Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Importance of the Ages of Lehi’s Family – Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding the age of Nephi, both when he left Jerusalem and when he arrived in the Land of Promise, and its importance in better understanding the scriptural record and these events.
These events, of convincing Ishmael the Lord wanted he and his family to join Lehi in the desert; presenting their father’s wealth to the powerful Laban; the moral difficulty in killing Laban; and the overpower of Zoram are all incidents of a much more mature and knowing individual than a young teenager

Thus, as stated in the previous post, Nephi would have been 22 when he left Jerusalem. This fits better with the events that took place. However, some theorists claim he was “young in age,” but Nephi does not say that.
    His statement is: “And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord” (1 Nephi 2:16, emphasis added). Now “being young” is not necessarily the same as “being a young age.” We need to keep in mind that Nephi is writing this some thirty years after the events.
    In fact, Nephi tells us: “And thirty years had passed away from the time we left Jerusalem. And I, Nephi, had kept the records upon my plates, which I had made, of my people thus far. And it came to pass that the Lord God said unto me: Make other plates; and thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are good in my sight, for the profit of thy people” (2 Nephi 5:28-30). Consequently, the “kept the records upon my plates,” refers to the Large Plates, from which Joseph Smith first translated and Martin Harris recorded and then lost those 116 pages. The “other plates” Nephi mentions were the Small Plates that the Lord told him to later make “for a wise purpose,” from which the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi through Omni) were eventually translated.
    So Nephi would have been about 52 when he wrote the statement “being exceedingly young.”
    First of all, a mid-teen seldom has “great desires to know of the mysteries of God.” This usually comes with age. Secondly, and most importantly to interpreting this passage correctly, when we are older, we often see age very differently than when we were young. As an example, when I was 37 years old, I was called to be a Bishop. At the time, I was married and had four children, ages 9 down to 3, with the fifth child born a month after being called. At the time I’m sure I considered myself a mature adult; however, some thirty years later, I remember thinking back while updating my personal history, I realized that I was extremely young when serving as a Bishop.
    It is all a matter of perspective.
    However, if that is not sufficiently significant, then consider Nephi’s own words when he described himself a few days later: “And now I, Nephi, being a man large in stature, and also having received much strength of the Lord, therefore I did seize upon the servant of Laban, and held him, that he should not flee” (1 Nephi 4:31, emphasis added).
    It is one thing to be large in stature (how large and strong would a teenager be compared to a man in his twenties who would know much better how to use his strength and leverage), but something else entirely to be confident enough to use that strength to overpower the adult Zoram both physically, and to out-think and out-maneuver him mentally by convincing Zoram that he, Nephi, was indeed the servant’s well known master (1 Nephi 4:20-27).
    Yet, despite Nephi’s strength and stature, he could not withstand the ability and strength of his older brother, Laman, who on more than one occasion overpowered him, tied him up, and was on the verge of killing him. Obviously, Laman felt completely capable of taking care of his youngest brother, though Nephi was “large in stature,” and physically capable of subduing an adult man like Zoram. This should suggest that while Nephi was old enough at 22 to have the wits and confidence to impersonate Laban (which he most likely would not have had as a young teenager), he did not have the knowledge and experience to stand up to his older brothers (1 Nephi 7:16; 17:48; 18:11).
A final comment about this is in the fact that under Judaic custom, for a man to marry at an early age was unthinkable, since he had no way of supporting his wife. To marry as a teenager was simply unheard of and there is no way Nephi would have been of a marrying age under twenty, let alone at 13 or 15 or even 18 in that day. To think that Nephi was 13 or a teenager when he left Jerusalem and married within two years would be unthinkable to a Hebrew of the time. He would have to have been somewhere around at least 20 or older when he left Jerusalem. And being that age or older makes the rest of the events, his thinking and actions, more realistic and understandable.
    It should also be noted that when Lehi sent his sons back to get the Brass Plates from Laban, it was to Nephi he spoke of the event and its importance, and that the Lord commanded it (1 Nephi 3:2-8). Again, under ancient Judaism laws of Primogeniture, the role of the firstborn son carries significance (it is compared to the redemption of the firstborn son of God), with the masculine noun bekhor, meaning “firstborn son,” and stands for “birthright,” related to primogeniture wherein the firstborn son was “the father’s favorite,” entitled to a double portion, and the rightful leader in the family after the father. In fact, when the father died, his place was almost always taken over by the eldest son, who then became the father of the whole household, including its aged members. Unless he proved unworthy of his position he received all the rights loyalty, and privileges of his father before him.
    Thus, under all normal circumstances, Lehi would have told this information and given this direction to go back and obtain the Brass Plates to his oldest son, Laman, not to Nephi, especially a 13 or 14 year-old Nephi. The fact that he told Nephi is significant in Lehi’s preference to his youngest son, because as he said, “Therefore go, my son, and thou shalt be favored of the Lord, because thou hast not murmured” (1 Nephi 3:6). Lehi fully understood that the Lord had chosen Nephi over his other sons, to be the leader of the nation Lehi was to establish in the Land of Promise. For this to have been the case, Nephi would have had to have been an adult and warrant the special attention and usurp the rightful position of Laman in the family order.
    Thus we can see that when the party landed on the shores of the Land of Promise, Lehi, who would have been about 63 when leaving Jerusalem, would have been about 73 upon landing and around 75 when he died; Sariah would have been about 48 when leaving Jerusalem, about 50 thru 55 when giving birth to two sons, and 58 when landing, making Jacob as old as 8 years upon landing.
    So when the family landed their ages would have been:
Lehi – 73
Sariah – 58
Sister that married Ishmael’s first son – 32
Sister that married Ishmael’s second son – 30
Laman – 28
Lemuel – 26
Sam – 24
Nephi – 22
Jacob – 6 to 8
Joseph – 4 to 6
    So when Nephi transcribed the record he kept on the Large Plates to the newly made Small Plates, he would have been about 52, Jacob 38 to 40 and Joseph 36 to 38. 
    In addition, when Nephi turned over the records to his younger brother Jacob (Jacob 1:1-2), Nephi was about 77 years old, and Jacob would have been about 61. Within a handful of years, Nephi “anointed a man to be king and a ruler over his people” (Jacob 1:9), and probably died about 80 years of age.
    It should be kept in mind that while these dates and ages fit the scriptural record, they are still assumptive in many ways and cannot be suggested to be scripturaly accurate. They do fit the narrative and the understanding of age during the time frame of the Book of Mormon according to Judaic laws and customs, as well as the events described in the scriptural record.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Importance of the Ages of Lehi’s Family – Part I

Much has been discussed about the age of Nephi when he left Jerusalem. Theorists have claimed anywhere from the age of 13 to being a young adult of perhaps 21. However, some of the events Nephi describes of himself, and his thoughts and abilities, do not fit the younger age limit some claim was his age. To begin with, Nephi states that he was aware that many prophets came into the land “the very same year” Zedekiah was made king in 597 B.C. at the age of 21. This means Zedekiah was born in 618 B.C.
Pastoral life, outside the city, would have been both physically taxing and mentally relaxing. It is doubtful that a young teen would have been interested in or knowledgeable about what was going on politically in the city

It would be hard to reconcile that a 13 or even 16-year-old boy living outside Jerusalem in his father’s home where Lehi “had dwelt all his days” (1 Nephi 1:4). After all, Nephi’s main interest would have been centered around his father’s farm, planting, harvesting, working, taking care of the animals, etc. It is unlikely a teenager would have been interested in the political picture taking place in the city of Jerusalem.
    Nor would a teen likely have been aware much that his father “went forth praying with all his heart in behalf of his people” (1 Nephi 1:5). Nor would he have known much about “a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly” (1 Nephi 1:6). After all, teenagers are not generally that aware of anything their fathers are doing that does not related directly to themselves.
    Now, it could be argued that by the time Nephi engraved this information on the Small Plates (30 years after the events), he had read his father’s record on the Large Plates and was well aware of those early events. He does include in his own record the words “And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account” (1 Nephi 1:16).
    Thus, the entire first chapter of Nephi’s record on the Small Plates might well have come from Lehi’s record on the Large Plates. This is additionally shown in the next statement by Nephi: “But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life” (1 Nephi 1:16).
In the first year of Zedekiah’s reign as king of Judah, the Lord told Lehi to leave his home at Jerusalem and flee into the wilderness

