The Narrow Neck Debate Continues...

[Bikeemikey]

I tend to agree with this sentiment.

Best post ever!!!

Welcome to the board :-)

[Questing Beast]

Why is this so important to so many. Would it make any difference concerning our faith or beliefs?

It becomes an important detail when added to all the other details being questioned or explored. The main reason why the details matter to so many is because they are in possession of some doubts and are trying to find out which way it goes. Some approach with doubt "leading", and others with faith "leading", some are apologists and others skeptics or critics, still others are disbelievers who once believed and want to convince everybody that their new paradigm of disbelief is founded on rock solid logic and evidence: "How could you still believe this nonsense?" That's their approach. Which firms up the questioning position of those who are examining the details through either faith or doubt, but still have questions. They want answers to confirm their faith or weaken their doubts. The isthmus argument is fundamentally an argument about JS: did he create the BoM or did he receive it? Either way could be under inspiration, but which is it? If the isthmus issue, combined with the other details, lead to a conviction that the details in the text don't find a real world "home", being contradictory or inconsistent or simply impossible to resolve with the requirements somewhere in the Western Hemisphere, then JS created the book (under inspiration or not is a personal conclusion). If the details can be satisfactorily resolved into a plausible setting then JS received the book and did not make anything up....

Edited September 4, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Anijen]

Just to put things into perspective, those women and children who couldn't keep up were swept over and destroyed.  The fleeing and gathering to Cumorah took 4 years, with cities and villages being burned and the occupants left behind destroyed.  If such a small area is what we are talking about, the final battle would have happened much sooner than 4 years, imo.  

"The fleeing and gathering to Cumorah took 4 years, with cities and villages being burned and the occupants left behind destroyed."

 

I have seen a 10,000-12,000 year old camp with artifacts and midden deposits of a group of as little as 12 people, I have held in my hand Clovis points that date back about that time as well. I can trace almost to the exact gps locations of DeSoto and his journeys throughout the Southern and midwest US. The ability to trace Cortez too. Yet with all this archaeological evidence none has survived that shows such a massive journey of 2 warring groups with all their wives and children. Not only to travel there, but we must remember if it really did occur in New York it must have happened more than once because the Jaredites fought there as well. 

 

Funny I can not find any evidence to support such a movement, such a battle (twice) at or around the Hill Cumorah in New York.

 

Just saying. "Just to put things into perspective"

Edited September 4, 2013 by Anijen

[Rob Osborn]

"The fleeing and gathering to Cumorah took 4 years, with cities and villages being burned and the occupants left behind destroyed."

 

I have seen a 10,000-12,000 year old camp with artifacts and midden deposits of a group of as little as 12 people, I have held in my hand Clovis points that date back about that time as well. I can trace almost to the exact gps locations of DeSoto and his journeys throughout the Southern and midwest US. The ability to trace Cortez too. Yet with all this archaeological evidence none has survived that shows such a massive journey of 2 warring groups with all their wives and children. Not only to travel there, but we must remember if it really did occur in New York it must have happened more than once because the Jaredites fought there as well. 

 

Funny I can not find any evidence to support such a movement, such a battle (twice) at or around the Hill Cumorah in New York.

 

Just saying. "Just to put things into perspective"

What evidence would suffice? Pulling up countless arrowpoints and other war relics was quite common in the area in the past two hundred years. Not only that, there are numwrous documentationa of mass graves, ancient earthen fortifications, etc. What evidence is required?

[Robert F. Smith]

If you prefer. But I was only observing that the text of Alma 50:34 literally associates the west and east seas as the confines of the narrow pass. Sorenson was looking for such a land feature within his preferred "narrow neck" of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and I guess he found it, as I remembered reading and you confirmed....

The problem with that is that Alma 50:34 says that the narrow pass led by the sea, i.e., by the west and on the east.  It does not explicitly mention the west and east seas, as someone has already mentioned above.  That this very narrow pass could be confined by seawater on the west and east need no more than refer to a local feature, as Sorenson suggested could be true.  Perhaps you have seen the railroad line which crosses over the Great Salt Lake, with water on either side.  We are not talking about two separate seas.

[Robert F. Smith]

Don't discount the known historical examples of whole "nations" on the move. Nibley resorted to such examples during the ancient movement of peoples on the Steppes of Asia, and of course the American Indians moved thousands of miles with their families and whole possessions. Fifty miles per day is not only unreasonable it is unnecessary....

The only time Amerind tribes moved thousands of miles within a discrete period time was at bayonet point, as for the civilized nations forced to go to Oklahoma, for example, and half of them died en route.  That's why it is known as "the trail of tears."  Normally, Amerind tribes remained within small regions for centuries, and some for thousands of years.  Migrations certainly took place, but there was not constant movement of that sort.

The Mongol hordes who swept out from Central Asia, the Vikings, the early Muslims from Arabia, and others have certainly gone great distances and had a profound effect on humanity, but these are exceptional circumstances rather than the norm.

.

[Robert F. Smith]

What evidence would suffice? Pulling up countless arrowpoints and other war relics was quite common in the area in the past two hundred years. Not only that, there are numwrous documentationa of mass graves, ancient earthen fortifications, etc. What evidence is required?

Rob, arrowheads are ubiquitous in the eastern woodlands, just as they are in the Sierras of California.  They are there due to the presence of Amerind hunters in those areas for many centuries.  Actual warfare on the scale described in the Book of Mormon would require the presence of a broader range of weapons as well as the ability to feed the huge numbers of troops and their families.  That could only have been done in Mesoamerica -- where massive populations and large scale and intensive food production were available.  there is nothing like that anywhere else in the Americas.  Moreover, the sort of travel required to go from Mesoamerica to the northeast would be virtually impossible for large groups of people, which is why we have no record of large groups doing it.  We have only several accounts by Europeans of individual or small unit travel before the area became civilized.

 

Amerind tribes were generally very welcoming and hospitable to small numbers of travelers, and one can easily envision a single traveler such as Moroni, slowly making his way northeast to what would later become a hill convenient to Manchester, New York.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Questing Beast]

The only time Amerind tribes moved thousands of miles within a discrete period time was at bayonet point, as for the civilized nations forced to go to Oklahoma, for example, and half of them died en route.  That's why it is known as "the trail of tears."  Normally, Amerind tribes remained within small regions for centuries, and some for thousands of years.  Migrations certainly took place, but there was not constant movement of that sort.

The Mongol hordes who swept out from Central Asia, the Vikings, the early Muslims from Arabia, and others have certainly gone great distances and had a profound effect on humanity, but these are exceptional circumstances rather than the norm.

.

And the asserted Jaredite and Nephite "migrations" were not normal either, surely. If half the people died off "en route" that would not be counter to the description of Mormon since the Lamanites were "sweeping down" every Nephite they could catch. The four year truce to gather in all the remaining Nephites is many times longer than required to traverse the distance across N. America, at a casual pace no less....

[Rob Osborn]

Rob, arrowheads are ubiquitous in the eastern woodlands, just as they are in the Sierras of California.  They are there due to the presence of Amerind hunters in those areas for many centuries.  Actual warfare on the scale described in the Book of Mormon would require the presence of a broader range of weapons as well as the ability to feed the huge numbers of troops and their families.  That could only have been done in Mesoamerica -- where massive populations and large scale and intensive food production were available.  there is nothing like that anywhere else in the Americas.  Moreover, the sort of travel required to go from Mesoamerica to the northeast would be virtually impossible for large groups of people, which is why we have no record of large groups doing it.  We have only several accounts by Europeans of individual or small unit travel before the area became civilized.

 

Amerind tribes were generally very welcoming and hospitable to small numbers of travelers, and one can easily envision a single traveler such as Moroni, slowly making his way northeast to what would later become a hill convenient to Manchester, New York.

Perhaps you could look into some of the earliest historical rwcords of what they actually found in western New York.

[David T]

Why is this so important to so many. Would it make any difference concerning our faith or beliefs?

 

When I read the Bible, I appreciate understanding the context, the history, and the culture behind it. It informs why individuals react a certain way to things, why certain imagery may be used, and what elements of their indigenous beliefs and worldview are being utilized.

 

 Instead of viewing scripture as happening "Once Upon A Time In A Land Far, Far Away", conceptually placing it in a place and time allows us to bring in additional texture and nuance, and to potentially see new insights.

 

One of the great strengths of Gardner's Second Witness Book of Mormon commentary is that the broad geography first suggested by Sorenson, and then with some proposed revisions by Gardner, along with the additional Mesoamerican cultural insight presented by Gardner and many of the sources he utilizes adds extraordinary depth to my reading of the Book of Mormon. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of Gardner's conclusions or suggestions,  It still allowed me to read it in a way I hadn't read it before. Not necessarily better, but definitely exciting for me, because it was new.

 

Frankly, any model that can allow someone to do that I think as  being helpful. This model (Mesoamerica + Joseph Smith's fluid usage of scriptural/KJV linguistic allusions)is the one that, for me, appears to add the most comprehensive texture to the book, and is by far the most worthy candidate for helping promote faith in the idea that its source is an actual, authentic ancient text. I had personally been growing closer and closer to reorienting to the purely 19th-Century Inspired Fiction model before working through Gardner's commentary.

 

For what it's worth.

Edited September 4, 2013 by David T

[ERayR]

No doubt a well trained army can travel great distances, at need. 50 miles is still a long distance to hike in a single day even for a well trained army. They can't keep that up for very long.  But we're not talking about an army. We're are talking about men, women, and children along with their livestock. When the Saints came west they averaged about 3 miles per day. When the Saints came to the San Bernardino valley. Some days travel were measured in negative distances, meaning they actually went backwards.

