Understanding the Shorter Route in the Southern Ocean – Part I

Having made a comment in one of our previous articles to which one of our Readers found quite humorous, and critically responded to, it is obvious that he missed the point of the article. This issue regarding the distance around the globe in the Southern Ocean, which is important enough to keep responding to whenever it is challenged with inaccurate or erroneous comments and information.
    In this case, the distance around the globe at the equator where some theorists want to Lehi to cross, is of considerably longer than around the Southern Ocean, which we propose since that is where the winds and currents flow, and is of great interest and importance to the sea route Lehi took to the Land of Promise.
    Often we receive comments, critical of the South American Land of Promise since it is not in the mainstream of most theorists’ thinking, and just as often, those comments are based on unknowledgeable and completely erroneous ideas. Consequently, we reply with a detailed answer for the benefit of those interested.
    The reader’s comments follow:
• Reader: "You wrote: The world is round, and like a ball, the closer one comes to either pole, the shorter the circumference until it [the circumference] is zero." LOL! You flunked geometry. A circumference of zero for a globe. Ha ha ha.”

The parallel latitude circle around the globe is the longest at the equator, and higher and lower latitude circles shorten as they move toward either pole

Response: Glad you enjoyed the laugh. The term “zero” was used more or less as a euphemism to avoid having to explain in detail what was being discussed (which we will now do below)—“zero” made the point quite well earlier in stressing understanding that the distance around the globe or planet is considerably reduced as one travels toward the poles (higher latitudes). In fact, a degree of longitude is widest at the equator with a distance of 69.172 miles; however, “the distance gradually shrinks to zero as they meet at the poles” (Matt Rosenberg, “What Is the Distance Between Degrees of Latitude and Longitude?” Navigating the Earth, One Degree at a Time, ThoughtCo., Dotdash Publishing, 2018).
    In addition, after two years, a geoid map was produced by the European Space Agency GOCE satellite showing that the Earth is not really a sphere (or globe), because the gravity is not uniform, with the shape of the planet being affected everyday by such factors as wind, currents and tides, showing that such gravity is higher in the north, such as in Iceland, than say in Arabia or India in the south.
    It should also be noted that the mean radius of Earth is 3,959 miles, with the planet’s rotation causing it to bulge at the equator. Earth’s equatorial diameter is 7,926 miles, but from pole to pole, the diameter is 7,900 miles. At the same time, the circumference of Earth at the equator is about 24,902 miles, but from pole-to-pole—the meridional circumference—Earth is only 24,860 miles around.
    This shape, caused by the flattening at the poles, is called an oblate spheroid, and thus the Earth’s equatorial circumference is greater than its polar circumference—that is, the circumference of the Earth at the 60^th parallel north or south (60º north/60º south latitude) is approximately half as long as the Equator. This means that any travel, moving east or west, by ship or otherwise across the Pacific at the equator, would take twice as long as, say, a voyage taken at 60º south latitude.

The closer one gets to the poles, the shorter the distance around the world—if one traveled to either pole, the latitude would be 90º—since each parallel of latitude represents about 69 miles apart from one another, the distance around the 90º latitude would be negligible relating to actual, measurable distance

Consequently, as a ship takes an east-west route at higher latitude, the ship travels a shorter distance than at lower latitudes, even to Latitude 0 at the equator. This is the principle that makes the Southern Ocean such a viable racing route for International Sailing races (Vandée Globe; Volvo Ocean Race; Southern Ocean Dash; Global Ocean Race, etc).  The fact that the winds and currents also move faster in the Southern Ocean is another reason in using this ocean for races.
    Thus when you stated in your critique of our article, that it would be longer going the Southern Ocean to South America, than the Atlantic Ocean to Florida, you were not correct. In addition, it is interesting that you did not bother to react to that concept of the Southern Ocean being such a shorter distance around the globe, which made Lehi’s trip much shorter in distance and time via the Southern Ocean showing that route would have been far better than the one you champion moving north to south along meridians.
• Reader: “I assume you meant the "Great Circle."
Response: No, we did not. The “Great Circle” is any circle drawn on a globe or sphere with a center that includes the center of the globe. This means that the only latitudinal line that is a “great circle” is the equator. Of course, all longitudinal lines are “great circles.” Further, great circles are easily based on the lines of latitude and longitude, with each longitude, or meridian, being the same length and representing half of a great circle. This is because each meridian has a corresponding line on the opposite side of the Earth. When combined, they cut the globe into equal halves, representing a great circle. For example, the Prime Meridian at 0° is half of a great circle. On the opposite side of the globe is the International Date Line at 180°, which also represents half of a great circle. When the two are combined, they create a full great circle which cuts the Earth into equal halves.
    However, lines of latitude, or parallels, characterized as a great circle is only the equator because it passes through the exact center of the Earth and divides it in half. Lines of latitude north and south of the equator are not great circles because their length decreases as they move toward the poles and they do not pass through Earth's center. As such, these parallels are considered small circles.
    Therefore, our article was not referring to great circles, but to the latitude lines on a globe decreasing in length as the latitudes get higher (approaches the poles).
• Reader: “That's easy for jet planes to travel, not so much for ships.”