So let us back up and consider the age and events of Lehi’s life and family to arrive at a more accurate age of Nephi. We know Lehi left Jerusalem with his family in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign as king of Judah (1 Nephi 1:4), and obeyed the Lord and departed into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2:4) with his family, “which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam” (1 Nephi 2:5).
    It has been suggested by some historians that Lehi was born about 640 B.C., which would have made him 43 years old at the time he left Jerusalem in 597 B.C. If that were the case, and taking the marriage ages of the time, Lehi would have married around the age of 30, which would be about 610 B.C. (an odd age factor to our modern thinking, but necessary in that time since young men were apprenticed to their father’s to learn and develop a career, and did not marry until they had achieved the ability to support a wife through that work).
    Thus, using those ages for Lehi, we can see that Laman, the oldest son, would have been about 13 years old in 597 B.C. Obviously, that would not have been the case. Even if Lehi was born in 650 B.C., as some claim, that would have made Laman 23 years old, Lemuel 21, Sam 19, and Nephi 17.
    Now, the marrying age of women during this time was about 15, suggesting the earliest to have children would be when Sariah was 16 years of age (a difficult concept to our modern way of thinking, but none-the-less the facts of ancient Israel). That means she would have been 22 years old at the birth of Nephi, having been born about 635 B.C., 15 in 620 B.C., and 22 in 613 B.C. at the birth of Nephi.
    However, Apostle Erastus Snow said that “The Prophet Joseph Smith informed us that the record of Lehi was contained on the 116 pages that were first translated and subsequently stolen, and of which an abridgment is given us in the First Book of Nephi, which is the record of Nephi individually, he himself being of the lineage of Manasseh; but that Ishmael was of the lineage of Ephraim, and that his sons married into Lehi's family, and Lehi's sons married Ishmael's daughters” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 23, p184, emphasis added; Improvement Era 55, September 1952, pp642, 694; Answers to Book of Mormon Questions, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1967, pp9-11).
    This means that Lehi had two daughters older than Laman, making Laman only 19 years old, Lemuel 17, Sam 15, Nephi 13 when they left Jerusalem if Lehi was born in 650 B.C. Again, an obviously juvenile age for Nephi.
    Consequently, we need to extend Lehi’s birth date back to at least 660 B.C., which would mean that when they left Jerusalem, Lehi’s daughters were 32 and 30 years of age, would have allowed them to have families as Nephi states (1 Nephi 7:6).
    In this case, then, Lehi would have been 63 years old in 597 B.C., the year he left Jerusalem, 71 years old when they reached Bountiful after spending eight years in the wilderness (1 Nephi 17:4-5), about 73 during the sea voyage from Bountiful to the Land of Promise. This older age would agree more with Nephi’s statement about Lehi’s age when he stated: “and my parents being stricken in years, and having suffered much grief because of their children, they were brought down, yea, even upon their sick-beds” (1 Nephi 18:17), than if he was only in his early 60s or 50s, as some theorists claim about Nephi’s age would make him. Such an advanced age also makes more sense that Lehi died about two years after reaching the Land of Promise (2 Nephi 4:12).
    It is thought by some that the two sisters that Nephi mentions (2 Nephi 5:6) were the two older sisters that married the sons of Ishmael, which means that when Nephi separated from his brothers, these wives of the sons of Ishmael left their husbands and went with Nephi. However, under ancient Hebrew/Israel law as stated in the Bible, popularly called “ketubah” or marriage contract (considered an integral part of a traditional Jewish marriage, and outlines the rights and responsibilities of the groom, in relation to the bride), it was almost impossible for a woman to get a divorce, and the women, when married, moved to the husband’s home and family, and was thereafter part of that home and family, and it was extremely uncommon for the women to return to her own father’s home.
    Thus, it would seem unlikely that these two sisters were the two that married Ishmael’s sons, had families by them, and would have been married for at least 15 years or more. This means, then, that these “sisters” who followed Nephi and “those who went with him,” including Sam, Jacob, Joseph and Zoram, would have been two other daughters of Lehi, that had gone unmentioned in the scriptural record by Nephi until this point in time.
    Thus, if Lehi was born in 660 B.C., his life might be stated in years as:
660 BC – Lehi born at Jerusalem, presumably in the family home outside the city;
630 BC – married Sariah;
629 BC – first daughter born
627 BC – second daughter born
625 BC – Laman born
623 BC – Lemuel born
621 BC – Sam born
619 BC – Nephi born
597 BC – Nephi 22 years old; Zedekiah made king; prophets preach in Jerusalem; Lehi preaches in Jerusalem and told to take family into wilderness; leaves his home and heads toward the Red Sea;
596 BC – Lehi sends sons back to Jerusalem to get Brass Plates; sends them back again to get Ishmael and his family;
595 BC – Lehi’s sons marry Ishmael’s daughters; finds Liahona; leaves Valley of Lemuel with combined families and heads down the Red Sea;
594-589 BC – Jacob and Joseph born in wilderness;
589 BC – Lehi reaches seashore and calls the area Bountiful and the ocean the Irreantum Sea;
589-588 BC – Nephi builds his ship;
587 BC – Lehi preaches to his sons; Lehi dies;
586 BC – Nephi leaves brothers and area of First Landing with “all those who would go with him; reaches area they called Nephi and settles down and builds the City of Nephi. This is the same year that Zedekiah’s reign as king ends, his sons are captured and killed before him and he is blinded and taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar; Mulek escapes Jerusalem (Omni 1:15) and is led by the Lord to the Land of Promise where he settles in the land later called Zarahemla (Omni 1:16).
(See the next post, “Importance of the Ages of Lehi’s Family – Part II,” for more about the age of Nephi, both when he left Jerusalem and when he arrived in the Land of Promise, and its importance in better understanding the scriptural record and these events)

Monday, March 19, 2018

The Ancient Amazonian Sea

For those who still have difficulty in thinking of South America as being mostly underwater in the distant past and that Lehi landed on an island, despite Jacob telling us that (2 Nephi 10:20), perhaps the following recent discoveries might be of help.
    According to a recent Smithsonian article, recent discoveries show that anciently, the Caribbean Sea flooded inland forests of the Amazon. Carlos Jaramillo, a paleobotanist (a study of fossil plants in biological reconstruction of past environments, i.e., paleogeography) and staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, which is an out-of-country bureau of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., states: “It’s hard to imagine that you could have the Caribbean ocean in the West Amazon.”
    Yet, that is exactly what he has found.
According to Geologists, as the Caribbean Sea inundated the Amazonian Basin and spread over the inner shallow sedimentary basins the inland Pabesian, Pananense and Paranan epicontinental seas (on the continental plate) and other marginal seas were established leaving islands of very old crystalline shields, which cover only 36% of the land mass

It should be noted that because of the rise of the Andes Mountains to their present height, the Amazonian Basin sea found its northward and Pacific exit blocked through what is now Venezuela before finding its present eastward outlet into the South Atlantic. Gradually this inland sea became a vast freshwater lake and wetlands where sediment flattened its profiles and the marine inhabitants adapted to life in freshwater. Over twenty species of stingray, most closely related to those found in the Pacific Ocean, live today in the freshwaters of the Amazon, which is also home to a freshwater dolphin.
    This inland sea, it is claimed, covered a large section of the forest, creating an inland sea that jump-started the evolution of new species. This resulted from the rise of the fast-growing Andes mountains that created microclimates at different elevations, sparking speciation and funneling new plants and animals into the Amazon basin. When marine microorganisms were discovered in the Amazonian sediments in the 1990s, it was hypothesized that the forest was once inundated by an ocean. “It’s hard to imagine a process that would cover such a large forest with an ocean.”
Drill sites of the Amazon region. Yellow area shows a much younger period of geologic time than previously thought (green area older, reddish area oldest). Also shown are (blue dotted arrows) seismic lines and (red circles) drill sites from the Andean foreland to the Atlantic Ocean margin. In the far western Peruvian, Ecuadorean, and Colombian Amazon, ongoing uplift of Andean foreland basin sequences provides outcrops of Cenozoic sediments that are relatively easily accessed

