John Sorenson Meso-American Setting

[Brant Gardner]

The meso-american theory of the BoM lands requires the narrow neck to be generally west, not north of nephite lands.

Two issues with this simple statement. First, it assumes that the Book of Mormon directions (prior to translation) must have represented what you think they represent. In that area of the world, they would not have.

Second, you are assuming that everyone understands a world that is mapped. That is also incorrect for the time period. People understood the world from a land based reference. Everyone I know of has, at times, had a different localized direction reference that the map reference would be. I have spoken with an archaeologist who worked in that area and noted that he has had just such a change in perception based on the land references rather than compass or map references.

Besides that, the narrow neck isnt a neck a t all but rather an isthmus 130 miles wide.

There is no reason that 130 miles isn't narrow. If you really want to use an argument that has substance, you must go to the day's journey argument, but then we have to figure out how the reference relates to the land. The text never clearly requires (and does not actually imply) a water to water distance.

[nealr]

True but even I know direct west is not north or even northward.

But you also have the advantage of looking at a map that offers a point-of-view and level of accuracy that no one from Book of Mormon times ever had. An important part of the issue is to realize that they had to judge all their directions from on the ground - something that can be hard from the thick jungles of Mesoamerica. Consider a few real examples, from John L. Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, page 41:

• Thomas Gage refers traveling "south" from Mexico City to highland Guatemala. The direction of travel is more east than south.
  
• Gage, again, reports having traveled "northward" from Chiapa de Corzo, when the actual direction traveled was south of west.
  
• Gage speaks of Chiapa de Corzo as being "northeast" of the capitol of Guatemala, when it is actually west-northwest.
  
• Gage also speaks of the Pacific coastal Chiapas as being "northwest" from his location when it is actually south of west.
  
• An area Gage termed "eastward" of the capitol of Guatemala is actually to the north.
  
• In 1982, an archaeologist says "north" to refer to a location that is actually to the west-southwest.
  

So while you might "know" it sitting at your computer looking at a map, the question is would you have known it living on the ground in Mesoamerica without a map? The experience of people who have traveled their without a modern map tells us that it was a lot more complicated than that. Interestingly, all of these examples as consistent with how Sorenson suggested directional terms in the Book of Mormon related to the real world. This could, of course, just be due to Sorenson deliberate selection, while other confusing directional statements might go in the other direction. I don't have the knowledge of the source material to make a judgment. It is interesting nonetheless. It makes Sorenson's directional relationships seem very plausible.

[Rob Osborn]

Two issues with this simple statement. First, it assumes that the Book of Mormon directions (prior to translation) must have represented what you think they represent. In that area of the world, they would not have.

Second, you are assuming that everyone understands a world that is mapped. That is also incorrect for the time period. People understood the world from a land based reference. Everyone I know of has, at times, had a different localized direction reference that the map reference would be. I have spoken with an archaeologist who worked in that area and noted that he has had just such a change in perception based on the land references rather than compass or map references.

There is no reason that 130 miles isn't narrow. If you really want to use an argument that has substance, you must go to the day's journey argument, but then we have to figure out how the reference relates to the land. The text never clearly requires (and does not actually imply) a water to water distance.

A 130 mile wide isthmus is not what one could possibly describe as a narrow neck by people walking on foot or horses standard. It just doesn't fit at all.

[nealr]

A 130 mile wide isthmus is not what one could possibly describe as a narrow neck by people walking on foot or horses standard. It just doesn't fit at all.

And now you speak authoritatively for all such people, in all times and places and cultures? "Narrow" is a relative term, so whether or not 130 miles is "narrow" depends on the width of surrounding lands.

[blackstrap]

Has anyone checked recent geological history to see if it was possible that the ' narrow ' neck was at one time ' narrower ' ?

To me the term ' narrow ' does not just mean a bit narrower that the surrounding land because 130 miles is not narrow from a land based perspective. It would have to be obviously narrow from the land like, for eg., the Panama area where it is possible to see the narrowness from high elevations.