Longitude Lines merge at 90º as opposed to Latitude Lines which are always the same distance apart. It is obvious from the right side globe that the horizontal distance between the two Longitude Lines is different the further one moves away from the equator. The a ship sailing in the Southern Ocean travels a far shorter distance than one traveling longitudinal north and south up the Atlantic

 

Response: Air miles and distance traveled are based upon an entirely different criteria—planes fly a direct route, but also do so in a circular manner in the sky from takeoff to landing. On the other hand, a ship sails on the surface of the planet, and is both a direct horizontal and vertical route. In addition, on the surface of the planet, while degrees of latitude are parallel so the distance between each degree remains almost constant at abut 69 miles, but since degrees of longitude are farthest apart at the equator and converge at the poles, their distance varies greatly. As an example, the distance between 30º longitude and 60º longitude at the equator is 2,075.16 miles.
    From the area of Oman (Salalah) where Nephi’s ship sailed, through the sea of Arabia, the Indian Ocean into the Southern Ocean (a gradual arc from west to east in the direction of the several gyres and currents in those areas), there is an open ocean with no obstacles. Sailing as Nephi stated, “driven forth before the wind” is a direct route, again, taken by numerous ships, beginning with the early trading vessels, then the clipper ships and today with International racing regattas, and easily mapped and sailed and have been for generations.
(See the next post, “Understanding the Shorter Route in the Southern Ocean – Part II,” for more of the critique of a Reader and our responses regarding sailing through the shorter route of the Southern Ocean for Lehi)

Another Attempt to Discredit Frederick G. Williams – Part II

Continued from the previous post, regarding the overall Land of Promise the Lord kept from those sight of man during the period after the Flood until the Europeans arrived in the Western Hemisphere in the 15^th century. We are covering the last of the comments made by a Reader trying to minimize Frederick G. Williams’ written comment about Lehi’s landing, and cause dissension for not upholding Joseph Smith’s claimed statements about North America.
• Reader: “Didn't Joseph Smith state during Zions Camp they were traveling across the "plains of the Nephites. "Didn't Joseph Smith state the mounds and bones they encountered were "proof"?”

Route of Zion’s Camp, from New Portage, Ohio, just south of Kirtland, to Liberty, Missouri—a distance of about 900 miles

Response: First, regarding the Plains of the Nephites, Joseph did not say this; secondly, he did not discuss this to our knowledge with anyone at Zion’s Camp. He wrote this in a reminiscing letter to his wife, Emma, in which he stated in part: “The whole of our journey…wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.”
    First of all, this “proof” was the proof of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, not where Lehi landed, or where Lehi lived, etc. He also during Zion’s Camp stated verbally a vision he had of who Zelph was—a white Lamanite who served under the Prophet Onandagus, etc. They saw a Lamanite’s remains, heard Joseph state that this had been where Nephites had roamed, etc.
    Now, one should keep in mind, which the reader seems to neglect to do, that in 55 BC, Hagoth built extremely large ships in which many Nephites and some Lamanites set sail for “a land which was northward,” many of which were never heard from again. Consequently, according to Mormon’s abridgement, there were Nephites and Lamanites that went northward and were lost to the knowledge of the Nephites in the Land of Promise (Lehi’s “isle” of promise). Their destination was northward—north of Andean South America is Central America, Mesoamerica, and North America, all of which had descendants of the Lamanites within those borders by the time the Europeans arrived.

Map showing Lehi’s landing site at Coquimbo Bay/La Serena, Chile, at 30º South Latitude; Nephi’s fleeing north to escape his brothers, the major events taking place between 600 BC and 421 AD; and Hagoth’s ships (yellow arrow) sailing northward

• Reader: “The Prophet Joseph Smith stated these things were "proof" of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and you set the geography of Book of Mormon in Ecuador. All based on the unimpeachable character of Frederick G. Williams?”
    Response: First, Andean South America covers not only Ecuador, but Peru, central to northern Chile, and western Bolivia. Second, surely you are aware that Jacob, speaking to the Nephites in the Temple during a two-day conference, stating:
1. That they were on an island (2 Nephi 10:20);
2. There were others of the House of Israel on other islands or locations (2 Nephi 10:21);
3. These were of the House of Israel whom God had led away from time to time (2 Nephi 10:22).
    The point is, as stated by several prophets of the Church, and some during their Temple dedicatory prayers in these distant lands, that the entire Western Hemisphere is the land of promise. Thus, starting in the south with the landing, and moving northward through Central and Mesoamerica, and into North America, we find that Nephites and Lamanites occupied all these areas, making all of Joseph Smith’s comments about Nephites in South America, Central America, and North America, accurate.
    There is no impugning anyone’s character.
• Reader: “I also believe Frederick G. Williams character is unimpeachable. I have no proof otherwise. But it doesn't mean he could have written something down incorrectly from his memory.”

Cafeteria style views, i.e., picking and choosing which things are correct and which are not

Response: As the saying goes, anything is possible. However, since Joseph’s scribes are not known for misquoting him and writing down the things he said incorrectly in official Church assignments, etc., one has to be reaching pretty far to decide this one particular sentence was copied down wrong. If we do that, cafeteria-style picking and choosing what we accept and what we do not, we then are free to pick and choose what doctrines we think are accurate and God-inspired and what doctrines we believe have been misquote and mis-written.
    That is not a path we care to trod, nor do we recommend it to anyone.
• Reader: “That doesn't make his character unimpeachable. So what do you believe?”
Response: We believe, as Joseph Smith stated, that men are human and are subject to the frailties of temporal life. Some are better than others, and those the Lord calls, He calls to do a job in which the vast majority serve and complete their callings admirably. We also believe it is not up to us or any member to pick and choose what someone officially says or writes in those positions we decide to accept and what we decide not to accept.
• Reader: “Do you think the Prophet Joseph Smith was wrong? That he made stuff up about mounds and bones just to keep his men together? That he lied? I certainly hope not.”
Response: We believe all that Joseph Smith stated was true when speaking as a prophet. We also believe that Joseph Smith, like all of us, had opinions, and sometimes speculated on matters when stating his personal views, as all Church members and leaders have always done. Joseph even made statements about that, as we have recorded numerous times. We also accept the comment made by Frederick G. Williams which he wrote down. We also believe these two issues are not contradictory nor exclusive. They merely point out what so many other Church leaders have said over the years, North, Central and South America are all the promised land. And as far as we read the scriptural record, it bears this out.
• Reader: “Yet, you take a written statement from Williams…”

