skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It is difficult to
reconcile a viewpoint when that viewpoint is held in segmented parts. In this
case, the problem with Mesoamericanists is they isolate themselves in their
thinking, i.e., that is, they see each individual subject as a separate subject
and make no effort to connect it to the overall “history” or events of the Book
of Mormon surrounding their subject. In the last post we showed this in the
building of the non-combatant city Teotihuacan during the final years of the
last battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites, i.e., from 300 to about 400
A.D., the latter period when the city and region reached its peak at a time
when the Nephite nationa was annihilated?
Does that make sense?
However, let’s
continue with the events taking place in the scriptural record while this huge
city complex is supposedly being built in the Land of Promise.
The Teotihuacan complex containing the third largest pyramid in the
world and one of the largest sites in the Western Hemisphere, considered to
have taken more than a hundred years to build
7. The Lamanites
drove the Nephites out of Angola, and then out of the land of David and the Nephites
marched to the land of Joshua, gathering in all the people as fast as it were
possible, "that we might get them together in one body" (Mormon 2:6);
8. There was fighting
and “blood and carnage spread throughout all the face of the land, both on the
part of the Nephites and also on the part of the Lamanites; and it was one
complete revolution throughout all the face of the land” (Mormon 2:8);
9. About 30 years
into the building of the city, the Lamanites, with an army of forty-four
thousand, came against the Nephites, who had an army of forty-two thousand;
10. There began to be
a mourning and a lamentation in all the land as the Nephites, not for
repentance, but “sorrowed like the damned because the Lord would not always
suffer them to take happiness in sin” (Mormon 2:13), and they “cursed God and
wished to die, nevertheless they struggled with the sword for their lives”
(Mormon 2:14);
11. While this city
was being built, “thousands of Nephites were hewn down in open rebellion
against their God and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land, for the day
of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually” (Mormon 2:15);
12. The Lamanites
were relentless and chased the fleeing Nerphites to Jashon in the Land
Northward, which was near the land where Amaron had deposited the records
(Mormon 2:16-17).
13. Forty-five years
into the building of the city, the Lamanites were driven far northward to the
land called Shem in the Land Northward, a city they fortified in hopes of
defending themselves that they might save them from destruction (Mormon
2:20-21).
Now keep in mind that
while all of this is going on, with the Lamanites driving the Nephites all
across the Land of Promise, and now far to the north and near where the city of
Teotihuacan was being built, yet while the Nephites were fortifying the city of
Shem in hopes it might save them from destruction, other Nephites were building
this vast, huge city of Teotihuacan that had no fortifications at all? Where is
the logic in that?
14. The Nephites
outnumbered by 50,000 Lamanites to their own 32,000, just a short distance from
Teotihuacan fought valiantly and over a period of time, not requiring those
thousands building the city nearby to aid them, they were finally able to drive
the Lamanites and Robbers out of the north countries and obtain a treaty that
divided the Land of Promise with the Nephites obtaining all of the Land
Northward.
Teotilhuacan was built on a flat land in a
valley surrounded by low hills without a single defensive wall or other earthen
work to defend itself against the constantly attacking Lamanites who waged a devastating war
in the Land Northward during this time
However, after a ten
year hiatus in which Mormon employed his people to build preparing their land
and their homes against the time of battle (Mormon 3:1), but for some reason,
never bothered those building that city Sorenson claims was being built at this
time. In fact, while the final battles took place in the Land Northward in
which 230,000 Nephite warriors and their wives and children were eventually
wiped out in 385 A.D. and not a man survived but Moroni, and the Lamanites and
Robbers then entered into a long-lasting and bloody civil war between
themselves, this city Sorenson tells us about in the Land of Promise flourished
and reached its peak at the very moment the entire Nephite Nation was wiped
out, and continued for a hundred hears in its greatness at the very time this
civil war was blooding the land.
Now tell me that makes sense!
The problem lies with
Mesoamericanists as they isolate themselves from the scriptural record and
spend their efforts in secular work. They study 16th to 18th
century A.D. writings and the archaeological ruins found in Mesoamerica, start
piecing their information together, and come up with answers without benefit of
the scriptural record. When their findings do not agree with the scriptural
record of the Book of Mormon, they tend to find ways to discredit the work of
the prophets and substitute their own meanings instead. During a hundred year
period when the Nephite nation is struggling to survive, being driven from city
to city by the pursuing Lamanite armies, trying to gather in those they could,
and those who could not keep up were wiped out by the approaching Lamanites or
captured and sacrificed to their idols, Sorenson would have us believe the
Nephites were building one of the largest cultural sites found in their Land of
Promise. When the scriptural record shows the fallacy of such thinking, they
disregard the record and maintain the authenticity of the ruins as they make
every effort to show you that Mesoamerica was the Land of Promise despite all
these discrepancies.
In addition,
Sorenson’s writing on this subject is to try and prove that new, modern science
has found reasons to match the Book of Mormon by telling us that these Mayans
were not the people always thought of as “peacefully contemplating and worshiping
a complex set of gods, gazing at notable art, playing philosophical games with
their calendar, and otherwise acting like ‘the Greeks of the New World’.”
Rather than militarism showing its ugly head around 1000 A.D., it was always
there.
