Regarding Nephites crossing through Panama as Some Theorists Claim – Part II

Continued from the previous post, regarding why Lehi never landed just south of Panama, and why the Land of Promise was not on both sides of the Darién Gap.

The Darién Gap, a 10,000-square-mile jungle and rainforest marsh and swampland that has defied taming for more than a thousand years; first settled along the fringes beginning in 1510, and which Balboa crossed to discover the eastern shore of the Pacific Ocean in 1513

 

As illustrated in the last post, the Darién Gap is an unconquerable stretch of land along the Panama and Colombia border that stretches for 100 miles from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific and nearly 100 miles northeastward from Colombia to Panama. As mentioned previously, it is considered the most dangerous jungle trek in the Western Hemisphere.
    That some modern-day theorists who have never seen this area, been to it, or spent any time investigating it, to make claims that it was located within the Land of Promise, and even in the middle of that land through which Nephites and Lamanties had to travel, is ludicrous.
    In fact, it is amazing that knowledgeable writers and theorists would consider such a location given all the information we know about this area today, that was always this same jungle and swampland and the most difficult place to cross in the entire Western Hemisphere, if not the world.

The remarkable (left) 1919 Model-T Ford, and (right) the 1926 Ford Model TT truck, perhaps the most durable vehicles in existence during this era, having won endurance races against larger and far more expensive vehicles of the day

 

As covered in the last post, it wasn’t until 1928-1938 that someone actually crossed the Gap in some type of vehicle—a remarkably durable 1919 Model T (“Tin Lizzie”) and a 1926 Model  TT truck, then twenty-one years later in 1959, after the logging deforestation of parts of the rain forest and jungle in the Darién Gap, that the Gap was crossed again, and became an adventurer’s challenge.
    As pointed out in the last post, some modern adventurers have managed to cross the Gap in the 19^th century, but the trip, with plenty of modern equipment and supplies, has been described by those who accomplished this unusual fete to have been the most dangerous and arduous adventure that could possibly be imagined.

Some have tried to cross the Darién Gap on foot. Most have never made it, though a few have trekked the Gap successfully

It should be pointed out, that since 1975, there have been a few brave adventurers who have crossed the Gap on foot, when in that year, Sebastian Snow (the first man to ever travel the length of the Amazon River), along with Wade Davis (named as “One of the Explorers for the Millennium” and a world adventurer) crossed the Gap as part of Snow’s unbroken walk from Tierra del Fuego to Costa Rica.
    In 1977, George Meegan, another world-renowned adventurer, crossed the Gap on a similar journey. He too started in Tierra del Fuego and eventually ended in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a trip covering 19,019 miles in 2,425 days. In his 1988 biography, The Longest Walk, he describes in great detail his harrowing trip through the Gap in a 25-page chapter of the ordeal. In his overall walk, he took 41 million steps, wore out over 12 pair of Italian hiking boots, and crossing the Gap he was shot at and survived a knifing attack.

In 1979 evangelist and world walker Arthur Blessitt traversed the gap while carrying a 12-foot wooden cross, a trek confirmed by Guinness World Records as part of "the longest round the world pilgrimage" for Christ. He traveled alone with a machete plus one backpack crammed with water bottles, a hammock, Bible, notepad, lemon drops, and Blessitt's signature Jesus stickers saying "Smile! God Loves you.”
    In 2001, as a part of his Goliath Expedition—a trek to walk an unbroken footpath around the world from the tip of South America to the Bering Strait in Alaska and back to his home in England—ex-paratrooper, adventurer and explorer, Karl Bushby of the UK crossed the Gap on foot, using no transport or boats, from Colombia to Panama.
    In July 1996, as part of their hitchhiking trip through 17 Latin American countries to Ushuaia (tip of South America), adventurers Walter Bläs, Ana Cravioto, Albrecht von der Recke and Gustavo Ross crossed from Panama to Colombia, becoming the first Mexicans to cross the Gap by foot, according to the visitor’s log kept since 1946 in Púcuro. The night of the 28th of July they survived the Hurricane Cesar-Douglas in the jungle somewhere between Paya and Palo de las Letras. Accompanied by 11- and 13-year old Lico and Juan from Paya, the survivors report several big trees falling around them and river levels rising up to 3 meters that night.

Crossing the Darién Gap from Panama to Colombia

Most crossings of the Darién Gap region have been from Panama to Colombia. In July 1961, three college students, Carl Adler, James Wirth, and Joseph Bellina, crossed from the Bay of San Miguel to Puerto Obaldia on the Gulf of Parita, near Colombia, and ultimately to Mulatupu in what was then known as San Blas and now identified as Kuna Yala. The trip across the Darién Gap was by banana boat, panga, piragua dugout, and foot via the Turia River, Río Chucunaque, Rio Tuquesa Trading Post and Serranía del Darién (Carl Adler, "A Trip to Panama", The Scholastic, vol,104, no.11, January 18, 1963, p18).
    In 1985, Project Raleigh, which evolved from Project Drake in 1984 and in 1989 became Raleigh International, sponsored an expedition which also crossed the Darién coast to coast. Their path was the reverse of the 1961 route. The expedition started in the Bay of Caledonia the Serranía del Darién and followed the Río Membrillo ultimately to the Río Chucunaque and Yaviza, roughly following the route taken by Balboa in1513.
    Between the early 1980s and mid-1990s a British adventure travel company, Encounter Overland, organized 2–3 week trekking trips through the Darién Gap from Panama to Colombia. These trips used a combination of whatever transport was available: jeeps, bus, boats, and plenty of walking, with travelers carrying their own supplies.
    These groups were made up of male and female participants from any number of nationalities and age groups, and were led by experienced trek leaders. One of the leaders went on to do nine Darién Gap trips and later acted as a logistics guide and coordinator for the BBC Natural History Unit during the production of a documentary called A Tramp in the Darién, which screened on BBC in 1990–91.
    As can be seen, almost all of those who managed to cross the Gap were not average people—they were world adventurers and explorers, who had numerous experiences in many parts of the world. After all, crossing the Gap is not for the faint of heart, but the past centuries have shown it is for the very few who have braved trials unimaginable to most people. To think that Nephites would have been criss-crossing an area like this in the daily activities in the Land of Promise is both inane and nonsensical.

