Did the Nephite Nation Move Northward Into North America? – Part II

Continued from the previous post, regarding the development of the Americas and the need to have facts, statements, opinions, beliefs and models match the scriptural record. Also continuing with the list of a reader’s points about his Andes/Western Hemisphere theory. The first five were covered in the previous post, we continue here with that list:
6. “The issue I see is that too many people focus too much on the book of Mormon taking place in either the south or the north and don't even consider that it could have been spread throughout both the south and the north...”

Dates represent when the idea of such a landing location or map model was first introduced; brackets show the north-south boundaries of the location; dots show suggested landing sites

Response: To begin with, the order in this statement is wrong. Initially, many members and leaders thought Lehi landed in South America (probably based on Frederick G. Williams statement), and the prevailing belief in the Church prior to the 1950s was that North America was the Land Northward and South America was the Land Southward, and Central America was the Narrow Neck. That all changed when M. Wells Jakeman came to BYU in 1948 with the first chair of Archaeology being established. Jakeman was convinced Lehi landed in Central America, and since then, most people in the Church came to accept that Mesoamerica was the location of the Land of Promise. Other varying theories followed in the latter half of 20^th century until now we have several views on this location. 
    However, what we do not concentrate on is that the Book of Mormon took place where Nephi said he landed, and then traveled northward from there to found the City of Nephi in the land they called Nephi after the death of Lehi (2 Nephi 5:5-7). It is not a matter of focusing on a geographical area, but simply following Nephi’s descriptions of where his ship went—“driven forth before the wind” (1 Nephi 18:8-9), and where he landed, where: 1) there needed to be a protected Bay or inlet or water area to land in; 2) an immediate place where they could pitch their tents; 3) an immediate area where they could plant their seeds they brought from Jerusalem that grew exceedingly and provided them with an abundant harvest (needs to be a climate like that of Jerusalem where the seeds originated); 4) a forest nearby large enough that both domesticated (feral) and wild animals could share and increase in numbers; and 5) a place where “both gold and silver and copper” could be found in abundance along the surface of the ground that could be seen “while journeying in the wilderness.”
    Now, of all the geographical areas we have checked that matches Nephi’s account (1 Nephi 18:23-25), along with landing locations from winds and currents, climate for seeds, etc., would be Coquimbo Bay and adjacent La Serena at about 30º South Latitude in Chile (the exact location Frederick G. Williams noted in 1833).
7. “…they did have some 1200+ years to flourish and travel throughout all the land that they could access.”

Response: Lehi would have landed in the land the Lord promised him by about 587 BC—having left Jerusalem in 597 BC, the first year of Zedekiah’s reign as king (1 Nephi 1:4). The Nephites died out in 385 AD in the battle at Cumorah (Mormon 6:4-15). This means they were in the land for 972 years. There is little indication that they were involved in any movement away from the Land of Nephi prior to about 200 BC when Mosiah left Jerusalem and went northward and found Zarahemla (Omni 1:12-14). This means they really had about 585 years in which they might have been exploring far and wide. It wasn’t until about 55 BC that we even find they had ships built (Alma 63:5), and another 101 years before we learn they were involved in ship building and shipping (Helaman 3:14. The first they traveled into the Land Northward, the Old Jaredite lands, would have been around 90 BC, or at least that is the first time it is mentioned in the scriptural record (Alma 22:31-32). They may have been involved earlier than 100 AD, but Mosiah’s trip northward was the first time that we know the Nephites left the area of the Land of Nephi.
8. “I think there is more evidence that supports the idea of the Jaredites landing and having their strong hold in the great lakes area…”
Response: When one really studies the Great Lakes area and not just look on a map, it is next to impossible to find any place there that matches Mormon’s description of the Land Northward and Moroni’s descriptive of the people and the land of the Jaredites. First of all, the Jaredite barges (notice these are not boats or ships—but barges; also note that they were beneath the water’s surface (Either 6:10) numerous times for extensive periods [Ether 6:6-7]; one of the old definitions of “barge” was “submarine”). We also need to remember that these barges were subject to the weather for movement: “the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land; and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind” (Ether 6:5); and it was the winds that moved them (meaning the wind blew the waves, which is what creates ocean currents); for “the wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land while they were upon the waters; and thus they were driven forth before the wind” (Ether 6:8, emphasis added).

