Topographic Information In The Book Of Mormon

[prismsplay]

The land of Nephi was higher in elevation than the land of Zarahemla.

 

Omni 1:12-13:
Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah [the elder], which was made king over the land of Zarahemla. For behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi - and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land into the wilderness - and it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord. And they were led by many preachings and prophesyings, and they were admonished continually by the word of God, and they were led by the power of his arm through the wilderness, until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla.

 

Omni 1:27-28:
And now I would speak somewhat concerning a certain number which went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi, for there was a large number which were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance; wherefore they went up into the wilderness.

 

Mosiah 7:1-2:
And now it came to pass that after king Mosiah [the younger] had had continual peace for the space of three years, he was desirous to know concerning the people which went up to dwell in the land of Lehi-Nephi, or in the city of Lehi-Nephi, for his people had heard nothing from them from the time they left the land of Zarahemla; therefore they wearied him with their teasings. And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted that sixteen of their strong men might go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi to inquire concerning their brethren.

 

Mosiah 7:9:
And he saith unto them: Behold, I am Limhi the son of Noah, which was the son of Zeniff, which came up out of the land of Zarahemla to inherit this land which was the land of their fathers, which was made a king by the voice of the people.

 

Within Jaredite lands, there was an elevated area between the land of Moron and the land of Nehor, which was lower in elevation than the land of Moron.

 

Ether 7:4-5:
And when Corihor was thirty and two years old, he rebelled against his father and went over [an elevated area] and dwelt in the land of Nehor; and he begat sons and daughters. And they became exceeding fair; wherefore, Corihor drew away many people after him. And when he had gathered together an army, he came up unto the land of Moron, where the king dwelt, and took him captive, which brought to pass the saying of the brother of Jared that they would be brought into captivity.

 

Within Jaredite lands, two elevated areas were traversed during a journey from the land of Moron to a place called Ablom by the seashore.

 

Ether 9:3:
And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land [of Moron, near the Pacific Ocean]. Wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family and traveled many days and came over [an elevated area] and passed by the hill of Shim [where Ammaron hid up the Nephite records] and came over [another elevated area] by the place where the Nephites were destroyed [near hill Cumorah], and from thence eastward [implying that they had not been traveling eastward prior to that] and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore [of the Gulf of Mexico]. And there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and daughters and all his household, save it were Jared and his family.

[Glenn101]

The land of Nephi was higher in elevation than the land of Zarahemla.

 

Omni 1:12-13:

Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah [the elder], which was made king over the land of Zarahemla. For behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi - and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land into the wilderness - and it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord. And they were led by many preachings and prophesyings, and they were admonished continually by the word of God, and they were led by the power of his arm through the wilderness, until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla.

 

Omni 1:27-28:

And now I would speak somewhat concerning a certain number which went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi, for there was a large number which were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance; wherefore they went up into the wilderness.

 

Mosiah 7:1-2:

And now it came to pass that after king Mosiah [the younger] had had continual peace for the space of three years, he was desirous to know concerning the people which went up to dwell in the land of Lehi-Nephi, or in the city of Lehi-Nephi, for his people had heard nothing from them from the time they left the land of Zarahemla; therefore they wearied him with their teasings. And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted that sixteen of their strong men might go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi to inquire concerning their brethren.

 

Mosiah 7:9:

And he saith unto them: Behold, I am Limhi the son of Noah, which was the son of Zeniff, which came up out of the land of Zarahemla to inherit this land which was the land of their fathers, which was made a king by the voice of the people.

 

Within Jaredite lands, there was an elevated area between the land of Moron and the land of Nehor, which was lower in elevation than the land of Moron.

 

Ether 7:4-5:

And when Corihor was thirty and two years old, he rebelled against his father and went over [an elevated area] and dwelt in the land of Nehor; and he begat sons and daughters. And they became exceeding fair; wherefore, Corihor drew away many people after him. And when he had gathered together an army, he came up unto the land of Moron, where the king dwelt, and took him captive, which brought to pass the saying of the brother of Jared that they would be brought into captivity.

 

Within Jaredite lands, two elevated areas were traversed during a journey from the land of Moron to a place called Ablom by the seashore.