The Colombia side of the Gap is extremely hazardous because of the Serrania del Baudo Mountain Range along the coast running into Panama, with the Atrato Valley, a flat swampland, the the Atrato River

 

In addition, along the coast of Colombia, 230-foot cliffs with small pocket beaches of a little sand, but mostly shingle and cobble stones, making landing or movement northward nearly impossible along the coast. These cliffs build into the Serranía del Baudó mountain range. There was and is simply no way to get around the dense jungles and swamplands of the Darien Gap.
(See the next post, “Regarding Nephites crossing through Panama as Some Theorists Claim – Part III,” for more on why Lehi never landed just south of Panama, and the Land of Promise was not on both sides of the Darién Gap)

Regarding Nephites crossing through Panama as Some Theorists Claim – Part I

Theories abound about the location of the Land of Promise and have for decades. In fact, as early as Joseph Smith’s time, articles in Church publications have claimed that Joseph said: “When we read in the Book of Mormon that Jared and his brother came on to this continent from the confusion and scattering at the Tower, and lived here more than a thousand years, and covered the whole continent from sea to sea, with towns and cities; and that Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darién [Isthmus of Panama]" (Times & Seasons, vol.3, no.22, September 15, 1842, p927).
    Also, “Since our 'Extract' was published from Mr. Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel,' we have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatemala is situated north of the Isthmus of Darién and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south—the city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma:—'And now it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful, and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi, and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water: there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.'”

Map showing Don R. Hender’s idea of where Lehi landed, which is south of the Darién Gap, with Zarahemla to the north of this location

In fact, as one current theorist, Don R. Hender wrote: “the neo-traditional site of Lehi's landing at the Darién Isthmus to the New York hill of Cumorah can be made. This reduces the objectionable size of the 'Hemispheric Model' to a half the size of what it was from the supposed Chili landing sight.”
    In several of these theorists’ maps, their Land of Promise is located on both sides of the Darién Gap, also known as El Tapón (“the plug”), a wild, 10,000-square-mile rectangle of impenetrable swamps, mountains, rainforest and tough, nasty, pristine jungle that spans both sides of the border between Colombia and Panama, stretching all the way from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean. This means that thousands upon thousands of Nephites and later Lamanites would have had to pass through this Gap, trudging for days through muck in muggy 90º temperatures, climbing over fallen trees and then endless hills and switchbacks, stumbling over tangles of root systems while hacking through spider-infested mangrove swamps and jungle filled with thorns, wasps and venomous snakes, as well as fruit bats, jaguars and disagreeable wild animals, all the while fighting off mosquitoes and other insects, in their movement between the Land Southward and into the Land Northward.
    Obviously, those who have never been to the Gap, but claim it was part of the Land of Promise through which Nephites regularly passed, have no concept of its difficulty and dangers. Experienced trekkers, explorers, and adventurers claim its sheer, arduous walk through and across the Gap is the most difficult and dangerous journey in the Western Hemisphere.
    It is an area that defied the Spanish invaders in 1510 who conquered the Amazon and the Andes, but gave up trying to tame the Gap. On the south edge of the Gap is Colombia’s Chocó Department—a dirt-poor sliver of land in northwestern Colombia that overlaps the Gap and is one of the wettest places on earth.

Another theorist’s map showing an even lower landing in South America, requiring a crossing of the Darién Gap into his Land of Desolation and Land Northward

In fact, Mormon, as an eleven-year-old lad “was carried by my father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla” (Mormon 1:6), a journey of which he states, “The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea” (Mormon 1:7).
    This hardly describes his passing through the jungles and almost impassable Darién Gap that exists in these theorists’ Land of Promise location.
    It is not that a person could not and cannot pass through the Gap, a few have accomplished it compared to the thousands who have made the attempt, but for men, women and children, to move from one side to the other of this more than 100-mile wide and nearly 100-mile-long Gap, as well as the heavy jungle on both sides, especially in Panama, is highly unlikely, let alone done so on a repeated basis as they traveled back and forth in this area according to the scriptural record.

The Darién Gap is a dense jungle type rain forest. While one side is a delta of the Atrato River creating a flat, marshy swampland fifty miles across, the other side in sharp contrast is a mountainous rainforest with terrain reaching from 200 to 6000 feet in height

In history, there are no real crossings recorded prior to the twentieth century of this Gap, and then not until 1960, after numerous illegal logging enterprise had deforested some of the area. The rain forest and jungle were the home of numerous logging enterprises in the latter part of the 19^th and long into the 20^th century, with numerous trails and roads laid down across this Gap into isolated indigenous villages. However, there is no road through the entire Gap even today.
    Of the thousands who have made the attempt to cross from either Panama to Colombia, or from Colombia to Panama, through the infamous Darién Gap, very few have ever made it, and most of those have had extensive military and commercial assistance in modern vehicles and especially those with special capabilities to handle such difficult terrain.
    An exception to the latter was the ten-year vehicular crossing of the Gap, made by three Brazilians, Leonidas Borges de Oliveira, a lieutenant from the Brazilian army, Francisco Lopez da Cruz from the Brazilian air force and Marió Fava, a young mechanic. They crossed in two vehicles, one a 1919 Ford Model-T, and the other a 1926 truck. They left Rio de Janeiro in 1928 and arrived in USA in 1938.
    Over twenty years later, a Land Rover, La Cucaracha Cariñosa (The Affectionate Cockroach) and a Jeep in the Trans-Darién Expedition of 1959–1960, crewed by Amado Araúz of Panama, his wife and two others crossed the Gap in 4½ months, averaging 220 yards per hour over 136 days; however, during the trip, their axles exploded like shells throwing shrapnel dangerously up through the floorboards, and spare remodeled spare parts had to be parachuted in. In addition, custom-built inflatable rafts had to be provided to float the vehicles most of the way across the problem area of the vast Atrato swamp.
    The first crossing of a standard two-wheel drive vehicle took place in 1961 with three Chevrolet Corvairs and several support vehicles. After 109 days, two of the Corvairs made it through, the other had to be abandoned in the jungle.
    In 1972, a pair of Range Rovers, with substantial support by the British Army, was used on the British Trans-Americas Expedition led by John Blashford-Snell, which claimed to be the first vehicle-based expedition to traverse both American continents north to south through the Darién Gap (crossing the Atrato Swamp with the cars on special inflatable rafts.
    The first fully overland wheeled crossing of the Gap (others all used boats for some sections), was British cyclist Ian Hibelel, who rode from Cape Horn to Alaska between 1971 and 1973, including an overland crossing of the Atrato Swamp with two cycling companions.