Kirtland Temple, where an angel attended the Dedicatory Prayer

Response: You muse not know that Williams never said, nor did he imply at any time, that the information written on the piece of paper was something Joseph Smith told or dictated to him. He never claimed it was a revelation to the Church or that it came from Joseph Smith. He did say, however, that the written statement came to him via a statement received from an angel that appeared in the Kirtland Temple during the dedicatory meeting and prayer and sat down between himself and Joseph Smith Sr. That several others recorded seeing the angel, including leaders of the time, suggests the event happened. It was even announced from the pulpit at this meeting after the angel left the temple.
• Reader: “…while ignoring numerous statements from Joseph Smith, then you dedicate hours and hours trying to prove to everyone that the Book of Mormon occurred in present day Northern South America. Whatever!”
Response: We do not claim that Lehi’s “isle of promise” was in northern South America. That would limit the area to Colombia and Ecuador. The location of the Land of Promise Lehi inherited was in West central South America, referred to as Andean South America, which includes Ecuador, Peru, western Bolivia and central to northern Chile. The fact that you want to make these events mutually exclusive is what creates the difficulty and the lack of understanding.
    When you put together all that has been said and written about the subject, it all makes sense and the entire Western Hemisphere was the area where Nephites and Lamanites later roamed; however, the written record in the Book of Mormon is about the specific part of the Land of Promise given to first the Jaredites (northern part) and then to Lehi (the southern part), and was only a portion of the overall lands that were kept “a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2).
    It might be of interest to keep this in mind in understanding the overall promised land mentioned by Moroni regarding the land “that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2). In fact, there are in this sense many finite lands of promise in the larger land of promise. This is why the prophet Jacob can speak of the house of Israel in the latter days being “restored to the true church and fold of God; when they shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise” (2 Nephi 9:2). The covenant the Lord made with Israel concerns their “restoration to the lands of their inheritance” (2 Nephi 6:11; 3 Nephi 29:1). Each part of the land of promise is both the land and a land since they are parts of the whole.
    Thus, that portion of the Land of Promise given to Lehi, was only a small part of the overall land dedicated by the Lord for His purposes, namely the entire North and South American continents, or the Western Hemisphere.

Another Attempt to Discredit Frederick G. Williams – Part I

Some would say that repeating information or continuing to state information oln the same subject is like “beating a dead horse,” but this idea of trying to discredit Frederick G. Williams, because of erroneous claims that he copied down a statement by Joseph Smith and then it was claimed to have been a revelation is so inaccurate that, in and of itself, is a major problem in citing information regarding the Book of Mormon and those who organized and led the early Church, that it deserved continual vigilance. However, in addition to this, the idea of this so-called revelation is often the sole reason to discredit the entire concept of South America as the Land of Promise—therefore, it deserves continual correction and exposure for what it is—a fallacious claim without merit or without accuracy.
    Consequently, we deal with it again here since certain theorists, most especially the Heartland and other North American theorists of late use this to discredit South America out of hand.

According to Frederick G. Williams, the course Lehi took south-southeast through the Indian Ocean and then east across the Pacific and landing at 30º South Latitude in Chile

It seems that the information Frederick G. Williams once stated in writing that Lehi sailed south-southeast and landed at 30º south Latitude in Chile really rankles these new Heartland theorists, since they keep harping on it. The problem is, most do not understand the story behind this and wrongly attribute it to either a claimed revelation, which it was not, or a statement made by Joseph Smith, which also it was not. Naturally, when people cannot argue facts, they stoop to trying to defame the character of the person with which they disagree.
Following are the comments made, and we repeat and answer them here, not so much for the person who wrote them, but for others who may not know the facts surrounding Williams’ written note and become misled by such attacks or erroneous information when stated as a factual argument.
• Reader: “You keep stressing the unimpeachable character of Frederick G. Williams."
Response: “unimpeachable” means a person is trustworthy, reliable, dependable, unquestionable, unassailable, etc. Joseph Smith pretty much defined his feelings about Frederick G. Williams in that manner. While we have not described Williams in such a manner, it certain describes accurately the character of Williams from any study of his life.
• Reader: “Yet his written statement about 30 degrees south latitude and thus Chile…” 
Response: Actually, his statement about 30º south latitude perfectly matches the scriptural record and is an exact match for the description Nephi used to describe the area of their landing (1 Nephi 18;24-25). We have written numerous times describing that comparison of Williams location and what Nephite wrote about finding at his site of first landing.
• Reader: “…contradicts statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
Response: Really? The fact of the matter is that Joseph Smith made several comments concerning Book of Mormon geography throughout his life which support both a North American and Central American setting, as well as allowing several opinions of North, South, Central America, and Hemispheric geography of The Book of Mormon to be published, taught, and re-published without any correction. Evidently, Joseph did not “know” exactly where the Book of Mormon took place, so as he and others read about and learned traditions of any Indians that resembled anything in the Book of Mormon, they assumed, and likely correctly, that they were part of Book of Mormon people.
• Reader: “…upon whom you correctly stated in your video that Frederick G. Williams relied upon.”

