Over the years, we
have been inundated with comments sent to us and have faithfully answered each
one, including highly critical comments about the Book of Mormon and the
Latter-day Saint faith, though we try to restrict our blog to dealing with the
geographical setting and the correct reading of the scriptural record just as
it was written. Recently, we have come across another type of comment directed
to the scriptural record and the location of the Land of Promise that begs to
be answered, since they are being made by people with considerable following
and who have achieved a high degree of credibility in the community.
Since these comments
often place the scriptural record either in a poor light, or incorrectly state
what was written in its simplest format, we have endeavored to respond to such
statements to try and keep the integrity of the scriptural record intact, since
it is a sacred record written by prophetic means and guided by the Spirit from
beginning to end. With this in mind we submit the comments and who made them,
with our responses.
Comment #1: “Almost
invariably the first question that arises is whether the geography fits the
archaeology of the proposed area. This should be our second question, the first
being whether the geography fits the facts of the Book of Mormon—a question we
all can answer without being versed in American archaeology. Only after a given
geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the
Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit
attention. The Book of Mormon must be the final and most important arbiter in
deciding the correctness of a given geography; otherwise we will be forever
hostage to the shifting sands of expert opinion” (John E. Clark, “A Key for
Evaluating Nephite Geographies,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1, 1989, p21; reprinted as John E. Clark, “Revisiting ‘A Key for Evaluating
Nephite Geographies’,” Mormon Studies Review 23/1, 2011, pp13–14.)
Response: Actually,
the first question anyone should ever ask about the location of the Land of
Promise is “Does the geographical area being determined fit the location that
the scriptural record leads one to find?” That is, under the circumstances of
the facts Nephi states in arriving at the Land of Promise in his ship that was
“driven forth before the wind,” does that match the scriptural record?—could
his ship in 600 B.C., directed by only winds and ocean currents, have reached
the location being discussed? If not, then the location should be discarded--it is as simple as that!”
As simplistic and
practical as this question would be, it seems to seldom be asked, and often
ignored completely by theorists who have pre-determined locations based on
other criteria. As an example, contary to individuals and uninformed groups using
specially designed graphs may suggest differently, winds and currents from the
southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula do not move to the east toward
Indonesia according to all known wind and ocean charts from recognized Oceanographers,
NOA, NASA, etc.—nor do winds and currents move into the Pacific Ocean through
Indonesia, but flow into the Indian Ocean from
the Pacific through what is called the Indian Ocean/Western Pacific
Thoroughfare. In fact, according to the Journal
of Geophysical Research: Oceans, the Pacific-to-Indian Ocean connectivity,
or Indonesian Throughway, is described as “the water in the upper ocean flows
from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean as part of the upper limb of the global
thermohaline circulation.”
Actually, there are
two routes for this Pacific-to-Indian exchange, the first of which is around
the north of Australia via the Indonesian Archipelago, in this Indonesian
Throughway, which has been studied
for many years, culminating in the early 2000s in an extensive field campaign
known as the International Nusantara Stratification and Transport (A.L. Gordon,
J. Sprintall, et al, The Indonesian Throughflow During 2004-2006, as observed
by the INSTANT program, Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, 2010; A. L. Gordon,
Oceanography of the Indonesian seas and their throughway, Oceanography, Vol 18, 2005).
Now, before someone gets their pet belief furled, and their pen out to write, we are not talking about small craft of antiquity, powered by oars, and others having moveable Polynesian-style sails that can be moved about to capture various wind angles. Those have sailed into winds and currents for centuries—even larger such craft used for trade and settlement. However, we are talking about deep ocean vessels designed to withstand the pounding of the blue water of the world's deep oceans—the ones that crossed the Pacific Ocean to the Western Hemisphere.
The actual movement
of winds and currents off the coast of Arabia move toward the southwest and
then the southeast through the Indian Ocean in what is called the Indian Ocean Gyre, and then east along the Southern
Ocean. Or, while winds and currents might be possible to have achieved an
Atlantic crossing, though getting around the Cape of Africa was so perilous
they called it the “Graveyard of Ships,” there would have been no way to go
inland once reaching North America because the Mississippi and St. Lawrence rivers were blocked from inland
sailing by an ocean-going vessel because of shallow waters and heavy rapids. Until the age of sail and the knowledge of
tacking (about 2000 years after Lehi sailed), it was impossible to cross the
Pacific Ocean from west to east south of the equator.