[blackstrap]

If we consider " a day's journey for a Nephite " and assume a regular male not some cross-country trained super athlete, 130 miles on the suggested terrain seems an unreasonable distance. 50-60 miles maybe.

[ERayR]

At an average hiking speed of 4 mph and a 12 hour day 130 miles is about a 3 day march. 4 mph is within the capabilities of modern hikers who are unaccustomed to hiking. A Nephite whose principal mode of travel was on foot would not be stressed at that pace.

[blackstrap]

Now , are we talking well worn hiking trails or a trail where undergrowth needs to be cut away regularly? Well worn trails would exist between major cities or trading areas but a "crow flies " type of trek in the Tehuantepec (sp) terrain might take somewhat longer.

Edited October 13, 2012 by blackstrap

[nealr]

Has anyone checked recent geological history to see if it was possible that the ' narrow ' neck was at one time ' narrower ' ?

I believe that M. Wells Jakemen suggested that the seas were higher and it was narrower. I've never really looked into, but I don't the whole higher sea level thing doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

To me the term ' narrow ' does not just mean a bit narrower that the surrounding land because 130 miles is not narrow from a land based perspective. It would have to be obviously narrow from the land like, for eg., the Panama area where it is possible to see the narrowness from high elevations.

But that is just the thing. According to the Book of Mormon, people did pass through the narrow neck without noticing it's narrowness (e.g., the search party sent by Limhi).

But, the narrowness of the neck is really that much of hang-up for you, I'd suggest looking to this model: http://www.mormongeography.com/

It provides a narrow neck, by all accounts, and is a much better fit than Panama. I find this model more persuasive than some Mesoamerican models, even, and this would probably be my second bet for Book of Mormon lands.

[Rob Osborn]

3 things in my opinion that are suspect with the meso-American model.

1. The book of Mormon describes the land southward as being completely surrounded by water except for the narrow neck which connected to the land northward. Here-

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. (Alma 22:32) The meso-American model has no feature of being surrounded by water except for the northward narrow neck. It has both a narrow neck to the south and on the west.

2. The book of Mormon describes the narrow neck as being a territory of land with some length to it. The meso-American model has to be described more as a border line rather than an actual "neck". Here-

29 And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward. (Mormon 2:29) There are three territories described here. There are the two main bodies- the land northward and the land southward, and there is the territory of the narrow passage hich can be best described as a narrow passage that if one were to walk on it and through it, it would lead you as a pathway into the other main body. The isthmus of Mexico can in no way be described as having this feature.

3. Directions of the geography must disregard the entire Yucatan in order for the meso-American model to work. The land of Bountiful is north of the center of the main territory or stompin grounds of the Nephites in the land southward. But, according to ruins, culture, evidence, etc. This would have placed the nephite center more in the middle of the Yucatan penninsula which would require bountiful to be above it rather than below it and off to the side. Meso-American models must disregard this fact- the fact that the main geographical area of culture to be located more in the middle of the Yucatan which thus makes travel from their main centers of civilization in the land southward, more of a southwest direction rather than north to get to the land northward.

[Brant Gardner]

3 things in my opinion that are suspect with the meso-American model.

I will respond, but understand that my response requires thinking as one might in the ancient world that doesn't have modern maps and satellite views.

1. The book of Mormon describes the land southward as being completely surrounded by water except for the narrow neck which connected to the land northward. Here-

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. (Alma 22:32) The meso-American model has no feature of being surrounded by water except for the northward narrow neck. It has both a narrow neck to the south and on the west.

First, your summary is not what the text says. the text's "nearly" becomes "completely" in your reading.

Second, Mesoamerica, from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to Panama really is "nearly" surrounded.

Third, in a world where there were no satellite views and very few people traveled very far (probably less that 100 miles) in their lifetime, there are very few places other than islands that would fit the way you are reading the text. However, in Mesoamerica, all home lands were conceptually surrounded by water. The Aztecs defined their world that way, and while Tenochtitlan really was an island in a lake, they certainly knew of and controlled a much larger area.