Joseph Smith (left) and Frederick G. Williams (Right), friends, servants, and members of the original First Presidency

Response: Obviously, those who accepted Joseph as the Prophet relied upon him for information and accuracy. Perhaps that is why Joseph never stated any official comment about where Lehi landed, or what he thought about where the landing took place—only that various areas in North and South America may well have been Nephite lands.
• You: “So who has or doesn't have the unimpeachable character?”
Response: Simple answer is both Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams had and have unimpeachable characters, as clearly stated and shown in their lives by the way they conducted themselves. From all that Joseph Smith said and recorded about his opinions as to where the Lehites were, it would seem that they believed the Book of Mormon took place over all of the Western continent so any and all Indian cultures in North and South America were Book of Mormon peoples.
• Reader: “Your writing seems to discount Joseph Smith and make Frederick G. Williams the more important person. Good job. That should make the prophet's critics proud.”
Response: Our writing of our 10-year running blog with over 3200 posted articles and more than 1,100,000 visitors, show, support, and sustain Joseph Smith as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and that he was both chosen and successfully carried out his assignments from the Lord. As for Frederick G. Williams, he too, appears to have served the Lord admirably in his lifetime, as he was an important figure during the early days of the restoration of the gospel and the organization of The Church. His work and accomplishments are well recorded and he is known with love and admiration throughout most of the world.
    Williams, who is far less known, served as a missionary on the original mission to the Lamanites (1830–1831), was a personal scribe and speech writer to the Prophet Joseph Smith for four years (1832–1836), participated in Zion's Camp (1834), was Second Counselor in the original First Presidency for five years (1832–1837), was the editor of the Church newspapers, helped organize and became a Trustee of the School of the Prophets, was a central figure in the miraculous events surrounding the Kirtland Temple dedication (1836), helped publish the Doctrine and Covenants, published the Church’s hymnals and for twelve years was the principal doctor for the Saints in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois until his death in 1842.

Of him, Joseph Smith, who named his second son after Williams, stated: “Blessed be Brother Frederick, for he shall never want a friend, and his generation after him shall flourish. The Lord hath appointed him an inheritance upon the land of Zion: yea, and his head shall blossom, and he shall be as an olive branch that is bowed down with fruit" (History of the Church, 1:444).
    In fact, Williams family was the only one from the original First Presidency to go west and stay in the Church" (BYU Studies, 12:3:259). Joseph also stated of Williams: “He shall ever have place in my heart, and is ever entitled to my confidence. He is perfectly honest and upright, and seeks with all his heart to magnify his Presidency in the Church.”
    Both these men were exemplary individuals with unimpeachable characters.
    By the way, before one impugn someone, they might want to look into exactly what they have said about what you are impugning.
(See the next post, “Another Attempt to Discredit Frederick G. Williams – Part II,” regarding impugning Williams’ statement about Lehi landing along the 30º South Latitude in Chile, South America, and highlight Joseph’s comments regarding the plains of the Nephites in North America)

The School of the Prophets and South America

We recently received a comment that caused us a light-hearted moment, since it was a criticism that our South America Land of Promise was not mentioned in the School of the Prophets. Other than being received from a Reader who identifies himself a firm believer in the North American models, we are hard pressed to quite understand the purpose and intent of sending us this article to criticize our writing about South America.
    However, we will answer it, in case others out there think that South America, not being mentioned in the School of the Prophets curricula is a damaging blow to our support of South America.
• Reader: “It is very noticeable that there is no mention of South America during Joseph Smith’s School of the Prophets teachings.”

Response: It is interesting that most members of the Church today have little understanding of the purpose and breadth of the teachings involved in the School of the Prophets that was initiated during the winter of 1832-1833. In this, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to organize a school for the purpose of training the brethren in all things pertaining to the gospel and the kingdom of God. In fact, between 1833 and 1884, leaders from time to time organized schools for instructing members in Church doctrine and secular subjects and for discussing political and social issues relevant to the Church's mission. Although they varied greatly in form and purpose, these schools were called Schools of the Prophets, or sometimes Schools of the Elders.
    From the initial school came many of the early leaders of the Church. Another school of the prophets or the elders was conducted by Parley P. Pratt in Jackson County, Missouri (D&C 97:1-6) and similar schools were held shortly after the Saints migrated to the West; however, these were soon discontinued.
    The early lessons were mostly lectures of theology (Lectures of Faith), though their instruction was to include both sacred and secular topics, with Sidney Rigdon the main teacher, but according to Heber C. Kimball, “a certain number were appointed to speak at each meeting.” The discussions dealt with quoting scriptural passages that dealt with the subject. On one occasion, Elder Kimball spoke on a personal experience, and there was a focus on secular subjects.
    However, the school expanded, and eventually offered a combined curricula during the period, which included theology, English grammar, writing, reading, common arithmetic, mathematics, geography, history, debating, singing, foreign languages including Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Elders Sidney Rigdon and William E. McClellin were the teachers of the Kirtland School, being paid $18.00 per month to teach. The school was conducted under the immediate care and inspection of Joseph Smith, F.G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery, who were Trustees. Their notice stated: “The Trustees of this institution design introducing the higher branches of English literature, at as early a period as possible.”

