Don N Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:13 am

I agree with this. Trying to use “land northward,” “land southward” and “narrow neck of land” puts us into the position of using very vague descriptors. Since there are a number of different theories based largely on these criteria that do not agree with each other, obviously we need another starting point.

So, our task should first be to find the river that best describes the River Sidon.

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 7:56 am

Here is cumorah’s internal geography:

Mormon indicicates that he and his father lived in the Land Northward. Mormon likely spent his early childhood there. Then he was taken by his father into the land Southward (Mormon 1:1-5). Mormon notes the large contrast between the sparseness of the population in the Land Lorthward versus the large population centers in the Land Southward:
“And it came to pass that I, being eleven years old, was carried by my father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla. The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.” (Mormon 1:6-7). Precisely as we see from the contrast in the archaeology of Mesoamerica versus the archaeology of the Great Lakes Region.

The Cumorah region was many days travel to the north (Mosiah 8 :7-11, Ether 9: 3). Omer, for example, departed OUT of the land he was in to get to Cumorah. It was tied to large bodies of water, Ripliancum being one of those large bodies of water. Cumorah is intimately ties with these large bodies of water. These large bodies of water were an exceedingly great distance from Zarahemla and the Narrow Neck. (Alma 50:29, Helaman 3:3-11, Mormon 6:4-5). Therefore, we have (1) the neck of land with Zarahemla closely tied to it, (2) an exceeedingly great distance of many days travel (3) and then after that exeedingly great distance, of many days travel, we have a land of many waters with extremely large bodies of water, with a hill near the eastern sea intimately tied to those large bodies of water.

You can claim all the day long that the text doesn’t say this plainly. You can disagree with this in order to justify your own reading of the text. But you cannot deny that it is a rational position that the text DOES say this plainly when one wants to believe in the literalness of what the text says. Furthermore, Occam’s razor favors the simple explanation of what the text says plainly. Why should we favor the idea that the text is “not plain” when it is obvious that it is plain. It says what it says plainly. When you draw this reading of the text on paper, then you have an internal map, with an exceedingly great distance between the neck of land and the large bodies of water, and then you look for a placement in the real world. Mesoamerica fits with the neck of land and the limited geography down there. But once you get to the land northward, it is anything but limited, and the great lakes region fits the description of a land far off to the north with exceedingly large bodies of water with a hill called Cumorah near them. You cannot deny the rationality of this reading of the text, even if you do not believe in it.

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 8:26 am

It kind of does, but it does something very unnatural with the map in the real world. It really is a hemispheric geography. It doesn’t specifically place zarahemla in Mesoamerica, but north of mesoamerica as you can see from the map.

The geography I propose is essentially the same as the McGavin and Bean geogrpahy, that is NOT hemispheric. A hemispheric geography places the narrow neck in panama and lehis landing in Chile.

My proposition is different. I’m saying almost all of Sorenson’s readings are correct with the exception of his readings for Cumorah and the land Northward. Placing the land southward in mesoamerica and having a limited geography there, and having a limited geography in the Great lakes region around the lakes and Cumorah with an exceedingly great distance between the two lands is a different proposition. In other words, I propose a limited geography in *two specific areas* with a great distance between the two. Archaeologically, the great Lakes reagion is indeed a transplant from Mesoamerica, even in Book of Mormon times.

Larry Poulsen Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 9:14 am

Ed Goble says

Larry, I disagree that it lacks sufficient detail. The details are plain enough to know that it is not in Mesoamerica, and it is only Mesoamericanists that claim that there is no detail for Cumorah. The great lakes region is the obvious place for Cumorah according to a plain reading of the text.

Surprise, surprise Ed.

For some time now, I have been trying to point out that the Mesoamerican location for the Hill Cumorah suggested by Sorenson and others does not fit with what little information is found in the text. As you say a plain reading of the text does not fit. The hill Vijia is too close to the narrow neck. It is south, not west of a large body of water. Their claim that the Gulf of Mexico is the east sea is based on a modern global view of the oceans rather than the ancient concept of a more local view based on sunrise and sunset. What we translate to east was always where the sun rose and not a description of a direction on a map.

For a while, I even contemplated the possibility of the BofM Cumorah being as far north as Palmyra, but a closer look at the geography of the Jaredites as described in the Book of Ether is difficult to fit into this area without proposing major geological changes in the area. No such geological evidence has been found.

There can be no question that the Hill Ramah was in Jaredite territory and that it was the same hill as the Hill Cumorah.

So I agree with you that it was further north but maybe not as far as you suggest.

Larry P

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am

Wait a sec. Where does the requirement of being west of a large body of water come in? I don’t see that in the Book of Ether. Cumorah in NY is also south of Lake Ontario, so lets discuss this point, as it is an important criterion whether it is south or west.

Archaeologically speaking though, only the great lakes region provides for a significant population in the land northward, albeit smaller than in Mesoamerica, which is what I see in the text.

DJ Shepherd Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Quick note: Are we to understand that Joseph and his contemporaries were only making a wild guess that Hill Cumorah NY was the BoM Cumorah? Does anyone really believe that Joseph would have been ignorant about such a matter? He met with Moroni many times on that hill, and if Joseph and his contemporaries thought that it was indeed THE Cumorah, that deserves some special attention.

Otherwise, it is safe to assume that Joseph Smith’s views or words have virtually no bearing on the debate, which puts everything into pure speculation. If Cumorah isn’t really Cumorah, we don’t have any other location that can be tied into the narrative via physical evidence (ie the Golden Plates.)

