skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Continuing
from the last two posts regarding the difference in Andean Peru from all the
theories regarding the placement of the Land of Promise proposed by various
theorists, and the understanding of the “facts” behind these locations, as
opposed to other’s “theories.” As
discussed earlier, there is a difference between a “theory,” a “fact,” and
“speculation,” and “belief” (see Part I). What we have for the most part in
regard to the location of the Land of Promise is a bunch of “theories,” that
is, “ideas used to account for an opinion or viewpoint or position, which
typically, but not always, leads to the investigation of that idea or opinion.”
As opposed to having “facts,” that is, “something that is indisputably the
case; a piece of information used as evidence of a reality or a certainty.”
Part
of the problem we have on this subject is that theorists regarding the location
of the Land of Promise seldom are interested in facts—rather, they rely upon
their intuition, their opinions, their personal viewpoints and, what they
believe, is their unique understanding. Thus, they rely more on their internal
belief system rather than on the “factual” knowledge of those who lived through
the events described and provided us with the descriptions needed for us to
better understand and grasp the conditions of their landscape—their home.
Mormon,
when he abridged the scriptural record of Mosiah through 4th Nephi,
often (as did his son who abridged Ether) inserted personal explanations for
the future reader to better understand the conditions of the landscape over
which the events flowed that he abridged.
As
an example, in the 22nd chapter of Alma, Mormon decides to insert a
lengthy explanation of the area over which the Lamanite king ruled, and the people to
whom he sent a proclamation (Alma 22:27). In that 543-word insert, Mormon
proceeds to explain the land the king controlled, where that land was in
relationship to the Nephites, the land the Nephites controlled, and the
position of those lands compared to each other.
Now,
it should be kept in mind that Mormon knew he was writing to a future reader,
knew that reader would not know of these lands or their position to each other,
and set about to explain that so the future reader could picture in his mind
the layout of the land and where the Lamanites were located and where the
Nephites were located.
In
doing so, Mormon tells us that the Land of Nephi, which the Lamanites
controlled, was in the far south of the Land Southward, which ran horizontally
from the east sea to the west sea. Moving northward from there was a narrow
strip of wilderness that also ran from sea to sea, then northward was the Land
of Zarahemla, also running from the "east to the west sea," which the Nephites
controlled. To the north of that was the Land of Bountiful, also Nephite
controlled, and northward of that was the narrow neck of wilderness that was
the only land between the Land Southward and the Land Northward, which the Nephites
controlled and could keep anyone, such as the Lamanites, from getting behind
them and into the Land Northward.
Mormon
goes on to tell us that the Land Northward, also controlled by the Nephites,
was made up of the Land of Desolation, thus the Land of Desolation and the Land
of Bountiful were separated by this narrow neck of land which was the width a
Nephite could journey across in a day-and-a-half.
Now
we should recognize the difference between Mormon’s “facts” and John L. Sorenson’s
“speculation,” when the BYU dean of anthropology claims the Land of Promise
really did not run north and south, but actually almost east and west, and that
Mormon used a different directional system than we use today—what he called
“Nephite North.”
It
seems absolutely amazing and without any justifiable purpose to try and make
one think Mormon, who was writing to a future people, would use a directional
system that would be different from that used by the rest of the world,
different from that used by the Hebrews and Jews down through time, including
today (though he tries to show that word meanings were different in the ancient
past, long before Lehi’s time), and that which is commonly accepted by just
about every people on the face of the planet. It also seems even more
unreasonable that Joseph Smith, in translating Mormon’s words, would not
understand through the means at his disposal (Urim and Thummim, seer stone, etc.) the true meaning, or that the
Spirit, which is a testifier of truth, would allow the wrong meaning to be
inserted by Joseph into the record.
Consequently,
we need to remember what we are dealing with in the scriptural record, who
wrote it, who translated it, and what acknowledged its correctness, before we
start off speculating on matters of grave importance.
Again,
looking at truth, let us consider a few examples:
Fact:
Nephi built a ship that was “driven forth before the wind” (1 Nephi 18:8,9),
that is, subject to winds and the currents the winds create, as he sailed to
the Land of Promise. Driven Forth means a “drift voyage,” subject to winds and
currents.
Speculation:
Lehi sailed eastward from the Arabian
Peninsula toward India, Malay Peninsula and Sumatra; then through Indonesia to the South Pacific, then island-hopped
across to Mesoamerica.
Fact:
Winds and currents from the Arabian Peninsula do not flow eastward, but move
southward into the Indian Ocean, then southeast in the Indian Ocean Gyre, then
the West Wind Drift and Prevailing Westerlies of the Southern Ocean toward the
Drake Passage, then up the Humboldt Current along the west coast of South
America to where the winds and currents die down and allow for a landing at 30º
South Latitude, Coquimbo Bay, La Serena, Chile.
Speculation:
Lehi landed along the west Guatemala
coast of Mesoamerica.
Fact:
Winds and currents would not take a vessel “driven forth before the wind” to
this area. All wind and current maps show that to be impossible for a “drift
voyage.”
Speculation:
Lehi sailed south from the Arabian Peninsula,
then around the African Cape of Good Hope to the Atlantic, across to the Gulf
of Mexico and up the Mississippi River or up the Atlantic coast and passed Nova
Scotia to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then up the St. Lawrence River to Lake
Ontario and then to Lake Erie.