One of the overall problems was, despite extensive hydrocarbon exploration undertaken in this region, including many deep drill cores and thousands of mliles of seismic lines, little is known about the non- petroleum-bearing shallow, more recent part of the sedimentary record, which holds key information about the evolution of the modern rainforest and the establishment of the Amazon river drainage system. To determine this reality, Jaramillo and his colleagues turned to core drilling into the jungle floor.
    According to Lizzie Wade, a former Fulbright scholar at the National University of Mexico, a Fellow at Wired, and an intern and contributing correspondent for Science, covering archaeology and Latin America for the magazine from Mexico City, the drilled cores were three inches wide and 1970-feet deep, and preserved a record of the region’s past environments in the form of fossils, pollen, and sediments, well back into prehistory.
    Using two cores, one from eastern Colombia, drilled by an oil company, and one from northeastern Brazil, taken by the Brazilian Geology Survey in the 1980s, Jaramillo team went through the cores layer by layer. As Jaramillo reported: “Most of the remains came from land-dwelling species. But in two thin layers, we found marine plankton and seashells. The Colombian core even contained the fossils of an ocean-dwelling mantis shrimp and a shark's tooth.” That was enough to convince Jaramillo, who was once a firm believer that the waters of the Amazon forest were nothing but rivers to switch his thinking to the Caribbean Sea, which he now understands reached down into the western Amazon of Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru.
    “It’s a lost ecosystem,” he stated in Science Advances. According to Jaramillo, The Amazon once possessed a vast inland sea surrounded by seasonally flooded land. The Caribbean waters penetrated deep into the west Amazon with the salty ocean water flooding the forests during raining seasons and receding from some areas during the dry seasons. Before Jaramillo’s discovering, it was believed that this central area of South America was thought of as being dry land throughout its history.
    However, Jaramillo, who was initially skeptical of the idea, was able to piece together this portrait of a lost ecosystem through these deep core samples of rock and soil and studied exposed outcroppings at many locations around today’s Amazon.
    “I thought it was impossible,” Jaramillo said from his Panama City office beside a long table covered in books, printed scientific papers and fossils of bones and plants waiting to be categorized. “It’s hard to imagine that you could have the Caribbean ocean in the west Amazon...It’s too far away. But even though it rains a lot in the Amazon, it seems hard that the ocean could gain terrain through the rivers. It would have taken a flooding ocean.”
    Jaramillo added that if one could travel back in time and fly a hundred feet above the ground, one would experience a world where land and water intermingled across a vast region.
    The Amazon is arguably the most biodiverse place on Earth, with a 4,000-mile river running from the Andes to the Atlantic Ocean that is currently surrounded by a two and a half million square mile river basin, roughly the size of Australia. Yet, as vast as the region is now, the modern Amazon rain forest ecosystem represents but a fragment of the diversity of habitat and wildlife that once existed between when it was flooded with ocean water from the Caribbean Sea. Today, it is now understood that the Amazonian flood covered hundreds of thousands of years, extending over all of Colombia, and was affected by the rising Andes Mountains.
    The new work “makes the case [for marine flooding] much stronger, and it makes the timing more definite,” says Carina Hoorn, a geologist and palynologist at the University of Amsterdam and Ikiam Regional University of Amazonia in Tena, Ecuador, who first proposed the marine flooding theory. While Paul Baker, a geologist at duke University in North Carolina, and Yachay Tech in Urcuquí, Ecuador, is hesitant about such a flooding extending as far as Jaramillo claims, he is in agreement that Colombia was underwater during this inundation period.
    Despite the public conscience thinking of South America as always being a huge continent, the idea of inland seas, marginal seas, epicontinental or espeiric seas, is not only a reality, but shallow seas over continental plates is a foregone conclusion to geologists and oceanographers for more than a century. Today, we recognize that the Baltic Sea, White Sea and Black Sea are all inland seas, with the Hudson Bay and James Bay are withjin the North American continent and along with Baffin Island to Quebec and Ontario share some similarities with the Gulf of Bothnia in Fennoscandia both lie in the middle of a shield.
    In fact, at various times in the past, inland seas have been greater in extent and more common than at present. In South America, swathes of Patagonia were subject to a marine transgression that linked the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, as inferred from the findings of marine invertebrate fossils of both Atlantic and Pacific affinity in the La Cascada Formation.
    The point is, to those who study the past, the idea of inland seas inundating Southern America is not only common, but is being proved with more and more research into the subject. The problem that Land of Promise theorists, and often members alike, is that they try to assess the past by the appearance of topography and geographical appearances of today. South America was once a series of islands, with the western coastal shelf (Andean Shelf) a long, narrow island stretching from around the Colombian border to the area of Santiago, Chile, and upon this island, Lehi landed. Nephi, to escape his brothers, made his way northward, to the area of Cuzco, Peru, where he settled, and the story of the Nephites and Lamanites took place within that region, from Cusco to Lima to Ecuador—definitely a limited Geography area—from that point onward.
    Perhaps the bottom line here is the statement made by Donald R. Prothero, a geologist specializing in the history of South America, teaching geology and paleontology for 35 years at Caltech, Columbia, and Occidental colleges, and the author of over 40 books, including six leading geology textbooks, and over 300 scientific papers. He is also a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, the Paleontological Society, and the Geological Society of America, and also received fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and National Science Foundation. He served as President of Pacific Section Society for Sedimentary Geology in 2012, and five years as Program Chair of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, receiving numerous awards, such as the Charles Schuchert Award for outstanding paleontologist under the age of 40, the James Shea Award of the National Association of Geology Teachers for outstanding writing and editing the geosciences, the Joseph T. Gregory Award for service to vertebrate paleontology, and been featured on numerous TV documentaries. Regarding an inland sea in South America, he stated: “The theory that the Amazon Sea once existed is not new. It dates back at least to the 1950s, but evidence for it had been weak until now.” 