Robert “Bob” Webb, traversing the Darién Gap in  his Rokon motorcycle, here crossing through the jungle mud 

(Photo: Bob Webb, at http://www.motivation-tools.com/downloads/men_mud_and_motorcycles.pdf)

  
In 1975, the first motorcycle crossing was by Robert L. Webb. In his first three attempts, he failed in the attempt, finally making the crossing on his fourth effort on a two-wheel drive Rokon motorcycle. He and a companion followed a bulldozer path that had been cut all the way to the Santa Fé road project. Some of the distance covered was by large dugout canoe.
    Another four-wheel drive crossing was in 1978–1979 by Mark A. Smith and his team, which drove the 250 mile stretch of the Gap in 30 days using five stock Jeep CJ-7s. However, they traveled many miles up the Atrato River on barges.

    The first all-land auto crossing was in 1985–87 by Loren Upton and Patty Mercier in a CJ-5 Jeep, taking 741 days to travel 125 miles. This crossing is documented in the 1992 Guinness Book of Records.
    Ed Culberson’s ”Arnigo,” a BMW R80G/S motorcycle was the first vehicle to fully navigate the Darién Gap proposed route on a motorcycle, enroute to completing his 1986 full navigation of the Pan-American Highway by land.
    There seems little doubt that while some have crossed the Darién Gap, the sheer difficulty of it far exceeds the simple mention of land in the scriptural record.
(See the next post, “Regarding Nephites crossing through Panama as Some Theorists Claim – Part II,” for more on why Lehi never landed just south of Panama, and the Land of Promise was not on both sides of the Darién Gap)

The Purpose of Nephi’s Temple – Part III

Continuing from the previous post, regarding an understanding of why the Nephites had temples.
    The lost 116 pages making up the original Book of Lehi were actually the earliest scripture of the Restoration, with the rest of the Book of Mormon translated after the first 116 pages were lost by Martin Harris. We also see that the first revelation we have, recorded from Joseph Smith, is Doctrine and Covenants 3, given in response to the loss of the 116 pages.
    Thus, we are missing the earliest scripture of the Restoration; however, when see some the available information surrounding these pages, it is clear that what some people considered to be a later development in the Nauvoo-era and thus not present in the Book of Mormon, actually was included. In fact, what we see from the information surrounding these lost pages is that the practices of the early Church in Nauvoo Mormonism, and the early temple ordinances and purpose was had in the days of Nephi and is the very faith propounded by Mormon in his book, beginning with its lost opening, the Book of Lehi (from Lehi through Mosiah I).

Jewish high priest and Levite in ancient Judah, along with Menorah, Table of Showbread and trumpets

The Mosaic Law, which the Nephites lived (1 Nephi 4:15; 2 Nephi 5:10;11:4), mandated that certain rituals be performed by the high priest, whom it was understood would be of the household of Aaron. However, there were no Aaronic priests among the Nephites, nor any Levites. Thus, the only way they could fulfill the requirements of the Law would have been to use a substitute, and to make it legitimate, they needed someone whose authority would greater than the usual (Aaronic priest) requirements.
    Consequently, to help us answer the more detailed questions of 1) who stood at the apex of the Nephite priesthood hierarchy, and 2) who possessed the means to inquire of God in the way the biblical high priest did; we need to know the identity of the Nephite high priest who had such authority. This is answered in the scriptural record that tells us who chose and ordained the priests, which during the Nephite monarchy, they were consecrated by the kings. Nephi, Benjamin, Mosiah II, Zeniff, and Noah are each so described.
    The only non-king who could consecrate priests in this time was Alma, the Elder. However, the record makes clear that Alma’s authority was obtained from and granted by the king. Alma was originally made a priest by King Noah. Later, as the leader of the church in the land of Zarahemla, while being a high priest that presided over other priests—he was not the highest authority, but the leader of the Church. His authority was granted to him by the king, Mosiah II, who was the greater authority. “Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church” (Mosiah 26:8). Whereas Alma’s authority was derived, Mosiah’s authority was inherent—that is, he was not only the king, but also the high priest.

Thus, in evaluating the Nephite priesthood structure shows that the king stood in its highest position, and thus to be the High Priest (or highest priest). In addition to the king’s position at the top of the Nephite priesthood structure, there is evidence of his status as high priest in his using the same or a similar instrument to the one used by the biblical high priest to inquire of God’s will for His people.
    Called the Urim and Thummim by the ancient Israelites, it was kept in the pocket of a breastplate. In the Book of Mormon the equivalent Nephite instrument, which also was attached to a breastplate, was called “the interpreters” and in revelation to Joseph Smith “the Urim and Thummim.” In addition, and most importantly, this Nephite equivalent to the Jerusalem high priest’s most important relic was the possessed by the Nephite kings.
    Mosiah II used it to interpret the twenty-four Jaredite plates (Mosiah 28:12-16), as his grandfather Mosiah I evidently used it to interpret the Jaredite stone record (Omni 1:20). This, then, puts the interpreters in the hands of the Nephite kings while the scriptural record of “the small plates” was still being kept and recorded by Jacob’s line, suggesting, as stated earlier,  that the Nephite high priestly relics and role belonged, not to the high priest, but to the kings.

    This completes the first question, or the “who,” and take us to the second question, or the “how” of Nephite temple worship. Nephi, of course, had built a temple like that of Solomon, a statement that has given much fodder to critics, who note the enormous size and grandeur of Solomon’s temple. However, as such critics fail to understand, it was not the size and splendor of the temple that Nephi was concerned about—it was the temple’s functionality, that is, its quality of being suited to serve the purpose of its design, which meant chambers constructed to serve as the Holy Place, the Holy of Holies, a Great court, Middle court, Temple court, an altar, a laver, table for showbread, and a court around the building. All of this in order to perform the rituals prescribed by the Law of Moses, which required the temple parallel Solomon’s in rooms and relics.
    When Nephi wrote: “And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things…” he was referring to its purpose and it being capable of having the ordinances therein performed; however, it did not have the artifacts, the Ark of the Covenant and the cherubim in the Holy of Holies, for it was “not built of so many precious things for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple.”

