New World Archaelogical Foundation

[erdoch]

While I think that Tehuantepec as the narrow neck can be criticized - since a different measurement system would need to be used for the day and a half here than for other distances - I don't think that critique is necessarily a devastating one (the day and a half is from an unspecified line east to the west sea not from the east sea as such, the distance could involve river transportation, etc.). I am personally persuaded by the Mesoamerican theory and can't possibly see how other areas, like northeastern North America, could ever fit with the Book of Mormon, when all other areas lack the population numbers, advanced civilization, writing systems, etc. 

 

The Book of Mormon Resources blog has a different suggestion for the narrow neck of the land (still fitting within Sorenson's general geography) - the coastal sand bar running between Oaxaca and Chiapas in western Mesoamerica. Wonder what people here think of that possibility?

Edited February 24, 2015 by erdoch

[Bob Crockett]

While I think that Tehuantepec as the narrow neck can be criticized - since a different measurement system would need to be used for the day and a half here than for other distances - I don't think that critique is necessarily a devastating one (the day and a half is from an unspecified line east to the west sea not from the east sea as such, the distance could involve river transportation, etc.). I am personally persuaded by the Mesoamerican theory and can't possibly see how other areas, like northeastern North America, could ever fit with the Book of Mormon, when all other areas lack the population numbers, advanced civilization, writing systems, etc. 

 

The Book of Mormon Resources blog has a different suggestion for the narrow neck of the land (still fitting within Sorenson's general geography) - the coastal sand bar running between Oaxaca and Chiapas in western Mesoamerica. Wonder what people here think of that possibility?

 

Dr. Sorenson's model depends heavily upon the geographic feature known as the "narrow neck of land."   He puts it at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, even though it is quite impossible for any person to traverse it in a day and a half.  According to early eighteenth century surveys commissioned by the Mexican government, much of that isthmus was quite impassible.   The rivers and waters are not navigable, contrary to your suggestion.  The rivers near the spine are bounded by difficult gorges and the rivers near the northern coast are vegetation-choked swamps.  WIthout any support whatsoever, Robert Smith has stated that they rivers might be navigable during flooding. 

 

But, to defend the model, Mike Ash (and now your Book of Mormon Resources blog) theorize that the narrow neck of is something much different --- perhaps a political boundary of sorts of some boundary which depends upon features other than the East and West seas.  Or perhaps a quite different physical feature, such as a day-and-half wide "sand bar."  But, remarkably for Ash and your blog, the redefined narrow necks of land just happens -- a happy coincidence -- to fall within the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.   This assertion comes even though a "coastal sand bar" might be found in thousands of other places in the world.  In reality, the Sorenson model rejects the plain reading of the Book of Mormon text for the narrow neck of land and the Ash model and others do their best to reconcile the problems with more supposition heaped upon supposition.

 

Moreover, the common argument which you repeat is that the MesoAmerican theory is viable because you can't possibly see how other areas, like northeastern America, would fare better.    Keep in mind that the Sorenson model is not based upon a spiritual interpretation of the Book of Mormon, or some revelatory feeling about it, but upon "science" and "secular" means.    It would be absurd to say that Einsteinian relatively works because Newtonian principles do not.  Or that fission works because fusion doesn't.  Similarly, Dr. Sorenson's assertion in his works that his model is more "plausible" than others, or the "most plausible," isn't an argument based upon modern scientific means of comparing ancient texts to modern geography.  It is merely an appeal to ignorance.   My model is correct because no better has yet been found.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

We went through this in December, but it seems that certain essentials for the argument (whether the day and a half applies to the whole width, or not (as happens to the case) have gone missing:

From Mormon's Map:

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.)

http://www.mesoweb.c...mples-Chap5.pdf , on pages 68-70.