2. The book of Mormon describes the narrow neck as being a territory of land with some length to it. The meso-American model has to be described more as a border line rather than an actual "neck". Here-

29 And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward. (Mormon 2:29) There are three territories described here. There are the two main bodies- the land northward and the land southward, and there is the territory of the narrow passage hich can be best described as a narrow passage that if one were to walk on it and through it, it would lead you as a pathway into the other main body. The isthmus of Mexico can in no way be described as having this feature.

This is entirely an issue of reading. That there is a narrow passage in the "neck" is clear, but that doesn't tell us the extent of the "neck." There is really nothing in the discussion of Mesoamerica as a location for the Book of Mormon that defines the length of what was considered the "neck," only that there is a reasonable location for it. Inside that location, you may decide what constitutes a neck. Of course, anything we decide doesn't necessarily mean that Nephites understood it that way. They didn't give us enough information to know.

3. Directions of the geography must disregard the entire Yucatan in order for the meso-American model to work. The land of Bountiful is north of the center of the main territory or stompin grounds of the Nephites in the land southward. But, according to ruins, culture, evidence, etc. This would have placed the nephite center more in the middle of the Yucatan penninsula which would require bountiful to be above it rather than below it and off to the side. Meso-American models must disregard this fact- the fact that the main geographical area of culture to be located more in the middle of the Yucatan which thus makes travel from their main centers of civilization in the land southward, more of a southwest direction rather than north to get to the land northward.

Not in any geography that I think represents the Book of Mormon. I don't know which version of a Mesoamerican model you are thinking of, but your definition doesn't fit any that I am aware of, and certainly not the one that I think is the best fit. As for directions, I still invite you to read my analysis.

[Rob Osborn]

I will respond, but understand that my response requires thinking as one might in the ancient world that doesn't have modern maps and satellite views.

First, your summary is not what the text says. the text's "nearly" becomes "completely" in your reading.

Second, Mesoamerica, from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to Panama really is "nearly" surrounded.

Third, in a world where there were no satellite views and very few people traveled very far (probably less that 100 miles) in their lifetime, there are very few places other than islands that would fit the way you are reading the text. However, in Mesoamerica, all home lands were conceptually surrounded by water. The Aztecs defined their world that way, and while Tenochtitlan really was an island in a lake, they certainly knew of and controlled a much larger area.

This is entirely an issue of reading. That there is a narrow passage in the "neck" is clear, but that doesn't tell us the extent of the "neck." There is really nothing in the discussion of Mesoamerica as a location for the Book of Mormon that defines the length of what was considered the "neck," only that there is a reasonable location for it. Inside that location, you may decide what constitutes a neck. Of course, anything we decide doesn't necessarily mean that Nephites understood it that way. They didn't give us enough information to know.

Not in any geography that I think represents the Book of Mormon. I don't know which version of a Mesoamerican model you are thinking of, but your definition doesn't fit any that I am aware of, and certainly not the one that I think is the best fit. As for directions, I still invite you to read my analysis.

The text is clear that the land southward was completely surrounded by water except for the narrow neck of land connecting the two main bodies of land. Try as one might he cannot escape this textual fact. The text is also clear that the geographical nature of the "narrow neck" is a land area in the shape of a narrow neck and has the geographical features of it being a connecting feature of land that one would walk through and "follow" in order to get between the land north and the land south. The isthmus of teahuantepec has no such feature at all. It is rather just a narrowing of the land where there is a point where it is classified as an "isthmus" at a certain point about 135 miles apart. That is not the definition of a narrow neck of land as one on foot or horse would be describing. How does a rather small army fortify a point of land 135 miles apart on foot? They don't.

[Brant Gardner]

The text is clear that the land southward was completely surrounded by water except for the narrow neck of land connecting the two main bodies of land. Try as one might he cannot escape this textual fact.

Then why does the text you cite (and the only one I am aware of) say "nearly" instead of the "completely" that you keep using. Those two words are not the same.

How does a rather small army fortify a point of land 135 miles apart on foot? They don't.

It depends on geography. Typically, defensive positions are not walls, but defended locations within easy traveling distance. That also changes based on terrain. In particular, difficult mountainous areas or rivers also create reasonable defensive barriers, and have been used as such by defensive lines for a few millenia. Are you assuming that the narrow neck is flat and passable throughout its width? The text disagrees. There is a narrow pass that is the logical path through what appears to be otherwise difficult passage.

[Rob Osborn]

Then why does the text you cite (and the only one I am aware of) say "nearly" instead of the "completely" that you keep using. Those two words are not the same.

It depends on geography. Typically, defensive positions are not walls, but defended locations within easy traveling distance. That also changes based on terrain. In particular, difficult mountainous areas or rivers also create reasonable defensive barriers, and have been used as such by defensive lines for a few millenia. Are you assuming that the narrow neck is flat and passable throughout its width? The text disagrees. There is a narrow pass that is the logical path through what appears to be otherwise difficult passage.

The "nearly" surrounded by water is in the context of one piece of land that keeps it from being completely surrounded by water. That one piece being the narrow neck.

[Rob Osborn]

The "nearly" surrounded by water is in the context of one piece of land that keeps it from being completely surrounded by water. That one piece being the narrow neck.

Let me put it another way. Let's say a person was getting baptized and one who was watching noticed that the person wasn't totally immersed. And so, he says "He was nearly immersed, there being a fingertip that didn't go under" Thus one can see that the nearly here is in the contexyt of the one fingertip. Thus in the narrow neck case, the nearly is in direct reference to the narrow neck. If it were not for the narrow neck, it would be completely surrounded by water. In order for the mesoamerican model to work according to text it would have to read something like "...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 narrow neck whiich led from the land southward to the other southward country"..

[Brant Gardner]

The "nearly" surrounded by water is in the context of one piece of land that keeps it from being completely surrounded by water. That one piece being the narrow neck.

I see how you are reading it. That isn't the only possible, nor even the only plausible, reading. We disagree on what that means. Usually, that requires that we combine data from other sources to figure out what the best reading is. One should not assume that any single verse gives us everything we need to know. Most require interpretation. Therefore, the case has to be built rather than assumed, particularly when the assumption is based on a reading of the text that is not required by the text.

[Robert F. Smith]

A 130 mile wide isthmus is not what one could possibly describe as a narrow neck by people walking on foot or horses standard. It just doesn't fit at all.

Blackstrap said:

Has anyone checked recent geological history to see if it was possible that the ' narrow ' neck was at one time ' narrower ' ?

To me the term ' narrow ' does not just mean a bit narrower that the surrounding land because 130 miles is not narrow from a land based perspective. It would have to be obviously narrow from the land like, for eg., the Panama area where it is possible to see the narrowness from high elevations.

The geological history of the entire area is relatively stable, despite earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The land has not changed much.

The narrow neck of land is only one parameter among many in Book of Mormon geographical descriptions. One way to look at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as a possible identification of that narrow neck is to ask whether we are discussing modern norteamericano assumptions or looking at it from the point of view of the locals during the rainy season, when lowland Veracruz is flooded and the distance from water to water is short indeed. One must imagine the world of the Olmec in lowland Veracruz, in which that annual flooding made it possible for them to ferry tons of rock from the Tuxtlas range to their various cities. Once again, looking at a typical National Geographic topographic map may be of little help in understanding such issues.

[cursor]

Average annual rainfall in Veracruz is about 70 inches. A whopping 65" of that (93%) arrives during just seven months (May–Nov).

Veracruz annual rainfall

Veracruz LDS church parking lot during June

[Calm]

No need to fill a font for baptisms.....

[Dcharle]

We discussed this on another thread so I will copy over a few of my comments regarding this subject.

Essentially, these claims of horse bones in Meso-America is nothing new. LDS apologists have been making this claim for a long time now, that a few one-off examples of horse bones have been found that pre-date the Spaniards. Most all Archeologists would agree that horses once existed on the American continent roughly 13,000 years ago, they traveled across the bearing straight along with humans but were killed off through hunting. The problem BoM has is in size and scope.

The text mentions how numerous the people had become in the Americas:

Alma 16:11

11 Nevertheless, after many days their dead bodies were heaped up upon the face of the earth, and they were covered with a shallow covering. And now so great was the scent thereof that the people did not go in to possess the land of Ammonihah for many years. And it was called Desolation of Nehors; for they were of the profession of Nehor, who were slain; and their lands remained desolate.

Morm 1:7

7 The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.

The text also mentions horses over a 2000 year time period, the book even states “many horses.”

Enos 1:21 (Approx: 420 BC)

21 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.

So we have so many people that they were like the sands of the sea, and we have that many horses. It would be unreasonable to assume that all of these people did not have similar numbers in horses. If the horse were here these people would be using them and training them to assist in warfare and in build their societies. The horse offered huge advantages to those who had them in warfare and as a beast of burden.

Smith implies in this passage that when the Nephites showed up these animals were already here in the wild. If this were correct we would find an abundance of evidence for horses and other domesticated animals that could be, without question, dated during the BoM time frame, not just a few one-off examples.

We know that when the horse was actually introduced into the American continent by the Spaniards in the 1500’s, within a relatively short period of time (few hundred years) horse populations exploded, they covered the lands! One could assume that if the horse were in the Americas during the BoM time period as Smith claims, horse populations would have followed similar patterns and covered the face of the land. The horse and other domesticated animals were just too important of an asset to not be utilized content wide!

The “plausible deniability” claims of the apologists that a few horse bones have been found in a tar pit somewhere in America are just not strong enough to save the BoM.

[rodheadlee]

How do we know horses went extinct in the Americas around 10k BC? How do we know there were no horses anywhere on the American continents when the Spanish brought their horses over in the 1500s?

[Dcharle]

When the Spanish showed up with horses the native people had never seen them before. The only real strong evidence of horses pre-date meso-America, the only people arguing about horses are those who have a religious need for horses to be in meso-America. For most Archeologists this issue has been resolved. Read Jared Dimond, good source for this info.

[TAO]

The geological history of the entire area is relatively stable, despite earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The land has not changed much.

The narrow neck of land is only one parameter among many in Book of Mormon geographical descriptions. One way to look at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as a possible identification of that narrow neck is to ask whether we are discussing modern norteamericano assumptions or looking at it from the point of view of the locals during the rainy season, when lowland Veracruz is flooded and the distance from water to water is short indeed. One must imagine the world of the Olmec in lowland Veracruz, in which that annual flooding made it possible for them to ferry tons of rock from the Tuxtlas range to their various cities. Once again, looking at a typical National Geographic topographic map may be of little help in understanding such issues.

If I remember correctly, wasn't alot of the area deforested though? So it's alot more 'foresty', than it used to be, right?

[TAO]

When the Spanish showed up with horses the native people had never seen them before. The only real strong evidence of horses pre-date meso-America, the only people arguing about horses are those who have a religious need for horses to be in meso-America. For most Archeologists this issue has been resolved. Read Jared Dimond, good source for this info.

Suppose horses went extinct between the end of the Book of Mormon and the time the Spanish arrived. Wouldn't that produce a similar result?

[Dcharle]

Yes it would, however again, no evidence of horses in America during the time frame that Smith said they were here. Your hypothetical is not based upon what modern day knowledge has already resolved. I am certainly not claiming to be an expert in the field of Meso-American archaeology, but for me this is one where Occam's Razzor clearly wins the day!

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

or,

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

In my mind you have to make too many assumptions or hypothetical's for horses in Meso-America to work.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Dcharle