    Little by Little, the facts about South America are being proven to show that it was once an island and coupled with the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon, verifying the reality of a Nephite existence there.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Revisiting Mormon’s Insertion and His Intent – Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding the points that Mormon makes in his insert about the geography of the Land of Promise. The first nine were covered in the previous post, here we follow with point number 10:
10. However, the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness 
    Again, the Nephites controlled all the Land northward within that horseshoe or between the east and west curving wilderness 
11. This Nephite-occupied area north of the narrow strip began at the head of the Sidon River and ran northward all the way to the Land of Bountiful 
   The land the Nephites controlled north of the narrow strip of wilderness included all the land other than the east and west wilderness and the narrow strip, which all was filled with idle Lamanites living in tents, especially along the seashores 
12. This Land of Bountiful bordered on the north with the southern boundary of the Land of Desolation 
   Again, the Nephites controlled all the land in the north and Mormon is now describing that land as it passes from the Land Southward (Bountiful) into the Land Northward (Desolation)
13. This Land of Desolation continued northward so far 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 
   The bones belonged to the Jaredites, and Mormon is telling us that the Land of Desolation extended so far northward that it came to the area of many waters, rivers and springs 
14. Thus, it being the place of their first landing. 
    The first landing of the Jaredites, who landed along the seashore and came up into the south wilderness or up into the Land of Moron (Ether 7:5) 
15. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful 
   Along the border between Desolation and Bountiful, and extending in both directions a short distance, was a wildernesscalled here, the south wilderness.” Called the South Wilderness because it was in the south of the Land Northward or Jaredite lands 
16. This south wilderness was filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food. 
    These are the animals described in Ether 9:30-34, specifically vs 32 
17. And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; 
    This line is the boundary between the Land Northward (Desolaton) and the Land Southward (Bountiful), which is the small or narrow neck of land which is between these two major lands 
The Land Southward, or the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi were nearly surrounded by water, except for (yellow circle) the narrow neck of land
18. And thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, 
    “roundabout means not following a direct Mormon is describing the Land Southward, having begun with the kings proclamation in the Land of Nephi. Thus, he is telling us that this Land Southward was surrounded by water except for this small neck of land in between the two major lands 
19. There was a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward. 
    This small neck of land is the same neck sometimes called narrow neck and is the only land form connecting the Land Southward (Bountifujl) with the Land Northward (Desolation) 
    The point of all of this is to show that all this information, covered here in 19 points, was describing the topography or geography of the Land of Promise, from the far south, where the Lamanites dwelled (even mentioning the area of First Landing), to the far north where the Jaredite final battles took place (Land of Many Waters). All his points, even the mention of the River Sidon, the Jaredite animals that escaped and became wild over time, even the landing area of the Jaredites, etc., was all intended by Mormon to describe the Land of Promise.
    Consequently, at this point of a small neck of land Mormon is simply continuing with his description of the land and tells us how narrow this narrow neck was so that his future reader could understand what a small neck of land meant. And to make sure we understand how narrow it is, or how small this neck was, he tells us what the distance was across this line or boundary between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Desolation, i.e., the distance it would take a Nephite to travel in a day and a half journey.
    The word line between two lands tells us that this is a boundary. The word journey tells us it was a normal movement that was taken (not a race, not a quick or slow passage, just a normal pace). He also tells us in the word Nephite that this journey was taken by a normal man that lived in a city style environment as opposed to a Lamanite who lived in the wilderness and sought his food by chasing, trapping and killing animals. Also in using journey Mormon tells us that this was a normal movement, i.e., the Nephite would have traveled only in daylight where he could see along this border, and that he rested at times and slept at night.
    Now to make sure we understand that Mormon is describing just geography, he goes on in vs 33 to tell us:
20. The Nephites inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea,
21. The Nephites in their wisdomhad hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward. 
22. The Lamanites could have no more possessions only in the land of Nephi, and the wilderness round about.
    All of this, along with the distance of the narrow neck, was intended to tell us, his future reader, what the Land of Promise was like, how it was configured, and where its size differed considerably, what this distance was. Therefore, from strictly an academic view of this passage (as I see it anyway), this was a distance measurement, it was intended to continue Mormons description of the land of which he was describing in some detail, and that he did not vary from his point by inserting unnecessary wordage or thoughts, or ideas that were not clear and easily understood.
    After all, what was he measuring in a day and a half journey if not the narrowing of the land where this small neck was situated between the Land Northward (Desolation) and the Land Southward (Bountiful). Nowhere else in his insertion does he introduce an unknown factor in describing the geography of the Land of Promise, and nowhere else does he introduce a distance measurement except where he describes a narrowing (small) are of land.