Yellow Arrow: Sailing up the St. Lawrence
River would be a difficult task for a drift voyage sailing ship “driven forth
before the winds” since this would be against currents and winds; this would have been true for the Mississippi River (White Arrow), since both rivers have blockages tht would not allow a sailing ship further than Baton Rouge on the Mississippi And La Rachine Rapids on the St. Lawrence. In addition, there was no way sail up from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie would be a vertical climb of 326
feet; today there are 15 locks between the St. Lawrence and Lake Erie to enable
shipping to get up the difference in elevation
Fact:
Even during the Age of Sail when very experienced mariners made the attempt to
sail from Indonesia, through the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic, found the going
extremely dangerous. The Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias in 1488 named it
the Cape of Storms (now the Cape of Good Hope)—a headland where numerous ships
have been sunk, causing the nickname “Graveyard of Ships,” because of the
dangers Portuguese navigators had to overcome when trying to round the into the
Atlantic. It became a graveyard of ships—more than 3000 were sunk there not to round the horn.
As
can be seen, speculation has a hard time standing up in the fact of factual
information.
(See
the next post, “Andean Peru is Not a Theory-Part IV,” for more information on
how Andean Peru is not one of the many theories that is based primarily on
speculation, personal viewpoints, and opinions, but rather on the facts as
stated in the scriptural record.
Continuing
from the last post regarding the difference in Andean Peru from all the
theories regarding the placement of the Land of Promise proposed by various
theorists, and the understanding of the “facts” behind this placement.
As
we know, “Lehi saw many things in visions
and in dreams and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and
spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account” (1 Nephi
1:16). Lehi had many such visions, of which he saw the future of his seed on
the Land of Promise (1 Nephi 8:36), and Nephi desired to see those same visions
(1 Nephi 10:17), and was granted his desire (1 Nephi 11:6).
Upon
seeing all those visions, Nephi recorded them. “And it came to pass that the
Lord commanded me, wherefore I did make plates of ore that I might engraven
upon them the record of my people. And upon the plates which I made I did
engraven the record of my father, and also our journeyings in the wilderness,
and the prophecies of my father; and also many of mine own prophecies have I
engraven upon them” (1 Nephi 19:1).
Before
looking at those visions and seeing what Nephi knew about the Land of Promise
of which he wrote, we need to keep in mind that two of those on the original
journey from the land of Bountiful along the shores of Irreantum to the Land of
Promise were Nephi and his brother Jacob. Consequently, two of those who wrote
about the location of the Land of Promise were on the vessel that took them to this
land, though one was young at the time, he grew up with the other who had built
and steered the ship from the Old World to the New—the Land of Promise.
As
a result, if anyone knew where that land was, it would have been Nephi (we do
not have the writings of Lehi at this point in time), who saw it first hand,
who saw it in a vision (1 Nephi 10:17) because he desired to see the same
things his father had been shown (1 Nephi 11:1). In addition to seeing the
birth, life, ministry and crucifixion of the Savior in those visions, he saw
the world, its wisdom, accomplishments, the pride of people, and the fall,
which “was exceedingly great" (1 Nephi 11:36).
Most
importantly, Nephi saw a vision of the Land of Promise over the centuries of
its existence, seeing wars and slaughter among his people (1 Nephi 12:2),
seeing many generations pass away (1 Nephi 12:3), the destruction of his land
during the crucifixion (1 Nephi 12:4), the advent of the Savior among the
Nephites (1 Nephi 12:6), he saw four generations of peace after Christ, then
the gathering of multitudes of Lamanites against his Nephite people (1 Nephi
12:15), saw the total destruction of the Nephite nation (1 Nephi 12:19), saw
the spread of the Lamanties as they were gathered together in multitudes and fought
wars among themselves throughout many generations after the fall of the
Nephites (1 Nephi 12:21).
He
also saw the fall of the Lamanites into “a
dark, and loathsome and filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of
abominations” (1 Nephi 12:23). At this point, far into the future, Nephi is
given a vision of many nations and kingdoms in the world (1 Nephi 13:1), who
were the Gentiles (1 Nephi 13:3), and they were divided from the Land of
Promise where the Lamanites dwelled (1 Nephi 13:10-11), and Nephi saw one of
the Gentiles who was guided by the Spirit and crossed the many waters to the
Land of Promise (1 Nephi 13:12), and the Spirit of God wrought upon other
Gentiles and they went forth upon the many waters (1 Nephi 13:13), who
scattered the Lamanties who were driven and smitten (1 Nephi 13:14), and Nephi saw
the Gentiles obtain the land for their inheritance (1 Nephi 13:15).
In
all of this, Nephi had a complete vision not only of his own land, the Land of
Promise, but also the oceans that separated the Land of Promise from Europe,
and the sailing of the Gentiles who came to the Americas and scattered and
attacked and killed the Lamanites. He actually saw these things. The Spirit
said unto Nephi, “Look!” And Nephi beheld the visions of all these events—he
says he actually saw them (1 Nephi 11:8, 13, 14, 25, 34, 36; 12:1-7, 15, 19,
20-21, 23; 13:1-7, 12, 14, 16-20). Nephi saw these events!
It
would seem, then, if anyone knew the size, shape, placement and description of
the Land of Promise, it would have been Nephi!
Now,
a few years after these visions in which Nephi saw the entire Land of Promise,
the seas between this land and Europe, the coming of the Gentiles, the wars
upon the Land of Promise down through the last generations, etc., that he ought
to know the shape, size, location and overall condition of the entire Land of
Promise. Is it possible that anyone today, or for the past hundred years, had
anywhere near as much knowledge of that appearance of the Land of Promise?
Certainly, there is no recorded revelations or visions of such.
Consequently,
out of sheer overwhelming evidence of the facts stated in the scriptural
record by the one who saw all this, we should accept Nephi at his word. As a
result, we need to understand Jacob’s comment as he preached about the
atonement, the resurrection and forgivness of sins to the Nephites during a
two-day conference in that Land of Promise.
