Is the LGT the only plausible geographical theory for the BOM

[handys003]

I do enjoy reading both points of views. I'm more partial to a much bigger picture than either side would like to give in. The problem with BOM archaeology is other than JS plates translated into BOM there is no other written history by the ancient peoples of Americas dating farther back than the pre-columbian civilizations. It is often sad that also many ancient sites have more than likely been destroyed due to more recent agricultural pioneering, or encroaching growths of settlements. I'm afraid this arguement will never be conceded until a definitive hard piece of evidence is found such as the Maya codices. Speaking of which I have my suspicions of it's interpretations. If I had the financing, I would take those codices to several countries whose languages are more character based. Japan and China would be good choices. I would then seek those who specialize in code breaking and linguistics. Who have never read or bothered with and have no intrest in Mayan codices (dreaming huh?), set the task to them of translating, and see if they come to a different conclusion such as an entirely different interpretation than what is currently accepted. Perhaps just to increase the validity have some Russian and Indian scholars do the same. What say you guys? Would that be a viable idea?

[Brant Gardner]

I get the feeling that the LGT is the only plausible theory for the BOM geography.

This topic tends to get debated without any definition of what it means to be plausible. There was a suggestion of a "plausible" location on the Malay peninsula.

Plausiblity can have multiple definitions. One might be "at any stretch of the imagination, could it have happened this way." That is a possible definition of plausible, but an unusable one.

For my purposes, plausibility has rather strict requirements. Multiple textual requirements must be met simultaneously and interconnectedly.

Geography, including hydrology, topography, and climate (without appeal to forces that are known not to have happened, such as the flooding of lands which were not flooding during human history).

Human history, meaning we have to have people in that place during the right period of time.

Cultural history, meaning that the people have to have levels of social complexity that fit the text and they have to fit some specific requirements. For example, the Jaredites are earlier than the Nephites/Lamanites and north of both, without significant cultural interaction in the Nephite/Lamanite lands (which, by the way, is what shoots down the Adena/Hopewell correlation, since they were in the same place instead of the Adena north of the Hopewell).

With those basics of plausibility, then even more is required. Personally, I think you have to be able to identify a land north of Nephite holdings that has many waters, few trees and uses cement for buildings (that seems to make a mess of the Great Lakes area just in trying to find a place without trees in historical times-- at least in areas where larger populations lived).

When you use the most stringent definitions of plausiblity, Mesoamerica is the only place I have seen that survives those strict conditions. Is it the only "plausible" location? Not in the loosest sense, but in the strongest.

[changed]

• 
  

Do you think the Great Lakes theory is plausible?

I don't remember ever reading about snow/ice in the BoM. I do seem to remember reading about people being afflicted with tropical diseases.

40 And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land—but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate—

(Book of Mormon | Alma 46:40)

how many miles can a person travel in 1 1/2 days? (before cars/trains/airplanes etc. etc.)

32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 22:32)

[J Green]

I get the feeling that the LGT is the only plausible theory for the BOM geography.

My own conversion to LGT dates back to my mission in the Dominican Republic. A group of us were locked in our apartment in Santo Domingo for several weeks due to Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and I started making my own crude internal map of the BOM in order to find approximate distances between the main locations. I found that even being generous with the distances a group of men, women, children and flocks of animals could cover daily in mountainous terrain, the area covered could not have been that great. After returning home, I encountered the scholarly studies of Sorenson and others, which only served to reinforce what I had already seen on a primitive level. I truly believe that LGT is the only plausible theory for BOM geography. Once you accept that and start trying to place the LGT location to a specific time and place, Mesoamerica seems like the best candidate. The Great Lakes theory seems to be tied to emotional requirements to place the final battle at the same location as the place Moroni buries the plates twenty-some odd years after going walkabout after the final battle. It's time to strip away our assumptions and accept what the text actually gives us rather than stretching the text to fit our previous assumptions.

[justamere10]

I don't know that we should be looking for swords. We should be looking for any implements of war. We also should consider Cerro de Bernal as a possible candidate. It has a forlorn look about it and is surrounded by numerous rivers, streams and massive fields that could be used for battle. When I think that the Nephites gathered to Cumorah for a very long time and encamped hundreds of thousands of people round about, this just looks more like what I see in my head. Wherever it is, though, I think we should look for scenes of a battle. Historically, it wasn't all that long ago. It happened just as the Roman Empire was fading into nothing.

Now that would be a battle. The Romans against the Lamanites. I'd pay good money to see that!

A few years ago I spent a few days exploring around Cerro de Bernal and can testify that in some places there are many artifacts just a few inches below the surface. After a rain or in a plowed field you can pick up figurines or pieces of them, pottery shards etc. In some fields right on the surface I saw numerous ax head shaped stones. Was that a battlefield? Who knows?

I agree too with your description of Bernal, a volcanic plug that stands by itself many miles from any other mountain and would surely be well known if anywhere near a trade route, as having a "forlorn" look. When I first saw it from a distance I immediately experienced goose bumps and strange feelings. (Right, I'm not a scientist!) When I passed the armed Mexican guards that were there at the time and was allowed to go a bit further up the mountain, it was a still hot summer day with hordes of flies buzzing around and a field of rotting onions that gave off a scent similar to death.

Yes, I for sure sensed that Bernal is the location of Cumorah of the Final Battles, unlike Cumorah in New York where one senses something much different than death.

No "proof" of course, but it's an interesting experience to be around Cerro Bernal, the one near Mante, Tamaulipas.

(Click the photo thumbnail for a better look at Cerro Bernal.)

More photos of Cerro Bernal:

http://www.mormonsites.org/page14.html

[Palador]

Just as a point of clarification, but can we rename the models a bit so to better distinguish between the various models? I would propose the following:

Hemispheric Geographic Model (HGM) - Model that proposes that the Book of Mormon takes place in the entire American Hemisphere.

Mesoamerican Geographic Model (MGM) - Model that propose that the Book of Mormon takes place in the Mesoamerican area. Specifically, in the Mexican Yucatan area.

Great Lakes Geographic Model (GLGM) - Model that proposes that the Book of Mormon takes place in the Great Lakes area in North America.

The problem I have with saying Limited Geographic Model is that both the MGM and the GLGM are both limited in geography, and it helps keep clear on where the models are located.

[justamere10]

Just as a point of clarification, but can we rename the models a bit so to better distinguish between the various models? I would propose the following:

Hemispheric Geographic Model (HGM) - Model that proposes that the Book of Mormon takes place in the entire American Hemisphere.

Mesoamerican Geographic Model (MGM) - Model that propose that the Book of Mormon takes place in the Mesoamerican area. Specifically, in the Mexican Yucatan area.

Great Lakes Geographic Model (GLGM) - Model that proposes that the Book of Mormon takes place in the Great Lakes area in North America.

The problem I have with saying Limited Geographic Model is that both the MGM and the GLGM are both limited in geography, and it helps keep clear on where the models are located.

Some people think that the Yucatan was pretty much under water in Book of Mormon times. My understanding is that Yucatan ruins do not date as far back as Book of Mormon times?? Mesoamerica would include today's Mexico or at least parts of it, Guatemala, Belize, and possibly parts of El Salvador as I recall.

[Anijen]

My own conversion to LGT dates back to my mission in the Dominican Republic. A group of us were locked in our apartment in Santo Domingo for several weeks due to Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and I started making my own crude internal map of the BOM in order to find approximate distances between the main locations. I found that even being generous with the distances a group of men, women, children and flocks of animals could cover daily in mountainous terrain, the area covered could not have been that great. After returning home, I encountered the scholarly studies of Sorenson and others, which only served to reinforce what I had already seen on a primitive level. I truly believe that LGT is the only plausible theory for BOM geography. Once you accept that and start trying to place the LGT location to a specific time and place, Mesoamerica seems like the best candidate. The Great Lakes theory seems to be tied to emotional requirements to place the final battle at the same location as the place Moroni buries the plates twenty-some odd years after going walkabout after the final battle. It's time to strip away our assumptions and accept what the text actually gives us rather than stretching the text to fit our previous assumptions.

Very good post and was how I came to look at it also. To me HGT and the great lakes seems to be geography by tradition.

[Anijen]

I do enjoy reading both points of views. I'm more partial to a much bigger picture than either side would like to give in. The problem with BOM archaeology is other than JS plates translated into BOM there is no other written history by the ancient peoples of Americas dating farther back than the pre-columbian civilizations. It is often sad that also many ancient sites have more than likely been destroyed due to more recent agricultural pioneering, or encroaching growths of settlements. I'm afraid this arguement will never be conceded until a definitive hard piece of evidence is found such as the Maya codices. Speaking of which I have my suspicions of it's interpretations. If I had the financing, I would take those codices to several countries whose languages are more character based. Japan and China would be good choices. I would then seek those who specialize in code breaking and linguistics. Who have never read or bothered with and have no intrest in Mayan codices (dreaming huh?), set the task to them of translating, and see if they come to a different conclusion such as an entirely different interpretation than what is currently accepted. Perhaps just to increase the validity have some Russian and Indian scholars do the same. What say you guys? Would that be a viable idea?

Japanese and Mayan are logophonetic, Chinese is logographic. Ever since Beastie's debate with Brant Gardner, Nevo and myself I have been studying on and off the Mayan language. You are right there is so much more to learn. I think one day such finds will be made that make more convergences, which will bring the BoM closer but not close enough to take away the requirement for faith. Just my opinion.

[Palador]

Some people think that the Yucatan was pretty much under water in Book of Mormon times. My understanding is that Yucatan ruins do not date as far back as Book of Mormon times?? Mesoamerica would include today's Mexico or at least parts of it, Guatemala, Belize, and possibly parts of El Salvador as I recall.

Hence, why I called it the "Mesoamerican Geographic Model" as opposed to the "Yucatan Geographic Model".

[Helmuth]

test[/emp][/strong]

Just as a point of clarification, but can we rename the models a bit so to better distinguish between the various models? I would propose the following:

Hemispheric Geographic Model (HGM) - Model that proposes that the Book of Mormon takes place in the entire American Hemisphere.

What does that mean, exactly? Does an HGT require a Nephi in Tierra del Fuego and Zarahemla in Alberta? I don't think that is ever what was believed!

What about a theory where the distances are just two or three times greater than the Mesoamerican models? With Panama being the narrow neck, the Nephites directly south of that in Columbia, the Lamanites a bit further south, Desolation north in some deserty place in Mesoamerica or maybe Arizona/New Mexico. All of the action that has actual descriptions of distances could still be taking place in a relatively small area in northern South America.

Just solely from the point of view of geography, and what the text says about geography, such a theory could be put together which would fit just fine. In terms of other factors, it might run into problems, but hey, the Mesoamerican theory is not totally devoid of problems either.

My own conversion to LGT dates back to my mission in the Dominican Republic. A group of us were locked in our apartment in Santo Domingo for several weeks due to Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and I started making my own crude internal map of the BOM in order to find approximate distances between the main locations. I found that even being generous with the distances a group of men, women, children and flocks of animals could cover daily in mountainous terrain, the area covered could not have been that great.

Could you give me some examples of these distances? I think I must have missed them in my readings. I myself find virtually no distances given in the Book of Mormon -- glancing through right now I see the distances Mormon->Helam, Helam->Alma, Alma->Zarahemla, Zarahemla->Lehi-Nephi(wandering speed), the hill east of Sidon->valley of Gideon, valley of Gideon<->Minon, Melek->Ammonihah, and the Narrow Neck ("the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea"). Those are the only* explicit New World distances I find at the moment. So, please, direct me to these many passages that told you so clearly how far apart everything was.

* There are, in addition, some "many days" distances which are not that useful, since "many" is vague, and some distances of places we already know are in the same city or land and thus are not that useful either, such as Nephi's tower->judgment seat.

"Many" days: Moron->Ablom, Lehi-Nephi->land with bones, Lehi-Nephi->Zarahemla.

Note: I'm just editing this trying to see if I can get rid of the bold-italic.

[William Schryver]

Just curious, Helmuth, have you ever read Sorenson's seminal work on this topic, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon? Or perhaps Dr. John L. Lund's Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon - Is This the Place?

I don't mean to suggest that either of these books constitutes the "final word" on this topic. For example, even though I'm persuaded by much of Sorenson's argumentation, I'm not persuaded by all of it. As I've made clear during all my career on this message board, I am inclined to believe that the Hopewell culture quite possibly could have been an extreme extension of the Nephites. At least I believe a very plausible case can be made to that effect.

Still, I think Sorenson's basic thesis is correct. And I believe the case he makes is solidly grounded in the text of the Book of Mormon.

[J Green]

Could you give me some examples of these distances? I think I must have missed them in my readings. I myself find virtually no distances given in the Book of Mormon -- glancing through right now I see the distances Mormon->Helam, Helam->Alma, Alma->Zarahemla, Zarahemla->Lehi-Nephi(wandering speed), the hill east of Sidon->valley of Gideon, valley of Gideon<->Minon, Melek->Ammonihah, and the Narrow Neck ("the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea"). Those are the only* explicit New World distances I find at the moment. So, please, direct me to these many passages that told you so clearly how far apart everything was.

Hi, Helmuth.

I echo Will's advice to read Sorenson's work on this subject. He compiles a fairly good list of all the distance passages you're looking for in several works of his. A good one to start with might be chapter five of "Mormon's Map." But let's take the first event you mention: the journey from the Waters of Mormon to Helam, and from there to Zarahemla.

Alma preaches to people by Waters of Mormon, which can only be a day or two from Nephi proper because it's in the border of the land but must be close enough to reach to avoid the searches of the king's army during the day (Mos 18:31-34). He then takes 450 people--a group composed of families with tents (Mosiah 18:34-35), flocks, and grain (Mos 23:1)--and flees eight days into the wilderness (Mos 23:3), arriving at a place they call Helam. After being found and subjected by Lamanites led by Amulonite priests, Alma and his people decide to escape. They gather their flocks and grain (Mos 24:18) and flee a second time, arriving at Zarahemla after being in the wilderness for twelve days (Mos 24:25).

Doing the math, it takes Alma and 450 people (at first; probably more on the second leg) with families (i.e., women and children) and their flocks, grain, and equipment 20 days to reach Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi. Remember that they are traveling through wilderness--the same east-west wilderness in which is found the headwaters of the Sidon, which means that this is mountainous territory they are traversing (the headwaters are in the highlands and flow downhill from there into the valley of Zarahemla) before descending into the valley on the other side and into Zarahemla. And remember that Zarahemla is in the "heart" (Alm 16:19, 22) or "center" (Hel 1:17-18) of the Nephite lands, so this distance is covering quite a bit of the whole Nephite territory in the BOM. And we're talking 450 people with women and children, flocks, tents, and grain traveling on foot (despite your horse theory) doing this in 20 days through the mountains. What is your estimate of what this group could average per day accompanied by women, children, flocks, food, and equipment? Ten miles a day? Fifteen? I think you're being overly generous to say that this group could average 15 miles a day every day for more than a week. But let's be generous and say 15. That's 300 miles from the borders of the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla (so add another day or two to get to the city of Nephi). But this would not have been a straight shot--this would have been twisting through mountain canyons as they traversed the uplands and descended into the valley on the other side. Cutting that by a third would be 200 miles, straight shot. Does this sound fair? If it does, this is still being very generous by assuming this group could average 15 miles a day for 20 days. In his "Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" Sorenson cites cultural information that points to 11 miles per day as being a better average. On that basis, you're probably really looking at 150-180 miles straight from Nephi to Zarahemla.

In summary, if we're generous Zarahemla is approx 200 miles from the Land of Nephi. So we've covered more than half of the area wherein the majority of BOM events take place, and we've only gone 200 miles. The distances start to shrink a bit, don't they?

Regards

[handys003]

Japanese and Mayan are logophonetic, Chinese is logographic. Ever since Beastie's debate with Brant Gardner, Nevo and myself I have been studying on and off the Mayan language. You are right there is so much more to learn. I think one day such finds will be made that make more convergences, which will bring the BoM closer but not close enough to take away the requirement for faith. Just my opinion.

I'm not familiar with this debate. However isn't Mayan writing logograms complemented with syllabic glyphs? If so, would not Japanese and Chinese writing sytems be similar in function? Anyway do you think my opinion is viable? I still would like to experiment and see if a different development of the current translations would occur. Using third independent bodies with impartial view as with no bias. This would be to give no prejudice to any arguement of advantage to one side or the other. There actually was a similar case I read in American Archaeology magazine. I dug through my back issues and can't find it, but I know I'm not dreaming. Anyway it concerned another Pre-Columbian expert who presented findings that the Mayan script translations were deciphered incorrectly. The article then provided his finding on how they should be translated. Well there you have it. Thats what I get for letting the wife clean out my magazines. Maybe you know of such?

[Anijen]

I'm not familiar with this debate. However isn't Mayan writing logograms complemented with syllabic glyphs? If so, would not Japanese and Chinese writing sytems be similar in function? Anyway do you think my opinion is viable? I still would like to experiment and see if a different development of the current translations would occur. Using third independent bodies with impartial view as with no bias. This would be to give no prejudice to any arguement of advantage to one side or the other. There actually was a similar case I read in American Archaeology magazine. I dug through my back issues and can't find it, but I know I'm not dreaming. Anyway it concerned another Pre-Columbian expert who presented findings that the Mayan script translations were deciphered incorrectly. The article then provided his finding on how they should be translated. Well there you have it. Thats what I get for letting the wife clean out my magazines. Maybe you know of such?

Yes they are very much syllabic, and yes there is much to learn and more to know. One of my favorites expert on Mayan is David Stuart. Here are some great links;

http://mesoweb.com/

http://www.ancientscripts.com/maya.html

http://140.247.102.177/CMHI/index.php

http://140.247.102.177/CMHI/site.php?site=Yaxchilan

http://www.famsi.org/index.html

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/med/docs/_catalog.html

http://www.traditionalhighcultures.com/Mayan.htm

[krose]

What happens to the models if we assume that JS was just not very good at estimating how long it would take to get from one place to another?

[Sevenbak]

What happens to the models if we assume that JS was just not very good at estimating how long it would take to get from one place to another?

You mean 4 years isn't long enough for you to migrate an entire nation fleeing for their lives from Mesoamerica to NY?

The annihilation would have happened much sooner had they stayed where they were, and did in fact for those who were slow.

[Helmuth]

Just curious, Helmuth, have you ever read Sorenson's seminal work on this topic, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon? Or perhaps Dr. John L. Lund's Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon - Is This the Place?

I have not read either. I hope that does not disqualify me utterly from speaking on the matter. I am familiar with the Book of Mormon. Note: you didn't answer my question(s).

Hi, Helmuth.

I echo Will's advice to read Sorenson's work on this subject. He compiles a fairly good list of all the distance passages you're looking for in several works of his. A good one to start with might be chapter five of "Mormon's Map." But let's take the first event you mention: the journey from the Waters of Mormon to Helam, and from there to Zarahemla.

This is a good one to start with, because it is the only one! There are no other significant trips with distances attached for us to analyze. Start with this one, finish with this one, and use it for everything in between, because it is it, baby! OK, along with the narrow neck; that's an important distance, too.

In summary, if we're generous Zarahemla is approx 200 miles from the Land of Nephi. So we've covered more than half of the area wherein the majority of BOM events take place, and we've only gone 200 miles. The distances start to shrink a bit, don't they?

This is the crux of the matter. This Lehi-Nephi->Zarahemla trip is the most powerful argument for a small area, and you encapsulate the point very well in this paragraph. How did you get here, though? A lot of assumptions!

1) Alma preaches to people by Waters of Mormon, which can only be a day or two from Nephi proper because it's in the border of the land but must be close enough to reach to avoid the searches of the king's army during the day (Mos 18:31-34).

This is a minor assumption. We do not know this. It could be wrong. It is probably right, but one could envision possible scenarios in which it is not. Further, your chosen rationale is especially weak. Read 31-34 imagining the Waters of Mormon 5 days away from Noah's capital, and you will see the story still works. A stronger rationale would be vs. 25: And there was one day in every week that was set apart that they should gather themselves together to teach the people, and to worship the Lord their God, and also, as often as it was in their power, to assemble themselves together. If they are traveling from their homes in Lehi-Nephi to Mormon once a week (or more), it can't be too far away. But that makes an assumption, too. Perhaps they had abandoned their old homes and moved entirely to Mormon. That emigration could be the "movement among his people" that Noah detected.

2)Doing the math, it takes Alma and 450 people (at first; probably more on the second leg) with families (i.e., women and children) and their flocks, grain, and equipment 20 days to reach Zarahemla....

This is not an assumption, but rather a mistake, nevertheless let me correct it. You have missed the one-day journey from Helam to the valley of Alma. Read Msh. 24:19-25 carefully and you will see what I mean. So make it 21 days.

3) ...from the Land of Nephi

No, from the place of Mormon. That was the point of origin. Which was on the borders of "the land". Which land could be either Lehi-Nephi/Shilom (the Zeniffite land) or the greater overarching Land of Nephi (the Lamanite land). In either case, how far it was from Lehi-Nephi/Shilom is unknown.

4) Remember that they are traveling through wilderness--the same east-west wilderness in which is found the headwaters of the Sidon, which means that this is mountainous territory they are traversing (the headwaters are in the highlands and flow downhill from there into the valley of Zarahemla) before descending into the valley on the other side and into Zarahemla.

Now this is an assumption with a very good reason to believe it is the case. However, it is still an assumption. This wilderness was a strip. The river head is a point. What if instead of coming up through Manti they were over further east by Moroni and the Zoramite lands? Maybe everything is flat and copasetic over there. Or over west? Clearly there's a western route into Zarahemla as demoed by the attacks on Ammonihah in Alma. We don't know they had to travel through mountains -- they may have been able to avoid them. Also, some rivers' headwaters are more mountainous than others.

5) And remember that Zarahemla is in the "heart" (Alm 16:19, 22) or "center" (Hel 1:17-18) of the Nephite lands, so this distance is covering quite a bit of the whole Nephite territory in the BOM.

This is a major assumption and a bad one. Clark makes the opposite assumption and I think he is correct. It doesn't say they entered the city Zarahemla, but rather the land. The land Zarahemla is used multiple times in the BoM to refer to the whole land of the Nephites, counterpart to the land of Nephi. When they got to Manti, or Moroni, or Judea, that could have been the end of the 12 days. If you're trying to be generous as you say and assume the longest possible distance, this is the generous understanding.

6) And we're talking 450 people with women and children, flocks, tents, and grain traveling on foot (despite your horse theory)

So you think it impossible that they had horses? That is an assumption, possibly a good one, but one not supported by the text, which states they had horses.

7) But this would not have been a straight shot--this would have been twisting through mountain canyons as they traversed the uplands and descended into the valley on the other side. Cutting that by a third would be 200 miles, straight shot. Does this sound fair?

It sounds completely arbitrary and made-up. Why not 100 miles? Why not 75? Just how winding were these canyons? How rough, steep, and impassible the mountain range? No answers? I should hope not, because the text does not tell us, so any answer you give will be completely arbitrary and made-up.

8 ) In his "Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" Sorenson cites cultural information that points to 11 miles per day as being a better average.

Of which culture? Aha.... Assuming no particular culture and just looking at the ancient world overall, do we find any examples of people which could travel (gasp) more than 11 miles a day? Yes, Virginia, we do! Central Asia nomads appear to have been able to travel 20-25 miles a day, with flocks, women, children, camp, and all. Furthermore, the Almaites were fleeing on all 3 legs of their Mormon->Zara. journey. Do you imagine they were leisurely fleeing?

9) On that basis, you're probably really looking at 150-180 miles straight from Nephi to Zarahemla.

I'll use this sentence to point out another major, major assumption you have made here (Clark made it too, perhaps everyone has made it without realizing). What is "Nephi"? Where are you talking about? Oh, the city of Nephi, the chief city of the Lamanites? Where is that in this travelogue? Oh, it's where Noah lives and the Almaites left to go to Mormon? Really? Does that actually make sense? Does Lehi-Nephi = chief city Nephi? Would Zeniff be given the capital city and lands of the Lamanites, in the central heart of their territory? The Lamanite king moved out to a more minor city? Well, he wanted to get away from it all anyway (fresh air, slower pace). If you say no, and one reasonably could, then though you calculate the precise mileage from Lehi-Nephi/Shilom/Mormon to Zarahemla, yea though you soar with the vantage of angels in Google Earth, and have not the distance from Lehi-Nephi to Nephi, ye have nothing.

[J Green]

What happens to the models if we assume that JS was just not very good at estimating how long it would take to get from one place to another?

Only important if you're also assuming Joseph Smith made up the story. Fortunately, he didn't.

[daycat]

Admittedly I have not read this entire thread. I have usually avoided Book of Mormon threads until lately. I still avoid Book of Abraham threads. Every time I read the Book of Mormon, my mind places them in South America from Chile to Colombia. The NUMBER ONE geographical demand of the Book of Mormon is that it takes place upon an island of the sea.

When Nephi transcribed some of the Brass Plates and told about the prophet, Zenos, in 1 Nephi 19, it was prophesied by Zenos that the three days of darkness at the death of Christ would be given as a sign unto those who inhabit the isles of the sea. And Jacob flat out states that they were upon an isle of the sea in 2 Nephi 10:20.

Why have scholars tossed out the book by Venice Predice(s?) THE BOOK AND THE MAP? Her work is impressive to me and fits exactly where my mind's eye rested while reading the Book of Mormon many times before reading her work.

The Gulf of Guayaquil in Ecuador seems like the perfect spot where the "SEA" divides the narrow neck of land. Ether 10:20 So they were on a coastal region.

The city of Desolation was coastal where they cast the dead of the Lamanites into the sea. Mormon 3:8 .

The Book of Mormon in both cases of the Jaredites and the Nephites deals with a closed set. The population is never beyond the reach of every war. If they were in North America it would make no sense at all.

The gulf might have been the sea port by the land Bountiful where Hagoth launched forth into the west sea.

(Alma 63:5) I would put some divers into the Gulf of Guayaquil to check for anything down there.

The long stretch along the Peruvian coast where the Andes come close to the shoreline could be the narrow neck of land. And it is certainly always a trek "UP" into the wilderness from anywhere along the coast. The area of Northern Colombia is also a place of many waters. I would look for Cumorah there. I think it marvelous that this has escaped serious consideration as it is probably the most correct spot. But the Lord does not want people to find Cumorah so they are blind to it.

There had to be a barrier to Northern movement like a sunken isthmus of Panama or it was just to much of a bog to traverse. Have there been any studies of the Amazon basin being filled until perhaps the upheaval at the time of Christ's death?

And then there is THIS!

Helaman 3:8

8. And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the SEA SOUTH to the SEA NORTH, from the SEA WEST to the SEA EAST.

Okay then. West is the Pacific. North could be the Caribbean. East could be the Amazon Basin filled with a sea.

But how do we account for a sea to the South? Can't be all the way down to the Antarctic? That is just too far.

Is there any evidence that the Patagonia region suddenly uplifted out of the sea? Was that part of the great destruction and three days of darkness? I have never stopped and noticed this particular scripture before.

Is this the justification for Central America, having a sea south?

It is beyond controversy that the upper wilderness to the South and East and a West coast are the strongest geographical features. I do not see an "upper wilderness" possibility the Central American theory? And no strong sea west. In fact all the ruins are on the East and not on the West. But I have never read Sorensen's work because I always thought Central America was an absurd Book of Mormon locale.

I believe it was possible for an Amazon Basin sea to come fairly close to the Gulf of Guayaquil accounting for the narrow pass that restricts the narrow neck even further between a sea west and a sea east. Alma 50:34.

We know that the wilderness of the East was something one had to go up to. We never hear of going down to the sea on the East. Nor do we read of any sea shore on the sea east. If it were never part of the world's oceans that would account for there being no sea east shore line. That sea would have been at a higher elevation vast and expansive yet unwelcoming as the Andes were right there in it. I do not think that there is a mention of a sea east after the visitation of Christ.

[J Green]

Hi, Helmuth.

This is a good one to start with, because it is the only one! There are no other significant trips with distances attached for us to analyze. Start with this one, finish with this one, and use it for everything in between, because it is it, baby! OK, along with the narrow neck; that's an important distance, too.

It certainly is one of the better ones, but there are others. As I said, Sorenson has compiled a nice list.

This is the crux of the matter. This Lehi-Nephi->Zarahemla trip is the most powerful argument for a small area, and you encapsulate the point very well in this paragraph. How did you get here, though? A lot of assumptions!

There are always assumptions. I don't think mine are too unreasonable.

1) Alma preaches to people by Waters of Mormon, which can only be a day or two from Nephi proper because it's in the border of the land but must be close enough to reach to avoid the searches of the king's army during the day (Mos 18:31-34).

This is a minor assumption. We do not know this. It could be wrong. It is probably right, but one could envision possible scenarios in which it is not. Further, your chosen rationale is especially weak. Read 31-34 imagining the Waters of Mormon 5 days away from Noah's capital, and you will see the story still works. A stronger rationale would be vs. 25: And there was one day in every week that was set apart that they should gather themselves together to teach the people, and to worship the Lord their God, and also, as often as it was in their power, to assemble themselves together. If they are traveling from their homes in Lehi-Nephi to Mormon once a week (or more), it can't be too far away. But that makes an assumption, too. Perhaps they had abandoned their old homes and moved entirely to Mormon. That emigration could be the "movement among his people" that Noah detected.

I think that a day is a more reasonable assumption, as you suggest. However, we can eliminate this point if you prefer. We can call it 20 days from the borders of the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla. Will that do? We're still in Lamanite territory without being in Nephi lands yet, so I think the point about distances is still made, however close we are to the borders of the Land of Nephi.

2)Doing the math, it takes Alma and 450 people (at first; probably more on the second leg) with families (i.e., women and children) and their flocks, grain, and equipment 20 days to reach Zarahemla....

This is not an assumption, but rather a mistake, nevertheless let me correct it. You have missed the one-day journey from Helam to the valley of Alma. Read Msh. 24:19-25 carefully and you will see what I mean. So make it 21 days.

I don't see much difference between 20 and 21 days, so normally I'd spot you this. However, I simply disagree with your reading. They flee all day into the wilderness from Helam (Mos 24:20), true. Yet they arrive in Zarahemla "after they had spent twelve days in the wilderness" (Mos 24:25), so that first day "in the wilderness" would have to have been counted among the dozen total "in the wilderness." Still makes 20.

3) ...from the Land of Nephi

No, from the place of Mormon. That was the point of origin. Which was on the borders of "the land". Which land could be either Lehi-Nephi/Shilom (the Zeniffite land) or the greater overarching Land of Nephi (the Lamanite land). In either case, how far it was from Lehi-Nephi/Shilom is unknown.

Agreed that we don't know much here, although I'm not sure how it's relevant. What I get from Mos 18:4 is that these are borders of lands under King Noah's control. He names the lands and sends armies here to search for Alma's group.

4) Remember that they are traveling through wilderness--the same east-west wilderness in which is found the headwaters of the Sidon, which means that this is mountainous territory they are traversing (the headwaters are in the highlands and flow downhill from there into the valley of Zarahemla) before descending into the valley on the other side and into Zarahemla.

Now this is an assumption with a very good reason to believe it is the case. However, it is still an assumption. This wilderness was a strip. The river head is a point. What if instead of coming up through Manti they were over further east by Moroni and the Zoramite lands? Maybe everything is flat and copasetic over there. Or over west? Clearly there's a western route into Zarahemla as demoed by the attacks on Ammonihah in Alma. We don't know they had to travel through mountains -- they may have been able to avoid them. Also, some rivers' headwaters are more mountainous than others.

We always have to make some assumptions. The ideal is always to make these assumption reasonable based on the textual evidence. But if we grant your alternative, then they have traveled on flatter land in a more circuitous route, even farther out of the way. Pick your poison.

We also don't know if the flight to Helam was even in a straight direction toward Zarahemla. Did that first leg of eight days take them closer to Zarahemla at all, or are we subtracting those days from the total? I think it's still fairly generous to give you the full 20 days. But since you want to assume a best case scenario, let's say they went straight toward Zarahemla on flat plain. I would assume that by the second journey they are more than 450 people, but let's still assume the 450. What do you, Helmuth, think is possible for 450 men, women, and children to accomplish in 20 days carrying grain and equipment and herding flocks?

5) And remember that Zarahemla is in the "heart" (Alm 16:19, 22) or "center" (Hel 1:17-18) of the Nephite lands, so this distance is covering quite a bit of the whole Nephite territory in the BOM.

This is a major assumption and a bad one. Clark makes the opposite assumption and I think he is correct. It doesn't say they entered the city Zarahemla, but rather the land. The land Zarahemla is used multiple times in the BoM to refer to the whole land of the Nephites, counterpart to the land of Nephi. When they got to Manti, or Moroni, or Judea, that could have been the end of the 12 days. If you're trying to be generous as you say and assume the longest possible distance, this is the generous understanding.

It does use the word "land" here. However, the context would seem to indicate the actual city. Consider that the same verse says that Mosiah welcomes them (Mos 24:25), and the very next verse (start of Mos 25) segues into Mosiah's calling all of those in the city together to read them the record of Zeniff's people. The gathered people behold those who have come from the wilderness, both Alma and Limhi's groups, both of which are physically present and desire baptism. It seems fairly clear that the Zarahemla referenced in Mos 24:25 is the same location as Mosiah's seat of power.

6) And we're talking 450 people with women and children, flocks, tents, and grain traveling on foot (despite your horse theory)

So you think it impossible that they had horses? That is an assumption, possibly a good one, but one not supported by the text, which states they had horses.

It's not impossible that they had many things, including valet parking. I just don't think it's a reasonable assumption given what's in the text. Show me otherwise. What's your reasoning, given the vast lack of references to riding horses anywhere else in the text?

7) But this would not have been a straight shot--this would have been twisting through mountain canyons as they traversed the uplands and descended into the valley on the other side. Cutting that by a third would be 200 miles, straight shot. Does this sound fair?

It sounds completely arbitrary and made-up. Why not 100 miles? Why not 75? Just how winding were these canyons? How rough, steep, and impassible the mountain range? No answers? I should hope not, because the text does not tell us, so any answer you give will be completely arbitrary and made-up.

It was an attempt to start some discussion about the distances involved. Feel free to contribute some analysis and make it an actual discussion. Do you really feel that given any scenario, that their route would have been a straight line to Zarahemla? Let's assume that it is, and let's assume that they can travel 20 miles a day. Okay, that's 400 miles from the border of the land over which King Noah has some control, over into roughly half of the Nephite territory into the location that Mosiah has his seat of power. 400 miles? That's still a fairly small distance we're talking about, isn't it? How about it, Helmuth, what's your analysis?

8 ) In his "Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" Sorenson cites cultural information that points to 11 miles per day as being a better average.

Of which culture? Aha.... Assuming no particular culture and just looking at the ancient world overall, do we find any examples of people which could travel (gasp) more than 11 miles a day? Yes, Virginia, we do! Central Asia nomads appear to have been able to travel 20-25 miles a day, with flocks, women, children, camp, and all. Furthermore, the Almaites were fleeing on all 3 legs of their Mormon->Zara. journey. Do you imagine they were leisurely fleeing?

All drama and gasping aside, do you really think that moving 450 men, women, and children, flocks, grain, and tents on foot 11 miles a day through wilderness to be a leisurely pace? As for the nomad reference, a few questions come to mind. What is the source? Is this truly representative of distances large groups could travel anciently? Did they have horses? What was the terrain like? why should we compare the two?

Further, let's grant your assumption. Assume that Alma's group could travel 20 miles a day for 20 days. And let's assume that it is a straight shot to Zarahemla. You now have 400 miles of credit in your bank for BOM geography. Use them wisely. What does it tell us? The same thing 200 miles or 150 miles tells us--that the distances in question are fairly small. I'll grant your extreme case and still prove the point. The distance from "a border" of a city in the Land of Nephi in Lamanite territory to the middle of Nephite Territory is 400 miles. Since we start in Lamanite lands, we don't know how much of this is really Nephite territory. But lest I assume too much, we'll say that it's only 1 mile from Mormon to the border. With Zarahemla being in the heart and center of Nephite lands, then Nephite territory roughly encompasses 798 miles north to south. Still pretty small area, right?

9) On that basis, you're probably really looking at 150-180 miles straight from Nephi to Zarahemla.

I'll use this sentence to point out another major, major assumption you have made here (Clark made it too, perhaps everyone has made it without realizing). What is "Nephi"? Where are you talking about? Oh, the city of Nephi, the chief city of the Lamanites? Where is that in this travelogue? Oh, it's where Noah lives and the Almaites left to go to Mormon? Really? Does that actually make sense? Does Lehi-Nephi = chief city Nephi? Would Zeniff be given the capital city and lands of the Lamanites, in the central heart of their territory? The Lamanite king moved out to a more minor city? Well, he wanted to get away from it all anyway (fresh air, slower pace). If you say no, and one reasonably could, then though you calculate the precise mileage from Lehi-Nephi/Shilom/Mormon to Zarahemla, yea though you soar with the vantage of angels in Google Earth, and have not the distance from Lehi-Nephi to Nephi, ye have nothing.

This is right up there with your horse theory. So, if I understand correctly, Zeniff wanted the original land of his fathers' inheritance, but the Lamanites didn't want to give "Nephi" to him, so they built a replica temple in a different city called "Lehi-Nephi" to fool Zeniff, hoping he won't notice the dangling "Lehi" in the place name. Really? Well, at least you've made my Sunday afternoon pretty entertaining.

Regards

[Cold Steel]

Plausibility can have multiple definitions. ... For my purposes, plausibility has rather strict requirements. Multiple textual requirements must be met simultaneously and interconnectedly. ... Personally, I think you have to be able to identify a land north of Nephite holdings that has many waters, few trees and uses cement for buildings (that seems to make a mess of the Great Lakes area just in trying to find a place without trees in historical times -- at least in areas where larger populations lived).

I agree wholeheartedly! If one reads the accounts of almost any of the early brethren associated with the church, you'll hear accounts of inclimate weather. And any of us who have lived in the Northeast U.S. will probably have some whopperous stories of ice and snow storms. (I still recall an ice storm in my area back in the 1990s that killed a lot of people, and that was in modern times.) Going out west, one also hears of many accounts in the mountains of snow and ice storms. We have the Donner Party tragedy and all sorts of other accounts -- avalanches and so forth. Yet there is not one story in the Book of Mormon having anything to do with snow storms, ice storms or people perishing due to cold weather!

To me, this alone disqualifies any Great Lakes model, period, or any model in any way approaching it. There are no ice crossings, no storms limiting visibility, no Nephite or Lamanite parties perishing in the cold in the Book of Mormon. Compare that with any part of American history. Could General Washington have told his story of Valley Forge without mentioning the snow or ice? Even Civil War accounts contain many, many references to horrifically cold weather in which more men died of exposure than from the enemy. Overseas, in the Battle of the Bulge, how could that story be told without the horrifically cold weather? Trucks filled with boots would be driven in and soldiers would grab them regardless of whether they fit or not. They would huddle together to keep warm in ways that would embarrass modern soldiers. Yet these are the horrors of war in such conditions. To think that nothing like these would be mentioned even once in a volume spanning the time the Book of Mormon does, is unthinkable if they happened. Unless you can drag in an authority to say that the great Northeast U.S. had a tropical climate in BOM times, you simply cannot make a case for those events happening in the Great Lakes. Oh, and does anyone remember Jamestown? Even the Vikings couldn't get a hold in the Northeast coast because of the weather and lack of things to eat.

That, to me, makes the Great Lakes and every other similar model completely implausible. Rodney Meldrum jumped the gun and began offering tours. Now he's angry because his tours are being affected. He also introduced the spiritual element, offering some kind of a witness on his part that he's on the right track. To think of all those people who have taken his tours, listened to his lectures and so forth -- it's just a shame. Sometimes I think we'll always have such amongst us.

The problem is, when someone like Phyllis Olive puts so much time into something, writing on it, making a public stand on it, they reach a point where they can't back out of it. They become intellectually ensconced. I don't know of one military analyst who's seen the New York Cumorah and then said, "Oh, yeah, this would make a great strategic location for huge, epic, battles made up of hundreds of thousands of men."

If we have any Lakers here, please tell me if I'm wrong and, if so, where? Thus, I contend that the Great Lakes theory is completely implausible.

.

[Helmuth]

It certainly is one of the better ones, but there are others.

I seriously doubt that. Your failure to provide any examples helps not my unbelief.

There are always assumptions. I don't think mine are too unreasonable.

So you admit that your conclusions are not brought on by the text itself alone, but that your own assumptions have played a large role as well?

I think that a day is a more reasonable assumption, as you suggest. However, we can eliminate this point if you prefer. We can call it 20 days from the borders of the Land of Nephi to Zarahemla. Will that do?

That's fine.

I don't see much difference between 20 and 21 days, so normally I'd spot you this. However, I simply disagree with your reading. They flee all day into the wilderness from Helam (Mos 24:20), true. Yet they arrive in Zarahemla "after they had spent twelve days in the wilderness" (Mos 24:25), so that first day "in the wilderness" would have to have been counted among the dozen total "in the wilderness." Still makes 20.

That is a possible reading. See, you too can find loopholes and alternative possibilities in a text!

Agreed that we don't know much here, although I'm not sure how it's relevant.

Indeed, I think I haven't communicated my point adequately to you. There are gaps in the travelogue. It's not airtight. The biggest gaps are on both ends. On the south end, you don't know how much distance is between Mormon and Lehi-Nephi, nor, more importantly, between Lehi-Nephi and the heart of the Lamanite lands. On the north end, you don't know how much distance is between their entry point into the land of Zarahemla and the city of Zarahemla. Both of these gaps could add who knows how many days onto the distance.

We always have to make some assumptions. The ideal is always to make these assumption reasonable based on the textual evidence. But if we grant your alternative, then they have traveled on flatter land in a more circuitous route, even farther out of the way. Pick your poison.

Who said circuitous? Do you know, somehow, that Helam was directly south of Melek? Or could it, rather, have been directly south of Moroni? Or of the city by the seashore? Of course it could have been!

We also don't know if the flight to Helam was even in a straight direction toward Zarahemla. Did that first leg of eight days take them closer to Zarahemla at all, or are we subtracting those days from the total?

Read my other posts, I suggest. I know this.

I think it's still fairly generous to give you the full 20 days. But since you want to assume a best case scenario, let's say they went straight toward Zarahemla on flat plain. I would assume that by the second journey they are more than 450 people, but let's still assume the 450.

Where would these people come from? Did they have a huge amount of babies in a very short period of time?

What do you, Helmuth, think is possible for 450 men, women, and children to accomplish in 20 days carrying grain and equipment and herding flocks?

I think there is the possibility they could go pretty fast, especially with days or weeks to prepare for the flight. As I said, this all just comes down to how fast you think they could go. I'm just pointing out that there is a larger range of travel speed available than some seem to assume. Some ancients could travel very fast. You bring up various mitigating factors that could cause the Almaites to go slower than normal, but mention none that would cause them to go faster. That seems unbalanced.

It does use the word "land" here. However, the context would seem to indicate the actual city. Consider that the same verse says that Mosiah welcomes them (Mos 24:25), and the very next verse (start of Mos 25) segues into Mosiah's calling all of those in the city together to read them the record of Zeniff's people. The gathered people behold those who have come from the wilderness, both Alma and Limhi's groups, both of which are physically present and desire baptism. It seems fairly clear that the Zarahemla referenced in Mos 24:25 is the same location as Mosiah's seat of power.

It would seem to you, but not to me and Clark. Our reading makes perfect sense and must be admitted as a possibility.

It's not impossible that they had many things, including valet parking. I just don't think it's a reasonable assumption given what's in the text. Show me otherwise. What's your reasoning, given the vast lack of references to riding horses anywhere else in the text?

This idea that they did not have horses is a fairly recent thing. The idea that they did comes from the text! The fact that for decades and decades readers of the Book of Mormon assumed that the people in the book had horses was not because they weren't reading the text carefully enough! Horses were tossed out not for textual reasons through brilliant and careful study, but for scholarly reasons to make it fit the scholars' theories. The textual finding that they never explicitly ride them was found out afterwards. Now it may be right they didn't have normal horses. But it may be right that they did. The reading of "horses" as "horses" is the more natural reading; it is the alternative which is more complex and involved (though also perfectly reasonable). So to toss out the idea of horses as kooky is not really "letting the text speak for itself". It is letting your assumptions speak out more loudly than the text, drowning it out.

Further, let's grant your assumption.  Assume that 
Alma's group could travel 20 miles a day for 20 days.

I am not making the assumption you ascribe to me. I am merely trying to help you realize your assumptions, to break you out of those assumptions and broaden your horizons.

And let's assume that it is a straight shot to Zarahemla. You now have 400 miles of credit in your bank for BOM geography. Use them wisely. What does it tell us?

Not as much as you think! It does not, for example, tell us the distance between the city Zarahemla and the chief city of the land of Nephi. It certainly does not tell us the distance from furthest south point of the Lamanite lands to the furthest north point of the Nephite lands. It might give us an idea of how long it takes to travel the wilderness strip between the Nephites and the Lamanites. So the wilderness strip is 400 miles south-to-north. OK. That's a pretty big wilderness. It tells us nothing of the lands to the north and south.

The same thing 200 miles or 150 miles tells us--that the distances in question are fairly small.

If the wilderness strip is a relatively small feature sizewise in the BoM geography, that would be expected. It does not speak to the length of any of the other distances. How far from Zarahemla to Bountiful? Can you prove it? From Zarahemla to Cumorah?

I'll grant your extreme case and still prove the point. The distance from "a border" of a city in the Land of Nephi in Lamanite territory to the middle of Nephite Territory is 400 miles. Since we start in Lamanite lands, we don't know how much of this is really Nephite territory. But lest I assume too much, we'll say that it's only 1 mile from Mormon to the border. With Zarahemla being in the heart and center of Nephite lands, then Nephite territory roughly encompasses 798 miles north to south.

That is not the extreme case. You think that included in the 12 days travelling in the wilderness before reaching the land of Zarahemla are an indeterminate number of days (in your case above, all 12) spent travelling in Zarahemla after having left the wilderness. I acknowledge that is a possibility. You need to acknowledge the other view is a possibility.

This is right up there with your horse theory. So, if I understand correctly, Zeniff wanted the original land of his fathers' inheritance, but the Lamanites didn't want to give "Nephi" to him, so they built a replica temple in a different city called "Lehi-Nephi" to fool Zeniff, hoping he won't notice the dangling "Lehi" in the place name. Really? Well, at least you've made my Sunday afternoon pretty entertaining.

No, perhaps I haven't explained it very well. But then, perhaps it's not worth it to do so.

[daycat]

Ether 15:8

8. And it came to pass that he came to the waters of Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all;

Lake Maracaibo My linkis the largest lake on the South American continent, and one of the planet's oldest bodies of water. Geologists report that Maracaibo is one of only a handful of ancient lakes on earth, and it is estimated to be the second oldest; formed nearly 35 million years ago.

This is the best sight for Cumorah. Just to the West in Colombia. There are many waters. This one exceeds all.

[J Green]

Hi, Helmuth.

This seems to be more of a ping pong match than a discussion. The major issues:

1. Destination. You see the trip as encompassing little more than the wilderness strip between Lamanite and Nephite holdings. I see it as originating in the borders of lands under King Noah's control in the Land of Nephi and terminating in Zarahemla, the seat of Mosiah's government. I've provided you with the textual readings that underly my assumption. You've responded with, "Well, Clark and I disagree."

2. Travel Mode. You insist that the group rode horses (or could have done so) on their journies. I disagree fairly strongly. I have provided no textual readings because . . . well, because there are no textual readings about riding horses in the BOM. You responded with the rather odd claim that the idea that people rode horses in the BOM has been the majority view until recently, therefore your assumption that they rode horses on this trip is justified until proven otherwise.

3. Travel Speed. I have asserted that a group of 450 men, women and children carrying equipment and food while herding flocks would be hard pressed to consistently average much more than 10 miles per day over a sustained period of time. You consistently disagree while consistently refusing to give your own estimate of what a reasonable maximum speed could have been. You did, however, provide an interesting example from central Asia while refusing to give a citation or provide the details that I asked for. Instead, I simply granted you that speed for Alma's group, at which point we found ourselves at an impasse because, while you had bested my giant, you simply took the 400 miles and applied them to the wilderness strip. (Back to Number 1 above.)

The other points are merely subsets of the ones above. You disputed that Lehi-Nephi is the original Nephi but won't provide any textual reading for this assumption. Yet Zeniff's intent and the presence of the temple make the view that they are the same the default assumption unless you can provide some textual evidence to the contrary. You also disputed my assumption that the group would have been larger on the second leg of the journey with an implication that there would not have been enough time to bear children during their stay in Helam. Let's see what the text has to say: "And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam" (Mos 23:20; see also chap. 24 for more timeline clues). So there evidently was enough time in Helam to build a city and multiply. Thus my assumption has an underlying textual basis.

These issues don't seem like they will be resolved any time soon unless a dual involving Iocane powder is on the horizon. It may simply come down to allowing others here to determine whose assumptions are more reasonable. I'm happy with that.

Regards