The moat and earthen defensive works at
Becan, Campeche, Mexico, occupied in 550 B.C., but the moat and earthen
defensive works were not built until around 250 A.D., during the end of the
so-called Nephite Golden Age, when they were just ending their period of
peaceful coexistence with everyone and the Lamanites were beginning to reoccur
once again
Sorenson goes on to
show us that a mote and defensive earthworks system at Becan Campeche, Mexico,
shows proof that the Mayans were, indeed, involved in warfare at an earlier
date. On the other hand, he forgets that his point of Teotilhuacan is lost in
the fact that this vast enterprise, built during the final hundred hears of war
leading up to the Nephite annihilation, with battles going on all around it, was
not built with any defensive works at all—no walls, no pits, no towers, no
defensive earthworks whatsoever!
In his article,
trying to tie Mesoamerica into the scriptural record, Sorenson writes, “Defenders, possibly screened by
a palisade, could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies
using spear throwers and slings.” This sounds almost like a paraphrase of Alma
49:18-20.”
The trouble is, it sounds like a paraphrase of any battle
recorded where the defense of a city is involved, from the battle of Troy to
the defense of Rome, to the fighting in Gaul and elsewhere.
He writes that “Part of the three
kilometers of defensive walls at famous Monte Alban dates before 200 B.C., but in the Land of Promise, in 200 B.C., 4 Nephi tells us that
“there was still peace in the land” (4 Nephi
1:20) and had been for 80 and four years before that, in fact, for 194
years following Christ’s appearance (4 Nephi 1:21).
One
might want to ask Sorenson why were the Nephites building moated earthworks of
defense at Monte Alban during this 200-plus years of peace and security in the
land? In fact, the division among the people did not take place until 231 A.D.
(4 Nephi 1:35). While wickedness reigned in the latter part of this third
century, peace still remained in the land and not until Mormon, in 320 A.D.
writes of a renewal of battles, do we find any reason why the Nephites would
have been building moats at the time they seem to be flourishing in
Mesoamerica.
It is difficult to
reconcile a viewpoint when that viewpoint is held in segmented parts. In this
case, the problem with Mesoamericanists is they isolate themselves in their
thinking, i.e., that is, they see each individual subject as a separate subject
and make no effort to connect it to the overall “history” or events of the Book
of Mormon surrounding their subject.
Take, for instance,
the case of John L. Sorenson’s remark in his article Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient
America and Its Scripture, September 1984. No doubt considering this a
support of his view that Mesoamerica was the location of the Land of Promise,
he accomplishes just the opposite, showing us the dates involved eliminate that
view.
In his article, he
states: “Until recently, the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only
peaceful societies existed in the climactic Classic era, exemplified by the
spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about A.D.
300 to 800.”
Top: Teotihuacan, a huge city covering 11.5
square miles without military or defensive capability of any kind; Bottom: The
Pyramid of the Sun, the third largest pyramid in the world after the Great
Pyramid of Cholula and the Great pyramid of Giza
He goes on to write
that with this renewed view, archaeology shows that Mesoamericans were involved
in war and building fortresses, moats, etc., consistent with the “history” of
the Land of Promise in the Book of Mormon; however, he uses an interesting date
of an extensive and very energetic building program that would have taken an
enormous amount of time to complete at a time when there is no possible way the
Nephites would have been involved in building.
According to him,
Teotihuacan ruins date to 300 B.C., and it is claimed that the city reached its
peak in 450 A.D., when it was considered the center of a powerful culture whose
influence extended trough much of the Mesoamerican region, with a population
of 150,000 people over an 11.5 square miles, though some historians claim it
had 250,000. It also contained people from all over Mesoamerica, including
Guatemala. Noticeably absent from the city, however, are fortifications and military
structures. In fact, it was the center of industry, home to many potters,
jewelers, and craftsmen, and known for producing a great number of obsidian
artifacts. Inscriptions from Maya cities show that Teotihuacan nobility
traveled to, and perhaps conquered, local rulers as far away as Honduras (which
is far to the east—or south in Mesoamerican Land of Promise directions). Murals
adorn the walls of the numerous structures.
As can be seen in this panorama, there are
not outer walls, nor fortifications, no towers all across this flat land that
would be open to attack and no way to defend
One of the first
great cities of the Western Hemisphere, or more accurately of Mesoamerica,
since Andean Peru has much older and much larger city complexes and
fortresses, 30 miles from Mexico City in what would be the Land Northward
in the Mesoamerican Land of Promise—in fact, so far northward that it would
have been at the boundary of that area as described in the scriptural record,
yet Teotihuacan is one of the most powerful cultural centers in Mesoamerica,
controlling much of the region and beyond. Nor did it have any military
structures, such as walls, towers, satellite early-warning sites of any kind, resorts or outposts.
The city’s urban plan
integrated natural elements of the Teotihuacan Valley, such as the San Juan
River, whose course was altered to cross the single main street, which is
lined with monumental buildings and complexes, from which the Pyramids of the
Sun and the Moon, as well as the Great Compound with the Temple of Quetzalcoatl
(also known as Temple of the Plumed Serpent) stand out.
One characteristic of
the city’s civil and religious architecture is the "talud-tablero,"
which became a distinctive feature of this culture. Furthermore, a considerable
number of buildings were decorated with wall paintings where elements of
worldview and the environment of that time were materialized. The city is
considered a model of urbanization and large-scale planning, which greatly
influenced the conceptions of contemporary and subsequent cultures.
Perhaps more than
any other site, enormous archaeological work has been conducted at Teotihuacan,
with the first surveys dating from 1864, and the first excavations from 1884.
