would not growing sufficiently to provide needed food supplies.

Even as late as the 1800s, when the first European settlers in Alberta, Canada, planted wheat seeds they had brought from warmer climates, the seeds did not grow properly. Success with wheat production came only after one wheat farmer wrote to his brother in Russia and asked him to send a small quantity of wheat seed from the Moscow area. These imported Russian seeds grew exceedingly well in Alberta, and became the seed stock for much of the wheat grown in Alberta today, including today.

Alberta, Canada, and Moscow, Russia, both sit along the cold front of the Arctic—Moscow at 55 ºN, and Alberta, Canada, 54 ºN; and both have Continental Climates. Thus, the climate of the Moscow region, of course, is an analog to the climate of the wheat growing area of Alberta.

The critical story behind the mutiny on the Bounty saga was not the mutiny of the crew, but the aborted mission of transporting bread fruit plants (and their seeds) on the ship Bounty from the tropical south Pacific island climates to areas of the same climate in the Caribbean islands. 

Mutiny carried breadfruit for food storage and support of early settlements

 

The crops of the introduced bread fruit plants were intended by the British to help eliminate wide-spread starvation. Commercial production of Kiwi fruit and Granny Smith apples started in New Zealand decades ago in growing areas classified by climatologists as Marine West Coast climates. Now seeds of these southern hemisphere plants produce these same commercial fruit products in the identical Marine West Coast climate of the State of Washington. Even today, groups espousing the theory of global warming, and fearing its consequences, are stockpiling seeds from around the world in cold storage locations in Norway, at the cost of tens of millions of dollars.

By this means they hope to protect the world’s seed stock and then redistribute seeds to world areas when climate change prevents the successful planting from a local inventory of seeds.

Again, it is significant to note that the seeds brought by the Nephites from Jerusalem would have required a like Climate—both being Mediterranean Climates. That is, seeds developed in a Mediterranean Climate (Jerusalem) require another Mediterranean Climate (Land of Promise) for planting and growth.

It is inarguable that those Mediterranean Climates in the Western Hemisphere where Lehi could have landed would have been either California in the North, or Coquimbo Bay, Chile, in the South.

Despite all the rhetoric to the opposite by a myriad of theorists, Lehi could only have landed in one of these two sites—California or Chile. And California would have to be eliminated, since none of the other more than 40-scriptural references and descriptions, by Mormon and others, makes that quite clear in these earlier posts, which have pointed out that neither Mesoamerica, the Heartland nor Great Lakes has the climate for Lehi’s seeds to have grown “exceedingly” and produced an “abundant” crop from the seeds brought “from Jerusalem.”

Obviously, the climate of the Land of Promise would have had to provide a close match to the climate of the land of Jerusalem. Thus the seeds brought by the Nephites from the land of Jerusalem would have been planted in an analogous environment where they could “grow exceedingly.” 

Olives, the foodstuff of the Israelites

 

Growing in land of Jerusalem in 600 BC were grapes, olives, figs and barley, and potentially would have grown just as abundantly and successfully in the Nephite’s new Land of Promise since those were some of the “seeds of every kind
 Nephi would have brought with him. In addition, evergreens such as Pine and Cypress trees are mixed with deciduous trees such as several Oaks, Jujube, Dracaena and Argania, with the climate good for cereal and vegetable crops, including wheat, hard winter wheat, grains, barley and pulse.

In addition, there were almonds, hazelnuts, pistachios, chestnut, pomegranates, apricots, kumquat and citrus as well as apples, pear, plum, apricots, nectarine, persimmon, grape, blackberry, blueberry, artichoke, asparagus, and an assortment of annual vegetables and herbs. There were also broad-leaf evergreen shrubs, bushes, and small trees, as well as opuntia cactus and the large Agaves.

Of course the most significant fruits of the time were grapes that could be made into wine; figs that were not just a simple fruit—they were consumed fresh or dried, and both figs and raisins were also mashed into cakes or dried fruit cakes; and olives, which were important as well for their oil. Unless a family was wealthy, large cuts of meat tended to be reserved for important meals

Nathan MacDonald of Hebrew Studies at the University of Cambridge, who completed his doctorate on the book of Deuteronomy, and taught Old Testament at the University of St Andrews, spending eight months as a Humboldt research fellow at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München. In 2008 he was awarded a Sofja-Kovalevskaja Prize which enabled him to lead a research team on Early Jewish Monotheisms at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. According to MacDonald, bread and other grain-based foods probably provided over half to three-fourths of caloric intake during biblical times.