The Ark of the Covenantin the Holy of Holies 

After all, the Jerusalem temple was, in one sense, a house for the Ark of the Covenant, and had been structured in layers of sacredness, or degrees of glory, around the Ark. The chamber containing the Ark was the holiest place of all, the Holy of Holies, which Ark contained the stone tablets God touched with His finger on Sinai during the Exodus. In addition, the Ark served also as an altar, upon which the Aaronite high priest was required to sprinkle sacrificial blood during the all-important Day of Atonement.
    Naturally, these missing parts were critical to the temple in Jerusalem and to Israelite worship.
    However, the workmanship itself, whatever type of timber, precious stones and gold overlays were involved would have been every bit as fine as was possible to obtain in the Land of Promise. Of this work, Nephi wrote: “But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.”
    Yet, the Nephites kept and lived the Law of Moses, so what did they do about the missing Ark, tablets, and miraculous relics of the Exodus that otherwise would sufficiently sanctify their Holy of Holies to make it an appropriate dwelling place for God? First of all, whether the Nephite temple was like Solomon’s on its exterior was irrelevant, other than it  be as magnificent as they were capable of making. What did matter was the heart of the building, the Holy of Holies, was vital. In the heart, something remarkable would be needed to sit in the place of the Ark.
    While they did not have the relics of the Exodus (“they were not found in the land”), such as the Ark, the stone tablets God had touched during the Exodus, and according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Aaron’s rod that budded, and a pot of manna, as well as the Urim and Thummim and breastplate, which attached to a garment referred to as the ephod, the Nephites had their own miraculous and sacred relics.

Joseph Smith uncovers  the stone box at Cumorah, filled with the gold plates and other Nephite relics 

These same relics were included in the stone box Joseph found in the hill Cumorah in New York, which Martin Harris repeated called an “ark.” In the box, Joseph found a set of Nephite sacred treasures that paralleled the relics associated with the Ark and its custodian, the High Priest. These included the gold plates, the breastplate and interpreters, the Liahona, and the sword of Laban.
    In comparison, the Israelites had the stone tablets, the Nephites had the gold plates; the Israelites had the breastplate, as did the Nephites; the Israelites had the Urim and Thummim and the Nephites had the Interpreters; the Israelites had Aaron’s rod, the Nephites had the Liahona; the Israelites had the pot of manna, the Nephites had a reliquary container for relics.
    In general terms, these are comparable sacred relics memorializing God’s mercy to the children of Israel in their Exodus and God’s mercy to Lehi’s family in their exodus. But the parallels are much deeper.
    The pot of manna memorialized God miraculously providing the Israelites with sustenance on their journey (Exodus 16:13-15). In comparison, it was the Liahona that showed the Nephites where to travel in the “more fertile parts” of the desert, leading them to waterholes, plants and animals for their sustenance on their journey (1 Nephi 16:16), as well as leading Nephi where to go and hunt for food (1 Nephi 16:30-31).
    The collection of sacred relics of the Nephites was more than sufficient, and at least equal in spiritual power to those in the Ark of the Covenant. Including as it did the interpreters, which had been touched by God and served as a medium of communication with Him, it made an ideal point of contact between God and man to rest at the center of the Nephite Holy of Holies. The temple, then, was a place for the revelation of higher truths that could only be understood through wisdom given by God’s Spirit.
    As for the lost 116 pages, they are still “lost.” But we have not been left without evidence of what was in them. Using the information we have been provided about this missing Book of Mormon text can deepen our study and understanding of the remarkable Book of Mormon text we do have and strengthen our testimonies of this second witness of Jesus Christ.

Why Did the Nephites Have Temples? – Part II

Continued from the previous post, regarding the use of the name Aminadi by Mormon and what Amulek said about the “writing on the wall” incident and what it tells us about the Nephite temple.
    In the incident of Aminadi interpreting the writing on the wall of the temple, Amulek’s brief description of the event, the ancient prophet Aminadi appears as a man of wisdom like the Biblical seers Joseph and Daniel, whose lives share a common storyline. In each, a king seeks the meaning of a supernatural manifestation, and after his wise men cannot interpret it, the correct interpretation is revealed to a captive Hebrew prophet, and in the case of Daniel, the comparison to Aminadi is quite clear.
    The details in Lapham’s narrative, beautifully embodies the Book of Mormon’s complex use of Exodus typology and other events of the Hebrew Bible—namely, the narrative of the Nephites finding the Jaredite interpreters.
    In Lapham’s account of the scriptural record, the story of the Nephites finding the Jaredite interpreters is definitely an Exodus typology. The fact that they suddenly appear without explanation in the narrative possessed by King Mosiah II, before Limhi’s people find the twenty-four Jaredite plates, shows a prior mentioning of the obtaining of these interpreters not currently found in the Book of Mormon. In fact, how the Nephites acquired the Jaredite interpreters is never described and raises a question among several scholars, which is not answered in the record. So how did the interpreters or Urim and Thummim given to the brother of Jared get to the Nephites?

Martin Harris took the first 116 pages translated from the Book of Lehi to show to his family (and others) to prove their authenticity to stem the tide of criticism that was levied at him by family and friends to continually criticize him 

After all, the available Book of Mormon text tells us that before the Nephites found the 24 Jaredite plates, they had already acquired the interpreters (Mosiah 8:6-14). How did they obtain them? While that is scripturally unknown, Jospeh’s father detailed to Fayette Lapham how one of the ancient Nephites was led to the Jaredite interpreters in the promised land by the Liahona, evidently taking this narrative from the lost 116 pages, for the current Book of Mormon has no such story.
    According to Lapham’s account given him by Joseph Smith, Sr., sometime after Lehi landed in what became known as the New World, they were traveling (probably during Nephi’s flight northward away from his brothers in the Land of First Inheritance—2 Nephi 5:6-7, or the later events there), being led by the Liahona. Lapham recounted that the Liahona led them to this strange object, and the person who found it did not know what it was. So they took it into the temple to inquire what it was. Immediately the voice of the Lord asks him a question, presumably from behind the veil covering the Holy of Holies where the Lord’s presence was understood to dwell.
    Lapham claims that in the Joseph Smith, Sr. narrative, the finder of the interpreters—probably Mosiah I—took the interpreters into a “tabernacle” or portable temple to inquire of the Lord how to use them. When Mosiah I entered the tabernacle, the Lord asked, “What is that in your hand?” Mosiah responded that he “did not know, but had come to inquire,” and the Lord revealed the answer. Then, as now, the temple was a place to converse with the Lord and seek to enter His holy presence.
    So the Lord tells Mosiah to take this object and put it on his face, and then to cover his face with animal skins. And when he does that, he is able to see thing supernaturally—it was the interpreters. At that point the Liahona actually stopped working, and the Liahona, which had led them to the interpreters, is actually now replaced by the interpreters.
    While Lapham’s story cannot be currently verified, if true it would explain not only how the Nephites get the interpreters, but also why the military expeditions in the book of Alma never uses the Liahona for guidance, but inquires of the Prophet for answers and guidance (Alma 16:5-6). In addition, in Joseph Smith, Sr’s account, he described a “great feast,” a religious festival, in Jerusalem at the time of Lehi’s departure and gave this as the reason for Laban’s drunkenness. This fits Nephi’s account that Laban had been “out by night” with “the elders of the Jews” (1 Nephi 4:22). Other details in Nephi’s account allow identification of the festival and its connection with the redeeming work of the Savior. Seen in this light, the first story in the Book of Mormon, that of Lehi’s temporal deliverance, is a “type” for the redemption of the world. From its very start at the beginning of the lost 116 pages, the Book of Mormon is a testament of Christ.

It should be noted that Lapham’s recounting of the incident is full of Biblical inference—the question: “What is that in your hand?” is found in the story of Moses (Exodus 4:2), where Moses is at the burning bush on Sinai where he received his prophetic calling. The veiling of his face occurred when Moses came down off the mount and his face glowed from the presence of God—whereupon he veiled his face so that the others would not encounter that glory that was reflected from him (Exodus 34:29-30,33-35).
    The animal skins, particularly badger skins, are explicitly said in the books of Moses to be needed to handle some of the sacred objects. In fact, badger (KJV) or violet (Douay) skins were used for the outer covering of the Tabernacle, the Ark of the covenant, and various items used within the Tabernacle (Numbers 4:5-15). In addition, one of the veils of the temple was actually to be made from badger skins.
    We might compare this with the story of the Brother of Jared getting the interpreters in the first place from the Lord (Ether 4:5). After the Brother of Jared melted sixteen stones from the rock on mount Shelem, a conversation ensues between him and the Lord, which resulted in the “veil” being taken from Brother of Jared (Ether 3:19-20) and he is admitted into the Lord’s presence, where he is told that he is redeemed from the Fall. This same theme of receiving the interpreters and talking with the Lord through the veil is present in both the story of the Brother of Jared and the story recounted to Fayette Lapham by Joseph Smith, Sr. That is, the talking to the Lord through the veil, testing through asking questions and man answering them, and ultimately taking on the attribute of divine sight and entering the presence of the Lord appears in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
    Thus, the story of Aminadi, in the temple, with the story of Joseph, Sr. apparently about Mosiah are not about sacrifice, but about the revelation of higher knowledge and learning how to come into the presence of God, accessing knowledge from Him and becoming like Him.

It might also be recounted that it has long been known that Joseph Smith’s wife, Emma Hale Smith, scribed for a portion of the translation. In fact, her son, Joseph Smith III, states that his mother told him that “She wrote for Joseph Smith during the work of translation, as did also Reuben Hale, her brother, and O. Cowdery; that the larger part of this labor was done in her presence, and where she could see and know what was being done; that during no part of it did Joseph Smith have any manuscripts or Book of any kind from which to read, or dictate, except the metallic plates, which she knew he had (Joseph Smith III, letter to James T. Cobb, 14 February 1879, Letterbook 2, pp. 85-88, Library-Archives, Community of Christ; also in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:544).
    It was apparent, too, that Joseph could see the spelling of names on the seer stone or interpreters and when he said the name, the scribe wrote it and read it back for correction. Thus, the Joseph had something with him from which he was dictating and against which he could check what his scribes had written. The witnesses are unanimous that he did not have any books, manuscripts, or papers with him during the translation process, a process that involved lengthy periods of dictation, sometimes lasting many hours.

Verifying this, a correspondent from the Chicago Times interviewed David Whitmer (left) on 14 October 1881 and got essentially the same account: "Mr. Whitmer emphatically asserts as did Harris and Cowdery, that while Smith was dictating the translation he had no manuscript notes or other means of knowledge save the seer stone and the characters as shown on the plates, he being present and cognizant how it was done” (Chicago Times, 17 October 1881, as given in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, p76; Whitmer's reply to J. W. Chatburn, as reported in Saints' Herald vol.29, 15 June 1882, and reproduced in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 92).
    During her scribing, Emma states that “Joseph could not pronounce the name ‘Sariah’ and one time, where it speaks of the walls of Jerusalem, he stopped and said, 'Emma, did Jerusalem have walls surrounding it?' When I informed him it had, he replied, 'O, I thought I was deceived.'”(In the Briggs and Etzenhouser interview, Saints' Herald 31, June 21, 1884, as given in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, pp126-27; Chicago Tribune, 17 December 117, p885, as given in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, p174; Whitmer also mentioned the walls-of-Jerusalem incident in a conversation with M. J. Hubble, on 13 November 13, 1886, as given in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, p211).
    Now, since both the name Sariah and Jerusalem’s walls appear early in the Book of Mormon. In fact, the handwriting when Sariah’s name is first used in 1 Nephi is not Emma’s but Oliver Cowdery’s, and the handwriting when Jerusalem’s walls are first mentioned in 1 Nephi is also not Emma’s and is likely that of one of the Whitmer brothers. Thus, since it is known from the handwriting on the original Book of Mormon manuscript that Emma did not scribe for 1 Nephi, this means that Emma assisted Joseph at the beginning of Lehi’s story in the lost 116 pages and was thus his first scribe in the work of translation.
(See the next post, “Why Did the Nephites Have Temples? – Part II, for more on the purpose of the Nephite temple beyond offering sacrifices)

Why Did the Nephites Have Temples? – Part I

Sometimes it seems we do not ask questions of things we read in the scriptural record when we should. As an example, when reading that Jacob said the Nephites were on an island (2 Nephi 10:20), or when Nephite’s ship was “driven forth before the wind towards the promised land” (1 Nephi 18:8,9), or that “some who died with fevers,” which fevers were treated by “many plants and roots which God had prepared” (Alma 46:40), etc., how often do we stop and ask questions of these things as to their deeper meanings?
    Unfortunately, these phrases just roll off the tongue or through the mind without further contemplation. This may be from familiarity because of numerous readings, or perhaps disinterest, but either way, we do not stop to ask ourselves, why was this written in the extremely condensed abridgement of the ancient record? Often, we just keep reading with the meaning and purpose of so many phrases and statements seldom considered, let alone researched to know their meaning and value, and to better understand their full import.