According to the Journal History (22 Dec), “a grammar school was organized and commenced in Kirtland, Ohio, taught by Sidney Rigdon and Wm. E. McLellin.  It was held especially for the benefit of the young Elders of the Church, many of whom lacked the necessary education as representatives of the Church and missionaries to preach the gospel to the world.” In fact, “T. Burdick’s arithmetic, S. Kirkham’s grammar and J. Olney’s geography have been used, with N. Webster’s dictionary, as standard.”
    It was said at the time, “Speaking of Church members…They had been previously commanded to seek learning and study the best books, and get a knowledge of countries, kingdoms, languages, etc., which inspired them with an extravagant thirst after knowledge.” William McEllen stated: “Since the year 1827 I have taught school in five different States, and I have visited many schools in which I was not engaged, as teacher; but in none, I can say with certainty, have I seen students make more rapid progress, than in this. I expect myself to leave the institution, but yet, I have a great desire to see it flourish. I therefore most cheerfully recommend it to all those whose circumstances and situation will allow them to attend, as being a place where strict attention is paid to good morals as well as to the sciences.”
    In fact, other schools were established to meet the growing needs of the Church members. Women and older children were invited to attend. There were several sessions of the Elder’s School, a Hebrew school was established; and a variety of evening schools were offered.

A major purpose of the School of the Prophets was to increase the faith of Church members: “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). The Setting in which the School of the Prophets was established was a world at the beginning of monumental change.  In his 1991 book The Birth of the Modern, Paul Johnson insightfully described the period between 1815 and 1830 as a time in “which the matrix of the modern world was largely formed.”
    In addition, at this time in the state of Ohio, which became a state in 1803, the population zoomed from 72,000 to over 800,000 by 1826, yet there was little opportunity for education.
    Around this time, on December 27, 1832, a conference of High Priests assembled in the translating room in Kirtland, with Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Orson Hyde, Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith, N. K. Whitney, F. G. Williams, Ezra Thayer and John Murdock present. Joseph Smith stated that “to receive revelation and the blessing of Heaven it was necessary to have our minds on God and exercise faith and become of one heart and of one mind.” 
    The result of this was their receiving a revelation (D&C 88), which called for the organization of the School (70-77,117-119), the mission statement and curriculum of the School (77-80), the rues of personal student conduct (120-126), rules of classroom conduct (127-133), and the ritual of initiation (134-141). Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams were stated to be equal to Joseph in the administration of the School (D&C 90:6-8).
    In 1834, ministerial training resumed under the name Elders School or School for the Elders, with additional sessions held in the winter of 1835-1836.

In all of the curriculum of the School of the Prophets, the Elders’ School, etc., the location of the Book of Mormon peoples, the location of the Jaredite Kingdom and the Nephite Nation, are never mentioned. It was not a topic of the school. So having no mention of South America as the location of Lehi’s landing should not be a surprise to anyone. Yet at the same time, since part of the curriculum was geography, no doubt someone at some time mentioned South America, as well as Central and Mesoamerica.
    Finally, it is interesting that this Reader talked about no mention of South America, when they ignored no mention of the name Cumorah regarding the hill in New York. Joseph’s own words in describing this initially were: “Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box” (Joseph Smith—History 1:51, emphasis added). And again, “The messenger…told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates. Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days” (Joseph Smith—History 1:53-54, emphasis added).
    In fact, in all of Joseph Smith’s History, the name Cumorah is never mentioned. Nor was it mentioned in the School of the Prophets; nor, in fact, was any site given for Lehi’s landing, the lands of the Jaredites or the Nephites described or suggested in the Schools.

The Black Swamp and the Narrow Passage

An interesting comment was received by a Reader regarding a narrow passage in the Heartland of North America that bears a response, since it is a growing area of interest among members and several have opted to accept what is said about this area without checking it out for themselves to see how fallacious are the arguments favoring the North American model as Lehi’s Isle of Promise.
    The comment received was: “Your belief that narrow neck of land or the narrow passage is in Central or South America is way off. You’ve never heard of the Great Black Swamp which extended eastward from Lake Erie? There was also another swamp that extended southward from Lake Michigan. These two swamps created a narrow passage between them. Google them. These swamps were impassable and were not drained until the 1880s. That’s how Bowling Green, OH got its name because it was founded on a high spot in the swamp. And the Great Lakes are the four seas mentioned in The Book of Mormon. No there are not five Great Lakes as Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are the same lake as they have same elevation” S.R.
    Response: First of all, as we have repeatedly written, the narrow neck we state is the narrow pass between the eastern shore of the Gulf of Guayaquil in Ecuador, South America, and the area of the sharply rising sheer Andean mountains about 25 miles further east. This creates a narrow passage even to this day, that runs along almost the entire length of that eastern shore, that in BC times was a great sea. This eastern sea is referred to by geologists as the Pebasian Sea, which extended eastward into the Amazon Sea that emptied into the Atlantic Ocean, and southward into the Paranense and Paranan seas and southeastward into the Atlantic. The Pebasian Sea also ran northward into what is now the Caribbean Sea, all of which created the island that Jacob claimed the Land of Promise was located upon (2 Nephi 10:20).

The Black Swamp or Great Black Swamp (Red Circle) was located in a southwesterly direction from the area of Toledo at the southwest border of Lake Erie and extended almost to Fort Wayne

As for the Black Swamp, it was a glacially fed wetland in northwest Ohio that extended from the eastern end of Lake Erie across Ohio to just short of Fort Wayne, Indiana. The swamp area existed from the end of the Wisconsin glaciation until the late 19th century, when farmers began to drain the swamp for planting. The area  once encompassed extensive swamps and marshes, with some higher, drier ground interspersed. It occupied what was formerly the southwestern part of proglacial Lake Maumee, a Holocene precursor to Lake Erie, covering what is now ten counties, for a distance of about 120 miles in length from the Sandusky River in the east to almost Fort Wayne, Indiana, in the west, and was 30 to 40 miles wide.
    This area was not deep, and ancient elm and ash trees grew with their roots in the standing waters, with massive oaks and hickories on the sandy beach ridges. Windfalls, mostly tumbled trees uprooted by occasional tornadoes, together with the deep, heavy mud, made the region almost impassable for common traffic. No one knows the origin of the name "Black Swamp,” but its ominous remoteness and dark countryside may well have been the cause of the name, though its soil is black and rich.
    This swamp itself was an oozing mass of water, mud, snakes, wolves, wildcats, biting flies, and clouds of gnats and mosquitoes. At 4,800 square miles, it was nearly big enough to cover the entire state of Connecticut. It was an oozing mass of water, mud, snakes, wolves, wildcats, biting flies, and clouds of gnats and mosquitoes. It stretched south of the Maumee River, 30 to 40 miles wide, for 120 miles from the Sandusky River in the east, nearly to Fort Wayne, Indiana, in the west. It crossed the area of ten counties, and was poorly drained by four rivers: the Maumee, the Auglaize, the Portage, and the Sandusky. Water stood in it during the wetter seasons, and moisture oozed underfoot in all but the driest periods. Beginning with the Indians, almost everyone avoided its knee-deep mud and ravenous mosquitoes.

