Recently, much has been made of FAIR taking issue with a DVD and fireside presentation of a theory which claims that the Book of Mormon events were based in the upper Great Lakes region. While that theory may be right, the proponents of the Great Lakes theory bear the burden of showing that it is so.
While I shan’t go deeply into the that theory, let me briefly state why I am unconvinced by the evidence thus far presented, in spite of the fact that an emeritus General Authority is convinced:
1. Zarahemla is north of the River Sidon’s head [Alma 22:27]. This means that it flows from south to north, which to me is fatal to any claim that the Mississippi (or any of its tributaries) is the River Sidon. In what Joel Garreaux calls The Nine Nations of North America,” There are only three such river systems:
a. The Finlay/Peace/Mackenzie Rivers–among North America’s longest–flowing a total of 2,635 miles before emptying into the Arctic Ocean,
b. The Red River of the North; its 550-mile span forms the border between North Dakota and Minnesota, before emptying into Lake Winnepeg, in Manitoba, and
c. The Saint Johns River, which travels 310 miles in peninsular Florida, emptying into the Atlantic Ocean.
There are others, but they are part of these three watersheds.
2. The Book of Mormon states that the Sidon River flows through a peninsula-like Land Southward toward a “narrow neck” separating it from the Land Northward [Alma 22:29-30; 63:5]. In Garreau’s “Nine Nations,” there are only three such peninsulas: Baja California, the Delmarva Peninsula, which forms the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay, and peninsular Florida. To me, this eliminates Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas, both of which point northward. Of the three “southward” peninsulas, only Florida has the requisite northward-flowing navigable river system.
3. East of the Book of Mormon River Sidon are at least two hills: Amnihu [Alma 2:15] and Riplah [Alma 43:35]. Unfortunately, Florida’s highest elevation, Britton Hill, is the lowest among the fifty States, and is located in the Panhandle region, roughly two miles south of the Alabama State line. The only things resembling hills is in the central Florida highlands, which include Sugarloaf and Iron Mountains, and many miles to the west of the Saint Johns basin.
While it would be cool for Americans if Book of Mormon lands were located in Anglo North America, the facts that the Mississippi flows southward, Michigan’s peninsulas are “northward,” and Florida is FLAT makes that extremely unlikely.
To be “fair,” though, I must also point out that there are also problems in a pure Mesoamerican “Local Geography Theory”, as well as the “Hemispheric Theory.” In the interest of “full disclosure,” I believe that the truth lies in a “hybrid” of the latter two theories.
Yet, there are (at least) two people who presented a Great Lakes theory for the Book of Mormon. Indeed, I go out of my way to praise Brother Theodore Brandley in my post “Deus ex machina” and in comments to Greg Smith’s post, “Book of Mormon geography“, and why does FAIR’s Larry Poulson, an emeritus professor the University of Texas, who believes the in the Mesoamerican model, posted Brother Brandley’s thesis paper on his web site. As far as I’m concerned, he deserves praise, even though I am unconvinced of his theory. He states his thesis, and lets it stand or fall on its merits, he is willing top listen when others have evidence which qualifies or contradicts his thesis, adjusting his argument when called for, and he does the necessary research to strengthen his position. Moreover, he doesn’t attack those who are unconvinced by his theory. In short, he does the scholarship right, and doesn’t claim revelatory powers he doesn’t possess.
This may cause the reader to wonder: “Why has FAIR’s members taken Brother Brandley seriously, while taking issue with Brother Rod Meldrum?” What is the core of our antipathy toward Meldrum is not his advocacy of a “Great Lakes Theory” (Some FAIR members believe in it, and, as I said above, an emeritus General Authority is convinced.), but in the tactics he uses in that advocacy:
1. Using statements by Joseph Smith to gain a better idea of where he thought Book of Mormon sites are located is fine, but to give his opinions based on his “best evidence” the authority of divine revelation, is, at best, foolhardy, considering statements of subsequent leaders that there is no revealed Book of Mormon map [The Instructor, April 1938, 160]. At worst, it is usurping revelatory powers for ALL members of the Church; powers that he does not have.
2. Along those lines, Meldrum (and his defenders) attack those who are unconvinced of his theory, commanding them to get in line with the Brethren–and with his revelation that his model is true. Funny; I do not recall sustaining Brother Meldrum as “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” at any General, Stake, or Ward Conference. In fact, I don’t recall a vote to sustain him for ANY calling.
3. At best, having an emeritus General Authority give what marketers and sociologists call a “testimonial” in propagandising is an argument from authority, among the weakest of arguments. But what Meldrum is doing is far worse. He skillfully portrays any questioning of the merits of his theory as “evil speaking of the Lord’s Anointed,” for not following that emeritus General Authority to the same conclusion. I don’t like Meldrum’s less-than-integral implementation of LDS doctrine, and I don’t like his use of honourably-released leaders as a club to use to beat good members of the Church who commit the “sin” of not agreeing with him.
4. When FAIR’s leaders told him that his evidence was weak, Meldrum attacked “the scholars” for allegedly disbelieving in revelation and in Joseph Smith’s diving calling, thus “poisoning the well“. Moreover, such a tactic gives credibility to anti-Mormon claims that Latter-day Saints “assassinate their brains.”
5. Among the scholars Meldrum belittles are members of FARMS, who he says are working against the Brethren. Apparently, the Brethren disagree, since they chose to fund FARMS’s research by appending it to the Church’s flagship school, Brigham Young University.
6. To illustrate his disdain for scholarship, Meldrum offers little as evidence–except for revelation–to him. While the revelation he gets MAY be right, until I get a witness, I’m not biting. 😉
7. Meldrum refuses to consider others’ problems with his theory. He neither attempts to strengthen his theory, nor adjusts it as appropriate.
8. Finally, Meldrum incites others to do the dirty work of attacking those who don’t unquestioningly accept his theories.
To sum up, there is a reason for FAIR’s conservatism: Our mission is not proving the Book of Mormon (That’s the Holy Ghost’s job!), but to give a plausible answer for our faith [See II Peter 3:15]. Far-out explanations–with no basis in solid scholarship–detracts from our ability to help others.
Hasn’t Meldrum been a focus enough? I think the first half of your post (which is pretty devastating even ignoring other problems) is all that needed to be said. Yes there are some problems with the mesoAmerican view but most of those (horses, etc.) apply to the Great Lakes region as well.
I carry no water for Meldrum or his theory, but it would be nice if, in a post about misusing scholarship, you cited a scholar as your authoritative source on geography rather than a journalist (Garreau). I can’t find the information you cite in the Nine Nations index, so I don’t know the context of Garreau’s claims, but it appears he is talking about entire river systems while you are talking about individual rivers. Facts about river systems tell you nothing about the River Sidon. The San Joaquin River, for example, flows north even though the entire river system itself would be characterized as flowing west into the Pacific Ocean. In the Great Lakes basin, the Cuyahoga River flows north into Lake Erie. As for peninsulas, Southern Ontario is surrounded on three sides by water (sometimes rivers, sometimes lakes) and hence would seem to qualify as a south-pointing peninsula, despite Garreau’s assertion.
There are still problems matching up everything at once, but your dismissal of the Great Lakes basin solely on the basis of Garreau’s either incorrect or misinterpreted geographic assertions is not warranted.
Steven.
Thank you for your kind words about my scholarship, however, they do not let you off the hook. In order to live up to the reputation you have given me I must point out some of your errors. 😉
**Zarahemla is north of the River Sidon’s head [Alma 22:27]. This means that it flows from south to north, which to me is fatal to any claim that the Mississippi (or any of its tributaries) is the River Sidon.**
You are correct when you write that Alma 22:27 states that Zarahemla is north of the “head of the river Sidon.” You are in error when you conclude that, “This means that it flows from south to north…” Let’s check it out:
(Alma 22:27)
“And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west–and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.”
The verse above which you cited states that a “narrow strip of wilderness,” which was south of the land of Zarahemla, ran “round about on the borders of the seashore.” This places the seashore south of Zarahemla, and rivers run to the sea. Therefore, the river Sidon ran from the north, past Zarahemla, south past Manti and through this narrow strip of wilderness into the sea. This same verse also places the “head of the river Sidon” near this narrow strip of wilderness, which was by the seashore. Again, as rivers run to the sea the “head of the river Sidon” therefore cannot be the “headwaters” of the river, but must be the “headland” of the river Sidon, or the delta that is created by a large river where it empties into the sea.
That the “head of the river Sidon” is by the sea is confirmed by a second witness from the text:
(Alma 50:11)
“And thus he cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon…”
Again, as rivers run to the sea, the river Sidon therefore flows from Zarahemla south to the sea. There is only one river in North America that flows from north to south, and has a large headland or delta where it flows into the sea, and that is the Mississippi River. The Mississippi as the river Sidon makes perfect sense and enables the rest of the Book of Mormon geography to fit simply and accurately into the continent of North America.
**The Book of Mormon states that the Sidon River flows through a peninsula-like Land Southward toward a “narrow neck” separating it from the Land Northward [Alma 22:29-30; 63:5].**
None of the verses you cite state anything about the river Sidon flowing through any “peninsula-like Land Southward.” This is an erroneous conclusion that you have reached by thinking inside the hour glass. The border cited in these verses is the northern border of the Land Bountiful, between the Land Northward (Desolation). When Ammon explained to the people of Zarahemla about the people of Anti-Lehi-Nephi, the voice of the people came saying, “Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful…” (Alma 27:22) This places Jershon and the land of Bountiful east of the land of Zarahemla. The river Sidon ran north and south of Zarahemla, not east. There is no text that places the river Sidon in the land of Bountiful.
**East of the Book of Mormon River Sidon are at least two hills: Amnihu [Alma 2:15] and Riplah [Alma 43:35].**
Now you’re getting into the good stuff!
More later on the Hill Amnihu and the Hill Riplah.
-Theodore
The City of Zarahemla
In order to identify the Hill Amnihu we first need to identify the city of Zarahemla. In Omni 1:15-16 we read:
“Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.”