 

 

This does not compute.  About 960 miles from Winter Quarters to Salt Lake Valley at 3 miles per day would be 320 days.  The trip was made in much less time than 320 days.  The journey started in April and they arrived in the valley July 26.  This is approx. 117 days less 16 days for The Sundays they did not travel.  This leaves approx 100 days of travel or 9.6 (aprox 10) miles per day.  The company included women, children and livestock.

[rodheadlee]

Why is this so important to so many. Would it make any difference concerning our faith or beliefs?

For me it's fun to study history and geography. I enjoy the threads on BoM lands.

[cursor]

Why is this so important to so many. Would it make any difference concerning our faith or beliefs?

 

Does Geography In the Book of Mormon Matter?

[ from John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Map ]

 

The Book of Mormon has been called “the keystone of our religion,”[1] and for Latter-day Saints it thus deserves no less than the deepest understanding of it we can obtain. Brigham Young has suggested the level of understanding we should aspire to: “Do you read the scriptures . . . as though you were writing them . . . ? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?”[2] What advantages do we have if we follow Brigham Young’s advice?

 

The Book of Mormon was given to us through a very real artifact—a set of gold plates that were seen and “hefted” by a dozen or more witnesses. In contrast, the Bible reached us via generations of unknown hands, and we must wonder which portions of it were shaped by the human instruments through whom it was transmitted. We place high value on the Nephite scripture because of its tangible origin. Yet the sense of reality and concreteness we feel is weakened in part by the fact that Latter-day Saints as a body of believers have not been prepared to say where particular Nephite cities and mountains and streams are located. We can visit Bethlehem’s hills and feel that we are standing where the Jewish shepherds did when the angels spoke to them, but on tours to “Book of Mormon lands” we are unable to say with confidence, “Here Alma and Amulek were imprisoned,” or “Through this valley tramped Helaman’s two thousand warriors.” Would not our sense of the reality of the Nephites and their sacred book be enhanced if we could share with Mormon his map of the scenes where the events he wrote about took place? The sense of reality with which we envision the events, scenes, and characters in the Book of Mormon can be intensified to the degree that we pin down the geographical setting.

 

The Nephite scripture promises its readers sacred knowledge that can transform their personal lives. To receive that blessing, we as readers must connect ourselves as forcefully as possible to what the ancient writers of the scripture tell us. Only by relating intimately to them and their words can we receive the power they sought to convey to us. The scriptures are meant to cause us to “lift up [our] hearts and rejoice” (2 Nephi 11: , and we cannot fully do that without penetrating as thoroughly as possible what was in the hearts and minds of the scripture makers at the time they wrote. We cannot be impacted to the maximum by their message unless we can empathize with their pains, puzzle over their problems, and join in their joys. The ancient prophets have something of great value to confer on people across all generations and cultures because they, more clearly than most humans, have identified and wrestled with the frustrations, despairs, and pains that afflict us all: What is this seemingly senseless life really about? Is death the end? How can I achieve the greatest happiness? Why am I hated, in pain, starved, depressed? These ancient prophets stir our interest and awaken our hopes because, while they were each a fallible everyman, like us plagued with questions, they testify boldly that they found answers.

 

But we cannot fully share the light that transformed their lives until we grasp in specific terms, not just in vaguely theoretical ones, what the questions meant to them. We cannot fully “liken” the sacred texts to ourselves (2 Nephi 11: until we liken the concrete problems of the prophets’ lives—their dilemmas and how they were delivered from them—to those we feel in our own lives. The more detail we know about who those ancient holy men and women were and what went on in their lives, the more perceptively we will be able to see how God’s dealings with them can be applied to our relationship with him.

 

Geography, as much as history or culture, is an essential feature of life’s problems. Many problems faced by the Nephite prophets and their people, and from which the hand of the Lord saved them so often, were shaped decisively by their geographical setting. To what degree did harsh physical conditions trigger the complaints of Lehi1’s party in the Arabian desert (see 1 Nephi 16:19–20, 35–36)? What strategic concerns worried Captain Moroni about the rebellion and flight of Morianton (see Alma 50:30, 32)? Why were Moroni1 and Pahoran1 even more angry and concerned over the dissenters who seized power in the center of Nephite lands than they were over the powerful Lamanite armies on the periphery (see Alma 60–62)? How was geography central to the defeat of the robbers of Giddianhi (see 3 Nephi 3–4)? How many times did flight and relocation save Nephite groups from slavery or extinction (see, for example, Omni 1:12–13; Mosiah 24:17–21)? Geographical factors are pivotal in the Nephite experience. In fact, the title page of the Book of Mormon praises the “great things the Lord hath done for their fathers,” and we can appreciate those “great things” so much better when we know of the places where they unfolded. Significantly, one of Nephi1’s key teachings to his brothers was how the Lord uses geography to accomplish his ends (see 1 Nephi 17:23–26, 32–38).

 

Some may contend that we know enough about this topic already, but the actual extent of our knowledge is limited and unsystematized. Our copies of the Bible include a superb set of maps to which good teachers and wise students of the scripture turn frequently for clarification. After many years of doing without maps to inform us about key events and places mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants, we finally received help in that regard starting with the 1981 edition of the scriptures. But our copies of the Book of Mormon still lack even the most basic map to clarify the complicated goings and comings reported in our keystone scripture. It appears that there is much yet to learn about the topic of Book of Mormon geography.

 

What is the status of the study of the geography in the Book of Mormon?

 

In the 170 years since the Book of Mormon was first published, its geography has been given comparatively little attention. Remarkably, what logically would seem to be one of the first steps in a systematic investigation—to construct a map of the American “land of promise” based solely on statements in that scripture (at least 550 passages are relevant)—seems not to have occurred to anyone during the church’s first century. The first attempt appeared in print only in 1938.[3] In fact, a good deal of suspicion about and opposition to studying Book of Mormon geography has been manifested among Latter-day Saints, and this can in part be credited to the generally poor quality of the research and logic in previous investigations. The idea that as a church we have neglected the Book of Mormon[4] can apply to all aspects of the Book of Mormon, including geography.

 

A tiny minority of LDS (and RLDS) people have, nevertheless, been fascinated by the intellectual challenge and inspirational possibilities of a geography. At least eighty versions of a Book of Mormon map have been produced.[5] Most start with the writer confidently identifying some American area as the center where the Nephites lived and then distributing cities, lands, or other features named in the text to more or less agree with the original “solution.” Ideas have ranged from identifying the promised land as the entire hemisphere to limiting the scene to a small portion of, say, Costa Rica or New York. Few of these writers have been knowledgeable about the range of elements that would go into a comprehensive and critical statement of the geography (such as language distributions, ecological zones, or archaeological finds). The result has been tremendous confusion and a plethora of notions that holds no promise of producing a consensus.

 

Didn’t church leaders long ago settle the question of Nephite geography?

 

The simple answer to this question is no. Historical documents fail to indicate that church authorities have ever claimed that the lands of the Nephites were located in any particular place.

 

To explain more thoroughly, more than one view of where the Nephites lived was held in the early days of the church. It is possible to conclude that to the first readers of the Book of Mormon it seemed obvious that North America was the land northward and South America was the land southward, with the narrow neck of land at Panama. Because the angel Moroni first showed the plates to Joseph Smith at the hill near Joseph’s home in New York State, church members supposed that the final battle between the Nephite and Lamanite armies occurred there too.[6] (Actually, what the account says is that while Mormon buried all the other records of the Nephite people in the hill Cumorah of the final battle, he gave the set of plates on which he had written his abridged history to his son Moroni2 [see Mormon 6:6]. Moroni2 still had those records in his possession thirty-five years later, after wandering “whithersoever I can” [Moroni 1:3] for safety from his enemies [see Mormon 8:4, 14; Moroni 10:1–2]. Moroni2 did not tell us where he finally buried them. Perhaps the primary reason that he lived so long after the final battle was to deliver the plates to New York personally.)

 

In 1842, the church leaders in Nauvoo were presented with a newly published book[7] that spurred a new interpretation of Book of Mormon geography. A best-selling volume by explorer John Lloyd Stephens reported his dramatic discovery of great ruins in Central America, and it was reviewed enthusiastically in the Times and Seasons, Nauvoo’s newspaper.[8] The author of the review is not known, but John Taylor was managing editor of the paper and Joseph Smith had declared six months before that “I alone stand responsible for it [the paper].”[9] The Nephites, the newspaper said, “lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America.” Furthermore, “the city of Zarahemla . . . stood upon this land.” Of course, that would make the land southward, which included Zarahemla, a part of Central America (“several hundred miles of territory from north to south”),[10] not South America as had been thought.

 

Can this enthusiastic pronouncement be considered a revelation that defines the geography once and for all? No such claim was made. The active minds among the leaders were simply doing research. “We are not agoing to declare positively,” the article said, “that the ruins of Quirigua [Guatemala] are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion,” that is, they inferred, that the site must be “one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon.”[11] Additional comment in the next issue of the paper further reflects the intellectual ferment at work: “We have found another important fact.” Clearly, they did not think that this new interpretation of the geography, or the original one, had settled matters, let alone been a revelation. They were doing what the Lord had instructed Oliver Cowdery to do in 1829: “You must study it out in your mind” (D&C 9: . Apparently, they never reached a conclusion that satisfied everyone, because some of the leaders and most of the Saints, who were not privy to the thinking Stephens’s book stirred among the small group around Joseph, continued to hold the two-continents interpretation.[12]

 

The fact that the geography question had not been settled authoritatively was confirmed by an 1890 statement from George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency: “The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest [a map]. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.”[13] Around 1918 or a little before, church president Joseph F. Smith underlined the point. He "declined to officially approve of [any map], saying that the Lord had not yet revealed it."[14] By 1950 nothing had changed; apostle John A. Widtsoe said, "As far as can be learned, the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know. However, certain facts and traditions of varying reliability are used as foundation guides by stoudents of Book of Mormon geography."[15]

 

No, the geography question has not been answered by church authorities, nor have the opinions worked out by geography hobbyists yet led to agreement. In 1947 it was still possible to hope that "out of the studies of faithful Latter-day Saints may yet come a unity of opinion concerning Book of Mormon geography," as Elder Widtsoe put it.[16] But in the half century since, confusion has grown. Few have sought consensus, while many have defensively adhered to individual notions based on selected "facts and traditions of varying reliability.”