[Rob Osborn]

We went through this in December, but it seems that certain essentials for the argument (whether the day and a half applies to the whole width, or not (as happens to the case) have gone missing:From Mormon's Map:http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1119&index=5But the whole point of my quotation of Sorenson's Mormon's Map, and his quotations of the relevant Book of Mormon passages, is that they do not require that interpretation of the journey (that is, a day and a half to cross the entire width). If the Book of Mormon does not support that requirement, why worry about the arguments that depend on it?One passage has "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."Another passage has "several researchers have observed that the phrase in Alma 22:32, 'from the east to the west sea,' allows the interpretation that the [“day and a half’s journey for a Nephite] was measured some point short of the actual east sea shore." Incidentally, one of those researchers was John Clark, in RBBM v1. Sorenson accepted the point his work after Ancient American Setting, and cites it in The Sourcebook and Mormon's Map.That is the whole point. The problem not for a Nephite messenger needing to cross the the entire isthmus but rather the part that they concerned themselves with militarily. It is not accurate to assume the argument requires "135 miles wide of jungle, swamp and impenetrable vegetation and malaria" when the text specifies "the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country." Militarily speaking, "swamp and impenetrable vegetation" don't require a great deal of fortification, particularly in the wet season when the armies didn't bother to fight anyway. Impassable mountains don't require that much fortification either. Rather, the roads, trails, and passes, where armies can actually travel that call for serious attention. On the other hand, if the line is a natural boundary like a river (perhaps the Coatzacoalcos). And if it happens that the fortifications involve ditches and timber pallisades, that cutting necessarily changes vegetation in the area and makes that fortified line much more passable, as does the human traffic.And according to Wikipedia, we don't have 135 miles wide, but "At its narrowest point, the isthmus is 200 km (120 mi) across from gulf to gulf,[2] or 192 km (119 mi) to the head of Laguna Superior on the Pacific coast."And it was just a few days ago that Robert Smith pointed out thatAnd the issue of directions has been dealt with in detail by Brant Gardner and Larry Poulson.http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdfFWIWKevin ChristensenCanonsburg, PA

Sorenson, along with others make the fatal mistake of thinking that Limhi's group didnt know they were passing trough the narrow neck of land in their search for Zarahemla. Where in the text does this requirement exist? I dont see anything in the text that states that Limhi's explorers knew the complete geography of the land on the way to Zarahemla. They got lost and its obvious why- they didnt have a clue on what geography they had to pass through to get to the land of Zarahemla.

[Kevin Christensen]

Sorenson, along with others make the fatal mistake of thinking that Limhi's group didnt know they were passing trough the narrow neck of land in their search for Zarahemla. Where in the text does this requirement exist? I dont see anything in the text that states that Limhi's explorers knew the complete geography of the land on the way to Zarahemla. They got lost and its obvious why- they didnt have a clue on what geography they had to pass through to get to the land of Zarahemla.

They did have some clues. If they had no clues, they would also have no reason to set out in the first place. They were third generation, which means, they must have been able to ask living grandparents about the trip. "Grandpa, how did you get here when you came from Zarahemla as a boy? How do we get there? How long will it take us?" And the answer, "Go up to the highlands, find the source of the river, and follow it till you find Zarahemla on the west bank of the river." We know how long it takes Alma's people to make nearly the same trip. About 22 days, and that must be fairly close to what they expected, with some wiggle room for getting lost. But the wiggle room would be in terms of a week or two, not months or years. And the Book of Mormon clearly places Zarahemla in the Land south, and on the West bank of a river. Which all means that when they got to what they thought was Zarahemla, they have to be able to reasonably make that misinterpretation. A hike from Columbia to New York is simply unreasonable given that situation. Not that someone couldn't make the trip, but they couldn't make that trip and think they had been to Zarahemla. Larry Poulson explains it all on his website and in the FAIR presentation I linked. He points out that the eye-witness account provided by the explorers after they returned matches what they would have seen in simply following the Uscimacinta to La Venta rather than the Grijalva to Zarahemla. The sources of the rivers are located within just a few miles of each other. So the whole thing makes sense.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Rob Osborn]

They did have some clues. If they had no clues, they would also have no reason to set out in the first place. They were third generation, which means, they must have been able to ask living grandparents about the trip. "Grandpa, how did you get here when you came from Zarahemla as a boy? How do we get there? How long will it take us?" And the answer, "Go up to the highlands, find the source of the river, and follow it till you find Zarahemla on the west bank of the river." We know how long it takes Alma's people to make nearly the same trip. About 22 days, and that must be fairly close to what they expected, with some wiggle room for getting lost. But the wiggle room would be in terms of a week or two, not months or years. And the Book of Mormon clearly places Zarahemla in the Land south, and on the West bank of a river. Which all means that when they got to what they thought was Zarahemla, they have to be able to reasonably make that misinterpretation. A hike from Columbia to New York is simply unreasonable given that situation. Not that someone couldn't make the trip, but they couldn't make that trip and think they had been to Zarahemla. Larry Poulson explains it all on his website and in the FAIR presentation I linked. He points out that the eye-witness account provided by the explorers after they returned matches what they would have seen in simply following the Uscimacinta to La Venta rather than the Grijalva to Zarahemla. The sources of the rivers are located within just a few miles of each other. So the whole thing makes sense.FWIWKevin ChristensenCanonsburg, PA

Where in the text does it say that Limhi knew how many days travel it was from Zarahemla to Nephi? Also, nowhere in the text does it give any clues that the explorers under Limhi knew some story about the geography and directions to Zarahemla. I never said they went from Colombia to New York, even I dont believe that.

All the text does say is that they went to find the "land of Zarahemla" and ended up being lost in the wilderness for many days and found desolation instead. They never did find Zarahemla in their journey.

[Kevin Christensen]

Where in the text does it say that Limhi knew how many days travel it was from Zarahemla to Nephi? Also, nowhere in the text does it give any clues that the explorers under Limhi knew some story about the geography and directions to Zarahemla. I never said they went from Colombia to New York, even I dont believe that.

All the text does say is that they went to find the "land of Zarahemla" and ended up being lost in the wilderness for many days and found desolation instead. They never did find Zarahemla in their journey.

The text nowhere says that all of the people who made the journey were dead or incompetent or had made a pact to never describe or mention any details except for the name.

Mosiah 21:

25 Now king Limhi had sent, previous to the coming of Ammon, a small number of men to search for

the land of Zarahemla; but they could not find it, and they were lost in the wilderness.

26 Neverthe less, they did find a land which had been peopled; yea, a

land which was covered with dry bones; yea, a land which had been peopled and which had been destroyed ;

and they, having supposed it to be the land of Zarahemla, returned to the land of Nephi, having arrived in

the borders of the land not many days before the coming of Ammon.

The point is that the explorers thought they had found Zarahemla, which is what they were looking for.

Ammon's arrival made it obvious that they had not found Zarahemla, but someplace else.

Mosiah 8:

7 And the king said unto him: Being grieved for the afflictions of my people, I caused that forty and

three of my people should take a journey into the wilderness, that thereby they might find the land of

Zarahemla, that we might appeal unto our brethren to deliver us out of bondage. 8 And they were lost

in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of

Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a

land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings

of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous

as the hosts of Israel.

See Poulson's analysis and comparison of the text with a specific context.

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

If you've got something that works better, share. But "better" requires close comparison, both with his analysis of the particular story, and with other detailed convergences that come from the same setting. A judgment of not orthodox is not the same as "better."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Bob Crockett]

But the whole point of my quotation of Sorenson's Mormon's Map, and his quotations of the relevant Book of Mormon passages, is that they do not require that interpretation of the journey (that is, a day and a half to cross the entire width). If the Book of Mormon does not support that requirement, why worry about the arguments that depend on it?

One passage has "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."

Another passage has "several researchers have observed that the phrase in Alma 22:32, 'from the east to the west sea,' allows the interpretation that the [“day and a half’s journey for a Nephite] was measured some point short of the actual east sea shore." Incidentally, one of those researchers was John Clark, in RBBM v1. Sorenson accepted the point his work after Ancient American Setting, and cites it in The Sourcebook and Mormon's Map.