Notice that their journey through the wilderness was before they crossed the great waters, and they had remained where they had landed. They therefore would have sailed up the river Sidon from the sea and landed at Zarahemla. That Zarahemla was not far from the sea is evidenced by the fact that Zarahemla was in the lowlands. The Nephites always traveled down to Zarahemla, and came up from Zarahemla (Omni 1:13; Alma 2:24; plus 14 additional references through Alma and Helaman.). In ancient times traveling up or down referred to elevation changes rather than the modern connotation of north or south on the map. Following the Battle of the Hill Amnihu, near Zarahemla, the bodies of the Lamanites and the Amlicites were cast into the waters of Sidon, and “their bones are in the depths of the sea” (Alma 2:26-27, 3:3). The sea could not have been far from Zarahemla or the bodies would have decomposed before they made it there.
On the west side of the Mississippi river, about two hundred miles from the Gulf of Mexico, is a long narrow ridge rising about twenty-five feet above the flood plain, called Maçon Ridge (pronounced Mason). On top of this ridge are the archaeological remains of a great, unique and marvelous city. This archaeological site is known today as Poverty Point—being named after a struggling cotton plantation. “In its time, the Poverty Point site had the largest, most elaborate earthworks anywhere in the western hemisphere…Poverty Point is recognized by the United Nations as one of three World Heritage Sites in the continental United States” (John L. Gibson, “Poverty Point: A Terminal Archaic Culture of the Lower Mississippi Valley,” Second Edition 1999). In addition to this ancient city being in the right place, there is substantiating archaeological evidence to identify it as Zarahemla.
The most unusual and interesting feature of Poverty Point is the raised concentric rings that comprises the main residential area of the city. The six rings are constructed of raised earth ridges five to six feet high and about two hundred feet apart. Five streets cut through the ridges towards the center point of the city like the spokes of a wheel leading to the hub (ibid). Following an unsuccessful mission to the land northward, Nephi, son of Helaman, returned to his home in Zarahemla. To his dismay he found that the people of his own city had also deteriorated in iniquity. Discouraged, and in agony, he poured out his soul to God in lament upon the tower in his garden. Nephi’s garden tower was by the highway which led to the chief market (Helaman 7:10). Having a tower in one’s garden is very unusual. At Poverty Point, because of the ridge ring layout, most houses had an earthen tower in their garden, or back yard. There was also a street running past the towers that lead to the chief market which would have been near the center of the city, just up the hill from the port.
The largest mound at Poverty Point lies just beyond the middle of the outside ring and is constructed in the shape of a bird. The wingspan of the bird is about two football fields long and the length of the bird is somewhat longer. The flat tail of the bird is about as wide as a football field and would have stood two stories above the rings of the city (John L. Gibson, “Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point: Place of Rings,” University Press of Florida, 2001, p. 83). The tail of the bird faces east, the direction that the door of the Temple would have faced. On the west half of this temple mound rises an earthen tower another four stories above the flat tail. Archaeologists have determined that this tower was added at a later time to what was originally a flat topped mound. From the top of this tower one could look over the top of the Temple. The person standing there would also have been visible to anyone surrounding the temple mound. Although there is additional evidence not cited here, one could not expect more definitive archaeological evidence for Zarahemla than this 50 foot tower above the temple mound.
More later on the Battle of the Hill Amnihu
-Theodore
The Hill of Amnihu and the Valley of Gideon
At the end of the reign of King Mosiah 2nd in 91 BC, Alma the younger was appointed to be the first chief judge over the Nephites. He was also the presiding high priest over the church. Four years later, a large faction of the Nephite population that did not want the freedom of a democracy, started a civil war in support of the kingship of a man named Amlici. Alma led his armies into a ferocious battle against these Amlicites, who were gathered for defense upon the Hill Amnihu. This hill was on the east side of the river Sidon, not far from Zarahemla (Alma 2:15).
On the east side of the Mississippi River, about thirty miles southeast of Poverty Point (Zarahemla), there is a large undulating hill rising up from the river plain. At the foot and up the slope of this hill is the present day city of Vicksburg, Mississippi. Vicksburg is the site of another bitter civil war battle fought nineteen-hundred and fifty years after the battle of Amnihu. In the American Civil War Battle of Vicksburg, the Union forces under the command of Ulysses S. Grant defeated the Confederate forces of General John Pemberton. In this six-week battle it is estimated that the Union had 4,500 casualties and there were over 31,000 Confederate deaths (American Civil War, “Civil War Mississippi: Vicksburg,” http://americancivilwar.com/statepic/ms/ms011.html ).
Alma’s forces routed the Amlicites at the hill of Amnihu, and in a one-day battle drove them south to the valley of Gideon. In this one day Alma lost over 6,500 men and there were over 12,500 Amlicites killed. Alma rested his troops for the night in the valley of Gideon while the surviving Amlicites escaped to the west across the River Sidon (Alma 2:17-20).
Fifteen miles south of Vicksburg (Amnihu) is the Big Black River Basin, which runs three hundred miles from the northeast. The river winds down through this broad, flat valley before emptying into the Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, “Big Black River Basin,” http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/WMB_Big_Black_River_Basin ). The civil war battle for Vicksburg began in this valley with the battle for the bridge over the Big Black River.
The valley of Gideon was named after the man who fought so valiantly against King Noah in the city of Nephi, and who was instrumental in delivering the people of Limhi out of bondage. In his old age, Gideon was struck down by a large and powerful man by the name of Nehor, who was the founder of a secret combination. Amlici, who started this horrendous civil war, was of the Order of Nehor (Alma 1:7-15; 2:1, 20). A city was later built in this valley, and under the preaching of Alma, the inhabitants of the City of Gideon became a righteous and devout people that were steadfast for the next two generations (Alma 6:8; 30:21; 61:5; Helaman 13:15).
For a topographical map of the Hill Amnihu and the Valley of Gideon see
http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=17&Z=15&X=27&Y=138&W=1&qs=%7cVicksburg%7cMississippi%7c
More later on the Battle of the Hill Riplah.
-Theodore
Hi Clark!
It isn’t the fact that I am unpersuaded by his theory that bothers me about Brother Meldrum; otherwise, I wouldn’t have praised Brother Brandley, whose theory is similar.
What bothers me is Brother Meldrum’s method of persuading people of his theory. By his use of an endorsement by an emeritus General Authority, he appears to be deceitfully implying the Church’s approval and endorsement of his theory, placing all who are not convinced in a position where they appear to be less-than faithful to the restored Gospel. Moreover, he is both implying and accusing outright those who are unconvinced of his theory (let alone those who think him wrong!) of denying divine revelation, evil-speaking of the Lord’s anointed, denying the validity of Joseph Smith’s calling, and denying the influence of the Holy Ghost; thus, by that reasoning, we are in rebellious apostasy against God and His Church.
Frankly, this makes the Church membership vulnerable to a schism. Do we accept–against our better judgment–the revelation of a man whose stewardship doen’t include revelation binding upon us? And, if and when Brother Meldrum is demonstrated to be wrong, will we not then be vulnerable to some hotshot anti-Mormon who does even the minimal research that I did that made the Great Lakes setting extremely unlikely?
I can see the anti-Mormon argument now: “Hey, your Church says that the Book of Mormon happened in the Great Lakes, and I just showed you how THAT is impossible. Obviously, the Book of Mormon is just a lie!”
And, if we are silent about this now, what is to stop some local Priesthood leader who DOES accept Brother Meldrum’s thesis from releasing an instructor who dares to suggest some other model, and charging him/her with apostasy and the other charges mentioned above? I have witnessed a similar situation years ago.
Brother Meldrum might be right (and FAIR and FARMS might be missing something!), but because Brother Meldrum got an implied ecclesiastic endorsement, and has accused FAIR and FARMS, he has quite effectively poisoned the well. 🙁
Hello, Lemming!
Research is one of the subjects I teach at the university level. And yes, sometimes, non-academic sources are included in academic writing. Unlike most of my colleagues, I DO allow Wikipedia entries–under carefully spelled out conditions. I can afford to do so, because I require students to use a variety of sources, carefully dissecting each one.
Since Mexico and other parts of Mesoamerica are included in North America [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_North_America%5D, I cited Garreau to illustrate what *I* meant by the term. My reasons for dismissing the Great Lakes argument has nothing to do with anything Garreau wrote. I had thought that my reasons were clear, but please allow me to restate them:
1. There is no northward-flowing navigable river in the Great Lakes.
2. There is no peninsular “Land Southward” in the Great Lakes–especially with a northward-flowing river.
3. There are no hills immediately east of that northward-flowing river in a peninsular “Land Southward” in the Great Lakes.
Hi Theodore!
I’m afraid I’m not wrong. For your benefit, I shall cite the dictionary entry for the word, “Headwaters”: “The water from which a river rises; a source. Often used in the plural” [Headwaters. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 07, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/headwaters%5D.
The texts you cite refers to the specific lands stretching from east to west; not the river spanning from east to west.
As I stated before, the closest geographic match in the Anglo part of North America to the Book of Mormon’s Land Southward is peninsular Florida–with the Ocklawaha-Saint Johns River being the Sidon. However, the only substantial hills are to its WEST (To be fair, there ARE hills east of the Ocklawaha River–in the Ocala National Forest [I know; I saw them today.], but they are so insubstantial, that the US Forest Service’s official maps do not include them [http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/maps/documents/Ocala_mvum_mapbook_2008_000.pdf]. As near as I can tell from GoogleEarth, the Ocklawaha River is 10 m [33′] above sea level, and the hills top off at around 33 m [100′].).
Given all this, I am open to arguments that Florida is the Land Southward, and you Georgians live in Desolation. 😉
Perhaps the original Battle of Hill Cumorah happened at the REAL Cold Mountain [http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/]–rather than the movie [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159365/]? 😉
Steven, you wrote:
**I’m afraid I’m not wrong. For your benefit, I shall cite the dictionary entry for the word, “Headwaters”: “The water from which a river rises; a source. Often used in the plural”**
True, but the scripture does not say “headwaters of the river Sidon.” It says “head of the river Sidon.” Since in context it was by the sea this can only be interpreted as “headland” of the river Sidon, as in the Sidon River Delta.