As I previously stated, I doubt that Moroni would risk losing something as valuable as the Golden Plates by walking thousands upon thousands of miles with them with the Lamanites in pursuit. If he were to be captured or killed, the cause would be lost. My guess, based on common sense and intuition, is that he would bury them in the Hill Cumorah as quickly as he could after writing his final words and then he would take off to divert attention away from the site. Just a thought.

Larry Poulsen Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

The Land northward was a big place. Basically the simplest reading of the BofM text is that it included everything north and northward of the Narrow Neck.

According to the BofM, Moroni still had the plates in 400 AD. This was 15 years after the final war recorded by Mormon and Moroni in Mormon’s chapters in the BofM. He still had them in 421 AD.

Moroni 19L
1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that *more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

Having kept them for some 35 years without losing them to the Lamanites it is not intuitive that he would suddenly decide to bury them to prevent the Lamanites from getting them. In addition. it is not intuitive that he would remain in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, an area completely in the control of the Lamanites, rather than get himself as far away from them as possible. If he fled the area, it is unreasonable that he would voluntarily return to those dangers just to bury the plates in a box in the same hill where all the other plates were stored rather than put them with the rest of the plates, something which he did do after Joseph Smith finished the translation.

Larry P

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

“The mound building sites of N America are considerably older than most cities in C and S America.”

This is simply not true. They fall within the Book of Mormon time period, but some of the oldest are the Adena, and they are in some cases contemporary with Olmec, but the Olmec and others in Mesoamerica simply go back much further.

“Are we to understand that Joseph and his contemporaries were only making a wild guess that Hill Cumorah NY was the BoM Cumorah? Does anyone really believe that Joseph would have been ignorant about such a matter? He met with Moroni many times on that hill, and if Joseph and his contemporaries thought that it was indeed THE Cumorah, that deserves some special attention.”

This is a bad assumption in the sense that we have no evidence they received revelation on it.

The best we can do is establish the plausibility of the site from the scriptures and archaeology. If it can be established that it is a plausible and rational location using other evidence, then you can say that it is something you can believe in. Otherwise, your belief is based on faith only, not any kind of rationality. If you take their words as revelation, then that is only faith. My purpose is to leave their words behind and do what I can do based on other evidences to assert and establish the rationality of my belief. Why should we believe they knew anything about Cumorah as a revelation? If they did, then such a possibility cannot be established because they said it was so. It must be demonstrated that it is rational that they did have a revelation.

Otherwise you might as well bag Cumorah till you get another revelation on the subject, because the old traditions are discredited. In the end though, even if you can establish it as rational, then you are still supposing that there was something revelatory that led to the tradition. But the difference is, you established the plausibility of your belief with evidence, not by asserting revelation. There is a big difference.

I will be the first one to admit that my belief in that tradition is based on my fundamental belief in some sort of revelatory thing on that particular site at some point. From who, I don’t know. But my continued belief in that is only because I have a rational basis for that belief. That may seem contradictory that I have previously said that we should dispense with all tradition and historical statements. Well yes, we should, as a matter of EVIDENCE IN AN ARGUMENT, because you can’t make an assertion of a revelatory basis for any of this as evidence for a rational argument. Because if you do, then your argument is no longer based on evidence, but on belief. So then why not bear your testimony and get it over with? Because obviously it is not based on rationality. I’m saying that I have both a belief in something revelatory on that site, plus I have a rational and plausible argument for my belief. I just don’t confuse my belief with evidence, nor do I use it in an argument. I hope this makes sense.

Greg Smith Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

I’m all for internal maps and everything, but that really is just a devious little scheme to say that somehow mesoamerican geographies have divested themselves from subjectivity whereas others have not. And I will never buy that for one second.

I think any claims by anyone that they are “objective” is nonsense. At best, they’re hiding their biases from themselves.

The advantage of internal maps is that they allow us to rely on the one thing about which we must be certain–the Book of Mormon text. And, it makes one’s assumptions clear, and one must justify them from the text.

Plus, I have little interest in “proving” the Book of Mormon via archaeology etc. I’m more interested in the geography because of what it teaches me about the text–hence my almost exclusive personal interest in internal maps.

Even if one feels someone like Clark or Sorenson IS reading their views into the internal map, critiquing that internal map on the basis of the Book of Mormon text seems to me the most parsimonious approach.

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

“The Zelph story places the final battles of the Nephites in N America, unless Joseph was just ignorant about the whole thing, which I doubt.”

The Zelph Story is so problematic and discredited as far as geography goes that its another one that you can have personal beliefs about, but you shouldn’t try to bring it into a geography discussion.

To me personally, its a no brainer. Zelph was a white lamanite among some struggling Nephites in the land Northward under Onandagus towards the end, before all the Nephites were destroyed. These Onandagus followers were among the last of the righteous, and these were Hopewell Indians. Zelph’s mound does archaeologically fit within the Hopewell domain and dates to the right time period. Furthermore Zelph was buried in a shallow burial in that mound, showing that he was one of the last to be buried in it.

But again, this is my personal belief on Zelph, and I can’t argue anything by it. I cannot use it as evidence, because the second I do, I discredit my argument. It would take a lot to overcome the fact that the whole Zelph thing is discredited, and to be perfectly frank, I know its a waste of time to try to do that, because I have picked my battles very carefully, and I know which ones I have a chance of winning. This one, I know I could never win.