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Revisiting Mormon’s Insertion and His Intent – Part I

A further comment about the intent of Mormon’s inserted writing in Alma 22 regarding his description of the Land of Promise states: “I disagree with your assessment in Alma. I do not think Mormon is describing how wide the small neck of land is. It think he is discussing the fact that the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi were nearly surrounded by water.” 
    We have written about this many times, but since it is a major issue among Theorists and often articles are written to describe a different view of this subject that are both confusing and erroneous, which causes confusion in the scriptural record where no confusion actually exists, let us take a few moments and go into great detail on what Mormon wrote in this insertion of 8 verses and what is obviously his intent.
An angel, answering the prayers of the Church Members, appears to Alma and the sons of Mosiah who had been fighting against the Church; they were so frightened the fell to the ground which shook as the Angel called them to repentance. Their conversion led to the great missionary work they performed among the Lamanites

First of all, Mormon is describing the missionary efforts of the sons of Mosiah, including Ammon and Aaron. After Ammon had described the Lord to the Lamanite king (King Lamoni’s father), he traveled on, and Aaron arrived in the king’s land. After Aaron taught the king, the king “was struck as if he were dead,” and both the queen and the king’s servants thought him dead, as did the Lamanites, and threatened Aaron and his brethren missionaries, but the king awoke and stood and administered to the Aaron and his brethren and the people were pacified, so the king “caused that Aaron and his brethren should stand forth in the midst of the multitude, and that they should preach the word unto them” (Alma 22:26). Afterward, “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” (Alma 22:27) that “they should not lay their hands on Ammon, or Aaron, or Omner, or Himni, nor either of their brethren who should go forth preaching the word of God, in whatsoever place they should be, in any part of their land” (Alma 23:1).
    This decree the king sent out, stated “that they should not lay their hands on them to bind them, or to cast them into prison; neither should they spit upon them, nor smite them, nor cast them out of their synagogues, nor scourge them; neither should they cast stones at them, but that they should have free access to their houses, and also their temples, and their sanctuaries. And thus they might go forth and preach the word according to their desires, for the king had been converted unto the Lord, and all his household; therefore he sent his proclamation throughout the land unto his people, that the word of God might have no obstruction, but that it might go forth throughout all the land, that his people might be convinced concerning the wicked traditions of their fathers, and that they might be convinced that they were all brethren, and that they ought not to murder, nor to plunder, nor to steal, nor to commit adultery, nor to commit any manner of wickedness” (Alma 23:2-3).
    As can be clearly seen, Mormon is following the events in Alma’s writing of the missionary work of the sons of Mosiah, however, in between these two events, Aaron preaching to the people and sending the proclamation, Mormon inserts eight verses of explanation regarding the land of the king, the Lamanite lands and the lands of the Nephites.
Throughout all the Lamanite kings land and among all his people in the land

So in vs 27, “the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land who were in the regions round about.”
    Now in this statement, Mormon sets the stage for his inserted verses, that describes that he is talking about the land form, topography or geography of the Land of Promise. He inserts:
[1] all the land,
[2] amongst all his people who were in all his land
[3] who were in the regions round about
    In this simple statement, Mormon inserts a fairly complete description of the Land of Promise. Consider that he goes on to tell us in his description that this land:
1. Borders even to the sea on the east and on the west 
      Mormon mentions this twice in vs 27, saying the land went from the Sea East to the Sea West
2. Was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness
3. This wilderness ran from the sea east even to the sea west,
4. This wilderness also “curved” roundabout on the borders of the seashore, 
      “Roundabout means not following a direct route, but is circuitous. This means the narrow strip of wilderness had to have curved or wound upward at the east and west terminus of the land, i.e., curved upward since it was on the west and east of the Land of Zarahemla
5. The borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, 
      “On the north obviously means that the northern boundary of the narrow strip of wilderness that ran between the Land of Zarahemla (a term sometimes used for the entire Land NorthwardMormon 1:6; Alma 4:1; 16:1) and the Land of Nephi (a term most often used for the entire Land SouthwardAlma 26:23; 46:29; 50:8) was a dividing wilderness between these two major lands (Alma 22:28,34; 27:14)
6. This wilderness “that bordered Zarahemla on the north” ran through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, 
       Either along the northern edge of this strip, or slightly within it, was both the city of Manti and also the head of the River Sidon
7.  Which wilderness ran from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided. 
       Mormon again makes it clear he is describing that Manti and the head of the River Sidon are within this narrow strip of wilderness that separates the Nephites from the Lamanites
8. This narrow strip of wilderness on the west extended northward from the narrow strip into the Land of Zarahemla along the seashore, and southward along the seashore from the narrow strip all the way down to the area of First Landing, and was occupied by tent-dwelling idle Lamanites (vs 28) 
       While the narrow strip runs in a basic straight line from sea to sea, it curves up at the seashore in both the east and the west, forming a land roundabout that curves up into the Land of Zarahemla along the coast. It also extends downward along the coast of the West Sea, and is filled with idle Lamanites all the way to the area of First Landing
9. This narrow strip of wilderness also extended northward in the east along the seashore into the Land of Zarahemla 
       The Nephites had driven the Lamanites (who had been in the Land of Zarahemla) far to the east and at the time of Mormons description, occupied the wilderness that ran roundabout northward along the sea
       Thus, this narrow strip of wilderness along the northern boundary ran like an upside down horseshoe with the Lamanites along the horseshoe and the Nephites in the middle, thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites
(See the next post, “Understanding Mormon’s Insertion and His Intent – Part II,” for the rest of these points that Mormon makes in his insert about the geography of the Land of Promise)