** The texts you cite refers to the specific lands stretching from east to west; not the river spanning from east to west.**
Exactly. The narrow strip of wilderness ran east and west along the seashore and the river Sidon, running down from the north, bisected this narrow strip before it flowed into the sea at the “head of the river Sidon.”
Before we examine the Battle of the Hill Riplah we need look at the circumstances that led up to it.
Antionum: Land of the Zoramites
In 74 BC Alma led a mission to try and reclaim the apostate Zoramites, who were worshiping idols and practicing all kinds of false doctrine. These were the folks who built a speaking tower in their synagogues they called the Rameumpton, or holy stand. These apostates had gathered together in a land which they called Antionum. Antionum was east of Zarahemla and Manti, in the south wilderness near the sea, east of Sidon Head and west of the land of Jershon. The great concern of Alma was that these apostate Zoramites would join with the Lamanites and stir up another war. Alma hoped that the preaching of the gospel would change their hearts (Alma 31:3-5; 43:22).
There is one archaeological site that fits these requirements called Tchefuncte (pronounced Che-funk’tuh). Tchefuncte is located on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, at Mandeville, Louisiana, inside Fontainebleau State Park. Tchefuncte has two mounds made from shells, but unlike many other Nephite cities, it has no perimeter mounds. The apostate Zoramites were allied with the Lamanites so there would have been no need for them to build expensive defenses around their city and there is no record of any battle at the city of Antionum. It was near Antionum, from the top of a hill called Onidah, that Alma gave his great discourse on faith (Alma 32:17-43). Although the ground is very flat in this area there is hill seven miles north of Tchefuncte that is about 30 feet high. Onidah is the same name as another Book Of Mormon location in the land of Nephi, but as the name means “place of arms” (Alma 47:5) it could be given to any place where they manufactured arms.
Archaeologists have excavated the mounds at Tchefuncte and found utensils and tools similar to those at Poverty Point (Zarahemla). What is unusual at Tchefuncte is that they found over 50,000 pieces of pottery in their limited dig area. This is so much pottery that the Zoramites had to have been manufacturing it for trade (Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission, “Louisiana Prehistory,” second edition, May 1993). Alma records the following about the Zoramites:
(Alma 31:24)
“Now when Alma saw this his heart was grieved; for he saw that they were a wicked and a perverse people; yea, he saw that their hearts were set upon gold, and upon silver, and upon all manner of fine goods.”
The nearest known gold deposits would have been 500 miles northeast of Antionum, in the Appalachian Mountains. The nearest silver deposits were even farther away, so the Zoramites were probably not mining their own silver and gold. They were probably trading their manufactured pottery and weapons to the Lamanites for the gold and silver the Zoramites craved. The cozy relationship the Zoramites had with the Lamanites would have been due in no small part to their economic ties.
Alma and his great missionary force were only able to convert the economically poor among the Zoramites. These converts were driven out of the city of Antionum by the Zoramites and were received and given inheritances by the people of Ammon in the land of Jershon. Jershon was east of Antionum by the sea and by the border of the land of Bountiful (Alma 27:22). The chief ruler of the Zoramites tried to get the people of Ammon to cast out these Zoramite converts, and when they would not do so it greatly angered him. Alma’s worst fears became true, as the apostate Zoramites stirred up the Lamanites to go to war against the people of Ammon and the Nephites.
The people of Ammon, who had taken vows not to bear arms, left the land of Jershon and went over to the land of Melek. They were replaced by Nephite armies in order to contend with the armies of the Lamanites and the Zoramites. The armies of the Lamanites came into the land of Antionum to join with the Zoramites. These combined armies were led by Zerahemnah, who was a Zoramite. Zerahemnah appointed other Zoramites and Amalekites to be chief captains over the axis forces that they might stir up their ranks to hatred towards the Nephites. The Nephites appointed a new commander over all of their forces. He was 25 years old, and his name was Moroni (Alma 43:4-8, 16.-17).
The Battle of the Hill Riplah
Moroni prepared his troops with body armor of breastplates, arm-shields and helmets, and dressed them in thick clothing. He then set up his defensive formations in the border of the land of Jershon. Zerahemnah marched towards them, his Lamanite armies wearing only loin cloths. When Zerahemnah saw the Nephite body armor he dared not attack, and retreated his forces back towards Antionum. From there he led a march northwest to take the less defended land of Manti, thinking that the Nephites would not know where they were going. Moroni sent spies into the wilderness to watch their camp, and sent messengers to Alma that he might ask the Lord where the Nephite armies should go to defend their people. The answer from the Lord came back—the Lamanites were heading for Manti, about 250 miles to the northwest. Moroni left a portion of his army in Jershon and took the remainder to Manti. Moroni gathered the people of Manti together and prepared them to assist in the defense of their land.
Moroni’s spies found that the course the Lamanites were taking would bring them around the back side of the Hill Riplah, which is on the east of the river Sidon. Moroni concealed part of his army on the east of the hill, part in the north of the hill, and part on the south side. The remainder of Moroni’s forces were deployed in the river valley on the west side of Sidon, and on into the land of Manti (Alma 43:17-34).
On a direct line between Tchefuncte (Antionum) and Marksville (Manti), on the east side of the Mississippi, is the south tract of the Tunica Hills Wildlife Management
Area. This hill cluster rises 300 feet above the Mississippi valley and is about four miles long (north and south) and about three miles wide. Whereas the Mississippi now runs close to the west side of the hill, during the Nephite period the river would have been a few miles west of there, leaving a level plain between the hill and the river. There are no significant hills to the south of this location, as the land slopes down into the coastal plain. The hills to the north would take the Lamanites farther away from Manti. There is a valley on the east side of the hill coming up from the south, going around, and coming down to the river valley from the north. State Road 66 follows this valley today. This is a beautiful area with water falls and hiking trails, about an hour’s drive north of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on US Highway 61. There are plenty of ravines and other areas that could conceal the forces of Nephi. (For a topographical map of this hill see the area enclosed by State Road 66 at http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=15&Z=15&X=100&Y=534&W=3&qs=%7cVicksburg%7cMississippi%7c )
The Lamanite armies would have taken this route because it would have kept their approach to Manti concealed until just before they crossed the river Sidon. The valley’s approach to the river from the north fits Alma’s description of the Lamanites coming down from the north of the hill Riplah into the Sidon valley. As the Lamanites came down into the Sidon Valley and started to cross the river, the Nephite forces that had been concealed surrounded them from their rear. These forces were led by a man whose name was Lehi. When the Lamanites saw the army of Lehi behind them they turned, and the battle commenced. The surprise attack and the Nephite body armor gave them a great advantage and they caused tremendous casualties among the Lamanites. The Lamanites fled across the river only to be met by the forces of Moroni. Lehi maintained his forces on the east bank of the river.
Under the determined command of Zerahemnah and his Zoramite and Amalekite captains, the Lamanites then fought like dragons. The Nephites began to fall back, and Moroni encouraged them with thoughts of their lands and their liberty and their freedom from bondage. With Moroni’s encouragement and leadership, the Nephites “cried with one voice unto the Lord their God, for their liberty and their freedom from bondage.” The tide of the battle turned and the Lamanites began to flee back toward the Sidon. Moroni encircled them on the west bank and Lehi held the east bank. When Zerahemnah saw the situation they were in, his armies were struck with terror. When Moroni saw their terror he commanded his forces to stop shedding their blood. Moroni offered surrender terms to the Lamanites, that if they would leave their weapons, and vow to never come back to war against the Nephites, Moroni would let them go free, back into the wilderness. When he heard Moroni’s words, Zerahemnah came forward and delivered his sword, and his cimeter and his bow into the hands of Moroni.
Zerahemnah said they would deliver their weapons, but they would not take a vow of peace. Moroni handed back his weapons and told him they would then finish the conflict. In anger, Zerahemnah took his sword and rushed toward Moroni to slay him. As he raised his sword, one of Moroni’s guards smote it so hard that it broke off at the hilt. The guard’s upstroke smote Zerahemnah in a manner that it took off his scalp, and it fell to the ground. The soldier picked up the scalp by the hair, put it on the end of his sword, held it in the air and said with a loud voice, “Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth, which is the scalp of your chief, so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace” (Alma 44:14).
Some threw down their weapons and vowed not to return. Zerahemnah, in his anger, stirred up the forces he had left to fight to the death. The battle continued until Zerahemnah could see they that they were in fact all going to die. He then accepted the terms of surrender. He and the surviving Lamanites retreated back into the south wilderness. There were so many dead on both sides that they were not numbered. The dead were all cast in to the river and their bodies floated out into the Gulf of Mexico.
Thus ended the Battle of the Hill Riplah in the year 73 BC near the Tunica Hills of Louisiana (Alma 43:35-54; 44). The American Indian tradition of scalping, as a sign of bravery and victory, may have originated at the Battle of the Hill Riplah.
Steven, would you like any other Book of Mormon locations identified?
-Theodore
Steven, you wrote:
**Given all this, I am open to arguments that Florida is the Land Southward, and you Georgians live in Desolation. 😉 **
No, actually I live with the Nephites in the land of Bountiful, about 50 miles south of the City of Bountiful. You are hemmed in the south with the Lamanites by a line of fortifications a day and a half journey from the east to the west sea. 😉
-Theodore
Hello again, Theodore!
For your benefit, here is the definition of the word “riverhead” or river head (As the Book of Mormon might put it, “head of the river”):
“The source of a river” [Riverhead. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 08, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/riverhead%5D.
Random House Dictionary gives a similar definition, but adds this: “[Origin: 1675–85; river1 + head]” [Riverhead. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved October 08, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/riverhead%5D.
Moreover, Random House gives this definition for head: “20. the source of a river or stream” [head. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved October 08, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/head%5D, and WordNet gives this definition: “8. the source of water from which a stream arises; “they tracked him back toward the head of the stream” [syn: fountainhead]” [Head. (n.d.). WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved October 08, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/head%5D.
Lake Itasca’s name is taken from the last four letters of the Latin word, “verITAS” (“truth”) and the first two in the Latin word, “CAput” (“head”), implying that Lake Itasca is the “true head” of the Mississippi River [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Itasca See also: http://users.stlcc.edu/jangert/itasca/headwtr.html%5D.