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

What do you want from us? Do you want something that is scholarly, or do you want belief? Do you want testimony? What is it that you want? The Church no longer has official doctrines on these things. How then, shall we proceed? Shall we proceed on the words of dead prophets or living ones. Shall we make assertions based on what dead prophets said? You tell me then. How do you propose that we proceed? Do you want an assumption that everybody must agree on that Cumorah is in New York? How do you propose that we proceed with that? What should that be based on? Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation said so. Dead Prophet. Do you want me to give you the quotes with the Church’s current position that it has no position? I can certainly give you that.

I’m telling you my methodology that I am using to go forward in the scholarly environment we have to work with. Sorry if it offends you. I guess I don’t know what you want from me. Do you want an acknowledgment that it is so because dead prophets said so? How do you propose that I give that to you in the current environment of no new revelation on the subject?

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

DJ,

Let me give you an analogy to what we are dealing with here. If you want to talk to people about something, you have to be on the same playing field as they are. If you want to talk science to an athiest, does asserting that you know that God created the world because you just know do anything for you? Or do you have to build your case differently?

Its all fine when you are preaching to the choir who all agree with you. If everyone agrees that the Cumorah cave stories mean something, then you have nothing to prove to those who take the cave stories at face value. I believe in them, but again, I’m your “choir.” I’ll bet in an discussion between me and you we could agree between ourselves that Zelph is what we think he is and that he represents for geography what we think the Zelph case represents, that Cumorah was in New York. But if you aren’t preaching to the choir, how do you propose to use Zelph as evidence? Don’t you have to structure your argument differently?

Greg Smith Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

I am perfectly aware that the church has no official standing on the issue of BOM geography. (Even though I have seen a copy of a letter issued several years back where the First Presidency maintains that the Church has always held the NY Cumorah to be the same as the BoM Cumorah, but I digress.)

F. Michael Watson (then secretary to the 1st Presidency) corrected his previous letter on this topic, if it is the same one to which you are referring.

If you are not, I’d like to see the other letter. Read about it here.

Don’t think I didn’t note that the Times and Seasons quotes were given weight when they were being used against Rod. I would like to see some consistency

FAIR’s review was explicitly NOT intended to advocate for any geography. Our position has always been that there is no official position. Thus, only those quotes which disproved Rod’s claim that the geographical statements were all consistent and revelatory insisting upon HIS model were included.

If you want to see all the statements (or, a lot of them), see here: FAIR wiki.

(I think this has all the Times and Seasons stuff at least; the later dates are not as complete–there are a bunch from Orson Pratt, for example, that need to go in. He was more of a hemispheric view.)

This is part of the problem of trying to argue from earlier members’ statements–they are not all consistent. Which makes sense if they didn’t have a revealed geography.

I think it is a bit shocking that so many people seem thoroughly convinced that Cumorah isn’t Cumorah.

That isn’t a recent development, though.

I think people are surprised because it’s new to them, but these ideas have been around for at least half a century. To research the arguments, you should probably start with Sperry’s stuff. He was one who changed his mind from NY to Meso.

Larry Poulsen Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

DJ says:
I’m really not mad, I’m just trying to understand and get a feel for what actually carries any weight around here.

DJ, the only thing that carries weight for me is what I can learn from my own study of the BofM text. People keep throwing out the statement that there is no revealed geography about the Nephite-Lamanite-Jaredite cultures. Although it is true that there has been no revelation as to where this culture was located other than that it was on this continent. However, the Book of Mormon was given to Josph Smith by an angel of God and he translated it by the gift and power of God. It is therefore the only revealed source for geography related to the BofM cultures. It contains geographic information relative to Nephi and his families travels and sojourns in both the old and new worlds. In the old world, where we have a known anchor point in Jerusalem, that geography has been shown to be an accurate description of the Arabian peninsula and the travel route that Lehi and his family followed. This gives one confidence that the geography described for the new world is about a real place and a real culture.

Due to the lack of a known anchor point in the new world, there are a multitude of proposed geographies ranging from simple internal maps to ones that postulate major changes in the configuration of the American continent within the last 2000 years.

Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have stated that science is a valid means of gaining and understanding of the world around us. They have also said that faith is a major factor in our aquisition of knowledge. But faith in whom? The fourth article of faith makes it very clear that our faith should be centered on Jesus Christ and not on the arm of the flesh. We should not place our faith in science but at the same time although we should respect our leaders both past and present, we must not forget that they are and were men and entitled to their own opinions about non revealed concepts.

In other words we are left to our own studies on non revealed matters. When it comes to BofM geography, we have the revealed text to guide us and we also have a great deal of facts about the pre columbian cultures provided by science. Between the two we should be able to arrive at some idea about the location and geography that is described in that revealed text.

However if we depend on others to do our studying for us we will end up torn between what are only the opinions of men.

Larry P

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Furthermore, here is Elder Nelson’s statement on letters from authorities to individuals:

“Letters to individuals are not the channel for announcing the policy of the Church. For several important reasons, this letter itself is not a declaration of the position of the Church, as some have interpreted it to be. Do not anchor your position on this major issue to that one sentence!” (”The Law and the Light”)

Therefore, Hamblin’s claim that somehow in the 1993 letter “Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church’s position on Book of Mormon geography” is a false claim. And when I say that, I mean to say that it is Elder Watson’s own statement, NOT the Church’s statement. Elder Watson was not speaking for the Church in these cases, but on his own behalf to answer both individuals. It is actually the 1978 statement in the Church News on Geography that is what is binding.