Solomon’s Temple, known as the First Temple, which was over 300 years old during Lehi's time

Another example is Nephi’s building of a temple like unto Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. He stated in some detail, “And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine” (2 Nephi 5:16).
    In all of these, certain questions ought to be asked and answers sought, such as with the first examples: “Why were the Nephites on an island and not a continent?” or “Why are we told the ship was driven forth before the wind on two repetitive verses?” or “What is the cure for fevers that occur frequently during some seasons of the year, and where are such cures (plants or herbs) found?”
    In the case of Nephi building a temple like Solomon’s, the question should be “Why did the Nephites have temples? Was it so they could render sacrifices like the Old Testament Hebrews? In such a case, there would be a tendency to see the people of the Book of Mormon like the people of the Old Testament, thinking that the temple for them was just about sacrifices. After all, the Nephites did live the law of Moses (Jacob 4:5), which points to temple sacrifice.
    However, in reality, the temple served a far greater, or at least as great a, purpose in another way than just one of sacrifice. The next question then would be, “What purpose might have existed beyond performing sacrifices?”
    The answer to this may be found in a book written that compiled documents of early Mormon history and was licensed from the Joseph Smith Papers Project, by Intellectual Reserve, Inc., in which the story told by Joseph Smith, Sr., is recounted. According to the story line of the book, this event involving a man named Fayette Lapham, may well be a key to learning the answer to the question (Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon, Oxford University Press, New York, 2019).

It might be of interested to know that Apostle Franklin D. Richards (left) once overheard the Prophet Joseph relate information from the first 116 pages translated (Book of Lehi) and were subsequently lost by Martin Harris. Not surprisingly, the Prophet also shared such information with his father, Joseph Smith, Sr. In turn, Joseph Sr. evidently shared some of that information in an 1830 interview with 36-year-old Palmyra resident Fayette Lapham.
    Lapham was born in Coxsacki, New York, in 1794, and married Lucy Ramsdell, dying in 1872, in Egypt, New York. His  published interview gives information about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (like the correct translation order of the small plates and Mormon’s abridgment) that it took scholars another century to discover. Joseph, Sr. also gave Lapham details of the stories of Lehi, Nephi, and Mosiah I that cannot be found in the available Book of Mormon text but have the marks of genuineness. These new details fit those stories hand-in-glove and answer questions raised by the available Book of Mormon text.
    Lapham’s article "Interview with the Father of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet,” which he wrote forty years after the event, including his account of “the Finding of the Sacred Plates,” was given in 2017 to Mark Ashurst-McGee, a scholar with the Joseph Smith Papers Project, to review. Ashurst-McGee, who has given Lapham’s interview account the closest analysis, identifies some errors in Lapham’s account but concludes from his accurate reporting of many other confidential details that Lapham must have made use of contemporaneous interview notes.
    In the 1870 article, Lapham wrote: “I think it was in the year 1830, when I heard that some ancient records had been discovered that would throw some new light upon the subject of religion; being deeply interested in the matter, I concluded to go to the place with my brother-in-law, Jacob Ramsdell, and learn for myself the truth of the matter” (Fayette Lapham, The Historical Magazine and Notes and Queries concerning the Antiquities, History, and Biography of America, vol.7, no.5, May 1870, pp305-309; Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vol.1, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1996, pp456-466).

They then traveled to the Smith family home along the border of Palmyra and Manchester, in Wayne County, New York. Not finding Joseph at home, they inquired of his father Joseph Smith, Sr. (eft) the information they sought.
    Of this meeting, Lapham wrote: “In reply to our question, concerning the ancient records that had been found, he [Joseph Smith Sr.,] remarked that they had suffered a great deal of persecution on account of them; that many had been there for that purpose, and had made evil reports of them, intimating that perhaps we had come for a like purpose; but, becoming satisfied of our good intentions and that we only sought correct information, he gave us the following history, as near as I can repeat his words.”
    After recounting to Lapham the coming forth of the Book of Mormon Joseph, Sr. then described Lehi’s journey to the New World and related several of the book’s other narratives. According to Lapham, an occurrence took place prior to Mosiah leaving the city of Nephi (Omni 1:12-13), which was referred to by Amulek, the man that befriended Alma and ended up teaching with the prophet (Alma 8:29-30;9:1).

Amulek (left) began his preaching with Alma, saying “I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi; and it was the same Aminadi who interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God” (Alma 10:2). In this incident, Amulek assumed his audience knew the name of Aminadi, and Mormon also must have assume the ancient prophet was so well-known as to be include him in his abridgement of Lehi’s record without adding any explanation of who Aminadi was for his audience, the latter-day reader.
    Evidently, Mormon could assume his audience, the latter-day reader, would know the story only if he had told it in a portion of his abridgment not currently available to us—in other words, the lost 116 pages Joseph referred to as the Book of Lehi. Obviously, Mormon did not know that those pages would be lost, nor why he found the Small Plates with a repeat of abridgement of Lehi’s record, but assumed it was “for a wise purpose” (Words of Mormon 1:6-7), which, of course, it turned out to be when Martin Harris lost the record of Lehi.
    Thus, this event, which is described as happening at least three generations, and likely more than that, by an aged Amulek, prior to 80 BC, making its occurrence prior to the time Mosiah left the city of Nephi and, evidently, sometime before that.
    The only way Mormon could assume that his future readers would be knowledgable of Aminadi was because he had written of the incident in his earlier abridgement—and that would have been in the lost 116 pages. So let us take a look at what Amulek says about the “writing on the wall” incident and what it tells us about the Nephite temple.
(See the next post, “Why Did the Nephites Have Temples? – Part II, for more on the purpose of the Nephite temple beyond offering sacrifices)

The Panama Uplift and the Closing of the Central American Seaway – Part II

Continued from the last post regarding additional information and effect of the uplift of the Isthmus of Panama and the closing of the Panama Seaway to see the reality of this event, as well as that of other effects of land mass uplift in South America.