 

Ether 9:3:

And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land [of Moron, near the Pacific Ocean]. Wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family and traveled many days and came over [an elevated area] and passed by the hill of Shim [where Ammaron hid up the Nephite records] and came over [another elevated area] by the place where the Nephites were destroyed [near hill Cumorah], and from thence eastward [implying that they had not been traveling eastward prior to that] and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore [of the Gulf of Mexico]. And there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and daughters and all his household, save it were Jared and his family.

 

 

I have never understood the phrase "went down" or "went up" to mean an elevation but rather a direction. Nephi used the term to describe the trip to their father's old home to get the treasures to try to trade for the brass plates. But maybe I am paradigmed because I am from "down South".

 

Glenn

[USU78]

Maybe the terms have moral significance.

 

You drive up to Logan.

You drive down to Provo.

 

Something to think about.

[Gervin]

You go "down" the Shenandoah Valley by traveling north, the direction the Shenandoah River(s) flow toward the Potomac.

[cursor]

The "up"s and "down"s from place to place are totally consistent throughout the Book of Mormon. The idea that Mormon was referring to elevation changes fits perfectly with the Mesoamerican model proposed by John L. Sorenson.

[ERayR]

It has been my experience that when traveling from place to place:

 

Up means to a higher elevation(water runs from there to where you are) (up the creek)

Down means to a lower elevation(water runs from where you are to there)

Over means some place relatively close with little or no elevation changes(next door)

 

Mind you this is a general rule and not hard and fast.

[cursor]

It has been my experience that when traveling from place to place:

 

Up means to a higher elevation(water runs from there to where you are) (up the creek)

Down means to a lower elevation(water runs from where you are to there)

Over means some place relatively close with little or no elevation changes(next door)

 

Mind you this is a general rule and not hard and fast.

 

Yo ... Ray .. that'd be "up the crick," ... no?

[ERayR]

Yo ... Ray .. that'd be "up the crick," ... no?

 

Depends on if you had Mrs. Smith for a teacher or not and also which side of the creek/crick you lived on.

[cursor]

Aside from how you or I interpret "up" and "down" in an ancient geographic description, it's important to responsibly assign meaning based on what Mormon might have consistently meant. What was his frame of reference. Depending on his directional system, "up" and "down" may not have anything to do with "north" and south.' Then again, it might have.

Edited September 25, 2013 by cursor

[Kevin Christensen]

See Larry Poulson's FAIR presentation here:

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[nealr]

I have never understood the phrase "went down" or "went up" to mean an elevation but rather a direction. Nephi used the term to describe the trip to their father's old home to get the treasures to try to trade for the brass plates. But maybe I am paradigmed because I am from "down South".

 

Glenn

 

When they leave Jerusalem, they go "down" toward the wilderness (1 Nephi 2:5)

 

When they go back to Jerusalem, they go "up" (1 Nephi 3:9-10)

 

When they talk about going back to their father in the wildrness, they go "down" (1 Nephi 3:4, 15)

 

When they go to the land of inheritance, they go "down" (1 Nephi 3:16, 22)

 

When they go back to Jerusalem, they go "up" (1 Nephi 3:29)

 

I could go on and on, but here's the thing: the "up"="North" and "down"="South" bit, that is a cultural perception we have from the way we make our maps. Not every culture in every time and place has put "north" at the top of the map. What's more, the land of inheritance was probably north of the Jerusalem (in Lehi's ancestral lands, see Jeffrey R. Chadwick's paper in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem), and yet they went down to it. All of the up/down references to Jerusalem match the topography of the area. (Jerusalem is at a higher elevation than it's environs.) That gives us an indication of how the Book of Mormon authors used up/down, which we can use to try and reconstruct the topography of the New World promised land. 

[prismsplay]

When they leave Jerusalem, they go "down" toward the wilderness (1 Nephi 2:5)

 

When they go back to Jerusalem, they go "up" (1 Nephi 3:9-10)

 

When they talk about going back to their father in the wildrness, they go "down" (1 Nephi 3:4, 15)

 

When they go to the land of inheritance, they go "down" (1 Nephi 3:16, 22)

 

When they go back to Jerusalem, they go "up" (1 Nephi 3:29)

 

I could go on and on, but here's the thing: the "up"="North" and "down"="South" bit, that is a cultural perception we have from the way we make our maps. Not every culture in every time and place has put "north" at the top of the map. What's more, the land of inheritance was probably north of the Jerusalem (in Lehi's ancestral lands, see Jeffrey R. Chadwick's paper in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem), and yet they went down to it. All of the up/down references to Jerusalem match the topography of the area. (Jerusalem is at a higher elevation than it's environs.) That gives us an indication of how the Book of Mormon authors used up/down, which we can use to try and reconstruct the topography of the New World promised land. 

