Mapping The Book Of Mormon

[JarMan]

poulsenll,

I visited your website and have a question regarding your proposed map of Book of Mormon lands. You place the center of the "X" near the headwaters of the Grijalva. I realize how well that works for explaining directions in the Book of Mormon. But what textual evidence is there for placing it there? Also, do you think that the concept of directions is relative to the observer in ancient Meso-America or do you think it is fixed? Or is it some combinations of the two?

[JarMan]

Okay, now I've looked at some more information on your website. I didn't see the closer view of the map that shows Zarahemla as the center of the "X" until after my last post. I guess it would make sense that the main Nephite city would be the center.

[poulsenll]

poulsenll,

I visited your website and have a question regarding your proposed map of Book of Mormon lands. You place the center of the "X" near the headwaters of the Grijalva. I realize how well that works for explaining directions in the Book of Mormon. But what textual evidence is there for placing it there?

Jarman

I used Sorenson's proposed location for the city of Zarahemla. It is entirely possible that he might be wrong. I sometimes think that it might be located further west, maybe at the point where the river makes a sharp turn to the north. However, looking at the Grijalva depression as a whole, this location is more central and fits the concept that Zarahemla was in the center of the land.

Also, do you think that the concept of directions is relative to the observer in ancient Meso-America or do you think it is fixed? Or is it some combinations of the two?

I think it is some combination of the two. Mormon seems to keep Zarahemla as the center of his descriptions and use of quarters and directional terms, even though he was obviously located much further north at the time he made the abridgment of the Nepohite record. I think this may have been the result of the Nephite concept that Zarahemla was their Land of Promise and that everything centered around it and their hope to eventually return. Analysis of the directional citations also indicates that they may have used a more defined concept of the cardinal directions similar to ours. When you leave out the terms containing "ward" the distribution is similar to what we would get based on our concept. After all we do think of New York as being east of Los Angeles rather than northeast.

Even so, I think it was more anthrocentric in the sense that it was based on the peoples view of geography rather than a fixed system based on maps and coordinates. Although, in our day, we place a great deal of emphasis on maps and fixed locations in a grid, in our everyday use of directions we still tend to be anthrocentric. For example when we give directions , we are more likely to use "left" and "right" instead of compass directions. In fact, some of us dont even know which compass direction our house faces.

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

Even so, I think it was more anthrocentric in the sense that it was based on the peoples view of geography rather than a fixed system based on maps and coordinates. Although, in our day, we place a great deal of emphasis on maps and fixed locations in a grid, in our everyday use of directions we still tend to be anthrocentric. For example when we give directions , we are more likely to use "left" and "right" instead of compass directions. In fact, some of us dont even know which compass direction our house faces.

Another distinction is the difference between perceptual and celestial directions. It is entirely possible to have a theoretical construct that is correctly oriented to "absolute" directins, but contradict them when dealing with the perception of the surface of the earth. I know I had that problem in Albany, where I mentally rectified its grid system to north/south, east/west, when the east/west was really se/nw - because the orientation followed a river - not the celestial directions.

I asked John Clark about Sorenson's skewing of directions, and he commented that he had experienced the same thing - because of the lay of the land. I suspect that the mental rectifying alters the descriptions of the absolutes. Now, I won't say that Clark agreeing with the possibility of Sorenson's skewing means they are correct - but it does strongly suggest that there is a very real perceptual difference between what we "feel" on the ground and what we might observe when pressed to. I guarantee that Clark knows what a compass is and how it works <grin>.

[JarMan]

I have some questions unrelated to the current discussion, but still related to overall idea of the thread. I saw in another (old) thread that there was only one word for running water in the Book of Mormon: "river." What is the significance of that idea? And what about the word "fountains" in Mormon 6:4?

[poulsenll]

I have some questions unrelated to the current discussion, but still related to overall idea of the thread. I saw in another (old) thread that there was only one word for running water in the Book of Mormon: "river." What is the significance of that idea? And what about the word "fountains" in Mormon 6:4?

Jarman

From another thread

QUOTE (gaucho @ Oct 3 2006, 01:04 PM)

I did a quick search. Could this be the area you are referring to? La Sierra de Otontepec?

http://mx.geocities.com/gverab1/sierra_de_otontepec/

Larry P said

Interesting that it has been set aside as a national park and that it serves as the principal "Fuente de Agua" for the region.

Mormon 6:4

4 Y ocurrio que emprendimos la marcha a la tierra de Cumorah, y plantamos nuestras tiendas en derredor del cerro de Cumorah; y se hallaba en una region de muchas aguas, ri

[JarMan]

I found the reference to the fact that there was only word in the Book of Mormon describing running water. It was in the thread about Book of Mormon horses. As a re-read it I believe the point was that the language of the Book of Mormon has a limited vocabulary. I was making the point that the word "fountains" could also be a term referring to running water. At any rate, this observation is probably not significant, even if you believe that "fountain" could refer to running water, which I believe it could.

[poulsenll]

. I was making the point that the word "fountains" could also be a term referring to running water. At any rate, this observation is probably not significant, even if you believe that "fountain" could refer to running water, which I believe it could.

Jarman

I agree with you. The water from the fountains has to go somewhere. Natural fountains dont have handles to turn them off and on.

Larry P

[Cold Steel]

Are there any LDS scholars who still believe in the New York Cumorah model? After looking into it for a few weeks, it would be difficult for me to think anyone would still actively be pushing it. It's also amazing how long it took me to even consider whether a viable model existed or not. I'd always assumed not nearly enough was known about Mesoamerica to even make a distinction. Boy, I was sure wrong.

[poulsenll]

Are there any LDS scholars who still believe in the New York Cumorah model? After looking into it for a few weeks, it would be difficult for me to think anyone would still actively be pushing it. It's also amazing how long it took me to even consider whether a viable model existed or not. I'd always assumed not nearly enough was known about Mesoamerica to even make a distinction. Boy, I was sure wrong.

Cold Steel

Scholars, probably none. Diehards, yes lots of them. There are many who, with no understanding of geography or study of the text of the BoM, still insist on a New York model. They twist and turn the text and quote early Church authorities ad nauseum trying to convince othere that the Hill Cumorah in NY is the BoM Cumorah.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

bump

[poulsenll]

As some of you may have noticed, The pundit thread is essentially complete. It is now up to each of you to apply the basic tools and methods in order to develop your own concept of Book of Mormon geography.

I will be happy to answer any questions that may come up as you continue your studies.

When, after lecturing at the University, I would ask for questions and no one responded, I wondered whether I had been so clear in my presentation and there was nothing to question or had it been so incoherent that nobody understood well enough to ask.

As I have said before, it is more important for you to come to your own conclusions rather than depend on others to do your studying for you. This, of course, applies to all aspects of the Gospel. Although it is necessary to lean on the tesitmonies of others as we begin to develop our own testimonies, if we continue in this mode without developing our own foundation, when those on whom we lean, falter, we will also falter.

Larry P

[JarMan]

I have been following the pundit thread and this one, as well. I am very interested in this subject. I especially thought your analysis of the number of times each direction is mentioned in the text is very interesting. Alas, I don't have enough time to do a complete analysis of Book of Mormon geography. . . yet. Maybe when my kids are all grown. I am taking notes, though, and some day I'll get to it. You're effort is much appreciated.

[JarMan]

I just did a quick search on the number of times the sea east (east sea) and sea west (west sea) versus the number of times sea north and sea south were mentioned. My quick count came up with 17 for the east sea and west sea and only 2 for the sea north and sea south. This does not seem to fit with what we know about the distribution of directions, in general, which indicates that north and south are mentioned much more frequently. This seems particularly odd since the seas seem to be located to the north and south of Zarahemla, not to the east and west. How do we reconcile this?

On a related note, the sea north and sea south are only mentioned in the context of the people migrating to the land northward. But in the land northward it seems that the opposite is true of Zarahemla: that is that the water seems to be on the east and on the west, not the north and south (okay, maybe on the south, too). Yet this is the single instance in which the sea north and sea south are mentioned.

But maybe I don't really understand where the land northward really is. My guess is that it is north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in the Veracruz/Oaxaca/Puebla area. But it seems like I've read theories that the land northward is eastern Veracruz/western Tabasco. Where do most scholars place it?

I apologize that I am asking so many questions when we are supposed to be finding the answers for ourselves, but, as I mentioned before, I just can't devote enought time to it. (I'm lucky sometimes to read a chapter or two a day.)

[poulsenll]

I just did a quick search on the number of times the sea east (east sea) and sea west (west sea) versus the number of times sea north and sea south were mentioned. My quick count came up with 17 for the east sea and west sea and only 2 for the sea north and sea south. This does not seem to fit with what we know about the distribution of directions, in general, which indicates that north and south are mentioned much more frequently. This seems particularly odd since the seas seem to be located to the north and south of Zarahemla, not to the east and west. How do we reconcile this?

On a related note, the sea north and sea south are only mentioned in the context of the people migrating to the land northward. But in the land northward it seems that the opposite is true of Zarahemla: that is that the water seems to be on the east and on the west, not the north and south (okay, maybe on the south, too). Yet this is the single instance in which the sea north and sea south are mentioned.

But maybe I don't really understand where the land northward really is. My guess is that it is north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in the Veracruz/Oaxaca/Puebla area. But it seems like I've read theories that the land northward is eastern Veracruz/western Tabasco. Where do most scholars place it?

I apologize that I am asking so many questions when we are supposed to be finding the answers for ourselves, but, as I mentioned before, I just can't devote enought time to it. (I'm lucky sometimes to read a chapter or two a day.)

Maybe this figure will help.

As you can see, there is a sea in each of the four quarters. The terms East and West, as used by the mesoamericans, actually mean where the sun rises and where the sun sets rather than compass points as we use them. If we translate to English we have the terms "the sea where the sun rises" and "the sea where the sun sets. Since the sea never rises in the north or south seas, no directional term is normally attached to these seas. However, the BoM mentions a sea, most likely to the north, where the Sidon empties into the sea since bodies cast into the Sidon are carried out to the depths of this sea. If we accept the Grijalva or even the Usamacinta as the river Sidon then from maps it is clear that both of these rivers empty into a sea to the north which is not usually refered to as the north sea in the Book of Mormon.

All land in the extended northern quarter could concievably be called the Land Northward. This would include all of the land along the Gulf Coast from Veracruz to Tampico and possibly even Yucatan. It would even include all of the United States.

Larry P

[Cold Steel]

The topic in the Pundit's section is fascinating. I'm still reading everything I can, also checking out James Warr's conclusions, which concentrate on the regions further south. He notes that his model "differs considerably from any previous model" now being considered and he believes the ruins in the north point to the earlier Jaredite migration.

For those who wish to check his model against others, his summary is:

1) The Jaredites traveled eastward from Sumer (Mesopotamia), to coastal China, crossed the Pacific Ocean, and landed somewhere on the coast of southern Mexico, Guatemala, or El Salvador.

2) The Nephites traveled from the area of Jerusalem, to the Arabian Peninsula, eastward across the Pacific, and landed on the Pacific coast of western Panama or southwestern Costa Rica (possibly the Diquis Delta or the Osa Peninsula). This coastal area was the land of the Nephites first inheritance.

3) The Mulekites traveled from Jerusalem westward across the Atlantic, first landing somewhere on the Gulf coast of the land northward (Mexico, Guatemala, or Honduras). Here they had some contact with the Jaredites. They subsequently migrated south to modern Costa Rica and up the Reventazon (Suerre) Valley where they established the city of Zarahemla.

4) The Isthmus of Rivas in western Nicaragua was the narrow neck of land (Map) referred to in the Book of Mormon.

5) The Central Valley (Meseta Central), combined with the upper Reventazon valley in Costa Rica, was the Book of Mormon land of Zarahemla. The Reventazon (Suerre) River was the river Sidon.

6)The Land Bountiful encompassed the plains of Guatuzos and San Carlos, northwest to the Isthmus of Rivas in Nicaragua, and southward from the San Juan River to the flanks of the Central Mountains (the Tilaran, Guanacaste, and Central ranges ).

7)The Land Desolation began at about the Nicaraguan/Costa Rican border, and went northward along the Pacific Nicaraguan coast for an unknown distance.

The upland area around Volcan, Panama was the Land of Nephi (Lehi-Nephi). The spring fed lakes of Las Lagunas near Volcan were the Waters of Mormon.

9) Eastâ??west extensions of the northern front of the Talamancan Mountains in Costa Rica, and their impenetrable covering of rainforest, formed the "narrow strip of wilderness" separating the lands of Zarahemla and Nephi. The main body of the Talamancan Mountain chain was the general southern wilderness of the Lamanites.

10) The majority of all the ancient ruins in southern Mexico and Guatemala were originally of Jaredite origin. These original Jaredite buildings were subsequently superimposed by later structures resulting in the imposing Mayan ruins we see today.

11) As the Jaredites did not generally occupy the land south of the "narrow neck," and assuming that number ten above is correct, it follows that all of these ruins in Mexico and Guatemala would be north of this key landmark. Therefore the Isthmus of Teuhantepec in Mexico could not be the narrow neck of land connecting the land southward and the land northward.

12) The Jaredite culture and ruins were probably patterned after early Sumerian architecture and culture. They are probably related to comparable ancient cultures in China and the far east.

13) Many of the archaeological ruins of the Jaredites and later groups were built or designed by spiritually apostate groups for idolatrous practices, and may have been used in the rites and practices of secret societies.

14) The Jaredite was the greatest civilization of the ancient world. In contrast the Nephite (as used here, Nephite will include Lamanite and Mulekite peoples) culture was smaller in size, less influential socio-politically, and insignificant architecturally. As a result, we would expect to find substantial evidences of the Jaredite civilization in the land northward (Mesoamerica), and lesser evidences of Nephite remains in the land southward (southern Central America).

15) The Jaredites constructed their public buildings of stone, while the Nephites built the majority of their buildings of wood. As a result, only faint traces of Nephite architecture would remain (in comparison to Jaredite ruins).

[poulsenll]

The topic in the Pundit's section is fascinating. I'm still reading everything I can, also checking out James Warr's conclusions, which concentrate on the regions further south. He notes that his model "differs considerably from any previous model" now being considered and he believes the ruins in the north point to the earlier Jaredite migration.

For those who wish to check his model against others, his summary is:

My biggest problem with Warr's model is his insistance that Joseph Smith did not know the difference between a "lake" and a "sea". The 1828 Webster makes a point out of the difference in use in 1828 as opposed to the Biblical and Hebrew use.

It is easy to propose that large lakes would be mistaken for seas by the Nephites, however, it is another thing to think that the Holy Ghiost did not know the difference. When we ignore the purpose of the abridgement by Mormon as stated on the title page of the Book of Mormon, we are ignoring the fact that the Book of Mormon was translated to the language of our day (1830) and not to that of ancient hebrews.

Although his proposal is carefully and logically presented, when the basic assumptions are not completely valid, all the results suffer from the same weakness.

I personnally think that Simiskey's proposal for a location near the Panama-Columbia border has a better chance of being correct simply because it is not based on shaky assumptions.

Larry P

[JarMan]

My biggest problem with Warr's model is his insistance that Joseph Smith did not know the difference between a "lake" and a "sea". The 1828 Webster makes a point out of the difference in use in 1828 as opposed to the Biblical and Hebrew use.

I must say that I wouldn't blame Joseph for not knowing the difference between a lake and a sea. I have a solid background in hydrology and I wouldn't have been able to come up with the definition in the 1828 dictionary even though it is essentially unchanged today. The compilers of the dictionary made a distinction between the biblical use of "sea" and the correct usage. But we can't really expect JS to know this distinction just because an expert in the language did.

Also, the fact that the word "sea" is commonly used for a lake in both the OT and NT makes the BofM use of the word "sea" for a lake even more likely. The word "lake" does not even appear in the OT. It appears rarely in the NT. JS seems to have used language that was very similar to the Bible.

There have been some stretches dealing with translations of certain words. (Can anybody say "tapir?") I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that JS meant "lake" when he said "sea."

Now just to be clear, I don't support Warr's hypothesis. I'm just saying that if we want to discredit it in an intellectually honest way, there needs to be an argument much stronger than one based on the definition of "lake" and "sea".

[poulsenll]

My biggest problem with Warr's model is his insistance that Joseph Smith did not know the difference between a "lake" and a "sea". The 1828 Webster makes a point out of the difference in use in 1828 as opposed to the Biblical and Hebrew use.

I must say that I wouldn't blame Joseph for not knowing the difference between a lake and a sea. I have a solid background in hydrology and I wouldn't have been able to come up with the definition in the 1828 dictionary even though it is essentially unchanged today. The compilers of the dictionary made a distinction between the biblical use of "sea" and the correct usage. But we can't really expect JS to know this distinction just because an expert in the language did.

Also, the fact that the word "sea" is commonly used for a lake in both the OT and NT makes the BofM use of the word "sea" for a lake even more likely. The word "lake" does not even appear in the OT. It appears rarely in the NT. JS seems to have used language that was very similar to the Bible.

There have been some stretches dealing with translations of certain words. (Can anybody say "tapir?") I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that JS meant "lake" when he said "sea."

Now just to be clear, I don't support Warr's hypothesis. I'm just saying that if we want to discredit it in an intellectually honest way, there needs to be an argument much stronger than one based on the definition of "lake" and "sea".

Jarman

I agree that Joseph may not have distinguished between "sea"and "lake" even though he lived right next to a large lake that could have been called a sea, and was not, but the Holy Ghost certainly knew the difference. Even though the Biblical language did not distinguish, people living in upper New York probably did. Webster drew his definitions from popular usage, not from a college or academy as did Europeans. Even today, we have no official learned academy that defines meanings for the English language.

[Cold Steel]

If we reject the possibility that a lake could have been a sea, we may ultimately miss the correct model. I can't make the judgment on whether it could be or couldn't be, but I look at the Isthmus Rivas and it's probably the most prominant "narrow neck of land" in the entire region. That being the case, we have to be right on the "lake" issue beyond doubt. That the Jews tended to refer to lakes as seas, we have to at least consider the possibility that the Nepites did, too.

One thing we must do is check out the other elements of the model. If the conclusion about lakes and seas is correct, it should be borne out by other aspects of the model. But again, that isthsmus has really been a niggling detail in my own mind that I don't think should be rejected casually.

[erichard]

Here is a place for non pundits to participate and declare their intentions to develop their own concept of BoM geography. If attendence warrants we will open other sections. Those who take up the challenge are welcome to ask questions which if in context , I will answer in the tutorial. They also are invited to tell us about their progress and successes as well as the reasoning they used for making their choices. Remember, nobody has the wrong answer because nobody as yet knows the right answer. Expect to have your reasoning put to the question and be required to justify it from the BoM text based on your thoughts and not on what some "expert" has said in the past. You may use positive data from the sciences but lets not have any arguments based on the abscence of data.

Larry P

I skimmed through this tread today, and have seen some of the Pundit version of this thread. My own conviction remains in the Venice Priddis concept of BoM geography. One can get a copy of her book here.

To consider her version, LIKE THE BOOK OF MORMON ITSELF, a person must not automatically reject it because "great and wise" authority figures reject it. For instance, here is Sorenson's rejection of it-- almost to the point of ridicule.

There are endless ridicules of the Book of Mormon, of course, by great authority figures. But many of us still believe in it, because we trust the spiritual witness with the book, and trust that those things which seem ridiculous about the BoM will eventually be proven to be in error.

The Book of Mormon must be believed by having faith in spiritual witnesses of it, notwithstanding educated rejection of it. Is it not ironic that The Book and the Map, which must be believed by trusting Venice's inspiration, notwithstanding educated rejection of it, is at times ridiculed by those who claim to believe the Book of Mormon itself?

I still trust Mrs. Priddis' claim to inspiration in this matter. OK, she did not see angels or have visions, but that does not mean the Spirit cannot give true inspiration to those who seek after it with all their hearts. And I trust that the ridicule against her inspiration will eventually be proven to be in error.

By the way, I do believe there are undoubtedly errors in her book-- but that does not mean the general model is not correct. In my experience, when people give reasons to reject her model, even if they are right about that specific point, the basic model may still be correct.

I find it very strange that her model, which is much better than its distracters make out, is so ignored. She is in her 80's now, and still is converted to this. In fact she is preparing another booklet, with further insights, that hopefully will be out this Fall.

Do you want me to present the main points of her model? For instance, the Narrow Neck of land in her model is the bay of Quayaquil in Ecuador-- seventy five miles from Amazon basin which in her model was underwater before the time of Christ.

Richard

[poulsenll]

If we reject the possibility that a lake could have been a sea, we may ultimately miss the correct model. I can't make the judgment on whether it could be or couldn't be, but I look at the Isthmus Rivas and it's probably the most prominant "narrow neck of land" in the entire region. That being the case, we have to be right on the "lake" issue beyond doubt. That the Jews tended to refer to lakes as seas, we have to at least consider the possibility that the Nepites did, too.

One thing we must do is check out the other elements of the model. If the conclusion about lakes and seas is correct, it should be borne out by other aspects of the model. But again, that isthsmus has really been a niggling detail in my own mind that I don't think should be rejected casually.

CS

I have finally taken the time to look at Warr's model a little bit closer and find that he is not assuming that the lake is one of the seas. He only uses it as the border of the of the narrow neck. I find no problem with this. I am a little concerned with his choice for the river Sidon. It places the city of Zarahemla in a relatively small valley with little room for the varios lands surrounding it without having major mountains seperating them from each other. Otherwise he has done a good job of sticking to the textual descriptions. I still prefer the Chiapas location simply because it leads to reasonable resolutions for questions such as

Why did King Limhi's search party get lost?

How did the Nephites reach the upper reaches of the River Sidon before the Lamanites when the Lamanites had a head start?

There are a number of other problems such as Why did the Nephites defend the narrow neck when there was an alternate path to the north along the seashore on the other side of the large lake? However, as long as a model fits the textual descriptions, it should not be discounted out of hand.

Larry P

[Cold Steel]

Good points, and I don't want to make it sound as though I have a horse in this race as I have too much respect for those of you who have studied many other aspects than I. Regarding Warr's viewing the lake as a sea, he does say: "How does the Isthmus of Rivas match the criteria outlined above for the Narrow Neck of land? It is oriented in a northwest-southeast direction, bordered on the west by the Pacific (west sea), and on the east by Lake Nicaragua (east sea). Lake Nicaragua divides Pacific Nicaragua from the eastern highlands, hence "the place where the sea divides the land" (Ether 10:20.) The narrow plains near Penas Blancas at the Nicaraguan/Costa Rican border, where the coastal mountains wedge in almost to the lake, could be the feature called the "narrow pass". The isthmus is narrow enough to be easily cross by foot in a day."

The problem with going further south is that things do get smaller (including narrow necks of land); still, I am intrigued by many points raised by Sorenson, Warr, you and others.

I can't say I know enough about Venice Priddis or her theories, but I have a hard time putting faith in other peoples' revelations or spiritual guidance when virtually everyone is seeking it. I'm fairly certain that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon would not endeavor to publish on geography without first seeking spiritual guidance.

[poulsenll]

Good points, and I don't want to make it sound as though I have a horse in this race as I have too much respect for those of you who have studied many other aspects than I. Regarding Warr's viewing the lake as a sea, he does say: "How does the Isthmus of Rivas match the criteria outlined above for the Narrow Neck of land? It is oriented in a northwest-southeast direction, bordered on the west by the Pacific (west sea), and on the east by Lake Nicaragua (east sea). Lake Nicaragua divides Pacific Nicaragua from the eastern highlands, hence "the place where the sea divides the land" (Ether 10:20.) The narrow plains near Penas Blancas at the Nicaraguan/Costa Rican border, where the coastal mountains wedge in almost to the lake, could be the feature called the "narrow pass". The isthmus is narrow enough to be easily cross by foot in a day."

The problem with going further south is that things do get smaller (including narrow necks of land); still, I am intrigued by many points raised by Sorenson, Warr, you and others.

I can't say I know enough about Venice Priddis or her theories, but I have a hard time putting faith in other peoples' revelations or spiritual guidance when virtually everyone is seeking it. I'm fairly certain that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon would not endeavor to publish on geography without first seeking spiritual guidance.

He has two "east seas" then because he has his narrow strip of wildernes running fro the Atlantic to the Pacific. He thinks he has to have the narrow strip located between the West sea and the East Sea because of the scripture in Alma 22 where it describes the day and a halfs journey from the west sea to the east. First, although this statement is in the same verses as the description of the narrow neck, it does not refer to the narrow neck. It clearly states that the journey is on a line (boundary)which seperates the land Bountiful from the land of Desolation. In the past, the narrow neck was assumed to be that boundary but there is nothing in the text to support this other than the need to pass north of the narrow neck to get to the land northward and Mormon's use of it as a boundary between the Lamanite and Nephite forces. Mormon does not call it a defense line.

Second, the day and a halfs journey is not from sea to sea but from the west sea to the east.

I can not emphasize enough that the words east and west are not compass points but indications of where the sun rises and sets. If we substitute these terms for east and west, it reads "from the sea where the sun sets to where the sun rises. Stated this way there is no reason to add anything about another sea.

As for Priddiss' proposal, although the Book of Mormon talks about changes in the surface of the land at Christs death such a sea would have had to be present untill Mormon's time because the narrow neck was still there for him to make an agreement with the Lamanites to use it as a dividing line to seperate the two groups. It would have had to dissapear after that time rather than at the time of Christ.

Larry P

[erichard]

...,I can't say I know enough about Venice Priddis or her theories, but I have a hard time putting faith in other peoples' revelations or spiritual guidance when virtually everyone is seeking it. I'm fairly certain that anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon would not endeavor to publish on geography without first seeking spiritual guidance.

...As for Priddiss' proposal, although the Book of Mormon talks about changes in the surface of the land at Christs death such a sea would have had to be present untill Mormon's time because the narrow neck was still there for him to make an agreement with the Lamanites to use it as a dividing line to seperate the two groups. It would have had to dissapear after that time rather than at the time of Christ.

Larry P

If the LORD gives inspiration to one, then why should He keep having to give it? He will give inspiration to those who study what He has inspired-- not give new detailed inspiration. But if someone does not prayerfully study it, they will never recieve the witness.

Priddis brings out that the the Book of Mormon mentions the Narrow Pass after the time of Christ, but never mentions the Narrow Neck. She identifies "El Paso del Oro" in her proposed narrow neck of land as this mountain pass. There was a war to control this pass at the time of the Conquistadors because of its critical position in the geography of that area. The Amazon basin may have still been very impassable at the time of Mormon, even if the water had receeded. Anyway, she has addressed your concern.

Richard