Continued from the previous post regarding the Great Lakes theory of bringing Lehi up the St. Lawrence River to Lake Erie to land in their West Sea adjacent to their Lane of Nephi and Land of Zarahemla—and also of the Heartland theory of bringing Lehi into the Florida panhandle.
Originally, as shown earlier, these eastern rivers that empty into the Atlantic, shallow-out very soon after leaving the coastal area and begin their climb into the mountainous areas of the eastern mountains that lie between the sea and the inland Great Lakes. There simply was no way to move upstream in any of the rivers between the coast and the Great Lakes.
Again, it was the man-made St. Lawrence Seaway, and the man-made Great Lakes Waterway that allowed both ocean-going vessels and the ore and coal-bearing lake freighters to travel from the system’s saltwater outlet to its far interior. The Waterway has larger locks and deeper than the lower Seaway, limiting large freighters to the four lakes upstream of the Welland Canal and Lake Ontario, and similarly restricting passage beyond the canal by larger ocean vessels.
The two waterways are often jointly and simply referred to as the "St. Lawrence Seaway," since the Great Lakes, together with the St. Lawrence River, comprise a single navigable body of freshwater linking the Atlantic Ocean to the continental interior, though to get from the St. Lawrence River, the aforementioned locks are required to first raise the vessel up to the level of Lake Ontario. From 1844 through 1857, palace steamers carried passengers and cargo around the Great Lakes (Mark L. Thompson, Steamboats & Sailors of the Great Lakes, Wayne State University Press, Detroit Michigan, 1991, p210).
The map of the Island of Montreal, the St. Lawrence River that passes by and through it, and the Lachine Rapids that block the river along the Lachine Section of Montreal
The point of all of this is to show, without question, that the Great Lakes were not reachable in 600 BC, nor at any time before the 18th century, when modern governments began funding the opening up the interiors of their country. Lehi, at no time, could have reached Lake Ontario or Lake Erie—in fact, could not have sailed past Montreal on the St. Lawrence River because of the Lachine Rapids, which were (and are) a series of rapids on the river between the Island of Montreal and the South shore, near the former city of Lachine, which was located in the southwest portion of the island. The Rapids contain large standing waves because the water volume and current do not change as they flow over a riverbed of shelf-like drops, with the seasonal variation in the water flow does not change the position of the waves, though they do change their size and shape. The rapids are about 3 miles in length and until the Lachine Canal was dug, represented a considerable barrier to maritime traffic. Until the canal was finished through Montreal, any and all cargoes had to be portages—even when the canal was finished, difficulty was such that it was usually more convenient to ship goods by rail to Montreal, where they could be loaded at the city's port on the upriver side of the rapids. Montreal remains a major rail hub and one of Canada's largest ports for that reason. Today, the Lachine Rapids are passed by the South Shore Canal (Saint-Lambert and Côte Sainte-Catherine locks) of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
As stated previously, it is quite obvious—except to Great Lakes theorists—that Lehi did not sail up the St. Lawrence River in 600 BC to Lake Erie and land along the west shore of western New York!
The three main landing sites promoted by Heartland theorists and the current that would have kept a ship driven forth by the wind from doing so
As for the Heartland theorists, their landing site varies between three locations—Crystal River and Tallahassee, both in Florida, and Mobile, Alabama. Tallahassee was part of their “Land of First Inheritance, with their actual claimed landing site at Apalachicola, 76 miles south and a little west of Tallahassee, along the coast, and 23 miles east of Cape San Blas—on the tip of St. Joseph’s Peninsula.
One of the problems with all three of these landing sites and never discussed by Heartland enthusiasts, is that the ocean currents in the Gulf of Mexico flow around in a circular manner as does the gulf coast, with the current beginning along Mexico’s east coast around the Bay of Campeche and moving northward, curving with the coast into a west to east direction, then southward down the western coast of the Florida peninsula to swirl out into the Atlantic and northward into the Gulf Stream, which has three tributaries: a West Indies current, a Caribbean current and a Gulf of Mexico current, creating a powerful western boundary current in the North Atlantic Ocean that strongly influences the climate of the East Coast of the United States and many Western European countries.
