The Narrow Neck Debate Continues...

[Rob Osborn]

My point is not about where Lehi might have landed, but rather about the location of the very significant "narrow neck of land."

 

The Book of Mormon makes it clear that Lehi landed in the "land southward", below the narrow neck of land. The source text also makes it abundantly clear that Zarahemla (in the heart of the land [southward]), the land of Nephi, and the land of first inheritance (where Lehi landed) are all in the land southward.

 

Joseph Smith, in his final months of life, takes responsibility for the published statement in the Times and Seasons,

"... Central America, or Guatemala, is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama] and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.  The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the Crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land ..."

 

As far as I'm aware, this is his final BofM geographic perspective.

 

What this means is that:

• Lehi did not land "south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]."
• Lands Zarahemla, Nephi, and first inheritance are not in South America.
• Lands Zarahemla, Nephi, and first inheritance are north of the isthmus of Darien (Panama).
• The narrow neck of land MUST be the isthmus of Tehuantepec. [if not there, then where else might there be a narrow neck of land, north of Guatemala (where the land of Zarahemla is generally located?)]
• This significant information, in conjunction with the [hands/eyes-on] geographic perspective offered by Mormon within the source text, suggests a dramatically reduced scope of activity for these ancient American cultural interactions.

And should we believe everything published in times and seasons? Like I said before, we could debate all the day long on where we thought JS thought Lehi landed. There is no actual evidence of what JS actually believed. Your biggest obstacle to clear is how the landof desolation is so close to Zarahemla when it should be quite far away. For this reason alone we should discard the limited meso-American view.

[cursor]

Thanks a lot! A very good read. To me it stands as yet another testament of ancient warfare in Western New York.

 

All I can say, in the modern vernacular, is LOL.

Whatever might have happened in Western New York anciently ... has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon peoples.

[cursor]

And should we believe everything published in times and seasons? 

 

As far as I'm aware, Joseph Smith took full responsibility for all that was published in the Times and Seasons within that time-frame (please correct me if I'm wrong). How can you reasonably dismiss the referenced text from the publication?   

Edited September 9, 2013 by cursor

[cursor]

Your biggest obstacle to clear is how the landof [land of] desolation is so close to Zarahemla when it should be quite far away. For this reason alone we should discard the limited meso-American view.

 

[Not] Addressing this specific point, you totally ignored my former post regarding the scouts of Limhi who were sent to find the land of Zarahemla for relief. In review, from a southward position, they traveled north, missed the land of Zarahemla (which was in the land southward), traveled through the narrow neck of land, then continued north and east for a freakin' 6,000 miles to upstate NY .... grabbed the 24 gold plates left by Ether (the history of the Jaredites ... at the hill Raman/Cumorah), then returned to the land of Nephi (again missing the land of Zarahemla), and reported that they'd found the destroyed land of Zarahemla. 

 

Will you address it now, responsibly?

[MormonMason]

 I am going to break this into two posts.  Here is the first.

Lehi landed a little south of the isthmus of Darien according to vol.3 of the times and seasons. We could debate it all day I guess. We cannot thus rule out South America.

...

Ah, I see now.  For some reason I hadn't remembered this one.  I looked it up in the original article.  While it does say that Lehi landed there ("a little south of the Isthmus of Darien," which contradicts the scrap of paper I mentioned above), it does not say that Zarahemla was there.  And, we certainly can rule out South America being the land southward.  Zarahemla stood on the land southward and the land southward was south of the narrow neck of land in the Book of Mormon.  The next editorial a couple weeks later does mention Zarahemla and puts Zarahemla north of the Isthmus of Darien.  That means that the land of Nephi could not have been more than a couple hundred miles or so from Zarahemla, in the highlands.  We can know this because the internal geography of the Book of Mormon puts Manti in a region higher than Zarahemla, and puts Nephi in a yet higher elevation in highlands, with the headwaters of Sidon located in the wilderness dividing Nephite and Lamanite lands.

 

That puts Book of Mormon events in Mesoamerica, precisely the place where many don't want them to be.  A landing is not much of anything when we are trying to determine the places of the main events of the Book of Mormon.  A period of migration between the landing and the main events of the Book of Mormon is allowed by the text.  Here is an example:

 

25  And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men.  And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

(1 Nephi 18:25)

 

They did not stay put long after the landing.  They were there just long enough for a bountiful harvest (previous verses) and began journeying.  Based upon this, even if we accepted the South American landing, it does not look like they stayed there for very long before they again began journeying into the wilderness.  There is no building program going on here until a later time, no setting down of roots.  So, even if we accepted the South America landing in the earlier Times and Seasons article as valid, the Book of Mormon seems to show that they did not stay there for very long (just enough time for harvest) before they began again journeying in the wilderness.