Jacob
clearly said, “And now, my beloved brethren, seeing that our merciful God has
given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and
lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for we are not cast off;
nevertheless, we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we
have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we
are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:21).
Now,
being present, Nephi recorded Jacob’s words exactly as they were spoken. And having seen the Land of Promise in a vision throughout its long history, the
fall of his people, the coming of the Gentiles, the subjugation of the
Lamanites, he did not alter Jacob’s description that they were on an island,
and that the island was in the midst of the sea over which they sailed.
1.
Nephi saw the Land of Promise, including its history from beginning to end,
even before he landed upon it;
2.
Nephi’s ship, which could be steered (1 Nephi 18:13), when he took it back over
after his brother’s rebellion on board, Nephi “did guide the ship, that we
sailed again towards the promised land” (1 Nephi 18:22);
3.
He guided his ship to a landing on the Land of Promise (1 Nephi 18:23);
4.
He planted seeds on this new land; he journeyed in the wilderness; he saw the
animals and beasts; he saw the ore of which he wrote (1 Nephi 18:24-25);
5.
He acknowledged Jacob’s description that they were on an island in the midst of
the sea over which they had traveled and wrote it down in the record;
6.
He testified that the record he made was true, that he made it with his own
hand, and made it according to his own knowledge (1 Nephi 1:3)
7.
Only the most precious information was engraven on the plates (Jacob 1:2.
With
this in mind, how is it possible that when Jacob and Nephi wrote of the Land of
Promise being an island that theorists today simply do not believe them? Or try
to lighten its meaning, by changing or qualifying the word “isle” (island) to
mean something other than it did and does.
Why
it is that theorists today feel so free to make such changes with the “facts”
of the scriptural record, replacing them with their own beliefs and
speculations
(See
the next post, “Andean Peru is Not a Theory-Part III,” for more information as
to why Andean Peru is not a theory, but based on fact)
While
theories abound as to where the Land of Promise is or was located, from
Mesoamerica, to the Great Lakes; from the Heartland of the U.S. to Baja
California and the Malay Peninsula, just to name a few, the idea of Andean Peru
being the Land of Promise is not a theory. Whether or not it is a fact remains
to be proven by additional scriptural information, modern-day revelation, or
official Church announcement; however, any of these in the foreseeable future
are probably not realistic, so we are left with Andean Peru being in a category
all by itself, not yet proven, but not a simple theory, hypothesis, or belief.
If
not a theory, then, what is it?
First
of all, let’s take a look at four words and their basic meanings:
Theory
– an idea used to account for an opinion or viewpoint or position, which
typically, but not always, leads to the investigation of that idea or opinion.
Speculation
– the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence;
Facts – something that is
indisputably the case; a piece of information used as evidence of a reality or
a certainty;
Belief
– a trust, faith, or confidence in something being correct.
Now
in the area of the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon regarding the area
in which the Jaredites and Nephites occupied and has become known as the Land
of Promise, these four words, theory, speculation, facts, and belief, are
easily seen. And since we have already stated that the area of Andean Peru,
unlike the others stated above and still others held by some, is not a theory,
let us apply it to the other words listed:
Speculation.
In the sense of the Land of Promise, speculation also has been rampant for
several decades, beginning perhaps with Mesoamerica in the middle of the last
century and continuing today. The speculation of this theory is found in the
belief that the ruins found in Central America, evidently first reported by
John L. Stephens, who visited the area in 1839 and 1841, and published a book
called Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, brought to
mind to the early leaders once the book found its way into the hands of Joseph
Smith in 1843.
Until
then, this area was almost totally unknown in America, and certainly the ruins
reported to be there and the drawings of some of the sites published. The
book’s remarkably realistic illustrations of temples, ruined cities, and
monuments drawn by Frederick Catherwood, who accompanied Stephens lend not only
authenticity but a vivid understanding of the advanced societies that lived
their hundreds of years ago.
The
sight of these ruins, and the understanding of their location in the Americas,
led many early Church member and leader to believe they were Nephite sites,
which supported and lent needed public and scientific authenticity to the Book
of Mormon. Thus, many speculated that these sites were Nephite and Book of
Mormon locations—especially in what is called today Mesoamerica.
Others
since have extended their speculation and theories to include much distant
areas, from the Canadian border around the Great Lakes, to Baja, Florida, the
Caribbean and even Nicarauga and Panama, as well as south of there into South
America. All of these areas have provided one or more reasons why speculation
seems reasonable, from the hill Cumorah being near the Great Lakes, to the Gulf
of Cortez providing an eastern sea tht nearly surrounds the peninsula of Baja
California, to similar speculation about Florida and its three surrounding
seas, and the narrowness of the Panama Isthmus.
Those
who champion these theories based on their speculation about their area or
model, have reasonable, and sometimes strong support from the scriptural
record, but many just as often ignore Mormon’s descriptions or outright go
against them as they try to promote their opinions, hunches, hypothesis,
suppositions, and guesswork. It is not the interest of this blog to speculate
on the reasons for each of these various locartions and models, only to point
out that they exist and the difference between each and the non-theoretical
approach to Andean Peru.
Facts. For the purpose of
this discussion about the Land of Promise, the scriptural record is the basis
of all facts pertaining to the area the Jaredites and Nephites settled. While
the scriptural record is not complete in the type and extent of explanation we
might prefer, Mormon went out of his way to give us information about his
homeland, and Nephi included, for whatever reason, sufficient information for
us to understand where he went and landed.
Consequently,
“facts” in this case are those clear and precise statements made by Nephi,
Mormon, Moroni (Ether), Jacob and others, about the land on which they lived,
labored, fought, and built. A land they knew as well, and perhaps better than
anyone else (being men of the earth and out of necessity relying on their own
hands for their sustenance and survival as opposed to living by technology as
many do today).