Friday, March 16, 2018

The Intent of Mormon’s Description – Part II

As we ended the last post, Mormon’s statement “it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea” (Alma 22:32), was introduced. And in doing so, Mormon introduces two unknown factors, i.e., “the line” and “east.” So let us take these two words “line” and “east” 
First of all, the word “line” is only mentioned three times in the book of Alma. The first time is here in Alma 22, the other two are in Alma 50 (vs 11 “fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites,” and vs 13 “it was on the south by the line of the possessions of the Lamanites), in both cases in Alma 50, the word “line” has to do with a boundary.
    The word line in 1828 meant “a straight or parallel direction, a straight line, a course, direction, limit of a country, border.” We see this in the statements: “the line went “from the north sea to the south sea,” or “from the east sea to the west sea,” as opposed to being from a particular area or point, such as “from the east boundary to the west sea,” or “from the east mountains to the west sea,” or “from the east canyon to the west sea.” Either way the intent is understood clearly.
    Line meant a boundary direction.
    Thus, the word “line” in Alma 22:32 would appear to mean a boundary. First of all, “line” in vs 32 is used “On the line Bountiful and the land Desolation,” which would obviously suggest some type of boundary, as his use twice of “line” in Alma 50.
That makes pretty clear sense here, since Mormon is telling us about the division of the Land of Promise from the south (Land of Nephi, or the Lamanite king’s land) to Bountiful in the north, with “the land on the northward [of Bountiful] was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful” (Alma 22:31). Then, after a sidenote about animals, he states: “And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation” (Alma 22:32), which continues with his description of the land. That is, along a line between Bountiful (on the south) and Desolation (on the north), the width or distance was a day-and-a-half journey for a Nephite.
    Now, when Mormon wrote that, the East Sea or Sea East, had likely not existed for some 350 years, but the “narrow neck of land” still existed, or more correctly, “the narrow pass separating the Land Northward (Desolation) and the Land Southward (Bountiful) still existed. We see this since it was still being used in the third century A.D. when it was a boundary between the Land Southward, being granted to the Lamanites in the treaty, and the Land Northward, granted to the Nephites (Mormon 2:28-29), and that narrow pass led from the north into the Land Southward (Mormon 3:5). President Ezta Taft Benson in General Conference stated that “The Book of Mormon was written for our day” (Ensign Nov 1986 p6); and Mormon himself stated that he was writing to a future people (Mormon 7:1); and Moroni, writing after all had been killed, was a prophet without a people, thus his audience was a future people when he wrote: “Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know our doing” (Mormon 8:35); and the Lord said “they should be given unto future generations” (3 Nephi 26:2).
    Since Mormon was writing to a future people of whom he did not know, nor would have known their language nor way of thinking about distances, etc., any more than we can assume how people in 2368 A.D. would refer to distances, so he is letting us know that between these two lands, of which the Land Southward was completely surrounded by water except for a Narrow Neck of Land, he is telling us how wide that “narrow neck” is, so we can get a picture of this overall land he has been describing to us.
    It should be kept in mind, that when saying he went “from the east to the west sea,” that is not clearly understood, unless the point in the east was made clear (mentioned or described previously).
    Now when Mormon says “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” (Alma 22:27)—he clearly states the subject matter he is talking about, i.e., the regions round about. “Round about” what? Round about his land. Where was his land? It bordered “even to the sea.” What sea and in what direction? “On the east and on the west.”
    So Mormon’s writing is clear—the area in question was the king’s domain stretched “round about” the land that bordered from the east sea to the west sea—or the sea in the east to the sea in the west. Therefore he did not have to identify the seas since he identified the extension of the land stretching to the sea in both directions.
    In the same verse, he says “by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west” (Alma 22:27). In this case, he does not identify the extent of the east/west direction since he identified the subject matter earlier (the land “which ran from the sea east even to the sea west”).
    So we see that already in the previous five verses (Alma 22:27-31), Mormon has mentioned the Sea East and the Sea West as being the terminus borders of the land (twice in vs 27) and mentioned an east seashore (once in vs 29), so in vs 32, when he mentioned “from the east to the west sea,” and again in vs 33 “from the east unto the west sea,” he is still referring to this singular area of land (Land of Promise) which was an island (2 Nephi 10:20), at the time in which Mormon is referring.
    Secondly, in looking at east/west direction, Mormon uses the phrase “from the east to the west sea,” twice (vs 32 and 33). Now in vs 33, it seems pretty clear he is referring to “from east sea to west sea” since he is talking in that verse about “hemming” in the Lamanites and to do so in the land he has been describing since vs 27, would mean that the Nephites had blocked the Lamanites off from sea to sea so they could “have no possession (or expand) on the north.” No other type of topography is introduced in this vein, so a boundary in the east would be “understood” to be the same boundary as mentioned in the West.
    Once again referring to my friend’s comment about this, he stated: “The line went from the West Sea to the East along the Jubones River which was the line talked about, for about 45-50 miles into the southern entrance to the narrow pass area.”
    However, if that was what Mormon had in mind to say, he did not convey any thought, suggestion, idea, or intimation that he had that in mind. And since his entire insertion (vs 27-34) fits perfectly with a detailed description of what he is talking about, It seems out of character to suggest that he was referring to a river or some other topography of which he not only does not mention, but doesn’t even allude, insinuate, or provide an inkling about.
    Not only that, but nowhere in the entire book of Alma, does he suggest the word “line” meant anything other than boundary that was clearly understood. In vs 27 of his insertion, he tells us what area he is talking about. As an example, he gives us four boundaries and mentioned what they were in each case: “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 roundabout on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness.
    Nothing is left to the imagination. It seems clear that the idea of an east boundary in vs 32 and 33 not being identified is such is inconsistent with both Mormon’s previous elliptical writing, and his intention of being understood by a future reader. The problem is, the truth simply does not fit the Mesoamerican narrative and runs contrary to these theorists protecting their Mesoamerican model.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

