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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. “On the other hand, it was narrow enough that "it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea" (Alma 22:32).”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was the Land of Promise Really That Small? Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was the Land of Promise Really That Small? Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same comment as above in #9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. “The familiarity of Lehi's people with the words of Old Testament prophets should have led them to expect to be placed in their new land in the midst of other people. The prophets in old Israel had often announced that the tribes of Israel would be "scattered among all people" (Deuteronomy 28:64), would be "removed into all the kingdoms of the earth" (Jeremiah 29:18), and would become "wanderers among the nations" (Hosea 9:17).”

Two points should be made here. 1) The Nephites did not need to be among other people because the Lamanites themselves would be the “scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance” (1 Nephi 2:24). And, most importantly, 2) Lehi received a promise that the land would be reserved for his seed forever if they were righteous. One of the reasons this promise is so prominent in the scripture is that it was very different for any of the House of Isreael to have a land where no one else was located.

As for “scattered among all people,” this was the destiny of the Jews, and for “wanders among the nations,” this was the role of the Lost Ten Tribes. We cannot read into this, as Sorenson so blithely does, that this also meant the Nephites, who were led away from Jerusalem into a “quarter where there never had man been” until the Jaredites reached there (Ether 2:5).

Secondly, Lehi was given a promise that his Land of Promise would be kept from the knowledge of other nations (2 Npehi 1:8), therefore, why should we believe that they “be placed in their new land in the midst of other people”?

6. “Further, "the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you" (Deuteronomy 4:27). These prophecies made plain that the whole house of Israel was subject to being scattered among non-Israelite peoples who would be more numerous than they.”

And, as history has shown, the tribes of Israel have been scattered among the nations of the earth. Today, the descendants of Nephi are scattered upon the lands of the North and South American continents. But this does not mean that they were not given a land free of other people and nations before they fell away as Lehi proclaims. As stated above, the scriptures make it very clear that Lehi was given a promise by the Lord of a land where only his posterity would be (until they fell away and rejected Him), and the Lord always keeps his promises.

7. “The people of Lehi were explicitly told that they would suffer this scattering: Yea, even my father spake much concerning the Gentiles, and also concerning the house of Israel, that they should be compared like unto an olive tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered upon all the face of the earth. Wherefore, he said it must needs be that we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered. (1 Nephi 10:12-13).”

As stated above, scattered they have become. The problem is, Sorenson is linking separate time frames and separate promises into one time frame and one promise. If that were the case, then the Lord’s promises to Lehi for his Land of Promise was a lie before it was issued. Such convoluted thinking on Sorenson’s part is simply inaccurate and very possibly disingenuous.

8. “The allegory of the olive tree spelled their fate out even more plainly. Branches broken off the tame tree, which represented historical Israel (see Jacob 5:3), were to be grafted onto the roots of "wild" olive trees, meaning non-Israelite groups. That is, there was to be a demographic union between two groups, "young and tender branches" from the original tree, Israel, represented as being grafted onto wild rootstock in various parts of the vineyard or earth (see Jacob 5:8—9).

This took place when the Church was restored by “Gentiles” and has been taught to many of Lehi’s descendants, the “Indians” of North, Central and South America in very large numbers.

(See the next post, “Were There Other People in the Land of Promise? Part IV,” for more on Sorenson’s comments about other people in the land of promise)

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

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

3. “We who are confident of the historicity of the Book of Mormon are assured from these incidents and other textual references that substantial numbers of local "native" residents had joined the immigrant parties. If we had the plates of Nephi that reported the more historical part of their story, perhaps we would find on them explicit information about such contacts with resident populations.”

Forever hoping for a validation of his theories, Sorenson draws attention to the Large Plates of Nephi, upon which can be claimed anything one wants, until they are actually available—which is not likely until we learn what is in the present Book of Mormon far more thoroughly. Besides, those plates may show the contrary—that these wars and contentions were just small skirmishes where a few died, but most fought until they tired and pulled away. Simply put, there is no value in claiming that something might exist when it runs contrary to the scriptural record we have, and there is no other record to compare it against.

4. “Other statements in the Book of Mormon also indicate that the writers were familiar with, rather than surprised by, the idea of non-Israelites living among the Nephites. The only example we will cite is when Alma visited the city of Ammonihah and Amulek introduced himself with the words, "I am a Nephite" (Alma 8:20). Since the city was nominally under Nephite rule (see Alma 8:11-12, 24) and was a part of the land of Zarahemla at the time, Amulek's statement seems nonsensical, unless many, perhaps most, of the people in the land of Ammonihah did not consider themselves to be Nephites, by whatever criteria.”
This is just another effort to cloud the issue. While the location of the city and background of the people are correct, there is a big issue not addressed by Sorenson—these Nephites had fallen away from the Church (Alma 8:11), and that “Satan had gotten great hold upon the hearts of the people of the city of Ammonihah; therefore they would not hearken unto the words of Alma” (Alma 8:9). They paid no attention to Alma’s preaching and reviled him and spit upon him and cast him out of the city (Alma 8:13) and “while he was journeying thither, being weighed down with sorrow, wading through much tribulation and anguish of soul, because of the wickedness of the people who were in the city of Ammonihah” (Alma 8:14). However, the angle of the Lord told him to return to the city (Alma 8:15-16), and to tell the people “Yea, say unto them, except they repent the Lord God will destroy them. For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people, (for thus saith the Lord) which is contrary to the statutes, and judgments, and commandments which he has given unto his people” (Alma 8:16-17).