 

A different approach seems to be called for if we are to gain a better understanding of Book of Mormon geography and the benefits associated with that.

 

 

Notes

 

1. Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1946), 4:461.

 

2. Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1941), 128.

 

3. See Lynn C. Layton, "An 'Ideal' Book of Mormon Geography," The Improvement Era 41 (July 1938): 394–95, 439.

 

4. See Ezra Taft Benson, "A New Witness for Christ," Ensign, November 1984, 6–8.

 

5. Summaries of seventy of these maps are included in my The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), 37–206.

 

6. See Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Liverpool: R. James, 1850), 22; Orson Pratt, in Journal of Discourses, 14:298. See also Orson Pratt's footnotes in the 1875 edition of the Book of Mormon, particularly 1 Nephi 18:23 n. k.; Omni 1:12 n. g; and Omni 1:13 n. h.

 

7. See John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan (London: John Murray, 1841).

 

8. See "Extract from Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel in Central America,'" Times and Seasons 3 (15 September 1842): 914–15, 921–22.

 

9. "To Subscribers," Times and Seasons 3 (15 March 1842): 710.

 

10. "Zarahemla," Times and Seasons 3 (1 October 1842): 927. Elder John A. Widtsoe observed, "The interesting fact . . . is that the Prophet Joseph Smith at this time was editor . . . and had announced his full editorial responsibility for the paper. This seems to give the . . . article an authority it might not otherwise possess." Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 3:96.

 

11. "Zarahemla," 927.

 

12. For example, Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology: A Voice of Warning (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 15, said that "Lehi and Nephi came out with a colony from Jerusalem . . . and finally landed in safety on the coast of what is now called Chile, in South America." Pratt was absent from Nauvoo in the fall of 1842, and at that same time his brother Orson was also out of touch by virtue of his brief excommunication over the issue of polygamy.

 

13. George Q. Cannon, "Editorial Thoughts: The Book of Mormon Geography," Juvenile Instructor 25/1 (1 January 1890): 18.

 

14. George D. Pyper, "The Book of Mormon Geography," The Instructor 73 (April 1938): 160.

 

15. John A. Widtsoe, "Evidences and Reconciliations: Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?" The Improvement Era 53 (July 1950): 547.

 

16. John A. Widtsoe, foreword to Cumorah—Where? by Thomas Stuart Ferguson (Oakland: Author, 1947).

Edited September 4, 2013 by cursor

[cursor]

Distances and Directions

[ from John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Map ]

 

Theories of how Nephite lands relate to an actual map of the western hemisphere have varied vastly in scale. Where one person has separated a certain city from another by a thousand miles, another may assign only ten. The scale of the lands obviously makes a difference in how we read the Book of Mormon account. What did Mormon believe the distances were as he authored the history? Did he make enough statements on this subject to allow us to establish an intelligent picture of how big or how little the lands of Zarahemla or Nephi were?

1. Mormon furnished us with a number of key pieces of information from which we can establish distances:
   
2. The journeys of Alma1’s people (Mosiah 18:1–7, 31–34; 23:1–3, 25–26; 24:18–25)
   
3. Limhi’s explorers’ expedition to the land northward (Mosiah 8:7–9; 21:25–27)
   
4. Movements in the Amlicite war (Alma 2)
   
5. Alma2’s circuit of cities preaching repentance (Alma 5–15)
   
6. The wars in the borders by the east sea and in the southwest quarter (Alma 43–62:42)
   
7. The land of Nephi as described in the Zeniffite account and that of the sons of Mosiah2 (Mosiah 7–22; Alma 17–26)
   
8. The last wars between Nephites and Lamanites (Mormon 2–6)
   

What can we learn about distances from the story of Alma1 and his people?

 

A party of a few hundred people under the leadership of Alma1 assembled in a place called Mormon, which was “in the borders of the land” of Nephi (Mosiah 18:4). On the basis of Mosiah 18:31–34, we can infer that Mormon lay a distance of from one to three days’ normal travel (from fifteen to forty miles by foot) from the city of Nephi.1 To escape pursuers sent by King Noah, the group fled at top speed (but with women and children and animal herds necessarily holding them back) eight days’ travel into the wilderness through the uplands northward from Nephi to the land they called Helam (see Mosiah 23:1–4, 19). After a few years there they had to escape again; this time it took them thirteen days to reach the land of Zarahemla (see Mosiah 24:20–25).2 Adding these distances together, we arrive at a total of about twenty-two or twenty-three days’ foot travel between the city of Nephi and the city of Zarahemla. A portion of the route taken by Alma’s people is shown on map 11.

 

From an extensive body of accounts of ancient and modern travel under conditions like those prevailing for Alma’s people, we can be fairly confident that they traveled at a rate of about 11 miles per day, give or take a little.3 The distance they covered on the ground would have been 250 miles in round numbers, including twists and turns through mountainous country. The beeline distance between the two cities would more likely be on the order of 180 miles. Roughly half that should have taken the party to the middle of the narrow strip of wilderness—the watershed—that separated the highlands of Nephi from the drainage of the Sidon River. The actual territory inhabited by the Nephites would probably have extended no more than 75 miles upstream from the city of Zarahemla to the local land of Manti, the southernmost settled point within the greater land of Zarahemla (see Alma 58:14).

 

Having established this southern dimension, we can extend our map northward from Zarahemla on the basis of Moroni1’s letter to the chief judge, Pahoran1. Moroni1 referred to the city of Zarahemla as being in the “heart” of the land of the Nephites (Alma 60:19, 22). That position is generally confirmed by dissenter Coriantumr2’s daring invasion that came out of Nephi to capture the city of Zarahemla, in the “center” of the land of Zarahemla (see Helaman 1:17–18, 24–27). However, “center” may have been more conceptual than entirely literal. Coriantumr2 burst upon the city’s defenders with almost no warning, which suggests a relatively short distance from the frontier to the capital city of Zarahemla. But the invaders soon found themselves bogged down farther downstream in what was called “the most capital parts of the land” (Helaman 1:27). This terminology suggests that a stretch of additional cities and heavy population lay northerly from the city of Zarahemla for a somewhat greater distance than on the upper stretch of the river. If the upper river was 75 miles long, the stretch downstream from the city of Zarahemla might have been, say, 100 miles northward.

 

Northward beyond the land of Zarahemla proper (at least as the boundaries were construed at one point in time) lay an unlabeled, no doubt small, land “between the land Zarahemla and the land Bountiful” (3 Nephi 3:23). It is referred to only once. If this unnamed land and the land Bountiful were each 30 miles from north to south, then the straight-line distance from the city of Zarahemla to the boundary between Bountiful and the land Desolation—the northern limit of the land southward—adds up to a total of 160 miles. That means that from the city of Nephi to where the land northward began was roughly 340 miles on a direct line.

 

These are estimates, of course, yet they are not likely to be a long way off, because they are based on how fast actual groups have been able to travel in a day. Given the uncertainties that we cannot avoid when interpreting the statements in the record, it would be no shock to find someday that the numbers are off by 25 percent, but it is difficult for me to believe that they could be as much as 50 percent in error. In other words, on Mormon’s mental map, the land southward stretched only a few hundred miles in length. (Keep in mind that Palestine from Dan to Beersheba was only about 150 miles long.)

 

How about the distance into the land northward? Crucial information comes from the account of the exploring party Zeniffite king Limhi sent to locate Zarahemla. Their purpose was to request help from the Nephites to free Limhi’s people from Lamanite bondage. The expedition consisted of forty-three of his most “diligent” men (see Mosiah 8:7– . It had been two generations since their fathers had come from Zarahemla, and tradition apparently did not furnish firm information about the route they should follow to reach Zarahemla. The explorers wandered for many days before discovering extensive ruins. These ruins turned out to be in the land Desolation of the Jaredites, for there the party came upon corroded artifacts and the gold plates on which the last Jaredite prophet, Ether, had written his account of that peoples’ history and extermination (see Ether 15:33). The explorers then backtracked to the city of Nephi, their homeland, bearing Ether’s record and a few Jaredite relics as proof of their story. What is remarkable to us now is their conclusion that the remains they found had been left by the inhabitants of Zarahemla, who they supposed must somehow have been destroyed (see Mosiah 21:26). We now understand that the exploring party had traveled all the way into the land northward, to within a few miles of the hill Ramah/Cumorah. Map 7 shows a plausible route for their expedition.

 

How far had they traveled in miles? What distance can we infer it was from the city of Nephi to the place where Ether left the plates, which was near the hill Ramah/Cumorah? Surely they would have known from their grandfathers’ traditions approximately how far it was to Zarahemla, so if we put ourselves in their sandals, we probably would have begun to wonder, after the estimated number of days had passed, just how much farther northward to press on. When they found no inhabited Zarahemla or, apparently, any people with whom they could talk, they must have begun to think about turning back. I can imagine them going on for perhaps twice as many days as the tradition told them it would take to get to Zarahemla, but not a lot more. We know that Nephi was separated from Zarahemla by less than two hundred miles, so it seems improbable that those diligent men would have pressed northward much more than double that distance without arguing among themselves about turning back. It looks from this incident like the final Jaredite battlefield was not much more than four hundred airline miles from Nephi. Again, these are estimates and could be off by some, but not by a major amount.

