What Was Meant by the Narrow Strip of Wilderness? – Part III

Continued from the previous post, regarding where the narrow strip of wilderness was located, what purpose it served, and how the Nephites used it as a line of defense, as well as how Heartland and Great Lakes theorists misuse the strip and misunderstand its location and purpose.
    In the previous post, we covered several items comparing Rod L. Meldrum and Jonathan Neville’s maps and locations of their Heartland theories, showing some of the differences.

Placement of Huntsville, Missouri, Nauvoo and the Mississippi River as depicted on Meldrum’s map

Now, using Heartland theorist Rod L. Meldrum’s Land of Promise model and map, the Lamanites would have to have gone from Huntsville, Missouri, (Meldrum’s Manti) and then cross the Mississippi south of Nauvoo (Meldrum’s “head of Sidon”), and then over eight hundred miles to near the Atlantic coast (Neville’s east coast) to attack Nephihah? In addition, there are no mountains within 300 miles of Huntsville and Nauvoo, and then those are not much more than hills. As an example, the highest point in the entire State of Illinois, is Charles Mound, a hill 1234 feet in height—in fact, of the ten highest points in Illinois, eight are called “mounds,” one a “hill,” and one a “ridge.” 
    In addition, since the elevation of Illinois is about 600 feet, that makes the highest point just over 600 feet high. The highest point in Missouri is Taum Saulk Mountain at 1772 feet—with a state elevation of 500 feet or more, that makes this mountain about 1200 feet in height. Hawkeye Point is the highest place in Iowa, at 1670 feet—keep in mind that the lowest elevation in the state is 480 feet along the Mississippi, which makes the 1670 elevation, really about 1200 feet. The point is, there are no mountains of any kind in all this area of the Heartland, which to any right-thinking person would disqualify this entire area as the Land of Promise described by Mormon.
    In addition, there is no place within three hundred miles on either side of the Mississippi River where all the events Mormon describes could have taken place. Clearly, the term “head of river Sidon” is referring to the beginning or source of the river Sidon; therefore, as stated by Neville, the Mississippi River could not have been the river Sidon as stated by Meldrum. Also, there is no location south of Nauvoo along the Mississippi with an elevation higher than Nauvoo, thus it would have been impossible for the Lamanites to have “come down” to attack Zarahemla from Manti (which was located west of the river Sidon and south of Zarahemla) or from the Land of Nephi.
    It should also be noted that more than 300 miles to the west of the Nauvoo/Zarahemla area along the Mississippi border between Illinois and Iowa, the elevation is only 345’ higher than this Heartland Zarahemla. 300 miles to the north the elevation is only 160’ higher than this Zarahemla.
    Thus, Meldrum’s Heartland distances hardly sound like they match the described military plan of the Lamanites, let alone not matching the incidents in the scriptural record. But if we are not aware of the geographical setting of the Land of Promise, and not aware that various theorists write about locations that are not consistent with Mormon’s descriptions, we can find ourselves backing the wrong concepts that eventually come to light and point out the errors—to some people that shakes their faith in both the Book of Mormon and in the Church as a whole. All of which is totally unnecessary if we learn the history, geography and events the Lord has given us within the scriptural record to understand what we read.

The Nephires drove the Lamanites out of the East Wilderness and also the West Wilderness, and fortified the line along the narrow strip of wilderness

 

We also might want to understand the importance to the Nephite defenses that the narrow strip of wilderness played throughout their wars with the Lamanites. As an example, within this strip of wilderness Moroni established military fortifications and “cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi” which allowed the Nephites to “possess all the land which was northward of the land Bountiful” meaning the Narrow Neck of Land and the Land Northward, “according to their pleasure” (Alma 50:11).
    This narrow strip of wilderness also provided a military defensive line dividing the Nephites on the north from the Lamanites on the south (Alma 22:33–34); however, this line of defense only existed from about 72 BC until around 35 BC, when the Lamanite and Nephite dissenters joined forces and conquered not only the Land of Zarahemla, but all the possession of the Nephites in the Land Southward, south of the Land of Bountiful, where the Nephites built a defensive wall and fortified it against further attacks (Helaman 4:8).
    In addition, the Gadianton Robbers “did make great havoc, yea, even great destruction among the people of Nephi and also among the people of the Lamanites” and to curb this enemy right within their lands, “they sent an army…into the wilderness and upon the mountains to search out this band of robbers and to destroy them” (Helaman 11:28). However, they failed in this attempt, and were “obliged to return out of the wilderness and out of the mountains unto their own lands, because of the exceeding greatness of the numbers of those robbers who infested the mountains and the wilderness” (Helaman 11:31).
    This was not the end, however, for the Robbers increased in number and strength and warred in many parts of the land, defying the entire armies of both the Nephites and Lamanites (Helaman 11:32), causing great fear among the people and extensive destruction and taking women and children captive and carried “them into the wilderness” (Helaman 11: 33).
    In fact, when Mormon states that “the Gadianton robbers, who dwelt upon the mountains, who did infest the land; for so strong were their holds and their secret places that the people could not overpower them; therefore they did commit many murders, and did do much slaughter among the people” (3 Nephi 1:27), it is inevitable that we see these Gadianton Robbers’ hideouts within the Narrow Strip of Wilderness, for this land would have been difficult to cross, difficult to mount a military battle plan within, and difficult to locate hidden enclaves of Robbers. Being located between the Nephite and Lamanite lands, it certainly would have allowed the Robbers to “sally forth” into either Nephite or Lamanite populated areas to suddenly attack towns and settlements, kidnap women and children, or capture unsuspecting small guard posts and then run back into the mountains and hide.
    Another illustration of their hideout’s location is found in the statement in 18 BC, that the “robbers had prepared for battle, and began to come down and sally forth, from the hills, and out of the mountains . . . and began to take possession of the lands, both which were in the land south” meaning south of the narrow strip of wilderness, “and which were in the land north” meaning north of the narrow strip of wilderness, “and began to take possession of all the lands which had been deserted by the Nephites” and the Lamanites, “and the cities which had been left desolate” (3 Nephi 4:1). Another incident in 13 AD, “there began to be wars and contentions throughout all the land” of both the Nephites and the Lamanites, “for the Gadianton robbers had become so numerous, and did slay so many of the people, and did lay waste so many cities, and did spread so much death and carnage throughout the land, that it became expedient that all the people, both the Nephites and the Lamanites, should take up arms against them” (3 Nephi 2:11).

Situated within the narrow strip of wilderness, between the Nephites and Lamanites, the Gadianton Robbers could attack in each direction swiftly and then retreat and disappear in the mountains

This clearly suggests that the Gadianton robbers were infesting the mountains between the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla within the narrow strip of wilderness since they were attacking in both directions (the Nephites which were north, and the Lamanites which were south of their hideouts).
    It is also interesting when describing the hideout lairs of the Robbers, Mormon describes both the wilderness and mountains—the description given to the entire narrow strip of wilderness. This is also seen in the description of the “robbers should come down out of the wilderness against them” (3 Nephi 3:17), meaning, of course, that this wilderness was in an elevated area or mountainous. And also seen in the Nephite request of their governor to “Let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness that we might fall upon the robbers and destroy them” (3 Nephi 3:20). Again, showing that both the mountains and wilderness were elevated above the Land of Zarahemla.
    We also find that this narrow strip of wilderness was encircled by “many cities” (Alma 50:15; 51:26,27) that were surrounded by “walls of stone, around their cities and the borders of their lands” (Alma 48:8).
These clear and concise descriptions should be found in any theory model of the Land of Promise for the Narrow Strip of Wilderness.