 

In the July/August 2013 issue of Glyph Notes, this same point is made. Here is a brief quote from it:

 

"Jesus had been in the Capernaum / Sea of Galilee area performing many miracles. 'And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem..." (Mark 3:17). The Sea of Galilee is northeast of Jerusalem, not south as we would interpret the word down to mean. In the famous parable "The Good Samaritan" Jesus said, 'A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho..." (Luke 10:31). Jericho, northeast of Jerusalem, is 1300 feet below sea level; Jerusalem is 2,625 feet above sea level. The man who fell among thieves wasn't going south; he was going northeast and descending over 3,000 feet. The Nephites were from this same Israelite culture and used these words in the same manner."

[MormonMason]

The "up"s and "down"s from place to place are totally consistent throughout the Book of Mormon. The idea that Mormon was referring to elevation changes fits perfectly with the Mesoamerican model proposed by John L. Sorenson.

This is particularly true for the ancient Israelites as well.  "Going up to Jerusalem" from the perspective of most places in Palestine was literal.  I see no reason why a groups Israelites in the Americas would not use the same terminology they were used to using.

 

We can figure out elevations for other cities as well, based upon the internal geography of the Book of Mormon.  The head of the river Sidon was in the wilderness attached to Lamanite lands and which divided Nephite and Lamanite lands initially.  Manti was near the head of Sidon.  Zarahemla was northward of Manti.  Sidon flowed from the headwaters near Manti past Zarahemla, and both Manti and the land of Nephi and head of Sidon were southward of Zarahemla.

 

From this we can establish that the river Sidon flowed from south to northward.  Thus, any candidate proposed for Sidon would have to flow a northward direction from a point southward of its flow.  This also implies that Manti was at a higher relative elevation than was Zarahemla.

 

We also can postulate an eastward turn of the Sidon once it flowed past Zarahemla.  We can do so because there is no mention of crossing Sidon when journeying from Zarahemla to Bountiful, which would have been the case had Sidon turned westward.  Zarahemla was on the west of the river Sidon and Bountiful was a large land that stretched from north of Zarahemla to the eastern sea.  It is very likely that the Sidon emptied into the sea east, based upon this.

[Tiki]

This is particularly true for the ancient Israelites as well. "Going up to Jerusalem" from the perspective of most places in Palestine was literal. I see no reason why a groups Israelites in the Americas would not use the same terminology they were used to using.

We can figure out elevations for other cities as well, based upon the internal geography of the Book of Mormon. The head of the river Sidon was in the wilderness attached to Lamanite lands and which divided Nephite and Lamanite lands initially. Manti was near the head of Sidon. Zarahemla was northward of Manti. Sidon flowed from the headwaters near Manti past Zarahemla, and both Manti and the land of Nephi and head of Sidon were southward of Zarahemla.

From this we can establish that the river Sidon flowed from south to northward. Thus, any candidate proposed for Sidon would have to flow a northward direction from a point southward of its flow. This also implies that Manti was at a higher relative elevation than was Zarahemla.

We also can postulate an eastward turn of the Sidon once it flowed past Zarahemla. We can do so because there is no mention of crossing Sidon when journeying from Zarahemla to Bountiful, which would have been the case had Sidon turned westward. Zarahemla was on the west of the river Sidon and Bountiful was a large land that stretched from north of Zarahemla to the eastern sea. It is very likely that the Sidon emptied into the sea east, based upon this.

The River Sidon flowing northward is not accurate as there are very few major rivers in the Americas that flow northward that would fit a prominent river in this description:

"Sidon, River—most prominent river in Nephite territory"

"http://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/sidon-river?lang=eng&letter=s"

"Flows north to the sea" has been removed for "Sidon, River," in the Index to the Triple Combination of the 2013 edition of the LDS scriptures.

The up and down could refer to river valleys, as most cities are built near water sources.

Edit:

Actually, there are no major river systems in the Americas that flow northward.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Tiki

[prismsplay]

Edit:

Actually, there are no major river systems in the Americas that flow northward.

