We are continuing with John L. Sorenson’s book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, which is so
extensively hyped by Mesoamericanists and Land of Promise Theorists, especially
because of Sorenson’s reputation as the one-time Dean of Anthropology at BYU,
and current status as Professor Emeritus, and referred to as the “Guru of Book
of Mormon Archaeology,” that it needs a reality check every so often.
As stated earlier in these posts,
Sorenson loves to create a people, climate, or situation that is not supported
by the scriptural record in order to make his point. On p140, he states: “What can we tell about living conditions in
the land of first inheritance? The coastal plain where the landing of Lehi
would have occurred was uncomfortably hot and humid. That climate favored rapid
crop growth, but the weather would be unpleasant for colonizers. The Nephites
soon fled up to the land of Nephi, where the elevation permitted living In greater
comfort. As Nephi tells the story, the Lamanites down in the hot lowlands were
nomadic hunters, bloodthirsty, near naked, and lazy (2 Nephi 5:24; Enos 1:20).”
He also adds, “As for getting a living, the tangle of forest and swamp along the
coast itself may have been too hard for the Lamanite newcomers to farm
effectively, since they wouldn’t immediately get the knack of cultivation in
that locale.”
There are several inaccurate or
fanciful statements made here which need to be dealt with.
First, there is no
mention in the scriptural record of the climate where Lehi landed, other than
the seeds they brought from Jerusalem grew exceedingly and provided an abundant
crop (1 Nephi 18:24). The seeds came form Jerusalem, where a Mediterranean
Climate prevails—consequently, for seeds in 600 B.C. from Jerusalem to grow
exceedingly they would have requited a very similar climate, which Mesoamerica does
not have. Wheat, barley and other European seeds would not have grown in the lowland
hot and humid tropical climate of Guatemala where Sorenson places Lehi’s
landing.
Left: Books show how to grow food gardens in tropical climates; Center:
Chilies and peppers; Right: Eggplant. All do well in a tropical climate, such
as Mesoamerica, but not in a Mediterranean Climate
Second, Nephi and those who went with
him did not flee because of the climate along the coast but because the Lord
told him to leave his brothers who threatened to kill him (2 Nephi 5:2, 5).
Third, according to Tropical Permaculture
and Biodynamic Agriculture, Green Garden, and Garden Web, “Most Mediterranean plants…can’t stand humidity…the
best thing to do during hot weather is to grow tropical vegetables that will
withstand waterlogging, like heat and high humidity, such as Ceylon or Egyptian
spinach, ibika, salad mallow, Asian greens and broccoli, pigeon pea, choko,
lots, loofah (luffa), eggplant, chillies, pepper, jicama, capsicums, Chinese
cabbages, okra, kangkong, pumpkin, squash, collards, kale, chard, and sweet
corn. None of these plants are Mediterranean and would not grow in a
Mediterranean Climate where Lehi lived and from where he brought his seeds (1
Nephi 18:24).
Fourth, Nephi does not tell any story
about the Lamanites or the Land of First Inheritance being a hot and humid
climate or area. In fact, Sorenson’s reference of 2 Nephi 5:24 shows the reason
the Lamanites became “an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did
seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey” was because of “their cursing which
was upon them.” Nor does his reference of Enos 1:20 have anything to do with
the climate, but it was “their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their
evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a bloodthirsty people.”
When reading Sorenson, one needs to
look up his references since quite frequently, they do not support his
statement, but gives an entirely different reasoning, as shown above.
Fifth, and lastly, Laman and Lemuel and
the sons of Ishmael, who had likely been farmers in the Old World, living
outside Jerusalem on the surrounding farmland, and would have known how to
plant and harvest if they chose. In addition, they would have been part of the
first very successful planting (1 Nephi 18:24), that is, they would have if
they wanted to survive in this new land that first year. The idea they didn’t
know how to do anything is pure fabrication on Sorenson’s part.
In another brief, but pertinent
comment, Sorenson (p138) shows his lack of understanding of Nephi’s comments
about his voyage, when he states: “Nephi lefrt us no information in the Book of
Mormon about the route, nor did he tell us in modern terms where they landed.”
