Continuing with the 12 Landforms of the Land of Promise and how Mesoamerican, Heartland and Great Lakes theories measure up to Mormon and other prophets of the scriptural record have described them). The first four points were covered in the previous post, here with continue with #5:
5. “Lehi landed on the shore of the West Sea, where they settled (1 Nephi 18:23), in the borders by the seashore, which was called “the Land of First Inheritance” (Alma 22:28) in the Land of Nephi (Mosiah 9:1)”:
Various landing sites of Lehi in the different theories
This landing place of Lehi is identified as the land of the first inheritance of the Nephites-Lamanites, and—a “place of their fathers’ first inheritance,” which existed in the west sea locality, west of the land of Nephi (Land of Lehi according to the lost 116 pages of the original translation). Thus, Lehi’s landing place on the Sea West was west of the land of Nephi and was known to both the Nephites and Lamanites as the land of their fathers’ first inheritance. However, there is little agreement among theorists (even those adhering to the same major theory) as to where Lehi landed.
• Mesoamerica: In their model, Lehi landed on the southeastern shore of Guatemala, near the Honduras border; however, some have put the landing elsewhere: Izapa in the Guatemala-Mexico region; Acajutla, El Salvador; Usulután, El Salvador (V. Garth Norman, Personal Conversation with Joseph L. Allen, 1991; F. Richard Hauck, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1988, pp87-88).
Note that all of these places are on the shore of the Sea South, and do not match Mormon’s description of landing on the West Sea in the Land of Nephi of the Land Southward.
• Heartland: In this model, theorists place a landing site from the coast of Florida at Crystal River along the Sea South; at Apalachicola on the south shore of the Sea South, and at Pensacola, Florida, to Mobile, Alabama along the south shore of the Sea South. None of which match the West Sea of Mormon’s explanation. And how they got in there, against opposing currents is also hard to understand—not even Columbus attempted to sail northward once in the Caribbean Sea.
The waters beyond Baton Rouge, Louisiana, shallows out and was impassable for a deep water sailing ship until the river was dredged by the Corps of Engineers in 1837
In addition, there was simply no way to get to the area up the Mississippi River beyond Baton Rouge because of its shallow waters, rapids, and opposing currents. Theorists can make claims, but the reality is those claims have to have been possible—and getting anything up the Mississippi in Lehi’s time was simply not possible, and didn’t become possible until the steam-driven paddle wheelers.
• Great Lakes: These theorists claim either a landing in Lake Erie through inland waterways between the Ohio River and the lake, or a landing in Lake Ontario from the St. Lawrence River. First of all, the Great Lakes were never connected to inland waterways until the digging of the Erie Canal (formerly known as the New York State Barge Canal), it was built to create a navigable water route from New York City and the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes, originally stretching for 363 miles (584 km) from the Hudson River in Albany to Lake Erie in Buffalo. Completed in 1825, it was the first and only way to get to Lake Erie from the Atlantic Ocean.
Rapids at Montreal caused a portage around the breaks for hundreds of years until Canadian Engineers dug the Lachine Canal around Montreal in 1825
As for the St. Lawrence River, it was impassable movement westward past Montreal for any boat larger than a canoe. For over two hundred years anyone moving up the river had to disembark at Montreal, portage their boat, goods and supplies for three miles around the area and pick up the river on the west side of the miles of rapids. Even then, they could not get from the river up to Lake Ontario because of the increased elevation, and certainly not from there up to Lake Erie, which was several hundred feet above Ontario that was 243 feet above the St. Lawrence. Seven locks were built by both Canadian and American engineers.
It is one thing for theorist to look at a map and say this or that happened relating to the navigable rivers to the Great Lakes, but the Niagara and the St. Lawrence rivers were not. Natural obstructions such as rocks, shallow water, dangerous rapids, and waterfalls all had to be tamed, controlled or bypassed to enable safe navigation. Massive public works projects were carried out by both the United States and Canada to construct channels and locks. Thus, utilizing lock infrastructure, vessels were able to overcome changes in waterway elevation. On the Great Lakes Seaway system, 16 locks lifted or lowered ships a total of 600 feet from Montreal to Lake Superior.
The never-launched 3000-ton USS New Orleans which remained on the stocks from 1814 to 1884. The British HMS Saint Lawrence, launched in 1814, was rated at 2300 tons and had 112 guns ranging from 24-pounders to 68-pounders. The USS New Orleans and USS Chippawa were nearly completed in 1815, but never launched, but would have been the world's largest ships at nearly 3000 tons—carrying 74 to 106 guns, but could have mounted many more
In fact, during the War of 1812, the British had to take their ships brought from England to the American coast, dismantle (take apart) them and portage them hundreds of miles up to Lake Erie, and then reassemble them (all in Canadian territory) before they could mount a force against John Paul Jones and the American navy on the lakes. There simply was no way to get sailing ships up to the Great Lakes in a desperate need as late as 1812-1814.
6. “Very high mountains, whose height is great (Helaman 14:23)”:
The word “great” in 1828 meant: “Superior; vast; extensive; preeminent; surpassing all others; very distinguished; large in bulk or dimensions; a term of comparison—beyond what is usual; expressing a large, extensive or unusual degree”—in other words, “mountains whose height surpassed all other mountains.”
Nephi states there were mountains previously in the Land of Promise that were toppled to the ground: “I saw mountains tumbling into pieces” (1 Nephi 12:4); and Samuel the Lamanite said of those mountains: “there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great (Helaman 14:23).
In addition, this was not just a singular local event, or mountain range, but a vast area large enough that it was viewed by all areas of the Land of Promise as Samuel the Lamanite went on to say that these events at the time of the crucifixion was for: “the intent that they [Nephites] might believe that these signs and these wonders should come to pass upon all the face of this land, to the intent that there should be no cause for unbelief among the children of men” (Helaman 14:28).
The towering Andes Mountains can be seen for hundreds of miles from any quarter in Andean Peru
This would require a large area where mountains rose after the earlier ones collapsed—and these new mountains would have to be large enough and tall enough to be viewed over a vast area, i.e., the entire width and breadth of the Land of Promise, so all could see the signs.
To make sure the Lamanites in the Land of Nephi also understood the events, when Samuel was driven out of the Land of Zarahemla, he “did flee out of their lands, yea, even unto his own country, and began to preach and to prophesy among his own people” (Helaman 16:7, emphasis added). Thus, both the Nephites and the Lamanites knew of the coming events of mountains collapsing and others rising high upon the land.
(See the next post for the continuation of these 12 Landforms and how Mesoamerican, Heartland and Great Lakes theories measure up to how Mormon and other prophets of the scriptural record have described them)
No comments:
Post a Comment