 

Additionally, the following editorial that came out a couple weeks later absolutely rules out South America as the land southward of the Book of Mormon as well as rules out the Isthmus of Darien as the narrow neck of land in the Book of Mormon.  Why? Again:  It is because the narrow neck of land was north of Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon.  Since the editorial places Zarahemla north of the Isthmus of Darien, that cuts out the Isthmus of Darien as the narrow neck and cuts out South America as the "land southward" since nothing further seems to take place there, assuming we accept the South America landing "just a little south of the Isthmus of Darien" premise of the earlier of the two editorials.

 

We also can can rule out South America as the location of Zarahemla, or even the place where Lehi and family set down permanent roots.  This permanent settlement occurred after an unspecified period of journeying in which they found things along the way.  But, you cannot get around the second editorial that clarifies upon the first as to where the location of Zarahemla was proposed.  That leaves out Panama as the narrow neck of land (for, in the Book of Mormon, Zarahemla was south of the narrow neck of land), and thus, South America is left out as the land southward in the Book of Mormon.

[ERayR]

Your biggest obstacle to clear is how the landof desolation is so close to Zarahemla when it should be quite far away. For this reason alone we should discard the limited meso-American view.

 

Common error.  You are thinking of near and far in terms of modern transportation.

[Anijen]

Hum, so when I read about a bone pile from New York that states the bodies were piled randomly, had arrow points in them, etc, I am just suppised to ignore it?

Many of these sites with mass graves have arrow points buried with them, but for ritualistic reasons for example it was customary to bury never before used projectile points attached to the arrow or spear etc all pointing one direction probably for use or protection in the next life. Projectile points that are found within the skeletal remains are few, the most common warfare death is the skull being bludgeoned in and not by a projectile point. less common is the skeletal remains of sacrificial or for cannibalistic reasons. Again death by warfare although we find them it is one of the not so common finds and there has never been a find of in any part of the United States or Canada that has had "Massive graves" or skeletal remains found that were in such large numbers, again off the top of my head I think the largest was actually found in Southeast Utah were 55 (again off the top of my head) of an estimated 100 remains were from warfare. There are more than a hundred found in Cahokia but most were common burials and all from different time periods some estimating hundreds of years apart.

 

All good. There is so much there, thank you.   Another gem is historian Orsamus Turner's work.  "Pioneer history of the Holland purchase of Western New York"  

 

http://books.google.com/books/about/Pioneer_History_of_the_Holland_Purchase.html?id=IioWAAAAYAAJ

 

Here's a snip:  

 

"We are surrounded by evidence that a race preceded them farther advanced in civilization and the arts, and far more numerous. Here and there upon the brows of our hills, at the head of our ravines, are the fortifications; their locations selected with skill, adapted to refuge, subsistence and defense. The uprooted trees of our forest, that are the growth of centuries expose their mouldering remains; the uncovered mounds masses of their skeletons promiscuously heaped one upon the other, as if they were gathered and hurriedly entombed of well contested battle fields. In our valleys, upon our hillsides, the plough and the spade discover their rude implements, adapted to war, the chase, and domestic use. All these are dumb but eloquent chronicles of by-gone ages. We ask the red man to tell us from whence they came and whither they went: and he either amuse us with a wild and extravagant traditionary legend or acknowledges himself as ignorant as his interrogators. He and his progenitors have gazed upon these ancient relics for centuries, as we do now, wondered and consulted their wise men, and yet he is unable to aid our inquires. We invoke the aid of revelation, turn over the pages of history, trace the origin and dispersion of the races of mankind from the earliest period of the worlds existence, and yet we gather only enough to form the basis of vague surmise and conjecture. The crumbling walls the ruins overgrown by the gigantic forests of Central America, are no more involved in impenetrable obscurity than are the more humble, but equally interesting mounds and relics that abound in our region. “ 

These are good quotes but most of these skeletal remains he is writing about here do not date to the BofM.

