Has the Geographical Truth of the Book of Mormon Been Kept Hidden? – Part IV

Continued from the previous post, regarding the belief of theorists and their claim that there are five specific and “common misunderstandings of the text of the Book of Mormon that have kept the truth of its geography hidden for the past 185 years.” The first four of J. Theodore Brandley’s so-called misconceptions were covered in the earlier posts, with the last part of point #4 continued below:
   Brandley, ever to misunderstand the meaning of the scriptural record, continues with his claim that directions of the Book of Mormon change from time to time when mentioning cities and lands. Here he adds: “The same is true with references to seas. Today we sometimes use similar references. People in Florida refer to the Atlantic as the east sea, and the Gulf of Mexico as the west sea. Those living in Mesoamerica would refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the east sea and the Pacific as the west sea. Directional names in the Book of Mormon are given relative to their position or to the context.”
    First of all, the Gulf of Mexico is not called the West Sea by Floridians, though sometimes it is called “America’s Sea,” and occasionally the “American Mediterranean Sea.” Nor do they call the Straits of Florida or the Florida Bay to the south the South Sea, nor do they call the Caribbean Sea, which is far to the south, the South Sea. The Gulf of Mexico was unnamed until 1540 AD, and was merely referred to as the Atlantic Ocean before that time, then was called the Seno Mexicano, and sometimes as Golfo de Nueva España. The east coast of Florida is called overall “Gulf Coast.” Parts are referred to as the “Lee Island Cost,” the “Cultural Coast,” the “Sun Coast,” the “Nature Coast,” the “Forgotten Coast,” and along the Panhandle, the “Emerald Coast.” There is no reference to a “West Coast,” though that is what it is; and there is no mention of the “West Sea.”

Florida’s Gulf Coast faces both west and south into the Gulf of Mexico

One of the reason it is not called the West Sea or the West Coast, is that about 43% (271 miles of an overall 638 miles) of that coast faces south along the Panhandle, and would be the “South Coast,” but the entire area is referred to as the ”Gulf Coast.” On the Atlantic side, it is referred to as the “Atlantic Coast,” and sometimes the “East Coast.”
    First of all, people in Mesoamerica would not refer to the Gulf of Mexico being to the west because that sea lies to the north of Mesoamerica. People in Mexico refer to the Gulf of Mexico as being to the east. When one copies down and repeats what other Mesoamerican theorists claim without understanding or checking out the reality of the claim, they are bound to make serious errors.
    But Brandley, using that idea of Mesoamerican theorists, adds, “Names of the various lands in the Book of Mormon can also be confusing because sometimes the same name will refer to different sized areas. The “land of Zarahemla” for example, sometimes refers to the area close around the city like a county size as in Alma 5:1, sometimes to a larger area such as a state size as in Alma 59:4, and sometimes it refers to all the lands of the Nephites as in Alma 22:32.”
    This is also inaccurate and misleading. As an example, having grown up in Southern California, and at a time when Los Angeles dominated all geographical concepts, there was the city of Los Angeles (very large), the county of Los Angeles (much larger still) and the area of Los Angeles, meaning what is referred to as Southern California, was also referred to as Los Angeles. It is somewhat like Salt Lake City today often referring to the total area of several smaller cities and communities, from the area of North Salt Lake to the Point of the Mountain, with Provo being the name used to describe all the cities and communities south of there.

The names (in black) are the cities; the names (in White) are the surrounding lands—both with the same  name, which was the custom of naming the cities and lands in the Land of Promise

However, Brandley’s opinion is not entirely correct: “Alma began to deliver the word of God unto the people, first in the land of Zarahemla, and from thence throughout all the land” (Alma 5:1). There no confusion or misuse of the geographical names here. Alma began preaching in the Land of Zarahemla, meaning that land nearby the city (a concept used throughout the scriptural record, where there was a city and then a land around that city both with the same name, i.e., city of Bountiful, land of Bountiful (Alma 52:18;53:4); city of Gideon, land of Gideon (Alma 6:7); city of Moroni, land of Moroni (Alma 51:22,24); city of Ammonihah, land of Ammonihah (Alma 16:11; 49:3); city of Shilom, land of Shilom (Mosiah 7:8; Alma 23:12); city of Nephi, land of Nephi (Alma 23:11; 24:20), etc.
    Thus, there is no confusion about the physical location and makeup of the Land of Promise as described in the scriptural record to those who understand the simple language describing that land and its parts as Mormon so clearly does for us. Brandley’s statement that “Directional geographical names in the Book of Mormon are absolute and always refer to the same location,” is both inaccurate, and totally misleading, as such statements from theorists so often are.
    The fifth and last point of Brandley’s so-called misconceptions about the Book of Mormon is:
5. The land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were divided by a narrow neck of land.   
    Brandley states of this: “The concept that the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla are separated by a narrow neck of land is a major misunderstanding of the text. There are only two references to the narrow neck of land.”
    Such a view is almost unbelievable when Mormon made it very clear: “And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32).
    However, ignoring Mormon’s plain and simple statement that could not be clearer, Brandley quotes: “And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward” (Alma  63:5). He then adds his explanation: “Notice that the narrow neck of land is by the border of the land Bountiful and the land Desolation, which is much further north than the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi.”

When Mormon’s father, also named Momron, “carried” and 11-year-old Mormon south into the Land of Zarahemla, he passed through the Land of Bountiful and an unnamed land in between

There is no question that the narrow neck of land is far to the north of the Land of Zarahemla. In Mormon’s insertion in Alma 22, he states of Bountiful, “on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful” (Alma 22:29). And north of Bountiful, bordering upon the land, was the land “which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed” (Alma 22:30).
    Obviously, to the north of the Land of Zarahemla was the Land of Bountiful, and in between the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Bountiful was an unnamed land (3 Nephi 3:23). The narrow neck began along the northern border of the Land of Bountiful and moved northward to the border of the Land of Desolation, Desolation being in the Land Northward and Bountiful being in the Land Southward (Alma 22:31). So the fact that the city the Jaredites was “much further north than the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi,” is of little concern, since that is what Mormon has maintained all along, and should be clearly understood by Mormon’s descriptions.
    Brandley then adds, “Notice also that the Jaredites built a great city by the narrow neck of land, not on it, or above it, or below it.” However, what Moroni abridged in Ether is “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20, emphasis added). So Moroni tells us that:

“By the narrow neck” means not on or within the narrow neck, but by it, which means it could have been north (above) or south (below) the narrow neck, but it was BY the narrow neck.

    There is no confusion to this.
1. The city they built was not on or within the narrow neck of land;
2. The city was built “by the place where the sea divides the land.”
    Thus, this reads that the Jaredites built a city by the narrow neck of land, by where the sea divides the land. Moroni said nothing about the city being above the narrow neck (meaning north) or below the narrow neck (meaning south). Such is not mentioned and cannot be speculated upon as to which location it would have been. What is mentioned is “by the narrow neck.”
    Now, the 1828 meaning of the word “by” as used here in regard to location, was: “Near; close; as: sit by me; that house stands by a river.” This is the exact phrase one would use to mention that something had been built by something else. That is, the Jaredite city was built by (near, next to, close to) the narrow neck of land that led into the Land Northward; and it was built by where the sea divides the land.
    This is not a confusing statement or a point of misunderstanding to anyone except for Brandley, who seems continually confused by the plain and simple language of the scriptural record.
(See the next post, “Has the Geographical Truth of the Book of Been Kept Hidden? – Part V,” regarding the belief of theorists and their claim that there are five specific and “common misunderstandings of the text of the Book of Mormon that have kept the truth of its geography hidden for the past 185 years”)