In addition, hard or durum wheat is suited to Palestine’s dry and warm climate and was the primary kind of wheat cultivated in ancient Israel. The other staple crop, barley, was perceived inferior, as evidenced by its usage alongside straw as horse feed during the reign of Soloman and the distinction made by Josephus that those who were wealthy ate wheat bread and the poor ate barley bread.

Wheat and barley, of course could be consumed in a variety of forms—fresh, roasted, or most laboriously, processed to make bread. In order to provide for a family of five or six, processing could take an estimated three hours a day and would have been done by women and servants. However, a more common preparation method would be mixing flour, salt, and water and cooking it on a flat hot stone to make an unleavened cake similar to a chapati.

MacDonald (left) believes pulses, some vegetables, and perhaps a little fruit would have provided the remainder of the meal’s nutrition—vegetables were probably on the lowest tier. Meat was most preferred but due to cost, pulses were likely to have been the main source of protein for the majority of people.

The point, as always, and once again, is that seeds brought by Lehi from Jerusalem would have required a like Climate—both being Mediterranean Climates. That is, seeds developed in a Mediterranean Climate (Jerusalem) require another Mediterranean Climate (Land of Promise) for planting and growth.

It is simply inarguable that those Mediterranean Climates in the Western Hemisphere where Lehi could have landed would have been either California in the North, or Coquimbo Bay, Chile, in the South—and despite all the claims of opposition, Lehi could only have landed in one of these two sites—California or Chile.

There is simply no chance that Jerusalem seeds would have grown in the Oceanic Subtropical Highland Climate of Guatemala, nor the hot-semi arid climate of the Heartland, nor the humid continental climate of the Great Lakes.

And this is just one of the more than 40 scriptural matches that are required to locate Lehi’s Land of Promise.

 

Is Climate Really Important? – A Middle Latitude Location - Part III

(To our regular readers: Excuse the lengthy delay—had a long bout with Covid to which I am not completely over so future articles for a time might be sporadic)

 

Continued from the previous two posts regarding Mediterranean climates and because of their moderate temperatures and limited rainfall, are often the most-visited tourist destinations in the world. Both North America and South America contain numerous regions with good to tolerable climate areas, but it is not difficult to make the case that the “most choice above all other lands” are those regions with Mediterranean climates and the regions adjacent, both a little north and a little south, of the Mediterranean climate.

Planting all the seeds brought from Jerusalem

 

Based upon all the references of the Book of Mormon that can be related to their climatic circumstances, it would appear that the Lord led Lehi to such a land—and based upon the planting of seeds brought from Jerusalem and panted in the Land of Promise, which grew exceedingly and provided abundant crops, no other climatic lands would have been possible—since seeds do not grow just anywhere.

There are certain references that relate to climatic conditions in the Land of Promise, such as the occurrence of grapes made into wine by Noah—Mediterranean climates are most conducive to such growth—who became a wine-bibber as well as his people (Mosiah 11:15); in addition, the Lord caused “that rain should fall upon the earth, insomuch that it did bring forth her fruit in the season of her fruit. And it came to pass that it did bring forth her grain in the season of her grain (Helaman 11:17)

Grapevines thrive best in climates with long warm summers, and rainy winters—a Mediterranean Climate. Warm weather during the growing period enables grapevines to flower, fruit set, and ripen.

A singular and unambiguous clue to the location of the Land of Promise is provided in Nephi’s account of his family’s efforts to establish an agrarian base in their new land. When Lehi and his family left the Jerusalem area the records stated that “we had gathered together all manner of seeds of every kind, both of grain of every kind, and also of the seeds of fruit of every kind” (1 Nephi 8:1).

Some ten years later, when the family finally landed in their new location in the Land of promise, Nephi stated that “we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance” (1 Nephi 18:24). Note that not only the seeds “grew exceedingly,” but that “all” their seeds were planted. 