Given this, the only conclusion I can reach is that the Mississippi River is going the WRONG WAY to be the Sidon.
Now, in all fairness to you, Alma, Mormon, or Joseph Smith might have used the wrong word for “mouth,” as Encarta did in describing New Orleans as “at the head of the Mississippi River” [http://au.encarta.msn.com/sidebar_121503860/Battle_of_New_Orleans_The_Times_Report.html]–but I doubt it.
Theodore says:
“No, actually I live with the Nephites in the land of Bountiful, about 50 miles south of the City of Bountiful. You are hemmed in the south with the Lamanites by a line of fortifications a day and a half journey from the east to the west sea. 😉 ”
Are you saying that Bountiful is near Rome, GA?
More likely, it is near Jacksonville, FL, where the “narrow neck of land” is.
Steven,
You are ignoring the context in which the word head is used in the text. The Book of Mormon context places the “head of the river Sidon” near the sea (Alma 22:27; 50:11). When related to lands by the sea most dictionaries also give a definition of “head” as a headland, cape, promontory, or projecting point of a coastline. “The head of the river Sidon” is referring to land, not water.
You are also ignoring the basic principles of hydrology. Rivers do not have their source by the sea. Hugh Nibley picked up on this extemporaneously while discussing Alma 22:27. He said, “If that’s the head of the river, I suppose it’s the source of the river. Well, it may be the head of the river where it empties. Sidon goes the other way, I think” (Hugh Nibley, Teachings of The Book of Mormon–Semester 1: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University, 1988—1990, Provo: FARMS, p.143).
I don’t know why it is worded exactly the way it is the text. It certainly has caused a lot of confusion over the past 178 years, and still is. Maybe that was the purpose. It is only recently that laws have been enacted to protect ancient archaeological sites in America. If Book of Mormon confirmation sites had been identified earlier they probably would have been destroyed.
Theodore says:
Only if either Alma, Mormon, or Joseph Smith misused the word. As I said before, while I doubt it actually occurred, it certainly is possible.
If Encarta could do it, why not others? 😉
And the hummingbird is alleged to not be aerodynamically suitable for flight, but fly it does. Similarly, there are rivers with sources near the sea. The source of the Saint Johns River, in Florida, for example, is in Indian River County, Florida–less than 30 miles from the Atlantic Ocean.
The sources of both the Grijalva and Usumacinta Rivers, in Mesoamerica, and the Ocklawaha River, in Florida, are also less than 50 miles from the sea.
To be “fair,” though, I know of at least two rivers where the source is also the mouth (Actually, two sources and two mouths; which is which depends on whether it is high or low tide.): The Indian River, in Florida [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_River_(Florida)], and the East River, in New Your State [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_River].
The latter connects Long Island Sound with the mouth of the Hudson River, which is what makes Long Island an island, rather than a peninsula.
😉
The former is also an intra-coastal waterway. The land on the eastern shore of the Indian River is Merritt Island.
However, both “rivers” are actually part of the Atlantic Ocean–and not really rivers.
I already admitted the possibility that Alma, Mormon, of Joseph Smith misused the word, ‘head.’ I would expect a similar admission from Dr. Nibley.
It could also be that Nibley was confused, as well! 😉
Personally, I find the text easy to understand. It is only when people start using words contrary to normal definition (without defining them) that confusion sets in!
😉
I’m not sure Bountiful covers that much land! 😉
Frankly, the Mississippi cannot be the Sidon. As I demonstrated in my comment at 6:23 pm on 8 October 2008, Lake Itasca is the “true head” of the Mississippi. Lake Itasca is nowhere near a sea–unless you count Lake Superior as one!
😉
If the Land Southward is the Delmarva Peninsula, then the Mississippi cannot be the Sidon, as it ran through the Land Southward.
But Delmarva cannot be the Land Southward, either, as it doesn’t have sizable hills to the east of any river within it.
Etowah is a lovely place; my wife and I vacation near there often.
However, I doubt that Etowah is the city Bountiful. Bountiful is near the narrow neck [Alma 63:5], and Etowah is hundreds of miles away from the nearest one, which is in northern peninsular Florida.
By the by, walking at normal speed (3 1/2 mph), one can traverse Florida from east to west in roughly 36 hours.
However, all bets are off on the state of that walker upon completing that 100-mile-plus journey!
😉
Steven, you are intractable. 😉
The word “head” is not misused when applied to the land of a river delta jutting into the sea.
Nice find. These rivers, however, all run parallel to the seas they are close to and the Sidon ran perpendicular to the sea. The Sidon ran north/south and the narrow strip of wilderness along the seashore ran east/west.
Why not? It is about the same size as the Mexican province of California in 1846.
When Teancum took an army from the city of Bountiful to head Morianton at the border of the land of Desolation he knew it would be a long enough journey that he took his support camp with him (Alma 50:33). Rushing to head Morianton before he got through the narrow pass Teancum would do about 40 miles a day. Joseph Smith, leading Zion’s Camp, made twenty-five to forty miles a day (HC 2:65, 68). There is a book by Don Rickey about US enlisted soldiers during the Indian Wars. It is entitled “Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay.” It is about 500 miles from Etowah to Harpers Ferry, or about 12 to 13 days travel. If it was only 4 or 5 days Teancum’s men could carry their own food and supplies and would not need the camp.
Within seventy-five years of the founding of the United States of America US military forts dotted the continent. Within twenty years of the founding of the Church, without the use of modern transportation, the Latter-Day Saints were shuttling back and forth from New York to Ohio, to Missouri, to Illinois, and then to the Salt Lake Valley and California. The Mormon Battalion, with women and children, marched 2,000 miles from Council Bluffs, Iowa, to San Diego. By 1887, without the use of the railroad, the Saints had colonized as far south as Mexico and as far north as Western Canada. The first ward in Western Canada was organized as a unit of the Cache Valley, Utah, Stake. The stake president, Charles Ora Card, lived in the Canadian settlement for three years while administering the Cache Valley Stake, seven hundred miles to the south through the Rocky Mountains. He was also in regular attendance at general conferences in Salt Lake City (Lethbridge Stake, 1968, “A History of the Mormon Church in Canada,” pp. 32-53).
If the Latter-Day Saints covered the North American continent in sixty years without the use of modern transportation, there would be no reason to suppose that the Nephites would not do the same in six hundred years. The Book of Mormon chronicles a great civilization over a period of a thousand years. The land mass covered by this civilization is as great as were its people.
One thing that can be particularly confusing in The Book Of Mormon is that all directional references are relative to the subject of the particular context. In the following verse the land north refers to the land of Zarahemla:
“Now the land south was called Lehi, and the land north was called Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south” (Helaman 6:10).
In this next verse Zarahemla is the land southward:
“And there came forth poisonous serpents also upon the face of the land, and did poison many people. And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla” (Ether 9:31).
Another verse in Helaman refers to the land of Bountiful as being in the north:
“And now he did not tarry in the land of Zarahemla, but he did march forth with a large army, even towards the city of Bountiful; for it was his determination to go forth and cut his way through with the sword, that he might obtain the north parts of the land” (Hel 1:23).
In the following verse Bountiful is the land southward:
“And [Bountiful] bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing….Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful…” (Alma 22:30-31).
In one case Zarahemla was the land south of Desolation. In the other case Bountiful was the land south of Desolation. They are both true because Bountiful was east of Zarahemla and the land Desolation was north of both of them. The north/south River Sidon ran through Zarahemla and the land Desolation but it did not run through the land of Bountiful because Bountiful was east of the River Sidon (Alma 27:22).
The Land Southward is not the Delmarva Peninsula. and you are still thinking inside the hourglass. The narrow neck of land (Delmarva Peninsula) was by the border of the Land Bountiful and Desolation and so was the narrow pass (Harpers Ferry).
Maybe not. The Badwater Ultramarathon describes itself as “the world’s toughest foot race”. It is a 135 mile course with 13,000 feet of cumulative elevation gain. It starts in California’s Death Valley, usually in July when the temperatures are over 120 F. The current course record is 22 hours 51 minutes 29 seconds, set by Valmir Nunes in 2007. (“Badwater Ultramarathon,” http://www.badwater.com/ ).
Next time you get up that way also go see Fort Mountain. There is an ancient rock defense wall built across the top of the mountain. There is a bronze plaque installed by the state of Georgia, which reads:
“Ancient Cherokee tribal chiefs said their early forebears passed along to posterity these stories that people with fair skins, blond hair and blue eyes occupied the mountain areas until the Cherokee invaders finally dispersed them with great slaughter.”
-Theodore
Theodore Brandley Says:
No, I just set the bar high!! 😉
I am infamous for my ten-page, essay-and-case-study-problem final examinations! 😉
A dictionary, encyclopaedia, or geography textbook citation would be nice! 😉
Frankly, except for that historical entry in Encarta, I found no such definition of the word “head” as the mouth of a river.
I am unaware of any text that gives Bountiful’s size. While it is possible, I am unwilling to make any declaration along those lines.
This verse tells us that Coriantumr is attacking the northern part of the land of Zarahemla, TOWARD Bountiful, though not IN Bountiful.
Actually, Bountiful is NORTH of Zarahemla, though still south of Desolation. Remember, Bountiful runs from sea to sea [Alma 22:32]. Note that the line is on the narrow neck.
Yes, but what was his condition when he FINISHED that Ultramarathon? 😉
That ought to be very interesting! 🙂
It is not an accepted fact that for the past 50 years everyone knows that Meso America is the location. The problem anyone who becomes convinced of a location faces is that if it can be established, there will be no more requirement to live by faith.
Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon came from the gift and power of God. If it can be shown to be an archaeologically verifiable history, the proof removes all doubt. Seeking in this way is only building a Tower of Babel. Ferguson’s fall should have been a lesson to all.
The focus on Meso America in this insanity has blinded far too many of other indigenous living, breathing people in the United States. Likewise, if all focus shifts to some North American location, those to the south would be disregarded.