We
can also add to the idea of “facts,” since those statements in then scriptural
record would
have to be seen and understood as “facts,” not “beliefs,” or
“speculation,” or “theories.” That is, when Mormon said the Sidon River had its
headwaters to the South of Zarahemla in the narrow strip of wilderness, that
would be a fact—obviously known to him since he traveled and lived in that area
and the final war, which he was appointed Captain of the armies thereafter,
occurred in that area.
Or
when Nephi said “we did work timbers of curious workmanship. And the Lord did
show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the
ship” (1 Nephi 18:1) it is a fact, not open to speculation or personal belief,
but simply a fact, as stated. He supported that fact by adding another
regarding how they built the ship, “not after the manner of men” (1 Nephi
18:2). These are facts. They are not Nephi’s beliefs, theories, or speculation.
He was the one who did the work, he is the one who told ujs how he did it, and
he is the one that was told by the Lord how it should be done. Therefore, we
can accept his word on the matter as an unquestionable, unadulterated “fact.”
Thus,
unlike speculation, such as Sorenson’s assumption that Mormon didn’t know what
he was talking about when he said north, east, west or south, but that he had
some different type of “Nephite calendar,” under which he was operating, a fact
is a clear and precise statement given by the person who was there, who did
what is being described, and who had absolute, first-hand knowledge of the
event or circumstance. What some college professor, theorist, or historian
believes took place cannot outweigh the words of those who were there and lived
through the time being written about.
So
what “facts” are we told that will help us understand where Lehi sailed, where
Nephi’s ship landed, and where the Nephites built their nation?
(See
the next post, “Andean Peru is Not a Theory-Part II,” for more information
about the facts of the Land of Promise as opposed to the speculation and
theories being presented today)
Continuing from the last post
regarding the problems created when theorists begin speculating about the
scriptural record in light of clear descriptions to the contrary, or where
there is nothing to suggest such a thing at all. In this final post on
Speculation, let’s look at the theories running wild about the Great Lakes,
Heartland America, and the Eastern U.S. as the Land of Promise.
Several theorists have developed
their own, individual models of this area and tried to fit the scriptural
record into it. As difficult as it has been for them, and as much as their maps
and speculations abound in error, they continue to espouse their beliefs and
draw people into their thinking. It is a shame that such people do not bother
to check out the scriptural record and make their own comparisons rather than
just trust to the authors of these ideas.
Take one glaring area of
speculation and error—that of the earthen works for defense they claim abound
all over the eastern U.S., especially in the northern states from New York to
New England. First of all, let us consider what earthworks are, what they are
for, and how we might identify them.
Top: Earthwork fortifications at Petersburg
during the Civil War, a type of fortification that led to the trench warfare of
World War I; Bottom: Earthworks at Fort McAllister, Georgia. These are not the
type of so-called “earthworks” found in the Great Lakes area
Mormon writes: “And he caused that upon those
works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers
round about; and they were strong and high. And he caused towers to be erected
that overlooked those works of pickets, and he caused places of security to be
built upon those towers, that the stones and the arrows of the Lamanites could
not hurt them. And they were prepared that they could cast stones from the top
thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength, and slay him who
should attempt to approach near the walls of the city” (Alma 50:3-5).
He also described stone walls for defence that circled
cities and their lands: “Yea, he had been strengthening the
armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing
up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of
stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their
lands; yea, all round about the land” (Alma 48:8)
The earthworks found in the eastern U.S.,
especially around the Great Lakes, does not at all match the wording of
Mormon’s descriptions
Then there is
Ashton’s comment that the Book of Mormon speaks of earthwork fortifications,
then goes on to say, “Nephites indeed
built many earthworks of defense; however, there is no place anywhere in either
the U.S. or Canada where more earthworks for defense have been discovered than
in Western New York—highly visible in colonial days these earthworks for
defense now have been almost completely destroyed by farming interests.”
It should be of
interest that in the same statement Mormon makes about earthworks, he also
mentions stone work: “Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the
Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of
earth round about to enclose his armies, and
also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities
and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land” (Alma 48:8).
Yet the speculation is of enormous earthworks and little, if any of stone. For
there are really no stone walls anywhere in the U.S. or Canada that Ashton
refers where such stonework walls and fortifications can be found sufficient to
be called works of defense, i.e., capable of keeping an enemy from attacking.
Top: Berkeley Mystery Walls in northern
California; yet even that would have provided defense for riflemen, but not
swordsmen; Bottom: Another stone structure built in New York, built more for a
shelter than any type of defense. The dirt over looks like an earthwork wall until
seen up close
The Berkeley Mystery
Wall, though a structure of some significance because of its length, shows the
poor workmanship of stacking rocks on top of one another, the type of
construction seen from California to New York and New England that dates to
around the last century B.C. and into the early A.D. period.
Top: Earthworks now grown over with trees;
Bottom: the remnant of a stone wall of very poor workmanship in Tennessee,
first century A.D.
One of the problems
is when early discoverers looked at the remnants of ancient work and made
judgments about them, often incorrectly. As an example, the so-called “Old
Stone Fort” in Tennessee, long believed to have been an earthwork for defense
has lately been shown to be built for ceremonial purposes rather than defense (Charles Faulkner, “Old Stone Fort State Archaeological
Park,” The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture, 2009).