The Intent of Mormon’s Description – Part I

One of the important statements made in the scriptural record regarding the description of the Land of Promise, is the insertion of eight verses that Mormon places in the writing of Alma, as the abridger describes for us the land of the Book of Mormon and who was placed where in that land, i.e., the Nephites and the Lamanites.
The Nephites and Lamanites were divided by a Narrow Strip of Wilderness that ran from the East Sea to the West Sea

In this insertion, Mormon goes so far as to describe the Land Southward northward to the Land of Desolation, which was separated from the Land of Bountiful by a narrow neck of land. To me, this description has always been quite clear, and delineates the land between the north and south at this narrow neck.
    However, a friend wrote to me recently, in which he disagreed with that interpretation, stating: “In these verses I do not think Mormon is telling us how wide the narrow neck of land is, although he is showing us why the land southward was nearly surrounded by water. Mormon makes it clear twice when he is talking about the East and the West Sea, then with v 32 he only says from the east to the West Sea.”
    It is interesting that in his letter, my friend abbreviated the narrow neck of land by writing N.N.L. Sometimes I think Mormon does the same, that is, he shortens a known subject. As an example, I type on a computer much faster than I can write longhand, but I can appreciate someone writing longhand wanting to abbreviate, or even omit, from time to time—in fact, Mormon, who was engraving on thin metal plates with some sort of stylus, would have been a much more laborious effort than writing in longhand, as writing in longhand is more laborious for some people than typing.
    As a result, it seems Mormon sometimes used what is called elliptical writing today, that is, writing clauses in which some words have been omitted, yet the sentence retains the same meaning. A generic example of this would be He talked carefully in order to appear fair is an elliptical sentence for He talked carefully in order [that he] appear fair.
    Another would beHe left after the speeches instead of He left after the speeches [ended] or He left before the speeches [began]. Closer to the scriptural record would be: The breaking of Nephis bow affected the others more than [it affected] him,orNephi was better with the bow than [was] Lemuel,or Nephi loved the Lord more than Laman [loved the Lord].
The first elliptical sentence is correct only if it follows an introduction of the parties involved; the second elliptical sentence is correct, but is complete only if it follows an introduction of the two parties and who they were; the third sentence is correct and should proceed either of the other two elliptical sentences for full understanding as it does in Mormon 1:8

Such elliptical sentences are grammatically correct only if the necessary information to understand the sentence has been supplied previously in the context of the sentence. As an example, in supplying the information previously in The breaking of Nephis bow affected the others more than [it affected] him,showing that the others were affected, and what affected them was the breaking of the bow. The same is true in Nephi was better with the bow than [was] Lemuel,or Nephi loved the Lord more than Laman [loved the Lord].
    Such writing is used to avoid unnecessary repeated words. This is seen in the Book of Mormon in such statements as Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which [language] consists of the learning of the Jews (1 Nephi 1:2); and “the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read [the book]. And it came to pass that as he read [the book], he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord” (1 Nephi 1:11-12); and “Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father [on the plates] then will I make an account of mine own life [on the plates]” (1 Nephi 1:17).
    Ellipsis writing then is used to shorten a sentence by omitting unnecessary words, as in this first Chapter of 1 Nephi; however, while these examples are obvious, elliptical writing or speaking is not always so understandable, as many Theorists’ beliefs make it quite clear. Take, as an example Mormon’s inserted writing of the land’s description:
    “And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they [the Nephites] came to the land which they called Bountiful. And it [the land of Bountiful] bordered upon the land which they [the Nephites] called [the land of] Desolation, it [land of Desolation] being so far northward that it [land of Desolation] came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose  [the people who had been destroyed] bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla [Limhis 43-man expedition], it [the land of Desolation] being the place of their [peoples whose bones had been found] first landing. And they [people whose bones had been found] came from there [first landing] up into the south wilderness [in the land of Desolation]”.
    Using elliptical writing, Mormon’s insertion of these three verses amounts to 120 words in English. Without elliptical writing, Mormon would have written the equivalent of 170 words of English, an approximate savings of 30% engraving effort. Thus, using elliptical sentences both saves time and does not lose anything in the translation, unless one (Theorists) is trying to prove another point, such as the Mulekites (people of Zarahemla) landing in the Land Northward and intermingling with the Jaredites—then problems arise from this elliptical writing.
    However, when read correctly, no problem arises, since elliptical construction is a construction that lacks an element that is recoverable or inferable from the context, which in the case of Mormons insertion it most certainly does! Thus, the above sentences are grammatically correct since the necessary information to understand the sentences has been supplied previously, making them clear from the context of the sentence. It is only when someone wants to claim the statements mean something else that problems arise, as Mesoamericanists have done with Mormons insertion dating all the way back to Hugh Nibleys time. And we can say that, because there is another verification these Theorists rarely, if ever, quote from, and that is Omni 1:15-16) in which the prophet Amaleki tells us 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” (emphasis added).
    Now, let’s go back to Mormon’s insertion regarding the narrow neck of land, which is what prompted my friend to comment on this issue. Mormon states “it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea” (Alma 22:32).
(See the next post, “The Intent of Mormon’s Description – Part II,” to see what he had in mind by using “the line” and “east” in Alma 22:32 in his description of the Land of Promise)