Certain monuments were restored from 1905 to 1910, such as the Pyramid of the
Sun, for which its discoverer Leopoldo Batres arbitrarily reconstituted a fifth
tier. Since 1962, archaeological research has been coordinated by the National
Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), which, while encouraging
spectacular discoveries (Palacio de Quetzalmariposa, the cave under the Pyramid
of the Sun), has instigated a more rigorous policy concerning identification
and supervision of excavations in the immediate environs of the ceremonial
zone.
Yet, despite all that
can be seen and has so far been excavated, Teotihuacan is not well known, with
its origin and founding uncertain, and its history based primarily upon
colonial period texts, such as the 16th century A.D. Florentine
Codex, by Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagùn
Since
Teotihuacan is located near Mexico City in central Mexico, it is placed in
Sorenson’s map in the far northern reaches of the Land of Promise, right in the
midst of the fighting of the final battles between the Nephites and the
Lamanites
So with this in mind,
let us return to Sorenson’s claim that this site, being part of the Land of
Promise and of Nephite origin, dates to a beginning of 300 A.D. and lasting
until about 800 A.D. Now, keeping in mind its location, at the far northern
reaches of the Land Northward, its size, and place of immense importance and
leadership within the Land of Promise area, how realistic does this fit into
the scriptural record and what was going on in this area at the time according
to the Book of Mormon events.
1. Mormon left the
Land Northward with his father about 20 years into the building of this
massive site;
2. While a huge
investment in resources, money and manpower was being used to build this
complex, a war broke out 26 years into the building of the site;
3. The land was
filled with sorceries and witchcrafts and magics with Satan running rampant
with evil upon all the face of the land (Mormon 1:19);
4. The Nephites in
the Land Southward put together a very large army to battle the Lamanites in a
war which began around the waters of Sidon (Mormon 1:10);
5. The Lamanite army
was so large, it frightened the Nephites who began retreating toward the north
countries (Mormon 2:3);
6. 27 years into the
building of the city, the Nephites were hard pressed for manpower as they
reinforced the defenses of the city of Angola;
(See the next post,
“The Problem with Isolation – Part II,” for more behind the thought that while
Mesoamericanists talk about events of the Book of Mormon, they fail to connect
the dots and see how fallacious their views are when it comes to the real
world)
It has long been established
that metallurgy in Mesoamerica began around 900 A.D., and scores of scholarly books,
papers, articles, and material have been produced to support that fact. However,
to the Mesoamericanist, this is almost a death blow to their model of Mesoamerica
being the Land of Promise.
While one might think other
issues are stronger in showing the fallacy of Mesoamerica as the Land of
Promise, such as the compass orientation of Mesoamerica being nearly 90º off
the directions described in the Book of Mormon, Mesoamericanists themselves,
especially those who work in the academic world where such matters are very
well understood, look to this one issue as a “deal-breaker” in their support of
Mesoamerica.
Metallurgy was first utilized in the Americas in Andean Peru around
2100 B.C. and did not reach Mesoamerica until 600 A.D.
The mainstay of Mesoamerica Land
of Promise models and support, John L.
Sorenson, himself an archaeologist and head of the anthropology and archaeology
department at BYU for many years and author of numerous books and works on the
subject, makes it quite clear that this attack on metallurgy in Mesoamerica is
ill-founded and without merit.
As he writes on p278 of his An Ancient American Setting for the Book of
Mormon (1985):
“Critics of the Book of Mormon have been fond of pointing out that
statements in the scripture regarding use of metals by the Nephites and Jaredites
run contrary to authoritative pronouncements on the subject by experts. The
position of orthodox archaeologists has long been that nowhere in Mesoamerica
were metals used before about 900 A.D.
“Until recently Latter-day Saints were not in a position to reconcile
this conflict. In 1954, I published two articles that presented evidence for
the existence of metal objects from Mesoamerican archaeological sites well
before the accepted date of 900 A.D. Further finds would be needed, I
concluded, before the question of dating could be settled.
“Nearly twenty years later I updated the information and included much
more data. Since then additional facts have come out in support of the idea
that metal use was much earlier in America than had been thought. One basic
lesson we learn from the experience is that the experts were quite wrong.
Metals were indeed in use in Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica.”
The problem is, Sorenson is
wrong once again, on his attempted defense of the Book of Mormon (though that
venerable book requires no defense and can readily stand on its own on all
subjects included within its pages as has been shown here time and again).
The work Sorenson and others of
the Mesoamerican LDS view have struggled mightily with this problem facing
Mesoamerica, and though there has been an enormous amount of research done on
this issue in Mesoamerica, the fact is that just about every non-LDS
archaeologist and metallurgist that has ever studied this subject in the ground
in Mesoamerica has concluded that there is no real evidence before 800 A.D. of
smelting work being done in all of Central America, and only a very rudimentary
type of metal work found in questionable evidence dating to possibly 600 A.D.
According to
metallurgist, archaeologist and anthropologist Dorothy Hosler (above, left),“The concept of
working with metal to fashion ornaments and tools did not originate in
Mesoamerica but seems to have diffused into the region sometime in the seventh
century from the south—Panama, coastal Ecuador, or Peru," she states, writing in The
Oxford Companion to Archaeolog. She adds: “Metal working seems to
have diffused initially into West Mexico through maritime trade. These maritime traders primarily
transmitted technical knowledge, although they sometimes traded artifacts,
which were then copied using local materials.”
According to Hosler (left) shown
teaching a class at MIT, and considered the expert on Mesoamerican metallurgy; (Right) According to her, it
began in Chili and Peru as early as 2100 B.C. and moved northward, arriving in
Mesoamerica at the very earliest, around 600 A.D.
In fact, metallurgy
only appears in Mesoamerica in 800 A.D. with the best evidence from west
Mexico. Much like in South America long before, fine metals were seen as a
material for the elite in Mesoamerica. The metal’s special qualities of color
and resonance seemed to have appealed most and then led to the particular technological
developments seen in the region from 800 A.D. onward.
West Mexico is the area in darker shade (red arrow), which in Sorenson's Mesoamerican Land of Promise would be the Land Northward—so even 200 years after the demise of the Nephites, when metallurgy is supposed to have shown up in Mesoamerica, it appears not in the Land Southward where the Nephites spent over 900 years of their existence, but in the Land Northward, which they moved into only after 100 B.C.—not a defensible position for Mesoamericanists
Over time, continual
contact kept the flow of ideas from that same region and later, coinciding with
the development of Andean long distance maritime trade, influence from further
south seems to have reached the region and led to a second period of interest
between 1200-1300 A.D. according to Hosler, an expert in Mesoamerican
archeology, in her 1988 work “Ancient West Mexican
Metallurgy: South and Central American Origins and West Mexican
Transformations" (American Anthropologist 90).
Professor Hosler’s research
generally examines the extraction, processing and production of copper and
copper based alloys in ancient Mesoamerica and South America and the relation
of these technologies in the two areas to each other. Her primary research
currently is at the site of El Manchón, Guerrero, in West Mexico, where
extensive copper smelting activities took place. She and her colleagues are
currently working on dating the smelting area of that site. They are also
examining the production of a variety of unusual prehispanic copper-based alloy
objects recently excavated in the state of Mexico. Her general interests in
production also extend to rubber and pottery production in ancient Mesoamerica and to
construction technologies in Mesoamerica.
Left: Detail of one of the hornos used for
smelting lead aat Curamba in Apurimac, Peru; Right: A Huayrachinas, or wind
furnace, used by indigenous people to smelt silver in Porco, Bolivia, South
America, near Peruvian-Chilean border in pre-Columbian times—it was lit below
with dried grass and dung and then charcoal. Such smelts took about 7 hours
Considered to be the
foremost authority on Mesoamerican metallurgy, Hosler’s credentials would certainly appear to
trump those of Sorenson, whose research is obviously far less, and not in South America at all—Hosler was part
of the her MIT class team that built oceangoing rafts and studied Pre-Colombian
trade routes between South and Central America and launched in 2009 (MIT News
Office).
While that 300 years is well
earlier than previous thought, it is still 200 years after the total and
complete demise of the Nephite nation and people, and very likely 1200 years
after the extinction of the Jaredites, it is still not a workable support of
Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, no matter how much Sorenson and other
Mesoamericanists struggle with this issue. After all, adding 200 to 300 years backward does not satisfy or even come close to adding the 2500-2700 years needed to show when metallurgy began among the Jaredites in Sorenson's Mesoamerica.
While the above writing by
Sorenson was published in 1985, no doubt written before that date, Dorothy
Hosler in 1988 and 1995, Scott E. Simmons, David M. Pendergast, and Elizabeth
Graham in 2009, dealing with Mexico and Mayan (Guatemala) metallurgy claims
that “The emergence of
metallurgy in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica occurred relatively late in the
region’s history with distinctive works of metal apparent in West Mexico by
roughly 800 A.D., and perhaps as early as 600 A.D. Metallurgical techniques
likely diffused northward from regions in South America and Central America via
maritime trade routes; recipients of these metallurgical technologies
apparently exploited a wide range of material, including alloys of
copper-silver, copper-arsenic, copper-tin, and copper-arsenic-tin.”
In fact, when it
comes to pre-Columbian metallurgy in the Americas, there is a common
understanding among archaeologists and metallurgists that artifacts found in
the Andean region date to 2155-1936 B.C. (Mark Aldenderfer, Nathan M. Craig,Robert J. Speakman, and Rachel Popelka-Filcoff, "Four-thousand-year-old gold artifacts from the Lake Titicaca basin,southern Peru," PNAS 105(13) 2008, pp 5002-5005), which covers back to the Jaredite period in
South America. Finds also show that copper in North America dates even earlier;
however, that copper was found on the ground—there is no smelting or melting of
metals found in North America, especially eastern North America. The earliest copper work in Andean South America is dated to 1432-1132 B.C. (Christina Scattolin, M. Fabiana Bugliani, Leticia Corters, Lucas Pereyra Domingorena y C. Marilin Calo "Una mascara de cobre de 3000 anos. Estudios arqueometalurgicos y comparaciones regionales," Boletin del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino, Santiago de Chile 15, 2010, pp25-46).
On the other hand, indigenous
South Americans had full metallurgy with smelting and various metals being
purposely alloyed dating to 2155 B.C. (the above is cited by some 23 individual
metallurgists and archaeologists, dating as recently as 2007, 2008 and 2010,
and in such works as: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Field
Archaeology, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, American Anthropologist, Radiocarbon,
Journal of
Archaeological Science, Cambridge University Press, Archaeology of
Prehistoric Native America, Journal of the Minerals (a Mesoamerican
metallurgical technologies Journal) and several museums in Latin
America, specifically in Chile, Peru and Ecuador.
The point is, and an
incontestable one, metallurgy developed in Andean South America around 2100
B.C., and did not develop in Mesoamerica until after 600 A.D.
Continuing with John L.
Sorenson’s landmark book that supposedly shed new light on the Book of Mormon
and the location of the Land of Promise, we can see how far afield from the
actual scriptural record and its intent we get when we try to place everything
in a pre-determined location, such as Mesoamerica, as Sorenson insists on doing.
In the last post, Sorenson had
written a lot about the errors in the dating of the Book of Mormon scriptural
record. Our response was to clarify some of the calendar issues of our time.
Continuing with this, we find
that since 800 A.D., the vernal equinox year has been longer than the mean
tropical year. The mean calendar year is longer than
both the mean tropical year and the vernal equinox year, because the tables
used by the Papal astronomers were based on historical observations, and over
centuries tidal drag slows the earth's diurnal rotation. Clavius noted that the
tables did not agree on when the sun passed through the vernal equinox. As a
result of this slowing down the equinox will never reach 22 March.
The point of all this
is to show that numerous directions in such a discussion could be taken
regarding calendars. As an example, when Samuel the Lamanite announced that
“four hundred years would pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this
people” (Helaman 13:5), which was said in 6 B.C. according to the footnotes.
(By the way, it wasn’t 400 years between Christ and the Nephite extinction as Sorenson
claims [p274] but between when Samuel delivered the message and the extinction,
which is a difference in and of itself of some 40 years). It was actually Alma
who said, “I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the
spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that
Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief. Yea,
and then shall they see wars and pestilences, yea, famines and bloodshed, even
until the people of Nephi shall become extinct” (Alma 45:10-11).
Note that Samuel's comment is not 400 years will pass away, but "and four hundreds yearss pass not awawy" (Heleman 13:5), meaning it will be less than 400 years!
In any event, some
400 years would not pass away from:
1. When Samuel spoke
the words (6 B.C. to 394 B.C. = 400 years);
2. When Christ
appeared to the Nephites (34 A.D. to 434
A.D. = 400 years); or
3. When Alma spoke
these words in 73 B.C., from then to 400 years, would be 327 A.D.
The latter dating
would be more accurate, i.e., that is around 327 A.D. the Nephites began to
“dwindle in unbelief”—in fact, in 327 A.D., Mormon was appointed chief captain
over the Nephite armies (Mormon 2:2), and a few years later, 345 A.D., Mormon
said “I saw that the day of grace was passed with them” (Mormon 2:15).
Certainly, they began to dwindle in unbelief in 327 B.C. and by 345 B.C., grace
no longer applied to them.
During those
intervening years (327 to 345 A.D.), the Nephites were frightened and fleeing
for their lives, losing battle after battle, passing land after land and
gathering in whom they could save and “it was one complete revolution
throughout all the face of the land” (Mormon 2:8). The land was filled with
thieves, robbers, murderers, magic art, and witchcraft, causing a mourning and
lamentation throughout all the land, especially among the people of Nephi
(Mormon 2:10), and during those 15 years, the Nephites had lost 12,000 men, and
there was nothing but wickedness and abominations that had been before Mormon since
he was young.
As for the interval between Christ and the extinction of the Nephites, one can make an argument for
several days. According to the footnotes in the Book of Mormon, Samuel said
this around 6 B.C. 400 years would take it to 394 B.C. The final battle at
Cumorah took place, according to footnotes, in 385 B.C., so his comment is accurate--not four hundred years would pass away and it did not reach 400 years.
However, while Sorenson uses different
dictionary definitions in his explanations, he ignores the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
that gives us the closest understanding to the English language as known and
used by Joseph Smith in translating the Book of Mormon. The 1828 New England
usage of the word “year” is defined as “The space or period of time in which
the sun moves through the twelve signs of the ecliptic, or whole circle, and
returns to the same point.
This is the solar year, the
“year’ in the strict and proper sense of the world. Around the time of Julius
Ceasar, the Julian year was used throughout the Roman world, consisting of 365
days and 6 hours. Later, this was corrected to the Gregorian calendar, which
consists of a year containing 365 days 5 hours 14 minutes (which is based on the Anonalistical year, or
the time that elapses from the sun’s leaving its apogee until it returns to it).
Until after the settling America, the year began on the 25th day
of March, now begins on January 1, of course.
The problem is, clouding the major point with side issues that have no bearing on the intent and purpose of the
scriptural record only creates confusion and serves no purpose. The scriptural
record of the Book of Mormon was never intended as an academic pursuit, but to
bring man to a clearer understanding of God and serve as a Second Witness to
the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In addition, it might be noted
that the dates in prophesy are not exact and never have been. They generally
range from a little to a lot of difference, depending on time frames involved.
It is like how the Nephites “traveled for many days,” when in reality that
could have been a few days to a few months—we simply do not know the length of time in any given circumstance.
When Sorenson tries to make an
issue over this and discredit the scriptural record in favor of the Mayan
calendar, it seems both unnecessary and fallacious. It is not that we do not
need more scripture, but we certainly do not need more secular calendars.
(p274) “Not
only is the “problem” eliminated, but we obtain an important perspective of the
Nephites’ use of the calendar system that prevailed in their geographical and
cultural setting.”
Actually, the opposite is true.
The problem was resolved without delving into his lengthy and misleading series
of calendar explanations and the three Mayan calendars of Tzolkin, or sacred year, with 260 days of 13 months with 20 days
each; or their haab calendar, of 365
days using 18 months of 20 days each, plus a five day year carry over; or their
tun calendar of 360
days. Nor was any problem solved using the Mayan calendar since Sorenson
misread and misused the difference of the 400 years regarding both Samuel and
Alma’s prophesies.
(p278) “What
kind of evidence is there? The most compelling sort consists of actual
specimens found where an early date is positively indicated. Over a dozen of
these significantly precede 900 A.D. The earliest piece so far probably dates
back around the first century B.C.—a bit of copper sheathing found on top of an
altar at Cuicuilco in the Valley of Mexico.
Cuicuilco is said to have developed in Central Mexico during the Formative Period, between 700 B.C. and 400 A.D., when it was totally destroyed by a volcanic eruption—that, by the way, is an 1100-year period swing and could have existed at any time during that period, that is, it is not known when it was built or much about it since it was totally destroyed and only a written comment about it being "A place where they make songs and dances," or "Place of the Rainbow"
Response: First of
all, it is interesting that “the most compelling sort” of evidence is something
that “the earliest piece so far probably dates” to around 100 B.C. Something
that probably dates, can hardly be
considered “compelling.” Nor something found resting on top of an object in a ruin that was destroyed by a volcano. From there, Sorenson goes on to claim that other
finds, “not firmly dated, could be pre-900 A.D. It is all shaky, at best,
though one would not know this by reading his firmly stated writing unless one
looked up his references and studied the events for themselves—then the problems become significant and the correlation non-existent.
However, given all that,
the point we need to consider in all of this is that Hagoth’s ships went north
around 55 B.C. Secondly, Nephties with all the skills and crafts that had seen
their remarkable building accomplishments in the actual Land of Promise for
some 600 years, went with them. Where they landed, in “a land which was
northward” could well have been in Mesoamerica—and from that point of time
forward, first century B.C., we find evidence (buildings) dating to that
period. If metallurgy was found dating to that first century B.C., it certainly
fits in with Hagoth’s emigrants being those that settled Mesoamerica.
Thirdly, all the
experts in South and Central American metallurgy have shown that metal crafts
began in Andean Peru long before anywhere else in the Americas and eventually spread northward
into Mesoamerica.
Continuing with John L.
Sorenson’s landmark book that supposedly shed new light on the Book of Mormon
and the location of the Land of Promise, we can see how far afield from the
actual scriptural record and its intent we get when we try to place everything
in a pre-determined location, such as Mesoamerica as he does in his writing.
(p229)
“The best analysis of what was
going on in highland Guatemala at the time of the books of Mosiah and Alma is
by Southern Methodist University professor David Freidl. He considers it clear
that social life and public art reached a peak during the Late Pre-Classic
period (300 B.C. to 100 A.D.) During the rest of the pre-Columbian history the
area was “balkanized” in political fragments that never again attained even the
limited degree of unity enjoyed in Mesoamerica 1900 years ago.”
Response: However, in the 200 years following this period, from about 50 A.D. to 250
A.D., the Land of Promise was one people with “no contention among the people
in all the land because of the love that dwell in the hearts of the people” (4
Nephi 1:13, 15), nor any envyings, strifes, tumults, whoredoms nor lyings,
murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness and surely there could not be a
happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God” (4
Nephi 16). This happiness seems to have been in the period Sorenson claims was
“balkanized” in political fragments that never again attained even the limited
degree of unity.” Pride did not enter into the land until after the 200th
year, or 200 A.D. (4 Nephi 1:24).
(p268) In writing about no evidence of
Spanish type ships being built before the Spanish arrived, there is a reference
Sorenson makes to an obscure writing of Robert C. West, “Aboriginal Sea
Navigation between Middle and South America,” American Anthropologist (New Series 63, No 1, Feb 1961 p 133-135). In this article in 1961, according to a record of Indian tradition about regular trading expeditions by sea, written by a Spaniard in 1525, and writing about two Spanish ships being built at the Balsas River (Zacatula) undertaken by an unidentified people from islands somewhere south of Mexico.
Zacatula is located to the south of Mexico about 1800 to 2100 miles,
placing it either in the Cocos (1800 miles) or the Galapagos (2100 miles)
according to a 1525 A.D. writing
Response: There is some
question to the authenticity of this other than its mythical or legendary status. The
writer claims while the people building the ships are unknown, they come from
an island or islands 1800 to 2100 miles to the south (600 or 700 leagues),
which suggests two possibilities:
The Isla del Coco, or Cocos Island, lies south of Cost Rica, is the only island in the tropical eastern Pacific with a tropical rainforest
1) Cocos Island, about 350 miles
off the Costa Rica shore, surrounded by Hammerhead and Bigeye Thresher sharks, rays and dolphins,
the climate is extremely wet and oceanic. With 300-foot cliffs ringing the
island, docking is possible at only four bays. Other than mythical pirate treasure,
there is no record of valued ore or other natural resources.
Galapagos Archiplego off the coast of Ecuador
2) Archipelago de colon, a group
of 18 volcanic islands, plus three smaller islands and 107 rocks and islets,
are better known as the Galapagos Islands, 621 miles off the coast of Ecuador.
Its isolated coasts are considered one of the world’s foremost destinations for
wildlife viewing and shelters a diversity of plant and animal species, many found
nowhere else. The main use of the islands was as hideouts for mostly English
pirates who pilfered Spanish galleons carrying gold and silver from South
America to Spain.
Who might have been building two
Spanish-style ships in 1525 who lived in either of the islands mentioned, if
even accurate as a story, is unknown.
It certainly seems to have no
purpose in a book about the scriptural record, for it neither verifies nor
opposes any point under discussion by Sorenson.
(266) “There is on apparent exception to the
likely rule of short travel. Helaman 3:4 reports that some Nephites “did travel
to an exceeding great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of
water and many rivers.” That statement seems to imply a distance greater than
the area in the land northward that Morianton tried to reach, so close to a
Bountiful that it might have allied with it (Alma 5);29, 32)”
Response: It is interesting,
that in the entire scriptural record there is never a mention of “short
travel,” within the Land of Promise, but since Sorenson is always trying to
limit the distances to match Mesoamerica, he creates a “short distance”
scenario, then tells us there is no apparent
exception to the likely rule of short travel. Cutting through the hyperbole, that
means there is no scenario of short travel, and no comment about it one way or
another. Stated differently, there is no reason to consider distances were
short in the Land of Promise, and no comment to support short distances. But
that, of course, does not stop Sorenson.
It is also interesting that
Sorenson claims Morianton was headed for the land just beyond Bountiful so he
could be close to the city of Bountiful when the scriptural record tells us: “Therefore,
Morianton put it into their hearts that they should flee to the land which was
northward, which was covered with large bodies of water, and take possession of
the land which was northward” (Alma 50:29). It was well beyond Bountiful that
Morianton headed—sometimes it seems Sorenson is reading from a different Book of
Mormon than the rest of us have.
The fear Moroni had
was that once beyond the narrow neck and in possession of the Land Northward,
Morianton could convince some of the people of Bountiful to support him, thus
creating a separate line of defense for Morianton against the Nephite nation,
and a place of refuge from which Morianton could attack the Nephites as he
chose.
(270) “Scattered
throughout the middle part of the Book of Mormon with increasing frequency as
one reads on are statements abut Nephite dating (none are exactly correct). If
we investigate the Nephite’s calendrical references exhaustively, the footnoted
dates fall into question.”
Response: Why so? These are
based on the scriptural reference that usually relates to the “year of the judges,”
“reign of the kings,” or “years since Christ’s appearance,” etc. Each date can
be readily evaluated against the scriptural record and the timing shown. What
Sorenson refers to is that these dates don’t always agree with his secular
Guatemala Mayan calendar dates, which he places in high esteem, even more the writings
and dating of Moses). Sorenson writes: “Perhaps we will be able to clarify this
matter by looking at Mesoamerican calendars.” Stated differently, “if the
scriptural record date is different from the Mesoamerican calendar then
Sorenson adjusts the record to agree with the Mesoameircan calendar—in this way
he has the Noah Flood occurring in 3114 BC like the Mesoamerican calendar
rather than 2344 BC according to Moses writing in Genesis and the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price.
However, this does not stop
Sorenson. He launches into a several-page discussion on the word “year,” and
how it means different things in different circumstances, all in an attempt to
get the reader to question the three or four year difference in the scriptural
record of the two dates shown, without applying his questionable logic to the
770 years of the Mesoamerican calendar differences.
(p274) “If the Nephite “year” had been the same as
our present year of 365+ days, then the Book of Mormon prophecies and its
history as well would be in error.”
Response: First of all, our
calendar is not 365+ days, which means more days than 365. In reality, the
modern Gregorian calendar is 365.2425 days. There are also the fiscal year, the
academic year, the seasonal year, etc. Then again, there is the leap year
(every fourth year, or 97 years out of 400) to account for the plus .2425 days
for four years. In the older Julian calendar (still used in revised form in
some Eastern Orthodox churches, the year was 365.25 days. According to Miriam Nancy
Shields, ”The New Calendar of the Eastern Churches,” Popular Astronomy (NASA Astrophysics Data System), while this is
currently not a problem, the Julian and Gregorian calendars will begin to
differ in 2800.
Consequently, Sorenson, like many theorists with their minds made up to their pre-determined location for the Land of Promise, forces issues or tries to change meaning or, in this case, the very clear dates of the scriptural record in favor of a calendaring system found in Mesoamerica that is 770 years different from the Biblical dating of Moses, which is based on the progressional birth dates of the Patriarchs that he lists.
Taking another look at John L.
Sorenson’s landmark book that supposedly shed new light on the Book of Mormon
and the location of the Land of Promise, we can see how far afield from the
actual scriptural record and its intent we get when we try to place everything
in a pre-determined location, such as Mesoamerica.
Taking his book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of
Mormon, we can look at page 266 as he tries to make a case between the
scriptural record and Mesoameria;
“The
prime movers were, in all likelihood, ambitious leaders who saw a
chance for increased personal and lineage power in the moves. Morianton and
Jacob (3 Nephi 7:12) illustrate the type. All this business of seeking new
lands and power sounds very Mesoamerican.”
Response: First, Morianton
(left) was not seeking power in his attempted move to the Land Northward, he
was escaping for his life. Second, in the 24th year of elected
judges conflicts arose between the Nephites who lived in the new coastal lands
of Lehi and Morianton. The people of Morianton, whose claims to the Land of
Morianton and which joined upon the borders of Lehi” (Alma 50:26), evidently
thought the people of Lehi were encroaching on their land, and set about to
reclaim their land with the sword. The people of Lehi “fled the to the camp of
Moroni, and appealed unto him for assistance; for behold they were not in the
wrong” (Alma 50:27).
Fearful of the army of Moroni,
Morianton put it into their hearts of his people that “they should
flee to the land which was northward, which was covered with large bodies of
water, and take possession of the land which was northward” (Alma 50:29).
However, Moroni was forewarned by one of Morianton’s maid servants, and Moroni,
fearful “that they would hearken to the words of Morianton and unite with his
people, and thus he would obtain possession of those parts of the land, which
would lay a foundation for serious consequences among the people of Nephi, yea,
which consequences would lead to the overthrow of their liberty” (Alma 50:32).
So Moroni “sent an army, with their camp, to head the people of Morianton, to
stop their flight into the land northward” (Alma 50:33). This army, under the
direction of Teancum, was successful, Morianton was killed in battle, and the
people of Morianton were brought back, and upon their covenanting to keep the
peace were released, and peace was restored (Alma 50:34-36).
The point is, as the
scriptures show, this was not a desire on the part of Morianton to increase his
power of leadership or lineage power of authority. Two cities were built, they
were inhabited for the purpose of creating a bulwark against the Lamanite
incursions in the east coastal area, and a disagreement arose over the land
boundaries.
This may sound
Mesoamerican to Sorenson, but it does not sound Nephite, who did not have
border squabbles that we know about, but had squabbles over religion and
religious pursuits.
The trouble is, it appears that when Sorenson tout Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, it is not important how the
wordage of the scriptural record is, but how he can tie it into Mesoamerica,
which is not a scholarly practice at all.
(p268) “Settlements of the 1st Century
B.C. had been found scattered along the coast of the States of Guerrero and
Oaxaca a few hundred miles north of the isthmus of Tehuantepec. The Nephite
colonization and subsequent trade (Helaman 3:10) was directed there
particularly since good timber is rare in that hot, dry strip.”
In Sorenson’s model, from Hagoth’s shipyard
(Juchitan de Zaragosa/narrow neck/Isthmus of Tehuantepec) to Punta Corneta
(coast of Oaxaca) is in a southwest direction; From there to Los Corrales is a
west by southwest direction—only the last 100 miles of a 925 mile coastal
sailing voyage matches the direction Mormon gives us in the scriptural record.
A scholar might suggest this map and Mormon’s descriptions do not match
Response: Coastal
Guerrero, around the area of Acapulco today, is due west of Juchitan de
Zaragoza, which is within the protected harbors Soreonson uses along the
southern coast of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as the location of Hagoth’s
shipyard—a distance of 375 miles. And any direction along the Oaxaca coast at
Punta Corneta (Point Corneta or Corneta End) at San Pedro Pochutia—a distance
of 125 miles—would be in a southwest direction, not “north” as Sorenson claims.
And neither case meets the scriptural record of direction: “and they took their
course northward” (Alma 63:6). And the furthest most point of Guerrero is
actually 500 miles away as the crow flies, over 600 miles by sea—hardly the
“few hundred miles” Sorenson minimizes in his writing. Nor is Nayarit 600 miles
“north” of the Isthmus, but a whopping 920 miles (and the first 800 miles is
not “north” at all, but a “west by northwest” direction. Not until one passes around
present day Puerto Vallarta (Los Corrales) can one say a northward course was
taken, 800 miles away!
(p268) “Hagoth
was a major figure in promoting northward migration.”
Response: We do not
know what role Hagoth played in this other than he built ships. We use his name
a lot because names of people are seldom given outside the military battles. We
do know that shipping was a major industry in the Land of Promise (Helaman 3:10,
14). Whether he promoted the industry, sold his ships, leased or rented them
out, or there was a major shipping company or two that simply had Hagoth build
them ships, is unknown. Certainly, his ships were a major factor in immigration
and business shipping since Mormon singled him out. However, it would seem from the scriptural record that
far more people went north to “inherit the land” by going overland than by
ship.
(p268) “There is concrete evidence that sea travel
along the Pacific coast of not only Mexico but all the way to Ecuador in South
America was an ancient, though probably not a regular, practice.”
Response: Sorenson
can talk about concrete evidence; however, all anthropologists and
archaeologists who study South America write about a south to north movement of
artifacts and contact. That is, South America moved northward, not Central
America moving to South America. And if the Nephites were involved in trading
by ship with Central America, one might
wonder why, when the Lamanites threatened to wipe them out in 385 B.C., they
didn’t embark on ships to a land northward with whom they had been trading.
Escape is preferable, especially with wives and children, to certain
annihilation.
(p268) Regarding plank-decked European style ships:
“There is no evidence so far that such ships were constructed or used in the
New World until after the Spanish conquest, and it seems unlikely they would
have left no evidence even in art.”
Response: What
evidence Sorenson might want to see is interesting. First, that shipbuilding
continued in the Land of Promise after the Nephites were wiped out. Who does he
think would have built such ships? The surviving Lamanites? It is highly
unlikely they would have possessed such expertise in building the kind of ships Hagoth built, and just
as unlikely that they would have had an interest or need since they were
embroiled in a bloody, long-lasting civil war. No doubt, by the time that war
ended, the original combatants who knew why they were fighting tribe against
tribe, community against community, had even started. Moroni tells us the war
had continued for 26 years and was still going strong at the conclusion of his
record. As for art, they didn’t leave evidence of horses, elephants, metallurgy
(in Mesoamerica), coins, etc. We need to keep in mind that period art was not
created to leave a history of a society—archaeologists just use it as such, but
the absence of something does not mean it did not exist, as archaeologists are
always ready to point out unless it does not work in their favor.