There was no second chance in planting and harvesting that first Nephite crop

 

There was no second chance for success if the first year’s crops failed. And later when Nephi and part of his extended family were forced to flee from the families of Laman and Lemuel and journey many days to another location, he records “we did sow seed, and we did reap again in abundance” (2 Ne. 5:11). And some 400 years later Zeniff states that in the land of Lehi-Nephi they “began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; andwe did begin to
multiply and prosper in the land” (Mosiah 9:9).

The successful planting and harvesting of transported seeds provides a little-noticed but powerful and significant clue to the Nephite location. Seeds can not just be gathered in one location and then planted anywhere in the world and be expected to “grow exceedingly” and provide “abundant crops.” The seeds might have germinated in many locations, but only when the seeds were planted in an analogous location in terms of climate and soil (with climate being a major determiner of soil fertility) will they “grow exceedingly.”

Plants and seeds today are classified according to climate zones and then sold according to the buyer’s planting and climate region. Examples of this agricultural challenge can be provided from the first European settlers in New England, Australia and other world locations. These early settlers suffered famine and privation for years until they could determine by trial and error what would best grow in the climate and soil of their new land, and where best to acquire suitable seeds and plants.

Wheat cultivation was introduced into Mexico in 1521, but it did not appear in the territory that would become Canada and the United States until 1602—discovering wheats suitable for new areas was a reoccurring struggle. Farmers in eastern Canada and New England continuously experimented to find cold-tolerant and pest-resistant wheats (A. E. Slinkard and and Douglas R. Knott, Harvest of Gold: The History of Field Crop Breeding in Canada, University Extension Press, University Saskatchewan, Canada, 99).

However, the challenges were particularly acute when pioneers moved wheat cultivation westward onto the northern Prairies, Great Plains, and Pacific Coast. All these regions eventually became major wheat suppliers, but only after farmers learned to overcome climatic conditions far different from those prevailing to the East and in Western Europe. The initial attempts to grow traditional wheat cultivars frequently failed.

From the Red River Settlement to Manitoba (1812–1870). Nice land but no soil match to grow food and the lack of food supplied spelled the d of many settlers

 

The experiences of the Selkirk colonists who settled near Lake Winnipeg offer another example of difficulty. The winter wheat, first tried in 1811–1812, failed. Successive crops of spring wheat also succumbed to drought, freezing, and insects. To obtain sufficient seed for the 1820 crop, a band of Selkirk settlers had to trek more than 1250 miles round trip to Prairie du Chien on the upper Mississippi River during the dead of winter. After about a decade of hungry times, the colony began to sustain itself (J. Pritchett, The Red River Valley, 1811–1849: A Regional Study, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT:; 1942. pp. 113–228).

The prolonged troubles of the Selkirk colonists represented a clear case of settlers leapfrogging beyond the limits of their climatic knowledge. However, even when settlers inched west in a more orderly fashion, the challenge of adapting was daunting.

In the 1840s, attempts to grow soft winter wheat on the Wisconsin Prairie failed repeatedly, and wheat culture succeeded only after farmers switched to a new hard spring wheat cultivation, (A. L. Olmstead and P. W. Rhode, Creating Abundance: Biological Innovation and American Agricultural Development, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008).

Initially, the Great Plains were depicted as the “Great American Desert” and were considered incapable of supporting agriculture. The first waves of settlers from the humid East and Midwest moved into the High Plains during the relatively wet years of the 1880s. These farmers, along with railroad and government officials, significantly miscalculated the climatic obstacles that had to be overcome (G. E. Libeap and Z.K. Hansen, Rain follows the plow and dryfarming doctrine: The climate information problem and homestead failure in the upper Great Plains, 1890-1925. J Econ Historical, Vol.62, 2002, pp86-120).

Success required decades of experimentation and frequently depended on knowledge and cultivars introduced by immigrants from frigid and arid locales of Eurasia.

In the early settlements, to prevent starvation, food from elsewhere was transported long distances and at great expense. Lehi’s family did not have the benefit of trial and error or imported food—“we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.” Lehi had one chance at planting—they put all their seeds into the ground.

Their seeds either grew with the first planting or they didn’t. There was no second chance or a secondary source of food.

The Lord knew this, of course and led them to a like climate, a Mediterranean Climate, in which Lehi’s seeds grew exceedingly. This while other settlers failed in their planting attempts

(See the next post regarding the final comments regarding planning of Lehi’s seeds).