 

It is very well known that Squire and Davis had adopted the common theory back then which was that the mound builders were not ancestors of the American Indian. At every chance they spoke of their higher knowledge, any type of difference between the American Indian that they knew and the mound builders they emphasized just to make the argument that they were a different people totally different in every way from the American Indian they knew of at that time period. The fortifications most do not date either to the BofM most post date it. 

 

True many plows have destroyed some of these mounds and plows can bring up projectile points but not in "baskets" and most of these are probably from the Lamoka which were not Nephite or Lamanite.

 

As far as "crumbling walls' please name them specifically the whereabouts etc. I am pretty sure these also do not date to the BofM as well.

[thesometimesaint]

Common error.  You are thinking of near and far in terms of modern transportation.

 

Agreed. IE; With modern jet travel we can be anywhere in the world in 24 hrs or less. The Nephites and Lamanites were on foot, greatly limiting the distances they traveled in the time frames given.

Edited September 9, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cursor]

Not at all an issue "saint" ...

 

"Beam me up, Nephi."

Hey ... they could have been anywhere, at any time.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

Too true.

[MormonMason]

Here is the second post.

...

Of course the fortifications are going to be much smaller in Squiers day because of a myriad of factors. He was however a specialist of his day on ancient earthen works who did much study on the mound people and those in Mexico. I know you want to discredit him and be picky. Yes it is true that some of the fortifications he came accross were of modern origin. But the fact still remains that almost entirely the works were of ancient origin and could have served no other reason than that of being a defensive work. Whose word am. I thus going to believe, your or his? Well, until you write a thorough book on the subject ans go walk the ground he did I am gonna believe Squier.

You keep bringing up that it wasnt a defensible land. But that is completely false. It took over two decades for the white man warring with the Iriquois befote internal conflict finally led to their demise in this same area. The area is very defensible and provides every substance in abundance to be able to hold off an army obvioysly.

 

Many of the fortifications were of comparatively recent construction.  Have you read Squier all the way through? He quite clearly states that the earthworks and fortifications in New York also were very inferior to those in Mexico.  See pages 156-158 for an example.  Now those Mexican fortifications sound far more like those of the Book of Mormon, including large enough walls to enclose and defend entire valleys, as well as large walled cities, than do those late builds of New York (most too late beyond the time frame of the Book of Mormon, I might add).

 

Also, read your Book of Mormon more carefully. Nowhere does it state that they build fortifications in the land of Cumorah.  The bare land, as it is in New York, is undefensible in the kind of war described in the Book of Mormon.  On the other hand, the location proposed in one Mesoamerican setting meets all requirements and requires no fortifications.  In fact, the last place in which fortifications are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Mormon 2:4.  Mormon 3:6 is the last occurrence of "fortify" in the Book of Mormon timeline.

 

From this it would appear that all your "fortifications" in New York are useless as Book of Mormon evidences of a final battle taking place there.  I think Mormon would have mentioned any further fortifications had they been built during the course of the war.  Worse for your case, these "fortifications" in New York are too widely scattered around to represent a last stand at Cumorah, which is where the Nephites camped in the Book of Mormon, and land that was on its own of strategic significance, without the need for fortifications and places of resort.

 

Remember also that Mormon would have had to have been on the top of a hill high enough to see all his people dead, people who had gathered together into one place, the land of Cumorah and roundabout the hill Cumorah, not scattered around hundreds of miles out of sight of Mormon from on top of Cumorah.  The fortifications in Squier were spread out many miles away from Mormon Hill in New York, and unseeable from there.  The Book of Mormon is clear that Mormon had gathered together all the remainder of his people into one group in the land of Cumorah and by the hill Cumorah.

 

5  And when three hundred and eighty and four years had passed away, we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah.
6  And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old;

(Mormon 6:5-6)

 

They camped roundabout the hill Cumorah, as the following shows.

 

 

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 many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites.

(Mormon 6:4)

 

No fortifications mentioned at all.  They pitched tents round about Cumorah.  And we know that Mormon liked to mention "fortifications" and "places of resort" a lot, because the Book of Mormon is filled with examples of such.  Squier isn't even useful to evidence a scenario like that mentioned in the end of the Nephite people in the Book of Mormon.  And, remember, the Book of Mormon is clear that all the remainder of Mormon's people were gathered together in one, and were round about the hill Cumorah.  Worse, there is no mention of fortifications in the land northward once they got up past the city on the narrow neck of land.

