Continuing with the previous
posts regarding one of our readers sending us information of a blog and asking
our opinion and comments. In the last post, we suggested the need to know what
land the record refers to when discussing the Land of Promise.
Blog comment: “For
example, the Book of Mormon describes final battles of the Jaredites and
Nephites near a hill called Cumorah. In our day, the hill where Moroni gave the
plates to Joseph has been named Cumorah. There is a significant difference of
opinion about the origin of the modern name, and the question is critical to
resolution of the geography issue. The Book of Mormon text cannot answer the
question because the text mentions Cumorah but not New York.”
Response: This is
inaccurate, not that New York is not mentioned, but that the Book of Mormon
text cannot answer the question. First of all, we have a considerable amount of
information about the Hill Cumorah as described by Mormon:
1. It was in a land
of many waters, rivers and fountains (Mormon 6:4)
2. This land was “so
far northward” (Alma 22:30)
3. This land was west
of Ablom, which was by the east seashore (Ether 9:3)
These three points
tell us that the hill Cumorah was far to the north in the Land Northward and
located in the Land of Many Waters, rivers and fountains, to the west of the
Sea East. This places the hill Cumorah, so to speak, in the northeast corner of
the Land of Promise.
This area of Mesoamerica according to John L.
Sorenson’s map shows that the Land of Cumorah is far too close to the narrow neck of land, and over 250 miles east and south
of the Land of Many Waters, yet Mormon describes the two places are the same:
“And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did
pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many
waters, rivers, and fountains (Mormon 6:4); thus, Sorenson’s locations are off
for both Cumorah and the land of Many Waters
The Great Lakes also does not qualify since
the Hill Cumorah is really in their Land Southward and either north of their
Sea East (Finger Lakes) or in another model, south of their Sea East (Lake
Ontario)
This, of course,
eliminates the Mesoamerican model, which has the hill Cumorah in the Land of
Desolation just north of the narrow neck of land, on the east coast, all three
points being in error. It also eliminates the Great Lakes model, since they
have the hill Cumorah (the one in upstate New York) to the east of the Sea
East, and nowhere near the far reaches of the Land Northward, again both points
are in error.
The
hill Cumorah in New York. It is a drumlin, (from “droimnin,” meaning “little
ridge”), an elongated hill in the shape of an inverted half-buried egg formed
by glacial ice on underlying till or ground moraine of glacial sediment. Hardly
what Mormon describes that he could see in Mormon 6:11-15). Left: Note the
small hill, and (right) low height). This would hardly provide any protection
for the 24 survivors of the first day’s battle and keep them hidden from the
blood-crazed Lamanites bent on killing every Nephite they could find
It can also be pointed out that in Phyllis Carol Olive’s map of her
Great Lakes land of Promise, her hill Cumorah is to the east of her Sea East.
Dark Green Arrow: Sea West; Light Green Arrow: Sea East;
Dark Blue Arrow: Hill Cumorah (to the east of her Sea East) and not consistent
with Mormon’s and Moroni’s descriptions
As one can easily see, taking these three simple statements in the
scriptural record, we can see that the Great Lakes and Mesoamerica models do
not have the hill Cumorah in the correct location, therefore, their models or
maps are in serious question. This actually holds true with whatever feature,
area, or description we want to compare between the scriptural record and the
claims of these various theorists.
So whether Sorenson and numerous others place their Land of Promise in
Mesoamerica, or like others, place it in the heartland of the United States,
this one simple fact discredits all their models. So it is not so important as
to where “America” is located as it is to follow the descriptions in the Book
of Mormon that show us where many of the described areas are, or at least, are
not, in various suggestive models of the Land of Promise.
This is also true of such areas as:
Narrow Neck of Land: Far too wide (144 miles) in Mesoamerica; not
defined in Heartland as it is in the scriptural record.
Narrow Pass: Not included within the narrow neck of land as
described in either the Mesoamerican or Heartland models.
Four Seas: There are no four seas surrounding the
Mesoamerican model; and there are not four contiguous seas in the Heartland
model.
Isle of the Sea: Though Jacob tells us the Land of Promise was an isle (island) of the
sea, and on the same sea over which they sailed, no other model, not
Mesoamerica nor Heartland, nor any of the others besides Andean Peru, shows that
the land was an island prior to 33 A.D.
In fact, we could go on and on with the scriptural record showing
descriptive information about the land of Promise that match just one area, and
seldom applies to any other area.
31 scriptures that match Andean South America, but few
match other locations, models or theories. One might disagree with a point here
or there, but the overwhelming agreement of all of these to Andean South
America is worth some very serious consideration, especially when no other
location can match half of these scriptural descriptions, let alone all of them
It is almost humorous
in the blog’s posts, a comparison on two charts shows their Heartland matching
everything, while Mesoamerica matches almost nothing. While we certainly agree
with Mesoamerica not matching scriptural references, we find it difficult to
adjust to the idea as they claim that their Heartland model does in light of
the above graphic. While they use their own criteria to show matches, the above
graphic shows actual scripture and lists them and makes comparisons. In fact,
over the course of the nearly 2000 posts on our blog site nephicode.com, we
have shown the match of each of these and close to 35 more based on scriptural
references, showing how they match and the circumstances surrounding the descriptions.
Blog comment: “One
approach would be to confine the analysis to the text; i.e., extrinsic evidence
is rejected and the location of the scriptural events remain ambiguous. Another
approach would be to extend the analysis beyond the text to other standard
works and the teachings of Joseph Smith and two of the Three Witnesses, thereby
reconciling all the credible evidence.”
Response: Referring
to the scriptural record as ambiguous is a comment made from those who cannot
find that the scriptural record matches their particular beliefs and models. In
reality, the scriptural record has enough information contained within its
writings to describe where Nephi sailed, where he landed, what he found there,
where he traveled to and founded the City of Nephi and where the Book of Mormon
took place, as well as how other lands, such as Mesoamerica and Polynesia, were
populated. It is not ambiguous—it simply does not agree with most theorists
beliefs and ideas and therein is often rejected or ignored or discarded into a pile labeled "ambiguity," allowing them to use other criteria.
(See the next post, “America is
the Land of Promise—But Where is America? – Part V,” for answers to those two
questions and know where overall the Land of Promise is located and to what
land the Prophets have spoken and the Lord indicated)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent comments about the location of Cumorah and the land of promise. Years ago I tried to match the maps that John Sorenson produced to BOM. I found that they didn't match the description at all as you pointed out. In your previous post you mention V Preddis and Kocherhands. I'm familiar with the work of Preddis but not Kocherhands. Have you looked at her maps to see how they stack up with the scriptural record? Have you produced any maps of the cities of the Nephites and Lamanites? I think it's clear where the City of Nephi and Zarahemla were located.
ReplyDeleteI have only recently become acquainted with Preddis' work, thanks to a reader who suggested it. What I have seen so far is that she is right on in many things as far as I'm concerned. I just got her book and am now reading it and plan to cover some of her ideas in a future article as a some of our readers have suggested.
ReplyDeleteAs for maps, as I have commented on many times, I feel the scriptural record is limited on descriptions of cities and other physical areas (rivers, mountains, wilderness, etc) and most cannot be identified and I am reluctant to start making guesses I cannot back up from the scriptural account like all the other theorists around do repeatedly. I feel there is sufficient information to place the City of Nephi based on the temple and tower descriptions, and Zarahemla based on the landing information, and possibly Bountiful from a lack of other ancient sites in the area, and the narrow neck and narrow passsage seems quite clear to me, as does the area of the Land of Many Waters in Ecuador. But other than that, I have yet to read a scriptural description sufficiently detailed to suggest other areas. Even Sidon is still not clear as far as I am concerned, though I believe its location can be suggested because of the descriptions suggested among the many battles. But at the moment, I am cautious about its existence as a river after the crucifixion, since it is mentioned only as "Waters of Sidon." And I feel clear about no East Sea after the crucifixion since it is never mentioned after that though it is mentioned more than a score of times before that event.