Why am I making an issue about this technicality? Because Hamblin is trying to get mileage from the wording in Elder Watson’s statement that the “New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah”, implicitly saying that the Church has an official position that the New York Hill doesn’t fit the Book of Mormon description!! Therefore Hamblin was stealthily trying to say that the Church has a position that the New York Hill doesn’t fit the description in the text! This is why I have an issue with Hamblin on this point.

DJ Shepherd Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

May I focus on one thing for a moment? Bear with me, I’m still new to this

I’m looking at the Times & Seasons quote for 1 Oct 1842
(Zarahemla, Guatamala) Joseph definitely is not stating that the ruins discovered are Zarahemla, but he sure seems absolutelty certain that Zarahemla existed in the area mentioned. It seems as if Joseph has it quite fixed in his mind that the Isthmus of Darien was the narrow neck of land spoken of in the Book of Mormon. I detect no uncertainty in his mind about that in any of the given quotes. I think it is safe to say that the hemispheric model was THE view of Joseph’s immediate self and time.

As a result of this, I can’t help but side with Joseph. He never gave an explicit revelation on the matter, but he doesn’t offer up anything resembling a “maybe” when it comes to Lehi landing in the Land Southward (Chili) or Zarahemla being very near the middle of the Land Northward and Land Southward (Central America/Guatamala/et al) I don’t even think this represents a revised view on his part, because I know of no previous quotes tied so directly to Joseph that indicate that he held any other idea. Surely Moroni let loose SOMETHING about the geography to Joseph during all those meetings. Joseph had to form his ideas from something more than mere guesswork, or I doubt he would be so frank about quoting Alma and linking it to the Isthmus of Darien.

Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation), if I am not mistaken (correct me please, if I am) stated that Joseph Smith was on record as saying that the Hill Cumorah in NY was the BoM Cumorah. Does anyone know what record Joseph Fielding is referring to? That would deserve further investigation, would it not?

I realize that all of this is ultimately assumption, (just like everything else related to this issue) but surely this assumption is somewhat decent.
So, my points in regards to Isthmus of Darien thus far

1) I think it unlikely that Joseph was 100% ignorant to the geography. Not impossible, but unlikely.
2) Joseph seems to be stating the whole thing matter-of-factly with no reservation indicated.
3) The geography fits the details of the book as far as I read.

If anyone knows more about the Joseph Fielding Smith quote, please shout out!

Thanks, and forgive me if I’ve seemed a bit peeved or short with anyone. Like I said; I’m just trying to see what everyone else is seeing, but I’ve got my own views in the way

Thanks, Greg. When I get a bit of time, I’ll try to catch up with Sperry’s work.

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

DJ,

It would probably do you well to collect all the statements of Joseph Smith on geography if you want to believe in something on geography, because if anyone knew anything at all, he probably did. If you want statements from authorities on the subject to build your point of view on, then Joseph Smith’s statements would probably be the best ones to build on rather than anybody else’s. My personal view is that his views on geography are essentially correct, though this is my personal view, again, not that I’m asserting that I have evidence that his statements represent revelations, although I personally believe they do have some inspiration to them, though obviously not binding on anybody, and subject to the need for further revelation to solidify that this is the case.

Here are Joseph Smith’s statements that I know of that seem to be beyond question:

(1) The statement on the area of Zelph’s mound being in the Land of Desolation from the Levi Hancock Journal.

(2) June 4, 1834, during Zion’s Camp in a letter that he wrote to his wife Emma:
We arrived this morning on the banks of the Mississippi . . . [W]e left the eastern part of the state of Ohio . . . The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, 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 and bones, as proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendor and the goodness so indescribable . . . (signed) Joseph Smith, Jr.” (Letter to Emma Smith, June 4, 1834).

(3) The statements in the Times and Seasons that Greg and others had referenced, showing that Joseph Smith favored a Mesoamerican placement for both the Land of Zarahemla as well as Lehi’s landing. Note that this contradicts the idea that Lehi’s landing was in Chile.

(4) Joseph Smith’s statement on Stephens and Catherwood:
“Messrs. Stephens and Catherwood have succeeded in collecting in the interior of America a large amount of relics of the Nephites, or the ancient inhabitants of America treated in the Book of Mormon, which relics have recently been landed in New York.” (The Journal of Joseph, p. 193, entry for Saturday, June 25, 1842).
Of course these guys were getting these artifacts in Mexico, and they are also referenced in the Times and Seasons articles.

As you can see, the implication is that Mesoamerica was clearly on Joseph Smith’s mind as his personal placement for the Land of Zarahemla and the Narrow Neck of Land. Furthermore, he had in mind the idea that Nephites had inhabited the United States and that Zelph’s mound was in the Land of Desolation. As for Cumorah, no statement from Joseph Smith clarifies it. But if you are wanting to believe something from some authority that would give you the placement for most things mentioned in the Book of Mormon, then clearly the evidence shows Joseph Smith had Mesoamerica in mind for the Land of Zarahemla, not South America. The fact that in his mind the Land of Desolation stretched up into the Great Lakes region is a very significant point, that is, if statements from him hold any weight, because this implies clearly that Cumorah in his mind could easily have been in the Great Lakes region, but doesn’t prove that he believed that.

Ed Goble Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

For some reason, your site wont let me make a post with links in it to this talk. Sorry. I messed up. It is Elder Boyd K. Packer that gave the talk “The Law and the Light” and made this statement about personal letters from Church authorities, not Elder Nelson. I can provide you with a pdf to this talk if you want, but your site won’t let me link to it in my message apparently.