Obviously, this was not a message the people would accept and, no doubt, Alma had mixed emotions as he returned. Yet, he returned quickly (Alma 8:18). As he entered the city from the south, which was another way than he had been before, he was hungry and thirsty and asked a man he met for something to eat (Alma 8:19). This is where the man said, “I am a Nephite, and I know that thou art a holy prophet of God, for thou art the man an angle said in a vision” that he was to receive (Alma 8:20).

Being a Nephite was always a distinction of those who believed in and followed Christ. Obviously, this man, Amulek, lived in the city and was well known (Alma 10:4) and a wealthy man. Obviously, he knew the nature of the people there and that they were opposed to the prophets and followed their own “satanic” hearts. To make sure Alma knew him to not be like them, but a man of direct religious lineage, he identified himself the only way he could that would not cause Alma to be suspicious of him: “I am a Nephite.”
While they were Nephite dissenters, the scriptures do not refer to the people of Ammonihah as Nephites. They were called Ammonihahites (Alma 16:9). Therefore, Sorenson’s comment about why did Amulek identify himself as a Nephite is not that there were other people in the land other than Nephites, but no one in the city was a Nephite follower of God and is obviously answered by the scriptural record itself.

(See the next post, “Were There Other People in the Land of Promise? Part III,” for more on Sorenson’s comments about other people in the land of promise)

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

In a FARMS website, Sorenson wrote: “Several lines of evidence in the Book of Mormon point directly to the presence of other peoples in the land from the very beginning of Nephite colonization. One of the most telling passages in the record of Nephi relates the confrontation of Sherem and Jacob (see last two posts), but questions about population actually arise still earlier in the story—especially in the building of a temple

1. “We find Nephi setting out to build a temple when his adult male relatives in the little colony in the land of Nephi apparently would have numbered only three: Nephi, Sam, and Zoram (plus Jacob and Joseph if they were old enough). So few men could not have put up much of a temple.”

Sorenson is comparing this to the temple Solomon built which took 30 years and thousands of laborers. However, there is no indication that this was done early on when there were only three men present. The few of them might well have laid out the groundwork, foundation, etc., of the temple, but it took 20 years to complete, and toward the latter part of that time, there would have been several teens to young adult males. When first leaving the area of first landing, Nephi says: “it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family” (2 Nephi 5:5). Both Zoram and Sam had families, and in all three cases, their older children would have been 8 to 10 years old before leaving Bountiful, and as old as 12 to 15 years when Nephi left the area of first landing. In ten years, before building the temple, there could have been a dozen young men around 15 to 20 years old, plus Jacob and Joseph would have become capable men.

In addition, another larger number under those ages could have taken care of planting and harvesting, hunting, etc., a couple of dozen males could have been working on the temple from dawn to nightfall. Naturally all this is conjecture, but certainly only three males to build a temple is a ridiculous approach on Sorenson’s part—he must know that there were children and in a thirty year period, some of them would have been quite old.

Obviously, their labor would not have been sufficient to build a temple the size of Solomon’s, with its four-story tall ceilings, all the fine appointments, porches, etc. In fact, when Ezra records the building of the second temple in Jerusalem, the older men wept for it was not as grand as the first temple built. Obviously, it was not the magnificent structure Solomon built, and only took about 7 years to complete. The Nephites certainly could have built a small temple to fit the needs of the much smaller community. And there is nothing to prevent the temple from being expanded over the next nearly 400 years that the Nephites occupied that land they called Nephi.

In addition, it should be kept in mind that we do not know when this temple was built. There are two scenarios to keep in mind. 1) This temple could have taken numerous years to build--we do not know when it was started or when it was completed, except that it took place sometime between the time Nephi and those who went with them reached the area they called Nephi, and just before Nephi's death; 2) or it could have been built much later in Nephi's life when the Nephite colony had grown in size and number of adults.

2. “Furthermore, what kind of wars could the group have fought against the Lamanites with the minuscule "army" that the handful of immigrants could have mustered at the end of 25 years in the land? (see 2 Nephi 5:34). Without increases in the early population of the two factions that can only be explained by the accretion of people from a resident population, reference to "wars" could not be a significant reality.”

It is obvious that Sorenson should learn a little about military matters before writing about them. When I was in the military, we sometimes had “war games” where only a platoon (30-40 men) was involved, and sometimes just a squad (10 men). On very rare occasions an entire Company (150 men) was involved, and only once in my career was a Battalion (800 men) was involved—it is rarely like the movies. Even at a squad level, there was a “war” with “fighting” among the opposing squads, which included blank cartridges, sheathed bayonets, hand to hand fighting, etc.

War can be defined as a “disposition of contention; enmity (hostility, hate, antagonism); to be in a state of contest by violence; to content, to strive violently; to be in a state of opposition; to invade or attack.” In our world today, a “war” is defined as a battle or contest between nations, with a great deal of bloodshed and thousands to millions dead. But war in ancient times meant whatever number against another number, with killing the objective. The point is, we cannot assign a number of people that is required to have a war. According to the record, the “wars” between the Nephites and Lamanites occurred between 30 and 40 years after leaving Jerusalem (2 Nephi 5:28,34. After 30 years, there could have been 20 to 50 people fighting—not a “war” by our standards of today, but certainly by the standards of the time. By the time forty years had passed, about 557 B.C., there had been contentions between the two groups, and wars (2 Nephi 5:34)

(See the next post, “Were There Other People in the Land of Promise? Part II,” for more on Sorenson’s comments about other people in the land of promise)