Thursday, February 18, 2016

Keys to Finding the Land of Promise

In order to find the Land of Promise, we need to recognize what we are looking for. We cannot just make up ideas, such as claiming the Land of Promise was a peninsula when it does not say that in the scriptural record, or that people were in the land before and during the Nephite period (other than the jaredites), or that Jaredites survived their last battle when the scriptural record says none did, etc. If we are going to be honest in our endeavors, we cannot pick a place and then try to prove it is the location—we need to find out what the scriptural record tells us about the Land of Promise and see if any place matches those numerous descriptions.
    We need to find a land that matches what it says in the scriptural record, without changing that record or its word meanings in order to accommodate a personal preference or choice.
As an exampled, we need to find a land that has:
1. Two large land masses connected by a small and narrow neck of land that can be crossed in a day and a half [Alma 22:32; 63:5; Ether 10:20];
2. An entire land that runs north and south [Alma 22:29-33];
3. A land where the southern area is divided by a natural land form (narrow strip of wilderness) that stretches from a sea on the west to a sea on the east [Alma 22:27], with the Land of Nephi to the south and the Land of Zarahemla to the North; with the Land of Bountiful to the north of Zarahemla [Alma 22:29] and an unnamed land in between [3 Nephi 3:23; Helaman 4:5], then a narrow neck of land and the Land of Desolation [Alma 22:30] north of that and the Land of Many Waters north of that enclosing the Land of Cumorah [Mormon 6:4];
4. A defendable narrow pass [Alma 50:34; 52:9; Mormon 2:29; 3:5] connecting the Land Southward with the Land Northward;
5. A narrow pass that runs between the Sea East and the Sea West from the Land Southward into the Land Northward [Alma 50:34];
6. Mountains, “whose height is great” [Helaman 14:23];
7. An island now, or at the time of Nephi [2 Nephi 10:20];
8. Four seas surrounding the Land of Promise [Helaman 3:8]
9. A sea that divides the land [Ether 10:20];
10. A Sea South, with water surrounding the Land Southward [Alma 22:32; Helaman 3:8];
11. A body of water to the north that is “large, to exceed all” in size [Ether 15:8];
12. A Climate where Lehi landed that would grow their seeds they brought to the Land of Promise from Jerusalem [1 Nephi 18:24] which included matching climate,  temperature, soil and soil group Mediterranean Climate);
13. At least one major river that flowed from the south, with its head in the narrow strip of wilderness and ran northward past the borders of Zarahemla and to the sea [Alma 2:15; 8:3; 16:7; 22:27;];
14. Roads and Highways that were “cast up” [3 Nephi 6:8] and an earthquake could break up [Helaman 14:24], and that went from city to city, and from land to land, and from place to place (Helaman 6:7];
15. Both Gold and Silver and Copper in single ore [1 Nephi 18:25];
16. All manner of ore [1 Nephi 18:25; Ether 10:23]
17. Forts, fortifications [Alma 49:13,18; 52:6];
18. Places of “resort’ (small forts, outposts, etc. [Alma 48;5,8]
19. Fortified walls of stone about the borders of their lands [Alma 48:8; 50:5; 62:23];
20. Fortified with stone walls about their cities [Alma 48:8; Helaman 14:23];
21. A shipyard (inlet, bay, etc.) where “exceedingly large” ships could be build and launched into the West Sea and take their course “northward” [Alma 63:4,6];
22. Ruins of “all manner of buildings” in both the Land Southward and the Land Northward [2 Nephi 5:15; Jarom 1:8; Mosiah 8:8];
23. Ruins of a temple that would rival Solomon’s Temple of Jerusalem [2 Nephi 5:16];
24. Great temple tower [Mosiah 8:8; 19:5]
25. A land full of gold, silver, copper, iron, and precious ores, that was worked beginning around 2000 B.C. and continued up until 400 A.D. [2 Nephi 5:15];
26. A land where brass and steel were cast, formed and used [2 Nephi 5:15];
27. A “land of many waters, rivers and fountains” located far to the north in the Land Northward [Mormon 6:4];
28. A landing site that had in close distance a place to pitch tents, plant seeds, a forest large enough to have both wild and domesticated animals, and gold, silver and copper easily seen or found [1 Nephi 18:24-25], and also have plenty of fresh drinking water; 
Metallurgy in the Western Hemisphere began first in Ecuador/Peru around 1500 B.C. and continued through to 400 A.D.
29. Metallurgy dating to about 2000 B.C. to 400 A.D. [Helaman 6:9; Ether 10:23];
30. Textiles and the use of silks and fine-twined linen dating from at least 1000 B.C. to 400 A.D. [Alma 1:29; 4:6 26; Ether 10:24];
31. Volcanoes and earthquakes [3 Nephi 8, 9];
32. A history of circumcision as practiced by living the Law of Moses [2 Nephi 5:10];
33. Two unknown animals [Ether 9:19];
34. Two unknown grains [Mosiah 9:9];
35. Plants that cure deadly fever [Alma 46:40] such as quinine;
36. Winds and currents that lead directly from southern Arabian coast to the landing site “driven forth before the wind” [1Nephi 18:8-9];
37. No other people in the Land of Promise other than Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites [2 Nephi 1:5-9; Ether 13:2];
38. A land of advanced civilization (coming from the Tower of Babel in 2100 B.C. (where ruins can still be seen today), and coming from the advanced city of Jerusalem in 600 B.C. (where ruins can still be seen today), that would have left behind signs and evidence of their advanced culture (that could still be seen today);
    No doubtt one could find other descriptions with a more detailed and in-depth study; however, these points would have to exist, or did exist, in the location area for that place to be the Land of Promise. And if they cannot be located to exist or did exist during Nephite times, then that area must be eliminated as the site of the Land of Promise!