Adam Rodgers Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 12:38 am

I just wanted to point out something that was said about “dead prophets”. How long does it take after a prophet dies for his words to become invalid? Why even use the scriptures if we can’t trust in the words of dead prophets? Or am I missing something? Even if the current position is that the church has no position, how does that conflict with what was said before?

Greg Smith Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am

Hi Theodore:

This tells us that the river was large enough to float timber sailing rafts for a great distance

The “sailing” part is supposition, I think. It says nothing about wind power. Since they’re shipping from Zarahemla to Desolation, it may be more parsimonious to put river flow FROM Zarahemla TO Desolation (south to north).

The sea could not have been far from Zarahemla or the bodies would have decomposed before they made it there.

Actually, human bodies bloat up and can last for weeks in water, depending on conditions. I suspect you’re right that it wasn’t THAT far, but I don’t think we can rely on body decay to establish that except in a very broad range.

Helaman informs us that there was much timber shipped from the land of Zarahemla into the Land Northward, which was “an exceedingly great distance” (Helaman 3:3-14).

Points to consider in the theoretical map:
* what we think of as “an exceedingly great distance” may not be the same as what Mormon considers to be so. This is all relative. So, one has to get a sense of what distances are great or small in the context of the culture before one can try to quantify this.
* you’re presuming, I think, that the RIVER is the way that shipping is carried out. How do we know that there isn’t SEA shipping going on? After all, that’s where Hagoth did it–from the west sea, heading to the land northward.
* the shipping is from “the land” of Zarahemla, not the city itself (one would expect, perhaps, that the timber would have been less plentiful around the largest, most important Nephite polity, given that it would have been their major building material and fuel source).
* Even though the Sidon runs past the city of Zarahemla, is it the best shipping route for timber to the land northward? This would require the Sidon to pass through the narrow neck, it seems to me–I don’t know of any evidence from the text that this is the case….

Other points to consider:
* one comes “up” from Desolation to Bountiful/Zarahemla.
* one comes “up” from Zarahemla toward Manti/the Sidon Head
* one also comes “up” from Nephi to the narrow strip/Sidon head, and then DOWN into Zarahemla.

This suggests that the Manti/head region is higher in elevation.

Thus, the elevation from lowest to highest appears to be:

Desolation < Zarahemla < Manti/Sidon head area/narrow neck

Since water runs downhill, many have concluded that this requires a south to north Sidon flow, Nibley notwithstanding.

But, this illustrates the power of internal mapping–it lays bare our assumptions, and allows us to consider what the text is telling us.

Ed Goble Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am

RE: “I just wanted to point out something that was said about “dead prophets”. How long does it take after a prophet dies for his words to become invalid? Why even use the scriptures if we can’t trust in the words of dead prophets? Or am I missing something? Even if the current position is that the church has no position, how does that conflict with what was said before?”

Adam,

The statements from prophets on geography are so muddled and in conflict with one another that they have all invalidated each other to the point where we lack discernment, and can have no confidence in the lot of them. Even if we have confidence in some of them, we are left to pick and choose, without a reliable way of discernment to do so. Furthermore, later authorities have unambiguously stated there is no revelation, and in my personal belief system, I take that to mean that we lack discernment even if there was revelation in some. How do you pick and choose between them to know what is revealed and what is not?

If you use the scriptures, that is good, and the scriptures are certainly revealed, but unfortunately, so does everybody else that does geography and it all. And the fact that everybody comes to varying conclusions based on the text shows the ambiguity of many points in the text.

This is what we are left with, and current authorities refuse to take a position, and are clearly waiting for further light and knowledge directly from the Lord.

This is, perhaps, one of the biggest problem with Rod Meldrum’s work, is he claims to be able to filter which statements of prophets contain revealed knowledge and which one’s do not, and bears testimony of how it was revealed to him.

Here’s the official statement:
“If [the Lord] wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point. Some authors have felt ‘called upon’ to inform the world about Book of Mormon geography and have published writings giving their views. These books, however, are strictly private works and represent only their personal speculations.” (Deseret News, July 29, 1978, Church News Section, p.16.)

So, though Meldrum accuses others of going against “authority”, he clearly goes against this statement.

Then there is John Sorenson’s well reasoned statement, in full harmony with the Church News Statement:
“It has often been supposed that the Church authorities (particularly Joseph Smith) must have had accurate, and by implication revealed, knowledge about Book of Mormon geography. The evidence is against that view; too many statements from those authorities are in contradiction to the text and to each other to allow us to suppose that anybody knew for sure the answers to the crucial geographical questions. Furthermore, later Church authorities have asserted that definite knowledge about geography has never been revealed to the Church. Hence, statements about geography made by historical figures deserve to be assessed critically in the same terms as do modern statements; those of early date are no more likely to be correct because they were early and none are authoritative.” (Sorenson, John, 1992, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, Provo, UT: FARMS, p. 353)

And now, here are the same principles from past prophets, and it is very clear that at least one of these two was a New York Cumorah advocate from his writings in Doctrines of Salvation.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside . . . You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If what he writes is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Smith, Joseph Fielding, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1956, pp. 203-204).

Harold B. Lee said something very similar:
“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator-please note that one exception-you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea!” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard”-it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it.” (Lee, Harold B. “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, July 8, 1964.)

