The Greatness of Mormon – Part I

There are numerous attempts by members who want to champion a Land of Promise model that does not match all of the scriptural record and descriptions given us by Mormon, who, along with critics, want to discredit in one way or another the writings of that last, great prophet of the Nephite nation.

As an example, when Mormon writes about directions in Alma 22, he talks about a strip of wilderness running from the west to the east, about a land north of another (Alma 22:27); about three places on the west (Alma 22:28); he mentions east and northern, and from the east to the west, and on the north (Alma 22:29); and so far northward (Alma 22:30); he mentions south, northward, southward, and northward again (Alma 22:31); he states from the east to the west, northward and southward (Alma 22:32); from the east unto the west, south, north and northward (Alma 22:33). In those seven brief verses, Mormon mentioned north 3 times, northward 5 times, south 2 times, southward 2 times, east 5 times, and west 5 times, plus northern 1 time, for a total of 23 directions, and all very clear and consistent with one another—yet, Mesoamerianists from John L. Sorenson on down, claim that none of these 23 directions are correct! They claim that the Nephites, and all those who wrote about directions in the Book of Mormon were inaccurate, since the Nephites did not understand the correct cardinal points of the compass once arriving in the Land of Promise.

And this is only in those 7 verses. There are numerous other verses in the scriptural record that give directions, but these Theorists all claim that every direction given is skewed some 60º to 90º because the Nephites simply had a different understanding and orientation of directions than what we know today.

Now, to better understand this, perhaps we should look at the one man who basically wrote all those directions, though obtaining them from various other prophets who wrote them in the scriptural record, which he abridged.

Mormon, who was born in 310 A.D., starts off by telling us that he made “a record of the things which [he] had both seen and heard”(Mormon 1:1), and that by the time he reached ten years of age, a prophet told him about a buried record (Mormon 1:2), that when he was about age 24, he was to obtain this record and all those engravings of the Nephites (Mormon 1:3), and then write upon the plates of Nephi all that he had seen and heard (Mormon 1:4). The following year his father, also named Mormon and a descendant of Nephi, took Mormon to the Land of Zarahemla (Mormon 1:6), and a war took place between the Nephites and the Lamanites that year along the southern border of the Land of Zarahemla and the narrow strip of wilderness, by the headwaters of the River Sidon (Mormon 1:8, 10). There were numerous battles and the Nephites soundly defeated the Lamanites and the Lamanites withdrew back to their own lands (Mormon 1:11-12).

Following this war, peace settled over the land for four years (Mormon 1:12), but there was wickedness throughout the land and the Lord took away his disciples and the work of miracles and healings (Mormon 1:13), along with the gifts and the Holy Ghost (Mormon 1:14). Around the end of this time, Mormon now 15, was visited by the Lord and began to preach to the unrighteous Nephites, but the Lord commanded him not to do so (Mormon 1:16) because of the hardness of their hearts, which resulted in the land being cursed (Mormon 1:17). About this time the Gadianton Robbers among the Lamanites began infesting the Nephite lands (Mormon 1:18), and Satan was rampant in the land with sorceries, witchcraft and magic across all the face of the land (Mormon 1:19).

At the end of the four-year peace, another war broke out with the Lamanites, and the Nephites appointed Mormon, at the age of 15, to be the leader of their armies (Mormon 2:1), and he marched at their head (Mormon 2:2), but when the Lamanites attacked, Mormon’s army fled in fear toward the north countries (Mormon 2:3). At Angola, Mormon commanded the fortifying of the city, but it was in vain and the Nephites were driven out of Angola (Mormon 2:4), and then out of the land of David (Mormon 2:5), marching finally to the city of Joshua, which was on the west coast, gathering in as many people as they could (Mormon 2:6-7).

Mormon was plagued with the command of a people who would not repent, even in the face of such blood and carnage across the land during this revolution throughout the entire country (Mormon 2:8). At the age of 19, Mormon commanded a Nephite army of 42,000 men, and defeated a Lamanite army of 44,000 (Mormon 2:9), but still they did not repent, nearly breaking Mormon’s heart, for he desired with all his might that the Nephites would come to accept the goodness of God, and repent of their sins (Mormon 2:12), but instead they cursed God (Mormon 2:14). In all of this, Mormon saw “that the day of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually,” seeing thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God (Mormon 2:15).

At the age of 35, Mormon was able to stop the terrified Nephite retreat when they reached the city of Jason (Mormon 2:17) in the Land Northward. At this time, since they were near the hill Shim where Ammaron hid the records, Mormon retrieves the Plates of Nephi and records everything on them that he had seen and heard, including all the wickedness of the Nephites (Mormon 2:18), lamenting that “wo is me because of their wickedness; for my heart had been filled with sorrow because of their wickedness, all my days” (Mormon 2:19).

At this point in his life, Mormon injects his description of the Land of Promise as he abridges Alma’s record—a righteous man, a prophet of God, who had been struggling for 20 years to bring his people back to God, fighting their battles, suffering through their wickedness, but still clinging to the hope they would repent until finally he knew they had no hope. As he stated: “And upon the plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickedness and abominations; but upon these plates I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations, for behold, a continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes ever since I have been sufficient to behold the ways of man” (Mormon 2:18). Yet, despite the wickedness of the Nephites, Mormon loved them, arousing them with a stirring speech (Mormon 2:23), motivating his small army of 30,000 to defeat a Lamanite army of 50,000 (Mormon 2:25-26). Still, with broken heart over the wickedness of his people, Mormon led them against the Lamanites and Robbers until they had regained the lands of their inheritance in the Land Northward (Mormon 2:27), finally, at the age of 40, making a treaty with the Lamanites that divided the land between them, with the Nephites gaining all of the Land Northward, and the Lamanites the Land Southward (Mormon 2:28-29).

During the following ten years of peace, Mormon no doubt continued with his writing, bringing the Large Plates of Nephi up to date with his history of the Nephite nation. Ten years later, at the age of 50, the Lamanites gave warning that they would be attacking (Mormon 3:4). One can picture Mormon moving about, getting his people ready for such an attack, gathering everyone to the City of Desolation, placing his armies and fortifying the land (Mormon 3:5-6).

In the first battle, Mormon’s army defeated the Lamanites and they withdrew, returning to their own lands (Mormon 3:7), but in the following year, they were back, and again Mormon prevailed (Mormon 3:8), but the Nephites, boasting of their own strength, refusing to repent after being delivered and swearing by God that they would attack and destroy the Lamanites, ignored Mormon’s attempts to keep them from their design and what the Lord had commanded them not to do (Mormon 3:9-10). 

Mormon wrote: “I had led them, notwithstanding their wickedness I had led them many times to battle, and had loved them, according to the love of God which was in me, with all my heart; and my soul had been poured out in prayer unto my God all the day long for them; nevertheless, it was without faith, because of the hardness of their hearts” (Mormon 3:12). And at this point, he “did utterly refuse form this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness and abominations” (Mormon 2:11).

(See the next post, “The Greatness of Mormon – Part II,” for more on the greatness of this last Mormon prophet and how he has been maligned by many for various reasons)

More Comments to be Answered Part X

Comment #1: “If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions?” Jorge.

Response: It would be well to understand some about the translation process of the Book of Mormon. First of all, Joseph Smith translated the ancient record by the power of God. In the actual process, he dictated the words to a scribe who, being human, occasionally made spelling and grammatical mistakes as they wrote down his words. One good example of this is in 1 Nephi 7:20, where Joseph said “sorrowful” and the scribe wrote “sarraful.” It is not that the scribes were not educated, but spelling had not been standardized at the time. Secondly, the original handwritten manuscript of the translation was then copied to make a new handwritten manuscript for the printer, at which time some spelling and grammatical errors were corrected, and punctuation added. However, some new errors also crept in as words were miscopied. Third, while the printer undoubtedly did his best to accurately set the type, he occasionally introduced still other errors. Finally, Joseph looked over the printing of the first three editions of the Book of Mormon, making refinements and adjustments. But some errors weren’t found until later editions. In 1981 a printer’s error in Alma 16:5 was finally corrected, changing “whether” to “whither”—making it conform to the original manuscript as the Prophet had translated it from the plates. In addition there was later added new chapter and verse breaks and footnotes with cross-references. None of this, however, altered the doctrinal meanings of the translation. The problem lies in people hearing or reading about such matters and assuming it meant something far different that took place. The only way to satisfy the mind of a critic is for him or her to sit down with the original and the current and for them to check word for word to see that the changes were basically grammatical and not doctrinal--something, of course, they are not going to do.

Comment #2: “How do you explain the fact that 2 Nephi 16:2 is copied from an older version of the KJV of the Bible in Isa 6:2? This is proven because this older KJV (the mistake is corrected in current versions) made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of ‘seraphims’ rather than ‘seraphim’” Chloe C.

Response: This is a rather mute question since we do not have the Brass Plates, which had recorded on them the original comments of Isaiah and how they were written. Nephi tells us “And now I write some of the words of Isaiah, that whoso of my people shall see these words may lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men. Now these are the words, and ye may liken them unto you and unto all men” (2 Nephi 11:8), then he proceeds to copy down the words of Isaiah into his record, knowing that some would have access to his writing in a much later period of time. Since it was written by Nephi as seraphims, it was translated by Joseph Smith as seraphims, for he translated as it was written. The word in question is Latin “seraphim,” with the singular “seraphus.’ In Hebrew it is serafim, with the singular saraf. In English we write them as seraph and seraphs; thus, the word seraphim transliterates a Hebrew plural noun, which translation yields seraphs, with the singular, seraph, more properly rendered seraph. The word saraph/seraphim appears three times in the Torah (Numbers 21:6–8, Deuteronomy 8:15) and four times in the Book of Isaiah (6:2–6, 14:29, 30:6). In Numbers and Deuteronomy the "seraphim" are serpents. Isaiah also uses the word in close association with words to describe snakes (nachash, the generic word for snakes, in 14:29, and epheh, viper, in 30:6). What critics should keep in mind is the fact that translating Hebrew into English is a difficult process, and only in recent times has this been more accurately done.

Seraphim was a type of celestial or heavenly being in the Abrahamic religions. Their wings denote power in Hebrew symbology and were not meant to suggest real or actual wings

In Joseph Smith’s time, there was less precision in translating, and in Nephi’s time, Hebrew was almost a different language than today. In addition, Nephi wrote the word Joseph translated as seraphims in Reformed Egyptian, and it is not known in what form that would be transliterated into. There is, of course, one final consideration—Joseph Smith was not an educated man, and at this time in his translation might not have known the finer points of Hebrew words, which, it might be suggested, neither does the critic who submitted this, nor most people today. In any event, when Moroni wrote: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been” (Mormon 9:31), I suspect this was the type of imperfection he had in mind.

Comment #3: “In Alma 1:29 and elsewhere, the word ‘silk’ is used, but there was no silk in the New World before the Spanish arrived. Your Mormon Apologist John Welch cites several New World fabrics as possible matches for Linen and Silk (Reexploring the Book of Mormon, pg. 162). Agave fibers and fig bark for Linen? Ceiba fibers, pineapple fibers and rabbit hair for Silk? Welch concludes with the staggering claim 'Mesoamerica evidently exhibits almost an embarrassment of riches for the "silk" and "linen" of Alma 1:29. All but the most trivializing critics should be satisfied with the parallels.' (pg. 164) My response to Welch: You'll have to forgive my trivializing nature but rabbit hair doesn't equal silk in my book” Avery D.

Response: First of all, John Welch would do well to speak less about matters he either is ignorant of or simply does not understand. Secondly, when the Spanish arrived in the Andean area, they saw many things that amazed them, not the least of which was the silk fabrics of the Inca. In fact, they wrote about it being as fine a silk as found in Spain. Thirdly, the textiles found in Mesoamerica did not equal those of Spain, or at least the conquistadors and chroniclers did not make such a claim at the time. On the other hand, silk can and is made from other insects and animals in many parts of the world; however, few would consider that product equal to the silk known in the days of the Spanish conquistadors.

Comment #3: “Captain Moroni seems to have had absolute control over the Nephite armies and all they did, including executing prisoners, etc. He even threatened to remove Pahoran, the chief judge. He sounds a lot like some modern dictators” Vanessa C.

Response: Most field generals, especially those in charge of an entire military theater of operations, have considerable power and authority. Today, such generals during wartime can execute soldiers within his own military commands, as well as those enemies, civilian or military, who are fighting against his troops and country. However, they are not dictators. General Patton, commanding the Third Army had great authority, but it did not extend beyond his own command, and even then he was ordered to make certain amends within that command by higher authority; General MacArthur commanded the entire eastern theater, but was relieved of duty by President Truman over a question of authority. General Eisenhower commanded the entire theater of operations in Europe, and was over all other allied forces, yet operated under the direction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose decisions were handed down to him. Moroni was a remarkable man, both spiritually and intellectually. To conduct his military operations, he evidently received considerable authority, but his power was certainly not absolute. Although Moroni was empowered to resettle segments of the population and execute individuals for rebellion against the government, he probably was still limited to a degree in his ability to commit individual Nephite armies to battle. His greatness in Nephite society goes beyond the fact that he was a brilliant strategic thinker, organizer, and leader; it also stems from his faith and trust in the Lord. For this reason, he did not rely on spies and armies alone to assist him, but willingly sought advice and spiritual insight from the Nephite high priest (Alma 43:23). This pattern was characteristic of most great Nephite captains until the demise of their civilization.

More Comments to be Answered Part IX

Here are some more comments that we’ve received on this website blog.

Comment #1: “Peter Covino says the Land of Promise lay hidden from the world and that was because it did not border any sea and was far inland. He also says your model does not fit that description” Isaac E.

Response: We have written about Covino’s model and comments several times. Though Covino makes a big deal about the Land of promise being hidden from the world, nowhere in the scriptural record does it say the Land of Promise was hidden. When Lehi was blessing his children just before his death, he said, “And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance” (2 Nephi 1:8). Kept from the knowledge of, and being hidden, are not necessarily the same thing. However, the issue is that no Old World nation became aware of the Western Hemisphere for some 2100 years after Lehi sailed other than a small group of Vikings, sailing along the coastal regions of Iceland and Greenland, who ventured across the Labrador Sea, a distance of about 600 miles, to touch on Newfoundland in Canada.

Specifically, Thorvald Asvaldsson was exiled from Norway in 960 A.D. for the crime of manslaughter and sailed 600 miles west with his family and settled in Hornstandir in northwestern Iceland. His son, Erik Thorvaldsson, known as Eric the Red, was banished from Iceland for killings in 982 A.D., and traveled 300 miles further west, settling the first Norse colony in Greenland. His son, Leif (Leifr or Leifur) Erickson, according to the Saga of the Greenlanders, was blown off course in 999 A.D. on a voyage to Greenland and inadvertently crossed the Labrador Sea and landed 600 miles to the west on the eastern most tip of Canada, where he established a settlement he called Leifsbúdir, known as L’Anse aux Meadows, an area in history called Vinland (New Foundland).

Leif Erickson became known as the first European to discover America, however, it was quite by accident, for he was sailing from Norway to Iceland to Greenland and was blown off course to Canada. According to the Saga of Icelanders, this incident was not considered of any great import, though word of it did spread to European seaports, and possibly was known by 25-year-old Columbus when in 1477 he visited Iceland, known at the time as Ultima Thule.

However, though Leif Erickson landed on Vinland 500 years before Columbus reached the Bahamas, nothing ever came of that event. In fact, though the Norse settlements lasted some 500 years in Greenland, the continental North American settlements were small and did not develop into permanent colonies. While voyages, for example to fetch timber, are likely to have occurred for some time, there is no evidence of enduring Norse settlements on mainland North America.

The Vikings traveled from Norge (Norway) to Iceland to Greenland to Canada. They did not travel further south than the area of New Foundland and their settlements in Canada were brief and abandoned not long after settlement

As the Lord promised Lehi, “this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations.” When the Lord was ready, about 2100 years after Lehi landed in the Western Hemisphere, a European seaman was inspired to discover the current that would take him westward into the Atlantic Ocean.

The point of all this is simply that the Land of Promise did not need to be hidden—it was kept from the knowledge of sailors simply because no ship could sail westward from Europe until the Lord was ready to reveal the way.

As for the Land of Promise being inland and away from the sea, this is in direct opposition to the scriptural record which makes it clear the Land of Promise, where the Lehi Colony landed, was along the seacoast of the West Sea (Alma 22:28), and that this landing site was in the sea over which the colony was led, as clearly stated in Jacob’s remark to the Nephites (2 Nephi 10:20). Covino, like so many Land of Promise Theorists, can make any claim and say whatever he wants, however, it does not change the factual account in the scriptural record. Jacob, who was on the ship Nephi built, knew they sailed across the ocean and was led by the Lord—he said very clearly that Lehi had “been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20). He knew the Lord brought them across the sea from the area of Bountiful where Nephi built his ship; he knew that while still upon that sea, they arrived at the Land of Promise; and he knew that the land was an island in the middle of that sea.

It always amazes me that Theorists think they know more than those who wrote in the ancient record, and can make any statement they choose even when it is in opposition to that record.

Comment #2: “I read this on the internet and wondered if it was accurate—‘The Jaredites began to hunt there, and seeing the potential, decided to reserve the area as a hunting preserve. If this followed the royal tradition found in other cultures, this hunting privilege would have been restricted to the royalty and their favored subjects. Perhaps Lib became a great hunter much as Nimrod of biblical fame’" Ionna

Response: The Preserve part is correct. It is not known who hunted there…could have been royalty only. As for Nimrod, he was called a great hunter, but it meant the evil part of that, i.e., he was a hunter of men (a killer, murderer, etc.)

Comment #3: ”In Alma of your Book of Mormon, it describes chariots owned by the king. Chariots are also mentioned elsewhere in the book. However, according to archaeologists, there is no evidence of actual wheeled vehicle usage in the 2,000 BC to 400 AD time frame in Ancient America” J. Scott.

Pharaoh’s army of charioteers are wiped out and drowned as the waters of the Red Sea resume their natural course

Response: One of the major events in the Old Testament is Moses parting the Red Sea. After the Jews crossed on dry land, the Egyptian soldiers in their chariots pursued, but were all drowned when the waters returned. The Egyptian force included the pharaoh and his army, his horsemen and chariots (Exodus 14:9), yet in all the years of archaeological effort to find evidence of this event, not a single chariot has ever been found, despite knowing exactly where this event took place. Contrary to the opinion of laymen, finding the remains of ancient artifacts, even large ones like a chariot, is no simple matter, and few actual examples have ever been found anywhere. As an example, we know of chariots in the past mostly from paintings on walls or pottery, not from finding the actual chariots.

More Comments to be Answered Part VIII

Here are some more comments that we’ve received on this website blog.

Comment #1: “Here’s another mistake made by Joseph Smith when he wrote the Book of Mormon. In I Nephi 5:14, it says that Lehi was a descendant of Joseph, which, according to LDS doctrine, would make him either of the house of Menasseh or Ephraim, but in II Nephi 30:4, it states that the Nephites (Lehi’s descendants) were descendants of the Jews” Robison T.

Response: I am unaware of any mistakes made by Joseph Smith, except in the minds of his critics. In this case, there is no mistake about the lineage of the Nephites. But first let me state that all of the Nephites were not Lehi’s descendants—neither the Mulekites nor the descendants of Zoram were descended from Lehi, other than those that intermarried with his direct descendants. However, the issue here is the lineage of Lehi, not his descendants. Lehi was a descendant of Menasseh (Alma 10:3). His sons married into the family of Ishmael, who, according to Joseph Smith, was a descendant of Ephraim—in that regard, it is correct that the Nephites were descendants of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Nephi 5:14).

At the same time, the Nephites, through their posterity from Lehi, Nephi, Sam, and Zoram, were Jewish citizens for they lived at Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4) in the Kingdom of Judah. It might also be assumed that Ishmael and his family were also Jewish citizens, for they lived in the “land of Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 7:2). It would be no different than my saying I am of the House or lineage of Ephraim, but I am an American citizen. On the other hand, we cannot assume that any of the tribes of Israel, after their long descent from Jacob (1652 to 1505 B.C.), might not have intermarried to some degree by 600 B.C.

Left: King Rehoboam accends to the throne after the death of Solomon, which leads to the division of Israel, which leads (Right) to wars between the kingdoms

In addition, it should be kept in mind that in the time of Rehoboam (930 to 913 B.C.), ten of the tribes of Israel revolted (922 B.C.) and were known from that time until they were carried away into Assyria, as the Kingdom of Israel. The two remaining tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remained loyal to Rehoboam and were known as the Kingdom of Judah, and no matter which tribe they descended through, were known as Jews.

Rather than commenting about a supposed mistake, one should look upon this fact as just another verification of the accuracy of the Book of Mormon.

Comment #2: “Don’t you think all this controversy over the location of the Land of Promise does harm to the Church and the Book of Mormon?” Gavin.

Response: Absolutely. Divisiveness and controversy are not methods of inspiration. People tend to rely too much on academicians, books written, modern technology, etc., when it does not totally and completely conform to the scriptural record. If one is going to determine matters about the Book of Mormon, they must use the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon to determine their answers. While books, technology, classroom studies, etc., can be helpful, they cannot replace or supplant the scriptural record—and that record must be read and compared within itself. That is, a single scriptural reference cannot be used if another scriptural reference is not in agreement. As an example, at first reading, Alma 22:30 seems to disagree with Omni 1:16. In actuality, they do not disagree, but Mesoamericanists always quote Alma and never Omni, since Alma can be construed to say what they believe, and Omni contradicts that.

Mesoamerican Theorists have done much disservice by choosing a location for their Land of Promise based upon little evidence, mostly the ruins there, and then try to find scriptural evidence of the location. Thus, they go overboard to try and explain away Mormon’s north-south orientation since Mesoamerica is situated east-west

The problem lies in people wanting to find a scriptural reference that verifies their point of view. Consequently, ALL scriptural references regarding the Land of Promise descriptions MUST be used to verify any model or point of view. That, unfortunately, is never done by people who write about the Land of Promise. As an example, Peter Covino uses basically one major issue to determine any model of the Land of Promise—Helaman 3:8, which he refers to as his H38 Virus. In this, he surrounds his work by one scripture of the thousands that are contained in the Book of Mormon—and even that one he mis-interprets, trying to limit its meaning to only the Land Northward and the area of western New York.

That is why in the book, Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica, all 65 descriptions stated in the Book of Mormon are covered without a single effort to change, alter, disguise or ignore the clear language of the Book of Mormon description. In addition, there are well over 1000 references to back up every statement, and at no time is personal opinion stated that does not directly agree with the scriptural record. And in all cases, additional descriptive information is provided in addendum form of all major points covered so the reader gets a complete view of the meanings of each and every point covered. It is, I believe, a unique approach to describing the Land of Promise.

Comment #3: “It seems to me that all those who write about the land of promise feel they are right and everyone else who disagrees with them is wrong. Everyone can’t be right and everyone can’t be wrong” Mona O.

Response: The only answer I can give you is that when anyone, for any reason, writes about the Book of Mormon they must, in good conscience, use all the scriptural references available to make any point at all. As an example, I once picked up an eight volume set written about the Book of Mormon in general. I read the first sentence on the first page of the first volume in which the author wrote, “Lehi, who lived in Jerusalem…” There was nothing else in that volume I was interested in since the very first sentence was inaccurate in a very important way. Lehi never lived, that we know of, in Jerusalem. Nephi tells us he lived at Jerusalem, which means he lived outside the city, which verifies several other points in the record, such as having tents, donkeys to carry them, seeds to plant, etc., within his own possession (those living within the city would have had none of these).

It seems that anyone and everyone who writes about the Book of Mormon that misquotes or misuses scripture are going to be wrong.

One last point: The scriptural record is clear that 1) Nephi knew his cardinal and ordinal directions and so stated them (1 Nephi 16:13), and 2) Mormon describes in great detail that the Land of Promise ran north and south. Yet, every Mesoamericanist has to tell you the Nephites did not know their directions, and that they considered west to be north and south to be east, etc. These are not the only points, but they should point out that if one is to write about the Land of Promise, they should adhere exactly to the Book of Mormon scriptural references and not invent their own. There isn’t much else to say. One either agrees with the scriptural record or they are wrong!

Another example is the location of the Mulekites: “Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth” (Omni 1:125-16)—emphasis mine. Consequently, they did not land in the Land Northward, travel into the Land Southward, build a city on the east seashore, and eventually move into the area of Zarahemla where Mosiah found them, yet, every Mesoamericanist will tell you they landed in the Land Northward, etc. In that, they are all wrong! Another point: Jacob tells us: “we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20)—emphasis mine. Now, unless a Land of Promise model is an island, or it can be shown that geologically it was once an island, the model is simply wrong! Which, by the way, excludes every model other than Andean South America.

More Comments to be Answered Part VII

Here are some more comments that we’ve received from this website blog.

Comment #1: “You claim that the narrow neck of land which separates the Land Northward from the Land Southward, is sandwiched between two seas. However, careful analyses of all the references in your Book of Mormon to this topographic feature fail to identify the presence of two seas flanking this transportation corridor” Baird N.

Response: Not careful enough, it seems. In describing the flight of Morianton to the "borders of the land Desolation" and Moroni's march to intercept them, we are told in Alma:  "and they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east."  (Alma 50:34)

As Morianton rushed to gain the narrow pass through the narrow neck of land to the Land Northward and safety, Moroni marched to intercept them, beating Morianton and his followers to the narrow pass. There he stopped Morianton, killed him in battle, and defeated his followers

Thus, there can be no doubt that the east sea and the west sea were on each side of the narrow neck of land between the land of Desolation and the land of Bountiful.  In fact, this is exactly what is said earlier.  It is written that "a narrow neck of land separated these two lands--the overall land southward from the overall land northward" (Alma 22:32), and that "the land southward was surrounded by water except for this narrow neck of land" (Alma 22:32). 

In addition, we find that Hagoth built ships in this area of the narrow neck of land between the land Bountiful and the land of Desolation, and launched those ships into the west sea (Alma 63:5).  Thus, it seems rather clear that there was a west sea and an east sea flanking the narrow neck, which, by the way, is never called a transportation corridor in the scriptural record. I believe it was F. Richard Hauck in his 1988 book Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon, that the term “transportation corridor” was used.

Comment #2: “It stands to reason that in the seventy-two years from 55 B.C. to 17 A.D., during which the northern colonies were first settled and then abandoned, no very extensive territory could be colonized,” Jacques.

An interesting idea. However, the scriptures give us an entirely different picture of this settlement in the Old Jaredite domain north of the narrow neck of land.  When the Nephites moved into "the land northward to inherit the land" in 46 B.C. (Helaman 3:3), they "spread forth into all parts of the land" (Helaman 3:5).  They spread so much that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east"  (Helaman 3:8). That sounds like a vast territory being colonized. It should also be noted that there is no mention of the Land Northward being abandoned by the Nephites. They did withdraw from the Land Northward during their seven-year war with the Gadianton Robbers, which finally ended around 23 A.D., and the Nephites returned to their own lands about 26 A.D. (3 Nephi 6:2), where they “did prosper and wax great” in the entire Land of Promise.

Comment #3: “I have read that where the Lehi group first landed and settled along the coast was a tangle of forest and swamp and certainly not conducive to farming. But I have been to the Bay of Coquimbo and La Serena in Chile where you claim Lehi landed and it is not like that at all,” Buddy D.

Bay of Coquimbo where Lehi landed. It is in a Mediterranean Climate, like that of Jerusalem, where his seeds would have grown abundantly

Response: I believe it was John L. Sorenson in his 1996 book An American Setting for the Book of Mormon, who first made that statement, which he used in defense of his claiming the Lamanites were not able to plant and farm after Nephi fled, and was also the cause of their wearing only loincloths because of the heat, etc., even though Nephi tells us their first crop in the area of their landing “did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance” (1 Nephi 18:24). The problem is that Sorenson, like so many other Theorists, uses Mesoamerica for his setting, and Coquimbo and La Serena as you know are along the 30º South Latitude in Chile, South America, which has a Mediterranean Climate (like Jerusalem), where seeds from Jerusalem would grow exceedingly, unlike Mesoamerica, which has a tropical climate and seeds from Jerusalem would not have grown.

Comment #4: “Hugh Nibley claimed that the Book of Mormon mentions the rising and sinking of the land, forming new "hills and valleys" (3 Nephi 9:5-8)--with no mention of major mountain ranges,” Allyson.

Response: Nibley, for all his marvelous achievements, was not always correct about the Book of Mormon. When Samuel the Lamanite got upon the city walls of Zarahemla and began preaching the words the angel had given him, he said, “And behold, there shall be great tempests, and there shall  be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great" (Helaman 14:23). First of all, a mountain “whose height is great” can never be called or referred to as a hill! Secondly, I’m not sure what Nibley thought a mountain range included, but mountains is stated in the plural, both in those laid low and those that rose to a great height. Mountains make up a range, and if it is correct that these mountains were the result of tectonic plate movement, which geologists tell us are the cause of forming mountains, then we might suggest with some certainty that a mountain range rose up, “whose height is great.”

“Mountains whose height is great,” suggests that such mountains look high as well as being high for the prophecy to be understood at the time of the mountains appearing

Comment #5: “Some scholars feel that to be consistent with the overall context of the Book of Mormon, it should be assumed that the Land North in Helaman 6:9-10, 12, is synonymous with the term Land Northward that is used throughout the Book of Mormon text, and that the Land South is synonymous with the term Land Southward. However, you seem to separate these descriptive locations,” Tatum.

Response: While I do that, and have shown through scripture reference why they are separate in the past many times, let me just quote one scripture to make the point that these are separate terms and mean separate locational boundaries. When the war with the Gadianton Robbers was concluded around 26 A.D., the gathered Nephites returned to their own lands throughout the Land of Promise. In stating this, Mormon writes: “And it came to pass that they had not eaten up all their provisions; therefore they did take with them all that they had not devoured, of all their grain of every kind, and their gold, and their silver, and all their precious things, and they did return to their own lands and their possessions, both on the north and on the south, both on the land northward and on the land southward” (3 Nephi 6:2). The Land North and the Land South are two divisions of the Land Southward, which is where the war was waged (3 Nephi 3:24). When the war concluded, they returned to their homes in the north and in the south of the Land Southward, and also to their homes in the Land Northward.

More Comments to be Answered Part VII

Here are some more comments that we’ve received from this website blog.

Comment #1: “I think that the Land of Promise was in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. There are archaeological sites dating to the proper Nephite time frames. It is claimed that the city of Zarahemla was located near Turrialba, which is on a tributary of a major river which some feel was the River Sidon. It is in a beautiful valley with a multitude of identified archaeological sites in the immediate area. Puerto Viejo is their location for the city of Bountiful, which is located at the point of a ridge of low hills and at the junction of two major rivers, and on the opposite side of the mountain range from Turrialba” Huey D.

The Guayabo National Monument, the largest archaeological site in Cost Rica, and only pre-Columbian site open to the public

Response: This site contains petroglyphs that have been estimated at about 3000 years old. It also contains ancient bridges, water tanks and dwellings situated in the cloud and rain forests of Costa Rica, where archaeology finds include unique carvings of crocodiles, insects and jaguars, and there are raised stone foundations, stone paves roads of unknown length leading off into the surrounding dense foliage. While complex petroglyphs are abundant, covered with mysterious messages, which have not yet been deciphered, and the site includes decorative and practical pottery, jade and gold artifacts, as well as the controversial stone spheres of Costa Rica, there are no real buildings to show that an advanced civilization once lived there. In addition, this ancient village reached its highest population around 800 A.D., of 10,000 people—a great deal smaller than Zarahemla would have had to be for it have been the capital of a nation of millions of people. As for the major tributary river some feel was the Sidon, this river is the Rio Reventazion which does not flow far enough south of Guayabo (Zarahemla) to have originated in the Land of Nephi or up in the mountains where the Land of Nephi was located. Plus, a second, parallel river, the Rio Pacuare, is just as significant a river, but a second, parallel river is never mentioned in the scripture, but to go east from Guayabo (Zarahemla) to the East Sea (Caribbean), you would have to cross both rivers, but though such travel is often undertaken, this second river is never mentioned in the scriptural record.

Comment #2: “And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of honey bees" (Ether 2:3). Can you imagine crossing the ocean in this contraption with swarms of honey bees?” Anthony B. 

Response: How sad it is that people criticize what they do not understand. There are stingless honey bees, called Meliponines, which are a large group of bees (some 500 species) belonging to the family Apidae, and are related to common honey bees, carpenter bees, orchid bees and bumblebees. In fact, there are a great many other bee species, especially in the family Andrenidae, which are incapable of stinging, as are all male bees. While the Meliponines do have stingers, they are highly reduced and cannot be used for defense. The majority of native eusocial bees of Central and South America re stingless bees, and Meliponines honey is prized as a medicine in South America. While most bees are not active all year round, and most can be made to be inactive by their care and environment, the Meliponines are also nearly dormant in cooler weather—such as a voyage at sea.

Comment #3: “Pyramidal structures were not part of the Nephite culture. These were typical of the Jaredite culture which was located to the north, and would not be found in the Nephite Land of Promise” Martina

Response: Actually, we do not know what the Jaredite culture did in the way of building. We do not know if the Jaredites were involved in the building of the Tower, though it seems unlikely they were, but obviously they knew about its building. We really don’t know when stepped pyramids first were built and by whom—carbon dating is faulty at best. On the other hand, the Jews would have known about the Egyptian pyramids—Jews traveled to and from Egypt frequently in B.C. times, were aligned with them politically at different times, and since Lehi was involved in some way with them, no doubt Nephi and Sam knew about pyramids. In fact, the interior of Solomon’s Temple is said to have been very much like the interior of the Egyptian pyramids inner sanctums. Of course, the question has been asked, how else would the ancients build several stories upward unless it was by stepping each level smaller than the one below it. As far as the scriptural record is concerned, statements like: “And built many mighty cities” (Ether 9:23; 10:12; 10:20); “his father did build up many cities upon the face of the land” (Ether 10:4), “He did build many spacious buildings” (Ether 10:5), is all that we find, and no mention of style, shape or size.

Comment #4: “Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote that after the confusion of tongues, the people were dispersed abroad because of their different languages, and went out by colonies every where; and each colony took possession of that land which they settled upon, and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and the maritime countries. There were some also who passed over the sea in ships, and inhabited the islands. 1:5:1. I find his comment about over the sea in ships sounding like the Jaredites! Do you think Josephus knew about them?” Braylon.

Response: I think that it would be doubtful that anyone knew about the Jaredites’ destination, especially Josephus some two thousand years later, for if he did know, many others would have known and written about it by this time. That the Lord was involved in everything that happened in the dispersment, i.e., who went where, etc., seems obvious, for the Lord is in charge of all things, but I seriously doubt that there were other groups the Lord led away from Babylon in the same manner as the Jaredites. But if there were, only the Lord and they know about it. People today seem to feel free to speculate on all things pertaining to the Lord, but such speculation is usually self-serving, and of little value to the serious student of the scriptures.

Comment #5: “The idea that a Book of Mormon “land” comprised a river drainage basin was first proposed by Michael Hobby some time ago in the journal Zarahemla Quarterly. Under this proposal, the people of the Nephite era viewed their lands from the valley floor bordered by the surrounding hills and mountains. Thus the greater Land of Zarahemla would include the valley and drainage system of a specific river, the cities and towns being located in the arable valleys. The local Land of Zarahemla, immediately surrounding the city, would include only the immediate portion of the river valley. The Land of Nephi, the Land of Bountiful, and the Land of Melek, etc. would all be located in different, separate river systems. If this is so, and the river systems have remained unchanged since Nephite times, we should be able to use this information to assist in locating specific Book of Mormon lands” Alain G.

Response: The Nephites lived in the Land of Nephi for some 400 years before leaving, a land that was high up in the mountains judging from the fact the Lamanites kept “coming down” to fight the Nephites in Zarahemla later, when the Lamanites occupied the Land of Nephi. It is not worthwhile to speculate about river systems, draining basins, etc., when none are mentioned or even implied in the scriptural record, then use that speculation to determine a location of the Book of Mormon lands. Scholars would have more success in locating the Nephite lands by sticking strictly to the descriptions Mormon and others left us, including Nephi's telling us how he got there in his ship, i.e., "driven forth before the wind."

More Comments to be Answered Part V

Here are some more comments that we’ve received from this website blog.

Comment #1: “I read something that didn’t make sense regarding the city the Jaredites built by the narrow neck of land: ‘Lib built a great city by the narrow neck, at a specific place where the sea divided, or separated, the land (Ether 10:20), which may have been the very place found by the Limhi expedition when they found evidence of the Jaredite destruction while searching for the city of Zarahemla. They wrote that they had: “discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel (Mos. 8:8).’ Is the narrow neck the same as, or in, the land of many waters?”

Unlike our travels today where you know where you are and can see some distance in every direction from most highways, Limhi's expedition had to travel through lands they did not know and may well have included passes like this one where vision is extremely limited, thus they became lost

Response: No. The author of this article evidently had a place in mind, perhaps his own model, that he was trying to prove. But like many theorists, he left out an important part of this verse in which King Limhi told Ammon: “they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters” (Mosiah 8:8). This land among many waters is further described by Mormon “it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains” (Mormon 6:4). This area, as Mormon describes it, was in “the land of Cumorah,” an area far to the north of the Narrow Neck of Land, where the last Jaredite battle took place and evidently where the 43-man expedition found the plates Ether left to be discovered—but no where near where the Jaredites built their city of Desolation.

Comment #2: “I read this on the internet and wondered if it was accurate—‘The Jaredites began to hunt there, and seeing the potential, decided to reserve the area as a hunting preserve. If this followed the royal tradition found in other cultures, this hunting privilege would have been restricted to the royalty and their favored subjects. Perhaps Lib became a great hunter much as Nimrod of biblical fame Ionna.

Response: The Preserve part is correct. It is not known who hunted there…could have been royalty only. As for Nimrod, he was called a great hunter, but it meant the evil part of that, i.e., he was a hunter of men (a killer, murderer, etc.)

Comment #3: “What do you think of the Isthmus of Rivas between Lake Nicaragua and the Pacific Ocean as the narrow neck of land as some are saying? I read on another website that: “The most important clue Mormon gave us regarding how the Nephites measured distance was the narrow neck of land. This passage led to the land northward. The narrow neck could be crossed in a day, and in a day and a half in another reference. What was the width of this landmark? This is especially important when trying to understand Book of Mormon geography. Obviously, it’s width varied and matches the Isthmus of Rivas” Alyona.

Response: We have written about Nicaragua in other posts, but for brevity here, there are four important points to cover in an answer: 1) According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Isthmus of Rivas is 110 miles long and 12 miles wide. Before the construction of the Panama Railway, the width (from Pacific Ocean to Lake Nicaragua) was “an important portage” (carrying boats overland). Since the Book of Mormon describes movement through (not across) and the distance appears limited, Rivas does not fit such description;

The Isthmus of Rivas located between the Lake Nicaragua and the Pacific Ocean, was an important portage between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans before the construction of the Panama Railway

2) The width of 12 miles at San Juan between San Juan and La Virgen, hardly seems like “a day and a half journey for a Nephite,” especially when we consider that the topography was conducive to travel for those transporting boats or cargo across it. One might think a day and a half would be at least twice that distance, perhaps a little more—and too, the topography of this crossing, especially following the basic straight route of today’s highway NIC 16, is comparatively flat (elevatin of the entire isthmus is between sea level and 200-feet), no doubt heavily wooded in B.C. times, and easily traversed. To think that it would take a Nephite one and a half days (about 18 to 20 hours of walking time, meaning averaging about 6/10^ths of a mile an hour) appears to be ridiculous;

3) According to archaeologist J.F. Bransford in Archaeological Researches in Nicaragua, “an Aztec colony [the Nicaros] occupying the narrowest part of the belt [isthmus of Rivas] between the Pacific and Lake Nicaragua.” There is no indication in the Book of Mormon that this narrow neck of land was conducive to a settlement. The city the Jaredites built was by it, not in it (Ether 10:20); and Hagoth’s shipyard was near it, not in it (Alma 63:5).

In fact, when Mormon describes Hagoth’s shipyard, he wrote: “he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.” Note, he describes the lands on either side of the narrow neck rather than the neck itself, suggesting this neck was not very long in distance—certainly not 110 miles in length as is Rivas;

4) The citing above regarding “a day’s travel” across the narrow neck of land is inaccurate. The distance of traversing the narrow neck is in Alma 22:32, and states a day and a half; the distance of a day’s travel is in Helaman and covers a different area—a defensive position in Bountiful: “And in the fifty and seventh year they did come down against the Nephites to battle, and they did commence the work of death; yea, insomuch that in the fifty and eighth year of the reign of the judges they succeeded in obtaining possession of the land of Zarahemla; yea, and also all the lands, even unto the land which was near the land Bountiful. And the Nephites and the armies of Moronihah were driven even into the land of Bountiful; And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day's journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country” (Helaman 4:5-7). There are two important things about this passage: 1) There was a land between the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Bountiful (“the land which was near the land Bountiful”), and 2) The Nephites had been driven into the Land of Bountiful where they made their stand: “And the Nephites and the armies of Moronihah were driven even into the land of Bountiful; And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day's journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country.”

In short, the Isthmus of Rivas does not meet any of the criteria Mormon gives us about the Narrow Neck of Land. The quote you gave above comes from the website of James Warr’s “A New Model for Book of Mormon Geography,” and more specifically his “The Narrow Neck of Land Key to Book of Mormon Geography.” Warr has several points that simply do not meet the scriptural criteria he loves to quote. We covered this in its entirety in several posts previously on this website.