 

Edited to add:

 

I did not get the chance to finish my thoughts on the above matters, having to do something elsewhere, so I wanted to continue.

 

Fortifications were important to Mormon, likely because he was a military man.  While it is true that many things got abridged out of the volume by Mormon, he did mention the fortifications in the various war campaigns.  It becomes quite odd that Mormon ceases to mention fortifications once reaching the land inner confines of Desolation, if in fact he and the people made use of them.  For Mormon the military man such things as fortifications in military campaigns were very important to him and ended up being mentioned in the campaigns, whether they had them or they assaulted those of others.  But in the case of Cumorah, no fortifications are made but the region of Cumorah itself was of some militarily strategic value.

 

Remember, he wanted to have a chance to gain an advantage over the Lamanites there.  New York's Hill Cumorah doesn't fit that bill at all.  It is of no strategic value.  There were no fortifications used so if Mormon had taken his people there there would have been no strategic advantage he could have gained.  It is not difficult to get into any portion of that land around New York's Cumorah, from any angle.  The brook that is there also is an insufficient barrier and also offered no strategic benefit over battle-hardened warriors.  Children easily could have crossed this brook.  (It is called Hathaway Brook, for those interested.  It also featured in the early history of the Church of Christ/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

 

Worse for the case for New York's Cumorah as the place of the final battles such a slim source of water with a population hundreds of thousands would have killed the population from Cholera!  Hence, the need for fresh water springs and very likely one of the major reasons why Mormon chose the land of Cumorah as his place of last stand.  Having looked considerably into the New York location, as once I very much hoped it would have been, this certainly could not have been Mormon's Cumorah.

 

A population of hundreds of thousands in those times was unsustainable in such a place as the New York hill, and would have turned deadly as cholera struck.  People would have had to travel over 80 miles (over 40 miles both ways) a day get the water that they needed daily from the spring without risking death by plague and pestilence by getting it from the brooks nearby.  In Mesoamerica, however, there were natural springs (fountains) close at hand to the proposed Cumorah, isolated from the risk of E. Coli pollution, and many rivers of water nearby and surrounding the region in a manner that formed a protective barrier that would have bought Mormon and his people some time as well as given them some degree of strategic advantage over the Lamanites.

 

What is more, the proposed Cumorah in Mesoamerica has caves of various sorts.  That's a plus.  The moraine in New York, that was after 1834 identified with the name Cumorah, is not capable of sustaining natural caves, and anything done on that New York hill is easily observable from the ground.  Not so with the Mesoamerican proposal.  Not only are there caves, there are places to hide things there and to hide small groups of people from the ground, as well as making it possible to see vast swaths of land from the top without easily attracting the attention of any Lamanites who might have remained around, looking for stray Nephites.

Edited September 9, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Hum, so when I read about a bone pile from New York that states the bodies were piled randomly, had arrow points in them, etc, I am just suppised to ignore it?

If the dates of the peoples who built the structures in the area cluster around 1050 A.D., then yes.  It had zero to do with the Book of Mormon.

[Bikeemikey]

All of these references to where JS said Lehi landed or zarahemla was located seem totally irrelevant - we have no reason to believe JS had any reason to know much about the actual geographical location of BOM events.

In fact, it is entirely reasonable to assume that scholars of today would have a much better chance of assessing accurate BOM locations than anyone from the early restoration period.

[MormonMason]

All of these references to where JS said Lehi landed or zarahemla was located seem totally irrelevant - we have no reason to believe JS had any reason to know much about the actual geographical location of BOM events. In fact, it is entirely reasonable to assume that scholars of today would have a much better chance of assessing accurate BOM locations than anyone from the early restoration period.

The relevance of the quotes is in that they show that even Joseph Smith had evolving views in the light of scholarship of the period, and that he at that period held to an LGT of some kind.  The relevance of the latter quote is in that Joseph Smith did not at that time hold a Hemispheric geographical view of the Book of Mormon that makes Panama the narrow neck of land.  That he posited a Mesoamerican view of the location of Zarahemla eliminates South America and Panama from the equations of "narrow neck" and "land south" in Joseph Smith's view at the time.  That alone is wherein the relevance lies.  In other words, he knew no more than did we.  That is the whole point.

[ERayR]

Agreed. IE; With modern jet travel we can be anywhere in the world in 24 hrs or less. The Nephites and Lamanites were on foot, greatly limiting the distances they traveled in the time frames given.