So it can be clearly discerned from the principles taught in these statements that EVEN IF SOME of the old statements from earlier generations contained revealed information, that is obscured by false statements and speculation. Therefore, there is no way to discern it. One principle that might help is to see if they conflict with the book of Mormon. But according to who’s standard of interpretation of the book of Mormon text, I may ask, shall we use, to determine if a statement is in conflict with the text? Does scholarly consensus help? Sometimes perhaps. But I’m in direct conflict with that idea, because I go against the consensus of the Mesoamericanist Cumorah theory, because I believe their ideas conflict with the text.

Greg Smith Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am

Bountiful is north of the Land of Zarahemla so can not be the source of the timber. Bountiful, however, is described as a wilderness and probably had plentiful timber available.

Sorry Larry, I missed what you mean. Do you think Bountiful was a potential source for the shipping of timber, or no?

Greg Smith Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Yes, wind power is not specifically mentioned but it is not excluded either.

Of course. I merely caution that until one has an entire internal geography, presuming that this refers to river transit OR presuming it is wind-driven is premature. If one concludes it was in the sea, then wind becomes more certain, of course.

Sailing rafts were common in ancient America and are still used off the coasts of Peru and Northern Brazil….With its shallow draft the sailing raft would have been an excellent river craft.

I note you say “off the coast,” which I take it means sea travel, not river. Is there evidence that such craft were used for river transport? (Draft is, after all, only one issue in whether river navigation is feasible/plausible.)

I wasn’t aware that the rivers of the above areas were particularly amenable to long-distance travel or the transport of goods (that fell, IIRC, almost exclusively to human porters), but I’m not an expert.

Good point! Therefore consider that the Nephites had a heritage of long distance travel. From Jerusalem they traveled about fifteen hundred miles across the Arabian Peninsula, and then more than half way around the world on a sailing ship.

Whether this correlates to the society as a whole, though, especially centuries later, is an entirely different matter.

Many statements in the Book of Mormon require great distances.

“Require”? Are you sure? Many others have read it differently. Again, you need to quantify what YOU mean when you say “great”—is it 100 miles? 1000 miles? 10 miles?

It took the Nephite Captain, Moroni, the most part of a year to move a portion of his army through friendly territory from Zarahemla to Bountiful (Alma 52:11, 15, 18). This makes no sense if the distance was only two or three hundred miles. An army could march that in ten days.

You’re presuming that the army is mustered and ready to go, and that there’s nothing to do besides march. But, let’s consider some other factors before we conclude that this is how we must read the text:

* premodern societies rarely had standing armies. The troops were farmers/peasants or what have you. Such people had to be rallied, convinced to assemble and fight, equipped, provisioned, arrangements made to secure homes and families from attack (otherwise they’re less likely to want to leave to go fight), etc. That’s before they set out.

* the text is also clear that part of Mormon’s defensive strategy involved fortification, “defense in depth,” if you will, etc. This means that it may not be the case that he did nothing but march men from point A to point B. There may have been other aspects of this which he felt important. We aren’t told.

* groups of men with equipment may not be able to take routes which small groups or individuals can travel

* the speed of movement over any terrain is greatly dependant on the terrain itself. What would be easy over a coastal plain, for example, might be much longer over mountainous terrain, for example. In some regions, even a few miles could take months.

The most clear discussion of distances and travel times is in the Alma/Limhite refugees in Mosiah, as Sorenson has emphasized. There we have specific times, and it’s pretty clear people aren’t doing anything except fleeing/traveling. You might try making your case based on a critique of Sorenson on that point.

If the distance between them had only been two or three hundred miles, runners could have kept them in regular communication. The fact that these military officers only communicated about the conduct of the war once in those four years is further evidence that there was a great distance between them.

It’s _possibly_ evidence of that. But, it’s also potentially evidence for other things, such as:

* the terrain was so difficult that message turn-around time would have had little benefit for anyone—Moroni has to trust his generals on the ground; he can’t micro-manage the ward from the eastern campaign.

* the tactical situation was such that the risks of getting runners through “enemy territory” was not worth it.

* Zarahemla was closer to Helaman than Moroni was; thus, it would make little sense for Helaman to write to Moroni (who was further away, and needed his own troops and supplies) when he can write to Zarahemla for reinforcements and reprovisioning? (Indeed, Helaman’s letter to Moroni is precipitated in part by the fact that he ISN’T getting the replies or help he needs from Zarahemla.)

A military rout lasting ten years speaks of a vast territory.

It _may_ speak of a vast territory. Again, terrain counts for a lot. We are deceived, sometimes I think, by the pace of modern mechanized warfare. What is rapid to a premodern culture may strike us as rather slow-paced.

It took them four years to gather their people for battle (Ether 15:14), indicating a very large territory from which they were gathered.

Again, you’re presuming, I think, that gathering the people required nothing else than sending out a call. How do you provision these people? How do you equip them? The land had been at war for years; agriculture was human-powered, labor intensive, and nowhere near our modern yields.

So when Mormon wrote, “They did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers” (Helaman 3:3-4), he knew that the Nephites had a recorded heritage of long-distance travel and were covering distances more than a few hundred miles.

They had ONE long-distance immigration that was unique and extraordinary. What does Mormon tell us elsewhere about journeys? Again, I’d like to see your map—what dimensions are we talking here? 500 miles? 50 miles? 5000 miles? We need to define our terms, because what I think is exceedingly long may not match YOUR exceedingly (much less the Nephites’!)