Mark E. Peterson clearly stated in his 1970 pamphlet Christ in America that evidence is found from the tip of South America to Alaska. Those were the good years.
If there is ever another splinter in the LDS members such as occurred when polygamy ended, it will be over this foolish geography argument.
When does it end? Says:
I agree. I’m not even convinced of it. However, among purely local geography theories, this appears to be the most likely.
However, all the pure LGT’s have holes. 😉
Not quite. More accurately, those convinced of, or has excessive faith in, a particular model often lose the capacity to live by faith when their pet theories come under withering fire.
Personally, while I believe that the Mesoamerican model appears to best fit the evidence, not even that model overcomes reasonable doubt.
Even if there were no reasonable doubt on geography, there is plenty of room for faith on OTHER Gospel-related subjects! 😉
A minor nit, but the Bible also came from the Gift and power of God:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (New Testament, II Timothy 3:16).
Another nit, but much of the Bible is also archaeologically supported.
Yet, there is plenty of room for doubt! 😉
We’re not in a situation–with either the Bible or the Book of Mormon–where there is no evidence, but one where we–without God–do not have the resources to properly pay the costs of gaining the requisite knowledge.
Does that make sense?
Indeed. “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign” (New Testament, Matthew 16:4).
Still we should be “liken[ing] all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning” (Book of Mormon, I Nephi 19:23). Having a working geography would help.
However, we should be humble enough to not act as if WE have ALL the answers! 😉
They may have been good, but a pure hemispheric model is untenable. Hence, it presents too good of a target for anti-Mormons to knock down.
More likely, some hybrid between a local and hemispheric model is more accurate of a portrait of Book of Mormon geography.
Agreed, especially if we pretend to have all the answers–by revelation. It is this pretense of revelation of all the answers that is bothering many of us at FAIR.
When does it end? Says:
Most Old and New Testament locations have been identified and it still requires faith to believe that these scriptures are true and that they have come from God. However, knowing and being at those locations are testimony strengthening to those who do have faith to believe. The testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was fortified in me at the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem. That experience has been an anchor to my testimony for the past 36 years.
If one does not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, visiting the Sacred Grove will probably not change their mind. To someone who does believe, it can be a spiritual experience that will never be forgotten. The same is true for any other sacred site. Sites become sacred because of the sacred events that occurred there. The Tower of King Benjamin in the City of Zarahemla, the Temple Mound in the City of Bountiful, the Waters of Mormon, and the Hill Cumorah, are all sacred sites which can be testimony strengthening to those of faith who visit them and read from the Book of Mormon the scriptures pertaining to the events that occurred there.
On the other hand, the absence of having a firm geography of the Book of Mormon has been detrimental to many who’s faith is perhaps weaker. A longtime LDS friend of mine recently apostatized from the Church when others convinced him that the Book of Mormon was a fable because there was no known and accepted geographical location for it as there is for the Bible.
The events of the Book of Mormon are real and occurred on real ground. The geography of the Book of Mormon at present remains to us one of the mysteries of God. But we are encouraged to seek to know the mysteries of God.
It is with this spirit that we seek to know the mysteries of God pertaining to the geography of the Book of Mormon.
-Theodore
Steven Says:
I knew that you would take my “intractable” comment as a complement. 🙂
The word “head” as used to describe land by the sea:
Random House Dictionary
16. a projecting point of a coast, esp. when high, as a cape, headland, or promontory
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/head
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
9. A headland; a promontory
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/head
Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861616914/definition.html
23. geography promontory: a headland that juts out into the sea or other stretch of water ( often used in place names )
Naming a promontory jutting into the sea with the name “head” was common in early America, and in the British Isles where most of the early Saints had come from. Around the coasts of Ireland alone there are about 50 place names using “head.”
American Examples:
Hilton Head in South Carolina
“English Captain William Hilton, in August of 1663, while exploring the Port Royal Sound, sighted the high bluffs of the Island, and named it for himself, “Hilton Head.” The word “Head” refers to the headlands visible to them as they sailed the uncharted waters.” “Hilton Head Island History” http://www.hiltonheadisland.com/history.htm
Nags Head in North Carolina was established and named in 1830, the same year that the book of Mormon was translated. “Nags Head History,”
http://www.nagsheadguide.com/history.htm
The “head of the river Sidon” is referring to the “headland” or the “delta” of the River Sidon, not the water, nor the mouth, nor the source of the river.
There is no quote that gives the size of the land of Bountiful but several quotes that define the borders from which the size can be deduced as I have done in October 9th, 2008 at 7:36 am above.
The following verse clearly places the Land of Bountiful to the east of the land of Zarahemla.
This places the Land of Bountiful EAST of the Land of Zarahemla. The boundary between Jershon and the Land of Bountiful was by the sea which is on the SOUTH of the Land Bountiful. This would be the same sea which was south of the Land of Zarahemla that bordered the narrow strip of wilderness. This narrow strip of wilderness ran from the east sea to the west sea. The Nephites “had hemmed in the Lamanites on the SOUTH” of the Land of Bountiful on this strip between the east and the west sea. (Alma 22:27; Alma 22:33).
This makes it clear that the Lamanites were hemmed in on the south of the Land of Bountiful “from the east unto the west sea.” Therefore, the south boundary of the Land of Bountiful ran east and west from the east unto the west sea. This prevented the Lamanites from going north, through the land of Bountiful and into the Land of Desolation. This also demonstrates that the Land of Zarahemla could not be south of the Land of Bountiful because that is where the Lamanites were hemmed in.
As shown above, the west sea was south of the Land of Zarahemla and south of Land of Bountiful. Therefore, the west sea could not be west of the northern border of the Land of Bountiful which was its border with the Land of Desolation. The Land of Zarahemla was west of the Land of Bountiful.
Now lets look at the last half of Alma 22:32:
The “small neck of land” mentioned in Alma 22:32 cannot be the “narrow neck of land” mentioned in Alma 63:5 and Ether 10:20, that was by the border of Bountiful and Desolation, for four reasons.
1. Mormon gave it a different name than he had given the “narrow neck” in both the Book of Alma and the Book of Ether.
2. The sea divided the land at the “narrow neck of land,” and the land divided the sea with the “small neck of land.”
3. There could be no sea west of the Land Bountiful because the land of Zarahemla was west of the Land of Bountiful.
4. The text states that “the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water,” it says nothing about the Land of Bountiful which was south of the “narrow neck of land.”
This “small neck of land” was probably referring to the Isthmus of Panama which separates the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla from South America.
Now lets go back and pick up the first half of verse 32:
As the west sea was on the south border of the Land of Bountiful, and there could not be a sea on the west of the Land of Bountiful, this “day and a half journey for a Nephite” can only be the same border that separated the Nephite from the Lamanites, where the Lamanites were hemmed in on the south.
As the narrative in which this description is given was actually happening in the Land of Nephi, which was west and south of both the Land of Zarahemla and of the land of Bountiful, Mormon identifies the east/west longitude of this location by stating that it is “on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation,” or, in line with Bountiful and the Land Desolation.
These verses in Alma (in which Mormon paused in the narrative of the missionary work of the sons of Mosiah to give a brief overview of the geography of the entire Lamanite/Nephite domain) would read more clearly if they had been punctuated and versed as I might suggest below. As you are well aware there was no punctuation in the translation. As the punctuation was mostly done by the printer it does not carry the same revelatory weight as do the words and is subject to correction, as perhaps also is the verse numbering. I have also inserted my own commentary for clarification.
-Theodore
Theodore Brandley Says:
I agree. Some knowledge of the Book of Mormon’s setting can help us apply it in our lives.
We’ve gotten along so far, why should I take it otherwise?
😉
The headlands are NOT the same as a river head.
Says your cite:
“Though some credit the name Nags Head to shipwrecked sailors hailing from a town of the same name in England, those who love the area favor the tale, recorded in the mid-19th century by a writer from Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, of pirates roaming the beach at night with a lantern tied to the neck of an old nag, trying to lure ships into the shallow waters near the breakers. In the center of it all is the village called Nags Head.”
In neither case do they refer to a river’s head.
That’s what you have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt. The null hypothesis is the standard definition.
😉
I read the verse as saying that JERSHON is east by the sea, but south of Bountiful. So Bountiful is north from sea to sea, with Zarahemla on the southwest and Jershon on the southeast. Manti and Lehi-Nephi is south of that, and Desolation is to the north.
More likely, the Nephites named the same place differently from the Jaredites. For example, the Mayans didn’t call the Yucatan peninsula by that name! 😉
Of course it would. North of the isthmus is the Land Northward, and south of it is the Land Southward. And the entire landmass separates the West Sea from the East Sea.
Actually, Zarahemla is to the southwest, and the Land of Bountiful stretches from sea to sea.
Actually, the verse I cited placed Bountiful AT the “narrow neck of land.”
That would make South America the Land Southward. I know of no northward-flowing river that enters the isthmus area.
The day-and-a-half journey refers to the distance across the narrow neck.
Steven,
Does the following text not state clearly that there was dividing line between the Nephites and the Lamanites on the south of the Land of Bountiful?
-Theodore
Steven Says:
How about these two?
“The town of Riverhead is in Suffolk Count, New York on the north shore of Long Island. The name signifies that the mouth of the Peconic River is in this town.” The town of Riverhead is situated where the Peconic River flows from the west into Flanders Bay at the east end of Long Island.
“Riverhead (town), New York,” Wikipedia
“Peconic River,” Wikipedia
The Head of the River Race is a processional rowing held annually on the River Thames in London, England. The River Thames is the second longest river in the United Kingdom and the longest river entirely in England. The river becomes tidal in London.
“Head of the River Race,” Wikipedia
“River Thames,” Wikipedia
(the blog would not post the links)
-Theodore
Hi Theodore!
As usual, I appreciate your professionalism in finding support for your position, even if I’m not entirely convinced.
Your first example is a good one where the term head is misused to indicate the mouth rather than the source. As you already know, I long ago conceded that possibility–even if I don’t believe that it is actual.
As for your second example, just because a river is tidal, it doesn’t mean it is at the mouth. The Saint Johns River is tidal more than 100 miles south of its mouth; its width is large enough and its elevation low enough to allow tidal forces to overcome the natural flow of the river.