(Image E – Called the New England Ancient Stonework
Chamber, this small shelter was built with stacked stones that would not have
served for any purpose of defense against man or animal, and likely just a
shelter against weather. Note the poor working of stone both (left) outside and
(right) inside
In fact, throughout
New England there are considered to be over 800 known ancient sites, including
dolmens, menhirs, henges and stone chambers, some include massive ground or
earthworks, including mounds. However, and this is critically important, the
work is of a people with limited building skills, using earth to make their
structures, not rock, framing, or supportive timbers for roofs. Hardly what one
might expect from a people in 600 B.C. who came from an area where Solomon’s
Temple was built—the envy of the world at the time; or from an earlier group
who came from Mesopotamia where the Tower of Babel was being constructed of
stone, reaching several stories into the sky.
Stone walls in New Hampshire, Vermont, and
around the Great Lakes. Note the simple stacking of stones and lack of any
competent workmanship
On the other hand,
the Nephites coming out of Jerusalem, a five hundred year old city at the time
built of stone buildings, temple, huge 30 to 40 feet high walls that were 8
feet thick, where the stones were cut and dressed and fit perfectly. One would
expect stonework far superior to that found in New England, Great Lakes and
across the pre-historic U.S. But, as can be seen above, the stonework highly
touted by Great Lakes and Heartland theorists falls far short of what Nephi and
his people would have been capable of accomplishing.
As
Nephi, himself, put it: “And
I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood,
and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of
silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. And I, Nephi, did
build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of
Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to
be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's
temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon;
and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine. And I, Nephi, did cause my
people to be industrious, and to labor with their hands” (2 Nephi 5:15-17).
This stonework, found in the last centuries
B.C. and first centuries A.D. in Andean Peru is far more consistent with the
Nephite capability than anything found in the eastern U.S.
The point being, when
people speculate on such matters, it leads to an erroneous understanding of
what is factual and fallaciously made up about the scriptural record and
provides much ammunition for critics of the work. Unfortunately, few people
upon hearing about a match such as this, whether member or non-member or critic
take the time to look up the reality of such claims.
Thus, we say that
speculation about the Land of Promise and the Book of Mormon, in any form and
for any reason, is most likely an injustice to the truth and the scriptural
record.
Continuing from the last post
regarding the problems created when theorists begin speculating about the
scriptural record in light of clear descriptions to the contrary, or where
there is nothing to suggest such a thing at all.
Some of these
speculations are even more apparent and just as misleading. As Duane R. Ashton,
in his book The Other Side of Cumorah,
wrote: “180 years after Lehi left
Jerusalem the Lamanites had become exceedingly more numerous than were they of
the Nephites (Jarom 6). Might this imply that Lamanites may have found it
convenient to inter-marry into tribes of indigenous peoples with the same life
styles as them?”
This is the worst
type of speculation since there is not a single scriptural reference of there
being anyone else in the Land of Promise than the Nephites/Mulekites and
Lamanites, and not a single reference to anyone else, yet several references to this land being held for Lehi and his family and descendants. Hugh Nibley
and John L. Sorenson also make such speculations to justify their Mesoamerican
models, such as Sorenson’s comment “The
Lamanites superior skills and knowledge they had brought with them to gain
dominance over local remnants of the previous civilization” (p149).
It is interesting
that despite Nibley making a point in his book “Lehi in the Desert” that “We must not fall into the old vice of
reading into the scripture things that are not there” (p 165), then turns
around on another issue and says, “Who is
to say that given thousands of years to wander in, plus a great tradition of
hunting and nomadism, no Jaredites could have gone to the outer most limits of
the continent?” (p 250), and goes on to say, “The descendants of Lehi were never the only people on the continent and
the Jaredites never claimed to be” (p 252), and “No one would deny that anciently this land was kept form the knowledge
of other nations, but that does not mean that it was kept empty of inhabitants”
(p 253).
Yet, the scriptures
tell us it was an island (2 Nephi 10:20), not a continent, and makes no even
hidden hint that any other people were on this land after the Flood and before
or during the time of the Jaredites, nor any after the the Jaredites, other
than the Mulekites, Nephites and Lamamnites. Also, we might correct Nibley in
that the Jaredites were only in the promised land for about 1600 years (2100 B.C. to 600 B.C.), not
“thousands.” It also might be of note to understand that at no time and in no
place in the scriptural record are the Jaredites shown as wanderers, nor are
they shown to be nomads in any way. They spent all their time in Moron or one
other location where two opposing families or factions warred with one another.
No matter where you read and what author you
read, there is never any mention of another people in the Land of Promise
before the Gentiles arrived as shown in Nephi’s vision
It is always
interesting how theorists, no matter how smart and brilliant they may he,
continue to try and include other people in the Land of Promise that are
neither mentioned nor even suggested by the scriptural record. Is that not what we
call “speculation”?
Take May’s comment that “Verse 7 of Moroni 8 make it clear that the Nephites were still around in
small pockets throughout the land for many years” (p 53).
First of all, it is
verse 7 of Mormon 8, not Moroni, in which the author of that chapter, Moroni,
states: “And behold, the Lamanites have
hunted my people, the Nephites, down from city to city and from place to place,
even until they are no more; and great has been their fall; yea, great and
marvelous is the destruction of my people, the Nephites” (Mormon 8:7).
Because of the mix-up
of writers, and therefore the time frame involved, May believes, without
checking it out completely, that several years have passed between Cumorah and
this statement and also misunderstands that there were not several pockets of
Nephites still alive, but one group “a few” Mormon called them, who had escaped
death at Cumorah and headed south.
Mormon in 385 A.D.,
at the very conclusion of the war, after his 23 commands of 10,000 each had
been wiped out by the Lamamites, states that some had escaped into the south
countries, and a few had deserted over unto the Lamanites (Mormon 6:15). About
15 years later, Moroni is adding to the record of his father, in which he
writes what his father has commanded him (Mormon 8:1), and from his own
knowledge, such as saying “Now after the
great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped
into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites until they were all
destroyed” (Mormon 8:2)
We do not know of any
other Nephites who had escaped from Cumorah, and they were accounted for
immediately after the war ended at Cumorah—there were no “pockets of Nephites throughout the land for many years,” as May
speculates.