This is where the hourglass model restricts your thinking. This is where the “power of internal mapping” can lock you in. One needs to think outside of the hourglass.

ALL models both constrain and illuminate. No model of anything matches what is being modeled in all particulars, else it would BE that thing. I’m trying to speak of just the text.

There is nothing in the text that prohibits an entry into the Land Northward other than by the narrow neck of land.

Well, Hagoth goes there by ship. But, there’s no other entry. Militarily, the goal is always to seize the narrow neck. Mormon repeatedly emphasizes that only by controlling Bountiful and the Narrow Neck can the Nephites have a place to retreat to (the land northward). If it can be detoured around easily, why haven’ the more numerous Lamanites tried it, instead of always getting burned in a slugging match over Bountiful?

The references to elevation are all in the review paper here:

http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Book_of_Mormon_Geography/DEBMG02F.html

Sorry, I had presumed you had read it.

Larry Poulsen Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Greg says:

Sorry Larry, I missed what you mean. Do you think Bountiful was a potential source for the shipping of timber, or no?

Yes although I could not find a reference to timber being available in Bountiful. The only reference to timber in Bountiful is to one where it was used to make walls around the city.

Larry P

Ed Goble Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Adam,

I don’t know of any statements like that myself.
A lot of it has to do with change in procedure. The Church has so much well established policy and procedure, that they don’t need to ask the Lord what to do in mundane things anymore. They certainly get inspiration all the time, and I know it, because I’ve seen it. The proclamation on the family, I feel, is a revelation, though it is presented as a statement not unlike an official declaration. But seldom do they get a “Thus saith the Lord” type in the sense of something earth shattering that changes our perception of doctrine, because the Lord has already revealed what we need to go forward in a lot of ways. And even when they do get an earth shattering thing like the blacks and the priesthood, they give it in the manner of an official declaration rather than a quote of the precise words they received, if they received any. The other issue is, so often, revelation comes in so many other ways that a thus saith the Lord thing doesn’t work. Its like the account I heard of when President Hinckley recieved the revelation on the Hong Kong Temple. It came by night vision if I remember right, but it was significant, and gave him what he needed to move forward on how to build that temple. It wasn’t a thus saith the Lord voice on that one, as on so many others. We sometimes fail to remember that we seldom hear voices when we get personal revelation also. Revelation for these men is no different except for the weightiness of the calling they have, and what they are called to preside over. It is recieved by the same spirit, and it isn’t logical to believe that the Lord would have respect for these men over other people so much so that he would give them voices all the time, and other people not. These men are among the best in the Church obviously, but we often forget that they are regular guys with a weighty calling. But there are so many other people in the Church that are likely to be just as spiritual, and recieve manifestations just as much, having the same gift of the Holy Ghost and the same priesthood.

Adam Rodgers Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Thanks Ed, I totally agree with you on that.

Greg Smith Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

In the context of Helaman 3:3-11, it says nothing about going through Bountiful to get to the Land Northward. The people went from the Land of Zarahemla “an exceedingly great distance” into the land northward where there were large bodies of water and “many rivers.”

Yes, this is why I suspect that the text fits better if we presume that the timber went by sea going ship. Your idea of floating logs down the Sidon would require the Sidon to go through Bountiful/narrow neck/land Northward OR require some other route of the Sidon from Zarahemla to land northward. But, if a river can take that course, why can’t armies and men? But, they don’t.

And, the river log shippers would either:

1) have to sail against the flow (i.e., river runs north to south); or
2) have to have a river which flows south to north, which you’re arguing against.

Our arguments have been focused on the shipping issue but you did not address the point of the “head of the river Sidon” being where it empties into the sea rather than the source of the river. If this is the case then again the river flows from north to south and again it would be the Mississippi.

As I said, I don’t think the direction flow your proposing works (leaving aside the “head” issue) because of the described topography. Thus, your suggestion for a head cannot be correct, because rivers don’t run away from the sea. See the article I referenced.

If you want to argue that Desolation to Bountiful is “up”, but Bountiful to Zarahemla is “down,” then you have an even greater problem, since it means that the river is running down INTO the Zarahemla river valley, but must run uphill to Manti/narrow strip of wilderness. Zarahemla will soon be a large lake.

The book is pretty clear that Bountiful sits north of Zarahemla, athwart the route into Desolation/the narrow neck/the land northward. It is the focus of at least three separate military actions.

Greg, you have given several arguments why Sidon might not be the Mississippi but I have not read any of your arguments that prevent it from being so.

I’ve not argued against the Mississippi at all. I’m trying to estabish which direction the river flows. Internal map first.

I think you would have to agree that there is at least a 50/50 chance that the river flows from north to south rather than from south to north.

No, I don’t. Any given river may have a 50/50 shot, but there are textual clues, and they may well (and, I think, in this case DO) shift that balance of probabilities. One can’t just say “Well, the river could run either way.” The question is, from the text, “Can it?”

This should be an issue to be demonstrated, not an assumption upon which to base further theorizing. Do you see what I mean?

I think the text quite clear that south to north makes much more sense based on topography. If we can’t determine the direction of flow from the text, then one moves on, bracketing that issue.

So, rather than fight against everything I am suggesting, like a good defense lawyer defending his client, ;- why don’t you consider the Mississippi as a possibility and see where it goes?

I’m not trying to “defend” anything–I’m just saying, one of the first things to establish about the Sidon is the direction of flow. You want your model to address the most potent possible objections, don’t you?