London Bridge is about 47 miles from the Thames’ mouth (See http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/conMediaFile.610/Nore-Light-ship.html), so I’m not sure what they mean by “Head.”
Quote: The Book of Mormon states that the Sidon River flows through a “peninsula-like Land” Southward toward a “narrow neck” separating it from the Land Northward [Alma 22:29-30; 63:5].
I don’t remember any of the Prophet historians ever saying “peninsula-like land”.
Fair is implying things that just aren’t so when they seek to make the Meldrum theories a threat “the obvious and unmistakable conclusion is that he is telling his audience, in effect, that the Church and its leaders have not been, and are not now, proclaiming the Prophet fully or with faith—or, of course, Rod Meldrum would not be proclaiming him “anew.” The seriousness of this can hardly be overstated.”
Meldrum is doing nothing more or less than Elder Joseph Fielding Smith did in his book Doctrines of Salvation volume 3 in the chapter on the location of Cumorah. The fact that current leaders support research in Mesoamerica does not mean they believe the geography was there. If we knew for certain where it took place we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
If current leaders were asked to support research in North America they likely would support that as well. A loose consensus about Mesoamerica doesn’t mean anyone has to defend any geography. What do defenses of geography mean in the face of the clear truth that the true geography is currently unavailable.
The loose consensus just gets in the way of a more encompassing study that includes North America. When that happens one has to question just how serious and balanced the scholarly effort has been.
There are so many scriptural issues brought by Meldrum and others that haven’t been well addressed that point to North America that one has to wonder if there isn’t a problem with scholarly open mindedness.
Scriptural passages clearly indicate that site of the New Jerusalem (Jackson County) was in the land of the Nephites and Jaredites. III Nephi 20:21 & 22, Ether 13:1-6. Occam’s Razor applies (When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam’s razor is usually understood.).
Christ tells us in the doctrine and covenants where he wants to send his missionaries to teach the Lamanites. Surely he knows where the Lamanites are. They went to tribes from Western New York to the Missouri western frontier. D&C 32
The Book of Mormon tells us the Lamanites would be scattered and CAST OUT. The reservations are clear evidence that it happened to the Indians of North America and did not generally happen south of the border where the Catholics worked to convert not cast out the natives. III Nephi 16:8-9
The Book of Mormon explains that it is the gentiles who went forth out of captivity who scattered the Lamanites. Those are the gentiles who came to North America for religious freedom who “came out of captivity”. Not the Catholics of Central and South America. Because they didn’t stumble over the words of the scriptures since their access to the scriptures was limited by the Catholic church. Instead the stumbling was especially apparent among the protestant denominations of North America. See 1 Nephi 13 entire chapter.
I could go on but the scriptural information so clearly refers to North America for at least some of the geography that the failure of the scholarly community to devote resources to serious study North American options due to their “scholarly consensus” is unconscionable. They argue that they are willing to consider any scholarly information brought forth about North America but they have shown by the absence of scholarly North American studies that they are unwilling to do any of their own studying and research.
Meldrum’s plea as well as my own and many others is to expand the research and balance out the studies.
Norm Poulsen
Mark Says:
–I don’t remember any of the Prophet historians ever saying “peninsula-like land”.–
Steve replies:
They didn’t. It is MY use, to describe a land “nearly surrounded by water.” The word, “peninsula” is derived from the Latin “paene”–almost (nearly), and “insula”–island (land surrounded by water).
However, not all “lands almost surrounded by water” are peninsulas. Mesoamerica, between the isthmuses of Tehuantepec and Teotiuacan, is “nearly surrounded by water,” yet, it is not a peninsula.
I just wanted to make that point.
Sorry for any confusion!
Hi Norm!
You said:
It’s not the theory itself that’s the threat; it’s his manner of delivering it. By carting about an emeritus General Authority, he is implying ecclesiastic endorsement. Moreover, his charge that we “deny the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith” by not believing his Great Lakes theory, is, at best, defamatory.
If that were indeed the case; if Brother Meldrum had stated words to the effect that he is not espousing an official Church position; that good Latter-day Saints can and do disagree with his theory, FAIR would never have involved itself in the controversy–except, perhaps, with a short statement, not unlike paragraphs 3-10 of my post, above, indicating why most of us find the theory unpersuasive.
But Meldrum did more than that. That is why FAIR personnel acted in that manner.
Agreed. I should hope that, my conversation with Theodore Brandley is eloquent proof that, even if I’m not convinced of non-Mesoamerican settings, I am certainly open to evidence in their favour!
And, if somebody had good reason to suppose that Book of Mormon evidences can be found in the Anglo part of North America, I would certainly support the Church funding expeditions there. Indeed, since I found hills towering up to 60 feet taller than the Ocklawaha River, perhaps, with permission from the United States government, some digs in the Ocala National Forest might yield something fruitful.
To my knowledge, nobody at FAIR either advocated that no purely North American research be done, or tried to ban such research.
I believe it was Elder James Talmage who discovered that the Michigan relics cited by Brother Meldrum were fraudulent. That, of course, may explain why BYU wouldn’t want to fund any further research there. On the other hand, if it were demonstrated that TRUE artifacts are at that Michigan site–in spite of the fraudulent ones, I am sure that FARMS personnel wouldn’t argue with further research there.
Could you give me some examples?
I gave geographic references in the Book of Mormon that make any Great Lakes setting unlikely. Have you or Brother Meldrum considered those?
I’m not sure that they are as clear as you say, though I admit the possibility.
Indeed He does know! 😉
However, that doesn’t mean that the Lamanites were ONLY in that area! Even if they were during the 1830’s, it doesn’t follow that their ancestors had to be there during Book of Mormon times!
Tell that to the natives under the Spanish yoke! The locals were clearly segregated from the ruling class.
Again, I know of no FARMS or FAIR member who is unwilling to consider a possible North American setting for the Book of Mormon. The facts that Lawrence Poulsen (Are you related to him?) put Brother Brandley’s thesis on his web site, and I treated Brother Brandley with professional courtesy–even as I disagree–should eloquently confirm FAIR and FARMS open-mindedness.
I must stress that the burden of proof is on those who espouse a North American setting. Neither FARMS nor FAIR nor any other organization or person are obligated–morally or otherwise–to support such research unless and until there is reasonable expectation to believe that it would yield results.
As things stand now, Mesoamerican digs are yielding evidence. At this point, it would be foolhardy for the Brethren to divert funds to where it isn’t even more probable than not that an expedition will actually find something–just to test the Great Lakes theory.
But that shouldn’t stop you or Brother Meldrum or anybody else from conducting your own expeditions!
If you DO find something, you will get the credit–and you will have deserved it! 😉
Hi, Steven
Thank You for your reply,
You said: “It’s not the theory itself that’s the threat; it’s his manner of delivering it. By carting about an emeritus General Authority, he is implying ecclesiastic endorsement.”
I attended the Meldrum Symposium in Springville Utah and purchased the DVD as well and I take issue with your characterization: “By carting about an emeritus General Authority, he is implying ecclesiastic endorsement.” Elder Rector and Meldrum both during the symposium, explained several times that the actual geography is unknown and that the opinions expressed were their own rather than the church’s. Elder Rector did not propose a Great Lakes geography but just pointed out scripture references to the New Jerusalem being in Nephite territory. Other presenters pointed out their theories (some were nowhere close to matching Meldrum’s) but did point to North America as a likely location for the Nephite civilization. Meldrum presented his thoughts on why North America (regardless of his more detailed geography) would make sense because of the scripture references to a land described by the Book of Mormon allowing religious freedom (which until more recently wasn’t the case south of our border). You might ask my cousin Larry Poulsen what he had to go through to get a visa when he served a mission in Mexico. I served a mission in Chile and I know the Catholic hold on the country made many things very difficult for non catholic faiths to develop. So Meldrum’s symposium clearly was not a drive to “cart around” an emeritus general authority to imply an ecclesiastical endowment.
You said: “Moreover, his charge that we “deny the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith” by not believing his Great Lakes theory, is, at best, defamatory.”
Actually, Meldrum’s point about the prophet Joseph Smith relates to the prophet’s vision in Zion’s camp on the banks of the Illinois River in Illinois, where he stated “… the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and a chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or the eastern sea to the Rocky mountains.” from History of the Church 2:79-80.
Meldrum points out that it seems impossible to reconcile this recorded and witnessed statement of the prophet Joseph Smith locating Zelph and Onandagus in the territory between the Hill Cumorah and the Rocky mountains with a Mesoamerican geography.
As we follow the story of Zelph further in the “History of the Church” the prophet says “He (Zelph) was killed in battle by an arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites.” Because of the clarity of the words of the prophet I see no way to exclude North America from the geography of the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites without setting aside the words of the prophet. If the Mesoamerican theorists can find a logical way to tie this into their geographies I might consider them. If they cannot it is incumbent on them to explain why we should reject the clear words of the prophet Joseph Smith or how I am wrongly interpreting them.
On June 4, 1834, Joseph Smith, traveling through Illinois, wrote to Emma that he and others had been “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as proof of its divine authenticity.
This also lends credence to the prophet Joseph Smith’s understanding of at least those areas of the US falling within the geographical boundaries of the Nephite civilization.
You Said: “And, if somebody had good reason to suppose that Book of Mormon evidences can be found in the Anglo part of North America, I would certainly support the Church funding expeditions there.”
I think the fact that Joseph Smith made a clear reference to Anglo North America in the Zelph matter, the plains of the Nephites comment, and the fact that the Scriptures clearly place the New Jerusalem both in Anglo North America and Nephite/Jaredite territories, the fact that the Book of Mormon itself says the Lamanites would be cast out from their lands (I’ll say more about this in a minute but we put them on reservations) while south of our border they weren’t cast out but taught, sometimes enslaved, and converted to Catholicism is strong enough to cause us to explore a geography within the USA.
Not all evidence is of equal value or credibility. Show me how I am interpreting these improperly and SHOW ME: scriptural and prophetic evidence that is as clear as these that supports a Mesoamerican geography. You can’t do it! (Now that’s a challenge 🙂 I’ve read widely the many points of view on this subject but whenever I consider the credibility of the evidence I always come back to the USA.