 

How big was the immediate territory around Zarahemla?

 

Consider an incident that involved territory on a much smaller scale than the distance traveled by Limhi’s searchers. Alma 2:15–37; 3:2; and 4:2 inform us about the scene of a pair of battles in the immediate vicinity of Zarahemla. A people called the Amlicites, dissenters from the Nephite government who probably came from farther down the Sidon River,4 gathered at the hill Amnihu, just across the river from the city of Zarahemla, to battle against the Nephite army. The loyalists under chief judge Alma2 seemed to get the better of the fight, and the rebels headed up to the valley of Gideon (we have already seen that at that point they would have been on the preferred—and probably fastest—route southward in the direction of Manti). When night stopped the pursuit, the Nephites camped in the valley, but under cover of night and on a convenient road, the Amlicites hightailed it on southward. Alma2’s scouts hurried back at daybreak to report dismaying news: the enemy force had got to the river Sidon, crossed it, and joined forces with a Lamanite army that had timed its invasion (surely by secret advance planning with the rebel leader Amlici) to be at that point that morning. Now the combined enemy groups were swarming down the west bank of the river toward the city of Zarahemla. This word set off a race between Alma2’s army and the enemy to determine who could reach the city first. Alma2 aimed straight for a crucial point, a ford across the river just upstream from the city, and started to cross just as the Lamanites showed up. In a desperate fight, the Nephites sent their opponents fleeing toward a nearby forest “wilderness” (Alma 2:37) called Hermounts. Within hours, the escaping force was scattered and the Nephites arrived at the city they had just saved. Map 8 represents the positions where these events took place and the distances separating them.

 

The entire episode consumed two days and one night. The distances cannot be much different than this: hill Amnihu to Gideon, no more than twenty miles; Gideon direct to the ford at the river, maybe twelve miles; Zarahemla to Minon, not over thirty-five miles; Zarahemla city to the river ford, less than ten miles; the battle scene at the river bank to the wilderness of Hermounts, not much greater than ten miles. When we analyze the detailed narrative of this thirty-six-hour period, the realities imposed by travel conditions simply do not allow much leeway in these numbers.

 

What dimensions are revealed by Alma2’s missionary journey around the land?

 

Alma2 set out to establish the church in areas toward the limits of the land of Zarahemla as it existed in his day. He began at Gideon, then headed to Melek, Ammonihah, and Sidom. At one point in time he also started to go to the city of Aaron but did not reach it. Finally, he returned from Sidom to his home in Zarahemla. The account yields distance figures that are not precise but are still useful (see Alma 8:3–6, 13; 15:18). To Melek from Zarahemla required significant travel: Alma1 departed from Zarahemla “and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness” (Alma 8:3). This sounds rather more complicated than when he “went over upon the east of the river Sidon, into the valley of Gideon” (Alma 6:7). The Gideon trip would have taken him only one day, we have just seen from the Amlicite affair. “Took his journey over into” Melek implies greater distance. (At the end of his life, Alma2’s last trip followed the same course; “he departed out of the land of Zarahemla, as if to go into the land of Melek” [Alma 45:18], but he was never seen again. The implication of this passage confirms that the journey was not a short, simple one.) Two or three days of travel seem called for to reach Melek, perhaps fifty miles or more. From Melek it then took Alma2 three days’ travel northward to reach Ammonihah (see Alma 8:6), say another fifty-plus miles.5 Traveling from Ammonihah to Sidom (the name suggests that it was at the Sidon River) should have taken roughly the same time and distance as a journey from Zarahemla to Melek (see Alma 15:1). And finally from Sidom to Zarahemla, back up the river, would again have roughly reversed the distance from Melek to Ammonihah—three days’ travel. All these numbers are sensible when compared with the earlier discussion of Zarahemla as being in the “center” of the land of Zarahemla. (See map 9.)

 

How far did the Nephite possessions stretch along the east coast in the land southward?

 

Details about the marches by the Nephite and Lamanite armies in the area called the borders by the east seashore can also be converted into plausible distances. We begin with Alma 52:18–31. Moroni1, Lehi2, and Teancum and the military units they commanded began to decoy a Lamanite army out of the fortified city of Mulek by sending a small group near the city. The Lamanites pursued them in full force, thinking they could easily capture them. The decoy party retreated toward the city Bountiful “down by the seashore, northward” (Alma 52:23), leading the Lamanites away “until they came near the city Bountiful” (Alma 52:27). A new Nephite force from Bountiful then appeared, causing the Lamanites to stop and turn about, worried lest they not be able to reach their city because they “were wearied because of their long march” (Alma 52:28, 31; Alma 51:33 indicates that “the heat of the day” was debilitating). Part of Moroni1’s unit had by this time overcome the tiny garrison left to guard the stronghold, Mulek, while the rest of his men hurried to confront the Lamanites. Caught between armies, the Lamanites were all slain or captured (see Alma 52:38–39), and the prisoners were marched to Bountiful.

 

The day’s action saw the Lamanites move from Mulek to near Bountiful (say two-thirds of the distance) and then retreat part of the way back to Mulek. Their weariness probably meant that their total travel was more than a torrid day’s travel under battle conditions, say about eighteen miles along an irregular trail. On a beeline, Bountiful to Mulek might then be on the order of twelve miles.

 

From Mulek to Gid should be roughly the same distance (perhaps a normal day’s walking for a merchant). However, when we compare Helaman 5:14–15 with Alma 51:26, we learn that one could as readily go from Bountiful to Gid as from Bountiful to Mulek. Consequently, Gid was directly inland from Mulek and thus no farther southward in relation to the seashore.6 The next city to the south that the Lamanites had captured was Omner. Insufficient data are given to figure an actual distance from Omner to Gid or Mulek, but it is reasonable that it was of about the same order, in this case let us say twenty miles. This would put Omner thirty miles southward from Bountiful, measuring along the shore.

 

In the next operation, Moroni1’s army captured the city of Nephihah (see Alma 62:26), which was inland some distance from the shore (see Alma 50:14–15; compare 59:5– . From there they immediately marched to attack the city of Lehi (see Alma 62:30). The dislodged Lamanites fled northward “from city to city” (Alma 62:32), probably including Morianton and Omner. Before they had fled far they were met by a Nephite army advancing southward from Gid and Mulek. The Lamanites had nowhere to go except to scramble along near the beach (“even down upon the borders by the seashore” [Alma 62:32]) until just before dark they reached the city of Moroni, the last city still held by the Lamanites (see Alma 62:33–35).

 

The text indicates that capture of Nephihah, the flight from Lehi “from city to city” northward, then turning back all the way to Moroni was a single military operation done in a single day. How far was it in miles? With their lives on the line, the Lamanites might have made twenty-five or more miles total (Alma 62:35 says that by dark, both the Lamanites and Nephites “were weary because of the greatness of the march”). Some of those twenty-five miles were seaward and some were consumed by the futile doubling back to and from the north. The total distance the Lamanites traveled southward parallel to the beach could hardly have been more than fifteen miles.

 

In summary, the mileages measured along the coast are as follows: Bountiful to Gid/Mulek, twelve miles; Gid/Mulek to Omner, twenty miles; the southward component of the last day’s flight, maximum fifteen miles. Suppose we now arbitrarily allow an additional twenty miles for the distance between Omner and Lehi, for which we do not have a specific basis for measurement, another ten miles from Bountiful to the “line” that separated the lands Bountiful and Desolation, and finally, five miles from Moroni city to the edge (“line”) of Nephite-controlled land. Adding the numbers together we conclude that the southward limit of Nephite possessions along the east sea was only about eighty miles from the land northward. No wonder Amalickiah, in his plan to capture the narrow neck (see Alma 51:30), chose this east shore as his prime point of attack (the distance he would have had to drive along the west coast was over 250 miles). Further, no wonder Moroni1 put such prodigious effort into fortifying the Nephites’ vulnerable east coast (see Alma 50:7–11).

 

How wide was the land southward?

 

The Book of Mormon relates four local lands and their cities that spread across the land southward from east to west: Moroni, Nephihah, Aaron, and Ammonihah. The land of Moroni, a small territory near the east seashore and close to the Lamanite possessions, bordered on the land of Nephihah, which was also, broadly speaking, in the borders by the east sea (see Alma 50:13–14). The territory administered by Nephihah also abutted on the land of Aaron (see Alma 50:14).

 

The position of Aaron has posed a problem for some students of Nephite geography; Aaron, which on the one hand ties to Nephihah, which was near the southerly limit of Nephite holdings on the east coast, on the other hand relates to Ammonihah, which was near the west wilderness in the northerly section of the land of Zarahemla (see Alma 8:13; 16:2).7 Once we realize, however, how short the stretch of Nephite-controlled east sea coast was, the conflict that some have seen between the statements about Aaron’s position is resolved. The center of the land around the city of Aaron was apparently lightly settled (no other city is ever named in that sector), so it is probable that Aaron administered a rather large area, which reached so far toward the east (probably down the Sidon River) that its limit on the east reached the westernmost territory under Nephihah’s control. When the positions of the four lands—Moroni, Nephihah, Aaron, and Ammonihah—are plotted on a map (see map 10) that allows us to compare the spread among them with other distances, the total width from coast to coast across the land southward comes out to be on the order of two hundred miles.

