More Comments from Readers – Part VII

Here are more comments that we have received from readers of this website blog:
Comment #1: “You have been ragging on Sorenson‘s map and explanations for years now. But it seems to me much of what he says makes sense, such as his comment about the narrow pass in the narrow neck being “an irregular sandstone and gravel formation” or “gravelly ridge” at the top of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, from which position the Nephties could defend the entire narrow neck from Lamanite advance” Mae Lynn R.
Response: First of all, Sorenson is talking about the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which is by his own admission 125 miles wide, and by the Mexican government’s measurement 144 miles wide.

The Point of the Mountain between Salt Lake City and Provo. Arrows and rocks could not be effective at such distances as shown where it would be (Blue dotted line) out of range from the (Yellow arrow) mountain height to the (White arrow) ground below

Using Sorenson’s smaller figure, that is about the same distance from Ogden, Utah, to Nephi, Utah, (119.6 miles). Now really, if you held the high ground along the Point of the Mountain (between Thanksgiving Point and Draper), how on Earth would that help you, in the day of swords and spears, to defeat an enemy force moving as much as 60 miles north or 60 miles south of you across a narrow distance? The narrow neck was narrow because it was a choke point, i.e., a very narrow area through which people or armies had to pass to get from the Land Southward into the Land Northward, with a narrow passage, probably less than a mile wide, that a small military force could defend against a much larger army and still hold the pass.
Comment #2: “How is it possible that an intelligent professor at BYU can consider north and south that is literally east and west? His Mesoamerican directions of cardinal points blows my mind. Keep holding his feet to the fire” Guy V.
Response: That is the question that has plagued the Book of Mormon Land of Promise discussion for many years. For some reason, Sorenson cannot understand that the the Book of Mormon reflects some kind of obvious directional system that readers are expected to relate to as they attempt to understand the content of the Mormon’s abridgement. An analysis of the Alma 22 geography content suggests that it was included by Mormon so readers in the distant future could relate correctly to the content of his abridgment. If so, the four cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west used by Mormon would  have to coincide very closely with today’s cardinal directions of north, south, east, and west.
Comment #3: “Under king Benjamin, the non-Nephite masses of the Mulekites understood whichever language the Nephite king chose to use for his speech (recorded in Mosiah 2:1-6)—that the more numerous Mulekite subjects had all learned the language Mosiah brought among them a generation earlier seems highly unlikely. Judging from the history of most contacts of this sort, the less numerous nobility would have made the change, at least in the long run.”

Mosiah leads his Nephites to Zarahemla where he discovers the Mulekites

Response: When Mosiah first discovered the Mulekites, the prophet Amaleki, an eye-witness to the events, records that “the people of Mosiah could not understand them” (Omni 1:17), and that “Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language” (Omni 1:18), but along comes John Sorenson 2200 years later and says “that it would be doubtful that the majority of Mulekites a generation later could understand the Nephites, without any scriptural suggestion to the contrary.”
    On the other hand, it would seem that everyone would try to learn the language and develop it since they were all excited and “there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also the leader, Zarahemla, did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews” (Omni 1:14), and that the inheritance of the Land of Promise had been granted only to the children of Nephi (Mosiah 25:13), consequently, all the Mulekites voted to become Nephites.
    It seems most likely that they learned the Nephite language since they would have wanted to become part of those who could inherit the land, as well as want to be able to read the scriptures that Mosaih brought with him and to which the Mulekites did rejoice to receive.
Comment #4: “I believe a significant portion of Sorenson’s geographic model for Mesoamerica and his land of promise setting for the Book of Mormon is impacted illogical decisions on his part. His interpretations Alma 22 simply does not support the outcome of either his map or his belief that the directions have been changed nearly 90º. In other words, Sorenson evidently has not read the Book of Mormon carefully and therefore has misinterpreted the content of the message in Alma 22:32. To me, his tunnel vision approach to his map and, in fact, his entire concept of Mesoamerica is so indefensible, that it does us harm by giving critics more to fire at us” Chet P.
Response: We cannot speak for Sorenson’s reading or not reading of the Book of Mormon, but obviously his interpretation of Mormon’s simple description of the land’s layout is far off from accurate, and we agree that tremendous harm to the reading of the scriptural record is being done by this theory.
Comment #5: “Why do you disagree with John Clark of BYU? He seems to have some very good ideas” Lauren G.

Response: Clark (left) in fact have good ideas. Some of his best are found in his Keys for Evaluating Nephite Geographies (John Clark, FARMSReview of Books, vol1, 1998). Some of them are:
1. Assume a literal meaning.
2. Assume no scribal errors unless internal evidence indicates otherwise.
3. Assume no duplication of place names unless the text is unambiguous on the matter.
4. Assume that all passages are internally consistent and can be reconciled.
5. Assume that uniformitarian rather than catastrophic principles apply to the actual Book of Mormon lands (i.e., that the locality where the Book of Mormon events took place was not unrecognizably altered at the time of the crucifixion, that geographic details in the Small Plates and in the Book of Ether are therefore compatible with those in Mormon's and Moroni's abridgment, and that the principles of natural science that apply to today's environments are also pertinent to Nephite lands).
6. The best internal reconstruction is one which reconciles all of the data in the Book of Mormon with a minimum of additional assumptions.
    The problem is he doesn’t use this criteria in determining his own location, which is Mesoamerica. Let’s take the very first one: Assume a literal meaning. Mormon on numerous occasions tells us that the Land of Promise ran north and south, not east and west, yet Clark champions Mesoamerica which runs east and west, and accepts one of the many elaborate explanations of Mesoamerican theorists why Mormon had a different directional system than us. Throughout his entire Land of Promise, he has cities and lands to the west and east of each other when Mormon tells us they are north and south of each other, etc.

An island surrounded by four seas, in midst of the ocean

Take number four: “Assume that all passages are internally consistent and can be reconciled.” Jacob tells us the Nephites’ Land of Promise was an island in the midst of the sea (2 Nephi 10:20), and Helaman says the Land of Promise had a North Sea, East Sea, South Sea and West Sea (Helaman 3:8), which also suggests and island, yet his own Land of Promise is not an island; nor does it have a Sea North or Sea South.
    I could go on, but the idea is his criteria are excellent, though I might suggest that his #5 when confronted with the statement that mountains fell and became valleys, and valleys rose to become mountains “whose height is great” (Helaman 14:23); that entire cities sunk into the ground and were covered with mountains (3 Nephi 8:10), or sunk into the sea (3 Nephi 8:9), etc., surely would have altered the topography and terrain of the Land of Promise—in fact, Mormon tells us it did: “for behold, the whole face of the land was changed” (3 Nephi 8:12,18).
    It is nice to have criteria, but one must follow up with such criteria, not merely give it lip service.