You Said: “Tell that to the natives under the Spanish yoke! The locals were clearly segregated from the ruling class.” Referring to the scripture reference saying the Lamanites would be cast out.
I Say: there is a BIG difference between being evicted from your homelands and put on reservations as done in the USA and being, taught Catholicism, educated in Catholic schools and involved in widespread intercultural marriage. Witness the level of dark complexions among the peoples of Mesoamerica.
One thing that rings very clear (to me at least) is that America today does not look geologically the same as it did before Christ’s visit to the Nephites. My cousin Larry Poulsen and I disagree strongly on this. Larry if I understand him correctly, posits that Mormon and Moroni would have translated the pre-Christ visit geography to match the post visit geography. I see no way to prove that point from the scriptures. It doesn’t mean it is not so but I see no way to prove it.
Whereas I argue that Mormon and Moroni left it the way it was recorded by the original authors since he had no problem understanding it as it stood (that’s my conjecture).
I just “imagine” Mormon and Moroni were more interested in the spiritual message and only added seemingly non-spiritual elements as prompted by the Spirit (i.e. the Nephite monetary system). Maybe they were prompted NOT to tell us details about the weather, geography, flora and fauna, and animals using modern terms since it would make it easier to focus on a geography that has changed so dramatically that it would be hard to recognize, possibly causing members and investigators to lose focus on the sacred message of the book.
I also posit that Lucifer will do all in his power to discredit through pseudo-science anything that can be construed as evidence confirming the work of God. Lucifer influences us to treat scientific theories as reality when it suits his purpose to cause us stray from the truth.
Think of the attempts by Lucifer to discredit the original 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation by modifying them. When that happened, Heavenly Father withdrew that part of the Book of Mormon from our reach. It would not surprise me to find the same sort of things happening in the Archeological world as it relates to artifacts. Lucifer could do all he can to discredit confirming artifacts and to give excessive credibility to others.
Where we may have had some inscriptions and evidences in the USA Lucifer may be doing his best to discredit them. Hence much that is true may be mixed with fakes making it impossible to discern which if any is correct. However the book “Geography of the Book of Mormon” by Cecil E. McGavin and Willard Bean contain numerous references to early antiquarians that relate information that can be explored to mine information concerning the early inhabitants of this continent. E.G. Squire’s book (Antiquities of New York and the West) documents early traces of pre anglo contact in upstate New York and the Mississippi Valley describing communities whose defensive works are virtually identical to those described in the Book of Mormon. Where do we find any documentation of defensive works like this in such abundance in Mesoamerica? Some say those works were created by a later civilization but of course if they descended from the Nephites those techniques could easily have been learned from their ancestors.
Aren’t these clues tantalizing?
I think the geography of the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations in Anglo-North America is obscured by geological changes that have taken place between today and when they were described before the Christ’s visit to the children of Lehi. Because of that I am a proponent of looking at things in a different way, with less emphasis on where the river Sidon is and more on culture, language, customs, DNA, etc. To my untutored mind the hieroglyphics found in Mexico and Central America no more resemble Hebrew than does Chinese. Their pyramids can’t possibly equate to a Christian temple because they aren’t functional for that purpose. I can’t imagine God inspiring them to create His Holy House in that form.
All of these thoughts are prompted by the strong scriptural and prophetic support of the prophet Joseph Smith. Not to mention the fact that God himself sent missionaries to people in the USA that He called the Lamanites as noted in the Doctrine and Covenants. Where do we have the word of God Himself, in our scriptures stating clearly we should send missionaries to the “Lamanites” in Mesoamerica? Not a word!! I admit that over the years members of church have taken to calling every Native American regardless of which continent in this hemisphere Lamanites. But I’m referring to the standard works scriptural references where God tells us plainly who at least some of the Lamanites are.
Surely we don’t need to dig up a copy of the brass plates here in the USA to encourage us to turn some of our attention to this part of the continent. The evidences I’ve cited are much more than ample to point us in that direction (my opinion). I feel that those who do not accept them as such have the obligation of showing us more powerful evidence supporting a Mesoamerican geography that is of the same caliber as that cited here. The burden of proof is on them since the evidence is scriptural and revealed from the prophet Joseph Smith.
They also need to explain (considering Ocam’s razor or the thesis that the simplest solution is usually the most likely solution) how the “evidences I’ve cited do not say what I think they say.
You Said: “I believe it was Elder James Talmage who discovered that the Michigan relics cited by Brother Meldrum were fraudulent. That, of course, may explain why BYU wouldn’t want to fund any further research there. On the other hand, if it were demonstrated that TRUE artifacts are at that Michigan site–in spite of the fraudulent ones, I am sure that FARMS personnel wouldn’t argue with further research there.”
I Say:
A couple of years ago I sent a letter to FARMS asking why they didn’t devote resources to the study of Lehite linkages in the USA. I received a note from Tvednes explaining that the preponderance of evidence points away from the USA. I took it from that that any advocacy of doing Anglo North American research had been dismissed because of its perceived inadequacy. I happen to know that at least one person in the scholarly community expressed their opinion that the Hopewell’s of the eastern woodlands seemed a likely fit for the Nephite civilization. That was Hugh Nibley. I’m not located where I can get you the reference for that because I travel for work and live in hotels 10 months out of the year. But I can get it for you the next time I get back home. As far as I know FAIR hasn’t been involved in sending out expeditions of any kind for any geography.
My belief is that the geography may have changed sufficiently from the Book of Mormon description that it could be very difficult to identify it’s location from those kinds of markers.
I further believe that the scholarly community may be buying into a geological theory that will get in the way of identifying a correct geography that has been impacted by cataclysmic changes. I personally feel that catastrophism more accurately portrays geological activities on this planet than uniformitarianism. Consider this:
1. We believe there was a worldwide flood during historic times. Noah according scripture lived during Abraham’s lifetime. Classic geological timescales and evidence reject that possibility. Classical science rejects the possibility of man living to the age of Noah (950 years, 350 Years after the flood)
2. The Jaredites speak of elephants on this continent and elephant remains have been found here but using the current scientific time scale (the carbon clock) they don’t fit. But we know there are remains somewhere that do fit.
3. We know that God can change man from a mortal to an immortal body in the “twinkling of an eye”. Yet science wouldn’t touch that one.
4. We know that God and Christ have visited us through interplanetary and/or intergalactic space travel (our own spirits also arrived here from another planet).
5. We know that both the Brother of Jared and Enoch commanded mountains to move and they did do so.
6. We know that the continents were separated during historical times (during the days of Peleg) and that they will recombine during the millenium.
My point is this:
1. We have to be careful using the carbon clock for all geological dating since it clearly is inadequate in light of the above.
2. Seemingly out of time events may actually have occurred within a very short time but due to our dating technology we may discount them. That means discoveries that appear out of time using carbon dating should still be considered evidence but do not provide as strong a link as something we have credible science to assess.
An example of this is the contention of the Missouri State geologists that the Mississippi River once flowed north and drained through the St. Lawrence Seaway. This could be evidence to prove a geological match to the River Sidon in the Book of Mormon but we haven’t the technology to validate it. Yet if true and if the timing did fit for a Sidon River flowing North it would be hidden from us because of our current science deficits.
These geological issues make me think we need to move away from the rivers and mountains as primary geological markers to something different as we study potential sites for Book of Mormon lands. These are the kinds of studies I recommend. Brian Stubbs for instance is doing language connection studies although the last time I checked it didn’t include the Indians of the eastern woodlands. It would be nice if someone could perform studies that include the Hopewell Indians of the eastern woodlands as well.
The DNA evidence presented by Meldrum is very exciting and should also be studied, considered and not thrown out because it doesn’t fit our geographical model. My suspicion is they the DNA findings identifying numerous North American tribes as carrying genetic markers from the near east, are valid but am not qualified to make a that judgment.
I Said: “Meldrum’s plea as well as my own and many others is to expand the research and balance out the studies.”
You Said: “I must stress that the burden of proof is on those who espouse a North American setting. Neither FARMS nor FAIR nor any other organization or person are obligated–morally or otherwise–to support such research unless and until there is reasonable expectation to believe that it would yield results.”
I Say: There is more than ample evidence to support North American studies and it has a much higher level of credibility than any evidence offered for a Mesoamerican geography. The evidence has been there all along and has been systematically discounted by the scholarly community in favor of what many consider less credible evidence. Why would that happen? I suggest that it’s because the time hasn’t come for the Lord to step in and shift things in another direction without disturbing His plans for the sharing the gospel.
However, I fear that we are digging a hole for ourselves that will come back to bite us once the true geography is made known. I feel we have narrowed our focus too far and that it is unwise to wait for some artifact to appear before we change our course. To be sure Lucifer will do his level best to discredit any artifact we come up with. But, we feed the fires of persecution when we APPEAR TO disregard our scriptures and the prophet Joseph Smith. When our opponents point out the very things that good members of the church espouse we mustn’t use our opponents views as a reason to discredit good members whose beliefs are based on what seems to them to be clear and credible information.
You Said: “As things stand now, Mesoamerican digs are yielding evidence. At this point, it would be foolhardy for the Brethren to divert funds to where it isn’t even more probable than not that an expedition will actually find something–just to test the Great Lakes theory.”
I Say: There were no people in the Americas who were not lead here one way or another by the hand of God. II Nephi 1:6 I think through the Abrahamic covenant God’s children in all nations will be blessed. If the Lord chose to plant others in the Americas and to salt them with the descendants of Abraham in order to share the gospel with them we would indeed find evidences of that wherever we go in the Americas. (Even Mesoamerica) 🙂 But that doesn’t mean it’s Nephite evidence; it could simply be one of the other groups planted here by the Lord.
I’m not looking for credit I’m just trying to encourage a broader study since I think the evidence for the importance of a wider study is overwhelming.
I think it is the scholarly community that carries the burden of showing why the evidence from the scriptures and the prophet Joseph Smith doesn’t mean what I and many, many others think it does. The burden is also on them to offer evidence that is of greater credibility and clarity than that I offered here to support a Mesoamerican thesis. I think failure to do this is a grave mistake.
I do not think the authorities are wasting resources in Mesoamerica or for that matter in Herculaneum. I’m also certain they wouldn’t feel it’s a waste of resources to explore North American Native American opportunities as well (Not just archeology but more especially native languages, cultures, oral, and written histories, and while we’re at it astronomy and a credible geological clock).
Whew!! I hope I haven’t put you to sleep. I hope I’ve challenged you to look at things from a new perspective. And I hope you are less concerned about Meldrum’s Great Lakes hypothesis and approach.
We’re all in the same boat – the Book of Mormon is true and its spiritual significance far outweighs our fumbling efforts to discern the true geography.
Thank You,
Norm Poulsen
Norm (and Steven),
I would like to attempt a contribution to this discussion, as I strongly feel that all geographic theories must stand or fall on an equal basis. In fact, I find that each of the theories has strengths and advantages with weaknesses and disadvantages. While there is some compelling argument in the comments below, there are some things that need to be carefully considered. I will try to lay out some of my thoughts below.
First, there is the issue of interpretations of the Book of Mormon text. What is the appropriate interpretation of a given passage such that it can be useful and is in fact instructive for where geographically we might search for corroborating evidences? This is a subject too vast for this discussion, but is a point upon which all theories must base assumptions and it is therefore critical to any evaluation of a theory.
The best clues we have in the text are relative locations of cities and geographic features (wilderness, narrow neck, rivers, valleys etc.). These serve to give us a relative outline or pattern against which to compare possible archaeological sites. Given the sheer quantity of locations that “might” fit the “pattern” from the text, Meso-America holds out a statistical advantage of matching given the plentitude of potential city sites to compare against. However, there is a significant scarcity of potential archaeological sites in the Great Lakes to provide a quality match (relative to Meso-America), but this is not necessarily a disadvantage. Proponents of this theory live or die by this scarcity. If in the relative scarcity the match is compelling, this serves to strengthen an argument in favor of the Great Lakes. A similar match in Meso-America is less definitive because it has many more “data points” that could lead to a match.
Of course, a mismatch is another issue. If there is a scarcity of evidence to match the “pattern” and it indeed cannot be made to match, one would of necessity conclude that this area is likely excluded as it is less likely that adjustments in textual interpretation will lead to a match. This is the situation that I believe the Great Lakes theory faces. There are leaps of assumptions that must be swallowed whole to make the evidence fit with the text because the locations don’t match. The directions of the flow of rivers, the distances traveled between proposed locations, potential landing sites – all require a straining and stretching of the imagination in order to make it “fit” the textual evidences from the Book of Mormon. Much of these issues are treated in FAIR’s review of Meldrum’s video.
This mismatch leads to further strained assumptions in order to maintain the theory. In essence, there is the temptation to say rivers changed direction in order to match based on a geological shift (massive assumption 1), that this occurred sooner than the geological evidence indicates (massive assumption 2) and that the reason science doesn’t fit is because of Lucifer (massive assumption SQUARED – 3). This is just a conflation of leaps that has you metaphorically bringing Lehi across the Atlantic on foot with three massive steps. I just don’t see it.
On its face, Great Lakes theories have the advantage of easily putting upstate events and landmarks within the Book of Mormon lands. Meso-American theorists must explain how JS’s comments can be correlated with a limited geography a couple thousand miles away NY etc. This is managed by interpretations that limit the geography (meso-America) but expands the definition of “Lamanite”. As all who were not Nephites were considered Lamanites, this is easy to do. Now, all who were of such a class would qualify for such a designation and JS’s comments about missions to the Lamanites is less problematic.
The issue of Zelph, if it is assumed is correctly recorded, does not contradict a Meso-American setting unless you assume that the great battles were contained within the recorded geography mentioned in the text and is used as the basis for our “pattern”. If you allow for the battle to be more widespread (across “all the face of the land”) then there is no contradiction. We know from the text that the Lamanites pursued the fleeing Nephites. Why not pursue them North into the plains?
There are many other issues I would like to address but my thumbs are tired (I’m typing on my blackberry, which is why I have not included references). Perhaps I will bring them up later. However, an overall observation is that the Great Lakes theorists are concerned with matching Josephs comments to a theory under the assumption that they deserve equal weight with the Book of Mormon text itself. They don’t. They are useful and should be considered, but they are not paramount. The can confirm but not define a theory, IMHO. This is clearly confirmed by the First Presidency statement that there is NO revealed geography. The Great Lakes theory from Meldrum begins with that assumption by placing JS’s non canonized words on equal footing with the text of the Book of Mormon itself. He assumes there is a revelatory basis for his theory. In fact, there is not.
I don’t know if you have invested the time to read the full review of Meldrum’s video on our site, but I recommend doing so. It clearly does not vindicate meso-American theories of their weaknesses, but it delineates clearly the overwhelming weaknesses of the theory being promoted by Meldrum.
Finally, I want to make one comment regarding Meldrum and May. They are presenting as their own a theory that started with Ed Goble. They present it as original without attribution. This is perhaps understandable as Goble has repudiated his own theory. He is not a Meso-American theorist, but he also has firmly distanced himself from what Meldrum and May teach for reasons I have touched on.
I would like to comment on the issue of perceived ecclesiastic endorsement at another time, so I guess we have something to look forward to.
John L.
Hi, I’m just a dum Dane from “The Victor Borge” Country, I’m not an expert in anything, not even an ‘Emeritus General Authority’. I’ve been a member of THE Church, and only 75 years of age, baptized in 1963 in Odense Branch, as it’s called that time. I’m missing a lot of meetings cos I’m ill, and have problems walking (only a few steps, then it hurts). So I have my PC, and only a few of my many books, but 2 could be enough, I miss a “Mormon-Dictionary”, if any such exist? – Then I have my INTERNET, and, as you see, can reach the other side of the Moon, — No, that’s (Yes who???) have the Vinyl-record, but where? – Enough of That. — My MEMORY has been very bad, until this month, where I, in the hospital got 2 balloons in my (Veins???) in my Heart, and suddenly The MEMORY came back, such that I remember things, sounds, smelling fine, and so on. (Wonderful; Isn’t it?…
Then to my comment: I just found this blog, and I have bad eyes – (or glasses) so I just skimmed through this “funny thing” and somehow I think that it is lacking a deeper thought, namely: what happened when mountains become valleys, and visa versa, — The Rivers might have changed its direction, and there were so much alteration that there is nothing that can be compared with anything. MVH/With Love: Egon, — My address is: Vibekevej 53, St. 44, Dyrup, DK-5250 Odense SV – Denmark. You Know!!! Hi! again – bye, bye.
Egon,
We’re glad you are feeling better.
At the time of Christ’s crucifixion there were great earthquakes and the rocks were broken up, some cities were sunk and some were covered with high earth, but it does not record that “mountains became valleys and visa versa.” That is to occur at His second coming. Mormon wrote the book about three hundred and fifty years after the geological changes that occurred in America at the time of Christ’s crucifixion. He also wrote the book for our day, which he had seen. We may therefore be confident that his described geographical locations have not changed significantly from the time that he wrote it.
Theodore
Steven Danderson wrote:
But FAIRS did the same in 2004 – by FAIR claiming that they’re not only smarter than the prophets, but smarter than God by declaring what God does not reveal to prophets:
According to “FAIR” opinions, to bolster their MesoAmerica theory, Joseph Smith knew nothing of the geography of the Book of Mormon, the very thing they accuse Meldrum:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Where_Did_the_Book_of_Mormon_Take_Place.pdf
“When a man becomes a prophet, God does not instantly answer all questions and concerns about all aspects of the gospel (especially peripheral aspects such as geography).”
Absurd. Steven Danderson is calling the kettle black. He and FAIR make more spurious claims against God and His Prophets than any FAIR have against Meldrum.
Tell us, FAIR, Omniscient and All-Knowing? What other “aspects of the gospel” does the Lord not reveal to the prophets, since you seem qualified to parse God’s revelations to bolster your MesoAmerica claim for the Book of Mormon?
To answer Egon Lyngvig Jensen’s question and to prove Egon is in error:
1 Nephi 12:4
&
Hel. 14: 23
23 And behold, there shall be great tempests, and there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great.
Talk about unrealistic expectations of a Prophet!
Have you ever read the History of the Church? He quite clearly corrected the SAME misconception you had; in HC 5:265, telling those who have it that “a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”
So, what status should Joseph Smith’s reputed statements–when NOT acting as a Prophet–have?
Moreover, why should those reputed statements–even if unquestionably from Joseph Smith, and even if he were speaking prophetically–have only the interpretation that YOU decide it does–especially if alternate understandings are possible?
For example, is Lehi’s “promised land” JUST the USA, or could it be the entire western hemisphere? Or is there some other context? Even if Lehi’s promised land is not the USA at all, it doesn’t follow that the USA is not promised–for US.
Should we take reputed statements by Joseph Smith when NOT acting as a Prophet as Gospel? If so, who, then, is the apostate: Joseph Smith, or, say, Heber Grant, who authorised the 1938 Instructor article I cited elsewhere, that said that there IS no official revelation on the location of the Book of Mormon events?
Or maybe it is those fundamentalists (like YOU!) who presumptuously give uncanonised statements a status as Holy Writ that neither God nor Joseph Smith intended, and, like Protestant Fundamentalists, damning those whose understanding differs! 😛
Obviously, you haven’t carefully read FAIR’s disclaimer, “To be clear, FAIR advocates no particular theory of Book of Mormon geography.” You can see it at:
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/MisguidedS.html
Furthermore, you haven’t read my own speculations of a Florida setting for the Book of Mormon, posted above and elsewhere. This is VERY bad form.
Could it be that it is YOU who is SO wedded to a pet theory (Meldrum’s!) that you can neither see its weaknesses, nor give a fair hearing to those with other understandings?
My reply to Steve Dancerson’s is here:
http://www.fairblog.org/2009/03/31/a-look-at-meldrums-revised-dvd/comment-page-1/
As is my reply to Steve.