Underwater volcanoes lifted to eventually form islands above the surface, which raising lands filled with sediment creating the isthmus now known as Panama

As stated in the last post, the shallowing and eventual closure of the Panama “gateway” and creation of the Isthmus of Panama, where both continents become connected by land, strengthened the “Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation,” a current that transports warm equatorial waters north and is responsible for Europe’s mild winters, and plays a crucial role in the shaping of our modern climate system. This uplift occurred when the sea floor was lifted up in volcanoes created from the tectonic plates colliding and the Andean Plate over riding the Nazca plate, forcing the latter downward.
    This was first suggested in 1910 by North American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, the American paleontologist and geologist, and president of the American Museum of Natural, who based his proposal on the fossil record of mammals in Central America (Osborn, The Age of Mammals in Europe, Asia and North America, Macmillan Co., New York, 1910, p80. This conclusion then provided a foundation for Alfred Wegener who proposed the theory of continental drift in 1912 (Wegener, “The Origins of Continents,” Milestones in Geosciences, Journal of Earth Science, vol.9, S4-S17.”
    What is now Panama lies on the boundaries of the South and North American, Caribbean and Cocos plates, and collisions between these huge masses led to rises in the seafloor and the formation of underwater volcanoes, which eventually emerged above the water line (Christine D. Bacon, et. al., “Biological evidence supports an early and complex emergence of the Isthmus of Panama,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol.112, no.19, May 12, 2015, pp6110-6115). As these volcanoes rose and grew in size, the sea became shallow enough that deep water exchange between the Pacific and Atlantic ceased, leading to a reorganization of oceanic currents.
    In fact, Cornelia Class, a geochemist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and Esteban Gazel, a Lamont adjunct researcher now based at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, are looking into one of the most mysterious forces at work on the natural construction site of the Galápagos Plume, a long-lived hot upwelling of material from the deep earth that melts near the surface and has formed strings of volcanoes, both underwater and as ocean islands. Geologists believe that anciently, this Plume rested below Central America, and has since migrated beneath the Galápagos.
    Coming from earth's mantle, dozens of miles down, the still-active plume is similar to hotspots of magma that percolate under Hawaii and Yellowstone. It is believed to have started with huge outpourings of lava under what is now the Caribbean, but due mainly to the movement of tectonic plates above, has since migrated some 600 miles south and west into the Pacific.
    In trying to unravel Earth’s history from the rocks, which normally are buried far below the surface or lie deep on the ocean floor, here sit on more or less dry land, offering an unusual window into the processes of the deep earth (Kevin Krajick, “The Isthmus of Panama: Out of the Deep Earth,” The Earth Institute, Columbia University, April 1, 2014).
    In fall 2012, Class and Gazel hunted for rocks created by the plume on Panama's Azuero peninsula, which juts into the Pacific Ocean.
    It is along the coast, with its constant tectonic uplift and violent erosion, where rocks are most exposed. But with lack of roads and other obstacles, few sites are accessible by land. This wind-torn islet was reachable at low tide after a hike through the woods. It was volcanic in origin, and the rocks in this part of Panama are a complicated mélange, representing the complex history of the isthmus.

Left: Picrite; Right: Olivine

From their heavily weathered exteriors, it is hard to tell one kind of rock from another until they are broken, looking the tiny crystals of Picrite—a type of igneous rock that crystallizes as magma from the mantle heads upward. Generally formed on the seafloor, Picrite contains sparkly yellowish-green crystals of Olivine, a typical mantle-derived mineral not seen in rocks formed nearer the surface.
    From these, the history of the Panama Isthmus is slowly unravelling. While scientists have known of these events and the rising of Panama and the forming of the isthmus, cutting off the seaway between North and South America, they have unfortunately automatically bought into and promoted the view that this happened millions of years ago. However, since we know this world was not formed millions of years ago, then the point of all of this is to show the time frame in its more accurate era—one which agrees with the Biblical times provided by the Lord as He dictated them to Moses, which is not a popular idea among elitist, scientists, and people who accept their views.
    This is a very difficult thing for people to do whose entire life has been inculcated with an understanding that the world is billions of years old. However, since we have been assured by the Lord that it is not anywhere near that age, we need to realize how old it is so that we can then place events, factual or speculated upon, as to when they fit within the accurate age limits.

A fossilized tree leaf found by paleontologists during a project to recover fossils during the Panama Canal expansion, is displayed in Panama City, April 26, 2013 

Recently, during a new expansion of the Panama Canal in 2007, when an eight-year construction effort to expand the canal took place, with the removal of sediment from the canal, numerous new outcrops were exposed, providing an unparalleled opportunity for additional studies on the timing and dynamics of the Isthmus formation. During this time 20-million-year-old fossilized trees were discovered, and immediately the scientists involved decided that this showed the isthmus creation was 20 million years old—but since that did not jive with their view of the isthmus forming about 3 million years ago, they decided that there must have been an earlier closing isthmus, then a reopening of it, and then a final closing.
    In fact, in the 1970s, high-resolution paleoceanographic data available from deep-sea cores began to show that an isthmus, that is “a narrow portion of land, enclosed on each side by water, and connecting two larger bodies of land,” was in place only relatively recently, around 3 million years ago” (Lloyd D. Keigwin, Jr., “Pliocene closing of the Isthmus of Panama, based on biostratigraphic evidence from nearby Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea cores,” Geology Journal, Geological Society of America,  Boulder Colorado, vol.6, 1978, pp.630–634). In addition, it is believed that the Pliocene Epoch existed as recently as 2.58 million years ago—and in Biblical time, that would be quite recent, perhaps even comparable to the time of the crucifixion and the tumult and destruction described in 3 Nephi.
    You see, nobody was around 20 million years ago, and no diagrams or history of a closure exists or could possibly be known, yet scientists still speculate and hypothesize on what the finding meant. The problem is, they never look beyond their firm, fixed belief that the world is billions of years old, therefore, the only meaning that could be attached to the fossilized trees is that they had grown where they were found and then later were drowned and fossilized there as the sea bed rose and fell through the next 15-17 million years.