 

Only two textual passages relate directly to the question of the width of the land southward. Both bits of information are in reference to the area near the narrow neck. First, Mormon’s summary geography in Alma 22:32 states, “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 . . . there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.” The other scripture, Helaman 4:5–7, tells of Nephite armies that were driven northward by Lamanites around B.C. The Nephites were expelled completely from the land of Zarahemla and from their territory along the west coast, ultimately stopping at the south edge of the land of Bountiful (see Helaman 4:6). The Nephites no doubt retreated along the same route out of Zarahemla, via the pass near Ammonihah and the west coast, as did the Nephites under Mormon over three centuries later (see Mormon 2:5–7). At the south boundary of the land Bountiful at the west sea, they fortified a line that stretched “from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day’s journey for a Nephite, [on] the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country” (Helaman 4:7). This fortified line did not extend across the narrow neck of land; its purpose was only to block the west coastal plain. Thus the “day’s journey,” whatever it measured, had nothing to do with the width across the entire neck, for that did not begin until farther northward, on the other side of Bountiful. (See “Mormon’s Map” on the inside front cover of the book.)

 

Alma 22:32 speaks directly about the narrow neck, but the meaning of its statement, a “day and a half’s journey for a Nephite,” is unclear. Both this phrase and “a day’s journey for a Nephite” (Helaman 4:7) are expressions that reach us through Mormon, a military man, and may reflect some standard measure of distance familiar among Nephite military people. Furthermore, several researchers have observed that the phrase in Alma 22:32, “from the east to the west sea,” allows the interpretation that the journey was measured some point short of the actual east sea shore.8 After all, it would be foolish for the Nephites to waste resources defending a line that reached the sea to the east of the narrow pass, since their enemies could not reach the land northward other than via the pass (see Mormon 3:5–6; 4:4, 19).

 

In any case, the actual distance a person can go in one day varies greatly according to setting, individual capacity, and mode of travel. Persons have been known to travel over one hundred miles per day by foot with some regularity, and of course if one went down a river in a canoe, an even greater distance could be traveled.9 Such variables prevent us from establishing a definite length for the “line” at the neck, but a range of figures between 60 and 125 miles can be argued as reasonable for the “day and a half’s journey.” (Recall that the narrower one makes the neck, the more difficult it is to explain how Limhi’s explorers failed to realize that they had passed through it.)

 

What can we learn about distances in the land of Nephi from the story of the Zeniffites and the travels of the sons of Mosiah2?

 

Events in the reigns of the Zeniffite kings Noah and Limhi shed light on distances in the local land of Nephi and its vicinity (the land and city at that time were called Lehi-Nephi, probably at the insistence of the Lamanite overlords, but for simplicity we will use the old term, Nephi). Noah “built a tower near the temple [in the city of Nephi], even so high that he could stand upon the top thereof and overlook the land of Shilom, and also the land of Shemlon, which was possessed by the Lamanites” (Mosiah 11:12). From this tower Noah spotted a Lamanite army coming up out of the land of Shemlon toward Nephi (see Mosiah 19:6). For a Zeniffite to have such a view, the distance to Shilom could hardly have exceeded ten miles and the near border of Shemlon would have been within twenty miles. Moreover, Lamanite armies consistently came “up” from Shemlon to Shilom and Nephi, and even farther “up” to hilly land overlooking those two places (see Mosiah 7:5–6; 10:8; 20:7–9). Shilom and Shemlon seem to have been located in the same broad valley as the city and local land of Nephi.

 

We saw above how the information on the movements of Alma1’s people after they fled from Noah’s Zeniffites is important in establishing distances in the Nephi highlands. We can add to that that the land of Amulon was not far from Nephi. The Lamanite army pursued the fleeing people of Limhi but lost their track after two days (under fifty miles). After wandering about trying to find their way back to Nephi, those Lamanites stumbled onto the land of Amulon (see Mosiah 22:16; 23:30–31, 35). Still confused about how to reach Nephi, after leaving Amulon they came across the land of Helam, still lost, yet both lands were no more than eighty-five miles direct from Nephi. The implication is strong from this affair that the terrain was very broken. These relationships are shown on map 11.

 

That the land of Nephi and its vicinity were small in dimensions is confirmed by the account of Nephi1’s initial settling of it. When Nephi1 and his group left the land of first inheritance on the shore of the west sea, they were penetrating raw wilderness as far as they were concerned. It was probably forested, since they were in the tropics at or near sea level, and they are not said to have had any special divine guidance about routes to take or avoid. The fact that they traveled “many days” (2 Nephi 5:7) thus need not mean a great distance (in 1 Nephi 17:4, 20–21, “many years” turns out to be only eight). They ended up in what was thereafter called the land of Nephi (see 2 Nephi 5:7– , after traveling possibly eighty to one hundred miles. The distance would have been much shorter on a straight line. Inasmuch as Nephi1’s people were attacked by the Lamanites within the first generation (see 2 Nephi 5:34), the land of Nephi could not have been far from the coastal land where the Lamanites apparently remained.

 

Many Lamanites were still living in the west coast wilderness after 100 b.c., yet by then some had moved to higher ground (see Mosiah 24:1–2; Alma 24:20). The Lamanite ruler apparently had only recently moved up to Nephi at the time when Zeniff negotiated with him (see Mosiah 9:5– ; when the exploitable Zeniffites came along, the Lamanites moved out of the decrepit old Nephite city to territory down closer to the lowlands that had been their base in earlier centuries (see Jarom 1:9; Omni 1:2–5; Mosiah 24:2). Eventually, their kings made their permanent capital in upland Nephi (see Alma 22:1).

 

The travels of the sons of Mosiah2 as teachers among the Lamanites confirm the small scale of the lands in and around Nephi. For example, the brothers all got together to confer about the problem of protecting their converts (see Alma 24:5), and all the believers lived close enough together that they departed from the land as one body (see Alma 27:14). But the text does not provide information on travel times and mileage in their day.

 

The account of Aaron3’s ministry in the city of Jerusalem and the village of Ani-Anti suggests something about the size of “the waters of Mormon.” When he separated from his colleagues at the beginning of their work, Aaron3 first stopped at the city of Jerusalem, which “was away joining the borders of [the waters of] Mormon” (Alma 21:1–2). In Alma1’s day, Mormon was considered a mere “place” (Mosiah 18:4, 16) that was adjacent to the waters of Mormon, but later the locality was considered a “land” (Alma 5:3). At the time of the catastrophe when the Savior was crucified, Jerusalem was “sunk” and waters covered it (see 3 Nephi 9:6–7): it is plausible that Jerusalem was adjacent to the waters of Mormon and it was these waters that covered the sunken city. When Aaron3 left Jerusalem he “came over to a village,” yet the land of Mormon is never mentioned (Alma 21:11). It appears from all this that Jerusalem and Mormon were miles apart, although they both adjoined the same body of waters. Consequently, that body seems to have been a substantial lake a number of miles across.

 

What can we learn about distances from the final Nephite and Jaredite wars?

 

Certain information on distances has already been referred to in chapter 4 on the topography of the land northward where it was essential for handling that topic.

 

Mormon spent his early years in the land northward, not far from where his people would meet extinction more than half a century later (see 4 Nephi 1:48; Mormon 1:2–6; 2:16–17). As a youth he moved to the land of Zarahemla, where he soon was given command over the Nephite army (see Mormon 1:6; 2:1–2). In short order, a Lamanite attack out of the land of Nephi forced the Nephite army by stages all the way to the city of Jashon, which was near Mormon’s homeland in the land northward (see Mormon 2:3–17). The retreat of a few hundred miles was across terrain with which Mormon was already familiar.

 

Back and forth over the same stretch of territory the conflict raged for the next several decades. Once the Nephites even regained their Zarahemla homeland, but only temporarily (see Mormon 2:27). At length Mormon ended up near his original homeland (see Mormon 3:5; 4:1–23). In Mormon’s old age the Nephites retreated farther still, to the city of Jordan and beyond (see Mormon 5:3, 7). His people being left with few resources, Mormon had to strike a final deal with the Lamanite enemy: to meet them, by appointment, at a mutually acceptable battleground (see Mormon 6:2). Cumorah was the specified site for the climactic struggle. The Lamanites surely must have wanted to get the war over without extending their lines of supply still farther northward, while the Nephites hoped not to lose what territory (including the land of Cumorah) they still controlled. (Further, Cumorah must have been close to, if not actually at, where Mormon had grown up. Perhaps by fighting on territory with which he was intimately familiar, he “had hope to gain [tactical] advantage over the Lamanites” [Mormon 6:4].) The Cumorah rendezvous spot logically would have been on the boundary separating the two parties at that moment.

 

What all this retreating and advancing means for our consideration of distances is that the Nephites fought out their last decades on familiar ground, none of which was much farther north than the land of Cumorah. We have already established from the story of Limhi’s explorers how far that was from the narrow neck. Mormon’s personal record thus confirms that the last Nephites never retreated northward much more than one hundred miles north of the narrow pass.

 

That also means that the lands they possessed were within the same general area where the Jaredites fought their final wars. (As a matter of fact, the successor people in the area, the apostate Nephites, may have considered themselves fated to have the decision about their future decided in the same manner as their predecessors’, in battle at the same hill, and perhaps at a related calendrical point—hence the appointed date with the Lamanites. Consider Alma 46:22: “We shall be destroyed, even as our brethren in the land northward, if we shall fall into transgression.”) The area of the Jaredites’ last wars was sufficiently restricted that in some manner it was possible for Ether to go “forth viewing the things which should come upon the people” and complete the remainder of his record (see Ether 13:13–14). The general geographic position of the final Jaredite battles was the eastern portion of the land northward (see Ether 14:12–14, 26; 15:8, 10–11). Moroni2 specifies that some of that area was indeed where the Nephites later operated (see Ether 7:6; 9:3, 31–32; 10:19–21; 15:11, 33). The information we can glean from the record of Ether agrees that the distances involved in the Jaredite wars were similar to those we find in Mormon’s record of the Nephites’ final decades.

 

Incidentally, the territories the Nephites colonized via the narrow pass seem to have borne a name of their own in the record: “north countries” or “north country.” Mormon and Moroni2 use one of these expressions five times (see Helaman 4:7; Mormon 2:3; Ether 1:1; 9:35; 13:11). Only once does the counterterm “south countries” occur (Mormon 6:15). “North country” and “north countries” seem to me from the contexts to be applied only to the inhabited lowland portions of the land northward that were reached from “the south countries” overland via the narrow pass. But neither “north countries” nor “north country” is used in regard to the colonies along the west sea coast, which are described strictly as being in the “land northward.”

 

Summary on distances

 

In Mormon’s mind, the scene of the Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite activities was of limited size. Main lands, minor lands, mountain ranges, plains, valleys, rivers, and oceans are all referred to in a manner that indicates that Mormon not only knew about those geographical elements from the records of his ancestors, but he knew much of the scene personally and intimately. The dimensions are small, although hardly tiny. The promised land in which the Nephites’ history played out was on the order of five hundred miles long and over two hundred miles wide, according to Mormon’s mental map. That is still considerably larger than the stage on which most Old Testament events took place.

 

Were Nephite directions the same as those we are familiar with today?

 

The real question is, what concepts of direction were our primary historian-editor, Mormon, using? We have already seen that he had his own framework for thinking and writing about distances. His ideas of how far apart sites were seem to be consistent even though they are not the same as the scale that governs our thinking in a day of jet travel and worldwide information. “Many days” of travel probably elicited for Mormon a rather different mental image of distance than it would for us. (For that matter, among ourselves the expression brings forth varying ideas.) Similarly, we might ask, would “year” have meant the same to him as it does to us? Lasting how long? Beginning and ending when? Composed of what seasonal variations in climate?

 

When we examine the text of the Book of Mormon carefully, we can detect numerous places where cultural assumptions that were second nature to the Nephites are quite different than those we hold. We Latter-day Saints may have become so used to “liken[ing] all scriptures unto us” (1 Nephi 19:23) that we assume we understand ideas in them that actually are foreign to our experience. For example, Mosiah 19:20 describes King Noah’s being executed “by fire” at the hands of some of his disgusted, angry subjects. Verse 24 goes on, “After they had ended the ceremony, . . . they returned to the land of Nephi.” Not a word in the record sheds light on this or any other ceremony connected with death. To the record keeper, the need for and nature of the ceremony was so obvious that there was no need to explain further. Another instance of unexplained culture is a statement in Mosiah. Alma2, the high priest over “the church” (Mosiah 26: , put a question of religious policy to King Mosiah2, and the king then “consulted with his priests” on the matter (Mosiah 27:1). Who were these priests? They were not part of the church structure that Alma2 headed, and nowhere else is there an indication that Mosiah2 had his own set of priests. Furthermore, we discover that at other points, Nephite and Lamanite notions, like many Israelite concepts in the Old Testament, varied profoundly from the ideas we hold today. For example, why would a king bow himself in front of his own people and “plead” (Mosiah 20:25) with them for what he desired? What were “dragons” (Alma 43:44)? How did Nephite concepts of “heaven” or “hell” (for example, see Alma 54:11) relate to ones we accept? What did they think the outer zone above the earth (our “space”) was like?

 

There are many points of similarity, of course, between their concepts and ours. Much of the thought and experience conveyed in the ancient records relates sufficiently to the symbols and meanings familiar in our culture that we can learn much from studying them. But differences need to be recognized, not ignored.

 

Direction is one such concept. The world’s varied cultures have produced remarkably diverse models of spatial dimensions on the face of the earth. For example, certain Inuit (Eskimos) who lived north of the Arctic Circle, where the sun is not visible for a good part of the year, used alternative terminology in place of our east, west, north, and south, which were essentially useless to them. They spoke of directions as “above versus below,” in reference to local elevations, and spoke of “inside versus outside,” an arbitrary contrast that makes sense only in terms of their traditions.10 In ancient Mesopotamia, the Sumerians based their directions on the prevailing winds, which they considered to blow from what we call northwest, northeast, southeast, and southwest; following that tradition, the later Babylonians oriented their maps so that northwest was at the top.11 In ancient Mesoamerica, “Maya spatial orientation to the four corners of their universe is not based upon our cardinal directions of N, S, E, W, but probably either upon inter-cardinal points (i.e. NE, NW, SW, SE) or upon two directions in the East and two directions in the West (i.e. sunrise at winter solstice, sunrise at summer solstice [which are 50 degrees apart] sunset at winter solstice and sunset at summer solstice).”12 Such varied examples are everywhere.13 To those who share a particular culture, their way of labeling invariably seems “obvious” and does not require explanation, while all other schemes seem to them strange.

 

One thing we learn from studying this material is that the cardinal directions—east, west, south, north—have not been basic to the directional schemes of most of the world’s cultures. What our culture has taught us, that the cardinal directions are obvious, is not true historically.

 

We may be tempted to think automatically that “northward” and “southward” label directions that are the same as “north” and “south.” But “northward” signals a different concept than does “north,” something like “in a general northerly direction.” By their frequency of using the –ward suffix, we can infer that Mormon and his ancestors used a somewhat different cultural scheme for directions than we do.14 However, we cannot tell from the Book of Mormon text exactly how their concepts differed from ours, because all we have to work with is the English translation provided through Joseph Smith.

 

The subtlety directional matters can show is displayed in a system of contrasts that most of us may have missed in Mormon’s account. These contrasts are in the use of the terms “came” and “went.” For example, in the first Lamanite attack on the city of Ammonihah, the text says that the Lamanites had “come in” to the land (Alma 16:2; compare 49:6, “come upon”), but when the same incident was related later, the text says they “went over” (Alma 25:2). Similar differences between “came” and “went” are shown repeatedly. Nobody has yet analyzed this word usage systematically, but a reasonable guess to explain it is that the distinction had to do with the location of the historian at the time he wrote his record. In the case of the attack on Ammonihah, the version of the story that used “come” was part of the Nephite record prepared and kept in Zarahemla, while the second report was from the record of, and thus from the point of view of, the sons of Mosiah1, who at that time were dwelling in the land of Nephi.

 

These examples suggest that we still have a ways to go before we even know all the right questions about Nephite direction systems that we should ask of the text. At this stage in our study of Mormon’s record, we will do well to take advantage of the caution caveat lector, or “let the reader beware.” Beware of making assumptions about meanings that may prove to be misleading because they spring from modern-day assumptions rather than from ancient ways. The Book of Mormon text, like all scripture, is subtle; full understanding of it demands extensive and intensive study that uses all the tools at our disposal. Relying on our own ethnocentric interpretations is not an approach to be recommended.

 

Notes

 

1. See Sorenson, Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 224–27.

 

2. When verse 25 says they reached "the land of Zarahemla," I suppose this refers to the local land near the city of Zarahemla rather than to the general land of Zarahemla, which began above the city of Manti. Had the latter meaning been intended, I think the record would have noted an additional few days for the final leg of their journey.

 

3. See John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985), 8–9; Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 393–97.

 

4. See Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, 193–97; Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 230.

 

5. The intricate question of the placement of the city of Aaron is discussed in Sorenson, Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 235.

 

6. See John E. Clark, "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies: A Review of F. Richard Hauck, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review of Books 1 (1989): 35.

 

7. For example, George Reynolds, A Complete Concordance of the Book of Mormon, ed. Philip C. Reynolds (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 7, notes that "the name City of Aaron . . . appears from the context to apply to widely separate places."

 

8. For example, Clark, "Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies," 30, suggests that "the failure to mention the east 'sea' is not due to mere grammatical parallelism or elliptical thought based on word order," given that three rather parallel phrasings omit the word "sea": "east to the west sea" (Alma 22:32); "east even unto the west sea" (Alma 22:33); and "west sea, even unto the east" (Helaman 4:7). The phrase in Alma 22:32 thus seems to have omitted the word "sea" not by chance but by intention.

 

9. Many examples for individuals and groups are documented in my "The Problem of Establishing Distances," in Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 393–97.

 

10. See Louis-Jacques Dorais, "Some Notes on the Semantics of Eastern Eskimo Localizers," Anthropological Linguistics 13 (March 1971): 92.

 

11. See Eckhard Unger, "Ancient Babylonian Maps and Plans," Antiquity 9 (1935):311–22.

 

12. Evon Z. Vogt, "Summary and Appraisal," in Desarrollo Cultural de los Mayas, ed. Evon Z. Vogt and Alberto Ruz L. (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1971), 414.

 

13. For further examples and documentation of cultural variation in directional concepts and terminology, consult appendix C, "The Problem of Directions," in my Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 401–12.

 

14. For example, note the numbers of times the text uses various directional terms: east and west, 64; eastward and westward, 3; south and north, 65; southward and northward, 65.

Edited September 4, 2013 by cursor

[Rob Osborn]

I have never been a big fan of Sorensons work. He is trying to make a shoe fit where it possibly cant. His assumptions on certain aspects are just bad conjecture in my opinion. He does a pretty decent job of trying to tally up the distance from Zarahemla to the Land of Nephi. But then he assumes to know conpleyely how far north and south the Land of Nephi and Zarahemla is. These figures are never mentioned nor is there any text with how many days travel these distances may have been. The worst comes from his assumptions on how far the land northward and Cumorah are from Zarahemla. There is absolutely no text in the BoM relating any idea as to how close or far way these lands were. The only thing we have is a single word " exceedingly" far away. We cannot know what exceedingly far means other than it was more than likely way way farther than the distance of Zarahemka to Nephi which is assumed to be no less than a couple hundred miles. We know that Cumorah was south of the waters of Ripliancum which means to exceed all. There is no such place in Mexico that has a land north of it with great large bodies of water. The proposed idea that it was swampy waters is ludicrous! Swampy waters plague a lot of the entire areas of Central America.

There is only one text with relation to Cumorah in that Ether writes from his account by day what he sees. The problem with this though is that one person going out from one location by night cant possibly record all the battles and carnage strewn all over the land. More than likely this cave where Ether dwelt was his home base and there were times when he was indeed far away from home base recording the war.even this though does not tell what approximation his cave was from either Cumorah or the Narrow neck.

[Anijen]

What evidence would suffice? Pulling up countless arrowpoints and other war relics was quite common in the area in the past two hundred years. Not only that, there are numwrous documentationa of mass graves, ancient earthen fortifications, etc. What evidence is required?

This is a question that is often asked and then answered as you have. The evidence of what you mention does not exist.

 

"Pulling up countless arrowheads”                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Where are these countless arrow heads? Oh the ones in museums, they date all over the spectrum from Paleo Indian (8000 years and older).  If they are in this age they are not from a bow, but are projectile points for spears or atlatls. Perhaps they are from the Archaic time (4500-1300 BC). Or perhaps during the Lamoka times the geographical area of New York has changed very little since these times (5000 years ago). The thought that the Lamoka people living South of a glacial sea has been refuted by the most recent geological evidence. Most of all these projectile points have been dated by the predominance of turkey, deer, and pigeon bones found in refuse middens. The Lamoka people have the greatest number of projectile points found in North and West New York. Still these points predate any Lamanite or Nephite  times (2500 BC). Out of the many groups perhaps the closest we can date that would match the people in the Book of Mormon are the Laurentian Tradition 7500-400 years ago. The Laurentians were basically groups of people which shared many customs throughout the Northeast. There mainly found around the Quebec area.

 

"and other war relics was quite common"                                                                                                                                                                                             What are these other war relics you mention?  If these other war relics were "quite common" then there should be abundantly found. I am not saying there are none found, what I am saying is what are they, and do they date to the time of the Book of Mormon? I already mentioned spears and atlatls. What about shields and bucklers? We know these were found in Mesoamerica as was obsidian swords, spears, atlatls, scimitars etc, not any such in New York other that what I have mentioned.

 

"the area in the past two hundred years"                                                                                                                                                                            

"Why even mention a time that does not match the time of the Book of Mormon? So what if they were found, obviously we need archaeological evidence that date to the right time.

 

"not only that, there are numwrous documentationa of mass graves"                                                                                                                                                           Name one massive grave that would fit the time of  the Book of Mormon, next check and compare how many skeletal remains would you expect to find if from the Book of of Mormon.  Are you talking about mound 72 at Cahokia? That is the largest mass grave that I can think of off the top of my head. A total of 272 skeletal remains were        found there. They were buried at different times, some more than hundreds of years apart, and the most were buried around 1050 AD. These "mass graves" could not      be from the Book of Mormon.

 

"ancient earthen fortifications"                                                                                                                                                                                                                      You mean like Cahokia? Cahokia was the granddaddy of all "earthen fortifications" in the US. At its best had a population of 50,000 people (that includes areas close around it. It reached that peek in 1050-1100 AD. As I mentioned above it does not meet the necessary conditions that the Book of Mormon requires.

 

       "What evidence is required?"                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Those you mention would certainly be relevant if they matched the time and numbers required from the Book of Mormon. But they do not and frankly its a little bit exhausting bring these points up time and time again.

 

I apologize I am having much difficulty with the font and making it even...

Edited September 4, 2013 by Anijen

[cursor]

He does a pretty decent job of trying to tally up the distance from Zarahemla to the Land of Nephi. But then he assumes to know conpleyely [completely?] how far north and south the Land of Nephi and Zarahemla is. 

 

Is [are] ... located from where, exactly?

 

The worst comes from his assumptions on how far the land northward and Cumorah are from Zarahemla. There is absolutely no text in the BoM relating any idea as to how close or far way these lands were. The only thing we have is a single word " exceedingly" far away. 

 

Sounds like you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, Rob. There are a number of very strong pointers within the codex that suggest that 1) the hill Cumorah/Ramah is not far at all from the narrow neck of land, and that 2) that maximal travel distances for Jaredites, Nephites, and "Mulekites" could never have been in terms of thousands of miles, and that 3) the distance from Nephi to Cumorah/Ramah ... is not nearly as far as you think.

 

We know that Cumorah was south of the waters of Ripliancum which means to exceed all. There is no such place in Mexico that has a land north of it with great large bodies of water.

 

So, if the Nephites/Lamanites/Jaredites/"Mulekites" were confined to a relatively restricted geography (like in southern Mexico), how might they have any idea that the Great Lakes even existed? Certainly they didn't have access to Google Earth! The term "to exceed all" is a relative term. What matters is what is standard in one's surrounding/known geography. Right?

 

To simplistically pick the Great Lakes as the Nephites' Ripliancum, based on your modern-day perspective (and by ignoring Mormon's potentially limited perspective ... I mean, he had no internet access, afterall) ... then selecting the hill Cumorah/Ramah based on that is ... well ... not very logical.

 

There is only one text with relation to Cumorah in that Ether writes from his account by day what he sees. The problem with this though is that one person going out from one location by night cant possibly record all the battles and carnage strewn all over the land. More than likely this cave where Ether dwelt was his home base and there were times when he was indeed far away from home base recording the war.even this though does not tell what approximation his cave was from either Cumorah or the Narrow neck.

 

 

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me whatsoever, Rob.

First of all, anything that Ether would have said would have had connection to the hill named Ramah. Perhaps you can clarify further.

Edited September 4, 2013 by cursor

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It becomes an important detail when added to all the other details being questioned or explored. The main reason why the details matter to so many is because they are in possession of some doubts and are trying to find out which way it goes. Some approach with doubt "leading", and others with faith "leading", some are apologists and others skeptics or critics, still others are disbelievers who once believed and want to convince everybody that their new paradigm of disbelief is founded on rock solid logic and evidence: "How could you still believe this nonsense?" That's their approach. Which firms up the questioning position of those who are examining the details through either faith or doubt, but still have questions. They want answers to confirm their faith or weaken their doubts. The isthmus argument is fundamentally an argument about JS: did he create the BoM or did he receive it? Either way could be under inspiration, but which is it? If the isthmus issue, combined with the other details, lead to a conviction that the details in the text don't find a real world "home", being contradictory or inconsistent or simply impossible to resolve with the requirements somewhere in the Western Hemisphere, then JS created the book (under inspiration or not is a personal conclusion). If the details can be satisfactorily resolved into a plausible setting then JS received the book and did not make anything up....

The point I was trying make, is...we know where many of the cities in the Bible. But knowing the location of a place does not bear witness of the events reported to have taken place, faith is still required to believe Christ was born of a virgin (Mary), even though we all know where Bethlehem is. Not to mention anything found in the way of a Nephi city...who would be able to read a language that only Joseph could do with the add of heaven, unless DNA could be found.

[poulsenll]

 We know that Cumorah was south of the waters of Ripliancum which means to exceed all. There is no such place in Mexico that has a land north of it with great large bodies of water. The proposed idea that it was swampy waters is ludicrous! Swampy waters plague a lot of the entire areas of Central America.

 

According to the actual text found in Mormon and Ether There is no mention of great large bodies of water. It says "Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large".

Following is the actual Book of Mormon text and a description of an area in Mexico that corresponds to the description found in the text.

 

The above citation is found in

Ether 15:7-11

7 And when Coriantumr saw that he was about to fall he fled again before the people of Shiz.

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

to exceed all; wherefore, when they came to these waters they pitched their tents; and Shiz also

pitched his tents near unto them; and therefore on the morrow they did come to battle.

9 And it came to pass that they fought an exceedingly sore battle, in which Coriantumr was wounded

again, and he fainted with the loss of blood.

10 And it came to pass that the armies of Coriantumr did press upon the armies of Shiz that they beat

them, that they caused them to flee before them; and they did flee southward, and did pitch their tents

in a place which was called Ogath.

11 And it came to pass that the army of Coriantumr did pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was

that same hill where my father Mormon did ahide up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred.

 

An additional scripture related to a description of the Land of Cumorah is found in

Mormon 6:2-4

2 And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the ^aland of ^bCumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle.

 3 And it came to pass that the king of the Lamanites did grant unto me the thing which I desired.

 4 And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of ^amany waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites.

 

The following list, extracted from the words bolded in these texts , describes the land of

Cumorah/Ramah and can be compared to any  proposed candidate.

1. It is a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains

2. It is located in the land northward in a place where Mormon resided as a child.

3. It is south of the borders of the waters of Ripliancum.

The following  location has never been proposed as the land of Cumorah/Ramah, although extensive

information is available for this area. The majority of this information is only available in Spanish and this

may be one of the reasons for it remaining in obscurity. Fortunately, the Viceroy of Mexico , shortly after

the Spanish conquest, required that a report be submitted answering 50 questions about all locations

still inhabited by Mesoamerican language groups. These were called Relaciones and are filed in the

various archives throughout Mexico and in the Royal Archives in Spain.

Information about this location is found in the "Relacion de Misantla" prepared by Diego Perez de

Arteaga and presumably was never submitted to the Royal Archives. It was eventually sold along with

other "Relaciones" from Veracruz to the University of Texas at Austin for $10,000.

After acquiring copies of the "Relacion de Misantla" David Ramirez Lavoignet prepared a revision of the

relacion and after adding extensive notes to bring it up to date, published it in 1962.

Using the information in Lavoignet's publication and that obtained from modern three dimensional

maping programs eg Google Earth, a comparison can be made with the following three textual requirements for the Land of Cumorah/Ramah, with the following results.

1. It is a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains.

Beginning on page 70, the hydrographics of Mislanta are described as follows"

Unos de los aspectos mas prominentes de la region de Misantla, es la abundancia de agua, pues es undistrito, humedo por naturaleza, donde jamas han existidos los problemas dificiles de otros lugares. En todo su jurisdiccion abunden manantiales, lagunas, y arroyos. Los grandes rios forman una verdadera red  hydrographica, y es notable que aun en los cerros, se encuentran pequeños fuentes.

 

 

Compare it to the Spanish version  of Mormon 6:4

 4  Y ocurrió que emprendimos la marcha a la tierra de Cumorah, y plantamos nuestras tiendas en derredor del cerro de Cumorah; y se hallaba en una región de muchas aguas, ríos y fuentes; y aquí esperábamos obtener ventaja sobre los lamanitas.

(Rough translation).

One of the aspects most prominent of the region, is the abundance of water, yes it is a district, humid by

nature, where have existed the difficult problems of other places.

In the entire jurisdiction there are abundant springs, lagoons, and streams. The great rivers form a true

hydrographic net and it is notable that even in the hills, little fountains are found.)

He continues describing the sources and effect this abundance of water has on the area and its

inhabitents.

 2. It is located in the land northward in a place where Mormon resided as a child.

Misantla is located about 200 miles northwest of the northern end of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the

generally accepted narrow neck of land that separated the land northward from the land southward in

the Book of Mormon.

3. It is not part of the Land of Zarahemla.

It is about 400 miles northwest of the Grijalva river valley and Santa Rosa, proposed by Sorenson as the

City of Zarahemla. The area of multiple rivers and streams extends

north to the Rio Remolino-Tecolutla and is described by Padre Motolinia during his travels through the

area shortly after the Spanish conquest as:

"... aunque quisieramos volver por otro camino, no podiamos, porque despues que entramos en aquella

tierra, habia llovido mucho, y habian crecido los rios, que eran muchas y muy grandes: ... Uno de estos

rios es el que los espanoles llamaron Almeria (Nautla), el cual es un rio muy poderoso...

Translation

"even though we wanted to return by another road, we could not, because after we entered in that

land, it had rained a great amount, and the rivers had grown, such that there were many and very

large... one of these rivers is called by the Spaniards Almeria (Nautla), it is a very powerful river..."

Relacion de Misantla , page 71

 

The Relacion de Misantla describes an área in Mexico that  fits the description of the land of Cumorah found in the text.

Although one might have a different interpretation of the words used to describe the Land of Cumorah, this location is described using the same or similar words as found in the Text.

 

Larry P

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by poulsenll

[cursor]

I have never been a big fan of Sorensons work. He is trying to make a shoe fit where it possibly cant.

 

I give you one big LOL for that one, Rob. 

[Tiki]

The only time Amerind tribes moved thousands of miles within a discrete period time was at bayonet point, as for the civilized nations forced to go to Oklahoma, for example, and half of them died en route.  That's why it is known as "the trail of tears."  Normally, Amerind tribes remained within small regions for centuries, and some for thousands of years.  Migrations certainly took place, but there was not constant movement of that sort.

The Mongol hordes who swept out from Central Asia, the Vikings, the early Muslims from Arabia, and others have certainly gone great distances and had a profound effect on humanity, but these are exceptional circumstances rather than the norm.

.

This isnt accurate. What of the Chickamagua Wars, for example?

"Open warfare broke out in the summer of 1776 between the Cherokee led by Dragging Canoe and frontier settlers along the Watauga, Holston, Nolichucky, and Doe rivers in East Tennessee. (The colonials first referred to these Cherokee as the "Chickamauga" or "Chickamauga-Cherokee," and later as the "Lower Cherokee".) The warfare spread to settlers along the Cumberland River in Middle Tennessee and in Kentucky, as well as to the colonies (later states) of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickamauga_Wars_(1776–94)

This is an area much larger than Mesoamerica.

[Tiki]

A mesoamerica setting doesnt make sense. The surviving 24 Nephites from the battle at Cumorah fled south. Why? When Moroni allegedly fled north eventually to New York? Why didnt his father with the remaining Nephites also flee northward? Why didnt they retreat into Mexico or farther? There was no geographical features to stop them. It allegedly didnt stop Moroni. Why was Moroni the only Nephite ever to leave a 500 x 200 mile area which confined his ancestors?

The reason the surviving 24 Nephites fled south, is because they lost access to the narrow neck of land (Alma 52:9) which was at the time in the middle or center of the Nephite Lands. The Land of Zarahemla was long ago captured and occupied by the Lamanites. Mormon himself made a treaty with the Lamanites (Mormon 2:28-29). The surviving 24 Nephites fled south because Lake Ontario was to their north and the narrow neck of land to their northwest. The Lamanite King allowed the remaining Nephites to assemble in Cumorah which Mormon knew would be their last struggle because they had lost the narrow neck of land which would have allowed them some defense. But once they lost that point, the Nephites were swept down. (Mormon4:18)

This does not fit a mesoamerica setting, because the Nephites could have simply continued northward, as Moroni allegedly did.

[Tiki]

1 Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared, I had supposed anot to have written more, but I have not as yet perished; and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me.

2 For behold, their awars are exceedingly fierce among themselves; and because of their bhatred they cput to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ.

3 And I, Moroni, will not adeny the Christ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life.

4 Wherefore, I write a few more things, contrary to that which I had supposed; for I had supposed not to have written any more; but I write a few more things, that perhaps they may be of aworth unto my brethren, the Lamanites, in some future day, according to the will of the Lord.

Moroni Chapter 1.

After burying his record, Moroni supposed not to have written more but returned to it to write more because the Lamanites had not found and destroyed him.

So from a Mesoamerica setting we can infer that the Lamanites followed him to present-day Western New York? Hardly.

[Rob Osborn]

This is a question that is often asked and then answered as you have. The evidence of what you mention does not exist.

 

"Pulling up countless arrowheads”                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Where are these countless arrow heads? Oh the ones in museums, they date all over the spectrum from Paleo Indian (8000 years and older).  If they are in this age they are not from a bow, but are projectile points for spears or atlatls. Perhaps they are from the Archaic time (4500-1300 BC). Or perhaps during the Lamoka times the geographical area of New York has changed very little since these times (5000 years ago). The thought that the Lamoka people living South of a glacial sea has been refuted by the most recent geological evidence. Most of all these projectile points have been dated by the predominance of turkey, deer, and pigeon bones found in refuse middens. The Lamoka people have the greatest number of projectile points found in North and West New York. Still these points predate any Lamanite or Nephite  times (2500 BC). Out of the many groups perhaps the closest we can date that would match the people in the Book of Mormon are the Laurentian Tradition 7500-400 years ago. The Laurentians were basically groups of people which shared many customs throughout the Northeast. There mainly found around the Quebec area.

 

"and other war relics was quite common"                                                                                                                                                                                             What are these other war relics you mention?  If these other war relics were "quite common" then there should be abundantly found. I am not saying there are none found, what I am saying is what are they, and do they date to the time of the Book of Mormon? I already mentioned spears and atlatls. What about shields and bucklers? We know these were found in Mesoamerica as was obsidian swords, spears, atlatls, scimitars etc, not any such in New York other that what I have mentioned.

 

"the area in the past two hundred years"                                                                                                                                                                            

"Why even mention a time that does not match the time of the Book of Mormon? So what if they were found, obviously we need archaeological evidence that date to the right time.

 

"not only that, there are numwrous documentationa of mass graves"                                                                                                                                                           Name one massive grave that would fit the time of  the Book of Mormon, next check and compare how many skeletal remains would you expect to find if from the Book of of Mormon.  Are you talking about mound 72 at Cahokia? That is the largest mass grave that I can think of off the top of my head. A total of 272 skeletal remains were        found there. They were buried at different times, some more than hundreds of years apart, and the most were buried around 1050 AD. These "mass graves" could not      be from the Book of Mormon.

 

"ancient earthen fortifications"                                                                                                                                                                                                                      You mean like Cahokia? Cahokia was the granddaddy of all "earthen fortifications" in the US. At its best had a population of 50,000 people (that includes areas close around it. It reached that peek in 1050-1100 AD. As I mentioned above it does not meet the necessary conditions that the Book of Mormon requires.

 

       "What evidence is required?"                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Those you mention would certainly be relevant if they matched the time and numbers required from the Book of Mormon. But they do not and frankly its a little bit exhausting bring these points up time and time again.

 

I apologize I am having much difficulty with the font and making it even...

I appreciate your diligence with your post. It appears we are at a crossroads because I am extremely skepticle of archeologists opinions on dates and their opinions on culture. Proof? Ask 100 of them to find the evidences for the great BoM battles and probably 98% of them will laugh or state the BoM is a piece of fiction. I have several books on the ancient inhabitants ofthe Americas including books on the Maya, Olmec, etc, and not a one of them mention anything about the Nephites, Jaredites, sea travel, etc. This proves to me (I already assume 100% that the BoM is historically correct) that archaeologists and their work has a lot of flaws in it.

[Rob Osborn]

Double post

Edited September 5, 2013 by Rob Osborn