Dotted line shows the swift Gulf current curving with the coat southward, right into the path of the proposed course of Lehi promoted by Rod L. Meldrum and other Heartland theorists
Obviously, this current moves swiftly in a counter direction than the claimed course that Lehi would have taken to land on the Florida (Crystal River or Apalachicola) or Alabama (Mobile) coast. Of course, theorists with erroneous models, pay little attention to such matters either because they have no argument to offset such a simple, but important fact; do not know about it; or pay little attention to matters contrary to their beliefs.
We need to keep in mind that Mormon had much larger volumes of records that each earlier custodian of the sacred record left, and had to abridge all that information into a much smaller volume that he engraved on the plates that ended up in Joseph Smith hands by way of Mormon’s son, Moroni. The incidents Mormon condenses and the words he chooses to use, were carefully crafted by him because he had so little space to abridge the record than the vastly larger originals.
To bear this out, Mormon wrote: “I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people” (Words of Mormon 1:5)—this was also experienced by others: “And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people” (2 Nephi 33:1); “And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates” (Jacob 3:13); “And many more things did king Benjamin teach his sons, which are not written in this book” (Mosiah 1:8); After king Limhi had made an end of speaking to his people, for he spake many things unto them and only a few of them have I written in this book (Mosiah 8:1)
“And now the words of Amulek are not all written, nevertheless a part of his words are written in this book” (Alma 9:34); “But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work” (Helaman 3:14)
It is also clear, that the Lord was involved in constraining what the prophets wrote in the sacred record: “But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write” (1 Nephi 14:25); “Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it” (3 Nephi 16:11). “And now I, Mormon, make an end of my sayings, and proceed to write the things which have been commanded me (3 Nephi 26:8–12).” Moroni wrote Wherefore the Lord hath commanded me [Moroni] to write them; and I have written them. And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord” (Ether 4:5).
Consequently, when Mormon wrote his abridgement, he obviously was both constrained by the Lord from writing certain things and prompted to write others, as well as having to condense an earlier prophet’s writing because of space on the plates. Thus, it should be clear that when Mormon uses any word, description, or statement that the words he chose were highly considered before using. Thus, we continually urge readers of the scriptural record to consider carefully the wordage used and their meaning, both today and in 1829 when Joseph translated them, and possibly in 380 AD when Mormon wrote them. When we read with any type of pre-conceived opinion or belief, or without a knowledge of who is speaking, what is being covered, and why, one is likely headed toward a misunderstanding of what Mormon wrote. Thus we have dozens of theories and sub-theories, numerous locations for Lehi’s landing and the Land of Promise—and obviously, not everyone can be right. So how do we know what is correct? Compare everything to the scriptural record and the simple and clear understanding of Mormon’s descriptions.
The point is, neither Heartland nor Great Lakes theorists would find it difficult to have an intelligent conversation regarding how Lehi’s ship could have reached the landing sites singled out by them. There are, of course, numerous other points that preclude such a consideration, but it should start with the fact that what Mormon and others wrote has specific meanings and with an understanding those words, will find it difficult to maintain such models.
As a side note: Some readers may wonder why we spend so much time on details, even to interrupt the normal free-flowing article and it is because critics are seldom knowledgeable about the things they say and believe—they have neither studied nor understood the history surrounding the event they describe and when confronted with inarguable information that opposes their viewpoint, they are both confounded and shown to be in error—though it seldom changes anyone’s mind—but leaves them no ground to further argue their point. They either respond with bluster and a raising of their voice, or they slink off into temporary oblivion. As an example, when the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service—who oversees the National System and protects over 12,700 miles of 209 rivers in 40 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as keeping watch over all of the nation's rivers, which flow over 3.5 million miles across the United States—claim that a river was not navigable before it was deepened, widened, or built locks, there is little room for a counter argument to be mounted.
No comments:
Post a Comment