Map showing the cities built up over the past century that surrounds the swamp, with few settlements within it—Bowling Green now sits in the center of the old swamp area

Indian villages ringed the swamp, and a look at any current map shows that later settlements followed their example. Lakeside, Fremont, Findlay, Cairo, Delphos, Van Wert, Fort Wayne, Napoleon, Maumee, and Toledo fall into a clockwise pattern around the old swampland's edges, with Bowling Green in its heart.
    In trying to ride across the swamp, water, often up to the belly of a horse, stood on the surface until it evaporated in the hot summer months. When it rained, or thawed in the winter, it was water and muck. Much of the swamp was covered with a thick forest of giant oak, sycamore, hickory, walnut, ash, elm, maple and cottonwood trees, except in a few prairie areas where limestone just under the surface would not support timber growth.
    However, the water’s depth was quite shallow, attested by the building of a corduroy road constructed through the swamp lands from Fremont, Ohio, to Perrysburgy, Ohio, in the early 1800s—a corduroy road, or timber trackway, is a long road made by placing logs, perpendicular to the direction of the road over a low or swampy area. While these logs shift and difficult for horse travel, the point is the swamp was a shallow area, and would not have restricted the military movement of warriors on the attack.

The Corduroy Road, created by a Scottish engineer and inventor named John MacAdams, soon after the Revolution. It was useful in swamps because it created a road for people and horses cross over and was much smoother riding on than the bumpy and uneven swamps

In addition, gravel and dirt could be placed over the timbers to make a more useful road, and according to the scriptural record of the extensive road networks built by the Nephites (3 Nephi 6:8), such a road would not have been considered impossible for them to have constructed, again, rendering this shallow swamp area no longer a restriction to travel. However, it still would have been restrictive to settlement because of the shifting ground and moisture oozing up through it, which kept it from settlement until the latter half of the 19^th century.
    As for the other swamp that extended south of Lake Michigan, it did not form a “narrow passage between them.” This ancient swamp accessed the short overland portage into the South Branch of the Chicago River, which provided the only total water route from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi during the Spring in a heavy rain year.
    In fact, in 1794, two years before his death, Anthony Wayne, an American Revolutionary General and later U.S. Representative best known for winning the Battle of Fallen Timbers which removed Native American claims to Ohio and the surrounding area, marveled at “the very extensive and highly cultivated fields” that lay at the present site of Defiance, where the Auglaize enters the Maumee. This area, though within the Black Swamp, was planted by local farmers and quite productive.
   Also, Robert Lucas, a Captain in the American Army of whom was said, “As a spy he was productive and brave—as a soldier he had no superior" (Thomas Verchères de Boucherville, War on the Detroit: The Chronicles of Thomas Verchères de Boucherville and the Capitulation by an Ohio Volunteer,” Edited by Milo M. Quaife, Lakeside Press, Chicago, 1940, p314). Lucas later was appointed a Brigadier General in 1810, and much later Governor of Ohio. He crossed the Black Swamp with his men during the War of 1812, spending several nights there, of which soe of his men complained “bitterly of mud that reached their horses’ saddle skirts and that oozed ankle-deep in their tents at night.” General William Hull’s entire army marched completely across the black Swamp from Urbana, Ohio, to Toledo, and then on to Detroit in 1812. The point is, military men, used to uncomfortable and unusual travel problems, crossed the Black Swamp without trouble. It is not conceivable that it would have prevented the Lamanites from crossing it if they had been confronted by it,

Area between the Black Swamp and the Chicago River’s South Branch—the so-called Portage area

There is no indication from the records that this swamp area was anywhere near the Black Swamp in Ohio, and in fact, would have been more than a hundred and 150 miles away—hardly a narrow passage (Brad Olsen, Sacred places, North America: 108 Destinations, CCC Publishing, San Francisco, 2008, p249).
    However, the most important thing here, is the narrow passage mentioned by Mormon, was between the East Sea and the West Sea. In the Heartland or Great Lakes model, the reference of a swamp is not a sea, and these two swamps were nothing more than wetlands interspersed with higher ground islands in a basic marshy terrain—hardly the East or West sea as Mormon describes them.

Meldrum’s map of his Land of Promise. Besides many other problems and misplacements of lands according to Mormon’s descriptions, he has all four seas mentioned in the scriptural record basically north of the entire Land Southward, completely contrary to Mormon and Helaman’s descriptions

As for the Great Lakes, they are listed as being five, because the two lobes of the lakes (Michigan and Huron) were considered then, as now by most people to be two lakes; however, hydrologically they are considered one lake, even though separated by the narrow Straits of Mackinac. However, if you name these “four lakes” the north, east, south and west seas, as is shown in the Heartland theorists’ model, they in no way match the scriptural record and Mormon’s descriptive use of the terms.