May again states,
“The battle at Cumorah was almost the end, but the Lamanites continued to
pursue a groups of Nephites that escaped into the land Southward” (p 53-54).
Again, there were no “pockets” of resistence or “hiding Nephites.” When the
business at hand, the annihilation of the Nephites at Cumorah, was completed,
they turned their attention to those who had escaped—a fact that might have
even begun before the end of the war at Cumorah, or as some escaped, Lamanites
were dispatched immediately to run them down and kill them. The scriptural
record does not explain this one way or the other. But nowhere can we suppose
it was many years.
And also May speculates:
“The final battle took place in Kentucky
at ‘the Falls of the Ohio,’ located on the Ohio River at present-day
Louisville, Kentucky in a battle Mormon and Mornoni did not witness and did not
know about” (p55, 58). Since there is no record of any further battle
between the Nephites and the Lamanites, or any reference to it at all, and
since Mormon was dead and Moroni brought us up to date on all that had and was
taking place for the next 26 years, with his closing remarks of the Lamanites “And because of their hatred they put to
death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ” (Moroni 1:2), concluding
his record in 421 A.D., we can only say that May was simply speculating on events of his own imagination.
In another case of
speculation, Sorenson writes: “The people
of Zarahemla…arrived first in the land northward, then moved south. Probably
they first settled at the east-coast site known later as ‘the city of Mulek.’
And they came from their up into the south wilderness” (p 148-149).
As
has been said many times, Amaleki, who was with Mosiah when the people of
Zarahemla were first encountered by the Nephites wrote: “the people of Zarahemla came out
from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away
captive into Babylon (shown above). And they journeyed in the wilderness, and
were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land
where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth”
(Omni 1:15-16). The land where Mosiah discovered them, of course, was the Land
of Zarahemla. Thus, they landed there in that land and lived there in that land
all the time up to when Mosiah encountered them.
Phyllis Carol Olive states: “The
only metal mentioned in the scriptures that is not found in the New York area
today is gold. This metal was undoubtedly depleted in much the same way that
California was depleted of her vast gold reserves during the California gold
rush in the 1800s.
The truth of the matter is, that
the Gold Rush days in California were based mainly on gold in gravel beds,
which could be “panned,” however, “placer” mining could not be done on a large
scale and later techniques such as “cradles,” “rockers” or “long-toms” were
employed to process larger volumes of gravel, or “coyoteing,” digging shafts
into the richest veins of pay dirt. This led to the removal of $16-billion
dollars worth of gold removed in the first five years—after that, there was
still gold there, and still is, however, it is not as economical to remove as
it is in other areas, such as Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico and Alaska.
It was not depleted, just the "easy to pick up" was removed. The difference is,
while there is still much gold in the ground in California and elsewhere in the
West, there is basically none in the ground in the Great Lakes area and has not
been to any extent ever according to geologists who track gold in the U.S.
And when it comes to copper, the
most often mentioned ore in the Book of Mormon, in New York where one copper
mine operated, in Canton, St. Lawrence
County, in the 19th century, the only copper mine listed for the
entire state of New York. And in adjoining Pennsylvania, colonial governor
William Keith made the first attempt to mine copper in Pennsylvania. His mine,
in York County, failed within a short time. The Lancaster County copper mine
opened in 1732, shut down in 1755, and reopened as a nickle mine in 1850,
producing some byproduct copper, but was shut down in 1893. In Michigan, a very
long way from the Great Lakes Land of Promise, large quantities of copper were
found in the early period of the U.S. Those mines were in the far northern
peninsula bordering with Canada and Wisconsin. No mines are listed for Ohio,
Indiana, or West Virginia, the only states around the Great Lakes area claimed
to be in the Land of Promise.
(See the next and final post on speculation, “Theories—The
problem with Speculation – PtV,” for more of the problems with speculation and
its effect on the scriptural record and those who read it)
Continuing from the last post
about Vernal Holley’s speculation on the names of surrounding towns in New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Canada that existed when Joseph Smith was
translating the plates leads to a unique comparison. However, as was shown in
the last post, the names covered had no connection at all. Here we continue
with Holley’s list:(Image A –
As for Midian, or a
“Land of Midian” in central Pennsylvania on Holley’s map, no such place is
listed as ever having existed there. There was a “Land of Midian” in the Bible,
of course, located in Egypt, but then, the Nephites came from that area of the
world and probably would have known of such a name and simply used it. This is
like Jordan, in the Middle East, which is also one of the names Holley claims
was borrowed by Joseph Smith—but why not borrowed by the Nephites who certainly
knew about the Jordan area in Israel through Lehi, Nephi, Sam and Zoram.
Jerusalem is another
such “borrowed” name on Holley’s list and on his map. While there are 345 place
names in the Book of Mormon listed, only 28 were singled out by Holley as
connections, and of those 28, these two posts have covered all but three: Noah,
Sodom/Sidom, and Conner/Comner, which he listed. Noah and Sodom, well known
Biblical names, seem unnecessary and no listing for a Conner in eastern Canada
has been located.
Thus, it can be seen
from the above and the last two posts that they do not represent copies of
towns or names that Joseph Smith made to create his own Book of Mormon names—almost
all were either names that came into being after the Book of Mormon was
published, or in small, out-of-the-way areas that were far distant from Palmyra
and not likely known by Joseph Smith at the time; nor can it be suggested that
these places were named because of the Book of Mormon.