 

The Usamacinta River was the river Sidon, "the most prominent river in Nephite territory", and it flows northward. Neil Steede has gone way past old arguments on where prominent Nephite places were. In the article "Places, People and Trends", are lists of Steede's designations, based on archaeological information, of many places and people mentioned in the Book of Mormon:

 

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol7Issue1.pdf

 

Mesoamerican archaeology is like a slow-loading image that, instead of rolling out in clear rectangular blocks, rolls out full size but all fuzzy until several rollings out of details are complete. The first picture of it seemed to have nothing specific to do with the Book of Mormon, not in dating, not in population density, and not in agriculture. But after several decades of rolling out new details, the dating has been moving steadily in the direction of Book of Mormon dates, the sparse population estimates of the past have been discarded, and theories of slash-and-burn have been replaced by recognition of widespread intensive agriculture.

 

Steede has found archaeological evidence of many persons and events that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Any one designation can be disputed, but the growing mass of such evidence is becoming a preponderance that cannot be easily dismissed, except by simply ignoring it.

[Tiki]

The Usamacinta River was the river Sidon, "the most prominent river in Nephite territory", and it flows northward. Neil Steede has gone way past old arguments on where prominent Nephite places were. In the article "Places, People and Trends", are lists of Steede's designations, based on archaeological information, of many places and people mentioned in the Book of Mormon:

 

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol7Issue1.pdf

 

Mesoamerican archaeology is like a slow-loading image that, instead of rolling out in clear rectangular blocks, rolls out full size but all fuzzy until several rollings out of details are complete. The first picture of it seemed to have nothing specific to do with the Book of Mormon, not in dating, not in population density, and not in agriculture. But after several decades of rolling out new details, the dating has been moving steadily in the direction of Book of Mormon dates, the sparse population estimates of the past have been discarded, and theories of slash-and-burn have been replaced by recognition of widespread intensive agriculture.

 

Steede has found archaeological evidence of many persons and events that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Any one designation can be disputed, but the growing mass of such evidence is becoming a preponderance that cannot be easily dismissed, except by simply ignoring it.

I thought the Grijalva River was the alleged River Sidon. It and the Usamacintas flow into the same river delta. There are also six other rivers in Central America/Southern Mexico which flow north into the Gulf of Mexico, including the largest and navigable Coatzacoalcos River. What's wrong with that one? Because Steede never worked on it? And why is Steede accurate when Dr. Sorenson claims the Maya were not the Nephites?

[ERayR]

:

Actually, there are no major river systems in the Americas that flow northward.

 

Check a map - The Missouri River from its headwaters near the Montana - Idaho border flows north to Great Falls Montana where it turns east.  Not sure of the distance bet it is well over a hundred miles.  The Grijalva and Usumacinta rivers in Central America.  There could be many more.

 

The Missouri is definitely in the wrong place but does flow North.  That still leave the Grijalva and Usumacinta as viable candidates.

Edited September 29, 2013 by ERayR

[prismsplay]

I thought the Grijalva River was the alleged River Sidon. It and the Usamacintas flow into the same river delta. There are also six other rivers in Central America/Southern Mexico which flow north into the Gulf of Mexico, including the largest and navigable Coatzacoalcos River. What's wrong with that one? Because Steede never worked on it? And why is Steede accurate when Dr. Sorenson claims the Maya were not the Nephites?

 

"Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (May 6, 1833 revelation through Joseph Smith). Spirit-guided research brings all of this into one's thoughts concerning any research: "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things" (Moroni 10:5). When Neil Steede speculates on matters outside his area of expertise, I am usually disappointed. Where he shines is using his knowledge of the present, the past, and the future to notice things in Mesoamerican archaeology that link up with the Book of Mormon. Since Steede is nearly blind, he often uses David Brown to write up what previous research has unveiled. The article "Bountiful Historical Society" is Steede at his best:

 

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol2Issue1.pdf

 

Since this sort of expression combines archaeological research with religious imagination, it can be dismissed by those who want to restrict archaeology to scientific reporting. The only problem with such dismissal is that can prevent the real truth from shining through. For Steede, the Nephite golden age was real. He used his religious imagination to understand what some people in that golden age would do to commemorate some significant events in their religious history, some of which are recorded in the Book of Mormon, which means that some of the engraved stones mentioned in the article might be directly related to what we have recorded in the Book of Mormon.

 

As for the river Sidon, it must flow next to the city of Zarahemla on the west side of a bend in it, which Steede and others have shown to be Yaxchilan on the Usumacinta River.

[Anijen]

Check a map - The Missouri River from its headwaters near the Montana - Idaho border flows north to Great Falls Montana where it turns east.  Not sure of the distance bet it is well over a hundred miles.  The Grijalva and Usumacinta rivers in Central America.  There could be many more.

 

The Missouri is definitely in the wrong place but does flow North.  That still leave the Grijalva and Usumacinta as viable candidates.

I live next to the Missouri and have never considered it a North flowing river. Although it does for that small patch it flows mainly East and South, connects with the Mississippi and those flow of waters end in the Gulf of Mexico (again South). So in the big picture I would not claim it as a North flowing river.

[MormonMason]

The River Sidon flowing northward is not accurate as there are very few major rivers in the Americas that flow northward that would fit a prominent river in this description:

"Sidon, River—most prominent river in Nephite territory"

"http://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/sidon-river?lang=eng&letter=s"

"Flows north to the sea" has been removed for "Sidon, River," in the Index to the Triple Combination of the 2013 edition of the LDS scriptures.

The up and down could refer to river valleys, as most cities are built near water sources.

Edit:

Actually, there are no major river systems in the Americas that flow northward.

"Flows north to sea" is a flaw that should have been removed.  Flowing southward to northward is not a flaw or error, as anyone who reads the Book of Mormon carefully enough knows.  The reasons for this are that the headwaters of Sidon were south of and near to Manti.  Manti was near a valley on the west of Sidon.  Manti is southward from Zarahemla.  Sidon flows past the land of Manti and and flows from there past Zarahemla.  That indicates a southward to northward flow of water.

 

Up and down could refer to ascending and descending into river valleys.  It still involves changes in altitude, which does not in the least detract from my point and actually supports my thesis that up and down are relative altitudes in traveling.  It also does not change the fact that the Book of Mormon places the headwaters of Sidon southward of Manti and Manti southward from Zarahemla.  This means that the headwaters would have to be on a higher elevation from Manti, and Manti lower than the headwaters but still higher than Zarahemla.  This also still shows that one goes "down" to Zarahemla and "up" when leaving it to go toward Manti and regions southward of Manti.

 

And, you would be quite wrong about there not being large rivers that flow in that southward to northward direction in the Americas.  The Grijalva river in Mexico flows that way.  Usumucinta also does so but in a more meandering way, than does Grijalva.  (This, by the way, is one reason why a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon makes sense, because travelers trying to get to Zarahemla and who depart out of the land of Nephi in such a manner as not to be caught by the Lamanites heading toward Zarahemla directly would get lost while trying to find Zarahemla because of the meandering of Usumacinta, and it would take many days to make that journey back and forth).  There are other river systems that flow that way elsewhere as well.

[MormonMason]

The Usamacinta River was the river Sidon, "the most prominent river in Nephite territory", and it flows northward. Neil Steede has gone way past old arguments on where prominent Nephite places were. In the article "Places, People and Trends", are lists of Steede's designations, based on archaeological information, of many places and people mentioned in the Book of Mormon:

 

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol7Issue1.pdf

 

Mesoamerican archaeology is like a slow-loading image that, instead of rolling out in clear rectangular blocks, rolls out full size but all fuzzy until several rollings out of details are complete. The first picture of it seemed to have nothing specific to do with the Book of Mormon, not in dating, not in population density, and not in agriculture. But after several decades of rolling out new details, the dating has been moving steadily in the direction of Book of Mormon dates, the sparse population estimates of the past have been discarded, and theories of slash-and-burn have been replaced by recognition of widespread intensive agriculture.

 

Steede has found archaeological evidence of many persons and events that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Any one designation can be disputed, but the growing mass of such evidence is becoming a preponderance that cannot be easily dismissed, except by simply ignoring it.

I find myself disagreeing with Steede on many grounds, not the least of which is that the cities he equates with Book of Mormon cities do not match and are too late to fit within the Book of Mormon time period.  Bonampak was built in A.D. 600.  His statements regarding Yaxchilan being Zarahemla and Bonampak being Melek are among the most troubling.  Now matter how much one moves the map around, the directionality of these cities in relation to one another cannot match the Book of Mormon, even with an Usumacinta/Sidon setting.

 

Worse, the layout of Yaxchilan with the way it is laid out cannot fit the Book of Mormon descriptions of Zarahemla, either.  Zarahemla was not surrounded by Sidon, which is why it was regarded as potentially vulnerable when Coriantumr marched with the Lamanites and headed toward Zarahemla.  Yaxchilan is easily defensible because of its river setting.  Zarahemla was defensible but still vulnerable because it was surrounded by walls and had more than one way into and out of the city.

[prismsplay]

The Book of Mormon either has or does not have topographic information in it. I, and several others posting here, are convinced that it does. Others may be resisting that conclusion because of the consequences for agreeing with it. For that would mean that all pet geographic theories would have to be reexamined. As long as Book of Mormon geography is kept two-dimensional, several theories are possible. But when one must take topographic information into account and must point to a three-dimentional setting for the Book of Mormon, I, and many others, believe that only Mesoamerica makes sense. 

 

I can understand the reluctance to subject one's geographical views to three-dimensional realities. If that resulted in the only possibility being Mesoamerica, then one might feel that is cornering the church, so that if Mesoamerican archaeology has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, it would undermine both the Book of Mormon's and the church's credibilities.

 

Since I have been associated with the RLDS traditions, I know how the fear of getting cornered has affected RLDS Book of Mormon scholars. The RLDS pioneer in designating the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as the narrow neck was Louis Hills in a 1917 book. RLDS Apostle Paul M. Hanson later supported Hills' designation. But some of the best RLDS Book of Mormon scholars, such as Thelona Stevens and Roy Weldon, were reluctant to say that Mesoamerica was the only place where it could have happened.

 

Verneil Simmons was among the first RLDS Book of Mormon scholars to emphatically designate Mesoamerica. She and her husband further designated Cerro Rabon in northern Oaxaca as hill Cumorah, and they claim to have been encouraged toward that designation through both study and spiritual experiences. Her one opportunity to visit Cerro Rabon, where legends of three holy men being occasionally seen existed, was ruined by an extremely heavy rainstorm. But an archaeology student, Neil Steede, who was a friend of her sons went to Cerro Rabon and claims to have had an encounter with one of the three immortal Nephites there, who communicated to him that the time had not yet come for the records to be revealed.

 

When the sacred records are discovered in whatever hill or mountain they are discovered in, that should finally weed out false geographies. Through both faith and some knowledge I feel safe in already being convinced that Mesoamerica is Book of Mormon country.

Edited September 29, 2013 by prismsplay

[prismsplay]

I find myself disagreeing with Steede on many grounds, not the least of which is that the cities he equates with Book of Mormon cities do not match and are too late to fit within the Book of Mormon time period.  Bonampak was built in A.D. 600.  His statements regarding Yaxchilan being Zarahemla and Bonampak being Melek are among the most troubling.  Now matter how much one moves the map around, the directionality of these cities in relation to one another cannot match the Book of Mormon, even with an Usumacinta/Sidon setting.

 

Worse, the layout of Yaxchilan with the way it is laid out cannot fit the Book of Mormon descriptions of Zarahemla, either.  Zarahemla was not surrounded by Sidon, which is why it was regarded as potentially vulnerable when Coriantumr marched with the Lamanites and headed toward Zarahemla.  Yaxchilan is easily defensible because of its river setting.  Zarahemla was defensible but still vulnerable because it was surrounded by walls and had more than one way into and out of the city.

 

Steede's basic arguments that Yaxchilan was the city of Zarahemla can be found here:

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol1Issue2.pdf

 

Steede observed that Yaxchilan archaeology has discovered some details about the Mulekite kings that are not included in the Book of Mormon. By combining two sources of information, we get a clearer picture of what was going on back then concerning the transfer of the kingship from Mulekites to Nephites. I suppose that just from the Book of Mormon we could guess that there would be problems with that transfer (i.e. the later rise of kingmen). But archaeological evidence, as reported and interpreted by Steede, suggests that deliberate steps were taken to avoid such problems. This is interesting to me. I would not be so quick to reject Yaxchilan as a possible site of the city of Zarahemla. Concerning Yaxchilan being almost surrounded by what many believe was the river Sidon, it should be noted that there is archaeological evidence that a suspension bridge existed for easily crossing the river.

[MormonMason]

Steede's basic arguments that Yaxchilan was the city of Zarahemla can be found here:

http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol1Issue2.pdf

 

Steede observed that Yaxchilan archaeology has discovered some details about the Mulekite kings that are not included in the Book of Mormon. By combining two sources of information, we get a clearer picture of what was going on back then concerning the transfer of the kingship from Mulekites to Nephites. I suppose that just from the Book of Mormon we could guess that there would be problems with that transfer (i.e. the later rise of kingmen). But archaeological evidence, as reported and interpreted by Steede, suggests that deliberate steps were taken to avoid such problems. This is interesting to me. I would not be so quick to reject Yaxchilan as a possible site of the city of Zarahemla. Concerning Yaxchilan being almost surrounded by what many believe was the river Sidon, it should be noted that there is archaeological evidence that a suspension bridge existed for easily crossing the river.

The dating is all wrong.  That is one of several major problems with Steede's claims.  Bonampak was built in A.D. 600.  That is far too late for Book of Mormon times. and there was no Nephite culture by that time.  Nephite civilization ended in A.D. 385.  The topography also is wrong, even if you skew directions by rotating the map.  When you add the the city claimed by Steede as Ammonihah, the topography even more is not laid out as the Book of Mormon has it in relation to Zarahemla, Melek and Ammonihah, and the directions taken in reaching each of these in relation to the others.

 

It gets worse when you consider that Yaxchilan was a lesser city than Bonampak.  Zarahemla was the capitol city of the Nephites.  No way it would have been lesser than Bonampak.  Zarahemla also was defended by walls.  Yaxchilan's chief defense was the Usumacinta.  The nearest remnants of walls are ten miles away, next to the remains of several settlements under control of Yaxchilan.  But Zarahemla itself was walled.

 

Thus, Yaxchilan on these grounds alone cannot have been Zarahemla, not to mention the very late dating of Yaxchilan.  Yaxchilan first became the capitol city of a ruling Maya dynasty in A.D. 359.  The Nephites already had been relocated to the land northward just after A.D. 349, and had given up the entire land southward to the Lamanites per their treaty.  (Compare Mormon 2:28-29).  Thus, Yaxchilan was neither a Nephite city nor under control of Nephites, and certainly could not have been Zarahemla in the time of Alma if it became a capitol city for the first time in A.D. 359.  The city itself was founded somewhere around A.D. 200 but definitely before A.D 300.  The ruling dynasty was founded there, in what had been a small hamlet up to that time, in A.D. 320, the ruler at that time being called Jaguar Penis.  That is far too late for Zarahemla.

Edited October 2, 2013 by MormonMason

[prismsplay]

The dating is all wrong.  That is one of several major problems with Steede's claims.  Bonampak was built in A.D. 600.  That is far too late for Book of Mormon times. and there was no Nephite culture by that time.  Nephite civilization ended in A.D. 385.  The topography also is wrong, even if you skew directions by rotating the map.  When you add the the city claimed by Steede as Ammonihah, the topography even more is not laid out as the Book of Mormon has it in relation to Zarahemla, Melek and Ammonihah, and the directions taken in reaching each of these in relation to the others.

 

Your trust in dates is dangerous, for if those dates prove to be wrong, then your argument falls apart. No rotating of any map is necessary for the river Sidon to be the Ucumacinta River for me. As for topography, I would like to know which statements in the Book of Mormon you are basing conflicts on.

 

To quickly find Book of Mormon passages relating to geographical directions and topography, I employ the "Geography Concordance" in The Book of Mormon: Restored Covenant Edition (1999). Since it refers to RLDS chapters and verses, I use a booklet linking up RLDS to LDS chapters and verses, so I can then find the passages in The Book of Mormon: the Earliest Text (2009), which I prefer (Restored Covenant Edition failed to correct "Amalikites" to "Amlicites", and failed to correct two geographical blunders that The Earliest Text corrected).

 

Although the LDS is far superior to Community of Christ in Book of Mormon scholarship, there have been and still are persons in the RLDS tradition who have contributed to Book of Mormon archaeology and geography (which requires reference to the topographic information in the Book of Mormon).

 

The Cerro Rabon designation as hill Cumorah by Verneil Simmons and Neil Steede has widespread acceptance among Book of Mormon enthusiasts in the RLDS tradition. A tour titled "The Land Northward" is being planned for March 27 - April 6, 2014 by the Pre-Columbian Studies Institute. "A highlight of the tour will be a visit to the Veracruz area and Hill Rabon (Cumorah), believed by many of us to be the resting place of the complete library of sacred records left by the Nephites. We travel where adventures often happen!"