That is the whole point. The problem not for a Nephite messenger needing to cross the the entire isthmus but rather the part that they concerned themselves with militarily. It is not accurate to assume the argument requires "135 miles wide of jungle, swamp and impenetrable vegetation and malaria" when the text specifies "the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country." Militarily speaking, "swamp and impenetrable vegetation" don't require a great deal of fortification, particularly in the wet season when the armies didn't bother to fight anyway. Impassable mountains don't require that much fortification either. Rather, the roads, trails, and passes, where armies can actually travel that call for serious attention. On the other hand, if the line is a natural boundary like a river (perhaps the Coatzacoalcos). And if it happens that the fortifications involve ditches and timber pallisades, that cutting necessarily changes vegetation in the area and makes that fortified line much more passable, as does the human traffic.

And according to Wikipedia, we don't have 135 miles wide, but "At its narrowest point, the isthmus is 200 km (120 mi) across from gulf to gulf,[2] or 192 km (119 mi) to the head of Laguna Superior on the Pacific coast."

 

Yours requires a reading which is contrary to the Book of Mormon text as well as contrary to much of Sorenson's arugment.   Doesn't Sorenson put it at 135 miles?  Doesn't Sorenson read the Book of Mormon text to say that the day and a half measure is a sea to sea measure?    

 

Your reading of Helaman 4:7 is contrary to the text.  The text says that the fortification was from the west to the east sea, it being a day and half journey on the line which they fortified.  The text does not say the fortification was a day and a half from end to end.   Even so, a fortification from sea to sea is quite problematic as such a fortification line would be much longer than a mere 120 or 135 miles but would tend to follow the line of least resistance along the geography.  And it would also stand to reason that such a fortification would be a major engineering feat, to be observed today much like Hadrian's wall.

 

Further, unless the fortification involves bridges, it is quite improbable to assume that such a fortification could exist in this swamp and difficult terrain.   I don't think that a Nephite could run along the ramparts and cover the ground in a day and a half without major ford-crossings.  Reading ancient Roman and Greek texts of military actions, it often took a day or  day and a half for a small group to cross a single river. Here, you have a malarial swamp, or impassible gorges, for many miles.  

 

I'd say your theory depends upon the most improbable of assumptions and defenses.   It troubles me to see the argument.  Some people could fall away from the Church, confusing the MesoAmerican theory with revealed doctrine. 

Edited February 24, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

This requires a reading which is contrary to the Book of Mormon text as well as contrary to much of Sorenson's arugment.   I don't have Codex in my immediate possession, but if I'm not mistaken I think Sorenson argues 135 miles.  (I could be mistaken.)  Furthermore, Sorenson contemplates not some internal less-than-full crossing but he reads the text as meaning a complete sea to sea measurement.  He argues that it is possible for a Nephite to make the traverse, and it refers to some sort of foot race where 5 or so Indians made 500 miles in 5 days, or something like that.    

 

And so the Book of Mormon says it is a sea to sea measurement.  Your reading of Helaman 4:7 is contrary to the text.  The text says that the fortification was from the west to the east sea, it being a day and half journey on the line which they fortified.  Now, that is quite problematic, as I am sure that such a fortification line would be much longer than a mere 120 or 135 miles, but would tend to follow the line of least resistance along the geography.  

 

Further, unless the fortification involves bridges, it is quite improbable to assume that such a fortification could exist in this swamp and difficult terrain such that a Nephite could run along the ramparts and cover the ground in a day and a half.  Reading ancient Roman and Greek texts of military actions, it often took a day or  day and a half for a small group to cross a single river. Here, you have a malarial swamp, or impassible gorges, for many miles.  

 

I'd say this theory depends upon the most improbable of assumptions and defenses.   It troubles me to see the argument, and some people could fall away from the Church, confusing the MesoAmerican theory with revealed doctrine. 