Matter Unorganized

However, other explanations are possible—such as the fossils came from another extinct world; they were part of the matter unorganized used to form this world; they were destroyed not by the sinking of an earlier isthmus but by a devastating Flood, or through some other means; the dating is inaccurate, etc. Without any intention of looking further, the chances of finding what that truly meant may never be discovered and known.
    The formation of the Isthmus of Panama stands as one of the greatest natural events of geologic history, driving profound biotic transformations on land and in the oceans (Aaron O’Dea, et.al., “Formation of the Isthmus of Panama,” U.S. Geological Society, Science Advances, vol.2, no.8, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences Publishers, Washington DC, 17 August 2016).
    Note that this discovery has been widely heralded as a new set of data that “has revised our understanding of the rise of the Isthmus and its consequences,” but no thought that more than a revision, such as a brand new understanding, is ever considered. The point is, however, that the Isthmus now seen connecting North and South America, only occurred in recent history. The same is true of other areas where the Amazon Basin lifted up above the surface and the ocean was pushed back—all at the time of the crucifixion as described in 3 Nephi, not a popular belief among scientists, but nevertheless and certain answer for the many unanswered questions of the Earth’s history.
-->

The Panama Uplift and the Closing of the Central American Seaway – Part I

As discussed in the last post, most scientists, historians and scholars are conditioned by their training and the strict criteria of their profession. When that training insists that the world is 4.55 billion years old and it takes eons of time for the features of the Earth to change, then these professionals interpret all matters based on that single, and to them, unquestionable fact.
    As an example, most geologists agree that there was once a flow-through waterway between what is now Central America and South America—it was called the Central American Seaway, also known as the Panamanic Inter-American and Proto-Caribbean Seaway, or just plain Panama Seaway, was a body of water that once separated North America from South America.

The Great Panamanian Seaway, a single tropical ocean between North and South America 

At that point in time, what is now Panama and much of Central America, was then under water or, more accurately, much of this land mass was yet to form, and water flowed freely between these two climatically important ocean basins—the Pacific and Caribbean Basins.
    Naturally, the position of continents or large land masses, drifting around the Earth’s surface would have a major impact on the climate. The positioning of continents naturally affects the shape and size of the oceans, and crucially, the currents that flow within them that transport energy (in the form of heat) to different parts of the globe. It also effects the direction and manner in which wind currents flow over the lands and the oceans.
    Thus, in the shoaling (shallowing) of the flow-through ocean, or the Panama Seaway, any closure of that “gateway” that would connect the two land masses of North and South America, would obviously affect in some ways the ocean currents, winds, and climate those waters bring. In the case of the forming of the Isthmus of Panama, a warm (or tropical) current from the Caribbean flowing northeastward was established, without mixture with the colder Pacific currents, creating the Gulf Stream (North American Drift) that warmed the eastern seaboard of North America as well as western Europe.

Closing the “gate” of the Panamanian Seaway diverted Pacific Currents to flow back into the Pacific, and the Gulf Currents to flow northward

The emerging of the Central American landmass, as a result of the volcanic Isthmus of Panama rising up from the sea floor and bridging the formerly separated continents and the closing of the Central American Seaway can be divided into four categories.
1. Direct geologic observation of crustal thickening and submarine deposits in Central America.
2. The Great American Interchange, which is the interchange of vertebrates between North and South America which required a continuous land bridge across the two areas for the organisms to travel along with a climate that was very different than the climate today.
3. Different histories of the oceans on either side of the isthmus, with formation of the Isthmus of Panama is recorded by changes in the chemistry, composition, and structure of sediments and fossils in deep sea and coastal rock records across the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
4. Development of differences in marine assemblages and their isotopic signatures in the Caribbean from those in the Pacific.
    In this last issue, the interchange is visible from observation of both biostratigraphy and nature, with its most dramatic effect seen in the zoogeography of mammals, including marsupials, but also provided opportunity for reptiles, amphibians, arthropods (insects, arachnids, myriapods and crustaceans), weak-flying or flightless birds and even freshwater fish to migrate. In fact, in the deep ocean, divergences in neodymium isotopes and benthic foraminifera (taxa) between Caribbean and Pacific sites, as well as an abrupt increase in the Pacific carbonate compensation depth, provide strong evidence that deepwater connection was shut off with the deepest part of the sill of the Panama Arc must shoaled to around  have shoaled to less than 4,000 feet.

After the Isthmus of Panama formed, animals and plants could move back and forth between continents, the Great American Biological Interchange. Smithsonian scientists are debating when this happened.                                    Image: Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute 

According to geologists and palaeoceanographic scientists, an ocean once covered the area where Panama is today. There was a gap between the continents of North and South America through which the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans flowed freely. Beneath the surface, two plates of the Earth’s crust were colliding into one another, forcing the Pacific Plate to slide under the Caribbean Plate. The pressure and heat caused by this collision led to the formation of underwater volcanoes, some of which grew tall enough to break the surface of the ocean and form islands which became filled in between.
    As more volcanic islands rose to fill in the area as the movement of the two tectonic plates pushed up the sea floor, eventually forcing some areas above sea level. This created the current Panama Isthmus, enabling an interchange to occur.
    This interchange was first discussed in 1876 by the "father of biogeography,” Alfred Russel Wallace, British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist, who spent 1848-1852 exploring and collecting specimens in the amazon Basin. In addition, the fossil discoveries of Florentino Ameghino, an Argentine naturalist, paleontologist, anthropologist and zoologist, and the most important founding figure in South American paleontology also played an important role in the ancient Seaway discovery. William D. Matthew, with his work in mammal fossils; William B. Scott, a vertebrate paleontologist and professor of geology and paleontology at Princeton; Bryan Patterson, an American paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; and George Gaylord Simpson, the most influential paleontologist of the 20^th century, also contributed to the studies and finding of the ancient Seaway.
    It should be noted that while almost all geologists, anthropologists and paleontologists agree that the Seaway once subsisted, the controversy today is based on not whether it existed, but when it took place. Typically, it is proposed by those who have developed this theory, that the Seaway closed between 3.5 to 2.8 million years ago.

The major tectonic plates involved in the closing of the Seaway were the Cocos, Nazca, Panama, and North Andean; in addition, the microplates of Galapagos and Caribbean were also part of this tectonic activity

As for the tectonic aspect of the closing, the Southern Caribbean geology is a very complex product of three colliding tectonic plates and their interactions. These geological processes drive both the generation and movement of terrestrial landmasses of this area, which in turn control the distribution, migration and ultimately, the evolution of terrestrial biotas. The colliding and moving of these three plates resulted in the rising of the area now known as the Panama Isthmus and lower Central America.
    Even though the geological build-up of Panama occurred over a small spatial scale, it produced major palaeoceanographic, climatic, biogeographic and evolutionary changes that have attracted the attention of researchers for a long time. Before the closure, the separation of North and South America provided a tropical seaway between the Atlantic and Pacific that remained open until the Isthmus of Panama formed “in the relatively recent past.”
(See the next post, “The Panama Uplift and the Closing of the Central American Seaway – Part II,” for additional information and effect of the uplift of the Isthmus of Panama and the closing of the Panama Seaway to see the reality of this event, as well as that of other effects of land mass uplift in South America)