Proposed routes to the Great Lakes for Jaredite barges: (Red Lines) Possible course for barge: St. Lawrence and Mississippi rivers; (Blue Lines) Ocean Currents; (Yellow Lines) River flows to the sea; (“X”) location of impassable rapids and shallows; (Yellow Dots) Proposed landing sites

Consequently, for these barges to have reached the Great Lakes there would had to have been winds and current that blew them there (Ether 6:5,8,12)—and no such winds and currents exist that would take a vessel of any kind from the sea (ocean) up a river to the Great Lakes, whose elevation of Ontario at 243’, Erie 569’ and Michigan 577’, are all “upriver.” After all, rivers that empty into the ocean do not flow inland, but have currents that flow toward the sea. Nor could any barge have survived moving into the St. Lawrence or Mississippi rivers against the current and across shallow waters or rapids. And since “the wind did never cease to blow toward the promised land” (Ether 6:8), there just simply is no way the Jaredite barges could have moved inland to land Lehi at or near the Great Lakes.
9. “…and the Nephites landing in the south and growing to cover both the north and south with their strongest civilizations being in the south.”
Response: There is no question that the strongest ancient civilization was in Andean South America. However, there is no way the Nephites could have moved from South America into Central America except by ship because of the Darien Gap (Panama) being as impassable in the past as it is today, and most likely at the time of the Nephites, was not even connected to South America. The only indication we have of Nephites sailing north by ship was in those exceedingly large ships that Hagoth built (Alma 63:5).
10. “…and the civilizations that moved to the North built upon that which the Jaredites once used…”
Response: There were only three instances of an overlap in Nephite and Jaredite location names: both the Jaredites and the Nephites called a single hill by the same name, Ramah and Cumorah (Ether 15:11); the location of their capitol, Moron, being “near the land which is called Desolation by the Nephites” (Ether 7:6).; and there being a hill Shim in a land called Antum where Ammaron hid the plates (Mormon 1:3) that Mormon later obtained, and there was a hill Shim of the Jaredites, which was near “the place where the Nephites were destroyed” (Ether 9:3) presumed to be near Cumorah; Other than that, we know of no instance, comment or suggestion where the Nephites used or utilized anything of the Jaredites, with the possible exception of the city of Desolation (Mormon 3:5-7) and the Jaredite city “where the sea divides the land” (Either 10:20).
11. “…which is why we today have a hard time identifying exactly which civilizations originated in the archaeological sites in the North.”

Both the pre-Colonial Indian period and the colonial period saw numerous forts built, particularly around the Great Lakes and the Northeastern seaboard. Scholars have difficulty determine which are Indian and which European, but none have been officially identified to be prior to 1400 AD, though individual writers have made such claims

Response: The only difficulty that historians seem to have with earlier peoples in North America is during the colonial period, and which were in the period of the indigenous “Indians” before the Europeans arrived. Anything earlier than 1400 to 1600 AD is quite murky historically speaking, often based solely on the myths and legends told by Indians that were handed down over the generations. Anything beyond that is merely speculation based on scores of mounds in the eastern half of the U.S., and what are called “Anasazi” cliff dwellings in the southwest.
12. “The genetic stumbling block that keeps many from this understanding is the connection between the genes of those in the south to those in Asia rather than to those or Hebrew or Israelite descent. Which has more recently been debunked and refuted through the discovery of the Haplo group x found in south American genes and also in Eastern Israeli genes.”
Response: While we have written a few times about the DNA issue in our blog, it is more of a new, budding science at this point, rather than an understandably complete one. Problems associated with the DNA research and activity, including the Bottleneck and Founder Effect, demonstrate why research is difficult to be “complete” to satisfy all possibilities. Generalities are simply not sufficient for such an enormous challenge of determining connection of the ancient past based solely on the present. After all, nothing is known about the DNA that Lehi, Sariah, Ishmael, and others brought to the Americas. Even if geneticists had a database of the DNA that now exists among all modern American Indian groups, it would be impossible to know exactly what to search for. 
    It is possible that each member of the emigrating parties described in the Book of Mormon had DNA typical of the Near East, but it is likewise possible that some of them carried DNA more typical of other regions. We should keep in mind that popular TV series, such as “CSI” and “Bones” that depicts forensic scientists solving complicated questions about crime scenes using DNA evidence, has created an international conscious. Based on those fictional depictions, "One of the things we all know is that DNA proves pretty much everything,” when in reality, there are major limitations on what it can define about family lineage. In reality, the conclusions of genetics, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the origins of the native populations of the Americas.
    The point is, and it should be thoroughly understood, having a theory is of little importance, and creating a map model has little value—unless one’s information, facts, statements, ideas, opinions and beliefs are totally in line with the scriptural record regarding the Land of Promise.