The Mississippi idea seems to contradict what I get from the text. Remember, we must consider ALL the text–not just some. So, you must take the verses I’ve mentioned, and account for them in your model.

This is precisely WHY I think it so important to establish an internal map–as soon as I start to assume that the Mississippi is “it,” (or anywhere else) then I will read everything in that light, and I will miss textual clues.

(Incidentally, this is why I’ve personally never gotten beyond an internal map. I’m not confident enough to move beyond that.)

So, just getting an internal map that works must be the first step. Thus far, I’m not persuaded that one can have the Sidon run north to south. The topography doesn’t work. It requires an idiiosyncratic use of “head” of the river.

And, if that’s the case, then reading of “head” as “near the sea” must be false.

The Mississippi River remains what it always was—a kind of huge rope…tying the United States together. It is the Nile of the Western Hemisphere.

The River Sidon was the Nile of The Book Of Mormon.

There may be a parallel here.

One could just as easily argue that the Amazon is “the Nile” of the Americas. Analogies are easy.

There are many parallels to many things. Not all are meaningful. Such an argument presupposes a USA location for the majority of Book of Mormon history. Possible, but an assumption.

Greg

Jack Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Greg,

Don’t you think at some point it would be useful to consider a real world location? One that *best* fits one’s internal map in spite of one or two incongruities? It seems to me that even if one were to piece together a map from the text–with as much objectivity as is possible to conjure up–one will never divest oneself completely of one’s subjectivity. We really don’t comprehend much of the time just how much our culture informs our perceptions–in everything, including how we read a text.

What if, for example, it is only the problem with “directions” in Sorensen’s model that keeps us from buying in to it completely? (I understand that there may be other complications–but for the sake of argument) If his model were to match one’s internal map pretty well in just about every other detail then it might be useful to embrace it (at least as an exercise) and see how one might be informed buy it. Or how one might be informed as to one’s reading of the text.

Theodore Brandley Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Greg wrote:

**Your idea of floating logs down the Sidon would require the Sidon to go through Bountiful/narrow neck/land Northward OR require some other route of the Sidon from Zarahemla to land northward. But, if a river can take that course, why can’t armies and men? But, they don’t.**

My model does not require the Sidon to go through Bountiful nor the narrow neck. In Helaman 3:3 “an exceedingly great many” traveled from Zarahemla to the Land Northward with no mention of their going through Bountiful or the narrow neck. The scouts of Limhi probably went the same route or they would have run into some Nephites going through the Land Bountiful. There is no record of armies going that route but that does not mean that at some time or other they did not. It appears that up until about 50 BC, as Mormon describes above, there were very few settlers in the Land Northward so there would be no need for armies to go that way. After that time period there are no details of Lamanite/ Nephite wars until you get to the days of Mormon.

**And, the river log shippers would either:
1) have to sail against the flow (i.e., river runs north to south); or..**

Sailing against the flow of a big lazy river is not a problem. The current is always faster on the outside of the curves (centrifugal force) and is usually quite still on the inside. Sailing from the inside to the inside of successive curves avoids the fast water and shortens the journey.

**Thus, your suggestion for a head cannot be correct, because rivers don’t run away from the sea**

The word “head” has a different meaning when it relates to lands by the sea. In that case it refers to a promontory or headland that juts out into the sea. English Captain William Hilton, in August of 1663, while exploring the Port Royal Sound, sighted the high bluffs of an Island, and named it for himself, “Hilton Head.” The word “Head” refers to the headlands visible to them as they sailed the uncharted waters.” (hiltonheadisland.com/history)

That the head of the River Sidon was near the sea is evidenced in the following texts:

“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…” (Alma 50:11, emphasis added).

And again in Alma 22:27 notice that the narrow strip of wilderness was “roundabout on the borders of the seashore,” and by the head of the river Sidon.

“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.” (Alma 22:27)

The text is clear that the narrow strip of wilderness and the head of the river Sidon were near the sea. Therefore the head of the river Sidon cannot be the “headwaters” of the river which would be far away from the sea and in the highlands (as you mentioned water runs downhill ). The text is clear that the river Sidon runs from north to south.

At a huge battle near Sidon, again a multitude of bodies were thrown into the river “and they have gone forth and are buried in the depths of the sea” (Alma 44:22). It is not reasonable that all these dead bodies, in a warm climate where the Lamanites wore only loin clothes, would float all the way from the headwaters of the river, past the city of Zarahemla, to the sea before decomposing. It only makes sense if Manti was closer to the sea than Zarahemla—in which case again the river Sidon ran from north to south.

**If you want to argue that Desolation to Bountiful is “up”, but Bountiful to Zarahemla is “down,” then you have an even greater problem, since it means that the river is running down INTO the Zarahemla river valley, but must run uphill to Manti/narrow strip of wilderness. Zarahemla will soon be a large lake. **

Nowhere in the text does the river Sidon run through, around or near the Land of Bountiful, and Manti/narrow strip of wilderness is near the sea and therefore very low so there is no problem in draining your imaginary lake.

There is a narrow pass that runs between Desolation and Bountiful (Alma 52:9) so there obviously is a range of high hills or mountains between them that one must go up and over..

**The book is pretty clear that Bountiful sits north of Zarahemla, athwart the route into Desolation/the narrow neck/the land northward. It is the focus of at least three separate military actions.**

This is one of the routes into Desolation but not the only one.

Now, if you can accept the possibility that the river Sidon might flow from north to south then we can continue forward to explore what that might mean.

-Theodore