As one critic wrote
about this: “Joseph Smith did have access
to maps and books and probably found many names that way. Contrary to popular
LDS belief, he was actually very literate, having been home schooled.”
The problem with this
type thinking is that books and maps were not available in the backwoods of
western New York (Palmyra) in the 1820s. Today, of course, we have the
internet, TV news, numerous maps and atlases, telephones and other means of
up-to-date and immediate information, and because of that we simply think that
information has always been available, but it was not.
In addition, in the
1820s, men worked on the farms from sunup to sundown, and what reading they had
time for, was usually the Bible. Though there were such things as gazetteers (a
geographical dictionary which described towns and villages, sizes of
population, rivers and mountains, and other geographical features), they would
not have been much use on a farm during Joseph Smith’s time, and it is unlikely
these were widely distributed, especially on distant farms where people did
little travel and had even less use for such material.
Other
speculation is seen in E. L. Peay’s comments in The Lands of Zarahemla Vol II,
“Mulek and his people landed on the
central part of the Yucatan, where the city of Mulek was built. They spread
inland and settled the area that was later called Zarahemla” (p 127), when
Amaleki tells us “Behold, it came to pass that
Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the
time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. And
they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord
across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they
had dwelt there from that time forth” (Omni 1:15-16), showing that where Mosiah found them
(the city of Zarahemla) is where they landed and had always lived.
Or “The Jaredite barges were shaped like a dish” (p 265), when the
scriptural record says that the barges “would hold
water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and
the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the top thereof was tight
like unto a dish; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a
dish” (Ether 2:17).
Top: Peay’s speculated course for the
Jaredites; Bottom: Unfortunately, the winds and currents do not blow in that
direction across the Mediterranean, but blow in from the Atlantic in the
opposite direction
Or,
in discussing the Jaredites, that “Being
led north probably arrived at the Black Sea where barges were used to travel
west and south to the Mediterranean Sea and on to the place where the land
divided the two seas at the Straits of Gibraltar” (p 261). However, this
course would not have availed the Jaredites anything since their barges, which
were dependent upon the winds and currents being blown toward a destination
could not have made it through the Mediterranean Sea in the opposite direction
of the winds and currents as the maps above show.
In
addition, there are no mountains of any height along the Morocco coast of
Peay’s great sea or Atlantic Ocean. The Anti-Atlas Range, High Atlas Range, and
the Middle Atlas Range all are far inland; the Rif (Er Riff) mountains along
the Mediterranean, but not on the Atlantic seashore. Mt. Tidighin (Adrar
n-Tidighin) in the Rif is located far back from the coast and nearer the
Mediterranean, yet along the ocean seashore, Ether tells us there was an
exceedingly high Mount the Jaredites called Shelem (Ether 3:1), which could not
be located along the ocean coast of Morocco where Peay places Moriancumer.
Or
another of Peay’s speculations that “The Jaredites gathered 200 animals to
transport and sustain life for the group over an extended time” (p 259). There
is simply no way to determine how many animals would have been taken, for
whatever the number, the Jaredites spent a long time on the trail to the great
sea and then 4 years at the seashore, where food would have been needed. On the
other hand, in a year’s voyage for eight vessels, more food would have been
needed. Then there would be the repopulating of the animal kingdom in the
promised land since nothing would have survived after the Flood. Picking 200 is
simply speculation that serves no purpose.
Another
of Peay’s speculations is that “the
brothers were wealthy and intellectual people having the means to facilitate
such a lengthy undertaking” (p 259). It is hard to suggest that wealth was
a matter of fact in Mesopotamia at this time. The Ark had disgorged animals of
every kind two hundred years earlier, the mountains and valleys would have been
full of animals for the rounding up and taking. Whether Jared and his brother
and their friends had their own animals, or gathered them in when the Lord told
them to take herds and flocks, though the Lord said “thy flocks” (Ether 1:41),
and perhaps they were large herdsmen, but that does not necessarily warrant the
term “wealthy.”
John
L. Sorenson, in his book, claims that “the
right to rule was the chief bone of contention in Nephite affairs,” (p
163), yet we have only one instance where this is shown as an issue, and that
was in the case of the king-men, who wanted to “alter the law and overthrow the government to establish a king over the
land” (Alma 51:5). In reality, the chief bone of contention in Nephite
affairs was from those who did not want to follow the religion of the people
(not unlike today).
It
is just that such speculation lends nothing to the scriptural record itself, or
to our understanding of it, but does often lead to giving fodder to critics and
provide difficulty to those with weaker testimonies.
(See the next post, “Theories—The problem with
Speculation – PtIV,” for more of the problems with speculation and its effect
on the scriptural record and those who read it)
Continuing from the last post about
Vernal Holley’s speculation on the names of surrounding towns in New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Canada, that existed when Joseph Smith was translating
the plates leads to a unique comparison. However, as was shown in the last
post, the names covered had no connection at all. Here we continue with
Holley’s list:
We see the Book of Mormon city Kishkumen, named after the Gadianton Robber (left), located near an
area named, on modern maps, as Kiskiminetas,
the latter being the name of a small 27-mile long tributary river to the
Allegheny River in western Pennsylvania, though it is typically refered to as
the Kiski, and the area as Alle-Kiski, “Valley after the rivers.”
It is claimed that the name is "corrupted from Gieschgumanito, signifying, make
daylight. In this case, the etymology is: Gisch-gu—day;
gisch-que—today; gieschapen—it is daybreak; manitoon—to
make. It was probably the word of command, given by a warrior to his comrades
at night to break up camp and resume the journey, or war-path. A town nearby is
named after the river, and founded in 1773; however, it is a small township and
tributary more than 225 miles from Palmyra and unlikely Joseph Smith would have
heard of it prior to 1830.