Consequently, the
first question that should be asked, even before a location is considered, is
“Where would the winds and currents take a ship leaving the southern coast of
Arabia as Nephi describes?” Now, before trying to answer that, one has to understand we are not talking about rowing a boat, tacking the sail, moving a sail about to catch winds, or staying close to shore where winds and currents are different—we are talking about a current acting on its own, taking the vessel where it flows and the wind blows behind a fixed sail as in "driven forth before the wind."
Keep in mind that it took man until the age of Columbus to discover
that currents could be found to take a ship westward across the Atlantic. And
no ship in 600 B.C., especially with a “land lubber” crew, could possibly have
maneuvered through straits, islands, shoals, etc., of Indonesia in a ship
“driven forth before the wind.” Such sailing even todayis not for the novice, but for experienced mariners.
Comment #2: “Geography provides us a rather permanent set
of landmarks from which to compare the Book of Mormon text: mountains, valleys,
rivers, and seas should be arranged in a way that actually fits the text.
Archaeology does not hold this same advantage. Today’s archaeology might contradict an element of the Book of Mormon history;
however, that does not mean that in another twenty years the reverse might not
be the case” (George Potter, Nephi in the Promised Land: More Evidences
That the Book of Mormon Is a True History (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort,
2009)
Response: The Book of
Mormon tells us of mountains tumbling onto the plains and becoming valleys, and of other
valleys rising up to form mountains, “whose height is great” (Helaman 14:23).
It hardly seems worthwhile to suggest that mountains, valleys and rivers could
be considered permanent sets of landmarks that existed in the Land of Promise
prior to the destruction during the crucifixion as described in 3 Nephi. Even seas can change as
sub-surface shelves rise and fall through plate tectonic movements over a two thousand
year period. 3 Nephi, discussing events in the Land of Promise at the time of
the crucifixion indicates some serious land movements. It is also interesting
that after that time, three very prominent features of the Land of Promise are
never again mentioned, though each were mentioned many times before then—the
East Sea, the Narrow Neck of Land, and the Sidon River.
It seems very
doubtful that land features not mentioned after
the crucifixion should be considered a prominent feature of the current
location of the Land of Promise. As an example, in a land where mountains
ceased to exist, and other mountains were created, mountain passes existing in
B.C. times may not also exist in A.D. times, including rivers and similar
features.
Comment #3: “Over the last couple of years, one of the
many things I have dabbled in off-and-on has had to do with the methodologies
employed by those who develop New World Book of Mormon geographies. There is
obviously a lot of diversity of opinion on this topic, and certain proponents
have blamed all this confusion on there being inadequate information in the
text, or on the methodology followed by a select few, as if it were the dominant methodology. The reality is that the
diversity of opinions is the result of a diversity of methods: 1) Geographic
priority, 2) Archaeological priority, and 3) Prophetic priority. All those who
fall into one category or another do not necessarily follow the same
method—they just place priority on the same kind of evidence. From there, their methods can be quite
different, and hence they can reach vastly different conclusions” (Neal
Rappleye, “Models and Methods in Book of Mormon Geography: The Peruvian Model
as a Test-Case,” Interpreter, A Journal
of Mormon Scripture, January 2014).
Response: It is interesting that no one seems to
think that the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon should be a priority in
determining where the Land of Promise was located. Instead, they look to try
and match a geographical appearance, or archaeological findings, or comments by
Joseph Smith (often taken out of context) or prophecies and promises (often misinterpreted). It is more than curious that while
the Book of Mormon was written by those who lived in the Land of Promise, walked its
lands, knew its seas, passes, mountain ranges, and roadways, and which was
abridged by one who fought wars from one end of the Land of Zarahemla to the
furthest area in the Land Northward, who had read all the Nephite records, and
intimately knew the entire landscape, is not even considered a major priority
as the basis in locating the Land of Promise.
The sad thing is, not only does the actual record of
this land take a back seat in trying to locate it, what is written within its
sacred pages is often altered in one way or another to allow the record to
agree with a pre-determined location. As we have shown on numerous occasions,
such disagreement over directions of the land have resulted in theorists
altering the meaning of Mormon’s cardinal compass points of north, south, east
and west, to an understanding that north was really meant to be west; east,
meant to be north; south meant to be east; and west meant to be south, thus these
theorists champion Mesoamerica and feel confidence in their misalignment since
they have changed the meaning of the words in the scriptural record. At the same time, others change seas to mean rivers, narrow necks to be mountain passes distant from any sea, lands disoriented from one another, inland locations where no ship could have reached, thus these theorists champion North America, such as the Heartland or Great Lakes theories.
(See the next post,
“Looking at Some Interesting Comments – Part II,” for more on various comments
and our responses)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment