Were There Surviving Nephites After Cumorah? Part I

In an interesting display of ignoring the scriptural record, John L. Sorenson makes several claims about surviving Nephites:

“Were there Nephites left after that battle? Some, yes. The scripture makes that clear. Only they were no longer called Nephites. Mormon noted that "a few...had escaped into the south countries, and a few...had dissented over unto the Lamanites" (Mormon 6:15). Naturally, large numbers of people of Nephite descent had never consented to flee their lands in the first place (Mormon 2:7-8), but had switched their allegiance rather than move out (Moroni 1:2). Mormon observed to his son that "many of our brethren have dissented over unto the Lamanites" (Mormon 9:24).”

Let’s take these points one at a time:

1. Mormon noted that "a few...had escaped into the south countries.”

This statement is given by Mormon in 384 A.D. after stating that his 23 units of 10,000 each had been destroyed. At this point, just before his death as one of the last 24 Nephites alive. However, around 400 A.D., Moroni tells us that after the last battle had taken place, and he was the last Nephite alive (Mormon 8:3), that those who had escaped into the south countries were hunted down by the Lamanites and killed (Mormon 8:2). This is just another example of Sorenson’s attempt to create survivors in the Land of Promise when there were none as the scriptural record shows.

2. Naturally, large numbers of people of Nephite descent had never consented to flee their lands in the first place (Mormon 2:7-8).

As the Lamanites, with their numberless armies march northward, the Nephites were frightened and ran before them. During this swift retreat, Mormon tells us that “we did gather in our people as fast as it were possible, that we might get them together in one body” (Mormon 2:7). As the retreat toward Cumorah continued, Mormon tells us “whatsoever lands we had passed by, and the inhabitants thereof were not gathered in, were destroyed by the Lamanites, and their towns and villages and cities were burned with fire (Mormon 5:5).

This flight continued each time the Lamanites came down to battle “and we did again take to flight, and those whose flight was swifter than the Lamanites did escape, and those whose flight did not exceed the Lamanites were swept down and destroyed” (Mormon 5:7). The blood and carnage wrought by the Lamanites against all Nephites they encountered was so extensive, that Mormon refused to write more about it (Mormon 5:8-9). There is certainly nothing in the record to suggest that any Nephites “never consented to flee their lands in the first place.” The opposite picture seems quite clear—the Lamanites were bent on destroying all the Nephites, and those who did not escape with Mormon and his army, were killed.

3. but had switched their allegiance rather than move out.

What Sorenson describes as “switching their allegiance,” Moroni describes as “denying the Christ.” Those that did throughout the scriptural record became known as Lamanites and took upon themselves the curse the Lord placed upon the Lamanites from the beginning. However, in the specific case he quotes, this description is an overall statement by Moroni about 421 A.D., about 37 years after the final battle where the last of the Nephites, including his father, had been killed, and about 21 years after his earlier statement that all the Nephites that escaped into the south countries were hunted down by the Lamanites and killed.

At this time, he is surprised that he is still alive (Moroni 1:1), and that he is in hiding knowing the Lamanites would kill him if they found him. Why? Because he would not deny the Christ (Moroni 1:3). In this same vein, Moroni is describing how vicious the Lamanites were, for their wars were exceedingly fierce among themselves” (Moroni 1:2), and because of their age-old hatred toward the Nephites, they had killed all that would not deny the Christ (Moroni 1:2) and join them. There were none left earlier when the last were tracked down. How many denied the Christ earlier in those final days is not known nor even implied. Nor is there any indication that Nephites did this in large numbers rather than leave their towns and villages as Sorenson implies.

(See the next post, “Were There Surviving Nephites After Cumorah? Part II,” for the continuation of these points)

Was Amalikiah a Zoramite?

One of the problems we find in reading the writings of Book of Mormon scholars and theorists is that they often make flat-out statements that are not supported by the scriptural record. The additional problem is, that few people reading these writings, whether about Mesoamerica, the Great Lakes, Heartland, or other theories, is that they do not check out the comments made to see if they are, in fact, correct—and if the scriptural record supports such a statement, belief, or stand.

One of these statements is made by Michael M. Hobby, in his book “The Mulekite Connection,” page 50, who states:

“It is significant that Amalickiah, Ammoran, and Tubaloth were a now generations-old Zoramite dynasty ruling over the Lamanites.”

This Amalickiah was a Nephite apostate who wrangled his way into becoming the Lamanite king, but first sought to be a king over the Nephites (Alma 46:4), and was supported by lower judges who were seeking for power (Alma 46:4). Amalickiah flattered his supporters, telling them that if he were king, he would make them rulers over the people (Alma 46:5). Many in the church were led away by him (Alma 46:7), despite their recent victory over the Lamanites. At this point, Mormon inserts a parenthetical note: "Thus we see how quick the children of men do forget the Lord their God, yea, how quick to do iniquity, and to be led away by the evil one" (Alma 46:8).

Denied being named king of the Nephites, Amalickiah, who was a cunning man (Alma 46:10) sought to destroy the foundation of liberty among them. This caused Moroni to be angry with him (Alma 46:11) and raise an army to preserve their liberty (Alma 46:28). Amalickiah and his followers, called Amalickiahites, fled before Moroni toward the land of Nephi to join up with the Lamanites (Alma 46:29). Moroni cut him off and many Amalickiahites were captured (Alma 46:33). Those who would not convenant to "support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government" Moroni executed (Alma 46:35). But Amalickiah escaped and joined the Lamanites, stirring them up to war (Alma 47:1).

Through his cunning, Amalickiah gained control over the Lamanite army (Alma 47:35) with an ultimate goal of bringing the Nephites into bondage (Alma 48:4). Amalickiah eventually was named king over the Lamanites (Alma 48:2), and appointed Zoramites as chief captains over the Lamanite army because they were "the most acquainted with the strength of the Nephites, their places of resort, and the weakest parts of their cities" (Alma 48:5). But Amalickiah was killed by Teancum (Alma 51:34), and Amalickiah’s brother, Ammoron, was appointed king in his place (Alma 52:3). Ammoron's son, Tubaloth, eventually succeeded him to the Lamanite throne (Helaman 1:16). Thus, two brothers and one of their sons were kings over the Lamanites.

However, this Amalickiah was not a Zoramite at all, but a Nephite (Alma 49:25). But there are those who read that Amalikiah “appointed Zoramites as chief captains over the Lamanite army” (Alma 48:5), thinking Amalikiah was a Zoramite to do so. But his reason for making such appointments was “because they were the most acquainted with the strength of the Nephites, their places of resort, and the weakest parts of their cities” (Alma 48:5). Later on, we find Mormon identifying Jacob as a Zoramite (Alma 52:20), who was one of the Zoramite chief captains that Amalikiah had appointed. But at no time was Amalikiah, Ammoron, or Tubaloth, identified as Zoramites.

To better understand all this, there were those Nephites that had grown proud “being lifted up in their hearts because of their exceedingly great riches” (Alma 45:24) and would not give heed to the preaching of the churches Helaman appointed over the land (Alma 45:23).

At this time, Moroni raises the title of liberty and rallies the people to defend their religion. But “as many as would not hearken to the words of Helaman and his brethren were gathered together against their brethren” (Alma 46:1). Now the leader of those who were wroth was a man named Amalikiah (Alma 46:3), and he “was desirous to be a king, and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land, and they were seeking for power” (Alma 46:4).

Thus, Amalikiah was a Nephite dissenter who, through manipulation, worked his way to becoming the king of the Lamanites. In putting together a great army to defeat the Nephites, who had rejected his bid to be the Nephite king, he looking around his army and chose Zoramites among the Lamanites to be his chief captains. This was because of their greater knowledge of the Nephites and their society, defenses, and structure.

Consequently, Amalikiah was not a Zoramite, nor was his brother, Ammoron, nor Ammoron’s son, Tubaloth—at least not according to the scriptural record.

The Names of Lehi’s Family and Their Origin

The names of Lehi's family are true Hebrew, Arabic and Egyptian names and were well in use in 600 B.C. After Lehi left Jerusalem, other Jewish families fled the city and went to Egypt for their safety. Many of them had names later found in the Book of Mormon.

The name Lehi was discovered on a piece of broken pottery that was found in 1940 at the site of King Solomon's copper refineries near the northern end of the Red Sea. The vowels are not present and the name appears, when transliterated, as LHY, vocalized by Professor Nelson Glueck as “Lahia.” It dates from the fifth or fourth century B.C.

Laman is an Arabic name, and is rendered Leimun, and has been found in ancient Palestine. Lemuel is also an Arabic name, which appears twice in the Old Testament (Proverbs 31:1,4). It is found in the desert area to the south of Jerusalem in the direction of Egypt. It appears in an Edomite text from an area where the Jewish religion prevailed in ancient times.

Both Nephi and Sam are true Egyptian personal names. Nephi is a Syro-Palestinian Semitic form of an attested Egyptian man's name and the NPY (Egyptian Nfr) spelling is found in the Phoenician as KNPY. And both Jacob and Joseph are true Hebrew names.

On the other hand, Ishmael is an ancient Arabic name also found among kindred Hebrews. Ishmael was the proverbial ancestor of the Arabs, and is one of the few Old Testament names that is also at home in ancient Arabia. Ishmael's traditional home was Tih, in the desert between Palestine and Egypt. His people were hunters of the borders between the desert and the town. He was regarded as a legitimate offspring of Abraham by an Egyptian mother. Erastus Snow claimed that Ishmael was of the lineage of Ephraim, and that his sons married into Lehi's family.

Jews, during Lehi's time and now, were not averse to giving their children non-Israelite names. It was common for Jews to name their children for a reason, their names referring to attitudes, events, or circumstances. It can even be seen where Lehi might have named his six sons to reflect his own personal history:

(1) Laman and Lemuel were both Arabic names, and were born in Lehi's early years, when he was involved in the development of his business which seems to have been connected with Arab camel caravans of the desert.

(2) Sam and Nephi were both Egyptian names. These two children were born during the time of Lehi's prosperity, when his business was thriving and life was probably more centered on worldly matters. Lehi may well have chosen Egyptian names, which denoted success and wealth in his era, to reflect his increased prosperity. It is also likely that he was involved with Egyptians during this time since he knew and understood the written Egyptian language, or at least a form of it he later called Reformed Egyptian.

(3) Jacob and Joseph were both Hebrew names. These two children were born during the 8 years in the wilderness after Lehi had a) seen a vision of the coming destruction of the Jews, b) had prophesied throughout Jerusalem, c) been directed to flee by the Lord, d) received the brass plates and read them and learned he was descended from Joseph through Manasseh, and e) was on the Lord's errand toward the promised land when these two sons were born (2 Nephi 2:1; 3:1). They may well have been named to reflect his new calling as a prophet and lineage bearer of the Hebrew into the New World's land of promise.

Mulek. The name Mulek (MLK) is a true Hebrew name and means “royal” or “king.” Zedekiah had a son named Mulek who escaped the massacre of the king's family and household when Jerusalem finally fell. The story of his escape and eventual salvation in a new land is documented in the Book of Omni within the Book of Mormon.

This, too, might suggest why so many different types of names appear in the Book of Mormon which Nibley and Sorenson try to apply to specific peoples, like Jaredites and Mulekites, being involved because of a name rather than recognize that it was the custom of Hebrews to use names of other peoples for their own children.

Where Was Lehi’s Home Where He “Lived All His Days at Jerusalem”?

Nephi gives us a few clues regarding the family home at Jerusalem that opens up some interesting questions and perhaps sheds light on both the location of Lehi's home, and the type of business enterprise he engaged in that brought him an abundance of gold and silver and precious things (1 Nephi 2:4).

We are told that Lehi dwelt at Jerusalem all his days (1 Nephi 1:4). Nephi did not say that his father dwelt “in” Jerusalem, but “at” Jerusalem. The word “at” is defined as “within the limits of; in the region or vicinity of; in proximity to,” while the word “in” is defined as “within the bounds of; contained or included within; to be part of; contained by.” The use of this particular word would suggest that Nephi's home was near Jerusalem, but not within the old, walled city itself. Nephi also states that Lehi “went forth, then returned to his own house at Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 1:5,7). Was Lehi engaged in some business that took him away from the area of Jerusalem, to which he returned when he went back to his house?

Nephi goes on to say that after he and his brothers returned to Jerusalem for the brass plates and Laman entered the city and confronted Laban, they ran into trouble (1 Nephi 3:13). Immediately afterward, they decided to go “down to the land of their inheritance” and collect some of the gold and silver and their precious things which they had left in the family home (1 Nephi 3:22).

Nephi continues the account after gathering the objects from their father’s home, that he and his brothers then “went up again unto the house of Laban,” which was in the walled city of Jerusalem (1 Nephi 3:23). Did the brothers leave Jerusalem and travel south to their land of inheritance, or former home “at” Jerusalem? Then, on obtaining some of their gold and precious things, travel back “up” and “into” the city of Jerusalem again?

A further clue is shed on this intriguing language when we read earlier that when Nephi and his brothers left the camp of their father by the Red Sea, they took their tents and “went up to the land of Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 3:9). Later, after returning with the brass plates to Lehi's camp, the boys were sent back to Jerusalem to obtain Ishmael and his family. Again Nephi uses the term “up” to Jerusalem (1 Nephi 7:3) and “down” to the wilderness (1 Nephi 7:5). Finally, after discussing the rebellious attitudes of his two older brothers and two of the daughters of Ishmael, Nephi says that “we did come down unto the tent of our father” (1 Nephi 7:22).

Generally speaking, when discussing directions, “up” can mean north, or “up” in elevation. From Los Angeles, you go “up” to San Francisco or “down” to San Diego; from Salt Lake City, you go “up” to Logan, or “down” to St. George. Or, a person may live “up” the block or “down” the block, depending on the direction of, or the elevation of, the street. In addition, the topography of the Holy Land shows that Palestine is a series of hills and mountains that basically north and south, lifting upward from the Mediterranean Sea to their peaks, then dropping off back down to sea level in the east. In the area of Jerusalem, the hills increase in elevation from the Mediterranean coast upward to Jerusalem, then down to the Dead Sea. Thus, anywhere to the west or east would also be down from Jerusalem.

Whether the Lehi home was to the west, east or even south of Jerusalem is not known, but it does seem likely that the patriarch had his home in an area near Jerusalem, but not within the city walls and at a much lower elevation. Not only when talking to Zoram without the city walls of Jerusalem, and Nephi said, “if thou wilt go down into the wilderness to my father” (1 Nephi 4:34), but also when Nephi and his brothers came up to Jerusalem from their father's camp near the Red Sea, encountered Laban unsuccessfully, then left the city and went down to their former home, finally to return by going back up to Jerusalem.

While we are not told how far away from the city walls the family home was located, Nephi does describe that when they fled Laban’s guards who sought their lives, they “fled into the wilderness…and hid ourselves in the cavity of a rock“ (1 Nephi 3:27). This must have been some distance from the city, where there was wilderness (unoccupied land) and caves, and both at a lower elevation, because later, after the angel appeared and after Nephi chastised his brothers, he said “they did follow me up until we came without the walls of Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 4:4).

Thus living some distance down the mountain from the walled city of Jerusalem--the site of Beit Lehi (shown above), discovered in 1983, a possible site for Lehi's home, is 22 miles from Jerusalem--the family would have been dependent upon themselves for food, supplies, and most of their daily and immediate needs. This would also suggest that the family had some type of farm where they could grow sufficient crops for at least their own use. All of this suggests why Lehi had such supplies when told by the Lord to leave his home and lands and depart into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2:4).

Why and When Lehi Left Jerusalem – Part II

Continuing from the last post, the conditions in Jerusalem by around 600 B.C., had grown intolerable to the Lord. He called many prophets (1 Nephi 1:4). Jeremiah was, perhaps, the best known, and both he and Habbukuk left writings of that era. In addition, the Lord called Lehi to preach in Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:18; 2:1), and like the others, the Jews sought his life (1 Nephi 1:20).

Since Assyria controlled Israel in the 100 years before Lehi led his family out of Jerusalem, the Jews were inundated with pagan culture, gods and worship. By the time Jeremiah was called to preach in Jerusalem, the city was strife with wickedness. Jeremiah took up his mission in Jerusalem with a heavy heart. Like prophets before him, he admonished the throngs of shoppers and merchants in the marketplaces and the crowds in the temple courtyard to listen to the Lord.

At the annual Feast of Booths (Tabernacles), in 608 B.C., when pilgrims from all Judah flocked to Jerusalem, Jeremiah was instructed by God to stand in the Lord's house. As priests circled the altar, worshipers waved their lulabs (ceremonial plumes woven of branches from palm, willow and myrtle trees) and joined in the singing, Jeremiah stepped forward and loudly interrupted the ceremony. He denounced the display of superficial orthodoxy and predicted the fall of the temple and the captivity of the Jews.

A relatively unknown prophet, Habakkuk wrote after the fall of Assyria, but before the fall of Jerusalem, making him contemporary with Jeremiah and Lehi. An impatient man, he was filled with chagrin over the evil of Judah, and wanted to know when the Lord was going to follow through on the predictions of his prophets who had been predicting the terrible consequences of the Jews' crimes and punishment for some time. "O, Lord, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! Even cry out unto thee of violence and thou wilt not save!" (Habakkuk 1:2) The Lord's answer to his prophet's question was to declare that Judah would be conquered by the new world power—the Babylonians.

In this setting, Lehi, a contemporary of Jeremiah and Habakkuk, entered the picture. Lehi was born about 645 B.C., and like Zephaniah and Jeremiah, he was a prophet of doom to his nation. He “was carried away in a vision” (1 Nephi 1:8), and saw God, Christ and the Twelve Apostles (1 Nephi 1:9-10), and the terrible abominations of Israel, the eventual destruction of Jerusalem, and their captivity in Babylon (1 Nephi 1:13). He prophesied all of these things to the Jews in Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:14) and kept a record of his life and work (1 Nephi 1:17). The Jews tried to kill him (1 Nephi 1:20) and the Lord commanded him to take his family and flee into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2:2), which he did.

Lehi was not the only Old Testament prophet whose name has been forgotten. There were Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18); Nathan (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29); Schemaiah (2 Chronicles 12:15); Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22); and Jehu (2 Chron 20:34); while the Book of Mormon suggests other forgotten Old Testament prophets in Zenock (1 Nephi 19:10); Zenos (Jacob 5:1; Hel 15:11; Alma 38:3); and Ezias (Hel 8:20). How many others are missing we simply do not know, though Nephi says that just prior to his father's prophetic calling, “there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed” (1 Nephi 1:4). No doubt these were among those now forgotten, and probably some of the messengers of God that the bible tells us were mocked, their messages despised, and themselves misused (2 Chronicles 36:15-16).

This was the condition in Jerusalem at the time of Lehi. How long he prophesied in the city is not known, for Nephi said he abridged his father’s record (1 Npephi 1:17). On the other hand, it is obvious it was long enough for his four oldest sons to know about it and know of what he prophesied, that is, the destruction of Israel (1 Nephi 1:18), for eventually the Jews wanted to kill him as they did all the prophets who preached “doom” and the destruction of Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:20).

Thus, later, when Laman and Lemuel were disputing the things their father had said, including after they had arrived in the Land of Promise (1 Nephi 15:2), Nephi tries to help them understand. So it cannot be said that Laman and Lemuel did not know about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the threat to their father that caused the Lord to direct Lehi to leave and head into the wilderness—they simply did not believe the reasons he had, thinking him a foolish, visionary man (1 Nephi 2:11).

Why and When Lehi Left Jerusalem Part I

In 622 B.C., an old law book was discovered—a major portion of the book now called Deuteronomy—which expounded on the theology of the Mosaic covenant. In line with its Mosaic precepts, all sacrificial rituals were ordered performed in the Jerusalem temple, and the provincial clergy were invited to join the priestly guilds in the capital, though most refused to do so. Many Jews, however, were afraid to give up their pagan practices for fear it would invite retaliation from Assyria who governed the land.

However, by 612 B.C. the Assyrian Empire began crumbling. Babylonia destroyed Nineveh, Assyria's magnificent capital, marking an end to Assyrian power and rule. Josiah, king of Judah, sparked by religious zeal and political ambition, carried his reformation north to Galilee and west to the Mediterranean Sea. With Assyria's fall from power, Josiah led a fight for Jewish independence.

In 608 B.C., Necho, the Pharaoh of Egypt, wanted to establish a buffer between aggressive Babylon and his own empire. He dispatched an army to help Assyria, moving his forces through Israel. Josiah resolved to resist the approaching Egyptians and went out to meet their army at the head of a small Judean force. In the battle that followed, the Hebrews were beaten and Josiah was killed. The beleaguered and defeated Jews then chose one of Josiah's sons, Jehoahaz, to be their leader. The Egyptians, however, replaced Jehoahaz after only three months on the throne, with another of Josiah's sons, a man named Jehoiakim, and exercised political control of the Kingdom of Judah for three years through this puppet king.

Babylonian involvement began in 605 B.C., with the Egyptian authority in Palestine suddenly halted by Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar who marshalled a mighty force and crushed the Pharaoh's army in upper Syria in the battle of Carchemish. This Babylonian victory took the Jewish nation out of Egypt's grasp and made Jehoiakim a servant of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 23-25; 2 Chronicles 36; Jeremiah 26-39). Nebuchadnezzar II ruled Babylon from 604-562 B.C. He was the son of Nabopolassar, who founded the last Chaldean Dynasty in 625 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar married Amyitis, the daughter of the King of the Medes, a country which formed a major portion of ancient Persia, and collected tribute from Jerusalem, controlling all of southern Palestine as a vassal state.

Nebuchadnezzar allowed Jehoiakim to continue to rule, but the Israelite king later rebelled against Babylon. When the Chaldeans returned with a much larger army, Jehoiakim proclaimed a fast for heavenly intervention against Judah's enemy, but he mysteriously died and his son, Jehoiachin, ascended to the throne of Judah. Jehoiachin's first royal act was to surrender the city to Nebuchadnezzar on March 16, 597 B.C. On his departure from Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar appointed a king of the Davidic lineage. His choice was Mattaniah—the gift of Jehovah—whose name was changed to Zedekiah—the righteous gift of Jehovah. Consequetly, by 597 B.C., Zedekiah, destined to be the last King of Judah, was in his first year of his reign in Jerusalem.

King Zedekiah was the uncle of Jehoichin, the youngest son of Josiah by the same mother as Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:31). Well-meaning but completely weak, the twenty-one-year-old Zedekiah embarked on a wicked, immoral and corrupt rule. Wickedness swept through Judah and dishonesty, false swearing and idolatry were common vices of the day. Adding to this, Zedekiah decided to follow the disastrous course of Jehoiakim in seeking an alliance with Egypt and scheming a break with Babylon. Seeing the disastrous alliances the king was about to make, the Lord sent his prophet Jeremiah into the royal palace to dissuade Zedekiah. The incensed priests and princes of Judah found Jeremiah's predictions that Jerusalem and its temple were doomed to destruction and that the entire population would be led away captive if they did not repent, bordering on blasphemy. The result was Jeremiah's arrest and imprisonment.

Thus, we see that the stage was set for Lehi. Nephi writes to open his record: “In the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah” (1 Nephi 1:4). Traditionally, we talk about this being 600 B.C., and certainly makes for an easier time frame. However, Zedekiah began his reign as king of Judah in 597 B.C., and by stating in the commencement of the first year, Nephi tells us that the Lehi Colony left Jerusalem in the springtime, for among the Hebrews in biblical times, the first month always refers to the first spring month. “The commencement of the year,” therefore, would fall in the springtime regardless of when Zedekiah began to reign as king, for the Jews, like the Egyptians, dated a king's rule from the beginning of the real year, and was the ritual time of coronation.

(See the next post, “Why and When Lehi Left Jerusalem – Part II,” for a continuation of this subject.)

What the Story of Hagoth Tells Us – Part V

Continuing from the last two posts where questions 1 through 6 were answered, the last question is listed below:

7. If Hagoth's ships with their thousands of immigrants went north beyond the Old Jaredite Land Northward, where is the evidence of Nephite culture to the north of the Land of Promise?

At the time Hagoth built his ships and some 20,000 to 25,000 emigrants sailed north in them (see previous posts), the Land of Promise was an island (2 Nephi 10:20). Between what is Colombia and Mesoamerica today (Guatemala, southern Mexico, Yucatan, and northern Honduras), was a wide expanse of ocean. Referred to in geologic times as a northward passage, or where the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans met, this area, about 700 miles across, lay immediately north of the Land Northward of the Land of Promise and referred to in Jaredite times as the Waters of Ripliancum.
Ships leaving the narrow neck of land, today’s Bay of Guayaquil, and sailing north would come directly to this body of water and could either go straight north and alongside the eastern shore of what was then the extension of Central America (mostly submerged beneath the ocean until such time as the Panama isthmust rose up to connect to South America), or the ships could have moved northward along the western shores.

Either way, this was one land at the time, mostly jungle and forest, and the emigrants might well have sailed for a time looking for what they considered the most ideal place to land. Mesoamerican theorists claim the earlier landings in Mesoamerica were along the eastern shores in what is today southern Mexico, around La Venta to Veracruz. But such voyages would have had to circumvent the entire 1000-mile coastline of the Yucatan Peninsula before reaching that coast. On the other hand, Mesoamerican theorists claim that the Lehi Colony landed along the southwestern coast of modern-day Guatemala, which would have been a straighter course for Hagoth’s emigrant ships.

About 30 modern drift voyages, moving north from around the Bay of Guayaquil in Ecuador, toward the southern Mexico coast, a relatively simple voyage, have shown to take between 47 and 59 days, the shortest times from April to July, covering approximately 2,000 miles; however, the return voyage took as much as 226 days, and required a high degree of sailing ability. Obviously, moving northward from the narrow neck of land to Guatemala and southern Mexican coasts was a simple trip of about two months, but the return trip could take over seven months. Thus, a nine month turn-around voyage, plus a couple of months for rest and refitting of the ship, matches Mormon’s time frame of Hagoth’s first ship leaving one year and returning the next (Alma 63:6-7).

The areas of modern day southern Mexico, Guatemala, Yucatan, Belize, and western Honduras (Mesoamerica) would have been within a two month voyage for emigrants of men, women, and children. Any return voyage would have been just with the ship’s crew—thus, it would not have been a very hazardous or lengthy voyage. The Mayflower voyage of 102 passengers and 30 crewmen, took 66 days to reach America from Plymouth, England, making a return trip to England five months later after the emigrants spent four months on board during the winter.

These earlier ships could have been more coastal sailing vessels, with later ships being built stronger as a result of earlier results, for deep sea sailing. Certainly this is typically the experience of ship building efforts, where earlier mistakes or problems are resolved in later models. On the other hand, Mormon records that Hagoth built an “exceedingly large ship” (Alma 63:5).

The point of course, is that the accomplishments of these 20,000 to 25,000 emigrants who went “to a land which was northward” is obviously found throughout Mesoamerica. The ruins of the Andean area of South America, and the ruins of Mesoamerica, show two distinct civilizations who built magnificent structures, buildings, palace, cities, roads, etc., showing a connection between this single culture and a singular history of emigration from “across the sea.” Thus, there is obviously “evidence of Nephite culture to the north of the Land of Promise.“