19 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These points are covered in much more detail in his first book. For instance, he does go into detail about the alternating monsoon winds. While part of the year winds would blow you to India, this does not result in a path to the Americas. All currents and winds through Indonesia are moving the wrong way at all times of the year.
    As for the rise of the Andes and most of South America, this is the part I have the most trouble with. However, the winds and currents from Arabia to South America would not be significantly different, as the winds (with currents) in the more southern latitudes would still flow to the east and the winds nearer the equator would blow to the west. The parts of South America underwater would still be relatively shallow and would still divert a portion of the current northward.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Response to Tyrus's Comments:

    #7: He's not necessarily taking Jacob's Isaiah comments out of context. I think there's room for both interpretations. It's true Jacob says they are upon an isle of the sea...but...he also uses Isaiah's own word "isles" to point out there are more groups. So, he both applied Isaiah's words to his people and also declared they were on an isle of the sea. How could Jacob have known they were on an isle? Not because he sailed around it, that's for sure. However, Nephi had a vision of the promised land. Perhaps Nephi learned it from that. We also know the Urim and Thummim was acquired somewhere along the line. Perhaps Jacob had it and had had his own vision. In another explanation, George Potter postulates Jacob might have been physically on the large island in Lake Titicaca (which might have been surrounded by even more water in the past and probably even at sea level as per Del) when he gave that address. They might also have simply thought of their promised land as an isle on the sea since they arrived by boat. There are many possible ways to reasonably interpret that verse. It's reasonable to say that Jacob used the word "isle." It's reasonable that the technical meaning of "isle" is a land mass completely surrounded by water. It's reasonable to think that Jacob thought of them as being on an isle. It's also reasonable to think that even though Jacob referred to it as an isle, that it might not technically have been an isle. In Jacob's later writings he says they are a "lonesome and solemn people" and "cast out." It's easy to see how a people in those circumstances, having come by boat, and being lonely and isolated might think of themselves as being on an island. Del will of course say I'm torturing words, but if there were only 1 way to interpret everything, there wouldn't be so much general disagreement on Book of Mormon geography.

    #15. I agree with Tyler. I've always disagreed with Del's “one-way” interpretation of the ore verse. It's not at all clear to me (although it is to Del) that the 3 ores *must* be combined. However, rules of English grammar demand no such interpretation. Del might be right, but from the syntax it can also just be interpreted as a list. Again, multiple interpretations are possible.

    Tyrus's reference to 1 Nep 22:7 "This Land:" Tyrus is correct that Nephi thought of his promised land and that of the Gentiles as one and the same. However, it's important to note that Nephi also said that Columbus (if that's not Columbus in 1 Nephi 13, then that's kind of a throwaway verse. Who else could it be?) visited the seed of his brethren who were "in the land of promise." Columbus NEVER set foot upon North America. He sailed around the Caribbean, the south eastern coast of Central America, and the northern coast of South America. That's pretty far away from where the "Mighty Nation" of the gentiles is (if it's not referring to the USA, then--again--it's kind of a throw-away verse). To Nephi, the *Entire* land mass of North/South America was ONE promised land. This notion could also inform Jacob's comments, since taken together North and South America are one GINORMOUS "isle," a land surrounded by water and hidden from the old world. I would also point out that the Spaniards laid waste to the natives of both Central and South America, scattering them all over the place--so that's another possible meaning of Nephi's vision of gentiles scattering the seed of his brethren.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rather, it is *considerably* more (nigh impossible) for a wind driven ship to be blown against the winds and currents through Indonesia to the Pacific Ocean. And even if that were reached, the distance to the Americas from there is several thousand miles more than the southern route, and with no helpful currents.