 

Somewhere I read of an account of a couple of Spanish monks making the trip from Mexico to Colorado in the 1500's (i believe).  As I recall it took them something over two or three years because of the terrain.

[poulsenll]

Here is a location that Mormon, as a military commander, might have found advantageous. Note the central valley with easily defended access to a nearby river.

 

I would think that this would fit Mormon's needs much better than the New York drumlin.

 

Larry P

Edited September 10, 2013 by poulsenll

[ERayR]

Here is a location that Mormon, as a military commander, might have found advantageous. Note the central valley with easily defended access to a nearby river.

 

I would think that this would fit Mormon's needs much better than the New York drumlin.

 

Larry P

Looks good to me.  Something a general would like for hand to hand combat.

[MormonMason]

Here is a location that Mormon, as a military commander, might have found advantageous. Note the central valley with easily defended access to a nearby river.

 

I would think that this would fit Mormon's needs much better than the New York drumlin.

 

Larry P

Looks good to me, too.  If I recall correctly, there are natural springs that occur at various points up and down the hill, along with a couple at the base, and even one in a cave, if am recalling correctly.  They could drink from the springs without being struck from cholera as a result of their polluting the rivers with such mass numbers.

[poulsenll]

Looks good to me.  Something a general would like for hand to hand combat.

The following scripture has always intrigued me.

Mormon 1:3

3 Therefore, when ye are about twenty and four years old I would that ye should remember the things that ye have observed concerning this people; and when ye are of that age go to the ^aland Antum, unto a hill which shall be called ^bShim; and there have I deposited unto the Lord all the sacred engravings concerning this people.

 

 

The phrase "which shall be called shim" suggests the hill was not called Shim at that time but would be so called at some future date. If the linguists are correct that shim translated to English is "corn" and it is possible that would be called shim because it would be believed to be where corn originated. A few miles west of the above shown location is another hill that is called "Paxil" pronounced pashil. It is one of several locations in Mexico called "corn hill". This particular one is mentioned in the Popul Vu as the place where con originated.

 

This is speculation but the proximity of the two locations and the scripture describing Omer's trip to the east sea where traveling east he passed by Shim and then Cumorah strongly suggests that this location may be the Land of Cumorah described in the Book of Mormon.

 

Larry P

[thesometimesaint]

Somewhere I read of an account of a couple of Spanish monks making the trip from Mexico to Colorado in the 1500's (i believe).  As I recall it took them something over two or three years because of the terrain.

 

Much of that terrain is really tough to travel on. High plateaus, steep dry valley's, and box canyons galore.

[ERayR]

Much of that terrain is really tough to travel on. High plateaus, steep dry valley's, and box canyons galore.

 

Yup.  I've been there

[thesometimesaint]

Yup.  I've been there

 

I lived in New Mexico for almost a decade. Beautiful, but decidedly hard to travel over on foot.

[cursor]

Here is a location that Mormon, as a military commander, might have found advantageous. Note the central valley with easily defended access to a nearby river.

 

I would think that this would fit Mormon's needs much better than the New York drumlin.

 

Larry P

 

For the record, it should be noted that the Google Earth perspective that you've supplied sports a 3x vertical scaling/exageration. A 1.2x vertical scaling (much more normal) looks like this (much less dramatic):

 

 

Edited September 10, 2013 by cursor

[ERayR]

 

 

For the record, it should be noted that the Google Earth perspective that you've supplied sports a 3x vertical scaling/exageration. A 1.2x vertical scaling (much more normal) looks like this (much less dramatic):

 

 

 

 

 

Still a much more likely place for an epic battle than the drumlin in New York state.

[cursor]

Yes, I certainly agree.

 

Attached is a graphic that I sent to my dad last September, with the following text:

"To offer visual scale for the hill Cumorah in upstate NY that anyone should be able to appreciate, I've drawn a rectangle around Temple Square that indicates the hill's size. And, the hill would be no higher than the temple is tall. Clearly it's not at ALL possible that this could be the final battleground for the Nephites (given the numbers that were killed)."

 

His email response was:

"Good idea. The notion alone that the 24 Nephite survivors (Mormon 6:11) might be 'safe' from the Lamanite horde on a hill only that high is manifestly absurd. The density of the population indicated by the casualties would, of course, also be totally unrealistic, as you sense. The whole idea is nonsensical."

 

Edited September 10, 2013 by cursor