 

Sorenson accepted criticism of the sea to sea requirement and 120 miles (in Ancient American Setting, p 17, p 30, from John Clark in RBBM 1, among others, which is why a different argument appears in Mormon's Map, and the Sourcebook, and page 22 footnote 6 of Mormon's Codex.  I'm not defending 120 miles because I don't have to.  The Book of Mormon does not require it.

 

Why fortify an impassible swamp?  That might even have something to do with why the text does not specify sea east to sea west.

 

It has long troubled me why people prefer to defend traditional interpretations, confusing them with revelations, despite abundant evidence that the lack of support for such interpretations has led many to fall away from the church.  Personally, I find the work by Sorenson, Gardner, Wirth, Wright, and others, to be marvelously enlightening and faith promoting.  But I suppose the squeaky wheels get the grease.

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

It is not likely that anyone would attempt a fortification line in a swamp.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Rob Osborn]

The text nowhere says that all of the people who made the journey were dead or incompetent or had made a pact to never describe or mention any details except for the name.Mosiah 21:25 Now king Limhi had sent, previous to the coming of Ammon, a small number of men to search forthe land of Zarahemla; but they could not find it, and they were lost in the wilderness.26 Neverthe less, they did find a land which had been peopled; yea, aland which was covered with dry bones; yea, a land which had been peopled and which had been destroyed ;and they, having supposed it to be the land of Zarahemla, returned to the land of Nephi, having arrived inthe borders of the land not many days before the coming of Ammon.The point is that the explorers thought they had found Zarahemla, which is what they were looking for.Ammon's arrival made it obvious that they had not found Zarahemla, but someplace else.Mosiah 8:7 And the king said unto him: Being grieved for the afflictions of my people, I caused that forty andthree of my people should take a journey into the wilderness, that thereby they might find the land ofZarahemla, that we might appeal unto our brethren to deliver us out of bondage. 8 And they were lostin the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land ofZarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered aland which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildingsof every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerousas the hosts of Israel.See Poulson's analysis and comparison of the text with a specific context.http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdfIf you've got something that works better, share. But "better" requires close comparison, both with his analysis of the particular story, and with other detailed convergences that come from the same setting. A judgment of not orthodox is not the same as "better."FWIWKevin ChristensenCanonsburg, PA

Poulsen makes many assumptions regarding Limhi's men and their journey to find Zarahemla. The first assumption is that they probably knew it was on the west side of the river Sidon. But nowhere in the text does it say that Limhi or his 43 men who went searching knew this. The text paints the picture that Limhi knew the land was north of them far enough away that one doesnt just go over a mountain range to find it. We are not sure exactly how much time elapsed from whem they departed to when they returned. It could have been anything from a month to a year or longer. The text never states how far they traveled, what their direction was, or if they had any real idea of what Zarahemla was like as pertaining to geography of the land, culture, how they built buildings, etc. I see it as a thing where no one in their city had ever been to Zarahemla but was rather a story passed down from one generation to the next and what they had wasnt much at that because they obviously confused desolation with Zarahemla and thus two cultures with stark differences where not even the language was remotely the same as attested to by their records they found but could not read. To me it seems like one of those "Lewis and Clark" type of expeditions/explorations where you put your best men in charge to search out and find a place you know exists with little information to work with. What criteria did Limhi's search party have? Pretty much- a land north of them, evidence of civilization, a place one could walk or migrate to on foot, a place far enough away it is unknown as to where its vague location even is.

What I find interesting is that the Nephites and Lamanites are in their lands, Somwhere in the America's, and it takes them around 400 years to find the narrow neck (by accident) which als causes them to find a whole destroyed nation with bones of men and ruins of buildings of every kind. It isnt until after Limhis men find the narrow neck and the land northward that we see migrations and explorations of Nephites into the land northward.

There is no doubt in my mind, from reading the text, that Limhi's men didnt have the slightest clue as to knowing where and how to find and identify Zarahemla. That much is obvious because even the language and culture was completely assigned to Zarahemla when in fact it was the Jaredites who would have had a completely different language and culture.

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................

The Book of Mormon Resources blog has a different suggestion for the narrow neck of the land (still fitting within Sorenson's general geography) - the coastal sand bar running between Oaxaca and Chiapas in western Mesoamerica. Wonder what people here think of that possibility?

This confuses two separate geographical features: (1) narrow neck of land, and (2) the narrow pass.  The latter is used today by the railway, the former is the Isthmus entire or a specific part of it (depending on which theory one holds).  Sorenson carefully distinguishes between them.

[Robert F. Smith]

I bring up logical valid points and he states over and over how I dont read, dont do proper research, and am basically uninformed. He is too arrogant to debate with. I live in Idaho, To get to Oregon from where I live, (which BTW, is the same exact direction of the narrow neck in relation to Zarahemla in the meso-American model) you do not travel "north" to get there. You travel from east to west. This isnt an issue of being uninformed, its an issue of common sense.

And, of course, all Mesoamericans thought the same way that commonsensical people in Idaho do today, right?  Don't confuse you with facts . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................................  

............................................  According to early eighteenth century surveys commissioned by the Mexican government, much of that isthmus was quite impassible.   The rivers and waters are not navigable, contrary to your suggestion.  The rivers near the spine are bounded by difficult gorges and the rivers near the northern coast are vegetation-choked swamps.  WIthout any support whatsoever, Robert Smith has stated that they rivers might be navigable during flooding. 

.............................................................................   

As I said in post #109, 

 

. . . rivers and lagoons abound in the low, swampy Vera Cruz (where the great Olmec culture prospered), the rainy season being from June to the middle of December each year.  So the potential for relatively swift river and lagoon travel could be high.  So what did the Conquistadores find when they made soundings up the great Coatzacoalcos River?  They found the river depth at 5 to 6 fathoms as far as 30 leagues upriver (= 166.68 km), i.e., the river was fully navigable for most of the Isthmus. You can read the facts online at  http://www.mesoweb.c...mples-Chap5.pdf , on pages 68-70.

 

You seem to thrive on making statements contrary to fact, Bob, including misstating the positions of those you oppose, and sneering at the straw men which you conveniently create.  In particular, you do not like anthropological reality.

 

If, for example, the Spanish under Cortes make direct observations which conflict with your apriori views, you simply ignore them.  If the Conquistadores thought the Rio Coatzacoalcos navigable fully 167 kilometers upriver, why they must be wrong.  Even though I cite my source, you state that I did not do so.  And, if archeologists can show that the rain forest and swamps of the Yucatan and Veracruz were well controlled by the high cultures which occupied those areas, why they must be wrong.  Your assumption is apparently that all such areas look today exactly as they did centuries ago, and those ancient civilizations simply did not exist.  No doubt the same applies to the woodland and plains indians of North America:  In your considered opinion, they did not regularly control their environment through the use of fire.  All your assumptions contrary to fact.

[Bob Crockett]

Robert:  I do try to be polite.  I'm sorry that I come across as sneering or making straw man arguments, or purposely mischaracterizing things.  I don't presume that your posts or Dr. Sorenson's works are in bad faith.   When I maintain that Dr. Sorenson's views do not withstand academic scrutiny, I am not disparaging him or his followers personally.   Critiques are not necessarily "sneering."  I respect your views and don't believe that I have ever made any kind of personal attack against you. 

 

As far as "anthropological reality," I think my point continues to be that one should rely upon official or peer-reviewed sources.  "Official" includes the survey of the isthmus I provided you which the Mexican government commissioned in the nineteenth century. 

 

What is the more fulsome cite to that book to which you link?  I'd like to read the book but I can't locate it in that website.   I would very much like to read it for any suggestion that the Isthmus could have been crossed in any time less than 2 weeks.  Really. 

 

I must assume that the Isthmus' features in the early 19th century were much as they were for centuries, unless I'm shown evidence to the contrary.  Moreover, I say nothing about North American woodlands.  They are not part of my analysis and I know little about them.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert:  I do try to be polite.  I'm sorry that I come across as sneering or making straw man arguments, or purposely mischaracterizing things.  I don't presume that your posts or Dr. Sorenson's works are in bad faith.   When I maintain that Dr. Sorenson's views do not withstand academic scrutiny, I am not disparaging him or his followers personally.   Critiques are not necessarily "sneering."  I respect your views and don't believe that I have ever made any kind of personal attack against you. 

 

As far as "anthropological reality," I think my point continues to be that one should rely upon official or peer-reviewed sources.  "Official" includes the survey of the isthmus I provided you which the Mexican government commissioned in the nineteenth century. 

 

What is the more fulsome cite to that book to which you link?  I'd like to read the book but I can't locate it in that website.   I would very much like to read it for any suggestion that the Isthmus could have been crossed in any time less than 2 weeks.  Really. 

 

I must assume that the Isthmus' features in the early 19th century were much as they were for centuries, unless I'm shown evidence to the contrary.  Moreover, I say nothing about North American woodlands.  They are not part of my analysis and I know little about them.

More statements contrary to fact.  Is that your idea of politeness. Bob?  Pretending that the URL in my post doesn't work.  It does.  Denying that you say anything about North American woodlands, when you know that the analogy is provided due to your intentional suggestion that everything is always the same and that no changes ever occur, in order for you to create a convenient and imaginary world which never existed just for the sake of winning an argument.  When have you been sincerely interested in anthropological reality?  Have you actually read serious books on the Mesoamerica which deal with what the high civilizations there did to control their harsh environments?  If you have, you are deliberately excluding them from consideration since they destroy your public position -- for what higher purpose I cannot see, since I would have thought fact uppermost in your set of priorities, regardless of consequences.

 

Instead of a nice discussion of the facts, we get clever put downs.  I expect that from the anti-Morfmons, but why from you?

[Bob Crockett]

Just give me the full reference to book you cite, please. I'd like to read it. Enough of a cite I can get it at a library. The URL only takes me to the middle of the book. Therein I'd like to begin the education you urge.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[MormonFreeThinker]

When I maintain that Dr. Sorenson's views do not withstand academic scrutiny, I am not disparaging him or his followers personally.  

 

Bob,

 

I still believe the Book of Mormon happened somewhere in Mesoamerica, but thanks to you I am now more skeptical about Dr. Sorenson's book. 

There are far to many LDS Near East scholars, we need more LDS Mesoamerican scholars. 

[Rob Osborn]

And, of course, all Mesoamericans thought the same way that commonsensical people in Idaho do today, right?  Don't confuse you with facts . . .

The fact still remains that the geographical location of the narrow neck in meso-America makes no logical sense from reading the text. One can try to warp and distort what the text really says but the bottom line is that the location of the narrow neck in relevance to Zarahemla and other BoM lands just doesnt fit.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob,

I still believe the Book of Mormon happened somewhere in Mesoamerica, but thanks to you I am now more skeptical about Dr. Sorenson's book.

There are far to many LDS Near East scholars, we need more LDS Mesoamerican scholars.

There are many LDS Mesoamerican scholars. The number who subscribe to an LGT with two Cumorahs is quite few, and the number willing to publish in peer reviewed journals their secular and scientific findings advocating cartographic ordinance points that tie to either geography or social anthropology is zero.

But I personally believe the Book of Mormon events occurred in MesoAmerica. There really is only one place where the technology described in the Book of Mormon coincides with anthropology. I just think that LGT theorists need to stick to the scientific method or at least say they are merely offering a non-secular view.

If one ties his cart to Dr. Sorenson's horse, one is likely to become dismayed and might (through no fault of Dr. Sorenson) think the Book of Mormon is to blame. Consider the viturperation you see from those who support Dr. Sorenson's views. Really bad Karma for so sacred a text.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

There are many LDS Mesoamerican scholars. The number who subscribe to an LGT with two Cumorahs is quite few, and the number willing to publish in peer reviewed journals their secular and scientific findings advocating cartographic ordinance points that tie to either geography or social anthropology is zero.

Amazing how you pretend to take a poll, and then muddy the waters with a false premise..  There is only one Cumorah, even though silly folklore posits two.

As to peer reviewed non-Mormon journals, your claim is false, as usual, and deliberately so.  We have discussed this before, and you know full well that no secular, scientific, non-Mormon journal would consider for a moment publication of such a scholarly article.  Not only because the editors are unqualified to review such an article, but also because they would not dare consider publication for fear of alienating their scholarly readership.  The world we live in does not tolerate free inquiry about some things, as well you know.

 

But I personally believe the Book of Mormon events occurred in MesoAmerica. There really is only one place where the technology described in the Book of Mormon coincides with anthropology. I just think that LGT theorists need to stick to the scientific method or at least say they are merely offering a non-secular view.

Another incoherent toe-dance around the subject, to be replaced directly with a new routine.

 

If one ties his cart to Dr. Sorenson's horse, one is likely to become dismayed and might (through no fault of Dr. Sorenson) think the Book of Mormon is to blame. Consider the viturperation you see from those who support Dr. Sorenson's views. Really bad Karma for so sacred a text.

So, now you choose to vituperate and run, as it were?  Karma?  Really?

Where is substantive discussion?

[Robert F. Smith]

The fact still remains that the geographical location of the narrow neck in meso-America makes no logical sense from reading the text. One can try to warp and distort what the text really says but the bottom line is that the location of the narrow neck in relevance to Zarahemla and other BoM lands just doesnt fit.

I don't expect it would to an ordinary Idahoan, or Utahn, who brought to the text the belief that all ancient peoples have the same culture that modern people do, that everything is always the same.  Makes sense, right?  Wrong.  

 

Of course the narrow neck of land being at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec makes no logical sense, unless you know how to use logic.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just give me the full reference to book you cite, please. I'd like to read it. Enough of a cite I can get it at a library. The URL only takes me to the middle of the book. Therein I'd like to begin the education you urge.

Frans Blom and Oliver La Farge, Tribes & Temples: A Record of the Expedition to Middle America Conducted by the Tulane University of Lousiana in 1925, 2 vols., MARI 1 (New Orleans: Tulane Univ., 1926).  Blom was the archeologist in charge, while La Farge was the ethnologist.

MESOWEB has the whole thing in pdf form online beginning at http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/Blom&LaFarge/Tribes&Temples-Chap1.pdf , etc.

 

UCLA has it at the Young Research Library at F1219.T82m no. 1, while in Powell Library it's at F1219.T91 (which is checked out and not due back until Mar 23).  Your law firm can no doubt obtain it through interlibrary loan.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

 

Frans Blom and Oliver La Farge, Tribes & Temples: A Record of the Expedition to Middle America Conducted by the Tulane University of Lousiana in 1925, 2 vols., MARI 1 (New Orleans: Tulane Univ., 1926).  Blom was the archeologist in charge, while La Farge was the ethnologist.

MESOWEB has the whole thing in pdf form online beginning at http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/Blom&LaFarge/Tribes&Temples-Chap1.pdf , etc.

 

UCLA has it at the Young Research Library at F1219.T82m no. 1, while in Powell Library it's at F1219.T91 (which is checked out and not due back until Mar 23).  Your law firm can no doubt obtain it through interlibrary loan.

 

Brings back memories.

 

I have spent countless hours in those libraries.

 

Fast asleep, of course. 

 

But hey one has to worry about keeping healthy when one has to party all night- when else was I supposed to sleep?  If you did it in class the profs research assistants would just wake you up..

 

And if you weren't partying, there were demonstrations to organize and fliers to write and manifestos to plagiarize.

 

I knew every secret desk tucked away in the depths of the stacks in Powell.  Why do libraries all have that library smell? 

Edited March 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

UCLA has it at the Young Research Library at F1219.T82m no. 1, while in Powell Library it's at F1219.T91 (which is checked out and not due back until Mar 23).  Your law firm can no doubt obtain it through interlibrary loan.

 

 Thanks so much.

 

I am now solo after 32 years of being in a mega firm, so any interlibrary loan would be me going to the library.