      Delete
  7. We will attempt to comment on all of this at a future time. But for now, let me say to Tyrus regarding your initial comment: "I'm not trying to start a fight (we're all just trying to learn more about the Book of Mormon), but I do feel like some things need some context: --the context would come if you knew what had been written numerous times in these blogs (covering 6 years and as a reader told me recently, over 2000 pages, and the books on the subject, especially the first three, covering another 2000 pages or more. I can appreciate that you have questions not having read all of that, but they have already been answered in full, especially your last one about the Lord changing the winds and currents, which is possible but not probable because of all the collateral factors that would be affected--however, being driven back in that particular area, as we have written about and described in pictures and drawings, is involved in the circular currents that take a ship into a circuitous curve and send it back in the direction it was coming from. Ships are not driven backward, i.e., sail backward as you suggest...the may not make much if any headway against the wind, but they do not sail backward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. As I have mentioned to others who have written from time to time, I appreciate any and all questions--they cause me to think deeper sometimes than I may have done and I get a chance to learn more. I welcome your comments and others, it just seems sometimes that a particular issue has been beaten to death and I hesitate to comment further in the chance of annoying other readers; however, all questions and comments will and have been answered in their due time. So keep writing... :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW...in your comment "The river Sidon was in the same place after the destruction (Mormon 1:10). The waters of Sidon and the river Sidon are the same, according to Alma 3:3 and other verses where the two phrases are used interchangeably."
    They are not used interchangeably and that has been covered in a very recent discussion--they are in the same sentence, but not specifically with the exact same meaning--in fact, in English, one would not use the two to mean the same thing in the same sentence unless previously having stated they are the same. Anyway, just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  10. BTW II: You wrote: "I didn't mean additional context for your theory. I meant there was additional context to the scriptures being used to justify the theory. Many of the verses are not as black and white in their meaning as was being suggested. And I was not suggesting that the boat sailed backwards:)"
    My comment had to do with the fact that the subject being discussed has been dealt with very, very extensively throughout the blog and in "Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica as Michael Richardson wrote" (since winds and currents are a deeply ingrained interest, hobby and field of mine)--if you have another point that I missed, then please clarify. Also, you might be surprised how many people think that scripture meant Nephi's ship was pushed backward as it tried to sail forward... :)
    I might also add, as I wrote earlier, that most scriptures (if not all) have only one meaning, otherwise the Lord or the prophet is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, or as the Indians used to say, “speaking with a forked tongue.” On the other hand, almost all scripture has much deeper meanings than most readers of scripture realize or even understand (but they are not contradictory).
    I have mentioned before that some years ago while teaching Gospel Doctrine "New Testament" regarding Jesus at the Well with the Samarian woman, the Lesson Manual pointed out that there were 17 deeper meanings than the common response most people give of the phrase: “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:13-14). The lesson of that day went over each of those 17 additional meanings to show the depth of scripture and how most people miss much of what they read by not delving deeper into scriptural meaning.
    Having taught Gospel Doctrine for some 25 years or more, and seeing how each subject is approached differently each 4 year cycle, I was always disappointed that those who created the manuals did not repeat or go into even more depth of that concept since, to me, it was a real important learning curve for each scripture.
    This does not mean, however, that people might not attach different interpretation or meanings, or feel there are different interpretations or meanings, because they simply do not know the correct one—but it is not the difference in definition or explanation of scripture that leads to people’s disagreements over the scriptural meaning, but in their own personal interpretation. It is also sometimes because of their lack of understanding a word, phrase, or Hebraic concept. I always find it amazing to look up a particular scripture in the sectarian world and see how many different views there are on it, from rabbis to pastors. The and priests, etc., all read the same thing, they all believe in Christ, they all accept the gospel (to whatever point) but they are sometimes so far apart on their interpretations that it is downright amazing. Often, however, on non-Christ issues, the rabbis come closest in their interpretations than Christian leaders, because they understand the history of the people and their thinking and the Hebraic concepts involved. Without the latter two understandings, most members of the Church do not know the scriptural meanings because they do not study them out in their own mind before asking the Lord for confirmation and then listen to the answer with an open mind. Usually, people make up their mind to a meaning without giving it much thought at all.
    Ooops, I’m rambling on. I just think that sometimes people think they know things but there is far more to know and learn than they have put out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. P.S. Please don't think by any means that I think I know it all--I'm constantly learning, spending some 10 to 12 hours a day studying the scriptural record, researching, and following up this blog and other writing. It might be of interest to know that I do not make any statements on this blog or in any other writing that I have not spent many, many hours studying. A friend of mine, named Art, taught me 25 years ago that every word in the Book of Mormon has meaning and most of those meanings are not noticeable or understood at first reading. I have come to understand exactly what is meant by "study and ponder the scriptures" and that it doesn't mean for two minutes or even a day--but some things do not become clear for a very long time. In this I have come to understand how correct Art was.

    ReplyDelete
  12. To Michael: Sorry to take so long, but wanted to know that your comments about currents and winds, etc., was right on. We've written about this before, but you commented quite well on the subject or question of Tyrus earlier. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete