Problems with Map Making – Part II

Different from the Mesoamerican and Great Lakes maps and models, the Peruvian map and model, as outlined thoroughly in the book “Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica,” evolved in quite a different manner. Rather than start with a place in mind, this map and model started by reading the scriptures and following the steps involved to see where it might lead.

1. Where the Lehi Colony left, where it traveled south southeast along the Red Sea, and where it turned almost east until they reached the area they called Bountiful along the Arabian coast of the Irreantum Sea. Nearly all scholars agree that this was in the area of Salalah, and particularly the inlet of Khor Rori (though some believe in the area of Khor Karfot a few miles to the west, but still along this same sea coast).

2. See what kind of ship Nephi built (not after the manner of men) and how it was propelled (by the weather, that is currents and winds—“driven forth before the wind”).

3. Studying the winds and sea currents from the south Arabian coast and where they would take a weather driven (sailing) ship in 600 B.C.

4. Following these currents and winds to their idle point where a ship, “driven forth before the wind” would be able to disengage from the currents and winds and effect a landing.

5. Seeing what kind of area this landing site would be—was it a Cliffside coast where no ship could land, was there a harbor there, was there a beach or landing place for a ship the size that brought the Lehi Colony across the “many waters”?

6. At this landing site, checking out the climate, precipitation, soil, soil groups, temperature, etc., that would all the “seeds they brought from Jerusalem” to grow abundantly.

7. Seeing if there were two unknown animals (curelom and cumom) in the area of this landing.

8. Seeing if there were natural ores of “gold, silver and copper,” in a single unit, in abundance in the area that could be easily mined in 600 B.C.

Actually, the list went on and on, for there are at least fifty points mentioned in scripture to describe this geographical area they called the Land of Promise.

Now, once this location was found to match the scriptures—without any tampering, changing, bending, or having to adapt language to alter its apparent meaning as Mesoamerican and other Theorists have continually done—then where Lehi landed was obviously apparent.

A map was then developed, using modern and ancient geological findings, descriptions and understanding of the area in 600 B.C., and using the scriptures to verify the shape and distances of this map. Of course, one of the first criteria of the map was that it be an island as Jacob wrote and Nephi recorded (2 Nephi 10:20). Nor could there be any hidden jutting or extension of land not mentioned or eluded to in scripture (such as the Yucatan Peninsula in the Mesoamerican model), or small lakes and rivers serving as the seas (as mentioned as in the Great lakes model).

Once this was all accomplished, and the map agreed every whit with the scriptures (see details in "Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica"), and its location was accessible by natural means for a sailing ship “driven forth before the wind” across the oceans, then the location and map and model was decided upon. That is how the Andean area of South America, including Chile, Peru and Ecuador, was decided upon for the location—understanding that geologically this area was an island at one time, not connected to Central America, and with everything to the east of the Andes under water before the great upheavels at the time of Christ’s crucifixion.

If a map cannot meet ALL the geographical statements in the Book of Mormon, then it is not a map worthy of mentioning.

Problems with Map Making – Part I

The Mesoamerican Theorists and the Great Lakes Theorists, both suffer from the same mistake—taking a current map of known sites in the case of the former, and taking a current map of known cities in the case of the latter, and trying to fit the Book of Mormon cities into them.

Mesoamerican Theorists:

In 1935, Dr. M. Wells Jakeman first developed a belief that the Book of Mormon had taken place in the Mesoamerican area of Central America. A decade later, as a doctorate graduate of the University of California-Berkeley, he was appointed the first chairman of a newly established Archaeology Department at Brigham Young University. He
remained chairman of this department for fifteen years until 1960. Three years after this appointment, the new Department of Archaeology sponsored its first field work in southeastern Mexico. At no time did Jakeman, or his students, look elsewhere for Book of Mormon geography.

As work on sites developed, and the fantastic ruins found in Guatemala and southern Mexico were uncovered, later scholars like John L. Sorenson, Joseph Allen, Hauck, etc., decided to determine matches between these sites and those cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Without any physical evidence other than the ruins, and a firm belief that certain sites must be these cities, location maps of sites were created based on their beliefs in distances and directions established by these scholars, and not necessarily by the scriptures. Today, those sites are pretty well determined to be as claimed, such as the Olmec being the Jaredites, and the Olmec civiliztions being the same and therefore, the Jaredite beginnings centered along the east coast of Mexico on the western edge of the Gulf of Mexico.

Great Lake Theorists:

In more recent times, some LDS writers and scholars have decided there could be only one Hill Cumorah and, therefore, the Book of Mormon lands had to be in upstate New York and the Great Lakes area. Several different maps have been developed, each a little different as the individual author’s beliefs were expressed. Ignoring scripture for the most part, or bending scripture to fit their desires, these theorists tended to place cities, rivers, seas, etc., in a willy nilly fashion—almost as if anything would be right as long as the Hill Cumorah was kept in place.

One of the most blatantly inaccurate map of the Great Lakes was shown in our last post “Another Great Lakes Theory.” In that map, it is as though someone took a current map of New England, found some amazing similarities between existing modern cities or towns and some of those mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and decided those were the ancient sites. Unfortunately, none of those cities so labeled in the map are accurately placed according to the Book of Mormon scriptural text. Yet, that did not deter the person from creating the map and trying to convince others that was where the Nephites lived.

The Problem with Theories:

Obviously, the problem with both these theories and their numerous variants is that people start with a location in mind, then try to find some way to make the Book of Mormon descriptions match. Unfortunately, in ALL cases, there are so many discrepancies, one has to almost completely ignore the scriptures in order to maintain a model’s reality. From John L. Sorenson’s skewing the land of promise by 90º from the scriptural directions, to others placing cities where there is absolutely no way to prove their location from scripture, and claiming “history and tradition” shows this to be true. Imagine believing in a 2,000 year old history where there is no written record during the time the Nephites existed over what is written in the Book of Mormon.

One look at any of these Great Lake maps shows conclusively that they do not match the geographical scriptural account of the Land of Promise. In this map, we find Zarahemal to the west of Bountiful, the Narrow Pass is to the east of the Land of Desolation, and to the north of the city of Desolation, the Waters of Mormon far, far to the north of the City of Nephi and the Small Neck of Land to the south of the Lehi landing site. None of these match scripture (see Alma 22).

No, maps, no matter how well designed, do not prove anything. And nobody can show where cities were in the Land of Promise other than perhaps, the city of Nephi and the city of Zarahemla of which we have sufficient information, along with the general area of Bountiful and Desolation. Beyond that, it is merely someone’s belief that a particular site of ruins is actually a city named in the record.

(Next Post: See how the Peruvian or Andean map and model was developed in “Problems with Map Making – Part II”)

Another Great Lakes Theory

One of these Great Lake theories (see last post) has the histories of the Jaredite, Nephite and Lamanite civilizations taking place in a small area of southern Ontario and western New York. The seas surrounding the land are said to be Lakes Huron, Ontario, and Erie. Looking at the map, however, one can hardly believe that at least four million people (Jaredites) lived in the area shown as the Land Northward. It would also be difficult to find the area of the Land Southward that was completely surrounded by water. The Land of Desolation seems to be to the east of the narrow neck of land, and Cumorah is beyond the east sea. In addition, Bountiful is at a higher elevation than Desolation though the scriptures suggest otherwise.

None of this matches the Book of Mormon descriptions of the Land of Promise.

As an example, one can claim that a river is the boundary of the Land Southward, but a river is hardly described as a sea—in fact, nowhere in scripture is a river described as a sea.

Great Lake Theorists claim that the Book of Mormon does not say that the Lehi Colony sailed across the ocean and landed on the west coast of the Land of Promise. However, the scriptures do say that the ship Nephi built in 600 B.C., a weather driven (sailing) ship, was “driven forth before the wind.” One cannot discount that the winds from the southern coast of Arabia blow in only one direction through the Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, across the Pacific and up the west coast of South America. In order to reach the Great Lakes, Nephi would have had to sail his ship across the Atlantic.

Two problems with that. 1) the scriptures clearly lead the Lehi Colony to the southern coast of Arabia, and 2) the winds and currents along the eastern coast of Africa, Madagascar, and around the Cape of Africa do not blow toward the west. They blow toward the east. In fact, the early Portuguese sailors who discovered Africa and sailed into the Indian Ocean, followed the winds and currents south from Portugal, south along the African west coast, east below the Cape, and down across the Southern Ocean toward Australia before turning upward (north) and into Indonesia. When they tried to sail east into the winds and currents across the northern portion of the Indian Ocean, they were met with terrible sailing conditions and took months to cover a week’s journey. Not until they discovered the southern route did they find travel to Indonesia, India and China worthwhile.

In fact, Vasco de Gama had to swing wide out into the Atlantic to eventually pick up the southern ocean or circumpolar currents that brought him around the Cape and into the Indian Ocean. In order to return, ships had to hug the coast where the opposing currents were less and it was possible to make headway—de Gama’s journey back took three months just to recross the Indian Ocean, after taking only 23 days sailing with the wind in his eastward journey. So many men died of scurvy on this extensive return voyage that one of the ships, the Sao Rafael, was burned for lack of a crew. The four month journey with the winds and currents going eastward, took nine months to return sailing westward with considerable loss of life.

Again, modern man loves to say people traveled here or there without giving any thought to the manner of transportation available to them. From the first sailing vessel ever built until sometime in the 18th century, sailing into the wind was simply not possible. Consequently, to say the Lehi Colony, driven forth before the wind, sailed westward from Arabia, around Africa, out into the Atlantic, up the coast of North America to a river, then inland for approximately 1575 miles across the St. Lawrence Gulf and then down the St. Lawrence River, through Lake Ontario and into Lake Erie (West Sea), to finally land in the area described in scripture. Such a voyage against currents and winds was simply not possible in 600 B.C. for a ship “driven forth before the wind” to the Promised Land.

Problems with the New England/Great Lakes Model

The scriptures tell us that “the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful” and that “it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:31-32; 50:11, 30, 34).

Certainly, this Great Lakes Theorists’ map does not agree with scripture and one can only wonder why it was ever developed in the first place. But like all other maps of this general area, none are consistent with all (or even most) scripture outlining the Land of Promise. Using this particular map as a typical Great Lakes model, several discrepancies can be pointed out, as others have already done.
• First of all, the narrow neck of land shown that runs east and west, thus not dividing the north land from the south land as the scriptures indicate.
• There is no real distinctive line separating the Land Northward from the Land Southward.
• The Land Southward is not “nearly completely surrounded by water” except for this narrow neck.
• Hagoth could not have launched his ships into the west sea that took their course northward—this west sea runs south by southwest.
• While the River Sidon is identified, there is no city of Zarahemla shown, yet the two are in close proximity to each other (Mormon 1:10).
• The River Sidon is shown emanating from the East Sea, yet it was near Zarahemla in the west.
• The Land of First Inheritance, shown as the land of Lehi-Nephi, is shown on the east coast rather of the west coast (Alma 22:28).
• The Ripliancum shown on this map is certainly not indicative of the definition of this word which means “large, or to exceed all” (Ether 15:8) which in most interpretive value would suggest a large ocean such as the Sea North.
• Ogath is shown to the east of Ripliancum when it is south according to the scriptures (Ether 15:10).
• Morianton is on the west shore of the West Sea in the map, but is located on the eastern seashore (Alma 50:25) by Lehi which is not shown at all on the map.
• Jacobugath (3 Nephi 9:9) is shown in the Land Southward when the scriptures place it in the Land Northward where Jacob built up his kingdom (3 Nephi 7:9-12)
• Alma is shown far to the west of Lehi-Nephi, yet the scriptures suggest it would be to the north on some type of route to Zarahemla (Mosiah 24:20, 24-25).
• Cumorah on the map is separated by the Sea East from Ramah which, in the scripture, are the same place (Ether 15:11).
• Teancum is shown far from the narrow neck of land, yet the scriptures place it “near the city Desolation” (Mormon 4:3).
In short, like all Great Lakes maps modeling the Land of Promise, the sites do not match the scripture, the locations are skewed, and the clear and simple understanding of the geography as stated in the Book of Mormon is complicated beyond use.

A Reality Check

Many years ago I read a book claimed to be written by a sea captain about his experiences in the mid-1880s. He claimed to have sailed from the Pacific Ocean into the Great Salt Lake in his 19th-century sailing vessel, where he saw women leaning out the windows of the top floors of the Salt Lake Temple screaming for help. He said one woman jumped from the temple window into the Salt Lake and swam over to the ship where she was rescued. The ship then sailed away, saving the woman from a “fate worse than death.”

Obviously, there are a few difficulties in this captain’s story that were and are impossible to overlook.

First: There is no access now, nor ever was any access, from any Ocean, Gulf or River into the Great Salt Lake. It is a terminal, endorheic, land-locked basin and is a closed hydrologic system, receiving a northward drainage from Utah Lake, but without any outlets to rivers or seas. The first scientific measurements were taken in 1849, which showed the lake to be, as it is now, about 75 miles long and about 35 miles wide.

Second: while it is true the one-story (plus mezzanine) Tabernacle was finished in 1867, the 253,015-square-foot temple in Salt Lake City was not finished until 1893. In April 6 of the previous year, the capstone was laid, thus completing the work of the temple’s exterior, but it was not dedicated until April of 1893, some 8 to 10 years after the Captain’s claim that women were leaning out the top floor windows, screaming for help.

Third: The closest shore of the Great Salt Lake is about 16 miles north and west of the Temple grounds in Salt Lake City. The temple itself is located on a 10-acre site called Temple Square. 16 miles would be a giant leap out of an upstairs Temple window into the lake.

A Giant Leap to the Lake?

16 miles from Temple to Shore

Despite the impossibility of the facts stated, many people believed the story, which circulated widely during the latter decade of the 19th century.

In this same vein, it seems that Great Lakes Theorists are making statements that cannot stand up to the facts regarding 1) the lack of surrounding seas of the Land of Promise, 2) it being an island, 3) the Land Southward not surrounded by water except for a narrow neck of land, 4) the Sea West having no access to an ocean where the Lehi Colony landed and was the Land of First Inheritance, and 5) No River or water access to the Great Lakes from any ocean or gulf--as well as many others as has been pointed out in previous blogs here.

Any cursory glance at a map will show that the nearest ocean to the Great Lakes area is over 300 miles away, and no Land Southward of any Great Lakes Land of Promise map shows it is surrounded by water except for the narrow neck of land. In addition, any perfunctory study of the two major waterways into the Great Lakes, the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence, will show that prior to the 19th century, could not be navigated by any type of vessel beyond impassable rapids and waterfalls, making entrance to any of the lakes from the sea impossible. In addition, any overland journey from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes Area Sea West would pass around half Lake Erie to reach a point along the seashore at the most southern tip of the lake, which would cause anyone to wonder why they would travel so far out of the way to reach that particular spot to agree with that statement in scripture “on the west sea south.”

The problem is, with most theories not based upon ALL the scripture illustrative of the geography of the Land of Promise in the Book of Mormon, it cannot pass a reality check. The reality of distance, method of travel, location, size, shape, etc., is critical to any concept of the location for a Land of Promise—not to mention the sizable remains of buildings, temples, roads, etc., that would still have survived the time.

Any reality check would immediately disqualify the Great Lakes and Heartland areas as the location for the Land of Promise. Yet, the theory is gaining ground and interest and one can only wonder why?

The Fallacy of Sailing up the Mississippi in 600 B.C.

One might wonder why so much comment about the Great Lakes Theory of Lehi’s Land of Promise that is being written about lately. The simple reason is the Great Lakes area, including what is called the Heartland Theory (within the states to the south of the lakes) simply does not have much in the way of scriptural support. Yet, for some reason, it has gained a large following among people who, evidently, know little about the scriptural record or have not really studied the claims of these Theorists.

One such claim is how the Lehi Colony got to the area of the Great Lakes to begin with. Some have passed it off as reaching the lakes via the Mississippi River, while others claim that once across the Atlantic, they sailed up the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario. Neither of these routes, as has already been mentioned in earlier posts, would have been possible before modern canals were built and bottom-dredging vessels developed. For some reason, however, people seem to think that because the 2,000 mile long Mississippi River stretches toward the Great Lakes from the Gulf of Mexico, that a sailing ship in 600 B.C could have navigated that river and into Lake Michigan or Lake Erie. However, one should carefully consider the following:

The Mississippi River paddle-wheeled steamboats first entered service in the 1820s. These vessels had a shallow draft of only 3 to 4 foot, as can be seen in this model. Typically these boats were 160’ long, had four decks, were 47.5 feet high, and had a dry weight of about 275 tons.

The hulls were generally wooden, (although a few steel and composite hulls were built after about 1898) and were braced internally with a series of built-up longitudinal timbers called "keelsons". Further resilience was given to the hulls by a system of "hog rods" or "hog chains" that were fastened into the keelsons and led up and over vertical masts called "hog-posts", and back down again.

On the other hand, a deep sea, wood sailing vessel of the 17th-19th centuries, that was the same length would have had a draft of over 18 feet, and a comparable tonnage ship would have a draft of 9 feet, but would be less than half as long. Generally, 18th century sailing vessels considered to have a shallow draft were between draft depths of 10’ 6” to 13.5’.

Today, the depth of the Mississippi River is maintained at a nine-foot level by the Army Corps of Engineers for navigation of modern shipping. But in the 19th century, and the centuries before, the Mississippi required, as most inland waterways do, a shallow draft boat, and the paddle-wheeled steamboats with their three- to four-foot drafts were designed specifically for that task—especially along the Mississippi with its shifting sandbars and extremely shallow sections before modern dredging made it possible for deeper draft vessels to navigate it. Nor could any type of vessel move past the Rock Island Rapids, or the Cedar Rapids in Iowa to reach the closest point the river gets to Lake Michigan (310 miles).

Perhaps most importantly, long before the Corps of Engineers became involved in the early 19th-century, a blockage of the river by a prehistoric log jam made navigation northward beyond the Atchafalaya, near Simmesport in central Louisiana near the Mississippi border, at the confluence of the Red River with the Mississippi, impossible for anything other than small boats and the shallow-draft paddle wheels. The Corps of Engineers, dug a channel, which widened, and diverted the river so now the original shallow route is called the Old River.

Beginning just below St. Paul, Minnesota, and continuing throughout the upper and lower river, the Mississippi is now controlled by thousands of wing dikes that moderate the river's flow in order to maintain an open navigation channel of nine feet for deep sea vessels. The shallow-draft, paddlewheel steamboat “New Orleans” was the first vessel to sail from the Ohio tributary (375 miles south of Lake Michigan) down to New Orleans along the Gulf in December 1811. In 1988, when a record low level of the river occurred, 4 ½ acres of wreckage of wooden ships in Arkansas along the lower river was exposed, illustrating the extreme dangers of early navigation on the Mississippi.

It is one thing to look at a map and say this is the way they traveled, but quite another thing for it to have taken place. Yet, a statement that “this is what happened” takes on a life of its own and is repeated by “believers” until it becomes an accepted fact. However, facts cannot be altered to fit a belief. Getting from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes by ship in 600 B.C. was simply impossible and no amount of rhetoric can change that fact.

Reaching the Great Lakes from the Atlantic: St. Lawrence River

Many Great Lakes Theorists claim that the Lehi Colony sailed up the Atlantic from the tip of Africa, then across the Atlantic to the St. Lawrence Gulf, then down the St. Lawrence River to Lake Ontario, then into Lake Erie (their West Sea).

On a map, this 1900-mile-voyage up the St. Lawrence River looks plausible, but in reality, would have been impossible in 600 B.C.
At about the area of present-day Montreal in Canada, the St. Lawrence River was blocked from maritime movement up until 1825 when the Lachine Canal opened, bypassing an impassable area along the St. Lawrence, about 200 miles from Lake Ontario, known as the Lachine Rapids. Considered virtually impassable before 1825, maritime traffic on the St. Lawrence River was halted by these rapids and any supplies to Montreal had to be portaged overland.

Simply put, this means, that no ship of any kind, unless it had wings, could have reached the Great Lakes in 600 B .C. Nor were there any other direct routes for a ship to have taken during those B.C. centuries that would have allowed the settlement of the Great Lakes area, including the states to the south, being upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota or Wisconsin—the stomping grounds of the ancient Indians known as the Hopewell culture.

It is true that the St. Lawrence was continuously navigable, but just short of Montreal where these rapids were caused by a series of uneven levels, rocks, and shallow waters between the present day island of Montreal and the south shore, near the former city of Lachine. The rapids contain large standing waves because the water volume and current do not change with respect to the permanent features in the riverbed, namely its shelf-like drops. Seasonal variation in the water flow does not change the position of the waves, although it does change their size and shape.

The first European to see the rapids was Jacques Cartier, who sailed up the St. Lawrence River in 1535, believing he had found the Northwest Passage. In 1611 Samuel de Champlain named the rapids Sault Saint-Louis, after a crewman who drowned there; the name later extended to Lac Saint-Louis. This name remained in use until the mid-19th century, but later came to be replaced by the name of the adjacent town of Lachine.

An extensive system of canals and locks, known as the Saint Lawrence Seaway, was officially opened on 26 June 1959, by Queen Elizabeth II (representing Canada) and President Dwight D. Eisenhower (representing the United States). The Seaway now permits ocean-going vessels to pass all the way to Lake Superior. But in 600 B.C., and, in fact, all the way up until 1825, no type of vessel could navigate the St. Lawrence to Montreal and to the Great Lakes—it was virtually impossible.

In the mid-19th century, a paddlewheel steamboat, with its shallow draft, designed for this specific purpose, was unable to shoot the Lachine Rapids. Later attempts resulted in ships hung up on the sandbars or rocks, and had to be towed out by salvage vessels.
As has been said in many former posts—those who do not know what they are talking about often make drastic mistakes about voyages, directions, and routes that appear viable today on a map, but were impossible in B.C. times and often as late as the 18th or 19th centuries.