Interestingly enough, Nephi did exactly that. He tells us his ship was “driven
forth before the wind” (1 Nephi 18:8), which is a very important and clear
statement. In oceanography, a simple term “drift voyage” tells us how a vessel
or object is moved across the ocean and, once we know and understand the
currents and winds involved, exactly where that drift voyage would go.
Thor Heyerdahl in his “drift voyage”
Kon Tiki proved that winds and currents would take a vessel “driven forth
before the wind” along a certain current until it reached land.
A
drift voyage, such as Thor Heyerdah’s Kon Tiki, is a voyage where the vessel
enters the water and is subject to only the winds and currents for its
direction and movement. Within a slight range, steerage is possible, but only
for a matter of yards, not miles. Note (black line) how Heyerdahl’s path followed
the (white arrows) current
A drift voyage, by definition—a transoceanic journey between continents by
primitive boat or raft, propelled by ocean currents—drifts with the wind
and current. Numerous such voyages have been undertaken, both accidentally and by
design. In November 2001 a pair of Samoan fishermen were accidentally caught in
a current that took them westward across the Pacific 2500 miles in four months
to Milne Bay in Papua New Guinea off the northeastern coast of Australia, where
they were rescued. In 1992 a storm washed several containers once carrying
29,000 plastic bathtub toys from a sinking ship bound from Hong Kong to Tacoma,
Washington. Over the next ten months, frogs, ducks, turtles and beavers began
washing up near Sitka, Alaska, following the currents as they drifted thousands
of miles. Numerous studies have been
made of the effects of ocean surface currents on drifting objects, until today
it is well understood where currents flow and where “drift voyages” will end
up.
Such is the case with Nephi’s ship. We know
where it left, we know the currents involved in the sea (Arabian Sea) it
started on and where that current took it to the Indian Ocean, and how it was
affected by the currents leading into the Southern Ocean, the West Wind Drift
and the Prevailing Westerlies. We also know where a drift voyage would flow on
such a voyage and where it would cease, as it was forced up the Humboldt (Peruvian)
Current to a cessation of wind and current at 30º south Latitude along the
Chilean coast at a spot called Coquimbo Bay. And, we know that if a landing was
not affected at that spot, what would happen to the vessel as it continued
drifting as the winds and currents picked up north of the Tropic of Capricorn
and was pushed out by the Peruvian Bulge into the currents that form the South
Pacific Gyre—the very current that took Thor Heyerdahl westward from Peru and
across and into the Polynesian islands. We know all this today because of the tremendous studies of drift voyages, currents, and winds that have been accomplished in recent years.
As the map shows, any vessel moving
northward from the Peruvian Bulge (just below the bottom of the picture) and
along the Peru Coastal Current (Humboldt Current) would be sent, as the Kon
Tiki was, out into the South Equatorial Current north of the Galapagos Islands
or into the Peru Oceanic Current south of the Galapagos
What is obvious from the map is that no vessel
is going to continue northward toward Panama because of the strong oceanic
currents moving south and southeast from Central America. Recent scientific
experiments with Drift Voyages have shown the truth to this statement—such
voyages, subject to the wind and currernts “driven forth before the wind” would
never have reached Central or Meso-America.
The point is, Sorenson can say (p138) “Nephi’s ship likely threaded through the
islands of the western Pacific, then across the open reaches north of the
equator to landfall around 14 degrees north latitude,” which would be along
the southern Guatemala coast. However, as has been pointed out, a drift voyage
would not have gone in that direction, a ship “driven forth before the wind”
would not have traveled across the Pacific against either the Northern arm of
the South Equatorial Current (south of the Equator) or the Southern arm of the
North Equatorial Current (north of the Equator) as Sorenson so flippantly
claims.
Thus, it is not difficult to know where Nephi
sailed, because he tells us how he sailed his ship, and modern oceanography has
mapped the world’s oceans and currents so thoroughly that there can be no
mistake about where a drift voyage “driven forth before the wind” would have
gone, given its embarkation from the southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula.
(See
the final post on, “More on Sorenson—the Duplicitous Sales Job,” to see how the scriptural
record is manipulated to support an erroneous conclusion)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment