Trans-Atlantic Or Trans-Pacific?

[inquiringmind]

If the Lehites set off on their sea voyage from Arabia, is it reasonable to assume they crossed the Pacific and landed on the west coast (of what's now the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America, Peru, etc.)?

Is that the common assumption, or is it that they sailed around the horn of Africa and crossed the Atlantic?

Is there any scriptural indication (one way or another)?

[Aliwe]

If the Lehites set off on their sea voyage from Arabia, is it reasonable to assume they crossed the Pacific and landed on the west coast (of what's now the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America, Peru, etc.)?

In Mormon chapter 4 the Nephites were fighting in the Land of Desolation, near the narrow neck of land between the seas. It was a mortal struggle against the Lamanites. In chapter 5, the Nephites occupied a series of walled cities which offered their only protection, but even still they were driven from one to another. There was no time to organize a trans-continental trek, and they would have been destroyed in detail if they tried. And then in chapter 6, we're at Hill Cumorah, in upstate New York, where Joseph Smith unearthed the plates. Alma said "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." And the Land of Nephi was where they landed after crossing the ocean. So logically, the narrow neck of land could not be the Panama isthmus, but only the piece of land between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. And that means they had to have crossed the Atlantic.

[inquiringmind]

In Mormon chapter 4 the Nephites were fighting in the Land of Desolation, near the narrow neck of land between the seas. It was a mortal struggle against the Lamanites. In chapter 5, the Nephites occupied a series of walled cities which offered their only protection, but even still they were driven from one to another. There was no time to organize a trans-continental trek, and they would have been destroyed in detail if they tried. And then in chapter 6, we're at Hill Cumorah, in upstate New York, where Joseph Smith unearthed the plates. Alma said "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." And the Land of Nephi was where they landed after crossing the ocean. So logically, the narrow neck of land could not be the Panama isthmus, but only the piece of land between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. And that means they had to have crossed the Atlantic.

Thank you.

This might sound like sarcasim, but I actually know a highly educated and intelligent man who believes dinosaur bones were created and placed in the earth (without dinosaurs ever actually existing) to "provide a rational basis for unbelief" (and the premise of this question seems no more absurd to me than that does), so here goes.

Is it possible that God (or Satan) destroyed all archeological evidence of the Lehite civilizations and their massive wars?

Could that be why there's no evidence of that last great conflict in upstate New York?

Edited June 23, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Aliwe]

This might sound like sarcasim, but I actually know a highly educated and intelligent man who believes dinosaur bones were created and placed in the earth (without dinosaurs ever actually existing) to "provide a rational basis for unbelief" (and the premise of this question seems no more absurd to me than that does), so here goes.Is it possible that God (or Satan) destroyed all archeological evidence of the Lehite civilizations and their massive wars?

No, and here's my reasoning. First it wasn't God because in Romans 1:19-20 Paul says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" This means exactly what it says. The creator is revealed by his creation. We don't worship a trickster God, like the Norse Loki, and so we don't find "cover ups" in creation. The universe was not made last Thursday, complete with false memories of a greater age. Dinosaur bones were not planted to foster unbelief because it is only a false adherence to a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Jewish post-Exiliic synagogue "Creation Litany" preserved in Genesis 1 that leads men to believe the Earth is six thousand years old. And it couldn't be Satan because when he was sent to test Job he did it purely on a contract basis and had to remain bound by the limits set by God.

[thesometimesaint]

Inquiringmind:

The Church takes no position on the subject. So you are free to believe it was any location in the New World. I find that the circumstantial evidence points to Mesoamerica as the location for the majority of the events in the Book of Mormon.

Edited June 23, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Anijen]

Via the Pacific.

[inquiringmind]

No, and here's my reasoning. First it wasn't God because in Romans 1:19-20 Paul says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" This means exactly what it says. The creator is revealed by his creation. We don't worship a trickster God, like the Norse Loki, and so we don't find "cover ups" in creation. The universe was not made last Thursday, complete with false memories of a greater age. Dinosaur bones were not planted to foster unbelief because it is only a false adherence to a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Jewish post-Exiliic synagogue "Creation Litany" preserved in Genesis 1 that leads men to believe the Earth is six thousand years old. And it couldn't be Satan because when he was sent to test Job he did it purely on a contract basis and had to remain bound by the limits set by God.

So if the Mormon lands could only have been in the area of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and the final massive battle involving millions of Nephites and Laminites took place in upstate New York, why isn't there any evidence of ancient cities or massive wars in the region?

Edited June 23, 2012 by inquiringmind

[ERayR]

In Mormon chapter 4 the Nephites were fighting in the Land of Desolation, near the narrow neck of land between the seas. It was a mortal struggle against the Lamanites. In chapter 5, the Nephites occupied a series of walled cities which offered their only protection, but even still they were driven from one to another. There was no time to organize a trans-continental trek, and they would have been destroyed in detail if they tried. And then in chapter 6, we're at Hill Cumorah, in upstate New York, where Joseph Smith unearthed the plates. Alma said "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." And the Land of Nephi was where they landed after crossing the ocean. So logically, the narrow neck of land could not be the Panama isthmus, but only the piece of land between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. And that means they had to have crossed the Atlantic.

That Kind of logic and/or lack of research can severely limit the possibilities. However, were you to undertake a little bit more research you would find at least 2 or 3 additional possibilities that do fit quite nicely on levels your location lacks.

[Aliwe]

So if the Mormon lands could only have been in the area of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and the final massive battle involving millions of Nephites and Laminites took place in upstate New York, why isn't there any evidence of ancient cities or massive wars in the region?

Setting aside for now the fact that I don't believe the Book of Mormon in the first place, the lack of archaeological evidence for ancient Nephite and Lamanite cities (of cement, according to Helamon) is not restricted to the Great Lakes region, but all other Western Hemisphere candidate locations. No chariots either. And as far as evidence of massive wars go, about 41 years after Nagasaki was destroyed by Fat Boy I visited the city myself and found no evidence that anything happened there at all, except when I visited a museum. But all this is academic. I'm only interested in following out the implications of the text alone.

[Aliwe]

That Kind of logic and/or lack of research can severely limit the possibilities. However, were you to undertake a little bit more research you would find at least 2 or 3 additional possibilities that do fit quite nicely on levels your location lacks.

Well, there is a fulfilled prophesy in the Book of Mormon that shows all these lands were in the United States of America and not Central or South America.

2 Nephi 10:

[8] And it shall come to pass that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion, from the isles of the sea, and from the four parts of the earth; and the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God, in carrying them forth to the lands of their inheritance.

[9] Yea, the kings of the Gentiles shall be nursing fathers unto them, and their queens shall become nursing mothers; wherefore, the promises of the Lord are great unto the Gentiles, for he hath spoken it, and who can dispute?

[10] But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.

[11] And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.

[inquiringmind]

Well, there is a fulfilled prophesy in the Book of Mormon that shows all these lands were in the United States of America and not Central or South America.

2 Nephi 10:

[8] And it shall come to pass that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion, from the isles of the sea, and from the four parts of the earth; and the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God, in carrying them forth to the lands of their inheritance.

[9] Yea, the kings of the Gentiles shall be nursing fathers unto them, and their queens shall become nursing mothers; wherefore, the promises of the Lord are great unto the Gentiles, for he hath spoken it, and who can dispute?

[10] But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.

[11] And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.

How does this rule out Central and South America?

Are there any monarchies in the western hemisphere?

Edited June 23, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Aliwe]

How does this rule out Central and South America?

Because the populations of those nations are mostly native, mixed with a little Spanish, which makes them Lamanites, hence descendants of Lehi, and not Gentile. Only the US and Canada are "a land of liberty unto the Gentiles" and Canada, part of the British Commonwealth, is excluded because "there shall be no kings upon the land".

[blackstrap]

In addition,there have been several monarchs ruling over Central American countries in the past. Canada has the presence of Royalty upon the land by request and invitation only.