Buildings, Palaces, Synagogues, and Houses

Is there anyone with any knowledge of history and ancient people really think that if Lehi had landed in North America and the Nephites settled in the Heartland region along the Mississippi River, specifically in the area of Nauvoo and across the river in the area of today’s Montrose, which the early Saints there called Zarahemla, that there would be no physical evidence of their existence?

General Map of the area, showing Zarahemla in Iowa and across the Mississippi River, the site of Nauvoo in Illinois

After all, the Nephites under their first leader, Nephi, son of Lehi, taught his “people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance“ (2 Nephi 5:15). Nephi also built a temple and “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, emphasis added).
    Does anyone really think there would be absolutely no evidence of such things out in the middle of the plains, that even now are not well populated, with almost all this area still basic farmland.

The first temple in Jerusalem, called Solomon’s Temple, after which Nephi built a temple in the Land of Promise, which he said that “the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon

Does anyone really think that Nephi would have built a temple to his God out of wood that deteriorated away, leaving no trace? Or that the early pioneers destroyed all evidence without leaving a comment as to what they found? Would the Nephites living under the Law of Moses (1 Nephi 1:4; 2 Nephi 5:10) not have built a temple that would have been acceptable to the Lord? After all, the temple of Solomon, which very details plans were given to Solomon by his father, David, said they came from the Lord (1 Chronicles 28:19).
    So where is the remnant or ruins of that building?
    There is no question that the Nephites used heaps of earth to surround the encampments of their armies, where they threw “up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies” (Alma 48:8), and “they had cast up dirt around about to shield them from the arrows and stones of the Lamanites (Alma 49:2,4); and around their cities “he caused that his armies should commence…digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites” (Alma 50:1).
    However, there are numerous scriptural references to non-dirt construction, and non-wood buildings and walls. Such do not disappear without a trace. During BC times in Andean South America, such buildings still exist.

Stonework in Peru dating to about 500 BC. It still stands and is obviously apparent and quite noticeable

So, where are the signs of the many elegant and spacious buildings and the spacious palace (Mosiah 11:9), or the very high tower near the temple (Mosiah 11:12) built in the City of Nephi, or the many buildings built in the land of Shilom (Mosiah 11:13)?
    While we are at it, where are the walls that surrounded the city of Zarahemla (Helaman 1:18,22), or the walls of the prison that tumbled down (wood fences don’t tumble down) in Zarahemla (Helaman 5:27,31), or the walls of Zarahemla that Samuel the Lamanite “stood upon the walls of the city” (you don’t stand on a wood fence) in preaching to the Nephites (Helaman 13:4; 16:1,2,7)?
    Where are the “walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands” (Alma 48:8)? Where are the “ruins of buildings of every kind” (Mosiah 8:8) that marked the great cities and vast civilization of the Jaredites?
    The point is, there is not a single piece of evidence of any of these scriptural descriptions of the vast civilizations that inhabited the Land of Promise. Only mounds are found on the land of North America. Mounds that for the most part were for the burial of the dead—a practice that was in opposition to the Law of Moses and the practice of the Hebrews in Jerusalem (and everywhere else) anciently, who placed their dead in caves, tombs, and catacombs.
    The mounds claimed to have been defensive by theorists, are low, and do not “enclose” people, but were built in order to raise an area where huts were placed upon the top—nothing like that was mentioned in all the scriptural record.

Top: The Monk’s Mound, built in 900 AD, 500 years after the demise of the Nephites, and is the largest mound at the Cahokia site in Illinois a little east of Nauvoo. It is neither a burial mound, nor a decorative mound and evidently had no purpose other than there being a small wooden structure on the top. It neither is like nor matches anything in the scriptural record; Bottom: View from Monk’s Mound looking east across Illinois showing the flat plains

 

In fact, both the Land Northward and the Land Southward were inhabited by millions of people according to the numbers stated in the scriptural record, yet in North America there is not a single sign of any vast civilization of antiquity found anywhere—only mounds of earth, which were unknown in both Jerusalem from which the Mulekites came, and about Jerusalem from which Lehi came, or in Mesopotamia from which the Jaredites came.

The city of Babylon as viewed in 1932 before any renovation work took place. This was built sometime around that of the Jaredites, and was in the land from wench they came

It is always interesting to see how Heartland and other North American theorists always ignore the structures mentioned in the scriptural record that both the Jaredites and Nephites built. Rather than Jared and his brother coming from a start-up society, where building with sticks and thatch was the order of the day, the Jaredites lived in a land where massive ziggurats were built, where stone walls and adobe brick buildings several stories high were built. It is highly unlikely they would have entered their promised land and built with twigs and thatch, which was the early construction of those indigenous natives who first inhabited North America.

Ruins of the North Palace of King Nebuchadnezzar that was built in Lehi’s time and has not been refurbished or reconstructed—it still stands and is very noticeable; the ancient city wall is in the far background and badly in need of repair but also stands (about 3000 years now)

Nor can it be said that Nephi and Sam, living on the outskirts of Jerusalem in 600 BC, would have been unfamiliar with a type of construction of which Nephi writes about in what he taught his people regarding building, and the temple he constructed.

    The fact that no such edifices nor the remains of any such, as well as stone walls surrounding cities and the land, have ever been found in North America, should give pause to any Heartland, Great Lakes or eastern U.S. theorists.

Can a Florida Landing and Heartland of America Land of Promise Be Compared to Andean South America? – Part III

Continued from the previous post in which we are answering several comments submitted by a Reader of our blog regarding their Heartland and Great Lakes theories:
• Reader: “We know from the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites occupied the original Land of Lehi and the land southward. The Nephites occupied the land Northward.”