Another so-called
connection is between Rama and Ramah. Rama, in Canada, now called Ramar, along
the eastern shore of Lake Simcoe, which is north of Lake Ontario. The community
was first named in 1820 by Lieutenant-Governor Sir Peregrine Maitland. Since
the entire Lake Ontarior lies between Palmyra and Rama, and no direct
communication or travel routes existed between the two areas at the time, it is
unlikely Joseph Smith would have known of this little township.
An additional
Canadian township named Moraviantown, on the north side of Lake Erie, is
supposedly connected to the name of Morianton in the same area. The Moravian
was an Indian tribe of the Thames First Nation.
The Battle of the
Thames during the War of 1812, in which the Shawnee chief, Tecumseh, was killed
(see last post) took place at Moraviantown. Though Moraviantown is 275 miles
from Palmyra, because of the war, it is possible Joseph Smith might have heard
of this name.
Still another
Canadian township is Sherbrooke along the confluence of the Saint-Francois and
Magog rivers. Originally known as Hyatt’s Mill, the small village was renamed
in 1818 for Sr. John Coape Sherbrooke, a British General who was Lieutenant
Governor of Nova Scotia, and Governor General of British North America. It did
not grow until 1852 when a railway line was built.
Another Canadian
match is claimed to be the Hill Ephraim and St. Ephram, which is actually
Saint-Ephrem-de-Beauce, a community that was created and named during the
breakup of Tring in 1866, and got its name from Ephrem the Syrian, a Roman
Catholic theologian of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Another inaccurate
connection with the Book of Mormon.
A further claimed
connection is between Shiloh, Pennsylvania and Shilom in the Book of Mormon.
Shiloh is a West Manchester Township in York County, Pennsylvania, along the
Maryland border, 250 miles almost due south of Palmyra. The small village of
Shiloh was first settled after the War of 1812 between 1816 and 1825, when
there were about 20 families. It did not really grow until about 1850. Again,
it is not likely Joseph Smith would have known about the name of a town 250
miles away that had 20 families in it while he was translating the plates.
Mantua Township was
part of the Connecticut Western Reserve (Connecticut’s western claims), which
was settled in 1796 when it became part of the Northwest Territory in 1800, and
ceded to Ohio in 1803, when the latter became a state. In 1805 Oliver and Rosetta Snow
immigrated to Mantua from Becket, Massachusetts, and met Joseph Smith in the
1830s and were converted to the LDS Church. Their son, Lorenzo, was born in Mantua
and became the fifth president of the Church. This is one of the only very
strong connections between these places and the early Church. Whether or not one
can get Manti from Mantua, is another question. As for geography, Mantua was
located far from Holley’s proposed area for Manti, which he would have put in
New York.
Monroe and Moroni.
The borough of Monroe is surrounded by Monroe Township in Bradford County,
Pennsylvania, and was settled in 1828, incorporated in 1855. Originally called
Monroeton. There are actually seven different Monroe Townships in Pennsylvania,
each in a different county. The one in Bedford County was settled in 1793,
incorporated in 1840; the one in Clarion County was settled in 1800,
incorporated in 1832; the one in Juaniata County was settled in 1772 and
incorporated in 1858; the one in Snyder County was settled in 1794 and
incorporated in 1856; the ones in Cumberland and Wyoming counties do not
publish their settlement and incorporation dates.
It seems unlikely,
however, that anyone would get the name Moroni out of Monroe.
Antrim and Antum.
Anrim is a Township in Franklin County, South-Central Pennsylvania with its
southern border being part of the Mason-Dixon Line, not far from Gettysburg. It
was part of the Penn’s Woods land grant and first settled in 1741, by
Scotch-Irish from Northern Ireland and Scotland, with the name Antrim chosen
from the county in Ireland. Whether or not the name Antrim led to the name
Antum is again debatable, but the timing is accurate.
Antioch and
Anti-Anti. Besides having several colleges of Antioch University in the
surrounding area, there is Antioch, Ohio, a small town along the border of West
Virginia, first settled in 1834, after the Book of Mormon was published. How
anyone would get Anti-Anti from Antioch is a stretch it would seem, but the
point is moot. The name Antioch is from the Turkish word Antakya and later
Arabic Antakiya, and Russian Antiokh. The city in Syria was 300 miles north of
Jerusalem, and the first Seleucid king was named Antiochus. Anciently, the word
anti in Greek meant “like,” i.e., Antipater (like the father).
Jordan. The small
village of Jordan, in Onondaga County, New York, was first settled along the
Erie Canal in 1825, and incorporated in 1835. While this is close to Palmyra,
it is just as likely the name in the Book of Mormon came from the Jordan River
and territory well known to Lehi, Nephi and Sam.
Minoa and Minon. The tiny
village of Minoa is within the town of Manlius, was first settled in the 1820s
by a tightly-knit group of German and French immigrants. The town was
relatively hidden until the railroad was put through in 1839—however, the name
was Manilius Station until the name was changed in 1895 to Minoa.
Omer and Omner. There
is no town, village or settlement called Omer in Ohio, New York or
Pennsylvania. There was an Omer, Michigan, settled in the mid-1800s in Bay
County, later named Arenac County in 1883. There was a Homer Township in Medina
County, Ohio, which was settled in 1833 and called the Village of Homerville.
While some names are similar in spelling or sound, they are not as close as one might first think, and upon studying these names and their dates, locations, and possibility of being known by the prophet are quite unlikely.
(See the next post, “Theories—The problem with
Speculation – PtIII,” for more of the so-called city and people names between
what we find in the Book of Mormon and what existed in the area of Joseph Smith
when he translated the plates to see how speculation leaves the wrong
impression about the past)