In loose terms, the Land of Lehi was all that land south of the narrow strip of wilderness, however, onece Nephi fled northward and settled in a land and built the city of Nephi, that land around was called the Land of Nephi; later when Mosiah fled northward and found Zarahemla, the Lamanites changed the name to the city and Land of Lehi-Nephi (the Nephites always called it the Land of Nephi)

Response: The original Land of Lehi, mentioned in the lost 116 pages translated from the gold plates, was to the south of the Land of Nephi, centered around where they first landed and the southern part of that was referred to as the Land of First Inheritance (Mosiah 9:1; Alma 23:28; 54:12). The Land of Nephi, was the land to which Nephi fled to escape from his brothers who sought his life (1 Nephi 5:5-8). Thus, the Land of the Lamanites was southward from the narrow strip of land that separated them from the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 22:27). However, the area the Lamanites occupied was not the entire Land Southward, only that part of the Land Southward south of the narrow strip of wilderness. The Land of Zarahemla to the Land of Bountiful were one the north and also in the Land Southward (Alma 22:29).
    Now, within the Land Southward, divided at the narrow strip of wilderness, was the Land South and the Land North, as is stated in: “Now the land south was called Lehi and the land north was called Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south. This is verified by the fact that Mulek landed along the West Sea coast near where the city of Zarahemla was later located (Omni 1:16), which, of course was in the Land Southward, as was all of the Land of Zarahemla.
    On the other hand, the Land Northward was the ancient homeland within the Land of Promise of the Jaredites, and not occupied by the Nephites until around 55 BC (Alma 63:9; Helaman 3:3).
• Reader: “If we are talking North and South America, that seems like an awful long journey for the two to interact with each other.”
Response:  Keep in mind, we are not saying North and South America was the land promised to Lehi. That was a small portion of the overall land, otherwise, if it was all the and then there would be no place for the tribe of Ephraim, which is to inherit the much greater portion (likely all of North America), while the tribe of Mennasseh would inherit the other overall portion (likely all of South America).

Overall Land of Promise with a portion promised to Lehi and his descendants

However, in the Book of Mormon, that is the complete 522 pages, the record only deals with that land to which the Jaredites were led (the Land Northward), and the land to which Lehi and Mulek were led—referred to overall as the Land of Promise. At the same time, the entire Western Hemisphere is the Land of Promise as described in Ether 13:2, that land “that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other ands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.”
    The problem is, that modern man is so accustomed to think in terms of North Aemrica being one colntinent and South America being another continent, with a narrow isthmus connecting the two called Central America. The Lord does not think in such terms. He, as well as Moroni, do not acknowledge national boundaries that vary, change and are redrawn by man over thousands of years, which are a few days to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8), but sees a “land” as being an area that fits his purpose—which is so long range, the human mind simply does not think in terms like that. As an example, when a loved one is lost, man thinks of it in temporal terms, i.e., they are gone, dead, non-existent now; but God thinks of things on an eternal or spiritual basis (D&C 29:34)—they simply stepped from the temporal sphere into the eternal sphere; no big deal!
    After all, all the land is His. Portions of it He has reserved for certain purposes. The Western Hemisphere was reserved after the Flood for His special purpose, of which He promised a portion of it to Lehi and his righteous posterity (2 Npehi 1:3,5); He also provided a portion to the Jaredites (Ether 7:27), which the lord stated “that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other land, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people” (Ether 2:7).
• Reader: “Seeing that they were constantly at war with each other, and sending missionaries and such that would be very hard. They must have been closer in proximity to each other, so that to me is another reason the heartland model makes more sense.”

The Heartland Model. Area to the west all the way to and into the eastern Rockies is called “Lamanite Lands,” with the other lands out of directional location to that described by Mormon, and all the seas in the north

Response: The Heartland model has certain locations for Book of Mormon cities and places. Using that map, the distance from first landing to the City of Nephi is 815 miles; from the City of Nephi to the City of Zarahemla is 500 miles and the distance from the City of Nephi to the Narrow Neck of Land is either 522 miles or 775 miles, depending on which model is used. These distances are not much different than those using the South American locations. A lot of disparaging example couold be shown between the our maps in South America and Meldrum, Mays and other theorists’ maps in North America, but we are talking distances here.

The Major Area of the Book of Mormon storyline covers a much smaller area than the total land promised to Lehi and his descendants—from the land of Zarahemla to the Land of Nephi

It should also be noted that the actual area of Andean South America in which the Nephites and Lamanites spent the first 550 years occupying the Land of Promise, i.e., that portion of the land promised to Lehi and his descendants, is only the area of Peru. The Land Northward, which has little to do with the Nephite record after Hogoth’s ships are mentioned taking Nephites and Lamanites to “a land which was northward” and never heard from again, was in Ecuador. The distances involved in all of this are not those of all of North and South America—just that portion promised to Lehi.• You: “At any rate, I'm not gonna convince you, and you haven't convinced me. We as I said before need to agree to disagree.”
Response: First: It is very difficult for someone with little knowledge to convince someone with much greater knowledge on a given subject. Secondly, we are not trying to convince you of anything. You responded to our work in a semi-critical way and we simply replied, since you obviously did not know much about the matters on which you spoke and were critical. To us, our job in this matter is to provide information, how someone uses it is up to them—we all have our free agency to use as we see fit. On the other hand, when people tell us something that is blatantly not correct, comparing their opinions and speculations with our use of the scriptural record, we do respond, if not for the person commenting to us, certainly for other people who read the threads that appear after our publications so they know there are legitimate answers to the questions and comments raised.